Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers on June 29, 2005, 10:25:01 AM
-
reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1071
Hey now, Jam's entitled to his opinion. He's very reasonable about it.
So, keep that in mind when you flame on.
-
That's how I felt about the Hobbit when I red it, though I thought there was slightly less "brillance". And if you're wondering why I'm talking about the Hobbit in a LoTR thread it's becasue the Hobbit so bad (2 clocks) that I swore I'd never read another Tolkin book again, and I still haven't after 13 or so years.
-
His comments on the originality were too true. Tolkiens world is a victim of it's own success.
-
I remember thinking the same thing about the "boring" bits. In my own writing I was, for a time, frustrated by the need to include even the boring bits in order to maintain continuity...Until I realized that there was no such need. It was what Tolkien did but it wasn't necessary in every work.
I do, however, think 4 clocks was excessively low 60%, a D+? For the father of the genre?
Oh well, I suppose we can't all be Terry Brooks and manage to be boring and repetitive while still skipping the boring bits.
-
I think it's acceptable that JP gave it a 4 out of 6 it is just an opinion after all, it doesn't have to agree with your's. But one thing I'd like to rant, I'm so freaking sick of people thinking that since someone was the "first" that means the person is the best or should be treated that way. Its not a very strong point to base an argument off of.
-
time to re-read the scale description.
"4 clocks: Good. The game/movie has numerous problems, but is fun/enjoyable enough to suffer through the bad parts."
Which is exactly what Jam said about it. in terms of percentages doesn't work that way. It's not a "grade" and there isn't a pass/fail option.
In fact, read what the rating system says, and you'll see that 5 clocks means only one minor problem with it.
-
Right. He in fact only mentioned one minor problem with it and that was the "boring bits." The whole thing with its feeling cliche is the fault of all the imitators, not the work itself.
I have no strong feelings on the score. I just think that with only the one minor problem it deserved a 5, like the rating system says. No biggie. I'm only voicing my opinion.
As for Spriggan, "father of the genre" means far more than chronogical order. If Tolkien's work hadn't been good it would never have been published and would never have become the icon that it has. The fact that he was good enough to break new ground, endure this long, and spawn myriad imitators is what makes him the "father of the genre" in my opinion, not that he was first.
-
well, it seems more than a minor flaw. If I were reviewing it and felt this way, i probably would have given it a 4.5
-
I just find it interesting that someone who was so totally against technology just had his books turned into three incredibly special-effect heavy movies.
-
Who, Tolkien? I don't think he cares since he's been dead about 30 years.
-
Or... has he?
/me looks mysterous, and slightly insane
-
well, he's certainly not cryogenically frozen ;)
-
I just find it interesting that someone who was so totally against technology just had his books turned into three incredibly special-effect heavy movies.
He was against technology, wasn't he? As far as I understand it--this is coming from watching the National Geographic "Making of the Movie" Special in my film and literature class. In the biography part, it talked about how Tolkien saw the Industrial Revolution as destroying the soul of the land. So the people who wrote the National Geographic script made the jump that Sauron and co were all representative of technology while the Shire was representative of the England of Tolkien's beloved youth. I don't know if I would make that literal of a connection, but it was an interesting observation.
-
It is the commonly held connection. Sauruman was the power of progress and technology, overthrown by the tree spirits. The gondorians were attacked by Grond, a (for the period) high tech battering ram. And the scouring of the shire is painfully obvious in this regard - he practically describes 1940's yorkshire.
-
JP, I should just like to say, I agree with you pretty much to the letter. (Sorry, you can't have fun doing a scathing dissection of my flameage :P)
And I think 4 clocks was fine.
-
Yes, as I said. It's got so much potential - the book could be really, really good, but it just isn't. It's good, but not that good.
It needs editing. It feels like a draft.
-
It is the commonly held connection. Sauruman was the power of progress and technology, overthrown by the tree spirits. The gondorians were attacked by Grond, a (for the period) high tech battering ram. And the scouring of the shire is painfully obvious in this regard - he practically describes 1940's yorkshire.
That's what I allwayse thought the series was alludeing too as well. Freaking Hippy.
-
Don't be mean to the hippies :'(
-
My mom wanted to name me Summer but my dad said it was a hippy name. I guess he doesn't like hippies either. ;)
-
Damn...Summer is a cool name!!
-
Yes, but I'm glad they went with Heather. And it makes a funny story. ;D
-
Ok, Heather is better. Even though it reminds me of an aquaintence...
-
fell was going to be named Caryn if he was a girl. hee hee
-
I dated a Heather.
-
My Brother is dateing a Heather.
-
what a strange and bizzarre coincidence! I wonder if it's the same one!
-
When people say "Heather" to me, they either mean the one I went to school with (who was hot) or a particular pornstar (who is also hot)
Heather is also the name of Heather Poe in Vampire Bloodlines. She is my favourite character and awesome.
Bloodlines is the first ever video game to make me feel guilt or pride over my actions, to feel concern for the characters and to actually drop in on previous people I've met to make sure they're doing ok.
-
I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.
J. R. R. Tolkien
-
Who, Tolkien? I don't think he cares since he's been dead about 30 years.
Or... has he?
* Entropy. looks mysterous, and slightly insane
Of course the government is covering up the rash of Tolkien sightings over the last few years. Their most effective means is the underground disinformation campaign that it's Elvis who is still alive.
-
It is the commonly held connection. Sauruman was the power of progress and technology, overthrown by the tree spirits. The gondorians were attacked by Grond, a (for the period) high tech battering ram. And the scouring of the shire is painfully obvious in this regard - he practically describes 1940's yorkshire.
I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.
J. R. R. Tolkien
Tolkien may have disliked allegory, and it wasn't his intention to write one. I don't think he did. Yet one can easily argue that the theme of man vs. technology is present in his works, and so his works them become comparable to actual events in his day that also echo this theme.
-
Well, yeah you could, I suppose, but why would you, if it wasn't his intention to write one?
-
As for my response to the real subject of this thread (which, contrary to poular belief, is not the name Heather):
I admit that Tolkien read simply as a series of novels is not a stellar example of fiction. Tolkien was not a master novelist. He was, in my opinion, a master craftsman of mythology. That is why I read, and love, his works.
-
Well, yeah you could, I suppose, but why would you, if it wasn't his intention to write one?
Similar conflicts and themes do not analogies make.
-
Well, yeah you could, I suppose, but why would you, if it wasn't his intention to write one?
Because author intention does not always dictate exactly what comes out in the end. Reader reaction, subconscious inclusions, etc, all factor in.
-
As for my response to the real subject of this thread (which, contrary to poular belief, is not the name Heather)
Of course it is. Every thread naturally degenerates into a discussion of the most important subject in the world--me! ;)
-
I never dated you.
-
You still like to talk about me though. ;) J/k
-
My boyfriend dated a Heather. This is getting creepy.
Everyone's dating the Chimera! She's leading a quadruple life!!
I think it's perfectly feasible he included surrent themes and wrote a sort-of allegory, unintentionally. It's hard not to write about the time in which you live. Even when you are writing about historic Middle-Earth.
-
Blast! You've discovered my super power--the ability to date everybody! ;)
But none of you know my super weakness, so I'm still safe.
-
*Archon revs up the Batmobile ominously*
-
I actually wanted to throw that National Geographic "Making of" out the window. It felt more like an ad for Greenpeace than an actual serious look at Tolkien's motives. There was a lot of speculation on what Tolkien meant, and if he were truly anti-technology, but there was no concrete proof to back up that he ever had such a bias.
Of course, the whole process of finding allegory and parallels between his works and any past or current situation seems unwise considering Tolkien's outright dislike of allegory in any form. Accusing a man of deliberately placing allegory in a novel he wrote when he outright denies it, and then proceeds on the assumption that he was just lying--that's the sort of premise that this National Geographic special seemed to be operating on.
-
at least the books and movie were more entertaining than alot of shirt we have seen come out this year, they were just running out of ideas.
-
Yes the movies were good, but that's because they can show, instead of describe, all the extra stuff Tolkien wanted. Though I think the movie's success has as much to do with the director/production crew as the material.
-
Of course, the whole process of finding allegory and parallels between his works and any past or current situation seems unwise considering Tolkien's outright dislike of allegory in any form. Accusing a man of deliberately placing allegory in a novel he wrote when he outright denies it, and then proceeds on the assumption that he was just lying--that's the sort of premise that this National Geographic special seemed to be operating on.
Who's accusing him of "deliberately" doing anything? The rest of us here have been pointing out that even if he disliked allegory, there's a pretty strong social metaphor going on here. Perhaps if he hadn't made the Orcs so German and the Hobbits such gentlemen English farmers and teh Rehorrim so Saxon?
And come on people, the argument that "he didn't like allegory" isn't your best defense. The best argument against "War of the Rings as analogue for WWII" (at least in my opinion) is that elvish language is heavily built on Finnish language. The Finns fought against the Soviets in WWII. Which, y'know, helped the Germans. It would be like The elves attacking Helm's Deep.
HOwever, even though it's a flawed allegory, it's still there. Whether he meant it or not. I think it's silly for him to think he could even avoid it. Especially when he chose to draw so heavily from the Kalevala and other myth -- which is always heavy on allegory.
-
e's point is the big one in any discussion of literature: everything means something, whether you intend it to or not. Tolkien might not have put it there on purpose, but that's doesn't mean it isn't there.
-
e's point is the big one in any discussion of literature: everything means something, whether you intend it to or not. Tolkien might not have put it there on purpose, but that's doesn't mean it isn't there.
So basicly, we're going to decide what this means regardless of intent, just as long as we can twist it to our own purposes and selfish desires.
-
Representation is less in the author's meaning and more in the reader's interpretation, because the reader is the one recieving a message, not the author. No matter what an author MEANT by something, or if he or she meant anything, doesn't really matter, it's how it is interpreted that is important. That is, unless the author comes out and says, "I meant such and such." As long as somebody can reasonably back up why they think something is a representation of something else, he or she has pretty much done all a person can do to show the a representation short of asking the author.
Which means that, despite what Tolkien wanted the allegory to be, or if he wanted one at all, the Lord of the Rings is pretty much an allegory of industrialization.
And e, I know you aren't arguing this point, but I don't think that saying the Lord of the Rings is an allegory for WWII is a very good argument at all, and I don't think that saying that elvish was based on finnish is a good argument, either. I mean, a language doesn't signify a political alignment, if elvish had been based on Japanese would that have made the elves an allegory for the Japanese? I doubt it. I think it is much more likely to be because Tolkien knew Finnish and didn't want to base Elvish on english, or perhaps he just really liked Finnish.
A better argument would be that although the Germans did industrialize tremendously previously to and into WWII thanks to Bismark, so did Britain and America, so saying that the orcs are germans because they industrialized is a very, very bad argument.
-
So basicly, we're going to decide what this means regardless of intent, just as long as we can twist it to our own purposes and selfish desires.
Isn't that what people do to the bible? The system seems pretty much accepted to me--you don't neccesarily know intent, so you have to go off what you see.
-
Gorgon, just because the system is accepted, doesn't mean that it should be, or that it is right.
Yes, the Bible is commonly interpreted but there are two things to consider about that example. For one thing, the book was intended to have many moral messages, it was meant to demonstrate, among other things, the basic moral concepts that people should abide by in their normal lives. That is much different than a novel like The Lord of The Rings is, because nobody can prove that J.R.R. Tolkien was trying to teach his readers anything, whereas the Bible obviously was.
For another thing, the various interpretations of the Bible have spawned good things, but they have also justified and spawned murder, racism, slavery, sexism, and assorted other kinds of hateful things.
-
So basicly, we're going to decide what this means regardless of intent, just as long as we can twist it to our own purposes and selfish desires.
no, that's not an accurate wresting of my words at all.
Gorgon, it's not the best argumentation, no, but it's a better one than author intentionality. Linguistics do *not* translate directly to political alignment, no. However, nearly every culture in Middle Earth has a clear - and intentional - parallel to a culture in Real Earth. The hobbits are lower landed gentry (proper English). The Rohirrim are Saxons. The Orcs are German. The Elves are Finnish. The language is the most obvious outward sign of cultural relationship, thus it does have a significant bearing both on how readers WILL understand the culture and how they were MEANT to understand that culture.
Of course, yet another argument for it not being an allegory of WWII is that the ring is to represent atomic power, somehow. Although the "allies" are trying to destroy it, not create, and the bad guys have already created it, they're not racing to develop it first.
-
Didn't someone just get done saying Tolkien hated allegory and therefore would not have intentionally put it in his work? Has Christopher Tolkien revealed that his father "intentionally" crafted each race to look like the groups e has mentioned? I haven't heard about that.
As far as saying, as Gorgon did, that despite everything the LoTR is an allegory of industrialization, as though it were an end all be all interpretation, eureka! we found it, that's just silly.
There are a million ways LoTR could be interpreted and the "accepted" interpretation, the one with the most currency, is always the one that fits the political climate currently reigning in Literature departments across the land. Any works suggesting alternate or non-PC interpretations simply aren't published. It's the nature of the beast. I have a degree in English and I made a habit of casting silly hypotheses and then writing papers to support them. I was good at it and the teachers who were honest had to admit that I'd written a well supported argument and give me A's, even though it annoyed them, while those who weren't complained bitterly and gave me Cs.
I fully support the idea that whether an author intentionally put meaning in or not there is meaning there. But it's silly to ever claim to have found the one true interpretation. You can find a reasonable interpretation or even a widely reasonable interpretation but certainly not "THE" interpretation. There is no such thing.
-
Has Christopher Tolkien revealed that his father "intentionally" crafted each race to look like the groups e has mentioned? I haven't heard about that.
Christopher Tolkien doesn't HAVE to. Look at J.R.R.'s research and his notes. The languages and cultures are parallel cultures he knew of. Calling this an accident is like saying that the Pentagon just "happens to have five sides"
I fully support the idea that whether an author intentionally put meaning in or not there is meaning there. But it's silly to ever claim to have found the one true interpretation. You can find a reasonable interpretation or even a widely reasonable interpretation but certainly not "THE" interpretation. There is no such thing.
Agreed. I just want to note that pointing out an allegory is there is not anything like saying "i have THE interpretation of this book."
Denying the presence of the obvious is a very poor approach to study.
-
Skar's got it. There's no One Interpretation. That's very New Critical, which we literary types have put behind us. :D
Representation is less in the author's meaning and more in the reader's interpretation, because the reader is the one recieving a message, not the author.
Actually, Gorgon, that's only one literary theory out of many, and reader response isn't really something I support. You do need to take the reader into account, certainly--the book doesn't exist in a vacuum. But author intention isn't the be-all, end-all, either. Personally, I'm more of a new historicist with feminist tendencies. You look at the context in which the book was written--in this case, World War II--and you make an argument for something that could have influence the work. Certainly WWII influenced LotR, whether or not it was intended or even became an allegory.
-
Wow. Way to go to pidgeon hole yourself stacer :P
-
I must agree with how over-rated Lord of the Rings has become.
I'm sure we can all agree that there are more tallented authors like Frank Herbert and Terry Goodkind. While they may be descriptive, they evoke much more emotion from the reader and have far better pacing skills. The "worlds" created in their novels are much more intricately woven and defined by thier story than "Lord of the Rings" ever was.
But my opinion of Lord of the Rings is partially biased because I can't stand the pathetic whiney Hobbits that can't even fight worth a damn. I wouldn't mind the main heros being the little guy, but all they do is cry and complain and get the ^%#$ beat out of them!
That's just the way I see it, and I don't claim to be an English major but I have read far better Novels. I hate to keep coming back to the DUNE series, but it was FAR better than Lord of the Rings. I compare them because Frank Herbert wrote it near to the same time as Tolkien and gets far less credit. Well he wrote it 10 years after Tolkien, but you get my point.
Peace out,
Bj
-
You realize you have to die now.
Of course, at least you chose good authors to compare him too. I would really blow up if you had said something like Robert Jordan. I guess you have a valid opinion. I'll just disagree. Middle Earth has always been much more rich and deep to me than Arrakis, however, and while I like Terry Goodkind as well, reading through two of his novels has given me much less feel for his world than The Hobbit gave me of M.E. *shrug*
Just a disagreement I guess.
-
I guess you have a valid opinion.
Fortunately, I make no such speculation...
-
I'm sure we can all agree that there are more tallented authors like Terry Goodkind.
Maybe this isn't too acurate, but I myself couldn't get four pages into The Sword of Shannara because of how heavily it borrowed from The Lord of the Rings, both in names and maps. And yet here you say he is better, interesting that you say that when relied on Tolkien enough for me to be disgusted, or at least disgruntled.
Of course I only say this about the Shanarra series because the only other book I've read of his was Wizards First Rule, which was much more inventive, though I didn't even finish that because I got distracted about half way through.
-
Faster. You're melding two authors. Terry Goodkind did not write, "Sword of Shannara" Terry Brooks did. I have to agree with you that much of Brook's work is extremely derivative of Tolkien, so much so that I can't read him anymore. In his book on writing he admits that he did it on purpose.
Goodkind, however, him I really like. So it's funny that you found the book that was actually by him, Wizard's First Rule was more imaginative than Brooks. That is very true.
I think that the problem many people are having with Tolkien stems from the fact that he's was so blatantly copied so many times that he now feels like the bland, unimaginative, roots of the genre. When he wrote the books they were very imaginative and anyone who, nowadays, reads him before any other book in the genre will likely find him imaginative as well. It's just that he's been copied so much.
-
You have fudged my argument, prepare to die. :)
So yeah, besides the fact that I mixed up the two authors my argument is still valid, if somewhat pointless.
-
I was just giving my bold opinion on how I felt about Tolkien. There is no doubt that he is a great writer. He just isn't my style. Of course.. He's dead now and has no chance to evolve into the vicious writing of today's authors. So it's no fault of his that I'm not fond of his work.
Oh yeah, and I agree with you both on Terry Brooks. But I did like the Shannara series, only because I read it before I read LOTR. :) But after I read Tolkien it was obvious where he got his ideas. Goodkind though, is very origional. A little violent, but you're kissing the book by the end.
Not All fantasy authors copy from Tolkien though. As a matter of fact, most authors are so scared that someone will think their work unorigional, that they get as far away from Tolkien as possible. DUNE, again a fine example. :)
I stress though, that although Tolkien is not my taste, I enjoyed the book and the movies. I just hate social conformity when something gets to be a major FAD, and ultimately destroys an artist that was appreciated by readers uninfluenced by the media and propaganda.
Peace
-
EUOL doesn't seem to have any problem with being original, but then he's so wierd that he just has Ideas pop into his head about absolutly nothing. :P
-
For about 20 years after tolkien, all fantasy was his style. It was just the perception that tolkien-esque was the only fantasy.
I think goodkinds biggest problem is his obsession with his characters getting raped. I've got no problem with huge violence or sex scenes or whatever, just goodkind does it way too much. Every book follows the formula that Kaylen (richards wife) gets raped, or threatened with rape, unless Richard does something that goes against his morals.
-
wow that is harsh. But it is partially true.
Goodkind is probably the most violent fantasy writer out there. In the first book he discribes Richard getting tortured for several chapters. But his genius is that you feel the pain along with the characters.
He makes you hate the enemy so much you just wish they would die, and then he blesses you with sweet sweet revenge! Something we rarely recieve in real life.
-
I've read the trilogy countless times and some of his other works. Hail Tolkien for creating Middle Earth! 8)
-
oki. just as a warning, no one else is going to be as nice as I am right now. YOu've resurrected threethreads that were last posted half a year ago, and one that was over a year. In the FAQ (http://www.timewastersguide.com/forum/index.php?topic=11.0) this is specifically stated as a no-no, esp when all you have to say is "I read it too." Please don't do it again.