What does the sixpence = ?

[Bêthberry]

All this talk of darkness and light has reminded me of Lal's post on the Coolection Grows thread about how davem helped her recover her lost One Ring when she lost it by lighting a burning bush in the dark .

It seems to me that much of this criticism is a journalistic tempest in a teapot or hot air bent on inflating their own balloon. Journalists and scholars alike make their mark by raising hackles, by setting their ideas up as new and exciting, by making ripples in the water. The more we respond to them, whether it be Victoria Cohen or Germaine Greer or whoever, the more we simply reward their efforts. Better to ignore them, let their balloons slowly sink back to earth and find other fans to torment.

You know, it was not only or merely for its fantasy elements that Tolkien's work was dismissed in some quarters, but also for his plot, his adherance to nineteenth century kinds of realistic detail, his concept of characterisation. And that is also to miss how many of the chattering classes defended him. One need think only of W. H. Auden, who Tolkien had taught, to recall that those who appreciated language recognised the mithril in Tolkien's work. So, as far as Shippey goes, it's all a bit of transference of energy among air particles.

Now, there's some mixed metaphors instead of allegory.

[Lalwendë]

The 'art' of criticism is indeed a cut-throat business, with reviewers beset with hidden agendas and images to maintain. Germaine Greer herself is a well known iconoclast and as such her 'puff' is particularly hot, yet when it's aimed at a target I agree is worthy of being shot at, then I'm in agreement with her; such fickle things, are opinions.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

You know, it was not only or merely for its fantasy elements that Tolkien's work was dismissed in some quarters, but also for his plot, his adherance to nineteenth century kinds of realistic detail, his concept of characterisation.

The odd thing is that if such critics dared delve deeper into the murky world that is the Internet discussion forum, then they may find all kinds of arguments dealing with the stylistic properties of Tolkien's work. I'm sure we've gone over all of these elements of his work many times on the Downs. But then the world of academia is also pretty cut-throat with much jostling for position over opinions, and I suspect that people only search for the pertinent parts to support their points, as would I if having an argument on here!

Still, Tolkien has had some heavyweight supporters, including WH Auden and Iris Murdoch, not to mention all the academics outside the English faculties who also support him, e.g Ronald Hutton. I am sure as the popularity of Tolkien grows and the education system in the UK grows ever more market driven, there will be more demand from undergraduates that Tolkien be considered an acceptable topic of study, so maybe his work will become acceptable in the canon before long.

[davem]

Its interesting how the critics fall into two camps. We have the Greers, Corens, Howard Jacobson (who responded to LotR winning the Waterstones poll for Book of the Century with "It just shows the folly of these polls, the folly of teaching people
to read. Close all the libraries. Use the money for something else." ie the fact that so many people voted for LotR means the majority of Britons are idiots (Of course Shippey himself points out that idiots would not choose to read, & re-read, an 1100 page book)

The other camp id typified by Johann Hari who states, among other things

The great critic Edmund Wilson called it "balderdash" and "juvenile trash" when it was first published, and it’s hard to disagree. Tolkien’s insufferable obsession with describing a fictional landscape borders on the autistic, as does the almost total absence of women or sophisticated emotion from his work. No, ‘Lord of the Rings’ is not loved because it is a good novel, but because it taps into some of the most atavistic and ugly impulses of our times.

(Notice that at the end of the article he posts a response which is illiterate, ignorant, & possibly borderline insane & then claims that is the most sensible response he has had.)

What comes across to me from these critics is not that they have read Tolkien objectively & found he has nothing to say to them - they have started out with a bias against Tolkien. Their initial attack is that 'Its all nonsense, not fit for grown-ups.' If they are challenged on this, they change tack & claim 'Ok, its not nonsense, its a dangerous fascist tract.'

Hari's claim that Tolkien's subcreation of Middle-earth is 'autistic' is not only insulting but plainly ridiculous - any author will strive to create a convincing secondary world.

What I find most interesting though, is that Tolkien is the one fantasy writer who attracts such venom - these critics may dismiss the fantasy genre generally, but it is Tolkien they single out for attack. Also interesting is the way many of them have taken up Pullman. Why?

I can't help thinking there are two reasons: one, Pullman is an athiest, & HDM is about 'liberating' humanity from an evil God. Two, they maybe think that HDM can deal the death blow to fantast in general & Tolkien in particular. HDM ends not only with no God, but also with no magic, & everyone grows up & goes off to do the 'sensible, grown-up thing' of building the 'Republic of Heaven' (whatever that means).

And again, HDM is, like the Harry Potter books, a children's story. Fantasy is fine, as far as these critics are concerned, if it stays safely in the nursery, & is quickly outgrown. Tolkien wrote for adults, he said things the critics either didn't understand or didn't like. He became popular - way too popular. And that created another problem for the 'Literati'. If LotR is great literature, why did they miss it, why didn;t they recognise that? They are the (self appointed) experts. Its their job to tell us lesser mortals what's important, what matters, & they blew it in the case of Tolkien.

Fact is, they daren't look in the dark - they might find they've got it wrong all along. But the most pernicious thing about them is that not only are they refusing to look in the dark, they're trying to stop anyone else doing so, by making up horror stories about the terrible monsters lurking there.

(End rant....)

[Lalwendë]

It does fascinate and appall me how so many critics, the supposedly educated people, can fling offensive language around in their rush to criticise and make a point. To use "autistic" as a term of abuse is very offensive indeed. To suggest that people ought not to be entitled to learn to read as they will go and read the 'wrong thing' betrays deep-seated class prejudice.

I think that there is truth in the argument that Pullman gets off (relatively) lightly due to the fact that he is an Atheist. It seems to be the accepted viewpoint among the arts establishment that religion is 'wrong'.

I do have it in mind to gather a list of those prominent critics who are pro- or anti- Tolkien and examine whether the anti- arguments are coherent or not, but then I also have it in mind to think "Pft!" and just laugh at them.

You get a similar thing with critics of popular music, although they are more likely to bluster their way out of a misguided opinion. I remember Bob Geldof being particularly vindictive about Madonna around 12 years ago saying that she would never be an iconic figure and 'had no talent' (which made me cough, remembering the erm...not very extensive success of his own recording career). Fast forward to 2005 and he was praising her and inviting her to appear at Live8.

[drigel]

It does fascinate and appall me how so many critics, the supposedly educated people, can fling offensive language around in their rush to criticise and make a point.

IMO that's what made the critics venom so pungent - JRRT was after all one of them. After all, he of all people should know what a sophisticated, emotionally complicated, piece of literature should look like! There was no inherent meaning in the Misty Mountains, they didnt represent (insert any Hemingway analogy here) anything. No conflict in any characters sexuality. No direct references to religion. How boooooring.

The odd thing is that if such critics dared delve deeper into the murky world that is the Internet discussion forum, then they may find all kinds of arguments dealing with the stylistic properties of Tolkien's work.

Academics aside (they will always be there), I'm keeping my fingers crossed in the hope that the internet will cause the Critic industry to go the way of the buggie-whip...

[The Saucepan Man]

Interesting that you posted that article by Johann Hari, davem. I recall reading it when it was published in The Independent a year or so ago. Unsurprisingly, it annoyed me immensely and I felt an urge to respond, for example by quoting some of the very intelligent points made on the Tolkien/Racism threads here to rebut what is effectively an accusation of racism. Unfortunately, I didn't get round to doing so. If that indeed was one of the saner responses he received, I wish that I had.

I dislike Johann Hari intensely, not just for that article but for just about every article of his that I have read. I particularly dislike his politics and his espousal of political correctiveness in its worst and most corrosive form. But, to be fair to him, the article does at least indicate that he has read the book (unless he is reciting lines fed to him) and, while (in my view) misguided and, in some places, offensive, he does at least attempt to put a cohesive argument across, based upon what Tolkien actually wrote. I prefer this kind of a critic to one who simply dismisses LotR as childish fantasy nonsense and goes no further. There is at least a chance to engage with him.

Davem, your comment on the postscript suggests that you consider his claim that this was one of the saner responses that he received to be false. You may well be right. He is after all a journalist, and one with an ideology and an agenda to promote, so it would not at all surprise me if he selected it at the expense of some more balanced and intellectual responses. But it would also not surprise me if his claim was actually true.

You see, there is an element amongst those who follow Tolkien that is somewhat crazed. There are those who use what Tolkien wrote to justify their own agendas. We know this from the existence of that abhorrent Stormfront website. And there are others who use his works in support their extremist or fundamentalist ideologies (whether they be religious, political or whatever). These people may be searching in the dark, but they are also searching for something very dark indeed. Something quite different from the shiny sixpence (whatever that may be).

So perhaps we should not dismiss these critics out of hand or ridicule them with cack-handed analogies. At least those who are familiar with Tolkien's works and are able to put forward a coherent critique of them which has at least some foundation in what he wrote, rather than being solely based on prejudice. For is there not a kernel of truth in what Hari, for example, is saying? I do not believe for one moment that Tolkien was a racist and have put forward my own arguments against the intepretation of his writings in this way. But it is undoubtedly the case that his works are unfortunately used by some to justify their own racist agendas.

While it is true (as some have said) that there are many intellectuals who are or were supporters of Tolkien's works, it is a shame that there are not more, or at least more who are high profile. For the responses that Hari received (assuming his claim to be true), would merely have confirmed his own views of, and prejudices against, fans of Tolkien. But, on the basis of my knowledge of those who are members here, they are wildly unrepresentative. And by simply dismissing Hari and those who share his views (and his undoubted intellect) as "wrong" and leaving it at that, we risk brushing under the carpet the more sinister elements of Tolkien fandom that undoubtedly do exist, a minority though they may be (and much as Tolkien would himself, I am sure, have wished to disassociate himself from them).

Ultimately, therefore, it is a shame that Shippey seems unable to engage with such critics other than by simply lampooning them as those foolish people who are searching in the wrong place because that's where the light is. Yes, light can be superficial and searching there may risk missing something deep or profound. But it can also shed light on important things which we could not see before it was there and provide enlightenment. Just as darkness can hide some rather unpleasant things.

I should say that I may be doing Shippey a disservice here. I have not read any of his works and am basing my criticism of him solely on the excerpt which LMP provided. If he has responded more intelligently to Tolkien's critics, in a way which seeks to engage with them and put the alternative arguments in a coherent fashion, rather than simply poking fun at them, then I apologise to him. Or perhaps there are others who have put the pro-Tolkien case more intelligently (in fact, Ray Mears, who put the case for the book in the BBC poll rather engagingly, I thought, springs to mind). But there are certainly many here who are more than capable of doing so.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

For is there not a kernel of truth in what Hari, for example, is saying? I do not believe for one moment that Tolkien was a racist and have put forward my own arguments against the intepretation of his writings in this way. But it is undoubtedly the case that his works are unfortunately used by some to justify their own racist agendas.

But Tolkien can't be held responsible for the way his writings are misused by fanatics - yet that seems to be exactly what Hari is doing. He is so wrong about Tolkien's beliefs, about what LotR is actually about. He says:

Tolkien presents his readers with an absolute enemy who must simply be destroyed: purely evil and incapable of human feeling. Of course, no such war can ever happen; it is a pernicious Tolkienian myth.

Tolkien states the same thing clearly in Letter 78, when he tells CT 'There are no genuine Uruks, creatures made evil by their creator.'

Again:

Ideals of ‘blood’ and its purity are always sloshing around his narrative. For example, the Men of Gondor - "the high men" - are descendants of the Numenorians, the greatest of all warriors. Over the centuries, they have become ‘degraded’ because of breeding with inferior races. When their bloodline is pure, as in Aragorn’s descendants, the strength and power of the original Lords of the West is retained. Alarm bells ringing yet?

misses the point entirely. Tolkien repeatedly shows how the Numenorean's obsession with bloodlines brings them to disaster (cf the Kinstrife). The only significance of Aragorn's blood is that it is the same as that which flowed in the veins of Luthien & Melian - it is divine.

Also:

As the academic Dr Stephen Shapiro explains, "Tolkien was not a Nazi but he was a Nordicist in that his works hark back to England’s original culture before the Norman invasion. The Lord of the Rings makes a claim for a pan-Nordic identity or a paradigm for Great Britain and a lament for the disappearance of these races. This speaks to a long-standing European anxitiety about being swamped by non-Europeans. Tolkein was a real traditionalist in this way."

There was hardly a 'pan-Nordic identity' in the pre-Conquest period. In fact the single event that most contributed to the victory of the Normans over the Anglo-Saxons was the battle King Harold had to fight against the Norsemen at Stamford Bridge. Come to that, the Normans were descendants of Vikings & therefore a 'Nordic' people.

And Tolkien is hardly unique in his regret over the Conquest. English culture was devastated, centuries of suffering for the English, Welsh, Scots & Irish followed.

Finally:

"Sauron’s army was the one that included every species and race on Middle Earth, including all the despised colours of humanity, and all the lower classes," he explains. "Might they have imagined they were the good guys, with a justifiable greivance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy toppled by invader-alien elves and their Numenorian-colonialist human lackeys? Sauron, champion of the Middle Earthling!"

Is simply wrong. Sauron's army did not include every species & race on Middle Earth (sic). It included Men, Orcs & Trolls. It did not include Elves, Dwarves or Hobbits. Also, it hardly matters what his armies believed - they might well have believed they were 'the good guys with a justifiable greivance worth fighting for, rebelling against an ancient, rigid, pyramid-shaped, feudal hierarchy toppled by invader-alien elves and their Numenorian-colonialist human lackey'. I'm sure members of the SS believed they were the good guys as well. Believing a thing doesn't make it true - a cliche, but also a simple fact beyond Brin's, or Hari's wit.

I don't know if Hari is genuinely outraged by Tolkien, or if he is just trying to be provocative. If its the former he's displaying his ignorance, if its the latter he's just being childish.

What's also bloody annoying is that he probably gets paid 10 times my salary to write this junk

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

You see, there is an element amongst those who follow Tolkien that is somewhat crazed. There are those who use what Tolkien wrote to justify their own agendas. We know this from the existence of that abhorrent Stormfront website. And there are others who use his works in support their extremist or fundamentalist ideologies (whether they be religious, political or whatever). These people may be searching in the dark, but they are also searching for something very dark indeed. Something quite different from the shiny sixpence (whatever that may be).

The thing is that many, if not most, of the cultural products in our world can easily be misinterpreted (whether deliberately or not) and then used to support an agenda. We all know how this has happened with religious texts. But I would say that it is wrong to assume that just because some who interpret in a certain way are proponents of hatred, that it follows that the product is in itself intrinsically wrong. There have been multitudes of Christians who have interpreted the Bible in such a way that their subsequent behaviour has been infused with hatred, but it does not mean that the Bible itself is wrong. It's a familiar argument used by many (not just critics or journalists) - to blame a thing rather than the sociopathic tendencies of those who access it.

However, I do agree that it is important to address those elements within a community who choose to bring down the reputation of the majority. One way of doing this is to not shy away from discussing and addressing questions of whether Tolkien's work has any hidden agendas. Unfortunately there are very few forums like this where serious discussion of that nature can take place, and all that critics see is our lighter side.

I think essentially the problem with so many of these commentators is that they wilfully stereotype people and use sweeping statements, both those who choose to attack Tolkien via the fans and those who take a more textual approach. Of course, stereotyping is a mainstay of journalism, as using a sleight of hand to describe a type of people, a type of reader, takes up many less words and valuable column inches. Had Tolkien been alive today I am quite sure that he would have been more than capable of taking on such journalists, as from his Letters he clearly had an acid tongue and a way with the 'soundbite' himself.

In his article Hari actually betrays himself quite early on by writing: "The success of his dire trilogy obviously cannot be attributed to literary merit." He then goes on without justifying this statement with any kind of analysis of what 'literary merit' may or may not be. The 'obviously' is a nod to the cognoscenti before he plunges into his invective. Thus it is clear almost from the start of the article that he had already decided that Lord of the Rings was bad, and had decided to find some arguments to support his view. He finishes off with another little 'nod': "Yes, it might seem absurd to take Tolkien so seriously", as though he feels assured that the reader agrees with him, which of course, any reader of the Independent would do. After all, Tolkien fans are probably too away with the fairies to ever read a broadsheet newspaper.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

But Tolkien can't be held responsible for the way his writings are misused by fanatics - yet that seems to be exactly what Hari is doing.

I agree that Tolkien cannot be held responsible for the unreasonable misuse of his works. But Hari goes further than that. His criticism of Tolkien seems to be, not just that they can be intepreted thus, but that he intended that they be. In my view, he is most certainly wrong in that, although I wonder whether the fact that many have misinterpreted them to reach similar conclusions (those of Hari's ilk and the Stormfront types alike - strange bedfellows indeed) would have given him pause to reconsider some things within the Legendarium.

But it is fair to say (without attributing liability to him) that Tolkien's works can be (and are) interpreted in this way. Which is to the detriment of both Tolkien and those, like us, who derive so much enjoyment and (in many cases) insight from his writings. We are at risk of being tarred with the same brush as the loonies and the white supremacists.

As you have shown, there is abundant material to rebut the points that those such as Hari seek to make, but it seems to me that there are very few people out there doing that. And the point that I was trying to make is that, rather than lampooning such critics (as Shippey does in his allegory) or simply dismissing them as childish or ignorant, surely it is better for those who support and believe in Tolkien's works to challenge them with such material and seek to engage with them in debate, possibly to the mutual benefit of both "sides".

Much as I dislike Hari, he is not utterly inflexible. I recall that a letter by Professor Richard Dawkins in response to an article in The Independent by Hari supporting the Iran war (which Dawkins opposed) prompted a correspondence between them (subsequently published) which was conducted in a most civil manner, was fascinating to read and resulted in accord between them on many issues, their central disagreement notwithstanding. Now, surely that's better than simply dismissing or abusing those with whom we disagree and consider to be wrong in their views?