Live data from Hacker News

Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

unherd.com

21–30 of 109 posts

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#21
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this quote refutes the author's point. Tolkien was vehemently denying that his works were allegorical, in the sense that one should not look for deeper, hidden meaning in the LOTR or any other tale set in Middle-Earth. But this article simply describes how Tolkien (allegedly) tried to compose a stronger English mythology, then eventually abandoned the idea and settled for the purely fictional setting th…

Tolkien rejected the idea to compare Sauron and Hitler. He rejected that LOTR was his way to handle his war trauma. His biggest argument is that most ideas existed before WW2.

Wouldn't it have been WW1 he would have processed?

Both because he was in it and because it was the first industrialised war. Mordor makes one think of trenches and devilish factories.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#22

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

[deleted]

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#23

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

He did it so well that most "high" fantasy that came out after him felt derivative of Tolkien.

I'd really like to see counter-examples though; I feel like I haven't dived into the genre enough, in part because I'm turned off by the sheer volume of some book (series) on the one hand, and the juvenile tropes (generic hero's journey formula) on the other.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#24
post #19

Tolkien utterly detested people like the author of this article. As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical.... Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary en…

I don't see the connection between the quote and the article. Tolkien is rejecting allegorical reading like "the ring symbolize the coronavirus, Saruman represent Trump" etc. The article is not about allegory though but about the intentions and influences of Tolkien. Tolkien was open about his influences and at times they are pretty blatant, like directly taking the names of dwarwes from the Edda. Also the whole myth…

> Also the whole mythology is directly based on christian mythology

That sounds like a pretty big stretch to me, could you elaborate? I agree there are most certainly elements from Christianity in it, but claiming the entire thing is based directly on it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, nor does that seem to be how Tolkien viewed it, at least as far as I can tell. For example, in one particular quote in the preface of the Silmarillion (as part of a letter Tolkien wrote to Milton Waldman), Tolkien says

"In the cosmogony there is a fall: a fall of Angels we should say. Though quite different in form, of course, to that of Christian myth. These tales are 'new', they are not directly derived from other myths and legends, but they must inevitably contain a large measure of ancient wide-spread motives or elements...There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them."

I suspect the tendency to lump Tolkien's works together with Christianity may be more due to both his own association with Christianity as well as the general cultural knowledge of Christianity, whereas other myths he may be deriving from are not as widely known.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#25

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

> try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freaking much he is indebted to him

You know, I did try to read The Princess and the Goblin. I think I got through it. There is a sequel, The Princess and Curdie. I tried, but failed, to read that. They aren't books I would recommend.

I do like the animated film.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#26

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

I think we have an unhealthy obsession with trying to achieve 100% original thoughts and ideas, to the point that people often hide their influences unless they feel people will understand that they didn't borrow too much. Feels like a psychological trap.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#27
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tolkien rejected the idea to compare Sauron and Hitler. He rejected that LOTR was his way to handle his war trauma. His biggest argument is that most ideas existed before WW2.

Wouldn't it have been WW1 he would have processed? Both because he was in it and because it was the first industrialised war. Mordor makes one think of trenches and devilish factories.

> Mordor makes one think of trenches and devilish factories.

Tolkien hates you now!

But seriously, he was open about how WWI influenced his writing. I think his rant against allegories is more about direct allegorical reading like "Mordor is supposed to symbolize WWI trenches etc."

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#28
Good to see Worcestershire mentioned. To be more specific, it's the Malvern Hills in West Worcs, on the Herefordshire border [1]. CS Lewis [2], Elgar [3] and Evelyn Waugh [4] were also inspired by the Malverns. Worcestershire is a sleepy, rural corner of England often overlooked by Londoners in favour of more "fashionable" counties like Dorset & Cornwall.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29787528 [2] https://www.malvernbeacon.com/home/gas-lamps-cs-lewis-and-jr... [3] https://www.malvernbeacon.com/home/elgar-and-the-malvern-hil... [4] https://www.newstatesman.com/books/2008/06/real-brideshead-m...

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#29

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

"Endlessly derivative" aligns pretty well with Tolkien's idea of the "Cauldron of Story":

> Speaking of the history of stories and especially of fairy-stories we may say that the Pot of Soup, the Cauldron of Story, has always been boiling, and to it have continually been added new bits, dainty and undainty.

> For this reason, to take a casual example, the fact that a story resembling the one known as The Goosegirl (Die Gänsemagd in Grimm) is told in the thirteenth century of Bertha Broadfoot, mother of Charlemagne, really proves nothing either way: neither that the story was (in the thirteenth century) descending from Olympus or Asgard by way of an already legendary king of old, on its way to become a Hausmärchen; nor that it was on its way up. The story is found to be widespread, unattached to the mother of Charlemagne or to any historical character.

[...]

> The historian would be likely to say that [...] “the Goosegirl Märchen became attached to Bertha.” [But] I think it would be nearer the truth to say that the Archbishop became attached to the banana skin, or that Bertha was turned into the Goosegirl. Better still: I would say that Charlemagne's mother and the Archbishop were put into the Pot, in fact got into the Soup. They were just new bits added to the stock. A considerable honour, for in that soup were many things older, more potent, more beautiful, comic, or terrible than they were in themselves (considered simply as figures of history).

- from Tolien's essay/credo "On Fairy Stories" ( https://coolcalvary.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/on-fairy-sto... )

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#30

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

> try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freaking much he is indebted to him You know, I did try to read The Princess and the Goblin . I think I got through it. There is a sequel, The Princess and Curdie . I tried, but failed, to read that. They aren't books I would recommend. I do like the animated film.

I totally agree that MacDonald is not a good fantasy writer. Phantastes are especially horrible (and derivative in their own way). However, he clearly had a strong and original imagination.
Post reply on HN