[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by -davem

I don't see that 'not being at all comfortable with industrial development' makes one a bad person - one could even argue it makes one a good person. I prefer wild countryside to urban sprawl - shoot me.

I don’t think that either Pullman or Moorcock are saying that it does make anyone a “bad” person. They are expressing their opinion about a socio-political approach to life with which they disagree in seeking to explain why they dislike a work which reflects that approach. Personally, I am rather split on this one. Tolkien’s approach to technological development is one of the few points upon which I do fundamentally disagree with him. That said, I do prefer a rural outlook to an urban one and dislike the overcrowded nature of urban areas. I suppose that, while I recognise the value of urbanisation to society, I prefer not to have to experience it myself. In this respect, my tastes have changed markedly since my early 20s, when I positively relished living and working in the city.

Unlike Pullman and Moorcock, however, whatever disagreements I may have with Tolkien on these issues, as reflected in the society which he created, I do not find that these impair my enjoyment of his tales. Partly because I do not expect them to speak directly to my “real life” experiences. And partly because I do not subscribe greatly to Moorcock’s (and, I suspect, Pullman’s) political leanings. Which makes me wonder. Is LotR a fundamentally right wing work (and I am not talking about the extreme right here)? Is it more likely to be appreciated by those with conservative, traditionalist political leanings? Spiritually and socially, Tolkien does come across as rather orthodox but, from his Letters, he seems to be rather politically radical (although his politics seem closer to anti-big state “enlightened Toryism” than anything else).

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It makes me laugh when people who aim to be anti-establishment claim that all those who are against change are automatically 'reactionaries' or even 'proto-Nazis'. Why? Because in the modern world we are all constantly bombarded with 'change' and we are constantly reminded that we are not 'cool' if we do not embrace it, even that we are unemployable if we do not accept it. But all this embracing of 'change' is just being done to encourage us to be forever unhappy and hence to work even harder and buy even more stuff, buy a bigger house in a better area, get a better holiday next year, go somewhere different (even if it destroys the environment), accept a bigger workload when staff are cut, be bored and restless all the time until we die.

Ah, but change is a fundamental aspect of human nature – the urge to strive for something different, something new, something “better”. Tolkien does address this, but not in the way that the likes of Moorcock can appreciate – not in LotR at least. This does make me wonder whether, were either of them to delve more deeply into Tolkien’s writings, they might appreciate what he has to say about Mannish adaptability and flexibility v Elvish immutability and desire to preserve, stifle even. Tolkien is critical of the Elvish approach, yet I think Moorcock and Pullman are right that he displayed a tendency towards this himself. There is a contradiction of sorts here, or does it reflect a perceptive self-awareness (and self-criticism) on Tolkien’s part?

Originally Posted by davem

It seems to me that what Pullman & Moorcock are complaining about is that Tolkien didn't tell them what to think. He refused to write 'allegory' - what he did set down was his own vision of 'life, the universe & everything', 'seen through enchanted eyes' which is not to say that he wrote 'fairy stories' or produced 'spun candy' in any way. Horror, pain, loss, sacrifice, are all there, along with love, friendship, honour & beauty, but they are mythologised in order to bring out their timeless & universal aspect so that they become applicable to us & our everyday lives (to the extent that we want them to be).

Disagree with the first part. Agree with the second. I do not think that Moorcock and Pullman expect Tolkien (or, indeed, any other author) to tell them what to think. I do think that they expect literature to speak to their real life experiences. They clearly feel that, psychologically, politically and/or socially, Tolkien’s characters are stuck in Middle-earth and have nothing to tell them about the real world. I disagree with them on that and agree with you about the applicability of Tolkien’s writings to our everyday lives.

I nevertheless do think that it is rather unfair to categorise Pullman and Moorcock as rejecting stories for their own sake. What Pullman says in one of those interviews about the importance of the story and his own trilogy almost writing itself sounds very similar to statements made by Tolkien in this regard. I am not sure that they expect a “message” in the sense of an allegory. They are perfectly happy to accept a story for its own sake, provided that they can find applicability in it. And they do not find that applicability in LotR. Fair enough. Not everyone does.