Tolkien and "The Broken Sword"

[tumhalad2]

In 1954, American author Poul Anderson published a short fantasy novel called The Broken Sword. Across the Atlantic, Tolkien published the first volume of his epic novel.

I'm starting to read The Broken Sword, and it is a brilliantly written, highly imaginative and evocatively realised. Whenever one reads a review of tBS, it is invariably compared to Tolkien. Typical comparisons run like this:

"But whereas Tolkien drew upon the Eddic sagas to create a world whose purpose was largely consolatory and supportive of Tolkien's own Christian values, Anderson abandoned himself to the original moral tenor of the Norse sagas, and a magical realm in which both men and faerie often find themselves at the mercy of capricious forces ..."

Tolkien is : consolatory, supportive of Catholic values
Anderson: capricious forces

I often find this kind of accusation leveled against Tolkien: that his worldview is overly moralistic, while those of other authors that emphasise the "capriciousness" of pagan moral systems are preferable.

I've always thought that Tolkien's stories embody a conflict between a "meaning filled world", which one finds predominately in The Lord of the Rings, and and the world of greater moral opacity realised in The Children of Hurin.

Other authors, like Moorcock, tend to create worlds that are devoid of any moral certainties whatsoever (not a world I believe we actually live in, but for humanist/rational reasons). It is perfectly possible to believe in a world of moral certitudes without believing in God. It seems to me that many fantasy authors have made two mistakes. Firstly, they have assumed a godless world is not a free and rational one, but a nihilistic one - hence the comparisons of Tolkien and Anderson - "Catholic" vs. "capricious", hence Moorcock's "Elric", Conversely, they have assumed religious authors like Tolkien are incapable of moral nuance. Compared to Tolkien, Anderson apparently displays "grimness", which apparently makes his moral vision more complex (even though Tolkien can be just as grim, at times). I have yet to read a good humanist fantasy, but I think Tolkien actually comes closer than Moorcock and those like him.

None of this is to say that Anderson's novel fails to impress - it does, and it should be better known. But I find the comparisons between him and Tolkien often provided spurious.

So I guess this is a "comparative literature" thread: fantasy authors often like to compare themselves to each other, but as literary critics, how should we approach comparisons between say, Anderson and Tolkien. Are the two different in "outlook"? What constitutes and author's "outlook" anyway? Are certain values preferable and fantasy literature, and if they are there, how are they embodied?

I suppose I have become sceptical of the cheap, off hand comparisons that are often made of Tolkien and other authors. What's really going on here?

[blantyr]

Hmmm…

I'm not sure it is fair to compare most commercial authors and Tolkien. Tolkien was an academic, deeply involved in linguistics and the ancient epics. His First Age stuff wasn't written for publication, with deadlines considered, with a need to sell or starve. It was a very elaborate daydream written for himself and perhaps a few friends. The realities of being a professional story teller for hire were several degrees removed. Thus, there is a degree of complexity and intellectual playfulness which one will not find elsewhere.

This can result in intellectual snobbishness among Tolkien's fans. Tolkien's stuff is more complex and rich than a lot of other writings. I too can appreciate the richness and complexity. At the same time, I wouldn't measure other authors by Tolkien's standards.

I'll nitpick a bit on Moorcock. A long time ago I read several of his novels before overdosing on it and moving on to the next author. At this point, the primary thing I remember from his works is the final scene of Stormbringer. The sword, after killing Elric and morphing into a demon, laughs while Fate's Scales showing the balance between Law and Chaos restores itself to Balance. I'm not sure Moorcock's world is "devoid of any moral certainties whatsoever." The themes of Law, Chaos and Balance are there, and distinct enough from Tolkien's Good and Evil.

To some extent, many authors who aren't writing genera boilerplate will let their own moral perspectives leak into their work. Morcock's moral perspective is real enough, even if it is not comfortable. I prefer James Schmitz's dealing between law and chaos from The Demon Breed. The Overgovernment deliberately encourages enough chaos that anti predators living among the population are ready to enforce order. I've also enjoyed the Dreams Made Flesh perspective from Anne Bishop's Black Jewels trilogy.

Many an author, and not just in the genera of fantasy, can create a mythos with a strong dash of morality. The object ought not to be to preach. Tolkien himself was clear enough on that. However, a strong moral perspective can present a stage upon which a story can be told. If one wants to tell an uplifting story, the author's values will often be confirmed by the story's climax.

Heinlein. You start with a touch of vaguely libertarian philosophy, assume infinite energy, an infinite frontier, an adequate supply of hot women, and that one can acquire a private spaceship without too much trouble. Nice stage for a story. Can one really assume infinite energy and infinite frontiers these days, when Earth is resource stressed and the problem of getting Man from Earth to Mars without a significant chance of lethal radiation damage is non-trivial? Can one still enjoy Heinlein as a story teller even if one thinks his optimism about infinitely developing science and a resource rich universe is problematic?

I don't know. The old phrase is 'suspension of disbelief.' One must be able to create a plausible enough sub-creation for the reader to be willing to come along for the ride. Tolkien achieved that. Many other writers also achieved that. Many also brought along personal and moralistic perspectives that might be applied to our own world. If the author's moralistic world view clashes too much with the world view of the reader, the reader isn't apt to enjoy the book much.

I'd just be careful of judging one author's work too much through the prism of another's work, or through one's own prism. When a christian critic or fan writes about Tolkien's works, one is apt to learn more about the critic or fan's world view as Tolkien's. Tolkien might still be properly talked about through the lens of the old epics or christian values, but many another author should be examined from other perspectives. I would be careful, when comparing Tolkien with another writer, about using the old epics or christian values to examine the other author.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Conversely, they have assumed religious authors like Tolkien are incapable of moral nuance. Compared to Tolkien, Anderson apparently displays "grimness", which apparently makes his moral vision more complex (even though Tolkien can be just as grim, at times). I have yet to read a good humanist fantasy, but I think Tolkien actually comes closer than Moorcock and those like him.

Any book that is remotely related to Epic Fantasy and sells well is compared to Tolkien's works. It usually goes something like 'the best thing since Tolkien' or 'better than Tolkien'. I've even heard both at the same time, strangely; George R.R. Martin is called 'The American Tolkien' and at the same time is hailed as having a much better grasp on reality than Tolkien

Also, I think Tolkien's usual moral straightforwardness was more due to the fact that he was seeking an outlet for his pent-up frustration pertaining to the Great War than the fact that he was Catholic. I admit though, that his religious affiliations would also have affected his works.

As for Tolkien's lack of grimness: the reviewers seriously need to read The Children of Hurin.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

The entire notion of "moral certainty" even existing in the world is completely lost on me at the moment, I'm afraid. I live in a country where money is God, and in a state where a madman has bought his way into power, with sufficient cronies in the government to make his immoral ideas reality. They are utterly indifferent to the fact that what they are doing is causing not only hardship but intense hatred and resentment among those they are oppressing, and they are blind to the fact that what they are doing will inevitably lead to civil war. And they loudly call themselves moral Christians. So moral certainty? Doesn't exist, from what I can see.

I would say that Tolkien represents to many critics and analysts moral convention. He is the traditionalist, and to many who are looking to distinguish their work and make ripples that will be noticed, it's better to express preference for the novel, the unconventional — even if that, too, becomes conventional in time (I have in mind the nonconformist hippies of my youth, who eventually conformed to one another rather than the traditional). Authors like Moorcock fly in the face of convention, reject it, even belittle it, searching for something new, sometimes finding it, often not. And such as he will tend to be the darlings of critics who also want to be unconventional.

I remember reading the Broken Sword a long time ago. I enjoyed it, and never even thought about comparing it to Tolkien, not in the sense of measuring the merits of one over the other. It was different, different wasn't bad, it was merely another perspective. It made neither book better or worse than the other, but did offer another way to look at something similar.

Ah, forgive some curmudgeonly ranting above. I'm getting old, and I'm wondering what the world is coming to, and I'm feeling like Tolkien did in one of his letters to his son, where he felt that the forces of Mordor were winning.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Any book that is remotely related to Epic Fantasy and sells well is compared to Tolkien's works. It usually goes something like 'the best thing since Tolkien' or 'better than Tolkien'. I've even heard both at the same time, strangely; George R.R. Martin is called 'The American Tolkien' and at the same time is hailed as having a much better grasp on reality than Tolkien

Originally Posted by Ibrin

I would say that Tolkien represents to many critics and analysts moral convention. He is the traditionalist, and to many who are looking to distinguish their work and make ripples that will be noticed, it's better to express preference for the novel, the unconventional — even if that, too, becomes conventional in time (I have in mind the nonconformist hippies of my youth, who eventually conformed to one another rather than the traditional). Authors like Moorcock fly in the face of convention, reject it, even belittle it, searching for something new, sometimes finding it, often not. And such as he will tend to be the darlings of critics who also want to be unconventional.

Also some critics just don't seem to know how to promote A except by taking a swipe at B (or a strawman version thereof, as in this case). It's not restricted to speculative fiction, by any means– however, it does seem to be SF fans who are most likely to buy into it, for some reason. I've encountered quite a number over the years who act as though writing (or filmmaking or whatever) is a kind of competitive sport.

Originally Posted by Ibrin

Ah, forgive some curmudgeonly ranting above. I'm getting old, and I'm wondering what the world is coming to, and I'm feeling like Tolkien did in one of his letters to his son, where he felt that the forces of Mordor were winning.

Cheer up, Ibrin. Things usually work out, I find.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad

It seems to me that many fantasy authors have made two mistakes. Firstly, they have assumed a godless world is not a free and rational one, but a nihilistic one - hence the comparisons of Tolkien and Anderson - "Catholic" vs. "capricious", hence Moorcock's "Elric", Conversely, they have assumed religious authors like Tolkien are incapable of moral nuance. Compared to Tolkien, Anderson apparently displays "grimness", which apparently makes his moral vision more complex (even though Tolkien can be just as grim, at times). I have yet to read a good humanist fantasy, but I think Tolkien actually comes closer than Moorcock and those like him.

Well, I don't think there's that much good ideologically-driven fantasy of any stripe. It's all too easy for it to come across as merely the author's way of cheating in an argument: "I don't care what you say, in my made-up reality literally everything that happens supports my point of view, so, um... I win! Nyaahhh!"

But then, I also think critics see books more in those terms than the authors themselves do, anyway– or at least than they did while writing. At the risk of sounding cynical, it's my belief that some "messages" are more the result of lazy plotting than anything else. Sometimes, for example, an author simply writes himself into a corner and has to use a deus ex machina to get out– and then later, perhaps, tries to pass it off as showing "the mysterious workings of providence" or "the capriciousness of fate" in a flavour-according-to-taste kind of way.