What does the sixpence = ?

[littlemanpoet]

A most enjoyable discussion, my fellow BD Deadies.

Originally Posted by SPM

Does it matter what the sixpence is? It's lost anyway.

Well, not entirely. I think Tolkien did us the service of partially recovering it and presenting it to us in LotR. More on that later. The literati seem not to understand what it is that he found.

SPM, I'll quote from this section by Shippey more later so as to clear up some of the issues you raise. Suffice it to say for now that Shippey had spent eleven pages discussing the vituperative nature of most of the critique regarding Tolkien, trying to arrive at just what it was behind all of the antipathy; the allegory comes at the end, and my sense is that Shippey is "throwing up his hands", after a fashion, after not being able to quite come to the answer he was hoping to find. That said, the questions you raise still deserve answering. Soon.

Squatter, what you say rings true in that what we seem to have here are two paradigms, to ways of thinking about literature, and they seem to be (almost) mutually exclusive. Consider: the literati that openly scorn Tolkien as childish to autistic are by him scorned as not worth reading. He considered anything written after 1600 (I think that's the rough date) to be not worth the effort.

davem & Lalwendë, thanks much for your input; I'm learning from you much that I didn't know by way of background regarding what Shippey was saying.

I'm also grateful for the even-handed points that have been made on how Tolkien's religion (as compared to others such as Pullman) may have a piece in the derision directed toward Tolkien. Nevertheless, I don't think religion is more than a small piece of the puzzle; if it were larger, davem and I would surely be at odds.

I think it has to do with language. Shippey is a philologist, and a self-professed non-Christian (which I read in JRRT:AofC). Anyone who has read Carpenter's biography of Tolkien has learned of the "Lang vs. Lit" battle in Oxford that raged from the late 19th century in to the 1970s, when Lit finally won upon the apparent natural death of Lang, more's the pity. As some of us know, all of Tolkien's fiction is based in Language first. He knew words and their histories and functions far better than anybody else who wrote fiction in the 20th century.

As I've suggested elsewhere on this board, western culture has three fundamental "strains", as it were: Hebrew, Greek, and Germanic. Every single aspect of western culture (until the rise of Eastern influences in the last century) is an admixture of these three ingredients. The critical thing is that the German piece has always been considered inferior and in need of the balances to be had from the Greek and Hebrew, whether that meant sciences or religion. The literati own the Greek science as received cultural doctrine.

So here comes Tolkien, avowedly influenced by Hebrew more than they (a practicing Catholic) and also someone who knows the Greek Classics but has rejected them and 'Lit' in favor of Germanics and 'Lang' (thus professionally incorrect); and he revives the Germanic piece of our heritage by taking its words from the ash heap and cleaning them off and making them shine. So he's committed cultural heresy, as it were, and to the shock and dismay of the cultural orthodox, he has committed disciples numbering in the millions.

He has revealed (not made) that which is supposed to be accepted as inferior, as in fact something beautiful in its own right. And of course westerns who are not too stuck in the "received doctrine" have found what he has revealed as food for our souls, because we are at root Germanic (include Celtic within this).

So there is a religious feel to all of this, but it's not about religion, it's about culture. And the self appointed arbiters of culture are, like the Pharisees and Saducees of the first century, finding their flock leaving the pen. Of course they don't like it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interestingly, just today a friend sent me the link to an article ('The New Yorker') about and including an interview with Philip Pullmann ('His Dark Materials'). He is quite critical of both Lewis and Tolkien; unfortunately, I don't have the time to comment extensively right now, but perhaps the New Yorker article will engender more discussion.

[davem]

Just skimmed the article - thanks Esty

“ ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is fundamentally an infantile work,” he said. “Tolkien is not interested in the way grownup, adult human beings interact with each other. He’s interested in maps and plans and languages and codes.”

the “Rings” series, he declared, is “just fancy spun candy. There’s no substance to it.”

Unfortunately this kind of thing is typical of Pullman - shallow & ignorant. Pullman simply doesn't understand what Tolkien is about, & because he doesn't understand it he dismisses it as infantile & lacking in substance - ironic in a way, because that's exactly how I feel about HDM. LotR is clearly beyond him. Gimli's words to Eomer spring to mind:

"Then Eomer son of Eomund, Third Marshal of Riddermark, let Gimli the Dwarf Gloin's son warn you against foolish words. You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, and only little wit can excuse you."

Still, I suppose it makes him feel important. I give HDM another 5 years. Wait till the movies are out & over with.

[Bergil]

Anyone who accuses Tolkien of idealizing monarchy had best consider what George Washington, John A Macdonald, and so forth would do upon seeing a modern election (throw up, then go make a few rewrites). it's still better then a bad monarchy, but only an idiot or a candidate (most of whom are idiots) wouldn't rather have a good monarchy. A good democracy would of course, be the very best that we know of yet, but let's not dream.

Also, here's another example of "the light and the dark". Playing card games, (fixed deck of 52 cards with fixed values), is "in the light" because they're respetable, but you might find trading card games more fun if you're willing to "go into the dark" and risk being condemned as a nerd.

[Lalwendë]

Pullman says one particular thing in this article which is very astute:

In adult literary fiction, stories are there on sufferance. Other things are felt to be more important: technique, style, literary knowingness. . . . The present-day would-be George Eliots take up their stories as if with a pair of tongs. They’re embarrassed by them. If they could write novels without stories in them, they would. Sometimes they do.

In this respect he has a lot more in common with Tolkien and Lewis (and Rowling) than he thinks, the power to capture the imagination by simple story. I read a lot of contemporary fiction and I have to say that much of the time I am very disappointed with weak, useless stories, which leave me feeling more than a little angry that I have been 'conned' into buying x novel. If I want poetry, I read poetry, if I want philosophy I read philosophy, if I read a novel I want a damn story; if it has got poetry and philosophy in it, then that's even better, but the story is paramount.

He misses one point which his Dark Materials shares with LotR, the theme of growth. This cannot be called infantile. Frodo in particular grows up through his travels and his troubles; he leaves behind his bucolic existence and enters the perils of the wider world, returning home utterly changed. So do the other Hobbits, but unlike them, Frodo cannot cope with the changes which have come over him and he has to leave again. This is a fundamentally grown-up and modern theme; we can say that Frodo has become alienated through what has happened and the picture Tolkien painted of him was of a person unable to reconcile a changed self with a changed world.

However, I don't want to make a list of "see, you're wrong" points.

Pullman's radicalism is a very pipe and slippers kind of radicalism, one which does not wish to have the cushions disturbed or the cleaner suddenly decide not to turn up one morning. He wishes the Kingdom of Heaven to become a Republic, which is something I quite like the idea of myself, having a quite unorthodox view of God and a natural lack of trust for dogma, but I do have to ask if the Republic of Heaven would just become another kind of restrictive system. I get the impression that for him, Blake's philosophies are fine in a book, but might not be acceptable in life.

One thing I do not like in Pullman's world is that the Daemons, when they settle into adult form, take on our attributes. Lord Asriel has a Snow Leopard, and Mrs Coulter an exotic monkey, but why do all the servants have little dogs and humble birds? I am uncomfortable with this.

Still, I like His Dark Materials as it not only raises some fascinating questions and ideas but its a damn good story, one of the best I have ever read. For that, I am much more prepared to answer Pullman's criticisms in a considered way, yet when it is an author who has put out a dreadful novel or other book, particularly of the kind Pullman has described, I am far less tolerant.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

... made 'politically correct'.

An interesting term, politcal correctness. In its original guise, it had the right aim which was, as you say, to promote tolerance and respect. But in its extreme form it does, as you imply, breed intolerance and disrespect. Political correctness, although an abhorrent term, is not bad per se. But, just like many movements and ideologies, it is unattractive when taken to its extreme.

Davem, I am not a great fan of those who seek to alter literature, or indeed any form of art, in order to bring them into line with modern social mores. There are instances where it may be justified (replacing the thuggish golliwogs in Noddy with goblins, for example), although even then I would approach the issue with caution. In general, and outside the realm of responsible and reasonable censorship, I think that people have little right to re-write stories which they themselves have not created. That should almost always be within the prerogative of the author alone. And I was merely speculating whether Tolkien himself, on seeing the way in which his tales have been used and labelled by extremists and critics alike might have had cause to reconsider and temper them somewhat. I was most certainly not suggesting that the story should be altered now by officious "do-gooders" simply because of they are accused by some of showing racism or by others to support a racist agenda. I would be bitterly opposed to any such attempt at latter day revisionism of his tales.

No, I am not saying that LotR should be re-written to satisfy the likes of Johann Hari or to prevent its misuse by extremists. I am merely expressing a desire to see their points addressed through sensible and constructive engagement, rather than being dismissed as unworthy of response. The likes of Shippey may provide coherent and logical arguments in their published works. But I don't see them out there promoting those arguments and taking on the likes of Hari. Apparently the only ones who were prepared to engage with Hari in response to his article were seemingly the border-line insane. I am uncomfortable that the task should be left to them.

Esty, the Pullman piece was an interesting read. Thanks. I enjoyed his books and I think that he has a lot of useful things to say. He does seem contradict himself at times, although that may just be the editorial influence of the article's writer. But as Lalwendë points out, he probably has more in common with Tolkien than he would care to admit. I disagree with his view on LotR. But I would expect a discussion with him of his view in this regard to be both fascinating and entertaining.

Ultimately, we should be open to criticism of Tolkien, since Tolkien himself should not be above criticism. By placing him there, we risk committing a kind of extreme "political correctness" ourselves - brooking no dissent and stifling discussion. But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

But by considering such criticism objectively, and also by responding constructively to it, we may just learn a little bit more about the man and his works ourselves.

But where's the fun in that? It's been a huorn's age since we had a good tarring and feathering of an uppity critic round here. Whatever happened to good ol' fashioned mob justice? While everyone is busy being objective and rational, my torch and my pitchfork are gathering dust in the closet. Fie!