Yes, Tolkien is Wonderful, but...

[Bêthberry]

Like some here I find classifications and categories limiting, yet they can also provide themes and topics which spur discussion, so for that reason I won't engage in any denouncing as humbug those who use the term. After all, many writers I greatly enjoy and respect apply the term to their own writing (and qualify it!) as well as those bogey men the critics, so who am I to deny a creative writer the opportunity to describe his (or her) own work in an expansive, enlightening way?

Originally Posted by Fea

The Lord of the Rings. Part of me is begging to say fantasy. C'mon, Middle Earth? Trolls, Elves, Dwarves... Hobbits? Magic Rings and dragons.

Except for the key argument that Middle Earth is Earth as it was back in the day; this argument is supported by the statement in, I believe, the Intro of The Fellowship in the simple comment that Hobbits slip away unnoticed these days in crowds because they have a natural ability to be unseen (magical realism) and humans are inept. Though you get characters like Eomer crying out on the fields of Rohan that "Wow, we live in a crazy world, where legends old folks told me show up with wings on their feet," you also get him accepting that orcs are a natural part of Rohirric life. The belief and disbelief in specifics of what another culture would call the supernatural follows logical human trends: you tend to have more faith in what's been ingrained in you since birth. Tolkien's use of psychological norms and his references to our Earth argue Magical Realism.

This is an intriguing idea, that Tolkien began one way and then worked against that. Yet it seems to me that a crucial element is missing so that we cannot call Middle-earth magic realism.

It is true that the forms and rules of Middle-earth conform to those of our daily world. Tolkien went to pains to explain elvish magic as not magic but heightened art and perception. His Foreward suggests that hobbits could still exist except they hide themselves from us. Yet what Tolkien's vision lacks is the unexplainable or the marvellous. It could simply be my reading of M-e, but I don't think that in any way the rationalism which underpins it is ever destablised or distorted. Our contemporary world view is never challenged or threatened by Tolkien's vision. Yes, he objects mightily to the satanic mills and the power hungry but at the heart of his vision remains an empowerment of rational and objective depiction. After all, Eru grounds his Legendarium, and so there remains a particular sense of orderedness to his mythology. Reality is not distorted in Tolkien, but expanded to explain balrogs, orcs, rings of power, suspension of time. Despite all our discussions here there is little in Tolkien that remains inexplicable or unexpected, not even eucatastrophe.

Perhaps I feel this way because the Ring is so much a material object. If evil in Middle-earth didn't have this materialism, then perhaps I would feel Tolkien more akin to, say, Garcia Marquez. After all, Tolkien's imaginative creation began with his creation of languages, and he followed the objective rules of language development which his academic training taught him. His invented languages are all explicable and there is little of the frustration, wonder, awe, unknowingness of babel in them.

I probably haven't read as many writers who through fair means or foul are lumped into this group as Fea or the rest of you have, but what I have read gives me a sense that the relationship between people and the world is mysterious and that people's perspectives are often derived from their historical and social milieu. Indeed, there is a sense in many of these writers that wonder and awe remains an essential element of our experience, that not all of the world and time can be rationally explained. Tolkien desired dragons and he made a place for them in his world. They are believable--that's what his idea of sub-creation is all about. If they weren't, then he would be a magic realist.

Of course, the term is as wide and diverse as all the authors who are included under its rubric. I'm sure Downers can stretch it to all kinds of dimensions.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yet what Tolkien's vision lacks is the unexplainable or the marvellous. It could simply be my reading of M-e, but I don't think that in any way the rationalism which underpins it is ever destablised or distorted. Our contemporary world view is never challenged or threatened by Tolkien's vision. Yes, he objects mightily to the satanic mills and the power hungry but at the heart of his vision remains an empowerment of rational and objective depiction. After all, Eru grounds his Legendarium, and so there remains a particular sense of orderedness to his mythology. Reality is not distorted in Tolkien, but expanded to explain balrogs, orcs, rings of power, suspension of time. Despite all our discussions here there is little in Tolkien that remains inexplicable or unexpected, not even eucatastrophe.

I take the point, but I'm not sure that it applies to Smith, or even Niggle - or maybe to the latter only if viewed as allegory. Smith, certainly, includes the unexplainable & the marvellous. And yet... it seems Tolkien struggled with that very aspect of SoWM - to the extent that he wrote an essay 'explaining' the inexplicable elements. Of course, if he hadn't been the kind of writer who was driven to explain & rationalise then M-e would have been so much less complete & believable.

[Nerwen]

I tend to regard magical realism as a sub-class of fantasy. I feel that it takes too much special pleading to argue that it isn't fantasy at all.

And yes, definitions are important. I'm not seriously saying anyone who uses the term magical realism is a humbug, because it does tell you something about the type of story you're dealing with. (However, I maintain that a lot of people read One Hundred Years of Solitude who would never have picked it up if it were classed as fantasy.)

I can't help thinking that as a genre (or sub-genre, according to me), magical realism has its own set of problems: the "anything can happen" principle can get taken much too literally, so that the story devolves into a series of arbitrary events.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

the "anything can happen" principle can get taken much too literally, so that the story devolves into a series of arbitrary events.

But aren't all plot lines of all stories just a series of arbitrary events?

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Still, the "magical realism" label does guarantee that the book at least won't be a stereotyped sword-and-sorcery yarn. There's a point to that– much of the fantasy section of any bookshop consists of third-rate Lord of the Rings rip-offs, with a few D&D cliches thrown in.

I just had that revelation wandering around the local library yesterday. It was incredibly depressing.

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Magical realism, by existence, requires a more layered approach to story telling. Since literatis beg for layers [like parfaits; or onions], they can dig their sharp dirty little claws into magical realism, confident in that one of their first little club rules is being followed.

As I was reading through the introduction to the Book of Lost Tales Part I, at one point Christopher Tolkien says that his father was reluctant to even introduce the Silm to his readers:

"I am doubtful myself about the undertaking [to write the Silmarillion.]. Part of the attraction of the L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in the sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed." J.R.R. Tolkien, Letters p. 333

There we have it from the Professor himself. As Feanor said, there are so many layers upon layers upon layers in Tolkien's works that we can't even begin to consider them in light of a modern genre: even magical realism, to be perfectly honest. Tolkien started at the bottom: he separated his world from ours by giving it an entirely new language system, and then moved on to creating characters, plots, etc. Middlearth operates on a completely different plane of reality from ours: it has histories upon histories (I like Feanor's example of Eomer) that we can't even begin to touch. Even when we have the Silm, there's still places in Beleriand we don't visit, times in Valinor where we have no idea what's going on--and yet, fundamentally, we feel as if this alternate world, this other plane of reality, has a history, practically a persona just as great and researchable as our own, because Tolkien continues to give us those "glimpses". Trying to write literary analysis of Middlearth from a pragmatic view just doesn't happen: you would have to live there to do so.
From another point of view: I intensely enjoyed reading Weis and Hickman's Darksword Trilogy, and the same with Piers Anthony's immensely complex Phaze and Proton series, yet at the same time I never felt a need to know the specific backgrounds of those worlds. Sure, they hated non-magic-users like Joram: but I never particularly cared why. Phaze and Proton had a cooperative past that stretched millenia back: but why didn't I care about it? Riddle me that.
Bleargh. I've said more than my share. But if I may make another allusion, you can tell fans of the Star Wars Expanded Universe that their beloved literature is subjectable to literary criticism, because it's not all written by one person, and can be split into seperate authorial/directorial points of view. Despite the fact that there are layers upon layers of histories behind the motivations of the main characters, Star Wars was essentially created by one man and expanded upon by hundreds, thousands of others. It's a cooperative project, with many, many contradictions.
On the other hand, Tolkien (with his equally grand and layered history of Middlearth) has the advantage over SW: if he didn't imagine it happening in ME's history, it didn't happen. There is no Tolkien "canon": just Tolkien's writings.

[Nerwen]

But aren't all plot lines of all stories just a series of arbitrary events?

Only up to a point. The author has total control over what happens, yes– but if the story totally fails to make internal sense it's usually not very satisfying to read. Of course, that depends a lot on the reader.

I'm just saying that in the hands of a lazy writer, magical realism = all-purpose plot-device. The high fantasy equivalent is random magic that does whatever the plot requires.

On the other hand, Tolkien (with his equally grand and layered history of Middlearth) has the advantage over SW: if he didn't imagine it happening in ME's history, it didn't happen.

Try telling that to fan fic writers...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I take the point, but I'm not sure that it applies to Smith, or even Niggle - or maybe to the latter only if viewed as allegory. Smith, certainly, includes the unexplainable & the marvellous. And yet... it seems Tolkien struggled with that very aspect of SoWM - to the extent that he wrote an essay 'explaining' the inexplicable elements. Of course, if he hadn't been the kind of writer who was driven to explain & rationalise then M-e would have been so much less complete & believable.

A good point. You could be right that Smith and Niggle--and Bombadil and Goldberry for that matter--are 'outside' that aspect of Middle-earth. Yet for Smith Faery is a place he desires to visit. Access to Faery seems to depend upon inheritance of the Star and while Faery does intrude slightly upon the 'real world' of those of the ilk of Nokes, it doesn't seriously disrupt or threaten their perspective, so it seems to be a place of selective or individual perception rather than a challenge to the norm of the Nokes et al. The two realities exist side by side so to speak, rather than in a collision. Does the marvellous exist in magic realism as a secret venue only for those who choose to see it? It still depends in Smith upon a King who forsakes Faery to live amongst the folk.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I tend to regard magical realism as a sub-class of fantasy. I feel that it takes too much special pleading to argue that it isn't fantasy at all.

And fantasy is a sub-class of romance and we're back with the classification of one of those members of the literati, Frye.

It's interesting that magic realism became so identified with literature of South and Central America. I've seen one humorous definition that suggests it belongs to Spanish-speaking cultures. We can wonder what the influence of Don Quioxte might be.

Originally Posted by Beanamir, from Lost Tales

"I am doubtful myself about the undertaking [to write the Silmarillion.]. Part of the attraction of the L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in the sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed." J.R.R. Tolkien, Letters p. 333

I suppose we could characterise Tolkien's aesthetic as the strip tease version of reader-approach.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Yet for Smith Faery is a place he desires to visit. Access to Faery seems to depend upon inheritance of the Star and while Faery does intrude slightly upon the 'real world' of those of the ilk of Nokes, it doesn't seriously disrupt or threaten their perspective, so it seems to be a place of selective or individual perception rather than a challenge to the norm of the Nokes et al. The two realities exist side by side so to speak, rather than in a collision.

Yes, but its more complex in the Smith Essay:

The crafts of Wootton, on which their present prosperity was based, actually owed their fame and commercial success in the beginning to the special skill and 'artistic' quality which contact with Faery had given to them. But the commercial success had for some time begun to have effect. The village had become comfortable and self-satisfied. The artistic quality of its products was declining, and to some extent also their traditional manual skill, though this had not yet affected their market. But the village was in a danger which it did not see: a dwindling of its prosperity, which would not be maintained for ever by 'good name' and established connexions with eastern customers, nor by mere industry and business acumen. If the thread between the villagers and Faery was broken it would go back to its squalid beginnings. All was not well indeed in the village itself. The practisers of the marketable and exportable crafts were becoming richer and more important, dominating the Council. The minor trades and professions, especially those of mere local use, were depressed; many had ceased to follow their fathers and had become hired men serving the smiths and wrights and weavers. Such folk as the Sedgers (the tale-tellers), the musicians: Pipers, Harpers, Crowthers, Fidlers and Homers* and the Sangsters, as also those skilled in designing, painting, and in carving or smithying things of beauty. The Dyers owing to their connexion with the weaving crafts (of great importance) remained prosperous, but were (unnoticed by themselves) losing both taste and skill.
The vulgarization of Wootton is indicated by Nokes. He is obviously a somewhat extreme case, but clearly represents an attitude fast spreading in the village and growing in weight. The festivals are becoming, or have already become, mere occasions for eating and drinking. Songs, tales music dancing no longer play a part - at least they are not provided for (as is the cooking and catering) out of public funds, and if they take place at all it is in family parties, and especially in the entertainment of children. The Hall is no longer decorated, though kept in good structural order. History and legend and above all any tales touching on 'faery', have become regarded as children's stuff, patronizingly tolerated for the amusement of the very young.

This situation is evidently one that has aroused the concern of Faery. Why? It is plainly shown that Faery is a vast world in its own right, that does not depend for its existence upon Men, and which is not primarily nor indeed principally concerned with Men. The relationship must therefore be one of love: the Elven Folk, the chief and ruling inhabitants of Faery, have an ultimate kinship with Men and have a permanent love for them in general. Though they are not bound by any moral obligation to assist Men, and do not need their help (except in human affairs), they do from time to time try to assist them, avert evil from them and have relations with them, especially through certain men and women whom they find suitable. They, the Elvenfolk are thus 'beneficent' with regard to Men, and are not wholly alien, though many things and creatures in Faery itself are alien to Men and even actively hostile. Their good will is seen mainly in attempting to keep or restore relationships between the two worlds, since the Elves (and still some Men) realize that this love of Faery is essential to the full and proper human development. The love of Faery is the love of love: a relationship towards all things, animate and inanimate, which includes love and respect, and removes or modifies the spirit of possession and domination. Without it even plain 'Utility' will in fact become less useful; or will turn to ruthlessness and lead only to mere power, ultimately destructive.* The Apprentice relationship in the tale is thus interesting. Men in a large part of their activities are or should be in an apprentice status as regards the Elven folk. In an attempt to rescue Wootton from its decline, the Elves reverse the situation, and the King of Faery himself comes and serves as an apprentice in the village. .....

(*'For this reason the Elvenfolk are chary of giving to any human person possession of any device of their own which is endowed with Elvish power called by Men by many names, such as magic. Most Men will certainly misuse it as a mere instrument for their own personal power and success. All men will tend to cling to it as a personal possession. )


It is probable that the world of Faery could not exist without our world, and is affected by the events in it — the reverse being also true. The 'health' of both is affected by state of the other. Men have not the power to assist the Elvenfolk in the ordering and defence of their realm; but the Elves have the power (subject to finding co-operation from within) to assist in the protection of our world, especially in the attempt to re-direct Men when their development tends to the defacing or destruction of their world. The Elves may thus have also an enlightened self-interest in human affairs.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It's interesting that magic realism became so identified with literature of South and Central America. I've seen one humorous definition that suggests it belongs to Spanish-speaking cultures. We can wonder what the influence of Don Quioxte might be.

I'd argue that Spanish-speaking cultures are just inherently cooler when it comes to art. I mean... Salvador Dali, anybody?

More seriously, I feel an internal nudge to point out that before it blossomed in [mostly Latin American] literature, magic[al] realism was a visual arts idea for some post-Expressionism [potentially German but I don't have my old notebook with me] work. The images in question are painted with a degree of such hyper-realism that they become surreal in how perfect they are. There's no blatant magicness about them, and no fantasy, only the mundane transformed through sheer being into the extraordinary. Here's an example of contemporary hyper-realist painting: some of it doesn't count as it has fantastical elements, but others, particularly his Vespid Mortem series, portray something exceptionally simple in an astonishing manner.

Give that visual arts connection, and my inability to keep one form of art packaged safely away from another, I'm curious if that idea shifts Tolkien's work closer into the category of magic[al] realism: he creates such a hyper-realistic world that fans often know more about it than they know about their own...

[Bêthberry]

davem, that quotation is exceptionally interesting for presenting Tolkien's ideas on Faery, but at the same time I want to say, "Whoa, wait a minute!" He's adding so much more 'backstory' that essentially he is nearly rewriting the story. I'm not sure the story can sustain all the implications he makes there, but of course a fragment such as that can't give full flavour.

And as pertains to the discussion of magic realism, that passage seems even more to move away from the mode and tone of, say, Garcia Marquez or Salman Rushdie.

Fea, yes, I remember that it was a German art critic who first used the term, but I also have a vague recollection that he really didn't need to use it, as Surrealism was what he was really talking about?

I don't know about Tolkien giving so much detail as to create a hyper-realistic world. It's the gaps in the detail I think that quicken the imagination.

anyhow, must scoot now, some non-hyper work calls.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

As I was reading through the introduction to the Book of Lost Tales Part I, at one point Christopher Tolkien says that his father was reluctant to even introduce the Silm to his readers:

Whoa, whoa, whoa there, Nellie! Check for context!

Christopher Tolkien in the BLT I Foreword was quoting Tom Shippey, who was in turn quoting the JRRT letter: and CRT was in fact *criticising* Shippey for interpolating the words "to write The Silmarillion." JRRT never wrote them- and in any case, Shippey was under the very false impression that Tolkien hadn't, in fact, already written The Silmarillion*, much of it many times over.

In fact in the Second and Third Editions of The Road to Middle-earth Shippey has retracted his interpolation.


EDIT 11/7: In the 2004 edition of RME, Shippey writes, "I should have looked back at the antecedent sentences of the letter, and realised that what was meant was something more like 'I am doubtful myself about the undertaking [to make The Silmarillion consistent both internally and with the now-published Lord of the Rings, and above all to give it "some progressive shape."]'"

*By 1963 all the texts which wound up in the published Silmarillion had already been done, except for the very late revisions to 'Of Maeglin.' Tolkien wrote very, very little First Age narrative after his retirement in 1959; and of course in all its essentials the book pre-dated The Lord of the Rings. Shippey got this backwards in '82, before HoME was available.

[Beanamir of Gondor]

Aha. Rebuke duly accepted, William. to me for forgetting the context of the next page: I swear I read it. So the problem, essentially, was that LotR readers had fabricated their own histories of ME, having only ever caught glimpses of the past, and Tolkien was worried that by publishing the Silmarillion, his account of the history of ME might clash with what readers had imagined. Not the same argument: similar, but not the same.

In all honesty, that is a worrisome concept. Beren and Luthien were different in the Silm than I'd imagined them after hearing Aragorn's song in FotR.

Still, even if Tolkien never said that himself (about readers not wanting to know the history of ME), it is a valid question, is it not? Many readers of "The Hobbit" are perfectly content to lay back and never read further. Even more readers of LotR are content to quit with Aragorn's coronation, and go no further back than the bare details of the First Age coupled with the events of the Third Age--all those people who say, "Sure, I saw the movies and read the book, but I don't think I could read all those historical contexts."

I think I've rambled off the thread subject. Ugh.