: 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!
Right, let's go, you obviously are talking of things you know nothing about*. I'll start by giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're basing your comments on the movie, which does indeed turn certain characters (ie Gimli and Elves, and Grima's friends in Edoras) into stereotypes. Now I'm going to counter your points.
Elves: read LotR, read the Silmarillion, even read the Hobbit! Elves are not all-good; they tunred against their gods and killed their kin out of greed, they betray one another, and even when they're forgiven they spend the next few thousand years (Galadriel) paralysed by guilt. (In a way.)
Of course Orks are bad, they're corruptions! However, the dialogues with the Orks reveals a fascinating morality system; one which also has the ability to preach one thing and practice quite another.
"In times of need, just look to virtuous superheroes with magic powers/weapons for your salvation?"
Count the Elves that come to the aid of men in the War of the Ring; that's right, 3 (Legolas, Elladan and Elrohir (Glorfindel doesn't count for this purpose, as he lends Frodo his horse and scares the Nazgul, but doesn't fight in the War, if you will) ).
Besides, Frodo and Sam go alone into Mordor; no magic, no magic weapons, no strong men to save them.
"industry and progress are sinister"
At the expense of people and nature was Tolkien's point; take at look at industrial slums, and then at the rural dwellings where their first-generation inhabitants come from, and tell me which is more pleasant.
: 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.
Ah yes, the sterotypes which didn't exist then. Hmm, yes, bt of course. Again, I'll forgive you if you're talking about the film. To use the film's main stereotype: Gimli. In the Book, Gimli is a very full character; he is moved by the sight of his race's ancestral home and the Glittering Caves, he grows and accepts Legolas, forming an extremely close bond, despite starting off by mistrusting him.
Now other characters: Frodo starts off all care free, is exposed to the dnagers of the real world, gets drawn into a constant struggle between his sense of right and his temptation and the corrupting influence of the Ring , and then
*SPOILERS!!!*
loses to the Ring, unable to resist, claiming it for his own, and actuallly FAILING his Quest. When he finally returns to the Shire, he finds it destroyed, but because of what he's been through and seen refueses to seek revenge on Saruman.
Faramir is a noble man, but even he is tempted by the Ring, but rejects it because he's a good person. But he becomes angry at his father, who says that he wished Faramir had died instead of Boromir, and becomes reckless ("do not throw your life away" - Gandalf) because his father is taking out his anger at Boromir's death on him.
Boromir is a prideful man; he wants to do what is right for Gondor, and even accepts, after a qwhile, Aragorn as King, but he wantrs personal glory too much to avoid the IRng's lure and so fall into temptation. However, when he recovers he sacrifices himself o try to attone, but will not at first admi to what he had doen, falling instead into despair when he thinks that he's scared Frodo away fro the whole Company.
Gollum...just read the Book, there's too much to say about Gollum!
And now Gandalf and Aragorn: these people are good. Are they supposed to just do bad things when they clearly have such high morals? That would be unrealsitic.
: 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.
I covered this above.
: In addition the characters' motivations are never
: revealed (other than doing good or evil for good or
: evil's sake).
Yes...they are...name a specific example.
: All of the characters seem obliged to
: perform the roles assigned to them without much
: insight or reflection on their situation.
See above.
: 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.
And seee above again.
: 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.
WHAT?! Back this up!!! I assure you, you can't.
: 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.
I think I've disproved this...or at least you haven't proved this.
: 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.
See above.
* "You have become a witless worm!" Gandalf to Grima on that subject. Not me to you, but damn close.
