'Spun Candy' anyone?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by -davem

I don't see that 'not being at all comfortable with industrial development' makes one a bad person - one could even argue it makes one a good person. I prefer wild countryside to urban sprawl - shoot me.

I don’t think that either Pullman or Moorcock are saying that it does make anyone a “bad” person. They are expressing their opinion about a socio-political approach to life with which they disagree in seeking to explain why they dislike a work which reflects that approach. Personally, I am rather split on this one. Tolkien’s approach to technological development is one of the few points upon which I do fundamentally disagree with him. That said, I do prefer a rural outlook to an urban one and dislike the overcrowded nature of urban areas. I suppose that, while I recognise the value of urbanisation to society, I prefer not to have to experience it myself. In this respect, my tastes have changed markedly since my early 20s, when I positively relished living and working in the city.

Unlike Pullman and Moorcock, however, whatever disagreements I may have with Tolkien on these issues, as reflected in the society which he created, I do not find that these impair my enjoyment of his tales. Partly because I do not expect them to speak directly to my “real life” experiences. And partly because I do not subscribe greatly to Moorcock’s (and, I suspect, Pullman’s) political leanings. Which makes me wonder. Is LotR a fundamentally right wing work (and I am not talking about the extreme right here)? Is it more likely to be appreciated by those with conservative, traditionalist political leanings? Spiritually and socially, Tolkien does come across as rather orthodox but, from his Letters, he seems to be rather politically radical (although his politics seem closer to anti-big state “enlightened Toryism” than anything else).

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It makes me laugh when people who aim to be anti-establishment claim that all those who are against change are automatically 'reactionaries' or even 'proto-Nazis'. Why? Because in the modern world we are all constantly bombarded with 'change' and we are constantly reminded that we are not 'cool' if we do not embrace it, even that we are unemployable if we do not accept it. But all this embracing of 'change' is just being done to encourage us to be forever unhappy and hence to work even harder and buy even more stuff, buy a bigger house in a better area, get a better holiday next year, go somewhere different (even if it destroys the environment), accept a bigger workload when staff are cut, be bored and restless all the time until we die.

Ah, but change is a fundamental aspect of human nature – the urge to strive for something different, something new, something “better”. Tolkien does address this, but not in the way that the likes of Moorcock can appreciate – not in LotR at least. This does make me wonder whether, were either of them to delve more deeply into Tolkien’s writings, they might appreciate what he has to say about Mannish adaptability and flexibility v Elvish immutability and desire to preserve, stifle even. Tolkien is critical of the Elvish approach, yet I think Moorcock and Pullman are right that he displayed a tendency towards this himself. There is a contradiction of sorts here, or does it reflect a perceptive self-awareness (and self-criticism) on Tolkien’s part?

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that what Pullman & Moorcock are complaining about is that Tolkien didn't tell them what to think. He refused to write 'allegory' - what he did set down was his own vision of 'life, the universe & everything', 'seen through enchanted eyes' which is not to say that he wrote 'fairy stories' or produced 'spun candy' in any way. Horror, pain, loss, sacrifice, are all there, along with love, friendship, honour & beauty, but they are mythologised in order to bring out their timeless & universal aspect so that they become applicable to us & our everyday lives (to the extent that we want them to be).

Disagree with the first part. Agree with the second. I do not think that Moorcock and Pullman expect Tolkien (or, indeed, any other author) to tell them what to think. I do think that they expect literature to speak to their real life experiences. They clearly feel that, psychologically, politically and/or socially, Tolkien’s characters are stuck in Middle-earth and have nothing to tell them about the real world. I disagree with them on that and agree with you about the applicability of Tolkien’s writings to our everyday lives.

I nevertheless do think that it is rather unfair to categorise Pullman and Moorcock as rejecting stories for their own sake. What Pullman says in one of those interviews about the importance of the story and his own trilogy almost writing itself sounds very similar to statements made by Tolkien in this regard. I am not sure that they expect a “message” in the sense of an allegory. They are perfectly happy to accept a story for its own sake, provided that they can find applicability in it. And they do not find that applicability in LotR. Fair enough. Not everyone does.

[davem]

It seems to me that both Pullman & Moorcock are criticising LotR for an absence of any 'message'. Pullman's comment that it is 'spun candy' that it is trivial, that it has nothing to say to us implies that he feels it should be saying something. Moorcock seems to feel that what it has to say is either trivial or reactionary. Moorcock seems so desperate for it to say anything that he will impose a meaning on it & then criticise that meaning.

Pullman stated in an interview on BBC radio (hosted by Germaine Greer) that he was 'using fantasy to undermine fantasy'. Greer, with her well known dislike of fantasy was having none of it & adopted a sneering tone all the way through & Pullman went off with his tail between his legs. Whatever. Pullman has also stated that he wishes he could write 'serious' novels but hasn't the ability (interview with Brian Sibley on Radio 4). Pullman clearly feels that fantasy as a genre is for children & inadequate adults & needs a damn good thrashing & putting in its place. Moorcock seems to feel that fantasy is all well & good as a vehicle for his politics & must subvert the status quo if it is to be acceptable. Both want to be accepted by the literati (Moorcock has even gone so far as to re-write the ending of one of his novels - Gloriana - to make it more 'PC' in response to a criticism by Andrea Dworkin: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/fantas...n/gloriana.htm )

Originally Posted by Bb

I go back to a question I asked earlier. Why was Tolkien unable to write stories for the fourth age and later? What inhibited his imagination? Was he merely tired, was it old age? I don't ask this as a criticism, but as a way to understand his writing better. I know people who say they would attend church if their church was a beautiful old gothic style. But what does it say if belief is so completely carved in stone? Is this feeling applicable to Tolkien?

I'm not sure this is all that complicated. The idea for The New Shadow wasnot reallly one that could be taken anywhere. Personally, when I read it, with its villain a young man questioning authority & indulging in 'Orcish' behaviour on the sly, I couldn't help feeling that Tolkien was having a bit of a rant about 'the youth of today'. I don't think there was much potential there. As to why he couldn't write anything about later ages, I suspect he had taken the story to its logical conclusion in the departure of the Elves at the end of LotR. The LKegendarium is the story of the Elves principally. Any sequel would either have had to be greater & more spectacular than LotR (which would have undermined the impact of LotR, made it just one more story in the Legendarium), or it would have been merely another minor tale that went nowhere.

Of course, one could argue that Smith is also set in a later age of M-e...

[The Saucepan Man]

Perhaps we should invite Pullman and/or Moorcock to contribute to this discussion so that they can explain their respective positions, rather than continuing to speculate on the motives and intentions behind the points they make in connection with Tolkien's works and fantasy in general.

[Bêthberry]

Given that the King of Fairie in Smith is a prentice chef who excels at baking fancy cakes, and that the original name of the story was The Great Cake, the eating of which provides an opportunity for a chosen one to enter the realm of fairie unscathed, I suspect that Tolkien would not have looked askance at the 'spun candy' attribution.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Given that the King of Fairie in Smith is a prentice chef who excels at baking fancy cakes, and that the original name of the story was The Great Cake, the eating of which provides an opportunity for a chosen one to enter the realm of fairie unscathed, I suspect that Tolkien would not have looked askance at the 'spun candy' attribution.

Oh, but the sugar icing on the cake was symbolic for making Faery childish and overly sweet - Alf Prentice wasn't enthusiastic about it. And the story's change of name goes hand in hand with Tolkien's change in the focus of the tale. The cake was no longer the "main character" or "hero" of the story! I suspect that Moorcock and Pullman would side more with the inadequate cook, Nokes, than with Alf Prentice, the King of Faery...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

And the story's change of name goes hand in hand with Tolkien's change in the focus of the tale. The cake was no longer the "main character" or "hero" of the story!

Ah, 'spun candy' here belongs to summer ritual, part of carnivals and exhibitions and wild rides, as important to my culture as the old carnival was to European culture (although perhaps the perilous element is missing)--and so it also signifies a special event, a rare time, fleeting--"fairs" in all the special meanings.

However, you have read that intriguing essay in the new edition, Esty, so you will have a more expansive understanding of the story. I am really intrigued by the original idea that the baker/cake was a metaphor for writer/story but grew into a metaphor for the passing of generations, with the ritual celebration.

I wonder, could you verify my source, which suggested that the title was changed (when the story was published in Redbook) to imply a PG. Wodehouse story or a Boy's Own story. Does Flieger mention this at all?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Given that the King of Fairie in Smith is a prentice chef who excels at baking fancy cakes, and that the original name of the story was The Great Cake, the eating of which provides an opportunity for a chosen one to enter the realm of fairie unscathed, I suspect that Tolkien would not have looked askance at the 'spun candy' attribution.

He may enter Faery unscathed, but he certainly doesn't leave it that way. It changes him & those around him & on his final return from Faery he is filled with loss & regret & a knowledge that 'there is no real going back'. Frodo cannot go back to the Shire, Smith cannot go back to Faery, both end bereft.

Smith had lived two lives since he came of age, & intgrated them well enough, though his family & fellow villagers have had to share him with the OtherWorld. In the end, when he is an old man, he is cast out, his passport taken away from him & he is left to share his final years with his family. How much did they miss of his life? What did his wife & children have to sacrifice, knowing that they were excluded from so much that was of central importance to him? How much did he miss of their lives while travelling in Faery, knowing they could never share that aspect of his life? And all the time he knew that he did not belong there, was only a visiting wanderer beneath the trees.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Just a minute here, SpM . If we ask Moorcock and Pullman, surely we must invite Tolkien as well! I enjoy the writings of all three authors, but my personal sympathies are closer to Davem's on this issue.

Is LotR a fundamentally right wing work (and I am not talking about the extreme right here)? Is it more likely to be appreciated by those with conservative, traditionalist political leanings? Spiritually and socially, Tolkien does come across as rather orthodox but, from his Letters, he seems to be rather politically radical (although his politics seem closer to anti-big state “enlightened Toryism” than anything else).

This has always been a fascinating question to me. Years ago, when I first read the books, those who enjoyed the stories tended to be people who could be labelled "leftish", at least by the standards of American culture in the sixties. This was at a time when the environmental movement was just starting up, and many sympathized with Tolkien's "green" views. Perhaps this is in contrast to the situation today, when many Christians read Tolkien and see echoes of their beliefs in his writing. At least some of these readers would probably regard themselves as conservative on many social issues.

Still, we have to be careful with this labelling. The odd thing is that, a work labelled reactionary in one era can be viewed as liberal in another. Even in the same time period, one critic can have a different take than another. Tolkien's "pro-rural, anti-technology" message can be regarded as reactionary. Yet, another critic might argue that Tolkien was one of the earliest authors who challenged readers to consider the implications of man's indifference and/or manipulation of the environment.

[drigel]

The only reason we are hearing from anyone (including those who are critical) with an opinion on the works is because of the massive end result (impact) to the reader. And not just one particular reader. Massive, meaning the incredible size of the swath that it cut through society. The beauty of it was that it wasnt written with this, or any other high-falutin literary end in mind. Yet, such an incredible result.

Now, long after the fact (of creation) comes supporters and detractors, certain that they know how\why, or how not \ why isnt. Would anyone care to opine if the end result didnt exist? Or, perhaps denying it existed in the first place works better for some..? Much like those who would tear down a thing to not only see how the thing works, or others who would tear down a thing to build their own shabby facsimile in defiance or jealousy, or spite.

I would daresay there are few out there like me who have spent a lifetime enjoying the works, and the reason I (we) do isnt the underlying thesis, or the political social message. An ingredient, which, taken out of its context, reveals many defects and flaws. The writing style is stilted and out of date. The narrative of the action is curt. Character development could have been better. Yea ok - but I would submit that any deviations from what we have would lessen the impact of the work for me.

Perhaps it was that JRRT was merely the first to take Faerie seriously. All I know is that what my mind's eye sees is what the author intended, and it's a good thing that he took me seriously. I begin to know Faerie, thanks to JRRT.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Unlike Pullman and Moorcock, however, whatever disagreements I may have with Tolkien on these issues, as reflected in the society which he created, I do not find that these impair my enjoyment of his tales. Partly because I do not expect them to speak directly to my “real life” experiences. And partly because I do not subscribe greatly to Moorcock’s (and, I suspect, Pullman’s) political leanings. Which makes me wonder. Is LotR a fundamentally right wing work (and I am not talking about the extreme right here)? Is it more likely to be appreciated by those with conservative, traditionalist political leanings? Spiritually and socially, Tolkien does come across as rather orthodox but, from his Letters, he seems to be rather politically radical (although his politics seem closer to anti-big state “enlightened Toryism” than anything else).

No, I would not put Tolkien's work on the right hand end of any political scale. But I wouldn't say he was particularly left leaning either. He does deal with political issues such as the environment and corruption/power (both often go hand in hand ), he even tackles feminism to some extent with Eowyn (though admittedly arguable), and racism in the suspicion that Elves and Dwarves have of each other. Of course, there is the slightly anarchistic/Utopian nature of The Shire, and then there are Monarchies and totalitarian states, together with what might be seen as theocracies (like Iran) in the form of Valinor!

Tolkien is not politically unaware, but I firmly believe he is politically ambiguous. It would be wrong to confuse his status as middle class white Catholic male with what he wrote, as the text does not bear out the kind of writing we might expect from that stereotype. The main thing to remember is the incredible subtlety of Tolkien's writing. This is why I react when people claim it for their own 'agenda' - whether political or religious, as his work is far too subtle and ambiguous to shore up any creed, apart perhaps from environmentalism.

Just from reading about the Hobbits, their characteristics, society and the different personalities a lot is revealed. Tolkien is a little Englander - concerned with what surrounds him, with the small but nevertheless important things in life (the welfare of a neighbour - e.g. the Gaffer getting his new smial, young people being led astray e.g. the young Hobbit shirriffs who Sam brings down a peg or two). But like any little Englander he is not ignorant of the Big Issues, war, power, destruction. Little Englander is no insult, far from it! It's an apolitical term, and refers to someone not interested in right or left dogma, but in the issues and what matters.

Maybe this is why people like Pullman and Moorcock don't like Tolkien. He isn't taking a party line of any kind, just going with what is important regardless of any agenda.

And like Child has said, the fact that Tolkien's work appeals to so many diverse people and can be read in so many different ways suggests that there is indeed no agenda there.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Child

Just a minute here, SpM . If we ask Moorcock and Pullman, surely we must invite Tolkien as well!

Ah, but there are surely more than enough people here to speak up on Tolkien's behalf - with a far greater inclination to "take his side" and to take the time to consider carefully the materials available in this regard.

Originally Posted by Child

I enjoy the writings of all three authors, but my personal sympathies are closer to Davem's on this issue.

My sympathies too lie more with Tolkien on these issues. Yet I would rather engage constructively with what the likes of Pullman and Moorcock have to say than simply shout it down. And I do find much of what they do have to say (Pullman in particular) of interest, even if I do not agree with all of it. The parallels betwen what Pullman has to say on the nature of writing and what Tolkien himself said in this regard are, as has been pointed out previously, fascinating.

Originally Posted by drigel

I would daresay there are few out there like me who have spent a lifetime enjoying the works, and the reason I (we) do isnt the underlying thesis, or the political social message.

I would count myself in that category too. While I can see applicability in Tolkien's works, they are to me, first and foremost, entertaining and engaging reads. I do not think, as Pullman and Moorcock appear to, that novels necessarily have to tell us something about our world (on a direct and conscious level at least) in order to have literary merit or value. Funnily enough, though, I enjoyed the works of Pullman and Moorcock in much the same way as I enjoyed Tolkien's works - as entertaining reads. I wonder what they would make of that? They must accept, surely, that many of their readers will approach their works in the same way, particularly as their greatest appeal will be among younger readers.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

He does deal with political issues such as the environment and corruption/power (both often go hand in hand ) ...

Yet not, for Tolkien, inevitably so. In Tolkien's works, power corrupts if employed in the service of evil. But power and authority can be exercised in the service of good, too, as in the case of Aragorn's rule. Manwë's rule is another example. I suspect that Moorcock and Pullman would take a different view, namely that power and authority is almost always a corrupting influence. I find myself rather in agreement with that approach, when considering the "real world", although I do not find Tolkien's treatment of the issue as lacking credibility, in the context of Middle-earth.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It would be wrong to confuse his status as middle class white Catholic male with what he wrote, as the text does not bear out the kind of writing we might expect from that stereotype.

I think that it does, to a degree, including in some of the ways which Moorcock identifies. But I agree that this is not comprehensively the case. Tolkien was a complex character (but aren't most of us?). I take the point made by Child about different values within the text being ascribed differing value over time and between different readers/critics. And I also take the point which both of you make concerning Tolkien's enviromentalist leanings. Both Pullman and Moorcock gloss over those aspects of Tolkien's works with which they might have some sympathy, were they to consider them, and focus on those elements which they find disagreeable. That's understandable, I suppose. Given that the works do not appear to appeal to them on an insitinctive level, it is natural for them to look to why this might be.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Maybe this is why people like Pullman and Moorcock don't like Tolkien. He isn't taking a party line of any kind, just going with what is important regardless of any agenda.

But, as I understand it, on the basis of Tolkien's own statements (as expressed in his Letters) and on many commentators on his works, he did have an agenda of sorts. Not political, maybe, but certainly religious (consciously so in the revision) and, to a degree, social/environmental. That is not to say that he wrote LotR to "preach" or to persuade anyone to his own viewpoint. But, to my mind, his agenda certainly influenced what he wrote. Pullman and Moorcock dislike LotR not because they perceive no agenda but because they see it, at best, as irrelevant and, at worst, as dangerous.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

No, I would not put Tolkien's work on the right hand end of any political scale ... And like Child has said, the fact that Tolkien's work appeals to so many diverse people and can be read in so many different ways suggests that there is indeed no agenda there.

I do not disagree about the diverse appeal of Tolkien's works. But I do wonder why his most vociferous critics (Greer, Hari, Moorcock etc) are those with left-wing leanings. I also wonder why it seems to be the case that those who seek to criticise Tolkien's writings are always so vociferous in doing so. Is it, as has been suggested, a consequence of frustration at their widespread and enduring appeal? Are there any critics of Tolkien who adopt a more reasonable, constructive approach? Based on what I have read, Pullman would appear to be the most reasonable of them all ...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Yet not, for Tolkien, inevitably so. In Tolkien's works, power corrupts if employed in the service of evil. But power and authority can be exercised in the service of good, too, as in the case of Aragorn's rule. Manwë's rule is another example. I suspect that Moorcock and Pullman would take a different view, namely that power and authority is almost always a corrupting influence. I find myself rather in agreement with that approach, when considering the "real world", although I do not find Tolkien's treatment of the issue as lacking credibility, in the context of Middle-earth.

Yes Tolkien gives us some examples (of Men in particular, but its not isolated to them as a race) of figureheads who do not allow thier power to corrupt them. But they are quite pointedly rare, and even with Aragorn we see occasions which demonstrate how easily such a great Man could tip into arrogance. I think Tolkien makes it clear that power can even corrupt a very good man (or elf). Even where power is ostensibly being used for 'good' as in the case of Galadriel and Lothlorien, scratch the surface and there is a nasty side. So I think Tolkien is not that far away from Moorcock and Pullman in this respect, though he will allow that sometimes, just sometimes, a person might come along who isn't like that - Tolkien allows some occasional, fleeting hope.

Originally Posted by SpM

I take the point made by Child about different values within the text being ascribed differing value over time and between different readers/critics.

This, I like to think, is because Tolkien's work goes beyond mere prose in style. It is poetic and visual; the images, characters and ideas he draws can be quite mercurial as opposed to the fixed images we sometimes get from fiction.

Originally Posted by SpM

But, as I understand it, on the basis of Tolkien's own statements (as expressed in his Letters) and on many commentators on his works, he did have an agenda of sorts. Not political, maybe, but certainly religious (consciously so in the revision) and, to a degree, social/environmental. That is not to say that he wrote LotR to "preach" or to persuade anyone to his own viewpoint. But, to my mind, his agenda certainly influenced what he wrote. Pullman and Moorcock dislike LotR not because they perceive no agenda but because they see it, at best, as irrelevant and, at worst, as dangerous.

If Tolkien had any clear religious agenda then it would be more apparent and obvious - I think the fact that people are still arguing over this is proof that his text was not meant to be taken as some kind of religious lesson or allegory. Yes it might be there, I don't think we can deny that his Catholicism influenced much of what he wrote, but it is not there as part of a religious agenda. Tolkien may have gone over his work at a later stage and identified the religious analogies (especially when questioned by letters from readers), but this has to be put into the context of his public image as a Catholic academic. Though I don't want to go opening cans of worms about Religion in LotR - I'll leave it at saying that yes, his religion must have influenced what he wrote, but any 'agenda' was sketchy and indirect at best/worst.

Originally Posted by SpM

I do not disagree about the diverse appeal of Tolkien's works. But I do wonder why his most vociferous critics (Greer, Hari, Moorcock etc) are those with left-wing leanings. I also wonder why it seems to be the case that those who seek to criticise Tolkien's writings are always so vociferous in doing so. Is it, as has been suggested, a consequence of frustration at their widespread and enduring appeal? Are there any critics of Tolkien who adopt a more reasonable, constructive approach? Based on what I have read, Pullman would appear to be the most reasonable of them all ...

Why are they vociferous? Because you'd have to shout loud to be heard over all our fan-worship, over the massive sales and over the lists which have placed Tolkien as 'the best....ever!" Anyway, about those with leftist leanings. Having leftist leanings myself I can honestly say that there is a sector on 'that side' who are terribly earnest and like everything to be as PC as humanly possible; they also like 'challenging' Arts - which sadly often translates into cruddy poetry, unwatchable films and inedible food. However, there is also a significant 'leftist' grouping who are likely to be Tolkien-obsessed - the New Agers, the greenies and not least, the outdoorsy types, those who like nothing better than nearly being killed by high gales halfway up Helvellyn on a weekend.

[Mister Underhill]

I think one reason that the criticisms of Pullman and Moorcock come across as petulant (at least to me) is that it's the work that is the ultimate argument. The way to really "defeat" Tolkien and win your argument over him is to write a book that is so much better (imaginatively, technically, ideologically, or whatever) that it transcends LotR so completely as to reduce it to irrelevance or at least quaintness (in the most dismissive sense of that word). For those guys -- who are at least moderately successful in their own right, but who still live in the shadow of Tolkien -- to write essays bashing him is like Charles Barkley writing essays on why Michael Jordan is overrated. No. If you want to prove that Jordan is overrated, you've got to prove it on the court where it counts. Talk is cheap.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

I think one reason that the criticisms of Pullman and Moorcock come across as petulant (at least to me) is that it's the work that is the ultimate argument. The way to really "defeat" Tolkien and win your argument over him is to write a book that is so much better (technically, ideologically, or whatever) that it transcends LotR so completely as to reduce it to irrelevance or at least quaintness (in the most dismissive sense of that word). For those guys -- who are at least moderately successful in their own right, but who still live in the shadow of Tolkien -- to write essays bashing him is like Charles Barkley writing essays on why Michael Jordan is overrated. No. If you want to prove that Jordan is overrated, you've got to prove it on the court where it counts. Talk is cheap.

You are, of course, right as rain, Mister Underhill. It is the imagination that must be gained.

Yet, SF is one of the most gabbling of genres, perhaps because its status was once so often dismissed. And with the advent of the fan convention, authors can hardly be blamed for becoming engaged in the discussion of the beast. The talk is simply a symptom of the popularity of the genre and the access which fans have to writers. To say nothing of internet discussion forums.

Originally Posted by Lal

Maybe this is why people like Pullman and Moorcock don't like Tolkien. He isn't taking a party line of any kind, just going with what is important regardless of any agenda.

And like Child has said, the fact that Tolkien's work appeals to so many diverse people and can be read in so many different ways suggests that there is indeed no agenda there.

Umm, I don't think it is quite that easy to dismiss an 'agenda' in Tolkien, although I would call it a perspective. Sauce mentions the religious element which came to the fore in Tolkien's imagination as he aged, but the elements which hold LotR together are mythology and linquistics/philology. This is similar to, say, Ursua K. LeGuin's use of an anthropological perspective. For Tolkien, it is an historical world view which permeates his writing, a world view writers like Pullman and Moorcock find intrudes upon their enjoyment of the books.

Originally Posted by davem

It changes him & those around him & on his final return from Faery he is filled with loss & regret & a knowledge that 'there is no real going back'. Frodo cannot go back to the Shire, Smith cannot go back to Faery, both end bereft.

See my previous post in reply to Esty for how spun candy fits with the ritual passing of generations, life, time.

I wonder if it is only the SF authors who use the archetypes of science and technology as the basis of their fantasy who have such difficulties with Tolkien? I've been looking at Le Guin's attitude towards Tolkien, which is not only different from those of Pullman and Moorcock, but more subtle as well.

Here are a couple of links with Le Guin's comments on Tolkien.

NPR discussion of Tolkien, with Le Guin, Shippey et al

Tributes from Le Guin at Green Books

This second one is an amalgamation of her comments in The Language of the Night, which I have at hand and will skim to see what else one can provide.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

I don't think it is quite that easy to dismiss an 'agenda' in Tolkien, although I would call it a perspective.

Perspective is inevitable. But I think Tolkien's perspective is that change is inevitable, yet it is change away from perfection (it is an 'Elvish' perspective as Flieger has pointed out). The implication is that that is a tragic but inevitable situation. Tolkien accepts that change is unavoidable but he doesn't like it. He will not entirely reject the possibility that there is hope, that the future will bring good things, but he won't reject the past as a time of ignorant savagery, or of superstition which we have grown out of & are now free to move on to bigger & better things.

It seems to me that both Moorcock & Pullman do see the past in that light & their message is that the future can be made better than the past, that, in fact there is an 'evolutionary trend' towards things improving – if we can just break free of the past. In this sense, their perspective is 'Mannish' & Tolkien's Elvishness is holding fantasy (& humanity perhaps) back.

I think a conflict is inevitable but I'm not sure Moorcock & Pullman actually understand the true nature of the conflict, that both sides reflect aspects of human state or, most importantly, that Tolkien's work is actually an analysis/exploration of that very conflict within the human psyche.

[HerenIstarion]

that Tolkien's work is actually an analysis/exploration of that very conflict within the human psyche

It seems to me that even in that conflict, ultimate hope of both Elves and Men and even Dwarves is to the future - the making of Last Music and singing in the Last Choir. As seen from the perspective of those placed inside the circles of the world, it is future affair. Incarnation hinted at as an ultimate relief is also future affair for the ME of both Silmarillion and LoTR.

So it seems to me that conflict here lies in a bit different plane - as both P and M believe (mark wording) that the ‘paradise’ is achievable on earth/within solar system/galaxy/whatever trough our own efforts, and even more so - that such a paradise is not only achievable, but inevitable (unless we fail ultimately through folly such as religion in Pullman’s case) as the general trend of the world is evolution from simpler to more complex and from worse to better, and Tolkien believes just the opposite (at least about own efforts. Of course own efforst are of vast importance with Tolkien, but something extra is to be there always - it is joint effort, to put it crudely, that counts). Hence conflict inevitably shifts to become issue of religion (not necessarily organized religion, but in the sense of faith for sure).

Edit: davem, I'm just halfway through the lecture you link to in your signature: (http://www.sofn.org.uk/Conferences/pullman2002.htm). Interesting key-phrase, said in unobtrusive way, almost like a slip of the tongue: Like God, they [characters in any story] are nonreal. Thanks for interesting read, too. But deary me, why can't these people just live and let others live, I can't help thinking - why pull out some kind of yardstick and aggressively compare things at all? 'This is better than that, and that is worse than this' seems to be the motto, but most annoying is an addedum running like '...and therefore you too should like this more than that...'

[davem]

Pullman & Moorcock are clearly 'mannish' in their approach both to fantasy & 'real life'. This leads them, I think, to be blind to the faults inherent in an overly Mannish approach to life. Tolkien can see the faults & the virtues of both approaches. He can see the good in Elvishness – its preservation of what was valuable in the past, but he can also see that that desire to preserve things at all costs effectively puts a halt to change & development & ultimately leads to embalming & stagnation. However for all the 'freedom' inherent in the Mannish approach there is a downside which both Pullman & Moorcock in their idealism of it cannot see. They, rather than Tolkien, take a black & white approach. They fail to see that in breaking away completely from the past we become rootless & have inevitably to view the past in a negative, light, the past is ignorant, savage & superstitious. It becomes for them associated with 'evil' & everything evil is associated with the past. To preserve anything is dangerous, & ultimately restrictive of humanity.