LotR, an Edwardian Adventure Story?

[littlemanpoet]

Below is a rather "book reportish" summary of a book I've read twice. Feel free to skip and scan. I suggest, at the least, to check out the "characteristics of Edwardian adventure story" list, and the questions that follow at the end of this post. For those with a more literary bent and interest, I invite you to read this entire post.
------------------------
Jared Lobdell wrote a book called England and Always: Tolkien's World of the Rings, published by Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI in 1981. Many of you may have missed this little treatise; I have it partly because I live in the town where it was published. Jared Lobdell was also the editor of The Tolkien Compass. So much for background.

Lobdell offers an explanation for why LotR is so despised by modern critics, or what we have been calling the "literati". It should be said at the outset that such an explanation was not the primary motivation for his book. Lobdell's self professed motivation was to write a book that discusses the "four most obvious facts about the author's life"(vii). These are that: (1) Tolkien grew to manhood in the years before the Great War; (2) he was a philologist; (3) he was Roman Catholic; (4) LotR is one of the most successful works of modern times. Granted, these themes have been covered here and by books written since 1981 quite thoroughly. .... which makes Lobdell's differing perspective all that much more intriguing.

To summarize, Lobdell says that Tolkien has written an Edwardian adventure story.
----------------------------
Characteristics of Edwardian adventure story:

• a particular object associated with the adventure
• a fictional travelogue, or at least a travel story
• framed in familiarity
• odd and inexplicable things happen
• enchanted scenery & stock characters as in a dream
• characters are types
• nature itself is a character
• black-and-white morality
• a band of brothers/we happy few/a fellowship
• an eccentric, mysterious, and powerful leader
• story is told by one of the fellowship who has survived
• mysterious character indwelling the world itself
• nature is itself in a way supernatural
• past is alive in the present
• frankly aristocratic in its conventions

(11-19)
------------------------
Examples Lobdell provides of Edwardian adventure stories and their authors:

• G.K. Chesterton, The Man who was Thursday (which I've read), The Everlasting Man, The Napoleon of Notting Hill
• H. Ryder Haggard, She, King Solomon's Mines
• Algernon Blackwood, The Willows, Strange Stories
• Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows
• Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles
• Rudyard Kipling
• Masefield
• G. A. Henty
• Robert Louis Stevenson
• P. G. Wodehouse
• Farnol

(11-19)

I don't know a lot of these authors, but note them for the sake of completeness.

Lobdell admits great dissimilarities between the many books and authors listed, but finds this intriguing connection, which he reiterates a number of times:

Mr. Colin Wilson reads Farnol's novels and Tolkien's three-decker for much the same reasons. ... Mr. Aldiss reads Tolkien at least for some of the reasons he reads Wodehouse. ... some readers turn to Tolkien for the same reason that others turn to 221B Baker Street.(13)

Agree with Lobdell or not, he puts forward a clear and persuasive case.

So what?

Well, this:

That LotR is an exemplar of this Edwardian mode is at the root of the adverse reactions by such readers as William Ready and Edmund Wilson.(19)

Lobdell goes on to say:

...we will be armed against a tendency to attack (or defend) Tolkien on the wrong grounds if we can determine what the proper grounds are --- that is, what LotR is intended to be.(23)

Further:

The greater the success of LotR as an adventure story in the Edwardian mode, the more those who dislike adventure stories in the Edwardian mode will seek to denigrate and depreciate it. .... the dislike runs deeper for this mode than for others ...

Then Lobdell outlines what one finds in the adventure story written in the period, roughly 1950 to 1975:

the morally ambiguous: the hard-drinking and hard-wenching private eye, the solipsistic James Bond, the not-so-good sheriff and not-so-bad outlaw.

To his list I will make so bold as to add Han Solo and the hero and sherrif in Clint Eastwood's movie, "The Unforgiven".

I'm tempted to ask if we have here stumbled upon "the six-pence", but that is a question for those who wish to discuss it on that (albeit related) thread: "What does the six-pence =?"
-------------------
Now for the questions.

Do you agree that LotR fits all or most of Lobdell's characteristics of the Edwardian mode? (such as?)

Do you think that some of these Edwardian characteristics may perhaps reflect an issue that you have with LotR? (please relate)

I wrote a marginal note by way of summary of a certain section in Lobdell's book that he is basically saying that Tolkien was the J.S. Bach of the Ewardian adventure story. What do you think of such a characterization?

Feel free to discuss any other aspects of this introductory post, take issue with any assertions, et cetera.

[Lalwendë]

Those characteristics of the 'Edwardian Adventure Story' could equally apply to the genre of Magic Realism, so I although they are applicable to the former genre, I think they can also be applied to others, and so maybe it is appropriate to discover what they too may be before classifying Tolkien in that genre.

I think where the 'Edwardian' moniker often springs from is that Tolkien's work at face value alone is like those well-known adventure stories, but as we know, it goes much deeper than being a simple adventure. At heart, Tolkien's work gives out some fundamentally modern messages - pessimism that the world will ever be free of war, the abuse of power, how the humblest members of society can play an important part, how Kings must 'earn' their respect, etc.... I think Tolkien also suffers somewhat because some cannot see beyond his religious beliefs and they cannot accept a writer who is religious as 'modern'.

I also think that in contrast to the list the writer has presented us with, Tolkien's work is much less didactic - witness the huge amount of arguments we have on here about characters, motivations and messages. You just could not have that level of argument about say RL Stevenson or Rudyard Kipling.

So, I think Tolkien's work does display some of those characteristics, and so it does share something with the Edwardian adventure story, but it is very different and much, much deeper.

[davem]

From the list given we know that Tolkien had certainly read & been influenced by Haggard's She, & very probably by Chesterton's novels (I'm currently reading the Father Brown stories & I'm strongly reminded of Tolkien's fiction/philosophy:'All things are from God; & above all, reason & imagination & the great gifts of the mind. They are good in themselves; & we must not altogether forget their origin even in their perversion.', etc. He seems to have been familiar with 'Wind in the Willows' too, from comments in OFS.

I think its inevitable that he would have been influenced by the fiction that was around during his formative years, in terms of narrative structure & style. That he transcends it is beyond question, of course.

There have been numerous analyses of the way Tolkien was influenced by ancient myths, but the influence on him of contemporary literature has received less attention. Certainly William Morris was a major influence, as was George MacDonald, & probably Lord Dunsany (in The Gods of Pegana pub 1905, there is a god called Limpang Tung, the god of mirth & melodious minstrels. 'Go out into the starry night, & Limpang Tung will dance with thee, who danced when the gods were young...Or sometimes walking through the dusk with steps unheard by men, in a form unseen by the people, Limpang Tung goeth abroad...' .http://www.harvestfields.ca/ebook/02/056/12.htm. When I first read that I couldn't help but be reminded of Tinfang Warble in the BoLT. Even the names sound similar.

Hopefully in the forthcoming Tolkien Companion & Guide we'll get some info on what Tolkien read

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Those characteristics of the 'Edwardian Adventure Story' could equally apply to the genre of Magic Realism, so I although they are applicable to the former genre, I think they can also be applied to others, and so maybe it is appropriate to discover what they too may be before classifying Tolkien in that genre.

I'm unfamiliar with Magic Realism. Could you expand, please, Lal?

Originally Posted by Lal

I think where the 'Edwardian' moniker often springs from is that Tolkien's work at face value alone is like those well-known adventure stories, but as we know, it goes much deeper than being a simple adventure.

Quite. Lobdell's answer is

I could also point out that Milton's "Epic following Nature" [Paradise Lost, I presume(?)] is very like an adventure story --- perhaps, indeed, it would be well to note this as a corrective to the view that an adventure story is an inferior thing.

If this is so, then Haggard, Stevenson, et. al., are not its best progenitors, I would suppose.

Originally Posted by davem

From the list given we know that Tolkien had certainly read & been influenced by Haggard's She, & very probably by Chesterton's novels.

Yes. Lobdell says this:

Indeed, in a telephone conversation with the American journalist Henry Resnick, Tolkien said this of Haggard's She: "I suppose as a boy She interested me as much as anything --- like the Greek shard of Amyntas, which was the kind of machine by which everything got moving."

Then Lobdell points out similarities between the death of Ayesha (the She in the story) and Saruman: they both get smaller and smaller, their skin becoming old, old, as if haggard with many many years.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

No time now for an extended reply, but this musical analogy is intriguing. If you view Tolkien as the Bach, who would be the Mozart? Perhaps Wilson et al could be Salieri?

Hmmmm...... by Bach I refer to Tolkien as the last and greatest, if one accepts the Edwardian adventure mode premise, wrapping up an entire period of literature as did Bach with the Baroque era of music.

Mozart? A man with incredible talent, cut off in his prime by bad luck, composing his greatest music in the midst of great suffering, who showed every sign of breaking out into the Romantic movement ahead of Beethoven had he been given the years to do it. If the Baroque is comparable to the Edwardian adventure story, the Roccocco/Classical period was a turn away from that which is clearly directly comparable to For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Great Gatsby, The Grapes of Wrath, etc. So who from literature got his or her start in that mode, and would have broken out into Romantic myth making had s/he been given the chance? I haven't a clue. Orwell? Golding?

Salieri? Someone who was very successful in his time, but forgotten soon after? How would I know? S/he's forgotten.

[Lalwendë]

I'm unfamiliar with Magic Realism. Could you expand, please, Lal?

Well, at one level, it's the fantasy that it is OK for the literati to like. But being serious, it's fiction where the boundaries of reality and fantasy are blurred, it is often associated with South American writers (though by no means is exclusive to them) and plays about with the readers' perceptions of time, gender, history etc. It is sometimes political, satirical, and often strays far into the genres of fantasy and sci-fi. The main difference between magic realism and edwardian adventure stories is that in the former, there are few clear boundaries between right and wrong.

The most famous writer would probably be Gabriel Garcia Marquez; Isabel Allende's House of the Spirits, a weird mix of politics, ghosts and girls born with green hair is one of my favourite books. There is also Angela Carter who explored fairy stories in much of her fiction (the film Company of Wolves is based on one of her short stories), taking a feminist perspective and creating incredible magic One of her characters may or may not have had wings - I wonder if fans debate the issue in the manner of the balrog wing debate. Salman Rushdie is sometimes classed in the genre but it has a really wide scope - sometimes Neil Gaiman is included, and I'd say Susanna Clarke's novel also strays into the territory.

It is not secondary world fantasy but nor is it reality. Nature, history, enchantment, cruelty, ghosts, demons, eccentrics, almost anything goes as long as it adds to the sense of 'magic'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I wrote a marginal note by way of summary of a certain section in Lobdell's book that he is basically saying that Tolkien was the J.S. Bach of the Ewardian adventure story. What do you think of such a characterization?

No time now for an extended reply, but this musical analogy is intriguing. If you view Tolkien as the Bach, who would be the Mozart? Perhaps Wilson et al could be Salieri?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

To summarize, Lobdell says that Tolkien has written an Edwardian adventure story.
----------------------------
Characteristics of Edwardian adventure story:

• a particular object associated with the adventure
• a fictional travelogue, or at least a travel story
• framed in familiarity
• odd and inexplicable things happen
• enchanted scenery & stock characters as in a dream
• characters are types
• nature itself is a character
• black-and-white morality
• a band of brothers/we happy few/a fellowship
• an eccentric, mysterious, and powerful leader
• story is told by one of the fellowship who has survived
• mysterious character indwelling the world itself
• nature is itself in a way supernatural
• past is alive in the present
• frankly aristocratic in its conventions

(11-19)
------------------------
Examples Lobdell provides of Edwardian adventure stories and their authors:

• G.K. Chesterton, The Man who was Thursday (which I've read), The Everlasting Man, The Napoleon of Notting Hill
• H. Ryder Haggard, She, King Solomon's Mines
• Algernon Blackwood, The Willows, Strange Stories
• Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows
• Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles
• Rudyard Kipling
• Masefield
• G. A. Henty
• Robert Louis Stevenson
• P. G. Wodehouse
• Farnol

(11-19)

I don't know a lot of these authors, but note them for the sake of completeness.

Lobdell admits great dissimilarities between the many books and authors listed, but finds this intriguing connection, which he reiterates a number of times:


Agree with Lobdell or not, he puts forward a clear and persuasive case.

So what?

Well, this:
Lobdell goes on to say:
Further:

Then Lobdell outlines what one finds in the adventure story written in the period, roughly 1950 to 1975:To his list I will make so bold as to add Han Solo and the hero and sherrif in Clint Eastwood's movie, "The Unforgiven".

I'm tempted to ask if we have here stumbled upon "the six-pence", but that is a question for those who wish to discuss it on that (albeit related) thread: "What does the six-pence =?"
-------------------
Now for the questions.

Do you agree that LotR fits all or most of Lobdell's characteristics of the Edwardian mode? (such as?)

Do you think that some of these Edwardian characteristics may perhaps reflect an issue that you have with LotR? (please relate)

I wrote a marginal note by way of summary of a certain section in Lobdell's book that he is basically saying that Tolkien was the J.S. Bach of the Ewardian adventure story. What do you think of such a characterization?

Feel free to discuss any other aspects of this introductory post, take issue with any assertions, et cetera.

Okay, I will reply with more seriousness this time.

I have to wonder about Lobdell's terms of reference. Here at the end you say he uses 1950 to 1975 to pinpoint adventure stories, but these years are not the Edwardian years, which are the years between Victoria's death and the start of The War to End All Wars, named after the reign of Edward VII (1901-1910). (Spot of English history for the Yankee chap. ) Lobdell's list omits writers of the time such as Joseph Conrad, who explored European colonialism in Africa, and of course D.H. Lawrence, the lad who had a bit of a fixation on some things.

I suppose my thoughts about his list and how it pertains to Tollers has to do with merely picking out events and features of narrative. Perhaps a bit more social and cultural and political context might help place Lobdell's ideas in perspective?

For instance, isn't the Titanic story the epitome of Edwardian conceits? All those rich upper deck types and the riff raff below and the end of the eras of privilege and majesty. Maybe his ideas might be brought out better, too, by thinking about the movie Chariots of Fire. Yes, I know this was a 1981 movie, but it was about what makes men run, what it means to be establishment, what is means to be English and although set in the 1924 Olympics, so many of the establishing moments are flashbacks to 1919 Oxford, the lads being the first class after the war. Is this the sort of thing you and Lobdell find in Tolkien?

Originally Posted by Eric Liddell

impertinence lies, sir, with those who seek to influence a man to deny his beliefs.

[davem]

We also know that Tolkien was a fan of Science fiction - probably Wells (he refers to Morlocks in one of his letters), David Lindsay's A Voyage to Arturus (which he & Lewis admired) - & of ghost stories (he knew Barrie's Mary Rose), & was interested in time-travel (he was very familiar with Dunne's 'An Experiment with Time'). The very fact that he & Lewis tossed a coin to see which of them would write a Science Fiction story & which would write a time travel story certainly suggests that Tolkien was happy to do either.

The most interesting of the above is probably Lindsay's book, which is as far from an 'Edwardian' novel as one could imagine. His love of Eddison's works (despite his discomfort with their morality) is also interesting.

Certainly (as Humphrey Carpenter noted) there is a certain similarity between the early parts of Fellowship & the stories of John Buchan, & its been pointed out that some of the descriptions in LotR of Mordor are very close to the descriptions of urban decay in The Old Curiosity Shop.

In short, I don't think we can say LotR is an Edwardian novel - certainly it has a certain 'Edwardian' mood & style, but many other literary influences, both ancient & modern were there. The Leaf-mould of the mind is made up of many different things.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks for the expansion, Lal. Have you read Beauty by Sherri Tepper? That and her other novels seem to fall within this class as well.

Bethberry, I'm glad I waited until a good month after rereading the book before I started this thread.

I'm not saying I accept Lobdell's thesis at all wholeheartedly; rather, it makes one think, and on those grounds I thought I'd share it.

Originally Posted by Bb

I have to wonder about Lobdell's terms of reference. Here at the end you say he uses 1950 to 1975 to pinpoint adventure stories, but these years are not the Edwardian years, which are the years between Victoria's death and the start of The War to End All Wars, named after the reign of Edward VII (1901-1910).

To clarify: Lobdell was contrasting the popular fiction of two different periods: (1) the Edwardian adventure story prevalent from perhaps 1890 until 1914, and (2) the so-called 'modern' adventure story of roughly 1950 until 1975 (or later). Thus, the morally ambiguous material is to be found in the later period which, I venture to add, seems to be carrying on well past 1975. So Lobdell considers the Edwardian novel as popular fiction to have died with the onset or conclusion of the Great War. Thus Conrad, Hemingway, Lawrence, Fitzgerald and other post-Great War writers are to be considered post-Edwardian, at least in mode if not time period.

I daresay I agree, davem, that LotR surpasses the Edwardian adventure novel mode while partaking of many (if not all) of its elements. Lobdell himself discusses in ensuing chapters how it is that Tolkien does precisely this. For example:

But only Tolkien wrote an Edwardian adventure story with the sweep of the philologist's world.(43)

Also:

When one contrasts the hit-or-miss eclecticism of the Narnia stories (especially The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) with Tolkien's careful use of linguistic objective correlatives [which Lobdell has just got done talking about quite a lot], one can see just how much difference Tolkien's philology made.(44)

But here's a new theme of great interest to me in Lobdell:

The theme of Englishness is combined with an un-English kind of art. [summarizing: the purpose of which, it has been argued, is to preach; in this sense, Chaucer, Malory, & Lewis are English] ... but Tolkien, like Rudyard Kipling, is not.(45,46)

By not "accurately observing the detailed minutiae of daily [English] life", therefore, Tolkien is writing as someone who is not really English, yet praises Englishness.

Thoughts?

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

By not "accurately observing the detailed minutiae of daily [English] life", therefore, Tolkien is writing as someone who is not really English, yet praises Englishness.

I don't see Tolkien as someone 'who is not really English'. I can only think that Lobdell, as an American, seems to have a very narrow concept of what it is to be English. Certainly Tolkien could not have been considered part of the 'English Establishment' (his Catholicism would have excluded him, as would his distaste for the Empire), but the 'Establishment' is not England. England has a strong radical tradition for instance (we, too, had our Civil War, produced the Ranters & the Quakers among other groups). Englishness is a very complex thing, & Tolkien fits in very well.

[littlemanpoet]

I think that Lobdell is speaking not as an American but as a literary analyst. He is speaking particularly about style, not national origin. It is the 'preaching'; that is, the hoped for betterment of one's readers as opposed to telling a tale for sheer entertainment of the tale itself. I think you would agree that Tolkien had no intention of preaching to his audience, but telling a good story. This is what Lobdell meant by English versus non-English.

[littlemanpoet]

Great addition to the thread, davem!

This is giving me excellent advice in regard to my writing pursuits, and I thank you. Most encouraging! The story, man, the story!