LOTR - the book(s)

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Don´t know if this should go here or in fantasy land, but anyway. I just finished off the Lord Of the Ring trilogy. Sine there is a fair amount of swashbuckling in it, I guess that there are a bunch here on fencing101 that have liked it.

After reading it, I decided to look on the internet to see whether I could find any negative reviews, since I liked it a lot. I found a few, centered on the fact that in LOTR, "black" is often linked to evil. Furthermore, the female roles are very few. Two un-PC things, but none of them made me think that it was not a good read, infact it was one of those books that is really difficult to put down. (My only minor gripe is that all roles are either good or bad, the only two exceptions is one who dies very shortly after going bad, and a small bit part going the other way.)

I did not find anyone comparing it to the Ring of Nibelungen, despite the many (superficial, at least) similarities between them. Surprising.

So, what did you think? Anyone have a negative view of it, and why?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[swordsen]

I loved the books. Have read them all dozens of times.

[Gav]

I read a negative review of it based around the fact that the book was anti-technology. Very good critique actually, and, of all the negative reviews it's the best that I have read. The reviewer did admit that they were actually a big fan of the books and wrote it as an excercise. See if you can find it I believe it was written by Greg Bear (I cannot find a link sorry).

People who write that the book is somehow racist or mysoginistic have somehow missed the point of the book or know nothing of the history of it.

It is very easy to look at Tolkiens work with modern sensibilities and say it is very un-pc. However, you must remember it was written at a time when there were no such considerations.

Additionally, Tolkein was very very specific. He disliked allegory - in fact he despised it. He wrote the book, as a work of fiction, as an exercise in providing the English with a mythic background as was CS Lewis (with Narnia). All of this is really well documented. The book itself formed in the background of Tolkiens mind during the first world war when he was in the trenches and THAT I think is the big influence. You can see it in the description of battle and the fact that evil is synonymous with mechanised destruction.

I really could go on at great lengths about all this...

Incidentally. People who think that there are no strong females in LOTR really haven't read the book - Eowyn and Galadriel are two I can think of off the top of my head. If you read the Silmarillion then there are plenty more. Tolkien plainly had difficulty writing about relationships in the books but then he aimed the book at kids not adults.

I did not find anyone comparing it to the Ring of Nibelungen, despite the many (superficial, at least) similarities between them. Surprising.

This has been noted before as well. Tolkien borrowed heavily from North European folklore - particularly Scandinavian. Comparisons are easily made.

[swordsen]

I loved the books. Have read them all dozens of times.

[Peach]

I've read the books dozens of times, and they remain in my library. They really don't have strong females who get to do much of anything, which was par for the course in most literature suitable for younger readers when I was a young girl. Arwen and Galadriel are graceful abstractions, and Eowyn is a sad child with a crush on the unattainable. The writing is pompous "high fantasy" too much of the time, and if it weren't for the stronger writing in the rest of it, some strong characters, a great backstory, and a reasonably interesting set of subplots, it would be unreadable.

I love them, in case you were wondering.

[darius]

Eowyn is a sad child with a crush on the unattainable.

To quote Austin Powers: "That's a *man*, baby!"

Like Dickens, Tolkien just didn't know how to write female characters. So the ones he did include were either fleeting, or ... Eowyn.

In this respect, the movies have done the females more justice. In the extended edition of Two Towers, there's a scene where Eowyn realizes who Aragorn is, and becomes a babbling fangirl. It's great!

darius

[jeff]

I'm in the "read it many, many times" camp also. Loved it, despite the occasionally turgid language (some of the language is magnificent, more than making up for it), He was writing heroic epics along the lines of Beowulf, and both types of prose come with the territory.

From a late 20th/early 21st century perspective I would like to have seen more strong female characters too, but bear in mind that this was written in the '30s and '40s. Eowyn's angry line that the "women are permitted to burn in the houses after all the men are dead" (I paraphrase, from memory), and her heroism facing and slaying the Nazgul are very advanced for the time - you could even call it proto-feminist. Women were not expected to be warriors when Tolkien was writing.

I doubt very much doubt that JRR was racist. You have to remember that he was writing from a tradition where the Black Knight was not in fact black.

There is a LOT of literary criticism of LOTR. One book I read called it the most important work of fiction of the 20th century. You certainly can't overstate its influence on fantasy and science fiction in print and movies. WIthout LOTR there would be a lot less.

cheers, Jeff

[lochinvar]

I also fall into the "read it dozens of times" category--with one proviso: I read them dozens of times when I was between the ages of 15 and 30. At the time, they were Sacred Writings; Tolkein could do no wrong in my eyes, and the books were the ultimate expression of human writing.

I then wandered away from them into other places. Since returning to them (actually just last year, after Two Towers was released) I find myself stopping in the middle of certain passages and thinking, "This guy could use a good blue pencil." As jeff says, the prose is exceedingly turgid at times, enough so that it distracts from my enjoyment of the story. (The first encounter in Rohan between Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and Eomer is a prime example. Re-read it with a critical eye, and you'll see what I mean.)

That being said, however, it's still one hell of a good story.

I think criticism of JRRT because his female leads aren't that strong or because he equates 'black' with 'evil' are being too ingenuous by half. It is a work of Heroic Fiction, purporting to describe pre-industrial peoples and based primarily on Medieval Europe.

Women weren't that strong, important, or commanding during that time period, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Eleanor of Acquitane). If women don't play a pivotal role in the story, that's just an accurate reflection of the background culture. Deal with it.

And darkness and 'blackness' (the color, not the culture) have been icons of evil in Western European thought and imagery for at least ten thousand years. One shouldn't make too much of it if JRRT carries the symbolism into his writings; he's just following in the footsteps of many, many who preceded him.

I really like the changes made in the screenplay. It isn't 'accurate', but it works well while keeping the main storyline intact. I'm really looking forward to the final release...and I'll probably re-read the books again, if for no other reason than to see where the departures were made.

[Kodiak Kid]

Read the trilogy and all other Tolkien stuff I could get my hands on several times in High School and several times since. Most recently when the first movie came out. I have not seen any of the movies yet and choose not to until they are all out on DVD, then I 'll take a Sunday and indulge myself. As a big Tolkien fan for many many years, I've been somewhat amused by all the renewed interest in his work. There were a couple of earlier attempts to make a movie out of the Hobbit (remember that awful animated thing? Shudders! ) and some great spoofs such as Harvard Lampoon's "Bored of the Rings". BOTR is a scream for fans and detractors alike.

So, "No", Peter, I don't have a negative view of the written works of any of Tolkien's stuff. Sounds like the Movies are pretty good too, even if the females did get bigger roles than was originally intended. Arwyn? give me a break. The dead trolls from The Hobbit got more ink than Arwyn.