<p>If so, how awesome would it have been had I read those books <em>before</em> I left high school.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, now that I am helping out a sibling with thinking up suitable books to write for an AP English essay, I now ask you guys the question.</p>
<p>My English teacher said that if you are really familiar with the book and can analyze the literary devices and writing styles (must be deep and solid analysis) and not concentrate on the plots, then the book might have literary merits. But it's too risky and he suggested you'd better choose a book that the CB graders define as possessing literary merits...., you know, like The Great Gatsby......</p>
<p>But LOTR is so much more epic than Gatsby!</p>
<p>Anyway, does the CB assign LOTR literary merit?</p>
<p>Well, not sure about that.
But I don't really remember seeing "J.R.R Tolkien" on the Eng Lit recommended authors list.</p>
<p>Lord of the Rings is considered a lower tier "Period Piece." Harold Bloom says: "Tolkien is the Emperor of inferior period pieces, perhaps never to be dethroned." A period piece is one that exemplifies a particular time period, like The Great Gatsby does for the Roarin' 20s. They're not timeless "classics," like Hamlet or The Iliad, but are of high literary merit and therefore acceptable for the AP test. I would suggest, however, that you pick something else. LoTR is great for entertainment purposes, but something with a bit more substance would, I think, be better for the test.</p>
<p>Actually, I think that the Lord of the Rings is a trilogy of very considerable substance. It stands up well to literary analysis. You may find that its content seems to deepen as you grow older--by which I mean, a <em>lot</em> older, as I am now. :)</p>
<p>But I'd advise against using it for AP Lit examples. (Too much chance of Locke19's reaction from the AP essay readers.)</p>
<p>^ Can you give me some examples of this depth?</p>
<p>How does the Iliad exceed the LOTR in literary merit, besides age?</p>
<p>Okay, so the Iliad weaves a story about ancient Greek life. It's useful for that.</p>
<p>LOTR's description of its myth of how good and evil entered the world, of why men's precarious relationship with power, how one group became another, how even malicious factions oppose each other, of how the world became corrupted, of ancient things lost yet lingering, I think are all fascinating things to explore with literary criticism.</p>
<p>The tale of the Iliad and the Odyssey I think are rivalled by LOTR. Take the tale of the Lotus-Eaters. How does that even begin to compare with the story of the Nine? The tale of Galadriel beats that of Calypso any day.</p>
<p>galoisien has raised a set of interesting points in post #8. To that, I'd add other comments about the thematic content of the work:<br>
Foremost, there is the central role of mercy (a point discussed explicitly by Tolkien);
but then also mortality and immortality;
redemption, which occurs multiple times;
the rejection of simplistic dualism, while keeping good vs. evil as the central conflict;
the role of "fore-knowledge" in causing despair, and the reactions of characters of different mettle and type to despair (Boromir, Denethor, Saruman--and Erestor, for that matter);
hope;
the turning away from power that could be taken;
and of course, the role of the small and weak in confounding the powerful, as well as courage, loyalty, friendship, and love.</p>
<p>The character development also has depth. Of course, there is the coming-of-age archetype and the Quest, and hence (part of) Frodo's development. Frodo goes beyond the archetype, though, I think. The relationship between Frodo and Sam has rather intense British socioeconomic class-related overtones, which have occasioned a lot of debate. </p>
<p>Tolkien's work is unusually extensive as an act of "sub-creation." The Silmarillion provides back-story already conceived but not published when LOTR appeared. Thus, the story of Aragorn and Arwen alludes to the story of Beren and Luthien. The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales provide back story on Galadriel's exile.</p>
<p>As far as linguistic depth goes, the journal of the Elvish Linguistic Fellowship (Vinyar Tengwar) is indexed by the Modern Language Association (MLA). Tolkien drew on his command of linguistics in creating the various languages, as well as the changes in the names of some of the characters over time, and the variations in the names of characters as they were known to different groups.</p>
<p>The comment has been made that LOTR is a "profoundly Christian, and even profoundly Catholic work." I will not touch on that, except to observe that I think it is no coincidence that Frodo comes of age at 33.</p>
<p>(My apologies to the true LOTR afficionados: My comments in this post are inevitably somewhat of a hack job, but they might serve to indicate some of the depth that is in the work itself.)</p>
<p>Didn't mention symbolism above, but I will mention two symbols:
Water--to mention a few, the Brandywine (Baranduin), the Ford of Bruinen, Galadriel's bowl, the Black Marshes, the flooding of Isengard (earlier, the river/creek in the Gladden Fields where Gollum acquired the Ring; and the pool where Gollum fishes later).
Color--especially green, white, gray, yellow, gold</p>
<p>The Harold Blooms of the world will never be able to ignore all the silly stuff that is in Tolkien alongside the great stuff. As a result, it's not a good choice for an essay, unless you know that the reader likes it.</p>
<p>I agree with you that Tolkien is an epic writer, don't get me wrong, and I'm a fan of the series/other random books that provide backstory, but I'm just not sure that they're on the same level as the Iliad and Odyssey.</p>
<p>Comparing the two series is difficult for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the time between them. The Iliad/Odyssey were originally told at about 1000 BCE, beginning as oral recitations and then written down at about 600 BCE, and LoTR was written in the first half of the 20th Century. That's obviously a huge difference, and the cultural differences of those times should be reflected in the comparison. </p>
<p>Another difficulty is the style they are written in, with the Iliad/Odyssey in the form of an epic poem (probably set up that way so the ancient bards would be able to remember it better in a set meter), and LoTR in prose. </p>
<p>The final difficulty is the reason they were both created. I/O were created not so much for amusement, though that certainly played a role since it was often sung at ancient banquets, but more for didactic reasons. They were meant to teach an ancient Greek the proper way to live: how to properly sacrifice to the gods, how to treat guests, that one should realize that one's fate is in the hands of the gods/Fates, and other such important life lessons for the Greeks. LoTR, by contrast, was written for two reasons: the first for it's own literary merit, and the second for entertainment purposes. This is not to say that one can't learn anything from Tolkien's tales, but that was not neccesarily his main point in writing them. This is probably due to the time difference, since the 20th century was obviously far more advanced than 1000 BCE, so the world didn't necessarily need another guide book.</p>
<p>This has taken a lot of my time, and I've got homework to do. Therefore, I'll post my actual comparisons up later. Peace.</p>
<p>Yes, but who in the exam comments on rhyme and meter in the Iliad and the Odyssey? Much of it is full of oral devices for oral retelling -- e.g. the constant mention that Athena is grey-eyed and whatnot. I don't really like the work itself, just the stories. </p>
<p>I would in fact argue that the prose that LOTR is written in is much more rapturing and deserving of merit than the oral retelling (and probably not entirely cohesive, at that) that we know the Iliad and the Odyssey to be.</p>
<p>(And Tolkien does invoke elements of epic poetry in the series of course, e.g. Boromir's eulogy.)</p>
<p>How does time of writing matter in literary merit? The Kite Runner for instance, is quite contemporary but probably equally deserving of the label of having literary merit. What matters I think, is intellectual cultural legacy, or potential thereof.</p>
<p>Anyway, this was to help my sibling ... she was trying to address a prompt about "no scene of violence exists for its own sake" for an AP essay for school (not the exam).</p>
<p>Lord of the Rings isn't subtle enough. It has a fine setting and lots of good symbolism, but the main characters are far too shallow and bland and the central conflict too black and white for the work to be of high "literary merit", even if it is immensely enjoyable.</p>
<p>If someone's familiar enough with it, they should use it. People have used Harry Potter successfully, and the LotR has got to at least rank higher than HP in terms of literary merit.</p>
<p>I'm not sure LotR would meet most people's definition of a work with "literary merit", and I would agree that it would be too risky to try for the AP. However, I have to disagree with assertions that the story line is too simple, and the work not deep enough. The story line is not simply black and white, not entirely christian allegory like the Narnia series, and incredibly deep in intertextual references to other Western texts. If anything, the story is about a struggle between Evil and "Gray". </p>
<p>One also has to look at both Tolkien's purposes in writing the work, and at the author's academic training. The work was meant to be a mythology for England, which is largely absent one, and Tolkien was an ancient languages specialist. To create this myth, he melded together many different aspects from western culture to create a unique story. Anyone with a knowledge of Greek, Latin, Old English, or Norse languages and cultures, will readily see the endless borrowings and melding of Western culture into the story, and the intertextual aspects with ancient texts, such as Plato's Republic, Beowulf, and the apocryphal or gnostic book on King Solomon. The work is a delight for many students of Classics, Medieval studies, the Renaissance, or students of Western culture, but that doesn't mean it has what most people call "literary merit". As you can probably guess, I personally think LotR has plenty of literary merit.</p>
<p>Very interesting post AMB2005. To offer a side-line comment on intertextual aspects: I find that the story of creation in The Silmarillion reminds me of the words of the Archangels in the Prologue of Goethe's Faust. It is one of the most beautiful uses of the English language that I've seen.</p>
<p>You can technically write about any work for the open-ended prompt, but when they say "literary merit", they're absolutely not looking for Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. The biggest risk involved with writing about books in that style is that the immediate, subjective response of the grader is probably not going to be positive. It's a strike against you before you've even begun to write.</p>
<p>The second issue with actually writing the response would probably be dealing with the immense scope of the trilogy. You'd have to pick one of the books, and they're all pretty plot-heavy. The good thing about choosing a more commonly accepted work is that graders are already familiar with the plot, so you don't have to be concerned with explaining it, or worry that your analysis could be misinterpreted due to unfamiliarity with the text. To get to the level of specificity and profundity that they're looking for in the open prompt might be difficult with such a dense text, especially if you're trying to analyze and summarize at the same time.</p>
<p>I've never needed to summarise a plot. I just launch into description cuz summarising the plot is a waste of time. In fact, I rarely need to give background on what's actually happening -- I just launch in-depth into the character or the theme, and give examples. Giving background on a "choose your book" essay is rather a waste of time. The only time when you should be explaining the plot is when you're citing evidence. </p>
<p>My strategy was to reference the text heavily but without explaining any background, as though the reader knows the story intimately well. It works quite well even when the reader may not know the story very well (Chinese Romance of the Three Kingdoms, The Kite Runner, etc.) </p>
<p>And the Iliad/Odyssey are all pretty plot-heavy, wth. Furthermore, if you analyse the Iliad/Odyssey for language, you are more likely to analyse the writing style of the translator, rather than that of Homer or the Greeks who told it. Your analysis would vary depending on which translation you used! </p>
<p>I contend the scenes of Telemachus growing up or of Odysseus returning home and killing the suitors has no more literary merit han the scenes Eowyn being the slayer of the Witch-King or Gandalf going to Isengard and meeting a defeated Saruman who speaks treacherous words, only to be ironically betrayed by Wormtongue</p>
<p>I used LOTR for today’s AP Lit test, haha. Never read this topic before.</p>
<p>Whatever, I don’t care too much about the grade, but it was a fun essay to write at least.</p>
<p>I read through the books they provided that could be used, and like, I don’t understand why a book like Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner would have literary merit if LOTR doesn’t… It’s a fairly recently written book, and is mostly plot blah blah blah. I hate stubborn english elitist people.</p>