h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What, all 3 of them?

That was just plain nasty.

Right, then; here's my tuppence-worth...

Firstly, condemning LOTR for having 'inconsistent rules for magic' is, frankly, the ghastly sign of people having played too many RPGs or video games and seeing the balrog or Nazgul as end-of-level guardians and Gandalf as a 20th-level Mage and so forth. Whatever happened to mysticism? Magic, besides being fictitious, is meant to be essentially chaotic, or at the very least mysterious, and it would be SOOO dull if Gandalf just fireballed everything that got in their way, or used a +9 charm potion on the Witch-King etc. IMHO, I'd rather be surprised and awed by the revelations of hitherto unknown depths to characters than having the narrative flow interrupted by the pedantry of rules.

Also, I have *terrible* trouble reading Frodo's interminable trek through Mordor, but that's because Tolkien wrote it as a pathetic fallacy; in other words, the reader has to go through a 'journey' every bit as excruciating as Frodo's, and as the Ring weighs ever more heavily upon him, so the prose becomes SLOWER... and SLOWER...

Nex...

Here, here.

To reply to some of Rehash's valid problems with the plot:

Firstly, the reason that the Ring couldn't just be flung into Mt Doom by an Eagle or suchlike is because only Frodo has the appropriate strength of character to do so; an eagle, just as Gollum, Isildur, Boromir, even Bilbo to an extent, would fall under the insidious influence of the Ring and its master, Sauron.

The power of the Rings is, I assume, due to their provenance as creations of Sauron or Melchior in their infernal forges, which I always thought was perfectly clear. Invisibility, long-life, the twisting of men's minds; I think that one would have to say that that is power, no? Anyway, the Ring *could* be seen as a symbol of the ultimate weapon of WWII, although Tolkien rubbished the suggestion that LOTR might be a veiled allegory of the war. Both are weapons so terrible that their usage is nearly unthinkable, and the sense of absolute power that they convey is corrupting.

I've addressed the problem of magic in an earlier posting, but with regard to that, the 'superfluous details', character reappearances, terminology and poems etc. the following should clear them up a little.

Tolkien's position as one of the most distinguished medieval English scholars of the past century (his work on 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' is still the single most valuable scholarly analysis of that particular poem) meant that Middle-Earth was based largely upon the Anglo-Saxon and early medieval traditions from around 850AD to 1350AD of epic poetry (eg Beowulf) and description of battles, such as the Battle of Maldon.

Whilst these texts are ostensibly about heroes and wars and monsters, they are also a representation of man's struggle to comprehend and survive in the world around him, and a celebration of man's victory in these struggles. The whole tradition was very much based around communal spoken stories and verse, and the idea of the 'tribe' that is fundamental to the epic genre. Hence the poems and songs, and the whole description of a world that has a sense of chaos, of unknown forces beyond the knowledge of the individual.

Apologies about getting a bit highbrow there; you must have hit my 'pedantic' nerve.

All right! Someone who's going to stand up for the man who actually had to write all of that!

I completely agree. In reference to what he was writing about it makes perfect sense. Legends from that time often have little 'things' pop up unexpectedly (nowadays that tradition is limited solely to 'twists' in storylines that are completely predictable in their timing and placement), so it really does make sense that Tolkien wouldn't hesitate to put details like that in his books.

I know I said earlier that rules seemed to be nowhere in sight, but it really would have been boring if Gandalf just zapped away everything, and walked away from every trouble, with his hobbits and posse of random big people in tow. Mysticisim seems to convey a better sense of what was happening. You can always pull a quarter out of a birthday party guest's ear, but the 'powers that be' apperently so reliable when it comes to fireballs, complicated spells, the summoning of 'insert random supernatural being here', etc.

Speaking of Beowulf, has anyone else read the recent Seamus Heany rendering of it? I think it's one of the more accessable versions of the poem. Heany's use of language is extremely tactile (as per usual) which I love. Better than most of the versions I've encountered before.

Oh, and Nexus, I've never come across the idea of the one ring as a symbolic representation of Mutually Assured Destruction but, having spent a year working in a nuclear bunker, I quite like the comparison (even if Tolkien didn't!).

I haven't read the Heaney Beowulf, but I am told that it's pretty darn good...

The most rewarding part of thinking of LOTR as an allegory of WWII, besides Frodo being the Middle-Earth equivalent of the Enola Gay, is the final section regarding the return of Frodo and Sam to the Shire, and the 'suburbanisation' that Saruman is doing. This was something that JRRT was vehemently opposed to IRL, and the rebuilding of the country following the war was just the sort of 'New Town' concrete nightmare that he abhorred. The occasionally-traumatic experiences of returning soldiers is also well-represented.

Nex...

Nice. Oh, and sorry about my spelling of Seamus Heaney - I'm notoriously careless with peoples' names when I'm in a hurry.

No need to apologise! H2G2 seems to be something of a haven for 'creative' spelling anyway...

How's your weekend going? Mine was sucking badly (hangovers, blazing rows with exes, cancellation of footy, etc) but I've just bought myself a rather expensive computer, which has cheered me up as only shameless self-indulgence can do.

The Fightback starts here.

I'll go through you points one by one and explain why their flawed.

Let's kick off with the Eagle carrying the ring buisness.
You state that an eagle doesn't have the strength to bear the ring but what you've forgotten is that Samwise can carry Frodo who's carrying the ring quite easily. So logically if you stuck the ring on something alive but small (eg. a mouse) then put it in a bag and gave it to an eagle it too should be able to carry it without feeling any effect.(It'll effect the mouse sure but what is a corrupted mouse gonna do?)

Next the power of the ring.
For starters your wrong. The ring doesn't make you ivisible it moves you into thesomethingorother dimension where the Black riders exist in a more solid state.(Thats why they could see Frodo more easily when he was wearing it.) But how that would help Sauron rule the world isn't explained. Next it makes men greedy; great! So everybody wants you dead so they can get the ring, that's really useful.(Well it might be in the US.) Long life is a benefit but is it worth sacrificing several thousand others for? (More importantly why would it help sauron? I thought he had a similar deal to Gandalf ie. near immortality.)

Magic mistakes.
You claimed that magic is supposed to be mysterious and unexplained. I don't disagree, the point is that it should be consistant. Gandalf was quite capable of defending himself against the Dark riders (quite a feat) But in Moria he didn't do much until the Balrog turned up which proved to be his match. In 'the hobbit' at one point he kills half a dozen goblins with one go but later resorts to running up a tree to escape a few wargs.(This is supposed to be the powerfullest mage in all the land.) JK Rowling (Author of Harry Potter) is on record as saying "You've got to have rules. If you can just magic someone alive again then theres no tension". Thats a problem that haunts the TLOTR ever since Gandalf is resurectted Dallas style.

As for superfluos details.
Nothings wrong with a few more details to give a character some depth but wittering on about things that the reader doesn't understand or care about is a waste of ink. The worst thing about this practice for me is that he talked about things that I didn't care about but didn't explain the things I DID care about eg the whole Sauron/Morgoth thing.

The make it up as you go along story technique.
If Tolkien did such a marvellous job of preparing a world in advance of writing TLOTR then why did he have to keep suddenly adding people and monsters to make it more interesting? His method appears to have gone like this:- Hey! this is boring I need some excitment I Know! I'll kill off Gandalf that'll shake them. then then what'll I do? I've got it! a forest full of elves then how about a nice boat ride?
Etc. Etc. etc.. into mordor:- I've just had a great Idea! what about a giant spider attack!!- and out the other side:- Let's have a big fight with some nasty men back in the shire! That'll be a good ending!

"A description of a world that has a sense of chaos"
Yep no argument there.

If you don't like the books, you can go and find a Harry Potter message board somewhere.

It would be a nice, neat little place where devastating problems are solved via mice, and people duck into alternate dimensions. An breezy place where magic comes at the drop of a hat, and where twleve year olds skim over what undoubtedly took hours to write (because it's boring, anyway). A place where the reader is gently and reassuringly led through every twist and turn of the story by the hand , and forewarned well in advance of all the scary parts. Would that suit you?

Has anyone else here noticed that the people who are talking about gandalf's resurection haven't reread that bit. What actually happens acording to the book is that he goes through a fight so stressfull that he ends up suffering from something akin to shell shock. when he then encounters the hobbits who knew him it then kicks him back into connection with the ongoing reality.

I thought it was something like that, but... *shrug*

It makes more sense, anyway.

Ok let's get a few things straight.
(i) The 'Ring' Carrier: Sam managed to carry Frodo and also wear the ring because of the love of his master Frodo this is why the ring never corrupted him. If an eagle had taken it if the ring had not manged to corrupt the Eagle it would have 'Escaped' like it did from Ilsidur and also Smeogal(Gollum).

(ii) The use of Magic: The reason that Gandalf does not use magic except in life threating situations, he never use's magic for fun does he?

(iii) The resurraction of Gandalf: This is easy Gandalf Dies!!!! Is retuned to Valar where he is sent back to Middle Earth more powerful than before Gandalf is a Maiar one of the 'lesser-gods' he can't die. The reason Sauron, and Saruman die is that they have forsaken the god's.

(iv) Critiscm is welcome: Read the books first not just LOTR but the silmarrilon, the books of lost tales, the Book of unfinished Tales,......., etc, etc.

(v) Pratchett Vs Tolkien: Copying somebody or pardoying them surely that's just flattery.

Point A) 12 (vi): does it really matter?

You either enjoy Tolkien's work or you find it vaguely irksome. Fiction is a subjective thing; one person's point of view is as relevent as another's, as long as they can back it up with evidence and examples. For plenty of evidence: see above. I think we could go on nit-picking until we're all blue in the face but I, for one, am off to have a nice cup of tea and a lie down.

No it wouldn't suit me.
And I didn't enjoy the 'Harry Potter books' either.
Firstly I would like to point out that if you had read my earlier postings rather than just skim through my later ones like an eight year old with reading problems you would have noticed three things:-
1: I liked 'The Hobbit'.
2: I DIDN'T find it boring.(But then I've got a LOT of patience.)
3: My problem with The Lord Of The Rings lies mainly in the way it introduces plot devices. (Tolkien seems to use magic as just that- a plot device rather than a skill which some characters have.)

Plot devices should not in my opinion be blatantly visisble to the reader. To make it obvious is just plain lazy. To put a twist or turn in a story it needs to be set up several chapters in advance, the problem (particularly with magic) is that the plot devices either just suddenly turn up ,eg. sarumans stone of vision orwhatever, or are ignored despite there being many situations when the character would have found it useful eg. Galadriels phial, and Gandalf powers.

Those of you Tolkien apologists out there should reconsider whether it's the WRITING you like or the STORY. (Note I LIKED THE STORY but HATED THE WRITNG). I really wish you'd stop making up solutions for the inconsistancies (Gandalf didn't have shell shock he got reborn in some pool in a forest and the ring didn't affect Samwise when he picked up Frodo because it can only affect it's direct bearer (That's what is written in the book.) the reader shouldn't have to do all the work and sort them out Tolkien should have made a good enough job that readers wouldn't have to argue about these things.

And lastly Cenchrea, you clearly didn't understand what I said about the ring making you invisible- I wasn't saying it was a problem I was pointing out that IN THE BOOK it doesn't make the wearer invisible (their shadow is still visible and a ghost like form can still be seen) it moves them into an alternate dimension. Why you thought this was an attack on the book I can't imagine, unless you considered the idea so farcical that it must be a slur on your favourite author.(Even though he came up with it.)

Cups of tea all round I think - before people start coming to virtual blows.

Well said, UC. If I may be so bold as to try to pour oil on these virtually troubled waters...

Okay people - this is Fantasy Literature we're talking about here. Rehash makes the crucial point that it is the writing style that he has grief with. Any and every writer of literature can and must be open to criticism. The fact that LotR is a piece of fantastic fiction (and I use the word 'fantastic' in the sense of 'unreal') means that it is whatever the reader chooses to make of it. It does not have to obey rules.

As an epic, heroic cycle, it is bound to be somewhat clunky and seem contrived in places. However, look at the precedent: Norse and Teutonic mythology, which is surely the basis for much of LotR's 'feel', is hideously full of chance coincidence and 'plot devices'. If anyone is familiar with The Nibelungenlied, or Norse or Icelandic sagas, then you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

Curses, magic rings, mistaken identity, and so forth, serve to create an atmosphere in these works mentioned above of tragic inevitability, much like parts of 'Othello'. The whole handkerchief business in that play is a patently obvious 'plot device', yet it needs to be so to alert the audience to impending tragedy.

True, LotR is not necessarily trying to point its readers towards a tragic conclusion, but the allegedly random and arbitrary introduction of devices that Rehash has taken issue with are indeed introduced somewhat haphazardly into the narrative thread. IMHO, though, to explain and prepare the reader for every one of these devices in detail would have overburdened the book so much that the part that Rehash likes (ie the story) could well have been buried underneath a flood of inconsequential 'padding'.

>the reader shouldn't have to do all the work and sort them out >Tolkien should have made a good enough job that readers wouldn't >have to argue about these things.

I think that the reader *should* have to do the 'work', as surely the best thing about fantasy is that the reader can project whatever he or she likes onto the prose. This is why arguments start, granted, but these arguments can never have a right or wrong beyond what is in the text; how one person interprets the plot or what Gollum looks like or whatever is no less valid than anybody else's opinion. The fact that LotR provokes such high levels of interest and comment is, to my mind, indication that Tolkien has done a 'good enough job', as readers of LotR are enthused and interested enough to form and present opinions and interpretations of the novels.

I hope that this is a fair outlook to have on the whole business of criticism and LotR.
Cheers, Nex...