board77

Before I start, I don't want this to become a PJ vs Tolkien thing. I simply want to discuss problems with the book as written. There are a few niggles that always annoy me when reading and I'd like to throw them out here for discussion and to see what others think.

Magic Wargs These guys really bothered me. The Fellowship were attacked by Wargs in Hollin that disappeared after they were killed. This is hugely inconsistent with everything else going on. Surely Magic Wargs would have been useful at the Pelennor Fields? Did Sauron happen to have a spare pack of Magic Wargs hanging round in Hollin waiting for a Magic signal? Or did he send them from Mordor a few months previously?

His Arm has grown long According to this, Gandalf believes that Sauron can cause snow on Caradhras from Mordor. We are given very little reason to believe that Gandalf is wrong in his assumption. The storm has an "ill will" and is "directed against" them. Again, if Sauron has this sort of control over weather why doesn't he use it again? All he manages later is a dark cloud.

That's all for now. Your thoughts?

Alatar

I hesitate to call anything in Tolkien a 'flaw'.

But is that because I am so emotionally attached to his work - which I am - or because I really do honestly believe that his work has no flaws?

Does Jane Austen's work contain no flaws? Charles Dickens's? Thomas Hardy's? Rigorous critical analysis, folks, must be applied here, as to any other great writer.

Let me be plain: I love LOTR warts and all. I love LOTR, including Bombadil's rhyming. I would not have LOTR any other way. Having said that, here goes ...

Arwen
Arwen, to put it bluntly, is something of a trophy wife. She is an Archetype. The cool elf maiden in a tower, calmly awaiting the outcome of the War of the Ring and for her man to claim her - if the Wise defeat Sauron. She hardly exists as a character at all. Tolkien placed her really quite interesting - and ultimately tragic - story into Appendix A and we are left with ... well, an archetype. She is the least fleshed out of all Tolkien's minor characters. And the Prof can do really interesting minor characters, e.g. Beregond, Ghan Buri Ghan, etc.

Arwen is not one of them (IMO). What she represents is interesting, perhaps. But, as a character, her ancestor Luthien Tinuviel beats Arwen hands down. She has a nice moment with Frodo in Minas Tirith and basically that's it.

The Attack on Weathertop

This has bugged me for 22 years.

Why oh why oh WHY do the Nazgul JUST RUN AWAY WHEN FRODO CALLS ON ELBERETH? Yes, I know it's a prayer for aid. Yes, I realise that the Valar probably do intervene at this point. Yes, it's all ultimately up to Divine Providence. But why don't the Nazgul simply regroup and attack again? All they have to do is wait at the bottom of the hill!

And all Aragorn has to defend the Hobbits with is a broken sword!!!!

Please.

'Ruffians'

Yes. Tolkien's generic use of the word 'ruffians' in the Scouring of the Shire. I don't like it at all. It's so ... cliched.

****

And now I want to cry, because I criticised LOTR.

But the things Alatar mentioned don't bother me at all. I've never thought about them - and having thought about them, I'm still not bothered.

Cuddles her copy of the book.

Most his poetry sucks, IMO. And even if it didn't, it usually feels silly and out of place. Like a musical breaking out in the middle of a drama.

And what Di said about Weathertop.

And not making it more obvious that Balrogs have wings. (Duh! )

yovargas wrote:

Most his poetry sucks, IMO. And even if it didn't, it usually feels silly and out of place. Like a musical breaking out in the middle of a drama.

Ack. No.

Let me explain.

As Queen Beruthiel would remind us, LOTR is not a novel. It doesn't correspond to any kind of novelistic rule. It's a romance. And therefore the poems and songs are entirely in keeping with that tradition.

And while Tolkien's poetry may not be as good as Shakespeare's - which is brilliant - it is good. LOTR just wouldn't be LOTR without it!

I like the poetry yov. In that society that is what those characters would do. If you don't like it skip it.
I'm with Di about Arwen and Weathertop. Arwen would have needed some serious rewriting but the Weathertop problem could have been solved with a tweak or two. Likewise the vast number of orcs who conveniently killed each other in the tower of Cirith Ungol. I think that Tolkien was so pleased that he had extricated Frodo from Shelob, a difficult narrative puzzle for him, that his attention wavered. At Weathertop his ideas about the nazgul hadn't yet crystallised and he didn't sufficiently revisit the passage.
Gandalf's obtuseness and dilatoriness between Bilbo's party and Frodo's flight is a bit clumsy.
These are minor quibbles in the scheme of things though.

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:

If you don't like it skip it.

I do.

(Should be noted, though, that I very rarely like any poetry anyways. For some reason, writing stuff in a stanza format makes it near-unreadable to me.)

I'm also with Di and Tosh on Arwen and Weathertop and the poetry.

But I like the Orcs killing each other in Cirith Ungol.

For me the broken sword was pretty much the worst bit. The fate of Middle Earth involves, at least in the beginning, getting the ring to Rivendell. Who in their right mind turns up with a broken sword? Is this why Aragorn smokes a pipe? To scare the Nazgul every time he sparks one up?

Also, admirable and noble though Faramir is, he really dismisses his lust for the ring all to easily.

Tom Bombadil was a sop to Christopher and very selfish writing IMHO.

The elves Frodo and Sam first meet up with are just annoying.

Arwen the trophy-wife. Agreed. Even with the appendices, all we know about her is that she's pretty and loves Aragorn. That's it. Oh, and she can sow a bit - the Henry (Arwen At The) Ford of needlework. "You can have any color flag you want, so long as it's black."

The waiting 17 years was just stupid, and Frodo's pissing about in the Shire before setting off even more so.

I have rebuttals to all of these sentiments, but I would gather you all have probably heard them, or just don't like those bits and don't care, so I'll leave you to it.

I'd be interested to hear them hal. Particularly the Magic Wargs one.

Could you please refresh my memory on what you mean by Magic Wargs? It's been a few years...

Quote:

The elves Frodo and Sam first meet up with are just annoying.

I can't agree with that. The whole journey through the Shire is magical for me.

So hal, no flaws in the book for you?

Alatar wrote:

Magic Wargs These guys really bothered me. The Fellowship were attacked by Wargs in Hollin that disappeared after they were killed. This is hugely inconsistent with everything else going on. Surely Magic Wargs would have been useful at the Pelennor Fields? Did Sauron happen to have a spare pack of Magic Wargs hanging round in Hollin waiting for a Magic signal? Or did he send them from Mordor a few months previously?

If you remember, the Fellowship were attacked by a pack of Wargs. Here's the relevant section:

Quote:

In the wavering firelight Gandalf seemed suddenly to grow: he rose up, a great menacing shape like the monument of some ancient king of stone set upon a hill. Stooping like a cloud, he lifted a burning branch and strode to meet the wolves. They gave back before him. High in the air he tossed the blazing brand. It flared with a sudden white radiance like lightning; and his voice rolled like thunder.
`Naur an edraith ammen! Naur dan i ngaurhoth!' he cried.
There was a roar and a crackle, and the tree above him burst into a leaf and bloom of blinding flame. The fire leapt from tree-top to tree-top. The whole hill was crowned with dazzling light. The swords and knives of the defenders shone and flickered. The last arrow of Legolas kindled in the air as it flew, and plunged burning into the heart of a great wolf-chieftain. All the others fled.
Slowly the fire died till nothing was left but falling ash and sparks; a bitter smoke curled above the burned tree-stumps, and blew darkly from the hill, as the first light of dawn came dimly in the sky. Their enemies were routed and did not return.
`What did I tell you, Mr. Pippin? ' said Sam, she/thing his sword. `Wolves won't get him. That was an eye-opener, and no mistake! Nearly singed the hair off my head!'
When the full light of the morning came no signs of the wolves were to be found, and they looked in vain for the bodies of the dead. No trace of the fight remained but the charred trees and the arrows of Legolas lying on the hill-top. All were undamaged save one of which only the point was left.
`It is as I feared,' said Gandalf. `These were no ordinary wolves hunting for food in the wilderness. Let us eat quickly and go!'

Di of Long Cleeve wrote:

As Queen Beruthiel would remind us,..

Well I don't need to, 'cos Di has done it.

Flaws?

Book 1 is poorly structured (though no more so than the first chapters of War and Peace) and carelessly edited, as can be seen from the early drafts which make depressing reading (Trotter, anyone?).

The Black Riders in their early incarnation, are pretty bad. I can't stand the way the Gaffer sends one of 'em away from Hobbiton with a flea in his ear. And Fatty escapes from Crickhollow too easily.

Pretty much everything else works for me, although it's a mite convenient that nearly all the Orcs in Cirith Ungol bump each other off before Sam arrives.

The broken sword is a metaphor; characters are archetypes (Sam Faithful Servant, Grima Evil Vizier) or symbolic (Arwen). Works for me. The world has many realistic novels and not many heroic romances.

While I normally don't hesitate to call a work of art "bad" just because I don't like it, I usually remain aware that my personal taste is the only reason that I think something is a poor work of art.

Any "flaws" in LOTR are the things any of you personally doesn't like, nothing more. They are therefore not really flaws of the book - just things that don't appeal to you.
That's perfectly alright, of course, and it's also alright to call them flaws, as long as you remain aware that these flaws are not integral to the book, but flaws only for you, only in your own perception of the book!

That said, the only thing that bothered me (as far as I remember) was the depiction of the Old Forest as evil.
I guess I could try to see it as only evil in the perception of the hobbits, but I think at that point the reader is supposed to be scared of a real danger coming from the evil intents of the trees, which is an idea that's almost offensive to me.

As to some other things that were mentioned, I found none of them were flaws.

I had completely forgotten the warg-episode, though, so thanks for quoting that, Alatar!

Actually, I think the disappearance of the wargs makes sense.
They aren't some ridiculous monsters as in the movie (sorry, had to bring that in ) - they are wolves. In the quote it becomes clear that the company have no idea they are anything else but wolves. Only the disappearance of their bodies proves they were something else - ghosts, werewolves, whatever.
Don't classic myths of vampires say the vampire vanishes when it is killed?
I think it's a classic for knowing that what you've killed was nothing natural.


(Long enough for one post, if I have time, I'll comment on some others later. )

Hobby wrote:

Quote:

Any "flaws" in LOTR are the things any of you personally doesn't like, nothing more. They are therefore not really flaws of the book - just things that don't appeal to you.
That's perfectly alright, of course, and it's also alright to call them flaws, as long as you remain aware that these flaws are not integral to the book, but flaws only for you, only in your own perception of the book!

All in the eye of the beholder, eh?

The definition of 'flaw' is imperfection, a defect, a blemish. Are you seriously suggesting that there is no objective standard by which to judge art? Are there flaws in LOTR? Of course there are. Perfection does not exist. Not in art, not in life.

Using your criteria of all criticism being reduced to personal taste,(that is what you appear to be saying) should we then proclaim PJ's LOTR as flawless?

I know you are familir with this excerpt from the foward to FOTR:

The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again he will pass over these in silence ....

Quote:

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no objective standard by which to judge art?

That's exactly what I'm saying, Sassy!

Quote:

Are there flaws in LOTR? Of course there are. Perfection does not exist. Not in art, not in life.

That's because no absolutes exist. And hence no absolute standards by which to judge either flaws or perfection.

Yes, all in the eye of the beholder!

I think flaws in the context of this discussion refers to failures in internal consistency, something that Tolkien took enormous pains to maintain but given the complexity of his world not always successfully. Not only that but spotting them gives us enormous fun.
These can be discussed more objectively than, say disliking Tom Bombadil or the role of Arwen.

Good point, Tosh - so we'll have to take good care not to get carried away by our dislike for some things and keep concentrating on things that don't seem to make sense within the story, and discuss whether that is indeed so or not.
(I must admit that it would not give me any pleasure to find such examples - I guess I'll just keep trying to disprove such points. )

But please, folks, I didn't mean to derail the thread with my little caveat about personal views.

I posted something about wargs, too, which I was hoping made some sense.

As my old friend Sador_Labadal was fond of saying, "sense is what you make of it."