LoTR: One Book To Rule Them All?

[Kae'Yoss]

Pease foks

Last time I called someone a fok, I was banned for 72 hours!

 

[dagger]

Has anyone actually ever run a D&D game and had players mention (or maybe complain?) that the premise was too much like LotR (or other major fantasy author)?

Just curious....

 

[WhatGravitas]

Well, should I be grateful that Tolkien's work has caused the fantasy genre to be flooded with imitators of what I consider a novel of marginal quality in the first place? Should I be grateful that better writers such as Robert E. Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, H. P. Lovecraft, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, and Gene Wolfe are counted as Tolkien's lessers and have less influence upon the fantasy genre than he did?

On the other hand, it's not Tolkien's or his work's fault that he was famous, right? After all, it was not his doing, that a bunch of books were written that are mere knock-offs or borrow heavily from it. Personally, I'm a bit annoyed by these highly derivative works as well (gosh, in Germany, a bunch of Tolkien-ish sounding booktitles appeared after the movies: "The Orcs", "The Elves", "The Dwarves" - and they were advertised as being inspired by Tolkien, like in "Explore the story of Tolkien's graceful elves in this new and stunning book". Even when they're not set in middle-earth, just to cash in on the movie), but it's not the author's fault, if so many people like it. And if one is bored by it, then it doesn't change that so many people still like LotR, therefore it is natural, that it is somehow "everywhere".

However, this shouldn't cheapen the opinion of a LotR, but one should rather open his mind and say "mkay, there's a bunch of Tolkienish stuff there, but I can find more".

So, I admire the achievement, sort of like the way I admire the achievement of building an enormous edifice I consider an eyesore, not least because it's been replicated all over the city. It's extremely well-constructed, but that doesn't mean I'm glad it's there.

Admiration is good, after all, you admit that Tolkien was a good world builder. And he definitively was - everything else is a matter of taste.

 

[dagger]

Pease foks, kep teh diskution civul. T'aint ner cauze tuh critisize folkes grammer ner mak snarcy commints abot teh correcshins.

Five shots of Jagermeister later.....and this is crystal clear.

 

[Enkhidu]

...Tolkien is a fairly difficult read for HS students. LOTR is a fairly difficult read for college students. If I were to add LOTR to my syllabus for a sophomore survey lit class, I could do so because ANY work can be approached critically. I wouldn't assign LOTR, however, as there are many works of greater literary value that are equally as interesting, and of comparable difficulty. This is not to say that Tolkien would always be a poor choice, but such a choice would require a specific or focused academic context...

I'm curious as to how you quantify literary value. Is it impact on literature? On society? On culture?

For example, who's work had greater value: Shakespeare's or Marlowe's? Upton Sinclair or Sinclair Lewis?

 

[usdmw]

Enkhidu.

Ah, now you're stirring the pot. The process of placing different authors on their correct tier is difficult at best.

Fundamentally, however, it is a decision based on instinct and reverence for literary tradition. Taste enters into it, of course, but sadly personal taste is often the bane of the scholar.

Is Tolkien worthless? No. As popular fiction goes, Tolkien is perhaps the most erudite of writers. One could certainly teach an entire course on Tolkien. It has been done. Students might love it, just as they might enjoy reading John Grisham for a course on legal ethics. As a diversion or a narrowly focused exploration, that could be wonderful. As a foundational study of literature or rhetoric, that would be unfortunate. There are better choices.

There is nothing magical about having credentials, but most reasonable people accept that highly-educated individuals have some insight into their specific discipline, both technically and holistically.

When it comes to artistic merit, I'll defer to tradition to the degree my critical mind allows. When tradition and critical scrutiny are silent, I'll choose according to my instinct and taste. As Justic Potter Stewart once said, "I know it when I see it."

 

[Enkhidu]

...There is nothing magical about having credentials, but most reasonable people accept that highly-educated individuals have some insight into their specific discipline, both technically and holistically...

This is one of the most condescending posts I have seen in some time. Your suggestion that anyone that doesn't agree with you is unreasonable is, at best, broadly insulting. It also relies on an appeal to authority fallacy in which you set yourself up as the authority.

Neither reflect well on you.

 

[usdmw]

Sorry you're insulted.

I believe I made three statements:

(A) Most people agree that experts are experts. If that weren't true, why would anyone bother jumping through all the hoops that are required to achieve distinction?

(B) Tolkien is a poor choice for a formal literature class because in the vast diversity of literature there are better choices, both in terms if artistry and societal relevance.

(C) Tradition should inform our decisions. Critical scrutiny should inform our decisions. Personal taste should inform our decisions. In the context of scholarship, that is probably the correct order. We must be informed. We must be rigorous. We must be creative and true to ourselves.

Which of these contentions insults you most?

I will read your reply if you post one, but in the interest of civility I suggest we let this tangent die at that point.

 

[Doghead Thirteen]

Never read 'em.

Never plan to.

You have missed out. Bigtime.

Ignore the films; they're a big pile of jobby. Just dig into the original trilogy, and enjoy. Especially enjoy finding out where many of the fantasy tropes you've played came from.

LotR is a lot of things. Cheesy is one of those things. Well-written is another. Original is a third. They're not original today, but then they were written before I was fuggin' born, and that's very nearlt 29 years ago.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

On the other hand, it's not Tolkien's or his work's fault that he was famous, right?

Sure, but I'm not going to be grateful to Tolkien or The Lord of the Rings, because their positive influences on my hobbies and interests are far outweighed by their negative influences. After all, if Tolkien had never written, we'd still have D&D, given that Gary Gygax was never a big fan - it just wouldn't have Tolkienesque elves, dwarves, and halflings in it, which wouldn't matter because there would be no Tolkien fanbase to attract.