review: Lord of the Rings Trilogy

[42]

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.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

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.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

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.

[Archon]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[stacer]

Skar's got it. There's no One Interpretation. That's very New Critical, which we literary types have put behind us.  

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.

[Entsuropi]

Wow. Way to go to pidgeon hole yourself stacer

[darkjetti81]

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

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

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.

[Archon]

I guess you have a valid opinion.

Fortunately, I make no such speculation...

[Faster Master St. Pastor]

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.

[Skar]

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.

[Faster Master St. Pastor]

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.