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

[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?

[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

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'd need to read the book, I think. From what you've said I don't see how being didactic = being 'English'. Certainly Tolkien originally wanted to inspire a moral regeneration of the English (see Garth's Tolkien & the Great War). Was he an 'English' then, and subsequently stopped being so? When, exactly, did his 'nationality' change, what caused the change, & what nationality did he then become?

Certainly Tolkien's writings not are not blatantly or overtly didactic, but neither are they without meaning, pure 'entertainment'. Was PG Wodehouse an 'English' writer? I think most people would consider him incredibly English, even though his writings have no didactic purpose..

Frankly, I find it a bit silly to say that 'English' writers are didactic, & writers whose works aren't didactic aren't 'English'. What, exactly, does 'English' mean in this context? Why use the term? It seems a kind of reductio ad absurdam. Were the Pythons 'English'?

Sorry, but 'English' writers have produced works with a message, works that are simple entertainment, & works that are, well, silly. I accept that Tolkien didn't belong to a particular group of 'English' writers, but all that means is that he belonged to a different group of 'English' writers.

It still seems to me that Lobdell has a very narrow concept of 'Englishness'. We're not all toffs, cheery 'cockerneys' or football hooligans. 'English' writers are not all didacts. IF Lobdell is 'speaking particularly about style, not national origin' why bring 'nationality' into it at all?

[littlemanpoet]

Your objections are of course quite appropriate, davem. I have you at an unfortunate disadvantage, having the book and you only able to garner information at second hand. I'll quote the paragraph in full:

I have already suggested that a philologist would find it appropriate, given the universal nature of the laws of language, to use the language of one age and people to represent that of another age and people (assuming some similarity of nature), and that he might find it particularly appropriate if it is a people of the same part of middle-earth. One of the themes of Tolkien's work is the Englishness of England: that is at the root of Farmer Giles of Ham, with its story of Aegidius de Hammo and Chrysophylax Dives, anglice Farmer Giles and the Dragon. This theme of Englishness is combined with an un-English kind of art. It has been argued that the Englishness of English art resides in the view that the purpose of art is to preach, and the best preaching comes in accurately observing the detailed minutiae of daily life. In this sense, Chaucer is English, Malory is English (I recall that C.S. Lewis gave us some examples of this), C.S. Lewis is English, but Tolkien, like Rudyard Kipling, is not. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that he, like Kipling, was enamored of "Englishry." Or perhaps it was because he studied the English language, partly from the outside, thus seeing it clearly, and with the same clear vision saw the beauty of Englishry.

I hope that helps more than it hinders.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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

It seems to me from this list, and a brief review of the responses to this thread, that Tolkien is at his most "Edwardian" in The Hobbit and the early chapters of LotR, the most "Hobbitish" (and therefore Edwardian?) elements of his tales, but that LotR expanded into something that went way beyond these conventions as it took in aspects of his earlier more "heroic" writings, and more general heroic and mythic imagery.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It has been argued that the Englishness of English art resides in the view that the purpose of art is to preach, and the best preaching comes in accurately observing the detailed minutiae of daily life. In this sense, Chaucer is English, Malory is English (I recall that C.S. Lewis gave us some examples of this), C.S. Lewis is English, but Tolkien, like Rudyard Kipling, is not.

Well, 'argued' by whom (Lobdell himself??). I'd argue with the statement that Malory depicted the minutiae of English life. Firstly, he was re-writing courtly French romances, & there is next to nothing of contemporary English life in the whole of the Morte d'Arthur. Chaucer may have been depicting English daily life, but he wasn't depicting it for ordinary English folk, but for his rich patrons (who probably considered themselves French, at that). Lewis was Irish - in more ways than one, & I'm not sure that Lewis ever depicted the 'minutiae of English daily life' in his fiction - didactic or otherwise (I don't think that was his concern).

I still can't see that it can be 'argued' that 'the Englishness of English art resides in the view that the purpose of art is to preach' (well, not with any justification, or evidence). Of course, one could 'argue' anything, but the fact that one could 'argue' may not necessarily mean very much, other than that one is just argumentative.

[Bêthberry]

Well, it seems to me that there is some kind of concensus here that the description of Tolkien's work as Edwardian is flawed.

A good thing, too, as most paradigms are limiting. Also, to see his work in light of the Edwardian values concerning the upper classes would, I think, prompt the tendency to see the elves as members of an aristocratice class that had little interest in other denizens of Middle earth and which was shortly to be swept away by the rising hoards of workers, aka the hobbits and men. Not something that I think Tolkien had in mind.


As for the "Englishness of English art", might I humbly suggest Peter Ackroyd's Albion: The Origin of the English Imagination , particularly for his sense of English spirituality, as opposed to "preaching," to say nothing of themes such as tree and garden, stone, the sea, melancoly, ruins and sublime. I think there is much more Tolkien to be found in these themes than in the minutiae of daily life. To davem's observations about Chaucer's audience, let me add that Chaucer's characterisation of his Wife of Bath, for instance, owes much to medieval stereotypes of the cuckolded husband--literary caricatures rather than any known historical personage.

This is some ways away from Edwardian literature, but perhaps something can be found in Lobdell's theory concerning the relationships of boys and men, an aspect which Tolkien would have found in both his ancient sagas and Edwardian literature.

[JennyHallu]

A good thing, too, as most paradigms are limiting. Also, to see his work in light of the Edwardian values concerning the upper classes would, I think, prompt the tendency to see the elves as members of an aristocratice class that had little interest in other denizens of Middle earth and which was shortly to be swept away by the rising hoards of workers, aka the hobbits and men. Not something that I think Tolkien had in mind.

This is interesting. This isn't at all what Tolkien was trying to show us, but that was the view of Elves he gave Eomer and Gondor before the arrival of Aragorn. And the Elves were shortly to be swept away by the forces of hobbits and men, but not at all in a violent, revolutionary way. Was Tolkien perhaps making fun of this typical literary situation, or seriously discussing the real-life situation with his readers?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, it seems to me that there is some kind of concensus here that the description of Tolkien's work as Edwardian is flawed.

Quite. Flawed but worth discussing, even if the book is not readily available, which is a problem.

Originally Posted by Bb

A good thing, too, as most paradigms are limiting. Also, to see his work in light of the Edwardian values concerning the upper classes would, I think, prompt the tendency to see the elves as members of an aristocratic class that had little interest in other denizens of Middle earth and which was shortly to be swept away by the rising hoards of workers, aka the hobbits and men. Not something that I think Tolkien had in mind.

This would be a misconstruction of what Lobdell had in mind, according to my (perhaps just as flawed) reading. The Elves in LotR would be comparable to the extraordinary that the "we happy few" confront in their travels. The fellowship starts in a familiar, Edwardian locale, which it leaves behind for strange places where the extraordinary is found.

I would have to agree that Englishness as preaching seems a bit narrow, if not downright unfortunate.

This is some ways away from Edwardian literature, but perhaps something can be found in Lobdell's theory concerning the relationships of boys and men, an aspect which Tolkien would have found in both his ancient sagas and Edwardian literature.

Pray might you consider informing us less well informed, as to what you are implying?

Here are a few links for those who care to pursue them: the first is another book by Lobdell, more recent (2005), which appears as if it may be an improvement upon his 'Edwardian adventure story' thesis of 1981.

A note I discovered, which does not surprise me considering some of the things Lobdell says: he is a Barfieldian. Which I am as well. To understand what that means, check out Mythic Unities in LotR.

Finally, here's a little note that serves (at least a little) to 'bio' this Tolkienite/Barfieldian Lobdell.

[Formendacil]

A rather funny side-note to the main discussion occurred to me whilst reading this thread, which I shall forthwith mention. I pray Davem not to take offence...

For Davem it concerns. The thought occurred to me, reading the idea herein that "Preachiness is Englishness" that Davem, one of the most "English" of 'Downers from my point of view, certainly fits this narrow vision of what is English. For, from my point of view, Davem's mode of posting is rather... preachy.

Okay, you may now return to Edwardian England and the Tolkien therein.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

For Davem it concerns. The thought occurred to me, reading the idea herein that "Preachiness is Englishness" that Davem, one of the most "English" of 'Downers from my point of view, certainly fits this narrow vision of what is English. For, from my point of view, Davem's mode of posting is rather... preachy.

As an impartial observer, can I just say that I feel it would be more accurate to describe davem's approach as argumentative, rather than preachy, as he has no interest in converting anybody (& probably if he did 'convert' anybody he'd start arguing with them). He has always come across to me as someone who wanted to get people to think for themselves & not just blindly accept other's opinions. I think he's probably the closeset thing to a modern Socrates one could find.

(He also gets bored easily, & as a result posts a lot of dubious stuff - luckily there's no harm in him

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by lmp

Pray might you consider informing us less well informed, as to what you are implying?

I'm not implying anything, just wondering if Lobdell posits anything about this merry band of brothers who go questing as lads are wont to do. Chariots of Fire had this feel to it as well as the passing of the privileged class. You could think, too, of Sean Connery--ha, ha, the Scot!--and Michael Caine in the movie of Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King. Perhaps the feel I am getting from your quotations of Lobdell are best expressed by this description I found for the miniseries Brideshead Revisited.

Originally Posted by http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/bridesheadre/bridesheadre.htm

Brideshead Revisited was made by Granada television, scripted by John Mortimer and originally shown on ITV in October 1981. The 11 episode adaptation of Evelyn Waugh's novel of the same name helped set the tone of a number of subsequent screen presentations of heritage England such as Chariots of Fire (1981), A Jewel in the Crown (1982), A Passage to India (1984), A Room with a View (1986)). These "white flannel" dramas, both on television and on the big screen, represented a yearning for an England that was no more, or never was. Brideshead Revisited opens in England on the eve of the World War II. Charles Ryder (played by Jeremy Irons), the main character and narrator, is presented as a rather incompetent officer in the British Army. He stumbles upon an English country house, which he has visited more than twenty years before. Upon seeing the house, Charles begins to tell the story of his years at Oxford, his meeting Sebastian Flyte (Anthony Andrews) and his love for Julia (Diana Quick). This retrospective narrative is nostalgic in two senses. It is concerned with Charles' nostalgia for his affairs in the interwar period. But it is also concerned with a nostalgia for a time before World War I--a longing for a lost way of life, for an Edwardian England.

I suppose it is just not helpful discussing a book I haven't read.

[littlemanpoet]

Lobdell doesn't say a lot about the "we few, we happy few", but he does say something.

...the adventurers in the Edwardian adventure story are, in general, not solitary. They may indeed be "we few, we happy few," but (if only so that one may tell the story of the others), they are at least two in number -- Holmes and Watson, for example. They are likely to be more than two: indeed, the charateristic Edwardian adventure story is that of Sir Henry Curtis, Captain Good, Allan Quatermain, and Ignost, or of G.E. Challenger, Lord John Roxton, Edward Malone, and Professor Summerlee -- the band of (very different) brothers. And the narrative is in the first person, eve if it involves that first person's bringing in parts of the story of which he had no firsthand knowledge. That is, there is a convention that the story should be told by those whose story it is. In general, the narrator is the most ordinary member of the band of adventurers (Allan Quatermain, Edward Malone, John Watson), and the tone of the narration tends to be self-deprecating.

Obviously, there are aspects of this description that clearly do not apply to LotR. However, Lobdell does say:

I find this [by this Lobdell means "Englishmen abroad in the wide and mysterious world ... looking for ... not so much the Holy Grail or the Golden Fleece as ... the wide world itself} this parallels LotR: it does not seem to me that Frodo sets out on a quest much more than Bilbo set out on one in TH. Certainly, Frodo and Bilbo, though they are Hobbits, are Englishmen, and to them the "back again" in the subtitle of TH is as important as the "there".

This second quote does not strictly adhere to the sub-issue of "we happy few", I grant. What it does is show that Lobdell keeps trying to tie LotR back into the Edwardian adventure mode after showing ways in which it clearly departs from it. Nevertheless, I found the book interesting and worth discussing, at least in order to soundly reject much if not all of what Lobdell says.

There is one thing that he said that I found rather persuasive, though I have not given it a great deal of thought:

Tolkien's

mind was chiefly attuned to languages and the past -- which is not, I should emphasize, the same thing as being interested in words and history.

I think Lobdell was onto something with this, and I rather wish that he had proceeded to write a book about that instead of his pet theory about Edwardian adventure stories.

So what do you think? There is a difference between word and language, and between history and the past. It seems that Tolkien used the respective former, in each case to create at least a sense of the respective latter, in the two pairs.

Does this distinction seem important to anybody else? What's there? Curious to learn what others think about this...?

[davem]

Two passages from an essay by Stratford Caldecott 'Tolkien's Elvish England' seem relevant here. The first is from an essay by Chesterton, the second is by Caldecott himself.

It is also in fairy-tales, or in Faerie itself, that our nation, or landscape, our place in the world is made luminous, and revealed to be more than it appears to the mundane consciousness. "Elvish England" is in this sense the only true England, because it is England seen with eyes that reveal the meaning of things, and the meaning of things (as Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy) is simply that they are "magic." They might not have been at all, and the fact that they are as they are is due to an act of will on the part of the Creator. Thus "England" cannot be perceived-we will miss it entirely if we do not view it as an imaginative construction, in other words as a story. And furthermore this is a story we are helping God to write. We are part of the magic. We imagine "England" into existence, and if we cease to believe in it, it will cease to be. The National Census cannot reveal England. It can only truly be seen wrapped in the mists of imagination, in the myths and folklore that tell us what it feels like to belong to this landscape & this tradition.

The essay is in the latest issue of the Chesterton Review. An interesting point Caldecott makes in the context of this thread is that what ended the 'Edwardian' period, in art as in every other way, was the single most formative event in Tolkien's creative (& personal) life: WWI. LotR could not be an 'Edwardian' novel for that reason alone - after WWI there was no real going back...

[Lalwendë]

The Edwardian period was, in terms of Britain's longer history, just a flash in the pan, but it was also Britain at its greatest heights. This was the time when there was empire, opulence, and the beginnings of the education system and democracy. In those respects, we might say that Tolkien did look to that time as an inspiration, as his idyllic Shire might be the idealised (but definitely not realistic) country village of the early 1900s. But it was also a time of huge cultural change, and rather than the adventure stories of the day, the literature which best represents that time would be works such as those by EM Forster, which challenged the outgoing Victorian values and gave a hint of the changes to come.

I think Tolkien has more in common with writers such as Philip Larkin and others from around the late 40s/50s, which instead of challenging the Empire, accepted that there was now little Empire left and instead focussed on Britain. Tolkien rails against the fate of the English countryside just as did Larkin, and he himself admitted that Death was a main theme in his work, just as Larkin did. I think there are also similarities with John Betjeman.

Perhaps its a symptom of age that I often find the adventure aspects of Tolkien's work less important to me than the lyrical aspects - though the importance of story is still the most paramount aspect. But the sword fights and the near escapes are something I focus on less than the sadness and the poignancy of his work. And so I find Tolkien has more in common with his poetic and even musical (Britten, Vaughan Williams) contemporaries than with either the boisterous adventures of Rider Haggard or the challenging social views of Forster. I think Tolkien's work reflects the middle years of the Twentieth century more than the early ones.

[littlemanpoet]

I think you both are "hitting good targets". Which makes it all the more intriguing that Tolkien would use (at least aspects of) a mode the use of which had come and gone; the use of which, but not the popularity.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I think you both are "hitting good targets". Which makes it all the more intriguing that Tolkien would use (at least aspects of) a mode the use of which had come and gone; the use of which, but not the popularity.

I think Tolkien was influenced subconsciously by the books he had read - at first at least. So its not so much that he was deliberately copying the late Victorian/Edwardian novel but that, to him, that was the novelistic style. Its interesting that he breaks away from that style so quickly. Whether that was because LotR took on a life of its own, or whether it was due to the change in style that came about in the post Edwardian period is another question.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I think you both are "hitting good targets". Which makes it all the more intriguing that Tolkien would use (at least aspects of) a mode the use of which had come and gone; the use of which, but not the popularity.

I suppose it depends upon which aspects of that 'mode' we think Tolkien used, and whether they were exclusive to it? The whole idea of a quest or adventure isn't unique to Edwardian adventure stories, in fact it is common to many eras. I often think LotR has a lot of similarities to Huckleberry Finn, in that it is not just a journey, but a journey on which a lot of lessons are inadvertently learned, not just for characters but for the reader too.

Hmm, like most of us, I'm sure Tolkien enjoyed a good narrative, and there certainly is evidence that he enjoyed a lot of the adventure stories, along with the fantasy and sci-fi of his day. But Tolkien had a wider range of reading and that is reflected too, if nor more so when the reader really gets into the text.

I can see why a critic casting a superficial (supercilious?) eye over a story like Tolkien's might assume it is just an adventure, as many fans read it on that level too, so maybe their idea that it is an 'Edwardian adventure story' does indeed have an effect on the reception of LotR by some. But it doesn't mean, to me at least, that it is a book of that genre.

Has that mode come and gone though? Aren't the Harry Potter books just grand old adventures on the surface too?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Has that mode come and gone though? Aren't the Harry Potter books just grand old adventures on the surface too?

Hah! So ya wanna open up that little can of creepy crawlies?

Is there a "boarding school" tradition of literature in England? I think there is.

It seems only with Book VI does Harry finally embark on the "Quest Proper". At least in LotR the Quest is begun "proper" at the beginning of Book 2 (of 6). Does this perhaps indicate the relative points at which the respective authors (JRRT & JKR) departed from the safety nets of their literary forebears?

[Mister Underhill]

The first few HP books, at least, strike me as having more of a mystery structure than anything else.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Hah! So ya wanna open up that little can of creepy crawlies?

Is there a "boarding school" tradition of literature in England? I think there is.

It seems only with Book VI does Harry finally embark on the "Quest Proper". At least in LotR the Quest is begun "proper" at the beginning of Book 2 (of 6). Does this perhaps indicate the relative points at which the respective authors (JRRT & JKR) departed from the safety nets of their literary forebears?

There most definitely is a tradition of Boarding School stories! There were Enid Blyton's St Clare's and Mallory Towers series (where the slightly priggish yet bad tempered Darrell always won out over the whinging Gwendolyn), the Chalet School series, and you always find plenty of amusing and much older boarding school novels in second hand bookshops. They have certain features they all seem to share - the terrifying French teacher, the midnight feast, the younger child winning out over the bully...

JK Rowling follows in a great (and very popular) tradition, even bringing in elements of that British kids' TV classic, Grange Hill, in the form of a wider range of races and classes of child, and more 'modern' behaviour. I'm sure someone will have written about this somewhere, as there are so many interesting parallels to be drawn.

I often think she may have begun with the idea of where she wanted to go, but began to write cautiously, aiming to gain her audience by following in the 'school story' tradition. As the books took off, she may have been able to gain more and more space for developing the depth of the tales - I notice that around Book 3 (Azkhaban) they seem to take on a new depth and darkness, and that cannot simply be due to Harry's getting older.

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

The first few HP books, at least, strike me as having more of a mystery structure than anything else.

Good point. I'd not really considered this, but these books also have strong elements of mystery stories. I think they have a lot more 'teeth' than the Famous Five or Secret Seven, but especially in the first two books, the plotting takes that kind of structure, with a 'reveal' at the end. I think this is still there in the later books, but this is slightly more 'buried' and there is certainly less of the 'Scooby Doo, Pesky Kids' style ending of the second book!

Comparing Tolkien to Rowling, here are two particular areas in which they diverge as writers - good grist to the mill for those who wish to defend Rowling from accusations of plagiarism of Tolkien's work! Tolkien did not have the 'safety' nor the enclosure (the start and end of school years and the confines of the school itself) provided by following a 'school story' - his work was exceptionally open-ended and explored a wider world rather than diving into the minutiae of an enclosed space like Hogwarts. Tolkien also did not have the formal structure of a mystery story - the essential mystery of the story was exposed at the beginning as we are told what the Ring was about. Maybe this is why the event at the Crack of Doom was so much more shocking when it came?

[littlemanpoet]

It seems to me that Rowling was clever and wordly wise (at least the popular lit world) to go the safe route of school story and mystery. Tolkien's open-ended structure still seems unwanted. Even the big fantasy series of the current era seem to follow a safe pattern rather than just go where the story takes the author. Hmmm..... ghosts of a certain Kalessin rant? What was that called? Ah yes: Are There Any Valid Criticisms? That was a real tour de force! Might be worth taking a peek at, those of us who have been around only in the last two years....

[davem]

I suppose that the main difference between LotR & the 'Edwardian adventure story' (as opposed to the Edwardian novel) is that LotR has survived & the EAS in the main has not. We all have an idea of what constitures an EAS, but how many of us have actually read one? Probably not many of us, for the simple reason that not many of them are still around. However, some have survived, but how they have survived is interesting.

I suppose that what is meant by an EAS is a kind of Boy's Own Adventure, where the hero is defending the Empire against its enemies, or winning fame through exploring the unknown & winning fame & treasure in 'Darkest Africa' (King Solomon's Mines, She), India (Kipling's Kim) or in wartime (Biggles). Of course, this kind of story could be found in the post-Edwardian period, but it wasn't limited to novels. Many boy's comics even into the sixties followed the same pattern (The Eagle for example).

So, we could say that the EAS survived way beyond the Edwardian period, but (almost as happened to Fairy stories), it was 'relegated to the nursery'. Both Fairy stories & the EAS came to be seen as fit only for children. Now, Tolkien, almost single-handedly, revived the Fairy story as adult literature, so one can't help wondering whether someone will manage to do the same thing for the EAS. Or maybe they have

This makes me think about Hollywood's output. Perhaps that's what George Lucas has done with Star Wars & the Indiana Jones movies - how much diffference is there between Lucas' stories & the EAS? Probably not much in fact. Have we really moved on from the EAS - did it really die? I can't help but feel it just changed its clothes & its location. That said, I don't think it survived in Tolkien's Legendarium. Tolkien maybe 'tricked' us, though, by presenting us with a story, in LotR, that (at least at the start) makes us think we are about to read an EAS (or a Boy's Own story). By the time we realise that's not at all what we're getting most of us are hooked.

Perhaps this accounts for the critics of LotR, the majority of whom don't get past the first few chapters. They read the EAS part of the story, decide they don't like it (or don't approve of it) & leave it there - hence their dismissal of it.

The interesting question is why so many of us do get drawn in to the EAS of the early chapters of LotR? When we dismiss the EAS as 'primitive' & claim we have gone beyond it in our tastes & desires, are we being entirely honest?

Having said that, I go back to my original point - 99.9% of EAS's have not survived, & most of us would probably now find them unreadable. Yet, as with Fairy Stories, it seems that there was a core of meaning & worth in the genre. Perhaps its the element of stepping out into the 'Unknown' ('Darkest' Africa' was as alien & strange as Faerie to most Edwardians). How much difference is there between Alan Quartermain going to find King Solomon's Mines, Indiana Jones seeking the Lost Ark & King Arthur seeking the Otherworld Cauldron in Preiddeu Annwn?

[JennyHallu]

I don't think I agree with you about the modern death of the classic adventure story. While the tales are rarely read in their original forms, I think because modern expectations of what a child might be capable of reading have plummetted, think of all the modern interpretations of these classic stories?

Think of Treasure Island, of Tom Sawyer (American, yes, but the principle holds).

The problem with the EAS is that the majority of today's children don't look to books for story-telling, they look to television, movies, and even video games (All the Link games I think could be classed as a Boy's Own story fairly easily.)

And for some reason the books and tales you were mentioning made me think of the assistant pig-keeper from Prwdain (I think, it's been a long time), the hero of the tales by Lloyd Alexander. Are they classed as Edwardian Adventure stories?

[littlemanpoet]

Jenny, I don't know how Lloyd Alexander's stories are classed except that they are placed in the Youth section of the local library.

davem, I'm intrigued by the insights you have put together. Much good stuff there.

Originally Posted by davem

The interesting question is why so many of us do get drawn in to the EAS of the early chapters of LotR? When we dismiss the EAS as 'primitive' & claim we have gone beyond it in our tastes & desires, are we being entirely honest?

Second question first: I've never made the claim, so I can't really answer it. First question: I think it's got to do with Hobbits. Tolkien already had a successful children's story in The Hobbit. That, I think, is the draw into LotR that keeps those of us, who love Hobbits, long enough to get to the even better, richer, deeper stuff.

[JennyHallu]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Jenny, I don't know how Lloyd Alexander's stories are classed except that they are placed in the Youth section of the local library.

In my library, so was Lord of the Rings and a number of other excellent stories, like CS Lewis' Perelandra trilogy, which is not by any stretch of the imagination a children's story.

[davem]

As we're discussing the EAS I thought this may be interesting:
http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc...dreadfuls.html

How relevant GKC's comments here are is another question, but he does make some good points about the attitude of the Literati to 'popular' fiction which are still worth paying attention to.

[littlemanpoet]

Such clear thinking as Chesterton's is desperately needed regarding the Harry Potter books as well. Which are, really, 21st century 'penny dreadfuls'. I'd say quite relevant. A little bloggishness next, sorry: I've been in a writers group for 6 years during which my writing style has constantly come under criticism as not literary enough. Reading "In Defense of Penny Dreadfuls" is rather liberating.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Such clear thinking as Chesterton's is desperately needed regarding the Harry Potter books as well. Which are, really, 21st century 'penny dreadfuls'.

I'd say it also applies to Pullman's 'His Dark Materials', which starts out as a wonderful EAS/Penny Dreadful & then goes downhill fast as soon as PP realises he has adult, ('Educated') as well as child (or 'vulgar errand boy' ), readers, & decides he wants to be a 'serious' novelist who deals with 'deeper' questions (interesting the way works of 'art' go downhill as soon as the 'artist' decides they're going to produce something 'deep').

I think in this context Tolkien avoided the trap by keeping his feet on the ground by having Hobbits as his central figures, & Sam as the central Hobbit. As GKC also said, 'one sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak' - in other words, one can raise oneself, & one's works, one's thoughts, to such a 'height' that everyone & everything else comes to seem small & insignificant, not worth bothering with. The Hobbits are always looking up, & so are surrounded by 'greatness'. Thus they remain humble. Saruman & Sauron, by contrast, live 'on the heights', choosing to dwell in towers where they can look down on lesser folk (even Denethor dwells in a high place). The Hobbits, on the other hand, live not simply on but actually within the earth.

I don't know if I'm arguing here that LotR does belong with the EAS (even with the Penny Dreadfuls!). Obviously it doesn't - it has too much to say to us, it has true 'depth' & profundity - yet, at the same time it can be seen (& read) as a 'penny dreadful'.

I think Tolkien would have liked that. So, probably, would Rowling as regards her HP books. I suspect, though, if you said the same thing to Pullman about HDM he'd have apoplexy.

Or to put it another way, here's Nemi..

[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!