The Downfall of the Lore of the Rings: critics

» Niggle - critics

I enjoy your columns, but I think you are unfair to critics. I find reading critics a valuable experience. It forces me to examine and justify my own valuation of artistic works, and not infrequently results in a re-reading (if the work is literary ie not music or visual art) of the work in question. Frequently I disagree with the critic's view (I don't have a lot of time for structuralist criticism - in my view that's only one among a number of tools that the critic should have at his disposal) - but if the criticism is focused and well-expressed it usually takes me back to the work itself.

Few critics engage with Tolkien's work. Why? Because there is little forum for debate. Devotees already "know" that LOTR is the book of the century (if not the millenium)and will not brook any diminution in the stature of their idol. Tolkien himself found this sort of idolatry disturbing. Non devotees find little to write about in Tolkien. By his design, his world does not intersect with ours. Values ,once established are not tested. A good example of this are the cases of Saruman and Denethor. Both are seen as failing at the test where nobler or stronger characters pass. But Saruman is a Maia - an angelic being. Surely in order for him to be corrupted the temptation must have been huge, and his struggles against corruption immense. Or perhaps it is simply that any angelic being is necessarily corrupted by incarnation (the snares of the world, the flesh and the devil as the old prayer has it). All of these interesting themes are left hanging. In the last analysis Sauron's own evil is ultimately banal, the rage of a child throwing a tantrum. I'm sorry, but in a century where evil was manifest in the perversion of a nation (if only momentarily) and the systematic attempt to murder an entire race, this really isn't good enough. In the "Book of the Century", I'd expect to see a bit more interest in the nature of evil. And Denethor (I mentioned Denethor for a reason). Denethor has what is to me a key line of dialogue. Faramir has announced that he has sent Frodo and the ring on the way to Mordor. Denethor says that this is typical of Faramir, he always wants to appear noble - but remember, nobility exacts a price. Faramir indicates that he is willing to pay the price. Denethor says (I'm writing this from memory) that the payment may not only be exacted from him. That he has made a choice that everyone will have to pay for. Fighting words and worthy of consideration. How much does this drive Denethor? We never find out, because it doesn't suit Tolkien's purpose to explore how rulers may be forced into compromising their principles. Read the foreword to see how Tolkien regarded the morality of the leaders in the Second World War - so much for Churchill and Roosevelt

These are important issues that by my definition at least, should be tested by any work of art dealing with the struggle of good against evil on the scale of LOTR. The fact that they aren't leaves critics little to say about the book.

This doesn't mean that it's worthless of course. It isn't. Many critics are unfairly dismissive of LOTR in an elitist way. It's great fun. It's extremely well crafted. It's an immense work of imagination skillfully rendered. There is nothing wrong in any of that, and a great many reasons for reading and enjoying the book. I have just finished reading through it together with my nine-year old daughter, and she thinks it's wonderful. Sauron is evil, Saruman is treacherous, Sam is faithful, Frodo is brave, but ultimately not strong enough to conquer the ring on his own, and Gollum is "yucky but important" etc etc. I'd say that she has come pretty close to the heart of the book. I know that as she gets older she will learn that life is more complicated than LOTR suggests. I hope that she will come to see LOTR as an occasional refuge from the real world. I hope that she has not read the best book she will ever read at age nine.

For this reason I can't agree with those who talk about the recent film as a dumbing down of the book. What is there after all, to dumb down? If a nine year old can grasp the central issues in this book, Peter Jackson should be able to hammer them home fairly satisfactorily in three three-hour films - and in my view has done a great job, given the different needs of as different medium.

No critic is going to say that LOTR is a great book. It isn't. The fact that lots of people think it is doesn't make it so. After all many people in 1928 thought the stock market was a sure thing. Lots of men at around the time LOTR took off thought really long hair was pretty neat (I know I had mine long and it looked dire). The fact that lots of people like something doesn't make that thing bad either. Some critics, alarmed by the attention given to something they regard as inconsequential will be elitist and unfairly dismissive. Reading is one of the great civilising skills. LOTR has a lot of people reading. When you think what other forms of entertainment are on offer, that's an important achievement.

-- posted by Niggle