The Lord Of The Rings, The Hobbit and Tolkien

[CharlesX]

A companion thread to the more-popular-but-aimed-at-younger-kids Harry Potter.

   I haven't read Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings (tried but gave up), or other works of his. I've only seen The Lord Of The Rings films, on cinema and DVD. I think they're good stories, but not genius or phenomenal. I sometimes prefer more derivative works aimed at younger kids such as Neverending Story (both the movie and the differently-written book have their appeal) or Harry Potter.

  I don't think Tolkien wrote enough fiction, possibly because he was busy being an Oxford Don, and quite a bit of his work was aimed at very young kids. Even the Lord Of The Rings has a light tone in comparison to say the critically panned Twilight or our own commercially successful Fighting Fantasy, the latter ones may rile 'Christians' but in many ways this is a sign of nuance and maturity. Some of the best FF such as the recently-mentioned Stephen Hand isn't so much influenced by Tolkien as by say horror or mythology (the undead, unicorns, and witches). To his credit Mr. Shakespeare is not just an influence but even quoted in some FF as is noted in the thread about him.  

[CharlesX]

I read somewhere D&D wanted to have a playable Hobbit character, but had to replace it with Halflings (very similar to Hobbits) after copyright issues with Tolkien. Apparently Steve Jackson didn't have the same issues with his Creature Of Havoc.

[kieran]

Oct 9, 2022 13:25:27 GMT CharlesX said:

I haven't read Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings (tried but gave up)

Took me a while to get Tolkien. I liked the story, world building and characters, but it wasn't until the third time I read LOTR that I really got it. Previously the writing style had always seemed a bit 'heavy' to me but, I dunno why, something just clicked in my brain and suddenly I loved the style. Although I still found the Silmarillion pretty hard going.

in comparison to say the critically panned Twilight

Initial critical response to Twilight was more mixed rather than universally negative - pretty similar to LOTR and Harry Potter actually. But as the books got more popular, and especially when the movies came out, there was a massive negative backlash against them, not all of it deserved in my opinion.

[paperexplorer]

I was late to the Tolkien party, only reading the Lord of the Rings between the first and second movie releases. I found it a slog, particularly the section with Tom Bombadil. I'm glad I read it, not sure I'll go back to it though

[CharlesX]

Oct 16, 2022 7:36:23 GMT paperexplorer said:

I was late to the Tolkien party, only reading the Lord of the Rings between the first and second movie releases. I found it a slog, particularly the section with Tom Bombadil. I'm glad I read it, not sure I'll go back to it though

I may have had this exchange somewhere else, because I also didn't reckon Tolkien has the most engaging writing style, which isn't a particularly popular view. And even if he doesn't, that isn't such a bad thing, because it means he doesn't pander as Rowling does, and maybe it's a sign of his skill, as well (I'm ploughing through an L. Ron Hubbard at the moment and he is a man who can't write). He just has a slightly old-school writing style, or so it seems to me.

   I don't suppose you or others here have read Michael Moorcock's Epic Pooh essay, where he writes thousands of words explaining why he dislikes Tolkien's work for it's alleged bourgeois traditional tendencies? I very much don't agree with it (he just doesn't get the writer - it's Tolstoy and Shakespeare all over again).

[bloodbeasthandler]

Oct 16, 2022 13:59:13 GMT CharlesX said:

Oct 16, 2022 7:36:23 GMT paperexplorer said:

I was late to the Tolkien party, only reading the Lord of the Rings between the first and second movie releases. I found it a slog, particularly the section with Tom Bombadil. I'm glad I read it, not sure I'll go back to it though

I may have had this exchange somewhere else, because I also didn't reckon Tolkien has the most engaging writing style, which isn't a particularly popular view. And even if he doesn't, that isn't such a bad thing, because it means he doesn't pander as Rowling does, and maybe it's a sign of his skill, as well (I'm ploughing through an L. Ron Hubbard at the moment and he is a man who can't write). He just has a slightly old-school writing style, or so it seems to me.

   I don't suppose you or others here have read Michael Moorcock's Epic Pooh essay, where he writes thousands of words explaining why he dislikes Tolkien's work for it's alleged bourgeois traditional tendencies? I very much don't agree with it (he just doesn't get the writer - it's Tolstoy and Shakespeare all over again).

Thanks for reminding me of that essay, which I had read years ago, and skim-read again just now. 

I really do like a lot of Michael Moorcock's books (I've got a chunk of the bookshelf devoted to them) but that essay of his gets on my nerves in places. He takes aim at Watership Down as well. I just have to remind myself that he's writing a polemic and so trying to provoke a reaction for or against. 

He sets out his points, which are of course worth reading, but a lot of it is based on his own political stance and I am always very wary when people do that. 

He loses me when he writes:

Is it a sign of our dumber times that Lord of the Rings can replace Ulysses as the exemplary book of its century?



That gets a real eye roll from me. I've tried and failed twice to finish it (I must be pretty dumb, eh) and found it the most pretentious piece of twaddle I've ever tried to read. It is the absolute go-to book for snobbish intellectuals to parade how clever they must be in front of others.

See also his essay Starship Stormtroopers. Thought-provoking but again soaked to the skin with his politics. Check out this quote from it: 
If I were sitting in a tube train and all the people opposite me were reading Mein Kampf with obvious enjoyment and approval it probably wouldn't disturb me much more than if they were reading Heinlein, Tolkien or Richard Adams.

Yes, Michael, I believe you... 

[paperexplorer]

LOTR is one of those things that like Star Wars just draws a religious like fervour from some. I had a friend like that who really pushed me to read it (I was pretty reluctant after trying the hobbit and not liking it). I never read any essays or Tolkien's other work related to it, it was just one of those things that when I had finished the books and movies, I was done with it.

I might read the moorcock essay though, it has piqued my interest a little.

[paperexplorer]

Okay, so I've read/skimmed the essay "Epic Pooh", and I think there are some valid points. It is clearly ani-industrialisation, and yes there is a whimsical tone to proceedings to lead a message that things were better in simpler, rural times (as in the shire), but I didn't really follow why it was such a bad thing. Reading is escapism, and if people want to escape to middle earth, then let them.

[pip]

While I 100% acknowledge and respect the MASSIVE (and this is an understatement) influence Tolkien had on fantasy literature, movies, RPGs, and other media such as Fighting Fantasy... I just could never get into the LOTR books. I read the first book but had to push myself to continue. While I was about halfway into the second book, at some point I decided I had to stop, because I was just terminally bored. I do find it interesting, however, that something that ultimately gave birth to a whole universe that I enjoy so much, is something I do not directly relate to.

I feel the same way about the King Arthur stories, which I find fascinating storywise, but reading the source material was also difficult for me. I've loved reading and GMing the "Great Pendragon Campaign" from the Pendragon RPG a LOT more than I've enjoyed reading the really old source material, which I found barely readable, even though it gave birth to this more modern version that I've enjoyed reading and playing so much.

[Pete Byrdie]

I don't have much to add Tolkien. I've read The Hobbit and LOTR twice each over the years. The language of the latter is a bit of a slog until you get used to it, and then it becomes fitting. It changes according to the perspective characters, so high and verbose in the company of noble men and elves, more whimsical in the company of hobbits mostly. I rarely read fiction and have no interest in reading The Silmarillion. Nothing I've heard about it has tempted me.

The effect on culture has been huge, obviously, particularly in popularising the more germanic forms of elves and dwarfs. However, another effect on Tolkien derived works has been to de-mythologise these creatures. Elves are often portrayed as possessing some magic, but while folklore gives us elves, dwarfs, trolls and goblins as inherently magical beings, Tolkien derived fantasy worlds make them little more than races, like the humanoid aliens in Star Trek, with a culture and racial temperament to differentiate them from humans.

This has so permeated our culture that when I included a dwarf with magical powers in my own campaign setting for an RPG years ago my friend, with whom I played AD&D at the time, outright told me I couldn't have a dwarf with magic. In a world I'd created! (He also complained when my mythical Greek setting didn't have elves.)

When I was a teenager I was annoyed that the creatures I was reading about in folklore didn't match their counterparts in Tolkien and derived role-playing games. I'm over it.

[thealmightymudworm]

This just popped up on my Instagram timeline. Posted in case of interest:

http://instagram.com/p/CwQRNwiIAU0

Link to Instagram for anyone (is it everyone?) the Instagram embedding fails for. (It's an artist's depiction of the Balrog battle on the actual page edges of a hardback copy of LOTR.)

[roidhun]

Advice to anyone intending to dip into Tolkien for the first time:

Read his books in the order they came out (The Hobbit, The Lord Of The Rings, The Silmarillion).

Do not read them in their chronological order (The Silmarillion, The Hobbit, The Lord Of The Rings).

The Silmarillion is the chronologically earliest book, but it's pretty difficult to read and you definitely won't really appreciate it unless you've already read The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings. I speak from experience!

Michael Moorcock is a self-righteous anarchist [original word redacted] windbag, IMHO. Although, I have to admit, I actually did like his proto-steampunk Oswald Bastable trilogy. But then, it's hardly typical of most of his work, is it? I think it's safe to assume that's why I liked it! His best-known fantasy character, Elric of Melnibone, started out as a narcissistic sociopath and gradually degenerated into a self-loathing, quasi-vampiric, nihilistic murderer. Elric deserved his eventual impalement on his own cursed sword, IMHO.

A far better (more objective) negative critical assessment of the anti-industrialist propagandizing by Tolkien came from the late Isaac Asimov. He pointed out that although the Industrial Revolution was horribly dehumanizing, the grinding poverty of rural peasants in pre-industrial times was just as dehumanizing in its own way. The only people who lived pleasant enough lives in those times for their descendants today to have any justification for getting nostalgic about them were the wealthy and privileged: the likes of country squires, country parsons, merchants, bankers and... tenured academics.

Edit:
You can find lengthy quotes from the essay Asimov wrote about LotR at 

fictionpredilection.weebly.com/blog/the-ring-of-evil-a-lotr-essay-part-i

and 

fictionpredilection.weebly.com/blog/the-ring-of-evil-a-lotr-essay-part-ii

.

Edit:
I'd have to agree that the whole business with the Hobbits being threatened by the malevolent animated willow tree and Tom Bombadil coming to their rescue is largely irrelevant to the main plot, except as regards the role it plays in setting things up for when he subsequently saves them again, this time from the Barrow-Wight. Without that, there's no proper origin story for the enchanted dagger/shortsword that Meriadoc later uses to stab Witch-King Murazor, weakening him enough for Eowyn to finally kill the undead evil bastard at last. All the same, it's hardly surprising that Peter Jackson omitted it from the movies.

[a moderator]

Quick reminder from the forum rules:

3. Respect For Other People



Disrespectful personal comments about others, including public personalities (either involved in the creation of gamebooks or not), are not tolerated. You are welcome to discuss their work, criticise their abilities as writers/artists/etc., and comment on their merits/performance, but personal attacks against them -- anything regarded as a personal affront -- is expressly against our rules.

You are free to dislike Moorcock's actions, politics, and writing, and express such dislike here, but the word you used after 'anarchist' crosses the line into 'personal attack'. Please steer clear of such insults.

[schlendrian]

Nov 15, 2023 4:48:58 GMT roidhun said:

Witch-King Murazor

Is that a name Tolkien uses?

[roidhun]

Nov 17, 2023 19:18:53 GMT schlendrian said:

Nov 15, 2023 4:48:58 GMT roidhun said:

Witch-King Murazor

Is that a name Tolkien uses?

Not exactly. It's from the Middle-Earth Role-Playing Game (MERP) that was published by Iron Crown Enterprises (ICE) in the 1980s and 90s, licensed by the Tolkien estate. As Tolkien himself never gave the Nazgul any kind of origin stories, a lot of people - including me - choose to go by the ones ICE came up with in the absence of anything better.

You can find out more about this take on the Witch-King by going to 

notionclubarchives.fandom.com/wiki/Lord_of_the_Nazg%C3%BBl

.

[schlendrian]

Ah, interesting. I do have some MERP stuff lying around and do like how they expanded on Tolkien.

[roidhun]

Nov 20, 2023 16:15:39 GMT schlendrian said:

Ah, interesting. I do have some MERP stuff lying around and do like how they expanded on Tolkien.

Same here. It's a pity the Tolkien estate didn't require Peter Jackson to make the movie adaptations compatible with what ICE had devised. Or that the makers of computer games weren't directed to do the same. But then different licensed adaptations of anything that are produced by different companies are seldom required to standardize with each other, unfortunately.

[roidhun]

Just discovered a full online transcript of the critical analysis of LOTR by Isaac Asimov. Go to

www.docdroid.net/AVJP8C4/asimovontolkien-pdf

if you're interested. It's nicely illustrated with stills from the Ralph Bakshi animated adaptation that came out around 1980 too.

[Per]

Nov 20, 2023 22:01:56 GMT roidhun said:

Just discovered a full online transcript of the critical analysis of LOTR by Isaac Asimov. Go to

www.docdroid.net/AVJP8C4/asimovontolkien-pdf

if you're interested. It's nicely illustrated with stills from the Ralph Bakshi animated adaptation that came out around 1980 too.

I got a malware alert on that page.

[CharlesX]

Nov 20, 2023 22:10:51 GMT Per said:

Nov 20, 2023 22:01:56 GMT roidhun said:

Just discovered a full online transcript of the critical analysis of LOTR by Isaac Asimov. Go to

www.docdroid.net/AVJP8C4/asimovontolkien-pdf

if you're interested. It's nicely illustrated with stills from the Ralph Bakshi animated adaptation that came out around 1980 too.

I got a malware alert on that page.

Thank you for letting us know. So long as we're on the subject, DO NOT click on the Wikipedia link to the Michael Moorcock Epic Pooh essay, because bad things happen to my computer directly after I do that.

[roidhun]

Nov 20, 2023 22:10:51 GMT Per said:

Nov 20, 2023 22:01:56 GMT roidhun said:

Just discovered a full online transcript of the critical analysis of LOTR by Isaac Asimov. Go to

www.docdroid.net/AVJP8C4/asimovontolkien-pdf

if you're interested. It's nicely illustrated with stills from the Ralph Bakshi animated adaptation that came out around 1980 too.

I got a malware alert on that page.

Huh. Sorry about that. All I can say is that I... didn't.