LotR, an Edwardian Adventure Story?

[davem]

I suppose that the main difference between LotR & the 'Edwardian adventure story' (as opposed to the Edwardian novel) is that LotR has survived & the EAS in the main has not. We all have an idea of what constitures an EAS, but how many of us have actually read one? Probably not many of us, for the simple reason that not many of them are still around. However, some have survived, but how they have survived is interesting.

I suppose that what is meant by an EAS is a kind of Boy's Own Adventure, where the hero is defending the Empire against its enemies, or winning fame through exploring the unknown & winning fame & treasure in 'Darkest Africa' (King Solomon's Mines, She), India (Kipling's Kim) or in wartime (Biggles). Of course, this kind of story could be found in the post-Edwardian period, but it wasn't limited to novels. Many boy's comics even into the sixties followed the same pattern (The Eagle for example).

So, we could say that the EAS survived way beyond the Edwardian period, but (almost as happened to Fairy stories), it was 'relegated to the nursery'. Both Fairy stories & the EAS came to be seen as fit only for children. Now, Tolkien, almost single-handedly, revived the Fairy story as adult literature, so one can't help wondering whether someone will manage to do the same thing for the EAS. Or maybe they have

This makes me think about Hollywood's output. Perhaps that's what George Lucas has done with Star Wars & the Indiana Jones movies - how much diffference is there between Lucas' stories & the EAS? Probably not much in fact. Have we really moved on from the EAS - did it really die? I can't help but feel it just changed its clothes & its location. That said, I don't think it survived in Tolkien's Legendarium. Tolkien maybe 'tricked' us, though, by presenting us with a story, in LotR, that (at least at the start) makes us think we are about to read an EAS (or a Boy's Own story). By the time we realise that's not at all what we're getting most of us are hooked.

Perhaps this accounts for the critics of LotR, the majority of whom don't get past the first few chapters. They read the EAS part of the story, decide they don't like it (or don't approve of it) & leave it there - hence their dismissal of it.

The interesting question is why so many of us do get drawn in to the EAS of the early chapters of LotR? When we dismiss the EAS as 'primitive' & claim we have gone beyond it in our tastes & desires, are we being entirely honest?

Having said that, I go back to my original point - 99.9% of EAS's have not survived, & most of us would probably now find them unreadable. Yet, as with Fairy Stories, it seems that there was a core of meaning & worth in the genre. Perhaps its the element of stepping out into the 'Unknown' ('Darkest' Africa' was as alien & strange as Faerie to most Edwardians). How much difference is there between Alan Quartermain going to find King Solomon's Mines, Indiana Jones seeking the Lost Ark & King Arthur seeking the Otherworld Cauldron in Preiddeu Annwn?

[JennyHallu]

I don't think I agree with you about the modern death of the classic adventure story. While the tales are rarely read in their original forms, I think because modern expectations of what a child might be capable of reading have plummetted, think of all the modern interpretations of these classic stories?

Think of Treasure Island, of Tom Sawyer (American, yes, but the principle holds).

The problem with the EAS is that the majority of today's children don't look to books for story-telling, they look to television, movies, and even video games (All the Link games I think could be classed as a Boy's Own story fairly easily.)

And for some reason the books and tales you were mentioning made me think of the assistant pig-keeper from Prwdain (I think, it's been a long time), the hero of the tales by Lloyd Alexander. Are they classed as Edwardian Adventure stories?

[littlemanpoet]

Jenny, I don't know how Lloyd Alexander's stories are classed except that they are placed in the Youth section of the local library.

davem, I'm intrigued by the insights you have put together. Much good stuff there.

Originally Posted by davem

The interesting question is why so many of us do get drawn in to the EAS of the early chapters of LotR? When we dismiss the EAS as 'primitive' & claim we have gone beyond it in our tastes & desires, are we being entirely honest?

Second question first: I've never made the claim, so I can't really answer it. First question: I think it's got to do with Hobbits. Tolkien already had a successful children's story in The Hobbit. That, I think, is the draw into LotR that keeps those of us, who love Hobbits, long enough to get to the even better, richer, deeper stuff.

[JennyHallu]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Jenny, I don't know how Lloyd Alexander's stories are classed except that they are placed in the Youth section of the local library.

In my library, so was Lord of the Rings and a number of other excellent stories, like CS Lewis' Perelandra trilogy, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a children's story.

[davem]

As we're discussing the EAS I thought this may be interesting:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc...dreadfuls.html

How relevant GKC's comments here are is another question, but he does make some good points about the attitude of the Literati to 'popular' fiction which are still worth paying attention to.

[littlemanpoet]

Such clear thinking as Chesterton's is desperately needed regarding the Harry Potter books as well. Which are, really, 21st century 'penny dreadfuls'. I'd say quite relevant. A little bloggishness next, sorry: I've been in a writers group for 6 years during which my writing style has constantly come under criticism as not literary enough. Reading "In Defense of Penny Dreadfuls" is rather liberating.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Such clear thinking as Chesterton's is desperately needed regarding the Harry Potter books as well. Which are, really, 21st century 'penny dreadfuls'.

I'd say it also applies to Pullman's 'His Dark Materials', which starts out as a wonderful EAS/Penny Dreadful & then goes downhill fast as soon as PP realises he has adult, ('Educated') as well as child (or 'vulgar errand boy' ), readers, & decides he wants to be a 'serious' novelist who deals with 'deeper' questions (interesting the way works of 'art' go downhill as soon as the 'artist' decides they're going to produce something 'deep').

I think in this context Tolkien avoided the trap by keeping his feet on the ground by having Hobbits as his central figures, & Sam as the central Hobbit. As GKC also said, 'one sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak' - in other words, one can raise oneself, & one's works, one's thoughts, to such a 'height' that everyone & everything else comes to seem small & insignificant, not worth bothering with. The Hobbits are always looking up, & so are surrounded by 'greatness'. Thus they remain humble. Saruman & Sauron, by contrast, live 'on the heights', choosing to dwell in towers where they can look down on lesser folk (even Denethor dwells in a high place). The Hobbits, on the other hand, live not simply on but actually within the earth.

I don't know if I'm arguing here that LotR does belong with the EAS (even with the Penny Dreadfuls!). Obviously it doesn't - it has too much to say to us, it has true 'depth' & profundity - yet, at the same time it can be seen (& read) as a 'penny dreadful'.

I think Tolkien would have liked that. So, probably, would Rowling as regards her HP books. I suspect, though, if you said the same thing to Pullman about HDM he'd have apoplexy.

Or to put it another way, here's Nemi..