Tolkien Thread (Open to All)

[Nateskate]

J.R.R Tolkien's novels influenced so many authors that I think he deserves his own thread. I'll make my points, but feel free to add or bring up new points or ask questions. If you do so, put this in the title box to make it easier to find. Any of you Tolkien lovers feel free to answer or add new subject matter. If you identify the heading it will make it easier for people to follow each sub-thread.

I'm reading The Treason of Isengard, which is one of several books compilled by Christopher Tolkien (his son) about how the Lord of the Rings was written in stages.

It's a great lesson on writing, because it shows how long it took for J.R.R Tolkien to finish his book, and how many versions there were, some rather lame ones as well. Aragorn was initially Trotter, whose character was changed back and forth from a Hobbit, an Elf, and then to a Man.

Tolkien discourages me, because when he writes prose or poetry, and gets it right, I realize it's simply beyond my skill level. But what encourages me, is that he didn't get everything right all at once.

Another thing I learned in Treason of Isengard, was that though the Inklings was at first a group, Tolkien admits that it wound up just him and C.S.Lewis. I imagine the others just got worn out. And so, these two minds encouraged each other, and out of this came some of the greatest fantasy written.

[dirtsider]

I'd like to suggest the book The Battle for Middle-Earth. It takes a look at the Christian aspect of the book, which is fairly subtle. Apparently Tolkien himself was pretty surprised at how much of his faith wound up in the book. Especially since he doesn't openly talk about religion in LOTR. Yes, there are a couple of supplications to Elbereth but other than that, not much else is in there openly.

One of the things I really liked about the books is that Aragorn doesn't display the heritage guilt that he does in the movies. Ok, in the movies, they wanted to "flesh out" the characters in what is a very plot-driven book. But I always thought Aragorn in the books admitted that Men were flawed (ala Isildur's decision to keep the Ring rather than destroy it) and just set about doing what he had to do to regain his throne. Not only was he Isildur's Heir, was trained by the very same people who survived the first Alliance and Men, his ability to regain his throne was his dowry to Elrond for the hand of Arwen. Of course, that's my take on things.

[Zodiea]

I actually have a question on the basic Lord of the Rings series.

I'm interested in working in the fantasy genre, and am going about reading the classics. I borrowed the first from the library and cracked open the spine and began on the prologue. My eyes about bled. After taking a break I watched the first movie hoping I could understand it better. Recently I had a powerful coupon and bought the box set for another go. The first mistake was to try and read the prologue again. I even went as far as looking up a map of Middle Earth online so I could follow along. Still, I felt like my eyes were going to bleed. I'm taking another short break, but next time I will start on chapter one.

Here's my question: Does the info dump mean anything in the story to follow? Does anyone think that a modern book could get away with a prologue like that?

[zegota]

No, I don't think modern books can get away with info dump prologues, at least not first novels -- if it is an author's fifth book in a series, or something, they can usually put something like that in there, but I don't particularly think it works.

To be honest, I don't think Tolkien really gets away with it; his books in general are far too info-dumpy for me. However, the brilliant story and world he creates kind of makes up for it.

[Medievalist]

You can skip the prologue, and read it later if you want.

[Mr Sci Fi]

Wow, at first I thought this said, "The Tokin' Thread." :D

[Old Hack]

Start with The Hobbit, and work on from there. That was the easiest, I found.

(Years ago I did a little bit of work on a Tolkien encyclopedia, and had to read them all while classifying everything in them in the space of about four months. That was intense, and I've not read any Tolkien since!)

[Nateskate]

I'd like to suggest the book The Battle for Middle-Earth. It takes a look at the Christian aspect of the book, which is fairly subtle. Apparently Tolkien himself was pretty surprised at how much of his faith wound up in the book. Especially since he doesn't openly talk about religion in LOTR. Yes, there are a couple of supplications to Elbereth but other than that, not much else is in there openly.

One of the things I really liked about the books is that Aragorn doesn't display the heritage guilt that he does in the movies. Ok, in the movies, they wanted to "flesh out" the characters in what is a very plot-driven book. But I always thought Aragorn in the books admitted that Men were flawed (ala Isildur's decision to keep the Ring rather than destroy it) and just set about doing what he had to do to regain his throne. Not only was he Isildur's Heir, was trained by the very same people who survived the first Alliance and Men, his ability to regain his throne was his dowry to Elrond for the hand of Arwen. Of course, that's my take on things.

I liked the fragile Aragorn in the movies. I think that if they did a literal book version of Aragorn, he'd have come off looking cartoonish, a modern day He-Man as one of my friends pointed out once.

There have been a number of conversations about the spiritual metaphors in LOTR- Gandalf, Aragorn and Frodo all face a type of death and resurrection before accomplishing their goals: Gandalf at the bridge fighting the Balrog, Aragorn going through the paths of the dead, and Frodo with Shelob.

[CDarklock]

the Christian aspect of the book, which is fairly subtle

...in a very beat-you-over-the-head kind of way.

I didn't find it even remotely subtle. I think if your religion suffuses a given work, you're less likely to notice it, simply because it's not notable to you. After all, this is your religion; a christian theme is natural to you, because it is part of your world, and makes the world feel "right".

But to me, being Jewish, when christian themes and ideas enter a work - well, you may as well put up a big flashing neon sign. They just leap out at me, because since this isn't my worldview, they make the world feel "wrong" in much the same way they feel "right" to someone who does share that worldview.

I am of the personal opinion that this surprises christians because chances are any randomly-selected author is a christian, so the christian themes are just part of what makes a book "good", i.e. it feels "right". To the non-christian, these same themes feel awkward and uncomfortable, and if they're particularly strong you start wondering whether you should be reading this book at all.

[SPMiller]

I mostly agree with CDarklock.

You'll note that in Middle-earth, there isn't even a mention of alternative religions. There is good, and there is evil, and you pick your side. Good and evil have actual manifestations in the real world, forcing this choice. The divine is knowable. Even worse, the good and evil sides are starkly at one end of the moral continuum or the other--no middle ground. Thus, Tolkien's black-and-white morality literally permeates the work.

However, some fantasy works written before Tolkien/Lewis were surprisingly "amoral" in comparison--even if some of the authors themselves were Christian. And they were often based on the same mythological structures.

One could argue that the success of LotR derives specifically from its unflinching dedication to this black-and-whiteness.

[Ken]

never saw much of Pa when I was a young'un,
but he did read the trilogy to me, aloud.
So Tolkien will always be memorable to me :-)

[Matera the Mad]

I was overwhelmed by The Lord of the Rings. It knocked all my paltry young literary aspirations off the road. This is it, I thought, it's all been done, there's nothing left for me. Eh. Forty+ years later, I've recovered. Mostly. :D

[runner4life]

I enjoyed reading the LOTR Trilogy. It's kinda of hard to get started since the way it's written but after a chapter or two it was a really good read.

Zodiea, don't have to read the prologue it's meant to be just background info about hobbits and such. I skipped over it the first time I read the books.

[Mumut]

Zodiea, don't have to read the prologue it's meant to be just background info about hobbits and such. I skipped over it the first time I read the books.

I'm lucky, too. When I read Tolkien, a very long time ago, I never read any prologues or preludes or acknowledgements - I didn't think they were supposed to be part of the story. I know people who still think this.

[Inkdaub]

What prologues are you all talking about? I assume you mean the sections at the beginning wherein the previous happenings of the story are related in a Cliffs Notes manner? Why would you think that is part of the actual story? Maybe my books don't have the prologues in question...the ones they do have I just skip.

[Medievalist]

.
But to me, being Jewish, when christian themes and ideas enter a work - well, you may as well put up a big flashing neon sign. They just leap out at me, because since this isn't my worldview, they make the world feel "wrong" in much the same way they feel "right" to someone who does share that worldview. .

Gee, that means most of the Western canon is going to be inaccessible to you.

And no, I don't think that LOTR is "overtly" Christian per se.

[Zodiea]

What prologues are you all talking about? I assume you mean the sections at the beginning wherein the previous happenings of the story are related in a Cliffs Notes manner? Why would you think that is part of the actual story? Maybe my books don't have the prologues in question...the ones they do have I just skip.

I never said I thought it was a part of the story, I just wondered if any of the information was actually important while reading the meat of it. When I see a prologue, I assume it's supposed be presenting the needed back story and such to the story at hand. In which case, I don't think I'll need a history of hobbits to enjoy the adventure.

Thanks for all the replies; I'll start on the books soon!

[Richard White]

Perhaps I am a bit different in my reading habits, but when I snagged a copy of the Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy, I remember reading all four books back to back in a 30 hour marathon over Christmas break at college.

I won't say it was a life-changing experience, except for the fact that after spending time with Tolkien, who led me to Kurtz, Norton, Cook, Stasheff, Abbey, Adams, White and others . . . which led me to The Three Musketeers, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Ivanhoe, etc. . . . which led me to change my major in college to become a history major . . .

Well, you get the idea. ;)

[IdiotsRUs]

And no, I don't think that LOTR is "overtly" Christian per se.

I remember being very surprised to find out that it was supposed to have all these christian ethics in it. I always thought it was pagan, if anything. I was disappointed to find out it wasn't pagan, but I didn't/ don't see any overt christianity.

[dawinsor]

I liked the fragile Aragorn in the movies. I think that if they did a literal book version of Aragorn, he'd have come off looking cartoonish, a modern day He-Man as one of my friends pointed out once.

I think that's because, as Tokien said, he was writing heroic romance (romance in the sense of Arthur rather than Harlequin) rather than novels. I admire what Tolkien accomplished, but when I read him, I miss the intimate look at human nature novels provide.

[dirtsider]

...in a very beat-you-over-the-head kind of way.

I didn't find it even remotely subtle. I think if your religion suffuses a given work, you're less likely to notice it, simply because it's not notable to you. After all, this is your religion; a christian theme is natural to you, because it is part of your world, and makes the world feel "right".

But to me, being Jewish, when christian themes and ideas enter a work - well, you may as well put up a big flashing neon sign. They just leap out at me, because since this isn't my worldview, they make the world feel "wrong" in much the same way they feel "right" to someone who does share that worldview.

On one hand, I agree with what you say. I've seen a couple of novels written by pagan authors that have the "beat-you-over-the-head" religious feel to them that is very distracting. I also found Beowulf to be more overtly Christian then LOTR, mainly because the people writing the poem down were monks.

On the other, most of my friends aren't Christian (including my best friend is also Jewish) don't seem to have the problem you state. Yes, I did bring this topic up with my initial post but that's because I thought the book I mentioned was an interesting take on LOTR.

And for the record, I may have been raised Catholic but I'm more eclectic in my beliefs these days. I'm more likely to put down a book if it's blatently Christian than pick it up.

[Willowmound]

I remember being very surprised to find out that it was supposed to have all these christian ethics in it. I always thought it was pagan, if anything. I was disappointed to find out it wasn't pagan, but I didn't/ don't see any overt christianity.

The good/evil dichotomy is certainly Abrahamic. It's so ingrained in our culture, a lot of people don't see it as a construct. But it is, and it's not one you find in all religions.

[Phaeal]

Good Lord, I've read The Hobbit and LotR about twenty times so far and have yet to read any of the preliminary material or the appendices. Skip 'em and get to Bilbo's birthday party, for the love of Elbereth!

Starting with The Hobbit is a good idea, btw. It's the quick and easy introduction to Middle Earth, as well as a ripping tale in its own right.

[IdiotsRUs]

The good/evil dichotomy is certainly Abrahamic. It's so ingrained in our culture, a lot of people don't see it as a construct. But it is, and it's not one you find in all religions.

The good /evil dichotomy is not neccessarily Abrahamic. I can't think of a major religion that doesn't have a distinction between the two -- it isn't a christian preserve you know. The book deals with a lot of pagan values too ( although hardly surprising since Tolkein was influenced by the Norse :))

[Willowmound]

It didn't say it was only Abrahamic. I said it was a non-universal construct.

...Which may or may not be beside the point about Christian influences in LOTR. I don't know.

[nevada]

Am I the only person in the world who didn't like the books? I read them once, a long time ago, when I first came to Canada and barely made it through. However, when the movies came out, which i LOVE beyond all reason, I thought that maybe I didn't understand the books because I wasn't very comfortable with English yet. I've had several books like that, which I read when I first came to Canada and when I read them now there are whole layers of things I just didn't grasp because of the language skills.

So I bought them all. And I tried reading them. Three times. Each time I never got past the barrow wight part. That was enough for me. Technically, they are badly written. The pivotal battle on flat top mountain (or whatever it is) is described to us after the fact by Pippin or Merry. Most of the book is telling. I can't get past that to enjoy the story. And quite honestly, much of the story leaves me cold. Can someone explain the significance of Tom Bombadil? And that elf he has with him? To me it reads like she's his prisoner and she can't go back to her people because he keeps her chained in the basement.

I thought the movies were brilliant. I have all three on DVD, theatrical release and extended release. They took the essence of the books, and showed instead of told.

[dirtsider]

Once you get past Tom Bombamdil, it does pick up. And his wife is not an elf but a river "spirit". Most of what you see on the screen in the movies takes place after the Barrows, which is after Tom.

[MrWrite]

Am I the only person in the world who didn't like the books? I read them once, a long time ago, when I first came to Canada and barely made it through. However, when the movies came out, which i LOVE beyond all reason, I thought that maybe I didn't understand the books because I wasn't very comfortable with English yet. I've had several books like that, which I read when I first came to Canada and when I read them now there are whole layers of things I just didn't grasp because of the language skills.

So I bought them all. And I tried reading them. Three times. Each time I never got past the barrow wight part. That was enough for me. Technically, they are badly written. The pivotal battle on flat top mountain (or whatever it is) is described to us after the fact by Pippin or Merry. Most of the book is telling. I can't get past that to enjoy the story. And quite honestly, much of the story leaves me cold. Can someone explain the significance of Tom Bombadil? And that elf he has with him? To me it reads like she's his prisoner and she can't go back to her people because he keeps her chained in the basement.

I thought the movies were brilliant. I have all three on DVD, theatrical release and extended release. They took the essence of the books, and showed instead of told.


Nev you're not alone! I tried to read Fellowship THREE times and each time got bogged down at the scene where the hobbits are fleeing from the wraith riders or whatever they were called and escaped on the ferry. For me it's the way he kept taking you out of the story to take several pages to describe a place or a person. Very jarring and it slows the story down no end. I just give up. Are the books like that all the way through? I love the movies and like you, I have all 3 dvds. I did read the Hobbit many years ago and really enjoyed that. I know his stories are classics and I would love to be able to read them as I know the movies left several parts out. Like who's Bombadil? Maybe one day I'll try again. Maybe I should start FROM where I kept leaving off. Maybe it gets better and I keep stopping just short of where the story improvbes. I don't know.

[Tirjasdyn]

If you've read the Princess Bride...you'll know of which I speak.

Tolkien is a "good parts" writer. Certain parts you can read again and again and swoon. Most are just filler.

[Sarpedon]

Tolkein admitted that when he started writing the story, he wasn't sure how it would end up. He thought that it was a children's book at first, hence fairy tale elements like Tom Fucking Bombadil. Why did he leave him in when he went back and edited? Apparently because he liked having a reminder that everything in the world didn't necessarily revolve around the ring and the conflict with Sauron.

Moby Dick starts the same way...in that Melville wasn't sure about what he was writing at first.

And keep in mind that the stories are not 'technically' poorly written. They are not written according to the same standards common in modern commercial literature. Style of writing and 'rules' and so forth change as tastes change. I keep seeing people here saying 'don't start with description, don't infodump, start with action, start with conflict!' but I recently picked up a Balzac novel, and it starts with several pages of description with historical information before anyone opens their mouths or does anything. I don't think anyone will say that Balzac was 'technically' a poor writer.

[Telstar]

Start with The Hobbit, and work on from there. That was the easiest, I found.


I started instead with the Silmarillion, and passed the first awfully hard first 30 pages, it became a wonderful read.

I'm among the few who believes that the Silmarillion and not LOTR is Tolkien true masterpiece.

[Polenth]

I am of the personal opinion that this surprises christians because chances are any randomly-selected author is a christian, so the christian themes are just part of what makes a book "good", i.e. it feels "right". To the non-christian, these same themes feel awkward and uncomfortable, and if they're particularly strong you start wondering whether you should be reading this book at all.

It might be an issue for you, but it isn't for everyone. A novel with religious themes isn't something that makes me uncomfortable, no matter how different it is from what I believe.

I do get bored with them if they're overly preachy, but that's a different issue.

[Sarpedon]

You know, I'm not religious at all, but I don't mind a religious themes in books, or art in general, so long as its well done.

I expect that it would be more jarring for a person of one religion to read about something with the wrong religious themes than for someone of with no religion to read the same.

I agree with CDarlock's assessment that plenty of people consider art good if contains the correct religious themes, regardless of its aesthetic characteristics. (E.g. The Passion of the Christ) However, that does not stop some art from including religious themes from being good regardless of them. Sure, Tolkein and CS Lewis were christians. Tolkein is appealing to a wider audience, while Lewis is not. Why? Because there is little else of note in Lewis' writing besides the religious themes. The same cannot be said of Tolkein, whose world was made with such care and richness as to seem more than just cheap allegory with cute talking animals tacked on.

[Aggy B.]

Another thing I learned in Treason of Isengard, was that though the Inklings was at first a group, Tolkien admits that it wound up just him and C.S.Lewis. I imagine the others just got worn out. And so, these two minds encouraged each other, and out of this came some of the greatest fantasy written.

Well, Charles Williams was part of that group (I believe) but he died in 1945 which tends to put an end to participation in writers groups. ;)

It's been a while since I read LotR (four or five years). My recollection is that I liked the last book the most. As the shortest it struck me that it had the least meandering while still hanging on to some stunning language. But that's just my opinion. It might change if I read them again now.

[Nateskate]

...in a very beat-you-over-the-head kind of way.

I didn't find it even remotely subtle. I think if your religion suffuses a given work, you're less likely to notice it, simply because it's not notable to you. After all, this is your religion; a christian theme is natural to you, because it is part of your world, and makes the world feel "right".

But to me, being Jewish, when christian themes and ideas enter a work - well, you may as well put up a big flashing neon sign. They just leap out at me, because since this isn't my worldview, they make the world feel "wrong" in much the same way they feel "right" to someone who does share that worldview.

I am of the personal opinion that this surprises christians because chances are any randomly-selected author is a christian, so the christian themes are just part of what makes a book "good", i.e. it feels "right". To the non-christian, these same themes feel awkward and uncomfortable, and if they're particularly strong you start wondering whether you should be reading this book at all.

First, let me say that I understand how you might feel. I felt that way with George Harrison's "All things must pass", not because I was a Christian, which I wasn't at that time, but because I was an atheist at that time.

I loved the music and the depth of his thinking, but couldn't separate that there was a distinct message in the words, a "World View", and I knew he wanted others to be swayed by these views, because his core belief was that peace comes to the world when all the people channel their good-Kharma.

I think much western fantasy also has a distinctly Jewish feel also, because (if there is no death or resurrection theme in a story, there is almost always a Messianic feel- a righteous ruler saves the day) because the Old Testament is specifically Messianic. The major Prophets portray a similar curve, the world gets darker, the Messiah comes and reigns in power. Even the Psalms (See Psalm 2) written roughly seven hundred years BC, has that strong Messianic message. But it never bothers me, because I think there is something within us that longs for peace and an end to madness, and an Aragorn like figure.

Star Wars has a mostly Hindu them, as the force is indifferent, a power source to be used by either good or evil. Yet, the Messianic message is all throughout, as it is in Dune, and countless fantasies. Even Aruthur is the righteous king of promise, when stripped of the Middle Ages setting. You might say we're almost hardwired to look for a Messiah figure, and to despise cruel wolves in sheep's cloathing (The Emperor Palpatine-???) or cruel despots.

Lol, even early Star Trek used episodes to mirror specific political views, in a desire to change society.

[Nateskate]

I mostly agree with CDarklock.

You'll note that in Middle-earth, there isn't even a mention of alternative religions. There is good, and there is evil, and you pick your side. Good and evil have actual manifestations in the real world, forcing this choice. The divine is knowable. Even worse, the good and evil sides are starkly at one end of the moral continuum or the other--no middle ground. Thus, Tolkien's black-and-white morality literally permeates the work.

However, some fantasy works written before Tolkien/Lewis were surprisingly "amoral" in comparison--even if some of the authors themselves were Christian. And they were often based on the same mythological structures.

One could argue that the success of LotR derives specifically from its unflinching dedication to this black-and-whiteness.

Tolkien specifically says that the Hobbits weren't a particularly religious race. Their worldview was very much like much of postwar Europe's, a bit jadded towards religion or indifferent. I gather they just didn't think about it much, rather than they were hostile to the thought.

[Nateskate]

Tolkein admitted that when he started writing the story, he wasn't sure how it would end up. He thought that it was a children's book at first, hence fairy tale elements like Tom Fucking Bombadil. Why did he leave him in when he went back and edited? Apparently because he liked having a reminder that everything in the world didn't necessarily revolve around the ring and the conflict with Sauron.
r.

Tom Bombadil was a purposeful mystery. In a sense- piecing this together from what Tolkien, and others said about TB, he sort of represented nature itself- whimsical, and yet powerful. Thus, Sauron could not overcome TB, unless he destroyed the world. And also, it explains why TB was "first" according to the Lore, that Nature preceeded the coming of the firstborn Eldar.

And so, Tom Bombadil was not lured or harmed by the ring, but he also had no concept of its danger and would have been indifferent to it.

I'm not sure it was a Children's story, though the publisher wanted a sequel to the Hobbit, which was a Children's story. However, Tolkien tried to sell the publisher on The Silmarillion, and they balked. And so, Tolkien used the information from the Hobbit, to bring in the world of the Silmarillion. And yes, the book does get darker as it progresses, and I think more adult.

[nevada]

And keep in mind that the stories are not 'technically' poorly written. They are not written according to the same standards common in modern commercial literature. Style of writing and 'rules' and so forth change as tastes change. I keep seeing people here saying 'don't start with description, don't infodump, start with action, start with conflict!' but I recently picked up a Balzac novel, and it starts with several pages of description with historical information before anyone opens their mouths or does anything. I don't think anyone will say that Balzac was 'technically' a poor writer.

Umm yeah I have a degree in literature, I'm well aware of changing styles and rules. Balzac was a brilliant writer, as was Henry James, Hugo, and Zola. Tolkien, not so much. And maybe that's because I don't like the books but I have no problem getting through Hardy. Or Lawrence. Or Woolf. Just Tolkien.

[Tirjasdyn]

It might be an issue for you, but it isn't for everyone. A novel with religious themes isn't something that makes me uncomfortable, no matter how different it is from what I believe.

I do get bored with them if they're overly preachy, but that's a different issue.

To some non-christians maybe. I happen to be pagan...religious themes don't bother me...when done well they add so much to a book regardless of which religion is presented.

A lot are done badly, though.

[C.bronco]

...in a very beat-you-over-the-head kind of way.

I didn't find it even remotely subtle. I think if your religion suffuses a given work, you're less likely to notice it, simply because it's not notable to you. After all, this is your religion; a christian theme is natural to you, because it is part of your world, and makes the world feel "right".

But to me, being Jewish, when christian themes and ideas enter a work - well, you may as well put up a big flashing neon sign. They just leap out at me, because since this isn't my worldview, they make the world feel "wrong" in much the same way they feel "right" to someone who does share that worldview.

I am of the personal opinion that this surprises christians because chances are any randomly-selected author is a christian, so the christian themes are just part of what makes a book "good", i.e. it feels "right". To the non-christian, these same themes feel awkward and uncomfortable, and if they're particularly strong you start wondering whether you should be reading this book at all.

I think it would be very interesting to hear which parts leapt out at you! Because Judaism and Christianity share so much, I'm surprised at your reaction, but very curious!

[Moon Wolf]

Two months after I turned 12, when my mom finally let me watch the movies, I decided to delve into the world of Tolkien. I started with The Hobbit and did okay, really liked it. I was sent to a screeching halt on the Fellowship. I didn't understand anything that was going on.

At the same time, I'd come into my possesion an old copy of "Kidnapped" by Robert Louis Stevenson. I read that in three days, tripping and stumbling and trying to understand the dialect used in the book. I did fairly well (I could tell you what most of the story was about), and after the second read I understood everything.

So, a few months later, I try to brave Tolkien's world again. This time, I read all through Fellowship and Two Towers that summer. I loved them. Compared to my first experience, I blew through Fellowship without much trouble at all, other than having my eyes blur at every 5-page description. It was at least six times easier than reading "Kidnapped" through the first time. Two Towers had to have been my favorite of the books.

Sadly, while Return of the King is my favorite movie, I couldn't make it past chapter four in the book. I must've started and stopped eight or nine times; once summer starts again, I hope to actually make it through this time.

Still, though, Tolkien inspired me beyond my wildest dreams. While getting rid of most of the description, the story was brilliantly written, set entirely in another world Tolkien took years to create. It made me think, "Hey, if he can spend 10+ years on a book and still publish it, so can I!"

Course, that was two years ago. ^^ My patience has changed much.

[Wraith]

I think much western fantasy also has a distinctly Jewish feel also, because (if there is no death or resurrection theme in a story, there is almost always a Messianic feel- a righteous ruler saves the day) because the Old Testament is specifically Messianic. The major Prophets portray a similar curve, the world gets darker, the Messiah comes and reigns in power. Even the Psalms (See Psalm 2) written roughly seven hundred years BC, has that strong Messianic message. But it never bothers me, because I think there is something within us that longs for peace and an end to madness, and an Aragorn like figure.

That's an interesting observation, and I agree. People are looking for a hero, eh? Tales that can make you believe you can be one yourself are good for us, too. (Also love what you say about Tom Bombadil - my feel also! I absolutely love him. When I read that part, it felt I had known him forever - his home, his madness and strength. Wonderful, whimsical. To me he's pretty much the essence of Middle Earth.)

What I actually wanted to note is that death and resurrection is not just a Christian theme. Honestly, I feel Tolkien draws way more on myth than religion - and of course religion is connected to myth. Death and resurrection has been around forever (Orpheus, Odin...) Of course his view seeps into the world - the world would fall flat otherwise, imo. But I find it a bit strange that people see blatant Christianism in his works when Tolkien hated allegory.

In his foreword to LotR, he speaks about how people see LotR as an allegory of war, society etc. And how he despises conscious allegory. He also said he "discovered" this world and not invented it. While he was a Christian, I feel what is Christian in his work is organic, and much of it is deeper and anchored in mythology. I think it shows more in the Silmarillion (The music of the Ainur) - but that's more of a mythological spin on Christianity and it's so personal and intense that I found it pretty much entrancing.

Also, granted, Tolkien is hard to read at times - but I loved his description (I admit to the weirdness that comes with that). He brought me as a reader to wonderful places that seemed to grow in my mind. His characters, too: at first they seemed cold and distant; but when something happened later on, the coldness of his words was what intensified the drama. Does that make any sense?

I think he was really dedicated to his world. That shows, and makes it enchanting. Although I admit I loved Gollum and felt relieved there was a shade of gray :) But it was like a tale - tales have been about good and evil before Christianity came.

[Ken]

(Also love what you say about Tom Bombadil - my feel also! I absolutely love him. When I read that part, it felt I had known him forever - his home, his madness and strength. Wonderful, whimsical. To me he's pretty much the essence of Middle Earth.)

...bears repeating.
Tom was my favorite character in the books :-)
I loved how powerful and self-sufficient he was,
dwelling all alone in the woods with his miss.

[SPMiller]

I think it would be very interesting to hear which parts leapt out at you! Because Judaism and Christianity share so much, I'm surprised at your reaction, but very curious!They don't share Jesus. At least, not in the sense of him having been the Messiah.

I'm rather surprised to find so many people don't see blatant, pervasive Christian elements in Tolkien's work :Huh: I've never accused the work of being allegorical in any sense. Campbellian myth isn't necessarily Christian by any stretch of the imagination. But there's a certain distinctive worldview in Middle-earth. It's everywhere.

Maybe I've just studied Middle-earth in greater depth than most people, considering I have The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, The Books of Lost Tales 1 & 2, and Unfinished Tales. And I actually liked what I read, rather than studied it for academic purposes.

[Nateskate]

That's an interesting observation, and I agree. People are looking for a hero, eh? Tales that can make you believe you can be one yourself are good for us, too. (Also love what you say about Tom Bombadil - my feel also! I absolutely love him. When I read that part, it felt I had known him forever - his home, his madness and strength. Wonderful, whimsical. To me he's pretty much the essence of Middle Earth.)

What I actually wanted to note is that death and resurrection is not just a Christian theme. Honestly, I feel Tolkien draws way more on myth than religion - and of course religion is connected to myth. Death and resurrection has been around forever (Orpheus, Odin...) Of course his view seeps into the world - the world would fall flat otherwise, imo. But I find it a bit strange that people see blatant Christianism in his works when Tolkien hated allegory.

In his foreword to LotR, he speaks about how people see LotR as an allegory of war, society etc. And how he despises conscious allegory. He also said he "discovered" this world and not invented it. While he was a Christian, I feel what is Christian in his work is organic, and much of it is deeper and anchored in mythology. I think it shows more in the Silmarillion (The music of the Ainur) - but that's more of a mythological spin on Christianity and it's so personal and intense that I found it pretty much entrancing.

Also, granted, Tolkien is hard to read at times - but I loved his description (I admit to the weirdness that comes with that). He brought me as a reader to wonderful places that seemed to grow in my mind. His characters, too: at first they seemed cold and distant; but when something happened later on, the coldness of his words was what intensified the drama. Does that make any sense?

I think he was really dedicated to his world. That shows, and makes it enchanting. Although I admit I loved Gollum and felt relieved there was a shade of gray :) But it was like a tale - tales have been about good and evil before Christianity came.

Great points. Much of Tolkien's world is parallel to Norse Mythology, including the power of rings. There is definitely a blending of ancient thoughts in his works. The Valar- Powers- draw partly from the gods of mythology, and angels. They are not entirely one, which I think lends to the fascination.

Tolkien makes the Valar very human and fickle, and mostly flawed, which is so much like the gods of Mythology. But they come from Illuvatar, who is also called Eru, who is like God as portrayed in the Old Testament, except he is almost never seen as directly involved in the story, which Tolkien felt would make it a non-story. It had to be constructed around human and Elvish and Valar choices and consequences.

But where the Valar deviate from the gods of Mythology is seen in Manwe, who is kind of like the angel Michael, while Morgoth is like Lucifer.

Whenever Manwe acts, he always sought the counsel of Eru first, which I think is much more in concert to the angels than to gods of mythology.

As far as Tolkien's comments on allegory, I think they were contextual, in that people were putting him in an awkward position, and a dangerous position for that time, equating Hitler to Sauron, and the Germans to Orcs, which he was against. Later, in his essay on Faerie Stories, Tolkien distinctly says that Fairy Tales must have allegory, and he speaks more directly to his views on faith.

In a sense, he had a completely different worldview than C.S.Lewis, but it was equally spiritual. He felt that all fairy tales were in essence spiritual, because good winds in the end, and they are a mirror of what he called the greatest Eucatastrophe- an impossible dark situation that turns around, which he then further clarifies.

Lol- my answer is long in the tooth. I think this is in the forward to the Silmarillion, where Christopher Tolkien quotes his father, that LOTR- and his mythology were not spiritual in nature when he wrote them, but in the rewrites he was far more aware of the spiritual metaphors in his story, as if he wasn't quite aware of what became obvious to him, like an epiphany.

[Nateskate]

Well, Charles Williams was part of that group (I believe) but he died in 1945 which tends to put an end to participation in writers groups. ;)

It's been a while since I read LotR (four or five years). My recollection is that I liked the last book the most. As the shortest it struck me that it had the least meandering while still hanging on to some stunning language. But that's just my opinion. It might change if I read them again now.

Good point. Tolkien lost many close friends, and Charles Williams was a terrible loss.

[SPMiller]

Death and resurrection has been around forever (Orpheus, Odin...)Be careful when you try to bring Norse mythology into the discussion.

Please refer to Havamal (stanzas 138-9) for a description of Odin acquiring the runes after having impaled himself on the Worldtree. This particular self-sacrifice is thought to have been heavily influenced by the Christian Jesus-myth.

Orpheus is still a good example, though ;)

[TrickyFiction]

I think it would be very interesting to hear which parts leapt out at you! Because Judaism and Christianity share so much, I'm surprised at your reaction, but very curious!

To me it was the villain... eh... (looking it up for spelling...) Sauron. Sauron is nothing-but-evil, which struck me as so very Satan (with a capitol 'S'). The names are even similar. And that character belongs primarily to Christian mythology and folklore. Even in Judaism, "the satan" is usually one of many, many satans and more of a necessary adversary than evil incarnate.

I believe the lack of character development, especially the antagonists, was what made these books impossible for me to read. Although, I'm told had I stuck it out to the end Gollum would have grown on me, I don't think one should have to wait until the end to know the characters in any story. It made me sad, because I wanted to like them. But I didn't.

[Inkdaub]

I never said I thought it was a part of the story, I just wondered if any of the information was actually important while reading the meat of it. When I see a prologue, I assume it's supposed be presenting the needed back story and such to the story at hand. In which case, I don't think I'll need a history of hobbits to enjoy the adventure.

Thanks for all the replies; I'll start on the books soon!

I would say that if you are reading the story in it's proper order the prologues are totally unnecessary. I don't know, I have read the thing so many times I can't remember if the prologues would have helped me at the beginning or not. I still say skip them and begin at the beginning.

[Inkdaub]

To me it was the villain... eh... (looking it up for spelling...) Sauron. Sauron is nothing-but-evil, which struck me as so very Satan (with a capitol 'S'). The names are even similar. And that character belongs primarily to Christian mythology and folklore. Even in Judaism, "the satan" is usually one of many, many satans and more of a necessary adversary than evil incarnate.

I believe the lack of character development, especially the antagonists, was what made these books impossible for me to read. Although, I'm told had I stuck it out to the end Gollum would have grown on me, I don't think one should have to wait until the end to know the characters in any story. It made me sad, because I wanted to like them. But I didn't.

There is a Satan/Lucifer character in Tolkien's mythology but it isn't Sauron. Sauron is a being called a Maia(Gandalf also is a Maia) that was corrupted by the actual 'Satan character' who is called Melkor. Melkor was the greatest of the Vala, the angel beings that were created by Eru Iluvatar out of his thought. Melkor became the embodiment of evil...dischord and chaos. Melkor created orcs by corrupting elves. Melkor created dragons and balrogs. Sauron was his servant and chief lieutenant.

Melkor, called Morgoth(like the metal band)by the elves, was defeated and bannished by the Vala. Sauron remained in Middle Earth and hid and waited and gathered his strength and eventually became the Dark Lord. But he wasn't the first...just a copy of his former master.

[TrickyFiction]

There is a Satan/Lucifer character in Tolkien's mythology but it isn't Sauron. Sauron is a being called a Maia(Gandalf also is a Maia) that was corrupted by the actual 'Satan character' who is called Melkor. Melkor was the greatest of the Vala, the angel beings that were created by Eru Iluvatar out of his thought. Melkor became the embodiment of evil...dischord and chaos. Melkor created orcs by corrupting elves. Melkor created dragons and balrogs. Sauron was his servant and chief lieutenant.

Melkor, called Morgoth(like the metal band)by the elves, was defeated and bannished by the Vala. Sauron remained in Middle Earth and hid and waited and gathered his strength and eventually became the Dark Lord. But he wasn't the first...just a copy of his former master.

Greek and woosh woosh woosh, that all went.
But thanks for explaining, anyway. :D

[ErylRavenwell]

Read The Hobbit, LOTR (twice), and The Silmarillion (thrice :D). Only the true Tolkien fans read the latter. I only started reading fiction seriously after reading The Hobbit. This is why Tolkien will always be so important. I don't think I'll ever read The Children of Hurin though.

[Willowmound]

Much of Tolkien's world is parallel to Norse Mythology

True, true. What doesn't belong in Norse (technically Germanic) mythology though, is the good-evil dichotomy. It simply didn't exist.

[IdiotsRUs]

Please refer to Havamal (stanzas 138-9) for a description of Odin acquiring the runes after having impaled himself on the Worldtree. This particular self-sacrifice is thought to have been heavily influenced by the Christian Jesus-myth.


Actually, most Odinists would tell you that Odin came first. :) But we'll never know for sure.( the only surviving copy of the Hamaval is approx 800ad but would have been written down from oral legend, or copied from previous works)

Let's just say most religions have been influenced by each other.

As you were.

[Sarpedon]

I always thought it was Ymir and the big cow in Ginungagap which came first. Then Buri and so forth.

Anyway, I don't think the idea that the orcs are germans is consistant with what Tolkein wrote about his creative process, nor with the way they speak. When I first read the Lord of the Rings, the orcs struck me as being like crazy englishmen. And lo and behold, I later read that Tolkein modeled them off his fellow soldiers in the trenches of the first world war; people who had through suffering and ill treatment become angry, profane, small minded people who worried only about their next meal, and spent their time cursing and fighting amongst themselves. Thus was born his myth of orcs being elves who were corrupted by torture and brutality.

[Willowmound]

I always thought it was Ymir and the big cow in Ginungagap which came first. Then Buri and so forth.

They were discussing which hanging myth came first: Jesus's or Odin's.

[Memnon624]

I don't think I'll ever read The Children of Hurin though.

Oh, but The Children of Hurin is extremely good!

My sister read The Hobbit to me as a child; once I began reading on my own, it was the first book I read. I moved into LOTR shortly after, at the urging of my grammar school librarian. It took me a couple of tries to really get into Fellowship, but once I got past Tom Bombadil I was hooked. I've read the trilogy somewhere around 60 times, now (as a teen, I read it every six months or so). Later, I added The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and the various Histories of Middle-earth, along with Prof. Tolkien's letters, which are absolutely fascinating.

Though a lot of Tolkien's style would never survive in today's market, he still taught me the importance of being able to describe things that never were -- even if such passages never make it into my own books. And he gave us Orcs ;)

Scott (unabashed Orc lover)

[Tirjasdyn]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. Tolkien sought to create a new mythology for England using Germanic, Finnish (Kalavalah) and Christian elements as he believed them to truer to the history of the English people than the French and Mediterranean influences of Arthur and other Non to semi Christian savior models.

k..turning off the English major now.

Great points. Much of Tolkien's world is parallel to Norse Mythology, including the power of rings. There is definitely a blending of ancient thoughts in his works. The Valar- Powers- draw partly from the gods of mythology, and angels. They are not entirely one, which I think lends to the fascination.

Tolkien makes the Valar very human and fickle, and mostly flawed, which is so much like the gods of Mythology. But they come from Illuvatar, who is also called Eru, who is like God as portrayed in the Old Testament, except he is almost never seen as directly involved in the story, which Tolkien felt would make it a non-story. It had to be constructed around human and Elvish and Valar choices and consequences.

But where the Valar deviate from the gods of Mythology is seen in Manwe, who is kind of like the angel Michael, while Morgoth is like Lucifer.

Whenever Manwe acts, he always sought the counsel of Eru first, which I think is much more in concert to the angels than to gods of mythology.

As far as Tolkien's comments on allegory, I think they were contextual, in that people were putting him in an awkward position, and a dangerous position for that time, equating Hitler to Sauron, and the Germans to Orcs, which he was against. Later, in his essay on Faerie Stories, Tolkien distinctly says that Fairy Tales must have allegory, and he speaks more directly to his views on faith.

In a sense, he had a completely different worldview than C.S.Lewis, but it was equally spiritual. He felt that all fairy tales were in essence spiritual, because good winds in the end, and they are a mirror of what he called the greatest Eucatastrophe- an impossible dark situation that turns around, which he then further clarifies.

Lol- my answer is long in the tooth. I think this is in the forward to the Silmarillion, where Christopher Tolkien quotes his father, that LOTR- and his mythology were not spiritual in nature when he wrote them, but in the rewrites he was far more aware of the spiritual metaphors in his story, as if he wasn't quite aware of what became obvious to him, like an epiphany.

[Dragonquill]

To say that LOTR has Christian meaning and allegory to it is both true and false. Overtly, on the surface, it has none, for the simple reason that all of this is supposed to take place long before Jesus, and even before Moses, so there is no Christianity and no Judaism, either. And there's a lot of pagan mythology, especially Norse, that is incorporated in it.

But what is true that Tolkien's own devout Catholicism suffused and influenced everything he wrote. And so what one finds in it are Christian themes re-told using pagan elements. We have falls from grace, we have redemption and forgiveness, we have a benign universal deity who is all-knowing and all-powerful but whose ways are mysterious, we have the sins of pride and rebelliousness (note that those ARE sins in his fiction), we have a complete suppression of all sexuality. It's not nearly as heavy-handed as Lewis became in the Narnia series (especially the later volumes), but it's definitely there. What Tolkien did was to write a fantasy epic in which nobody knew anything about the Christian religion per se, but everything from Christian dogma was assumed to be factually true and the important parts generally known.

About trying to imitate him, I would say there are three important reasons why nobody should:

1) He had, as has already been observed, a style which is not current any more. He would not be able to publish the books today. There is too much description in them, not enough action, and too many characters (like Aragorn) who are one-dimensional and wooden (although not all characters are like that by any means).

2) He also had a particularly nitpicky and detail-oriented way of writing that would drive most writers up the wall. He was almost obsessive-compulsive about it. He went so far as to invent several fantasy languages, complete with grammar and scripts, in detail far beyond what was strictly needed for the stories. Unless you're that kind of person yourself, you won't be able to imitate him and you shouldn't try. It will just prevent you from working from your own strengths. And finally:

3) The elements of the LOTR story have become so entrenched in the fantasy genre that to use them today is to produce something hackneyed. They were original when he wrote them. They no longer are. I would never write a fantasy novel with immortal Elves, Dwarves who are brilliant craftsmen, cute and clever nimble-fingered short people, evil ugly goblins, true kings in exile, ancient magic swords, Dark Lords of Evil, or gray-bearded wizards in pointy hats. No matter how you change the names around, it's going to come out trite.

[Nateskate]

To me it was the villain... eh... (looking it up for spelling...) Sauron. Sauron is nothing-but-evil, which struck me as so very Satan (with a capitol 'S'). The names are even similar. And that character belongs primarily to Christian mythology and folklore. Even in Judaism, "the satan" is usually one of many, many satans and more of a necessary adversary than evil incarnate.

I believe the lack of character development, especially the antagonists, was what made these books impossible for me to read. Although, I'm told had I stuck it out to the end Gollum would have grown on me, I don't think one should have to wait until the end to know the characters in any story. It made me sad, because I wanted to like them. But I didn't.

I think there's so much more written about Satan in the Old Testament, although he's called Lucifer and other names. Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, to name a few books that shed some light on him.

[Nateskate]

To say that LOTR has Christian meaning and allegory to it is both true and false. Overtly, on the surface, it has none, for the simple reason that all of this is supposed to take place long before Jesus, and even before Moses, so there is no Christianity and no Judaism, either. And there's a lot of pagan mythology, especially Norse, that is incorporated in it.

But what is true that Tolkien's own devout Catholicism suffused and influenced everything he wrote. And so what one finds in it are Christian themes re-told using pagan elements. We have falls from grace, we have redemption and forgiveness, we have a benign universal deity who is all-knowing and all-powerful but whose ways are mysterious, we have the sins of pride and rebelliousness (note that those ARE sins in his fiction), we have a complete suppression of all sexuality. It's not nearly as heavy-handed as Lewis became in the Narnia series (especially the later volumes), but it's definitely there. What Tolkien did was to write a fantasy epic in which nobody knew anything about the Christian religion per se, but everything from Christian dogma was assumed to be factually true and the important parts generally known.

About trying to imitate him, I would say there are three important reasons why nobody should:

1) He had, as has already been observed, a style which is not current any more. He would not be able to publish the books today. There is too much description in them, not enough action, and too many characters (like Aragorn) who are one-dimensional and wooden (although not all characters are like that by any means).

2) He also had a particularly nitpicky and detail-oriented way of writing that would drive most writers up the wall. He was almost obsessive-compulsive about it. He went so far as to invent several fantasy languages, complete with grammar and scripts, in detail far beyond what was strictly needed for the stories. Unless you're that kind of person yourself, you won't be able to imitate him and you shouldn't try. It will just prevent you from working from your own strengths. And finally:

3) The elements of the LOTR story have become so entrenched in the fantasy genre that to use them today is to produce something hackneyed. They were original when he wrote them. They no longer are. I would never write a fantasy novel with immortal Elves, Dwarves who are brilliant craftsmen, cute and clever nimble-fingered short people, evil ugly goblins, true kings in exile, ancient magic swords, Dark Lords of Evil, or gray-bearded wizards in pointy hats. No matter how you change the names around, it's going to come out trite.

You've obviously given this some thought. I don't think Tolkien's theological views were at all like C.S.Lewis. And so, there is also a theology of writing, in Tolkien's various essays on the subject.

In his theology of writing, I wouldn't say God is beign so to speak, but he felt that direct intervention would ruin the story. And so, if things are implied as having some divine origins, they are extremely subtle.

Yes, his origional stories were a hobby, creating, and they were for creating languages, which Tolkien did at a young age. As a Philologist (study of the formation of languages) he also was familiar with anthropology, and the formation of civilizations. And so he was quite obsessed with mythology on every level.

There are numerous fantasy writers who have borrowed from Tolkien, but you are correct about the difficulties that would pose, to try to mirror him.

[Nateskate]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. Tolkien sought to create a new mythology for England using Germanic, Finnish (Kalavalah) and Christian elements as he believed them to truer to the history of the English people than the French and Mediterranean influences of Arthur and other Non to semi Christian savior models.

k..turning off the English major now.

In the study of Philology, I imagine Tolkien was fascinated with the Roots of language, and the formations of society, rather than what grew from the blending of cultures. He was disappointed that England had no great mythologies. So it could be said there was a higherarchy of importance for Tolkien, as far as influences.

As Christopher suggested in the forward of the Silmarillion, his father became aware of metaphors in the story he did not see in the origional writes, that he noticed in the rewrites.

On some levels I can understand this, because my story is long in the tooth, and upon rereading and re-writing, I do see things I didn't notice on any conscious level while writing the story.

[Nateskate]

Oh, but The Children of Hurin is extremely good!

My sister read The Hobbit to me as a child; once I began reading on my own, it was the first book I read. I moved into LOTR shortly after, at the urging of my grammar school librarian. It took me a couple of tries to really get into Fellowship, but once I got past Tom Bombadil I was hooked. I've read the trilogy somewhere around 60 times, now (as a teen, I read it every six months or so). Later, I added The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and the various Histories of Middle-earth, along with Prof. Tolkien's letters, which are absolutely fascinating.

Though a lot of Tolkien's style would never survive in today's market, he still taught me the importance of being able to describe things that never were -- even if such passages never make it into my own books. And he gave us Orcs ;)

Scott (unabashed Orc lover)

I do believe Tolkiens works would survive today's markets, but editors would likely take a cleaver to them.

[TrickyFiction]

I think there's so much more written about Satan in the Old Testament, although he's called Lucifer and other names. Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, to name a few books that shed some light on him.

Lucifer is a misnomer. The verse in Isaiah is referring to the Babylonian king. The Satan isn't actually named in the Canon, which has always been interesting to me. But yeah. If you want more stories about him, look to the folklore. It's great stuff. Lots of fodder for your writing too. :D

[t0neg0d]

Am I the only person in the world who didn't like the books? I read them once, a long time ago, when I first came to Canada and barely made it through. However, when the movies came out, which i LOVE beyond all reason, I thought that maybe I didn't understand the books because I wasn't very comfortable with English yet. I've had several books like that, which I read when I first came to Canada and when I read them now there are whole layers of things I just didn't grasp because of the language skills.

So I bought them all. And I tried reading them. Three times. Each time I never got past the barrow wight part. That was enough for me. Technically, they are badly written. The pivotal battle on flat top mountain (or whatever it is) is described to us after the fact by Pippin or Merry. Most of the book is telling. I can't get past that to enjoy the story. And quite honestly, much of the story leaves me cold. Can someone explain the significance of Tom Bombadil? And that elf he has with him? To me it reads like she's his prisoner and she can't go back to her people because he keeps her chained in the basement.

I thought the movies were brilliant. I have all three on DVD, theatrical release and extended release. They took the essence of the books, and showed instead of told.

Going off of memory here... The first book--from Hobbiton to Bree, with a few minor exceptions--are full of pointless encounters which should have been stripped from the book before its release. Tom Bombidale? The Barrow Whights? If they were removed from the book, it wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other.

I get the idea that he was still working on his plot and just felt like writing 'hobbit stuff'.

[yappo]

Going off of memory here... The first book--from Hobbiton to Bree, with a few minor exceptions--are full of pointless encounters which should have been stripped from the book before its release. Tom Bombidale? The Barrow Whights? If they were removed from the book, it wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other.

I get the idea that he was still working on his plot and just felt like writing 'hobbit stuff'.

You can't just rip those parts out and still have the ENTIRE story make sense. Rip them out and finish the book with Aragon crowned king, fine, but that would be a different story than the one told.

Sten

[josephwise]

Going off of memory here... The first book--from Hobbiton to Bree, with a few minor exceptions--are full of pointless encounters which should have been stripped from the book before its release. Tom Bombidale? The Barrow Whights? If they were removed from the book, it wouldn't have made a difference one way or the other.


I've always been a big fan of this section of the trilogy (part 1 of The Fellowship is my favorite bit, Hobbiton to Rivendale). For me, the flight from Hobbiton shows how weak and desperate Frodo and his friends are at the beginning of the tale. They can't even get through their own land without trouble. They're just small folk in a very big world, and this helps to set up the ending, in which they come back home, changed by their experiences. Perfect ending, in my opinion.

I don't see Bombadil as "filler" either. It was important to show something that is outside the scope of the ring's power. (Yet ultimately not immune to the distruction of the world). I always read Tom as being the personification of nature itself. Whether Tolkien intended that or not, I don't care, but it fits my view of the books very well (in which the ring is monetary wealth, and the forces of Sauron mirror our own industrial revolution). Anyway, I'm glad those parts were not edited out of the trilogy. I would have missed them.

[t0neg0d]

I guess the point is, Bombadil and the Barrow Wights would have never made it past an editor. They would have been stripped out as pointless. I love the trilogy--one of my favorite series of book--love it just the way it is, even. But, if it was present here by an unknown author, good chance that the first bit of advice given would be to drop those two encounters.

[t0neg0d]

You can't just rip those parts out and still have the ENTIRE story make sense. Rip them out and finish the book with Aragon crowned king, fine, but that would be a different story than the one told.

Sten

They were removed from Jackson's presentation of the books and I thought he did a brilliant job of conveying the entire story. /shrug

Come to think of it, they were stripped from Bakshi's version as well and that was a pretty fine rendition also.

They were removed from the BBC Radio 4 presentation of the Lord of the Rings by NPR--and that was LOOOOONG mind you--and it still worked perfectly.

[Medievalist]

I guess the point is, Bombadil and the Barrow Wights would have never made it past an editor. They would have been stripped out as pointless. I love the trilogy--one of my favorite series of book--love it just the way it is, even. But, if it was present here by an unknown author, good chance that the first bit of advice given would be to drop those two encounters.

No, it really wouldn't.

First of all, an editor would realize that both of those have later repercussions--especially Bombdil.

Secondly, both episodes reveal insights about character, and about Tolkien's mythology

[rugcat]

No, it really wouldn't.

First of all, an editor would realize that both of those have later repercussions--especially Bombdil.

Secondly, both episodes reveal insights about character, and about Tolkien's mythologyThirdly, they're both great scenes --among the best in the books. It would be a terrible mistake and a shame to cut those scenes.

The idea that everything in a book has to tie up neatly, that a plot must have a seamless arc and every scene be essential and crucial to entire work is a modern myth.

Some great books are indeed constructed that way -- Gatsby, for example. Others most definitely are not. There is room for randomness and space in literature as well as life.

I think this misconception among writers comes in part from the same agents who advise that a book must grab you in the first five pages or it's a failure. And in a sense they're right -- but there are many ways to grab a reader, one of which is to simply write something interesting, whether it be a murder on page two or five pages of description.

Tolkien was a wonderful writer. If you start chopping up things in LOTR, deciding it would be a better book with certain things removed, you end up instead with a lesser work, not a better one.

[Medievalist]

Good point. Tolkien lost many close friends, and Charles Williams was a terrible loss.

He also wasn't really a close friend; Tolkien had some serious ethical and moral issues around Charles Williams, and later, has some similar issues with respect to C. S. Lewis.

[t0neg0d]

Tolkien was a wonderful writer. If you start chopping up things in LOTR, deciding it would be a better book with certain things removed, you end up instead with a lesser work, not a better one.

No one was saying that they SHOULD be removed. Just pointing out that in every rendition done of Lord of the Rings (the 3 mentioned above), these two parts were left out BECAUSE they had nothing to do with the story. Yes... the barrow wights helps build out the four hobbits (but no differently than any other 700 incidents throughout the trilogy) and bombadil (though a lovely incite into mythology that was decided on well after the story was completed while working on another book) had nothing to do with the story once again.

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I am simply stating what others who have presented the story in other medias have decided as well. They didn't add enough to the story to make a difference when they cut them.

[Nateskate]

Lucifer is a misnomer. The verse in Isaiah is referring to the Babylonian king. The Satan isn't actually named in the Canon, which has always been interesting to me. But yeah. If you want more stories about him, look to the folklore. It's great stuff. Lots of fodder for your writing too. :D

Obviously this is a matter people can make up their own minds about. But in two cases, Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, a concurrent Lament is taken up, which first addresses a human ruler, and finishes (many theologians agree) addressing an angelic being.

Some will say these are metaphorically addressing these human rulers, though others will strongly disagree, and do believe there are concurrent messages, without going into theological arguments.

[Nateskate]

He also wasn't really a close friend; Tolkien had some serious ethical and moral issues around Charles Williams, and later, has some similar issues with respect to C. S. Lewis.

It might be said that Tolkien had serious issues with all the people in his life, except perhaps his children. His mother grew ill after his birth, had to move away from his father, converted to Catholocism which alienated the rest of the family. His mother, when ill, gave him over to the care of a priest who he wound up having issues with.

He had issues with the college, the lit/lang debates. I think that Lewis was kind of like his best friend, but he expected that after he converted him from atheism, that Lewis would forever follow him into Catholacism, and their differing views later became a wedge.

[Medievalist]

He had issues with the college, the lit/lang debates. I think that Lewis was kind of like his best friend, but he expected that after he converted him from atheism, that Lewis would forever follow him into Catholacism, and their differing views later became a wedge.

With Lewis, Tolkien felt that Lewis so misunderstood him that Lewis dedicated a blasphemous book to him. There's an exceedingly understated, and redacted, letter about it in the Letters; in researching an article for the Tolkien Encyclopedia, Christopher Tolkien and another scholar send me copies of another letter from JRRT to his son, and an unredacted version of the published letter.

[Nateskate]

With Lewis, Tolkien felt that Lewis so misunderstood him that Lewis dedicated a blasphemous book to him. There's an exceedingly understated, and redacted, letter about it in the Letters; in researching an article for the Tolkien Encyclopedia, Christopher Tolkien and another scholar send me copies of another letter from JRRT to his son, and an unredacted version of the published letter.


Actually that's rather exciting, that you did that research. I can only comment on the picture from what information I have read, which is limited. In a way, they were like the Odd Couple. They could infuriate each other, but I think deep down there was a fondness they would remember.

Both men were very unique. Tolkien like to have a close group of friends, and this was his way since his childhood. Being orphaned and shuffeled around a bit, not always with the most nurturing caretakers, it's not surprising that Tolkien would stuff his feelings, strong feelings, but as C.S.Lewis noted, he tended to react strongly to criticism, either by throwing away a whole chapter or defending it to the point he'd refuse to hear.

Tolkien was extremely methodical, and everything had to be done thus and so, to an insane degree by most people's standards.

And so, Tolkien was just as likely to take a poke at C.S.Lewis- in Treebeard.

But again, I don't think Tolkien had the best coping mechanisms- again, being orphaned, rejected by his extended family, and likely internalized much of his anger.

Later in life, he confided a great deal in Christopher- the one loyal devotee, who I think embraced his fathers strong views. So, yes, I think it's fair to say that C.S.Lewis irritated Tolkien, but I think he also saw any disagreements as a sign of disloyalty.

There was no way for them to get around their funadmental difference, even in their religious views.

Tolkien was convinced his mother died because of the family's religious persecution- that this caused sorrow and a decline in health -rejecting her for converting- that strong of a feeling about 'belief' made it a loyalty issue.

His friend, Lewis, was his convert, who became a theologian who disagreed with Tolkien's worldview- siding with the enemy. This was likely taken as a personal rejection and an insult. Add then that Lewis married a divorcee, and the wedge widened.

But there had to have been memories and longings to go back to the way it was, especially when Tolkien realized that kind of friendship is so rare. And except for his friendship with Christopher- who he even confided his difficulties with his wife to- I think Tolkien felt very alone in his later years.

[Inkdaub]

Isn't there a book called The Inklings that would deal with this stuff a bit? I could have sworn I saw it one day at the shop but now I seem to be unable to find it again.

[Nateskate]

Isn't there a book called The Inklings that would deal with this stuff a bit? I could have sworn I saw it one day at the shop but now I seem to be unable to find it again.


There may be. I'll have to look for it. Thanks for the heads up.

[Nateskate]

I'm moving along through The Treason of Isengard

It's at times fascinating, and at other times boring. But one of the surprises for me is learning how much of the last parts of the Silmarillion were worked out during the writing of Lord of the Rings.

The Silmarillion must have remained a WIP for quite a period of time, though some talk like it was completed long before LOTR. Perhaps there was an entire form of the Silmarillion beforehand, but the historical parts of The Two Towers- relating to places and people, were more elastic than I presumed, meaning that he was wavering about certain facts that appear in the printed version of the story.

Next, I can't imagine how many versions Tolkien wrote of LOTR. I imagine that in these times, if he were an AWer, he might be looking for some consolation during that strenuous write.

[Inkdaub]

As I understand it, The Silmarillion was something Tolkien worked on for most of his literary life. I'm pretty sure Chris Tolkien edited it and published it posthumously. It's interesting in that it mentions Children of Hurin as a long tale or some such...and here it is published as a novel in and of itself.

I think the 'Inklings' book I saw was one of the following...

Colin Duriez and David Porter, The Inklings Handbook (2001) (Chalice Press); Diana Pavlac Glyer, The Company They Keep: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as Writers in Community (2007) (Kent State)

Humphrey Carpenter, The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and their friends (1978) (Houghton Mifflin; Ballantine pb)

Not sure though, my memory is fickle at best.

[Medievalist]

Isn't there a book called The Inklings that would deal with this stuff a bit? I could have sworn I saw it one day at the shop but now I seem to be unable to find it again.

There's scads of books about the Inklings, and even more dissertations.

[Medievalist]

I'm moving along through The Treason of Isengard

It's at times fascinating, and at other times boring. But one of the surprises for me is learning how much of the last parts of the Silmarillion were worked out during the writing of Lord of the Rings.

It never really was completed--Christopher Tolkien cobbled together, surprisingly well, bits from various versions, with editorial commentary, to try to create something coherent from an enormous mass of materials.

[Elwolf]

That book was soooooo boring! I know that it was probably a great book for some other people, but it was insanely boring!!!!!!!!!!

No offense to anyone who actually liked it.:)

[Elwolf]

Forgot to put the book I was talking about!: The Hobbit.

[Nateskate]

As I understand it, The Silmarillion was something Tolkien worked on for most of his literary life. I'm pretty sure Chris Tolkien edited it and published it posthumously. It's interesting in that it mentions Children of Hurin as a long tale or some such...and here it is published as a novel in and of itself.

I think the 'Inklings' book I saw was one of the following...

Colin Duriez and David Porter, The Inklings Handbook (2001) (Chalice Press); Diana Pavlac Glyer, The Company They Keep: C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien as Writers in Community (2007) (Kent State)

Humphrey Carpenter, The Inklings: C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Charles Williams, and their friends (1978) (Houghton Mifflin; Ballantine pb)

Not sure though, my memory is fickle at best.

Your memory is correct, and Christopher writes extensively about the difficulty of putting the Silmarillion together, because there were so many versions of the story, and not in a specific order.

So it was like putting a puzzle together. However, I was unaware that Tolkien was still working on the Silmarillion concurrently with Lord of the Rings.

[Nateskate]

It never really was completed--Christopher Tolkien cobbled together, surprisingly well, bits from various versions, with editorial commentary, to try to create something coherent from an enormous mass of materials.

I for one appreciate Christopher. He was unique in that he was so loyal, pragmatic, and able to what must have been overwhelming.

There are some parts of unfinished tales that I simply cannot get through. It fatigues my mind. I don't think anyone can appreciate the Silmarillion with one read, because of the amount of confusing names, the writing style...etc.

However, when I reread the story, and began to sort out which was what, I fell in love with the book. It was hard, but worth it.

[Inkdaub]

There's scads of books about the Inklings, and even more dissertations.

I can dig it...I was just trying to remember a specific book that I saw. Or thought I saw at any rate.

[Inkdaub]

I for one appreciate Christopher. He was unique in that he was so loyal, pragmatic, and able to what must have been overwhelming.

There are some parts of unfinished tales that I simply cannot get through. It fatigues my mind. I don't think anyone can appreciate the Silmarillion with one read, because of the amount of confusing names, the writing style...etc.

However, when I reread the story, and began to sort out which was what, I fell in love with the book. It was hard, but worth it.

Well I can somewhat agree with your take on Silmarillion. I have read it twice and the second read was much better, and much easier to follow.

[Nateskate]

Carepenter's "Tolkien's Letters" contain many insights into J.R.R Tolkien's headspace while writing Lord of the Rings.

It was very difficult for Tolkien, as he was asked to write a sequel to the Hobbit, which was a Children's Story. Tolkien was rather surprised that people like the Hobbit, and moreso that people liked the Lord of the Rings. At best he'd expected a few might read it, but he worried that most wouldn't get it.

He was also very protective of his works, as editors were constantly trying to make changes he did not agree to, especially in his foriegn editions of LOTR. Being that he spoke many languages, he would be incensed at lose translations or errant translations of what he wrote.

But what fascinates me most, is his life's story, and how much this impacted his story. If you know about his childhood, and how he married, you can see where some of his characters came from, including on a subconscious level.

Throughout the Silmarillion, and the Lord of the Rings, a man falls for someone the family does not approve of. Aragorn was not only rejected by Arwen's father, but in some ways, Arwen's father was like his adopted father. There's also Beren and Luthian and a host of others, who had to deal with the ire of a disapproving father figure.

In Tolkien's case, his father figure was the Priest, in whose care he and his brother were left. Tolkien fell in love with another Orphan, and his father forbid him to have any contact with her.

Tolkien was an Orphan, and Orphans play huge roles in LOTR- Frodo, Aragorn, Eowyn...etc.

[Medievalist]

I for one appreciate Christopher. He was unique in that he was so loyal, pragmatic, and able to what must have been overwhelming.

There are some parts of unfinished tales that I simply cannot get through. It fatigues my mind. I don't think anyone can appreciate the Silmarillion with one read, because of the amount of confusing names, the writing style...etc.

However, when I reread the story, and began to sort out which was what, I fell in love with the book. It was hard, but worth it.

Christopher is also, in his own right, a fine medieval literature scholar.

[Medievalist]

Throughout the Silmarillion, and the Lord of the Rings, a man falls for someone the family does not approve of. Aragorn was not only rejected by Arwen's father, but in some ways, Arwen's father was like his adopted father. There's also Beren and Luthian and a host of others, who had to deal with the ire of a disapproving father figure.

Tolkien used this pattern deliberately--it was something that the philologists of the era were looking at very closely because it's a basic pattern of Indo-European mythology.

[Nateskate]

Tolkien used this pattern deliberately--it was something that the philologists of the era were looking at very closely because it's a basic pattern of Indo-European mythology.

Tolkien drew extensively on Mythology, which is why there is so much tragedy in the Silmarillion. Poor Turin.

[MelancholyMan]

IMHO Tolkien produced the most powerful literary works of the 20th Century. And probably among the top works of all time. In a thousand years they'll be up there with "The Illiad" and Dante's "Divine Comedy." But as a writer, by today's standards, Tolkien was a failure. He worked his whole life on a few books that didn't really get popular until after he was dead. In all likelihood, his queries would have been rejected by today's unenlightened, profit driven agents and editors as,"too long," or "not the right book for me," "not taking on new clients," etc., etc., etc. Makes me wonder about today's standards.

-MM

[josephwise]

In all likelihood, his queries would have been rejected by today's unenlightened, profit driven agents and editors as,"too long," or "not the right book for me," "not taking on new clients," etc., etc., etc. Makes me wonder about today's standards.

-MM

I don't think he would have had any trouble getting published today. LOTR is a page-turner, and The Long Expected Party is filled with conflict that only seems unrelated in retrospect. A fresh set of eyes would take well to that openeing, I think. Not to mention, The Hobbit is incredibly accessible to a wide audience, and would have a very easy time charming today's agents and editors. A follow-up trilogy would be an automatic sell.

[MelancholyMan]

Ah, but I said his queries would have been rejected. "Let me transport you to a magical land where little people with furry toes..." I don't think the book would have ever been read by today's agents or editors. And Tolkien, does he honestly strike you as the kind of person who is going to spend a lot of time crafting a 'killer query'? He was an academic and, by all accounts, not much a fan of the business side of publishing. I can't imagine that he'd like it better now.

-MM

[Nateskate]

It's fascinating to think about, but I imagine Tolkien would have had a terrible time with querying the LOTR.

The Hobbit would have been easier to query, but he wrote it with no intention of seeking a publisher.

[MelancholyMan]

It's fascinating to think about, but I imagine Tolkien would have had a terrible time with querying the LOTR.

The Hobbit would have been easier to query, but he wrote it with no intention of seeking a publisher.

Does anybody know the word count on "Lord of the Rings?" 350K - 400K I would guess. "Hobbit" is probably around 100K. Silmarillion maybe 140K.

Just thinking about the query for LOTR makes my head hurt:

Dear Ms. Grimfupple:

Imagine a world where a Dark Lord

In a land called Middle Earth, populated by all sorts of

What is a hobbit anyway?

Okay, see, there's this magic ring that makes you invisible...

-MM

[Nateskate]

True, true. What doesn't belong in Norse (technically Germanic) mythology though, is the good-evil dichotomy. It simply didn't exist.

Norse Mythology had a sense of good and evil. Even it's mythical epic battle of Gog and Magog is parallel to the Apocolyptic passages in Revelation and Ezekiel.

Now, I'm not saying good was good, in the greater moral sense. Norse gods on either side are as flawed or more flawed than humans, as were the gods of Greek and Roman mythology. In a sense, they were like selfish Jet Setters of ancient times, with far greater powers.

[Medievalist]

Ah, but I said his queries would have been rejected. "Let me transport you to a magical land where little people with furry toes..." I don't think the book would have ever been read by today's agents or editors.

Yeah it would -- and here's why.

Because of his scholarship. It did, does, and would, open doors.

[Medievalist]

Norse Mythology had a sense of good and evil. Even it's mythical epic battle of Gog and Magog is parallel to the Apocolyptic passages in Revelation and Ezekiel.

Err that's because Gog and Magog are in fact entirely Biblical.

[kuwisdelu]

Yeah it would -- and here's why.

Because of his scholarship. It did, does, and would, open doors.

Exactly. Umberto Eco probably didn't waste too much time querying either.

[Birol]

Closing thread for review.

[Birol]

Here's the thing. What was going on in this thread was a discussion about a specific set of works. This discussion included the religious themes found in the work and used to inspire the work. This was strictly an analytical discussion of literature. It was not about religious practices. Recently, however, a discussion of religious practices developed as a sub-thread of the overall discussion. I've split those posts out and have moved them to the Pagan forum (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105770). (They may end up moved again later.)

What is important to remember in analytical discussions of literature is that religion is just another construct, just another element. Comments made about or for or using religious elements are not personal or judgmental but are strictly one way of looking at any given work. It is important for all individuals participating, even those who practice a certain religion, regardless of what that religion may be, to remember that within the context of the discussion.

Reopening the thread.

[Ken]

okay if I pose a question about the books in this thread?
Take those magical rings and swords.
Were there any corollaries in actual history were metal smiths attempted to construct such things?
Alchemy was practiced, way back when, so the attempt to make magical swords and rings doesn't seem like too much of a step away from that.

[MelancholyMan]

A magic sword isn't necessarilly magic. Just better. Imagine how the Egyptians felt with their bronze swords when they met the Hittites with their iron weapons at Kadesh. Compare iron to steel. Occasionally blacksmiths of old would actually wind up with steel, and the sword that came from it would be far superior to any other sword of the day. Of course they had no way of knowing that trace elements and carbon made the difference. To them it was 'magic'. Consider a 'singing' sword. Tap a cast iron pot with a hammer and you get a dull clank. Tap a steel pot with a hammer and it rings. A singing sword! And a sword that would sing would totally kick a$$ over the other swords. Damascus swords sometimes fell into this category. With a complete lack of understanding of metallurgy and microcrystalline structre they would have said it was magic.

-MM

[Ken]

very interesting perspective, MelancholyMan,
and it ties in with the LOTR's, too,
as the swords and rings were made of special sorts of metals, I think,
and were also forged in unique ways?

[Nateskate]

Err that's because Gog and Magog are in fact entirely Biblical.

Well, I tend to believe it probably worked it's way through Babylonian and Persian cultures, and even the Greeks, because all these cultures wound up in the Middle East around or after the time of Ezekiel's writings. Jews were technically in captivity, first under Babylonian, then Persian, then Greecian, and finally, Roman rule.

Although there was no internet at the time I looked up these things, I was fascinated by the fact that Gog and Magog was mentioned both in the Bible and in Mythology. After looking, I tend to agree with you that it was in Biblical Prophecy first.

[Medievalist]

okay if I pose a question about the books in this thread?
Take those magical rings and swords.
Were there any corollaries in actual history were metal smiths attempted to construct such things?
Alchemy was practiced, way back when, so the attempt to make magical swords and rings doesn't seem like too much of a step away from that.

There's a fair amount of evidence that metorite iron was recognized as "special" and we do have swords made from iron from meteorites. The name Excalibur(n) is certainly suggestive of such a sword.

[TTCleveland]

In reference to The Lord of the Rings having a large info-dump in the beginning, I agree that it does seem odd at first, but I don't think it's that big of a problem if you think about it.

Many modern info-dumpers often do so because their story's a bit weak. But Tolkien's story was tremendously strong, and the info-dump wasn't to cover up any inadequacies in his writing style.

Tolkien was defiantly one of the great literary architects of the era, and his work will be remembered for many hundreds of years to come.

-Travis

[Ken]

There's a fair amount of evidence that metorite iron was recognized as "special" and we do have swords made from iron from meteorites. The name Excalibur(n) is certainly suggestive of such a sword.

neat. Did the ancients didn't know that the metorite metal came from outer space? If so, they must've really been fascinated by it.

[dirtsider]

neat. Did the ancients didn't know that the metorite metal came from outer space? If so, they must've really been fascinated by it.

I'm pretty sure they did. They probably followed a falling star (metorite), found the metal, and thought it was a gift from the Gods. Kinda like how the elves first learned smithing while in the Blessed Realm from the Valar in the Silmarillion.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I really like Tolkien, and you have to admire his use of language. Every sentence and word does what he wants it to do.

[Nateskate]

neat. Did the ancients didn't know that the metorite metal came from outer space? If so, they must've really been fascinated by it.

Swords mentioned in the Silmarillion, including Turin's sword, supposedly came from a meteorite metal. And it had a deceptive personality, but also the strength to cut things impossible for Earthen metals.

[Ken]

thanks for the info Dirtsider and Nateskate.
I read the LOTR's twice, but never made it through the Silmarillion.
Thinks it's high time I gave it a second go.
Reading up on the history of swords (and metal-smithing) might be interesting, too.

[Nateskate]

thanks for the info Dirtsider and Nateskate.
I read the LOTR's twice, but never made it through the Silmarillion.
Thinks it's high time I gave it a second go.
Reading up on the history of swords (and metal-smithing) might be interesting, too.

Kudos on the attempt to read the Sil. It's hardest in the beginning, because it's so much narrative, and the reason it's better on subsequent reads, is that in the first read, all of those names are confusing. I had to stop and refer to the Index multiple times a page.

Once my mind knew who was who, then I could just see the story itself, which I think is brilliant.

Some people might assume it was inferior- his first project. However, much of the Silmarillion that we know was written after the Lord of the Rings, but never finished, until Christopher Tolkien pieced it together.

In Tolkien's 'Treason of Isengard'- which gives alternate versions of LOTR- dry reading- We see that many storylines, Galadrial and Melian had to be written after the LOTR.