all British tolkienites HERE

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

You can't help but agree with Simon Tolkien's comments: although I think that The Lord of the Rings stands up just as well to the crusty academic standards as other works of the twentieth century, it would, I'm sure, be the huge public response that would have mattered to its author rather than the attitude of the self-appointed literati. After all, judging by his letters, he knew a lot more about English language and literature than most of his critics, for whom he had little regard. That boy's own image was voiced by Edwin Muir in the Observer in 1955, and Tolkien was as scornful of it then as he would be today: "Blast Edwin Muir and his delayed adolescence. He is old enough to know better. It might do him good to know what women think of his 'knowing about women', especially as a test of being mentally adult. If he had an M.A. I should nominate him for the professorship of poetry - a sweet revenge." I wonder how those panelists would feel if they were to read that their opinions had been ridiculed by the author half a century ago. It certainly doesn't say much for their originality. Or perhaps Edwin Muir is now accepted as an academic authority, despite his lack of a higher degree.

I, too, noticed how many of the proponents of the other books complained about the preponderance of fantasy in the top five, but particularly singled out The Lord of the Rings for criticism. Clearly the hope was that Pride and Prejudice, the only set A-level text in the top five, would win (and I agreed with everything that was said about that book, which I would have been happy to see voted number one). I thought that Bill Oddie's attitude was particularly bizarre, bearing in mind that his chosen book was The Wind in the Willows; a novel in which a talking toad becomes a keen motorist and a mole and a water-rat go boating together (also another favourite of mine).

By and large I was happy. I've read three of the top five books, and I've enjoyed all of them. I've heard good things about the other two, but I do think it was a shame that a lot of really great books didn't reach the final rounds. However, as a wise man once said "In the end, there can be only one". People should realise that, as Saucepan says, it was a test of popularity, not of literary merit; so nobody should be surprised if the traditionally accepted classics don't make it. I think that the critics underestimate The Lord of the Rings, but with the winning of this poll a lot more people will discover the book. One day someone may be forced to look at it and ask just why it is that it wins so many popularity polls, and why so many educated and intelligent people are reading and re-reading it despite what the critics say. At the moment the popularity of the films provides ammunition with which to shoot this win down as simple hysteria, but as was mentioned on television, the book won a lot of popularity contests long before the films were released.

Does the result of the poll really change anything, though? The book remains critically unacceptable and popular with the people who really matter to publishers, the reading public. It remains imperfectly understood by its opponents and perhaps too fondly regarded by its devotees. Frankly I was watching The Big Read to see the sneerers get what they knew was coming (and which no doubt only inflamed their spleen). I can see the point: arguing a lost case against a work in which one sees no merit at all can be a soul-destroying task. That's not Tolkien's fault, however. All he did was write the book: he never claimed that it was the best ever, but a lot of people seem to think it was. How sad that the people organising the supposedly democratic poll felt the need to attack and belittle it just because it wasn't what they thought the public ought to be reading. I'm not sure about the multiple and overseas votes: they did skew the demographics, but every book had the same opportunity, and I doubt they let the same person vote twice over the phone. If they did, then more fool them. I would have run it on a one-person, one-vote system, but I wasn't in charge.

[Daisy Brambleburr]

It was nice to see LotR slapping the faces of all the cynics there *coughcliveandersoncough*
I do think that the movies had a little something to do with it winning, not in a bad way, but they made a lot of people discover the books and gave them a heck of a lot of publicity. Perhaps if the poll had been done before the movies had been released LotR might have been closer to Pride and Prejudice. I don't know.
Was it just me, or did I sense an overall feeling of dislike for LotR throughout the show? The host certainly didn't like it too much, and everyone seemed to be subtly digging at it. Do they not want to like it simply because it's popular? Everyone seemed to be very into Pride and Prejudice and Phillip Pullman.

[the guy who be short]

I noticed that nearly everybody there insulted LotR, and very blatantly too. It was a shame, because I love all the other books in the top five (except P&P which I haven't yet read). But we won!

[dragoneyes]

I was very happy to hear some people in the audience booing when Lord of the Rings was insulted. I was just as annoyed with my aunt who was watching it with me though "It's a good yarn but there's just not enough characterisation." I nearly exploded when she said that but she was sufficiently annoyed when LotR beat P&P that I could sit and smile smugly.

Do they not want to like it simply because it's popular?

That's what I think because I used to be like that. I obviously overcame it though otherwise I wouldn't be here would I?

[Failivrin]

oh i was SO happy when it won! i noticed that practically everyone insulted it and (silly me) i actually cried when sue townsend did. it was just everyone insulting it and all i could think was that Tolkien was cleverer than probably everyone there and he had spent 14 years of his life devoted to this book and she had the gall to sit there and call Tolkien and everyone who had ever enjoyed reading LOTR pretentious.

i was absolutely thrilled when it won because it made most people in that room unhappy. i was astonished and saddened that so many people *cough clive anderson james naughtie michael rosen meera syal sue townsend cough* could sit there and actually say they did not like LOTR. could they not have just said 'i think some of the other books aren't as good' or something?

i am quite like ray mears, i think; i don't understand why anyone wouldn't like LOTR. Also, i loved it when Simon Tolkien looked at the audience while he was reading the quote and saying that there had been a lot of shots.

LOTR winning was effectively a smack in the face for the pretentious literati establishment and i relished every second of it.

[pandora]

Part of the problem is that some people clearly wanted the most "important" book to win rather than the most enjoyable.

Would I vote LotR as more important than 1984 or War and Peace? No. Would I rather re-read LotR than the others? Yep.

The only books on the lists I think gave LotR a run for its money in the enjoyment stakes were Lord of the Flies and Hitchhikers, for me anyway.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I too think that a programme which practically sets out to insult about 25% of its audience is quite ridiculous.

I was not surprised that The Lord of the Rings won but I was content. Also happy that the Hitchhikers Guide finished so highly, as this is another work which laughs in the face of the pretentiousness (sp?) which we have all been discussing on this thread.

[Eurytus]

That boy's own image was voiced by Edwin Muir in the Observer in 1955, and Tolkien was as scornful of it then as he would be today: "Blast Edwin Muir and his delayed adolescence. He is old enough to know better. It might do him good to know what women think of his 'knowing about women', especially as a test of being mentally adult. If he had an M.A. I should nominate him for the professorship of poetry - a sweet revenge." I wonder how those panelists would feel if they were to read that their opinions had been ridiculed by the author half a century ago. It certainly doesn't say much for their originality. Or perhaps Edwin Muir is now accepted as an academic authority, despite his lack of a higher degree.

Why should the panellists feel bad that their opinions had been ridiculed by the author half a century ago? The fact that Tolkien disagreed with Muir’s opinion does not invalidate said opinion. As far as I am concerned Muir got it right in respect to the boy’s own aspects of the story.
There is no real realisation of the true horrors of a global conflict, despite minor character’s deaths and Frodo’s saga cruise, none of the characters suffers too much. And as for any real sense of relationships between the sexes? Let’s face it, the courtships in Mallory were about as realistic.

I am also confused at the fact that you sneer at Muir because he does not have a “higher degree”. I was not aware that one needed to be an academic authority or to have a higher degree to criticise literature. Anyone who can read a book is more than able to criticise a book, and their criticisms will be no less valid for it.

[Failivrin]

what really irritated me was that everyone referred to LOTR as a book for geeky teenage boys. it is an assumption i just cannot cope with. LOTR is NOT a book solely for geeky teenage boys. I am not a teenage boy, yet i enjoyed it hugely. i would be willing to bet that the majority of memebers on this site are not geeky teenage boys. why is this assumption still held? do people honestly think that women will not like a story if there are no huge female parts in it? do they really think that we weon't have anyone to associate with or something?

i would not really call LOTR a boy's own story. boy's own implies a ripping yarn about a bunch of boys who go off on an adventure, convert some people to christianity and all come back having had a jolly good time.

i dislike lord of the flies but i hear the film is hilarious. i think the others that i can remember that were enjoyable were The Hobbit, possibly HP Azkaban (the best in the series by far), Alice in Wonderland and Gone With the Wind

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Why should the panellists feel bad that their opinions had been ridiculed by the author half a century ago? The fact that Tolkien disagreed with Muir’s opinion does not invalidate said opinion.

I think it very unlikely that they'd feel bad about it. Rather they would probably respond in much the same way that you have: by agreeing with Muir and pointing out that Tolkien was bound to disagree with him (I would say particularly so, given the dismissive tone of the comments to which Tolkien was responding). The response is no more reasonable or justified, and my quoting of it in the first place is questionable in the extreme.

The same is true of my comment about higher degrees. I don't believe for one moment that anyone was confused by it, because it was completely unambiguous. I have an annoying habit of holding up academic qualifications as proof of superior critical ability, which I invariably regret when I read what I've written later. No, Tolkien is no more valid than Muir or anyone else who has read the book carefully, although any opinion ought to be supported with reference to the text.

As for those other interesting points (regarding global warfare and realistic romance), I think that another thread ought to address those, preferably in Books. It would certainly make for an interesting debate, but I think it's a bit off-topic for this one.

The really incomprehensible point for me is that I was only really watching the final to see the fur fly, but felt compelled to poke fun at the panel anyway. I can quite understand where they were coming from, although I feel especially that the woman who hadn't finished the book was on thin ice when offering a critique. I said above that the result tells us nothing we didn't already know, and that the voting system was odd to say the least. I suppose that my real objection was when The Lord of the Rings was specifically singled out and sniped at, particularly in order to promote one of the other works. Those books were invariably good enough to deserve votes without resorting to rubbishing the other choices (one of the televised reviews even went so far as to attack Pride and Prejudice in exactly the same way).

Perhaps the bottom line is that no book can be judged by public or critical acclaim alone. For me, the main value of the Big Read as it relates to Tolkien has been to underline W.H. Auden's comments in a 1956 New York Times article:

I rarely remember a book about which I have had such violent arguments.
Nobody seems to have a moderate opinion: either, like myself, people find
it a masterpiece of its genre or they cannot abide it, and among the hostile
there are some, I must confess, for whose literary judgement I have great
respect

Whilst I've seen moderate opinions on both sides of the fence, I can't help but agree in general principle.

[The Saucepan Man]

I rarely remember a book about which I have had such violent arguments.
Nobody seems to have a moderate opinion: either, like myself, people find
it a masterpiece of its genre or they cannot abide it, and among the hostile
there are some, I must confess, for whose literary judgement I have great
respect.

Great quote, Squatter. There are a number of people for whom I have great respect (my brother and father included) who have no time at all for LotR. So, I have no difficulty at all in accepting that LotR is not everyone's cup of tea. And it is perhaps the enthusiasm displayed by those who love the book that provokes the sometimes hostile reaction of those who do not see what all the fuss is about.

But my main problem with the final of the Big Read was the facile, and at times immature, behaviour displayed by many of those who commented adversely upon it, and also Clive Anderson's complete inability to display the impartiality required of his role.

While browsing through the BBC's Big Read forum earlier today, I came across a delightful post pointing out the irony in the fact that some of those supporting Pride and Prejudice were, in their attempts to disparage LotR, displaying the very qualities that their favourite book pours scorn upon, and from which it takes its title. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Eurytus]

But my main problem with the final of the Big Read was the facile, and at times immature, behaviour displayed by many of those who commented adversely upon it, and also Clive Anderson's complete inability to display the impartiality required of his role.

To be frank the whole show was ludicrous and not the attitude towards LOTR was not the only indicator of this.
I watched few of the shows, I will admit, but frankly when I saw Ruby Wax potentially put anyone who watches it off reading “The Catcher in the Rye” despite advocating it, I knew there were problems. She, and others of the presenters, seemed to consider the books a chance to talk about themselves. And that is something that Ms Wax needs no encouragement to do.

I saw the final show and that confirmed things for me. The concept of having tables devoted to various “camps” of book fans and having them whoop and holler like some American sitcom audience does every time Joey walks into a room left me in quiet amazement.

It was predictable that the show would end up like this as the whole point of reading is that it is a solitary occupation and the effect a book will have is dependent upon the person reading it as much as upon the book. So quite how they can suppose to have spokesmen (or women) talking up the points of my favourite book (when I might have read it in a completely different way) is baffling to me.

However we can draw some benefit from the program in that it does seem to have had some effect on the reading habits of people (especially children) in this country. Anything that even causes one person to turn of Big Brother or Changing Rooms and read a book can’t be all bad. After all, whatever our differences of opinion on individual books, pretty much any book (maybe even Jeffrey Archer) is going to do you more good than watching yet another room be converted in faux-zebra skin or watching Bob from Bristol take a dump in the Big Brother house.

[Eurytus]

To be honest I have always felt that Tolkien somehow felt more threatened by Muir’s comments on the “Boy’s own” nature of the book and the lack of any real men/women relationships than he did from any other criticism.
Having read his letters it seemed apparent to me that Tolkiens comments on Muir were exceptionally vitriolic, especially by his own rather mild standards. The fact that he also did not specifically refute anything Muir had said with examples (which he was normally happy to do) makes me think that he felt more threatened by this criticism than by others. Perhaps because he felt in his heart that Muir had a point.
I certainly think he had a point. There is nothing wrong in having a “boy’s own” type of story. Many stories are. There is likewise nothing wrong in having a story totally dominated by the male gender, again many are. Lawrence or Arabia being a classic case in point.
However when you refer to a love that is the main driving force behind the character after which the 3rd book is titled then I think you have to make it believable. And I think that Tolkien failed here. It is no more believable than Mallory’s Arthurian tales of chivalry.
It might be possible to look into Tolkien’s life and find reasons for this. He certainly seems to have sought the companionship of men, and various “brotherhoods” were of supreme importance to him.
I don’t really believe that he was capable of writing the romance side of the book any differently. I don’t know if he had it in him so to speak. But it is interesting to me that the most developed “love story” in the book is Frodo and Sam’s. It may be platonic in nature but it is far more believable than Aragorn/Arwen.

[Rumil]

I must confess that I missed the final showdown, and I so wanted to see the scion of the House of Tolkien as well.

One thing that really gets my goat about the criticism of Tolkien for not fully showing the horrors of warfare, in fact two things are-

1- Yes he does! The scnes with Sam and the soldier of Harad explains far more about the human condition than you'll ever get out of War and Peace

2- Jane Austen - she and her co-conspirators wrote, it must be said, elegant commentaries on the whole mating game. However, this was during the middle of the Napoleonic Wars, the greatest conflict the world had ever seen upto that time! Does she acknowledge this fact - never! Soldiers are only introduced as Yeomanry officers in sharp suits, how inferior to Tolstoy let alone Tolkien. I have a theory that the entire history of the British Empire was due to an entirely justifiable urge to escape the narrow minded socially restrictive petty one-up-womanship displayed in these novels, with the predictably disastrous results.

(Rant over, [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

[Elentári_O_Most_Mighty_1]

Ok, I agree with everything you say...but:

I have a theory that the entire history of the British Empire was due to an entirely justifiable urge to escape the narrow minded socially restrictive petty one-up-womanship displayed in these novels, with the predictably disastrous results.

Forgive my ignorance, but what's that in simple English?! [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] And does that make you for or against the British Empire? (I personally see nothing wrong with it...but hey)

And back on topic...man, I just get sick of all these people slagging off LOTR...I think they really have something personal against it, because other books don't seem to come in for that sort of criticism...! And the same goes for Harry Potter...all those Christian groups campaigning against it...have they read Phillip Pullman yet?!

[Failivrin]

i THINK what Rumil meant, but i can't be sure, was that the British Empire was create because people wanted to escape (ie overseas) from the stale, 'I have a better husband than you' style one-upmanship that was going on in England at the time. Forgive m if i'm wrong, Rumil.

I think protestors shoot themselves i nthe foot; it just makes more people read the book/see the film than orignally would have done. Scandal sells; remember LOTR became well known in the States first because of the pirate copies distributed by Ace and the ensuing debacle.

[Olorin_TLA]

Here I was thinking the empire was for greed...silly me...

I'm British btw, and my own opinion is that the empire was a disgrace, because it involved, as all empries do, lots of oppresion, murdering, plundering...there's a nice Balckadder quote actually when Blackadder explains why Wolrd War One statred which I like:

George: "The War started, Baldrick, because of the Villanous Hun and his evil Empire building! THAT'S why!"

Blackadder: "George, the Britihs Empire at present covers 1/4 of the golbe. The German Empire consists of a small sausage facotyr in Tahiti. I hardly think we're ones to blame others for imperialistic tendancies."

George: "Why, yes, sir, of ocurse, sir." [To Baldrick, quietly:] "He's gone absolutely bonkers!"