Tolkien and Lord of the Rings

There are polls that name the Oxford Professor the most influential author of the 20th century. Not so for me, as the Lord of the Rings is not one of my top favorite books. Let's be obvious. There are a lot of bad passages, like most of the epic lyrics. The beginning is very slow, and I wasn't surprised that Tom Bombadil and the journey to Rivendell were heavily shortened in the movie. Actually, I thought a little more trim of the Shire would help too. The romantic passages make nineteenth century English courtship look realistic, and I've yet to understand Eowyn. Oh, and have I mentioned the entire appendix talking about the imaginary languages invented to hypothetically translate from? The signal to noise ratio isn't as bad as Morgenstern's Princess Bride, but my 1137 page version would be improved at 1000.

There are more redeeming qualities, nevertheless. First, the epic is not intended to be a literary work, something for a professor to analyze. Of such dissection, as Whitman once wrote, How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick! (My calling someone an English major can be a fair insult.) Tolkien even wrote a note to his publisher specifically denying such theories. It's humorous to think of his conservative Catholicism and read about the appropriations by leftists and environmentalists. Second, there are enough characters that each of us find someone to appreciate. For instance, I like Faramir.

Peter Jackson, Kingly gift my ass! Make Faramir good!

The best reason why it endures is the return of the heroic epic. In Western literature alone, there are many other epics: Beowulf (Tolkien's real job), Paradise Lost, the Odyssey, and the like. I'm not sure how often the tradition resurfaces, but the tale of Frodo was the epic of century number 20. Unlike the older epics, it was both written in modern English and not ravaged by literary criticism. Thus, when we read it, we find the qualities of good and evil. We find those of heroes: free will, nobility, self-sacrifice, valor, wisdom.

As critic Edmund Wilson points out, not every character is lured by insidious enchantments or perplexed by problems, though many are: Frodo, Sam, Galadriel, Boromir, Faramir .... Then, the seeming climax is, well, rather anticlimatic, though the true climax has a lot more tension. And the Orcs are opposed, well, just because. Does anyone ever ask the Orcs if they really want to follow Sauron, or would rather grow wheat and make jewels? Mr. Wilson calls it juvenile fiction, and intimates that adult readers really haven't fully matured.

No. That's not the point. Heroism involves repute, courage, and nobleness. Aragorn, Faramir, Sam, and Frodo provide us those things. Repute comes from the story. Courage is a constant theme, easy to spot in the defense at Helm's Deep, the walk up Cirith Ungol, and Beregond in Minas Tirith. What Mr. Wilson fails to notice is the last point, restraint and compassion. Our heroes don't try to convert the Orcs to good, because they're under attack. But they do have chances to act unheroic. Look at the Three Hunters on meeting the unknown old man; Aragorn notes "We may not shoot an old man so, at unawares and unchallenged, whatever fear or doubt be on us." Better yet, here's the exchange between Frodo and Saurman at Bag End:

"No, Sam!" said Frodo. "Do not kill him even now. ... He was great once, of a novle kind that we should not dare to raise our hands against. He is fallen, and his cure is beyond us; but I would still spare him, in the hope that he may find it."

Saurman rose to his feet, and stared at Frodo. There was a strange look in his eyes of mingled wonder and respect and hatred. "You have grown, Halfling," he said. "Yes, you have grown very much. You are wise, and cruel. You have robbed my revenge of sweetness, and now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy."

Maybe J.R.R.'s friend, C.S., got it best. Here's the key quote from Time and Tide, summarizing the appeal of the books, what we can do:

"The real life of men is of that mythical and heroic quality. ... The imagined beings have their inside on their outside; they are visible souls. And Man as a whole, Man pitted against the Universe, have we seen him at all till we see that he is like a hero in a fairy tale?"

The Trading Card Game

Well, playing a card game is even more childish. There just aren't many things that appeal to pregame strategy, ingame strategy, and interaction. Bridge, the game of my preceding generation, has plenty of ingame strategy, but very little interaction. At high level tournaments, they even use screens so you can't see your opponents! Poker, besides the gambling element (too much like work), only has the 52 cards to work with. Military simulations are really interesting, but miniatures are harder to transport and tend to longer games. So CCGs it is.

As with most things, why one picks a particular flavor involves circumstance, or providence for those of you who might prefer Redemption, the Christian card game. I was looking for the right community, and stumbled across an advertisement for the release day special of the Lord of the Rings CCG. I drove up after class one Wednesday, met better people than at other things I had tried, and the chance to hop into something at the beginning. So I started playing, met pretty much good people, and kept going. I applied for a volunteer position a few months in, partially because Decipher rewards its official volunteers, and partially to influence community growth. I've been a Product Champion, or Rider of Rohan, since April 2002. I've learned much about interaction, mostly good, some not so much. Enough for an article, in one of those long to be lost projects, I guessed. I've had a little success; I'm a professional card player now, thanks to a 12th place finish at the 2003 World Championships. I won the 2004 Championship for .hack//ENEMY, which I explain more on the full Decipher page. Most importantly, I've had a lot of fun, and quality pleasure is what it's really about.

The Tolkien Page

Author of the Century?

The Trading Card Game