ASoIaF and LotR parallels

[Aldarion]

6 hours ago, SeanF said:

I think that's a bit thin. Smaug hoards things, because he can.. He doesn't intrinsically care about them.  

Dany/Thorin is the better parallel, as each one believes they have a duty to avenge their family, and regain the lost kingdom.  But, one can draw the same parallel with any exiled royalty in literature.

Actually, Daenerys does have a lot of parallels with a dragon from LotR (not just Smaug):

1) Dragons in Lord of the Rings obsess over treasure. This is especially noticeable with Rings of Power - it is in fact noted that all great hoards of dwarven treasure were created with the help of one of seven Rings of Power, and every single one of those was stolen or destroyed by a dragon. Iron Throne is the Ring of Power parallel in ASoIaF, and Daenerys obsesses over it as much as a dragon does.

2) Dragons have a long memory, and remember any insults or injuries done to them. Daenerys still hates various "usurpers" for harming her family and denying them the throne.

3) Dragons in LotR breathe fire. Many significant deaths associated with Daenerys are associated with fire: she burns a witch to raise dragons from the stone; Quentyn Martell gets burned alive by her dragons; and there are likely quite a few more that I do not remember right now.

4) When Smaug thinks something was stolen from him, his first instinct is to burn the thieves. Daenerys' first instinct is to burn her enemies, and she considers Iron Throne to have been stolen from her family (meaning herself).

5) She calls herself a dragon.

[HexMachina]

7 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

It ain’t that far fetched. Dany thinks knights defend dragons from goods stolen from a dragon’s hoard, when really the legends are about knights killing the dragons.. Smaug would love her version. There is also a prophecy about a heroic savior who is supposed to return to Erebor to make the rivers run gold. People think that it’s happening...but then they realize it’s just Smaug setting everything on fire. This is pretty much the Azor Ahai twist in a nutshell.

It's superficial because the same can be applied to virtually any royal or noble who loses lands and title. Again, as with most of these "parallels" they are really just commonly occurring themes/plots/character traits in fantasy 

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

Actually, Daenerys does have a lot of parallels with a dragon from LotR (not just Smaug):

1) Dragons in Lord of the Rings obsess over treasure. This is especially noticeable with Rings of Power - it is in fact noted that all great hoards of dwarven treasure were created with the help of one of seven Rings of Power, and every single one of those was stolen or destroyed by a dragon. Iron Throne is the Ring of Power parallel in ASoIaF, and Daenerys obsesses over it as much as a dragon does.

2) Dragons have a long memory, and remember any insults or injuries done to them. Daenerys still hates various "usurpers" for harming her family and denying them the throne.

3) Dragons in LotR breathe fire. Many significant deaths associated with Daenerys are associated with fire: she burns a witch to raise dragons from the stone; Quentyn Martell gets burned alive by her dragons; and there are likely quite a few more that I do not remember right now.

4) When Smaug thinks something was stolen from him, his first instinct is to burn the thieves. Daenerys' first instinct is to burn her enemies, and she considers Iron Throne to have been stolen from her family (meaning herself).

5) She calls herself a dragon.

There are only two dragons that we get to know well, in The Hobbit and the Silmarillion, namely Smaug and Glaurung.  Their personalities are quite different to Daenerys'.  Smaug is aggressively and insincerely polite, enjoys trolling people, and burning Lake Town and hunting down its inhabitants is an amusing jape for him.

Glaurung enjoys messing with peoples' minds, and persecuting the House of Hurin, and is a bully too, even threatening other servants of Morgoth in order to get his way.  

In the books, as opposed to the show, Daenerys' first instinct is to negotiate.  There's none of the threatening to burn cities to the ground or the speeches of destiny that were a feature of the show.  The show made her into a badass (before vilifying her) which she is emphatically not in the books.  She has to really screw her courage to the sticking point, before the fight at Astapor.

 

[Aldarion]

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There are only two dragons that we get to know well, in The Hobbit and the Silmarillion, namely Smaug and Glaurung.  Their personalities are quite different to Daenerys'.  Smaug is aggressively and insincerely polite, enjoys trolling people, and burning Lake Town and hunting down its inhabitants is an amusing jape for him.

 Glaurung enjoys messing with peoples' minds, and persecuting the House of Hurin, and is a bully too, even threatening other servants of Morgoth in order to get his way.  

In the books, as opposed to the show, Daenerys' first instinct is to negotiate.  There's none of the threatening to burn cities to the ground or the speeches of destiny that were a feature of the show.  The show made her into a badass (before vilifying her) which she is emphatically not in the books.  She has to really screw her courage to the sticking point, before the fight at Astapor.

 

You are mistaking instinct and conscious choice. Read the last few Daenerys chapters: that "burn them all" instinct was always there, she was just consciously suppressing it. But it is surfacing now (presenting itself in the shape of Jorah Mormont). She may not have been that in the past, but she will be in the future. See these quotes; that is her suppressed instinct speaking:

Quote

 

"Drogon killed a little girl. Her name was … her name …" Dany could not recall the child's name. That made her so sad that she would have cried if all her tears had not been burned away. "I will never have a little girl. I was the Mother of Dragons."

 

Quote

 

"It is such a long way," she complained. "I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl."

No. You are the blood of the dragon. The whispering was growing fainter, as if Ser Jorah were falling farther behind. Dragons plant no trees. Remember that. Remember who you are, what you were made to be. Remember your words.

"Fire and Blood," Daenerys told the swaying grass.

 

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

You are mistaking instinct and conscious choice. Read the last few Daenerys chapters: that "burn them all" instinct was always there, she was just consciously suppressing it. But it is surfacing now (presenting itself in the shape of Jorah Mormont). She may not have been that in the past, but she will be in the future. See these quotes; that is her suppressed instinct speaking:

 

We'll have to wait and see.

One can read her final chapter in ADWD as meaning that she's going to lay waste everything in site.  Or one may not.  Aegon, Visenya, and Rhaenys were quite ruthless, but they certainly didn't burn everything in sight, nor were they poor negotiators.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Lessingham said:

You’re correct, but what I would argue for is that was at least to some degree deliberate (extent of intent can be debated) – and not in the way you think of it (I believe). LotR is not Aragorns story, as you yourself mentioned, from point of view of this particular character what transpires during LotR serves as a final act to the story. All of Aragorns supposed development happened entirely offscreen and in the past. We know for a fact what happened in his life before he met hobbits. His adventures in the North and in Gondor and Rohan, his life as Estel and as Thorongil, possible involvement in court politics during reigns of, respectively, Ecthelion II and Thengel. Aragorn enters the scene as a grown man set in his ways and focused on his goal, which is getting the throne(s) – and his reasons are at least in some way his own (we don’t get definite confirmation as to why he is doing what he is doing, it can be because of Elrond’s demands, it can be because of his sense of ultimate duty in this foretold hour). Aragorn gets no development because he got all he could have gotten already. That’s the obvious assumption one gets when reading all accessory material to LotR. It does make LotR when read by itself weaker as a narrative, but that’s another topic. Reasons for why Aragorn doesn’t get any traditionally understood character growth is the same reason why Denethor doesn’t get any, or some other characters for that matter: he doesn’t need one.

None of Tolkien's characters have much development, not even the Hobbits. There is some outside development in Pippin and Merry, but Frodo and Sam are the only ones who change significantly, and that's in no small part because they bear the Ring.

There simply is essentially no/very little introspection in LotR - in part that helps with getting sucked in into the story but it also robs the character of any real personality and depth - it works as a quest-novel but not as a character novel. We don't know anything about anyone in the book - their desires, fears, loves, wants, needs, etc.

6 hours ago, Lessingham said:

As to Aragorns traits being a part of his Númenorean heritage, and consequentially, as to Aragorn being a reflection of a racial archetype rather than a character: this can be debated. Tolkien had some strong views on Númenoreans and their racial predilections, he portrayed them as noble and transcending general human condition, but on the other hand he never shied away from condemning their darker aspects (brutal colonisers and supremacists for example). Númenorean pride doomed Númenor itself and showed its face when Isildur had a chance to destroy the Ring and failed to do so. Aragorn reflects a noble Númenorean archetype. Why? That’s unknown. He could have been properly raised by Elrond, he could have chosen that himself thanks to deliberation, he could have been born that way. We don’t know. Any strong guess, one that you make for example, shows only your personal bias towards the character.

If Tolkien characterizes anyone in his myth complex its people, not individuals. Aragorn is just one example of them - we know more about the racial identity/qualities of the Númenóreans, the Noldor, the Teleri, the Vanyar, etc. than we know about so much as a single individual from those races (aside from, perhaps, really stand-out characters like Feanor - but even he can be seen as a super-Noldo, embodying all the racial traits of his people to a perfect degree). Even with the Hobbits - their personal traits and personalities are explained by referring their racial traits - that they have this much blood of this or that of the three Hobbit races.

In any proper novel the reason why Aragorn wanted to be king would have been given. It wouldn't have been a matter of interpretation (of which the only textually supported interpretation is that he wanted his double crown to get his trophy wife because that's the only personal incentive he has - unless we also assume his love for Arwen wasn't that important to him).

6 hours ago, Lessingham said:

Because of all the above I would posit, as was mentioned already by others, that the proper answer for a question How would Martin write Aragorn-type character? is Young Griff, not Daenerys.

My point with Daenerys was only that Aragorn is much more insistent on and proud of his heritage and royal blood - this is a striking parallel, and it is clearly less in the face with Dany than with Aragorn who is completely defined by his ancestry. Not only in the scenes he introduces or makes a fuzz about his family tree, but also whenever people reference him.

But the obvious and glaring difference between Aegon and Aragorn is that Aragorn's status as king never was in doubt - whereas it is not even clear that Aegon has so much as a single drop of Targaryen or other royal blood. Even if Denethor had lived Aragorn would have taken the throne without any difficulty - in fact, his 'magical royal hands' may have even healed Denethor from his depression, one assumes. Aegon won't have any such success.

[Lord Varys]

As for Galadriel - she would just be some femme fatale with the One Ring, a woman seducing and sexually dominating and enslaving men. 'All men shall love me and despair' is pretty obvious how 'the Dark Lady' Galadriel would have 'ruled' - sort of like Melisandre does.

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

As for Galadriel - she would just be some femme fatale with the One Ring, a woman seducing and sexually dominating and enslaving men. 'All men shall love me and despair' is pretty obvious how 'the Dark Lady' Galadriel would have 'ruled' - sort of like Melisandre does.

I've always thought of the Lady, in the Black Company series, as being like Galadriel with the One Ring.

[Lord Varys]

28 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I've always thought of the Lady, in the Black Company series, as being like Galadriel with the One Ring.

I don't know that - all I'm saying is that it is quite clear no man or woman were to 'love Gandalf, Aragorn, Saruman, or Elrond and despair' if they took the Ring and set themselves up as Dark Lords. They would actually rule, not just advise and run things behind the scenes.

It is very telling that even the 'man-maiden' Tolkien created - his amazon, if you so will, the one who (at least in one of the versions of her back story) left Valinor to rule a vast realm of her own - cannot think of any other way of ruling than by means of enslaving men with her beauty and feminine wiles.

Melisandre fits that femme fatale concept to the letter - and it also very much shows the limits of this. Melisandre doesn't have much real power. She is no queen, she is but a foreigner in a foreign land who has to use deception and tricks to seduce powerful people so she can exert any power of her own.

[Lessingham]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

None of Tolkien's characters have much development, not even the Hobbits. There is some outside development in Pippin and Merry, but Frodo and Sam are the only ones who change significantly, and that's in no small part because they bear the Ring.

There simply is essentially no/very little introspection in LotR - in part that helps with getting sucked in into the story but it also robs the character of any real personality and depth - it works as a quest-novel but not as a character novel. We don't know anything about anyone in the book - their desires, fears, loves, wants, needs, etc.

Tolkiens characters do change, just not a lot and not all of them. You seem to be very influenced by Jacksons movies, judging from what you’ve written here of course, I would not presume on other premises (I think you seem to habit some sort of bitterness towards Tolkien, and this bitterness tastes like progressivism, but as I’ve said – not the subject of this conversation  ). Movies, while they have some merits, really simplified a lot of Tolkiens characters, at times to the point of pure ridicule designed to sell tickets to the younger audience. Frodo and Sam are indeed most obvious examples of characters changing, but most of the Fellowship goes through some sort of development. Gimli is the most obvious example (and chief victim of aforementioned ridicule). Stereotypical Khuzd at the beginning, he ends up the most classically (i.e. in an Arthurian way) romantic of the characters, appreciating friendship with Legolas and discovering himself through interaction with Galadriel (Gimli received her hair while Fëanor did not [according to some accounts] – telling on itself). Legolas is a similar example, though he is mostly done on the Show don’t tell basis, and Boromir I should not even describe in words more than mentioning him. Éowyn changes as well. Gollum also comes to mind, though his is a peculiar case, deserving of more careful, separate treatment. I’m not going to mention characters which personalities were shaped be events offscreen, like Denethor or Saruman. Most of these developments are not highlighted – I agree fully with you in that LotR is not primarily character-driven drama of ASoIaF breed (ASoIaF being populated with caricatures instead of characters at times, but that’s neither here nor there), but I would strongly argue with your words, that, quote: “[n]one of Tolkien's characters have much development”. You can jump to Mars with this kind of hyperbole.

Last sentence from the quoted chunk is plainly wrong and I have no idea how you could have read this book and end with such a conclusion. We do definitely know a lot about desires, fears and wants of many of the characters. It creates a lot of plot of this story and does so directly. Denethor is a perfect example. He is a complex man who has very specific wants and needs, and what he wants created whole Gondor subplot (that and toying with the palantír) as a consequence of his character and offscreen development he received. Tolkien does much more character characterisation than development and I agree with that, but what you propose in last sentence, that, quote: “[w]e don't know anything about anyone in the book - their desires, fears, loves, wants, needs, etc.”, this is just incorrect. You should know that.

I can give you ground and firmly state that yes, there are some characters, and important to the story at that, which are just ridiculously plain. Imrahil comes to mind as the example, but there are more of such folks (Éomer and others).

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Tolkien characterizes anyone in his myth complex its people, not individuals. Aragorn is just one example of them - we know more about the racial identity/qualities of the Númenóreans, the Noldor, the Teleri, the Vanyar, etc. than we know about so much as a single individual from those races (aside from, perhaps, really stand-out characters like Feanor - but even he can be seen as a super-Noldo, embodying all the racial traits of his people to a perfect degree). Even with the Hobbits - their personal traits and personalities are explained by referring their racial traits - that they have this much blood of this or that of the three Hobbit races.

In any proper novel the reason why Aragorn wanted to be king would have been given. It wouldn't have been a matter of interpretation (of which the only textually supported interpretation is that he wanted his double crown to get his trophy wife because that's the only personal incentive he has - unless we also assume his love for Arwen wasn't that important to him).

For starters, I don't know what “proper novel” means and I don’t think you do either  . If you do however, then well, you should seriously consider academic career, you would shake up literary studies really good, perhaps even change the field forever with this level of insight.

On this subject, leaving jest aside, I would agree with you in broad terms. Tolkien does spend considerable amount of time to create sort of racial/folkish spirit and racial/folkish archetype for his peoples, and he does so superbly I would argue. Rohirrim and Númenoreans come to mind immediately, Noldor as well.

Everything else you either wrote or directly implied – I will contend. Truth of the matter is that we don’t have enough characters to judge, and taking Silmarillion into account is problematic for many, many reasons (it applies to HoME and all of extended canon as well, because of slightly different reasons, but nevermind). What we do get is a moderately large cast of developed, described persons (like 15?). Do they fit the scheme “bad-Gondorian”, “good-Gondorian”, “typical-Rohirrim”? I don’t know. I think there’s a jump in logic somewhere in your reasoning, where exactly I don’t know but I know that it’s a false equivalency. If Denethor, with all his shades, is just an embodiment of a “fallen-Númenorean”, and Imrahil fully depicts “good-Gondorian” (by the way – yes he does, that I agree with, but it’s a case by case examination IMHO) – well, why then won’t we argue that allegedly complex characters of other writers who are argued to create such (Martin, Bakker) are not such cases as well...? You would just need to design your collectives accordingly. For Martin and cases like Tyrion, Jaime or Stannis that shouldn’t be hard.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

My point with Daenerys was only that Aragorn is much more insistent on and proud of his heritage and royal blood - this is a striking parallel, and it is clearly less in the face with Dany than with Aragorn who is completely defined by his ancestry. Not only in the scenes he introduces or makes a fuzz about his family tree, but also whenever people reference him.

But the obvious and glaring difference between Aegon and Aragorn is that Aragorn's status as king never was in doubt - whereas it is not even clear that Aegon has so much as a single drop of Targaryen or other royal blood. Even if Denethor had lived Aragorn would have taken the throne without any difficulty - in fact, his 'magical royal hands' may have even healed Denethor from his depression, one assumes. Aegon won't have any such success.

I think you missed the point. I wrote, quote: “How would Martin write Aragorn-type character?”, and I meant that. It’s a question of how would Martin, with his voice, literary technique, vision and practice, would write Aragorn-type character, i.e. an exiled prince/rightful king archetype, person who knows (he doesn’t need to be a rightful king, it does not matter here) that right is his and who goes to obtain it, and is in part/in whole defined by causes for which throne is his (in this case – by Targaryen heritage). Quote: “Aegon won't have any such [Aragorns] success” – this is obvious and I never meant to imply otherwise. This is Martin we are talking about. Aegon is that much more than Daenerys in my opinion because of the sheer fact that almost from the point of his introduction (not literally but from structure of narration point of view) his plot is I’m the king by right and by blood and now I’m commencing retake of said throne. Daenerys is much more than that.

As an afterthought. I strongly believe that Young Griff will serve Aragorns purpose in the story, that he will take his rightful Iron Throne and story will go from there. Martin went and preached his dissatisfaction with Reunited Kingdom plotline for years at this point and he won’t waste his occasion to make literary comment (his BUT WHAT WAS HIS TAX POLICY remark transcended into memehood after all).

[Frey family reunion]

On 11/20/2019 at 3:25 PM, Aldarion said:

* In A Song of Ice and Fire, we have Samwell Tarly. House Tarly is vassal of House Tyrell, who used to be vassals of House Gardener. In Lord of the Rings, Samwise Gamgree is a gardener.

In addition, Samwell's descendants change their name from Gamgee to Gardner.

And don't forget that Sam Tarly's mother is a Florent:

Quote

"You Starks were kings once, the Arryns and the Lannisters as well, and even the Baratheon through the female line, but the Tyrells were no more than stewards until Aegon the Dragon came along and cooked the rightful King of the Reach on the Field of Fire.  If truth be told, even our claim to Highgarden is a bit dodgy, just as those dreadful Florents are always whinning."

Quote

"Who better?" We Florents have the blood of the old Gardener kings in our veins."

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

Tolkiens characters do change, just not a lot and not all of them. You seem to be very influenced by Jacksons movies, judging from what you’ve written here of course, I would not presume on other premises (I think you seem to habit some sort of bitterness towards Tolkien, and this bitterness tastes like progressivism, but as I’ve said – not the subject of this conversation  ).

Well, ridicule would be the better word. I recently read Carpenter's description of an 'average Inklings meeting' - and if that's really what these people were then JRRT was neither an intellectual nor the kind of person a self-respecting educated person of the 21st century could take seriously (I dimly recall a report from Arthur C. Clarke about a meeting with Tolkien and his gang in the 1950s and his experiences with them weren't exactly all that favorable, either).

But I actually very much like Tolkien's work and have a stronger emotional connection to his work than, say, George's stuff. I just also realize the limits of the work (and even more so the limits of the man).

The Jackson movies are unwatchable nonsense, in my opinion. It has been years since I last watched that crap, and even then it were those Tolkien-style fan edits that cut out all the invented nonsense and give you back the gist of Tolkien's stories (which actually works very nicely - I encourage people to watch the movies in those versions). Aragorn gets a silly arc in those movies - some sort of development and conflict, but that just doesn't make sense within the framework of the story they are adapting so it is a mistake.

But this doesn't change the fact that Aragorn is a joke as a character if you actually compare him to proper characters in proper novels - and I do have a concept of those. JRRT was an amateur writer. He got things published because he was an Oxford don who made connections and sold a children's book that became successful. No sane publisher would have bought LotR if it hadn't been 'the Hobbit sequel'.

And despite the fact that the book works very well it also has massive flaws - the Tom Bombadil episode doesn't belong in there, telling the falling of Isengard in retrospect is just silly, there is too much detail in the early chapters and far too little in the later, the main antagonist never shows up, the ending is drawn out for too long, etc.

If the book is great it is so because it really captures you and draws you in - and that's because there is no characterization and no depth to any of the main characters. You, the reader, are either Frodo or one of the other Hobbits or you are with them. This works very so very well especially in the Shire chapters when the gang run away from the black riders. It is essentially the same with the Potter books.

But good literature actually does need living characters - characters which are more than just a template for the reader to identify with. George's characters are much deeper and more complex than any of Tolkien's and he still draws you in to a similar degree (although I'd definitely say Tolkien's world-building is hundred times better than George's and Tolkien's quest chapters are also much better than anything George has ever written).

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

Movies, while they have some merits, really simplified a lot of Tolkiens characters, at times to the point of pure ridicule designed to sell tickets to the younger audience. Frodo and Sam are indeed most obvious examples of characters changing, but most of the Fellowship goes through some sort of development. Gimli is the most obvious example (and chief victim of aforementioned ridicule). Stereotypical Khuzd at the beginning, he ends up the most classically (i.e. in an Arthurian way) romantic of the characters, appreciating friendship with Legolas and discovering himself through interaction with Galadriel (Gimli received her hair while Fëanor did not [according to some accounts] – telling on itself). Legolas is a similar example, though he is mostly done on the Show don’t tell basis, and Boromir I should not even describe in words more than mentioning him. Éowyn changes as well. Gollum also comes to mind, though his is a peculiar case, deserving of more careful, separate treatment. I’m not going to mention characters which personalities were shaped be events offscreen, like Denethor or Saruman. Most of these developments are not highlighted – I agree fully with you in that LotR is not primarily character-driven drama of ASoIaF breed (ASoIaF being populated with caricatures instead of characters at times, but that’s neither here nor there), but I would strongly argue with your words, that, quote: “[n]one of Tolkien's characters have much development”. You can jump to Mars with this kind of hyperbole.

I'd concede that Gimli makes some sort of development during the book, but he is really a secondary character. Legolas is no character at all. We know nothing about him as a person.

The so-called grey characters in Tolkien's work (for LotR Gollum, Saruman, and Denethor) are, in fact, all villains at least insofar as the outcome is concerned. They all die and do not redeem themselves in any way, shape, or form. If Gollum had killed himself to destroy the Ring that would have been something ... but him slipping is just god playing a practical joke on him (and that's actually how we should interpret things there according to the author, no?). Denethor becomes a heretic/heathen at the end of his life (which, considering that he actually knows who he is actually talking to when talking to Gandalf, means he is just a little bit less corrupt than the followers of Ar-Pharazôn). His giving in to depression is not that big of a sin, but him actually ending his life and trying to murder his own son in the process of it makes him a clear villain. And Saruman is an obvious villain, too. He was once good, but we never meet that guy nor do we truly understand what exactly made him evil - but we certainly do know that any person with Saruman's knowledge becoming a copy or a puppet of Sauron must be a person who was never that good in the first place. I mean, just ask you yourself how convincing you would think Sauron's arguments to join him would be if you had Saruman's knowledge? He was either very, very stupid or not a good guy. And the number of second chances Saruman gets - and the levels of corruption he goes down to - are, in fact, almost a running gag. There is Gandalf's first visit, the confrontation at Orthanc where his staff is broken (that should have knocked some sense into him, don't you think?) the talks with Treebeard, the meeting on the road, and then Frodo's offer of forgiveness at Bag End.

Éowyn doesn't really change all that much I'd say. She overcomes her lovesickness which caused her desire to search for glory and death in battle - a most unwomanly thing to do. But once another guy comes around all is fine and she is basically like, one assumes, she was before winter and decay had come to Théoden's hall.

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

Last sentence from the quoted chunk is plainly wrong and I have no idea how you could have read this book and end with such a conclusion. We do definitely know a lot about desires, fears and wants of many of the characters. It creates a lot of plot of this story and does so directly. Denethor is a perfect example. He is a complex man who has very specific wants and needs, and what he wants created whole Gondor subplot (that and toying with the palantír) as a consequence of his character and offscreen development he received. Tolkien does much more character characterisation than development and I agree with that, but what you propose in last sentence, that, quote: “[w]e don't know anything about anyone in the book - their desires, fears, loves, wants, needs, etc.”, this is just incorrect. You should know that.

Oh, there are some characters who are given a single desire - Denethor makes it clear what he wants politically, sure. And there are even some hints that the loss of his wife dealt him a considerable blow. But do we know anything about the innermost feelings/personalities of any of the main characters. Do we even know why exactly Denethor wants to cling to power? Why is it so important to him that Aragorn not become the king? What does political power actually mean to him?

Insofar as the desires are concerned - I meant that we do literally know nothing private about of, say, Frodo. Was he ever in love? What does he believe about the death of his parents? Does he miss them? And the same can be said about any of the other characters. In relation to Aragorn we don't even know what exactly he loves about Arwen. Her as a person? Or just the feeling that he can reenact Beren and Lúthien with her? We never know. Compare that, say, to Quentyn's thoughts and fears on his journey to Daenerys.

When Tolkien's characters show emotion or desires it is always about the plot - Frodo is afraid of the Ring and Gollum, Denethor loathes Aragorn, they all grieve for the fallen Gandalf, etc.

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

For starters, I don't know what “proper novel” means and I don’t think you do either  . If you do however, then well, you should seriously consider academic career, you would shake up literary studies really good, perhaps even change the field forever with this level of insight.

I think I gave a sketch somewhere above. It would have to do more with characterization plot and way of telling the story. LotR cannot be classified as a novel of the 20th century - if you want to classify it as a novel the ones you should throw it in with would be some 18th/19th century Gothic pieces, like, say, Melmoth the Wanderer.

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

On this subject, leaving jest aside, I would agree with you in broad terms. Tolkien does spend considerable amount of time to create sort of racial/folkish spirit and racial/folkish archetype for his peoples, and he does so superbly I would argue. Rohirrim and Númenoreans come to mind immediately, Noldor as well.

My point is that peoples/races are the actual protagonists of Tolkien's works, not people. Especially for LotR but you can also make that case for the Silmarillion complex - much better there, in fact, if you keep in mind that Tuor/Beren and Idril/Lúthien are definitely all supposed to embody the utmost nobility and greatest qualities of their particular races (the Edain and the Eldar) - which is the reason why they are *chosen* to found the magical royal bloodline of Eärendil and then from him on down to the likes of Aragorn.

LotR is very much a 'völkischer Roman' as we would say over here in Germany. I never read Ernst Jünger but I actually should look for parallels there...

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

Everything else you either wrote or directly implied – I will contend. Truth of the matter is that we don’t have enough characters to judge, and taking Silmarillion into account is problematic for many, many reasons (it applies to HoME and all of extended canon as well, because of slightly different reasons, but nevermind).

Well, the very fact that individuals are, for the most part, not even properly described in the Silmarillion texts (what can you say to me about the character of, say, King Fingon aside from 'he was a great and noble High King of the Noldor - and not the father of Gil-galad') I think those actually help with my case. We would also judge the works by the texts we do have, not by those we miss.

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

What we do get is a moderately large cast of developed, described persons (like 15?). Do they fit the scheme “bad-Gondorian”, “good-Gondorian”, “typical-Rohirrim”? I don’t know. I think there’s a jump in logic somewhere in your reasoning, where exactly I don’t know but I know that it’s a false equivalency. If Denethor, with all his shades, is just an embodiment of a “fallen-Númenorean”, and Imrahil fully depicts “good-Gondorian” (by the way – yes he does, that I agree with, but it’s a case by case examination IMHO) – well, why then won’t we argue that allegedly complex characters of other writers who are argued to create such (Martin, Bakker) are not such cases as well...? You would just need to design your collectives accordingly. For Martin and cases like Tyrion, Jaime or Stannis that shouldn’t be hard.

It is not that easy, I'd say. Sure, there is the difference between the role a character has in a story (and there there are villains and heroes and cravens and all that in both layered and complex literature and also in not-so-layered literature like Tolkien's) and how the character as such is presented.

But to give an example of this racial or 'völkische' dimension of Tolkien's lets turn to Gríma Wormtongue for a moment. That guy has been universally depicted as the pale, ugly, dark-haired hanger-on we see both in the Bakshi and the Jackson movies when in fact Tolkien's only description of Gríma in LotR is that he is a 'wizened figure of a man' has 'a pale wise face, and heavy lidded eyes'. Considering the way the Rohirrim are described (as a collective of fair-haired white men) Gríma should be imagined as one such, too. Here it was the desire of the movie makers to make Gríma a recognizable villain from the start that he was set apart physically to that degree from the other Rohirrim.

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

I think you missed the point. I wrote, quote: “How would Martin write Aragorn-type character?”, and I meant that. It’s a question of how would Martin, with his voice, literary technique, vision and practice, would write Aragorn-type character, i.e. an exiled prince/rightful king archetype, person who knows (he doesn’t need to be a rightful king, it does not matter here) that right is his and who goes to obtain it, and is in part/in whole defined by causes for which throne is his (in this case – by Targaryen heritage). Quote: “Aegon won't have any such [Aragorns] success” – this is obvious and I never meant to imply otherwise. This is Martin we are talking about. Aegon is that much more than Daenerys in my opinion because of the sheer fact that almost from the point of his introduction (not literally but from structure of narration point of view) his plot is I’m the king by right and by blood and now I’m commencing retake of said throne. Daenerys is much more than that.

Well, an Aragorn-type character is that of a successful hidden king, not a hidden prince who may or may not succeed. That Estel was not told who he was is by no means a defining feature of Aragorn's character. It is a little tidbit of the character, something that was written to give him a back story after LotR was already written. Aragorn is not defined by that feature nor is he, in fact, character whose point it is to reclaim a lost crown. Sure, he is the true king and all, but his own interest and focus lies on the destruction of the Ring and the victory over Sauron. We don't know much about Aragorn but we definitely do know that he cares much less about his crown and birth right (if one can call it that without, you know, laugh) than the victory over Sauron. If there is a defining quality to his character then it is that Sauron has to be defeated.

That/why he should be king is sort of also the case, but as I said - we have no clue why Aragorn wants to be king aside from the fact that everybody in this world but Denethor (to a point) seems to think that a dynasty can lose a throne for a literal millennium without the legal claim losing any weight.

There is, at this point, no such character in George's work. Dany doesn't know anything about the Others and neither does Aegon. Jon Snow, who knows about the Others, has no clue about his royal ancestry. But if there is an Aragorn-like character in the books it would be Jon insofar as his focus on dealing with the true enemy is concerned. If Jon were to learn tomorrow about his Targaryen ancestry he would still remain focused on the mission at hand - the Others - and not start to dream about crowns. But unlike Aragorn Jon Snow - as a three-dimensional, better developed character would actually have a good reason why he wanted to be king aside from, you know, my magical blood and some angel in white robes demand it (which is basically what makes Aragorn king - the coronation in the end is actually a divine investiture of a king from an magical angelic/elven bloodline, a king who can rightly boast that a messenger of the creator of the universe himself put his crown on his head)

1 hour ago, Lessingham said:

As an afterthought. I strongly believe that Young Griff will serve Aragorns purpose in the story, that he will take his rightful Iron Throne and story will go from there. Martin went and preached his dissatisfaction with Reunited Kingdom plotline for years at this point and he won’t waste his occasion to make literary comment (his BUT WHAT WAS HIS TAX POLICY remark transcended into memehood after all).

Aegon will sit the throne for a time, but if there is a character who has 'FAILURE' written in very large letters over him it is Aegon. I have no clue how he will go down, but he will go down, and before he does he'll do his best - deliberately or inadvertently - to make things worse for everyone.

[Aldarion]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And despite the fact that the book works very well it also has massive flaws - the Tom Bombadil episode doesn't belong in there, telling the falling of Isengard in retrospect is just silly, there is too much detail in the early chapters and far too little in the later, the main antagonist never shows up, the ending is drawn out for too long, etc.

 If the book is great it is so because it really captures you and draws you in - and that's because there is no characterization and no depth to any of the main characters. You, the reader, are either Frodo or one of the other Hobbits or you are with them. This works very so very well especially in the Shire chapters when the gang run away from the black riders. It is essentially the same with the Potter books.

But good literature actually does need living characters - characters which are more than just a template for the reader to identify with. George's characters are much deeper and more complex than any of Tolkien's and he still draws you in to a similar degree (although I'd definitely say Tolkien's world-building is hundred times better than George's and Tolkien's quest chapters are also much better than anything George has ever written).

Actually, Tom Bombadil's episode - as silly and out-of-place it may seem - is crucial for understanding the book. There, we get the first inkling of "good" supernatural powers at work (Gandalf's reveal as an angel comes much later), we learn the history of Arnor and the Witch King, and Hobbits are given swords capable of killing the Witch King. In other words, it is a setup episode - not unlike Daenerys in the mansion, or literally entirety of Mereen arc.

Telling the falling of Isengard in retrospect is also not silly, for several reasons. First, we had just had a massive battle at Helm's Deep - what use is another one, back-to-back? Second, it provides a sense of temporal distance - we essentially follow Aragorn, and so only learn of said battle after it is finished. Third, it provides a difference in tone compared to Helm's Deep.

I also disagree that good literature necessarily needs living characters. First, Tolkien's characters are not as flat as you present them - and frankly, I'd rather take a naturally flat character than one whose depth feels forced. Second, in Tolkien's work, world itself is a character. His worldbuilding is not just "better" than George's, it is also deeper and qualitatively different.

 

Also, forum software is shit. Eats too much memory.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Actually, Tom Bombadil's episode - as silly and out-of-place it may seem - is crucial for understanding the book. There, we get the first inkling of "good" supernatural powers at work (Gandalf's reveal as an angel comes much later), we learn the history of Arnor and the Witch King, and Hobbits are given swords capable of killing the Witch King. In other words, it is a setup episode - not unlike Daenerys in the mansion, or literally entirety of Mereen arc.

This kind of setup - and one can question whether this really serves as setup for concepts - could be done much better in a way actually having to do with the story. Tom Bombadil has literally nothing to do with the story.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Telling the falling of Isengard in retrospect is also not silly, for several reasons. First, we had just had a massive battle at Helm's Deep - what use is another one, back-to-back? Second, it provides a sense of temporal distance - we essentially follow Aragorn, and so only learn of said battle after it is finished. Third, it provides a difference in tone compared to Helm's Deep.

Oh, it could have done much better just by ordering the chapters a little bit more and by, you know, continue the Ent chapter to actually show the fall of Isengard then and there. The fall of Isengard was no big battle, the Ents quickly overwhelmed and destroyed the place. But telling such a powerful scene in retrospect is just not a very good narrative decision.

4 hours ago, Aldarion said:

I also disagree that good literature necessarily needs living characters. First, Tolkien's characters are not as flat as you present them - and frankly, I'd rather take a naturally flat character than one whose depth feels forced. Second, in Tolkien's work, world itself is a character. His worldbuilding is not just "better" than George's, it is also deeper and qualitatively different.

The standard is not 'forced depth' vs. 'no depth' but 'real depth' vs. 'no depth'.

And as I said I really do like Tolkien's work - but it is not really good literature on the character or story department. The world feels very much alive - and LotR essentially is the best imaginary travel novel one could find, but the story at its heart is just a clichéd good vs. evil novel, with at times a rather unpleasant tendency to dehumanize 'the Enemy'.

[Aldarion]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This kind of setup - and one can question whether this really serves as setup for concepts - could be done much better in a way actually having to do with the story. Tom Bombadil has literally nothing to do with the story.

As I said, he serves as a foreshadowing of things to come.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, it could have done much better just by ordering the chapters a little bit more and by, you know, continue the Ent chapter to actually show the fall of Isengard then and there. The fall of Isengard was no big battle, the Ents quickly overwhelmed and destroyed the place. But telling such a powerful scene in retrospect is just not a very good narrative decision.

And why not? I recall several battles in ASoIaF were told in precisely such a manner. Telling of a battle post-fact creates temporal distance from it, and thus completely different atmosphere compared to showing it as it happens. Tolkien did it earlier in Moria, albeit in a form of a "disater diary".

Dear diary, I am being eaten by a dragon....

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And as I said I really do like Tolkien's work - but it is not really good literature on the character or story department. The world feels very much alive - and LotR essentially is the best imaginary travel novel one could find, but the story at its heart is just a clichéd good vs. evil novel, with at times a rather unpleasant tendency to dehumanize 'the Enemy'.

Reason for that is because we only see the perspective of the good guys. But in the occasions where we do get Orc perspective - trolls in The Hobbit, those orcs in The Two Towers and Return of the King - they feel completely human. They have their dreams, hopes, desires, fears... orcs are really tragic creatures, and literally they are being used to show how corrupted Sauron himself is. And even the story of Sauron, and earlier Morgoth, is actually a tragedy - they are to be feared and hated, yes, but also pitied.

[Rose of Red Lake]

6 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Reason for that is because we only see the perspective of the good guys. But in the occasions where we do get Orc perspective - trolls in The Hobbit, those orcs in The Two Towers and Return of the King - they feel completely human. They have their dreams, hopes, desires, fears... orcs are really tragic creatures, and literally they are being used to show how corrupted Sauron himself is. And even the story of Sauron, and earlier Morgoth, is actually a tragedy - they are to be feared and hated, yes, but also pitied.

Yes...and to add on, ASOIAF's version of "orcs" appear to be one-dimensional villains like the wildlings and the Great Houses in Meereen that the heroes are supposed to kill/crush/destroy, until they are shown to be more than that. They are also orcs because they're the conquered ones.... What does Dany do with the baby orcs in their baby orc cribs? If they're dressed in a tiny baby tokar I guess she kills them. 

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

As I said, he serves as a foreshadowing of things to come.

If the book had been properly edited and had actually had to be sold on the market this passage would have been cut.

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

And why not? I recall several battles in ASoIaF were told in precisely such a manner. Telling of a battle post-fact creates temporal distance from it, and thus completely different atmosphere compared to showing it as it happens. Tolkien did it earlier in Moria, albeit in a form of a "disater diary".

ASoIaF is limited by the POV structure - which also causes considerable problems. LotR doesn't have such a structure and has two main characters actually be present in the battle we are talking about.

16 hours ago, Aldarion said:

Reason for that is because we only see the perspective of the good guys. But in the occasions where we do get Orc perspective - trolls in The Hobbit, those orcs in The Two Towers and Return of the King - they feel completely human. They have their dreams, hopes, desires, fears... orcs are really tragic creatures, and literally they are being used to show how corrupted Sauron himself is. And even the story of Sauron, and earlier Morgoth, is actually a tragedy - they are to be feared and hated, yes, but also pitied.

The Hobbit isn't really part of the legendarium. It becomes part of that via the Hobbit sequel that turns into a sequel not only of the children's book but also of the Silmarillion complex. Elrond is retconned into being the Elrond who is the son of Eärendil. He isn't that guy back in the children's book, just as Gandalf isn't some angel incarnate nor the Necromancer the lieutenant of Morgoth. In that sense, those trolls are not exactly trolls created by or working for the Dark Lords, just as the goblins of the Hobbit are not necessarily the same as the Orcs from LotR and the Silmarillion complex.

Whether Orcs are actually tragic creatures we don't know. Because we never get their side of the story. Sure, the Hobbits give us their interactions with Orcs from their perspective, and we can deduce that life under the heel of Barad-dûr is not all that nice for them, but whether a free life in the absence of a Dark Lord (which they certainly had at various points in their history) is all that tragic or unpleasant for them.

Tolkien has his characters set up the Orcs as unreedeemable evil - if you recall, Gandalf disagrees that that Gollum is like and Orc and just an enemy, but he doesn't to anything to explain to Frodo that even an Orc isn't just an enemy, no? Evil men are led astray and such, but Orcs definitely are beyond redemption.

[Narsil4]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Whether Orcs are actually tragic creatures we don't know.

The origin story that indicates that orcs are corrupted and tortured elves, suggests that they should all be pitied, in a similar manner as Gollum. 

 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Narsil4 said:

The origin story that indicates that orcs are corrupted and tortured elves, suggests that they should all be pitied, in a similar manner as Gollum.

Sure, but we have no inclination whether the Orcs actually feel that way, whether there is any reason to pity them at all.

[Narsil4]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, but we have no inclination whether the Orcs actually feel that way, whether there is any reason to pity them at all.

I find Smeagol becoming Gollum to be fairly similar to Elves becoming Orcs. 
With Orcs essentially being corrupted and enslaved for generations, I see little reason why they wouldn't deserve pity. Even if they don't have the ability to feel pity themselves anymore.