Protecting One's Self

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

There is no other Tolkien and if you look for "fantasy" when what you really mean is "Tolkien," then you'll ALWAYS be disappointed.

Ironically, it's just this hunger for "something like Tolkien" or "more like Tolkien" which created the market for what the Encyclopedia of Fantasy calls genre fantasy: a genre of fiction using external trappings and storytelling templates derived from Tolkien, but lacking the spirit, scope and imaginative power of his work:

Originally Posted by John Grant in Encyclopedia of Fantasy(1997)

In short, GF is not at heart fantasy at all, but a comforting revisitation of cosy venues, creating an effect that is almost anti-fantasy. An allied point is that GFs cater in large part for unimaginative readers who, through the reading of a GF, can feel themselves to be, as it were, vicariously imaginative. This goes exactly counter to the purpose of the full fantasy, which is to release or even to catapult the reader into new areas of the imagination.

(If you think this is too uncharitable a view, go read the whole article, it's actually quite balanced.)

In other words, "something like Tolkien" may perhaps be more readily found in works that don't outwardly resemble Tolkien's at all.

I think it's useful to distinguish, following Clute & Grant in the EoF, between fantasy as a genre of fiction (generally set in a faux-medieval or otherwise pre-modern secondary world, populated by [some variation of] elves, dwarves, dragons, wizards, and often including a conflict of good vs evil, order vs chaos, or the like) and fantasy as a mode of fiction, which can be anything dealing with creatures, concepts or other elements not found in contemporary consensus reality to startle, amaze, delight or disturb the reader. These days I wouldn't call myself (or think of myself as) a fantasy fan in the first sense (although I used to, and I still hope GRRM will live long enough to give ASoIaF a proper ending!), but fantasy in the second sense will always be dear to my heart.

As for being a fan of anything and fandom in general, I get being a fan of a band or a football club, but I don't think fandom is a useful approach to literary works, or cultural phenomena in general. Fans tend to be over-protective not so much of themselves (although that probably too, in an indirect way) than of the things they're fans of, and prone to knee-jerk reactions when the object of fandom is criticised. It happens to the best of us, even on these Downs.

Then again... Like Mithadan, I grew up at a time and in a place where other Tolkien readers (let alone as avid ones as myself) were few and far between, and by the time I went to university in the '80s Tolkien, and fantasy in general, was still very much A Secret Vice (TM), so being able to come out of the closet as a fan and confess to myself and a digital world of kindred spirits 'Hey, I really dig this stuff!' was actually quite liberating. Thank you all, and TBW Himself, for that!

[William Cloud Hicklin]

The awesomeness of Galadriel's opening monologue has come at a price though...

But then, there's the thing: the movies start to go wrong right at that very point, and never get back on track. Overlooking the vile neologism of "gifted" as a verb, note that the entire monologue (with opening line lifted from Treebeard, for whom it is more appropriate than Galadriel), goes on with "for none now live who remember it." Now that is just silly, whomever the referent of "it" is, empty-faux-profundity; but then it gets worse: the Great Rings "were made." They "were given." Passive voice all the way; no indication who made them, or who gave them, and as to the why- well, the unnamed smiths created them to contain "the power to rule each race"-- unadulterated rubbish.

The book is, even at a surface plot level, being distorted out the gate by PJ and his co-conspirators, even before we get to "Men, who above all else desire power:" a greeting-card cliche (Philippa Boyens' hallmark), and about as wrong as is possible (Tolkien on umpty-leven occasions said that Men above all else desire immortality.) And given that he also said, on umpty-leventeen occasions, that what the book is really about is death and the desire for deathlessness, we can see how wrong things are going- even before considering aspects of this theme manifested, such as the temptation and horror of the Nazgul (which of course PJ gets completely wrong).

I could go on with a line by line and scene by scene fisking, but the point is- one could, I suppose, look on the movies as a sort of analogue of Classics Illustrated comics, a gateway drug to reading the real thing- but CI never presented its adolescent reader base with a warped and distorted version of the original, which they would have to unlearn if they are to understand what they read.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

It was long a dream of mine (and I suspect of Christopher's, I don't really think so IRO T pere), that Tolkien would be accepted for membership in the Club: the club which includes Dickens and Hardy and Fielding and Thackeray, the club of capital-L Literature. Tolkien, taught in E.Lit courses at a university level, alongside Shakespeare and Milton! Recognized, deservedly, as a peer of Sterne and Austen!

Well- that has happened, in a way: but not at all like my dream. Rather than the Club voting Tolkien into membership, it instead decided to do away with membership altogether and throw the doors open to the proles. So now Tolkien is taught in colleges: but alongside Star Trek and Harry Potter and Buffy. Not really the same thing- you can shoulder your way to the former Members' Bar and have a drink, but you'll be propping it not alongside Maugham and Greene, but alongside George Lucas and Stan Lee (and George "Imitative Initials" Martin). Tolkien got in wearing a "Pop Culture" nametag - which is an insult.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Ironically, it's just this hunger for "something like Tolkien" or "more like Tolkien" which created the market for what the Encyclopedia of Fantasy calls genre fantasy: a genre of fiction using external trappings and storytelling templates derived from Tolkien, but lacking the spirit, scope and imaginative power of his work:

Indeed, it's almost Shakespearean in its irony.

I like the distinction between Fantasy as a genre and Fantasy as a mode. I think what I like particularly is the marriage of the two, but if we're going to separate out of the chocolate and the peanuts, I want the chocolate--i.e. the mode, not the sword-and-sorcery trappings.

(I fear to speak malignantly of Dungeons & Dragons, for I have never once been involved in tabletop roleplaying and thus must admit to a great deal of ignorance, but it is my impression that for all the enjoyment brought about by those games, they have very much furthered the proliferation of the fantasy-as-a-particular-setting and--tying it back to the topic at hand, my instinctive protectiveness of Middle-earth has made me bristle at it.)

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

In other words, "something like Tolkien" may perhaps be more readily found in works that don't outwardly resemble Tolkien's at all.

Indeed, I find the most like-unto-Tolkien satisfaction these days in what might be more properly called his sources than his heirs: Beowulf, Malory, Morris. Not for mere aesthetic pleasure is the quote in my signature "I prefer history, real or feigned."

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

Then again... Like Mithadan, I grew up at a time and in a place where other Tolkien readers (let alone as avid ones as myself) were few and far between, and by the time I went to university in the '80s Tolkien, and fantasy in general, was still very much A Secret Vice (TM), so being able to come out of the closet as a fan and confess to myself and a digital world of kindred spirits 'Hey, I really dig this stuff!' was actually quite liberating. Thank you all, and TBW Himself, for that!

There is definitely a generational difference there. Even before the 'Downs--indeed, even before the movies--I recall meeting adults of my parents' generation excited to see that I had delved into books they remembered quite fondly (I never encountered anyone with a 'Downsian level of sustained interest until AFTER I joined the 'Downs), but it was always someone discovering me.

I love the idea of Tolkien reading as "A Secret Vice"--there's something there that captures what I mean when I speak of the "Protective" quality.

[Boromir88]

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

In other words, "something like Tolkien" may perhaps be more readily found in works that don't outwardly resemble Tolkien's at all.

I can see that being the case, although I also enjoy reading Pratchett and I don't think I've read a Pratchett book that hasn't contained at least one allusion to Tolkien. However, I would also put Pratchett into a different sub-category of the fantasy genre. He was undoubtedly influenced by Tolkien, but managed to create a much different world that doesn't come off as a cheap attempt to copy him.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

(I fear to speak malignantly of Dungeons & Dragons, for I have never once been involved in tabletop roleplaying and thus must admit to a great deal of ignorance, but it is my impression that for all the enjoyment brought about by those games, they have very much furthered the proliferation of the fantasy-as-a-particular-setting and--tying it back to the topic at hand, my instinctive protectiveness of Middle-earth has made me bristle at it.)

I shouldn't have been surprised, after I went on my Lord of the Rings social media spam posting, that a group of friends called a few weeks ago to see if I wanted to join in their Dungeons & Dragons campaign. I suppose some would consider this being a downside to being a Tolkien extrovert, you will inevitably be asked to join more social stigmas. I mean I get it, I had that same reaction about tabletop games, but covid has changed things for me, personally. Sunday will be the third week of the campaign and I haven't had this much fun in a long time.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

I can see that being the case, although I also enjoy reading Pratchett and I don't think I've read a Pratchett book that hasn't contained at least one allusion to Tolkien. However, I would also put Pratchett into a different sub-category of the fantasy genre. He was undoubtedly influenced by Tolkien, but managed to create a much different world that doesn't come off as a cheap attempt to copy him.

Pratchett is a special case, as he uses all the staple fantasy tropes consciously and subverts them. His work is basically a parody of genre fantasy, and by basically I mean that he uses parody as his launching pad, but in his best works he moves way beyond it.

[Thinlómien]

I think it's very interesting how so many of us share a certain sense of privacy when it comes to our relationship with Tolkien's works - yet we're here sharing this with each other.

I think personally I am into very many books, movies or even tv shows that have active "fandoms" but I don't feel the need to partake in them. I'm really not so interested in anybody else's interpretation and feelings about Tolkien; just about my own, and perhaps that of people I care about. And even then, I don't think I necessarily care about - for example - what my partner thinks about The Lord of the Rings because it would be an insight on LotR, I would care because it's an inisght on my partner himself.

It goes for all fandoms to a degree, but Tolkien the most. So in that sense I'm grateful I joined the 'downs when I was still a fandom extrovert looking to connect with more people, not the fandom introvert I am now that just wants to chat with her buddies. (Which all 'downers are, incidentally, whether we know each other well or not at all. <3)

What I enjoy the most about fandoms is the creativity that comes with them - fan art, theatre / music / film productions, humour, even fan fiction to a degree, and for that the community is great. But I feel that even with those these are periods where I'm more receptive and periods when I'm less receptive to this "outside influence". And I think that's okay.

Also, I don't have that experience that much with Tolkien and the PJ films, but it sure is complicated being a fan of A Song of Ice and Fire without not having much interest in (the recent seasons of) Game of Thrones. No, I don't want to discuss why I like Jaime Lannister and Brienne of Tarth with you if you've only seen the show, because both the characters, their relationship, and the whole worldbuilding around them are not the same in the show as in the books. Likewise, I wouldn't have any interest discussing say, Aragorn's character arc with somebody who's only seen the movies, or maybe seen the movies 20 times while having read the book once 15 years ago. I don't want to advocate gatekeeping or fandom snobbery, but when it comes to things where people equate the original books with their very popular movie/tv adaptations, my heart always bleeds a little. (And I'm not saying I don't do this myself. I would be more likely to be interested in discussing The Witcher Netflix show than the books, and probably The Witcher book purists would hate to discuss The Witcher with me. And that's okay too. We live in an era of oversharing, but not everything needs to be shared with everyone.)

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

Originally Posted by Thinlómien

Also, I don't have that experience that much with Tolkien and the PJ films, but it sure is complicated being a fan of A Song of Ice and Fire without not having much interest in (the recent seasons of) Game of Thrones. No, I don't want to discuss why I like Jaime Lannister and Brienne of Tarth with you if you've only seen the show, because both the characters, their relationship, and the whole worldbuilding around them are not the same in the show as in the books. Likewise, I wouldn't have any interest discussing say, Aragorn's character arc with somebody who's only seen the movies, or maybe seen the movies 20 times while having read the book once 15 years ago. I don't want to advocate gatekeeping or fandom snobbery, but when it comes to things where people equate the original books with their very popular movie/tv adaptations, my heart always bleeds a little. (And I'm not saying I don't do this myself. I would be more likely to be interested in discussing The Witcher Netflix show than the books, and probably The Witcher book purists would hate to discuss The Witcher with me. And that's okay too. We live in an era of oversharing, but not everything needs to be shared with everyone.)

I have actually refrained from reading the books, simply because I enjoyed the show so much (at least until the later seasons). I did not want to taint that experience with knowledge about how the characters and show "ought" to be.

[Formendacil]

So, I finished rereading the "What Breaks the Enchantment?" thread and this is my third attempt to write a response out of that. First I tried replying, but the topic of self-identification with the text kept pushing me here, then I tried a new thread, but that post was about to be a tangle of nonsense (didn't help that I was playing WW, having a Real Life™ conversation, AND trying to do that). So I'm here. I think it might work best here.

The long and the short of the giant argument that drove that thread to four pages in the halcyon days of 2005 was whether the enchantment being broken was the fault of the author for not writing a perfect text or the fault of the reader for bringing in outside thoughts or failing to "read up to" the text. My drowned attempt to start a new thread would have been an attempt to re-ask the question: "without passing judgment on who is responsible--Tolkien or yourself--what breaks the enchantment?"

"Breaking the enchantment," by the bye, is how LMP, as the progenitor of that thread, termed the moment when the reader's "suspension of disbelief" fails--the moment when you stop being IN the fiction and are mentally knocked out of it.

The reason that I couldn't successfully reply there, and why simply re-asking that question as a new thread, failed is that my answer is much too simple: I really don't find that the enchantment breaks for me anymore. Mind you, it never REALLY did, but in some of those earlier years, when I was no longer a child but was still being opened up to critical thinking and analytical reading (so... my early years here, really), I did FEAR that it might.

But, somehow, I've passed through two degrees and writing a published paper (to say nothing of 16 years here) and a mellowing of my firebrand-edged youth into an almost agnostic complexity... and the enchantment still hasn't broken. Part of this is definitely because there is still that fence about heart: I'll happily talk your ear off about geopolitics of first millennium of the Third Age for hours, but I avoid talking or discussing what Tolkien means.

It's easy to divert this into "allegory vs. applicability" (not least because that is Tolkien's own feint), or to start self-analyzing myself ("does this discomfort stem from a recognition that Tolkien, whom you have idolised, is actually deeply problematic?"), and I kind of AM doing that: I'm saying that Middle-earth and everything around it is so much a part of the story of me that I don't want to break it apart lest I break myself apart.

But the reason I couch all this in the "what breaks the enchantment" question is that I've realised I have something of a middle ground on the question--it's not a cut-and-dried "nothing breaks it" answer suggesting complete imperviousness, as the answer might have been in 2005. But as I've spent more and more time with the critical side of being a Tolkienist (and have become more of a "nonfiction" person in my life generally--I read 20 nonfiction books a year, preferably 600-page tomes with copious footnotes, and shy away from any new fiction), I've returned to reading Tolkien to discover that I'm simultaneously both inside and outside the enchantment.

In this respect, the ability to be more "in and out" strikes me as a kind of self-understanding: as I get older I understand myself better (I think--also realising just how much I dissemble and am a construct even to myself), and this sort of dualism: being inside myself and being able to analyze myself is where I'm at with "the enchantment" too.

So... I don't know where this post should have landed in the end, but I figured this is the newer thread and the shorter thread and, what's most important, I actually FINISHED the post here.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

(I fear to speak malignantly of Dungeons & Dragons, for I have never once been involved in tabletop roleplaying and thus must admit to a great deal of ignorance, but it is my impression that for all the enjoyment brought about by those games, they have very much furthered the proliferation of the fantasy-as-a-particular-setting and--tying it back to the topic at hand, my instinctive protectiveness of Middle-earth has made me bristle at it.)

I find the discussion of Tolkien's influence over the development of Dungeons & Dragons to be a very interesting topic.

Although, first, it needs to be said that the various settings that fall under the rubric of D&D are so numerous and diverse that "D&D" is really the only category that they can all accurately be grouped under.

However, the most prominent D&D settings are certainly applicable to this discussion.

As we've already alluded to in this thread as it relates to other items, Tolkien's influence over the outward trappings of D&D is so profound that in many respects it is just an outright copy, at least in origin. Once you scratch the surface and get into the themes of the stories told by D&D, Tolkien's influence quickly vanishes. In fact, in one respect or another, a lot of it ends up being in the line of "Saruman is the hero of the story because he claimed the Ring," something thematically Tolkien would have found abhorrent.

This is not to say that I don't enjoy a good D&D story, its just that in many ways Tolkien's influence is more apparent than real, or at least is superficial rather than substantive.

And D&D, even within one setting, is not helped by the fact that it usually ends up being written by committee. A fact that usually doesn't help anything where it is tried.

In recent years I've actually started enjoying playing in the Glorantha setting, not only as an aesthetic choice, but also because there is basically no discernible Tolkien influence there at all. For long years I've kind of viewed the Forgotten Realms, for example, as I would a piece of limburger. I'd take a look at it and notice this horrible smell of dreck and derivitiveness.

That being said, yes I did buy the early access of Baldur's Gate 3 and enjoyed it. Sue me.