Two Towers

[Rywill]

I saw TTT last night at a preview screening here in LA. I won't spoil stuff for anyone, but this movie ROCKS. It's really, really good. It's also kind of different from FOTR--the first film was really a smaller-scope character movie about nine people on an adventure. This is more of an action picture. It has really amazing battle sequences. And the CG Gollum is amazing.

To put some rumors to rest, though: there's nothing about Smeagol and Deagol (other than a passing dialog reference); Arwen is not at Helm's Deep (and is actually hardly in the movie at all) but some elves are; there's no Shelob (not even a glimpse!); and there are warg riders--they're in a sequence that I think Peter Jackson made up (I haven't read the books in 3 years or so, but I don't remember this part happening in the book). There are no warg riders at Helm's Deep, though.

[Murph]

Would you call it better than Fellowship?

[Wholly Schmidt]

I swear I saw wargs at least mentioned as I read Two Towers last month, but I can't remember exactly where.

[Rywill]

Would you call it better than Fellowship?

That's a really tough call, because they're different kinds of movies. So it will probably depend on your tastes. Personally, I would give the edge to FOTR, because I like the characters and it has more emotional heft than TTT--there's nothing in TTT that has the same emotion as Boromir's death in FOTR. OTOH, if you like action and fight sequences, TTT is definitely better. Helm's Deep is the most incredible battle I've ever seen on film. The girl I saw it with (who is also an enormous fan of the books and of the first movie) thought TTT was better. It all depends. Either way, they are both incredible films.

[Ben Sones]

there's no Shelob (not even a glimpse!);

My understanding was that they moved Shelob to the Return of the King.

Surely Jackson can't cut her out altogether. Ungoliant would be pissed.

[Rywill]

That's my understanding too, but I had heard a rumor that there was actually a brief glimpse of her (sort of presaging what was to come, cliffhanger material) in TTT. There isn't.

[Anonymous]

there's no Shelob (not even a glimpse!);

My understanding was that they moved Shelob to the Return of the King.

Surely Jackson can't cut her out altogether. Ungoliant would be pissed.

Shelob's definitely in one of the movies. A friend of mine gave me a copy of the "Making of the Movie" book for my birthday (along with the Extended Edition DVD with bookends :D ) and there's a reference to a set of Shelob's legs sitting in the corner of the Weta Workshop.

[ydejin]

Ooops, forgot to login. That last post on Shelob's legs is me ...

[Desslock]

Ooops, forgot to login. That last post on Shelob's legs is me ...

Shelob is in Return of the King. Jackson has stated his reasons for the switch many times -- because, he felt, Frodo and Sam would have little to do in Return of the King otherwise (except in the finale).

[Rywill]

Yeah, and that totally makes sense. Still, it would've been cool to see at least a little of her in TTT. Then again, it gives me another thing to speculate about and look forward to in ROTK. So it's all good.

[Jason Cross]

Peeking around the web, I'm finding a lot of the early reviews of TTT are in the "B" range, and many of these same reviewers gave movies like "Maid in Manhattan" and "Analyze That" better scores.

So is it just me, or is maybe TTT a victim of its own expectations, critically? Surely Maid in Manhattan has a lot more flaws to pick out and/or a lot less to put a smile on your face than TTT. I haven't seen either one, but come on...ya gotta wonder...

I'm think sometimes movie reviewers forget that for us regular slobs, it's $8.50 and an evening of our time whether we're watching Tomb Raider or Gladiator. (Roger Ebert gave Tomb Raider 3 stars and Gladiator 2) Are there seperate review scales for movies nobody really expects to be any good (J Lo) and movies that everyone knows is going to make a crapload of money (LOTR)? Do they cut slack to lower-budget movies, as if we paid less to go see them?

Seriously, this Ross Anthony guy gave TTT a B+ (http://rossanthony.com/L/lotr2twrs.shtml), the same as Die Another Day and less than Sweet Home Alabama (A) or I Spy (A-). Now, I haven't seen TTT yet nor will I ever see SHA or I Spy, but my gut tells me there's no fucking way they are better films than TTT.

[Chris Nahr]

(Roger Ebert gave Tomb Raider 3 stars and Gladiator 2)

Tells you all you need to know about Ebert, doesn't it? I bet he accused Gladiator of transporting reactionary ideology...


Now, I haven't seen TTT yet nor will I ever see SHA or I Spy, but my gut tells me there's no fucking way they are better films than TTT.

I'm sure I'll love it but that's pretty much unrelated to how it compares to other films... these other films aren't Tolkien!

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

That's my understanding too, but I had heard a rumor that there was actually a brief glimpse of her (sort of presaging what was to come, cliffhanger material) in TTT. There isn't.

Its probably part of the deleted scenes in the invevitable SE DVD due out in, uhm, 2003.

Marketing wankers.

[Rywill]

Peeking around the web, I'm finding a lot of the early reviews of TTT are in the "B" range, and many of these same reviewers gave movies like "Maid in Manhattan" and "Analyze That" better scores.

So is it just me, or is maybe TTT a victim of its own expectations, critically? Surely Maid in Manhattan has a lot more flaws to pick out and/or a lot less to put a smile on your face than TTT. I haven't seen either one, but come on...ya gotta wonder...



It could be that. It could also be that TTT is not for everyone--there are quite a few people out there who just don't go in for fantasy pictures, and they might find a lighthearted comedy to be more fun to see. One of the problems with movie reviewers (unlike game reviewers, for example) is that they have to review ALL the movies, even the ones in genres they don't particularly like.

TTT is not a B-grade movie. It's an A+. Even if you don't like fantasy, I would think that any movie reviewer would be able to see that. OTOH, I do think TTT is probably less friendly to the casual viewer than FOTR. Even people who don't like fantasy pictures could get into the character relationships in FOTR, but TTT is mostly about fantasy action sequences and not so much about interpersonal relationships. So maybe that has something to do with it.

[Desslock]

Peeking around the web, I'm finding a lot of the early reviews of TTT are in the "B" range, and many of these same reviewers gave movies like "Maid in Manhattan" and "Analyze That" better scores.

They're not getting comparable ratings.

Rotten Tomatoes:

Two Towers: 96% fresh (100% from the cream of the crop)
Maid in Manahattan 38% fresh (31%)
Analyze that 28% (11%)
Die Another Day 59% (38%)

Looks like Two Towers is living up to expectations. The above ratings don't take into account "degree of like or dislike", but they show that very few publications/reviewers are giving comparable ratings to those movies and Two Towers.

[Anonymous]

It could be that. It could also be that TTT is not for everyone--there are quite a few people out there who just don't go in for fantasy pictures, and they might find a lighthearted comedy to be more fun to see.

I think this is what's going on. For every Tolkein Fanboy there are plenty of people who just don't care for the genre, and they have valid reasons not to like it. Tolkein does some great fantasy stuff, and puts together a richly defined imaginary world, but as far as characters, plots, and language go, it's pretty hackneyed. And some people care about that stuff.

And the reason there are more non-fanboys is that like wargamers and sim-heads, Tolkein fanatics don't breed.


S

[Dave Long]

Tolkien's language hackneyed? The guy practically invented fantasy writing!

Damn it... I've been trolled haven't I...

--Dave

[Brian Koontz]

Damn it... I've been trolled haven't I...

I've never seen an obvious troll on this Forum, but I've seen maybe 30 posts speculating as to trolls. Anticipation better than the fact perhaps?

Tolkien's writing is garbage. I've tried twice and failed twice to make it past about 100 pages of the first book of the trilogy... its just too painful to read.

His stellar aspects lie in world creation and in creating the fantasy concept (also strong in plot and characterization)... that doesn't cover up his gaping weaknesses however.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Tolkien was big with the hippies, and they breed like rabbits, right?

[graller]

Tolkien's writing is garbage. I've tried twice and failed twice to make it past about 100 pages of the first book of the trilogy... its just too painful to read.


This qualifies you as a judge of Tolkien? What can you even say about his world building skills as you clearly have never even seen them. This does however qualify you as a troll.

[graller]

I should add just to prove I am not a complete fanboi. The start of the Fellowhip is slow. I always felt the series did not really hit its stride until the Council of Elrond...and it really did not pick up speed until the death of Boromir for me. Two Towers and Return of the King were by far the better parts in my opinion.

[Desslock]

I've never seen an obvious troll on this Forum...Tolkien's writing is garbage. I've tried twice and failed twice to make it past about 100 pages of the first book of the trilogy... its just too painful to read.

Trolling is not cool

[Anonymous]

Tolkien's language hackneyed? The guy practically invented fantasy writing!

Damn it... I've been trolled haven't I...

The dialogue LOTR is definitely stilted, especially with all his dewy eyed female characters. The battle scenes are very stiffly described. And he uses the Giant Eagles the way a level designed uses crates-- "How do I rescue Gandalf from Isengard? I know, the same way I rescued him from the wolves and goblins in The Hobbit--Giant Eagles! Oh shit, now he's stuck on top of a mountain after beating the Balrog! I know..."

But Tolkein was obviously very intelligent and educated and did a great job of creating a full and complete world. His attention to detail is incredible. I just don't think he's a great story writer--except for children's books, especially the Hobbit.

S

[Desslock]

I just don't think he's a great story writer

I agree, except compared to every other writer that ever existed on Earth, since you will at least admit he's better than those.

[Anonymous]

I agree, except compared to every other writer that ever existed on Earth, since you will at least admit he's better than those.

Better than James Joyce? Better than Raymond Chandler? Better than Murakami? No. Better than Proust? Ok, I'll give you that.

[Jim F.]

Tolkein is an amazing story teller, but you can see that even he knew he had his weak points.

He wasn't able to write action scenes worth a damn. Eventually he seems to give up on his attempts at action and instead just write summaries of the after effects. Things like (not an exact quote!): "The battle was hard fought with both Gimli and Legolas killing many orcs". Followed by a few lines of dialog of the 2 character tallying up how many orcs they've killed in the last few battles and on who would kill the most in the next battle. Most of the action scenes are left to the reader to fill in with his/her imagination.

As long as you aren't looking for sprawling action scenes, LoTR is by far one of the best fantasy series ever written.

[Rywill]

Better than James Joyce? Better than Raymond Chandler? Better than Murakami? No. Better than Proust? Ok, I'll give you that.

Christ, my senile grandmother writes better than James Joyce, and only pisses her bed half as often while she's doing it.

[Brian Koontz]

As long as you aren't looking for sprawling action scenes, LoTR is by far one of the best fantasy series ever written.

I've never read any others so impossible to actually *read*.

I used to read a lot of fantasy novels, and my favorite are the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. The best characterization I've seen in any novel of any type.

[graller]

Its amazing how selective memory is. I loved the battle scenes in Tolkien. I still recall elements of the battle of Helm's Deep. The hole blown under the wall in the drainage culvert, the battles outside Minas Tirith, Eowyn killing the chief Nazgul, Aragorn arriving on the river from the south with the fresh troops. The sortie of Gandalf the White.....Guess it is just me. I am not claiming he should win a Pulitzer but I think a few of you are being unfairly harsh here.

[mtkafka]

Peeking around the web, I'm finding a lot of the early reviews of TTT are in the "B" range, and many of these same reviewers gave movies like "Maid in Manhattan" and "Analyze That" better scores.

So is it just me, or is maybe TTT a victim of its own expectations, critically? Surely Maid in Manhattan has a lot more flaws to pick out and/or a lot less to put a smile on your face than TTT. I haven't seen either one, but come on...ya gotta wonder...

I'm think sometimes movie reviewers forget that for us regular slobs, it's $8.50 and an evening of our time whether we're watching Tomb Raider or Gladiator. (Roger Ebert gave Tomb Raider 3 stars and Gladiator 2) Are there seperate review scales for movies nobody really expects to be any good (J Lo) and movies that everyone knows is going to make a crapload of money (LOTR)? Do they cut slack to lower-budget movies, as if we paid less to go see them?

Seriously, this Ross Anthony guy gave TTT a B+ (http://rossanthony.com/L/lotr2twrs.shtml), the same as Die Another Day and less than Sweet Home Alabama (A) or I Spy (A-). Now, I haven't seen TTT yet nor will I ever see SHA or I Spy, but my gut tells me there's no fucking way they are better films than TTT.

Did you check out that Victoria Alexander reviewer? Shes the only one who gave it a splat. Ironically she LOVED REALLY LOVED Planet of the Apes. So she is an idiot. Dumbass!

etc

[antlers]

Tolkien was very successful at achieving the writing style I think he intended, which I think might be characterized as "Beowulf as told by Dickens".

[Jason McCullough]

I used to read a lot of fantasy novels, and my favorite are the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. The best characterization I've seen in any novel of any type.

BAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

[Rywill]

I used to read a lot of fantasy novels, and my favorite are the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. The best characterization I've seen in any novel of any type.

BAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Seriously. Dragonlance was mediocre at best. There are several other fantasy series that were better, including LOTR. You know, it's funny, I used to think people were really unfair the way they always bashed Brian Koontz. Now I get it.

[Desslock]

I used to read a lot of fantasy novels, and my favorite are the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. The best characterization I've seen in any novel of any type.

That's like saying the best painting is 99 cent paint-by-numbers project adeptly completed by the guy who works at your favourite rub and tug.

[Dave Long]

but I think a few of you are being unfairly harsh here.

...and this is a new thing on Qt3? :)

--Dave

[Brian Koontz]

Seriously. Dragonlance was mediocre at best. There are several other fantasy series that were better, including LOTR. You know, it's funny, I used to think people were really unfair the way they always bashed Brian Koontz. Now I get it.

Keep in mind that I haven't read LOTR, so that doesn't qualify.

I've read a fair amount of Eddings, Robert Jordan's series, a couple of the Swords series (by Saberhagen I believe), many of the Dragonlance books, 10 or so books by Piers Anthony, a series by someone whose name I can't remember (it starts out with a gangly youth who likes to sit on top of his home castle at night), and a few things by Sci-Fi/Fantasy crossover Roger Zelaszny.

I also read a series depicting a real-life setting initially but then a man finds a portal in Virginia that takes him to a fantasy world. I can't remember whether that was by Eddings or someone who I haven't mentioned yet.

Jordan's series started out very well (relatively speaking) but collapsed. Piers Anthony generates excessive words from just a few good ideas, Saberhagen's stuff was pretty good, the "gangly youth" series was good, and the first book of the "portal from Virginia" series was original, very funny, and excellent (the rest of the series being mediocre). Zelaszny is original as well but obscure.

Dragonlance Chronicles blows all of those books away with respect to characterization, and the plot was good as well. I can debate as much as anyone would like on the topic.

I of course cannot speak about books I haven't read, nor do they qualify for "Best Fantasy novel(s) read by Brian Koontz". I am also highly unlikely to read any recommended Fantasy novels since I stick almost exclusively to non-fiction books nowadays.

[DennyA]

Okay, I had chosen to stay out of the "Brian Koontz bashing" club, but the man just stated that the best characterizations he'd ever read were in a series of licensed D&D novels. Cripes, Koontz, compared to what, Star Trek novels?

Koontz has got to be a character created by someone who's having a lot of fun trolling.

No offense, Brian, if you are indeed somehow a real person. Well, I guess it's offensive, but DRAGONLANCE? Good god, Man, read The World According to Garp, The Stranger, or Catch 22 (just three off the top of my head) and come back and say that.

Oh, just saw your list of books. That's ALL the novels you've ever read? Well, okay, perhaps Dragonlance is the best. But that's like having eaten at McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, Pizza Hut, and Boston Market, and pronouncing Boston Market the best restaurant in the world.

But I still don't believe you exist. :-)

[Doug Erickson]

Brian, would you say you identify more with the kooky wizard-slash-god or the kooky kender-type that occurs in EVERY Weis/Hickman novel penned?

[voltaic]

But that's like having eaten at McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, Pizza Hut, and Boston Market, and pronouncing Boston Market the best restaurant in the world.

Oh now it's on... how DARE you put Wendy's below any other semi-fast food place! You're going DOWN Danny!

[Peter Frazier]

C'mon guys, Tolkein made a book that fed my imagination but I couldn't get into the characters or the boring bits. Compared to contemporary writing it all comes off as a bit cliched or shallow. (Not wanting to be too disrespectful- it still is the towering standard of epic mythology etc etc).
It really is different strokes when it comes to preferences in literature. Give me a Flashman novel and I'm happy as Larry. Give me a book which goes into Hobbit geneology and I'm flipping the pages towards the interesting parts.

[Mark Asher]

"Give me a Flashman novel and I'm happy as Larry."

Flashman is great!

[Ron Dulin]

I used to read a lot of fantasy novels, and my favorite are the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy. The best characterization I've seen in any novel of any type.

Whoever you are, you are losing your touch.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Gosh.

What movie did I just see?

Jackson managed to get the characters roughly where they needed to be for the next movie, but he changed just about everything he could on the way there. Almost none of the characters introduced in this movie were played with even remotely similar motivations to their characters in the book. Theoden's wussing out and running to Helm's Deep instead of riding out to fight and ending up there when the other city is sacked. The Ents come across as really shallow. Faramir, wow, completely wrong.

Then we've got the half hour in the middle of fabricated drama at the "loss" of Aragorn and his subsequent elf dreams, or as I like to call it, The Intermission.

Gollum was perfect. Easily the best part of the movie.

And were those Jackson's kids making another guest appearance hiding out in Helm's Deep? I'm certain they were.

[Desslock]

Then we've got the half hour in the middle of fabricated drama at the "loss" of Aragorn and his subsequent elf dreams, or as I like to call it, The Intermission.

Yeah, that was a weird addition (the "loss"), but I guess part of a larger, cool addition. Good call on the character changes - I don't really understand the reason for the Theoden change, or the Ent "vote". Faramir's decision at least makes some sense in terms of developing the power/temptation of the ring - but I thought the contrast with Boromir in the book was more interesting.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Also (and I really need to end on this and go to bed), what are your thoughts on Gimli being more vocal, and mostly for humor? I liked hearing more from him, but it was at times just bordering on jar-jar-ish.

[Chris Nahr]

Tolkien was very successful at achieving the writing style I think he intended, which I think might be characterized as "Beowulf as told by Dickens".

That's a great concise characterisation of Tolkien's writing. He was a philologist after all, and LOTR is quite obviously a parody of 19th century English novels (mainly in the Hobbiton parts) and ancient sagas. His style is excellect -- from what I've seen of modern fantasy novels I'd say that he's the only fantasy author who even has any kind of literary style.

The lengthy biographies and accounts of past events that people perceive as boring really just mirror similar parts of actual sags, e.g. the listing all the ships and warriors by name in the Ilias. I suspect that people who don't like Tolkien's writing simply don't have any sense of literary style, they probably either haven't read any classics or disliked them...

[Bub, Andrew]

Quite obviously a parody?
Tolkien was writing a parody of 19th century novels and epic sagas? I think he was influenced by them and he was intentionally trying to write an epic saga, but I think he'd kick your ass if he heard you call it a parody Nahr.

(Note, I have no other problem with the rest of your post)

[antlers]

When he wrote "parody", he meant "tribute to"

[Chris Nahr]

I guess there's some misunderstanding. I didn't mean parody as in "funny, hah, hah" but as in consciously adopting an older style. Parody as a literary device. Hmm, maybe there's another term that would be more appropriate but I can't think of it right now...

[Jim F.]

C'mon guys, Tolkein made a book that fed my imagination but I couldn't get into the characters or the boring bits. Compared to contemporary writing it all comes off as a bit cliched or shallow. (Not wanting to be too disrespectful- it still is the towering standard of epic mythology etc etc).
It really is different strokes when it comes to preferences in literature. Give me a Flashman novel and I'm happy as Larry. Give me a book which goes into Hobbit geneology and I'm flipping the pages towards the interesting parts.

Erm, I'm normally not a "fonboy" about Tolkein, but it's only cliche now. Mainly because, well, most fantasy has borrowed heavily from Tolkein's work. When LoTRs was written, today's cliche's were yesterday's new ideas.

Most of Tolkein's creatures are based on existing mythology that he had rather heavily researched, so it is fair to say that he borrowed a lot of his ideas from previous stories. But he knit them together into a world that has been mimiced time and time again by countless authors. Hell, the entire world of AD&D is basically Middle-Earth with a different map with a little more magic in it.

Even the naming of elves and elven lands has been copied more times that I care to think. And the description of elves that we think of today (6 feet tall, fair skinned, good with bows, immortal, gay) were often called Tolkein Elves to differenciate them from the then current descriptions of elves (small creatures resembling garden gnomes that either helps folks or used darts to spread disease). Today it's hard to imagine an elf looking like anything but the way Tolkein describes them, but back then it was unconventional.

Anyway, I'm sounding like a silly fanboi who will probably be slapped down by some links describing how Tolkein actually stole all his ideas from George Washington's bedtime stories.

[Mark Asher]

Surely Tom Bombadil's songs are parody. Please tell me Tolkien wasn't serious with those!

[Bub, Andrew]

Hmm, maybe there's another term that would be more appropriate but I can't think of it right now...

Homage?

...and to Jim F. "Tolkien Elves" are Nordic elves. Even the stuff about Valinor is reminiscent of Alfheim. The Norse even had Dark Elves, for all you D&D Drow fans, who lived in Niffleheim. Little elves are really "elves" from Irish culture. Pixies, leprechauns, faeries, etc., Elves may also be smallish in German lore too. Northern Europe is all about legendary small people, or really tall people, for some reason.

[Sparky]

Bub's an elfologist.

[Xaroc]

Bub's an elfologist.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

-- Xaroc

[Peter Frazier]

Erm, I'm normally not a "fonboy" about Tolkein, but it's only cliche now. Mainly because, well, most fantasy has borrowed heavily from Tolkein's work. When LoTRs was written, today's cliche's were yesterday's new ideas.


Fair enough, but I'm thinking that very few people would be able to lose their contemporary filters and read Tolkein's work in the same way as a person in the 1930s. The fact that the book is still immensely popular is testament to the world that has been created. I just don't think people come away from the book thinking about the elegance of the prose. It would be interesting to see some of the original literary reviews on the book when it first came out.

[Mark Asher]

I guess there's some misunderstanding. I didn't mean parody as in "funny, hah, hah" but as in consciously adopting an older style. Parody as a literary device. Hmm, maybe there's another term that would be more appropriate but I can't think of it right now...

Pastiche works.

I know people love Tolkien, and he's certainly a fun read, but I don't think his work stands up well as literature. He's a good storyteller, but his books don't ask the kinds of questions literature asks. And I don't want to get into a discussion of what elevates a work to the status of labeling it "literature", mostly because I'm not sure. That's my preemptive defense of this post.

[Jason Cross]

Guys, not to be the on-topic-cop, but there's this whole other FORUM here for discussing books. :)

Okay, so I saw TTT today.

I should preface this by saying that I could honestly care less how faithful it was to the book. If that sort of thing is a criteria for your enjoyment of the film, what I say might not apply to you. For me it doesn't even factor into the equation - not even a little bit.

Overall, I thought it was great. What a great movie. It doesn't stand alone, and it doesn't re-cap the first one (thank GOD). You could go into Empire Strikes Back having not seen Star Wars and maybe you'd be a little confused, but you'd get it. Doing so with this one would be less harder.

This installment has more thrilling action, and Gollum is the best actor in the movie. It's not just "oh that's an impressive CG character," it actually stands on its own merits as a "performer" with all the real people, and outshines virtually all of them. But the slow parts in TTT were slower than in FOTR. They seemed less necessary, and filled with a little less emotional weight.

It's funny, because even with movies I really LIKE, I think the director's cuts and extended versions are not better films on the whole and that they were right to be shorter. I was surprised to find that with FOTR, it's a better movie for being longer on the DVD set. Some important scenes that describe who some of these people are and why they're so important are there, particularly with Aragorn. Why they cut a whole two-minute scene with him at his mother's grave in Rivendell is beyond me. I do NOT feel that way about TTT. The cut of the movie I just saw needs some additional trimming, especially in the second act. Lopping off a few scenes of tracking the hobbits and walking through the forest blabbing with Treebeard wouldn't have hurt anything, and would have made it move along a bit better.

I wonder if, when the inevitable 30-mintues-longer DVD is released, the movie will get better or be strung needlessly longer still? If they added some more interesting stuff to break up Act 2, it could help the flow.

They did a better job with segueing between the people at one location and another, which was cool.

Highlights: Gollum in general, but especially his "Willem Dafoe in Spider-Man"esque split personality scenes. Brad Dourif is positively creepy as Wormtongue. The battle scenes were wonderful. Gimli is funny and more likeable. The Ents storming Isengard was pretty damn cool.

My personal bottom line: totally worth seeing, one of the better movies this year, and a worthy successor to FOTR. But whether it's from elevated expectations or a pacing problem in the middle, or both, it's not quite as good.

[Bub, Andrew]

Bub's an elfologist.

Nah, I'm more a mythologist. The elf stuff is just something I dabbled in back in College.

[mtkafka]

"He's a good storyteller, but his books don't ask the kinds of questions literature asks."

I don't think Tolkien ever intended the books to be literature. And I dont think most good writers aim to write 'literature'. I know you're playing the devils advocate, but please, dont you think Tolkien deserves some credit?!? sheesh. You make it out like he's some average schlock fantasy writer. I'd at LEAST compare him to someone like Poe in influence. Yeah if you look at Tolkien compared to modern preconceptions (which goes against his books) then yeah its a stodgy remake of the Nibelung mixed with Celt/Norse/Arthurian myths... but I don't think anybody before him done much like it anyway, at least making a massive midevial epic (world) out of time.

etc

[Toddy]

Surely Tom Bombadil's songs are parody. Please tell me Tolkien wasn't serious with those!

And what exactly is your problem with rhyming "willow" with "Bombadillo"?

As for those comments on Joyce in this thread, I've one word to say to you: Dubliners. I'm not a big admirer of anything else that Joyce wrote, save maybe Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, but Dubliners is the finest collection of short stories ever written in English and probably the finest work of fiction written in the past five centuries. IMHO, of course.

[Toddy]

Tolkien clearly intended LOTR to be read as serious literature. He poured a lifetime of academic study into its pages. Thanks to the landslide of "fantasy" garbage that's fallen on us in the half-century since the publication of LOTR, we can't really see the book now for what it truly is. I would really like to have experienced the book in the 1950s, when it became a best-seller in Commonwealth countries, or even in the 1960s, when it was huge on college campuses in the US.

[Bub, Andrew]

A good comparison for Tolkien really isn't Dragonlance or Eddings, or that Throne of Swords guy, or Moorcock, or Lieber, or whatever. It isn't even the fantasy more contemporary with his lifetime: Conan, for example.

It's Beowulf, the Kalava, the Illiad and Odyssey, Nordic mythology, and maybe, Le Morte d'Arthur. I've been wading through some of those and I'd say, LOTR stands well in that company.

It really isn't fair to compare Tolkien with Steinbeck (unless you just want to compare it to his Arthur book, maybe) or Chandler, or whatever. He's writing in a very stark and specific genre, the mythological epic tale. He not only achieved his goal by recreating it effectively, he also made it accessible. Not bad.

And everybody better stop dissing Bombadill right now!

[mtkafka]

Meh, I respect Joyce as a writer... but how can anyone compare the writing of Joyce with Tolkien. And in some ways they ARE similar, both try to recreate old myths ... but in different styles. Joyce is as much caught up in his own 'myths' of Dublin/Ireland as Tokien was with Middle Earth. Yeah, its pushing it to make this comparison... anyway my point is that to compare Tolkien with Joyce will get you nothing.

Then the question is what does Joyce (as an example of exemplary letters) ask about our humanity (hubris) that Tolkien doesn't. I doubt most people KNOW what the hell Joyce is actually saying. Read some Tolkien, then read some Ovid or Homer. And no, I'm not saying Tolkien IS an Ovid or Homer, but one can make the assumption that Tolkien succeded in creating a worthy readable and entertaining epic for 'our times'. Many writers tried to write the 'epic' with the intention of lionization of wreaths and letters and prizes... but fail. At least Tolkien has carried the idea of making an 'old' epic with black and white and good and evil and succeeds.

etc

[Mark Asher]

"He's a good storyteller, but his books don't ask the kinds of questions literature asks."

I don't think Tolkien ever intended the books to be literature. And I dont think most good writers aim to write 'literature'. I know you're playing the devils advocate, but please, dont you think Tolkien deserves some credit?!? sheesh. You make it out like he's some average schlock fantasy writer. I'd at LEAST compare him to someone like Poe in influence. Yeah if you look at Tolkien compared to modern preconceptions (which goes against his books) then yeah its a stodgy remake of the Nibelung mixed with Celt/Norse/Arthurian myths... but I don't think anybody before him done much like it anyway, at least making a massive midevial epic (world) out of time.

etc

Tolkien deserves credit for writing entertaining and beloved novels. That's high praise. His work doesn't examine the experience of being human in the way that literature does, however. I know I'm sounding snobbish, but there's a big difference between the two. For example, think of Sam and Frodo and compare them to Sancho Panza and Don Quixote. The latter just have so much more to say about life.

[mtkafka]

Tolkien clearly intended LOTR to be read as serious literature.

Where do you get this? Because he was a professor and liked to invent his own languages and loved medieval literature? Interviews I've read Tolkien was surprised at the popularity and was also puzzled at the overanalyzing of his books. I do think he wrote the LOTR with alot of plodding (hes a friggin medieval language professor!), but I don't even think Tolkien would admit that he wanted it to be 'serious' literature. btw, what IS Serious Literature? Shakespeare? Moliere? Wilde? Does it make us cry and think?

etc

[Bub, Andrew]

His work doesn't examine the experience of being human in the way that literature does, however.

That's because you're confusing ancient and modern literature. True, his work doesn't get into the human condition in a way most post-Rennaisance texts do. But, don't you consider Beowulf and Homer to be literature? Tolkien's examination of the experience of being human is at least as weighty and deep as those works. That's what Tolkien was definitely trying to achieve with his books. His letters don't state he wanted to create "literature" but he did say he wanted to give England a mythology as powerful as the Kalava (which is Finnish literature) to replace the one the Anglo-Saxon invasion stole from her. I'd call that aiming at literature, personally.

[Mark Asher]

"Then the question is what does Joyce (as an example of exemplary letters) ask about our humanity (hubris) that Tolkien doesn't. I doubt most people KNOW what the hell Joyce is actually saying."

Most people probably understand a typical soap opera better than a Shakespeare play, yet both share common elements.

Joyce and Tolkien both used myth; Joyce in Ulysses and Tolkien in everything. To think of the differences between the two, imagine the kind of conversation you'd have in a book discussion group discussing Ulysses vs. the anotgher group discussing LotR. Do you think the groups would ask the same kinds of questions?

[mtkafka]

Yeah Sancho Paza is no Sam Gamgee, or vice versa (or aren't they really kind of similar?!? earthy realists!). Anyway the irony is Cervantes is more modern and realistic as Tolkien is baroque. My point is Tolkien knew that with LOTR he was writing in a completely black and white universe. As Cervantes was trying to dispell myths Tolkien wanted to believe them. During a post WW2 age of postmodernism and 'serious' existential literature, Tolkien (as well as many other fantasy/sci fi writers and fans) wanted a world of myths.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that books aren't manuals on life, you either like em or not. Some feel genuine and some don't. LOTR feels genuine to me.

etc

[Mark Asher]

His work doesn't examine the experience of being human in the way that literature does, however.

That's because you're confusing ancient and modern literature. True, his work doesn't get into the human condition in a way most post-Rennaisance texts do. But, don't you consider Beowulf and Homer to be literature? Tolkien's examination of the experience of being human is at least as weighty and deep as those works. That's what Tolkien was definitely trying to achieve with his books. His letters don't state he wanted to create "literature" but he did say he wanted to give England a mythology as powerful as the Kalava (which is Finnish literature) to replace the one the Anglo-Saxon invasion stole from her. I'd call that aiming at literature, personally.

Beowulf is part of the canon because of its origination. Something the quality of Beowulf written now would probably never be taught, but it has historical importance. Homer I feel differently about, but Homer's works certainly gain much due to their place in history.

I can't imagine that Tolkien really expected to give England a new mythology. Did he? Of course not. If that was his goal, and if that goal would elevate his work to the status of literature, then he failed.

[mtkafka]

Joyce and Tolkien both used myth; Joyce in Ulysses and Tolkien in everything. To think of the differences between the two, imagine the kind of conversation you'd have in a book discussion group discussing Ulysses vs. the same group discussing LotR. Do you think the groups would ask the same kinds of questions?

I've BEEN in discussion groups discussing both. Most people don't know what the hell Ulysses was about (me included!) and had NO life affiriming questions from it! And is Ulysses REALLY above a soap opera? I mean the main guy walks around Dublin debating about his wife, his job, his religion, his racism, the river and dreams ... snore... I'm pushing this argument for the sake that the comparison of Tolkien to soap opera's... or whatever... bah.

FWIW, this argument is heading towards the 'high brow' vs 'low brow' art idea. If you can compare LOTR to a soap opera, others can claim a soap opera changes there lives. So like... soap opera's are life affiriming. bah again. this is pointless. all style and no substance i say.

etc

[Bub, Andrew]

Well, I don't think he wanted to give England a mythology in a literal sense. He didn't expect English textbooks to be revised to include Middle Earth, for example. But I think he wanted to create a brand new mythological epic written in the ancient style. From what I've read of them, he's created something stylistically on par with what we consider ancient literature, and I think by that definition you can call LOTR literature. You can study Tolkien using the same methods, comparisons, and tools as you study Beowulf, Homer, or other ancient stories. You can draw similar lessons from the books (all you'd be missing is the history aspect and you're right to note that's a big piece of the puzzle).

But he definitely achieved his goal of creating a homage to ancient literature with LOTR. (Pastiche is a hideous way to describe it and parody is right out!) My wife, for example, really responded to the epic themes in Fellowship (she wasn't able to go to TTT with me today). She immediately told me it reminded her of when she read the Illiad. Then she asked me if it was based on any real world mythology.

[mtkafka]

I'll admit Tolkien isn't the best writer (stylistically he's good but not great). He's a good writer that wrote a great accidental (unintentional) 'epic' that many love and admire (me one of them). If I can complain about Shakespeare's boring soliloquies I can complain about Tolkien's lack of sex. But anyway, Tolkien can be ripped apart for many things. But then again, many great writers I can find an issue with. I would have no problem rating LOTR high on alist of greatest books as I would as say something like Huckleberry Finn or Martian Time Slip. Its all subjective to me. I think Camus is funny and Joyce a bore. Salinger is an idiot and PK Dick is an 'unknown' great. I have my own list. And I'm sure everybody does too... anway, Tolkien is pretty good. nuff said.

etc

[Mark Asher]

"From what I've read of them, he's created something stylistically on par with what we consider ancient literature, and I think by that definition you can call LOTR literature."

Yeah, well that's a dumb definition of literature. I can ape a Shakespearean sonnet, but that's a far cry from creating something literary.

"You can study Tolkien using the same methods, comparisons, and tools as you study Beowulf, Homer, or other ancient stories."

You can study any piece of writing in a similar manner. I suppose you're claiming that studying Tolkien in such a way reveals something? What does it reveal? Does the study of Tolkien's invented Middle Earth languages reveal anything of interest? After we get done with those, lets move on to studying Klingon.

[Gundaliro]

Salinger is an idiot

Jesus fuck, that's a harsh statement. Why do you say this, honestly? Certainly, Catcher gets a lot of undeserved attention, but some of his other books are really amazing. Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters is one I point to.

Since this is a Tolkien thread, here's my Tolkien-as-literature two-cents: Never managed to read the trilogy, even though I bought a copy of Return of the King when I was a little kid, mostly due to the Appendices -- not the best intro to start with the last book. Anyhow, the writing struck me as really baroque and detailed, and really not to my taste. I spent a good portion of my formative years reading fantasy and sci-fi novels, and might have been poisoned by D-grade Eddings "epics" into thinking Tolkien's books were similarly boring; I don't think I had the appreciation for all the nuances he put in, and the history and backstory he developed.

That said, I definitely agree with comment that the derivative schlock that followed his work was probably what ruined his reputation, but the question is, why did his work appeal to people who can churn out cut-rate versions of writing? Why is it not possible to mimic Joyce? That's the real difference and why one is considered literature and the other isn't. You can summarize the essence of Lord of the Rings in one sentence, albeit a long one, but I don't think you could do so with Ulysses, or say, Of Human Bondage or any other books that are literature in the sense of bringing insight into human behaviour. The characters of LotR work as archetypes, as grand, overbroad impressions, but most of them are essentially one-dimensional. It's interesting that, due to the sheer number of characters, Tolkien of course wouldn't have been able to flesh out the characterizations in the space he was given (honestly, I doubt he had the skill to do it, either) -- epics are just not what we consider literature. In that sense, I definitely agree with the comment that Tolkien's work can be seen as "ancient literature" -- except for the fact that he wrote it in the 20th century, so to give it that mantle is kind of stupid. He made a facsimile of "ancient literature", just like I'm sure someone a few thousand years might write some kind of homage to Joyce that would be impressive, but a throwback for its time, more a work of scholarship than insight.

[Ben Sones]

His work doesn't examine the experience of being human in the way that literature does, however.

I don't know if that's the most pretentious definition of literature that I've ever seen or not, but it's close. Sorry if Tolkien's work doesn't make your breath catch in your throat in the same way that Joyce's sometimes-incoherent ramblings apparently do. I consider it to be one of the best works of western literature. And by "literature" I do not mean "post-modern drivel that confuses deconstruction, thinly veiled political advocacy, and cumbersome allegory with worth or relevance." If that's what gets your water works flowing, more power to you. But drop the literari elitist crap.


That said, I definitely agree with comment that the derivative schlock that followed his work was probably what ruined his reputation, but the question is, why did his work appeal to people who can churn out cut-rate versions of writing?

More to the point, if Joyce's work is such a poignant commentary on "what it means to be human," then why does his work lack the sort of broad appeal that encourages imitation?

[Gundaliro]

More to the point, if Joyce's work is such a poignant commentary on "what it means to be human," then why does his work lack the sort of broad appeal that encourages imitation?

Well, I didn't say the part about "what it means to be human" -- what I did say was that I thought Tolkien's characterizations were overbroad, meaning in my mind that they were relatively simple. That's part of the reason it appeals to schlock writers, who can manipulate plot and these archetypal characters, without pausing to dwell on the idiosyncracies you'd actually find in real people, non-"epic" emotions and issues. It's kind of like the difference between pure super-hero comics, which are at their best, still rude facsimiles of real people and some of the stuff that's stupidly called "adult comics". It's much easier to appeal to a great deal of people with super-hero comics, and I'm sure more work has been inspired by reading those, but that doesn't mean they're the most amazing pieces of work to ever bless the earth.

Similarly, Tolkien's stuff is great reading for many, but I think the real measure is whether the work he inspires is worthy literature on its own, and most often it isn't. The stuff that has been inspired by Joyce (and there's more than you know) is not obviously "Joyce-like" in the way that Tolkien-inspired work is "Tolkien-like" -- the authors have transcended basic plotlines and character archetypes.

[Ben Sones]

I don't want to swerve into a disapproval of Joyce (whom I consider to be highly overrated, but not a bad writer). But I do disagree with the equation of the epic literary form with schlock. Archetypical epics have been with us for thousands of years, and a few decades of post-modern literature does not deprive them of all value. At least not for me. I also do not equate difficulty of execution with quality. I'm sure that Finnegan's Wake was extraordinarily difficult to write, but that does not make it a great book any more than the extraordinary technical achievement of Star Wars Episode I makes it a good film.

[antlers]

Tolkien is a cultural figure and not a literary one--which is not to reduce his significance at all. He is the font and wellspring of so much of geek culture, valorizing the idea that a totally invented world could be more fun and interesting to think about than the real one. I think it is appropriate that his work appeared at the dawn of the "Software Age," which is all about totally invented worlds with intricate, arbitrary rules that someone just made up, but that are nevertheless carefully observed.

[Mark Asher]

His work doesn't examine the experience of being human in the way that literature does, however.

I don't know if that's the most pretentious definition of literature that I've ever seen or not, but it's close. Sorry if Tolkien's work doesn't make your breath catch in your throat in the same way that Joyce's sometimes-incoherent ramblings apparently do. I consider it to be one of the best works of western literature. And by "literature" I do not mean "post-modern drivel that confuses deconstruction, thinly veiled political advocacy, and cumbersome allegory with worth or relevance." If that's what gets your water works flowing, more power to you. But drop the literari elitist crap.

What's elitist about wanting literature to be challenging, to be revealing, to help us see ourselves in new ways?

Post-modern? Hey, most of it will be forgotten. We don't have the distance from it to really know what's going to last. Like any era, most of it is bad, just like most of the stuff written when LotR was published was also bad.

Man, claiming LotR is one of the best works of western literature strikes me as really crazy. Does it challenge you in any way? I don't even think the writing is all that interesting. The story and invented mythology are great, but everything else about strikes me as nothing better than any other fantasy novel. It's not even up to Martin's Game of Thrones series.


That said, I definitely agree with comment that the derivative schlock that followed his work was probably what ruined his reputation, but the question is, why did his work appeal to people who can churn out cut-rate versions of writing?

For the same reason that people are scrambing to turn out Harry Potter imitations. $$$


More to the point, if Joyce's work is such a poignant commentary on "what it means to be human," then why does his work lack the sort of broad appeal that encourages imitation?

Joyce's work was influential among his contemporaries and writers that followed.

[Slothrop]

I first read LoTR as a way to avoid having to read my assignments in a graduate course in literature of the Middle Ages. I was probably in the perfect frame of mind for Tolkien, as it struck me as very similar in some ways to the chansons and epics. LoTR seemed very familiar, but compared to what I had to read in class, Tolkien seemed very easy to relate to.

Tolkien was definitely nostalgic for the world when everyone believed in myths as truth. These books always struck me as very nostalgic, because they were set as the story of the end of the Third (or Second?) Age, when the magic died and the elves moved out of town. Sigh. Then the end of the last book makes me feel nostalgic for the story itself, and I don't want it to end! Poor Frodo, who never thought he would survive, gets to go back to the Shire, but can never really have peace again until his time comes to go to the Grey Havens. The whole thing is fairly hokey, but it still gives me goosebumps and a lump in my chest for some reason. :?

[SpoofyChop]

Well I tracked down some LOTR fanfic for everybody. Also some "poetry."

I think it might be literature because it examines the human condition or something or another.

Here (http://www.ecthelion.net/writing.html) it is!

[Brian Koontz]

Tolkien is a cultural figure and not a literary one--which is not to reduce his significance at all. He is the font and wellspring of so much of geek culture, valorizing the idea that a totally invented world could be more fun and interesting to think about than the real one. I think it is appropriate that his work appeared at the dawn of the "Software Age," which is all about totally invented worlds with intricate, arbitrary rules that someone just made up, but that are nevertheless carefully observed.

This is spot on with the added notation that this "invented" world is a derivative of elements of the real world. Its more accurate to call it a "derived" world than an invented one.

The rules may well be intricate but they are in no way arbitrary... they are determined from the inspiration... the real world combined with the art of the writer.

[Desslock]

Man, claiming LotR is one of the best works of western literature strikes me as really crazy

Maybe, but any claim to the contrary is, in fact, really crazy.

[DaveC]

Man, claiming LotR is one of the best works of western literature strikes me as really crazy

Maybe, but any claim to the contrary is, in fact, really crazy.

The LotR trilogy is seminal western fantasy, it's the archetype that most modern fantasy points to. For me it got me into reading as a teen and I am grateful for that. It's effect on western culture can't be ignored.

[Mark Asher]

Man, claiming LotR is one of the best works of western literature strikes me as really crazy

Maybe, but any claim to the contrary is, in fact, really crazy.

The LotR trilogy is seminal western fantasy, it's the archetype that most modern fantasy points to. For me it got me into reading as a teen and I am grateful for that. It's effect on western culture can't be ignored.

What effect did it spawn? It laid the groundwork for schmaltzy fantasy fiction and D&D. Has it really had much of an effect on western culture otherwise? Do people know what balrogs and orcs are because of LotR? Is that common knowlege now? Seems to me it's had a lot of impact on writers and fans of fantasy fiction and fantasy games, but that's about it.

[Mark Asher]

Man, claiming LotR is one of the best works of western literature strikes me as really crazy

Maybe, but any claim to the contrary is, in fact, really crazy.

Ok. Do any of the characters in LotR have any depth whatsoever? Aren't they all flat, one-dimensional characters? Are there any interesting thematic elements in the book besides evil Sauron is bad and the merry elves are good? The work is simplistic in all but the plotting and the depth of the mythology Tolkien created. The latter's certainly quite an achievment, but it strikes me more as the work of a hermit stuck in a cabin with nothing to do but invent a fantasy world. At this point the Forgotten Realms setting seems just as interesting to me as an imagined world.

Just compare LotR and it's hundreds and hundreds of pages to Shakespear's King Lear, which you can read in an evening. They're both fairy-tales of sorts, one epic and one about a foolish old king who had three daughters and didn't know that two of them were evil. Look at how the characters grow and change and gain self-knowledge in King Lear, look at all the observations of life and family relationships the play makes, and then look at LotR. What's there? How do the characters grow? How do they change? When you finish the books, what are you left with? Just trivial thoughts about who is related to Elrond and just what the Uruk-Hai (sic) are, etc. Just look at the kinds of discussions on these boards about the books and the movies. It's all trivia. Why some orcs could climb walls. What the rings are. Who made them and with whom. Etc. I don't see that there's any way to make a case for LotR as great literature. Great read? Sure. Fantastic achievement? Ok. Up there with the best books of western culture. Uh, no.

[Desslock]

Man, claiming LotR is one of the best works of western literature strikes me as really crazy

Maybe, but any claim to the contrary is, in fact, really crazy.

Ok. Up there with the best books of western culture. Uh, no.

Not just up there - actually the best.

I disagree extremely strongly with every point you mentioned, and started writing a detailed reply, but I just think we'll agree to disagree on this one. One thing I will note is that you completely ignore the actual quality of his "writing" - the elegance of the style and his choice of words to express his ideas, themes, and just character dialogue. I find his writing just incredibly beautiful.

[Guestacy]

I consider it to be one of the best works of western literature. And by "literature" I do not mean "post-modern drivel that confuses deconstruction, thinly veiled political advocacy, and cumbersome allegory with worth or relevance." If that's what gets your water works flowing, more power to you. But drop the literari elitist crap.
You do realize that you're doing the exact same thing, right? You're as elitist--in fact, moreso--than Asher.


More to the point, if Joyce's work is such a poignant commentary on "what it means to be human," then why does his work lack the sort of broad appeal that encourages imitation?
Ever heard of William Faulkner, to mention one brilliant writer clearly influenced by Joyce? Saying Joyce wasn't influential shows such a profound lack of knowledge of 20th century literature that it makes this discussion pretty much moot.

Tolkien r0xx0rz. Anything remotely complex is pretentious crap!

[Guestacy]

Just out of curiosity, to those who claim Lord of the Rings is the finest work of western literature, or whatever you claim it is, have you had a significant number of classes or studied all of western literature to the level you've examined Tolkien?

It's cool to say Lord of the Rings is your favorite book series, or the best you've ever read, but if you're going to go with the "best ever" vibe, you better have done some serious reading... I can think of a few 20th century writers whose works resonate stronger, in terms of influencing others and saying things about what it's like to be a human, a man, a woman, an American, a Southerner, whatever... Obviously this is all opinion, but I'm genuinely curious what people get from learning about hobbits, elves, and dwarves? It's undeniably entertaining, but are people confusing detail with depth? For people that study Tolkien, they uncover a richness in detail, but what does it really... say about anything? I honestly don't know. I just think it's an interesting and detailed world, drawn in black and white and devoid of sex. It's almost... Victorian. (Er, probably not.)

This doesn't diminish Tolkien's accomplishments in any way, but I'm not sure Middle Earth is a grander creation than Faulkner's fictional Mississippi. I know one is grounded in reality, and as such resonates stronger with me.

And The Sound and the Fury kicks Lord of the Rings' ass. Nyah, nyah.

[Guestacy]

Tolkien is a cultural figure and not a literary one--which is not to reduce his significance at all. He is the font and wellspring of so much of geek culture, valorizing the idea that a totally invented world could be more fun and interesting to think about than the real one. I think it is appropriate that his work appeared at the dawn of the "Software Age," which is all about totally invented worlds with intricate, arbitrary rules that someone just made up, but that are nevertheless carefully observed.
That's a really brilliant observation, and really got me thinking. Thanks.

[Desslock]

It's cool to say Lord of the Rings is your favorite book series, or the best you've ever read, but if you're going to go with the "best ever" vibe, you better have done some serious reading...

Agreed.

[Guestacy]

And I think "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is the best English language novel I've ever read, probably the best "American" novel ever. I never get the sense from a Lord of the Rings that it's about something bigger than creating myth and telling an epic story, which itself if fine and all, but lots of people have done this, though mostly not as well.

The moment when Huck decides he'll "go to hell" and save Jim is what makes Huck Finn superior literature. At that moment it transcends story, adventure, and mythology (Twain was definitely a myth maker). It says more about life in his time with one sentence than I think Tolkien said in three books covering thousands of pages. That it still resonates today is a testament to the brilliance of the book specifically and of Twain in general.

But that's just me.

[TimElhajj]

And I think "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is the best English language novel I've ever read, probably the best "American" novel ever.

This is an opinion held by many, but I disagree strongly. The lousy ending is what holds it back. Perhaps if he were to have actually finished it...

[Toddy]

It's Beowulf, the Kalava, the Illiad and Odyssey, Nordic mythology, and maybe, Le Morte d'Arthur. I've been wading through some of those and I'd say, LOTR stands well in that company.


Uh, no. It's not. It's not even close. While Tolkien was clearly influenced by sagas, he was not at all influenced by ancient literature as a whole. There is more honest humanity in fifteen lines of The Iliad than there is in all of Tolkien's works, from Leaf by Niggle or whatever the fuck it's called (Desslock?) to Return of the King. Also, Tolkien's more a creature of the Victorian generation that was almost entirely killed off in the First World War than he is some guy sprung out of Nordic tenth century myths. I admire Lord of the Rings immensely, but to say it is in the tradition of heroic sagas from Northern Europe is ridiculous. All the servitude, noble kingship, and classism make LOTR a romantic creature of the Victorian era. That's actually the one thing that most infuriates me about the book today.

[Chris Nahr]

I disagree extremely strongly with every point you mentioned, and started writing a detailed reply, but I just think we'll agree to disagree on this one. One thing I will note is that you completely ignore the actual quality of his "writing" - the elegance of the style and his choice of words to express his ideas, themes, and just character dialogue. I find his writing just incredibly beautiful.

Me too. I don't know what all this "tell us about ourselves" stuff is supposed to be about. What is this, literature as a psychology class? Literature is about putting letters next to each other in beautiful ways, and Tolkien clearly was a master of that art.

[Toddy]

You can study any piece of writing in a similar manner. I suppose you're claiming that studying Tolkien in such a way reveals something? What does it reveal? Does the study of Tolkien's invented Middle Earth languages reveal anything of interest? After we get done with those, lets move on to studying Klingon.

That really sums it up for me. I've read Lord of the Rings at least seven or eight times since I was a little kid, and as much as some of the characters and scenes are impressed on my memory, there isn't anything there that speaks to me, that gives me even the tiniest bit of illumination into the human condition. I mean, what does it say? Never surrender! Never give into temptation! Fight evil! Mix things around a bit and you've got an Nike ad campaign, not a great work of literature.

And I'm amazed at the way some of you kick around Joyce. Have any of you critics actually read any of his work? I can't imagine how any rational person could dismiss the man's accomplishments so readily, and I'm not even an real admirer of the guy.

[Mark Asher]

Joyce gets kicked around over Finnegan's Wake, which is all but unapproachable.

[Anonymous]

And I'm amazed at the way some of you kick around Joyce. Have any of you critics actually read any of his work? I can't imagine how any rational person could dismiss the man's accomplishments so readily, and I'm not even an real admirer of the guy.

I'm amazed too--different strokes for different folks I guess, but I'm confused when people don't understand the genius of Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. In addition to great character developement and an examination of morality, the language is beautiful, and Joyce plays with it beautifully. I think his characterizations from moo-cow to highly educated author are incredibly well done and flow together seamlessly. And it's very easy to read.

But I hate giving a quick summary of this incredible book because I always think that I'm leaving something out.

But I just don't have much to say about Tolkein; once in awhile his language is pretty, but I think that's mainly in the first half of FOTR when he's also being a bit whimsical. I don't know if he got lazy (or had deadlines looming) or decided to get serious, but I find his style just tapers off. The description by Legolas of Aragorn leading the army of shadows is a great example: it should be exciting or at least marginally interesting but it just ends up being a big bore.

But as a child I really loved the story, so I still have some nostalgia for it.

[graller]

I am not claiming Tolkien as the Greatest.Writer.Evar but what the hell is up with all you pretentious asses ranting about how writing must illuminate the human condition or its meaningless drivel not worth the paper on which it is printed? I am sorry but any writing that can provoke an emotional response from me, or better yet stay in my mind years and 1000's of books later is a hell of an accomplishment. I have not read LOTR in 10 years but I can quote rhyme and verse from his fictional world. I would take Tolkien over any of the post modern crap where the author is trying so hard to say "Look at me, look at the perfect symmetry of my technical writing, look at the depths of human suffering hidden under the impenetrably dense prose that I have created!!".

[TimElhajj]

Tolkien ... doesn't examine the experience of being human in the way that literature does, however.

Mark, don't you think holding up an examination of the human experience as the single requisite of literature is a little myopic?

LOL, the original Star Trek attempted to do this with most every episode. Capt. Kirk would use the last 5 minutes to explain to the aliens what it means to be human.

Desslock has a point. It has to have some beauty, some nuance. To be honest, I am sorry Desslock has chosen not to respond to the point because I would be interested to see what he has to say.

[Ben Sones]

And I'm amazed at the way some of you kick around Joyce. Have any of you critics actually read any of his work? I can't imagine how any rational person could dismiss the man's accomplishments so readily, and I'm not even an real admirer of the guy.

I was speaking mostly about FInnegan's Wake, although I do believe that Joyce is the most overrated author of the 20th century. He's good, don't get me wrong, but Faulkner has several books that I'd rate as better than Ulysses in a second (As I Lay Dying comes to mind).

[Jim F.]

My favorite definition of literature is "Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value"

Now you can debate all day between Joyce and Tolkein, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could disagree that both these writers fit the stated definition.

For me, a book becomes literature when I can read it and truly consider it art. Tolkein's sweeping themes, writing style, and attention to detail take it beyond a simple set of books and turns it into an artistic accomplishment. It evokes an emotional response within me, not just during the moments that it was meant to, that most writing can never do. The descriptions of the world itself cause me to feel joy for what once was and sadness for what has been lost. And it's all fake. To be able to generate such a complex emotional response with simple words on a page is amazing to me.

I have read thousands of books, but I consider very few of them to be works of art. Even books that I rate amongst my favorites like Dune, The Count of Monte Cristo, and the Thomas the Unbeliever series, are great books but lack that certain something for me. That certain something is in Lord of The Rings, but if you asked me to tell you what LoTRs has that Thomas the Unbeliever doesn't, I'd be at a loss.

To Kill A Mockingbird and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer are 2 other books that manage to give that same feeling while I'm reading them.
[/i]

[Mark Asher]

I am not claiming Tolkien as the Greatest.Writer.Evar but what the hell is up with all you pretentious asses ranting about how writing must illuminate the human condition or its meaningless drivel not worth the paper on which it is printed? I am sorry but any writing that can provoke an emotional response from me, or better yet stay in my mind years and 1000's of books later is a hell of an accomplishment. I have not read LOTR in 10 years but I can quote rhyme and verse from his fictional world. I would take Tolkien over any of the post modern crap where the author is trying so hard to say "Look at me, look at the perfect symmetry of my technical writing, look at the depths of human suffering hidden under the impenetrably dense prose that I have created!!".

It's weird how posting a message saying LotR isn't literature or one of the great books of western culture provokes personal attacks.

Lots of writing (and other art) can evoke an emotional response. Lots of TV ads can do that as well. I've also seen people read greeting card verse and wonder aloud why more poetry can't be like that. It takes all kinds, I guess.

[Jason Becker]

When you wipe away all the high brow analogy as to why Tolkein can't be considered "great literature" is just boils done to the fantasy label for some people. They just don't want to give it credit because it has elves, dwarves, and orcs in it. Basically a bunch pretentious bullshit.

[Mark Asher]

My favorite definition of literature is "Imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value"

Now you can debate all day between Joyce and Tolkein, but I find it hard to believe that anyone could disagree that both these writers fit the stated definition. [/i]

I guess the point of contention here is "recognized artistic value", because otherwise the rest of the definition fits just about every novel ever published. I think it's safe to say that LotR isn't part of the canon at this point, so it's yet to achieve the recognition that the works of Joyce, Hemingway, Faulkner, and many others have received.

I wonder if some of the strong feelings for LotR aren't due to people reading it as children or early teens? I look back at some of the authors who impressed me when I was 14 and shudder now, their work is so mawkish or simple-minded.

[Mark Asher]

When you wipe away all the high brow analogy as to why Tolkein can't be considered "great literature" is just boils done to the fantasy label for some people. They just don't want to give it credit because it has elves, dwarves, and orcs in it. Basically a bunch pretentious bullshit.

So what's the case for arguing that LotR is great literature? I've read LotR and great literature, and LotR isn't even close. I don't even think it's particulary well-written. Tolkien labors on and on with backstory details that don't even matter in the end because they have little or no impact on the story or the characters (who are flat and never change, unless you consider Gandalf changing from gray to white robes a change). It's great stuff if you want to understand the world he created, but it gets in the way of the story. I also think he suffers from purple prose.

[Guestacy]

I am not claiming Tolkien as the Greatest.Writer.Evar but what the hell is up with all you pretentious asses ranting about how writing must illuminate the human condition or its meaningless drivel not worth the paper on which it is printed? I am sorry but any writing that can provoke an emotional response from me, or better yet stay in my mind years and 1000's of books later is a hell of an accomplishment. I have not read LOTR in 10 years but I can quote rhyme and verse from his fictional world. I would take Tolkien over any of the post modern crap where the author is trying so hard to say "Look at me, look at the perfect symmetry of my technical writing, look at the depths of human suffering hidden under the impenetrably dense prose that I have created!!".
Who said its meaningless drivel? Saying Lord of the Rings isn't "the greatest book ever written" in no way diminishes its quality. I don't personally care for it, but I'd hardly call anyone who does like it an "elf-loving ass" or some other derogatory term.

And again, who mentioned "post modern crap" blah blah blah? Is that Hemingway? Twain? Faulkner? All of those writers wrote with incredible clarity. I'd agree Joyce circa Finnegan's Wake is... impossible to read comes to mind... but that doesn't make the awe-inspiring accomplishment that is Dubliners or Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man any less powerful or important. I'm not as into Ulysses as others, but I'll give it that people who've studied works like this a lot more than I have claim it's brilliant, so I'm willing to believe that, to them at least, it is.

Are you that insecure that you can't possibly consider that a book you love, that you've memorized, isn't considered by others as good as other works? No one's saying you're a bad person, or have wasted your life reading or studying the works of Tolkien. But the venom... it's kind of fifth-grade tantrum, isn't it?

[Guestacy]

Me too. I don't know what all this "tell us about ourselves" stuff is supposed to be about. What is this, literature as a psychology class? Literature is about putting letters next to each other in beautiful ways, and Tolkien clearly was a master of that art.
I don't necessarily agree that Tolkien was a master of writing beautiful prose (he was inconsistent, at best; some passages are beautiful, others dry as toast), but a lot of people can form beautiful sentences that convey little or no meaning beyond their actual beauty. But making that the only criteria for literature sells short its potential. Geat literature transcends simply "putting letters next to each other in beautiful ways," just as great art transcends "putting paint on canvas in beautiful ways" or great movies "put images on film in beautiful ways".

And if you're afraid of pretentious arty shit, which I always find odd (is it because people are afraid of appearing pretentious or smart? Or fruity?), just read some Hemingway. With no pretension, he transcends merely putting words together. And he doesn't write very pretty, either. Yet his books were often profound, delivered great statements on men, war, fishing... whatever.

[Guestacy]

Mark, don't you think holding up an examination of the human experience as the single requisite of literature is a little myopic?
It's not the single requisite, because as you note with Star Trek, you don't just have to do it, you have to do it well.

If you oversimplify these things, you end up with something dumb, like saying you just need a lot of pages for a story to be considered "epic." Which makes the average Danielle Steele novel the equal of Lord of the Rings.

[Guestacy]

When you wipe away all the high brow analogy as to why Tolkein can't be considered "great literature" is just boils done to the fantasy label for some people. They just don't want to give it credit because it has elves, dwarves, and orcs in it. Basically a bunch pretentious bullshit.
It has nothing to do with fantasy trappings. It's that some of us find the overall themes overly simplistic, or at least drawn in overly simplistic terms, with detail substituting for depth. A lot of people dig those details, which is cool and all as it gives them a richness to this fantasy world that makes it seem more "real." But again, it doesn't actually delve enough into the "who, what, why" for some of us. If that makes me pretentious, so be it.

[Wholly Schmidt]

It's weird how posting a message saying LotR isn't literature or one of the great books of western culture provokes personal attacks.

Mark, come on, when did personal attacks in response to a difference of opinion on the internet become weird? :)

[mtkafka]

hehe, Hemingway is overrated. Steinbeck is much better.

etc

[Desslock]

So what's the case for arguing that LotR is great literature? I've read LotR and great literature, and LotR isn't even close.

Well, that's conclusive then. Oh, wait -- I've also read "great literature", and read LotR, and feel that LotR is not only close to great literature -- it's as good as literature can get. Back we go around again.

You just seem to have a hate-on for it, consistently posting inflammatory posts like "it isn't even well-written". If nothing else, the fact that the author was a language scholar, and a professor at Oxford, makes that statement ridiculous.

It's one thing to disagree, but the condescending tone you guys consistently opt for is just goofy. It's not as if our statements that we think Tolkien wrote great literature are unique -- the merits of Tolkien's work, as literature, is a debate that's gone on since the original release of the books, with plenty-o well read commentors proclaiming Tolkien's work as great literature. Around the year 2000, he was consistently proclaimed Author of the Century, and Lord of Rings was designated as the book of the Century (this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/061812764X/103-1341864-8283864?vi=glance#product-details provides some good background to these debates).

I can understand you not agreeing with that conclusion, or even dismissing it as populist hyperbole, but you and whoever's latest alias is guestacy (not even going there) keep acting as though it's preposterous that people might actually think Lord of the Rings is great literature, when in fact it's a very common view.

[graller]

Mark et al - Sorry you guys hit a nerve with me this morning. I hated it in 10th grade when my English teacher tried to tell me what a story meant and I hate it now when someone shoves an opinion at me like there is no possible other opinion that carries any merit. For the record....I actually have read and enjoyed Joyce. I own the complete Shakespeare and have read them all. I wade thru Umberto Eco and find the time to love Huck Finn and Ayn Rand. But I draw a line when someone tells me a piece of literature is no good because it "does not delve into the depths of the human condition". Sorry but I just don't buy that one. Why don't we just agree to disagree on it then.

[Brian Koontz]

I've been leafing through the early parts of FOTR to look for bad writing (not bad grammar mind you) and it didn't take me long to find some.

Page 60 lists items that Bilbo willed to relatives, none of which have any importance to ANYTHING. About the best you can say of this section is that it helps flesh out the character of the Hobbit race a slight bit... but wasn't The Hobbit supposed to do that?

All kinds of names of hobbits are used here, for purposes unknown.

Tolkien writes in a style as if he has all the time in the world and he's planning to use all of that time to write his books. And thus he subjects the reader to an insane level of detail (not VALUABLE detail mind you, a great deal of tedious detail).

Tolkien is wasteful with words... he could have told his story in half the words.

Tolkien is not a great writer. World creator? Yep. Highly influential on culture? Yep. Great writer? Nope.

[Anonymous]

You just seem to have a hate-on for it, consistently posting inflammatory posts like "it isn't even well-written". If nothing else, the fact that the author was a language scholar, and a professor at Oxford, makes that statement ridiculous.


Give me a break. Nobody here has a "hate-on" for LotR, at least not nearly as much as you have a hardon for it. Asher, et al have reasonably argued, indirectly, what good literature is, and LotR hasn't passed that test. Instead of debating it, YOU just make condescending posts suggesting that people are ridiculous for not thinking it's the greateset book evar.

Unless you consider "[he] was a language scholar..." to be proof that he was good writer? This baffles me. Are you suggesting that all language scholars and professors are good writers of novels? I don't think that's actually in their job description.



I think if anyone is guilty of condescension then it's you desslock. Picking one goofy novel as the best work of western literature? Man, you clearly haven't read enough.

[Guestacy]

You just seem to have a hate-on for it, consistently posting inflammatory posts like "it isn't even well-written". If nothing else, the fact that the author was a language scholar, and a professor at Oxford, makes that statement ridiculous.
Actually, his statement is opinion, yours is logically flawed, your implication being all language scholars and professors get an automatic "good writer" card and are somehow above any form of criticism.

I don't think I've been condescending. I've repeatedly said I understand that it's popular, that people like it, and I don't think it's preposterous that people think it's great literature, I just disagree with that assessment and have provided a few vague reasons why. Based on reading this thread, I'm inclined to say the defenders of Tolkien are considerably more condescending and rabid than the critics, though.

If we were to sit here and discuss whether Star Wars or Empire Strikes Back is the greatest film ever made, which is a common view as well, the cineastes would dismiss that notion as preposterous, just populist hyperbole. And people would chime in about how it's not great film, and people would have all of their examples, and others would dismiss those as pretentious, and the cycle would repeat itself. Funny, that.

[mtkafka]

I think its kind of pointless with people talking about the western 'canon' or the literary influence when in this day and age it means crap (does anybody really care?). Even the idea of a 'canon' is pretty recent... considering modern criticism really didn't start much til after Freud. come to think of it the novel as a form is pretty much recent in the literary history of things. And if genre fiction cannot even be considered part of this so called 'canon' of humanity... whats the point? what deems something worthy? who or what? it wasn't until the French found Poe that Americans loved him. The English discovered Whitman before we did. Books like Shelly's Frankenstein and Wizard of Oz or Alice in Wonderland are fantasies considered to be influential and worthy of respect, why not include LoTR on this list? LoTR is influential. It has affected more than just fanboi's. (and then you say so was star trek). Then does it have to say something about our time to be relevant? Does it have to be deeply philosophical? Does it have to stylisitcally be supreme to anything else out at its time to be important?

I look at it tjhis way. Tolkien never intended this book to be big or important or some great literary masterpiece. BUT its obvious Tolkien spent alot of his time and effort and work and LIFE on Middle Earth without the pretense except to have people enjoy the books. Ironically from this many do consider LoTR to be life changing, philosophical, an EVERYMAN chronicle of Frodo and Sam for the 20th century. Its not just for the English speaking that love this book, its the world that loves Tolkien. Hey, maybe the worlds stupid, maybe we should all be reading Joyce and having epiphanies on every page of Finnegan's Wake.

I thjink the barometer of worth is what else previous to Tolkien is like Tolkien? Not much that I know of, unless you count George Macdonalds christian fairytales or even Hans Christian Andersen being somewhat close in spirit. There's really nothing close in terms of a prose novel fantasy complete with poetry, invented languages, mythology and even whole friggin family trees. This doesn't mean it should be literary (whatever the hell it means these days), but it shows the art in the effort as was Joyce with his Dublin or Faulkner with his Mississippi or Hemingway in his reinvented sadmen (snore) in novels.

Critically I admire Tolkien for creating a personal world of his own imagination that doesn't feel created. It feels like it always was. Yeah sounds cheesy, but this isn't a sentiment I'm alone on. Middle Earth was so meticulously created with noble characters and hardly any means of self serving and over involved philosophizing or preaching in its approach (and comig from Tolkien a devout Catholic and anti-technology nature- lover its surprising) LoTR espuoses 'simpleminded' ideals that people do want to adhere to. Its a modern idyllic, a modern romance in the old sense. An anti epic in that the little man DOES save the world (Gollum?). imo, its probably deep down the first real Christian epic, its a humble epic. There isn't any political agenda or literary wit or clever puzzles in the book (at least in face value). Its a straught story. But even then it still comes off monumental, believable in its creation and memorable and honest for a lot of people. This is not easy to do (unless you think Star Trek and soap opears are like LoTR), otherwise there would be millions of Tolkien copycats all around. If being able to get millions of people to feel with the characters and care for what they stand for and wanting to know more of Middle Earth doesn't prove Tolkien's artistry or worth, then I think theres something wrong with critics that can't consider Tolkien literature. It amazes me that people cant even consider the art of what Tolkien did and how much many love him for it. Its like saying the Beatles really arent worth much because its rock and roll.

But anyway, back to whatever.

etc

[mtkafka]

Btw on Joyce, since Joyce seems to be the barometer of what it means to be a literary reader.. i consider Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake the direct descendant of Tristam Shandy, boring personal works for the very few. I put Samuel Beckett and Yeats as better writers of Irish descent! At least they are accesible and as 'deep' as Joyce. Dont get me wrong though, Joyce's short stories are good in the Chekov realist sense, they are very good. But what else have you got with Joyce beiusdes Dubliners and Portrait but two unintellegible novels except to the college crowd. Hey, its the antipopular 'not even the Star Trek people can get it! so it must be good!' novels i guess. Its ironic that the same people who love Joyce's monumental epic novels give similar reasons as to why people like Tolkien (it life affirming! it upholds the common man!). Hypocrites.

And if you HAVE read Ulysses and Finnegan's Wake. Give me an idea of what its about. All you anti Tolkien dudes still haven't told me. And no cheating. Cliff notes dont count.

etc

[Mark Asher]

Er, how can my statements be considered inflammatory? They're what I believe. Just as you guys are sure that Tolkien is great literature, I'm just as sure he isn't. Why are my comments out of line? I'd think that citing LotR as not only great literature but the single greatest piece of western literature is a bit inflammatory. That's way out there.

What does make LotR so great? No one seems to have an answer, other than his writing is beautiful. Do the characters in LotR ever change? Do they grow? Just imagine what they're going through, and yet they learn nothing about themselves or anything else. Doesn't that seem odd? Is there even a single moment in the thousand or so pages of LotR where any of the characters seem to have some new insight into life? Shouldn't a work of great literature leave you musing about the meaning of what you just read? I don't mean it should be mysterious -- King Lear isn't the least bit mysterious, yet there are so many different ways to think about Lear. How many different ways are there to think about LotR? If you re-read it, do you ever find anything new other than the minutae of details you previously overlooked?

[Mark Asher]

"But I draw a line when someone tells me a piece of literature is no good because it "does not delve into the depths of the human condition"."

You're exaggerating for effect, but does a work that offers no insight into life whatsoever deserve a place alongside the great books? I don't think it does, but of course the question is does LotR fail this test? I think it does. It's as simple as that for me.

And just to be inflammatory, I don't think Tolkien's a particulary interesting stylist as a writer, yet there are lots of great works that aren't stylistic tour de forces.

[mtkafka]

You can say the same thing of Cervantes style. He really doesnt have any style. In fact the prose novel wasn't meant to really be stylisitc. Was Guilliver's Travel stylisitc? What about War and Peace? The coda of the prose novel when it began was 'trash' novel. Prose novels were comic books before they were literature because too many people could read it (its too popular!), same with Elizabethan theater. Imagine if TS Eliot never produced his criticism on the mystic English poets, its all relative and changes all the time this literary canon we invent.

I think this discussion is more about semantics than anything. 'Literature' to me is books or poems or plays -anything using words- that should be read. I think Tolkien should at least be read once by everybody as I think most of Shakespeares tragedies should. I think alot of people will get out of Tolkien's LoTR what many in the past got exactly out of something like The Faerie Queen or Morte de Arthur in there respective times. Thats my idea of literature. As subjective as anybody elses. If there is a winning objective formula on what literature is I'd like to know.

etc

[Toddy]

I wonder if some of the strong feelings for LotR aren't due to people reading it as children or early teens? I look back at some of the authors who impressed me when I was 14 and shudder now, their work is so mawkish or simple-minded.

I know that's part of the attraction for me. If I had read LOTR for the first time in my early twenties, or even my late teens, I don't know if I would have been able to finish The Two Towers. And The Return of the King, which I've just finished re-reading today, is as ungainly as a novel gets. The story never really builds to a conclusion. After all the build-up, all the tension, Frodo and Sam go through Mordor and climb Mount Doom -- presumably the most arduous part of the whole journey -- in something like three chapters. Gollum falls into the Crack of Doom (can anyone read that without, um, cracking up?), the bad guys run away...and then comes another 70 pages or so of elven accolades, the crowning of a king who barely factors into the story in the closing 300 pages or so aside from that Paths of the Dead stuff, and the truly bizarre sight of great wizard Saruman popping up in the Shire as some kind of rogue capitalist with the name of a mobster. There's something to be said about moving away from convention, but the ending of LOTR has always seemed dissatisfying for me. This epic saga just sort of peters out.

[Toddy]

I think alot of people will get out of Tolkien's LoTR what many in the past got exactly out of something like The Faerie Queen or Morte de Arthur in there respective times. Thats my idea of literature. As subjective as anybody elses. If there is a winning objective formula on what literature is I'd like to know.

The Faerie Queen and Le Morte d'Arthur are very, very different. So different that you can't use them in any linked way. Spenser's epic is one of the densest works ever constructed. It's so dense that I can't imagine anyone actually writing such a thing. You can actually get a lot of pleasure out of reading it, but my God it takes a hell of a lot of effort to do so. An incredible amount of research and knowledge went into The Faerie Queen. Malory, on the other hand, wrote sensationalist crap about a legend for the masses, possibly while locked in a cell. Mentioning the two in the same breath (um, presumably while typing) is like comparing everyone's favorite Joyce novel, Finnegan's Wake, to something by Jacqueline Susann. Arthurian stuff is fascinating, but none of it is all that valuable as literature or as history.

[Toddy]

Tolkien labors on and on with backstory details that don't even matter in the end because they have little or no impact on the story or the characters (who are flat and never change, unless you consider Gandalf changing from gray to white robes a change). It's great stuff if you want to understand the world he created, but it gets in the way of the story. I also think he suffers from purple prose.

In defense of Tolkien, these little asides are my favorite part of LOTR. They're a great stylistic device and they really make you feel that this is just one saga from a world with many. The fake history appeals to the historian in me, too. I love it when Tolkien meanders at the end of a paragraph with seven or eight sentences mentioning important events that happened in the same place in the previous age, and so forth. A lot of the time I enjoy those sentences a lot more than the battle description or conversation that preceded them.

[Toddy]

It's one thing to disagree, but the condescending tone you guys consistently opt for is just goofy. It's not as if our statements that we think Tolkien wrote great literature are unique -- the merits of Tolkien's work, as literature, is a debate that's gone on since the original release of the books, with plenty-o well read commentors proclaiming Tolkien's work as great literature. Around the year 2000, he was consistently proclaimed Author of the Century, and Lord of Rings was designated as the book of the Century (this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/061812764X/103-1341864-8283864?vi=glance#product-details provides some good background to these debates).

It may not be condescening, Stefan, but mentioning polls and pointing us to a link and saying that "a lot of people think this way so it must be true" is pretty disingenuous. I could use the same criteria people are using to rate The Lord of the Rings the best novel of the 20th Century to nominate Beatrix Potter's The Tale of Peter Rabbit in its place. Seriously.

What exactly is there in Tolkien's work that speaks to anything universally, recognizably human? Aside from the ad copy themes I noted earlier in the thread -- which I'll admit to finding inspiring -- what is there here to really cling to aside from a very charming fable? I'm not trying to be condescending or anything here, I'd really like to hear what you get out of this book that is so special. I wish I could still feel the way that you do about LOTR, by the way.

[mtkafka]

Er, how can my statements be considered inflammatory? They're what I believe. Just as you guys are sure that Tolkien is great literature, I'm just as sure he isn't. Why are my comments out of line? I'd think that citing LotR as not only great literature but the single greatest piece of western literature is a bit inflammatory. That's way out there.

What does make LotR so great? No one seems to have an answer, other than his writing is beautiful. Do the characters in LotR ever change? Do they grow? Just imagine what they're going through, and yet they learn nothing about themselves or anything else. Doesn't that seem odd? Is there even a single moment in the thousand or so pages of LotR where any of the characters seem to have some new insight into life? Shouldn't a work of great literature leave you musing about the meaning of what you just read? I don't mean it should be mysterious -- King Lear isn't the least bit mysterious, yet there are so many different ways to think about Lear. How many different ways are there to think about LotR? If you re-read it, do you ever find anything new other than the minutae of details you previously overlooked?

There really isn't an overindulgence of internal strife in LoTR. But that's what makes it good for me. Its a simplified story for all ages. Literally that was was Tolkien was hoping for. Sam changes as well from being a gardener to being forthright hero. If you read LoTR closely Tolkien makes it evident that the Hobbits dont do anything violent, even when Sam kills Shelob its an accident. Gandalf is 'ressurected' after the defeating the Balrog. Aragorn becomes a King at the end. If you want to take the modern stance on analyzing LoTR... the scourging of the shire represents the end of an idyl life. Life is consumed by the industrial age. Going west is all we got as in the elves, gandalf and frodo leaving to a somewhat Purgatorial absence. I somewhat get kind of sad reading the last few chapters of LoTR. There is an elegiac sense of OUR world in the last few chapters... and contrasted to the fairy tale idyliic opening of Hobbit life... its a stark contrast. Alot of what makes Tolkien popular is that it secretly, imo, subconsiouly elicitcs the want of a simpler life.... its deep rooted in the books. There are forces beyond our control, evil, but somehow there is an outside force (God is far from mentioned in LoTR, but he feels present) as in there is a fate. Like most of the characters feel scripted but still have choices... like a predestined freedom... kind of a paradox.. but thats what i get out of the LoTR worldview...

I still do find things to analyze in LoTR. Although I'll have to admit I take it from the perspective of Tolkiens time (you can read anything into anything really...). Having read CS Lewis and comments from other English christian writers of his time from Auden to Eliot to Maughm...the WW1 generation (Tolkien fought in the battle of the somme), there is a streak of pathos for a simpler world. What takes Tolkien apart from the English academia crowd is that his books are clearly written to entertain, but even then they still have a streeak of modern in them, some literary devices ... the scourging of the shire, what the ring represents ... as much as Tolkien despised allegory there is at least some representation of a post industrial age encroaching on a simpler ancient age.

Also I'll admit again that I dont think Tolkien was teh greatest in style.. but I think he himself knew he wasn't a master of style (in the modernistic sense). I do think his description of natural scenery and of war is on par with something like Stephen Crane at times... he has a imagisitc/minimalist bent on describing a scene at important moments in the novel with as few but powerful chosen words.

anyway, the conversation near the end between Sam and Frodo always does bring a pain to me...

'But,' said Sam, and tears started from his eyes, 'I though you were going to enjoy the Shire . . . for years and years, after all you have done.' 'SO I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.'

Its plain simple direct and to the point... but the 'and tears started from his eyes "I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire .... for years and years..." it feels very real to me. Like Sam is not only losing a good friend, but that the Shire (a simple life) is forever lost.

Here's a page I found of some valid criticism

http://icarus.cc.uic.edu/~dmadur1/funstuff/tolkien/reviews.htm

Anyway, I can agree that Tolkien isn't the best writer, but i think he wrote one of the best books I've ever read in my life. And it just bothers me that Tolkien is considered outside of any literary conisderation by some. I can take that people dont like Tolkien, or that he's some stodgy old phoagie, but even then there are some qualities in Tolkien's writings that only Tolkien can do.

etc

[mtkafka]

I think alot of people will get out of Tolkien's LoTR what many in the past got exactly out of something like The Faerie Queen or Morte de Arthur in there respective times. Thats my idea of literature. As subjective as anybody elses. If there is a winning objective formula on what literature is I'd like to know.

The Faerie Queen and Le Morte d'Arthur are very, very different. So different that you can't use them in any linked way. Spenser's epic is one of the densest works ever constructed. It's so dense that I can't imagine anyone actually writing such a thing. You can actually get a lot of pleasure out of reading it, but my God it takes a hell of a lot of effort to do so. An incredible amount of research and knowledge went into The Faerie Queen. Malory, on the other hand, wrote sensationalist crap about a legend for the masses, possibly while locked in a cell. Mentioning the two in the same breath (um, presumably while typing) is like comparing everyone's favorite Joyce novel, Finnegan's Wake, to something by Jacqueline Susann. Arthurian stuff is fascinating, but none of it is all that valuable as literature or as history.

My point wasnt in the style or the denseness but in how they were readily accepted as literary in there times, and enjoyable. Yeh, maybe I am throwing out bad comparison's... anyway, what I'm trying to say is that popular fiction of respective times were later recognized as literary by later critics. In Tolkien's case, besides inventing the modern fantasy genre, desite being popular and bwinf readily accepted by the 'unlearned' masses, should still be considered as literary. Maybe he isn't the best writer ever. Maybe the LoTR isn't the best book ever written. But couldn't it still be considered literature? I mean it does have cliff notes!

Sometimes I think people look too much for telltale signs of worthy artistic value be it in style or form or in originality whether its in movies, music or letters. To me its a waste of time. Who is to judge what is or isn't? You place this piece of work in one box and the other in that trash can... to me they are all in the same box. So you can differentiate worth by how much time you spent analyzing the denseness, how its challenging... i can agree some great works do elicit this and are better for it (some worse), but on the oppposite side there are works that don't do this, but are still works of art. With Tolkien there is something deeper in its simplicity. I see it. You don't. fine and dandy. no need for people to say "you've never read REAL books if you think Tolkiens literature!" Really, its stupid. It's like saying, "You don't kniow anything! Dungeon Siege really did suck!" I liked Dugeon Siege. It was a good game.

etc

[Desslock]

Actually, his statement is opinion, yours is logically flawed, your implication being all language scholars and professors get an automatic "good writer" card and are somehow above any form of criticism.

That's not what I said at all -- I commented that it's ridiculous to opine that an Oxford professor, and scholar of English, doesn't write well, as if he is unfamiliar with the basic concepts of writing. Whether or not you find that writing interesting/compelling/enlightening about human emotions or whatever definition you have at the moment for "literature", is an opinion -- you've expressed yours, and I've done likewise, and am fine with agreeing to disagree on this one.


I don't think I've been condescending. I've repeatedly said I understand that it's popular, that people like it, and I don't think it's preposterous that people think it's great literature, I just disagree with that assessment and have provided a few vague reasons why.

That's completely fair - and like all things relating to art/literature/music/religion, no one is likely to convince someone with different views.


I think if anyone is guilty of condescension then it's you desslock Picking one goofy novel as the best work of western literature? Man, you clearly haven't read enough.

Whatever, slick -- yeah, it's readily apparent you wouldn't resort to condescension. You're a hypocritical joke, mr. anonymouse.


how can my statements be considered inflammatory? They're what I believe. Just as you guys are sure that Tolkien is great literature, I'm just as sure he isn't.

Stating that one of the most celebrated authors of all time "doesn't write well" is inflammatory - the end. On the other hand, I didn't find your more recent comment, that you don't think he's interesting as a stylist, inflammatory at all -- just an opinion based upon your background and experience. We just disagree.


I'm not trying to be condescending or anything here, I'd really like to hear what you get out of this book that is so special .

You know, trading views on what makes something "literature", or "art", as opposed to writing or craftsmanship, etc. on this board, is something I have zero appetite for whatsoever. I think some of the opinions on those subjects expressed on this board are narrow-minded, elitist, misguided or just nonsensical (in all cases, just compared to my views on the subjects, your definitions may work best for you) - some expressed by folks (on both sides) that I don't think are particularly well read, while others have been expressed by people that are probably at least as well read as I am. At the end of the day, like opinions on religion/music, etc. they're extremely personal views, and I can't imagine anything constructive coming out of continuing this conversation as a result.

Brett - the book I linked to analyzes some of the debates that literary critics have had on this subject - if anyone is interested in exploring this topic further, it (and its bibliography) are good references. Like I said in my last post, this is a very old argument

[mtkafka]

BTW, didn't we have this discussion last year on the blue boards with the SAME people? Man... this is getting old. Like a rerun. Should start a book club eh?

etc

[Peter Frazier]

Man, talk about a rarified atmospheres. How many Doctors of Literature are here? Most of the times I read, I'm after an enjoyable experience that takes me out of my humdrum world. You guys make it sound like every book you read marks a notch to guage your IQs.
Sorry for sounding like a stupid person trying to shame smarter people for being smart, but the one thing I've learnt about teaching art is that each person has their own definition for what is art. If it affects people emotionally and intellectually, the claim is usually made. Since we all have different levels of emotion and intellect, we tend to think that other judgements are out of whack. I sided with the 'Tolkein's good but not great' view of his novels but when I reflect on it, I am touched by the ideals and heroism that he incorporates into his stories and enjoy the path the epic takes me on. The writing can be tedious but after deciphering it I'm still captured by it. Please upgrade me to the 'I dunno, I just like his books' camp.
BTW, am I still a nosepicker for liking Flashman and not reading Joyce? The classics I bought when I was going through my college urbane intellectual phase didn't go that far.

[Mark Asher]

"That's not what I said at all -- I commented that it's ridiculous to opine that an Oxford professor, and scholar of English, doesn't write well, as if he is unfamiliar with the basic concepts of writing."

There's not writing well when it comes to creative works and not writing well when it comes to everyday writing. I'd expect an Oxford don to be proficient at the latter, but the former's a toss-up. I'm sure without too much trouble I could find a lot of examples of bad novels written by English Profs, and those are just the ones that got published.

Have you ever glanced at an issue of MLA, the premiere journal for literary discussion by English Lit professors? You will not be dazzled by the writing styles of these folks. Part of it's the conventions used by these folks for writing about literature, but part of it seems to me just to be a lack of talent for writing engaging prose.

The literary community hasn't really embraced Tolkien, either. I know that sounds elitist, but these are the people who spend most of their time studying and thinking about literature. Is it elitist of lawyers to think they know more about the law than a lay person? Doctors to know more about medicine? I think you have to give some weight to Tolkien's current exclusion from the canon, though to be fair there have been a number of critical studies of his work. He's just not considered important enough to be taught with any frequency.

And let me further add that none of this has anything to do with whether his work is enjoyable, his achievement impressive, etc. He's already read by future generations and I'm sure that will continue for some time. He's won! Brett mentioned Spenser's The Faerie Queen -- who reads that anymore besides college students forced to read it? People read Tolkien even though they don't have to!

[Mark Asher]

"Most of the times I read, I'm after an enjoyable experience that takes me out of my humdrum world. You guys make it sound like every book you read marks a notch to guage your IQs."

It's like I said, most people aren't interested in being challenged when they read -- or watch TV or movies, for that matter. I read for pleasure almost exclusively now. Luckily, I can still find some books that are fun reads and also interesting pieces of writing.

"Sorry for sounding like a stupid person trying to shame smarter people for being smart, but the one thing I've learnt about teaching art is that each person has their own definition for what is art."

That's a valid approach, but it closes the door to most discussion to declare that art is wholly subjective. Then we get the chimps finger painting and who's to say it isn't art instead of random blotches of color?

[Guestacy]

There really isn't an overindulgence of internal strife in LoTR. But that's what makes it good for me. Its a simplified story for all ages. Literally that was was Tolkien was hoping for.
I don't know the history of Tolkien to know if that's all he was hoping for (I'd always heard he was trying to create an English mythology, which implies he was trying for more than a simplified story, but again, that may just be nonsense), but your implication is that all of the other writers people mention were trying for more than just telling a story. I'm not sure Twain sat down one day and said, "I'm going to write the Great American Novel." Actually, Twain did probably say that, but most of what's considered "great" literature wasn't intended that way. They became perceived as great because something within them transcended their "simplified" stories.

Twain, Hemingway, Faulkner, to give a couple of examples, all wrote in a manner similar to the way you describe Tolkien, but their books are generally considered "greater" because there was more to them then simple stories. Huck Finn is an adventure enjoyable by kids, though people don't let kids read it any more because of the language, which is asinine, but when you read it as an adult, you see Twain's vicious attacks on class, race, etc.

I'm curious if people get the same thing from Tolkien, the idea that there's greater themes to discover with different readings. I'm not talking about uncovering more detail, because I don't doubt this happens, and I can see a lot of people deriving a lot of pleasure from exploring that, particularly if you enjoy history. But if its thematically weak or simplistic, I have a hard time considering it one of the "greats" of all-time.

But yeah, it's all intellectual masturbation. If it's not your thing, take a pass on the thread. I've enjoyed the discussion, though I'm a bit disappointed no one's really given a solid case for what they get from Tolkien besides an amazing world and a great tale.

[Brian Koontz]

If you want to take the modern stance on analyzing LoTR... the scourging of the shire represents the end of an idyl life. Life is consumed by the industrial age.

Not only that, the Industrial Age is EVIL within Tolkien's books. The Industrial Age is issued from Sauron who is a Satanic figure.

That factors into my dislike for the series... I think the most extreme you can get with respect to the Industrial Age is calling it "misguided".


Going west is all we got as in the elves, gandalf and frodo leaving to a somewhat Purgatorial absence. I somewhat get kind of sad reading the last few chapters of LoTR. There is an elegiac sense of OUR world in the last few chapters... and contrasted to the fairy tale idyliic opening of Hobbit life... its a stark contrast.

Again color me unimpressed. I see the Hobbit's life as one of decay and boredom and nothing ever happening. I don't consider this an "idyllic" life. Hell, even Tolkien makes the Heroic hobbits into people who MUST leave the Shire and their old lives behind... and its debatable whether they are doing this to *maintain* the status of the Shire or for personal, boredom related reasons.


Alot of what makes Tolkien popular is that it secretly, imo, subconsiouly elicitcs the want of a simpler life.... its deep rooted in the books.

That's pretty hypocritical, given how many "Tolkien fans" in their "real" lives are more than happy to follow the Standard of Living mantra. To enjoy the things of one culture while simultaneously shitting upon them is not my idea of honorable.

The LOTR is, after all, about the destruction of the Industrial Age.

Man drives along in his assembly-line produced car to his Industrial Age house filled with mass-marketed items...

"Tolkien's great! Man, I love the social status and economic status this Industrial Age thing has gotten me but I love the IDEA of a simpler life! Hell, I can have my cake and eat it too!"

That's just it, of course. That says everything. Industrial Age humans might like the IDEA of Tolkien, but never the execution. Those humans will never be taking culture's fate (represented by the ring) to Mount Doom for destruction.

Or as its said... Tolkien is *fantasy*. Fantasy by definition is an idea that will never become real. Its a fool's game.

Tolkien is not Fantasy because of what HE wrote but because of what humanity IS.


There are forces beyond our control, evil, but somehow there is an outside force (God is far from mentioned in LoTR, but he feels present) as in there is a fate. Like most of the characters feel scripted but still have choices... like a predestined freedom... kind of a paradox.. but thats what i get out of the LoTR worldview...

Noone has any choices when Tolkien is writing something that must result in his own success (the destruction of the Industrial Age). LOTR is something designed, something with a predestined result. The characters are tools (many archetypal) designed to produce Tolkien's conclusion.


'But,' said Sam, and tears started from his eyes, 'I though you were going to enjoy the Shire . . . for years and years, after all you have done.' 'SO I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.'

LOTR is not great literature precisely because it does not say why the Shire should be saved. Any time a book does not examine its own premises its got a major mark against it.

How about a journey not to SAVE the Shire, but rather to determine whether the Shire should be saved or destroyed? Now THAT might have been great literature.


Its plain simple direct and to the point... but the 'and tears started from his eyes "I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire .... for years and years..." it feels very real to me. Like Sam is not only losing a good friend, but that the Shire (a simple life) is forever lost.

Frodo would be a poison to the Shire upon his return... he (unintentionally or otherwise) would encourage others to leave the Shire by means of impressing them with his non-Shire experiences. Also, Frodo's glory has been created strictly by his non-Shire experiences... he now honors those experiences and would be highly masochistic to return to the Shire (at least to live there).


Anyway, I can agree that Tolkien isn't the best writer, but i think he wrote one of the best books I've ever read in my life. And it just bothers me that Tolkien is considered outside of any literary conisderation by some. I can take that people dont like Tolkien, or that he's some stodgy old phoagie, but even then there are some qualities in Tolkien's writings that only Tolkien can do.

I've never seen any such quality, perhaps you can issue some quotes.

As Myth-making, Epic-tale creating, World-building, and Cultural effect Tolkien scores very high. But Tolkien does not ask the questions that could provide great meaning... he's a victim of his own predetermined conclusion... the Industrial Age should be destroyed.

[Chris Nahr]

I've enjoyed the discussion, though I'm a bit disappointed no one's really given a solid case for what they get from Tolkien besides an amazing world and a great tale.

I don't know about you but as far as I'm concerned, "an amazing world and a great tale" is one hell of a lot more than most writers produce.

[Desslock]

The literary community hasn't really embraced Tolkien, either. I know that sounds elitist, but these are the people who spend most of their time studying and thinking about literature. Is ... He's just not considered important enough to be taught with any frequency.


Well, that's the core of the debate I was referencing. There's obviously advocates on both side of that fence, although I agree that the majority of that community doesn't want to consider Tolkien's work as great literature. It's not exactly a vibrant, challenging community -- they are almost completely stagnant in their views, generally discrediting -everything- written in the past 50 years.

Also, in-every- single criticism I've read from those types, they've dedicated a portion of their opinion piece to mocking "wizards, elves", etc. -- in short, the fantasy genre. Frankly, if they're so closed minded that they won't fairly evaluate a work because they find the subject matter childish, or fantastical and therefore not useful for considering human experience, then they're irrelevant, in my opinion.

[Bub, Andrew]

If we were to sit here and discuss whether Star Wars or Empire Strikes Back is the greatest film ever made, which is a common view as well, the cineastes would dismiss that notion as preposterous, just populist hyperbole.

The AFI (American Film Institute) ranked Star Wars at 15 in their Top 100. I'm not arguing this point, just adding it for what it's worth.



The literary community hasn't really embraced Tolkien, either. I know that sounds elitist, but these are the people who spend most of their time studying and thinking about literature.

As Desslock pointed out, the British literary community called it the best book of the 20th century. Lots of people (I'm not one of them) consider British people to be better than American people at judging literature, so again, for what that's worth.



I'd put Tolkien with writers like Chandler, Poe, Carroll, Homer, Lovecraft, Bradbury, etc.,. Tolkien is one of the finest genre writers ever. And there's nothing wrong with being a fine genre writer.

Oh, I'll add that I think The Hobbit is one of the finest, and most literary, Children's Books ever written.

[mtkafka]

"Most of the times I read, I'm after an enjoyable experience that takes me out of my humdrum world. You guys make it sound like every book you read marks a notch to guage your IQs."

It's like I said, most people aren't interested in being challenged when they read -- or watch TV or movies, for that matter. I read for pleasure almost exclusively now. Luckily, I can still find some books that are fun reads and also interesting pieces of writing.

"Sorry for sounding like a stupid person trying to shame smarter people for being smart, but the one thing I've learnt about teaching art is that each person has their own definition for what is art."

That's a valid approach, but it closes the door to most discussion to declare that art is wholly subjective. Then we get the chimps finger painting and who's to say it isn't art instead of random blotches of color?

I have no probelm being challenged in a book or play or movie or whatever. But there are books that still dont challenge me but still come off artistic, literary or being a good work. Most of Dickens is plain cut and dry moral tales... hes still considered a literary writer. Most of Tolstoy is hardly challenging in the philosophical sense, you get more of reading about real people reading Tolstoy.

But there is still the relative worth to the work itself, outside of philosophical debates or social implications of the authors time. The artistry can be its creation, it can be literary in that regard. The skill in how its made and the author invisible. How different is Tolkiens predisposition with all things medieval and mythological (literary) and making it a part of his own creation as is Melville with literature in Moby Dick? I can see that Moby Dick is more a witty literary smorgasboard of a book while LoTR is a straight modern retelling of old tales that feel new. The art in Tolkien IS his easy accesibility but still appealing to the old morals of what most readers desire. There is a literary worth in this alone.

And what in authors mentioned previous prove it to be literature? What about Hemingway makes him literature? Then think, is it even worth shit? My whole point is it IS relative. As much as people think there is a hardwritten rule on literature HAS to be this or that ... there isn't any. All that matters is that a book says something and does it well. Tolkien says something to me and does it well. Heimnigway says little to me, in fact I find most of Hemingway to be childish male tales of machismo... immature in its philosophy and outlook (like most Modern AMerican literature... sorry BIG gneralization!), the same things critics say of Tolkien. But I still consider Hemingway a great writer. I can still acknowledge the art of Hemingways style. The art of his 'journalistic' hard eged midwestern type of voice. Just as one can say there is an art in style, there is an art in the creation of a readable enjoyable work that hasn't really been duplicated since. Hemingway has been duplicated in style for many years now. Tolkien has been duplicated by many fantasy writers. But in reality nothing since them has the same effect. The test of time so far has proved that people like Tolkien and Hemingway have created singular work of originality... a literary effort that hasn't been redone, but as many know has been tried. I am only comparing the two to prove a point.

Anyway, the whole idea that literature has to be challenging or say something complex or meanigful is very subjective. A good literary work stands the test of time because its still realtively enjoyable in its craft and proves its worth in the work itself and what it says by itself to many people, not on what one thinks of the multitude of meanings and challenge outside of the work. Analyzing literature is totally another issue that sometimes even goes beyond the work itself.

etc

[TimElhajj]

Well, that's the core of the debate I was referencing. There's obviously advocates on both side of that fence, although I agree that the majority of that community doesn't want to consider Tolkien's work as great literature. It's not exactly a vibrant, challenging community -- they are almost completely stagnant in their views, generally discrediting -everything- written in the past 50 years.

Also, in-every- single criticism I've read from those types, they've dedicated a portion of their opinion piece to mocking "wizards, elves", etc. -- in short, the fantasy genre. Frankly, if they're so closed minded that they won't fairly evaluate a work because they find the subject matter childish, or fantastical and therefore not useful for considering human experience, then they're irrelevant, in my opinion.

There is a lot of truth to both of these points. Very little capacity for change in the "literary community." Godforbid an upstart appear in the Western canon. And genre fiction just completely bombs in academia. I am not a huge fan of Stephen King, but for the longest time academia ignored *everything* he wrote--which you have to admit is a lot of ignoring. Only in the last few years has he begun to get a little respect. I believe he won an O Henry a few years back?

[Anonymous]

The thing that might separate LOTR from some people's definition of literature is that no moral heavy lifting is required, either from the reader or any of the characters. Sauron and his minions are evil by definition. Your choice is either to fight or flee. If you are not evil by nature but are complicit in Sauron's evil, it is because you are under a spell.

For the most part, the closest Tolkien gets to moral complexity is to have people be tempted by the ring--but the reader always knows that the ring is inherently evil, so there is really no moral consideration there. It's just a matter of who is strong enough to resist the evil enchantment.

There are a few places where LOTR does display a little moral and emotional complexity: Frodo's sense of responsibility for the ring arising out of his filial devotion to Bilbo, and the fascinating role of Gollum--the abject, that Frodo must embrace in order to accomplish his mission. But the majority of the LOTR is remarkably free of such considerations (if it weren't, it would be more like the Thomas Covenant series someone mentioned before, which I think is much more "literary." Too bad Donaldson is such a clumsy writer by comparison).

[Brian Koontz]

There is a lot of truth to both of these points. Very little capacity for change in the "literary community." Godforbid an upstart appear in the Western canon. And genre fiction just completely bombs in academia. I am not a huge fan of Stephen King, but for the longest time academia ignored *everything* he wrote--which you have to admit is a lot of ignoring. Only in the last few years has he begun to get a little respect. I believe he won an O Henry a few years back?

King is a hack writer. He's a very good hack writer however. Academia would have to sell out before honoring him.

King, you could say, is a Novelist.

I was watching some unfortunate television show several years ago and King issued some supposedly grand advice to aspiring writers... "Write everyday". This is pretty bad advice. I prefer my own... "Write when you have something to say".

Of course "Write everyday" is the epitome of the Hack. Gotta churn 'em out for the publishers after all.

[Met_K]

"Write everyday". This is pretty bad advice. I prefer my own... "Write when you have something to say".

Well, that's the pot calling the kettle black.

[Anonymous]

"Also, in-every- single criticism I've read from those types, they've dedicated a portion of their opinion piece to mocking "wizards, elves", etc. -- in short, the fantasy genre."


BINGO!!! This be the perfect example of my previous comment on the pretentious, arrogant, and elitist bullshit that keeps coming up. The simple truth does come down to that its fantasy and some people just can't give it the same credit as supposedly more serious "literature". These supposed intellectuals that spend their time "thinking" about literature simply won't be caught dead giving a "fantasy" story any credibility. Its beneath their so called "intellect".

My reponse to those people. Get over yourself.

[TimElhajj]

Of course "Write everyday" is the epitome of the Hack.

This is silly. You'll never write well if you dont' write every day. It just like anything else: if you don't practice, you'll suck.

[chet]

Does this mean in a few years of posting, Brian Koontz's posts will become readable?

But why the feed the troll? Everyone ignored him on his stupid analysis of LOTR, keep the ignore button pressed (yeah, i know, i am one to talk.)

Chet

[Brian Koontz]

This is silly. You'll never write well if you dont' write every day. It just like anything else: if you don't practice, you'll suck.

LOL... if you don't have something to say you should be doing something else BESIDES writing... its not like writing is the be-all and end-all of human existence.

And if you DO have something to say, you should write IT... whether it takes one word or one thousand.

You shouldn't write stupidity every day in the hope that this stupidity helps you get better at writing non-stupidity, which you hope you will able to provide at a later date.

Great works are much more an art than a science, they are a result of passion. How much passion does a human have who writes everyday because of advice given to him by Stephen King?

Many humans are driven to write every day, and this is fine.

The alternative human looks at his watch, decides its the "next day", and according to a "rule" issued by the "esteemed" Mr. King understands that he must write. He then writes words for his "one page" and sets down the pencil. Might as well have monkeys clicking away.

[Desslock]

...write stupidity every day in the hope that this stupidity helps you get better at writing non-stupidity, which you hope you will able to provide at a later date.

Is that your X-mas letter to Santa?

[wumpus]

No, it's what he's been doing on these forums for the last 6 months.

[mtkafka]

Here's a pretty good essay I found on Tolkien by Gene Wolfe.

http://onering.virbius.com/jump.php?id=10282

etc

[Mark Asher]

Here's a pretty good essay I found on Tolkien by Gene Wolfe.

http://onering.virbius.com/jump.php?id=10282

etc

That's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read:

"Earlier I asked what Tolkien did and how he came to do it; we have reached the point at which the first question can be answered. He uncovered a forgotten wisdom among the barbarian tribes who had proved (against all expectation) strong enough to overpower the glorious civilizations of Greece and Rome; and he had not only uncovered but understood it. He understood that their strength -- the irresistible strength that had smashed the legions -- had been the product of that wisdom, which has now been ebbing away bit by bit for a thousand years.

"Having learned that, he created in Middle-earth a means of displaying it in the clearest and most favourable possible light. Its reintroduction would be small -- just three books among the overwhelming flood of books published every year -- but as large as he could make it; and he was very conscious (no man has been more conscious of it than he) that an entire forest might spring from a handful of seed. What he did, then, was to plant in my consciousness and yours the truth that society need not be as we see it around us."

This "folk law" that Wolfe is convinced Tolkien was trying to portray would help us live peacefully, if only we would adapt it, as Wolfe tells us:

"We might have a society in which the laws were few and just, simple, permanent, and familiar to everyone -- a society in which everyone stood shoulder-to-shoulder because everyone lived by the same changeless rules, and everyone knew what those rules were. When we had it, we would also have a society in which the lack of wealth was not reason for resentment but a spur to ambition, and in which wealth was not a cause for self-indulgence but a call to service. We had it once, and some time in this third millennium we shall have it again; and if we forget to thank John Ronald Reuel Tolkien for it when we get it, we will already have begun the slow and not always unpleasant return to Mordor. Freedom, love of neighbour, and personal responsibility are steep slopes; he could not climb them for us -- we must do that ourselves. But he has shown us the road and the reward."

Wolfe is a smart guy. I don't see how he can be so naive, and I don't see how he can wring this out of LotR. Who know that LotR was really a 1000 page tract for the Libertarian party?

[antlers]

Plus, who thinks feudalism was a good system to live under?

The average persons quality of life was totally dependent on the virtue of their rulers.

The whole point of all the political development we've had since then is to make it possible to have freedom and justice while acknowledging that those in power are often less than perfect.

[mtkafka]

I too think the 'political' interpretation of Tolkien is a bit far fetched. But I thought the essay up to the philology stuff was pretty good. The book he submitted this essay too (which was rejected) had writers that you love Asher, like Martin, paying homage to Tolkien!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312275366/ref=ase_fantastdailyinas/102-6673656-2574538

etc

[Toddy]

I'm far too drunk to read an essay at the moment, though I've got to register my shock that anyone today could find a political meaning to Lord of the Rings. One that isn't incredibly elitist and classist, anyways. Tolkien is such an advocate of upper-class Victorian sensibilities that parts of the book sicken me now. To him, some people are clearly better than others. And those elite few get to rule the great unwashed, who, to a man, know and accept their inferiority. Furthermore, anything designed to give the common man some say in their lives -- such as industrialism -- is roundly condemned for taking people away from their joyous lives as peasants. It's sort of spectacular that Tolkien wrote a book with such antiquated and discredited themes in the 1940s and 1950s. If not for the copyright date, I doubt anyone would believe that the book was published after 1895.

[mtkafka]

If there is any 'political' agenda in LoTR... its pretty small. Plus I don't think tolkien intended his books to be a 'lets get medieval again' mouthpiece. Plus I don't see much of Victorian elitism in Tolkien. Tell me where you see it and then prove it to me.

The only 'political' assesment I can see is in the scourging of the shire... and its not even Victorian. I get more of a '1984ish fascist state' in the Shire from that chapter. I think his intention shows more that Tolkien is more 'modern' than most would give him creadit for. Imo that chapter gives me the idea that Tolkien was more of a pessimist than anything else. If there is ANY anit-political agenda in Tolkien it could possibly be of the mob fascist mentality of Mordor. How a faceless 'evil' can convince the common masses to fight an 'evil' war (ala Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini). This is a pretty modern concept, non Victorian, imo.

Also, I don't know if infustrialism was ever intended to give people more say in there lives. Maybe in being able to buy more cheaply manfactured products (made by cheaper costs of labor...hint hint look at all the the stuff you buy, its almost ALL made in the 'third world').. yeah, but otherwise, we still have as much of a 'class' society in this world than ever before. And writing a story with Kings and medieval social hierarchies DOESN'T mean the author particualrly thinks its the best system to live under.

Anyway, this is getting old. Brett you might as well say, "Tolkiens LoTR is a piece of childish Victorian Star Trek Soap Opera shit." Thats all you have to say. Stop beating around the bush. You're obviously above people who consider LoTR a great book because you read some Faulkner or Joyce, or whatever writer suits your ego.

etc

[Bub, Andrew]

Victorian? Interesting.
In the black & white, good & evil, with no greys in between sense? Ok, I can see that, but there's really no way he can portray the heroic mythic cycle without using that kind of classist/moralistic worldview, is there?

Also, he breaks form by making lowly Hobbits the saviors of the world. With Tolkien it's the humble who save the world. Even Frodo isn't a "noble" hobbit (though he's of a higher class than Sam), he's an orphan. I don't think that notion is particularly Victorian, is it?

Frodo wasn't born to save the world and bear the ring. It's something he rose up to.

[TimElhajj]

Frodo wasn't born to save the world and bear the ring. It's something he rose up to.

Good point, Andrew. I agree and would also like to point out that the people in LOTR who were born to save the world (Aragorn, Elenrod, Gandalf [sp?]) are completly depending on Frodo and Sam to save the day.

[Toddy]

You don't like hearing an opposing opnion, mtkafka, go read another thread. Or better yet, go off on one of those "Fuckfuckfuck" rants. Either way, it's not like I ever read more than a line or two of your posts. So knock yourself out while I read "The Dead" again.

That's a good point about Frodo rising to the challenge, Andrew. But Frodo is one of the wealthiest people in the Shire, remember. If not the very wealthiest, judging by the size of that last party Bilbo throws and the way that the Sackville-Bagginses are after the stash. The only truly humble character in the books is Sam the gardener, and he's constantly referred to as Frodo's servant. He never even calls his "master" anything but Mr. Frodo. That relationship is so servile at times that I can't believe people don't get the classism. Sam is shown as some sort of country bumpkin/halfwit ("We're going to see the elves, Mr. Frodo!"), and we're clearly supposed to be amazed that this sort of lowborn person is capable of the acts that he performs. There's even a hint of English colonial racism in there with that "Mr. Frodo" stuff.

Tolkien was the living embodiment of the Victorian generation that got massacred in the First World War. He's like a time capsule of the old, elitist attitudes that all but vanished after the Empire stumbled into places like the Somme. Being slaughtered to almost the last man will do that, I suppose.

[Chris Floyd]

I've been thinking about this for a few days (as I begin reading the trilogy for pretty much the first time), and I agree with Brett but without the Marxist outrage.

First of all, the main reason it seems to me that Tolkein has been mostly rejected by literary scholars is less one of style and more one of historical context. As Brett says, Tolkein's themes are generally a step behind the modern style, regressive in some sense. Victorian isn't a bad description, even though I think JRR takes more influence from far more ancient forms. Frankly, it's not surprising that critics steeped in a well-developed modernist movement would see Tolkein as a backwards hack. Not necessarily fair, mind you, but understandable.

When you look at literary movements, one common pattern that's seen is that *popular* literature follows the previous, established movement while the academics are embracing the latest style. Half a century down the road, what was previously avant-garde gets internalized and the new avant-garde looks bizarre to most (happens in art, too; I think of the recent spate of Target commercials that are blatantly Warholesque pop art). Writing in the 50s, Tolkein seems nearly two steps behind, but this might account for his popularity.

One of the approaches critics are forced to take in evaluating works (because of the generally subjective nature of such evaluation) is looking at influences. And here, Tolkein is pretty unusual. He himself is influenced by, as far as I can tell, the ancient histories of Greece and Rome, the heroic Germanic sagas, and medieval romance. Certainly puts him out of touch with the trends of the century (again, not a bad thing). Was there any straight fantasay that preceded him? Dunsany is about the only thing I can think of, but I'm not real familiar with him. In terms of what literature Tolkein himself has influenced...? I'd be hardpressed to think of any respected authors who draw on his work. Anyone? Tolkein is a literary anomaly in so many ways.

Being only 200 pages into the series (and drawing my other inferences from the films and what I've absorbed through geek osmosis from friends), I'm undecided on his talent and the worthiness of his literary endeavor. Certainly, it's probably the best fantasy I've ever read, but it doesn't aesthetically floor me the way Joyce or Wolfe or Kerouac can.

[Bub, Andrew]

Brett, you're right, I see your point but as Chris says, I don't mind it so much. That sort of classism is Victorian but it's even more prevalent in the myth cycles Tolkien devoted his life to and used as the basis for his books.

Chris, excellent post! I particularly liked the Target reference. Tell me, where the hell are those Old Navy ads coming from? ;-)


He himself is influenced by, as far as I can tell, the ancient histories of Greece and Rome, the heroic Germanic sagas, and medieval romance. Certainly puts him out of touch with the trends of the century (again, not a bad thing).

He was a student of the Finnish Kalava Saga and he himself wrote one of the finest translations/studies of Beowulf. Middle Earth is powerfully Nordic and early Christian influenced.


Was there any straight fantasay that preceded him?

Aside from HG Wells, Jules Verne, Lewis Carroll and Frank Baum, and other early fantacists like ER Burroughs, all I can think of is Robert E. Howard's Conan work, which draws from ancient myths about Hyperborea, Lemuria, and Atlantis. That stuff is from the 30's and mainly found in Weird Tales magazine, which I strongly doubt Tolkien subscribed too. He had to be influenced by Mallory's Le Morte D'Arthur obviously.... From what I've read, the biggest influence had to be Tolkien's friend and writer's circle partner (they criticized each other's work), CS Lewis, who was writing his Narnia at the time. Tolkien, famously, didn't like Narnia because he hated allegory. Still Lewis was someone Tolkien looked up to and there had to be an influence there.

He influenced every fantasy author after, but, as you say, none of them (Moorcock, Leiber, Donaldson, Arnesen-Gygax and D&D, etc.,) are well-respected on a literary level. He's a genre giant like Asimov, Lovecraft, and Chandler. The kind of writer who, arguably, would be more respected if he hadn't written "genre fiction." I'm certain Tolkien has had influence on plenty of today's greatest writers though, even if his influence isn't obvious.

[antlers]

If anyone wants to know what a contemporary Literary Figure thinks about Tolkien, there was an op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35424-2002Dec24.html) in yesterday's Washington Post where Salman Rushdie gives his opinion, in the context of Peter Jackson's adaptation and the impending war on Iraq.

[Jim F.]

It's true that Frodo is the richest hobbit in the Shire. He inherited Bilbo's wealth when he decided it was time to travel again and end his days on the road.

But Bilbo was not at all rich at the begining of The Hobbit. He was Joe Average, basically a lower-middle class type of Hobbit. His fortune came through his loyalty, hard work, and intelligence while he was helping the Dwarf king reclaim his throne from Smog. It's a typical "work hard and be true to yourself and good things will happen to you" type of story.

Hobbits seem to represent what Tolkein considers the perfect society. They are kind and peaceloving, but willing and able to fight if the need arises. They have no supreme ruler and their law enforcement is more of a volenteer militia than a true police force. Crime is unheard of.

This is contrasted nicely by the world of Men in LoTR and The Hobbit. Men are constantly protrayed as weak and easily corruptable. They are ruled by a monarchy that has been in power for ages. And under this monarchy, the lands of Men have become weaker. The only ruler that is eventually able to lift Men up is a reluctant messiah figure (Aragorn) who doesn't want power but has power thrust upon him.

So while I don't think Tolkein wrote with much of a political statement in mind, it does seem that he was supporting a more communal society over the old line monarchy.

[Bub, Andrew]

But Bilbo was not at all rich at the begining of The Hobbit. He was Joe Average, basically a lower-middle class type of Hobbit.

That's not true. His home, Bag End was a prize even then and Bilbo lived a life of idle leisure. He didn't work, he didn't plant, he had no trade to ply, he just lived in comfort. Sort of a bachelor-dillentante type Hobbit. As I recall, the Bagginses were well-to-do but there were Hobbits more royal. The Tooks and Brandybucks, I think, were described as being more wealthy (pre-Smaug).

[mtkafka]

Brett I could give a shit if you read comic books or Joyce, hate Tolkien, or read histories about Iraq and Iran and have a 200 IQ. I just think your criticism of a 'racist' Tolkien is pretty stupid. You're trying to find something that isn't there. It's like criticising Twain for having used 'nigger' and having a subservient slave of Finn. Its like the migrant workers in a Steinback book being portrayed as simpletons. Or Joseph Conrad looking down at the natives in something like Hearts of Darkness. Its like the 'modern' condescnesnion of 'lower' classes (or pop culture) in countless books. Its like 'critics' who think people who think Tolkien worthy are stupid... like you.

Plus the comparison of a Victorian Tolkien still hasn't been proven... except in saying "Mr. Frodo"? So like everything is Victorian because of this? Ridiculous. You're a terrible critic if this is what makes Tolkien Victorian. I don't even think you know what Victorian ideals mean. BTW, Victorian literature is far more than what you seem to think it is. It runs the gamut from Jane Austen to Charles Dickens to Henry James experiments. The plays from Victorian literature *criticize* class structure, even parody it (Wilde). You seem to think all things Victorian are Robert Lous Stevenson and imperialist. Which is totally wrong. I suggest you get a good idea on Victorian literature before you mouth off.

If anyhting, I'd put Tolkien in the likes of the post WW1 religious writers ala the likes of Elior, Auden, Lewis, Maughm and Chesterton. This isn't to say he is as good as them in 'literary' aspects, but that his outlook and worldview resembles many of these writers (they found faith). And remember, Tolkien puts Sam on a pedestal. He saves Frodo countless times in LoTR. He even becomes a ringbearer! Tolkien never intended Sam to be a fool... instead he is meant to be the most heroic, the novel ends with him.

etc

[Aszurom]

Trying to put a spin on LOTR that says "Tolkien wrote a story about this real world situation as a fantasy work" just doesn't cut it with me. True Lewis Carol and his Wonderland stuff might have been a political commentary, and he had that in mind while telling his tale... but is it conceivably possible that Tolkien wrote LOTR as a story unto itself without any political or socialogical motivation behind it other than to tell the story as it stands?

I could stand here and say that Star Wars is Lucas' "Christian Epic" if I wanted to... actually it's more a cross of a western, ww2 movie, and Arthurian ledgend, but still I could make the point. How about Frank Herbert? What aspect of modern society was Herbert targeting with the Dune series?

[Guestacy]

but is it conceivably possible that Tolkien wrote LOTR as a story unto itself without any political or socialogical motivation behind it other than to tell the story as it stands?
Sure, but if you believe at all in psychology, he may not have even consciously decided on these issues.

Regardless, it's almost impossible not to write without introducing your own worldview in certain parts of your work. It's hard to fathom Tolkien being completely invisible in the entire work; maybe if it was a five page short story, but over the course of thousands of pages?

It's kind of funny, but in a sense, you're arguing what others have been saying here, that's it not a true "literary" work because it lacks any sort of depth beyond "a story." Brett has uncovered some depth, and I think he's made a good case for that Victorian sensibility, and a heavy dose of class-related issues, within; whether they were intentional or not I don't know, but it's hard to believe Tolkien's upbringing and worldview didn't significantly impact the development of the story.

[Jim F.]

But Bilbo was not at all rich at the begining of The Hobbit. He was Joe Average, basically a lower-middle class type of Hobbit.

That's not true. His home, Bag End was a prize even then and Bilbo lived a life of idle leisure. He didn't work, he didn't plant, he had no trade to ply, he just lived in comfort. Sort of a bachelor-dillentante type Hobbit. As I recall, the Bagginses were well-to-do but there were Hobbits more royal. The Tooks and Brandybucks, I think, were described as being more wealthy (pre-Smaug).

Hmmm, I thought he purchased Bag End when he returned from helping to reclaim the dwarven throne.

Shows how long it's been since I read The Hobbit.

[Jazar]

Wize fwom your gwave!

Who says none of the characters in LOTR have any depth? Gollum himself has been said to be among the most realistic depictions of the nature of evil seen in fiction. (Scott Peck)

Here's a nice quote from Lewis about LOTR:

"I think some readers, seeing (and disliking) this rigid demarcation of black and white, imagine that they have seen a rigid demarcation between black and white people. Looking at the squares, they assume (in defiance of the facts) that all the pieces must be making bishops' moves which confine them to one color. But even such readers will hardly brazen it out through the two last volumes. Motives, even on the right side, are mixed. Those who are now traitors usually began with comparatively innocent intentions. Heroic Rohan and imperial Gondor are partly diseased. Even the wretched Sméagol, till quite late in the story, has good impulses; and, by a tragic paradox, what finally pushes him over the brink is an unpremeditated speech by the most selfless character of all."

And another just for fun.

"There are two Books in each volume and now that all six are before us the very high architectural quality of the romance is revealed. Book I builds up the main theme. In Book II that theme, enriched with much retrospective material, continues. Then comes the change. In III and V the fate of the company, now divided, becomes entangled with a huge complex of forces which are grouping and regrouping themselves in relation to Mordor. The main theme, isolated from this, occupies IV and the early part of VI. But we are never allowed to forget the intimate connection between it and the rest. On the one hand, the whole world is going to the war; the story rings with galloping hoofs, trumpets, steel on steel. On the other, very far away, two tiny, miserable figures creep (like mice on a slag heap) through the twilight of Mordor. And all the time we know that the fate of the world depends far more on the small movement than on the great. This is a structural invention of the highest order: it adds immensely to the pathos, irony and grandeur of the tale."