Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Books, Criticism & Writing >

What's The Deal With The Lord Of The Rings?

Page: (1)2

02:32 / 31.10.05

I could never quite understand the draw of LOR books. It seems a bit too simplistic to me: an absolute evil that's only reasons for its actions was to..be evil. I mean, after Sauron was able to capture his ring, then what? What where the motives of the orcs and various other races? Where they just compelled? And what about the human pirates/mercenaries who sided with Sauron?

Keith, like a scientist

03:46 / 31.10.05

have you read Sauron's history? The Silmarillion or the Appendix of Return of The King?

There is some insight into his origins and motivations there. It didn't start out quite as pure evil, but certainly became simply about power and dominance...

All Acting Regiment

13:07 / 31.10.05

See, this is exactly the "problem" with LotR- it isn't all that big on real motivation for the bad guys, mainly because they're evil death-spirits who only exist to cause pain and suffering.

I think this links back to some of the source material for Tolkein's ideas. In Beowulf for example, not only Grendel, his mother, and the dragon, but also all the various other elves and gnomes it mentions in passing, have all become distinctly and totally evil by the time the (Christian) writers wrote the saga down. They aren't really 3-d characters.

It's all about an ultimate outside evil against which humanity can be weighed, as opposed to the Greek tradition of conflcting egos/motivations.

In the context of ancient mythology, it makes sense, it just seems jarring in what we assume to be a "modern" "novel" (which in fact LotR isn't).

14:23 / 31.10.05

Surely it's no less complicated than 97 per cent of the fantasy novels which followed it...

15:48 / 31.10.05

There's a discussion about TWO TOWERS film that raises some pertinent issues.

I like the part where Chad claims that "power for power's sake is a modernist cop-out." Whooo... Good times, man, good times.

17:27 / 31.10.05

Sauron = technologist.

The Good Guys = agrarians.

If you don't like camping or wandering in the woods, then you're a bad guy in Tolkien. Even cave-dwelling dwarves are a little... shifty.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

20:13 / 31.10.05

Sauron= One of the second-string demons around Milton's Devil.

Sauron= Stagnation (though in many ways every side in LotR= stagnation, "I would have everything the way it was in the time of my high fathers")

Sauron is not as interesting as the character of the Ring.

03:19 / 01.11.05

I should have been more clear as to the motivation for the topic. I guess I wanted to know what the attraction is to LOTR, why so many people love it so. For such a long, epic of a story it seems a bit too simple, almost fairy-tale-ish for me. Though it has been awhile since I read it, I never could get the "point" of the story. I'm not sure what the means this instant.

I have read only the LOTR and The Hobbit, which I loved, though it is a very diffferent book then its successors. And as far as the 95% of the fantasy that followed it...yeah I not a big followered of them either. The only fantasy series I followed regularly where the Myth Series (Robert Asprin) and Xanth (Piers Anthony)- both of which are a lot more tongue-in-check then most fantasy.

04:02 / 01.11.05

I liked the movies... but the books bored me. There's too much singing, too much walking, too much history.

What I want to know is, if anybody can answer this, why is LOTR accused of racism? I've heard these accusations, but I've never seen any evidence. Is there something I'm missing? (Other than the fact that most of the villains are of a darker hue, i.e. the orcs, but is that it? Because if so, that's flimsy)

07:31 / 01.11.05

Might be worth taking a look at previous topics on The Lord of the Rings, one dealing specifically with matt's question.

First Time Reading the Lord of the Rings.

Rightwing Book, Nazi Film.

Tolkien and Race.

All Acting Regiment

12:32 / 01.11.05

I liked the movies... but the books bored me. There's too much singing, too much walking, too much history.

Grrnff. This is my knee-jerk reaction to what seems to be a lot of people's knee-jerk reaction, okay? Not neccesrily aimed at you.

It can't be helped if you don't like that sort of thing, I suppose. It's just that so often people say the above and what they don't understand is that the book is an evocation of landscape, language and mythology. It's about the world rather than people.

If you got rid of the songs, travel and history, what would you be left with? Basic characterisation, basic action- what is Sauron without all the history? One of the reasons I hate the whole D&D shitmarket so much is because it blatantly lacks any rea lbackground.

Just out of curiosity, if you read something simmilar based in Canada, where you live, as opposed to northern Europe, would it be more interesting/powerful for you because of that? Or indeed, do you find that where you live in terms of urbanity affects how powerful the story is?

Keith, like a scientist

12:35 / 01.11.05

For me, it was because I read it in middle school, and it was the "largest" thing I had ever read until that point. The idea that someone had created a complete history of a ficitional world was what grabbed me. I mean, it's huge, the guy wrote everything back to the beginning of his world and fashioned his own Genesis. It certainly formed my early tendencies to "speculative fiction."

So now, it's like grilled cheese on a rainy day. Comforting and nostalgic.

It's certainly not wonderful writing or plotting, but it was a fantastic introduction and for that it will always be special to me.

13:40 / 01.11.05

thanks loomis. will check out. may bump....

13:40 / 01.11.05

Legba = on the money.

I have a similar annoyed kneejerk reaction to people who complain about those elements of the book. It's like complaining that you don't find the motivations believable in the Faerie Queene. You have to read the work as what it was trying to do. It's myth, it's epic, it's grand narrative. It's not a modern fantasy novel with extra bits of singing stuck on. In ye olden times knowledge was passed on through the telling and singing of stories, so it's an essential part of how characters learn about the history of their world. When Aragorn's stories allow Frodo an occasional glimpse into the enormity of the world he has just entered, we can feel his wonder as his horizons are expanded.

The Lord of the Rings is often criticised for having wooden characters, but for me the moments when they sit around the campfire telling stories and singing songs are bursting with vitality. In fact the songs are some of my favourite parts of Tolkien's work. I always get the song from the Hobbit about smashing plates in my head when washing up. How is this not the catchiest tune around?

Chip the glasses and crack the plates!
Blunt the knives and bend the forks!
Thats what Bilbo Baggins hates-
Smash the bottles and burn the corks!

Cut the cloth and tread on the fat!
Pour the milk on the pantry floor!
Leave the bones on the bedroom mat!
Splash the wine on every door!

Dump the crocks in a boiling bowl;
Pound them with a thumping pole;
And when you’ve finished, if any are whole,
Send them down the hall to roll!

That’s what Bilbo Baggins hates!
So, carefully! Carefully with the plates!

All Acting Regiment

15:31 / 01.11.05

I would even argue that the dramatic bits as described in prose in LotR are less effective than the similar bits described in song elsewhere, but that's a bit controversial.

The travelling is also very important. It's an epic, hard quest: it's gruelling. These characters don't have superpowers, remember. It's meant to be gruelling for the reader, too.

19:35 / 01.11.05

I actually love it as pro-camping/hiking/wandering-in-the-woods propaganda. I think that's the main thing that keeps me coming back to Tolkien. It's very good at evoking a sense of ecology (part of that background/realistic world thing). Every little sprout and critter seems to play a part in a vast natural system and history.

21:03 / 01.11.05

I have to strongly agree with grant here. If there's one thing about LOTR that I like (and there are many; don't get me wrong), it's the ecological theme running through it. As grant put it so nicely, Every little sprout and critter seems to play a part in a vast natural system and history. I find this fascinating. This idea is played up, IMHO, in the movie a little more. Saruman is tearing down trees and the score bah-bah-bums us to understand that Saruman's up to no good.

To go back to something Legba said...

I take back what I said about the history, or at least, qualify my statement. I love the fact that LOTR has such a deep deep mythology. I love it when works such as this have a deeply rooted mythology, sort of like the Hyperion books. There's just so much going on in the background. But with LOTR, I find myself a little bored by the history. So I have a duality running: I love that there is history in the book, but I dislike the history itself.

Another positive thing I can say about LOTR is the epicness of it. There's nothing better than fighting for the history and the future of the world. I love when everything is on the line.

Sjaak at the Shoe Shop

08:43 / 02.11.05

There is much more to the history than just a background to the story (as in most fantasy novels), especially if you include the Silmarillion, where not many stories have happy endings.

There is a constant dynamics in the struggle between good and evil, with kingdoms rising and falling, victory and defeat. For example, there are cities like Gondolin and Nargothrond, that are founded as 'bright stars against the darkness of evil' but still eventually decay and fall down. The same has happened to Gondor. I believe this dynamics, and the message it conveys, is key to his world view. The elves remain truest, and do not forget.. the ideals that are being fought for are reflected in the stories told about the past.

Even in LOTR the struggle between good/evil is not so black and white, considering motives of Boromir, his father, Gollem, and Saruman, as well as Frodo's struggle with the ring. I don't think LOTR sis the correct basis for judging on motivations of the various races. It only describes a single campaign in a long history.

While the epic tale may be appealing to a large public, I believe the ecological and historical elements more essential to the book. Tom Bombadil and Goldberry (talking about singing in the woods..) are not included in the film, but in the book are very important, symbols of nature itself. See also the barren wastes of Mordor vs Lothlorien, and the industrialization of the Shire.

If you take all those elements out, there is still the story of Sam dragging Frodo through Mordor, which is just so beautifully written..

"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow;
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow."

10:25 / 03.11.05

"Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow;
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow."

Any LOTR thread has to come back to this guy in the end. He can see people hidden by the ring? He can wear it without effect? Gandalf thought about giving it to him but knew he'd just loose it somewhere?

Taking the history of creatures in Ea that you get from the Silmarillion, who the hell is he?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:02 / 03.11.05

I always thought Tom Bombadil sat a bit strangely with the rest of LotR. (In comparison to having Father Christmas in Narnia, however, the join is practically seamless).

I don't know if it's because I was reading the book for the first time while the BBC adaptation was first being broadcast, but I thought the songs fitted perfectly. (Now when Pynchon keeps bursting into song, it gets on my tits, but that's another story...) It's history, it's folklore, it's a bunch of people sat round a campfire...

Anyone remember the Spectrum game of The Hobbit? "Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold" indeed!

14:09 / 03.11.05

moorcocks take on tolkien

17:17 / 03.11.05

Taking the history of creatures in Ea that you get from the Silmarillion, who the hell is he?

Some folks thought he was one of the Maiar (like them wizards), but I think he was the Vala in charge of nature and growing things. Can't remember the name. I don't think Tolkien came out and said it, but I remember reading some argument that pointed out enough clues to convince me.

Then, there's always the mundane explanation: Tom Bombadil was a doll from the Netherlands Tolkien's children enjoyed playing with, so he wrote the guy into the story.

That link goes on to back up the idea I had -- Tom Bombadil has the power to sing things into obedience, singing is how Valar create the world, he's powerful but unpredictable, thus he's one of the Valar, a Vala in hiding/gone native (like the wood elves). Oh, it says Goldberry's the nature Vala, he's Aule, the smith.

Fear Tolkien scholarship, for it is unafraid to go deep.

18:45 / 03.11.05

There are two thing, in my opinion, really cool about LOTR:

First, the characters do seem purely good or purely evil, but that's a) by the time the action in the book thakes place, all such questioning (Am I good? What is evil) is in the past for the characters, such as Sauron's descend into darkness, Aragorn's doubts about being a king, etc, etc. So they look 2-D, althought they are not (quite a realist take on character development, if you ask me. People don't usualy question themsemlves after the shit hit the fan, there's time only to react).

Second, Tolkien was trying to create a complete mithology, a tale about the origin of the world, an old-fashion epic legend. So, there's the almighty evil, Sauron, and its mindless servants (orcs), there's the hero (Strider), the sage (Gandalf), and the entourage of lesser warriors who follow them (Legolas, Gimli, etc), all archetypical characters, clichés, if you are cynical. BUT, despite the fact he was attempting to create a traditional epic mith - yes, LOTR is NOT a modern novel at all - with all the traditional elements, he introduced something that was a completely new element, a MODERN element, which is lackin in traditional legends: the common man, in the form of the 4 hobbits and Gollum. Yes, they are small and weak in comparison with the big guys, but in the end it their actions alone (not the big hero's or evil demon's) who can tilt the scale towards either side, bringing a conclusion to the war. While all characters are achetypical, these 5 little dudes are anything but, and that changes everything. Therefore, LOTR is in all aspects a traditional myth, except one fundamental one, which makes it unique

06:05 / 05.11.05

Uhm, I guess I dont agree. Ultimatily for me the villian of these kinds of stories is what makes or breaks the deal. Sauron is a vague threat in LOTR in the sense that he's barely in the story (im not couting the ring by the by) and there is no good reason for him to do the things to do what he does except to be bad. This in many ways is like the Emperior in Star Wars, whose sole perpose seems to cackle endlessly and be EVIL- except of course he has the ultimate underboss/errand-boy in Darth Vader.

So what would have happened if he had re-united with his ring and kicked everybody's ass? (even though even with the ring he certainly wasnt invincible.)

08:43 / 05.11.05

Um, world domination? I mean, why did Hitler want to conquer Europe? He didn't need the cash. Why did Alexander want to conquer the world? Maybe it's a bit of a one-dimensional aim, but it has historical precedent. You could read plenty into the way a lust for power turns one into a single-minded character. Look at how Saruman has been warped by his lust for power. Also Boromir. In contrast you have Aragorn and Gandalf who willingly refuse the ring. Lust for power corrupts what was once beautiful (e.g. Minas Ithil to Minas Morgul) and turns it into something that only seeks one thing and does not have time for art and beauty. e.g. everything in Mordor is functional, everywhere there are wheels turning and machines working. These are just some basic points off the top of my head, but you could easily go on ...

19:05 / 05.11.05

yeah, but dispite Hitler's demonization, he is still a human being. Not some kind of embodiment of evil. I can atleast half-way understand a motive like a Hitler but existing only to do evil...is lame. Even villianous characters like Loki have been portrayed in a positive light every once and a-while as he was more of the trickster-god up intil Ragnorok.

Saruman is perhaps the most interesting character in the book to me- he is proof that even the wise can be wrong. It is indeed wise to side with the stronger side- in this case Sauron- but that doesn't make it the right choice. Even the wisest can come to the wrong conclusion which is an idea that in my experience doesnt get explored a lot, though I guess there are variations of that idea.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

18:31 / 06.11.05

Sauron lusts for power and domination over all things. What more do you need? Of course his motivation is sketchy, Tolkien is setting out to write a myth and they are always loose with the personal details, why DID the Green Knight ride in to court that day, why DID God create the world?

On the subject of good and evil, the Ring makes that a more interesting area, here is an evil object that fools people by making them think they can use it for good, it drives Boromir mad and yet he's only ever of thinking of using it to destroy Mordor and end the war, Faramir resists the temptation to take it knowing that in doing so he is almost certainly guarenteeing that Minas Tirith will fall. Of all the characters only Smeagol is the one who takes the ring with ill in his heart, yet he ends up being the one to destroy it.

nyarlathotep's shoe horn

20:42 / 06.11.05

I think Sauron's principle role is to hang ubiquitous threat over everything.

it quickens the pace of the journey so that it's more than a stroll in the woods (mind you, they take their time getting out the Shire, now, don't they).

I always found that the journey through the Two Towers lost me. Somewhere with Frodo, Sam and Gollum wandering into Mordor, Tolkien completely and utter loses me. I've tried it time and again, and haven't yet gotten through this part... more's the pity.

mind you, it took me four tries to get through Catch-22 which is still one of my favourites to revisit.

As for most fantasy using the overarching Good vs Evil paradigm, check out Steven Erikson's Garden's of the Moon (first book in the "Malazan book of the fallen" series. All of the characters, and their motivations are coloured with multi-hued shades of grey).

but I digress...

Tolkien was thorough (rewriting bits because he realised that the flowers he described in bloom wouldn't have been according to his story's timeline), and has presented a rich, rich place for us to wander in our imaginations. He's retaught us a good deal of our own (ie Northern European, esp. Nordic) mythology.

why is it a good story? Because Gandalf (Hope) gives the ring to Frodo, who is about the last person Sauron would expect to be the ring-bearer.

Even when Hope is lost (to Frodo), he continues on the journey. It is the story of the meekest of us, without hope, continuing on the journey, dispair, death and defeat looming on all sides.

And in some cases, a big ball of evil is a good enough villain (as opposed to the rogue's gallery of poor attempts at villainising the human as psychopath, sociopath, or cruel wisecracking wanker).

ttfn
tenix

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:50 / 06.11.05

Ultimatily for me the villian of these kinds of stories is what makes or breaks the deal.

Fair enough, but maybe that's the issue. LotR is all about the little guys who become heroes... Sauron is the "big bad" against which all this is played. The books aren't really about the villain. If you want books about the villain, then you're porbably not gonna find 'em in this trilogy. It's a fair point, but maybe if that's what you want you should probably look somewhere else. Us LotR-lovers aren't gonna convince you, and maybe we shouldn't.

Having said that, on the subject of power for power's sake- I'd love to take over the world. But where would I put it?

00:15 / 07.11.05

In your ring?

All Acting Regiment

10:39 / 07.11.05

I think Moorcock makes a good point in that essay of his that was linked to upthread (and which is a bloody good read): the prose in Tolkein is just not a patch on the prose found in his mythic influences like Beowulf, Njal's saga, or The Iliad- nor is it anywhere near as vital or animated as that found in some contemporaries like Oz or E. Nesbitt.

To paraphrase Moorcock, it's the language of Whinnie The Pooh, pedestrian, adapted to a conservative idea of what "writing for children" entails- Tolkein takes words seriously but doesn't seem to have any love for them. I think this is a serious problem with the book- and certainly something that makes me despair when you meet people who've only ever really read LotR etcetera. I'm glad Moorcock's put it into words.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:34 / 07.11.05

Moorcock has a point when it comes to JRRT's prose, it has to be said... but I also think he's always been looking for sticks to hit Tolkien with because he despises his Christianity (not necessarily a bad opinion, but it has to be remembered, as it colours a lot of his other arguments). I'm guessing that were, say, Philip Pullman a crap writer (which he isn't, IMHO) Moorcock would be a little more forgiving of it.

15:40 / 07.11.05

Stoatie - agreed. As much as I dislike Tolkien, I think Moorcock's always been looking to shit all over Tolkien, no matter how.

Our Lady Has Left the Building

15:59 / 07.11.05

What I've never understood is why Sauron puts all his power in a Ring? Is that the only way to get control over the other Rings (in the same way you might create the vilest Computer Virus evah, but it's not much good if you don't buy a computer and an Internet connection in order to propogate it)? Are there story precedents for this, as the only other story I know to make use of this is the rather more modern 'Sandman', which turns it round and has destroying the items freeing Morpheus' power rather than destroying it.

Keith, like a scientist

16:24 / 07.11.05

There is Ring of the Nibelung, of course, and I'm sure there are quite a few other older stories that use a talisman to harness power.

Page: (1)2