# Are there any negative aspects of Lord of the Rings or other works?



## Lúthien Séregon (Oct 14, 2003)

I haven't as yet delved into all the threads of the past, so I don't know if this thread has been done before, but this is my own take on the matter if it has.

So overall we all love Tolkien’s _Lord of the Rings_, for obvious reasons. However, do you think there are any aspects of his masterpiece that could have been improved, or that bring the tone of the book down somewhat? If so, what are they?

For me, the dislikes I had of _Lord of the Rings_ had to be in ( lack of ) characterisation and over-detailing.

Not many of the characters had their personality developed fully ( such as Boromir ), as _Lord of the Rings_ is already a long enough book as it is. If any personality is fully shown, it seems to be through typical heroism or descriptions of valour. I found that many of Tolkien’s characters are presented as being overly heroic or set-in-stone, which for me made it somewhat difficult to relate to them. 

For example, with several major characters, their every feature is described as noble and valiant, and Tolkien measures their worth by good deeds or stature. I found this was particularly true of Aragorn, Legolas and Theoden. Even characters in history are refined by deeds or good will. Hardly any emotion other than these and yearning for places unknown or left long ago ( eg. Gondor ) seem to be shown in Tolkien’s works. Does anyone else find this a bit of a problem?

Along with this, and keeping to the same theme, women seem to be left out. Surely Aragorn’s love for Arwen deserved more than a mention? Surely Arwen, the daughter of Elrond, deserved more than a few paragraphs? I found it a bit sad that Tolkien largely left it to the Appendices to fully tell the story of Aragorn and Arwen. Even Galadriel doesn’t actually get much mention relative to her significance. There really are hardly any women at all ( mentioned ), apart from Eowyn, Arwen, Galadriel, Rosie and Lobelia. Tolkien only really fully mentioned the characters who have had a huge part to play in battles or fit the already described picture of overt heroism.

However, on the contrary, I think the hobbits were done brilliantly. Sam and Gollum are my favourite characters, because they show the most emotion and personality. They also can be brave without being necessarily valiant or particularly wise, and win the day through perseverance and friendship.

The second problem ( if it can even be considered a problem ) would be seemingly unneccesary over-describing of detail in some areas, and then not in others. Tolkien devotes sometimes a whole paragraph to descriptions of plants or grass, yet major events ( eg. Smaug’s slaying in The Hobbit ) seem to be rushed somewhat in contrast:




> Full on the town he fell. His last throes splintered it to sparks and gledes. The lake roared in. A vast steam leaped up, white in the sudden dark under the moon. There was a hiss, a gushing whirl, and then silence. And that was the end of Smaug and Esgaroth, but not of Bard.





> The weather was still grey and overcast, with wind from the East, but as evening drew into night the sky away westward cleared, and pools of faint light, yellow and pale green, opened under the grey shores of cloud. There the white rind of the new Moon could be seen glimmering in the remote lakes. Sam looked at it and puckered his brows.
> 
> The next day the country on either side began to change rapidly. The banks began to rise and grow stony. Soon they were passing through a hilly rocky land, and on both shores there were steep slopes buried in deep brakes of thorn and sloe, tangled with brambles and creepers. Behind them stood low crumbling cliffs, and chimneys of grey weathered stone dark with ivy; and beyond these again there rose high ridges crowned with wind-writhen firs. They were drawing near to the grey hill-country of the Emyn Muil, the southern march of Wilderland.



Don’t get me wrong, I really love _Lord of the Rings_. However, I also feel that to truly appreciate a book’s worth, the negatives have to be looked at as well. Are these negatives really valid? Does anyone else have any more to add?


----------



## Flammifer (Oct 14, 2003)

Blasphemy!  haha no just kidding.....

OK, I can understand where you're coming from, but the description thing is fantastic. It's essential in any kind of 'journey' story, especially with one of such bredth. It would have seemed very inconsistent for Tolkien to make all these maps and geography, and yet not describe in detail what each place is. Indeed, it would seem quite ridiculous. There would be too many unknowns (not that there already aren't).

The under-development of Arwen's character has been pointed out many times, so let's not get into that. Let's just say she is under-developed.



> Not many of the characters had their personality developed fully ( such as Boromir ), as Lord of the Rings is already a long enough book as it is. If any personality is fully shown, it seems to be through typical heroism or descriptions of valour. I found that many of Tolkien’s characters are presented as being overly heroic or set-in-stone, which for me made it somewhat difficult to relate to them.



I think Boromir's character is developed very well. He is a proud, glory-seeking man, valiant in battle and true to his own people. He is a great lord of Men, and they will follow him, but is susceptible to temptation. He is no loremaster, save that he loves the tales of old battles, and feels somewhat threatened by those who are greater than him. I could go on. I think from his actions and descriptions of his character from others such as Faramir, Gandalf and Denehtor we can know much about him.



> For example, with several major characters, their every feature is described as noble and valiant, and Tolkien measures their worth by good deeds or stature. I found this was particularly true of Aragorn, Legolas and Theoden. Even characters in history are refined by deeds or good will. Hardly any emotion other than these and yearning for places unknown or left long ago ( eg. Gondor ) seem to be shown in Tolkien’s works. Does anyone else find this a bit of a problem?



I don't think Theoden fits this description. At the Parley with Saruman, he too thought it likely that Gandalf would betray them, and they would be lost.

Legolas get angry in Lothlorien with the whole eye-binding thing, but besides, he's an Elf. If anyone was going to be _almost_ faultless, it would be an Elf.

Aragorn is the greatest man in the world. Haha, I know it sounds stupid but it's true! He is the greatest man. Thus, as he must become King, he can't be particularly flawed. But he's the greatest Man and it's not saying much of Men if Aragorn's bad!

There is also the fact to consider that in a story such as this, when the 'good guys' face an absolute evil, the 'good guys' have to be really good, so as to establish a contrast. I'm not sure if you get what I mean here.

The only thing that really gets to me in LotR is from this:



> And the King said to Beregond: 'Beregond, by your sword blood was spilled in the Hallows, where that is forbidden. Also you left your post without leave of Lord of of Captain. *For these things, of old, death was the penalty.*



This just disturbs me. Although order must be kept in the City in military conditions and divisions such as the Tower Guard, I think this is very very harsh. Surely to be cast out of the Tower Guard or exiled from the Kingdom would be punishment enough, through shame? Even in the glory days of Gondor, when none could challenge them, and they lived in happiness, why was such a harsh penalty levied? Is this just me, or does anyone else think that this sucks? But then again I am against capital punishment...


----------



## GoldenWood (Oct 15, 2003)

Tolkien puts too much importance on pure bloodedness. It sounds almost racist sometimes.


----------



## BlackCaptain (Oct 15, 2003)

But Lineage would be very important in a time like this... Extremely important to that matter...

How would it be racist?


----------



## Flammifer (Oct 16, 2003)

I think what GoldenWood is trying to get at is that (in the case of the Numenoreans in M-e) pure bloodedness is extremely revered, that is to say, that line did well to stay 'unmingled', and those who did not manage to stay 'umingled' are to some extent looked down upon, whilst those who were successful are praised. I don't know. Something like that.

But I think that 'prejudiced' is the word, not 'racist'.


----------



## Adrastea (Oct 16, 2003)

> The second problem ( if it can even be considered a problem ) would be seemingly unneccesary over-describing of detail in some areas, and then not in others.



I would have to agree to some extent with this because believe it or not I actually missed reading the part about Gollum falling into Mount Doom. It was so exciting that I was reading fast and skimming over it and I actually went past the paragraph mistaking it for description of scenery. I read up to the bit of Frodo waking up at The Field of Cormallen before realising that I had missed something important. I read it over again and found the paragraph were he falls. I find it a little bit annoying that you have this whole book and then the destiny of the world changes in this tiny paragraph.


----------



## Elanor2 (Oct 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by BlackCaptain _
> *But Lineage would be very important in a time like this... Extremely important to that matter...
> How would it be racist? *



I don't think so. Just because someone writes about lineages and races, it doesn't mean that s/he really believe that this is truly important or makes anyone superior. After all, someone like Stephen King writes about monsters all the time, but I doubt that he believes that vampires exist.

Just look at how the caracters behave rather than their lineage: Aragorn spent years eating mud and serving other people without being appreciated or getting even afterwards, there are interracial loves and frienships all over... 

In fact, the ones that seem to have racist/prejudized tendencies are critisised and end up badly most of the time. I would say that Tolkien uses the concepts of lineage and race many times just to prove how unimportant they are compared with the real behaviour of his characters.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 17, 2003)

Any true fan has an immediate answer (it's become cliche): They're too short. 



> really are hardly any women at all



I've gotten into this arguement before, but I really don't believe it would be realistic to portray too many women. Most of them would've been hidden or sheltered away (you see this happening). Eowyn is a huge exception to this. Children also would've been in the way, which is why there is only one truly young character. 



> But he's the greatest Man and it's not saying much of Men if Aragorn's bad!



I found Aragorn fairly well developed, but I use my imagination too much and fill in blanks that aren't even there. . it is great for thinking by myself but sometimes screws me up on the forum when I post things I imagined instead of read.



> Although order must be kept in the City in military conditions and divisions such as the Tower Guard, I think this is very very harsh.



It is a bit harsh, and I'm not against capital punishment, but I think it may have been for emphasis. We wouldn't have felt so much urgency if when Pippin had run up to him he'd said, "I can't because I might get fired and lose my pension plan." On the other hand, "But if I do they'll kill me" works very well. 



> Tolkien puts too much importance on pure bloodedness.



Pure bloodness occasionally, yes, though I appriciate the lineage part. For some reason lineage is important to me. It drives me crazy when the king dies childless and leaves it to a trusted advisor or when the main characters don't have kids. . .the line dies out and POOF. Blah.


----------



## Flammifer (Oct 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider_
> It is a bit harsh, and I'm not against capital punishment, but I think it may have been for emphasis. We wouldn't have felt so much urgency if when Pippin had run up to him he'd said, "I can't because I might get fired and lose my pension plan." On the other hand, "But if I do they'll kill me" works very well.



I see what you mean, but as Tolkien wrote LotR as a historical acount, you'd think that he'd pick historical accuracy over drama. But obviously death is both. Which I think sucks.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 17, 2003)

I think he couldn't have gotten around the drama and still have gotten the guy to act that way.


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 18, 2003)

I was, and still am, more put off by Tolkien's 'romantic' scenes; they lacked essence, and it seems like Tolkien filled that void with lots of mythical/legendary aspects (e.g. Arwen and Aragorn, Elf and Man, both become mortal etc.) A particularly disappointing relationship is that of Éowyn and Faramir. I envisioned their love as the truest kind, pure and echoed by both, brought together by strife. But when I read the garden-scene, it made me feel like Éowyn was submitting to a forced marriage out of desperation and that faramir was the only one of the two who showed any signs of love. This, I think, is a major flaw in Tolkien's works; even Beren and Lúthien (though a remarkable and astounding tale) seemed a little 'fake', and they are supposed to be the greatest ccouple in all of Arda? Please. Legend-wise, yes; but the spark just wasn't there - at least in my opinion.

Also it seems like every character that Tolkien has is not very complex at all, and any signs of such complexity are brought on by some external power (i.e. by the Ring). The only truly complex characters that I can imagine now are Gandalf and Boromir; also the Hobbits (merry, Pippin, Frodo, Sam) were far from linear. Most of the other characters (e.g. Elrond, Legolas, Gimli, Galadriel, Celeborn, Gríma etc.) were set in a mold from which they seldom (if ever departed): loremaster, (now cliché) elven prince, warrior, (now cliché) elven queen and sorceress, dutiful husband and evil backstabber respectively. Both kings Théoden and Denethor also deserve a notation for their intricacy, and mroe importantly their respective metamorphoses: Théoden arises from a crippled old grandfather to a leader and King before the reader's eyes, and Denethor has ben changed into a brooding, suicidal pessimist (thuogh not before our eyes) by the palantír and Sauron. 
All of these fall under character development though, so I guess I just agree with Lúthien Seregon and others that Tolkien should have concentrated more on their development.

But Tolkien uses such beautiful simile, symbolism and descriptive language that I might just be able to forgive him.


----------



## Flammifer (Oct 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lantarion_
> But Tolkien uses such beautiful simile, symbolism and descriptive language that I might just be able to forgive him.



Hehe.

I see what you mean Lantarion, I agree that characters such as Elrond, Galadriel, Celeborn (an extreme case) and Arwen are the most under-developed.

I disagree that Gimli and Denethor are under-developed. Faramir and Boromir are very well developed character-wise, thus Denethor is also. But aside from that I think that his character, in the few short chapters in which it features, it developed quite well. There are many good descriptions of him, and his actions tell us a lot about his character, althoug most were induced by Sauron.

Gimli is a very complex character, IMO. Indeed although he is at times rash and unwise, (Lothlorien, the Riders of Rohan at first meeting) he can be very wise and even foresighted (have you noticed this? Eg. knowing that Galadriel was departing). He eptiomises the Dwarf -- proud, unconditionally loyal to his people, someitmes rash, sometimes wise, a true friend and very hardy.

In the case of Gríma, I think it is simply impossible to develop him a lot. Obviously we know what he is like, but really his dialogue and actions in LotR surround his poisoning of Theoden's mind, but apart from that his character is no more important than say, Hama.


----------



## Rhiannon (Oct 19, 2003)

> I was, and still am, more put off by Tolkien's 'romantic' scenes


I have to disagree...the garden scene, at least, makes my knees go out at the very thought. That's _something_, isn't it?



> A particularly disappointing relationship is that of Éowyn and Faramir. I envisioned their love as the truest kind, pure and echoed by both, brought together by strife. But when I read the garden-scene, it made me feel like Éowyn was submitting to a forced marriage out of desperation and that faramir was the only one of the two who showed any signs of love.


I'm just going to wince and whimper over this and let it be. But I wanted you to know I was whimpering so that you could appreciate my letting it be 

I'm surprised that so many people think Tolkien's characters lack complexity- This is one of the things I love about the book. At first glance many of them seem little more than arch-types, but I think there are many layers there that are revealed through small things in the text. But I'm a very character-oriented person; what ramifications tiny event on page x will have on character A on page xx usually mean more to me than why Magical Character B can do y with the z. 

I do think the lack of Arwen was definitely a failing. I would have disliked her a lot less if she had had more than eleven lines (including the appendix). I don't think the general lack of female characters is a failing, though- as Elgee said, it wouldn't have made sense for there to be many female characters in the story.

And while I truly love all of the descriptions- I think they're beautiful- I _still_ find most of _The Fellowship of the Ring_ to be tedious. Getting characters from point A to point B realistically is important, but all the walking can get dull. Waiting around for Frodo to finally leave the shire is also a major stumbling block to new readers who don't start off quite as entranced as others- it took great effort to get my best friend through the first book, but once she was in to _The Two Towers_ she had started redecorating her room with a Middle Earth theme. 

The major failing for me is the lack of follow-up with some characters. It's very sweet to hear about Sam having kids and what happens to Frodo...but I want to hear about Eowyn and Faramir's kids, and Aragorn and Arwen's for that matter.


----------



## Lúthien Séregon (Oct 19, 2003)

> Any true fan has an immediate answer (it's become cliche): They're too short.



Oh yes, thank you! I forgot to mention, they are too short.  

Does anyone else think it would have been better if more character development had been put in ( in cases where it could have needed it ), and more follow-up to the stories of certain characters ( eg. Aragorn and Arwen ) and the book made therefore longer?


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 19, 2003)

> *Orignally posted by Flammifer*
> He eptiomises the Dwarf -- proud, unconditionally loyal to his people, someitmes rash, sometimes wise, a true friend and very hardy.


That's the whole problem - he epitomizes the cliché image of a proud warrior-Dwarf. He has no intricate layers of his personality, he doesn't have conflicting characteristics, and he isn't all that interesting in my opinion. 


> *Originally posted by Rhiannon*
> I have to disagree...the garden scene, at least, makes my knees go out at the very thought. That's _something_, isn't it?


It is - but isn't it rather a complement to your own imagination, and not Tolkien's capacity for romantic prose? Alright, Tolkien gives us the image - but it is the reader who fills in what the reader left out. And in my opinion there is ample room for 'filling in' in these romantic scenes. All the parties of a romance seem so detached and neutral that I don't know whether to feel happiness or sympathy for them!
I also think that Tolkien uses beautiful language, also in the more romantic scenes, which as I said sort of 'saves the day'.


----------



## Rhiannon (Oct 20, 2003)

> It is - but isn't it rather a complement to your own imagination, and not Tolkien's capacity for romantic prose? Alright, Tolkien gives us the image - but it is the reader who fills in what the reader left out.


Perhaps the difference then is that I _like_ to have room to 'fill in'. But honestly, it boggles the mind to thing that anyone could fail to swoon at just the _dialogue_ in that scene (and for the record, I _love_ Tolkien's dialogue). 



> Does anyone else think it would have been better if more character development had been put in ( in cases where it could have needed it ), and more follow-up to the stories of certain characters ( eg. Aragorn and Arwen ) and the book made therefore longer?


More character development would have been good to have, but it's hard to say if it would make it _better_. But if it had been added, I think something else would have needed to be cut.


----------



## Flammifer (Oct 20, 2003)

> _Orginally posted by Rhiannon_
> Perhaps the difference then is that I like to have room to 'fill in'. But honestly, it boggles the mind to thing that anyone could fail to swoon at just the dialogue in that scene (and for the record, I love Tolkien's dialogue).



Hehe. I agree! Especially, "I do not wish to play at riddles! Speak plainer!", I like it for Eowyn's sharp personality.



> _Orginally posted by Lantarion_
> That's the whole problem - he epitomizes the cliché image of a proud warrior-Dwarf. He has no intricate layers of his personality, he doesn't have conflicting characteristics, and he isn't all that interesting in my opinion.



OK, now I think about it, I've changed my mind.  Although Gimli is a little bit bloodthirsty, I think his personality is very intricate. He falls totally in love with the Glittering Caves, and in describing them even wins a contest of words over an Elf. Although any Dwarf might have been able to love the Caves of Aglarond, Gimli's love for it is substantially deeper. 

Furthermore, as I mentioned above, I think he can be wise and foresighted. Granted, he is occasionally a bit too rash and cheeky for his own good, but underneath this rough exterior I think Gimli is a very interesting character. 

I think that might have even been Tolkien's original intention for Gimli's character -- he really did break new ground for Dwarves, particularly during the 'Latter' Days. He was an Elf-friend, and was valiant and kind and had an extraordinary good relationship with the little hobbits, although he had a 'rough exterior'. In a way he almost was the opposite of the stereotypical Dwarf.


----------



## Lantarion (Oct 20, 2003)

> *Originally posted by Flammifer*
> Granted, he is occasionally a bit too rash and cheeky for his own good, but underneath this rough exterior I think Gimli is a very interesting character.


Look, sorry if I seem like an empiricist here, but I would love to see _any_ proof from the LotR itself that Gimli has any sort of deeper character than the rough, slightly arrogant, proud, black-humour, bloodthirsty little soldier exterior. 
Personally I don't recall anything he might have said or done that might point otherwise. Although I must admit he does have a fairly romantic soul when it comes to his own race and their accomplsihments (e.g. in Moria, and the Glittering Caves), but that still lies under the whole Dwarven pride issue.

Gandalf has two or three very obvious sides - there is his friendly, 'humane' side; this is seen the most seen one, which he uses when speaking to the Hobbits, for example. Then there is his mighty, warrior-sage side, which is seen when he confronts the Balrog, when he arrives with the Huorns to Helm's Deep, when he confronts the Witch-king, etc. Then there is the wise Maia-side, which we are not privvy to; a glimpse is seen in Unfinished Tales of his humble, samaritan nature in Valinor.

Some characters may have similar sides (I think Théoden and Denethor, Boromir and Sam, perhaps among others, are at the top of that short list), but in Gandalf I think that the aspects are most visible.


----------



## baragund (Oct 20, 2003)

The most negative aspect of JRRT's works I can see is the complete absence of steamy sex scenes.

I'm kidding...honestly!

Seriously though, I'm with Luthien in that I get a little tired of the minute description of every single landscape. I seem to recall in ROTK when Frodo and Sam are making their way across Cirith Ungol and through Mordor, the narrative portion was simply riveting but then having the story continuously interrupted by detailed descriptions of the landscape.


----------



## Flammifer (Oct 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Lantarion_
> Personally I don't recall anything he might have said or done that might point otherwise. Although I must admit he does have a fairly romantic soul when it comes to his own race and their accomplsihments (e.g. in Moria, and the Glittering Caves), but that still lies under the whole Dwarven pride issue.



I agree that Moria falls under the Dwarven pride issue, well, at least a Dwarf of Durin's folk. But I don't think that the Glittering Caves can be considered a Dwarven accomplishment. Well, not when Gimli first saw them, anyway, and even then he loved them.



> _Originally posted by Lantarion_
> I would love to see any proof from the LotR itself that Gimli has any sort of deeper character than the rough, slightly arrogant, proud, black-humour, bloodthirsty little soldier exterior.



What about his love for Lady Galadriel? He was so gentle and fair-spoken when he spoke to her, and when he attempted (in vain) to describe her with fitting words. What about his friendship with Legolas? And his love for Aragorn (I am using love in the way that Tolkien does in this context, BTW)? And his kindliness in speaking to the hobbits? What about how moved he obviously was when he looked in the Mirrormere (though this could be said of other Dwarves also)? What about his utter sadness at the death of Balin? You may say this is natural, but he was more moved than most Dwarves would have been, I expect, as Legolas had to drag him away from the Chamber of Marzarbul - in spite of the danger he still lingered by Balin's tomb with his head bowed.

Are these not proofs?


----------



## Inderjit S (Oct 21, 2003)

> Look, sorry if I seem like an empiricist here, but I would love to see any proof from the LotR itself that Gimli has any sort of deeper character than the rough, slightly arrogant, proud, black-humour, bloodthirsty little soldier exterior.


 #

What of his love for Merry and Pippin? His reaction at the Mirromere, Glittering Caves, his ability to argue against Saurman, his love for Legolas and Aragorn and their love for him? His sadness at the deaths of Gandalf and Boromir? and his love for Galadriel?

(Unless it was a typo-you mean *Borormir* not _Gimli_ yes?)



> Hear all ye Elves! ' she cried to those about her. `Let none say again that Dwarves are grasping and ungracious! Yet surely, Gimli son of Glóin, you desire something that I could give? Name it, I bid you! You shall not be the only guest without a gift.






> The Elves stirred and murmured with astonishment, and Celeborn gazed at the Dwarf in wonder, but the Lady smiled. 'It is said that the skill of the Dwarves is in their hands rather than in their tongues ' she said; `yet that is not true of Gimli. '





> These words shall go with the gift,' she said. `I do not foretell, for all foretelling is now vain: on the one hand lies darkness, and on the other only hope. But if hope should not fail, then I say to you, Gimli son of Glóin, that your hands shall flow with gold, and yet over you gold shall have no dominion.





> I have looked the last upon that which was fairest,' he said to Legolas his companion. `Henceforward I will call nothing fair, unless it be her gift.' He put his hand to his breast.
> Tell me, Legolas, why did I come on this Quest? Little did I know where the chief peril lay! Truly Elrond spoke, saying that we could not foresee what we might meet upon our road. Torment in the dark was the danger that I feared, and it did not hold me back. But I would not have come, had I known the danger of light and joy. Now I have taken my worst wound in this parting, even if I were to go this night straight to the Dark Lord. Alas for Gimli son of Glóin!/



Quotes from _Farewell to Lorien_.

Doesn't he just make your heart melt  



> The most negative aspect of JRRT's works I can see is the complete absence of steamy sex scenes.



I second that.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 21, 2003)

> The most negative aspect of JRRT's works I can see is the complete absence of steamy sex scenes.



Men. . .men, men, men, men, men. . .Elgee gives a frustrated groan. Men. . .


Hehe. . .At least it wasn't blowing things up.

I suppose I should say the male leads should've talked more about their feelings then . ..to be stereotypical.


----------



## Flammifer (Oct 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider_
> Hehe. . .At least it wasn't blowing things up.



Hey, don't forget the blasting fire of Orthanc! No man ever writes a book without some blowing up! OK, maybe not _exactly_ accurate. 

Oh, and thanks for backing me up with all those quotes, Inder. Laziness stopped me getting them.


----------



## baragund (Oct 22, 2003)

Now Elgee, explosions were covered when Saruman breached the wall at Helm's Deep, and the part where Grond (the battering ram, not our colleague from O-in-E  ) knocked down the front gate at Minas Tirith was pretty nifty.

But come to think of it, a muscle-bound Aragorn wielding an M-60 machine gun in one hand and a grenade launcher in the other, kicking the snot out of the Enemy on the Pellanor Fields would be cool, too


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 22, 2003)

You're starting to remind me of my second best friend. . .the one who is joining the Marines in order to be trained to kick butt among other things. . .

Yes, I suppose we can't count lack of explosions among the negatives. . .

But can we among the positives?


----------



## Rhiannon (Oct 23, 2003)

I like explosions...

Is everyone having a really hard time coming up with negative things, or what?


----------



## Confusticated (Oct 24, 2003)

I'm no literary (is that really a word? ) critic, but for an average reader's peronal opinion, I find some parts just don't interest me as much as others. I really like battles, reuinions, and most places where we get a lot of dialog from certain characters such as Gandalf. I don't have much interest in Treebeard, Taming of Smeagol, or the history of the Third Age dealing with Men. I don't mind descriptions of lands.

As JRRT said: "It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, or to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical read 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, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short."

I have not been bothered by the fact that some characters are not very developed... I simply like a lot of them less than others that are. I love Bilbo and don't feel much about Frodo either way, for example.

I might even say that I do not think the book is too short at all, it just leaves me missing some of the characters and Middle-earth. LotR is the only book I ever read more than twice in a row... and I did so four times in a row during my first month of reading it. While it leaves me missing Middle-earth, I couldn't really say I'd want the story to go on, because for me what is most beloved about Middle-earth ended with the Third Age.

So my own person trouble with LotR is that not all of it (appendices included) is of great interest to me. It is to others though, and I wouldn't dare say the book is flawed for it.


PS: HLG, we can call them explositives?


----------



## Aglarthalion (Oct 24, 2003)

In my opinion, certain parts of LotR took themselves just a little _too_ seriously, which was something I found negative. :/


----------



## Flammifer (Oct 24, 2003)

How d'you mean, Aglar? (examples?)


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 24, 2003)

> In my opinion, certain parts of LotR took themselves just a little too seriously, which was something I found negative.



I didn't know paragraphs could have egos. . .


----------



## simbelmyne (Oct 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rhiannon _
> *I do think the lack of Arwen was definitely a failing. I would have disliked her a lot less if she had had more than eleven lines (including the appendix).
> 
> Getting characters from point A to point B realistically is important, but all the walking can get dull. Waiting around for Frodo to finally leave the shire is also a major stumbling block
> ...



Yeah, Arwen gets on my nerves too. She's like a glass doll or something. Sitting at the dinner table UNDER A CANOPY? Everyone else rides down to Gondor, and she gets carried down...even Galadriel rides a horse. She's an "idea" of a queen minus her humanity!

BUT, I have to totally disagree about descriptions of leaving the shire. The hobbits walking to Rivendell is one of my favorite aspects of the story. I feel I'm in middle earth as I'm reading! I've always wanted MORE detail concerning the journey - especially how Strider changes the dynamic. Barely a mention is made in the books of how their friendship develops when he first joins them. Also I love reading about Frodo in the beginning because he's still happy...once he gets stabbed by the Witch-King, it's all downhill for the poor guy from there!


----------



## Aglarthalion (Oct 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Flammifer _
> *How d'you mean, Aglar? (examples?) *


Well, I felt that a few sections of the early chapters (A Short Cut To Mushrooms, In The House Of Tom Bombadil) and some of the middle and later chapters (Treebeard, Many Partings) were a little more serious in nature than I thought they should have been, for the emotions I felt they were trying to instill in me, the reader, at those points in the book. I guess it's just my personal interpretation of the method in which Tolkien was building the storyline



> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *I didn't know paragraphs could have egos. . . *


 I should have said that Tolkien wrote certain parts of chapters a little more seriously than I thought he should have.


----------



## Inderjit S (Oct 26, 2003)

> Sitting at the dinner table UNDER A CANOPY? Everyone else rides down to Gondor, and she gets carried down...even Galadriel rides a horse. She's an "idea" of a queen minus her humanity!



Well she *was* getting married.  



> The major failing for me is the lack of follow-up with some characters. It's very sweet to hear about Sam having kids and what happens to Frodo...but I want to hear about Eowyn and Faramir's kids, and Aragorn and Arwen's for that matter.



Faramir, son of Pippin marries Goldilocks, daughter of Sam. We get a good deal about Sam and Rosie's children in the _Epilouge_ which is published in HoME 9. Tolkien didn't publish it in _Return of the King_ because of the negative reviews of it, and the return to the much-maligned Hobbit talk. 

Éomer and Lothiríel's child Ælfwine was in _Disaster of the Gladden Fields_ said to be like his grand-father Prince Imrahil. 

Faramir's grandson Barahir wrote the _Tale of Aragorn and Arwen_. The story _The New Shadow_ (HoME 12) is set in the F.A and the main character is Borlas, youngest son of Beregond who removed with Faramir to Emyn Arnen where this story is set.

But any tales, of length in the F.A would have been detrimental to the tale of Arda until the passing of the Eldar and start of the dominion of Men. The 'Elder Days' were effectively over and any further tales in M-E weren't 'worth doing'. He states so in Letters #256 and #338 ( _Letters of Tolkien_ ) and further genealogical information on the various characters within Middle-Earth wouldn't have 'fitted in' with the Red-Book.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 26, 2003)

I have a problem with that in my own writing. . .I always want to included details about all the kids the characters had after the story ends. . .often it gets in the way. You simply can't always do it.


----------



## Inderjit S (Oct 27, 2003)

I'd also like to add that Elboron the son of Faramir and Éowyn is mentioned in _The Heirs of Elendil_ (HoME 12).


----------



## simbelmyne (Oct 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by HLGStrider _
> *Pure bloodness occasionally, yes, though I appriciate the lineage part. For some reason lineage is important to me. It drives me crazy when the king dies childless and leaves it to a trusted advisor or when the main characters don't have kids. . .the line dies out and POOF. Blah. *



Yes, but then you have those situations where the king has a horrid ignorent son whom no one wants anywhere near the throne (although I feel the same way about my favorite characters having kids). 

There is more at play in making a good person besides their bloodline...which I guess is my biggest problem with Tolkien. If the men aren't tall and the women aren't incredibly beautiful, they aren't valued.


----------



## Inderjit S (Oct 27, 2003)

> If the men aren't tall and the women aren't incredibly beautiful, they aren't valued.



Actually I don't think Húrin Thalion was that tall. Or Frodo or Samwise, or Bilbo.  

The Ñoldor and Númenóreans were simply tall nothing else, we get 'good' short races, the Hobbits, the Druedain, the Rohirrim. Tolkien 'superficiality' when it comes to women is because the majority of the women within the books are Queenly, or of a high-rank and therefore would be seen as 'beautiful'. You would hardly have him call Lúthien ugly now would you? Tolkien is careful to note that certain races are attracted to certain characteristics, so whilst a Man may not find a Dwarven woman beautiful, a Dwarf would.


----------



## simbelmyne (Oct 27, 2003)

You're right! I was only considering the race of men...I guess what I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a very strict "caste" system in place based on lineage. The purer your blood, the better. Everyone has a strict place. Like when the fellowship is attacked by wargs and Legolas puts a flaiming arrow through "a great wolf chieftan". Uhhh....are there even some wolves that are better than others? 

As far as the ladies go, Galadriel, Eowyn and Luthien are lovely AND interesting. But Arwen! She isn't anything BUT beautiful. Frodo first sees her sitting at the dinner table at Elrond's under a canopy (heaven forbid if she mingles with the other guests!)...the next time we see her is when she's "presented" to Aragorn. I mean, why would the greatest man in the world want to be with someone so lifeless?


----------



## Rhiannon (Oct 27, 2003)

Arwen is the kind of person who wouldn't surprise you if they did something like prick their finger and then sleep for a hundred years, missing all the action.


----------



## Konarmi (Oct 27, 2003)

*"I mean, why would the greatest man in the world want to be with someone so lifeless?"*

3000 years of life gives you certain benefits!!! *gulp, gulp* If you know what I mean!! 

As for the this lineage thing.. I'm sort of disappointed Peter Jackson didn't explain that in the movies.. it was an aspect that was just assumed... by the book readers.


----------



## HLGStrider (Oct 27, 2003)

I think we don't see much about Arwen, but she has other characteristics. I like her in her first meeting with Aragorn.

At this point Aragorn is not interesting to her. He's what, nineteen? She's three thousand years old. That's quite an age gap to swallow, even if she'd been planning to fall in love, which she wasn't.

She expresses at least one characteristic strongly: fidelity. This is easily seen towards Aragorn, but it is also there in her struggle over whether or not to leave her father. 

Arwen you have to see from hints about the book. 

I find her to be a reserved, intelligent woman, who probably listens more than she talks. She'd probably guide Aragorn through his reign more with looks than advice. . .If you know what I mean.

One of the best things about her is that she leaves a lot of room for guessing. Fill in the blanks for an ideal woman.

Of course, Arwen could never be an interesting modern woman heroine. In modern day life she'd probably be Aragorn's college sweet heart who married him after business school despite that her father wanted her to continue on and get a law degree. . .or at least marry someone with a future in politics. She shows a willingness to devote herself and her life to this man, something I admire. 

It's not a popular idea now, but I like it myself.


----------



## jallan (Oct 31, 2003)

Arwen was seen by Tolkien only has he came to write the final chapters of _The Lord of the Rings_ and somewhat retrofitted into the story.

She remains sketchy. Is this a flaw?

In some ways this seems realistic. We see the story almost entirely from the point of view of Frodo and the Hobbits. We don’t see it from Aragorn’s point of view, though in many ways Aragorn plays the part of the traditional hero of an epic romance who gains the hand of a princess and wins a kingdom for himself.

One of this things that makes Tolkien’s vision work is the sense that he is not telling everything, that there are loose ends and unknowns all about that he has not been able to get into.

Is Arwen dull and lifeless. We don’t know because we never see her. It is a flaw that Tolkien could not bring her to life with at least some memorable words to make her an individual. But in some ways it is part of what Tolkien intends that the tale of Aragorn and Arwen is outside what he tells.

As to character in general, one can imagine a version of _The Lord of the Rings_ that was a stream of consciousness account from Sam’s viewpoint, attempting to reveal for page after page his conflicted feelings towards his father and Frodo, what he felt good and bad about being the youngest brother who must stay behind with the father to take over the business while the elder brothers had gone off to make a life of their own, analysing deeping Sam’s inner conflicts with his own self image and the image of what he would like to be, his mixed feelings about the gentry whom he served ....

That would end up being Dostoevsky and not Tolkien. But Dostoevsky writes wonderful Dostoevesky and Tolkien writes wonderful Tolkien. Different writers have a different kind of goodness.

Yet Tolkien does make things plain.

Ham Gamgee claims to have been against Sam learning to read. Gardening should be enough for his kind. There was conflict there, in which Hamfast apologizes for Sam potential getting above his station. Later on:


> You’re nowt but a ninnyhammer, Sam Gamgee: that's what the Gaffer said to me often enough, it being a word of his. Rope!


And later:


> Don’t trust your head, Samwise, it is not the best part of you.


In actual fact one of the things that strikes one about Sam is his incisive intelligence on any subject he sets his mind to. He’s far more intelligent than Pippin, which admittedly may not be saying much.

But we can see in part from what Hamfast says at the beginning of the book and Sam’s own comments partly why Sam is what he is.


----------



## Elfhelm25 (Nov 1, 2003)

Well, obviously a few of the characters were not developed enough, as everyone has been saying. I really dont know how Tokien could have developed all these characters without overstuffing the book and making your head swim even further from access info, but I thought on the whole certain characters NEEDED to be developped more and these characters needed to be more realistic. These characters were Legolas- he fit so perfectly into the Elf stereotype that he could just have been any random elf. To me he was the most underdeveloped character of the Fellowship. And dont tell me that elves shouldnt have faults- they would be gods if they didnt. Sometimes faults bring a sense of humanity to a character. Another was Boromir - he also was tightly wedged into the warrior stereotype that he couldnt have a chance to show his humane side. I always got the feeling that if Boromir had become a king, he would have been a very harsh and unfeeling leader, which I dont think was the intention of Tolkien at all. Galadriel, Arwen, Celeborn and Elrond didnt really have time to develop fully in LOTR, and they sort of seemed like cameos, in my opinion. Even Eoywn, who seemed to be a pride of Tolkien and was by far the best developed woman in LOTR was too stern and proud and not developed enough. 
Even with all that, the books are incredible works of literature- the description, the hobbits, Gandalf, and many other characters, scenery, and adventures were incredible. And , though they are a "historical" tale, they are still fantasy, and personally I wouldnt want the characters to be TOO real- theres nothing wrong with a little heroism and all that.


----------



## simbelmyne (Nov 2, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Elfhelm25 _
> * These characters were Legolas- he fit so perfectly into the Elf stereotype that he could just have been any random elf.
> 
> I always got the feeling that if Boromir had become a king, he would have been a very harsh and unfeeling leader, which I dont think was the intention of Tolkien at all.
> ...



I couldn't agree more! Tolkien has such a way of giving a character depth without taking it too far...Sam, Gandalf, Faramir...even Galadriel and Elrond's cameos are pretty strong!!

I also couldn't agree more about the characters who aren't developed enough!!! Boromir comes across as narrow-minded and harsh, when Aragorn and Faramir both say what a good man he is, along with the fact that he gives up his life in protection of Merry and Pippin. Eowyn's kindness and gentleness is pretty assumed, which is frustrating, because she's such an interesting character. AND LEGOLAS!!! He has the least personality of anyone in the fellowship, being an elf is no excuse. Haldir has more sparkle. Legolas "longs" for the sea, he has a strong attachment to Gimli, but we never see it. Buy hey, it's still one of the best books ever written!


----------



## jallan (Nov 2, 2003)

From letter 329:


> My work is _not_ a ‘novel’, but an ‘heroic romance’ a much older and quite different variety of literature.


Of course in fact _The Lord of the Rings_ is very novelistic compared to medieval romances or compared to the _Iliad_ and _Odyssey_ and so forth.

Individual characterization of a novelistic tyhpe is usually not found in such tales. We mostly find stock characters who act according to type, though as such they are may be excellently characterized if one doesn't want to look too deeply.

Usually the creators of these tales weren't looking deeply themselves, weren't especially focused on the ultimate individualities of personalities though individuality of character certainly does appear, often very subtley when one realizes that what is done by one character just isn't the kind of thing we would expect to be done by another.

That said, indeed some characters of Tolkien’s are flatter than others. Legolas and Gimili do not come fully alive, Elrond is vague and Arwen is vaguer. But Treebeard springs into full life.

Merry is vague compared to Pippin, and Pippin is ill-defined compared to Sam, and even with Sam such character as is revealed is mostly what is required for the tale itself.

However even in modern novels that are purposely and intentionally novels of character and which are character driven not all characters are equally well defined and equaly revlealed.

That is just not possible.

So Legolas and Gimli are put into the Fellowship by Tolkien as a stock Elf and stock Dwarf. Legolas so remains. One almost feels that like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Stoppard’s play Legolas actually didn’t exist at all until summoned (by his father to go to Elrond for advice), that Legolas has no real past.

With Gimli, Galadriel happens. That helps make him distinctive as a person and distinct from other Dwarves.

But one of the weaker points is in the account of the Paths of the Dead where Tolkien has no Hobbit available as a viewpoint character and so presses Gimili instead into service. One might wish for a more particularly Dwarvish outlook on the events, or some outlook especially fitting for Gimli.


----------



## Lantarion (Nov 3, 2003)

Thank you very much for reminding me of the 'heroic romance' aspect; it needs a whole new mindset to analyze! I can see what Tolkien meant by it as well, I think: to have more of the romantic (in the literary sense, not the social slobbering sense ), mythic and legendary ingredients thrown into the concoction than realistic character depictions and inner angst etc.
Is that about right? 

Haha but yeah I agree that Treebeard truly had a personage of his own..


----------

