“Afraid of dragons”

[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!