Arrogant critics?

[Toby Frost]

They have never, or only a little, known things such as love for a particular place, or close friendship; or in some other domains of experience have not known, or known well, what Tolkien is celebrating and defending.

Perhaps there is something missing in some critics of Tolkien, but surely not the majority. It's possible to just think that other writers do this better.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

It's possible to just think that other writers do this better.

I'm sure some must.

My wife says some of the negative critics have different motives ...

 

[Nick B]

Perhaps there is something missing in some critics of Tolkien, but surely not the majority. It's possible to just think that other writers do this better.

This is true. Tolkien isn't the best writer I have ever read. He may not even be among the best. Other writers may have been able to write the saga better. The fact remains: they didnt. Tolkien did.
We all discuss writing skill, technical ability and the soul of the storyteller. You can have the skill, and the technical knowledge, but if you are not a storyteller, all it is is words on a page, and all the skill at the technical end will not change that.

Tolkien was an amazing storyteller.

As long as your skills and technical knowledge are adequate, the soul of storytelling is the most important.

 

[aThenian]

I completely agree. There’s something very honest about LOTR, almost naïve in a good way. I think that too makes it hard to judge, especially in the way that modern readers are trained to expect subtext or irony.

I think this is true, also this comment by Hex:

"there's not much ambiguity, which is one of the reasons it's so emotionally satisfying".

Seems to me that LOTR is a bit like The Iliad, say, in that it is the story of "noble" characters doing "noble" deeds in difficult times. By this I mean that the morality is fairly clear cut, in terms of what they have to do, so there's not a lot of soul-searching or internal conflict. (Or "character development" if you like.) Achilles has to fight, because that is what an warrior king of his time does, even though he knows the consequences will be disastrous for him, and also for others (The Trojans, who have never personally hurt him - or not until they kill Patroclus.) - Frodo also knows what he has to do, as do the other major characters of LOTR, and their triumph is shot through with sadness/tragedy, because it tends to involve sacrifice. (Eg the Ents, marching into battle. The elves, knowing the defeat of Sauron will hasten their departure from MiddleEarth. Frodo himself of course sacrificing health and happiness.) The power of this kind of story is that the individuals are caught up in situations which are far beyond their control, and which they respond to with bravery, courage, acceptance. However, this is not at all a "modern" sensibility, which puts a lot more stress on internal character struggles and autonomy. (The film really departs from the book in this respect in making almost all the characters far more self-serving: Faramir, the Ents, Arwen etc ...all examples of characters who are given internal struggles about which path to choose or have to be persuaded to do the "right thing" rather than the "selfish" thing, whereas in the books they are fairly straightforwardly "noble" characters, whose decisions are clear cut.)

What I'm trying to suggest, is that it's this morally unambiguous/noble/heroic/Homeric quality that maybe gets Tolkien into trouble with the critics, for whom character complexity/ambiguity/nuance is seen as a necessity. To modern ears, the idea of a character acting "nobly" almost sounds like a joke. But the Iliad has worn pretty well. Different stories have power for different reasons, and I don't think harking back to a pre-modern form of storytelling makes Tolkien "trivial", as Pullman claims.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Boromir is maybe as close as you get in the book. We presume too that Sauruman was once good (but did Sauron or his own greed corrupt him?) and the Steward was driven mad by using the Palintir. You tend to have Sam's view of the Smeagol/Gollum conflict while having sympathy with Frodo's intention. Yet if pity had not preserved Gollum on many occasions all would have been lost.

The films concentrated to much on battles and scenery and lost the characters in the book? (Let's not talk about the Hobbit Films). Though it stops part way through, in many ways I preferred the semi-animated/Live hybrid late 1970s version. I heard there is also an animated Hobbit, but not seen it.

 

[Hex]

I think like you say, aThenian, LOTR presents heroic characters and gives little sympathy to the bad guys (maybe a little for Boromir, but only after he is dead), and one of its strengths is that it makes you, the reader, want to be good/heroic as well. There's no question of the worth of the heroes' actions -- as far as I remember, no suggestion that Aragorn has wasted his time wandering. Frodo knows where to go -- it might be tough getting there, but there's no question he's heading to the right place. So, sacrifice seems to be repaid. Which I guess was him rejecting the awfulness and futility of the war.

re CS Lewis -- I loved Narnia and re-read them often, but I have sympathy with the argument that Susan loses her place in heaven because she's too focused on stockings and lipstick, which seems to equate an interest in being feminine with DOOOM; and the Calormen do, of course, worship Tash, who is (I think?) the god of evil. However much you like Aravis and the young Calormen in The Last Battle, the Calormen are usually the antagonists.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

but I have sympathy with the argument that Susan loses her place in heaven because she's too focused on stockings and lipstick,

That however isn't exactly what the books actually say.

 

[HareBrain]

the Calormen do, of course, worship Tash, who is (I think?) the god of evil.

Now I think of it, with his vulture head and many arms, Tash seems more redolent of Hindu myth, where the figure of Kali is more nuanced than just death (and isn't evil at all, unlike many portrayals). And maybe Lewis saw Tash in the same way -- isn't there a bit in The Last battle where Aslan and Tash meet, and do not regard each other as necessarily antagonists?

 

[Hex]

That however isn't exactly what the books actually say.

It's the impression I took from them as a young girl. What do the books say, if you can remember off-hand?

@HareBrain -- I don't remember that bit; what a good excuse to read it again. I remember the bit with the Calormen boy who has done good and is therefore Aslan's servant -- there's this:

He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

isn't there a bit in The Last battle where Aslan and Tash meet, and do not regard each other as necessarily antagonists?

Yes .. and also suggested the kind of worship and actions is "really" to Aslan or Tash depending on the motivation. All most unchristian and not at all part of Lewis's theology, after all, it's just a fairy tale.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

What do the books say, if you can remember off-hand?

I was never a young girl, but I didn't take that impression as a young boy. I can look up the relevant passages later, I have to go find epoxy resin. The issue was Susan rejecting Narnia, the make-up and clothes I took as a symptom, an effect, not the cause.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I have to fix something now. The IMPORTANT bit about Susan is what Peter says. The Lipstick and parties comment is by Jill and quite in keeping with her characterisation in The Silver Chair.
The text also never actually says Susan isn't going to heaven, but that Peter says she is no longer a friend of Narnia because she says it was just a funny game that they played as kids. (before Jill's obviously flippant comment).
Lucy is the most important human character anyway, never Susan, no doubt named after the real Lucy (niece or friend's daughter?)
re: Tash, see Emeth Ch 15.

I can quote the quite long passage later. End of Ch12 (pg 123 my 2nd reprint 1965 Puffin edition I bought in 1966)

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The Last Battle, Vol 7 of the Chronicles of Narnia
End of Chapter 12
----------------
"Sir," said Tirian, when he had greeted all these. "If I have read the chronicles aright, there should be another. Has not your Majesty two sisters? Where is Queen Susan?"
"My sister Susan," answered Peter shortly and gravely, "is no longer a friend of Narnia."
"Yes," said Eustace, "and whenever you've tried to get her to talk about Narnia or to anything about Narnia, she says, 'What wonderful memories you have! Fancy you still thinking about all those funny games we used to play when we where children.'"
"Oh Susan!" said Jill, "she's interested in nothing now-a-days except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was jolly sight too keen on being grown-up."
"Grown-up indeed," said the Lady Polly. "I wish she would grow up. She wasted all her school time wanting to be the age she is now, and she'll waste all the rest of her life trying to stay that age. Her whole idea is to race on to the silliest time of one's life as quick as she can and then stop there as long as she can."
"Well, don't let's talk about that now," said Peter. "Look! Here are lovely fruit-trees. Let us taste them."
And then, for the first time, Tirian looked about him and realised how very queer this adventure was.
-----------------

Points:

1. Only Jill makes the comment about lipstick etc. It's quite in character for her.
   
2. The issue is rejection, denial that Narnia is real, so how could she be a friend of Narnia.
3. It's not actually about heaven. For a start, Susan maybe isn't dead yet!
4. In The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe (vol1), Edmund starts nasty and reforms. Lucy is loyal and faithful from the beginning.
5. In Prince Caspian, (vol2) Susan doesn't believe Lucy. Only Lucy sees Aslan.
6. In The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, (vol3) Susan & Peter are too old, so don't visit Narnia. Eustace is nasty and reforms. Lucy again is important, though not central. I think Susan is in America.
   
7. In The Silver Chair (vol4), Jill is introduced. At various times Eustace and Jill make fools of themselves, Puddleglum is really the hero. Jill is almost a 1970s teen even though it's a mid 1960s book.
   
8. The Horse and his Boy (vol5) has a Calormen Noble Teen girl (Aravis) become partner to the slave Corin escaping, we learn in The Last Battle that he and she become King & Queen of Archenland, an "inter-racial marriage". Susan appears briefly in an unfavourable light meeting suitors in Calormen in this book.
9. Then we get the serious "retcon" of "The Magician's Nephew" (vol 6) that makes the Professor of Vol1 be Digory, the first Narnian King and Queen be cabbie Frank and wife Helen and the more sensible Polly is Digory's friend.
10. Finally we have The Last Battle (vol7), when Jill and Eustace arrive in Ch5 to rescue Tirian.
11. Aslan never says anything about Susan's fate? I'd have to re-read it to be sure.
12. There is an ongoing impression from Vol 2 to Vol5 that Susan hasn't the commitment to Aslan and Narnia of the others and becoming more selfish?

We have seven volumes. For the mid 1960s a marvellous collection of female characters and heroines. Yet, Pullman and J.K. Rowlings take one sentence out of context to condemn Lewis for his attitude to makeup and frivolity in one woman.
Female Humans of our world in Narnia:
Lucy, Susan, Jill, Polly, Helen.
We have villainous woman, the White Witch (vol retconned to be Jadis (vol6) and not human.
We have the dark Ararvis Calormen girl helped by her Calormen girl friend help the horses and Corin, become Queen of Archenland.

We have Emeth the young Calormen soldier accepted by Aslan.

Susan's "crime" in The Last Battle isn't female frivolity but rejecting the reality of Narnia. The text only says it means she is no friend of Narnia. Aslan says "Your father and mother and all you are - as you used to call it in the Shadowlands - dead. ..."
Was Susan on the train or elsewhere? I'd have to re-read the book. Does Aslan make any mention of Susan in "The Last Battle"?
In any case if the intention of Lewis was that Susan was denied Heaven, it was rejection of Narnia, not about lipstick.

I'll now have to re-read them again.

 

[aThenian]

Susan's "crime" in The Last Battle isn't female frivolity but rejecting the reality of Narnia. The text only says it means she is no friend of Narnia.

Broadly, I'm with you - Pullman, Rowling etc are unfair to Lewis, and Narnia is a much richer canvas than their criticism suggests.

I think, though, that the lipstick bit isn't entirely irrelevant, or just Jill's take on things. Susan is surely being portrayed as "worldly" - obsessed with superficial things, like popularity. Polly's comment that she wants to grow up as quickly as possible and then stay stuck at the same age - presumably her very early 20s - is telling, I think. My impression is that Lewis is suggesting that Susan's great beauty has not been to her ultimate advantage - she's not been able to transcend it, and realise that there are more important things, consequently she's fairly vapid. But, as you say, the books never suggest that ultimately she won't be able to transcend her shallowness (presumably her entire family being wiped out in a train crash is about to give her mental outlook quite a jolt).

What I don't get is why Susan is used to condemn Lewis as anti-female. There are a multitude of books and films, many of them written by women, in which this kind of character type appears - the beautiful, superficial young girl whose popularity has gone to her head and has become a bit of a pain to everyone else - just about every high school movie has this character (e.g. Cordelia in Buffy the Vampire Slayer). Suggesting that including a negative female character makes Lewis sexist when he includes such a big range of major female characters in his books, seems plain daft to me.

 

[HareBrain]

I remember the bit with the Calormen boy who has done good and is therefore Aslan's servant -- there's this:

Ah, that might be the bit I was thinking of, even though it suggests almost the opposite of my point. Such is memory.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Ah, that might be the bit I was thinking of, even though it suggests almost the opposite of my point.

Emeth relating his conversation with Aslan

He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

Proving indeed Narnia is a fable, a fairy tale, and not Christian Allegory, because this is certainly not the theology in Lewis's books of Christian Apologetics.

 

[Extollager]

....allusion to Pickwick could be an example; Dickens's book once was part of the furniture of a great many readers' minds

Amusingly, I just ran across a case in point. I'm finishing a second reading of Graham Greene's Liberian travel book Journey Without Maps (1936), in which Greene can write of a Liberian cabinet minister that "he was like a black Mr. Pickwick with a touch of Shelley."

Pardon, please, the tangent!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Susan is surely being portrayed as "worldly" - obsessed with superficial things, like popularity. ... There are a multitude of books and films, many of them written by women, in which this kind of character type appears - the beautiful, superficial young girl whose popularity has gone to her head and has become a bit of a pain to everyone else

Yes, but in this case, she's not the central character and it's regarded as a symptom. She's not a friend of Narnia because she's rejected it, not due to the Lipstick etc.
There are foolish males and females, to have some in a story isn't sexist. It would be sexist if the author is suggesting all the women are like Susan. Is Jane Austin sexist for portraying Emma* as an idiot? Her behaviour with Harriet and at the Box Hill picnic is appalling. Jane Austin pulls no punches for an 18th C. Author. Mansfield Park shows how biting and shocking she could be (The Crawfords would have been shocking to her audience).

In Narnia Vol 1 Edmund was a traitor. In Vol 3 Eustace was a prig and complete Idiot. It doesn't seem unreasonable in seven books to have one girl that becomes shallow and denies the past. It's Jill, not Edmund, Peter or Lucy (her family) that Lewis puts the "nasty comment". Polly qualifies it. For the reader that has read Prince Caspian (Disbelief), The Horse and His Boy (Selfishness and Suitors) and The Dawn Treader (America etc), Susan's "defection" doesn't come as a surprise. She was never a very central or heroic character compared to Polly, Aravis, Lucy or Jill.

[* I thought the film "Clueless" was an interesting attempt by Holiywood?]

 

[BAYLOR]

aThenian, I do hope you'll reread the book as you suggest you might.

I'm very doubtful that Tolkien would say Bombadil possesses any magical powers. Magic has no power over him; and he possesses a natural and wholesome authority over his realm. But he's no magician.

He's seemingly the only neutral power in Middle Earth.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

He's seemingly the only neutral power in Middle Earth.

I think more that nothing has power over him. He's not a power in a conventional sense. I don't think he's neutral, just not very interested. He did help the hobbits. He may have forgotten them later?