Writers who inspire a genre are usually misunderstood. Tolkien's reasons for writing were completely unlike those of the authors he inspired. He didn't have an audience, a genre, and scores of contemporaries. There was a tradition of high adventure fairy tales, as represented by Eddison, Dunsany, Morris, MacDonald, Haggard, and Kipling, but this was only part of what inspired Tolkien.His writing was chiefly influenced by his familiarity with the mythological traditions of the Norse and Welsh cultures. While he began by writing a fairy story with The Hobbit and other early drafts, his later work became a magical epic along the lines of the Eddas. As a translator, Tolkien was intimately knowledgeable with these stories, the myths behind them, and the languages that underpinned them, and endeavored to recreate their form.Contrarily, those who have followed in his footsteps since have tended to be inspired by a desire to imitate him. Yet they failed to do what Tolkien did because they did not have a whole world of mythic tradition, culture, and language to draw on. They mimicked his style, but did not understand his purpose, and hence produced merely empty facsimiles.If they had copied merely the sense of wonder or magnificence, then they might have created perfectly serviceable stories of adventure, but they also copied those parts of Tolkien which do not fit a well-built, exciting story--like his work's sheer length. Tolkien made it 'okay' for writers of fantasy to produce books a thousand pages long, and to write many of them in succession. Yet Tolkien's length had a purpose, it was not merely an affectation.Tolkien needed this length in order to reproduce myth. The Eddas were long and convoluted because they drew from many different stories and accounts, combined over time by numerous story-tellers and eventually compiled by scribes. The many digressions, conflicts, repetitions, asides, fables, songs, and minutiae of these stories came together organically. Each had a purpose, even if they didn't serve the story, they were part of a grand and strange world. Epics often served as encyclopedias for their age, teaching history, morals, laws, myth, and geography--as may be seen in Homer or The Bible.This was the purpose of all of Tolkien's long, dull songs, the litany of troop movements, the lines of lineage, the snippets of didactic myths, and side-adventures. To create a realistically deep and complicated world, he felt he needed to include as many diverging views as the original myths had. He was being true to a literary convention--though not a modern one, and not one we would call a 'genre'.He gave characters similar names to represent other historical traditions: that of common prefixes or suffixes, of a house line adopting similar names for fathers, sons, and brothers. An author who copies this style without that linguistic and cultural meaning just makes for a confusing story, breaking the sensible rule that main characters should not have similar names.Likewise, in a well-written story, side-characters should be kept to the minimum needed to move the plot and entertain the reader with a variety of personalities. It is another rule Tolkien breaks, because he is not interested in an exciting, driving pace. He wants the wealth of characters to match the number of unimportant side characters one would expect from a historical text.The only reason he sometimes gets away with breaking such sensible rules of storytelling is that he often has a purpose for breaking them, and is capable of drawing on his wealth of knowledge to instill further depth and richness in his world. Sometimes, when he slowed his story down with such asides, they did not have enough purpose to merit inclusion, a flaw in pacing which has only increased with modern authors.But underneath all of that, Tolkien does have an appealing and exciting story to tell, of war and succession and moral struggles--the same sort of story that has been found in our myths since the very earliest writings of man. He does not create a straight monomyth, because, like Milton, he presents a hero divided. Frodo takes after the Adam, placing strength in humility and piety, not martial might or wit. Aragorn is an attempt to save the warlike, aristocratic hero whom Milton criticized in his portrayal of Satan.Yet unlike Satan, we do not get an explanation of what makes Strider superior, worthy, or--more importantly--righteous. And in this, Tolkien's attempt to recreate the form of the Eddas is completely at odds with the Christian, romantic moral content with which he fills the story. This central schism makes his work much less true to the tradition than Anderson's The Broken Sword, which was published the same year.Not only does Tolkien put forth a vision of chaste, humble, 'everyman' heroes who persevere against temptation through piety, he also presents a world of dualistic good and evil, of eternal, personal morality, prototypical of the Christian worldview, particularly the post-Miltonic view. His characters are bloodless, chaste, and noble--and if that nobility is sometimes that of simple, hard-working folk, all the better for his Merrie England analogue.More interesting than these is his portrayal of Gollum, one of the few characters with a deep psychological contradiction. In some ways, his central, conflicted role resembles Eddison's Lord Gro, whose work inspired Tolkien. But even this internal conflict is dualistic. Unlike Gro, Gollum is not a character with an alternative view of the world, but fluctuates between the hyperbolic highs and lows of Tolkien's morality.It is unfortunate that both good and evil seem to be external forces at work upon man, because it removes much of the agency and psychological depth of the characters. There is a hint of very alien morality in the out-of-place episode of Tom Bombadil, expressing the separation between man and fairy that Dunsany's work epitomized. Bombadil is the most notorious remainder of the fantastical roots of Tolkien's story which he painstakingly removed in editing in favor of Catholic symbology.Yet despite internal conflicts, there is something respectable in what he achieved, and no fantasy author has yet been capable of comprehending what Tolkien was trying to do and innovating upon it. The best modern writers of fantasy have instead avoided Tolkien, concentrating on other sources of inspiration. The dullards of fantasy have merely rehashed and reshuffled the old tropes back and forth, imagining that they are creating something.One cannot entirely blame Tolkien because Jordan, Martin, Goodkind, Paolini, Brooks, and Salvatore have created a genre out of his work which is unoriginal, cloying, escapist, and sexually unpalatable (if often successful). At least when Tolkien is dull, ponderous, and divergent, he is still achieving something.These authors are mostly trying to fix a Tolkien they don't understand, trying to make him easy to swallow. The uncomfortable sexuality is an attempt to repair the fact that Tolkien wrote a romance where the two lovers are thousands of miles apart for most of the story. Even a libertine like me appreciates Tolkien's chaste, distant, longing romance more than the obsessively fetishistic consummation that has come to define sexuality in the most repressive and escapist genre this side of four-color comic books.I don't think Tolkien is a great writer, I don't even think he is one of the greater fantasy writers. He was a stodgy old Tory, and the Shire is his false golden age of 'Merrie Olde England'. His romance wasn't romantic, and his dualistic moralizing cheapened the story. His attempt to force Christian theology onto a heroic epic is as problematic and conflicted as monks' additions to Beowulf. Tolkien's flaws have been well-documented by notable authors, from Moorcock's 'Epic Pooh' to Mieville's adroit analysis, but for all that, he was no slouch. Even if we lament its stolid lack of imagination, The Lord of the Rings is the work of a careful and deliberate scholar of language, style, and culture. It is the result of a lifetime of collecting and applying knowledge, which is a feat to behold. Each time the moon is mentioned, it is in the proper phase as calculated from the previous instance. Calendar dates and distances are calculated. Every name mentioned has a meaning and a past. I have even heard that each description of a plant or stone was carefully researched to represent the progression of terrain, though I can find no support for this theory.Yet what good is that to a story? It may be impressive as a thought exercise, but to put that much time and work into the details instead of fixing and streamlining the frame of the story itself seems entirely backwards to me. But for all that The Lord of the Rings may be dull, affected, and moralistic, it is Tolkien's, through and through.My Fantasy Book Suggestions
The Return of the King was by far the best Lord of the Rings yet. It made me cry several times and had some key elements to it that really made it the best and rounded out the series perfectly. First of all, we have my favorite part, when the hobbits come back to the Shire. They've been through so much and are hoping to rest but are sorely mistaken when they find their beloved Shire in ruins. Trees cut down, water polluted, homes destroyed, and basically a gang of ruffians has taken over. These ruffians, who are twice as big as these hobbits, tower over them, informing them of all the rules they've broken and how they're under arrest, and the hobbits just laugh. Going through town, and ignoring every rule and missive blatantly, they do what they want and scoff at the opposition. After everything they've been through, it's pretty much like they're saying, "Whatever, you ruined my home, I don't care how big you are or how many of you there are, get over here so I can kick your ass." It's just beautiful, the whole scene, who they encounter there, how the battle ensues, and I was very disappointed that the movie didn't even touch upon it. Second, the two battles. Tolkien expertly bringing in the different races one at a time to ensure a fantastic climax of an epic battle. I especially loved the addition of the dead. It seemed a nice sideline at first but quickly became an integral part of how the battle at Gondor turned out. I loved the detail as they went through the mountain and again, I wished the movie would have focused a little more on this as well. Then there's the debate at the end. Perhaps this is understood among LOTR nerds, however, in my circles, there's heavy debate on whether the "Havens" are actually death for the characters going there. I'm still undecided. It seems as if Tolkien was hinting at this all along, constantly bringing up the pain in Frodo's shoulder and pointing out that he's never fully whole again and he's been "too deeply hurt". Then there's the whole debate on whether Gandalf died in Moria and came back. It almost seemed so to me, especially when he says "Oh yes, Gandalf, that's what they used to call me." Like he was not quite with it. The elves that go are different, since they live many times longer then the other races and have different magical powers. Or perhaps the elves keep them from aging/dying and so they go with them to live there so they don't die. There are many examples of things that are said that can be interpreted to mean that they've dying, (anyone who reads the book can find them, they're easy to find, so I won't go into them here), but there still seems to be a big debate on whether it's spiritually/physically/metaphysically dying/leaving an old life behind/etc. As for me, I think they've died physically. Not right then, but they are sailing to their peace. But that's just my opinion. I'd also like to state quickly my favorite characters. First, Galadriel, probably because it's the faerie in me. She's exquisite, magical, strong, tenacious, and wise. And she doesn't mind flirting across races. And she allows herself to hold the ring, testing herself to see if she can withstand it, and does. That's cool. Then there's my second favorite, Legolas. Intelligent, quiet, skilled, neat friendship with a dwarf, and he can walk on snow, among other things. Just very cool. Then it's really difficult, but I'd have to say Samwise. Frodo gets on my nerves quite often, he seems pretty whiny. But Sam, to me, is the real hero. Loyal, true, brave, always putting Frodo first, and carrying him in the end. Just a all around great character. Some other characters that touched me were Merry and Pippin, how they changed through the book, with them, I think you saw the most personality growth. Then there's Tom Bombadil. What's his story? Really? I think Tolkien should have written a whole book just about this guy. He's so interesting and he was there before all of them. And what was that bit about at the end? Gandalf saying he's gotta go spend some time with Tom, and they had a lot to discuss. So interesting and then just dropped! So much of that in this book! Frustrating and intriguing all at the same time. In the end, just a fantastic story. Characters that appeal to every type of personality with heroes to love, and villains to hate. A classic fantasy story, I can now see why many fantasy reviews are compared to this book. An enchanting story and for all the reasons I've stated in all three reviews, a classic. ClassicsDefined.com
What do You think about The Return Of The King (1986)?
Wellllllll,I really loved the second half. Once Frodo and Sam got going, I got into it. Their part of the tale has always been the main story and Frodo is the primary protagonist, so it only makes sense that his stuff is the best. I was very disappointed to find that Gollum hardly comes out, especially considering he's probably my favorite character in LOTR. But overall, I'd give most of the second half and the ending especially a 4/5The first half was really, really boring for me and I struggled through it. It seemed as if Tolkien changed his writing style and became a lot more descriptive and less free. Reading about Faramir and Eomer and all those other chumps was a big bore. Those early chapters were kind of through the eyes of Merry and Pippin, but it wasn't anything like The Two Towers. All the fun was missing. All my favorite characters hardly appeared, (Gandalf, Legolas and Gimli hardly came out at all) The ents were very interesting and fun in the two towers while all the new characters focused on in Return of The King didn't have any flavor or real qualities I could get behind. Tolkien threw in some romance I didn't give a damn about with two characters that hardly appeared in the whole series and it felt extremely forced. Also it didn't make sense to me why Merry and Pippin were so dedicated and loyal to a bunch of strangers and their kingdom, but whatever. I'd give the first half a high 1/5.Overall, I'm glad to have this series finally under my belt. The books always finished strong and every one had me getting emotional at parts. I'm very impressed with Tolkien's intelligence and his ability to create a world where all this crazy stuff is happening. Annnndddd, I'm done!
—Markus Molina
:,) Y si lloré... La verdad no se que más puedo decir para explicar la genialidad de Tolkien; Su prosa me transporta a lugares increíble que aunque sé que no estoy en ellos, mientras los leo, siento como si estuviera allí; allí con Merry y Darnehelm luchando contra los Nazgul, allí con Pippin tratando de salvar a Faramir, allí con Aragorn, Legolas y Gimli, reuniendo el ejército de los muertos, allí con Gandalf siempre ayudando y tratando de hacer la Tierra Media un lugar mejor para los que estaban por venir, y por supuesto allí junto a Sam y Frodo apoyándolos a ambos en su difícil misión. Hay personajes que han dejado en mi mucho; aquellos que me han mostrado algo nuevo, que me han dado esperanza. Estoy hablando de Eowyn, quien me demostró que todos somo capaces de seguir el camino que nosotros elegimos para nosotros mismos. También hablo de Faramir, quien nunca traiciono sus valores por un pedazo de oro, cuyo corazón era más grande que la ambición de poder. También hablo de Gimli y Legolas que me demostraron que una poderosa amistad puede existir perfectamente entre dos personas distintas, sea esto por raza, sexo o simplemente de distintos pensamientos. También hablo por supuesto de Merry y Pippin quienes demostraron (al igual que Frodo y Sam) que sin importar nuestro tamaño y "aparente falta de importancia en el mundo" podemos todos hacer algo para cambiar y mejorar nuestro mundo. También hablo de Aragorn Rey de Gondor, quien aún sabiendo lo difícil que sería su camino, siguió en él, renunciando por un largo tiempo a sus deseo particulares, por el bien de los demás. También hablo de Gandalf quien con sus actos de ayuda, sin esperar nada a cambio, me demostró que todos podemos hacerlo al igual que él, y además que sin importar cuan bajo nos hayamos caido, podemos volver a levantarnos más fuertes y nobles que antes. Y hablo por supuesto de Frodo y Sam; quienes con la ayuda de todas las personas ya nombradas y un montón más, siguieron con su misión por muy desesperanzados que estuviesen, siempre apoyándose el uno del otro, logaron completar su misión. Gracias de veras a todas estas personitas y tal como dice la hermosa canción de Billy Boyd; "Nunca olvidaré a todos los que tomaron este camino conmigo." "Bueno, aquí estamos nosotros cuatro solos, los que partimos juntos-dijo Merry.-Hemos dejado por el camino a todos los demás, uno después de otro. Parece casi como un sueño que se hubiera desvanecido lentamente. -No para mí.-dijo Frodo -.Para mí es más como volver a dormir."
—Celeste
To me, the whole point of reading the first two books of LOTR is to get to this one, because this is the truly masterful part of the story.One thing I will say is that I really admire how the main heroes of the story, Frodo and Sam, are quite inconsequential in the classic tradition of heroes. They can't fight, they can't cast spells, they can't really do anything except persevere through extreme trial, all so that they can do what they promised to do, to do the right thing. Sam, in particular, is a True Hero in my eyes, a character with a pure heart.Do I need to warn of spoilers when everyone already knows the story? Oh well, SPOILER ALERT!It's very interesting to me that Frodo is unable, at the edge of the Pit of Doom, to part with the ring. It takes a struggle with Gollum, and an accident, really, in order for the ring to be destroyed. I wonder if any mortal, even Sam, would have been able to throw the ring away? I suspect not, and to me it signifies our mortal failings in this life. We cannot, try as we might, fully separate ourselves from the natural man of our own accord. But still, like Frodo and Sam, we can give it our best go.In the end, however, we will need to be rescued. Like Frodo and Sam, we will not be able to survive or escape in and of ourselves, but we will need (so to speak) Gandalf and the eagles to come swooping down and rescue us, in the end.(I am, of course, speaking metaphorically in a religious sense.)
—Todd
