Trouble with Tolkien

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Hm. It's been awhile, but I'd disagree with interpretation. I think Hobbit is older than 'children's tale,' and I can't remember it being particularly whimsical . Moralistic perhaps. But it's not what I'd call lighthearted.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Carol wrote: "Hm. It's been awhile, but I'd disagree with interpretation. I think Hobbit is older than 'children's tale,' and I can't remember it being particularly whimsical . Moralistic perhaps. But it's not w..."

I don't have a copy in front of me but it's def a children's tale. It may cross over, but it was written as a children's tale (for his children, specifically). Tolkien just felt no need to hide reality or scariness from kids - just not to terrify them. Even in the first chapter...take a look at the word choice...

Tolkien made certain choices based on the age of his kids at the time of the writing. We can't forget that Tolkien was a professor and student of language as well.

[S.J.]

As I said before, I read 'The Hobbit' to my three young sons at bedtime, and they loved it, even the somewhat scary parts. Is 'The Hobbit' a children's book? No. It's a book that children may enjoy.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Or maybe it's a book written for children that adults can enjoy.

"The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, better known by its abbreviated title The Hobbit, is a fantasy novel and children's book by J. R. R. Tolkien. It was published on 21 September 1937 to wide critical acclaim, being nominated for the Carnegie Medal and awarded a prize from the New York Herald Tribune for best juvenile fiction. The book remains popular and is recognized as a classic in children's literature."

[Mach]

I don't consider it a children's tale at all even though it might appeal to young people, it's still fantasy. Some would say all fantasy are children's story's but what do they know, they are people that don't read fantasy at all. In my local library all Science Fiction and Fantasy are right next to the books for children.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± wrote: "± Colleen of the Crawling Chaos ± (blackrose13) | 788 comments Or maybe it's a book written for children that adults can enjoy.

"The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, better known by its abbreviated title The Hobbit, is a fantasy novel and children's book by J. R. R. Tolkien. It was published on 21 September 1937 to wide critical acclaim, being nominated for the Carnegie Medal and awarded a prize from the New York Herald Tribune for best juvenile fiction. The book remains popular and is recognized as a classic in children's literature." ."

Agreed.

It was written for children. I think the author's intention might trump our personal preference here. I am an adult and I do enjoy the book...but that doesn't mean it is not a children's book. Tolkien wrote it specifically as a children's book.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Mach wrote: "I don't consider it a children's tale at all even though it might appeal to young people, it's still fantasy. Some would say all fantasy are children's story's but what do they know, they are peop..."

What does the fact that it's fantasy have to do with whether or not it's a children's book? There are, after all, many books which are both.

[Janny]

Is this the argument? "Too Many Notes?" (a tongue in cheek reference to the film Amadeus/where the acrimonious rival of Mozart used this line.)

Lean style, vs lush style - all depends on what kind of story is being told, and what shade of impact the author (and not the committee of readers) designed it to have.

Tolkien was a HUGE admirer of the Norse Eddas...which are told in high style, ritualized bardic poetry. At heart, he felt that England's literature lacked the roots of a strong, heroic myth (having been conquered and invaded by migration to the erosion and finally easure of its distinctively ANCIENT cultural roots)- and he set out, with reverence and adulation of the beauty he encountered in those ancient Norse works, to write one such epic work AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. Some of the angles he extolled in his works are decidedly English in attitude - which adds a highly regional facet to the richness and cultural depth. If you visit the UK, you can literally see his descriptive vistas spring out of the landscape. He DID use a high style, in the spirit of the Eddas, but put his story in prose, and not verse. He also flavored his work with his own experiences, and packed it also with the things he loved most (linguistic creativity and other things - read up on his biographical notes, and his letters, if it matters to you where he drew the spirit of his inspiration.) Although his epic is not allegory or ABOUT the world war he survived or about the wave of industrialization, (this is by his own account) his story encompasses the common ground brought out of such human experiences - the myth scape of those events on the spirit will relate to issues common to any time.

Why use a lush style at all?

Why take a color photograph, when a black and white image will deliver the 'complete' picture?

Why PAINT a portrait or picture with brush and pigments when a snapshot photo with a smart phone can record the 'same' information?

Because it Can't; each medium carries its own set of constraints, limitations and strengths...the choice of medium WILL affect the result. And the author's voice IS an inseparable part of any creation.

Mood, atmosphere, emotion, texture, depth, the shading of ARTISTIC valuation carries a different kind of individuality and impact in each case. The works of Ansel Adams (black and white nature photographer) would not make the same statement, reworked as a color painting done by Aubrey Bierdstadt (famous American landscape painter known for broad scale vistas and dramatic, or to some eyes, even melodramatic flair) - to claim the one should replace the other, or is 'better' diminishes the fullest range available to human expression. Both examples are genius artists in their own venue. Posterity inherits the full range of minimalist works and baroque.

Artistic expression is COLORED by the author's INDIVIDUAL perception, which is what makes it distinct. What an author chooses to exaggerate or punch up, and what they reduce to bare bones changes the experience, which is further filtered by the reader's likes and dislikes.

The prose style flourishes the story, inevitably. Opera, live theater, movies, and TV scripts - each is its own medium. Most of us live in a free society and can choose our own style of entertainment - however much one may dislike Opera, or look askance at TV sitcoms, those are only forms of expression used to deliver a story.

They are STYLES.

If told in stark terms - Tolkein's story would certainly deliver a different impact; why should it have to conform to a different standard of STYLE or culture when it works (for those who like it) just as it is?

I don't believe TOLKIEN is responsible or can take the blame for other long-form works by a subsequent generation of authors who may (or may not) handle the extended format with whatever degree of finesse. Those other works will stand or fall by their OWN merits, as Tolkien's surely does as it is encountered, today.

Tolkien was never a minimalist. He lived in hard times, and bore witness to horrors, but he never succumbed to the outlook of the cynic. I'd not be comfortable slicing his work down to a minimalist standard. Or expect him to subscribe to the atmosphere of 'gritty realism' extolled by certain popular outlooks, today. Everything that is gorgeous about LoTR would become bled away. The beauty and the artistry of the richer language is an inextricable part of what builds the concepts he portrays - and builds carefully - to such monumental EPIC intensity. The sorrows and the triumphs and that steel thread of hope run against mass events in his story world become larger than life, larger than giving way to despair, and the impact (for those who relate to THAT spirit of good surviving adversity) is searing with passion, and lasting.

Epics are a FORM of mythic storytelling, and many of them derive from the tradition and HEROIC style of the old epic poems that came before -- a STYLE of storytelling designed to extol valor and frame concepts in a format of legend and myth.

I don't understand the need to draw lines, or get acrimonious - over a PREFERENCE. Last time I looked, no one forces anyone else to read for pleasure. If a reader doesn't care for works with poetic language, creative mood, or the color of heightened atmosphere in a work of prose fiction - pick another author, there are more available books to read now than at any other time in history!

If poetic prose or an epic voice 'feels' laborious - do yourself and the author a favor and search out another book with a style you can relate to!

Please don't dump EPIC works in with other 'long form' modern styled series, which perhaps don't pursue (or emulate well) the elegant context of legend and myth.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

First I would say that I think saying something is either stark/learn or lush is a false dichotomy.

Second I would state that while you think Tolkien's prose is lush, I find it rather dry and monotonous. I do not see his descriptions as particularly lush in and of themselves, though there are an awful lot of them.

Here's a random excerpt:

The light grew clearer as they went forward. Suddenly they came out of
the trees and found themselves in a wide circular space. There was sky above
them, blue and clear to their surprise, for down under the Forest-roof they
had not been able to see the rising morning and the lifting of the mist. The
sun was not, however, high enough yet to shine down into the clearing,
though its light was on the tree-tops. The leaves were all thicker and
greener about the edges of the glade, enclosing it with an almost solid
wall. No tree grew there, only rough grass and many tall plants: stalky and
faded hemlocks and wood-parsley, fire-weed seeding into fluffy ashes, and
rampant nettles and thistles. A dreary place: but it seemed a charming and
cheerful garden after the close Forest.
The hobbits felt encouraged, and looked up hopefully at the broadening
daylight in the sky. At the far side of the glade there was a break in the
wall of trees, and a clear path beyond it. They could see it running on into
the wood, wide in places and open above, though every now and again the
trees drew in and overshadowed it with their dark boughs. Up this path they
rode. They were still climbing gently, but they now went much quicker, and
with better heart; for it seemed to them that the Forest had relented, and
was going to let them pass unhindered after all.
But after a while the air began to get hot and stuffy. The trees drew
close again on either side, and they could no longer see far ahead. Now
stronger than ever they felt again the ill will of the wood pressing on
them. So silent was it that the fall of their ponies' hoofs, rustling on
dead leaves and occasionally stumbling on hidden roots, seemed to thud in
their ears.

I find nothing particularly lush about these descriptions. They do not evoke, for me, the feelings the Hobbits are said to be feeling - and speaking of "feelings said to be feeling", it also seems to suffer from telling vs showing.

So, yes, it's a matter of opinion but not just one of whether or not we like poetic prose or not but even whether or not LotR even qualifies as such.

As for being acrimonious... pot/kettle much?

[S.J.]

Well, it does work for me. Could you provide an example of what you would call 'lush' so that I could get a better idea of what you mean?

[Razmatus]

the matter of allegories was adressed in the book by Vincent Ferré (Na březích Středozemě /in czech/; not sure if this is available in english, but the title could be translated as At the shores of Middle-Earth), he explains LOTR well enough without being too long about it... he also addresses common mistakes some critics and scholars do when approaching LOTR and Tolkien's works in general

[Razmatus]

it worked perfectly for me, the journey with the protagonists was definitely purifying :)

[Dawn]

I'll chime in and say I'm one of those who didn't really care for LoTR. It was very dry and boring to me, and it was a slog to get through it. Personal opinion of course, it's all opinions in here.

I wasn't going to comment, because I didn't really feel the need to.. But then I was a little put off by the use of the term "acrimonious" in regard to the comments of those on the not liking Tolkien side of the fence. If you want to go around and only rate books five stars, and never say anything critical or negative about books, by all means.. Go right on ahead. If you only want to read/write positive reviews, then great for you. But that doesn't make those of us who like to see both sides of the review spectrum before reading, or those of us who do use reviews to decide what to read next, "acrimonious" for paying attention to the critical reviews, or "acrimonious" for writing our own critical reviews when we don't enjoy a book. There's nothing angry or bitter intrinsically linked to a critical review of a book... For some of us it's just honesty.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Janny wrote: "Is this the argument? "

I don't think it's an argument if one doesn't want it to be. What I see are people sharing perspectives in answer to David's question about why people like/revere Tolkien and responses to his asking if other people have struggled as well, and what the barriers might have been in their enjoyment. Then we reached a difference of opinion on Hobbit as related to intended audience.

Personally, I know very little about the Tolkien legend and the impact of his writing from a philosophical viewpoint; I was sharing my own perspective of having struggled and/or not particularly cared for LotR (despite being an avid fantasy reader) in answer to David's question.

[Razmatus]

critical view can be expressed in "polite" words and still conveying the same message without the whole thing sounding like a rant of a kid that didnt get what they wanted, which is how some ppl express their opinions

I dont mind honesty as long as it is expressed with a point and without the person sounding like a sullen kid or worse

so yea i got no problem with ppl not liking tolkien, I got problem with ppl who cant say it in a civilized manner

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Personally, while I do love Tolkien...I feel that Andre Norton is my favorite classic Sci-Fi/Fantasy Author.

She gets none of the acclaim but did as much for women authors as Tolkien did for fantasy. She is the reason why we have people like Mercedes Lackey, Robin Hobb, Marion Zimmer Bradley...the list goes on and on.

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

MrsJ, I would love to read Andre Norton. It seems like a lot of her books are out of print. What up with that??

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

Razmatus wrote: "critical view can be expressed in "polite" words and still conveying the same message without the whole thing sounding like a rant of a kid that didnt get what they wanted, which is how some ppl ex..."

I agree with you on this.

[Becky]

I've been watching this discussion for a while through my friends' feeds, and I kinda have to jump in here.

Razmatus wrote: "... he also addresses common mistakes some critics and scholars do when approaching LOTR and Tolkien's works in general ..."

How exactly can someone make a "mistake" in how they approach a book? I was under the impression that how one approaches what they read is kind of a personal thing, based on their experiences, tastes, preferences, etc. These things cannot be a "mistake" any more than opinion can be "wrong". Someone might not agree, but that's quite different.

If this is referring to verifiable fact-based items, like published date, or character names etc, fine... although I'm still unsure just what kind of "mistakes" could be so prevalent that a book would need to be written about them. Maybe you can explain further Razmatus?

Furthermore, and I say this as someone who LOVES LOTR, liked The Hobbit well enough and has actually finished The Silmarillion... Tolkien was a brilliant, brilliant man, but his books can be very hard to get through.

That's not an attack on Tolkien, nor is it an insult to readers. Sometimes people just are not compatible with a book. That does not mean that they are not entitled to form an opinion on it, or criticize it.

That's what opinion is for. Maybe what works for me won't work for someone else... Maybe what I disliked about a book will help someone else determine whether that book will be something they'd like to read.

I do not have time to try every book to figure out whether I'd like it or not. My interests are far too varied to even try to choose that way. I value all kinds of reviews because they help me to weed out the books that aren't to my taste or to prioritize those that are.

[Razmatus]

and to add, I have a problem when someone simply bitches about the matter without laying down some arguments to support their disapproval

[Dawn]

Razmatus wrote: "critical view can be expressed in "polite" words and still conveying the same message without the whole thing sounding like a rant of a kid that didnt get what they wanted, which is how some ppl ex..."

Maybe you could point out which comment you are taking offense to? I don't see anyone stomping or pouting like a child in here. I see people saying they aren't a fan, and then fans going out of their way to say "OK, you don't like it, we get it!" like they've been beaten over the head with the opinion or something. And then, of course, a sprinkling of lectures informing non-fans of all the reasons why their opinion is wrong and shouldn't be expressed because it's oh so acrimonious to have a negative opinion about anything.

I don't understand why it's so hard to have a discussion about what we liked and didn't like about a book, without becoming offended or getting passive aggressive because not everyone agrees. I thought it was boring. I think the main reason for that is that I saw the movie first, and the book fell flat in comparison. I'm not trying to knock Tolkien by saying that, or say I'm right and that's the only opinion that should be had.. That's just how I felt. And that's what book discussions are.. Expressions of positive AND negative OPINIONS of books. Period.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Razmatus wrote: "and to add, I have a problem when someone simply bitches about the matter without laying down some arguments to support their disapproval"

Please explain.

[Becky]

Razmatus wrote: "so yea i got no problem with ppl not liking tolkien, I got problem with ppl who cant say it in a civilized manner "

Razmatus wrote: "and to add, I have a problem when someone simply bitches about the matter without laying down some arguments to support their disapproval"

Riiiiiight...

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "MrsJ, I would love to read Andre Norton. It seems like a lot of her books are out of print. What up with that??"

I know! It's taken me quite a while to build up a decent library of her work. I've only managed most of The Witch World series...and there's so much more!

I wish I could say why...I haven't a clue. I think that it has something to do with her transition from being known as Andre Norton (a man) and Andre Norton (a woman). My opinion. Also...I'm sure a lot of it is demand.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Razmatus wrote: "the matter of allegories was adressed in the book by Vincent Ferré (Na březích Středozemě /in czech/; not sure if this is available in english, but the title could be translated as At the shores of Middle-Earth), he explains LOTR well enough without being too long about it... he also addresses common mistakes some critics and scholars do when approaching LOTR and Tolkien's works in general "

I think it is a matter of opinion as to if critics are making "common mistakes." Since critics are basing their statements on an educated opinion. I think it is a bit of a straw man statement to reference a book that most people you are discussing have no access to. I've pointed you in the direction of the scholarly works I have been referencing - including links and free access.

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

S.J. wrote: "Well, it does work for me. Could you provide an example of what you would call 'lush' so that I could get a better idea of what you mean?"

The first three which come to mind when I think of books with lush prose which I liked would be Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, The Thirteenth Tale and The Monsters Of Templeton. (The stories weren't always great shakes, particularly the last two, but the writing was good.)

[Razmatus]

to some comments above... I wasnt referring to THIS discussion, I meant in general the comments I encoutered on the internet :)

thats what I meant about ppl who just said LOTR is **** and boring and all, without saying a further word why is it boring, why is it a pile of **** in their opinion

again, I got the point this thread is civilized and all... it is at many places on internet where it isnt expressed in this way that I have problem with

"How exactly can someone make a "mistake" in how they approach a book? I was under the impression that how one approaches what they read is kind of a personal thing, based on their experiences, tastes, preferences, etc. These things cannot be a "mistake" any more than opinion can be "wrong". Someone might not agree, but that's quite different."

Mistakes in analysis, speaking in more literary-science way. For example some older reviews in the past used to take LOTR for a fairy tale, etc etc. Vincent Ferré's book about LOTR is just great and I recommend it, I just dont know if it is available in English

[Becky]

Oh, I wasn't aware that analysis of a book had right and wrong answers. Jeez... like, imagine interpreting something differently. How ridiculous!

Off with their heads!

[Dawn]

Noooooooooo, I like my head :(

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Becky wrote: "Oh, I wasn't aware that analysis of a book had right and wrong answers. Jeez... like, imagine interpreting something differently. How ridiculous!

Off with their heads!"

There's another book in which I love the ideas but struggled with the actual telling a bit.

[Janny]

Janny wrote: "Is this the argument? "Too Many Notes?" (a tongue in cheek reference to the film Amadeus/where the acrimonious rival of Mozart used this line.)

Lean style, vs lush style - all depends on what kind..."

Wow - sincere apologies if a line used TONGUE IN CHEEK (as in, a light joke) was taken so seriously/or applied to everything else that followed (on enjoyment of style being a preference) with literal intent.

I don't see the logical connection or the 'attack' upon anyone for expressing their opinions - the hyperb olic line was scripted from a character in a MOVIE who hated another musician's work, passionately. If anyone took this personally - that wasn't intended.

I thought the whole point of my post was simply that a person's preferences as to style was just that - a preference; not a criticism.

For people who do not like any book - that book was not written for them. Honestly/no criticism implied. They are respectfully free to say what they like.

I am sorry for a careless inflection - the choice of the word 'argument' would better have expressed my thought if I'd used 'discussion' - or, being two sided - debate.

No bloodshed or hurt feelings, please!

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Razmatus wrote: "Mistakes in analysis, speaking in more literary-science way. For example some older reviews in the past used to take LOTR for a fairy tale, etc etc. Vincent Ferré's book about LOTR is just great and I recommend it, I just dont know if it is available in English "

Again...it is very had to make a "mistake" in analysis unless it is purely scientific or numerical.

It is opinion and if you can back it up, its good. I may not agree but I cannot say you are wrong.

Example: In reading The Scarlet Letter, my analysis is that the gender roles are reversed in this novel. To me, the story is that of sad and sorry males who are not really men hiding behind the skirts of a woman. This woman has to shoulder the burdens both of her husband's lack and her lover's.

Now, I am not in a library so I cannot pull out any references at this moment...but that does not mean that my analysis is incorrect simply because you - or another critic - feel differently.

Of course, even if I was in a library, it would be worthless to post my references in an online conversation unless those I am having a discussion with are able to access that same information.

[Razmatus]

no need for smartassness here :)

there are objective and subjective things to evaluate in a book, while subjective things are entirely invidual, objective things (structure, genre, analysing the type of narrative etc) arent

for example some older critics were labelling LOTR as a fairy tale :D

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Razmatus wrote: "to some comments above... I wasnt referring to THIS discussion, I meant in general the comments I encoutered on the internet :)

thats what I meant about ppl who just said LOTR is **** and boring and all, without saying a further word why is it boring, why is it a pile of **** in their opinion

again, I got the point this thread is civilized and all... it is at many places on internet where it isnt expressed in this way that I have problem with "

Now - putting on my mod hat - it is irresponsible as well as instigating to make comments as you have about "other conversations" online. THIS thread and THIS conversation is unique. Do not bring your outside baggage here simply to get people stirred up. We have no knowledge of you outside of this venue...so when you make statements such as "bitching" we will not "know" that you are talking about something that happened to you on a Friday while talking to your bff when crossing the street. Instead, it will be inferred that you are referencing someone in this thread. This causes hurt feelings and/or anger.

[Becky]

Razmatus wrote: "no need for smartassness here :)"

I beg to differ. If there's a need for high-handed 'thy opinions art wrong' insinuations, then smartassness most certainly is needed.

[Razmatus]

MrsJoseph wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "Mistakes in analysis, speaking in more literary-science way. For example some older reviews in the past used to take LOTR for a fairy tale, etc etc. Vincent Ferré's book about LOTR..."

you dont have to provide a whole library in a discussion, but at least some arguments can do...

and yea i mean things that are clearly defined by literary science and some critics ignored those at times

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Razmatus wrote: "no need for smartassness here :)

there are objective and subjective things to evaluate in a book, while subjective things are entirely invidual, objective things (structure, genre, analysing the..."

Hmmm.

What is your educational background to say that "older critics" are wrong? It is their OPINION and if they have something to back this up...then they are not wrong

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Razmatus wrote: "you dont have to provide a whole library in a discussion, but at least some arguments can do...

and yea i mean things that are clearly defined by literary science and some critics ignored those at times ."

The point I am making is that if you want to turn this into a literary discussion vs an opinion discussion... you are going to have to reference your work. Otherwise it is just your opinion...and like assholes, everyone has one.

Proof. Without it, you're just typing.

[Chris]

LoTR as a fairy tale. Oh no.

Last year I read some drivel essay that Tolkien wrote where he went into why LoTR was not a fairy tale. He went on and on and on and on...and so on, yet by the end I wasn't even sure what he said. I was just seeing about my bleeding eyes by that point.

That's when I decided that I didn't really much like Tolkien and I considered him a one-hit-wonder (well, two if you count The Hobbit seperately).

I like to read stories, not academic papers. So while I love LoTR (and the Hobbit, and to a lesser degree the Silmarillion), I leave off there.

and don't get me started on the epic poem translations...

[S.J.]

In my experience, the larger a tale is the more likely it is that readers will apply their own interpretations to that tale, and believe me, I've seen it happen often enough to think on occasion that some people should not be allowed to interpret literature without a license. That's no more than a passing fancy, though.

[S.J.]

Colleen of the C. C.: Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with any of those books or authors.

[Razmatus]

I dont have to be a university prof. to have a right for an opinion...

about the "older critics" - as I have said, I read the book by Vincent Ferré and his points were pretty well supported, in explanatory notes he also pointed to issues where critics differed and where they made mistakes/inaccuracies... Ferré's points made sense definitely

[Becky]

S.J. wrote: "In my experience, the larger a tale is the more likely it is that readers will apply their own interpretations to that tale, and believe me, I've seen it happen often enough to think on occasion that some people should not be allowed to interpret literature without a license."

LMAO. Just like maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to write it without a license, right?

[Chris]

Oh, I could think of some examples there, Becky...

[S.J.]

Something akin to that, but such things would only be possible in a perfect world, and this is an imperfect world. What chafes me badly, however, is when people 'interpret' literature through their own sociopolitical overview. I recall seeing a TV show on Tolkien wherein one commentator blandly asserted that the orcs in LoTR were capitalists (apparently just because they were the bad guys). This told me far more about him and his views than it did about Tolkien.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma*]

Razmatus wrote: "I dont have to be a university prof. to have a right for an opinion...

about the "older critics" - as I have said, I read the book by Vincent Ferré and his points were pretty well supported, in explanatory notes he also pointed to issues where critics differed and where they made mistakes/inaccuracies... Ferré's points made sense definitely ."

Ah! I think we've hit some understanding here.

YOU have an opinion. That's great. What you can't do is say that someone's opinion is wrong.

And again. Trying to stand on an academic point of someone who cannot be verified does not an argument make.

[Chris]

S.J. wrote: "What chafes me badly, however, is when people 'interpret' literature through their own sociopolitical overview...."

I'll agree with that....

Reminds me of the times I've seen people saying that Tolkien was a raving racist because he cast orcs as evil.

[Razmatus]

once I read a negative review on LOTR which was funny in a way cos the reviewer was saying sth like how this is just another sword-and-sorcery fantasy / work full of cliches and elves and fantasy archetypes etc,... the reviewer apparently ignored the fact that it was Tolkien who established things that have gotten cliche by their over-use in pulp fantasy for example

again and again, for those who can read in french, get Ferré's book... it is also available in czech (I have read it in this version)... great book to help you get a better insight on LOTR, better understand the characters, plot, the setting, the symbolism... the most interesting point it states throughout is that the main thing permeating everything in LOTR is "death", how it is expressed/represented, how characters deal with it etc etc etc

[Chris]

I didn't need to read a bunch of essays or academics on LoTR to pick up what I needed from it. Which was, in summary:

read-fun-story-cool

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Fairy tale per MW:

a : a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) —called also fairy story
b : a story in which improbable events lead to a happy ending

***

On Fairy Stories - Wiki Summary:

The essay "On Fairy-Stories" is an attempt to explain and defend the genre of fairy tales or Märchen. It distinguishes Märchen from "traveller's tales" (such as Gulliver's Travels), science fiction (such as H.G. Wells' The Time Machine), beast tales (such as Aesop's Fables and Peter Rabbit), and dream stories (such as Alice in Wonderland). One touchstone of the authentic fairy tale is that it is presented as wholly credible. "It is at any rate essential to a genuine fairy-story, as distinct from the employment of this form for lesser or debased purposes, that it should be presented as 'true.' ...But since the fairy-story deals with 'marvels,' it cannot tolerate any frame or machinery suggesting that the whole framework in which they occur is a figment or illusion."

Tolkien emphasizes that through the use of fantasy, which he equates with fancy and imagination, the author can bring the reader to experience a world which is consistent and rational, under rules other than those of the normal world. He calls this "a rare achievement of Art," and notes that it was important to him as a reader: "It was in fairy-stories that I first divined the potency of the words, and the wonder of things, such as stone, and wood, and iron; tree and grass; house and fire; bread and wine."

Tolkien suggests that fairy stories allow the reader to review his own world from the "perspective" of a different world. This concept, which shares much in common with phenomenology, Tolkien calls "recovery," in the sense that one's unquestioned assumptions might be recovered and changed by an outside perspective. Second, he defends fairy stories as offering escapist pleasure to the reader, justifying this analogy: a prisoner is not obliged to think of nothing but cells and wardens. And third, Tolkien suggests that fairy stories (can) provide moral or emotional consolation, through their happy ending, which he terms a "eucatastrophe".

In conclusion and as expanded upon in an epilogue, Tolkien asserts that a truly good and representative fairy story is marked by joy: "Far more powerful and poignant is the effect [of joy] in a serious tale of Faerie. In such stories, when the sudden turn comes, we get a piercing glimpse of joy, and heart's desire, that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story, and lets a gleam come through." Tolkien sees Christianity as partaking in and fulfilling the overarching mythological nature of the cosmos: "I would venture to say that approaching the Christian story from this perspective, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. ...and among its marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation."

***

Yeah... totally not a fairy story...