Trouble with Tolkien

[S.J.]

Ah. I'd thought that that was probably what you were trying to get across. And thanks for the compliment. Personally, I like debating opposing points of view, but as you and others may have noticed some people regard a disagreement with them as a personal affront.
'It is not enough that I succeed: Others must fail.'

[William]

David wrote: "I know that this is going to sound like sacrilege to a lot of people, but I have had trouble getting into the works of J.R.R. Tolkien. I tried to read The Hobbit years ago when I was i..."

It would be far too long to post here, but I have a blog post on this very subject: Why Tolkien
http://theswordoffire.wordpress.com/2...

[Marina]

That was an excellent post and I agree with all of it. But, but, but... I just could not get through the amount of descriptive prose in those books. To read 100 pages of characters walking through the woods just to get to the wonderful, resonant part that lasts two paragraphs... at this point in my life, I just don't have that kind of attention span. I gave up a little before the end of Part II. The movies were great, though.

[David]

The majority of problems with reading Tolkien have never been about the story, his worldbuilding, nor the underlying themes. Rather my issue is with his writing style. I personally find his prose to be long-winded and dull, and his dialogue to be stuffy and stilted. There are those to which this is not a problem, but to me it is.

[S.J.]

The matter of Tolkien's style comes up quite often, and I can see why it's not to everybody's taste.

[Danielle The Book Huntress]

William, I really appreciated your blog on Tolkien.

[Razmatus]

I am reading The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All in czech translation, and even though some philosophical matters drawn upon reading LOTR are a bit out of the bounds of what the text emanates, those articles are still great and interesting, recommended read :)

[William]

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..."F

Very well said. Thank you for that post.

[Bill]

S.J. wrote: "I think that there's been some misinterpreting going on here. Razmatus clearly finds Tolkien interesting enough to have gone and read what critics and such have had to say about him and LoTR. I thi..."

As I was reading David's post up top, my 1st thought was similar. Just because one is excited by a thing and wants to communicate that excitement, does not make one elitist. To say so smacks of cynicism.

My 2nd thought was I read fiction for escape and enlightenment. For many things only fiction can be truly enlightening.

And Janny, to you really think all opinions are valid? Are the flat-earther's opinion as valid as the oblate spheroider's opinion? ;-)

[S.J.]

To be fair, flat vs. oblate spheroid Earth is a question that can be answered definitively through technology. When it comes to liking vs. not-liking a book, or a movie, or a work of art, technology isn't anywhere near as applicable.

[Robert]

S.J.:

Exactly. I think from the context of this post (and the site we're on) we can view Janny's comments as being related to subjective view of a book. You can extend that to similar artistic endeavors, but it clearly isn't meant to apply to areas of knowledge like science or mathematics, where objective proof is readily available.

[Janny]

Kernos wrote: And Janny, to you really think all opinions are valid? Are the flat-earther's opinion as valid as the oblate spheroider's opinion? ;-) "

Yes, wry grin. Because - to the flat earther, that flat earth IS the truth in so far as they perceive it - any view becomes a matter of perspective, and of course, perspectives only shift when the angle of awareness (in this case, knowledge) changes.

Esoteric values (perhaps?) involve emotion more than logic. We don't rely on reason to know if we like a thing, or don't.

[Bill]

Of course you are correct, but the flatearthers would consider is subjective. How about issues like anthropomorphic global warmins where the preponderance of evidence is supportive, but proof difficult?

[Janny]

Kernos wrote: "Of course you are correct, but the flatearthers would consider is subjective. How about issues like anthropomorphic global warmins where the preponderance of evidence is supportive, but proof diffi..."

Whew! grin - that question steps considerably outside the issue of this topic, and the purview of my post. And may tread on considerably sensitive political ground as well. If you'd like to discuss that, or wish my view, I'd invite you to message me, and not drift the discussion underway here.

[S.J.]

Once upon a time, we were told that we lived in the Age Of Reason. Science and technology flourished, and some people believed that some questions could be answered for once and for all time. I'm not entirely sure that all of humanity is at all appreciative of Reason, especially when it comes up with unpleasant realities as to what this world and the people in it really are instead of wonderful myths about what a beautiful place it could be if only the facts could be ignored. I would say that we live in an age now where a reaction against Reason has set in, wherein everyone is entitled to their own opinion, every opinion is as valid as anyone else's, and politicians encourage such activity in order to gain and keep power.

[S.J.]

As humans, I think that we need both Reason and Myth to make sense of things in our lives, and encourage us to improve, and gird us for that struggle.

[Razmatus]

The power of the mind is to make colours in the "real" world that is bleak and ugly place underneath, very often, I would say

[Bill]

Janny wrote: "Whew! grin - that question steps considerably outside the issue of this topic, and the purview of my post. And may tread on considerably sensitive political ground as well. If you'd like to discuss that, or wish my view, I'd invite you to message me, and not drift the discussion underway here."

Yes, sorry... This thread was feeding pet peeves of mine: opinion/belief=truth or if it make sense it is true or all opinions are valid. I suppose part of this is my and others confusing taste with opinion and emotion with reason or logic. I find it very useful to examine my opinions, beliefs and emotions from a rational point of view, ie, why do I feel that way or why do I believe such and such. The ancient Greek command, γνῶθι σαυτόν, "Know Thyself" is deeply instilled in me.

Back to Tolkien—He and his work are sacred cows of mine and I cringe at criticism and cannot understand why everyone does not like his works. That I have read LOTR 26 times and The Hobbit 8 times underscores this.

A part of this is that I 1st read LOTR when the Ace PBs appeared in the college bookstore in 1965, read them and trashed the and got the Ballentine PBs, the same year IIRC. I had experienced nothing like it. My peers were reading it and nite long discussions were common. There was no other epic fantasy to read nor would there be for another decade or so. Prior to LOTR I had concentrated on SciFi for my personal reading; Tolkien was so different. So I was a fan in the full fanatic meaning of the word and have stayed so. I read a biography and collected editions and books about Tolkien. I even started writing The Father Christmas Letters to my children. I'm still looking for signed 1st editions with dust jackets and cried when I couldn't acquire a large hand drawn map of Middle Earth signed by Tolkien. It went for over US$100,000, far beyond my means.

Only Star Trek and Doctor Who (the old series) have instilled such fanaticism in me. It has been a rare book that has excited me so in other genres or in lit-fic.

I can understand how others, in later generations would find Tolkien less than perfect, since as early as the '80s there were many epic fantasies to choose from in book stores and this has continued as "the Age of Epic Fantasy" continued and evolved. I have enjoyed many of these and consider some more literary than Tolkien, like your series, Janny. But what can ever compare to one's first true love. The love that is never forgotten.

[carol. , Senor Crabbypants]

Lovely, Kernos. Thank you for sharing. Devotion is easier to understand when you put it into personal terms.

[Razmatus]

I would say LOTR is great on its own, it wouldnt profit from trimming, neither would it from over-detail... Tolkien was way too educated, learned and clever to commit mistakes/faults that some other writers often did... but well, LOTR rocks :)

I would say that LOTR still stands and will stand the test of time as it did up till now... yes, styles get different, there is a ton of great stuff out there, but Tolkien will never get lost among them and will still remain among the best IMO :)

[S.J.]

Ah, but how long will it be before high schools remove 'Moby Dick' from the curriculum and replace it with LOTR? One can but hope.
I fully agree with one's first love being the one that is never forgotten. Tolkien introduced many, many readers to the world of epic fantasy.

[Robert]

Hey, Moby Dick is a great book! :)

I like Tolkien too, though.

[S.J.]

Unfortunately, my opinion of 'Moby Dick' is stained by my English teacher's fascination with symbolism and her encouragement of young minds to go looking for ever more obscure symbols. What really got to me was when the question was asked: 'What is the symbolism of white in Moby Dick?' After listening to ever-more elaborate theories I simply asked the class: 'How else is Ahab going to know he's chasing the right whale?'

[Razmatus]

might be I will check it at some point again, but the first time around I got only to page 80 before closing the book, and never opened it again... could be I might try and claw my way through, but I got MANY more ton more enjoyable books waiting in line to be read than to bother with Moby Dick :)

[Robert]

SJ:

English teachers do have a knack for ruining books. Moby Dick is a great story, and Melville's use of language is a lot of fun to read. The only thing I didn't care for is that at one point he alternates between the story and chapters on whaling. It isn't too bad, though, because since those whaling chapters are more like asides than part of the story, you can skip them without missing anything.

[Robert]

S.J. wrote: 'How else is Ahab going to know he's chasing the right whale?'

That's hilarious.

I suspect that most of the symbolism scholars find in Moby Dick never occurred to Melville as he was writing it.

English teachers will give Tolkien a similar treatment if they ever teach it, and you'll spend class sessions wondering whether going into the barrows represented a return to the womb, or something like that.

[Robert]

Razmatus wrote: could be I might try and claw my way through, but I got MANY more ton more enjoyable books waiting in line to be read than to bother with Moby Dick :)

I've always got far too many books to read. I admit, though, that I did enjoy Moby Dick a lot.

[Razmatus]

well, could be... back then I would never imagine that I might get through a set of tomes like ASOIAF and even enjoy it... but then, Moby Dick is pretty low on my list of book priorities... for long months my main thing will be Malazan book of the fallen saga :)

[Robert]

Ah...love the Malazan books. I'm on number six right now.

[S.J.]

R. Scott: It certainly shut down the symbolism discussion for a while. But I'm afraid that afterwards I went and did a bad thing: I found a student who was going to be in that teacher's class the next year and told her to ask that same question when the symbolism of white came up again. I did feel a certain sympathy for Melville. He spent so much time and effort turning out a pretty good whaling story, trying to do his best to put us in the crow's nest, or on one of the ship's boats during a Nantucket sleigh ride, or simply in the middle of a vast ocean on a ship...and English teachers in search of symbolism miss the much larger points.

[David]

Razmatus wrote: "might be I will check it at some point again, but the first time around I got only to page 80 before closing the book, and never opened it again... could be I might try and claw my way through, but..."

Hmmmm. Sounds a lot like the problem I had with Fellowship of the Ring.

[Razmatus]

the difference is, in Moby Dick the only thing that happened in 80 pages was a guy swilling some booze, then sleeping through a night and waking... thats all, and that was 80 pages of crammed text (you know those cheap yellow-covered penguin classics editions) :D

[S.J.]

I'd just say that Melville, like Tolkien, isn't for everybody. Has anyone ever tried to read Gibbon's 'Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire'?

[Wastrel]

S.J. wrote: "Unfortunately, my opinion of 'Moby Dick' is stained by my English teacher's fascination with symbolism and her encouragement of young minds to go looking for ever more obscure symbols. What really ..."

Damnit, can't find the quote I wanted. Who was it who said that the only way to deal with literary criticism was to claim that the white whale in Moby Dick actually symbolised Belgium?

Well, still can't find that, but here's a quote from Le Guin instead:
"In many college English courses the words myth and symbol are given a tremendous charge of significance. You just ain't no good unless you can see a symbol hiding, like a scared gerbil, under every page. And in many creative writing courses the little beasts multiply, the place swarms with them. What does this Mean? What does that Symbolize? What is the Underlying Mythos? Kids come lurching out of such courses with a brain full of gerbils. And they sit down and write a lot of empty pomposity, under the impression that that's how Melville did it."

[S.J.]

I have to agree with Le Guin here. The thing is, my high school didn't have a school newspaper until my senior year, but it did have a literary magazine that was printed five times a school year. I contributed to the magazine, and got onto the editorial board. I still clearly remember two volunteer proofreaders talking about the symbolism in a piece I'd submitted. All submissions had numbers, but no names, so they didn't know I'd written it. And, listening to their deep discussion of the underlying symbolism in it, I began to wonder if I actually had written it. I knew what I'd been thinking when I wrote it, and I certainly hadn't been thinking of anything they were finding in the subtext. My opinion of symbolism was never the same after that.

[Marina]

Far be it for me to defend English teachers but sometimes works take on lives of their own, above and beyond what the author intended. I remember seeing Fellowship of the Ring right after 9/11 where Gandalf talks of how we do not get to choose the times we live in, but only what to do with the times we're given. When I got my hands on the book, I went straight to that part to check that was actually there, that the filmmakers didn't through in a line of their own that would resonate now. Sure enough, it was there, all those years ago. Sometimes people find things in literature that are relevant to them, even if it's not what the author literally "wrote."

Remember Alanis Morisette song "You Otta Know"? A battle cry for every scorned woman? Well, when Alanis got to comment on it she said, oh no, I didn't mean for it to be angry. It's supposed to just be sad. She even went as far as re-make it some years later in the "sad" version. No matter- the original version is still popular and the "intended" one long forgotten.

[Razmatus]

well, you are free to find stuff in the text, but some ppl get to the point when they "over-interpret" the text, talking about things that simply arent there... how is it known? if you got a theory about something that is in the text in your opinion, you HAVE to have grounds for it in the TEXT itself... for example if you want to say that a text is full of gerbils (got you there lol), you should be able to find quotes or parts where they are more or less clearly shown or hinted, otherwise you are just speaking from air

as for "I began to wonder if I actually had written it"... it is a weird thing that happens even if ppl dont over-interpret your text... you live within the text, know every single inch and niche of it WHILE you are writing it... the moment you set your "quill and ink" aside, you become just another spectator, just with more insight, but still a spectator... that way you can find things there that you didnt even know while writing it

that happens to me a lot when re-reading my own stuff... I find stuff there that I dont remember putting in when writing it, yet there it is...

[David]

Razmatus wrote: "the difference is, in Moby Dick the only thing that happened in 80 pages was a guy swilling some booze, then sleeping through a night and waking... thats all, and that was 80 pages of crammed text ..."

Same thing with Fellowship. The first page was prose describing the thoughts and feelings of some of the hobbits toward Bilbo and a little of Frodo's background, followed by a couple of pages of dialogue explaining the exact same thing. Very redundant and boring.

[Marina]

I suppose it more forgivable in fantasy such as LotR since it's not just feelings and dialogue, it's a way of introducing us to the world. You don't need massive world-building in Moby Dick.

[Pauline]

This is a fantastic discussion. Personally, I think one of the problems with Tolkien is that he was rooted in his time. Yes, he was an English professor and linguist, and that filtered into his work, but at the time he was writing LOTR, all writing with any pretensions of literacy was written in a very wordy, dry style.

I first read LOTR somewhere in the mid-sixties, when I was in my mid-teens, having been brought up on Austen and Dickens and Hardy. Tolkien's writing style fitted right in with all that.

What blew me away was the very idea of - well, making up your own world, basically, and populating it with races and species that felt as if they'd always existed. And the whole swords and magic business. It remains one of the few books I finished and then immediately started reading all over again. And then I went out and bought my own copy in hardback because I knew I would read it over and over again. It was one of those editions which had the maps printed on separate folded paper, glued inside the back cover, and I can still remember the thrill of first opening the back of volume three and finding - oh joy! a DIFFERENT map! And appendices! Still a highlight of my life, actually.

I had a ritual reread annually for a number of years until pesky real life got too hectic for much reading of any sort. But then when the films were coming out, I went back to it and - weird thing, it was really heavy going, especially the Shire and the dreaded Tom Bombadil. And all the poetry that I used to love - ugh. So, I guess tastes change, or times change. We're all too used to short, sharp writing styles now, and gritty realism, and complex, conflicted characters, and flexible morality.

Terry Pratchett said something very similar: At 17, if you don't think The Lord of the Rings is the greatest contribution to literature, there's something wrong with your head (...) If you still think that at 50, there's definitely something wrong with your head.

[Razmatus]

I first read LOTR at the age of 14-15, and again almost ten years later... what I can say is that I enjoyed it a ton more the second time around, cos I saw a ton more than I was able to see there before, more of what was between the lines... I think that LOTR is a timeless work and a rare one too...

yes we have a lot more epic fantasy these days, but LOTR will still remain unique to me, not just in fantasy but in general... nowadays a lot of writing seems to just be going simpler, a lot is sacrificed for the sake of "action" and language isnt always great... and LOTR is written in a learned, beautiful language, with certain unearthly grace to it, where even descriptive parts are joy to read IMO

[David]

Masha wrote: "I suppose it more forgivable in fantasy such as LotR since it's not just feelings and dialogue, it's a way of introducing us to the world. You don't need massive world-building in Moby Dick."
True. My main issues with Tolkien are his wordiness, redundancy and pacing. I don't see the need to give the entire history of the hobbits before beginning his tale. When I read the Dragonlance Chronicles, I didn't find it necessary to know all about the kender race before I met Tasslehoff Burrfoot.

Another example are the Joe Leaphorn and Jim Chee mysteries by Tony Hillerman. For those who don't know the series, Leaphorn and Chee are Navajo tribal policeman, and all the mysteries happen on the reservation and deal with the Navajo culture. Hillerman didn't feel in necessary to spend page after page describing their religion, history, society, etc. before starting the story. Rather he gave us the background information in spurts as it became relevant.

Tolkien was proud of the world he created, and he had a right to be. But I truly feel went overboard with wanting everyone to see his vision. If he wanted to give a detailed history of Middle Earth, then he could do that at a later time for those who are interested, which I understand he did.

Personally I like books that grab me and drag me along for the ride. There doesn't need to be action on every page, but the pace needs to be quick.

I read The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and while I liked the content and the story, it was one of the slowest paced books I've ever read. I'm glad I read it, but it's not one I will read again.

When I failed to get through Fellowship of the Ring twice, I tried to find others who felt the way I did. In my research, what I found are that people can be divided into four basic groups:

1 - Those who did not like the books for whatever reason.

2 - Those who liked the books and felt it was okay if others did not. (That seems to be the majority of people on this thread.)

3 - Those who loved the books and cannot comprehend why others don't feel the same way. These individuals go so far as to recommend books, blogs, websites, and papers to help show the way to the unenlightened, regardless of the fact that it is style and not content that those who don't like Tolkien have a problem with.

4 - Those who are fanatical about the books. These people condemn anyone who says they didn't like The Lord of the Rings. It's almost as if they are a cult and worshipping Tolkien for his creation. I have seen the comment numerous times that if one is not a fan of Tolkien, then one is not a fan of fantasy. Likewise, these people have been insulting and deragatory of other fantasy authors, their works, and their fans.

My whole reason for starting this thread was in the hopes that others would speak out and say why they didn't like Tolkien. I'm a little surprised that very few have posted their reasons.

I also wanted to know what about Tolkien's books that people liked. I've seen some good responses ranging from prose to worldbuilding and can understand those reasons. I've also seen some that are trying to "convert" me into liking Tolkien. I respect your appreciation for the man's works, but I ask that you respect the fact that I don't care for the books.

As an aside, I want to publicly apologize to MrsJoseph. In one of her responses to one of my posts, I apparently said something she considered offensive. In looking back on what I wrote, she was right. I want to say I'm sorry for offending her.

[Razmatus]

as far as I know, Dragonlance is more action-oriented fantasy, and as for redundancy, what can I say? you could probably have one, maybe two volumes of ASOIAF if you cut the "redundant" stuff away, but then, would it be as good then? it's like with progressive metal songs, for example In mist she was standing by Opeth... that song has almost 15mins, and yes, you could cut it to like 4-5mins and get the "same", but it wouldnt be the same, the song would lose its atmosphere, tension and emotion build up...

I get that not everyone feels like getting through a lot of pages to get to something they get over a couple pages in another book... I still enjoyed even the introduction

and yes, pacing is rather slow until Return of the King, but then, I appreciate how he intricately builds up the tension... yes, he could just jump into a sequence of immensely epic battle scenes and go on and on, with just moments of respite, but then, would it be as strong in the end? I dont think so... this way you are first met with an almost idyllic world, with only few dark hints... and as the story goes, the dark slowly spreads... you can feel how it is building up, seeping into more and more until it overflows and actual war begins

well, in the end, it doesnt matter if you read LOTR or some other fantasy if what you find between the lines of the book gives you something, and why I like LOTR so much? cos it has given me a lot

[Wastrel]

How exactly are people meant to give reasons for why they think something is brilliant without seeming as though they're trying to 'convert' you?
I mean, say I think a book is brilliant. I say this, and I say why the book is brilliant. Do I want you to believe me? If I don't want you to believe what I say, either I'm being duplicitous or I don't really believe what I say. If I think that X shows that Y, how am I meant to tell people X without wanting them to conclude that Y?

Respectfully, it seems more as though you came here looking for controversy, hoping that people would act like cultists and shout at you, and when instead we were reasonable and gave sensible answers, you chose to pretend that we were mad cultists anyway.

Where does this need come from, to delegitimise the very idea of liking a book you don't like? first it was that people who liked Tolkien were pretentious and just claiming to like it because they felt they ought to; now it's that they're mindless fanatics. Could you consider that perhaps either we're right and you're wrong, or else the issue is legitimately debateable? And that therefore you don't need to identify the precise psychological flaw that leads to us disagreeing with you?

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

Wastrel wrote: "Respectfully, it seems more as though you came here looking for controversy, hoping that people would act like cultists and shout at you, and when instead we were reasonable and gave sensible answers, you chose to pretend that we were mad cultists anyway."

Actually, he said that most people on the thread fit into the #2 category (i.e. Those who liked the books and felt it was okay if others did not.)

Raz would pretty clearly fit #3... and I'm not sure I would, personally, say there are any #4's here - but I have encountered them elsewhere.

[Razmatus]

the last time I checked recommending articles and explaining oneself's opinions didnt equal with forcing matters or looking down at ppl's opinions... IF I aimed at anything it was for some ppl to check the links and what I posted - not cos I wanted them to take everything as their own, but merely to check and make up their minds, I am not forcing anyone to like LOTR

it is kinda weird how when others present their opinions I listen and take at least some consideration to those and maybe learn and take something out of those opinions, but when I present something for others' consideration and such, they think I am somehow trying to force it down their throats and they jump at me before even looking at what I presented?

[Mike (the Paladin)]

Wow. I love The Lord of the Rings. As for why I love it, symbolism, etc., etc.,etc. to each their own as far as I can see.

I read in the intro to one edition some comments Tolkien made about symbolism. He had no patience with it. At the time people were finding all kinds of WW II symbols in it. Tolkien said that his book was "applicable". People applied it to themselves as they saw it. I've also seen some places where Tolkien mentioned Christian symbols he himself saw in the work. He wanted them to be vague. One of the criticisms he made of his friend C.S.Lewis' work was that the symbols were too overt.

I do wish teachers, instructors, professors and so on would be little lighter handed in some cases. My daughter to this day likes Dickens but hates Great Expectations. I had more than a few words with a prof. when I went back for my degree about the meaning of stories and books (I was 30 when I went back to college and had my own ideas).

I think personally that it's not my business to tell anyone what to see in a story. Dracula for example has been dissected so often that it's been ruined for some readers who've never read it....

If like me and others here you love LotR great. If not that's great to.

[Erin]

I had trouble the first few times I picked up LOTR as well, getting to page 80, then page 140, etc. But then I picked up Beowulf and spent some time with Old English, and then I picked up Tolkein's scholarly work on Old English literature. It gave me a whole new set of tools for understanding LOTR and its pacing, imagery, poetry, style, themes, metaphores, everything. After that I really enjoyed LOTR and have reread it many times.

And for the record, Moby Dick is not my favorite but I enjoyed it well enough. Melville intended to write just another dime book, but he saw what Hawthorne was doing with Scarlet Letter and decided to make Moby Dick a more meaningful, insightful book. It's so fantastic when authors talk to each other, we readers get better books!

[Razmatus]

my own personal experiences and moods at the time I was re-reading LOTR probably helped a lot in seeing certain things in between the lines... made me think of more potential meanings to the journey itself, the characters, the Ring... which in turn became a subject of a couple new poems I wrote... that being said, I can say I think I know what my present "Ring" is, but quoting Frodo: "I will take the ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."

and I havent found the means to destroy my "Ring" yet

[Bill]

Razmatus wrote: "..."I will take the ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."..."

A most memorable line from the book and I think Frodo delivered it well in the movie. There is much pathos in that simple sentence.

One of my favorite chapters in LOTR is "Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit" in Book 4. It is not only leaving the horror of Mordor's gate giving the wonderful descriptions of fair Ithilien, but that the Hobbits could relax and have a simple meal provided by Gollum and Sam, as if all was well with the world—a respite from realities. I can smell and taste the rabbit stew and yearn for 'taters too.