J. R. R. Tolkien
Happy birthday!

Tolkien is, in my mind as well as the minds of many others, the god-father of Modern Fantasy. Yes, people wrote fantastic stories before the publication of The Lord of the Rings and some of them are still influential, such as Howard’s Conan and the whole Sword and Sorcery sub-genre. But none of them have helped develop an entire genre as Tolkien did. The main stories of the genre still either work within the framework he generated or against it. There are some notable exceptions, such as Ursula le Guin and the fantasies set in the modern world, but not as many as have to deal with him.

I must admit, there are some problems with The Lord of the Rings, but I still think it is the prototypical and best fantasy story. Some of the tropes that Tolkien put in have actually hurt the genre. The most annoying is the prevelence of Averting the Apocolypse; I get annoyed when I read about yet another Evil Wizard Dark Lord trying to take over the world except for the plucky activities of the heros. This has even permeated into some of the modern fantasies, such as Buffy, who kept on having to beat something MORE powerful in the next season (and one reason for the sudden shift in the tone in the sixth season, because how do you top defeating a god?). Then there is the concept of the trilogy, which he inadvertently contributed, since The Lord of the Rings was written as a single story that was broken into three volumes because his publisher didn’t think that people in the economically depressed Britain of the ‘50s would pay out for a single 800 page book.

I think that the reason why The Lord of the Rings is so successful is the way it blends the popular children’s book that it was supposed to be the sequel to, The Hobbit, and Tolkien’s true love, the stories of the Elder Days that were published by his son in The Silmarillion and in the first books of The History of Middle Earth. The problem with The Silmarillion is that the style of it is not a comfortable one for the modern reader. However, it provided for the background and the heft for The Lord of the Rings, and allowed it to go beyond a “mere” children’s story.

There are a few aspects of the story that have not been copied by others, and they are some of the reasons that the book still holds water. The most obvious, and one that others have tried but really failed to copy, is the use of language; Tolkien, as a professional linguist, was able to create a viable and deep language, while others have only been able to create a few words in imitation of Tolkien. The second is that Frodo is not really a hero. In almost all fantasy books, the hero is brave or skilled or the hidden king or the reincarnation of some ancient hero or has some prophesy about him. But not Frodo; he’s just a guy, high middle class maybe, but just a guy. There is no ancient prophecy about him (the only prophecy that could possibly be saying that he is the savior only appeared in the year before the Fellowship sets off from Rivendell).

Both of those have had people try to copy them, but not perfectly, but there is one that I have never seen even attempted to be copied: the failure of Frodo. Even though the quest succeeds, Frodo fails. He gets to the edge of success, the edge of the Cracks of Doom, and finally succumbs to the Ring. He claims it, thus alerting Sauron to his presence. Yet Tolkien makes sure the Quest succeeds, not because of a direct action of Frodo, but because of his previous actions when towards Gollum. If Frodo had killed Gollum or allowed him to be killed, then Gollum would not have been there at the end to take the Ring into the Cracks. And I have never seen another story where the hero fails but there is still a happy ending.

Finally, I would just like to say something about Peter Jackson’s movies. I’ve heard alot about is how they captured the essence of the books. However, in many ways, they didn’t. There were some major changes that radically altered the mood of the story. In the books, Aragorn was always sure that he was worthy; he may have wondered if he was the one to take up the kingship, but once it was obvious that this was the time to challenge Sauron, he knew that he was worthy. In the movies, he was much more conflicted, he was much more of a modern hero, ridden with doubt as to his abilities. In fact, all the characters had more doubt as to the wisdom of their actions in attempting to resist Sauron, whereas in the books, resisting Sauron was the only sensible option; the only arguments were about the how.

Another difference was the relationship between Frodo and Sam. In the movies, they were friends. Sure, there were times that Sam called Frodo “Master” and Frodo was the leader of the hobbits, but Sam and Frodo were friends. In the books, they were friends, but the primary relationship between the two was master and servant. Sam never called Frodo anything but “Master” or “Master Frodo.” Whenever things happened, the first thing on Sam’s mind was his Master. Even after Sam became famous in the Shire from driving Saruman and his ruffians out, he deferred at all times to Frodo. If you read it carefully, there are many scenes in the book, especially on the path to Mordor and inside Mordor itself, which Sam acts towards Frodo in a manner than could be seen either as a homoerotic manner OR in the way a parent might treat a hurt child. All of that was transformed in the movies to be good friends whose friendship deepens in the harsh conditions of the trip to Mount Doom.

So, happy birthday, Professor Tolkien, and thank you!