“Afraid of dragons”

[Earendilyon]

Great ideas and thoughts on dragons, SF and fantasy!

Fordim said:

There are several examples of quite subversive behaviour and institutions in his works, I think. The Hobbits, for example, live communally without an elaborate state structure and in a state of political anarchy (not chaos, but not ordered by an elaborate state apparatus). He gives nature the power to fight back and destroy technology (the Ents laying waste to Isengard). I even began to see his supposedly conservative models of leadership as being subversive – I mean, what could be more radical than to imagine the Return of the King in the midst of the most democratic century in history? Eru himself could perhaps be seen as subverting a dominant view: in our increasingly materialist society, God is dead. Not in Middle-earth.

I think this nostalgia for the past and this will for certain elements of the past to return can be better be described with the term 'reactionary' than with 'subversive', although wanting the past to return can be rather subversive, of course, if you understand what I mean.
Also, Hobbit society is rather a reactionary idea than a subversive one: it reminds me strongly of the 'golden age' legends of many a political theorist/philosopher. This golden age was (in the view of those theorists) an age when people lived close to nature, in harmony with it and in harmony with eachother, without any form of government.

the phantom said:

I always have a tendancy to look down on these simple, robotic individuals who seem to have such a limited imagination

Actually, my wife is studying at the art academy and has a whole lot more imagination in her than I have, but still, she doesn't like fantasy a bit (not even JRRT ), while I do! Her reaction is 'such things cannot be', while I have this 'suspense of disbelief'.

[Boromir88]

Interesting topic Fordhim. This sort of reminds me of the comedious Terry Gilliam movie Brazil. Terry Gilliam was the only american actor in the famous Monty Python troupe, he created a movie called Brazil, which is based off of George Orwell's 1984

Brazil, however a comedious movie, you have to be able to laugh at yourself, laugh at society. For that's what the movie does. It mocks our very way of living, and is indeed "subversive" to our current society. It mocks how we have changed our Christmas tradition to a fat jolly man that puts presents under a tree, it mocks hour our society is now filled with constant advertisements. There's all sorts of "technoligical (yes I made that up) inventions." But none of them work, and of course Terry Gilliam being part of the Monty Python troupe gets his cracks at the Government.

Do I think Middle-Earth is indeed "subversive?" It depends upon how you look at things, I think Tolkien is definately trying to get his points off, about certain problems in our society. For example the "industrialization," which Tolkien so fondly disliked. I think Tolkien deals more with morals then with trying to be "subversive." He tries to teach us the importance of friendship, companionship, hope, faith...etc.

As for Saruman a man of industry, a man who creates all sorts of machinery, orcs, rings, trying to become more powerful, Tolkien reinforces the "nature vs. Industrial theme," which was maybe one of the more important themes of the time. The idea that industry only causes death, pain, leads to war, leads to destruction. The Ents step in as the nature force, to combat the "industry." Authors tend to write upon what the "current" world is like, they tend to "follow the crowd," or maybe they will intentionally try to lead into a whole different "literary change." If you get my meaning, in their writing they will either follow the current literary writing, and ideals, or they will purposely do the opposite to try to form a different "literary change." During this time I think we get to see Tolkien write a lot upon the current world he was around, the world of industrial growth, a world of war, a world where women didn't get much say. Do I find it "subversive?" No, and I don't find Brazil "subversive." I think we just got to step back and realize, it's only the truth, it's not "subversive" at all. Brazil, is exactly right in the time we live in with large corporations, constant advertisements, these "new and improved" items that aren't better then the old...etc. I hope that makes sense, and I hope I actually caught the point of this thread .

[turgon]

It seems to me that JRRT's subversiveness lies in the idea of free will.
The ability to defend oneself and friends without question.
The idea of defending honour, friendship, loyalty without the whipmaster to extract "his due" at every decision made.
Is it subversive to long for these things? or is it subversive to long for control by someone like Melkor who would order all to His will.
The phrase "eye of the beholder" comes to mind. yet; what does the enemy in Tolkiens vision represent?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

and that's Green!

Isn’t it interesting that the book that laid the foundation for the fantasy novel, inspiring many authors (including Ursula LeGuin, in whose “Earthsea” books dragons play an important role) and sparking D&D games, contains not a single dragon?! The only ‘dragon’ encounters are both in the Shire - the Green Dragon and Gandalf’s dragon fireworks. Dragons are mentioned, but they are long ago and/or far away, and even those mentions are at the beginning of the story. The farther we get into the stuff of which legends are made, the less we hear about dragons.

I’m fascinated by this connection between the prosaic, everyday Shire and the ‘subversive’ fantasy creature. Though most hobbits did not consciously believe in dragons, the idea/ideal still existed; an Inn, a most important establishment for their society, was named after a dragon. Was there a subconscious longing for the adventurous, disruptive, unpredictable, even dangerous, lurking inside them? Gandalf’s comment on their inner toughness could be taken to indicate something similar.

Tolkien, who considered himself quite hobbit-like, said of himself as a child in his essay “On Fairy-Stories”:

I desired dragons with a profound desire.

The context of that statement is worth quoting more fully:

I never imagined that the dragon was of the same order as the horse. And that was not solely because I saw horses daily, but never even the footprint of a worm. The dragon had the trade-mark Of Faërie written plain on him. In whatever world he had his being it was an Other-world. Fantasy, the making or glimpsing of Other-worlds, was the heart of the desire of Faërie. I desired dragons with a profound desire. Of course, I in my timid body did not wish to have them in the neighbourhood, intruding into my relatively safe world, in which it was, for instance, possible to read stories in peace of mind, free from fear. But the world that contained even the imagination of Fàfnir was richer and more beautiful, at whatever cost of peril. The dweller in the quiet and fertile plains may hear of the tormented hills and the unharvested sea and long for them in his heart. For the heart is hard though the body be soft.

In pondering over the fantastical use of dragons in fantasy, I realized that to me, at least, it is important that the dragon is sentient. A dragon who is huge, dangerous, uncontrollable is only an animal, not much different than a dinosaur – and I don’t consider dinosaurs to be fantasy creatures. [As there is some (sketchy, perhaps, but nonetheless) physical evidence of their existence, they feel (pre-)historical, not mythical, to me.] But a dragon who can think and speak, now that is so scary that I’m glad it’s not real! What could happen if I listened to him? Dragons are often said to enchant if one looks into their eyes or listens to their voice.

Tolkien does write stories with dragons, of course. The Silmarillion, which I have read but do not recall in enough detail to discuss now; The Hobbit, with Smaug; and Farmer Giles of Ham, with Chrysophylax. Those two dragons speak and are cunning in their thinking – worthy rivals for the pluckiest human. But why did the man who "desired dragons" not include any in his greatest work?

[Boromir88]

But why did the man who "desired dragons" not include any in his greatest work?

I think it's due to show the extinction of this race. If we look at some fantasy movies, Dragonheart is the quickest one that comes to mind, there is only a couple dragons. There is also that recent John Rhys-Davies movie (which escapes my mind right now) about hunting a group of dragons who attacked the town. Point is, in a lot of fantasy there are only a couple dragons around, thought of as a race that is hard to multiple, that have been limitted in numbers due to being slain.

When you look at Tolkien's dragons, again there isn't that many, Ancalagon, Glaurung, Smaug, Scatha (I think I'm missing a couple, but oh well). All of them slain. So, why didn't Tolkien add in some dragons here? I would conclude to the decision of the growth of the race of men. We know as men grew some of the ancient races began to decline, Elves, Dwarves, Ents, some of these long, and more "old" then men, all began to decline. Maybe, that's what Tolkien was trying to get with dragons, as the race of men grew, this old, ancient race declined, and now they only remain in tales, stories, inns. Wonder if Tolkien is trying to show us something, when we start growing, or industrializing, we start suffocating, or destroying long ancient races that have been around for millions of years?

The farther we get into the stuff of which legends are made, the less we hear about dragons.

Very true, again the "tales" of dragons begin to fade as we reach the kingdoms of men (Rohan and Gondor). Stories of dragons are told in a society that is fascinated by dragon fireworks, has a "Green Dragon Inn," It's not until the hobbits are back in closing chapters when the hobbits are heading home, in Rivendell, with Bilbo, Smaug is brought up. So there are very few references to Dragons, but none of them are in the chapters that deal with the kingdoms of men, they are only now faint memories in the Shire, and in some ancient places, like Rivendell.

[Lalwendë]

Estelyn makes a good point about the lack of Dragons in LOTR, something I had never considered before. But they aren't quite so far away in the past, after all Bilbo still lives, one who has conversed with one of the mightiest of Dragons; and apparently they were around during the War of the Ring, living beyond the Grey Mountains, a region which the Dwarves had abandoned when the Dragons came in search of gold.

Why did Tolkien not include any Dragons in his story? Perhaps he counted them as potentially too great a foe, considering those formidable enemies that would already have to be faced? Certainly Morgoth made use of Dragons in his wars, but maybe Sauron was too far removed from them, isolated in Mordor? Maybe the Fell Beasts are of a lesser Dragon breed? There were Fire Drakes, Cold Drakes, Dragons who could fly and those who could not, so this is quite possible. There is a whole natural history of miraculous beasts in Middle Earth that is not entirely explained or explored.

I loved the comments from Tolkien on the desire to see a dragon. I wonder how many 'Downers collected dinosaur models as children (I still have these actually - one by the bed to keep the cats away )? Tolkien expresses the fascination with monsters that sometimes never leaves you. Funnily enough, in Harry Potter there is a perfect example of this in Hagrid, who is determined to have a 'pet dragon', no matter what the risks are. Dragons are always presented as potentially lethal creatures, but they have a 'glamour' which attracts us to them.

Dragons in Western myth are often seen as bad luck and associated with the devil; the tale of St George and the Dragon symbolises the triumph of Christianity over evil, which is intriguing considering Tolkien's own beliefs. Perhaps this shows how despite what we believe, the symbol of a dragon is just too powerful and magical to ignore. In heraldry the Dragon is commonly used, and it is the symbolic animal of Wales. With Eastern cultural elements, we see Dragons even more often, as they are lucky in Chinese culture - I think the Dragon is the only mythological creature used in the Chinese horoscope.

Also, following on from Boromir88's comments, I can't think of any examples of popular culture where people set out to save any Dragons - they are usually the enemy, hunted down with weapons, as in Reign of Fire, or portrayed as evil worms, as in (the wonderfully lurid) Lair of the White Worm. And yet we, like Tolkien, so badly want to see them. This paradox is something I couldn't really begin to explain, but I do like it!

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

In fantasy, she argued, authors are free to offer up versions of our world in which the comfortable truths that we live in are either suspended or turned on their head. Her central point seemed to be that realist fiction is based on conforming to the accepted, the normative, and the comfortable, whereas fantasy is all about “alternatives” – specifically, she identified “good” fantasy as being about “other ways of being or living.”

I find this interesting, as the appeal for many in fantasy literature is that it is escapist, in that it offers the reader a temporarily release from the uncomfortable truths that govern their daily lives. In one sense, it offers a fresh and exciting alternative to the daily grind of life in the real world which can, at times, seem dull and humdrum in comparison. There are many here who would willingly swap their "real world" life for a life in Middle-earth, as Child's What will you choose? thread testifies.

And fantasy, to a significant degree, also removes the difficulty in assessing moral choices. In Middle-earth, for example, it is fairly easy to assess a particular course of action as "good" or "bad". Now I accept that it's not quite as straightforward as that. The characters of Boromir, Denethor and Eowyn (to my mind, the most fascinating characters in the work) show us that there are moral dilemmas to be faced within Middle-earth. But there is a fairly well drawn line between "good" and "evil". Not so in real life, where most of us face choices in which it is often difficult to perceive the "best" course and we are daily presented with moral dilemmas on a broader society (and world) wide scale.

So, rather than being "subversive" is not fantasy rather "liberating", in the sense that it takes many of the difficult choices away? Or is Le Guin saying that this is precisely why it is "subversive"? That there are many who feel comfortable with these moral dilemmas and cannot accept that there might be a world where moral choices are more clearly defined? Possibly, although (while I accept that Tolkien's works have much to tell us about ways of living) I have difficulty in believing that such a world is possible, and yet I do not find his works uncomfortable or subversive to my way of thinking.

And, even accepting that there may well be those who find "good" fantasy uncomfortable because it challenges their views on life, I nevertheless find Le Guin's comment to be somewhat of an over-generalisation. It cannot explain the attitude of everyone who holds fantasy in low regard. There are no doubt many who, while they would agree with the sentiments expressed in Tolkien's works, do not find the format within which they are expressed to be appealing. People who perhaps find their "subversive" views reflected in alternative styles or media. I do not see fantasy as being the exclusive, or even (for many) the best, medium for showing people alternative, and perhaps better, ways of living.