“Afraid of dragons”

[Carorëiel]

What a fascinating topic. Cool.

My guess is that in the statement that people are afraid of dragons, dragons are meant to be a metaphor for subversive elements, whatever form those subversions may take. If one holds up fantasy and speculative fiction as inherently subversive, dragons work as a representation of what people are afraid of, i.e. anything that is different, or rather anything that is presented as differing from the norm of reality without apologizing for being different. As davem implied, a fantasy story would not explain what a dragon was; it would be assumed that dragons are "normal" and thus need no more explanation than would, say, a dog in a story about reality, such as it is. I think that's what people are afraid of and what is, generally speaking, subversive about fantasy. It's not necessarily any one specific point of social commentary (though it can be) but rather the suggestion that there could be a reality other than our own that is just as "normal" as ours. If dragons can be accepted as normal and without need of explanation, what might be next. Gay marriage? A bit of a leap, I think, but to someone afraid of social change, anything that indicates thinking beyond the defined accepted sphere of what is "good," or "proper," or "moral," or "real," or whatever could be scary.

As far as Tolkien and subversion goes, I'd say Tolkien is subversive in the general way that I've mentioned above. He presents a world that is not, on the surface, in line with the reality one encounters when one walks out his front door. As with other fantasy, by offering another way for things to be without any indication that that alternate reality is weird or strange, he creates the potential of opening the door to questioning our own reality.

But I think Tolkien is subversive in more specific ways, as well. This might sound odd, but I believe that by holding up conservative values, Tolkien was being subversive. In a society becoming increasingly capitalistic, he offered a world where there seems to be no money and where characters value abstractions (like loyalty, friendship, nobility, etc) over things or products. In a time when industrialization was the norm, he presented a world where industry was aligned with evil. (This point, I believe, was also mentioned by davem.) And, in a world increasingly concerned with power, who had it, and how it was spread out, he wrote a story in which the ultimate source of power (the ring) is destroyed rather than used. I think this may be the most subversive idea in Tolkien's work.