Tolkien Against the Grain(dissentmagazine.org)
dissentmagazine.org
Tolkien Against the Grain
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/tolkien-against-the-grain/
8 comments
In the introduction to Lord of The Rings Tolkein notes that he intended the work to be pure fantasy. The books not are not to be read as (strictly) allegorical. Also there is never any mention of The Silmarillion in any of these types of articles. Curious.
That’s true though: (1) while Tolkien isn’t trying to write an allegory he is trying to tell a story and build a world that is internally consistent (he famously builds up from language, as a philologist) and so this kind of criticism is appropriate (perhaps more so than say GRRM or CS Lewis who are often much less internally consistent and thus harder to analyze) (2) there is a pretty compelling argument that when Tolkien argues that his world is tabula rasa / de novo (eg claiming it did not have “any influence” on the plot), he’s deceiving himself. Many Tolkien scholars (including his pal Lewis) seem to think WWI heavily influenced LOTR in particular (esp the sacking of the shire).
Agree it is very odd to ignore everything outside of LOTR. Like making claims about the gospels without reading the Old Testament or epistles
Agree it is very odd to ignore everything outside of LOTR. Like making claims about the gospels without reading the Old Testament or epistles
People who write these kinds of articles tend to be unfamiliar with the legendarium past The Hobbit and LOTR (and generally speaking, just the movie adaptations of each).
"Since the founding of the tiny corner of academia known as science fiction studies in the 1970s, there has been a sense that science fiction is of the left, while fantasy is of the right. "
John Campbell safely dead, maybe they thought that a reasonable conclusion?
John Campbell safely dead, maybe they thought that a reasonable conclusion?
Seriously. That statement is completely false.
The line at the bottom of the article sounds a bit weird:
---
Gerry Canavan is chair of the English department at Marquette University and the author of Octavia E. Butler.
---
Gerry Canavan is the author of the book, "Octavia E. Butler (Modern Masters of Science Fiction)", not the author of the author. :-)
---
Gerry Canavan is chair of the English department at Marquette University and the author of Octavia E. Butler.
---
Gerry Canavan is the author of the book, "Octavia E. Butler (Modern Masters of Science Fiction)", not the author of the author. :-)
Doesn't sound particularly weirder than being, say, the author of Nicholas Nickleby.
Canavan is eminently more qualified to talk about Tolkien than I am, though I am surprised (as another commenter noted) that there are no references to any of the legendarium beyond LOTR.
I am however surprised because leftists have historically criticized Tolkien for his black and white views, which I always thought was the point. Another English professor (who defends this view) notes:
> It has just become the tale that middle-to-high brow critics tell--ever since Edward Wilson was saying his own manifestly untrue things about Tolkien in the New Yorker fifty years ago--that Tolkien's fictional world is morally simplistic and rigidly Manichaean. It may be true that the story of the Ring is less morally ambiguous than the average realistic novel, but that's primarily because Tolkien wasn't especially interested in the problem of knowing right from wrong. His concern was to explore the psychology of the moment when you know right from wrong but aren't sure whether you have the courage and fortitude to do the right thing.
> Modern liberalism likes to think that all our problems are epistemological: we are afflicted by never knowing with sufficient clarity what we ought to do. Our fictions tend to reflect that assumption. Tolkien, not being a modern liberal, thought it more interesting to explore situations when people know what they need to know but may lack the strength of will to act on that knowledge. He might say, and with some justification, that contemporary literary fiction is not simplistic in regard to such problems but oblivious to them.
I am however surprised because leftists have historically criticized Tolkien for his black and white views, which I always thought was the point. Another English professor (who defends this view) notes:
> It has just become the tale that middle-to-high brow critics tell--ever since Edward Wilson was saying his own manifestly untrue things about Tolkien in the New Yorker fifty years ago--that Tolkien's fictional world is morally simplistic and rigidly Manichaean. It may be true that the story of the Ring is less morally ambiguous than the average realistic novel, but that's primarily because Tolkien wasn't especially interested in the problem of knowing right from wrong. His concern was to explore the psychology of the moment when you know right from wrong but aren't sure whether you have the courage and fortitude to do the right thing.
> Modern liberalism likes to think that all our problems are epistemological: we are afflicted by never knowing with sufficient clarity what we ought to do. Our fictions tend to reflect that assumption. Tolkien, not being a modern liberal, thought it more interesting to explore situations when people know what they need to know but may lack the strength of will to act on that knowledge. He might say, and with some justification, that contemporary literary fiction is not simplistic in regard to such problems but oblivious to them.