A Defense of 'Lord of the Rings' against Modernist criticism

[Bêthberry]

I'm not a regular reader of Tolkien Studies but perhaps I should be. I just came across this scholarly article by Professor Michael Drout which defends Tolkien against Modernist criticism by way of linguistic analysis.

Tolkien's Prose Style and its Literary and Rhetorical Effects

There's some intriguing connections with Shakespeare's King Lear and an analysis of Tolkien's defense of kingship, to say nothing of an insightful suggestion about Denethor and the Witch King.

As a rout of Modernist antipathy to Tolkien it should make many a Downer's day.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Oh my darling, you are mischievous.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Oh my darling, you are mischievous.

It was a slow night on the forum, m'dear.

But it is fascinating to see how Drout proves that Tolkien belongs up there with the big guns.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

I find it fascinating that different areas of literature (and their relevant enthusiasts) constantly feel the need to defend and express their own validity. However it's possible that I'm spoiled: all of my essays over the past two years have been craft-oriented.

Instead of reading it as Tolkien-validation, I took this surprisingly readable piece more as a how-to guide of identifying the ingredients JRR used to bake his story. A kilo of Lear, a liter and a half of Old English, and a splash and a pinch of anachronisms for added taste...

The use of uncommonly employed words draws subconscious - if not directly conscious - parallels between works. I doubt this is to say, "Look, LotR is just like Lear! Art!" but more to say, "Remember the themes in Lear of power, insanity, betrayal, redemption? You just keep that in the back of your mind, dear reader." One might say the parallels being drawn are being stretched a bit past plausibility, but think on it this way: if you see an author finish a thought with, "So it goes..." and you don't think of Vonnegut, it means you never read Vonnegut. To me, the use of intertextual lit references isn't swiping, and it neither confirms nor denies a text's cultural significance. It's laying a librarian-friendly scavenger hunt for your bibliophile audience, and it's playing psych games.

Still, I was most interested in this paragraph about the use of sentence clarity and structure to convey power dynamics between characters:

Éowyn's final statement in the scene "I will smite you, if you touch him" is structurally parallel with her previous threat "I will hinder it, if I may," but this time the warning is made more pointed, directly at the Nazgûl. "I will smite you" is nearly as simple a sentence as can be formed in modern English (only the modal "will" makes the sentence even slightly complex) and her change from the subjunctive "if I may" to "if you touch him" gives Éowyn complete command of the situation even though both statements are if-clauses. Just as the sound of her ringing sword begins to cut through the haze of fear generated by the Lord of the Nazgûl, so too does the parallel "steel" of her voice shatter the supernatural malice of the monster as effectively as her eventual sword stroke.

'I will hinder it,' is indistinct. 'I will smite you,' is strong, active, decisive. 'If I may,' suggests vulnerability, uncertainty. 'If you touch him,' is a threat, a moment of absolute resolve. The pattern of language is clear. The transition from hidden identity and uncertainty of place to confident warrior is so simply managed through economy of language.

Oh man, JRR, I sometimes forget why you're my literary homeboy...

[Morthoron]

Well, considering modernism was no longer modern decades ago, and we've past the point of post-modernism, I think Tolkien's already ancient text will certainly outlive any number of new delineators for modernity (hyper-modern?). That is, until we old sods shuttle off this mortal coil and everyone stops reading altogether, because the chips in their heads play four dimensional interactive movies 24 hours a day.

Where is my soma? I had it right here with the melange I was going to ingest prior to dinner.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I find it fascinating that different areas of literature (and their relevant enthusiasts) constantly feel the need to defend and express their own validity. However it's possible that I'm spoiled: all of my essays over the past two years have been craft-oriented.

Instead of reading it as Tolkien-validation, I took this surprisingly readable piece more as a how-to guide of identifying the ingredients JRR used to bake his story. A kilo of Lear, a liter and a half of Old English, and a splash and a pinch of anachronisms for added taste...

The use of uncommonly employed words draws subconscious - if not directly conscious - parallels between works. I doubt this is to say, "Look, LotR is just like Lear! Art!" but more to say, "Remember the themes in Lear of power, insanity, betrayal, redemption? You just keep that in the back of your mind, dear reader." One might say the parallels being drawn are being stretched a bit past plausibility, but think on it this way: if you see an author finish a thought with, "So it goes..." and you don't think of Vonnegut, it means you never read Vonnegut. To me, the use of intertextual lit references isn't swiping, and it neither confirms nor denies a text's cultural significance. It's laying a librarian-friendly scavenger hunt for your bibliophile audience, and it's playing psych games.

I think you are spot on about each 'school' having its own row to plough, but I think you are indeed most spoiled if you are so immune to the enduring and still pervasive influence of T.S. Eliot to claim that intertextual references neither confirm nor deny a text's significance. (Then again, maybe his influence has faded faster in his native land.)

It was Eliot's "Tradition and the Individual Talent" that firmly established the concept in academe that a poet's greatness does not lie with his deviation or retreat or departure from tradition but with his fidelity to past literature, expressed by Eliot as "the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer". The finest and best poets were those whose work re-informed the entire classical structure of European literature. For Eliot, tradition was the classical tradition. There was no female tradition, no post-colonial tradition, no northern tradition, no local folklore tradition, just this intimate dialogue with past greats. Talent was not a genius one was born with, but something developed through intimate acquaintance and study of past poetry.

So when Tolkien came along and justified and valorised Northern Literature and mythologies, he was doing something outside the prevailing formalisation of the English canon. Thus, for over fifty years defenders of Tolkien have laboured in the shadow of Eliot and attempted to demonstrate how Tolkien's intertexual references demonstrate his place in Eliot's theory and his right to be regarded as part of the accepted literary canon. (Note here, I'm not accepting Eliot's theory, just explaining that generations of English students before you could not blithely claim that intertexual references don't establish significance.)

I'm probably overgeneralising here, but I think this kind of defense has been much more common than any using any other literary theory. I cannot recall, for instance, seeing Bloom's theory of "the anxiety of influence" being applied to demonstrate Tolkien's rebellion against his predecessors. Probably some of the feminists have had a go at Tolkien, but few others.

It might be fun to examine how each literary theory picks up (or doesn't) aspects of Tolkien: Freudian, Jungian, Lacanian for psychology, Kristeva, Derrida, post-colonial theory.

Ultimately I think I would hear Tolkien's own voice: "But what of the banana peel?"

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

if you are so immune to the enduring and still pervasive influence of T.S. Eliot to claim that intertextual references neither confirm nor deny a text's significance

Bwahaha. Perhaps the curious matter is that which is meant by significance. What do we consider Great, and why do we think it so? I will blithely and committedly say that if something has created no cultural paradigm shift, it's not Great. Ergo Harry Potter is Great, and Great Expectations, I expect, is not. Yet which do we read in high school English?

And can Greatness be bestowed posthumously? Everyone knows that artists are dirt poor and misunderstood (excepting fiends like Damien Hirst) until well after death. So too with literature? Does the popularity and cultural milieu of LotR have postmortem effects on the Vulsunga Saga or Beowulf or etc? Would anyone care at all about Detective Comics if they hadn't created a spinoff with that weird and kinda interesting character, Batman? What I'm asking, I suppose, is if we can grant greatness retroactively, by way of what it birthed. And is it still great if nobody cares about it?

I suppose I'm asking a tree falling in the woods question. Proust. Proust is great, right? How many people have actually read any of his work? And how many people pronounce his name right? How significant is Joseph Conrad if his biggest dead guy claim to fame is, "More high schoolers didn't read my book than didn't read yours!"?

So what is significance?

If significance is a specific set of conditions in which only European white boys fit, then yes, I suppose we might run into some problems with literature that glorifies legends of border cultures. And in that case, LotR is basically a nerdy professor writing fantasy fan fic about myths.

However if significance is something that can be determined by the reaction of those confronted with it (either positive or negative), then we've got a bit of play room.

It might be fun to examine how each literary theory picks up (or doesn't) aspects of Tolkien: Freudian, Jungian, Lacanian for psychology, Kristeva, Derrida, post-colonial theory.

You minx.