A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[Numion]

My thoughts excatly. IMO the movies are better then the books.

For me it took the movies to realize that the books are a bit lacking. My favourite reading experience .. when I was younger. Now that I've seen the movies, the books are just too damn boring for me to endure.

Before the movies came out I had read LotR six times in about 8 years. After the movies started coming out, I've tried them three times, getting fed up after the Balrog at the latest.

The movies were excellent, and wouldn't be possible without the books, but I think reapersaurus has a point here.

 

[The Serge]

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.

I agree with this sentiment.

Although I love LotR, greatly respect it, and recognize it as the standard upon which all modern genre high-fantasy is determined, it is not free from criticism any more than the Bible. Taking anything to that level forces those who want to truly experience a text thoroughly to perceive said text as a not valuable and not worthy of true consideration as a work of art (or as a work that attempts to achieve artistic status and fails miserably).

Chalking it up to divine providence is a cop-out, you realize, right?

No, I don't think so. Not within the context of these books and their apparent intent. Numerous times throughout the showing/telling, we see examples of clearly outrageous luck and fortitude for our heroes in the same way we come across these things in literature of similar vein.

The Bible, when viewed as a literary work rather than as a religious text, is full of coinicedence, divine providence, and foreshadowing. Myths are filled with luck and good fortune (and then, often times, bad). The Iliad?

Now, I will admit that this can be problematic when one reads LotR strictly as a novel because in novels, one usually wants to see a more... realistic, contextual resolution to most conflicts. There is a lot of coincidence in LotR and, particularly to modern readers influenced (through osmosis, I think) by formalism and post modern criticism, this sort of thing is a challenge to swallow.

You're essentially saying that Tolkein didn't write actions that are reasonably explainable without relying on "luck" or "providence."

Yes, I am. And, again, given what he was attempting to do -- i.e. create a myth for England -- it makes sense within that context. The question is, does it work for a novel and can this be handled by most modern readers? For some, yes. For some, LotR has reached a level of almost religious proportions and people (clearly) react to it in a manner similar to how many react when folks criticize religious texts. Frankly, I think it's possible to go both ways with this sort of thing. I don't particularly care for the tremendous amount of coincidence in LotR, but I can see its value within its framework as a "new mythology."

And I'm sure you'll be happy to know that I don't spare Shakespeare's ass any slack on these aspects, either.

Very happy!

Now, I have read some of the other comments about poor characterization and that was something I largely forgot to get into when I wrote my initial post. I think this is a flaw depending on how one approaches LotR.

If one reads books like Robinson Curuso, or Divine Comedy, or Paradise Lost, or Moby Dick, one will find very little characterization. For the most part, we find characters who remain fairly static for the bulk of the story as they are forced to deal with whatever conflicts they confront. The dialogue tends to be very high-brow, and the themes tends to be fairly universal. The issue of the human condition is largely philosophical rather than personal (in other words, we're dealing with issues of what is right and wrong, how does one successfully live one's life, when does a person lose their way due to some kind of obsession, and so on rather than how a father interacts with his daughter, how various forms of abuse impact people, 20th Century apathy, or the challenges of living within a dysfunctional family -- although I suppose this could be something associated with Paradise Lost). However, in every single case, there is a revelation for at least one character that changes them, transforms them. Often times, these things are foreshadowed, often times there are symbols that precede this change, but there is a transformation. These are allegories.

LotR is in this boat. We have characters who don't usually bathe, worry about using the bathroom, often speak in a high vernacular (except Sam), and don't have sex (they love, but there's a limit to the nature of physical expression). This is because these things don't matter for this kind of text. They are irrelevant. The characters, for the most part then, are types in the same way Curuso was a type, or the "Dante" was a type, or even Satan was a type. On their journeys, they confront different conflicts that represent universal, philosophical questions and these things change them in the end in the same way many of us may be changed. Frodo changes dramatically from the first time we see him to the end. He is a Christ-figure if I ever saw one. Hell, Sam is an even greater Christ-figure because he has the burden of not just The Ring (the representation of Evil in the showing/telling), but the humanity (Frodo) that must bear the terrible flaw.

When viewed in this light, I think the nature of characterization goes away. When viewed as a novel, particularly in light of modern attitudes and exposures, the issue becomes more complex. These characters are not well developed, we rarely receive thorough descriptions, and we never really see much of the thinking about things beyond The Ring and the war.

Look at something like George R.R. Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice (or whatever it's called). We are confronted by many of the same issues we find in LotR and other classics, but we also have to deal with personal themes and challenges, very earthy concerns (particularly on the road with the second Starke girl, who has to "make water" and risks revealing her gender to boys, an act that could lead to her being raped and/or killed). There is a tremendous amount of characterization in GRRM's tale to date. But, I think GRRM would be one to admit that his success is owed, in one way or another, to JRRT's initial foray into this kind of story-telling.

as well as making a proper ending to his novel?

What's wrong with the ending?

is inexact in his use of Proper Names.

I used to think this, but I'm more inclined now to think that names had a great deal of importance to Tolkien because they are signifiers in language and that to have names change or have someone given/referred to another name in another location revealed something of importance.

Also, he spends time detailing 'unimportant' scenes in inordinant detail, while glossing over important ones (Mines of Moria, Fall of Isengard).

I agree here 100%.

 

[KenM]

Reading these posts, I see alot of people comparing the LotR books to The Bible. IMO you can't compare the two. LotR is a work of fiction, it's meant to be read for entertaiment(SP?), while the Bible is based on real life tales written/ handed down, and is used as relgious refference.

 

[The Serge]

Reading these posts, I see alot of people comparing the LotR books to The Bible. IMO you can't compare the two. LotR is a work of fiction, it's meant to be read for entertaiment(SP?), while the Bible is based on real life tales written/ handed down, and is used as relgious refference.

Kind of like Illiad, which is said to be based on real-life tales written/handed down, and used (for a while at least) as religious reference?

You can compare the two from a purely literary perspective without getting into whether one set of ideas reflects some kind of legitimate belief system or not. And, judging from a fair amount of comments by LotR fans and the philosophical books based upon Tolkien, it seems to me that a lot LotR has religious impact for a fair number of people.

 

[shilsen]

I think a big part of the disagreements that I see here is based on assumptions readers bring to the books. And the reason that Tolkien is not exactly popular among literary critics arises from the same assumptions. Tolkien was not writing a modern (or post-modern) realistic novel, which many of the best literary figures of his time were doing. He was writing a text (I would never call LotR a novel) which is much more firmly placed in the epic genre, drawing upon ideas and themes which one sees in the Homeric epics and the norse eddas, than in the literature of his time.

My responses:Chalking it up to divine providence is a cop-out, you realize, right?

Not in this case, since it depends on the writer's intent and assumptions. Divine providence in an Ibsen play or a Woolf novel is a cop-out. Divine providence in the Iliad or in the Faerie Queene, or in certain works by deeply religious authors such as C.S.Lewis's Narnia series and in this case, the LotR, is perfectly acceptable since it is a part of the author's world-view. Just because you do not believe that there is a divinity that shapes our ends doesn't mean Tolkien needs to agree with you. I am a confirmed atheist, but that does not mean I am incapable of appreciating that a structure of religious belief can be part of a work of literature.

You're essentially saying that Tolkein didn't write actions that are reasonably explainable without relying on "luck" or "providence."

I am. And I am fine with that, just as I can appreciate Paradise Lost even though Milton writes about a God, angels and a devil that I do not believe in. And just for the record, I believe that the depiction of a world where nothing happens fortuitously or through happenstance would be incredible unrealistic.

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).

Sure. And perhaps for you the fact that Bohemia has a coast in his plays matters. For me it doesn't, since focusing on that and the fact that Richard III might not have been hunchbacked is missing the wood for the trees. If you consider what the play-within-a-play meant to his audience and how previous dramatists had used it, it's not difficult to see why Shakespeare (who was writing plays in order to make money) uses it.

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)

Sure you could, depending on the genre and the intent of the text.

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.

The right page for you.

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.

It's a weak defense if you're writing a realistic novel, perhaps. Tolkien isn't. The conception of realism changes depending on historical period, authorial assumptions, genre and a few other aspects. What's "realistic" for the Eddas isn't for a Broadway show, and what's realistic for a D.H. Lawrence novel isn't for a Dickens novel.

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.

And here's the point of my post. The definition of Bad Writing is dependent on what's being attempted in a text, the genre, when it is written, and a host of other factors. You are attempting to apply a single frame of judgement to Tolkien's work, and in my opinion applying one which is specifically incompatible with it. The equivalent would be me arguing that Sophocles' plays are full of plot holes because they rely on things which are unrealistic to me. Or that Shakespeare's characters are unrealistic simply because they speak in blank verse, which no "real" person would.

When I sit down to read the Mahabharata, I do not complain because the characters have no internal monologue. When I read Tolkien, I am setting myself up to read epic mythology, not a realist novel. And so I expect what is appropriate for the former, not the latter. You expect something different, and unsurprisingly, you are disappointed. There lies the difference.

 

[KenM]

Kind of like Illiad, which is said to be based on real-life tales written/handed down, and used (for a while at least) as religious reference?

You can compare the two from a purely literary perspective without getting into whether one set of ideas reflects some kind of legitimate belief system or not. And, judging from a fair amount of comments by LotR fans and the philosophical books based upon Tolkien, it seems to me that a lot LotR has religious impact for a fair number of people.

Good point.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

I find it kind of amusing that you would think a young hobbit like Frodo would think to leave home on his own to travel to a place he has no idea how to get to. I found it quite understandable that Frodo was extremely apprehensive about leaving home, and continued to wait for Gandalf leaving only when he felt he had no other choice. Frodo isn't some trained soldier or ranger with years of experience traveling or facing danger.

If you read the text, Gandalf was duped into traveling to Saruman's while he was scouting the way he planned to take Frodo out of the Shire.

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.

Rubbish.

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.

How many orcs were stationed there, anyway? Any guesses as to the size of the force at Cirith Ungul?

Considering that Tolkien already set a precedent about the greedy and violent nature of orcs with the infighting between the Mordor orcs and the Isengard orcs, I didn't see a problem with this.

Even Gandalf himself said the Mithril Shirt was worth more than the shire in the books. Having the orcs break into a fight and killing each other off over greed was well-set up IMO. The precedents were there, you just seemed to have missed them.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I think the biggest 'problem' with Tolkien is what people are expecting from him. As others have said, he wasn't writing a novel. The best thing to compare LotR to is, in my opinion, something like Beowulf or the Illiad.

Unlike in modern literature, where things need to have reasons to happen, and characters NEED development...in Epics like these, it doesn't matter. Something happens.

Why? Because it did. That's the way it is. Characters are flat? Well, really, they've got as much detail in them(maybe more) then in most Epics. Beowulf...what do we know about him? Not too terribly much. What happened to him when he was five years old to cause him to be as he is? It doesn't matter. It doesn't change things. He is who he is, and will always be that way because he is larger than life.

Its really the same problem that appears when you look back at periods of history and you keep a modern mindset. Things just don't make sense unless you can detach yourself from a modern perspective and look at it from the perspective of the people involved(or in this case, how Tolkien saw it). Though, of course, that in no way makes it perfect.

 

[Umbran]

No, I don't think so. Not within the context of these books and their apparent intent.

The way one looks at this may also depend on what books you wish to include in for consideration. If one is including things beyond the Lord of the Rings Trilogy itself (The Silmarillion, for example), one pretty much has to accept the existance of Divine Providence in Middle Earth. Gandalf is effectively a form of angel pressed into human form (and thus burdened with human faults and weaknesses). Saruman and Radagast are the same, and Sauron is similar (it is not clear to me that the Enemy operates with the burden of a human form).

In LotR, the deity isn't directly referenced frequently, but it is there, doing what deities do. Thus, providence exists. I don't see it as a cop-out, since human myth and literature has included divine providence since humans started telling stories.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I think the biggest 'problem' with Tolkien is what people are expecting from him. As others have said, he wasn't writing a novel. The best thing to compare LotR to is, in my opinion, something like Beowulf or the Illiad.

Which is exactly why this conversation is pointless.

Keep in mind that many novels published in 1954 don't hold up to modern scrutiny because the novel itself is still a relatively new literary form and was undergoing a great deal of refinement during that time. It is currently only 300 years old, but its only during the 20th century that they became as numerous and as popular as they currently are. Many of the earliest novels were romances, while certain authors, such as Joyce and Wolfe, decided to use it as their means of exploring stream of consciousness. Although there were some novels that predate the release of the Lord of the Rings that made a great deal of progress in defining things like character development, which is used is most successful modern novels, there were still a great many novels that were very well received that were extremely dry and lacking by today's standards.

Tolkien was interested in creating a world, a language, and a mythos. The Lord of the Rings is based on stories he used to tell his children to get them to bed at night. He was a professor of literature who was writing a text. You won't find modern character development because it wasn't his intent to provide you with that. You won't find perfect reasoning behind all events because he was telling of a great adventure where not all things happened through the skill and forethought of the main characters.

In short, it is what it is, and dissecting it with the same tools that you would any standard novel doesn't work. This thread, right from its inception and its premise is ignorant and offensive. On the other hand, if you want to start a new thread that is not intended to belittle the Lord of the Rings as a work, but compare and contrast it to epics like Beowulf, the Illiad, Canterbury Tales, and the Bible, then I would be interested in this discussion.