In Defence of that which we love...

[smaug_the_magnificent]

Hey... I'm relatively new here so I'm uncertain as to what the policy is at Entmoot vis-a-vis posting articles or literary essays relating to Tolkien's work.. Apologies if this is not allowed..
Anyway, I found this piece a few months ago & have kept it safe - it's a highly enjoyable read, not too didactic or verbose, it's a frank & honest account as to why The Lord of the Rings has enjoyed such enduring popularity..
It also opens up some interesting discussion threads for us to extrapolate further

*note* apologies if you've already read this.. AND btw, the "themes" list at the end of this article is my contribution.. That is to say, I didn't like what the person who wrote this came up with, so instead I added my own!


In defence of Middle-Earth
By TheophileEscargot, Section Features Topic Fantasy
Posted on Sun Mar 10th, 2002 at 13:48:39 CDT


The stubborn appeal of the Lord of the Rings books

Clunking prose. Cliched, archetypal, characters. A story so slow moving as to be practically stationary. A reactionary, some even say prejudice subtext. Rarely has there been such a critical consensus as that the Lord of the Rings is a dreadfully bad work. Yet it stubbornly remains popular for decade after decade, passing a test that is extremely difficult for any book that is neither in the literary canon, nor on any respectable school syllabus.
This article is on why the Lord of the Rings is successful, and in my opinion, a kind of masterpiece.

On plot and pacing

The problem that a lot of Tolkien-detractors seem to have is that they see the book of consisting mostly of descriptions of the tedium and suffering endured by its characters.
Certainly no professional writer, setting out to write a fantasy bestseller, would decide to focus on the sufferings of the characters to that extent. So why did Tolkien?
I think it's important to remember that in his youth J.R.R. Tolkien fought in the trenches of the First World War. Although he steadfastly denied that the Lord of the Rings was an allegory of any kind, I don't think this is inconsistent with the idea that the war and battle scenes in the book were heavily influenced by his own experiences of war. It is well known that in real life the lot of a soldier in wartime is of long periods of boredom, hardship and tension; punctuated by brief bursts of excitement and fear. Despite it being a fantasy, the Lord of the Rings reflects this reality exactly. Most of the first volume consists of the characters climbing or marching through hostile terrain, perpetually on guard against attack by the enemy. As often as not battles consist of shooting arrows at shapes in the dark, never knowing the results, often not knowing what the target even was. Relief comes only in the form of a rare hot meal and bed for the night
Thus, in spite of being an outrageous fantasy, the Lord of the Rings is deeply grounded in the reality of life as a soldier. I believe that this combination of realism and fantasy is one of the reasons for the strange appeal of the Lord of the Rings. Its realism makes it possible for the reader to lose himself in the story, in a way that could not happen if the characters suffered more briefly.
The same realism is seen in the way the characters frequently do not know what is going on around them. In the books, along with Frodo we do not know why Gandalf failed to meet them until Gandalf himself explains it. Descriptions of distant events is described in the words of whoever delivers the news: Tolkien steadfastly refuses to shift the point of view too far from the characters; or even to provide the magical telephone-substitutes that many authors like to use to simplify their characters lives.
These aspects of the Lord of the Rings would be considered to be fatal flaws by the standards of a commercial author, a competent writer's workshop, or a professional critic. The timing and pace of the books is all wrong by these standards: the story is too slow moving; the exposition occurs regardless of what the reader should know; the action is too infrequent, and when it occurs chapters are tightly bundled together, instead of metronomically spaced throughout the book. Somehow, for the countless fans of the Lord of the Rings, these flaws have become virtues. They make the book different: strange, unpredictable, and paradoxically real.
This naturally leads to the question: were these apparent flaws accidental or deliberate?

[smaug_the_magnificent]

...cont'

It helps to consider Tolkien's postwar career. Academically, he is chiefly regarded these days as a translator of ancient works. However in Tolkien’s day it should be remembered that Anglo-Saxon works were regarded as part of English Literature rather than History. Anglo-Saxon was part of the syllabus even for undergraduates studying Eng Lit; and English Literature was Tolkien's route through academia. In spite of the superior attitude we like to take towards Tolkien, it makes little sense to regard a respected Professor of English Literature as a naive amateur who accidentally stumbled on a winning formula.
Also, in the Foreword to the book Tolkien writes:
But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.
I think that this quote shows clearly that Tolkien regarded the Lord of the Rings as a "feigned history". We have all at some time read histories and journals of historical figures, and found them to be sometimes more compelling than a novel would be, however amateurish the pacing and storyline. I think that Tolkien clearly understood the rules he was breaking, and did so deliberately to give his work the rough, authentic feel of a genuine history. The realism of the depictions used to conceptualize the environment in which the drama of the Lord of the Rings takes place, is another tool of authenticity. Tolkien’s descriptive genius catapults Middle-Earth into the realm of legitimate autonomy; no one who reads the Lord of the Rings can deny the vivid imprint of Middle-Earth, as to render its characteristics and existence to be potentially ‘real’, surpassed only by the true world of our own outside.



On Tolkien's prose

Tolkien's prose style has been much maligned over the years, but when I for one picked up the Lord of the Rings after a decade and a half's absence, I was surprised to find it much better than I recalled. One thing that can be said for it is that it has been a great gift for generations of satirists. Let's take a look at it. It falls into different modes, so a couple of examples are needed.
The most easily mocked mode is that which is regarded as Tolkienesque:

"The sun was sinking when at last they drew near to the end of the line of downs. For many hours they had marched without rest. They were going slowly now, and Gimli's back was bent. Stone-hard are the Dwarves in labour or journey, but this endless chase began to tell on him, as all hope failed in his heart...
...Only Legolas still stepped as lightly as ever, his feet hardly seeming to press the grass, leaving no footprints as he passed; but in the waybread of the Elves he found all the sustenance that he needed, and he could sleep, if sleep it could be called by Men, resting his mind in the strange paths of elvish dreams, even as he walked open-eyed in the paths of this world."

It's hard to read a sentence like the last without imagining a purse-lipped English teacher with a red pen, angrily breaking up the monster into smaller sentences. Easily mocked too are the backward sentences (Stone-hard are the Dwarves...) inserted occasionally for effect.

[smaug_the_magnificent]

...cont'

In fact this Tolkienesque style is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the writing is much more plain:

"Bill Ferny's price was twelve silver pennies; and that was indeed at least three times the pony's value in those parts. It proved to be a bony, under-fed and dispirited animal; but it did not look like dying just yet."

In fact, Tolkien's writing is generally not Tolkienesque in the sense of the first extract. Mostly it consists of unadorned English; which in its own way is as deceptively simple as that of Hemingway. Like Hemingway he is not afraid to use simple adjectives, to frequently repeat words, and to produce an emotional effect by simply stating what is there. As argued earlier Tolkien has a keen eye for detail, an enthusiasm for the countryside; and is a master at communicating that love to the reader.

"A golden afternoon of late sunshine lay warm and drowsy upon the hidden land beneath. In the midst of it there wound lazily a dark river of brown water, bordered with ancient willows, arched over with willows, blocked with willows, and flecked with thousands of faded willow-leaves. The air was thick with them, fluttering yellow from the branches; for there was a warm and gentle breeze blowing softly in the valley, and the leaves were rustling, and the willow-boughs were creaking."

Tolkien generally uses a balanced, rhythmic style, capable of effortlessly carrying the reader hundreds of pages at a time. To balance this, he switches occasionally into Tolkienesque mode, but usually for short moments of grandeur only.
When judging Tolkien's prose, it is important never to forget his tremendous success. Given that many millions of people have voluntarily read over a thousand pages of Tolkien's prose, just for pleasure, it has to be considered an astonishingly successful act of communication. You may think it ugly or too overblown for your own tastes, but you cannot possibly consider it ineffective.


On characterisation

Defending Tolkien's characters as realistic is clearly not possible. Fortunately it is also not necessary. Tolkien's characters are clearly intended to be legendary archetypes, not plausible human beings; and can only be defended on those grounds. Even here their success is mixed.
Gandalf is the strongest character, but one who clearly fits into earlier templates, such as Merlin. There are other parallels too. Gandalf apparently dies fighting the Balrog, only to return, where in a curious scene he is at first unrecognised by his friends and followers. However, in deference to Tolkien's dislike of allegory we should not overemphasise his occasional resemblance to a certain religious figure.
The other human characters tend to be straightforward, traditional heroes or villains. Character development essentially does not occur, except insofar as an external force of evil may corrupt certain characters, or occasionally recover from the same. We can only speculate whether Tolkien took this from the ancient epics he was inspired by, or whether this was genuinely his view of human nature.
The other characters tend to be representatives of their races rather than characters in their own right. There are no sensitive Orcs or coarse Elves. One may almost consider all Orcs to be the same character, all Dwarves the same Dwarf, all Elves just examples of Elvishness. Considered as such they are more successful. Fans of the Lord of the Rings find these types to be deeply inspiring, and they remain fondly in the memories of many others.

[smaug_the_magnificent]

...cont'

On subtext

Tolkien himself was extremely clear about the inner meaning of The Lord of the Rings:
"As for the inner meaning or 'message', it has by the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical."
While he denied any allegory, as we have seen he was comfortable with 'applicability', in the sense of parallels to be drawn by the reader. So what messages (or themes) could we take from reading the books? Here are some possibilities.

·Death, and its mystery
·Because something can be made, doesn't necessarily mean that it must
·Sacrifice, nobility, probity, loyalty, courage, forgiveness & pity
·The worth of fair & courteous speech and the virtue of being learned in many things & other cultures, & the power such qualities render
·Love
·The breaking down of cultural differences
·Unfortunately, race often determines whose side you're on
·That thanks and praise should not be the motivation for honourable conduct
·To be merciful is to be wise
·The innate linkage between the land and its peoples
·Hope versus despair
·Rightful genial Lineage and the belief that some men are created above others -
·However no matter how great or small one purports to be, all are equally susceptible to corruption and evil, and all are equally apposite to great deeds and high virtues
·That the Earth holds an inner power of unmatched greatness which, if unheeded, will eventually be evoked and become decisive
·No being is created evil, however some can be corrupted by the subterfuge of those who would profit from it
·That a person's character can be best understood and explained by the way he or she reacts to certain situations, often perilous!
·That a so-called Blessed Realm of some description awaits when we finally leave this world. Although it is unclear if such a destination is reserved for all
·Despite it being right to not abandon hope and strength in the face of tyranny, we should be melancholic for all that is most good & beautiful has now passed away. We can only look forward to a mundane spiritless world
·Fate and Destiny – Fate as a form of justice
·That misconception & detachment can often lead to ruin & loss

As Tolkien intended, many different messages can be drawn, according to the preferences of the reader. In general, though, it cannot be denied that the subtext of the book is conservative and largely reactionary. The greatest deeds always seem to lie in the past, and Middle-Earth itself can only decay from a state of lost grace.

Nevertheless, any work has to have an underlying theme. It is probably not a coincidence that the widespread popularity of the Lord of the Rings in the sixties coincided in time and space with the rise of what was then called the Ecology movement. While the unpleasant subtexts of the Lord of the Rings can easily be dismissed, the positive side seems to have been a genuine influence on the world as a whole.

[azalea]

Interesting essay, especially the part on characterization where it states that each orc, elf, and dwarf is an archtype of its race (I would say though that leaders would have their own special archtype: Thorin [though he's not in LotR], Galadriel, and Elrond are characterized as "different" than the average dwarf/ elf).
I would also note that men and hobbits aren't a part of this, they are widely varied and individualized, although we still have the "class distictive" characteristics.

[Gæwan]

I am assuming that as one finds themselves among equally LotR savvy people, you, as well as I, have noticed this. In the beginning of LotR when he first attempts describing Hobbits, Tolkien makes them a little mischevious. Kind of...well...smarter than otherwise portrayed. Also, that they could hide very well from the 'big folk' as they were called. If they saw men approaching that they wished not to make the acquantience (sp?) then they chould kind of ... blend with their surroundings to avoid discover. almost like...magick. then, after he really gets into hobbits and understands his own creation more thoroughly than before, he makes them more innocent and unsuspecting. do you agree? talk to me anytime. email, aim, threads. Llie n'vanima ar' lle atara lanneina...just kidding[/QUOTE]

[Anglorfin]

I mostly agree with this essay. Epsecially the part about Middle Earth being documented as a history. And being treated as such, it is easier to understand why certain parts might have been "exaggerated" (for lack of a better term). Additionally, I have always told anybody that asks me that the Silmarillion is much more like a history lesson than a fantasy novel, and should be read that way and studied to be really enjoyable.

[Elfhelm]

English teachers have nothing to do with good writing. The style they teach is for scholastic purposes only. Great writers use whatever modes or tropes fit their needs. Rules of grammar are derived from the great writers, not the reverse. Sometimes Tolkien uses the syntax of old english epic poetry. That's because he's trying to lend the tale an epic tone. It works.

"Detractors" are usually people who have accomplished nothing in their lives and in their desperate regret they lash out at the ones who are truly great. There should be no need to argue against them.

[Artanis]

It's an interesting essay, and I agree very much in what it says about realism and the view of LotR as 'feigned history'. It was after all written to fit into the universe that already existed in the Quenta Silmarillion, and LotR contains numerous references to the elder mythology.

[Attalus]

Very good essay, and I thank you for posting it. I would agree that the Men (and Hobbits) vary greatly among themselves. Who could confuse Pippin with Merry, let alone Frodo or Sam? There are too few Dwarves to judge, though Gimli was obviously atypical in his liking for Elves. Also, we meet too few Elves of the common rank to need any designators, and again I would say, could you confuse Legolas with Celeborn? I happen to admire JRRT's style, and agree that his "grand passages" are appropriately broken up with homely ones.