What does the sixpence = ?

[Bergil]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Does it matter what the sixpence is? It's lost anyway.

And is it not rather sensible to search in the light, with a good chance of finding something else equally as valuable if not more so, than to search in the dark with little hope of finding anything?

And, finally, is it not just as reprehensible for Shippey to sneer at those who adhere to modernism as it is for the critics to sneer at Tolkien's use of fantasy?

The man with the pan clearly doesn't get it. Shhippey means (and I agree) that iff you're looking for a twonie you dropped in a completely different place then you dropped it because the light's better there, you let circumstances decide your actions, and pull you away from what you want to be doing (or what you're good at doing). In other words, if you go out and buy whatever CD is being advratised, you're "looking in the light", but that CD is most likely no good, so if you want to find some good music, you'll have to "look in the dark". Shippey is saying that those who apply modernism just because it's the latest thing are idiots, and saying Tolkien didn't write what he thought people wanted to read, he wrote what he wanted to write (I agree with both).

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bergil

Shhippey means (and I agree) that iff you're looking for a twonie you dropped in a completely different place then you dropped it because the light's better there, you let circumstances decide your actions, and pull you away from what you want to be doing (or what you're good at doing).

Which (as Squatter suggested) is precisely where Shippey's analogy breaks down. Because the "modernists" are not looking for the same sixpence that Tolkien is. Nor, indeed, are they looking for a sixpence which they dropped in the darkness earlier. They are looking for something entirely different. And who is to criticise them for looking in the light for it? It might well be there. Shippey is justified in taking offence at the critics' derision of Tolkien's works. But he is entirely unjustified in deriding them for looking elsewhere for what they are interested in.

For my own part, I would rather look in the light for something that I can find and make use of than stumble around in the dark for something that I may never find and, even if I did, would be unable to discern properly.

[littlemanpoet]

What if - just consider it, mind you - what if the sixpence actually represents something that both the literati and Tolkien were looking for?

[davem]

It strikes me that most of the critics Shippey is referring to don't actually know what Tolkien was talking about. They can't get beyond the 'Elves & Dwarves' - which to them are the same as the 'Pixies & Gnomes' of bad children's stories. Hence, because they can't see beneath the surface they assume there are no depths.

Its not so much that they don't like or approve of what Tolkien is saying, - they've simply convinced themselves he's not saying anything. I suspect they're looking in the light because they don't believe the sixpence is genuine - they've convinced themselves its play money, & that even if they found it it wouldn't be worth anything, so why bother?

I've yet to come across one critic of Tolkien who could actually say what he was on about.

Or maybe they're just looking in the light 'cos they're scared of the dark (where the Goblins are......)

Cross-posted with LMP

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What if - just consider it, mind you - what if the sixpence actually represents something that both the literati and Tolkien were looking for?

Why on earth would Tolkien be interested in the literati's dropped sixpence?

Perhaps they were looking for the same thing, albeit with a different understanding of what it actually was, but it is rather presumptious of Shippey (or, at best, purely his subjective opinion) to suppose that Tolkien was looking in the right place whereas the others were not. I tend to think, however, that each party in this (increasingly stretched) allegory was looking for something entirely different. Good luck to them both, I say. Each to their own.

Originally Posted by davem

It strikes me that most of the critics Shippey is referring to don't actually know what Tolkien was talking about. They can't get beyond the 'Elves & Dwarves' - which to them are the same as the 'Pixies & Gnomes' of bad children's stories. Hence, because they can't see beneath the surface they assume there are no depths.

Which itself assumes that there are "depths" there which they would be interested in or which would be of some value to them. For some people there are. But for many others there are not. Let's face it, there is a vast majority of people who are not interested in what Tolkien had (or was trying) to say, or for whom his works hold little in the way of meaning. Some enjoy his works simply as cracking good yarns (which is indeed what I regard them as, first and foremost) and little more. Others are simply find that they do not appeal to them.

Even assuming that there is some hidden "Truth" which Tolkien's works have the capacity to reveal (a proposition with which, as you know, I am at best dubious), there will be people who, through no fault of their own, will simply not be able to perceive that "Truth" (if it exists) via the medium that he provided, although they may find (or think they have found) the means to do so via other media.

Which is a very long-winded way ( ) of saying that, while I deprecate narrow-minded criticism of Tolkien's works grounded solely on the basis that they are "fairy stories" or "boy's own tales", I would not criticise others for looking elsewhere for whatever it is that they are looking for or are interested in.

Through the device of the "sixpence dropped earlier in the darkness", Shippey is resting his entire allegory on the assumption that that is the only place where people should be looking. It is a self-serving (or allegory-serving) device and therefore gives rise to an assumption which I do not consider to be justified.

Originally Posted by davem

I've yet to come across one critic of Tolkien who could actually say what he was on about.

Can anyone, truly?

Or maybe they're just looking in the light 'cos they're scared of the dark (where the Goblins are......)

Or perhaps it's because they can see better and will therefore be better able to understand and make use of whatever it is they find ...

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Or perhaps it's because they can see better and will therefore be better able to understand and make use of whatever it is they find ...

I think what's 'in the light' for those critics is what they have been told is acceptable, politically correct, 'right'. They can't handle anything else. They have been told that there are monsters in the darkness, & not to go there because its 'dangerous'.

I'm tired of critics who dismiss fantasy & SF as something childish & meaningless & who seem to take pride in not liking it, as if that's the 'grown-up' position, & who dismiss those genres as being only fit for children or inadequates. They can only handle fiction which depicts the world they know. They only want their limited worldview confirmed & will accept nothing else. They have no desire to learn anything, only to be told that they already know everything important, everything worth knowing.

The BBC just broadcast a program, 'Balderdash & Piffle' presented by Victoria Coren, in which this 'right-on' lady dismissed Lord of the Rings in pretty contemptuous terms. The purpose of the programme (if one can dignify it to that degree) was to discover the origin of various words/phrases (ie 'gay' for homosexual, or 'pear-shaped' for something going wrong) & get them accepted by the OED, or to find earlier examples of words already included so that the editors could amend the existing entries. Of course she failed to mention that Tolkien was one of the greatest philologists who ever lived & also worked on the OED itself. A few decades back it would quite possibly have been Tolkien himself she would have been striving to persuade!

I don't think these critics have read & understood Tolkien & then gone on to dismiss him - most of them have done neither. One of his most vociferous critics, Germaine Greer, has admitted she has only read the first chapter of LotR, yet every opportunity she gets to say something offensive about him she grabs with both hands.

I don't see why we should be polite about those critics & say they have a right to their opinions. Only an informed opinion is deserving of respect. Uninformed sneering by supposedly educated people deserves only contempt. They aren't interested in discovering something new (looking in the dark), but they'll take anything they already know (looking in the light) however worthless it may be....

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

I think what's 'in the light' for those critics is what they have been told is acceptable, politically correct, 'right'. They can't handle anything else. They have been told that there are monsters in the darkness, & not to go there because its 'dangerous'.

A lot of assumptions there ...

Originally Posted by davem

I'm tired of critics who dismiss fantasy & SF as something childish & meaningless & who seem to take pride in not liking it, as if that's the 'grown-up' position, & who dismiss those genres as being only fit for children or inadequates.

No disagreement from me there. As I said:

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I deprecate narrow-minded criticism of Tolkien's works grounded solely on the basis that they are "fairy stories" or "boy's own tales"

I recall being appalled at the reaction in some quarters to Lord of the Rings coming top of the BBC's Favourite Book poll a year or two back.

Originally Posted by davem

I don't think these critics have read & understood Tolkien & then gone on to dismiss him - most of them have done neither. One of his most vociferous critics, Germaine Greer, has admitted she has only read the first chapter of LotR, yet every opportunity she gets to say something offensive about him she grabs with both hands.

Quite so. One is not qualified to criticise something which one has not even read.

My gripe with Shippey is not that he rails against those who criticised Tolkien's works with little knowledge and/or understanding of them, but that he goes on to ridicule their (different) tastes and interests.

Originally Posted by davem

Uninformed sneering by supposedly educated people deserves only contempt.

I agree. But, based on the excerpt quoted by lmp above, it seems to me that this is precisely the approach that Shippey adopts towards modernism.

Originally Posted by davem

They aren't interested in discovering something new (looking in the dark), but they'll take anything they already know (looking in the light) however worthless it may be....

Assumptions again, based upon the assumption inherent in Shippey's analogy (regarding darkness/light). I am sure that many implicated in Shippey's critique are interested in discovering new things. They are just looking in a different place.

[Lalwendë]

To me this allegory is simply saying that as the searcher is a 'critic', that searcher does not want to be out of the place where the light is currently being focussed, i.e. on modernism. The searcher may personally prefer what is to be found in the darkened area, but he also does not want to be found in that darkened area.

I understand what Shippey is getting at here, though it is not always the case that the light only shines on modernism; if it did only shine on 'modernism' then Shippey himself would not have got very far in his own academic career! However, it does have to be said that the British academic and literary establishment is in general quite hostile to studies of Tolkien and related literature; Leeds University is a notable exception in that it features courses not just on the literature which influenced Tolkien but also on his work in itself.

But, I would not like to shun the 'light' totally just because it rejects Tolkien's work which I enjoy so much; this could be implied in what Shippey says, if we interpret his words as sneering. I do not wish to exclude myself from a whole section of literature just because some (and these are a minority, though seemingly a vocal minority) of those who like it or are critics of it happen to sneer about Tolkien.

I think ultimately it's all about being defensive. The literary critics have a vested interest in keeping up the status of their preferred fiction as so many of them write and publish it, and it is still rare to get a bestseller in that genre; even Booker winners do not always sell well. Likewise, the defenders of 'popular fiction' such as Tolkien have a vested interest as they wish their particular favourite to be seen as 'serious' and worthy of intellectual consideration; I know I do.

[drigel]

light=the PC world of lazy logic
darkness=thinking outside of the "modern literature class" box
sixpence=what Shippey thinks he knows about Tolkien

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by drigel

light=the [PC] world of lazy logic

Then Shippey's analogy is born of the light.