“Afraid of dragons”

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Last night on CBC* radio there was a fascinating profile of Ursula K Le Guin. At one point during the program, Le Guin was asked about the rather low regard that fantasy and speculative fiction is given by readers and critics alike. She replied that people “are afraid of dragons.”** She went on to explain that fantasy and spec fic are unpopular, in part, because they are inherently “subversive” (her own word), and that they often make the reader “uncomfortable” with their alternate – and alternative – (re)visions of the world and of humanity.

Le Guin did not really expand upon this point, but in subsequent comments I began to understand that what she finds “subversive” about fantasy is that it is rooted in a vision or version of the world that is “freed” from the everyday. In fantasy, she argued, authors are free to offer up versions of our world in which the comfortable truths that we live in are either suspended or turned on their head. Her central point seemed to be that realist fiction is based on conforming to the accepted, the normative, and the comfortable, whereas fantasy is all about “alternatives” – specifically, she identified “good” fantasy as being about “other ways of being or living.”

Now, I must say here that I’m not so sure that I agree with her characterisation of realist fiction (although I suspect that I was hearing an edited-for-broadcast version of her ideas), but her comments on the essentially subversive nature of fantasy really got me to thinking over Tolkien. Middle-earth, interestingly, never came up in the program, but it seems to me that Tolkien’s works present both an interesting challenge to Le Guin’s theory, and an interesting test of it.

There is a long tradition amongst readers and critics of Tolkien’s works (not to mention on the Downs) of emphasising how conservative Tolkien’s writing is: his portrayal of women, for example, while certainly not sexist, is far from a “subversive” re-vision of women’s roles in society (right?). There are many other examples of a decidedly conservative world view: monarchical rule; rural values; anti-industrial; the list goes on.

But this interview with Le Guin got me to thinking: is there not some way in which Middle-earth is wildly subversive? By positing a world that is so unlike the one we live in, and by valuing that world over our own in many ways, is Tolkien not setting himself up a radical critic of human and social institutions, as they are currently, and challenging us to (re)imagine them in some new form?

There are several examples of quite subversive behaviour and institutions in his works, I think. The Hobbits, for example, live communally without an elaborate state structure and in a state of political anarchy (not chaos, but not ordered by an elaborate state apparatus). He gives nature the power to fight back and destroy technology (the Ents laying waste to Isengard). I even began to see his supposedly conservative models of leadership as being subversive – I mean, what could be more radical than to imagine the Return of the King in the midst of the most democratic century in history? Eru himself could perhaps be seen as subverting a dominant view: in our increasingly materialist society, God is dead. Not in Middle-earth.

Following Le Guin’s argument more closely, I suspect that the most subversive aspect of Middle-earth is its very existence. Tolkien goes against the established norms and the comfortably familiar truisms which state that only in art that reflects this world can we see the human condition fully or adequately reflected. He rather grandly and marvellously rejects that normative truism and set out to explore the nature of human society through and in a world that is decidedly not our own. Rather than relying on the familiar, he turned to something that is radically other and strange – he presents us with a world and a world-view that is truly alternate to our own. It is not our world, and yet it is.

But is it “subversive”? And if so, of what?


* The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

** What LeGuin actually said was that “Americans are afraid of dragons”; she then remembered that she was speaking with a Canadian radio network and added, “Canadians are also afraid of dragons.” She didn’t weigh in on other nationalities.

[davem]

How can I answer this question - not being an American?

Well, it has been said that ‘reality is for people who can’t handle science fiction’ & I suppose one could add that ‘science fiction is for people who can’t handle fantasy’.

Sf is a kind of middle ground between reality & fantasy - Sf writers seem to feel a need to base their stories in the known & provable - well, provable in terms of known scientific theories. If an sf writer has a dragon in his/jher story they would have to ‘explain’ how it could be that a lizard could have fly & breathe fire. The explanation would be necessary if the story was to be sf - if they didn’t have such an explanation it wouldn’t be science fiction.

So, fantasy requires a leap of faith (in the author), & at the least a suspension of disbelief. The fantasy writer says ‘In this story there are dragons - if you cannot accept that, go away. I will not explain how they ‘work’ - how they fly & breathe fire. All I will say is that there are flying, fire breathing dragons in this story.

‘Here be Dragons’ produces two responses in readers (as it did in those who saw the words on old maps). Some will want to avoid such things, others will seek them out. And that’s not a matter of the potential danger involved. Those who would seek out the dragons would, I guess, seek them out even if they knew of the danger - in fact, the danger would be part of the attraction.

Are Americans (& Canadians) afraid of dragons? Are they afraid of monsters? And if they are, would that lead them to avoid them or seek to destroy them? I am afraid of dragons, but I’d love to see one. In fact, I think i’d sacrifice a great deal to see one (perhaps I’d be sacrificing myself).

The dragon is a subtle foe. It is wise & magical. So, are Americans afraid of those things - wisdom & magic? What did Le Guin mean? Afraid of dragons! With all those guns & bombs, & all those computers?

The dragon - raw, uncontrolled (uncontrollable) nature - for what is more natural than a dragon. No, its not just merely natural, its super/hyper/ultra-natural. Why, I bet that all those bullets, & bombs (& computers) would just bounce off a dragon.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

What is being subverted here? What values are being endangered? Will the dragon eat Mom and the Apple pie both?

I suppose there were early maps which showed the Americas as a vast blank space, with nothing but pictures of dragons & the location of El Dorado. But then, why would all those proto-Americans go there if they were afraid of such things?

Or have Americans become too settled, too lacking in the pioneer spirit, too much like hobbits (perhaps ‘an invasion of dragons would do them good’)?

What do dragons (or the idea of them) subvert? The idea that we can make ourselves totally safe? The idea that we can be completely in control? That everything can be regulated & our world made just like the Shire?

The dragon makes us powerless. Just in its presence. Just by the fact that it exists.

Its that fact that makes them so frightening (& so alluring). We are helpless in the face of raw nature - which is why we’re drawn to it, I suppose. Fantasy subverts all the things which separate us from our true selves - our egos, our desire to be in control, to have everything explained (away). It says ‘Here be Dragons. Here be mysteries. Here be things you’ll never understand, never account for, never (really)know. Here, in this place, you’re an ignorant child, not an all wise, all knowing, all controlling ‘grown up’.

In Faerie the fear of Dragons is the beginning of wisdom.

[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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Note: Cross posted with the two excellent posts above so did not have a chance to consider these ideas as well.


Fordim -

Thanks for posting this. It's an intriguing question. And I do think you must look at LotR in terms of the time it was first published to understand the "radical roots" of Tolkien's writing, as they were first perceived. This was not the only thing pulling us to the book, but it was most definitely a factor. I am going to push the envelope hard here in order to make a point....

When I first read Lord of the Rings in the sixties, my friends and I found it to be "wildly subversive" in many ways. You must remember that there was no biography by Carpenter, no published Letters, and very few scholarly treatments. The only thing we had were the initial reviews with people basically split between those who attacked the book and others who defended it. Those who attacked the book often did so on the grounds that it was hopelessly outdated. Some of us thought otherwise. It was the modern world and its materialistic values that were "outdated" and had to go. (In retrospect, I would not make such a sweeping generalization, yet I still think that, at core, the winds of change were needed.)

We had little to go on in terms of who the author was or his beliefs. As such, we had freedom to speculate wildly on what the text was actually saying. (This should please some people from the dreaded C thread.) One of the reasons that I found the book "subversive" was that, like many in sixties America, I was looking and hoping for change. The values and standards of the fifties seemed old and inadequate in so many ways.

Fantasy in general and LotR in particular suggested other ways of living and thinking, some of which could be seen as 'subversive' when viewed in the context of those times. I could acquire similar knowledge by reading history or studying different cultures, but somehow it seemed much more personal and, oddly, more "possible" when I encountered a fully developed world where the ideas could play out. At the time, I did not understand that Tolkien regarded Middle-earth as an earlier, imaginery phase or our own mythic history. Yet I did sense that this fantasy world had some kind of connection with the world in which I lived, if only because of the linking device of the Shire and its anachronisms.

This is what struck me most forcibly in the book: Tolkien's rejection of material possessions as the be-all and end-all of things; his objection to the rule of the machine, his celebration of the earth and its wonders. I got the clear message that we bear some responsibility for nurturing and cherishing the natural world around us. It was a message I wanted to hear because it was so much in tune with other things that I was learning for the first time. Ecology ihad just come into the classroom and there was an enormous political push to try and do something to turn the tide.

Today, we take so much for granted: that there are at least environmental laws on the books to protect land and air, and there is some attempt to enforce these laws. Laws and regulations are never enough, and sometimes they may be overlooked, but we have come a ways from where we were in the mid-sixties. My copy of LotR sat on my dorm bookshelf right next to Rachel Carson. Perhaps, the critic who expressed this feeling best is Patrick Curry whose book Defending Middle Earth came out in the 70s.

How much of this "subversion" was us, and how much was Tolkien? Certainly, we brought our own predilections to the book, but there was and is something there that suggests a radically different way of viewing and treating our natural environment. Today, I realize that some of our criticism was naive and simplistic, yet without that voice being raised, who knows where our world would be today? And Tolkien's picture of the earth hit a note in the hearts of many at that time.

One other comment.... LotR is not an anti-war book, but the author clearly gave a lot of thought to what war is and is not. Overall, Tolkien portrays war as a necessary evil. It is often the only way we have to protect what we hold dear, yet it is a last resort. That message seemed both important and radical in terms of the sixties and what was happening at the time. Additionally, there is the whole question of Frodo's view of war by the final chapter of the book: certainly not a conventional view.

I remember several guys coming to talk in 1969. They were graduating. Some had such low draft number that it was clear they would shortly be in the service and probably sent to Vietnam. (Several friends from high school had already died in Vietnam.) Most of them accepted that and planned to serve, or had figured out some way to get a continued deferral, but one had decided on a different path. He filed as a CO because that was what he believed. (He also belonged to the Society of Friends, which I was attending at the time.)

I very clearly remember this fellow telling us that he was 'like Frodo' at the end of the Third Age: he could not bring himself to take up arms because, in the long run, he did not believe any good would come from it. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his choice, one thing is clear: the book was provoking discussion and thought, and causing some to look at modern society and find it lacking in key respects. It is this possibility of change, the idea that we don't have to be content with what we have now but can consider ways things can be different, that came over strongly in the sixties. And in this possibility, I believe, lies a "subversive" message, much in keeping with what LeGuin says.

P.S. I am not a Christian, but if I was, I think the argument could be made that "true" Christianity is not traditional or conservative in any sense. This may sound trite, but one can argue Christianity has never actually been tried by any society. Perhaps that religious undertone in LotR is precisely what makes the book "radical": suggesting that these characters, acting not out of self interest but something far greater, accomplished what would seem impossible and turned our understanding of man's actions and motivations in modern literature inside out. Not sure about this. It's just a thought.....

[ElanorGamgee]

I’m currently taking a Tolkien literature class of sorts: “Literature, Religion, and Culture.” We’ve had some pretty interesting discussions on the unique nature of Tolkien’s world and have tackled the unpopular status his works have in the eyes of many contemporary literary critics. It’s interesting to compare who Tolkien’s literary contemporaries were: Virginia Woolf, William Faulkner, James Joyce, pioneers of the stream-of-conscious style. Pablo Picasso was at the forefront of the artistic movement. Freud was radically changing the way we think about ourselves. The world of art was forever changed, fragmented and unstructured, and the old traditions were made unpopular.

Tolkien published after World War I, a war that soldiers entered with strong ideals of honor and bravery and left (those who made it out) jaded and disenchanted after stalemates and mass slaughter and onslaughts of nerve gas. Tolkien, too, served in WWI, lost all of his friends in battle, and came down with a serious case of trench fever (which probably saved his life, as it got him away from the frontline)…but he did not lose those ideals. They shine forth boldly in his writing, but his values had been abandoned by his literary contemporaries. His ideals were deemed obsolete, and Tolkien’s works were largely ignored or patronized by the new literary establishment. In this way, I would say that Tolkien, like many other fantasy writers, is very much “subversive.” He and other fantasy writers dare to take ideals of the past, often in medieval or otherwise archaic settings, and present them as an acceptable way of thinking and living. Science fiction is also interesting in this regard: these writers will often carry out the mindset of our times to its logical conclusion, letting apathy toward morality and attacks on the dignity of man become a “Brave New World” or freedom-stifling trends shape the world of 1984. Fantasy looks to the past for renown, and sci-fi mourns its death.

[the phantom]

LOTR is "subversive"?

Fantasy is "subversive"?

Hmm... I'm not so sure.

Child mentioned someone she knew who had a bit of Frodo in them. I also know people who, at times, remind me of characters from Tolkien's world. I can think of several characters that I can identify with. I read and find myself saying "Yep, I probably would've done the same thing" or "I can understand where he's coming from".

I also can, for the most part, picture every area of Middle-Earth when it is described. It's easy because I can always think of someplace I've been that looks like it.

What I'm trying to say is... ME doesn't seem all that other-worldly to me. It's just a slightly different world- a cooler world- our world with some Elves and dragons sprinkled in.

Davem said this-

The fantasy writer says ‘In this story there are dragons - if you cannot accept that, go away. I will not explain how they ‘work’ - how they fly & breathe fire. All I will say is that there are flying, fire breathing dragons in this story.

That's the way it works. I know people who can't stand fantasy and it is because they just cannot accept the type of writer's statement that Davem illustrated. (and I always have a tendancy to look down on these simple, robotic individuals who seem to have such a limited imagination)

But people like you and I have no trouble accepting such statements, so what is so "subversive" from our point of view?

It's subversive to those other people, not me.

I have an easy time accepting ME and identifying with the people and places of ME so it really doesn't seem to be subversive at all (do you follow?).

My guess is that in the statement that people are afraid of dragons, dragons are meant to be a metaphor for subversive elements

Yes, indeed. I believe you were looking at the whole dragon thing a bit too closely, Davem.

Are Americans (& Canadians) afraid of dragons? Are they afraid of monsters?

If they were real, then people would be afraid of them only in the sense that they would not want to be eaten by one. I imagine that most Americans and Canadians would love to see one and might be willing to take a bit of a risk to get a peek at one.

I know I sure would. I'd try to talk with one. Think of Bilbo and Smaug when he told Smaug that he just came to see if he was really everything the stories said he was. That would be the first thing I'd say to a dragon (followed closely with a compliment).

So, are Americans afraid of those things - wisdom & magic?

Of course not, silly, but we are afraid of places where football isn't football.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Elves and Dragons! Cabbages and potatoes are better for me and you.

I wonder, did Tolkien let the Gaffer speak those words for the modern-day world? 'Usefulness' seems to be the key word here, and it is certainly the key to our materialistic society. Does it pay? What use would dragons be? Is there any profit in them? If not, we don't need them - and davem mentioned the inherent danger in something that we cannot control.

Tolkien himself did not write with the idea of profit in mind - he wrote for the beauty and joy of subcreation.

Interestingly, he did write one story which used a dragon very subversively - and it was not set in Middle-earth! Farmer Giles of Ham, who would seem at first to be a very unlikely and prosaic hero, does something quite unconventional - he does not kill the dragon, but makes it his ally. (Shades of Shrek there - a very subversive version of fairytales!) By doing so, Giles overthrows the king and becomes the ruler himself - with no royal lineage, no noble blood, and no experience - just common sense. Now there's a political statement if I ever read one, and it feels very close to the Hobbit society. After all, Tolkien did say of himself that he was something of an anarchist.

If we try to apply that to ourselves, how can we make the dragon our ally instead of killing it as our foe?

An excellent topic, Fordim, and very worthwhile contributions from all - I'm enjoying this discussion!

[Earendilyon]

Great ideas and thoughts on dragons, SF and fantasy!

Fordim said:

There are several examples of quite subversive behaviour and institutions in his works, I think. The Hobbits, for example, live communally without an elaborate state structure and in a state of political anarchy (not chaos, but not ordered by an elaborate state apparatus). He gives nature the power to fight back and destroy technology (the Ents laying waste to Isengard). I even began to see his supposedly conservative models of leadership as being subversive – I mean, what could be more radical than to imagine the Return of the King in the midst of the most democratic century in history? Eru himself could perhaps be seen as subverting a dominant view: in our increasingly materialist society, God is dead. Not in Middle-earth.

I think this nostalgia for the past and this will for certain elements of the past to return can be better be described with the term 'reactionary' than with 'subversive', although wanting the past to return can be rather subversive, of course, if you understand what I mean.
Also, Hobbit society is rather a reactionary idea than a subversive one: it reminds me strongly of the 'golden age' legends of many a political theorist/philosopher. This golden age was (in the view of those theorists) an age when people lived close to nature, in harmony with it and in harmony with eachother, without any form of government.

the phantom said:

I always have a tendancy to look down on these simple, robotic individuals who seem to have such a limited imagination

Actually, my wife is studying at the art academy and has a whole lot more imagination in her than I have, but still, she doesn't like fantasy a bit (not even JRRT ), while I do! Her reaction is 'such things cannot be', while I have this 'suspense of disbelief'.

[Lalwendë]

I also have to add, this is a great discussion.

Tolkien is subversive. As is fantasy in general. It speaks of worlds which are different to our own, it is escapist, it is populated by strange creatures and characters who do all the things which we are not allowed to do. All day, everyday, I hear people questioning things and asking 'is this fit for purpose?', 'does this offer value for money?', 'has this been planned?'. Estelyn says:

'Usefulness' seems to be the key word here, and it is certainly the key to our materialistic society. Does it pay? What use would dragons be? Is there any profit in them? If not, we don't need them - and davem mentioned the inherent danger in something that we cannot control.

This is why dragons are scary, because they symbolise something wild, and something which ostensibly has no usefulness. And to idolise something 'useless' seems to be tantamount to heresy in our day and age! It was a very wise use of symbolism that Ursula Le Guin chose.

Following on from what Child says, I think the environmental factor in Tolkien is still very subversive today - suggest that urban people give up their 4x4s and you almost start a war in the UK. Woodland is usually saved where it proves to be useful - e.g. shielding houses from a road, or where it can be used as a leisure area, rarely just for its own sake. Tolkien shows us a fine example of mankind destroying his own world in the shape of Saruman - as clear an environmental message as you could hope to find.

Also, what Caroreiel picks up on shows that Tolkien is subversive. Our world is driven by materialism and money, while in Tolkien's world, these are very bad things. The Hobbits are a gentle and kind race, they do not rush about, they do not crave power, and those who desire to show off their wealth, like the Sackville-Bagginses, are shown to be against the norm. Men who crave rings of power are corrupted, and even the innocent, Bilbo and Frodo, can be harmed by possession of such powerful 'bling' as we'd call it.

I'd say I can't wait to read more, but as that fine example of a chilled-out environmentalist, Treebeard, says: don't be hasty. And that really is a subversive message for today's society!

[Boromir88]

Interesting topic Fordhim. This sort of reminds me of the comedious Terry Gilliam movie Brazil. Terry Gilliam was the only american actor in the famous Monty Python troupe, he created a movie called Brazil, which is based off of George Orwell's 1984

Brazil, however a comedious movie, you have to be able to laugh at yourself, laugh at society. For that's what the movie does. It mocks our very way of living, and is indeed "subversive" to our current society. It mocks how we have changed our Christmas tradition to a fat jolly man that puts presents under a tree, it mocks hour our society is now filled with constant advertisements. There's all sorts of "technoligical (yes I made that up) inventions." But none of them work, and of course Terry Gilliam being part of the Monty Python troupe gets his cracks at the Government.

Do I think Middle-Earth is indeed "subversive?" It depends upon how you look at things, I think Tolkien is definately trying to get his points off, about certain problems in our society. For example the "industrialization," which Tolkien so fondly disliked. I think Tolkien deals more with morals then with trying to be "subversive." He tries to teach us the importance of friendship, companionship, hope, faith...etc.

As for Saruman a man of industry, a man who creates all sorts of machinery, orcs, rings, trying to become more powerful, Tolkien reinforces the "nature vs. Industrial theme," which was maybe one of the more important themes of the time. The idea that industry only causes death, pain, leads to war, leads to destruction. The Ents step in as the nature force, to combat the "industry." Authors tend to write upon what the "current" world is like, they tend to "follow the crowd," or maybe they will intentionally try to lead into a whole different "literary change." If you get my meaning, in their writing they will either follow the current literary writing, and ideals, or they will purposely do the opposite to try to form a different "literary change." During this time I think we get to see Tolkien write a lot upon the current world he was around, the world of industrial growth, a world of war, a world where women didn't get much say. Do I find it "subversive?" No, and I don't find Brazil "subversive." I think we just got to step back and realize, it's only the truth, it's not "subversive" at all. Brazil, is exactly right in the time we live in with large corporations, constant advertisements, these "new and improved" items that aren't better then the old...etc. I hope that makes sense, and I hope I actually caught the point of this thread .

[turgon]

It seems to me that JRRT's subversiveness lies in the idea of free will.
The ability to defend oneself and friends without question.
The idea of defending honour, friendship, loyalty without the whipmaster to extract "his due" at every decision made.
Is it subversive to long for these things? or is it subversive to long for control by someone like Melkor who would order all to His will.
The phrase "eye of the beholder" comes to mind. yet; what does the enemy in Tolkiens vision represent?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

and that's Green!

Isn’t it interesting that the book that laid the foundation for the fantasy novel, inspiring many authors (including Ursula LeGuin, in whose “Earthsea” books dragons play an important role) and sparking D&D games, contains not a single dragon?! The only ‘dragon’ encounters are both in the Shire - the Green Dragon and Gandalf’s dragon fireworks. Dragons are mentioned, but they are long ago and/or far away, and even those mentions are at the beginning of the story. The farther we get into the stuff of which legends are made, the less we hear about dragons.

I’m fascinated by this connection between the prosaic, everyday Shire and the ‘subversive’ fantasy creature. Though most hobbits did not consciously believe in dragons, the idea/ideal still existed; an Inn, a most important establishment for their society, was named after a dragon. Was there a subconscious longing for the adventurous, disruptive, unpredictable, even dangerous, lurking inside them? Gandalf’s comment on their inner toughness could be taken to indicate something similar.

Tolkien, who considered himself quite hobbit-like, said of himself as a child in his essay “On Fairy-Stories”:

I desired dragons with a profound desire.

The context of that statement is worth quoting more fully:

I never imagined that the dragon was of the same order as the horse. And that was not solely because I saw horses daily, but never even the footprint of a worm. The dragon had the trade-mark Of Faërie written plain on him. In whatever world he had his being it was an Other-world. Fantasy, the making or glimpsing of Other-worlds, was the heart of the desire of Faërie. I desired dragons with a profound desire. Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have them in the neighbourhood, intruding into my relatively safe world, in which it was, for instance, possible to read stories in peace of mind, free from fear. But the world that contained even the imagination of Fàfnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril. The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart. For the heart is hard though the body be soft.

In pondering over the fantastical use of dragons in fantasy, I realized that to me, at least, it is important that the dragon is sentient. A dragon who is huge, dangerous, uncontrollable is only an animal, not much different than a dinosaur – and I don’t consider dinosaurs to be fantasy creatures. [As there is some (sketchy, perhaps, but nonetheless) physical evidence of their existence, they feel (pre-)historical, not mythical, to me.] But a dragon who can think and speak, now that is so scary that I’m glad it’s not real! What could happen if I listened to him? Dragons are often said to enchant if one looks into their eyes or listens to their voice.

Tolkien does write stories with dragons, of course. The Silmarillion, which I have read but do not recall in enough detail to discuss now; The Hobbit, with Smaug; and Farmer Giles of Ham, with Chrysophylax. Those two dragons speak and are cunning in their thinking – worthy rivals for the pluckiest human. But why did the man who "desired dragons" not include any in his greatest work?

[Boromir88]

But why did the man who "desired dragons" not include any in his greatest work?

I think it's due to show the extinction of this race. If we look at some fantasy movies, Dragonheart is the quickest one that comes to mind, there is only a couple dragons. There is also that recent John Rhys-Davies movie (which escapes my mind right now) about hunting a group of dragons who attacked the town. Point is, in a lot of fantasy there are only a couple dragons around, thought of as a race that is hard to multiple, that have been limitted in numbers due to being slain.

When you look at Tolkien's dragons, again there isn't that many, Ancalagon, Glaurung, Smaug, Scatha (I think I'm missing a couple, but oh well). All of them slain. So, why didn't Tolkien add in some dragons here? I would conclude to the decision of the growth of the race of men. We know as men grew some of the ancient races began to decline, Elves, Dwarves, Ents, some of these long, and more "old" then men, all began to decline. Maybe, that's what Tolkien was trying to get with dragons, as the race of men grew, this old, ancient race declined, and now they only remain in tales, stories, inns. Wonder if Tolkien is trying to show us something, when we start growing, or industrializing, we start suffocating, or destroying long ancient races that have been around for millions of years?

The farther we get into the stuff of which legends are made, the less we hear about dragons.

Very true, again the "tales" of dragons begin to fade as we reach the kingdoms of men (Rohan and Gondor). Stories of dragons are told in a society that is fascinated by dragon fireworks, has a "Green Dragon Inn," It's not until the hobbits are back in closing chapters when the hobbits are heading home, in Rivendell, with Bilbo, Smaug is brought up. So there are very few references to Dragons, but none of them are in the chapters that deal with the kingdoms of men, they are only now faint memories in the Shire, and in some ancient places, like Rivendell.

[Lalwendë]

Estelyn makes a good point about the lack of Dragons in LOTR, something I had never considered before. But they aren't quite so far away in the past, after all Bilbo still lives, one who has conversed with one of the mightiest of Dragons; and apparently they were around during the War of the Ring, living beyond the Grey Mountains, a region which the Dwarves had abandoned when the Dragons came in search of gold.

Why did Tolkien not include any Dragons in his story? Perhaps he counted them as potentially too great a foe, considering those formidable enemies that would already have to be faced? Certainly Morgoth made use of Dragons in his wars, but maybe Sauron was too far removed from them, isolated in Mordor? Maybe the Fell Beasts are of a lesser Dragon breed? There were Fire Drakes, Cold Drakes, Dragons who could fly and those who could not, so this is quite possible. There is a whole natural history of miraculous beasts in Middle Earth that is not entirely explained or explored.

I loved the comments from Tolkien on the desire to see a dragon. I wonder how many 'Downers collected dinosaur models as children (I still have these actually - one by the bed to keep the cats away )? Tolkien expresses the fascination with monsters that sometimes never leaves you. Funnily enough, in Harry Potter there is a perfect example of this in Hagrid, who is determined to have a 'pet dragon', no matter what the risks are. Dragons are always presented as potentially lethal creatures, but they have a 'glamour' which attracts us to them.

Dragons in Western myth are often seen as bad luck and associated with the devil; the tale of St George and the Dragon symbolises the triumph of Christianity over evil, which is intriguing considering Tolkien's own beliefs. Perhaps this shows how despite what we believe, the symbol of a dragon is just too powerful and magical to ignore. In heraldry the Dragon is commonly used, and it is the symbolic animal of Wales. With Eastern cultural elements, we see Dragons even more often, as they are lucky in Chinese culture - I think the Dragon is the only mythological creature used in the Chinese horoscope.

Also, following on from Boromir88's comments, I can't think of any examples of popular culture where people set out to save any Dragons - they are usually the enemy, hunted down with weapons, as in Reign of Fire, or portrayed as evil worms, as in (the wonderfully lurid) Lair of the White Worm. And yet we, like Tolkien, so badly want to see them. This paradox is something I couldn't really begin to explain, but I do like it!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

In fantasy, she argued, authors are free to offer up versions of our world in which the comfortable truths that we live in are either suspended or turned on their head. Her central point seemed to be that realist fiction is based on conforming to the accepted, the normative, and the comfortable, whereas fantasy is all about “alternatives” – specifically, she identified “good” fantasy as being about “other ways of being or living.”

I find this interesting, as the appeal for many in fantasy literature is that it is escapist, in that it offers the reader a temporarily release from the uncomfortable truths that govern their daily lives. In one sense, it offers a fresh and exciting alternative to the daily grind of life in the real world which can, at times, seem dull and humdrum in comparison. There are many here who would willingly swap their "real world" life for a life in Middle-earth, as Child's What will you choose? thread testifies.

And fantasy, to a significant degree, also removes the difficulty in assessing moral choices. In Middle-earth, for example, it is fairly easy to assess a particular course of action as "good" or "bad". Now I accept that it's not quite as straightforward as that. The characters of Boromir, Denethor and Eowyn (to my mind, the most fascinating characters in the work) show us that there are moral dilemmas to be faced within Middle-earth. But there is a fairly well drawn line between "good" and "evil". Not so in real life, where most of us face choices in which it is often difficult to perceive the "best" course and we are daily presented with moral dilemmas on a broader society (and world) wide scale.

So, rather than being "subversive" is not fantasy rather "liberating", in the sense that it takes many of the difficult choices away? Or is Le Guin saying that this is precisely why it is "subversive"? That there are many who feel comfortable with these moral dilemmas and cannot accept that there might be a world where moral choices are more clearly defined? Possibly, although (while I accept that Tolkien's works have much to tell us about ways of living) I have difficulty in believing that such a world is possible, and yet I do not find his works uncomfortable or subversive to my way of thinking.

And, even accepting that there may well be those who find "good" fantasy uncomfortable because it challenges their views on life, I nevertheless find Le Guin's comment to be somewhat of an over-generalisation. It cannot explain the attitude of everyone who holds fantasy in low regard. There are no doubt many who, while they would agree with the sentiments expressed in Tolkien's works, do not find the format within which they are expressed to be appealing. People who perhaps find their "subversive" views reflected in alternative styles or media. I do not see fantasy as being the exclusive, or even (for many) the best, medium for showing people alternative, and perhaps better, ways of living.

[Aiwendil]

Estelyn wrote:

But why did the man who "desired dragons" not include any in his greatest work?

This is a very interesting observation.

As you note, Tolkien did of course write stories about dragons. There are five named dragons in his works: Glaurung and Ancalagon in the Silmarillion, Smaug in The Hobbit, Scatha in the appendices to The Lord of the Rings, and Chrysophylax in Farmer Giles of Ham. Of these, Scatha and (to a lesser extent) Ancalagon are lacking in personality, being involved only in tales told with tremendous narrative distance. Chrysophylax is a bit comical - but he is a proper dragon and he does exude the dragon nature, as you might call it.

But Glaurung and Smaug are Tolkien's important dragons, the ones that are closely drawn and caught up in great tales. And both were firmly established characters by 1937. I think that this mundane fact may shoulder a large part of the responsibility for the absence of dragons in LotR - the fact is that LotR is a sequel to The Hobbit, and The Hobbit was a story about a dragon. Think how the fans complain about Lucas's re-use of the Death Star in Return of the Jedi. Tolkien himself noted (in a letter, I believe, though I don't have my copy of the book at hand) that he had not intended a sequel, and so had used up all his best ideas and motifs in The Hobbit and now had to come up with new ones.

Also, I think there is a tendency for a dragon to dominate any story. It would be hard (for someone like Tolkien, anyway) to write a story with a dragon in it that was not about the dragon. Chrysophylax, Smaug, and Glaurung each play a starring role in their respective tales.

I realize that all this is going a bit off topic, but I say it because I do not think it would be particularly advisable to seek some deeper meaning in the absence of dragons in LotR. It's tempting to say, for instance, that the absence of dragons marks LotR as more a work of "pseudo-historical fiction" than of "fantasy". But I think that the fact of the matter is simply that Tolkien had just told a story about dragons, and now he was telling a different one.

Lalwende wrote:

I loved the comments from Tolkien on the desire to see a dragon. I wonder how many 'Downers collected dinosaur models as children

I certainly did. But it's worth noting that there are differences as well as similarities between the fascination with dinosaurs and the fascination with dragons. They seem to spring from the same source, it's true. But fascination with dinosaurs is fascination with real creatures that did in fact once exist; it's ultimately a fascination with science. Fascination with dragons is fascination with a thing fundamentally of human invention and thoroughly fantastic. I say this not with the intent to disparage either, but as one who is and has always been fascinated with both.

I think there is a related distinction, by the way, between science fiction and fantasy. I don't see science fiction as watered down fantasy, or fantasy that doesn't have the guts to admit it's surrealism. Rather, science fiction is like the fascination with dinosaurs - fascination with the extraordinary but real; fantasy is fascination with dragons - pure invention.

I think that if a fascination with dragons is indeed in some way "subversive", then that subversion must consist in the fact that dragons are imaginary. There is a longing, which has its expression in good fantasy, for a thing that does not and has never existed. There is most definitely something subversive in that, if only on a psychological level. For all our lives, each of us is being told to be realistic, to deal with the real, pragmatic world and not with dragons. Society by its very nature must, to some extent, put pressure on each of its members to be attentive to and responsive to the external world (that which is beyond one's control) rather than the internal (where the dragons really are).

On the literary level, this is manifested in the obsession among modern literary critics with literature that deals with reality, that is useful or pragmatic. Fantasy, on the surface anyway, eschews the pragmatic - it even goes so far as to remove itself from the world of "real" concerns altogether. Tolkien was subversive, then, in a literary sense because he wasn't interested in that which the literary establishment was interested in; he did not conform to their obsession with realism.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

How did this thread turn into a discussion of dragons…? Oh, davem’s post, I might have known…

Many wonderful and interesting ideas so far, but I wonder if perhaps we are going about this question from the wrong angle. So far, most of the comments have been about how subversive (or not) the content of M-e may be. The points of SpM and Aiwendil, however, move us into a slightly different direction – the subversive decision to “eschew” reality for fantasy in the first place. Seems to me that Le Guin’s principle point was that fantasy provides a ‘way of seeing’ that is in-and-of-itself subversive insofar as it provides a vantage point from outside the ‘norm’ or the expected. I think there’s a lot of this in davem’s point about dragons as being some kind of untamed or Wild nature – not just in the sense of ‘unclaimed’ or ‘untamed’ nature, but in their raw ability to present Nature as radically other, and alarmingly so. Only in fantasy can we see the natural world as a dragon. Or, rather, only in fantasy is the natural world revealed to be a dragon.

Child raises the interesting example of the environmental emphasis of Tolkien’s work, but to be honest I don’t really see how subversive that aspect may be. Yes, LotR decries the destruction of the natural world, and even lends the natural world agency with which to fight back – but there does not seem to be a radical overturning of our own world’s attitudes. Nature is still there to be used by people – even if benevolent, the hobbits are still farmers. And even though just and preservative, at the end of the War, the Men of Gondor and Rohan set about extending their dominion and drawing lines upon maps to decide who gets what. Even the characterisation of the Ents seems to re-enforce the hierarchy of people over nature, insofar as the only way that Tolkien can imagine nature fighting back is by becoming more person-like (that is, a man-tree is in control of the real-trees).

Where I think I do see a truly subversive characterisation around the trees is in the early narrative in which we learn of the hobbits’ ‘war’ with the Old Forest. In this tale we see the hobbits acting very much as Saruman will later on, albeit on a smaller scale. But still, there remains within the fabric of the story this disconcerting reminder that even in M-e, nature is subordinate to people: or, rather, that nature is made subordinate to people. This has the fact, I think, of rendering the hobbits – who appear, at first, to be almost idealised versions of our better-selves – just as problematic as we are. In this way, I think the book sets up an idealised vision (hobbits are ‘us’ made better) only to bring that idealised vision into radical doubt (no they’re not) which, in turn, subverts our own experience of fantasy. We come to the book thinking that we are going to be given an escapist jaunt into an idealised version of our own world, when in reality we are being presented with a hard-as-nails reflection of our own petty natures.

I realise it sounds as though I’m being hard on the hobbits – I’m not really: I just think that the hobbits reflect upon us in some very hard ways!

[HerenIstarion]

Short commentary (still more I seem to repeat a lot of what’ve already been said, just want to shift a focus a bit):

Fantasy is more ‘childlishly’ maximalist, ‘real life’ literature more ‘grown-uppingly’ merciful. The often made accussation of LoTR being overly ‘black’n’white’ is true in this respect. We tend to be more merciful not for we are merciful, as, say, Second Voice of Leaf by Niggle was, but we know our own guilt and ‘put ourselves into guilty’s place’. If LoTR were written along the pattern of social or pshycological novel, Sauron probably would have been given life imprisonment, with lot of lawyers to back him up, appealing for strike off for his ‘good behavior’ and ‘bringing a lot of good for society’ pressing plates for Aragorn’s royal court carriages etc.

Fantasy does not allow for that – it turns moral law, the one that have been called Natural Law prior to XX century, into imperative which is to be followed at all costs, without peace treaties and truces, sort of ‘ok, I will let you kill a bit here if you let me rape there a little, than we’ll sell some oil together, find profit and call it quits’ agreements which our ‘real’ world is unfortunately famous for.

The essence of [good] fantasy is expressed in Theoden’s words Thus shall I sleep better. Again, in modern social novel the background would be that Theoden is after improving his own health, after remedy for insomnia, but the idea is indeed that following the imperative, being not merely ‘selfless’ but ‘self-sacrificing’, laying down own life is the thing proper, and doing what is right, but not pleasing, is more pleasing than doing pleasing thing which is not right, if you follow my meaning, kind sirs and ladies. And such a thought may be indeed ‘subversive’ for society lulled by psycho-analysts (or, rather, lulling itself) into belief that what is pleasing is right.

Short notice:

Dragons and SF – as always, there is an exeption – a lot of ‘probable’ and ‘improbable’ dragons in Stanislav Lem’s fiction, yeh

[davem]

I've just seen the cover for EA Games new Middle-earth game.

http://www.eagames.com/official/lord...ge/us/home.jsp

It shows various characters, including what looks like a female Elf magic user - she has a little lightning bolt coming from her hand. Apparently its possible to play the Balrog character in the game.

Now, doesn't this 'subvert' Tolkien's work? And if it does, why? Is Tolkien's worldview too reactionary? does it need to be 'modernised' & made acceptable? It seems to me that if Tolkien wasn't 'subversive' there wouldn't be this need to change it so much in order to 'sell' it.

Now, not only does the idea of Elves (male or female) being able to cast lightning bolts go against Tolkien's most basic premises, but playing the role of a Balrog would go against his moral values. I suppose turning his characters into action figures wouldn't have pleased him either, but the point is, all these things are subverting Tolkien, turning his work into a sub D&D fantasy world.

If Tolkien's work isn't subversive, why this need to subvert it?

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/rpg/tlot...ge/review.html

http://www.eagames.com/official/lord...s/features.jsp

[Bêthberry]

Now don't go blaming davem, Fordim. "Dragons" is in your thread title.

This is a wonderful discussion, Everyone. I have been following this with great interest trying to find time to get my post in! Rather than tinker with small parts of what each of you say, I would like simply to offer some general thoughts.

Going back first to Beowulf and his dragon. My understanding of this early poem is that it reflects a culture and society which is very close to destruction. There is little safety and security in this world, and the forces of assault are very threatening. Yet something about the art form provides a way for this terror of the wild, the unknown, the frightening to be contained and controlled. Within the classic form of literature--using Aristotle as an example--the climax of the action was followed by a denouement or resolution. People could experience their fears of difference, of the unknown, and then safely see those fears resolved and contained managably. In a society which lived precariously, social order was an essential value, for it implied security, safety, longevity. Dragons, then, represented forces which were threatening but which could be contained.

Fast forward now to the twentieth century, when social order has become so well constructed and managed, so controlled and contained, that the machine has almost taken over. In this situation, the dragons of fantasy--I would say of Science Fiction as well, for as Fordim shows when he quotes LeQuin, the word favoured by writers now is Speculative Fiction, which does away with the old dichotomy which hampered many writers of fantasy and science fiction-- provide a different kind of emotion effect. (It's just that most book stores haven't got around to listening to the authors yet!)

In this situation, with social control so tight and secure, dragons represent something else. They represent everything "other", everything not of the machine. And often they--read, fantasy--show how the containment and control and security of the machine is false and should be undercut, overthrown, or at least rethought. Thus, fantasy, unlike classic art, does not scare us in order to show us how "all's right with the world" in the end. It shakes us up to suggest that we need to think far more consciously, reflect far more seriously, about the world we live in. Because mankind has so much more control over his environment now than he did a thousand or two thousand years ago, our art needs to make us aware of some truths about that control.

I am of course speaking mainly of Western culture. Most cultures in our world do not know the extent of control which the machine has placed on western culture.

This is, I think, where Tolkien, despite his 'conservatism' can be seen as subversive. His ethos is to fight against the forms of control which The Machine represents; he chooses to offer in its place an idealised view of past society where the individual person and a moral standard (rather than a standard of efficiency or control) succeeds. Yet that vision is not in itself absolute, for he incorporates 'the inevitable defeat' and many reservations over mankind's hubris, a hubris which is can be found as much in the past as in the present, of course. I think Child is right to point out that Tolkien's vision might be 'traditional' but it is one that has never really been tried historically.

After suffering countless interruptions, I really must go and apologise for infelicities and inaccuracies of expression. I have grossly simplified and generalised.