Stories of Arda - Lord of the Rings Fan-Fiction Archive


	About Us News Resources Login Become a member Help Search

Tolkien and the Problem of Characterisation by Fionnabhair Nic Aillil	7 Review(s)
Lamiel	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/29/2004
This is a wonderful explanation of something that I've been trying to understand and explain for some time: why Tolkien's work is so fascinating, and enjoyable, and yet at times infuriating. As much as I love the majestic sweep of Middle-earth's mythology, the lack of depth to its inhabitants is frequently frustrating, particularly for an Elf worshipper like myself. But as a fanfic writer I couldn't be happier: such a beautiful setting he created, and so much opportunity to explore these characters which are so often mere outlines in his work. All the same I am grateful for PJ's movies as well, because they have given a more human depth to many of the characters, particularly Aragorn. As for the other characters so woefully neglected in both the books and the movies - such as my favorite Elf prince - I guess that's what we fan writers are for. Thanks again for a thoughtful and well written critique.

BKB	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/27/2004
An excellent essay. The difference between "an epic wriitten in novel form" and "an epic novel" a key distinction that is over looked by almost everyone, layman, critic or academic. As you pointed out, the requirements of the two forms are very different. Since the novel has been the only long prose in common use in the English language for at least the past century, almost everyone reads the Lord of the Rings with the wrong expectations. I wonder if this is one of the reasons that Edmund Wilson and many others since have taken a dislike to it that borders on the pathological. While those who like it, can accept the characteristics of the epic whether or not they realize that they are not actually reading a novel.

maya_ar	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/20/2004
Excellent and closely reasoned analysis. While I disagree with some of the premises, it is always a pleasure to read a thoughtful and articulate essay on Tolkien's characters.

Kellen	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/19/2004
Thank you! What a wonderfully thought out essay, and it put in words what I have struggled with LotR for some time. Now that its been initially outlined for me, I've already found myself expanding on the theories and ideas in your essay and finding a greater understanding of many of Tolkien's characters, and seeing a groundwork for some infinitely better fic. Thanks! Kellen

Nilmandra	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/19/2004
This is an interesting look at the novel and how we perceive it (and probably how most of us write), but I always remind myself about whose perspective Tolkien wrote from. The Hobbit was written by Bilbo the hobbit - so we only see events as he saw them - and hobbits did not have a great understanding of world events, for the most part. The LotR is written by Frodo, initially from his own perspective, and then from Sam's, when Frodo could no longer write his own. Other members of the fellowship gave their version of events, which is why we see those perspective shifts. The Silmarillion is a 'history' of the elves of Middle-earth (primarily the exiles) written from the perspective of a mortal man. I think Tolkien actually did an amazing job interpreting events through the eyes of the 'writer,' which was his intention. He wasn't trying to write a novel as we think of it, at least I don't think he was. He 'found' a book written by a hobbit, with a hobbit's perspective. Tolkien left a great deal of room for fanfiction writers, giving us just bits and pieces of some characters, like Eowyn and Arwen, both of whom he had to show through the hobbits' eyes or give us factual information in a history (or in the case of The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, their story told to someone who wrote it down). I think he did an amazing job creating a mythology, and then writing stories to flesh out the myth through the eyes of the 'least' of the characters. (Hobbits being not very important or powerful or knowledgeable, in their own words). I imagine had Elrond or Aragorn or Galadriel or Faramir written the LotR it would look very different than this. Author Reply: I understand the point you make, but it seems to me that it only reinforces my argument. Phillip Pullman's series is written from the point of view of children, as is JKK Rowling's - children who gradually come of age I admit - and like the hobbits the childrens' point of view is necessarily somewhat contracted. And yet there is not the difficulty of characterisation in either of these writers' novels - at times characters may be incomprehensible to the narrator, or their motives may be shadowed, but they maintain a kind of consistency that Tolkien did not achieve in "The Lord of The Rings." An epic however is usually full of characters whose actions are unexplained and sometimes inexplicable - the only example I can think of at this moment is Abdiel in "Paradise Lost" but there are others. I'm not denying that Tolkien's work created an astonishing mythology - my argument is that a mythology is different from a novel, and characterisation, which in Tolkien is frequently inconsistent or, more damagingly for the reader, 'through a glass darkly' so to speak. A myth is different to a novel - which is requires intense and psychologically consistent characterisation - a myth does not require that and neither did Tolkien.

Ms. Whatsit	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/19/2004
A very interesting essay, and I mostly agree. I definitely don't think we can compare Tolkien to Austen--apples and oranges, people! Tolkien's style is half mythic and half, well, historical--we know what happened, but we don't know what was going on inside the main players' heads as it was happening--and isn't that what really makes it appealing to fanfic writers? We want to embroider the original story and fill in the blanks, like we do with all myths, and I think that's why we like it. Not many people write Austen fanfic because we know what happens and why. But I'm rambling now. Good essay :). Author Reply: May I suggest that you do not look at the Austen section in fanfiction.net? You may be scarred for life. Believe me I had a look at some of them - people who thought they could rewrite Pride and Prejudice, or pair up Emma and Frank Churchill! Or in the Shakespeare section Hamlet is paired with Horatio, Laertes and in one truly disturbing fic Claudius.

Rose Sared	Reviewed Chapter: 1 on 6/19/2004
Thank you, I think that clarified some of my own thought around the impact of a work, that I would not call a novel either, on my own life and the lives of my comtemporaries. The thing is, I think, that these characters are heroic cyphers, upon which we can build our own dreams, and by writing the books as great stories Tolkein achieved his aim. England, and by proxy the english speaking world, has a mythology for our time, one that is, and will be, handed down through the generations, with enough gaps to be able to feed the dreams of each generation as time moves on. Leave the characterisation and motivation to us fiction dreamers, the canon stands as the source, our interpretation is personal and reflective of our times. Won't it be interesting to compare the fan-fic of today with that of our children and their children. I have no doubt it will still be written. Living in hope Rose Author Reply: It's true - myths tend to rewritten for different times (Troy depicts the Illiad as a fight against colonialism which was hardly Homer's intention!) and it is the very openness of myths that allows for that, and for sites like Stories of Arda to flourish. This essay crystalised out of arguments I made top justify the fact that I like "The Lord of the Rings" despite not thinking it a particularly good novel - but an excellent myth.

Return to Chapter List