Yes, Tolkien is Wonderful, but...

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Iarwain

They've got exciting plots, interesting characters, but beyond that they tend to have something Tolkien lacks: intellectual content.

Is this a challenge? Or are you stating this matter-of-factly? Because, if the latter, it seems to me that you are taking a very narrow definition of what constitutes "intellectual content". Besides the overarching theme of Death, the books deal with duty, honor, temptation, unrequited love, divine grace, the doubts and trials of the faithfuls, sacrifice, eucatastrophe... I wonder, were you aware of these when you read the books? Do you consider them unworthy of a "classic" work? Or did Tolkien treat them insufficiently, and if so, which ones? Please clarify...

[Iarwain]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Besides the overarching theme of Death, the books deal with duty, honor, temptation, unrequited love, divine grace, the doubts and trials of the faithfuls, sacrifice, eucatastrophe...

First, this is not meant to be a challenge. I was absolutely aware of the presence of these themes. Unfortunately, it takes very little to include any of them. They don't constitute "intellectual content", and I think you'll agree with me on this point. The whole class of qualities you mention could be included in any trashy novel. The fact that Tolkien uses them well reflects well on Tolkien, but it doesn't make his work great literature.


Second, this is in no way meant to disparage Tolkien or any of his works. We can go on thinking that they're great (they're really delightful!), I'm just pointing out that the mass of academia isn't misguided in praising other books and authors above Tolkien. They're out there, and they have wonderful qualities that Tolkien wasn't trying for, because they don't apply to the sort of project he was working at. Try reading some of them! Chances are, you'll find that there's even more to discuss in Dostoevsky or Homer than there is in Tolkien. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot to talk about in Tolkien, but that there are books that raise questions closer to reality, more involved in the essence of the human condition, and concerned with the problems of living in the world.



Certainly, certainly don't understand this as a challenge. Consider it as an invitation to explore new books in hopes of finding other excellent things beyond Ea. I spent years rereading the Lord of the Rings and always feeling disappointed with that last line, and wishing he had gone on to write the final battle and the destruction of Arda. There are more good books out there, and a lot of them have more to offer. If you want more of that wonderful feeling, my suggestion is that you turn to the "classics" and look there.


Iarwain

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Iarwain

They don't constitute "intellectual content", and I think you'll agree with me on this point.

Quite frankly, no.

The fact that Tolkien uses them well reflects well on Tolkien, but it doesn't make his work great literature.

So I take it something is missing? Perhaps ... this?

I spent years rereading the Lord of the Rings and always feeling disappointed with that last line, and wishing he had gone on to write the final battle and the destruction of Arda.

Let me ask you, why is it necessary for a great work to have its absolute ending included in it? By and large, Tolkien's books don't say less (or more) about the final ending than, say, the Bible or Homer's works, which are present in your "great list of books". So I don't see why this would be a valid critique.

I'm not saying that there isn't a lot to talk about in Tolkien, but that there are books that raise questions closer to reality, more involved in the essence of the human condition, and concerned with the problems of living in the world.

Is there any particular standard regarding human condition and problems of living in the world, according to which those books qualify while Tolkien's don't, and if so, which one? Or are you simply going with your personal opinion here?

[Boromir88]

This being a topic mostly of opinion, there is really no correct answer, it's just going to be a big circle of opinions. Though, I really don't know what you are trying to achieve with this thread...

A lot of this great literature comes under the musty title of "classic". Titles like "The Iliad", "War and Peace", "Great Expectations", "Les Miserables", and others come to mind. They strike us as impressive, inaccessible, and dull.~Iarwain

I would say most of the people on this forum, being fans of Tolkien, also would rather enjoy many of the authors that are on that list. (I could be completely wrong, so, if I am just tell me to shut it ). Now, it's true I've often found Charles Dickens quite a bore, but I guess this really isn't what authors are 'fun' to read, what is the 'intellectual quality?' And Dickens' showing of 'industrialization' was fit for the time he was writing in.

I love George Orwell, and I think you'll notice I mention him several times on this forum. His books are not only scary dystopias, but also absolutely humourous. Mark Twain's work with dialects is about as impressive as Tolkien's knowledge of language. Chaucer, Fitzgerald, Shakespeare...and most of those on that list, are all great "intellectual" authors, I don't think you'll meet much of a disagreement.

I would also add St. Augustine, who's defining of 'race' is quite interesting. Now Augustine was writing in what...the 400s? But, his writing of mutated half-humans with 5 arms (and all sorts of distorted 'creatures') was fascinating. Also, Jane Yolen's work on fairy tales is unique. Where is Terry Pratchett? A poll in England showed that the 'most influential authors who are still living,' Pratchett was second, behind J.K. Rowling. So, there are a couple more I would add to that list.

And there are a couple I would take off...T.S. Eliot for example, who writes very morbid stuff, but of course that's not the reason I would take him off. But, as Tom Shippey observes, Eliot really had no clue what he was writing about, as he didn't have first hand experience:

Yet actually , when it comes to it, Tolkien wasn't like that himself......the failure of nerve which afflicted so many of his contemporaries, just didn't reach him. After all, he'd been there, [WW1],he'd seen what it was like. T.S. Eliot, to name but one, hadn't been there, and hadn't seen what it was like, and Tolkien didn't take any notice of Eliot and his like. He was dead sure that they were wrong on his own firsthand evidence...~Tom Shippey's sheech to the Tolkien Society's Annual dinner (1991)

With regards to Eliot, this is something I will agree with Professor Shippey and Tolkien on, that his bleak vision of the world (caused by WW1) is quite a ways off; and Eliot lacked that first hand experience with the war that Tolkien went through.

I'll conclude with, as much as Tolkien 'ripped into' authors of fantasy (we all know his criticism of C.S. Lewis - and Lewis wasn't Tolkien's only casualty ), I doubt Tolkien would put himself on the pedestal that most of us here (including myself) put him on. Tolkien, and his 'eccentric group of friends,' seemed far from the type that would lift themselves up on a pedestal. With that being said 'Middle-earth' is just a small fraction of what Tolkien wrote; we must not forget all the work he did in academics as well! I think (though I'm going to have to go back and check who said it), Tom Shippey remarks again that some in the academic world didn't like 'Middle-earth' because it took him out of the academic world.

As an interesting story, when Penguin Books changed Tolkien's spelling of 'elvish' and 'dwarves' (to 'elfish' and 'dwarfs') they cited the Oxford English Dictionary. Which Tolkien replied 'I wrote the Oxford Dictionary!' Now that's Tolkien being a little silly, but it all goes back to C.S. Lewis' comments in Tolkien's obituary: 'he was a man inside language.'

[Iarwain]

To clarify one more time, I'm not trying to disparage Tolkien. Raynor, when I said that I'd wished for more writing about Middle-Earth, I was expressing a desire for more of the wonderful material that is his writing. This thread is not meant to be an argument. What I'm trying to achieve is a notice for some of us who are dead set on believing that Tolkien is the greatest author ever, and don't really venture outside the sci-fi/fantasy realm. Please don't be combative, I'm not trying to insult him.

Boromir, you should read Eliot; he knows exactly what he's talking about. For Shippey to say that he didn't is ridiculous. His poetry isn't about WWI, it's about life in an industrial society and the dehumanization of the individual. Read "The Waste Land" and tell me T.S. Eliot didn't know what he was writing about.

Tolkien was creating a Mythology with languages and epics. He wasn't out to write a spiritual guide or a psychological lyric on the level of Augustine or Dostoevsky. Augustine and Dostoevsky did these things, and they're great to read. This is my point. I know a lot of people will find it very hard to accept, perhaps because it's so nice to know who the greatest author is and devote your reading efforts toward achieving a full grasp of his writings. Or perhaps because ultimately we are escapists, and Tolkien has provided the alternate world we want. If it's the first, this thread is for you, to let you know that there are yet more delightful books to read. If the latter, don't let me bother you, keep on escaping. I'm pretty sure no one has created a more comprehensive and delightful alternate universe than Tolkien.

[Boromir88]

Boromir, you should read Eliot; he knows exactly what he's talking about.

I have read Eliot; not The Wasteland, but I have read The Hollow Men and parts of The Four Quartets. Both poems drawing allusions to World War I; among other events such as Guy Fawkes' day; the German's bombing of London..etc

Shippey is one of the leading scholars on Tolkien, his early years of teaching overlapped with Tolkien's, and he took over Tolkien's chair as Professor of English Language at Leeds. His analysis regarding Eliot's view post WWI is one worth mentioning. Eliot lacked the first-hand experience of war; leading to Tolkien believing Eliot was 'dead wrong,' and C.S. Lewis saying the work of Eliot was 'a very great evil.'

[davem]

Originally Posted by Iarwain

I know a lot of people will find it very hard to accept, perhaps because it's so nice to know who the greatest author is and devote your reading efforts toward achieving a full grasp of his writings. Or perhaps because ultimately we are escapists, and Tolkien has provided the alternate world we want. If it's the first, this thread is for you, to let you know that there are yet more delightful books to read. If the latter, don't let me bother you, keep on escaping. I'm pretty sure no one has created a more comprehensive and delightful alternate universe than Tolkien.

Thanks so much for sharing your insights with us. Its good to be told that there are other writers out there who are worth reading (though I suspect anyone over twelve would know that already).

Its also nice that you've told us that, in your opinion, there are 'much better books out there'.

I wish I knew what you want. Do you want us to agree? Or are you looking for an argument?

Actually, I realise there are other great writers. If I turn to my left I can see, besides four shelves full of books by or about Tolkien, a couple of dozen Icelandic Sagas, the Morte d'Arthur, The Mabinogion, The Kalevala, Beowulf, William's Taliesin poems & his study of Dante, Montaigne's Essays, Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, Don Quixote, The King James's Bible & Tyndale's New Testament. One floor up & there are two shelves of poetry, from Shakespeare & Spenser & Ariosto through Blake, Byron, Christina Rosetti, Emily Bronte & Emily Dickinson to David Jones & Wendy cope. On the floor above I have about four bookcases of theology (favouring English & German mystics admittedly), mythology (Norse & Celtic in the main, but Classical & Oriental too) a shelf full of Jung, another of general psychology, some philosophy, about three dozen novels by Philip K Dick, some Robert Anton Wilson, a couple of shelves of history books (again, mainly British, but some classical), & works of writers ranging from Homer, Thucydides & Ovid through the Brontes & George Elliot, Tolstoy & Dostoevsky to Joseph Heller & John Crowley. That doesn't include encylopedias & literary companions.

Those are the ones I can call to mind, without getting up. It doesn't include Lal's collection, which is at least as wide (though favouring more modern poets). I'd say we have a good three thousand plus books in the house, both fiction & non- fiction, & are both widely read, literate individuals. We've also both read just about everything Tolkien ever wrote.

You're wrong about Tolkien, & in my opinion you're being more than a little patronising. Do you really think that those of us who post on this site only consider Tolkien to be a great writer because we haven't read any 'proper' books? Or that the only attraction in his work is the chance to run away with the fairies for a few hours?

[Iarwain]

Haha well, davem, you're much better read than I am. What I'm trying to do is something I wish someone had done for me five years ago. I don't think the fact that there are other really excellent authors is obvious to everyone. I know it wasn't obvious to me. I'm not trying to be patronizing at all. I'm not looking for an argument, or for agreement, I just wanted to make a statement. Obviously there are a lot of people here who don't need to hear this statement, and I beg them not to be offended. I'm not trying to put down the Barrowdowns or make generalizations about the people who post here.