A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[Salthanas]

Thank you, Serge.
That's the kind of thing I'm interested in reading:
the ability to point out weaknesses without "slaughtering" the guy.

I agree with what you detail are his good points.
I'm more interested in debating the bad points, and story flaws here.

I also find it interesting how Dark Jezter describes (quite accurately) the legions of Tolkein fanatics who he IS a sacred cow to, yet Nightfall describes a "hate on" against Tolkein because he's not "modern".
I have not witnessed this "hate on" re: Tolkein.

As far as I have witnessed in my life, I have only read or seen those 2 things I mentioned speak anything but high praise for Tolkein's work.

Nightfall, could you describe this "hate on for Tolkein not being modern" that people have, and I can then determine whether it has any validity?

Well with regards to the hate Tolkien camp the best example I can think of would be the National Poll the BBC ran for over a year to find the UK's favourite book. The amount of stick that LoTR got during the whole process was such that even people who did not particularly care for the book started getting rather fed up with academics sniping at it constantly during the run up to the vote. The simple fact is that in a number of literary circles LoTR is down right detested, particularly those who fall in the post modern camp. The comments of the literati however did little to stop the LoTR winning the poll by a hefty margin however.

The BBC message boards were during that poll usually dominated by threads either for or against LoTR and depite the fact that the message boards were there to talk about books as a whole most of the traffic usually degnerated into either flame wars about Tolkiens work. Made for little relevant discussion on the books but some of the flame wars were great to read

 

[jester47]

I think the Ferret, when you strip his outer shell off does have a point. I think he is somewhat right when he says that fantasy is the only genre where setting is more important that plot and character. However I think he is wrong to state that Fritz Leiber is a tolkein rip off, as Fafhrd and the Mouser are seriously awesome and deep characters. Idealy in any story, one should not be able to separate setting character and plot. The three are supposed to be so intertwined that the story writes itself. This is easier to do in "real world" stuff and harder to do the more your reader is unfamiliar with the setting.

Hence the popularity of the world of darkness, and mystery novels(which, nationwide sell far more than fantasy).

I agree that one of the big things that makes people like a novel is the character sympathy, that is putting the characters in positions the reader can understand.

I do agree that the three part series is getting very very trite. This is because Tolkein did itfirst but if it was up to him, it would not have been done.

Nuff said.

Aaron.

 

[jester47]

reapersaurus, while the second point is good, there is the fact of the strange streak of luck that was running through the whole book. It is commented on somewhere in the book by one of the "wiser" characters. However in the movies I think it is Saruman that comments on Gandalfs erily uncanny luck. In the books I think Gandalf hints that somthing bigger is working in thier favor. I think Tolkein saw this and knew that the sheer luck of the characters was so perposterous that he threw in "somthing bigger" to explain it. Which would means this "somthing bigger" was somthing a little less than the cheap trick that many (myself even sometimes) claim it was.

Aaron.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I'll start with 2 problems I see in the books :

1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
They ignore the facts that Gandalf KNEW it was the One Ring, yet still allowed Frodo to kick back for months before leaving, thus creating the danger with the Ringwraiths later.

This is textual flim-flammery simply to create an action sequence, and people crucify modern directors/writers for pulling this kind of stuff. It'd be utterly refreshing to hear a Tolkein fan say "uhhh... yep! That was weak" and have that be OK.

It wasn't weak. It was Tolkien's style. Everything was time consuming. Bilbo had the ring for many decades, Gollum wandered the country for decades, never able to find the Shire. Frodo took his own sweet time seeing about his departure. Gandalf took years to figure out it was the ring for various reasons.
Frodo was in such danger from the Morgul blade, but he journeyed for what, 10 days?
The quest took a few months.
Oh, and they were in Rivendell for 2 months, after deciding to destroy the ring, they then waited a couple months for more information.
It's Tolkien's style of writing. It's no "fault" of Gandalf that he didn't run for the Shire, grab the ring, use a giant eagle to drop it in Mount Doom and be done with it a year ahead of time...

Fate just doesn't work that way in ME. If Butterbur had sent the letter, things would have gone different. If Aragorn had gone with Frodo into Mordor, then Gondor would have fallen and Men would have lost. If X had done Y, things would have gone different. It's just the way the world works. Either you accept it and move on (in my case with a chuckle) or you don't.

2) The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there.

You are aware Sam had a ring of insibility and a sword that was created to slay orcs, right? The orcs also fought over Merry & Pippin elsewhen. It's what orcs do.

 

[Numion]

Anti-Tolkien dude has something right. We really don't get to know the characters. About the only thing Tolkien writes about Striders appearance is that he's got long legs. Whoah. And that's just superficial. About his thinking and inner thoughts we don't get to know much about.

The characters remain shallow. That is why it was delighted to see Sean Beans excellent acting as Boromir (high at the glacier when frodo falls, then again when he tries to take the ring). Tolkien couldn't write like that.

EDIT: It's funny to think that Drizzt Do'Urden, the most hated fantasy character on many boards, has more character than Tolkiens'

 

[Dark Jezter]

I'll start with 2 problems I see in the books :

1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
They ignore the facts that Gandalf KNEW it was the One Ring, yet still allowed Frodo to kick back for months before leaving, thus creating the danger with the Ringwraiths later.

This is textual flim-flammery simply to create an action sequence, and people crucify modern directors/writers for pulling this kind of stuff. It'd be utterly refreshing to hear a Tolkein fan say "uhhh... yep! That was weak" and have that be OK.

In my opinion, this is one part where the movie improved on the book. In the movie, Frodo and Sam head out as soon as they find out that Frodo, indeed, has the one ring.

Here are some other things that annoyed me about the book:

1) The tension and sense of urgency in the flight to Rivendell was lessened when Aragorn started telling long tales about the elves and men of old. One minute the hobbits and Aragorn are trying desperately to get to Rivendell before the Nazgul catch them, and the next minute Aragorn is recounting events that happened thousands of years ago.

2) The fall of Isengard, a major event, was glossed over. We get to see the ents begin their march to Isengard, but the next time we see them, Isengard has already been destroyed and Merry and Pippen get to recount the tale to Gandalf and the others. The first time I read LotR and reached this scene, I said out loud "You have got to be kidding me!"

I think the Ferret, when you strip his outer shell off does have a point. I think he is somewhat right when he says that fantasy is the only genre where setting is more important that plot and character. However I think he is wrong to state that Fritz Leiber is a tolkein rip off, as Fafhrd and the Mouser are seriously awesome and deep characters. Idealy in any story, one should not be able to separate setting character and plot. The three are supposed to be so intertwined that the story writes itself. This is easier to do in "real world" stuff and harder to do the more your reader is unfamiliar with the setting.

Weren't Fafhad and Grey Mouser created before LotR? I've never read the Lankmar stories (so I could certainly be wrong here), but I heard somewhere that the first Fafhad and Grey Mouser stories were written in the 1930s or 1940s, and then more stories featuring these characters were written in the 1960s when LotR became a sensation among college students and modern fantasy established itself as a genre.

 

[Sakzilla]

To set the tone, a little background. I read the trilogy for the first time over the last two and a half years. I am probably the only 30+ gamer in the world that had not read it yet, but there it is. I had tried starting MANY times, and I could never get past Tom and the Barrow Downs. But I gutted it out and got through them.

I think he is hit or miss on character development. Strider, for example, is introduced in relatively generic terms - the "strange looking weather beaten man" and all. Throughout the FOTR, I had no sense of who this character really was. Then I saw the movie, and I was 'tainted' with that imagery for the characters the rest of the way.

But then the whole Moria section was done well. I enjoyed reading (and re-reading) that section more than the same section on the movie, and I thought it was the best part of the first movie.

MY MAJOR GRIPE: The use of multiple place names for the same location. Lothlorien is also called Laurelindorian (and mispelled on the same page as Larenlindorian - try to keep that straight the first time without the Tolkien atlas!!!). As Sam and Frodo are heading into Moria, Cirith Ungol and Minas Morgul are used interchangebly by a few characters (and Faramir jumped on this bandwagon in the TT extended DVD) - this is the equivalent of saying "we're going to DC" and your friend jumps in and says "You're going to Baltimore?" - they are not the same thing and upset the pace, diminish the significance of Minas Morgul, and give a reader a headache.

But those are stylelistic comments. The thread was more about errors or flaws in the writing, and I don't know of any (other than the location switcheroo). Is excessive use of annoying poetry and song a writing flaw? He does shift gears a bit with the length and richness of the various 'italicized' passages - the dreaded "skip this for your sanity" sections of each book.

I also think the trilogy is a decent vehicle - Tolkien used this to good effect. I prefer finding a set of works that are done, or near enough that if I start reading now, the end is in sight. The Robert Jordan style of dragging out the story for books on end is tired. Terry Goodkind's series started out with promise, but then started recycling itself and it lost it's magic. Tolkien did not have to repeat his battle details for every situation. Jordan would have had AT LEAST nine books about Eowyn individually killing off each of the Nazgul - so Tolkien kept his pacing pretty decent.


Alot of what people don't like are pacing (action chapters mixed in with the Frodo stuff), the underlying anti-war, anti-modernization message coming out of two World Wars, and the "history book"-style writing.

But the books and supporting material from Christopher Tolkien make for a fantastic gaming set of resources.

I'm subscribing to this thread to see where it goes - I'd love a non-flame discussion on the books. they just always seem to spin out of control (My fantasy writer can beat up your fantasy writer!).

 

[The Serge]

The criticisms you can make are the obvious ones. Parts of the novels are slower than typical "fantasy sci-fi" writing, so it can be hard to get into if you are not used to reading classical literature. Likewise, people might not be used to reading poetry and songs intermixed with a novel. Likewise, the many endings of the story.

Although I'm not certain to whom this was directed, I'll respond to it.

I don't think reading poetry/songs regularly or not has anything to do with a reader's ultimate appreciation of a text. I think it's possible to enjoy a novel, play, or any other literary work, understand its depth (or lack thereof), appreciate its themes, and come away having grasped the author's intent without necessarily "getting into" the poetry and other "side-line" material. I do think that the reader misses out in the full experience as most writers insert poetry/verse with the purpose of backing up the text's intent through allegory, metaphor, symbolism, etc., but I don't think they miss out on the key elements in most cases.

As for multiple endings... Well, this generation (is this the N generation? I'm X, so I'm already old I suppose) is used to multiple ends/false endings. I don't think most people have an issue with this (unless they've been watching three 3-hour plus movies).

I'll admit that I even like Tom Bombadil.

Tom Bombadil was an interesting element that, in the grand scheme of the overall story, was ultimately superfluous. He really served very little direct/important role in the story. We never see him or his wife again after their brief appearance and we never really get to know what the heck he is. Hell, there continues to be a lot of debate on his nature precisely because he's so nebulous. Frankly, I don't understand all the fuss over his character since he's not an important player in the story and, as far as I'm concerned, only confuses most readers because he so clearly exists outsid of everything else that progresses in the trilogy. Even if one reads The Silmarillion, I don't think much, if anything, is clarified about his nature and the role he plays. I'm glad he was excised from the movie adaptation.

I will say that I have read a cool article that posits that Bombadil's actually Aule in disguise...

1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
They ignore the facts that Gandalf KNEW it was the One Ring, yet still allowed Frodo to kick back for months before leaving, thus creating the danger with the Ringwraiths later.

It's been a while since I read FoTR, but I got the impression that Gandalf wasn't worried (and, as a result, Frodo wasn't worried) because he thought he had time. He wasn't certain about the Sorcerer being Sauron and didn't know where Gollum was. He didn't see the point in another Baggins up and leaving suddenly, which would have certainly drawn suspicion... something Gandalf didn't want.

If I'm on point, I don't see this as a flaw in the storytelling.

The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there.

Chalk it up to divine providence. Or to coincidence. Shakespeare is full of coincidence. Although I see your point, I don't think it's fair to single Tolkien out with these sorts of "silly plot devices."

Besides, mythology is full of little tricksters lucking out with these sorts of things. Nothing new here.

I think he is somewhat right when he says that fantasy is the only genre where setting is more important that plot and character.

I disagree. I think that plot and character remain as important in fantasy as most other novel-dependant genres, but that setting takes on an increased role, particularly for fantastic worlds, environs, cultures, etc. This is where a lot of writers stumble. Many take so much time and put so much effort in creating a world that they lose their characters and plots (and, more importantly, in my mind, the human condition) in their tales.

Then there are those who make an equally heinous mistake: those who don't flesh out their worlds enough on the front end, thereby never effectively allowing more sophisticated readers to suspend their disbelief and become immersed in the story. Terry Goodkind is an excellent example of this as he's apparently createed stuff for his world as he's written more books... and most of it isn't particularly original.

I think most writers who fail in the latter error, poor world design, are also lousy character writers.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not particularly interested...

No more of that, Blackshirt.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Darrin Drader]

No more of that, Blackshirt.

Why not? They've obviously debated before and Blackshirt5 has reached that conclusion based on those experiences. I've noticed the way Reapersaurus debates myself and I think that comment was apt. This whole thread is a troll with the intent to cause trouble. That's pretty obvious to me.