Understanding Tolkien: The Three Pillars of His Influence

            While he has enjoyed incredible commercial success, in most circles, Tolkien is considered ‘soft’ literature, good for enjoyment but not entirely worthy of serious study. So why is he important? True, he is the father of modern fantasy and he has inspired many other writers. His skill as a storyteller and a master of language makes his work worth any time spent in its study for the aspiring writer.

But to declare an author great because simply because he inspired other authors to be great is a circular argument even Jormungandr might find a bit much.  A truly great author is worth studying because of what he contributes beyond literary circles. Like the saga’s of old, great stories speak to us about life, humanity, and life itself, and it is here that Tolkien shows his work worth the same consideration due to Homer or Huxley.

Tolkien’s importance is built largely upon three things. First, he lived at a time when humanity was confronting in a real and visceral way the reality of evil. Second, his study of language opened to him a deep understanding of ancient myth and storytelling tradition that contained realistic and practical thought on resisting evil. Third, as a devout Christian, he understood this evil from a theological view based on his faith.

For men like Tolkien, the World Wars presented two specific issues to be dealt with. First, the idea of evil ceased to be an idea; they came face to face with the real thing. Evil was no longer something that belonged to man’s past, a result of simple technology and a lack of education. It ceased to be an outside force threatening mankind, mankind created it and brought it on itself. Shockingly, the very institutions that were supposed to create utopia were instrumental to creating the hellscape of the Western Front. The World Wars were not invasions of the barbarians on civilization, they were brought forth by the educated and advanced nations of Europe.

                Second, with evil becoming a real and present threat, the question becomes how to resist it? If it comes out of man, can it be defeated? Are power and evil are inextricably linked, and if so, how are we to resist it? Is evil a real thing (as the Manicheans claim) or a lack of goodness (As Boethius and his supporters believed)? If it is real, then how do we reconcile it with a good God, and if it is simply a lack, a nothingness, how do we explain its destructive power?

                All these questions were very much as the forefront of thought in the 20th Century, and today we see the results of how people have answered these questions. Tolkien worked with these questions a great deal, his concepts of the ring, the black riders, orcs, and more offer insight into how he reconciled philosophical truth with the overpowering reality of the Western Front.

                But, because of his interest and expertise in the old stories and sagas from long ago, Tolkien had the ability to look at the issues of his time from another perspective. Chance and luck were far more important to the Vikings than they are today. Where authors like T.H. White saw meaningless horror, a Norseman might see the Norns spinning a fate as yet not understood. Where much of modernity sees value in naught but victory, the Saxon saw value in the noble defeat, though he understood the tricky nature of the concept.  Beowulf’s death in particular is interesting in this respect.

                Finally, in an age where religion and superstition were synonymous among the elite, Tolkien remained a devout Catholic. His interaction’s with Lewis, especially his thoughts on myths as “splintered light”, heavily impacted how he understood not only the horrors of his time, but also the times long past. Christ and his kingdom was the glue that held together the Tommy in the trenches and the Saxon in the shieldwall, the Oxford Don and the Lindisfarne monk. It was because of this that when Eomer wonders how to judge what to do in the strange days of the third age, Tolkien could write Aragorn’s response :

“As he has ever judged…Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves…and another among Men. It is a man’s part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.”

If right and wrong do not change, then it stands to reason that the past may well inform the present, and Tolkien was in a unique position to interpret that information.

This series will doubtless change as I write it, growing here and there as I uncover some new insight that I’ve missed, or paying special attention to something one of you, my dear readers, may be curious about. Nevertheless, I have a plan to guide the discussion somewhat. The first three articles will look at these three influences on Tolkien, looking first to the World Wars (and specifically to Tolkien’s experience on the Somme), then to what it was he studied as a philologist and professor of Old English, and finally to the importance of Christianity on his life.   

Pushing forward, I will look at how Tolkien drew from all three sources to answer questions about luck, evil, and goodness in his creation of the ring, creatures like the ring wraiths, and characters like Gandalf, Boromir, and Gollum. Along the way, I hope to pay attention not just to the philosophical side of Tolkien, but to how he wrote. Tolkien’s skill as a writer is sometimes overlooked, his use of archaism in speech for instance. From there I will look at Tolkien’s other writings beyond Lord of the Rings, such as The Smith of Wootan Major, Farmer Giles of Ham, and his essays. I look forward to hearing your thoughts, suggestions, comments, and questions!

What The Hobbit Movies Got Right (And Two Towers Missed)

                If you want to get a Tolkien fan riled up, ask them what they think of Peter Jackson’s adaptations. It’s a favorite topic and everyone has a pet peeve about how Jackson went about telling the story in his movies. The two biggest disagreements that often arise are over Jackson’s handling of the Hobbit series and his depiction of Lorien elves at Helms Deep. The first I think a little weak, the second is well founded.

                First it is important to remember that Jackson was adapting books into movies. They are different storytelling mediums that have different strengths and weaknesses.

                Second, in the case of the Hobbit movies, it needs to be understood that there is a difference between The Hobbit, the book told from Bilbo’s point of view, and the story of events recounted in The Hobbit.

                One of the most underappreciated aspects of Tolkien’s writing is how faithful and skillful he is in presenting both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings as documents originally written down by the hobbits Bilbo, Frodo, and Sam. This serves to give a sense of realism in his work as well as shape the narrative (Sam’s perspective is noticeably different from Frodo’s), and part of that is how it limits what events are seen and told.

Thus in The Hobbit, Bilbo recounts his story of his adventures with the dwarves, with notes and minor changes added by Frodo and Sam after the 1937 edition (which contained the original story about Bilbo winning the ring from Gollum). It contains little note of Gandalf’s dealings with Thorin prior to ‘The Unexpected Party’, the White Council, or the assault on Dol Guldur, all of which are told of in “The Quest of Erebor” in The Unfinished Tales. In this short passage, Gandalf recounts that his primary fear at the time was what the Necromancer could do if he was in league with the Dragon. It is for this reason that he gives his aid to Thorin Oakenshield.

In the movies, Jackson sets out to tell the story of the events in The Hobbit, which were the preliminary moves in The War of the Ring, though few at the time knew it.

On the other hand, there are the Elves at Helms Deep. The reason this bothers me so much is that it narrows the wide and complex world that Tolkien built. Jackson focuses the narrative on his main heroes, but in doing so ignores the rest of Middle Earth. I don’t have the dates at hand, but during the Battle for Helms deep, Lorien and Mirkwood were at the very least preparing for the oncoming assault from Dol Guldur that was only finally defeated when Baradur collapsed.

This is one of the main appeals of Tolkien, the vastness of his world. Aragorn and the fellowship, while important, are not the only company engaged in struggles with Sauron, there are others who know little of them yet are still dependent on a little hobbit and his friend struggling in the mountains. 

Bringing the elves to Helms Deep, to my mind, creates the impression that Elrond and Galadriel are simply sitting in their palaces watching and waiting for Frodo to throw the ring into the fire, when in fact they were busy fighting off an assault that goes unmentioned in the films. While Frodo and the quest of the ring is vitally important, Tolkien makes it clear that it was only a small part of The War of the Ring and I think this is an important point for storytellers to be aware of. 

Very, very rarely do we ever see a story which is the focus of an entire world, people go about their lives and go through their own stories quite independently of what the main character in another story is doing, and giving readers a glimpse of that helps to open up the world and create depth. Take for example Ender's Game, while Ender's sister and brother serve to highlight the development of Ender as a character, the other thing that their story does is open up the world on earth, removed from Ender's space stations. Thus, while Ender is the center of things for a lot of people in the military, on earth, he is little known, lost behind a tumultuous political landscape that gives a sense of vastness to Card's world. 

In summary, I thought Jackson did a good job on the movies, even if I wish he hadn’t made some changes here or there, but it is important to note also that Jackson was making these movies as a prelude to the Lord of the Rings, which impacted some of his decision. As someone who had read The Unfinished Tales and knew a lot of the backstory, I was excited to see Jackson include some of it, even if there were other changes along the way. It expanded the world and showed a little more of what went on beyond Bilbo's point of view. If you haven’t read The Unfinished Tales, I encourage you to give them a read. They are truly wonderful stories and give a lot of great background for characters and events in Lord of the Rings.

What were some of the things you thought Jackson did well or messed up? Do you think Tolkien’s intentions were preserved into the movies?

Writing with Deep Practice.

One of the most important books I’ve read is “The Talent Code” by Daniel Coyle, which looks at how people develop talent. The primary thing they discuss is the concept of Deep Practice. Deep Practice intentional, focused performance of a targeted skill, where mistakes are identified and corrected soon after they are made in order to develop new mental processes which avoid those mistakes in the future.

The questioned I’ve pondered for a while is how to do this with writing. Writing doesn’t have the instantly identifiable ‘mistakes’ that are easy to see in fields like music or gymnastics. Additionally, it is commonly agreed that mental and emotional “distance” are vital to good editing, which seems to go against the principle of identifying mistakes soon after they are made. To make things even more difficult, when working on a novel, it can be months or years before a first draft is completed. Only then can we look back effectively on things like character development, plot, or general tightness of narrative. Unfortunately, when our inner editor finds some horrifically handled plot device and confronts our inner writer wanting to know what it was thinking, the answer is usually along the lines of ‘I dunno what I was thinking, I wrote that a year ago. I’m sure I won’t make that mistake again” but there is no conscious correcting of the mental processes that led to making the mistake.

Enter short stories. A short story can reasonably be planned, written, and edited inside of two months, allowing the editing process to confront mistakes and weaknesses in the story soon after we write them. This allows our inner editor to correct our inner writer’s tendencies while the processes we used in composing are still present in our minds.

Beyond simple writing mistakes, one of the most difficult skills for many writers is finishing. Novels can often drag out because any deadline is months away. It is easy to reason “If I miss a day here or a day there, I’m sure I can make it up”. But if you set out a schedule for a short story with deadlines only a few weeks or even days apart, there is less wiggle room and you will develop the habit of writing every day. It will get easier and your writing will get better.

Short stories have a third benefit; they show your progress as a writer. You may not want anyone to see your first couple of efforts, and that’s fine. But don’t throw it away, keep it and look back at it every once in a while, it will encourage and surprise you to see how far you’ve come. Some of your better ones you can post to your blog or share elsewhere online. Putting your writing out there is an important part of starting to build a readership, an important step as a young writer. Finally, when you get those stories that shine and gleam with your hard work, self-publish them. Kindle’s Direct Publishing program is tailor made for short stories. Having published works, beyond being motivating in itself, gives you legitimacy and will continue to build your readership for when you finish that novel you’re working so hard on.   

So give it a try, you might be surprised by some of the ideas that come to you as you write! If you haven't read it yet, check out "The Talent Code", it is a fascinating read and well worth your time.

               

Author Spotlight: Rosemary Sutcliff

I have decided to try an Author Spotlight to draw attention to authors who I think are worth your time and that some people might not know about. I could think of no better author to start this off with than Rosemary Sutcliff.
For those of you who have not read Sutcliff, you are missing out on a rare treat. She is, to my mind, one of the most underrated writers of the 20^th Century.

She wrote primarily historical fiction, mainly focusing on early Britain and Saxon times, though she branched out to Greece with Black Ships Before Troy, as well as the Vikings in several other works. Even if you are not a huge fan of historical fiction, those of you who want to be writers should still read her for the mastery she displays in the art of writing.

Sutcliff does two things better than any writer I have read; she creates poignant sense of atmosphere and she tells deep, complex stories in a compact, straightforward style.

I am still trying to understand exactly how Sutcliff is able to make her settings so vivid and complete in my mind, but I think part of it comes from her deep understanding of them. She had a well-developed picture of the world in which her characters lived, something I think young writers can hurry through. As a writer, I believe the words on the paper should be the tip of the iceberg you have imagined and thought about. Simply by seeing that bit of ice peeking over the waves, we can sense the vastness of what lies beneath. If you only imagine enough to fill in your pages, it will seem flat and cheap without you really being able to tell what the issue is.

The second thing I love is that Sutcliff’s writing is the definition of tight and compact. Mark of the Horse Lords is a prime example, it is a short (less than three hundred pages) novel that covers over a year of complex action in depth and detail with complex and well developed characters. Yet Sutcliff tells only those scenes that directly move forward the story. I was stunned when she skipped over what I thought would be the pivotal moment in the book, preferring instead to relay the aftermath. Looking back I realized, the aftermath was what mattered, she cut at least twenty pages of action out of the story and only left in what was important.  It is a good lesson for some of us writers who feel the need to include every step from beginning to end. Some things can be told in brief, in a flashback, or left out entirely. Sutcliff did this masterfully.
If you're looking to get started on Sutcliff, I recommend starting with her Roman Britain Trilogy, Eagle of the Ninth, Silver Branch, and Lantern Bearers. These are not only some of her best work, but they should be relatively easy to find. You can find many of her books on Amazon here, and some of her books, such as Frontier Wolf (If you are in any leadership position you should read this book) are difficult to find other than used outside of Kindle. You can also bookmark her works on Goodreads to get to later, and you'll want to. Her works are numerous and well worth reading, and you don't want to do what I did and find yourself accidentally starting with the middle  book in a series. 
I am currently working to outline the second book in her Eagle Trilogy, Silver Branch, part of trying to study how she wrote and specifically how she structured her novels. I'm hoping that once I have a good start on it, I can make it publicly available and maybe get some of your thoughts on it, both my outline and Sutcliff's writing, so stay tuned for that.
Who are some of your favorite under appreciated authors? Hopefully I can learn about a few hidden gems from you as well, and perhaps I can focus on them for a future Author Spotlight.