Archetypes in Faerie - Tolkien and Psychology

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Recently, I read a very thought-provoking article on (Jungian) archetypes in LotR and Frodo’s journey as the description of an individuation process. Here’s the link:

www.crosscurrents.org/tolkien.htm

Since then, I’ve been thinking about aspects I hadn’t looked at that closely before. I’d like to hear your opinions on the article and on the psychology that is inherent in the mythology of Tolkien’s writings. Again (as on the “Bible” thread), we are talking about applicability and interpretation, not allegory or intention!

[goldwine]

Thanks for the interesting link Esty. I think that Tolkien would have appreciated the comparisons to Beowulf and contrasts to Milton, but I wonder if the Jung parallels would have sat as easily. We are really not talking about intention, as you mentioned Esty. And yet as the following quote points out many of the elements found in LOTR were appreciated by Tolkien in Beowulf:
"In the essay on Beowulf, Tolkien especially appreciates the balance and "opposition of ends and beginnings, the progress from youth to old age in the hero, and the satisfaction that comes from perceiving the "rising and setting"[12] of a life."
While on many levels I found it confrontational, I really appreciated some of the points that were brought out.I loved this quote:
"Examples could be multiplied, but Tolkien plainly enough indicates throughout The Lord of the Rings that on some profound level a traditional providence is at work in the unfolding of events. And in a world where men must die, where there are no havens, where the tragedy of exile is an enduring truth, the sense, never full, always intermittent, of a providential design, is also a glimpse of joy." I will look forward to reading everyones thoughts!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Thank you for the link. When I first saw that the author was going to investigate the analogy between Tolkien and Jung, I had a sinking feeling that I might want to go running in the opposite direction. My fear was that he would reduce the book to a series of strict archetypes with no room for any other interpretations or views. Too often, I have seen this happen--a closed mind set on the part of a critic with no ability to look outside a very narrow set of boundaries.

I actually found the essay more enjoyable and insightful than I had at first anticipated. I was most impressed with the fact that the author did not claim his own interpretation as the sole prism for understanding Tolkien's characters and writings. He fully acknowledges Tolkien's views on Christian heroism and sub-creation. Moreover, his own discussion of Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn and their relation to the Jungian archetypes was quite interesting. I skimmed the article quickly, and I would have to go through it more carefully to say anything more specific than that. I agree with the earlier poster that Tolkien might not feel comfortable with this type of analysis, and yet I feel that there are some real points of interest here.

One other question. Wasn't there another book written in 1979 which also used a similar methodology? I think it was Timothy R. O'Neill's The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien, and the Archetypes of Middle Earth. I don't have the latter book and have never had the chance to read it. Has anyone else read this book? How does it compare with the essay? I can't find any references to this volume in Grant's footnotes and I'm wondering why this is so. Maybe it is there and I'm not seeing it. It is REALLY late and I am almost falling asleep
Hope this post is semi-coherent! sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[littlemanpoet]

I have not read the link you provided yet - it's late - but I do want to comment on the topic. I have subscribed to Mythlore magazine, published by the Mythopoeic Society, for a little more than fifteen years, during which time Jungian archetypes have been discussed from time to time. I readily agree that the archetypes are there in LotR. I think that they can be found in all fantasy works, and in much other literature as well. I would never go so far as to say that a fantasy is about its archetypes, but I think that it will inevitably, necessarily, employ them. How it employs them is part of what I find so interesting in fantasy works - at least in second and third readings. I will read the link when I have a chance.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

After almost a year and several occasions on which I have brought up this excellent essay in hopes of generating more discussion on the topic of archetypes in Tolkien, I'm trying again... (And yes, Helen, I did pick up your suggestion to change the title to something a bit catchier to make it more interesting! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] )

[davem]

I fear we're always on dangerous ground with Jung. What too many people forget is that he saw himself first & foremost as a physician, not a philosopher or theologian. His approach to everything from myth to alchemy was intensely practical, & he would happily alter meanings & emphasis in ancient texts if it suited his purpose (ie helping his patients).
Jungians tend to do the same. They also have an annoying tendency to think they can add somthing of value to art, literature & human creativity generally by dragging Jung in. I wish they'd stick to dream analysis & leave art to the Elves.
I'm not saying there's nothing good in this essay, but I think the valid points could have been made without dragging Jung into things. In fact, the really interesting ideas in the essay come out of Christianity rather than Jungian theory.
There aren't any 'archetypes' in Faerie, anyway - whether you understand Faerie in the way Tolkien himself understood it, or in the way our ancestors understood it. Faerie is too complex, shifting & 'alive'. Archetypes, ultimately are 'labels'. Faerie, as Tolkien would be the first to state, is about something much deeper & more alive, than 'labels'.

[mark12_30]

davem, all right, I see your point. Faerie is shifting and changing, and not static.

But the point has been made before that all who came after Tolkien FEEL like cheap imitations, because Tolkien had a wizard, so anybody who has a wizard after that is obviously copying Tolkien. Same with elves, heroes, dwarves, whatnot. Fill in the blank!

Looking backward into mythologies (I for one am grateful at least to David Day for his book Tolkien's Ring) one may notice similarities and influences, and I view archetypes as one way to talk about those influences. I don't like limiting Tolkien; he tends to defy that anyway; but as a writer, I want to know, what's fair game! Okay, so if I use "hobbits", that's copyrighted. So is "Elrond" and "Valinor", and lots of other things too, I suppose. But (for example) The Tuatha De Danaan are not copyrighted. I could "use" them. Tolkien let himself be influeced by a lot of other tales, myths, and legends, faerie tales, and ... other whatnot. Even Shakespeare, in a one-upmanship sort of way...

Archetypes give me one more glimpse into what I can use. Looking at Tolkien's work through a variety of lenses, I am hoping, will help me to see which realms are exclusively his, and which realms may be shared or used as springboards.

I don't think Tolkien would have approved of all the Jung-addicts out there either, nor how they apply what they do (I did a web search on archetypes-- yyeeeesh.) But I thought the essay was a good way of looking at the Ring-quest in an elemental way, and seeing it from a different angle.

[drigel]

I agree with Davem. We are so far away from "defining" these elements. I consider Jung as the initial baby steps towards understanding them. We are just scratching the surface. I think aesthetics are the basis of all the subcreation and symbolism. Like the Dragons of Eden, there is a reason we all seem to have the same motivation. Can this be defined by science? I dont know.....

[davem]

Mark, I would'nt dispute there is some value in taking a 'Jungian' approach to LotR. I'd just question how much value. Jungian theory was developed as a diagnostic/therapeutic tool to help cure neurosis. (I speak as someone who, a long time ago, read a LOT of Jung. I must have 50-60 books on Jungian psychology gathering dust on my shelves). Jung, in his later life, tried to apply his theories to explaining religion, art, science, etc, with varying degrees of success, but it wasn't designed for that. You may as well try & analyse LotR by performing a CAT scan on it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] . As I said, I'm sure you can find something in a Jungian approach to LotR, but whether it will be any use, or whether it will lead you off in a completely false direction is the real question.

[littlemanpoet]

Hello again everyone. I've been working too much and not playing - here - enough. Allow me to mention that I and others have mentioned Jungian archetypes and such on the following threads:

"Are You Writing Serious Fantasy?"

...and...

"Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)"

...and...

"Eagles: Heroes Without Depth"

...and...

"Pity Inspiring"

...and...

"It feels different near the Shire..."

Granted, it's a lot of reading, but who knows? You might actually enjoy meandering down those old roads.... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

I posted my "links" post before I read the nature of the latest debate. Other than being disappointed that it has turned into a debate over the value of Jungian categories being applied to Tolkien and Faerie... - I find it interesting, davem, that your criticism of Jung trying to apply his archetypes/diagnostic schemes to religion/philosophy/etc., could just as easily be applied to Tolkien in that JRRT left off subcreating and in later life started theologizing and philosophizing instead. Are we looking at two examples of "the folly of old age"? Or is the criticism just as invalid regarding Jung as it has been argued to have been regarding Tolkien? Granted, we're not talking precisely apples/apples, here, but it's close.

Nevertheless, I must argue against the idea that Jungian archetypes may only be used as diagnostic tools. The very fact that they can be applied to literary analysis, not to mention subcreation, speaks to the robustness of Jungian archetypes as creatively coalescing ideas in their own right.

I found it interesting, Helen, that you were speaking as a writer more than as a reader in your recent posts here. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Does that have to do, perhaps with our agreement on this, I wonder? (both writers) In other words, writers may have more invested in Jungain archetypes than do readers. I don't know if that's true, but it could be.

What does need to be remembered about Jungian archetypes and their application to Tolkien is the same thing that must be remembered about any model, literary or otherwise: they are models. They have their limits, and they are invariably wrong - somehow. Ask anyone who professionally works with "models" - that is, systems and strategies and such - and they will tell you that EVERY model is limited, and will break down at some point. Just like analogies. So Jungian archetypes can be useful, and analagous, but they will not be the only model that works or is valid.

[mark12_30]

lmp, I'm glad you posted those links. I hope to find time to meander down those old paths at some point.

In answer to your question-- yes, I think we agree as writers. I found the article on archetypes stimulating and intriguing, similar to my reaction to a rather cute, fun site called The Hero's Journey. After stumbling on that site and nosing around in it a bit, I was stunned that Bolco follows as many elements in that pattern as he does. The story is no epic, and is in essence a study in mysticism, in the same sense that Tolkien stated (letter 152) "He (Frodo) is rather a study of a hobbit broken by a burden of fear and horror-- broken down, and in the end made into something quite different." To me that shouted "Dark Night Of The Soul", and that theme grew as I wrote Bolco; I had no intentions of writing a "hero's quest"; I thought I was writing a mystical, religious work, in the style of George MacDonald. And-- what do you know-- as I look at the (almost) finished work, many of the elements of the hero's quest pop up and surprise me. I had no idea. (The whole thing started with a confused hobbit at a train station. So how did I end up with a "quest"? I'm still scratching my head over that one.)

So that has got me wondering, now, about these archetypes, and different ways of looking at stories; as lmp mentioned, no model is perfect, but I sure wouldn't have thought of applying the "quest" model to Bolco, either. It doesn't apply perfectly. But having read the "quest" model outline, now, it certainly has a much larger impact on me as a writer than it would have before I had written Bolco. In the same vein, the article on Archetypes would not have phased me, I think, if I had not been writing.

I think the thing that fascinates me so much about Tolkien, and that inspires me so much, is that he sometimes surprised even himself. The quote from the back of the Letters is the one I return to again and again: "I met a lot of things along the way that astonished me. Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the corner of the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who he was than Frodo did. The Mines of Moria had been a mere name; and of Lothlorien no word had reached my mortal ears til I came there." (Letter 163)

I knew I wanted to write, and that quote pushed me into it; if Tolkien could write blind, not knowing who the characters were that were popping into his stories, I did not have to know, either.

But Bolco is at last winding down; the climax is written, and it is time to tie up the loose ends. The Fairy Wife I think is at last finished and polished (lindil, if you are watching, the first chapter is now posted on the downs.) So where do I go from here?


I've gone on long enough and probably strayed way off topic. I started off saying, lmp, thanks for the links!

--Helen

[ April 12, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[The Saucepan Man]

It's a long time since I read any Jung, but I did have quite an interest in his ideas (in particular on dream interpretation) at one time. So some of the ideas that are discussed in that article rang some long-forgeotten bells with me.

One point that occurs to me is that it should not be a question of applying Jungian ideas to JRRT's world, but rather identifying in that world the pre-existing concepts that Jung identified in developing his theory of psychoanalysis. As I recall (and aided in my recollection by reading the article), Jung's archetypes were identified by him as being part of the human collective consciousness. They were not invented by him, but were already alive and kicking in mythic tradition and centuries of story-telling. He simply applied them as a psychoanalytical tool. And since JRRT drew heavily on mythology and epic tales in creating the world of ME, it s no surprise that the archetypes that Jung described are present in his works.

I found the article most interesting (thanks Esty) and agree with most of the analysis presented of the characters in LotR (although I am not so sure about Shelob as a representation of the dark side of the female anima - horrific though she is, I just don't see her as a powerful enough figure to gain that kind of status within the story as a whole). Clearly, both Frodo and Aragorn fit the "hero" role, each having their own quest to fulfil within the book. But I think that each member of the Fellowship are, in their own individual ways, "hero" figures. Indeed the Fellowship might be see as a kind of collective "hero". It had a Quest to fulfill, and each character represented certain strengths and weaknesses. With the breaking of the Fellowship, the story focuses on the individual Quests of Frodo and Aragorn. But the other characters also have their own inner journeys to make. For example, I always found the transformation of Merry and Pippin from two ordinary young Hobbits into the rounded and confident individuals that they are at the end (culminating with the Scouring of the Shire) one of the most endearing aspects of the second two books. As a result of the experiences that they undergo, they are able to find their "inner selves".

One of the most interesting points that the article touches on is the idea of Boromir as the flawed hero. Although it is perhaps unfair to attribute his downfall solely to pride and a desire for sef-glorification, that downfall is nevertheless a product of him attacing too much importance to his own agenda. His concern is with his people and their struggle with the darkness, and so he is unable to see the "big picture". Since he cannot see much beyond what Jung would describe as his ego (ie the interests of his people) he becomes vulnerable to the dark seduction of the Ring and (although redeeming himself as a character) fails in his own personal Quest.

It would be intresting to look for these archetypes in the Silmarillion. I suppose that "hero" figures abound, although very few are able to complete their Quests. Feanor and Turon are both, I suppose, flawed heroes, Feanor being defeated by his own pride, although Turin seems to have little choice in the woes that he undergoes. On the other hand heroes such as Beren, Tuor and Earendil are able to complete their Quests. The anima figures are there in Melian and Luthien and also perhaps Morwen and Nienna. There is no clear wise old man figure, although I suppose that this might be the role of the Valar and the Maiar. They offer guidance at times to the heroes (Ulmo in particular) and, in the War of Wrath, arrive to save a hopeless situation.

So, I agree very much with the article that these archetypes do exist in JRRT's world. By looking for them in his works, we are not applying Jung's ideas to those works, but rather identifying in them the archetypal figures that pre-existed both JRRT and Jung, but were drawn upon by both of them in their respective endeavours.

[littlemanpoet]

"Mythic archtypes pre-existing both Tolkien and Jung". Excellent point, Saucepan Man Just one minor correction: it was the "collective unconscious". Like I said, minor. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Helen:

So where do I go from here?

May I suggest that you take a peak at my sig? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I found your ruminations on how your story developed quite fascinating and instructional! Thanks for posting it up! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 13, 2003: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[davem]

My problem with taking a Jungian approach to any art is that it wasn't designed for that purpose. Its a mis appication of Jungs theories. Its not an issue of whether Archetypes are 'real' or not. Jung didn't just develop the concept of Archetypes, he developed the concept as part of a therapeutic method. The Legendarium is not a product of a neurotic mind (except to the extent that we're all neurotic to some degree!).
Besides, it seems to me we're on shaky ground with 'Archetypes' as the post-Jungian approach seems to be to label pretty much any figure or event in every myth, legend, fairy tale, dream & fantasy as an 'Archetype', & then go on to say how the theory of Archetypes must be true - look at all these Archtypes we've discovered! I just think its gone too far.
Also, let's not forget that Jung would 'interpret' myths, legends & ancient texts in his own way. Often he 'translates' & interprets the ancient writings in the light of his own theories, & then, amazingly, finds those writings 'confirm' his theories. He is especially guilty of this in his writings on alchemy, which had been investigated & analysed as a reflection of psychological processes long before Jung got around to doing it - despite what his followers might claim. I'd refer anyone to the chapter on Alchemy in Evelyn Underhill's book Mysticism, for example.
LMP, I have to say I think Tolkien's analysis of his own creation is different, not least in that he has a special insight into the subject, & especially in that he isn't trying to make the Legendarium 'fit' into a pre-concieved 'world view'.
Finally, I don't want to come over as anti Jung. I'm really not. But, as I said, Analytical Psychology was designed to cure sick people, not analyse Art. If it had been desined to analyse art, I suspect it would'nt have been very effective at treating neurosis!