back
to Contents
INTRODUCTION
Thesis
"Studying Tolkien" is indeed an
enterprise which branches out into a wide array of fields and disciplines,
of which only a select few are included in this paper. Although my focus
has gradually narrowed to the mythological and literary themes most essential
to the author's distinctive vision, this study is grounded in extensive
research of adjacent areas. Rewarding excursions have been made into history,
etymology, folklore, rhetoric, philology, religion, philosophy and literary
history.
Indeed, studying Tolkien in any real depth means following
a long and half-forgotten trail. It means venturing out from the footpaths
of early Anglo-Saxons, across the waterway of Vikings to the cross-roads
of Celtic and Germanic legend and the horse-trodden paths of Arthurian romance
- and, arguably, into the Battle of the Somme and the most rapidly changing
century ever known to man. In terms of literary figures, anyone exploring
the full scope of Middle-earth must trace the epic footsteps of Beowulf,
Cynewulf, Sturlasson, Shakespeare, Milton, Elias Lönnrot, George MacDonald
and Lord Dunsany and then finally gaze into the learned halls of Andrew Lang,
Max Müller, J.W. Dunne, C.S. Lewis, Todorov and many others. Indeed,
the road goes ever on and on. The sheer number of Tolkien's sources suggests
no lack of personal impulse, nor does it reveal a dreamy or derivative mind
(Tolkien was, as his friend C. S. Lewis once remarked, "as hard to influence
as a bandersnatch"). Rather, the sequence is clearly testament to a man
moulded by a singular taste for powerful storytelling (and the wisdom thereof)
across the ages. The following will show him, also, as a man who in turn
moulded his diverse sources into a novel and composite subcreation with
no single precedent in literary history.
This long and winding course through the landscape of
human thought is relevant mainly because it hints at the diffuse potential
from which I have sought to order the observations and focus the argument
of the present study. My basic premise is that a reading balanced between
the mythic dimension (and the dominant themes derived from it) and the metaphysical
will shed significant light on the scope of Tolkien's works.
Situating his fictional narratives in a theoretical perspective,
the first section discusses issues related to Tolkien's "manifesto of the
fantasy genre", his acclaimed lecture "On Fairy-stories". Furthermore, the
elusive mythic vistas of Middle-earth will be drawn into focus by applying
structural theories of mediation to Tolkien's fiction. The following section
places Tolkien's theories and applications of the heroic in an Anglo-Saxon
perspective and traces the development of heroic motifs. The final section
will remain rooted in Tolkien's literary vision, but seek also to explore
and evaluate the metaphysical aspects of his work. Among these are the complex
representations of evil, the balance of free will and pre-determination
and finally an assessment of the One Ring.
It has been said that "J.R.R. Tolkien's chief contribution
to the literature of the 20th century was to ignore it almost completely."
Well, he certainly had antipathies in modern literature, but what this particular
critic is really trying to do is widen the gap between fantastic and realist
fiction, defending "the canon" against Tolkien's unprecedented (and therefore
anomalous) work. Tolkien's depiction of basic human problems only "at a
different stage of imagination" is hard to swallow. The same critic, Andrew
Rissik of the Guardian, says of LotR that:
After the annihilating traumas of the last century, it's
merely perverse to
ascribe greatness to this airy but strangely simplified mock-Teutonic
never-
never land, where races and species intermingle at will and great
battles
are fought but there is never any remotely convincing treatment
of those
fundamental human concerns through which all societies ultimately
define
themselves - religion, philosophy, politics…
This view seems to me unnecessarily reductionist. Tolkien
had no taste for things "simplified", nor for mock "Teutonic-fiction" either
as reader or author. As for the catchy phrase "never-never land", is is
a great example of the critical tendency to reduce a sophisticated genre
to "boyish fancy" or "juvenile trash". Yes, Tolkien wrote in the mode of
the fantastic - but what is fantasy? Tolkien had no trouble living and functioning
in the real world, but there were things in it he did not accept and sought
to change, and as a writer he refused to be constrained by it. As he himself
put it, his narrative fantasy was based on "a recognition of fact - but
not on slavery to it." Fantasy neither presupposes or encourages a dull
sense of reality - in fact the keener and clearer the author's reason, the
more exciting fantasy may emerge under his pen. The ultimate question (one
certainly raised by this paper) then becomes whether expressing the "annihilating
traumas of the last century" through the mode of the fantastic is by definition
any less valid or profound than through realist fiction.
Contrary to Andrew Rissik, I would argue that LotR
contains ample measures of "religion, philosophy" and "politics", albeit
not on the surface. It is a fundamentally religious work, but not explicitly
so. As this study reflects, it is laden with Christian symbolism and values:
humility and mercy, morality and redemption are operative words. It treats
existential subjects like good and evil, mortality and immortality with considerable
nuance. It questions both ancient and contemporary power structures. What
many fail to acknowledge are the relations1
between Foucault's critique of institutional power and Tolkien's critique
of power when misused for domination and control, as manifested in the Ring,
in Sauron or in Saruman. Both thinkers play on the concept of surveillance
(and visibility vs. invisibility) as a way of exerting control or power:
Foucault through the Panopticon image and Tolkien through the Eye of
Sauron. Further political structures
can be found in Tolkien's microcosm, the Shire, vs. the outside world, or
in the governments of the Men and Elves, the free peoples, contrasted with
the hegemonies of Middle-earth. In some cases, the contrasts are found within
essentially good political structures, for example in Denethor's corrupted
nationalism or in King Theoden's initial puppet-status under his advisor Gríma's
influence.
Each of these questions might well branch out into entire
papers of their own. However, in order to retain a firm and cohesive structure
and to confine myself to the limitations of these pages, much must remain
unsaid and some voices must naturally refrain from having their say. Yet
it is my sincere hope that what is said will trace essential threads through
Tolkien's Secondary World and that, ultimately, this study may lend itself
as a map through some of the uncharted regions of his mythology.
Copenhagen, 2003.
1There are certain conceptual parallels,
but of general outlook, not of detail. I ascribe these to the times they
lived in and to experiences drawn from the same century, rather than any
conscious interaction. back
top
Forward
to A Critical Overview