New Republic Article - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Turambar · 02-02-2002, 05:29 PM

I think a lot of the criticisms in the article not well founded, and I certainbly don't like Jenkyn's style. (That sentence about furry feet and balls is just stupid. And had anyone heard the word twee before - where'd he get THAT one?) I thought there were a couple valid points in the article though. One was the fact that, as regards Frodo, the Ring seems to be a purely external force, and I believe Jenkyns compares this with more naturalistic novels where evil is shown as affecting (or arising from) the hero's character, or a flaw in his character. It's fine to say that LotR is not a naturalistic novel, but it's legitimate to question whether this makes the book better or worse. Someone pointed out (correctly, I think) in another thread that Frodo really had no real chance of resisting the Ring's power at Sammath Naur, and I think Jenkyns' point is that this detracts from the final confrontation.

The other point, already discussed above - that the novel or the created world is not fully fleshed out because there is no depiction of religion or sex - doesn't make much sense to me. I don't remember any religious practices in The Trial, and I don't remember any sex in Heart of Darkness, etc. etc. - does that mean these novels are inferior?

One final note: I always hate it when a critic takes one or two sentences from a novel (as in Jenkyns' quotation of the Withywindle passage) as a way of showing deficiencies in style. Jenkyns is probably right that an odd sentence or two in LotR is maybe not up to Tolkien's usual high standards (I seem to remember that part of Tolkien's description of Anduril is that "its edge was hard and keen" - no kidding!) but that proves nothing about a book of 1,000 pages. It's a cheap shot basically.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Turambar ]

02-02-2002, 05:29 PM	#1
Turambar Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Non-Stop Home Posts: 859	I think a lot of the criticisms in the article not well founded, and I certainbly don't like Jenkyn's style. (That sentence about furry feet and balls is just stupid. And had anyone heard the word twee before - where'd he get THAT one?) I thought there were a couple valid points in the article though. One was the fact that, as regards Frodo, the Ring seems to be a purely external force, and I believe Jenkyns compares this with more naturalistic novels where evil is shown as affecting (or arising from) the hero's character, or a flaw in his character. It's fine to say that LotR is not a naturalistic novel, but it's legitimate to question whether this makes the book better or worse. Someone pointed out (correctly, I think) in another thread that Frodo really had no real chance of resisting the Ring's power at Sammath Naur, and I think Jenkyns' point is that this detracts from the final confrontation. The other point, already discussed above - that the novel or the created world is not fully fleshed out because there is no depiction of religion or sex - doesn't make much sense to me. I don't remember any religious practices in The Trial, and I don't remember any sex in Heart of Darkness, etc. etc. - does that mean these novels are inferior? One final note: I always hate it when a critic takes one or two sentences from a novel (as in Jenkyns' quotation of the Withywindle passage) as a way of showing deficiencies in style. Jenkyns is probably right that an odd sentence or two in LotR is maybe not up to Tolkien's usual high standards (I seem to remember that part of Tolkien's description of Anduril is that "its edge was hard and keen" - no kidding!) but that proves nothing about a book of 1,000 pages. It's a cheap shot basically. [ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Turambar ] __________________ In the upper air the fireflies move more slowly.