A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[Umbran]

Which is exactly why this conversation is pointless.

It isn't pointless, if we keep in mind that what constitutes a "mistake" (and what constitutes "innovation") depends upon the rules the author was supposed to be abiding by. Otherwise, we risk convicting a man when he'd no way of knowing what he was doing was wrong, since the law hadn't been written yet.

The man was born in 1892. That should make his work far more comparable to that of H.G.Wells (born in 1886) and EE "Doc" Smith (born in 1890) than to George RR Martin (born in 1948). The literary rules these guys followed were those of a different age than our own, and they were the ones forging many of the standards of novels today.

Thus, I think the original question Reaper asks is rather flawed. It is quite reasonable to question whether Tolkien is a particularly riveting read to today's readers, and discuss why and why not. It is not nearly as reasonable to try to call the differences between what he does and what modern authors do "mistakes".

 

[Sir Whiskers]

...

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

I agree. Perhaps a more accurate (certainly more specific) observation is that Tolkien was not a very disciplined writer. His stories meander. Many minor elements are dealt with in great detail, while other elements receive short shrift. This is a function of his personal style of writing.

We should remember that the trilogy was not written as a self-contained story. It was more a collection of pieces of the vast amount of material he created for Middle-Earth. Tolkien, for better or worse, created a world. The novels are a glimpse into this world. Like many gamers designing a campaign world, it seems Tolkien couldn't resist adding "cool" elements, which were not strictly necessary for the core story.

Of course, that begs the question: would the trilogy be as beloved if he had cut all the "extras" and told us nothing but the story of the destruction of the Ring?

 

[Darrin Drader]

The man was born in 1892. That should make his work far more comparable to that of H.G.Wells (born in 1886) and EE "Doc" Smith (born in 1890) than to George RR Martin (born in 1948). The literary rules these guys followed were those of a different age than our own, and they were the ones forging many of the standards of novels today.

Thus, I think the original question Reaper asks is rather flawed. It is quite reasonable to question whether Tolkien is a particularly riveting read to today's readers, and discuss why and why not. It is not nearly as reasonable to try to call the differences between what he does and what modern authors do "mistakes".

Bingo!

 

[blackshirt5]

Smurfy, all I was saying in my original post was that frankly, I thought that it was a pointless debate(the reasons why have already been stated, probably better than I could've said them, by Whisperfoot), and that I don't think, given his history and previous actions, that any "debate" with reaper has anywhere to go but into the sewers. Think of it, if you wish, as a heads up, a "Hardhat Area, a lot of crap's gonna fall here!" sign in this little construction area of the boards. Or not. It's really up to you, you seem like a standup fellow, I just wish that you'd take a bit of fire and burn away a troll or two.

 

[KenM]

The man was born in 1892. That should make his work far more comparable to that of H.G.Wells (born in 1886) and EE "Doc" Smith (born in 1890) than to George RR Martin (born in 1948). The literary rules these guys followed were those of a different age than our own, and they were the ones forging many of the standards of novels today.

I have read both Wells, and Smith, and IMO they are alot better then JRRT.

EDIT: The settings/ plots are alot "tighter", Wells and Smith don't go off describing things that have nothing to do with the main point of the story.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I have read both Wells, and Smith, and IMO they are alot better then JRRT.

A lot better what? A lot better read? Better characterization? Larger in scope? More heroic? Which works specifically? I'm not about to diss either of those authors because they are both legends in their own fields, but a little clarification would be helpful.

Think of it, if you wish, as a heads up, a "Hardhat Area, a lot of crap's gonna fall here!" sign in this little construction area of the boards. Or not. It's really up to you, you seem like a standup fellow, I just wish that you'd take a bit of fire and burn away a troll or two.

And that is stated better than I could state it myself. I'm all for civil conversation, but there's a point when you have to call troll. A topic with the intent to apply modern novel critique methods to Tolkien with the stated purpose of finding mistakes and errors is, as I stated before, insulting -- even for an Internet discussion.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... and that I don't think, given his history and previous actions, that any "debate" with reaper has anywhere to go but into the sewers.

Whereas so far, we've had two pages of reasonable and interesting conversation, with the only problems being the doomsayers claiming that there is no chance of reasonable and interesting conversation.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Darrin Drader]

Whereas so far, we've had two pages of reasonable and interesting conversation, with the only problems being the doomsayers claiming that there is no chance of reasonable and interesting conversation.

OK, its like this. You get fifteen people on a highway overpass flashing the oncoming traffic on a holiday weekend. Now the people in their cars don't care to have this sausage fest paraded in front of them and find it offensive. The fifteen flashers are calling it performance art while the passersby are asking that the flashers be removed from sight. Which one is right? Maybe those people in the minivan understand the purpose of this activity, but find it inappropriate for their gradeschool children.

Apparently in this case the flashers are not only allowed to continue forcing their naked bodies on the rest of the holiday tavelers, but they are also getting a government grant so that they can buy newer trench coats.

No offense Hypersmurf, I recognize the work you've done in the entertainment industry, but as a college grad with a BA in English lit who had to fight with professors to see the error of their ways and give Tolkien the respect he deserves, I don't feel that the premise of this topic can be seen as anything but a troll. I find it offensive, and given the source of the topic, I have a hard time seeing how trashing the architect of the modern fantasy genre can be considered reasonable and interesting conversation. I find it ungrateful and repugnant.

 

[jgbrowning]

TLotR is in a style more like a medieval romance ala chretien de troyes than what we'd consider as "fantasy novel". For those who wonder why certain things happened at "just the right time" for the heroes, consider how the ring manipulated it's environment. Now consider that there was also good in the world. Somebody sent Gandalf back from Aman, didn't they?

Any criticism of TLotR needs to come from someone whose read the Silmarillion as well. Otherwise, what you get tends to not be criticism of the writing, but usually more a criticism of what the reader thinks the writing should be like.

TLotR is not simply 3 books (the three book idea was from the publisher, JRR wrote it as a single book), it is a discription of a historical event that makes lesser sense when viewed outside of the "culture" that wrote it. The culture that wrote it is was made up by tolkien-and that is important to consider when addressing the literary merits of the work.

joe b.

 

[KenM]

I don't feel that the premise of this topic can be seen as anything but a troll. I find it offensive, and given the source of the topic, I have a hard time seeing how trashing the architect of the modern fantasy genre can be considered reasonable and interesting conversation. I find it ungrateful and repugnant.

So you are saying that ANY negative crictisim(SP?) of his work is wrong, because according to you, JRRT wrote a perfect story. I think you are narrow minded not to see other points of view.
I admire what JRRT tried to do, but he needed some lessons with describing the action and pacing.