A Critique of the LotR BOOKS
- Thread starter reapersaurus
- Start date
No major work, no. At least nothing I can think of off the top of my head.reapersaurus said:
However, considering that most of the fantasy texts that followed Tolkien were written in a more contemporary style (as clear novels rather than as epic "allegories"... and that's largely what LotR is despite what Tolkien himself suggests), do not have near the quasi-historical depth, and have become more and more influenced by contemporary attitudes about successful publishing, this shouldn't be a surprise.
Darrin Drader
Explorer
reapersaurus said:
It isn't that Lord of the Rings has a "Hand's Off approach". Its more like people, including myself, are easily offended when people start critiquing it as though its a modern work. It isn't, and we've established that. If you want to critique it you must do so in the context of the time it was written and what the author's intent of the book was. If you just want to arm yourself with a bunch of stuff that makes you sound intelligent when you argue about it then I suggest you start looking at other books of the period within the same genre.
Oh, there aren't any. You can try to pull from pulp, like Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, but we're comparing apples and oranges. You can pull from Vance, but again its apples and oranges. You can try to compare it to Steinbeck (but of the two I'll personally take Tolkien any day of the week). You could also try to compare to Joyce, Wolfe, H.G. Wells, but you still run into the same problem. Tolkien had no contemporaries in his genre.
Narnia. Which is interesting because Tolkien was a reasonably close contemporary of C.S Lewis, and he did criticize him for it. You can read an informative aricle about it here: http://www.factmonster.com/spot/narnia-lewis.html
Last edited:
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Most of the faults with Tolkien's work comes from comparing it to modern works. Much of it was written anywhere from 50-75 years ago, and literary conventions of the time were different. Readers had more patience then. Much of the fantasy literature of today comes more from a pulp magazine tradition, rather than the more literary tradition Tolkien was writing from. That's not a knock on pulp fiction, for the more thin-skinned readers. I like the pulps.
Pick up and read William Morris' "Well at the World's End," from 1896. You'll note a distinct similarity in pacing with Tolkien's works, at least in comparison to what is normal for today. Does this mean Tolkien or Morris didn't know how to pace action? No. They knew how to pace it for their intended audience.
Now, I do actually have a few criticisms of Tolkien's work, surprise, surprise. I've tried to eliminate the ones that are based solely on not putting his work into its proper historical context.
* Introducing important characters and not having them do much "onstage." Elrond, Galadriel, Arwen - these are the examples that leap to mind. Elrond and Galadriel do provide some valuable insight, and Elrond's account of past wars with Sauron in the Council of Elrond is fantastic, but neither character actually does much in the actual storyline of the book besides sit (or stand) and talk. Arwen doesn't even get to speak until the appendices.
* Introducing intriguing characters and then letting them drop. Glorfindel is my favorite example.
* Focusing too much on details that have nothing to do with moving the storyline. While I like the detail, even I have to admit that detailed descriptions of the landscape grow repetitive, and take focus away from what the characters are doing.
* Lack of an indentifiable villain. "Identifiable" as in a character which the reader can actually "see" and get an idea of what makes him tick. The closest Tolkien comes is Saruman, and even he is a bit of a cipher. Tolkien's villains, for the most part, are faceless and, ultimately, uninteresting. The few glimpses we get into the mind of Sauron, specifically when Aragorn wrests control of the palantir from him, are fascinating. A bit more couldn't have hurt. Sure, there is a bit in the Silmarillion, but even it isn't all that much, and is an entirely different book. The Ringwraiths would have been potentially even more powerfully-written villains if any of the intriguing bits Tolkien revealed about them were followed up - their anguished yet haunting screams, their calling to Frodo "Come back! Come back to Mordor!" at the Ford of Bruinen, the fact that in the spirit realm they could be seen as "haggard" kings...
So, yeah, there is stuff even a big Tolkien fan can find to criticize, but that criticism should always take into account when and where the book was written, and by whom.
Pick up and read William Morris' "Well at the World's End," from 1896. You'll note a distinct similarity in pacing with Tolkien's works, at least in comparison to what is normal for today. Does this mean Tolkien or Morris didn't know how to pace action? No. They knew how to pace it for their intended audience.
Now, I do actually have a few criticisms of Tolkien's work, surprise, surprise. I've tried to eliminate the ones that are based solely on not putting his work into its proper historical context.
* Introducing important characters and not having them do much "onstage." Elrond, Galadriel, Arwen - these are the examples that leap to mind. Elrond and Galadriel do provide some valuable insight, and Elrond's account of past wars with Sauron in the Council of Elrond is fantastic, but neither character actually does much in the actual storyline of the book besides sit (or stand) and talk. Arwen doesn't even get to speak until the appendices.
* Introducing intriguing characters and then letting them drop. Glorfindel is my favorite example.
* Focusing too much on details that have nothing to do with moving the storyline. While I like the detail, even I have to admit that detailed descriptions of the landscape grow repetitive, and take focus away from what the characters are doing.
* Lack of an indentifiable villain. "Identifiable" as in a character which the reader can actually "see" and get an idea of what makes him tick. The closest Tolkien comes is Saruman, and even he is a bit of a cipher. Tolkien's villains, for the most part, are faceless and, ultimately, uninteresting. The few glimpses we get into the mind of Sauron, specifically when Aragorn wrests control of the palantir from him, are fascinating. A bit more couldn't have hurt. Sure, there is a bit in the Silmarillion, but even it isn't all that much, and is an entirely different book. The Ringwraiths would have been potentially even more powerfully-written villains if any of the intriguing bits Tolkien revealed about them were followed up - their anguished yet haunting screams, their calling to Frodo "Come back! Come back to Mordor!" at the Ford of Bruinen, the fact that in the spirit realm they could be seen as "haggard" kings...
So, yeah, there is stuff even a big Tolkien fan can find to criticize, but that criticism should always take into account when and where the book was written, and by whom.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
How about introducing essentially irrelevant characters (Bombadil)?
I'm a big Tolkien fan -- his works are my favorite works of fiction -- but I find some faults with his work (most of which CH nailed quite nicely).
It seems to me that some of LotR's flaws are less noticeable the more one is familiar with Tolkien's other works. Someone who has only read LotR might see holes in the story that aren't really holes once you know the big picture. My personal favorite -- the eagles as deus ex machina. At first glance (even at second) they seem like a pretty arbitrary, convenient way to get the heroes out of bind. Except, from other works, we know the eagles are servants of Manwe, hence a literal deus ex machina that should probably be excused. So should (say) LotR stand alone, or be looked at within the whole body of Tolkien's work?
Another point that I've pondered (as a result of the discussion and David Brin essay in one of the Star Wars threads): Are Tolkien's tales Campbellian myth? (ie, do they have the heroic mythic structure: reluctant hero is guided by mentor, gradually gaining the strength to take on his task, and is joined by an eclectic group of allies to assist him on his quest, which he fulfils after a overcoming a mounting series of obstacles). Given Tolkien's sources, professional work, and preferred literary background, I'd guess almost certainly that is the intention -- Frodo, Aragorn, and others (Bilbo, Sam, Merry, Pippin) see to fit the mold of a Campbellian hero. OTOH, a criticism of the Campbellian hero (really any mythic hero, since Campbell is just the guy who put together the theory, and I believe he may post-date Tolkien) is that he's not everyman -- he's born to his task, the only one that can accomplish it. Tolkien's hobbits seem the antithesis of this, to me -- they are everyman, unlike Aragorn who is a much more traditional mythic hero -- born to greatness. I think that departure from the formula lends a great deal to LotR's success, but perhaps not.
I'm a big Tolkien fan -- his works are my favorite works of fiction -- but I find some faults with his work (most of which CH nailed quite nicely).
It seems to me that some of LotR's flaws are less noticeable the more one is familiar with Tolkien's other works. Someone who has only read LotR might see holes in the story that aren't really holes once you know the big picture. My personal favorite -- the eagles as deus ex machina. At first glance (even at second) they seem like a pretty arbitrary, convenient way to get the heroes out of bind. Except, from other works, we know the eagles are servants of Manwe, hence a literal deus ex machina that should probably be excused. So should (say) LotR stand alone, or be looked at within the whole body of Tolkien's work?
Another point that I've pondered (as a result of the discussion and David Brin essay in one of the Star Wars threads): Are Tolkien's tales Campbellian myth? (ie, do they have the heroic mythic structure: reluctant hero is guided by mentor, gradually gaining the strength to take on his task, and is joined by an eclectic group of allies to assist him on his quest, which he fulfils after a overcoming a mounting series of obstacles). Given Tolkien's sources, professional work, and preferred literary background, I'd guess almost certainly that is the intention -- Frodo, Aragorn, and others (Bilbo, Sam, Merry, Pippin) see to fit the mold of a Campbellian hero. OTOH, a criticism of the Campbellian hero (really any mythic hero, since Campbell is just the guy who put together the theory, and I believe he may post-date Tolkien) is that he's not everyman -- he's born to his task, the only one that can accomplish it. Tolkien's hobbits seem the antithesis of this, to me -- they are everyman, unlike Aragorn who is a much more traditional mythic hero -- born to greatness. I think that departure from the formula lends a great deal to LotR's success, but perhaps not.
Alcareru
First Post
Olgar Shiverstone said:
Wow what a thread.
I think some of the difficulty with Tolkien is that he wasnt a professional writer as others have pointed out. For instance to alot of people Tom Bombadil is irrelevant- to Tolkien it wasnt, in fact Tom was alot of what Middle Earth and its stories were about.
Im a fan too, but I always get exasperated with how long it takes to get the story started. And I agree, alot of the goodwill generated towards Tolkien is because of the world he created not necesssarily his writing style. The ideas and world he presents make it worthwhile for all of us.
Anyway, I recommend anything by Tom Shippey if you are interested in a critique/anaylsis of Tolkiens works, especialy Road to Middle earth which was been rereleased and updated. Shippey is of course pro Tolkien and a defender against critics who have bashed him. But he does look at the cases against him and anlyzies why the good Professor did the things he did in the way he did (Even looks at it via Freudian criticism). A very good analysis and investigation why the tales resonate so clearly.
KenM said:
Ah, well, you see, that's a problem - defining "the main point" of the story isn't cut and dried. It's a matter of interpretation, especially in a large work. There's a rather large school of interpretation that would say that there is no single large "main point" to any good story.
What you think is the main point and what I think are the main point and what Tolkien thought was the main point may not be the same thing. The main point is more a matter of what we get out of it than anything else. But, what a reader gets out of a story depends on a great many things, including the way they've been trained to read and think about literature.
Bombadil is a great example here. Today, most readers think he's extraneous. Tolkien is on record as saying that Bombadil is pretty essential to understanding the nature of Middle Earth. Who's right?
Lets see, having the characters break into song every 10 pages over some person that lived long ago, has nothing to do with the ring they are moving into Mordor, is just there to add to the word count and IMO pointless. At least the songs in A Song of Ice and Fire have something to do with the characters/ plot. Thats what I mean by pointless stuff.
FraserRonald
Explorer
I'd like to address some of the points and I'll try to be as direct and concise as I can, which is sometimes hard.
Tom Bombadil is not extraneous any more than Elrond is extraneous. Bombadil represents forces outside the normal (which is extreme when you're traveling with what might be termed an angelic being made flesh). The Ring had no effect on him, which is important as it helps to frame the Ring's powers, and thereby Sauron's, within the world. Middle-Earth is not our Earth, so it is sometimes necessary to illustrate how it is different. It may seem unnecessary to delineate differences when one has wizards and warriors running around, but wizards and warriors are a part of our own legend and myth. Bombadil is something more basic, more primitive in his power and obviously more pure, as the Ring did not effect him.
Was he extraneous? Well, whether Tolkien thinks he was or not, in my opinion, is immaterial. Once the book is published, it no longer is the sole property of the writer, but becomes a shared possession with the readers. So, the short answer is: if you think Bombadil is extraneous, he is . . . to you. However, he has a purpose.
The songs and poems are there for a point as well. Tolkien is amazing in that he has this extremely complex, deep world and he avoids the dreaded info-dump. It isn't easy to do that, and many authors--too in love with their own work--fail this test of restraint. Tolkien, however, loaded every chapter with background and information in the form that history and legend is passed along in a pre-industrialized (or at least pre-printing press) society--by song and poetry. It certainly does seem odd to us, that's because we read books, watch TV and listen to the radio. It's unfortunate that so many people seem to find this quite normal extension of having a story set in a pre-industrialized society so offensive. However, it is more than understandable, it is realistic and fitting.
Again, if the question is are the songs and poems stupid, I'd have to answer, if you think they are, they are . . . to you. There is a reason for their existence and it is actually quite an excellent literary device, one which many modern fantasy authors need to consider.
Many of CH's criticisms are extremely valid. Tolkien was not--as has been mentioned--a professional writer. TLotR should not be a sacred cow. There should be no sacred cows. However, I believe some of the heated responses came due to a perceived (and note, I indicated perceived) lack of interest in actual criticism rather an interest in simply denigrating or dismissing an important literary work. Dismissing Morte d'Arthur as badly written trash with no story and bad history really misses the point. Dismissing TLotR as poor writing/plotting/characterization does the same. There are problems with Tolkien's writing, but as pointed out before, there are problems with everyone's writing, bar none. No writer is perfect.
So, let's continue the discussion. I would like to thank those people who have offered valid, considered criticism and I look forward to reading more of the same.
And that's me being concise. Scary, ain't it.
Tom Bombadil is not extraneous any more than Elrond is extraneous. Bombadil represents forces outside the normal (which is extreme when you're traveling with what might be termed an angelic being made flesh). The Ring had no effect on him, which is important as it helps to frame the Ring's powers, and thereby Sauron's, within the world. Middle-Earth is not our Earth, so it is sometimes necessary to illustrate how it is different. It may seem unnecessary to delineate differences when one has wizards and warriors running around, but wizards and warriors are a part of our own legend and myth. Bombadil is something more basic, more primitive in his power and obviously more pure, as the Ring did not effect him.
Was he extraneous? Well, whether Tolkien thinks he was or not, in my opinion, is immaterial. Once the book is published, it no longer is the sole property of the writer, but becomes a shared possession with the readers. So, the short answer is: if you think Bombadil is extraneous, he is . . . to you. However, he has a purpose.
The songs and poems are there for a point as well. Tolkien is amazing in that he has this extremely complex, deep world and he avoids the dreaded info-dump. It isn't easy to do that, and many authors--too in love with their own work--fail this test of restraint. Tolkien, however, loaded every chapter with background and information in the form that history and legend is passed along in a pre-industrialized (or at least pre-printing press) society--by song and poetry. It certainly does seem odd to us, that's because we read books, watch TV and listen to the radio. It's unfortunate that so many people seem to find this quite normal extension of having a story set in a pre-industrialized society so offensive. However, it is more than understandable, it is realistic and fitting.
Again, if the question is are the songs and poems stupid, I'd have to answer, if you think they are, they are . . . to you. There is a reason for their existence and it is actually quite an excellent literary device, one which many modern fantasy authors need to consider.
Many of CH's criticisms are extremely valid. Tolkien was not--as has been mentioned--a professional writer. TLotR should not be a sacred cow. There should be no sacred cows. However, I believe some of the heated responses came due to a perceived (and note, I indicated perceived) lack of interest in actual criticism rather an interest in simply denigrating or dismissing an important literary work. Dismissing Morte d'Arthur as badly written trash with no story and bad history really misses the point. Dismissing TLotR as poor writing/plotting/characterization does the same. There are problems with Tolkien's writing, but as pointed out before, there are problems with everyone's writing, bar none. No writer is perfect.
So, let's continue the discussion. I would like to thank those people who have offered valid, considered criticism and I look forward to reading more of the same.
And that's me being concise. Scary, ain't it.
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
KenM said:
Interestingly enough, there is a place the songs seem to fit with...Epics. A lot of times in Epics, people will break out into songs about things that have nothing to do with anything...and it works.
Another things Tolkien used from Epics, is characters that are 'irrelevant'. Really, in the Illiad, do we need to know the Father of the Father of the Father of the guy who just had darkness covering his eyes(I love that line for death, by the way)? Nope, but its there. "Pointless" history thrown in. Its how Epics work.
Now, I'm not saying the works are perfect...but I'm saying that Tolkien knew a lot more about what he was doing that appears at first glance. This man was very vrey intelligent, and he used his knowledge of Epics to influence HIS Epic. It really is hard to find something to compare Tolkien's work with, because not the only thing close ARE the Epics...NOT Fantasy novels. I think that's the key, really. In an Epic, something can happen, just because. And that's the way it is. And it doesn't matter that its crazy and off, because that's what happens. May sound like a cop out to some, but its the way Epics work.
