Tolkien absolutely belongs in the canon, not only for his mythic breadth but for how his work redefined the modern epic. His philological grounding and moral complexity offer layers of interpretation that will continue to resonate for generations. That said, canonization has historically favored certain cultural perspectives, so while we celebrate Tolkien, we also must invite diverse voices who have yet to be fully recognized.
As for the Sanderson debate, while I respect Beck’s and others’ viewpoints, it’s a bit early to measure Sanderson by classic standards. Tolkien and Sanderson are crafting different mythologies for different eras. The truth is, we don’t yet have the hindsight to know Sanderson’s legacy, just as Tolkien’s stature wasn’t sealed overnight. If we agree that classics endure through future generations, then we can only say Tolkien is likely a classic, and Sanderson may yet become one.
Thanks so much for a great comment, Chantel. I love your keeping the discussion going!
“His philological grounding and moral complexity offer layers of interpretation that will continue to resonate for generations.”
Well said. I need to go back and quote you for the final line of the article :)
“That said, canonization has historically favored certain cultural perspectives, so while we celebrate Tolkien, we also must invite diverse voices who have yet to be fully recognized”
Hm, I don’t want to misinterpret you, Chantel, but that word “invite” makes me uneasy. If you mean we must be open to all voices in line with our cultural values, regardless of superficialities such as race, gender, etc. then I would agree. The West is great because we value (as Bloom says) “aesthetic merit” over manipulative “diversity.” I have faith greatness will (and always did) out.
“The truth is, we don’t yet have the hindsight to know Sanderson’s legacy, just as Tolkien’s stature wasn’t sealed overnight.”
Fair point. Time will surely tell. However, if we’re making a logical, informed guess, he has nearly no chance, I think. Sanderson’s a highly entertaining author, but nowhere near classical levels of aesthetic splendor, strangeness, rereadability over generations, etc. We might as well say Tom Clancy or Danielle Steele have a shot, too, if we’re leaving that door open.
Thanks once again, Chantel. I appreciate the discussion.
Superbe essay, a masterpiece and your best work so far. I'm going to have to link to it in an upcoming essay of mine on the nature of publishing, writing and 'Neo-Classics', hope you don't mind this was amazing Don!
"How classics become classics" is an idea that has always intrigued me. I agree with you; Tolkien's going to stick around. I wonder which of our more recent authors will?
I agree—canonization of authors is an intriguing thing. I had meant to just write this post about Bloom’s criticism of Tolkien, but it kept expanding. lol
Love this melding of two cataloguing works into a flexible rubric! I firmly believe that Tolkien's work, including The Silmarillion (which is Tolkien's, but also huge contributions by his son and Guy Gavriel Kay) belongs in the "classic" or "canon" status. Some very thoughtful conservative scholars (I am thinking here primarily of T. Greer) think that Tolkien's solution to the problem of modernity is "superhero morality" - a simplistic coming of age fable in which we must reject The Ring. But I think that is imposing an allegorical method of reading that, even though I don't wholly agree with Tolkien himself about allegory and symbolic readings of texts - definitely has a flattening and diminishing effect that does not do the symbol of the Ring justice at all. Especially when read in conjunction with The Silmarillion.
I love the idea that there's a ferocious minority of people who love reading like many love beer - reminds me of C. S. Lewis's amazing "An Experiment in Criticism", which I still think should be much more prominantly read and thought about and employed in literary studies. I also am meditating on the idea of the "rediscovered" or "cult" classics - those works which have those powerful elements of aesthetic beauty, strangeness, density, etc - but for various reasons, never found even that "strong minority of passionate readers".
I always look forward to your comments, Ian—thanks so much.
“‘superhero morality’ - a simplistic coming of age fable in which we must reject The Ring”
I actually had not read that—but I believe I agree with you. I’ll have to look up Greer to find out what he means.
“I also am meditating on the idea of the "rediscovered" or "cult" classics - those works which have those powerful elements of aesthetic beauty, strangeness, density, etc - but for various reasons, never found even that "strong minority of passionate readers".”
That’s a good point. Bennett seems very optimistic that if a work is great, it will inevitably be (re)discovered and promoted—which doesn’t seem to me as much a given, even in our Information Age, hyperconnected world. There is a bit of luck here (right people, right time, etc.)—though maybe truly great works stand above such luck? Hm. I’ll need to think on this more.
I'm probably not doing justice to Greer's argument - it's complex and mature (found here: https://scholars-stage.org/on-the-tolkienic-hero/) - but I ultimately think that while he has SOME true analysis, he ignores things like Aragorn's conscious campaign to be king (which, to be fair, the movies explicitly get rid of, more shame on them), and the fact that Sam becomes mayor of Hobbiton - ambition and using power to do good are NOT all conflated into the Ring's corrupting influence.
There's the rise of Moby Dick as the way a cult classic can become a recognized cultural classic (and in music, the rediscovery of Bach by Mendelssohn), but I think one of the reasons I've so enjoyed your blog is you are trying to restart the cultural instution and conversation that helps to create those classic recognitions. So far, the institutions of review, award, and study have been so corrupted by critical theory, but with substack and twitter, we can try to recreate those institutions from a right leaning perspective, hopefully without the partisanship that led to those instutions lauding anti-humanity books like "Some Despearate Glory" and "Little Brother" nonsense.
Ah! Thanks for the link! I'll read that very soon!
"So far, the institutions of review, award, and study have been so corrupted by critical theory, but with substack and twitter, we can try to recreate those institutions from a right leaning perspective, hopefully without the partisanship"
I couldn't agree more, my friend! Exactly, I feel the same way! What's odd is that I never considered myself "right." I'm not very political by nature. That is, until the last 5-10 years, when the Overton Window shifted so far left that in comparison to the liberal madness, I realized I'm actually a closet conservative and never even knew it...
And likewise--thank to you for keeping the level of conversation exceptionally high, Ian. I absolutely love how you engage with people even in comment sections of others' posts, always friendly yet firm, to discuss ideas and promote a traditional love of culture and ideas!
I've read LOTR 3 times, so far: first, as a besotted high school student, with nightmares about the Ringwraiths, second, as an undergrad in an actual CLASS on Tolkien (dream come true), and third, as a 40 something with years of teaching and learning, and an MA in English under my belt, just to see if it was "really all that." Spoiler alert: it was, and is. I loved it more and more each time. BTW, this Is LOTR a classic? question was tackled approximately 50 years ago and answered similarly to your commentary. I would say that that is an additional argument for the YES column, that the question comes up periodically. My ONLY complaint is that it doesn't pass the Bechdel Test, but that is not disqualifying. Just worth mentioning. I hope I may read it again a time or 2 while I'm still in this world.
I so appreciate this comment, Rayna thank you! I'm with you--it's well worth rereading over and over again.
"BTW, this Is LOTR a classic? question was tackled approximately 50 years ago and answered similarly to your commentary."
Interesting. In writing this piece I did not find that particular argument from the 70s or so... Can you point it out to me so I can read it? I saw clearly that especially Tom Shippey in the 80s/90s changed many minds about Tolkien, but not before that.
In 1968, University of Notre Dame Press issued a book called Tolkien and the Critics, edited by Neil D. Isaacs and Rose A. Zimbardo. It contains an essay entitled The Lord of the Rings as Literature by Burton Raffel. My memory can't be guaranteed at that distance in time, LOL, because it was 50 years ago that I read it, but my recollection is that it raised many of the same points. OK, Raffel claims it is NOT literature, but I would have to reread the essay in order to rebut it fully. Anyway, if you are a Tolkien fan, I recommend the book as a whole. 💖📚
Ah—thanks so much! I actually have come across that book in the past (in fact, I may even own it!…somewhere…) I’ll be sure to read that one. Thanks so much, Rayna!
I mean, one could argue that Jane Austen's novels don't pass the reverse Bechdel test, and they are undisputed (except by some quarrelsome people on twitter) classics. :D
I think the Bechdel test is more a societal observation than a measure of artistic quality, and sadly the way it's been employed on tumblr has often distracted from that fact.
I fell for your click-bait, Solomon, but I have to say, defending Sanderson on the basis that “he’s new and doing something different than Tolkien” and suggesting that Tolkien’s current popularity can’t be separated from the popularity of the movies strike me as… weak, at best. Sanderson’s focus on world-building is clearly derived from Tolkien, so the comparison is inevitable, and the fact that Sanderson clearly doesn’t care how he throws his sentences together doesn’t do him any favours. And the strength of the LotR movies lies precisely in their faithfulness to Tolkien, which doesn’t exactly work as a way to throw shade on the enduring popularity of the original author.
I will freely admit that I have not been able to read Sanderson (I simply can’t endure his makeshift sentences), so I’m probably ill-qualified to judge whether or not he’ll endure, but I suspect that if he does it won’t be the main body of his work that lasts, but some small, slightly higher-quality sample, something like the way the super-popular-in-his-day Sir Walter Scott is now only remembered for Ivanhoe, if he’s remembered at all.
nice article! I still think that Tolkien's pure wordsmithery is at least one, if not several levels above Sanderson's, but can be complicated to "prove" for sure. :D
Having read lotr eight times now--3times aloud with my first wife, our daughter, and my current wife --I can't help but acknowledge it's staying power. Yes the writing can be stiff at times, but what would you say instead of "You shall not pass!"?
rpgs and fantasy is so perverse because "a very specific kind of people" are trying their literally damnedest to ruin what Good The Lord Of The Rings and The Chronicles Of Narnia did. Tolkien and CS Lewis had a plan to give their nation at least 50 years more life before total collapse, which they achieved, which angered those who feed off collapse like carrion.
We got those 50 years, Tolkien owes no one anything more, the question is what you owe him now.
Gorgeous piece of writing Mr. Beck, and one I'll have to read gain. You've put to words the sometimes intuitive aim of a community of authors we might think of as post-modern monks. I hope dearly to be one of them. Your commentary on aesthetic splendor is wonderfully precise. Tolkien's anachronism strikes me far more as Odysseus than Achilles. It's no accident that Lewis mentioned that long-suffering hero.
For some time I've had a weighty book-mark on the very page of On Stories where Lewis trumpets that wonderous praise. The end of the essay is not to be forgotten either: "I have little doubt that the book will soon take its place among the indispensables."
To hear the honest words "heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, has suddenly returned” would be the highest praise one could receive, this side of "well done, good and faithful servant."
When I was younger I wanted nothing less than to have the things that I loved be appreciated by a larger group, by the whole world. Over time this has happened again and again, the result is always deflating. They never take from it what I take from it, and often admire the pieces that I find embarrassing and vice versa. Love of art is an orchid: fragile. Love in secret, it is the only way.
Thanks for posting this—but can you help me understand your meaning? Are you saying Tolkien is not as appreciated as you wish he were? Or he is appreciated and you wish he weren’t? Or are you speaking more in general?
Not on Tolkien particularly, just to the difference between loving something yourself and having the whole world love it. It always seemed to me that it would be awesome for others to validate my taste, but that validation was fragile and ultimately depressing because it never reflected the virtues I found in the work. In the examples of your essay, I was one of those dedicated few, when my beloved works were chosen they were simultaneously reinterpreted to be more like the world that chose them and less like the me who loved them. Does that make any sense?
In terms of examples, I was a big booster of the kind of romantic fantasy that would draw me to a Tolkien article in the first place. These were then seen then as the lowest of genre fiction. When the world began to reflect my taste it was almost always by adapting the weirdness that I loved out of the work in the first place. "Literary" authors would wade in with plot-less pastiche and "genre" authors desperate for acceptance would bend their base but visceral instincts to a less authentic, but more "laudable" effort. As I write this I realize I'm thinking more of genres than individual works. Tolkien can remain Tolkien no matter how many people read him in their own way. However, I still think that something is lost when your core group of weirdos is expanded to include too many who read it because it's supposed to be read. Better dead than read as homework.
"when my beloved works were chosen they were simultaneously reinterpreted to be more like the world that chose them and less like the me who loved them. Does that make any sense?"
Absolutely. Modern interpretations (especially if through [shudder] critical lenses) can be more frustrating than com0plimentary to those of who love a work.
""Literary" authors would wade in with plot-less pastiche and "genre" authors desperate for acceptance would bend their base but visceral instincts to a less authentic, but more "laudable" effort. "
This is so true. Well said!
"I still think that something is lost when your core group of weirdos is expanded to include too many who read it because it's supposed to be read. Better dead than read as homework."
That's an interesting point--though I've never fully subscribed to the "I liked Tolkien before Tolkien was cool" camp. I get what you're saying: a crowded bus of fans--even half-fans and people forced to ride--can be annoying, but the core is always there, that something that made it special. No one can take kill that :)
PS: You may be surprised how often forcing someone to read something in school actually gains it a fan. Back when I was a teacher, I had really good successes with "the moldy oldies" and many kids later telling me they now loved Gatsby, Steinbeck, Shakespeare--even poetry.
Excellent essay, Don. Even though I came in not needing any convincing, you've fruitfully put Calvino and Bloom into conversation to make the case for Tolkien's classic status.
I already forget which one made the point about lineages and I can't go back without erasing this comment, but it reminds me of an essay that I think you'd really enjoy from Borges, called "Kafka and His Predecessors," or something to that effect. He makes the case that Kafka invented his predecessors, by prompting his own passionate readers to see a lineage culminating in his work. (I forget if Borges or somebody else made a similar point about how the New Testament "invented" the Old Testament, but anyway that gets us way far afield of this conversation.)
I just found that Borges piece and you’re right: it does explain an phenomenon similar to Bloom’s “angst of influence,” although perhaps just as much focused on the reader’s ability to understand/notice earlier influences due to reading the later text :
“Kafka's idiosyncrasy is present in each of these writings, to a greater or lesser degree, but if Kafka had not written, we would not perceive it; that is to say, it would not exist… The fact is that each writer creates his precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future”
I didn’t quote it, but Bloom goes into this exact idea in some depth when discussing Shakespeare, as he says the Bard rewires our brains both for our understanding of all authors before him AND no author after him can be read fully without contending with him—which is why he’s the best we’ve ever had, in Bloom’s view. He even says “the Western Canon is Shakespeare.”
I found Tolkien's archaic style of writing to be one of the most endearing things about Lord of the Rings. I just can't imagine the story being told any other way. I have my doubts that it would even work any other way. So much of the success of the story is in its stout pre- or anti-modernism (on every level, not merely style/diction). And, paradoxically, that is largely the reason it is beloved by modern readers.
I did find this is a common problem modern critics always have with LOTR (such as Bloom, whom I quoted)--but I found myself complaining that they're missing the point.
So true! It is quite remarkable how many critics seem to miss the point. The modern mind is so conditioned to scorn the idea of magic, or fairy tales, or a world absolutely dripping with sacred meaning at every level, or indeed the concepts of virtue, heroism, evil, and transcendence. If the story doesn't make sense to them, that must mean it doesn't make sense at all.
But no...their worldview is just far too small and far too snobby to see.
Again, well said! You're just full of truth-bombs, my friend. Love it--keep 'em coming!
By the way, have you read Piranesi by Susanna Clarke? I was blown away by how that book tackled all the ideas you mention (especially re-enchantment). Plus it's a wonderful little read.
I’d say the fact that Tolkien more or less defined the modern genre of fantasy almost single-handed (with, I think, a little help from Lewis) should also go a fair ways to establishing his seat in the mead-hall that is the canon.
Tolkien absolutely belongs in the canon, not only for his mythic breadth but for how his work redefined the modern epic. His philological grounding and moral complexity offer layers of interpretation that will continue to resonate for generations. That said, canonization has historically favored certain cultural perspectives, so while we celebrate Tolkien, we also must invite diverse voices who have yet to be fully recognized.
As for the Sanderson debate, while I respect Beck’s and others’ viewpoints, it’s a bit early to measure Sanderson by classic standards. Tolkien and Sanderson are crafting different mythologies for different eras. The truth is, we don’t yet have the hindsight to know Sanderson’s legacy, just as Tolkien’s stature wasn’t sealed overnight. If we agree that classics endure through future generations, then we can only say Tolkien is likely a classic, and Sanderson may yet become one.
Thanks so much for a great comment, Chantel. I love your keeping the discussion going!
“His philological grounding and moral complexity offer layers of interpretation that will continue to resonate for generations.”
Well said. I need to go back and quote you for the final line of the article :)
“That said, canonization has historically favored certain cultural perspectives, so while we celebrate Tolkien, we also must invite diverse voices who have yet to be fully recognized”
Hm, I don’t want to misinterpret you, Chantel, but that word “invite” makes me uneasy. If you mean we must be open to all voices in line with our cultural values, regardless of superficialities such as race, gender, etc. then I would agree. The West is great because we value (as Bloom says) “aesthetic merit” over manipulative “diversity.” I have faith greatness will (and always did) out.
“The truth is, we don’t yet have the hindsight to know Sanderson’s legacy, just as Tolkien’s stature wasn’t sealed overnight.”
Fair point. Time will surely tell. However, if we’re making a logical, informed guess, he has nearly no chance, I think. Sanderson’s a highly entertaining author, but nowhere near classical levels of aesthetic splendor, strangeness, rereadability over generations, etc. We might as well say Tom Clancy or Danielle Steele have a shot, too, if we’re leaving that door open.
Thanks once again, Chantel. I appreciate the discussion.
Superbe essay, a masterpiece and your best work so far. I'm going to have to link to it in an upcoming essay of mine on the nature of publishing, writing and 'Neo-Classics', hope you don't mind this was amazing Don!
You’re too kind as always. Thank you so much for both reading and taking the time to comment, my friend. Of course you can link to it—I’d be honored!
Yaaay will do!
"How classics become classics" is an idea that has always intrigued me. I agree with you; Tolkien's going to stick around. I wonder which of our more recent authors will?
Thanks for posting (and restacking), my friend.
I agree—canonization of authors is an intriguing thing. I had meant to just write this post about Bloom’s criticism of Tolkien, but it kept expanding. lol
Love this melding of two cataloguing works into a flexible rubric! I firmly believe that Tolkien's work, including The Silmarillion (which is Tolkien's, but also huge contributions by his son and Guy Gavriel Kay) belongs in the "classic" or "canon" status. Some very thoughtful conservative scholars (I am thinking here primarily of T. Greer) think that Tolkien's solution to the problem of modernity is "superhero morality" - a simplistic coming of age fable in which we must reject The Ring. But I think that is imposing an allegorical method of reading that, even though I don't wholly agree with Tolkien himself about allegory and symbolic readings of texts - definitely has a flattening and diminishing effect that does not do the symbol of the Ring justice at all. Especially when read in conjunction with The Silmarillion.
I love the idea that there's a ferocious minority of people who love reading like many love beer - reminds me of C. S. Lewis's amazing "An Experiment in Criticism", which I still think should be much more prominantly read and thought about and employed in literary studies. I also am meditating on the idea of the "rediscovered" or "cult" classics - those works which have those powerful elements of aesthetic beauty, strangeness, density, etc - but for various reasons, never found even that "strong minority of passionate readers".
I always look forward to your comments, Ian—thanks so much.
“‘superhero morality’ - a simplistic coming of age fable in which we must reject The Ring”
I actually had not read that—but I believe I agree with you. I’ll have to look up Greer to find out what he means.
“I also am meditating on the idea of the "rediscovered" or "cult" classics - those works which have those powerful elements of aesthetic beauty, strangeness, density, etc - but for various reasons, never found even that "strong minority of passionate readers".”
That’s a good point. Bennett seems very optimistic that if a work is great, it will inevitably be (re)discovered and promoted—which doesn’t seem to me as much a given, even in our Information Age, hyperconnected world. There is a bit of luck here (right people, right time, etc.)—though maybe truly great works stand above such luck? Hm. I’ll need to think on this more.
I'm probably not doing justice to Greer's argument - it's complex and mature (found here: https://scholars-stage.org/on-the-tolkienic-hero/) - but I ultimately think that while he has SOME true analysis, he ignores things like Aragorn's conscious campaign to be king (which, to be fair, the movies explicitly get rid of, more shame on them), and the fact that Sam becomes mayor of Hobbiton - ambition and using power to do good are NOT all conflated into the Ring's corrupting influence.
There's the rise of Moby Dick as the way a cult classic can become a recognized cultural classic (and in music, the rediscovery of Bach by Mendelssohn), but I think one of the reasons I've so enjoyed your blog is you are trying to restart the cultural instution and conversation that helps to create those classic recognitions. So far, the institutions of review, award, and study have been so corrupted by critical theory, but with substack and twitter, we can try to recreate those institutions from a right leaning perspective, hopefully without the partisanship that led to those instutions lauding anti-humanity books like "Some Despearate Glory" and "Little Brother" nonsense.
Ah! Thanks for the link! I'll read that very soon!
"So far, the institutions of review, award, and study have been so corrupted by critical theory, but with substack and twitter, we can try to recreate those institutions from a right leaning perspective, hopefully without the partisanship"
I couldn't agree more, my friend! Exactly, I feel the same way! What's odd is that I never considered myself "right." I'm not very political by nature. That is, until the last 5-10 years, when the Overton Window shifted so far left that in comparison to the liberal madness, I realized I'm actually a closet conservative and never even knew it...
And likewise--thank to you for keeping the level of conversation exceptionally high, Ian. I absolutely love how you engage with people even in comment sections of others' posts, always friendly yet firm, to discuss ideas and promote a traditional love of culture and ideas!
You make it easy with such rich discussion starting posts and attracting such a high level of commentor! :D
Haha! Agreed! The rich discussion here is the real highlight of joining substack!
I've read LOTR 3 times, so far: first, as a besotted high school student, with nightmares about the Ringwraiths, second, as an undergrad in an actual CLASS on Tolkien (dream come true), and third, as a 40 something with years of teaching and learning, and an MA in English under my belt, just to see if it was "really all that." Spoiler alert: it was, and is. I loved it more and more each time. BTW, this Is LOTR a classic? question was tackled approximately 50 years ago and answered similarly to your commentary. I would say that that is an additional argument for the YES column, that the question comes up periodically. My ONLY complaint is that it doesn't pass the Bechdel Test, but that is not disqualifying. Just worth mentioning. I hope I may read it again a time or 2 while I'm still in this world.
I so appreciate this comment, Rayna thank you! I'm with you--it's well worth rereading over and over again.
"BTW, this Is LOTR a classic? question was tackled approximately 50 years ago and answered similarly to your commentary."
Interesting. In writing this piece I did not find that particular argument from the 70s or so... Can you point it out to me so I can read it? I saw clearly that especially Tom Shippey in the 80s/90s changed many minds about Tolkien, but not before that.
In 1968, University of Notre Dame Press issued a book called Tolkien and the Critics, edited by Neil D. Isaacs and Rose A. Zimbardo. It contains an essay entitled The Lord of the Rings as Literature by Burton Raffel. My memory can't be guaranteed at that distance in time, LOL, because it was 50 years ago that I read it, but my recollection is that it raised many of the same points. OK, Raffel claims it is NOT literature, but I would have to reread the essay in order to rebut it fully. Anyway, if you are a Tolkien fan, I recommend the book as a whole. 💖📚
Ah—thanks so much! I actually have come across that book in the past (in fact, I may even own it!…somewhere…) I’ll be sure to read that one. Thanks so much, Rayna!
😎
I mean, one could argue that Jane Austen's novels don't pass the reverse Bechdel test, and they are undisputed (except by some quarrelsome people on twitter) classics. :D
Was going to add that Moby Dick wouldn't either......
I think the Bechdel test is more a societal observation than a measure of artistic quality, and sadly the way it's been employed on tumblr has often distracted from that fact.
Fair.
I can taste my influence in this article.
https://notesfromtheoldcountry.substack.com/p/the-sanderson-bashing-will-continue
Well.... Everyone I read gets ground up and mixed in the Nutribullet of my brain, I suppose :)
I fell for your click-bait, Solomon, but I have to say, defending Sanderson on the basis that “he’s new and doing something different than Tolkien” and suggesting that Tolkien’s current popularity can’t be separated from the popularity of the movies strike me as… weak, at best. Sanderson’s focus on world-building is clearly derived from Tolkien, so the comparison is inevitable, and the fact that Sanderson clearly doesn’t care how he throws his sentences together doesn’t do him any favours. And the strength of the LotR movies lies precisely in their faithfulness to Tolkien, which doesn’t exactly work as a way to throw shade on the enduring popularity of the original author.
I will freely admit that I have not been able to read Sanderson (I simply can’t endure his makeshift sentences), so I’m probably ill-qualified to judge whether or not he’ll endure, but I suspect that if he does it won’t be the main body of his work that lasts, but some small, slightly higher-quality sample, something like the way the super-popular-in-his-day Sir Walter Scott is now only remembered for Ivanhoe, if he’s remembered at all.
nice article! I still think that Tolkien's pure wordsmithery is at least one, if not several levels above Sanderson's, but can be complicated to "prove" for sure. :D
Having read lotr eight times now--3times aloud with my first wife, our daughter, and my current wife --I can't help but acknowledge it's staying power. Yes the writing can be stiff at times, but what would you say instead of "You shall not pass!"?
"Back off buster?!"
Hahaha! Brandon Sanderson would have him say exactly that, I think…
This essay reminded me of “The St Crispins day speech”. Avid reading being less dangerous, but just as select. We lucky few indeed.
Thank you! I completely agree (both with the comparison and with the power of that speech—now THAT’S classic-level aesthetic splendor!
rpgs and fantasy is so perverse because "a very specific kind of people" are trying their literally damnedest to ruin what Good The Lord Of The Rings and The Chronicles Of Narnia did. Tolkien and CS Lewis had a plan to give their nation at least 50 years more life before total collapse, which they achieved, which angered those who feed off collapse like carrion.
We got those 50 years, Tolkien owes no one anything more, the question is what you owe him now.
Ask not what Tolkien can do for you, but what you can do for Tolkien!
Gorgeous piece of writing Mr. Beck, and one I'll have to read gain. You've put to words the sometimes intuitive aim of a community of authors we might think of as post-modern monks. I hope dearly to be one of them. Your commentary on aesthetic splendor is wonderfully precise. Tolkien's anachronism strikes me far more as Odysseus than Achilles. It's no accident that Lewis mentioned that long-suffering hero.
For some time I've had a weighty book-mark on the very page of On Stories where Lewis trumpets that wonderous praise. The end of the essay is not to be forgotten either: "I have little doubt that the book will soon take its place among the indispensables."
To hear the honest words "heroic romance, gorgeous, eloquent, and unashamed, has suddenly returned” would be the highest praise one could receive, this side of "well done, good and faithful servant."
Thanks for sharing, Don.
Thank you for reading and commenting, Ezra! I couldn’t agree more! (And I hope someday you receive that same praise as well!)
Thomas Wolfe
Entirely besides the point, but I wasn't aware this was a person, and was going to protest that Tom Wolfe has some measure of popularity still...
Of course, Tom the younger may himself be too topical to last.
lol—I actually knew it because in the 90s at college I got confused by the two. Haha
When I was younger I wanted nothing less than to have the things that I loved be appreciated by a larger group, by the whole world. Over time this has happened again and again, the result is always deflating. They never take from it what I take from it, and often admire the pieces that I find embarrassing and vice versa. Love of art is an orchid: fragile. Love in secret, it is the only way.
Thanks for posting this—but can you help me understand your meaning? Are you saying Tolkien is not as appreciated as you wish he were? Or he is appreciated and you wish he weren’t? Or are you speaking more in general?
Not on Tolkien particularly, just to the difference between loving something yourself and having the whole world love it. It always seemed to me that it would be awesome for others to validate my taste, but that validation was fragile and ultimately depressing because it never reflected the virtues I found in the work. In the examples of your essay, I was one of those dedicated few, when my beloved works were chosen they were simultaneously reinterpreted to be more like the world that chose them and less like the me who loved them. Does that make any sense?
In terms of examples, I was a big booster of the kind of romantic fantasy that would draw me to a Tolkien article in the first place. These were then seen then as the lowest of genre fiction. When the world began to reflect my taste it was almost always by adapting the weirdness that I loved out of the work in the first place. "Literary" authors would wade in with plot-less pastiche and "genre" authors desperate for acceptance would bend their base but visceral instincts to a less authentic, but more "laudable" effort. As I write this I realize I'm thinking more of genres than individual works. Tolkien can remain Tolkien no matter how many people read him in their own way. However, I still think that something is lost when your core group of weirdos is expanded to include too many who read it because it's supposed to be read. Better dead than read as homework.
"when my beloved works were chosen they were simultaneously reinterpreted to be more like the world that chose them and less like the me who loved them. Does that make any sense?"
Absolutely. Modern interpretations (especially if through [shudder] critical lenses) can be more frustrating than com0plimentary to those of who love a work.
""Literary" authors would wade in with plot-less pastiche and "genre" authors desperate for acceptance would bend their base but visceral instincts to a less authentic, but more "laudable" effort. "
This is so true. Well said!
"I still think that something is lost when your core group of weirdos is expanded to include too many who read it because it's supposed to be read. Better dead than read as homework."
That's an interesting point--though I've never fully subscribed to the "I liked Tolkien before Tolkien was cool" camp. I get what you're saying: a crowded bus of fans--even half-fans and people forced to ride--can be annoying, but the core is always there, that something that made it special. No one can take kill that :)
PS: You may be surprised how often forcing someone to read something in school actually gains it a fan. Back when I was a teacher, I had really good successes with "the moldy oldies" and many kids later telling me they now loved Gatsby, Steinbeck, Shakespeare--even poetry.
Excellent essay, Don. Even though I came in not needing any convincing, you've fruitfully put Calvino and Bloom into conversation to make the case for Tolkien's classic status.
I already forget which one made the point about lineages and I can't go back without erasing this comment, but it reminds me of an essay that I think you'd really enjoy from Borges, called "Kafka and His Predecessors," or something to that effect. He makes the case that Kafka invented his predecessors, by prompting his own passionate readers to see a lineage culminating in his work. (I forget if Borges or somebody else made a similar point about how the New Testament "invented" the Old Testament, but anyway that gets us way far afield of this conversation.)
Thanks as always, Ajai!
I just found that Borges piece and you’re right: it does explain an phenomenon similar to Bloom’s “angst of influence,” although perhaps just as much focused on the reader’s ability to understand/notice earlier influences due to reading the later text :
“Kafka's idiosyncrasy is present in each of these writings, to a greater or lesser degree, but if Kafka had not written, we would not perceive it; that is to say, it would not exist… The fact is that each writer creates his precursors. His work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future”
I didn’t quote it, but Bloom goes into this exact idea in some depth when discussing Shakespeare, as he says the Bard rewires our brains both for our understanding of all authors before him AND no author after him can be read fully without contending with him—which is why he’s the best we’ve ever had, in Bloom’s view. He even says “the Western Canon is Shakespeare.”
Great article Don
Cheers
So kind of you, Benjamin. I appreciate you reading it!
I found Tolkien's archaic style of writing to be one of the most endearing things about Lord of the Rings. I just can't imagine the story being told any other way. I have my doubts that it would even work any other way. So much of the success of the story is in its stout pre- or anti-modernism (on every level, not merely style/diction). And, paradoxically, that is largely the reason it is beloved by modern readers.
I couldn't agree more. Well said!
I did find this is a common problem modern critics always have with LOTR (such as Bloom, whom I quoted)--but I found myself complaining that they're missing the point.
So true! It is quite remarkable how many critics seem to miss the point. The modern mind is so conditioned to scorn the idea of magic, or fairy tales, or a world absolutely dripping with sacred meaning at every level, or indeed the concepts of virtue, heroism, evil, and transcendence. If the story doesn't make sense to them, that must mean it doesn't make sense at all.
But no...their worldview is just far too small and far too snobby to see.
Again, well said! You're just full of truth-bombs, my friend. Love it--keep 'em coming!
By the way, have you read Piranesi by Susanna Clarke? I was blown away by how that book tackled all the ideas you mention (especially re-enchantment). Plus it's a wonderful little read.
I have not heard of Piranesi! Now you have piqued my interest. I'll have to check it out!
Oh, you have a treat in store for you, my friend! :)
When you get finish it, maybe let me know what you think. I also write a recommendation for it last year, which I’d love to hear your thoughts on:
I'd love to check out what you wrote on it! What is the title of the piece?
I’d say the fact that Tolkien more or less defined the modern genre of fantasy almost single-handed (with, I think, a little help from Lewis) should also go a fair ways to establishing his seat in the mead-hall that is the canon.