GameBanshee Forums

Everybody: please give your opinion of your issue and some comment on why you think I should or should not give Tolkien a second chance or not. I will either follow the majority decision, or the conclusion I think is best argued for.

I started reading LotR Many years ago, but after 1.5 books, I abandoned it because I really did not like it. Actually, it's one of the very few books I've ever left unfishished.

(If you want an oppotunity to flame me, I would more than willingly expain why I did not like it.)

I actually really like Tolkien, but I figure that as with anything, taste in the arts is very subjective. Although I would be curious to learn the reasons for your reaction.

My point : It's a total waste of time, you better get other interesting books or whatever than reread those stuff. Time is a precious gift and you can't simply waste your time reread Tolkien.

DW, thanks for your reply. I agree with you taste in arts in very subjective.

OK, here we go, I see my 5 stars disappearing

I was along time ago, so I can't give examples or quote from the books, but I remember my general reaction was that I perceived Tolkiens descriptions of the world and the races as containing racist, imperialistic and very Euro-centric/"Christiano-centric" values. Of course this just reflects the common values of the time and culture Tolkien was active in, but to me, it's a flaw when an artist does not have a metaperspective of his contemporary world, since this IMO is one the things that I think art is for.

Also, although Tolkiens writing style is of course fantastic English and very, very leared, I felt that his level of detail and description left nothing to my imagination. Another problem was that most of the ideas and contructions presented, was taken from Scandinavian, Germanic and Celtic folklore, myths and religion, much of which I recognise and have read about from older sources. Because of this, I wasn't really fascinated by Tolkiens world.

This is what I remember off hand. Now, flaming time

@C.Elegans As you yourself state, Tolkien does reflect the society in which he lived. While reading LoTR to my son recently I had trouble not getting angry at the the ways in which Tolkien depicts women, I had to keep reminding myself that I should try to avoid judging Tolkien through more current values and ideas. But, I still think that where western fantsy is concerned, he is one of the best.
One of the things I'm fascinated by is that mythologies throughout the world, although clearly distinct, do nonetheless share some common themes. For example, the notion of small people and unicorns seems to pop up in many places. Of course, I confess, I lean more towards the universalist position than I do the post structuralist, so I'm somewhat biased (although I do flirt with the latter).


As far as his lengthy descriptions go, yes they can be overdone, and they can make the prose unnecessarily heavy, but again, fiction has become much more minimalist in the last twenty years or so.

For crying out loud. What kind of twisted mind looks for culterial biasis in work of fantasy fiction. Not only that, but it was meant to be an epic myth. "I don't like they way he portrayed short people. Sauron was depicted unfairly. Eagles can't talk."

Well, Tolkien was a devout Catholic. So that would be the source of the Christiano-centric values you mention. I think every author writes from his/her own belief system, though, really, so this shouldn't be surprising...

As far as racism goes, Tolkien has been increasingly and, I thnk, unfairly accused of this in recent times. Especially now, with the movie coming out so soon. The thing is, people look at the "color scheme" in his writing: "white = good, black = bad," and assign a racist interpretation to this. That wasn't his intention at all. He was playing on old classic literary types, which saw evil in darkness based on such facts as one cannot see in the dark, anything could be hiding in shadow to jump out and kill you, etc. (Besides, isn't Saruman the White one of the bad guys?...) If you want to really see race in Tolkien, look at how he portrays the dwarves and the elves. They may both be light-skinned (actually he never mentions the dwarves' complexion, I believe), but the hatred between those two races runs ancient and deep. Then read what occurs between Gimli the dwarf and Galadriel: she has the comapssion to address him in his own language, "And the Dwarf, hearing the names given in his own ancient tongue, looked up and met her eyes; and it seemed to him that he looked suddenly into the heart of an enemy and saw there love and understanding." That is Tolkien's view on race relations.

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

What kind of twisted mind...

Ahem....coming from one of the most twisted minds on this forum.....

i'll have to agree with loner72 about reacial issues in the books. but i also understand why you feel that way. if i read the LoR with only a political view, i'd hate the book due to its portrayal of the eastern people been only evil and cowardly.(it the only part of the book i don't like )

anyway it's an awesome story and it is beautifully written, give it a try.

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>"I don't like they way he portrayed short people. Sauron was depicted unfairly. Eagles can't talk."</STRONG>

So, you mean Hamlet is not a bad play since ghost don't exist?

Or the Illiad is not an uninteresting story since it gives an unfair picture of the Trojans?

OK, so far only 2 votes
1 pro rereading LotR
1 contra

What I'm looking for is your reasons why I should or should not reread the books. My reasons for not liking the books the first time around might be well compensated by other factors. In short, are there any reason to read them although they might contain some elements I dislike?

For instance, I think Othello is a good play even though it contains racist attitudes, and I think Mishima is a great writer although his work contains some very imperialistic views. I think you all get my point

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

yes there are reasons to reread the book

1) the poetry
2) in general groups are portayed with a biased view...but if you read about the individuals in the book...they are surprisingly 3 dimensional with virtues and faults of their own.

dragon wench- have you forgotten eomyn?

@Jennabard, I was wondering if anyone would nail me for that . Eomyn is an incredibly strong character, you're absolutely right, so is Galadriel. I guess I was thinking more of the fact that none of the party members are female. There is also that section when Pippin while in Gondor gets told that all the maids have been sent to safety.....
Spoken by Bergil..."Do not tell me that he has changed his mind and will send me away with the maidens....."

I guess it's really a matter of interpretation. I've recently had a few arguments about gender roles so it could just be that I'm a bit sensitized.


[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: dragon wench ]

IMO The Silmarillion has more strong, interesting female characters than LotR. For example, Luthien and Haleth (the only two I can think of at the moment...)

Back when I was in college, I started reading the Hobbit. I stopped halfway through, and have felt guilty for it ever since. But I was turned off by the thick prose to a certain extent (I wasn't much of a reader back then. Now I read quite a bit.) But mainly, I had a group of friends who had practically memorized the entire set, worshiping Tolkien, and writing and speaking in the languages he had invented. I knew I could never live up to their standard, so I was very turned off. Now, I too, am considering reading them for the first time, when I have time, because I feel I now can approach the books with a level of critical thought I lacked 18 years ago. Also, I don't hang out with those friends anymore...

Gwal - I am with you there - The Hobbit was my first attempt at Tolkein and I did not finish it ..... (donning asbestos underwear!)

I think I might have rebelled a little (I wish) In hind sight it probably was more than peer pressure - it was probably a mixture of that and laziness.

Now I want to catch up...

C Elegans writes:
I perceived Tolkiens descriptions of the world and the races as containing racist, imperialistic and very Euro-centric/"Christiano-centric" values.

I don't really see the "Christian thing" as some writers do, but you're spot on for the rest. I posted briefly about this in another topic area. There is a definite series of Edwardian social values that stick in my craw whenever I read 'em--things like Frodo's remark about a fallen Saruman (I'm paraphrasing from memory) being one of the great, whose like, even in his fall, is beyond such as us to criticize. Such as us? Well, that same sense of "the little people who can't understand the doings of the Great and Noble, and must be protected for it all" runs throughout LOTR. Such wisdom as the hobbits have is supposed to be the little wisdom about planting, and nurturing, and they're not intended to think Great Thoughts or engage in Noble Deeds--when they do, they end up like Frodo, falling ill before their time, unable to relate to others.

It's precisely this kind of BS that has allowed governments to both justify all kinds of monstrous behavior and hide it from their citizens: just sprout nonsense about "making tough decisions on the spot" while sweating that somebody will find out you've been attempting to kill off aborigines, or saved high-ranking Nazis after WWII to aid in the Cold War, or stolen the Inuits' children to resettle them and kill the culture--gods, the list is endless. I can never read this sort of stuff in Tolkien without shuttering at the evil done behind the cover of such an idea.

The music of Tolkkien's language is wonderful, though borrowed from Dunsany. The larger-than-life characters are fun, too. I can't stand the deux ex machinas, like the reappearance of Gandalf when the party's hope is at its lowest ebb, or the double (let alone single) use of Eagle Airlines to appear at just the right moment and save the heroes.

As to whether you should read LOTR or not, that's entirely up to you. It's a lot better than most of the TSR/AD&D trash that's being peddled on the market today--fantasy-writing by corporation--but if you didn't like it initially, I'd suggest something which is more culturally neutral, or presents an entirely different set of values: perhaps Cabell, or Dunsany (who, though he lived during the Edwardian era, was less a part of it than Tolkien), or Vance (a fascinating author).

[ 06-30-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG><snip> I posted briefly about this in another topic area. <snip></STRONG>

heh.

@fable- i don't beleive that was tolkien's intentions. i read an essay that echo the same semtiments as you as well as the opposing view. and i have to disagree with it. i think that tolkien tried to show that the qualities of the hobbit or any common folk are the qualities need for Great and Noble Deeds.without pipin and merry, gondolin and rohan would have fell. sure frodo is ill because of the burden he bared, anyone would have if the fate of the world is on their head. but frodo save the world (with golem) not the Nobles, not kings and not those who are godlike.

i always thought the true hero in the book was samwise. he was the real voice of the common people and he was valiant, loyal, strong in his belief in frodo. in the darkness of mordor, he was the one who held the light that lead them to some safty.

out of all the people of LotR, i cherish the ventures of sam, pipin and merry.