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

-High levels of interest and comment...-

I never would have believed it before, but I sure as heck believe it now. (And he isin't even my favourite author-- note that I said that I've only drudged through the books once, maybe twice.)

I object to being accused of making up the bit about shell shock. When gandalf was talking to merry and pippin in entwood, the description that he gave of what he went through was a very accurate description of what shell shock (post traumatic stress disorder) is actually like. And tolkien would have been in a very good position to have met people who had experienced it. All right, tolkien didn't say that it was shell shock, but when he wrote it, the attitude to shell shock was that the people with it were a bunch of craven cowards who should pull themselves together and get back to the front lines. this attitude didn't really change until the falklands war.
I agree that the author should not have to take the reader by the nose and lead them through each and every plot twist, but bear in mind when it was written. For example, frankenstien contains a two chapter travelogue in the middle of it, and this was not thought to be unusual when it was published, but would be totally intollerable now. Try as a reader to put yourself into the mindset of the intended audience, and you will have a lot less problems with the plot.

*Nods enthusiastically about the whole shell-shocked bit, and more so over the Frankenstien part.*

Tolkien might of used the general description of post traumatic stress disorder to help describe what a harrowing experience Gandalf had gone through; that he had not gotten out without some scarring. (Though, understandably, a close encounter with a Balrog would leave anyone a little undone, ressurection or no.)

I thought it was clever that though Gandalf had no visible lacerations, due to ressurection, he was still visibly shaken by the whole experience. It kept him human. (I know he isn't, but you know what I mean.)

So true

Actually Cencrea I'm not sure I do know what you mean. He's a superhuman who suffers from all a humans weaknesses?

On the subject of shellshock:- That bit of the book had me puzzeled for a while, I couldn't work out whether Tolkien meant that Gandalf was dazed and confused after his rebirth or whether Gandalf had gone on the equivielent of 'walkabout'. Either way the point still stands Gandalf died from the exhaustion of taking on a Balrog he didn't just get shell shock and then wander around for a few days in Fangorn.
If you don't believe me check the book or better still check the appendix which states quite clearly the date when he dies and the date he was reborn. (The appendix doesn't mention the shell shock, it clearly isn't important.)

... About super-humaness...
Well, like it's been stated before: the book would be exceptionally boring if Gandalf wolloped everything continually. All fictional super-beings have weaknesses, Gandalf's is just not as glamorous (or obvious) as others. (And plainly he does not suffer from all of a normal joe's weaknesses, the aforementioned everyman would not pick himself up and brush himself off after being, ah, DEAD.)

... Shellshock...
Of course they aren't going to spell out s-h-e-l-l-s-h-o-c-k-e-d in the appendix, but I get what you're stabbing at. We were just using that term to describe a state of daze, confusion, and mild disorientation that is brought on by a particuarly stressful event. A round of Balrog bashing and dying in the attempt qualifies.

Yes, the point still stands that he died of exaustion from fighting the Balrog. Okay, according to the dates he did not spend a GREAT deal of time wandering around, (Rehash scores a point, I was under the impression he sprang back, a la Silly Putty,) but he still seemed dazed, confused, and mildly disoriented when he met back up with the company; he seemed, in short, to be suffering from a condition known as s-h-e-l-l-s-h-o-c-k.

>the lack of any sort of rules/principles for magic

As has been commented in another thread on this topic, the magic users Sauron, wizards and elves, are all non-human. Why should magic have rules that are easily understandable to human minds. I'm actually rather fond of tLotR having a magic system that seems suitably mysterious and, well, magical.

Some more recent fantasy seems to have obvious rpg routes, and you can almost see magic points, mana, spell level peaking through the text.

Zathras

>You state that an eagle doesn't have the strength to bear the ring<

I think a fairer point is that an Eagle doesn't have the strength "of will" to carry the ring. It would use it and be corrputed. Additionaly in the Hobbit the eagles are afraid of being shot with arrows (rational enough). It is only after the ring is destroyed that they enter Mordor. Seems reaonable to say that if they turned up before that they'd simply have been shot by the orcs.

>Next the power of the ring.<

My understanding was always that the ring had a lot of powers beyond those experienced by the hobbits. For one thing it could rule the other rings. Another point is that it made some orcs think of Sam as a big elf warrior. The point is the rings (and the Ring) can do a lot if someone takes the time to use them.

>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<

But surely the Balrog (direct creation of the Valar Melkior the Morgoth) is a far more powerful entity than the Nazgul who are corrupted humans and the creation of a mere Maia.

>As for superfluos details.<
These work for me. tLotR works like a legend with vast amounts in the background that only indirectly influence the plot. I believe JRRT was attempting to capture the spirit of the Anglo-Saxon saga with tLotR and thus will have a different style from modern writings.

>Let's have a big fight with some nasty men back in the shire! That'll be a good ending! <

Yes it is a good ending, glad you agree
I think the scenes near the Shire (Barrow Wights, the Scourging (sp?) of the Shire) are more effectivly evil than Mordor. Evil far away is far less frightening than evil at home, and the Shire is supposed to evoke normal home life.

Zathras

Well said... Couldn't have put it better myself...

I always thought that the ending, when the hobbits go back to the Shire to find that it had gone light industrial while they were gone, was MUCH scarier than going off and perhaps never coming back again (they expected to perhaps die, they didn't expect that a Wal-Mart would be erected in their absence...) Even Gandalf expressed that he felt that as long as the shire was there, with its stupid, bumbling hobbits fat and happy, that life on the road was livable, or something like that.

*WARNING!! FIRST LINE CONTAINS SPOILER*(kinda)

Gandolf is a god(well, valar actually) posing as a mortal. I think that he has his reasons for everything. I think that many of the questions you have are answered in tales yet to be told. You know what? I think someone needs to tell those stories. There are tons of books about star trek and star wars written by people who had nothing to do with the shows or movies and they were just as good. I wonder if there is a writer out there skilled enough to tell us some of the tales untold of middle earth. someone should continue tolkien's legacy. *wonders why there is such a lack of middle earth fan-fic out there*

There is an awful lot of sneaky social commentary in lotr, like the shell shock in the earlier thread.
The point about when they come back to the shire is that tolkien knew as someone who had been to war, that both the individual, and the home werevery different when you got back then it was before you left. evin if nothing about the hme has changed, the people there will not have the experiences to understand a lot of why you are different. Also, a lot of the things to do with war that he was commenting on, we are only just getting debate about now, and so can be hard to discuss. When he wrote it, most of these subjects he was commenting on were about as socially acceptable as sexual descrimination is today. He had to be very careful what he wrote, and how he wrote it.

Zathras the points you make are poorly thought out and most of them have already been tackled; espescialy the bit about the eagle (An eagle should be easily capable of flying high enough to dodge an orc bow). If you think I'm going to Rehash(sic.) all my arguments for the sake of another Tolkien apologist you've got another thought coming.
I have read everybody's arguments understood them and seen many flaws in them. I am not going to be converted to the cult of Tolkienism.(At least not on the basis of your arguments; but I must remain open minded if not I lose honesty of thought.)

It might be helpful if everybody stated clearly and concisely where they stand on this issue (espescially Cenchrea who seems to change her mind every posting.)

Heres mine:-

Tolkien good ideas but bad at writing and poor at thinking about the mechanisms behind things (saying it's 'mysterious' ain't good enough.)
The Hobbit -Good Book
The Lord of the rings -Good story incompetantly told.

Oh damn. I swore I wouldn't get involved in this (religious) argument. But...

I think Zathras' points are extremely well made (especially the point about the eagles' strength of mind) with the possible exception of the comment about avoiding arrows (which is the only one you have specifically commented on).

I think Tolkein leaves a lot to be desired as a novel writer, but criticising him for saying things are "mysterious" and not "thinking about the mechanisms behind things", just misses the point. In the Lord of the Rings, Tolkein is writing myth. Myth doesn't have to explain why things happen. I think that's called Science.

Even today, where having scientific explanations for fantasy and sci-fi situations seems to be de rigeur, you don't find the writers of Star Trek, for example, let the science get in the way of good narrative flow. Rather, they concentrate the narrative and let the nit-pickers worry about whether the tech-babble is self-contradictory. The storylines are much the better for it.

Hear hear.
I object to being labelled a 'Tolkien Apologist', and I think some people would do well to consider the difference between considered and thoughtful criticism and blind pedantry.

LotR is a book. There hasn't been a book written that cannot be picked apart, unless you count physics textbooks (and even they're open to a certain degree of interpretation... ).

My point is this: whether you think LotR is well-written or not is immaterial; someone will always produce a convincing argument to the contrary. However, does it honestly matter that there are perceived gaps in JRRT's logic? Rehash, it has obviously tainted your enjoyment of the book, which is a shame, as I enjoyed it greatly without, I must confess, *realising* that there might be flaws in the 'mechanics' of the book. You are obviously conversant enough with the book to illustrate these faults in detail; would it be fair to assume that you've not been prevented from re-reading or consulting the book by its inconsistencies?

IMHO, perhaps a little hatchet-burying is needed here. I'm amazed that JRRT and, specifically, LotR are such a sore point. Would it be too much to hope that people might respect each other's POV and agree to disagree? Such points as 'why couldn't an eagle drop the ring in Mt. Doom' can be contested until everyone is blue in the face. Is it productive to do so?

>Zathras the points you make are poorly thought out and most of them have already been tackled<

Please say what you really think

If you don't feel like rehashing your arguments then my advice is don't. It’s a free H2G2 and you are not obliged to join in the conversation. By the same token however I am permitted to answer your points. Although as you point out some of the points I make had been made before I assume you had not been fully aware of them (as evidenced by your interpretation of the strength of an Eagle).

I'm not sure that liking an author and disagreeing with you on his weaknesses qualifies me as a cult member but I am willing to be corrected.
On the specific point about over-flying arrows. It was the eagle's comments in tH that led me to think this. Perhaps I misinterpreted.

To your suggestion (condensing ones views on a huge topic to one sentence) well I'm always up for a challenge.

tH - A good fairy story, should be read as part of an oral story telling tradition converted (reasonably successfully) to literary form.

tLotR - Excellent fantasy in the tradition of the Germanic epics, told with flare and interest. Contains several inconsistencies (Tolkien himself admitted as much).

Sorry that last one was two sentences.

But It would be no FUN if everybody agreed to disagree!

And okay I admit it! My father was a physics teacher and my mother comes from a long line of joiners and carpenters so thinking of mechanisms is 'in the blood' so to speak.
But even still I don't demand comprehensive and logical reasoning behind EVERY point in a book (If there was then there wouldn't be any magic to complain about.) I would settle for some consistancy quite happily. If theres no consistancy then the writer can do what he likes and the story has no tension since (strangely) it can't be predicted. If the reader can't predict something nasty happening then theres no fear of it happening, especially if the reader knows that even if something nasty does happen something can easily pop up and let the hero's or whatever escape.(Try saying that in one breath)

What I meant by 'Tolkien apologist' was the sort of person who say's 'It's not inconsistant, the broken logic is part of Tolkien's genius!!'

Back to my all time favourite argument 'The one about the Eagle and the Ring' If you read earlier postings you would relise that we have already settled the eagles strengh of will debate with the argument that Sam carried Frodo without feeling any effects from the ring so if you stuck the ring on some animal eg a mouse then gave that to the eagle the eagle should too be able to carry the mouse without any problem. (By the way the eagle was only supposed to be ONE example of the lack of thought Tolkien put into the practicalities, there are many others, have fun finding them for yourself.)

On the subject of me rereading TLOTR:- I haven't. I read it only a couple of months before this debate. I also have a very good memory for the details I didn't like.

To start a completely new debate:- Why hasn't anyone made a computer game of TLOTR?

There was a text-based one for the BBC Micro, years ago. It was very frustrating because the characters had this incredible AI, but if you didn't ask them the right questions using the right keywords, they wouldn't tell you anything. Also, there was one bit where it was possible to get completely stuck through not having done something exactly right earlier on.

Not a patch on Classic Adventure. Pflugh!

Yeah I had suspected there would be an adventure; but I didn't know about the one for the beeb. But what about a game like a cross between Civ and Lords of the realm?

And shouldn't we start a new conversation for this?

There was another game that I remember playing on my mate's Amiga about 10 years ago called War in Middle-Earth, which was a little more like Lords of the Realm. Essentially, you wandered around M-E meeting other characters and getting into scraps with orcs, black riders etc. Unfortunately, it didn't have the complexities of the book and the simplest way to win was to march straight up to the Black Tower, kick some orc arse and do over Sauron without having to mess about with anything silly like rings. Not quite an epic adventure...

Unthinking defence of JRRT is as abhorrent to me as unreasonable nitpicking, but then I used to be an English student, so I've had complete literary neutrality beaten into me. Any writing is fair game. You could write a piece on how Shakespeare was the worst writer ever and not a patch on Irvine Welsh or something (and believe me, people have) and the only thing you needed to worry about was enraged academics sharpening their critical knives in retribution for you shooting down their pet theory. Fun...