“Afraid of dragons”

[Lalwendë]

Estelyn makes a good point about the lack of Dragons in LOTR, something I had never considered before. But they aren't quite so far away in the past, after all Bilbo still lives, one who has conversed with one of the mightiest of Dragons; and apparently they were around during the War of the Ring, living beyond the Grey Mountains, a region which the Dwarves had abandoned when the Dragons came in search of gold.

Why did Tolkien not include any Dragons in his story? Perhaps he counted them as potentially too great a foe, considering those formidable enemies that would already have to be faced? Certainly Morgoth made use of Dragons in his wars, but maybe Sauron was too far removed from them, isolated in Mordor? Maybe the Fell Beasts are of a lesser Dragon breed? There were Fire Drakes, Cold Drakes, Dragons who could fly and those who could not, so this is quite possible. There is a whole natural history of miraculous beasts in Middle Earth that is not entirely explained or explored.

I loved the comments from Tolkien on the desire to see a dragon. I wonder how many 'Downers collected dinosaur models as children (I still have these actually - one by the bed to keep the cats away )? Tolkien expresses the fascination with monsters that sometimes never leaves you. Funnily enough, in Harry Potter there is a perfect example of this in Hagrid, who is determined to have a 'pet dragon', no matter what the risks are. Dragons are always presented as potentially lethal creatures, but they have a 'glamour' which attracts us to them.

Dragons in Western myth are often seen as bad luck and associated with the devil; the tale of St George and the Dragon symbolises the triumph of Christianity over evil, which is intriguing considering Tolkien's own beliefs. Perhaps this shows how despite what we believe, the symbol of a dragon is just too powerful and magical to ignore. In heraldry the Dragon is commonly used, and it is the symbolic animal of Wales. With Eastern cultural elements, we see Dragons even more often, as they are lucky in Chinese culture - I think the Dragon is the only mythological creature used in the Chinese horoscope.

Also, following on from Boromir88's comments, I can't think of any examples of popular culture where people set out to save any Dragons - they are usually the enemy, hunted down with weapons, as in Reign of Fire, or portrayed as evil worms, as in (the wonderfully lurid) Lair of the White Worm. And yet we, like Tolkien, so badly want to see them. This paradox is something I couldn't really begin to explain, but I do like it!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

In fantasy, she argued, authors are free to offer up versions of our world in which the comfortable truths that we live in are either suspended or turned on their head. Her central point seemed to be that realist fiction is based on conforming to the accepted, the normative, and the comfortable, whereas fantasy is all about “alternatives” – specifically, she identified “good” fantasy as being about “other ways of being or living.”

I find this interesting, as the appeal for many in fantasy literature is that it is escapist, in that it offers the reader a temporarily release from the uncomfortable truths that govern their daily lives. In one sense, it offers a fresh and exciting alternative to the daily grind of life in the real world which can, at times, seem dull and humdrum in comparison. There are many here who would willingly swap their "real world" life for a life in Middle-earth, as Child's What will you choose? thread testifies.

And fantasy, to a significant degree, also removes the difficulty in assessing moral choices. In Middle-earth, for example, it is fairly easy to assess a particular course of action as "good" or "bad". Now I accept that it's not quite as straightforward as that. The characters of Boromir, Denethor and Eowyn (to my mind, the most fascinating characters in the work) show us that there are moral dilemmas to be faced within Middle-earth. But there is a fairly well drawn line between "good" and "evil". Not so in real life, where most of us face choices in which it is often difficult to perceive the "best" course and we are daily presented with moral dilemmas on a broader society (and world) wide scale.

So, rather than being "subversive" is not fantasy rather "liberating", in the sense that it takes many of the difficult choices away? Or is Le Guin saying that this is precisely why it is "subversive"? That there are many who feel comfortable with these moral dilemmas and cannot accept that there might be a world where moral choices are more clearly defined? Possibly, although (while I accept that Tolkien's works have much to tell us about ways of living) I have difficulty in believing that such a world is possible, and yet I do not find his works uncomfortable or subversive to my way of thinking.

And, even accepting that there may well be those who find "good" fantasy uncomfortable because it challenges their views on life, I nevertheless find Le Guin's comment to be somewhat of an over-generalisation. It cannot explain the attitude of everyone who holds fantasy in low regard. There are no doubt many who, while they would agree with the sentiments expressed in Tolkien's works, do not find the format within which they are expressed to be appealing. People who perhaps find their "subversive" views reflected in alternative styles or media. I do not see fantasy as being the exclusive, or even (for many) the best, medium for showing people alternative, and perhaps better, ways of living.

[Aiwendil]

Estelyn wrote:

But why did the man who "desired dragons" not include any in his greatest work?

This is a very interesting observation.

As you note, Tolkien did of course write stories about dragons. There are five named dragons in his works: Glaurung and Ancalagon in the Silmarillion, Smaug in The Hobbit, Scatha in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings, and Chrysophylax in Farmer Giles of Ham. Of these, Scatha and (to a lesser extent) Ancalagon are lacking in personality, being involved only in tales told with tremendous narrative distance. Chrysophylax is a bit comical - but he is a proper dragon and he does exude the dragon nature, as you might call it.

But Glaurung and Smaug are Tolkien's important dragons, the ones that are closely drawn and caught up in great tales. And both were firmly established characters by 1937. I think that this mundane fact may shoulder a large part of the responsibility for the absence of dragons in LotR - the fact is that LotR is a sequel to The Hobbit, and The Hobbit was a story about a dragon. Think how the fans complain about Lucas's re-use of the Death Star in Return of the Jedi. Tolkien himself noted (in a letter, I believe, though I don't have my copy of the book at hand) that he had not intended a sequel, and so had used up all his best ideas and motifs in The Hobbit and now had to come up with new ones.

Also, I think there is a tendency for a dragon to dominate any story. It would be hard (for someone like Tolkien, anyway) to write a story with a dragon in it that was not about the dragon. Chrysophylax, Smaug, and Glaurung each play a starring role in their respective tales.

I realize that all this is going a bit off topic, but I say it because I do not think it would be particularly advisable to seek some deeper meaning in the absence of dragons in LotR. It's tempting to say, for instance, that the absence of dragons marks LotR as more a work of "pseudo-historical fiction" than of "fantasy". But I think that the fact of the matter is simply that Tolkien had just told a story about dragons, and now he was telling a different one.

Lalwende wrote:

I loved the comments from Tolkien on the desire to see a dragon. I wonder how many 'Downers collected dinosaur models as children

I certainly did. But it's worth noting that there are differences as well as similarities between the fascination with dinosaurs and the fascination with dragons. They seem to spring from the same source, it's true. But fascination with dinosaurs is fascination with real creatures that did in fact once exist; it's ultimately a fascination with science. Fascination with dragons is fascination with a thing fundamentally of human invention and thoroughly fantastic. I say this not with the intent to disparage either, but as one who is and has always been fascinated with both.

I think there is a related distinction, by the way, between science fiction and fantasy. I don't see science fiction as watered down fantasy, or fantasy that doesn't have the guts to admit it's surrealism. Rather, science fiction is like the fascination with dinosaurs - fascination with the extraordinary but real; fantasy is fascination with dragons - pure invention.

I think that if a fascination with dragons is indeed in some way "subversive", then that subversion must consist in the fact that dragons are imaginary. There is a longing, which has its expression in good fantasy, for a thing that does not and has never existed. There is most definitely something subversive in that, if only on a psychological level. For all our lives, each of us is being told to be realistic, to deal with the real, pragmatic world and not with dragons. Society by its very nature must, to some extent, put pressure on each of its members to be attentive to and responsive to the external world (that which is beyond one's control) rather than the internal (where the dragons really are).

On the literary level, this is manifested in the obsession among modern literary critics with literature that deals with reality, that is useful or pragmatic. Fantasy, on the surface anyway, eschews the pragmatic - it even goes so far as to remove itself from the world of "real" concerns altogether. Tolkien was subversive, then, in a literary sense because he wasn't interested in that which the literary establishment was interested in; he did not conform to their obsession with realism.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

How did this thread turn into a discussion of dragons…? Oh, davem’s post, I might have known…

Many wonderful and interesting ideas so far, but I wonder if perhaps we are going about this question from the wrong angle. So far, most of the comments have been about how subversive (or not) the content of M-e may be. The points of SpM and Aiwendil, however, move us into a slightly different direction – the subversive decision to “eschew” reality for fantasy in the first place. Seems to me that Le Guin’s principle point was that fantasy provides a ‘way of seeing’ that is in-and-of-itself subversive insofar as it provides a vantage point from outside the ‘norm’ or the expected. I think there’s a lot of this in davem’s point about dragons as being some kind of untamed or Wild nature – not just in the sense of ‘unclaimed’ or ‘untamed’ nature, but in their raw ability to present Nature as radically other, and alarmingly so. Only in fantasy can we see the natural world as a dragon. Or, rather, only in fantasy is the natural world revealed to be a dragon.

Child raises the interesting example of the environmental emphasis of Tolkien’s work, but to be honest I don’t really see how subversive that aspect may be. Yes, LotR decries the destruction of the natural world, and even lends the natural world agency with which to fight back – but there does not seem to be a radical overturning of our own world’s attitudes. Nature is still there to be used by people – even if benevolent, the hobbits are still farmers. And even though just and preservative, at the end of the War, the Men of Gondor and Rohan set about extending their dominion and drawing lines upon maps to decide who gets what. Even the characterisation of the Ents seems to re-enforce the hierarchy of people over nature, insofar as the only way that Tolkien can imagine nature fighting back is by becoming more person-like (that is, a man-tree is in control of the real-trees).

Where I think I do see a truly subversive characterisation around the trees is in the early narrative in which we learn of the hobbits’ ‘war’ with the Old Forest. In this tale we see the hobbits acting very much as Saruman will later on, albeit on a smaller scale. But still, there remains within the fabric of the story this disconcerting reminder that even in M-e, nature is subordinate to people: or, rather, that nature is made subordinate to people. This has the fact, I think, of rendering the hobbits – who appear, at first, to be almost idealised versions of our better-selves – just as problematic as we are. In this way, I think the book sets up an idealised vision (hobbits are ‘us’ made better) only to bring that idealised vision into radical doubt (no they’re not) which, in turn, subverts our own experience of fantasy. We come to the book thinking that we are going to be given an escapist jaunt into an idealised version of our own world, when in reality we are being presented with a hard-as-nails reflection of our own petty natures.

I realise it sounds as though I’m being hard on the hobbits – I’m not really: I just think that the hobbits reflect upon us in some very hard ways!

[HerenIstarion]

Short commentary (still more I seem to repeat a lot of what’ve already been said, just want to shift a focus a bit):

Fantasy is more ‘childlishly’ maximalist, ‘real life’ literature more ‘grown-uppingly’ merciful. The often made accussation of LoTR being overly ‘black’n’white’ is true in this respect. We tend to be more merciful not for we are merciful, as, say, Second Voice of Leaf by Niggle was, but we know our own guilt and ‘put ourselves into guilty’s place’. If LoTR were written along the pattern of social or pshycological novel, Sauron probably would have been given life imprisonment, with lot of lawyers to back him up, appealing for strike off for his ‘good behavior’ and ‘bringing a lot of good for society’ pressing plates for Aragorn’s royal court carriages etc.

Fantasy does not allow for that – it turns moral law, the one that have been called Natural Law prior to XX century, into imperative which is to be followed at all costs, without peace treaties and truces, sort of ‘ok, I will let you kill a bit here if you let me rape there a little, than we’ll sell some oil together, find profit and call it quits’ agreements which our ‘real’ world is unfortunately famous for.

The essence of [good] fantasy is expressed in Theoden’s words Thus shall I sleep better. Again, in modern social novel the background would be that Theoden is after improving his own health, after remedy for insomnia, but the idea is indeed that following the imperative, being not merely ‘selfless’ but ‘self-sacrificing’, laying down own life is the thing proper, and doing what is right, but not pleasing, is more pleasing than doing pleasing thing which is not right, if you follow my meaning, kind sirs and ladies. And such a thought may be indeed ‘subversive’ for society lulled by psycho-analysts (or, rather, lulling itself) into belief that what is pleasing is right.

Short notice:

Dragons and SF – as always, there is an exeption – a lot of ‘probable’ and ‘improbable’ dragons in Stanislav Lem’s fiction, yeh

[davem]

I've just seen the cover for EA Games new Middle-earth game.

http://www.eagames.com/official/lord...ge/us/home.jsp

It shows various characters, including what looks like a female Elf magic user - she has a little lightning bolt coming from her hand. Apparently its possible to play the Balrog character in the game.

Now, doesn't this 'subvert' Tolkien's work? And if it does, why? Is Tolkien's worldview too reactionary? does it need to be 'modernised' & made acceptable? It seems to me that if Tolkien wasn't 'subversive' there wouldn't be this need to change it so much in order to 'sell' it.

Now, not only does the idea of Elves (male or female) being able to cast lightning bolts go against Tolkien's most basic premises, but playing the role of a Balrog would go against his moral values. I suppose turning his characters into action figures wouldn't have pleased him either, but the point is, all these things are subverting Tolkien, turning his work into a sub D&D fantasy world.

If Tolkien's work isn't subversive, why this need to subvert it?

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/tlot...ge/review.html

http://www.eagames.com/official/lord...s/features.jsp

[Bêthberry]

Now don't go blaming davem, Fordim. "Dragons" is in your thread title.

This is a wonderful discussion, Everyone. I have been following this with great interest trying to find time to get my post in! Rather than tinker with small parts of what each of you say, I would like simply to offer some general thoughts.

Going back first to Beowulf and his dragon. My understanding of this early poem is that it reflects a culture and society which is very close to destruction. There is little safety and security in this world, and the forces of assault are very threatening. Yet something about the art form provides a way for this terror of the wild, the unknown, the frightening to be contained and controlled. Within the classic form of literature--using Aristotle as an example--the climax of the action was followed by a denouement or resolution. People could experience their fears of difference, of the unknown, and then safely see those fears resolved and contained managably. In a society which lived precariously, social order was an essential value, for it implied security, safety, longevity. Dragons, then, represented forces which were threatening but which could be contained.

Fast forward now to the twentieth century, when social order has become so well constructed and managed, so controlled and contained, that the machine has almost taken over. In this situation, the dragons of fantasy--I would say of Science Fiction as well, for as Fordim shows when he quotes LeQuin, the word favoured by writers now is Speculative Fiction, which does away with the old dichotomy which hampered many writers of fantasy and science fiction-- provide a different kind of emotion effect. (It's just that most book stores haven't got around to listening to the authors yet!)

In this situation, with social control so tight and secure, dragons represent something else. They represent everything "other", everything not of the machine. And often they--read, fantasy--show how the containment and control and security of the machine is false and should be undercut, overthrown, or at least rethought. Thus, fantasy, unlike classic art, does not scare us in order to show us how "all's right with the world" in the end. It shakes us up to suggest that we need to think far more consciously, reflect far more seriously, about the world we live in. Because mankind has so much more control over his environment now than he did a thousand or two thousand years ago, our art needs to make us aware of some truths about that control.

I am of course speaking mainly of Western culture. Most cultures in our world do not know the extent of control which the machine has placed on western culture.

This is, I think, where Tolkien, despite his 'conservatism' can be seen as subversive. His ethos is to fight against the forms of control which The Machine represents; he chooses to offer in its place an idealised view of past society where the individual person and a moral standard (rather than a standard of efficiency or control) succeeds. Yet that vision is not in itself absolute, for he incorporates 'the inevitable defeat' and many reservations over mankind's hubris, a hubris which is can be found as much in the past as in the present, of course. I think Child is right to point out that Tolkien's vision might be 'traditional' but it is one that has never really been tried historically.

After suffering countless interruptions, I really must go and apologise for infelicities and inaccuracies of expression. I have grossly simplified and generalised.