The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

Nar · 04-04-2002, 10:09 PM

Two points that Tolkein deals with well, and many imitators do not: Character Complications and Language

Character:
I think the original Fantasy/Fairy Tale impulse (way back when stories were memorized and chanted around a fire) was to expand a complicated human personality into a number of simple characters-- one becomes many-- and have them work the conflicts out in a large, mythic landscape with big gestures --like falling into the Cracks of Doom, for example. I think in a work of stereotypicly 'high' literature, Gollum, Sam and Frodo would all be aspects of Frodo, and we would be hearing about an internal struggle-- it would all happen in Frodo's study at Bag End --and it would not be nearly as much fun! Still. A big part of what drives devotees of 'high literature' away from fantasy is this transformation of an internal struggle between different impulses in an individual into an external struggle between characters who are emblems. This simplifying of character seems to happen in any genre-- and it is at its worst when an author wants to reliably punch those same old emotional buttons, and so falls into a formula that guarantees the reader reaction. Tolkein ingeniously manages to have it both ways. He has the accessible, ordinary hobbits, and the grand, remote warriors reciting anglo-saxon verse. And the transition figures, like Gandalf, who function in both modes. Every imitator has tried to follow this formula, so why hasn't it worked for all the others? Perhaps part of it is the author himself. Tolkein was a grown man who'd lost friends and been in a war. For many of his imitators, I think, death and war are symbols of psychic angst. For him, they were real and literal as well as symbolic and psychological, and that may have enriched his characters.

Ok, Language
Part of what makes the books work so well is his marvelous feel for the music of the words. In the movie, or any other fantasy imitation, new-minted nonsense words are hurled at our heads-- as featured in all the parodies in this stream-- Or in the movie-- 'We must cross the pass of $$%^%$& --No! To the bridge of &^*(&)(*(^! You fool! Have you forgotten? The gates of *&%^&^$%$ have been closed against us ever since *^*&^ was slain on the steps of ^&*$%!' It doesn't really matter what the words are. It's like being repeatedly slapped in the face with a dictonary. Ok, a paperback thesaurus, then. Each time Tolkein coins a word, we are treated to a little prose-poem on the word-- 'Lothlorien--oh, the golden woods of laurelindorian in the spring..' --you get the idea-- forgive me if I misquote. That extra paragraph as our author hypnotically murmurs in our ear his jazz variations on the sounds and meaning of the new word is what makes all the difference. These words are coined by a jazz master who loves their music.

04-04-2002, 10:09 PM	#46
Nar Wight Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 228	Two points that Tolkein deals with well, and many imitators do not: Character Complications and Language Character: I think the original Fantasy/Fairy Tale impulse (way back when stories were memorized and chanted around a fire) was to expand a complicated human personality into a number of simple characters-- one becomes many-- and have them work the conflicts out in a large, mythic landscape with big gestures --like falling into the Cracks of Doom, for example. I think in a work of stereotypicly 'high' literature, Gollum, Sam and Frodo would all be aspects of Frodo, and we would be hearing about an internal struggle-- it would all happen in Frodo's study at Bag End --and it would not be nearly as much fun! Still. A big part of what drives devotees of 'high literature' away from fantasy is this transformation of an internal struggle between different impulses in an individual into an external struggle between characters who are emblems. This simplifying of character seems to happen in any genre-- and it is at its worst when an author wants to reliably punch those same old emotional buttons, and so falls into a formula that guarantees the reader reaction. Tolkein ingeniously manages to have it both ways. He has the accessible, ordinary hobbits, and the grand, remote warriors reciting anglo-saxon verse. And the transition figures, like Gandalf, who function in both modes. Every imitator has tried to follow this formula, so why hasn't it worked for all the others? Perhaps part of it is the author himself. Tolkein was a grown man who'd lost friends and been in a war. For many of his imitators, I think, death and war are symbols of psychic angst. For him, they were real and literal as well as symbolic and psychological, and that may have enriched his characters. Ok, Language Part of what makes the books work so well is his marvelous feel for the music of the words. In the movie, or any other fantasy imitation, new-minted nonsense words are hurled at our heads-- as featured in all the parodies in this stream-- Or in the movie-- 'We must cross the pass of $$%^%$& --No! To the bridge of &^(&)((^! You fool! Have you forgotten? The gates of &%^&^$%$ have been closed against us ever since ^&^ was slain on the steps of ^&$%!' It doesn't really matter what the words are. It's like being repeatedly slapped in the face with a dictonary. Ok, a paperback thesaurus, then. Each time Tolkein coins a word, we are treated to a little prose-poem on the word-- 'Lothlorien--oh, the golden woods of laurelindorian in the spring..' --you get the idea-- forgive me if I misquote. That extra paragraph as our author hypnotically murmurs in our ear his jazz variations on the sounds and meaning of the new word is what makes all the difference. These words are coined by a jazz master who loves their music.