A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[ShadowX]

As the anti-LotR article and posters have mentioned, Tolkien obsessed over the details of his world. Unfortunately, they glanced over an important reason for this description. Most novels are set in our world or a close replica. Thus, the background is already established and the world familiar to the reader. Fantasy resides on the basis of a world that starkly contrasts with our own. Therefore the details of the world must be expounded or the world and the story become an enigma as the reader struggles to understand the actions and characters. Versimilitude is the backbone of the escapist genre of fantasy and so the setting becomes even more integral to the storytelling. Most other genres already have versimilitude established as they are set in worlds similar to our own and so there exists no need for world building.

Most modern fantasy writers have the difficult task of world building already completed for them. They fall back on the world conventions laid out by Tolkien; stealing tall elves and grumpy dwarfs to create their setting. This does not excuse Tolkien's obsessive detail, his characters are flat and his description often tedious. However, one can not discard the fact that he created the foundation for other authors to focus on characters and action.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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.

It is the final statement when the post implied that Tolkien needs lessons in action and pacing that evoke a taloned response. If a person simply states they dont' like the books while not deriding the author, then I really could care less. That wasn't the case.

Boy bands may not be very talented themselves, but you fail to understand that the reason they succeed is because their management hires very talented songwriters. Boy band songs are often very high quality songs done by boys with moderate personal talent. I don't mean high quality in terms of depth, but high quality in terms of good, catchy music and memorable lyrics. For example, when I think of Britney Spears, I can't help but think of the phrase "Oops, I did it again." Though I don't actively listen to her music. The songwriters did an excellent job of creating a catchy, memorable tune.

Boy bands have high quality songwriters with a proven track record.

 

[Orius]

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.

It's because they're orcs. Orcs never get along, and often end up fighting among themselves. Look at the scene later on with the small tracker orc and the larger soldier. Sauron spends a lot of time exerting his will on them so they will fight properly and work together, that's why thy don't put up much of a fight in the book after the Ring is destroyed.

 

[Umbran]

Did you do the songs?

The verses in English, yes, sort of. I didn't have any tune for them, but they work pretty well done in a kind of tuneless sing-song, actually. Not being a songwriter, Tolkien seems to have kept the things simple so they work with a natural rise and fall kind of pattern.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Boy bands may not be very talented themselves, but you fail to understand that the reason they succeed is because their management hires very talented songwriters. Boy band songs are often very high quality songs done by boys with moderate personal talent. I don't mean high quality in terms of depth, but high quality in terms of good, catchy music and memorable lyrics. For example, when I think of Britney Spears, I can't help but think of the phrase "Oops, I did it again." Though I don't actively listen to her music. The songwriters did an excellent job of creating a catchy, memorable tune.

Boy bands have high quality songwriters with a proven track record.

Somewhat far off topic, but I have to disagree.

If, thirty years from now, songs performed by Britney, N*SYNC, the Backstreet Boys, and the like are well-known then maybe I would agree, but at this juncture I have to disagree. Which is why LotR is a classic - so many years later it still is popular. Even more so now, what with the movies.

That aside, I really wouldn't call the songwriters all that talented. Making something catchy now-a-days bascially involves something with a strong beat; short, easily understandable lyrics; and a VERY standard I-IV-V-I progression with some vi, I-7, and V-7 chords thrown in with the occasional modulation to a related key, usually with the V as the new root. In fact, a lot of the complexity of music has disappeared over the last thirty years - compare something like the Beatles (arguably pop music of their time) to any modern stuff. Right off the bat most people will notice the predominance of lyrics over instruments, with instruments taking a strong background/filler role as opposed to a complimentary/counterpuntal one. Another is that the lyrics tend to have more than a superficial meaning, that may even erquire thought to interpret.

Though, the more apt comparison would be boy-bands and solo-girls to disco. And look how smashingly popular that is today.

 

[Orius]

The verses in English, yes, sort of. I didn't have any tune for them, but they work pretty well done in a kind of tuneless sing-song, actually. Not being a songwriter, Tolkien seems to have kept the things simple so they work with a natural rise and fall kind of pattern.

FWIW, Legolas' Nimrodel song can be sung to the Gilligan's Island theme.

 

[Darrin Drader]

In fact, a lot of the complexity of music has disappeared over the last thirty years - compare something like the Beatles (arguably pop music of their time) to any modern stuff. Right off the bat most people will notice the predominance of lyrics over instruments, with instruments taking a strong background/filler role as opposed to a complimentary/counterpuntal one. Another is that the lyrics tend to have more than a superficial meaning, that may even erquire thought to interpret.

You're making me all weepy now. Play some Skynnyrd!

Seriously, the closest equivalent of Led Zeppelin I can see these days is Pearl Jam, and their a bit of a kinder, gentler version of the almighty rockzilla. Regardless, they're still one of my top 3 rock bands that are still together and touring (the other two being U2 and Radiohead).

I think that the grunge movement was the last real wave of "deep and meaningful" music with quality instrument playing. Of course we all see how that turned out. I wonder what percentage of them actually died from their habits. Still, I quite often would rather pop something in from Nirvana or Soundgarden than the stuff that passes for alternative these days.

Ah well, I used to have this theory that good TV and good music alternated decades. Then the 90s happened and we got both. Now we have neither. And we probably won't have it again, at least not for a good long while.

 

[SynapsisSynopsis]

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.

Suddenly there' a concensus about what literary criticism and theory are and how they must be applied to works (and a concensus about what works are, for that matter)? Apparently my department did not receive that memo. For your touted background, you seem awfully confident in notions like genre and period--perhaps no one told you that these sorts of unities constitute the great scandal of literary history and theory over the last 50 years?

I for my part would love to participate in the discussion and 'arm myself with stuff that makes me sound intelligent,' but once through Tolkien was enough for me. For everyone else, though, I hope that you will not limit yourselves according to Whisperfoot's dictum of what does and does not constitute proper literary criticism. It is only one approach.

 

[Darrin Drader]

perhaps no one told you that these sorts of unities constitute the great scandal of literary history and theory over the last 50 years?

Perhaps not. It is possible that it was never mentioned during the years I spent studying literature. Do you have more to say one the subject? A link to better inform me possibly? Learning is lifelong, and as such I would be foolish to turn down the opportunity to further my understanding.

Until I've been sufficiently shown the error of my thinking, I'll keep my Chaucer out of my Tom Clancy, thank you.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I hope that you will not limit yourselves according to Whisperfoot's dictum of what does and does not constitute proper literary criticism. It is only one approach.

After reading such statements as...

"This is the holy grail for anyone who is into this sort of thing and starting a thread to discuss its weaknesses is like taking a crap all over it. This topic falls in with the politics and religion category. This travesty should be closed before the fur really starts to fly."
"This thread, right from its inception and its premise is ignorant and offensive."
"...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..."
"Its more like people, including myself, are easily offended when people start critiquing it as though its a modern work."
"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."​

I don't think you'll have to worry about me listening to Whisperfoot's notions of what literary criticism is appropriate or not.