Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Lord of the Rings: Criticism, Analysis, etc
Posts
The closest it ever comes to a moral complexity is the Noldor, but they proceed to pretty swiftly kick the dog undermining any real ambiguity.
No, I never argued that it *didn't*--but I definitely argue that it is not an objective standard of quality. Many people view morality as black and white. Many of them are even reasonable in their viewpoint, or using a completely different context than what you or I might use. I personally don't adhere to a black and white viewpoint, but it does not objectively or fundamentally reduce the value of a work of art to present such a view.
I guess I take three issues with his criticism. One is that his plot hole critiques ignore the actual narrative at points and focus on his reading that Tolkien had no idea what was going on in the plot until he wrote it. Two is that he seems dedicated to making analogies between the real-world and the books and racism/genocide in the real world, holding Tolkien up as some sort of apologist or sympathizer. Third is that he believes that black and white morality is an objective measure of quality.
While he's right to some degree on point one (there are certainly some weaknesses in the plot and pacing), he's absolutely incorrect on items two and three, and his argument for item one is flawed and poorly thought-out. For him to simply drop that out as some significant literary criticism and attempt to paint people who disagree with him as not being sophisticated enough to comprehend shades of grey is a bit goose-ish.
I like how he created the entire world because one day he was like "Hmm England doesn't have a mythology. It isn't fair! Ima create my own!"
Eh, not exactly. He created the world to fit the languages he created. Some of which were based on Old English (Rohan is basically Anglo-Saxon England).
Wii Code: 2238-5196-8768-3730
Final Fantasy III Code: 2793-2219-0130
Star Fox DS Code: 404-388-375-490
PM me if you add any of these.
It really is a bit of both. He talks extensively about both reasons in letters (some of which are reprinted in the beginning of the silmariliion)
and a bit of (slightly OT) levity from http://www.mark-shea.com/LOTR.html:
1. I don't think LoTR is "bad." I think it's one of the greatest works of literature in the 20th century. (Though, I like the Silmarillion better, and I think the first half of Fellowship and the last half of Return are utter shit by any standard and I am prepared to defend this assessment.)
2. My problem with the orcs isn't that I think they're racist. I think there may be some troubling undertones, because they're dark skinned, but they're clearly not an analog for any human race. Rather, my problem with the orcs is that they are one-dimensional evil monsters that can be slayed without any moral ambiguity, like the Nazis in an Indiana Jones movie (which also bothers me, by the way). Which brings me to point number 3:
3. Morality. Now, I'm sympathetic to the argument that LoTR is written in the style of a fairy tale, or an epic, or both (which is more true as he starts writing it as a fairy tale and finishes as an epic), and therefore it's okay that there are one-dimensional monsters and pure evil gods that tempt you away from virtue because that's just the style. I'm sympathetic to this argument, but it's not exactly a valid argument. Because actually, there are many myths—including ones from the Western culture that Tolkien is internalizing here, namely the Iliad—that do not do this, that actually present morality in realistic and humanist terms.
And I think it's important to do this. I think, all things being equal, a work of fiction that presents morality in complex grays is "better" than one that does not. Certainly there are exceptions, but I'd argue there are fewer than you think. I think "Avatar: The Last Airbender" (the show, obviously) is probably better than Star Wars, certainly from the perspective of its plot, characters, and moral complexity. Star Wars has a childish, cartoonish morality; you can say that Star Wars is imitating line-by-line the tropes of the Monomyth, and it is, and I'm willing to say that's a mitigating factor, but not entirely an excuse.
LoTR isn't entirely black and white, and some of my favorite parts upon reflection are the grays—Frodo's temptation and eventual failure to do right, the tension between the two hobbits and Gollum. Boromir was a fascinating character (though I remember thinking the movies did him better). But Aragorn (for example), in the book, is a boring-assed hero; he is incapable of doing wrong and is basically a paragon of Christian-style epic moral virtue. I think this kind of mythmaking is inferior to more nuanced and complex myths of other traditions. All in all, I think Tolkien's work is less nuanced and complex in its morality than Robert E. Howard's work written almost half a century prior.
I think this is ultimately why so many people have such an emotional attachment to LoTR and its world (and why countless fantasy authors since the 50's have gotten away with basically plagiarizing this world); it succeeds more than any other work of fiction at creating an alternate reality. This function is something Tolkien himself was completely aware of, too—he's written about how humans have the unique ability to act as "subcreators," in relation to our Creator; we can create our own worlds and may even convince other people that they're real. This is actually the main point of fairy-stories, according to Tolkien, and I'm tempted to agree.
"Worldbuilding"—getting to experience an entirely fictional world as if it is real—is also the main reason I love The Legend of Zelda (specifically OoT), and Cameron's "Avatar" movie. They both build their worlds in ways unique to their mediums but, I think, succeed to the same extent that Tolkien does with LoTR.
However, just as with LoTR, you can criticize the hell out of both Avatar's and Zelda's plots, their predictability, their simplistic moral views, etc, and I think it's worth doing this. I think it's important to criticize hugely popular and influential works of fiction, and I think it's important to criticize stuff that you yourself love.
Well said. Tolkien's world creation skills are the best bar none.
Faramir is susceptible to the ring once worn, everybody is.
Faramir's denial is no different from gandalf refusing to use it. it stems from knowledge of knowing what it is what it could do and what it would do to him if used. the problem is that the lure of its ability was too tempting for some people which is not just due to the ring's power but also due to arrogance and honor/morals of the person in question. people who arrogantly think that they can control the power and do more good than bad are invariably lured to it. Gandalf's wisdom saves him, Faramir's honor saves him, Galadriel's experience saves her.
Excellent point. Let's remember that "criticism" means more than "talking about something in a negative light" or taking a negative view on something. Criticism is about interpretation and meaning. It is about our understanding of the works themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Criticism
Wii Code: 2238-5196-8768-3730
Final Fantasy III Code: 2793-2219-0130
Star Fox DS Code: 404-388-375-490
PM me if you add any of these.
This I think is simply something that while I understand, I do not agree with. I don't really buy into moral relativism. Or the idea that characters have to be gray. They can be as black and white as they want, as long as they are interesting.
I find most attempts at moral ambiguity ultimately fail because I can tell easily enough who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.
So really I have no problem at all with how LotR handles it.
I also think there are, for lack of a better word, "evil" people—psychopaths, megalomaniacs, people who basically act like animals in a dominance heirarchy.
So, I'm not bothered by the fact that Tolkien doesn't treat the Orcs' culture as morally equal to the men of the West. I'm bothered by the fact that he creates an entire race of beings that are completely, 100% evil. Even a psychopath isn't 100% evil, they're just "broken," and I think it's fascinating to explore how a psychopath's mind works (see Dexter). Megalomaniacal dictators have their reasons and motivations; their subjects often believe they are acting morally.
Tolkien almost explores this angle with Sauron in the Silmarillion, but it's pretty thin. In LoTR, Sauron is simply "the Dark Enemy." What is Sauron's motivation? What does Sauron want? What does Sauron think he is doing? Does he think he's improving the world? Tolkien never says, except that Sauron is a servant of Morgoth whose motivation was, if I remember, basically to fuck up the Ainur's symphony and get power for himself.
I just think this is childish. I think it's important to try to understand people who you think are "evil." Osama bin Laden is an evil motherfucker and I hope he gets blown up by a Prompt Global Strike along with everyone around him, but I don't think Osama bin Laden is demonic whose sole motivation is powerlust over creation. Osama bin Laden believes he is a Good Guy, and (gasp) some of his viewpoints and criticism of "our side" are germane and relevant.
This is my problem with your literary criticism. Although you deny it, your arguments are based around a notion that one view point is objectively better, and support it by referring to historical precedent. Just because Howard wrote a work with more nuanced morality 50 years before, doesn't mean that Tolkien has in any way failed or written an objectively bad book. Is it one you enjoy less? Yes.
However, you fail to account for the reality that some people see morality in very different terms from you. Some people honestly and sincerely believe that morality is black and white. To them, Tolkien is clearly the superior writer if indeed he presents a black and white morality.
Again, while it's something you may not like, it's not an objective measure of quality, but you continually imply that it is when you make references to how someone else had done it a whole half century before.
The clear implication (perhaps unintentional on your part) is that Tolkien failed to learn from a good example and that Howard is therefore an objectively better writer. You've also brought up the Illiad and classical greek works. Regardless, the authors personal views on morality do not make a piece of work objectively better or worse.
Right: This is your world view, and I personally largely agree with it. That doesn't mean that someone who doesn't agree--or who chooses to not see it this way--is wrong in any objective, measurable way. You can't just dismiss them as childish.
Basically this boils down to you thinking that your personal perception is the superior one, and therefore work that agrees with your viewpoint is superior. That is your view, and you are entitled to it, but it seems awfully black & white to me for someone who claims to adhere to a shades of grey outlook.
I don't know anyone who actually considers Aragorn to be their favorite character or any of his actions memorable. The favorite parts of everyone that I know are where there is moral conflict. And the only reason that those really have tension is because people can point to the logical conclusion of both sides worldviews. Just because there is a clearly marked world ethic doesn't mean that an individual character's personal morality doesn't enter into the picture, which is where all the fun stuff occurs.
The same thing occurs in Arthurian literature. The interesting things occur after the ideal knight (e.g. Gawain) fails to complete an objective. Then along comes another knight, who is in some way flawed, who uses his flaw to obtain the objective, thus overcoming the weakness (e.g. Lancelot). The journey itself is the objective and not the destination. Redemption can only occur if there is something to move away from, and the larger that gradient, the more satisfying the redemption is. It's the exact opposite of the Fall.
The reason that a hobbit is chosen to be the Ringbearer is because they straddle the neutral line and the most impotent (while reasoning) creature in Middle Earth. It'd be like giving Forrest Gump the ring. Sure, he'd have it, but if your largest desire is a Dr. Pepper, how much evil could possibly blossom from that?
The naivete of the hobbits necessarily prevents the ring's use because the ring's true power requires a desire for utility (through mastery and power). The problem is that any desire for utility ends up corrupted, which is why Gandalf refuses to take the ring from Frodo.
But Hobbits have very little desires. The only reason Bilbo is able to turn invisible through the ring is because he desired the ability of a burglar. Frodo's only real desires are basically not wanting the ring and an adventure, both of which can only be fulfilled by the ring through destroying the ring itself in an adventure.
Wii Code: 2238-5196-8768-3730
Final Fantasy III Code: 2793-2219-0130
Star Fox DS Code: 404-388-375-490
PM me if you add any of these.
What are you claiming here?
The ability to be invisible is certainly not related to Bilbo's desires. The only character not affected by the ring is Tom Bombadil, and arguments about that are a completly different topic.
The Four Cardinal Virtues
Let's say you have a knife. It has the power to chop vegetables or cut throats. It's a tool. It's an extension of who and what you are. But the function of a knife is still primarily to deconstruct things, be they vegetables or throats. Get a good person angry enough and they'll see the power of a knife to kill things.
The same thing applies with the Ring. The Ring has the power to do a fuckton of things, invisibility among them. For a ringbearer to use those powers, they first have to know they exist. If they don't know that they exist, they have to discover them through fumbling. Bilbo discovered the invisibility aspect because he wanted to disappear. Everyone afterward who knew of the Ring (namely Frodo and Sam) knew the Ring had the power of invisibility prior to wearing it.
You're claiming that LoTR is objectively good, despite my subjective problems with it?
Or are you claiming that no work is objectively good or bad, and that my criticism of LoTR is dumb because it implies as such?
Whatever the case, neither position strikes me as particularly coherent.
Do you have any textual support for that? Because I think that's completely wrong.
Many people have said that Twilight is a shitty book. They've criticized it from the perspective of its shoddy plot and writing style. They've also criticized it because of the backwards/creepy morality inherent in the work.
It seems like you're saying that criticizing Twilight is unwarranted—because legions of Twilight fans disagree with the critics and like the writing style and the morality.
Is your point really just, "opinions lolz"?
No, and I thought of that when I wrote my comment. My point was (and is) that while you may not appreciate black and white morality, it is a millennium old philosophical viewpoint that is perfectly acceptable. It is not in and of itself a "poor", "bad", or "childish" viewpoint.
Some people who hold it certainly are childish, just as some people who are moral relativists or shades of grey adherents may be childish.
Your argument relegates anyone who doesn't agree with you on the vast superiority of shades of grey as childish in viewpoint. However, they may be able to appreciate another person's viewpoint.
I'm personally unwilling to try to appreciate Twilights viewpoint because I've read an excerpt and thought the actual writing was trash. Sensationalist, inconsistent, and hackneyed. I don't think you can casually glance at a few paragraphs of Tolkien's and easily make the same deduction.
--
My point is that there are many more factors than the author's personal view on morality. You are the one trying to make a case to convince others. If you really think Tolkien is an objectively bad writer, why focus on your assumptions as to his personal morality? Why not find specific examples of hackneyed, cliche-ridden writing? Why not find plotholes besides "eagles"?
I'm not going to go dig around for it. Sorry.
Why exactly do you think it's wrong?
I can appreciate why some people believe in moral absolutes. I also think they're childish, and it's a naive and un-nuanced worldview that drags down literature that upholds it.
So what is your criteria for determining that (for example) LoTR is vastly superior to Twilight?
Here's a few of mine, that I'm basically pulling out of my ass for the purposes of this discussion (apologies to any English majors who know of superior ways of talking about this stuff)
• Creativity/innovation. Recycling pop culture vampires and neutering them < creating an entire fantasy world. Does the story bring something new to the table?
• Writing style. This is hugely multifaceted, and there's a lot of different ways to succeed (or fail), and taste differences, but I imagine we probably agree on the basics.
• "Realism." In quotes, because I don't mean that only stories that take place in the real world are good. Rather, I mean that a story needs to make some sort of internal sense. What happens in the story needs to flow logically and consistently. This includes not only the need for tight plotting (deus ex machinas are bad) but also the need to avoid ad hoc metaphysics.
• Depth. This is where, I think, we are at loggerheads. By "depth," I mean moral and psychological complexity; this sort of shades into what I was talking about with "realism." I think literature that portrays complex characters with various motivations, that acknowledges the messiness of reality and the difficulty in choosing what's right, is better than literature that has the complexity of a Saturday morning cartoon. The first kind of literature challenges us, leaves deep impressions, and I think can actually enrich the human experience by recasting real-world conflicts in a new light. The second kind does little except confirm our own biases.
I don't think LoTR "fails" at any of these things. I'd score it, respectively, 10/10, 6/10, 7.5/10, and 7/10. Those numbers do not reflect any great amount of consideration on my part.
Because it has no textual support? I've never heard of this idea ... like ever.
It seems like a reasonable explanation.
Though I somewhat doubt that Tolkien didn't realize it was the One Ring when he wrote the Hobbit.
Eh. He's definitely very good at it, but I don't think I'd call him the best. The world feels very empty and very uniform and there's little sense of what these places are actually like on a day to day basis or what the culture is or anything.
What Tolkien was good at was the mythic history of his world, which is of course what he was after.
For whatever other faults you may find in their work, when it comes to worldbuilding I'd say Jordan or Bakker or even GRRM is better.
Frodo doesn't know about the invisibility the first time it slips on his finger in Bree. He still turns invisible.
Wii Code: 2238-5196-8768-3730
Final Fantasy III Code: 2793-2219-0130
Star Fox DS Code: 404-388-375-490
PM me if you add any of these.
I will say that your worldbuilding doesn't count if you don't actually finish your fucking book series.
Also, didn't he want to be invisible in Bree? (or was that, too, just in the movie)
He didn't.
The Hobbit was written having nothing to do with Tolkien's then not complete idea of "Middle-Earth". It was only later when he was writing LOTR that he changed a few things in The Hobbit to hook it into the story of Middle-Earth. The most extensive changes being around the character of Gollum and the ring and Bilbo.
Also, the Ring turned Gollum invisible for ages before Bilbo came along.
Why not?
Rare Blood Disease == Worldbuilding doesn't count now?
He didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hobbit#Revisions
Wii Code: 2238-5196-8768-3730
Final Fantasy III Code: 2793-2219-0130
Star Fox DS Code: 404-388-375-490
PM me if you add any of these.
Dammit, you're right on the first part.
Wrong on the second, I think. It's been awhile since I've read them, though.
Wii Code: 2238-5196-8768-3730
Final Fantasy III Code: 2793-2219-0130
Star Fox DS Code: 404-388-375-490
PM me if you add any of these.
That doesn't change what I'm talking about.
The Ring has powers of some sort, certainly, but it's evil is always, always in corrupting people. To put it crasly, it brings out the worst in people. The ring works evil by making people evil.
And there's a whole chain of this idea of internal evil through LOTR and the Simarillion right back to the start. It's pretty consistent in being about corruption.
the ring has inherent invisibility giving properties for mortals.
Okay I'm being more than a little sarcastic.
I will say, based on A Game of Thrones at least, that GRRM's worldbuilding isn't as deep as Tolkien's. It's broader—the plains barbarians are cool and there's nothing like them in LoTR—and it arguably has as "complete" of a history in broad strokes. But the details of the history aren't filled out. Part of this is of course because Tolkien was obsessed with the languages, and as it turns out language is hugely important in terms of fleshing out cultural histories.
I do think GRRM is better than Tolkien in many ways, based on what I've read so far.
I think the following, again from Author of the Century, might be enlightening. In talking about the scene were Frodo is captured at the pass and the orcs that find him express contempt that whoever killed Shelob just left Frodo there:
"Orcs here, and on other occasions, have a clear idea of what is admirable and what is contemtible behaviour, which is exactly the same as ours. They cannot revoke what Lewis calls 'the Moral Law' and create a counter-molarity based on evil, any more than they can revoke biology and live on poisons. They are moral beings, who talk freely what we do. The puzzle is that this has no effect at all on their actual behaviour, and they seem (as in the conversation quoted) to have no self-awareness or capacity for self-criticism. But these are human qualities too. The orcs, though low down on the scale of evil, the mere 'infantry of the old war', quite clearly and deliberately dramatize what I have called the Boethian view: evil is just an absence, the shadow of the good."
Because even your knife analogy is flawed. Consider an ignorant person who doesn't know that a knife can cut. If that persons stab someone else in the heart, that knife will kill the second person regardless of intent or desire.
Similarly with the Ring, it is inherently able to turn its user invisible. Bilbo didn't know it would turn him invisible, yet it did anyway.
Instead the limiting factor on use of the Ring is that the Ring, in a sense, has a will of its own. In the book it is frequently described as having desires itself. It wants to return to Sauron (or perhaps corrupt a Maiar like Gandalf or Saruman - but that's another discussion). The more powerful the bearer, the easier that task is. It deliberately abandoned Gollumn to go to Bilbo.
The Hobbits were the best choice for four reasons.
1) Their relative weakness kept the Ring from considering them potential owners.
2) Their weakness prevented Sauron and his minions from considering them threats.
3) Their small size and natural ability at hiding was helpful for sneaking into Mordor.
4) Their simple life style gave them some resistance to the delusions of grandeur that cause people to want to claim ownership of the Ring.
And even then, at the end, they still failed.