A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[Vocenoctum]

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)

But, that's my point in a nutshell. You're criticizing the style it's written in. Everything takes time in his books. Fate Happens.
You can't say "this is wrong" in a definitive manner, simply because you don't like this writing style. If there was a book where all the characters were foolish and inconsistent, and it had it's fans, you telling them that it's written "wrong" is pointless.
All you can say is "I don't like the way he wrote X".
There have been plenty of books I've disliked. In fact, much of what I had to trudge through in English class as "classic literature" was infuriatingly sluggish for me to force my way through. Doesn't mean it's "wrong", means I don't like it. The style doesn't work for me.

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.

That's perhaps the intent of the thread you created. To "identify the things Tolkien did 'wrong'." Because you don't like them. I know people that can't read LotR, they complain about what they didn't like so they don't read it. For these people, the movie's are better.
I also know people that can't stay awake through Fellowship or TT! Does that mean the films are also wrong?
My point is this: Either you like a writers style, or you don't. You can complain about various elements, but it's not right or wrong. It's just stylistic differences.

As mentioned, Gandalf acknowledges that it was a mistake.
That means, it wasn't a Mistake of the writer, but of the character. It's not that Tolkien did something stupid, it's that in his style, the folks aren't omniscient, or even terribly smart sometimes.
As for dismissing the God/Fate aspect, the conflict actually boils down to a divine war in many ways, so ignoring it is ignoring the style of the setting.

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.

Well, first off, let me say that I don' think it's the best scene or anything. There are flaws in the logic, but you ignore the parts that don't fit your outlook IMO.
1) the orcs have fought previously over Merry & Pippin. It's What Orcs Do. (when no strong leader is present.)
2) The orcs WERE Afraid of the "great elven warrior" that drove off Shelob. I'd hazard a guess that they were also afraid of Sting.
Haven't read the chapter in a while, so there may indeed be many elements I've missed.

But, I think you'd have gotten better response with a thread about "what do you like/ not like about LotR" than "a critique".

 

[shilsen]

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.

Actually I'd argue that Tolkien is not writing within the literary conventions (esp. for novels) of the time that he is writing in. If he had, it is likely that LotR would have been more widely accepted by literary critics. Tolkien is writing within the literary tradition of the epic, as I and a number of people have pointed out. As Ankh-Morpork Guard's post above points out, the methodology Tolkien uses is purely epic in nature. Which is why his writing is so much of an aberration for its time and within the genre of fantasy. And which is also why arguing about its merits on the basis of novelistic writing is a waste of time just as much as studying The Faerie Queene as tragic drama is.

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.

Pointless stuff in a novel. LotR is not a novel. Read Book 2 of the Iliad and Book 1 of Paradise Lost.

 

[shilsen]

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.

Precisely.

I'd just like to add, when you say here...

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.

...that one of the primary aims of most epics have been to provide an impression of a history, mythology and a broader world that lies behind the specific story being dealt with. Homer, the author of Beowulf, Spenser, Milton all did it. Which is where the epic simile and other forms of extended digression (such as in the example you mentioned) come in. Having such a mention in the Iliad allows the author to take up the position of writing for not just a generation but an entire people. For an epic author, providing a glimpse of the larger tapestry is much more important than plot and character. The songs and the tales that run through LotR serve the same purpose.

 

[Vocenoctum]

* 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.

As an "epic telling of history" only characters central to the telling are really detailed. I find the books ARE better for giving The Rest a place, but yeah, all the powerful elves sitting around making excuses...
Arwen, Galadriel, Eowyn. They're none written as full characters. They're all pretty little things, Galadriels main power seems to be pretty and make people think she's prettier

Glorfindel is Generic Elf Lord in the book, and in the movie is ably replaced by Arwen. So why introduce him at all? I think Tolkien wanted to fill the land with middle level fella's as well. In his army days, he probably knew folks of Glorfindel's manner, important enough, but in the grand scheme of The War, unimportant.

* 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.

Some of the stuff really does. There's also the matter of "discovering" all these lands for the first time. It seems Gandalf and Aragorn were the only folks that traveled much in teh world.

* 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.

Yeah, I mentioned this in the original thread. We never see the "other side" of the conflict.
On one hand, the book is a history book written by Frodo. He couldn't possibly have known what the enemies were saying when one of his companions wasn't there.
OTOH, he also seems to know exactly what happened, while he wasn't there, to his companions...
The Isengard stuff is a perfect example. If Frodo wrote The Lord of the Rings, why did he write it as Merry & Pippin telling about it? But, I'm not really sure that we're reading the exact book Frodo wrote. I would have prefered it if he had written it from a Hobbit's perspective, but then I guess that would have left out the Rohan stuff.

 

[Vocenoctum]

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.

Me personally, I found that Song of Ice & Fire's "pointless stuff" was sex in every chapter, and a few other things. I found quite a few of Tolkien's songs to be "pointless" to my reading as well, but they were not as intrusive as Martin's stuff. But, that's Martins' Style, so there ya go.

Now HP Lovecraft never irritated me in his writing. I like some stories more than others, but even the one's I didn't like don't bug me.

 

[Umbran]

Hm. Upon consideration, a bit of a explanation and an anecdote that tends to back up the thought that Tolkien's work is rather similar to the Epics...

As I understand it, the epics are a written form of an oral tradition. The epics aren't really so much intended to be read as listened to.

My fiancee is one of those folks who finds Tolkien to dry to read. She falls alseep when she tries to read his stuff. But, when she heard about the movies coming out, she wanted to get through the books, so she'd know the original storyline and be better able to follow the movies if bits were left out. But reading them just didn't cut it.

However, when we switched approaches - and I read them aloud to her as she did her craft works, she began to enjoy them. They went from a thing that was too dull to stay awake through to something moderately interesting. Now, she thinks Sam is one of the greatest heroes of modern literature. All because we went to a presentation more in line with an epic form.

Now, Tolkien isn't pure epic. If you judge him by the standards of epics, he also falls short. Seems to me that Tolkien is a sort of bridge or hybridization between the two forms. Or an infusion of some epic elements into something close to late 20th century novels.

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, when we switched approaches - and I read them aloud to her as she did her craft works, she began to enjoy them.

Did you do the songs?

I read The Hobbit to a girlfriend, once, but I confess to leaving out at least half to two thirds of the verses of all of the songs

I've found The Belgariad great for reading aloud - I don't know if I could generate sufficient enthusiasm to do the same for LotR...

-Hyp.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I don't know how much worthwhile discussion I'll be able to add to the conversation, since my major was Biochemistry, not English, but I'll try anyway.

For one, there is an identifiable villian - Self. I read somewhere (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the big story types are something like Man versus Man, Man versus Nature, and Man versus Self. In the case of LotR is main enemy in the books isn't Sauron (Man) or the travel itself (Nature) but the danger that the One Ring posed to the Self. Numerous times through the books we see characters powerful and weak struggling to resist their own impulses and desires. Some succeed, and some fail.

Secondly, I'm in the camp that believes Tolkien at times rambled a bit too much, if you read the book like a novel, which I believe the majority of people do, despite what people here would like to think. If read as a world history, much in the vein of Silmirillion, then the book takes a different tone where gaffs are lessened if not removed.

I would like to rebutt the anti-deus ex machina arguments though. Given his other works, it is obvious that there is indeed a discreet divine entity that can affect changes on the world. However, the books should also be judged on their own merit. In which case, the idea of a tangible deity is in fact marginally hinted at. And thus, many of the fortuitous acts in LotR are an instance of deus ex machina. In fact, IIRC Tolkein barely even broaches the subject of belief systems of various characters.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I read somewhere (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the big story types are something like Man versus Man, Man versus Nature, and Man versus Self.

The 19th century also added Man versus Space Alien to the list.

-Hyp.

 

[Darrin Drader]

The 19th century also added Man versus Space Alien to the list.

-Hyp.

And the 20th centuy added Man Vs. Software.