Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#51

Post by dash2 »

macleginn wrote: post #13

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…

> Perhaps, one can say that Tolkien is 20th century‘s Shakespeare

Hmm, I doubt it. The Hobbit is fun, but many adults returning to LOTR think "gosh, this is long, dull and badly written". Here's an example, which is also a more interesting review than the unherd one:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n22/jenny-turner/reasons...

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#52

Post by goto11 »

morelisp wrote: post #49
goto11 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tolkien also contradicts himself by hinting at more direct allegories e.g. the dwarves as Jews during the later years of his life. Combined with his open lament for the Nazi appropriation of Norse mythology, it's hard to see how his fictional Eddaic / Judaic nexus is not among the most stereotypically prescriptive combination of metaphor, allegory, and moral. (Not intended as a negative criticism, because I think it…

I think the quote is just Tolkien getting really annoyed that people read LoTR as an allegory for WWII.

If I understand the quote correctly, he is rejecting the form of allegory where the reader is supposed to "get it" and use the allegory to "decode the message". But Tolkien wasn't trying to say anything about the Jewish people through the vehicle of Dwarwes, he was just drawing on some inspiration.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#53

Post by pjc50 »

gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #43
pjc50 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't like hero's journey, you're probably going to struggle to like fantasy; on the other hand, both of Tolkein's most popular works embed the moral journey in a very literal, physical journey and do just fine. UKLG's Earthsea is the series that I hear most often loved by other authors, although I'm not familiar with it myself. Then there is Pratchett, who set out to do simple parody of high fantasy and ended…

You should read UKLG's Earthsea. They are objectively quite simple books (targeted at teens) but they are fantastic. As a side note in my opinion this series is an example of how the current phase of thinking someone has to be of a group to understand the group is wrong. The female author brilliantly captures a young male's journey towards a strong, compassionate, brave and very masculine manhood with all the mistake…

> the current phase of thinking someone has to be of a group to understand the group is wrong.

> Or maybe men and women are even more similar than I'm accounting for and a young woman's journey is just that similar to a man's

You're almost there; the point is not that you have to be in a group to understand a group, but that because of the power structure some are much more visible and celebrated than others. A female writer is more likely to be able to see what the male journey is like (due to thousands of examples) than a male writer, who is in turn more likely to project his own prejudices than actually find out what it might be like.

(In turn, there have been a number of literary fights lately about white female authors doing terribly bad racial stereotypes of their nonwhite characters...)

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#54

Post by pjc50 »

have_faith wrote: post #26
macleginn wrote: post #13

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.

> I think we have an unhealthy obsession with trying to achieve 100% original thoughts and ideas

This is pretty much forced on people by the nature of the intellectual property system. If it's ""derivative"" of something written in living memory, you have to pay.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#55

Post by jfengel »

dash2 wrote: post #51
macleginn wrote: post #13

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…

> Perhaps, one can say that Tolkien is 20th century‘s Shakespeare Hmm, I doubt it. The Hobbit is fun, but many adults returning to LOTR think "gosh, this is long, dull and badly written". Here's an example, which is also a more interesting review than the unherd one: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n22/jenny-turner/reasons...

It's not uncommon for great literature to also seem long, dull, and badly written. And everybody is entitled to their taste. I don't like lots of great literature.

But Tolkien is uncannily like Shakespeare in that it appeals both to people who come looking for Dungeons and Dragons, and also to academic literary scholars. There are academic conferences, and one literature professor has been doing a close reading of Lord of the Rings as a podcast for five years... and has only made it to the Council of Elrond. (https://mythgard.org/lotro/exlotr/)

For that matter, many people find Shakespeare long, dull, and badly written. I think Tolkien has a chance of being remembered as long as Shakespeare, and revisited in every generation the same way. We've already come a long way from the hippies seeing psychedelia in The Hobbit (which annoyed Tolkien no end). I don't believe Tolkien is quite so flexible as Shakespeare, but his work was consciously written to harken to very long traditions of English literature (going back to Anglo Saxon), and that could give it durability.

That is, by the way, an excellent and insightful review. Thanks.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#56

Post by simonh »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23
macleginn wrote: post #13

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.

For post-Tolkien fantasy with little or no Tolkien influences or tropes, the most obvious recent example is Game of Thrones. I suppose it's arguable whether it's High Fantasy, but looking at the character arcs of John Snow and Daenerys I think it clears the bar.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#57

Post by Forgeties79 »

pjc50 wrote: post #54
have_faith wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think we have an unhealthy obsession with trying to achieve 100% original thoughts and ideas This is pretty much forced on people by the nature of the intellectual property system. If it's ""derivative"" of something written in living memory, you have to pay.

Also every critic (hell, every person with a social media account and too much time on their hands) will endlessly berate you - and you see it too. Critics have also learned that, unless the film/book/game/etc is absolutely breathtaking, bashing and looking for any little thing to pick apart gets more attention. The easiest attack to make is, “this [media] is just a poor man’s [other media].”

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#58

Post by Forgeties79 »

dash2 wrote: post #51
macleginn wrote: post #13

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…

> Perhaps, one can say that Tolkien is 20th century‘s Shakespeare Hmm, I doubt it. The Hobbit is fun, but many adults returning to LOTR think "gosh, this is long, dull and badly written". Here's an example, which is also a more interesting review than the unherd one: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n22/jenny-turner/reasons...

Wow that was a fascinating read. Thanks for sharing it, I’ve never seen a take quite like it.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#59

Post by aikinai »

dash2 wrote: post #51
macleginn wrote: post #13

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…

> Perhaps, one can say that Tolkien is 20th century‘s Shakespeare Hmm, I doubt it. The Hobbit is fun, but many adults returning to LOTR think "gosh, this is long, dull and badly written". Here's an example, which is also a more interesting review than the unherd one: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n22/jenny-turner/reasons...

It is long, dull, and badly written, but there’s clearly some magic there; why else would millions of children and adults take to the books so deeply despite those flaws?

And this was true even before it had the movies to drive marketing. My mom picked them up at a yard sale when I was nine or so, and without even knowing they were famous, I devoured them and then bought every other Tolkien book I could find. Now I can’t imagine how I made it through them at that age, but something was captivating.

I couldn’t, by the way, make it though any of the other books, so my appetite for long and poorly written books only went so far.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#60

Post by macleginn »

dash2 wrote: post #51
macleginn wrote: post #13

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…

> Perhaps, one can say that Tolkien is 20th century‘s Shakespeare Hmm, I doubt it. The Hobbit is fun, but many adults returning to LOTR think "gosh, this is long, dull and badly written". Here's an example, which is also a more interesting review than the unherd one: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n22/jenny-turner/reasons...

Well, we will have to wait for several centuries to check if the comparison really holds up. As the linked text points out, LOTR has many obvious problems, and it can be easily construed as pompous nonsense, but it is still massive, in a league of its own, etc. (As an aside, Mervyn Peake’s trilogy is 100% better literature, but who cares, basically.)
Post reply on HN