What does the sixpence = ?

[The Saucepan Man]

Interesting that you posted that article by Johann Hari, davem. I recall reading it when it was published in The Independent a year or so ago. Unsurprisingly, it annoyed me immensely and I felt an urge to respond, for example by quoting some of the very intelligent points made on the Tolkien/Racism threads here to rebut what is effectively an accusation of racism. Unfortunately, I didn't get round to doing so. If that indeed was one of the saner responses he received, I wish that I had.

I dislike Johann Hari intensely, not just for that article but for just about every article of his that I have read. I particularly dislike his politics and his espousal of political correctiveness in its worst and most corrosive form. But, to be fair to him, the article does at least indicate that he has read the book (unless he is reciting lines fed to him) and, while (in my view) misguided and, in some places, offensive, he does at least attempt to put a cohesive argument across, based upon what Tolkien actually wrote. I prefer this kind of a critic to one who simply dismisses LotR as childish fantasy nonsense and goes no further. There is at least a chance to engage with him.

Davem, your comment on the postscript suggests that you consider his claim that this was one of the saner responses that he received to be false. You may well be right. He is after all a journalist, and one with an ideology and an agenda to promote, so it would not at all surprise me if he selected it at the expense of some more balanced and intellectual responses. But it would also not surprise me if his claim was actually true.

You see, there is an element amongst those who follow Tolkien that is somewhat crazed. There are those who use what Tolkien wrote to justify their own agendas. We know this from the existence of that abhorrent Stormfront website. And there are others who use his works in support their extremist or fundamentalist ideologies (whether they be religious, political or whatever). These people may be searching in the dark, but they are also searching for something very dark indeed. Something quite different from the shiny sixpence (whatever that may be).

So perhaps we should not dismiss these critics out of hand or ridicule them with cack-handed analogies. At least those who are familiar with Tolkien's works and are able to put forward a coherent critique of them which has at least some foundation in what he wrote, rather than being solely based on prejudice. For is there not a kernel of truth in what Hari, for example, is saying? I do not believe for one moment that Tolkien was a racist and have put forward my own arguments against the intepretation of his writings in this way. But it is undoubtedly the case that his works are unfortunately used by some to justify their own racist agendas.

While it is true (as some have said) that there are many intellectuals who are or were supporters of Tolkien's works, it is a shame that there are not more, or at least more who are high profile. For the responses that Hari received (assuming his claim to be true), would merely have confirmed his own views of, and prejudices against, fans of Tolkien. But, on the basis of my knowledge of those who are members here, they are wildly unrepresentative. And by simply dismissing Hari and those who share his views (and his undoubted intellect) as "wrong" and leaving it at that, we risk brushing under the carpet the more sinister elements of Tolkien fandom that undoubtedly do exist, a minority though they may be (and much as Tolkien would himself, I am sure, have wished to disassociate himself from them).

Ultimately, therefore, it is a shame that Shippey seems unable to engage with such critics other than by simply lampooning them as those foolish people who are searching in the wrong place because that's where the light is. Yes, light can be superficial and searching there may risk missing something deep or profound. But it can also shed light on important things which we could not see before it was there and provide enlightenment. Just as darkness can hide some rather unpleasant things.

I should say that I may be doing Shippey a disservice here. I have not read any of his works and am basing my criticism of him solely on the excerpt which LMP provided. If he has responded more intelligently to Tolkien's critics, in a way which seeks to engage with them and put the alternative arguments in a coherent fashion, rather than simply poking fun at them, then I apologise to him. Or perhaps there are others who have put the pro-Tolkien case more intelligently (in fact, Ray Mears, who put the case for the book in the BBC poll rather engagingly, I thought, springs to mind). But there are certainly many here who are more than capable of doing so.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

For is there not a kernel of truth in what Hari, for example, is saying? I do not believe for one moment that Tolkien was a racist and have put forward my own arguments against the intepretation of his writings in this way. But it is undoubtedly the case that his works are unfortunately used by some to justify their own racist agendas.

But Tolkien can't be held responsible for the way his writings are misused by fanatics - yet that seems to be exactly what Hari is doing. He is so wrong about Tolkien's beliefs, about what LotR is actually about. He says:

Tolkien presents his readers with an absolute enemy who must simply be destroyed: purely evil and incapable of human feeling. Of course, no such war can ever happen; it is a pernicious Tolkienian myth.

Tolkien states the same thing clearly in Letter 78, when he tells CT 'There are no genuine Uruks, creatures made evil by their creator.'

Again:

Ideals of ‘blood’ and its purity are always sloshing around his narrative. For example, the Men of Gondor - "the high men" - are descendants of the Numenorians, the greatest of all warriors. Over the centuries, they have become ‘degraded’ because of breeding with inferior races. When their bloodline is pure, as in Aragorn’s descendants, the strength and power of the original Lords of the West is retained. Alarm bells ringing yet?

misses the point entirely. Tolkien repeatedly shows how the Numenorean's obsession with bloodlines brings them to disaster (cf the Kinstrife). The only significance of Aragorn's blood is that it is the same as that which flowed in the veins of Luthien & Melian - it is divine.

Also:

As the academic Dr Stephen Shapiro explains, "Tolkien was not a Nazi but he was a Nordicist in that his works hark back to England’s original culture before the Norman invasion. The Lord of the Rings makes a claim for a pan-Nordic identity or a paradigm for Great Britain and a lament for the disappearance of these races. This speaks to a long-standing European anxitiety about being swamped by non-Europeans. Tolkein was a real traditionalist in this way."

There was hardly a 'pan-Nordic identity' in the pre-Conquest period. In fact the single event that most contributed to the victory of the Normans over the Anglo-Saxons was the battle King Harold had to fight against the Norsemen at Stamford Bridge. Come to that, the Normans were descendants of Vikings & therefore a 'Nordic' people.

And Tolkien is hardly unique in his regret over the Conquest. English culture was devastated, centuries of suffering for the English, Welsh, Scots & Irish followed.

Finally:

"Sauron’s army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth, including all the despised colours of humanity, and all the lower classes," he explains. "Might they have imagined they were the good guys, with a justifiable greivance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy toppled by invader-alien elves and their Numenorian-colonialist human lackeys? Sauron, champion of the Middle Earthling!"

Is simply wrong. Sauron's army did not include every species & race on Middle Earth (sic). It included Men, Orcs & Trolls. It did not include Elves, Dwarves or Hobbits. Also, it hardly matters what his armies believed - they might well have believed they were 'the good guys with a justifiable greivance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy toppled by invader-alien elves and their Numenorian-colonialist human lackey'. I'm sure members of the SS believed they were the good guys as well. Believing a thing doesn't make it true - a cliche, but also a simple fact beyond Brin's, or Hari's wit.

I don't know if Hari is genuinely outraged by Tolkien, or if he is just trying to be provocative. If its the former he's displaying his ignorance, if its the latter he's just being childish.

What's also bloody annoying is that he probably gets paid 10 times my salary to write this junk

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

You see, there is an element amongst those who follow Tolkien that is somewhat crazed. There are those who use what Tolkien wrote to justify their own agendas. We know this from the existence of that abhorrent Stormfront website. And there are others who use his works in support their extremist or fundamentalist ideologies (whether they be religious, political or whatever). These people may be searching in the dark, but they are also searching for something very dark indeed. Something quite different from the shiny sixpence (whatever that may be).

The thing is that many, if not most, of the cultural products in our world can easily be misinterpreted (whether deliberately or not) and then used to support an agenda. We all know how this has happened with religious texts. But I would say that it is wrong to assume that just because some who interpret in a certain way are proponents of hatred, that it follows that the product is in itself intrinsically wrong. There have been multitudes of Christians who have interpreted the Bible in such a way that their subsequent behaviour has been infused with hatred, but it does not mean that the Bible itself is wrong. It's a familiar argument used by many (not just critics or journalists) - to blame a thing rather than the sociopathic tendencies of those who access it.

However, I do agree that it is important to address those elements within a community who choose to bring down the reputation of the majority. One way of doing this is to not shy away from discussing and addressing questions of whether Tolkien's work has any hidden agendas. Unfortunately there are very few forums like this where serious discussion of that nature can take place, and all that critics see is our lighter side.

I think essentially the problem with so many of these commentators is that they wilfully stereotype people and use sweeping statements, both those who choose to attack Tolkien via the fans and those who take a more textual approach. Of course, stereotyping is a mainstay of journalism, as using a sleight of hand to describe a type of people, a type of reader, takes up many less words and valuable column inches. Had Tolkien been alive today I am quite sure that he would have been more than capable of taking on such journalists, as from his Letters he clearly had an acid tongue and a way with the 'soundbite' himself.

In his article Hari actually betrays himself quite early on by writing: "The success of his dire trilogy obviously cannot be attributed to literary merit." He then goes on without justifying this statement with any kind of analysis of what 'literary merit' may or may not be. The 'obviously' is a nod to the cognoscenti before he plunges into his invective. Thus it is clear almost from the start of the article that he had already decided that Lord of the Rings was bad, and had decided to find some arguments to support his view. He finishes off with another little 'nod': "Yes, it might seem absurd to take Tolkien so seriously", as though he feels assured that the reader agrees with him, which of course, any reader of the Independent would do. After all, Tolkien fans are probably too away with the fairies to ever read a broadsheet newspaper.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But Tolkien can't be held responsible for the way his writings are misused by fanatics - yet that seems to be exactly what Hari is doing.

I agree that Tolkien cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable misuse of his works. But Hari goes further than that. His criticism of Tolkien seems to be, not just that they can be intepreted thus, but that he intended that they be. In my view, he is most certainly wrong in that, although I wonder whether the fact that many have misinterpreted them to reach similar conclusions (those of Hari's ilk and the Stormfront types alike - strange bedfellows indeed) would have given him pause to reconsider some things within the Legendarium.

But it is fair to say (without attributing liability to him) that Tolkien's works can be (and are) interpreted in this way. Which is to the detriment of both Tolkien and those, like us, who derive so much enjoyment and (in many cases) insight from his writings. We are at risk of being tarred with the same brush as the loonies and the white supremacists.

As you have shown, there is abundant material to rebut the points that those such as Hari seek to make, but it seems to me that there are very few people out there doing that. And the point that I was trying to make is that, rather than lampooning such critics (as Shippey does in his allegory) or simply dismissing them as childish or ignorant, surely it is better for those who support and believe in Tolkien's works to challenge them with such material and seek to engage with them in debate, possibly to the mutual benefit of both "sides".

Much as I dislike Hari, he is not utterly inflexible. I recall that a letter by Professor Richard Dawkins in response to an article in The Independent by Hari supporting the Iran war (which Dawkins opposed) prompted a correspondence between them (subsequently published) which was conducted in a most civil manner, was fascinating to read and resulted in accord between them on many issues, their central disagreement notwithstanding. Now, surely that's better than simply dismissing or abusing those with whom we disagree and consider to be wrong in their views?

[davem]

In my view, he is most certainly wrong in that, although I wonder whether the fact that many have misinterpreted them to reach similar conclusions (those of Hari's ilk and the Stormfront types alike - strange bedfellows indeed) would have given him pause to reconsider some things within the Legendarium.

Perhaps - maybe we could do that now, for him? I mean, the Victorians put fig leaves on statues for reasons of propriety. Enid Blyton books & the Biggles stories have been 'updated'. But where do we stop - shall we re-write Pride & Prejudice because that handsome, charming Mr Darcy's money was built on the profits of the slave trade?

After all, its only Art....Why shouldn't an Artist re-write, overpaint, re-model his or her work just to make sure its not misused or misinterpreted by the willful or the ignorant. Except....they'd probably do that with the art in whatever form they found it.

You seem to be implying that Tolkien was writing to a plan, that he was in control of his work to such an extent that he could change it as he wished in order to make it 'safe' from misuse. He couldn't. He wrote 'what really happened'. That's why it moves us, why its 'real'.

I suppose it all comes down to what the books mean to you. If they are merely a 'thumping good read', entertainment, an escape from the daily round, then they can be changed, made 'politically correct'.

On the other hand, if the books mean more than that to you, if they indeed offer a 'glimpse beyond the Circles of the World' then do you want to risk losing that merely to pacify the ignorant (Hari, Greer, et al) & disarm the vicious (Stormfront). Actually, even if the books had been re-written (by Tolkien or 'well-meaning' followers of his) neither of those things would have happened. The ignorant & the Vicious (like the poor) will always be with us - casting your pearls before swine never works.

What we're dealing with in the cases of Hari & Shapiro is the modern face of the 'Anti-racist' movement, where its not enough to merely treat everyone with equality & respect - one has to 'prove one's credentials' by demonstrating one's anti-racism. One must DENOUNCE racism wherever one finds it - & look damn hard till one does find it (even if you have to 'find' it in a place it never actually was). Its our current version of McCarthyism:

Are you now, or have you ever been a racist?

Me sir, no sir - why I was one of the ones who stood up & showed the world what a racist psycho that JRR Tolkien was.....but - that person over there actually likes Tolkien - he must be the racist - let's get him!

We are at risk of being tarred with the same brush as the loonies and the white supremacists.

Only by narrow minded bigots who are looking for scapegoats - & in order to be safe from people like that we'd have to surrender to them, do only what they find acceptable, read only what they tell us, think only & how & when they wish us to.

Look at Hari's final words in that article:

sign me up for Sauron’s army while you’re at it.

(Oh, btw, both Shippey's books on Tolkien are well & cogently argued. He's a wise man & knows what he's talking about)

[littlemanpoet]

A most enjoyable discussion, my fellow BD Deadies.

Originally Posted by SPM

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

Well, not entirely. I think Tolkien did us the service of partially recovering it and presenting it to us in LotR. More on that later. The literati seem not to understand what it is that he found.

SPM, I'll quote from this section by Shippey more later so as to clear up some of the issues you raise. Suffice it to say for now that Shippey had spent eleven pages discussing the vituperative nature of most of the critique regarding Tolkien, trying to arrive at just what it was behind all of the antipathy; the allegory comes at the end, and my sense is that Shippey is "throwing up his hands", after a fashion, after not being able to quite come to the answer he was hoping to find. That said, the questions you raise still deserve answering. Soon.

Squatter, what you say rings true in that what we seem to have here are two paradigms, to ways of thinking about literature, and they seem to be (almost) mutually exclusive. Consider: the literati that openly scorn Tolkien as childish to autistic are by him scorned as not worth reading. He considered anything written after 1600 (I think that's the rough date) to be not worth the effort.

davem & Lalwendë, thanks much for your input; I'm learning from you much that I didn't know by way of background regarding what Shippey was saying.

I'm also grateful for the even-handed points that have been made on how Tolkien's religion (as compared to others such as Pullman) may have a piece in the derision directed toward Tolkien. Nevertheless, I don't think religion is more than a small piece of the puzzle; if it were larger, davem and I would surely be at odds.

I think it has to do with language. Shippey is a philologist, and a self-professed non-Christian (which I read in JRRT:AofC). Anyone who has read Carpenter's biography of Tolkien has learned of the "Lang vs. Lit" battle in Oxford that raged from the late 19th century in to the 1970s, when Lit finally won upon the apparent natural death of Lang, more's the pity. As some of us know, all of Tolkien's fiction is based in Language first. He knew words and their histories and functions far better than anybody else who wrote fiction in the 20th century.

As I've suggested elsewhere on this board, western culture has three fundamental "strains", as it were: Hebrew, Greek, and Germanic. Every single aspect of western culture (until the rise of Eastern influences in the last century) is an admixture of these three ingredients. The critical thing is that the German piece has always been considered inferior and in need of the balances to be had from the Greek and Hebrew, whether that meant sciences or religion. The literati own the Greek science as received cultural doctrine.

So here comes Tolkien, avowedly influenced by Hebrew more than they (a practicing Catholic) and also someone who knows the Greek Classics but has rejected them and 'Lit' in favor of Germanics and 'Lang' (thus professionally incorrect); and he revives the Germanic piece of our heritage by taking its words from the ash heap and cleaning them off and making them shine. So he's committed cultural heresy, as it were, and to the shock and dismay of the cultural orthodox, he has committed disciples numbering in the millions.

He has revealed (not made) that which is supposed to be accepted as inferior, as in fact something beautiful in its own right. And of course westerns who are not too stuck in the "received doctrine" have found what he has revealed as food for our souls, because we are at root Germanic (include Celtic within this).

So there is a religious feel to all of this, but it's not about religion, it's about culture. And the self appointed arbiters of culture are, like the Pharisees and Saducees of the first century, finding their flock leaving the pen. Of course they don't like it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interestingly, just today a friend sent me the link to an article ('The New Yorker') about and including an interview with Philip Pullmann ('His Dark Materials'). He is quite critical of both Lewis and Tolkien; unfortunately, I don't have the time to comment extensively right now, but perhaps the New Yorker article will engender more discussion.

[davem]

Just skimmed the article - thanks Esty

“ ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is fundamentally an infantile work,” he said. “Tolkien is not interested in the way grownup, adult human beings interact with each other. He’s interested in maps and plans and languages and codes.”

the “Rings” series, he declared, is “just fancy spun candy. There’s no substance to it.”

Unfortunately this kind of thing is typical of Pullman - shallow & ignorant. Pullman simply doesn't understand what Tolkien is about, & because he doesn't understand it he dismisses it as infantile & lacking in substance - ironic in a way, because that's exactly how I feel about HDM. LotR is clearly beyond him. Gimli's words to Eomer spring to mind:

"Then Eomer son of Eomund, Third Marshal of Riddermark, let Gimli the Dwarf Gloin's son warn you against foolish words. You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, and only little wit can excuse you."

Still, I suppose it makes him feel important. I give HDM another 5 years. Wait till the movies are out & over with.

[Bergil]

Anyone who accuses Tolkien of idealizing monarchy had best consider what George Washington, John A Macdonald, and so forth would do upon seeing a modern election (throw up, then go make a few rewrites). it's still better then a bad monarchy, but only an idiot or a candidate (most of whom are idiots) wouldn't rather have a good monarchy. A good democracy would of course, be the very best that we know of yet, but let's not dream.

Also, here's another example of "the light and the dark". Playing card games, (fixed deck of 52 cards with fixed values), is "in the light" because they're respetable, but you might find trading card games more fun if you're willing to "go into the dark" and risk being condemned as a nerd.