A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[barsoomcore]

...and then away from LotRs again.

I agree with your statements, TS. But anytime we rely on someone's reputation rather than the content of their statements, we are being lazy.

I guess it depends on what you want a critic to do for you. If you're looking for insight into a work you've read, then there's no need to rely on someone's ability to be objective, accurate, blah blah blah. If on the other hand, you're looking for somebody to tell you about a work you haven't read (or viewed or whatever), you're going to have to rely on their ability since you can't compare their analysis with the work itself. In this case, we naturally look for people whose opinions we've come to trust (for whatever reason).

Now, when I'm scanning the bookshelf and deciding which ponderous tome on critical theory I'm going to curl up with for a crazy Friday night, I do of course consider the varying reputations (or the impressions I've gathered) of the writers. I'm more likely, for example, to take down Frye than I am Derrida (unless I'm consumed with self-loathing and looking for a really painful way to perform an auto-lobotmy).

But it falls upon us, the readers of critical statements, to judge their validity and usefulness. And in that task, we should endeavour not to be distracted by the source of the statements themselves.

...and back to LotRs...

 

[Darrin Drader]

Well heck, most of the threads in this particular forum fit your same criteria of inadequate criticism.

Very true, but a good deal (not all) of the entertainment discussed in this forum is hastily assembled and thrown out there for public consumption. I (and many others) consider Tolkien to be one of the few timeless classics from the last hundred years. I agree that it isn't perfect. I'll admit that at times its a downright chore to read. On the other hand it stands head and shoulders above most other pieces of work to come from the same time period and since then. Its because of the fact that this is a genuinely high quality piece of work that I don't like to see someone come along and say what amounts to 'Hey, Lord of the Rings, lets trash it.' As much as I enjoy reading Salvatore or Robert E. Howard, I don't mind that mentality as much, because they do fall into the category of pulp. Good pulp maybe, but still pulp.

 

[barsoomcore]

Whisperfoot, I agree with your estimation of LotR.

All I'll say is that because of that, I demand it be held up to higher standards than other works.

Not that it be treated with special caution or respect. It doesn't need to be protected -- it's a great book and can stand on its own against any criticism. I love watching people take shots at it because they inevitably reveal their own biases and the manner in which they attempt to encompass the work.

It's like Harold Bloom says about Hamlet: interpretations of the work do not in any way limit the work. They merely reveal the limitations of the interpreter.

 

[Femerus the Gnecro]

Am I the only person who really dislikes the term 'fanboy?'

To refer to someone as a 'drooling fanboy' or any other variations on that theme seems to me to anathemize legitimate fans of the particular work to which it refers.

Specifically, in this thread, I found it telling that the very first post managed to disregard all dissenting opinion as the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.' At least that's how I read it.

-F

 

[barsoomcore]

In this thread, I found it telling that the very first post managed to disregard all dissenting opinion as the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.' At least that's how I read it.

Well, you're reading quite a bit into the following sentence, which is the only reference to fanboys in that very first post:

I only have 3 things to pull from here to mount an argument against the army of fans (the more vocal of which are "fanboys", meaning that it doesn't matter what Tolkein wrote in LotR, they love it anyway)

reap's pretty clearly drawing a distinction between "fans" and "fanboys" -- which makes it clear to me that he's deliberately NOT saying, "all dissenting opinions are the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.'"

At least that's how I read it.

 

[Camarath]

That characters appear and then disappear is again, one of the great attractions.

I have always felt that this and the way in which the books deal with "history" makes the world presented in the books seem a fair bit bigger than the worlds in most other works of fiction especially fanstay novels. I think this sense of vastness produced by the books is one of thier primary successes. I know this is a subjective (and thus non-universal) reaction but the factors which produce this reaction are worth considering when critiquing the LotR.

That aside, I think that the pinnacle virtue of any work is the benefit that can be derived from the work. The main benefit of fiction is entertainment. So in some sense how a book fairs in the realm of literary criticism and analysis has little impact on the value of the work. A poorly written book that is meant to entertain and that people enjoy is a better book than a well written book that is meant to entertain and that people do not enjoy. If a book succeeds in imparting its intended benefit it should be considered a good book. The qualities than are important in a book are dependent on the benefit the book wishes to impart. The style and devices use in a book should be judged chiefly with regard to thier effect on the what the book it trying to convey. The fact that the benefit of most works is subjective makes it difficult to give quantitative value to a work and the devices used in a work. The parts of a work can be evaluated as either adding to or detracting from the impact of the work but the absolute value of any work in depentant on the reader. I feel that literary criticism and analysis is important as a way to better understand, appreciate, and enjoy a work not as way to assign an objective value to a work.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Am I the only person who really dislikes the term 'fanboy?'

To refer to someone as a 'drooling fanboy' or any other variations on that theme seems to me to anathemize legitimate fans of the particular work to which it refers.

Specifically, in this thread, I found it telling that the very first post managed to disregard all dissenting opinion as the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.' At least that's how I read it.

-F

[Edited by Moderator. Remember what Eric said... -Hyp.]

And I agree that the term fanboy means less than nothing. By using that title you are effectively making the statement that anyone who appreciates the subject in question is mentally incapable of critiquing it and therefore it is not worth taking their opinions or statements into consideration. By allowing someone to poison the well with this term, you are limiting the discussion of a topic to mostly negative comments about the work.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Just wanted to add this, which is basically how I feel;

"The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amusi them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate reviewed it, have found it boring, absurb, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. but even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, nor to displease everybody at teh same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved."

 

[Hypersmurf]

I would go on about how this is classic trolling, but I digress.

... but let's not go there.

I agree about the use of the term 'fanboy' - it's not constructive, and I don't think anyone in this thread (even barsoomcore, who takes pride in the label )has behaved in a manner that would warrant it.

Nobody has taken the Infallibility position that seems to be associated with the caricatured image of the most fervent supporters of [The Bible/Lord of the Rings/Star Trek/whatever] - discussion has, for the most part, been reasoned and civil from everyone involved.

I'd as soon see the label 'fanboy' not used in this thread any further, since it seems, to judge so far, out of place.

Thanks for keeping things pleasant, gentlemen.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[reapersaurus]

Well, you're reading quite a bit into the following sentence, which is the only reference to fanboys in that very first post:

reap's pretty clearly drawing a distinction between "fans" and "fanboys" -- which makes it clear to me that he's deliberately NOT saying, "all dissenting opinions are the undiscerning, irredeemable bias of a 'fanboy.'"

At least that's how I read it.

Thanks for actually reading the post in question, barsoom.

It's amazing how well the written language works when someone actually reads the words, instead of making up their own words that were written...