Help
Unless you count his motives for his actions a mistake, the lust for wealth. Thus Tolkien does not show a particular attachment to his characters, those of the good to not have them killed. I would say LoTR and its HoME have a rather sad undercurrent throughout. His story covers most circumstances of loss and sorrow it brings and sorrow from the actions of his characters. Noticeably Turin has a most unfortunate life and is regarded by many Tolkien fanatics to the most tragic character ever written, I too am inclined to think so.
Continuing on the character theme, Werthead I was wondering if you could tell me on what grounds do you think that Erikson was writing at greater depth with his characters then Tolkien was? And consequently why he should have left Gandalf dead? Was it not more powerful to have this twist in the plot; for we all thought after his fall from the bridge in Khazad-dum he had actually died, a surprise in itself because he was such an integral part to the story. Despite my opinion on this Tolkien seemed to notice it as a mistake,
Quote
it would not, I fear, get rid of the fact that the return of G. is as presented in this book a 'defect', and one I was aware of, and probably did not work hard enough to mend. But G. is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I wd. venture to say that he was an incarnate 'angel'– [Letter #156 to Robert Murray]
However we have him returning in the Two Towers, he was bought back to continue with the history of the Istari that had been written in the Unfinished Tales, although published after his death the writings that comprised the body of the book were written at or around the time he was writing Lord of the Rings. Sonnyboy’s take on the matter of Gandalf is I find accurate.
His work was a forever-changing piece, there were character names dropped, I think I am right in saying that Bilbo and Aragorn were not the first names to have been chosen and there were alternate possibilities before Tolkien decided upon Bilbo and Aragorn. (I have read this somewhere but cannot remember where.)
The fact that Tolkien did not include dozens of races I feel has made it a better series than Erikson, for although undoubtedly he has the breadth and creativity to come up with many races and locations the lack of depth is disappointing because there is nothing substantial in their history, we are given (in comparison to Tolkien) a brief description before we are plunged into the race. That is why I feel Tolkien is ahead on all accounts. I know that I cannot ignore and rebuke everything everyone has said, and I concede that Erikson has a better style for the dramatic ending as you say Werthead.
Remaining with the characters and races, Brys you say that the Jaghut have as much history as the Sindar, in what way?? Erikson as I seem to remember from the GoTM to HoC has not written much for the reader in way of a history of the Jaghut, and yes it comes in small pieces, most of which seems to come from the mind of another race entirely about one Jaghut, Icarius. Now Tolkien’s Sindar had an entire book for them. Yes Erikson’s is a different and interesting and certainly not off putting style I am sure will nonetheless provide only a “brief” history. Brys I would point you in the direction of my first “lengthy” post where I list a fair few main characters who perish in his books, to say that he does not let them die is a little “short sighted”.
Quote
Have you even read Epic Pooh? That's a pretty dismissive statement to the most influential living fantasy writer.
I have not read Epic Pooh though we had substantial extracts from an essay of his posted by Fool, which provided a good feel for its content. I think he has been rather overly scathing of Tolkien. I was not dismissive, I was suggesting to that fact that the HoME are proof for denial of any criticism Tolkien has dished out. For example,
Quote
The sort of prose most often identified with "high" fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies. It is soft:
One day when the sun had come back over the forest, bringing with it the scent of May, and all the streams of the Forest were tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again, and the little pools lay dreaming of the life they had seen and the big things they had done, and in the warmth and quiet of the Forest the cuckoo was trying over his voice carefully and listening to see if he liked it, and wood-pigeons were complaining gently to themselves in their lazy comfortable way that it was the other fellow's fault, but it didn't matter very much; on such a day as this Christopher Robin whistled in a special way he had, and Owl came flying out of the Hundred Acre Wood to see what was wanted.
Winnie-the-Pooh, 1926
It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings…
One day when the sun had come back over the forest, bringing with it the scent of May, and all the streams of the Forest were tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again, and the little pools lay dreaming of the life they had seen and the big things they had done, and in the warmth and quiet of the Forest the cuckoo was trying over his voice carefully and listening to see if he liked it, and wood-pigeons were complaining gently to themselves in their lazy comfortable way that it was the other fellow's fault, but it didn't matter very much; on such a day as this Christopher Robin whistled in a special way he had, and Owl came flying out of the Hundred Acre Wood to see what was wanted.
Winnie-the-Pooh, 1926
It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings…
That is dismissive; perhaps the odd page is like that, but throughout? Never!
Quote
The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob - mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom "good taste" is synonymous with "restraint" (pastel colours, murmured protest) and "civilized" behaviour means "conventional behaviour in all circumstances". This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil (never really defined), but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure - because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders - if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we're told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can't be all bad.
Now I am being dismissive, what a load of verbal diarrhoea!!! It makes me cringe that someone who is obviously respected would write this. This is why I know I will never be bothered to read his Epic Pooh, probably a self-title for his own work!
Sonnyboy that is one of the most interesting comments said so far. Something I felt I immediately believed in, yet I would still rate him as an author because of the Hobbit, written before, as we know, he undertook Lord of the Rings. Even Lord of the Rings trilogy by itself can be a novel, it was written for an audience with a plot, characters etc, it’s a novel. It is the HoME that takes it beyond when they are all bought together then yes I see what you mean. So too have you hit it on the nail on the head in regards to his understandably outdated theme of good vs. evil. But let us remember it is still a successful bookseller and is something that will never be abandoned because it appeals to most people.
However I must disagree with you on the issue that it makes for a poor novel, I do not understand how it could be read as anything other than a novel? Perhaps I am being quite ignorant here, but for me Lord of the Rings is only a novel. Then, as I have said when you bring it together with the HoME then it becomes something you can study because of its depth. It is similar to the argument that Tolkien purists had about the films. Many were bashing Peter Jackson for his interpretation and were listing the things he should have left out and scenes he should have included. Take it as film, an interpretation, something new, and see past the missing bits and the scenes you would have liked in it. But you still call it a film don’t you.
Tolkien was of this opinion he disliked allegory,
Quote
I dislike Allegory – the conscious and intentional allegory – [Letter #131 to Milton Waldman]
Quote
Of course, Allegory and Story converge, meeting somewhere in Truth. So that the only perfectly consistent allegory is a real life; and the only fully intelligible story is an allegory. And one finds, even in imperfect human 'literature', that the better and more consistent an allegory is the more easily can it be read 'just as a story'; and the better and more closely woven a story is the more easily can those so minded find allegory in it. – [Letter #109 to Sir Stanley Unwin]
He obviously concedes that there is necessity for explaining myth and fairy tale with allegory. As his story is so well written and woven that you can easily find allegory within it. I think that Tolkien’s dislike of allegory is often misinterpreted; Fool gives us a lengthy quote from Meiville, who says
Quote
Tolkien’s ‘cordial dislike’ of allegory does not, as some of his followers, most of his detractors, and the man himself seems to think, imply a fiction divorced from reality – a fiction ‘about’ nothing real. What it means is a fantasy that is not reducible to a kind of philistine, simplistic, moralising, fabular representation of soi-disant ‘meaningful’ concerns, as with fiction that despises its own fantastic. Dispensing with allegory cannot mean dispensing with metaphor:[4] fantasy that believes itself is about itself and also about other things.
Tolkien doesn’t believe this, he simply doesn’t care, he says as much, you can think on it as you will, but it will not take away from the fact that he wrote purely for what it is. Anyway isn’t fantasy supposed to be outside of reality?
Challenging his point about Tolkien and the war, Tolkien understandably would feel an “anger” and willingness to put behind him the sorrow and utter carnage it bought about, I am sure most people of sane and humane mind would, and if anything Meiville is attaching a belief to Tolkien he just doesn’t have. If he is to attach anything like this to him, then at lease may it be that perhaps Tolkien is alluding to better days, more peaceful days, and that his inclusion of machinery and its “inventor” Saruman as a warning to the dreadful things technology can reek on mankind. Nagasaki and Hiroshima comes to mind. I think more along the lines of Tolkien is a man murmuring in a balanced way, “its not right” and knowing it.
A change that has more likely made his view on happy endings change completely,
Quote
There is no happy ending to the Romance of Robin Hood, however, whereas Tolkien, going against the grain of his subject matter, forces one on us - as a matter of policy:…
He doesn’t force one on us, no author forces they invite you to end the story where they feel is best, some authors have no ending at all. Neither is his a happy ending; the last few chapters are riddled with constant struggle. The Scouring of the Shire is an extending ending to the trilogy, the destroying of a place you’d hope would never be involved; the conclusion of that less than “satisfying” for Frodo. More like a happy ending with a tear through the middle of it; more like those dodgy film endings where they try to accommodate for a sequel, Godzilla with the one egg that survives. I am very much in agreement with Werthead here.
Quote
Alright, so its another race but really where is the difference? Its more nobility and justice and benevolence just like it used to be. How is that not returning to the status quo?
Sorry how is it a race? And the coming of man in Middle Earth has been less than noble and justified. Its history is littered with wrong doings. I do not know of many books that has the complete voluntary disappearance of an entire race from the story or if we are comparing with Erikson, the rise of a race. In Erikson a rise of individuals yes, because his books are more about the individual then the collective of an entire race.
Jumping a bit to Fool’s quoting of bakker, now there is someone who knows what they are talking about. There is a clear difference in the writing between bakker, Meiville and Moorcock, he at least has the negative points discussed and critised and balanced with positives instead of a complete all out banzai attack with a smear of hesitation like Meiville and Moorcock.
In passing astra I believe gave us a good accord of why Tolkien is a fantastic writer, he plays on our beliefs, people may or may not believe in magic thus to write less is to make it more believable for there is less to criticise. Something that perhaps takes it slightly away from fantasy or should I say hardcore fantasy where anything goes. Erikson provides what could be classed as hardcore creativity, i.e. warrens acting as portals to other worlds.
Skipping over the quagmire of fallen English, and lost punctuation and murdered grammar that were the next few posts…However my attitude toward correcting inconsistencies toward Lord of the Rings lore shall not waver and so I will correct astra.
Astra the Hobbits were not all that passive as you might think. Their history has not one of complete inactivity militarily. But Bandobras Took headed a small force that beat an orc band in 2747 Third Age.
There is also mention of small Hobbit forces being sent to the service of the King of Gondor when they were assailed early in the Third Age, also of a force being sent to the battle near Angmar shortly before it was overthrown. Further, Sonnyboy mentioned Shiriffs, who were a military force of sorts within the Shire. I suggest you read the appendices, which holds such nuggets of information.
In finishing I would like to show a thumb up for Morgoth whose sentiments are mine also, there is too much Tolkien bashing going on. And finally,
[quote] If it fails next to actual epic, that's something Tolkien might have cared about.[quote]
Something he didn’t have to worry about. For me his complete writings are another “bible” they are epic.
, although the process of learning English will continue as long as I am alive).
I think Tolkien thinks so too, that's why he shows that there is a big gap between puny Shiriffs and Frodo's company when they return to Hobbiton. Even Saruman didn't expect such a dramatic change in Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin. I believe he had the same opinion about hobbits as I do. Since he managed to take control over Hobbits, his judgement was correct. 
