Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 193 posts

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#111

Post by smfugit »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #103
wolverine876 wrote: post #98

Tolkien wrote the essential story - for our time : An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them…

"The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights. Moreover, though Gandalf rarely displayed his power, everyone outside the Shire suspected that he did possess power and belonged to an elite, and today there is great distrust of elites. I think a lot of idealistic…

There are no essential stories for "everyone". Cause everyone is different. What the cactus needs and what the redwood needs are not the same thing. The stories they need will always be different.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#112

Post by djur »

vlunkr wrote: post #17
andrewstuart wrote: post #10

It saddens me that the Lord of The Rings was commercialised. It was one of the happiest parts of life - to be able to read the books and venture into that world. It's been spoiled for me by the ridiculous movies like The Hobbit (holy god, Peter Jackson turned Dwarves into ridiculous comedy clowns, covered Radagast with birdshit) , the endless licensed garbage and whilst The Lord of The Rings movie was quite good it h…

Honestly I think any LOTR fan should be so grateful for those movies. It could have gone wrong in so many ways. At one point it was supposed to be a single movie. It could have deviated completely from the books, it could have been super cheaply made. Remember, the books didn't have a big pop culture presence at the time. Fortunately, Jackson and others involved were really passionate about doing it right, and convin…

In one of the earliest screenplays, Frodo and Galadriel have sex. And Gandalf basically waterboards Gimli into revealing the password to Moria. It's a wild take on the material.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#113

Post by number6 »

gattr wrote: post #110
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights. Moreover, though Gandalf rarely displayed his power, everyone outside the Shire suspected that he did possess power and belonged to an elite, and today there is great distrust of elites. I think a lot of idealistic…

On a side note, I enjoyed Joe Abercrombie's "The First Law" cycle. It subverts the "wise old man enlists young hero's services for a lofty endeavor" trope to great effect.

Thanks for the recommendation, sounds interesting

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#114

Post by OfSanguineFire »

jl6 wrote: post #108
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights. Moreover, though Gandalf rarely displayed his power, everyone outside the Shire suspected that he did possess power and belonged to an elite, and today there is great distrust of elites. I think a lot of idealistic…

On the other hand, while the great old powers were waging fruitless war, it was the little people who struck the decisive blow, so perhaps it’s a lesson for our time of how both bottom-up and top-down can collaborate.

Yes, but in Tolkien it was little white cis males. As can be seen from the recent television adaptation, a myth for our time requires the involvement of, if not the leading role for, women and BIPOC in that struggle. Obviously Tolkien will still have an appeal for people interested in old literature, but it is hard to say that it is the myth for our time with its distinct concerns.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#115

Post by croes »

wolverine876 wrote: post #98

Tolkien wrote the essential story - for our time : An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them…

I don't like the deus ex machina trick of turning Gandalf the Grey into Gandalf the White.

That's like Spock's inner eye lid.

BTW the primary actors are Sam and Frodo and their friendship where one carries the burden of the ring and the other carries his friend.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#116

Post by adrian_b »

msla wrote: post #77
resolutebat wrote: post #19

"The Fellowship of the Ring is at least as good as The Thirty-Nine Steps. " For anybody else wondering what The Thirty-Nine Steps is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty-Nine_Steps

In more context: > on the primitive level of wanting to know what happens next, The Fellowship of the Ring is at least as good as The Thirty-Nine Steps . That is, it's an engaging narrative up there with a book that's been adapted into four films, a stage play, and enough radio dramas it would be tiresome to count them all. So, yes, high praise for Tolkien's ability to tell a story people want to continue reading.

I certainly agree that it is an engaging narrative.

When I was a teenager long ago and I have seen for the first time this book when I have borrowed it from a library, during a couple of days I did almost nothing else until I have finished reading the entire trilogy.

For me this has happened very seldom with other books, and with none of this size.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#117

Post by morelisp »

jl6 wrote: post #108
OfSanguineFire wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The primary actor is a wise old man…" And that is why it is hard to call that a myth for our time. Young people’s contempt for the now-elderly generation (they’re Boomers) has reached incredible heights. Moreover, though Gandalf rarely displayed his power, everyone outside the Shire suspected that he did possess power and belonged to an elite, and today there is great distrust of elites. I think a lot of idealistic…

On the other hand, while the great old powers were waging fruitless war, it was the little people who struck the decisive blow, so perhaps it’s a lesson for our time of how both bottom-up and top-down can collaborate.

This is a profound misreading; royal birthright, aristocracy, and the ruling class are not taken to task or shown to be "fruitless" at all in Tolkien, and while today we may read Frodo as "the common man" his contemporary presentation is firmly (pastoralist and conservative English) upper middle class. The Baggins are landed gentry, not "the little people".

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#118

Post by thaumasiotes »

WalterBright wrote: post #67
eredengrin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too love the books, I've read the trilogy at least 16 times and the Silmarillion at least 3 or 4 at this point (haven't gotten into the others yet but hope to one day). Yes, the tv series can be entirely forgotten. So can the hobbit trilogy - I personally don't mind if the tone is a bit more lighthearted, the book was as well, it was meant to be more of a children's book after all. But certainly much of the extra m…

Don't overlook the impact of the music! It added a great deal to my enjoyment of LotR. And subtracted from the Hobbit, as it had poor music.

The Rankin-Bass animated version of The Hobbit is excellent, including the music.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#119

Post by morelisp »

croes wrote: post #115
wolverine876 wrote: post #98

Tolkien wrote the essential story - for our time : An evil force works not by open destruction, but through lies to cause despair and corruption. The good people of the world allow themselves to be influenced by it; they embrace despair and abandon goodness and all resistance; or they are corrupted and even help the enemy. The primary actor is a wise old man who travels around, not using great powers, but waking them…

I don't like the deus ex machina trick of turning Gandalf the Grey into Gandalf the White. That's like Spock's inner eye lid. BTW the primary actors are Sam and Frodo and their friendship where one carries the burden of the ring and the other carries his friend.

I don't think you can criticize "deus ex machina" as a plot device when it's, from go, literally "ex deus" - Gandalf is on a mission (/ missions) from god, and Eru's not gonna let him get off so easily.

Re: W. H. Auden’s 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring

#120

Post by thaumasiotes »

bombcar wrote: post #94
gumby wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It saddens me that the Lord of The Rings was commercialised. You might note that the author worked hard with Allen & Unwin to have it printed and offered for sale . If you have the official ‘60s paperbacks from Bellentine you’ll see the back cover is a letter from Tolkien complaining of the unauthorized Ace editions and telling you you should buy only the authorized editions (Ballantine or Houghton Mifflin). It’s b…

It's also arguable that undue concern for commercialization kept the Silmarillion out of print, because he kept trying to bring it to the level of perfection found in the LotR.

The Silmarillion has not reached the level of quality that would normally be required for publication. The only reason it's published at all is the popularity of Tolkien's other work.

"Perfection" really isn't the right concept here. The Silmarillion is not perfectly written. It also isn't adequately written.

Post reply on HN