Keep those in mind, new writers!
#1 is optional of course, but under no circumstances forget #2!
I should probably stop bothering with reading author interviews.
I'm not a fantasy novelist (yet), but I've got a bash for Tolkien: There's no need to overexplain EVERYTHING, and make EVERY link in the family chain. 3/4th of the trilogy reads like the bible, and is just as boring (...and Issaiah begat Issac, who begat Juda, who begat so and so, on and on for three more lines...). I don't care about every little detail, I care about the story.
Keep those in mind, new writers!
#1 is optional of course, but under no circumstances forget #2!
I should probably stop bothering with reading author interviews.
Mik - What hack did the bashing?
ChrisR - Tolkien is not for everybody, for me his detail and richness of the world is an essential component of the story.
ChrisR - Tolkien is not for everybody, for me his detail and richness of the world is an essential component of the story.
Oh, I understand this. If it floats your boat, that's fine, and I'm not saying I don't want detail, it's just that Tolkien, in my opinion, takes it beyond its usefulness. I honestly have nothing against Tolkien, and I appreciate his ability with language, beautiful prose and a master wordsmith, I just don't think he's a good storyteller.
But really, I just made that remark because "Bash Tolkien" was in the title of the thread.
I saw China Mieville at an event for his latest book when it came out last year. He joked about his agent telling him to do more Tolkien bashing, since it got people talking and started more buzz for his novels. He concluded that was when he decided to stop doing it. In fact, I remember Erik Mona had found an interview where he listed 10 things that he really liked about Tolkien.
I don't think Tolkien is above criticism by any means. He's awfully dry and I almost dropped The Fellowship of the Ring before it ever really got rolling purely because I was so sick of the endless Hobbit pastoral stuff.
I saw China Mieville at an event for his latest book when it came out last year. He joked about his agent telling him to do more Tolkien bashing, since it got people talking and started more buzz for his novels. He concluded that was when he decided to stop doing it. In fact, I remember Erik Mona had found an interview where he listed 10 things that he really liked about Tolkien.
I don't think Tolkien is above criticism by any means. He's awfully dry and I almost dropped The Fellowship of the Ring before it ever really got rolling purely because I was so sick of the endless Hobbit pastoral stuff.
ChrisR - That's cool, we like different things.
JK - When I was younger I didnt think the books got rolling until the Barrow Wights. Now I appreciate that he was trying to reinforce what the Hobbits have to loose. Though I still think he spends too much time in the shire at the beginning.
I have (and I am sure Tolkien him self would) a problem with the "Father of Fantasy" tag that he gets labelled with. I think this is what makes him a target for other authors to attack his work. Tolkien would be the first to point out other authors that preceded him or were his contemporary. I wish I could find the quote, he liked RE Howard and he himself drew from Germanic myth.
If an author trashes another author then it invites others to review their work with the same level of criticism.
Tolkien's main aim was to create an epic myth so he could experiment with language. In relation to LotR he was also sending chapters (as he was writing them) to his son who was fighting in the western desert during WWII.
Tolkien's main aim was to create an epic myth so he could experiment with language. In relation to LotR he was also sending chapters (as he was writing them) to his son who was fighting in the western desert during WWII.
+1
The man was not attempting to write mainstream fantasy genre fiction, nor attempting to write a page-turner that will get you through your flight from New York to L.A. Comparing his work to modern fantasy writers is mainly an apples to oranges sort of thing anyway.
|
Mik - What hack did the bashing?
Richard Morgan this time around. For what it's worth I still want to get around to checking out Steel Remains, but the man probably shouldn't have claimed to be such a renegade in a genre that has already hosted Glen Cook and David Gemmel.
I don't think Tolkien is above criticism by any means.
Oh no, he shouldn't be sacrosanct. I've got problems with Tolkien. Tolkien had problems with Tolkien. But it's the whole KNOCK TOLKIEN INSTANT STREET CRED meme amongst some writers that's annoying.
I mean hot damn, guys. Less defining your work by what it is not, plz.
I just know that step three has something to do with underpants.
Hope that helps, Mikaze!
Good Luck.
AND NOW WE SHALL BE AS GODS.
|
I'm not a fantasy novelist (yet), but I've got a bash for Tolkien: There's no need to overexplain EVERYTHING, and make EVERY link in the family chain.
I actually miss his ability to put a map in the front of his book and not have to take us to *every darn land on that map,* unlike, say, Robert Jordan.
Tolkien had five wizards. Gandalf the Grey, Saruman the White, Radigast the Brown and the twins, the Blue Istari (IIRC). If some modern writers had written the Lord of the Rings, you can bet your bippy we would have met Radigast and the Istari, as well as travelled to the lands of Haradwaith, Rhovanion and Rhun, meeting their people and exploring their cultures, and introducing a dozen new characters in the process, and learned more about Troll language and society, and descriptions of the half-dozen gods that we didn't even learn the names of unless we read the Silmarillion ('cause they weren't terribly important to the story), and a thousand over travelogue details that don't necessarily add to the story.
Tolkien's gift, not often seem in modern trilogies (especially those 'trilogies' that are on book eleven or so), was in *not* feeling compelled to fill in all of the blanks, but to leave some stuff in the sandbox for later, like the fantasy novel equivalent of just ending the map with the words 'here there be dragons.'
Tolkien's a piker compared to Stephen King, who will devote 60 pages to what's going on in the mind of a character that's going to die in a car wreck on page 61 *and turn out to have not a darn thing to do with the rest of the book.* [Kirkvoice] Kiiiinnnnnngggg! [/Kirkvoice]
Flames! Flames, from the side of my face...
My Tolkien-bash would be my loathing of the character of Arwen.
We've got two books setting up a potential romance between Aragorn and Eowyn, with some chemistry going on, and a possible sealed alliance between Gondor and Rohan, the two most prominent Kingdoms of Men, heralding a glorious future. Eowyn shows up and pretty much saves Gondor's butt by sticking her pointy thing in the Witch-King of Angmar, who is walking through Gondor's defenses with the impunity of someone who is immune to whatever you throw at him, the fantasy equivalent of single-handedly saving your boyfriends *entire freaking country* by way of a 'hey there.'
And then some elven princesst who Aragorn had a crush on like eighty years ago, and sent him packing because he was a smelly human and 'it would never work out between us' discovers that her entire race is packing up and leaving to go live in the land of the gods, leaving her alone with no one to cook her meals or make her pretty dresses or comb her hair. If she goes to the land of the gods, she'll just be another elf, and no longer the priviledged daughter of the ruler of Rivendell, with servants and gowns and yet more gowns. Totally unacceptable!
Then she hears that the dirty human boy who used to make googly-eyes at her elven superiorness is about to become the King of the biggest human kingdom on the continent, and decides, 'Hmm. A life of being a peasant in the land of the gods, or of being the Immortal Witch-Queen of the Entire Darn Human World here in Middle-Earth, with all the servants and gowns I can stand... And all I have to do is put up with that silly boy-man for whatever few fleeting decades he has left. Better to rule here than serve there, I guess.'
So she hops on a horse and heads off to Gondor to re-connect with that human kid who had a crush on her, and Aragorn goes all weak at the knees and shows Eowyn, who just pretty much pulled his biscuits out of the fire with her bare hands, the door. "There's the door!"
Meh.
*My* Return of the King, if it had Arwen in it at all, would have ended with Eowyn telling her, "Oh, so *now* he's good enough for your elfishness? Hit the road, chica. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out of *my* kingdom."
My Tolkien-bash would be my loathing of the character of Arwen.
We've got two books setting up a potential romance between Aragorn and Eowyn, with some chemistry going on, and a possible sealed alliance between Gondor and Rohan, the two most prominent Kingdoms of Men, heralding a glorious future. Eowyn shows up and pretty much saves Gondor's butt by sticking her pointy thing in the Witch-King of Angmar, who is walking through Gondor's defenses with the impunity of someone who is immune to whatever you throw at him, the fantasy equivalent of single-handedly saving your boyfriends *entire freaking country* by way of a 'hey there.'
And then some elven princesst who Aragorn had a crush on like eighty years ago, and sent him packing because he was a smelly human and 'it would never work out between us' discovers that her entire race is packing up and leaving to go live in the land of the gods, leaving her alone with no one to cook her meals or make her pretty dresses or comb her hair. If she goes to the land of the gods, she'll just be another elf, and no longer the priviledged daughter of the ruler of Rivendell, with servants and gowns and yet more gowns. Totally unacceptable!
Then she hears that the dirty human boy who used to make googly-eyes at her elven superiorness is about to become the King of the biggest human kingdom on the continent, and decides, 'Hmm. A life of being a peasant in the land of the gods, or of being the Immortal Witch-Queen of the Entire Darn Human World here in Middle-Earth, with all the servants and gowns I can stand... And all I have to do is put up with that silly boy-man for whatever few fleeting decades he has left. Better to rule here than serve there, I guess.'
So she hops on a horse and heads off to Gondor to re-connect with that human kid who had a crush on her, and Aragorn goes all weak at the knees and shows Eowyn, who just pretty much pulled his biscuits out of the fire with her bare hands, the door. "There's the door!"
Meh.
*My* Return of the King, if it had Arwen in it at all, would have ended with Eowyn telling her, "Oh, so *now* he's good enough for your elfishness? Hit the road, chica. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out of *my* kingdom."
So what, you want Faramir to just remain a bachelor? All their time together (Faramir and Eowyn, that is) in the houses of healing amounts to nothing?
I just don't get literary love... :)
Tolkien's a piker compared to Stephen King, who will devote 60 pages to what's going on in the mind of a character that's going to die in a car wreck on page 61 *and turn out to have not a darn thing to do with the rest of the book.* [Kirkvoice] Kiiiinnnnnngggg! [/Kirkvoice]
And thus the reason I never liked any King books either.
At least Tolkien was able to write that kids story "The Hobbit."
Any book King writes for a 12 year old I could see that 12 year old putting down after 10 minutes cause he got bored with it.
Tolkien's gift, not often seem in modern trilogies (especially those 'trilogies' that are on book eleven or so), was in *not* feeling compelled to fill in all of the blanks, but to leave some stuff in the sandbox for later, like the fantasy novel equivalent of just ending the map with the words 'here there be dragons.'
Tolkien's a piker compared to Stephen King, who will devote 60 pages to what's going on in the mind of a character that's going to die in a car wreck on page 61 *and turn out to have not a darn thing to do with the rest of the book.* [Kirkvoice] Kiiiinnnnnngggg! [/Kirkvoice]
Flames! Flames, from the side of my face...
You want verbose description, you should try Victorian-era British literature (Charles Dickens, et. al.). That boy had single sentences that went on for more than a page. Personally, I like the involved description (hence, apparently, my liking for Tolkien and King), but in literature, to each his own. Besides, anyone who can throw a quote from the Clue movie is OK in my book.
My Tolkien-bash would be my loathing of the character of Arwen.
I think we have a different understanding of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship. When they last parted before reuniting near the end of Return of the King, it wasn't so much Arwen kicking Aragorn to the curb as the two of them deciding that even though they loved each other, it was best for the two of them if they separated so that Aragorn could fulfll his calling. Circumstances changed, and IIRC, Arwen abdicates her immortality to join with Aragorn (don't know if I'm conflating the movie and book here, it's been a while).
Anyway, I do agree with the OP that, while Tolkien is not to be set above reproach, tearing him down simply to identify yourself as one of the cool kids is pretty silly.
Any book King writes for a 12 year old I could see that 12 year old putting down after 10 minutes cause he got bored with it.
Hey, I was reading King as a 12-year old... of course, I was a bit of a freak... still am, really... nevermind!
I think we have a different understanding of Arwen and Aragorn's relationship. When they last parted before reuniting near the end of Return of the King, it wasn't so much Arwen kicking Aragorn to the curb as the two of them deciding that even though they loved each other, it was best for the two of them if they separated so that Aragorn could fulfll his calling. Circumstances changed, and IIRC, Arwen abdicates her immortality to join with Aragorn (don't know if I'm conflating the movie and book here, it's been a while).
I think that was just a movie thing - I don't think they ever "separated" in the books, nor was Elrond opposed to their union, etc. I think she had abdicated her immortality long before the events in the war of the ring, but I don't recall the exact timeline, or even if it was ever made explicit in the books/appendices.
|
|
You want verbose description, you should try Victorian-era British literature (Charles Dickens, et. al.). That boy had single sentences that went on for more than a page. Personally, I like the involved description (hence, apparently, my liking for Tolkien and King), but in literature, to each his own. Besides, anyone who can throw a quote from the Clue movie is OK in my book.
As a kid, I found the Illiad riveting, even when it would go off on a six page description of Achilles' new shield, so I was equally a mutant child.
Most of my friends can't make it through a 20 page Lovecraft short story. Le sigh.
Any book King writes for a 12 year old I could see that 12 year old putting down after 10 minutes cause he got bored with it.Hey, I was reading King as a 12-year old... of course, I was a bit of a freak... still am, really... nevermind!
Yeah, I was referring to writing young adult fiction for the average young adult.
When I read Lord of the Rings, I got the impression that Aragorn had been questing for many years to regain his ancestral throne only because Elrond made it a condition for marrying Arwen. This seemed high on Aragorn's thoughts when he told the hobbits the story of Beren and Luthien Tinuviel.
|
When I read Lord of the Rings, I got the impression that Aragorn had been questing for many years to regain his ancestral throne only because Elrond made it a condition for marrying Arwen. This seemed high on Aragorn's thoughts when he told the hobbits the story of Beren and Luthien Tinuviel.
It's been a awhile since I read the books but I thought something similar.
And speaking of weird things to read while young, I loved Zane Grey books.
And then some elven princesst who Aragorn had a crush on like eighty years ago, and sent him packing because he was a smelly human and 'it would never work out between us' discovers that her entire race is packing up and leaving to go live in the land of the gods, leaving her alone with no one to cook her meals or make her pretty dresses or comb her hair. If she goes to the land of the gods, she'll just be another elf, and no longer the priviledged daughter of the ruler of Rivendell, with servants and gowns and yet more gowns. Totally unacceptable!
Then she hears that the dirty human boy who used to make googly-eyes at her elven superiorness is about to become the King of the biggest human kingdom on the continent, and decides, 'Hmm. A life of being a peasant in the land of the gods, or of being the Immortal Witch-Queen of the Entire Darn Human World here in Middle-Earth, with all the servants and gowns I can stand... And all I have to do is put up with that silly boy-man for whatever few fleeting decades he has left.
Okay, here's something from my copy of Lord of the Rings, Appendix A Part V. Thirty-nine years before Aragorn and Arwen marry, she tells him "I will cleave to you." Rather than live forever, she chooses to be mortal to marry him. Elrond tells Aragorn "She shall not be the bride of any Man less than the King of both Gondor and Arnor." After they marry, Aragorn and Arwen then live another 120 years, and when Aragorn dies, Arwen follows suit that winter.
In short, I think you're being most unfair to Aragorn and Arwen, Set.
And then some elven princesst who Aragorn had a crush on like eighty years ago, and sent him packing because he was a smelly human and 'it would never work out between us' discovers that her entire race is packing up and leaving to go live in the land of the gods, leaving her alone with no one to cook her meals or make her pretty dresses or comb her hair. If she goes to the land of the gods, she'll just be another elf, and no longer the priviledged daughter of the ruler of Rivendell, with servants and gowns and yet more gowns. Totally unacceptable!
Then she hears that the dirty human boy who used to make googly-eyes at her elven superiorness is about to become the King of the biggest human kingdom on the continent, and decides, 'Hmm. A life of being a peasant in the land of the gods, or of being the Immortal Witch-Queen of the Entire Darn Human World here in Middle-Earth, with all the servants and gowns I can stand... And all I have to do is put up with that silly boy-man for whatever few fleeting decades he has left.
Okay, here's something from my copy of Lord of the Rings, Appendix A Part V. Thirty-nine years before Aragorn and Arwen marry, she tells him "I will cleave to you." Rather than live forever, she chooses to be mortal to marry him. Elrond tells Aragorn "She shall not be the bride of any Man less than the King of both Gondor and Arnor." After they marry, Aragorn and Arwen then live another 120 years, and when Aragorn dies, Arwen follows suit that winter.
In short, I think you're being most unfair to Aragorn and Arwen, Set.
Thanks for finding that! This has been nagging at the back of my mind... One thing though, I don't interpret what Elrond tells Aragorn as a condition of marriage so much as a statement of fact or a prophecy. It may have been interpreted as a marriage condition for the movies to exaggerate the romantic drama, but I never got this sense from the books myself.
|
And then some elven princesst who Aragorn had a crush on like eighty years ago, and sent him packing because he was a smelly human and 'it would never work out between us' discovers that her entire race is packing up and leaving to go live in the land of the gods, leaving her alone with no one to cook her meals or make her pretty dresses or comb her hair. If she goes to the land of the gods, she'll just be another elf, and no longer the priviledged daughter of the ruler of Rivendell, with servants and gowns and yet more gowns. Totally unacceptable!
Then she hears that the dirty human boy who used to make googly-eyes at her elven superiorness is about to become the King of the biggest human kingdom on the continent, and decides, 'Hmm. A life of being a peasant in the land of the gods, or of being the Immortal Witch-Queen of the Entire Darn Human World here in Middle-Earth, with all the servants and gowns I can stand... And all I have to do is put up with that silly boy-man for whatever few fleeting decades he has left.
Okay, here's something from my copy of Lord of the Rings, Appendix A Part V. Thirty-nine years before Aragorn and Arwen marry, she tells him "I will cleave to you." Rather than live forever, she chooses to be mortal to marry him. Elrond tells Aragorn "She shall not be the bride of any Man less than the King of both Gondor and Arnor." After they marry, Aragorn and Arwen then live another 120 years, and when Aragorn dies, Arwen follows suit that winter.
In short, I think you're being most unfair to Aragorn and Arwen, Set.
Thanks for finding that! This has been nagging at the back of my mind... One thing though, I don't interpret what Elrond tells Aragorn as a condition of marriage so much as a statement of fact or a prophecy. It may have been interpreted as a marriage condition for the movies to exaggerate the romantic drama, but I never got this sense from the books myself.
I agree. Although, one very important thing to remember, Aragorn and Arwen are for all intents and purposes an incarnation of Beren and Luthien... which Tolkien styled afted himself and his wife.
|
|
One thing though, I don't interpret what Elrond tells Aragorn as a condition of marriage so much as a statement of fact or a prophecy. It may have been interpreted as a marriage condition for the movies to exaggerate the romantic drama, but I never got this sense from the books myself.
I got the impression from the books that Aragorn very much *didn't* want to take the throne, but felt that it was his duty. He seemed eager to downplay it at the Council, and I vaguely recall Boromir being a little pissy about the thought of his father being replaced by some ranger who didn't even want the job.
But this was thirty years ago, so I could be misremembering. The movie certainly gave the impression that Arwen was an active part of the story, and that Boromir was a big fan of Aragorn, with his 'we two sons of Gondor' schpiel.
|
|
Okay, here's something from my copy of Lord of the Rings, Appendix A Part V. [snip] In short, I think you're being most unfair to Aragorn and Arwen, Set.
Nah, I'm being unfair to Tolkein. I *know* that Tolkien didn't want a ten year old Set to read his trilogy and think, 'Who is this gold-digger? Where did she come from?'
And, I don't feel that it's *too* unfair, since he had to put the explanation for Arwen's last-minute arrival into the 'Appendix A, Part V' instead of actually making it part of the story I was reading. A writer probably shouldn't expect his reader to check the footnotes for why a character has shown up unexpectedly.
Arwen contributes nothing to the story, and shows up at the end like some conquering hero. Eowyn comes across as having been totally robbed, and foisted off on some dude she'd never even met, in an abrupt love-at-first-sight manner that felt very much like the characters were being written off stage to clear them out of the way as fast as possible.
The movie at least gave the viewer a chance to identify with Arwen, at the cost of ditching the character of Glorfindel (IIRC, been a long time), so that her appearance at the end didn't feel like something leaping out of the ether fully-armored. Her being portrayed by Liv Tyler, who apparently shares no DNA from her scary-looking father, certainly helped win my approval. :)
Tolkien took me 10 years to read (well, Fellowship did), even after I started getting into D&D. I was bored to tears and kept putting the book down. Finally, I had a graveyard shift job, and I cleaned out all other reading material in my car (including the owner's manual) and was able to make it through to the Mines of Moria.
Then it actually was a thrill ride all the way until halfway through RotK. Then: Appendices!
Seriously, even before Clerks II, I was imitating FotR as (tour guide voice):
"We're walking, we're walking, there's a tree, we're walking, we're walking, if you look to the left, you'll see beautiful scenery, we're walking we're walking..."
Sigh. They're definitely fantastic books, and create a vivid world, but for my teenage years, they just didn't click until Moria.
One thing though, I don't interpret what Elrond tells Aragorn as a condition of marriage so much as a statement of fact or a prophecy. It may have been interpreted as a marriage condition for the movies to exaggerate the romantic drama, but I never got this sense from the books myself.I got the impression from the books that Aragorn very much *didn't* want to take the throne, but felt that it was his duty. He seemed eager to downplay it at the Council, and I vaguely recall Boromir being a little pissy about the thought of his father being replaced by some ranger who didn't even want the job.
But this was thirty years ago, so I could be misremembering. The movie certainly gave the impression that Arwen was an active part of the story, and that Boromir was a big fan of Aragorn, with his 'we two sons of Gondor' schpiel.
I haven't read them in almost 10 years myself (the last time was just before the first movie came out), though I've read them at least 8 or 10 times through. My interpretation of what you're pointing out is not so much that Aragorn didn't want to take the throne of Gondor (which was in the movie, and in my view was a strange departure from the books), but that he didn't want to do it prematurely at the wrong time.
Arwen's role was certainly embellished for the movie though (Peter Jackson has discussed this at length).
Arwen's role was certainly embellished for the movie though (Peter Jackson has discussed this at length).
Yeah, if I remember right, he wanted another strong female presence in the story (after Eowyn) and to make Arwen more than the "shrinking violet" type of character. He certainly managed that; if Arwen had made the stand at the Ford of Rivendell rather than Glorfindel, the movie portrays it very much how I would have imagined it.
Eowyn comes across as having been totally robbed, and foisted off on some dude she'd never even met, in an abrupt love-at-first-sight manner that felt very much like the characters were being written off stage to clear them out of the way as fast as possible.
Wow, you really don't like Faramir much, do you :) :) :)
She probably spent more time with him than with Aragorn, who could just as easily be said to be her love at first sight. Granted, Faramir's not the king of Gondor and Arnor, but he's no gollum either... And they had a lot in common! She was wounded killing the Witch-king, who had wounded Faramir. Gave them a lot to talk about in those lonely stone houses. It's like the evil dead dude was fate bringing them together - a nazgul matchmaker, if you will :)
|
|
ChrisR - Tolkien is not for everybody, for me his detail and richness of the world is an essential component of the story.Oh, I understand this. If it floats your boat, that's fine, and I'm not saying I don't want detail, it's just that Tolkien, in my opinion, takes it beyond its usefulness. I honestly have nothing against Tolkien, and I appreciate his ability with language, beautiful prose and a master wordsmith, I just don't think he's a good storyteller.
But really, I just made that remark because "Bash Tolkien" was in the title of the thread.
Tolkien did not write a trilogy, he created a world and its mithos for england, the trilogy its just a media to tell us about it... as certain Lucifer would say about the Bible... "its Propaganda!"
but certianly seeing the hobbits run from one place to other... well that is boring :P
|
|
And, I don't feel that it's *too* unfair, since he had to put the explanation for Arwen's last-minute arrival into the 'Appendix A, Part V' instead of actually making it part of the story I was reading. A writer probably shouldn't expect his reader to check the footnotes for why a character has shown up unexpectedly.
Arwen contributes nothing to the story, and shows up at the end like some conquering hero. Eowyn comes across as having been totally robbed, and foisted off on some dude she'd never even met, in an abrupt love-at-first-sight manner that felt very much like the characters were being written off stage to clear them out of the way as fast as possible.
The movie at least gave the viewer a chance to identify with Arwen, at the cost of ditching the character of Glorfindel (IIRC, been a long time), so that her appearance at the end didn't feel like something leaping out of the ether fully-armored. Her being portrayed by Liv Tyler, who apparently shares no DNA from her scary-looking father, certainly helped win my approval. :)
I do agree with this evaluation... while Arwen is beautiful (and in Liv Taylor's skin she is just the elven princess we all hoped Galadriel will be (great performer... unfortunately SHE IS NOT the faires woman in the world as Galadriel was) I myself felt Eowyn was cheated...yes her character was a bit embellished in the movie... still she killed the king of the Nazgul... what did Arwen did ebsides look pretty and sacrifice her eternal life for a mortal with already 80 years?
|
|
Then it actually was a thrill ride all the way until halfway through RotK. Then: Appendices!
At first, I thought you were referring to an experience like mine... "Yay! The ring is destroyed!" ... WTF? 200 more pages???
The scouring of the Shire is certainly an interesting turn of events, but it's kind of a letdown after the whole Mount Doom thing. I approve of Peter Jackson's killing off Saruman much earlier.
Actually, the whole Scouring of the Shire episode is so that the reader doesn't get the typical "Yay! The ring is destroyed! Now everything can all go back to the way it was before, with no lasting consequences!" When you take part in monumental events, you are changed by those events, and nothing is ever the same again. Setting up that change is part of the reason for the long beginning (though even I, enjoying Tolkien's exposition, think he went a little overboard on that).
Come on, CH, you can't tell me you didn't enjoy it just a little bit, seeing halfling warriors kick some butt...
|
|
Eowyn comes across as having been totally robbed, and foisted off on some dude she'd never even met, in an abrupt love-at-first-sight manner that felt very much like the characters were being written off stage to clear them out of the way as fast as possible.Wow, you really don't like Faramir much, do you :) :) :)
My opinion of Faramir has nothing to do with my perception of the shoddy treatment of Eowyn. I'd be just as peeved if she'd been paired off abruptly with Legolas or something, to get her out of the way for Arwen to ride in on her pretty princess pony and take the throne.
And it's not a dislike of Arwen either, who, from her relevance to the story, was about as well-established as Sam's soon-to-be-wife Rosie or Tom Bombadil's girlfriend Goldwillow. If Goldwillow had shown shown up at 11:59 and married Aragorn, I would have been equally perplexed by this last-minute cougar attack.
|
|
Actually, the whole Scouring of the Shire episode is so that the reader doesn't get the typical "Yay! The ring is destroyed! Now everything can all go back to the way it was before, with no lasting consequences!"
I suspect that was more of Tolkien's real-life experiences translating over to the story. After the war, he didn't get to go home to some bucolic idyll that was *completely unaffected by the war.* It might even have been seen as disrespectful to suggest that both people and places can remain untouched in that manner, and the Scouring of the Shire was a large-scale version of what happened to Frodo's spirit, so badly scarred by the events that he effectively 'died' (leaving the mortal wound behind, no longer able to live within it or 'come home' to enjoy the benefits of the battles that had been won).
It wasn't exactly Apocalypse Now, but there was definitely a 'no one gets out unscathed' vibe there.
|
unfortunately SHE IS NOT the faires woman in the world as Galadriel was)
You are so wrong, my good sir. Arwen was sweet and all, but Galadriel was truely awesome. She was the only true elf in the whole movie trilogy.
As far as his style is concerned, I'm with readerbreeder. Here in Germany we know all about boring literature (Goethe invented this genre so to say) and from this point of view, LotR is a thriller. ^^
Eowyn comes across as having been totally robbed, and foisted off on some dude she'd never even met, in an abrupt love-at-first-sight manner that felt very much like the characters were being written off stage to clear them out of the way as fast as possible.Wow, you really don't like Faramir much, do you :) :) :)My opinion of Faramir has nothing to do with my perception of the shoddy treatment of Eowyn. I'd be just as peeved if she'd been paired off abruptly with Legolas or something, to get her out of the way for Arwen to ride in on her pretty princess pony and take the throne.
And it's not a dislike of Arwen either, who, from her relevance to the story, was about as well-established as Sam's soon-to-be-wife Rosie or Tom Bombadil's girlfriend Goldwillow. If Goldwillow had shown shown up at 11:59 and married Aragorn, I would have been equally perplexed by this last-minute cougar attack.
Maybe, but I still think it's a little odd - since Aragorn and Arwen were effectively engaged, even prior to the war of the ring, you're saying that Eowyn "got robbed" because she failed to break up Aragorn's match with Arwen, based on only the short acquaintance she (Eowyn, a much younger woman) had with him?
Why do you have the expectation that Eowyn should have married Aragorn?
In terms of establishing the female characters - I think Tolkien was writing from a time when men went off to war and then went home to their wives and families. From that perspective I'm not sure it's strange that Rosie and Arwen don't play major roles in the war of the ring, and don't really show up until the end. Eowyn is a (welcome) anomaly in that respect, as is Galadriel (although to a lesser extent, since she was less directly involved in the war).
|
|
Actually, the whole Scouring of the Shire episode is so that the reader doesn't get the typical "Yay! The ring is destroyed! Now everything can all go back to the way it was before, with no lasting consequences!" When you take part in monumental events, you are changed by those events, and nothing is ever the same again. Setting up that change is part of the reason for the long beginning (though even I, enjoying Tolkien's exposition, think he went a little overboard on that).
Come on, CH, you can't tell me you didn't enjoy it just a little bit, seeing halfling warriors kick some butt...
I'm completely down with Frodo's angst, and I wouldn't have minded even some orcs to clean up.
But "the great evil is destroyed, but we have to contend with this lesser evil" dynamic is kind of a letdown dramatically. That said, I know "drama" isn't what Tolkein was going for.
|
|
unfortunately SHE IS NOT the faires woman in the world as Galadriel was)You are so wrong, my good sir. Arwen was sweet and all, but Galadriel was truely awesome. She was the only true elf in the whole movie trilogy.
The scene where she rejects the ring, with her 'treacherous as the sea, stronger than the foundations of the earth, all shall love me, and despair!' was my favorite scene in the whole movie. I got chills.
Actually, the whole Scouring of the Shire episode is so that the reader doesn't get the typical "Yay! The ring is destroyed! Now everything can all go back to the way it was before, with no lasting consequences!"I suspect that was more of Tolkien's real-life experiences translating over to the story. After the war, he didn't get to go home to some bucolic idyll that was *completely unaffected by the war.* It might even have been seen as disrespectful to suggest that both people and places can remain untouched in that manner, and the Scouring of the Shire was a large-scale version of what happened to Frodo's spirit, so badly scarred by the events that he effectively 'died' (leaving the mortal wound behind, no longer able to live within it or 'come home' to enjoy the benefits of the battles that had been won).
It wasn't exactly Apocalypse Now, but there was definitely a 'no one gets out unscathed' vibe there.
Actually, MOST of Middle Earth was inspired by the war. I don't just mean the books, either - the whole setting. To quote from someone else:
"WW1 had a massive impact on European culture. The Great War, the War to End Wars, was a symbol of excessive industrialization and the faceless machinery of the modern bureaucracy; as such you can find a massive cultural shift that idealizes and idolizes the rural, agricultural/arboreal landscape of the past.
The Lord of the Rings is one symptom of this phenomenom, as is A.A. Milne's Hundred-Acre Wood and the Winnie the Pooh stories. In Germany the fallen soldiers were honored with Heroes' Groves - memorials hidden away in heavily wooded gardens, protected from the harsh machinery of the modern world by plants, trees and the romanticized past."
Tolkien did not write a trilogy...
Indeed not. The Lord of the Rings consists of 6 books, not three. They got edited and printed in three tomes (of 2 books each) for marketing purposes. Semantics off course, but the word 'trilogy' isn't technically appropriate.
My criticism of Tolkien (if really a criticism it is) is that however rich and detailed Middle Earth may be, it is very hard to isolate the world from the story. This makes playing a Middle Earth RPG difficult, regardless on how well (or not) the rules conveys the spirit of Tolkien work.
'findel
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Aragorn and Arwen are basically the quarterback and the prom queen.... it's just bound to happen. They are caught up in the linked destinies of the royal houses of elves and men going back to the 1st Age. When Elrond sets the condition that Arwen would only marry the king of Arnor and Gondor reunited, he's echoing Thingol's demand that Beren produce a Silmaril to win the hand of Luthien. It's both a demand and a prophecy. Elrond sets the condition both because he believes Aragorn can do it and to motivate him to do so. Although book Arwen isn't really well-developed, that's probably intentional. Just like Milton can't write God in a way we find as compelling as Satan, Tolkien can't write the perfect woman, which is what Arwen is supposed to be. She's ineffable. Movie Arwen is just teenager annoying. "But Daaaad! I love him! I'm totally sneaking out to go see him." To be fair, though book Arwen does get a bit better treatment in the Appendices. When Aragorn gets old and is facing death, she finally Gets It about mortality and has a real wake up to the consequences of the choices she has made. I get chills reading that scene. [Also, dwarves get rock-your-face-off awesome in the Appendices.]
Faramir and Eowyn are both so awesome (not movie Faramir, who's kind of a jerk) that I was delighted for them to get together. Their characters complement each other very well. Whereas Aragorn is a hero caught up in his own destiny, superhuman even (long-lived, foresighted, etc.), Faramir's like a regular guy you'd know and admire. He's courageous without being aggressive, he's educated and intelligent, he's lordly yet humble. He wins Eowyn over because he's a great man who is also totally uninterested in undermining her greatness, unlike basically every other man in her life. He neither needs nor wants to compete with her. On the other hand, all her pride and boldness notwithstanding, he's not a milktoast kind of guy that Eowyn couldn't respect or whom she'd dominate. For my part, I think Eowyn got a better match in Faramir than she ever could have gotten in Aragorn.
Faramir and Eowyn are both so awesome (not movie Faramir, who's kind of a jerk)...
Yes, when Faramir found out about the ring, he certainly didn't force Frodo to march back to Gondor. His treatment in the movie was a bit disappointing.
Faramir and Eowyn are both so awesome (not movie Faramir, who's kind of a jerk)...Yes, when Faramir found out about the ring, he certainly didn't force Frodo to march back to Gondor. His treatment in the movie was a bit disappointing.
That was my major beef with Jackson's version of the tale. I can understand his reasoning behind it, but it still does a disservice to the original theme Tolkien was trying to portray: that there is hope among Men, and that they can rise to greatness and resist the temptation of evil.
Well, then there's the major break in continuity by having the Nazgul at Osgiliath actually see Frodo with the ring. At that point, he should have had the Nine hounding him all the way to the slopes of Mount Doom, assuming he could even get that far...
That was my major beef with Jackson's version of the tale.
My major beef? No Bombadil.
What this you say? Tom couldn't have been done justice on the silver screen?
I have two words for you my friends: Robin Williams.