Lord of the Rings, as Written By Everyone Else

sn0rt writes "A thread on Straight Dope asks what would happen if someone else had written the Lord of the Rings. Reader submissions include Ernest Hemingway, Douglas Adams, Mark Twain, HP Lovecraft, ee cumings, Milton, Mickey Spillane, Danielle Steele, Ayn Rand(!!), Ray Bradbury, Gilbert and Sullivan and Tom Clancy. My favourite is Dr. Suess: 'Gandalf, Gandalf! Take the ring! I am too small to carry this thing!' 'I can not, will not hold the One. You have a slim chance, but I have none. I will not take it on a boat, I will not take it across a moat. I cannot take it under Moria, that's one thing I can't do for ya. I would not bring it into Mordor, I would not make it to the border.'"

Comments

it's a good thing it wasn't...

[Gavin Rogers]

Because it would probably have never been published.

Sure, it's fun to re-write a bit of the LOTR in the style of your favourite author, but try doing it with an entire chapter... or an entire book. The witty and humerous style of, say Douglas Adams would quickly become unbearable on something as big as LOTR.

It's a bit like translating Shakespear into Klingon. Well, yes, do it if you want but the world reads Shakespear as it was written and as it was intended! Everything else is a waste of time...

H. P. Lovecraft and J. R. R. Tolkien: Similarities

[Nova Express]

Oddly enough, just last night I was thinking of similarities between H. P. Lovecraft and J.R.R. Tolkien. (No, really.) Though much of their work seems diametrically opposed, there are a number of similarities in their life and their approach to fiction:

• Both looked longingly back on what they considered idyllic childhoods.
  
• Both were antiquarians who looked to an era in the past as a golden age, disdaining the present, the idea of progress, and the industrial revolution.
  
• Both had fathers die at a young age.
  
• Both were fascinated what most (non-geeks) think of as dry academic areas: Philology for Tolkien, Astronomy for Lovecraft.
  
• Both were political conservatives of aristocratic temperment.
  
• Both became leading figures in long-lasting, all-male affinity groups of fantastic fiction writers (Lovecraft with Clark Ashton Smith, Frank Belkamp Long, August Derleth, etc., Tolkien with The Inklings (C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, etc.).
  
• Both wrote tales in which the enormous and complex freight of their backstories was generally unknown to most of their protagonists, and only imperfectly revealed (if at all) throughout the tale.
  
• Both wrote works deeply tinged with pessimism and melancholy. Their protagonists might or might not survive, but even in the best of outcomes the world they knew would be forever changed due to events set in motion long before their birth.
  
• Finally, and perhaps most importantly, both used the tremendously powerful technique of salting their richly imagined secret histories with tidbits of real cultural, myth and history, which that gave their stories a resonance, depth and verisimilitude that their legions of imitators could never match. Lovecraft stole from dozens of arcane sources, while Tolkien delved into the roots of language to imaginatively reconstruct what he felt were "true myths" about the world.

Now what I need is for someone who's both a Tolkien and a Lovecraft fanatic to write a critical essay on this topic...

Re:H. P. Lovecraft and J. R. R. Tolkien: Similarit

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of your similarities come from a common source:
Both were romantics.

However, there are some significant differences as well, for instance:
Lovecraft was a solid agnostic/athiest whereas Tolkien was a devout catholic.

This is just silly - Damn Straight!

[zrk]

Maybe you need to lighten up a little. You comment is exactly the point! Parody is freedom of expression, and I find many of them hilarious. Think of it along these lines: If Windows hadn't been sold commercially, I don't think this parody discussion regarding Bill Gates would have made it to /. If Linux hadn't made it as a viable operating system, I don't think making fun of it would be a /. topic. If Cowboy Neal hadn't helped make/provide Opinion Polls, his name wouldn't always be used as a joke option on /. Sorry, Thalcon, this topic is news for nerds, and apparently you don't get nerd humor. Maybe you can find a way to deal with that.

Re:H. P. Lovecraft and J. R. R. Tolkien: Similarit

[Zech Harvey]

Ah! But you miss the most important difference between the two: One was devoutly religious, the other a devout atheist.

Where Ronnie borrowed from the bible, Phil mocked people's reliance on religion to explain things larger than them in the Cosmos. Compared to all the things similar (I would whole-heartedily diagree on the "Golden Age" and Luddistic tendencies point for Phil though, from his writings he embraced new technology and science to give us rational explanations for things occuring around us we didn't understand), their one theological difference seperates the two in form and function, leaving only style.

Being a fan of both, I would love to do an essay on the subject, but that's as close as I can come to it on Company Time. =)

Re:There is No Anti-Industrial Subtext

[odaiwai]

Yet another prime case for a "-1, Bzzt! Wrong!" moderation option.

One of the key themes in the book is a rejection of the sweeping modernisations which Tolkien saw as destroying the villages he grew up in.

Saruman and Sauron develop methods of mass-producing warriors (Orcs) with inhumane technology, while each hero is crafted by the good guys. Saruman's technology (the mines and mills of Isengard) is destroyed by the ents as evil works. The Scouring Of The Shire is a direct rejection of industrial methods from the pastoral idyll.

Dwarven civilisation is the height of craftsmanship, not industrialisation.

dave "nikon zoom"

No LOTR Logo/Icon?

[halo8]

Why oh Why Dear Slashdot Editors dose Lord of the Rings not have a Logo? Starwars has a Logo.. the Ipod has a Logo.. why dosent LOTR?

Think about it.. all the Posts that are going to be made over the next +2 Years for LOTR.. Movie Reiviews, Spoilers, Trailers, DVD's, DVD Reviews, Special Ed. DVD's, Cast Interviews, Award Shows, ect.. ect... ect..

LOTR DESERVES its own Logo/Icon

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48383&cid=49 16 794
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49299&cid =4983 792

not funny

[SuperPedro]

Maybe it's funny if you're about 13 years old. It's just a bunch of gay inuendo.

And by "gay" I don't mean "stupid". The author is seriously preoccupied with lame homosexual jokes.

Re:There is No Anti-Industrial Subtext

[efflux]

Another poster has mentioned the introduction which may be the case, but I'm at work and can't verify that right now. At any rate, he is quoted on bonus material on the extended DVD set as stating his dispised allegory, but favors "application". Nevertheless, as a writer, his views on the world will inevitably find their way into his writing whether he wants them to or not. I mean, if he's anti-industrialist (or at least anti-creeping-industrialist), he wouldn't portray industrialism/destruction of nature in a pleasant way, would he? No. Sauromon is a villian because he violates the principles that Tolkien holds dear. Whether that be integrity or respect for nature.

As a final point, I would like to mention Tolkien's revulsion to the idea that LOTR is an allegory for WWII. Granted, we must keep in mind Tolkien did not intend this allegory (so there is a limit to how far we should take this), but it was definately on his mind when he wrote the books. I can state this unequivocally because it is what was on everyone's mind. It impacted every facet of society, shaped the way we view the world. So, in a way, LOTR must reflect this.

Re:Just think if Hollywood had filmed it

[Ryosen]

Just to be clear: You are an ass. An immature and inconsiderate one at that.

While it might not be much of a surprise how the book ends in the general sense (good triumphs over evil and there was much rejoicing), it is wholly unnecessary for you to spell out exactly how it happens.

While it may seem incredulous to you, it is entirely possible that someone has not read LOTR. And to say that it was "one of the most important pieces of western fiction written in the 20th century" just belies your lack of a literary education and maturity. "Influential"? Without a doubt. "Important"? C'mon. Tolkein may have poored his life into the work, a noble act to be sure, but he never deluded himself into thinking that his writings were of significant importance to the literary world. At least, he had not conveyed that attitude in any of the interviews that he had given that I had personally read -- and I did my thesis work on him.

Oh, and thanks for fscking up Citizen Kane, too.