New Republic Article

[Turambar]

There is an article in the current New Republic by an Oford professor, Richard Jenkyns. Ostensibly a review of Tom Shippey's book J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, the article seems primarily concerned with arguing against the notion that Lord of the Rings is the supreme achievement of 20th century literature. Although several of Jenkyns arguments - including the "Eve premise" that there isn't enough sex in the book - seem stupid to me, there's some intelligent criticism in the article also. In any case here is the link Jenkyns article

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Turambar ]

[Mayla Took]

Thats interesting! Thanks for sharing!

[Thingol]

This is a very interesting article with some very valid points. However, many of Mr. Jenkyns criticisms are fundamentally incorrect.

"Tolkien, in sum, was unable to develop his hero. Frodo has learned nothing: he is essentially the same person that he was when the adventure started, except that now he is depressed."

From the change of tone from The Fellowship of the Ring to The Return of the King alone any reader can see that Frodo and the rest of the hobbits have grown as characters. As for the claim that the language and description in The Lord of the Rings is tedious and simplistic, that is just plain wrong. Mr. Jenkyns seems to think that Frodo's character must experience some sort of sexual or metaphysical revelation and reject some form of ingrained conviction that he had previously held in order to have grown as a character. The fact is that such a revelation has no place in Middle Earth. Mr. Jenkyns' problem is that he is arguing from the point of view of a critic of the modern novelist. The Lord of the Ring's is not a Naturalist or Existentialist novel where the main character comes to accept some grand Emersonian oversoul or comes to the realization that there is no God. Tolkien's Middle Earth is not an accurate depiction of the world as it was during Tolkien's time any more than Paradise Lost was a depiction of Milton's world or Don Quixote a depiction of Cervante's world; yet that does not change the fact that these novel's are tremendously important and complex works of art. Frodo's character does grow, but not in the modern sense that Mr. Jenkyns obviously feels that he should. Tolkien is in his own category and such a distinction as the best novel of the century has little significance. Comparing Tolkien’s works with the modern authors that Mr. Jenkyns obviously prefers is as useless as comparing apples to oranges.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Dwarin Thunderhammer]

The man who wrote this article is an a troll. Pure and simple (and that's even an insult to the trolls, who were in comparison wise and intellectual).

His problem is what I believe is the problem of most modern debate. He gives no facts to support his accusations. What I find so refreshing about this forum is that during a debate people usually substantiate their opinions/statements with facts. Troll, (as "it" the "author" of this "article" shall be referred to as from here on) only quotes Tolkien thrice. When he quotes a section about the withywindle he actually complements it's dignity. The other times he attacks Tolkien's "fake" language he scoffs at a line that has remarkable similarities to Shakespeare. For example:

And that is not all that is missing. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic of conservative type, and he was sensitive to the charge that his Middle-earth was religionless. He replied that The Lord of the Rings was "a fundamentally religious and Catholic work." But that does not get around the difficulty: even if it can be shown that The Lord of the Rings is religious as a book--and I doubt whether even this is true in more than the superficial sense that it concerns a struggle of good against evil--the objection is that the people within the story have no religious beliefs or practices, and are thus unlike any real human society. Tolkien always insisted, and rightly, that his work was not an allegory, but the construction of a self-subsistent world with its own history. The trouble is that it is an emotionally impoverished world, in which the blood runs very thin.

Troll makes accusations about the people of middle earth being religonless. From the Silmarillion I believe it is fairly obvious that most of the Elves viewed Illuvitar as their God. This proves that he is uneducated in Tolkien lore, it would help if he actually knew his sources.

I believe this article comes across as fairly atheistic, mostly from the statement about Frodo not coming to the realization that there is no god. Well:

...the objection is that the people within the story have no religious beliefs or practices, and are thus unlike any real human society.

Either this statement proves he is not an atheist or Troll is contradicting his own belief. In any case Troll has never heard of communist Russia.

I hope to post more on this later but alas, my time is run out.

[Thingol]

The argument that the lack of organized religion in The Lord of the Rings is tantamount (thanks for the word Obloquy [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) to The Lord of the Rings being fundementally unreligious or unchristian is preposterous. Mr. Jenkyns should take a look at the 46 post thread trilogy in the bible for references and allusions to the bible in The Lord of the Rings. I believe that the lack of a practiced religion in The Lord of the Rings is a legitimate criticism, (This is after all a criticism about The Lord of the Rings, not the rest of Tolkien's work). However, Middle Earth is not our world and the fact that no religion is practiced does not take away from the story, I feel that it in fact adds to it. The modern sense of going to church every Sunday has no place in the lands of Middle Earth and to criticize Tolkien's works for this lack of practiced religion is illogical and demonstrates the Mr. Jenkyns does not have a very complex understanding of Tolkien's works.

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Kuruharan]

Thingol,
Great analysis! I especially liked what you had to say about the religious element.

Dwarin,
Troll, LOL!!

[Carannillion]

Actually, we don't know if there was any organized religious practice in ME. Assuming that we and "Troll" only look at LotR, how much do we know about the religious practices of Lothlórien? The Elves of Lothlórien are very secretive, something which can actually be interpreted as their society being very religious, on the brink of occultism and/or fanatism (although I do not think that is the case). As stated above, we have now read only LotR. The Elves, being a very good example here, may have a whole other way ofpractising their religion. They are of another race. We do get some hints of them knowing about the gods; passing into the west and so on.

Comparing Tolkien to today's modern writers is, like Thingol so brilliantly put it, like comparing apples to oranges.

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Carannillion ]

[Carannillion]

And besides, it's written by a professor of philology at Oxford, one of the most popular books ever, and so on, and so on. How acn it possibly be a crappy book if it is?

And you know, the article is so one-sided and simple-minded that it makes me want to puke...

I can agree to some critisism of LotR - a little critisism never really hurt anybody - but this guy is simply banging the book in his own head; he is perhaps jealous, or maybe his parents made him eat its pages when he was little? I don't know, I just can't see how he can hack at this literary work as if it was crap?

[The Mirrorball Man]

I'm a little puzzled by some of the posts in this thread.

Richard Jenkyns article was written in reaction to the book "JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century". Claiming that any writer is "the author of the century" is a huge leap of faith, extremely hard to prove and probably too ambitious.

This claim should spawn some heavy criticism; it is only natural, because elevating any writer to the position of "author of the century" is a very fragile theory. Think of all the authors of the 20th century Tolkien should have bested to wear the crown. Critics owe to these writers to at least try and find out if this claim has any validity. In my opinion, Jenkyns did that with tact and sensitivity, and his article doesn't seem particularly biased against Tolkien.

And anyway, if the book's theory is credible, if Tolkien really can be called "the author of the century", then his writings will of course be able to withstand all the criticism that anyone throws at them. Heaven knows that Shakespeare has had to endure far worse than that.

In other words: if you don't want criticism, don't write. No writer is above the judgement of literary critics. Or readers.

[Hama]

He also seems to have a problem with everyone voting LOTR as the best book of the 20th century again and again.

Well, I'd hesitate to call it the best book of the 20th century - I haven't read enough books to say that and I probably never will, but as an expression of popularity it can't be denied.

It's a book that attracts different sorts of people, and, this is key, keeps them returning to it again and again. It's the most re-readable book I've ever read.

The article author seems to be a bit of a literary snob... the gap between we the general public and him is that we see a book in terms of whether it is a good read, while he is looking for literary merit: well, that's his choice. I believe that popularity is a form of literary merit, especially when that popularity keeps the book going years after its creation: he mentions Danielle Steele, but who will remember her in 50 years' time? (apologies if I am out of line here, as I've never read her).

"Goodness me, no women! Can't have that!". I can't help but disagree here. In many ways, the portrait of Eowyn is one of the most sophisticated in the book she has more dimensions than a number of the chief male characters.

Plus he says that postmen and tobacco don't appear in LOTR, which is, alas, wrong. Check your facts dude.

[Mister Underhill]

Should the writings of the critic himself be immune from criticism? I think not. Therefore, be not puzzled by any of the replies in this thread. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

In any case, I myself have never had much use for critics on the whole. Teddy Roosevelt said it more eloquently than I ever could:

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." T.R.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Wow, Mister Underhill, that quote is a worthy companion of Tolkien's writing - great stuff!!

[KayQy]

Well, I pretty much agree with other people's responses, so instead of repeating what's already been said, I'll just slam trolls for a bit. Been needing a place to do that.

My problem with critics is that they're so convinced that they're right. He spends most of his review of one book slamming another, then tries to excuse it at the end by saying that's the only way to refute the ambitious title of the first.

He's entitled to his opinion, of course, everyone is. But I don't agree with his opinion. I don't think I ever will. The very passages and aspects of LotR that he cited as weak are some of my favorite parts of the novel. Doesn't do much for his argument if I'm once again in rapture over the clear vision of the Withywindle and unable to heed its alleged "detractions". And every time he describes the (derogatory) allusions that come to his mind, I can't help but think, "What the heck is he talking about? That has nothing to do with it!"

His most reasonable criticisms are of Shippey, the guy he's supposed to be writing about (mostly against his all-or-nothing stance), but they're hiding amongst trivializing comments about Tolkien. Isn't there a name for the fallacy of saying one thing is bad, so another must be bad as well?

From whatever dull, flat point of view he's taking, J is probably right. Not my point of view. When it comes to critics, people seem to think there's only one point of view, and the critic is either right or wrong. Always. I guess I mainly hate the idea of their supposed superiority.

Dang, I'm out of time and I haven't organized my ranting yet. At least I know never to consult the New Republic to see if I'll like something.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Originally posted by Mister Underhill:
Should the writings of the critic himself be immune from criticism? I think not. Therefore, be not puzzled by any of the replies in this thread. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I'm not puzzled by the people who say that they don't agree with him. I'm puzzled by the people who:

a) Feel that Tolkien (or any other author) is beyond any criticism.
b) Think that literary criticism is not a legitimate way to look at literature.
c) Think that critics necessary have some kind of secret agenda hidden behind their analysis.

I expect people to fight against what they feel is wrong or unfair, not to pretend that the fight should not happen. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Thingol]

I was never defending the opinion that The Lord of the Rings is the best book of the century, Mirrorball Man. I believe that all such distinctions are meaningless, it is impossible to claim that one person’s opinion of a book, or almost anything else for that matter, is any better or worse than another person’s opinion. My point was that Mr. Jenkyns' criticism was fundamentally incorrect. Mr. Jenkyns main criticism of Tolkien was that his story and characters are not believable nor developed enough. My argument is that Tolkien’s themes are just as complex as any other author out there and the fact that his character’s do not grow in the modern sense of the word, does not mean that they are any less extraordinary. The modern sense of a sexual or spiritual enlightenment has no place in Middle Earth. Frodo rejecting the existence of Illuvitar at the end of the book because so much suffering is allowed to occur is simply inappropriate. As for Mr. Jenkyns other criticisms that Tolkien’s language is not complex and that there is too much superfluous imagery, that is just wrong. Tolkien created two of his own languages for Pete’s sake. I have just finished rereading The Siege of Gondor and I have never read any other book that has such beautiful and powerful imagery in it. I’ve read it 7 times now and I still get chills down my spine when the Witch King rides under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Thingol, it was not my intention to attack anybody. If you felt offended, I'm sorry.

[Thingol]

I did not feel attacked and I am not offend, I do not offend easily [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. I agree with you that no author is above criticism, and that literary criticism is often helpful and constructive. The point that I was trying to make was that this particular critic's criticism is flawed. In conclusion, no worries mate. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Carannillion]

Agreed.

I am aware of the fact that the article is a critisism of Shippeys book: "J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the century", but Jenkyns does not seem to be able to restrain himself. All books should be taken into consideration; we will always interpret, and hopefully - to some extent - critisise what we read, but as many before me have mentioned in this post: you should know what you talk about before you open your mouth.

"The fool speaks of what he knows, the wise knows what he speaks of."

Jenkyns (or 'troll', whatever you may prefer [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) insists that the book is flawed when he is in fact ignorant of the actual situation himself (e.g. the tobacco and the postman). I hope he reads LotR at least thrice again, Sil two or three times, Hobbit two or three times, and at least makes himself aquainted with HoME and UT before he ever attempts to critisise Tolkien's works again.

[Carannillion]

And also, Thingol, that's more than two languages, closer to 15 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] (or something like that), it's just that we have as yet not been able to understand all of them...

Did I hear anything about lack of complexity..?
*agreeing with Thingol*

[Mister Underhill]

Glancing back over the thread, I don’t see that anyone has (a) claimed Tolkien’s work to be beyond criticism or completely flawless, or (c) made the claim that critics necessarily have a hidden agenda behind their analysis. Even the most heated replies have disagreed with the critic’s opinion and his tastes, attacked assumptions he has made, and raised the question of whether he has a broader agenda behind what he has written.

Literary criticism (b) is hardly an irrefutable science whose intrinsic merit is beyond question. Critics themselves routinely dismiss popular success as a legitimate measure of a work’s value; I don’t see any reason why popular dismissal of professional literary criticism as a valuable field of study is any less worthwhile an opinion.

Anyway, it shouldn’t be puzzling that fans who visit a board dedicated to the discussion of Tolkien’s works should spring to his defense with strong rebuttals of an analysis that attacks his works with provocative phrases like “emotionally impoverished” and “anemic” and (in a fit of critical rapture, presumably) declares that LotR’s main Hobbit characters and “the rest of Middle-earth, too” have no “balls”.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Originally posted by Mister Underhill:
Anyway, it shouldn’t be puzzling that fans who visit a board dedicated to the discussion of Tolkien’s works should spring to his defense with strong rebuttals of an analysis that attacks his works with provocative phrases like “emotionally impoverished” and “anemic” and (in a fit of critical rapture, presumably) declares that LotR’s main Hobbit characters and “the rest of Middle-earth, too” have no “balls”.

I wasn't expecting anybody to agree with Jenkyns, but I thought that more people here would be willing to see his analysis as a point of view worthy of respect, and would try to contradict his arguments with other arguments.

Instead, what I've seen is (painted in broad strokes for the sake of demonstration): "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, I've been reading Tolkien's works for years and they're the best books I've ever read." This kind of rebuttal isn't written on the same level as Jenkyns' article, and is completely ineffective in proving him wrong. It's just an emotional reaction. Surely, if Tolkien is so popular, there must be a reason? Why not elaborate on that?

For example, I agree with Jenkyns that Tolkien's works are not very convincing as a mythology. In my opinion, the Professor failed to address some important aspects of human life, probably because he wasn't very interested in them. I think, however, that the mythological aspect of Tolkien's books is not the most pertinent, and certainly not the most important, and that this failure is not relevant in the grand scheme of things. Tolkien didn't manage to create a new mythology, but he created a new world, and this achievement in itself is praiseworthy.

[Mister Underhill]

I personally don’t see much in Jenkyns's “analysis” that is worthy of respect. For instance, his principal criterion for qualifying a book as worthy of analysis as an “adult” book seems to be that the work must include meditations upon/revelations about sex and/or religion. I happen to disagree with this assumption. Additionally, just because there are no examples of religious ritual in LotR doesn’t mean that it is devoid of metaphysical content; quite the contrary.

I think he shows that he’s missed the boat by describing LotR as a “work that presents itself as the representation of a whole world”. It isn’t an almanac of Middle-earth – it’s an epic adventure story. I disagree that it’s a major flaw that the book doesn’t elaborate the details of Middle-earth’s religious and sexual practices. This fundamentally wrong assumption obviates a number of his other opinions on what the book supposedly lacks. Interestingly, Jenkyns seems most incensed over Shippey’s unpardonable suggestion (he is “wrong above all”) that it is impertinent for “literary critics... to find fault with [Tolkien’s] prose style.” Maybe that’s why he lays on the condescension extra thick in his “Bored of the Rings” analysis, or maybe he always writes like that, I don’t know. In any case, most of what he’s expressed here is opinion, which can’t be argued against except to offer a differing opinion. You can’t “prove” that Tolkien’s prose is beautiful or that his dialogue is stirring. Besides, his essay seems carefully designed to tweak the noses of Tolkien fans and elicit just the sort of responses that you’ve seen.

I wonder if you could elaborate a bit on your opinion that “Tolkien's works are not very convincing as a mythology”. I think a major reason for LotR’s enduring appeal is that it works so well and is so rich on a mythological plane. His work established the conventions and archetypes (and set the bar, which has yet to be surpassed) for a whole genre of fiction.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[The Mirrorball Man]

Originally posted by Mister Underhill:
his principal criterion for qualifying a book as worthy of analysis as an “adult” book seems to be that the work must include meditations upon/revelations about sex and/or religion.

Not at all. Read it again. What he wrote (and that's the precise point where I agree with him) is:

"Tolkien invented his own mythological world, but it lacks the dignity and the sinew of a real mythology, for it is without religion and essentially without sex."

In Jenkyn's eyes (and in mine), Tolkien's writings are not entirely convincing as a mythology (not as an adult book), because they fail to address fundamental parts of the human experience.

Sexuality and religion are two of these aspects, but there are more. There's not much sensuality in Tolkien's books, for example, apart from some powerful scenes involving nature.
Sure, there's some metaphysical content in the books, but he didn't really deal with faith itself, the relationship between the believer and the deity.
The Professor was fascinated with the corrupting power of evil, but didn't write much about the nature of evil. We just have to assume that Morgoth and Sauron were evil, but we don't know much about what was happening in their heads. In fact they seem to be more dangerous than really evil.

As you said, Tolkien's work established the conventions and archetypes for a whole genre of fiction, and you're right. But that's not what a mythology is about. A mythology should say something about our world, about our experiences, it should deal with the real world. The archetypes of Greek mythology are still used today in psychology or literary criticism. It's not surprising. They are relevant to our world, while Tolkien's achievement is different. He created his own world, with its own rules, and inspired generations of writers. But the universality of Tolkien's work is not mythological in nature, it's the universality of wonder.

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

wait a second-Tolkien didn't deal with "religion" and "faith"????? what about the Silmarillion?

[Eowyn of Ithilien]

Some argued that many are simply expressing an opinion instead of properly debating the topic-and as I can't really get in touch with the author, I'll debate it here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
"In a somewhat disconcerting way, Tolkien seems to have come to live in the world of his own imagining."
To live in a world of his own imagining-surely it could be then discussed that those who follow religious practices are not dwelling in the "real world" either as their faith is person and not "proven"?

"It is odd that the hero of this vast epic should still be a dear little creature with furry feet and the comic name Frodo Baggins"
Much as I hate to say it, but there is no proof that history's heroes have been fair of face in any case-unless one is willing to regard movies as "cannon"

"But finally it is what is left out of The Lord of the Rings that makes one wonder if this is really a book for adults. Tolkien invented his own mythological world, but it lacks the dignity and the sinew of a real mythology, for it is without religion and essentially without sex. Hobbits may have fur at the bottom of their legs, but they have seem to have no balls at the top; and that pretty much goes for the rest of Middle-earth, too."
Without religion-perhaps he should read the Silmarillion. As for sex: does all mythology include somewhat carnal scenes, or simply hint at it as Tolkien's work does?

"...what disturbs is not so much the absence of women, perhaps explicable in an adventure story of this kind, as the absence of desire."
yet afterwards he does object to the lack of women *hmm* and this seems to suggest that men really can be led around by their...well

"the objection is that the people within the story have no religious beliefs or practices, and are thus unlike any real human society."
this is not true. Aragorn is of the house of the Elf-Friends that were rescued from the destruction of Numenor due to their faith, and the Dunedain (who I consider a society) likewise. And honestly, is practice what is most important??? Does going to Church every Sunday prove faith or is it your Christian acts and thoughts that do?

"Tolkien's critics have complained that the moral economy of the work is radically flawed--that there is a confusion between whether the corrupting ring symbolizes sinful desire (the lust for power, or whatever) or should be seen as a magical object that acts upon the wearer as an external force."
Confusion-i.e. a number of different appears-simply means that there was sufficient depth in the Ring for varying interpretations

"There and back again" was all right in a book of more modest scope and ambition, but at the end of so huge an epic it is not enough. But "there and back again" is basically what we get"
people go and come back-life is full of journeys, and at the end of the journey you return home...therefore it is something everyone can understand

"Tolkien is unable to convey anything beyond the fact of a psychic wound--no enlargement or transformation of experience, and no philosophy of grand disillusionment, either"
in fact, Tolkien uses to Saruman to state that Frodo has "grown"; as for disillusionment-with what exactly? Frodo realising that not all wounds can be overcome, that you can't just paint it over and start afresh...he realises that, it's clearly shown. As for disillusionment with life and love-why need he be disillusioned [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

"the sense of dark, sinister, shapeless threat (much less good at representing evil itself)."
we fear most what we cannot define-so why is it suggested that evil must have a face?

I wonder if anyone will actually read all the way through that...I hope I managed to be dispassionate, but my chances...lol

[Kuruharan]

"Tolkien's critics have complained that the moral economy of the work is radically flawed--that there is a confusion between whether the corrupting ring symbolizes sinful desire (the lust for power, or whatever) or should be seen as a magical object that acts upon the wearer as an external force."
Confusion-i.e. a number of different appears-simply means that there was sufficient depth in the Ring for varying interpretations

Well, here's one. I always thought that it was a bit of both. For somebody like Gandalf or Galadriel it is more of a desire for power. For somebody like Frodo or Sam it is more of an external force weighing them down. Although, to a degree, I think that the Ring would have both aspects to any character (like when the Ring was trying to delude Sam outside Cirith Ungol.)

[Turambar]

I think a lot of the criticisms in the article not well founded, and I certainbly don't like Jenkyn's style. (That sentence about furry feet and balls is just stupid. And had anyone heard the word twee before - where'd he get THAT one?) I thought there were a couple valid points in the article though. One was the fact that, as regards Frodo, the Ring seems to be a purely external force, and I believe Jenkyns compares this with more naturalistic novels where evil is shown as affecting (or arising from) the hero's character, or a flaw in his character. It's fine to say that LotR is not a naturalistic novel, but it's legitimate to question whether this makes the book better or worse. Someone pointed out (correctly, I think) in another thread that Frodo really had no real chance of resisting the Ring's power at Sammath Naur, and I think Jenkyns' point is that this detracts from the final confrontation.

The other point, already discussed above - that the novel or the created world is not fully fleshed out because there is no depiction of religion or sex - doesn't make much sense to me. I don't remember any religious practices in The Trial, and I don't remember any sex in Heart of Darkness, etc. etc. - does that mean these novels are inferior?

One final note: I always hate it when a critic takes one or two sentences from a novel (as in Jenkyns' quotation of the Withywindle passage) as a way of showing deficiencies in style. Jenkyns is probably right that an odd sentence or two in LotR is maybe not up to Tolkien's usual high standards (I seem to remember that part of Tolkien's description of Anduril is that "its edge was hard and keen" - no kidding!) but that proves nothing about a book of 1,000 pages. It's a cheap shot basically.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Turambar ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Well *sigh* I tried to read his article, but I found it

anemic, and lacking in fiber.

Seriously though, I do find his arguments supported solely by the device of prefacing his opinions with "we" to elicit assumed agreement. I'm amused by his insistance that sexuality is fundamental to a mythology since literary criticism once railed against sexuality in literation as "crude titilation" or even "depraved." Goes to show literary criticism follows fads. That's why in my mind it has limited ability to assess the value of a work.

But, I think criticism of this sort is a big step up. Looks like the very popularity of the Lord of the Rings has forced some unwilling attention.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

And had anyone heard the word twee before - where'd he get THAT one?)

I'd heard it. It describes something that I particularly loathe and despise: a state of being ingenuously innocent, sweet or lovable. That appearance of china-doll perfection, behind which one longs to see something sinister; some perversion or imperfection, even some sadness that would make the observed thing seem relevant or real. I know I'm not the only one because there are whole sites devoted to dressing Barbie dolls as crack whores, not to mention the world of San Futuro.
I cannot see how any of the above applies to Lord of the Rings. Some of the scenes between Sam and Frodo may seem a little sickly to the modern eye, but that's the fault of a world so cynical and jaded that it either cannot recognise or cannot believe real innocence when it sees it; everything must have a dark secret in the New Reality. I once read that one appeal of LoTR was that no-one could ever find out anything to detract from its heroes' goodness: there's no hypocrisy in them, no secret vices or sins to be found out later and destroy our faith. Some people find this cleansing and liberating, others clearly find it sickening. I know which makes me happy.

My time is short, so I won't go into my opinions of the article, which were pretty ambiguous anyway. At least the 'troll' has the courage to publish his own fiction. This puts him head-and-shoulders above those who merely comment on other peoples' work, whilst tacitly admitting the inferiority of their own by leaving it unpublished.

You know, was just thinking about this article. Making the claim that Tolkien is the author of the century may be a bit hyberbolic. I'm only now reading The Silmarillion for the first time (after having nearly memorized LOTR) and I'm finding myself a little frustrated - a lot of *telling*, but no *showing.* Tolkien is a seriuos author, and he's worthy of serious criticism.

But Jenkyns is awfully hard on Tolkien in order to disprove Shippey, and unfairly so. He's not criticizing Tolkien's work on its own terms, as was mentioned earlier in this thread. He's criticizing LOTR for not being what it's not trying be. Or something like that!

I think he's got it wrong, too, when we dismiss Tolkien's critics. True, critics look down on popularity. Popularity is important but, like Jenkyns says, not everything. Otherwise we'd all be studying Danielle Steele. Shudder. I don't have a problem with critics distrusting popularity - for the most part. Jenkyns has that wrong. I distrust Tolkien critics because most of them are extremely dismissive of the whole fantasy genre - they tend to ghettoize scifi and fantasy as "escapist" - like there's something wrong with that. In this article, Jenkyns reveals himself in subtle and unsubtle ways as another critic who just doesn't get this whole fantasy thing, and why don't those pesky Tolkien fans just grow up and read some Serious Literature?

And he won't really admit that Tolkien *is* serious literature. Maybe Jenkyns is afraid that Tolkien fans are unfamiliar with any other literature, but I don't think that's the case. Tolkien melds our ancient common legends and the modern novel and makes something very distinct in world literature. For many fans, Tolkien's work opens up new worlds and inspires them to go back to the sources that he used, to read more.

Maybe if I work up the energy I'll write a letter to TNR editor...

EG

[Fell Shade]

Just throwing my two cents in.

I thought the criticism was not completely invalid. The writer criticized Tolkein to show how the claim of Tolkein as Author of the century was founded on author worship, as opposed to realistic literary analysis. Tolkein did not include sexual themes in the stories, and its a wonder that anyone other than Aragorn was able to reproduce. To some, Tolkein's language is a barrier.

The only major point I disagree with is the view of Tolkein as an eccentric who lived in his work. I feel this is a failure to perceive the merit in such a course. The creative process is not wholly in the control of the author, and Tolkein studied the process in his middle earth works, and saw the conclusions that the unconscious parts of his works led to, and it was a more rich world, more real seaming than a work intended to quickly trick the reader into believing in a world only long enough to get a point across.

However, I still agree with many of his points, especially the religious ones. The Silmarillion does not prove the existence of a religion that the characters took part in IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS. The Silmarillion shows the history of middle earth in the earlier ages, but in the LOTR, do the characters take part in such worship? Hard to say.

I love Tolkein's works, but I'm not gonna say he was perfect at everything in writing. Who is? At style, I prefer Fitzgerald, and if you could fuse the two authors, I think you'd have the perfect 20th century author, in my mind.

Tolkein was great at what he was great at, but he, like everyone else, had flaws as well. If everyone here is going to shout out his merits, isn't it only fair that others should have free reign to point out his flaws as well?

[Mister Underhill]

TMM wrote:
Not at all. Read it again.

The sentence prior to the one you quoted is: “But finally it is what is left out of The Lord of the Rings (i.e., sex and religion, according to him) that makes one wonder if this is really a book for adults.” That seems clear enough. I suppose themes like faith, friendship, loyalty, and courage are considered naively idealistic in the “New Reality” and suited only for children (or childish adults).

But the universality of Tolkien's work is not mythological in nature, it's the universality of wonder.

I respectfully disagree. Do people read Tolkien over and over again only to enjoy the wonder of Middle-earth (or, as Jenkyns supposes at one point, to study its maps and Middle-earth lore)? There is that, don’t get me wrong, but “wonder” can only sustain you through so many readings. I think LotR resonates on a deeper level than being merely wonderful, and disagree that it has nothing to say about the real world.

I’m a little confused about the expectation of LotR to stand up as a mythology in a comparison to Greek mythology. LotR is a mythic story, not a complete mythology, and the tidbits of the made-up mythology of Middle-earth we get are designed to help create the illusion of a “real” world. To say that LotR fails or is incomplete as a mythology is again to (IMHO) misapprehend the work’s scope and ambition.

Squatter, I note that your sig is particularly relevant to this particular line of conversation. I wonder what fiction you refer to. I searched Jenkyns on Amazon and only came up with five titles, none of them fiction: Three Classical Poets, Virgil’s Experience: Nature and History: Times, Names, and Places, The Victorians and Ancient Greece, The Legacy of Rome: A New Appraisal (editor), and Dignity and Decadence: Victorian Art and the Classical Inheritance.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I wonder what fiction you refer to.

I misunderstood the implications of the title Virgil's Experience. I assumed that it was some sort of historical fiction of the I, Claudius variety. Sorry.

Squatter, I note that your sig is particularly relevant to this particular line of conversation.

I'm very much of the opinion that more and more academic study is being turned towards the goal of creating good little workers, and that subjects that cannot easily be turned to a vocational goal, such as history, philosophy and mythography are increasingly disparaged. Bulfinch caught my mood perfectly: business is not the purpose of existence and some things should be learned because they make one happy, or enhance one's understanding of the human condition, or make one a better person; preferably all of the above. T.H. White was absolutely right: we're not supposed to live like ants.
One thing that really upset me about the criticism offered by Jenkyns was the idea that a book which doesn't have some sort of cynical existentialist epiphany at its climax is not worthy to be considered among the modern classics. I'm fairly sure that he'd disagree strongly if I were to say: "we're all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars" (as you know, astronomy was one of Tolkien's interests). I suspect that Mr. Jenkyns has come to believe that the gutter is all there is, which seems to be what his favoured novels are saying. Truly brilliant literature, in my opinion, reinforces our humanity, rather than deprecating and sneering at it. Certainly we should be shown the worst in humankind, but we should also be shown the best and the indifferent to gain a balanced understanding, and where the world is criticised I would rather see a better alternative offered than a flat denunciation of what is. I also disagree that the loss of faith in God or Man is a sign of growth. As for God, nobody has ever managed to prove or disprove His existence, so coming down on one side or the other is a restriction of the available possibilities. The loss of faith in other people isolates and hardens the heart, which I cannot see as growth, spiritual or otherwise. As for the desire that characters in the novel should give evidence of sensuality: that would spoil the tone of the work, which prefers the higher side of sensual desire, which we call love. Perhaps love without explicit sex seems unrealistic to some, but it's hardly so depressing as a book filled with loveless fornication. If Mr. Jenkyns wants sensuality he will find it spewing from the pens of numerous Mills and Boon hacks and, perhaps, see what Tolkien wanted to avoid. I sincerely doubt that such novels can match the story of Beren and Luthien, or that of Aragorn and Arwen in maturity and spiritual depth, merely in the level of detail.

Having said that, I'm don't believe that Lord of the Rings is the best book of the last century; I also don't believe that such distinctions have any real meaning. How many books were written in the twentieth century? How many of them are so similar in scope or style that they may adequately be compared? How does one weigh The Outsider against The Wind in the Willows or Catch 22 against The Call of Cthulhu? How can one then take just one novel and raise it above others that one may not even have read? I can't even answer when people ask me which is my favourite film/song/novel/play, because it's impossible to rank them and the more I read the more options there are. How then am I to decide which is the objective "best" of a whole century, of which I saw a mere quarter?

I understand Jenkyns' irritation, but he's also blatantly not read the book he criticised for a long time. He should know better than to offer an analysis without first re-reading the material. He should also be able to stick to the point: the chief purpose of a biography is to give us an accurate insight into the life and character of its subject and this is the legitimate province of the reviewer of such a work. Jenkyns makes no attempt to discuss the elements that deal with Tolkien the academic, or Tolkien the man. He concentrates on the rating of Tolkien's literary significance, a significance to which the man himself would have made no claim. I saw no sign that Jenkyns was even interested in the man who gave up his car because he hated what roads were doing to the countryside; the man who never owned a television set or the man who stated that no philologist of English could lay claim to the title who knew no Welsh. Altogether a failure that disappoints, coming as it does from an Oxford fellow, although what can one expect from a man who borrows his titles from the Harvard Lampoon?

[The Mirrorball Man]

Originally posted by Mister Underhill:
“wonder” can only sustain you through so many readings.

It's my turn to respectfully disagree. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Tolkien created a world, complete with languages, a complex history, traditions and geography. Middle-earth is infinite, it's only limited by the reader's imagination. Basically, it's even bigger in its scope than what Tolkien intended. It's probably the most well-crafted imaginary world ever created, and honestly I don't think there's any limit to the wonder it can evoke in us.

I think LotR resonates on a deeper level than being merely wonderful, and disagree that it has nothing to say about the real world.

I didn't say that it has nothing to say about the real world (or if I did, I was wrong [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]). What I do think, is that despite its complexity, it fails to address some major facets of existence, such as sexuality and sensuality, transcendental faith and the nature of evil, among others.

It doesn't mean that The Lord of the Rings doesn't deal with important, universal themes that might strike a chord in any of us. It just means that there are other fundamental themes that are not developped, no matter how hard you look at the text. And since Tolkien's work is loaded with an uncomparable symbolic magnitude, the absence of these themes is all the more obvious and unfortunate.

And it has nothing to do with "New Reality" (whatever that may be), faith and sexuality are universal, timeless themes that can be dealt with in millions of different ways, whatever the current paradigm might be.

I’m a little confused about the expectation of LotR to stand up as a mythology in a comparison to Greek mythology. LotR is a mythic story, not a complete mythology, and the tidbits of the made-up mythology of Middle-earth we get are designed to help create the illusion of a “real” world. To say that LotR fails or is incomplete as a mythology is again to (IMHO) misapprehend the work’s scope and ambition.

Honestly I don't think that's how literary criticism works, and I don't think that's how it should work.

Tolkien himself declared that one of his goals was to create "a mythology for England", therefore analyzing his work with this perspective in mind is perfectly legitimate. When any author tells the reader about his literary ambitions, the logical critical question is always: "did s/he succeed?". In our case, Tolkien wanted (among many other things) to create an English mythology, so we should ask ourselves, did he succeed? Is his work successful as a mythology?

The fact that Lord of the Rings happens to be other things besides a mythological text is irrelevant. It is still possible to focus exclusively on this particular aspect of the book, and doing so doesn't lead to a missaprehension of the work's scope, not any more than concentrating exclusively on Shakespeare's comedies would be an insult against the Bard's skills as a poet and tragedian.

Shakespeare did write comedies. Are they any good? He included comedic scenes in his more serious plays. Was he successful? Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for England. Did he manage to do that?

[Mister Underhill]

Everyone has done a fairly exhaustive job of explaining their point of view. Perhaps the discussion has risen to meet your expectations, TMM? I agree with all you’ve said about the infinite wonder of Tolkien’s creation, though I might perhaps disagree that it is larger in scope than even he intended. He was a rather ambitious chap after all.

I agree with the Squatter’s very articulate comments on virtually every point. I’ll add, to clear up any possible misunderstanding, that I’m not defending Shippey’s “Author of the Century” claim. I agree wholeheartedly that such distinctions have little meaning. Nevertheless, I think it’s equally silly for Jenkyns to focus on the subtitle of Shippey’s book as some sort of challenge, then respond by bashing Tolkien and labeling him king of the swords-and-sorcery ghetto. Why not simply say that such a claim for any author is at best hyperbole and move on to a review of Shippey’s book, which the article is ostensibly about? Maybe because it’s easier to gain attention by slamming a well-loved author with legions of loyal fans. Whatever shortcomings you may think Tolkien has, he has earned his place among the giants of 20th Century literature.

Re: mythology. Let’s play fair now. Tolkien aspired to create a mythology with his body of work, not with LotR alone. LotR and The Hobbit are the books Jenkyns is criticizing, and I think anyone would agree that neither is intended, on its own or combined with the other, to accomplish that goal. Did Tolkien fail in his task even if we include the sprawling corpus that includes his unfinished Silmarillion? It’s a high goal – one might say an impossible goal – for one man to set for himself: to produce a mythology as rich and deep and relevant as those produced by the great civilizations over periods of centuries. Here I must allude back to my earlier T.R. quote – we must say Tolkien failed since his work remained unfinished, but oh what a glorious failure. Tolkien dared greatly and strove valiantly. He knew the triumph of high achievement. His work will endure for many years to come and continue to make people “happier and better”, to quote Bulfinch. Jenkyns’s sneering review will be forgotten as soon as this thread sinks into the archives.

[Thingol]

"it fails to address some major facets of existence, such as sexuality and sensuality, transcendental faith and the nature of evil, among others."

I agree with you on the religion and the sexuality point TMM, but not on the nature of evil. In my opinion the popular perception of many “learned scholars”, that Tolkien presents a black and white struggle of good verses evil is incorrect. The reader never encounters Sauron, but we are introduced to Sauron’s chief creation, the One Ring. The Ring is a character onto itself in the book. The nature of the Ring is such that it may in fact be used for good, but in the end it will eventually turn all good into evil. This relationship between good and evil was far ahead of its time. When Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings war was still an acceptable means of settling disputes and power was seen as an end unto itself; this view is still held by many around the world today.

“Then quickly and strangely his tone changed. Give it to me! he cried, Give it to me at once! You can’t have it!… No, no! cried Frodo, snatching the ring and chain from Sam’s hands. No you won’t, you thief!”

With this passage Tolkien describes the modern sense of addiction, well before it actually comes about.

“…And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shown, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be.”

By never mentioning the antagonist of the novel Tolkien has done a truly original and genius thing. Sauron did not rise to power through force alone, he did it by deception. Sauron tricked the elves, decieved the Haradrim, and betrayed Numenor, the true danger of Sauron and the Ring is the temptation to give into the path that seems easiest. There are so many examples of evil (well, evil actions at least) that is not black and white throughout Tolkien's work. The oath that the sons of Feanor take, the madness of Denethor, the treachery of Saruman, the Numorean's fear of death and attack of Valinor, and The Valar's response to destroy everything in Numenor just to name a few. There is no mention of true evil anywhere in The Lord of the Rings, only temptation. Even Sauron was good at one point, but he was seduced by Melkor. In the real world true evil does not really exist either. Often when we try to do good we end up doing more harm, does that make us evil? The Temptation that power brings is the true enemy of free people, and Sauron and his Ring are the ultimate tempters. This relationship between the desire to use power to do good and the danger of that power corrupting you is hardly a simple black and white relationship.

*Its my 100th post, wha whooo [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ February 05, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[The Mirrorball Man]

Originally posted by Mister Underhill:
Everyone has done a fairly exhaustive job of explaining their point of view. Perhaps the discussion has risen to meet your expectations, TMM?

Sure, I'm delighted. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

However for me it was never a question of quality, but rather a question of approach.

Re: mythology. Let’s play fair now. Tolkien aspired to create a mythology with his body of work, not with LotR alone.

You're right. However, in my case, my using LOTR as an example was caused by my poor command of the language. I just couldn't find a good equivalent for "the work of Tolkien", so I opted to write "Lord of the Rings" instead, hoping that you wouldn't notice. Unfortunately, you did. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Did Tolkien fail in his task even if we include the sprawling corpus that includes his unfinished Silmarillion?

I think he failed, yes. The Silmarillion is larger in scope, but it still concentrates on the themes that Tolkien was interested in, and discards other important themes. In addition, I don't think that the fact that The Silmarillion was unfinished is really relevant. Even if Tolkien had lived to be 111 years old, he probably would never have finished it, and there's no way to know if the extra time would have actually improved the book.

His work will endure for many years to come and continue to make people “happier and better”, to quote Bulfinch. Jenkyns’s sneering review will be forgotten as soon as this thread sinks into the archives.

Whatever we may think about Jenkyns, I don't think that his ambition in writing this little article was to be remembered as one of the giants of the 21st Century. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[The Mirrorball Man]

Thingol, I think you make very good points about the depiction of evil in Tolkien's books. And I agree with you that he did deal with some mechanism of evil, particularly with temptation and corruption. But in my opinion, he never really dealt with the issue itself, what I called the "nature" of evil, for lack of a better term.

In Shakespeare's plays (I started with him, so why not continue? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ), evil is depicted as an organic, almost palpable force. It takes something from you and gives something in return. Iago (in Othello) or Gloucester (in Henry VI and Richard III) lose their humanity, but they gain an incredible energy that destroys everyone who dares to approach them. And you can measure the scope of their corruption in those rare instances when they show doubts or have scruples, those scenes where you can see darkness pouring throught the cracks of their personality.

And since we're talking about mythology, the same traits can be observed in characters like Zeus - when his lust transforms him into a jealous, cruel and impulsive villain - or Loki, an outcast among the Aesir.

There is no such thing in Tolkien's books. We know what Sauron has gained by embracing evil, but we don't know what he has lost. He remains a cipher, we learn nothing about his motivations, about the secrets of his heart. Sauron is not the same kind of villain as Gloucester, he's more like Moby **** , a powerful and obscure force of nature that we will never truly understand. If we did, he would be really convincing as an evil character, instead of being just a dangerous character.

[The Mirrorball Man]

And once again, Hermann Melville is a victim of automatic censorship. The fear of language knows no bounds. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

[Carannillion]

And since we're talking about mythology, the same traits can be observed in characters like Zeus - when his lust transforms him into a jealous, cruel and impulsive villain - or Loki, an outcast among the Aesir.

There is no such thing in Tolkien's books. We know what Sauron has gained by embracing evil, but we don't know what he has lost. He remains a cipher, we learn nothing about his motivations, about the secrets of his heart. Sauron is not the same kind of villain as Gloucester, he's more like Moby **** , a powerful and obscure force of nature that we will never truly understand. If we did, he would be really convincing as an evil character, instead of being just a dangerous character.

Let us not forget that we are still talking ALL of Tolkien's works. Melkor was the first evil. An evil force created and driven by desire for power and domination, in turn reduced to the earthly form which the elves named Morgoth Bauglir. Morgoth coveted and hated the creation of Ilúvatar, and if you read the Silmarillion - and read 'between the lines' - you will indeed learn the secrets and motivations of his heart. They are primal and basic, yet Melkor - being a divine life form - is also very complex. Sauron is sort of a copy of Melkor, and he works the same way Melkor did, only Sauron did not start out as 'evil' himself, he was deceived and corrupted. Later on, in Lord of the Rings, Sauron acts like Melkor did; deceiving and corrupting - not only 'lesser' races, but also other entities (if Saruman can still be counted as a true entity in his form of a Man). Sauron is not the true evil , but he is evil, by all means. He is definetely more than "just a dangerous character".

Of course, if you read only LotR, you may not know him for what he truly is, but you are not supposed to, either. As Thingol pointed out: "The Ring is a character onto itself in the book." It is the Ring we 'get to know', only understanding it is very hard, as we do not usually think of objects as living (read: thinking). Also, this is something of a revelation, which we have to come to understand for ourselves.

To understand Sauron, we first have to understand Melkor. Then we have to interpret what it is that Tolkien is trying to tell us through the Ring. The 'direct encounters' with Sauron in LotR all happen through or in relation to the Ring (except for Pippin seeing in the Palantír of Orthanc). Then, *writer trying not to wander off in all directions at the same time* [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] to understand Melkor, thus becoming able to understand Sauron/the Ring, we have to read the Sil. You cannot simply read LotR and criticise it for its lackings if you have not read the Sil as well. LotR is a close-up of one huge story/mythology/thing which Tolkien created as something to bind his languages to. The language part was the most important one, but ironically, it was the one to never be published.

Read Thingol's post (a very good post ) to get some more referances to what I wrote.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Carannillion ]