Tolkein is a bad writer - discuss

EarthRod

Hi Genji

Hmmm....your slip is showing, I notice many assumptions are being plonked into Tolkien's storyline!

I understand now where you are coming from and there is no doubt that your knowledge of LOTR is exceedingly deep.

The book's verisimilitude is maintained with regard to the fantasy it describes, so in that respect it is true to itself. Er....unlike Tiger Woods whose fantasy extended into reality.

Frank Harris is a Victorian author whose fantasy also extended into reality, but he was jailed for it (unlike George R R Martin).

Alan

genji

Hey, Matt - nice to meet you. I'm Dave.

True but I understood what he meant straight away, so I tried to back it up with something.

My comment was in relation to his basic ability to engage his readers, and that prologue simply doesn't. Like I said, the book as a whole might be a rip-roaring read in terms of plot, pace, character development and thought-provocation, but I haven't read it so I'm not qualified to comment. What I am qualified to comment on is the use of language, the idiom, the grammar and how the author employs simile and metaphor in his prologue. I skimmed it because there's nothing there to make me want to read it any deeper. There is nothing deeper. The whole scene was superficial and meaningless. He introduced "the Others", who are apparently Barrow-wights. I'm guessing, but I doubt there's anything more to them than Tolkien's Barrow-wights.

I avoided beleaguering my previous reply with detailed descriptions but this line is abysmal. Like I stated, I realise the author has put these words into a character's mouth so as to describe the character (although he then goes on to use equally deficient language himself), but how would a character make a connection between a wet nurse, who suckled him when he was of an age at which he was incapable of interpreting language, and the common phrase "old wives' tales"? It doesn't make sense. More to the point, why does the author consider the line worthwhile enough to build up to it with two prior lines by other characters? Does he think it's a killer line? It isn't. It's sensationalist garbage. "Here's a book that's going to use the word 'tit' and you'd better get used to it, sonny!"

lol. I didn't know what that icon meant until I quoted you. That's funny. Bombadil can have that effect on people. We have, however, established already that "the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved."

The point is, that line is superfluous to the scene. JHC, it's even superfluous to the paragraph. It's not that it's a pleasant little meander through the corridors of the author's imagination, it's bad writing. Really bad writing. It's not as if that's the only time he does it, either. He does it again later, with the wolf howling. Do the wolves attack in the next scene or something? No. It's descriptive scene-setting, much like what you criticise Tolkien for.

Not really. He specifically says the "stories" rushed back, not the memories. By using the word "stories" he blocks the more enigmatic, evocative intention that sentence should have had. This was the perfect place to introduce a hint of some of those stories - the threat, the thrill, the psychology - but that would have required the construction of a multi-clause sentence. The dude's lazy (or bad) so he just writes "stories" - you deal with it.

Thanks. Then again, I'm commenting on an internet forum, not writing a book. Plus, that was kind of the point of my comment.

That must be because everything's "black... black... black... black... black." Five of 'em in one sentence.

You're not being serious now.

In what way is that prologue any better than a thirteen year-old dungeon master's new scenario?

You're not going to start defending Dan Brown, now, are you? Dude, I read pap. I enjoy pap. Bernard Cornwell, Robert Harris, James Clavell - none of this is literature, but at least the authors can construct a sentence. I appreciate that you like GRRM and in a couple of weeks' time maybe I'll like him too, but don't hold him up as an example of what's better than Tolkien. That's just insulting my limited intelligence.

Not that it's in any way relevant to my choice of books to read, but I did a degree in English Literature and in that environment Tolkien was looked down upon as not 'proper'. I now find it odd that anyone accuses me of book snobbery for liking and defending his books. I know where Tolkien's flaws are and they don't detract from my enjoyment, but to call me a book snob for liking his works is a bit silly, IMO.

And equally boring if we didn't express them

No it's not, and as soon as someone posts a thread called "Jeez, Tolkien is the BEST writer of all time", I'll be all over it like a bad suit.

Nice sparring with you though.

Brilliant post, Alan.

My, this thread is lively.

EarthRod

Hi Matt and Dave, I'm Alan - nice to meet you both!

Alan

genji

Hey Alan.

I've been thinking about this. It's a bit of a stretch but it may have originated in Tolkien's Letters. Of Bombadil, Frodo asked Goldberry, "Who is he?" and she replied, "He is." Tolkien was asked by one Peter Hastings whether this "implied that Bombadil was God" and he replied:

I wonder, then, if the image of Bombadil as priest or Pope originates in this concept of 'Master' or Father? I'm not sure how this inclines towards a parody or barbed attack. His "detached view" represents something else, however.

Firstly, to turn the argument about whether Tolkien utilised allegory or not on its head...

Further on in Letter 153, Tolkien says:

This explains what Bombadil is and what he represents, and why has such a "detached view", but not what his function in relation to the plot is. In an earlier letter, however, Tolkien discusses just that:

Primarily, Bombadil is merely an "adventure", although I'm certain that 'In the House of Tom Bombadil' also reflects the convalescence required to recover from shell shock, as Alan pointed out.

Underlying this is the question of what he is, and from that one may be able to answer what his purpose in the narrative is.

Bombadil symbolises the want of knowledge for its own sakeHe represents what the war is being fought to defendHe takes no part in the war and is content for the story to play outThe Ring has no effect upon him, which itself illustrates that the Ring and the War are only a part of whole pictureHe sings apparently nonsensical songs about nature and his own doingsTo pull a few of these strands together then (adding two and two to come up with five)...

It might be that, though Tolkien was oblivious to the fact, Tom Bombadil is Eru Ilúvatar. Like I said, it's a bit of a stretch.

EarthRod

Hi Genji

What Tom Bombadil's purpose in the narrative is? He is permanently resident in Tolkien's 'Pending' tray because he liked the character but didn't know what to do with him.

He is, simply, "Master of wood, water and hill" and understands 12-bar blues, man. "Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!" etc. Light me a splif.

I think Tom Bombadil is actually part of wood, water and hill or the avatar of same. That explains "the eldest being in existence" according to Gandalf. As you said "Tom Bombadil is Eru Ilúvatar" or THE ONE.

See - add two and two together and come up with a close approximation of the one.

Hehe
Alan

Sonic67

Nodded all the way through that. The battle of the Pelennor Fields was a big 'human' v bad guys battle. Now I wonder why Aragorn just didn't go and get the dead a little earlier. They swept over the battle and it was all wrapped up in minutes.

Sonic67

I think the idea of Tom Bombadil was to mirror that of a pacifist. (Did Tolkien say that? I think he did.).

Anyway Tom takes neither side in the war of the ring, and he's so removed from the war that he doesn't even become invisible when wearing it.

However, his survival does depends on Frodo's mission. (As can be said of pacifists if a war is being fought by others.)

Theydon Bois

Boys, play nicely....

As much as I loved the films, I hated that they made Gimli a stero-typical 'grumpy' dwarf and the skateboarding was just too much....

I am hoping that he does a George Lucas and releases Special Special Editions by adding small pointless special effects, makes Greedo fire first and removes the encounter with the Ring Wraiths and replaces it with 30 mins of Tom Bombadil.

What I do love is the fact that Tolkien effectively gave Jackson a paint by numbers canvas on which to work on as it was so damn descriptive.

Sonic67

In the book, Denethor is someone corrupted by Sauron and was once the equal of Gandalf. Denethor exists to show how the mighty can be corrupted. Denethor was corrupted through possessing the palantir and being driven mad by Sauron.

It also shows how strong Aragorn is that Aragorn can challenge Sauron directly via the palantir and not be corrupted. This also then shows that Sauron should send his army against Aragorn as Sauron thinks he has the ring. Underscored by Sauron having seen Pippin, the halfling also.

In the film Denethor is destroyed by the loss of his son Boromir. He then for some strange reason sends out Faramir on a suicide mission and then is further struck by grief by what happens to him. So Denethor is destroyed by the loss of his sons. Eh? You practically sent Faramir off to die and now you are upset by it?

In the film Denethor is there to endanger Faramir and also give Gandalf a reason to lead the defence of Minas Tirith (not that difficult, Gandalf was the right man for the job anyway if Denethor was fine or not). In the middle of the battle Gandalf still has to quit the defences to save Faramir but Faramir in the film world is less important.

Faramir in the book marries Eowyn, hands over the rule of Gondor to Aragorn, becomes Prince of Ithilien and rules the lands east of Osgiliath. So Faramir comes across as being important and worth saving.

In the film he finally becomes a good man with Frodo and Sam but then what? Part of me would think if I'd only watched the film Faramir wasn't that nice a guy, and wouldn't it better if thew whole Denethor line was gone so Aragorn could step in unopposed. Unless Faramir really is worth saving won't far more people die in Minas Tirth with the loss of Gandalf as it's General? Why are lots of people going to die to save one?

Why not cut scenes like hobbits bouncing on beds and show what happened to Faramir and why he was worth saving?

Sonic67

Originally he was going to be a queer looking Hobbit called Trotter. After writing Bree there came the idea that Bilbo's ring was the One Ring and then there was a lot of rewriting. Bingo Bolger Baggins then became Frodo.

The problem with the rewriting is that Tom Bombadil who was there as part of what was a meander round middle earth got kept and then have little to do with the rest of the Ring storyline.

Neither Old Man Willow or the Barrow wights have any interest in the Ring.

Bombadil then appears and talks in verse and I imagine a few new readers quit at that point.

After them the entire book is then full of characters obsessed with the ring and it's quite a contrast. So the Tom Bombadil/Old Man Willow/Barrowwights got dropped in the films and radio.

It's an area where the film does well. The first man the Hobbits see is at Bree and all the men there are a big contrast to what we have seen of the Shire.