The Downfall of the Lore of the Rings

Top 2. Jan 2, 2001 12:59 PM

» mkletch - Re: About Great literature

In response to message posted by Semprini:

"Great literature is that which people read by personal choice more than once in a single lifetime." Who said that? Me.

Each person has a different idea of what the word 'great' means. The Lord of the Rings is 'great' because it speaks to many people (but not all; no book fits that bill) on many different levels. Why does it do so? It is, in a word, genuine.

Michael, I think you are preaching to the choir. If someone disagrees with this article, they will never 'get it' anyway. If they agree, they did not need to read it in the first place.

-- posted by mkletch

Top 3. Jan 5, 2001 12:25 AM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Re: About Great literature

In response to message posted by mkletch:

They say art evokes reaction in its audience. I guess I've achieved a small measure of art. smile

Truth be told, I've been too ill over the past few weeks to engage in serious research, so I've been answering some questions which were put to me in email. The dragons and "Magic by Melkor" essay should have been one essay, but I just wasn't up to the task.

And I'm still not out of the woods yet. As I write this I have no real idea of what the next one will be about, and it may be a little late.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 4. Feb 19, 2002 12:30 PM

» Myshka - Aragorn as a horse

Your article says, among other things: "The study of Tolkien's works is really in its infancy because, quite frankly, the critics have been ignoring the Tolkien stories for decades. They've focused on whether Aragorn has all the qualities of a noble horse, ..." I was just wondering to what this refers???

BTW, I enjoyed the article and now bunches of my friends will be discussing it. Sorry to have run into it late - more than a year later - but alas, my bosses think we should work. Like the teachers you so feelingly allude to, who assigned homework. Thanks for making my reading of Tolkein such fun!
Myshka

-- posted by Myshka

Top 5. Feb 19, 2002 5:52 PM

» Niggle - critics

Dear Michael

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

Top 6. Feb 20, 2002 10:21 AM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: Aragorn as a horse

In response to message posted by myshka:

Well, as I write this, I, too, am at work, and don't have my books with me. The reference, however, is to an early critic of Tolkien whose remarks were addressed in the 1972 book by Paul Kocher, J.R.R. Tolkien: Master of Middle-earth (I believe that is the title -- I know that the "Master of Middle-earth" part is correct). It is possible Kocher was responding to the infamous "Ooh, those awful Orcs!" review of the book, which I think was written by Edmund Wilson (sorry -- I'm really bad with names).

If I can remember to, I'll try to look up the reference when I am at home.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 7. Feb 20, 2002 10:34 AM

» Michael_Martinez - Re: critics

In response to message posted by Niggle:

A lot of critics do, in fact, say that LoTR is a great book. Tom Shippey is chief among them. The literary criticism community is divided over Tolkien, and he has his staunch defenders, as well as his detractors.

But The Lord of the Rings is a presentation of an imaginary era in our world's past which inspires a great deal of study and analysis that has nothing to do with literary criticism. The chief value in any artwork is its ability to evoke a reaction in its audience. Few of the critics do more than acknowledge that the power of this story embraces a breath-taking look into a fantasy history.

The Lord of the Rings is not a work about the values of the 20th century. It is a work founded in the examination of those values, but it is chiefly entertainment for the masses. The fact it is entertainment for the masses doesn't mean it can't be a great work of fiction.

What makes it a great work of fiction is the fact that one could just as easily write a newspaper or magazine article about the events in Middle-earth as one could about the events occurring today. News reporters don't normally wrangle with the definition of good and evil (although certainly the current President Bush has given the media reason to pause and consider whether its abstention on values is useful any longer).

The good in The Lord of the Rings is self-evident: it consists of sacrifice, remorse, regret, and courageous choices. The evil in the book is not quite so self-evident, because it, too, consists of sacrifice, remorse, regret, and courageous choices.

That is the real magic of the story: it shows the reader both sides of the coin. The critical community really hasn't figured that out, yet. Here and there you get some brilliant gems of insight, but they keep trying to relate it all to Tolkien's life and the "real" world. Until they learn to work within the framework Tolkien created for good and evil, they will keep missing the mark.

In some of his letters, Tolkien tried to explain how good and evil are only separated by the correctness of personal choices. There is nothing in the book which declares this is so, but once you accept that the author knows how good and evil are divided in his own creation, it's easy enough to go back to the story and see that it really does work that way.

Whether Aragorn has all the qualities of a noble horse isn't important to the story, and shouldn't be of concern to the reader. Noble horses breathe, eat, and move about on their legs. So do people of both the highest calibre and the basest sort.

What distinguishes Aragorn from the noble horse is the fact that he must make choices which leave many readers wondering how they would deal with those decisions.

Let the critics look more to the story and less to their fanciful theories, and they might enjoy a warmer reception from me. But then, I doubt my opinion matters to them anyway.

-- posted by Michael_Martinez

Top 8. Mar 6, 2003 10:41 PM

» Herisson - An elusive enigma

I think that the reason why the Lord of the Rings is such a bone of contention among various critics is that it is something of an enigma. It defies expectations. It may draw from Homeric epics, but Homeric epics don't have Samwise Gamgee relishing herbs and stewed rabbit in the middle of heroic quests. It may contain strains of a bygone, rural England, but such places aren't interrupted by the strangely majestic Aragorn. Neither does the Lord of the Rings conform to the rules of one particular class of literature. Millions of people enjoy it, yet in place of the sex and gore that editors demand, it has poetry and sub-Shakespearean language. In the same way, it is not a typical 'Great Literary Work'. It doesn't expound on the themes of evil and deathlessness in the way that readers may expect. When I read the Lord of the Rings as simple brain candy, I am confronted with wry comments and insightful characterisations. When I attempt to read the Lord of the Rings as a Great Literary Work, I am confounded by bath songs and springle-rings.
To classify the Lord of the Rings as being only entertainment or as being a Great Literary Work would be to force it to abide by rules alien, in part, to it. It isn't completely like anything else. You should appreciate its beauty and its strange wisdom when you come across them, but don't tear the book apart in an attempt to understand it: you can't.

-- posted by Herisson

Top 9. Mar 7, 2003 8:00 AM

» desertblue - Re: An elusive enigma

In response to message posted by Herisson:

I don't think Tolkien was writing for the critics. He seemed to have made it his own personal obsession over several decades. I can't think of any other author, or even film-maker, that comes close to this. Lucas had a shot at this kind of epic, but he seems to have missed the mark with his prequels. We'll see.

-- posted by desertblue

Top 10. Nov 11, 2003 8:29 PM

» NCartmell - Christ in LotR

there actually IS a Christ-figure in Lord of the Rings. it's Gandalf. he rose from the and defeated . he came back better than before. he had bunches of people who looked to him for guidance. that is a definite parallel to Christ. and later in the trilogy, Aragorn is the Christ-figure, coming into his city triumphant over evil, the Lord of Lords, bringer of peace.

-- posted by NCartmell