Purity and the Critics

Aragil's questions were not actually all that "simple", but here's some more along the same lines.
What proportions of people think
: the films have some faults in them.
: many of the faults could easily have been avoided.
: the good points outweigh the faults.
: the good points FAR outweigh the faults.
: there must be many screenwriters who could have treated Tolkien's material more carefully, respectfully, efficiently, competently.
: believe omissions were more acceptable than inventions.
: consider the inventions are of a lower quality than the adaptations.
: consider many of the inventions totally clash with the adapted original material.
I have only one clear-cut reply - if there's any sense still left in the world: 100% to number one.

joxy said:

Aragil's questions were not actually all that "simple", but here's some more along the same lines.
What proportions of people think
: the films have some faults in them.
: many of the faults could easily have been avoided.
: the good points outweigh the faults.
: the good points FAR outweigh the faults.
: there must be many screenwriters who could have treated Tolkien's material more carefully, respectfully, efficiently, competently.
: believe omissions were more acceptable than inventions.
: consider the inventions are of a lower quality than the adaptations.
: consider many of the inventions totally clash with the adapted original material.
I have only one clear-cut reply - if there's any sense still left in the world: 100% to number one.

Click to expand...

Not having taken any polls, I can't give specific numbers, but I can give my own answers and in some cases give a broad estimate about the general viewing public. Here goes:

: the films have some faults in them. -- I would agree personally. I think a majority of viewers would agree, but I don't think you can count on 100%

: many of the faults could easily have been avoided. -- I don't think this has an answer since clearly there is broad disagreement on what constituted "faults".

: the good points outweigh the faults. Yes for me and the films's success and almost universally positive reviews tend to indicate the percentage of viewers agreeing with tis would be quite high.

: the good points FAR outweigh the faults. -- Once again, yes for me and the same evidence mentioned above would seem to indicate a substantial proportion of the viewers agree. Clearly, it is likely the proportion would be lower than in the question immediately above.

: there must be many screenwriters who could have treated Tolkien's material more carefully, respectfully, efficiently, competently. -- I doubt that very much. Based on about fifty years of movie going I would say the number of screenwriters who could have done a better job (as defined above) would be a handful.

: believe omissions were more acceptable than inventions. -- I will agree in general terms, with the stipulation that omissions were absolutely necessary and I think it is impossible to make omissions without being forced to make inventions.

: consider the inventions are of a lower quality than the adaptations. -- I might agree in general way (but not 100%), if we substitute the word "original" for "adaptations". Some people's "adaptations" are other "inventions".

: consider many of the inventions totally clash with the adapted original material. -- I disagree strongly with this one. Some certainly do, most do not. I might disagree slightly less if the word "adapted" were removed from the question. I don't know what the proportion of viewers agreeing with the statement would be, maybe 50%, maybe less.

rs691919, I don't have sufficient time to reply at any lenght to this (or any other) thread at present. Besides, I felt that the law of diminuishing returns had set in. I'll review the thread later this year and post something, if I have things to say.

Aragil said:

How many people here think that screenwriters exist who are better writers than Tolkien?

Click to expand...

Since someone said the answer is 0%, I would like to say something briefly about this. Obviously who is a better writer is subjective, and insofar as Charles Dickens is considered better than Jackie Collins, that is a social judgement. Many individuals prefer to read the work of the 'lesser' writer. Proving merit is hard. That said, and putting such concerns to one side, I would allow that there may be screenwriters who are capable of better writing than Tolkien. Tolkien's merit is not so much (in my opinion) in the richness of his prose but the scope of his vision, and the plausibility of Middle Earth. The pacing and plotting of Lord of the Rings could also be very easily be criticised. But it works overall, so to damn the novel as rubbish because of these issues would be foolish, and so would calling Tolkien a bad writer. So yes, I admit the possibility that there may be screenwriters who are 'better' writers than Tolkien, in the sense of having better technique.

That really is a shame (no sarcasm intended). I particularly wanted to find out how Tolkien Purism can be analyzed in cultural terms.

Snaga said:

Tolkien's merit is not so much (in my opinion) in the richness of his prose but the scope of his vision, and the plausibility of Middle Earth. The pacing and plotting of Lord of the Rings could also be very easily be criticised....The pacing and plotting of Lord of the Rings could also be very easily be criticised

Click to expand...

An interesting opinion, but, surely, an unusual one!
The vision and plausibility are there, certainly, but it's the strength of the words which express them that I believe to be T's essential quality.
Tolkien's job was words; he devoted massive efforts over many years to finding the right words in which to tell his story, and specifically to ensuring the accuracy and the effectiveness of that pacing and of that plotting.

joxy said:

An interesting opinion, but, surely, an unusual one!

Click to expand...

Oh no, no, no!!! It's not an unusual opinion at all!!! Tolkien's writing is indeed at odds with The Modern Novel. The writing, to the Modern critic, is "nostalgic" (and the derision of such nostalgia is barely hidden). The opinions expressed within are "backwards looking" (see Snaga's initial post). The text does not allow for the "everything and anything" interpretation that the Modern novel should permit. This is indeed the view of Tolkien which has kept him out of the academic critical arena in most instances.

rs691919 said:

Oh no, no, no!!! It's not an unusual opinion at all!!! Tolkien's writing is indeed at odds with The Modern Novel. The writing, to the Modern critic, is "nostalgic" (and the derision of such nostalgia is barely hidden). The opinions expressed within are "backwards looking" (see Snaga's initial post). The text does not allow for the "everything and anything" interpretation that the Modern novel should permit. This is indeed the view of Tolkien which has kept him out of the academic critical arena in most instances.

Click to expand...

I've often wondered just how un-modern LotR really is. Aren't Sauron and Morgoth totalitarian wannabes? I've heard it suggested that the type of power which Sauron would wield over Middle Earth, were he to succeed, could not have been conceived of in a pre-modern mind. Indeed, only with the advent of technology and mass media could people imagine that every single aspect of their lives could be controlled by an untouchable, omnipotent form of government (see 20th century dystopian literature). Note that I am not saying that Tolkien's work is an allegory in any way, shape or form, but only that it definitely nods to some modern fears and sentiments.

Please, disagree with me if you like! I'm always eager to learn from people more familiar with the novel than I am.

Sôval Phârë said:

I've heard it suggested that the type of power which Sauron would wield over Middle Earth, were he to succeed, could not have been conceived of in a pre-modern mind. Indeed, only with the advent of technology and mass media could people imagine that every single aspect of their lives could be controlled by an untouchable, omnipotent form of government (see 20th century dystopian literature).

Click to expand...

That's an interesting notion. But consider that the mythology arose in army camps during the First World War. This was a time before mass media, and technology was not so advanced as to provide totalitarian the absolute control as they had even thirty years later.

Further, consider the mythology itself and its origins. Arda's cosmogony and subsequent "religious order" "is undoubtedly rooted in the Christian myth. Morgoth (and later Sauron), then, does not seek merely worldy power--the control of the mundane aspects of everyone's lives. He rather hungers for the creative power of Iluvatar which he is bereft of. This failing leads to his overwhelming jealousy of God's creations: the Children of Iluvatar (Elves and Men). And this jealousy leads to his desire to enslave them and to destroy all that is beautiful within God's (Iluvatar's) creation.

rs691919 said:

That's an interesting notion. But consider that the mythology arose in army camps during the First World War. This was a time before mass media, and technology was not so advanced as to provide totalitarian the absolute control as they had even thirty years later.

Click to expand...

But didn't Tolkien's mythology change and evolve quite a bit between WWI and the publication of LotR? I admit I don't know much about this. Did Tolkien conceive of Sauron from the very beginning?

Further, consider the mythology itself and its origins. Arda's cosmogony and subsequent "religious order" "is undoubtedly rooted in the Christian myth.

Click to expand...

I've got no problem with that. However, this doesn't contradict the idea that LotR contains some modern sentiments as well as pre-modern ones. The works of C.S. Lewis (who I don't like) and Gerard Manley Hopkins (who I do!) are even more ostensibly rooted in Christianity than Tolkien's works, and yet are considered to be modern.

Besides the issue of Sauron's favored form of government P), I would also point to the hobbits as an example of modernity in Tolkien. The hobbits have weskits, teapots, pocket-handkerchiefs, and surnames, strange items for a people who were supposed to have lived 5000 years ago in a mythic past. Their middle class sentiments, their lack of religious ritual, and, I would also suppose, their anarchy, would have been quite foreign to a pre-modern worldview.

Indeed the idea of a single villanous power bent on world conquest or even conquest of the universe is mostly a modern one to the extent that it here involves mostly people of human stature against that power.

The period of European colonization was largely an attempt by major powers to claim as much of the world for themselves as they could (ideally claiming all of it).

Pulp adventure tales introduced ultimate weapons and secret plots for conquest by mysterious leaders like Dr. Fu Manchu. Science fiction made common the idea of an actual or attempted invasion and conquest of this world by something from outside. Both Sauron and Saruman owe something to tales of mad scientists. The task of the hero is often to destroy the scientist’s weapon.

On the other hand, medieval literature, in works not ostensibly religious, generally ignore religion as much as do modern works. The church appears in a conventional role. For example the heroine of Eliduc is greatly concerned when the a bird flies through her window and turns into man. But once convinced this man is a Christian, she leaps into an adulterous relationship with him.

That nothing much is made of religion in The Lord of the Rings would not be surprising to most medieval writers of romance.

Tolkien’s writing is indeed modern enough. It was quite normal for his own day and indeed for our own day.

But it is lacking in irony and detachment, which is what many critics want to see in modern literature. Tolkien does not use a coded symbolism consistant and complex enough to be worth expounding. Also, his Orcs seem overly based on the stereotyped villanous barbaric savages of adventure fiction which today smells of racism.

Works worth taking seriously, according to many academics, should not be straightforward works of heroic escapism.

Aren't the best writers timeless rather than modern or not modern?
I'll join with S Phare in putting Hopkins in that category; he wasn't the first to dispute his faith with himself, and he won't be the last; he used new ways of expressing it, but it's an idea that's going to go on, and on.
And what's all this about tyrants seeking world domination being a modern idea?
What happened to the infernal powers in the world's religions, and to real people from Alexander to Ghengis, and way beyond?

Sôval Phârë said:

I've got no problem with that. However, this doesn't contradict the idea that LotR contains some modern sentiments as well as pre-modern ones. The works of C.S. Lewis (who I don't like) and Gerard Manley Hopkins (who I do!) are even more ostensibly rooted in Christianity than Tolkien's works, and yet are considered to be modern.

Click to expand...

jallan said:

But it is lacking in irony and detachment, which is what many critics want to see in modern literature. Tolkien does not use a coded symbolism consistant and complex enough to be worth expounding. Also, his Orcs seem overly based on the stereotyped villanous barbaric savages of adventure fiction which today smells of racism.

Works worth taking seriously, according to many academics, should not be straightforward works of heroic escapism.

Click to expand...

Oh, I do believe that Tolkien was a modern writer; but he does not fit the concept of the Modern writer, as jallan shrewdly points out. There is of course much that is thematically modern in The Lord of the Rings, but there is a tendency in current academia to dismiss this type of writing as "nostalgic" and "backward-looking" (see Snaga's initial post in this thread!!).

The heroic saga, with morals that lack ambiguity, simply is not worth the attention of the Modern critic. The Modern critic craves that ambiguity--desires to be able to interpret any work in any manner he chooses. He does not like it when the morality contained in the literature is plain to see; and he really does not like it when that morality does not match his own! And if religion--especially Christianity--is inserted--that sends the Modern critic into fits of conniption

Sôval Phârë said:

Besides the issue of Sauron's favored form of government P), I would also point to the hobbits as an example of modernity in Tolkien. The hobbits have weskits, teapots, pocket-handkerchiefs, and surnames, strange items for a people who were supposed to have lived 5000 years ago in a mythic past. Their middle class sentiments, their lack of religious ritual, and, I would also suppose, their anarchy, would have been quite foreign to a pre-modern worldview.

Click to expand...

Well, I would say that the teapots, etc. are more anachronisms--that is, they are objects which by all rights should not exist, yet they do. That is more of a quirk of the writer as opposed to the insertion of thematically modern elements into the story.

As to the Hobbits' anarchy, I don't know too much about Medieval government, but I would venture that small ordered communities without the structures of government and the rule of religion would not have been impossible. However, in the modern world, even the smallest community has a governing body which controls even very small details of life--so I'm not certain that the Hobbit's lack of government is really a modern notion either. Maybe that's just a fantasy notion!