|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Mar 5 2014, 12:53pm
Post #1 of 16
(6760 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Ursula K Le Guin on hatred and evil in CS Lewis, Tolkien
|
Can't Post
|
|
Now here's an interesting set of thoughts - from a review by Le Guin of CS Lewis' The Dark Tower:
There's a good deal of hatred in Lewis, and it is frightening hatred, because this gentle, brilliant, lovable, devout man never saw the need even to rationalize it, let alone apologise for it. He was self-righteous in his faith. That may be permissible to a militant Christian; but it is not permissible to a highly intelligent, highly educated man to be self-righteous in his opinions and his prejudices...
J R R Tolkien, Lewis's close friend and colleague, certainly shared many of Lewis's views and was also a devout Christian. But it all comes out very differently in his fiction. Take his handling of evil: his villains are orcs and Black Riders (goblins and zombies; mythic figures) and Sauron, the Dark Lord, who is never seen and has no suggestion of humanity about him. These are not evil men but embodiments of evil in men, universal symbols of the hateful. The men who do wrong are not complete figures but complements: Saruman is Gandalf's dark-self, Boromir Aragorn's; Wormtongue is, almost literally the weakness of King Theoden. There remains the wonderfully repulsive and degraded Gollum. But nobody who reads the trilogy hates, or is asked to hate, Gollum. Gollum is Frodo's shadow; and it is the shadow, not the hero, who achieves the quest. Though Tolkien seems to project evil into "the others", they are not truly others but ourselves; he is utterly clear about this.
...In Lewis...the enemy is not oneself but the Wholly Other, demoniac. This projection leaves the author free to be cruel, and cruelty is the dominant tone in several of these stories.. This review, entitled "The Dark Tower by C S Lewis" was originally published in The New Republic, 1977, and is anthologised in "Dancing at the Edge of the World (Grove Press 1989)
Phew! I think I can stop there and just ask for comments...
~~~~~~
"… ever let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.”
Arthur Martine
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
|
|
|
demnation
Nargothrond
Mar 5 2014, 5:36pm
Post #2 of 16
(6568 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As usual, she may be onto something
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't know enough about Lewis, so I'll leave that alone. But even in LOTR I have never gotten an overwhelming sense of "The Other." When we get our brief up close glimpses of the orcs, they sound rather.....human, actually. Lots of complaining about the higher ups and the war. And she is spot on when she says that many of the characters are complements of each other. A lot of the most interesting character interaction in LOTR comes from characters who often seem like separate halves of the same person. I think of the way Pippin compares Gandalf and Denethor: so alike, and yet so completely different. Or when a reincarnated Gandalf says that he is Saruman as he should have been. Interesting find, to say the least!
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."
|
|
|
EomundDaughter
Menegroth
Mar 5 2014, 8:44pm
Post #3 of 16
(6560 views)
Shortcut
|
|
CS Lewis was atheist most of his adult life
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because of this and his late conversion to Christianity...he would say that he had more than a passing acquaintance with true evil and possibly the need to describe it..
Tolkien was always Christian and may have had a little different reaction to the horrible war they fought... ....
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Mar 5 2014, 9:59pm
Post #4 of 16
(6534 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Theoden and Denethor could be seen as another contrasting pair
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One leader dispairs ( pretty clearly the 'wrong thing'), the other rallies and does the right thing.
~~~~~~
"… ever let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.”
Arthur Martine
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
|
|
|
demnation
Nargothrond
Mar 5 2014, 10:01pm
Post #5 of 16
(6534 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It is interesting that the one is "punished"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
with suicide, his own choice. But there are others much smarter than me who have probably written whole essays on the significance of Denethor's suicide.
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Mar 6 2014, 4:28am
Post #6 of 16
(6583 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They're also two very different personalities
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and therefore have very different approaches to the world, which I think figures into this question.
I've always felt that CS Lewis was a pretty black-and-white thinker, and very definite and straightforward in his opinions and his expression of them, and I think that translates itself into his writing. His storytelling is direct and not very nuanced, as seen in the Narnia tales where the allegory is very pronounced, the mythology something of a grab-bag, and the authorial opinion asserts itself into the story quite directly in places as for instance the commentary on the folly of modern girls (Susan) or modern schools (The Silver Chair). I see many of the same qualities in the Space Trilogy, and in his theological writings. Lewis, after all, originally considered myth to be "lies and therefore worthless" even though "breathed through silver" until Tolkien showed him that they could be another possible presentation of "truth". When he converted to Christianity, he expressed his new theological opinions with equal directness and vigor.
Tolkien, on the other hand, has always seemed to me to be one who saw many facets and shades of variation in everything. Think of the individual leaves in Leaf by Niggle (his only allegory and tellingly, it's about himself rather than attempting to set up a morality tale to convince others). This attention to myriad details, subtle variations, and the effect of abstract ideas on people and events runs throughout his works, in stark contrast to Lewis. Compare the approach of The Hobbit to the storytelling of Narnia, which are both "children's stories"; not only the setting but the characters of The Hobbit have unexpected facets to them, and the story itself takes a quite unexpected serious turn at the end. And in contrast to Lewis' personal narrative commentary in the Narnia book, Tolkien's avuncular narrator doesn't spend a lot of time moralizing and telling the reader/listener what to think, but rather tends to point out the quirks of his characters and the humor of the situations (Thorin was "an important dwarf and might have gone on in this vein for some time without saying anything that wasn't known already").
Overall, I'd say that Lewis was a more "concrete" thinker and tended to make clear divisions, while Tolkien was more of an abstract thinker and a philosopher at heart. This is not to say that their ideas were not held with equal conviction, but they expressed them in accordance with their basic makeup. Where Lewis might see and describe Evil as a definite "other" thing to be fought, Tolkien describes, not only the fact of its existence but the abstract qualities of it - its cruelty in domination and its tendency to creep in and corrupt even the Good and the Wise, as well as the many different faces that it might take. And he also gives a range of possible reactions to it. And so in fighting Evil he gives us both the Battle of the Pelennor and and the Scouring of the Shire, which are direct confrontations on very different scales, and the Battle of the Black Gate and Mount Doom, both of which depend on sacrifice and and faith for success.
Silverlode
"Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dűm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Mar 6 2014, 10:41am
Post #8 of 16
(6525 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think so - Lewis seems to have been very much a "my way or the highway" kind of guy
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I haven't read Lewis's apologetics (except insofar as the Narnia stories are fantasy fiction as Christian apologetics..). And I haven't read the Dark Tower anthology to which Ms Le Guin is objecting specifically. But from what I have read, I do agree with Silverlode: it does seem that Lewis was very willing to advance from the axiom that his opinion is utterly right and therefore any other point of view is wrong (and moreover should be demolished). I think Le Guin's point - or at least one of them - in bringing up Tolkien is to distance this observation of Lewis from his religion.
There does seem to be a lot of hatred (or fear?) in Lewis which is not directly about his religion. The 'folly of modern girls' bit (aka "The Problem of Susan") is an excellent example:
"You know, that used to make me so angry."
"What did, dear?"
"Susan. All the other kids go off to Paradise, and Susan can't go. She's no longer a friend of Narnia because she's too fond of lipsticks and nylons and invitations to parties. I even talked to my English teacher about it, about the problem of Susan, when I was twelve. [..] She said that even though Susan had refused Paradise then, she still had time while she lived to repent."
"Repent what?"
"Not believing, I suppose. And the sin of Eve."
From "The Problem of Susan", Short story by Neil Gaiman, anthologised in Fragile Things Published by Headline Review, 2007)
Gaiman's not the only writer to find Lewis' treatment of Susan harsh:
There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She's become irreligious basically because she found sex. I have a big problem with that.
J K Rowling
I recently came across an interesting argument that this might well be part of a wider problem Lewis seemed to have writing any weighty adult female characters for Narnia, unless they are his two spectacular vilainesses (the White Witch, and The Lady in the Green Kirtle). That's possibly too off-topic for here (?), so perhaps I should just give references to thoughtful writing by Sarah Monette (who publishes speculative fiction as Katherine Addison). See:
"The sexual politics of Narnia"
"But it leaves us with the dreadful matter of sexual politics still to struggle with. Cija posits a dichotomy in Lewis's thinking (based on a passage from his autobiography): that one could either worship a woman or conquer her. Susan and Lucy (especially Lucy) are both victims of the former idiocy, and I think the Chronicles' villainesses represent the other." http://truepenny.livejournal.com/50287.html
and "The Problem of Susan": http://truepenny.livejournal.com/578792.html That article is a review of Neil Gaiman's short story of that name, and contains spoilers for it, as well as a discussion I found very interesting.
~~~~~~
"… ever let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.”
Arthur Martine
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
|
|
|
Dame Ioreth
Dor-Lomin
Mar 6 2014, 2:01pm
Post #9 of 16
(6516 views)
Shortcut
|
I wonder if this difference is somehow connected to Tolkien's study of languages. To a linguist, words are a living thing and translation is as much getting to know the author and their intent and the history of the text as it is saying this word meant that. It is very much a creative endeavor and only a person open to the myriad possibilities of a text can successfully translate. Of course it's a chicken-egg thing to wonder if he was a man open to the gray areas of life and therefore was successful at linguistics or he was drawn to linguistics and that in turn made him aware of the gray areas of life.
Where there's life there's hope, and need of vittles.
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Mar 7 2014, 5:08am
Post #11 of 16
(6492 views)
Shortcut
|
to things that suit us, that please us, and that we find interesting and have an aptitude for. So I think that probably Tolkien's love of languages does relate to his mental makeup. He would enjoy all the subtleties and variations that might annoy or bewilder someone else, and that interest would in turn expand his mind and understanding of the world. So I'd say he was drawn to it because it suited him, and then his pursuit of it further shaped him. Isn't that the reason we're so often encouraged to follow our passions?
There are advantages to
and strengths as well as weaknesses to all personality types, of course.
While I myself have more in common with Tolkien, and that's undoubtedly
why I enjoy his work so much more than Lewis' as an adult, I also have
people I'm close to who are much more concrete and I admire their
ability to make quick decisions (while I try madly to consider every
option and compare all possibilities), to be spontaneous (while I think
of every possible outcome and try to weigh the pros and cons), and to be
bold and adventurous in their choices (while I constantly second-guess
myself). On the other hand, I'm more likely to have breadth of knowledge
on a topic, notice recurring patterns and predict outcomes, and be
diplomatic in addressing conflicts. I have no trouble whatsoever
understanding how Tolkien and Lewis could have been friends and
appreciated each other even while being so fundamentally different and
holding opposing viewpoints on various topics. It's unsurprising that
their creative output would showcase all their differences in outlook and philosophy as well as writing style.
Silverlode
"Dark is the water of Kheled-zâram, and cold are the springs of Kibil-nâla, and fair were the many-pillared halls of Khazad-dűm in Elder Days before the fall of mighty kings beneath the stone."
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
Mar 7 2014, 6:40pm
Post #12 of 16
(6450 views)
Shortcut
|
~~~~~~
"… ever let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.”
Arthur Martine
"nowimë I am in the West, Furincurunir to the Dwarves (or at least, to their best friend) and by other names in other lands. Mostly they just say 'Oh no it's him - look busy!' "
Or "Hold off! unhand me, grey-beard loon!"
|
|
|
Darkstone
Elvenhome
Mar 7 2014, 9:50pm
Post #13 of 16
(6492 views)
Shortcut
|
The latest come convert is the most ardent.
******************************************
Brothers, sisters,
I was Elf once.
We danced together
Under the Two Trees.
We sang as the soft gold of Laurelin
And the bright silver of Telperion,
Brought forth the dawn of the world.
Then I was taken.
Brothers, sisters,
In my torment I kept faith,
And I waited.
But you never came.
And when I returned you drew sword,
And when I called your names you drew bow.
Was my Eldar beauty all,
And my soul nothing?
So be it.
I will return your hatred,
And I am hungry.
|
|
|
Morthoron
Hithlum
Mar 9 2014, 5:24pm
Post #14 of 16
(6435 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes, like a newly minted "ex-smoker"...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Anyway, very perceptive comments by Ms. Le Guin, and a reason I prefer Tolkien's writing style to Lewis'.
From both a philological and philosophical standpoint, Tolkien understood the Truths behind mythical motifs, and his masterful synthesis of these Truths - without allegory or overbearing doctrine - built a world grounded in our own, so that plausibility is maintained even when we are presented with supernatural events and characters; whereas Lewis introduced a hodgepodge of muddled mythos, the gleanings of a classical education (even borrowing from Tolkien), which neither aided in the suspension of disbelief, nor hid the allegorical elements so pronounced in his works.
Please visit my blog...The Dark Elf File...a slighty skewed journal of music and literary comment, fan-fiction and interminable essays.
|
|
|
EomundDaughter
Menegroth
Mar 9 2014, 7:11pm
Post #15 of 16
(6448 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So right....I have known friends
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
who say CS Lewis books on philosophy have brought them into a love of Christianity (like he had). ....and then Tolkiens works keep them celebrating it year after year...
In life they were great friends!
|
|
|
|
|
