I dislike Tolkien

[Altherion]

His central theme is what, in your opinion?

On the nature of power. You more or less summarized it here:

That much power (the Ring) would be too much for anybody to control, even the strongest or wisest. Even though the Wise could get 'the most use' out of the One, they know they could never use it. Nobody was meant to have that much power in their hands.

Some people also put it as "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," though IMHO that's not entire the same thing. Regardless, this goes contrary to all of human experience. The entire history of science and technology is the story of human beings taming greater and greater powers to achieve their ends. Fire, lightning, the power of the sun (well, OK, still working on that one) -- you name it, we've either tried or succeeded in taming it. Perhaps this path will end badly, but I think even that would be better than for humanity to have lived like apes.

What is counterintuitive? What accident?

The destruction of the Ring. It was obvious from the very beginning that Frodo could not choose to destroy the Ring -- Isildur was the strongest of humans around at the time and even he failed. Bilbo only gave it away when threatened. The only being who could choose to destroy the Ring and keep to that choice at the edge of the volcano would have to be someone who is powerful enough to safely bend the Ring to his/her own will to begin with and would probably be wise to do so.

Unfortunately, no such beings exist (either that or they're too cowardly to try) so the only way the Ring could be destroyed was along with the last creature to possess it. That's where the acccident comes in -- poor slips just at the right moment and ta-da -- the Ring is gone. At the very least, they could have pushed him into the fire, but Tolkien chose to keep the hands of the hobbits clean.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Easier to read? Probably not. It does not follow chronological order and it took me a while to figure out what's going on.

But easier to re-read? Absolutely. Lord of Light is one of the very few books which I can re-read indefinitely. Over and over and over again. I come back to every once in a while. LotR is not quite like that -- I can re-read it, but not for long and not often.

I've reread LOTR a few times, but I have to agree that Lord of Light is truly one of those books that is nearly infinitely re-readable. I notice details the 4th time thru that I didn't notice on the 3rd...and the lyricism to Zelazny's prose (and for all those Amber readers who haven't read LoL -- the books are rather different in tone) draws me in. I don't get evangelical about books in general, but I press LoL on just about everyone I meet who likes to read novels.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I wish Tolkien would have given a little more attention to the battle scenes. Example from the Hobbit:

Do you honestly think that Tolkien would give a detailed and graphic battle scene for a story that he wrote for his kids? He wanted to write them a story, not give them nightmares.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On the nature of power. You more or less summarized it here:

Some people also put it as "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," though IMHO that's not entire the same thing. Regardless, this goes contrary to all of human experience. The entire history of science and technology is the story of human beings taming greater and greater powers to achieve their ends. Fire, lightning, the power of the sun (well, OK, still working on that one) -- you name it, we've either tried or succeeded in taming it. Perhaps this path will end badly, but I think even that would be better than for humanity to have lived like apes.

I don't think Tolkien necessarily wanted humanity to go back to living like apes (the hobbits of the Shire, for instance, hardly live in caves). His rejection of some of the aspects of modern technology was more to do with the notion that it is possible to be a little too egotistical about one's own achievements (this comes through in his writings regarding the Dwarves and the Noldor) and the damaging effect that that modern industry (including things like cars) was having on the countryside. In Tolkien's own lifetime, old forest areas were getting torn up in the name of progress, and as a tree-lover, Tolkien hated that.

As for humans taming natural powers being an unmitigated good thing, well, there is the example of the Atomic Bomb. Tolkien rejected the idea that his Ring was an allegory for nuclear power (he rejected accusations of allegory full stop), but I think that if ever there was a real world thing that the Ring could be applied to, the Bomb would be it. And that is even before you consider that there is "political" power, as well as "natural" power; at the time Tolkien was writing LOTR various totalitarian states had the absolute power of life or death over their citizens, with uniformly deadly results.

I also think it's worth quoting Tolkien's letter where he talks about what would have happened if Gandalf had wielded the Ring:

"Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained 'righteous', but self-righteous. He would have continued to rule and order things for 'good', and the benefit of his subjects accrding to his wisdom (which was and would have remained great). Thus while Sauron multiplied evil, he left "good" clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil." (Letter 246)

Thus even someone as well-meaning and benevolent as Gandalf would have become corrupted by the possibility of having absolute power over others.

The destruction of the Ring. It was obvious from the very beginning that Frodo could not choose to destroy the Ring -- Isildur was the strongest of humans around at the time and even he failed. Bilbo only gave it away when threatened. The only being who could choose to destroy the Ring and keep to that choice at the edge of the volcano would have to be someone who is powerful enough to safely bend the Ring to his/her own will to begin with and would probably be wise to do so.

The Ring offers power proportional to the innate strength of the wearer. In other words, the more powerful you are, the more tempting it is to wield, and anyone powerful enough to bend the Ring to his or her will at Mount Doom would certainly have wielded it. Hence the choice of bearer being a lowly hobbit.

That's where the acccident comes in -- poor slips just at the right moment and ta-da -- the Ring is gone. At the very least, they could have pushed him into the fire, but Tolkien chose to keep the hands of the hobbits clean.

Again, to quote Tolkien's letters regarding the destruction of the Ring:

"But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disasterous in the world of time. He did rob him and injure him in the end - but by a 'grace', that last betrayal was at a precise juncture when the final evil deed was the most beneficial thing anyone could have done for Frodo! By a situation created by his 'forgiveness', he was saved himself, and relieved of his burden." (Letter 181)

For Tolkien, of course, this 'grace' was tied up with his own religious beliefs, but the general idea still stands: Gollum's critical intervention was only made possible because Frodo (and Sam, and previously Bilbo) had shown mercy to him. In a nutshell, mercy saved Middle-earth.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Maybe destroying the ring is counter-intuitive because by destroying it, the power that Sauron put into the ring would be released, and go back to him?

Sauron "investing" the Ring with so much of his own power had both pay-offs and drawbacks. The pay-off was that since the Ring magnifies one's own natural power, Sauron with the Ring was actually more powerful than he had been before he invested his power. And Sauron likes power. On the other hand, destroying the Ring would rob Sauron of all that power (just like investing your money in a bank, only for that bank to later go under), reducing him to a mere shadow. This of course ties in well with traditional folklore, where giants etc hide their hearts/strength in places other than their bodies, making them powerful yet vulnerable.

[Gregor Clegane Has a Posse]

Do you honestly think that Tolkien would give a detailed and graphic battle scene for a story that he wrote for his kids? He wanted to write them a story, not give them nightmares.

Well it's not like I'm demanding a performance of Grand Guignol standards, but every time the action started to pick up, the protagonist ran away or got bonked on the head. And for the record, I was ten when I read this and formed that opinion of mine.

[Altherion]

Thus even someone as well-meaning and benevolent as Gandalf would have become corrupted by the possibility of having absolute power over others.

This is the point I dispute. Power does not corrupt, though it does amlify whatever corruption was within. A being with absolute power is no longer bound by fear, which keeps a great many people from doing nasty things. But a sufficiently kind and pure of heart being would not be affected by this. The Ring is slightly different because it is by nature malevolent, though I think many human beings are extremely resistant (or maybe outright immune) to the sort of corruption Tolkien describes.

The Ring offers power proportional to the innate strength of the wearer. In other words, the more powerful you are, the more tempting it is to wield, and anyone powerful enough to bend the Ring to his or her will at Mount Doom would certainly have wielded it.

Not if the wielder had a stronger will than Sauron. Aragorn was a good candidate for this, though he never quite had the self confidence. Remember, Sauron is not really all that -- he just has very good PR. IIRC, at some point he had his ass served to him by a girl and her dog.

For Tolkien, of course, this 'grace' was tied up with his own religious beliefs, but the general idea still stands: Gollum's critical intervention was only made possible because Frodo (and Sam, and previously Bilbo) had shown mercy to him. In a nutshell, mercy saved Middle-earth.

This part I do like. However, it still amounts to either a lucky accident or divine intervention neither of which makes sense to me. Also, the Council could not have possibly known that would happen.

[Tagot]

Seems like a great deal of risk to me. Not to mention leaving it in the hands of some very vulnerable folk, with only a token guard, and ultimately the guys with the ring head off and decide to deal with the problem without even the people who were sent to protect them.

I don't think that Sauron ever intended the Hobbits to get their hands on the Ring. The Ring was taken from him and ended up in their hands by a massive chain of coincidence. Sauron was not all-powerful- he had no say in the matter.

I enjoyed Tolkein (especially his poetry- it was written so that the tune would take shape in the mind, which I appreciated), but I have to admit that certain aspects are dry. LOTR is a classic, and something that every fantasist should try to emulate, but it is not perfect.

[Brys]

something that every fantasist should try to emulate

I can accept people seeing LotR as a classic, but I think you just highlighted the greatest problem with fantasy (particularly epic fantasy) that exists today. Too many people try, and fail, to emulate Tolkien. Why should we try and stifle originality in the genre that is based on imagination? Why try and encourage authors to copy someone else than to come up with something of their own? As you said, Tolkien wasn't perfect. But what has been copied has been the flaws, by and large. The authors who did try and emulate Tolkien include those such as Brooks, Eddings, Feist, Jordan, Goodkind etc. I'm not saying that having respect for Tolkien or being influenced by Tolkien makes the series bad - Bakker's prince of nothing series is heavily influenced by Tolkien, but he still tries something very original. But that's different to trying to emulate Tolkien.

[Isis]

For Tolkien, of course, this 'grace' was tied up with his own religious beliefs, but the general idea still stands: Gollum's critical intervention was only made possible because Frodo (and Sam, and previously Bilbo) had shown mercy to him. In a nutshell, mercy saved Middle-earth.

This part I do like. However, it still amounts to either a lucky accident or divine intervention neither of which makes sense to me. Also, the Council could not have possibly known that would happen.

It's all about divine intervention. Or, more specifically it is about living your life and behaving in a way that makes divine intervention possible, i.e never giving up hope, because to despair (see Denethor) is a sort of religious crime. Tolkien removed all obvious religious references from LOTR but you can still see the influence. It's all there in the text for people to pick up upon if they are interested. That is one of the beautiful things about LOTR, you can read it as s story with no religious meaning if you wish to, or if you wish to delve deeper toward the book's true meaning you begin to peel back the layers and find all this extra meaning.

[Eurytus]

Not if the wielder had a stronger will than Sauron. Aragorn was a good candidate for this, though he never quite had the self confidence. Remember, Sauron is not really all that -- he just has very good PR. IIRC, at some point he had his ass served to him by a girl and her dog.

Well the "girl" is part Elf and part Maiar, so pretty damn powerful.

And the "dog" also has a divine origin and was not fated to be defeated by anything other than the greatest hound to walk Middle Earth.

This part I do like. However, it still amounts to either a lucky accident or divine intervention neither of which makes sense to me. Also, the Council could not have possibly known that would happen.

It is not clear how much Gandalf knew but Tolkien often hinted that he knew far more than what appeared to be the case. His comments about the "pity of Bilbo" in regards to Gollum hint strongly at this.

[Asa]

I agree that it would have been nicer if Tolkien actually gave nice accounts of battles. That's one thing that the movies did right.

[sToNED_CAT]

I love 'The Hobbit'. I really, really do. I think it was the first great modern fantasy novel.

But his other stuff (Including the Lord of the Rings) bores me to death. His characters are unrealistic and I wish he had a much more personal style when writing, like Zelazny or Martin. And there aren't many twists and none that really make me think. He writes lika historian, not like a... well, a WRITER.

I can SEE why most people like him, but still... I feel like the only one who is SIMPLY bored to death. He's very detailed, but it's not the sort of details I enjoy. He never gets me excited. People do things not because they have long-harbored ambitions or any real longings, but because the silly magic ring is telling them.

And no, I do NOT think Gandalf is cool. He's a bloody deus ex machina.

How can you like Hobbit and dislike LOTR? Hobbit was nothing more than regular(boring) fairly tale, it was not real epic fantasy. (anyway I think Howard was the father of modern fantasy not Tolkien); And there was much more examples of Deus Ex machina in Hobbit than in LOTR.

[Zahir al Daoud]

A few points...

Sauron was arrogant, but not stupid. As is explicitly stated several places, he tricked the Elves into making the Rings of Power specifically so he could forge the One Ring which would hold dominion over them. In order to make it that powerful he had to inbue it with much of his own native strength. This was a risk, but then he never expected to lose the Ring. And the ultimate goal was absolute mastery of the world.

The Council was between several rocks and a bunch of hard places. Nothing they could do would insure victory save the destruction of the Ring. There was only ONE place where the Ring could be destroyed. Fate/Eru/Destiny seemed to be pointing its finger at Frodo, and in an act of Faith the Council agreed to allow him to attempt the Quest. It is essential to understand that fact.

Tolkien wrote about the battles in an archaic form that suited his story. If such was not to your taste--well, to each their own.

Yeah, way too many Tolkien-clones out there. But then, trust me when I say detective fiction was and is laden with copies of Holmes, Poirot, Rabbi David Small, Sam Spade, etc. Just as science fiction has its TREK clones and historical fiction has its HORNBLOWER copies. Success breeds imitators. This does not take away from the quality of the original.

[Altherion]

It's all about divine intervention.

Which is why I don't like it. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind divine intervention in general as long as it is not plot-critical. But here it completely alters reality. The heroes merely brought the Ring to the brink, the final step belongs to either chance or God.

Well the "girl" is part Elf and part Maiar, so pretty damn powerful.

And the "dog" also has a divine origin and was not fated to be defeated by anything other than the greatest hound to walk Middle Earth.

Bah, excuses, excuses. The girl didn't even do anything except dictating the terms of surrender at the end. And Sauron had the ability to transform into any creature at the time -- he just lacked the imagination to make a bad-ass enough wolf.

[Asa]

Why didn't the Ringwraiths not wear their cloaks and just go around invisibly? Seems like they would be a LOT more powerful if they were invisible. I remember Gandalf telling Frodo that the cloaks give them shape, but this makes no sense. Cloaks would only make their shape visible to others.

Bah, that's one thing I disliked about LoTR: stupid villains.

I mean, there weren't even guards at Mt. Doom. Surely he could of spared 2 orcs to guard it in the worst case scenario.

[Eurytus]

Which is why I don't like it. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind divine intervention in general as long as it is not plot-critical. But here it completely alters reality. The heroes merely brought the Ring to the brink, the final step belongs to either chance or God.

Bringing the Ring to the brink was all that anyone could have done. No-one could have thrown the Ring into the fire. All that Frodo was asked to do was to take the Ring as far as his limits of mental and physical strength could take him. And that is exactly what he did.

Once those reserves were spent, providence and his act of mercy accomplished the task.

The "powers that be" requiring a hero to take things to the utmost of his limits and then giving a little "nudge" is not unknown in myth.

Bah, excuses, excuses. The girl didn't even do anything except dictating the terms of surrender at the end. And Sauron had the ability to transform into any creature at the time -- he just lacked the imagination to make a bad-ass enough wolf.

Sauron could not transform himself into a "bad-ass enough wolf" as the most fiercesome wolf in Middle Earth already existed. And Sauron was not it. And transforming himself into any other creature would not have helped him any. Huan was not fated to die at any other hands.

Why didn't the Ringwraiths not wear their cloaks and just go around invisibly? Seems like they would be a LOT more powerful if they were invisible. I remember Gandalf telling Frodo that the cloaks give them shape, but this makes no sense. Cloaks would only make their shape visible to others.

If you read the Hunt for the Ring in Unfinished Tales you would discover that the Ringwraiths could not go around invisibly. They had no idea where the Ring was other than the words Shire and Baggins. Neither would get them far. To find out they had to both search for it and question people. Being invisible would be a bar to the latter.

I mean, there weren't even guards at Mt. Doom. Surely he could of spared 2 orcs to guard it in the worst case scenario.

Sauron could not even conceive of someone seeking to destroy the Ring. Hence why would he even think about posting guards for an event that simply (from his point of view) could not happen?

[Asa]

Sauron could not even conceive of someone seeking to destroy the Ring. Hence why would he even think about posting guards for an event that simply (from his point of view) could not happen?

For the possibility of a worst case scenario, in which someone does somehow want to destroy it. Sure, he could think it very unlikely, but surely he can concieve of the possibility, and decide "Hey, I got a few million orcs, might as well post two at Mt. Doom just in case."

If you read the Hunt for the Ring in Unfinished Tales you would discover that the Ringwraiths could not go around invisibly. They had no idea where the Ring was other than the words Shire and Baggins. Neither would get them far. To find out they had to both search for it and question people. Being invisible would be a bar to the latter.

If they had gone invisible when they attacked at Weathertop, or in any battles for that matter, it would have been a lot more effective.

[Eurytus]

For the possibility of a worst case scenario, in which someone does somehow want to destroy it. Sure, he could think it very unlikely, but surely he can concieve of the possibility, and decide "Hey, I got a few million orcs, might as well post two at Mt. Doom just in case."

If they had gone invisible when they attacked at Weathertop, or in any battles for that matter, it would have been a lot more effective.

As I said, Sauron could not even conceive of it. The idea would simply never have occured to him.

Hence it the worst case scenario would not even enter into it.

As for Weathertop, well the Nazgul's primary weapon is fear and they were also (quite possibly) unable to actually kill Frodo directly. They certainly did not appear to try. What they did try to do is quell him through fear and turn him into a wraith.

Being visible helped with that.

And given that up until Aragorn, no-one had actually stood against them (bar Gandalf) why should they fear being visible?

[Asa]

As I said, Sauron could not even conceive of it. The idea would simply never have occured to him.

Hence it the worst case scenario would not even enter into it.

As for Weathertop, well the Nazgul's primary weapon is fear and they were also (quite possibly) unable to actually kill Frodo directly. They certainly did not appear to try. What they did try to do is quell him through fear and turn him into a wraith.

Being visible helped with that.

And given that up until Aragorn, no-one had actually stood against them (bar Gandalf) why should they fear being visible?

Regardless of whether or not they have reason to be fearful, they could have done it just to be safe. After all, they were dealing with the Ring, isn't it best to take all the precautions to get it?

Sauron not being able to concieve of the possibility of that undoing, leads me to doubt his intelligence, which leads to my original point of him being stupid. I mean, surely he has the time to sit down, sip some hot chocolate and go "Hhmmm, what are the possible ways of my destruction? Oh, well, if the Ring gets destroyed so will I. So what are the possible ways of destroying the ring? Ah, Mt. Doom! Well, though I couldn't fathom why someone would wanna' destroy mi' precious, I'll position some guards there just in case. "