“Afraid of dragons”

[Child of the 7th Age]

Note: Cross posted with the two excellent posts above so did not have a chance to consider these ideas as well.


Fordim -

Thanks for posting this. It's an intriguing question. And I do think you must look at LotR in terms of the time it was first published to understand the "radical roots" of Tolkien's writing, as they were first perceived. This was not the only thing pulling us to the book, but it was most definitely a factor. I am going to push the envelope hard here in order to make a point....

When I first read Lord of the Rings in the sixties, my friends and I found it to be "wildly subversive" in many ways. You must remember that there was no biography by Carpenter, no published Letters, and very few scholarly treatments. The only thing we had were the initial reviews with people basically split between those who attacked the book and others who defended it. Those who attacked the book often did so on the grounds that it was hopelessly outdated. Some of us thought otherwise. It was the modern world and its materialistic values that were "outdated" and had to go. (In retrospect, I would not make such a sweeping generalization, yet I still think that, at core, the winds of change were needed.)

We had little to go on in terms of who the author was or his beliefs. As such, we had freedom to speculate wildly on what the text was actually saying. (This should please some people from the dreaded C thread.) One of the reasons that I found the book "subversive" was that, like many in sixties America, I was looking and hoping for change. The values and standards of the fifties seemed old and inadequate in so many ways.

Fantasy in general and LotR in particular suggested other ways of living and thinking, some of which could be seen as 'subversive' when viewed in the context of those times. I could acquire similar knowledge by reading history or studying different cultures, but somehow it seemed much more personal and, oddly, more "possible" when I encountered a fully developed world where the ideas could play out. At the time, I did not understand that Tolkien regarded Middle-earth as an earlier, imaginery phase or our own mythic history. Yet I did sense that this fantasy world had some kind of connection with the world in which I lived, if only because of the linking device of the Shire and its anachronisms.

This is what struck me most forcibly in the book: Tolkien's rejection of material possessions as the be-all and end-all of things; his objection to the rule of the machine, his celebration of the earth and its wonders. I got the clear message that we bear some responsibility for nurturing and cherishing the natural world around us. It was a message I wanted to hear because it was so much in tune with other things that I was learning for the first time. Ecology ihad just come into the classroom and there was an enormous political push to try and do something to turn the tide.

Today, we take so much for granted: that there are at least environmental laws on the books to protect land and air, and there is some attempt to enforce these laws. Laws and regulations are never enough, and sometimes they may be overlooked, but we have come a ways from where we were in the mid-sixties. My copy of LotR sat on my dorm bookshelf right next to Rachel Carson. Perhaps, the critic who expressed this feeling best is Patrick Curry whose book Defending Middle Earth came out in the 70s.

How much of this "subversion" was us, and how much was Tolkien? Certainly, we brought our own predilections to the book, but there was and is something there that suggests a radically different way of viewing and treating our natural environment. Today, I realize that some of our criticism was naive and simplistic, yet without that voice being raised, who knows where our world would be today? And Tolkien's picture of the earth hit a note in the hearts of many at that time.

One other comment.... LotR is not an anti-war book, but the author clearly gave a lot of thought to what war is and is not. Overall, Tolkien portrays war as a necessary evil. It is often the only way we have to protect what we hold dear, yet it is a last resort. That message seemed both important and radical in terms of the sixties and what was happening at the time. Additionally, there is the whole question of Frodo's view of war by the final chapter of the book: certainly not a conventional view.

I remember several guys coming to talk in 1969. They were graduating. Some had such low draft number that it was clear they would shortly be in the service and probably sent to Vietnam. (Several friends from high school had already died in Vietnam.) Most of them accepted that and planned to serve, or had figured out some way to get a continued deferral, but one had decided on a different path. He filed as a CO because that was what he believed. (He also belonged to the Society of Friends, which I was attending at the time.)

I very clearly remember this fellow telling us that he was 'like Frodo' at the end of the Third Age: he could not bring himself to take up arms because, in the long run, he did not believe any good would come from it. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his choice, one thing is clear: the book was provoking discussion and thought, and causing some to look at modern society and find it lacking in key respects. It is this possibility of change, the idea that we don't have to be content with what we have now but can consider ways things can be different, that came over strongly in the sixties. And in this possibility, I believe, lies a "subversive" message, much in keeping with what LeGuin says.

P.S. I am not a Christian, but if I was, I think the argument could be made that "true" Christianity is not traditional or conservative in any sense. This may sound trite, but one can argue Christianity has never actually been tried by any society. Perhaps that religious undertone in LotR is precisely what makes the book "radical": suggesting that these characters, acting not out of self interest but something far greater, accomplished what would seem impossible and turned our understanding of man's actions and motivations in modern literature inside out. Not sure about this. It's just a thought.....

[the phantom]

LOTR is "subversive"?

Fantasy is "subversive"?

Hmm... I'm not so sure.

Child mentioned someone she knew who had a bit of Frodo in them. I also know people who, at times, remind me of characters from Tolkien's world. I can think of several characters that I can identify with. I read and find myself saying "Yep, I probably would've done the same thing" or "I can understand where he's coming from".

I also can, for the most part, picture every area of Middle-Earth when it is described. It's easy because I can always think of someplace I've been that looks like it.

What I'm trying to say is... ME doesn't seem all that other-worldly to me. It's just a slightly different world- a cooler world- our world with some Elves and dragons sprinkled in.

Davem said this-

The fantasy writer says ‘In this story there are dragons - if you cannot accept that, go away. I will not explain how they ‘work’ - how they fly & breathe fire. All I will say is that there are flying, fire breathing dragons in this story.

That's the way it works. I know people who can't stand fantasy and it is because they just cannot accept the type of writer's statement that Davem illustrated. (and I always have a tendancy to look down on these simple, robotic individuals who seem to have such a limited imagination)

But people like you and I have no trouble accepting such statements, so what is so "subversive" from our point of view?

It's subversive to those other people, not me.

I have an easy time accepting ME and identifying with the people and places of ME so it really doesn't seem to be subversive at all (do you follow?).

My guess is that in the statement that people are afraid of dragons, dragons are meant to be a metaphor for subversive elements

Yes, indeed. I believe you were looking at the whole dragon thing a bit too closely, Davem.

Are Americans (& Canadians) afraid of dragons? Are they afraid of monsters?

If they were real, then people would be afraid of them only in the sense that they would not want to be eaten by one. I imagine that most Americans and Canadians would love to see one and might be willing to take a bit of a risk to get a peek at one.

I know I sure would. I'd try to talk with one. Think of Bilbo and Smaug when he told Smaug that he just came to see if he was really everything the stories said he was. That would be the first thing I'd say to a dragon (followed closely with a compliment).

So, are Americans afraid of those things - wisdom & magic?

Of course not, silly, but we are afraid of places where football isn't football.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Elves and Dragons! Cabbages and potatoes are better for me and you.

I wonder, did Tolkien let the Gaffer speak those words for the modern-day world? 'Usefulness' seems to be the key word here, and it is certainly the key to our materialistic society. Does it pay? What use would dragons be? Is there any profit in them? If not, we don't need them - and davem mentioned the inherent danger in something that we cannot control.

Tolkien himself did not write with the idea of profit in mind - he wrote for the beauty and joy of subcreation.

Interestingly, he did write one story which used a dragon very subversively - and it was not set in Middle-earth! Farmer Giles of Ham, who would seem at first to be a very unlikely and prosaic hero, does something quite unconventional - he does not kill the dragon, but makes it his ally. (Shades of Shrek there - a very subversive version of fairytales!) By doing so, Giles overthrows the king and becomes the ruler himself - with no royal lineage, no noble blood, and no experience - just common sense. Now there's a political statement if I ever read one, and it feels very close to the Hobbit society. After all, Tolkien did say of himself that he was something of an anarchist.

If we try to apply that to ourselves, how can we make the dragon our ally instead of killing it as our foe?

An excellent topic, Fordim, and very worthwhile contributions from all - I'm enjoying this discussion!

[Lalwendë]

I also have to add, this is a great discussion.

Tolkien is subversive. As is fantasy in general. It speaks of worlds which are different to our own, it is escapist, it is populated by strange creatures and characters who do all the things which we are not allowed to do. All day, everyday, I hear people questioning things and asking 'is this fit for purpose?', 'does this offer value for money?', 'has this been planned?'. Estelyn says:

'Usefulness' seems to be the key word here, and it is certainly the key to our materialistic society. Does it pay? What use would dragons be? Is there any profit in them? If not, we don't need them - and davem mentioned the inherent danger in something that we cannot control.

This is why dragons are scary, because they symbolise something wild, and something which ostensibly has no usefulness. And to idolise something 'useless' seems to be tantamount to heresy in our day and age! It was a very wise use of symbolism that Ursula Le Guin chose.

Following on from what Child says, I think the environmental factor in Tolkien is still very subversive today - suggest that urban people give up their 4x4s and you almost start a war in the UK. Woodland is usually saved where it proves to be useful - e.g. shielding houses from a road, or where it can be used as a leisure area, rarely just for its own sake. Tolkien shows us a fine example of mankind destroying his own world in the shape of Saruman - as clear an environmental message as you could hope to find.

Also, what Caroreiel picks up on shows that Tolkien is subversive. Our world is driven by materialism and money, while in Tolkien's world, these are very bad things. The Hobbits are a gentle and kind race, they do not rush about, they do not crave power, and those who desire to show off their wealth, like the Sackville-Bagginses, are shown to be against the norm. Men who crave rings of power are corrupted, and even the innocent, Bilbo and Frodo, can be harmed by possession of such powerful 'bling' as we'd call it.

I'd say I can't wait to read more, but as that fine example of a chilled-out environmentalist, Treebeard, says: don't be hasty. And that really is a subversive message for today's society!