Lord of the Re-Read: _The Fellowship of the Ring_
Chad R. Orzel
What with the movie version fast approaching, I felt it was probably
about time for another re-read of the _Lord of the Rings_ books
(which, as an aside, I'm quite happy to own in old hardcover editions,
so as not to be forced to go by the promotional copies put out by the
movie people). It's been a good seven or eight years since the last
time I re-read these, laregly because I was seriously disappointed the
last time I read through the whole saga. The books weren't as
startlingly wonderful as I recalled them from six or eight years prior
to that, when I read them about a dozen times each in junior high and
high school.
The importance of the books within the genre cannot be overstated.
They're not the first invented-world fantasy, but they were (as far as
I know) the first huge commercial success in the field, which counts
for something. And as a work of world-building, they have no peer--
Tolkien worked on the background for years and years (leading to the
seemingly endless series of volumes compiled from scraps of paper
found in his desk...), and the depth of the history, language, and
myth underlying the story is unmatched.
While this depth, and the work behind it, is far and away the books'
greatest strength, in an odd sense it's also the greatest weakness of
the series. Put another way, Tolkien was fundamentally not a novelist;
he was a linguist and medievalist who happened to write a novel in his
spare time (which is strikingly obvious from the way that any new item
which is introduced has its name given in as many languages as
reasonably possible). Which means that while I'm still floored by the
manifest virtues of the books as a piece of world-building, I'm less
impressed with the books as novels.
For lack of a more unifying theme, I'll simply run through the
categories of things that bug me about this first book, as a novel.
First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
of the story, particularly in this first volume. The plot takes
forever to get going, and then moves in fits and starts for most of
the book. There's the Birthday-Party sequence, then Gandalf makes some
ominous remarks about the Ring, then seventeen years pass, then we get
more ominous remarks about the Ring, and the stage is set for actual
plot, then we wallow in Edwardian pastoralism for another twenty pages
or so. The Hobbits set into motion, and encounter a Black Rider,
allowing actual suspense to creep into the tale, and then we have an
odd interlude involving a visit to a farmer, followed quickly by the
even odder Tom Bombadil interlude (what was he thinking?), and so on.
The story doesn't manage to sustain any momentum until after they
leave Bree, and then it bogs down again in Rivendell.
There are great bits in here-- the individual scenes with the Riders
are great, and wonderfully creepy, but the book doesn't manage to
capitalize on the great individual scenes with any sustained suspense.
I realize that this probably reflects a conscious decision to
introduce other elements to relieve a bit of the tension, but the
tension is so completely relieved that it's gone slack. I keep wanting
to reach through the pages and shake the characters (or slap the
author) and tell them to get moving.
Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
in the dialogue, and the worst examples tend to involve Sam (about
whom more later):
"There must have been a mighty crowd of dwarves here at one
time," said Sam; "and every one of them busier than badgers
for five hundred years to make all this, and msot in hard rock
too! What did they do it all for? They didn't live in these
darksome holes surely?"
"These are not holes," said Gimli. "This is the great realm
and city of the Dwarrowdelf. And of old it was not darksome,
but full of light and splendour, as is still remembered in our
songs."
(whereupon he begins to sing Dwarvish songs). Or from a later chapter,
when Galadriel speaks to Frodo about the Ring:
"Yet even so, as Ring-bearer, and as one that has borne it on
finger and seen that which is hidden,your sight is grown
keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many
that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the
Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring
upon my finger? Did you see my ring?" she asked turning again
to Sam.
"No, Lady," he answered. "To tell you the truth, I wondered
what you were talking about. I saw a star through your finger.
But if you'll pardon my speaking out, I think my master was
right. I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights.
You'd stop them digging up the gaffer and turning him adrift.
You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work."
It's like he's a character who's wandered in from an entirely
different novel. The dialogue consistently reads like some sort of
bizarre scenario where Bertie Wooster has stumbled on-stage during a
dramatic presentation of the _Odyssey_ ("Hullo, who's the chap with
the spear?"), and the rest of the characters are trying to make the
best of it. The majority of the text is in a wonderful pseudo-epic
style, swooping and soaring verily like unto an eagle, which somehow
manages to crash headlong into the window of a mobile home. It's very
jarring, and consistently knocks me out of the book.
Third, Tom Bombadil. I was talking to Kate about re-reading the books,
and mentioned the long slog across Mordor in the third book, which she
also recalls dreading, but says tends not to be as tedious as memory
makes it. Which is probably true. I thought the same would probably
apply to the Tom Bombadil section, which is another part I always
dread.
Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking? "Twee" doesn't begin
to describe it. Not only has Bombadil wandered in from another book
entirely, he's done so by way of the New Age section, with a brief
stop in musical theater. This confirms my opinion that leaving
Bombadil out of the movie is quite possibly the best decision the
filmmakers will prove to have made.
Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
at some points. Beyond the tendency to introduce every new person,
place, or thing by giving its name in five different languages,
there's a tendency to overdo the background just a little bit.
Characters are constantly throwing out little bits and pices of
legends and history (usually in verse) that really don't have much to
do with the plot at hand. To some degree, this adds depth to the
story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
works, these insertions start become a distraction.
This is a fairly minor complaint, and probably ought to be subsumed
into the "pacing" section. And anyway, it's easy enough to skip
lightly over these sections (which are usually easily identified by
the stanza form), thus avoiding most of the problem.
Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
Sam's constant bowing and scraping and "Master Frodo" this and "my
master" that, and "begging your pardon" the other thing grate on my
nerves, and combined with his oh-so-rustic speech patterns and the
"we're just humoring the poor bumpkin" attitude most of the rest of
the characters take toward him really puts my back up. Making matters
worse, the narration suggests nothing but approval for his servility.
Scenes like the one where the Hobbits meet Gildor Inglorion on the way
out of the Shire really bother me:
After a while Pippin fell asleep, and was lifted up and borne
away to a bower under the trees; there he was laid upon a soft
bed and slept the rest of the night away. Sam refused to leave
his master. When Pippin had gone, he came and sat curled up at
Frodo's feet, where at last he nodded and closed his eyes.
Frodo remained long awake, talking with Gildor.
He sleeps at Frodo's feet like a _dog._ If the original passage
weren't enough to confirm that, Frodo later speaks of "my faithful
Sam" and looks down at him sleeping, in a line that evokes nothing
more than a pet owner looking down at a faithful Labrador Retriever.
Yes, I know that Sam ends up bearing the Ring for a time, and can be
said to be the one who saves the day. Yes, I know that after the books
end, he becomes an important figure in the Shire, and has scads of
important descendants. It still gives me the creeps-- the idea that
anyone is born to serve another, or that this kind of doting servility
is a positive trait rather than the potential basis for a bad
psychological thriller is just alien to me.
This laundry list of grievances probably makes it seem as though I
hated the book. I don't. It's an enjoyable tale, within certain
parameters-- a willingness to skim lightly over the slower bits and
poetry improves things dramatically, and the core story is a
fascinating one. And as I said earlier, looked at as an act of
world-building, Middle-Earth is a towering act of genius whose equal
is unlikely to be found. As novels, though, the books aren't quite to
the same level as the world they're set in, or as many would claim for
them.
Later,
OilCan
Robert Shaw
"Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> For lack of a more unifying theme, I'll simply run through the
> categories of things that bug me about this first book, as a novel.
>
> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
> of the story, particularly in this first volume. The plot takes
> forever to get going, and then moves in fits and starts for most of
> the book.
> Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
> decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
> in the dialogue, and the worst examples tend to involve Sam (about
> whom more later):
> Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
> remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking? "Twee" doesn't begin
> to describe it. Not only has Bombadil wandered in from another book
> entirely,
That's almost exactly true. Tolkien originally intended to write another
book like The Hobbit, but changed his mind partway.
Much of what irks you, including Bombadil, is a relic of the early
phases of writing. Like The Hobbit, Book 1 is a series of loosely
connected incidents. When Tolkien raised the tone of the later sections
he didn't alter the first chapters to fit. Fatty Bolger only exists because
he was to have been kidnapped by the nazgul. His role was edited out,
but he stayed behind, one of many superfluous relics.
The hobbits keep a lower style of speech throughout the story for a
different reason. They're supposed to sound like normal modern
people, much more common than those they meet. Pippin spoke
to Denethor in almost the same way as he'd talk to a friend in the pub,
with none of the formalities Denethor was accustomed to, which was
why there were rumours Pippin was a prince. By middle-earth
standards, hobbits are egalitarian. They don't do formality well.
Would you know how to act if you found yourself at the court
of Queen Elizabeth I, or would your speech style be incongruous?
Tolkien actually based the hobbits on his memories of late
Victorian English village life, which is why they have umbrellas
and clocks. It's not an accurate portrayal, but people have been
romanticising village life ever since they moved to the cities.
--
'It is a wise crow that knows which way the camel points' - Pratchett
Robert Shaw
Jordan S. Bassior
>Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
>decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
>in the dialogue,
<gives examples>
>It's like he's a character who's wandered in from an entirely
>different novel. The dialogue consistently reads like some sort of
>bizarre scenario where Bertie Wooster has stumbled on-stage during a
>dramatic presentation of the _Odyssey_ ("Hullo, who's the chap with
>the spear?"), and the rest of the characters are trying to make the
>best of it. The majority of the text is in a wonderful pseudo-epic
>style, swooping and soaring verily like unto an eagle, which somehow
>manages to crash headlong into the window of a mobile home. It's very
>jarring, and consistently knocks me out of the book.
You've totally missed the point of Tolkien's quite intentional stylistic
choice. The Hobbits, despite their diminutive stature, are _not_ fantastic
creatures -- they come from what amounts to an idealized version of the English
countryside, existing peacefully in the middle of a world which is more like
something out of Germanic mythology, because they are themselves peaceful,
tough, and surrounded by friendly buffer alliances. Their viewpoint is like
that of rather decent English rustic sorts, and this is _essential_ to the
power of the story, because the Hobbits are "homely" -- they are very much like
us, and their awe, wonder, and terror at the epic they find themselves caught
up in is something that we can identify with.
By contrast, people like Eomer and Eowyn are Germanic heroes and heroines, and
entities such as Gandalf, Saruman, or the Elven-lords and ladies are
semi-divine beings. You can see this particularly when you observe the
difference between "Strider" and Aragorn (the different ways he relates to the
Hobbits, on the one hand, and to the lords and ladies on the other) -- he moves
smoothly between the two worlds.
One of Tolkien's great themes -- and a deliberate break with the epic tradition
he was writing to -- is that the seemingly humble can be crucial factors in the
fight. In most epics, people like the four main Hobbit characters would have
been at best comic relief, at worst spear-carriers for or nameless victims of
the mighty forces contending for control of Middle-Earth. This, almost
certainly, came out of his experience of the World Wars.
>Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
>remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking? "Twee" doesn't begin
>to describe it. Not only has Bombadil wandered in from another book
>entirely, he's done so by way of the New Age section, with a brief
>stop in musical theater.
Again, you've missed the point -- and this time you've put the cart before the
horse, too.
Tom Bombadil shows the wonder and mystery of Middle-Earth, and that there are
things in it that are not an intentional part of the main struggle between the
servants of the Valar and the minions of Morgoth. Tom is obviously an entity of
an order equivalent to the Maiar -- he was probably some follower of Yavanna
who became so attached to Middle-Earth that he refused to return to Valinor. He
-- and his love for Goldberry -- shows that there are pockets of goodness even
in the midst of terrifying wastes, which may offer aid in the middle of
darkness. Thematically, his presence is a set-up for some of the other wondrous
rescues that occur later in the work.
(Oh, and he's also Tolkien's self-insertion character -- he and Goldberry are
modelled on Tolkien and his wife).
>Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
>at some points. Beyond the tendency to introduce every new person,
>place, or thing by giving its name in five different languages,
>there's a tendency to overdo the background just a little bit.
>Characters are constantly throwing out little bits and pices of
>legends and history (usually in verse) that really don't have much to
>do with the plot at hand. To some degree, this adds depth to the
>story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
>outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
>Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
>but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
>works, these insertions start become a distraction.
Ok ... what you're missing here is that this was the one of _first_ fantasy
novels ever written in a fully realized fantasy world -- one which has a depth
of history and mythology beyond that which is shown explicitly in the story.
Tolkien was one of the first writers to conceive, _from the start_, of creating
his own mythological history and embedding tales in it, rather than writing
stories and having throwaway lines (the only earlier one I can think of is
Robert E. Howard, who did a much shoddier job of it; and maybe H. P. Lovecraft
-- but he was painting on a very broad canvas).
Tokien had two reasons for all the side-stories. Firstly, verisimilitude -- he
wanted to convince the reader that Middle-Earth was a "real" world, with depths
of history and lore beyond anything that he was going to state explicitly in
_Lord of the Rings'_ main body (some of it got put into the appendices).
Secondly, he wanted to show off some of his work.
He succeeded in both, as witness the fact that the books are still best-sellers
today.
>Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
>probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
>Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
>the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
>Sam's constant bowing and scraping and "Master Frodo" this and "my
>master" that, and "begging your pardon" the other thing grate on my
>nerves, and combined with his oh-so-rustic speech patterns and the
>"we're just humoring the poor bumpkin" attitude most of the rest of
>the characters take toward him really puts my back up. Making matters
>worse, the narration suggests nothing but approval for his servility.
Has it occurred to you that, aside from the fact that Tolkien _was_ an early
20th century Brit, the sort of master-servant relationship depicted is way
closer to what you'd expect of a working class Hobbit towards an upper class
Hobbit, _since both come from a pre-industrial society_, than the sort of
friendship that might develop between an upper-class and a working-class
American (who come out of a tradition of fiercly proud egalitarianism)? I'd
argue that a lot modern fantasy fiction, in attempts to seem more "relevant" to
a c. 2000 American audience, gets the hierarchical nature of pre-industrial
societies dead wrong, and that Tolkien wrote it pretty accurately (except of
course that he romanticizes it, but then Frodo is an _admirable_ character, and
can be expected to treat his servant well).
>Yes, I know that Sam ends up bearing the Ring for a time, and can be
>said to be the one who saves the day.
"Can be said?" Without Sam there, the quest would have ended at Cirith Ungol,
and within a matter of a few days Elrond and Galadriel would have become slaves
of Sauron, and within a matter of a few more days, a fully-empowered Sauron
would have shown up _personally_ and blasted the gates of Minas Tirith to bits,
possibly right through Gandalf's mortal form.
Sam also, _explicitly_ (it's a major scene) resists the full temptation of the
Ring, and is even able to _give it willingly_ back to Frodo. This is something
that Galadriel didn't trust herself to be able to do, if you may recall? To
write Sam off as a lightweight because of his humility is a major mistake --
indeed, it's one of his _advantages_.
>Yes, I know that after the books
>end, he becomes an important figure in the Shire, and has scads of
>important descendants.
Sam, as a matter of fact, ends his days as part of the _aristocracy_ of the
Shire. The really snotty old families may scorn him, but he's a much more
important figure, culturally, socially, and politically than any of them.
_Their_ children and grandchildren probably consider themselves honored to
marry _his_.
Oh, and incidentally, Sam achieves something Frodo never does. Happiness.
> It still gives me the creeps-- the idea that
>anyone is born to serve another, or that this kind of doting servility
>is a positive trait rather than the potential basis for a bad
>psychological thriller is just alien to me.
You are the heir to the Industrial and Democratic Revolutions. The Shire is
not. (And Tolkien, of course, disapproves of both).
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Mark Reichert
news:7vportg1r42sm80lu...@4ax.com...
> is unlikely to be found. As novels, though, the books aren't quite to
> the same level as the world they're set in, or as many would claim for
> them.
Where as your claims are Truth.
Sorry, the problem is less with the Lord of the Rings, than the
preconceptions you bring to reading it.
Mark Reichert
news:20011004130659...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> You are the heir to the Industrial and Democratic Revolutions. The Shire
is
> not. (And Tolkien, of course, disapproves of both).
The Industrial Revolution certainly, but I know less about his disapproval
of the Democratic Revolution.
Great post.
Liz Broadwell
<snippage of nice analysis>
: (Oh, and he's also Tolkien's self-insertion character -- he and Goldberry are
: modelled on Tolkien and his wife).
Huh? This is a new one on me -- would you mind elaborating? The only
biographically-inspired thing I remember Tolkien saying about Tom
Bombadil was that he was supposed to represent the spirit of the
vanishing Oxfordshire countryside (this is in the _Letters of JRRT_
somewhere; I haven't got the book with me to check the citation, so
corrections are welcome). The story in Tolkien's oeuvre which I recall
him relating specifically to himself and his wife is that of Beren and
Luthien (in a letter to his son Christopher specifying that he wanted
"Beren" engraved on his own tombstone and "Luthien" on his wife's).
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "The true servants of the Merciful are
(ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) | those who walk humbly on the earth and
Department of English | say, 'Peace!' to the ignorant who
at the University of Pennsylvania | accost them." -- Qu'ran (tr. Dawood)
Terry Lago
"Chad R. Orzel" wrote:
>
>
> For lack of a more unifying theme, I'll simply run through the
> categories of things that bug me about this first book, as a novel.
>
> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
> of the story, particularly in this first volume. The plot takes
> forever to get going, and then moves in fits and starts for most of
> the book. There's the Birthday-Party sequence, then Gandalf makes some
> ominous remarks about the Ring, then seventeen years pass, then we get
> more ominous remarks about the Ring, and the stage is set for actual
> plot, then we wallow in Edwardian pastoralism for another twenty pages
> or so. The Hobbits set into motion, and encounter a Black Rider,
> allowing actual suspense to creep into the tale, and then we have an
> odd interlude involving a visit to a farmer, followed quickly by the
> even odder Tom Bombadil interlude (what was he thinking?), and so on.
> The story doesn't manage to sustain any momentum until after they
> leave Bree, and then it bogs down again in Rivendell.
I'd have to strongly disagree here. One of the things I found on my recent
rereading of the LOTR was that the pacing was excellent. While some story
parts are not as fast paced as others I never felt bored with what I was
reading and thought that Tolkien did a great job of keeping the story
moving. Something always happened in every chapter and I never felt like I
was running into filler (with perhaps the exception of some parts of the
Tom Bombadil scenes...but that character is so interesting that I was
willing to forgive it, not to mention the fact that it gave me some
interesting glimpses into the wider world of Middle Earth).
It could perhaps be argued that Tolkien's love of the Shire and all it
represented prompted him to give an excessive amount of development to the
beginning sequence, but I think that has overall story and thematic
implications which make it more than filler. Tolkien wasn't primarily
writing an action adventure story, he was writing about sacrifice and
change and loss...the set up of both the Shire and Rivendell are necessary
to this.
But that was the whole point of the hobbits. The only one who was 'high
minded' if you will along the lines of Gandalf or Aragorn or Galadriel was
Frodo. They were supposed to be the characters who represented the common
man. They spoke like farmers because that's what they were...and they were
thrust into this world where ancient elven lords and disguised nobles
moved. Does everyone you know speak the same way? I think this added a
distinct realism to the LOTR and helped to differentiate people and their
backgrounds.
>
>
> Third, Tom Bombadil. I was talking to Kate about re-reading the books,
> and mentioned the long slog across Mordor in the third book, which she
> also recalls dreading, but says tends not to be as tedious as memory
> makes it. Which is probably true. I thought the same would probably
> apply to the Tom Bombadil section, which is another part I always
> dread.
>
> Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
> remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking? "Twee" doesn't begin
> to describe it. Not only has Bombadil wandered in from another book
> entirely, he's done so by way of the New Age section, with a brief
> stop in musical theater. This confirms my opinion that leaving
> Bombadil out of the movie is quite possibly the best decision the
> filmmakers will prove to have made.
Well I may agree with you here. It always does seem slightly incongruous
and while fun seems to more reflect Tolkien's obssession with the
countryside of his youth, and all that he thought went with it, than with
the greater story of LOTR per se. That being said however, I do think it a
charming segment that gives an interesting insight into the diversity of
the world of Middle Earth and the many characters that inhabit it.
>
>
> Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
> at some points. Beyond the tendency to introduce every new person,
> place, or thing by giving its name in five different languages,
> there's a tendency to overdo the background just a little bit.
> Characters are constantly throwing out little bits and pices of
> legends and history (usually in verse) that really don't have much to
> do with the plot at hand. To some degree, this adds depth to the
> story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
> outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
NO!!! This is what makes the books real. They're not simply an exercise in
fiction meant to get you from point A to point B, they are meant to
immerse you in the world of Middle Earth. The snippets of background info
flesh out the world, but I never felt they in any way intruded to the main
story or confused me. They showed just how grand the history and myth they
refer to is and provided tantalising glimpses.
And when it comes down to it the whole history of the ring is really a
continuation of the history of Morgoth and Sauron and the silmarils and
the elven lords and everything that is part and parcel with them. It isn't
unimportant that Aragorn is the heir to Isildur who was among the last of
the kings of Numenor who were descended from the scions of Beren and
Luthien who were tied to the great elven lords who rebelled against the
Valar and fought Morgoth and Sauron and... Do you see where I'm going?
They are directly relevant to the story.
>
> Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
> probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
> Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
> the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
> Sam's constant bowing and scraping and "Master Frodo" this and "my
> master" that, and "begging your pardon" the other thing grate on my
> nerves, and combined with his oh-so-rustic speech patterns and the
> "we're just humoring the poor bumpkin" attitude most of the rest of
> the characters take toward him really puts my back up. Making matters
> worse, the narration suggests nothing but approval for his servility.
> Scenes like the one where the Hobbits meet Gildor Inglorion on the way
> out of the Shire really bother me:
<snip of other Sam stuff>
Well all I can say is look at Sam as a character. As you note he is
integral to the plot and in many ways could be considered the real hero of
the Ring Quest. His attitudes merely reflect his culture...I for one am
thoroughly tired of reading faux-medieval fantasies where everyone acts
like an enlightened neo-liberal and there's all the external trappings of
a feudal society with none of its real-life implications. Perhaps the
simple fact that Sam became what he did...grew out of his subservience
(though not his love for Frodo), into a real, if humble, hero shows his
own growth and strength..
T.
David T. Bilek
Why do you take every criticism of Lord of the Rings as a personal
affront that must be squashed? Chad's review was far and away the
most thought out and detailed one on rasfw in ages. And you act like
he raped your dog or something.
Do you think only positive fanboy reviews should be posted to avoid
damaging your precious sensibilities?
Chad, thanks for the review. You made some excellent points.
-David
Jordan S. Bassior
>The story in Tolkien's oeuvre which I recall
>him relating specifically to himself and his wife is that of Beren and
>Luthien (in a letter to his son Christopher specifying that he wanted
>"Beren" engraved on his own tombstone and "Luthien" on his wife's)
I may have confused the two cases there -- after I posted it I recalled the
connection with Beren and Luthien.
Jo Walton
orz...@earthlink.net "Chad R. Orzel" writes:
> Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
> probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
> Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
> the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
Does it help to know that Tolkien thought Sam was the hero?
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
*THE KING'S PEACE* out now *THE KING'S NAME* out in November from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
The Great Gray Skwid
> In article <7vportg1r42sm80lu...@4ax.com>
> orz...@earthlink.net "Chad R. Orzel" writes:
> > Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
> > probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
> > Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
> > the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
> Does it help to know that Tolkien thought Sam was the hero?
Considering that Chad later says:
> Yes, I know that Sam ends up bearing the Ring for a time, and can be
> said to be the one who saves the day. Yes, I know that after the books
> end, he becomes an important figure in the Shire, and has scads of
> important descendants. It still gives me the creeps--
<snip>
Probably not.
But then, I don't seem to have nearly the objection Chad does to the
Frodo/Sam dynamic (being much more jarred by the "earlier elements" such
as Sam's dialogue and Bombadil's portion). Being as that I'm more than a
little bit of a medievalist, however, that's not terribly surprising.
All in all, I thought Chad's review was spot on, and an excellent read.
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"The Lesson is: Don't leave food in the fridge." -- Cowboy Bebop
R. Byers
Okay, Chad, now that I've seen the other responses to your critique, I see
that it was a pretty effective pisstake. (Effective at getting people to
comment.) I will jump your gun, however, to say that the *real* flaw in
LOTR (aside from the slow beginning) is the failure to invest Aragorn with
true charisma. The return of the king is a horrible anticlimax, because
Aragorn is just a (rather dull) guy that we're told is noble and
inspirational and worthy. Tolkien was unable to give him charismatic
speech, which is odd because he does a better job of it with Gandalf and,
interestingly, Saruman. Perhaps it's because Aragorn is so relentlessly
Noble that there's no human warmth or depth to him.
--
Randy Byers <rby...@u.washington.edu>
Rob Barrett
Tolkien's attempt in *LotR* to write a prose epic in direct generic
line from the medieval poems he taught and studied as a professor:
1. STYLE
Others have done a good job of pointing out how Tolkien divvied up his
characters' speaking styles. I'll just add that this is a classic
example of *decorum*--low style (*humilis*) for low things, high style
(*altus*) for high things. So in addition to the political
intervention which he wanted to make by placing low things (hobbits) at
the center of his epic narrative Tolkien was also having fun mixing
levels of discourse. *LotR* observes decorum within a given character
(Frodo is the one hobbit who always speaks high style, Sam always
speaks low style, and Merry and Pippin move from low to high as they
enter into the epic cultures of Rohan and Gondor), but he juxtaposes
the style quite masterfully, I think.
2. DIGRESSIONS
Tolkien is trying to replicate something he saw and studied in
*Beowulf* here (and elsewhere in medieval heroic literature): the use
of inset micronarratives pointing to longer stories set within the same
heroic continuum. Thus *Beowulf*'s main narrative of
hero-meets-monster, hero-fights-monster, hero-beats-monster, rinse,
repeat three times is constantly interrupted by these allusive
"digressions" (the old critical term for what used to be seen as
aesthetic flaws). Beowulf beats Grendel, we get the tales of Sigemund
and Heremod. He returns home and meets his uncle's wife Hygd, we get
the tale of the evil Queen Modthryth and her taming by Offa.
Hrothgar's wife Wealhtheow attempts to convince Beowulf not to covet
the Danish throne (and thus mistakenly ignores the lurking threat of
her nephew Hrothulf); we get a cut to the disastrous attempt at
female-peaceweaving in the Fight at Finnsburg narrative--so much for
Wealhtheow's plans. These allusions always comment on the main action,
often by contrast, but occasionally by identity/equation.
Much the same can be said for the Arthurian narratives Tolkien knew:
all of the individual romances of various Arthurian knights operate in
a self-conscious tradition. Right from the start, Chretien de Troyes
was referencing his own, originary Arthurian romances against one
another: in *The Knight with the Lion*, Sir Gawain is not available to
help his family in distress because he's off in *The Knight with the
Cart* trying to rescue Guinevere from Meleagant. In Wolfram von
Eschenbach's *Parzival*, the sons of Parzival's chivalric tutor
Gurnemanz are all revealed to have died fighting characters from
Chretien's romances prior to the events of those romances (thus Wolfram
implies that the head of one of Gurnemanz's sons adorns one of the
stakes Chretien's Erec sees in his trial at the Joy of Court).
I see the "digressions" in *LotR* functioning in largely identical
ways: the stone trolls reference the older story of *The Hobbit*,
Bombadil (as others have pointed out) demonstrates the limits of the
Ring's power and points back to the time before Darkness in Middle
Earth, Strider's singing of Beren and Luthien foreshadows his own love
for Arwen, Bilbo's song of Earendil sets up the first part of the
lineage plotline (the split between the lines of Earendil and Elwing's
sons into men and elves)--which Aragorn's marriage to Arwen will finish
(by reuniting the two branches of the family and the two peoples in one
blood again).
I hope these comments prove useful/illuminating. I myself find *LotR*
more impressive each time I reread it--especially since I myself am a
professional medievalist and grow increasingly familiar with the
literature Tolkien saw as his true tradition and source material.
Best,
Rob
David Dyer-Bennet
> What with the movie version fast approaching, I felt it was probably
> about time for another re-read of the _Lord of the Rings_ books
> (which, as an aside, I'm quite happy to own in old hardcover editions,
> so as not to be forced to go by the promotional copies put out by the
> movie people). It's been a good seven or eight years since the last
> time I re-read these, laregly because I was seriously disappointed the
> last time I read through the whole saga. The books weren't as
> startlingly wonderful as I recalled them from six or eight years prior
> to that, when I read them about a dozen times each in junior high and
> high school.
This seems to be going around; I'm in Two Towers, just on the way from
the battle of Helm's Deep to Isengard, myself.
> The importance of the books within the genre cannot be overstated.
> They're not the first invented-world fantasy, but they were (as far as
> I know) the first huge commercial success in the field, which counts
> for something. And as a work of world-building, they have no peer--
> Tolkien worked on the background for years and years (leading to the
> seemingly endless series of volumes compiled from scraps of paper
> found in his desk...), and the depth of the history, language, and
> myth underlying the story is unmatched.
>
> While this depth, and the work behind it, is far and away the books'
> greatest strength, in an odd sense it's also the greatest weakness of
> the series. Put another way, Tolkien was fundamentally not a novelist;
> he was a linguist and medievalist who happened to write a novel in his
> spare time (which is strikingly obvious from the way that any new item
> which is introduced has its name given in as many languages as
> reasonably possible). Which means that while I'm still floored by the
> manifest virtues of the books as a piece of world-building, I'm less
> impressed with the books as novels.
Interesting view. I'd suggest that in a world where everybody
important is multi-lingual, and where history is so important (the
past is often in a different language from the present), this pattern
makes more sense.
> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
> of the story, particularly in this first volume. The plot takes
> forever to get going, and then moves in fits and starts for most of
> the book. There's the Birthday-Party sequence, then Gandalf makes some
> ominous remarks about the Ring, then seventeen years pass, then we get
> more ominous remarks about the Ring, and the stage is set for actual
> plot, then we wallow in Edwardian pastoralism for another twenty pages
> or so. The Hobbits set into motion, and encounter a Black Rider,
> allowing actual suspense to creep into the tale, and then we have an
> odd interlude involving a visit to a farmer, followed quickly by the
> even odder Tom Bombadil interlude (what was he thinking?), and so on.
> The story doesn't manage to sustain any momentum until after they
> leave Bree, and then it bogs down again in Rivendell.
Mileage varies. I think it's telling us about Bilbo's reluctance to
pass on the Ring, and Frodo's reluctance to leave the Shire. Is it
actually 17 years? I haven't added it up, but off-hand I come out
with 9. I think the momentum from when Frodo leaves Bag End carries
through well enough; I don't see trips and stutters there, myself.
> There are great bits in here-- the individual scenes with the Riders
> are great, and wonderfully creepy, but the book doesn't manage to
> capitalize on the great individual scenes with any sustained suspense.
> I realize that this probably reflects a conscious decision to
> introduce other elements to relieve a bit of the tension, but the
> tension is so completely relieved that it's gone slack. I keep wanting
> to reach through the pages and shake the characters (or slap the
> author) and tell them to get moving.
>
> Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
> decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
> in the dialogue, and the worst examples tend to involve Sam (about
> whom more later):
>
> "There must have been a mighty crowd of dwarves here at one
> time," said Sam; "and every one of them busier than badgers
> for five hundred years to make all this, and msot in hard rock
> too! What did they do it all for? They didn't live in these
> darksome holes surely?"
>
> "These are not holes," said Gimli. "This is the great realm
> and city of the Dwarrowdelf. And of old it was not darksome,
> but full of light and splendour, as is still remembered in our
> songs."
I don't see your point. What are you trying to say? It's not obvious
from the example. Sam and Gimli are from different races, cultures,
and classes. Their native languages are different. Their ages differ
by, what, a factor of 3 rougly? Why would you expect them to speak
the same?
> (whereupon he begins to sing Dwarvish songs). Or from a later chapter,
> when Galadriel speaks to Frodo about the Ring:
>
> "Yet even so, as Ring-bearer, and as one that has borne it on
> finger and seen that which is hidden,your sight is grown
> keener. You have perceived my thought more clearly than many
> that are accounted wise. You saw the Eye of him that holds the
> Seven and the Nine. And did you not see and recognize the ring
> upon my finger? Did you see my ring?" she asked turning again
> to Sam.
>
> "No, Lady," he answered. "To tell you the truth, I wondered
> what you were talking about. I saw a star through your finger.
> But if you'll pardon my speaking out, I think my master was
> right. I wish you'd take his Ring. You'd put things to rights.
> You'd stop them digging up the gaffer and turning him adrift.
> You'd make some folk pay for their dirty work."
>
> It's like he's a character who's wandered in from an entirely
> different novel. The dialogue consistently reads like some sort of
> bizarre scenario where Bertie Wooster has stumbled on-stage during a
> dramatic presentation of the _Odyssey_ ("Hullo, who's the chap with
> the spear?"), and the rest of the characters are trying to make the
> best of it. The majority of the text is in a wonderful pseudo-epic
> style, swooping and soaring verily like unto an eagle, which somehow
> manages to crash headlong into the window of a mobile home. It's very
> jarring, and consistently knocks me out of the book.
The concept you're looking for is definitely "class distinction".
People aren't all the same, in this world.
Do you read historical fiction? You allude to Bertie Wooster, for
example. Do you find the class distinctions in those books opaque or
bothersome?
> Third, Tom Bombadil. I was talking to Kate about re-reading the books,
> and mentioned the long slog across Mordor in the third book, which she
> also recalls dreading, but says tends not to be as tedious as memory
> makes it. Which is probably true. I thought the same would probably
> apply to the Tom Bombadil section, which is another part I always
> dread.
>
> Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
> remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking? "Twee" doesn't begin
> to describe it. Not only has Bombadil wandered in from another book
> entirely, he's done so by way of the New Age section, with a brief
> stop in musical theater. This confirms my opinion that leaving
> Bombadil out of the movie is quite possibly the best decision the
> filmmakers will prove to have made.
Let's just say that, apart from musical theater, your criticism is
entirely by comparing Bombadil to things that appeared after these
books were written.
Bombadil is a cool example of a non-standard way to deal with an
immortal (often a problem in SF and fantasy). He lives so much in the
present that the freight of memory doesn't weigh him down.
> Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
> at some points. Beyond the tendency to introduce every new person,
> place, or thing by giving its name in five different languages,
> there's a tendency to overdo the background just a little bit.
> Characters are constantly throwing out little bits and pices of
> legends and history (usually in verse) that really don't have much to
> do with the plot at hand. To some degree, this adds depth to the
> story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
> outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
> This is a fairly minor complaint, and probably ought to be subsumed
> into the "pacing" section. And anyway, it's easy enough to skip
> lightly over these sections (which are usually easily identified by
> the stanza form), thus avoiding most of the problem.
But this is exactly where that sense of a larger history that this
book fits into comes from. If you removed these bits, you wouldn't
have the feeling of the large world any more.
[Sam episode 2 snipped, what I said above applies]
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>"Chad R. Orzel" wrote:
>> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
>> of the story, particularly in this first volume. The plot takes
>> forever to get going, and then moves in fits and starts for most of
>> the book. There's the Birthday-Party sequence, then Gandalf makes some
>> ominous remarks about the Ring, then seventeen years pass, then we get
>> more ominous remarks about the Ring, and the stage is set for actual
>> plot, then we wallow in Edwardian pastoralism for another twenty pages
>> or so. The Hobbits set into motion, and encounter a Black Rider,
>> allowing actual suspense to creep into the tale, and then we have an
>> odd interlude involving a visit to a farmer, followed quickly by the
>> even odder Tom Bombadil interlude (what was he thinking?), and so on.
>> The story doesn't manage to sustain any momentum until after they
>> leave Bree, and then it bogs down again in Rivendell.
>I'd have to strongly disagree here.
That's certainly your prerogative.
You should also imagine my entire review to be bracketed by eight-foot
high letters of flame spelling out "In My Arrogant Opinion." Though
not too vividly, lest you fear to approach your computer...
One of the things I found on my recent
>rereading of the LOTR was that the pacing was excellent. While some story
>parts are not as fast paced as others I never felt bored with what I was
>reading and thought that Tolkien did a great job of keeping the story
>moving. Something always happened in every chapter
It did occur to me that, had I been reading it a chapter at a time,
say reading aloud to a child at bedtime, I might've been less inclined
to be annoyed by the pacing. If you counted each chapter separately,
they yeah, something happens in each. On the other hand, a great many
somethings happen in the later chapters of the book (which I know,
going in), while a meager one something per chapter is doled out in
the early going.
If I didn't know ahead of time what happened in the book as a whole, I
might be less bothered by the pacing. I tend to doubt it, though, as
the complaint is not so much with the _amount_ of stuff that happens,
it's with the relevance of the stuff that does happen to the main plot
arc. There's a chapter and a half devoted to nothing more than
lounging about Tom Bombadil's house, which is an utter waste of paper.
>> Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
>> decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
>> in the dialogue, and the worst examples tend to involve Sam (about
>> whom more later):
{...}
>> It's like he's a character who's wandered in from an entirely
>> different novel. The dialogue consistently reads like some sort of
>> bizarre scenario where Bertie Wooster has stumbled on-stage during a
>> dramatic presentation of the _Odyssey_ ("Hullo, who's the chap with
>> the spear?"), and the rest of the characters are trying to make the
>> best of it. The majority of the text is in a wonderful pseudo-epic
>> style, swooping and soaring verily like unto an eagle, which somehow
>> manages to crash headlong into the window of a mobile home. It's very
>> jarring, and consistently knocks me out of the book.
>
>But that was the whole point of the hobbits. The only one who was 'high
>minded' if you will along the lines of Gandalf or Aragorn or Galadriel was
>Frodo. They were supposed to be the characters who represented the common
>man. They spoke like farmers because that's what they were...and they were
>thrust into this world where ancient elven lords and disguised nobles
>moved.
I'm aware that it was done intentionally, but I think it was overdone,
particularly in the case of Sam, whose bumpkinhood is painfully
exaggerated in the dialogue. Most of the characters don't so much
speak as orate in the manner of a Greek king in the _Iliad,_ while two
of them speak in almost modern idiom, and a third gabbles like an
amusing rustic in a BBC comedy.
Contrast between speaking styles is good, but too much contrast gets
ridiculous.
>> Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
>> at some points. Beyond the tendency to introduce every new person,
>> place, or thing by giving its name in five different languages,
>> there's a tendency to overdo the background just a little bit.
>> Characters are constantly throwing out little bits and pices of
>> legends and history (usually in verse) that really don't have much to
>> do with the plot at hand. To some degree, this adds depth to the
>> story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
>> outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
>> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
>> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
>> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
>NO!!! This is what makes the books real. They're not simply an exercise in
>fiction meant to get you from point A to point B, they are meant to
>immerse you in the world of Middle Earth. The snippets of background info
>flesh out the world, but I never felt they in any way intruded to the main
>story or confused me. They showed just how grand the history and myth they
>refer to is and provided tantalising glimpses.
I think it's right around here that I part company with the hard-core
Tolkien fan base. While it's a wonderful thing that Tolkien spent all
those years developing ten thousand years of back story for his
imaginary world, at some level, the books need to stand on their own
merits as a self-contained work. Particularly since none of that huge
back-story was actually in print when the books were first written,
and even the _Silmarillion_ wasn't compiled until after Tolkien's
death. I quite frankly couldn't care less what order of elves
Galadriel is descended from (for example), so long as her part in the
story at hand is described in enough detail to make sense.
There's a fine line, here. Throwing in some references to an intricate
back-story is a good idea, and gives depth to the story. Throwing in
too many references to back-story which exists only on carefully
written notes in the Author's desk starts to become a distraction. And
while I have at least potential access to _exhaustive_ compilations of
things that previously existed only in the Author's desk, I don't
_want_ to spend all my time chasing down references to the cats of
Queen Whoeverthehell. I want to find out what happens next in the
story at hand, namely the story of the War of the Ring.
I almost didn't include this as a complaint. It really doesn't quite
rise to the level of the others in terms of annoyance level. But it
pushed its way onto the list thanks to the long Elvish poem at the end
of the "Farewell to Lorien" chapter, which doesn't seem to serve a
purpose beyond reminding the reader that Tolkien invented an entire
mythology and umpteen languages for this book, and isn't that _neat_?
>> Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
>> probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
>> Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
>> the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
>> Sam's constant bowing and scraping and "Master Frodo" this and "my
>> master" that, and "begging your pardon" the other thing grate on my
>> nerves, and combined with his oh-so-rustic speech patterns and the
>> "we're just humoring the poor bumpkin" attitude most of the rest of
>> the characters take toward him really puts my back up. Making matters
>> worse, the narration suggests nothing but approval for his servility.
>> Scenes like the one where the Hobbits meet Gildor Inglorion on the way
>> out of the Shire really bother me:
>
><snip of other Sam stuff>
>
>Well all I can say is look at Sam as a character. As you note he is
>integral to the plot and in many ways could be considered the real hero of
>the Ring Quest. His attitudes merely reflect his culture...
Which is why I say that I think the problem stems partly from my
American-ness and my status as a child of my era. It may be entirely
culturally valid, but it's a cultural trait that makes my skin crawl,
as it clashes so dramatically with my deep-seated beliefs. The whole
thing is further aggravated by the way the anrration strongly implies
that Sam's servility is a positive trait, and perhaps his _most_
positive trait.
But we'll deal with that more in later books.
Later,
OilCan
Chad R. Orzel
<Rob...@shavian.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> For lack of a more unifying theme, I'll simply run through the
>> categories of things that bug me about this first book, as a novel.
>> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
>> of the story, particularly in this first volume. The plot takes
>> forever to get going, and then moves in fits and starts for most of
>> the book.
>> Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
>> decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
>> in the dialogue, and the worst examples tend to involve Sam (about
>> whom more later):
>> Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
>> remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking? "Twee" doesn't begin
>> to describe it. Not only has Bombadil wandered in from another book
>> entirely,
>That's almost exactly true. Tolkien originally intended to write another
>book like The Hobbit, but changed his mind partway.
>
>Much of what irks you, including Bombadil, is a relic of the early
>phases of writing. Like The Hobbit, Book 1 is a series of loosely
>connected incidents. When Tolkien raised the tone of the later sections
>he didn't alter the first chapters to fit.
Which is, as I've said, a flaw in the books as novels.
It does explain a lot of the problems in the early going. There are
other issues later in the story that are unrelated to this, though.
>The hobbits keep a lower style of speech throughout the story for a
>different reason. They're supposed to sound like normal modern
>people, much more common than those they meet. Pippin spoke
>to Denethor in almost the same way as he'd talk to a friend in the pub,
>with none of the formalities Denethor was accustomed to, which was
>why there were rumours Pippin was a prince. By middle-earth
>standards, hobbits are egalitarian. They don't do formality well.
>Would you know how to act if you found yourself at the court
>of Queen Elizabeth I, or would your speech style be incongruous?
The problem is, they're supposed to be contemporaries. A better
question would be "Would I know how to act if I found myself at the
court of Queen Elizabeth II?" To which the answer is probably still
"no," but on the other hand, the contrast between my mode of speaking
and the speech of the Royals is almost certainly not as great as the
contrast between Sam and Galadriel or Aragorn.
>Tolkien actually based the hobbits on his memories of late
>Victorian English village life,
Which is very much the problem.
Returning to your analogy, they're like late Victorian villagers (at
least Sam is-- I'm not so sure about Frodo) who have inexplicably been
dropped into the England of Shakespeare's day. The contrast between
speaking styles is too big not to be jarring.
Later,
OilCan
Chad R. Orzel
<ma...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>"Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:7vportg1r42sm80lu...@4ax.com...
>> is unlikely to be found. As novels, though, the books aren't quite to
>> the same level as the world they're set in, or as many would claim for
>> them.
>
>Where as your claims are Truth.
No, but I think they're a necessary counterbalance to the claims that
the books represent "the perfect fantasy novels" or some such. And I
did make an effort to attempt to justify my opinions with actual
quotes from the text and provide some explanation of _why_ I feel the
way I do, rather than just blithely asserting that anyone who doesn't
feel the same way I do is a cretin.
But thanks for taking the time to post.
Later,
OilCan
Justin Bacon
>The story doesn't manage to sustain any momentum until after they
>leave Bree, and then it bogs down again in Rivendell.
Bogs down in Rivendell....? Of course, anyone who can dismiss the history of
the One Ring as "some ominous remarks about the Ring" is obviously not
approaching these books in the same way I do.
>It's like he's a character who's wandered in from an entirely
>different novel.
Bizarre. What you're attempting to ascribe as a fault is actually one of
Tolkien's great strengths: The fact that every single person who enters the
book for an appreciable amount of time is a character drawn in superb detail
and uniqueness. Sam is not Frodo; Frodo is not Aragorn; Aragorn is not Gandalf;
Gandalf is not Elrond; Elrond is not Galadriel.
This is a *strength*.
>Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
>remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking?
I can understand the rejection of Bombadil by people who are unable to
comprehend anything deeper than Action! Action! Action! It doesn't mean I
sympathize, but I understand.
>Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
>Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
>but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
>works, these insertions start become a distraction.
No offense, but this is utter garbage. More than a decade passed between the
time I read LOTR and the time I finally read THE SILMARILLION. The
Beren/Luthien references in LOTR resonate with or without THE SILMARILLION --
and one of the really special moments for reading THE SILMARILLION was the
Beren/Luthien story BECAUSE the resonance was already there in LOTR.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Deacon Verter
ago)?
I'm so glad to hear he's not in the movie. With any luck there'll be
no singing, either.
As to Sam... *non serviem*!
Wonderful criticism, BTW.
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>> Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
>> probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
>> Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
>> the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
>Does it help to know that Tolkien thought Sam was the hero?
Not really, no.
Because I already knew that, and it still gives me the creeps.
If I were dating someone half as clingy and servile as Sam is, I'd be
very worried (happily, I'm engaged to marry a woman who won't hesitate
to smack me if I start to get pushy). I can't quite imagine having a
male friend who acted that way, but I doubt very much I'd think it a
positive thing, and I'd probably spend most of my time badgering him
to show some spine, or at least let me carry my own damn bags.
Later,
OilCan
Justin Bacon
>I'd argue that a lot modern fantasy fiction, in attempts to seem more
"relevant"
>to a c. 2000 American audience, gets the hierarchical nature of pre-industrial
>societies dead wrong, and that Tolkien wrote it pretty accurately (except of
>course that he romanticizes it, but then Frodo is an _admirable_ character,
>and can be expected to treat his servant well).
And note what happens when the Ring's corruption begins to effect Frodo: The
master-servant relationship turns ugly. That's not accidental.
>Sam, as a matter of fact, ends his days as part of the _aristocracy_ of the
>Shire.
Sam's transition from the servant class to the aristocracy of the Shire, in
fact, is an element in the major thematic "world change" which lies beneath
LOTR. The Shire becoming far more egalitarian is not something you can do
unless, of course, the Shire was not egalitarian to begin with.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>Perhaps it's because Aragorn is so relentlessly
>Noble that there's no human warmth or depth to him.
I would disagree. The key to understanding Aragorn lies in his relationship
with Arwen, something which is only presented through suggestion at Rivendell
and then at the end (and only explicated at length in the appendices). Aragorn
is a man who has bottled up his love, the ultimate love, for years -- and his
other emotions have also been bottled up to a certain extent.
Despite this, Tolkien subtly presents him as a character with a deep sense of
compassion and self-sacrifice. As one example, look at his reaction to Frodo
being -- apparently -- mortally wounded in Moria. Actually, his relationship
with Frodo -- which, in many ways, has a structure similar to a Father/Son
relationship -- is of key importance, in many ways, to understanding Aragorn's
character.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Mark Reichert
> No, but I think they're a necessary counterbalance to the claims that
> the books represent "the perfect fantasy novels" or some such.
Why necessary? You think you are the first one to have problems with The
Lord of the Rings?
> And I
> did make an effort to attempt to justify my opinions with actual
> quotes from the text and provide some explanation of _why_ I feel the
> way I do,
Not very well, given the responses.
> rather than just blithely asserting that anyone who doesn't
> feel the same way I do is a cretin.
No, you just blithely assert that everybody who has loved the book has been
reading it wrong and therefore hasn't seen the 'obvious' problems with it.
All I saw in your review was someone who after reading a whole lot of other
fantasy books has certain expectations that the Lord of the Rings didn't
fit. Says nothing about whether the Lord of the Rings is a great book for
those without those preconceptions.
Mark Reichert
news:3bbcacc9....@nntp.we.mediaone.net...
> Why do you take every criticism of Lord of the Rings as a personal
> affront that must be squashed?
Because he blithely assumed that all the other books he's read are the
correct way to tell this sort of story and the Lord of the Rings is wrong,
as are anybody who thinks its a great book.
He has grievous problems with the pacing, but I can't have grievous
problems with his review. Go figure.
Michael Ikeda
I'm reminded of the quip by Ursula Leguin "Sam, who keeps saying 'sir'
to Frodo until one begins to have mad visions of founding a Hobbit
Socialist Party"
That said, one of the reason Sam acts servile is that he IS Frodo's
servant.
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
Niall McAuley
"Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7vportg1r42sm80lu...@4ax.com...
[much snipped throughout]
> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
> of the story, particularly in this first volume.
I can't agree. The opening is at a comfortable hobbit pace, before
the hobbits get caught up in the coming storm, and I think the
contrast works well.
> Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
> decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
> in the dialogue, and the worst examples tend to involve Sam (about
> whom more later):
Again, entirely deliberate and appropriate. This is not a group
of suburban friends gaming, these people are not even the same
species, so of course they come across differently.
> Third, Tom Bombadil.
I'll give you this one. Ever since someone hereabouts pointed it
out, I keep seeing Bombadil as Ned Flan-diddly-anders.
> Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
Nope, _The Lord of the Rings_ was in print for some 20 years before
_The Silmarillion_ was published, and that in a form heavily edited
by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay. Tolkien himself never saw any
of that material published *except* the bits which are included
in _The Lord of the Rings_, and no other reading is needed to
get the effect he intended by them.
> Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
> probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
> Tolkien was, well, very much not one.
This seems a very curious reaction for an SF reader. If an alien
or an ancient Roman or an English peasant shows up in the story,
you can't handle it because they are not 20th century Americans?
I have the opposite reaction: Larry Niven's aliens grate on my
nerves because they are not even as alien to Niven as my neighbours,
they are all Southern Californians (albeit with two heads).
[snip]
> As novels, though, the books aren't quite to
> the same level as the world they're set in, or as many would claim for
> them.
Novel. Tolkien calls it a tale, but it is certainly not more than
one novel.
--
Niall [real address ends in ie, not ei.invalid]
csm
<orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >One of the things I found on my recent
> >rereading of the LOTR was that the pacing was excellent. While some story
> >parts are not as fast paced as others I never felt bored with what I was
> >reading and thought that Tolkien did a great job of keeping the story
> >moving. Something always happened in every chapter
>
> It did occur to me that, had I been reading it a chapter at a time,
> say reading aloud to a child at bedtime, I might've been less inclined
> to be annoyed by the pacing. If you counted each chapter separately,
> they yeah, something happens in each. On the other hand, a great many
> somethings happen in the later chapters of the book (which I know,
> going in), while a meager one something per chapter is doled out in
> the early going.
Actually, my father DID read it aloud to me back in 1957
(i think it was), one chapter each night, so maybe that's
why i disagree with your assessment. Overall the pacing is
quite good. The first book was always my favorite, in fact,
and the parts i liked tended to be the digressions like
Farmer Maggott and the barrow downs sections. Tom Bombadil
is a little over the top, i grant you, but the "in the
house of" chapter is still great.
The place where i thought the pacing stumbled the most was
the Eowyn-Faramir chapter at the end of book three. It was
a nice story but just seemed to be too abrupt a slowing
down of the narrative after all the battles.
I also have found the "high-toned" speech of the second and
third books a little overdone compared to the more balanced
tone of speech in the first book (so the opposite of your
reasction, i guess). All the crowds of people weeping and
laughing and bursting into noble songs at the end struck me
as too weird even as a child.
Agree with a lot of what you say about Sam. He grates on
re-reading. I wish Tolkien had made him a even a tiny bit
less self-effacing (or -abasing maybe is what i mean).
The scene where Pippin finds Merry wandering around in
shock after the battle of Pelennor shows Tolkien can do
the hobbit dialogue very well in terms of more common
than the highfalutin' Denethor/Aragorn/Faramir speech but
not faux "humble rustic" either.
- csm
Lois Tilton
>> Third, Tom Bombadil.
> I'll give you this one. Ever since someone hereabouts pointed it
> out, I keep seeing Bombadil as Ned Flan-diddly-anders.
Me, I think Tom is a fossil remnant of Tinfang Warble.
--
LT
Jeffrey C. Dege
>continuation of the history of Morgoth and Sauron and the silmarils and
>the elven lords and everything that is part and parcel with them. It isn't
>unimportant that Aragorn is the heir to Isildur who was among the last of
>the kings of Numenor who were descended from the scions of Beren and
>Luthien who were tied to the great elven lords who rebelled against the
>Valar and fought Morgoth and Sauron and... Do you see where I'm going?
>They are directly relevant to the story.
Re. Sam, musing to Frodo about the heroic stories he'd heard as a youth,
or heard the elves sing at Rivendell, and his sudden realization that
the heroic stories were still in progress, and that their journey was
a part of them.
It's more than just relevent - it's one of the most critical aspects of
the story.
--
"[I]n fact, I didn't know that cats _could_ grin."
"They all can," said the Duchess; "and most of 'em do."
"I don't know of any that do," Alice said very politely, feeling quite
pleased to have gotten into a conversation.
"You don't know much," said the Duchess; "and that's a fact."
Jeffrey C. Dege
>Randy Byers wrote:
>>Perhaps it's because Aragorn is so relentlessly
>>Noble that there's no human warmth or depth to him.
>
>I would disagree.
Me too.
He likes good beer, so he can't be all bad.
--
"I quite agree with you," said the Duchess; "and the moral of that is --
'Be what you would seem to be' -- or, if you'd like it put more simply --
'Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear
to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than
what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.'"
-- Lewis Carrol, "Alice in Wonderland"
GSV Three Minds in a Can
<Pine.A41.4.33.011004...@homer16.u.washington.edu>,
from the wonderful person R. Byers <rby...@u.washington.edu> said
I always feel sorry for Aragorn. Poor beggar was stitched up at birth,
with all these prophesies to live up to .. has to wander around the
wilderness, then be king of some place he rarely visited before, and
finally gets landed with an ageless wife, and seriously well connected
in-laws. Bummer.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Chad R. Orzel
<ma...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>"Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:r3oprtops8uqkimev...@4ax.com...
>> No, but I think they're a necessary counterbalance to the claims that
>> the books represent "the perfect fantasy novels" or some such.
>
>Why necessary?
Because reading thread after thread consisting of "Don't you think
Tolkien is simply wonderful?" "Why yes, I do. Magnificent books,
aren't they?" "Why yes, they are..." gets really fucking boring. If
we're going to talk about the books, let's talk about them, have some
give-and-take, share opinions that are actually different.
If you're going to snipe at and blithely dismiss everybody who sees
flaws in the books, you'll end up with a shiny, happy, and dull, dull,
dull newsgroup.
Later,
OilCan
James Bodi
---I see you're getting beat up a bit. FWIW, I agree about Tom Bombaflanders,
the early pacing, and find some of the language jarring. But for me, it's
all the 'lo, lo' stuff at the end. I'm not as creeped out by Sam as you
are, possibly because when I read it I was a good little classist tory, and
because of the setting, but I agree that there were times when he went overboard.
That being said, I also think that he 'grew' more, in the sense that Saruman
used it on Frodo, more than any other character, particularly Frodo.
>
>Later,
>OilCan
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> What with the movie version fast approaching, I felt it was probably
>> about time for another re-read of the _Lord of the Rings_ books
>> (which, as an aside, I'm quite happy to own in old hardcover editions,
>> so as not to be forced to go by the promotional copies put out by the
>> movie people). It's been a good seven or eight years since the last
>> time I re-read these, laregly because I was seriously disappointed the
>> last time I read through the whole saga. The books weren't as
>> startlingly wonderful as I recalled them from six or eight years prior
>> to that, when I read them about a dozen times each in junior high and
>> high school.
>This seems to be going around; I'm in Two Towers, just on the way from
>the battle of Helm's Deep to Isengard, myself.
I think it's the imminent arrival of the first of the movies. That's
what drove me to pick the books up again after all these years.
>> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
>> of the story, particularly in this first volume. The plot takes
>> forever to get going, and then moves in fits and starts for most of
>> the book. There's the Birthday-Party sequence, then Gandalf makes some
>> ominous remarks about the Ring, then seventeen years pass, then we get
>> more ominous remarks about the Ring, and the stage is set for actual
>> plot, then we wallow in Edwardian pastoralism for another twenty pages
>> or so. The Hobbits set into motion, and encounter a Black Rider,
>> allowing actual suspense to creep into the tale, and then we have an
>> odd interlude involving a visit to a farmer, followed quickly by the
>> even odder Tom Bombadil interlude (what was he thinking?), and so on.
>> The story doesn't manage to sustain any momentum until after they
>> leave Bree, and then it bogs down again in Rivendell.
>
>Mileage varies. I think it's telling us about Bilbo's reluctance to
>pass on the Ring, and Frodo's reluctance to leave the Shire. Is it
>actually 17 years?
At the risk of sinking into the swamps of piddling textual analysis, I
think it was. Frodo was 33 at Bilbo's going-away party, and unless I
misread things, he left the Shire on his 50th birthday.
>> Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
>> decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
>> in the dialogue, and the worst examples tend to involve Sam (about
>> whom more later):
>> "There must have been a mighty crowd of dwarves here at one
>> time," said Sam; "and every one of them busier than badgers
>> for five hundred years to make all this, and msot in hard rock
>> too! What did they do it all for? They didn't live in these
>> darksome holes surely?"
>> "These are not holes," said Gimli. "This is the great realm
>> and city of the Dwarrowdelf. And of old it was not darksome,
>> but full of light and splendour, as is still remembered in our
>> songs."
>I don't see your point. What are you trying to say? It's not obvious
>from the example. Sam and Gimli are from different races, cultures,
>and classes.
Which I would accept as the explanation were it not for the fact that
Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gandalf all tend to speak in the same
high style as Gimli in this passage. Even Frodo manages it much of the
time. Everybody talks like they're characters out of an epic poem,
except for the Hobbits (and mostly Sam), who talk like Victorian
farmers.
{...}
>The concept you're looking for is definitely "class distinction".
>People aren't all the same, in this world.
>
>Do you read historical fiction? You allude to Bertie Wooster, for
>example. Do you find the class distinctions in those books opaque or
>bothersome?
The problem here is not so much that they're divided by class as that
they appear to be divided by centuries. It's not just a matter of a
few idioms and a more casual style of speaking among the Hobbits, it's
a completely different manner of speaking. The Elves and Dwarves and
Men all declaim their lines in high epic style, while Sam talks like a
colorful rustic in a Victorian novel.
I find this far more jarring than the distinction between high and low
class characters from the same era in historical fiction (or even
fiction that just happens to be old...).
>> Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
>> remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking? "Twee" doesn't begin
>> to describe it. Not only has Bombadil wandered in from another book
>> entirely, he's done so by way of the New Age section, with a brief
>> stop in musical theater. This confirms my opinion that leaving
>> Bombadil out of the movie is quite possibly the best decision the
>> filmmakers will prove to have made.
>Let's just say that, apart from musical theater, your criticism is
>entirely by comparing Bombadil to things that appeared after these
>books were written.
So?
I'm not claiming that that's what Tolkien had in mind, I'm just using
those items as reference points to explain my reaction to the
character. I'll admit that I wouldn't've used those words to describe
the Bombadil sections had I been alive to read it in nineteen fity
whatever, but I tend to think I'd've still found them unbearably twee
and uterly pointless.
>> Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
>> at some points. Beyond the tendency to introduce every new person,
>> place, or thing by giving its name in five different languages,
>> there's a tendency to overdo the background just a little bit.
>> Characters are constantly throwing out little bits and pices of
>> legends and history (usually in verse) that really don't have much to
>> do with the plot at hand. To some degree, this adds depth to the
>> story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
>> outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
>> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
>> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
>> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
>But this is exactly where that sense of a larger history that this
>book fits into comes from. If you removed these bits, you wouldn't
>have the feeling of the large world any more.
As I said elsewhere, I agree with this, but I think there's a line
that needs to be walked to do this well. Some number of references to
history or myth is good, but too many of them become a distraction.
Toward the end of the book, it became a distraction.
Later,
OilCan
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> said
<snip>
>>> Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
>>> probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
>>> Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
>>> the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
>
>>Does it help to know that Tolkien thought Sam was the hero?
>
>Not really, no.
>Because I already knew that, and it still gives me the creeps.
>
>If I were dating someone half as clingy and servile as Sam is, I'd be
>very worried (happily, I'm engaged to marry a woman who won't hesitate
>to smack me if I start to get pushy). I can't quite imagine having a
>male friend who acted that way, but I doubt very much I'd think it a
>positive thing, and I'd probably spend most of my time badgering him
>to show some spine, or at least let me carry my own damn bags.
But Sam wasn't (just) a friend, he was an employee. How bolshie do you
get with your boss (whose father was your father's boss, etc etc)?
Chad R. Orzel
<gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote:
>"Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7vportg1r42sm80lu...@4ax.com...
>[much snipped throughout]
>> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
>> of the story, particularly in this first volume.
>
>I can't agree.
Good.
That makes for a more interesting thread.
>> Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
>> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
>> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
>> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
>Nope, _The Lord of the Rings_ was in print for some 20 years before
>_The Silmarillion_ was published, and that in a form heavily edited
>by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay. Tolkien himself never saw any
>of that material published *except* the bits which are included
>in _The Lord of the Rings_, and no other reading is needed to
>get the effect he intended by them.
Maybe.
In discussing their merits, though, all threads eventually seem to
turn to how beautifully they all tie into the legends described in
_The Silmarillion_. Which I think is cheating in a sense, since it
requires referring to things outside the actual story.
It'd be interesting to hear a discussion of the little bits of poem
and legend from sometime in that twenty-year gap, without the reams of
material excavated since. I can't quite remember what I thought of
them before I read the _Silmarillion_ (I suspect I just skipped most
of them...), but I have a sense from discussion here that they work
best for those who have extensive knowledge of the other works.
Anyway, they're not all bad. They're just awfully numerous, and start
to get a little distracting. There needs to be a balance of sorts--
enough poem and legend to give a sense of the depth of the background,
but not so much that it starts to look like showing off. I think it
tips a bit in the direction of "too much back-story."
>> Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
>> probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
>> Tolkien was, well, very much not one.
>This seems a very curious reaction for an SF reader. If an alien
>or an ancient Roman or an English peasant shows up in the story,
>you can't handle it because they are not 20th century Americans?
It's a question of how deeply the worldview in question goes against
my personal beliefs, and whether the worldview in question is
presented as a Good Thing, or merely a fact.
If the story were from the point of view of an English peasant who
really loved being a peasant, and dropped off to sleep at night
thinking about how wonderfully happy he was to have the opportunity to
toil in his master's fields the next day, and this were presented
without irony and with the implication that such a mind-set on the
part of a peasant is good and right, then I think I'd have the same
sort of problem with it.
If the peasant's lot is portrayed as just the way things work, and it
doesn't really occur to him that they might be different, then I doubt
I'd have a problem with it. Or if the story that was being told had
nothing in particular to do with the peasant's role as a peasant. (Of
course a realistic story about a realistic English peasant would
probably be stupendously boring...)
It's just something about the combination of Sam's colorful rustic
character and the overly enthusiastic master-servant relationship that
rubs me the wrong way. I don't have a problem with alien worldviews
per se, it's just the particular way in which this one is alien that
grates.
Later,
OilCan
Jordan S. Bassior
>I can't agree. The opening is at a comfortable hobbit pace, before
>the hobbits get caught up in the coming storm, and I think the
>contrast works well.
I think one of the strengths of the trilogy is the way that it starts so
deceptively quiet and jolly, and builds up slowly to a mammoth crescendo.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
Chad R. Orzel
>Chad R. Orzel wrote:
>>It's like he's a character who's wandered in from an entirely
>>different novel.
>
>Bizarre. What you're attempting to ascribe as a fault is actually one of
>Tolkien's great strengths: The fact that every single person who enters the
>book for an appreciable amount of time is a character drawn in superb detail
>and uniqueness.
We'll get to this point in later books, I suspect. I have my quibbles
there as well, at least that's my guess based on memory. Wait 'till I
finish _The Two Towers,_ and we'll see.
All I'll say for the moment is that every character save Sam, and to a
lesser extent Merry and Pippin and Frodo, speaks in approximately the
same high epic style, while the Hobbits talk like late Victorians. I
find that very jarring.
>>Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
>>remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking?
>I can understand the rejection of Bombadil by people who are unable to
>comprehend anything deeper than Action! Action! Action! It doesn't mean I
>sympathize, but I understand.
It's not the lack of action that bothers me-- I've read and enjoyed
whole books with less action than in the Bombadil sections (he does,
after all, rescue them twice). But I'd like the scenes to serve at
least some purpose in moving the story along, which the Bombadil
sections do not, in my opinion. They're rescued from danger, yes, but
the dangers are entirely orthogonal to the main story line, and seem
to have been thrown in entirely in order to provide a threat from
which they can be rescued by Twee Tom.
It's the general pointlessness of the scenes, combined with the
insufferable twee-ness (tweeity?), which bothers me.
Later,
OilCan
Michael S. Schiffer
<b49JvyGO...@clara.net>:
>...
>I always feel sorry for Aragorn. Poor beggar was stitched up at
>birth, with all these prophesies to live up to .. has to wander
>around the wilderness, then be king of some place he rarely visited
>before,
He does seem to have spent some years there incognito as Thorongil--
long enough to make a reputation and get enough of Ecthelion II's
attention to annoy Denethor.
>and finally gets landed with an ageless wife,
She stopped being ageless when she married him, and died soon after he
did.
>and seriously well connected in-laws.
Who are mostly gone beyond recall within a very short time after his
coronation. (Though his brothers-in-law are still around, IIRC.)
>Bummer.
Yeah, it must be tough to be a man who has the vigor of a thirty-year-
old at age 90, who becomes the king of just about everywhere worth
ruling, achieves honor, glory, and the love of his life, and gets to
enjoy them all for another century or so before dying in bed,
surrounded by loved ones and mourned by a grateful people. Poor
Aragorn.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
ms...@mediaone.net
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 04 Oct 2001 16:39:11 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> >> What with the movie version fast approaching, I felt it was probably
> >> about time for another re-read of the _Lord of the Rings_ books
> >> (which, as an aside, I'm quite happy to own in old hardcover editions,
> >> so as not to be forced to go by the promotional copies put out by the
> >> movie people). It's been a good seven or eight years since the last
> >> time I re-read these, laregly because I was seriously disappointed the
> >> last time I read through the whole saga. The books weren't as
> >> startlingly wonderful as I recalled them from six or eight years prior
> >> to that, when I read them about a dozen times each in junior high and
> >> high school.
>
> >This seems to be going around; I'm in Two Towers, just on the way from
> >the battle of Helm's Deep to Isengard, myself.
>
> I think it's the imminent arrival of the first of the movies. That's
> what drove me to pick the books up again after all these years.
I probably haven't read then in a two or three years; longer for _The
Hobbit_.
> >> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
> >> of the story, particularly in this first volume. The plot takes
> >> forever to get going, and then moves in fits and starts for most of
> >> the book. There's the Birthday-Party sequence, then Gandalf makes some
> >> ominous remarks about the Ring, then seventeen years pass, then we get
> >> more ominous remarks about the Ring, and the stage is set for actual
> >> plot, then we wallow in Edwardian pastoralism for another twenty pages
> >> or so. The Hobbits set into motion, and encounter a Black Rider,
> >> allowing actual suspense to creep into the tale, and then we have an
> >> odd interlude involving a visit to a farmer, followed quickly by the
> >> even odder Tom Bombadil interlude (what was he thinking?), and so on.
> >> The story doesn't manage to sustain any momentum until after they
> >> leave Bree, and then it bogs down again in Rivendell.
> >
> >Mileage varies. I think it's telling us about Bilbo's reluctance to
> >pass on the Ring, and Frodo's reluctance to leave the Shire. Is it
> >actually 17 years?
>
> At the risk of sinking into the swamps of piddling textual analysis, I
> think it was. Frodo was 33 at Bilbo's going-away party, and unless I
> misread things, he left the Shire on his 50th birthday.
That sounds pretty convincing.
> >> Second, the tone. Or, rather, the fact that the book can't quite
> >> decide what the tone is going to be. This is particularly problematic
> >> in the dialogue, and the worst examples tend to involve Sam (about
> >> whom more later):
>
> >> "There must have been a mighty crowd of dwarves here at one
> >> time," said Sam; "and every one of them busier than badgers
> >> for five hundred years to make all this, and msot in hard rock
> >> too! What did they do it all for? They didn't live in these
> >> darksome holes surely?"
>
> >> "These are not holes," said Gimli. "This is the great realm
> >> and city of the Dwarrowdelf. And of old it was not darksome,
> >> but full of light and splendour, as is still remembered in our
> >> songs."
>
> >I don't see your point. What are you trying to say? It's not obvious
> >from the example. Sam and Gimli are from different races, cultures,
> >and classes.
>
> Which I would accept as the explanation were it not for the fact that
> Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gandalf all tend to speak in the same
> high style as Gimli in this passage. Even Frodo manages it much of the
> time. Everybody talks like they're characters out of an epic poem,
> except for the Hobbits (and mostly Sam), who talk like Victorian
> farmers.
Well, the whole schtick is the little people coming out of the Shire
and upsetting the councils of the mighty, so it makes sense they'd be
the most distinguished linguistically.
> {...}
>
> >The concept you're looking for is definitely "class distinction".
> >People aren't all the same, in this world.
> >
> >Do you read historical fiction? You allude to Bertie Wooster, for
> >example. Do you find the class distinctions in those books opaque or
> >bothersome?
>
> The problem here is not so much that they're divided by class as that
> they appear to be divided by centuries. It's not just a matter of a
> few idioms and a more casual style of speaking among the Hobbits, it's
> a completely different manner of speaking. The Elves and Dwarves and
> Men all declaim their lines in high epic style, while Sam talks like a
> colorful rustic in a Victorian novel.
>
> I find this far more jarring than the distinction between high and low
> class characters from the same era in historical fiction (or even
> fiction that just happens to be old...).
Well, as I said, mileage varies. And I don't think you're looking
closely. Aragorn/Strider, in particular, speaks in a number of
different styles. Then there are the men of the guard that Merry or
Pippin (I think it's just one of them, but I forget which) talks to in
Gondor before the big fight there.
> >> Alas, I was wrong. The Bombadil sections are even worse than I
> >> remembered. What on Earth was Tolkien thinking? "Twee" doesn't begin
> >> to describe it. Not only has Bombadil wandered in from another book
> >> entirely, he's done so by way of the New Age section, with a brief
> >> stop in musical theater. This confirms my opinion that leaving
> >> Bombadil out of the movie is quite possibly the best decision the
> >> filmmakers will prove to have made.
>
> >Let's just say that, apart from musical theater, your criticism is
> >entirely by comparing Bombadil to things that appeared after these
> >books were written.
>
> So?
So it only, to me, sounds bad because of the stuff you can associate
it. And since it predates that stuff, I don't let it.
> I'm not claiming that that's what Tolkien had in mind, I'm just using
> those items as reference points to explain my reaction to the
> character. I'll admit that I wouldn't've used those words to describe
> the Bombadil sections had I been alive to read it in nineteen fity
> whatever, but I tend to think I'd've still found them unbearably twee
> and uterly pointless.
Okay. Mileage varies. I think that's one of the more interesting,
thought-provoking, bits, really.
> >> Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
> >> at some points. Beyond the tendency to introduce every new person,
> >> place, or thing by giving its name in five different languages,
> >> there's a tendency to overdo the background just a little bit.
> >> Characters are constantly throwing out little bits and pices of
> >> legends and history (usually in verse) that really don't have much to
> >> do with the plot at hand. To some degree, this adds depth to the
> >> story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
> >> outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
> >> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
> >> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
> >> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
>
> >But this is exactly where that sense of a larger history that this
> >book fits into comes from. If you removed these bits, you wouldn't
> >have the feeling of the large world any more.
>
> As I said elsewhere, I agree with this, but I think there's a line
> that needs to be walked to do this well. Some number of references to
> history or myth is good, but too many of them become a distraction.
> Toward the end of the book, it became a distraction.
Well, they're labeled "appendices". Oh, you mean before the end of
the "novel" part of the book, I guess :-).
It's a very past-centered world; one of many ways in which it is
different. It's a past-centered world rising up to defeat evil, even
though that will sweep away most of the hold the past has on things.
It's a pretty big deal.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 04 Oct 2001 22:27:46 GMT, tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
> >Chad R. Orzel wrote:
>
> >>It's like he's a character who's wandered in from an entirely
> >>different novel.
> >
> >Bizarre. What you're attempting to ascribe as a fault is actually one of
> >Tolkien's great strengths: The fact that every single person who enters the
> >book for an appreciable amount of time is a character drawn in superb detail
> >and uniqueness.
>
> We'll get to this point in later books, I suspect. I have my quibbles
> there as well, at least that's my guess based on memory. Wait 'till I
> finish _The Two Towers,_ and we'll see.
>
> All I'll say for the moment is that every character save Sam, and to a
> lesser extent Merry and Pippin and Frodo, speaks in approximately the
> same high epic style, while the Hobbits talk like late Victorians. I
> find that very jarring.
Ah. Bad tin ear problem there, Chad. Gandalf speaks differently
before and after his death, and based on the situation. Aragorn
speaks very differently from King Theoden, who speaks very differently
from Grima Wormtongue. The orcs, of course, speak even more
differently. Fangorn speaks *very* differently from anybody else, and
noticeably different from Quickbeam.
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 00:04:10 +0200, "Niall McAuley"
> <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote:
> >Nope, _The Lord of the Rings_ was in print for some 20 years before
> >_The Silmarillion_ was published, and that in a form heavily edited
> >by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay. Tolkien himself never saw any
> >of that material published *except* the bits which are included
> >in _The Lord of the Rings_, and no other reading is needed to
> >get the effect he intended by them.
>
> Maybe.
> In discussing their merits, though, all threads eventually seem to
> turn to how beautifully they all tie into the legends described in
> _The Silmarillion_. Which I think is cheating in a sense, since it
> requires referring to things outside the actual story.
While I have referred to the book fitting into a larger history, I do
*not* refer to reading the Silmarillion. I have, once, but I didn't
like it, and it didn't add anything to my enjoyment of LotR. It's the
references to off-stage things that make the world feel rich and
real. Zelazny said, at a Fourth Street Fantasy Convention panel (and
probably elsewhere, but that's where I heard him say it) that he makes
sure he knows at least one thing about every character that the reader
never finds out, and that this, he felt, helped him make the
characters richer and realer. Works for worlds too, IMHO.
> It'd be interesting to hear a discussion of the little bits of poem
> and legend from sometime in that twenty-year gap, without the reams of
> material excavated since. I can't quite remember what I thought of
> them before I read the _Silmarillion_ (I suspect I just skipped most
> of them...), but I have a sense from discussion here that they work
> best for those who have extensive knowledge of the other works.
I guess I'd be a counterexample to that. I've never touched any of
the other archive books, and read Silmarillion only once (compared to
dozens of times for LotR).
> If the peasant's lot is portrayed as just the way things work, and it
> doesn't really occur to him that they might be different, then I doubt
> I'd have a problem with it. Or if the story that was being told had
> nothing in particular to do with the peasant's role as a peasant. (Of
> course a realistic story about a realistic English peasant would
> probably be stupendously boring...)
This seems such a strange statement -- because what you're *objecting
to* is Sam's unconsidering acceptance of his servile status.
> It's just something about the combination of Sam's colorful rustic
> character and the overly enthusiastic master-servant relationship that
> rubs me the wrong way. I don't have a problem with alien worldviews
> per se, it's just the particular way in which this one is alien that
> grates.
That mileage thing, I guess.
Brenda W. Clough
Rob Barrett wrote:
>
> Others have done a good job of pointing out how Tolkien divvied up his
> characters' speaking styles. I'll just add that this is a classic
> example of *decorum*--low style (*humilis*) for low things, high style
> (*altus*) for high things. So in addition to the political
> intervention which he wanted to make by placing low things (hobbits) at
> the center of his epic narrative Tolkien was also having fun mixing
> levels of discourse. *LotR* observes decorum within a given character
> (Frodo is the one hobbit who always speaks high style, Sam always
> speaks low style, and Merry and Pippin move from low to high as they
> enter into the epic cultures of Rohan and Gondor), but he juxtaposes
> the style quite masterfully, I think.
The flashiest moment that Tolkien shuffles his tone cards is towards the
end, when Aragorn is crowned at the ruined gates of Minas Tirith. Gandalf
and Faramir are creating this solemn occasion, and over on one side is the
herb wife nattering to her buds.
Brenda
--
What do you do with a secret?
Whisper it in a desert at high noon.
Lock it up and bury the key.
Tell the nation on prime-time TV.
Choose a door . . .
Doors of Death and Life
by Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Tor Books
ISBN 0-312-87064-7
Kate Nepveu
> What with the movie version fast approaching, I felt it was probably
> about time for another re-read of the _Lord of the Rings_ books
> (which, as an aside, I'm quite happy to own in old hardcover editions,
> so as not to be forced to go by the promotional copies put out by the
> movie people).
I bought myself the red slipcovered one-volume as a present years ago,
but it's awkward to read, actually, and there are annoying places where
clearly corrections had been made by pasting in text of a slightly
different size or font. Jarring.
I have some British paperbacks that I bought at the end of '97 because
they had beautiful covers and because I wanted to read them on the plane
back. Those are my reading copies.
[...]
> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
> of the story, particularly in this first volume.
It's hard for me to respond sensibly to stuff like this, because I read
it so young and so often that I almost imprinted on it. Consequently,
I'm not sure if I would objectively agree with what other people say,
about transitioning from _The Hobbit_, or if I'm just trying to talk
myself into it.
I agree that Tom Bombadil is crashingly awkward, but the rest doesn't
bother me so much.
[...]
> Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
> at some points.
> [...] To some degree, this adds depth to the
> story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
> outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
> This is a fairly minor complaint, and probably ought to be subsumed
> into the "pacing" section. And anyway, it's easy enough to skip
> lightly over these sections (which are usually easily identified by
> the stanza form), thus avoiding most of the problem.
I think that if I read these now for the first time, I could piece
together the background, so I don't think I'd agree. When I was a kid, I
couldn't, but I just skipped over it because I didn't understand.
> Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
> probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
> Tolkien was, well, very much not one. This shows up most strongly in
> the relationship between Sam and Frodo, which makes my skin crawl.
I think you are overreacting a bit (I've _heard_ you rant), but to some
extent I agree: it's like realizing that _The Lion, The Witch, and the
Wardrobe_ is Christian. I still enjoy it, but now that I've seen it,
it's a little itch at the back of my mind.
But then, I have to fight you to carry my own damn bags, even when
they're as big as I am...
Kate
--
http://www.steelypips.org/elsewhere.html -- kate....@yale.edu
Paired Reading Page; Book Reviews; Outside of a Dog: A Book Log
"I awoke this morning with devout thanksgiving for my friends."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Kate Nepveu
> The flashiest moment that Tolkien shuffles his tone cards is towards the
> end, when Aragorn is crowned at the ruined gates of Minas Tirith. Gandalf
> and Faramir are creating this solemn occasion, and over on one side is the
> herb wife nattering to her buds.
I _hate_ that bit. Hate it hate it hate it.
Though I got a brief flash of similarity at the end of _Lord of
Emperors_, and didn't mind that, so I think it was the execution and not
the concept.
(And I'm the only one who seemed to think so about _LoE_, anyway.)
David Tate
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:42:46 +0100, "Robert Shaw"
> <Rob...@shavian.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >Would you know how to act if you found yourself at the court
> >of Queen Elizabeth I, or would your speech style be incongruous?
>
> The problem is, they're supposed to be contemporaries.
Huh? Galadriel was born, what, 5000 years before any of the humans or
hobbits in the tale. Most of her basic character, personality, etc.
were formed before there even WERE men/hobbits/etc. Just because
she's still alive doesn't make her a 'contemporary' of the hobbits.
> A better
> question would be "Would I know how to act if I found myself at the
> court of Queen Elizabeth II?"
No, a better question would be "Would I know how to act if I found
myself at the court of Arthur in Avallon, where he has reigned lo
these many years?" That's what the hobbits are getting, from their
point of view.
Cheers,
David Tate
Cyril N. Alberga
"Chad R. Orzel" wrote:
>
> On 04 Oct 2001 16:39:11 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >I don't see your point. What are you trying to say? It's not obvious
> >from the example. Sam and Gimli are from different races, cultures,
> >and classes.
>
> Which I would accept as the explanation were it not for the fact that
> Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gandalf all tend to speak in the same
> high style as Gimli in this passage. Even Frodo manages it much of the
> time. Everybody talks like they're characters out of an epic poem,
> except for the Hobbits (and mostly Sam), who talk like Victorian
> farmers.
>
> {...}
>
> >The concept you're looking for is definitely "class distinction".
> >People aren't all the same, in this world.
> >
> >Do you read historical fiction? You allude to Bertie Wooster, for
> >example. Do you find the class distinctions in those books opaque or
> >bothersome?
>
> The problem here is not so much that they're divided by class as that
> they appear to be divided by centuries. It's not just a matter of a
> few idioms and a more casual style of speaking among the Hobbits, it's
> a completely different manner of speaking. The Elves and Dwarves and
> Men all declaim their lines in high epic style, while Sam talks like a
> colorful rustic in a Victorian novel.
>
> I find this far more jarring than the distinction between high and low
> class characters from the same era in historical fiction (or even
> fiction that just happens to be old...).
>
<snip>
But this is not that uncommon in earlier works. Two come to mind, the
gravedigger in Hamlet should be known to everyone. The second is a bit
more obscure. In Purcell's "King Arthur" in Act V, Scene 2 there is a
very high sounding aria "Ye Blust'ring Brethren of the Skies". Shortly
after this (to quote from the liner notes of the Harmonia Mundi CD) "a
trio of yokes toast 'Harvest Home'", with lines like "We've cheated the
parson, we'll cheat him again, for why should a blockhead have one in
ten".
I suppose if you are stuck in your era then the modes and forms of
earlier writing may ring wrong (ding dong?), but it is hard to imagine a
lover of fantasy who is incapable of a willing suspension of temporal
setting.
Cyril N. Alberga
Jordan S. Bassior
>Huh? Galadriel was born, what, 5000 years before any of the humans or
>hobbits in the tale. Most of her basic character, personality, etc.
>were formed before there even WERE men/hobbits/etc. Just because
>she's still alive doesn't make her a 'contemporary' of the hobbits.
Galadriel knew the Two Lamps, didn't she? She was one of the oldest entities in
that story -- heck, she probably met Sauron _personally_, when he was
pretending to be a good guy.
About the only older people in it whom we meet personally would be Gandalf,
Saruman, and probably Tom Bombadil and Goldberry (if those last named two are
Maiar, as I think they may be).
Galadriel is even more awesome if you've read _The Silmarillion_, and know some
of her earlier history. We're meeting her in _Lord of the Rings_ when she's
already very weary of the world, even though (being Elven) she's ageless.
Cyril N. Alberga
"Chad R. Orzel" wrote:
>
> On 04 Oct 2001 16:39:11 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
> >I don't see your point. What are you trying to say? It's not obvious
> >from the example. Sam and Gimli are from different races, cultures,
> >and classes.
>
> Which I would accept as the explanation were it not for the fact that
> Aragorn, Boromir, Legolas, and Gandalf all tend to speak in the same
> high style as Gimli in this passage. Even Frodo manages it much of the
> time. Everybody talks like they're characters out of an epic poem,
> except for the Hobbits (and mostly Sam), who talk like Victorian
> farmers.
>
> {...}
>
> >The concept you're looking for is definitely "class distinction".
> >People aren't all the same, in this world.
> >
> >Do you read historical fiction? You allude to Bertie Wooster, for
> >example. Do you find the class distinctions in those books opaque or
> >bothersome?
>
> The problem here is not so much that they're divided by class as that
> they appear to be divided by centuries. It's not just a matter of a
> few idioms and a more casual style of speaking among the Hobbits, it's
> a completely different manner of speaking. The Elves and Dwarves and
> Men all declaim their lines in high epic style, while Sam talks like a
> colorful rustic in a Victorian novel.
>
> I find this far more jarring than the distinction between high and low
> class characters from the same era in historical fiction (or even
> fiction that just happens to be old...).
>
<snip>
Elaine Thompson
This was Chad, I believe:
>
>>> Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
>>> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
>>> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
>>> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
Can't speak for the other bits, but somewhere along the line ages ago,
I noticed the Beren and Luthien scene at Weathertop was one of the few
hints about Aragorn and Arwen's romance.
Does this help, as it gives that scene a function in the immediate
story?
Earandil's story, which I skipped numerous times in reading, might be
there partly to show light breaching unbreakable barriers. As
Galadriel's gift to Frodo, which contains the same light, does later.
--
Elaine Thompson <Ela...@KEThompson.org>
Justin Bacon
>There's a chapter and a half devoted to nothing more than
>lounging about Tom Bombadil's house, which is an utter waste of paper.
Well, first off, this is inaccurate: There's a chapter and about a page and a
half spent in Tom Bombadil's house.
Second off, it is *not* an utter waste of paper. For one example, take a look
at Tom's interaction with the One Ring. There's some significant information
imparted here -- if you have the mind to look for it. Take, for example, the
subtle foreshadowing of the ability for some people to perceive Frodo -- even
when he is "invisible" due to the ring.
Is Tom Bombadil 100% *essential* to LOTR? No. Would LOTR be reduced if he were
removed? Yes.
>But it
>pushed its way onto the list thanks to the long Elvish poem at the end
>of the "Farewell to Lorien" chapter, which doesn't seem to serve a
>purpose beyond reminding the reader that Tolkien invented an entire
>mythology and umpteen languages for this book, and isn't that _neat_?
I'm trying to figure out what "long Elvish poem" you're referring. The verse
and a half of Elvish poetry sung by Galadriel just before they sweep around the
bend in the river and out of sight? If that's the case, that's pure mood
enhancement (although I wouldn't be surprised that, if I read the Elvish, there
isn't something more meaningful there). They are leaving a haven of the elves,
and presenting something in the alien tongue of the elves punctuates the end of
the stay in Lorien as nothing else could.
>Which is why I say that I think the problem stems partly from my
>American-ness and my status as a child of my era. It may be entirely
>culturally valid, but it's a cultural trait that makes my skin crawl,
>as it clashes so dramatically with my deep-seated beliefs.
No offense, but you sound like one of those people who try to get HUCKLEBERRY
FINN banned from libraries because of its "racism". (Despite the fact that,
although the book depicts a racist society, it doesn't endorse it to any extent
whatsoever.) Not that extreme, certainly, but the same thought process.
>The whole
>thing is further aggravated by the way the anrration strongly implies
>that Sam's servility is a positive trait, and perhaps his _most_
>positive trait.
Loyalty *is* a positive trait.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>They're rescued from danger, yes, but
>the dangers are entirely orthogonal to the main story line, and seem
>to have been thrown in entirely in order to provide a threat from
>which they can be rescued by Twee Tom.
The only way I can see you dismissing the Old Forest as a "threat orthogonal to
the main story line" is by defining that in such a way that you also end up
dismissing Moria (among other things).
The Old Forest *is* an important element in the plot of the book: It
establishes quite firmly that the Hobbits have left the Shire, and things are
Dangerous Now(TM). The fact that Tom needs to rescue them only emphasizes that,
in point of fact, the hobbits are not in good shape all by themselves. When you
reach the end of the books you'll see this pay dividends in terms of how the
hobbits grow as characters.
Similarly, the Barrow Downs are important because they provide the magic
blades. At least one of these plays a crucial role in the plot later on.
You can't even complain about the time spent in Bombadil's house in the larger
picture of things: It's an extremely short chapter (the shortest in the entire
book), and a large amount of information is, in fact, communicated. Subtly
communicated, yes; but communicated nonetheless. (I comment on this in a
previous post and won't repeat myself further here.)
>All I'll say for the moment is that every character save Sam, and to a
>lesser extent Merry and Pippin and Frodo, speaks in approximately the
>same high epic style, while the Hobbits talk like late Victorians. I
>find that very jarring.
IMO, men, elves, and dwarves all have their own distinct patterns of speech.
This pattern is, in fact, quite deliberate -- and, IMO, very effective at
adding character and depth to the story. I really can't sympathize with you at
all in finding this "jarring". Part of what makes the elves so incredibly
special is the fact that hobbits do not speak like them.
The hobbits are not the same as the elves. Period. End of sentence.
>It's the general pointlessness of the scenes, combined with the
>insufferable twee-ness (tweeity?), which bothers me.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "twee". I don't seem to be scrounging
this word up out of the dictionaries I have handy.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>I can't agree. The opening is at a comfortable hobbit pace, before
>the hobbits get caught up in the coming storm, and I think the
>contrast works well.
This is a very good point. Compare the way in which the hobbits pace their
journey to Bree to the way which Aragorn/Strider paces their journey *after*
Bree. The almost lacksadaisical (although, IMO, never boring) pace set by the
hobbits stands in stark contrast to the rapid flight Aragorn attempts between
Bree and Rivendell; and adds to the suspense of that latter section.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>In discussing their merits, though, all threads eventually seem to
>turn to how beautifully they all tie into the legends described in
>_The Silmarillion_. Which I think is cheating in a sense, since it
>requires referring to things outside the actual story.
True. But only because that *is* a rather impressive pay-off. It's not an
*essential* pay-off which every reader must experience; but it is a pay-off
which *does* exist.
The Beren/Luthien material in the chapter "A Knife in a Dark" serves a number
of different purposes:
1. It is spoken by Strider. This continues the pattern of establishing Strider
as a man of hidden depths -- not just someone wandering the back-country around
Bree. It gives him an elven connection which is, in fact, an important facet of
his character (as we see later).
2. It directly foreshadows his relationship with Arwen. His relationship with
Arwen is, in fact, of significant thematic importance to the novel.
3. It establishes Beren and Luthien. References are made to both of them later
in the text -- so Tolkien is preparing the stage for those references to have
significance.
>It's a question of how deeply the worldview in question goes against
>my personal beliefs, and whether the worldview in question is
>presented as a Good Thing, or merely a fact.
I think you need to pay careful attention to the totality of what is being
presented here: The Frodo-Sam relationship *is* presented as a Good Thing.
Because it is. It's a positive example of the master-servant societal model.
But that is not an endorsement of the entire master-servant societal model.
Look around the trilogy as a whole and you begin to see Tolkien exploring
multiple facets of that same idea: Saruman-Wormtongue. Sam's Father and the
Sackville-Bagginses (compared to Sam's Father and Frodo or Bilbo). The
Frodo-Sam relationship whenever the corrupting influence of the ring begins to
affect Frodo. The complexity of the Frodo-Gollum relationship. The
Denethor-Pippin relationship also has a lot of parallels here.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Matthew Austern
> > A better
> > question would be "Would I know how to act if I found myself at the
> > court of Queen Elizabeth II?"
>
> No, a better question would be "Would I know how to act if I found
> myself at the court of Arthur in Avallon, where he has reigned lo
> these many years?" That's what the hobbits are getting, from their
> point of view.
It's what Boromir is getting, too. Remember how out of place he felt
at Elrond's council? He's sitting next to a bunch of mythological
creatures. Suddenly, he's having to cope with the fact that pragmatic
issues of national security depend on things that are somewhere in
between ancient history and half-believed legend.
Robert Shaw
> >The hobbits keep a lower style of speech throughout the story for a
> >different reason. They're supposed to sound like normal modern
> >people, much more common than those they meet. Pippin spoke
> >to Denethor in almost the same way as he'd talk to a friend in the pub,
> >with none of the formalities Denethor was accustomed to, which was
> >why there were rumours Pippin was a prince. By middle-earth
> >standards, hobbits are egalitarian. They don't do formality well.
>
> >Would you know how to act if you found yourself at the court
> >of Queen Elizabeth I, or would your speech style be incongruous?
>
> The problem is, they're supposed to be contemporaries. A better
> question would be "Would I know how to act if I found myself at the
> court of Queen Elizabeth II?" To which the answer is probably still
> "no," but on the other hand, the contrast between my mode of speaking
> and the speech of the Royals is almost certainly not as great as the
> contrast between Sam and Galadriel or Aragorn.
>
There's no reason, other than historical chance, why your culture
couldn't be contemporary with Tudor England. Middle-earth could
well have more cultural variety than our world today, which would
be consistent with the poor communications.
Perhaps a slightly better analogy would be a Victorian squire
at the court of the Russian tsar or Chinese emperor, assuming
the squire can speak the local language.
--
'It is a wise crow that knows which way the camel points' - Pratchett
Robert Shaw
Avery Andrews
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Chad R. Orzel wrote:
I think I disagree with this on the basis that Frodo, Pippin & Merry
are all 'gentry' who presumably had some kind of education and connection
with higher culture (Bilbo use to hang out with elves in the forest on
occasion, etc.) whereas Sam really is a rustic bumpkin. I am imagining my
20+ year old children, who are somewhat cosmopolitan, going to Uni etc.
setting out on a quest with some of their less sophisticated friends
from Canberra; this quest requires them to visit and function effectively
amongst Oxbridge dons in a university college environment in the UK. I
thik there'd be really big differences in diction between the dons, my
kids' friends, comparable to Sam vs. Gimli, with my kids able to function
considerably closer to the donnish level. Remember that these people
aren't separated just by time, but by great distances in space and
culture.
>
> The problem here is not so much that they're divided by class as that
> they appear to be divided by centuries. It's not just a matter of a
> few idioms and a more casual style of speaking among the Hobbits, it's
> a completely different manner of speaking. The Elves and Dwarves and
> Men all declaim their lines in high epic style, while Sam talks like a
> colorful rustic in a Victorian novel.
>
> I find this far more jarring than the distinction between high and low
> class characters from the same era in historical fiction (or even
> fiction that just happens to be old...).
>
- Avery Andrews
Damien Raphael Sullivan
>The Old Forest *is* an important element in the plot of the book: It
It's also connected distantly to the Ents, who have a bit of a role later
on...
>Similarly, the Barrow Downs are important because they provide the magic
>blades. At least one of these plays a crucial role in the plot later on.
And they're connected to the old kingdoms of Arnor, and the Witch-King who
destroyed them.
And Tom Bombadil gives information about both the Forest and the Downs, and
hints at the existence of the Rangers, at which they get a vision of men,
including one with a star on his brow.
And the poems of first the Wight and then Bombadil have hints of the deep
shape and history of the world -- the dark lord the wight sings of isn't
Sauron, but Morgoth.
>book), and a large amount of information is, in fact, communicated. Subtly
>communicated, yes; but communicated nonetheless. (I comment on this in a
>previous post and won't repeat myself further here.)
Ah, guess you say the above... hadn't seen it yet, though.
>I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "twee". I don't seem to be scrounging
>this word up out of the dictionaries I have handy.
British for sappy-sweet, or something. Jo?
-xx- Damien X-)
Chad R. Orzel
>Chad R. Orzel wrote:
>>They're rescued from danger, yes, but
>>the dangers are entirely orthogonal to the main story line, and seem
>>to have been thrown in entirely in order to provide a threat from
>>which they can be rescued by Twee Tom.
>
>The only way I can see you dismissing the Old Forest as a "threat orthogonal to
>the main story line" is by defining that in such a way that you also end up
>dismissing Moria (among other things).
>
>The Old Forest *is* an important element in the plot of the book: It
>establishes quite firmly that the Hobbits have left the Shire, and things are
>Dangerous Now(TM).
From which they learn precisely nothing, as they proceed to waltz up
onto the Barrow-Downs and get in trouble there in exactly the same
manner as they did in the Forest. Their behavior doesn't actually
begin to change in a way that indicates their appreciation of the
danger they're in until Bree, when they're accompanied by Strider/
Aragorn.
>Similarly, the Barrow Downs are important because they provide the magic
>blades. At least one of these plays a crucial role in the plot later on.
There are dozens of other ways to have them get magical blades, if it
came to that. But I'll concede that this one had more of a point than
the other.
My re-write (and what I hope ends up in the movie) would be for them
to wander directly onto the Barrow-Downs from the Shire, and be
rescued there by Gildor and the Elves (which requires re-shuffling
things a little in the time-line), thus combining two half-useful
scenes into one fully useful scene.
>>All I'll say for the moment is that every character save Sam, and to a
>>lesser extent Merry and Pippin and Frodo, speaks in approximately the
>>same high epic style, while the Hobbits talk like late Victorians. I
>>find that very jarring.
>IMO, men, elves, and dwarves all have their own distinct patterns of speech.
There are distinctions, but none a quarter as big as the difference
between Hobbits and everybody else. Which is _why_ it's jarring when
they talk.
>>It's the general pointlessness of the scenes, combined with the
>>insufferable twee-ness (tweeity?), which bothers me.
>
>I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "twee". I don't seem to be scrounging
>this word up out of the dictionaries I have handy.
My dictionary has it:
twee: adj. [Brit., etc.] affectedly clever, dainty, elegant, etc.;
mincingly cute or sweet
which is pretty close to what I mean.
Later,
OilCan
Liz Broadwell
: Chad R. Orzel wrote:
: >In discussing their merits, though, all threads eventually seem to
: >turn to how beautifully they all tie into the legends described in
: >_The Silmarillion_. Which I think is cheating in a sense, since it
: >requires referring to things outside the actual story.
: True. But only because that *is* a rather impressive pay-off. It's not an
: *essential* pay-off which every reader must experience; but it is a pay-off
: which *does* exist.
Hear, hear. It's also a pay-off for the author, who did have access to
all this outside-the-story material at the time he was writing the story.
So it isn't *precisely* cheating. (Then there's the more academic
question of how _LOTR_'s existence percolates into the _Silmarillion_
texts -- the Galadriel back-story and the Glorfindel problem are the
obvious examples.)
: The Beren/Luthien material in the chapter "A Knife in a Dark" serves a number
: of different purposes:
<snippage of good stuff>
On a structural level, Beren and Luthien's adventures are the narrative
type (the quest to recover a precious object) of which Frodo and Sam's
adventures are the anti-type (the quest to destroy the Precious object).
In fact, the references to this story start showing up in the text long
before the Aragorn/Arwen relationship begins developing, but after the
author has decided that it's all going to end at Mt. Doom. If somebody
hasn't already done it (or doesn't do it while I'm dithering over my
dissertation), I'd like to write about this someday. And figure out what
resonances the Earendil story has, likewise. It's the only other First
Age narrative to get serious air-time in LOTR.
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "The true servants of the Merciful are
(ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) | those who walk humbly on the earth and
Department of English | say, 'Peace!' to the ignorant who
at the University of Pennsylvania | accost them." -- Qu'ran (tr. Dawood)
Chad R. Orzel
>Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<qlnprtsqteusa71ql...@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:42:46 +0100, "Robert Shaw"
>> <Rob...@shavian.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >Would you know how to act if you found yourself at the court
>> >of Queen Elizabeth I, or would your speech style be incongruous?
>>
>> The problem is, they're supposed to be contemporaries.
>
>Huh? Galadriel was born, what, 5000 years before any of the humans or
>hobbits in the tale. Most of her basic character, personality, etc.
>were formed before there even WERE men/hobbits/etc. Just because
>she's still alive doesn't make her a 'contemporary' of the hobbits.
It's not _just_ Galadriel, it's also Aragorn, and Boromir, and
Legolas, and Gimli, and now that I'm into _The Two Towers,_ Eomer the
Third Marshal of the Riddermark as well. They all speak like
characters out of epic poems-- slightly different characters from
slightly different poems, I'll grant, but they all speak in high-epic
style while the Hobbits speak like late Victorian villagers.
That's the contrast that bugs me. If it were just the High Elves who
spoke like epic poems, I'd be right there with you in saying that it's
a really cool thing, but it's _not_ just the Elves, it's everyone
who's not a Hobbit (so far). There are differences between Galadriel's
particular mode of high-epic speech and Aragorn's, yes, but they're
tiny compared to the difference between either of them and Merry,
Pippin, or Sam.
Later,
OilCan
Chad R. Orzel
wrote:
>Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> All I'll say for the moment is that every character save Sam, and to a
>> lesser extent Merry and Pippin and Frodo, speaks in approximately the
>> same high epic style, while the Hobbits talk like late Victorians. I
>> find that very jarring.
>Ah. Bad tin ear problem there, Chad.
I said "approximately the same high epic style."
Yes, there are differences between the styles of the high epic
characters, but they're like the differences between a character from
the _Odyssey_ and one from the _Aeneid_ (both in translation). They
speak somewhat differently, but they're both from epic poems, so
there's a similarity in the mode of speech.
The differences between the speaking patterns of Aragorn and Galadriel
or Legolas or Gimli are tiny compared to the difference between any of
them and Merry or Pippin or Sam.
Later,
OilCan
Bruce Baugh
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
> Is Tom Bombadil 100% *essential* to LOTR? No. Would LOTR be reduced
> if he were removed? Yes.
Indeed. Tom shows by example one of the fundamental themes of
Middle-Earth, which is that there is more than is seen. Frodo's (and the
reader's) understanding of the world grows in ever-widening circles, but
beyond there's always mystery. Also, and I think this _is_ essential,
there is goodness outside the reach of evil. Sauron's power can corrupt
everything familiar to Frodo, but there is something it never touches.
This matters, greatly.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> Writer of Fortune <*> bruce...@sff.net
I am what I know / A glacier made from layers of history's snow / And
what I know is what I see / In dreaming and reality / On and on this
cycle goes / Wretchedness and beauty juxtaposed - Jeff Johnson,
"Chambord"
Louann Miller
Broadwell) wrote:
>Jordan S. Bassior (jsba...@aol.com) wrote:
>
><snippage of nice analysis>
>
>: (Oh, and he's also Tolkien's self-insertion character -- he and Goldberry are
>: modelled on Tolkien and his wife).
>
>Huh? This is a new one on me -- would you mind elaborating? The only
>biographically-inspired thing I remember Tolkien saying about Tom
>Bombadil was that he was supposed to represent the spirit of the
>vanishing Oxfordshire countryside
Knowing that Tolkien was personally profoundly Christian, I always
took it that Bombadil was meant to hint at what an unfallen human
would have been like. (He carries it off a darn sight better than CS
Lewis in Perelandra, IMHO.)
Louann
Mark Reichert
> we're going to talk about the books, let's talk about them, have some
> give-and-take, share opinions that are actually different.
Fine, but then stick to just pointing out YOUR problems with the books, and
avoid claims that your view of the book is the correct one and everybody
else's is wrong.
That's why I disliked Pauline Kael. She never felt it was enough to simply
enough to trash a movie. She had to make it clear that she felt anybody who
liked said movie was a moron.
Mark Reichert
> From which they learn precisely nothing, as they proceed to waltz up
> onto the Barrow-Downs and get in trouble there in exactly the same
> manner as they did in the Forest. Their behavior doesn't actually
> begin to change in a way that indicates their appreciation of the
> danger they're in until Bree, when they're accompanied by Strider/
> Aragorn.
Exactly! Shows how much they need Aragorn as a guide. Perhaps they would
have been less receptive to his advice if they hadn't been shown how much
out of their depth they were.
Robert Carnegie
> "Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7vportg1r42sm80lu...@4ax.com...
> [much snipped throughout]
> Ever since someone hereabouts pointed it
> out, I keep seeing Bombadil as Ned Flan-diddly-anders.
Oh, _that_ Flanders, Ned Flanders. I thought they were saying
it was a First World War reference. Thanks for clearing that up!!
> > Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
> > Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
> > but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
> > works, these insertions start become a distraction.
>
> Nope, _The Lord of the Rings_ was in print for some 20 years before
> _The Silmarillion_ was published, and that in a form heavily edited
> by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Kay.
We should probably distinguish between the excursions into history and
legend being relevant because they're interesting pieces of world-
building, and being relevant because they appear in full in
_The Silmarillion_. IMO, they would be interesting world-building
if _The Silmarillion_ had never appeared.
The Silmarillion might have been regarded as unpublishable; certainly
its printed form would be a very minor cult classic if _LOTR_ didn't
exist. It does read to me like re-tellings of legends of (other
people's) gods and so forth by the likes of Roger Lancelyn Green.
But it's so _depressing_. Essentially, we lose. Of course this
is also true of Green's rendition of _Tales of Asgard_ - sad ending.
> > Finally, Sam. The core of all the problems I have with the books is
> > probably that I am very much a late 20th century American, while
> > Tolkien was, well, very much not one.
It's set before the sexual revolution; Sam's in love with Frodo
and doesn't know it. Or something quite a lot like that.
Given that Bilbo Baggins took on both Frodo and Sam as students,
taught them both a good deal of world languages and history,
Frodo is the older boy at school that Sam has a huge crush on.
(And when Bilbo leaves Hobbiton for good, Frodo becomes Head Boy.)
So when Gandalf proposes that Sam must go across the world into
deadly danger to share Frodo's doom, Sam's delighted.
To steer away from slash fiction somewhat, let me restate it
this way - Tolkien's attempting to portray an unconsummated
homosexual relationship without necessarily understanding
homosexual relationships very well; even though he was an
Inkling at Oxford. Oxford!
The sub-dom-slave thing that's going on there (with the Hobbits,
not with the Inklings) I won't get into.
Robert Carnegie MA Cambridge
PS: How do you feel about Harry Potter and house-elves?
Jordan S. Bassior
>It's what Boromir is getting, too. Remember how out of place he felt
>at Elrond's council? He's sitting next to a bunch of mythological
>creatures. Suddenly, he's having to cope with the fact that pragmatic
>issues of national security depend on things that are somewhere in
>between ancient history and half-believed legend.
As if, suddenly, the Archangel Michael showed up at a NSC meeting and explained
Heaven's stance in the coming war.
David Tate
> Chad R. Orzel wrote:
> >It's the general pointlessness of the scenes, combined with the
> >insufferable twee-ness (tweeity?), which bothers me.
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "twee". I don't seem to be scrounging
> this word up out of the dictionaries I have handy.
This is part of Chad's problem. The whole notion that something can
be 'twee' (or 'campy' or 'cutesy' or 'saccharine' or...), and that
this is a Bad Thing, is a *very* modern notion -- probably post-WW1 at
the earliest. The Victorians had no such concept, and nothing was too
maudlin or precious for them to be moved by it. We, of course, are
far too cynical and sophisticated for that sort of thing. Tolkien is
pretty tame, in this regard, compared to what was being written 50
years earlier.
The other part of Chad's problem, that I've brought up in other
Tolkien threads before, is that modern Americans have almost no
cultural analogue to the English tradition of light/nonsense verse.
The closest you could get might be Dr. Suess, but we carefully cordon
that off in the "kid's books" ghetto. It's a form of
art/entertainment that we Just Don't Get, in the same way we can't
quite fathom wanting to put mayonnaise on french fries, or vegemite on
toast.
The result is that Tom Bombadil fits a familiar niche to the English
reader (especially one of Tolkien's generation), which greatly reduces
the 'jar' of having him crop up in a scene of great peril in the Old
Forest. The modern American, on the other hand, reacts about the way
you might expect someone with no knowledge of comic books and
superhero legends to react to the sudden appearance of a man in blue
tights and a red cape, with a big "S" on his chest.
Cheers,
David Tate
Jordan S. Bassior
>My dictionary has it:
>
>twee: adj. [Brit., etc.] affectedly clever, dainty, elegant, etc.;
>mincingly cute or sweet
>
>which is pretty close to what I mean.
I suspect that both Tolkien, who had been through real-life Hell (on the
Western Front of World War One) and his characters (who were to go through Hell
in the trilogy) were less disdainful of what sweetness they could find than you
are.
Niall McAuley
[snip]
>The Silmarillion might have been regarded as unpublishable; certainly
>its printed form would be a very minor cult classic if _LOTR_ didn't
>exist. It does read to me like re-tellings of legends of (other
>people's) gods and so forth by the likes of Roger Lancelyn Green.
>But it's so _depressing_. Essentially, we lose.
Well, not really. Men are not big players in the First Age, and it is
the Eldar who lose. The Numenoreans lose too, but their line continues,
and by the end of _The Lord of the Rings_, men are the last ones standing,
so we win.
[snip]
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Mark Reichert
> That's the contrast that bugs me. If it were just the High Elves who
> spoke like epic poems, I'd be right there with you in saying that it's
> a really cool thing, but it's _not_ just the Elves, it's everyone
> who's not a Hobbit (so far). There are differences between Galadriel's
> particular mode of high-epic speech and Aragorn's, yes, but they're
> tiny compared to the difference between either of them and Merry,
> Pippin, or Sam.
The Hobbits are our stand ins. They are late 19th, early 20th characters in
the middle of a High Epic story. They could not do so if they spoke in a
high-epic manner.
Besides, being educated about things outside the Shire, Frodo speaks in that
high-epic manner much more than the other Hobbits.
William T. Hyde
> David Tate said:
>
> >Huh? Galadriel was born, what, 5000 years before any of the humans or
> >hobbits in the tale. Most of her basic character, personality, etc.
> >were formed before there even WERE men/hobbits/etc. Just because
> >she's still alive doesn't make her a 'contemporary' of the hobbits.
>
> Galadriel knew the Two Lamps, didn't she?
Yes, she was one of those who crossed the ice from
the West. Wasn't she a daughter of Feanor's
third son, Finarfin?
In later writings Tolkein was revising her history
so that she would never have revolted against the
Valar, a great mistake in my view, but necessary
for his increasinly Marian view of this character.
She was one of the oldest entities in
> that story -- heck, she probably met Sauron _personally_, when he was
> pretending to be a good guy.
Maybe even when he actually was a good guy.
>
> About the only older people in it whom we meet personally would be Gandalf,
> Saruman,
Radagast and the Balrogs (yes, I know, it sounds like
a band).
and probably Tom Bombadil and Goldberry (if those last named two are
> Maiar, as I think they may be).
Bombadil is, that's explicit in one of the later
volumes, in which his original name is given.
I would assume that the same is true for Goldberry,
and possibly even for the spirit that inhabits
the old willow, which might be one of the weakest
Maia, partially corrupted by Morgoth. Or not.
How old was her husband? I'm pretty sure he was born
in Middle-Earth, but I'm not sure when. Was he older
than Elrond, who was born late in the First Age?
Galadiel channelling George Burns:
"I would marry an elf my age, but there are no elves
my age!"
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Heather Garvey
>
>I'll give you this one. Ever since someone hereabouts pointed it
>out, I keep seeing Bombadil as Ned Flan-diddly-anders.
Ever since I read _Bored of the Rings_, I think of Tom as
a big ol' pot-smokin' hippie....
--
--
"Do not show fear. This is me without fear. And a 62-pound hall pass." -- Dib
Heather Garvey a.k.a Raven ra...@xnet.com http://www.spinnoff.com/swhc/
Liz Broadwell
Worse -- it's as if a representative of the NSC showed up to what he
thought was going to be a meeting of NATO to discover (borrowing David
Tate's idea from upthread) it was being chaired by King Arthur with
Michael the Archangel as its keynote speaker. Talk about having your
strategic outlook rearranged -- Boromir never quite manages to get his
head adjusted to this new reality; no wonder the dream came so
insistently to his brother first.
Lee DeRaud
<gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote:
>"Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:7vportg1r42sm80lu...@4ax.com...
>[much snipped throughout]
>> First of all, the pacing. There are grievous problems with the pacing
>> of the story, particularly in this first volume.
>
>I can't agree. The opening is at a comfortable hobbit pace, before
>the hobbits get caught up in the coming storm, and I think the
>contrast works well.
I didn't think the pacing of FoTR was all that bad...but I always
thought TTT dragged on interminably: it felt twice as long as FoTR and
RoTK *combined*.
And the last chunk, after the return to the Shire, felt like one of
those rock concerts where the band does a 20-minute set and about
twelve encores.
>> Third, Tom Bombadil.
>
>I'll give you this one. Ever since someone hereabouts pointed it
>out, I keep seeing Bombadil as Ned Flan-diddly-anders.
Heh. At least the quantity was kept within reason: what if he'd gone
along *with* them? It would be like a Simpsons spin-off featuring
Flanders and Apu.
Lee
Matthew Austern
>
> Worse -- it's as if a representative of the NSC showed up to what he
> thought was going to be a meeting of NATO to discover (borrowing David
> Tate's idea from upthread) it was being chaired by King Arthur with
> Michael the Archangel as its keynote speaker.
It was actually Tolkien's observation originally. I'm feeling
scatterbrained, and can't remember where he said this, but he's the
one who pointed out that meeting Elrond was like finding that Merlin
and Arthur were still alive---except, of course, that Imladris is far
more ancient than Camelot.
Matthew Austern
> In article <20011005011910...@mb-fg.aol.com>,
> tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
>
> > Is Tom Bombadil 100% *essential* to LOTR? No. Would LOTR be reduced
> > if he were removed? Yes.
>
> Indeed. Tom shows by example one of the fundamental themes of
> Middle-Earth, which is that there is more than is seen. Frodo's (and the
> reader's) understanding of the world grows in ever-widening circles, but
> beyond there's always mystery. Also, and I think this _is_ essential,
> there is goodness outside the reach of evil. Sauron's power can corrupt
> everything familiar to Frodo, but there is something it never touches.
> This matters, greatly.
It matters because there's a certain kind of goodness that the Ring
can corrupt (the goodness of Gandalf and Galadriel and Elrond, for
example, who need power to be active in the world), and another kind
that it can't (Tom, who is disengaged from the world.) It's important
to think about just what is evil about the Ring, why it's tempting,
and what it means to be corrupted by it.
Liz Broadwell
: The differences between the speaking patterns of Aragorn and Galadriel
: or Legolas or Gimli are tiny compared to the difference between any of
: them and Merry or Pippin or Sam.
I don't find that particularly jarring, myself, but I'm curious -- have
you read Lloyd Alexander's _Prydain Chronicles_ by any chance, and if so,
how do you find the use of clashing speech styles there? It's sort of
the other way around from LOTR -- Taran keeps attempting a higher style
than his compatriots, whose colloquial speech tends to undercut his
ambitions to heroism as well as his rhetoric, but in the end he grows
into both heroism and heigh stile together.
Liz Broadwell
I remember this, too, now -- I'm pretty sure it's in the _Letters_
somewhere. Which I'd check upstairs, except that someone has it out (as
well as _The Tolkien Compass_, which includes the guide to translating
names that I wanted to check. Argh!).
James Bodi
---Yes, but it could have been done-a-ding-dillo by a character much less
aw-diddly-awful. Man, I hated that guy. The lesson I drew was that there
was a form of goodness and power that is completely useless in precisely
when most needed, and a hey ho-a-lillo completely undignified form to boot.
James Bodi
--If that's the case, then all I can say is, thank God for the serpent.
>
>Louann
>
R. Byers
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, csm wrote:
> The place where i thought the pacing stumbled the most was
> the Eowyn-Faramir chapter at the end of book three. It was
> a nice story but just seemed to be too abrupt a slowing
> down of the narrative after all the battles.
When I was a teenager, that was one of my favorite parts. I identified
with Faramir, for one thing. But on rereading this summer, it seemed
stilted and, well, adolescent. As many others have pointed out, Tolkien
did not write well about romantic love.
> I also have found the "high-toned" speech of the second and
> third books a little overdone compared to the more balanced
> tone of speech in the first book (so the opposite of your
> reasction, i guess). All the crowds of people weeping and
> laughing and bursting into noble songs at the end struck me
> as too weird even as a child.
I had a lot of problems with RETURN OF THE KING this time around. The
final battle at the gates of Mordor pales in comparison to Pelennor
Fields, and as I said elsewhere Aragorn's coronation is empty for me. I'm
not sure that it's a matter of high-toned speech so much as a complete
disconnect from the supposed joy of the moment. Is that what you mean by
"too weird"? Aragorn is such a cipher of a character that it's hard to
feel excited about his big moment.
> Agree with a lot of what you say about Sam. He grates on
> re-reading. I wish Tolkien had made him a even a tiny bit
> less self-effacing (or -abasing maybe is what i mean).
I actually didn't have much of a problem with Sam this last time around,
although I was struck by the physical affection between him and Frodo.
I liked what somebody else said in one of these threads about how he has
a schoolboy crush on Frodo. Where the feelings between Aragorn and Arwen,
or Eowyn and Faramir, are distant and stilted, the affection between Sam
and Frodo is palpable.
And Sam *is* less self-effacing with regards to, say, Gollum than he is
with Frodo. He's even -- as Gollum complains -- kind of nasty and mean.
("Who you callin' a bitch, bitch?")
--
Randy Byers <rby...@u.washington.edu>
Del Cotter
Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> said:
>>> Fourth, in an odd way, the world-building actually becomes a nuisance
>>> at some points. Beyond the tendency to introduce every new person,
>>> place, or thing by giving its name in five different languages,
>>> there's a tendency to overdo the background just a little bit.
>>> Characters are constantly throwing out little bits and pices of
>>> legends and history (usually in verse) that really don't have much to
>>> do with the plot at hand. To some degree, this adds depth to the
>>> story, but too much of the depth is dependent on reading other things
>>> outside the book. Throwing in snippets of the story of Beren and
>>> Luthien has some resonance for those who have read _The Silmarillion,_
>>> but if you put aside (or simply lack) knowledge of Tolkien's other
>>> works, these insertions start become a distraction.
>
>>NO!!! This is what makes the books real. They're not simply an exercise in
>>fiction meant to get you from point A to point B, they are meant to
>>immerse you in the world of Middle Earth. The snippets of background info
>>flesh out the world, but I never felt they in any way intruded to the main
>>story or confused me. They showed just how grand the history and myth they
>>refer to is and provided tantalising glimpses.
>
>I think it's right around here that I part company with the hard-core
>Tolkien fan base. While it's a wonderful thing that Tolkien spent all
>those years developing ten thousand years of back story for his
>imaginary world, at some level, the books need to stand on their own
>merits as a self-contained work. Particularly since none of that huge
>back-story was actually in print when the books were first written,
>and even the _Silmarillion_ wasn't compiled until after Tolkien's
>death. I quite frankly couldn't care less what order of elves
>Galadriel is descended from (for example), so long as her part in the
>story at hand is described in enough detail to make sense.
YMMV. I have never been able to get interested in reading _The
Silmarillion_, and probably now I never will (which immediately
disqualifies me from membership of the hard-core Tolkien fan base), but
I did not find the back story in _LOTR_ intrusive at all. It was just
exactly the right depth for me.
_The *Silmarillion*_ is too much back story.
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
Del Cotter
>"Mark Reichert" <ma...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> is unlikely to be found. As novels, though, the books aren't quite to
>>> the same level as the world they're set in, or as many would claim for
>>> them.
>>Sorry, the problem is less with the Lord of the Rings, than the
>>preconceptions you bring to reading it.
>Do you think only positive fanboy reviews should be posted to avoid
>damaging your precious sensibilities?
>
>Chad, thanks for the review. You made some excellent points.
I thought Chad's review was excellent, and I disagreed with most of it.
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
Josh Kaderlan
>
> Matthew Austern <aus...@research.att.com> wrote:
>>
>>It matters because there's a certain kind of goodness that the Ring
>>can corrupt (the goodness of Gandalf and Galadriel and Elrond, for
>>example, who need power to be active in the world), and another kind
>>that it can't (Tom, who is disengaged from the world.) It's important
>>to think about just what is evil about the Ring, why it's tempting,
>>and what it means to be corrupted by it.
>
> ---Yes, but it could have been done-a-ding-dillo by a character much less
> aw-diddly-awful. Man, I hated that guy. The lesson I drew was that there
> was a form of goodness and power that is completely useless in precisely
> when most needed, and a hey ho-a-lillo completely undignified form to boot.
Tom Bombadil is actually Ned Flanders?
-Josh
Ethan Merritt
Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>That's the contrast that bugs me. If it were just the High Elves who
>spoke like epic poems, I'd be right there with you in saying that it's
>a really cool thing, but it's _not_ just the Elves, it's everyone
>who's not a Hobbit (so far). There are differences between Galadriel's
>particular mode of high-epic speech and Aragorn's, yes, but they're
>tiny compared to the difference between either of them and Merry,
>Pippin, or Sam.
Why yes, you are right, and that's what makes is so wonderful.
All of the test others (the non-hobbits) are representatives of
older cultures and traditions, and their speech patterns show it.
The high elves are by far the eldest, and are given a distinct style to
indicate this subtly to the reader every time they speak. I suppose
that Tolkien could have chosen a mode other than 'high-epic speech',
but I can't think what it would have been. The primary representatives
of this group are Elrond and Galadriel.
The dunedain are culturally distant descendents of the 1st Age
mixing of Men and Elves in Beleriand, and still show the remnant
overlap of outlook and language with Elrond who Galadriel, who are
still around, having lived through that very ancient period themselves.
Aragorn, when he's in formal mode, approaches the same speaking style
most closely of these latter-day dunedain. On the other hand, when
he's chatting around the campfire with the hobbits he can put on a
more 'colloquial' speech that he has presumably picked up while
knocking about Bree and similar parts of the world whose cultural and
linguistic ties to the First Age are so tenuous as to be non-existent.
This is all done so well that the reader feels almost able to act
as a vicarious Henry Higgins, placing a new character on a social/cultural/
geographic map after reading just a short snippet of their speech patterns.
--
Ethan A Merritt
mstemper - emis . com
[on how the hobbits' mode of speech differs greatly from others
in LotR]
>It's not _just_ Galadriel, it's also Aragorn, and Boromir, and
>Legolas, and Gimli, and now that I'm into _The Two Towers,_ Eomer the
>Third Marshal of the Riddermark as well. They all speak like
>characters out of epic poems-- slightly different characters from
>slightly different poems, I'll grant, but they all speak in high-epic
>style while the Hobbits speak like late Victorian villagers.
>
>That's the contrast that bugs me. If it were just the High Elves who
>spoke like epic poems, I'd be right there with you in saying that it's
>a really cool thing, but it's _not_ just the Elves, it's everyone
>who's not a Hobbit (so far).
I think that this was deliberate on JRRT's part.
Recall that the Hobbits had very little contact with the Big People
for fourteen hundred years or so. (The hobbits of Bree had more, but
none of them had more than bit parts.) IIRC, most of the hobbits in
the shire didn't even believe in things like elves or dragons.
Of course they're going to sound like hicks from the sticks. That's
what they are.
And, of course, Frodo the Elf-Friend, who had contact with the outside
world, did tend to speak a little more like them high-falutin' furriners.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Nothing tears apart a nation like plate tectonics.
Taki Kogoma
to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>David Tate said:
>
>>Huh? Galadriel was born, what, 5000 years before any of the humans or
>>hobbits in the tale. Most of her basic character, personality, etc.
>>were formed before there even WERE men/hobbits/etc. Just because
>>she's still alive doesn't make her a 'contemporary' of the hobbits.
>
>Galadriel knew the Two Lamps, didn't she?
The lamps? No. Melkor threw down the pillars long before the elves
awoke.
She is, however, probably the only elf in Middle Earth (As of the
War of the Ring) to have seen the Two Trees.
Cirdan and Celeborn may be older, but they never went to Aman.
(Okay, there's that little bit of confusion in _Unfinished Tales_
about whether Celeborn was kin to Thingol, or a Teleri...)
>About the only older people in it whom we meet personally would be Gandalf,
>Saruman, and probably Tom Bombadil and Goldberry (if those last named two are
>Maiar, as I think they may be).
You left out Radagast. ;-)
>Galadriel is even more awesome if you've read _The Silmarillion_, and know
>some of her earlier history. We're meeting her in _Lord of the Rings_ when
>she's already very weary of the world, even though (being Elven) she's
>ageless.
What I found oddly touching is that she gave to Gimli that which she
outright refused to Feanor...
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Jordan S. Bassior
>It matters because there's a certain kind of goodness that the Ring
>can corrupt (the goodness of Gandalf and Galadriel and Elrond, for
>example, who need power to be active in the world), and another kind
>that it can't (Tom, who is disengaged from the world.) It's important
>to think about just what is evil about the Ring, why it's tempting,
>and what it means to be corrupted by it.
The Ring corrupts by offering one power to achieve one's ends -- but the source
of this power is itself immoral, and hence the power is tainted. The user may
well originally intend to do good with the power, but the Ring will in time
corrupt him. That is why Galadriel was afraid of the Ring -- because it could
give her the power to recreate Feanor's kingdom in Middle-Earth, but at the
price of turning her into a tyrant (as she well knew would ultimately happen if
she took the Ring). Frodo, in all innocence, tempted her with this vision --
but fortunately, she had the strength to resist it.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Worse -- it's as if a representative of the NSC showed up to what he
>thought was going to be a meeting of NATO to discover (borrowing David
>Tate's idea from upthread) it was being chaired by King Arthur with
>Michael the Archangel as its keynote speaker. Talk about having your
>strategic outlook rearranged -- Boromir never quite manages to get his
>head adjusted to this new reality; no wonder the dream came so
>insistently to his brother first.
To digress, I wonder if, when the DoD comes to David Xanatos to have him design
new equipment for the War Against Terrorism, he's gonna introduce them to _his_
friends ... ;-)
David Tate
> My dictionary has it:
>
> twee: adj. [Brit., etc.] affectedly clever, dainty, elegant, etc.;
> mincingly cute or sweet
>
> which is pretty close to what I mean.
Then I think you misunderstood Tom Bombadil. Twee is a mockery -- it
is a parody of sweetness. Thus the "affectedly" and "mincingly" in
the definition. Tom is meant to be (and I mean these literally, not
as code-words for something else) jolly, happy, merry, joyful, and
fun.
If it really just IS sweet, or happy, or joyful, or what have you,
then it isn't twee.
Unfortunately, one of the by-products of Postmodernism is the axiom
that there is no underlying true sweetness or joy or merriment --
there is only the arch affectation of sweetness, joy, and merriment by
people who really know better, and the ignorant belief in sweetness
and joy by deluded dupes who probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy
and Laffer Curves. Oh, and the sort of desperate 'merriment' or 'fun'
of _La Dolce Vita_.
Tolkien, to belabor the incredibly obvious, was not a Postmodernist.
Maybe it's just me, but I read your criticisms of Tolkien as
essentially showing that his worldview clashes so violently with your
late-20th-C American Postmodernist views that you can't enjoy a lot of
what he was doing. This sort of thing happens all the time -- people
can't enjoy Heinlein because they can't stomach (what they perceive to
be) his politics, or they can't enjoy Fritz Leiber's Mouser/Fafhrd
books because of their rampant misogyny, or they can't enjoy Card
because they find the Mormonism distasteful, or they can't enjoy Lewis
because they find the Christianity distasteful, etc. (I fit the
second of those, btw.) However, unless you're prepared for a whole
different kind of debate, it's not a valid criticism of THE LORD OF
THE RINGS to argue that his notion of joy/happiness/etc. as a real
force has been debunked.
[I hope this qualifies as actual discussion, and not mere flamage.]
Cheers,
David Tate
David Given
"Robert Shaw" <Rob...@shavian.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
[...]
> The hobbits keep a lower style of speech throughout the story for a
> different reason. They're supposed to sound like normal modern
> people, much more common than those they meet. Pippin spoke
> to Denethor in almost the same way as he'd talk to a friend in the pub,
> with none of the formalities Denethor was accustomed to, which was
> why there were rumours Pippin was a prince. By middle-earth
> standards, hobbits are egalitarian. They don't do formality well.
Also, IIRC, the whole group actually spoke several languages, which
Tolkien portrayed by different styles of speech. Which is why he
occasionally falls into epic now and again; the characters had shifted
into a much more formal language. (Which, BTW, I don't believe Sam spoke,
which is why he comes across very awkwardly when talking to people like
Galadriel. He's trying to be polite in the Common Tongue.)
--
+- David Given --------McQ-+
| Work: d...@tao-group.com | Closed mouths gather no feet.
| Play: d...@cowlark.com |
+- http://www.cowlark.com -+
David Given
"James Bodi" <jab...@my-deja.com> writes:
[...]
> ---I see you're getting beat up a bit. FWIW, I agree about Tom Bombaflanders,
> the early pacing, and find some of the language jarring. But for me, it's
> all the 'lo, lo' stuff at the end. I'm not as creeped out by Sam as you
> are, possibly because when I read it I was a good little classist tory, and
> because of the setting, but I agree that there were times when he went overboard.
> That being said, I also think that he 'grew' more, in the sense that Saruman
> used it on Frodo, more than any other character, particularly Frodo.
Oh, yes. Big chunks of _The Two Towers_ bore me senseless. Basically, whenever
the hobbits go off stage, Tolkien shifts gear into High Epic --- fair enough,
given the viewpoint characters --- and loses me. Legolas and Gimli tracking the
orcs and the entire battle of Helm's Deep come across as unbelievably tedious,
which is a pity given the subject matter.
David Given
tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) writes:
[...]
> And note what happens when the Ring's corruption begins to effect Frodo: The
> master-servant relationship turns ugly. That's not accidental.
I hadn't noticed that. Damn. Now I'm just going to have to reread it...
Does the Ring ever affect Sam? He does only wear it once.
Jordan S. Bassior
>Does the Ring ever affect Sam? He does only wear it once.
Yes. It seduces him with the prospect of becoming the Ultimate Gardener.
James Bodi
--The similarities have been noted. At least if a Simpsons Halloween Special
ever does LOTR, we've got one character cast.
>
>
>-Josh
Robert Shaw
"Chad R. Orzel" <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >Similarly, the Barrow Downs are important because they provide the magic
> >blades. At least one of these plays a crucial role in the plot later on.
>
> There are dozens of other ways to have them get magical blades, if it
> came to that. But I'll concede that this one had more of a point than
> the other.
>
> My re-write (and what I hope ends up in the movie) would be for them
> to wander directly onto the Barrow-Downs from the Shire, and be
> rescued there by Gildor and the Elves (which requires re-shuffling
> things a little in the time-line), thus combining two half-useful
> scenes into one fully useful scene.
Its been reported that Crickhollow, the Old Forest, and the
Barrow-downs will all be omited, but cleanly. They'll say
nothing to imply those incidents didn't happen, so that the
audience can still imagine they did. They also won't mention
the seventeen year gap between the first two chapters.
Apparently the hobbits will still see a nazgul in the Shire,
and meet Gildor but the next thing we see will be them
walking into Bree.
--
'It is a wise crow that knows which way the camel points' - Pratchett
Robert Shaw
Steinn Sigurdsson
> >Tom Bombadil is actually Ned Flanders?
> --The similarities have been noted. At least if a Simpsons Halloween Special
> ever does LOTR, we've got one character cast.
Hmm,
Well, Homer is Gandalf, Maggie is Sam, Bart is Frodo,
Marge is Aragon(?), Krusty is Sauron and Mr Burns is Saruman...
Irina Rempt
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, csm wrote:
>
>> The place where i thought the pacing stumbled the most was
>> the Eowyn-Faramir chapter at the end of book three. It was
>> a nice story but just seemed to be too abrupt a slowing
>> down of the narrative after all the battles.
>
> When I was a teenager, that was one of my favorite parts. I
> identified with Faramir, for one thing. But on rereading this
> summer, it seemed stilted and, well, adolescent.
LOL! I remember that from the other side :-) I think I've always had
a crush on Faramir, from the time I first read it at ten or so. It
was worst when I first got my own copy in English at fourteen,
obviously. The crush hasn't gone away (I'm 43 and happily married),
but I don't cry about him any more.
Irina
--
ir...@valdyas.org
http://www.valdyas.org/irina/index.html (English)
http://www.valdyas.org/irina/backpage.html (Nederlands)