A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[Spatula]

Very eloquently put. And not to go on beating a dead horse, but this is the reason that I object to the premise of this thread. Before you can start trying to find weaknesses in a work, you really should have an adequate critique of it first, and coming up with the critique or critiques you are going to work from is much more important that stripping out the negative elements.

Well heck, most of the threads in this particular forum fit your same criteria of inadequate criticism.

 

[Salthanas]

Finally, on the notion that LotR can't be critiqued using established standards... Utter nonsense. Anything can be critiqued. The problem is not all methods of approach are appropriate for every book. I don't know that New Criticism (which has dominated Literary Criticism for some time now) is the only approach to reading Tolkien, much less other authors. There are different ways to read and consider any text. The sad thing about criticism is that everyone thinks they can do it with a degree of competence and this simply isn't the case. Having an opinion on something, particularly a poorly conceived opinion based strictly upon one's own attitudes or ideas, tends to cause the critic to ignore the what was written. Although some would argue that this approach is just as valid as any other, I strongly disagree.

When it comes to any sort of criticism I generally tend to look first and foremost to the objectivity of the critic. I actually think its very rare to find a piece of criticism that is balanced and that often those versed or supposed experts in literary theory can often be amongst the worst offenders in letting their own personal bias manifest itself in their analysis. At the end of the day no matter how well trained someone may be in the art of critiquing, if they are unable to keep a sense of perspective and also be able to view a work in a detached light their comments should really carry no more weight than anyone elses.

 

[barsoomcore]

Well heck, most of the threads in this particular forum fit your same criteria of inadequate criticism.

Depends on how you define "adequate critique".

"SUCKS!" is maybe lacking a little, but I think the first post in this thread is sufficient to start a reasonable debate with. Five pages later, I appear to be right.

About that, if nothing else...

 

[Salthanas]

(Have I got that date right? 'That was a proper 1462, that was')

Proper 1420!

Sad that I know that off by heart but it used to be my sig on some message board long ago

 

[barsoomcore]

No matter how well trained someone may be in the art of critiquing, if they are unable to keep a sense of perspective and also be able to view a work in a detached light their comments should really carry no more weight than anyone elses.

NOBODY'S comments should carry any more weight than anybody else's.

What matters isn't the training, perspective or detachment of the critic. All that matters is the content of the statements themselves. Some statements are true, some are interesting, some are humourous -- don't worry too much about the source. Concentrate on what's being said.

Good criticism sparks debate and draws out new ideas about a work. It challenges preconceptions and stands up to intellectual analysis. It examines the work in question deeply, seriously and with wit and style.

There are many qualities, however, which are not necessary to good criticism. It may for example ask questions, or attempt to answer them. It may defend or attack, insist or suggest -- indeed it may be objective or entirely subjective. It may even be true or false. None of these qualities are necessary for a critical statement to be useful. Let us say, successful.

Good critics don't have secret knowledge the rest of us lack -- they just possess insights into the nature of their chosen field (usually because they spend all day thinking about it, and are well-versed in its canonical works), and the ability to communicate those well.

 

[The Serge]

It might even measure up well against some of the books that have more closely modeled Tolkien's writing style, such as Memory, Sorrow, and Thorne

You know, I think think this trilogy was a reaction against Tolkien and those who've followed in a tradition more akin to his own (like Terry Brooks). But that's a topic for another thread.

but when you try to take it out of the context of the time it was written, in the opinion of many people, the criticism will be lacking because it will lack the context in which it was written. But granted, there are a number of different approaches to analyzing any text.

I think your last sentence is the clincher.

There are very many people, particularly Formalists, who despise Marxist and other sociopolitical/historical reads of literary texts. To these types, the text stands alone and anything one needs to draw from it comes from the words, the format of the verse, characterization, etc.

My attitude is that you can approach most texts from a variety of positions, but this will not always do all texts due justice. Frankly, I think that if one wants to read Tolkien in an attempt to critique his work, Marxist Theory, Medieval Theories, and Poststructural Theories (especially from an intertextual perspective) are the best approaches to take. I suppose it also helps to have a decent grasp of Jung, so I suppose some Psychoanalytical Theory too.

I think most literary folks approach it from a Formalist position and this doesn't really do Tolkien justice since he is clearly influenced by factors beyond the text. Formalists want to ignore Tolkien's intent and this can be problematic. Still, a close read of Tolkien can uncover as many gems as clumps of dirt. Many also bring a significant amount of Reader-Response to the fore, and I've never cared for this direction as it is so clearly subjective. What's funny here is that these two approaches are very much antithetical to each other...

Very eloquently put. And not to go on beating a dead horse, but this is the reason that I object to the premise of this thread. Before you can start trying to find weaknesses in a work, you really should have an adequate critique of it first, and coming up with the critique or critiques you are going to work from is much more important that stripping out the negative elements.

Well, I think that this thread has proven to be quite informative to many people. While I don't particularly care for underdeveloped opinions based strictly upon an individual's preferences, I think that forums like these allow us to interact and share our knowledge with each other. I think I have a better grasp of how to approach Tolkien that I did before. I think reapersaurus does as well (not to suggest that anyone's changed his mind, since that's not my intent).

However, I do think that such conversations ought to reveal that just because you think something or feel something doesn't necessarily mean that your position has any logical/formal basis. Yeah, this sounds really snooty, but... I suppose this is okay as long as you recognize this. For example, I loved Freddy vs. Jason despite the fact that it was a lousy piece of crap. I don't particularly care for half the stuff in the Bible, but I recognize its value and its successes.

Because the only quotes I ever see from you are well thought out and explained, which requires a greater degree of thought than most people, including myself, are interested in puting in on a messageboard.

Thanks!

 

[Dark Jezter]

I didn't drag in any marketing statistics. A quick look at popular culture over, say, the past thirty years simply has to dispel any idea that there's a necessary connection between what's popular and what's good. I'm thrilled that so many people appear to love a work that means so much to me, but I don't for a second take it as evidence that the work is any good.

I didn't call reapersaurus names. Not even "pettifogging hornswoggler", which I've always wanted to call somebody.

I didn't utterly reject the suggested errors in the book, and even admitted that one of them could be, in fact, a failure on Tolkien's part. Pretty broadminded of me, huh? Huh? Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. Uh-huh.

I didn't try to claim some special status for the book. I think you can apply any critical stance you like to any work you wish to. The whole idea of critical theories is that each of them offers a different way to approach a work, and thereby offers new insights into the work and ourselves. Treating the work as a modern novel is every bit as valid an approach as treating it as an epic. That goes for the fanboys as much as for the "roasters". If it happens to seem less effective from one approach, well, that doesn't necessarily make it a worse book -- I'd be interested in seeing somebody offer up a work that succeeds as both an epic and a modern novel. Heck, throw in musical comedy, revenge tragedy and comic book! I got a copy of Lankhmar: City of Adventure for anyone who can come up with a candidate that succeeds in all those categories.

Thank you for that post, Barsoomcore. It proves that a person can be a big fan of Tolkien and still tolerate differing opinions of his works.

I've also enjoyed reading the posts by The Serge throughout this thread.

 

[barsoomcore]

Thank you for that post, Barsoomcore. It proves that a person can be a big fan of Tolkien and still tolerate differing opinions of his works.

You pettifogging hornswoggler.

 

[Salthanas]

NOBODY'S comments should carry any more weight than anybody else's.

Not saying they should but in practice things pan out slightly differently.

What matters isn't the training, perspective or detachment of the critic. All that matters is the content of the statements themselves. Some statements are true, some are interesting, some are humourous -- don't worry too much about the source. Concentrate on what's being said.

I'd think that the point the critic is trying to make is probably the central pilar of any criticism. What the general thrust of his argument is, is going to depend on his opinion and objectivity regarding the work, which is why I think they are important parts of the critical process. Poor objectivity can often lead to weak arguments which undermine the critics point.

 

[The Serge]

I need to add some clarity about the whole who can critique and who can't.

There's a difference between offering an opinion and offering a critique. An opinion, in most cases, implies a lot of subjectivity and emotional weight. A critique, in most cases, implies a degree of subjectivity and a more objective response to something.

Now, in our society, the two have become almost as one. There not a critic today who can truly offer a critique without a bit of his/her opinion coming out in the wash.

Additionally, I do not want to imply that having training in reading automatically means that such an individual's critique/opinion is accurate or in line with my own attitudes. However, I do believe that more formalized positions have greater weight and impact because there is a degree of... sophistication about them. This can make the statements offered by such individuals either very valuable or very dangerous.

Now, back to LotRs.