Tolkien is Not Yeats

[Bill Ferny]

Poet,

When I work at the computer I keep BD open in the background. When I popped up BD the first thing I saw was that paragraph; it didn’t make much sense to me, so I changed it. I noted the change because it transformed the meaning of the paragraph significantly. I doubt if the distinction is original… after all I’m a researcher by trade, and my kind isn’t known for originality [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] .

The significance of the distinction is open to much debate. In comparison to any other work of literature, I can’t think of anything else that approaches the scale of Tolkien’s corpus in regards to depth (linguistic, historical, philosophical, and perhaps theological), or in regards to narrative story telling. In many ways its more comparable to Saint Thomas’ Summa or Copleston’s History of Western Philosophy than to works of fiction. What does that say about the author, though? Does the fecundity of the corpus make Tolkien a better artist than other writers, even though other writers may be able to (objectively speaking) pen better poetry or prose, or come up with comparable narrative (i.e. Lewis)?

What I am sure of, though, is that saying “Newman wrote better prose than Tolkien” is merely a distinction that is not by any stretch of the imagination a slight against Tolkien. Likewise, the opinion that Yeats, Robert Browning, Hopkins and Tennyson wrote better poetry than Tolkien isn’t making the claim that Tolkien wrote horrible poetry. Just because I think Squatter, Poet, Lush, Doug, Sharon, and, of course PanMan [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] write the best posts on this forum isn’t saying that they are the only people on the forum who have valid opinions or insights or that I don’t read anyone else’s posts and glean insight or enjoyment from them.

We Tolkien fans need to accept the fact that the professor isn’t going to hit the top of the charts, so to speak, in every category. In fact, we have to admit that he reaches the top of the chart in one category only, because he invented the category in the first place, and is the only writer who can claim to belong to that category. That, in and of itself, is an extremely lofty achievement.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Just for the record, I consider myself to possess a certain amount of literary discernment, being reasonably well-read, and I consider Tolkien to have been a very accomplished poet, if a little old-fashioned for modernist or progressive ears.

I would rate Tolkien at least as highly as the likes of Seamus Heaney and Sylvia Plath; and I think that The Last Ark, a link to which is provided above, puts him on a par with Keats on any scale. I don't love Tolkien's poetry because I admire him. I admire him because I love his poetry. There is a difference. I slammed the article for being facile and ignorant, not for attacking Tolkien.

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[Kuruharan]

if a little old-fashioned for modernist or progressive ears.

He would probably think this a very high compliment.

[Lady Alasse]

The author of that article didn't even put in the whole song. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] How can you have people judge the poem when it isn't all there. and it is supposed to be humerous. [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Grrr. I am not happy with him!

[Iarwain]

Very funny article, the author wanted to criticize Tolkien and he found a logical means of doing so. I agree that my songs aren't the most intelligible things, but I'm a jolly old fellow all the same.

Laughing drunkenly at my Yellow Boots,
Iarwain Ben-Adar (a.k.a. Tom Bombadil)

[Bill Ferny]

Squatter,

I can’t comment on Sylvia Plath due to ignorance… I’m not much of a poetry aficionado anyway. However, after reading an excerpt from Tolkien’s translation of Beowulf, I definitely prefer Heaney’s translation… on the other hand I prefer Raffel’s translation over Heaney’s… go figure.

I don't love Tolkien's poetry because I admire him. I admire him because I love his poetry.

I can respect that, though subjectively I would disagree. For me, I put up with Tolkien’s poetry because I admire the whole of the narrative. Also, probably due to my ingrained cynicism, I never admire an artist because of his art; I’ve found that the artist’s art usually far surpasses the qualities of the artist, himself.

I slammed the article for being facile and ignorant, not for attacking Tolkien.

I for one didn’t get the impression that you slammed the article in your post. Rather, I got the impression that you disagreed with the article, and the manner in which it was presented. I’m in agreement with you.

This, however, was that to which I was referring:

I'M OUTRAGED!
How dare they insult Tom Bombadil!
And Tolkien as well, I enjoy poetry, and especially the poems in LOTR!

I don’t mean to single out Theodred21. However, I really didn’t perceive in the article an outright insult leveled against Tolkien, himself. I perceived, perhaps, a veiled insult toward Tolkien fans, though. But I’m not going to sit here and say certain people don’t deserve insult sometimes. There are those who at times seem to scream for insults, myself included. When admiration for Tolkien or his art becomes fanboyism (“Tolkien rules! Everybody else sux!”), then by all means, dish out the well deserved insults.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

However, after reading an excerpt from Tolkien’s translation of Beowulf, I definitely prefer Heaney’s translation

You have the advantage of me there Bill. I've only read Heaney's translation, and never the original. I wasn't referring to translations, though: Tolkien was the sort of man who would have tried so hard to preserve the meaning of the piece that he would have been unable to make it work as poetry, which to my mind is only ever fully appreciated in its original language anyway. I studied Plath and Heaney for 'A' level English Literature, along with Keats and Blake. They are all great poets, and so is Tolkien. I do not compare them: I read poetry in my spare time for pleasure, and I do not set those poets up against each other either, because that is not what poetry is about: it isn't about who's best, or who has the most critical acclaim; it's about each individual exploring their language and emotions to create beautiful pieces of writing. Tolkien was as good at this as any of the other poets I have mentioned.

You need not trouble yourself unduly on my account, Bill: I wasn't aiming my comments at you, but at those who insist that Tolkien wasn't "objectively" a good poet. There is no such thing as an objective artistic opinion, because art is the creation of beauty and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To say otherwise is to indulge a fallacy.

I am very concerned that some people are posting opinions in this thread about Tolkien's poetry and its quality relative to that of other poets, and freely admitting in the same post that they do not read poetry. Surely this completely invalidates any opinion they might have, due to the absence of any background knowledge of the subject.

If you don't read poetry, stay out of a discussion about poetry because you don't know enough about it to form an informed opinion. It's quite simple.

[ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[burrahobbit]

Simplicity is a tricky thing, pal.

[Bill Ferny]

All simplicity aside, I would rather be called long winded than simple minded. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

There is no such thing as an objective artistic opinion, because art is the creation of beauty and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To say otherwise is to indulge a fallacy.

That’s a rather touchy issue for me, from a philosophical stand point. I remember way back in my infancy debating whether beauty was a transcendental in my sophomore year metaphysics class. The debate was so intense that it usurped two of poor Fr. Gonzales’ lectures. When we finally moved on to subsistence, no one, I think, was satisfied with the mixed opinions that was the fruit of the debate, at least among us who took the debate seriously… I distinctly remember my best friend snoozing in the back row.

At the time I sided with the group that claimed beauty was a transcendental, and beauty was not recognized and lack of beauty was mistaken for beauty, because of ignorance, fallen nature, and poor breeding (tongue-in-cheek). In other words, beauty is objective. Over the years, during post-graduate work (that included medieval aesthetics) and beyond into the real world of job and family life, my stand on the issue has fluctuated erratically, but I have always been inclined in the end to fall back on the objectivity of beauty. Perhaps this is because of the influences stemming from studying Romanesque and Gothic art and architecture with its emphasis on mathematical proportion, harmony and symmetry, and an obsessive interest in Saint Augustine’s De Musica.

Whether you agree that beauty is objective or not, doesn’t mean that the notion that beauty is objective is a fallacy, especially since there have been some very intelligent and prominent thinkers out there who would beg to differ with such a claim, or at least challenge it (i.e. Plato, Augustine, Fichte, Schelling, Lonergan, etc.).

This attitude is plainly evident in my taste regarding poetry. I’m much more inclined toward the sonnet than toward Walt Whitman or ee cumings, for example. However, in moments of wanton rebellion, I can be found browsing a book of poetry by Jewel. I guess, then what I’m saying, is that even though I accept that beauty is essentially an objective reality, the Dasein, the individual human intellect, is able, according to its operation, to distinguish lower and higher desires in diverse ways, sometimes in contradiction with other individual human intellects. This mystery of the Dasein, however, does not change the nature of beauty, itself, that is it’s transcendental nature.

What does this have to do with literary criticism? Well, this, actually… all critics, no matter the media, must admit certain criteria by which they criticize. That criteria has to be objective in order to be a relevant tool for criticism. I’m not a literary critic, so I’m not going to attempt to catalog this objective criteria. But I have had enough literature classes to know there definitely is such a criteria (much to my school boy chagrin). These are the standards by which poetry is judged. Granted these standards have a tendency to change often, usually due to revolutions initiated by the poets, themselves. However, they still remain standards that distinguish the Man from Nantucket poems from Shakespearean sonnets (that often contain rather similar subject matter). I think if we seriously approach Tolkien’s poetry employing such criteria, then I doubt his poetry will be judged as good as Yeats or Hopkins. That’s not to say his poetry by the same criteria is horrible, just not as good. There’s no insult in that. At any rate, what an honor to be compared to Yeats in the first place!

I am very concerned that some people are posting opinions in this thread about Tolkien's poetry and its quality relative to that of other poets, and freely admitting in the same post that they do not read poetry. Surely this completely invalidates any opinion they might have, due to the absence of any background knowledge of the subject.

I may be guilty of this. Fact of the matter is, is that while I have my favorites that I re-read often, I really don’t read that much poetry. I am trying, however, to speak from my experience, namely from my reading of those favorites (Hopkins, Tennyson, Browning, Byron, and yes, Jewel), and my vague remembrance of certain poets (Yeats and Frost) that for some reason I was forced to practically memorize in both high school and under-graduate days. If the truth be known, I would rather read a collection of essays regarding the sociological impact inspired by the invention of the wheeled plow than an anthology of poetry. Can you find it your heart to forgive me, Squatter?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Of course I can, Bill, although I do not see what there is to forgive about your thoughtful and articulate comments. I always enjoy reading your posts, and the above is no exception.

Whilst I may possibly have read more poetry than you have, your knowledge of philosophy clearly outstrips mine by a long chalk. I concede the point that there are certain objective criteria to which professional critics must adhere, but we are not professional critics here, and the impact that a poem has on those who read solely for pleasure taken in poetic expression is not governed by our appreciation of these qualities (at least not at the first reading). Tolkien's poetry, particularly The Last Ark, to which I refer constantly due to the profound effect it has on me, both in Quenya and English, is often so achingly beautiful that it brings me to the verge of tears, just as does Yeats' An Irish Airman Forsees his Death, quoted above.

I am currently reading for the first time The Lays of Beleriand (HoME III), in which are given the major versions of Tolkien's two most ambitious poetic projects, The Lay of the Children of Húrin in the old English alliterative meter, and the Lay of Leithian in octosyllabic couplets! I have written a little poetry myself, although not of a very high quality, and I am amazed at the enormity of the task that Tolkien set himself in choosing these incredibly demanding meters for his epics. Whilst he often fails in the earlier versions I see no reason to disagree with Christopher Tolkien's opinion that these have

...a sad prominence in the list of [my father's] works that might have been.

I would be very interested in taking a discussion of poetry and philosophical theories of beauty and expression to PM or email if you are not averse to such an enterprise. I certainly concur in my appreciation of sonnets (Shakespeare's Sonnet XVIII is still one of my favourite pieces of poetry), yet I feel that the likes of Wilfred Owen (whose words form the link in my signature), Lewis Carroll and J.R.R. Tolkien also deserve their place. Perhaps it is my own inability to reproduce the quality of their work that leads me to be so cautious about comparing them. I feel that I am unqualified to comment on their work, which is why I often rant when others with less knowledge than I blithely jump in with completely uninformed opinions on the subject, apparently based on their non-reading of the works in question. "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", as the saying goes. I do not believe that you are this sort of person, and I would esteem it a privilege to correspond with you on this issue.

For the moment, however, I must regretfully let this subject drop, as I have commitments on Estelyn's Revenge of the Entish Bow roleplay. Please can you all try to think very carefully about how much you really know about poetry before announcing so confidently your opinions upon it. Some of us find too much comparison and analysis to be a besmirchment of beautiful works, and I am reminded often of Gandalf's words to Saruman: "...he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."

I advise you all to read more poetry. It is one of the purest and most sublime forms of artistic expression, and does wonders for one's own writing style. I hope that you follow this advice, and enjoy the process as thoroughly as I do.

<font size=1 color=339966>[ 9:55 AM December 10, 2003: Message edited by: The Squatter of Amon Rûdh ]

[littlemanpoet]

This is an enlightening thread. I greatly appreciate the thoughtful posts, especially by Bill Ferny and Squatter. Bill Ferny, why did you ever choose such a moniker beneath you? The quality of your posts makes me think of you more as a Faramir than a Ferny.

In comparison to any other work of literature, I can’t think of anything else that approaches the scale of Tolkien’s corpus in regards to depth (linguistic, historical, philosophical, and perhaps theological), or in regards to narrative story telling. In many ways its more comparable to Saint Thomas’ Summa or Copleston’s History of Western Philosophy than to works of fiction. What does that say about the author, though? Does the fecundity of the corpus make Tolkien a better artist than other writers, even though other writers may be able to (objectively speaking) pen better poetry or prose, or come up with comparable narrative (i.e. Lewis)?

Tolkien was a philologist. He was a lingual genius. He could speak fluent Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Icelandic, and many other languages, both dead and living. Being a philologist, he also had a profound sense of the development of language, myth, and history, and the relations between them. Being a lingual genius, it was inevitable that he would compose languages of his own making, just as musical geniuses must compose music. His profound sense of development led him to ask the philological question, "how did these words come to be the way they are?" And thus his subcreated myths and histories were born. No writer before him came close to doing this. And the completion to which he brought his subcreations made his works bear a striking resemblance to reality never before attained, nor since - so far. This same genius required the inclusion of poetry, if I understand Tolkien's creative process at all, for poetry is, as Squatter said, the most sublime of human endeavors.

I do not compare them: I read poetry in my spare time for pleasure, and I do not set those poets up against each other either, because that is not what poetry is about: it isn't about who's best, or who has the most critical acclaim; it's about each individual exploring their language and emotions to create beautiful pieces of writing.

Squatter, thank you for saying this. It reminds me of the the words of one of Tolkien's students to him, "You have been inside language." Or was that C.S. Lewis? In any case, I admit to not having read as much poetry as I would have liked to, but being who I am, I came to understand poetry by writing a lot of it, learning how the forms worked, trying to do the best I could in any form I put my mind to mastering. From that point of view, I have a great appreciation for Tolkien's poetry. He mastered the forms, and the poetry he wrote in any form is quite good. Best? It does not obtain.

[Bêthberry]

Squatter, I posted a link to a newspaper which printed a small excerpt of Tolkien's translation of Beowulf on the thread "New Tolkien book found."

I find now that the link is outdated. I wonder, Bill Ferny, since we posted there briefly, if you happened to have saved a copy of Tolkien's translation? If not, I will contact the newspaper for a back issue/archival copy.

Bethberry


EDIT. Here are Tolkien's and Heaney's translations, as printed in the following:

Tolkien's monster resurfaces: The Beowulf manuscript
National Post
Monday, January 13, 2003
Page: A16
Section: Discovery
Byline: Joseph Brean
Column: Literature
Source: National Post


Tolkien's translation of Beowulf and his men setting sail:

On went the hours: on
ocean afloat
under cliff was their craft.
Now climb blithely
brave man aboard; breakers
pounding
ground the shingle. Gleaming
harness
they hove to the bosom of the
bark, armour
with cunning forged then cast
her forth
to voyage triumphant,
valiant-timbered
fleet foam twisted.


The same passage by Heaney:

Time went by, the boat was
on water,
in close under the cliffs.
Men climbed eagerly up the
gangplank,
sand churned in surf, warriors
loaded
a cargo of weapons, shining
war-gear
in the vessel's hold, then
heaved out,
away with a will in their
wood-wreathed ship.

(Copyright) From Beowulf translated by Seamus Heaney, faber and faber, 1999

[ February 25, 2003: Message edited by: Bethberry ]