That's the main subject of this article in Frontpage. It makes some interesting claims, such as:
While Jackson’s action-packed films have obvious appeal, the novel’s popularity is harder to understand. Tolkien’s book moves at a deliberate pace and features a hero (Frodo Baggins) who eventually loses the sympathy of most readers.He does? Not this reader. But then, I'm not a shallow, "I need a hero!" happy-ending type of person. Take that, all you Frodo detractors!
Here's a paragraph (excised) that I liked:
Tolkien’s world creation outdoes others because of his deep understanding of the roots of Western culture: his comprehension of myth, epic, and language touches everything in the novels from the magical but familiar Elvish language to his descriptions of Earth-shaking battles. Without his academic training and position, Tolkien probably could not have written a novel nearly as good. (Nearly every medievalist I know under 40 considers LOTR a major influence.)Note that last sentence. Ha HA, fantasy-destroys-interest-in-scholarly-pursuits people. (I will never tire of making digs at that article.)
Here's a surprising claim:
Tolkien’s own politics, in any case, were mostly left-of-center.By what definition? Not one I ever read... AFAIK, Tolkien was pretty conservative. Maybe he voted Labour or something? Whatever. I haven't researched his politics (because I really. Don't. Care.) but this sounds like a dig at the supposed "anti-industrialism" in the novel from a member of TAE, not the result of actual knowledge of what side of the spectrum the late professor voted on. Posted by Andrea Harris at January 12, 2003 12:23 PM
I'd be profoundly surprised if JRRT ever voted for Labour. We're not talking Tony Blair, here: they were Godless Socialists™! He might have voted Liberal at least earlier on because of a sense of lingering anti-Catholicism among the Tories, but otherwise it's hard for me to make out anything from his even tangential suggestions but a true-blue Conservative voter, though of course of the old patrician "wet" variety rather than a radical "dry" Thatcherite.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at January 12, 2003 at 01:06 PMI think Tolkien voted the straight Eldar ticket.
Posted by: Gary Farber at January 13, 2003 at 01:59 AMThere was quite a pronounced strain of anti-industrialism in the far-left of Tolkien's youth.
Thus it would not surprise me that Tolkien was left-of-center yet still anti-industrialist. Two words, one name: William Morris.
Well, I believe William Morris was a friend of Tolkien's. I don't think he particularly cared for Morris' politics, though. But then isn't everyone a leftist in their youth? That old saying...
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 13, 2003 at 09:30 AMBah. Everyone knows that SAM is the primary character in the novel, not Frodo. (And if they don't, they need to start re-reading the book!)
Posted by: amy at January 13, 2003 at 12:43 PMHe does? Not this reader. But then, I'm not a shallow, "I need a hero!" happy-ending type of person. Take that, all you Frodo detractors!
That makes two of us. Statements like that make me wonder if I'm out of the loop since I keep hearing that the movies are "guy" movies that women only go to see becuase the man in their life wants to see them. Now most readers aren't sympathetic to Frodo?
Say what? [sigh] Whatever.
Posted by: Ith at January 13, 2003 at 04:31 PMAmy,
I think that's an exaggeration. Frodo is initially the central character and Sam gradually assumes this position over the course of Frodo essentially "dying to the world." Even Tolkien recognized that the severity of a battering Frodo goes through ultimately so saps his vitality that he does become difficult to sympathize with. And no, Andrea, I can't cite his letters, but I do know the statement to this effect is in there somewhere.
Posted by: David Jaroslav at January 13, 2003 at 06:22 PMActually Tolkien did get letters complaining about the character of Frodo; I was being a tad facetious. Tolkien explained just what you said, and went into the reasons why he "failed" at the end, etc. Most people are used to conventional heroes who do everything right and get the girl. Aragorn fulfills that function in the novel, but it is clear (and explicated by Tolkien) that the Aragorn scenes are part of the secondary action in the book, while the Frodo/Sam/Gollum scenes are the primary.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 13, 2003 at 08:23 PMThe way Tolkien handles Frodo's fate is to me one of the more 'realistic' facets of the book. Frodo is the hero - we know that - but his heroism is little lauded on his return to the Shire. How mny times has that happened? A quiet, humble hero saves the day but is ruined in the process, leaving all the glory and plaudits for others. How many men were shattered by WW I (one of the formative experiences in Tolkien's life)? They played their part with bravery, but got no part in the spoils of victory. Frodo has to be enervated and spent by the end; some have to fall so that they can cede their positions to the ones that come after them.
Posted by: David Gillies at January 14, 2003 at 06:02 PM