Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Main:
I was reading Isaac Asimov's

OhioHobbit
Gondor

Mar 3 2007, 2:59pm

Post #1 of 19 (2748 views)
Shortcut
I was reading Isaac Asimov's Can't Post

collection of essays Counting The Eons. (Avon Books, 1984, "All and Nothing", The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, January 1981)

When I got to the essay "All and Nothing", an essay about the expansion of the universe, I was surprised to find it starting out talking about The Lord of the Rings. Here is what he wrote:

"It was back in 1967, I think that I read J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings for the first time. I liked it - moderately. I felt it went on too long; that there was too much irrelevant detail; that the battle scenes were a bit wearisome.
I have since read it four more times and have just finished the fifth reading.
Each time I liked it better than the time before and on this fifth occasion I clamored restlessly against having it end at all. Far from thinking it went on too long, I bitterly resented Tolkien's having waited so long to start it that He ended with only time to write half a million words.
It's fair to wonder why I should like it better each time I read it. After all, with each reading, the details of the plot are more firmly ground into my head and there is less chance of any suspense.
But then it's not the plot that counts. That can be summarized in a few pages and one is glad to have it over and done with. Once one gets to know the plot very well, one can ignore it and not be so concerned with following it that one misses the more subtle beauties, (Naturally this is only true of a book that is more than the sum of its plot.)
What pleased me more and more, each time I read it, was the intricate construction of the whole. In particular, I am pleased with the way in which the epic starts small, separates into two parts, then has those parts rejoin and end small.
What's more, of the two parts, one is a colossal war that grows more and more extensive and intensive until it encompasses the whole world and threatens all of it with eternal destruction, while the other has a focus that is ever-narrowed into a smaller and smaller compass until it ends with two small beings taking weary step after weary step up the side of a volcano.
From large to small we go, then from small to larger, then from still larger to still smaller - and in the end it is the small that counts. The apparent nothing saves the all.
Tolkien plays fair. He tells you all along that that's the way it will be, but telling you doesn’t count. He shows you. And though I know that the nothing will save the all, and exactly how - each time I read the epic I appreciate and admire and enjoy the artistry of the technique more."

He then goes on to talk about how something that is practically nothing, sub-atomic particles called neutrinos, could affect the expansion of the universe.

My first thought was why did he just like it moderately the first time? My second thought was even though he explained why he read it the 3rd, 4th, and 5th times, why did he go back and read it the second time? Thinking about what he said, one of the things that I really like about LOTR is the juxtaposition of the very large and the very small, the story of world-shattering events, and the stories of small individuals, and how each affects the other -- although I do think the plot is a whopping good story.

What are your thoughts on Asimov's statements?


Magpie
Immortal


Mar 3 2007, 3:56pm

Post #2 of 19 (2524 views)
Shortcut
Great essay [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Once one gets to know the plot very well, one can ignore it and not be so concerned with following it that one misses the more subtle beauties, (Naturally this is only true of a book that is more than the sum of its plot.)
What pleased me more and more, each time I read it, was the intricate construction of the whole.


I think this is the essence of what keeps me coming back to LOTR. I find great delight in how Tolkien constructs and crafts his writing. These days, LOTR comes to me via audio book in the car. I've listened to it maybe 6-10 times in the last 4 years. In the car, one cannot always attend to the plot but that's okay... I know the plot. But, just as Assimov describes, I find I can attend to very slight nuances of events. And not only do I find they're there... I find that Tolkien lets us know they're there in very subtle ways. So that, once I discover them... or pay attention to them... or whatever... I think, "Now why did I not notice/realize that before?"

I'm going to make a comparison here in terms of my life. I know what I say will be unpopular and I don't mean to sidetrack the conversation. It's just the easiest way I can explain how I feel about Tolkien.

I was really consumed with the tv show LOST in it's first season. I thought it was a delightful mixture of entertainment and puzzle. It was obvious things meant something and it was up to us to figure out what they meant. Toward the end of the 1st season, it started to drag a little but I was still eager for the 2nd season. But something seemed wrong. It seemed as if they just kept giving us more puzzles and never solving... or letting us solve any of the dozens that have come before. Then I read an interview with writers/producers or someone like that and they basically said, "It doesn't necessarily mean anything. People are looking into it too deeply." They actually kind of made fun of people for taking it so seriously.

I couldn't help but, in my head, contrast this with my relationship with Tolkien. Tolkien was smart. The world had to challenge and satisfy his intellect and by extension, the readers. Like a sculptor, he kept walking around his work making sure it looked right from all angles. Making sure it looked right within it's surroundings. LOST, IMO, was content with a much shallower sense of satisfaction. I think the producers and writers were intelligent but they were most concerned with immediate entertainment. They might allude to something, but that might be all it was... just an 'easter egg', adding enjoyment but with no critical function in the plot as a whole. (And as an aside, I think this is what made my 2nd season negative reaction to LOST so strong. I thought it was something it wasn't and then I was disappointed. I've taken to heart that it's better not to let your assumptions and expectations get in the way of figuring out what something 'is'.)

The reason I bring this up is because the whole time I processing my dissatisfaction with LOST, I was constantly examining how completely satisfied I was with Tolkien. What I focused on was precisely what Assimov talks about in the section I quoted above and I think he does a nice job of articulating that.

(I honestly don't mean to bring LOST into this discussion... I only do so because it was a means by which I did some heavy processing of this aspect of Tolkien. In regards to LOST, 'your mileage may vary' and that's okay by me.)



no longer just aMagpie... I'm now *the* Magpie


OhioHobbit
Gondor

Mar 3 2007, 6:37pm

Post #3 of 19 (2528 views)
Shortcut
I never have seen LOST... [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I can't comment on LOST as I can't get it. I can only get 0 to 3 TV stations, depending on the weather, and I have no view of a satellite. Anyway, I am constantly asking myself what it is about LOTR that captivates me so, and I am always finding the answers from others. LOTR is like a huge mansion and when you look inside it is full of rooms, halls, cellers, attics, nooks and cranies. I think that with many other stories you find just a facade with nothing behind them. Not every story can be a mansion, not without a lifetime of work to create it, but even a county cottage is better than a facade.


(This post was edited by OhioHobbit on Mar 3 2007, 6:39pm)


Magpie
Immortal


Mar 3 2007, 6:51pm

Post #4 of 19 (2509 views)
Shortcut
and I would add... [In reply to] Can't Post

to your analogy, that all the items in the nooks and crannies have purpose. They aren't just the House on the Rock or House of the Magpie, for that matter! (erp...) I think writers can fill their novels up with *stuff*... it's making it all have purpose and be connected in ways that are consistent.

I love realizing that one sentence may hold the key in how two people play out their actions differently. Or how the smallest decision may have wide reaching consequences.



no longer just aMagpie... I'm now *the* Magpie


FarFromHome
Valinor


Mar 3 2007, 7:00pm

Post #5 of 19 (2493 views)
Shortcut
I have to agree [In reply to] Can't Post

with Magpie about the incredible attention to detail that Tolkien put into his work. I too don't watch Lost, but I do understand what Magpie means. I think it's about craftsmanship in a way - you can make a garment, or a piece of furniture, that looks fine on the outside, but if you don't attend to the hidden details it just won't have the quality of a really good piece of workmanship, and ultimately it will fail to satisfy. You can tell if a creator really cares about his creation, because he's working to satisfy his own standards, rather than just doing enough to get by.

My first thought was why did he just like it moderately the first time? My second thought was even though he explained why he read it the 3rd, 4th, and 5th times, why did he go back and read it the second time?

I think this happened to me too - I can't remember all that much about my first reading which was about 40 years ago, but I do recall that I was puzzled by some things, and simply missed others. I was an undergraduate at the time, with just enough knowledge of literary criticism to see that Tolkien was following some narrative conventions and then breaking others, which seemed somehow like cheating to me! And I was angry with him for manipulating my emotions with the ending - bringing in Rosie and Elanor to tie Sam down to Middle-Earth while Frodo sailed away just seemed too abrupt and sudden. Now I see that there were always hints, and of course the sudden loss of Frodo is meant to come as a shock, for us as well as Sam.

So why did I read it again? I think it was because I wanted to be in Middle-Earth again. And each time I read, I understood the story better and loved it more.

By the way, I believe that in his Letters, Tolkien cited Asimov as one of his favourite authors. I wonder if they knew that they were fans of each other?

...and the sails were drawn up, and the wind blew,
and slowly the ship slipped away down the long grey firth;
and the light of the glass of Galadriel that Frodo bore
glimmered and was lost.


Curious
Half-elven

Mar 3 2007, 8:26pm

Post #6 of 19 (2515 views)
Shortcut
Tolkien certainly rewards multiple readings. [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't think of any other author who is so re-read, outside of religious works, that is. And Frodo's quest is full of diversions -- indeed one could call the whole of Books III and V a diversion, and most of Book VI anticlimactic, since all but three chapters come after Mount Doom. And then there is the Prologue and all those appendices. Even during the main quest in Books I, II, IV and the first three chapters of Book VI, again and again Frodo takes long rests to eat, drink, sing, and discuss. When he isn't resting, he's often taking detours, since the direct route is often closed. What do his adventures in the Old Forest or Moria really have to do with the Ring, after all?

In short, anyone who is in a hurry to find out what happens to the Ring will find themselves very frustrated indeed. Whereas those who already know what happens to the Ring will find plenty of time to appreciate all the other qualities of LotR besides that particular question and answer. Which is a good thing, because these days only a handful of people over the age of nine are unaware of what happens to the Ring! And many people who have seen the movies are unaware of the subtler pleasures of the books.


L. Ron Halfelven
Grey Havens


Mar 3 2007, 11:21pm

Post #7 of 19 (2489 views)
Shortcut
I think what finally won him over was... [In reply to] Can't Post

Merry and Pippin tearing down the sign with the Three Laws of Hobbitics from the wall of the Shirriff-house.


Fight for us! And regain your honor, learn valuable technical skills, and qualify for up to four years' college tuition! What say you?


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Mar 4 2007, 2:30am

Post #8 of 19 (2491 views)
Shortcut
Did Asimov comment on LotR on any other occasion? [In reply to] Can't Post

In Jared Lobdell's weak artilce, "Criticism of Tolkien, Twentieth Century"* in the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, he writes:


Quote
Harold Bloom and Isaac Asimov both tried their hands at Tolkien criticism--Bloom as a critic and anthologist of criticism and scholarship (and self-proclaimed polymath and expert) and Asimove, of course, as a self-proclaimed polymath and expert... Asimove, of course, did not need (or need to quote) anyone's opinion but his own... Asimov's most-quoted comments on Tolkien were (he said) a commentary on the symbolism of the One Ring and (I believe) a claim that modernity (or perhaps the modern world) wasn't all bad. But Tolkien never said it was, and there's a world of difference between "not all bad" (which Tolkien could have agreed with) and (in the vernacular) "not all that bad" (which he would not have, if ever he would have accepted the phrase long enough to consider it).


Do the Asimov comments cited by Lobdell appear elsewhere in the essay you read? If not, does anyone have access to any of the three Lobdell works cited in his bibliography -- where Asimov frustratingly does not appear? Perhaps there's a hint as to the source in he afterword to the 2003 edition of A Tolkien Compass, "Far from the Madding Critics" in The Rise of Tolkienian Fantasy, or The World of the Rings?

*A weird title. There is, after all, no article on "criticism of Tolkien" for other centuries. Lobdell's article has been reviewed here, by the way.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Detail from earliest version of Thror's MapTolkien Illustrated! Jan. 29-May 20: Visit the Reading Room to discuss art by John Howe, Alan Lee, Ted Nasmith and others, including Tolkien himself.

Feb. 26-Mar. 4: Fan Artistry.


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Mar 4 2007, 2:34am

Post #9 of 19 (2499 views)
Shortcut
I think you've made a great point [In reply to] Can't Post

That once you know the plot, subsequent re-readings allow the reader to enjoy the actual words. There's so much to the story - clear evidence that it was written over a long period of time - that LOTR almost requires multiple readings.

I liked what Asimov said about the story starting and ending small, with a really large section in between.

Each cloak was fastened about the neck with a brooch like a green leaf veined with silver.
`Are these magic cloaks?' asked Pippin, looking at them with wonder.
`I do not know what you mean by that,' answered the leader of the Elves.


NARF since 1974.
Balin Bows


Ugly Troll
Rivendell


Mar 4 2007, 2:40am

Post #10 of 19 (2488 views)
Shortcut
This is the quintessential sign of the true Tolkien fan [In reply to] Can't Post

"Each time I liked it better than the time before and on this fifth occasion I clamored restlessly against having it end at all."

I don't know how many times I've heard/read this sentiment.


Teddy Roosevelt April 10, 1899, or Gandalf?

I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.... It is hard to fail, but is worse never to have tried to succeed. In this life we get nothing save by effort.


squire
Half-elven


Mar 4 2007, 12:57pm

Post #11 of 19 (2526 views)
Shortcut
Asimov reviewed LotR for Panorama magazine, May 1980. [In reply to] Can't Post

I too had wished Lobdell had given his source for Asimov's review. Then just a few weeks later I found in a used-book store the QPB (Quality Paperback Bookclub) Companion to The Lord of the Rings (2001). This slim volume, designed for use by reading groups that the QPB tries to promote, has a miscellany of essays and material to inform a new but interested reader of Tolkien, and Asimov's article is in there.

He was commissioned to write it to coincide with the television premiere of the Rankin-Bass RotK cartoon. As he says in his preface, he wrote the piece about Tolkien, not the show (since he hadn't seen it), and he didn't like it when he did see it.

We know from the short piece just posted in the RR this week that Asimov was a real Tolkien fan, and it shows in this article too. He knows and understands the story. What's odd about it is his conclusion that the One Ring represents the power of technology (or the will to power that among other things leads to the invention and use of technology); and Asimov the ur-technologist tries to wriggle out of the implication that all his science fiction and enthusiastic pop science essays are the product of the One Ring. He urges us to try to find a way going forward to harness the power of science for the benefit of mankind without letting it corrupt us.

He ends, "the One Ring is not wholly Evil. It is what we make it, and we must rescue and extend those parts of it that are Good. -- But never mind. One can read LotR without getting lost in the symbolism. It is a fascinating adventure that doesn't get consumed with the reading.."



squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


OhioHobbit
Gondor

Mar 4 2007, 3:52pm

Post #12 of 19 (2478 views)
Shortcut
Lobdell, Asimov, and Tolkien [In reply to] Can't Post

The comments cited by Lobdell do not appear elsewhere in the essay that I read. The only comments about Tolkien were the ones that I quoted.

I did a some research and I believe that the “commentary on the symbolism of the One Ring” might be “The Ring of Evil”, Asimov on Science Fiction, Doubleday, 1981, first published as “The One Ring Is What We Make It”, Panorama, May, 1980.

Asimov makes the following statements about the “meaning” of the One Ring.

“It is the lure of technology; the seduction of things done more easily; of products in greater quantity; of gadgets in tempting variety. It is gunpowder, and the automobile, and television; all the things that people snatch for if they don’t have them; all the things that people can’t let go once they do have them.”

He continues;

“We hold the One Ring and it is destroying us and the world, and there is no Frodo to take the load of it upon himself, and there is no Mount Doom to take it to, and there are no events to insure the One Ring’s destruction.”

But after that Asimov talks about how things were not all that great in the pre-industrial world and about the many benefits that “industrialization” has brought. He then goes on to say;

“If we cannot give up the One Ring, there’s a good reason for that. If the One Ring is drawing us to our destruction that is because we are misusing it in our greed and folly. Surely, there are ways of using it wisely. Are we so willing to despair so entirely of humanity as to deny that we can be sane and wise if we must be?
No, the One Ring is not wholly Evil. It is what we make it, and we must rescue and extend those parts of it that are Good.”


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Mar 4 2007, 4:18pm

Post #13 of 19 (2434 views)
Shortcut
Thanks, OH and squire! /nt [In reply to] Can't Post

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Detail from earliest version of Thror's MapTolkien Illustrated! Jan. 29-May 20: Visit the Reading Room to discuss art by John Howe, Alan Lee, Ted Nasmith and others, including Tolkien himself.

Feb. 26-Mar. 4: Fan Artistry.


a.s.
Valinor


Mar 4 2007, 7:42pm

Post #14 of 19 (2457 views)
Shortcut
Asimov online lists this: [In reply to] Can't Post

Concerning Tolkien Subject: the One Ring of Tolkien's tale represents technology
First Published In: Jul-91, Isaac's Universe, volume two: Phases in Chaos
Collection(s):
  • 1996 Magic

However, from the subject matter it might be the same essay "The Ring is What We Make It" (published in Panorama and already referred to here). I don't have access to it.

a.s.

"an seileachan"

Everybody's wondering what and where they all came from.
Everybody's worried 'bout where they're gonna go when the whole thing's done.
No one knows for certain, and so it's all the same to me:
I think I'll just let the mystery be.
~~~~Iris DeMent


Annûn n'Ithil
The Shire


Mar 6 2007, 4:53am

Post #15 of 19 (2443 views)
Shortcut
OOh, this is so intriguing! Hi! Great post! May I ask: [In reply to] Can't Post

Have you or your dear 'better half' read "Meditations on Middle-earth"? This book, edited by Karen Haber and illustrated by John Howe, has 16 well-known and respected sci-fi and fantasy authors all talking about Tolkien. It was published in 2001, with kudos from Locus and the Hugo awards.
I just finished it, yesterday, in fact, and the first thing I thought of was your dear Alcarcalime, who will likely know each of these authors very well.

I loved this book! It is quite wonderful for all the personal and insightful remarks of these contributing authors. They prove to be life-long fans as well as Tolkien literary legatees.
Pretty much without exception, the gist of their comments is that LOTR is a book to be reread and endlessly enjoyed, year after year, again and again. These authors reveal real affection and the highest regard for Tolkien, while elucidating the reasons they were influenced by LOTR.
It is, to me at least, somewhat surprising, that the reasons for loving Tolkien's works and for coming back to them again and again are different for each author who tells his story. Perhaps it is the same for all of us.

Wonderful post, dear OH.

ol' hob An'I

Oldbie: HobbitLoveR*M-e


Egleria! Iorhael!
Eglerio! Daur a Berhael!


Annûn n'Ithil
The Shire


Mar 6 2007, 5:15am

Post #16 of 19 (2448 views)
Shortcut
A quick post to say that I just read QPB Companion [In reply to] Can't Post

this week. I too found my copy at a used bookstore; for a pittance too, I might add. Pleased about that, as it was a seeminly untouched copy.
Asimov says at the end of his essay that he had read Tolkien four times and perhaps should reread Tolkien a fifth time. The sited article of OH seems to be about that fifth time.
If it is, it is nice to know how positively Mr. Asimov felt about that rereading.

I thought the QPB was surprisingly interesting as it had a variety of viewpoints on Tolkien and not just a glossing over, high school book report, sort of approach. The study questions at the end, however, were abysmal, imho.
Later, I hope.


ol' hob (An'I)

Oldbie: HobbitLoveR*M-e


Egleria! Iorhael!
Eglerio! Daur a Berhael!


grammaboodawg
Immortal


Mar 6 2007, 3:23pm

Post #17 of 19 (2426 views)
Shortcut
*mods up* That was very cool! / [In reply to] Can't Post

 


sample sample
Trust him... The Hobbit is coming!

"Barney Snow was here." ~Hug like a hobbit!~ "In my heaven..."


TORn's Observations Lists


OhioHobbit
Gondor

Mar 7 2007, 12:23am

Post #18 of 19 (2418 views)
Shortcut
No, we haven't read the book... [In reply to] Can't Post

but it sounds interesting. It sounds like something I would very much like to read. I'll have Alcarcalime look for it.


Annûn n'Ithil
The Shire


Mar 7 2007, 3:15pm

Post #19 of 19 (2447 views)
Shortcut
= ) I had started an e-mail to your better-half [In reply to] Can't Post

then I saw this thread - very serendipitous.You'll like the book, I'm sure. I got my at "Half-price".
Love your two recent posts, OH. Very interesting to me. Do read those linked diaries if you get a chance. I loved them.
Anyway, you've got the hubby thinkin' he might have a go at posting, too.
One of these days he will and he'll be hooked.
Anyhoo, not much time to post this week, but I'm watching as best I can and I usually start with yours lately.
{{Hugs}} to you and yours.

ol' hob (An'I)

Oldbie: HobbitLoveR*M-e


Egleria! Iorhael!
Eglerio! Daur a Berhael!

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.