A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[The Serge]

In short, it is what it is, and dissecting it with the same tools that you would any standard novel doesn't work.

I think you can attempt to "dissect" LotR with the same tools as "any standard novel." However, in the end, particularly if you don't have a background in literary theory (or at least well read with regards to English Literature), I don't know that your final analysis will be thorough or well founded. I think this revelation has been happening organically through out this discussion.

This thread, right from its inception and its premise is ignorant and offensive.

You're dragging in issues I, and perhaps others, know nothing about in terms of the thread's inception. With the exception of words shared between reapersaurus, you, and a couple others, I think this thread has moved along quite nicely and in a direction that will force folks who seem not to care for the literary strengths of LotR to at least reevaluate their positions within a larger, more informed framework.

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.

Again, this has been happening organically. There've been at least two other posters besides myself who've mentioned this. I think that, if you want to enter into this discussion and challenge the initial poster, you'd be best to steer the conversation towards the direction you mention above rather than accuse the thread as being offensive. That doesn't do you or your position (with which I generally agree) any good.

 

[HeavyG]

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.

Since not reading this thread requires exactly 0 effort on your part, it would be much more appropriate to say that you are the flasher in this example, dude.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

What an incredibly absurd statement. Probably the most successful fantasy book in the 20th century, inspiring legions of fans and critics alike, and Tolkien needs lessons in action and pacing? I don't think so.

The dislike of his work is purely personal. There are very few writers that write perfectly or are textbook examples of how a well-written novel should be. The quality for many writers even varies from book to book. Yet, there are many successful writers who are horrible at writing.

Tolkien was a storyteller and an extremely competent writer. He may not appeal to all, but he certainly doesn't need lessons because he didn't follow the supposed "rules" for writing a good novel. Please stop with the absurdity. The only "rule" for writing fiction is tell a good story in an entertaining manner. Period. You do that, and you have a better chance of selling than those who follow the "rules".

Novels are stories first, and Tolkien told a damn good story that has drawn in many a fan because he spent so much time detailing things that seemed unimportant to some, but were incredibly important to him. The love he put into his own work is readily apparent, and only makes fans love Middle Earth more.

Critiquing Lord of the Rings does nothing to help a young writer. Any young writer would love to produce something as inspired, universal, and timeless as Lord of the Rings. It has few peers in the realm of fantasy.

This is why I see a debate such as this as nothing more than a flimsy attempt by pseudo-intellectuals to criticize a classic work of literature for no other reason than that it is popular. No one would have much to say were Lord of the Rings some fantasy tripe that sold no more than a hundred copies. It is attacked because it is loved by a huge fanbase, and those that can't understand what a person might see in it choose to deride it. How petty to point out its shortcomings rather than just accept that you don't personally like it.

No matter how many critics point out the flaws in a given literary work, only the fans will ever truly decide if a work is worthy or not. Following all the writing "rules" in the world will never be more important than a good, inspired story.

 

[KenM]

What an incredibly absurd statement. Probably the most successful fantasy book in the 20th century, inspiring legions of fans and critics alike, and Tolkien needs lessons in action and pacing? I don't think so.

The dislike of his work is purely personal.

I agree that the like/ dislike is personel, but how come everytime someone gives reasons as to why they dislike the books, they get flamed by all the fanboys? Just because something sells well and is successful does not make it great, look at any "boy band" CD.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Since not reading this thread requires exactly 0 effort on your part, it would be much more appropriate to say that you are the flasher in this example, dude.

I count several people now who would disagree with this statement.

 

[EricNoah]

Ok, folks ...

If the question is "can someone start a thread to critique Tolkien and can negative things be said about him or his writing," the answer is absolutely yes. Those who are offended by the very existence of the thread will just have to live with it. Those who aren't and who want to participate can certainly do so. Of course all other guidelines are in place -- don't make fun of people for what they do like, don't attack people, etc.

And folks -- those who think they've spotted a troll are doing no one a favor by pointing and screaming "Troll!!" The best remedy for a percieved troll is to ignore it. Some of you should know better!

edit: I closed the thread to send a strong signal to those who were disrupting the thread, but at Reaper's request I'm opening it back up so the discussion can continue. Please feel free to participate if you want, but the issue of whether this thread should exist in the first place is now closed.

 

[Grazzt]

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.

Dude- it's real easy. If you don't like this thread or whatever, don't read it. There are a helluva lot more threads on this board...find one that doesn't offend ya and read away.

 

[reapersaurus]

Thank you, Eric.
I felt that it would be detrimental to the debate if it was closed, and/or moved to a new one.
The thread of shared opinions/approaches speaks for itself.

What also speaks for itself is SOME Tolkein fans absolute inability to talk about LotR in any analytical way.
I put up with a lot of cheap personal shots, and looked the other way for the sake of the discussion.

I would rather not have to weather any personal attacks when the thread itself has proven them wrong.

 

[The Serge]

Let's not discuss who should and shouldn't be barred, reaper... That's a sure way for this thread to be closed again, permanently I suspect.

Now, would you like to respond to some of the posts that have showed up since you've been indisposed?

 

[reapersaurus]

I'll be back later tonight to respond to the excellent informative posts earlier, but I wanted to ask one question:

Are there any other major fantasy books in the last 50 years that have this kinds of "hands-off" approach to criticism?
This 'different rule set', when it comes to criticism, so to speak?

More directly:
Is there any other major fantasy work in the last 50 years to be judged by the rules conventions of classic epics (like Beowulf, The Iliad, and the Bible) and not by common modern conventions?