NOTE TO USERS The original manuscript received by UMI contains pages with slanted and indistinct print. Pages were microfilmed as received. This reproduction is the best copy available UMI Mirror on Middle-earth: J.R.R. Tolkien and the Critical Perspectives Daniel Tkons thesis submitted in conformity with t he requ for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ~raduateDepartment of Engl ish University of Toronto @ Copyright by Daniel Timmons 1998 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 191 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 OttawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada The author has granted a non- t'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seli reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts i?om it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Daniel Tkons Doctor of Philosophy 1998 Department of Engiish University of Toronto Mirrot on Middle-earth: J.R.R. Tolkien and the Critical Perspectives This dissertation evaluates the commentary on J.R.R. Tolkien, which includes the authorts self-criticism. Commonly- held views of Tolkien reception, such as that there is a large body of "hostile" criticism or that relatively few "serious" studies exist, are misinfomed. Rather than being concerned about the presence of negative or adulatory views of Tolkien, scholars should acknowledge the potential problems in adopting Tolkien's comments on his own works, especially since many of these remarks are slippery or possibly disingenuous. Still, as the varied and numerous critical perspectives on Tolkien indicate, for sixty years scholars have recognized the literary depths and merits of the authorts writings. The first part of the dissertation examines the elusive literary concept "fantasy" and the premises of "Tolkienian fantasy;" this analysis sets the context for the discussion of the scholarship on Middle-earth. Next, the study evaluates the first major period in Tolkien criticism, which starts with reviews of The Hobbit in 1937 and ends at the publication of the second edition of The Lord of the Rinqs in 1965. In the years following the publication of the Middle-earth tales, Tolkien provided commentaries on the creative inspirations behind them. The dissertation assesses the initial block of Tolkien's self-criticism, such as his article "Tolkien on Tolkien. " The next major period of commentary comprises studies published between 1966 and 1976 (the year before the initial publication of The Silmarillion) . The dissertation then examines another significant block of Tolkien's self-criticism, which includes the collection of his letters. The last chapter provides an assessment of the current state of the extensive and diverse commentary on Tolkien. Therefore, the customary labels for Tolkien criticism, such as "hostile" vs. "laudatory' or "popular" vs. "serious," are more misleading than representative. While there may be starkly differing views of Tolkien and uncertainty as to whether he is considered a "canonical" author, his writings remain among the most widely read and consistently admired works of literature of the twentieth century. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank the Graduate Department of English at the University of Toronto for their encouragement and financial support. 1 extend my sincerest appreciation towards my supervisor, Professor Joanna Dutka, whose keen insight and kind patience enabled me to complete this project. 1 would also like to thank Professor Ian Lancashire for his fine contributions to my work. Furthemore, I offer special thanks to the Merrii Collection of the Toronto Library, the Tolkien Archive at Marquette University, and Tolkien scholars everywhere. Finally, my supportive family and friends have my deepest gratitude. Table of Contents Introduction ..............................m............. Chapter One: The Elusiveness of Fantasy: Critics on the Genre from E.M. Forster to T.A. Shippey ........................m... Chapter Two: The Nature of Tolkienian Fantasy ........................ Chapter Three: The Rise of Tolkien Criticism: 1937 to 1965 ............. Chapter Four: Tolkien on Tolkien: Authorial Comments to 1975 .......... Chapter Five : The Expansion of Tolkien Criticism: 1966 to 1976 ........ Chapter Six: The Impulses of Middle-earth: Tolkien's Letters and Other Essays ..................................m........m Chapter Seven: The State of Tolkien Criticism: 1977 to Present ......... Conclusion .............................................. Works Consulted ......................................... Introduction: 'Many things 1 can comand the Mirror to reveal," she answered, 'and to some 1 can show what they desire to see. But the Mirror will also show things unbidden, and those are often stranger and more profitable than things which we wish to behold. What you will see, if you leave the Mirror free to work, 1 cannot tell. For it shows things that were, and things that are, the things that yet may be. But which it is that he sees, even the wisest cannot always tell. Do you wish to look?' J.R.R. Tolkien would appear to be seldom read with indifference. The Hobbit has received essentially high praise since its initial publication, but The Lord of the Rings and The Silrnarillion are another matter. Commentators have taken strong positions for and against these books. C.S. Lewis hailed The Fellowship of the Rinq as a work of genius (1954, 1082), whereas Peter Green declared that he could not take the book "seriously" (8). Richard Hughes called Tolkien's work a "very remarkable achievement" (1954, 408), while Edmund Wilson labelled it "juvenile trash" (332). William Blissett regarded The Lord of the Rinqs as "perhaps the last literary masterpiece of the Middle Ages" (449); Mark Roberts claimed that the trilogy "is not moulded by some controlling vision of things which is at the same the its raison dfêtre" (459). W .H. Auden, who said that no other work of fiction "1 have read in the last five years has given me more joy" (1954, 37), stated that either "people find [Tolkien's work] ... a masterpiece of its genre or they cannot abide it" (1956, 5). Thus at the outset of The Lord of the Rinqs' reception, it was assumed that admirers and detractors of Tolkien had formed opposing camps or factions. Commentary on the Middle-earth tales indeed contains both positive criticism and negative remarks. In the sixties, Marion Zimmer Bradley noted that love was "the dominant emotion" in The Lord of the Rinqs, not only love of honour and country, but "Gandalf8s paternal and Goldberry and Galadriel's materna1 loveM (Isaacs 1968, 109); Catherine Stimpson thought that Tolkien displays "subtle contempt and hostility toward women" and that unlike "many very good modern writers, he is no homosemial" (19,2O). In the seventies, W.R. Irwin called Tolkien's trilogy "the most hpressive" work of its kind of the twentieth century (1976, 161); conversely, C.N. Manlove judged it to be "facile and weak" (1975, 206). With regard to -The Silmarillion, in 1977 John Gardner considered Tolkien's vision to be "philosophically and morally powerfulm (39), whereas Christopher Booker called the book "one long, self-indulgent, pseudo-mythical whiffle" (18). In the eighties, Ursula Le Guin stated that Tolkien's style was "outstanding" (79), while Michael Moorcock claimed it was like "Winnie-the-Pooh posing as epic" (125). Lastly, in 1996 C.W. Sullivan commended "Tolkien's eminently successful attempt to create a traditional narrative" (82); John Goldthwaite, after quoting a passage of a battle scene from The Return of the Kinq, stated: "Very seldom does one encounter emotion this fraudulent and writing this bad in any genre" (218). On the surface, Auden's proposal that critics either admire Tolkien or disparage him still seems applicable today. I However, many great writers have been subject to derision or condemnation. John Galt remarks that "1 have never been able to bring myself to entertain any feeling approximating to respect for the works of Chaucer;" ... his lists and catalogues of circumstances are anything but poetryu (Brewer 1:268). John Davies thinks that "Spencers [sic] confusion, and different choice of names, are things never to be forgiven" (Cummings 296). Leonard Welsted States that if writers do not use "Ski11 or Deiicacy" when "introducing foreign Treasuresw into the English language, "the Attempt will end in nothing but an uncouth unnatural Jargon, like the Phrase and Stile of Milton, which is a second Babel, or Confusion of al1 Languages; a Fault, that can never be enough regretted" (Shawcross 1:244). Lady ~radshaighdeclares that Tristram Shandy is "meanrSB "dirty," "scandelous," and "the worst that ever appear'd in print" (Howes 90). And Oliver St. John Gogarty succinctly offers his view of Ulysses: "That bloody Joyce whom I kept in my youth has written a book you can read 03 al1 the lavatory walls of Dublin" (Deming 1:282). If the mere existence of severe remarks on authors were some sort of criterion for doubting their literary worth, then no miter, famous or obscure, would be highly regarded. Furthemore, given that scholarship on Middle-earth spans sixty years and comprises thousands of titles, the presence of negative assessments of Tolkien's work is not only inevitable but needlessly alarming. While critics like Edmund Wilson have affected the content of certain studies on Tolkien, none of the condemations has prevented either the reading of or scholarship on the authorrs work.