Thread: Are Tolkien's stories morally simplistic?

Creating a world with words sometimes seems like painting to me...And if you look at this:

http://www.tolkienlibrary.com/reviews/leafbyniggle.htm

maybe you'll agree with me that in my very own understanding, everything Tolkien wrote seems an incomplete painting, the charakters re-created time after time, the setting built up completely new again and again.
Guess why he did't publish in his early years, some stories never published at all?
Because he was not ready, because his creation was not yet perfect to him. This desired perfect world needed more time so draw than a human life has to offer, so criticise the work isn't fair at all if it comes to terms of charakterhistories that don't fit in 100% and hints of the past in the trilogy messing with the older ideas - things Tolkien wanted to rewrite, but couldn't anymore.

Of couse one can say I don't like it, so it's worth nothing. Or say, well it is something different than works today.

But all I can say for myself is, this one leaf left in the end for the world to see (the few published books, seen alone) it holds perfection. And I can stare at it the whole day without getting bored, because theres always something new I see in it, something I didn't realize before, connections so thin and fine and well-hidden, that, in my opinion, the books are much more in detail, and far more complex than anything I've read from modern authors.

Originally Posted by Linwen

I couldn't disagree more if I tried, especially about the writing style. That is what I love most of all about Tolkien, and why he is one of my favourite English language writers (along with Thornton Wilder, Michael Ondaatje and Cormac McCarthy, which admittedly might be a strange group). To me, his writing has an elegiac beauty and an evocative quality that are very rare. There are passages upon passages of breathtaking elegance and grace. There are so many ways to convey one idea, but the words he uses turn what could be a forgettable moment into phrases I will remember for years. Take the quote in my sig: he could have said "Things can get better." But what he wrote was, "Yet there may be a light beyond the darkness; and if so, I would have you see it and be glad." Same idea, completely different result. One is mundane, one is a thing of beauty.

Or take Aragorn's last words: "In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory. Farewell!" I don't know if LOTR makes a good novel or not, because I am not reading it as a novel. I read it as poetry. And as an epic poem, it is perfect.

I believe pretty much the same, but also i see some deep topics, based in the experienced Tolkien had during his time as a soldier and also his religiousity

You know, I was reading the History of Middle-earth volume Morgoth's Ring the other day and came across an essay written by Tolkien called "Notes on motives in the Silmarillion" wherein Tolkien discussed in depth the motivations of both Morgoth and Sauron as well as Manwe and the other Valar.

So, no, Tolkien's stories are NOT morally simplistic. Tolkien spent a lot of time thinking about his character's motivations. He does not always make those motivations overtly present in the text, but if you study the actions of the characters you can see them there easily.

Originally Posted by Nomendil

I believe pretty much the same, but also i see some deep topics, based in the experienced Tolkien had during his time as a soldier and also his religiousity

Right now I'm in the middle of reading 'Tolkien and the Great War' by John Garth. Very interesting. Humphrey Carpenter's biography is good but has to cover his whole life. This book is about the same length but gets really deep into the core four members of the original TCBS, their war experiences and some of the literature and poetry that came out of it. I'd highly recommend it if you'd like to see another side of Tolkien besides the elderly Oxford professor and author.

Originally Posted by Fionnuala

You know, I was reading the History of Middle-earth volume Morgoth's Ring the other day and came across an essay written by Tolkien called "Notes on motives in the Silmarillion" wherein Tolkien discussed in depth the motivations of both Morgoth and Sauron as well as Manwe and the other Valar.

So, no, Tolkien's stories are NOT morally simplistic. Tolkien spent a lot of time thinking about his character's motivations. He does not always make those motivations overtly present in the text, but if you study the actions of the characters you can see them there easily.

This is one of the best books in the series in my opinion. It's so full of background material instead of early and alternative versions of the published stories.

I am one of those who enjoys both Tolkien and Martin equally. I like Tolkien because of his good over evil eucatastrophes and his subtle but very real character building. Whereas with Martin its pretty much the opposite.

He has great character building but rarely are there large scale triumphs. The triumphs are rather on an individual level of choice. However, if you look closely there are a few characters meant to be protagonists you cant help but root for and in fact do come out on top most of the time when they are in a bind (Jon, Bran, Dany and Davos come to mind) so I dont find Martin to be as entirely gray and realistic as people like to claim. Its still unrealistic and still fantasy, just in the opposite way Tolkiens is structured. I still find both great moments of triumph and tragedy in both works, you just have to know where to find it and on what scale.

Originally Posted by tkdyoo

I am one of those who enjoys both Tolkien and Martin equally. I like Tolkien because of his good over evil eucatastrophes and his subtle but very real character building. Whereas with Martin its pretty much the opposite.

He has great character building but rarely are there large scale triumphs. The triumphs are rather on an individual level of choice. However, if you look closely there are a few characters meant to be protagonists you cant help but root for and in fact do come out on top most of the time when they are in a bind (Jon, Bran, Dany and Davos come to mind) so I dont find Martin to be as entirely gray and realistic as people like to claim. Its still unrealistic and still fantasy, just in the opposite way Tolkiens is structured. I still find both great moments of triumph and tragedy in both works, you just have to know where to find it and on what scale.

No sitting on the fence! It upsets the time space continuum!

I like Martin except for his excessive need to kill of main characters.

Tolkien remains the master in my mind...Boromir and Theoden's death were poignant and made sense within the overall story. Martin's genocide of House Stark is just overboard.

Originally Posted by Ironcrown

I like Martin except for his excessive need to kill of main characters.

Tolkien remains the master in my mind...Boromir and Theoden's death were poignant and made sense within the overall story. Martin's genocide of House Stark is just overboard.

hmm, I think I have to disagree about excessive main character death, I think both Ned and viserys' deaths were poignant and highly necessary for the rest of the story as well as certain character archs. Others who have died I feel were more like half main characters, important people but not really important to the archs...and tbh, only two starks for sure have died...I highly doubt Jon died.

Originally Posted by brianvencill

A better question: are today's readers more morally ambiguous than they were when the Lord of the Rings was first published?

One of the main underlying themes of Tolkien's body of work is that the ends do not justify the means. Characters who take the morally ambiguous route in order to achieve a moral outcome always fail. Those who take the higher road, even if they do not succeed in their task, are honored for their actions.

I feel bad for the society that believes this view is quaint or outdated.

Are Tolkien's stories morally simplistic? Maybe. Does that render them inapplicable? Not by a long shot.

Brief and to the point, and very well said.

Originally Posted by Dorothir

If you actually think about it, LotR is a terrible book. If it was just the books, they wouldn't pass for anything nowadays. What is amazing about it is the sheer wealth of history behind it all. The actual plot, dialogue, character depth, writing style and a few other things are fairly poor, which is odd for a story that's supposedly the grandfather of all fantasy. What it is really is a mythology and that is where it makes its stand. As a novel, poor. As a myth, brilliant.

On the subject of Eragon in that critique, they really didn't rate it harshly enough. I read the entire series just for the story and by the end of it I was completely underwhelmed by both plot and writing style. It was as if he had written the books by reading a writers 'How to' guide whilst playing Star wars and Lord of the Rings in the background, then heading to bed and reading the Riders of Pern before sleeping. His main problem was that he over explained and dialogue was ridiculously stale. Takes chapter upon chapter before anything even happens and when it does it's over in 4 lines flat.

I find it amazing that such a terrible book written by a poor writer has had only one other book that out sold LOTR, and that would be the Bible. Just the simple fact that he could out do skilled writers only proves his brilliance.

"If it was just the books, they wouldn't pass for anything nowadays. " So, this bit of crazy talk fails to take into account that NOWADAYS the book sells amazingly well.

Before I even comment on Lotr, I'd highly recommend the Children of Hurin. Tolkien wrote tragedies like a champ. Tragedy is the epitome of moral dilemna. CoH is an amazingly well written tragedy. I'd also suspect that for Tolkien's naysayers, many of them have limited their reading to Lotr and have not undertaken the tapestry created in the Silmarilion. I'd recommend it.

Every single evil character in this story began good and was then corrupted. If by simplicity we mean that there IS an evil and a good, and not moral shades of grey, then Tolkien is simple. But this is only a problem for those who accept some form of anti-realism about morality. I find it to be a virtue, because it accepts there really is a thing called "being evil" and "being good." If by complex we mean characters who struggle with moral questions and for very character-driven reasons wrestle with both moral goods and moral evils, then his work is incredibly complex. Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, Boromir, Gollum, and yes, even Frodo!!! He chooses the ring! Gollum's inner turmoil is fantastically well done (perhaps better in the film, but the turmoil is in the books.) Tolkien's story is a fleshed out version of the painting in Augustine's discussion of the problem of evil. Augustine likens evil to shades of darkness in a painting and argues that they are necessary in order to compliment just how rich and vibrant those parts that are colorful and beautiful are. As a whole its beauty is greater with those dark spots. The history of Middle-Earth is the history of us...begun in perfection, through pride fallen into corruption, and by Iluvatar's allowance of Morgoth and our evil, a tapestry more rich than one without those evils is made possible. I could not conceive of a more complex story. Certainly such complexity cannot be found in a framework that rejects moral realism. These are empty and hollow compared to Tolkien, and usually follow one of two lines: either a character wrestling with moral quandaries, and ultimately questions whether moral guidelines are valid, without actually providing an answer; or they are philosophical reductions of morality to productivity, happiness, utility, or power.

I love Wheel of Time, but only because I want to know what happens. Not because it is particularly eloquent, rich, or well-crafted. ALL of modern popular "high fantasy" is fast food compared to Tolkien. This is why it is so much more easily palatable and I can only imagine is the reason those in this thread seem to think Tolkien is a bad writer. My goodness, the thought that such a work of craftsmanship should be compared to modern fantastic-drivel, and then to actually think it's even up for debate whether it is greater?....it reinforces my cynicism that we are more and more becoming a dumbed down version of past generations.

Originally Posted by ferdinanda

An article in The New Yorker, reviving an old criticism.

And an attempted rebuttal.

I just thought these were interesting. It's hard to accept that Tolkien was such a dull lecturer!

Ive red the illistrated version of "The Hobbit" almost FIVE TIMES!!! these people that wrote the articles didn't research obviously

I really fail to understand how someone could think Lord of the Rings is a "bad" story which is only redeemed by the extremely developed fictional universe behind it. The structure of Frodo's journey and sacrifices, the numerous large-scale emotional battles, the seemingly unbeatable and elusive force who is beaten in ultimate triumph, et cetera are enough to bring a grown man to tears. I don't think I've found a fictional work which has a better overall plot-structure.

The concept of making flawed protagonists and antagonists who have redeeming qualities can be very good, because that is our exact predicament in almost every conflict in the real world. However, you can try to pull away from the "black/white" dynamic so much that you actually destroy the intent of the narrative itself. Fiction which has any sort of plot structure IS a conflict between good and evil, in a way. The fact that you can identify a "protagonist" and an "antagonist" in any story is proof of that. The "antagonist" could be the environment, of course, but the same spirit of the justified fighting the evil obstacle is always there. If the protagonist is so "flawed" that he becomes unjustified, the aim of the story becomes completely sensual "entertainment" and not cathartic drama. The impetus of identifying with the protagonist requires that the protagonist be at least seemingly justified in his efforts, otherwise he shifts to an antagonistic role and everything becomes whacky and off-balance.

I personally can't identify with a protagonist who is trying to do evil, or something unjustified. I don't cheer for the team comprised of child rapists and murderers, but the underdog team with good intentions..

"Good" and "evil" also exist in real life. Every "evil" person has some redeeming qualities, and every "good" person has plenty of flaws, but there is a dividing line after which one becomes either. Hitler loved dogs, but was a genocidal, dictatorial maniac. I try to do the right thing whenever I can, but I fall short in a damnable way periodically.