Subject: *snort* Wow. What was that about sensible critique again?
Author:
Posted on: 2013-12-13 15:17:00 UTC
And there's not much more to say about that. Silly essay; good dissection.
I think the Eagles are probably both, BTW. Manwe uses them (or things shaped like them) as messengers, but when they're off-duty they're just folks and have their own problems to deal with.
~Neshomeh
So there's this guy who apparently has a PhD, though in what he (I'm assuming 'Roahn' is a male name here), though in what he doesn't say; he has an office in the Physics Astronomy Building. Anyway, he has written a page entitled 'The Brave New World of Unambiguous Movie Criticism', in which he proposes to... well, I'll quote:
If you are tired of droll and vague complaints about contemporary films, you have come to the right place. It is the goal of these pages to identify specific script flaws and avoidable story errors with the hope of generating a useful tool for writers. No longer will a critic be allowed to say "It just didn't work for me," or "I've seen that idea before." It is our purpose to force rigor in the sensibilities of movie critics by giving them a solid evidence based structure upon which to lean.
A bit high-handed, but fair enough. What gets me is his page entitled 'Why the Lord of the Rings is a Bad Story'. It's the only story he dedicates an entire page to, introducing it with 'If the reader has familiarized themselves with the various plot problems I have mentioned in other sections of this website then he or she is now prepared to understand why the Lord of the Rings (LotR) is not a good story' - which makes me wonder whether the entire website exists solely to justify this particular essay.
But okay, sure. People are allowed to say they don't like LotR, or even that they think it's objectively bad. But... his reasons are, put simply, wrong.
It has three forbidden motifs, one LSOC, four separate unexplained prophecies one major internal inconsistency and one minor internal inconsistency.
(And my red pen is twitching at the missing punctuation, believe me)
According to Roahn, there are ten problems which demonstrate that 'LotR is a Bad Story'. According to me, he's wrong about... pretty much all of them.
-Forbidden motif: 'Frodo's adventure to Mt. Doom is the archetypical example of sneaking behind enemy lines and dealing a serious blow'. He allows for the fact that the notion (first on his list of forbidden plots) wasn't cliche at the time it was written by, er, saying 'don't care'. And, ultimately, yes, that is the plot of the book. But... Frodo didn't get into Mordor because of plot, he made it in because everyone else was working to distract Sauron so he could. That's explicit in the books, and even more so in the films ("... a diversion!"). Yes, ' a little detail that escapes Sauron's eye leads to his downfall even as he is on the verge of conquering Middle Earth' - but that isn't 'simply an irony', it's what all the Good Guys were working desperately to achieve.
-Forbidden motif: 'Aragron's compulsion to succeed where his direct male ancestor, Isildur, failed.' This doesn't actually appear to be on his list of Forbidden Plots, but that's okay - it's also not in the books. The movies made a fair amount of fuss over 'Aragorn can't get married until he takes Gondor', but that... really doesn't work the same in the books. He talks about 'until he has a chance to bring the royal family of Gondor redemption' - not only was Isildur not Gondorian royalty (again, not really discussed in the film), but Aragorn didn't express any desire to redeem him or make up for his mistake. Aragorn's goal was to preserve both the North and South Kingdoms against Sauron, and to restore order to what was becoming an orderless land.
-Forbidden motif: 'Gandalf, and indeed all Middle Earth, is betrayed by his boss, Saruman. Who would have thought that the man Gandalf respects and trusts the most is the very one that would betray him and take him prisoner, almost ending the whole story right there? Oh,... *I* would have guessed, that's who.' Er... would you really? Because Saruman's name is mentioned, um, once prior to Gandalf telling us the story of how he betrayed him. This is not a massive plot twist - it's part of the background. You could maybe make a case for Denethor's actions being a form of this motif - except I'd argue vehemently against that, too.
Next up is an 'LSOC', or Literary Second Order Confluence, which Roahn defines as two plot-driving coincidences which happen with no connection to each other. Essentially, he's thinking of times where we already have a reason to follow the main character (he gives the example of Bruce Willis in The Fifth Element being a super-trained soldier type), and then a second coincidence stacks on top of it (Bruce has already met the person he's supposed to protect).
-LSOC: 'How is it that a group of incompetent dwarves and one bumbling Hobbit could possibly succeed in traveling across middle earth and winning back the treasure stolen by a ferocious dragon? Answer: they can't unless the Hobbit happens to find a powerful magic trinket along the way and that Hobbit exploits its power of invisibility in the most obvious ways to save the hapless troupe from certain doom time after time.' This... is a very big assumption. The ways Bilbo uses the Ring to save the dwarves are: to fight off spiders, and in the escape from the Elvenking's Halls. Now, admittedly, we're not shown any other ways these problems could have been dealt with - because Bilbo had the Ring, and used it. But could he have distracted the spiders without it? Sure (though he might have been captured on the way). Could they have escaped Thranduil without it? One way or another, yes - probably when Thorin or one of the others finally succumbed and admitted why they were there. What would Thranduil have done then? I'm guessing sent them on (he wanted the treasure, remember) with Elven guards.
But the big thing, the killing of Smaug - that didn't require the Ring at all. It was all down to a thrush, a raven, and a bowman.
Furthermore, his description of the 'problem' is flawed. He listes the two coincidences as: '1) Bilbo knows Gandalf personally and Gandlaf is eccentric enough to send Bilbo on a hopeless mission and 2) instead of immediately dying on this hopeless mission the moment that Gandalf leaves the party, Bilbo is positioned to pick up the Ring which seems to be looking for a way out of the Misty Mountains.'
Well... no, Bilbo didn't know Gandalf 'personally' (or even the mini Gandlaf). He knew his name, sure - but not his face. And Bilbo himself was not significant - any hobbit could have filled the spot. The first 'coincidence' boils down to 'Gandalf sends a light-footed creature to do some sneaking'. Plot-driving, yes - but not exactly 'eccentric'.
But what about the Ring? If we re-render the coincidences as 'Bilbo doesn't die' and 'Bilbo gets the Ring', we still have a potential problem. Only... well, Roahn rather shoots himself in the foot here:
Now it is true that Gandalf believes that there is "something" special about Hobbits, but he never indicates why he believes this or what that special thing is. Can it be that the special thing is that they are DESTINED to find the Ring of Power and that they are DESTINED to successfully led it to Mt. Doom and destroy it? ... However if that speculation were true that would destroy the independence of Bilbo's quest as assigned by Gandalf and the discovery of the Ring of Power.
Have you got that? If there was an actual Power behind Bilbo's discovery of the Ring, then that would 'destroy the independence' of the two coincidences - ie, stop them being an LSOC.
Um... there is. Actually, there are several options. The most prominent is Iluvatar Himself, and that's what Gandalf seems to be hinting at (without presuming to declare it outright), but it could also be the work of one or more of the Valar - Manwe, Varda (Elbereth), or Ulmo are the most obvious candidates. The statement that 'the movie version of Fellowship of the Ring unambiguously claims that it is pure co-incidence that Bilbo found the Ring' may be true - but I'm sure I recall Sir Ian giving the 'Bilbo was MEANT to find the Ring' speech to Frodo, which I think negates that point too.
'Even if we accept prophetic power without reliable textual evidence we are still left with a story that requires substantial metaphysical groundwork, and this groundwork is never laid.' This is an interesting point. Apart from the fact that it's wrong (the metaphysical groundwork - Iluvatar and the Valar - is very much laid), it also exposes a bizarre oversight on Roahn's part. He insists on thinking that the only way Gandalf could have picked Bilbo (or any hobbit) without it being 'coincidence' is for Gandalf to know of an explicit prophecy. Which... no. Gandalf is a messenger of the Valar, and can be guided by them without knowing why - or even being aware he's doing so. There's an account in an unused chapter of LotR where he pretty much says 'and then the idea of sending a hobbit came to me out of the blue'. He doesn't know of a prophecy - but the Powers use him nontheless.
Next up, Roahn has a thing against prophecies:
-Prophecy: Boromir and Faramir's dream. This actually isn't a prophecy at all - it gives instructions ('Seek for the sword that was broken/In Imladris it dwells'), and then mostly describes events that are already in motion ('There shall be shown a token/That doom is near at hand/For Isildur's Bane is woken/And the Halfling forth shall stand'). The only 'prophecy' is that Frodo (or one of his three companions, who had all decided to accompany him at this point) will actually make it to Rivendell - and that the revealing of the One Ring will bring doom to someone. Yes, it's a vision from a higher Power (probably Lorien, Lord of Dreams) - but it's an instruction, not a revelation of everything that will ever happen.
-Prophecy: 'the visions that Frodo sees in Galladrial's mirror', and I'll add Sam's visions too, since they're mostly his in the books. Yes, these are prophecies - but again, not only is there a Power almost explicitly at work (or even Galadriel's own foresight - there's a Quenya word for it, even!), but they are specifically 'things that may yet come to pass'. Trees falling in the Shire, and Frodo sleeping/dead/drugged in Mordor - they could each have multiple interpretations, and indeed, could have had, if things had gone differently.
-Prophecy: 'The fourth is the fact that "the hands of the King are the hands of a healer"' Ahahahaha. That's not a prophecy, that's a statement about the old Kings of Gondor and Arnor. The fact that it also applies to Aragorn extends it into the realm of evidence of his kingship - but not prophecy.
-Prophecy: 'Lastly there is an implied prophecy regarding the army of dead soldiers that Aragron calls to arms in the defense of Gondor. They were essentially waiting there for his timely return.' I think this may actually be true of the films - but not the books. In the books, the Dead Men of Dunharrow were cursed by Isildur to linger until one of his descendents - any descendent - called for them. Aragorn used that, but it wasn't a prophecy that he would.
There are actually more prophecies in the books - that the Witch-King would not fall by 'the hand of man', that Arvedui would be the last king of Arthedain, the Prophecy of Mandos ('Tears unnumbered ye shall shed...'), etc etc - but they all fall into either the 'vague reference to events that would be correct either way', or 'stating the facts which are already known'.
'Remember: prophecy itself is not the problem. The problem is the missing metaphysical background. As it is LotR is a story that could NOT have turned out any other way. Failure was impossible because if they failed, who would taken the dead army out of bondage, who would have demonstrated the healing hands?'
No-one and no-one - but those weren't prophecies. And they both happened before Sauron fell, anyway.
Now Roahn identifies his 'major inconsistency', about which he claims 'This just shows how Tolkien confused himself, his editor wasn't paying attention and the error slipped by. Hype has kept the error hidden from view for years'. Are you ready for a good laugh?
-'He explains early on in the Fellowship of the Rings that Sauron assumed that the Ring was destroyed. However we eventually learn that the destruction of the Ring is essentially the destruction of Sauron himself. Honestly we were surprised by this. When reading the Return of the King we did NOT expect Sauron to evaporate when the Ring was unmade. '
Did you spot it? Did you spot the massive glaring error in Roahn's argument? Oh, there it is - no-one ever assumed the Ring was destroyed. The Wise, and (according to Saruman) Sauron, assumed it had been washed out into the Great Sea and lost. That's the scenario which would lead to Sauron being weaker. It's pretty clear, even in the Council of Elrond, that the only way to end the threat of Sauron forever was to destroy the Ring.
-There's also a final 'minor inconsistency': 'Sauron instantly knew where Frodo was and what Frodo was up to when he "claimed" the Ring as his own during those final moments in Mt. Doom. However just wearing the Ring wasn't good enough although there is some indication that simply wearing the Ring alerts Sauron and his agents in some way. However Gollum certainly claimed the Ring as his own while in the Misty Mountains and wore it frequently. Why didn't Sauron know about it then?'
The mechanics of Frodo's claim are fairly ill-defined, but Gollum almost certainly did so when he first took it from Deagol's dead hands. So why didn't Sauron know then? Simple - because his power had been dissipated by his defeat at Elendil and company's hands. All through Gollum's long possession of the Ring, Sauron was recovering, building up his power in Dol Guldur. Furthermore, there is no hint in the books (never mind the whole 'the Eye appearing in Bree' scene from the film) that Sauron could detect use of the Ring at great distances. The Nazgul could, almost certainly. But the only time Sauron senses Frodo before the final scene is when Frodo uses the Ring on Amon Hen - a magically-enchanted Hill of Seeing. Just like with the Palantir, Frodo had to open the way with powerful magic (and actually, it may have been through the Ithil Stone that Sauron responded). Remember, Sam wandered around with the Ring on on the very borders of Mordor with no-one sensing it.
But the claiming? Actually, I don't even know if 'claiming' was significant. The key component is that Frodo donned the Ring at the heart of Sauron's realm. The Dark Lord had his mind spread out over the entire country of Mordor - that's why he sensed the Ring being used, and why he sensed Frodo's outrageous challenge. Could he have sensed Gollum's 'claiming', by the banks of Anduin? There's no reason to think he could.
Am I saying LotR is perfect? No, of course not - for one thing, the status and nature of the Eagles is highly inconsistant (are they acting on orders from Manwe and thus unable to interfere, or are they basically giant birds like they're usually present), and I'm sure there are other things you could mention. But does Roahn's argument demonstrate 'Why the Lord of the Rings is a Bad Story'? No. No it does not.
Not that it looks like it was intended as humour, but I found it funny nonetheless.
Wow, that guy (I'm making the same assumption as you) sure has a lot of opinions, and I don't think I agree with any of them.
I'd be kind of interested in seeing him put his money where his mouth is and actually write something according to all of his principles, just to see what it's like. I think I'd have a much easier time taking the site seriously if it wasn't for the SPaG errors on each page.
A dissection I mean, not an anti-fandom essay. I've never bothered with those; the closest I got to that, was a rant on Facebook about how proper vampires should never, ever sparkle, shine, glow, glitter, radiate, shimmer or do anything associated with Christmas decorations.
But I digress.
My dissection was posted here: http://eileen-alphabet.livejournal.com/16016.html#
And for those of you, who don't read Danish, I can say, that it was about an essay by an actual professor in filmscience from an actual university and brought in an actual serious Danish film magazine.
It was also complete and utter BS.
It was about Harry Potter and LOTR (movie versions only, since it was very clear that he had never read the books) and he made a bunch of claims that were either grossly exaggerated or simply made up on the spot.
For example he called J. K. Rowling obsessed with bloodlines, because Harry is "of the right blood" ignoring the fact that Harry's mother was muggleborn and that a great deal of the bad guys in the story are purebloods, who are themselves obsessed with their bloodlines.
He also claimed that the Elves and the Hobbits were in a feudal caste-society with the Elves on top and the Hobbits at the bottom, which doesn't make a lot of sense, since the two races have extremely little contact. Humans and Dwarves were not mentioned in his argument.
So this just goes to show, that your credentials can appear to be in order, but you can still be talking about a subject that you don't know the first thing about.
Ethos/Appeal to Authority: He backs up his claim by "having a PhD." First off, since this is the internet, it is impossible to prove whetehr or not he does have one, and his having one or not is actually totally irrelevant. A PhD in literature would not in and of itself qualify you to talk about physics, and the reverse is also true. He is apparently laboring under the misconception that people who analyze movies and publicized "movie critics," who are often paid to say something short, witty and publishable about a movie rather than do analysis, are the same thing.
Now, I notice that he doesn't outright claim any personal qualifications to judge movies: he says
"A single flaw is often enough to pan a movie, but there are always good points to be weighed against the bad. The flaws identified here are based on viewing hundreds of stories on screen and on television and were simply deduced by noticing patterns over many years of exposure."
a) This depends what the flaw is. For example, Jurassic Park makes some grave errors about DNA in it's canned explanation of how the dinosaurs were cloned - mainly, that anybody with a functioning brain and the training to reconstruct DNA would decide to mix and match species like a jigsaw puzzle - but given the millions of people who wanted to see dinosaurs on the big screen, and the overall quality of the writing, it doesn't necessarily matter that the "science" is a lie, we just assume it's true of the movie universe, since it was integral to the plot.
b)"hundreds of stories on screen and on televison" sounds like the average media consumption of someone in their early to mid twenties, and is hardly a qualification. People have been known to watch passively: none of this is distinguishing his opinion from anybody else.
c)"were simply deduced by noticing patterns over many years of exposure," translates into English as "I made up my rules based on what I liked out of the movies I watched and what I didn't like," which is a valid position, but not one deserving this degree of pretentious academia. As a relatively minor point, that's not actually a deduction: the only definition of deduction in the realm of logic is that the conclusion absolutely has to follow from the presented premises... and what this guy has to offer is opinions that sound like TV Tropes articles dressed up for a thesis dissertation.
*****
I could go on, but honestly, another person who wants to increase their net-views and therefore credibility by panning LOTR because they know that it's a highly popular franchise with a huge fandom and they can get attention that way probably isn't worth our time. Especially when they're pretentious enough to think that they're somehow the first to d it.
I find it weird that he talks about literary criticism at all if that's not the field he's specialized in. Granted, I could be wrong about that, and being a musician it might be slightly hypocritical to point that out, but I still feel that it's strange that he's commenting on a field he doesn't have any real expertise in.
And only "a bit high-handed"? Huinesoron, I think that's an understatement considering that the truly great film critics can often articulate why "it just didn't work for me" in so many words. Can they be full of shit? Armond White repeatedly shows that yes, they can. But they can articulate it, which sort of makes Roahn's statement pompous and a little arrogant, all things considered.
I actually do have a little question about one of your points, though. Specifically, this:
"You could maybe make a case for Denethor's actions being a form of this motif - except I'd argue vehemently against that, too."
Are you saying that because the movies botched Denethor up quite a bit? Or what else is going on there that would make you argue vehemently against that too? (Don't mind my asking: judging from this, it's fun watching you geek out about LotR.)
Denethor: In the movies, he was a fairly undiluted villain, down to 'mwahaha watch me stuff my face disgustingly while under siege' (and the fact that Stephen Fry has bragged about being able to do the same thing as the Master of Laketown doesn't exactly fill me with hope). But in the books? He was a good leader. He didn't betray the people of Gondor, or even the Fellowship - he just broke under the strain of one son dying, another coming close, and having Sauron twist everything he saw to look as bad as it possible could.
Yes, Denethor snapped at the end - but he stayed loyal to his people. He didn't even betray Pippin, who had put himself entirely in his power - just calmly released him from duty and walked off to commit suicide.
I like Denethor. No, not like - he's a hard man to like, cold and rather bitter. But I respect Denethor.
hS
PS: One of the things I really enjoy about LotR - and Middle-earth in general - is that you can pretty much name any character, and there will always be more to them than is obvious on first glance. That goes for villains - Sauron, for instance, with his chance at redemption - and minor characters - Imrahil of Dol Amroth, the man with a hint of elvish blood, Prince of what may well have been the largest city in Middle-earth at the time, who likely spent his time fighting off pirates - as well as the main cast. It's fun!
(And Maeglin had never met a woman who wasn't his mother until he saw Idril)
I'm giving things a few days before I give the movie the full treatment, but... yeah.
(Incidentally, I have to agree with Wozzeck's assessment. The guy is extremely arrogant, clearly has never seen a truly great film critic at work, and seems to think having a PhD alone makes him the grand arbiter of everything good. Plus he makes a lot of flawed assumptions and common mistakes made in criticism, but I'll get on that in another reply; I might just feel insulted because, y'know, I actually am a film critic and he basically just called me and a lot of people I admire overblown windbags who don't know what we're talking about. :P )
Wait a sec. You're a film critic? As in, a professional film critic? I see another "Ask the PPC" thread coming...
And there's not much more to say about that. Silly essay; good dissection.
I think the Eagles are probably both, BTW. Manwe uses them (or things shaped like them) as messengers, but when they're off-duty they're just folks and have their own problems to deal with.
~Neshomeh
(An excuse? Why, thank you - don't mind if I do!)
What I'm thinking of is that old 'Why didn't the Eagles take the Ring to Mordor?' question. And I think I've... sort of solved it.
There are five- no, six- no, seven things the eagles of the Misty Mountains do in The Hobbit/LotR. In order:
-Rescue Thorin's company from Wargs and take them to the Carrock.
-Kill things in the Battle of the Five Armies.
-Take news to Gandalf at Orthanc.
-Rescue Gandalf and carry him to Rohan.
-Carry Gandalf from Moria to Lorien (and possible on to Tol Brandir? I forget).
-Kill things outside the Black Gates.
-Fly to Orodruin to pick up Frodo and Sam.
That's two battles, four transport missions, and one message.
The message is probably the easiest to explain - there aren't a lot of talking birds around, so Radagast went to the ones who did.
The transportation actually reveals an interesting fact: they're all very short range. Five Fir Trees to Carrock can't be more than 30 miles; Orthanc to Edoras is just under 150 (and Gwaihir does it on sufferance). Moria to Lorien is maybe 50 miles, Lorien to Rauros about 250. Orodruin to the Black Gates is about 100 miles, again.
Rivendell to Mordor? At least 700 miles.
Furthermore, none of those constituted direct action against the Enemy. They certainly helped, but their one action in Mordor took place after the Ring was destroyed. So I think, here, they are constrained by Manwe in their actions - just as Gandalf is. He, too, avoids direct action against Sauron in the Quest, though he will quite happily shoot down Nazgul in the cause of Gondor.
The battles? I think those are the times when Manwe took off the leash. The Powers seem definitely to have decided that nonintervention is the wisest course - but that doesn't mean they won't sneak in at the last minute. ;)
I've actually just discovered a massive essay on the eagle question on the Encyclopedia of Arda; it's quite detailed (though dealing specifically with the 'fly to Mount Doom' scenario, not the whole question). It also includes this delightful snipped:
The Eagle strategy has its own set of disadvantages, but it's perhaps surprising that the Council didn't stop to discuss it at all before making its decision. Perhaps it would be truer to say that they're not recorded as having discussed it; in fact there's a remote hint that they may have considered the possibility. We know that scouts were sent to seek out Radagast at Rhosgobel, and though we're not told why, we do know that Radagast was friendly with the Eagles. Just possibly, this is a hint that - 'behind the scenes' - this strategy was actually considered, with the hope that Radagast would act as a contact to gain the Eagles' help. In the event, Radagast could not be found; if he had been at home, perhaps the story of the Ring-bearer's journey would have taken quite a different turn!
And you thought my 'Tom Bombadil's Palantir' theory was strange... I've got nothing on these guys. ;)
hS
Wasn't it made clear at some point they needed a stealthy way into Mordor so as not to draw Sauron's attention to who had the Ring? Not to mention the Nazgul on their fell beasts would've made that journey extremely perilous at best.
The trouble with That Question is that you'll never be able to satisfy 90% of the people asking it, because the rebuttal will always be "but it doesn't say that in the book/movie!" And they're right.
I like the answer they give in the game Lord of the Rings: War in the North, though, which basically runs "What, you think you can just use the Great Eagles of the North like pack mules? Think again!"
I figure, like the Elves of Mirkwood and Lothlorien, they had problems enough in their own territory without flying an easily-detected and possibly suicidal mission into the very jaws of Mordor.
~Neshomeh, who hates That Question.
... is the one given by the webcomic Oglaf. I won't spoil it here, you can go see for yourself. http://oglaf.com/ornithology/ (Warning: that particular comic is pretty safe, but a lot of the other comics are very NSFW.) Unless you happen to be a minor, in which case, you'll just have to wait.
Language, you see. NSFW language.
-Phobos
...that perhaps the Great Eagles are just as susceptible to the pull of the ring as everyone else? What happens if they say to an Eagle, "Please airlift this Hobbit to Mount Doom so he can toss the ring in." I'll tell you what I think happens. You get a dead Hobbit (who was, after all, bite-sized) and a giant invisible Eagle who is slowly going mad.
No, I think that is a really bad idea.
-Phobos, who loves That Question
Maybe I'm just too pleased by the idea of a giant invisible eagle that's gone crazy through the influence of an artifact of ancient evil, but concept-wise, it's definitely something I'd read.
Ohhhh, *wipes tear from eye* this made me laugh so hard. The essay itself made me burst into laughter (attracting some very weird looks from random passers-by). The commentary made me cry. Of laughter.
I don't know why--maybe because of the absence of my sanity--but anti-fandom essays tend to make me laugh. There was this essay by a guy who claimed to be Scottish professor, about how "LotR is racist", that I can across, and I took one look at it and giggled. And then I chuckled. And then I guffa--er, I think you get the idea.
Ah, I'm weird.
~Autumn
I mean, when you write a story, you usually plan, so probability is nonsense. What's important is that you can explain what's going on to some degree, and obey the in-universe rules. Except Tamil Movies. They just have extremely different laws of physics and love that Marty Stus and Mary Sues of fanfiction will find themselves struggling there.
Secondly, how is cliche a point for forbidding? Cliche is when you repeat the same plot or point a thousand times without changes in the story flow. The list shows mostly things and persons. Orcs can be civilised, in space, even cute and cuddly, as Gummi Bears show. Robots have loved/been loved, kill, build, conflict, and plain there. but then, even cliches can be entertaining.