Is Tolkien still relevant?

[mgilmour]

Tolkien's influence didn't really come to dominate fantasy until the early 80s. Before that, the genre was a mix of a sword and sorcery, pulp, and vaguely Tolkienesque fantasy. Once the Sword of Shannara hit the bestseller list, the whole genre went into Tolkien-emulation mode (and also grew commercially). It also became homogenized. So in a sense, the diversity in fantasy over the last 10 years or so is a return to the pre-80s era.

Got to love the 80s! I must admit that I found the Sword of Shannara like sucking on a cheap lolly versus LOTR was a meal. It still has it place though....

 

[Extollager]

LOTR has much to offer to readers who normally wouldn't read fantasy, it seems to me, such as a more serious exploration of the nature and ambiguities of evil than what you'd usually find in "mainstream" fiction. See Shippey's Road to Middle-earth on this (which I see as THE one book ON Tolkien's masterpiece to read, if you're at all interested -- there are lots of good books on Tolkien's writings, but this is my favorite at least).

 

[Stephen Palmer]

LOTR has much to offer to readers who normally wouldn't read fantasy, it seems to me, such as a more serious exploration of the nature and ambiguities of evil than what you'd usually find in "mainstream" fiction. See Shippey's Road to Middle-earth on this (which I see as THE one book ON Tolkien's masterpiece to read, if you're at all interested -- there are lots of good books on Tolkien's writings, but this is my favorite at least).

Read it recently, and entirely agree.

 

[wam]

I read The Hobbit before I was 10 on the recommendation of the school headmaster. I'd already got through various myths/legends stories by then - mostly straight retellings of old stories in vaguely modern English. The Hobbit didn't seem to be anything special at the time. I read LOTR in my late teens (mostly down to availability of copies) and didn't rate it any higher.
I remember the phase in the 80s where every generic fantasy novel was stamped "comparable to Tolkien at his best" on the front. The only ones that seemed to escape this were the older ones like Moorcock, Howard and Eddison. The labelling seemed to do more for the reputation of Tolkien than anything else. I suppose someone must have realised this because the labels eventually stopped. Tolkien still had enough obsessive fans to get LOTR to win library polls and the like but I don't think he scored so high outside of the fans.
For a few years I went to an annual event run by the local council that they called "The middle earth festival" for a local Tolkien connection. When the films of LOTR came out it's popularity went up greatly. So much that by the time of the third film they had the Mayor in to open it. By the time the last film showed on TV it was already fading and before the wave of Hobbit films it was cancelled. I suspect Tolkien will fade now but I don't know how much. It's obvious that the four books will last longer than most but I wouldn't count on much of a centenary.

 

[Extollager]

I remember the phase in the 80s where every generic fantasy novel was stamped "comparable to Tolkien at his best" on the front. The only ones that seemed to escape this were the older ones like Moorcock, Howard and Eddison.

These authors didn't escape the Tolkienian reference; but it dates back to 1960s paperback issues of their books:

http://tolkienandfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/11/dale-nelsons-summation-on-tolkien-in.html

Publishers tried to sell all three of these authors by associating them with Tolkien, even before 1970.

 

[Extollager]

I'd rank LOTR with something like Spenser's Faerie Queene. A great deal of wisdom and perennial relevance permeates its pages. Some readers will not get past the fairy-story form, but if they do, some will be able to discern that this is a work that deals worthily with great themes and permanent values. It is, of course, a superlative work of the imagination, satisfying (to many) as a place to go to, but from which one also brings back much. It is a life-enhancing work. It is great art.

To the degree that it seems to become "irrelevant," that will often, I think, be an index to a deficiency not in the book but in its reader or in the culture in which readers are embedded.

It may be read simply as "escape" from reality, but many readers will find it provides escape to the reality of permanent values. It is a noble book. In an ignoble age, one may expect to see it disparaged. (I'm not referring to things that people posting here have said.)

It relates somehow to two things I have taped to my office door.

From Film-maker Werner Herzog:

"The volume and depth and intensity of the world is something that only those on foot will ever experience."

--LOTR must be a book that has launched a thousand, or a thousand times a thousand, walks.

Theodore Dalrymple, in "Compliance with Untruth" in The New Criterion:

"In my travels in the communist world... I came to a realization about its propaganda, at least for internal consumption, that was, perhaps, pretty obvious, though not immediately to me. It took a little reflection on my part to come to a conclusion that no doubt will seem to you utterly banal: namely that such propaganda was not intended to persuade, much less to inform, but to humiliate. For this reason the less true it was, the better, for by not only forbidding contradiction to its claims but demanding assent to them, the human being's sense of independence and worthiness as an individual was destroyed from within, as it were, gnawed away until it no longer existed. The more preposterous the claims and the more obvious the defects in reasoning, the more effective they were, especially for intelligent and educated people. And this process of human destruction, perfected as never before in the Soviet Union, is now far advanced in Britain and I daresay in the rest of the Western world."

But LOTR, alertly and thoughtfully read, is an anti-propagandist work. It is about people who connect with perennial truths in order to make hard choices only they can make. One is example is the heroine of the book, Galadriel. For thousands of years she has ruled an Elvish realm (that, yet, cannot last), in Middle-earth, having refused to go into the West. Now Frodo freely offers her the Ring. By it she could become great indeed and effect in Middle-earth a whole world of beauty and timelessness... at least for a long time. And she looks within herself, this near-goddess, and turns down the Ring. Instead she equips a couple of hobbits to throw it away. From one point of view, after Galadriel does this, everything else is details. She saved the world. And hardly anybody in the book, so far as we know, ever even knows what happened then.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

One is example is the heroine of the book, Galadriel.

Easily the most frightening person in the whole story.

 

[Siberian]

I'd say Tolkien is even more relevant today than ever. I remember reading LOTR a few years ago (the first time after many years) and thinking how refreshing it was to have protagonists (Frodo and Sam) who don't become some sort of the uber powerful wizard/warrior/king (Aragorn, of course, becomes one, but after many years of anonymously serving the people of Middle-earth without asking anything in return). In these days of book being influenced by blockbusters and comic books the hobbits would have been relegated to being funny sidekicks at the most (I bet Peter Jackson wanted to have Aragorn as the hero, too, and look what happened to Frodo: losing most of his agency and becoming some sort of a damsel in distress, and don't get me started on The Hobbit travesty).

The idea that power corrupts was not invented by JRRT, of course, but the way it's integrated in the story is unique and chilling, without being preachy. Really, why not use the superweapon against the supervillain? Aren't the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or so the politicians tell us)? Why those who want the Ring become corrupt without even touching it and eventually fail the people who they supposedly want to save? Why Galadriel, Gandalf, Aragorn - all powerful beings who've being fighting Sauron for years or centuries now - refuse the Ring? Why is a simple Hobbit the only one who is entrusted to carry the Ring to Mount Doom - and even he fails in the end? Why Tom Bombadil is the only one completely unaffected by the Ring?

Might doesn't make it right. Is Return of the Jedi the last blockbuster/fantasy/space opera where the hero wins by refusing to fight and commit murder? (Incidentally, in The Winter Soldier - Captain America refuses to continue fighting his former friend, even at the risk to his own life. It's easy to accept it as he's an old-fashioned relic of the Great Generation - cynical Iron Man might make fun of this "duty, honor, country" stuff, but you can't help but respect him).

 

[BAYLOR]

The LOTR and Hobbit Films have done their bit to further cement Tolkien into long term memory of popular culture .

 

[Overread]

I think another reason for the dominance of Tolkien is because we are dominantly English speaking/reading people on the site. Thus we get books written in and by western influenced markets for western customers (as defined by publishers). We miss out on a a huge range of material that is published in other languages; often as not when we do get a translation it takes a very big release to get it translated.

So I think we do miss out on writers, mythologies and such that are just not translated into English - or if they are are done so poorly ( a poor translation can destroy a book very easily).

 

[BAYLOR]

I think another reason for the dominance of Tolkien is because we are dominantly English speaking/reading people on the site. Thus we get books written in and by western influenced markets for western customers (as defined by publishers). We miss out on a a huge range of material that is published in other languages; often as not when we do get a translation it takes a very big release to get it translated.

So I think we do miss out on writers, mythologies and such that are just not translated into English - or if they are are done so poorly ( a poor translation can destroy a book very easily).

The movies certainly help give Tolkien world wide reach.

 

[vanye]

Is Tolkien still relevant?

Does water still flow downhill?

 

[BAYLOR]

Does water still flow downhill?

So Far.

 

[j d worthington]

I think another reason for the dominance of Tolkien is because we are dominantly English speaking/reading people on the site. Thus we get books written in and by western influenced markets for western customers (as defined by publishers). We miss out on a a huge range of material that is published in other languages; often as not when we do get a translation it takes a very big release to get it translated.

So I think we do miss out on writers, mythologies and such that are just not translated into English - or if they are are done so poorly ( a poor translation can destroy a book very easily).

You make a good point and it is true that, because a great many worthy works are either not translated into English (or for that matter other languages) or are badly translated, our view is almost certainly narrower than it need be. On the other hand, when it comes to Tolkien's work itself, take a look at the number of languages it has been translated into. Just dip into Anderson's Annotated Hobbit, where he provides a fairly extensive list of translations just up to that point, along with reproductions of a number of illustrations from them. Some works just seem to be universal rather than limited to a particular culture, and Tolkien's seems to be among them....

 

[Overread]

Aye very true but how much of that universal aspect is due to the quality of the work and how much is due to marketing?

Twilight might not be that influential and a passing phase in teenagers but I'd be willing to bet its been translated into a lot of other languages, possibly as many as Tolkien's. So there's an element of marketing built into it as well which all links back to the publishers. How hard a book is sold, how easily it is accessible to those of different nations are all key parts in how much impact a book can make.

I would say that Lord of the Rings has managed where many don't in that its a book which is still put on the shelves today and sold with new editions and the like. Many classic and important series of novels often get a lot of exposure around a peek period, but then quickly dwindle until they no longer hold shelf space barring in the corners of second hand book shops. As such new generations of readers might hear about the classics or read reference to them as the inspiration of new published books; but it will only be a much smaller minority who seek them out beyond the basic bookshelf.

Amazon might actually make a difference here as it makes access to older books a lot easier. Marketing is still a weakness, but at the very least it provides increased market exposure.