I utterly reject the notion that a novel does not have to have an excellent plot in order to be considered a “great” work of literature. I am currently reading The Iliad and The Odyssey and I am enjoying them because they are interesting. Several months ago I picked up Ulysses and like Gilthalion, it was one of the few books that I could not finish. You want to know why? It was because it was BORING. Maybe I found Ulysses boring because I have only reached the paltry age of 17 and can not appreciate the book, or maybe it is because I understood about one of the allusions to Greek Mythology in it, but regardless I doubt Ulysses will ever be able make a chill run down my spine the same way The Lord of the Rings does. Works of literature are usually judged on two criteria; the themes which they present and the manner in which they present them. There are quite a number of themes in Tolkien’s works, (see
Whats your favorite theme?) I believe the most important ones are change that comes with time and the defeat of evil and the corrupting influence of power versus friendship and loyalty. As I’ve said in other posts one can not really judge whether or not one theme is better or more important than another, it is a matter of personal preference. You might prefer themes that relate to sexuality or spirituality, while I might prefer themes that relate to change and the corrupting influence of power. Who is to say which theme is better? As any high school student will tell you, the principal means of judging how themes are presented are language, imagery, characterization, metaphor, and yes you guessed it, plot (I’m sure I have missed a few). Some have referred to Tolkien’s language as mere “purple prose.” Maybe they are right, but then I’d have to say the same is true of Shakespeare’s plays, Milton’s religious poetry, Melville’s epic novels, and countless other writers that employ overly descriptive language. As Mister Underhill so eloquently put it, if that is purple prose than give me more. Perhaps a few of Tolkein’s characters are weak, (Merry, Pippin, and Aragorn are fairly static) but in a literary work which has almost as many characters in it as the bible can’t we allow for a few characters that aren’t perfect. I believe Frodo’s character is the ultimate model of a hero who is willing to sacrifice everything in order to save his home. Sam is the perfect model of a dedicated and loyal friend. As has been said before in this post, just because The Lord of the Rings does not accurately depict our world does not mean it is any less great of a novel. Milton’s Paradise Lost does not even attempt to create an accurate depiction of the real world, but I don’t see any critics going around bashing Milton. Maybe Tolkien fans are a little biased and defensive, but I bet if I went to some holier-than-thou intelligentsia website and posted Othello’s character is weak because he gives into Iago in like 10 minutes then I’d get quite a number violent, derogatory, and biased replies. I don’t know if The Lord of the Rings is the best novel of the 20th century, I have not read nearly enough 20th century literature to make that judgement. So far I have not read any other book that has been able to move me the way that The Lord of the Rings has. If stranded on a dessert island I would defiantly want to have The Lord of the Rings with me above any other book. Personally I have little use for most literary criticism.
Quote:
|
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
|
Literary criticism is really only good to help you pick out a book, although I like W.H. Auden’s criticisms. In the end I don’t really think such distinctions as best book of the century really mean much, it is all a matter of personal preference.
[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]