How I stopped complaining and learned to love the ring

For a very long time, I didn't really like “The Lord of the Rings”. I mean, come on: who can stomach Tolkien's family trees with Frodo's 57 next cousins, the ridiculous Ents (talking trees with…wait for it…beards?) or the fact that each Elf has more names than the average Hindu guru. Add a tedious plot and an entire nation of devoted acolytes who keep telling you that the story is really the work of genius (that nation being Sweden), and you may get an inkling (pun intended) of my situation. Sure, the special effects in Peter Jackson's films were superb, but that was about it. And yes, all the villains are dark-skinned and wield scimitars. Racefail much?

Recently, however, I think I finally got it. While watching the first film for about the seventh time, I was struck by how strange and unusual the story actually is. Frodo leaves the Shire as a matter of course when asked to do so by Gandalf. His best friend Sam follows him, also as a matter of course. All the characters (except Gollum) are either wholly good or wholly bad, and the only thing that can get a good guy to fall is sorcery. LOTR seems to be a unique (and somewhat weird) story. Where did Tolkien got all this stuff from, anyway?

It's a traditional fairytale, stupid.

This, of course, is what LOTR has always been criticized for by cynical, “grown up” reviewers: that the characters aren't “deep” enough, that the plot is “naïve”, etc. Poor ambivalent Gollum, who can't seem to make up his mind whether to support the good or follow the Dark Side, is the only figure which meets with approval from such quarters. I suppose they see him as a “deep” postmodern monster. But of course many traditional myths and fairytales are just as “simplistic” and “naïve” as LOTR. Stories like this aren't supposed to be made anymore. Even the pristine United Federation of Planets from “Star Trek” is evil or at least ambivalent these days. It's more realistic that way, I suppose.

And then there's “Game of Thrones”, George Martin's alternative fantasy vision, where most characters are evil or positively depraved because, you know, it's more realistic that way. But since when is fantasy supposed to be realistic? Here, I think we're getting closer to the nub of the matter. It's interesting to note that the characters in “Game of Thrones” which are most popular are the ones which are more or less unqualifiedly good, such as Daenerys, Tyrion and John Snow. Note also that several of these characters have “supernatural” connections. People simply aren't buying the realistic part of Martin's concept.

Somebody might argue that it's time for us to grow up, that the world isn't all black and white, and that we should promote less naïve tales about how things “really” work. I disagree. We already know how it really works (Tyrion knows it, too). We live in that reality most of our time. What many of us don't know, or forget, are the ideals. Our ideals. That's what the myths and stories are supposed to communicate. Perhaps that's why a certain breed of literati wants us to forget about them. But what is their alternative to the traditional stories where Good conquers Bad, or dies trying? The torture porn in “Game of Thrones”?

So yes, I suddenly became more positive towards Tolkien's magnum opus (or even Jackson's films), despite not being on the same political wave length as the notoriously conservative author. Yes, Frodo did take the ring without further ado when asked by Gandalf. Yes, Sam followed him. No, they aren't very complicated characters.

And your point was…?