Why might The Lord of the Rings not the best fantasy book ever?

[BannedInSchool]

That is a complaint many people shared. In a previous generation. Once upon a time Tolkien's magnum opus was considered so long as to unprintable, which was why it was crudely chopped into three pieces.

I believe I heard that a printing of an omnibus edition is what sparked the resurgence of LotR in the 60s, but I'm not immediately finding a reference to such a thing.

[veti]

That was before Ice and Fire, the length of even onebook is longer than all three of the LOTR books put together.

Amen, brother. I feel positively disenfranchised from modern fantasy, because I just plain don't have time any more to commit to reading something like that. Re-reading LotR is a major commitment; picking up a 1000-page book that I don't even know if I'll like? And it's only the first in a massive series? Not gonna happen.

I wish authors and publishers would get over this whole epic thing.

[SaintRidley]

Amen, brother. I feel positively disenfranchised from modern fantasy, because I just plain don't have time any more to commit to reading something like that. Re-reading LotR is a major commitment; picking up a 1000-page book that I don't even know if I'll like? And it's only the first in a massive series? Not gonna happen.

I wish authors and publishers would get over this whole epic thing.

Do your part and help the epic return to its poetic roots.


I find that my pleasure reading in modern literature tends to gravitate toward those works which operate in a modern interpretation of the epic/saga. Lord of the Rings, Dune, A Song of Ice and Fire, even Harry Potter and Foundation take some cues from the form. All among my favorites. Of course, I tend to study the medieval form of the epic/saga, so it makes some sense that what I like to study bears resemblance to what I read for pleasure.

[Wardog]

I don't think LotR is the best fantasy book ever. (For one thing, I'm not sure its really possible to define "the best fantasy book ever"). Also, I think the pacing is off in places. The start takes too long to kick off (in my opinion), and the ending is drawn out (although not as badly as in the film). Also, the beginning (Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday, etc) seems to be stuck in "children's story" mode, like the Hobbit, and stylistically at odds with the rest of the book.

Although, as someone else mentioned, maybe that's necessary to demonstrate how insulated the Shire is, and the sort of life under threat. (And to show how bad things have become leading up to the Scouring of the Shire).


But (along with a lot of other people here) I think a lot of the common criticisms of Tolkien/LotR just don't make sense.

A lot of them seem to amount to nothing more than "it doesn't follow the genre conventions of modern storytelling". Or "it doesn't address every single social issue that people in the 21st Century think are important".

It's fine to not like or not be interested in the story for those reasons, but it seems absurd to condemn it as a "bad story" for that. It would be like criticising Oliver Twist for not reading like a Hollywood action movie, or Pride and Prejudice for not discussing the threat of global warming. Or condemning the Illiad for implying that our thoughts and actions are in part determined by the will gods (and for not unequivocally condemning the idea of sacking a city because your wife ran off with one of their royals).


I'd been reading myths and folktales and fairytales long before I read Tolkien (or other modern fantasy), so I was used to the sort of tropes and storytelling conventions Tolkien was deliberately using to create the same stylistic themes. Criticising it for not following modern conventions, or the conventions of a different genre doesn't really make sense. Especially when modern storytelling conventions aren't necessarily that good in the first place, and/or are not necessarily realistic.

To address some specific tropes and conventions:
1) Chekov's Gun

Spoiler: undefined

Show

Rockphed said it well.

Also ,Tolkien spends a lot of time describing the scenery, or detailing (or just hinting at) all sorts of other events going on in the background, or in the distant past, many of which have no effect on the actual plot. Some (e.g. Chekov) might think that's unneccesary detail - I'd say it's about showing that the world is bigger than the story, and certainly bigger than the protagonists.

Villain motivation

Spoiler: undefined

Show

Likewise, criticism of the lack of motivation/character development of the villains. I'd say: 1) greed, power, pride, hubris, and contempt or dismissal of people you don't think are important cover what most of the villains do, and are hardly unrealistic. And 2), the story is told from the perspective of the Fellowship (primarily the Hobbits); it doesn't need to go into great detail about why the orcs do what they do, because the protagonists don't know and don't need to know that - all they know is what the results are.

(A few months ago, I was assaulted in the street by a complete stranger for no reason. He punched me in the face without warning, knocked me down, threatened to break my jaw if I gave him any more trouble, and then left. Whatever reasons or motivations or backstory he might have had to explain his behaviour is a mystery to me, and given that he wasn't caught, will remain so. From my perspective, it had no more logic to it than a D&D random encounter - and yet it was an actual event in real life. People doing bad stuff to people for unknown and unknowable reasons is a thing - so I don't see why it is necessarily bad to have it happen in a story).

Faramir not being corrupted by the Ring

Spoiler: undefined

Show

There are two common criticisms of Faramir and his actions.

The first is essentially "The Ring is massively corrupting and tempts everyone, except for Faramir the incorruptible Mary Sue". Except, the Ring doesn't tempt instantly make (or even tempt) everyone into taking it the moment they see it. The only person I can remember that that happened to was Sméagol. Everyone else who was tempted by the Ring was either exposed to it long term, or, in the case of Elendil (and Sauruman), knew about it and its importance for a long time before they had a chance to get their hands on it, while having the sort of personality that would make them think "its only right that I should have it". Boromir spent weeks in the company of the Ring, and then was faced with the (apparent) loss of Gandalf before he was tempted to take it. And none of the rest of the Fellowship did.

The second criticism I've seen for time to time is that not being tempted is or less "noble" or "morally worthy" than being tempted and resisting it. But a) I'm sure we could all think of various particularly heinous acts that most people would never seriously consider (or consider doing at all), and I don't see how you can say they are less of a person for not wanting to do them but refusing. And b) LotR isn't Faramir's story. The fact that he doesn't suffer doubt and temptation and character development is irrelevant, for the same reason that the orcs' motivations aren't - it doesn't affect the story as told from the perspective of the protagonists, and unlike the Middle-Earth history and geography lessons, doesn't do anything to ground the story in a wider world.

[007_ctrl_room]

As someone that loves fantasy and sci-fi novels, I could never get into LOTR because there is just way too much background information. I enjoyed the movies, even though they also were a little long, but I just can't get into the books - and I've tried a few times.

For me the best fantasy book series on earth is, and will prob always be Shannara by Terry Brooks. Feel free to flame away now ha.

[Gnoman]

That is a complaint many people shared. In a previous generation. Once upon a time Tolkien's magnum opus was considered so long as to unprintable, which was why it was crudely chopped into three pieces.

That was before Ice and Fire, the length of even onebook is longer than all three of the LOTR books put together.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That had more to do with the book being published not long after WWII, when paper shortages were a thing of recent memory, and most people were still thinking in terms of little paperbacks with tissue-paper pages as the "gold standard" for book size, because wartime conservation had made those the best way to make use of the available paper. Prior to the World Wars, long books were not considered to be a problem (far from it, length was a mark of quality), and the austere writing championed by Hemingway and treated by many people as the holy grail of good writing was considered to be the refuge of the nearly illiterate.

[veti]

That had more to do with the book being published not long after WWII, when paper shortages were a thing of recent memory, and most people were still thinking in terms of little paperbacks with tissue-paper pages as the "gold standard" for book size, because wartime conservation had made those the best way to make use of the available paper. Prior to the World Wars, long books were not considered to be a problem (far from it, length was a mark of quality), and the austere writing championed by Hemingway and treated by many people as the holy grail of good writing was considered to be the refuge of the nearly illiterate.

There's long books by Victorian standards, and then there's modern fantasy epics. 'Bleak House' is a long book,but it's not in the same league as Ice and Fire. And it's a standalone work, not part one of anything up to 30-for-all-I-know.

[Gnoman]

I was referring more to the "Lord of the Rings was so long that it was considered unpublishable" part of that. LOTR isn't that long by pre-WWI standards.

[hamishspence]

By contrast, Tolkien had a few moments like that. I imagine that upon reaching Valinor, Sam could walk into the Halls of Mandos, talk about the time he soloed Shelob, and have Feanor or Fingolfin themselves pull him a chair and pour him a drink. But he was much better at maintaining the theme that creatures who in the Third Age are civilization-ending Elder Evils were basically elite mooks to the heroes of the First Age.

Not Feanor - he's still in the Halls of Mandos and won't leave them until the Last Battle.

Fingolfin maybe.

However, going by the Silmarillion, mortals in Valinor actually would get their lives shortened if the Valar did let them in - this is what the Elves tell the Numenoreans, at least.

So, while Sam might get to experience Valinor for a while - he'd "wear out" fast.

[Legato Endless]

snip

Lots of excellent points, and my sympathies for what happened.

Do your part and help the epic return to its poetic roots.

While I support this, you do realize we're going to be subjected to a horrifying deluge of 2 bit fantasy writers' 'idea' of poetry...*shudder*

For me the best fantasy book series on earth is, and will prob always be Shannara by Terry Brooks.

Care to share why? The reasons why people favor something is part and parcel to OP's original question.

Is it the brisk pacing and heavy action emphasis? The generations spanning story? The...I'm not really sure what else Shannara has to offer, so yeah, please elaborate.

[veti]

However, going by the Silmarillion, mortals in Valinor actually would get their lives shortened if the Valar did let them in - this is what the Elves tell the Numenoreans, at least.

So, while Sam might get to experience Valinor for a while - he'd "wear out" fast.

Sam was a ringbearer, if only for a short time (as Galadriel points out, and she seems to set quite a lot of store by it). As such, it's questionable whether he's still 'mortal' at all.

All the ringbearers are characterised by abnormally long life - or to put it more plainly, nobody who so much as touches the thing ever dies of old age. While it might seem as if the destruction of the ring should cancel that effect, it still seems to apply to Sam, as far as we can see. He becomes the longest-serving mayor in the history of the Shire.

[warty goblin]

Sam was a ringbearer, if only for a short time (as Galadriel points out, and she seems to set quite a lot of store by it). As such, it's questionable whether he's still 'mortal' at all.

All the ringbearers are characterised by abnormally long life - or to put it more plainly, nobody who so much as touches the thing ever dies of old age. While it might seem as if the destruction of the ring should cancel that effect, it still seems to apply to Sam, as far as we can see. He becomes the longest-serving mayor in the history of the Shire.

Sam was 102 when he departed for the Havens. Which is old for a hobbit, but not particularly unusually so.

[SaintRidley]

While I support this, you do realize we're going to be subjected to a horrifying deluge of 2 bit fantasy writers' 'idea' of poetry...*shudder*

That's why it was a tongue in cheek response. I very much like modern prose epics. They're good at doing the epic thing. I do wish more poets would try to recapture the form in verse, though.

[Rockphed]

Rockphed said it well.

Can I sig this?

That's why it was a tongue in cheek response. I very much like modern prose epics. They're good at doing the epic thing. I do wish more poets would try to recapture the form in verse, though.

I already wrote a 10 page epic. It was pretty bad. I can post it in this thread or link to a version I post elsewhere if you want, but, again, it was pretty bad.

I have this strange feeling that somebody is going to want to see it now. And further protestations of how bad it is will only result in more people wanting to see it.

[factotum]

I have this strange feeling that somebody is going to want to see it now. And further protestations of how bad it is will only result in more people wanting to see it.

In a world where people will read "The Eye of Argon", the worse it is, the more likely they are to want to see it!

[hamishspence]

Sam was a ringbearer, if only for a short time (as Galadriel points out, and she seems to set quite a lot of store by it). As such, it's questionable whether he's still 'mortal' at all.

All the ringbearers are characterised by abnormally long life - or to put it more plainly, nobody who so much as touches the thing ever dies of old age. While it might seem as if the destruction of the ring should cancel that effect, it still seems to apply to Sam, as far as we can see. He becomes the longest-serving mayor in the history of the Shire.

Bilbo, when Frodo goes to Rivendell, looks significantly frailer than he did a few years before when he had the Ring. Possibly a hint that the "life extension effect" stops working once a Ring is given up.

[Tiki Snakes]

Bilbo, when Frodo goes to Rivendell, looks significantly frailer than he did a few years before when he had the Ring. Possibly a hint that the "life extension effect" stops working once a Ring is given up.

Think of it like smoking. The longer you've carried it, the more permanent damage it does and the earlier you give it up, the fewer lingering effects remain.

[Legato Endless]

Bilbo, when Frodo goes to Rivendell, looks significantly frailer than he did a few years before when he had the Ring. Possibly a hint that the "life extension effect" stops working once a Ring is given up.

No, the life extension effect remained until the Ring was destroyed. Arwen notes Bilbo's frailty after the war, stating he could only make one more journey because the power that sustains him has been destroyed.

Gollum was far older, but yet remained (arduously) active 70 years after losing the Ring. On the slopes of Mount Doom, he weeps that he will turn to dust once the Ring is destroyed.

[Wardog]

Lots of excellent points, and my sympathies for what happened.

Thanks. (Fortunately, the effects weren't too serious - just a black eye for a few days, a sore neck for a week or so, and for a couple of weeks a tendency to feel a bit on edge whenever I saw anyone who looked vaguely like the guy responsible).

Can I sig this?

Sure :)


Back on topic (ish), this might be interesting: I just found a PhD thesis examining the role of monsters and monstrosity in Tolkien, and the origin of the tropes in medieval and other sources.

http://theses.gla.ac.uk/4993/1/2013Fawcett%20PhD.pdf

Spoiler: Abstract

Show

This thesis asserts that J.R.R. Tolkien recreates Beowulf for the twentieth century.
His 1936 lecture, ‘Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics’ sets the tone not only for
twentieth century criticism of the text, but also Tolkien’s own fictional project: creating an
imagined world in which ‘new Scripture and old tradition touched and ignited’ (‘B: M&C’
26). At the core of his analysis of Beowulf, and at the core of his own Middle-earth, are the
monsters. He creates creatures that are an ignition of past and present, forming characters
that defy allegory and simple moral categorization. To demonstrate the necessity of
reading Tolkien’s Middle-earth through the lens of his 1936 lecture, I begin by examining
the broad literary source material that Tolkien draws into his creative process. I assert that
an understanding of the formation of monstrosity, from classical, Augustinian, late
medieval, Renaissance, Restoration and Gothic sources, is fundamental to seeing the
complexity, and thus the didactic element, of Tolkien’s monsters.
As a medieval scholar and professor, Tolkien’s focus on the educational potential
of a text appears in his critical work and is enacted in his fiction. Tolkien takes on a mode
of writing categorized as Wisdom Literature: he writes a series of texts that demonstrate
the imperative lesson that ‘swa sceal man don’ (so shall man do) found in Beowulf.
Tolkien’s fiction takes up this challenge, demonstrating for the reader what a hero must do
when faced with the moral and physical challenge of the monster.
Monsters are a primarily didactic tool, demonstrating vice and providing challenges
for the hero to overcome. Monsters are at the core of Tolkien’s critical reading; it must be
at the core of ours.