From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V3 #163 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Thursday, October 25 2001 Volume 03 : Number 163 Today's Subjects: ----------------- t/shippey ["Donald G. Keller" ] Re: t/shippey ["David S. Bratman" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 11:35:21 -0400 (EDT) From: "Donald G. Keller" Subject: t/shippey David: Have you read Tom Shippey's =J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century= yet? (Actually, I'd be surprised if you haven't.) I ran across it at the library recently, and read through it in short order. I think it's one of the best books on Tolkien I've read (though I haven't kept up with Tolkien scholarship for the last 20 years or more). His position is tightly-argued and well-supported, that there is nothing simple or simplistic about Tolkien: he insists on the complexity of his work, not only the worldbuilding and the language (in every sense), but the narrative structure and the moral position (especially Tolkien's oft-criticized ideas on the nature of evil). He even changed my mind about something: I have been of the persuasion that =The Lord of the Rings= is essentially a medieval romance that happened to have been written in the 20th century. Shippey convinces me that it could not have been written except by a 20th-century author who had experienced World War I first-hand (and I like the at-first odd-seeming parallels with Orwell). And I quite agree with him that the fantastic is the central mode of the 20th century. It's not a perfect book; the chapter "The Mythic Dimension" doesn't go in the direction I thought it would--apart from a little bit of Levi-Straussian mediation-between-opposites there's very little application of mythic theory to Tolkien (other books have tried Jung on Tolkien, and Shippey profitably could have as well), but that's probably my bias rather than his fault. He also doesn't quite make a convincing case for Tolkien as a Modernist (there is a case to be made). And his section on Tolkien's followers is simply inadequate, with the glaring omission (among others) of Le Guin's Earthsea books (note that he mentions other Le Guin works elsewhere), surely Tolkien's most distinguished emulations. (Had I been his editor, I might have suggested he simply omit this part.) I did like his handling of Tolkien's critics, however. But the core of the book, on Tolkien himself and his scholarship, was really first-rate. I'm curious as to your opinion. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:04:16 -0700 From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: t/shippey Donald - Not only have I read Shippey's new book, I am (blush) responsible for the fact that the US edition corrects some tiny factual errors that were in the UK edition. I have a letter from his editor at Houghton Mifflin apologizing for leaving my name off the acknowledgments, and an autographed copy from the author with my name written in where it should have gone. I agree that Shippey's finest moment in this book is his explanation of what's distinctively 20th-century about Tolkien's writing - specifically the comparison with Orwell, White, and Golding. (All of whom get canonical status which Tolkien is usually denied, even though they do the same things that are offered as explanations of why he doesn't get it.) And yes, I thought of you when I read that part. I don't think we have to make a choice between whether LOTR is a medieval romance or a modernist novel. It's both: old wine, new bottle. But if that's Shippey's best moment, that's because he kind of glosses over some of the really blisteringly brilliant points he made in his earlier book, _The Road to Middle-earth_. You should read that one immediately if you haven't. A couple other really fine recent books of Tolkien criticism you'd enjoy, which should be findable in the library: _A Question of Time_ by Verlyn Flieger, a rather advanced study of dreaming and time-binding in Tolkien's work, which you won't have any trouble with; _Tolkien's Legendarium_ edited by Flieger, a collection of essays mostly on the posthumous works (a few of the authors may be names you'll recognize); _JRR Tolkien & His Literary Resonances_ ed. George Clark and Daniel Timmons, a more wide-ranging collection of essays with really good ones by the aforementioned Shippey & Flieger. Should be in the bookstores RSN: _Meditations on Middle-earth_ ed. Karen Haber, a collection of essays mostly by famous fantasy writers. I've seen a couple of these. Orson Scott Card offers a typical load of belligerent crap (Tolkien began writing before the advent of modernism, he says; to which I'm tempted to crack that I didn't know he predated the French Revolution, but even as Card means it, it's simultaneously untrue, misleading, and meaningless), but I was really impressed by a close analysis of Tolkien's prose-writing skill, using one chapter of LOTR as an example, offered by none other than Ursula Le Guin. Here's the review of Shippey I wrote for Mythprint: *** In the British edition (from which I write this review, the U.S. one not having yet appeared), the author's name is given as Tom Shippey on the jacket and T.A. Shippey on the title page. But under either name, he is of all writers on Tolkien the one most worth reading. Like Tolkien, Prof. Shippey has taught Old English at both Oxford and Leeds Universities. Drawing on this common background, he has demonstrated a profound and lucid grasp of Tolkien's philological background, literary creativity, and moral purpose. In short, Shippey can tell you, better than anyone else, just what this peculiar (in both senses) writer was on about. He first demonstrated this ability in a book titled _The Road to Middle-earth_ in 1982. If there has been one essential literary study of Tolkien, it has been that book, which is still in print though difficult to find. Now _Road_ has been semi-rewritten and semi-expanded in the form of this new book. By its deliberately provocative title, Shippey means two things - - that Tolkien was one of the great authors of the 20th century, despite critical attempts to dismiss his importance; and that Tolkien was _an_ author of the century, a characteristically 20th-century writer, despite perceptions of him as a medieval atavism. Shippey discusses the curious critical neglect of Tolkien, and finds striking similarities between Tolkien and modern authors as different as George Orwell and William Golding. These parts of this book were not in _Road_, but derive from articles Shippey has written since then. The bulk of the book is Shippey's demonstration of Tolkien's claim to greatness in terms of literary quality, and this is the part deriving from _Road_. Rarely copying the earlier book's exact wording, Shippey makes most of the same points and some additional ones. The brilliance of his thoughts can be best seen in one section discussing the nature of the Ring's evil and the effects it has on those who come into contact with it. Shippey demonstrates that the Ring balances between being a sentient creature of active evil and a "psychic amplifier" that merely preys upon the bearer's latent susceptibility. He suggests that the Ring works on the mind in the manner of drug addiction, which explains both why Frodo and Sam survive bearing it without harm (addiction in early stages is curable), and why Boromir succumbs to the disease without ever touching the Ring (addiction must be preceded by desire). I hope I have not summarized Shippey's point too badly, because no-one has ever had a more perceptive insight into Tolkien's literary and moral purpose. Besides _The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings_, and _The Silmarillion_, Shippey also discusses the shorter fictions Tolkien published in his lifetime, some of his poetry, and the "Lost Road/Notion Club" complex. The other drafts in "The History of Middle-earth" are mentioned only as needed to make points about the published books. Shippey also touches upon Tolkien's professional scholarship, showing its intimate relation to, and helpfulness in understanding, his fiction. Some of this is also new. Besides being a brilliant critic, Shippey is an entertaining one. Anyone who has heard him speak knows that he is a captivating lecturer (in that way he differs from Tolkien's professorial reputation), and the same energy, enthusiasm, and wit carry over into his writing. A few parts of this book struck me as a little slack or hasty, but that may have been because they discussed points I already knew from _Road_. I suspect a reader new to Shippey will not find them so. For the most part, even the reworked parts make invigorating reading. Shippey is aware of his tendency to digress, so he provides in the Foreword an outline of what is to follow. But even his digressions are for a point, and worth following him on. Because of its basis in _Road_ and in other published articles of Shippey's, the reader who has all of these does not, strictly speaking, need this book. But anyone - like me - who is that fond of Shippey's writing will surely _want_ this book. Anyone interested in Tolkien who has _not_ read Shippey before should take this opportunity to do so immediately. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V3 #163 *****************************