What does the sixpence = ?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Squatter

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 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.