Tolkein - fantastic or verbose?

[Pike Bishop]

I never said LOTR should be read solely as allegory, I correctly said there were aspects of the novel allegorically connected to WWII and Tokien's Catholicism, even Tolkien admitted as much. Also, a writer doesn't get to determine how his or her text is read, just as a painter doesn't get to determine how a painting is viewed. That's not how artistic phenomenology or criticism works. And again, your description of imagination doesn't make Tolkien's writing greater than Fantasy either. Many writers of Fantasy use creative imagination quite well, and being a learned man doesn't necessarily lead to greater writing. Many learned men have written terrible fiction and many unlearned ones have written excellent fiction.

Also, writing realistic war scenes doesn't necessarily elevate Fantasy. Great literature, and even great Fantasy, requires much more than realistic battles. And well-researched authors often write great battle scenes, as well as great scenes of everything. If people could only write well of their own experience, over 90% of great literature would be discounted. Shakespeare never occupied battle-torn Scotland, and Thomas Pynchon never lived in WWII Europe either, but they wrote fantastic literature about those times and places. So, whether or not you consider Fantasy "misleading,' LOTR is fantasy...whether that genre existed or not at the time.

[ennison]

Now let's talk about a really successful writer and her characters. Enid? Noddy? Ferfucssaake? Tolkien is a kiddies' writer!

Ps That does not mean he's bad. But for grown ups he ain't. Everyone likes to escape but do not dress it up as some sort of life enlightening literature. It is for children.

[CHRISTINE77]

No way is Tolkien for kids. Maybe the Hobbit but not the Lord of the Rings. It's about evil and how good can overcome evil.

[Pompey Bum]

No way is Tolkien for kids. Maybe the Hobbit but not the Lord of the Rings. It's about evil and how good can overcome evil.

I agree that The Lord of the Rings is not meant for kids, but I'm not sure that's because it's about how good can overcome evil. That is certainly an important theme, but the same could be said for The Chronicles of Narnia, which C. S. Lewis said he wrote for children. So the question is: what makes Tolkien's books different from children's literature?

I think Tolkien's worldview contains a fundamental pessimism that is not usually present in (modern) children's literature. Rings of power necessarily turn kings into wraiths and Hobbits into monsters. Fellowships are broken by greed and treachery. Self-immolation is the cost of redemption and mortality is the price of human love. The Lord of the Rings is mostly the story of an unwanted burden dutifully born. The kids in Narnia, by contrast, are having way too good a time with the weapons Santa Claus gives them. Not that there aren't themes of maturity and duty in Lewis' books, too, but there is a sense of darkness and doubt in Tolkien that Lewis spares his young readers. The cursed terrain in Narnia is bright with new-fallen snow (something children usually love to play in). But Tolkien gives his reader shadow and fire. I'm not a big fan of The Lord of the Rings, but it is not hard to see what Tolkien is trying to achieve. Christine is right: children's literature it isn't.

[Jackson Richardson]

That's very interesting, Pompey, and may explain why as an older child (ten or so) I devoured The Lord of the Rings and never got round to reading the Narnia books although I had them all.

It also explains why I was never a great one for Narnia. Far too trite. The Screwtape Letters - now that's a book by Lewis I devoured when I was fourteen or so.

Children's literature is not necessarily devoid of a dark side.

Tolkien himself must have regarded The Hobbit for children as he told it to his son, and regarded The Lord of the Rings as adult.

[Pompey Bum]

Children's literature is not necessarily devoid of a dark side.

That's true. Alice's world may be curious and delightful but it also threatens violence: little girls have to worry about adults decapitating them. And Grimm, of course, is darkness itself. But ideas about children changed some in the 20th century. Their world was generally kinder and gentler after Wind in the Willows in 1908 (and especially with the appearance of Winnie the Pooh in 1926) until the 1960s, when they were returned to more primal, potentially dangerous worlds (Where the Wild things Are or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, for example) with unpredictable and ambiguous characters (like the Cat in the Hat). Toad from Wind in the Willows was equally id-like, I suppose, but he lived in a gentler world, and one safer for children, I think.

[Jackson Richardson]

I was thinking of Alice as well.

The Wild Wood in The Wind in the Willows is pretty frightening, although there is the comfort that the Wild Wooders are defeated at the end.

[Pompey Bum]

The Wild Wood in The Wind in the Willows is pretty frightening, although there is the comfort that the Wild Wooders are defeated at the end.

Also true, and Captain Hook & Co. aren't exactly choirboys, either. But The Wind in the Willows and Peter Pan were only published a few years after Queen Victoria's death-- Winnie the Pooh wasn't quite there yet, but the fix was in. I was a kid in the 1960s when psychology had convinced itself that children were these primal imps who desperately needed to act out their inherent need for revolution (or something). We weren't, we were good boys and girls who just wanted a little order and safety, but try telling them that. The Cat in the Hat was a total anarchist. He turns up uninvited when a mother briefly leaves her two children on their own. He trashes their house (which is supposed to be the funny, entertaining part of the book), although he sets things right and leaves just before their mother returns. The author leaves them with the moral dilemma of whether to tell their mother what happened and asks the reader: "What would you do?"

I understand now that this is supposed to be a story about the validity of the irrational side of a child's mind, however destructive, and that it poses (to the child) the question of who owns that. The problem is that the Cat in the Hat could be a child-molesting neighbor or babysitter--something a kid should really be encouraged to report to his or her parents. On the other hand, the ambiguous ending could be used by parents (presumably reading to their children) to open a discussion about the importance of reporting sexual abuse. I remember my parents trying to do something like that, although it went right over my head at the time (it's hard to warn kids about things that can't be spoken out loud). No doubt I said, Yes, yes, I'll tell you anything bad. But if I had been molested (as, thank God, I was not), I'm sure I would have felt too ashamed to say anything to anyone. And the Cat in the Hat? No friend of mine.

[JCamilo]

I think you both are talking about having danger as the same as dark? The dangers in Alice are not in their nature evil, as is the danger for Tolkien. It is something moral, which made LoTR pessimist and gloomy (Tolkien wasnt strainned from the XX century writers after all). In this sense, Peter Pan is more dark. Time wins in the end. It is not the same danger of Hook or Wicked witch of east.

As Tolkien, Lotr is hybrid. He started as a children story sequel to hobbit, grew but he never was able to convice his editors to change all his previous work, so we have the whimiscal beggining and of course, all maturity of Lotr and Tolkien could get away from hobbits and their perspective. I would say, if published today someone would say it is coming out of age book.

[Pompey Bum]

I think you both are talking about having danger as the same as dark?

Actually I was thinking more in terms of a pessimistic worldview in Tolkien, which is usually not something you find in 20th century children's literature. Why don't the children in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe degenerate into evil wraiths after they become the rulers of Narnia? Why didn't earthly power corrupt them? It would have in Lord of the Rings. JR is certainly right that not all children's literature is as safe as Winnie the Pooh, but we may have been using the concept "dark" slightly differently.

The dangers in Alice are not in their nature evil, as is the danger for Tolkien.

I think Wonderland was a surreal version of the adult world being presented by Dodgson to his young protégée Alice Liddell (with plenty of nods to rhymes and idioms she already knew). There are subtle indications of evil (the walrus charming oysters to their doom or the weeping crocodile, for example), but the real threat to the fictional Alice is social danger (unpredictable adults wielding too much power) rather than criminal or natural evil. It's all supposed to be dazzling and a little scary for Alice; but Frodo's world is gloomy and troubled.

[JCamilo]

Well, Yes, but then you are agreeing with me. The examples given beside Tolkien are not exactly as pessimist, because it does not deal with Evil (in this case, the more metaphysical Evil, or the ethical deep discussion about it), while Alice, Grimm, etc. may deal with danger or something evil happening, they are not talking about what is the evil. Alice soul is not in the table.

I recall somewhere someone saying how Tolkien (it was a negative critic) was something apart from the literary world and I was like: there is several elements of tolkien that belonged to the first half of XX century (he is a later product, but still). There is the whole rescue of mythical past, but this mystical past is lost like we could see with Yeats Celtic Twilight. There is his work with language, which we can find with the development of linguistic that gave modern literatura a lot of game play. There is this pessimism, we found this before in a few writers we discussed. Tolkien is obviously sceptikal about technology (i am being nice, of course). In a way he is skeptical about religion too (Sauron is a god-like being after all and the godlike heroes and things abandoned the world).

I think this goes inside his children story (which was a basic notion of storytelling), specially considering the children story positive notion is derivative from faery tales and the happy ending sittuation (it is not a norm, but Andersen influence clearly made the happy ending a need) and LoTR ending is exactly when Tolkien moved apart from the children like (or juvenile) story from the begining with hobbits and Tom Bombadil.

I am not sure if he is the only children story that have troubled protagonists. Mowgli is one for example, but of course it was way before, but propally paid of a lot of influence on Tolkien, as he lived when Kipling was a nice chap. Peter Pan final message is a bit gloomy, since time wins in the end. But the overall undertone of the books are different, Tolkien had a heavy hand and LoTR took too long to write, his kids grew up.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, Yes, but then you are agreeing with me.

No, you are agreeing with me. But since we disagree about that point, life can go on. .

The examples given beside Tolkien are not exactly as pessimist, because it does not deal with Evil (in this case, the more metaphysical Evil, or the ethical deep discussion about it), while Alice, Grimm, etc. may deal with danger or something evil happening, they are not talking about what is the evil. Alice soul is not in the table.

We agree about Alice. I will let JR speak for himself, but for me, as I said above, her predicaments are mainly social and reflect the dangerous but exciting adult world as presented to a girl by her older male mentor. Grimm is more complicated because it consists of traditional German hausmarchen, and so an entire culture comes into consideration. I am really not qualified to give an opinion, but the ones I've read have a strong comical-violent element to them which today we would call black comedy. I think Grimm is also very early (1815 or so) and since it preserved tales that were older still, it may not bear much comparison to the likes of Alice and Winnie the Pooh.

I recall somewhere someone saying how Tolkien (it was a negative critic) was something apart from the literary world and I was like: there is several elements of tolkien that belonged to the first half of XX century (he is a later product, but still). There is the whole rescue of mythical past, but this mystical past is lost like we could see with Yeats Celtic Twilight. There is his work with language, which we can find with the development of linguistic that gave modern literatura a lot of game play. There is this pessimism, we found this before in a few writers we discussed.

Tolkien does fit into that group of authors and artists trying to come to terms with a mythologized version of the past, but I see him as sui generis. He's not trying to reconstruct an actual mythology as Jakob Grimm thought he was doing, and he's not trying to prettify the past as the pre-Raphaelites were. He's an Anglo-Saxon professor doing his own thing. If he hadn't struck an unexpected chord with the general public we would never have heard of him.

Tolkien is obviously sceptikal about technology (i am being nice, of course). In a way he is skeptical about religion too (Sauron is a god-like being after all and the godlike heroes and things abandoned the world).

I don't know where Tolkien stood religiously. He seems socially conservative to me, but also (as you say) something of a Luddite. If he wasn't religious per se, he was certainly a moralist. And at times those morals are emphatically Christian, as when the elves (I think it was the Elves) are said to have a demonstrated a higher morality in not executing Gollum when he fell into their hands. I'm not sure skeptical is the right word.

I think this goes inside his children story (which was a basic notion of storytelling), specially considering the children story positive notion is derivative from faery tales and the happy ending sittuation (it is not a norm, but Andersen influence clearly made the happy ending a need) and LoTR ending is exactly when Tolkien moved apart from the children like (or juvenile) story from the begining with hobbits and Tom Bombadil.

I don't know. I haven't read Tolkien for about 40 years, but what's this about Andersen? The Andersen stories I read had heartbreaking endings. The little mermaid sacrifices her life for true love (unlike in the Disney movie), and the brave toy soldier gets tossed into a fireplace and only his pure heart survives. Did I only read the bummers?

I am not sure if he is the only children story that have troubled protagonists. Mowgli is one for example, but of course it was way before, but propally paid of a lot of influence on Tolkien, as he lived when Kipling was a nice chap. Peter Pan final message is a bit gloomy, since time wins in the end. But the overall undertone of the books are different, Tolkien had a heavy hand and LoTR took too long to write, his kids grew up.

I thought of Mowgli, too. Was he the Anglo-Indian Frodo? I'm not sure. Somehow their struggles seem different. A little off topic, by the way, but I am convinced that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was a close political allegory of the 19th century American populist movement. Baum always denied it, but he was probably trying to keep waters calm for the long cash-in of generally inferior sequels that followed.

[JCamilo]

We agree about Alice. I will let JR speak for himself, but for me, as I said above, her predicaments are mainly social and reflect the dangerous but exciting adult world as presented to a girl by her older male mentor. Grimm is more complicated because it consists of traditional German hausmarchen, and so an entire culture comes into consideration. I am really not qualified to give an opinion, but the ones I've read have a strong comical-violent element to them which today we would call black comedy. I think Grimm is also very early (1815 or so) and since it preserved tales that were older still, it may not bear much comparison to the likes of Alice and Winnie the Pooh.

Well, Grimm is also a project to educate children/teen, so it is relevant to all (yes, earlier), as it was helping to set the tone and create the genre. The violence is there of course (we need Andersen to reduced it), but they opened the path for all the folklore recovery which provided the material for several groups that wrote the for children. You can link him to Alice and latter works because the faery tales became norm (you have Mcdonald and his flying princess, Rossetti and her market, etc). They with be reference to Oz, Neverland, Middleearth... Of course, Alice is something special, a bit unique.

Tolkien does fit into that group of authors and artists trying to come to terms with a mythologized version of the past, but I see him as sui generis. He's not trying to reconstruct an actual mythology as Jakob Grimm thought he was doing, and he's not trying to prettify the past as the the pre-Raphaelites were. He's an Anglo-Saxon professor doing his own thing. If he hadn't struck an unexpected chord with the general public we would never have heard of him.

Well, LoTR is more a retelling of those myths, not a rediscovering, but other works of Tolkien are linked to this kind of approach, were he preserves the original stories. It is not the only writer and he sets a premisse for fantasy writers. However, there is another group of authors in the XIX-XX century that Tolkien belongs to, which are those authors creating a new mythology (which is often alike the older mythology) and pararel words, such as the aforementioned Neverland or Lovecraft and Robert Howard.

I don't know where Tolkien stood religiously. He seems socially conservative to me, but also (as you say) something of a Luddite. If he wasn't religious per se, he was certainly a moralist. And at times those morals are emphatically Christian, as when the elves (I think it was the Elves) are said to have a demonstrated a higher morality in not executing Gollum when he fell into their hands. I'm not sure skeptical is the right word. I am not sure, maybe fantasy need of those worlds was a reaction to the use of traditional mythology by children or because they became allegories (a bit like Celtic Twilight became for Yeats) and the richness that came from Science Fiction worlds.



[quote]I don't know. I haven't read Tolkien for about 40 years, but what's this about Andersen? The Andersen stories I read had heartbreaking endings. The little mermaid sacrifices her life for true love (unlike in the Disney movie), and the brave toy soldier gets tossed into a fireplace and only his pure heart survives. Did I only read the bummers? [quote]

No, but I dunno if created the wrong impression. Andersen have plenty of "sad" finals (albeit the mermaid did not for love, but to get a soul and she will get in the end. Andersen have even changed the original final a little) but his tales are already more sugary down than Grimns. The extreme religious side (more relevant than love) and in a way, a strong influence from Dickens, made him play a bit of moralist (the poor is good, aristocratic are noble) trying to display rewards in the end. He do have some great horror stories (The Shadow, Ice Maiden, because of the german influence) but this melodramatic side, gave him a tendecy to bring rewards. He was very influential (even because he is an "original" writer and not someone registering old folktales) and lead the faery tales and children stories for this "happy ending" or positive view, but he is not Disney yet.

I thought of Mowgli, too. Was he the Anglo-Indian Frodo? I'm not sure. Somehow their struggles seem different. A little off topic, by the way, but I am convinced that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was a close political allegory of the 19th century American populist movement. Baum always denied it, but he was probably trying to keep waters calm for the long cash-in of generally inferior sequels that followed.

sure, Mowgli is a boy in search of his own place in the world and identidy, not someone carrying the world's burden on his shoulder. He is not also "good" like Frodo. I am not so familar to the specifics you mean about the populist movement and I read of the OZ books only the most famous one, I can see the feudalist word of Oz working as allegory, but I cannt elaborate further, if you dont lay the golden bricks ahead.

[Pompey Bum]

Well, Grimm is also a project to educate children/teen, so it is relevant to all (yes, earlier), as it was helping to set the tone and create the genre. The violence is there of course (we need Andersen to reduced it), but they opened the path for all the folklore recovery which provided the material for several groups that wrote the for children. You can link him to Alice and latter works because the faery tales became norm (you have Mcdonald and his flying princess, Rossetti and her market, etc). They with be reference to Oz, Neverland, Middleearth... Of course, Alice is something special, a bit unique.

I don't buy the genealogy quite as much as you do, but perhaps there is a missing link somewhere. Grimm was a philologist. The marchen he collected were arguably not originally meant (or not primarily meant) for children. They should not be thought of as "fairy tales" in the later, prettified sense of the pre-Raphelite mentality. Grimm had nothing to do with Alice and almost nothing to do with Oz (let's use that as short for The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which is the book we both mean). The villainess in Oz is a cross between a Grimmsean witch and evil queen, but that's all--and Baum was probably merely resorting to cliches in her case (but her army of flying monkeys makes her imaginative in spite of herself). The rest of Oz is unique. Or it's not Grimm in any case. And as for Rossetti & Co., they were among the pre-Raphaelite culprits who prettified the European fairy, which eventually speciated into Tinkerbell.

I suspect the original ape in this evolution/devolution was less Jakob Grimm than the earlier Charles Perrault, some of whose stories were picked up by Grimm, but whose style is more graceful and fairy-tale-like despite the occasional horror story like Bluebeard. Perrault wrote for children (whomever the tales he retold were originally meant for), and of the two sources, Perrault's style has more in common with Andersen.

It seems to me also that a late (even proximate) missing link to Tinkerbell must be the prolific Andrew Lang Fairy Books--The Blue Fairy Book, The Rose Fairy Book, The Brown Fairy Book, etc.--that were published from the 1880s until the early 20th century (some after Peter Pan). These told stories from Grimm and Perrault (among others, including the Arabian Nights) in what we would clearly recognize as fairy tale form. They were profusely and beautifully illustrated, so delicate and ornate Victorian images of the preternatural (which the Brothers Grimm never imagined) entered a generation of minds--and have never really left Western culture.

So maybe there is a genealogy, but I'm not sure you and I agree on which one (that happens a lot in genealogical studies). But QAlice and Oz are pretty much out of the family. They may have their own haplogroup--I don't know.

However, there is another group of authors in the XIX-XX century that Tolkien belongs to, which are those authors creating a new mythology (which is often alike the older mythology) and pararel words, such as the aforementioned Neverland or Lovecraft and Robert Howard.

Yes, he can be grouped with them, but I'm not sure he ever even thought about them. Tolkien lived in an ivory tower. He wrote for his son or to indulge his creative intellect. I doubt he was influenced by a single modern author. Since his death, of course, he had been the fountainhead of a vast industry of wannabe Tolkiens. These things only prove God that has a sense of humor.

I am not so familar to the specifics you mean about the populist movement and I read of the OZ books only the most famous one, I can see the feudalist word of Oz working as allegory, but I cannt elaborate further, if you dont lay the golden bricks ahead.

The yellow brick road was the gold standard. The Scarecrow and Tin Man were poor farmers and dehumanized industrial workers, respectively. The Munchkins were the bourgeoisie. The Lion was William Jennings Bryant. I'll write more about this tomorrow. I'm too tired for political allegory right now.

[JCamilo]

I don't buy the genealogy quite as much as you do, but perhaps there is a missing link somewhere. Grimm was a philologist. The marchen he collected were arguably not originally meant (or not primarily meant) for children. They should not be thought of as "fairy tales" in the later, prettified sense of the pre-Raphelite mentality.

Oh, plenty of links, ofc. The tales they collected are of many genres, not all faery tales (for example, Jesus and Peter anedoctal travels) and indeed, primarily not meant for a specific age. However, the versions they chose to publish targetted a more specific audience. It was a bit of nationalist/educational project. Their sucess prompted the existense of several of those "collectors" with similar aim and directed the use of fantasy and faery tales for children. All those scenaries/characters became cliche. Of course, their work still far from the product we have today, with plenty of violence, but other authors will clean those aspects from the tales.

Grimm had nothing to do with Alice and almost nothing to do with Oz (let's use that as short for The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which is the book we both mean). The villainess in Oz is a cross between a Grimmsean witch and evil queen, but that's all--and Baum was probably merely resorting to cliches in her case (but her army of flying monkeys makes her imaginative in spite of herself). The rest of Oz is unique. Or it's not Grimm in any case. And as for Rossetti & Co., they were among the pre-Raphaelite culprits who prettified the European fairy, which eventually speciated into Tinkerbell.

Well, I agree with Alice, unique, because the fantastic in her books are derivated from language, not from themes like Grimm. It is more close to french symbolism than folklore. But OZ is another story. Of course, being latter, it is natural the use of cliches, but let's not forget he also collected faery tales and published. Yes, Dorothy is a childish and less imaginative Alice, Baum language is already more stylized to be directed to childrens (even more than Lewis language, specially in Alice, not so much in Sylvie and Bruno), but his apple didnt fall so far from the grimm tree. Of course, when I say faery tale, I do not mean only the folk faery tale, but also those short novels that the victorias made popular.

I suspect the original ape in this evolution/devolution was less Jakob Grimm than the earlier Charles Perrault, some of whose stories were picked up by Grimm, but whose style is more graceful and fairy-tale-like despite the occasional horror story like Bluebeard. Perrault wrote for children (whomever the tales he retold were originally meant for), and of the two sources, Perrault's style has more in common with Andersen.

Well, I was mentioning faery tales published as children literature, but yeah, if you mean faery tales in general, Perrault predates grimm, just like Straparolla or Basile predates Perrault and Apueleio predates them all. There is a difference. Perrault and Andersen are not "researches" like Grimm. They are artists and their versions are - or can be said - to be more graceful. Grimm tales may be full of imaginative scenaries, but the language is poor, a bit rude, closer to oral, something a classicist (haha to the modern) Perrault wouldn't do. He wrote the tale he heard, like Andersen, but I do not agree their style matches. Perrault is more economic, elegant. Andersen is melodramatic, there is a heavy german influence, some stuff is over done (baroque almost).

Andersen initial ambition was related to drama and poetry (not for children), his failure lead him to write for children with success. Apart the danish writers, his biggest reference were Schiller, Goethe, Grimms, Hoffman... alongside 1001 Nights and Dickens. He was a great admirer of french writers, but he knew german from teenage years.

Grimms actually had the care to try to eliminate Perrault from their records. They dismissed versions that they considered too similar to Perrault, which to them was an indicative that the tale was not german in first place or from oral tradition. Sleeping Beauty for example would not be included if wasnt for Niebelung's Brunhilde that is sleeping until Sigsmund wake her.

It seems to me also that a late (even proximate) missing link to Tinkerbell must be the prolific Andrew Lang Fairy Books--The Blue Fairy Book, The Rose Fairy Book, The Brown Fairy Book, etc.--that were published from the 1880s until the early 20th century (some after Peter Pan). These told stories from Grimm and Perrault (among others, including the Arabian Nights) in what we would clearly recognize as fairy tale form. They were profusely and beautifully illustrated, so delicate and ornate Victorian images of the preternatural (which the Brothers Grimm never imagined) entered a generation of minds--and have never really left Western culture.

Yes, Lang is part of the link. After Grimms there was a boom of similar projects. Lang is one of them and of course, a handful of his tales became nomative as it was absent from Grimm and Perrault. Of course, after raphaelites, Dullac, Alice, children books illustrations were set up in a new level.

XIX century was also a century of rediscovery of many texts that will help to link (or translations). And Celtic stuff such as Lady Gregory works (which will bring Oscar Wilde links too) are also important.

So maybe there is a genealogy, but I'm not sure you and I agree on which one (that happens a lot in genealogical studies). But QAlice and Oz are pretty much out of the family. They may have their own haplogroup--I don't know.

Well, I am not sure about genealogies when you have so many parents

Yes, he can be grouped with them, but I'm not sure he ever even thought about them. Tolkien lived in an ivory tower. He wrote for his son or to indulge his creative intellect. I doubt he was influenced by a single modern author. Since his death, of course, he had been the fountainhead of a vast industry of wannabe Tolkiens. These things only prove God that has a sense of humor.

For Tolkien and Howard I leave you this image:

000333a.jpg

There is also a story by Lovecraft here, but of course, he is quite more famous than Howard, so It is very liked Tolkien knew about him. I am not sure if Tolkien is not under influence of any modern author, Lewis Carroll, McDonald, T.H.White (we will say it is children literature? It is a bit gloomy, no) and C.S.Lewis count? While he is academic, I do not think he was so isolated and LoTR was a request from an editor (while Tolkien was not a conventional commercial writer).