|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 11 2022, 3:31pm
Post #1 of 67
(4665 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The varied fans of 'Epic Pooh'
|
Can't Post
|
|
It struck me recently that Tolkien has always been a very controversial author. Both popularly and critically he's been met with everything from total obsession and immersion, through disinterest, to baffled head-scratching, to annoyance contempt and derision.
Tolkien was both aware of and admirably sanguine about this, for example:
“Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.”
Tolkien, LOTR 2e Foreword*
Tolkien's fans and detractors have also always been a very varied bunch politically. Michael Moorcock, writing about his dislike of Tolkien's works and other Epic Fantasy of the time, struggles to separate it from his thoughts about the kind of person by whom he thinks it is written, or to whom he thinks it appeals**:
"While there is an argument for the reactionary nature of the books, they are certainly deeply conservative and strongly anti-urban, which is what leads some to associate them with a kind of Wagnerish Hitlerism. I don't think these books are 'fascist', but they certainly don't exactly argue with the 18th century enlightened Toryism with which the English comfort themselves so frequently in these upsetting times. They don't ask any questions of white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us. I suppose I respond so antipathetically to Lewis and Tolkien because I find this sort of consolatory orthodoxy as distasteful as any other self-serving misanthropic doctrine." Michael Moorcock - an essay called Epic Pooh (Originally written in 1978 for the British Science Fiction Association, "Epic Pooh" was revised for inclusion in Moorcock's 1989 book Wizardry and Wild Romance. A copy of the revised version is on the University of Warwick website here https://warwick.ac.uk/..._m.1978epic_pooh.pdf)
But if we agree for the sake of argument that the books 'are certainly deeply conservative' or arguably reactionary, it is clear that this has not defined their audience or their appeal. Tolkien's early supporters included clearly non-conservative figures (e.g. Iris Murdoch, Naomi Mitchison and Ursula K Le Guin). Then Tolkien famously picked up a great following in the 1960s Counterculture, which it would be very odd to characterise as 'deeply conservative' or not wanting to ask 'any questions of white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us.'
Moreover, at one point LOTR was banned in the Soviet Union (censors perceiving it as a coded attack on the USSR as the evil East) while at the same time some left-leaning Tolkien fans in 'the West' were enjoying it as a story of the proto-Socialist or proto-Communist hobbits overcoming 'The Man'.
Tolkien fandom today very clearly includes many shades of opinion!
I suspect that one reason the books can have such wide appeal is because:
“As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.”
Tolkien, LOTR 2e Foreword
Readers of Tolkien are very much free to draw their own parallels with the Real World, or not to do that at all*** .
Returning to Michael Moorcock, his essay is titled 'Epic Pooh' because he argues that Epic fantasy is a literature designed to offer comfort, reminiscent of the nursery comforts of A.A. Milne's stories, rather than challenging readers to see and address the issues of the Real World. I do think that Moorcock is onto something here - I recognise that 'Epic Pooh' tag with a smile: that feeling that everything will work out (or that effort and courage will at least be appreciated even if they involve pain and suffering, and do not lead to the desired outcome) is definitely part of the attraction of Tolkien for me. I am glad that Moorcock pointed out to me something I might not have seen for myself. But I have questions that Moorcock does not answer:
Is this sort of comfort necessarily a bad thing? Is someone enjoying it necessarily doing so to the neglect of their responsibilities as a person and citizen, or in some other way deserving of criticism for their preferences?
Is that comfort the only attraction of these Epic Fantasy works?
It seems to me that the answer to each of those is 'no'. And I've already shown why I don't agree that this comfort is only for people of a certain set of political or philosophical views.
To end with summarising my main point for discussion - I wonder whether Moorcock is right about the attraction of 'comfort' in Tolkien, and whether that 'comfort' can come from different interpretations of Tolkien (for example, from very different political views or worldviews). If that is so then this could be part of the explanation for how diverse Tolkien's fans are as a group.
--
*I do enjoy that subtle dig at reviewers who did not read, and the inference that negative opinions or differences in taste about works can be mutual. But that's as far as it goes: there's no 'how dare you' or attempts to prove the critics wrong over matters of taste, style or opinion. I wish that Tolkien fans would follow that lead. We can't conduct a "Critical analysis and discussion of Tolkien's literary works" (the stated purpose of this board) if Tolkien is beyond fair criticism, or if disagreement with Tolkien's critics on matters of taste and opinion blinds us to a hostile critic having a good or useful point.
**Moorcock calls this point of view 'Anglican Toryism', but I suggest extreme caution with interpreting the term! If I have understood correctly the sort of person Moorocock means, it is a mindset I know well, and people holding it might not necessarily be either Anglican nor Tory. And let's remember that Moorcock was writin in 1978 - although later updates allow him to refer to 'Thatcherism', neither the Tory (i.e. British Conservative Party) nor the Church of England has gone unchanged since. What I think he means is an outlook that Tolkien gives the inhabitants of the Shire: having a desire for a peaceful and orderly life, and looking to traditional ways and structures to provide it. Having attitudes that include a lot of 'mind your own business' (as a philopshpy, or an angry retort to intrusion) and 'mustn't grumble'.
I think Tolkien sees the negative sides of this too, and writes them explicitly into LOTR: the stifling nature of social life; the gossip; the parochialism, xenophobia. And of course a mistaken feeling of entitlement towards an agreeable life which in truth is not just available to anyone with the right attitudes, but instead relies of good fortune and other people's efforts. Nor does Tolkien duck from showing how The Shire's instinctive going-along-with-the-traditional-authorities allows the situation of The Scouring to arise, once The Wrong Baggins is is charge and the traditional authorities neglect their side of the One Nation Toryism social bargain.
***When I have quoted Tolkien saying this before, I have often had responses that are at best misunderstandings or are straw man arguments. So to be clear, I am not suggesting that his work has no meaning at all, or that it lacks themes, motifs etc.. I'm also not overlooking that Tolkien did sometimes say quite explicitly what something meant (though he was quite capable of then contradicting himself). I am not claiming that Tolkien is 'one of the Post Moderns' (though in fact I don't myself see why modern critical tools should not or 'must not' be applied to enjoying Tolkien's books).
My point is that if someone wants to say what the True Meaning of Tolkien is, then appeals to Authority run into a significant problem: if the authority is not Tolkien expicitly then how is Authority... well...authorised? The traditional Reading Room solution is to appeal to good argument rather than fixed authority. A point that is well-argued is superior to an opinion stated as fact, however vociferously. Often this means disagreement about what something means, because more than one conclusion can be supported by good argument. A simple and evergreen example is whether balrogs have physical bodily wings, or whether the one balrog we see in full description is surrounded by shadows in the shape of wings. The text is vivid but ambiguous, and either interpretation can be well-argued. In my opinion there is no hope of a final Authorised answer, and this does not matter.
~~~~~~
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
May 11 2022, 4:54pm
Post #2 of 67
(4504 views)
Shortcut
|
Is one of my favorites. 
Just popping in for a moment to note: people will "read into" things whatever they WANT to see there, and of course pick out bits to "prove" their points.
But if I find myself with teary eyes when coming to the end of a long story, then I know I have just read an excellent piece of literature, regardless of its genre. And there is a difference between "comfort" and "comforting" (which may involve being made "uncomfortable" at times).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
May 13 2022, 5:33am
Post #3 of 67
(4466 views)
Shortcut
|
I really like your post, and I wish that I had more to say, but unfortunately between the week I've had and the one in front of me I'm not sure when I'll be up for it. I wanted to express my appreciation before this ends up slipping my mind, though. Conversations about the role of "comfort"—or, as I more often hear it described, escapism—in Tolkien are always a bit odd for me. Many people on both sides of the critical debate over Tolkien seem in implicit agreement that escapism is bad, but I first read LOTR when I was nine years old: an age when I was desperately in need of refuge and escape from a variety of things happening to and around me IRL. I feel no shame in crediting escapist fiction with helping me get through childhood, and I don't think adults should be ashamed to find similar benefits in fiction, no matter how severe or mild the things they wish to escape from.
I think you're onto something that the comforting aspects of LOTR are so broadly applicable to people of different politics, and that this helps account for the wide range views in Tolkien's readership. I don't think that comfort has to have any political element at all, though. I didn't know enough about the world at nine to make heads or tails of Tory, countercultural, anti-Communist, environmentalist, evangelical or any other political or religiously driven interpretations of LOTR even if I'd heard them described to me. The attraction for me was that of an incredibly vivid, detailed, verisimilitudinous Secondary World that was easy to mentally explore and lose myself in. I imagine a lot of other people who read Tolkien as children were in similar boats, even if in some cases they might have latched on to real or perceived thematic messages once they were mature enough to think about such things. The strength of that early, pre-political, emotional attachment to the text endures even if it's mentally reframed as having an ideological component.
I've no doubt the experience of reading Tolkien for the first time as an adult is different, and Moorcock's points may be more relevant to people with that experience, but there's not much I can say about it.
(This post was edited by Eldy on May 13 2022, 5:36am)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 13 2022, 1:29pm
Post #4 of 67
(4437 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks dernwyn. One of the delights of a forum such as this is that I can compare notes with people who have interpreted the same work differently (balrog wings or not being a very simple example).
But, as you say, the feeling one is left with is imporaant. There's more to a good story than a list of facts, or table of equivalences. It woudl seem very impoverishing to me to be stuck with analysis alone.
~~~~~~
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 13 2022, 3:28pm
Post #5 of 67
(4435 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks for this. I think it's true that "Many people on both sides of the critical debate over Tolkien seem in implicit agreement that escapism is bad". It reminded me of Ursula K Le Guin's 1974 essay Why are Americans Afraid of Dragons? It seems a shame to lift a short quotation out of an essay that flows so well, but how about:
To read War and Peace or The Lord of the Rings plainly is not 'work' - you do it for pleasure. And if it cannot be justified as 'educational' or as 'self-improvement', then, in the Puritan value system, it can only be self-indulgence or escapism. For pleasure is not a value, to the Puritan; on the contrary it is a sin.
Equally, in the businessman's value system, if an act does not bring an immediate, tangible profit, it has no justification at all. Thus the only person who has an excuse to read Tolstoy or Tolkien is the English teacher, who gets paid for it. But our businessman might allow himself to read a best-seller now and then: not because it is a good book, but because it is a best-seller - it is a success, it has made money. To the strangely mystical mind of the money-changer, this justifies its existence; and by reading it he may participate, a little, in the power and mana of its success. If this is not magic, by the way, I don't know what is.
Ursula K Le Guin's 1974 essay Why are Americans Afraid of Dragons? Collected in The Language of the Night, The Womens Press Ltd 1989 (which is the first British publication, implying earlier US ones)
Le Guin's further point (which unfortunately I'll have to parphrase for length though the original is much better) is to claim that is it thought not to be manly to read about dragons or hobbits or aliens (but nor are they considered safe for women) - "Fake realism is the escapist literature of our time" she says.
Of course it isn't just Americans (or Puritans or capitalists) who are afraid of dragons. A friend of a friend here in Britain was expelled from or perhaps resigned from the Trotskyite fringe Socialist Workers Party after a row over Star Trek. As I heard the tale, he was told that a comrade couldn't watch it, because it was imperialist and neo-colonialist. Now arguably (but not here!) the show does contain elements of those things or can be seen in that way; but my point here is that British Trotskyists can be afraid of dragons too. (It's a story that is kinda funny and kinda sad. Also, given recent revelations that the police undertook an extensive, prolonged and possibly illegal infiltration campaign of the Socialist Workers Party, I'm musing whether this was the point where Party lost the last member who wasn't actually a secret agent  )
I suspect that the common mindset is bossiness: that "other people have to do something I think is worthwhile". And that would chime with an empirical observation that authoritarians try to ban all fantasies, except those that are in the service or praise of The Great Leader.
And maybe that leads us back to Moorcock's essay. Comfort for Anglican Tories bad, he seems to say, but ...
Maybe it is not too much of a stretch to reflect that 'escapism' criticism back (if escapism is wrong) and see some of Moorcock's work as escapism for those who would prefer not to serve gods or masters, but nonetheless have to do so in real life?
You also have me thinking about reading Tolkien as a child and as an adult, Eldy. But I think that would be better as a seperate post.
~~~~~~
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Doriath
May 13 2022, 3:41pm
Post #6 of 67
(4432 views)
Shortcut
|
I had been waiting to respond until I had the time to properly gather my thoughts, but that might be a long wait! So I will at least express gratitude for the interesting read, and leave other thoughts for a future present moment.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 13 2022, 4:22pm
Post #7 of 67
(4432 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Russian Doll readers (and some more Le Guin)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Eldy wrote about reading LOTR aged 9:
I didn't know enough about the world at nine to make heads or tails of Tory, countercultural, anti-Communist, environmentalist, evangelical or any other political or religiously driven interpretations of LOTR even if I'd heard them described to me. The attraction for me was that of an incredibly vivid, detailed, verisimilitudinous Secondary World that was easy to mentally explore and lose myself in. I imagine a lot of other people who read Tolkien as children were in similar boats, even if in some cases they might have latched on to real or perceived thematic messages once they were mature enough to think about such things. The strength of that early, pre-political, emotional attachment to the text endures even if it's mentally reframed as having an ideological component.
That really chimed with me. I read LOTR a bit later Maybe I was 11). I too remember reading it superficially, as in it was a story that the author led me through and I did not at that time have the wish, tools or understanding to engage with it critically. To illustrate my lack of 'sophistication', it was about the time I read Farenheit 451 (by Ray Bradbury) and went WOW - can you do that? I'd been introduced to the possibility of allegory.
But whie I lacked the ability to intellectualise the story, I'll probably never beat that version of me as a reader for sheer absorbtion. Here is some footage of me reading it then.
I'd like to think that reader is still around somewhere, maybe as a sort of inner Russian Doll, contained within later versions of me as a reader that interpret, analyse, thematize and deconstruct.
And I do think it's right that "The strength of that early, pre-political, emotional attachment to the text endures even if it's mentally reframed as having an ideological component." [Eldy, ibid]
The more 'adult' reading modes tend to be seen as superior. If that's in the sense of 'more sophisticated' then I agree. If that's in the sense of 'more valuble' then it might be right - it also gets tangled up with ideas of the value of education as somethng that does somethng, is for something; which perhaps leads us back to Ursula K Le Guin's defence of imagination as something that is essential but has no value...
So I arrive at my personal defense of the uses of imagination, especially in fiction, and most especially in fairy tale, legend, fantasy, science fiction and the rest of the lunatic fringe. I beleive that maturity is not an outgrowing, but a growing up: that an adult is not a dead child, but a child that survived. I believe that all the best faculties of a mature human being exist in the child and that if these faculties are encouraged in youth they will act well and wisely in the adult, but if they are repressed and denied in the child they will stunt and cripple the adult personality.
...
For fantasy is true, of course. It isn't factual, but it is true. Children know that. Adults know it too, and that is precisely why many of them are afriad of fantasy. They know the truth challenges, even threatens, all that is fallse, all that is phony, unnecessary and trivial in the life they have let themselves be forced into living. They are afriad of dragons, because they are afraid of freedom.
Ursula K Le Guin's 1974 essay Why are Americans Afraid of Dragons? Collected in The Language of the Night, The Womens Press Ltd 1989 (which is the first British publication, implying earlier US ones)
~~~~~~
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 13 2022, 4:46pm
Post #8 of 67
(4438 views)
Shortcut
|
|
An 'it's Friday' bonus Le Guin anecdote
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Language of the Night is one of my books of Le Guin essays. She was a fine essayist, reviewer and speaker, and there is a lot of non-fiction of hers that interests me The Internet is a wonderful thing for tracking down second-hand copies of out-of-print books, and I think it was Dancing at the Edge of the World (Grove Press 1989) rather than The Language of the Night that I had mailed at surprisngly low cost from a small bookshop in the US (I live in Oxfordshire, UK, so getting a second-hand book from the US is not an everyday occurance or the most obvious place to get one).
Then an odd thing happened. I was on my own one evening reading the book, turned to a new essay and suddenly could smell a perfume. This was such a sense of a person being present that I was quite startled. But there was no-one there. While a friend of mine who is interested in the paranormal has a different explanation, I thnk that probably the previous owner of the book had worn this perfume and it had been absorbed by the essays which she (let's guess) was in the habit of reading. So it was a sort of like an olfactory version of turned-down page corners or margin notes.
The perfume was also detectable in some other essays, but not all. I thought this probably indicated which essays the previous owner had read most. So it was very peasant and companionable to be able to compare notes almost with someone who I shall never knowingly meet, but whose perfume I might recognise and with whom I share a taste for Le Guin essays.
I think that maybe this happened in about 2014, or at least this is when I started a thread here about Le Guin's views on CS Lewis (like the best threads it started a discussion that was of far more interest and value than my OP, and a lot of fun to boot).
Have a good weekend!
~~~~~~
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 13 2022, 5:45pm
Post #9 of 67
(4418 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thank you! Always nice to know something was a good read//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
~~~~~~
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
May 13 2022, 7:11pm
Post #10 of 67
(4415 views)
Shortcut
|
A friend of a friend here in Britain was expelled from or perhaps resigned from the Trotskyite fringe Socialist Workers Party after a row over Star Trek. As I heard the tale, he was told that a comrade couldn't watch it, because it was imperialist and neo-colonialist.
I think this strikes near the heart of the matter for politically motivated critiques of Tolkien from across the spectrum. A fair number of people think it's bad for art to advance messages they disagree with, and in some cases simply to not advance messages they think should be spread far and wide. China Mieville wrote one of the most famous leftist critiques of Tolkien—in the newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, no less!—and made basically this point:
Tolkien is naive to think he’s escaping anything. He established a form full of possibilities and ripe for experimentation, but used it to present trite, nostalgic daydreams. The myth of an idyllic past is not oppositional to capitalism, but consolation for it. Troubled by the world? Close your eyes and think of Middle Earth.[1]
In fairness, Mieville defended a number of aspects of Tolkien's work (and later wrote a quite solidly positive piece in praise of Tolkien), but in 2002 he was clear that he was not simply commenting on the cultural impact of LOTR, but the merits of the work itself: "when the intersection of politics and aesthetics actually stunts the art, it’s no red herring to play the politics card." Ironically, he notes that famous leftists such as Trotsky and Marx didn't let political differences stop them from enjoying art at odds with their politics, but a lot of people—not only the left—have trouble doing so. Their loss, in my opinion.
This view is common enough, though, that I think it's worth offering a less flippant reply. Most people are not capable of spending all their time focused on one thing, especially something as stressful as activism by a small group against a hegemonic political establishment. Scolding them for wanting a mental escape while relaxing is deeply patronizing: it presumes that people are incapable of engaging with or even superficially enjoying a book without being taken in by its politics and losing sight of their former convictions. This isn't exclusive to the left, of course, or to politics; plenty of religious denominations likewise discourage their members from reading/watching outside art and entertainment. Which really doesn't say anything good about the relationships of such groups with their members.
The dumbest thing is that the co-opting of Tolkien by so many different ideologies proves that, if anything, the opposite is more likely: people will interpret fiction through the lens of their preexisting beliefs, even if that requires a great deal of highly motivated reasoning. But I'll try to stop here; this post is ranty enough as it is.
---
[1] From "Tolkien – Middle Earth Meets Middle England" in issue 259 (7 Jan 2002) of Socialist Worker. You can find it via Google; I'd post the link, but I suspect it would not last long on here. ;)
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
May 13 2022, 7:34pm
Post #11 of 67
(4421 views)
Shortcut
|
And I do think it's right that "The strength of that early, pre-political, emotional attachment to the text endures even if it's mentally reframed as having an ideological component." [Eldy, ibid]
The more 'adult' reading modes tend to be seen as superior. If that's in the sense of 'more sophisticated' then I agree. If that's in the sense of 'more valuble' then it might be right - it also gets tangled up with ideas of the value of education as somethng that does somethng, is for something; which perhaps leads us back to Ursula K Le Guin's defence of imagination as something that is essential but has no value...
I have a rather more cynical view of "adult reading modes." I think the mental reframing I mentioned is less likely to be a sign of increased sophistication, and more probably an attempt at justifying one's previous enjoyment of the work in light of a subsequently developed worldview. This is not necessarily a conscious, deliberate process.
To give a non-political example, I believe the futility of the LOTR purist wars was in part due to a similar phenomenon. One of the things that struck me after spending long enough engaged in those debates is that the purist and revisionist sides tended to agree faithfulness in adaptations is a good thing, and considered this so obvious that nobody bothered to justify it with actual arguments. The debates, at least from December 2001 onward, were usually not about whether the films should be faithful, but whether they in fact were. Unsurprisingly, the people who felt they were faithful were overwhelmingly those who most enjoyed the films, and those who thought they were unfaithful were overwhelmingly those who did not enjoy the films on any level. Many people on both sides formed their opinions on the films' faithfulness solely based on whether they found them entertaining, and much of the contentiousness came down to the mutual assumption that because unfaithful adaptations are bad, anyone who enjoys them must be a bad fan.
I think this is self-evidently absurd when you spell it out, but I'm probably still in the minority on this one. I see the same thing in a lot of analysis of the books, and if anything it's more common in positive readings than negative. Someone thinks good art should reflect their belief system, and they think LOTR is good, so ipso facto LOTR must be consistent with their beliefs. If they think escapist fantasy is stupid (perhaps because they were told so by people they respect), then any number of things about Tolkien are awful. People like Mieville, who respects Tolkien's artistic achievement while disagreeing with his politics, are in my experience a fairly rare breed.
(This post was edited by Eldy on May 13 2022, 7:35pm)
|
|
|
uncle Iorlas
Nargothrond
May 13 2022, 7:36pm
Post #12 of 67
(4416 views)
Shortcut
|
That Moorcock essay is pretty savage. It's hard to sit still for; particularly his easy dismissals of Tolkien's style, coming from the author of fantasy novels so pompous and depraved that I put them down unfinished every time I ever tried them. Funny how I do and don't agree with his picks; I love Milne, but love LeGuin better, whereas Cooper's "Dark Is Rising" left me cold.
There's something bracing about an unrepentantly nasty review of a good book, though, somehow: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2629803
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
May 13 2022, 7:38pm
Post #13 of 67
(4407 views)
Shortcut
|
That's a lovely anecdote about reading Le Guin.  I'm honestly not that familiar with her work, fiction or nonfiction, but I've really enjoyed all of her Tolkien analysis that I've read.
I hope you have a great weekend, too!
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
May 13 2022, 7:40pm
Post #14 of 67
(4406 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Now *that* is literary criticism!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
uncle Iorlas
Nargothrond
May 13 2022, 8:11pm
Post #15 of 67
(4400 views)
Shortcut
|
Between the time I started writing a quick response and the time I slapped on a quick ending and posted it, a bunch of people posted so much longer and more thoughtful commentary that I can't even read it all yet. Someday I'll learn not to post at all when I'm this busy...
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
May 13 2022, 8:13pm
Post #16 of 67
(4397 views)
Shortcut
|
I think forums benefit from having both short and long posts, and I'd feel like even more of a tryhard if my blathering contributed to chasing other people out of this (sub)forum. 
|
|
|
Hamfast Gamgee
Dor-Lomin
May 14 2022, 6:55am
Post #17 of 67
(4367 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thoughts on Tolkien and Micheal Moorcock
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Most people do think that the Lotr is a christian indeed catholic work, indeed Tolkien himself even said it was. Or perhaps claimed that it was, someone can make eronus comments even on their own work. I have a few doubts, however. All right we do have Eru the God who created the world, but what of all the Valar and the other Gods? Having many gods, a chief god and gods of different powers doesn't sound christian or catholic to me! Sounds a bit more pagan, druid or animism as I'm sure that I read that christians believe only in the one god! So religion whys I think that his works are a bit more complex or muddled than to simply say that they are catholic. All right, one might argue that the Valar are angels as opposed to gods but they don't really act like angels to me. More like Nordic gods.
And a word about Micheal Moorcock seen as someone mentioned him. Now I do find some of his tales interesting he had some good ideas and concepts a story about a German been the hero and the Brits the bad guys was an interesting one to write after WW2! and also he wrote one about black people rising up out of slavery and conquering the USA which most people would not have written in the sixties Sci-fantasy! And some of his characters like I think one was Prince Corum where interesting.The trouble with him however is that I did find lots of his tales just confusing. He had a multiverse with time travelling alternate realities people meeting different versions of themselves which all got a little bit muddled. Probably helped if you where on drugs to read them. This was the sixties! Also to be frank his writing style and characterizations where nowhere near Tolkien's league!
And speaking of the time in which they where written I notice that he talked about these troubled times. Now which troubled times where he referring to the sixties or seventies? This is a phrase which I hear quite often now. Indeed it is getting to the stage when if I hear some commentator or politician or journalist say these troubling times, I almost scream. I just hear it all the time. And hear is someone, probably just quoting popular opinion saying that about a time which most people now would think are quite calm peaceful times! Just goes to show that times are always troubling when you are living through them.
|
|
|
ElanorTX
Dor-Lomin
May 14 2022, 8:58am
Post #18 of 67
(4361 views)
Shortcut
|
literary, not political
From Elfland to Poughkeepsie . I think it's in the same collection that nowizardme refers to.
Recommend for any reader or writer of fantasy.
"I shall not wholly fail if anything can still grow fair in days to come."
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 14 2022, 5:41pm
Post #19 of 67
(4356 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That Moorcock essay is pretty savage.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It certainly is. I skimmed the parts that criticise the style of the various target writers. Style and tone are such a matter of taste and opinion, though (perhaps for that reason) they are a very important part of what I can read to the end and what just grates too much. And sometimes someone's style is irritating because they remind you of someone you didn't like.
But I was reminded of an online writers group I in at one time. People read & criticised others works in progress and by doing that enough you earned the right to post something of your own for criticism. Members were asked not to take a teacher- or editor- tone. Moorcock's criticisms are probably helpful should anyone ever want to re-write LOTR as a Moorcock parody, but maybe a bit beside th epoint otherwise?
~~~~~~
(This post was edited by noWizardme on May 14 2022, 5:42pm)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 14 2022, 5:49pm
Post #20 of 67
(4352 views)
Shortcut
|
I think people note the things in a work that they really disagree with, and that can stop them reading. But maybe they more eaily recognise and note those things with which they do agree.
So it can be a bit like the joke about two football supporters discussing teh match, and they don't seem to have seen the same game at all.
I really enjoyed the China Mieville's works I've read: The City & the City (2009) and Embassytown (2011). I liked Perdido Street Station (2000) but not quite so much.
~~~~~~
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 14 2022, 6:08pm
Post #21 of 67
(4349 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, Tolkien did describe LOTR as 'fundamentally Catholic', and we've sometimes discussed how that isn't necessarily the same as being, say, 'obviously Catholic', 'exclusively Catholic', 'exclusively for Catholics', 'cannot be truly understood by a Catholic' and so on. Or at least that is where I stand on the issue. I mentioned that the label 'Anglican Tory' that Moorcock uses was, I thought, a term for a particular outlook on life. I don't think Moorcock is criticising only those authors who are literally an Anglican and a Tory or who write works that promote Anglicanism or Toryism in an overt way.
It sounds like you've read more Moorcock than I have. I read the Dancers at The End of Time series and enjoyed it, but he has a huge output (as well as appearing with Hawkwind, Blue Oyster Cult etc.)
Moorcock was writing in 1978 (the essay was revised later, but let's assumed 'these troubled times' was the late seventies). And indeed they were troubled, for all that they are now far enough back to be 'the good old days' for some. But what can we do, excet get on with things? (Oh, and read escapist fiction! )
~~~~~~
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 14 2022, 6:18pm
Post #22 of 67
(4346 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes a good essay, and it is in one of those collections!
Le Guin discusses tone, and how it sounds 'off' to her if Great Lords of Elfland sound like they are from certain parts of moden America. Not being American myself, I suspect there is significance to 'Poughkeepsie' that I haven't picked up (regional accent? Social position?).
But that essay might be recruited into a discussion about 'authenticity' or 'historical accuracy' in fantasy - an odd concept if one takes that literally. Maybe 'Poughkeepsie'is in fact the ideal way to render what it sounds like when a Great Lord of Elfland speaks?
It reminds me of this discussion about what we think characters sound like, and perhaps epecially this contribution from CuriousG which I think highlights how we each invent a plausible accent adn lots of other details that enabe us to preform teh sotry inside our heads as we read. Often I htink we do this without noticing what we, not Tolkien, did. And that is why other peoeple's views, or other peoeple's adaptations can be challenging, I think.
~~~~~~
|
|
|
noWizardme
Gondolin
May 14 2022, 6:22pm
Post #23 of 67
(4350 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sophistication and comprehension
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was thnking abot 'sophistication' being the opening up of new ways of thinking, and you're right I think Eldy to point out that it can come down to a more sophisticated way of explaining or justifying the same way of thinking.
So maybe the first reading (at whatever age) is especially important, because many of it's conclusions will be very durable?
~~~~~~
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
May 14 2022, 9:28pm
Post #24 of 67
(4328 views)
Shortcut
|
All right we do have Eru the God who created the world, but what of all the Valar and the other Gods? Having many gods, a chief god and gods of different powers doesn't sound christian or catholic to me! Sounds a bit more pagan, druid or animism as I'm sure that I read that christians believe only in the one god! So religion whys I think that his works are a bit more complex or muddled than to simply say that they are catholic. All right, one might argue that the Valar are angels as opposed to gods but they don't really act like angels to me. More like Nordic gods.
This has been on my mind lately while working on a Tolkien lore essay, and I agree that the language of monotheism is insufficient to describe the Valar. This is perhaps most clear in the Book of Lost Tales era, when Tolkien described them as gods and goddesses (terminology that wasn't fully excised from the legendarium even decades later) and their resemblance to pagan pantheons was even more obvious than in the 1977 Silmarillion. Even in the Myths Transformed texts of the late 1950s, when Tolkien was trying to make his mythology more consistent with the contemporary scientific understanding of the universe, the Valar still perform ... well, mythological feats. Varda doesn't create the stars in the same way as had been previously envisioned (that's replaced by the Dome of Varda over Valinor), but her association with light is if anything more important and subcreatively potent than before. "Angelic beings," as I often hear the Valar described, doesn't really do them justice.
That said, I wouldn't push this argument too hard. The religious and mythological components of the legendarium show plenty of monotheistic influence, too. The Athrabeth famously relates not only a version of the Fall of Man, but a prediction of Jesus. NoMe is chock full of Catholic (and specifically Thomistic) philosophical influences, and plenty of people have pointed out how the Valar, Maiar, Eldar, Men, etc can be compared with St. Thomas' hierarchy of beings.
Tolkien's defense of the divergences of his fiction from Catholic theology in Letter 153 spent more time on the Eldar than the Valar but is definitely worth a read to anyone interested in these matters.
|
|
|
Eldy
Dor-Lomin
May 14 2022, 9:32pm
Post #25 of 67
(4332 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't know if you meant it as a sick burn, but "a more sophisticated way of explaining or justifying the same way of thinking" is a great way of describing the kind of motivated reasoning I had in mind.
I'd agree that the age at first reading is important, though I'll have to think about this more to have very firm opinions. Certainly, the re-reading experience inevitably shifts, in part due to exposure to new ideas (and additional life experience) in the intervening time since the last reading, but I think the original impression remains important. At least for books to which one has a strong emotional attachment.
|
|
|
|
|
I love it
[
1
