LOTR _is_ Literature

[WernhamHogg]

Well, I posted on the topic of LOTR not needing to have a realistic depiction of evil, which post I think you didn’t respond to. Perhaps you can prove the tautology that a book has to be realistic to be imortant or meaningful or whatever you’re saying LOTR isn’t.

Paradise Lost didn’t have a realistic depiction of evil. Neither did Dante’s Inferno.

[Uncivil]

@well he's back

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.

I think you’re right about the source of some of the imagery, especially the dead marshes. However, I tend to object to WWI being described as a great crusade. It really was a squlid conflict, the vast loss of life achieved so little. Sadly, it only set the stage for WWII. Depends what you mean by the word crusade really - this is how it was presented to the people at the time, on both sides.

@well he's back

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.

Yes, Tolkien’s interests in mythology and his obsessiveness made the history of Middle-Earth very rich. I don’t know what Tolkien’s political or personal views were, but I think I can fairly describe his writings as highly idealistic. Well, thats no bad thing, there is certainly a place for idealism in literature and in life.

I was given a biography of Tolkien for Christmas. After reading this thread, I have a greater inclination to read it.

@well he's back

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?

Absolutely, there is no need whatsoever to make any final judgements. It can make for some interesting conversations though, like this one.

[Uncivil]

@skutir

Well, I posted on the topic of LOTR not needing to have a realistic depiction of evil, which post I think you didn’t respond to. Perhaps you can prove the tautology that a book has to be realistic to be imortant or meaningful or whatever you’re saying LOTR isn’t.

Paradise Lost didn’t have a realistic depiction of evil. Neither did Dante’s Inferno.

Sorry skutir, hard to reply to everyone.

I’m not saying its neccessary for LOTR to depict evil realistically. If it tried, it might well be detrimental to the story! I’m just saying I don’t think it does, as some people have argued.

I’d agree with what you said earlier - the ring is a plot device not a metaphor.

[Miller]

@skutir

Roger Siskel called it “the ultimate McGuffin,” and I tend to agree with him.

Nitpick: It’s Roger Ebert. Gene Siskel was the one who died a few years back.

[WernhamHogg]

@Miller

Nitpick: It’s Roger Ebert. Gene Siskel was the one who died a few years back.

Oh… right. I was getting the fat guy mixed up with the other one.

[Bren_Cameron_1]

@Uncivil

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.

But in those Hollywood films, how often do the good guys, having won, having done everything anyone could have been expected to and more, and being hailed as heroes, consider themselves in their hearts to have failed? Even (or perhaps especially) the ultimate victory has a dreadful cost, one you don’t tend to see in Hollywood blockbusters.

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.

I think LOTR’s depiction of evil is not centered in Sauron. It’s easy to say “Oh, just this amorphous blob of Evil Lidless Eye, how much like real evil is that?” But that’s not where to look. The place where Tolkien’s depiction of evil has depth and reality is in the way the characters deal with it, how it interacts with their lives, how it changes them. The ring, as someone has already said, is just a mechanism, just an occasion of sin, and Sauron is really just backstory for it. I think the Frodo/Sam/Gollum relationship is a really well-done example of what I’m trying to explain (and not very well, sorry). Gollum wasn’t a very nice person to start with, and then has possession of the ring for centuries–his soul is utterly warped and poisoned. Even so, he’s got a chance, Frodo offers him a chance to recover at least part of himself (largely out of a selfish desire to know that he, too, can be saved). But he’s so badly warped by his desire, by the ring, that in the end he can’t take it. Sam is right, when he tells Frodo Gollum can’t be trusted, can’t be saved–but at the same time, it’s Sam’s acknowledgment of this that seals the deal for Gollum. And we feel sorry for Gollum, knowing all this. It’s not a universe where the good are all good and always triumph and we cheer them and the bad are all blackhearted scoundrels who deserve death and we hiss whenever they slink across the stage. Sin, and evil, in human beings just isn’t clearcut like that, in real life or in LOTR. In LOTR, as in real life, the distance between good people and evil people isn’t always as wide as one might like to think.

I don’t think I quite managed to say what I meant, but I did my best. Hopefully someone else will do a better job.

[Belrick]

Im going out on a limb here to say that the LOTR series isnt particulary good literature. The hobbit was brilliant in my mind because it was aimed at quite successfully a younger audience. Rather like the Harry Potter series.

For me there’s poor character creation and i cannot quite get to grips with his semi 3rd person style of narration.

I think most of the accolades given to LOTR is due to its age and originality, fair enough too, to a limited degree.

For i much more prefer the the writings styles of:
Robert Jordan
Raymond E Feist
David Gemmel
Harry Turtledove

Even if there tales are quite so brilliant the writing style is.
IMHO

Ill run away now on the final note that i believe the movies own the books.

[Wendell_Wagner]

I think the best piece of criticism of The Lord of the Rings is J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century by Tom Shippey. (And I believe that this is generally considered the best book on Tolkien.) If the argument in it doesn’t convince you that Tolkien is important literature, I don’t know what will.

[Uncivil]

Just had a read through the Tolkien biog I was given, was quite interesting. It hasn’t radically changed my views, but it has given me a better appreciation of the magnitude of his achievement in writing LOTR.