A rising dislike of Tolkein?

[sologdin]

referred to as battle fatigue or shelkshock back then, no?

the silliness of frodo's affliction is that it is to be remedied in aman.

[Darth Richard II]

Hmm, maybe they don't actually sail into the west, maybe they just take frodo out to a field and shoot him?

[Aemon Stark]

Reckoner,

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

They've put him on an SSRI with weekly counselling sessions to start. But he still has chronic pain from the Nazgul blade, so they're making a referral to a pain specialist for consideration of a nerve block.

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.

The kinds of symptoms have been recognized for a long time, but especially since the 20th century world wars. Didn't get into the DSM into DSM III.

[Richard]

There were varying degrees of callous response to it during and after WW1, but there was also a very clear awareness that it existed. The most common - and erroneous - term was shellshock. By the time of WW2 they were calling it Combat Stress Reaction.

[Raksha 2014]

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.

I'm not so sure that Merry and Pippin "bounced back just fine". They did regain their health and strength, but their conduct after the Scouring of the Shire suggests that they did not completely fit into the Shire as they had before they left with Frodo. While they do marry and inherit their fathers' positions, they tend to travel more than hobbits traditionally did; visiting Gondor and (if I recall correctly) Aragorn's rebuilt northern capitol of Annuminas, and, most telling, they both choose to spend their twilight years in Rohan and Gondor after their wives pass away - they pass along their positions to their heirs and leave the Shire and their families forever. It's as if, while they are fond of the Shire, it became too small for them because of the Ring War; which is not a bad thing, but they are changed, and perhaps by earlier hobbit standards, not necessarily for the better.

[The Marquis de Leech]

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

Eh? I've said that Tolkien took an objective view of morality. That's fine. The issue is how the characters within the story conform to that morality - and they, obviously, fall all along a spectrum. Even someone like Sam bullies Gollum. Is Sam bad for bullying? Or is he merely a flawed humanoid being?

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)?

The Ring magnifies the power of its user, specifically the power to control and compel others. Gandalf with the Ring would have been controlling others to do his bidding, but doing so in an incredibly sanctimonious way to the extent that he'd have made a worse Dark Lord than Sauron himself. This is completely different from the stone shattering staff because, well, the staff doesn't exist as a mechanism for coercion (there's debate about whether the staffs are symbolic or whether they actually do have some ability to channel power - either way, they exist on a whole other level from the One Ring).

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.

Alternatively "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the correct moral thing to do is to reject it." The Ring is, of course, nothing more than concentrated power.

[Jo498]

It has to be distinguished between an objective view of morality and "black-and-white" characters. I think, many "grey" characters are especially interesting, because they (and their author) do have strong views on objective morality, so these characters are really suffering moral struggles and dilemmas. A perfect cynical Macchiavellian character may be fascinating, but can hardly be confronted with strong moral dilemmas. Take the drunkard priest in one of Graham Greene's novels (the power and the glory?) vs. Harry Lime.

There's a lot of black and white in LotR, without a doubt. But I think this is often a more plausible setting for difficult choices than the cynical hardboiled world of so-called "gritty realistic" fantasy.

As for the Ring, I do not think it only symbolizes absolute power. Sauron at the end of the third age is evil because of earlier choices (fallen maia) and he has not only put power, but also some of his evil personality into the Ring. Whereas it is said about the three Elven Rings that they have mainly powers to heal and preserve, the One Ring has Power of forceful domination, which is evil.

The Wagnerian parallel, Alberich's Ring is also tainted, because the gold was stolen (from nature (Rhinemaidens), some kind of original accumulation) and this could only be done with renunciation of love. And after Wotan stole it from Alberich, the Ring was additionally cursed.

In both cases it could be said that Power above everything else leads to forceful domination of others and corruption of self.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

If there is a moral absolute in Middle-Earth it is that repeated coersion of others when not acting in self defense will lead to corruption or destruction. That said, what does that mean with regard to the Rohirrim treatment of the aboriginal Dunlendings?

[The Marquis de Leech]

The Dunlendings are a funny one, and a good example of genuinely sympathetic "bad" guys, who by accident of history have ended up on the wrong side. They are presented as being fully justified in being grumpy at the Rohirrim - the problem is that their ancient grievances have been manipulated by Saruman, who promises them something (namely their old lands back) without the least intention of keeping that promise. Of course, unlike the Orcs, the Dunlendings who fought at Helms Deep were set free afterwards (sans weapons), and later the Druedain (Ghan-buri-Ghan's bunch, who also have grievances against Rohan) get a similar sort of belated recognition.

Put simply, Rohan and Gondor both have ugly imperial histories that aren't glamorous.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

But... but... Rohan and Gondor are the "Good Guys". How can that be??

;)

[Matoro]

It's interesting how The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit are actually written from hobbit perspective with mainly elvish sources of history. It's a bit like reading ASOIAF only from Davos's POV - it gives somehow simplified view to the world. If LOTR had different POV:s, let's say Sam, Pippin, Eowyn, Gimli and Witch-king of Angmar, whole book would look very different and show how complicated the world actually is. Right now everything has to be read through Hobbit filter. Bad things done by good guys are rarely mentioned in LOTR, but they are there.

[sologdin]

yeskov, then?

[Brother Seamus]

I had quite a similar encounter with Tolkien, although I started reading "Lord of the rings" and quit it. The reason I stopped after a hundred pages or so was also that I found it incredibly boring.

First of all, even if I had not seen the movies, I knew that the mission - destroying the magic ring in a vulcano -- was going to be the whole plot. Sure, they will be some danger, some bonding, some adventuring, some growing, yada yada yada... but there was not ever the slightest doubt in my mind that the jolly little people would eventually prevail against the evil foreign races.

I would be okay with that, if the characters were intriguing and interesting, but I found them to be silly caricatures. The characterisations are mostly based on race features and I did not like that at all.

I heard people having problems with the good races being white and the bad black, but my issue wasn't that. I would still find it horrible if it was the other way round. Just the notion that you can define people by their race and never be wrong.

Give me an orc (or whatever they are called) resistance group that fights for pacifism, or a really dumb elve, or a really evil hobbit, who tortures hobbit grandmas for fun. I don't count Gollum, because he is shown as more insane than evil. Surely, a guy from the "good people race" can be corrupted, but only by the foreign magic stuff. If he had just stayed in the Hobbit gated community and would have stayed away from the evils of the outside world, he would be okay.

I could have overlooked all that, if the text wasn't so mind-numbingly bland and dry. It's a story about good guys trying to prevent the big baddie to get a weapon with which he could rule the world - like most plots of "He-Man" or the "The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles". But the difference is that Tolkien does not show the slightest self irony. The humourless pathos that the story radiates is my biggest turn-off. It takes itself way too serious to get me to take it serious.

I agree. and the point about the characters' personalities being based on racial stereotypes (albeit made up racial stereotypes) is dead on. dwarves are this, elves like that, and hobbits all act like hobbits.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BS,

Right because Sam, Merry, Frodo, Pippin, Bilbo, the Gaffer, Fatty Bolger, and Lobella Sackville-Baggins were all interchangeable with each other. Switch them up and we'd never even have noticed a difference.

Right?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Not to mention Smeagol/Gollum, who is a (proto-)hobbit.

Of course, since there are exactly two dwarves in the entire LOTR with on-screen speaking roles (Gloin and Gimli, and the former is just a very minor role), one can hardly blame Gimli for acting like himself.

[Skythe1]

To continue on the above... Legolas, Galadriel, Elrond, Arwen, Haldir... All very different people

Aragorn, Denethor, Boromir, Faramir, Théoden, Eomer... Very different people.

And if you take the Hobbit in to account, there's also a lot of diversity when it comes to dwarves. Plus Gloin is Gimli's father so they're bound to have some similarities.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Even the named Orcs: Ugluk, Grishnakh, Gorbag, and Shagrat aren't clones. They're rivals.

[Skythe1]

And the Orcs and Uruk-Hai are always bickering and fighting. It's almost as if they have their own agenda!

[Jo498]

In any case the ones who said above that Bolton's pet leech listed only straw men in #41 are disproved by many responses to this thread that show that some dislikes are actually based on even more superficial readings (or maybe not even reading, but movie watching) than the ones listed (which were, after all, to some extent valid points, although not conclusive or fair).

[farseer2]

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

Matthew 7:6 - Pearls and Pigs

Errr.... OK, jokes aside, I get why some people would not like LOTR, and in this thread people have made many good points explaining it. I love it, however. The only thing I would change is the very beginning of the first book, when the chapters in the Shire are a bit too long and dull-ish. The rest, including Tom Bombadil and The Scouring of the Shire, I would not change a comma. A work of genius, in my opinion.

I read the Silmarillon but I was never much into it, though. A bit too nerdy for my taste. The Hobbit... well, it's a light-hearted adventure for children. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing to write home about either. But The LOTR...