confessions of a LOTR hater
March 31, 2008Things have been relatively quiet here, cheese curd quest aside. And now that spring break is over and a new quarter begins, I’m sure that things will be quite busy, since I’m TAing a class this term on Tolkien. This means that I finally had to read the LOTR trilogy, which I believe I did in record time (for me). And now that I’ve done so, I found that while I enjoyed the second and third books more than the first, the whole thing still just isn’t my cup of tea and I’m not entirely sure why.
I don’t know if it’s something about the fantasy genre in general. I don’t really think of myself as inherently opposed to it–I like swords and magic and evil monsters and whatnot. But I admit having more of a penchant for sci-fi, where there’s usually more of an attempt to explain the world logically, and an interest in causes and consequences rather than the more destiny-oriented story lines you find in fantasy. At the same time, I do like ancient epics like the Iliad and Beowulf, and I did like the Harry Potter books, which were also clearly fantasy.
I think the bigger problem for me was the characters in Tolkien and the fact that they’re all more archetypal than believable psychological beings. Now, I’m sure that there are people who would take issue with that statement, but for me all of the characters fell flat. I recognize that the characters do exhibit some growth over the course of 1000 pages (unlike in The Hobbit where Bilbo spent pretty much the entire book being a whiney antihero). But I couldn’t help but feeling that they were all distant, stilted, and predictable. I had a brief moment of hope toward the end of the third book (spolier coming up if anyone other there still doesn’t know the story) where I thought Tolkien could redeem himself. I wanted Sam to have to throw Frodo into the Crack of Doom to destroy the Ring. Because you *knew* Frodo was not going to be able to give the Ring up. But no, predictably, Tolkien choose not to present Sam with a psychologically difficult choice and he let Gollum do the dirty work, which not only made for a happy ending for all, but also conveniently brought Gollum some semblance of redemption despite all his treachery.
Anyway, I’m not really saying Tolkien should have written the books differently. I’m mostly just trying to put into words why I disliked the books. I’m hoping that if I can come up with thoughtful ways of articulating my disappointment with the trilogy, maybe I won’t get lynched by 60-some LOTR-loving undergrads in the class.
This could be why. Oh god, did I just use a secondary historical source to explain a work of fiction? Ewwww…I need to take a hot bath…arrr…it’s full of stars! Yog Soggoth…aaaaaaa…they have me!…save yourselves….!
Comment by Redking — March 31, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Hey, don’t be trash talking secondary sources, mister. I’m going to write one of those things myself someday! But I agree that Tolkien’s Christian themes are a bit annoying (could Frodo have possibly turned the other cheek one more time?), although by no means as annoying as C. S. Lewis. I fairly loathed the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
BTW, I think you need to lay off the crack. It should really help you cut down on those monster hallucinations ;-)
Comment by R. Batty — March 31, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
It could be that the series was a success *because* it relies on the archetypal essence of the characters. We all need mythology in one form or another, and Tolkien set out to create a mythology for his bonny England. That and perhaps he was too busy inventing languages and the orc to be bothered with complex character development. Whatever the reason, all I know is that the last thing my D&D character in high school (a saucy thief) had on her mind was being complex. But archetypes have their uses, and once understood (even in the frozen-pizza and caffeine-free-diet-pepsi land of high school D&D), they are recognized and reply over and over in the external life. We all have our distorted heroes, our shadow-dragons, our faithful compatriots, our absurd and abstract Sauron-like villains. Indeed, like in D&D (directly drawn from Tolkien’s mythology), characters are limited by their strengths but especially by their weaknesses: it takes a group to make a quest worthwhile and effective, because they pick up the slack. To grow as a character means to choose additional skills as you level, but many times these choices are made for the good of the group in order to account for others’ failings.
For my part (and perhaps due to my archetypal sensitivities), I always wanted Frodo to be the hero, and throw the ring in with determination and triumph. But he’s not and he didn’t - he’s flawed and selfish and entirely human in his own way. But it was friendship that got him in - and out - of Mt. Doom. And that’s the lesson perhaps. A real one that even transcends D&D. Maybe thanks to archetypes, my D&D friends have been lifelong stalwarts, and they have often picked up my slack.
Christianity was simply a handy mythology to draw from for Tolkien, if that’s what he did. And a convenient one that his readers would readily understand. By no means was he as devout or theologically minded as C.S. Lewis. And Christianity does not have a monopoly on mythology - but it did do a good job of absorbing everyone else’s along the way, compounding its success. Frodo could easily be read as Gilgamesh, and Sam as Enkidu.
Comment by dana — April 1, 2008 @ 9:25 am
These are all good points, but unfortunately the only thing I took away was a disturbing slash fic of Frodo & Sam wrestling for 3(? been awhile) days :)
Comment by Redking — April 1, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
well yes. That was in the second draft, as was the part where Sam tore off Galadriel’s ass. Priceless. :-)
Comment by dana — April 1, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
Hmm, I think that you’re both right and wrong in that analysis. Heh, don’t you love obnoxious comments like that? Okay, so first off, I think it’s a point well taken that archetypes are integral to myth and it’s true that Tolkien hoped to create a mythology for his modern man. Now, I think that’s still part of the reason why the books don’t necesarily float my boat–I like people more than archetypes. But that’s by no means a grounds for criticizing Tolkien and I didn’t mean it to be taken that way.
But I do disagree about the significance of Christianity for Tolkien. True, Lewis was more heavy-handed in how he placed Christianity in his books, but I think Tolkien was deeply committed to his faith. Tolkien believed that myth revealed truth–Christian myth especially. It’s only natural that the mythology he so carefully crafted would wholeheartedly embody his Catholic value system. So you could say that Frodo was a Gilgamesh, but only insofar as they were both archetypes of heroes, but for different ages with different values. Frodo’s remarkable spirit of forgiveness was nothing at all akin to Gilgamesh’s rage and sorrow at the loss of Enkidu. Frodo’s values fall in line much more with the self-sacrifice, forgiveness, and love-thy-neighbor-as-thyself of Christianity than any other hero of ages past. And isn’t Frodo the only character who never kills anyone? I don’t think that’s accidental, even when the others are wholly justified, Frodo still remains elevated to a level of purity that they other characters can’t ever acheive. As for Frodo’s inability to destroy the Ring, to me this seemed less like a sign of his frailty and humanity and more a plot device that allowed Gollum to obtain some semblance of redemption and to justify Frodo’s mercy towards him. In essence, it was necessary for Frodo to fail in order to show that he had really been the most sublime of all the Company.
But that isn’t to say your other point, about a balance of archetype, isn’t also true. I think Tolkien makes the point quite clearly that there is a need and a purpose behind all the characters, even those seemingly useless little hobbits! Moreover, he’s very clear that one of Sauron’s weaknesses is the bickering of his orc troops. They might be joined together in fear and greed, but that makes for a sorry defense against their enemies who are unified in heart and in battle.
I happily await a rebuttal. But please, let’s not even get started on myth and man-love! ;-)
Comment by R. Batty — April 1, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
Well, I’ll say you’re on your way to handling those fervent undergraduates! (And fervent graduates…)
I begrudgingly admit that there are traces of Christian values embedded in the actions and portrayal of Frodo (and others). Although one could also easily say these fall in line with Buddhism, or Judaism, or Islam, or even some civil code about how to behave towards one another. I guess I really resist the notion that LOTR was a platform for proselytizing (in any form); the books convey a story far different from the obvious sacrifice and resurrection of Aslan. Although, perhaps betraying my simpleness about such matters, the CoN-LWW had to be explained to me as a child (but I won’t attempt to recount my abject disappointment in learning this truth). In contrast, my reading of LOTR has always been one of universal human truths, that we have more in common that we are different (the “unlikely hero” in the guise of the Hobbit, in this case). I guess I just feel it’s too easy to simply write-off LOTR as an embodiment of Tolkien’s Christian/Catholic value system. Seems too convenient, too obvious, too dismissive of its obvious complexity. But then again, perhaps I’m reliving my disappointment regarding Aslan’s fate. (Or maybe I read too much Joseph Campbell as a kid!)
I have to say, I’m still working out your take on Gollum. This has been a sticking point for me for years, although one I never really thought about too much. (Like the obvious problem of Jesus on the cross cursing God, then dying. How does this work out theologically. I mean, really.) So, forgive me if I think out loud here. For one, the events in Mt. Doom stray from cookie-cutter mythology - roles are turned upside down, and the hero becomes complicit, and, in a way, unredeemable. Sam was the one who gave Gollum his last act of mercy, firmly motivated by pity, a horrible human emotion if there ever was one. Pity was also the reason Frodo refused to hurt Gollum, and pity is a far cry from Christian generosity, and turning cheeks. And pity set into motion the final conflict – back with Bilbo, even!
This being said, Gollum does, in a perverse way, save Frodo from himself, and Gollum finishes the quest for him, although without conscious will or recognition of it - a necessary requirement for redemption. I do see your point about Frodo needing to fail in order to justify Gollum’s presence and part in the story – and thus prove his sublimity. But, in a weird way, I’ve always read Gollum as Frodo’s counterpart, his shadow and his fate. As a result, Sam generally becomes the center of activity, and I’ve often wondered whether LOTR is about Sam, not Frodo. (But then again, the title is: “Lord of the Rings”, so it must be about Sauron, right?) Perhaps it’s Sam’s sublimity we are to recognize and appreciate? But I really do see your point about Frodo’s elevation, regardless of his actions, and that it could be taken to be a kind of Christian lesson. Maybe this again betrays my simpleness, but it just seems a bit more complex than that. I’m not saying that Christianity isn’t complex; just that I don’t exactly see easy corollaries to the themes you described.
Frodo can “forgive” Gollum, and credit him with the success of the quest, but it is not a happy or triumphant ending. The thing to be overcome (one’s shadow, or “the dark side”) was actually overcome by an agent of the shadow. Really, that’s my sticking point. What the heck is Frodo forgiving him *for*? Forgive Gollum for biting off his finger (which held the ring that Frodo claimed and refused to destroy)? That seems to be the right reading given the dialogue, but that’s a little thin. Or forgive him for taking the ring from Frodo, thus denying Frodo his own Precious? Forgive him for making them feel pity? True, Gollum had something to do (as mentioned in Gandalf’s admonition), but what was that, really? Short answer: destroy the ring and thus, Sauron. Long answer: huh? I guess I’m hard pressed to see or understand how Christian Charity, forgiveness, redemption or salvation make an appearance here. Although I’m similarly flummoxed about what it could mean, save that it is a commentary on the complexity of the human condition, and that we cannot go it alone. We are all the “unlikely heroes” of our own journey. And we all need others to pick up our slack. Even if that other is a terrible shadow of ourselves. Or a “true friend.” Or perhaps Frodo is forgiving himself? Except he goes to the Grey Havens unredeemed, as his only regret is that the ring was destroyed: He did not become the master of the ring, but still remained its slave even after its destruction. So, it’s not a “journey of the hero” in the traditional (or Tarot or Christian) mythological sense, and perhaps that’s why it’s so vexing. But it’s also, in my opinion, not exclusively Christian.
Perhaps my reading is too simple, and too much based on archetypes. And maybe I’m ignoring the obvious out of sheer reluctance. Then again, perhaps it’s just this kind of good clean debate fun that is a marker of how exceptional LOTR is? ;-)
Anyhow, we can continue this over dinner? I’m sure the prospies would love a good dork-earful!
Comment by dana — April 2, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Ok. I finally read Jason’s blasted secondary source in its entirety. I could make this post a reflection upon how one blithely and blindly ignores what one wishes in the hope that the ego can hold out just a wee bit longer. I still think that the “deeply buried” Christianity is couched in useful and mythological archetypes, but I’ll admit there might be a subtext there I hadn’t considered. There. I said it. O&O
Comment by dana — April 5, 2008 @ 8:58 am