book review, part I - Reading 'The Lord of the Rings'
Reading ‘The Lord of the Rings’. New Writings on Tolkien’s Classic. Ed. Robert Eaglestone. London & New York: Continuum, 2005.
I only discovered this collection of articles last summer, but once I’d picked it up, I read it in one go. Lots of promising approaches and innovative ideas in there that will hopefully inspire a new generation of Tolkien scholars to explore different avenues of interpretation! While I’m not going to review all articles with the same amount of detail, I’d love to discuss all of the points and questions they raise, so please comment on whatever captures your interest! But before I begin with the marvellous opening essay by Michael Drout, I should say something about the concept of this collection. It’s organized into four sections that address central aspects of LotR: I - Context and criticism; II - Space, place and community; III - Gender, sexuality and class; IV - Tolkien’s futures. And with that, on to section 1, which focuses on authorship, time, ‘gothic echoes’, and the One Ring.
I.1 Michael Drout: Towards a better Tolkien criticism. This is one of my favourite articles (together with the chapter on homoeroticism :), because it homes in on a key issue of current Tolkien scholarship: the author’s part in shaping the meaning of a text. No doubt about it, Tolkien scholars respect the author Tolkien tremendously - but to what an extent should an interpretation of his works depend on biographical context, specifically Tolkien’s intentions (which often have to be reconstructed from auto/biographical sources)? Following a succinct discussion of recent theories of authorship, Drout states: “[Tolkien] was not always correct, and his opinion, even of his own books, should not be given the status of holy writ”. Yes, that may well sound like a bit of heresy, though we can safely assume that Drout respects and admires Tolkien every bit as much as his fellow critics. Still, he has a point when he says that “critics ignore the problem that the Letters are not a transparent, unambiguous guide to the ‘real meaning’ of Tolkien’s literature”.
The Letters themselves aren’t free of contradictions, and some letters that offer interpretations of LotR, for instance, were written many years after the book had been completed, when Tolkien’s views had undergone considerable change, while others survive only as drafts, so that it’s difficult to know whether they actually represent his ‘final word’ on whatever topic they addressed. Now Drout isn’t suggesting to discard and ignore the Letters (or any other biographical sources), but he points out that they need to be treated as texts, not as complete transcripts of Tolkien’s thought processes at the time he wrote LotR.
Here’s a quote from Roland Barthes that Drout introduces to propose a different approach: “a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and enters into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation” - and this “multiplicity”, Drout writes, describes Tolkien’s own method perfectly: “Not only did Tolkien incorporate disparate source materials into his work, but he also arranged these and other materials into an invented tradition with the same sorts of complexities, blind alleys, conflicting sources and incomplete materials as the real historical record. Tolkien thus deliberately alters the function of authorship by pretending to be a translator (...) or finder of long-lost manuscripts”. Given that method and approach to authorship, the biographical author Tolkien cannot - and actually isn’t meant to - function as the singular, ultimate source of all meanings in the text. As Drout states:
“Meaning in a text exists not only because an author has consciously put it there, but also due to factors outside the author’s control. Unexpected resonances, double-meanings, unconsciously constructed and unintentional images, and all questions about the presence or absence of these elements cannot be answered by invoking authorial intention.”
I think this is a very important statement, as it opens up new angles and encourages a multitude of diverse readings. Of course this doesn’t imply that just about anything can be ‘read into’ a text: any serious interpretation needs to rely on evidence, but such evidence can be found in the literary works and other contextual sources - for instance, the materials Tolkien drew on - not merely in the biographical sources.
There’s much more to Drout’s argument, but this stood out as the central point to me, and I’ve included this rather lengthy summary because it sets the stage for some innovative interpretations in the collection that some readers may find provocative. Drout ultimately suggests that a legitimate and convincing reading may, in fact, contradict the familiar image of the author and his beliefs and/or intentions. Especially for controversial topics, like the presence or absence of homoerotic subtexts in LotR, this is a crucial point. Even though Tolkien’s published notes and letters contain no comments on erotic love between members of the same sex, it’s often assumed that, as a devout Catholic, Tolkien could not have intended any homoerotic connotations that some readers find in his texts. Such an argument rests on a reconstruction of the author’s conscious intentions (entirely unknown in this regard), whereas readings based on different contexts might well arrive at the opposite conclusion. (Of course this is a very complex subject, and I won’t go into more detail right now - I just wanted to illustrate that Drout’s fairly theoretical consideration of the author’s role can be interesting and encouraging for readers who see a homoerotic subtext in LotR... :)
I.2 Barry Langford: Time. This article compares the complex temporal structures of the book to those in the movies and concludes that a lot of complexity is lost in P.J.’s “relentlessly present-tense and ruthlessly goal-oriented” movie adaptations. The bigger part of the essay is devoted to an analysis of time in the book though, and provides some very interesting observations. Langford discusses the dialectic relationship of Elvish (immortal) and mortal temporality and distinguishes different levels of temporal extension incorporated in LotR, the ‘contextual’ (i.e. events in the immediate past or future, like Bilbo’s adventure or Sam’s journey to Eressëa), ‘archaic’ (background events of earlier ages) and ‘contemporary’ (references to the author’s and the readers’ time).
Langford then concentrates on the way that the past contributes meaning to present events in LotR, as “a vast reach of time to which the present is not only inheritor or successor, but to which it is bound in active and conscious relation”. He argues “that the moral and ethical landscape of The Lord of the Rings is to a significant degree constituted across the different perspectives on, and relationships to, the distant past - thence to time itself - articulated by and through different characters.” One of his examples is Frodo’s realization, at Elrond’s Council, that Elrond witnessed the Last Alliance in an earlier age, and he concludes: “Consciousness of the unity of created time carries with it as a consequence an obligation not only to the present but to the future.” By reverse, ‘opting out’ of history (here Langford cites the Gaffer and Butterbur as examples) is “morally as well as practically unsustainable”.
I.3 Sue Zlosnik: Gothic Echoes. I don’t have a lot to say about this essay, both because my knowledge of Gothic novels is minimal and because I can’t quite relate the Freudian and post-Freudian theories Zlosnik employs to LotR (a matter of personal preferences, obviously). One of her main points is that Tolkien’s works - a “fake mythology” - share the focus on “fakery and simulacra” with Gothic literature. While that makes sense to me with regards to Tolkien’s conception of evil (that merely ‘imitates’, as it is incapable of full creation), I also think the implications of ‘invention’ and ‘sub-creation’, as Tolkien understood them, are quite different from “fakery”.
Another point of connection that Zlosnik discusses is the late Victorian-Gothic “preoccupation with the boundaries of the self”. The parallel between Gollum/Sméagol and Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde she brings up here is quite convincing, but her reading of Frodo’s struggle with the Ring in this context doesn’t work for me. For instance, this is how she interprets the injury Frodo suffers at Weathertop: “It [the Morgul blade] infects him with a nameless poison that enhances the temptation of the Ring; like the bite of the vampire, it infects him with desire.”
Yet a close reading of Flight to the Ford would have shown that the opposite is true. The ‘temptation’ that Frodo felt at Weathertop is now exposed to him as an intrusion from outside, an imposed desire to put on the Ring. Instead of heightening this desire, the wounding has rendered Frodo aware of the manipulative force that assailed him. While his injury draws him into the Ring-wraiths’ shadowed perception of the world and renders him more vulnerable to their attempts to control him, his will to resist increases. Close by the Ford, this struggle between Frodo’s will and an overwhelming external power comes out most clearly: Hatred again stirred in him, but he had no longer the strength to refuse. Most telling is the fact that, although Frodo can’t oppose the combined force of the Ringwraiths, he doesn’t put on the Ring, nor is he tempted to do so. ‘Temptation’ and ‘desire’ obviously don’t describe the effects of the injury - unless we’re talking about Frodo’s heightened desire to resist. (Also, another side-effect of his injury that clearly doesn’t reflect the Nazgûl’s or the Ring’s intentions, is Frodo’s ability to see Glorfindel as “a shining figure of white light” during these critical moments. But that’s yet another tangent...)
Overall, I guess Zlosnik’s article also failed to convince me because the far-reaching parallels and theoretical frameworks she brings up aren’t matched by an equally attentive interpretation of the actual text.
I.4 Adam Roberts: The One Ring. This is one of the provocative contributions I mentioned earlier... Adam Roberts discusses the Ring and its binding quality in relation to marriage and to Tolkien’s understanding of marriage and asks: “Is there something strange in Tolkien, a devout Catholic with strong views on the sanctity and importance of marriage, himself happily married, taking a wedding ring as his supreme symbol of the corruptive power of evil in the world?” Ultimately, it isn’t quite as strange - but also not as simple - as that.
Roberts describes the Ring as a “binding agent”, yet he also offers some criticism of Tom Shippey’s interpretation, which explains the Ring’s power in terms of ‘addiction’ (a reading that obviously shaped the portrayal of the Ring in the movies to a large degree): Bilbo does not become hopelessly addicted, despite possessing the Ring for decades, while Boromir appears to be ‘addicted’ without ever possessing or touching it. Yet Frodo, Robert writes, can’t divorce himself from the Ring, “only death (...) can break the bond” - and he provides some points of connection with this “rather bleak and incarceratory vision of marriage” from one of Tolkien’s letters.
This leads to the suggestion that the One Ring may embody “a sort of malign anti-marriage, the photographic negative (...) of the blessed sacrament”. By discussing Tom Bombadil’s role - the only major character shown as “a functioning member of a happy marriage”, who also happens to be the only character shown to be completely immune to the Ring’s effects - Roberts arrives at a somewhat different conclusion, though: The positive ideal of marriage as a sacrament (to which the Ring acts as a negative) doesn’t refer to the marital bond of individuals but to the living connection between the material and the spiritual.
Now one might wonder if Tom and Goldberry are properly married by any of the known customs of Middle-earth, but that’s kind of beside the point. Roberts’ idea that the underlying concept of marriage involves a balance of the material and the spiritual makes sense to me, but on the whole, the Ring’s power and all its implications exceed this analogy.
One of the most illuminating points of this essay, to me, is the statement that certain inconsistencies surround the portrayal of the Ring. For instance, despite Gandalf’s dire predictions, “Frodo’s mind remains unbroken” after the Ring’s destruction (yes, I’m glad Roberts pointed that out :). Then there’s the question why the Ring seems to affect (or corrupt) free will differently, depending on who it comes into contact with - a question Roberts discusses only briefly, however.
As for the apparent inconsistencies, I think they enter the text because it portrays a multitude of views of, and experiences with, the Ring, and the diverse characters’ perceptions are not countered by anything like a single, objective truth about the Ring. Boromir’s subjective view is obviously tinged by the critical situation of Gondor and his self-perception as an upright (incorruptible) warrior. Although Gandalf is much wiser and self-critical, his understanding of the Ring is both theoretical (rather than coming from practical experience with the Ring) and based on his own position as someone who wields a lot of power (which the Ring could possibly twist). And so forth... but this is yet another subject and doesn’t enter into the article, so I’ll stop here. ;)
This ends the first part of my review. I’ll post more about the other sections in the book as time allows. Thoughts, ideas, questions, anyone? I’d love to hear them all!
I only discovered this collection of articles last summer, but once I’d picked it up, I read it in one go. Lots of promising approaches and innovative ideas in there that will hopefully inspire a new generation of Tolkien scholars to explore different avenues of interpretation! While I’m not going to review all articles with the same amount of detail, I’d love to discuss all of the points and questions they raise, so please comment on whatever captures your interest! But before I begin with the marvellous opening essay by Michael Drout, I should say something about the concept of this collection. It’s organized into four sections that address central aspects of LotR: I - Context and criticism; II - Space, place and community; III - Gender, sexuality and class; IV - Tolkien’s futures. And with that, on to section 1, which focuses on authorship, time, ‘gothic echoes’, and the One Ring.
I.1 Michael Drout: Towards a better Tolkien criticism. This is one of my favourite articles (together with the chapter on homoeroticism :), because it homes in on a key issue of current Tolkien scholarship: the author’s part in shaping the meaning of a text. No doubt about it, Tolkien scholars respect the author Tolkien tremendously - but to what an extent should an interpretation of his works depend on biographical context, specifically Tolkien’s intentions (which often have to be reconstructed from auto/biographical sources)? Following a succinct discussion of recent theories of authorship, Drout states: “[Tolkien] was not always correct, and his opinion, even of his own books, should not be given the status of holy writ”. Yes, that may well sound like a bit of heresy, though we can safely assume that Drout respects and admires Tolkien every bit as much as his fellow critics. Still, he has a point when he says that “critics ignore the problem that the Letters are not a transparent, unambiguous guide to the ‘real meaning’ of Tolkien’s literature”.
The Letters themselves aren’t free of contradictions, and some letters that offer interpretations of LotR, for instance, were written many years after the book had been completed, when Tolkien’s views had undergone considerable change, while others survive only as drafts, so that it’s difficult to know whether they actually represent his ‘final word’ on whatever topic they addressed. Now Drout isn’t suggesting to discard and ignore the Letters (or any other biographical sources), but he points out that they need to be treated as texts, not as complete transcripts of Tolkien’s thought processes at the time he wrote LotR.
Here’s a quote from Roland Barthes that Drout introduces to propose a different approach: “a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and enters into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation” - and this “multiplicity”, Drout writes, describes Tolkien’s own method perfectly: “Not only did Tolkien incorporate disparate source materials into his work, but he also arranged these and other materials into an invented tradition with the same sorts of complexities, blind alleys, conflicting sources and incomplete materials as the real historical record. Tolkien thus deliberately alters the function of authorship by pretending to be a translator (...) or finder of long-lost manuscripts”. Given that method and approach to authorship, the biographical author Tolkien cannot - and actually isn’t meant to - function as the singular, ultimate source of all meanings in the text. As Drout states:
“Meaning in a text exists not only because an author has consciously put it there, but also due to factors outside the author’s control. Unexpected resonances, double-meanings, unconsciously constructed and unintentional images, and all questions about the presence or absence of these elements cannot be answered by invoking authorial intention.”
I think this is a very important statement, as it opens up new angles and encourages a multitude of diverse readings. Of course this doesn’t imply that just about anything can be ‘read into’ a text: any serious interpretation needs to rely on evidence, but such evidence can be found in the literary works and other contextual sources - for instance, the materials Tolkien drew on - not merely in the biographical sources.
There’s much more to Drout’s argument, but this stood out as the central point to me, and I’ve included this rather lengthy summary because it sets the stage for some innovative interpretations in the collection that some readers may find provocative. Drout ultimately suggests that a legitimate and convincing reading may, in fact, contradict the familiar image of the author and his beliefs and/or intentions. Especially for controversial topics, like the presence or absence of homoerotic subtexts in LotR, this is a crucial point. Even though Tolkien’s published notes and letters contain no comments on erotic love between members of the same sex, it’s often assumed that, as a devout Catholic, Tolkien could not have intended any homoerotic connotations that some readers find in his texts. Such an argument rests on a reconstruction of the author’s conscious intentions (entirely unknown in this regard), whereas readings based on different contexts might well arrive at the opposite conclusion. (Of course this is a very complex subject, and I won’t go into more detail right now - I just wanted to illustrate that Drout’s fairly theoretical consideration of the author’s role can be interesting and encouraging for readers who see a homoerotic subtext in LotR... :)
I.2 Barry Langford: Time. This article compares the complex temporal structures of the book to those in the movies and concludes that a lot of complexity is lost in P.J.’s “relentlessly present-tense and ruthlessly goal-oriented” movie adaptations. The bigger part of the essay is devoted to an analysis of time in the book though, and provides some very interesting observations. Langford discusses the dialectic relationship of Elvish (immortal) and mortal temporality and distinguishes different levels of temporal extension incorporated in LotR, the ‘contextual’ (i.e. events in the immediate past or future, like Bilbo’s adventure or Sam’s journey to Eressëa), ‘archaic’ (background events of earlier ages) and ‘contemporary’ (references to the author’s and the readers’ time).
Langford then concentrates on the way that the past contributes meaning to present events in LotR, as “a vast reach of time to which the present is not only inheritor or successor, but to which it is bound in active and conscious relation”. He argues “that the moral and ethical landscape of The Lord of the Rings is to a significant degree constituted across the different perspectives on, and relationships to, the distant past - thence to time itself - articulated by and through different characters.” One of his examples is Frodo’s realization, at Elrond’s Council, that Elrond witnessed the Last Alliance in an earlier age, and he concludes: “Consciousness of the unity of created time carries with it as a consequence an obligation not only to the present but to the future.” By reverse, ‘opting out’ of history (here Langford cites the Gaffer and Butterbur as examples) is “morally as well as practically unsustainable”.
I.3 Sue Zlosnik: Gothic Echoes. I don’t have a lot to say about this essay, both because my knowledge of Gothic novels is minimal and because I can’t quite relate the Freudian and post-Freudian theories Zlosnik employs to LotR (a matter of personal preferences, obviously). One of her main points is that Tolkien’s works - a “fake mythology” - share the focus on “fakery and simulacra” with Gothic literature. While that makes sense to me with regards to Tolkien’s conception of evil (that merely ‘imitates’, as it is incapable of full creation), I also think the implications of ‘invention’ and ‘sub-creation’, as Tolkien understood them, are quite different from “fakery”.
Another point of connection that Zlosnik discusses is the late Victorian-Gothic “preoccupation with the boundaries of the self”. The parallel between Gollum/Sméagol and Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde she brings up here is quite convincing, but her reading of Frodo’s struggle with the Ring in this context doesn’t work for me. For instance, this is how she interprets the injury Frodo suffers at Weathertop: “It [the Morgul blade] infects him with a nameless poison that enhances the temptation of the Ring; like the bite of the vampire, it infects him with desire.”
Yet a close reading of Flight to the Ford would have shown that the opposite is true. The ‘temptation’ that Frodo felt at Weathertop is now exposed to him as an intrusion from outside, an imposed desire to put on the Ring. Instead of heightening this desire, the wounding has rendered Frodo aware of the manipulative force that assailed him. While his injury draws him into the Ring-wraiths’ shadowed perception of the world and renders him more vulnerable to their attempts to control him, his will to resist increases. Close by the Ford, this struggle between Frodo’s will and an overwhelming external power comes out most clearly: Hatred again stirred in him, but he had no longer the strength to refuse. Most telling is the fact that, although Frodo can’t oppose the combined force of the Ringwraiths, he doesn’t put on the Ring, nor is he tempted to do so. ‘Temptation’ and ‘desire’ obviously don’t describe the effects of the injury - unless we’re talking about Frodo’s heightened desire to resist. (Also, another side-effect of his injury that clearly doesn’t reflect the Nazgûl’s or the Ring’s intentions, is Frodo’s ability to see Glorfindel as “a shining figure of white light” during these critical moments. But that’s yet another tangent...)
Overall, I guess Zlosnik’s article also failed to convince me because the far-reaching parallels and theoretical frameworks she brings up aren’t matched by an equally attentive interpretation of the actual text.
I.4 Adam Roberts: The One Ring. This is one of the provocative contributions I mentioned earlier... Adam Roberts discusses the Ring and its binding quality in relation to marriage and to Tolkien’s understanding of marriage and asks: “Is there something strange in Tolkien, a devout Catholic with strong views on the sanctity and importance of marriage, himself happily married, taking a wedding ring as his supreme symbol of the corruptive power of evil in the world?” Ultimately, it isn’t quite as strange - but also not as simple - as that.
Roberts describes the Ring as a “binding agent”, yet he also offers some criticism of Tom Shippey’s interpretation, which explains the Ring’s power in terms of ‘addiction’ (a reading that obviously shaped the portrayal of the Ring in the movies to a large degree): Bilbo does not become hopelessly addicted, despite possessing the Ring for decades, while Boromir appears to be ‘addicted’ without ever possessing or touching it. Yet Frodo, Robert writes, can’t divorce himself from the Ring, “only death (...) can break the bond” - and he provides some points of connection with this “rather bleak and incarceratory vision of marriage” from one of Tolkien’s letters.
This leads to the suggestion that the One Ring may embody “a sort of malign anti-marriage, the photographic negative (...) of the blessed sacrament”. By discussing Tom Bombadil’s role - the only major character shown as “a functioning member of a happy marriage”, who also happens to be the only character shown to be completely immune to the Ring’s effects - Roberts arrives at a somewhat different conclusion, though: The positive ideal of marriage as a sacrament (to which the Ring acts as a negative) doesn’t refer to the marital bond of individuals but to the living connection between the material and the spiritual.
Now one might wonder if Tom and Goldberry are properly married by any of the known customs of Middle-earth, but that’s kind of beside the point. Roberts’ idea that the underlying concept of marriage involves a balance of the material and the spiritual makes sense to me, but on the whole, the Ring’s power and all its implications exceed this analogy.
One of the most illuminating points of this essay, to me, is the statement that certain inconsistencies surround the portrayal of the Ring. For instance, despite Gandalf’s dire predictions, “Frodo’s mind remains unbroken” after the Ring’s destruction (yes, I’m glad Roberts pointed that out :). Then there’s the question why the Ring seems to affect (or corrupt) free will differently, depending on who it comes into contact with - a question Roberts discusses only briefly, however.
As for the apparent inconsistencies, I think they enter the text because it portrays a multitude of views of, and experiences with, the Ring, and the diverse characters’ perceptions are not countered by anything like a single, objective truth about the Ring. Boromir’s subjective view is obviously tinged by the critical situation of Gondor and his self-perception as an upright (incorruptible) warrior. Although Gandalf is much wiser and self-critical, his understanding of the Ring is both theoretical (rather than coming from practical experience with the Ring) and based on his own position as someone who wields a lot of power (which the Ring could possibly twist). And so forth... but this is yet another subject and doesn’t enter into the article, so I’ll stop here. ;)
This ends the first part of my review. I’ll post more about the other sections in the book as time allows. Thoughts, ideas, questions, anyone? I’d love to hear them all!