A rising dislike of Tolkein?

[Shryke]

The more accurate comparison would be like the Dunk and Egg stories and ASOIAF. Both fit together but ultimately each work must be able to stand on it's own.

LOTR has to work as a story on it's own.

[Jo498]

I do not think anyone doubts that LotR can stand on its own (one should include the appendices, though, and some things, like the Balrog in Moria, were somewhat unclear to me).

Clearly, in the LotR the Elves are both more able in almost every respect than humans and they are also firmly on the side of the good. But even in LotR without further context it is shown that Elves are in danger of temptation (scene with Galadriel and Frodo), that they are "fading", so they cannot take a major part in the struggle against Sauron. Except for providing a few safe havens, wisdom and support, the elves are basically irrelevant to the plot.

Legolas can walk on snow without sinking in and has superkeen senses, but this is not very important. There is no a super-badass Elf saving the day because of his elvish superpowers.

[James Arryn]

Depending on your correlation between goodness and strength and/or evil and weakness, the decisive factor in the conflict is weakness destroying itself, preceded by/allowed because of the fundamental assumption made by evil about power which ultimately proves to be accurate.

It's not JUST that Frodo fails. It's that Sauron's judgment about the impossibility of real power being willingly relinquished is, in the end, proven true...even by the one judged least likely to be corrupted.

That's pretty fucking grey.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Irrelevant. The original Star Wars movie and Clone Wars - No Prisoners by Karen Traviss are "in the same world", but that doesn't mean you can explain the flaws in the former by reference to the detail in the latter. A novel must stand and fall on its own merits, not by reference to other aspects of canon.

It's not about appealing to The Silmarillion to answer the flaws of The Lord of the Rings. The Silmarillion gets brought up to simply demonstrate that Tolkien is, say, perfectly capable of killing off characters en masse, or writing about incest, or portraying Elves as evil and crazy. That LOTR lacks those elements isn't a flaw, it's a feature. Tolkien's decision not to have everyone die in LOTR, or write in depth about Elves (or Maiar) in that particular book is an artistic choice, and shouldn't be confused with Tolkien being unwilling to kill characters or feature evil Elves in a Middle-earth setting.

When people argue in this thread that Tolkien has a sugar coated view of the world, or that Middle-earth is black and white, appealing to The Silmarillion is most certainly relevant.

[Richard]

Tolkien's decision not to have everyone die in LOTR..................is an artistic choice

Correct - an artistic choice for which he's been called out a couple of times in this thread. Ditto the issue of elves as racial good guys. Following both of which a common response has been to say "Oh, but in the Silmarillion........", as if that answers the criticism. It doesn't. It points to an overall (some might argue conflictive or evolving) outlook on Tolkien's part, but the textual criticisms of LOTR still stand.

When people argue in this thread that Tolkien has a sugar coated view of the world, or that Middle-earth is black and white, appealing to The Silmarillion is most certainly relevant.

Sure, and interestingly enough what the Silmarillion proves is that Tolkien's outlook IS black and white; there is a Great (and by implication All Powerful) Good, and great evil arises as a result of someone turning away from that Great Good. The great evil is always subordinate to the Great Good (Tolkien was no Manichean), even at its initial root with Melkor/Morgoth, and is doomed to ultimately fail. (So to black and white morality, you can also add the charge of overbearing metaphysical smugness - something that leaks quite substantially into LOTR as well.) I'd agree that calling Tolkien's view of things "sugar-coated" is probably a misreading of LOTR and the author in general (though I'm not sure anyone in the thread actually used that word. Did they?), but I think you can see how, given the Catholic smugness, that misreading might easily occur.

[HexMachina]

The view of elves as racial good guys based only on LOTR would be inaccurate though - it would be making an assumption that an entire race is the same as the very few elves we see in the novel. The elves in LOTR are in general 'good', though Galadriel's temptation shows they are as vulnerable to corruption and "darkness" as everyone else, but it would be wrong to assume that they are a good race as a whole based on interactions with such a small group of them.

[Richard]

It's not JUST that Frodo fails. It's that Sauron's judgment about the impossibility of real power being willingly relinquished is, in the end, proven true...even by the one judged least likely to be corrupted.

That's pretty fucking grey.

Ehm, no - that's pretty fucking standard Catholic christian. Grey doesn't enter into it.

To quote a literary genre idol of mine, Geoff Ryman, we need to clean our tools. We've become so used to Hollywood heroics and the heroes who perform them, that out conceptual terminology has grown rusty. The christian conception of the world is in no way morally grey - it simply denies humans the capacity to attain the incorruptible Great Goodness inherent in the Godhead. We are all sinners, we must all, perforce sin and fail. But salvation is at hand for those who curb their hubris, confess their sins and ask forgiveness. Nonetheless, capitalised Good and Evil exist as fact, and there is a battle between them. Black and White, in other words.

[sologdin]

the lothlorien elves are presented initially as antagonists, as I recall it. their menace ultimately resolves, maybe as a touch of cheap mock suspense, though.

do the LotR appendices incorporate any of the relevant silmarillion content?

[Skythe1]

The simple fact is, up until 20-30 years ago (I might be wrong so don't quote me) the majority of fantasy had good guys and bad guys. Hell, the majority of stories had good guys and bad guys, that's just the way things were. You can't criticise a book published in 1954 for having 'black & white' morality. Although I wholeheartedly disagree that the morality is black and white, it's just sufficiently subtle not be as 'in your face' as it could be.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Correct - an artistic choice for which he's been called out a couple of times in this thread. Ditto the issue of elves as racial good guys. Following both of which a common response has been to say "Oh, but in the Silmarillion........", as if that answers the criticism. It doesn't. It points to an overall (some might argue conflictive or evolving) outlook on Tolkien's part, but the textual criticisms of LOTR still stand.

Taking LOTR as a self-contained story, the Elves are racial nonentities (the extreme example being Gildor who runs off to the Havens, rather than protect Frodo from the Black Riders). The true battle falls on hobbits and men, neither of whom are racial goodies or baddies.

Taking Tolkien's Middle-earth in general, the Elves are very, very screwed up, even in The Hobbit.

Either way, the criticism is weak.

Sure, and interestingly enough what the Silmarillion proves is that Tolkien's outlook IS black and white; there is a Great (and by implication All Powerful) Good, and great evil arises as a result of someone turning away from that Great Good. The great evil is always subordinate to the Great Good (Tolkien was no Manichean), even at its initial root with Melkor/Morgoth, and is doomed to ultimately fail. (So to black and white morality, you can also add the charge of overbearing metaphysical smugness - something that leaks quite substantially into LOTR as well.)

Tolkien's moral outlook was an objective one, yes, with black being absence of white. But Middle-earth and its population are not black and white. Tolkien's characters fall all along the moral spectrum (is Denethor good or evil?), and more interestingly, Tolkien makes it very clear that it is one's deeds that determine one's morality, not which "side" you're on. Gandalf or Galadriel claiming the Ring would be evil, regardless of their opposition to Sauron. Not sure how that could be regarded as smug though.

I'd agree that calling Tolkien's view of things "sugar-coated" is probably a misreading of LOTR and the author in general (though I'm not sure anyone in the thread actually used that word. Did they?), but I think you can see how, given the Catholic smugness, that misreading might easily occur.

Well, the grimdorkist criticism featured on this thread so far has included Tolkien being light and fluffy because he didn't kill off Frodo, and because the story lacks STDs. Which is less about alleged Catholic smugness, and more a case of thinking that suffering and horror needs to be in-your-face-obvious.

[Richard]

it would be wrong to assume that they are a good race as a whole based on interactions with such a small group of them

Hmm - well, from an early 21st century politically correct viewpoint, sure. But nothing in the text itself backs that up.

And, once we start down that path, we also have to accord the same 21st century pc outlook to orcs, of course. (About which there's already been a pretty savage cat-fight on a parallel thread (see orcs/redemption) ).

In other words, our contemporary understanding of human nature and the illusory nature of race comes smashing through the stained glass window of Tolkien's fantasy like a brick.

Crash, smash, tinkle :-)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

Well, the grimdorkist criticism featured on this thread so far has included Tolkien being light and fluffy because he didn't kill off Frodo, and because the story lacks STDs. Which is less about alleged Catholic smugness, and more a case of thinking that suffering and horror needs to be in-your-face-obvious.

Subtlety and infernce are for wusses. ;)

[Richard]

Gildor? Please remind me. I don't recall that character from my last - admittedly not recent - reading of LOTR at all......

[The Marquis de Leech]

Gildor (who was cut from the movies) is the Elf who turns up just in time to stop Frodo being caught by the Nazgul in the Shire. He basically tells Frodo that the Black Riders are bad (well, duh), but doesn't offer to escort him to Bree or Rivendell.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Richard,

Gildor the elf who early on in Fellowship (they're still in the Shire haven't even made it to Buckland yet) names Frodo an "Elf-friend" then heads back to Lindon with a wave.

[Richard]

You can't criticise a book published in 1954 for having 'black & white' morality.

Read Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, then come back and tell me that.

Published the very same year as Fellowship of the Ring, features elves, trolls, dwarves, the summoned dead and a broken sword re-forged. Morally grey as all get out. Annderson drew directly on the same Norse sources as Tolkien, but had no inconvenient christian morality to get in the way - you get a genuine Viking's Eye view of the world.

Fascinating to consider what would have happened if TBS had become the defining fantasy novel for all that followed instead of LOTR. You could have had ASOIAF (or something like it) three decades sooner.

[Skythe1]

Read Poul Anderson's The Broken Sword, then come back and tell me that.

Published the very same year as Fellowship of the Ring, features elves, trolls, dwarves, the summoned dead and a broken sword re-forged. Morally grey as all get out. Annderson drew directly on the same Norse sources as Tolkien, but had no inconvenient christian morality to get in the way - you get a genuine Viking's Eye view of the world.

Fascinating to consider what would have happened if TBS had become the defining fantasy novel for all that followed instead of LOTR. You could have had ASOIAF (or something like it) three decades sooner.

To be fair, I did say the 'majority' of books had black and white morality - and they still do to this day.

I'm surprised you find Christian morality to be 'getting in the way' as it's essentially the morals that the majority of us live our lives by.

Edit: And for me, that's what makes literature what it is. The fact that in some way an author's beliefs and interests get poured out on to the page while writing, whether intended or not. Admittedly, when it's intended it can get on my nerves a bit.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Fascinating to consider what would have happened if TBS had become the defining fantasy novel for all that followed instead of LOTR. You could have had ASOIAF (or something like it) three decades sooner.

Probably not. ASOIAF was inspired by Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn, which in itself is a deconstruction of LOTR. Remove LOTR from the equation, and you wouldn't have ASOIAF. The fantasy genre would still exist, of course, but it'd be profoundly different, and arguably still subordinate to science-fiction.

I like The Broken Sword well enough, but the contrasting morality isn't the only point of difference with Tolkien - it is more incoherent in its world-building (overlapping Norse, Greek, Celtic, and Christian myth).

[Richard]

Gildor (who was cut from the movies) is the Elf who turns up just in time to stop Frodo being caught by the Nazgul in the Shire. He basically tells Frodo that the Black Riders are bad (well, duh), but doesn't offer to escort him to Bree or Rivendell.

Gildor the elf who early on in Fellowship (they're still in the Shire haven't even made it to Buckland yet) names Frodo an "Elf-friend" then heads back to Lindon with a wave.

Okay, thanks. I think I've hazed out that whole shire section as too unbearably bloody twee to stomach....

But I think to construct a theory of flawed elf-hood on that is.........reaching. Is there any actual textual evidence to suggest that Gildor is a poor exemplar of his people, a coward etc......? The elves in LOTR do function largely as cryptic way-guides without ever actually doing anything dynamic - until the plot occasionally requires it, of course. To be honest, they function pretty much as a low-profile constantly running Deus Ex Machina device throughout.

[Skythe1]

But I think to construct a theory of flawed elf-hood on that is.........reaching. Is there any actual textual evidence to suggest that Gildor is a poor exemplar of his people, a coward etc......? The elves in LOTR do function largely as cryptic way-guides without ever actually doing anything dynamic - until the plot occasionally requires it, of course. To be honest, they function pretty much as a low-profile constantly running Deus Ex Machina device throughout.

IMO the elves are the most flawed race in middle earth. They've grown weary with what they see as the corruption of men, and just thought 'sod it, we're leaving'.