Why Tolkien?

[Aelfwine]

Both Homer and Tolkien wrote, after all, mythologies. And both authors have inspired re-tellers of their tales. There is something about mythologies that inspires readers and listeners to invest the writings with more than simple decoding, something akin to ekstasis or a 'stepping outside' of normal experience. Not every kid had Athena for a Mentor but holey-molely look what happened to one who did!

I agree that Homer and Tolkien wrote within the same general genre; both wrote mythologies, though Homer's work apparently romanticized real life events (or at least some historiams believe). They differ drastically in that Tolkien delineates, more or less clearly, between good and evil while there is no such clear cut distinction in the Iliad. Rather in Homer's works, men were effectively pawns of the whims of the gods who generally were mightily amused and entertained. Comparing LoTR and the Iliad would probably be a great thread. I'm sure we would get at least 3 posts.

I mentioned Homer not to draw any comparisons or contrasts with Middle Earth but rather because he is recognized as the author of a classic (if he in fact existed which is another can of worms). The point being that there are not dozens of discussion boards and hundreds of websites dedicated to dissecting the details of Homer's works while such ether attention does exist for Tolkien. Again this may be in part because most modern readers devour Tolkien for pleasure but read Homer because they are required to in school.

Of course, it may well be that it is the absence of the gritty nastiness of the real/Primary world that makes Tolkien's creation so attractive

I disagree here. Middle Earth is certainly idealised and, perhaps because it is set in a simpler time, is more innocent than the real world (in some ways anyway; the most hardened hood in New York City would not want to run afoul of a Balrog). But many of the current problems found in today's society are found in Middle Earth as well. Thievery and hooliganism (Bill Ferny, the ruffians in the Scouring of the Shire), greed (Smaug, the Dwarves - sorry Kuruharan), cronyism (Saruman, the Shirriffs), unbridled lust for power (Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman), runaway egos (Feanor), depression (Denethor), prejudice (Elves and Dwarves are guilty here), excess (the over-indulgers following Bilbo's Birthday Party), jealosy (Saeros), corruption (Wormtongue), etc. Middle Earth is idealized but it is not idyllic. Otherwise it would be boring (with a tip of the hat to Morthoron) and would not appeal to young readers.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. The simplified version of the question is what drives you to post here? Why do you seek out a community of Middle Earth afficianados?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

Perhaps LoTR provides comfort and a reminder of innocence; a return to childhood. Whatever the reason, re-reading Tolkien is a joyful thing to us. We want to understand it, analyse it and be expert in the lore. This is an echo of the childlike desire for learning.

I seem to recall an old saying, that unless you become like children, you will never find heaven.

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

People want to be part of a Tolkien community, whatever their personal reasons for liking his work may be. Why are we so driven to discuss this author and his works? Why do we want and need a community?

I also seem to recall another saying about what happens when two or three are gathered together.



On the other hand, play and the Internets seem ideally suited. Just look at how cats are so popular on the Nets.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

Middle Earth is certainly idealised and, perhaps because it is set in a simpler time, is more innocent than the real world (in some ways anyway; the most hardened hood in New York City would not want to run afoul of a Balrog). But many of the current problems found in today's society are found in Middle Earth as well. Thievery and hooliganism (Bill Ferny, the ruffians in the Scouring of the Shire), greed (Smaug, the Dwarves - sorry Kuruharan), cronyism (Saruman, the Shirriffs), unbridled lust for power (Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman), runaway egos (Feanor), depression (Denethor), prejudice (Elves and Dwarves are guilty here), excess (the over-indulgers following Bilbo's Birthday Party), jealosy (Saeros), corruption (Wormtongue), etc. Middle Earth is idealized but it is not idyllic. Otherwise it would be boring (with a tip of the hat to Morthoron) and would not appeal to young readers.

Yes - but that's not why we go there - or at least that's not what attracts us in the first place. We go to escape into another world - that world may contain both the virtues & the vice we find in this world, but if that was all we sought we would read contemporary novels, tales about our own world. We go to Middle-earth rather for Elves & Dragons, for mountains & ultimately for a glimpse of the Sea "on the margin of the world"

Actually, as I've pointed up elsewhere (on another forum), that phrase recurs in Tolkien's writings

Voronwë sighed, and spoke then softly as if to himself. "But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside. Of Tuor & his Coming to Gondolin

&

Almost it seemed that the words took shape, and visions of far lands and bright things that he had never yet imagined opened out before him; and the firelit hall became like a golden mist above seas of foam that sighed upon the margins of the world. Many Meetings

& even in the soon to be published Sigurd & Gudrun (I've transcribed this from the Harper Collins promo which TORn linked to a while back

In forges fire
Of flaming wrath
Was heaviest hammer
Hewn & wielded
Thunder & lightening
Thor the mighty
Flung among them
Felled & sundered
In fear then fled they
Foes immortal
From the walls beaten
Watched unceasing
Ringed earth around
With roaring Sea
And mountains of Ice
On the margin of the world Sigurd & Gudrun

And for me that phrase captures the essence of Tolkien's creation - Starlight seen through the branches of trees, the Sea-shore at evening, far off mountains & vast forests. The virtues & vices of the everyday world may impinge, but they are not what attract us to Middle-earth. And I suppose that what draws us here, & to seek out other fans is that we're looking for kindred spirits, for others who desire what we desire. There's a line in the film Shadowlands, something about 'We read to know we're not alone.' - maybe that sums it up.

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien was at home in all three primary elements that make up western culture: Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, and Northern European. The literati idealize the Greek at the expense of the other two. Tolkien subtly weaves in the Middle Eastern and the Greek but his story is primarily about the Northern. He confirms our desire for and respect for our northern heritage, which the literati disrespect.

Interestingly, LotR strikes a chord in Japan too. So it would seem that Tolkien confirms the desire for the primitive heritage of ANY people in which the virtues of courage and so forth are glorified.

[davem]

Philip Pullman
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ew-.5204531.jp

The success of The Lord Of The Rings movies and the Harry Potter franchise – and, to a lesser extent, The Golden Compass with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig – suggests there is a large public appetite for pure escapism. Pullman makes no overt criticism of the JK Rowling books ("When people read Harry Potter presumably they like to escape into the fantasy of an English boarding school with magic things happening," he says. "I don't want to disparage Harry Potter"), but he has little time for Tolkien. "When they read Tolkien, they want to take refuge in Little Englandism, the sense that the hobbits – which are us – are menaced by the nasty people who are somewhere else, but we're jolly brave and we'll fight through. It's a Churchillian vision of fighting on the beaches."

&

But doesn't His Dark Materials play to the same desire for escapism? "Well, it would be escapist if you just go there to have a lovely time," he says. "If you go there and find it's bloody horrible, you've got a terrible deed to do and it's dangerous and frightening, then maybe the real escapism is in the realistic novel that talks about being a publisher in London and having an adulterous affair."

I'd venture to suggest that Pullman is contradicting himeself here - within the space of two paragraphs & that finding "it's bloody horrible, you've got a terrible deed to do and it's dangerous and frightening" is a fair despription of Frodo & Sam in LotR. Hence, the Literati's dislike of Tolkien has nothing to do with 'Northernness' (look at the praise heaped on Heaney's tranlation of Beowulf), or a hatred of courage & sacrifice, or of 'Religion'. Its not even down to a hatred of fantasy (Peake garnered praise for Gormenghast at the same time as Tolkien was being attacked & in many cases it was the same people handing out the brickbats to Tolkien & the Kudos to Peake. Plus, let's not indulge in the fantasy that all the critics hated LotR - many praised it to the skies from its first appearance.

Some people hate it - for many reasons, & many of those who hate it love Northern epics, & tales of courage & sacrifice - they just don't like Tolkien. Of course, some hate it because they can't get past the Hobbits & Elves - but then I've attempted to read plenty of fantasy novels filled with Elves & Dwarves, with courageous, self-sacrifycing heroes & ended up hating them with a passion.

As an aside - out of all those who looked forward to the LotR movies (whether they were please with what they saw or not) how many book lovers wanted to see a movie about "Thievery and hooliganism" , "greed" "cronyism", "unbridled lust for power" ," runaway egos" ,"depression" ,"prejudice" ," excess", "jealousy" "corruption" etc (let alone the supposed 'underlying christianity' of Tolkien's story), & how many went to see the Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Black Riders, the Shire, Minas Tirith, Orthanc & the epic battles at Helm's Deep & the Pelennor?

[Mithadan]

I feel a long post coming on...

It is always interesting and amusing to watch how discussions twist and turn and how a subject morphs into another. Aelfwine's original topic querying why we need or seek out a Tolkien community has changed into something else that is equally worthy of discussion.

To begin with Aelfwine's original topic, while Tolkien might not have imagined such a thing as an internet (and might not approve, at least in some respects), what we do on these boards would have been familiar to him. Our discussions are akin to Socratic method debate and the study groups that were common to schools of his time, with the added joy that the topic is not required learning -- as Aelfwine noted. While I cannot vouch for his approval of the medium, I suspect JRRT would approve of the method (though he might prefer we discuss northern mythology or Beowulf rather than LoTR). I'll return to Aelfwine's topic soon.

The other direction this thread has taken is a variant of "why do you like Middle Earth" with, perhaps, an emphasis upon common or universal reasons for such appreciation. While this has been discussed many times before, this debate has taken some interesting twists. Inzildun says LoTR appeals to him/her as a "traditonalist", as an anglophile and touches his appreciation of Tolkien's linguistic skills. Mithalwen likes the breadth, depth and comfort of his writing. Aelfwine points to believability and consistency. Davem goes textbook on us and parrots Tolkien himself and his discussion of escapism in On Fairy-Stories. There, Tolkien complains of "The rawness and ugliness of modern European life" and suggests many want to fly from "hunger, thirst, poverty, pain, sorrow, injustice, death." Yet Tolkien does not claim that Faerie lacks these things, but rather that they are present in a different form, like "the ogre who possesses a castle hideous as a nightmare." He concedes that fantasies are not all "beautiful or even wholesome, not at any rate the fantasies of fallen Man. And he has stained the elves... with his own stain."

"Faerie is a perilous land" partly because of this Mannish stain. Yet, in the complete absence of the modern shortcomings of Man, "stories that are actually concerned primarily with 'Fairies' [elves]... are ... as a rule not very interesting." Good fantasy provides escape and the consolation of the happy ending, which Tolkien terms "eucatastrophe" without excluding the possibility of sorrow and failure ('dycatastrophe"). The litany of modern evils are not absent in Middle Earth, they are present, made appropriate for the time and setting, and attributed appropriately whether to Man, Orc, Dwarf, Elf or otherwise. We do not read Tolkien for these evils, but rather for the escape, recovery and consolation Tolkien refers to in On Fairy-Stories. However, without these evils, Middle Earth would not be interesting.

Returning to Aelfwine's original question, On Fairy-Stories has something to say about that as well. Tolkien dedicates an entire section of that essay to children. Tolkien seems to agree that age is relevant to one's interest in fantasy, though he suggests that the target audience is or should be adults, not children. This being said, Tolkien notes that children have no particular liking or understanding of fairy-stories more so than adults would. Indeed he emphasizes that fantasy should not be "cut off from full adult art." But he concedes that children are "young and growing, and normally have keen appetites so that fairy-stories as a rule go down well enough" but "only some children, and some adults, have any special taste for them." For fantasies to be "worth reading at all it is worthy to be written for and read by adults. They will, of course, put more in and get more out than children can."

LoTR was written for adults but appeals to younger readers as well. Kids can't get as much out of it as adults, which leads to re-reading at least for those who have a "special taste" for it. This is why we obsess and this is why we seek out a community. Particularly where Tolkien is otherwise a private vice as Aelfwine comments.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

Starting with why we need a Tolkien community...
When I first read LotR, I needed someone to talk about Middle-earth to, someone to discuss Sam's loyalty, or the oddities of Tom Bombadil. No one else I knew had read these books, so I needed people that had common interests as me. People with similar interests flock together essentially.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

So to give a short answer after a long one, Tolkien has breadth and depth and the more you look the more you find.

I've found that I have liked Tolkien the more I read. I loved the Lord of the Rings, but I loved the Silmarillion more so. The Children of Hurin was even better.

I love LotR because it is so descriptive. It feels real, like the characters could've really existed, they are relatible. I feel as if I am in Middle-earth when I read. Such as, when reading Lothlorien, I can actually see it, I'm there. Not many other authors, to me can make me picture things so vividly. I am aware that there are other authors, and I like to read other books, such as those by Agatha Christie, but I always wander back to Tolkien after a while.

Tolkien is enjoyable to all ages, I can read FotR to my eight year old brother, and he thinks Frodo and Sam amusing. He likes it. Some people although, are not interested at all. My father for instance, is in the mind set that reading Tolkien is a waste of time, he just doesn't get into it, but I do. Why? Some people don't like depth, I suppose. I guess that Tolkien has a ring that other authors don't have. There is always more depth, always another agreeable and relatible character.

Tolkien as an author writes poems and songs. He writes funny characters, and solemn characters, and just normal characters just trying to get through life, isn't that what Frodo is? But the most important, to me is that Middle-earth is believable. Something that other fantasy isn't. Also, Tolkien is a lovely thing to discuss to get your mind off of a normal day, and a stressful life.

[Kent2010]

To make an honest statement, I did not first read LOTR to escape from reality. I first read it, because I loved the movies. It may be escapism that led to many people (before the movies) reading LOTR, but that was not my situation and I think to answer why we first read LOTR, escapism does not apply to everyone.

The other reason, is simply because I like reading, I like books and a variety of books. There has been a plentiful of biographies popping out everywhere, some are really interesting, others ehh not so much. Works of non-fiction like Soul by Soul which describe the brutal details of the slave trade, and those involved, some comedy from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, plus some fantasy - like LOTR and Harry Potter. It is not a matter of escape, it's the basic matter that I like to read. Seeing the connections between literature and history, and what do books tell us about social and intellectual history is something I can not get enough of...

The good thing about writing fantasy is you can push the boundaries, and in some ways have the potential to get people to think about real social issues. Afterall talking about Elves prejudices against Dwarves, vice versa, and their bloody, violent past is easier than discussing the relatively "new" past or current acts of genocide. Making it Elves slaying Orcs slaing in the 1,000s diffuses the brutal reality that we, as humans, are all capable of unspeakable acts of bloodshed and violence. But it is difficult to confront the fact that 40 years ago many student protesters, in the U.S and on several campuses were shot, because that "grief is still too near." Even if it is Men committing brutality, it still si not as difficult, because we are reading "fantasy Men."

However, the drawback to this is it makes fantasy difficult to believe or make a connection. The Centaurs are forced to live on this plot of land? So what? Here Non-fiction has a leg up, because it is hard to question the reality, and even though reality can get skewed by myth, it is easier for us to believe these types of books. The problem is the topic might be too painful for people to want to confront.

Like what many have said, LOTR is believable. It is believable for a lot of reasons, which I will not repeat, but I will add another reason I find it believable:

To me, the Middle Earth mythos feels complete; it is comprehensive and consistent (and I know, just as anyone who has perused HoME, that there are inconsistencies and frayed threads).
-Aelfwine

The inconsistancies and the incomplete stories we want to read more about, makes the story all the more believable. I think it is a mistake to think history is a bunch 'unquestionable facts.' There are countless events, wars, battles, movements and etc...that are unquestionable, but how it really was to live through an event can only be known by those who live through it. Or the details of what really took place, can only be told by those who witnessed it. And even with real primary sources, and 'eyewitness' accounts, it is very difficult for anyone (in the present) to definitively say "this is what happened, how it happened, and why.' Because, as humans, when we write something down we make conscious decisions to leave certain details out, maybe fudge the reality a bit, or it most likely is a matter of simply misremembering. As many "facts" about history we have, there are more unanswered questions, more contradictions, and more unknowns and there is a curiosity in trying to find out more.

That is part of the believability of LOTR. I want to read more, I want to find out more, but like history there is only so much. And the unanswered questions...does the Balrog have wings? Who knows? Let's ask Gandalf. However, the true power of LOTR is as Mithalwen pointed out the depth, because as you read more, you find out more. And as members of a forum, you can consider opinions and ideas that never crossed your mind. To sum up this entire post in one sentence (maybe it would have been more convenient for me to just say...): It is an unbreakable constructing cycle: reading, finding out more, but that presents even more questions and wanting to find out even more that makes you want to go back and read again.