NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically, I want to know people's opinions on The Lord of the Rings, either the book or the films.

Personally I consider The Lord of the Rings one of my two favorite books, and a remarkable work which will go down in history as a classic for two reasons above all others.

First, their is the global appeal and powerful inspiration of a story about a small group of ordinary individuals struggling and succeding against almost impossible odds. This is something that is not dependent on a particular culture to appreciate, as it has relevancy as long as human beings still feel hopelessness, and face the fear that the world will come to an end.

And second, their is the extraordinary detail Tolkien put into creating his world. It should not be forgotten that this was something he spent several decades of his life working on and off on, and that he was drawing on an expert knowledge of ancient language and western mythology, which gives the story a deeper background than probably any of its imitators.

However, there are other aspects of the story which I find intriguing, one of which I will comment on below.

This thread came about partly as the result of my musings on a remarkable yet subtle twist in the plot. In the interest of honesty, I'm certainly not the only person who's noticed this, and for all I know I originally got the idea from some other source I no longer remember. But I bring it up because it really adds a remarkable level of depth to the story, and is one more reason why I love the story so much.

Consider the events at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring: the Fellowship is attacked, Merry and Pippin are captured by orcs, Boromir is killed, and the survivors are split up. Seemingly, a disaster that puts the entire quest in peril. However, if you look at what follows, every victory that happens after might never have happened had that disaster not occured. It is only because Merry and Pippin are captured that Aragorn comes to Rohan, and thus likely that Rohan only beat Sauruman in the manner that it did as a result of this disaster. If it had not occured, there might have been no Army of the Dead to defeat the corsairs, no cavalry arriving on the Pellenor Fields. Moreover, Frodo and Sam might never have captured Gollum, and might never have discovered a secret way into Morder. Gollum might never have been pressent to take the ring (destroying it in the process), when Frodo was unable to complete his quest. In short, victory might have been impossible had this seeming catastrophy not occured.

I like this because it is both a very complex, but also very subtle twist, and because it touches on an aspect of history that I find fascinating, and which I suspect Tolkien would have been well aware of: the ways in which a single action or event has ramifications throughout history that can still be traced centuries later (as a real world example, the current War on Terror has causes that can be traced back through the Cold War, right back to World War One and before).

Of course, I'm sure other people feel differently. Even I object to some aspects of Tolkien's work (the racism for example is somewhat arguable, but probably pressent to some degree). And while it is a classic, the fantasy genre has, I fear, in some sense suffered from its success, as it has been endlessly immitated by other less accomplished or original authors. So, the purpose of this thread is to discuss The Lord of the Rings, both as a work of literature, and in terms of its impact on the high fantasy genre.

Well, I can tell you one person on NSG who really likes LotR....:D

Bah. I have yet to see any actual racism in LOTR. Very good read, lots of detail, and very well thought out. Tolkien was a genius, even if the Silmarion was pretty dry.

Bah. I have yet to see any actual racism in LOTR. Very good read, lots of detail, and very well thought out. Tolkien was a genius, even if the Silmarion was pretty dry.

Let me put it this way: he was probably as racist as most people in his time, maybe less, but he would therefor seem racist in our modern society.

That said, I fully acknowledge that the pressense or extent of racism in LotR is highly debatable. And if we shunned works of literature for not meeting modern standards of political correctness, we'd have rather little history or literature left. Which is one more reason why modern political correctness can shut the hell up.;)

Well, I enjoyed The Hobbit, but I never got around to reading the main LoTR trilogy. Medieval fantasy isn't really my thing. I'm more of a Sci-Fi person. There's really only so many ways you can repaint a picture of orcs, dragons, dwarves, elves, ogres and whatnot.

Well, I enjoyed The Hobbit, but I never got around to reading the main LoTR trilogy. Medieval fantasy isn't really my thing. I'm more of a Sci-Fi person. There's really only so many ways you can repaint a picture of orcs, dragons, dwarves, elves, ogres and whatnot.
It's often hard to find LOTR-inspired fantasy that doesn't reflect a measure of racism.

Tolkien based almost everything of Celtic and other mythes written hundreds of years before him.

Any racism wasnt his. And is most likely imagined.

Let me put it this way: he was probably as racist as most people in his time, maybe less, but he would therefor seem racist in our modern society.

That said, I fully acknowledge that the pressense or extent of racism in LotR is highly debatable. And if we shunned works of literature for not meeting modern standards of political correctness, we'd have rather little history or literature left. Which is one more reason why modern political correctness can shut the hell up.;)

*ahem*
In 1968, he objected to a description of Middle-earth as "Nordic", a term he said he disliked due to its association with racialist theories.[87] Tolkien had nothing but contempt for Adolf Hitler, whom he accused of "perverting ... and making for ever accursed, that noble northern spirit" which was so dear to him.
He denounced anti-German fanaticism in the propagandized British war effort during World War II. In 1944, he wrote in a letter to his son Christopher:

It is distressing to see the press grovelling in the gutter as low as Goebbels in his prime, shrieking that any German commander who holds out in a desperate situation (when, too, the military needs of his side clearly benefit) is a drunkard, and a besotted fanatic ... There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you please, they are rattlesnakes, and don't know the difference between good and evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles and Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words, no right, whatever they have done.
Tolkien is known to have condemned Nazi "race-doctrine" and anti-Semitism as "wholly pernicious and unscientific".[85] He also said of racial segregation in South Africa,
...

Well, I enjoyed The Hobbit, but I never got around to reading the main LoTR trilogy. Medieval fantasy isn't really my thing. I'm more of a Sci-Fi person. There's really only so many ways you can repaint a picture of orcs, dragons, dwarves, elves, ogres and whatnot.

Well, that's the problem with writing a classic: you get immitated by all the hacks.

When I started Assimov's Foundation Trilogy, it felt like it was immitating Star Wars. Of course, Assimov wrote Foundation before Star Wars, so actually he was the one being immitated. Its probably much the same here. Tolkien's work may feel derrivitive, but in fact its the other way around.

Tolkien based almost everything of Celtic and other mythes written hundreds of years before him.

Any racism wasnt his. And is most likely imagined.
His, not necessarily, no. Wholly imagined, no. You can find racism in a lot of older myths, and it is very visible in 19th and early 20th century portrayals of that myth. I have in mind in particular an old silent German rendition of the Nibelung story.

I would have made a much more interesting Dark Lord:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/eyeofsauron-pie.jpg

You want some, don't you? Come join my dark army! Experience the Pie of Sauron!

It's often hard to find LOTR-inspired fantasy that doesn't reflect a measure of racism.

Racism? I wasn't aware of nor was I referring to any racism in LoTR. I was just referring to the lack of originality in that fantasy authors just keep remixing the same old formulas of wizards, magic, elves, etc. Which is pretty much why I love Sci-Fi. In Sci-Fi, the only way to imitate the masters is to create stories that are just as new, innovative, startling, fresh, intriguing.

Tolkien based almost everything of Celtic and other mythes written hundreds of years before him.

Any racism wasnt his. And is most likely imagined.
I don't think there's racism in LotR. Tribalism, but no racism. I think the racism is all modern and is all in the movies. I mean...seriously. Really dark orcs that are born out of the mud? Really? Ooh, and look how big they are. Also, classism. Note how all the evil guys have working class accents. But that's the movies. Not Tolkein.

However, in reference to Tolkein's mythological swipes, I should point out that he stole from the Germanic lore at least as much if not more than the Celtic lore.

And I have no idea where he came up with that orc nonsense. In the olden days "orc" was another word for a dragon.

A particular author I like to talk in regard to early 20th century portrayals of racism is Edgar Rice Burroughs, who clearly exhibits a full 1930s-appropriate measure of racism in his work - and at the same time, also clearly exhibits what are, for the 1930s, clearly anti-racist intentions, and at least one line I recall addressing racism that would not be out of place in the mouth of an activist speaking in the 60s.

In Sci-Fi, the only way to imitate the masters is to create stories that are just as new, innovative, startling, fresh, intriguing.

You... Don't really read a whole lot of Sci-Fi, do you?

However, in reference to Tolkein's mythological swipes, I should point out that he stole from the Germanic lore at least as much if not more than the Celtic lore.

But he still added and modified enough so that it was distinctly Tolkien.

And I have no idea where he came up with that orc nonsense. In the olden days "orc" was another word for a dragon.
Creativity?

However, in reference to Tolkein's mythological swipes, I should point out that he stole from the Germanic lore at least as much if not more than the Celtic lore.


Germanic. That was it. Thanks dear, couldnt remember.:D

You... Don't really read a whole lot of Sci-Fi, do you?

... Yes, I do. I own several anthologies, mostly short stories, but I also own novels by Orson Scott Card, Robert Heinlein, Jeff Grub and Eric Nylund, to name a few in my collection.

But he still added and modified enough so that it was distinctly Tolkien.
Did he?

Creativity?
*thinks about it* Nah.

:p

Also, classism. Note how all the evil guys have working class accents. But that's the movies.

Except Saruman. Christopher Lee just radiates aristocratic badassity.

But that might be because he's Christopher Fucking Lee.
:hail:

When your mother gives you a name in Quenya (Tolkien's High Elvish), you pretty much have two options. You can feel terribly embarrassed about how geeky your family is and disavow all knowledge of Tolkien's works, or you can embrace the geekiness, love your name, and become something of an obsessive fan. I went with the second option. :p

... Yes, I do. I own several anthologies, mostly short stories, but I also own novels by Orson Scott Card, Robert Heinlein, Jeff Grub and Eric Nylund, to name a few in my collection.

Heinlein was incredible creative, and set the groundwork for many, many sci-fi stories today. Unfortunately, I can't go ten seconds without seeing a cheap ripoff of any of most of his novels. Not a fan of Orson Scott Card, I feel he's too derivative of Heinlein. Haven't read anything by Grubb, thought he was more fantasy? And I simply don't like Nylund.

When your mother gives you a name in Quenya (Tolkien's High Elvish), you pretty much have two options. You can feel terribly embarrassed about how geeky your family is and disavow all knowledge of Tolkien's works, or you can embrace the geekiness, love your name, and become something of an obsessive fan. I went with the second option. :p

Ok. Time to spill. Whats your first name?:p

Mines Scott. Now we'll be on even footing.

Except Saruman. Christopher Lee just radiates aristocratic badassity.

But that might be because he's Christopher Fucking Lee.
:hail:
"We have Work to do."
When your mother gives you a name in Quenya (Tolkien's High Elvish), you pretty much have two options. You can feel terribly embarrassed about how geeky your family is and disavow all knowledge of Tolkien's works, or you can embrace the geekiness, love your name, and become something of an obsessive fan. I went with the second option. :p
I wish my mother was that nerdy.:(

Except Saruman. Christopher Lee just radiates aristocratic badassity.

But that might be because he's Christopher Fucking Lee.
:hail:
That's Mr. Christopher Fucking Lee, Bitch! to you. And you'll notice he plays a middle management guy. Those types are always over educated.

*gets all dreamy listing to Christopher Lee's voice*

*snaps out of it* But seriously, listening to those fake workmen's accents coming out of those orc and goblins just pissed me off. But then those movies pissed me off in general. I don't think they missed a single cheap Hollywood cliche in those things. As much as I dislike Tolkein, he deserved better than those gawd-awful movies.

*ahem*

The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles and Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words, no right, whatever they have done.

...

Awesome.

Ok. Time to spill. Whats your first name?:p

Mines Scott. Now we'll be on even footing.

Heh, except we won't really, because since my name is in a friggin' made-up language, there aren't exactly many people who share it, which means one can find an awful lot about me on Google knowing just my first name. Therefore, I kinda keep my real name to myself; even the NSGers who've met me in person mostly only know nicknames. :p

Heh, except we won't really, because since my name is in a friggin' made-up language, there aren't exactly many people who share it, which means one can find an awful lot about me on Google knowing just my first name. Therefore, I kinda keep my real name to myself; even the NSGers who've met me in person mostly only know nicknames. :p

Ah yes. This is fair.

. Really dark orcs that are born out of the mud? Really? Ooh, and look how big they are.

What's your point? Uruk-haii are supposed to be dark-skinned and really tall.

Remember the Tolkien universe is not like the real world, in the sense that there exist races of people who are inherently good, evil, or whatever. ORcs are inherently evil.

The only race in Tolkien that can go either way, that's embedded with free choice, is humans. Some of them end up siding with Sauron, others fight against him. Ents, Eagles, Orcs and Trolls are all either inherently good or inherently evil. That's okay though, because Tolkien doesn't argue that real humans subdivide into races like that.

His universe is just one where humans (and hobbits ,btw, are technically 'human' in-universe) interact with a variety of exterior forces, and how they react to these is what Tolkien is really interested in.

I like this because it is both a very complex, but also very subtle twist, and because it touches on an aspect of history that I find fascinating, and which I suspect Tolkien would have been well aware of: the ways in which a single action or event has ramifications throughout history that can still be traced centuries later
Wow! That's one really deep and really SUBTLE idea. I mean, who could've guessed?


Of course, I'm sure other people feel differently. Even I object to some aspects of Tolkien's work (the racism for example is somewhat arguable, but probably pressent to some degree).
It's not arguable, it's present all right, and is the hallmark of JRRT.

If you read later fantasy literature, one of the most massive themes in there is anti-tolkienism - from just showing that orcs are as much people as elves are, to outright exposing the elves as racist and their wars against orcs, pushing them down into caves, as a protection of white elven/human supremacy.

Basically, pretty much all post-Tolkien fantasy has a much greater equality between races and diversity within them.

Wow! That's one really deep and really SUBTLE idea. I mean, who could've guessed?

Oh good, now I get to have a real debate.

Look, I don't think that I even claimed the idea was deep or subtle. I was referring more to the specific example I gave.

It's not arguable, it's present all right, and is the hallmark of JRRT.

Bullshit. And you gave no evidence to support that assertion. When you bother to do so, I will bother to refute it.

If you read later fantasy literature, one of the most massive themes in there is anti-tolkienism - from just showing that orcs are as much people as elves are, to outright exposing the elves as racist and their wars against orcs, pushing them down into caves, as a protection of white elven/human supremacy.

You appear to be making the mistake of assuming orcs were meant to represent non-white people. I would refute this on three counts: first, Tolkien explicitly denied an allegorical intent in The Lord of the Rings. Second, at least in Lord of the Rings, I don't believe that the orcs are ever described in great detail, and what descriptions are given wouldn't equate to any human race in the mind of anyone who wasn't a racist. Now maybe Tolkien was, and that was the parallel he was trying to make, but the burden of proof is on you. Finally, its fantasy, and you can have races of evil monsters engineered by the villain that bear no resembelance to any real race. In the context of the story, the elves are defending themselves from enemy soldiers created for the sole purpose of killing and enslaving them and there allies (note also that Tolkien was known to be conflicted or uncertain about the idea of an evil race, even one created to be so).

And Sauron's human allies are treated in a much more sympathetic fasion. In The Two Towers, Sam wonders if a dead Harradrim soldier was really evil or just mislead. After the war, Aragorn even makes peace with the Haradrim and Easterling factions. Nor are the "good" races free of any guilt when it comes to being manipulated by Sauron. One of the main themes of the story is that the Ring can corrupt anyone eventually. In the second age, even the elves got tricked by Sauron. And if you go back to the first age, there are even corrupt or wicked elves. Through Gandalf, for example, Tolkien makes a point of saying that no one, even Sauron, was evil in the beginning.

Of course, this doesn't prove Tolkien wasn't racist, but you made the claim, and the burden of proof is on you.

Basically, pretty much all post-Tolkien fantasy has a much greater equality between races and diversity within them.

Really? Care to name some examples? As much as I love Tolkien, I'd also love to read more fantasy that doesn't shamelessly imitate him.

Oh good, now I get to have a real debate.

Look, I don't think that I even claimed the idea was deep or subtle. I was referring more to the specific example I gave.



Bullshit. And you gave no evidence to support that assertion. When you bother to do so, I will bother to refute it.



You appear to be making the mistake of assuming orcs were meant to represent non-white people. I would refute this on three counts: first, Tolkien explicitly denied an allegorical intent in The Lord of the Rings. Second, at least in Lord of the Rings, I don't believe that the orcs are ever described in great detail, and what descriptions are given wouldn't equate to any human race in the mind of anyone who wasn't a racist. Now maybe Tolkien was, and that was the parallel he was trying to make, but the burden of proof is on you. Finally, its fantasy, and you can have races of evil monsters engineered by the villain that bear no resembelance to any real race. In the context of the story, the elves are defending themselves from enemy soldiers created for the sole purpose of killing and enslaving them and there allies (note also that Tolkien was known to be conflicted or uncertain about the idea of an evil race, even one created to be so).

And Sauron's human allies are treated in a much more sympathetic fasion. In The Two Towers, Sam wonders if a dead Harradrim soldier was really evil or just mislead. After the war, Aragorn even makes peace with the Haradrim and Easterling factions. Nor are the "good" races free of any guilt when it comes to being manipulated by Sauron. One of the main themes of the story is that the Ring can corrupt anyone eventually. In the second age, even the elves got tricked by Sauron. And if you go back to the first age, there are even corrupt or wicked elves. Through Gandalf, for example, Tolkien makes a point of saying that no one, even Sauron, was evil in the beginning.

Of course, this doesn't prove Tolkien wasn't racist, but you made the claim, and the burden of proof is on you.



Really? Care to name some examples? As much as I love Tolkien, I'd also love to read more fantasy that doesn't shamelessly imitate him.

Worth pointing out, there are Black Orcs - which suggests that generic Orcs aren't, by their very orcy nature, black.

Regarding your last question, Robert Jordan bears little direct resemblance to Tolkien. That's not to say you can't trace a path to him, from Tolkien, but Jordan's influences are very clearly Mallory, Biblical literature, and ancient Chinese tales.

Ah yes, I recall the passage. I believe its in Moria, when Gandalf refers to "black uruks from Mordor."

I don't think there's racism in LotR. Tribalism, but no racism. I think the racism is all modern and is all in the movies. I mean...seriously. Really dark orcs that are born out of the mud? Really? Ooh, and look how big they are. Also, classism. Note how all the evil guys have working class accents. But that's the movies. Not Tolkein.

What about Gimli and Sam? Both have broad regional accents yet both are heroic. I'd also suggest that the fact that four ordinary hobbits of the shire effectively saving the world is decidedly anti-classist.

Regarding your last question, Robert Jordan bears little direct resemblance to Tolkien. That's not to say you can't trace a path to him, from Tolkien, but Jordan's influences are very clearly Mallory, Biblical literature, and ancient Chinese tales.

Regarding Jordan, I've read about as much of his work as I can stomach. It ranges from mildly entertaining time filler, to utter drivel. And he definitely does the "evil race" thing, too.;) (maybe more than Tolkien, even).

I never read the books...

I liked the battles of the Movies, but it was hindered by the fact that they majority of the time theyre just Walking around for no real reason...And for the majority of the time Im just bored...

Same reason Im not a big Star Trek fan, the majority of the time theyre just standing around talking and nothing's really going on...

Look, I don't think that I even claimed the idea was deep or subtle. I was referring more to the specific example I gave.
Yes. It is a very unique achievement. No one else has ever built the plot in such a way that if an earlier less important event hadn't happened, the latter more important one couldn't either.


And you gave no evidence to support that assertion. When you bother to do so, I will bother to refute it.
Why do people assume, whenever someone posts something on some dead forum, that they're necessarily out to reconvince you?


You appear to be making the mistake of assuming orcs were meant to represent non-white people.
I'm not. Why should everyone necessarily represent something from the real life?

It's racist per se - racism between the goodies and the orcs, which is shown as not only normal, but unimaginable to be any other way. They are called "races" for a reason.


Nor are the "good" races free of any guilt when it comes to being manipulated by Sauron. One of the main themes of the story is that the Ring can corrupt anyone eventually. In the second age, even the elves got tricked by Sauron.
Not meaning to argue (since there are other examples), but these specific examples are rather absolution of guilt. In these, it's not [good race guy] who was corrupt by his nature, it's the Evil Ring or the Evil Sauron that corrupted him.


Really? Care to name some examples? As much as I love Tolkien, I'd also love to read more fantasy that doesn't shamelessly imitate him.
I have, and I don't even like fantasy.


No, don't care. I don't remember the authors or the names of fantasy books I read, it's not the kind of genre you're supposed to remember. Well, there was this... ah, I can't. It's pretty much 4 out of 5 I've read that don't shamelessly imitate Tolkien. Starting with Conan, which is crap, but not a Tolkien imitation at all, for it's about a strong dude kicking ass for fun&profit. Fire and Ice, not very Tolkien-like too. Then there's this stuff, big theme, with "who is right and who is wrong?", the Gray vs. Gray that's in every next book today. Tolkien wasn't even gray vs black, he is the classic White vs. Black.

Oh, and as for anti-racism, that Salvatore junk about a pink-cute-goody dark elf (well, the first book was not junk, he just exhausted his ideas by the second one), even that mainstream fantasy already cracks the concrete race-alignment connection.
Your fantasy reading list must REALLY be specially selected. For most fantasy writers I've seen have advanced well beyond Tolkien's themes. Or not advanced, but still went for other themes.

Regarding Jordan, I've read about as much of his work as I can stomach. It ranges from mildly entertaining time filler, to utter drivel. And he definitely does the "evil race" thing, too.;) (maybe more than Tolkien, even).
That's really the big one that Tolkien passed along. Look at any of the many spinoffs, and almost all of them have some races that are intrinsically evil. It's especially bad in games, where players reinforce this behavior all the time.

"It's a goblin! Quick! Kill it!"

...

I've taken to recommending my D&D players read Goblins! (http://www.goblinscomic.com/) to broaden their perspective a little bit, but it really works that way in a lot of prefabricated adventures and campaigns that draw heavily (as D&D does) from the Tolkien tradition. Many of the fantasy computer games out there do as well.

I never read the books...

I liked the battles of the Movies, but it was hindered by the fact that they majority of the time theyre just Walking around for no real reason...And for the majority of the time Im just bored...

Those scenes are an essential part of the story, which is about an epic quest across a good part of the known world. And those scenes gave us some beautiful panoramic cinematography.

Frankly, it would be poor pacing to have endless battles with nothing else. Though the movies had other pacing problems. Jackson used slow-motion to heavily for example, at least past the first film.

Those scenes are an essential part of the story, which is about an epic quest across a good part of the known world. And those scenes gave us some beautiful panoramic cinematography.

Frankly, it would be poor pacing to have endless battles with nothing else. Though the movies had other pacing problems. Jackson used slow-motion to heavily for example, at least past the first film.

True, but I at least want something, there's no humour, drama, suspense...nothing, theyre just......walking, lol...

Sure there's cinematography, but that doesnt excite me much, bout as much as a nicely drawn painting, or whatever...

Yes. It is a very unique achievement. No one else has ever built the plot in such a way that if an earlier less important event hadn't happened, the latter more important one couldn't either.

That's not the point. The point is that every later event depends heavily on an apparent misfortune. I don't even know if Tolkien intended that, and might even find it more interesting if he didn't. I just find it interesting.

Why do people assume, whenever someone posts something on some dead forum, that they're necessarily out to reconvince you?

First, this is not a dead forum. Why the bloody hell do people seem to think it is? If this is a dead forum, I doubt I've seen a live one.

Second, if you make a claim, and expect it to be taken seriously, then you have to be prepared to back it up. Futhermore, you must accept that failiure to back it up will likely be taken as evidence that you have nothing to back it up.

I'm not. Why should everyone necessarily represent something from the real life?

If I missrepresented or misunderstood anything you said, I apologise.

It's racist per se - racism between the goodies and the orcs, which is shown as not only normal, but unimaginable to be any other way. They are called "races" for a reason.

Is it racist to treat something as evil when all evidence is that it is evil? If you lived in Middle Earth, and had never, in ten thousand years, seen a good orc, what would you conclude?

For God's sake, its fantasy. In that setting, a race designed by its creator to be evil is completely possible, leaving aside that Tolkien himself expressed doubt over the idea.

Not meaning to argue (since there are other examples), but these specific examples are rather absolution of guilt. In these, it's not [good race guy] who was corrupt by his nature, it's the Evil Ring or the Evil Sauron that corrupted him.

Or maybe the point is that no one was originally evil (even the orcs), but that anyone can be corrupted? Does Tolkien have to spell it out for you?

Oh wait, he did, in almost those exact words no less.

I have, and I don't even like fantasy.


No, don't care. I don't remember the authors or the names of fantasy books I read, it's not the kind of genre you're supposed to remember. Well, there was this... ah, I can't. It's pretty much 4 out of 5 I've read that don't shamelessly imitate Tolkien. Starting with Conan, which is crap, but not a Tolkien imitation at all, for it's about a strong dude kicking ass for fun&profit. Fire and Ice, not very Tolkien-like too. Then there's this stuff, big theme, with "who is right and who is wrong?", the Gray vs. Gray that's in every next book today. Tolkien wasn't even gray vs black, he is the classic White vs. Black.

Well, I suppose its a trendy idea these days that their is no such thing as good and evil, and that everything is subjective and/or "Grey vs Grey."

Though to me, the most interesting character in LotR is Gollum, who is very much torn between good and evil. Denethor has a certain appeal in that area as well, given that he's not originally evil, but instead driven mad by bitterness and despair (and given his situation, its completely understandable).

Oh, and as for anti-racism, that Salvatore junk about a pink-cute-goody dark elf (well, the first book was not junk, he just exhausted his ideas by the second one), even that mainstream fantasy already cracks the concrete race-alignment connection.
Your fantasy reading list must REALLY be specially selected. For most fantasy writers I've seen have advanced well beyond Tolkien's themes. Or not advanced, but still went for other themes.

If its selective, its because most of it is not that good.

Perhaps, in some sub-genres. High fantasy at least borrows heavily from Tolkien, and even when there are strong differences, a lot of elements are often blatantly taken from him.

When your mother gives you a name in Quenya (Tolkien's High Elvish), you pretty much have two options. You can feel terribly embarrassed about how geeky your family is and disavow all knowledge of Tolkien's works, or you can embrace the geekiness, love your name, and become something of an obsessive fan. I went with the second option. :p

A wise decision. :tongue:

Basically, I want to know people's opinions on The Lord of the Rings, either the book or the films.

I love the books...the movies irritated me greatly.

And second, their is the extraordinary detail Tolkien put into creating his world. It should not be forgotten that this was something he spent several decades of his life working on and off on, and that he was drawing on an expert knowledge of ancient language and western mythology, which gives the story a deeper background than probably any of its imitators.

This is very true. LOTR is really only one part of a much larger story. If one wants the full background for understanding LOTR, it is pretty much a necessity to read The Silmarillion, as well as the Appendices in Return of the King. A lot of information is contained there that greatly enhances the readers understanding of the setting and events of LOTR.

However, there are other aspects of the story which I find intriguing, one of which I will comment on below.

This thread came about partly as the result of my musings on a remarkable yet subtle twist in the plot. In the interest of honesty, I'm certainly not the only person who's noticed this, and for all I know I originally got the idea from some other source I no longer remember. But I bring it up because it really adds a remarkable level of depth to the story, and is one more reason why I love the story so much.

Consider the events at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring: the Fellowship is attacked, Merry and Pippin are captured by orcs, Boromir is killed, and the survivors are split up. Seemingly, a disaster that puts the entire quest in peril. However, if you look at what follows, every victory that happens after might never have happened had that disaster not occured. It is only because Merry and Pippin are captured that Aragorn comes to Rohan, and thus likely that Rohan only beat Sauruman in the manner that it did as a result of this disaster. If it had not occured, there might have been no Army of the Dead to defeat the corsairs, no cavalry arriving on the Pellenor Fields. Moreover, Frodo and Sam might never have captured Gollum, and might never have discovered a secret way into Morder. Gollum might never have been pressent to take the ring (destroying it in the process), when Frodo was unable to complete his quest. In short, victory might have been impossible had this seeming catastrophy not occured.

Boromir's death is the most obvious example, but there are many others. Reading the Appendicies, one learns that Gandalf arrived at Bree after having escaped Isengard mere hours after Aragorn and the hobbits had set out for Rivendell...and Gandalf arrived at Lorien after defeating the Balrog the day after the Fellowship left via the River Anduin.

Had Gandalf arrived at either location just a little earlier, the entire course of events would have been changed, as you described. The book is filled with events like this...tiny occurences that have wide-reaching consequences. Hobbits themselves, and particularly Frodo and Sam, are literal personifications of this idea



It's not arguable, it's present all right, and is the hallmark of JRRT.

If you read later fantasy literature, one of the most massive themes in there is anti-tolkienism - from just showing that orcs are as much people as elves are, to outright exposing the elves as racist and their wars against orcs, pushing them down into caves, as a protection of white elven/human supremacy.

...you have read Tolkien, right?

Orcs in Tolkien's universe are literally under the sway of "gods" with malicious intent towards humans and elves. They are never potrayed as having existed in any other state. Thus, any "racist" implications are absurd...and belong not to the "race" of Orcs, but rather to the evil wills (Morgoth and Sauron) who control them.

Orcs are not "people" because they have never made their own choices...they have always been driven by powers greater than themselves to achieve goals not their own.

Elves and humans do not fight wars with orcs and "push them down" because they are racist...they do so because those orcs are controlled by forces of evil which are intent upon destroying or subjugating both elves and humans.

Please, explain the "racism"...cause I simply don't see it.

True, but I at least want something, there's no humour, drama, suspense...nothing, theyre just......walking, lol...

Sure there's cinematography, but that doesnt excite me much, bout as much as a nicely drawn painting, or whatever...

Actually, I 'll take that over some of the battle scenes. If one goes by the films, most of Middle Earth's commanders are bloody idiots.

For example, at Helm's Deep, Eomer's men charge on horseback down a steep sloap into a mass of pikes. And when the orcs attack Osgilliath in RotK, Faramir sees them coming across in boats, and instead of firing from cover at the exposed enemy army that heavily outnumbers his force, he waits for them to land and then charges into melee combat. Apparently, Jackson thought this would be more dramatic.

Note that neither of these examples happen in the book. Perhaps Tolkien, having fought in World War 1, knew something about suicidal charges from first hand experience, and decided not to have his heros use them at every opportunity.

(Granted, he did have the charges by Theoden at Helm's Deep and the Pellenor, but those were more justifiable under the circumstances.)

A wise decision. :tongue:



I love the books...the movies irritated me greatly.



This is very true. LOTR is really only one part of a much larger story. If one wants the full background for understanding LOTR, it is pretty much a necessity to read The Silmarillion, as well as the Appendices in Return of the King. A lot of information is contained there that greatly enhances the readers understanding of the setting and events of LOTR.



Boromir's death is the most obvious example, but there are many others. Reading the Appendicies, one learns that Gandalf arrived at Bree after having escaped Isengard mere hours after Aragorn and the hobbits had set out for Rivendell...and Gandalf arrived at Lorien after defeating the Balrog the day after the Fellowship left via the River Anduin.

Had Gandalf arrived at either location just a little earlier, the entire course of events would have been changed, as you described. The book is filled with events like this...tiny occurences that have wide-reaching consequences. Hobbits themselves, and particularly Frodo and Sam, are literal personifications of this idea





...you have read Tolkien, right?

Orcs in Tolkien's universe are literally under the sway of "gods" with malicious intent towards humans and elves. They are never potrayed as having existed in any other state. Thus, any "racist" implications are absurd...and belong not to the "race" of Orcs, but rather to the evil wills (Morgoth and Sauron) who control them.

Orcs are not "people" because they have never made their own choices...they have always been driven by powers greater than themselves to achieve goals not their own.

Elves and humans do not fight wars with orcs and "push them down" because they are racist...they do so because those orcs are controlled by forces of evil which are intent upon destroying or subjugating both elves and humans.

Please, explain the "racism"...cause I simply don't see it.

It also probably doesn't help that he couldn't really ever settle on the origin story of the orcs. One version had them as corrupted elves, explaining why there are no evil elves or good orcs--an elf that became evil would become an orc and presumably vice versa.

Actually, I think just about all the racism claims of LotR spring from orcs, right?

It also probably doesn't help that he couldn't really ever settle on the origin story of the orcs. One version had them as corrupted elves, explaining why there are no evil elves or good orcs--an elf that became evil would become an orc and presumably vice versa

I don't get the whole "there are no evil elves" argument...there are plenty of deplorable acts committed by elves throughout the Silmarillion, and unlike the Orcs, many of those acts were willfully committed.

Actually, I think just about all the racism claims of LotR spring from orcs, right?

AFAIK...but I've never seen someone arguing the point actually use passages from the works themselves to support their argument.

Until that day, I call bullshit, and will continue to do so.

It also probably doesn't help that he couldn't really ever settle on the origin story of the orcs. One version had them as corrupted elves, explaining why there are no evil elves or good orcs--an elf that became evil would become an orc and presumably vice versa.

Actually, I think just about all the racism claims of LotR spring from orcs, right?

There's also the Southrons, who are dark skinned men in the service of Sauron and another source of racism claims. Although, I disagree with that interpretation as well given that they were effectively slaves rather than conciously chossing evil.

There's also the Southrons, who are dark skinned men in the service of Sauron and another source of racism claims. Although, I disagree with that interpretation as well given that they were effectively slaves rather than conciously chossing evil.

Haradrim...not "southrons", who were potrayed as fierce and capable warriors, had almost no cultural background presented in the books, and who eventually made peace with Gondor.

This is racism? WTF?

Bah. I have yet to see any actual racism in LOTR. Very good read, lots of detail, and very well thought out. Tolkien was a genius, even if the Silmarion was pretty dry.

I wouldn't call the Silmarillion "dry". It's just in a different style - more reminescent of Snorri's Edda with touches of Torquato Tasso and of greek epic and tragedy.

Btw, about LotR: the book pwns, the movies suck - the only good thing in the movies are the scenographies (except Moria: why would EVER a dwarf build like that!). Everything else sucks like crazy - script (apostasy pure and simple!), acting (cliched), camera (very, very trivial and boring), lighting (not a single idea there), musical score (totally lousy, annoying and boring, expecially when you have Wagner and a lot of metal to draw inspiration from!), and even CGI was nothing special.

It also probably doesn't help that he couldn't really ever settle on the origin story of the orcs. One version had them as corrupted elves, explaining why there are no evil elves or good orcs--an elf that became evil would become an orc and presumably vice versa.


1.That's the only explanation Tolkien gives about Orcs: Avari elves who have been captured and corrupted by Morgoth.

2.There are evil elves, a lot of them. Mostly in the Silmarillion. Just the two that spring up to my mind: Maeglin son of Eol, and Caranthir son of Feanor. But there are many others, expecially among the Noldor.

Btw, about LotR: the book pwns, the movies suck - the only good thing in the movies are the scenographies (except Moria: why would EVER a dwarf build like that!). Everything else sucks like crazy - script (apostasy pure and simple!),

By itself, ok, if cliche at times. Compared to the book, less so.

acting (cliched),

For some of the cast, perhaps. But don't criticize Gollum.

camera (very, very trivial and boring), lighting (not a single idea there),

The use of lighting for atmospheric effect was quite well done. I'm a film student, and I did a presentation on it for one of my classes.

musical score (totally lousy, annoying and boring, expecially when you have Wagner and a lot of metal to draw inspiration from!),

I disagree overall, though it varies somewhat. But metal, fucking metal, in LotR?

and even CGI was nothing special.

Flat out false.

But metal, fucking metal, in LotR?

http://www.amazon.com/Nightfall-Middle-Earth-Blind-Guardian/dp/B00000HYXB/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1239093872&sr=8-1

I don't see why not.

Middle Earth just doesn't feel like a suitable setting for most modern music. I don't know why, exactly, other than it being an ancient/medieval setting.

Middle Earth just doesn't feel like a suitable setting for most modern music. I don't know why, exactly, other than it being an ancient/medieval setting.

Someone needs to smoke more pot and listen to more Led Zeppelin...and it isn't me. :tongue:

For some of the cast, perhaps. But don't criticize Gollum.
Ok. That was the only thing rendered quite well.


The use of lighting for atmospheric effect was quite well done. I'm a film student, and I did a presentation on it for one of my classes.

Nothing special though. Never a definite shadow, never a serious use of sharp contrast, just one solarization in 6 hours - Helm's Deep, maybe the best rendered scene overall, though the scene of the orc running in slow-motion with the olympic torch is ridiculous!
If you want to see a masterwork of lighing, watch Barry Lindon instead. Or Sergio Leone and De Sica.
As for the camera, the flybys were a novelty back in 1950 (see the initial sequence of Orson Welles' Touch of Evil). Camera pans all the time without a purpose.
Wanna see masterwork of camera, take Sam Peckimpah or Sergio Leone again. Or Hitchcock.


I disagree overall, though it varies somewhat. But metal, fucking metal, in LotR?
Yeah, fucking metal in LotR! Ever listened to the Blind Guardians' Nightfall in Middle Earth? That would rule AND be totally non-clichè.

Flat out false.
Excuse me? I've seen better CGI in videogames. Don't tell me the Balrog was anything special. And the trolls looked like greyish sack of potatoes. Nothing scary.

Ok. That was the only thing rendered quite well.

To be clear, I was talking about the acting, not the special effects.

Nothing special though. Never a definite shadow, never a serious use of sharp contrast, just one solarization in 6 hours - Helm's Deep, maybe the best rendered scene overall, though the scene of the orc running in slow-motion with the olympic torch is ridiculous!

What I find most absurd about that sequence was that Legolas kills with one shot probably every other time he shoots in all three films, but can't kill that orc with two hits because... he suddenly sucks?;)

As for lighting, I feel that the softer lighting fit the atmosphere they needed to create for most of the film, however I do think that some sharper contrasts between light and dark would have fit the Siege of Gondor as described in the book better. Tolkien made heavy use of contrast between literal light and dark as symbolic of good and hope vs evil and despair, especially in that part of RotK. I felt that was lost somewhat.

Also, what is a "solarization," and where did it appear in LotR?

As for the camera, the flybys were a novelty back in 1950 (see the initial sequence of Orson Welles' Touch of Evil). Camera pans all the time without a purpose.

One, not every technique has to be original to be good. Cutting back and forth between different scenes is an old technique. Doesn't mean any film that uses it has poor cinematography.

Two, the pans in LotR were used with purpose, to show large scenes and create a sense of scale, or of traveling over the vast distances of Middle Earth.

Yeah, fucking metal in LotR! Ever listened to the Blind Guardians' Nightfall in Middle Earth? That would rule AND be totally non-clichè.

Maybe I'll listen to it some time. Or recommend it to my brother. He likes metal.

Excuse me? I've seen better CGI in videogames. Don't tell me the Balrog was anything special. And the trolls looked like greyish sack of potatoes. Nothing scary.

What video game was that? Its certainly not one I've ever seen. Gollum was brilliant. The use of software to simulate large armies in action was considered to be quite innovative, I believe. I will however criticize the giant elephants in some shots. I think they got a little over-ambitious with the CGI in the third film.

In fact, however, I don't think I've seen one film with superior use of CGI since, excepting Pirates of the Carribean 3.

Also, what is a "solarization," and where did it appear in LotR?

Uh, maybe I didn't render the italian word I thought of with the proper english word.
I mean, when you deliberately increase the exposition time too much and have the images blurred by excessive light intensity: I think it's used when the Eomer's riders charge down that (excessively) steep slope at Helm's Deep.

One, not every technique has to be original to be good. Cutting back and forth between different scenes is an old technique. Doesn't mean any film that uses it has poor cinematography.
As Wagner said to his children: "Do new things".


Two, the pans in LotR were used with purpose, to show large scenes and create a sense of scale, or of traveling over the vast distances of Middle Earth.

Why panning? Wouldn't it be better, and less standard, an extremely wide angle (up to a fisheye)? Or even just a hyperfocal DOF and silence...


What video game was that? Its certainly not one I've ever seen. Gollum was brilliant. The use of software to simulate large armies in action was considered to be quite innovative, I believe. I will however criticize the giant elephants in some shots. I think they got a little over-ambitious with the CGI in the third film.
Apart from Gollum of course...

excepting Pirates of the Carribean 3.
That's one. As for other movies, take even Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. Or the Star Wars prequel trilogy (horrible movies but great CGI sometimes).
As for VG, Morrowind, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, even Descent Freespace.

Uh, maybe I didn't render the italian word I thought of with the proper english word.
I mean, when you deliberately increase the exposition time too much and have the images blurred by excessive light intensity: I think it's used when the Eomer's riders charge down that (excessively) steep slope at Helm's Deep.

Ok.

As Wagner said to his children: "Do new things".

So you're saying there's something wrong with using a technique because its been used before? That's absurd.

Why panning? Wouldn't it be better, and less standard, an extremely wide angle (up to a fisheye)? Or even just a hyperfocal DOF and silence...

I fear you're equating "less standard" with "better."

Also, LotR does use long distance shots, and probably wide angle shots as well, in showing large armies and so forth. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any panning shots. The term I was looking for might be tracking shots, when the camera is moving over a scene, as in the journey down the river Anduin in the first film, which conveyed a sense of a tense race across a great distance in a way that a wide angle shot would have utterly failed to do. Having the camera move can be a very effective way to show motion or scale. Whereas a wide angle shot is just a still shot. It feels so static and theatrical.

Apart from Gollum of course...

An excellent combination of acting and CGI. I still suspect that Andy Serkis was cheated out of a Supporting Actor Oscar.

That's one. As for other movies, take even Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning.

Never seen it.

Or the Star Wars prequel trilogy (horrible movies but great CGI sometimes).

Attack of the Clones was good, though I don't think I'd call it better than LotR. Revenge of the Sith, however, suffered from overuse of CGI.

As for VG, Morrowind, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, even Descent Freespace.

The problem with video game effects, first and foremost, is that human beings look so fake in computer animations. As do landscapes, often. Show me that game that can beat that, and I'll be impressed.

Things that are smooth, artificial in appearance, or lacking texture or detail seem to be easiest to pull off convincingly in CGI. Part of the reason Pirates of the Carribean 3 stood out was that it was able to pull of Davy Jone's face and the water spray effects convincingly (The first was certainly CGI, the second probably, depending on the scene).

That's not the point. The point is that every later event depends heavily on an apparent misfortune. I don't even know if Tolkien intended that, and might even find it more interesting if he didn't. I just find it interesting.
IDK. I can't say it strikes me as unique or original. It's extremely common in books to have good events lead to bad consequences and vice versa. It's the classic, the most base building block of a plot twist.


First, this is not a dead forum. Why the bloody hell do people seem to think it is?
Their name shall not be speaken.


Second, if you make a claim, and expect it to be taken seriously, then you have to be prepared to back it up.
I'm sorry, I didn't know people here take fantasy seriously. At least, seriously enough to expect discussions about it to be 'serious', which usually means full of tldr links and nitpicking. Not every discussion is a fight to the death with the aim of convincing everyone to take the same position.


Is it racist to treat something as evil when all evidence is that it is evil? If you lived in Middle Earth, and had never, in ten thousand years, seen a good orc, what would you conclude?
Wrong question. The right question is, why is it evil?
Actually, if there were some good orcs seen here and there, it wouldn't be the book that is racist; it would be the elves/humans in it who are racist. And by mentioning that there are some good orcs, the writer would demonstrate these racists being objectively wrong.

But, rather, the author made the racists in his book objectively right. He indeed created a world where some races are always evil.


Well, I suppose its a trendy idea these days that their is no such thing as good and evil, and that everything is subjective and/or "Grey vs Grey."
It is. But it's more than just a trendy idea. Trends come and go.
Once we moved from white vs black to gray vs grey, however, we have moved. Any new B/W is going backwards, and will look primitive in comparison to a G/G setup, if used seriously. Because there are no such things as objective good and evil, and gray vs grey better reflects the way the real world is. Like with color television or HDTV, it's not just a trendy idea, these things come to stay.


Perhaps, in some sub-genres. High fantasy at least borrows heavily from Tolkien, and even when there are strong differences, a lot of elements are often blatantly taken from him.
And that's the catch. High fantasy. I avoid it and greatly prefer low fantasy. That's why we have such different impressions.
Of course, the high fantasy remains relatively true to following Tolkien. It's kinda what it does. But low fantasy, which is a whole other half of the genre, tends to bear very little resemblance, and often is outright anti-Tolkienist.

If LotR is your favourite book when you're kid or young teenager, your most probably a well-read, literary-minded young chap or chapess.

If, however, it's your favourite book when your an adult, you need to read some more fucking books.


Haradrim...not "southrons", who were potrayed as fierce and capable warriors, had almost no cultural background presented in the books, and who eventually made peace with Gondor.

This is racism? WTF?
I wouldn't say there's outright racism in LotR, more a sort of benighted ignorance that is a bit off-colour nowadays. Unsurprising for a 1950s Oxford don, really.

I mean, all the goodies are either very Nordic, Celtic or Germanic, while all the baddies generally come from the East or the South and are often a bit African or Arabic. It's not something set in stone, but it's rather obvious.

It's a common problem in Western fantasy.

I mean, all the goodies are either very Nordic, Celtic or Germanic, while all the baddies generally come from the East or the South and are often a bit African or Arabic. It's not something set in stone, but it's rather obvious.

These terms are never once used, only once implied, and I could cite passages countering the claim if I had my copies with me and more time, but alas, I am at work, so it'll have to wait for another day.

*ahem*



...

You know, I should have gotten around to this earlier, but as much as I would like to defend Tolkien, the fact that he was anti-Nazi does not mean he wasn't a racist. Almost everyone during and after the war was an anti-Nazi, weren't they?

That said, Tolkien never to my knowledge advocated any racist actions or policies in real life. At absolute worst, his work demonstrates simplistic and steriotypical thinking of the kind everyone is probably guilty of to some extent. And even that is probably debateable.

So you're saying there's something wrong with using a technique because its been used before? That's absurd.

Nope, it's just that if a technique has been used too much, it becomes outdated: hinting more at industrial production than at art proper.


Also, LotR does use long distance shots, and probably wide angle shots as well, in showing large armies and so forth. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any panning shots. The term I was looking for might be tracking shots, when the camera is moving over a scene...
Tracking shot then. That one.


Attack of the Clones was good, though I don't think I'd call it better than LotR. Revenge of the Sith, however, suffered from overuse of CGI.
Agreed.



The problem with video game effects, first and foremost, is that human beings look so fake in computer animations. As do landscapes, often. Show me that game that can beat that, and I'll be impressed.

Mmh. Tricky. I realise that I usually downgrade my expectations a bit when talking VG.

These terms are never once used, only once implied...
Oh, come now.

Just take a look at the 'goodie' civilisations. The elves, dwarves and those human cultures which fight against Sauron are all very Celtic or Teutonic; their language, writing, mythology... geography, even. The goodies live in an equivalent of Western Europe or Scandinavia.

The 'baddies', especially the allies of Mordor, come from the 'South', and are undoubtedly not Celtic/Teutonic in style. Many of them have darker skin colours, wear Arabic-style clothes, etc. EDIT: Or are called 'Easterlings', or are the nomadic 'Wainriders'.

As RR says above, Tolkien "demonstrates simplistic and steriotypical [sic] thinking". It's rather apparent.

I wouldn't say there's outright racism in LotR, more a sort of benighted ignorance that is a bit off-colour nowadays. Unsurprising for a 1950s Oxford don, really.

I mean, all the goodies are either very Nordic, Celtic or Germanic, while all the baddies generally come from the East or the South and are often a bit African or Arabic. It's not something set in stone, but it's rather obvious.

It's a common problem in Western fantasy.

True.
Still, Tolkien is a bit above the Western fantasy standard, like when he has Samwise think about a slain Southron soldier. Sam wonders whether the slain enemy was an evil man through and through, or just a poor fellow forced to fight in a far-off country by a dispotic tyrant (and it is hinted clearly that this is the case, methinks).

The 'baddies', especially the allies of Mordor, come from the 'South', and are undoubtedly not Celtic/Teutonic in style. Many of them have darker skin colours, wear Arabic-style clothes, etc.

Just a nitpick, but I don't think the Harradrim or Easterling faction's clothing was ever actually described in the books. The only "eastern" influences in their appearance that I can think of are their use of curved swords, a serpent as an emblem, and the use of war elephants. Plus of course skin color, though its usually not explicite.

As RR says above, Tolkien "demonstrates simplistic and steriotypical [sic] thinking". It's rather apparent.

Though their are times when he takes a more complex view, some of which have definitely been referenced in this thread.

I don't doubt that Tolkien's views were to some extent "a product of his times." But in the context of those times, I have seen no evidence to convince me that he or his writings were particularily racist. If anything, a strong case can be made to the contrary, as this thread has shown.

Just a nitpick, but I don't think the Harradrim or Easterling faction's clothing was ever actually described in the books. The only "eastern" influences in their appearance that I can think of are their use of curved swords, a serpent as an emblem, and the use of war elephants. Plus of course skin color, though its usually not explicite.
There's other things too... their nomadic lifestyle, they often travel in caravans, a lot of them are ruled by a very Sultan-esque leader, etc., etc.

But I agree that Tolkien isn't out to bash the darkies; he was a fuddy-duddy professor in the midst of an old boys network at one of the most conservative institutions in the Western world.

As I said above, benighted ignorance, really.

I found the Hobbit dull and a bit infantile so I haven't read any of his other books; the films were tedious.

I found the Hobbit dull and a bit infantile...
It is a children's book.

There's other things too... their nomadic lifestyle, they often travel in caravans,

Fair enough. And I'd toss out the corsairs as a probable parallel to historical Muslim Mediteranian pirates.

a lot of them are ruled by a very Sultan-esque leader, etc., etc.

To my knowledge, no detailed information on the Harradrim's leadership structure is given in LotR.

I found the Hobbit dull and a bit infantile so I haven't read any of his other books; the films were tedious.

As has already been said, The Hobbit is a children's book.

As for the films, they are in my opinion inferior to the books in at least some respects, but if you found them tedious, then you wouldn't like the first two thirds of The Fellowship of the Ring at all. It picks up after that though.;)

To my knowledge, no detailed information on the Harradrim's leadership structure is given in LotR.
Hmmm.

I seem to remember some allusion to a very Middle Eastern-y leader... perhaps not.

Anyhoo, I wouldn't want to labour the point.

I've read the Return of the Kings, it was OK. Love the films, and I've also read the Hobbit if that counts.

I've read the Return of the Kings, it was OK. Love the films, and I've also read the Hobbit if that counts.

You should really have read the others first. However, RotK does contain one of the highlights of the entire story with the Siege of Gondor and Denethor going crazy. One of the parts that, to my mind, the films really did fail to do justice to.

Orcs are not "people" because they have never made their own choices...they have always been driven by powers greater than themselves to achieve goals not their own.
And have the elves and humans tried to reeducate and rehabilitate some orcs or goblins? Breakaways, prisoners of war. Maybe it wouldn't work. But then they have their own magicks too, and Orcs seem to have some individuality, they're not remote controlled drones. What's important is, have they tried to live in peace with at least some orcs? It's up to the goodies to make the first step.

Elves and humans do not fight wars with orcs and "push them down" because they are racist...they do so because those orcs are controlled by forces of evil which are intent upon destroying or subjugating both elves and humans.
Just because you have to be racist to survive doesn't mean you aren't being racist.

And I wonder (I've only read LotR and Hobbit)... what happened to the Orcs after Sauron was defeated?



You know, I should have gotten around to this earlier, but as much as I would like to defend Tolkien, the fact that he was anti-Nazi does not mean he wasn't a racist. Almost everyone during and after the war was an anti-Nazi, weren't they?
True. The Nazi are far from the only group to have ever been racist. They have just taken it to the extreme.

And have the elves and humans tried to reeducate and rehabilitate some orcs or goblins? Breakaways, prisoners of war. Maybe it wouldn't work. But then they have their own magicks too, and Orcs seem to have some individuality, they're not remote controlled drones. What's important is, have they tried to live in peace with at least some orcs? It's up to the goodies to make the first step.

You know, that's a good point. Though given that orcs seem to be repelled by anything elvish, I doubt it would work.

Regarding your last question, Robert Jordan bears little direct resemblance to Tolkien.
Very true.
Tolkein is readable and could write bloody well. Jordan is neither.

Excuse me? I've seen better CGI in videogames. Don't tell me the Balrog was anything special. And the trolls looked like greyish sack of potatoes. Nothing scary.
Video games now or VGs from 10 years ago? The 1st movie came out in 2001, which meant the CGI would have been completed by 2000, some stuff even earlier.
Compare the GGI in LoTR to games that were around in 1999. A top of the range computer back then was a Pentium 233 with 64MB ram, 8MB vid card and 4Gig HDD. Considering the processing power they had to work with, the CGI was brilliant.

Next you'll be bitching that the 1933 King Kong movie special effects are crap...

It is a children's book.

Sorry I should have pointed out that I know that, I am not in the habit of reading children's books.

Compare the GGI in LoTR to games that were around in 1999. A top of the range computer back then was a Pentium 233 with 64MB ram, 8MB vid card and 4Gig HDD. Considering the processing power they had to work with, the CGI was brilliant.


HAHAHA! A 233 top of the range in 1999?

Pentium 3 Katmai, 500 Mhz (released May 1999).
UltraSCSI-160 LVD hdd.
Matrox G400, 32M vid RAM (released September 1999).

Seesh. And I'm not even going in-depth with professional equipment.


Btw, Descent Freespace and X-Wing vs TIE Fighter are about of that age.

I think its funny that you have a (spoiler alert) for a book that is 40 years old. By the way, Darth Vader is Lukes father!

What's your point? Uruk-haii are supposed to be dark-skinned and really tall.

Remember the Tolkien universe is not like the real world, in the sense that there exist races of people who are inherently good, evil, or whatever. ORcs are inherently evil.

The only race in Tolkien that can go either way, that's embedded with free choice, is humans. Some of them end up siding with Sauron, others fight against him. Ents, Eagles, Orcs and Trolls are all either inherently good or inherently evil. That's okay though, because Tolkien doesn't argue that real humans subdivide into races like that.

His universe is just one where humans (and hobbits ,btw, are technically 'human' in-universe) interact with a variety of exterior forces, and how they react to these is what Tolkien is really interested in.
Did I say that was a racist image from Tolkein?

Or did I say it was a racist image from the movies?

Did I blame Tolkein for it?

Or did I blame the moviemakers for it?

And while you're figuring that out, did I or did I not specifically state that I did not think there was any racism in Tolkein's work?

Find someone else to prop your pet issues on, thanks. I have plenty of reasons to detest Tolkein, but racism is not one of them.

Video games now or VGs from 10 years ago? The 1st movie came out in 2001, which meant the CGI would have been completed by 2000, some stuff even earlier.
Compare the GGI in LoTR to games that were around in 1999. A top of the range computer back then was a Pentium 233 with 64MB ram, 8MB vid card and 4Gig HDD. Considering the processing power they had to work with, the CGI was brilliant.
Wow, and I ran Deus Ex on that!

Oh wait.
Pentiums weren't made by 1999. And not even Pentium II. A 1999-2000 machine would be a gigahertz P3 with a gig of RAM and 64MB of VRAM.

And they use many processors for CG, not one, and scenes are rendered in days rather than seconds.

I think its funny that you have a (spoiler alert) for a book that is 40 years old. By the way, Darth Vader is Lukes father!

You bastard! And I was gonna see those Star Trek-movies for the first time tonight! :p

What about Gimli and Sam? Both have broad regional accents yet both are heroic. I'd also suggest that the fact that four ordinary hobbits of the shire effectively saving the world is decidedly anti-classist.
Okay, if you Hobbit-heads can't keep straight the difference between the movies and the books, then there's no point talking to you. And it also explains why so few Tolkein fans are aware of how bad those movies were.

Go back and look at my posts. Was I complaining about the books or the movies? (Hint: the correct answer is "the movies".)

Now go watch the movies again and compare the accents coming out of the good-guy actors versus the bad-guy actors.

Then, figure it out.

That's really the big one that Tolkien passed along. Look at any of the many spinoffs, and almost all of them have some races that are intrinsically evil. It's especially bad in games, where players reinforce this behavior all the time.

"It's a goblin! Quick! Kill it!"

...

I've taken to recommending my D&D players read Goblins! (http://www.goblinscomic.com/) to broaden their perspective a little bit, but it really works that way in a lot of prefabricated adventures and campaigns that draw heavily (as D&D does) from the Tolkien tradition. Many of the fantasy computer games out there do as well.
That's the quality that I was thinking of when I said Tolkein used "tribalism" in his stories -- this strict drawing of lines into "us" and "them" teams that will always relate to each other in the same way -- warfare -- without any thought ever applied to it and without individuals dealing with each other much as individuals.

Actually, I 'll take that over some of the battle scenes. If one goes by the films, most of Middle Earth's commanders are bloody idiots.

For example, at Helm's Deep, Eomer's men charge on horseback down a steep sloap into a mass of pikes. And when the orcs attack Osgilliath in RotK, Faramir sees them coming across in boats, and instead of firing from cover at the exposed enemy army that heavily outnumbers his force, he waits for them to land and then charges into melee combat. Apparently, Jackson thought this would be more dramatic.

Note that neither of these examples happen in the book. Perhaps Tolkien, having fought in World War 1, knew something about suicidal charges from first hand experience, and decided not to have his heros use them at every opportunity.

(Granted, he did have the charges by Theoden at Helm's Deep and the Pellenor, but those were more justifiable under the circumstances.)
Ah, you noticed that, too, eh? That was the Hollywood idiocy I bitched about earlier. Stupid-hero syndrome. Super-annoying. It shows the storytellers (the filmmakers in this case) were too lazy to go to the extra work of making the plot function realistically. That would have been more difficult to stage and shoot. So they went for the cheap drama and screw realism.

It also probably doesn't help that he couldn't really ever settle on the origin story of the orcs. One version had them as corrupted elves, explaining why there are no evil elves or good orcs--an elf that became evil would become an orc and presumably vice versa.

Actually, I think just about all the racism claims of LotR spring from orcs, right?
Nah, the treatement of goblins isn't very even-handed, either. Nor, for that matter, is the treatment of the "good" characters. And I just have issues with stories that present a starkly black/white good/bad divide. I think that's a cop-out on the part of the storyteller. Not racism necessarily, but neither a positive nor a realistic worldview.

I don't get the whole "there are no evil elves" argument...there are plenty of deplorable acts committed by elves throughout the Silmarillion, and unlike the Orcs, many of those acts were willfully committed.



AFAIK...but I've never seen someone arguing the point actually use passages from the works themselves to support their argument.

Until that day, I call bullshit, and will continue to do so.
So, people are not allowed to analyze a writer's work and make judgments about his intent based on the overall tone of his books? We're not allowed to say Writer X expressed Idea K unless he has a passage in which some character makes an explicit K speech?

Books: Good story but written very dryly. JRR Tolkien had a great tale to tell but he told it in the most boring fashion imaginable, even for an Englishman.

Movies: Good story told in a very flashy and precise way but the whole thing was overdone.

I wouldn't call the Silmarillion "dry". It's just in a different style - more reminescent of Snorri's Edda with touches of Torquato Tasso and of greek epic and tragedy.

Btw, about LotR: the book pwns, the movies suck - the only good thing in the movies are the scenographies (except Moria: why would EVER a dwarf build like that!). Everything else sucks like crazy - script (apostasy pure and simple!), acting (cliched), camera (very, very trivial and boring), lighting (not a single idea there), musical score (totally lousy, annoying and boring, expecially when you have Wagner and a lot of metal to draw inspiration from!), and even CGI was nothing special.

I totally agree. And as for Moria -- yes, that did seem a very inefficient use of vertical space for dwarves. ;)

These terms are never once used, only once implied, and I could cite passages countering the claim if I had my copies with me and more time, but alas, I am at work, so it'll have to wait for another day.
Wait -- you're going to deny that Tolkein based characters/cultures on those real-world sources because he never used the words for those real world people/places in books set in a fictional world? :confused:

I totally agree. And as for Moria -- yes, that did seem a very inefficient use of vertical space for dwarves. ;)
All part of Jackson's conversion of the dwarves into one extended midget joke.

That's the quality that I was thinking of when I said Tolkein used "tribalism" in his stories -- this strict drawing of lines into "us" and "them" teams that will always relate to each other in the same way -- warfare -- without any thought ever applied to it and without individuals dealing with each other much as individuals.

This is what has always bitten me the wrong way about Tolkein and is the reason I prefer the Silmarillion to the Lord of the Rings. In the Silmarillion (and his other books, like Unfinished Tales and the Book of Lost Tales I and II), he sprinkles in little stories about his "greyer" individuals (like Maeglin, the dark elf who basically brings down Gondolin, or Turin Turambar, who kills a dragon, but in the process kills everyone close to him and destroys a really awesome civilization in Nargothrond. My two least favorite characters, incidentally, which shows how good they are - the reaction is very immediate and polarizing). The Lord of the Rings is almost too basic - it's childlike in that it totally avoids any sort of blurring of the lines. And I have yet to find a Tolkein story with a good orc, which is slightly irritating. I have read his stories pretending Morgoth was the protagonist, which nearly makes up for it. :P

Anyway, I still think there's more interesting and better fantasy out there, but Tolkein's an interesting writer.

Actually, I 'll take that over some of the battle scenes. If one goes by the films, most of Middle Earth's commanders are bloody idiots.

To me the questionable tactics aren't really the core problem; they're merely a side-effect of the filmed forces of good facing much, much longer odds than they do in the books.

I can't remember precise numbers off the top of my head, but Theoden's 'final' charge at Helm's Deep in the Battle of the Hornburg is at the head of over a hundred cavalry, not a mere handful - enough to actually cut through the orcs. While severely outnumbered, Theoden's overall army is much larger in the book - a couple of thousand defenders against the film's few hundred. The role of the Huorns in blocking the orc escape route is also at best underplayed (extended film version) or non-existent (original cinema version).

The forces of Gondor at the siege of Minas Tirith are hopelessly outnumbered, but not _that_ outnumbered. The combination of the defenders, the charge of the Riders of Rohan, and perfectly-timed human Gondorian reinforcements from the coast led by Aragorn (available after the army of the dead defeats the corsairs 'off camera') is enough to win the Battle of the Pellenor Fields without any supernatural intervention.

Aragorn's army at the Gates of Mordor is again shown as much smaller, and much more heavily outnumbered than in the books. Aragorn probably had command of 5-6000 troops at the Battle of the Morannon. I think Tolkein states that the opposing army was more than ten times larger, but Aragorn could still do better than the position portrayed in the film. Though in fairness, the basic concept that the march to the Black Gate is only a distracting feint holds in both media.

Though it's also worth conceding that one suicidal charge - Faramir's doomed charge against the armies of Mordor after the loss of Osgiliath - is in both the books and the films.


For all that, while I preferred the books, I have to admit that I'm not as anti the films as some people here seem to be. Given the different demands of the different media, I think Jackson did a fairly decent job working within those constraints.

IReally dark orcs that are born out of the mud? Really?If you read enough of the books such as 'Unfinished Tales', which reprint and comment on Tolkien's earlier drafts of the 'Middle-Earth' stories, then in one or another of them you'll actually see "animated from earth/stone by the will of Morgoth" discussed as one of the origins that Tolkien considered for the Orcs... According to that theory they would have primarily been directed directly by the will of Morgoth, and by that of Sauron after him, and when not under such control would have acted according to the rebelliousness & destructiveness that were aspects of Morgoth's own personality.

Other possibilities that Tolkien also considered, apart from "corrupted Elves", were: corrupted Humans, lesser 'Maia' who'd assumed or been given physical bodies (in comparison to the Balrogs -- and, of course, Sauron himself -- who were more powerful Maia...), just clever animals (without souls, and parroting their superiors' slogans) whom Morgoth shaped into suitable tools and who would basically have lapsed back into animalistic behaviour when not controlled by a strong master, different strains with different origins out of this list, and possibly hybrids with ancestors whose origins differed...

Anyway, what's wrong with being "born out of the mud"? Wasn't that good enough for Adam?!?
^_^

Remember the Tolkien universe is not like the real world, in the sense that there exist races of people who are inherently good, evil, or whatever. ORcs are inherently evil.

The only race in Tolkien that can go either way, that's embedded with free choice, is humans. Some of them end up siding with Sauron, others fight against him. Ents, Eagles, Orcs and Trolls are all either inherently good or inherently evil. That's okay though, because Tolkien doesn't argue that real humans subdivide into races like that.Wasn't there a major battle in the 'Silmarillion' in whose description Tolkien said something along the lines of "Some of every people fought on each side"?

There's also the Southrons, who are dark skinned men in the service of Sauron and another source of racism claims. Although, I disagree with that interpretation as well given that they were effectively slaves rather than conciously chossing evil.Duped or intimidated (or loyally following their traditional leaders, who have been duped/initimidated), rather than outright slaves, I think, but anyway what other colour should people whose ancestors have lived in the hot lands of the south for uncounted generations be?

1.That's the only explanation Tolkien gives about Orcs: Avari elves who have been captured and corrupted by Morgoth.In the versions of his texts that he sent to be published, yes, although even there I think that it's given as what the Elves think was probably the case rather than as an indisputable fact: In his earlier drafts, as I've mentioned above, no.

2.There are evil elves, a lot of them. Mostly in the Silmarillion. Just the two that spring up to my mind: Maeglin son of Eol, and Caranthir son of Feanor. But there are many others, expecially among the Noldor.Agreed.

I wouldn't say there's outright racism in LotR, more a sort of benighted ignorance that is a bit off-colour nowadays. Unsurprising for a 1950s Oxford don, really.

I mean, all the goodies are either very Nordic, Celtic or Germanic, while all the baddies generally come from the East or the South and are often a bit African or Arabic. It's not something set in stone, but it's rather obvious.The fact that Tolkien drew extensively on Western/Northern European mythologies for inspiration, and decided that the areas of Middle-Earth in which he set the stories were supposed to be the same areas that would eventually get re-shaped into Europe, made his making the "goodies" basically Nordic/Celtic/Germanic a fairly obvious choice... and once he'd done that, and filled the Human nations of the West, with those peoples, what else could he logicaly have done but bring the evil-controlled/duped Humans in from east & south... and, once he'd decided to do that, wouldn't there probably be some people calling him 'racist' if he'd described all of those other Humans as 'white' Europeans too and ignored the existence of other RL types altogether?

If you read enough of the books such as 'Unfinished Tales', which reprint and comment on Tolkien's earlier drafts of the 'Middle-Earth' stories, then in one or another of them you'll actually see "animated from earth/stone by the will of Morgoth" discussed as one of the origins that Tolkien considered for the Orcs...<snip>
And if you read the post you were responding to, you'll actually see that I am complaining about how the movies treated that as an image. In my opinion, the moviemakers -- who exist in the 21st century and can be assumed to have a little more social awareness of such matters than Tolkein may have -- presented the orcs in a manner that strongly suggests racist assumptions and racist references.

That's post-Tolkein racism -- references and implications connected to white supremacist propaganda since the US civil rights movement. Tolkein cannot have been expected to be aware of such nuances when he wrote the book, because they did not exist for him then. But Jackson and the producers of the movies most certainly should have been aware of it. There are many ways to present a being that is born of the earth, literally. The way the movie makers chose to do it was, in my opinion, strongly suggestive of modern racism.

So, do you think you can get that distinction clear now? I'm talking about what the moviemakers did, not what Tolkein did.

Though it's also worth conceding that one suicidal charge - Faramir's doomed charge against the armies of Mordor after the loss of Osgiliath - is in both the books and the films.


Whoops - I had that bit wrong, didn't I?

A quick check shows that, in the original book, Denethor ordered Faramir to try and reinforce the Osgiliath garrison, against Faramir's better judgement, and that F was shot by a poisoned arrow while trying to hold the subsequent retreat together. The cavalry charge was led by Imrahil in an attempt to rescue the rearguard after Faramir was shot, and was in fact successful.

I must be getting senile.

I suppose we have to chalk that change down to the loss of Imrahil as a character, and simplifying the Denethor/Faramir plot line.

To me the questionable tactics aren't really the core problem; they're merely a side-effect of the filmed forces of good facing much, much longer odds than they do in the books.

No, if anything, the increased odds make the tactics used all the more stupid.

I can't remember precise numbers off the top of my head, but Theoden's 'final' charge at Helm's Deep in the Battle of the Hornburg is at the head of over a hundred cavalry, not a mere handful - enough to actually cut through the orcs.

No numbers are given, but it is strongly implied that the charge was backed by infantry from within the Hornburg as well.

While severely outnumbered, Theoden's overall army is much larger in the book - a couple of thousand defenders against the film's few hundred.

2,000 in the book vs 300 plus the elves in the film. The orc army doesn't change much in terms of size (around 10,000 in both cases).

The forces of Gondor at the siege of Minas Tirith are hopelessly outnumbered, but not _that_ outnumbered.

The city defenders and such, plus Faramir's men and 3,000 reinforcements from southern Gondor. Numbers are not given in the film, but it looks lower, and either way the reinforcements from the south never come (a pity, since this was a good scene from the book, and the loss of it deprived the audience of Prince Imrahil, a very impressive supporting character. Though I can understand the motivations, especially in such a long movie).

Numbers for Mordor's forces are never given in the book, but it is possible to get estimates in the tens of thousands, while the film's army was supposedly 200,000.

Aragorn's army at the Gates of Mordor is again shown as much smaller, and much more heavily outnumbered than in the books. Aragorn probably had command of 5-6000 troops at the Battle of the Morannon. I think Tolkein states that the opposing army was more than ten times larger, but Aragorn could still do better than the position portrayed in the film. Though in fairness, the basic concept that the march to the Black Gate is only a distracting feint holds in both media.

Indeed. From what I've read about the film, Aragorn's force is supposed to be 500 against hundreds of thousands. Pure and utter absurdity. I mean, I know the orcs bolted when the Ring was destroyed, but if even one percent of their force had stood and fought...

Of course, in the film they say ten thousand orcs, but even then, its 20 to one: twice the odds suggested by the books.

Though it's also worth conceding that one suicidal charge - Faramir's doomed charge against the armies of Mordor after the loss of Osgiliath - is in both the books and the films.

Not true. In the books, Faramir makes an orderly retreat from Osgilliath, but while crossing the Pelenor Fields his forces are overtaken. A sortie from the city saves them, but Faramir is wounded and brought into the city by Prince Imrahil. The suicidal charge never occurs.

However, there are other aspects of the story which I find intriguing, one of which I will comment on below.



Consider the events at the end of the Fellowship of the Ring: the Fellowship is attacked, Merry and Pippin are captured by orcs, Boromir is killed, and the survivors are split up. Seemingly, a disaster that puts the entire quest in peril. However, if you look at what follows, every victory that happens after might never have happened had that disaster not occured. It is only because Merry and Pippin are captured that Aragorn comes to Rohan, and thus likely that Rohan only beat Sauruman in the manner that it did as a result of this disaster. If it had not occured, there might have been no Army of the Dead to defeat the corsairs, no cavalry arriving on the Pellenor Fields. Moreover, Frodo and Sam might never have captured Gollum, and might never have discovered a secret way into Morder. Gollum might never have been pressent to take the ring (destroying it in the process), when Frodo was unable to complete his quest. In short, victory might have been impossible had this seeming catastrophy not occured.


Read the Shimmarilian (spelling) also by Tolkien. It covers the creation of the world. the creation is represented as music. During the creation the evil one( I have forgotten names at this point) tries to to ruin the music by inserting inharmonious notes. But the creator is able to instantly change the music so the notes fit exactly where they should. This is really the underline of all tolkien's things don't go as planned but over all the harmony is left unchanged.

I totally agree. And as for Moria -- yes, that did seem a very inefficient use of vertical space for dwarves. ;)

What really got me were the ultra-steep stairs. So steep that hobbits and dwarves have to climb, while elves and humans (hence orcs, too) can walk them.

Or the idiotic bridges. Moreover BRICK bridges. Since when do dwarves use bricks? They carve things out of massive stone for Eru's sake!

I've read some of The Silmarilian, though I didn't really get into it. I do recall something about Melkor/Morgoth trying to corrupt creation.

That's post-Tolkein racism -- references and implications connected to white supremacist propaganda since the US civil rights movement.Ah, well, I don't read "white supremacist propaganda" so I wouldn't know that... ;)
Tolkein cannot have been expected to be aware of such nuances when he wrote the book, because they did not exist for him then.And to him the nuance may, as I said, have been that this was meant as an evil parallel to the "creation of Adam" story from the Bible.
The way the movie makers chose to do it was, in my opinion, strongly suggestive of modern racism.
So, do you think you can get that distinction clear now? I'm talking about what the moviemakers did, not what Tolkein did.Ah. I've read the books, many times, but have never got around to watching the movies: Having seen Ralph Bakshi's attempt, back in the late '70s, was enough to put me off of completely from the idea of the books ever being filmed... so I can only comment on what I think Tolkien himself meant by the idea, and not on how the film-makers may have interpreted & portrayed it.


And have the elves and humans tried to reeducate and rehabilitate some orcs or goblins? Breakaways, prisoners of war. Maybe it wouldn't work. But then they have their own magicks too, and Orcs seem to have some individuality, they're not remote controlled drones.I don't know. There's a voice in the back of my head telling me that I've seen this mentioned somewhere in Tolkien, although maybe only in one of the early drafts that weren't published until recently, but I can't recall where that was.
On the other hand, they certainly did try to reeducate & rehabilitate Gollum -- even if this was at Gandalf's urging, rather than a decision of their own -- and that didn't exactly work although he had originally been a Hobbit (or something very much akin to one, anyway) rather than a creation of the Dark Lord or a descendant of uncounted generations of followers of evil...
One possibility that Tolkien raised in the drafts that have been revealed since his death was that giving in to corruption would have weakened the souls of the people concerned, so that continuing to serve evil for generation after generation might eventually have made the peoples concerned incapable of doing anything else. He didn't actually mention this in the published books, but the fact that he considered it theologically possible might shed a bit more light on his own views about the possibility that you're suggesting.

What's important is, have they tried to live in peace with at least some orcs? It's up to the goodies to make the first step.Are the Elves ever shown as going on deliberate raids against the Orcs when those were neither serving Morgoth/Sauron nor raiding them?

And I wonder (I've only read LotR and Hobbit)... what happened to the Orcs after Sauron was defeated?Well, there may have been a few of them alongside the hybrids who were still working for Saruman when he took over the Shire, but otherwise it's unrevealed. Given that Tolkien intended western Middle-Earth to be an earlier stage of western Europe, some of them probably survived to become the ancestors of later folklore's 'Goblins'*. What happened to the rest probably depended on which of the possible origins they'd had (as some types would have reverted to wild animals, or even inanaimate matter, without the will of a 'Dark Lord' to guide them...) and on whether they themselves were willing to live in peace with their neighbours.
Considering the existence of the half-Orcs, and the views that Tolkien expressed against industrialisation, I suspect that the presence of some Orcish blood in modern European Humans was a possibility he wouldn't have rejected out-of-hand...

_________________________________________________________________

*Incidentally, in early drafts these were all 'Goblins' rather than 'Orcs'... and of course those in 'The Hobbit rather than in LotR still are. Apparently he changed this for LotR because he &/or his publishers felt that the term 'Goblins' was too strongly associated with children's stories to be acceptable in a work that was intended for a more mature audience... and although 'Orc' had mainly been used for sea monsters in earlier works (hence 'Orca', for the Killer Whale, of course...) there was also some precedent for it simply meaning "monster" in general.
The poet William Blake's character 'Red Orc' wasn't a sea-monster, was he?

I've read some of The Silmarilian, though I didn't really get into it. I do recall something about Melkor/Morgoth trying to corrupt creation.

(Spoiler): It sucks. Alot.

Wasn't there a major battle in the 'Silmarillion' in whose description Tolkien said something along the lines of "Some of every people fought on each side"?

Except for elves. That would be the war at the end of the 1st age (War of Wrath if I'm not mistaken).

...in his earlier drafts, as I've mentioned above, no.
Meh, I usually keep to Silmarillion-Hobbit-LotR as canon.

*Incidentally, in early drafts these were all 'Goblins' rather than 'Orcs'... and of course those in 'The Hobbit rather than in LotR still are. Apparently he changed this for LotR because he &/or his publishers felt that the term 'Goblins' was too strongly associated with children's stories to be acceptable in a work that was intended for a more mature audience... and although 'Orc' had mainly been used for sea monsters in earlier works (hence 'Orca', for the Killer Whale, of course...) there was also some precedent for it simply meaning "monster" in general.
The poet William Blake's character 'Red Orc' wasn't a sea-monster, was he?

I vaugely recall reading that its a word meaning "demon," though I can't recall the name of the source.

Except for elves. That would be the war at the end of the 1st age (War of Wrath if I'm not mistaken).Okay, except for Elves: even so, that presumably suggests that there were some good (presumably "saved") Orcs in those days, doesn't it? I suppose that they all got wiped out during the sinking of Beleriand...

Meh, I usually keep to Silmarillion-Hobbit-LotR as canon.Well, Tolkien was still revising the drafts right up until the last minute, so if he'd been given another few months then he might have decided on using one of those other explanations that he'd thought of instead of the "corrupted elves" one... And as the 'Silmarillion' was assembled from amongst his drafts after his death, rather than by he himself, who knows what he'd eventually have included in it anyway?

You know, I should have gotten around to this earlier, but as much as I would like to defend Tolkien, the fact that he was anti-Nazi does not mean he wasn't a racist. Almost everyone during and after the war was an anti-Nazi, weren't they?

That said, Tolkien never to my knowledge advocated any racist actions or policies in real life. At absolute worst, his work demonstrates simplistic and steriotypical thinking of the kind everyone is probably guilty of to some extent. And even that is probably debateable.Tolkien was already anti-Nazi before the war. When the possibility of a German edition of 'The Hobbit' being printed was originally raised, quite shortly after its original release over here, one of Goebbels' staff wrote Tolkien a letter asking for confirmation that he was "aryan" before this could occur... and Tolkien is on the record as having replied that if they mean "Can he prove that he doesn't have any Jewish blood?" then it's to his regret that he can't say that he has!

Mur, why do you think Tolkein was a racist?

;)

Tolkien was already anti-Nazi before the war. When the possibility of a German edition of 'The Hobbit' being printed was originally raised, quite shortly after its original release over here, one of Goebbels' staff wrote Tolkien a letter asking for confirmation that he was "aryan" before this could occur... and Tolkien is on the record as having replied that if they mean "Can he prove that he doesn't have any Jewish blood?" then it's to his regret that he can't say that he has!

How did I forget about that? That was one of the most bad ass things Tolkien ever did. I mean, he basically told Goebbels to go to hell.:)

Mur, why do you think Tolkein was a racist?

;)
*beats Trve about the head and shoulders with a hardbound copy of the complete Tolkein works*

*beats Trve about the head and shoulders with a hardbound copy of the complete Tolkein works*

That would hurt like a bitch.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/78/229248556_96d827c1a5.jpg

Okay, if you Hobbit-heads can't keep straight the difference between the movies and the books, then there's no point talking to you. And it also explains why so few Tolkein fans are aware of how bad those movies were.

Go back and look at my posts. Was I complaining about the books or the movies? (Hint: the correct answer is "the movies".)

Now go watch the movies again and compare the accents coming out of the good-guy actors versus the bad-guy actors.

Then, figure it out.

Considering that I haven't even read the books, I think you'll find that I too was talking about the films. I don't know how different the two are and don't particularly care as I am not a fantasy reader. So I will say it again - I didn't find the films to be classist at all. Four of the primary heroes are essentially ordinary folk. Two of them have broad regional accents. Numerous villains and villainous types are nobility, Saruman has already been pointed out to you and Denethor as well. There are so many exceptions to your assertion that it is barely valid.

Considering that I haven't even read the books, I think you'll find that I too was talking about the films. I don't know how different the two are and don't particularly care as I am not a fantasy reader. So I will say it again - I didn't find the films to be classist at all. Four of the primary heroes are essentially ordinary folk. Two of them have broad regional accents. Numerous villains and villainous types are nobility, Saruman has already been pointed out to you and Denethor as well. There are so many exceptions to your assertion that it is barely valid.
If you think the accents used by the American actors who played the hobbits were anything near as obviously class-related at the accents used by the unknown actors who played the orcs and goblins -- but especially the goblins -- then either you have a tin ear for accents or you are putting me on.

I do not believe there can be any reasonable dispute that the actors playing the minions of Mordor were using accents strongly associated with the British urban working class and underclass. And they were laying it on with a trowel as well, creating a stereotypical caricature.

By comparison, the accents used by the actors playing "good" characters were soft, mild, and barely noticeable (except for Pippin, because I'm not sure but I think that actor really has a similar accent).

When it comes to accent coaching, actors do what their director tells them.

EDIT: And as for Saruman, yes that was pointed out to me, and I responded to it. Did you miss that while you were apparently not really reading all my other posts? I quipped that Saruman played an over-educated middle management guy, but I was kind of serious, too. Saruman was the ruler of Eisengard (sp?) as well as a wizard, so clearly one would expect him to talk as if he had received an advanced education. Note: An accent like that denotes education and high rank. The accents used by the minion actors denote lack of education and low rank. I.e. class.

(Now, of course, Christoper Lee really talks like that, but then he is highly educated, too.)

I do not believe there can be any reasonable dispute that the actors playing the minions of Mordor were using accents strongly associated with the British urban working class and underclass. And they were laying it on with a trowel as well, creating a stereotypical caricature.

By comparison, the accents used by the actors playing "good" characters were soft, mild, and barely noticeable (except for Pippin, because I'm not sure but I think that actor really has a similar accent).
To the British ear, the hobbits have clearly parochial accents; Samwise's Cornish-esque accent in particular ("Ta'ers, Mis'er Frodo!") . They're the good rural working class boys versus the horrible urban 'Cockney'-accented goblins.

However, you're right in that most of the goodies have upper-class accents; or, at least, not working-class ones.

Ah yes, I recall the passage. I believe its in Moria, when Gandalf refers to "black uruks from Mordor."
In the battle of Pellenor Fields, there are references to "black half-trolls" in the army from Harad. But the Haradrim aren't treated as irredeemably evil.
When your mother gives you a name in Quenya (Tolkien's High Elvish), you pretty much have two options. You can feel terribly embarrassed about how geeky your family is and disavow all knowledge of Tolkien's works, or you can embrace the geekiness, love your name, and become something of an obsessive fan. I went with the second option. :p
I knew an Elessar Tetramariner in college days.

Regarding Jordan, I've read about as much of his work as I can stomach. It ranges from mildly entertaining time filler, to utter drivel. And he definitely does the "evil race" thing, too.;) (maybe more than Tolkien, even).

My only problem with Jordan is that he spends ten pages doing the work of two... which is both a blessing and a curse. It means it takes you five minutes to get from the dramatic entry into the room, to the dramatic opening gambit of the interaction... but it also means you don't find deus ex machina ghouls popping out of the woodwork.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'evil races'. There are races (In the Wheel of Time) that are artifacts, that are 'evil', perhaps - but that is usually because they are soulless machines... beast-creatures perverted into human shape by dark magics, or dead-flesh animated... or pure constructs in the shape of human flesh. Where Jordan has antagonistic 'races', per se (like the Seanchan) it is entirely possible to step inside their heads, and their justifications are realistic, and more than just a two-dimension 'I'll do this, because it's evil'.

I'm not even that big a fan of Jordan, actually... but what I really did like was his use of mythologies older than Tolkien (not older than the mythologies Tolkien tapped, maybe - but older than Tolkien-AS-mythology, which has been a stumbling block for much of the fantasy genre)... like his use of the millenia old "Dragon Reborn" Chinese myhtological motif, or his early-Arthurian references.

Wow, and I ran Deus Ex on that!

Oh wait.
Pentiums weren't made by 1999. And not even Pentium II. A 1999-2000 machine would be a gigahertz P3 with a gig of RAM and 64MB of VRAM.

And they use many processors for CG, not one, and scenes are rendered in days rather than seconds.
Deus Ex requirements: Pentium 300 with 64MB Ram, 4MB Vid Card and 150MB HDD space.
And as it wasn't released until June 2000, I'm verily amazed to hear you were playing it in 1999.

I don't get the whole "there are no evil elves" argument...there are plenty of deplorable acts committed by elves throughout the Silmarillion, and unlike the Orcs, many of those acts were willfully committed.

Like I said, that was only one of his early ideas for the orcs, which he presumably abandoned later.

Nah, the treatement of goblins isn't very even-handed, either. Nor, for that matter, is the treatment of the "good" characters. And I just have issues with stories that present a starkly black/white good/bad divide. I think that's a cop-out on the part of the storyteller. Not racism necessarily, but neither a positive nor a realistic worldview.

I'm not entirely sure that he was really aiming for any sort of nuance in LotR. It's my understanding that he was trying to pattern it after the ancient epics. He explored the greyer side of things in the Similarion AFAIK, so it's not as though he didn't care to explore that facet so much as it wasn't his focus in LotR.

Also after looking it up, goblins are apparently a subspecies of orc.

BTW, what exactly is it that makes Tolkien high fantasy? There's magic to be sure, but it's incredibly subtle for the most part. Especially where Gandalf is concerned.

Also after looking it up, goblins are apparently a subspecies of orc.


I was under the impression that 'goblin' was the Hobbit-ish word for Uruks, just as Orc was the Human word, and Uruk was the Uruk-ish word.

I was under the impression that 'goblin' was the Hobbit-ish word for Uruks, just as Orc was the Human word, and Uruk was the Uruk-ish word.

I'm pretty sure Uruk-hai were another subspecies of Orc, unique to the Third Age, that were heavily implied to be the result of orcs crossbreeding with men.

I'm pretty sure Uruk-hai were another subspecies of Orc, unique to the Third Age, that were heavily implied to be the result of orcs crossbreeding with men.

Uruk-hai are Black Orcs, just as Olog-hai are Black Trolls.

So - yes, they are a subspecies (or a super-species?), or the common Uruk.

I don't think Uruk-hai were supposed to be crossbreeds, though - I think they were supposed to be an 'artifact'... a kind of sorcerously enhanced design. What you're thinking about would be Half-Orcs.

At least - so I believe.

Indeed. From what I've read about the film, Aragorn's force is supposed to be 500 against hundreds of thousands. Pure and utter absurdity. I mean, I know the orcs bolted when the Ring was destroyed, but if even one percent of their force had stood and fought...

Of course, in the film they say ten thousand orcs, but even then, its 20 to one: twice the odds suggested by the books.

If I remember correctly, in the book the human Easterlings and Southerlings do in fact make a brief stand at the Black Gate after the orcs and trolls disperse. I don't know what percentage that is, but it surely would have been enough to cause a problem if Aragorn hadn't had several thousand troops at his command rather than a few hundred. It's Aragorn's treatment of the surrendering human forces that sets a seal on the end of their hostility towards Gondor.

I seem to remember Imrahil (whom we really seem to be missing in these discussions) making a black joke in the book along the lines of "here we are suicidally marching towards Mordor at the head of our entire army of only 6000 troops - which would barely have been the size of our vanguard in Gondor's days of power."

Isn't Imrahil Denethor's brother-in-law (Imrahil's sister being Denethor's wife), and therefore also the uncle to Faramir and Boromir?



Not true. In the books, Faramir makes an orderly retreat from Osgilliath, but while crossing the Pelenor Fields his forces are overtaken. A sortie from the city saves them, but Faramir is wounded and brought into the city by Prince Imrahil. The suicidal charge never occurs.

I admitted to getting that one wrong about four minutes before you made your own post! But it's worth reiterating that you're right here. The film conflates Denethor ordering Faramir out against his better judgement, the wounding of Faramir, and Imrahil's charge into a single post-retreat from Osgiliath suicidal charge sequence. At least it's a rare occasion where they tried to explain why someone on the side of good was using suicidal tactics.

If Sauron hadn't made that classic evil genius mistake of embodying all of his power into a single Ultimate Artefact, I'm not sure Gondor would have deserved to win, what between the corrupted defeated steward and the Kingdom's agonisingly poor military decisions.


I also seem to remember that Theoden's decision to defend the Hornburg in Helm's Deep is shown as a better strategic decision in the book than in the film. In the book, I seem to remember that Gandalf supports the decision, and it's portrayed as the best way of defending what's left of Rohan's army until reinforcements can be gathered. In the film, Theoden is shown acting against advice from Gandalf, who wants Theoden to meet Saruman's army in the open field.

Which raises questions about Gandalf's judgement... With Eomer's location unknown, and the elves' participation unanticipated, why would Gandalf advise Theoden's army of some 300 men and boys to face 10,000 orcs on an open plain? Or am I missing something?

Well, I can tell you one person on NSG who really likes LotR....:D

Who's that?

When your mother gives you a name in Quenya (Tolkien's High Elvish), you pretty much have two options. You can feel terribly embarrassed about how geeky your family is and disavow all knowledge of Tolkien's works, or you can embrace the geekiness, love your name, and become something of an obsessive fan. I went with the second option. :p

Your names elvish?

If I remember correctly, in the book the human Easterlings and Southerlings do in fact make a brief stand at the Black Gate after the orcs and trolls disperse. I don't know what percentage that is, but it surely would have been enough to cause a problem if Aragorn hadn't had several thousand troops at his command rather than a few hundred. It's Aragorn's treatment of the surrendering human forces that sets a seal on the end of their hostility towards Gondor.

Some of the human forces did fight on, though most surrendered or fled. And yes, Aragorn eventually made peace with them.

I seem to remember Imrahil (whom we really seem to be missing in these discussions) making a black joke in the book along the lines of "here we are suicidally marching towards Mordor at the head of our entire army of only 6000 troops - which would barely have been the size of our vanguard in Gondor's days of power."

7000 I think, but that's essentially correct. Though they'd have had more if they didn't leave a comparable force behind to defend Minas Tirith. Also, they lost some along they way due to skirmishing and dessertions, so it was closer to five or six thousand when they reached the Black Gate.

Isn't Imrahil Denethor's brother-in-law (Imrahil's sister being Denethor's wife), and therefore also the uncle to Faramir and Boromir?

I'm not sure. All I know is that he was a nobel man from Dol Amroth, in southern Gondor, that the people there were thought to have elvish blood, and that he commanded what seemed to be almost the only decent cavalry force in Gondor.

I admitted to getting that one wrong about four minutes before you made your own post!

I was probably typing my reply when you posted that.

But it's worth reiterating that you're right here. The film conflates Denethor ordering Faramir out against his better judgement, the wounding of Faramir, and Imrahil's charge into a single post-retreat from Osgiliath suicidal charge sequence. At least it's a rare occasion where they tried to explain why someone on the side of good was using suicidal tactics.

Denethor did a better job in the books, at least before Faramir was wounded. I can see why they'd change it to shorten the film, however. And it was actually quite a good scene.

I also seem to remember that Theoden's decision to defend the Hornburg in Helm's Deep is shown as a better strategic decision in the book than in the film. In the book, I seem to remember that Gandalf supports the decision, and it's portrayed as the best way of defending what's left of Rohan's army until reinforcements can be gathered. In the film, Theoden is shown acting against advice from Gandalf, who wants Theoden to meet Saruman's army in the open field.

Which raises questions about Gandalf's judgement... With Eomer's location unknown, and the elves' participation unanticipated, why would Gandalf advise Theoden's army of some 300 men and boys to face 10,000 orcs on an open plain? Or am I missing something?

Well, for all we know Gandalf knew the elves were coming. Galadriel and Elrond are shown communicating mentally in the film, and guess who the bearer of the third elven ring is supposed to be?

Also, I think it was the concern the Helm's Deep was a trap. Gandalf explicitly tells Theoden to "draw them away" from Rohan's civillians (who in the book are sent to Dunharrow in the mountains, where Rohan's cavalry muster in the third film. Possibly, they could have used skirmishing tactics, engaging in hit and run attacks on the edges of the slower uruk army (Rohan has horse archers for example in both the book and film, even if they are a small minority of the total force). Also, I have a feeling that in the film, they were drafting children and old men partly because Theoden's cavalry got torn to shreads by the wargs. Possibly Gandalf hadn't anticipated such casualties early on.

In the book it makes perfect sense though. Theoden sends the civillians (lead by Eowyn) to hide in the mountains, then rides out to join the Rohirim holding the fords against Sauruman's troops. Only on the way there do they find out that those forces have been smashed already and that they are heavily outnumbered. At that point Gandalf advises flight to Helm's Deep, while he goes and rounds up the scattered survivors and brings them to help.

If I remember correctly, in the book the human Easterlings and Southerlings do in fact make a brief stand at the Black Gate after the orcs and trolls disperse. I don't know what percentage that is, but it surely would have been enough to cause a problem if Aragorn hadn't had several thousand troops at his command rather than a few hundred. It's Aragorn's treatment of the surrendering human forces that sets a seal on the end of their hostility towards Gondor.

I seem to remember Imrahil (whom we really seem to be missing in these discussions) making a black joke in the book along the lines of "here we are suicidally marching towards Mordor at the head of our entire army of only 6000 troops - which would barely have been the size of our vanguard in Gondor's days of power."

Isn't Imrahil Denethor's brother-in-law (Imrahil's sister being Denethor's wife), and therefore also the uncle to Faramir and Boromir?




I admitted to getting that one wrong about four minutes before you made your own post! But it's worth reiterating that you're right here. The film conflates Denethor ordering Faramir out against his better judgement, the wounding of Faramir, and Imrahil's charge into a single post-retreat from Osgiliath suicidal charge sequence. At least it's a rare occasion where they tried to explain why someone on the side of good was using suicidal tactics.

If Sauron hadn't made that classic evil genius mistake of embodying all of his power into a single Ultimate Artefact, I'm not sure Gondor would have deserved to win, what between the corrupted defeated steward and the Kingdom's agonisingly poor military decisions.


I also seem to remember that Theoden's decision to defend the Hornburg in Helm's Deep is shown as a better strategic decision in the book than in the film. In the book, I seem to remember that Gandalf supports the decision, and it's portrayed as the best way of defending what's left of Rohan's army until reinforcements can be gathered. In the film, Theoden is shown acting against advice from Gandalf, who wants Theoden to meet Saruman's army in the open field.

Which raises questions about Gandalf's judgement... With Eomer's location unknown, and the elves' participation unanticipated, why would Gandalf advise Theoden's army of some 300 men and boys to face 10,000 orcs on an open plain? Or am I missing something?

You might be missing the fact that the filmmakers/scriptwriters didn't know jackshit about what they were talking about and were just trying to rearrange events to suit the stripped-down plot.

This is one of the things I meant when I said the movies had not passed up a single cheap movie cliche. In addition to the whole idiotic Ultimate Artifact concept of the "One Ring" upon which all of Sauron's power rests (I hope to hell it was not that simplistic in the books), there was also Helms Deep's "Oops, Who Missed That in the Blue Prints?" Fatal Architectural Weakness (same stupid plot device as in the Death Star) -- that one storm drain that, if you blow up it up real good, will bring down the whole side of the impenetrable fortress. I mean, I ask you.

When we are dealing with stupidity like that, do we honestly expect anything in the movies to make sense? This is why, regardless of whether I like the books or not, I say it is a mistake to consider the movies and books together, as both being part of the "canon."

I don't like the books, but that is just because of personal taste. But with the movies I have serious issues with them being bad movies, for reasons like the above.

Theres also speciesism, elves are so much better than humans.

You might be missing the fact that the filmmakers/scriptwriters didn't know jackshit about what they were talking about and were just trying to rearrange events to suit the stripped-down plot.

Oh come on, they weren't that bad.

This is one of the things I meant when I said the movies had not passed up a single cheap movie cliche. In addition to the whole idiotic Ultimate Artifact concept of the "One Ring" upon which all of Sauron's power rests (I hope to hell it was not that simplistic in the books),

The Ring basically is an extension of Sauron's will in the books as well as the films, and yes, his power is basically dependent on it. The plan was to give Rings to each of the other races of Middle Earth, and thus corrupt and control them (only worked on the humans though). Of course, Sauron never meant to lose the Ring, but even when he did, he did not believe that anyone would attempt to destroy it, but would try to take it from him (why he launched his all out attack on Gondor after, in the books, Aragon uses Sauruman's Palantir to reveal himself. Note that Aragorn does this deliberately to take Sauron's attention off of watching his own boarders).

Really, though, it wasn't that bad an idea from Sauron's point of view. The Ring was only destroyed because he was beaten militarily by the Last Alliance and lost the Ring, which was then found through seemingly random chance by Golum, which left Golum to be picked up by Bilbo (it is suggested that some divine intervention or Fate was behind this). Even then, it was only destroyed by a combination of Frodo's exceptional character, extraordinary luck, and stupidity on Sauron's part.

Of course, the Ring also serves a symbolic purpose, dealing with the classic theme of the corruption of power.

there was also Helms Deep's "Oops, Who Missed That in the Blue Prints?" Fatal Architectural Weakness (same stupid plot device as in the Death Star) -- that one storm drain that, if you blow up it up real good, will bring down the whole side of the impenetrable fortress. I mean, I ask you.

Did anyone know Sauruman had explosives? Also, what could they do? Normally, it had to be their or the place would flood. Granted, they should have blocked it off at once when they knew the orcs were coming (they do this in the book after an initial orc break in, but its kind of a rushed job, and the orcs still get their explosives in).

When we are dealing with stupidity like that, do we honestly expect anything in the movies to make sense? This is why, regardless of whether I like the books or not, I say it is a mistake to consider the movies and books together, as both being part of the "canon."

They should be considered sepperate, and/or the books should be held to overrule the films. It is impossible to reconcile the two, being rather different stylisitically, and very different story-wise.

I don't like the books, but that is just because of personal taste. But with the movies I have serious issues with them being bad movies, for reasons like the above.

Many aspects of them were done well enough. The cinematography (when Jackson wasn't abusing slow motion), most of the music, most of the visual effects, especially the set, prop, and costume design (for the most part), and even much of the acting. The worst problems were some of the story changes, the attempts at "comic relief," and the afformentioned abuse of slow motion, which Jackson took to extreme lengths later in King Kong.

This is one of the things I meant when I said the movies had not passed up a single cheap movie cliche. In addition to the whole idiotic Ultimate Artifact concept of the "One Ring" upon which all of Sauron's power rests (I hope to hell it was not that simplistic in the books), there was also Helms Deep's "Oops, Who Missed That in the Blue Prints?" Fatal Architectural Weakness (same stupid plot device as in the Death Star) -- that one storm drain that, if you blow up it up real good, will bring down the whole side of the impenetrable fortress. I mean, I ask you.

To be fair, Sauron was completely unable to comprehend why anyone would willingly destroy that much power. It seemed to him to be a safe bet because he imagined that no one would be able to actually go through with chucking the ring and destroying it. And, to a point, he's actually right. When he actually gets to the end of the journey, Frodo isn't able to destroy it. It's only because Gollum snatches it from him and loses his balance that the ring even does get destroyed.

In Sauron's defense it was a one-in-a-million chance that the perfect conditions would have been set that way to allow the ring to be destroyed, but then it's also pretty much stated that there's a divine plan that's happening.

Oh come on, they weren't that bad.



The Ring basically is an extension of Sauron's will in the books as well as the films, and yes, his power is basically dependent on it. The plan was to give Rings to each of the other races of Middle Earth, and thus corrupt and control them (only worked on the humans though). Of course, Sauron never meant to lose the Ring, but even when he did, he did not believe that anyone would attempt to destroy it, but would try to take it from him (why he launched his all out attack on Gondor after, in the books, Aragon uses Sauruman's Palantir to reveal himself. Note that Aragorn does this deliberately to take Sauron's attention off of watching his own boarders).

Really, though, it wasn't that bad an idea from Sauron's point of view. The Ring was only destroyed because he was beaten militarily by the Last Alliance and lost the Ring, which was then found through seemingly random chance by Golum, which left Golum to be picked up by Bilbo (it is suggested that some divine intervention or Fate was behind this). Even then, it was only destroyed by a combination of Frodo's exceptional character, extraordinary luck, and stupidity on Sauron's part.

Of course, the Ring also serves a symbolic purpose, dealing with the classic theme of the corruption of power.



Did anyone know Sauruman had explosives? Also, what could they do? Normally, it had to be their or the place would flood. Granted, they should have blocked it off at once when they knew the orcs were coming (they do this in the book after an initial orc break in, but its kind of a rushed job, and the orcs still get their explosives in).



They should be considered sepperate, and/or the books should be held to overrule the films. It is impossible to reconcile the two, being rather different stylisitically, and very different story-wise.



Many aspects of them were done well enough. The cinematography (when Jackson wasn't abusing slow motion), most of the music, most of the visual effects, especially the set, prop, and costume design (for the most part), and even much of the acting. The worst problems were some of the story changes, the attempts at "comic relief," and the afformentioned abuse of slow motion, which Jackson took to extreme lengths later in King Kong.
I think you are mistaking the movies for the books, like many others do. At least a third of what you describe above was not in any of the movies.

Also, you obviously have never built a castle, nor ever taken a tour of one. Exlosives or no explosives, if your castle can be brought down by ONE bomb in a STORM DRAIN, then you need to find the builders and stick their heads up on pikes. Castle walls are supposed to be up to around 15 feet thick (especially at the bases, like where that drain was). There's a reason why so many European castles survived SHELLING in WW2. That whole blowing up the outer wall sequence was bullshit, starting with Brad Dourif explaining all about the Fatal Storm Drain to Christopher Lee, right up to and through the slow-motion Olympic Torch sequence of that incredibly buff orc running like he was in a Sports Illustrated photo shoot, aesthetically lit and filmed from five angles -- and every single angle of the same run included in the final movie. The only thing that could have saved that moment of drama was if they had used the Rocky theme for it. Geez-gods, it sucked.

And you can like the music, the acting, the cinematography, etc, if you like. After all, there's no accounting for taste. As far as I'm concerned, there were only three things that did not suck balls, and they were:

1) Golem

2) Sean Astin's entire performance as Sam

3) Selected moments of Sean Bean's performance, especially his death scene (though he was all over the map from good to painfully bad)

Everybody else in that trilogy, I wanted to just smack. And everything in it, I wanted to throw in the garbage and make them do it over.

To be fair, Sauron was completely unable to comprehend why anyone would willingly destroy that much power. It seemed to him to be a safe bet because he imagined that no one would be able to actually go through with chucking the ring and destroying it. And, to a point, he's actually right. When he actually gets to the end of the journey, Frodo isn't able to destroy it. It's only because Gollum snatches it from him and loses his balance that the ring even does get destroyed.

In Sauron's defense it was a one-in-a-million chance that the perfect conditions would have been set that way to allow the ring to be destroyed, but then it's also pretty much stated that there's a divine plan that's happening.
That just makes Sauron an idiot.

That just makes Sauron an idiot.

He was right though; No one ended up having the moral fiber to intentionally destroy the ring. It can be argued that the only reason that Sauron even lost was because of an elaborate Xanatos Gambit on the part of Eru (essentially God's Expy).

I think you are mistaking the movies for the books, like many others do. At least a third of what you describe above was not in any of the movies.

In some of those cases at least, I stated as much. Other parts might be more interpretation or speculation on my part of the films, rather than something explicitely stated in them. Also, I was responding to your comment on weather the books interpretation of the Ring was as bad as the film's.

Also, you obviously have never built a castle, nor ever taken a tour of one.

Don't insult me. I doubt you know more about castles than I do.

Exlosives or no explosives, if your castle can be brought down by ONE bomb in a STORM DRAIN, then you need to find the builders and stick their heads up on pikes. Castle walls are supposed to be up to around 15 feet thick (especially at the bases, like where that drain was). There's a reason why so many European castles survived SHELLING in WW2.

Which castles were that? I thought one of the reasons they stopped building them was because canons made them obsolete.

That whole blowing up the outer wall sequence was bullshit, starting with Brad Dourif explaining all about the Fatal Storm Drain to Christopher Lee, right up to and through the slow-motion Olympic Torch sequence of that incredibly buff orc running like he was in a Sports Illustrated photo shoot, aesthetically lit and filmed from five angles -- and every single angle of the same run included in the final movie. The only thing that could have saved that moment of drama was if they had used the Rocky theme for it. Geez-gods, it sucked.

The orc with the torch might not have appealed to your sense of athstetics, but their's no reason why a powerful wizard making a custom-designed and carefully placed explosive more advanced than any other weapon in the world wouldn't work, nor is there any reason why the drain shouldn't be their. The only stupid thing about it was that they didn't block it up, and perhaps that Legolas couldn't kill that one orc out of all the orcs he ever shot at.

And you can like the music, the acting, the cinematography, etc, if you like. After all, there's no accounting for taste. As far as I'm concerned, there were only three things that did not suck balls, and they were:

1) Golem

2) Sean Astin's entire performance as Sam

3) Selected moments of Sean Bean's performance, especially his death scene (though he was all over the map from good to painfully bad)

Everybody else in that trilogy, I wanted to just smack. And everything in it, I wanted to throw in the garbage and make them do it over.

You are wrong.

That just makes Sauron an idiot.

Gandalf basically said as much in the books (in The Two Towers, he calls Sauron a "wise fool").

*grumbles that I haven't had time to dig out my copies and refute some of these arguments properly*

*continues to lurk*

there was also Helms Deep's "Oops, Who Missed That in the Blue Prints?" Fatal Architectural Weakness (same stupid plot device as in the Death Star) -- that one storm drain that, if you blow up it up real good, will bring down the whole side of the impenetrable fortress. I mean, I ask you.Well, even in the books, the people of Rohan didn't know that explosives even existed back when they built the place...

Well, even in the books, the people of Rohan didn't know that explosives even existed back when they built the place...

IIRC, the Kingdom of Rohan didn't build the Hornburg in the book - it was one of two fortresses built by Gondor to guard the Fords of Isen. Rohan took control of the fortress after Gondor ceded the land to them.


But people are arguing at cross-purposes here over an increasingly esoteric point. It's true that Middle Earth didn't have explosives prior to Saruman, and that these couldn't be anticipated (in either book or film) by the original builders of the Hornburg.

It's equally true that the film version of the outer wall does seem just the teensiest bit weak for a key defence of as supposedly impenetrable fortress. The book version plays things safer (especially since Tolkein is deliberately vague over the nature of the explosive used by the orcs), but neither version is entirely unprecedented. If you're looking for a suspension of disbelief reason for the effectiveness of the film explosive on the wall, then put it down to Saruman's wizardry - who says it has to be a conventional 'real world' gunpowder (though I concede that's a bit weak as an excuse)?

Anyway, let's look at at least one early modern precedent. The Theodosian Land Walls of Constantinople - considerably larger and thicker than the outer curtain wall of the Hornburg in either version - were essentially impenetrable to land attack for one thousand years, from their construction in the 5th century through to 1453 (the 4th Crusade entered via the smaller sea wall on the Golden Horn).

Once cannon had been invented though, the Land Walls were doomed. The Ottomans were pulverising the walls in 1453, and while Constantine XI's troops were doing a decent job of patching them up each night, once Mehmet II decided to use cannon fire, the city was always going to fall.

But for all that, Constantinople's fall didn't come about through a breach of the land walls, but via Ottoman exploitation of a minor weakness in the defences: some idiot left the minor gate known as the kerkoporta (used for foraging and minor counter-attack sorties) unlocked and undefended. A couple of janisseries rushed in, raised their banner on a nearby tower, and the defence of the city collapsed before the cannon destroyed the Land Wall.

The relevance of which is:

A) pre-WWII gunpowder-driven technology is perfectly capable of demolishing the strongest of medieval or late classical fortifications given time, effort, and concentrated fire.

B) though a single sea mine-sized bomb wielded by one buff stylishly-lit uruk-hai probably won't be as effective (assuming said bomb is 'conventional')

C) but the concept of a small culvert or side gate offering a weak point of entry to attackers is hardly unprecedented.

Note that we're also talking about even longer odds at Constantinople (7000 defenders of Constantinople vs. some 80,000 Ottoman troops), and given that the Theodosian Land Walls are considerably longer than the fictional Hornburg curtain wall, it's not a precise comparison as Constantine XI had to defend a much longer perimeter.

IIRC, the Kingdom of Rohan didn't build the Hornburg in the book - it was one of two fortresses built by Gondor to guard the Fords of Isen. Rohan took control of the fortress after Gondor ceded the land to them.Oops! I sit corrected.

Note that we're also talking about even longer odds at Constantinople (7000 defenders of Constantinople vs. some 80,000 Ottoman troops), and given that the Theodosian Land Walls are considerably longer than the fictional Hornburg curtain wall, it's not a precise comparison as Constantine XI had to defend a much longer perimeter.True. It's basically Minas Tirith, with its outworks, that is Middle-Earth's version of Constantinople...

Which raises questions about Gandalf's judgement... With Eomer's location unknown, and the elves' participation unanticipated, why would Gandalf advise Theoden's army of some 300 men and boys to face 10,000 orcs on an open plain? Or am I missing something?

I believe the film implied that no one was aware of the true size of Saruman's army. This is why Aragorn was so surprised to see the size of the army as he rode to Helm's Deep and Theoden's response when he finds out that 10,000 orcs are coming.

He was right though; No one ended up having the moral fiber to intentionally destroy the ring. It can be argued that the only reason that Sauron even lost was because of an elaborate Xanatos Gambit on the part of Eru (essentially God's Expy).

That comment would have more weight if Tolkein had been writing history. However, as he was writing his own fiction, all that means is he set up a circular plot device. Sauron made a ring that no one would want to destroy and, hey, wow, look at that -- no one wanted to destroy it. Well, who'da thunk it?

Now if, any of the heroes had actually had the moral fiber to destroy the ring, then Sauron would have had a challenge to face, wouldn't he? Perhaps the divide between good/evil would have been shakier -- and thus the story about morals corrupted by power would have been stronger -- if characters aligned with good had turned upon the hero who really was going to destroy the ring, because they wanted it for themselves.

Yes, such characters did turn on Frodo, repeatedly, but in the end Frodo was not the moral counter-measure to Sauron. He was not the proof that evil, personified in Sauron, was not ultimately all-powerful. So he was not a source of hope in the ultimate triumph of goodness in people's hearts.

In the first movie, in the "our story so far" flashback to when Aragorn's father failed to destroy the ring, Elrond still urged him to do it and was embittered against human nature when the king reneged at the last moment (I forget how to spell the character's name). This suggests that Elrond may have had the moral fiber to destroy the ring, as he was not trying to get for himself. Gandalf looked upon the ring, yet appeared relatively unaffected by it. Did he have the moral fiber to resist it?

You see where my thoughts are going on this? A character -- perhaps not Frodo, or perhaps Frodo but developed in a different way -- who really was not subject to the corruption of Sauron's magic, who embodied a limit to Sauron's power -- one which others may not have believed existed -- I think would have upped the drama quotient of the LotR significantly.

But Tolkein chose instead to use a plot device of the evil wizard makes an Ultimate Artifact that nobody can resist, and nobody resists it, and after all that warfare and suffering and heroism, he is only defeated by Gollem tripping over a rock and falling into the volcano. I mean...seriously?

That kind of an ending turns then entire trilogy into a long shaggy-dog story, virtually a practical joke.

Which would be absolutely brilliant if Tolkein had meant to do it (like one of my favorite writers, Lawrence Sterne did with Tristram Shandy), but I suspect Tokein did mean to be serious.

If the ring had been destroyed deliberately, Tolkein would have been making a positive message about humanity. By having the ring ultimately corrupt everyone, including Frodo, and then be destroyed by accident, Tolkein ended up making a profoundly negative statement about humanity and writing a huge downer of a story with a bitter, pessimistic ending. That would make him either a bad writer or a very, very negative one. Considering that the device of the ring was structured in a way I consider circular, shallow and lazy, I personally put Tolkein into the bad writer column.

By having the ring ultimately corrupt everyone, including Frodo, and then be destroyed by accident, Tolkein ended up making a profoundly negative statement about humanity and writing a huge downer of a story with a bitter, pessimistic ending.

This is how I interpret the book series, and I take in the regard that he is condemning humanity for being corruptible. There's nothing wrong with that - if anything, it's probably true. The way the ending is structured, though, seems to indicate that he feels like "humanity is corruptible, but through that corruption can succeed anyway" (after all, they won against EVILBEING!!11!!!), which is a more positive message, and a more wholehearted one. Also, I'm not entirely sure why a negative message implies a bad writer - surely it implies a more wordly one, because it's not like humans are naturally good creatures?

Of course, I have serious problems of my own with LotR (which I believe I outlined in my post earlier), but the ending isn't one of them. Well, that's a bit of a lie. Perhaps it's more, for me, that the ending is lower down on the list.

This is how I interpret the book series, and I take in the regard that he is condemning humanity for being corruptible. There's nothing wrong with that - if anything, it's probably true. The way the ending is structured, though, seems to indicate that he feels like "humanity is corruptible, but through that corruption can succeed anyway" (after all, they won against EVILBEING!!11!!!), which is a more positive message, and a more wholehearted one.
I think it's more cynical, not more positive. And it would be in keeping with the kind of attitude one might expect from a WW1 veteran. But it still has to be written well.

Also, I'm not entirely sure why a negative message implies a bad writer - surely it implies a more wordly one, because it's not like humans are naturally good creatures?
A negative ending does not imply a bad writer.

The circular device that Tolkein used to drive the plot and deliver his ending is what marks him as a bad writer, in my opinion.

Not what he did, but how he did it.

Of course, I have serious problems of my own with LotR (which I believe I outlined in my post earlier), but the ending isn't one of them. Well, that's a bit of a lie. Perhaps it's more, for me, that the ending is lower down on the list.

Spoiled for choice when it comes to the list of things to criticize, eh? ;)

(same person, different account)

I think it's more cynical, not more positive. And it would be in keeping with the kind of attitude one might expect from a WW1 veteran. But it still has to be written well.

Understood. That's a matter of interpretation, and interpretation is a silly thing to argue about because it's, erm, interpretation. :tongue:

A negative ending does not imply a bad writer.

The circular device that Tolkein used to drive the plot and deliver his ending is what marks him as a bad writer, in my opinion.

Not what he did, but how he did it.

Ah, understood. The presence of the Ring of Power and the Ultimate Artifact are much higher up on my list of things I dislike. One thing I'd suggest is re-reading the books while simply accepting that as true - it's difficult, but the books suddenly become a whole lot more enjoyable.

Spoiled for choice when it comes to the list of things to criticize, eh? ;)

Let's just say that I used to be a really huge fan and now I've shifted my love to other writers. :tongue: That's not to say I dislike the Silmarillion, though . ;)

(same person, different account)
Oh, hi.


Understood. That's a matter of interpretation, and interpretation is a silly thing to argue about because it's, erm, interpretation. :tongue:
That's why, while I'm pretty vocal about my opinion of the books, I avoid debating the books, because my opinion is about 85% my own personal literary taste.

If this were a writing course, we might pick Tolkein apart for every technique and device he used and whether it was good or bad, or he used it right or wrong. But I think he did a lot of things that are not technically wrong or bad at all, but which I find aesthetically bad. Aesthetics are personal to each reader.

Ah, understood. The presence of the Ring of Power and the Ultimate Artifact are much higher up on my list of things I dislike. One thing I'd suggest is re-reading the books while simply accepting that as true - it's difficult, but the books suddenly become a whole lot more enjoyable.
Heh, for some reason, I'm not really motivated.

Let's just say that I used to be a really huge fan and now I've shifted my love to other writers. :tongue: That's not to say I dislike the Silmarillion, though . ;)

And I'm a frustrated would-be fan. I really like high fantasy. I like stories with monsters and sword fighting and magic, etc. I want to like Tolkein, but I can't.

I would have made a much more interesting Dark Lord:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/eyeofsauron-pie.jpg

You want some, don't you? Come join my dark army! Experience the Pie of Sauron!

All bow before LG, Lord of the Clowns, Bearer of the Pie of Unholy Smiting, Bane to All that is Boring!

My dad read The Hobbit to me back when I was 6 or 7. I read the LOTR trilogy perhaps 5 or 6 years after that, and have re-read them several times. I greatly enjoyed the depth of the story, and found the Silmarillion and Book of Lost Tales illuminating if somewhat difficult reading. The movies are OK, but I found the time compression and skipped scenes a bit jarring. They did a decent job of carrying the spirit of the books, for the most part. My greatest objection to the film adaptation is probably Faramir's portrayal as almost bringing Frodo &co. back to Gondor.

And I'm a frustrated would-be fan. I really like high fantasy. I like stories with monsters and sword fighting and magic, etc. I want to like Tolkein, but I can't.

Try reading him as poetry.

And, I don't specifically mean the inflection of emphasis in speech patterns, per se - or the natural rhythms (although I do love Tom Bombadil and his musical meandering).

I mean reading it on a grander scale, using the same techniques you use when reading poetry - a kind of macrocosmic analysis for rhyme and rhythm.

I wasn't that much of a fan of Lord of the Rings, to start with. I found it kind of... clunky and avuncular - kind of benevolent and patronising, patting you on the head, but with the sound of gears slipping.

The story was okay - some of the characters I really liked, and some, less so.

And then I had two revelations:

First: Frodo, Sam and Gollum are the same person.

Second: the whole story is written as a huge pedulum - there and back again - and is sliced into pieces by ever decreasing oscillations. Day and night. Good and bad. Even the directions they travel. The whole book ebbs and flows.

I rather enjoy it, now. I listen for the music below the noise.

Try reading him as poetry.

And, I don't specifically mean the inflection of emphasis in speech patterns, per se - or the natural rhythms (although I do love Tom Bombadil and his musical meandering).

I mean reading it on a grander scale, using the same techniques you use when reading poetry - a kind of macrocosmic analysis for rhyme and rhythm.

I wasn't that much of a fan of Lord of the Rings, to start with. I found it kind of... clunky and avuncular - kind of benevolent and patronising, patting you on the head, but with the sound of gears slipping.

The story was okay - some of the characters I really liked, and some, less so.

And then I had two revelations:

First: Frodo, Sam and Gollum are the same person.
We've had this conversation before, in a thread about movies we'd like to remake. You were going to set this in Vegas, as I recall. For myself, I was pitching some drunk Pole's idea of an urban modernization of the trilogy.

Second: the whole story is written as a huge pedulum - there and back again - and is sliced into pieces by ever decreasing oscillations. Day and night. Good and bad. Even the directions they travel. The whole book ebbs and flows.

I rather enjoy it, now. I listen for the music below the noise.
Tides ebb and flow, too. I don't necessarily want to watch them do it over and over.

The LotR trilogy is a massive, meandering work that covers a lot of ground, talks about a lot of different things, and includes a great deal of varied content.

Same with my favorite book, Tristram Shandy. Arguably, Tristram is infinitely more meandering and more pointless than LotR ever could be, primarily because less actually happens in it.

I read Tristram over and over. I couldn't put up with LotR even once. What's the difference?

It's that music below the noise thing.

I like Sterne's music below the noise. I don't like Tolkien's music below the noise.

Massive books like these take the reader on a long journey, during which we spend so much time with the author (as it were), that he has to be good company for us. We have to like the way he tells us his story at least as much as the story he is telling. We have to enjoy his voice, his style, his authorial attitude, in a way.

In general, I personally do not like books of such extended length because I find most authors start to grate on me after a while. I prefer it when such huge "meta-stories" are broken up in to more manageable parts. Tristram is really the only book of LotR-class length that I have no issues or objections to any part of. That is entirely due to how well Sterne's voice and style of storytelling suit me. When I re-read Tristram, I am doing so for the purpose of immersing myself in that voice and style, for purpose of spending time with Lawrence Sterne. I mean, I already know the whole story and all the tricks and hidden presents in the book, so it's not like I'm reading it for any other reason.

Other people re-read LotR over and over. I assume they also know the whole story and all the side stories and other content, too, so I guess they read the books again because they want to spend time with Tolkein -- immersing themselves in his style, listening to his voice.

That's what it boils down to for me. Many people really like and enjoy the way Tolkein told his stories. I do not.

Meh. Some people thought Star Wars had secret racist meanings too. Sniping at success, that's all this is.

That comment would have more weight if Tolkein had been writing history. However, as he was writing his own fiction, all that means is he set up a circular plot device. Sauron made a ring that no one would want to destroy and, hey, wow, look at that -- no one wanted to destroy it. Well, who'da thunk it?

Now if, any of the heroes had actually had the moral fiber to destroy the ring, then Sauron would have had a challenge to face, wouldn't he? Perhaps the divide between good/evil would have been shakier -- and thus the story about morals corrupted by power would have been stronger -- if characters aligned with good had turned upon the hero who really was going to destroy the ring, because they wanted it for themselves.

Yes, such characters did turn on Frodo, repeatedly, but in the end Frodo was not the moral counter-measure to Sauron. He was not the proof that evil, personified in Sauron, was not ultimately all-powerful. So he was not a source of hope in the ultimate triumph of goodness in people's hearts.

In the first movie, in the "our story so far" flashback to when Aragorn's father failed to destroy the ring, Elrond still urged him to do it and was embittered against human nature when the king reneged at the last moment (I forget how to spell the character's name). This suggests that Elrond may have had the moral fiber to destroy the ring, as he was not trying to get for himself. Gandalf looked upon the ring, yet appeared relatively unaffected by it. Did he have the moral fiber to resist it?
Iirc the books Gandalf can resist taking the ring, but thought if he took it then he wouldn't be able to resist using it and being corrupted by it.


You see where my thoughts are going on this? A character -- perhaps not Frodo, or perhaps Frodo but developed in a different way -- who really was not subject to the corruption of Sauron's magic, who embodied a limit to Sauron's power -- one which others may not have believed existed -- I think would have upped the drama quotient of the LotR significantly.

But Tolkein chose instead to use a plot device of the evil wizard makes an Ultimate Artifact that nobody can resist, and nobody resists it, and after all that warfare and suffering and heroism, he is only defeated by Gollem tripping over a rock and falling into the volcano. I mean...seriously?

That kind of an ending turns then entire trilogy into a long shaggy-dog story, virtually a practical joke.
There was actually such a character. Tom Bombadil, they cut him out of the films (sensibly) but the ring showed no effect on him. Iirc he wouldn't take the ring, or the council thought he'd lose it or both etc.

Sam seems to resist it, albeit for a short period of time. How long his resistance would've lasted is an open equestion.

I do slightly prefer the film ending of Gollum falling off from Frodo fighting with him for the ring, seemed a little more realistic.

Official opinion on the books and films: They are overrated.

That comment would have more weight if Tolkein had been writing history. However, as he was writing his own fiction, all that means is he set up a circular plot device. Sauron made a ring that no one would want to destroy and, hey, wow, look at that -- no one wanted to destroy it. Well, who'da thunk it?

I think it was more his opinion of "ultimate" power corrupting people and that with so much strength even good intentions would go astray.

Now if, any of the heroes had actually had the moral fiber to destroy the ring, then Sauron would have had a challenge to face, wouldn't he? Perhaps the divide between good/evil would have been shakier -- and thus the story about morals corrupted by power would have been stronger -- if characters aligned with good had turned upon the hero who really was going to destroy the ring, because they wanted it for themselves.

Boromir wanted to use the ring as a weapon against Sauron, in fact. Quite a few people did, actually.

Yes, such characters did turn on Frodo, repeatedly, but in the end Frodo was not the moral counter-measure to Sauron. He was not the proof that evil, personified in Sauron, was not ultimately all-powerful. So he was not a source of hope in the ultimate triumph of goodness in people's hearts.

I don't think he wanted to create a story of the human spirit being able to triumph over evil completely. Keep in mind too, that Frodo had been exposed to the ring for a great deal of time. The fact that he had even made it to that point in the first place is, in a sense, a triumph of human spirit.

In the first movie, in the "our story so far" flashback to when Aragorn's father failed to destroy the ring, Elrond still urged him to do it and was embittered against human nature when the king reneged at the last moment (I forget how to spell the character's name). This suggests that Elrond may have had the moral fiber to destroy the ring, as he was not trying to get for himself. Gandalf looked upon the ring, yet appeared relatively unaffected by it. Did he have the moral fiber to resist it?

Gandalf, Aragorn, and Book!Faramir all steadfastly refused to take possession of the ring. Instead of choosing to be tempted and to overcome it, they chose not to be tempted. I consider that to be moral fiber.

You see where my thoughts are going on this? A character -- perhaps not Frodo, or perhaps Frodo but developed in a different way -- who really was not subject to the corruption of Sauron's magic, who embodied a limit to Sauron's power -- one which others may not have believed existed -- I think would have upped the drama quotient of the LotR significantly.

Tom Bombadil, and to a lesser extent, Sam.

But Tolkein chose instead to use a plot device of the evil wizard makes an Ultimate Artifact that nobody can resist, and nobody resists it, and after all that warfare and suffering and heroism, he is only defeated by Gollem tripping over a rock and falling into the volcano. I mean...seriously?

That kind of an ending turns then entire trilogy into a long shaggy-dog story, virtually a practical joke.

Which would be absolutely brilliant if Tolkein had meant to do it (like one of my favorite writers, Lawrence Sterne did with Tristram Shandy), but I suspect Tokein did mean to be serious.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure Tolkien expressed that he considered Sam to be the true protagonist. Sam never actually strays from the quest.

If the ring had been destroyed deliberately, Tolkein would have been making a positive message about humanity. By having the ring ultimately corrupt everyone, including Frodo, and then be destroyed by accident, Tolkein ended up making a profoundly negative statement about humanity and writing a huge downer of a story with a bitter, pessimistic ending. That would make him either a bad writer or a very, very negative one.

Except the ring wasn't destroyed by accident. It was all part of Eru's plan for things to unfold the way they did. It's essentially this idea of God using the evil of others to bring about good, of using mortal weakness to bring strength.

Considering that the device of the ring was structured in a way I consider circular, shallow and lazy, I personally put Tolkein into the bad writer column.

You'll forgive me if I pay that no heed. Incidentally, I happen to love both the books and the movies.

I think it was more his opinion of "ultimate" power corrupting people and that with so much strength even good intentions would go astray.



Boromir wanted to use the ring as a weapon against Sauron, in fact. Quite a few people did, actually.



I don't think he wanted to create a story of the human spirit being able to triumph over evil completely. Keep in mind too, that Frodo had been exposed to the ring for a great deal of time. The fact that he had even made it to that point in the first place is, in a sense, a triumph of human spirit.



Gandalf, Aragorn, and Book!Faramir all steadfastly refused to take possession of the ring. Instead of choosing to be tempted and to overcome it, they chose not to be tempted. I consider that to be moral fiber.



Tom Bombadil, and to a lesser extent, Sam.



Anyway, I'm pretty sure Tolkien expressed that he considered Sam to be the true protagonist. Sam never actually strays from the quest.



Except the ring wasn't destroyed by accident. It was all part of Eru's plan for things to unfold the way they did. It's essentially this idea of God using the evil of others to bring about good, of using mortal weakness to bring strength.



You'll forgive me if I pay that no heed. Incidentally, I happen to love both the books and the movies.
But none of those incorruptible characters you mention did anything to destroy the ring themselves. If things had gone differently in Mordor, if Gollum had not fallen into the volcano, all those pure heroes would have been just as much at risk from Sauron as before. They were able to build a new age in Middle Earth only because they lucked out and fate or chance destroyed the ring for them. They showed no power to free themselves of Sauron's evil spell. Therefore, their mere existence in the story does not offset Sauron's power. Thus, LotR is not an epic conflict of good versus evil at all, because good has no chance against evil. It is only evil's bad luck that saves good's future.

Now, on it's own, that is no reason to say the books are bad. That is a very cynical, and potentially depressing, view of humanity and life to take, but other writers have taken such a view and are considered by many to be quite brilliant.

My point is that I disagree with you about Tolkein's intentions. I believe he did set out to write an epic conflict of good versus evil. Only good never really got into the game. Perhaps this is because Tolkein himself was not capable of imagining such a heroic "good." Whatever. The end result is a story in which good never really struggles against evil at all -- in the end, good gives up the fight, kind of really without a fight.

All of this rests on Frodo. He was the one who was chosen (by Tolkein) to represent the hope of good. Yet the way Tolkein structured the story, he doesn't really struggle with the inner questions raised by the ring as it casts its spell on him. Rather, it just wears him down, and in the end, he just gives in, without any particular thing to trigger his choice to abandon his quest literally at the last moment. There is no Last Temptation of Frodo. A character who had resisted the lure of the ring for so long should have needed such a trigger event to make his ultimate failure believable, don't you think? Otherwise, it just does not ring true. It is against Frodo's character, which Tolkein has spent three books developing, only to betray at the end.

So I'm not taking issue with Tolkein for writing a negative, pessimistic story. I'm criticizing him for writing a poorly constructed story that I believe was originally meant to be a different kind of story, but which was overwhelmed by Tolkein's own thoughts. Yet he failed during his writing process to acknowledge that and adjust his plot to tell the kind of story he apparently really wanted to tell.

It basically boils down to this: A heroic epic of good versus evil needs to play out a certain way (no matter which side will eventually win). A pessimistic tragedy about the failings of human nature needs to play out a different way. Tolkein, whether intentionally or by accident, mixed the two, and it does not work, as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm sorry, but just as you choose to dismiss some parts of my argument, I'm going to dismiss that "it was all part of Eru's plan" thing. To me that kind of after-the-fact deus ex machina stuff really is just pure cop-out for a failed plot device. The literary equivalent of "I meant to do that." Also, I don't see how the story demonstrates the emergence of good and strength through the workings of evil, as you suggest. I stand by my reading of it that good and strength never directly engage with evil and prevail only because evil is taken out of the picture for them. They are never tested, so can we really say they have been proven to be either good or strong?

And yes, I know that many individual characters faced tests of their goodness and/or strength. I'm talking about the meta-story, the thing that the plot is symbolizing.

And I'm sorry, but just as you choose to dismiss some parts of my argument, I'm going to dismiss that "it was all part of Eru's plan" thing. To me that kind of after-the-fact deus ex machina stuff really is just pure cop-out for a failed plot device. The literary equivalent of "I meant to do that." Also, I don't see how the story demonstrates the emergence of good and strength through the workings of evil, as you suggest. I stand by my reading of it that good and strength never directly engage with evil and prevail only because evil is taken out of the picture for them. They are never tested, so can we really say they have been proven to be either good or strong?

For the record, how can it be after-the-fact when it's pretty much stated in the first book? Well, second book in the first volume, but still in the 1/3 of the story.

For the record, how can it be after-the-fact when it's pretty much stated in the first book? Well, second book in the first volume, but still in the 1/3 of the story.
Sorry, I meant the mention of it in this thread was after-the-fact, meaning after all the criticisms, then it was brought up.

Now, on it's own, I still don't approve of that device. It may have worked for the Greek playwrites, but Tolkein ain't no Euripides.

There is no Last Temptation of Frodo.

Are we talking ends justify the means moral quandary sort of Last Temptation or something else?

That comment would have more weight if Tolkein had been writing history. However, as he was writing his own fiction, all that means is he set up a circular plot device. Sauron made a ring that no one would want to destroy and, hey, wow, look at that -- no one wanted to destroy it. Well, who'da thunk it?

Now if, any of the heroes had actually had the moral fiber to destroy the ring, then Sauron would have had a challenge to face, wouldn't he? Perhaps the divide between good/evil would have been shakier -- and thus the story about morals corrupted by power would have been stronger -- if characters aligned with good had turned upon the hero who really was going to destroy the ring, because they wanted it for themselves.

Yes, such characters did turn on Frodo, repeatedly, but in the end Frodo was not the moral counter-measure to Sauron. He was not the proof that evil, personified in Sauron, was not ultimately all-powerful. So he was not a source of hope in the ultimate triumph of goodness in people's hearts.

You see where my thoughts are going on this? A character -- perhaps not Frodo, or perhaps Frodo but developed in a different way -- who really was not subject to the corruption of Sauron's magic, who embodied a limit to Sauron's power -- one which others may not have believed existed -- I think would have upped the drama quotient of the LotR significantly.

But Tolkein chose instead to use a plot device of the evil wizard makes an Ultimate Artifact that nobody can resist, and nobody resists it, and after all that warfare and suffering and heroism, he is only defeated by Gollem tripping over a rock and falling into the volcano. I mean...seriously?

That kind of an ending turns then entire trilogy into a long shaggy-dog story, virtually a practical joke.

If the ring had been destroyed deliberately, Tolkein would have been making a positive message about humanity. By having the ring ultimately corrupt everyone, including Frodo, and then be destroyed by accident, Tolkein ended up making a profoundly negative statement about humanity and writing a huge downer of a story with a bitter, pessimistic ending. That would make him either a bad writer or a very, very negative one. Considering that the device of the ring was structured in a way I consider circular, shallow and lazy, I personally put Tolkein into the bad writer column.

<snipped some parts>

And would this have been a good story? An extremly powerfull ring that has no effect on Frodo who just walks trough Morodor unafffected.

On of the powerful part of the story is Frodos struggle to fight the ring. In the end, it is his good deed earlier (not killing Gollum) that saves the world, which in my opinion could mean that Tolkien has a positive meaning, since he belived that all human can be corrupted by power but that by doing good deeds we can literaaly save the world. I might be drawig a farfetched conclusion, but on the other side a lot of other people in this thread is doing that IMO.

One shoudl also remeber that Tolkien was not a educated writer, so the fact that he coudl create such a sucessful story is quite fascinating, even if some people don't like it.

Tolkien based almost everything of Celtic and other mythes written hundreds of years before him.

Any racism wasnt his. And is most likely imagined.

Actually it was based on Norse mytholagy mostly.

I still think those 2 bumps that Mick Foley took off the Hell-in-the-Cell were amazing...

Wait that was King of the Ring, my bad

I still think those 2 bumps that Mick Foley took off the Hell-in-the-Cell were amazing...

Wait that was King of the Ring, my bad

Huh?

Obviously you're not a wrestling fan

Obviously you're not a wrestling fan

I was, till I got to about 10. But what does wrestling have to do with anything?

I'm also a former wrestling fan, anyway King of the Ring is the name of a WWF (I guess it is the WWE now) yearly event and Mick Foley took 2 legitimate falls that damn near killed him, youtube it Hell-in-the-Cell.

At any rate I was punning on Lord of the Rings

Personally I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, I prefer Michael Moorcock's works like the Elric series

I'm also a former wrestling fan, anyway King of the Ring is the name of a WWF (I guess it is the WWE now) yearly event and Mick Foley took 2 legitimate falls that damn near killed him, youtube it Hell-in-the-Cell.

At any rate I was punning on Lord of the Rings

Personally I'm not a huge Tolkien fan, I prefer Michael Moorcock's works like the Elric series

I know hwat happened ta very much. I used to know bare about WWE. But I've grown up a bit.

I guess so, elves & magic rings are the stuff of grown-ups afterall...

Just busting your balls, I like speculative fiction probably as much as you do

I guess so, elves & magic rings are the stuff of grown-ups afterall...

Just busting your balls, I like speculative fiction probably as much as you do

I don't like it much as people seem to think.

Oh, so who are your favorite writers?

Oh, so who are your favorite writers?

Churchill is good. It really depends what kinda mood I'm in.

Churchill has some good quotes, but he wasted a lot of people's lives with his handling of the Gallipoli campaign, it is really a wonder that he became a successful PM after that or even became PM after that

Churchill has some good quotes, but he wasted a lot of people's lives with his handling of the Gallipoli campaign, it is really a wonder that he became a successful PM after that or even became PM after that

Gallipoli was as much Kitcheners fault as it was Chruchill's. Beside churchill did good before he became PM, he supported the women's sufferage.

Kitchener does indeed deserve some of the blame.

Every political figure has their pros/cons.

Racism? I wasn't aware of nor was I referring to any racism in LoTR. I was just referring to the lack of originality in that fantasy authors just keep remixing the same old formulas of wizards, magic, elves, etc. Which is pretty much why I love Sci-Fi. In Sci-Fi, the only way to imitate the masters is to create stories that are just as new, innovative, startling, fresh, intriguing.

I think you have things backwards. It's about how SF authors keep rehashing the same old formulas of spaceships, aliens, laser guns, etc. That's why I love fantasy - the only way to imitate the masters is to write books that are fresh, innovative, and thought provoking.

Or, of course, you could recognise that SF&F is really one genre, not two, that both aspects have excellent, innovative writers and deliberate hacks, and that the correct approach is to celebrate the many good, original writers and criticise and/or lampoon the hacks.

I think you have things backwards. It's about how SF authors keep rehashing the same old formulas of spaceships, aliens, laser guns, etc. That's why I love fantasy - the only way to imitate the masters is to write books that are fresh, innovative, and thought provoking.
We can safely say there are plenty of terrible, unoriginal plots in both scifi and fantasy.

We can safely say there are plenty of terrible, unoriginal plots in both scifi and fantasy.

As my next paragraph made clear. That first one was to illustrate the problems with his comment in a nice clear way, by reversing it and applying it to the subgenre he had claimed was perfect (to an extent).

As my next paragraph made clear.
Ahhh, yes.

A rather wacky misread on my part.

One shoudl also remeber that Tolkien was not a educated writer, so the fact that he coudl create such a sucessful story is quite fascinating, even if some people don't like it."Uneducated"?!? What?!? He was not only a university graduate but a university professor...

<snipped some parts>

And would this have been a good story? An extremly powerfull ring that has no effect on Frodo who just walks trough Morodor unafffected.

On of the powerful part of the story is Frodos struggle to fight the ring. In the end, it is his good deed earlier (not killing Gollum) that saves the world, which in my opinion could mean that Tolkien has a positive meaning, since he belived that all human can be corrupted by power but that by doing good deeds we can literaaly save the world. I might be drawig a farfetched conclusion, but on the other side a lot of other people in this thread is doing that IMO.
I'm not getting my point across. The thing that makes the difference is the INTENT of the character. Does he have his own will to battle against Sauron's? Is Sauron actually up against an enemy in this story? I'm saying that, in my opinion, it would have been a better heroic epic, if any hero had actively opposed Sauron. The way it is written, all the characters strike me as either on the sidelines, not directly engaging Sauron, or else passive in the struggle, letting fate or Eru determine what happens to them. This renders them as mere game pieces being moved about. If any hero had actively engaged, challenged and opposed Sauron, then regardless of whether they succeeded or failed or were corrupted or betrayed at the end, I would feel the drama was heightened, and that good had really battled evil.

One shoudl also remeber that Tolkien was not a educated writer, so the fact that he coudl create such a sucessful story is quite fascinating, even if some people don't like it.
So, is this the Special Olympics now?

One shoudl also remeber that Tolkien was not a educated writer, so the fact that he coudl create such a sucessful story is quite fascinating, even if some people don't like it.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Tolkien was an extremely well-educated man. He hadn't taken any writing classes (to my knowledge, which is rather limited) to tell him what formulas to use, but I expect he knew them anyways.

Are you seriously being a good writer requires a degree in creative writing? Because that would be unfathomably, unimaginitvely idiotic.

Or, of course, you could recognise that SF&F is really one genre, not two, that both aspects have excellent, innovative writers and deliberate hacks, and that the correct approach is to celebrate the many good, original writers and criticise and/or lampoon the hacks.

I disagree. I consider them two genres that overlap to a considerable degree. Of course, one could describe the two combined as a sort of "hyper-genre" under the label "speculative fiction."

You see, science fiction is based, at least in theory, on speculating about extreme possibilities by extrapolating from modern scientific knowledge. Fantasy is not so constrained, and can disregard science altogether. I also feel that lumping the two together may have a detrimental effect on the science fiction genre and society as a whole, by encouraging the attitude that science fiction can simply ignore science with impunity, while still selling it as "scientific." This may harm both the genre as a medium for speculating on and preparing for the future, and encourage scientific ignorence in the general population.

That's my view, anyways.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/ Anyone else excited?

I'm not getting my point across. The thing that makes the difference is the INTENT of the character. Does he have his own will to battle against Sauron's? Is Sauron actually up against an enemy in this story? I'm saying that, in my opinion, it would have been a better heroic epic,

Maybe, by your definition, its not a great heroic epic. Doesn't mean its not a great story.

if any hero had actively opposed Sauron. The way it is written, all the characters strike me as either on the sidelines, not directly engaging Sauron, or else passive in the struggle, letting fate or Eru determine what happens to them. This renders them as mere game pieces being moved about. If any hero had actively engaged, challenged and opposed Sauron, then regardless of whether they succeeded or failed or were corrupted or betrayed at the end, I would feel the drama was heightened, and that good had really battled evil.

Well, given Tolkien's religious background, he probably believed that in the end man could only be saved by God, that God has infinite knowledge and wisdom, that their is a "divine plan," etc, and so it should be no surprise if such ideas come across in his stories.

However, it is flat out bullshit to say that no character actively opposes Sauron. Frodo fights him every step of the way, losing in the sense of being unable to destroy the Ring, but winning in the sense that his earlier mercy in choosing to spare Gollum is repaid, as another poster already pointed out. Aragorn fights a different way, leading a military campaign to delay and distract Sauron (and in the book it is suggested, if not explicitely stated, that Sauron actually fears Aragorn). Aragorn also directly engages Sauron in a mental battle for control of the Palantir, and wins. The other character support them in these efforts, especially Sam and Gandalf.

So, is this the Special Olympics now?

As near as I can tell, the poster feels that good writing is generally contingent upon a having a degree in creative writing or something.:rolleyes:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson10.html

^ an interesting perspective on JRRT, his books, modern academic/literary reactions, and the underlying philosophies.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson10.html

^ an interesting perspective on JRRT, his books, modern academic/literary reactions, and the underlying philosophies.

While its an interesting article, the denouncing of socialism, the arguable equating of communism and socialism, and the fixation on "eleitists" all stink of the kind of right-wing propoganda one expects to hear from the Palin crowd.

And with that, an innocent LotR thread is now talking about the election again.:D

There is an odd juxtaposition of the statist/monarchist view of an hereditary monarch resuming his family throne, contrasted with the essentially stateless Shire of the Hobbits and the absolute totalitarianism of Sauron and Saruman. After all, if some can find racism and sexism when they do not even exist, why not look at the definitely implied commentaries on governmental systems? I know JRRT had a strong disgust for the state (especially tyrannical governments like that of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia) and would probably find much in common with the modern philosophical anarchy movement, but he lived under a constitutional monarchy and studied legends from the days of heroes and kings.

And WTF does Sarah Palin have to do with this article from 2002? I don't think she was even Alaska Governor when this was written, and I doubt she has much in common with an anti-war, anti-state, pro-market site like lewrockwell.com so why did you even bring it up?

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Tolkien was an extremely well-educated man. He hadn't taken any writing classes (to my knowledge, which is rather limited) to tell him what formulas to use, but I expect he knew them anyways.

Are you seriously being a good writer requires a degree in creative writing? Because that would be unfathomably, unimaginitvely idiotic.

No, you missunderstood me too 100%.

I know he was a well-educated man, I just find it fascinating that some people complain about his stories when he in fact was able (without taking any writing classes to learn how a "proper story") to write a story which is one of the most sucessful and which for me is one of the better I have read.

I want to expound upon some things others have said (and reveal myself as a total geek in doing so who has spent ENTIRELY too much time analyzing Tolkien [to be fair it was Tolkien or Hugo's Les Mis]). Also, please let me note now that I will speak SOLELY of items contained within the written body, I don't think the films did near enough justice to most of my points.

1. Sauron's Stupidity:
While Sauron's decision still flies in the face of conventional wisdom (why would one EVER put such an extent of ones power in a single object? I guess the same reason the US navy builds Nimitz class carriers) it rests upon what from a political science perspective is perfectly sound logic. Political Realism (which I would say has dictated virtually all of human political history) purports that the essential point of the entire thing is to maximize power. In that realm, Sauron's belief that no one would ever deliberately bring harm to the Ring is perfectly reasonable. After all, if I want to maximize my own power, it makes little logical sense to destroy the one item that contains within it the power to give me effective dominion over all life. Of course, it's a failing of the political theory that it doesn't take into account that I might not wish to maximize my power at such a terrible cost to myself, but as history has shown us, most people apparently side with realism in discarding all moral considerations.

2. Frodo's temptation
To me, the book makes it very clear that the Ring is a constant temptation, focusing its will upon the bearer and those around him constantly through every waking and non-waking moment of their life. Add that to the fact that the ring's will is that of a malevolent being of supernatural, effectively little g god status and one can see that it would take an awful lot of will power to resist the ring for ANY length of time. Yet, Bilbo has possession of this thing for 60 years and is still able to willingly part with it, against the ring's will, says an awful lot about Bilbo's ability to resist temptation. Frodo is in the presence of the ring for 30 years, and in direct possession of it for 18. During this time, Sauron, and thus the ring, is continually growing stronger nad thus likely exerting far greater power upon Frodo as time passes. Additionally, it's made very clear that the power of the ring is increasing the closer he gets to the Barad-Dur. Under such circumstances, I think is was an incredibly powerful act of will for Frodo to have left home, and then Rivendell, much less have made it all the way to Orodruin and along the way having lost virtually everything that meant anything to him. The quest effectively destroyed that which was Frodo before he left the shire. I think Frodo deserves a little more credit than some people are giving him.

3. Sam
Poor guy, let's give him some credit too. He's a gardener who gets drafted my a crochety wizard into something that is quite plainly well outside his ability to comprehend. Yet somehow, he manages to retain his faith in himself, Frodo and the world. He, arguably, does the most of any one person to defeat Sauron. Sam doesn't possess the ring for any significant period of time, but he's certainly in its presence (which seems to be more than enough for it to exert influence, a la Boromir and Gollum) for a length of time that it should have exerted some power or sway upon him, yet he seems to be completely untouched by any taint of evil.

4. Other people opposing the will of Sauron
A. Gandalf
Gandalf is explicitly forbidden from directly facing Sauron, so its not exactly fair to criticize him for not doing so. The Powers correctly insist that the free peoples need to defeat evil for themselves if it's to mean anything. I also don't find it surprising that he manages to resist the temptation to take the ring. He's a spirit of the same order (though apparently of much lesser power) than Sauron, and would thus know exactly what taking the ring would involve.

B. Galadriel/Elrond
Both characters hold rings of power and are pretty downright scary in their own right. However, they also have to power to hide themselves and everything within their realms from Sauron's sight, even as he actively opposes their attempts to do so.
Further, Galadriel is expressely known to have opposed her will directly to the temptation of the ring when Frodo offered it to her, and won (which is one of the few times I think the movie could have gone for some more drama and CGI work). Of course, it also says something for both Elrond and the Golden lady that they have enough wisdom to know what taking the ring would mean for themselves and everyone else. It's also worth noting that they've lost no matter what. If Sauron wins than everything they've striven for fails utterly and they are destroyed. If Frodo suceeds everything they've made still fails completely and they diminish and are lost. Despite this, they still hang around and oppose Sauron instead of giving up and sailing into the west to the Undying Lands where it's a moot point.

C. Denethor
Denethor becomes Steward of Gondor in 2984 and uses the Palantir of Minas Anor to gain knowledge of Sauron's forces and such. Sauron, possessing the stone of Minas Ithil exerts his will upon Denethor in order to attempt to control what he sees. It's a small victory for Denethor that he still manages to get useful information out of this at all, and that it takes until 3019 to compeltely drive denethor insane. More than 30 years of directly fighting a little g god isn't really an achievement to scoff at for a mortal man.

D. Aragorn
Aragorn is a friggin' saint. He manages to refuse the allure of the ring and sends Frodo on his way. Then, he manages through force of will and charisma to unify the men of the west and Rohan. Somewhere in there he grabs a palantir and beats Sauron into submission to force SAURON to see what ARAGORN wants (and in doing so, explicitly, not implicitly, scares the hell out of Sauron, who attacks the west before he's ready out of this). He then chooses to lead a hopeless attack on his enemy to give Frodo time and a distraction to destroy the ring. If there were Catholics in LOTR surely someone would have sent him in for canonization.

I'm not really going to take time to go through the other cast members, but I think it's fair to say that Tolkien gave a cast of characters all of whom have tremendous ability and will in their own ways and realms. I think Tolkien had a message in their somewhere that one little silly Hobbit from the Shire that would normally have been completely unremarkable was able to do something that none of the most powerful and wise people in the world believed themselves capable of doing. Somehow, I have to believe that if Aragorn or Legolas or Gimli, etc had taken the ring to Orodruin or if Frodo had thrown it in himself, the story would have been diminished greatly.

I'm not getting my point across. The thing that makes the difference is the INTENT of the character. Does he have his own will to battle against Sauron's? Is Sauron actually up against an enemy in this story? I'm saying that, in my opinion, it would have been a better heroic epic, if any hero had actively opposed Sauron. The way it is written, all the characters strike me as either on the sidelines, not directly engaging Sauron, or else passive in the struggle, letting fate or Eru determine what happens to them. This renders them as mere game pieces being moved about. If any hero had actively engaged, challenged and opposed Sauron, then regardless of whether they succeeded or failed or were corrupted or betrayed at the end, I would feel the drama was heightened, and that good had really battled evil.


Well, I don't really se it as a classic heroic story, where one man (or in a few cases a woman) have been choosen by I higher power to fight the evil forces. If you have these approach you will of course be dissapointed.

Tolkiens expericence in WWI made him have hard time too belive in such a caracter. The main caracters all had special abilities since they (except for the hobbits) where good fighters but an arrow was as deadly for them as for any normal man. The only one who had a lot of magic powers (Aragorn and Legolas hade some minor) was Gandalf but even his powers was limited.

To let this people go against a demigod which Sauron was in a direct assult would be silly since there could be only one outcome. If Tolkien would have choosen this appproach the enemy must have been less powerful (perhaps Sauroman instead).

Sauron has one outspoken enemy, Aragorn whos forfather had cut the ring of Saurons finger. Aragorn also challenge Sauron, however since Sauron don't really has any physical part in this world yet there can not be a final battle.

If you don't like it thats fine, but for me it would have been a letdown to have a big final battle in the end after Sauron has been told to be a demigod during the whole book. Now it is his arrogance and one good deed by not killing Gollum that saves the world. Perhpas not classic heroic end but still a good end for me

Well, I don't really se it as a classic heroic story, where one man (or in a few cases a woman) have been choosen by I higher power to fight the evil forces. If you have these approach you will of course be dissapointed.

Tolkiens expericence in WWI made him have hard time too belive in such a caracter. The main caracters all had special abilities since they (except for the hobbits) where good fighters but an arrow was as deadly for them as for any normal man. The only one who had a lot of magic powers (Aragorn and Legolas hade some minor) was Gandalf but even his powers was limited.

To let this people go against a demigod which Sauron was in a direct assult would be silly since there could be only one outcome. If Tolkien would have choosen this appproach the enemy must have been less powerful (perhaps Suroman instead).

Sauron has one outspoken enemy, Aragorn whos forfather had cut the ring of Saurons finger. Aragorn also challenge Suron, however since Suron don't really has any physical part in this world yet there can not be a final battle.

If you don't like it thats fine, but for me it would have been a letdown to have a big final battle in the end after Sauron has been told to be a demigod during the whole book. Now it is his arrogance and one good deed by not killing Gollum that saves the world. Perhpas not classic heroic end but still a good end for me

You do know that that wasn't the end, don't you?


P.s you spelt Sauron wrong like 2/3 times.

I Eldalante, that was an excellent post and I think it hammers home the point that in dramatic terms, the Ring *is* Sauron. There's no need to be "directly" fighting Sauron, man to man in a dramatic Boss Fight complete with fisticuffs and spiffy one-liners. Being in the presence of the Ring means you are contending to some degree with Sauron's power, and that's enough to break weaker persons, or to make others into heroes.

I Eldalante, that was an excellent post and I think it hammers home the point that in dramatic terms, the Ring *is* Sauron. There's no need to be "directly" fighting Sauron, man to man in a dramatic Boss Fight complete with fisticuffs and spiffy one-liners. Being in the presence of the Ring means you are contending to some degree with Sauron's power, and that's enough to break weaker persons, or to make others into heroes.

Aye, what I like about the book is that you never have any real description of sauron, if you dunno what he looks like you can imagine it yourself.

You do know that that wasn't the end, don't you?


P.s you spelt Sauron wrong like 2/3 times.

New keyboard...

Isn't the end that Gollum gets the ring and then drops into the fire and that if he had not been saved by Frodo this would not have happened? Then my Swedish copy must be broken...

Or is it the burning of the Shire you speak of. Which in it self is a great story.

Aye, that was one of the things that I both liked and disliked about the movie at the same time. Naturally they had to pick some form for Sauron for the movie (it can't be helped).

I think their representation of The Eye was excellent, if not quite exactly how I pictured it. Unfortunately, I think their armor Sauron was a little unimaginitive (he's effectively impervious to damage and can incarnate himself in pretty much any form but chooses that god-awful completely bizarre nonsensical iron think?) and the choice to make him a completely disembodied eye floating above the tower was just bizarre (I'm one of those folks who think that Sauron did have a body in the 3rd age).

New keyboard...

Isn't the end that Gollum gets the ring and then drops into the fire and that if he had not been saved by Frodo this would not have happened? Then my Swedish copy must be broken...

Or is it the burning of the Shire you speak of. Which in it self is a great story.
Yeah, there's that and Aragorn's crownig, and when Frodo and whatnot leave the grey havens.
Aye, that was one of the things that I both liked and disliked about the movie at the same time. Naturally they had to pick some form for Sauron for the movie (it can't be helped).

I think their representation of The Eye was excellent, if not quite exactly how I pictured it. Unfortunately, I think their armor Sauron was a little unimaginitive (he's effectively impervious to damage and can incarnate himself in pretty much any form but chooses that god-awful completely bizarre nonsensical iron think?) and the choice to make him a completely disembodied eye floating above the tower was just bizarre (I'm one of those folks who think that Sauron did have a body in the 3rd age).

He didn't have a body, when Gandalf and Saruman are in Orthunk Saruman says that Suaron had not yet taken a solid form, or some shit like that.

Yeah, there's that and Aragorn's crownig, and when Frodo and whatnot leave the grey havens.


Ok, then I see what you meant.

However, the discussion was about Sauron and the story about that ends with Gollums death.

He didn't have a body, when Gandalf and Saruman are in Orthunk Saruman says that Suaron had not yet taken a solid form, or some shit like that.

Unless I have completely forgotten myself, that entire conversation is completely an invention of the movie and Peter Jackson.

Ok, then I see what you meant.

However, the discussion was about Sauron and the story about that ends with Gollums death.

In LotR maybe, but he's not dead. It says somewhere that he'll come back for the final battle with Melkor and will fight Manwë and that Arda will be destroyed and rebuilt.

Unless I have completely forgotten myself, that entire conversation is completely an invention of the movie and Peter Jackson.

It is, which contratics the whole big orange eye.

I disagree. I consider them two genres that overlap to a considerable degree. Of course, one could describe the two combined as a sort of "hyper-genre" under the label "speculative fiction."

You see, science fiction is based, at least in theory, on speculating about extreme possibilities by extrapolating from modern scientific knowledge. Fantasy is not so constrained, and can disregard science altogether. I also feel that lumping the two together may have a detrimental effect on the science fiction genre and society as a whole, by encouraging the attitude that science fiction can simply ignore science with impunity, while still selling it as "scientific." This may harm both the genre as a medium for speculating on and preparing for the future, and encourage scientific ignorence in the general population.

That's my view, anyways.

I disagree. Due to lack of a real keyboard, I'm going to link you to something I wrote on TSR a while ago, about The Difference Between Science Fiction and Fantasy (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=16329916&postcount=22).

Edit: As I now have a real keyboard again, I'll add it into this post. Myself, from a few months ago:

The difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy

Basically, there isn't. SF can be set in the past, and fantasy can be set in the future. Both can be set in the present. The important thing is what the conceit(s) is(are). If it is magical in nature, such as A Wizard of Earthsea or American Gods, then you're more likely to be in a fantasy book. If it is technological in some way - Foundation, Ender's Game - then it's probably better classified as SF.

But books can and do regularly straddle the lines. Dragonriders of Pern, mentioned earlier, combines steampunkish SF traits with high fantasy traits. Or there are works like The Martian Chronicles, which are really an exploration of society and humanity. Furthermore, the term has historically been used for anything in the line between hard SF and fantasy, as an umbrella.

I suppose the best way to say it would be this: if the book/work is concerned with how the setting affects the society and the characters, then it is probably SF&F. Otherwise, it probably isn't, despite having magic or incredibly high technology. Star Wars is on the edge - the technology it has is simply there as a plot device, and the story and interactions of the characters would still make sense in many other settings and contexts. By contrast, Rainbow's End explores how the technology present has affected the society it is in, and Neverwhere does a similar thing with magic.

It's all in what the book is concerned with, not when it's set or what is present. SF&F is about societies, giving us visions of alternate ones, or holding up a mirror to our own. The means it uses to achieve this are somewhat irrelevant, and can even get in the way.

Edit2: To crib from Ursula K. LeGuin, it's SF&F if you can't just transplant the dialogue into another context, something else if you can. Appropriate substitutions may be needed, to move from a starship to a real ship, or from an interstellar government to Capitol Hill, but the key thing is that the essentials still fit. For a much better explanation of this, read her essay From Elfland to Poughkeepsie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/ Anyone else excited?
I would rather he had done the trilogy.

Maybe, by your definition, its not a great heroic epic. Doesn't mean its not a great story.

I realize that people tend not to be able to follow multiple points when something they like very much is being criticized, but I have stated several times that when I criticize LotR, I am expressing my own personal opinion based on my tastes and preferences in literature and writing styles, and that critiques or praise of books based on such subjective measures are fine to talk about but not really good for debating.

I have never once said that LotR is not a good story. In fact, in my post in which I described myself as frustrated wannabe fan of Tolkein, I was suggesting that it is a very good story but one which I wish had been executed differently. I take issue with Tolkein in the same way I take issue with Stephen King (though King never wrote and I think never could write a story anywhere near as alluring as Tolkein did) -- my issue is with HOW the writer tells his stories, not what stories the writer tells.

In fact, I said as much pretty bluntly in at least one post.

Well, given Tolkien's religious background, he probably believed that in the end man could only be saved by God, that God has infinite knowledge and wisdom, that their is a "divine plan," etc, and so it should be no surprise if such ideas come across in his stories.
That's a good point, but I would say that would make LotR a good allegory, but not a good heroic epic. Nor much of a tragedy, either, depending which way one thinks Tolkein should have gone with Frodo's ending.

However, it is flat out bullshit to say that no character actively opposes Sauron. Frodo fights him every step of the way, losing in the sense of being unable to destroy the Ring, but winning in the sense that his earlier mercy in choosing to spare Gollum is repaid, as another poster already pointed out. Aragorn fights a different way, leading a military campaign to delay and distract Sauron (and in the book it is suggested, if not explicitely stated, that Sauron actually fears Aragorn). Aragorn also directly engages Sauron in a mental battle for control of the Palantir, and wins. The other character support them in these efforts, especially Sam and Gandalf.
I think I've made it pretty clear that I disagree with that analysis. I have touched upon all those points more than once before in this thread, and I'm not going to say all that stuff again.

As near as I can tell, the poster feels that good writing is generally contingent upon a having a degree in creative writing or something.:rolleyes:
Well, yeah, I pretty much dismiss that "he didn't know what he was doing, so we have to give him props for doing anything that didn't totally suck" nonsense, too.

First off, arts/letters are not like brain surgery or the law. You don't need extensive academic training and/or boundless knowledge of the history of the field to do them. That's probably why we don't require a license to write books the way we require licenses to practice medicine or law. You don't have to prove you've had the training and passed the tests.

And as others have pointed out, there is no reason to assume that Tolkein did not know what he was doing. The background education for a writer is plentifully available in places called libraries and bookstores, and as an academic in his own right, I am sure Tolkein was perfectly capable of accessing such information (i.e. reading books). The content of his books proves that he did that, because it is easy to trace his sources for characters and plot structures and storytelling style.

I want to expound upon some things others have said (and reveal myself as a total geek in doing so who has spent ENTIRELY too much time analyzing Tolkien [to be fair it was Tolkien or Hugo's Les Mis]). Also, please let me note now that I will speak SOLELY of items contained within the written body, I don't think the films did near enough justice to most of my points.
You have indeed spent WAAAAY too much time on this. :D

1. Sauron's Stupidity:
While Sauron's decision still flies in the face of conventional wisdom (why would one EVER put such an extent of ones power in a single object? I guess the same reason the US navy builds Nimitz class carriers) it rests upon what from a political science perspective is perfectly sound logic. Political Realism (which I would say has dictated virtually all of human political history) purports that the essential point of the entire thing is to maximize power. In that realm, Sauron's belief that no one would ever deliberately bring harm to the Ring is perfectly reasonable. After all, if I want to maximize my own power, it makes little logical sense to destroy the one item that contains within it the power to give me effective dominion over all life. Of course, it's a failing of the political theory that it doesn't take into account that I might not wish to maximize my power at such a terrible cost to myself, but as history has shown us, most people apparently side with realism in discarding all moral considerations.
I like realism, even in a fantasy story. Especially in a fantasy story. As you say, it is reasonable and realistic to write Sauron as a character who thinks about life and human nature a certain way, and thus expects that he can make this device and it will affect everyone the way he intends, and his evil plot of evil will progress as planned.

But in my opinion, it is unrealistic to have things actually happen that way in the plot.

And indeed, from what you write below, we could say it does not happen that way in the plot of LotR. Only for some reason none of the characters in the story seems to realize it. The ring is this Big Scary Thing -- the One Ring to Rule Them All, boo-horror. And everyone's a-scared of it.

Meanwhile, you've given us a whole catalogue of characters who apparently had little to fear from the ring. Plus it's not the only ring of power out there. Plus the story moves through a world full of beings more or less unaware and uninterested in it. The more we talk about the One Ring, the more of a big "meh" it becomes.

And yet, the whole fate of Middle Earth rests upon what happens to it. Really? What is it -- that one Uber Paperclip that holds the papers better than anything else ever could, and all will be lost without it? It just seems like a lot of hasserei over something that, at the heart of the matter, isn't really all that important in itself.

Let me ask this: If so many can resist the power of the ring, and if the end of the LotR trilogy was not actually the permanent death of Sauron and the removal of his evil from the world (he will rise again in the future), then what really would have happened if someone along the way had just dropped the ring into the ocean or something and forgotten all about it?

Here's what I see when I look at the Sauron/Ring dynamic: I see a writer who set himself up with a too-perfect villain.

If Tolkein had written his plot with the ring really being the powerful evil presence that he set it up as, then it would have been nearly impossible for his plot to progress. So he set up an Ultra-Evil Villain and Villainous Device, but then downgraded its power, scene by scene and character by character, so that things could happen the way he wanted them to. But he does not acknowledge this problem and work it into his plot. He still has all the characters carrying on about how Extremely Evil the Evil is :eek2:.

In my opinion, and to my personal taste, it creates a pervasive stiltedness and fakeness to the whole story.


2. Frodo's temptation
To me, the book makes it very clear that the Ring is a constant temptation, focusing its will upon the bearer and those around him constantly through every waking and non-waking moment of their life. Add that to the fact that the ring's will is that of a malevolent being of supernatural, effectively little g god status and one can see that it would take an awful lot of will power to resist the ring for ANY length of time. Yet, Bilbo has possession of this thing for 60 years and is still able to willingly part with it, against the ring's will, says an awful lot about Bilbo's ability to resist temptation. Frodo is in the presence of the ring for 30 years, and in direct possession of it for 18. During this time, Sauron, and thus the ring, is continually growing stronger nad thus likely exerting far greater power upon Frodo as time passes. Additionally, it's made very clear that the power of the ring is increasing the closer he gets to the Barad-Dur. Under such circumstances, I think is was an incredibly powerful act of will for Frodo to have left home, and then Rivendell, much less have made it all the way to Orodruin and along the way having lost virtually everything that meant anything to him. The quest effectively destroyed that which was Frodo before he left the shire. I think Frodo deserves a little more credit than some people are giving him.
I won't repeat all my previous posts about how I see the way Tolkein wrote Frodo's resistance -- his sojourn in hell, as it were -- as essentially passive and not really a head-on test of Frodo's character, or that the final moment when Frodo cracks and refuses to destroy the ring seemed like a non-sequitur after his prolonged ability to resist it before, because of the way Tolkein wrote it.

I will say here, though, that your highlighting of the length of time that the ring resided among the Hobbits only underscores my sense of it as a "meh" of an evil device that corrupts the soul.

3. Sam
Poor guy, let's give him some credit too. He's a gardener who gets drafted my a crochety wizard into something that is quite plainly well outside his ability to comprehend. Yet somehow, he manages to retain his faith in himself, Frodo and the world. He, arguably, does the most of any one person to defeat Sauron. Sam doesn't possess the ring for any significant period of time, but he's certainly in its presence (which seems to be more than enough for it to exert influence, a la Boromir and Gollum) for a length of time that it should have exerted some power or sway upon him, yet he seems to be completely untouched by any taint of evil.
I personally consider Sam one of the better realized characters in the story. However, he is another who makes me think that Sauron wasn't really such great shakes as an evil power and that perhaps our heroes were overreacting to him a little.

4. Other people opposing the will of Sauron
A. Gandalf
Gandalf is explicitly forbidden from directly facing Sauron, so its not exactly fair to criticize him for not doing so. The Powers correctly insist that the free peoples need to defeat evil for themselves if it's to mean anything. I also don't find it surprising that he manages to resist the temptation to take the ring. He's a spirit of the same order (though apparently of much lesser power) than Sauron, and would thus know exactly what taking the ring would involve.

B. Galadriel/Elrond
Both characters hold rings of power and are pretty downright scary in their own right. However, they also have to power to hide themselves and everything within their realms from Sauron's sight, even as he actively opposes their attempts to do so.
Further, Galadriel is expressely known to have opposed her will directly to the temptation of the ring when Frodo offered it to her, and won (which is one of the few times I think the movie could have gone for some more drama and CGI work). Of course, it also says something for both Elrond and the Golden lady that they have enough wisdom to know what taking the ring would mean for themselves and everyone else. It's also worth noting that they've lost no matter what. If Sauron wins than everything they've striven for fails utterly and they are destroyed. If Frodo suceeds everything they've made still fails completely and they diminish and are lost. Despite this, they still hang around and oppose Sauron instead of giving up and sailing into the west to the Undying Lands where it's a moot point.
Characters who essentially represent supernatural forces that are fundamentally disconnected from human/mortal concerns and therefore do not have a dog in this fight don't really say much towards my argument.

C. Denethor
Denethor becomes Steward of Gondor in 2984 and uses the Palantir of Minas Anor to gain knowledge of Sauron's forces and such. Sauron, possessing the stone of Minas Ithil exerts his will upon Denethor in order to attempt to control what he sees. It's a small victory for Denethor that he still manages to get useful information out of this at all, and that it takes until 3019 to compeltely drive denethor insane. More than 30 years of directly fighting a little g god isn't really an achievement to scoff at for a mortal man.
Okay, now see, THIS is a type of character I find much more interesting.

Delete the One Ring. Just throw that out completely. Push all that grand, huge, allegorical guff into the background. And just give me Denethor versus Sauron for the saving of one land, even just one city. Give me a hero who has whatever his strengths and weaknesses are, and give me a similarly equipped villain, and let me watch these wills battle each other. Let me get inside these people -- into their heads, their plans, their viewpoints, their emotions. Let me experience their anger, their doubts, their frustrations and triumphs.

Epic stories that I love are books like Moby Dick, which is about huge, symbolic, universal things, but which cannot be told except through the prism of profoundly personal human experience. Forget the whale -- Moby Dick is about Ahab and Starbuck. Henry V -- forget the wars and everything else, the story is about one man. [i]The Odyssey[i] -- full of monsters and battles and vast, exotic places, but it is really about one man's journey of self-realization and self-reclamation.

This is what I like. This is what I don't find in Tolkein. This is why I cannot be a fan, even though this type of magical adventure appeals to me as a kind of story, very much.

D. Aragorn
Aragorn is a friggin' saint. He manages to refuse the allure of the ring and sends Frodo on his way. Then, he manages through force of will and charisma to unify the men of the west and Rohan. Somewhere in there he grabs a palantir and beats Sauron into submission to force SAURON to see what ARAGORN wants (and in doing so, explicitly, not implicitly, scares the hell out of Sauron, who attacks the west before he's ready out of this). He then chooses to lead a hopeless attack on his enemy to give Frodo time and a distraction to destroy the ring. If there were Catholics in LOTR surely someone would have sent him in for canonization.
Aragorn suffers from Overly Competent Hero Syndrome. His perfection makes him boring.

I'm not really going to take time to go through the other cast members, but I think it's fair to say that Tolkien gave a cast of characters all of whom have tremendous ability and will in their own ways and realms. I think Tolkien had a message in their somewhere that one little silly Hobbit from the Shire that would normally have been completely unremarkable was able to do something that none of the most powerful and wise people in the world believed themselves capable of doing. Somehow, I have to believe that if Aragorn or Legolas or Gimli, etc had taken the ring to Orodruin or if Frodo had thrown it in himself, the story would have been diminished greatly.
Probably, but that is also beside the point of my criticisms.

Originally posted by me:
Let me ask this: If so many can resist the power of the ring, and if the end of the LotR trilogy was not actually the permanent death of Sauron and the removal of his evil from the world (he will rise again in the future), then what really would have happened if someone along the way had just dropped the ring into the ocean or something and forgotten all about it?
I did this to someone once. I was participating in a fantasy RP. It was an open thread, and it was set up as a free-form, events at the tavern, Canterbury Tales kind of a thing. This guy came in and, in violation of etiquette because he had not cleared it with the other participants, introduced a storyline about a set of five magic stones that had to be kept separate and someone was plotting to bring them together. And he planted the stones into the possession of other people's characters.

So my character got stuck with one of these stones. But I didn't want to be in the story. Now, of course, I could have handed the stone off to someone else, but I was annoyed at the way the guy had involved me. So, in keeping with my character's personality, I dealt with the problem the way my character would deal with such a problem.

Having been informed that the stones' power was such that, if brought together, they would form an object so powerful that it could be used to realize either ultimate good or ultimate evil upon the world, he decided that the risk of ultimate evil was too great. So he threw his stone into the sea. Another player's character scolded him (me) for doing that, and he (I) replied to the effect of, "The danger was in bringing the stones together, wasn't it? Well, now they cannot be brought together -- unless you feel like going fishing. Good luck with that." And he (I) walked away.

I get that same feeling from LotR -- too much hinges on a circumstance that is relatively easy to avoid.

I did this to someone once. I was participating in a fantasy RP. It was an open thread, and it was set up as a free-form, events at the tavern, Canterbury Tales kind of a thing. This guy came in and, in violation of etiquette because he had not cleared it with the other participants, introduced a storyline about a set of five magic stones that had to be kept separate and someone was plotting to bring them together. And he planted the stones into the possession of other people's characters.

So my character got stuck with one of these stones. But I didn't want to be in the story. Now, of course, I could have handed the stone off to someone else, but I was annoyed at the way the guy had involved me. So, in keeping with my character's personality, I dealt with the problem the way my character would deal with such a problem.

Having been informed that the stones' power was such that, if brought together, they would form an object so powerful that it could be used to realize either ultimate good or ultimate evil upon the world, he decided that the risk of ultimate evil was too great. So he threw his stone into the sea. Another player's character scolded him (me) for doing that, and he (I) replied to the effect of, "The danger was in bringing the stones together, wasn't it? Well, now they cannot be brought together -- unless you feel like going fishing. Good luck with that." And he (I) walked away.

I get that same feeling from LotR -- too much hinges on a circumstance that is relatively easy to avoid.

A very good point, however since there is a lot of strange conicidences it may be that the ring was swallowed by a fish and that this fish was caught by a fisherman and then we are back at the beginning again.

For the LotR-story Sauron would have been victorius since his military power was so much greater. Altough his power would have been greater with the ring his final victory was probably not dependent on the ring. So it would not work to just put it somewhere where Sauron could not reach it, you had to destroy it to be able to defeat him.

A very good point, however since there is a lot of strange conicidences it may be that the ring was swallowed by a fish and that this fish was caught by a fisherman and then we are back at the beginning again.

For the LotR-story Sauron would have been victorius since his military power was so much greater. Altough his power would have been greater with the ring his final victory was probably not dependent on the ring. So it would not work to just put it somewhere where Sauron could not reach it, you had to destroy it to be able to defeat him.
There are two problems with what you say:

1) We are going to be back at the beginning again someday anyway. The implication is that Sauron has not been destroyed but merely severely set back. He will rise again for yet another battle for the fate/soul of Middle Earth in the future. Indeed, he rose to power and was defeated once before (remember Aragorn's dad? (can someone please tell me how to spell that name? I can hear it my head but have no idea how to write it without it coming out as Isolte (and that was a girl))). Sauron is a cyclical power. Destroying the ring only freed the world of him temporarily.

2) Was his ultimate military victory guaranteed as long as the ring existed? I refer you once again to Aragorn's father. The ring existed then and was enhancing Sauron's power, yet he was still defeated in battle, winning another temporary reprieve for Middle Earth, until he comes back for the books under discussion. If Aragorn, the son, is so frikkin' perfect and wonderful, why should it be a foregone conclusion that he cannot defeat Sauron just as his father did? (In fact, the implication is that Aragorn is better than his father, because he does not seek to take the ring for himself, therefore he is purer.)

Isildur wasn't Aragorn's father, actually there was like 3000 years between them :p

C. Denethor
Denethor becomes Steward of Gondor in 2984 and uses the Palantir of Minas Anor to gain knowledge of Sauron's forces and such. Sauron, possessing the stone of Minas Ithil exerts his will upon Denethor in order to attempt to control what he sees. It's a small victory for Denethor that he still manages to get useful information out of this at all, and that it takes until 3019 to compeltely drive denethor insane. More than 30 years of directly fighting a little g god isn't really an achievement to scoff at for a mortal man.

All hail glorious Denethor who was so horribly raped by Peter Jackson!

Olmedreca;14690929']Isildur wasn't Aragorn's father, actually there was like 3000 years between them :p

Thank you! I have a hard time keeping track of the family trees and the timelines because I gave away my copy of the trilogy a long time ago, and sometimes I can't be bothered to google all these details as I'm going along. In my head, I just connected the two important king characters, Isildur and Aragorn, in a straight line, and it came out as father-son. I apologize for my laziness.

Olmedreca;14690929']Isildur wasn't Aragorn's father, actually there was like 3000 years between them :p



All hail glorious Denethor who was so horribly raped by Peter Jackson!

Yeah, Denethor was a letdown in the movie. There he pretty much just seemed like a powerhungry asshole.

There are two problems with what you say:

1) We are going to be back at the beginning again someday anyway. The implication is that Sauron has not been destroyed but merely severely set back. He will rise again for yet another battle for the fate/soul of Middle Earth in the future. Indeed, he rose to power and was defeated once before (remember Aragorn's dad? (can someone please tell me how to spell that name? I can hear it my head but have no idea how to write it without it coming out as Isolte (and that was a girl))). Sauron is a cyclical power. Destroying the ring only freed the world of him temporarily.

2) Was his ultimate military victory guaranteed as long as the ring existed? I refer you once again to Aragorn's father. The ring existed then and was enhancing Sauron's power, yet he was still defeated in battle, winning another temporary reprieve for Middle Earth, until he comes back for the books under discussion. If Aragorn, the son, is so frikkin' perfect and wonderful, why should it be a foregone conclusion that he cannot defeat Sauron just as his father did? (In fact, the implication is that Aragorn is better than his father, because he does not seek to take the ring for himself, therefore he is purer.)

As said in another post it isn't a father-son realtionship between the two, but there is a long long time between the two battles.

It took a long time for Sauron to regain his power and if the ring would have been destoyed by Isildur he may not have been able to come back until a much longer time (if ever). In the battle between Sauron and Isildurs forces the forces was much more even and Sauron had to take a direct part in the fight, which ultimatly lead to that Isildur was able to defeat him.

In the LotR-sbooks the odds in the final battle was extremly uneven (altough not as uneven as in the film) and if Frodo had not destroyed the ring the human forces would have easly been destroyed without an active role of Sauron. He could have sitten back, taken a cup of java and see his forces crush Aragorn and his friends. And when that would have been done he would be able to take over the rest of Middle Earth.

There are two problems with what you say:

1) We are going to be back at the beginning again someday anyway. The implication is that Sauron has not been destroyed but merely severely set back. He will rise again for yet another battle for the fate/soul of Middle Earth in the future. Indeed, he rose to power and was defeated once before (remember Aragorn's dad? (can someone please tell me how to spell that name? I can hear it my head but have no idea how to write it without it coming out as Isolte (and that was a girl))). Sauron is a cyclical power. Destroying the ring only freed the world of him temporarily.

2) Was his ultimate military victory guaranteed as long as the ring existed? I refer you once again to Aragorn's father. The ring existed then and was enhancing Sauron's power, yet he was still defeated in battle, winning another temporary reprieve for Middle Earth, until he comes back for the books under discussion. If Aragorn, the son, is so frikkin' perfect and wonderful, why should it be a foregone conclusion that he cannot defeat Sauron just as his father did? (In fact, the implication is that Aragorn is better than his father, because he does not seek to take the ring for himself, therefore he is purer.)

I'll address these briefly, but not in great depth - I hope you dont mind.

For the second one, I think it is because one of the omnipresent themes in Tolkien's legendarium is of decay. In the First Age, the heroes of the Noldor could stand toe to toe with Melkor himself in combat (Morgoth's duel with Fingolfin, detailed in the Silmarillion). When Numenor was at the height of it's power, even Sauron was humbled before it (read the Allakabeth). At the beginning of the Third Age, the Elves and Men could face Sauron's armies in battle and defeat them (Gil-Galad, Elendil, and Isildur). But with time has always come decay - a consequence of the marring of Arda in the very first days. Observe that the full force of Gondor was not able to do more than distract Sauron by the end of the Third Age.

Sauron had put a great deal of his power into the ring when he made it, for it's purpose was to control the other rings, and bring their bearers under his sway. And various other things -it was bound into the foundations of Barad-Dur, rendering that effectively indestructible. In short, it acted to anchor Saidon into the world, and while it existed he could never be defeated. The slow decay of the strength of the Good forces would then ensure his eventual victory. By destroying it, his defeat was made total, and his banishment final.

(all of this is from memory, and so may be wrong. I've only tried togive the canonical answers, not explain if they are any good)

And indeed, from what you write below, we could say it does not happen that way in the plot of LotR. Only for some reason none of the characters in the story seems to realize it. The ring is this Big Scary Thing -- the One Ring to Rule Them All, boo-horror. And everyone's a-scared of it.

Meanwhile, you've given us a whole catalogue of characters who apparently had little to fear from the ring.

Little to fear, except the end of Middle Earth and all that's good in it.

Plus it's not the only ring of power out there. Plus the story moves through a world full of beings more or less unaware and uninterested in it. The more we talk about the One Ring, the more of a big "meh" it becomes.

And yet, the whole fate of Middle Earth rests upon what happens to it. Really? What is it -- that one Uber Paperclip that holds the papers better than anything else ever could, and all will be lost without it? It just seems like a lot of hasserei over something that, at the heart of the matter, isn't really all that important in itself.

It's called, "magic." Apparently it's a big feature in fantasy literature.

Here's what I see when I look at the Sauron/Ring dynamic: I see a writer who set himself up with a too-perfect villain.

If Tolkein had written his plot with the ring really being the powerful evil presence that he set it up as, then it would have been nearly impossible for his plot to progress.

Why, it was nearly impossible for the plot to progress. One might say it only just-barely progressed. ;)

So he set up an Ultra-Evil Villain and Villainous Device, but then downgraded its power, scene by scene and character by character, so that things could happen the way he wanted them to. But he does not acknowledge this problem and work it into his plot. He still has all the characters carrying on about how Extremely Evil the Evil is :eek2:.

Because the Evil *is* extremely evil. Is there anything in the writing to suggest otherwise? I think you're just picking at the fact that good won against all odds - OMG how unbelievable, that never happens in fiction!


Delete the One Ring. Just throw that out completely. Push all that grand, huge, allegorical guff into the background. And just give me Denethor versus Sauron for the saving of one land, even just one city.

Note to Tolkien; you went wrong by having rings in the Lord of the Rings.

Give me a hero who has whatever his strengths and weaknesses are, and give me a similarly equipped villain, and let me watch these wills battle each other.

With fisticuffs and spiffy one-liners, right?

Okay, I think my part of this discussion has lapped itself. All you folks have given me answers that are nearly identical to points I had already answered, and I can't give any other answers than what I have already posted. So I'm going to sit down and listen to what others have to say for a while. If new points come up that I can add anything to or that can add anything to what I've already said, or what we have been debating, then I'll chime in again.

For now, I'll just say this: I get it. You guys think Tolkein structured his story in a way that was just fine. I disagree for the reasons stated. Nothing you've said about why thing work the way they do in the story is serving to show me that I'm wrong in my criticisms of Tolkein's techniques. We are at an impasse for the moment. And since this is really hinging on matters of personal taste, I don't really think there's anywhere to go with it.

I think that a good part of the confusion, on both sides, comes from looking at LOTR as a single work, without recognising its place in Tolkien's legendarium as a whole. By itself, I really do think it's praised rather more than it deserves (and attacked, for that matter). The piece becomes really interesting as one part of a much larger whole, which includes the pieces published as The Silmarillion, The Children of Hurin, Unfinished Tales, and all twelve volumes of The History of Middle Earth.

So we have the critics who miss this, and point to aspects of the story which work much better when taken in their proper context - a small backwater of an entire sea of legend. Half of the motivations of the elves, or the actions of Bombadil, or the mistrust between the elves and dwarves (now a standard trope, but properly worked out in Tolkien's world), or even the reason the Elves take to the sea - all of these only really make sense as part of a much bigger world, with a long and elaborate history. Without this rich background, it does become something of a generic fantasy work, which may have something to do with the number of generic fantasy works which have stolen the details, but left the reasons.

Of course, praising it as a standalone work is also slightly misguided, as heroic fantasy has been done much better by other authors. It is definitely a cut above much fantasy, but by no means the best. Until one realises the depth of the background and the richness of the setting. That the snatches of song are not just phrases to fill space, but are parts of heroic epics from earlier ages of the same world, for example. I find it one of the most realistic of fantasy books for that reason - the world is so deep and so well worked out that I can easily and totally suspend disbelief.

So to sum up, praise or criticize LOTR - the style and content isn't for everyone - but please do so mindful of its place in the wider legends of Middle Earth. Without recognising that, it becomes merely a decent fantasy book, but a flawed one. After recognising it, some of the flaws remain, some new ones turn up, but many are (I feel) disposed of.

Incidentally, Muravyets, if you want to try one more work of Tolkien's, I highly recommend The Children of Hurin, as a really fantastic heroic epic, in the vein of Beowulf or the Norse sagas. Excellent work, if flawed due to never being properly finished (the version on sale was put together from various drafts by his son).

Shower of shite.

Shower of shite.

Thank you for your insightful, lengthy, well argued, clearly phrased, and exceptional post. Truly, the topic was simply lacking until you put forward your point of view with such literary skill and clear reasoning, assembling such a quantity of evidence to back it up. For lesser men, sources and evidence are needed, and explanation of the reasons for your views is expected. But not for Yootopia! He is beyond such things, and we should all be honoured that he has seen fit to bless us with his wise words on the subject, which were oh so marvelously elucidated.

Thank you for your insightful, lengthy, well argued, clearly phrased, and exceptional post. Truly, the topic was simply lacking until you put forward your point of view with such literary skill and clear reasoning, assembling such a quantity of evidence to back it up. For lesser men, sources and evidence are needed, and explanation of the reasons for your views is expected. But not for Yootopia! He is beyond such things, and we should all be honoured that he has seen fit to bless us with his wise words on the subject, which were oh so marvelously elucidated.

Good to see someone noticed his superior debating skills.

Good to see someone noticed his superior debating skills.

No, see, its actually a brilliant tactic. Because he has provided no substance to his argument whatsoever, how can we possibly refute it?:p

No, see, its actually a brilliant tactic. Because he has provided no substance to his argument whatsoever, how can we possibly refute it?:p

Indeed.

Incidentally, I've expanded on my response about SF&F, if you want to continue our hijack from a page or two back. Look here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14690657&postcount=195).

No, see, its actually a brilliant tactic. Because he has provided no substance to his argument whatsoever, how can we possibly refute it?:p
First you have to figure out what he is referring to in the first place. The books? The movies? Both? The arguments in the thread? Some of them or all of them? The thread itself? Something that burst out of the pipes in his ceiling over his desk just as he was about to start typing?

First you have to figure out what he is referring to in the first place. The books? The films? Both? The arguments in the thread? Some of them or all of them? The thread itself? Something that burst out of the pipes in his ceiling over his desk just as he was about to start typing?

Fixed for ya.

The difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy

Basically, there isn't. SF can be set in the past, and fantasy can be set in the future. Both can be set in the present. The important thing is what the conceit(s) is(are). If it is magical in nature, such as A Wizard of Earthsea or American Gods, then you're more likely to be in a fantasy book. If it is technological in some way - Foundation, Ender's Game - then it's probably better classified as SF.

Then you recognize that their is a distinct difference in the types of settings and plot devices that tend to be employed in science fiction vs fantasy.

But books can and do regularly straddle the lines. Dragonriders of Pern, mentioned earlier, combines steampunkish SF traits with high fantasy traits.

So? The fact that a work can combine elements of multiple genres does not mean that those genres are not distinct. For example, Terminator includes elements of sci-fi, action, horror, and romance. Are these then all subsets of one genre? Or to put in another way, if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, does it not render classification by genre impossible, as everything would be part of the same genre?

Or there are works like The Martian Chronicles, which are really an exploration of society and humanity. Furthermore, the term has historically been used for anything in the line between hard SF and fantasy, as an umbrella.

It is in my opinion regrettable that it has been used in this manner, as doing so potentially errodes the genre of serious sci-fi; discourages serious literary speculation on science, technology, and the future; and promotes scientific ignorence by lumping hard sci-fi into the same genre as, say, Harry Potter (this should not, however, be construed as a criticism of fantasy or a belief in the inherrent superiority of hard sci-fi, merely a recognition that they are different genres that serve somewhat different purposes).

As for "exploration of society and humanity," pretty much every litterary genre does that. I mean, pretty much every work of literature probaby does that to some degree.

I suppose the best way to say it would be this: if the book/work is concerned with how the setting affects the society and the characters, then it is probably SF&F. Otherwise, it probably isn't, despite having magic or incredibly high technology. Star Wars is on the edge - the technology it has is simply there as a plot device, and the story and interactions of the characters would still make sense in many other settings and contexts. By contrast, Rainbow's End explores how the technology present has affected the society it is in, and Neverwhere does a similar thing with magic.

No comment.

It's all in what the book is concerned with, not when it's set or what is present. SF&F is about societies, giving us visions of alternate ones, or holding up a mirror to our own. The means it uses to achieve this are somewhat irrelevant, and can even get in the way.

Your most persuasive argument to date. However, sci-fi is not soley about the exploration of societies but also specifically about the exploration of science and technology, and for exploring these specific themes the setting can definitely be relevent. Some stories and themes, I believe, are better served by a strictly sci-fi setting, while others might benefit from a more fantastical one.

Edit2: To crib from Ursula K. LeGuin, it's SF&F if you can't just transplant the dialogue into another context, something else if you can. Appropriate substitutions may be needed, to move from a starship to a real ship, or from an interstellar government to Capitol Hill, but the key thing is that the essentials still fit. For a much better explanation of this, read her essay From Elfland to Poughkeepsie.

Intersting, I'll see if they have that essay in my university's library.

Fixed for ya.
You know, constantly bitching at Americans for using American phrases does not make you look smart. In the US, "film" and "movie" are interchangeable. I don't care if you don't like that.

Then you recognize that their is a distinct difference in the types of settings and plot devices that tend to be employed in science fiction vs fantasy.

Settings, yes. Plot devices, not so much. The disguise of the plot devices, certainly - a guided missile is not the same as a thunderbolt, a cloak of invisibility different to a stealth shield. But their purpose tends to be the same, whether handwaved as 'technology' or as 'magic'.

One could, I suppose, draw a continuum: from "Fantastical" to "Technological". But if you then put ever SF&F work on the line, it would end up very messed up, not neatly sorted between the two. Indeed, works which are solely one or the other are very definitely the exceptions.


So? The fact that a work can combine elements of multiple genres does not mean that those genres are not distinct. For example, Terminator includes elements of sci-fi, action, horror, and romance. Are these then all subsets of one genre? Or to put in another way, if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion, does it not render classification by genre impossible, as everything would be part of the same genre?

Terminator is, at its heart, an action film. One with some sci-fi trappings, but still basically an action film. Star Wars is, at its heart, a western. Well disguised - it is clothed in spaceships and blasters, but it's still essentially a western. It could be transplanted rather easily.

Contrast this with The Dispossessed. At its heart it is SF&F - to reclothe it into some other guise, one would have to change it beyond all recognition, not just on the surface, but fundamentally. Note that it lives in a SFnal guise - there are spaceships and physicists and chemical reprocessing plants. However, it could be written in a Fantasy guise - with longboats and magicians and farms. It would have been less effective - the story is more suited to being told as a SF piece - but it would have worked.


It is in my opinion regrettable that it has been used in this manner, as doing so potentially errodes the genre of serious sci-fi; discourages serious literary speculation on science, technology, and the future; and promotes scientific ignorence by lumping hard sci-fi into the same genre as, say, Harry Potter (this should not, however, be construed as a criticism of fantasy or a belief in the inherrent superiority of hard sci-fi, merely a recognition that they are different genres that serve somewhat different purposes).

As for "exploration of society and humanity," pretty much every litterary genre does that. I mean, pretty much every work of literature probaby does that to some degree.

The Martian Chronicles is pure SF&F. It does not, I must admit, concern itself with what technology might lead us to in 20 years time. It is about humanity, and what humanity does. The lessons it teaches are interesting (and slightly chilling) ones. Most importantly, perhaps, it takes us somewhere alien and different, where the rules have changed, and through that teaches us something about ourselves. Which, to my mind, is the defining feature of SF&F.

I should note, by the way, that I don't consider Harry Potter to be Fantasy. Whimsical and escapist, but not about something fundamentally different. All it really says is "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if you could cast spells?"


No comment.

No comment. :-P


Your most persuasive argument to date. However, sci-fi is not soley about the exploration of societies but also specifically about the exploration of science and technology, and for exploring these specific themes the setting can definitely be relevent. Some stories and themes, I believe, are better served by a strictly sci-fi setting, while others might benefit from a more fantastical one.

Again, I agree. Some works are much better clothed as SF, and some as Fantasy.

But the fundamentals are the same. Think of the many subgenres/trappings of detective fiction: certainly, some stories work much better in the 1800s, or now, or pushed into the future. But they are still essentially the same: they are about solving a particular crime. The same with SF&F: it is about taking a conceit, and exploring its effects. The setting affects which conceits fit, but the fundamentals of the genre remain in both cases.


Intersting, I'll see if they have that essay in my university's library.

As far as I know, it was released as a single volume at some point. It's also included in The Language of the Night, which is a collection of essays she's written on Fantasy and Science Fiction, and is very highly recommended.

You know, constantly bitching at Americans for using American phrases does not make you look smart. In the US, "film" and "movie" are interchangeable. I don't care if you don't like that.

It's just the word movie. It annoys the crap out of me.

<snip but included by reference>

Again, I agree. Some works are much better clothed as SF, and some as Fantasy.

But the fundamentals are the same. Think of the many subgenres/trappings of detective fiction: certainly, some stories work much better in the 1800s, or now, or pushed into the future. But they are still essentially the same: they are about solving a particular crime. The same with SF&F: it is about taking a conceit, and exploring its effects. The setting affects which conceits fit, but the fundamentals of the genre remain in both cases.

You seem to be making some, to me, odd distinctions. Star Wars a western? I mean, obviously, it used a classic plot and character types from the western genre, but westerns themselves lift those motifs from other sources. I don't think you can call Star Wars a western just because of its story structure. You might call it a fantasy, maybe, if you wanted to create a genre of future-fantasy, or if you wanted to consider it an alternate world fantasy. But I think it is solidly science fiction, space-opera type.

And Harry Potter is not fantasy? It posits the real world of today and than adds a complex and reality-altering addition to that reality in the form of a massive magical sub-culture and invisible level of existence (invisible to ordinary people). If that is not a fantasy, then I don't know what is.

Some people want to define the fantasy genre as consisting almost entirely of "high fantasy" as exemplified in Tolkein, but I think that is not valid. It entirely dismisses a host of books and writers who write stories of magic and magic-like events/creatures/experiences based in the modern world or other kinds of realities.

If Harry Potter is not fantasy, then neither are the Oz books, or the Narnia books, or the His Dark Materials trilogy, or Neil Gaiman's books, or A Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin, or Jonathan Strange, to name just a few.

The entire fantasy genre, I would argue, is defined by the presence of magical and/or mythological elements treated realistically, as if they are reality. Within that, there is room for several subgenres, of which "high fantasy" is one, "sword and sorcery fantasy" is another, "modern/urban fantasy" is another, and so on. In as much as Harry Potter creates an entire fictional world that includes magic as an essential element, I would say it is definitely fantasy.

Warning in advance. This was written somewhat piecemeal, jumping around a lot. It may prove somewhat incoherent for that reason. I'm still not entirely happy with it, but this should at least keep the discussion moving.

You seem to be making some, to me, odd distinctions.

Guilty as charged. I, of course, reserve the right to abandon any of them at any minute, as these are preliminary opinions. Still, I think most of them are at least fairly defensible.

Star Wars a western? I mean, obviously, it used a classic plot and character types from the western genre, but westerns themselves lift those motifs from other sources. I don't think you can call Star Wars a western just because of its story structure. You might call it a fantasy, maybe, if you wanted to create a genre of future-fantasy, or if you wanted to consider it an alternate world fantasy. But I think it is solidly science fiction, space-opera type.

The main reason I disagree is because you can pick up Star Wars, change the costumes and a few bits of the dialogue, film the result, and it fits perfectly as a western. I see it as a western in science-fictional clothes, basically.


And Harry Potter is not fantasy? It posits the real world of today and than adds a complex and reality-altering addition to that reality in the form of a massive magical sub-culture and invisible level of existence (invisible to ordinary people). If that is not a fantasy, then I don't know what is.

It's wearing fantasy robes, true. But that massive new sub-culture is not really different, alien, or other. It is basically modern life, with all the trappings and style involved in that. Without too much work, the main features of the book(s) could be transplanted to another setting (if I recall correctly - I haven't read them for a while). Substitute "rugby" for "quidditch", switch the subject names appropriately, make a few other minor tweaks, and the first book becomes surprisingly similar to (for example) Stalky and Co., or any number of other books about school life. The fantastic elements are basically window-dressing.


Some people want to define the fantasy genre as consisting almost entirely of "high fantasy" as exemplified in Tolkein, but I think that is not valid. It entirely dismisses a host of books and writers who write stories of magic and magic-like events/creatures/experiences based in the modern world or other kinds of realities.

I accept these (subject to notes at the end on 'fantasy' as a genre). What I look for, really, is the fantastic elements being fundamental. The story needs to be definably 'other', someplace alien and different to normal life. It needs, in short, to be in Elfland, not Poughkeepsie (to refer again to Ursula LeGuin's excellent essay). Neil Gaiman's books achieve this - the world they give us and the stories they tell are inextricably intertwined. Harry Potter doesn't - the story can be unwound from the magical world it's set in, and bound into another, such as an English boarding school, without losing its essential shape.


If Harry Potter is not fantasy, then neither are the Oz books, or the Narnia books, or the His Dark Materials trilogy, or Neil Gaiman's books, or A Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin, or Jonathan Strange, to name just a few.

I've only read three of the five sets you list, but to take each of them in turn:

Neil Gaiman's works. They present us with something decidedly other, strange and wierd and completely beyond the normal. The stories he tells in them could not be told effectively in another setting, leaving them as decidedly fantasy.

Narnia is much the same, although to (I think) a slightly lesser degree. Still, it would be nearly impossible to transplant Narnia, in a recognisable form, into another setting. If you remove the fantastic parts of Narnia, it disappears. In HP, they feel somewhat tacked on - simply disguises for bits of mundanity.

His Dark Materials is the one I know the worst, so I don't feel like I can argue either way.


The entire fantasy genre, I would argue, is defined by the presence of magical and/or mythological elements treated realistically, as if they are reality. Within that, there is room for several subgenres, of which "high fantasy" is one, "sword and sorcery fantasy" is another, "modern/urban fantasy" is another, and so on. In as much as Harry Potter creates an entire fictional world that includes magic as an essential element, I would say it is definitely fantasy.

Interesting. I would note that most of my post was denying the existence of fantasy as a genre. Fantasy as a setting is perfectly reasonable, and Harry Potter is definitely set in a fantastic world.

I'm probably redefining things in a confusing way, so it's likely I have only myself to blame. At it's heart, I suppose, I consider a difference between 'setting' and 'genre'. I don't think that either Science Fiction or Fantasy exist as separate genres. Both are part of one overarching genre, that of SF&F. There is also, fairly confusingly, such a thing as science fiction settings and fantasy settings. Most works share settings and genres. But some don't, and I feel that (for example) Harry Potter or Star Wars do not. Certainly, the setting is either fantastical or science fictional. But the genre is (in my opinion) not.

UvV, I'll address your full post later, but I wanted to mention this before I forget it. I remembered this after my last post and while I was in the shower:

You mention that, to your mind, you could change the costumes and sets of Star Wars and have it work as a western, but in fact, what you could really do is change the costumes and sets and have it work as a Japanese samurai movie. George Lucas took the bulk of his inspiration for Star Wars (all the stuff he didn't steal from Joseph Campell) from the Kurosawa movie The Hidden Fortress.

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/25004.html
http://www.lovehkfilm.com/panasia/hidden_fortress.htm

http://www.lovehkfilm.com/panasia/aj6293/hidden_fortress.jpg
That's Princess Leia napping on the left, Han Solo in the middle, and the two on the right are the droids you are looking for.

When I remembered this bit of film history trivia, it occurred to me that, in fact, Star Wars contains almost none of the traditional story elements of a western and a host of story elements that occur nowhere in any western.

There are no warrior princesses in westerns. There are no established social/governmental systems representing civilizational worldviews in conflict in westerns. Westerns do not travel from one large populous urban settlement to another. There is no Son Challenging the Father motif in westerns. There is no Youth Leaves Home to Seek His Fortune motif in westerns.

Conversely, there is no humans struggling to tame the wilderness motif in Star Wars. There is no ultimate conflict of kung-fu masters (gunfighters) in Star Wars. There is no profound, bitter, all-consuming Grand Guignol tale of personal vengeance writ large in Star Wars. There is no emergence of a new world in Star Wars. There is no cattle drive in Star Wars.

Not only is Star Wars not, as it turns out, inspired by westerns, but the more I thought of it, the more I realized that Star Wars cannot be revealed as a western just by putting chaps on Luke Skywalker and a ten-gallon hat on Darth Vader.

UvV, I'll address your full post later, but I wanted to mention this before I forget it. I remembered this after my last post and while I was in the shower:

You mention that, to your mind, you could change the costumes and sets of Star Wars and have it work as a western, but in fact, what you could really do is change the costumes and sets and have it work as a Japanese samurai movie. George Lucas took the bulk of his inspiration for Star Wars (all the stuff he didn't steal from Joseph Campell) from the Kurosawa movie The Hidden Fortress.

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/25004.html
http://www.lovehkfilm.com/panasia/hidden_fortress.htm

http://www.lovehkfilm.com/panasia/aj6293/hidden_fortress.jpg
That's Princess Leia napping on the left, Han Solo in the middle, and the two on the right are the droids you are looking for.

When I remembered this bit of film history trivia, it occurred to me that, in fact, Star Wars contains almost none of the traditional story elements of a western and a host of story elements that occur nowhere in any western.

There are no warrior princesses in westerns. There are no established social/governmental systems representing civilizational worldviews in conflict in westerns. Westerns do not travel from one large populous urban settlement to another. There is no Son Challenging the Father motif in westerns. There is no Youth Leaves Home to Seek His Fortune motif in westerns.

Conversely, there is no humans struggling to tame the wilderness motif in Star Wars. There is no ultimate conflict of kung-fu masters (gunfighters) in Star Wars. There is no profound, bitter, all-consuming Grand Guignol tale of personal vengeance writ large in Star Wars. There is no emergence of a new world in Star Wars. There is no cattle drive in Star Wars.

Not only is Star Wars not, as it turns out, inspired by westerns, but the more I thought of it, the more I realized that Star Wars cannot be revealed as a western just by putting chaps on Luke Skywalker and a ten-gallon hat on Darth Vader.

Ah yes, Kurosawa Akira was a great influence on Lucas's work.

Ah yes, Kurosawa Akira was a great influence on Lucas's work.
Kurosawa is or should be an influence on any serious filmmaker because he is brilliant. However, serious filmmakers should try to avoid direct comparisons for two reasons:

1) Kurosawa's kung-fu is best. Period.

2) The Mifune Factor. No matter how good the comparison movies are individually, in a head-to-head comparison, the one with Toshiro Mifune in it will win. I mean, ye gods, look at him. That's a man, baby! *swoon* :D

No matter how good the comparison movies are individually, in a head-to-head comparison, the one with Toshiro Mifune in it will win. I mean, ye gods, look at him. That's a man, baby! *swoon* :D
And a mighty big chopper he has, too.

And a mighty big chopper he has, too.
Although I know that you are referring to the classic samurai sword, I'm going to treat that comment as a euphemism and say, "Oh, yeah, Toshiro-baby-sama, ginsu me some more!" :D

Ah yes, Kurosawa Akira was a great influence on Lucas's work.

Ain't he the one that did the Judo Saga films.

UvV, I'll address your full post later, but I wanted to mention this before I forget it. I remembered this after my last post and while I was in the shower:

You mention that, to your mind, you could change the costumes and sets of Star Wars and have it work as a western, but in fact, what you could really do is change the costumes and sets and have it work as a Japanese samurai movie. George Lucas took the bulk of his inspiration for Star Wars (all the stuff he didn't steal from Joseph Campell) from the Kurosawa movie The Hidden Fortress.

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/25004.html
http://www.lovehkfilm.com/panasia/hidden_fortress.htm

http://www.lovehkfilm.com/panasia/aj6293/hidden_fortress.jpg
That's Princess Leia napping on the left, Han Solo in the middle, and the two on the right are the droids you are looking for.

When I remembered this bit of film history trivia, it occurred to me that, in fact, Star Wars contains almost none of the traditional story elements of a western and a host of story elements that occur nowhere in any western.

There are no warrior princesses in westerns. There are no established social/governmental systems representing civilizational worldviews in conflict in westerns. Westerns do not travel from one large populous urban settlement to another. There is no Son Challenging the Father motif in westerns. There is no Youth Leaves Home to Seek His Fortune motif in westerns.

Conversely, there is no humans struggling to tame the wilderness motif in Star Wars. There is no ultimate conflict of kung-fu masters (gunfighters) in Star Wars. There is no profound, bitter, all-consuming Grand Guignol tale of personal vengeance writ large in Star Wars. There is no emergence of a new world in Star Wars. There is no cattle drive in Star Wars.

Not only is Star Wars not, as it turns out, inspired by westerns, but the more I thought of it, the more I realized that Star Wars cannot be revealed as a western just by putting chaps on Luke Skywalker and a ten-gallon hat on Darth Vader.

Good point, and I concede that. What we have learned from this is that UvV doesn't know much about film genres, beyond his own corner of things.

Still, I think the essentials of my point remain, even if I had the specifics wrong.

Ain't he the one that did the Judo Saga films.

Yes, he was. Muravyets remarked on that already.:)

Yes, he was. Muravyets remarked on that already.:)

My bad. :(

My bad. :(

No problem, Kentian. :wink:

No problem, Kentian. :wink:

That's good, Asturianian. ;)

That's good, Asturianian. ;)

Asturian, sweetie. :wink:

Asturian, sweetie. :wink:

Soz, typo. But that is where you're from, right? I was worried I got it wrong.

Soz, typo. But that is where you're from, right? I was worried I got it wrong.

Yes, I am from Asturias. You're correct there.

My film history knowledge is nil but


There is no Youth Leaves Home to Seek His Fortune motif in westerns.
There is no ultimate conflict of kung-fu masters (gunfighters) in Star Wars.
Really?

My film history knowledge is nil but


Really?

I was under the impression that the Jedi lore is steeped into Japanese warrior creeds.:confused:

My film history knowledge is nil but


Really?
Yes, really.

1) In westerns, there are sometimes minor characters who "come of age" during the course of the story, but the western genre is not about "coming of age" or "revealing the hero/king" stories. The heroes of westerns are either world builders -- settlers, lawmen -- who are building a new world out of wilderness/chaos, or they are outsiders -- frontiersmen, scouts, outlaws, nameless wanderers -- who belong to the wilderness/chaos and will eventually fade away with it. Westerns that contain coming of age themes are usually also transition stories, in which an outsider hero or mentor character is supplanted by a youth-hero who will not carry on the tradition or memory of the old master but, rather, replace the old master's world with a new one of his own making, essentially causing the fading of the old master/hero (a twilight of the gods type theme).

2) In Star Wars, there are masters of martial skills -- the Jedi, Darth Vader, etc -- who face off in big action scenes, but they are not the core of the story. Note I am talking about the Luke Skywalker story from the first two/three movies, not the whole series of movies, which contains many different stories. Star Wars/the Skywalker saga is a "coming of age", "revealed hero/king" story, in which the "youth leaving home to find his fortune/answer a call to destiny" motif is key to launching the journey (nod to Joseph Campbell). When Luke faces off against Daddy Vader, he is not yet a "master" of the force/swordsmanship/etc. The fight is not about a match up of skills. It is different from the face offs of highly skilled gunfighters in westerns (example: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly; Tombstone).

I was under the impression that the Jedi lore is steeped into Japanese warrior creeds.:confused:
I'm talking about the core focus of the stories and the myth/tale/plot motifs they use.

Star Wars/the Skywalker saga is a "coming of age", "revealed hero/king" story, in which the "youth leaving home to find his fortune/answer a call to destiny" motif is key to launching the journey (nod to Joseph Campbell).

I remember hearing George Lucas consciously followed Joseph Campbell's "monomyth" model in the original trilogy. Maybe that's why there so much better than the later ones; they have no pretensions, but are just good old fashioned fairy tales.

I remember hearing George Lucas consciously followed Joseph Campbell's "monomyth" model in the original trilogy. Maybe that's why there so much better than the later ones; they have no pretensions, but are just good old fashioned fairy tales.
I think you're right about why they are better. Lucas himself has acknowledged that he structured the early movies on Campbell's "monomyth" cycle, after having hosted Campbell at his house for a long visit and discussed Campbell's comparative mythography work extensively.

I think Tolkien had a message in their somewhere that one little silly Hobbit from the Shire that would normally have been completely unremarkable was able to do something that none of the most powerful and wise people in the world believed themselves capable of doing.
That was in the Council of Elrond chapter. "Who among the wise could have foreseen it? Who, if they truly were wise, should have expected to foresee it?"