Tolkien was human right? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

eowyntje · 02-10-2006, 08:10 AM

I just have to bring this up. I don't know if its been discussed before, but I couldn't find any topic on it.

I think that on this forum and many other lotr forums, The Lord of the Rings and other works are often approached the way medieval scientists approached the bible. Those scientists found that the bible raised questions, because not everything seemed to make sence, so they talked and talked about it until they had found a somewhat sensible explanation for this seemingly illogical thing. They wanted the bible to make sence no matter what. In a way, I think that is the way a lot of people approach Tolkien's works. When we find somehting strange or illogical, a possible flaw, something irrational that doesn't fit, we talk and talk and talk until we find some explanation for it, some reason why this seemingly stranget hing might make sence. The suggestion that it might not make sence, and might be a flaw, is never mentioned.

It seems to me that we are approaching Tolkiens writings as if they are perfect, and can not be anything else then perfect, as if Tolkien himself was a God and could not create annything imperfect. Shouldn't we accept that Tolkien was human and therefor made mistakes? We sometimes seem to overlook that anyone, even Tolkien, would make mistakes when writing thousand and thousands of pages. So here's my suggestion: maybe, just maybe, Tolkien has flaws. And maybe, who knows, he might have overlooked something, he might have made something illogical happen or let someone in his stories do something which did not make sence because it fit his story. Maybe, just maybe he might have said something about middle earth in the Lord of the Rings, but the oposite in the Silmarilion, who knows.

I'm a devoted fan of The Lord of the Rings and of Tolkien, but I think that when discussing his work, we should sometimes take the possibility of flaws into consideration, and we often don't.

just an idea

Eowyntje.

AbercrombieOfRohan · 02-10-2006, 10:01 AM

What a topic...! I was convinced that I had read the title wrong, because there was no way that you could be suggesting that Tolkien was a little furry creature from Alpha Centauri, but lo and behold! that's something like what you are suggesting.

I think that all of us would be the first to point out the flaws in Tolkien's work (having read them so many times, we're bound to come across things that we really dislike.) Look at all the threads we have that are questioning Tolkien's "perfection" as you call it. There are thousands and thousands of threads dedicated to our discontent with Tolkien.

Here for one. Lush is questioning the lack of strong women in the Legendarium. I'm too lazy to look up other examples, but I'm quite sure that other BDer's will back me up in saying that, no, Tolkien is not perfect. Yes, he's our favourite writer (and probably your's too if you're on the boards), but that by no means makes him a perfect God-like figure. In fact, I think Tolkien would be more than a little disturbed at our discussion of such a topic.

Gothmog · 02-10-2006, 12:16 PM

Of course there's flaws in the writings of Tolkien, he was human. But we must also remember the incredible vast time he used for the creation of his legendarium. All the re-writing and editing has minimized the mistakes. Without having studied the life or personality of Tolkien any closer, I'd say that he was quite a perfectionist. He didn't want something half-finished hasty work published full of contradictions and faults. But it's impossible to keep it totally clean. As the writing stretches over a long time, there's differences from edition to edition, which is obvious if one read BoLT.

But then there's our love for discussing details over and over again

What would BD be without discussing? Of course we want to find the "truth" behind every line and word, even if there's no "truth" there. But speculation and a belief that Tolkien was a flawless, divine author makes it all so much funnier

I think we choose not to see the possibility that Tolkien's sometimes wrong or leaves something without a proper explanation or thought behind, even if there's few such places in his lifework.

EDIT: A furry creature from Alpha Centauri you say? Why not, I've heard that they're wonderful writers!

the phantom · 02-10-2006, 12:20 PM

Blasphemy!

Eonwe · 02-10-2006, 01:07 PM

Well, I don't know. It seems that you would have to discuss things in order to come to a conclution. Meaning you have to conclude that you are looking at the issue wrong, or that Tolkien messed up a bit. Sure, in writing that spanned so many years and so many versions, I'm sure there will be leftover threads, or unexlained quiestions, though you can't just catagorically say all the "mistakes" should just be lived with. Who says they are really mistakes. Some will and some won't. It seems that good editorial work has cleared up some "mistakes" already.

P.S. I would consider myself a decently proficient Lord of the Rings fan, but I don't really see where any of his characters do illogical things, or any statements contradict eachother.

PPS That is funny, cuase when I saw the title, i thought of Human Rights...

Lalwendë · 02-10-2006, 02:05 PM

Tolkien did make some well known mistakes, and when he found them he tried to find explanations for them and make them fit into his legendarium. One example is Glorfindel. He created the character for Lord of the Rings, and yet there was another Glorfindel in the Silmarillion - in Gondolin. He tried to explain this by saying that Glorfindel of Gondolin went to the Halls of Mandos and was later exceptionally allowed to re-enter Middle-earth.

I actually like the fact that he made mistakes and attempted to explain them. It makes his secondary world all the more real; there are contradictory theories and seeming intellectual mistakes in the real world. Tolkien also deliberately left some things unexplained or unexplored; that his world has 'fuzzy edges' again makes it more believable. Though I have to wonder if his wish to have these fuzzy edges was not just a way of accepting that as a perfectionist, he would never fully complete his world?

I love chewing the various issues over though. Just as we think we have one idea defined, someone comes along with a new mad theory and the old debates start off all over again. That's what it's all about...being a Tolkien nut I mean.

Farael · 02-12-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the phantom

Blasphemy!

We have been playing with the idea of lynching people (or werewolves) in the Mirth section for far too long... I say we lynch this heretic!!!

Edit: My quote and comment are meant to imply that I'm supporting The Phantom's words, not that he is the heretic

Ok, sorry... now seriously though. Tolkien is not even my favourite writer (That distinction goes to Ray Bradbury) yet I like his works quite a lot. Sure, sometimes we like to play Mandos and pretend that we have insight on the thought of those who are dead, but I don't think any of us worships Tolkien as a super-human being. He's a man, just like any of us. Creative as he may be, he is bound to make mistakes... and those same mistakes is what fuels most of the controversy on this site. Either mistakes, short-comings or fuzzy edges, to quote Lalwendë, is what we discuss all the time.

I don't really appreciate the way this topic has started and I think it's just a tad pointless... yeah, I know "don't dignify it with an answer then" but sometimes it's hard to bite back my tounge (or fingers in this case)

We are all thinkers for the most part, not dogmatists.

Gothmog · 02-12-2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Tolkien is not even my favourite writer

Blasphemy!

Farael · 02-12-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothmog

Blasphemy!

Darned, I'm in trouble now, aren't I? *sneaks away before the lynching begins*

Bêthberry · 02-12-2006, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothmog

Of course there's flaws in the writings of Tolkien, he was human. But we must also remember the incredible vast time he used for the creation of his legendarium. All the re-writing and editing has minimized the mistakes. . .

Are we excluding re-writing and editing from the "only human, prone to error" generalisation?

Gothmog · 02-13-2006, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Are we excluding re-writing and editing from the "only human, prone to error" generalisation?

It was only an attempt to explain why there's not as many flaws as we might expect and therefor there's a reason why we tend to forget the fact that the thing we're discussing at the moment (whether it's Balrog's wings, Glorfindel's history or something else...) might be without an answer in JRRT's work. And this is an attempt to explain what I meant with my post, a proof that I have to put some more time into making my posts more understandable. Sometimes the thoughts move faster than the fingers on the keyboard... (at least that's better than the other way around)

eowyntje · 02-15-2006, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farael

I don't really appreciate the way this topic has started and I think it's just a tad pointless... yeah, I know "don't dignify it with an answer then" but sometimes it's hard to bite back my tounge (or fingers in this case)

I'm sorry. I hope you realise that my only intention was to enrich debate on The Barrow-Downs. If I did not succeed in that because there was nothing to enrich, then please don't lynch me.

Alcarin · 09-03-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eowyntje

I'm sorry. I hope you realise that my only intention was to enrich debate on The Barrow-Downs. If I did not succeed in that because there was nothing to enrich, then please don't lynch me.

Owned

02-10-2006, 08:10 AM	#1
eowyntje Animated Skeleton Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 47	Tolkien was human, right? I just have to bring this up. I don't know if its been discussed before, but I couldn't find any topic on it. I think that on this forum and many other lotr forums, The Lord of the Rings and other works are often approached the way medieval scientists approached the bible. Those scientists found that the bible raised questions, because not everything seemed to make sence, so they talked and talked about it until they had found a somewhat sensible explanation for this seemingly illogical thing. They wanted the bible to make sence no matter what. In a way, I think that is the way a lot of people approach Tolkien's works. When we find somehting strange or illogical, a possible flaw, something irrational that doesn't fit, we talk and talk and talk until we find some explanation for it, some reason why this seemingly stranget hing might make sence. The suggestion that it might not make sence, and might be a flaw, is never mentioned. It seems to me that we are approaching Tolkiens writings as if they are perfect, and can not be anything else then perfect, as if Tolkien himself was a God and could not create annything imperfect. Shouldn't we accept that Tolkien was human and therefor made mistakes? We sometimes seem to overlook that anyone, even Tolkien, would make mistakes when writing thousand and thousands of pages. So here's my suggestion: maybe, just maybe, Tolkien has flaws. And maybe, who knows, he might have overlooked something, he might have made something illogical happen or let someone in his stories do something which did not make sence because it fit his story. Maybe, just maybe he might have said something about middle earth in the Lord of the Rings, but the oposite in the Silmarilion, who knows. I'm a devoted fan of The Lord of the Rings and of Tolkien, but I think that when discussing his work, we should sometimes take the possibility of flaws into consideration, and we often don't. just an idea Eowyntje. __________________ No matter what they think or what they do, No matter what they feel Or what they see in you, You're gonna get there, Whatever they say, And nobody's going to stand, in the way Last edited by eowyntje; 02-11-2006 at 02:45 AM. Reason: putting a , in the title

02-10-2006, 12:16 PM	#3
Gothmog Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Where I lay my head is home Posts: 421	Of course there's flaws in the writings of Tolkien, he was human. But we must also remember the incredible vast time he used for the creation of his legendarium. All the re-writing and editing has minimized the mistakes. Without having studied the life or personality of Tolkien any closer, I'd say that he was quite a perfectionist. He didn't want something half-finished hasty work published full of contradictions and faults. But it's impossible to keep it totally clean. As the writing stretches over a long time, there's differences from edition to edition, which is obvious if one read BoLT. But then there's our love for discussing details over and over again What would BD be without discussing? Of course we want to find the "truth" behind every line and word, even if there's no "truth" there. But speculation and a belief that Tolkien was a flawless, divine author makes it all so much funnier I think we choose not to see the possibility that Tolkien's sometimes wrong or leaves something without a proper explanation or thought behind, even if there's few such places in his lifework. EDIT: A furry creature from Alpha Centauri you say? Why not, I've heard that they're wonderful writers! __________________ Three switched witches watch three Swatch watch switches. Which switched witch watch which Swatch watch switch? He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom ~Lurker...

02-10-2006, 12:20 PM	#4
the phantom Beloved Shadow Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: The Stadium Posts: 5,971	Blasphemy! __________________ the phantom has posted. This thread is now important.

02-10-2006, 01:07 PM	#5
Eonwe Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: In a world grown ever smaller. Posts: 678	Well, I don't know. It seems that you would have to discuss things in order to come to a conclution. Meaning you have to conclude that you are looking at the issue wrong, or that Tolkien messed up a bit. Sure, in writing that spanned so many years and so many versions, I'm sure there will be leftover threads, or unexlained quiestions, though you can't just catagorically say all the "mistakes" should just be lived with. Who says they are really mistakes. Some will and some won't. It seems that good editorial work has cleared up some "mistakes" already. P.S. I would consider myself a decently proficient Lord of the Rings fan, but I don't really see where any of his characters do illogical things, or any statements contradict eachother. PPS That is funny, cuase when I saw the title, i thought of Human Rights... __________________ I've got bridge club on Wednesday, Archery on Thursday, Dancing on a Friday night!

02-10-2006, 02:05 PM	#6
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Tolkien did make some well known mistakes, and when he found them he tried to find explanations for them and make them fit into his legendarium. One example is Glorfindel. He created the character for Lord of the Rings, and yet there was another Glorfindel in the Silmarillion - in Gondolin. He tried to explain this by saying that Glorfindel of Gondolin went to the Halls of Mandos and was later exceptionally allowed to re-enter Middle-earth. I actually like the fact that he made mistakes and attempted to explain them. It makes his secondary world all the more real; there are contradictory theories and seeming intellectual mistakes in the real world. Tolkien also deliberately left some things unexplained or unexplored; that his world has 'fuzzy edges' again makes it more believable. Though I have to wonder if his wish to have these fuzzy edges was not just a way of accepting that as a perfectionist, he would never fully complete his world? I love chewing the various issues over though. Just as we think we have one idea defined, someone comes along with a new mad theory and the old debates start off all over again. That's what it's all about...being a Tolkien nut I mean. __________________ Gordon's alive!

02-10-2006, 10:01 AM	#2
AbercrombieOfRohan Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 311	What a topic...! I was convinced that I had read the title wrong, because there was no way that you could be suggesting that Tolkien was a little furry creature from Alpha Centauri, but lo and behold! that's something like what you are suggesting. I think that all of us would be the first to point out the flaws in Tolkien's work (having read them so many times, we're bound to come across things that we really dislike.) Look at all the threads we have that are questioning Tolkien's "perfection" as you call it. There are thousands and thousands of threads dedicated to our discontent with Tolkien. Here for one. Lush is questioning the lack of strong women in the Legendarium. I'm too lazy to look up other examples, but I'm quite sure that other BDer's will back me up in saying that, no, Tolkien is not perfect. Yes, he's our favourite writer (and probably your's too if you're on the boards), but that by no means makes him a perfect God-like figure. In fact, I think Tolkien would be more than a little disturbed at our discussion of such a topic.