The Tolkien Thread

[MaesterLuwin]

Still really want a book about Dagor Dagorath. Anyone with me?

What volume of The History of Middle Earth talks about that? I read most of those from my library, and they all blend together, but I remember thinking that was a really interesting end to Tolkien's mythology. And one of the few hints of anything to happen AFTER LotR.

[Prince Who Was Promised]

It's in Shaping of Middle Earth and Lost Road. I can't say I was surprised by that ending; it's a fitting one.

[Tarapas Amran]

I don't think *neccessary* a less realistic world is worse in the sense of world-building. Arguably the more fantastical the world-building the greater a feat it is to make it "work out".

Apart from the Aiel (who just seem to be too damn *many* for the kind of terrain they live in) I never got a "How does that even work?" vibe from WoT. A bunch of "That's silly" vibes, but it never actually broke my suspension of disbelief the way the Silmarillion sometimes does. (largely because it never gives you any real sense of the socities in question) What do the Noldor live off? How large are their cities? Etc. etc.

I read a lot of history (non-fiction) before starting with fiction and if you do that Silmarillion is quite a long those line (in geist). I don't see the problem, since I see it as a fictional non-fictional work, if that makes sense. It would be very strange to start talking about population and so on, such works are about kings and battles, as well as individual legends.

[Iron Tusk]

I was specifically responding to the quote where you refer to the premise of inherent good and evil as a "joke". If this was not directed at Tolkien's works, then I apologize.

fine...

So because the book was written in a time period in which many works espoused a dichotomy of good/evil, you automatically dismiss the entire work?

i don't dismiss his work.

People bring up this criticism of Tolkien a lot, that the whole good/evil thing is naive. First of all, the characters are not inherently good or evil. Evil is portrayed is the corruption of good, and even the "good" characters experience the temptation and corruption of evil. That's the whole point of the books; because Frodo experiences firsthand that kind of corruption, he can never go home again.

perhaps you're right, but that's the impression i got when i read it. or atleast that's what i remember.

Secondly, just because you disagree with the idea of good/evil, does that detract from your reading experience? Do you have the same criticisms of Shakespeare, of Goethe, and so on? I don't believe in the pantheon of the Greek Gods, but I still enjoy reading Homer. I disagree with Milton's portrayal of God in Paradise Lost, but I still think it's a beautiful poem that is well worth reading.

again, i never said tolkein wasn't good or that i didn't enjoy reading LoTR.

Just because you're a moral relativist doesn't mean that you can dismiss every form of literature that doesn't adhere to your beliefs. I understand not liking a work of nonfiction because of this. But Tolkien's writing literature, not philosophy, and it's not like he's being preachy or moralizing with the text. It's a story, first and foremost. To dismiss a work of fiction because of an author's beliefs is philosophically negligent at best and downright ignorant at worst. One's enjoyment of literature should not be limited to simply only reading authors that one agrees with philosophically.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

i don't care for "moral relativism" or "literature that doesn't adhere to your beliefs". i don't care for your presumptious attitude either. i have no idea how you came up with the idea that i dismissed authors because i disagree with some of the ideas expressed in their books. i have expressed multiple times now i enjoyed reading LoTR, how you came to the previous conclusion is beyond me. i also have no idea how you came up with what my idea of literature is as i have never expressed it on this forum nor have i listed all the books i have read or my views on them.

Or do you know everything? If so, I'm sorry.

again, you seem to be the one that knows everything as you have ASSumed so many things about me.

i don't know what your problem is or what it is you're trying to prove, but you, sir, are a dick!

[Iron Tusk]

Tusk, it seemed liked your good/evil veiws (which seem something like that of a nihilist, which I personally can't stand...) seemed to contribute to how you think Tolkien is overrated.

nihilism? sounds exhausting. i'm sorry to hear you can't stand nihilism. i'm not so sure how one becomes or remains a nihilist, to be honest.

i expressed two seperate opinions on tolkien, one didn't necessarily imply the other or vice versa. i'm sorry if this was not exactly clear.

i think Tolkien is overrated for two main reasons. one, he doesn't compare, in my humble opinion, to "greater" authors name-dropped above (minus all that western canon claptrap). two, it's not because you're popular that you're necessarily a great author which seems to be the prevalent idea among tolkien fans. is it the case in this forum? maybe, maybe not. it doesn't seem to be but i really don't know.

[MaesterLuwin]

Iron Tusk,

I'd like to apologize. You're certainly justified in calling me a dick after my last response to you. I suppose I should stop posting in the morning before I have coffee. :unsure:

I guess, over the years, I've run into too many people who do automatically dismiss Tolkien or any literature that deals with "good and evil" in binary terms. This has made me overly-defensive and ornery. After reading your post, I (unfairly) pegged you as one of these people and responded the way I did. I shouldn't have made assumptions about your personal philosophy or reading habits, and I apologize for that. It was uncalled for, in any respect, and I made too many assumptions based on one throwaway statement you made. I shouldn't have done that.

So, I do take issue with your dismissal of inherent good and evil as a "joke", but that's irrelevant to discussing Tolkien. And while my defense of Tolkien still stands, I don't mean to say that it applies to you. Your criticisms are certainly valid, and I shouldn't have argued otherwise, and I certainly shouldn't have tried to put words in your mouth. Please accept my apologies.

And I'll even agree with you that Tolkien is overrated (for example, you often find it at the number one spot in the "best of the 20th century" polls, up there with Ayn Rand, another remarkably overrated author). I'd also argue though that Tolkien gets more criticisms and detractors than most authors, precisely because he is so popular. The sword cuts both ways.

[Iron Tusk]

it's cool. :ninja:

[Shryke]

And I'll even agree with you that Tolkien is overrated (for example, you often find it at the number one spot in the "best of the 20th century" polls, up there with Ayn Rand, another remarkably overrated author). I'd also argue though that Tolkien gets more criticisms and detractors than most authors, precisely because he is so popular. The sword cuts both ways.

I think the biggest thing is that Tolkien was unbelievably influential. Even people who can't stand his work can't deny that.

So you get people who hate Tolkien even more because something they don't like was so influential.

And you get other people who confuse "First" with "Best".

[Prince Who Was Promised]

nihilism? sounds exhausting. i'm sorry to hear you can't stand nihilism. i'm not so sure how one becomes or remains a nihilist, to be honest.

i expressed two seperate opinions on tolkien, one didn't necessarily imply the other or vice versa. i'm sorry if this was not exactly clear.

i think Tolkien is overrated for two main reasons. one, he doesn't compare, in my humble opinion, to "greater" authors name-dropped above (minus all that western canon claptrap). two, it's not because you're popular that you're necessarily a great author which seems to be the prevalent idea among tolkien fans. is it the case in this forum? maybe, maybe not. it doesn't seem to be but i really don't know.

Nihilists don't believe in good or evil. One becomes one by...you can guess it...not believeing in good or evil. I'm not saying you are one, but saying that Tolkien's good/evil morality is laughable just sounds nihilistic to me.

I think Tolkien is vastly overrated. As Shryke said, people often confused "first" with "best". While Tolkien is a great writer, LOTR pales before the newer writings. And some of the older ones (is Conan before or after LOTR? Well, either way, I think I'd rather read Conan at times...). I really wished he would've fleshed out the characters more, too....

[alguien]

And of course there are other people who do think he is amongst the best. Quite a few of them actually. Including the author for whom this forum exists (GRRM), Neil Gaiman, W.H. Auden, C. S. Lewis, Terry Pratchett, Stephen King.

You know, just some folks. :)

Harold Bloom deplores him though.

[MaesterLuwin]

Harold Bloom deplores him though.

Harold Bloom seems to exist in some kind of world where reading is not supposed to be fun or enjoyable.

I think Tolkien is the best fantasy writer out there. However, I think this might also be because he was the first fantasy writer I read, and so he largely defined my expectations of what a fantasy should be. This might be why I don't mind the faults in his books as much as some people.

Nostalgia's probably a factor too. The books you read as a kid really stick with you.

Finally, Tolkien's consistently on. I have found rough spots in books written by pretty much every modern fantasy author - sections I think should have been approached differently, or left out all together. Tolkien kept it to three books with two outliers (The Hobbit and The Silmarillion, polar opposites in tone and style), and this helped a lot with consistent quality, I think.

Yes, I'll even defend the Tom Bombadil chapters. If this makes me a Tolkien fanboy, so be it. :P

[Prince Who Was Promised]

And then there's Moorock with his "Epic Pooh" bit.

[alguien]

And then there's Moorock with his "Epic Pooh" bit.

And China Melvielle. Although as I understand it, he's recently also posted about things he liked in the books as well.

Still, I'll take any and all of the names I listed over Moorcock any day of the week. He's just not to my taste.

[Shryke]

Yes, I'll even defend the Tom Bombadil chapters. If this makes me a Tolkien fanboy, so be it. :P

I'm afraid it does.

/gets lynching fork

[PetrusOctavianus]

Yes, I'll even defend the Tom Bombadil chapters. If this makes me a Tolkien fanboy, so be it. :P

Then you're an even bigger fanboy than me...

The Old Forest and Tom Bombadil is IMO by far the most boring chapters of the book, with too much wandering and far too much singing and nonsense. So I have on some readings skipped those chapters.

And speaking of tom Bombadil, its amazing how many theories there are about who and what he *really* is, one more far fecthed than the other. The anwers is quite obvious to me - Tolkien included him of purely sentimental reasons, since his kids loved the stories he'd made about him. So not including Bombadil was one of the few things Peter Action-Jackson got right.

[Shryke]

Then you're an even bigger fanboy than me...

The Old Forest and Tom Bombadil is IMO by far the most boring chapters of the book, with too much wandering and far too much singing and nonsense. So I have on some readings skipped those chapters.

And speaking of tom Bombadil, its amazing how many theories there are about who and what he *really* is, one more far fecthed than the other. The anwers is quite obvious to me - Tolkien included him of purely sentimental reasons, since his kids loved the stories he'd made about him. So not including Bombadil was one of the few things Peter Action-Jackson got right.

:grouphug:

[The Marquis de Leech]

Then you're an even bigger fanboy than me...

The Old Forest and Tom Bombadil is IMO by far the most boring chapters of the book, with too much wandering and far too much singing and nonsense. So I have on some readings skipped those chapters.

And speaking of tom Bombadil, its amazing how many theories there are about who and what he *really* is, one more far fecthed than the other. The anwers is quite obvious to me - Tolkien included him of purely sentimental reasons, since his kids loved the stories he'd made about him. So not including Bombadil was one of the few things Peter Action-Jackson got right.

Tom Bombadil has no place in a movie*, but I think in the context of the book, he does have a defendable purpose (Tolkien left him in as a representative of Neutrality. Plus Bombadil does rescue the hobbits from the Barrow Wight, an episode that provides some handy swords for the hobbits, and a nice bit of historical flavour for the reader).

*I am, of course, a rabid Tolkien fanboy, but am able to understand that books and films are different mediums. Thus, with the exception of bits of the third film, I think Jackson's adaptions were good ones.

[sologdin]

the bombadil bits are among the best parts of the tLotR.