Why Tolkien?

[Bêthberry]

I'm just a reader in a fantasy land, which I think is what accounts for the particular differences in the experience of reading Tolkien when compared to those authors Aelfwine has named.

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

Why not Faulkner, or O'Brian, or Vonnegut, or Homer, or Tolstoy or... you get the picture.

Unlike Aelfwine, though, I would not include Homer in this list of contrasting authors, and I note that Morth did not include Homer in his list of Those Who Tolkien Resembles Not.

There are books which we read for "the facts"--just the facts, ma'am--even literary fiction, as well as histories and expository prose. This is especially true of novels in the realistic tradition and, possibly, those in the ironic tradition. But not all books are best read as proof-texts for literalness--witness the desperate measures of those who read the Bible literally (which it never was until the last two centuries). Some books invite a different kind of reading experience.

Homer's two epics are such books, which originally were oral, and which often were sung. They are performative, possibly even interactive. Witness the oft-told complaint that Tolkien's style is archaic--it often assumes the rhythmic beat of Old English rather than contemporary English. Homer's and Tolkien's creations are activities to be experienced rather than texts to be decoded. Perhaps this is the nature of mythologies. Both Homer and Tolkien wrote, after all, mythologies. And both authors have inspired re-tellers of their tales. There is something about mythologies that inspires readers and listeners to invest the writings with more than simple decoding, something akin to ekstasis or a 'stepping outside' of normal experience. Not every kid had Athena for a Mentor but holey-molely look what happened to one who did!

This might be what Morth is getting at when he claims that Tolkien was using allegory even when he claimed he wasn't. There are, after all, various kinds of allegoria, not all of which "point back" to events in a one to one correlation with contemporary history.

Anyhow, I think it was Mircea Eliade who used the term coincidentia oppositorum, a special sense unlike the ordinary, daily, mundane experience, to describe the experience of myth, which possibly can also be ascribed to fantasy. I think many readers invest Tolkien's works with this sense.

(As an aside, let me suggest that davem would not be such a reader, given his recent thread where he insisted that historical veracity had to be the ultimate means of assessing Tolkien.)

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Unlike Aelfwine, though, I would not include Homer in this list of contrasting authors, and I note that Morth did not include Homer in his list of Those Who Tolkien Resembles Not.

I did not include Homer in the list because he was not a writer of the 20th century. The only Homer I know of in the 20th century is on The Simpsons.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

This might be what Morth is getting at when he claims that Tolkien was using allegory even when he claimed he wasn't. There are, after all, various kinds of allegoria, not all of which "point back" to events in a one to one correlation with contemporary history.

I mentioned allegory because so many readers insist Lord of the Rings is allegorical, even though Tolkien went out of his way in the foreward of the book to say it was not. No matter what arguments are provided to the contrary, threads continue to pop up with new (and old) allegorical conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

(As an aside, let me suggest that davem would not be such a reader, given his recent thread where he insisted that historical veracity had to be the ultimate means of assessing Tolkien.)

For some reason, the old adage 'let sleeping dogs lie' occurs to me at this juncture.

[Aelfwine]

Morthoron has headed in the right direction. Tolkien is not indecipherable, dull, depressing, dated, brutal or objectionable. And it is suitable and accessible to a wide age demographic.

But let me take this point further. I will hazard a guess that the overwhelming majority of posters here first read the Hobbit and LoTR at a relatively young age. Further, because it is not considered by most schools to be a "classic" or "literature" generally it is not assigned reading and as a result we devoured it for pure enjoyment. Because it is not any of the things that Morthoron lists, young readers enjoy it for a variety of reasons. But being young readers, we miss or misunderstand details and nuances. And being young readers we do what most adults do not do with most books; we read them again, and again. We continue to do so even as we become adults. Perhaps LoTR provides comfort and a reminder of innocence; a return to childhood. Whatever the reason, re-reading Tolkien is a joyful thing to us. We want to understand it, analyse it and be expert in the lore. This is an echo of the childlike desire for learning.

Of course not everyone is bitten by the "bug". Some do the read and drop and never touch it again. Others can't get through it. While millions of copies have been sold not everyone becomes fascinated. This is where the "what" chord comes in. For some of its readers Middle Earth resonates. Coupled with our desire to understand, analyse and become expert in the lore is a desire to discuss it with others. This can be a difficult thing. Before the advent of the internet I knew no one who was gripped by Tolkien like I was. In fact, enjoying Tolkien was probably not high on the list of things that were good for a youngster's social life. It was a solitary vice, to use someone else's words. But now, it doesn't have to be.

Because of discussion boards like this one, we can now indulge ourselves and analyse and demonstrate our expertise, expound on our theories, work out answers to questions that may be unanswerable, to our heart's content. This, I think, is why we are members here. This is why we waste innumerable hours referencing and cross-referencing snippets from HoME and the primary works. This is why we come back again and again to see if anyone has posted on the threads we participate in. This is why we want, no, NEED a community, and thankfully we have one.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

(As an aside, let me suggest that davem would not be such a reader, given his recent thread where he insisted that historical veracity had to be the ultimate means of assessing Tolkien.)

Not at all - though this is not the place to pick up that particular gauntlet - I was merely asking whether historical veracity (or its absence) is important in a fantasy world, & how much leeway an author of a fantasy novel has.

Of course, it may well be that it is the absence of the gritty nastiness of the real/Primary world that makes Tolkien's creation so attractive - that the 'moral'/ethical (let alone the 'religious') dimension doesn't play any part in what really attracts us to Middle-earth. Its Faery, & Faery exerts a strange pull on many of us. Why that should be I don't know, but it has nothing to do with moral codes & everything to do with a sense of wonder awakened.

"Still round the corner..." & all that

[Aelfwine]

Both Homer and Tolkien wrote, after all, mythologies. And both authors have inspired re-tellers of their tales. There is something about mythologies that inspires readers and listeners to invest the writings with more than simple decoding, something akin to ekstasis or a 'stepping outside' of normal experience. Not every kid had Athena for a Mentor but holey-molely look what happened to one who did!

I agree that Homer and Tolkien wrote within the same general genre; both wrote mythologies, though Homer's work apparently romanticized real life events (or at least some historiams believe). They differ drastically in that Tolkien delineates, more or less clearly, between good and evil while there is no such clear cut distinction in the Iliad. Rather in Homer's works, men were effectively pawns of the whims of the gods who generally were mightily amused and entertained. Comparing LoTR and the Iliad would probably be a great thread. I'm sure we would get at least 3 posts.

I mentioned Homer not to draw any comparisons or contrasts with Middle Earth but rather because he is recognized as the author of a classic (if he in fact existed which is another can of worms). The point being that there are not dozens of discussion boards and hundreds of websites dedicated to dissecting the details of Homer's works while such ether attention does exist for Tolkien. Again this may be in part because most modern readers devour Tolkien for pleasure but read Homer because they are required to in school.

Of course, it may well be that it is the absence of the gritty nastiness of the real/Primary world that makes Tolkien's creation so attractive

I disagree here. Middle Earth is certainly idealised and, perhaps because it is set in a simpler time, is more innocent than the real world (in some ways anyway; the most hardened hood in New York City would not want to run afoul of a Balrog). But many of the current problems found in today's society are found in Middle Earth as well. Thievery and hooliganism (Bill Ferny, the ruffians in the Scouring of the Shire), greed (Smaug, the Dwarves - sorry Kuruharan), cronyism (Saruman, the Shirriffs), unbridled lust for power (Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman), runaway egos (Feanor), depression (Denethor), prejudice (Elves and Dwarves are guilty here), excess (the over-indulgers following Bilbo's Birthday Party), jealosy (Saeros), corruption (Wormtongue), etc. Middle Earth is idealized but it is not idyllic. Otherwise it would be boring (with a tip of the hat to Morthoron) and would not appeal to young readers.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. The simplified version of the question is what drives you to post here? Why do you seek out a community of Middle Earth afficianados?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

Perhaps LoTR provides comfort and a reminder of innocence; a return to childhood. Whatever the reason, re-reading Tolkien is a joyful thing to us. We want to understand it, analyse it and be expert in the lore. This is an echo of the childlike desire for learning.

I seem to recall an old saying, that unless you become like children, you will never find heaven.

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

People want to be part of a Tolkien community, whatever their personal reasons for liking his work may be. Why are we so driven to discuss this author and his works? Why do we want and need a community?

I also seem to recall another saying about what happens when two or three are gathered together.



On the other hand, play and the Internets seem ideally suited. Just look at how cats are so popular on the Nets.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aelfwine

Middle Earth is certainly idealised and, perhaps because it is set in a simpler time, is more innocent than the real world (in some ways anyway; the most hardened hood in New York City would not want to run afoul of a Balrog). But many of the current problems found in today's society are found in Middle Earth as well. Thievery and hooliganism (Bill Ferny, the ruffians in the Scouring of the Shire), greed (Smaug, the Dwarves - sorry Kuruharan), cronyism (Saruman, the Shirriffs), unbridled lust for power (Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman), runaway egos (Feanor), depression (Denethor), prejudice (Elves and Dwarves are guilty here), excess (the over-indulgers following Bilbo's Birthday Party), jealosy (Saeros), corruption (Wormtongue), etc. Middle Earth is idealized but it is not idyllic. Otherwise it would be boring (with a tip of the hat to Morthoron) and would not appeal to young readers.

Yes - but that's not why we go there - or at least that's not what attracts us in the first place. We go to escape into another world - that world may contain both the virtues & the vice we find in this world, but if that was all we sought we would read contemporary novels, tales about our own world. We go to Middle-earth rather for Elves & Dragons, for mountains & ultimately for a glimpse of the Sea "on the margin of the world"

Actually, as I've pointed up elsewhere (on another forum), that phrase recurs in Tolkien's writings

Voronwë sighed, and spoke then softly as if to himself. "But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside. Of Tuor & his Coming to Gondolin

&

Almost it seemed that the words took shape, and visions of far lands and bright things that he had never yet imagined opened out before him; and the firelit hall became like a golden mist above seas of foam that sighed upon the margins of the world. Many Meetings

& even in the soon to be published Sigurd & Gudrun (I've transcribed this from the Harper Collins promo which TORn linked to a while back

In forges fire
Of flaming wrath
Was heaviest hammer
Hewn & wielded
Thunder & lightening
Thor the mighty
Flung among them
Felled & sundered
In fear then fled they
Foes immortal
From the walls beaten
Watched unceasing
Ringed earth around
With roaring Sea
And mountains of Ice
On the margin of the world Sigurd & Gudrun

And for me that phrase captures the essence of Tolkien's creation - Starlight seen through the branches of trees, the Sea-shore at evening, far off mountains & vast forests. The virtues & vices of the everyday world may impinge, but they are not what attract us to Middle-earth. And I suppose that what draws us here, & to seek out other fans is that we're looking for kindred spirits, for others who desire what we desire. There's a line in the film Shadowlands, something about 'We read to know we're not alone.' - maybe that sums it up.

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien was at home in all three primary elements that make up western culture: Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, and Northern European. The literati idealize the Greek at the expense of the other two. Tolkien subtly weaves in the Middle Eastern and the Greek but his story is primarily about the Northern. He confirms our desire for and respect for our northern heritage, which the literati disrespect.

Interestingly, LotR strikes a chord in Japan too. So it would seem that Tolkien confirms the desire for the primitive heritage of ANY people in which the virtues of courage and so forth are glorified.

[davem]

Philip Pullman
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...ew-.5204531.jp

The success of The Lord Of The Rings movies and the Harry Potter franchise – and, to a lesser extent, The Golden Compass with Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig – suggests there is a large public appetite for pure escapism. Pullman makes no overt criticism of the JK Rowling books ("When people read Harry Potter presumably they like to escape into the fantasy of an English boarding school with magic things happening," he says. "I don't want to disparage Harry Potter"), but he has little time for Tolkien. "When they read Tolkien, they want to take refuge in Little Englandism, the sense that the hobbits – which are us – are menaced by the nasty people who are somewhere else, but we're jolly brave and we'll fight through. It's a Churchillian vision of fighting on the beaches."

&

But doesn't His Dark Materials play to the same desire for escapism? "Well, it would be escapist if you just go there to have a lovely time," he says. "If you go there and find it's bloody horrible, you've got a terrible deed to do and it's dangerous and frightening, then maybe the real escapism is in the realistic novel that talks about being a publisher in London and having an adulterous affair."

I'd venture to suggest that Pullman is contradicting himeself here - within the space of two paragraphs & that finding "it's bloody horrible, you've got a terrible deed to do and it's dangerous and frightening" is a fair despription of Frodo & Sam in LotR. Hence, the Literati's dislike of Tolkien has nothing to do with 'Northernness' (look at the praise heaped on Heaney's tranlation of Beowulf), or a hatred of courage & sacrifice, or of 'Religion'. Its not even down to a hatred of fantasy (Peake garnered praise for Gormenghast at the same time as Tolkien was being attacked & in many cases it was the same people handing out the brickbats to Tolkien & the Kudos to Peake. Plus, let's not indulge in the fantasy that all the critics hated LotR - many praised it to the skies from its first appearance.

Some people hate it - for many reasons, & many of those who hate it love Northern epics, & tales of courage & sacrifice - they just don't like Tolkien. Of course, some hate it because they can't get past the Hobbits & Elves - but then I've attempted to read plenty of fantasy novels filled with Elves & Dwarves, with courageous, self-sacrifycing heroes & ended up hating them with a passion.

As an aside - out of all those who looked forward to the LotR movies (whether they were please with what they saw or not) how many book lovers wanted to see a movie about "Thievery and hooliganism" , "greed" "cronyism", "unbridled lust for power" ," runaway egos" ,"depression" ,"prejudice" ," excess", "jealousy" "corruption" etc (let alone the supposed 'underlying christianity' of Tolkien's story), & how many went to see the Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Black Riders, the Shire, Minas Tirith, Orthanc & the epic battles at Helm's Deep & the Pelennor?

[Mithadan]

I feel a long post coming on...

It is always interesting and amusing to watch how discussions twist and turn and how a subject morphs into another. Aelfwine's original topic querying why we need or seek out a Tolkien community has changed into something else that is equally worthy of discussion.

To begin with Aelfwine's original topic, while Tolkien might not have imagined such a thing as an internet (and might not approve, at least in some respects), what we do on these boards would have been familiar to him. Our discussions are akin to Socratic method debate and the study groups that were common to schools of his time, with the added joy that the topic is not required learning -- as Aelfwine noted. While I cannot vouch for his approval of the medium, I suspect JRRT would approve of the method (though he might prefer we discuss northern mythology or Beowulf rather than LoTR). I'll return to Aelfwine's topic soon.

The other direction this thread has taken is a variant of "why do you like Middle Earth" with, perhaps, an emphasis upon common or universal reasons for such appreciation. While this has been discussed many times before, this debate has taken some interesting twists. Inzildun says LoTR appeals to him/her as a "traditonalist", as an anglophile and touches his appreciation of Tolkien's linguistic skills. Mithalwen likes the breadth, depth and comfort of his writing. Aelfwine points to believability and consistency. Davem goes textbook on us and parrots Tolkien himself and his discussion of escapism in On Fairy-Stories. There, Tolkien complains of "The rawness and ugliness of modern European life" and suggests many want to fly from "hunger, thirst, poverty, pain, sorrow, injustice, death." Yet Tolkien does not claim that Faerie lacks these things, but rather that they are present in a different form, like "the ogre who possesses a castle hideous as a nightmare." He concedes that fantasies are not all "beautiful or even wholesome, not at any rate the fantasies of fallen Man. And he has stained the elves... with his own stain."

"Faerie is a perilous land" partly because of this Mannish stain. Yet, in the complete absence of the modern shortcomings of Man, "stories that are actually concerned primarily with 'Fairies' [elves]... are ... as a rule not very interesting." Good fantasy provides escape and the consolation of the happy ending, which Tolkien terms "eucatastrophe" without excluding the possibility of sorrow and failure ('dycatastrophe"). The litany of modern evils are not absent in Middle Earth, they are present, made appropriate for the time and setting, and attributed appropriately whether to Man, Orc, Dwarf, Elf or otherwise. We do not read Tolkien for these evils, but rather for the escape, recovery and consolation Tolkien refers to in On Fairy-Stories. However, without these evils, Middle Earth would not be interesting.

Returning to Aelfwine's original question, On Fairy-Stories has something to say about that as well. Tolkien dedicates an entire section of that essay to children. Tolkien seems to agree that age is relevant to one's interest in fantasy, though he suggests that the target audience is or should be adults, not children. This being said, Tolkien notes that children have no particular liking or understanding of fairy-stories more so than adults would. Indeed he emphasizes that fantasy should not be "cut off from full adult art." But he concedes that children are "young and growing, and normally have keen appetites so that fairy-stories as a rule go down well enough" but "only some children, and some adults, have any special taste for them." For fantasies to be "worth reading at all it is worthy to be written for and read by adults. They will, of course, put more in and get more out than children can."

LoTR was written for adults but appeals to younger readers as well. Kids can't get as much out of it as adults, which leads to re-reading at least for those who have a "special taste" for it. This is why we obsess and this is why we seek out a community. Particularly where Tolkien is otherwise a private vice as Aelfwine comments.