posted
I don't know, LOTR made me stop and examine the world around me and be relieved to hear that real human dialogue isn't that stilted.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, one doesn't come away from the trilogy with any sort of new worldview or greater philosophical understanding of self, or of the human condition.
Why not? I think I did, and I suspect many fans did the same. Certainly more so than many books that might make other lists - the Great Gatsby for instance, which doesn't come near to expounding upon the human condition as well as LOTR does, despite its acclaim from the literary "experts". Most people I know were unaffected by that, but I know many people who I suspect were made a better person from reading the LotR.
That's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, don't you think? Human nature from the POV of a fantastical world filled with variaform humans vs. a period piece set well in early 20th century American capitalism?
Sure, people get different things out of different books. I can't imagine many went to work the next day and thought "boy, my boss is SO like Saruman... I should deal with him the same way Gandalf did!"
The problems in LotR are not the problems the average human faces in life. We are not called upon to deliver a ring to a mountain and stop evil from spreading into the world. And, while the themes of love and friendship are great, they are also shown through extreme duress and life/death situations - which most of us don't see too often, I hope.
The world is not so neatly bundled into good guys with shining swords and bad guys who screech from under black hoods. While there are things to be drawn from LotR (I'd never deny that), they aren't really philosophically deep books - nor were they meant to be.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean there's more than one? I always thought there were just different promo covers for the same basic novel, no? Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
StallingCow, if ya lived closer I would give you a copy of The Lonesome Gods or The Walking Drum. The 2nd one is waaaaay better for his non-westerns.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure I'd like the first one or two I read. I don't know about after that. Same deal with Brian Jacques... Mossflower and Redwall were fun, but the rest are all just the same devices played out again.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, people get different things out of different books. I can't imagine many went to work the next day and thought "boy, my boss is SO like Saruman... I should deal with him the same way Gandalf did!"
I can't think of anyone trying to emulate any character in the way you suggested. But I think it's much more likely than someone trying to emulate, say, Hamlet.
quote:The problems in LotR are not the problems the average human faces in life. We are not called upon to deliver a ring to a mountain and stop evil from spreading into the world.
Of course we are, in our own ways. Each of us.
And it's not like any of us face problems like being stuck on deserted islands, or being imprisoned in a futuristic Big Brother society, and so on.
quote:The world is not so neatly bundled into good guys with shining swords and bad guys who screech from under black hoods. While there are things to be drawn from LotR (I'd never deny that), they aren't really philosophically deep books - nor were they meant to be.
Why would that not be philosophically deep? The world isn't really as oppressive as 1984 is, or as absurdly incompetent as Catch-22 is, or as barbaric as The Lord of the Flies is. Those books just show ways to cast the world into certain lights, just as the Lord of the Rings does. The Fountainhead is just as black-and-white as LotR is in its portrayal of the world. Why would we consider the Lord of the Rings' message to be any less deep? Just because it deals with elements of fantasy rather than architecture does not negate it's philosophical value.
Aside from good and evil, it serves as a strong allegory for adventure in life. It speaks rather directly about the capacity for a journey to sweep you places you may have never expected to go if you allow it, and the hobbits represent that inner desire of ours to do something meaningful, even as we are comfy in our everyday lives. This is a powerful message - the sort that changes lives, if listened to.
Why would any of this be less deep than any of the other books on the list?
posted
So, when are you taking the devil's bar exam, Tres?
If you hadn't noticed, we *do* live in the world of 1984. We even had a television show called Big Brother, and reveled in the lack of privacy. With the patriot act, pretty much anyone can be spied upon and observed by the government. We live more and more in a panopticon.
How was it handled in 1984? Could the same thing happen now? Are movies like Pearl Harbor and anything by Oliver Stone a version of newspeak? Osama bin Laden - ally one moment, villain the next - just like the shifting wars in 1984. Just how present is the government in our lives, and how closely does it watch the free thinkers?
Again, I'm not saying LotR is devoid of meaning, nor is it lacking in philosophy.
quote:I can't think of anyone trying to emulate any character in the way you suggested. But I think it's much more likely than someone trying to emulate, say, Hamlet.
Note that I never held up Hamlet as being part of this list, nor would I.
quote:Of course we are, in our own ways. Each of us.
quote:The world isn't really as oppressive as 1984 is, or as absurdly incompetent as Catch-22 is, or as barbaric as The Lord of the Flies is.
Each of these are only slight exaggerations of the world we live in, or speculation as to what might happen if there were only small changes.
quote:Why would we consider the Lord of the Rings' message to be any less deep?
Maybe because it's not. It wasn't meant to be. It's goal was not to enlighten the masses, nor was it to provide insight into the human mind, nor was it to shake up commonly held perspectives. Therefore, there's no issue with it falling short of that goal, because it was never intended to have that effect.
It was written to form a sort of mythological history for england, as the Greeks and Norse have. It was meant to display a setting within which certain languages evolved. Along the way, he used a standard epic journey plot to take the reader from place to place to reveal the tidbits he wanted to reveal.
If you want fantasy that focuses on the nature of humanity and strives to open people's minds to the world around them, and to the world within them, it exists. Don't try to shoehorn Tolkein into that mold - he didn't like going down the symbolism road while he was alive, and I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate it now.
The hobbits were the English. Comfortable not doing anything, but worthy when forced to act. The unsuspecting hero? Sure. So was Arthur before them. So was Luke Skywalker since. So were a hundred other characters in literary tradition - it was a plot device to provide the reader (who the hobbits were modeled after) access into the mythos. Elves and dwarves and even the humans of middle earth are too flat and archetypal for a reader to relate to on an empathic level.
But, again, for those who missed it. LotR is a great book, great literature even. It accomplishes its goals very well and provides such a rich setting that it was dupliated ad infinitum over the next several decades. It offers a sense of whimsy and escapism into a simpler world where the bad guys are easily identified and the good guys can fire arrows unerringly and come back from the dead. It's fun, it makes people wish they were in the setting themselves - it's a visual feast of images.
Still, though, trying to say it's a deeply philosophical text is like looking for romance in Asimov. It's not why you read the books, nor is it the primary thing you take away.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narnia, yes! The Life of Pi was completely incredible! I wish I could reread it but I loaned it out. It's so wonderful.
----
Frisco, Ayn Rand is required reading the same way that Osama bin Laden tapes are required watching. They provide the perfect elitist excuse to be a selfish megolamaniac. (No, I'm not thinking of you. And yes, I've read them.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm amazed at how many of the books HRE initially posted that I have already read (except the Qu'ran). And many of the ones others have suggested be added to the "must read" list. I must be better read than I thought!
Stan, don't let them dis you about Louie L'Amour books. I also have a collection. Although his western paperbacks became a bit predictable, he also wrote several really good, more in-depth novels, such as "The Last of the Breed" and "Haunted Mesa" that were far above the quality of his westerns.
quote:If you hadn't noticed, we *do* live in the world of 1984. We even had a television show called Big Brother, and reveled in the lack of privacy. With the patriot act, pretty much anyone can be spied upon and observed by the government. We live more and more in a panopticon.
In a certain sense we live in the world of 1984 - and in just the same, in a certain sense we live in a world full of stark good and evil like the Lord of the Rings. All you are doing is stretching reality a bit to fit the message of 1984, but refusing to do the same for the Lord of the Rings.
quote:Note that I never held up Hamlet as being part of this list, nor would I.
Fill in any character from any novel you would include on the list.
quote:Maybe because it's not. It wasn't meant to be. It's goal was not to enlighten the masses, nor was it to provide insight into the human mind, nor was it to shake up commonly held perspectives. Therefore, there's no issue with it falling short of that goal, because it was never intended to have that effect.
Who cares what the author meant it to be? What matters is what it is, and the meaning people find in it.
I have no idea what authors of most of these books "meant" to do with their books, but I suspect at least some of them only meant to write good stories and make a bit of money. If the deep significance sneaks in more accidentally, that doesn't make it any less valuable.
Whether Tolkein meant to or not, he created a work with a powerful message that affected readers around the world. If you want proof just ask them how the Lord of the Rings has influenced them, how they love it.
quote:Still, though, trying to say it's a deeply philosophical text is like looking for romance in Asimov. It's not why you read the books, nor is it the primary thing you take away.
You keep saying stuff like this, but it contradicts reality as I observe it. I read Lord of the Rings and can say with confidence that it influenced me in a deep way. I can say that the deeper messager of the story WAS a primary thing I took away, more so than most other classics you might include on this list. And I can also say that I know many people for which this also seems to be true.
It's a message that is more powerful than, say, 1984, I think. 1984 is interesting in the way it helps us view government, but it is not a very widely applicable theme. The Lord of the Rings, in contrast, can alter your view of the world in a way that might be applicable in every day life. It deals with good and evil, the value of adventure, the burden of greed, and the need for sacrifice. These are things that everyond can relate to.
Now, you can CLAIM nobody comes out of reading the books taking away anything of deep philosophical significance, but where's the evidence for that claim? I think the evidence, in the form of all the people who have taken such meaning from the books, is against it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Death of Ivan Ilych by Tolstoy would be an addition I make.
Personally, I think Catch-22 and to a large extent Cat's Cradle and SH-5 ARE exactly like reality, it's just that we have less of a sense of humor about these things happening in reality..
But I am biased towards the latter 2 (though I would omit SH-5, everyone thinks it's his opus, but I think it's a fun romp through ideas he describes better elsewhere, [EDIT: and is notable solely] due to the literary structure/game he works with the narrative... Honestly, I'd ditch Brave New World, and add Player Piano by Vonnegut, since it is heavily influenced by the former, but is placed in a time closer to ours [and, quaintly, like most of Vonnegut's early work, placed in the past, the 50s/early 60s to be exact]).
posted
Daniel Deronda by George Eliot. Excellent characterizations, and it raises a lot of questions regarding morality, faith, and gender roles.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the difference between 1984 and Lord of the Rings should be eminently clear.
One author was trying to write about government's ability to control social freedom. A novel was the best way for him to get across his message.
One author was telling a story about a mythical land and an epic quest. A novel was the best way to get across his story and bring his vision to life.
I really think that the salient feature of HRE's list is that it deals with authors who, for the most part, were social thinkers first, storytellers second. That's why LotR doesn't belong on the list. Not because of how the reader responds to it, but because of how the author wrote it. I think that by saying "favorites," HRE was trying to exclude "pure" stories.
Are "pure" stories better than the "required" reading? Can one do both at the same time? Heck, I don't know. Probably.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do the author's intentions have anything to do with how we judge the book, or its "purity," or whether or not people should be required to read it? A book defines its own worth - not its author.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, jehovoid, by that reasoning Tolkien needs to be on the reading list. There's no better book for demonstrating the true purpose and methods of myth in the human consciousness.
The lesson isn't about the difference between good and evil. It's about the fact of good and evil, the limitations of temporal power in confronting it, and the need to still do so.
posted
I have to say, I think that given the completely subjective nature of all literature, great or otherwise, just coming up with a reasonable set of selection criteria for a list such as this would have to be a close to impossible task.
That said, I'd still like to see James Joyce's Ulysses make the list as one of the greatest ever examples of characterisation and psychological writing. Of course, this is just my opinion...;-}
Would also throw my support behind One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Oh, and Perp. Newby - A Man For All Seasons was by Robert Bolt, I'm pretty certain....
Life isn't simply the big things, the societies, the deep philosophies. It's also personal love and pain and loss. A Required reading list that includes only social commentary would be just as useless as one that includes only pure stories, humanity is both, not one or the other.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why I keep responding to you, Tres. It's a fruitless and ultimately unfulfilling exercise. It has been for these three years I've been posting here, and I don't think that will change. But, alas... I have a thing for lost causes, I guess.
quote:If you want proof just ask them how the Lord of the Rings has influenced them, how they love it.
quote:I read Lord of the Rings and can say with confidence that it influenced me in a deep way.
quote:It's a message that is more powerful than, say, 1984, I think.
Sure. It's influenced you. It's powerful. No one's denying that. But, the request for this list was:
quote:With this in mind, I present a small but ever-growing list of books that provide a means for the betterment of the mind.
This does not mean books that impacted you. It doesn't mean books that resonated with you. It was specifically not a list for books people "like" or for "favorite" books. It's not a list of books that influenced you. It's not a list for, as you put it, "good and evil, the value of adventure, the burden of greed, and the need for sacrifice."
The list was for books that dealt with the betterment of the mind.
quote:These are things that everyond can relate to.
But we're not looking for a list of books people relate to, either.
Your arguments for how great and worthwhile and influential and insightful and powerful LotR was fall flat. You might as well be arguing how well written, painstakingly crafted, or exciting the books are. Those aren't the parameters of the list.
quote:Now, you can CLAIM nobody comes out of reading the books taking away anything of deep philosophical significance, but where's the evidence for that claim?
That's not at all what I claimed. Go back and reread, please. I said it's not the "primary" thing looked for or taken away - not that such significance isn't there at all.
This is why arguing with you becomes pointless. You intepret words the way you'd like them to have been said, rather than trying to understand the writer's meaning.
quote:I think the evidence, in the form of all the people who have taken such meaning from the books, is against it.
And where is *your* evidence, which you speak so highly of? Saying "all the people" is as worthless as saying "none of the people"... any evidence will be anecdotal at best. Plus, we're not talking about "meaning" here, let's remember. We're talking about "betterment of the mind" as stated in the list description.
quote:A book defines its own worth - not its author.
Funny, then, how a book would have no worth if it had no author. By the very nature of art, the artist is important. Otherwise, art would not exist.
If Tolkien had wanted to make LotR an allegory for our world, a la Animal Farm, he could have. Fact is, he didn't. He wrote an epic, based on many epics in the past, using proven plot conventions and archetypes, in an attempt to explore a new world and mythology. He succeeded at that.
Trying to make out LotR as a book primarily focused on the betterment of the mind, of achieving a higher intellectual plateau, is stretching a bit far, don't you think?
As far as Dag's statement:
quote:There's no better book for demonstrating the true purpose and methods of myth in the human consciousness
LotR was actually not a myth. It was a story in the style of myth. If you want to see the true purpose and methods of myth in the human consciousness, go back to a story written when such myths were believed, and when gods were given the blame for the unexplained. Try Homer - you know, that guy whose works Tolkien was emulating.
But, even so, we're looking for betterment of the mind. We're not looking for examples of methodology.
posted
If you see LOTR as an allegorical tale, then you have missed the point. Unless you know more about what the author meant than the author himself,who violently objected to all such allegations.
Any story can dissected and made to fit in an allegorical setting, even if that wasn't the intent of the writer. Most of the people who teach such drivel are frustrated writers themselves, who seem to revel in dissecting others works and assigning false meanings to them.
LOTR isn't about either of the World Wars, even though he lived through them, and it isn't an allegory of the rise of Hitler. It isn't just a tale of friends succeeding when all others had failed, although that is a part of it.
LOTR was Tolkien's attempt to formulate a series of tales to take the place of all the native English folklore and mythology that had been destroyed in the past. He was trying to give his version of the fantastical, to give back to his people a sense of wonder. He never expected to become rich, and was often quoted as being surprised that anyone would be interested in his tales outside of academia.
Tolkien touched a nerve with people everywhere, and I think it has been very important in many ways to many people. To me, it seems that he taught me to look at the world through different eyes, and he woke a deep love of reading in me that will last the rest of my life.
If that isn't what you meant, then I don't know what is.
Also, I wasn't being overly critical of Brave New World...those comments were the authors (A. Huxley) own words in the preface of the newest edition of it. They were his thoughts on the book he had written so many years ago, not mine, so I guess he might have known what he was talking about...I was using them to point out that even a great novel(lla) can have major flaws. I love that book, and found it to be very thought provoking.
I have read many of the classics we have mentioned here in this thread, and enjoyed most of them. But to say that I can pick whatever books I want, then say "well, except for...." isn't a fair situation. I get to choose, but someone else gets to tell me if my choices are of any value? Then why ask for opinions?
I don't think the measure of a book's value is how many English professors like it, or that age automatically qualifies a book for greatness. I try to see each book I read as valuable, but not all books are of the same value.
Here is my list: LOTR Brave New World Lord of the Flies Iliad Odyssey Kalivala (Norse myths)( I know I butchered the spelling) Hero of a Thousand Faces Shakespeare ( his poems, too) Masque of the Red Death Rappaccini's Daughter
posted
I've been lurking, but had to come out for this one. Let's add some Toni Morrison to the list - "The Bluest Eye"
Posts: 11 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ayn Rand is required reading. Love her or hate her, you *must* develop an opinion.
quote:(Left Blank for a good reason) The Book of Mormon
Look, I don't want to offend absolutely everyone here, but this does not belong on this list. It affects a ton of Hatrack, sure, but the rest of the world?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if the qualification for the list is mind-expanding reading, then the Book of Mormon DOES belong on there. Any other book on the list so far could be yanked for the same reason the you just mentioned Kasie.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Trying to make out LotR as a book primarily focused on the betterment of the mind, of achieving a higher intellectual plateau, is stretching a bit far, don't you think?
No, I don't.
When I say it influenced me, I mean it succeeded in the betterment of my mind. That's what it means to influence a person - unless the book somehow influences that person's body, it's going to be influencing their mind. The series bettered my mind by teaching me (and my mind) about the human condition, in all the ways I've already mentioned a number of times. And I'm confident it did the same for others (if you doubt it go ahead and poll fans of the book) - more so than most of the novels already on this list.
quote:It's not a list of books that influenced you. It's not a list for, as you put it, "good and evil, the value of adventure, the burden of greed, and the need for sacrifice."
The list was for books that dealt with the betterment of the mind.
The lessons about good ane evil, the value of adventure, and so on ARE examples of betterment of the mind. Why do you discount them? As I said, if anything they are MORE important lessons than issues of government, as in 1984.
quote:And where is *your* evidence, which you speak so highly of? Saying "all the people" is as worthless as saying "none of the people"... any evidence will be anecdotal at best.
Anecdotal is all you can expect when talking about how books have "bettered" people's minds. It's not something you can measure scientifically. And if you want the evidence, just ask all the Lord of the Rings fans on this forum, or elsewhere, if the books bettered their mind. I've already told you about myself, for one.
Was it any different for the rest of you folks?
quote:Funny, then, how a book would have no worth if it had no author. By the very nature of art, the artist is important. Otherwise, art would not exist.
No... even if the Lord of the Rings came into existence by random chance, or by forces of nature, or by a computer program, or by monkeys at a typewriter, it would still have the same worth to the reader. It would still be the same story. Furthermore, if we were to discover Tolkein had different motives than we had thought, or that actually someone else really wrote it, none of that would change the value or the capacity of the book to "better the mind".
quote: Stan, don't let them dis you about Louie L'Amour books. I also have a collection. Although his western paperbacks became a bit predictable, he also wrote several really good, more in-depth novels, such as "The Last of the Breed" and "Haunted Mesa" that were far above the quality of his westerns.
Thank you FG. I have those too. Haunted Mesa was great reading. I actually own three copies of it. My dad became a supervisor at his shop a few years ago. Big promotion. My parents decided to invest as a gift the entire leather bound Louis L'amour collection. It is one of my greatest treasures.
War and Peace was mentioned above. I think I own a copy, but never had the time to read it.
I also have some reallly ollld books. Some I can't read because they are in Latin. Some are in old English. And I own a book written by Martin Luther. Too bad I can't read German any more.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:LotR was actually not a myth. It was a story in the style of myth. If you want to see the true purpose and methods of myth in the human consciousness, go back to a story written when such myths were believed, and when gods were given the blame for the unexplained. Try Homer - you know, that guy whose works Tolkien was emulating.
But, even so, we're looking for betterment of the mind. We're not looking for examples of methodology.
The fact that you think myths are principly about giving gods "the blame for the unexplained" is a pretty clear example of why LotR is a book for the "betterment of the mind." Betterment of the mind doesn't mean something "that warns us about a potential dictatorship" or "teaches us a moral lesson." It means something that contributes to the understanding of fundamental, universal truths. LotR taps into a deep wellspring of the human consciousness in a way no other story I've read does.
Myths gain power by their resonance with deeply held but poorly articulable beliefs. Tolkien's "On Fair Stories" explains this well, but LotR actually does it.
posted
When I was young, I liked Ayn Rand because everyone told me she was a great writer, and I found her intellectually stimulating.
The older I got, the less I liked her, her writing, or her books.
I find them irritating, poorly written, and shallow. She had some great concepts, but she didn't stay true to them. I felt she was preachy, and since I didn't agree with what she was saying I didn't see the point.
I don't think they are worth the paper they have been printed on. Of course, that's just my view.
I also really liked A Tale of Two Cities, but I found it to be a hard read. I didn't find it to interest me at all when I tried to read it, and that was weird since I could read anything. I had even read the original English translation of Le Mort d'Artur (sp?)(The Death of Arthur), and the most action in all 3000 pages of that was "He dreweth his sword and slayeth the giant.".
I had trouble with the first 200 pages of TOTC. I tried to read it three times before I got into it, but once I got further into the book I loved it. I read it again that following summer, and found it to be wonderful; it only starts slow. It taught me to be patient with classics because the payoff at the end of them is greater due to the wait.
posted
Okay, I'm done. I don't think I'm going to bash my head against Tres' signature brand of wall any longer. Call me a slow learner.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Lord of the Rings is about the human individual's desire for adventure It's not about the desire for adventure, it's about the desire for 'stay-at-home' peace and quiet, and the courage and integrity required to achieve that.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
And yes, I've read them.)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
