Top film list

[S4ur0n27]

I don't think Tolkien tried to put any main theme into LotR, except the perpetual fight between Good and Evil, which balances the world. If you read the Silmarils(or w/e the title is in english) you can clearly see that. But I don't think there is any meaning or lesson behind it. The guy did WW1 so obviously you can trace some influence of it in his books.

About the LotR movies, I think the books are better, since not Hollywood adapted, but I still admit the movies are entertaining and fun. The only thing that pisses me off is this Tyler-bitch they put in everywhere, but they are well-directed (not a masterpiece tho), the acting is OK(except for Tyler!!) and the effects are good.

I'm not going into an analysis of LotR. Tolkien wrote my favorite books, and he did initiate me to literacy. LotR gave me the bite for reading and I can't stop since I read it. I didn't close myself to Fantasy tho.

[Franz Schubert]

That's cool. I hate it when people take the view that Tolkien is the only Fantasy ever written and everything else is sacriligious blasphemy (redundant?) Anyway, there is some quality non-Tolkien Fantasy out there, you just have to know where to look (Because admittedly, there's a lot of shit also)

[S4ur0n27]

Well the fantasy genre is over used, like anything else, and thus is full of shit. We had this discussion on anime also in another thread.

Tho I didn't like Tolkien's book because it was full of sword and sorcery. Good genre-books are good because they don't only relate to the genre.

[Kashluk]

And the elf-language Tolkien created is mostly based on Finnish language & our folklore.

Yeah, like somebody cares.

[S4ur0n27]

I'm sure atoga doesn't.

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

Well the fantasy genre is over used, like anything else, and thus is full of shit. We had this discussion on anime also in another thread.

Tho I didn't like Tolkien's book because it was full of sword and sorcery. Good genre-books are good because they don't only relate to the genre.

i dont remember that much magic in those books at all.

go read some forgotten realms if you want some nice swell guy magic users going on quests to assemble the dildo of the emperor +4

[OnTheBounce]

Main point of the theme? So tell me what is your take on it? World War II? The Russian Revolution? Something new? On second thought don't bother telling me, I've heard them all. So many theories, too bad Tolkien was just trying to write a story based in the new world he was thinking up.

I don't know about the "main point of the theme". All I said was "the main point of them" (i.e. the books). Tolkien was essentially just sitting down to write himself -- as I said before -- a linguist's wet dream. There are lots of influences in the book, sure, like the fact that WWII (filtered through a propaganda lens) does seem to seep into them, but that would be hard not to do considering that LotR was largely written during WWII. Yes, you could argue that the Hobbits are English commoners rising up to take on foreign challenges, and that certain characters are those that march off to war, only to return and not feel comfortable in their previous surroundings and a whole lot of other things. But basically these books are really just Tolkien sitting down to fuse a bunch of disparate elements from Christian theology to various types of folklore, even his own experiences in the Great War, and a healthy dose of what he knew best: language. It seems he had his own pleasure in mind more than anything. It's not like the LotR books were immediate best sellers. They became cult classics in the '60s, but didn't start to sell really well until the '70s.

I think it's very telling that the songs that were so prevalent in the book were left out of the movies.

i dont remember that much magic in those books at all.

There's lots of magic in the books. It's just not as overt as magic is in various D&D settings where wizards are a bit more flamboyant, tossing fireballs at each other almost like gunfighters in the legendary Old West. Magic in Tolkien's world is more like it was in various mythic and legendary settings, often being employed in the creation of items that would enable heros to complete quests or in building fortresses. (The gates of Moria come to mind.)

OTB

[Doyle]

Tolkein intended the books to be a sort of English mythology. You already noted that Hobbits were like English commoners, it's really just a simple matter of extending that analogy further. Have you ever read the Silmarillion? He didn't just write a story to go along with his language, there's a whole history there. I guess you could say it all culminates with The Lord of the Rings, when magic leaves the world as we know it and the solid, rural middle-class (Hobbits) inheret Middle-Earth.

FYI, Tolkein himself denied that his experiences in war had significant influence on the book, although a lot of poorly made Tolkein biographies try to claim that they did.

[OnTheBounce]

Have you ever read the Silmarillion?

Yes, that's why I brought up the influence of Christian theology.

FYI, Tolkein himself denied that his experiences in war had significant influence on the book, although a lot of poorly made Tolkein biographies try to claim that they did.

Remember my quote from Nabokov a while back about it being childish to study a work of fiction to gain information about the author? There's something to that. However, it does seem like both Bilbo and Frodo go out into the great unknown and come back never to be quite comfortable w/the banalities of Hobbit life.

Then there's the story that Isaac Asimov relates of his being a guest speaker at a university. While he was there he noticed that a German philosopher was lecturing on some of his works, so he decided to attend. He sat and listened, and when it was over he went up to the lecturer and said, "Your lecture was quite interesting. However, there are several points that I would disagree on. Oh, by the way, I'm Isaac Asimov."

The philosopher looked at him and said, "Mr. Asimov! It's a pleasure to meet you, I'm really a great fan of your work. But tell me, what was it that convinced you that just because you wrote the story means that you know anything about it?"

OTB

[Radoteur]

Well the fantasy genre is over used, like anything else, and thus is full of shit. We had this discussion on anime also in another thread.

Tho I didn't like Tolkien's book because it was full of sword and sorcery. Good genre-books are good because they don't only relate to the genre.

I'm not sure about this, but wasn't Tolkien's work some of the first fantasy genre work?

[Doyle]

Perhaps Tolkein himself may provide the best insight.

It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels...

But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of an author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead. Or to take a less grievous matter: it has been supposed by some that 'The Scouring of the Shire' reflects the situation in England at the time when I was finishing my tale. It does not. It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset, though in the even modified by the character of Saruman as developed in the story without, need I say, any allegorical significance or contemporary political reference whatsoever. It has indeed some basis in experience, though slender (for the economic situation was entirely different), and much further back. The country in which I lived in childhood was being shabbily destroyed before I was ten, in days when motor-cars were rare objects (I had never seen one) and men were still building suburban railways. Recently I saw in a paper a picture of the last decrepitude of the once thriving corn-mill beside its pool thatlong ago seemed to me so important. I never liked the looks of the Young miller, but his father, the Old miller, had a black beard, and he was not named Sandyman.

Perhaps your German philosopher is confused about applicability? While someone may take whatever meaning he wants from a text, there is no one who knows that text more intimately than the man who conceived it, and therefore no more qualified to make judgments about its actual meaning.

Either way, Tolkein spoke for himself on the topic, and rather persuasively in my opinion. There you have it.

[OnTheBounce]

"My German philosopher" was referring to the fact that there is entropy between what an author intends and what is actually put on paper. (I'm not advocating the, "You-can-see-this-if-only-you-blur-your-vision-enough" school of pseudo-literary criticism.) An author may intend one thing but the finished product is quite another. Just like calling on "the designer's original vision" for what Fallout ought to be will invariably run into the snag of contradicting what Fallout actually was as a game. (Yes, I've run into that snag a few times m'self.)

Basically, what "my German philosopher" was saying is that the author is not the ultimate authority on a text. Which brings me to your claim that no one knows a text better than the author. That is nothing short of absurd. I guarantie you that there are people alive today that know more about Shakespeare's plays than he ever did. While the Bard might have been able to shed some light on what he was attempting to do, thinking about, amusing anecdotes about what occured during the writing, etc., he did not devote his life to the study of his own plays, unlike other people who came later who spend years scouring the texts. (That is to say that it seems you're confusing "author's intention" with "actual meaning".)

I can't remember exactly which Tolkien biography I read (it was back in '82), but I do remember that it was his "official" one. I do recall his having denied sitting down to write an allegory, and if you recall I said earlier that his main focus was language. To clarrify: I don't mean the invention of fictional language(s). The man obviously loved language, and his writing was him rooting his fingers 'round in his favorite clay. While there are other aspects of what he was doing, Tolkien was, first and foremost, someone who loved language. (Thanfully he wasn't writing to garner a paycheck out of a mass audience...)

Also, like I said earlier, I seriously doubt that he could have written what he did at the point in time that he did -- since he didn't live in a cave, cut off from the outside world -- and not have it tinge what he wrote, and your quotation supports that. I did not say that it was intended as an allegory of WWII.

I am, however, forced to concede the part about "experiences in WWI". The theme of alienation from a group after an adventure, or not quite fitting in from the beginning is a pretty damned widespread one. It does seem, though, that this affected him in later life. Then again, how could you experience the trenches and not be affected by them? IIRC he was at the Battle of the Somme, which is where he caught Trench Fever and was evacuated three days before his regiment went over the top and suffered the most appalling losses.

OTB

[Doyle]

My argument really boils down to this: a reader viewing a story through his own ideological filters and personal experiences will come up with a certain meaning colored by those filters. I think it's reasonable to state that the ideology and experiences the author based his writing on are not the same, therefore the meaning will not be the same. We can study the author's life to perhaps gain a better understanding, but we may not be able to correctly interpret the emotions the author felt or the specific experiences he drew upon -- as you put it, Shakespeare's anecdotes -- so we may never view the story in the same light as Tolkein. Now, since you've already admitted that not every possible interpretation is valid, it seems like we're going to have to trust that the author knew what he wanted to communicate. At least in this case he told us what personal experiences he drew upon for the Scouring of the Shire. Differences that you perceive between what he tells us it means and what it actually says may be 'accidental' as you suggest, or it may be an incorrect interpretation colored by your own perspectives.

[OnTheBounce]

I spent god-knows-how long typing my last reply, my connection cut off because I'd been idle and when I get back you revise your argument! Argh!!! Doyle, you are a fuck-head!!!

Since I'm now suffering from nicotine withdrawal I'm going to have to make this quick so that I can go cram some cash in the hands of the local cancer merchant and then puff away to my heart's delight...or chagrin, as the case may be.

Basically, "communication" and "expression" are not the same thing. When an author sits down to write something he/she expresses something. That expression itself is filtered through language, which doesn't really accurately reflect the expression. Then add to that the fact that authors aren't completely aware of what they're doing -- none of us are, our subconscious is pulling strings w/o us being aware of it and also there are environmental factors -- and we have a real mess on our hands.

To be clear, I'm not saying that "every possible interpretation is valid". That's the sort of thing that gets us illiterate graduates of our high schools that can't actually reason nor debate to save their life. (I've been sifting through shit like that for several nights trying to find out about The Tempest and whether or not Forbidden Planet is a reinterpretation of it.) What I am saying is that there can be interpretations more accurate than the author's. I am not saying that any semi-illiterate phillistine in our schools is just as informed as the author him/herself.

Yes, the author can say, "I based X section on Y phenomenon/experience/etc.," but he she may very well not even be aware of what really shaped the experience. For instance, in the bio that you read, did it mention that Tolkien was bitten by (IIRC) a tarantula when he was 2 or 3 in South Africa? An experience like that could very well account for the appearance of giant spiders (Shelob, et al) even if the author doesn't consciously remember it. So an author's statement as to whether he/she based X on Y shouldn't necessarily be taken as gospel truth. Someone coming along later and looking at the person's work, augmenting that w/a study of the person's life, as well as they milieu that the work(s) were fashioned in can see things about the work that the author was not conscious of. He/she may also be able to deduce -- in a general way -- what shaped the work. Do you see my point?

You are absolutely right, you will never be able to experience a story as the author would have, or any other human being for that matter. We are indeed cut off and constrained by both reality and the filters that we perceive it through.

This debate is a bit nebulous, but then again we're trying to compress a subject that volume after volume has been written about into a couple of posts on a message board fired off within a few minutes of each other. Hopefully we'll be able to refine our ideas even if we can't nab that shibbolithic hobgoblin "consensus".

I've really got to go now...or more people will die on the way to the store... :O

Cheers,

OTB

PS Not my German philospher. Asimov's German philosopher. Read about it in short story anthology as part of section heading. Asimov used it to illustrate how he became convinced that he wasn't as knowledgeable on his own work as he thought he was.

[Doyle]

I spent god-knows-how long typing my last reply, my connection cut off because I'd been idle and when I get back you revise your argument! Argh!!! Doyle, you are a fuck-head!!!

Ahahahaha! Yeah, I'm a dirty little bastard, all right. This revision communicates my intended meaning better, though. :p

Ok, this debate is pretty 'foggy', but we can agree on some issues, at least. We both agree that no two people can experience a story the same way, even if they can be largely similar. Also, I think we can agree that we're affected by both conscious and unconscious thoughts, and that these both affect our works, art and otherwise.

(Interesting point about the tarantula, by the way. There's a lot of evil spiders or spider-related imagry in his books. Aside from the Ungoliant, Shelob and her offspring in Mirkwood, Gandalf made the statement that even a spider may have a weak thread when discussing his imprisonment by Saruman, and I believe Tolkein referred to Gollum as spider-like a few times. I've got a book with Farmer Giles of Ham and I believe one other short story of his lying around somewhere. I'll have to read through those again and see if there's any spider imagry in those stories.

Of course, it could just be that spiders are just pure evil. Tiny frogs with sticky feet could do the job just as well, and they might actually be cute instead of hideous.)

It seems like the main point of contention is how important the intentions of the author are compared to unintentional or perceived meanings in his work.

Now, whether you view art as a form of communication or expression, in each instance there must be something that the artist desires to evoke. In other words, the artist has to have a clear intention in order to create art. Tolkein's intention, at least in part, with 'The Scouring of the Shire' was to express what he felt as a child. Now, I'll admit that his experiences with war must have had some affect on his writing, but the issue we have to address is whether or not this unintended effect overpowered his intended goal.

I believe that in this case one set of experiences augments the other. He was thinking of his childhood, but it may be that the emotions he associates with this childhood experience were reinforced by his more recent experiences with the war. That doesn't mean that the experiences from the wars overpowered his childhood memory, or even that it significantly altered the emotions that were connected with his childhood. It seems like his intentions were specific and powerful enough that throwing the wars into the mix doesn't have a hugely significant impact on that part of the story.

As for whether it's possible in general for unintentional meanings to overwhelm the intended meanings... Well, that might be quite a bit more complicated. However, I believe that the primary consideration should always be what the artist intended to communicate or express, that's the reason the art exists in the first place. If the untinended meanings cannot overpower the intended meanings, then my that no one can know the author's work more intimately than the author himself stands.

[Franz Schubert]

I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

That settles it then.

"Mr. Asimov! It's a pleasure to meet you, I'm really a great fan of your work. But tell me, what was it that convinced you that just because you wrote the story means that you know anything about it?"

LOL he kerpizzled Asimov.

About the whole fantasy-bashing that's been going on, I think the main problem is that everyone is judgeing the entire fantasy genre by one or two bad experiences. For instance, I'm not even a fan of Forgotten Realms, but I love Dragonlance (It's written much more in the vein of LotR).

[S4ur0n27]

OK, I think I didn't explain myself clearly.

LotR and other JRRT's books are my favorites books.

BUT, I liked them NOT ONLY because they were fantasy. I do appreciate fantasy in general(moderate tho), but it wasn't the swords and sorcery which appealed me the most the his books.

[Grey Fil]

I also liked the book because of it´s epic story, the incredible world it was based on and the deepness of the characters who where quite realistic.

As for the OTB versus Doyle argument I would like to say that I agree with both. The author is the only person who really knows what he intended to say, but people who interpret the literary piece from outside the authors perspective may find different but equally valid interpretations and have insights into the symbolism and value of the book that the author was not aware of.

[S4ur0n27]

The author knows what he intented to say, but what he did say in his text may be different.

Words are subject to interpretation.

[OnTheBounce]

...The author is the only person who really knows what he intended to say, but people who interpret the literary piece from outside the authors perspective may find different but equally valid interpretations and have insights into the symbolism and value of the book that the author was not aware of.

As long as you replace "really knows" with "has some idea of" I'll agree. Otherwise we attribute more conscious, rational action to humans than they are capable of. (Of course, people are conscious to varying degrees, but that's another matter.)

Something I would like to point out about literary criticism is that too much of it dwells on absolute trivia. There is so much trivia injected into it that we often loose sight of the "big picture". For instance, if an author goes on about the circumstances of an author's work but doesn't tell you how that relates to their work, insert a mental note of "trivial dribble" and move on.

Take for instance a work like The Iliad. So much has gone into how and why this story was written that people forget that a) this is a classic for a reason, namely that it is an old work that can still "speak" to us today; and b) unless information gleaned about the historical accuracy of the work, or the qualities of the milieu, etc. gives us some insight into humantiy as a whole all you're really looking at is a collection of highly irrelevant "facts". (I enclose that last word in quotes to denote that its use is suspicious.)

OTB