Yes, Tolkien is Wonderful, but...

[Iarwain]

I spent several years of my life reading, re-reading, thinking, talking, and writing about Tolkien and his books. I got much enjoyment out of doing so, but since then I've "seen the light" so to speak. What did the light tell me?

There are much better books out there.

Yes, Tolkien is wonderful. I adore the Lord of the Rings, the Silmarillion, the Hobbit, and so on. Yes, he's better than basically anything else in the genre he basically created. Yes, he's even better than most non-fantasy fiction. However, if you haven't realized this already, there is greater literary content beyond the limits of Arda. Even beyond the limits of the sci-fi/fantasy subculture.

A lot of this great literature comes under the musty title of "classic". Titles like "The Iliad", "War and Peace", "Great Expectations", "Les Miserables", and others come to mind. They strike us as impressive, inaccessible, and dull. They are meant for old men wearing tweed jackets who smoke pipes in private studies not far removed from their collections of pinned-down butterflies. This somehow makes them unappealing. We open a massive copy of "The Brothers Karamazov" and feel intimidated, as though we're holding a brick and being asked to scrape through it with our teeth. Outdated translations and long, heady introductions turn us away.

However, I'd like to point out that the reason "classic" books are so "classic" is that they are the so accessible and engaging. They've got exciting plots, interesting characters, but beyond that they tend to have something Tolkien lacks: intellectual content. However much we debate about whether Balrogs have wings, or what sort of being Tom Bombadil was, our discussions lose their significance once we leave them. Other than some nice bits of moral education he may have handed on (things about suffering and self-sacrifice), Tolkien doesn't give us much that we can carry out into reality. This is one big difference between him and the authors that surpass him.

Furthermore, classic novels aren't outdated and probably never will be, because they are so good. We've all heard (and perhaps participated in) discussions about whether J.K. Rowling's books will still be around in a generation or two, but that question has been permanently settled with classic novels. They're here and they're staying, because they are so amazing, because they're well constructed and well told, beautiful, and relevant. They tell us about the world, about ourselves. They show us possibilities and realities and pose difficult questions about life. Questions that help us grow as people (if we think about them).


So, what books exactly am I talking about?

Here's a list (including a lot of non-fiction):

http://books.mirror.org/gb.titles.html





Best Wishes!
Iarwain

[Bêthberry]

All and all, it is also wise to remember that play is a significant aspect of literature of any sort, whether of the pulp, the popular, or the hoi poloi variety.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Iarwain

They've got exciting plots, interesting characters, but beyond that they tend to have something Tolkien lacks: intellectual content.

Is this a challenge? Or are you stating this matter-of-factly? Because, if the latter, it seems to me that you are taking a very narrow definition of what constitutes "intellectual content". Besides the overarching theme of Death, the books deal with duty, honor, temptation, unrequited love, divine grace, the doubts and trials of the faithfuls, sacrifice, eucatastrophe... I wonder, were you aware of these when you read the books? Do you consider them unworthy of a "classic" work? Or did Tolkien treat them insufficiently, and if so, which ones? Please clarify...

[Iarwain]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Besides the overarching theme of Death, the books deal with duty, honor, temptation, unrequited love, divine grace, the doubts and trials of the faithfuls, sacrifice, eucatastrophe...

First, this is not meant to be a challenge. I was absolutely aware of the presence of these themes. Unfortunately, it takes very little to include any of them. They don't constitute "intellectual content", and I think you'll agree with me on this point. The whole class of qualities you mention could be included in any trashy novel. The fact that Tolkien uses them well reflects well on Tolkien, but it doesn't make his work great literature.


Second, this is in no way meant to disparage Tolkien or any of his works. We can go on thinking that they're great (they're really delightful!), I'm just pointing out that the mass of academia isn't misguided in praising other books and authors above Tolkien. They're out there, and they have wonderful qualities that Tolkien wasn't trying for, because they don't apply to the sort of project he was working at. Try reading some of them! Chances are, you'll find that there's even more to discuss in Dostoevsky or Homer than there is in Tolkien. I'm not saying that there isn't a lot to talk about in Tolkien, but that there are books that raise questions closer to reality, more involved in the essence of the human condition, and concerned with the problems of living in the world.



Certainly, certainly don't understand this as a challenge. Consider it as an invitation to explore new books in hopes of finding other excellent things beyond Ea. I spent years rereading the Lord of the Rings and always feeling disappointed with that last line, and wishing he had gone on to write the final battle and the destruction of Arda. There are more good books out there, and a lot of them have more to offer. If you want more of that wonderful feeling, my suggestion is that you turn to the "classics" and look there.


Iarwain

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Iarwain

They don't constitute "intellectual content", and I think you'll agree with me on this point.

Quite frankly, no.

The fact that Tolkien uses them well reflects well on Tolkien, but it doesn't make his work great literature.

So I take it something is missing? Perhaps ... this?

I spent years rereading the Lord of the Rings and always feeling disappointed with that last line, and wishing he had gone on to write the final battle and the destruction of Arda.

Let me ask you, why is it necessary for a great work to have its absolute ending included in it? By and large, Tolkien's books don't say less (or more) about the final ending than, say, the Bible or Homer's works, which are present in your "great list of books". So I don't see why this would be a valid critique.

I'm not saying that there isn't a lot to talk about in Tolkien, but that there are books that raise questions closer to reality, more involved in the essence of the human condition, and concerned with the problems of living in the world.

Is there any particular standard regarding human condition and problems of living in the world, according to which those books qualify while Tolkien's don't, and if so, which one? Or are you simply going with your personal opinion here?

[Boromir88]

This being a topic mostly of opinion, there is really no correct answer, it's just going to be a big circle of opinions. Though, I really don't know what you are trying to achieve with this thread...

A lot of this great literature comes under the musty title of "classic". Titles like "The Iliad", "War and Peace", "Great Expectations", "Les Miserables", and others come to mind. They strike us as impressive, inaccessible, and dull.~Iarwain

I would say most of the people on this forum, being fans of Tolkien, also would rather enjoy many of the authors that are on that list. (I could be completely wrong, so, if I am just tell me to shut it ). Now, it's true I've often found Charles Dickens quite a bore, but I guess this really isn't what authors are 'fun' to read, what is the 'intellectual quality?' And Dickens' showing of 'industrialization' was fit for the time he was writing in.

I love George Orwell, and I think you'll notice I mention him several times on this forum. His books are not only scary dystopias, but also absolutely humourous. Mark Twain's work with dialects is about as impressive as Tolkien's knowledge of language. Chaucer, Fitzgerald, Shakespeare...and most of those on that list, are all great "intellectual" authors, I don't think you'll meet much of a disagreement.

I would also add St. Augustine, who's defining of 'race' is quite interesting. Now Augustine was writing in what...the 400s? But, his writing of mutated half-humans with 5 arms (and all sorts of distorted 'creatures') was fascinating. Also, Jane Yolen's work on fairy tales is unique. Where is Terry Pratchett? A poll in England showed that the 'most influential authors who are still living,' Pratchett was second, behind J.K. Rowling. So, there are a couple more I would add to that list.

And there are a couple I would take off...T.S. Eliot for example, who writes very morbid stuff, but of course that's not the reason I would take him off. But, as Tom Shippey observes, Eliot really had no clue what he was writing about, as he didn't have first hand experience:

Yet actually , when it comes to it, Tolkien wasn't like that himself......the failure of nerve which afflicted so many of his contemporaries, just didn't reach him. After all, he'd been there, [WW1],he'd seen what it was like. T.S. Eliot, to name but one, hadn't been there, and hadn't seen what it was like, and Tolkien didn't take any notice of Eliot and his like. He was dead sure that they were wrong on his own firsthand evidence...~Tom Shippey's sheech to the Tolkien Society's Annual dinner (1991)

With regards to Eliot, this is something I will agree with Professor Shippey and Tolkien on, that his bleak vision of the world (caused by WW1) is quite a ways off; and Eliot lacked that first hand experience with the war that Tolkien went through.

I'll conclude with, as much as Tolkien 'ripped into' authors of fantasy (we all know his criticism of C.S. Lewis - and Lewis wasn't Tolkien's only casualty ), I doubt Tolkien would put himself on the pedestal that most of us here (including myself) put him on. Tolkien, and his 'eccentric group of friends,' seemed far from the type that would lift themselves up on a pedestal. With that being said 'Middle-earth' is just a small fraction of what Tolkien wrote; we must not forget all the work he did in academics as well! I think (though I'm going to have to go back and check who said it), Tom Shippey remarks again that some in the academic world didn't like 'Middle-earth' because it took him out of the academic world.

As an interesting story, when Penguin Books changed Tolkien's spelling of 'elvish' and 'dwarves' (to 'elfish' and 'dwarfs') they cited the Oxford English Dictionary. Which Tolkien replied 'I wrote the Oxford Dictionary!' Now that's Tolkien being a little silly, but it all goes back to C.S. Lewis' comments in Tolkien's obituary: 'he was a man inside language.'