lmp – re: simplicity, you’re quite right. I don’t mean to preclude complexity in character, relationships, narrative style, or in the details of the imagined world. “Simple” is such a bugger of an imprecise term. I mean that the lives of fantasy characters are more direct and primary. When they’re threatened by evil, it’s not faceless evil like pollution or corporate sales agendas, and it’s not low-grade evil like ignorance or casual bigotry – it’s evil that burns down your village and enslaves all your people, evil that you can see (well, usually) and face and take a sword to.
Squatter’s comments are right on the money and even bear expanding upon, I think. The world portrayed must be portrayed convincingly (at least on its own terms), or “wonder” is doomed. Part of Tolkien’s genius, I think, is the creative authority he establishes very early on in LotR and maintains throughout. Middle-earth just seems “real” and internally consistent. It’s this creative authority, I think, that allows the prof to get away even with such outlandish details as Tom Bombadil, who, in any other work, I think, would smash credibility to tiny bits.
Kuruharan makes a nice point too, re: never seeing Sauron. I think of this as the John the Baptist Technique – sending other characters ahead to announce and prepare us for how to think of another character. It’s always more effective to have other characters tell us how to think about the character in question – so when people like Gandalf, Aragorn, and Elrond speak of Sauron in tones of dread and grave worry – refusing even to name him out loud – we get the idea that he’s one tough customer. Tolkien uses this method frequently. Watch how he uses the reactions and the dialogue of his characters to set us up for Khazad-dûm, for Lothlórien, for Mordor. He creates an air of wonder and mystery about these places well before we even get there – by the time his characters first clap eyes on their destination, his job is already half done.
|