|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 10, 2007 22:25:50 GMT
I've somewhat recently gotten into a large wankplosion after having the audacity to say that I don't think Tolkien is all that, and that if anything he's hugely overrated. But a disproportionate amount of people seem to think he's the epitome of literary achievement, that every word of his prose should be lapped up like ambrosia and that his world marks the very pinnacle of human imagination.
I'm not sure what I'm missing. Now, I'm quite familiar with his source material to some extent; I roll my eyes at people who think he came up with everything all on his lonesome (hint: he lifted things from names, languages, character types, to scenes, from older sources). I've read LOTR, The Silmarillion, and bits of Unfinished Tales because I'm both masochistic and wanted to understand why some people can be so fanatical about him. While I think the Silm is superior to LOTR, I still don't really get it. Is it simply because I didn't read Tolkien when I was growing up? Is it because Tolkien's attitude toward class and lineage strikes me as inherently repugnant? Is it because I can't help but find his prose incredibly bloated and his verse not only mediocre but unnecessary? No, it's not that I can't cope with a less-than-modern style: you're talking to someone who's squinted and struggled her way through Middle English poems without modernized spelling--next to those, Tolkien is fourth-grade reading. I've also read prose denser, more baroque, and plain more difficult than Tolkien's. That doesn't make me find his any less dull.
Somebody, help me understand. Make me see the light.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 10, 2007 23:21:53 GMT
It helps if you're English. I know that sounds patronising, but it's true regardless. Tolkien was writing a series of myths for the English people, and it kind of hooks into our psyche in a way it would be almost impossible for someone not that familiar with England or the English to understand (Not that others can't get a lot out of it - they obviously can). Think of the American reaction to 'Mom's Apple Pie' - instinct to them, incomprehensible to the rest of us. This is like that.
His characters are not characters as such, they are types. The Hobbits, for example, represent rural England, even to the naming of their home as The Shire. It's them - the ordinary people - who save the world, not all the kings and queens and mighty wizards. Their height is a metaphor for their perceived importance to 'the great and the good'. That's the main class-related point of LotR.
You'll notice that the biggest snobs of all - the Elves - are ultimately obsolete, which is why they depart. They have no more place in the world.
He's also the first writer to create an entire world from scratch (Though yes, he did borrow a lot from earlier myths) which makes him the Father of modern fantasy. Without him, almost none of the modern fantasy writers would even exist, because he created the ideas they all borrow so freely. But most other created worlds don't work half so well, because they read like they have only been in existence from the time when the hero/ine took their first steps into the story. Tolkien's world carries an immense sense of history with it. It has its own songs, its own legends, even its own languages. The characters may be plastic, but the world lives and breathes.
Is he over-rated? Sure. name one popular writer who is not. I suspect you sat down to read something you expected to blow you away, then found that it didn't. Also, if you didn't read The Hobbit you missed what is probably his best novel, certainly in terms of the actual writing.
In terms of pure technical ability there are far better writers than Tolkien. In terms of depth of vision there are very few indeed who are his equal.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 10, 2007 23:32:20 GMT
I've read The Hobbit, actually.
Mmm. That doesn't explain the American sector of the fanatical fanbase, though.
No, no, no. Notice how Frodo is the equivalent of countryside gentry. Notice how Sam remains, ultimately, not his equal but his servant (that's the bit I find particularly icky). Then take all the silliness about kings and queens--the hand of the king is the hand of a healer, so much so that trained physicians can do squat-all just because they aren't born to a certain set of parents. In the Silm, the people who've had impact on Middle-earth history have all been nobility or royalty. I find this, at best, difficult to stomach.
I... I don't see how the elves are all that much more snobbish than Numenoreans. And the people of Gondor are descended from Numenor. Aragorn is, in fact, a particularly arrogant specimen.
To be frank? I'd have rather done without. Sure, it's not his fault that he spawned such crapload upon crapload of derivative manure, but without him, maybe the fantasy genre as it is now might have been a bit lighter on all that standard elf-dwarf-halfling D&D regurgitations.
I'm also one of those people who don't see what's the big deal about Tolkien's world. Yeah, it's got languages, but linguistic depth does not good writing make. Yeah, it's got history, but on a personal level I find much of it tedious and boring. Tolkien devoted much of his attention to the elves and certain subsets of humans, all of whom I found too homogeneous and flat to be of any real interest. Of course, that's down to my own preferences, but even the aspect supposed to be the best of his work fails utterly to touch me in any way, shape, or form.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 10, 2007 23:58:06 GMT
Or the rest of the world, for that matter. I put it down to the epic nature of LotR. That and the world building.
Frodo is a richer Hobbit - which means absolutely nothing to those with the real power, or even to the other Hobbits of The Shire. He's not a leader or a landowner amongst them. he has no power at all. But it's not him who ultimately gets the Ring to Mt Doom, anyway - it's Sam. Without Sam, Frodo would just be another rotting corpse. Sam saves him time and again, then gets his reward at the end by marrying his dream girl. Frodo is left as a wreck with no place in the world anymore.
I don't really see Aragorn as arrogant, mainly because I don't think he has much of a character at all. He's a leader and he has a lot of knowledge picked up through his life and handed down to him and that's about it.
I don't think D&D would exist either, now that you mention it... ;D
The most annoying thing to me is that so many writers remove the Orcs from all context and then say "Here is an evil race. Exterminate at will." That's utterly vile, IMO - the most pernicious form of racism. Tolkien's Orcs were corrupted Elves, debased by Morgoth into servitude and because of that they were evil. They were effectively created in their lord's image. In most fantasy novels they are evil because... well, just because they were born!
The big deal is that it does not feel as if the world only came into existence three days before the heroes did. Middle Earth is old, and it has all the signs of being old, from characters casually talking about things that happened long ago to the much-copied ruined city of Moria.
It's immersive in a way no other writer has ever really matched.
|
|
|
Post by killerzzz on Dec 11, 2007 0:07:19 GMT
I'm also one of those people who don't see what's the big deal about Tolkien's world. Yeah, it's got languages, but linguistic depth does not good writing make. Yeah, it's got history, but on a personal level I find much of it tedious and boring. Tolkien devoted much of his attention to the elves and certain subsets of humans, all of whom I found too homogeneous and flat to be of any real interest. Of course, that's down to my own preferences, but even the aspect supposed to be the best of his work fails utterly to touch me in any way, shape, or form. I think thats alot of it too, though. The history IS boring. All history is ( ;D ). But this is the history that wasn't, not the history that was. This is history merged with fantasy. The history of a world that one can imagine one's self in. I'm gonna throw out a theory I just thought of, and see what happens. Lets just forget the stories themselves, and think of the formation of that WORLD itself. It's boring and complexe enough to have BEEN real history, but it is also fantastical. We read our history, and we believe its true, and we can imagine it, and we say mkay, that happend, so what. Now people read THIS history, of a magical fantasy world, and imagine it, imagine being in it, and actually BEING there is what makes it interesting, because its not real. Its not the writer, its not the style, its that world that kinda got spewed out in the process. It is an amazing world. A world full of possible adventure and wonder. Imagine being in that world! Cool, huh? Imagine your own adventures! Feel good? If it does, than thats how you can tell why people like the books. It feels good being in that other world. Following Tolkien's stories into that world is just a way to discover parts of it you didn't know to use in that feel-good in-yer-head-adventure-of-yer-own thing later. ;D Does that make sense? I dunno. Maybe its not even close to true. But maybe all that love for Tolkien books is really just psychologically derriving from an unconcious love of being in that place he created, and not necessarily for the stories themselves (though I won't say nobody likes the stories). "Ah want to get a-wayyyy! Ah want to flyyyyy, a-a-waaaa-aaay! Yeeeaaah, yeeeaaaah, yeeeaaaah!" Killerzzz
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2007 0:09:55 GMT
It could easily be that, Killerzzz, I think, yes
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 11, 2007 0:30:55 GMT
Lets just forget the stories themselves, and think of the formation of that WORLD itself. It's boring and complexe enough to have BEEN real history Here's the thing: it's not. Sure, there are languages and songs, but then... what? Where are the different genres of poetry? Where are the different artistic and musical forms? What about scientific pursuits? Is absolutely nobody curious about, well, anything such that there's not even anything remotely resembling natural history (apart from elves liking to give names to things)? Where are all different types of governments and ideologies? It doesn't feel remotely real to me. There's a certain sameness to everything. Even the concept of religion is quite vague. As readers, we know that elves go to the Halls of Mandos and humans go... somewhere unknown (who knows about dwarves and halflings), but do all the characters know that? Do they believe in Illuvatar or the Valar, because unlike the elves most of them haven't lived beneath Taniquetil? Are there clergies or formal worship of any sort? Tolkien is incredibly vague about a lot of things. Real history is complex; Middle-earth history can be drawn in a straight line. I won't even touch the lack of information on dwarves or the easterlings. I'm sure for some people it works just as you say--the setting as a place for escapism and imagining their own stories. I just can't understand why.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2007 0:35:40 GMT
I think the problem might be that you're looking too hard, Winterfox. You're trying to find some overwhelming reason by seeking out every small detail, but you're right that a lot of the small details aren't there. It's the overall impression that Tolkien gives the reader - that we are only seeing the tip of a very large iceberg - that, I suspect, makes the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 11, 2007 0:40:15 GMT
I can accept limited view of a setting; plenty of books I enjoy only give you a glimpse of the world. But when Tolkien's fans pick his world-building as the absolute best thing ever to grace mankind, I... can't help but raise my eyebrows because I find this world-building extremely lacking in depth and narrow in scope.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2007 0:42:13 GMT
Could you accept he's the best of a bad bunch? ;D
|
|
|
Post by hector on Dec 11, 2007 0:44:04 GMT
You don't like Tolkien?
THAT'S IT. I'M CALLING FOR A BANNING.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2007 0:45:48 GMT
ROFL! ;D AFAIK Hec is the biggest Tolkien fan here. I was surprised he hadn't posted in this thread yet
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Dec 11, 2007 0:48:28 GMT
Could you accept he's the best of a bad bunch? ;D Haha. =p You don't like Tolkien? THAT'S IT. I'M CALLING FOR A BANNING. I AM BEING BULLIED. WAH.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2007 0:49:57 GMT
ROFL ;D
|
|
|
Post by hector on Dec 11, 2007 7:19:44 GMT
AFAIK Hec is the biggest Tolkien fan here. I was surprised he hadn't posted in this thread yet Winterfox and me arguing would probably result in dead bodies, limbs flying everywhere and rivers of blood. You don't want that in the Cascade, do you? DO YOU?
|
|
|
Post by Konrad Flameheart on Dec 11, 2007 8:15:30 GMT
@ Hector: At the risk of starting another arguement, what did you think of the recent screen adaptations? Winterfox: You? being bullied? I didn't think there was anyone here who would dare.....Oh wait....I'm here
|
|
|
Post by hector on Dec 11, 2007 8:28:22 GMT
@ Hector: At the risk of starting another arguement, what did you think of the recent screen adaptations? Simply put? If it weren't for them, I would have never became the Tolkien fan that I am.
|
|
|
Post by Konrad Flameheart on Dec 11, 2007 9:01:40 GMT
@ Hector: At the risk of starting another arguement, what did you think of the recent screen adaptations? Simply put? If it weren't for them, I would have never became the Tolkien fan that I am. Oh ok cool, so its safe to say you liked them then
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Dec 11, 2007 10:51:32 GMT
AFAIK Hec is the biggest Tolkien fan here. I was surprised he hadn't posted in this thread yet Winterfox and me arguing would probably result in dead bodies, limbs flying everywhere and rivers of blood. You don't want that in the Cascade, do you? DO YOU? You tempt me strangely, but... no... ;D *** Gotta admit, I really like the films, especially the extended editions. They're a different animal to the books, but they've captured the sweeping grandeur of Middle Earth very well, I thought.
|
|
|
Post by killerzzz on Dec 11, 2007 18:33:51 GMT
Oh yeah, the films helped alot. And I was really glad for the extended editions. Brought in more of what was lost. Why read pages and pages of description for an hour when you can see it in the matter of seconds? ;D I had alot of fun confusing my friends by comparing each movie to the book, and listing out the differences. They wanted to know, but they didn't want to hear my inceasant ramblings. Ah, those expressions of internal conflict. ;D Killerzzz
|
|