A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[reapersaurus]

Inspired by the Disc 3 of TTT:EE, I am wondering if people would be interested in hearing about / debating about possible MISTAKES, and bad writing in the original Tolkein Lord of the Rings.

We all are aware of how absolutely beloved this work is.
I have seldom read any analysis or detailing of the perceived mistakes of writing that Tolkein made.
Everyone makes out Tolkein to be this wonderful god of a writer, and I never thought he was very good, based on LotR. There were a myriad of things that were unrealistic, and uncharacteristic, and unbelievable that threw me out of the story, saying "WTF? Noone sees this as a problem?"

Recent threads have talked some about this debate, and I wanted to start this thread to try to get more to the heart of the matter, with book examples, and such.

However, I need help.

I only have 3 things to pull from here to mount an argument against the army of fans (the more vocal of which are "fanboys", meaning that it doesn't matter what Tolkein wrote in LotR, they love it anyway):
1) The Disc 3 wonderful featurette which detailed pretty quickly and high-level the "mistakes" that Tolkein made when writing LotR.
(We could debate whether the makers TRULY thought they were mistakes, or whether they thought that those mistakes caused for a better end product, but let's detail the "mistakes" anyway, and let the reader decide whether they are good for the overall work or bad.)

2) This webpage which is basically a rant on Tolkein, made by a self-proclaimed Anti-Tolkein guy:
http://www.theferrett.com/showarticle.php?Rant=69

While his rant is over-the-top and meandering, I think he makes some solid points that I'd love to see discussed/countered.

3) My memory of the book, and personal experience(s) with it, and the movie(s).
I'll detail these later, if there's enough interest to warrant my opinions to be added.

Thanks for participating, any and all.

BTW: If ANYONE has any "Anti-Tolkein" material, I'd appreciate it being included here, so we may read it and see if it warrants merit.
I couldn't find any detailed record of the writing "mistakes" that Tolkein made anywhere on the net.
(*Google-Fu .... weakening*)

 

[Darrin Drader]

I am wondering if people would be interested in hearing about / debating about possible MISTAKES, and bad writing in the original Tolkein Lord of the Rings.

No, not especially.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Be careful with this thread, Reapersaurus. Tolkien is the ultimate sacred cow to many fantasy fans, and more than a few of them will get downright hostile if anybody says anything bad about their beloved Lord of the Rings.

I love the Lord of the Rings novels, but they are far from perfect. The biggest problems I have with the books are the inconsistant pacing and bad poetry, which can make reading them a chore at times.

 

[Nightfall]

Agreed Darrin, and DJ, while i'm not against criquiting Tolkien, I am against this "hate on" people have just because he's not modern. The guy that wrote that article stating how much he liked Martin should be shot for the sake of NOT reproducing. I also feel ashamed to have enjoyed Martin now. Because I have to share the same world as he does. So while Tolkein might be a sacred cow, I think what I'm against is slaughtering as opposed to dis-sceting the good and the bad of the man.

 

[The Serge]

I'd be interested in this discussion just because I love talking about literary works.

Frankly, I think that Tolkien's power comes from the strength of creating a broad historical canvas for his mythology. The depth of the material, particularly when considered from the time frame during which he created it, is impressive and the standard upon which most contemporary genre fantasy is based. It is this material that provides a fantastic foundation for good, but not great, writing and story telling.

There are two things that I think Tolkien accomplishes well as a writer:

1. Steady build of tension: What I love about LotR is that it takes a considerable amount of time before the reader finds out what is as stake in the narrative. This allows for a sense of drama and anxiety, a good thing for a text that showcases the kind of World Ending apocalypse LotR offers (in this sense, the end of the World of Elves and, if the Fellowship, et al aren't careful, the end of the World of Men). Although there are many slow portions to the narrative, by the time one makes it to The Return of the King, there's nothing but action, drama, and suspense (which makes sense considering that Tolkien envisioned LotR initially as one text).

2. Internal Depth: This is where many fantasy novels fail. Too often, we have the narrator telling the reader about an occurance in the past. Although this is perfectly fine in a history book, like The Silmarillion, this is bad form in a novel because it does not immerse the readers into the story. Tolkien effectively handles this by allowing the characters, particularly those who, due to the steady build of tension, the readers' come to trust. Through stories told by Gandalf and Aragorn, we, like Frodo and Sam, find out the depths of the world outside of The Shire and within the rest of Middle-Earth. This happens repeatedly throughout the trilogy and provides a sense of integrity for the trilogy.

I do not, however, believe that Tolkien is a fantastic writer. There are many slow areas in the telling that can drive someone who wants more action or at least more evocative language to boredom. Yes, Tolkien has a powerful command of language; his descriptions of the environments are exemplary. However, at times he falls short with his descriptions of characters and, more importantly, with what many reading the material knew were key moments, but ended up being glossed over quickly (like certain confrontations in Moria).

But, in the end, I don't know if offering some "negative" critiques of anyone's work is a bad thing. I think it's still possible to recognize the flaws in a Michelangelo sculpture, or inconsistencies in Hamlet. These factors do not rob a work of art of its power, but offers even more guidance for those who would follow in the footsteps of those who preceded. Frankly, I think Tolkien's essential reading for anyone interested in writing fantastic, speculative fiction.

 

[reapersaurus]

Thank you, Serge.
That's the kind of thing I'm interested in reading:
the ability to point out weaknesses without "slaughtering" the guy.

I agree with what you detail are his good points.
I'm more interested in debating the bad points, and story flaws here.

I also find it interesting how Dark Jezter describes (quite accurately) the legions of Tolkein fanatics who he IS a sacred cow to, yet Nightfall describes a "hate on" against Tolkein because he's not "modern".
I have not witnessed this "hate on" re: Tolkein.

As far as I have witnessed in my life, I have only read or seen those 2 things I mentioned speak anything but high praise for Tolkein's work.

Nightfall, could you describe this "hate on for Tolkein not being modern" that people have, and I can then determine whether it has any validity?

 

[blackshirt5]

Not particularly interested because from what I've seen your idea of discussing and debating something seems to be calling people morons if they don't agree with you and conveniently ignoring points that they make.

 

[Endur]

Only the Bible has a higher print circulation.

We all are aware of how absolutely beloved this work is.

The criticisms you can make are the obvious ones. Parts of the novels are slower than typical "fantasy sci-fi" writing, so it can be hard to get into if you are not used to reading classical literature. Likewise, people might not be used to reading poetry and songs intermixed with a novel. Likewise, the many endings of the story.

Personally, I think those criticisms are shallow and incorrect. That the novel is stronger and more powerful because of those elements, but not everyone will agree with that point of view.

I'll admit that I even like Tom Bombadil.

 

[reapersaurus]

I'll start with 2 problems I see in the books :

1) Frodo waiting for months before leaving AFTER it was found that without a doubt, he has the One Ring.
In the other thread, various rationalizations have been forwarded, none of which is remotely convincing to me.
They ignore the facts that Gandalf KNEW it was the One Ring, yet still allowed Frodo to kick back for months before leaving, thus creating the danger with the Ringwraiths later.

This is textual flim-flammery simply to create an action sequence, and people crucify modern directors/writers for pulling this kind of stuff. It'd be utterly refreshing to hear a Tolkein fan say "uhhh... yep! That was weak" and have that be OK.

2) The orcs killing each other to allow Sam to advance into Mordor. Without this silly plot device, Sam would most certainly have been captured. Based on the plot and forces that Tolkein himself described, there was no way for the Quest to have succeeded without pulling male-brain stunts like having an entire fortress kill themselves the exact moment that Sam & Frodo needed them not to be there.

How many orcs were stationed there, anyway? Any guesses as to the size of the force at Cirith Ungul?

 

[reapersaurus]

blackshirt, I'd appreciate if you contributed to the debate/discussion, instead of threadcrapping.

BTW: If you (or anyone else for that matter) is not interested, than it's a lot easier to NOT post than it is to post that you're not interested....