WHy TOLKIEN and LOTR is overrated!!!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Lessee now.

On LotR: I first ran across the books (LotR is 6 books, you will probably recall, not a trilogy) in the early 60s, in college.

I do have the first authorized print edition of LoTR and it's definitely a trilogy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

Harmon, you are certainly have a true appreciation for literature, but your tastes run to the nineteenth century ideal of examination of the souls of characters and tracing their lives, rather than the twentieth century focus on the existential dilemmas of man.

If that is indeed the distinction, then my tastes definitely lie in the 19th century.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If that is indeed the distinction, then my tastes definitely lie in the 19th century.

Mine, too, HarryT.

[Ak Mike]

Harmon: "I think it's not a question of taste, so much as a matter of density or complexity in the novels, coupled with how good the writing is."

But density and complexity are not the only positive qualities for fiction. Orwell, for example, has the vices but also the virtues of an essayist as novelist: clarity, straightforwardness, and visceral energy. You may take away less insight into the human condition, but more understanding of the world-shaking events of the middle of his century.

Tolstoy's attempt at the same thing, expressing political insights in his fiction, is much less successful. His political digressions detract from the story - plus, in the case of his War and Peace theories about the invasion of Russia, he's a crackpot.

(Let me repeat what I said earlier: no question that Tolstoy is a greater novelist than Orwell.)

[Patricia]

I believe that great literature ought both to reveal the concerns of its time, and to transcend them, so as to reveal something timeless about the human situation.

The Lord of the Rings arguably does the first, but (to my mind) is less strong on the second.
I read it as a nuclear drama. The ring is too dangerous to use, but nearly impossible to destroy. That perhaps says something about the cold war period and the CND movement.

Unfortunately, for me, the book is ultimately rather conservative and backward-looking. The women characters are either absent or pooly-developed. And feudal kingship is not a realistic model for the twentieth century. But perhaps that is meant to reflect the author's uneasiness with the post-war situation? Maybe he can't see a satisfactory way ahead, so plunges into a reactonary epic?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I do have the first authorized print edition of LoTR and it's definitely a trilogy.

Harry will enlighten you!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ak Mike

Tolstoy's attempt at the same thing, expressing political insights in his fiction, is much less successful. His political digressions detract from the story - plus, in the case of his War and Peace theories about the invasion of Russia, he's a crackpot.

(Let me repeat what I said earlier: no question that Tolstoy is a greater novelist than Orwell.)

Tolstoy reminds me of Shaw - a man of great intellect but little common sense. Orwell, OTOH, seems to have been a very sensible man.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Patricia

I read it as a nuclear drama. The ring is too dangerous to use, but nearly impossible to destroy. That perhaps says something about the cold war period and the CND movement.

That's plausible, but you have to remember that Tolkien said he didn't intend it as an allegory.

Unfortunately, for me, the book is ultimately rather conservative and backward-looking. The women characters are either absent or poorly-developed. And feudal kingship is not a realistic model for the twentieth century. But perhaps that is meant to reflect the author's uneasiness with the post-war situation? Maybe he can't see a satisfactory way ahead, so plunges into a reactionary epic?

The women, such as they are, are idealized, I think. It's definitely a male-oriented novel, but I wonder why it seems to have been so appealing to so many women?

I agree that it's conservative. I don't know about reactionary. They are not the same thing.

As for "feudal kingship," I live in Chicago. Don't tell me that feudal kingship is not a realistic model. In fact, step back & take a look not only the Daleys, but the Kennedys, Bushes, and all the lesser political and economic dynasties we have scattered around the US. I think that a good argument can be made that feudal kingship is the most realistic model there is, from an objective point of view.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Patricia

I read it [The Lord of the Rings] as a nuclear drama. The ring is too dangerous to use, but nearly impossible to destroy. That perhaps says something about the cold war period and the CND movement.

You may read that into it, but it can't have been Tolkien's intention, conscious or unconscious, as the idea of the ruling ring comes to Tolkien in late 1938, well before nuclear weapons were around.

http://web.archive.org/web/200802271...04_genesis.pdf

is an excellent summary.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Unfortunately, for me, the book is ultimately rather conservative and backward-looking. The women characters are either absent or pooly-developed. And feudal kingship is not a realistic model for the twentieth century. But perhaps that is meant to reflect the author's uneasiness with the post-war situation? Maybe he can't see a satisfactory way ahead, so plunges into a reactonary epic?

One of Tolkien's goals was to create a "mythology" for the English, which he strongly felt that we lacked, compared with the rich mythology of the Nordic, Germanic, and Celtic nations. The whole point of his work is to be backward-looking and to reflect the days of feudal kingship; it's not meant to reflect modern society. I don't think that means, however, that it cannot be enjoyed by 21st century readers.

In the introduction to LOTR, he dismisses the idea that the story of the War of the Ring was an allegory for the Second World War, which many of the early reviewers of the book had suggested. He states, in fact, that he thoroughly detests allegory in any form.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Harry will enlighten you!

It doesn't matter how it was published, it is a 6 books saga. Just because it is being published as Single volume it doesn't make it a single book.

[bertold]

Originally Posted by astra

It doesn't matter how it was published, it is a 6 books saga.

Well then you know better than Tolkien himself.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You may read that into it, but it can't have been Tolkien's intention, conscious or unconscious, as the idea of the ruling ring comes to Tolkien in late 1938, well before nuclear weapons were around.

http://web.archive.org/web/200802271...04_genesis.pdf

is an excellent summary.

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.

[astra]

Originally Posted by bertold

Well then you know better than Tolkien himself.

No. I and Tolkien think alike

[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.