A rising dislike of Tolkein?

[The Marquis de Leech]

And in most cases elvishness isn't even "defining" trait. Probably the most "elvish" character in LOTR is Elrond, who is actually half-elf (well, 34% human 66% elf).

[Nerdage]

Elrond is 37.5% human, 56.25% Elf, and 6.25% Maia.

[/Nerdage]

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

[Nerdage]

Elrond is 37.5% human, 56.25% Elf, and 6.25% Maia.

[/Nerdage]

BUT HE'S ALL MAN! ELROND ON FIRE...

[sologdin]

but does he have a cooling rod in his head to manage the thermodynamic tension between his thermophobic mother and thermophiliac father?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

So, Elrond is Scorpious in his "Elder days"?

[HexMachina]

Well, I have not read "most fantasy novels", only a few, so I don't think I'm qualified to make such a general statement.

Nor have you read LOTR. So, I question again how you can make these claims that elves are racially stereotyped

[HexMachina]

[Nerdage]

Elrond is 37.5% human, 56.25% Elf, and 6.25% Maia.

[/Nerdage]

Oh. Please marry me :p

[Richard]

Sure because the characters in LoTR could sit back and do nothing knowing that all-mighty Iluvatar had their backs and would save them from any peril? That's just not how I recall the story.

No, what I recall is a narrative in which there was never any question that our heroes would triumph, or that that would be a good thing. A narrative in which the principal eminence gris (Gandalf) is beyond reproach, and in which a quick index to the essential strength of goodness of any given character can be formed by checking how closely said character aligns with said eminence gris - the extent to which they depart from unity with Gandalf's purpose equally indicating the extent to which they fail or are corrupted by the great evil. A narrative in which are heroes can sit back and KNOW they are on the right side, as can we.

There's no possibility of a narrative in which - for example - we find out halfway through that actually Sauron has a point and everything the hobbits have previously believed is pernicious Gondorian propaganda; no possibility of a narrative in which our heroes' triumph leaves things as bad as or significantly worse than they were before; no possibility of a narrative in which some kind of compromise is reached; no possibility of a narrative in which the only way to achieve victory is through doing something morally obscene; no possibility of a narrative akin to Abercrombie's Heroes, in which both sides are shown to be pretty much equally reprehensible and the goals for which they fight farcical and insignificant. And so forth.......

[The Marquis de Leech]

Yet if Gandalf had used the Ring himself, he'd be evil. Gandalf isn't good because he's Gandalf, he's good because he does good things. Sauron isn't bad because he's Sauron, he's bad because he does bad things.

Victory is entirely possible for the anti-Sauron forces. All they need to do is give the Ring to Gandalf or Galadriel. Except that they'd cease to be the good guys at that point, becoming moral equals with Mordor.

[The Marquis de Leech]

As for compromise, recall the Lieutenant of Barad-dur's terms and conditions. Oh, there could certainly be a compromise with Mordor, but it'd turn Gondor and Rohan into Middle-earth's Vichy France. For all Tolkien's protests, the shadow of the real war hangs over that part of the book.

[protar]

No, what I recall is a narrative in which there was never any question that our heroes would triumph, or that that would be a good thing. A narrative in which the principal eminence gris (Gandalf) is beyond reproach, and in which a quick index to the essential strength of goodness of any given character can be formed by checking how closely said character aligns with said eminence gris - the extent to which they depart from unity with Gandalf's purpose equally indicating the extent to which they fail or are corrupted by the great evil. A narrative in which are heroes can sit back and KNOW they are on the right side, as can we.

There's no possibility of a narrative in which - for example - we find out halfway through that actually Sauron has a point and everything the hobbits have previously believed is pernicious Gondorian propaganda; no possibility of a narrative in which our heroes' triumph leaves things as bad as or significantly worse than they were before; no possibility of a narrative in which some kind of compromise is reached; no possibility of a narrative in which the only way to achieve victory is through doing something morally obscene; no possibility of a narrative akin to Abercrombie's Heroes, in which both sides are shown to be pretty much equally reprehensible and the goals for which they fight farcical and insignificant. And so forth.......

No possibility of a narrative where the protagonist gets PTSD and leaves his friends forever...

[sologdin]

dunno, man. my reading of the end of LotR is that it is the restoration of monarchism in one place and the confirmation of monarchism in another. that looks to be more or less equally reprehensible to sauron. the professor wouldn't agree, but since when are authors correct about their own writings?

[The Reckoner]

A novel's strength is in its ability to stand on its own. Without the need for commentary that tells the reader how he/she should interpret the work. While the protagonist did get a bout of PTSD, it felt as if it were handwaved away when said protagonist went to the Havens. There wasn't anything resembling a rehabilitation program to help the protagonist deal with the horrors of the war.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Reckoner,

A novel's strength is in its ability to stand on its own. Without the need for commentary that tells the reader how he/she should interpret the work. While the protagonist did get a bout of PTSD, it felt as if it were handwaved away when said protagonist went to the Havens. There wasn't anything resembling a rehabilitation program to help the protagonist deal with the horrors of the war.

Huh? The Shire Vet center would have made things all better for Frodo?

[Darth Richard II]

This thread is both fascinating and stupid at the same time.

Edit: So Elves are racist because they're elves and not human elves? I can't follow wtfever is going on in that...thought process.

[Skythe1]

This thread is both fascinating and stupid at the same time.

Edit: So Elves are racist because they're elves and not human elves? I can't follow wtfever is going on in that...thought process.

I think it's elves are racist, dwarves are Jewish and the LOTR sucks because it doesn't exclusively have morally grey characters.

[Richard]

Huh? The Shire Vet center would have made things all better for Frodo?

Hmm - you're being rather unworthily obtuse here. The answer to your (facetious) question is clearly no - but then real vet centres in the real world do not "make things all better" for their clients either. They do however solidify the horror of what has occurred into something real.

There is, it is true, a rather beautifully melancholic symbolism to Frodo's estrangement and eventual passing, but I think what Reckoner is getting at is that said symbolism rather elides the full ground-zero unpleasantness of what PTSD itself actually is. And note that Pippin, Merry and Sam all seem to bounce back just fine; by tying Frodo's condition to his wounding by Nazgul blade, we're losing any but a symbolic sense that it's the experience of war itself that has caused this, and so any hard commentary on the fact.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Richard,

Gosh, Tolkien being a veteran of the trenches of WWI might have seen different Veterans have different reactions to coming home and, as such, showed those different reactions via the four hobbits in the fellowship. Also, remember, Frodo carried the burden of the ring longer than anyone but Gollum, and Bilbo. He carries the burden of his failure, unlike Bilbo, who successfully set the ring aside.

Additionally, Frodo's torment and agony post war of the ring is heavily implied without being explicitly stated. That''s in keeping with how Tolkien's generation dealt with their own PTSD.

[Richard]

Yet if Gandalf had used the Ring himself, he'd be evil. Gandalf isn't good because he's Gandalf, he's good because he does good things. Sauron isn't bad because he's Sauron, he's bad because he does bad things.

Victory is entirely possible for the anti-Sauron forces. All they need to do is give the Ring to Gandalf or Galadriel. Except that they'd cease to be the good guys at that point, becoming moral equals with Mordor.

Starting to see some cracks in the logic here - and also pretty much an admission of the essential black-and-whiteness of the narrative. :-)

If Sauron isn't intrinsically bad, merely a committer of bad acts, then how come the ring he made ends up being such an intrinsically evil thing, i.e.how come it's not safe for anyone else to use? How come Gandalf becomes evil if he uses the ring (but not if he uses, for example, his magical stone-bridge-shattering staff)?

There are two answers to this, of course - one from inside the narrative context, and one from outside. Outside context, the answer is because otherwise the narrative doesn't bloody work. But the inside context answer is because LOTR is a bang-to-rights black-and-white tale of Good vs Evil.

[Richard]

Additionally, Frodo's torment and agony post war of the ring is heavily implied without being explicitly stated. That''s in keeping with how Tolkien's generation dealt with their own PTSD.

In fact, no - there are actually a large number of documented cases of returning WW1 veterans becoming public nuisances (sleeping rough, drinking heavily, exposing themselves to passing women), drowning in drug abuse and alcoholism, going screaming insane. But of course it wasn't fashionable to publicise that sort of thing back then. The substantial difference between post WW1 and, say, the fall-out from the Vietnam war or Iraq lies not in any of the facts but in the media coverage of them.

[Darth Richard II]

Random aside, was PTSD even an acknowledged thing back in Tolkien's time? I know next to nothing about the history of the disorder. Which I should rectify.