What does the sixpence = ?

[littlemanpoet]

I've been reading Tom Shippey's JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century for the last couple of weeks (yeah, Im a slow reader). In writing about the spittingly mad and irrational attitude of the literati towards Tolkien's works, he says this:

On a darkened stage, a single light is burning. A man is down on his hands and knees, crawling round in silence, obviously looking for something. Eventually a second man comes on, and says, after watching for a while, 'What are you doing?' 'I'm looking for a sixpence I dropped', replies the crawler. The second man gets down on his hands and knees and starts to help him. After a while the second man says, 'Just where did you drop it, anyway?' 'Oh, over there', says the first one, getting to his feet and walking over to the other side of the stage, in the dark. 'Then why are you looking for it here?' cries the second man in exasperation. The first one walks back to his original place and starts crawling around again. 'Because', he replies, 'that's where the light is'.

In this allegory of mine, the light = modernism, the crawling searcher = ...any of the critical multitude... . I am not at all sure what the sixpence may =, but Tolkien was out there in the dark, looking for it.
Talk about your punch lines! :eek:

What Shippey implies is that Tolkien not only searched, but found it, and has especially through LotR made it available to us. Meanwhile, we're all hard put to say precisely what 'the sixpence' were. It did, after all, take Tolkien all the words of his Legendarium to communicate it. But can we summarize? Any ideas what the sixpence = ?

[Bêthberry]

Really now, lmp! Sneaking allegory in via the side door of criticism. Are you trying to pull a Fordim on us? ;)

But to return your coin with interest, I would think that the sixpence likely refers to that penny that drops, although in this case, it was a penny that was lost so long ago, most have forgotten about it.

[tar-ancalime]

And I thought when I clicked on this thread that I would finally get a lucid explanation of the old British currency! Shillings, guineas, half crowns?

Maybe it doesn't matter what the sixpence is--maybe all that matters is that the person looking for it in the dark lacks the self-referentiality of those who look for it in the light. For the person in the light, the search (and therefore the searcher) is important; for the person in the dark, the object being sought is the important thing. But that doesn't really square with modernism, does it? It's more like your garden-variety po-mo.

I'll crawl back into my cave now.

[Eluchíl]

Seems ironic that light, which is notoriously represented to be insightful or epiphanic, has driven the man away from where the penny may actually be.

Anyway, it seems to me that the sixpence would be something Tolkien lost along his way. Something that he lost in a dark period or place in his life. Something he couldn't get back in the light, or that the light couldn't show him, so he would have to go back into the dark and fight to get it back again. It feels very lonely and sad to me.

[Selmo]

I don't get it.

Shippey creates this allegory and then says he doesn't know what it means: " I am not at all sure what the sixpence may =, but Tolkien was out there in the dark, looking for it. "

It seems to me that it's Shippey who's in the dark, not Tolkien.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Perhaps this thread is a little too hung up on the sixpence. The point of the allegory is that the man who has lost a coin is looking for it in completely the wrong place just because that happens to be where the light falls. Modernism casts a light on particular aspects of literary endeavour, and if Shippey's sixpence, be that some sort of artistic truth, a window on the human spirit or other horribly abstract ideal, happens not to be in that place, then Modernism won't find it. Being out in the dark (more likely using the moonlight that Modernism had eclipsed for its followers), Tolkien probably had as much chance of finding sixpence as anybody else. Alternatively he could have found a half-crown, threepence, or an old button, just as could someone using the light. Shippey assumes that critics are looking for something (I seem to recall from his book that it was some sort of literary epiphany) in the wrong place, and that Tolkien, although he may have been equally off target, was at least looking in a different and more logical wrong place.

Humbug, say I. Tolkien was probably not looking for the same coin that an exponent of Modernism might want; in fact he may not have been looking for a coin at all. More likely he wasn't seeking anything in particular, just writing his stories his way, whilst exploring his own philosophy and beliefs through language and legend: it's surprising how few people really think about current critical theory while they write fiction. To adapt one of his own allegories, while others were knocking down the tower to mine for gold, Tolkien was looking for a view of the sea. Neither understood the point of what the other was doing.

As it happens, looking at the present through a filter composed of Christianity and medieval language, myth and literature was nothing particularly new in the 1950s. In fact it was nearly a century out of date: Tolkien's generation was born at the height of the Victorian craze for medievalism, and several of his contemporaries were drawing on the same influences. Clearest to me is Robert Graves, whose poem Dead Cow Farm (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10122/10122-h/10122-h.htm#deadcow) draws on the creation legends of Gylfaginning. T.S. Eliot, who has enjoyed a lot more success than Tolkien in acceptance into high culture, also makes use of medieval literature in The Waste Land. Perhaps they were looking for the same 'sixpence', but more likely they were looking for cigarette lighters or lost cuff-links.

The upshot of all this is that Shippey's allegory doesn't stand up to intensive examination, but does it really have to? It's clearly intended to demonstrate why twentieth-century (and early twenty-first-century) critical thinking has tended to dismiss his subject, while many often well-educated people, such as Professor Shippey himself, attach to it a greater significance. For me, this sort of argument exemplifies the defiant and provocative tone of this entire book. Its very title invites controversy, and from what I know of the author, he can't have been unaware of that. As for the sixpence, I presume that it's still lying on the pavement undiscovered, presumably next to the solidus that Horace sought.

[The Saucepan Man]

Does it matter what the sixpence is? It's lost anyway.

And is it not rather sensible to search in the light, with a good chance of finding something else equally as valuable if not more so, than to search in the dark with little hope of finding anything?

And, finally, is it not just as reprehensible for Shippey to sneer at those who adhere to modernism as it is for the critics to sneer at Tolkien's use of fantasy?

[Bergil]

Does it matter what the sixpence is? It's lost anyway.

And is it not rather sensible to search in the light, with a good chance of finding something else equally as valuable if not more so, than to search in the dark with little hope of finding anything?

And, finally, is it not just as reprehensible for Shippey to sneer at those who adhere to modernism as it is for the critics to sneer at Tolkien's use of fantasy?

The man with the pan clearly doesn't get it. Shhippey means (and I agree) that iff you're looking for a twonie you dropped in a completely different place then you dropped it because the light's better there, you let circumstances decide your actions, and pull you away from what you want to be doing (or what you're good at doing). In other words, if you go out and buy whatever CD is being advratised, you're "looking in the light", but that CD is most likely no good, so if you want to find some good music, you'll have to "look in the dark". Shippey is saying that those who apply modernism just because it's the latest thing are idiots, and saying Tolkien didn't write what he thought people wanted to read, he wrote what he wanted to write (I agree with both).

[The Saucepan Man]

Shhippey means (and I agree) that iff you're looking for a twonie you dropped in a completely different place then you dropped it because the light's better there, you let circumstances decide your actions, and pull you away from what you want to be doing (or what you're good at doing).Which (as Squatter suggested) is precisely where Shippey's analogy breaks down. Because the "modernists" are not looking for the same sixpence that Tolkien is. Nor, indeed, are they looking for a sixpence which they dropped in the darkness earlier. They are looking for something entirely different. And who is to criticise them for looking in the light for it? It might well be there. Shippey is justified in taking offence at the critics' derision of Tolkien's works. But he is entirely unjustified in deriding them for looking elsewhere for what they are interested in.

For my own part, I would rather look in the light for something that I can find and make use of than stumble around in the dark for something that I may never find and, even if I did, would be unable to discern properly.

[littlemanpoet]

What if - just consider it, mind you - what if the sixpence actually represents something that both the literati and Tolkien were looking for?

[davem]

It strikes me that most of the critics Shippey is referring to don't actually know what Tolkien was talking about. They can't get beyond the 'Elves & Dwarves' - which to them are the same as the 'Pixies & Gnomes' of bad children's stories. Hence, because they can't see beneath the surface they assume there are no depths.

Its not so much that they don't like or approve of what Tolkien is saying, - they've simply convinced themselves he's not saying anything. I suspect they're looking in the light because they don't believe the sixpence is genuine - they've convinced themselves its play money, & that even if they found it it wouldn't be worth anything, so why bother?

I've yet to come across one critic of Tolkien who could actually say what he was on about.

Or maybe they're just looking in the light 'cos they're scared of the dark (where the Goblins are......)

Cross-posted with LMP

[The Saucepan Man]

What if - just consider it, mind you - what if the sixpence actually represents something that both the literati and Tolkien were looking for?Why on earth would Tolkien be interested in the literati's dropped sixpence? :p ;)

Perhaps they were looking for the same thing, albeit with a different understanding of what it actually was, but it is rather presumptious of Shippey (or, at best, purely his subjective opinion) to suppose that Tolkien was looking in the right place whereas the others were not. I tend to think, however, that each party in this (increasingly stretched) allegory was looking for something entirely different. Good luck to them both, I say. Each to their own.

It strikes me that most of the critics Shippey is referring to don't actually know what Tolkien was talking about. They can't get beyond the 'Elves & Dwarves' - which to them are the same as the 'Pixies & Gnomes' of bad children's stories. Hence, because they can't see beneath the surface they assume there are no depths. Which itself assumes that there are "depths" there which they would be interested in or which would be of some value to them. For some people there are. But for many others there are not. Let's face it, there is a vast majority of people who are not interested in what Tolkien had (or was trying) to say, or for whom his works hold little in the way of meaning. Some enjoy his works simply as cracking good yarns (which is indeed what I regard them as, first and foremost) and little more. Others are simply find that they do not appeal to them.

Even assuming that there is some hidden "Truth" which Tolkien's works have the capacity to reveal (a proposition with which, as you know, I am at best dubious), there will be people who, through no fault of their own, will simply not be able to perceive that "Truth" (if it exists) via the medium that he provided, although they may find (or think they have found) the means to do so via other media.

Which is a very long-winded way ( :rolleyes: ) of saying that, while I deprecate narrow-minded criticism of Tolkien's works grounded solely on the basis that they are "fairy stories" or "boy's own tales", I would not criticise others for looking elsewhere for whatever it is that they are looking for or are interested in.

Through the device of the "sixpence dropped earlier in the darkness", Shippey is resting his entire allegory on the assumption that that is the only place where people should be looking. It is a self-serving (or allegory-serving) device and therefore gives rise to an assumption which I do not consider to be justified.

I've yet to come across one critic of Tolkien who could actually say what he was on about.Can anyone, truly?

Or maybe they're just looking in the light 'cos they're scared of the dark (where the Goblins are......)Or perhaps it's because they can see better and will therefore be better able to understand and make use of whatever it is they find ...

[davem]

Or perhaps it's because they can see better and will therefore be better able to understand and make use of whatever it is they find ...

I think what's 'in the light' for those critics is what they have been told is acceptable, politically correct, 'right'. They can't handle anything else. They have been told that there are monsters in the darkness, & not to go there because its 'dangerous'.

I'm tired of critics who dismiss fantasy & SF as something childish & meaningless & who seem to take pride in not liking it, as if that's the 'grown-up' position, & who dismiss those genres as being only fit for children or inadequates. They can only handle fiction which depicts the world they know. They only want their limited worldview confirmed & will accept nothing else. They have no desire to learn anything, only to be told that they already know everything important, everything worth knowing.

The BBC just broadcast a program, 'Balderdash & Piffle' presented by Victoria Coren, in which this 'right-on' lady dismissed Lord of the Rings in pretty contemptuous terms. The purpose of the programme (if one can dignify it to that degree) was to discover the origin of various words/phrases (ie 'gay' for homosexual, or 'pear-shaped' for something going wrong) & get them accepted by the OED, or to find earlier examples of words already included so that the editors could amend the existing entries. Of course she failed to mention that Tolkien was one of the greatest philologists who ever lived & also worked on the OED itself. A few decades back it would quite possibly have been Tolkien himself she would have been striving to persuade!

I don't think these critics have read & understood Tolkien & then gone on to dismiss him - most of them have done neither. One of his most vociferous critics, Germaine Greer, has admitted she has only read the first chapter of LotR, yet every opportunity she gets to say something offensive about him she grabs with both hands.

I don't see why we should be polite about those critics & say they have a right to their opinions. Only an informed opinion is deserving of respect. Uninformed sneering by supposedly educated people deserves only contempt. They aren't interested in discovering something new (looking in the dark), but they'll take anything they already know (looking in the light) however worthless it may be....

[The Saucepan Man]

I think what's 'in the light' for those critics is what they have been told is acceptable, politically correct, 'right'. They can't handle anything else. They have been told that there are monsters in the darkness, & not to go there because its 'dangerous'.A lot of assumptions there ...

I'm tired of critics who dismiss fantasy & SF as something childish & meaningless & who seem to take pride in not liking it, as if that's the 'grown-up' position, & who dismiss those genres as being only fit for children or inadequates.No disagreement from me there. As I said:

I deprecate narrow-minded criticism of Tolkien's works grounded solely on the basis that they are "fairy stories" or "boy's own tales"I recall being appalled at the reaction in some quarters to Lord of the Rings coming top of the BBC's Favourite Book poll a year or two back.

I don't think these critics have read & understood Tolkien & then gone on to dismiss him - most of them have done neither. One of his most vociferous critics, Germaine Greer, has admitted she has only read the first chapter of LotR, yet every opportunity she gets to say something offensive about him she grabs with both hands.Quite so. One is not qualified to criticise something which one has not even read.

My gripe with Shippey is not that he rails against those who criticised Tolkien's works with little knowledge and/or understanding of them, but that he goes on to ridicule their (different) tastes and interests.

Uninformed sneering by supposedly educated people deserves only contempt.I agree. But, based on the excerpt quoted by lmp above, it seems to me that this is precisely the approach that Shippey adopts towards modernism.

They aren't interested in discovering something new (looking in the dark), but they'll take anything they already know (looking in the light) however worthless it may be....Assumptions again, based upon the assumption inherent in Shippey's analogy (regarding darkness/light). I am sure that many implicated in Shippey's critique are interested in discovering new things. They are just looking in a different place.

[Lalwendë]

To me this allegory is simply saying that as the searcher is a 'critic', that searcher does not want to be out of the place where the light is currently being focussed, i.e. on modernism. The searcher may personally prefer what is to be found in the darkened area, but he also does not want to be found in that darkened area.

I understand what Shippey is getting at here, though it is not always the case that the light only shines on modernism; if it did only shine on 'modernism' then Shippey himself would not have got very far in his own academic career! However, it does have to be said that the British academic and literary establishment is in general quite hostile to studies of Tolkien and related literature; Leeds University is a notable exception in that it features courses not just on the literature which influenced Tolkien but also on his work in itself.

But, I would not like to shun the 'light' totally just because it rejects Tolkien's work which I enjoy so much; this could be implied in what Shippey says, if we interpret his words as sneering. I do not wish to exclude myself from a whole section of literature just because some (and these are a minority, though seemingly a vocal minority) of those who like it or are critics of it happen to sneer about Tolkien.

I think ultimately it's all about being defensive. The literary critics have a vested interest in keeping up the status of their preferred fiction as so many of them write and publish it, and it is still rare to get a bestseller in that genre; even Booker winners do not always sell well. Likewise, the defenders of 'popular fiction' such as Tolkien have a vested interest as they wish their particular favourite to be seen as 'serious' and worthy of intellectual consideration; I know I do. ;)

[drigel]

light=the PC world of lazy logic
darkness=thinking outside of the "modern literature class" box
sixpence=what Shippey thinks he knows about Tolkien

[The Saucepan Man]

light=the [PC] world of lazy logicThen Shippey's analogy is born of the light. :p ;)

[Lalwendë]

I'm tired of critics who dismiss fantasy & SF as something childish & meaningless & who seem to take pride in not liking it, as if that's the 'grown-up' position, & who dismiss those genres as being only fit for children or inadequates. They can only handle fiction which depicts the world they know. They only want their limited worldview confirmed & will accept nothing else. They have no desire to learn anything, only to be told that they already know everything important, everything worth knowing.

The BBC just broadcast a program, 'Balderdash & Piffle' presented by Victoria Coren, in which this 'right-on' lady dismissed Lord of the Rings in pretty contemptuous terms.

The example of dismissiveness displayed by Victoria Coren simply displayed a lack of any knowledge and a 'knowing-wink' to those in the 'chattering classes' (of which I am probably a member), making a joke out of the 'oh so cliched Lord of the Rings'. Little do such TV presenters/journalists know but many of the members of the chattering classes may be secretly reading a copy of LotR disguised beneath the covers of Finnegan's Wake; the Harry Potter books have all been issued with alternate 'grown-up covers'. ;)

But that is what gets our backs up in essence. Much of the criticism offered about Tolkien is not in fact about the books, but about us, the fans! I happen to like Germaine Greer as she always can be guaranteed to say something that gets you talking, even if you don't agree with her (and sometimes I do), but to take her quote as an example:

Ever since I arrived at Cambridge as a student in 1964 and encountered a tribe of full-grown women wearing puffed sleeves, clutching teddies and babbling excitedly about the doings of hobbits it has been my nightmare that Tolkien would turn out to be the most influential writer of the twentieth century. The bad dream has been realized

Just why do we find what she says so objectionable? It is because she equates us all with infantile, childlike people, and not child-like in a good way. She excludes us from the 'cool gang' which we must presume she was in (she was not, as it happens, as she was well known for ruffling the feathers of her tutors). And are Tolkien fans like this in reality?

OK, so many of us do in fact do silly things in the name of Tolkien, like dressing up, playing with swords, collecting action figures, trying to win trivia quizzes, getting One Ring tattoos and so on. Do authors such as Jane Austen and Salman Rushdie attract such behaviour? Not really, although the idea of Mr Darcy action figures is something I cannot now get out of my head (being a collector of action figures...).

So we have a tendency to do silly things, or to put it in a better way, to have fun. But I do have to ask whether it is worth us dropping all of this fun in order to have Tolkien taken more seriously, as that seems to be what it would take.

I think I actually prefer to keep the fun, and to have Tolkien remain partially (as he is not totally shunned) outside the establishment literary canon. I take some pleasure in the fact that I like something that I, as an English graduate, am not supposed to like. I also take pleasure in the fact that Tolkien's work is something I discovered for myself. It was not a prescribed text at school or University, and it is still rare to find his work on reading lists, yet so many people still pick up those books and love them. Nor is Tolkien in the realms of 'supermarket fiction', those books which are ubiquitous and can be picked up anywhere for pennies in special deals; his books are always stuffed somewhere at the back of Waterstones (in the nerd section ;) ) and are at full price. Yet still we keep on reading them!

maybe that's what Shippey is talking about. We are all outsiders in a way, kept out of the light at the front of the bookshop, relegated to the back, but we still find the sixpence. :p

[tar-ancalime]

it's surprising how few people really think about current critical theory while they write fiction.

NO!!! Shocking. ;)

For what it's worth (sixpence?), Shippey didn't create this little analogy out of whole cloth. It's a Buddhist story, and I think the meaning is rather different in that context. I seem to recall that the monk looking for the key (to his house, which he'd lost) in the light is the one on the right path: the idea is that it is the seeking of the key that is important, and ever finding it (or not) is utterly beside the point.

Please, please correct me if you've got a better interpretation of this story--like most of the Buddhist stories I've read, this one leaves me scratching my head a little.

[Bêthberry]

All this talk of darkness and light has reminded me of Lal's post on the Coolection Grows thread about how davem helped her recover her lost One Ring when she lost it by lighting a burning bush in the dark (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=436766&postcount=795) . :D

It seems to me that much of this criticism is a journalistic tempest in a teapot or hot air bent on inflating their own balloon. Journalists and scholars alike make their mark by raising hackles, by setting their ideas up as new and exciting, by making ripples in the water. The more we respond to them, whether it be Victoria Cohen or Germaine Greer or whoever, the more we simply reward their efforts. Better to ignore them, let their balloons slowly sink back to earth and find other fans to torment.

You know, it was not only or merely for its fantasy elements that Tolkien's work was dismissed in some quarters, but also for his plot, his adherance to nineteenth century kinds of realistic detail, his concept of characterisation. And that is also to miss how many of the chattering classes defended him. One need think only of W. H. Auden, who Tolkien had taught, to recall that those who appreciated language recognised the mithril in Tolkien's work. So, as far as Shippey goes, it's all a bit of transference of energy among air particles.

Now, there's some mixed metaphors instead of allegory. ;)

[Lalwendë]

The 'art' of criticism is indeed a cut-throat business, with reviewers beset with hidden agendas and images to maintain. Germaine Greer herself is a well known iconoclast and as such her 'puff' is particularly hot, yet when it's aimed at a target I agree is worthy of being shot at, then I'm in agreement with her; such fickle things, are opinions. ;)

You know, it was not only or merely for its fantasy elements that Tolkien's work was dismissed in some quarters, but also for his plot, his adherance to nineteenth century kinds of realistic detail, his concept of characterisation.

The odd thing is that if such critics dared delve deeper into the murky world that is the Internet discussion forum, then they may find all kinds of arguments dealing with the stylistic properties of Tolkien's work. I'm sure we've gone over all of these elements of his work many times on the Downs. But then the world of academia is also pretty cut-throat with much jostling for position over opinions, and I suspect that people only search for the pertinent parts to support their points, as would I if having an argument on here! ;)

Still, Tolkien has had some heavyweight supporters, including WH Auden and Iris Murdoch, not to mention all the academics outside the English faculties who also support him, e.g Ronald Hutton. I am sure as the popularity of Tolkien grows and the education system in the UK grows ever more market driven, there will be more demand from undergraduates that Tolkien be considered an acceptable topic of study, so maybe his work will become acceptable in the canon before long.

[davem]

Its interesting how the critics fall into two camps. We have the Greers, Corens, Howard Jacobson (who responded to LotR winning the Waterstones poll for Book of the Century with "It just shows the folly of these polls, the folly of teaching people
to read. Close all the libraries. Use the money for something else." ie the fact that so many people voted for LotR means the majority of Britons are idiots (Of course Shippey himself points out that idiots would not choose to read, & re-read, an 1100 page book)

The other camp id typified by Johann Hari (http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=307) who states, among other things

The great critic Edmund Wilson called it "balderdash" and "juvenile trash" when it was first published, and it’s hard to disagree. Tolkien’s insufferable obsession with describing a fictional landscape borders on the autistic, as does the almost total absence of women or sophisticated emotion from his work. No, ‘Lord of the Rings’ is not loved because it is a good novel, but because it taps into some of the most atavistic and ugly impulses of our times.


(Notice that at the end of the article he posts a response which is illiterate, ignorant, & possibly borderline insane & then claims that is the most sensible response he has had.)

What comes across to me from these critics is not that they have read Tolkien objectively & found he has nothing to say to them - they have started out with a bias against Tolkien. Their initial attack is that 'Its all nonsense, not fit for grown-ups.' If they are challenged on this, they change tack & claim 'Ok, its not nonsense, its a dangerous fascist tract.'

Hari's claim that Tolkien's subcreation of Middle-earth is 'autistic' is not only insulting but plainly ridiculous - any author will strive to create a convincing secondary world.

What I find most interesting though, is that Tolkien is the one fantasy writer who attracts such venom - these critics may dismiss the fantasy genre generally, but it is Tolkien they single out for attack. Also interesting is the way many of them have taken up Pullman. Why?

I can't help thinking there are two reasons: one, Pullman is an athiest, & HDM is about 'liberating' humanity from an evil God. Two, they maybe think that HDM can deal the death blow to fantast in general & Tolkien in particular. HDM ends not only with no God, but also with no magic, & everyone grows up & goes off to do the 'sensible, grown-up thing' of building the 'Republic of Heaven' (whatever that means).

And again, HDM is, like the Harry Potter books, a children's story. Fantasy is fine, as far as these critics are concerned, if it stays safely in the nursery, & is quickly outgrown. Tolkien wrote for adults, he said things the critics either didn't understand or didn't like. He became popular - way too popular. And that created another problem for the 'Literati'. If LotR is great literature, why did they miss it, why didn;t they recognise that? They are the (self appointed) experts. Its their job to tell us lesser mortals what's important, what matters, & they blew it in the case of Tolkien.

Fact is, they daren't look in the dark - they might find they've got it wrong all along. But the most pernicious thing about them is that not only are they refusing to look in the dark, they're trying to stop anyone else doing so, by making up horror stories about the terrible monsters lurking there.

(End rant....)

[Lalwendë]

It does fascinate and appall me how so many critics, the supposedly educated people, can fling offensive language around in their rush to criticise and make a point. To use "autistic" as a term of abuse is very offensive indeed. To suggest that people ought not to be entitled to learn to read as they will go and read the 'wrong thing' betrays deep-seated class prejudice.

I think that there is truth in the argument that Pullman gets off (relatively) lightly due to the fact that he is an Atheist. It seems to be the accepted viewpoint among the arts establishment that religion is 'wrong'.

I do have it in mind to gather a list of those prominent critics who are pro- or anti- Tolkien and examine whether the anti- arguments are coherent or not, but then I also have it in mind to think "Pft!" and just laugh at them. :D

You get a similar thing with critics of popular music, although they are more likely to bluster their way out of a misguided opinion. I remember Bob Geldof being particularly vindictive about Madonna around 12 years ago saying that she would never be an iconic figure and 'had no talent' (which made me cough, remembering the erm...not very extensive success of his own recording career). Fast forward to 2005 and he was praising her and inviting her to appear at Live8. :rolleyes:

[drigel]

It does fascinate and appall me how so many critics, the supposedly educated people, can fling offensive language around in their rush to criticise and make a point.
IMO that's what made the critics venom so pungent - JRRT was after all one of them. After all, he of all people should know what a sophisticated, emotionally complicated, piece of literature should look like! There was no inherent meaning in the Misty Mountains, they didnt represent (insert any Hemingway analogy here) anything. No conflict in any characters sexuality. No direct references to religion. How boooooring.

The odd thing is that if such critics dared delve deeper into the murky world that is the Internet discussion forum, then they may find all kinds of arguments dealing with the stylistic properties of Tolkien's work.
Academics aside (they will always be there), I'm keeping my fingers crossed in the hope that the internet will cause the Critic industry to go the way of the buggie-whip...
:)

[The Saucepan Man]

Interesting that you posted that article by Johann Hari, davem. I recall reading it when it was published in The Independent a year or so ago. Unsurprisingly, it annoyed me immensely and I felt an urge to respond, for example by quoting some of the very intelligent points made on the Tolkien/Racism threads here to rebut what is effectively an accusation of racism. Unfortunately, I didn't get round to doing so. If that indeed was one of the saner responses he received, I wish that I had.

I dislike Johann Hari intensely, not just for that article but for just about every article of his that I have read. I particularly dislike his politics and his espousal of political correctiveness in its worst and most corrosive form. But, to be fair to him, the article does at least indicate that he has read the book (unless he is reciting lines fed to him) and, while (in my view) misguided and, in some places, offensive, he does at least attempt to put a cohesive argument across, based upon what Tolkien actually wrote. I prefer this kind of a critic to one who simply dismisses LotR as childish fantasy nonsense and goes no further. There is at least a chance to engage with him.

Davem, your comment on the postscript suggests that you consider his claim that this was one of the saner responses that he received to be false. You may well be right. He is after all a journalist, and one with an ideology and an agenda to promote, so it would not at all surprise me if he selected it at the expense of some more balanced and intellectual responses. But it would also not surprise me if his claim was actually true.

You see, there is an element amongst those who follow Tolkien that is somewhat crazed. There are those who use what Tolkien wrote to justify their own agendas. We know this from the existence of that abhorrent Stormfront website. And there are others who use his works in support their extremist or fundamentalist ideologies (whether they be religious, political or whatever). These people may be searching in the dark, but they are also searching for something very dark indeed. Something quite different from the shiny sixpence (whatever that may be).

So perhaps we should not dismiss these critics out of hand or ridicule them with cack-handed analogies. At least those who are familiar with Tolkien's works and are able to put forward a coherent critique of them which has at least some foundation in what he wrote, rather than being solely based on prejudice. For is there not a kernel of truth in what Hari, for example, is saying? I do not believe for one moment that Tolkien was a racist and have put forward my own arguments against the intepretation of his writings in this way. But it is undoubtedly the case that his works are unfortunately used by some to justify their own racist agendas.

While it is true (as some have said) that there are many intellectuals who are or were supporters of Tolkien's works, it is a shame that there are not more, or at least more who are high profile. For the responses that Hari received (assuming his claim to be true), would merely have confirmed his own views of, and prejudices against, fans of Tolkien. But, on the basis of my knowledge of those who are members here, they are wildly unrepresentative. And by simply dismissing Hari and those who share his views (and his undoubted intellect) as "wrong" and leaving it at that, we risk brushing under the carpet the more sinister elements of Tolkien fandom that undoubtedly do exist, a minority though they may be (and much as Tolkien would himself, I am sure, have wished to disassociate himself from them).

Ultimately, therefore, it is a shame that Shippey seems unable to engage with such critics other than by simply lampooning them as those foolish people who are searching in the wrong place because that's where the light is. Yes, light can be superficial and searching there may risk missing something deep or profound. But it can also shed light on important things which we could not see before it was there and provide enlightenment. Just as darkness can hide some rather unpleasant things.

I should say that I may be doing Shippey a disservice here. I have not read any of his works and am basing my criticism of him solely on the excerpt which LMP provided. If he has responded more intelligently to Tolkien's critics, in a way which seeks to engage with them and put the alternative arguments in a coherent fashion, rather than simply poking fun at them, then I apologise to him. Or perhaps there are others who have put the pro-Tolkien case more intelligently (in fact, Ray Mears, who put the case for the book in the BBC poll rather engagingly, I thought, springs to mind). But there are certainly many here who are more than capable of doing so.

[davem]

For is there not a kernel of truth in what Hari, for example, is saying? I do not believe for one moment that Tolkien was a racist and have put forward my own arguments against the intepretation of his writings in this way. But it is undoubtedly the case that his works are unfortunately used by some to justify their own racist agendas.

But Tolkien can't be held responsible for the way his writings are misused by fanatics - yet that seems to be exactly what Hari is doing. He is so wrong about Tolkien's beliefs, about what LotR is actually about. He says:

Tolkien presents his readers with an absolute enemy who must simply be destroyed: purely evil and incapable of human feeling. Of course, no such war can ever happen; it is a pernicious Tolkienian myth.

Tolkien states the same thing clearly in Letter 78, when he tells CT 'There are no genuine Uruks, creatures made evil by their creator.'

Again:

Ideals of ‘blood’ and its purity are always sloshing around his narrative. For example, the Men of Gondor - "the high men" - are descendants of the Numenorians, the greatest of all warriors. Over the centuries, they have become ‘degraded’ because of breeding with inferior races. When their bloodline is pure, as in Aragorn’s descendants, the strength and power of the original Lords of the West is retained. Alarm bells ringing yet?

misses the point entirely. Tolkien repeatedly shows how the Numenorean's obsession with bloodlines brings them to disaster (cf the Kinstrife). The only significance of Aragorn's blood is that it is the same as that which flowed in the veins of Luthien & Melian - it is divine.

Also:

As the academic Dr Stephen Shapiro explains, "Tolkien was not a Nazi but he was a Nordicist in that his works hark back to England’s original culture before the Norman invasion. The Lord of the Rings makes a claim for a pan-Nordic identity or a paradigm for Great Britain and a lament for the disappearance of these races. This speaks to a long-standing European anxitiety about being swamped by non-Europeans. Tolkein was a real traditionalist in this way."


There was hardly a 'pan-Nordic identity' in the pre-Conquest period. In fact the single event that most contributed to the victory of the Normans over the Anglo-Saxons was the battle King Harold had to fight against the Norsemen at Stamford Bridge. Come to that, the Normans were descendants of Vikings & therefore a 'Nordic' people.

And Tolkien is hardly unique in his regret over the Conquest. English culture was devastated, centuries of suffering for the English, Welsh, Scots & Irish followed.

Finally:

"Sauron’s army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth, including all the despised colours of humanity, and all the lower classes," he explains. "Might they have imagined they were the good guys, with a justifiable greivance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy toppled by invader-alien elves and their Numenorian-colonialist human lackeys? Sauron, champion of the Middle Earthling!"

Is simply wrong. Sauron's army did not include every species & race on Middle Earth (sic). It included Men, Orcs & Trolls. It did not include Elves, Dwarves or Hobbits. Also, it hardly matters what his armies believed - they might well have believed they were 'the good guys with a justifiable greivance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy toppled by invader-alien elves and their Numenorian-colonialist human lackey'. I'm sure members of the SS believed they were the good guys as well. Believing a thing doesn't make it true - a cliche, but also a simple fact beyond Brin's, or Hari's wit.

I don't know if Hari is genuinely outraged by Tolkien, or if he is just trying to be provocative. If its the former he's displaying his ignorance, if its the latter he's just being childish.

What's also bloody annoying is that he probably gets paid 10 times my salary to write this junk :mad:

[Lalwendë]

You see, there is an element amongst those who follow Tolkien that is somewhat crazed. There are those who use what Tolkien wrote to justify their own agendas. We know this from the existence of that abhorrent Stormfront website. And there are others who use his works in support their extremist or fundamentalist ideologies (whether they be religious, political or whatever). These people may be searching in the dark, but they are also searching for something very dark indeed. Something quite different from the shiny sixpence (whatever that may be).

The thing is that many, if not most, of the cultural products in our world can easily be misinterpreted (whether deliberately or not) and then used to support an agenda. We all know how this has happened with religious texts. But I would say that it is wrong to assume that just because some who interpret in a certain way are proponents of hatred, that it follows that the product is in itself intrinsically wrong. There have been multitudes of Christians who have interpreted the Bible in such a way that their subsequent behaviour has been infused with hatred, but it does not mean that the Bible itself is wrong. It's a familiar argument used by many (not just critics or journalists) - to blame a thing rather than the sociopathic tendencies of those who access it.

However, I do agree that it is important to address those elements within a community who choose to bring down the reputation of the majority. One way of doing this is to not shy away from discussing and addressing questions of whether Tolkien's work has any hidden agendas. Unfortunately there are very few forums like this where serious discussion of that nature can take place, and all that critics see is our lighter side.

I think essentially the problem with so many of these commentators is that they wilfully stereotype people and use sweeping statements, both those who choose to attack Tolkien via the fans and those who take a more textual approach. Of course, stereotyping is a mainstay of journalism, as using a sleight of hand to describe a type of people, a type of reader, takes up many less words and valuable column inches. Had Tolkien been alive today I am quite sure that he would have been more than capable of taking on such journalists, as from his Letters he clearly had an acid tongue and a way with the 'soundbite' himself.

In his article Hari actually betrays himself quite early on by writing: "The success of his dire trilogy obviously cannot be attributed to literary merit." He then goes on without justifying this statement with any kind of analysis of what 'literary merit' may or may not be. The 'obviously' is a nod to the cognoscenti before he plunges into his invective. Thus it is clear almost from the start of the article that he had already decided that Lord of the Rings was bad, and had decided to find some arguments to support his view. He finishes off with another little 'nod': "Yes, it might seem absurd to take Tolkien so seriously", as though he feels assured that the reader agrees with him, which of course, any reader of the Independent would do. After all, Tolkien fans are probably too away with the fairies to ever read a broadsheet newspaper. :rolleyes:

[The Saucepan Man]

But Tolkien can't be held responsible for the way his writings are misused by fanatics - yet that seems to be exactly what Hari is doing.I agree that Tolkien cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable misuse of his works. But Hari goes further than that. His criticism of Tolkien seems to be, not just that they can be intepreted thus, but that he intended that they be. In my view, he is most certainly wrong in that, although I wonder whether the fact that many have misinterpreted them to reach similar conclusions (those of Hari's ilk and the Stormfront types alike - strange bedfellows indeed) would have given him pause to reconsider some things within the Legendarium.

But it is fair to say (without attributing liability to him) that Tolkien's works can be (and are) interpreted in this way. Which is to the detriment of both Tolkien and those, like us, who derive so much enjoyment and (in many cases) insight from his writings. We are at risk of being tarred with the same brush as the loonies and the white supremacists.

As you have shown, there is abundant material to rebut the points that those such as Hari seek to make, but it seems to me that there are very few people out there doing that. And the point that I was trying to make is that, rather than lampooning such critics (as Shippey does in his allegory) or simply dismissing them as childish or ignorant, surely it is better for those who support and believe in Tolkien's works to challenge them with such material and seek to engage with them in debate, possibly to the mutual benefit of both "sides".

Much as I dislike Hari, he is not utterly inflexible. I recall that a letter by Professor Richard Dawkins in response to an article in The Independent by Hari supporting the Iran war (which Dawkins opposed) prompted a correspondence between them (subsequently published) which was conducted in a most civil manner, was fascinating to read and resulted in accord between them on many issues, their central disagreement notwithstanding. Now, surely that's better than simply dismissing or abusing those with whom we disagree and consider to be wrong in their views?

[davem]

In my view, he is most certainly wrong in that, although I wonder whether the fact that many have misinterpreted them to reach similar conclusions (those of Hari's ilk and the Stormfront types alike - strange bedfellows indeed) would have given him pause to reconsider some things within the Legendarium.

Perhaps - maybe we could do that now, for him? I mean, the Victorians put fig leaves on statues for reasons of propriety. Enid Blyton books & the Biggles stories have been 'updated'. But where do we stop - shall we re-write Pride & Prejudice because that handsome, charming Mr Darcy's money was built on the profits of the slave trade?

After all, its only Art....Why shouldn't an Artist re-write, overpaint, re-model his or her work just to make sure its not misused or misinterpreted by the willful or the ignorant. Except....they'd probably do that with the art in whatever form they found it.

You seem to be implying that Tolkien was writing to a plan, that he was in control of his work to such an extent that he could change it as he wished in order to make it 'safe' from misuse. He couldn't. He wrote 'what really happened'. That's why it moves us, why its 'real'.

I suppose it all comes down to what the books mean to you. If they are merely a 'thumping good read', entertainment, an escape from the daily round, then they can be changed, made 'politically correct'.

On the other hand, if the books mean more than that to you, if they indeed offer a 'glimpse beyond the Circles of the World' then do you want to risk losing that merely to pacify the ignorant (Hari, Greer, et al) & disarm the vicious (Stormfront). Actually, even if the books had been re-written (by Tolkien or 'well-meaning' followers of his) neither of those things would have happened. The ignorant & the Vicious (like the poor) will always be with us - casting your pearls before swine never works.

What we're dealing with in the cases of Hari & Shapiro is the modern face of the 'Anti-racist' movement, where its not enough to merely treat everyone with equality & respect - one has to 'prove one's credentials' by demonstrating one's anti-racism. One must DENOUNCE racism wherever one finds it - & look damn hard till one does find it (even if you have to 'find' it in a place it never actually was). Its our current version of McCarthyism:

Are you now, or have you ever been a racist?

Me sir, no sir - why I was one of the ones who stood up & showed the world what a racist psycho that JRR Tolkien was.....but - that person over there actually likes Tolkien - he must be the racist - let's get him!

We are at risk of being tarred with the same brush as the loonies and the white supremacists.

Only by narrow minded bigots who are looking for scapegoats - & in order to be safe from people like that we'd have to surrender to them, do only what they find acceptable, read only what they tell us, think only & how & when they wish us to.

Look at Hari's final words in that article:

sign me up for Sauron’s army while you’re at it.

(Oh, btw, both Shippey's books on Tolkien are well & cogently argued. He's a wise man & knows what he's talking about)

[littlemanpoet]

A most enjoyable discussion, my fellow BD Deadies. :)

Does it matter what the sixpence is? It's lost anyway.Well, not entirely. I think Tolkien did us the service of partially recovering it and presenting it to us in LotR. More on that later. The literati seem not to understand what it is that he found.

SPM, I'll quote from this section by Shippey more later so as to clear up some of the issues you raise. Suffice it to say for now that Shippey had spent eleven pages discussing the vituperative nature of most of the critique regarding Tolkien, trying to arrive at just what it was behind all of the antipathy; the allegory comes at the end, and my sense is that Shippey is "throwing up his hands", after a fashion, after not being able to quite come to the answer he was hoping to find. That said, the questions you raise still deserve answering. Soon.

Squatter, what you say rings true in that what we seem to have here are two paradigms, to ways of thinking about literature, and they seem to be (almost) mutually exclusive. Consider: the literati that openly scorn Tolkien as childish to autistic :eek: are by him scorned as not worth reading. He considered anything written after 1600 (I think that's the rough date) to be not worth the effort.

davem & Lalwendë, thanks much for your input; I'm learning from you much that I didn't know by way of background regarding what Shippey was saying.

I'm also grateful for the even-handed points that have been made on how Tolkien's religion (as compared to others such as Pullman) may have a piece in the derision directed toward Tolkien. Nevertheless, I don't think religion is more than a small piece of the puzzle; if it were larger, davem and I would surely be at odds. ;)

I think it has to do with language. Shippey is a philologist, and a self-professed non-Christian (which I read in JRRT:AofC). Anyone who has read Carpenter's biography of Tolkien has learned of the "Lang vs. Lit" battle in Oxford that raged from the late 19th century in to the 1970s, when Lit finally won upon the apparent natural death of Lang, more's the pity. As some of us know, all of Tolkien's fiction is based in Language first. He knew words and their histories and functions far better than anybody else who wrote fiction in the 20th century.

As I've suggested elsewhere on this board, western culture has three fundamental "strains", as it were: Hebrew, Greek, and Germanic. Every single aspect of western culture (until the rise of Eastern influences in the last century) is an admixture of these three ingredients. The critical thing is that the German piece has always been considered inferior and in need of the balances to be had from the Greek and Hebrew, whether that meant sciences or religion. The literati own the Greek science as received cultural doctrine.

So here comes Tolkien, avowedly influenced by Hebrew more than they (a practicing Catholic) and also someone who knows the Greek Classics but has rejected them and 'Lit' in favor of Germanics and 'Lang' (thus professionally incorrect); and he revives the Germanic piece of our heritage by taking its words from the ash heap and cleaning them off and making them shine. So he's committed cultural heresy, as it were, and to the shock and dismay of the cultural orthodox, he has committed disciples numbering in the millions.

He has revealed (not made) that which is supposed to be accepted as inferior, as in fact something beautiful in its own right. And of course westerns who are not too stuck in the "received doctrine" have found what he has revealed as food for our souls, because we are at root Germanic (include Celtic within this).

So there is a religious feel to all of this, but it's not about religion, it's about culture. And the self appointed arbiters of culture are, like the Pharisees and Saducees of the first century, finding their flock leaving the pen. Of course they don't like it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interestingly, just today a friend sent me the link to an article ('The New Yorker') about and including an interview with Philip Pullmann ('His Dark Materials'). He is quite critical of both Lewis and Tolkien; unfortunately, I don't have the time to comment extensively right now, but perhaps the New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051226fa_fact) will engender more discussion.

[davem]

Just skimmed the article - thanks Esty

“ ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is fundamentally an infantile work,” he said. “Tolkien is not interested in the way grownup, adult human beings interact with each other. He’s interested in maps and plans and languages and codes.”

the “Rings” series, he declared, is “just fancy spun candy. There’s no substance to it.”

Unfortunately this kind of thing is typical of Pullman - shallow & ignorant. Pullman simply doesn't understand what Tolkien is about, & because he doesn't understand it he dismisses it as infantile & lacking in substance - ironic in a way, because that's exactly how I feel about HDM. LotR is clearly beyond him. Gimli's words to Eomer spring to mind:

"Then Eomer son of Eomund, Third Marshal of Riddermark, let Gimli the Dwarf Gloin's son warn you against foolish words. You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, and only little wit can excuse you."

Still, I suppose it makes him feel important. I give HDM another 5 years. Wait till the movies are out & over with.

[Bergil]

Anyone who accuses Tolkien of idealizing monarchy had best consider what George Washington, John A Macdonald, and so forth would do upon seeing a modern election (throw up, then go make a few rewrites). it's still better then a bad monarchy, but only an idiot or a candidate (most of whom are idiots) wouldn't rather have a good monarchy. A good democracy would of course, be the very best that we know of yet, but let's not dream.

Also, here's another example of "the light and the dark". Playing card games, (fixed deck of 52 cards with fixed values), is "in the light" because they're respetable, but you might find trading card games more fun if you're willing to "go into the dark" and risk being condemned as a nerd.

[Lalwendë]

Pullman says one particular thing in this article which is very astute:

In adult literary fiction, stories are there on sufferance. Other things are felt to be more important: technique, style, literary knowingness. . . . The present-day would-be George Eliots take up their stories as if with a pair of tongs. They’re embarrassed by them. If they could write novels without stories in them, they would. Sometimes they do.

In this respect he has a lot more in common with Tolkien and Lewis (and Rowling) than he thinks, the power to capture the imagination by simple story. I read a lot of contemporary fiction and I have to say that much of the time I am very disappointed with weak, useless stories, which leave me feeling more than a little angry that I have been 'conned' into buying x novel. If I want poetry, I read poetry, if I want philosophy I read philosophy, if I read a novel I want a damn story; if it has got poetry and philosophy in it, then that's even better, but the story is paramount.

He misses one point which his Dark Materials shares with LotR, the theme of growth. This cannot be called infantile. Frodo in particular grows up through his travels and his troubles; he leaves behind his bucolic existence and enters the perils of the wider world, returning home utterly changed. So do the other Hobbits, but unlike them, Frodo cannot cope with the changes which have come over him and he has to leave again. This is a fundamentally grown-up and modern theme; we can say that Frodo has become alienated through what has happened and the picture Tolkien painted of him was of a person unable to reconcile a changed self with a changed world.

However, I don't want to make a list of "see, you're wrong" points.

Pullman's radicalism is a very pipe and slippers kind of radicalism, one which does not wish to have the cushions disturbed or the cleaner suddenly decide not to turn up one morning. He wishes the Kingdom of Heaven to become a Republic, which is something I quite like the idea of myself, having a quite unorthodox view of God and a natural lack of trust for dogma, but I do have to ask if the Republic of Heaven would just become another kind of restrictive system. I get the impression that for him, Blake's philosophies are fine in a book, but might not be acceptable in life.

One thing I do not like in Pullman's world is that the Daemons, when they settle into adult form, take on our attributes. Lord Asriel has a Snow Leopard, and Mrs Coulter an exotic monkey, but why do all the servants have little dogs and humble birds? I am uncomfortable with this.

Still, I like His Dark Materials as it not only raises some fascinating questions and ideas but its a damn good story, one of the best I have ever read. For that, I am much more prepared to answer Pullman's criticisms in a considered way, yet when it is an author who has put out a dreadful novel or other book, particularly of the kind Pullman has described, I am far less tolerant. ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

... made 'politically correct'.An interesting term, politcal correctness. In its original guise, it had the right aim which was, as you say, to promote tolerance and respect. But in its extreme form it does, as you imply, breed intolerance and disrespect. Political correctness, although an abhorrent term, is not bad per se. But, just like many movements and ideologies, it is unattractive when taken to its extreme.

Davem, I am not a great fan of those who seek to alter literature, or indeed any form of art, in order to bring them into line with modern social mores. There are instances where it may be justified (replacing the thuggish golliwogs in Noddy with goblins, for example), although even then I would approach the issue with caution. In general, and outside the realm of responsible and reasonable censorship, I think that people have little right to re-write stories which they themselves have not created. That should almost always be within the prerogative of the author alone. And I was merely speculating whether Tolkien himself, on seeing the way in which his tales have been used and labelled by extremists and critics alike might have had cause to reconsider and temper them somewhat. I was most certainly not suggesting that the story should be altered now by officious "do-gooders" simply because of they are accused by some of showing racism or by others to support a racist agenda. I would be bitterly opposed to any such attempt at latter day revisionism of his tales.

No, I am not saying that LotR should be re-written to satisfy the likes of Johann Hari or to prevent its misuse by extremists. I am merely expressing a desire to see their points addressed through sensible and constructive engagement, rather than being dismissed as unworthy of response. The likes of Shippey may provide coherent and logical arguments in their published works. But I don't see them out there promoting those arguments and taking on the likes of Hari. Apparently the only ones who were prepared to engage with Hari in response to his article were seemingly the border-line insane. I am uncomfortable that the task should be left to them.

Esty, the Pullman piece was an interesting read. Thanks. I enjoyed his books and I think that he has a lot of useful things to say. He does seem contradict himself at times, although that may just be the editorial influence of the article's writer. But as Lalwendë points out, he probably has more in common with Tolkien than he would care to admit. I disagree with his view on LotR. But I would expect a discussion with him of his view in this regard to be both fascinating and entertaining.

Ultimately, we should be open to criticism of Tolkien, since Tolkien himself should not be above criticism. By placing him there, we risk committing a kind of extreme "political correctness" ourselves - brooking no dissent and stifling discussion. But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.

[Mister Underhill]

But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.But where's the fun in that? It's been a huorn's age since we had a good tarring and feathering of an uppity critic round here. Whatever happened to good ol' fashioned mob justice? While everyone is busy being objective and rational, my torch and my pitchfork are gathering dust in the closet. Fie!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

That New Yorker article on Pullman is long! It took me awhile to get through it, and I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with his various views on fantasy literature. I have read His Dark Materials and greatly enjoyed the books, while disagreeing with his basic concept of belief. (Granted, organised religion has aspects that I would gladly discard, but I had to willingly suspend belief in order to read Pullman's books.)

I think the matter of religion is significant in critics' appraisal of literature. In today's largely secularised world, an atheist is more likely to be taken seriously than one who brings his own religious convictions into his works, whether overtly or indirectly. The difference of opinion between Pullman and Tolkien rests heavily upon this aspect, as I see it.

However, it seems to me that Pullman would agree with much of what Tolkien wrote in "On Fairy-Stories". Consider his quote: ‘Thou shalt not’ might reach the head, but it takes ‘Once upon a time’ to reach the heart. The same thing goes for the idea that children's stories are worthwhile to write and to read: There are some themes, some subjects, too large for adult fiction; they can only be dealt with adequately in a children’s book. That's a quote worth putting into a signature!

I'm not sure why he claims that Tolkien's book has no depth. Is there a fundamental difference aside from religion that keeps him from recognizing what we see? He too subcreates a world in a very convincing manner, but Fantasy must mean something different to him. I'm just not sure what.

[davem]

Ultimately, we should be open to criticism of Tolkien, since Tolkien himself should not be above criticism. By placing him there, we risk committing a kind of extreme "political correctness" ourselves - brooking no dissent and stifling discussion. But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.

I am open to criticism of Tolkien - but I'm going to respond to the critic in kind. If he/she is respectful of Tolkien, informed & rational in what they say I'll be respectful, informed & rational in response. If, on the other hand, like Hari, Greer, Jacobson, Edmund Wilson, Pullman et al, they are insulting, disrespectful, ignorant & only out to grab headlines off the back of a great Artist, I don't see why I should treat them, or what they say, with any respect.

I really can't see that I have anything to learn about Tolkien from critics like that. Pullman is typical - he has no desire to debate Tolkien's work, merely to insult him in order to appear 'clever'. HDM is an entertaining kids' book but has no real philosophical depth - 'We must build the Republic of Heaven' is about as meaningful as 'We must help those colorless green ideas sleep furiously'. I didn't find anything he said interesting - it was pretty much a collection of truisms & cliches:

—“We need to ensure that children are not forced to waste their time on barren rubbish”

“every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don’t accept him.”

“we can learn what’s good and what’s bad, what’s generous and unselfish, what’s cruel and mean, from fiction”

And as for:

I think we should read books, and tell children stories, and take them to the theatre, and learn poems, and play music, as if it would make a difference. . . . We should act as if the universe were listening to us and responding. We should act as if life were going to win. . . .

That's pretty much what Tolkien said - only he said it better.

[Child of the 7th Age]

On Pullman's public "dishing" of Tolkien, see this news article. This was published in 2000 before PJ's movies came out:

Pullman's insistence on truth to human nature lies behind his dismissal of the fantasy writers to whom he is often compared: JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis. "I dislike them for different reasons. The Lord of the Rings, for all its scope, weight and structural integrity, is not a serious book because it doesn't say anything interesting or new or truthful about human beings. It tells an essentially trivial story. The goodies are always good and the baddies are always bad....."

.....The conclusion Pullman has come to is that people have within them the capacity to react and respond in a number of ways. His characters change; they make choices. His children, especially, are neither all good nor all bad. Lyra has spent a lifetime lying but it doesn't stop her having integrity when she needs it; Will has killed a man. "I'm not dewy-eyed about children like Kenneth Grahame or AA Milne. I spent too long as a teacher," he says. "I'm clear-eyed about them...."

The italics are my own. Honestly, I see this as the same simplistic garbage that some critics have been spitting out since the late sixties. I agree with Davem. This is not thoughtful criticism. It is a knee jerk reaction based on personal prejudice.

There are things about Pullman's books that I find interesting and delightful, although there are also times when I have to suspend my own values and simply accept the author's viewpoint as a given. If I am able to do this with Pullman, why can't Pullman make some attempt to do it with Tolkien?

The author Pullman really hated was not Tolkien but Lewis. Ironically, I see clear similarities between Lewis and Pullman. Both used their writings as a "bully-pulpit" for their own beliefs in a way that Tolkien did not.

[littlemanpoet]

....to my last post on this thread. Perhaps everybody's more taken with the critics' aspect of it. Or perhaps what I said got the internal response of "Duh, LMP, no kidding. Why even post something so obvious?" Or perhaps the rest of you are just bored with that part of the discussion and don't have anything to say about it. Or perhaps, I seemed to be breaking a taboo by bringing in the "race" issue, talking about "us" as Germanic.

If it was the latter, it's a misconception. It's about language, not genetics. Still, I understand that the Japanese reading market has responded to Tolkien as positively as the English speaking world. Tolkien's popularity is especially strong amongst those who speak a language closely related to English, such as the Nordic, Dutch, and German peoples.

What Tolkien has done is revived myth for English speakers, in a relevant modern context, such that the old words, and might-have-been-proto-words that seemed dead on the ash-heap of history, have been shown to be applicable to us, now, in our modern context.

Examples: the whole wraith construct, with its multiple meanins/applications of 'twisted' (wreath), 'tortured' (writhe), 'misty' (wreath of snow), 'riding' (writhen), & 'mad' (wrath).

[Lalwendë]

Tolkien's popularity is especially strong amongst those who speak a language closely related to English, such as the Nordic, Dutch, and German peoples.

I think that if this is true then it may be more to do with effective translations than anything else. English is in the same language 'family' as German and Dutch, and the subtleties of the language in LotR may have been easier to translate. But I do say "if this is true" as there are huge Tolkien fanbases in France, Spain and Italy, which have languages from a different "family".

I'm not sure about whether there are 'cultural' reasons or differences between what the literary critics like and what people as a whole enjoy. But I do think that much modern literary fiction has disappeared up something (euphemism ;) ) in the attempts to make use of style and structure more important than story. I've read a fair few novels lately where potentially good stories were marred by too much tinkering with structure; usually this has resulted in very poor and disappointing endings to novels which have almost become formulaic.

Obviously the popularity of Tolkien has much to do with narrative, and constructing a good story is perhaps the most difficult part of writing. Characters are easy enough, but plot lines are not. Certainly an original plot line is just about impossible as all the best ones have been taken; maybe some writers of literary fiction seek to compensate with clever stylistics? Or perhaps they simply know far too much about literary theory and have allowed it to stifle their stories?

I'm not sure that LotR does appeal to us on any kind of 'racial' basis. Why? My reasoning behind this is that it is immensely popular in the US, and the population of the US is incredibly mixed due to a long history of immigration.

I think it has to do with language. Shippey is a philologist, and a self-professed non-Christian (which I read in JRRT:AofC). Anyone who has read Carpenter's biography of Tolkien has learned of the "Lang vs. Lit" battle in Oxford that raged from the late 19th century in to the 1970s, when Lit finally won upon the apparent natural death of Lang, more's the pity. As some of us know, all of Tolkien's fiction is based in Language first. He knew words and their histories and functions far better than anybody else who wrote fiction in the 20th century.

Well, I can only speak about UK English departments. I know that most of the English degrees in this country are combined Lit/Lang degrees. The Language element is almost always taken up with Linguistics, or more specifically, structural linguistics, studying the language as it is currently is. This might also include some socio-linguistics, but rarely if ever do students get to study philology, the subject is just about dead. Maybe this accounts for the steady stream of critics who cannot appreciate Tolkien's work? :(

[Bergil]

Some sage once described every political group going to the library and destroying anything that could possibly be contrued as offending them. Nothing was left, not even the thesaurus.

[littlemanpoet]

Translation broadens our topic. Perhaps it is not language. But I recall that Tolkien was generally displeased with many of the translations into other languages because the translators thought they knew so much and actually knew so little, which drove JRRT to distraction.

Still, to the degree that the translations are true to Tolkien's careful word choices (not to mention all the other aspects of story), LotR seems to reach down to something that contemporary novelistic fiction can't touch. Myth made applicable to people now.

On page 221 of Author of the Century, Shippey relates Northrop Frye's five literary modes:


myth - the characters in a work are 'superior in kind both to other men and to the environment of other men' ... the 'hero is a divine being and the story about him will be myth'
romance - characters are superior only in 'degree (not kind) to other men, and again to their environment'
high mimesis - (tragedy or epic) - where the heroes and heroines are 'superior in degree to other men but not to natural environment'
low mimesis - level of the classical novel - characters are on a level with us in abilities, though maybe not in social class
irony - we see ourselves looking down on people weaker or more ignorant than us


LotR, according to Shippey, functions at all levels at different times, depending upon the purpose at a given point in the story. This gives it scope such that it can deal with issues in a way that a story written in only one of the five modes, cannot.

So think of these characters, and think about what mode(s) s/he is written at:

Gandalf
Samwise
Frodo
Saruman
Sauron
Aragorn
Boromir
Gaffer Gamgee
Tom Bombadil
Elrond
Eowyn
Faramir
Denethor
Theoden

What's the point? Maybe this is a little bit of the sixpence, and maybe this helps explain why contemporary literati simply can't get their minds around what LotR is doing.

[Bêthberry]

. . . .


myth - the characters in a work are 'superior in kind both to other men and to the environment of other men' ... the 'hero is a divine being and the story about him will be myth'
romance - characters are superior only in 'degree (not kind) to other men, and again to their environment'
high mimesis - (tragedy or epic) - where the heroes and heroines are 'superior in degree to other men but not to natural environment'
low mimesis - level of the classical novel - characters are on a level with us in abilities, though maybe not in social class
irony - we see ourselves looking down on people weaker or more ignorant than us


LotR, according to Shippey, functions at all levels at different times, depending upon the purpose at a given point in the story. This gives it scope such that it can deal with issues in a way that a story written in only one of the five modes, cannot.

So think of these characters, and think about what mode(s) s/he is written at:

Gandalf
Samwise
Frodo
Saruman
Sauron
Aragorn
Boromir
Gaffer Gamgee
Tom Bombadil
Elrond
Eowyn
Faramir
Denethor
Theoden

What's the point? Maybe this is a little bit of the sixpence, and maybe this helps explain why contemporary literati simply can't get their minds around what LotR is doing.

Well, I was hoping to have time to comment on your idea about Hebrew/Classical/Germanic sources for western culture and now I have this to consider! The first idea is intriguing, especially thinking of Matthew Arnold's thesis about the two cultures, the Hebraic and the Greek. "Barbarian" cultures had much to overcome in terms of aesthetic and cultural assumptions.

But time only for a quick observation. Isn't it true that usually (although not always), irony is considered not compatible with myth or romance? I can see myth, romance and the two forms of mimesis operating at different times in LotR, but to what degree is irony represented? I'm not saying we can't find irony in it, but I wonder how much an ironic stance would impede or obstruct the mythic or heroic stance.

[HerenIstarion]

I'm up to half of the first page, but lest I forget to do it when I read it through and (if) find myself disposed to longer post, I'll post the link now - Tolkien - Enemy of Progress (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=5939). Seems relevant. With regards to pulling critics of that kind to see for themselves - Mr. Brin was personally invited by yours truly to come and see for himself, but, as far as my knowledge reaches, never appeared.

[littlemanpoet]

Well, I was hoping to have time to comment on your idea about Hebrew/Classical/Germanic sources for western culture and now I have this to consider! The first idea is intriguing, especially thinking of Matthew Arnold's thesis about the two cultures, the Hebraic and the Greek. "Barbarian" cultures had much to overcome in terms of aesthetic and cultural assumptions.

But time only for a quick observation. Isn't it true that usually (although not always), irony is considered not compatible with myth or romance? I can see myth, romance and the two forms of mimesis operating at different times in LotR, but to what degree is irony represented? I'm not saying we can't find irony in it, but I wonder how much an ironic stance would impede or obstruct the mythic or heroic stance.

Sorry to overload thee!
From memory
since I do not have the book with me...
Usually, yes, if not handled well.
Tolkien however chooses his story to tell
through the mediation of halfling wit
to whit,
hobbits such as Gaffer,
always a laugher,
give us a chance to look down
at a perspective lesser than our own
as a mediation from the high
such as Elves who are not so nigh.
;)

[Lalwendë]

I'm up to half of the first page, but lest I forget to do it when I read it through and (if) find myself disposed to longer post, I'll post the link now - Tolkien - Enemy of Progress (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?t=5939). Seems relevant. With regards to pulling critics of that kind to see for themselves - Mr. Brin was personally invited by yours truly to come and see for himself, but, as far as my knowledge reaches, never appeared.

Very interesting article - and the one from which Johann Hari quoted too. Brin has at the very least considered the issue and not simply thrown out random unpleasantries like so many of the critics seem to have done. ;) Though I am quite at a loss as to say exactly what Brin is railing against in Tolkien's work; it seems to be the very idea that it is set in a kind of world that has passed. If this is the case then I cannot fathom why this is such a 'bad thing'. There are reams of historical novels available, many of them in the literary fiction genre; just to pick one which has a nostalgic view of the past - Ishiguro's Remains of the Day. Regret and looking back are major themes in fiction. Perhaps the critics then do not like Tolkien's use of historical images as he does not use them ironically? To suggest decay?

Or does he? Decay, as we know, is one of Tolkien's most important themes. I think that if critics could for one moment get over the fact that in Tolkien's work there happen to be horses rather than Porsches, swords instead of guns and kings instead of CEOs then they may begin to see some of the worth in the writing. I am not sure what some people expect to be honest, after all, Tolkien's work is fantasy, so of course it is not full of modern things! But if they could get over themselves and their self-congratulatory feelings that they live in such an enlightened age (debatable to say the least) then they may find that in fact Tolkien's work raises incredibly modern questions. And no, I won't list them here again...that would take forever... ;)

[littlemanpoet]

Is not the expectation amongst the literati some combination exclusively of low mimesis & irony? Is it not the supposed failure of Tolkien's works to meet this expectation that has caused the literati to reject it without due consideration?

mayhap:
"I want my ironic characters to be human, not some kind of d****d fairy hobbit!"
or:
"A hero? What kind of good story that means anything for today have a bloody hero who wields a sword? What, am I expected to read Conan the Barbarian next?" (sneeringly)
or:
"If I'm expected to read about gods and goddesses, the least he could do is have sex or some kind of Freudian issue; or at the very least, make it politically relevant. I mean, really!"
et cetera....

[drigel]

In any group, there are always some who always take an inverse philosophical approach. The eternal outsider, as the Brin article suggests, will decry the uplifting of any civilization, as it will inevitably do so on the backs of others, especially from the persepective of an easterner or an orc. The very fact that that the subject of the works is western European in scope automatically causes ire to some.

[davem]

LotR (& the Legendarium as a whole) does present 'traditional' Western (ie 'Christian') values without irony or condemnation. I think this is enough for most critics to condemn it. It is the epitome of 'dead white male' culture (& from our perspective most of the characters are dead white males, being that the events of the story took place 7 or 8 thousand years ago.

Aragorn tells Eomer that moral & ethical values do not change, & are the same among Elves & Dwarves as they are among Men. This is a clear rejection of moral & cultural relativism, that all moral codes are equally valid. In short, Tolkien is stating that some values are better than, suerior to others, - even worse, that some are Right & some are Wrong.

It seems to me that this is at the heart of the reason some critics so dislike Tolkien's works - they may like irony, but are not offended by its absence to that degree.

Of course, this eternal moral value system does pre-suppose some ultimate source exterior to Mankind. If accepted, Tolkien's position requires people to aknowledge an objective moral code, (& an objectively existing 'source' of that code). Hence, LotR belongs with 'pre-Enlightenment' works - as Tolkien said it is a 'heroic romance'. I think this is why many of the very same critics who condemn LotR have taken HDM to their hearts.

What I find most interesting though, is that these critics are not able to accept Tolkien's philosophical position even within the secondary world. They are incapable of not projecting it onto the primary world. Shippey has said that many of Tolkien's early critics read the book, responded to it, but then realised they didn't like the fact that they had responded to it & so turned on Tolkien (paraphrasing his words in the documentary 'JRRT: A Film Portrait'). The work touches a chord in them that not only do they not want touched, they hadn't even believed that chord was there to be touched. Its like an extreme form of reaction-formation (http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/reaction_formation.htm)

Or something like that....

[Lalwendë]

Of course, this eternal moral value system does pre-suppose some ultimate source exterior to Mankind. If accepted, Tolkien's position requires people to aknowledge an objective moral code, (& an objectively existing 'source' of that code). Hence, LotR belongs with 'pre-Enlightenment' works - as Tolkien said it is a 'heroic romance'. I think this is why many of the very same critics who condemn LotR have taken HDM to their hearts.

I think another root may be that we exist in a world where we are growing increasingly smug and self satisfied that we know; one of the drawbacks to the Age of Reason is that Reason has simply replaced wonder and become as dogmatic as wonder once could be. The critics seek out the clever, the self-referential, the knowing. In contrast to this, Tolkien is not knowing, he leaves it for us to discover the answers in his work - he encourages wonder, which is a most dangerous thing to someone happy in their own self-knowledge, such as a critic can be.

Aragorn tells Eomer that moral & ethical values do not change, & are the same among Elves & Dwarves as they are among Men. This is a clear rejection of moral & cultural relativism, that all moral codes are equally valid. In short, Tolkien is stating that some values are better than, suerior to others, - even worse, that some are Right & some are Wrong.

I've got to say, I think there is quite a lot of moral relativism in LotR; I think it is no mistake that Gandalf is the Grey wizard given how he makes Frodo think for himself about Gollum and whether he is evil enough to be put to death. I also think that in the shape of Gollum we see a mass of contradictions such as we see in real people. Other characters reflect this to a lesser extent, e.g. Denethor and Boromir. While the text sets out what each of these characters do and how it leads to their downfall, it is not didactic; Tolkien merely shows the consequences, he leaves it to us to 'judge'.

However, what Tolkien draws upon in his work are values which are indeed universal, among them ideas of sacrifice, service, honour. For many of these values there are right and wrong ideals. Maybe some are uncomfortable with the idea that there are things which are right and wrong, which in turn makes me uncomfortable that these people might be opinion formers in our world. :eek:

[Bergil]

This seems an example of several wel-thought-out, invalid arguments.

Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth l
no, it wasn't. Sauron's army consisted of Ainuir, Men, Orcs, and trolls, if you count trolls. the good guys had Ainuir, Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits, if you count Hobbits.

If the guardians of wisdom kept their wonders locked up in high wizard towers, instead of rushing onto PBS the way our unseemly "scientists" do today?

Hey, quick, tell me how a computer works. unless you can explain everything from the atomic level up, the point is invalid. and how many nobles and royalty are in the Fellowship? 3.5. Legolas, Boromir, and Gimli. (Aragorn is the .5, he doesn't really count).

The thing is, neither of these arguments are stupid, just wrong. The people who write these things genuinely beleive it. POLITICAL STATEMENT WARNING The best point about progress in any Lord of the Rings was made accidentaly, by Peter Jackson in that scene where Aragorn and Frodo are on the stairs in moria and have to fall forward or back, or they'll die. That's us. we have to either ditch our technology and all the fun we have, develop it better fast, for a great life or 2112, or die from enviromental problems. now it's looking like we'll end up in the abys. END WARNING.

What am I trying to say? I don't know.

[drigel]

Just to keep it going, ill play a little you-know-who's advocate, in the sprirt of the Brin article - which struck me as more of alternative observation than critique - but that may be just me (yea i actually do [as per usual] agree w/the consensus of posters here)

If accepted, Tolkien's position requires people to aknowledge an objective moral code, (& an objectively existing 'source' of that code).
Ah, but who's code is it? It seems to me that some of Aragorns Numenorian ancestery was not wholly Good per say. Much of the time when they came to ME "...they appeared now rather as lords and masters and gatherers of tribute than as helpers and teachers..." What would those tributee's opinion be of the mighty Numenoreans?

We know why the Edain were favored by the Vala, but why were the generations of decendants of the other tribes punished for their forefather's sins? The sons of Amandil after all were not directly of royal decent, rather 2nd cousins removed. So what right did they have to rule? And why would someone from Rhun honor that right?

However, what Tolkien draws upon in his work are values which are indeed universal, among them ideas of sacrifice, service, honour.
Individual heroic romantic ideals. But like the Exiles, does might make right?


Sauron's army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth


no, it wasn't. Sauron's army consisted of Ainuir, Men, Orcs, and trolls, if you count trolls. the good guys had Ainuir, Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits, if you count Hobbits.


umm I may be once again all alone, but with the exception of the incredible (Wizards, ents, trolls, eagles etc.), I would submit that all of the above mentioned really are just expressions of us. Children all of us :)

edit
What I find most interesting though, is that these critics are not able to accept Tolkien's philosophical position even within the secondary world. They are incapable of not projecting it onto the primary world.
quite so. I can find no counter in my bag o' tricks for that one. :smokin:

[Mithalwen]

no, it wasn't. Sauron's army consisted of Ainuir, Men, Orcs, and trolls, if you count trolls. the good guys had Ainuir, Elves, Men, Dwarves, and Hobbits, if you count Hobbits.




I read very recently somewhere in the Opus that Sauron's army contained menbers of every race save Elves. but I can't quite remember where.

[Formendacil]

We know why the Edain were favored by the Vala, but why were the generations of decendants of the other tribes punished for their forefather's sins? The sons of Amandil after all were not directly of royal decent, rather 2nd cousins removed. So what right did they have to rule? And why would someone from Rhun honor that right?

Permit me a moment to sidetrack the main discussion and correct a bit of an incorrect statement you have made regarding the legitimacy of the House of Elendil to rule Middle-Earth.

You state that Amandil and his offspring were not of direct royal descent, but were in fact 2nd Cousins Removed. While this may be the case regarding their most direct kinship with the last of the Numenorean sovereigns, Ar-Pharazon and Tar-Miriel, it was not this "joint ancestry on their mother's sides" sort of kinship that Elendil based his claim to the Kingship of the Realms in Exile, but on his descent from Tar-Elendil's ELDEST child, Silmarien.

Furthermore, as the leaders of the Elendili, Elendil and his sons were already the leaders of the founding fathers of Gondor and Arnor. Why would they have lost this right to rule their followers after the destruction of Numenor? A destruction that they only escaped due to the foresight of Elendil.

As for your final statement, regarding why the Easterlings would acknowledge the rule of the Heirs of Elendil, the answer is the same as why the Welsh acknowledge the Queen of England, or the Puerto Ricans the rule of the American President, or the people of Rome the rule of the Italian government: Conquest by the peoples who DID acknowledge those parties as their proper rulers.

Okay, I've made my point...

You may return to your main discussion.

[drigel]

good points Formendacil i stand corrected.
So, might does mean right? that was the point I was trying to stumble towards.

[HerenIstarion]

So what right did they have to rule? And why would someone from Rhun honor that right?

Unfortunately, the statement I'm going to make is the selfsame used by some to accuse Tolkien of racism, and still by some to vindicate their 'white supremacy'

The right of Kings of Men to rule was based upon unity of Three Races blood (and the Third Union of Elves and Man through Aragorn/Arwen was uniting that bloodline into one House again) - that is, Maiar, Evles, Men. Kings of Men were partly 'divine'. The 'divinity' and 'right to rule' was confirmed by Eru's intervention into Beren-Luthien matter. It may be argued that since Eru granted that union, He granted rule of its descendants likewise. So answer is 'no' - 'might' does not equal
right'.

Yet not only bloodlines, mind you, but the 'right thing' too (and that's why Tolkien ain't racist) for the truth about ME is that in ME there actually is a Paragon of Good - Eru. Those who confrom to that Paragon more than others are more in the right and have more of the right. Ar-Pharazon was no less 'pure-blood' than Amandil, but he chose the wrong path.

I suppose this is one of the indirect reasons for literati to be at diggers with Tolkien (see the points made about religion in posts above)

Also, the fact is, Aragorn was not forcing himself and his realm upon unwilling peoples:

LoTR

In the days that followed his crowning the King sat on his throne in the Hall of the Kings and pronounced his judgements. And embassies came from many lands and peoples, from the East and the South, and from the borders of Mirkwood, and from Dunland in the west. And the King pardoned the Easterlings that had given themselves up, and sent them away free, and he made peace with the peoples of Harad; and the slaves of Mordor he released and gave to them all the lands about Lake Núrnen to be their own.

Hard to see 'expansionism' here, ain't it?

There are certain rules:

LoTR

Men of Gondor hear now the Steward of this Realm! Behold! one has come to claim the kingship again at last. Here is Aragorn son of Arathorn, chieftain of the Dúnedain of Arnor, Captain of the Host of the West, bearer of the Star of the North, wielder of the Sword Reforged, victorious in battle, whose hands bring healing, the Elfstone, Elessar of the line of Valandil, Isildur’s son, Elendil’s son of Númenor. Shall he be king and enter into the City and dwell there?’
And all the host and all the people cried yea with one voice.

Despite all his blood and all his right, Aragorn needs approval of his future people to 'be king' first.

Besides,

Pippin to Denethor's servants:

And as for orders, I think you have a madman to deal with, not a lord.

Implication is as follows: when the lord has turned aside from the 'right path', even if he be 'rightful' lord, there is no obligation any more to follow his orders.

Just another 'besides':

'Behold! I go forth, and it seems like to be my last riding,' said Théoden. 'I have no child. Théodred my son is slain. I name Éomer my sister-son to be my heir. If neither of us return, then choose a new lord as you will.

I.e. Lords are 'chosen'. Criteria of choice may count on 'bloodlines' and may, again, not.

And more - when people is unwilling, the ruler may be 'sent forth' (case of Felagund)

Short summary - 'right to rule' is based on three factors - blood, people's will and following Eru's will. While 'blood' is a matter of importance, and people's will counts, Eru's will if by far superior.

Again, combination 'indigestable' for some, I suppose.

I read very recently somewhere in the Opus that Sauron's army contained menbers of every race save Elves. but I can't quite remember where.

See the link in my previous

[drigel]

I suppose this is one of the indirect reasons for literati to be at diggers with Tolkien (see the points made about religion in posts above)

Heren I totally agree - my views are the same, and my submissions were to (I hoped) spark discussion, because those are the lines of thought that are out there. reletivism - ugh thats why the critisism is there - right and wrong are so clear and uncomplicated in the works, to the dismay of the critics. And as i sit here and think about the works in total, the complications that do arise are seldom self inflicted, rather the result of an agent of the devil, example: Glaurung & Turin. This was a time and a place where good was really good and evil very evil.

[HerenIstarion]

I think David Brin did read something somewhere since the original publication. Unless I'm 'mightily mistook', the article as it now stands on salon.com is not the same we commented upon three years back. There are odd bits of an older version shining through, but he must have edited it - it is more sober and less caustic than I remember it.

[Bêthberry]

I'd like to turn this thread back to an earlier comment lmp made on it.


On page 221 of Author of the Century, Shippey relates Northrop Frye's five literary modes:


myth - the characters in a work are 'superior in kind both to other men and to the environment of other men' ... the 'hero is a divine being and the story about him will be myth'
romance - characters are superior only in 'degree (not kind) to other men, and again to their environment'
high mimesis - (tragedy or epic) - where the heroes and heroines are 'superior in degree to other men but not to natural environment'
low mimesis - level of the classical novel - characters are on a level with us in abilities, though maybe not in social class
irony - we see ourselves looking down on people weaker or more ignorant than us




Now, I've lately been doing some reading other than Tolkien--don't laugh, some of us do escape his lure from time to time!--some of which has to do with how we understand language. And I've been wondering about this last description of irony. Does Shippey really describe Frye's sense of irony as "looking down on people weaker or more ignorant than us?" 'Cause I really don't see that as Frye's or the more common understanding of irony.

Here's a couple of online definitions: Cambridge online (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42023&dict=CALD) ; Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony).

This might ramble a bit, and I'm not sure where it's going, but I wonder about this idea that irony involves words which mean other than they first appear to mean.
This is just an extension of all literary language, which is non-literal, much like metaphor itself. It also might suggest deceit in some hands, of course, and that might itself be something absent from Tolkien. (Hmm, this could get us into that old 'poetry never lies' thing.)

So, I've been thinking, this kind of irony, how common is it in Tolkien's art? How common are metaphors, for that matter?

Maybe it is the absence of this kind of literary language which drew the ire of critics? After all, the modernist writers were heavy on irony and detachment. Is it possible that Tolkien, in aspiring to write a history for his fantasy, in fact created a style which ran against the main tendency of story, to create non-literal language? Could those critics have been spooked by Tolkien's attempt not at fantasy but at making fantasy appear real, historical, literal?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I've been reading Patrick Curry's Defending Middle-Earth and found some good thoughts in the section "Readers vs. Critics" of his introductory chapter. Here are two pertinent quotes:

...the literary community, whose silence on Tolkien ... is broken only by an occasional snort of derision which seems to pass for analysis.

The single greatest obstacle to appreciating Tolkien's work is sheer literary snobbery.
The rest is well worth reading, but time constraints allow me only to serve this little appetizer that will hopefully intrigue others to read the whole menu! ;)

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Thanks for those, Estelyn. I've been reading Persuasion lately and remembering that the by the end of The Big Read everyone who wanted to be identified with the intelligentsia was recommending that people vote for Jane Austen to keep Tolkien out of the top spot. What occurred to me last night, as I read a conclusion that was as unnecessarily long as it was predictable, is that Austen isn't any better than Tolkien; she's just such an accepted part of the landscape of English literature that her status as a 'great' writer is simply taken as read. That's not to say that Austen doesn't deserve to be rated highly - after all, Persuasion was published posthumously and unrevised - but that if one were disposed to find fault with her novels it would not be difficult to compose quite as much vitriol about her as certain intellectuals do about Tolkien. 'Literary snobbery' was the phrase that should have occurred to me then: some people are in, some are out; artistic merit is only one of the considerations.

Further to Bêthberry's comments, I've had occasion to read other works by Tom Shippey, specifically on the subject of humour (and not in any way touching on Tolkien). When describing Anglo-Saxon humour, he sees adversarial comedy (he recycles the German term gegeneinanderlachen) as a major theme. Apparently he subscribes to the school of thought exemplified by Anthony M. Ludovici, that laughter is primarily a display of self-perceived superiority, and that humour is an attempt to provoke such a response. He was probably a little careless with his terms in Author of the Century, largely as a result of using somebody else's, and perhaps he would have done better to have found another German phrase. Certainly 'irony' is not the best term for a style of humour in which we look down on the characters, but I find myself unable to think of a better. Perhaps 'satire' or 'lampoon' would be closer to what he was trying to say.

I think, Bêthberry, that you have something in Tolkien's seriousness and realism, but I think that it causes trouble for him because it is focused on something that is not regarded as important. We have embraced empirical science as the arbiter of truth, to the extent that the terms 'truth' and 'reality' have to some extent become blurred into one another. In pursuing a more medieval view of truth, Tolkien has devoted too much seriousness to something unworthy, something that is not 'real' (a direct portrayal of an empirically demonstrable reality). Tolkien's truths are spiritual, worse still explicitly Christian. It's acceptable for the Gawain poet to talk about green giants riding into Camelot with perilously absurd challenges, but only because he wrote in the fourteenth century and is now old enough for simple membership of his readership to suggest intellectual accomplishment. More importantly, the spirit of our age is very different to that of his. We live in an age that distrusts authority, is uncomfortable with ceremony, and feels at best embarrassed by Romance in its medieval literary sense. We are an age of iconoclasts, and Tolkien was not only paying the old respects to those symbols, but building a whole museum in which to preserve them. Any form of magical or divine kingship looks to modern eyes like an attempt to establish a natural order, in which every person is assigned a role by an undeniable authority. In an age in which 'democracy' is the watchword (to the extent that the meaning of the term has been lost in a haze of incense), an age in which we applaud social mobility and fluidity, and promote equality even at its own expense, Tolkien's structured hierarchies, objective truths and rejection of advancement and progress as synonyms is bound to ruffle one or two feathers.

Witness Philip Pullman, Oxford scholar, fantasy author and poster-boy for opponents of Tolkien. He seems uncomfortable with C.S. Lewis' statements about Susan in the Chronicles of Narnia. He says that her ceasing to be a friend of Narnia by becoming more interested in invitations, nylons and so forth is a statement that reaching adulthood (perhaps I should say 'sexual maturity') made one wicked, or in some way cut one off from God. What he has apparently failed to notice is that Lewis only mentions the superficial trappings of maturity: of course an overriding interest in parties, cosmetics and fine clothes (it was post-war Britain - my grandmother still remembers painting fake stockings onto her legs) are the antithesis of spirituality. Actual spiritual maturity, expressed in placing these things in their proper perspective, is more important in this or any other time than the mere physical ability and desire to reproduce. However, somehow in Pullman's thinking the idea that spiritual growth is more important than physical experience has become confused with the actions of the Inquisition, which is one of the reasons why I find his philosophy to be adolescent and petulant.

Perhaps, far from being immature, Tolkien is too mature for an age that has invented the teenager, then made youth, beauty, wealth and pleasure its gods, democracy its king, equality its law and progress - in any direction and at any cost - its goal. The childish elements in his writing are on the surface: hobbits and goblins, whereas the deeper themes, the more serious thoughts, provide a foundation and an underpinning for them. Too often I read a novel and feel that the childish and superficial has formed the basis, whereas the profound and contemplative lie on the surface like a cheap veneer. Perhaps more than anything else, this is the result of a profoundly immature adolescent desire to appear mature. Perhaps, and I think that this is probably true of more of Tolkien's detractors than we might like to think, the dislike really does stem from the elves, dwarves, dragons and hobbits. These things belong in the nursery, and grown-ups should not take an interest in them. Otherwise we imperil our dignity and our credibility as readers: we risk appearing silly, and that would never do. Tolkien himself might add that our word 'silly' derives directly from Old English sælig, 'blessed, fortunate', but such philological flippancy scarcely aids the current discussion.

Of course, many of these things were as true in Tolkien's day as they are now. He addresses the issue of the fantastic as a theme for the nursery in his own essays, and many of the comments on the immaturity of his writings came from critics of the 1950s. Perhaps, though, this can be explained by Tolkien's situation: he adhered to Victorian narrative styles because he was himself a Victorian, albeit sufficiently late-born to qualify as an Edwardian too. His chosen field was perfectly adapted to enable him to live in the past, and his own convictions, so out of step with the fashionable intellectual mood of his time, were only reinforced by his immersing himself in a literature that took for granted his own outlook. I doubt that it was possible for a man like him to write something fashionably intellectual after about 1650, but had he been writing then, I expect that The Lord of the Rings would appear in the same course syllabi as The Faerie Queene. It would appear that in terms of literary merit, time heals all faults as well as all wounds.

[Lalwendë]

Perhaps, far from being immature, Tolkien is too mature for an age that has invented the teenager, then made youth, beauty, wealth and pleasure its gods, democracy its king, equality its law and progress - in any direction and at any cost - its goal. The childish elements in his writing are on the surface: hobbits and goblins, whereas the deeper themes, the more serious thoughts, provide a foundation and an underpinning for them. Too often I read a novel and feel that the childish and superficial has formed the basis, whereas the profound and contemplative lie on the surface like a cheap veneer. Perhaps more than anything else, this is the result of a profoundly immature adolescent desire to appear mature. Perhaps, and I think that this is probably true of more of Tolkien's detractors than we might like to think, the dislike really does stem from the elves, dwarves, dragons and hobbits. These things belong in the nursery, and grown-ups should not take an interest in them. Otherwise we imperil our dignity and our credibility as readers: we risk appearing silly, and that would never do. Tolkien himself might add that our word 'silly' derives directly from Old English sælig, 'blessed, fortunate', but such philological flippancy scarcely aids the current discussion.

I think it could be right that many people do not look beyond the surface of Tolkien's work. Thinking about many of the discussions on here, we talk quite often about how what we have read in Tolkien reflects the human condition; it's even something of a convention among Tolkien fans that his work is primarily about mortality, as Tolkien famously stated his work was about Death in a television interview.

Now, I am thinking of reading some Ursula le Guin again as I have not done so for some time, so I was looking up what it said about her on Wikipedia. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_K._Le_Guin) an interesting passage. Yes, another example of a mis-reading of Tolkien's work:

Le Guin is known for her ability to create believable worlds populated by strongly sympathetic characters (regardless of whether they are technically 'human'). Her fantasy works (such as the Earthsea series) are more concerned with the human condition than the works of traditional fantasy authors (such as J.R.R. Tolkien), and they often explore political and cultural themes from a very "un-Earthly" perspective.

We know that Tolkien explores the human condition in his work. We also know that though his work is not allegory, it contains some very important lessons on power, bravery, forgiveness etc. etc. I would also argue that Tolkien's work is hugely Modern (with a big M) as he gives us what is at face value a secular world, and a world which is beset with suffering without reward. His work is a product of War, as Modern (maybe even as post-Modern) as Gormenghast or Slaughterhouse-Five. This work was created out of a love for old languages and old stories; it has swords and epic poems and Elves and so-on. But it isn't an antiquarian work at heart, it's a big, sprawling work of modern fiction which appeals to us in some way because of the relevance of what he was saying. Even the style is Modern as Tolkien plays with form and structure in so many ways.

At Tolkien 2005 Verlyn Flieger made a little hint about Tolkien's work being Modern - it was in the title of a lecture she was scheduled to give, a 'mask' for her actual lecture which was to read from Smith. But she introduced the session with her statement that she thought Tolkien was Modern and said she would leave it at that for the present. I'm hoping she does work on this, because I'd love a respected critic to come out with a work focussing on and arguing for Tolkien's place as Modern.

[davem]

Just in case anyone's interested I found this (http://scifi.about.com/cs/lordoftherings/a/aa012303.htm) response to accusations of racism in Tolkien's works.

Some very insightful comments, including:

The good guys in the story are not racially segregated, but representative of various types of social structures. In fact, the good guys' race is incidental, because the "bad guys" in the story are not another race. Sauron is an evil wizard, not a foreigner, and the orcs are elves who were tortured out of their minds and souls until nothing but empty husks remain. They're "black" in the story not because torture somehow robbed the elves of their Caucasianess, but because they're burnt by hellfire and have become creatures of the night.....

As for the "slant-eyed" thing, well the eyes are the windows to the soul, and the fact that today we use more PC terms "shifty-eyed" and "beady-eyed" doesn't mean we get to point fingers at a years-dead author for not knowing the term "slant-eyed" would one day become offensive.