LotR: What do you dislike about the Books?

[Alatar]

Much has been made of the Movies, their purism or not, what worked and what didn't.

I just wonder how well the books hold up to the same scrutiny. So, what did you feel was badly handled in the books. What were their flaws?

All in good fun of course!

[truehobbit]

What do you dislike about the Books?

Nothing!

(I like the easy questions. )

[Cerin]

I also have never found anything to dislike in the books. They are right up my alley, so to speak.

[Primula Baggins]

Not much is wrong with the book, for me. Off the top of my head:

• The seventeen-year gap.
  
  Cardboard Faramir with his easy nobility.
  
  Boromir's death being reported, not seen.
  
  Sam's heavy-handed buffoonish moments ("servant humor"). Sometimes I'm with Ursula Le Guin: I'd like to go start a Hobbit Socialist Party.
  
  Characters we are meant to admire, including Gandalf, regularly saying "I told you so!" and "Ha, ha, I already knew that!"

These date back to long before the films, by the way.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

They are too short.

[vison]

Why, I simply can't believe me eyes!!!! Primula Baggins!!!!

I liked the books just the way they are. There was one HUGE flaw, though: too short.
















I guess I sorta see what you mean, though, Prim. Sorta.

[truehobbit]

I never get why people think Faramir is "cardboard" and why they believe one can only be good after an internal struggle.
Most amazing to have that come from you, Prim!
Doesn't it mean that you expect everybody to be a bad person at the bottom if you can't believe they can be good easily?
The "easy nobility" is exactly what I love about him.

[superwizard]

Something that I personally think could have been improved upon is really the depth of some of the characters. Don't get me wrong I love The Lord of the Rings but I sometimes wish I could get more personal information from certain characters. What were Gimli's fears? did he fancy anyone back home etc etc etc

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

OK, more seriously the 17 year gap and the fact that the Nazgûl are not sufficiently developed. The Black Riders in the Shire and on Weathertop need rewriting.They seem unbelievably inefficient. This could be accepted if it were explained better. Sam storming the Tower of Cirith Ungol and finding the orcs have conveniently killed each other off stretches credulity too far too.

[superwizard]

Sam storming the Tower of Cirith Ungol and finding the orcs have conveniently killed each other off stretches credulity too far too.

But that was one of my favorite parts in the book :(:(

[Erunáme]

Perfect timing for this thread as I'm rereading the books right now and trying to do so carefully. I'm trying to really pay attention.

Boromir's death is really disappointing since I've been shown PJ's version. I found the book version to not be very moving or emotional. That's one thing PJ definately did better. *ducks tomatoes*

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:
Sam storming the Tower of Cirith Ungol and finding the orcs have conveniently killed each other off stretches credulity too far too.

But that was one of my favorite parts in the book

Sam once inside Cirith Ungol and everything that follows is truly wonderful and it has some very deep moments. I just think Tolkien should have reduced the garrison substantially and found some other mechanism for Sam to succeed in entering rather than hundreds of orcs conveniently killing each other off so evenly.

[Cerin]

superwizard, I love that part of the book, too. Everyone has different tastes.


I disagree that the death of Boromir would have been improved by being described. Part of the frantic effect at the beginning of the second book is that we are stuck with Aragorn, hearing the horn blowing and then fading, and not knowing what has transpired. And then the emotional effect of coming upon the scene ...

All that would have been spoiled by switching to a description of events as they took place.

Prim, you say that before seeing the movie you wished as a reader that the author had described Boromir's death?

[Primula Baggins]

I never get why people think Faramir is "cardboard" and why they believe one can only be good after an internal struggle.
Most amazing to have that come from you, Prim!
Doesn't it mean that you expect everybody to be a bad person at the bottom if you can't believe they can be good easily?
The "easy nobility" is exactly what I love about him.

The book is what it is, and I wouldn't change it. I accept what I've read in thread after thread over the years, that this kind of heroic quest story actually requires somewhat "flat" characters who stay the same throughout (no "arcs," no internal conflict). (Though the hobbits are fully rounded and do change, which may be why I love them best.)

And no, I don't expect everyone to be bad at the bottom. Far from it. The world is full of people who do good easily and naturally, and I say thank God for that.

However, real people aren't characters. Conventionally, in fiction, major characters are expected to be more interesting than the average real person. This is generally accomplished through conflict and change. So reading LotR through the lens of that convention, one can conclude (and many do conclude) that a lot of the characters are "cardboard." Faramir just has the worst case of this.

Even in the stories I write, which are genre adventure novels with no pretense to "depth" or literary greatness, I go to a lot of trouble to make sure that my major characters must overcome internal as well as external conflicts, and that they change over the course of the novel in some significant way. It's just expected now, even in books like mine (and it does make them much more interesting to write).

You have to set much of that aside when reading LotR. Some can and some can't. And even those who can (like me) sometimes see how easily a character could be much more interesting, and how it would serve the story if he was—and there's a little frustration in that, which is all I meant by listing it.

Edit: Cross-posted with Cerin, who wrote:

Prim, you say that before seeing the movie you wished as a reader that the author had described Boromir's death?

Yes, long before seeing the movie. It was the departure of a major character who changed and performed a noble deed—but it all happened off-scene. A more conventional writer would have used that, not tossed it off in backstory.

This was a wish on my part, a longing to see more—not really a judgment on Tolkien's storytelling.

[superwizard]

Prim I agree with you that major characters must overcome internal as well as external conflicts. However Faramir (who I like very much btw) is not a major character in the story.
I would like to point out that all of the fellowship did overcome certain obstacles. I will not talk about the hobbits, a whole page would not suffice, but Gimli and Legolas transended huge barriers whe they became friends. Imagine how difficult it would have been for you to become friends of someone who's father had previously imprisoned your own. That is not mentioning the great divide between elves and dwarves too.
Boromir obviously faced great internal stuggles which he overcame at the end. At this point I would like to point out that one thing I dislike is people taking the view that Boromir is bad or that he is not a very good person. I honestly cannot say that I would have fared any better than Boromir indeed I predict I would have done much worse than him.
Gandalf died and came back, an then changes from a wandering helper to the man in charge of the battle against The Dark Lord; remember he was not before Saruman turned traitor.
Aragorn had to leave the love of his life and go ask for help to the people who had betrayed his forefather.
So to conclude I would like to ask, how much more emotions and struggles can you put in a 1000 page adventure book?

[Primula Baggins]

Oh, all that conflict is there, superwizard, but it's external conflict—obstacles to be overcome. It's very important and there is plenty of it in LotR, but it isn't exactly what I meant.

Internal conflict would be, oh, say, Aragorn feeling doubts about his worthiness to be king , or Faramir being actually tempted to take the Ring , or really most of the changes that were made for the films with the goal of making them more interesting and accessible to a modern audience.

As I said, I wouldn't change a word of the book. That doesn't mean I've never wished to see things Tolkien doesn't show us, or wished that Aragorn was as complete a character as Frodo, or wished that Tolkien never compared Sam (Sam!) to a dog.

[superwizard]

Prim I agree I ache to know what Gimli likes and dislikes, if Legolas facied anyone back home or if Boromir ever had fights with his brother. But alas somethings will never be known...

[Alatar]

I suppose there's no point in starting with the clarification that I adore the books. Of course I do, we all do. That doesn't mean they're perfect. There are some glaring inconsintencies in style and structure. Also, some of the early setups are promptly ignored when it suits.

First one. Those who know me well will see this coming. Magic Wargs. Between Rivendell and Moria the Fellowship are attacked by Magic wolves whose bodies disappear when they are killed. To begin with, why were they there? We're told its because Sauron knew where the Fellowship were. He only loses track of them in Moria. So why does Sauron send magic wolves after the Ruling Ring? What does he expect them to do with it? Why not bring 1000 orcs down from the Misty Mountains? It makes no sense. Then we have the problem of their existence. Were they bred in Mordor and sent thousands of miles to this exact spot? Were they sent from Moria? If so, who bred them and why do we never again see them. I imagine a couple of hundred magic disappearing Wargs could have been useful at a number of stages in the story. It's simply bad storytelling.

The whole, "can they, can't they" thing with Nazguls and water. They are within grasp of Frodo and the Ring at Bucklebury Ferry, but choose to ride 20 miles out of their way and risk losing him rather than get wet. Yet they cross the Ford of Bruinen. How did they cross the Anduin when coming from Mordor? Again, awkward. Even Tolkien admits this one is difficult to sustain.

The complete inadequacy of the Nazgûl in general. For truly terrifying beings they are pretty useless. One of them is about 4 feet from the Ring and yet leaves at the sound of Elves in the distance. Aragorn single-handedly fights off 5 of them. Aragorn and Glorfindel between them manage to drive all 9 into the Bruinen.

Thats just off the top of my head. Like I said, I love the books, but lets not pretend they're perfect.

[superwizard]

Aragorn and Glorfindel between them manage to drive all 9 into the Bruinen.

They don't drive all of them into the water if I recall correctly.

Thats just off the top of my head. Like I said, I love the books, but lets not pretend they're perfect.

I can't disagree with that.

[truehobbit]

Like I said, I love the books, but lets not pretend they're perfect.

In as much as there's nothing perfect on this earth, it would indeed not make sense to pretend they were - but what you are doing, in fact, is to assume that your own criticisms represent real failings of the books, rather than just instances of your personal dislike, and that is just wrong.
If there's something in the book that you find fault with, because it doesn't fulfill your own expectations, and I don't find fault with it, that does not mean that I'm pretending something was more perfect that it really is.
Don't place your own assessment in the place of "reality"!

I accept what I've read in thread after thread over the years, that this kind of heroic quest story actually requires somewhat "flat" characters who stay the same throughout (no "arcs," no internal conflict).

See, I find much of that modern ado about "arcs" and development just crap. I guess that's why there's so rarely a modern book that I like.
It's not that I don't like development as such - you can write great stories about developments of people - but they are not a necessary part of a person or of a story.
It's regrettable that modern expectation is such that people can't do without it, so that you have to have it just everywhere - I just don't share that expectation.
I think it's perfectly normal that a character would be a particular person and remain such a person. To give everybody an "arc" is artificial and unconvincing, IMO.

I also very much agree with superwizard about the conflict, and I don't think that the fact that it's shown in something external makes it any the less valid internally. For Gimli and Legolas to make friends is a mighty step, and there's no doubt that it requires a great change of mind - and that is internal - we know that without having it spelled out for us. Tolkien didn't treat his readers as idiots, so why give us boring monologues about what's going on in someone's mind? We can see what kind of character someone is from their actions, and from the way an action is performed, Tolkien is careful with his words to convey subtle information - we don't need explicit analysis from the author!
In that, I think, LOTR is a very modern book: it shows, rather than tells, what people are made of.

If, to take up the example, Faramir were tempted by the Ring, this would not constitute a character development, but a character weakness. He would then merely not be the noble person Tolkien wanted him to be.

I must admit I've never given much thought about the Nazgûl not being efficient enough, so I can't comment on that right now.

Something about the 17-year gap, though: I think it's really good that Tolkien gave Frodo a long time of peace to live in the Shire, and to become grown-up enough to undertake the quest.
In the beginning of the book, he is just coming of age! According to our time-reckoning that means he's a teenager! You wouldn't send a teen to save the world, that would be silly.
And given the fact that after the quest Frodo can't enjoy the Shire anymore, I'm glad for the years of normal life he had in it.