# Why is The Lord of The Rings the literary masterpiece of the 20th Century?



## ssgrif (Jan 19, 2004)

*Why is The Lord of The Rings a literary masterpiece of the 20th Centry?*

I've been a member of this forum for a while now and I know that its the best place to go for quality critisism and detailed analysis of Tolkiens work.

I dont need to tell you lot out there that The Lord of the Rings is a fantastic, great piece of work, a masterpiece of historic proportions. I'm not a big reader but the works of JRR Tolkien has had a big impact on my life. I'm going on a bit here so lets get to the point...

There's someone I know who has not read the books but feels he has the luxury of an opinion based on the movies that he's seen (sorry to mention the movies here, it'll be the first and last time I promise!). His argument is that he cannot see how a book about a bunch of elves could ever be referred to as great, let alone a masterpiece! This person cannot see the point in reading the book as they believe it will not be life changing to them so whats the point in reading it!

Can any of you out there supply me with the quintessential argument on why you feel this book deserves the title "great" or "masterpiece" because I feel that my friend is totally wrong...


----------



## Gil-Galad (Jan 19, 2004)

I have said it thousand times.
Tolkien creates a world,paralel to ours,a world in which everyone of us can live.I personally love his works because of this reason.Because when I am bored of the real life I can take any book by him and escape from the reality.


----------



## Niniel (Jan 19, 2004)

Because the world he created is absolutely convincing; he has thought about every detail in the story, in the characters, and in the surroundings they live in, and created a whole system of different languages, so that when you read it you can really believe that this world exists and that everything that happens is actually possible. Furthermore Tolkien has managed to write about some quintessential elements of human life, such as good/evil, loyalty, courage, sacrifice, friendship and love, but without referring too obviously to our own world and trying to put in all kinds of moral messages. And he has a beautiful style of writing, which is for me the most important reason for loving his books so much.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 19, 2004)

ssgrif said:


> ...Can any of you out there supply me with the quintessential argument on why you feel this book deserves the title "great" or "masterpiece" because I feel that my friend is totally wrong...



I've been reading Tolkien for over 40 years. For me the appeals are many:

•I get caught up with the fate of the characters, and their personalities.
•I love the conversations between the characters and the language patterns and structures.
•I love Tolkien's mastery of describing scenes so that they come to life in my mind in perfect detail.
•I love his sense of beauty, his sense of ethics and his sense of humor.
•I can go back again and again to his writings and never get tired or bored with them.
•The writings are complex, subtle and many-layered, not just something simpleminded — Tolkien does not pander to the lowest common denominator, he expects us to come up to his level: we are the better for having read him.
•The writings discuss great and important themes, the issues are pertinant to us, and always will be.
•Tolkien's tales have the ability to uplift the reader and allow him to come away refreshed. So much of what passes for storytelling today does just the opposite.
•We live in a world that in many ways is getting more dangerous and hellish by the hour. When I pick up a Tolkien book I can escape for a while to Middle-earth where, although things there can also be dangerous and tragic, I know that it is essentially a world of great beauty, and where things are always going to be fine in the end. I need that! I need the escape, and I need the upliftment!

Lotho


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 19, 2004)

ssgrif said:


> There's someone I know who has not read the books but feels he has the luxury of an opinion based on the movies that he's seen (sorry to mention the movies here, it'll be the first and last time I promise!). His argument is that he cannot see how a book about a bunch of elves could ever be referred to as great, let alone a masterpiece! This person cannot see the point in reading the book as they believe it will not be life changing to them so whats the point in reading it!



ssgrif,

You actually raise two different questions here. To answer your most obvious question about whether LOTR is great literature, as has been said LOTR is great literature because it addresses important fundamental human issues: good vs. evil, friendship, loyalty, temptation, sacrifice, the strength and responsbilities of individuals, our relationship and obligations to others and the world around us, honor, love, human frailties and weaknesses, forgiveness, etc. (and I do not mean that list to be in any order of importance). I could go on. Merely addressing these themes is not enough to elevate LOTR to the level of great literature. Lots of books try to address some or all of these issues without achieving greatness. Not only does it address these fundamental issues, but it does it in a highly entertaining way that helps make the story accessible to many readers. You can read Moby D-i-c-k (Curse that censor program!) as an exciting sea story or you can look for deeper meanings and relevances. It is the same with all great literature and it is true for LOTR. But even readability is not enough to raise LOTR to the level of greatness. Besides being entertaining and exciting, LOTR is extremely well-wriiten. Tolkien creates another world that has many parallels to our own, yet is a different world. At the same time it is a world that is extremely believable and "real". It has a history going back thousands of years. Everyone seems to "fit". Also, Tolkien's writing is often quite beautiful and poetic, and I do not mean just the obvious poems, but the prose also. Even at the level of merely an exciting adventure story you can learn lessons in the craft of writing by from it. To give just a small example look at the few paragraphs in FOTR that describe the last dash to the Fords of Bruinen and Frodo's crossing of it. I will just give the last three:


> Frodo looked back for a moment over his shoulder. He could no longer see his friends. The Riders behind were falling back: even their great steeds were no match in speed for the white elf-horse of Glorfindel. He looked forward again, and hope faded. There seemed no chance of reaching the Ford before he was cut off by the others that had lain in ambush. He could see them clearly now: they appeared to have cast aside their hoods and black cloaks, and they were robed in white and grey. Swords were naked in their pale hands; helms were on their heads. Their cold eyes glittered, and they called to him with fell voices.
> 
> Fear now filled all Frodo's mind. He thought no longer of his sword. No cry came from him. He shut his eyes and clung to the horse's mane. The wind whistled in his ears, and the bells upon the harness rang wild and shrill. A breath of deadly cold pierced him like a spear, as with a last spurt, like a flash of white fire, the elf-horse speeding as if on wings, passed right before the face of the foremost Rider.
> 
> Frodo heard the splash of water. It foamed about his feet. He felt the quick heave and surge as the horse left the river and struggled up the stony path. He was climbing the steep bank. He was across the Ford.


 Better yet, read those three paragraphs aloud. You will see that there is a natural tendency to speed up towards the end of them. The parts of the sentences and even the sentences themselves get shorter as the action gets more intense. Also look at the choice of words that help give the feel of an older world than ours. The Riders do not wear helmets, they wear helms. They are not racing to a river crossing, but a ford. The Riders voices are not cruel, or horrible; they are fell. It is the combination of all the above things that make LOTR a masterpiece.

The second part of your question is a little more subtle and reveals the bias of your friend and many mainstream critics. And that is since LOTR involves elves, in other words is a fantasy, it precludes the possibility of it being literature. I would point out to your friend that this is his bias and that it is a relatively modern bias. Homer's story, The Odyssey is a fantasy, yet it is till read thousands of years after it was written. Shakespeare wrote fantasy, _A Midsummer's Night Dream_ and _The Tempest_ to name two, yet I do not see Shakespeare being questioned. His plays are still being read, studied and performed hundreds of years after he wrote them. Charles Dickens' story _A Christmas Carol_ is a fantasy, but it is not dismissed because of that. All these (and many other fantasies) have stood "the test of time" as great literature. Only time will tell if LOTR meets that test, but it has met it for fifty years now and I personally expect it will go on meeting it.

There is one last thing you can point out to your friend, but you may not want to if you want to stay on friendly terms: the arrogance of assuming he can judge the quality of a book he has never read.


----------



## Niirewen (Jan 19, 2004)

Tolkien spent most of his life creating and perfecting the Middle-earth we all love so dearly. That alone should prove its worth of being a masterpiece. And it’s more than just a story about elves, obviously. It’s a story that has the ability to capture and hold your imagination throughout the whole story, and even much longer than that. It makes you laugh, cry, and feel more than most books do. And there are just so many reasons, I can’t possibly start naming them all- I’m way too tired. Plus the list is endless. But as for what all of you have said already- I completely agree. I just had to add my little thoughts because of my sense of duty as a Tolkien-fanatic.  Carry on.


----------



## Master Peregrin (Jan 19, 2004)

*Tolkien created a genre*

Tolkien invented the fantasy genre. Fantasy is now a major sector of fiction writing, and one that is spreading like a nazgul's scream. Tell your friend that he must read Lord of the Rings to experience a mind that his grandchildren's friends will regard as one of the most original of the twentieth century.


----------



## Saermegil (Jan 19, 2004)

Well done, everybody, you have reminded me of some of the reasons I love Tolkien's works. i just wanted to add another thing: people like LoTR because trhjey like hobbits. My teacher pointed this out first, and when I thought about it, I found it to be quite true, and then I read it in the introduction to the Lost Tales, by Christopher Tolkien. There is some quality in these people that makes them just..well...(in lack of a better word in my vocabulary) very likeable.


----------



## Inderjit S (Jan 19, 2004)

LoTR is a brilliant, beautiful and engaging masterpiece. I cannot help but get caught up in the psedou-fantasy world of Middle-Earth. The dialogue is engaging, it goes through several genres, has several tones (comedic, horror, dramatic) and is as good a book in the fantasy genre and in fact in the literary world as I have ever read.

That is not to say that it hasn't got it's faults, it of course has it's faults. The descriptions of landscape can (at time) get rather drab and dreary. But it as heroic tale that celebrates love, wisdom, humility, hardihood and adversity, and the characters are engaging and interesting. One of the most annoying criticisms of the book is that there are no 'grey' areas for the characters; they are either black or white (good or bad). Yet nothing could be further from the truth. "Nothing is evil in the beginning" Elrond’s words at the council, Sauron the fallen Maia, Saruman the fallen Wizard, Denethor, Théoden, Boromir, even Frodo, Sam and the Elves exhibit good and bad characteristics. So what if there are all-evil races (e.g. Orks) the media itself often stereotypes a certain race as being bad-natured. Such mis-informed opinions are worse then anything Tolkien ever wrote. People can accuse him of being a sexist, racist and whatever else they can throw at him and his greatest work-but they will never appreciate the beauty of his workd like me or any other Tolkien devout.


----------



## Lantarion (Jan 19, 2004)

I cry tears of joy at these wonderful answers, people.. Thank you very much.  
Apart from all of the abovementioned facets, what fascinates me about Tolkien's works is their continuity. The Silmarillion is a collection of high tales, legends, mythological events and figures and places, whose heritage and descendance continues on in the days of the Third Age (and beyond?). 
Christopher Tolkien remarks, in his foreword to the Lord of the Rings, something to the effect that what makes Middle-earth so endlessly appealing and deep (historically, culturally and aesthetically) are the references to early times; the refrences to Númenor, to Valinor, to Gondolin, to Ossiriand, to Fingon, to Maedhros, and tens of other names, create a perfect effect of Time and Age. These ancient events and palces and people have, at the very least within the narrative, have actually taken place. They have occurred, and the world that 'The Lord of the Rings' gives us is the heritage of those ancient times. The very fact that those high, distant wonders have some link to the rustic, turbulant world of Middle-earth in the time of the War of the Ring hold some deeper significance for me, and shakes the very foundations of my soul.


----------



## Ireth Telrúnya (Jan 19, 2004)

Ninien and Gil-Galad and others already said it all, but can I say here something too.
I think it's that Tolkien's world is so detailed and that he uses myths that are common knowledge for all of us, like elfs and dwarfs. And because his novel has some religious connotations without being really religious. The ring is the center of all evil and must be destroyed. And there's the classic fight between good and evil. The good seems to be weak and the evil is strong, but in the end good wins! And during this century people have had fear that evil will win since there have been two world wars during this century and there was another war not so long ago and so stories like "Lord of the Rings" are desperately needed for escapism and revive our hope for a better future...this kind of film has an impact on subconscious level while it might not be admitted consciously why one thinks the film is so great.
(forgive me grammatical errors, this is not my native)

Anyway, Tolkien used over ten years to write this saga, I read that it was his personal hobby to dive into this world he had created. And he was a damn good creator!!!


----------



## Gil-Galad (Jan 19, 2004)

I would like to add something.
Tolkien is the first one who wrote such book in this genre.He is the one who actually discovered this world.All other writers copy in a way his ideas.That is why no other fantasy book is so popular and beautiful as his.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 19, 2004)

Greenwood said:


> ...There is one last thing you can point out to your friend, but you may not want to if you want to stay on friendly terms: the arrogance of assuming he can judge the quality of a book he has never read.



And also (as is perfectly shown in this case) that arrogance and ignorance go together like conjoined twins holding hands...

Lotho


----------



## Rhiannon (Jan 19, 2004)

Andrew Rilstone (Gentleman) asked the question Is Tolkien Actually Any Good?, and his thoughts on the subject are good reading (I enjoy his essays, anyway). 

As a novel, _The Lord of the Rings_ has some very large, obvious flaws--you spend a hundred pages following one storyline, and then abruptly switch to one hundred pages of another storyline. There are zillions of references to people and events that have no bearing on the plot. Characters are prone to reciting large chunks of poetry and delivering monologues on the aforementioned people and events. There are long, relatively pointless (if beautiful) descriptions of scenery, lots of minor characters, and major characters and places who are called by several different names interchangeably with no prior warning. The whole thing can be very confusing and unless you're willing to either ignore every vague reference to things like Elbereth or go look it all up you might end up completely lost.

But does anyone really give a damn? 

_The Lord of the Rings_ is my eight year old brother's favorite book, even though I _know_ he has absolutely no idea just what Numenor is/was, and maybe he doesn't care. I went for years without digging into the deeper intricacies of Middle Earth, and I was perfectly happy. Finding out that hey! Aragorn was in Gondor way back when and Denethor didn't like him! added extra interest to the dynamics of the characters, but I could enjoy the book without knowing. 
So it's a terrible novel. So what? So some parts of it drag a little, unless you're really in to reading about people walking--so what? Who cares? The critics? We all know they didn't finish it. The people who haven't read it? Listening to them is pointless. Intellectuals who think that the entire fantasy genre should be limited to children? I bite my thumb at them. We already knew they were idiots. Get them to explain why _A Midsummer Night's Dream_ is literature and watch them squirm. It's fun. 

We readers already know that the rules about what is 'good' and what is 'not' are just things for intellectual snobs to go on about. What is 'good' is what gets a response out of you. What is 'not' is what doesn't. We don't need to be told what is good and what isn't--we can see that for ourselves. And what is good for some people isn't good for others, which is why I only sigh and shake my head when my best friend tells me she hated _The Forgotten Beasts of Eld_. 

All I know is: I love it. I love the pseudo-medieval dialogue, I love the pomp and ceremony of the whole thing, I love the characters, I love the world, I love the sheer nobility communicated through it, I love the complexity of it all. I love being swept up in it.


----------



## jimmyboy (Jan 21, 2004)

> As a novel, The Lord of the Rings has some very large, obvious flaws


Rubbish. It has "very obvious flaws" to those who do not write like Tolkien, or those who do not care to read detailed history books. Tolkien's Middle-earth books are not written according to any particular "accepted" novel-writing format because Tolkien himself was not a writer, and the M-E books (with the possible exception of "The Hobbit"), are not novels. He was a language professor, and as we know he wrote these stories to give a context for his languages. Sheesh...stoopid critics. 

Tolkien, to my knowledge, was never a student of writing under anyone, nor did he subscribe to any particular writing school of thought. The guy just wrote what he had in mind, and continued to work on it most of his life, even after it had been rejected by publishers, and even after some of his work had already been published! Unlike most writers who work on a book for a year or three, get it published, then move on to another, or quit writing altogether.
Stoopid critics. 

Furthermore, the Middle-earth stories _start at the very creation of everything_, for Pete's sake! They end after many thousands of years have passed, after a good part of the world has been destroyed and reformed, and three or four whole races, OLD races, of people have died off or vanished. Sheesh.
Stoopid critics.


----------



## Rhiannon (Jan 21, 2004)

Note that I said "as a novel"--novels have rules and forms and all kinds of nonsense that they teach you (all of which you have to forget to actually write a novel). _I_ certainly think it's rubbish. Does anyone care about it? No, not really, except for a group of self-righteous pseudo-intellectuals. Do I poke fun at them? Yes I do, which a great deal of glee.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jan 21, 2004)

jimmyboy said:


> Rubbish. It has "very obvious flaws" to those who do not write like Tolkien, or those who do not care to read detailed history books. ...
> Stoopid critics.



You make such a valid point! Many times the things that are considered "flaws" are not really so, but deviations from accepted conventions (albeit that many conventions are there because they have been proven to help provide a better artistic product). Sometimes deviations are due to a lack of knowledge of the "proper procedure." Not only in writing stories, but in music, painting, sculpture, dance, etc. And many things that become conventions started out as "flaws" because the author or artist creating his or her work simply went their own way, paying no attention whatever to established conventions, creating something brand-new that eventually _became a new convention, deviation from which was considered a flaw!_ It is no wonder that we have the saying: "From limitation comes style."

Some say that Tolkien's writings have shortcomings. I would like to know just what was supposed to have been done to "improve" what he did without ruining it. PJ tried it and has brought down a hellstorm of criticism on his head from people around the world, many of whom are on this forum.

It is a head-game to conject on what Tolkien might have done had he known all the accepted conventions of how to structure a major novel and used them. Certainly some things may have been better structured and "easier to read" — but that didn't happen.

In the meantime, I enjoy Tolkien's writings immensely as they are, and even the movies as they are (even though I get annoyed at some of the wilder deviations from the books, let alone the gratuitous additions that never were in the books to begin with).

Lotho


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 21, 2004)

Rhiannon said:


> As a novel, The Lord of the Rings has some very large, obvious flaws--you spend a hundred pages following one storyline, and then abruptly switch to one hundred pages of another storyline. There are zillions of references to people and events that have no bearing on the plot. Characters are prone to reciting large chunks of poetry and delivering monologues on the aforementioned people and events. There are long, relatively pointless (if beautiful) descriptions of scenery, lots of minor characters, and major characters and places who are called by several different names interchangeably with no prior warning. The whole thing can be very confusing and unless you're willing to either ignore every vague reference to things like Elbereth or go look it all up you might end up completely lost.



From the Random House Webster's dictionary (I love dictionaries  ):


> novel -- a fictitious prose narrative of considerable length and complexity, portraying characters and usually presenting a sequential organization of action and scenes.


Other than being a work of fiction and considerable length I don't think novels have any "rules", except as you say in your later post, in the minds of some pedants. If Mr. Rilstone is serious in his criticisms (and after reading his essay, I am not entirely sure he is), he should stay away from Tolstoy's _War and Peace_, the novel that many mainstream critics consider the greatest novel ever written. Many of the same charges can be laid on it with the additional one that it is practically written in two languages. (Ooops! LOTR contains multiple languages too, though the secondary ones are fictious.)


----------



## Rhiannon (Jan 21, 2004)

You are all very fortunate to be burdened with my English teacher. For the record _I_ wasn't serious- nor was I letting my tongue run away with me. I had it firmly in my cheek the whole time. 

Now please excuse me, there's a hornets' nest I need to go throw rocks at...


----------



## heladh (Feb 4, 2012)

> There are long, relatively pointless (if beautiful) descriptions of scenery



While I admit LOTR is not perfect, I would question this.

For example there is the chapter 'Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit'. It is a complete departure from the previous chapters, where the hobbits and Gollum cross the marshes and arrive at the edge of Mordor. The characters replenish themselves a little in relative beauty.

This might be seen as a pointless chapter (in terms of plot development), but to me it evokes both the relief felt after an arduous journey and the escapism we indulge in when we know the future is bleak. 

There are also pages and pages of description of the journey towards Mordor and a critic I know complained of being 'bogged down' in the story. To me, this is an example of art at the expense of popularity. We are forced to share the burden of the ring with Frodo; every painful step. This is where we have to come up to Tokien's level rather than to succumb to our 'quick fix' mentality.

How can we argue that a writer who can make aeons of time pass in a sentence (as in the history of the Barrow Downs recited at Tom Bombadil's house), be accused of unintentionally dragging out descriptive passages?

For me, Tolkien is a master of time and language and that is one reason that LOTR is a literary masterpiece.


----------

