Why Tolkien?

[Mithalwen]

I think there has been a change in the years since I was at University reading Literature when and where Tolkien was very much a "love that dare not speak its name" - he only got a mention with regard to invented languages in linguistics so I am pleased but slightly amazed that so many of the younger downer seem to be getting the chance to write essays on him. And although there are some excellent works of criticism youdotn' need them to access the work (though I found Forster invaluable when I first read the Silmarillion!).

I think the literati hate that he doesn't fit into their categories and it is a particular thorn in their side because the academic credentials of the author mean they cannot easily dismiss it. And Tolkien did not so much write a novel as create a world. It is not hard to fault Tolkien as a novelist (though it was evident that many who reviewed TCOH hadn't actually read it), but the world he created is so marvellous and intriguing... I know it isn't real, I don't pretend it's real but I love the plausibility of the creation. This is what brings us back - that and the wealth of information made available us through the editorship of Christopher Tolkien. We can get so involved in it because there is so much to be involved in and that may link in to other interests we have. For I read Tolkien as the history of a created world rather than as stories - I seldom read through the books straight but use them as resources for whatever aspect I am currently interested. Tolkien in some ways is at his best with what with other writers would be trivia but with him are simply the incursion of the wider creation in to the plot.

I found Middle Earth a refuge first time round from the troubles of adolescence and second time from the pain of bereavement but it is so much more than escapism. I have over "comfort reads" (eg the Forsyte/Barchester Chronicles) but I don't spend my life discussing them online as I do Tolkien. I am a fairly omnivorous reader (though actually not much else that is "fantasy") and read both supermarket chicklit and Booker listed stuff and lots in between. I am not claiming that Tolkien is the best writer if it meant placing him above Austen or Orwell or that LOTR is the best English novel - technically Middlemarch may well be but I have never been able to face reading it a second time myself), but perhaps he is the most beloved writer and I would point out that LOTR was voted "Book of the Century" before the films came out so it can not be claimed that its popularity is distorted by people who may have seen the films rather than read the books. The only reason that Tolkien might not be my "Desert Island Discs" book choice would be the difficulty of choosing a single volume! Currently in my bag I have LOTR, Silmarillion,UT, letters and the Journeys of Frodo which I regard as a bare minimum!!!

I am ashamed to say that I stopped reading Tolkien at University (though he was the reason I was so keen on the linguistics component!) - I had exhausted the canon and found the early volumes of HoME tough going and with a lengthy reading list making demands on time and pocket and it was the publicity surrounding the films that reignited my interest - I got full marks in a quiz without having glanced at the books for the best part of a decade! And there was the internet to allow me to get in contact with like minded souls (noone in my RL is really interested). It has swallowed up more of my time than I want to think about but I don't think it wasted.

So to give a short answer after a long one, Tolkien has breadth and depth and the more you look the more you find.

[Kuruharan]

I think the love of language that Tolkien brought to his work infused it with the depth Mithalwen refers to. I hate to say that I think that level of personal involvement and love for a subcreation on the part of an author is rare, but in some ways I believe it is. This is not to say that author's don't love their creation...but I don't think many do quite to the extent that Tolkien did. It was in many respects his life's work and I think that makes a lot of difference.

I believe that is a critical part of why Tolkien's work stands out and will continue to stand out as time goes by.

[Aelfwine]

I like your signature, Kuruharan. It strikes a "chord" with me.

As I expected, and this is not a criticism, I see much discussion about "what" everyone's chord is rather than "why" Tolkien strikes a chord with so many people. This leads me to believe that I was unclear. I will clarify after I briefly discuss my chord.

To me, the Middle Earth mythos feels complete; it is comprehensive and consistent (and I know, just as anyone who has perused HoME, that there are inconsistencies and frayed threads). Middle Earth simply works. It manages to feel right and real, complete with an ancient history merely glimpsed in LoTR and later published in the posthumous works. This is why Tolkien has always been compelling to me.

As I said, everyone has personal reasons for loving Middle Earth. My question is why are so many people driven to discuss it on boards? I am one of the old school. I first read LoTR before the Silmarillion was much more than a rumor, long before there was an internet. Before the movies, there were a handful of decent boards where Tolkien was discussed. When the movies came out we witnessed an explosion of boards, literally hundreds. Everyone wanted to talk about Middle Earth. Now, years later, we are back to perhaps a dozen or less decent boards, but the discussion continues. As Kuruharan's signature hints, people want to talk about Tolkien. People want to be part of a Tolkien community, whatever their personal reasons for liking his work may be. Why are we so driven to discuss this author and his works? Why do we want and need a community?

I have not researched what boards may be out there for other authors. I'm sure some exist. I'm sure there are plenty of Harry Potter boards though I doubt that 50 years after publication there will be interest comparable to the present and continuing interest in Tolkien. I think that there are broad and perhaps nearly universal reasons for this beyond our personal reasons for appreciating LoTR. What do you all think they are?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

As I expected, and this is not a criticism, I see much discussion about "what" everyone's chord is rather than "why" Tolkien strikes a chord with so many people. This leads me to believe that I was unclear. I will clarify after I briefly discuss my chord...

...I think that there are broad and perhaps nearly universal reasons for this beyond our personal reasons for appreciating LoTR. What do you all think they are?

*Morth goes questing for the lost chord*


Why, as opposed to what? Well, there are several reasons why, but let's look at what it is not, compared to other great novels of the last century:

1) It is not indecipherable like Joyce's 'Ulysses' or 'Finnegan's Wake'.

2) It is not perceived as having objectionable material like Henry Miller's 'Tropic of Cancer' or some of the works of D.H. Lawrence or William Faulkner.

3) It is not dated like F. Scott Fitzgerald or topical like Steinbeck's work.

4) It is not brutal in its depiction of violence or warfare like 'A Clockwork Orange' or 'Lord of the Flies'.

5) It is not so damn depressing as the works of John Irving, Saul Bellow or Nabokov.

6) It is not as bleeding dull as Cheever, Waugh, Henry James or Virginia Wolfe.



Having described what it is not, Tolkien's work is:

1) Suitable for an extraordinarily wide age demographic.

2) Has a depth both linguistically and chronologically that endears itself to the research-minded.

3) Uplifting, humorous and sad all at once.

4) Epic, but there are heroes that are not so tall as to require a ladder to see their lofty brows.

5) Escapist literature that allows us to leave the mundane and menial for a trip to a hauntingly beautiful and extraordinarily well-defined world that mirrors ours, yet is decidely different. To paraphase Treebeard, 'it is but it aint.'

6) It is a story of many different facets, and means different things to different readers: it is a coming of age tale, it is a war epic, it is a fantasy steeped in traditional folklore, it is a morality play, and it is an allegory even when the author flat-out says it definitely is not.

[Bêthberry]

I'm just a reader in a fantasy land, which I think is what accounts for the particular differences in the experience of reading Tolkien when compared to those authors Aelfwine has named.

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

Why not Faulkner, or O'Brian, or Vonnegut, or Homer, or Tolstoy or... you get the picture.

Unlike Aelfwine, though, I would not include Homer in this list of contrasting authors, and I note that Morth did not include Homer in his list of Those Who Tolkien Resembles Not.

There are books which we read for "the facts"--just the facts, ma'am--even literary fiction, as well as histories and expository prose. This is especially true of novels in the realistic tradition and, possibly, those in the ironic tradition. But not all books are best read as proof-texts for literalness--witness the desperate measures of those who read the Bible literally (which it never was until the last two centuries). Some books invite a different kind of reading experience.

Homer's two epics are such books, which originally were oral, and which often were sung. They are performative, possibly even interactive. Witness the oft-told complaint that Tolkien's style is archaic--it often assumes the rhythmic beat of Old English rather than contemporary English. Homer's and Tolkien's creations are activities to be experienced rather than texts to be decoded. Perhaps this is the nature of mythologies. Both Homer and Tolkien wrote, after all, mythologies. And both authors have inspired re-tellers of their tales. There is something about mythologies that inspires readers and listeners to invest the writings with more than simple decoding, something akin to ekstasis or a 'stepping outside' of normal experience. Not every kid had Athena for a Mentor but holey-molely look what happened to one who did!

This might be what Morth is getting at when he claims that Tolkien was using allegory even when he claimed he wasn't. There are, after all, various kinds of allegoria, not all of which "point back" to events in a one to one correlation with contemporary history.

Anyhow, I think it was Mircea Eliade who used the term coincidentia oppositorum, a special sense unlike the ordinary, daily, mundane experience, to describe the experience of myth, which possibly can also be ascribed to fantasy. I think many readers invest Tolkien's works with this sense.

(As an aside, let me suggest that davem would not be such a reader, given his recent thread where he insisted that historical veracity had to be the ultimate means of assessing Tolkien.)

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Unlike Aelfwine, though, I would not include Homer in this list of contrasting authors, and I note that Morth did not include Homer in his list of Those Who Tolkien Resembles Not.

I did not include Homer in the list because he was not a writer of the 20th century. The only Homer I know of in the 20th century is on The Simpsons.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This might be what Morth is getting at when he claims that Tolkien was using allegory even when he claimed he wasn't. There are, after all, various kinds of allegoria, not all of which "point back" to events in a one to one correlation with contemporary history.

I mentioned allegory because so many readers insist Lord of the Rings is allegorical, even though Tolkien went out of his way in the foreward of the book to say it was not. No matter what arguments are provided to the contrary, threads continue to pop up with new (and old) allegorical conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

(As an aside, let me suggest that davem would not be such a reader, given his recent thread where he insisted that historical veracity had to be the ultimate means of assessing Tolkien.)

For some reason, the old adage 'let sleeping dogs lie' occurs to me at this juncture.

[Aelfwine]

Morthoron has headed in the right direction. Tolkien is not indecipherable, dull, depressing, dated, brutal or objectionable. And it is suitable and accessible to a wide age demographic.

But let me take this point further. I will hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of posters here first read the Hobbit and LoTR at a relatively young age. Further, because it is not considered by most schools to be a "classic" or "literature" generally it is not assigned reading and as a result we devoured it for pure enjoyment. Because it is not any of the things that Morthoron lists, young readers enjoy it for a variety of reasons. But being young readers, we miss or misunderstand details and nuances. And being young readers we do what most adults do not do with most books; we read them again, and again. We continue to do so even as we become adults. Perhaps LoTR provides comfort and a reminder of innocence; a return to childhood. Whatever the reason, re-reading Tolkien is a joyful thing to us. We want to understand it, analyse it and be expert in the lore. This is an echo of the childlike desire for learning.

Of course not everyone is bitten by the "bug". Some do the read and drop and never touch it again. Others can't get through it. While millions of copies have been sold not everyone becomes fascinated. This is where the "what" chord comes in. For some of its readers Middle Earth resonates. Coupled with our desire to understand, analyse and become expert in the lore is a desire to discuss it with others. This can be a difficult thing. Before the advent of the internet I knew no one who was gripped by Tolkien like I was. In fact, enjoying Tolkien was probably not high on the list of things that were good for a youngster's social life. It was a solitary vice, to use someone else's words. But now, it doesn't have to be.

Because of discussion boards like this one, we can now indulge ourselves and analyse and demonstrate our expertise, expound on our theories, work out answers to questions that may be unanswerable, to our heart's content. This, I think, is why we are members here. This is why we waste innumerable hours referencing and cross-referencing snippets from HoME and the primary works. This is why we come back again and again to see if anyone has posted on the threads we participate in. This is why we want, no, NEED a community, and thankfully we have one.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

(As an aside, let me suggest that davem would not be such a reader, given his recent thread where he insisted that historical veracity had to be the ultimate means of assessing Tolkien.)

Not at all - though this is not the place to pick up that particular gauntlet - I was merely asking whether historical veracity (or its absence) is important in a fantasy world, & how much leeway an author of a fantasy novel has.

Of course, it may well be that it is the absence of the gritty nastiness of the real/Primary world that makes Tolkien's creation so attractive - that the 'moral'/ethical (let alone the 'religious') dimension doesn't play any part in what really attracts us to Middle-earth. Its Faery, & Faery exerts a strange pull on many of us. Why that should be I don't know, but it has nothing to do with moral codes & everything to do with a sense of wonder awakened.

"Still round the corner..." & all that

[Aelfwine]

Both Homer and Tolkien wrote, after all, mythologies. And both authors have inspired re-tellers of their tales. There is something about mythologies that inspires readers and listeners to invest the writings with more than simple decoding, something akin to ekstasis or a 'stepping outside' of normal experience. Not every kid had Athena for a Mentor but holey-molely look what happened to one who did!

I agree that Homer and Tolkien wrote within the same general genre; both wrote mythologies, though Homer's work apparently romanticized real life events (or at least some historiams believe). They differ drastically in that Tolkien delineates, more or less clearly, between good and evil while there is no such clear cut distinction in the Iliad. Rather in Homer's works, men were effectively pawns of the whims of the gods who generally were mightily amused and entertained. Comparing LoTR and the Iliad would probably be a great thread. I'm sure we would get at least 3 posts.

I mentioned Homer not to draw any comparisons or contrasts with Middle Earth but rather because he is recognized as the author of a classic (if he in fact existed which is another can of worms). The point being that there are not dozens of discussion boards and hundreds of websites dedicated to dissecting the details of Homer's works while such ether attention does exist for Tolkien. Again this may be in part because most modern readers devour Tolkien for pleasure but read Homer because they are required to in school.

Of course, it may well be that it is the absence of the gritty nastiness of the real/Primary world that makes Tolkien's creation so attractive

I disagree here. Middle Earth is certainly idealised and, perhaps because it is set in a simpler time, is more innocent than the real world (in some ways anyway; the most hardened hood in New York City would not want to run afoul of a Balrog). But many of the current problems found in today's society are found in Middle Earth as well. Thievery and hooliganism (Bill Ferny, the ruffians in the Scouring of the Shire), greed (Smaug, the Dwarves - sorry Kuruharan), cronyism (Saruman, the Shirriffs), unbridled lust for power (Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman), runaway egos (Feanor), depression (Denethor), prejudice (Elves and Dwarves are guilty here), excess (the over-indulgers following Bilbo's Birthday Party), jealosy (Saeros), corruption (Wormtongue), etc. Middle Earth is idealized but it is not idyllic. Otherwise it would be boring (with a tip of the hat to Morthoron) and would not appeal to young readers.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. The simplified version of the question is what drives you to post here? Why do you seek out a community of Middle Earth afficianados?