Lets do a Review - of The Lord of the Rings (Part 3)

In the last part of my review I will deal with the things I found simply unacceptable and appaling. I know there might be quite the dissent with my critizism, but I review the book as it presented it to me. Including the nice and the not so nice sides. What annoys me most about the bad things is that they are quite often simply overlooked by the readers. I admit, I didn't remembered it that explicit and drastic either. But views change and so does perception, so I simply might have become more sensitive towards certain things - but best look for yourself:

The bad things:

While the points above were about some weak spots in Tolkien's writing and the way he treats the story, they were all rather petty really. Some made the Lord of the Rings a bit difficult to read at times, but nothing really was terrible. It is still a well-written book, with its quality above its contemporaries. Sadly there are also aspects in his book I can't let pass as petty flaws so easily.

Sexism

A very obvious aspect of his books is, when women appear - which isn't terribly often, I should add - they are pretty one-dimensional. They is the otherworldly being of ethereal beauty, Galadriel, a number of good housewifes. like the wifes of Tom Bombadil and Farmer Maggot (I'm not even sure if Tolkien even gave them names!), the shield-maiden Eowyn who just in time before the story ends gets the turn and marries and become a healer – or were simply wiped from earth, like the Ent-Women.

One might argue that this just reflect Tolkien's conservative traditionalism, which might not been that uncommon for it's time. But I rather get the impression he didn't even try to show women as developed characters. They are way too extreme and one-dimensional for this: They are either divine creatures, adored like a sacred statue or good housewifes, and the few who didn't fit in like Eowyn or the Ent-Women either give in to their weakness or disappear. In Tolkien's world, women have their clearly defined, limited role and purpose. Its a world looking backwards towards the sexism of former centuries, and no-one can tell me that gender-equality would have broken his fantasy-world. There are enough examples of modern fantasy which proof the opposite.

Racism and Xenophobia

Another big point of criticism, which I admit got totally lost at me when first reading, is the blunt xenophobia in the books. I showed earlier that the Shire is Tolkien's ideal world – or at least something very close to that. It's the place of all the good things in life: Good food and drink, friends, love, family, parties, good weather, rich harvests – the list goes on and on. But the further away from home Tolkien goes, the less nice things become.

Yes, there are humans living outside the kingdoms of Gondor and Rohan, but in opposition to these proud and pretty Nordic “races”, the humans living further in the East or in the South are just vaguely described and pretty one-dimensional: They are by default the enemy and allies of Sauron's army of monsters (the Orcs as Tolkien describes them aren't anything else really). They are all dirty and aggressive, were never on good terms with the “civilized” kingdoms and simply appear as brutal primitives, which have nothing else to do but wage war, raid and enslave their western opponents.

This is not only stereoptypical and unnecessary (enemies with a certain depth are arguably the more fascinating ones), the way Tolkien elevates “noble” Nordic humans into something so much better than the other “races” opposing them, gives the whole story - yet his whole universe - a pretty blunt, racist smell.

So What to do with it? Bin or Pedestal?

Let's not underrate the significance of the Lord of the Rings or Tolkiens efforts in world-making. He shaped almost single-handed modern fantasy and helped it establishing a place in today's public conscience. It is a well-written book, which still entertains, even if the story good vs. evil has been told a few times before.

On the other hand the book does have its issues and the world he created, as well-made and rich it is, is flawed.

Ironically the films by Peter Jackson made a lot right what Tolkien did wrong. So I like to see them as a conclusion of the Lord of the Rings-Universe in general: It's indeed been time to move on. And many authors did. I am pleased to see more variety and innovations in fantasy than Tolkien could ever imagine. Countless new fantasy-universes have been created since. More diverse, more vivid, some picked up ideas from him, some invented something completely new – a great development. Fantasy doesn't means only Tolkien-style-fantasy after all.

Lets do a Review - of The Lord of the Rings (Part 2)

Was the first part of the review quite praising (no wonder: it was called "The Good Things" after all!), this part will deal with the things I have mixed feelings about - still nothing terrible. I don't think there are much pieces of literature without their weak spots. The last part of my review though is something die-hard-Tolkien-fans perhaps shouldn't read!

The Not-So-Good Things:

The Ring's big shadow

Ok, this is not quite a flaw of the book itself, but the huge, overwhelming influence it had on the fantasy-genre, and popular culture in general, is quite problematic.

Tolkien's elaborated world became literally a bible of fantasy. A blueprint for countless variants of sword-and-sorcery-fantasy, as it soon was called. The Lord of the Rings has defined stereotypes of characters, races and creatures in such a predominant way that even the slightest deviation is pretty notable in the genre.

Of course there are other fantasy-authors who created and still create their very own worlds, far away from the Tolkien-style fantasy, but they are in the vast minority really. Since the 1950s the mainstream is strongly influenced by the Lord of the Rings and its derivative, the Dungeon-and-Dragons-universe. Both are in the end simply one interpretation of English, German and Scandinavian mythology, but not the only. Nevertheless they dominate the fantasy-genre throughout all sorts of media: From books, to games, films and music.

The result of this development is quite appaling: While the original meaning of the term “fantasy” has something to do with imagination, the domination of Tolkien-style fantasy is actually the opposite of that: it became a quite restrictive mental corset, which makes it hard for creativity to breathe.

Good vs. evil stereotypy

The factions in the Lord of the Rings are more than clearly divided into good and evil. Though there have been historical tensions between the “good” factions, they all seem rather petty in the context of the story and all races are eventually united in fighting the evil Sauron.

Even the more ambivalent characters, like Saruman (who is basically a fallen minor angel) and Boromir, who eventually fails to resist the ring's temptations, are pretty clear-cut. Saruman's plotting is revealed early in the story and there were plenty of hints on Boromir becoming a threat for the main protagonist too. The only Character, who really stands out as balancing on the edge of good and evil is Gollum/Smeagol, who – at least briefly – was about to tip from a pure, degenerated villain to becoming an ally of Frodo and Sam.

On the side of the villains the good/evil duality is even more clear. Evil beings in Tolkien's Middle-Earth are evil to the bone. And ugly. And usually not too bright. There is no remorse, no mercy and no beauty in the realms of Tolkien's evil. Actually the villains are that evil that they more than once start fighting and killing each other, involuntarily giving the good guys a chance to escape.

It wasn't until recent that this decade-old written-in-stone duality has been broken up in fantasy-mainstream. Games like Skyrim don't offer the player a clearly good or bad side to join. They all have their light and dark sides. And the TV-series Game of Thrones, based on the Song of Ice and Fire series of books take this approach to the extreme: everyone may die, no-one is innocent.

By his approach of creating so clear-cut sides Tolkien did seriously limit the possibilities of developing characters or races further. For example fairy creatures, like Elves, are depicted rather ambivalent in folk-tales. Sometimes nice and helpful, but also malicious and cruel. In sword-and-sorcery-fantasy this lack of development potential has been compensated by dividing them into a growing range of sub-races with various characteristics, but such divisions (and subdivisions of divisions) appear pretty artificial to me really.

Eating, Drinking, Singing – and way too much Talking!

There was a lot where Tolkien was good at, but there are also things which didn't went so well, or at least made the story at times unnecessarily difficult to read. One thing are the often long and cumbersome dialogues. Especially higher-ranking characters use a – actually quite rambling - courtly language. I can't help but think that you could understand them just as well if simply you shorten their dialogues to a fifth of their length. It may reflect the customs of medieval courts, but that doesn't helps the neither courtly, not medieval reader. A more straight-to-the-point-approach would have done very well there.

Oh, and the eating! Especially the first book, The Fellowship of the Ring, seems to consist of equal parts of walking, eating and talking about eating! I assume it was Tolkien's way to show us how nicely quirky the Hobbits were, and to create a contrast to the more harsh conditions they face as the story continues, but turns out to be more of a culinary traveller's guide through Middle-Earth.

Another thing is the amount of songs and poems in the story. You get the impression that, as soon somebody sits down and takes a rest, he starts singing or reciting a poem (if he doesn't starts eating, that is!). That's surely a nice thing for the characters, who don't have radio or TV, nor an internet to get some entertainment, but I don't believe that many readers actually read them. I think giving a short summary of their content in the story and print the whole lyrics as appendix would make the book more readable really. The way the lyrics appear in the text just disturbs the reading flow.

Speaking of reading flow, Tolkien's dramaturgy and timing could also really be better. In some cases – like when the Ents are attacking Saruman's tower – he seems to deliberately take tempo and tension out of the narration by messing up the timing and the causality of events: Its never a good idea to have the action being told by a protagonist, instead of simply showing it.

Also the parallel stories of Frodo and Sam trying to destroy the ring and the rest of the fellowship distracting Sauron by fighting his armies could use more shifts of perspective. Tolkien simply stays with one storyline for too long, which disturbs the sense of synchronicity of events.   

Planet Alle

Size:
Huge

Terrain:
Cracked and broken rocks

Climate:
frozen all year round

Satellites:
None

Atmosphere:

None

Gravity:

Strong

Day Length:

100 Hours

Year Length:

1000 Days

Natives:

None

Ore and Minerals:

Large amount of metals

Alle is a dead world, at some point in the far past an object collided at imminence speeds punching a hole through it. It now floats frozen a large hold from one side to the other, it is now sat in the middle of a dense asteroid field.

Planet Gasia

Size:
Huge

Terrain:
Gas Giant

Climate:
Gas Giant

Satellites:
Three Moons, Blu, Raka, Nara

Atmosphere:

None

Gravity:

Strong

Day Length:

? Hours

Year Length:

800 Days

Natives:

None

Ore and Minerals:

Mostly made of Helium

Planet Hara

Size:
Small

Terrain:
Dense jungle and forest around the equator in a band of land, the rest is ocean with a few archipelagos

Climate:
Humid and wet all year

Satellites:
Two Moons, Hul and Kul

Atmosphere:

Thick and Oxygen rich

Gravity:

medium

Day Length:

50

Year Length:

200

Natives:

A large number of lizards and mammals along with exotic flora, no sentient species known

Ore and Minerals:

average for a life bearing planet

Hara is a life rich world covered in greenery and full of exotic large creatures. As for the landscape it is mostly hilly with little in the way of mountains. It's two moons and celestial rings can clearly be seen from the surface.

Planet Mrt

Size:

Small

Terrain:

Made up of mineral dust and planes of glass

Climate:

Hot enough to create glass and create dust storms constantly on the surface

Satellites:

None

Atmosphere:

None

Gravity:

Low

Day Length:

200 hours

Year Length:

80 days

Natives:

None

Ore and Minerals:

A large amount of base elements exist on the surface.

Mrt is the closest planet to Eka and is a blasted wasteland, the surface is constantly blasted by intense heat melting the surface into glass. The planets plates are notoriously unstable as when the the surface is facing away from Eka the change of temperature warps and cracks the surface causing cracks and dust that gets whipped up from the surface making slow ethereal clouds covering the dark side they slowly drift back towards the planet until they are again melted in the dawn. 

Lets do a Review - of The Lord of the Rings! (Part 1)

After reading the Lord of the Rings a second time these days (the first time I did read the books was about a year before the first of the Peter-Jackson-films was released), my impression was indeed very, very mixed. Since the movies took such a massive part of the way how the story is set in the public consciousness, I didn't quite knew what would expect me and it became rather discovering the book anew instead of recapitulating a familiar text. Some aspects of it were surprisingly good, others were frankly quite shocking.

But lets start with...

The good things

Plot and Storydeveloping

You simply can't take for granted that a 1000-pages book will keep you entertained throughout its entire length. The Lord of the Rings really does. You can clearly see how well composed it is in its outlines and how well planned the development of the story is. There are no loose threads and even every minor protagonist is thoroughly carried through the plot. A well-rounded story really. Of course this is clearly the result of the long time it took for Tolkien to write it (and the vast amount of background resources he put together in all the years). It was certainly not an easy task writing the story down but that doesn't really shows to the reader.

Depth

I will come back to Tolkien's world-building later in the text, but I can say already here that: when he decides to elaborate a culture, region or event, he does it with great depth and a richness in detail hard to match. The book offers the reader a plethora of sub-stories to unfold and to get background information from further sources online or offline. I found it also quite interesting researching about the real-world mythology he based much of his book on. The author certainly knew his trade.

Emotion

Another big feat of Tolkien is that his story really touches you. The very likeable Shire and its clumsy, peculiar inhabitants for example. It simply gives you such nice feelings of rural childhood cosiness that I can't help but call it with the nice German term Gemütlichkeit.

And it is a pretty clever move starting the novel there, as it is in general to focus on the Hobbit's perspective than of the Human's: The author welcomes you with open arms, seats you at a warm fireplace with a good cup of hot chocolate (or the middle-earth counterpart of it) and serves you a plate of sweets before sending you out on your trip to terrible Mordor, through a supersized world chased by undead riders, Orks and other nasty critters!

I think its also not a too big stretch to view his depictions of the Shire and Mordor in relation to the First World War. While the Shire can be seen as metaphor for his early years in secluded and peaceful rural England, Mordor shows clear traces of rampaging industrialization, trench warfare and devastated, burned landscapes typical for the First World War.

I think this clearly left an imprint on him him, as it did on millions of other young men, who were thrown into the greatest slaughter mankind ever experienced to that date. The only difference really is that Tolkien had the talent and ambition to express his feelings – and clear disdain of what he experienced – into a highly popular narrative.