Rereading Martin's A Song of Ice And Fire—something written specifically as a counterpoint to Tolkien's work, and the various works in fantasy Tolkien inspired with it—has led me to realize just how off-the-rails HBO's famous (infamous?) television adaptation has gone. While earlier seasons stick closely to Martin's work (to great effect), latter seasons begin to depart, first in minor fashion, then in necessarily major strides as they surpass Martin's books and the weight of wrapping up the series falls on their heads alone. This has had the expected disastrous effect on the show's writing quality; a series once praised for its gray characters, complex machinations, and authentic fantasy world has devolved almost completely into a Marvel-inspired fantasy epic that consistently breaks its own rules and resorts to cheap faked-death cliffhangers where once it was renowned for playing seriously with its characters lives. The show is completely unrecognizable from its source material. Its appeal remains as genre pulp; fan-pleasing mental junk food that's pretty to look at but no longer espouses the qualities that made it so revered.Imagine my surprise, then, to learn that Peter Jackson's now world-famous Lord of the Rings film adaptations are actually quite adherent to their source material. I was in high school when the film series released and had not yet read Tolkien's legendary masterwork, yet I adored the films for the ethereal, otherworldly sets, make-up, and special effects they provided, bolstered further by the iconic score constructed by Howard Shore; one now so iconic to fantasy films that it rivals comparisons of Ennio Morricone's famous spaghetti western themes.
In stark contrast to the HBO adaptation of Ice and Fire falling far short of Martin's work, I honestly believe that Fellowship works far better as a film than it ever did as a novel, and that Jackson's rendition of Tolkien's work is about as perfect as you can hope for. I'll even go as far as saying I'm shocked that this isn't a more common opinion.
In novel form, perhaps the strongest aspect is Tolkien's grasp of language. Not the English language in specific, but of the history of language: its etymology. Tolkien's background as a linguist allows him to construct the foundation of this world not with long paragraphs of exposition (although he does frequently fall victim to this), but with words; the languages present, names of structures and lands, and even the songs the characters sing. A lot of Middle-Earth feels fantastical because it's built around these languages. It does a lot to impart a feeling of foreignness that so much modern fantasy lacks.
Most disappointing to me was the constant parroted opinion that the characters of the films are much simpler versions of their book counterparts. I can confidently say, at least in this first episode, that this isn't entirely true. Are the characters altered? Sure: Gimli is used a bit too much as comic relief in the films and his people and character lack development, but honestly, he doesn't get much development in this novel, either.
And that's my main problem with Fellowship. Where the film has its fantastic visuals to fall back on, the book has only descriptions. Which is fine, but I wanted something more. I yearned for something like Martin's brilliant, colorful cast of dozens of characters, or Abercrombie's biting sardonic wit to fill these pages. The bulk of Fellowship is filled with our characters moving from place to place, experiencing this wonderful world that Tolkien has created, but we learn very little of them and not enough depth of these locales we're witnessing is provided. Tolkien breezes past description of ruins, rivers, old settlements, etc, with very little time devoted to creating any depth or substance. Sure, those ruins sound great. I like ruins! But then we're onward once again.
Instead it felt too often that Tolkien caved to his indulgence, filling his pages with something like song, which is fine as a display of this world's culture, but I wanted something more substantial to dig into.I am admittedly not a huge fan of fantasy. I've read quite a bit of it, but very little I've liked, and maybe it's just the fantasy formula in general that turns me off of Fellowship rather than Tolkien himself. After all, this is a beloved novel. But it just wasn't for me. Too much of it was pretty window-dressing; meandering through lovely lands without meaningful history. Contrary to what Tolkien fans espouse, the characters were paper-thin and failed to grow, and the world, though pretty to imagine, never inspired me with its history like Martin's does, even when he's at his most indulgent and taking us on seemingly pointless tours through Essos in A Dance With Dragons.
After finishing, I began to view Martin not so much as the aforementioned "counterpoint" to Tolkien, but rather an evolution of him, as I believe Martin features a lot of what makes Tolkien attractive—an old, interesting world and a compelling narrative with strong themes—but Martin constructs his world and his characters with more care and roots said construction more within reality than fantasy, and provides each with exponentially more depth, thus making them far more intriguing than Tolkien does his.
Yes, yes, I know: Burn the witch. Who doesn't adore LOTR? But I can't help it: This is my second time reading Fellowship, and charming though he can be, Tolkien just doesn't work for me.
⭐⭐
No comments:
Post a Comment