Quote:
Originally Posted by THE Ka
Very good point. I've often wondered about that, how well Wilde and Tolkien might fair discussing ideals. Then again, thinking about Wilde we have to remember that Ruskin was a great influence to his literary and social development while at Oxford, which makes me wonder if this might have any or much influence on how Tolkien would see Wilde's taste of writing. I'm not generally sure, so, if anyone knows more on the matter I'd be interested.
I don't really think at all it would be much of a difference of matters of religious thought, as Wilde was very much attracted to Catholicism when at Oxford, and seemed (like many other aesthetes in their older years...) latter in his life to return to it more as a personal matter than as a pinacle of overall change in his writing before and after Reading Gaol.
~ Wildely Ka
|
I wondered when your aesthete antennae would start to oscillate wildly (ooo, corny...
).
There is of course a great chance that Tolkien did like Wilde's work as there was a shared common ground of influence, including Morris and the pre-Raphaelites, a love of fairy tale and then Catholicism. The plays would maybe not be to Tolkien's tatste given his dislike of written drama, but he may have enjoyed some of the poetry and prose - I must see what I can find in Companion & Guide later on today.
I think what some people are getting at with reference to Tolkien's religion is that he would have disliked Wilde because he was gay. That's not only simplistic but wrong. There is no knowledge of Tolkien ever having been a homophobe, only evidence to the contrary, that he was friends with and worked alongside many outwardly gay writers and academics all his life without any fuss whatsoever. The issue was just not on his radar. Indeed, I doubt someone could have functioned in 20th century Oxford if they were not tolerant!
Now what Tolkien was known to dislike was the aesthetic movement - indeed he satirises the Bloomsbury set in his creation of the Sackville-Baggins clan - at Oxford in his youth and for some time afterwards students fell into one of two 'camps' (for want of a better word
) - the foppish and effeminate aesthetes such as Wilde, Betjeman (yes, Betjeman was straight - foppishness did not equal homosexuality, it was an artistic choice), etc, versus the hearty types who loved beer and rugger and rowing, even if they were too drunk to be engaged in much sport! Lewis squarely fell into the latter camp and Tolkien was of that mind too, but less militantly so, possibly as he was a young married man with kids to bring up! But maybe too as he did not wish to be categorised? Oxford can be very stifling like that.
Later, towards the 30s, many aesthetes changed and became more 'socially aware' resulting in the more 'manly' and far less foppish types of Spender and Auden and eventually the 'angry young men' more reactionary (but ruddy well funny) types like Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin (his novel Jill should be required reading for any new Oxford student - it is so funny and sad!)- these are quite common 'types' still found at Oxford today - and you still also get some fops and the hearties never went away.
See the work of Evelyn Waugh for more on Aesthetes (and Catholics) - ironic as he was an insider to the movement of the aesthetes yet he satirises them perfectly in Bridehead Revisited - the bear, Aloysius, carried everywhere by Sebastian Flyte is based on John Betjeman's bear Archibald Ormsby-Gore - and this bear still exists, as I saw him in the Bodleian last year - quite sad really, looking at the beloved toy of a lovely, eccentric old poet.
Ooo, got carried away there....Though it does contribute towards the topic of vampires in Tolkien by providing some rambling background and it kept me out of mischief for a few minutes...