Whisperfoot said:
This is the holy grail for anyone who is into this sort of thing and starting a thread to discuss its weaknesses is like taking a crap all over it.
This attitude is an embarassment to critical thinkers everywhere.
Further, it's a slap in the face to Tolkein fans, since it is basically saying that Tolkein's work is incapable of passing any scrutiny, and must depend on un-examined genuflecting on the altar of Fantasy.
Please don't contribute to the thread, Bareandur.
Dark Jezter was prophetic, eh?
___________________________________________
Now that that's (hopefully) out of the way.....
As for most everyone else - thanks for the debate!
Quite enjoyable, and informative/enlightening.
My responses:
Serge said:
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."
Chalking it up to divine providence is a cop-out, you realize, right?
You're essentially saying that Tolkein didn't write actions that are reasonably explainable without relying on "luck" or "providence."
And I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I don't spare Shakespeare's ass any slack on these aspects, either.
I think the guy was a repetetive hack at times, who took the easy way out and wrote what he knew about a lot of times (the over-used 'play-within-a-play' device).
Vocenoctum - so if I wrote a book where all the characters acted inconsistent and foolish in the face of danger, yet I expected the reader to have sympathy and respect for the heroic characters, could I hide behind saying it was my "style"? (For the record, I'm not saying Tolkein wrote like that)
Reilla is on the right page here : saying that "it's Tolkein's style" is not a good defense of valid criticisms of Tolkein's work.
You say Tolkein's STYLE was to have his characters take a long time to do things?
That's a rather weak defense of unreasonable actions.
You say "Oh, and they were in Rivendell for 2 months, after deciding to destroy the ring, they then waited a couple months for more information."
If that's true, I'll add that to the list of things I think Don't Work in LotR.
And no, I don't simply "accept it and move on with a chuckle."
It's called Bad Writing. That's the point of this thread - to identify the things Tolkein did 'wrong', while still managing to make a legendary work of fiction that has thrilled millions and spawned the great(er) movies.
BTW: A secondary purpose of this thread COULD BE to debate the notion that the movies are a BETTER storyline than the book.
You also said "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."
I re-read that passage the other day, and Sam does NOT use the Ring to get past Cirith Ungul. If he did, I would be fine with it.
But he walks right on in. Even AFTER a huge alarm had been set off by the Watchthings. The orcs act like Yo-Yo's on a puppetmaster's strings. They ping-pong back and forth between being exceedingly good in battle, and deadly/scary adverseries, to being buffonish bumblers who literally are
frightened by shadows as Sam ascends the stairs alone in their own fortress.
One second, an orc spins like a cat to kill another orc, the next he's incompetent when faced with a stumbling Samwise "orc-slayer' Gamgee.
I could quote passages, if you'd like to debate those impressions.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wormwood - I would be VERY interested in reading Edmund Wilson's, "Ooh, Those Awful Orcs!" (published in the Nation, 1956).
I was trying to find it last night on the web, but couldn't.
That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for, is a critical review of LotR. Something that details the elements that aren't up to snuff.
Salthanas - I'd be interested in reading some of the threads that pointed out Tolkein's imperfections.
All I've read and been exposed to here in the States is Tolkein's overwhelming godhood.
I'm serious, when I say it hasn't been easy finding ANY printed negative comments about Tolkein.
____________________________
So if I can sum up a few points:
Have people said that Tolkein is good at fleshing out a world (i.e. the SETTING), and including literary elements like language and poetry and songs (that he didn't include the notes for)?
And he's not that strong at plot, pacing, characterization / character development, or use of Deus Ex Machina, as well as making a proper ending to his novel?
He also includes unmeaningful characters and chapters (i.e. Tom Bombadil) and secondary storylines that tend to not go anywhere and is inexact in his use of Proper Names.
Also, he spends time detailing 'unimportant' scenes in inordinant detail, while glossing over important ones (Mines of Moria, Fall of Isengard).
.
