In this thread, Uncivil has asked that we move discussions on whether LOTR is literature to a new thread.
I’ll bite.
I do like to think that there’s a better definition of great literature than simply, “lit is what you like.” There’s no way to get everyone to agree on the standards, but let me toss out a few anyway:
it has some insight into a facet of human (or divine) nature
it is broadly debated by many people. It merits the attention and study of numerous people (not necessarily literary scholars).
it is resonant at an emotional level, at least for some people
LOTR is insightful at least in its portrayal of evil. I believe that in all of Tolkien’s literature, evil is motivated by reckless jealousy: jealousy of the ring, jealousy of a Silmaril, even jealousy of the power of God. Tolkien doesn’t persuade that this insight is correct, but it’s just there, in the story (maybe). It may or may not even be true. But it is something for readers to talk about.
There are many people who study Tolkien and ask serious questions about it - Christopher Tolkien not being the best of them, but there he is. The fact that LOTR is questioned and discussed so much among us non-lit-prof folks makes it, to my mind, a strong candidate as literature.
Strength of character, I’ll admit, is uneven - the elves and some of the men seem to be carved of marble. But the character of the hobbits seems real, and their story is deeply moving (to me, and to many).
If any modern fairy-tale ever achieved literature status, I suppose LOTR was it. Maybe Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur is the gold standard, but they’re difficult to compare. Frankly, I think virtually everything else that has come out of the “fantasy” genre has been unmitigated crap. Entertaining crap on rare occasions, but crap all the same.
LOTR’s strength, I think, is the obsessive detail put into it, and the genius behind its conception. The writing itself is very uneven. It was written in two major phases, and the tonal dissonance really shows, despite, I’m sure, some heavy editing. I understand that the language took on a “higher” or “lower” feel depending on the scene and the characters, but since this stylistic variation carries heavily into the narration, it’s distracting at times. Overwrought, I would say. If Prince Imrahil wants to prattle on like some medieval romance hero, that’s fine, but when the narriative voice lapses into the same floridness, my head hurts a little.
Also, some characters are terribly one-dimensional. Legolas is about as close to a cardboard cutout as any character I’ve ever encountered in literature. I’m always left wondering why, when the Elves were Tolkien’s primary focus in all of his other works, the lone Elvish member of the Fellowship was so obtuse. And Boromir the braggart: I never found him sympathetic, I’m afraid, and I didn’t much mourn his death, though I’m sure he was meant to be a tragic figure.
I could go on, but you see what I mean. Tolkien was hyper-successful in building his world, but had decidely mixed results building characters, dialogue, and tonality. For that reason, I have a hard time seeing him as a “great” writer of “literature”. But being perhaps the finest storyteller our age ever saw isn’t anything to sniff at.
Well, personally I’d call it decent literature, as in some ways its very good indeed. Its a very imaginative work, the great depth of history makes Middle-Earth far more interesting, and a good story. This is why its popular.
However, I wouldn’t describe it as great literature as its not very meaningful or insightful. Characterisation was not Tolkien’s strong point, his main characters seem to share an identical set of values and beliefs. Gollum is the only character who ever displays any internal conflict. I’d also say his representation of evil was simplistic and unrealistic.
I agree with Uncivil to some extent – evil in the real world is never done by “evil forces” who know they are evil and encourage other people to be evil. On the other hand, LOTR isn’t supposed to be realistic, and I don’t agree that a work has to be realistic to be meaningful.
Realistic fiction, like The Grapes of Wrath and most other prize-winning fiction, can be said to operate on the principle of synecdoche - the characters and situations are meaningful because they represent a class or kind of people, and their situations are ones we recognize and identify with. It would be moronic to say the Joads “symbolize” destitute farm families of the Great Depression, because they ARE one. It’s more accurate to say they represent, by synecdoche, all people affected by the Great Depression, and to some extent poor folks in general.
This is perfectly valid, but synecdoche is only one of several basic ways of conveying meaning (see Ken Burke’s Rhetoric of Motives). I would say LoTR is more metaphorical – Metaphor is when one thing represents something else entirely, such as a dragon symbolizing fear or a ring symbolizing power. The characters are realistic enough to identify with, but their perils and mission are fantasic.
Fantastic doesn’t mean simplistic, and certainly doesn’t mean meaningless. Metaphor of the sustained and elaborate kind found in Tolkien and (for that matter) the Brothers Grimm is not supposed to symbolize pragmatic personal and social “insight,” but is largely a psychological affair, creating experiences and meaning in the head of the reader, to the extent that every character and the landscape all “symbolize” the reader, or different aspects of the readers concious and subconcious. This is explicity in Peter Pan, for instance, when the novel makes a connection between the map of Neverland and the sleeping brains of children. It is explained by Tolkien in Tree and Leaf and explored by other writers like Bruno Bettleheim in The Uses of Enchantment and (infamously) Robert Bly in Iron John. It would take far to long to explain and defend this position here, but in a nutshell there IS meaning in Tolkien, it’s just not as literal as you suppose it should be.
There is more than one facet to great literature; but critics too often focus on one or two of them (like characterization or insight into human nature), which enables them to appreciate works that do those one or two things well but makes them discount works whose strengths lie in other areas. (The same could be said of other art forms, like music or movies.)
skutir made some good points. Any definition of great literature which applies only to the realistic and leaves out the fantastic is flawed. (What about the Odyssey or the Divine Comedy, for example?)
I’d be more inclined to say that the ultimate motivation of evil is pride, but I suppose that the two emotions are closely linked.
As to the question posed by the OP, of course LotR is literature. It’s a story published in a book to be read. The question is just whether it’s good literature, or even classic literature. The answer to that will, of course, depend on your definition of “good” or “classic”. But one has to notice that, for fifty years, people have been reading, enjoying, discussing, and debating the books, and there’s no indication that that’s slowing. Obviously, Tolkien is saying something to all those people, or we wouldn’t still be reading and rereading them.
First, I think, you need to define what you mean by the word literature. My Random House Webster’s dictionary defines it thusly:
It’s clear that the point of contention is sense number one. That raises the question: regarded by whom? And further: Widely regarded? By the public? By literature scholars? By some intellectual community? Hard to define.
Let’s brush aside the idea that it is our opinion that we’re interested in. A lot – millions, in fact – of people buy and read Tolkien’s books and regard them as “having permanent worth through” their “intrinsic excellence”. If sales and fan base alone defines literature, then the discussion pretty much ends here.
What I think this discussion is concerned about is what is sometimes called “the world literature”, or Literature, which is a sort of academic consensus of what constitutes literature or canon, which is presided over by the living body of literature scholars, and they set the benchmark for what is, in the terms of the above definition, “excellence”.
Consensus is the key word here. Tom Clancy is not going to be Literature no matter how hard a reader cries out for its recognition, and it’s not going to be Literature no matter how heroically and eruditely that reader presents his thesis on Clancy’s influence on the postmodern movement – not until there is a certain degree of concensus. Conversely, Moby Dick and Ulysses are both Literature even though they’re hardly read by anyone anymore, and would even be almost incomprehensible to a large part of the population.
In other words, the idea of Literature does not concern your personal, subjective opinion. It’s a mostly artificial, political construct. The only way to determine if LoTR is Literature is to look at whether it’s considered such by the reigning Literati. Is it being taught in universities? Is it being studied by literature scholars? Are papers and theses being written about it? Is it being, or has it been, incorporated into major works on literature history and theory? (I’m not asking rhetorically; I don’t have a clue.)
> Is it being studied by literature scholars? Are papers and theses being written
> about it? Is it being, or has it been, incorporated into major works on literature
> history and theory? (I’m not asking rhetorically; I don’t have a clue.)
Yes, it is. Look in the thread linked to in the OP.
The key characters of LotR are Sam, Frodo, Boromir, Aragorn, Theoden, Saruman, and Denethor.
Now why did I choose them? There are many other important characters, but these oens are the strugglers. It is on them that the future is decided. If Legolas or Gimli falls, it won’t have any effec on the world in the long run. Their friendship is important if you udnerstand where it comes from, but as a practical matter they are there to fight and to help out. Its not going to be their world tommorow one way or another. Its the humans and hobbits that will ow the world.
Frodo wasn’t a very important person in the world, but he was the critical link. He wasn’t powerful enough to destroy the Ring. But TOlkein delibertaly wrote it to show that that wasn’t important. Evil had won before and will win again in Middle Earth. But the good people strove with all their might and refused to give up even when the whole cause seemed hopeless. That is why they won. Because Arargorn was willing to die to give Frodo one last chance. Because Sam was willing to carry his friend across the bleakest moutain in Middle Earth. Not a one of them gave up. And strange as it may seem they won. It was no accident - good was watching out for them.
This is of course, an epic story, but its not accuirate to say there are no human villians. There’s Saruman. He wants what all tyrants want: control and power. Sure, he’s wiser than, say, Hitler, but he’s just the same in the end. He’s reduced to mere vain and jealous revenge. He is vicious out of anger and pride. He’s nothing more than a talkative tyrant.
Maybe that’s not deep. But its as meaningful as anything by Dickens or Shakepeare ever wrote. Heck, Shakepeare was nothing more than a popular author himself. He wrote interesting stories about interesting characters, and that was that.
They won because its a book. If I was Sauron, I’d have put a big spiky Indiana-Jones style trap thingy at the entrance to the cracks of doom. Now that would have been great literature - Sam & Frodo dead, the armies of the west annihilated, hope extinguished.
Being more serious, the ethos of “struggling against all odds” because your cause is just has little relevance to the real world. Firstly, your chances of success have nothing to do with how “good” you are, and many people who believe their cause to be just are in fact mis-guided. Disturbingly, Al Qaeda believe that they are acting justly. So did the perpetrators of many atrocities throughout history. The Spanish Inquisitors believed they were saving the souls of the people they tortured. What was physical torment compared to an eternity in hell? Secondly, most people who struggle against all odds in the real world fail or die. That is what against the odds means. Now, please don’t think I’m preaching defeatism here. If you are ever in a desperate situation despair solves nothing, you have nothing to lose by trying. And some things are worth attempting, even if your chances of success are very slim. However, in real life its sometimes better (more beneficial to everyone) to simply cut your losses.
This doesn’t make LOTR a bad book in any way. Is it even possible to write a socially realistic epic? I don’t know. However, it’s a major reason why I consider LOTR to be somewhat lightweight.
I’m not a huge fan of Shakespear or Dickens, so I’m not the best person to comment on their merits. However, it strikes me that their characters are a lot more varied and rounded than Tolkien’s.
I think LOTR should be enjoyed on its many merits. I don’t think there is much point looking for deep meanings within it. Tolkien himself said there isn’t one.
Tolkien wanted to write a really long story that would hold the attention of his readers. He succeeded admirably.
East of Eden, for one, but social relevance is hardly a requirement for great literature. Although, for the record, I don’t think LotR is any better than “good” literature.
Tolkien was replying to the notions that The Lord of the Rings was allegorical or had a specific current political meaning when he said that “As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.” He wouldn’t consider it allegorical because, as a medievalist, he knew what allegory was. It doesn’t have the complex set of matchings between characters and events and the virtues, vices, etc. that true allegory has. This is like the periodic threads that come up on the SDMB about whether the Narnia books are allegorical. They’re not allegorical unless you are very loose about using the term.
Tolkien was also replying to people who wanted to know if the book was about current politics (at that point). They were claiming that the ring was a metaphor for the atomic bomb or that the story was “really” about World War II. Both theories are wrong simply because of the timing. The book was conceived in the late 1930’s. If The Lord of the Rings was about any specific war, it was about World War I, in which Tolkien fought.
To determine whether The Lord of the Rings was great literature, it’s irrelevant whether it had a specific allegorical meaning or a specific current political meaning when it was written. Not very many works of great literature have such specific meanings. Indeed, they may actually hurt the works because they tie the work too much to the time of its writing. Finding random quotes from the author in which they disavow any specific meaning of their works is irrelevant too. That sort of modesty is common. It’s other people’s reactions that determine whether something is great literature, not the author’s own comments.
That was part of my point. The characters aren’t giving into depair even when they know they should just cut their losses. They could have slinked off to the shadows and given up. The elves could have left more quickly, the dwarves and men could have signed on.
But though Tolkein was not writing allegorically, his works did mimic the great crusades of his lifetime. The god characters had one heck of an advantage and used it, even though it would have been safer, more prudent to go along with the big S. Truth be told, I could write pages about how awesomely useful the RIng itself is in a discussion of evil. Its not an allegory, but it is a very accurate metaphor for both the nature of evil and power.
Some good points there Wendall, on reflection I’d have to largely agree with you.
Dealing with SM’s post,
True, there is some meaning there. Although personally I wouldn’t consider it to be very profound, it is pretty essential.
I think Tolkien’s writings mimic his idealised world view (how he would have liked the world to be, not how he thought it really was). I don’t think they reflect the events of his lifetime very much. What great crusades exactly are you talking about?
Personally, I don’t think the ring is a good metaphor for evil. Could you explain why you think it is please? I think evil is intrinsically bound-up with human nature, I don’t think its an external force.
I’m with smiling bandit on this point… I think that’s something Gandalf et al were well aware of. Sure, it would have been easier to toss the ring into the bottom of the ocean. A long term solution. But not long enough… Sauron would eventually find the ring, unless it was destroyed NOW. Frodo’s quest was a second - and last - chance to defeat Sauron. But, as Gandalf told Pippin, it never was more than a fool’s hope.
Living on without hope is a major theme of the book. Uncivil says that this is not a very profound theme, but is profundity essential to great literature? We can debate on this, too, but let me throw an alternative into the mix: portraying a common human experience is essential to any worthwhile experience.
Doing without hope is a common human experience. Cancer patients, holocaust survivors, and lifers in prison know about this in a big way. In a smaller way, it is relevant to all of us. LOTR doesn’t necessarily portray this experience in a new way. But it is portrayed in such a way that the Frodo quest is a personal metaphor for many people.
And for what it’s worth, I think it is a great discovery for most of us that sometimes we have to try to win even when there isn’t hope.
Somehow I think “socially realistic” got turned into “socially relevant.” LOTR, I agree, is limited in either social realism or social revelevance. But again… are either essential to heavyweight, capital-L Literature?
Personal relevance is, to me, crucial though. If it’s personally relevant to me, it’s a good book to me. If it’s “personally” relevant to something common to all humanity, it’s Literature. And in that regard LOTR qualifies.
to Uncivil - you said, quoting: “I think Tolkien’s writings mimic his idealised world view (how he would have liked the world to be, not how he thought it really was). I don’t think they reflect the events of his lifetime very much. What great crusades exactly are you talking about?” - The great crusade that comes to my mind is World War I. Tolkien fought in it; has best friends die in it; saw one of its most horrific battles - don’t have bio in front of me right now, but I believe it was the battle of the Somme, in which over 10,000 British died on just the first day of many. Anyway, as an adult, I cannot now read LOTR without thinking of Tolkien’s WWI experience. I see pictures of the trenches, no man’s land and think - the Dead Marshes. I think of Tolkien sending his son out to fight in WWII and I think of Gandalf saying that the dark forces will always take shape and come again.
Whether he was a complete Luddite who wanted the world to be back to the times of Beowulf and the sagas he studied, or merely wanted the pre-industrial England of his childhood, I can’t say - but his writings mimic both. In other words, his inspiration came from many areas.
To Engywook - I think you made some good points. But I think the theme of carrying on in the face of hopelessness (of inevitable death, which is the human condition) is a very profound theme. It can be found in Hamlet, deSade, Sarte, Beckett, - and LOTR. Someone in another thread (wish I could give credit) noted that for Tolkien, the choice is between Grace and Despair.
FWIW, I think it (the book) is pretty darn good literature. But who, really is the final arbiter? I didn’t like or enjoy the Narnia books, Pullman’s Dark Materials books, Tropic of Cancer, HP & the Order of the Phoenix, or any number of other books others have admired. On the other hand I love the Kristin Lavransdatter books, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and many more. What does anyone’s personal preferences mean with regard to what is great literature? Have we come up with any standards for what is great literature?
The ring is not a symbol for evil. If it symbolizes anything, it symbolizes power (and the obsessive/corrupting quality of power), but many people would say the ring doesn’t mean anything, it’s just a plot device. Roger Siskel called it “the ultimate McGuffin,” and I tend to agree with him. It sets up the journey, and makes it possible to have a couple of mild mannered hobbits play a crucial role in an epic war. The meanings of the novel are in the actions and relationships of the characters, not in the ring.
Ok, very well argued, and I’d agree that is relevant. However, like you say its a theme which is by no means unique to Tolkien, and I feel its one that tends to get vastly over-explored by popular culture. For example, in the vast majority of hollywood films the good guys win no matter what is thrown at them.
Maybe I didn’t express myself too well. For me, truly great literature is highly entertaining, personally involving and highly relevant to the real world. I think LOTR scores well on the first two, not too well on the third. Which is why I’d describe it as simply good literature. However, that’s just my personal definition.
Again, well argued. Of course, the level to which a work of art involves a person will depends greatly on their personal outlook on life, as well as the artwork’s actual content.
One thing I haven’t seen yet is a good argument stating why people think LOTR’s depiction of evil is realistic. I’d be interested if someone could provide one.
If I was Sauron, I’d have put a big spiky Indiana-Jones style trap thingy at the entrance to the cracks of doom. Now that would have been great literature - Sam & Frodo dead, the armies of the west annihilated, hope extinguished.