• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Tolkien

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Personally, if I was Sauron, I would have had a bunch of trolls, orcs, and probably a nazgul standing outside the only damn opening to the only place in the world where the ring could be destroyed. Still, you can nitpick any story, why not just enjoy it?

Yeah, me too. Maybe it didn't occur to him that anyone would try to destroy it as opposed to taking its power for themselves. Seems like a good safeguard though.
 

Xarxium

Acolyte
Haha, Tolkien is alright in my opinion. I mean I don't really like the story, but he did help the major movement of fantasy. For that we should be thankful.
 

Phoenix

Troubadour
His style today is not appreciated because we view it on today's works. If we viewed it when written it's BLOODY brilliant. I think its great (except when they went to the log cabin, shivers). I would have liked more though if I was there when it was first written.
 
It's Citizen Kane Syndrome. Back in college, I watched Citizen Kane for the first time. And I was totally underwhelmed. I didn't get why it was such a great movie. I watched it again a year or two later, and still didn't get it.

Then I found out that the movie had been revolutionary when it came out. Welles had practically invented a whole slew of cinematic tricks and tools while making that movie. Those tools were all then used and adapted by thousands of other filmmakers over the intervening years. By the time I saw Kane, I'd seen all those tricks used a thousand times in other movies. So then I saw Kane and didn't get why it was such a big deal.

Same thing with Tolkien: If you've been exposed to all the tropes and idioms that Tolkien made a routine part of the genre, then reading LOTR may be underwhelming. That said, I think Tolkien did an excellent job at building a vast world that felt real, even if his prose is stiff and his characters are a bit hands-off.
 

Ravana

Istar
Yeah, me too. Maybe it didn't occur to him that anyone would try to destroy it as opposed to taking its power for themselves. Seems like a good safeguard though.

Exactly. That's said in about as many words, as I recall, by Gandalf, in talking the council into make the attempt in the first place. Sauron has a huge blind spot there. As well as another, if more justified one, in thinking that nobody would be able to get into Mordor: why waste troops he needs elsewhere in guarding a location that nobody can get to, and which is of no value whatsoever for anything other than destroying that one trinket… which of course no one would ever do anyway? Considering how difficult it was to prove him wrong–having to go through a path he believed the outside world had forgotten about, to avoid the only two gates into his realm, both of which were considered impassible even by those who had solid info on them, then making it past a monster that wasn't worth his trouble to destroy even if it was eating his orcs from time to time–it isn't hard to see what he might have been thinking. And of course nobody would have attempted even that crazy stunt without bringing along sufficient force to make the attempt plausible, which he would easily have noticed. And then they'd still have to cross a fairly heavily-patrolled land to reach the mountain. And so on.

My problem with the eagles isn't that they weren't used to fly into Mordor. Mine is much more basic–that Tolkien used them as a deus ex machina in not just one but two stories, to turn the tide of battles at the end. What chutzpah. Okay, yeah, from a writer's point of view, I can see how it creates a nice "echo" from the first story to the second, not an unusual storytelling technique in the mythic materials Tolkien was borrowing from and deliberately trying himself to echo… but I wouldn't have done it either time, personally, and definitely not both. As for why they went on to rescue Frodo and Sam: Gandalf asked them to. Nicely. Apparently they had nothing else on their schedules at that moment. I'd hardly call that a major plot problem, in any event: better questions would be why they showed up at either battle in the first place.

Tolkien didn't invent the elves, but he did reinvent them, as well as reintroducing them as an almost-human quasi-magical race, which they'd long since stopped being in English writing. And they were far from flawless–or even all "good"–though this comes out far more in the Silmarillion, which you definitely shouldn't bother reading if you didn't like LoTR.

The orcs certainly get the short end of the stick in terms of portrayal. I'd add "…but I'm sure they loved their mommies," except that I'm not: I'm not even sure they have mommies. Seriously. (We never see female orcs–nor dwarves, for that matter, though the extensive "X son of Y" references imply they reproduce somehow or other. Orcs could be cloned for all the evidence internal to the Hobbit and LoTR… though he did apparently verify, at least in private correspondence, that both had females and reproduced normally.) I was more troubled about other details of their ecology–little things such as "what did they eat?" Given the description of Mordor, it seems they would have had to be major importers of food… though given the description of Mordor, it never seems likely they enjoyed good trade relations with anybody.

The Dead Men of Dunharrow don't actually kill, or even touch, anybody in the book. They terrify the corsairs into abandoning their ships. It's Peter Jackson who made them capable of affecting the living, not Tolkien, so in that at least I think you have to absolve him. As for why they were still there after all that time: they swore their oath to the last person who was king–Isildur; as far as they, or just about anyone else, knew, there was no king to release them, nor ever would be. Presumably, they may also have been bound to the proximity of their burial, a fairly common trait for ghosts, and couldn't get out and about until they received a legitimate curse-related command.

As for the resemblance of names between Saruman and Sauron… meh. Name enough characters, and eventually some of the names have to start sounding alike. In Tolkien's languages, these have entirely different derivations. Granted, they were his languages, and he could have changed either of them: he's never been accused of not being heavy-handed with his "evil" identifications–though he's hardly unique there. (I believe C. S. Lewis' name came up earlier…?) I'd've been far more bothered if one of them had been named "Gandorg," to be an opposite of Gandalf.

Find me a story that's flawless, and I will be forever grateful. (As well as insanely jealous of whoever wrote it.) No, this isn't one. In this, though, I have to disagree with you: there's no evidence whatsoever that "fantasy would have still flourished" without Tolkien. I can't imagine it would have died out… but if you think fantasy was remotely as popular before Tolkien as after him, you need to do some more historical reading. In fact, I'm not entirely sure you could find any other genre in which a single work played a more pivotal role in its fortunes. So, yeah, like him or not, he was that important–even if it was only because he was in the right place at the right time. I'm one of those who happen to believe it was a lot more than just that. You're certainly entitled to a different opinion, as far as quality or enjoyability goes; as far as being the pivotal historical figure in the formation of the genre as it stands today goes… not so much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fcbkid15

Scribe
I myself love Tolkien. The movies are great and fun to watch, and I like the books. Now other's have stated here before that they aren't perfect, which I agree with. But than again, like Ravanna posted before, no stories are perfect. Every story has some plot holes, or at least inconcistenties. Even if they are small, the book still isn't perfect.

The eagle thing has been going around for awhile, and the answer is obvious, if you actually listen to what people say or understand stuff in the movie. The all seeing eye, Sarumon, will see them. He has nine nazgul at his command, on the back of flying dragons. So he'll see them and send the nazgul up there, and while the fight in the skies goes on, he will send every troop he has to guard the entrance to Mt. Doom.

The name of Sarumon and Sauron sound very similar, and they are both evil, I understand this. But think about when Tolkien wrote this. Back in like the fifties? Forties? I dunno, but when he did, the names would have been very odd and different. Especially in fantasy.

On to him being the father of fantasy, I agree with this statement. He didn't invent fantasy, but his books where the first in the fantasy genre. I know there were folk tales and mythological tales and what not before him, but I mean books like Dragonlance, Icewyndale, Harry Potter, those are all fantasy novels. Tolkien's were the first in that kind of genre. He heavily influenced fantasy. In most books you could probably find some kind of connection between them and LotR. Even if Elves existed before his books, he was the first to use them in the fantasy genre and define them. In most fantasy books elves are archers, tall, pointy ears, and flawless. Tolkien came up with these traits for elves. Several books have influences from Tolkien. I mean, Dumbledore is very close to Gandalf. In Dragonlance, Tanis is almost an exact copy of Aragorn. Now none of these things are bad, one writer can always take some ideas from other writers. I'm not complaining about any of this. As the quote say, "Good writers borrow, great writers steal."

Now I do also agree that without Tolkien, we still would have had the fantasy genre flourish over time. Some other creative thinker would have come up with ideas and write them down. But than the fantasy genre would probably be very different than it is now.
 

myrddin173

Maester
In my opinion there is no point in theorizing what the fantasy genre would have been like without Tolkien, because there is no way to actually know. Anything we say is a guess. I like Tolkien, he isn't my favorite, but he is fairly close. Likewise the Lord of the Rings is certainly not the best work of fantasy, but it is one of the greats. Not because of its quality but its impact.

Also the Nazgul do not ride dragons, they ride fellbeasts. Dragons are way cooler, and shinier...
 

Amanita

Maester
Well, almost all popular fantasy books have some consistency issues somewhere, and to me, this isn't the thing that matters most. In Lord of the Rings it has hardly bothered me at all. (HP is much worse with all those random magical things turning up to make Harry life either harder or save it.) A dangerous but anticlimatic journey back from Mordor just wouldn't have worked very well, therefore I think there could be worse than the eagle option.

I like Lord of the Rings even though it's not my favourite fantasy series. (I'm not sure what that is at the moment anyway, however.) Some parts of it are really impressive in my opinion. Tolkien managed to make many of the things work for me, which fail in later (derivative) works. Such as the dangerous country of evil, the ominous names, the beautiful elvish places and the struggle against absolute evil. I believe, perhaps that's naive, that this is because to him, these were part of a heart-felt story he wanted to write for the sake of writing it, while many others use these things "because fantasy has to have them" or because they believe it'll sell better.
I also liked the hints at more and bigger stories in the background and for me, the amount of so called "info-dumping" was right as well, even though I'm much more tolerant of this than many others.
I really should reread the books.
 

Telcontar

Staff
Moderator
Not because of its quality but its impact.

But, also because of its quality... ;)

Amanita said:
the struggle against absolute evil

I don't really see this as particularly simplistic when taken with a view to the entire world. Sauron isn't evil for evil's sake like a bad movie character - he's evil because he desires domination and control over everything. That isn't implausible. Hell, we see that in the real world all the time. His 'country' is evil because he does have complete domination over it, to a far greater extent than is possible in the real world.

Likewise, the orcs are not some genuine, natural society - not even in the way that the elves and the men are (whose creator, Illuvatar, is explicitly said to be real, which means the idea of a 'natural' society is less applicable, but oh well). Orcs were created from Elves with every intent of making an evil, vicious little creature good for causing trouble and sacrificing en masse. They aren't people, they're glorified attack dogs.
 

Edgemaker

Scribe
(I'm really not quite sure where this goes.)

Tolkien...many call him the master of fantasy. He who created the genre, he who was so original. I have to disagree. I cannot stand to read The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, etc. I hate the concept of Orcs being evil...just because their Orcs. It shows no reason other than that their evil, the same of the other evil creatures..they're just evil. Sauromon and Sauron(However you spell them) both have the same sounding name, and are both evil. That's hardly creative. The fact that a race, Elves, could be perfect in every way irks me. Everyone has their flaws, ohhh but not elves.

The giant eagles are only supposed to help in dire times of need, for the good of the world, then why not carry Frodo over the volcano and have him drop the ring? If they're only supposed to come in dire need of all mankind, then why pick Frodo and Sam up at the base of the volcano after they destroy the ring? They don't help mankind after that, people would be fine if they died.

The Ghost Army can hit people, but people can't hit the ghost army? If the Ghost army was waiting for the king, couldn't they just kill the orcs and sauron and find the king in peace? Since obviously nothing can stop them?

These are just things that bother me, I hate how people always, ALWAYS, compare other writers to Tolkien(Unless they deserve it, PAOLINI). This sounds a lot like a hate thread, but I am just voicing my opinion.


Yes Tolkien is the Father of Modern Fantasy Literature. Compared to the Princess and the Goblin, era. The orcs are those who are pure evil, because they have been twisted by the Lies of Sauron. Sauron is the ultimate evil, and his infection grows, there is no evil that is not partially good in the orcs. That is why the character of Golloum is such an amazing character he is Evil, but he is showing traits of Good and there are some times when there is a glimmer of Good, in him, but it is faint at best. As to the similarity to the names, I dunno but Tolkien went into alot of the work in the names, and the words of the language. For instance the name "Theoden" means KING in the Old English. So when in the books, movies they say "Hail Theoden King!" They are saying "Hail KING KING." which is an amazing literary Item in itself that Tolkien used to an amazing scale.

Giant Eagles versus Wraiths on Wings........nuff said. seriously though just for the sake of a good argument, I would think that Sauron from his tower in the sky would have seen the eagles coming and sent his wraiths, or would have blasted them with fire or something.

The Ghost Army, you got to admit was a pretty original use at the time, I am not aware of anyone who has used a ghost army to destroy an overwhelming foe. but I have not read as much Fantasy to be called an expert, so i dunno. Ummmm also the ghost army is MAGIC! and secondly they are wanting to be released from their misery, thus they want to be over and done with.
And it says in the book that Gandalf himself when he was sent back was prevented from challenging Sauron himself but not his servants. I think Gandalf could have taken out Sauron, but Tolkien decreed that it was not to be so, He wanted an epic battle to be drawn to the line where it was a final stand and a final roll of the dice, winner take all.
 

myrddin173

Maester
I think Gandalf could have taken out Sauron, but Tolkien decreed that it was not to be so, He wanted an epic battle to be drawn to the line where it was a final stand and a final roll of the dice, winner take all.

Oh he most definitely could have. They are both of the same order of beings, but Gandalf was by far the wiser. He was supposed to be the leader of the Istari but he didn't want to come to Middle-earth so Saruman got the job. While yes Tolkien did decree it to be so, internally it also makes sense. It was coming to the Time of Man and in order for it to actually arrive it was Men that had to defeat the Evil.

P.S. Before anyone says it was Hobbits that defeated the Evil, Hobbits are technically an offshoot of Man...
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Gandalf and Saruman were Maiar, as was Sauron. But I do not believe that either of them could have defeated Sauron. In Tolkien's own letters, Tolkien apparently says that Sauron was of a 'far higher order' than the Maiar like Saruman and Gandalf who came to Middle Earth later.

There is nothing in the stories themselves that lead me to believe that either of those wizards could have bested him. I don't think it would even have been a close fight.
 

myrddin173

Maester
I am unfamiliar with that quote...

I still think Gandalf could have won, especially if he had possession of the Ring. But then again it wouldn't really be winning if he became just as Evil as Sauron. Also the Istari were under orders from Manwe to not interfere, only advise.
 

Sheilawisz

Queen of Titania
Moderator
You know, if Middle Earth had electricity Sauron would have installed a luminous sign at the volcano: "please destroy the ring here!!" with an arrow pointing at the entrance and everything =) Really, I have always wondered why the entrance to the only place of the world where the ring could be destroyed was not heavily guarded by orcs, trolls and nazguls!!

Tolkien was a great storyteller, his works are classic literature and he practically created the style and definition of modern fantasy, but I hate when people say that he was "father of fantasy" or things like that, like he was the father of human imagination... I am happy that my own fantasy stories are something quite different to so many other series that have been influenced by Tolkien so much

The thing about the giant eagles taking Frodo to drop the ring into the volcano would have certainly worked =)
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
The thing about the giant eagles taking Frodo to drop the ring into the volcano would have certainly worked =)

I don't think so. We talk about that in the tread about plot holes, I think the chit-chat forums. There are good reasons why that would have been foolish.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
I still think Gandalf could have won, especially if he had possession of the Ring.

With the ring, I think so. I think Galadriel maybe as well, if she had the ring. But without it I don't think so :) Fun to debate, though. Like which superheroes would win.
 

myrddin173

Maester
Really, I have always wondered why the entrance to the only place of the world where the ring could be destroyed was not heavily guarded by orcs, trolls and nazguls!!

First off Nazgul is like fish, it is its own plural:D

The reason it wasn't guarded was because it never occurred to Sauron that someone would want to destroy the Ring. It is incredibly seductive, even the Hobbits who show the most resistance to its powers are not immune, just remember just what happened at the crack of doom, Frodo didn't want to destroy it. Also until shortly before the Ring's destruction the lands surrounding Orodruin were filled with orcs. Then Aragorn drew them out.

P.S. This may just be me being over-obsessive but, the world of the Lord of the Rings is no "Middle Earth" its "Middle-earth"...
 

Sheilawisz

Queen of Titania
Moderator
I still think that Sauron should have been a little more careful about the volcano, you know, make sure that EVEN if someone would want to destroy the ring despite its powers, they could not do that because the entrance itself would be guarded by something or maybe just blocked by a boulder =) I don't understand the "super evil" characters in stories really, they have a tendency to be defeated in the end because of little things like that!!

The thing about the eagles would have worked because they could have distracted Sauron long enough to fly into Mordor and drop the ring, just like they do in that video of How it should have Ended

Sorry about the Nazgul plural thing, I only read the first book of The Lord of the Rings so I don't know all the words =)
 
Top