What would you criticize or change about LotR, The Hobbit, or Silmarillion?

[Extollager]

@Extollager - this is my bad, as TGStigmata wanted to discuss Biblical allegories more specifically, but that would inevitably turn into a debate about Christianity, not LOTR.

So TGS's posting had been edited. Thanks for clarifying.

We probably won't discuss particulars here at Chrons, then, but I'll say that I don't think Tolkien wanted to write allegorically. Rather, the key to understanding the Christian elements in LotR is typology. It has been widely believed, by Christians, that persons, things, and events prior to the Incarnation were (a) real persons, things, and events in their own right that (b) foreshadowed greater persons, things, and events that swarmed around the time of the Incarnation and the founding of the Church. To use a non-Tolkienian example and, so, to head off worries about "debates" about Christian elements in LotR, in Shakespeare's King Lear Cordelia and her death are not allegories but types of the love, faithfulness, innocence, and death of the Christ. A "type" doesn't have a one-for-one exact parallel with its later "antitype"; thus, though Lear thinks, for a moment, that his daughter lives after her execution, in fact she doesn't, but though Lear in his pre-Christian Britain doesn't know of the doctrine of the resurrection, Shakespeare's audience did; they have the advantage of living AD.* For them, there is a suggestion of the Christian hope that was not available to these ancient Britons. Shakespeare would have spoiled the artistic integrity of his play if he had given them Christian consolation.

Well, I think Tolkien, as a scholar of Beowulf, which he believed was written by a Christian poet, but which is set in the North before the coming of Christianity, was intrigued by this idea. His book would, he felt, be spoiled for readers who set about reading it as an allegorical "encoding" of a message (even if a Christian message). So he insisted it was not an allegory. Rather, Tolkien wanted readers, while reading it, to imagine it as a story from many thousands of years in the past, and, for him, this included the need of grappling seriously with the imagined situation (prior not only to the time of Christ but to the time of Abraham).

(*This would be reinforced by what the audience would see when Lear comes on stage carrying Cordelia's body. Take a moment to imagine in what manner he would be carrying her, and how he would hold her when he sat down, still holding her.

Is he going to walk on stage with this young woman slung over his shoulder, with her rump presented to the audience's view? That will not conduce to the pathos and dignity of this harrowing scene. No, he's going to carry her and set her down in a manner

that, for the audience, suggests a Pietà pose.

And my poor fool is hang'd! No, no, no life!
	Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life,
	And thou no breath at all? Thou'lt come no more,
	Never, never, never, never, never!
	Pray you, undo this button: thank you, sir.	365
	Do you see this? Look on her, look, her lips,
	Look there, look there!
[Dies]

There are the king's words. Clearly he believes that she is dead and will never live again. But then he -- we'll say imagines -- that her lips move, that breath has returned, and he dies. Thus Shakespeare maintains the artistic integrity of his "secondary world," long before the birth of Merlin as the Fool states. But Shakespeare also delicately suggests the revelation that was to come, when Britain would be evangelized. So it seems to me that Tolkien does something of the same nature. He imagines a time in the ancient past and expends great pains to give it its own integrity. But he would believe that, were there such a distant past, it would bear suggestions of what was to come, in the Age of Men. LotR ends happily, yet we do sense that something beautiful is departing from the world. [I take it that one of the things Teresa might have been getting at with her comment on Aragorn and Arwen is that this is presumably the final marriage and mating of Elf and Man.] But the Christian Tolkien believed also that, thousands of years ago, time was moving towards its true turning point, of the gospel "eucatastrophe" -- which for him and his readers is 2000 years ago.)

I hope I can say this much without this post being regarded as likely to incite heated debates.

Dale Nelson

 

[Extollager]

I quite like Tom Bombadil, but the writing here is distinct from the writing elsewhere, as though it was cut and pasted from another treatment.

Here's something I wrote for the excellent monthly Tolkien 'zine Beyond Bree:

Tom Bombadil and the “Point of Rest”


Gene Hargrove, in “Tom Bombadil and the Movies” (Beyond Bree, May 2003) cites a letter from Tolkien in which he says Bombadil is “not an important person – to the narrative. I suppose he has some importance as a ‘comment’,” and quotes movie director Peter Jackson as saying that the Bombadil episode doesn’t really advance the story and doesn’t tell us things we need to know. What, then, does the Tom Bombadil sequence contribute to The Lord of the Rings?


Victorian poet Coventry Patmore’s paper “The Point of Rest in Art” may help us understand the very real value of Bombadil. (Interested persons will find the complete short essay in Patmore’s Principle in Art.) Beginning with examples derived from paintings, Patmore finds a punctum indifferans, a “point, generally quite insignificant in matter, on which, indeed, the eye does not necessarily fix itself, but to which it involuntarily returns for repose.” This object is, in itself, “the least interesting point” in the whole canvas, but “all that is interesting” in the picture “is more or less unconsciously referred to it.” In a landscape it might be the “sawn-off end of a branch of a tree.” In Raphael’s “Dresden” Madonna, it is the Infant’s heel. The point of rest doesn’t create harmony where it does not exist, but where it does exist, “it will be strangely brought out and accentuated by this in itself often trifling, and sometimes, perhaps, even accidental accessory.”

Patmore proposes this test: “Cover [these points] from sight and, to a moderately sensitive and cultivated eye, the whole life of the picture will be found to have been lowered.”


Patmore includes literary examples drawn from Shakespeare – the “unobtrusive character of Kent” in King Lear, etc. Kent is “the eye of the tragic storm which rages round it; and the departure, in various directions, of every character more or less from moderation, rectitude, or sanity, is the more clearly understood or felt from our more or less conscious reference to him.” Other Shakespearean characters also serve as a “peaceful focus radiating the calm of moral solution throughout all the difficulties and disasters of surrounding fate: a vital centre, which, like that of a great wheel, has little motion in itself, but which at once transmits and controls the fierce revolution of the circumference.”


I think this helps us to understand Bombadil’s very real contribution to our enjoyment of The Lord of the Rings. Always in the back of our minds, while we are occupied by the hurry and tumult of so many persons and events, we have the sense of that one “insignificant” but whole, innocent, incorruptible person in his realm that is only a pinpoint on the map of Middle-earth. Gandalf emphasizes just this in his comments at the Council of Elrond. If summoned to the Council, Bombadil “‘would not have come.’” If the dreadful issues bound up with the Ring were explained to Bombadil, “‘he would not understand the need.’” If the Ring were given to him, he would forget it or discard it, because “‘such things have no hold on his mind.’”


Patmore says that “a point of rest and comparison is necessary only when the objects and interests are many and more or less conflicting.” If he had had a copy of The Lord of the Rings at hand, he would have been able to cite a perfect example of such a “point” in the character of Tom Bombadil.

(c) 2019 Dale Nelson
Reprinted from Beyond Bree June 2003.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

See, that's where we'd diverge, Anya. The brilliance of Tolkein's writing was environment influenced everything, including the characters. Aragon was the ranger elite he was because he had to brave the wilds of Middle Earth. The entirety of their societies hinged on the actions of Mordor and Minas Tirith, and the breathtaking descriptions about the topography and history sucked readers in. In his world, Tolkein made the world the star, and the characters were the backup band.

I agreed his world building was incredible but I think his stories and characters were lack lustre and uninteresting. I didn't get sucked in because there wasn't anyone of any real interest to follow through the world and like many well written pieces the plot was buried in amongst a lot of uninteresting detail. The lack of full blooded characters makes the world feel unreal to me.

Any writer that can suck millions into a world and communicate their ideas to millions has done an incredible job. When I came to write my own fantasy, The Lord of the Rings influenced it in that I used the characters to build the world and saw them as part of the world building.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Semi-seriously: I wish he hadn't copied so much from the catholic church when he came up with his worlds.
Seriously: I find myself agreeing with Teresa about Arwen. One of the things Jackson's films did unexpectedly well, and very movingly, was the relationship between Aragorn and Arwen, which lights up that second part of the trilogy.
I can't understanding the people here banging on about poor characters. He created characters full of interest and charm, including one of the all-time great ambiguous villains, Gollum.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

But sometimes I just wish he took things a bit farther in metaphor and told us what he was thinking.

That's your job. You're the reader.

 

[BAYLOR]

Golem is battling Frodo over the ring , knocks him unconscious, takes the ring without taking Frodo finger in the process . Has flash triumph .He happy he gotten back the ring his precious. Then, he has sudden flash of reality, seeing the ring for what it is and what' done to him. He becomes the Smeagol l he was before the ring corrupted and enough to realize he'll never be free of it and what will happed to the world if Sauron get hold it. He grasps the ring tightly in his hands to erect it from slipping out and jumps into lava and dies knowing he was able redeem himself and make a difference. Frodo regains conscienceless long enough to witness Smeaglss self sacrifice. Frondo sad for Smeagol and happy knowing he's both peace and redemption.

Yes , I know its corny this must sound .But I wish Smeagol had gotten better then he did.

 

[BAYLOR]

I really should proof read my comments better.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'd like to have seen Frodo use the Ring to do something other than disappear. As it is , we have no real idea as to what the Ring actually does and even if Frodo is capable of using it. Maybe just once, just one glimpse of it's true power.

I'd also like to have seen the battle of Pelennor Fields done better than pulling the Dead of Dunharrow out from seemingly nowhere to become an invincible army against Sauron's forces.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The Silmarillion had the potential to be something greater.

Yes , it could have perhaps formed a series of books predating the LOTR trilogy.

Let's just hope that Jackson doesn't get the idea to turn them into a trilogy of movies

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes , it could have perhaps formed a series of books predating the LOTR trilogy.

Let's just hope that Jackson doesn't get the idea to turn them into a trilogy of movies

Isn't the tv series supposed to be doing the second age?

 

[paranoid marvin]

Isn't the tv series supposed to be doing the second age?

Yes. suspect that it will be an attempted cash-in on the gap left by Game of Thrones. It could be good (it certainly seems to have the budget) but I'll be surprised if it is.

I can well imagine a lot of people will tune in expecting to see characters from the film and come away disappointed, although it wouldn't surprise me if they try to make a popular character like Gandalf a central, recognisable figure in it.

 

[BAYLOR]

I'd like to have seen Frodo use the Ring to do something other than disappear. As it is , we have no real idea as to what the Ring actually does and even if Frodo is capable of using it. Maybe just once, just one glimpse of it's true power.

I'd also like to have seen the battle of Pelennor Fields done better than pulling the Dead of Dunharrow out from seemingly nowhere to become an invincible army against Sauron's forces.

The problem is , the One Ring is tied to the will of Sauron , Ultimately , It twists and corrupts the user , Frodo would have ended up like Gollum . I keep Imagining what would have happened had Gandalf had been tempted to take up the ring from Frodo in Bilbo's house or Lady Galadriel when Frodo showed it to her. In her case, we got a glimpse of just how bad she could have become had she take up the ring . In the case of Saurman the Wise, I think he is the only one who with the ring could have brought Sauron to his knees. Saurman with the Ring would be nightmare of Biblical proportions.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The problem is , the Ring is owned to the will of Sauron , Ultimately , It twists and corrupts the user Frodo would have ended up like Gollum . I trying keep Imagining what would have happened had Gandalf had been tempted to take up the ring from Frodo in Bilbo's house or Lady Gladriel when Frodo showed it to her. In her case, we got a glimpse of just how bad she could have become had she take up the ring . In the case of Saurman the Wise, I think he is the only one who with the ring could have brought Sauron to his knees. Saurman with the Ring would be nightmare of Biblica proportions.

I do think that Aragorn may also have had the power to control it, if only for a short time. It's quite possible that had Frodo worn the Ring it would have done nothing, he did not have the will to command it; and the Nazgul urged him to put it on, so they were hardly afraid of him trying to use it.

It would have been interesting if on Mount Doom , Frodo had put the Ring on and willed the enemies forces dead, or Barad-dur destroyed and it had happened so we could have seen the true capability of the Ring. This is where it was at it's strongest, and maybe even a Hobbit could have commanded great power from it. The ending is still the same, but we see just what might have happened

 

[BAYLOR]

I do think that Aragorn may also have had the power to control it, if only for a short time. It's quite possible that had Frodo worn the Ring it would have done nothing, he did not have the will to command it; and the Nazgul urged him to put it on, so they were hardly afraid of him trying to use it.

It would have been interesting if on Mount Doom , Frodo had put the Ring on and willed the enemies forces dead, or Barad-dur destroyed and it had happened so we could have seen the true capability of the Ring. This is where it was at it's strongest, and maybe even a Hobbit could have commanded great power from it. The ending is still the same, but we see just what might have happened

In that scenario , the probable outcome would be that both Frodo and Sam would likely have ended up dying.

 

[BAYLOR]

Yes. suspect that it will be an attempted cash-in on the gap left by Game of Thrones. It could be good (it certainly seems to have the budget) but I'll be surprised if it is.

I can well imagine a lot of people will tune in expecting to see characters from the film and come away disappointed, although it wouldn't surprise me if they try to make a popular character like Gandalf a central, recognisable figure in it.

I know that Lady Galadriel , Elrond and his borsht Elrose who became mortal and become the founder of the ruling line of Numenor where alive during the second age But what about Gandalf ? Ive always had the imrepss that he is immensely old as is Summon the Wise but, were they born and alive in the second age?

 

[Bick]

Gandalf was a Maiar spirit in Valinor in the first age, known as Olorin. He was as old as anyone in Middle Earth.

 

[BAYLOR]

Gandalf was a Maiar spirit in Valinor in the first age, known as Olorin. He was as old as anyone in Middle Earth.

So, he's not really human in the conventional sense ?

And he a guardian of something called the Flame of Anor ? The source of his magic and longevity ?

 

[Bick]

Its explained and described in the Silmarillion. Essentially "in the beginning" there were true Gods: the Valar - and there where 'second-tier' or demi-gods: the Maiar. Both were immortal and came before any of the daughter races - elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits in that order. So, yes, Gandalf is more than human, he's an 'angelic' immortal being, of the same 'race' as Sauron.

 

[BAYLOR]

Its explained and described in the Silmarillion. Essentially "in the beginning" there were true Gods: the Valar - and there where 'second-tier' or demi-gods: the Maiar. Both were immortal and came before any of the daughter races - elves, dwarves, humans, hobbits in that order. So, yes, Gandalf is more than human, he's an 'angelic' immortal being, of the same 'race' as Sauron.

So Sauron like Lucifer , is a fallen angel . It's been 30 years since Ive read the Silmarillion. Perhaps a reread might be in order.

 

[Bick]

So Sauron like Lucifer , is a fallen angel . It's been 30 years since Ive read the Silmarillion. Perhaps a reread might be in order.

Yes, because he was under the sway of Melkor, who was himself a 'fallen god" (who was finally defeated by Tulkas and chained in the darkness outside the world for all time).