Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ColonelHardisson" data-source="post: 1308720" data-attributes="member: 363">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.</blockquote>

Verification