[The Saucepan Man]

First point to make is that, in the "Dumbing-Down in the Film" thread, Estelyn asked that a new topic be started in this forum to continue the discussion that had arisen specifically with regard to the book. So, this discussion should focus on the book alone. Any discussion about the films should be continued in the Films forum.

Secondly, I'm not sure that the title really works for this thread. I don't believe that there is any suggestion that the book has been "dumbed-down". Eurytus is arguing that the book, while very good, is not flawless, and has cited a number of examples of aspects where he/she feels that they are open to criticism.

On the question of whether LotR is flawless, I would agree with Eurytus that very few works of art, if any, can be described as perfect in every respect. Indeed such an ideal is surely nigh on impossible, if not actually impossible, to attain.

I would also agree with Eurytus that LotR, as a book, cannot be described as technically flawless. In fact, I think that contrary view in unarguable. There are many respects in which LotR doesn't follow what are generally considered to be the standard requirements of a novel.

Character development is a clear example of this. However much Legolas may have longed for the sea and however much his relationship with Gimli developed, the fact remains that they are still incredibly underdeveloped characters for a work of fiction of this breadth. In fact, I would say the same about Aragorn. He really is a rather two-dimensional character too. The reason for this? The book is written from the persepective of the Hobbits, mainly Frodo and Sam, but also Merry and Pippin in parts. So we learn far more about their thoughts and feelings, and see far more of their development as characters, than with the other characters in the book. And personally I think that this works well, since the reader can identify with them more than with the likes of Aragorn. We follow these innocent, unprepossessing little characters as they are propelled into events of great magnitude, see them grow in the face of such events and see how their qualities (bravery, loyalty, friendship etc) can win even the mightiest of victories. For me, this is where LotR is coming from, and so it makes sense that we see it all through the eyes of the Hobbits. And what would they know about Legolas' inner thoughts? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Another fair point that Eurytus makes is that good and evil are overly simplified. It is all "black and white" and no "shades of grey". Again, however, I don't necessarily see this as a criticism. For all his absence from the pages, Sauron is an incredibly easy villain for all readers, young and old, to understand. In essence, he is evil and that is all there is to it. No further explanation is required because that's the way it is. If the book carried out a psychological study of Sauron and his motives it would certainly be a different book - but not necessarily a better one. Of course, we can discuss Sauron's motives by reference to Tolkien's other writings, but that is not necessary for the enjoyment of the book. Rather, Sauron's "one-dimensional" evil creates the perfect backdrop for the struggle which Tolkien portrays in LotR and, in many ways, Sauron's mystery makes him a far more oppressive and terrifying villain.

Similarly with the Orcs. The fact that they are born evil and remain evil may give rise to potential philosophical issues, such as whether they are capable of repentance etc, as Tolkien himself discovered in his later writings. But they make for perfectly simple and straightforward bad guys. Eurytus, you make the point that there are no "moral" issues with regard to the killing of orcs because they are inherently evil, and criticise this as being overly-simplistic. But it is for this very reason that orcs make such great bad guys. The reader does not have to worry about whether killing orcs is a good thing or not. Orcs are bad and so killing them is a good thing. There is no moral issue, and so we can sit back and appreciate the events that are being portrayed (whether they be Helm's Deep or Balin's Tomb) and their significance to the story that is being told, rather than being distracted by some moral dilemma. A story does not have to be morally challenging to be a good one.

And, if you want the "grey" areas, they are, as Essex points out, there in the Men that are pressed into the service of Sauron and Saruman. Sam's musings on the fallen Southron capture this issue perfectly. As for the Dunlendings, I don't think that Tolkien is suggesting that they are all bad and the Rohirrim are all good. There is, as with all these types of issue, fault on both sides (this comes out particularly in the Appendix, but is touched on in the book). And I believe that the Rohirrim showed the Dunlendings mercy following the battle of Helm's Deep and that the two races of Man made their peace thereafter.

As for lack of loss, I think that the loss that Frodo suffers is more than enough to cover this theme. Essex has noted a number of other ways in which the various characters suffered loss. Some of those losses are more grievous than others. But it is noticeable that Aragorn does not feature on the list. However, do we really have to see each of the characters suffer great loss in order for the story to work? For me, this theme is amply covered by Frodo's loss, which gives the book its bitter-sweet ending. It also ties in with the idea of the reader seeing the events throught the eyes of the Hobbits. It is one of these characters who we have "lived with" throughout the story that suffers the loss and so we feel it more keenly than had Aragorn, say, suffered in the same way.

You can look at the points discussed above as flaws. Or you can see them as strengths. It depends upon which angle you are coming at it from. Ultimately, it is all subjective. One person may regard a book as near as perfect, while another regards it as deeply flawed. It is the same book, but it resonates differently with each person.

In the end, I think that it is better to judge a book on its popularity and on the depth of affection that it generates, rather than on its technical qualities. LotR is not flawless. But, on these criteria, it must surely be counted among the all-time greats. On the basis of the odds assigned by the bookmakers, LotR looks likely to get a top five place in the BBC's search for Britain's favourite book, and it's still in with a chance of the top spot. And that, surely, makes it a pretty good book, flawless or not. [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

Edited having read Eurytus' post: Many of the more detailed points such as the Eagles/Deus ex Machina issue have been addressed in detail in other threads. It might be better to stick to the broader points here, or this thread could go of in all kinds of directions (such as provoking discussion on the old "racism in LotR" chestnut, which also has a number of threads devoted to it).

Straight of the top of my head I could pick several of Dicken’s novels that supersede LOTR. Not to mention some Tolstoy. Or the Catcher in the Rye. Or A Clockwork Orange.

Eurytus, the point is, and my point is, that that is your opinion. Many others (myself included) would class LotR as their favourite book. Does that make it the best book ever written? It depends upon which criteria you are judgin it. In technical terms, no it's not. But the fact that so many people do class it as their favourite book must make it one of the most popular books ever written. And since books are written to be read, popularity is surely one way of defining quality. Ergo, I would say that LotR can justifiably be described as one of the best books ever written. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ October 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Saucepan Man ]