Vaguely interesting BBC Culture article

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201...nd-the-hippies
Has anyone read this? It's pretty lightweight and insubstantial as they go, mostly just cataloguing a bunch of references to The Lord of the Rings in 60s and 70s culture (it also erroneously assumes that pipe-weed was a hallucinogen rather than ordinary tobacco), but it raises a couple of curious points.

As my PhD thesis nears its completion I've been considering some elements of Professor Tolkien's relationship to "alternative lifestyles" or "radical activism," largely in terms of how his work does what I think was a rather bold thing for his context by critiquing modernity, which seems to have been (and still is in some quarters) a bit of a sin in academic discourse, where any criticism of modernity automatically makes you "nostalgic." People always seem to miss the completely overt criticism of the pointlessness of nostalgia in the books too. I am somewhat intrigued by the idea that Professor Tolkien argues in favour of alternatives to modernity rather than a regression from it, which was a proposal firmly made by his literary precursor, William Morris.

At the same time, it's not as if The Lord of the Rings is some kind of manifesto for a better society, although it may suggest better ways of being as individuals and communities.

I never made the connection between Tolkien's works and alternative lifestyle. I always saw it as Tolkien just writing really good stuff set in a high fantasy world.
All of that counterculture stuff is just a different interpretation of his works which is neither right nor wrong; it just is.

[jallanite]

The essay mentions pipeweed as an hallucinogen as you mention. The Lord of the Rings claims instead that pipeweed was “a variety probably of Nicotiana”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotiana .

So was Tolkien pushing consumption of tobacco as a good thing? Probably not. Tolkien himself was a user of tobacco, and was writing at a time when smoking tobacco was the norm. Tolkien in The Hobbit had made Gandalf a smoker, probably because in folktales smoking had also become a norm. Consider in particular the Grimm fairy tale “The Blue Light”. See http://www.authorama.com/grimms-fairy-tales-48.html . Merlyn is also a tobacco-smoker in T. H. White’s novel The Sword in the Stone.

Nor despite indicating that his hobbits were fond of beer, is Tolkien really pushing beer drinking.

But there is more indication in The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien was pushing tobacco-smoking and beer-drinking than that he was fond of rock music or the Beatles or Led Zeppelin or drug use.

What happened is that Tolkien’s books were popular because of their excellence, not because they partially agreed with the supposed sentiments of those who read them. The essay is, as indicated, “lightweight and insubstantial”. Nowhere does The Lord of the Rings put forward any “alternative lifestyles or radical activism”.

The writer then puts down Jackson’s films, but does so for no reason that makes sense to me. I personally dislike parts of Jackson’s films, but not because the “narrative arc has been scaled beyond its original humanity and reduced to CGI eye-candy.” An essay could be written explaining where Jackson has ignored the “original humanity” of the tale, but the writer does not even try to do this. Is the “original humanity” ignored when Gandalf is rescued by a giant eagle or when Gandalf comes back to life? If the “original humanity” is so important, then is Jackson’s omission of Tom Bombadil a good thing? I suspect that by “CGI eye-candy” the writer means merely “CGI that I dislike”. Personally if by “CGI eye-candy” the writer merely means CGI that is pleasing to the eye, then what is he complaining about? Would the films have been improved by less CGI that was pleasing to the viewer?

The writer claims:

This ground-breaking music mirrored the mind-expanding drugs, magical excursions, pagan celebrations and Bohemian lifestyle associated with the counterculture – and characters in Tolkien’s books.

Where in the books or in real life does Tolkien or “characters in Tolkien’s books” push “mind-expanding drugs” or “pagan celebrations” or “Bohemian lifestyle associated with the counterculture”?

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by jallanite

The essay mentions pipeweed as an hallucinogen as you mention. The Lord of the Rings claims instead that pipeweed was “a variety probably of Nicotiana”. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotiana .

So was Tolkien pushing consumption of tobacco as a good thing? Probably not. Tolkien himself was a user of tobacco, and was writing at a time when smoking tobacco was the norm. Tolkien in The Hobbit had made Gandalf a smoker, probably because in folktales smoking had also become a norm. Consider in particular the Grimm fairy tale “The Blue Light”. See http://www.authorama.com/grimms-fairy-tales-48.html . Merlyn is also a tobacco-smoker in T. H. White’s novel The Sword in the Stone.

Nor despite indicating that his hobbits were fond of beer, is Tolkien really pushing beer drinking.

But there is more indication in The Lord of the Rings that Tolkien was pushing tobacco-smoking and beer-drinking than that he was fond of rock music or the Beatles or Led Zeppelin or drug use.

What happened is that Tolkien’s books were popular because of their excellence, not because they partially agreed with the supposed sentiments of those who read them. The essay is, as indicated, “lightweight and insubstantial”. Nowhere does The Lord of the Rings put forward any “alternative lifestyles or radical activism”.

The writer then puts down Jackson’s films, but does so for no reason that makes sense to me. I personally dislike parts of Jackson’s films, but not because the “narrative arc has been scaled beyond its original humanity and reduced to CGI eye-candy.” An essay could be written explaining where Jackson has ignored the “original humanity” of the tale, but the writer does not even try to do this. Is the “original humanity” ignored when Gandalf is rescued by a giant eagle or when Gandalf comes back to life? If the “original humanity” is so important, then is Jackson’s omission of Tom Bombadil a good thing? I suspect that by “CGI eye-candy” the writer means merely “CGI that I dislike”. Personally if by “CGI eye-candy” the writer merely means CGI that is pleasing to the eye, then what is he complaining about? Would the films have been improved by less CGI that was pleasing to the viewer?

The writer claims:

This ground-breaking music mirrored the mind-expanding drugs, magical excursions, pagan celebrations and Bohemian lifestyle associated with the counterculture – and characters in Tolkien’s books.

Where in the books or in real life does Tolkien or “characters in Tolkien’s books” push “mind-expanding drugs” or “pagan celebrations” or “Bohemian lifestyle associated with the counterculture”?

The writer was likely trying to make any association between their beliefs and Tolkien. Forced logic doesn't always make sense. Tolkien having a huge number of people smoke and drink means absolutely nothing. In medieval times, ale was drunk as the norm, just because that was what they had available.

Smoking tobacco is very much how smoking is today. A lot of people do it. I don't think there is any relation between regular tobacco and hallucinogenic drugs. It's plausible that who the writer was talking about just wanted someone well known to support their ideals, even though it was like claiming that the US Government is the Illuminati, using convoluted logic.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It’s hard to imagine anyone today watching The Lord of the Rings or Hobbit films and thinking of alternative lifestyles or radical activism. What happened?

It’s hard to imagine Tolkien writing The Lord of the Rings or Hobbit and thinking of alternative lifestyles or radical activism. What happened?

Having read the piece, I have to conclude that this Jane Ciabattari is a pinhead.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hicklin

Having read the piece, I have to conclude that this Jane Ciabattari is a pinhead.

The writer used the strategy of neglecting contradictory evidence, especially the fact that it wasn't intended to have allusions of counter-culture.

[Zigûr]

A few elements do come to mind (some of which relates to what I've already said):

1) Professor Tolkien's writing was to a degree, intentionally or otherwise, a rejection of the twentieth century literary establishment and literary orthodoxy. At the same time, he does have things in common with the Modernists.

2) Similarly, the texts tend to reject authoritarianism and denounce tyranny.

3) The Lord of the Rings does, in my opinion, suggest the value of a lifestyle or society which is more harmonized with the natural world.

Firstly, however, I don't understand why this article was published now. Secondly, it doesn't really make an effort to explain why Professor Tolkien's work influenced this culture, particularly because as jallanite has said the arguments of the books are hardly identical to a "hippie philosophy."

I can see the point the author is trying to make but I think instead of saying "Tolkien and the hippies both took issue with some of the institutions of their day" it seems to imply that The Lord of the Rings is some kind of covert hippie manual just waiting to be decoded.

[Tar-Jêx]

Originally Posted by Zigûr

1) Professor Tolkien's writing was to a degree, intentionally or otherwise, a rejection of the twentieth century literary establishment and literary orthodoxy. At the same time, he does have things in common with the Modernists.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Tolkien's writing was a rejection of twentieth century literature, but moreso an innovation, or re-innovation, bringing a traditional legendarium style mythos back into view.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

2) Similarly, the texts tend to reject authoritarianism and denounce tyranny.

This is not a valid reason to state that it supported the hippie movement. George Orwell wrote many books about why authoritarianism and dictatorship was the worst thing, but that doesn't support hippie culture, it just doesn't oppose it, and shares a similar view. Sharing a similar view does not indicate that Tolkien intended to support alternative lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Zigûr

I can see the point the author is trying to make but I think instead of saying "Tolkien and the hippies both took issue with some of the institutions of their day" it seems to imply that The Lord of the Rings is some kind of covert hippie manual just waiting to be decoded.

The writer did have a good point, but instead of expanding on it in a logical manner, they just used it to support the argument that Tolkien supported hippie culture. The way they do it is obscure also, as what they used as evidence for their case has been interpreted many different ways, and could support almost anyone's cause. This vagueness allows us to conclude that the writer has begun to understand what they were talking about, but thought we would just accept their interpretation as hard fact, ignoring opposing cases.