WHy TOLKIEN and LOTR is overrated!!!

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm no expert, and I often wonder why Wagner's 'Ring' doesn't seem to be regarded as an influence on Tolkien's work. I only have a scanty knowledge of both works, but there seem to be a lot of parallels.

I recall quite a few papers in my life on the parallels between LOTR and DRDN. In fact, I vaguely recall that there was a simlarly named character in each. I'll have to re-listen some weekend soon. Also, the Finnish and Norse mythologies that they are both derivatives of are fascinating reading. There is a troll or some other character named Gandalf there...

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

Why do I have the impression that everyone here on MR has a PhD in literature? You're one well-educated lot, you know that?

Some of us are genuinely knowledgeable (e.g. HarryT). Others fake it through google (e.g. me).

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

Why do I have the impression that everyone here on MR has a PhD in literature? You're one well-educated lot, you know that?

I don't dare responding anymore!


Besides, it's been too long since I've read those books (only read them once so far, about 10 years ago), so I only remember the main plot lines...

[desertgrandma]

One thing reading this thread has done for me?

I'm going to re-read the entire series......

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

One thing reading this thread has done for me?

I'm going to re-read the entire series......

Me too, once I can find the time

(bought the entire series from Fictionwise the other day...)

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Abelturd

Why do I have the impression that everyone here on MR has a PhD in literature? You're one well-educated lot, you know that?
It seems barely possible for me to write something contributory, but I'll give it a try anyway.

When I first read the LOTR, it was in my late teens and I was much depressed with my prospects for the future. I had escapist tendencies and was looking for a refuge, a place where I could forget about the everyday, mundane life.
So I hopped into the Middle-Earth and left all my concerns behind for at least a short while. I didn't much care for the story, for me it was enough to roam around and get to know all the wonderful characters, good and bad. Go to arcane places of old age, like Moria, with their history only hinted at or insinuated, because that gave my fantasy even more space to unfold itself.
I would have lingered in the Old Forest or Lorien forever, if Tolkien would let me or gallop through Eriador and enjoy the vistas.
For me the Middle-Earth has a tremendous emotional charge and it makes me sad I can't enjoy books the way I enjoyed LOTR anymore. But that's the bane of growing up, I guess.

And one more remark on the nature of this thread: the start was unarguably rough, people were giving promises to unsubscribe and never post here, but the debate turned out thrilling for me, especially the part on Shakespeare and Tolstoy. I learnt something new about Twain and Orwell, got some tips for further reading. It's good to be here on MR.

P.S. I'm deeply sorry for the overly pathetic tone of my post. Ran out of fresh and original thoughts this morning.

You are not alone.
I buy books in order to read good stories that take me into the world being described. Not to analyse the author as to what he/she may have intended or otherwise.....

[astra]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

You are not alone.
I buy books in order to read good stories that take me into the world being described. Not to analyse the author as to what he/she may have intended or otherwise.....

Ditto!

[Ak Mike]

Sparrow and pshrynk - the Wagner Ring Cycle is regarded as the most influential work of art of the nineteenth century, and it cast a long shadow into the twentieth. There's no doubt that Tolkien took a lot from Wagner. The central gimmick of both works is basically the same - a ring that grants the bearer the power to rule the world, but is cursed. Both Ring works exist in mythological worlds with magic.

Wagner's Ring cycle deals with different (and perhaps more intense) themes - it has sex, and in particular incest, Wotan kills his child, none of the characters are really that admirable, and just about everybody dies. Tolkien used material derived from Wagner, but for different ends.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

Sparrow and pshrynk - the Wagner Ring Cycle is regarded as the most influential work of art of the nineteenth century, and it cast a long shadow into the twentieth. There's no doubt that Tolkien took a lot from Wagner. The central gimmick of both works is basically the same - a ring that grants the bearer the power to rule the world, but is cursed. Both Ring works exist in mythological worlds with magic.

Wagner's Ring cycle deals with different (and perhaps more intense) themes - it has sex, and in particular incest, Wotan kills his child, none of the characters are really that admirable, and just about everybody dies. Tolkien used material derived from Wagner, but for different ends.

And Wagner 'pinched' his ideas from ?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

And Wagner 'pinched' his ideas from ?

It's based largely on the German epic poem, the Niebelungenlied.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I recall quite a few papers in my life on the parallels between LOTR and DRDN. In fact, I vaguely recall that there was a simlarly named character in each. I'll have to re-listen some weekend soon. Also, the Finnish and Norse mythologies that they are both derivatives of are fascinating reading. There is a troll or some other character named Gandalf there...

The name "Gandalf" and all the twelve dwarves in "The Hobbit" Tolkien took from a poem called the "Völuspá", which is a portion of the Norse epic called the "Elder Edda", which he had done a great deal of work on in his profession as a philologist.

[zerospinboson]

The central gimmick of both works is basically the same - a ring that grants the bearer the power to rule the world, but is cursed.

However, in Tolkien it is the meek who inherit the earth, or at least who can resist temptation, whereas in Germany (to be cheeky) it was Hitler who inherited the Ring (des Nibelungen).

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

Sparrow and pshrynk - the Wagner Ring Cycle is regarded as the most influential work of art of the nineteenth century, and it cast a long shadow into the twentieth. There's no doubt that Tolkien took a lot from Wagner. The central gimmick of both works is basically the same - a ring that grants the bearer the power to rule the world, but is cursed. Both Ring works exist in mythological worlds with magic.

Anyway, this seems a bit of an overstatement. The 19th century was filled with composers and writers, not the least among them being Beethoven. And considering most of the concert tradition builds on him rather than Wagner, (including Wagner himself) and considering that instrumental music is fairly different from vocal music, and performed far more widely, it seems a bit misleading to call it the 'most influential work of art' (which presumably also includes the visual and literary arts?) of the entire century that was Romanticism.

[Ak Mike]

zerospinboson - your perspective has merit, but I disagree. I am of the opinion that Beethoven was a far greater composer than Wagner. You are right that instrumental music is fairly different than vocal music. Beethoven's overwhelming influence on instrumental music continued for many decades after his death.

On the other hand - I don't think anyone can doubt that Wagner was the most influential opera composer of at least the second half of his century. And, as this discussion illustrates, Wagner's influence spread far beyond the world of music. He had enormous influence on literature, and even on philosophy and culture generally. For example, I think the atmosphere he created influenced Freud and his school. So I continue to maintain that the fusion of music and literature embodied in the enormous expanse of the four Ring operas (something like twenty hours of music and drama) is very likely the most influential work of art (any kind of art) of its century.

Harry is, of course, right about the Niebelunglied. Other important influences were the Volsunga Saga and, I think, the Lesser Edda. One interesting point is that the dwarf Alberich, probably the principal baddie in the Ring Cycle, is essentially the same as Oberon, king of the fairies in A Midsummer Night's Dream [By way of the french - Alberich in German became Alberon in French, became Oberon in English].

[bertold]

Originally Posted by astra

No. I and Tolkien think alike

Which part of that article makes you think you and Tolkien think alike on this?

Before you quote the obvious sentence, do note the words "at this point"
in it.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I recall quite a few papers in my life on the parallels between LOTR and DRDN. In fact, I vaguely recall that there was a simlarly named character in each. I'll have to re-listen some weekend soon. Also, the Finnish and Norse mythologies that they are both derivatives of are fascinating reading. There is a troll or some other character named Gandalf there...

There's no Gandalf in Wagner's Ring. As Harry says, he's an elf in one of the Eddas. But you may be thinking of Froh (in Das Rheingold) and Frodo.

Someone once described the Lord of the Rings as a mixture of Wagner's Ring and Winnie-the-Pooh.

Both have the Ring that is destructive to all who use it; a hero figure who gradually gets recognised; a sword of mysterious origins; garments giving invisibility or near-invisibility (the Tarnhelm and the Elvish cloaks); and both have dwarves, dragons etc.
Both have a similar horror of industrialisation (the Nibelung hordes and the factories in the Shire).
And both see the age of the gods/elves as passing away, with a new age of human beings approaching.