The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

jallanite · 09-12-2012, 07:40 PM

The first book, Tolkien and Wagnar: The Ring and Der Ring by Christopher MacLachlan I have found to be mostly horrible.

MacLachlan does a reasonable job in showing that some scholarly and fan comment on Tolkien are misguided but the shows himself to be even more misguided. He misinterprets Tolkien’s famous statement:

Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceases.

MacLachlan understands this to refer to Wagnar, but Ohlmarks’ statement includes a large amount that does not appear in Wagnar at all and Tolkien correctly refers to this being from the “Old Norse″ side and finds it a farrago of nonsense. It is even more so if one attempt to interpret it as a summary of Wagnar’s Ring Cycle.

MacLachlan ignores the rest of Ohlmarks’ rubbish and interprets it be mean that Tolkien is lying about the influence of Wagnar’s Ring Cycle on his work when the letter is not about the Ring Cycle at all. MacLachlan then attempts to show that there is a purposeful conspiracy begun by J. R. R. Tolkien and continued by his son to deny the influence of the Ring Cycle on The Lord of the Rings.

The claim is that Tolkien based almost the entire Lord of the Rings on Wagnar’s Ring Cycle and no-one has noticed until now. But the parallels MacLachlan draws between the two works require a great amount of special pleading to accept. In two cases MacLachlan thinks that it proves something that he thinks that Jackson’s film resembles Wagnar more than the book.

His main point is that Wagnar’s Wotan is the prototype to Tolkien’s Gandalf and tries to make Gandalf’s career to resemble Wotan’s, principally by trying to claim that Gandalf increasingly withdraws from the action. This means that Machlachlan must ignore Gandalf’s healing of Théoden and later the increase in courage that comes when Gandalf wanders among the defenders of Minas Tirith, as supposedly Gandalf like Wotan should be leaving all actions to others at this time.

MacLachlan claims more than once that the post-resurrection Gandalf noticeably performs less magic than the pre-resurrection Gandalf. That is simply not true.

In an Appendix MacLachlan blames Christopher Tolkien for not including more on the Ring Cycle in an Appendix on The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún but does not mention any details in the Ring Cycle also found in The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún that are not in the Norse texts which answers why more does not appear. Apparently it does not bother MacLachlan at all that the Nibelungenlied, or the Thiðreks Saga, or William Morris’ The Story of Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs, or other medieval or more modern reworkings are not treated by Christopher Tolkien here. He doesn’t see anything but Wagnar.

One outrageous statement by MacLachan on page 106 is complete fantasy:

Later Tolkien would try to identify his Necromancer with Sauron himself, thus trying to connect the plots of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring, although in fact problems of chronology would in the end defeat him.

The second book is Wagnar and Tolkien: Mythmakers by Renée Vink and it is a very different book, quite wonderful. Vink clearly indicates that Tolkien’s “Both rings were round, …” statement is not related to Wagnar at all and mostly simply talks about differences and similarities between Tolkien and Wagnar. She has great fun in cutting up the work of more than a hundred authors who have tried to distort either Tolkien or Wagnar to fit what they wish were true. She also fully discusses Wagnar’s use of alliteration and other Norse poetic devices in Wagnar’s librettos and Tolkien’s rendering of the Old Norse lays in The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún.

This book is almost perfect in my estimation.

I have had a review of MacLachlan’s book published in the August issue of Nancy Martsch’s fanzine Beyond Bree. A review of Vink’s book and a discussion of Tolkien’s “Both rings were round, …” statement have been accepted for forthcoming issues.

09-12-2012, 07:40 PM	#16
jallanite Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 479	The first book, Tolkien and Wagnar: The Ring and Der Ring by Christopher MacLachlan I have found to be mostly horrible. MacLachlan does a reasonable job in showing that some scholarly and fan comment on Tolkien are misguided but the shows himself to be even more misguided. He misinterprets Tolkien’s famous statement: Both rings were round, and there the resemblance ceases. MacLachlan understands this to refer to Wagnar, but Ohlmarks’ statement includes a large amount that does not appear in Wagnar at all and Tolkien correctly refers to this being from the “Old Norse″ side and finds it a farrago of nonsense. It is even more so if one attempt to interpret it as a summary of Wagnar’s Ring Cycle. MacLachlan ignores the rest of Ohlmarks’ rubbish and interprets it be mean that Tolkien is lying about the influence of Wagnar’s Ring Cycle on his work when the letter is not about the Ring Cycle at all. MacLachlan then attempts to show that there is a purposeful conspiracy begun by J. R. R. Tolkien and continued by his son to deny the influence of the Ring Cycle on The Lord of the Rings. The claim is that Tolkien based almost the entire Lord of the Rings on Wagnar’s Ring Cycle and no-one has noticed until now. But the parallels MacLachlan draws between the two works require a great amount of special pleading to accept. In two cases MacLachlan thinks that it proves something that he thinks that Jackson’s film resembles Wagnar more than the book. His main point is that Wagnar’s Wotan is the prototype to Tolkien’s Gandalf and tries to make Gandalf’s career to resemble Wotan’s, principally by trying to claim that Gandalf increasingly withdraws from the action. This means that Machlachlan must ignore Gandalf’s healing of Théoden and later the increase in courage that comes when Gandalf wanders among the defenders of Minas Tirith, as supposedly Gandalf like Wotan should be leaving all actions to others at this time. MacLachlan claims more than once that the post-resurrection Gandalf noticeably performs less magic than the pre-resurrection Gandalf. That is simply not true. In an Appendix MacLachlan blames Christopher Tolkien for not including more on the Ring Cycle in an Appendix on The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún but does not mention any details in the Ring Cycle also found in The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún that are not in the Norse texts which answers why more does not appear. Apparently it does not bother MacLachlan at all that the Nibelungenlied, or the Thiðreks Saga, or William Morris’ The Story of Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs, or other medieval or more modern reworkings are not treated by Christopher Tolkien here. He doesn’t see anything but Wagnar. One outrageous statement by MacLachan on page 106 is complete fantasy: Later Tolkien would try to identify his Necromancer with Sauron himself, thus trying to connect the plots of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring, although in fact problems of chronology would in the end defeat him. The second book is Wagnar and Tolkien: Mythmakers by Renée Vink and it is a very different book, quite wonderful. Vink clearly indicates that Tolkien’s “Both rings were round, …” statement is not related to Wagnar at all and mostly simply talks about differences and similarities between Tolkien and Wagnar. She has great fun in cutting up the work of more than a hundred authors who have tried to distort either Tolkien or Wagnar to fit what they wish were true. She also fully discusses Wagnar’s use of alliteration and other Norse poetic devices in Wagnar’s librettos and Tolkien’s rendering of the Old Norse lays in The Legend of Sigurd and Gudrún. This book is almost perfect in my estimation. I have had a review of MacLachlan’s book published in the August issue of Nancy Martsch’s fanzine Beyond Bree. A review of Vink’s book and a discussion of Tolkien’s “Both rings were round, …” statement have been accepted for forthcoming issues. Last edited by jallanite; 09-12-2012 at 10:25 PM.