Tolkein is a bad writer - discuss

andrew markwort

With respect, he didn't deny the parallels, just that people shouldn't read it as if the LOTR was primarily a symbolic retelling of the fight against the Nazis. Tolkein didn't mind people spotting echoes of real life events or other works of literature in his work (as I said in my earlier post, a lot of these are intentional), it's when they thought his work was a retelling of them that he took umbrage.

EarthRod

Yes - I think that is exactly what I said in my post!

For 'parallel' read allegory or metaphor.

genji

Excellent post, of many excellent posts on both sides in this thread.

If I can be childish for a moment (since no one else seems to have picked it up) - it's Tolkien, not Tolkein. Talk about bad writers!

I first read it when I was 11 and I couldn't follow it entirely. I loved the Frodo and Sam drudge but the hifalutin' mock-Shakespaherian language of the war and politics left me a bit bored. I've read it many times since then and every time it grew and changed and meant something different. This obviously reflects the fact that I was growing and changing and if I'd chosen James Joyce's Ulysses I could probably say the same.

I read LotR again this year, after a long lay off, and I found it just as compulsive and scintillating as I ever did. It's a masterpiece, and every bit as worthy as Ulysses for one reason: you have to put the effort in. Some of it is clunky and awkward, some of it is sheer drudgery. The poems and songs are ridiculously amateurish (which is reasonable, since they're 'written' or 'composed' by characters who are gardeners, warriors or schizophrenics) and the characters are fairly archetypal (which is also reasonable given that the real substance of Tolkien's writing is The Silmarillion, a vast canvas of history in which characterisation has little part to play). But if you put in as much effort as the characters do then you get the reward.

If you're going to criticise the Old Forest, Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Downs then you need to be honest about the author's motives. The Hobbit was a surprising success and LotR was intended to be The Hobbit part 2, which is how it begins. Each chapter is a separate adventure and none of them really contribute to or enhance the overall plot. In essence, each chapter is a diversion, meandering its way to the last battle. And, until you get to Strider, this is what the book is. Strider is a phenomenal chapter that completely turns the story on its head. The character was originally a hobbit called [I don't know - Lumpo or Clip-clop or something] who wore clogs where all the other hobbits go barefoot. From that rather dubious character came the king working to reclaim his throne. From the point that the hapless, new-recruit hobbits meet the heroic Strider, this story becomes a serious history of a world that is just as convincing as the Bible, the Iliad or the Roman Empire. This is a tale that grew in the telling, to paraphrase, and Tolkien's personal achievement is astonishing, IMO. LotR fully and convincingly broaches the chasm between The Hobbit and The Silmarillion.

The movie is really not worthy of being mentioned in the same breath.

The movie looked fantastic and Peter Jackson knows how to make a movie. The staircase in FotR, the opening of TTT with the battle between Gandalf and the Balrog, the charge of the Rohirrim... breathtaking stuff. But I'd add "let's go hunt some Orc" to Sonic67's list above. That's where PJ lost me. No respect. And putting lines from one character into another's mouth at a completely irrelevant point in the story and inventing cliffhangers that make no sense were just irritating. He knows how to make a movie, but he has no clue how to write a coherent story.

PJ's TTT was a masterpiece of cinema. The ramping up of tension in scene after scene, the gritty, depressing vision, the magnificent pay-off... fantastic. The problem was - it only told about a sixth of the story, yet he took a third of the time to tell it. That's appalling pacing and really bad storytelling. Tolkien (once the tedious hobbitry adventures were out of the way) paced his story perfectly and left cliffhanger after cliffhanger with every chapter. PJ left himself with half the story to tell in the last third. His RotK was bitty, rushed, badly edited (even in the 4  hour extended edition) and ultimately stupid. He tried to cram the whole of The Scouring of the Shire (you know, the bit where we realise that there's no gain without pain) into a single character in a single scene at the Grey Havens.

I'm a big fan of PJ's movie, like I'm a big fan of Ralph Bakshi's, but they're pretty much the same thing. Neither of them come remotely close to the 1980 R4 adaptation, and that is but a shadow of the book.

Tolkien's style of writing did exactly what it was intended to do: tell a story in the way he wanted it told. Take it or leave it. I see no difference between it and Ulysses.

Sonic67

I remember the moment when Gandalf got 'killed'. I actually flicked through the book to find he was back in later. In The Hobbit he was my favourite character even though he was out of the book for a lot of it wandering off. In LOTR I was chuffed he was coming along as part of the nine and then when he was gone I was actually shocked at his sudden loss.

genji

With respect, this does sound as though you consider the comparison with Nazi Germany to be an allegory. Tolkien's actual words were:

That's an interesting comment. Would you elaborate? I've never made that connection. Do you mean it was a planned respite from the incessant mounting threat, along the lines of 'Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit'?

genji

Gandalf's death was the same technique used in The Hobbit when he went off to face the Necromancer - removing the protagonist's guide/advisor so he was forced to find his own way. I'm not sure if Merlin was similarly removed from Arthur's sphere of influence but George Lucas used it when Obi Wan was killed.

Smurfin

Your post is excellent, but to be frank, I don't need to be honest about the author's motives nor do I really care - my point is that some of the areas above just don't progress the story in any meaningful way, and I found them boring and overly long.


I think quite the opposite, PJ had the utmost respect for the source material, I'm not 100% familiar with all of the alterations but there were elements left out and altered for completely the right reasons.

No-one's disputing that, I just don't consider wading through treacle (which the books have become to me) to be an enjoyable or rewarding activity...

genji

Ah, well, that's the beauty of books, I find. Those scenes/chapters don't have to progress the story. They're dalliances, IMO. You could strain to call them character development if you were so inclined, but they're not there as anything other than asides. The Hobbit was an entire book of asides, each chapter being a different adventure and written solely to entertain the author's children at bedtime. I believe this is how LotR began, which is why we have no real overall direction other than "let's get to Rivendell", until we meet Strider.

Well, you're not alone in that and many people dislike the books for that and many other reasons. To pick up on Andrew's earlier post about it being "named as 'the best novel of the 20th century' (it isn't)" - it wasn't. It was named Britain's favourite book, and a great many people who voted it so would agree with any number of criticisms of it.

Personally I enjoy the wading through treacle. I like fellwalking, although steep ascents and descents murder my thighs and knees respectively, and the extended trudging across bog, swamp and moorland can be very dispiriting, I appreciate not only the achievement having completed a walk but also the various natural features and exhilaration I experience while on the walk. That's what the book is like. By the time you finish it you feel like you've been through something.

Whatever the majority think of it, they all have some reason to name it as their favourite book, and to capture that many people's imaginations it must work on a number of different levels. It's not some flash-in-the-pan, overhyped Da Vinci Code. It's endured for over half a century and I would suggest that that is partly due to the wading through treacle. The book really only works if you're prepared to slow down and meander with the author along side adventures that don't aggressively and inexorably propel you through the plot to the ultimate denouement.

It's not everybody's cup of tea, but the majority (or at least, the majority of the kind of people who vote in "what's you favourite book?" polls, of whom I wasn't one) seem to like it.

I think this is one of those "agree to differ" issues. I disagree that Jackson, Boyens or Walsh had any respect for the source material - it was simply a money-spinner for them. They professed utmost respect, certainly, but there was no evidence of it on-screen.

I agree that certain elements were left out for the right reasons. It was a mainstream movie, not an arthouse flick, and therefore it did need to move aggressively and inexorably to a denouement. There was, quite rightly, no room in that kind of movie for Tom Bombadil or Fatty Bolger or Farmer Maggot. It's not the cutting of scenes or chapters that I found jarring. It was the mindless changing of characterisations and situations for no other reason than to stamp their own personalities on it.

Why did Arwen (later badly replaced by Haldir) lead a troop of Elven archers to Helm's Deep? Helm's Deep was specifically about the threat to world of men, and yet Jackson decided to throw in a bunch of Elves to defend them.

Why did Aragorn disappear over a cliff in some Six Million Dollar Man contrivance?

Why did Jackson pervert the character of Faramir, who was specifically written to contrast his brother's weaknesses and show that there was nobility and strength in mankind? Jackson's Faramir was no better than Boromir, no different.

How did Jackson's bumbling buffoon Denethor manage to rule such a great nation?

Why was Jackson's Gimli such a bell end, and why was Legolas a skateboarder?

What on earth was the whole thing about Arwen dying about? Why was she dying? What did that mean?

Why was the army of the dead at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields? Again, that was a battle of the world of men against the forces of darkness, but again Jackson decided men couldn't handle it themselves and needed an army of dead dudes to win the battle for them.

Etc.

EarthRod

Hi Gengi

Well, I am quite taken aback by your posts - such an astute quality of observation (as it were) must not go unrewarded, hence the 'thank you'.

I see you have dissected my posts and highlighted some weakness: excellent! In my defence:

I do think the storyline to be symbolically following the history of the Nazi's rise and fall. Tolkien says he dislikes allegory because it can be seen as an author's attempt to dominate the story over the reader's attempt to view it as he or she sees fit! I therefore claim and apply freedom as a reader.

Elaborate on the comment about the section regarding Tom Bombadil? Difficult one that. Let’s just say that if Tolkien's heroes have survived a series of prolonged adrenalin-pumping potentially life threatening situations, then they need to recharge their 'batteries' before heading out into the fray once more. Prolonged risk-taking without rest involve diminishing returns as I think you are aware.

All the best
Alan

Smurfin

To be honest if thats the extent of your nitpicking I don't think any director in the world could please you....

You're obviously a fan of Tolkien's work anyway, glad you like the books, although you're the first person I've come across who enjoys wading through treacle

Have you read any Robin Hobb or George R R Martin?