LotR - Foreword

[Guinevere]

I agree, Gorwingel!

I have similar opinions of their works, or the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer.

I wonder what books those were actually? Does anyone know some examples?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Since those words appear largely to have been motivated by resentment at some of the more dismissive criticism that his writing had received, I doubt that any solid examples will ever be forthcoming. I think that Tolkien had anticipated adverse criticism, but had expected it to be more courteously phrased than some of the reviews he received. As is probably only to be expected, he dismisses such criticism out of hand as the opinions of those who enjoy reading drivel. Sad though it is to say it, I think that the phrase quoted above was more a malicious response to certain reviewers of his work than a serious criticism of any particular books.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

As it happens, we do have a fairly good idea of the kinds of books/critics who Tolkien was talking about in that moment. Most of the most cutting reviews of LotR (and they only became more cutting as the years went by and the book went through edition after edition, and worse, became a bestseller in America) came from the critics who wrote for the more "literary" reviews (The Times Literary Supplement for example).

These critics were, throughout the middle part of the last century, almost wholly in accord with one another that the "best" kind of novels were those of the High Moderns (Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Henry James, D.H. Lawrence, Joseph Conrad) and their inheritors. They valued experimentation in style (non-linear narrative, mixing genres, shifts in voice/tone/point of view) and an aesthetic that priviledges uncertainty and ambiguity. Tolkien, they felt, offered none of these things: he was writing in a style that was not only not-new, but was in fact very very old, and behind the interesting questions of his work, there was little ambiguity or uncertainty (we know not only who but what is good and evil in LotR).

It wasn't just Tolkien who came in for this kind of dismissive treatment. Evelyn Waugh (of Brideshead Revisited fame) and Graham Greene received similarly bad reviews. Interestingly, all of these writers were "openly" Catholic in their writings and dealt with issues of faith, belief and absolute notions of good and duty. You won't find much of that in the Moderns valued by the critics at the TLS in Tolkien's lifetime!

[mark12_30]

These critics were, throughout the middle part of the last century, almost wholly in accord with one another that the "best" kind of novels were those of the High Moderns (Virginia Woolf, James Joyce, Henry James, D.H. Lawrence, Joseph Conrad) and their inheritors. They valued experimentation in style (non-linear narrative, mixing genres, shifts in voice/tone/point of view) and an aesthetic that priviledges uncertainty and ambiguity. Tolkien, they felt, offered none of these things: he was writing in a style that was not only not-new, but was in fact very very old

To paraphrase Reepicheep (who always reminded me of Boromir): It is, then, my very good fortune not to be a "modern critic." I much prefer the older styles.

It's interesting that conservationism and conservativism are regarded as opposites these days, for Tolkien was both. He brings them into harmony within his own personality and in his writings. He cherished, protected, and championed that which was old, good, honorable, and vulnerable. Everything from forests to epic prose to gentleness, humility, and self-sacrifice, to honor, responsibility, and just plain "The Good Old Way Of Doing Things"-- as long as it is honorable and high, purged of the gross, beautiful, poetic, he brings us to love Age and the Ancient, and

faith, belief and absolute notions of good and duty

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

It's all well and good to identify a major source of criticism and point to the tastes of its authors, but since Tolkien refuses to name names, either of the reviewers he was describing or of 'the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer', it's very difficult to pin him down to specific examples of books or authors that he considered inferior. I don't remember reading any comment by Tolkien on any of the 'high modern' authors mentioned above, let alone anything resembling an opinion on them. His only comments on modern literature (in one case, English literature in general) admit an absence of both knowledge and interest, and the most recent writers I find mentioned in his letters are Isaac Asimov and Mary Renault, of whom he approved. Although we might speculate as to which authors and critics were the target for his broadside in the 1966 foreword, there's no indication that Tolkien had even read a book by Joyce or Woolf, let alone decided what he thought of their writing.

I think that Tolkien intended his comments to be taken personally by a few reviewers and critics who had been particularly scathing about The Lord of the Rings. 'What they think is immaterial to me,' says Tolkien, 'because I have no desire to write the sort of rubbish that appeals to them.' This isn't a precise indication of Tolkien's literary tastes, but pure defensive aggression. He may well have disliked modern literature (actually his attitude towards it seems to have been closer to indifference), but as far as his actual words are concerned, his statement comes across simply as a counter-blow in print against the people who had been most contemptuously critical of his own work. Perhaps more completely than any other line in the later foreword, this gives away its true nature as the author's response to his work's reception, and by no means is it an apologia.

[davem]

I suspect what Tolkien disliked was the trend towards moral relativism (see Aragorn's words to Eomer) & the taste for irony he found in modern literature ( not much irony in LotR - though as Brian rosebury points out Saruman attempts it in his confrontation with Frodo).

Tolkien obviously felt he had something to offer modern readers which was lacking in the literature of the time. I think he was simply taking a stance, & felt that stance would be acceptable - which he probably didn't at the time of the first forword, where he seems almost apologetic about 'inflicting' this 'old fashioned', 'reactionary' work on the world. His first forword seems almost submissive, in his second he seems to have realised that he's not a voice crying in the wilderness. He cleary believed that literature could have some effect on society, & wanted to make his own position clear.

As to the 'applicability' thing, Rosebury (Tolkien: a Cultural Phenomenon) makes an interesting comparison - that Tolkien is doing, in a sense, what Illuvatar does with the Ainur - giving them the theme to sing, but they apply it in the way they wish - some positively, some negatively, but they are free to apply their creativity to making the world reflect the ideal - Eru's or their own. In that sense Tolkien gives the reader LotR, & we apply it to our lives & our thinking, but just as Eru, having given the gift of creativity & the freedom to apply it to the Ainur & the Children, so Tolkien does with his 'Theme'. Eru is not a dictator, but a creator, whose greatest gift to his children is the ability to 'apply', & the freedom to bring forth, what they have been given; to create themselves in His image. As he puts it:

If I am right, his rejection of the author's 'purposed domination' over the responses of the reader is much more than an acceptance of the modern truism that a literary text, once published, becomes an item of 'public property' which anyone can interpret or misinterpret; rather, it is an intentional adoption of the creative ethic of Illuvatar Himself, & is in absolute harmony with the moral & political values which pervade Tolkien's work

[Guinevere]

Thank you all for the interesting responses to my question!

As for Tolkien's taste in literature, didn't he and CS.Lewis at one time say something like "There is not enough literature of the kind we like , so we have to write it ourselves!" (Sorry I don't remember the exact quote and cannot find it now)
And I remember that in one letter he wrote that he disliked Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Whimsey. (I do like him, though.. Although not of English mothertongue, I've read Henry James and Virginia Woolf and can imagine that that wasn't what Tolkien would have fancied. (I didn't like it, at any rate. Joyce I've never read, although he is buried in Zürich, where I live. Sorry for the o.t. )


Now something different which I noticed :

As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches.

In this sentence in the foreword, Tolkien used almost the same words as in "Leaf by Niggle" about the painting of the tree:

The tree grew, sending out innumerable branches, and thrusting out the most fantastic roots.

When I read this, I took it immediately for a kind of symbol of LotR. Although Tolkien denied allegory, he wrote in letter # 241 about "Leaf by Niggle":

Also, of course, I was anxious about my own internal Tree, "The Lord of the Rings". It was growing out of hand, and revealing endless new vistas - and I wanted to finish it, but the world was threatening.

[Aiwendil]

Guinevere wrote:

As for Tolkien's taste in literature, didn't he and CS.Lewis at one time say something like "There is not enough literature of the kind we like , so we have to write it ourselves!" (Sorry I don't remember the exact quote and cannot find it now)
And I remember that in one letter he wrote that he disliked Dorothy Sayers' Lord Peter Whimsey. (I do like him, though..

I believe he said that he read and enjoyed Peter Whimsey up to Gaudy Night, but found that book to be a turn for the worse. I also recall a letter where he says he enjoys, as he puts it, "so-called 'science fiction'" - particularly Isaac Asimov. I've always enjoyed the fact that my favorite author appears to have been a fan of my second favorite.