The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

tumhalad2 · 07-10-2011, 08:08 PM

In 1954, American author Poul Anderson published a short fantasy novel called The Broken Sword. Across the Atlantic, Tolkien published the first volume of his epic novel.

I'm starting to read The Broken Sword, and it is a brilliantly written, highly imaginative and evocatively realised. Whenever one reads a review of tBS, it is invariably compared to Tolkien. Typical comparisons run like this:

"But whereas Tolkien drew upon the Eddic sagas to create a world whose purpose was largely consolatory and supportive of Tolkien's own Christian values, Anderson abandoned himself to the original moral tenor of the Norse sagas, and a magical realm in which both men and faerie often find themselves at the mercy of capricious forces ..."

Tolkien is : consolatory, supportive of Catholic values
Anderson: capricious forces

I often find this kind of accusation leveled against Tolkien: that his worldview is overly moralistic, while those of other authors that emphasise the "capriciousness" of pagan moral systems are preferable.

I've always thought that Tolkien's stories embody a conflict between a "meaning filled world", which one finds predominately in The Lord of the Rings, and and the world of greater moral opacity realised in The Children of Hurin.

Other authors, like Moorcock, tend to create worlds that are devoid of any moral certainties whatsoever (not a world I believe we actually live in, but for humanist/rational reasons). It is perfectly possible to believe in a world of moral certitudes without believing in God. It seems to me that many fantasy authors have made two mistakes. Firstly, they have assumed a godless world is not a free and rational one, but a nihilistic one - hence the comparisons of Tolkien and Anderson - "Catholic" vs. "capricious", hence Moorcock's "Elric", Conversely, they have assumed religious authors like Tolkien are incapable of moral nuance. Compared to Tolkien, Anderson apparently displays "grimness", which apparently makes his moral vision more complex (even though Tolkien can be just as grim, at times). I have yet to read a good humanist fantasy, but I think Tolkien actually comes closer than Moorcock and those like him.

None of this is to say that Anderson's novel fails to impress - it does, and it should be better known. But I find the comparisons between him and Tolkien often provided spurious.

So I guess this is a "comparative literature" thread: fantasy authors often like to compare themselves to each other, but as literary critics, how should we approach comparisons between say, Anderson and Tolkien. Are the two different in "outlook"? What constitutes and author's "outlook" anyway? Are certain values preferable and fantasy literature, and if they are there, how are they embodied?

I suppose I have become sceptical of the cheap, off hand comparisons that are often made of Tolkien and other authors. What's really going on here?

07-10-2011, 08:08 PM	#1
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	Tolkien and "The Broken Sword" In 1954, American author Poul Anderson published a short fantasy novel called The Broken Sword. Across the Atlantic, Tolkien published the first volume of his epic novel. I'm starting to read The Broken Sword, and it is a brilliantly written, highly imaginative and evocatively realised. Whenever one reads a review of tBS, it is invariably compared to Tolkien. Typical comparisons run like this: "But whereas Tolkien drew upon the Eddic sagas to create a world whose purpose was largely consolatory and supportive of Tolkien's own Christian values, Anderson abandoned himself to the original moral tenor of the Norse sagas, and a magical realm in which both men and faerie often find themselves at the mercy of capricious forces ..." Tolkien is : consolatory, supportive of Catholic values Anderson: capricious forces I often find this kind of accusation leveled against Tolkien: that his worldview is overly moralistic, while those of other authors that emphasise the "capriciousness" of pagan moral systems are preferable. I've always thought that Tolkien's stories embody a conflict between a "meaning filled world", which one finds predominately in The Lord of the Rings, and and the world of greater moral opacity realised in The Children of Hurin. Other authors, like Moorcock, tend to create worlds that are devoid of any moral certainties whatsoever (not a world I believe we actually live in, but for humanist/rational reasons). It is perfectly possible to believe in a world of moral certitudes without believing in God. It seems to me that many fantasy authors have made two mistakes. Firstly, they have assumed a godless world is not a free and rational one, but a nihilistic one - hence the comparisons of Tolkien and Anderson - "Catholic" vs. "capricious", hence Moorcock's "Elric", Conversely, they have assumed religious authors like Tolkien are incapable of moral nuance. Compared to Tolkien, Anderson apparently displays "grimness", which apparently makes his moral vision more complex (even though Tolkien can be just as grim, at times). I have yet to read a good humanist fantasy, but I think Tolkien actually comes closer than Moorcock and those like him. None of this is to say that Anderson's novel fails to impress - it does, and it should be better known. But I find the comparisons between him and Tolkien often provided spurious. So I guess this is a "comparative literature" thread: fantasy authors often like to compare themselves to each other, but as literary critics, how should we approach comparisons between say, Anderson and Tolkien. Are the two different in "outlook"? What constitutes and author's "outlook" anyway? Are certain values preferable and fantasy literature, and if they are there, how are they embodied? I suppose I have become sceptical of the cheap, off hand comparisons that are often made of Tolkien and other authors. What's really going on here?