People complain that the stats of the elves do not represent the wonder of their awesome and inherantly inhuman superiority. This is a complaint? This, to me, is their one redeeming feature! I love the fact that for all their bluster about having the best cities, magic, sword arts, etc. etc. that in the end when the rubber hits the road they live longer, sleep less, and get more nimble fingers at the cost of being wimpy. I love that all their puff and pretense is just cultural garbage, superior attitude which (at least in Faerun) time and time again gets crushed like a beercan when faced with the onslaught of having to fight against humans, or drow, or really even gnolls, and that the elves are eventually "driven by some mysterious inclination" to leave to a far away and misted island of power and grace. Yeah it's called having your rear-end handed to you and running away!
It really is just a matter of how one looks at elves. I don't really care for them, myself, but I'm also not going to immediately kill players that like to be elves. I like to think that they've had thousands upon thousands of years to build up their public relations campaign. "Elves have already been everywhere that humans claim to have been! We're the best mages, archers, swordsmen and our God totally blinded the Orcish God and every tiny thing you could think of doing on your own has already been done by one of us!" The propaganda is really prevalent, so much so that the other races just kind of roll their eyes and pretend to go along or just ignore it. And that -2 constitution score must mean that a lot more of them die per year due to disease and sickness. And general lack of hit points. So they have to build up their egos as best they can. To compensate. "Wait, you humans and dwarves don't all die from fever like we do? You aren't felled for WEEKS when you get a cold?! Yeah, well, we invented the laws of reality. So go blow it out your nose, beefy."
At least gnomes and halflings are friendly for the most part. Even if Third Edition made them all little leather pants wearing Adam Ant band members. With dense muscles for the two races with strength penalties. Elves probably insist on subraces. A High Elf couldn't POSSIBLY be in any way related to the green-haired freaks that live in the trees or the dark-skinned (we're not going to get into why the dark skinned elves are the evil ones) elves that live underground and keep insects as pets and objects of worship. It's really just a matter of correcting the mistake of giving them subrace adjustments.
IMO the "Elf hate" was generated in the MMORPG community, and has diffused into the P&P rp community thru co-existence. In about every MMORPG Elves have a siginifigant racial advantage of one type or another, which draws the munchkins and cowards towards elves, and "handicap" players to humans. Its funny that in many games that hate is becoming directed now towards Gnomes. Maybe in a couple of years we'll be discussing "Gnome hate"
Sight...what to say about elves that hasn't been said already?
Ok first off i'm a self professed Elf hater! Could it be because my wife absolutely refuses to play anything but an elven ranger? Maybe...but that being said i do not disallow them, not give players who take them a harder time...but i DO dislike them for the following reason:
They are wimpy, flighty, dandelion eating, tree hugging, useless sods. I mean they have had hundreds of years to perfect their martial might and the average orc will fart in the general direction of the average elf and slay them. Now fine i hear those saying that martial prowess is not the end all be all of races...but the way the elves just go on about it drives me up the wall! If i were a wimpy race i'd stfu!!! but not these guys....noooooooo....ok i'm stopping now before i put you all to sleep with my rant lol
Now DWARVES....THERE's a tough, industrious race!! i just always wondered why they all have scottish accents?? in my campaign i play dwarves with a Jamaican accent =pp!
Be safe all.
Can't we all just get along?
No its a combat based game;)
Maybe in a couple of years we'll be discussing "Gnome hate"
Nah.....gnomes don't even register with me. I can't hate something that amounts to "garden" and "plastic" to me.
I have noticed that there is a lot of elf hate out there in the gamer community. I am curious as to why. Is it because of game balance issues, or because of a resentment toward certain elves in fiction?
I dislike Tolkien very much, and the "default" presentation of elves in D&D is a pseudo-Tolkienesque one, so . . . I only like elves in Eberron, where there's no hint of filthy filthy John Ronald Reuel. ;)
I dislike Tolkien very much, and the "default" presentation of elves in D&D is a pseudo-Tolkienesque one, so . . .
Fair enough.
I have never heard a gamer say they disliked Tolkien, especially very much. I was curious as to why.
I have never heard a gamer say they disliked Tolkien, especially very much. I was curious as to why.
Apparently Gygax doesn't care for him either, so I'm in good company.
Well, it comes down to a few things:
I admire his skills as a worldbuilder - he created a very thorough, detailed and believable backdrop for his story and languages - but he built a world that I don't care for. I don't share his bucolic romantic tastes, I don't agree with the theology or philosophy that underpins his setting, and I'm thoroughly tired of the tropes he used after a half-century of constant mindless repetition of them.
That last isn't his fault, though.
More than anything else, I think he's a terrible writer. His prose is turgid, his structure erratic, his characterisation shallow, his choices suspect - who relegates the romance of his noble king to a f@@#ing appendix? His oft-lauded "eucatastrophe" by which everything is set right at the conclusion of The Lord of the Rings is Gollum ex machina and one of the most artificial devices imaginable.
So: I don't like his world, I don't like his beliefs and ideas, and I don't like his writing. :) That's why I prefer fantasy written in the tradition that started before Tolkien and ran alongside - or perhaps underneath? - the morass of Tolkien imitators for the last fifty years.
IMO the "Elf hate" was generated in the MMORPG community, and has diffused into the P&P rp community thru co-existence. In about every MMORPG Elves have a siginifigant racial advantage of one type or another, which draws the munchkins and cowards towards elves, and "handicap" players to humans. Its funny that in many games that hate is becoming directed now towards Gnomes. Maybe in a couple of years we'll be discussing "Gnome hate"
Trust me, elf hate has been around much longer than MMORPGs have. But it was basically the same in the old days of tabletop, re: munchkins. In previous editions of D&D, you were a sucker to play a human, 'cause elves got a ton of powers for free (or at the very low cost of not being able to advance to super-high levels in most classes, which few games ever did anyway).
-The Gneech
-The Gneech
Whats a Gneech?
-The GneechWhats a Gneech?
It's me!
It's a cartoonist!
It's a guy who wrote some stuff for White Wolf Games and West End, long ago.
It's also a creature which you see out of the corner of your eye, but when you turn to look at it, isn't there, although in that context it's spelled "gneechee".
-The Gneech
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
IMO the "Elf hate" was generated in the MMORPG community, and has diffused into the P&P rp community thru co-existence. In about every MMORPG Elves have a siginifigant racial advantage of one type or another, which draws the munchkins and cowards towards elves, and "handicap" players to humans. Its funny that in many games that hate is becoming directed now towards Gnomes. Maybe in a couple of years we'll be discussing "Gnome hate"
Elf hate has been around a lot longer than MMORPG's. The complete elves handbook was the tipping point in 2e, and that was published in 93 or 94. The reason elves have significant racial advantages and human players are handicapped in MMORPG is because that is how 1e and 2e functioned. For the most part, MMORPG's are derivative of P&P, not vice versa.
-The GneechWhats a Gneech?
It's me!
It's a cartoonist!
It's a guy who wrote some stuff for White Wolf Games and West End, long ago.
It's also a creature which you see out of the corner of your eye, but when you turn to look at it, isn't there, although in that context it's spelled "gneechee".
-The Gneech
HOLY COW!! You're the Mage The Ascention guy! You're my hero man!!
Well, I'd give that distinction more to Phil Brucato than me; as far as Mage is concerned, you might say I get points for the assist. ;)
Thanks, nonetheless! :)
-The Gneech
I don't hate elves. I hate elven society. I hate that they are as evil and manipulative as the Drow, but are still listed among the 'goodly' races. Their society is racist the way it is set up, that's a big part of the reason that I changed it in my world with an elven civil war and a complete revamping of the elven pantheon (Killed and replaced about 2/3 of the exhisting gods.) When I play elves, they range from true sociopaths to completely psychotic. How much of a stick they have up their rabit hole varies.
I have never heard a gamer say they disliked Tolkien, especially very much. I was curious as to why.More than anything else, I think he's a terrible writer. His prose is turgid, his structure erratic, his characterisation shallow, his choices suspect - who relegates the romance of his noble king to a f~&#ing appendix? His oft-lauded "eucatastrophe" by which everything is set right at the conclusion of The Lord of the Rings is Gollum ex machina and one of the most artificial devices imaginable.
So: I don't like his world, I don't like his beliefs and ideas, and I don't like his writing. :)
Amen to that. I read the Hobbit, and it was decent-ish I guess. I read the Lord of the Rings, and I got to the end and I wanted a refund for the time I spent.
For me, it's all about the characters, and Tolkien wrote a milieu story. He put little paper cutouts on popsicle sticks and ran them around so that he could show off his awesome new world, when I couldn't have cared less about the history of that specific blade of grass, I wanted to know what Pippin's favorite color was. I appreciate (now) the irony of a couple of miniature fat guys taking the Scary Evil Artifact to the Ominously Threatening Location, but it doesn't really appeal to me as the focal event of the campaign, so to speak.
The movies were better than the books, if for no reason other than the fact that I didn't feel guilty for skipping pages at a time when they were spent on details of things that I didn't give a rat's rear end about and knew wouldn't come up later. But they left out the cleansing of the Shire, which was by far the best part (in my opinion) of the whole saga.
As far as elves go... I like half-elves, really. Elves I don't dislike, in the same way that I don't dislike Drow, Vampires, and the like -- it's typically the players I have problems with, and it's not the fault of the race if the people who play them (in games I'm involved in, anyway) almost invariably can't be bothered with creativity.
it's typically the players I have problems with, and it's not the fault of the race if the people who play them (in games I'm involved in, anyway)...
Truely yes. Upon restrospect I really have to admit that this is probably the reason I don't care for elves. I've only seen them played well a handful of times, and for the other times....
Regardless, there are some continuity issues that could use some resolving as I have posted, however, I like Grimcleavers idea on how to explain the situation oodles more than my own suggestions. The though that the whole "elf supperiority" thing is just a bluff and smokescreen is ironicly delicious.
The movies were better than the books, if for no reason other than the fact that I didn't feel guilty for skipping pages at a time when they were spent on details of things that I didn't give a rat's rear end about and knew wouldn't come up later.
I suppose so, given that I could actually make it through each film. I've no desire to ever see them again; I thought they were bloated and unimaginative, plus I'm sick of that specific fantasy aesthetic they were drenched in.
By the way, I don't hear anyone jumping on dragons, but they face the same problems. With their age and abilities, why aren't they 20th level in every class available? I'm not complaining about this, but just pointing out that elves aren't the only ones with logical problems, and that's why this is fantasy.
Because the DM cantrols dragons completely. If they are meant to be ancient and wise well the DM can run them as that. Would a Great Wyrm have vast quantities of ancient knowledge - sure. But 1st level characters can't go visit a Great Wyrm.
Also one does not end up with Dragons seeming lazy - they have tons of skill points. A Wyrmling Bronze starts with around 50.
I never felt as though I've seen it done well.Well thats hardly the fault of the game.
The game mechanics contribute to the problem however.
IMO the "Elf hate" was generated in the MMORPG community, and has diffused into the P&P rp community thru co-existence.
Nope - there was major elf hate before the first MMORPG was ever made. I recall a game from the eighties that made 'No Elves' part of its advertizing campaign.
Can't we all just get along?
Not until all the elves are dead.
In my campaign I have eliminated elves and replaced them with Arcana Evolveds "Faen". They are much cooler, there are 3 versions of faen, the quickling (fast), the loresong, and the spryte (flying tiny pixie). Every time an NPC is listen as elven I make him a faen. We dont run all of Arcana Evolved, I have just inserted the Giants, the Faen and a few of the classes (magic classes) into regular D&D. I find this very enjoyable and it is enough of a difference for players to feel that I am not running standard D&D where they feel that can object to my every descision.
Yes, there was elf hate pre computer age, but IMO it was broadcast to the masses in the computer age, Of course if D&D elfs weren't munchkin magnets, would the computer age elves be?
Amen to that. I read the Hobbit, and it was decent-ish I guess. I read the Lord of the Rings, and I got to the end and I wanted a refund for the time I spent.I have never heard a gamer say they disliked Tolkien, especially very much. I was curious as to why.More than anything else, I think he's a terrible writer. His prose is turgid, his structure erratic, his characterisation shallow, his choices suspect - who relegates the romance of his noble king to a f~&#ing appendix? His oft-lauded "eucatastrophe" by which everything is set right at the conclusion of The Lord of the Rings is Gollum ex machina and one of the most artificial devices imaginable.
:)
Well I think those are sophmoric views at least.
Gollum ex Machina for example - he doesn't arrive on the scene at the least second as an outsider to resolve the situation - he has been part of the story for all of the books including the prequel. And his involvement in the final outcome could not be more heavily foreshadowed in the books or the film.
Further it is part of the allegory of evil being self consuming and destroying itself.
As to the Noble King being sidelined - well your entitled to think that, but th ebook isn't meant to be about Aragorn (as evidenced by the fact that after he is crowned the book continues to follow the hobbits and leaves him in his high hall) - he is more part of the backdrop, the book is about the "the little guy" rising to the occassion. That may not be the fantasy epic you're looking for but LotR is a social commentary as much as fantasy novel, hence its description as a work of literature rather than just another fantasy novel. Aragorn is superhuman - blood of kings, elves, the power to heal, magic swords, you expect him to succeed. Faramir is more a hero, and the hobbits - normal folk who resist corruption and overcome adversity to do whats right. Sort of like WWI.
As to the writing - well that a function of taste. Certainly there are more engaging style for novels, snappier dialogues and action scenes in fantasy. It is a writing style, in my experience at least that is unique - a bridge between the popular writing styles of 19th and 20th century. Dry maybe overly academic. Partly on purpose I think, try to find its way between being a modern novel and a speculative history on the war of the ring.
I am not suggesting it is the best "writing" but I do think it is good storytelling, and interesting allegory. Of course no one else has to agree. I do think though that if you evaluate a work of art (any work book, painting, film, etc.) against the standard of what you want it to be rather than as what it is you are likely to be disappointed.
That is actually one of the great things about D&D you can take what the "artists" offer up and shape to be what you want them to be.
I'm certainly not racist when it comes to elves. I hate all the humanoid races equally.
Truthfully, if you don't want elves in the campaign, don't use them. The creators of the Dark Sun setting certainly hated gnomes and kobolds because they didn't include them and the setting ran just fine. If you don't like elves and dwarves replace them with tibbits and flumphs. If you like elves and dwarves leave the tibbits and flumphs in the "never to be used even while drunk race category".
Of course if you want elves, but don't want elves replace the old elves abilities with new elven abilities to make a new race of elves that replaces the old race of elves. Of course, I frankly think that the words elf, elves, and elven should be banned. There's just way too much use of the letter E.
Just make all the demihuman races interchangeable like they are in real world mythology. Nobody will hate the elf if he looks like a dwarf with crows feet and ears like a donkey.
Well I think those are sophmoric views at least.
Disliking a work of literature because I found it not to my taste? Feeling as if I had wasted my time because I hadn't found pleasure in an act meant to be enjoyable? Hardly sophomoric.
That may not be the fantasy epic you're looking for but LotR is a social commentary as much as fantasy novel, hence its description as a work of literature rather than just another fantasy novel.
And gamers are under no special geas or obligation to be enthralled by a social commentary or allegory just because it happens to also be a novel that shares their field of interest. Its value as a social commentary is no more related to its palatability as a novel than the nutritional value of a food substance is related to its flavor. I don't like the flavor of his work, so to speak, so I look elsewhere for my "enrichment."
That said, I can respect a story about the "little guy", who's not cut out of some heroic cloth and predestined for greatness. The problem is that in novels and literature, as in any other art, if you don't have a good presentation you don't have much. Were I to liken my experience reading the Lord of the Rings to a musical performance, it would be the stereotypical History Teacher trying to sing "Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye". It's a relatively sensible pairing, and all, and if you're willing to listen hard enough to find the key points you might find something worthwhile, but it's definitely the wrong guy delivering the song.
Anyone looking for elves done "right" should check out Iron Crown Enterprise's old Middle Earth series. It is, as the series title suggests, based on J.R.R. Tolkien's novels. The books are out of print now, but should be available at used game stores and ebay. They use I.C.E.'s Rolemaster system, but it is a level-based system so conversion isn't too hard (for starters, multiply all levels by about 2/3). I own the whole series, and I'm slowly converting it all to the GURPS system now, having already converted much of it to 3.5 D&D.
And as for all those that don't like Tolkien's novels, I must admit that I didn't like them either the first time I read them. However, after re-reading them, along with the Lost Tales and the Unfinished Tales, and the Silmarilion (did I spell that right), I've come to respect Tolkien's ability as a crafter of worlds. To those who say his style is hard to read, it is; but have you read H.P. Lovecraft, or other older writers? Styles change with the times, and each work should be evaluated in the context that it was written in. To criticize a book simply because it does not appeal to ones' self is to imply that you are only a consumer, with no greater sense of aesthetic. With that type of logic, heroin use would be good because it makes you feel good, and eating vitamins would be a waste of time because they don't taste good. Life is more than the sum of its parts. (forgive me the cliche).
|
It seems to me that some people link their dislike of elves to their dislike of Tolkien. So I wonder, how do they feel about dwarves, or dragons, or orcs? All three D&D versions of these races are influenced by Tolkien's writings as well, so you must hate them equally.
Now personally, I am of the same opinion as millions of other people worldwide, which is that Tolkien wrote some pretty decent stuff. Was it the best? I certainly don't think so. But despite that fact, the sheer popularity of the books, along with Tolkien's mastery of the English language beyond what anyone on this webiste could ever hope to achieve, should at least earn him a modicum of respect. I hold similar respect for many other writers, including C.S. Lewis, Robert E. Howard, Frank Herbert, R.A. Salvatore, J.K. Rowling, Ursula K. LeGuin, Stephen King, and many more. They may not be considered "the best" by everyone, but they all have one thing in common - they have crafted stories that people enjoy.
Now as for elves, I agree with a lot of the haters out their that elves have often been portrayed as arrogant, racist, and generally annoying throughout the history of D&D. But the same thing could be said about several other races, including humans, dwarves, and dragons. If you're going to b&$+~, spread the wealth and play it fair. In the end, its all in the way you play it. If the elves (or any other race) are a bunch of a&&~$!$s, its only because you let them be.
I got to thinking about what I wrote earlier, and realized that it boiled down to, "Tolkien's model of elves is about the only one that works." Which is pointless in this argument, since everyone seems to agree on that, and it ignores the cultural percption of elves that has popped up in the gaming community. Right now, I'm at a loss as to how to explain the consistency issues of elves, but then again, it's not that big a deal if someone comes up with a solution or not. Few people seem to care about the consistency issues so much as the elves' attitude, which perplexes me, but to each their own.
As far as those who dislike Tolkien, I agree that your posts sounded sophomoric, to echo Kyr, in that your argument came off as if you were stating a truth, not an opinion, which I understand was not the intent, but that is the message that I, and others it seems, got from them. Also, the opinion stated was, as was previously said, that the books aren't any good because they didn't entertain you.
That's fine. It's your opinion. However, I must say that I agree that the art of the book isn't meant to be its gripping action, but a detailed look at a constructed world and its history, and an expression of Tolkien's underlying wishes for and beliefs about humanity, thoughts which I sympathize with, along with a truly masterful skill at linguistics.
No offense, but your arguments made no acknowledgement of the existence of these, and thus seemed to miss the point; it sounded like you were saying, "the Mona Lisa isn't a good painting because it doesn't reach out and grip my attention." That is, most people would agree, a sophomoric view.
Again, I believe that it was not your intent to sound that way, but it is how you came off, which is why there was a bit of backlash. In the end, however, the case is "no harm, no foul."
I concede that the movies brought out more of the human drama, for me, than the books did, which I appreciate, but that does not invalidate the artistic quality of the books. I thoroughly enjoyed them and place them high on my list of favorites, although there are certainly others above them. It's also important to note that the movies were born of a different time, for different tastes, with a different intent than the books.
Saying that an argument is fallacious or superficial just because you don't agree with it is the easy way out. I don't agree that LoR is a terrible piece of fiction, but it is not the best fantasy fiction that has been produced, either. Saying that it is better than Terry Pratchet's discworld series or George R. Martin's Fire and Ice series neglects the fact that they are completely different sagas of fantasy fiction with their own strengths and weaknesses.
Elves were not an invention of Tolkien, but he refined a mythology and used elves as an angelic race, which humanity could look up to. In LoR, Tolkien used elves the same way that DMs use mysterious and powerful NPCs - to push the action along and reveal the quests and dangers to the PCs. Only Legolas was actively involved, and Tolkien (not Jackson) was careful not to overuse him. Tolkien's raw elves are principally an NPC race. Their statistics and abilities outweigh all the other races.
Now we come to D&D. Elves were included as a race because they appeared in Tolkien and our own mythology, but the designers knew they couldn't use elves as Tolkien wrote them so tried to stay with the whole elven theme and make them a playable race. I think in 3.5 elves are really not much better than the other races, and why should they be? Are we all slaves to a trilogy released 0ver 50 years ago? Surely, we have come further than that. Why do elves have to be like Tolkien envisioned them? Why do you (and I'm talking to people like Kyr here) have to make them better than every other humanoid race? There's no reason to unless you are adventuring in Middle Earth.
Elves should be unique creations to your own campaign world. If you don't like the name elf call them faeries instead. If you don't like them having immunity to sleep effects them have them sleep rather than trance. If you want to make your elves desert riding vigilantes with sweeping green hair and six fingers on each hand, then do so.
Really, hating a race in D&D is stupid. It makes no sense. We rag on people who disrespect our game, but we disrespect elements of it ourselves, and put down people who have contributed to its creation. What sense is there in that?
Well I think those are sophmoric views at least.
How polite of you to say.
Gollum ex Machina for example . . . As to the Noble King being sidelined . . .
I admit that I haven't offered a deep criticism of Tolkien in this thrad, but what do you expect? I don't like the novel. Glib dismissal of it is all I'm willing to give you here. Except . . .
That may not be the fantasy epic you're looking for but LotR is a social commentary as much as fantasy novel, hence its description as a work of literature rather than just another fantasy novel.
There's no such thing as "literature" as opposed to "novels" or other forms of writing. If you want to call The Lord of the Rings a work of great literature, that's your prerogative, but it's no more or less "just a novel" than The Da Vinci Code (trash) or Great Expectations (treasure).
I agree with you that Tolkien infused his novel with something more than just a narrative, but the problem for me is that his social and metaphysical themes are extremely unpalatable. I strongly disagree with his ideas: I deny his implicit thesis that the natural state of the world is degenerate from Biblical perfection, and I reject his location of virtue in the working classes per se, especially where this is a result of an acceptance of and preference for a "simple" existence.
It is a writing style, in my experience at least that is unique - a bridge between the popular writing styles of 19th and 20th century. Dry maybe overly academic. Partly on purpose I think, try to find its way between being a modern novel and a speculative history on the war of the ring.
An interesting strategy poorly executed is still a failure. I don't think Tolkien had the skills to do this well.
I do think though that if you evaluate a work of art (any work book, painting, film, etc.) against the standard of what you want it to be rather than as what it is you are likely to be disappointed.
You can't accept everything on face value, or as inherently successful in the artist's stated purpose. If I think Tolkien's ideas about class, society, history, and metaphysics are unpleasant, dated, or even poisonous, then that's a fair criticism of the work even if those ideas were effectively communicated - and the question of felicitous communication of ideas is a separate subject. It comes down to this:
I don't like what he had to say and I don't like how he said it. So I definitely prefer my D&D to be as far from Tolkien as possible; the only thing of value in his work, for me, is his effort towards internal depth and consistency.
To those who say his style is hard to read, it is; but have you read H.P. Lovecraft, or other older writers? Styles change with the times, and each work should be evaluated in the context that it was written in.
I don't think Tolkien is hard to read, I just dislike the way he writes. Even taking him in the context of his peers and taking what he was trying to do into account, I think he performed poorly.
I find writers much older and more archaic than Tolkien much more pleasant to read. Lovecraft, Dickens, Austen, Shakespeare . . .
It seems to me that some people link their dislike of elves to their dislike of Tolkien. So I wonder, how do they feel about dwarves, or dragons, or orcs? All three D&D versions of these races are influenced by Tolkien's writings as well, so you must hate them equally.
Well, hmm. I don't care much for dragons, and I find the default treatment of orcs in D&D pretty boring, too.
Actually, like elves, I prefer Eberron's orcs. But then, orcs and elves in Eberron are really only called "orcs" and "elves" because they wanted to use the races from the core rules. They have little in common with the traditional version.
But despite that fact, the sheer popularity of the books, along with Tolkien's mastery of the English language beyond what anyone on this webiste could ever hope to achieve, should at least earn him a modicum of respect.
I find the statement that Tolkien had mastery over the English language utterly baffling, but in any case: does this make Dan Brown a good writer? Because Brown is f~$%ing terrible, despite his popularity.
This is all off-point: despite what I think of Tolkien's abilities as a prose stylist, my real point of departure with the majority is that I find his themes are repellent, whereas they speak to a lot of people. That's fine. But I have solid, objective reasons for loathing his work that have nothing to do with opinions about his abilities.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm not a fan of Tolkien either, and I despise the dragonlance novels above all else. I failed to finish the LotR trilogy - the second book was so boring I gave up (and mind you, I write contracts for a living, so it's not as if my threshold of boredom is all that high to begin with.) I think what irritates me the most is the passivity of Frodo. Yeah, yeah, I know he's wrestling with forces of darkness and evil, blah, blah, blah, but that doesn't make for an involving character. I never understood why the rest of the fellowship cared about him (outside of his affiliation with the ring). All he ever did was get in trouble, fail to resist temptation, and generally be whiny and self-important.
I remember watching the movies and thinking "Screw Frodo - give the damn ring to Sam already. He'd be up to Mount Doom and back again in no time flat. And with a lot less whining."
But hey, different strokes. I'm not much of a fantasy lit reader in the first place.
There's no such thing as "literature" as opposed to "novels" or other forms of writing. If you want to call The Lord of the Rings a work of great literature, that's your prerogative, but it's no more or less "just a novel" than The Da Vinci Code (trash) or Great Expectations (treasure).
Well I definitely disagree with that and I think most authors would as well. There is something fundamentally different between Lord of the Flies or Catcher in the Rye and the latest Bodice Ripper.
Not being an English major I no longer remember most of the points that written material striving to be literature should have but things like having the events in the book change the main characters views and values (preferably at the same time making a good attempt to take the reader down the same path) and making the reader think about the book after it has been finished are good places to start.
|
|
I find the statement that Tolkien had mastery over the English language utterly baffling, but in any case: does this make Dan Brown a good writer? Because Brown is f&~#ing terrible, despite his popularity.
Oh, I'm sorry, I guess that comse from his more than 30 years of teaching at Oxford as Professor of Anglo-Saxon language and Professor of Enlgish language and literature. Not to mention his work for the Oxford English Dictionary on the entymology of words. And of course the aforementioned published works and their continuing popularity more than 30 years after his death. Oops..My bad
And although I'm not a professional writer, I don't think that Dan Brown is that bad. As with Tolkien, he's not the greatest, but he has written stories that other people find entertaining, which has made him very successful. The man's got to be doing something right. To call him "f@~~ing terrible" gives me the impression that you might be just a little envious of his success.
I remember watching the movies and thinking "Screw Frodo - give the damn ring to Sam already. He'd be up to Mount Doom and back again in no time flat. And with a lot less whining."
Yes,yes and yes again!
|
Despite what I think of Tolkien's abilities as a prose stylist, my real point of departure with the majority is that I find his themes are repellent, whereas they speak to a lot of people. That's fine. But I have solid, objective reasons for loathing his work that have nothing to do with opinions about his abilities.
Huh? Tolkien the fascist? Could you elaborate on what is so repellent about Tolkien, for the benefit of those who actually quite like him, so we can feel the revulsion too?
|
|
I don't think Tolkien is hard to read, I just dislike the way he writes. Even taking him in the context of his peers and taking what he was trying to do into account, I think he performed poorly.
I find writers much older and more archaic than Tolkien much more pleasant to read. Lovecraft, Dickens, Austen, Shakespeare . . .
I find it pretty amazing that you can criticise Tolkien's writing style and then say you like Lovecraft. Now, personally, I love Lovecraft but he is definately the king of purple prose. And as he got paid per word he liked to pack'em in bigtime.
I guess it goes back to your comment about the politics (for want of a better term) that you perceive in Tolkien - if you don't like the message, a so-so writing style won't make up for it. (That said, H.P. was a complete racist..... Which leads me back to my earlier post - what is so objectionable?)
|
|
I agree with you that Tolkien infused his novel with something more than just a narrative, but the problem for me is that his social and metaphysical themes are extremely unpalatable. I strongly disagree with his ideas: I deny his implicit thesis that the natural state of the world is degenerate from Biblical perfection, and I reject his location of virtue in the working classes per se, especially where this is a result of an acceptance of and preference for a "simple" existence.
Re the Biblical stuff, I think you have your Oxford dons mixed up - that's C.S. Lewis you are talking about there. Tolkien said something along the lines of "I dislike allegory wherever I smell it" so I think seeing LotR as a Christian allegory is wide of the mark. The Narnia stuff is intended as Christian allegory, but if there is anything deliberately Christian in LotR I can't see it, unless you want to strain - Aragorn a Christ figure? Hmmm. Doubtless the overall Christian milieau is in there, but it is probably in most artistic endeavours by Europeans.
As to the stuff about the working classes, i think it is fair to say that Tolkien is making a few assumptions (in terms of class) in his delineation of the relationship between frodo and Sam. But he had a Victorian middle class mindset - that was fairly standard. And I suppose there is the assumption that Sam would not be affected by the temptations of the Ring because he was too "common". I will grant you that up to a point - but it is not a huge part of the book, and it relected a societal norm at the time, not an oppressive world view.
You are generous enough to give Tolkien his due as a world-builder. I don't personally think that should be underestimated. The impact of the LotR is diminished these days by the hordes of imitators that have come along subsequently. And I can't think of a serious literary treatment of a fantasy theme of that scope and size at that time. Sure, there were fantasy magazines in the 20's and 30's (like Weird Tales, where Mr Lovecraft had his best stuff) but these were cheap pulp publications, not treated seriously. Fantasy (as opposed to science fiction) as a genre was dying a death before the publication of the LotR in three volumes completely revitalised it (by the way, it's not trilogy - it is a single book that the publishers belatedly split into three volumes for sales purposes).
I have read the LotR several times and enjoyed each time. Frankly, it is not an easy read and, I agree he isn't the best prose stylist out there - I probably would say, of the "classic" writers, I get more of a buzz out of Fritz Leiber and Robert E Howard as stylists, but then they had to knock out tons of stuff to make a living and so had the practice. Arguably, the primary reason you read a book is to be entertained, so if it doesn't do that for you then fine. But there is lot's of stuff going on at a deeper level, that one tends to find with repeated readings. I also found "The Road to Middle Earth" by Tom Shippey (he's professor of literature in the US somewhere, just just any old fanboy) interesting in bringing out certain aspects of the books that I hadn't noticed.
And so I agree with Kyr to some point that you are maybe failing to grasp some of the subtleties in your flat dismissal - certainly your reasons given seem a bit shallow and based on a superficial reading. Arguably the deeper historical detail which bubbles through the whole of the text gives it a much greater depth and consistency than lots of his peers (the Leiber and Howard stuff, for example, are generally quick knock-offs - albeit very high quality - and not really part of a considered canon). The use of language, which you deride, is actually a deliberate attempt to delineate character (and history) though specific sentence construction and style (and Tolkien did words for a living - he was a philologist - so he knew what he was doing). And ultimately, he was blazing a trail for lots of other authors - many probably better prose stylists, but what would they have written if they hadn't been inspired by LotR?
If the book just doesn't do it for you - fine, and you have your reasons. But you are making a judgement based on personal aesthetics, not "objective" principles.
Well, I'd give that distinction more to Phil Brucato than me; as far as Mage is concerned, you might say I get points for the assist. ;)
Thanks, nonetheless! :)
-The Gneech
I love your stuff! Thank YOU for coming up with it!!!
I remember watching the movies and thinking "Screw Frodo - give the damn ring to Sam already. He'd be up to Mount Doom and back again in no time flat. And with a lot less whining."
Yes,yes and yes again!
I gotta admit, I'm less than enthused about Frodo myself. Of the hobbits, Bilbo was always my favorite, although Merry and Sam were cool too. :)
-The Gneech