What does the sixpence = ?

[littlemanpoet]

I've been reading Tom Shippey's JRR Tolkien: Author of the Century for the last couple of weeks (yeah, Im a slow reader). In writing about the spittingly mad and irrational attitude of the literati towards Tolkien's works, he says this:

On a darkened stage, a single light is burning. A man is down on his hands and knees, crawling round in silence, obviously looking for something. Eventually a second man comes on, and says, after watching for a while, 'What are you doing?' 'I'm looking for a sixpence I dropped', replies the crawler. The second man gets down on his hands and knees and starts to help him. After a while the second man says, 'Just where did you drop it, anyway?' 'Oh, over there', says the first one, getting to his feet and walking over to the other side of the stage, in the dark. 'Then why are you looking for it here?' cries the second man in exasperation. The first one walks back to his original place and starts crawling around again. 'Because', he replies, 'that's where the light is'.

In this allegory of mine, the light = modernism, the crawling searcher = ...any of the critical multitude... . I am not at all sure what the sixpence may =, but Tolkien was out there in the dark, looking for it.

Talk about your punch lines!

What Shippey implies is that Tolkien not only searched, but found it, and has especially through LotR made it available to us. Meanwhile, we're all hard put to say precisely what 'the sixpence' were. It did, after all, take Tolkien all the words of his Legendarium to communicate it. But can we summarize? Any ideas what the sixpence = ?

[Bêthberry]

Really now, lmp! Sneaking allegory in via the side door of criticism. Are you trying to pull a Fordim on us?

But to return your coin with interest, I would think that the sixpence likely refers to that penny that drops, although in this case, it was a penny that was lost so long ago, most have forgotten about it.

[tar-ancalime]

And I thought when I clicked on this thread that I would finally get a lucid explanation of the old British currency! Shillings, guineas, half crowns?

Maybe it doesn't matter what the sixpence is--maybe all that matters is that the person looking for it in the dark lacks the self-referentiality of those who look for it in the light. For the person in the light, the search (and therefore the searcher) is important; for the person in the dark, the object being sought is the important thing. But that doesn't really square with modernism, does it? It's more like your garden-variety po-mo.

I'll crawl back into my cave now.

[Eluchíl]

Seems ironic that light, which is notoriously represented to be insightful or epiphanic, has driven the man away from where the penny may actually be.

Anyway, it seems to me that the sixpence would be something Tolkien lost along his way. Something that he lost in a dark period or place in his life. Something he couldn't get back in the light, or that the light couldn't show him, so he would have to go back into the dark and fight to get it back again. It feels very lonely and sad to me.

[Selmo]

I don't get it.

Shippey creates this allegory and then says he doesn't know what it means: " I am not at all sure what the sixpence may =, but Tolkien was out there in the dark, looking for it. "

It seems to me that it's Shippey who's in the dark, not Tolkien.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Perhaps this thread is a little too hung up on the sixpence. The point of the allegory is that the man who has lost a coin is looking for it in completely the wrong place just because that happens to be where the light falls. Modernism casts a light on particular aspects of literary endeavour, and if Shippey's sixpence, be that some sort of artistic truth, a window on the human spirit or other horribly abstract ideal, happens not to be in that place, then Modernism won't find it. Being out in the dark (more likely using the moonlight that Modernism had eclipsed for its followers), Tolkien probably had as much chance of finding sixpence as anybody else. Alternatively he could have found a half-crown, threepence, or an old button, just as could someone using the light. Shippey assumes that critics are looking for something (I seem to recall from his book that it was some sort of literary epiphany) in the wrong place, and that Tolkien, although he may have been equally off target, was at least looking in a different and more logical wrong place.

Humbug, say I. Tolkien was probably not looking for the same coin that an exponent of Modernism might want; in fact he may not have been looking for a coin at all. More likely he wasn't seeking anything in particular, just writing his stories his way, whilst exploring his own philosophy and beliefs through language and legend: it's surprising how few people really think about current critical theory while they write fiction. To adapt one of his own allegories, while others were knocking down the tower to mine for gold, Tolkien was looking for a view of the sea. Neither understood the point of what the other was doing.

As it happens, looking at the present through a filter composed of Christianity and medieval language, myth and literature was nothing particularly new in the 1950s. In fact it was nearly a century out of date: Tolkien's generation was born at the height of the Victorian craze for medievalism, and several of his contemporaries were drawing on the same influences. Clearest to me is Robert Graves, whose poem Dead Cow Farm draws on the creation legends of Gylfaginning. T.S. Eliot, who has enjoyed a lot more success than Tolkien in acceptance into high culture, also makes use of medieval literature in The Waste Land. Perhaps they were looking for the same 'sixpence', but more likely they were looking for cigarette lighters or lost cuff-links.

The upshot of all this is that Shippey's allegory doesn't stand up to intensive examination, but does it really have to? It's clearly intended to demonstrate why twentieth-century (and early twenty-first-century) critical thinking has tended to dismiss his subject, while many often well-educated people, such as Professor Shippey himself, attach to it a greater significance. For me, this sort of argument exemplifies the defiant and provocative tone of this entire book. Its very title invites controversy, and from what I know of the author, he can't have been unaware of that. As for the sixpence, I presume that it's still lying on the pavement undiscovered, presumably next to the solidus that Horace sought.

[littlemanpoet]

....to my last post on this thread. Perhaps everybody's more taken with the critics' aspect of it. Or perhaps what I said got the internal response of "Duh, LMP, no kidding. Why even post something so obvious?" Or perhaps the rest of you are just bored with that part of the discussion and don't have anything to say about it. Or perhaps, I seemed to be breaking a taboo by bringing in the "race" issue, talking about "us" as Germanic.

If it was the latter, it's a misconception. It's about language, not genetics. Still, I understand that the Japanese reading market has responded to Tolkien as positively as the English speaking world. Tolkien's popularity is especially strong amongst those who speak a language closely related to English, such as the Nordic, Dutch, and German peoples.

What Tolkien has done is revived myth for English speakers, in a relevant modern context, such that the old words, and might-have-been-proto-words that seemed dead on the ash-heap of history, have been shown to be applicable to us, now, in our modern context.

Examples: the whole wraith construct, with its multiple meanins/applications of 'twisted' (wreath), 'tortured' (writhe), 'misty' (wreath of snow), 'riding' (writhen), & 'mad' (wrath).

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

Tolkien's popularity is especially strong amongst those who speak a language closely related to English, such as the Nordic, Dutch, and German peoples.

I think that if this is true then it may be more to do with effective translations than anything else. English is in the same language 'family' as German and Dutch, and the subtleties of the language in LotR may have been easier to translate. But I do say "if this is true" as there are huge Tolkien fanbases in France, Spain and Italy, which have languages from a different "family".

I'm not sure about whether there are 'cultural' reasons or differences between what the literary critics like and what people as a whole enjoy. But I do think that much modern literary fiction has disappeared up something (euphemism ) in the attempts to make use of style and structure more important than story. I've read a fair few novels lately where potentially good stories were marred by too much tinkering with structure; usually this has resulted in very poor and disappointing endings to novels which have almost become formulaic.

Obviously the popularity of Tolkien has much to do with narrative, and constructing a good story is perhaps the most difficult part of writing. Characters are easy enough, but plot lines are not. Certainly an original plot line is just about impossible as all the best ones have been taken; maybe some writers of literary fiction seek to compensate with clever stylistics? Or perhaps they simply know far too much about literary theory and have allowed it to stifle their stories?

I'm not sure that LotR does appeal to us on any kind of 'racial' basis. Why? My reasoning behind this is that it is immensely popular in the US, and the population of the US is incredibly mixed due to a long history of immigration.

Originally Posted by lmp

I think it has to do with language. Shippey is a philologist, and a self-professed non-Christian (which I read in JRRT:AofC). Anyone who has read Carpenter's biography of Tolkien has learned of the "Lang vs. Lit" battle in Oxford that raged from the late 19th century in to the 1970s, when Lit finally won upon the apparent natural death of Lang, more's the pity. As some of us know, all of Tolkien's fiction is based in Language first. He knew words and their histories and functions far better than anybody else who wrote fiction in the 20th century.

Well, I can only speak about UK English departments. I know that most of the English degrees in this country are combined Lit/Lang degrees. The Language element is almost always taken up with Linguistics, or more specifically, structural linguistics, studying the language as it is currently is. This might also include some socio-linguistics, but rarely if ever do students get to study philology, the subject is just about dead. Maybe this accounts for the steady stream of critics who cannot appreciate Tolkien's work?

[Bergil]

Some sage once described every political group going to the library and destroying anything that could possibly be contrued as offending them. Nothing was left, not even the thesaurus.

[littlemanpoet]

Translation broadens our topic. Perhaps it is not language. But I recall that Tolkien was generally displeased with many of the translations into other languages because the translators thought they knew so much and actually knew so little, which drove JRRT to distraction.

Still, to the degree that the translations are true to Tolkien's careful word choices (not to mention all the other aspects of story), LotR seems to reach down to something that contemporary novelistic fiction can't touch. Myth made applicable to people now.

On page 221 of Author of the Century, Shippey relates Northrop Frye's five literary modes:

• myth - the characters in a work are 'superior in kind both to other men and to the environment of other men' ... the 'hero is a divine being and the story about him will be myth'
• romance - characters are superior only in 'degree (not kind) to other men, and again to their environment'
• high mimesis - (tragedy or epic) - where the heroes and heroines are 'superior in degree to other men but not to natural environment'
• low mimesis - level of the classical novel - characters are on a level with us in abilities, though maybe not in social class
• irony - we see ourselves looking down on people weaker or more ignorant than us

LotR, according to Shippey, functions at all levels at different times, depending upon the purpose at a given point in the story. This gives it scope such that it can deal with issues in a way that a story written in only one of the five modes, cannot.

So think of these characters, and think about what mode(s) s/he is written at:

Gandalf
Samwise
Frodo
Saruman
Sauron
Aragorn
Boromir
Gaffer Gamgee
Tom Bombadil
Elrond
Eowyn
Faramir
Denethor
Theoden

What's the point? Maybe this is a little bit of the sixpence, and maybe this helps explain why contemporary literati simply can't get their minds around what LotR is doing.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

. . . .

• myth - the characters in a work are 'superior in kind both to other men and to the environment of other men' ... the 'hero is a divine being and the story about him will be myth'
• romance - characters are superior only in 'degree (not kind) to other men, and again to their environment'
• high mimesis - (tragedy or epic) - where the heroes and heroines are 'superior in degree to other men but not to natural environment'
• low mimesis - level of the classical novel - characters are on a level with us in abilities, though maybe not in social class
• irony - we see ourselves looking down on people weaker or more ignorant than us

LotR, according to Shippey, functions at all levels at different times, depending upon the purpose at a given point in the story. This gives it scope such that it can deal with issues in a way that a story written in only one of the five modes, cannot.

So think of these characters, and think about what mode(s) s/he is written at:

Gandalf
Samwise
Frodo
Saruman
Sauron
Aragorn
Boromir
Gaffer Gamgee
Tom Bombadil
Elrond
Eowyn
Faramir
Denethor
Theoden

What's the point? Maybe this is a little bit of the sixpence, and maybe this helps explain why contemporary literati simply can't get their minds around what LotR is doing.

Well, I was hoping to have time to comment on your idea about Hebrew/Classical/Germanic sources for western culture and now I have this to consider! The first idea is intriguing, especially thinking of Matthew Arnold's thesis about the two cultures, the Hebraic and the Greek. "Barbarian" cultures had much to overcome in terms of aesthetic and cultural assumptions.

But time only for a quick observation. Isn't it true that usually (although not always), irony is considered not compatible with myth or romance? I can see myth, romance and the two forms of mimesis operating at different times in LotR, but to what degree is irony represented? I'm not saying we can't find irony in it, but I wonder how much an ironic stance would impede or obstruct the mythic or heroic stance.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, I was hoping to have time to comment on your idea about Hebrew/Classical/Germanic sources for western culture and now I have this to consider! The first idea is intriguing, especially thinking of Matthew Arnold's thesis about the two cultures, the Hebraic and the Greek. "Barbarian" cultures had much to overcome in terms of aesthetic and cultural assumptions.

But time only for a quick observation. Isn't it true that usually (although not always), irony is considered not compatible with myth or romance? I can see myth, romance and the two forms of mimesis operating at different times in LotR, but to what degree is irony represented? I'm not saying we can't find irony in it, but I wonder how much an ironic stance would impede or obstruct the mythic or heroic stance.

Sorry to overload thee!
From memory
since I do not have the book with me...
Usually, yes, if not handled well.
Tolkien however chooses his story to tell
through the mediation of halfling wit
to whit,
hobbits such as Gaffer,
always a laugher,
give us a chance to look down
at a perspective lesser than our own
as a mediation from the high
such as Elves who are not so nigh.

[Bêthberry]

I'd like to turn this thread back to an earlier comment lmp made on it.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

On page 221 of Author of the Century, Shippey relates Northrop Frye's five literary modes:

• myth - the characters in a work are 'superior in kind both to other men and to the environment of other men' ... the 'hero is a divine being and the story about him will be myth'
• romance - characters are superior only in 'degree (not kind) to other men, and again to their environment'
• high mimesis - (tragedy or epic) - where the heroes and heroines are 'superior in degree to other men but not to natural environment'
• low mimesis - level of the classical novel - characters are on a level with us in abilities, though maybe not in social class
• irony - we see ourselves looking down on people weaker or more ignorant than us

Now, I've lately been doing some reading other than Tolkien--don't laugh, some of us do escape his lure from time to time!--some of which has to do with how we understand language. And I've been wondering about this last description of irony. Does Shippey really describe Frye's sense of irony as "looking down on people weaker or more ignorant than us?" 'Cause I really don't see that as Frye's or the more common understanding of irony.

Here's a couple of online definitions: Cambridge online ; Dictionary.com.

This might ramble a bit, and I'm not sure where it's going, but I wonder about this idea that irony involves words which mean other than they first appear to mean.
This is just an extension of all literary language, which is non-literal, much like metaphor itself. It also might suggest deceit in some hands, of course, and that might itself be something absent from Tolkien. (Hmm, this could get us into that old 'poetry never lies' thing.)

So, I've been thinking, this kind of irony, how common is it in Tolkien's art? How common are metaphors, for that matter?

Maybe it is the absence of this kind of literary language which drew the ire of critics? After all, the modernist writers were heavy on irony and detachment. Is it possible that Tolkien, in aspiring to write a history for his fantasy, in fact created a style which ran against the main tendency of story, to create non-literal language? Could those critics have been spooked by Tolkien's attempt not at fantasy but at making fantasy appear real, historical, literal?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I've been reading Patrick Curry's Defending Middle-Earth and found some good thoughts in the section "Readers vs. Critics" of his introductory chapter. Here are two pertinent quotes:

...the literary community, whose silence on Tolkien ... is broken only by an occasional snort of derision which seems to pass for analysis.

The single greatest obstacle to appreciating Tolkien's work is sheer literary snobbery.

The rest is well worth reading, but time constraints allow me only to serve this little appetizer that will hopefully intrigue others to read the whole menu!

[HerenIstarion]

I'm up to half of the first page, but lest I forget to do it when I read it through and (if) find myself disposed to longer post, I'll post the link now - Tolkien - Enemy of Progress. Seems relevant. With regards to pulling critics of that kind to see for themselves - Mr. Brin was personally invited by yours truly to come and see for himself, but, as far as my knowledge reaches, never appeared.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I'm up to half of the first page, but lest I forget to do it when I read it through and (if) find myself disposed to longer post, I'll post the link now - Tolkien - Enemy of Progress. Seems relevant. With regards to pulling critics of that kind to see for themselves - Mr. Brin was personally invited by yours truly to come and see for himself, but, as far as my knowledge reaches, never appeared.

Very interesting article - and the one from which Johann Hari quoted too. Brin has at the very least considered the issue and not simply thrown out random unpleasantries like so many of the critics seem to have done. Though I am quite at a loss as to say exactly what Brin is railing against in Tolkien's work; it seems to be the very idea that it is set in a kind of world that has passed. If this is the case then I cannot fathom why this is such a 'bad thing'. There are reams of historical novels available, many of them in the literary fiction genre; just to pick one which has a nostalgic view of the past - Ishiguro's Remains of the Day. Regret and looking back are major themes in fiction. Perhaps the critics then do not like Tolkien's use of historical images as he does not use them ironically? To suggest decay?

Or does he? Decay, as we know, is one of Tolkien's most important themes. I think that if critics could for one moment get over the fact that in Tolkien's work there happen to be horses rather than Porsches, swords instead of guns and kings instead of CEOs then they may begin to see some of the worth in the writing. I am not sure what some people expect to be honest, after all, Tolkien's work is fantasy, so of course it is not full of modern things! But if they could get over themselves and their self-congratulatory feelings that they live in such an enlightened age (debatable to say the least) then they may find that in fact Tolkien's work raises incredibly modern questions. And no, I won't list them here again...that would take forever...

[littlemanpoet]

Is not the expectation amongst the literati some combination exclusively of low mimesis & irony? Is it not the supposed failure of Tolkien's works to meet this expectation that has caused the literati to reject it without due consideration?

mayhap:
"I want my ironic characters to be human, not some kind of d****d fairy hobbit!"
or:
"A hero? What kind of good story that means anything for today have a bloody hero who wields a sword? What, am I expected to read Conan the Barbarian next?" (sneeringly)
or:
"If I'm expected to read about gods and goddesses, the least he could do is have sex or some kind of Freudian issue; or at the very least, make it politically relevant. I mean, really!"
et cetera....

[drigel]

In any group, there are always some who always take an inverse philosophical approach. The eternal outsider, as the Brin article suggests, will decry the uplifting of any civilization, as it will inevitably do so on the backs of others, especially from the persepective of an easterner or an orc. The very fact that that the subject of the works is western European in scope automatically causes ire to some.