: The only fantasy author I've read yet that was writing
: not to make a nice plot, but for good thematic
: qualities (at least, as his primary goal) has been
: Tolkien!
: And what theme would that be? Elves are good; Orcs are
: bad? In times of need, just look to virtuous
: superheroes with magic powers/weapons for your
: salvation? That tradition and the "old ways"
: are noble and that industry and progress are sinister?
: Wow. How weighty, insightful, and original!
: I first read Tolkien's work back when I was in school.
: Being young, and male, I found the tales of adventure
: in far off lands delightful escapist entertainment.
: Reading the books was a fun, if light, way to spend a
: few days. Later, when the movies were released, I
: enjoyed them as an equally delightful illustration of
: the books. Also escapist entertainment. But I've never
: considered the books particularly deep. In fact, I
: think one of the books' great failings to be its lack
: of theme and depth.
: At its core, the story comes down to a battle royale
: between the forces of good and the forces of evil.
: Both sides being defined in terms not much clearer
: than that. Most of the characters are static,
: one-dimensional, carbon copies of classic fantasy
: stalwarts. You'd be hard pressed to find a dynamic
: character among them. Tolkien tries to compensate for
: this by giving his characters what I have come to
: simply call "fake depth." This is usually
: achieved by giving a character simple flaws, weakness,
: or flimsy back-story. Comic book authors have used
: this technique for decades; Superman is weakened by
: kryptonite, Batman had a rough childhood, the Hulk
: can't control his rage. It might be designed to make
: us see the characters as more human, but it doesn't
: give us any real insight into who the characters are.
: This lack of true depth can also be seen in the fact that
: over the course of the books, none of the characters
: really go through any sort of arc. The characters
: don't change. They may become wiser, or go from
: cheerful to a bit more morose, but they don't change
: on a fundamental level. They have no greater
: understanding of the workings of the world or their
: place in it.
: In addition the characters' motivations are never
: revealed (other than doing good or evil for good or
: evil's sake). All of the characters seem obliged to
: perform the roles assigned to them without much
: insight or reflection on their situation. The heroes
: perform heroic deeds because they are the good-guys,
: and the villains do evil deeds because they are the
: bad-guys. Nothing more.
: Ultimately, no insight into the greater nature of man,
: either on a personal level or on a collective level,
: can really be drawn from Tolkien's work. Acceptable
: works of literature are defined by their plot. Great
: works of literature are defined by their characters.
: And great characters are defined by their actions, not
: by hackneyed character flaws. To compare Tolkien to
: Melville or Twain is to lessen the impact of their
: work. It does little to elevate Tolkien's work. Ahab
: and Huck Finn were dynamic characters whose actions
: were defined by, and were the result of their
: personalities. Character's who cannot be broken down
: simply into a list of their virtues and flaws. The
: same cannot be said for characters like Frodo and
: Bilbo whose personalities existed simply to provide
: believability for the actions the plot required them
: to take.
: Perhaps the quality of Tolkien's work doesn't require a
: dissertation, but I grow so tired of Tolkien being
: elevated to the status of literary titan when he's
: little more than a capable author of fantasy pulp. To
: compare Tolkien to Melville, Twain, or Hawthorne is to
: compare Spielberg to De Sica, or John Williams to
: Mozart. I found the works of Tolkien entertaining. But
: great literature, it is not.
: -Phil.
Well, listen! Have you ever read such things as Beowulf, The Song of Nibelungen, The Elder Edda?! Have you ever been interested in mythology?! I persume that not! So you must know that Tolkien studied mythology and folklore, that his books are inspired by such things. If see you say that Tolkien wrote for money, not for the writing itself you damn wrong! In the time "The Lord of the Rings" was published there was no such successful genre called fantasy. You also must know that in the base of each mythology lies a simple struggle of good & evil (good-guys vs. bad-guys), and that Tolkien was a very faithful christian which also influenced his view of the world. You try to compare Tolkien and Twain (for example) when you don't understand that they wrote about fully different things! What about the "depth" of the characters, please, re-read "The Lord of the Rings" (a.k.a. LotR) again. You said that its characters aren't affected by the events? LOOK AT FRODO AT THE STARTING OF THE JOURNEY AND ON ITS END! And one very good advice from me to you: DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY A LACK OR A PRESENCE OF DEEP PHILOSOPHYC IDEAS! READ THE BOOK, LOOK AT THE WRITERS' STYLE, LOOK WHAT THE BOOK ABOUT, AND FINALLY LOOK IF YOU LIKE IT OR NOT! NEVER COMPARE IT BOOKS THAT DRASTICALLY DIFFER FROM!
Knight o' Death.
P.S. And one more thing: READ BEOWULF!!!!!!!!!
