Tolkein - fantastic or verbose?

[Gadfly]

The work of JRR Tolkein is immense. He creates a grand and exciting world, filled with heroes and villians. No one contests that he created an intriguing story.

However, was Tolkein a great writer?
His works, spanning thousands of pages, give us main events in appendixes. So, was he an overimaginative man with a verbose pen, or a creative genius with an innovative sytle of storytelling??

See: http://home.carolina.rr.com/abbysite/tolkien.html

[Admin]

His stories were wonderful, but he was verbose at times.

For instance in The Fellowship that whole section with Tom Bombadil is unnecessary and IMO annoying.

[Phoenix_Tears]

I personally have enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies very much, but everytime i try to read the books, find that i cannot.The way Tolkein writes rather bores me.. I would swear that my math teacher had written them.
~Phoenix

[imthefoolonthehill]

I have no opinion on the matter because I haven't written the books... I am posting for the sole purpose of asking what IMO means... Insecure mommy optometrist?

[Admin]

in my opinion

[Miriam]

It's true that Tolkiens writing can become tedious at times<the silmarillion i swear is a close cousin of my world history book>, but its all in the style, he's writing an epic like the ones he taught at Oxford such as Beowulf. I think you have to look over the archaic style and enjoy it as an epic story,if you overanalyze writing style by any author i think you loose some of the enjoyment of reading it. Lord of the Rings is beautifly told with power that i'd have to say is unrivaled by any other fantasy writer to date.

[Lothwen]

I love Tolkien's books. I must read it from time to time. When I finished "The Lord of the Ring" first time, I felt like person who lost something valuable. I had to read it over and over again. But I agree that sometimes he was verbose. I like Tom Bombadil, and for me he is not unnecessary, whereas all descriptions of battels are rather boring. But that is my own opinion and You don't have to agree with me :)

[Zieveraar]

I can agree to the fact that the three LOTR stories can be quite boring at times! (the first 100 pages after Bilbo dissapears, parts of Sam and Frodo going to Mordor, ...)

In a whole, I think Tolkien attempted to create something of a mythology of his own and he succeeded (in part, Simarillion was never finished and rather very boring IMO), but maybe you should read some other mythological stories (quite boring too) ;)

They are a very good read but they can be very boring too!

[ajoe]

I thought to read all of the Lord of the Rings trilogy before watching them. But I never even got to the first book since I started out with The Hobbit. I really hate Tolkien's use of language. Sure, at first it sounds grand and kind of cool due to verbosity, if you know what I mean. But eventually it reaches the point of being tiring. It took me twice longer to read that book than it usually would a book with the same thickness.

[jmark1949]

If we think Tolkien is verbose, it probably says more about us than him. Tolkiens world was much slower and more thoughtful than the one we now inhabit. And if you think HE was verbose, try reading Herman Melville or even Dickens. A very popular in 19th century England was George MacDonald. You can no longer buy copies of his original novels. But you can buy pretty much all of them edited for "modern readers." His spiritual and philosophical musings have been removed, leaving just the good stuff... the plot. In a world of 15 second sound bites, who has time or energy sufficient for a book like The Brothers Karamazov. Give me a good Dick Francis novel any day. And for high literature I'll stick to Anne Tyler. It's hard to imagine that literary geniuses like Sinclair Lewis and William Faulkner were also best selling authors just 60 or 70 years ago. My how we've changed. Comments welcome.

[Shea]

Actually, I don't think that being verbose is all that bad. I really enjoyed Tolkien, even for the wordiness. Ok, so I completely forgot about Tom Bombadil by the end of the book, and I don't remember half of what I read in Toilers of the Sea (Hugo), I'll have to reread Pride and Prejudice altogether. I tend to like the more verbose authors. Do I just like to torture myself?

I guess its like all the white noise in my life. It's there, I have to go through it. But since I don't really like some parts of my life (and all that white noise winds up in a bizarre dream that night anyway), I'd rather enjoy the white noise of someone else's life.

Did that make any sense? :-?

[fayefaye]

i think it's unbearably verbose. i gave up reading it.

[AbdoRinbo]

Fantastic! No . . . wait, verbose! Eh-h-h, no . . . he was fantastic but now he's verbose!

[starstruck786]

I think that Tolkien was a great writer. His stories are amazing. I will admit that they are verbose in some areas, but once you get into the story, you experience the events. The books are so long because he put so much thought and time into creating this whole new world and describing it for us.

[alidif]

I love Tolkein. Years ago, when I was 12, I read The Hobbit. It changed my life. Then, I read The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King in rapid succession. Afterwards, I read everything I could, short stories, novels, magazines, even cereal boxes. Granted, the Silmarillion makes for dry reading, but it is intended as a reference book; aren't all reference books a bit of a dry read? An author I suggest for those who enjoy Tolkein is Terry Brooks. His writing comes closer, in my opinion, to Tolkein's than any other contemporary author's.

[jesse sutton]

The day i discovered that the movies were being made, i decided to read the books. I had only read the Hobbit before then, and so i made way for the series. By the time the second movie came out in theaters, i was finished all three books, and so then i saw the movies.

I loved the books, i dont think he was particularly verbose in any ways.
I cant really imagine having the books written any better, or by a better author.

At the moment i getting started on the Silmarillion, which as i have noticed so far, is basically like the Bible, in comparison to the LOTR storyline. I vote for fantastic.

[lazy cat]

I absolutely love Tolkien :D I have enjoyed all of his books ,although i have to admit that The Silmarilion was a little bit boring .But then again I am terrible with names so...

[Lizlizardx15]

I believe that Tolkien was a writer with much talent and a great imagination. After all, he created an entire world, with its own separate races, history, geography, etc. His stories are beautiful! But in all, I think that he was verbose, and there were plently of things he probably could have shortened to keep the reader's attention better. Then again, that may just have been his style of writing, after all. He may have just needed to express the entirety of his thoughts through many words.

[ennison]

I tried to read The Lord of The Rings at age seventeen. Too old. I ditched it after about a hundred pages. He was linguistically and imaginatively gifted. They are good children's books. But the film of the relatively short Hobbit is I'm told quite bloated - or whatever the filmic version of "verbose" is

[Pompey Bum]

or whatever the filmic version of "verbose" is

The cinematic equivalent is "OH MY ACHIN' TAILBONE! CHUCK THAT THING IN THE VOLCANO SO I CAN GET THE HECK OUTTA HERE!"

[Jackson Richardson]

I read LOTR every year when I was about ten for a few years and then again recently after I’d seen the first film. I couldn’t remember so much violence in the book as in the film, and I was right.

I like the first part. The Shire is the sort of cosy, suburban village community of middle class sorts with characterful servants, as you get in so many 30s books: Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple, Just William or Barbara Pym’s Some Tame Gazelle. But there are sinister world events going on of which they are smugly unaware. It must have been like that in the 30s with the growth of fascism in Europe. Sam’s lawn mower making a noise outside while Gandolf tells Frodo about the ring sums it up.

Sam and Frodo’s journey to Mordor is very moving – two un-macho, highly vulnerable types risking their lives for the safety of the world. I find Sam’s loyalty and bravery to Frodo very moving. As is the tragic figure of Gollum and his end.

I like Tolkein’s ingenuity at inventing mythological beings: hobbits, Tom Bobadil, ents, barrow wrights, and the rest.

What really puts me off are the “noble” figures – the elves, Gondor and Rohan, conversing in cod King James English. Totally cardboard.

[Ecurb]

I like the first part. The Shire is the sort of cosy, suburban village community of middle class sorts with characterful servants, as you get in so many 30s books: Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple, Just William or Barbara Pym’s Some Tame Gazelle. But there are sinister world events going on of which they are smugly unaware. It must have been like that in the 30s with the growth of fascism in Europe. Sam’s lawn mower making a noise outside while Gandolf tells Frodo about the ring sums it up.
.

Part of Tolkien's allure is the combination of two very good genres of fantasy. The Shire's role in LOTR is as if Ratty and Moley from "Wind in the Willows" had been dropped into The Elder Eddas. The movies actually did a decent job portraying The Shire -- they went downhill from there (I started boycotting after the first Hobbit film).

I actually like the "noble" stuff though. I'm a big fan of The Silmarilion, for example. Beren and Luthien, Turon Turambor, Feanor and the Silmarils -- all that mythological stuff is great.

[Jackson Richardson]

Well, enjoy. I used to enjoy browzing the appendices of LOTR fascinated when young.

Tolkien was a friend of C S Lewis and with chums they'd meet in an Oxford pub and share their writing. Apparently as Tolkien started another episode, C S Lewis, the great Christian apologist and children's writer, was heard to mutter to himself "Not another f***ing elf". I rather share the sentiment. But I prefer Tolkien to Narnia any day. (I had all the Narnia books when young and browzed them, but I'm not sure I read them all cover to cover.)

[Ecurb]

Like you, I read LOTR as a child and loved it. I also read The Narnias as a child (I refuse to call them "The Chronicles of Narnia", because they were never called by that name when Lewis was alive).

I posted about this once before on LitNet, but one fascinating book about Narnia is "Planet Narnia" by Michael Ward. Ward figured out that the Narnia books were written based on a secret code: each book is based on the mood and thematic meaning of one of the seven planets of Medieval Astrology. The evidence for this is (almost) irrefutable. As just one example (it's been a few years since I read the book), "The Horse and His Boy" is based on Mercury, the messenger. Apparently, in Medieval Astrology, the Gemini are important to Mercury, and (of course) Cor and Corin are the main characters of the book. Castor and Pollix are a boxer and a horse trainer; so are Cor and Corin -- etc. etc. Here's a link to the website: http://www.planetnarnia.com/

[Clopin]

Like you, I read LOTR as a child and loved it. I also read The Narnias as a child (I refuse to call them "The Chronicles of Narnia", because they were never called by that name when Lewis was alive).

I posted about this once before on LitNet, but one fascinating book about Narnia is "Planet Narnia" by Michael Ward. Ward figured out that the Narnia books were written based on a secret code: each book is based on the mood and thematic meaning of one of the seven planets of Medieval Astrology. The evidence for this is (almost) irrefutable. As just one example (it's been a few years since I read the book), "The Horse and His Boy" is based on Mercury, the messenger. Apparently, in Medieval Astrology, the Gemini are important to Mercury, and (of course) Cor and Corin are the main characters of the book. Castor and Pollix are a boxer and a horse trainer; so are Cor and Corin -- etc. etc. Here's a link to the website: http://www.planetnarnia.com/

Ahh, that's very interesting I'll definitely read that. I think Narnia kicks the crap out of Middle Earth but most people seem to be in camp LOTR.

[ajvenigalla]

Fantastic and verbose

[Pompey Bum]

Verbastic.

[WICKES]

In a whole, I think Tolkien attempted to create something of a mythology of his own and he succeeded (in part, Simarillion was never finished and rather very boring IMO), but maybe you should read some other mythological stories (quite boring too) ;)

I believe Tolkien wanted to create a mythology for England. He thought Anglo-saxon culture and myth had been destroyed by the Norman conquest (Tolkien's interest in literature was archaic to say the least: he once said "English Literature ended with Chaucer"!!), and he set out to piece together what an English/ Anglo-saxon mythology might have been like.

Personally I think Tolkien is amazing. He is much more than a 'fantasy writer' and really shouldn't be confused with his often weird and pathetic fans, nor with his imitators. It shouldn't be forgotten that Tolkien had seen vicious, brutal warfare face to face. He'd been a British infantry officer at the battle of the Somme, which is about as horrific and deadly as war gets. Neither should it be forgotten that he was a professor at Oxford, a serious, heavyweight intellectual with a vast knowledge of myth and literature. His books were a product of those two things, which is what makes him so interesting to me. Tolkien wasn't some immature nerd indulging in regressive fantasy. He was a tough man who'd survived a hard life, and a man of immense learning and intelligence. I once heard an arts journalist on BBC radio say "to me the Lord of the Rings is not a work of fantasy. It came from somewhere deep in Tolkien and is a work of imagination, not fantasy". C S Lewis thought Tom Bombadil, for example, was an astonishing creation, quite unlike anything in world literature.

Just out of interest, has anyone ever interpreted LOTRs as an example of Campbell's monomyth?

[Pike Bishop]

If he was creating a mythology for England, he was creating one for WWII England, as much of the text is as much WWII allegory as it is Catholic allegory. It certainly wasn't a mythology for all England as the Arthurian mythology was for Medieval to early Renaissance England

Also, why exactly is he more than an "fantasy" writer? What exactly about his writing or writing style makes LOTR transcend the genre? His having fought in wars and been a formidable intellectual doesn't automatically make his writing superior. Many veterans and/or intellectuals were unable to write literature. Also, all fantasy writing comes from the writer's imagination, so LOTR coming from Tolkien's imagination doesn't make it more than just Fantasy. Finally, neither Tom Bombadil nor Lewis' view of him makes Tolkien's work more than fantasy. The proto-tree-hugger Bombadil was almost a pointless digression in the novel, and Bombadil was greatly influenced by pagan/druidic/Celtic mythos. He was interesting, but he didn't make LOTR more than fantasy.

[WICKES]

If he was creating a mythology for England, he was creating one for WWII England, as much of the text is as much WWII allegory as it is Catholic allegory. It certainly wasn't a mythology for all England as the Arthurian mythology was for Medieval to early Renaissance England

Also, why exactly is he more than an "fantasy" writer? What exactly about his writing or writing style makes LOTR transcend the genre? His having fought in wars and been a formidable intellectual doesn't automatically make his writing superior. Many veterans and/or intellectuals were unable to write literature. Also, all fantasy writing comes from the writer's imagination, so LOTR coming from Tolkien's imagination doesn't make it more than just Fantasy. Finally, neither Tom Bombadil nor Lewis' view of him makes Tolkien's work more than fantasy. The proto-tree-hugger Bombadil was almost a pointless digression in the novel, and Bombadil was greatly influenced by pagan/druidic/Celtic mythos. He was interesting, but he didn't make LOTR more than fantasy.

Tolkien disliked LOTRs being read as allegory.

The author I quoted was distinguishing between fantasy and imagination. From what I remember, she thought of 'fantasy' as childish and regressive, as an attempt to flee reality. Whereas a work born from someone's creative imagination, particularly if it comes from the imagination of such a learned man, is deeper, richer, more profound.

No, of course having fought in WW1 doesn't in itself make his work superior. My point was that when a fat nerd from Seattle creates a fantasy world in which there are wars and battles, they are unlikely to be so real or so heartfelt as those depicted in the work of a man who had been through the Somme. C S Lewis, who was himself a veteran of the trenches, thought Tolkien had done a magnificent job of depicting a world at war, something few writers have been any good at (Tolstoy being one of the exceptions, according to Lewis).

I don't think of LOTRs as 'fantasy' literature, partly because there wasn't really such a thing when Tolkien wrote them (not in the modern sense), and partly because fantasy is misleading. I prefer to see them as 'mythopoeic'. Tolkien is too often confused with his fanatical fans.

[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.




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.



[quote]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 :D


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:

9779

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).

[Pompey Bum]

The Tolkien autograph is wonderful. Is it from your own library?


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.



It was a bit of nationalist/educational project.

I started here because it is where we most agree. In fact, I would (almost) put Grimm is a separate category--"almost" because Perrault is also accessing oral literature: he's collecting to that extent. But Grimm is gathering hausmarchen ("household tales") like an anthropologist, as you say, as part of a project of German nationalism. This was not entirely pedagogical either (Jakob Grimm contributed to proto-Indo-European/proto-German linguistic scholarship as well). I would put the brothers Grimm in the same category as the 19th century Harvard Professor Francis James Child, who collected English, Scottish, and other European ballads (often about preternatural subjects like the fairies) and published them in a massive, mult-volume collection that came to be called The Child Ballads. Sir Walter Scott had already preserved some of these ballads, but like Perrault and Andersen, he made them artistically his own. Like the Brothers Grimm, on the other hand, Child preserved their vernacular quality. Nor was he swayed by the precious and prettified fairies of his own time: Child's fairies are in effect dark elves--they're no one you want to mess with.

I find this distinction between folklorists like Child and the brothers Grimm and artists like Perrault and Scott and Andersen useful. Both groups can be beautiful or powerful, but they are not exactly the same. The scholarly endeavor got mixed with the artistic (largely, I think, because of Lang and Disney), but I remain a little skeptical of more complicated genealogies. They seem a bit retroactively constructed.


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.

I agree that Alice is not folklore (it's more like dream), and that there is incessant, surreal language play. Carroll tried something similar in Silvie and Bruno, but it didn't work because he was being so pedantic--dreams follow their own morality. But Alice has themes: the zany excitement of the adult world, the dangerous unpredictability of adults (the idiomatic surrealism is just part of the fun). These are not the same themes one finds in Grimm, but then I don't think Alice has anything to do with Grimm. Neither do you.

I think Oz probably has more in common with Alice than it does with Grimm: a young heroine in a dazzling but dangerous world, a surreal redux of the real world--in effect a dream. It mostly lacks Carroll's wordplay, but perhaps not entirely. There is an incident in the MGH movie involving a horse that changes colors. Dorothy is told it is the famous "horse of a different color" that she has probably heard about. I don't remember if the scene turns up in Baum's book, but it seems very much the kind of thing that would have happened to Alice. Do you happen to remember if it is in Baum?

The possibility of political allegory in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is not as far-fetched as it first appears. Dorothy came from the American Midwest. The Tin Man was originally from East, where he had been a flesh and blood woodsman (as many easterners had been at the start of the century). But he had fallen afoul of the Wicked Witch of the East (not to be confused with Dorothy's nemesis, the Wicked Witch of the West). Now imagine for a moment this eastern witch representes the industrialists who had come to dominate eastern populations by Baum's time, and who the populists believed were reducing them to automatons. Here is the story that appears in the book (but not the movie): the witch cursed the woodsman's ax, so that every time he swung it, he chopped off a piece of himself--an arm, a leg, and so on. The woodsman had a tinsmith friend who used to fit him with prosthetic limb when this would happen, but eventually there was nothing left of his original body: the ax had taken all of him--even his humanity since the tinsmith had been unable to give him a human heart. His story in the movie is mostly sentimental nonsense. The Tin Man (according to this interpretation) was actually about the dehumanization of the industrial laborer.

The 19th century American Populist movement was a left wing political alliance between perennially screwed over farmers in the west and south and the eastern labor movement (among others). It was mainly an agrarian movement driven by angry farmers who resented their treatment by better educated elites. Note that in both the book and movie version, it is the Scarecrow who makes all the important decisions, despite his low opinion of his own intelligence. His discovery of his innate intelligence is one of the story's points.

The Populist alliance was made against the background of the economic gold standard favored by the educated elites (the yellow brick road that led to the center of power). But an important group of Populist's called the Silverites favored bimetalism, with silver coinage being infused against gold as a response to the Panic of 1833. Is it therefore significant that in the book Dorothy's magic slippers that trod over the yellow brick road were not ruby as they were in the movie (MGH was just showing off its cool new color technology) but silver?

The Populists eventually got behind three-time Democratic presidential candidate (and later Secretary of State), Nebraska Representative William Jennings Bryan. Bryan was a champion of bimetallism and many other Populist causes. He was a firebrand orator, but his critics claimed that he was more talk than substance--and that his bark was worse than his bite. Friend and foe called him, earnestly or ironically, Bryan the lion.

And the list goes on. Even without the Populist interpretation, Baum pretty clearly intended the silly, self-important Munchkins to represent small town America's petty bourgeoisie--affable to Dorothy (in fact, pretty impressed by her) but not good for all that much, really. The Wicked Witch of the West not only tried to keep the Populists at heel, but completely dominated the American Indians--to Baum, a wild but innocent folk who owed actual allegiance to no one. Do you see how it works? They are the flying monkeys, the Emerald City--which was just a regular-colored city when you took off your emerald-tinted sunglasses--was Washington D.C., and Grover Cleveland (if that's who Baum was writing about) was a very good man but a very bad wizard.

After the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Baum cut out the politics. And as I said before, he denied that he had ever been writing anything but children's stories. My theory is that a publisher expressed interest in more Oz books (which he wrote), but told him to wash his hands of left-wing politics. But who knows? Maybe it's all coincidence. The Tin Man's story has got something behind it, though.


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

Yes, you're right, White is somewhat similar in tone. And I should have mentioned C.S. Lewis. I tend to think of him as an apologist rather than a novelist, but he was both. And they were friends, I think, so they probably compared notes all the time.

[JCamilo]

The Tolkien autograph is wonderful. Is it from your own library?

I wish. I found this because the owner was selling. I cannot even say how legit it is but still, there is the register that once Tolkien said he liked Howard's Conan.


I started here because it is where we most agree. In fact, I would (almost) put Grimm is a separate category--"almost" because Perrault is also accessing oral literature: he's collecting to that extent. But Grimm is gathering hausmarchen ("household tales") like an anthropologist, as you say, as part of a project of German nationalism. This was not entirely pedagogical either (Jakob Grimm contributed to proto-Indo-European/proto-German linguistic scholarship as well). I would put the brothers Grimm in the same category as the 19th century Harvard Professor Francis James Child, who collected English, Scottish, and other European ballads (often about preternatural subjects like the fairies) and published them in a massive, mult-volume collection that came to be called The Child Ballads. Sir Walter Scott had already preserved some of these ballads, but like Perrault and Andersen, he made them artistically his own. Like the Brothers Grimm, on the other hand, Child preserved their vernacular quality. Nor was he swayed by the precious and prettified fairies of his own time: Child's fairies are in effect dark elves--they're no one you want to mess with.

Yes, plenty of people following the grimm model such as Asbjomsen and Moe in Norway, Asanafiev in Russia and plenty following Andersen model (And Perrault, albeit in a way he belonged to another momment of "high culture" going after "popular culture" sources. (La Fontaire and Galland, the first 1001 Nights translaor are a bit of this time and you have enough of Madame DAubonoy and other sallon "faery tale" writers as well). We still have today, Angela Carter, Italo Calvino or the brazilian Câmara Cascudo and sometimes both style get mixed. But of course, Grimm, Andersen and Perrault are the main references when you talk about faery tale and olther folk stories.


I find this distinction between folklorists like Child and the brothers Grimm and artists like Perrault and Scott and Andersen useful. Both groups can be beautiful or powerful, but they are not exactly the same. The scholarly endeavor got mixed with the artistic (largely, I think, because of Lang and Disney), but I remain a little skeptical of more complicated genealogies. They seem a bit retroactively constructed.

I am not worried with geneaologies, but sometimes the influence is clear. I mean, The big contribution of Grimm when he proposed the Indo-european language theory was exactly showing how oral tales have this long road. We can see the differences between the tales and also what is strong and preserved. We can also find a tradition for trades between oral and written traditions. We can even tell Cinderella was first registred by Strabo, a historian and not for an artist.



I agree that Alice is not folklore (it's more like dream), and that there is incessant, surreal language play. Carroll tried something similar in Silvie and Bruno, but it didn't work because he was being so pedantic--dreams follow their own morality. But Alice has themes: the zany excitement of the adult world, the dangerous unpredictability of adults (the idiomatic surrealism is just part of the fun). These are not the same themes one finds in Grimm, but then I don't think Alice has anything to do with Grimm. Neither do you.

Of course, we must say, Lewis used some elements of folklore, such as Humpty Dumpty, but that was just him using references for the children. But I didnt meant that Alice lacks theme, just that unlike Grimm, which works had to show elements of fantasy, because that was what they were searching, a theme of their production, Carroll was playing with the two languages he domained (english and mathematics - or logic) and the surreal nature was born this. Alice is in the end a very literary product. (also, from a greater quality than Grimm's faery tales, but that is another matter).


I think Oz probably has more in common with Alice than it does with Grimm: a young heroine in a dazzling but dangerous world, a surreal redux of the real world--in effect a dream. It mostly lacks Carroll's wordplay, but perhaps not entirely. There is an incident in the MGH movie involving a horse that changes colors. Dorothy is told it is the famous "horse of a different color" that she has probably heard about. I don't remember if the scene turns up in Baum's book, but it seems very much the kind of thing that would have happened to Alice. Do you happen to remember if it is in Baum?

Don't remember this in the book, but I recall some carollisms , I think in the field of flowers and the sleeping lion. But neither Baum had Carroll talent for the word play as he was already trying to be simplistic (and less like a teacher). Something lacked, but of course, the model is very similar. At that point, Grimm's are already something classical inside the genre, their influence much less direct. We are forgetting to mention Nuttcracker and Pinocchio, both certainly played also a distant part when we think of non-human characters in children story. (And at least in being devoured by whales :D ). The thing is that Baum was writing already when Stevenson and Carroll managed to make success with novels targetting children, no need of short tales.



The possibility of political allegory in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is not as far-fetched as it first appears. Dorothy came from the American Midwest. The Tin Man was originally from East, where he had been a flesh and blood woodsman (as many easterners had been at the start of the century). But he had fallen afoul of the Wicked Witch of the East (not to be confused with Dorothy's nemesis, the Wicked Witch of the West). Now imagine for a moment this eastern witch representes the industrialists who had come to dominate eastern populations by Baum's time, and who the populists believed were reducing them to automatons. Here is the story that appears in the book (but not the movie): the witch cursed the woodsman's ax, so that every time he swung it, he chopped off a piece of himself--an arm, a leg, and so on. The woodsman had a tinsmith friend who used to fit him with prosthetic limb when this would happen, but eventually there was nothing left of his original body: the ax had taken all of him--even his humanity since the tinsmith had been unable to give him a human heart. His story in the movie is mostly sentimental nonsense. The Tin Man (according to this interpretation) was actually about the dehumanization of the industrial laborer.

The 19th century American Populist movement was a left wing political alliance between perennially screwed over farmers in the west and south and the eastern labor movement (among others). It was mainly an agrarian movement driven by angry farmers who resented their treatment by better educated elites. Note that in both the book and movie version, it is the Scarecrow who makes all the important decisions, despite his low opinion of his own intelligence. His discovery of his innate intelligence is one of the story's points.

The Populist alliance was made against the background of the economic gold standard favored by the educated elites (the yellow brick road that led to the center of power). But an important group of Populist's called called the Silverites favored bimetalism, with silver coinage being infused against gold as a response to the Panic of 1833. Is it therefore significant that Dorothy's magic slippers that trod over the yellow brick road were not ruby in the book (MGH was just showing off its cool new color technology) but silver?

The Populists eventually got behind three-time Democratic presidential candidate (and later Secretary of State), Nebraska Representative William Jennings Bryant. Bryant was a champion go bimetalism and many other Populist causes. He was a firebrand orator, but his critics claimed that he was more talk than substance--that his bark was worse than his bite. Friend and foe called him, earnestly or ironically--Bryant the lion.

And the list goes on. Even without the Populist interpretation, Baum pretty clearly intended the silly, self-important Munchkins to represent the small town petty bourgeoisie, affable to Dorothy (in fact, pretty impressed by her) but not good for all that much either. The Wicked Witch of the West not only tried to keep the Populists at heel, but completely dominated the American Indians--to Baum, a wild but innocent folk who owed actual allegiance to no one. Do you see how it works? They are the flying monkeys, the Emerald City--which was just a regular-colored city when you took your emerald-tinted sunglasses--was Washington D.C., and Grover Cleveland (if that's who Baum was writing about) was a very good man but a very bad wizard.

After the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, Baum cut out the politics. And as I said before, he denied that he had been writing anything but children's stories. My theory is that a publisher expressed interest in more Oz books (which he wrote), but told him to wash his hands off left-wing politics. But who knows? Maybe it's all coincidence. The Tin Man's story has got something behind it, though.

Well, he wouldnt be the first to build a political allegory with fantasy, my biggest grip is the figure of dorothy (she is not as interesting as Alice, in fact, her friendly trio is the interesting thing of the novel. In the movie, Garland of course adds a lot - and frankly, it is better she is older).Obviously, Dorothy is a device for the reader identification, a little girl for little girls. Seems that the political side do explain a bit, but why give all this to little girls? It is so different from Caroll, who gave a lot of complexity beyond a little girl's capacity, but somehow was imaginative enough to make the symbols stronger than the message (or strongly carrying the message)... oh, well, I am biased towards Alice's books.


Yes, you're right, White is somewhat similar in tone. And I should have mentioned C.S. Lewis. I tend to think of him as an apologist rather than a novelist, but he was both. And they were friends, I think, so they probably compared notes all the time.

They had some influence, yes. There is a science fiction series by Lewis, which i have read only the first book, named Out of Silent Planet, which themes and behavior of aliens are a bit similar to Tolkien's elfs. (Part of it, not all, they didnt had that immortal noble distance from the world, nor the melancholy). At some point, when compared to LoTR we can even use it to uphold Clarke Law (magic and science will not be distinguished, blabla).

[Pompey Bum]

Well, he wouldnt be the first to build a political allegory with fantasy, my biggest grip is the figure of dorothy (she is not as interesting as Alice, in fact, her friendly trio is the interesting thing of the novel. In the movie, Garland of course adds a lot - and frankly, it is better she is older). Obviously, Dorothy is a device for the reader identification, a little girl for little girls. Seems that the political side do explain a bit, but why give all this to little girls? It is so different from Caroll, who gave a lot of complexity beyond a little girl's capacity, but somehow was imaginative enough to make the symbols stronger than the message (or strongly carrying the message)... oh, well, I am biased towards Alice's books.

Well, Carroll's a better writer and Alice is accordingly a more interesting character. Dorothy may also lose something for you in cultural translation. She is a Midwesterner, which in Baum's time (and maybe still today) implied a farmer's--or farmer's daughter's--matter-of-fact attitude toward life even at it's most unexpected. So part of Dorothy's charm is that she keeps her cool while all these weird things are happening. At her best, I guess, Dorothy is a sort of vernacular Alice (linguistic feats like "Curiouser and curioser" were beyond her). And Frank Baum was no Mark Twain, but he had his moments. The detail about the green eye shades in the Emerald City is worthy of Andersen (even if Baum's language is not as refined), as is the ultimate identity of the Wizard as just another fellow trying to get by. It strikes me too (now that you mention it) that the story of the woodcutter's cursed ax with its weird violence and dream-like illogic is quite a bit like Grimm. So is the humble shack in which Dorothy's family lives, although if there is a political component that may have had more to do with the poverty of American farmers (as I remember Dorothy's parents were quite poor). You are right that Judy Garland brought a lot to Dorothy. My mother (who was a Midwestern girl) loved her. So I guess I have a soft spot for Dorothy.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, Oz is a great and rich setting and Baum work with colors (not only the green, but the golden bricks) shows great visual imagination. It is just suited the movie was one of the first to explore colors. But I still find Dorothy somehow wrong, as if she was not a child but a teenager with her attitude. Her down to earth - a good term - seems so constricted, when we compare with the protagonists of other stories (Not just Alice). I think she would grow up to one of those auntie who tell you sit still in the back of the car and make no noise during the travel.

[Pompey Bum]

Yeah, Oz is a great and rich setting and Baum work with colors (not only the green, but the golden bricks) shows great visual imagination. It is just suited the movie was one of the first to explore colors.

No coincidence, I think. It was a really early movie, too, so the colors would have had a futuristic feel. And they were magnificent, too, much better than the garish technicolor the public eventually got saddled with. But in spite of the novelty, I don't think it was much of a commercial success, probably because it cost so much to make. It only got to be a classic during the late times of black and white TV and the early days of color. I remember those days. It used to come on once a year (only) and it was a big deal. The scene where Dorothy turns from her black and white world and steps into the colors of Oz used to take breaths away. Funny to think of now.


But I still find Dorothy somehow wrong, as if she was not a child but a teenager with her attitude. Her down to earth - a good term - seems so constricted, when we compare with the protagonists of other stories (Not just Alice).

She's down to earth, yes, and she has a little bit of Midwestern stuubborness (though I may be conflating the book with Garland's characterization). She won't tolerate injustice (very Midwestern and very populist). And she's a good girl. Midwestern girls are good (or at least they were back in the day). God knows "Dorothy the Small and Meek" was no feminist, but she beat the witch (who probably was) and that's good enough for me.


I think she would grow up to one of those auntie who tell you sit still in the back of the car and make no noise during the travel.

Nah, she grew up to be a grandmother in a little kitchen smelling of cornsilk and squash pie, with a framed print of Albrect Durer's Praying Hands over a lacquered linoleum table, packed with her sisters and sisters-in-law with grandchildren and great grandchildren tagging at their skirts; and the men in the next room with their tummies riding over their belts from all the pork fat their wives feed them, talking about their goddamn John Deers and what their barber said and all the fish they've caught; and everywhere the smell corn husks and hay. This have I known.

[Jackson Richardson]

And I should have mentioned C.S. Lewis. I tend to think of him as an apologist rather than a novelist, but he was both. And they were friends, I think, so they probably compared notes all the time.

The story is that as Tolkien read out yet another bit of saga in the Lamb and Child in St Giles's, Oxford, C S Lewis, the great Christian apologist, was heard by his neighbour to murmur into his bitter "Not another ****ing elf."

[Ecurb]

The story is that as Tolkien read out yet another bit of saga in the Lamb and Child in St Giles's, Oxford, C S Lewis, the great Christian apologist, was heard by his neighbour to murmur into his bitter "Not another ****ing elf."

Lewis and Tolkien were good friends. Indeed, Tolkien was instrumental in Lewis' conversion to Christianity -- they had an hours-long conversation about religion the very night on which Lewis decided to believe.

Tolkien was a Roman Catholic (like Chesterton). I have no special knowledge regarding Tolkien's decision to choose the Catholic church, but it seems likely that his conservative and romantic nature preferred the older church. Lewis was an Anglican, although he thought denominations unimportant. As an Irishman, Lewis probably had to choose Anglicanism for political and family reasons.

Lewis loved Tolkien's fantasy novels. It was Hugo Dyson, another Oxford English teacher and member of the Inklings, who made the "not another f----- elf" comment. The Inklings met at The Eagle and Child (locally known as "The Bird and Baby") on a weekly basis for several years, and Tolkien read aloud from The Hobbit and LOTR during some meetings. I've been to The Eagle and Child and seen the pictures on the wall.

Tolkien, on the other hand, disliked Lewis's novels. He thought the Narnias a hodge podge, mixing up Greek mythology, talking animals like Wind in the Willows, and earth children (ala E. Nesbit). George Sayer, in his biography of Lewis, suspects that Tolkien the perfectionist distrusted Lewis's ease and fluency. The same fluency of mind that led Lewis to apologetics can be criticized (and was criticized by both secular philosophers and theologians) for its lack of rigor. Sayer (writing, after all, in a Lewis biography) also suspects Tolkien was jealous of the ease and fluency with which Lewis wrote.

The height of Lewis and Tolkien's friendship came prior to the creation of Narnia -- pre-war (The Hobbit was, I think, first published in 1939).

I haven't read all of this thread (I've been away) but when I do, I might comment further.

[Pompey Bum]

"Not another ****ing elf."

I heard it was Santa Claus, but that's probably an urban myth. :)

[Pompey Bum]

I just did a search in an ebook version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz for "horse of a different color." The expression does not appear in the book, so that Carrollism seems to have been added by MGH (just showing off their color technology again). I also found the strange detail in a Wizard of Oz website that the horses (several were used in the sequence) were colored with Jello crystal, and that the scene had to be shot quickly before they licked it off. Yikes!

[Jackson Richardson]

I believe Tolkien was a cradle Roman Catholic. Lewis's Christianity was of the sort that you go to the default setting unless you have other reasons. So once he believed in God, he began going to his college chapel and to his (geographical) parish church, both Church of England. He wasn't in contact with his family by then, apart for his brother.

He says in Mere Christianity that if you want to know his religion you can find it in the (Anglican) Book of Common Prayer, quoting Uncle Toby in Tristan Shandy.

[Jackson Richardson]

PS Ecurb is quite right about the Eagle and Child. The Lamb and Flag is the opposite side of St Giles.

[Ecurb]

Lewis' mother died when he was a child, and his father died in 1929 -- before his conversion to Christianity (lest Jackson's post leads some to think Lewis was estranged from his family). I just looked it up: The Inklings met fairly regularly from 1933 through 1947 (the Narnias were published in the '50s, as was LOTR). Members included the Lewis brothers, Tolkien, Dyson, Charles Williams, Owen Barfield, and a few others.

[mona amon]

The story is that as Tolkien read out yet another bit of saga in the Lamb and Child in St Giles's, Oxford, C S Lewis, the great Christian apologist, was heard by his neighbour to murmur into his bitter "Not another ****ing elf."

LOL! For me it wasn't the elves so much as the Orcs.

I wouldn't call Tolkien verbose, but there were many parts in LOTR that I felt could have been left out entirely, especially the Scouring of the Shire chapter. I feel he was not a good editor of his own work, and that is what the movies did for him.

[JCamilo]

Scouring of the Shire or Aragorn Love's story? Which one is somehow related to the story of Hobbits saving the world?

Peter Jackson movies are a basic lesson of bad editing. You have several unrelated scenes, important stuff cut, no way we can understand how long and how far the journey was. Tolkien books are about a setting and a surprising hero, not about Théoden or Aragorn back story. The movies cann't even notice it to the point they made the Hobbits a triology trying to fill in the story with love stories or conventional heroes.

[Pompey Bum]

Scouring of the Shire or Aragorn Love's story? Which one is somehow related to the story of Hobbits saving the world?

Well, a mainstream movie usually requires a love story, and Frodo and Sam lacked sufficient bromance. Otherwise they could have called it Brokeback Mountain of Doom. Heh. Yes, the editing was appalling.

[Ecurb]

I like the Scouring of the Shire. I agree with JCamilo about the movies -- the war scenes were endless and the Frodo, Sam and Gollum scenes SEEMED endless (because they were so badly done). Frodo kept rolling his eyes back as if the One Ring were a strong dose of black tar heroin.

[Pompey Bum]

The Scouring of the Shire was probably meant to be a little like Odysseus' return to find the degradation of Ithaca. (I know Tolkien said it was inspired by the industrialization of the English countryside, but that's a kind of degradation too). It didn't work well (as I vaguely recall) because it tended towards anticlimax. The movie didn't touch it but somehow managed to be a thousand times more anticlimactic (and boring). Now that's genius.

[Jackson Richardson]

The Scouring of the Shire is my favourite bit: and that's an optimistic ending with Sam living happily ever after in a redeemed, idyllic Shire.

It's the Men of Rohan and the ****ing Elves that bore me.

I only saw the first film and gave up as it introduced all those battle scenes that weren't in the book. Battles and competitive games bore me solid. Just let me know whose won.

[JCamilo]

If we look well, LoTR has a lot of problems because Tolkien had some ideas but sometimes couldnt execute that well. The Scouring is a bit like this. The book is too mixed. The scourge idea seems right, the return, the non-epic unusual sort of heroes having a non-epic ending, but it is also a return to the children like begining of the story, when it is already a teenager angst story... but how the movies tried to make all a typical epical kind of movie, with epic heroes and battle is baffling and if tolkien had the right idea but worked it poorly, the movie had the wrong idea and handled it awfully.

[mona amon]

Scouring of the Shire or Aragorn Love's story? Which one is somehow related to the story of Hobbits saving the world?

Peter Jackson movies are a basic lesson of bad editing. You have several unrelated scenes, important stuff cut, no way we can understand how long and how far the journey was. Tolkien books are about a setting and a surprising hero, not about Théoden or Aragorn back story. The movies cann't even notice it to the point they made the Hobbits a triology trying to fill in the story with love stories or conventional heroes.

I think the scouring chapter is realistic - home always seems more comforting and idealistic than it actually is when you are far away, and coming back could be anticlimactic, home is just as likely as Mordor to succumb to the evil within - things like that, but I found it irritating, this silly little battle against a diminished villain, after all the trials they had overcome, and all the great battles they had fought.

The ending was great though, with Frodo going off to the Gray Havens and Sam remaining and prospering at home.

As for Aragorn, I loved the movies so much (well, I don't know if I watched the whole of Two Towers, but I loved the other two, especially Return of the King), that I was quite willing to see the coronation and the reunion with Arwen rather than have it all end too soon. Being a little in love with Aragorn myself no doubt helped. :D

Am I the only one who loved the battle scenes in the movies?

By the way I was not talking about the editing of the movies. I know nothing about that. I meant the way they chose what to keep and what to leave out of the LOTR books - they left out Tom Bombadil, the Scouring of the Shire and things I cannot now remember, and I was fine with their choices. Of course the opposite happened with the Hobbit movies. Here they took a compact 300 page novel and turned it into 3 excruciatingly long movies, no doubt padded with Orc fights and Troll fights and other boring stuff. I only watched the first one, and parts of the third.

[Pompey Bum]

I think it is we, the old foggies of LitNet, who are in the minority on the battle scenes. A generation of computer game addicts stands with you, Mona. But I don't know that I disliked the battle scenes any more than the rest of the film/films. It all just bored me to distraction. But I'm happy for those who enjoyed it. I wish I had liked it, too.

[JCamilo]

But that is what I meant, they removed stuff that actually was part of the story to add stuff that is not, like the Aragorn romance. The Battles were overplayed too. At first, they look impressive, but after while, they took a huge part of the story whiile something much more relvent, like Saruman defeat was edited. They took it to another level in the Hobbit movies, but Return of the King is already unbearable.

[Jackson Richardson]

Another reason I like The Scouring of the Shire is that in Lobeia Baggins it has the only interesting female in the book.

I don't count that boring Elf Queen others go so gooey about. The hobbits, the dwarves, even in an odd way the ents and Tom Bombadil, and in a wonderful way Gollum, are all human, The elves and the orcs just aren't. (The Ring Wraiths aren't of course, but the point is they were.)

[Jackson Richardson]

The mention of Lobeia Baggins makes me think that I can't really care for a work without an element of social comedy. Even Shakespeare's tragedies have the basic elements seen from the other side of the loom. (King Lear is eminently tragic - parents and children emotionally manipulating each other is the stuff of social comedy. Cleopatra is on the edge of funny. No wonder I prefer the Nurse to Juliet.)

[Ecurb]

Another reason I like The Scouring of the Shire is that in Lobeia Baggins it has the only interesting female in the book.

I don't count that boring Elf Queen others go so gooey about. The hobbits, the dwarves, even in an odd way the ents and Tom Bombadil, and in a wonderful way Gollum, are all human, The elves and the orcs just aren't. (The Ring Wraiths aren't of course, but the point is they were.)

Galadriel is given what may be my favorite line in the book. When she's saying goodbye to Treebeard, he says, "I do not think we will meet again."

She replies (quote from memory, so it might not be exact), "Not in this world, eldest, nor until the lands that lie under the sea are lifted once again. Then in the willow-meads of Tsarinan we may walk in the Spring."

The line is redolent of the sorrow of the elves and their yearning for the past, as well as their basic kindness.

The Silmarillion is the story of the elves, Jackson. Have you read it? I love it, but some fans of LOTR don't (they prefer the more "human" action in novels to heroic mythologies, while I like both).

[Jackson Richardson]

I browzed the first page of The Simarillion in a bookshop and you can probably guess my reaction, Ecurb. I won't elaborate as I don't want to slag off something others I respect care for a lot. (It was seeing a paragraph starting "And it came to pass.." that put me off.)

[Ecurb]

"The Silmarillion" is not really a novel; it's a mythology. Hence "it came to pass", which reminds readers of the Bible (especially at Christmas time).

I find the elves interesting because, since they don't die of natural causes, their mythologies are both lore about the past and actual memories of the past. Galadriel remembers the Elder days, and the Great Wars with Morgoth, and the legendary figures of Feanor and Fingolfin were her uncles. She's also been to heaven (the Westernese), and chosen, of her own free will, to return to (Middle) Earth, to rule on Earth rather than serving in Heaven.

[Jackson Richardson]

I’m sure that for Tolkein and many of his readers the elves in LOTR (utterly different from those in The Hobbit) are the central interest of the book and of opposition to Sauron, recalling a noble past that can no longer be. They are the main centre of what Pompey calls Tolkein’s pessimism, and indeed a muted sense of tragedy.

It’s just that they don’t move me. Sorry but there it is.

I read LOTR repeatedly in my early teen or earlier and I was fascinated to read the appendices and time lines. I’m just not interested now. That shows either Lord of the Rings is a book for children, or I was an unusual child. Probably the second possibility.

[Pompey Bum]

I liked The Hobbit in Middle School though I felt I had outgrown the whole scene when I read the others in High School (but I was proud of having started Dickens and Homer already so I was probably just being a snob). My favorite chapter in The Hobbit was Riddles in the Dark. I didn't care so much about the big dragon fight at the end.

[mona amon]

But that is what I meant, they removed stuff that actually was part of the story to add stuff that is not, like the Aragorn romance. The Battles were overplayed too. At first, they look impressive, but after while, they took a huge part of the story whiile something much more relvent, like Saruman defeat was edited. They took it to another level in the Hobbit movies, but Return of the King is already unbearable.


I think it is we, the old foggies of LitNet, who are in the minority on the battle scenes. A generation of computer game addicts stands with you, Mona. But I don't know that I disliked the battle scenes any more than the rest of the film/films. It all just bored me to distraction. But I'm happy for those who enjoyed it. I wish I had liked it, too.

There was a lot I did not care for - Gandalf battling the Balrog and similar scenes, that army of ghosts, Legolas jumping onto the Heffalump - sorry, Oliphant and so on, but there's something about the sound of bugles, the cavalry charge, the war cry, that moment when two battle lines meet, that just gives me the chills and the LOTR movies had those moments. In the books it all seemed a little flat. I'm actually not a fan of the LOTR books, although they too have their moments. The way Tolkien has created this whole detailed universe with its appendices enough to satisfy the geekiest fan is truly impressive, but you have to be willing to be immersed in that sort of thing. I cannot get over the feeling that it is an artificially created 'ancient' book. Maybe I should have read it when I was young.

[Pompey Bum]

there's something about the sound of bugles, the cavalry charge, the war cry, that moment when two battle lines meet, that just gives me the chills

The epic conflict between my tailbone and the theater seat is what impressed me the most.


Legolas jumping onto the Heffalump - sorry, Oliphant

Heh heh. Oh bother!

[mona amon]

I guess this version would have been kinder on the back parts - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU

[Pompey Bum]

Ah, much better. Mind you I love epic movies, but for them to work (for me) they need multidimensional characters and an outcome I care about. The only interesting character in Lord of the Rings was Gollum, and he was a total rilpoff of Uriah Heep. :)

[Jackson Richardson]

I find Gollum a deeply fascinating figure and ultimately tragic. Uriah Heep is Dickens' most obviously comic villain. I don't think there's much in common with them. The Dickensian parallel to Gollum I can see is with Miss Havisham - another self harming obsessive. An even better parallel for Gollum is Rudyard Kiplings' A Pict Song https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=we%20are%20the%20little%20folk%20we%20lyrics

[Sancho]

I read it as a teenager, or I should say I slogged through it, my reason being - hormones. A girl gave it to me and I was trying to, ahem, you know. I should give The Lord Of The Rings a fresh go. It didn't really take the first time (neither did the girl, she dumped me).

At any rate, has anybody here read Stephen King's Dark Tower saga? A few months ago, on a whim, I picked up the first book in the series, The Gunslinger, and burned through it. Then I was hooked, which is how addiction works - c'mon, man, you know you want it, the first one's free. I'm not kidding, download it for free at the airport. I guess the movie is coming out next year so they're drumming up interest.

Anyway the first book is pretty short, but he's just getting warmed up. They just keep getting fatter as you go along. By the seventh book, The Dark Tower, not to mix metaphors or anything but you've got a 500 pound gorilla on your back - it's over a thousand pages. I've gotta tell ya. Sometimes I think King writes faster than I read. I wanted to be done with it, but at the same time I wanted it to keep going on and on. And sorta it does. I had a fine time reading it.

Think I'll skip the movie, though.