Shockingly, I agree.

Help finding an essay by Miah on 2018-02-01 00:44:00 UTC Reply

I used to have a link to a LotR essay about Faramir's characterization in the movies. It proposed that his characterization was essentially the same, that it was the differences in the way Frodo behaved that altered Faramir's movie actions.

I have lost my link and can't find it with Google, but I hoped it would sound familiar to someone here.

Ooh, I remember that! by Neshomeh on 2018-02-01 02:40:00 UTC Reply

At least, I think I do, if it's "What Happened to Gallant Captain Faramir?" by Tinw (who has lots more interesting-looking things on their site).

I also stumbled across "Faramir is Evil Like Gandalf is Green: In Defense of Peter Jackson's Faramir" by Jonathan on TheOneRing.net, which looks at the decision to make Faramir "more dynamic" from a film student's perspective. Putting the two together, I guess the conclusion is that some of Frodo's nobility was sacrificed to give Faramir more to do? Still doesn't sit well with me, but I guess it kinda makes sense.

~Neshomeh

That's the one! by Miah on 2018-02-01 06:12:00 UTC Reply

Thank you, thank you! I thought if anyone would know this piece and be able to find it, it would be a PPCer. I'll check out the rest of the site, too.

The second one is an interesting perspective. I hadn't ever considered it from a film needs point of view like that.

Can I recommend an essay too? by Scapegrace on 2018-02-01 19:46:00 UTC Reply

Michael Moorcock's "Epic Pooh", which takes a view of a sacred cow around these parts - LotR - that is far from complimentary. This is exactly why I think it should almost be mandatory reading for PPCers analyzing Middle-earth's gallimaufry of badfic. How can we properly criticize a transformative work if we do not have critical, thoughtful ideas concerning the original story? At least, that's the approach I'm trying to take with my own missions. How successful that has been is something I leave open to interpretation.

Now, see... by Huinesoron on 2018-02-01 22:20:00 UTC Reply

... I disagree quite vehemently with 'Epic Pooh'. Obviously some of his points are subjective - he doesn't like Tolkien's poetry, for instance - but the main thrust of his argument is that Tolkien's style is 'cuddly' and lacks tension. Which... I'm not sure how little of LotR you have to read to get that impression. The whole trip to Crickhollow is an exercise in slowly building tension.

He also tries to claim that Tolkien's use of humour is 'unconscious' - ie, he seems to think that all the understated comedy wasn't written deliberately - and that Tolkien doesn't take any pleasure in words. Which, when said about a man who imvented a language and then wrote a world to use it in, is pretty much the height of ridiculous.

At one point, I started on a rather scathing dissection of the essay through the mouthpiece of Terri Ryan; I never quite got it finished, but I might take it up again.

(Oh, he also complains at various points about the use of nobles, artisans, peasants, and the petit bourgeoisie as heroes. I'm not entirely sure who that leaves? Because those four broadly correlate to the Upper, Lower Middle, Working, and Upper Middle classes...)

hS

Shockingly, I agree. by Neshomeh on 2018-02-01 22:50:00 UTC Reply

I don't mind anyone not finding Tolkien to their taste, but as far as I can tell, that's Moorcock's whole argument: Tolkien is a bad writer because Moorcock prefers other writers. That's not an argument. A statement like "Tolkien is a bad writer" needs to be substantiated. Okay, you don't like rural romance—fine. But why is it bad? Explain, author. Explain!

And that goes for us PPCers, too.

(And seriously, LOL at Tolkien not taking pleasure in words. "Cellar door," anyone?)

~Neshomeh

I mean, really. by Thoth on 2018-02-02 15:41:00 UTC Reply

If I was going to criticize Tolkien, I'd actually argue that he's too much in love with words: it feels he focuses on words and language over the story, often to its detriment. So too is the case with the broader worldbuilding: it's great, but it leaves the narrative awkward and bloated.

As a result of Tolkien's approach, Middle Earth is one of the most well-developed, fleshed-out and intricate settings in all of fiction. And unlike most similarly detailed settings, it's consistent, coherent, and clearly the well-thought-out result of one vision, one mind.

However, as someone who slogged through LoTR, barely awake, and was mocked for my peers for being unable to remember the difference between Barad-dûr and Khazad-dûm, I think I can safely say that, at least from my perspective, the narrative suffers.

But maybe my biases are showing...