Narrating England: Tolkien, the Twentieth Century, and English Cultural Self- Representation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Narrating England: Tolkien, the Twentieth Century, and English Cultural Self- Representation. A I Jackson PhD 2015 1 Narrating England: Tolkien, the Twentieth Century, and English Cultural Self- Representation. AARON ISAAC JACKSON A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Department of English, Manchester Metropolitan University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of English The Manchester Metropolitan University 2015 2 Abstract This thesis addresses the representation of England and Englishness in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Farmer Giles of Ham (1949), The Hobbit (1937), and The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955). Primarily questioning Tom Shippey’s interpretation of the same themes in The Road to Middle-Earth (1982, 2005) and J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century (2000), and offering a sustained analysis and evaluation of Shippey’s position and critical methodology as well as their endorsement by subsequent criticism, this thesis argues that Tolkien’s work does not position its representations of England as the unchanging pastoral idylls Shippey suggests. Rather, it proposes that through their prolonged examination of the importance of the relationship of location to narratives of English history, identity, and cultural self-representation, these texts self-consciously engage with the ways in which ideas of Englishness are serially made and remade. While focused on Tolkien’s treatment of England and Englishness throughout, the thesis takes the following trajectory. It begins by examining Shippey’s contention that the representation of these themes by Tolkien’s fiction was recuperative, idealising, and enshrining, investigating how and why this perspective has been critically endorsed and recycled. Establishing the enduring influence of Shippey’s work and critical methodology within Tolkien criticism, I argue that Shippey’s conclusions can be challenged by introducing the representations of England and Englishness presented by Tolkien’s work to alternative critical perspectives on the narration of the nation, notably those proposed by the work of Benedict Anderson and Ian Baucom. Outlining the ways in which Tolkien’s works operate similar strategies of representation to those of history and historiography in their fictive 3 engagements with the historical and cultural narratives of English identity, I then move on to individual readings of each text. Arguing that the narratives do not ultimately consolidate prelapsarian visions of England and Englishness, these readings instead examine how the texts endorse the relationships between location, cultural identity, and history as mutual, coextensive, and subject to perennial change and reinvention. 4 Dedication To everyone who helped, my heartfelt thanks. Those who doubted, dissembled, gave me up for dead, and actively hindered ... ? Karma is waiting around a corner for you idly swinging a sockful of wet sand in one meaty fist ... 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction p.8. Chapter One: Literature Review p.22. Overview p.22. Tom Shippey, The Road to Middle-earth and The Author of the Century p.42. Source-Study Methodology and its Impact p.52. Discussing ‘Professor Tolkien’ p.64. A ‘Mythology for England’? p.70. Chapter Two: Framework of Analysis p.91. The Idea of Nation p.91. Out of Place: England, Home, and Location p.102. Tolkien, England, and the Norman Yoke p.111. From Philology to Fantasy p.130. Tolkien, Modernism and Metafiction: p.143. Coda p.166. Chapter Three: Farmer Giles of Ham p.169. Cartography, Ham, and the Little Kingdom p.172. Sober Annals and Popular Lays: Farmer Giles of Ham and History p.181. Farmer Giles of Ham and England p.192. Farmer Giles of Ham p.199. Farmer Giles of Ham as a Late-Imperial Text p.210. 6 Coda p.219. Chapter Four: The Hobbit p.224. Home and The Hobbit p.224. The Hobbit and the First World War p.244. Coda p.261. Chapter Five: The Lord of the Rings p.263. Hobbits, the Shire, and England p.266. Homes and Homelands p.290. ‘You’re a Brandybuck’: Frodo and England p.308. Coda p.324. Conclusion p.328. Appendix A: Aaron Isaac Jackson, ‘Writing Arthur, Writing England: Myth and Modernity in T.H. White’s The Sword in the Stone’, The Lion and the Unicorn, Vol. 33 Number 1 (Jan) (John Hopkins Press, 2009) p. 343. Appendix B: Aaron Isaac Jackson, ‘Authoring the Century: J.R.R. Tolkien, the Great War and Modernism’, English Literature (The Journal of the English Association) (2010) p. 366. Bibliography p.403. 7 Introduction This thesis addresses a specific critical trend that exists within the broader parameters of what may be called Tolkien Studies which views the treatment of England and home in J.R.R. Tolkien’s fiction in reclamatory terms.1 This school of thought views Tolkien’s representation of these themes as a nostalgic, intrinsically conservative and backward-looking endeavour designed to mitigate the social and cultural transformations of the late-imperial period, or positions Tolkien’s work as a personal attempt to recuperate their real or imagined essence on an imaginative level. This critical perspective is encapsulated in Tom Shippey’s The Road to Middle-earth: How J.R.R. Tolkien Created a New Mythology (1982a, 2005). Shippey asserts that in the central home spaces of Farmer Giles of Ham (1949), The Hobbit (1937), and The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955), Tolkien sought to create “a timeless and idealised England (or rather Britain) in which the place and the people remained the same regardless of politics. The story [...] is therefore largely the triumph of the native over the foreign.”2 My argument is that Tolkien’s works do not in fact attempt to recover or reclaim a lost English utopia. Via a sustained engagement with Shippey’s critical perspectives, which chapter one’s literature review will show have become 1 Michael D.C. Drout discusses the difficulties in defining what he describes as “Tolkien scholarship”, noting its tendency to be simultaneously a series of distinct and overlapping fields: “The boundaries between each of these interpretative communities [...] are porous, poorly marked and difficult to negotiate, with many individual scholars and works of criticism not fitting neatly into any one category” (See Michael D.C. Drout, ‘Towards a Better Tolkien Criticism’, in Reading The Lord of the Rings: New Writings on Tolkien’s Classic ed. by Robert Eaglestone (London, New York: Continuum 2005), pp. 15–29 (p. 15). ‘Towards a Better Tolkien Criticism’ responds to and extends Drout’s discussion of the same themes in the earlier overview of extant Tolkien scholarship offered with Hilary Wynne (see Michael D.C. Drout and Hilary Wynne, ‘Tom Shippey’s J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century and a Look Back at Tolkien Criticism since 1982’, Envoi, vol. 9. no. 2 (Fall, 2000), 101–167). 2 Tom Shippey, The Road to Middle-earth: How J.R.R. Tolkien Created a New Mythology (revised and expanded edn) (London: Harper Collins, 2005), p. 112. Shippey is here specifically addressing Farmer Giles of Ham but as I show in chapter one he describes all three texts in similar terms (see Shippey, The Road to Middle-earth (2005), pp. 81–83, and pp. 115–116 respectively). All citations are taken from this edition unless otherwise indicated. 8 something of a critical orthodoxy, this thesis argues instead that the texts Shippey nominates do not depict the homes and homelands of Ham, the Hill, and the Shire as originary unchanging entities; nor do they celebrate the primacy of a pastoral pre-modern past over the contemporary moment or reject the exterior foreign ‘other’ in outright favour of the native or local. Rather, this thesis proposes that Tolkien’s work engages with the ways ideas of Englishness have been constructed. My argument mobilizes Ian Baucom’s reading of the same themes in Out of Place: Englishness, Empire and the Locations of Identity (1999) in this context. Baucom’s argument, explored in detail in chapter two, suggests that in the imperial and late-imperial period English identity became metonymically attached to England’s locations as a reaction to the identarian disorientation prompted by British imperialism. Overwhelmed by the breadth of the space of the British Empire beyond England’s borders, Baucom suggests, and seeing its culturally significant locations, cultural-historical narratives, and races as a threat to their English counterparts, English narratives of cultural self-representation were prompted to serially sacralise places within England’s borders. Privileging the English soil of the home country, they positioned representative locales as both authentically English and identity-bestowing. England and Englishness became symbolic arrangements of space and identity rather than denoting a literal relationship between geographical space and national identity, with the most powerful assertions of English identity often occurring in colonial spaces rather than within England itself. Defined by their presence in the past and absence in the present in cultural discourse, and representing the safe ordered past, England and Englishness were simultaneously celebrated for what they were felt to represent and mourned because they had failed to survive (because they never truly existed). It is this late-imperial complex, and these readings of England and 9 Englishness, that I suggest this that Tolkien’s work explicitly engages with and articulates – something discussed in more detail in chapter two. Yet I will show that while their reclamation and recycling of the representative tropes of location and identity, endorsed by English cultural memory as ‘authentic’, emotionally amplifies their representations of English homes and homelands, these strategies also draw attention to the made nature of these entities, and the texts foreground the constancy of their changing nature far more than they present them as originary or inviolate. Crucial to my analysis is a discussion that acknowledges the literary strategies of the texts.