Is it possible to draw a political program from a work of fiction, in this case J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings? A few posts ago (following a tip or two) I quoted a text from John Milbank:
For those not familiar with this boring fable, it is an elaborate and multilayered allegory of the Second World War (during which much of it was written), of the evils of capitalism and industrialisation, of Roman Catholic enchantment versus Protestant worldliness, of the passing world of the Middle Ages etc. And it’s whole framework is deeply conservative,which I’ll define here as the desire to return to a mythical golden age that never existed. In the three-volume series, the world (Middle Earth) is increasingly threatened by the evil Lord Sauron. So some simple hobbits, led by Frodo and his faithful servant Sam Gamgee, set out from the Shire (aka England), assisted by wizards, dwarves, elves, scions of royal houses and so on, to trounce Sauron – who is into industrialisation, progress, building projects, and has evil, snuffling orcs working for him. How to destroy Sauron’s power? They need to cast a magical and powerful ring – which Sauron desperately wants – into the volcano where it was forged in the midst of Sauron’s domain. I must admit that in the film version it seemed to me that the whole thing should have been subtitled ‘Nine Men in Search of a Flaming Vagina’ – since Sauron’s evil eye was depicted again and again like this:
Where were we? Back in the Shire we find the hobbits, small humanoid creatures who live in holes and behave just like small-minded human beings. Tolkien (through the figure of Gandalf) loves them, since they embody the ideals of his mythical medieval golden age. This is the model that Milbank invokes. However, Joe Lukens pointed out that Milbank may have drawn the idea from a book written by his partner, Alison Milbank, called Chesterton and Tolkien as Theologians: The Fantasy of the Real. As Joe puts it:
Apart from the curious coincidence that Alison Milbank has the same initials as Alasdair Maclagan, JM has of course gone the next next step and argued that we should model society on the Shire, the main town of which is Hobbiton.
Which finally brings me to my point: using a work of fiction – let alone one that it is deeply reactionary – as a basis for a political model is about as intelligent as using a work of fiction as the basis for a religion. I’m thinking here of Robert A. Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land (1962), a science fiction novel which provides the foundational belief structure for The Church of All Worlds. According to the Australian website (more detail on the main American page),
The mission of the Church of All Worlds is to evolve a network of information, mythology and experience that provides a context and stimulus for re-awakening Gaia, and re-uniting her children through tribal community dedicated to responsible stewardship and evolving consciousness.
Sounds a bit like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, if you ask me (with a few tweaks). So I’d suggest the following equation:
The Lord of the Rings is to Radical Orthodoxy as Stranger in a Strange Land is to the Church of All Worlds.
6 January, 2010 at 9:36 am
Michael Moorcock’s “Epic Pooh” is a great dissection of The Lord of the Rings.
And love that characterization of the Hobbits as “small humanoid creatures who live in holes and behave just like small-minded human beings”. The English lower middle class really aren’t all that bad, though.
6 January, 2010 at 9:55 am
‘Writers like Tolkien take you to the edge of the Abyss and point out the excellent tea-garden at the bottom’ – brilliant from Moorcock.
6 January, 2010 at 9:55 am
Plus the women are either vile witches or untouchable queens.
6 January, 2010 at 4:42 pm
When I was just a young lad of thirteen or fourteen (I really can’t remember which) and I was reading the Lord of the Rings books due to having been duped by the hype brought about by the movies, I did not realize it was so conservative, though I did think I caught a little bit of homoerotic tension between Frodo and Sam.
6 January, 2010 at 5:27 pm
And then Gollum for a nice threesome.
7 January, 2010 at 1:12 am
Hi Roland:
For those not familiar with this boring fable, it is an elaborate and multilayered allegory of the Second World War (during which much of it was written), of the evils of capitalism and industrialisation, of Roman Catholic enchantment versus Protestant worldliness, of the passing world of the Middle Ages etc. And it’s whole framework is deeply conservative,which I’ll define here as the desire to return to a mythical golden age that never existed.
A few points.
(1) The greatest tale ever told can hardly be boring, can it?
(2) Lord of the Rings is emphatically not an allegory of WWII. That’s a dated argument not accepted by any recent Tolkien scholar I’ve read. Not only did Tolkien express his intense dislike for allegory in the preface, he began writing LOTR long before 1939. WWII allegory just doesn’t play out in the text on any substantive level. (If the Ring = nuclear weapons, for instance, then the Ring would have been seized and used against the forces of evil instead of destroyed; if Sauron’s forces = the Axis, they would have been occupied rather than annihilated; etc.) That’s not to say that Tolkien didn’t incorporate some of his own experiences of war (and it’s the first world war he served as a soldier) — witness, for instance, the Scouring of the Shire chapter — but definitely no allegory.
(3) Regarding the evils of capitalism and industrialization, you’re basically right.
(4) Of Roman Catholic enchantment versus Protestant worldliness, you’re right.
(5) Of the passing of the middle ages, not true. Tolkien wrote LOTR as a mythic pre-history, meaning that Middle-Earth represents Europe in a long distant past. There is no more geographic allegory than political. Middle-Earth was Europe, long before the middle ages.
(6) The framework is definitely conservative, but doesn’t express a desire to return to a mythic golden age. Just the opposite. In Tolkien’s Catholic view, pagan Middle-Earth shows the need to look forward — to Christianity, that is — without which, our history would simply be a “long defeat” repeating Middle-Earth’s hopeless struggle against evil (despite occasional victories or “euchatastrophes” as Tolkien called them).
You’re of course right that using Tolkien as the basis for a political model is ridiculous, but let’s be sure we’re understanding Tolkien correctly to begin with!
7 January, 2010 at 9:43 am
Loren, point by point:
1) On this we MUST disagree. It’s a complete drag.
2) Tolkien’s opinion doesn’t count. As I said it’ a multi-layered allegory, or rather a an obnoxious moral tale.
3) This is where conservatives ask the right questions for all the wrong reasons.
4) Or we could say, RC hocus pocus vs Protestant practicalism
5) That makes it even worse, bordering on fascist myths of blood and soil. The whole recovery of myth in the 18th and 19th centuries as a viable category was predicated on the idea of the the ancient Volk. This is when you got the Aryan hypothesis, the arguments that myths told the story of earliest humanity – which for the Nazis began north of the arctic circle etc. Note that the BNP (British National Party) says its putting up for indigenous Britons.
6) Simple question: if we’re supposed to look forward to Christianity, then why is LOTR deeply pagan?
7 January, 2010 at 11:37 am
Okay, point counterpoint:
1) On this we MUST disagree. It’s a complete drag.
How dare you suggest such a thing!
2) Tolkien’s opinion doesn’t count. As I said it’s a multi-layered allegory, or rather a an obnoxious moral tale.
It does count (though of course assertion isn’t proof), but I wasn’t only citing Tolkien’s opinion. If you get an “obnoxious moral tale” out of it, you surely haven’t read the book. It’s a fantastic story about a hopeless quest, and suggests heroes who are able to attain a nobility of character unparalleled in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
3) This is where conservatives ask the right questions for all the wrong reasons.
Perhaps. Though it’s a mark of literary greatness when a work appeals to liberals and conservatives of every stripe and hue. I never liked LOTR for any supposed politics or obtuse allegories (which must be imposed), though, just for the great story.
4) Or we could say, RC hocus pocus vs Protestant practicalism
Perhaps. I’m not Christian, but not particularly hostile to Catholicism.
5) That makes it even worse, bordering on fascist myths of blood and soil. The whole recovery of myth in the 18th and 19th centuries as a viable category was predicated on the idea of the the ancient Volk. This is when you got the Aryan hypothesis, the arguments that myths told the story of earliest humanity – which for the Nazis began north of the arctic circle etc. Note that the BNP (British National Party) says its putting up for indigenous Britons.
Im afraid this has nothing to do with LOTR. Just because someone writes a mythic pre-history doesn’t mean he’s remotely racist, nor that his work is unwittingly so. Really, this is silly.
6) Simple question: if we’re supposed to look forward to Christianity, then why is LOTR deeply pagan?
To show the need for Christianity. In Tolkien’s view, of course. I actually warm to the pagan outlook (derived from primarily Norse and Anglo-Saxon myths) and don’t necessarily see the need for a corrective. But I appreciate and respect the author’s intent.
Speaking of which, on my blog you advised that “the author’s efforts to steer interpretation by explaining his ‘intentions’ should subjected to the strongest ideological suspicion”. Actually, it should be subjected to the text itself. Does Lord of the Rings hold up to Tolkien’s claims about it? It does.
7 January, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Re. point 6, that’s partly where Chesterton comes in, as he always saw (Catholic) Christianity as providing a sort of “frame” for paganism. Zizek talks about this too in Puppet and the Dwarf.
7 January, 2010 at 4:19 am
I was inspired to respond at more length on my blog.
7 January, 2010 at 4:38 am
Roland, I think I have to disagree with one of your premises here. The notion that fiction is not suitable for political thinking strikes me as, well, quite un-utopian. OK, fictional worlds are inadequate for a positive, concrete program (but what is adequate for that, anyway?). Nonetheless, aren’t fictional worlds absolutely necessary for keeping political possibilities open? Isn’t the problem just that LOTR is the wrong (i.e. nostalgic) kind of fantastic/speculative fiction? (How about LeGuin, Delany, John Crowley, K.S. Robinson, etc., instead?)
7 January, 2010 at 8:45 am
I agree. Pynchon’s “Gravity’s Rainbow” and DeLillo’s “Underworld” were really eye-opening novels for me and when I saw Coppola’s “The Godfather,” I saw it as a scathing critique of power. None of these are philosophical treatises, to be sure, but they are powerful and they do have something to say. Especially Pynchon and DeLillo.
7 January, 2010 at 9:51 am
Point taken. We need to distinguish between reactionary utopias that seek to restore some golden age (there are plenty of those) and progressive utopias that look forward to a genuine future. Of course, underlying jab in my argument is that Christianity too builds itself upon what are great stories, but fictional to a large degree.
7 January, 2010 at 4:52 am
a collaborative effort? Might she be Alisdair? Sad – I always liked her.
Did you really find Tolkein boring? I did. Tried hard to like it too, several times. I like alot of fiction but not stupid little hobbits and blatant symbolism.
7 January, 2010 at 9:53 am
I’m afraid so. Tried to like it like people assumed I would, but I couldn’t. Later I learned that it was written by an orthodox Tory.
7 January, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Yup I was pleased when I found out I hadn’t been sucked in. By the way John Hobbins has just this evening called me a Leftist and a Marxist (in comments on a post about Jim and the suicide). He was a Marxist before he became a right wing conservative xtian pastor.
7 January, 2010 at 2:37 pm
..perhaps I should have labelled him a fascist
7 January, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Never got past the long bit in LOTR where they all have that big council.
Good post over at Loren’s place on fascism and Tolkien with interesting, if unsubstantiated comments – http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2006/06/tolkien-fascist.html
7 January, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I managed to the whole thing, but by the end I was really wishing they would all get lost.
7 January, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Loren:
‘It does count (though of course assertion isn’t proof), but I wasn’t only citing Tolkien’s opinion. If you get an “obnoxious moral tale” out of it, you surely haven’t read the book. It’s a fantastic story about a hopeless quest, and suggests heroes who are able to attain a nobility of character unparalleled in the Judeo-Christian tradition’.
Yes, it counts, but only since we need to be extremely suspicious of his own perceptions of the work. And I have read the thing through, all the way, since it had so much hype. I repeat, it’s an obnoxious moral tale with unsympathetic characters.
‘I’m afraid this has nothing to do with LOTR. Just because someone writes a mythic pre-history doesn’t mean he’s remotely racist, nor that his work is unwittingly so. Really, this is silly’.
It is woven into the very fibres of the work. The noble characters are white, regal, handsome, beautiful, cuddly etc etc, the evil ones are snuffling, ugly, distorted. Deeply racist and Aryan, I’m afraid. But the key is ‘unwittingly’: Tolkien may have been an orthodox Tory through and through, and he may have abhorred fascism, but the conservative dream of blood and soil and authentic Britishness touches far too closely to fascism for comfort.
‘Speaking of which, on my blog you advised that “the author’s efforts to steer interpretation by explaining his ‘intentions’ should subjected to the strongest ideological suspicion”. Actually, it should be subjected to the text itself. Does Lord of the Rings hold up to Tolkien’s claims about it? It does.’
Not at all, especially if you read the text carefully and closely, but that opens up the whole question of interpretation and its methods and assumptions.
7 January, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Roland, I feel compelled to call attention to these wonderful spoof commentaries on the LOTR films. “Zinn and Chomsky” did one for Fellowship of the Ring, and then I picked up where they left off for Two Towers and Return of the King. The thing is, I think you’ll actually agree with all this tongue-in-cheek commentary!
7 January, 2010 at 11:02 pm
I loved reading the books, but at the end I realized how deeply reactionary they were and had a talk with a friend about how those of us who enjoyed it so much would need to deal with that fact. That conversation almost ended in a fist fight. He didn’t take kindly to the idea that Tolkien was a bit sympathetic to eugenics either.
8 January, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Roland Boer said, “Tolkien’s opinion doesn’t count. As I said it’s a multi-layered allegory, or rather a an obnoxious moral tale.”
So, Tolkien’s opinion doesn’t count, but yours does?
Could you at least say, “I think my opinion is more accurate than Tolkien’s opinion” instead of baldly asserting that Tolkien’s opinion of his own work counts for nothing while yours counts for everything?
8 January, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Now, now, don’t twist my words. I did not say that my opinion counts for everything. What I am arguing is that author’s are the worst guides for interpreting their own works, in the same way that autobiography is the highest form of fiction.
8 January, 2010 at 5:49 pm
I wasn’t trying to twist your words. From the way you stated it, I thought it a clear inference of your meaning.
In fact, I agree with the statement you made on Loren’s blog: “…the author’s efforts to steer interpretation by explaining his ‘intentions’ should subjected to the strongest ideological suspicion.”
The author should write; the reader, whoever that may be, should interpret. Some interpretations may be better than others but there’s also a wide latitude. I think it was George MacDonald who said, if I have to explain what I wrote to you, then I didn’t do a very good job of writing.
So, I’m with you on the whole suspicion of authorial statements. That being said, just because the author says it, doesn’t mean he or she is always wrong about their writing.
Besides, if there’s a question of what something means, the best person to ask is usually the author. For instance, if my wife leaves me a note telling me to do something & I’m unsure about her meaning, I don’t usually consult a panel of scholars or somebody off the street, I ask my wife what she meant.
8 January, 2010 at 4:53 pm
[...] interpretation | Tags: Tolkien | Leave a Comment My post a couple of days ago concerning Milbank and Tolkien, along with Heinlein and the Church of All Worlds, soon degenerated into a discussion about the [...]
8 January, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Rev. George, but that can be a minefield – actually asking her what it means! I prefer simply to interpret in the way that seems best to me …
9 January, 2010 at 6:36 am
Certainly one can interpret in a way that seems best for them but that doesn’t end up making it the best interpretation of a work. That’s all I’m saying.
2 November, 2010 at 12:25 pm
[...] need to be looking to, is a fictional book to establish a reactionary realpolitik world-wide. As Roland Boer contended months ago, using a work of fiction for a political theology is just dumb. Theologically, [...]
4 October, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I definitely think that your’e right about the presence of all kinds of reactionary tendencies in LOTR.
Having said that, I was thinking: isn’t it more likely that LOTR is an allegory of the -first- world war (in which Tolkien served)?
For example, I’m sure that many people have mentioned that the relationship between Frodo and Sam definitely seems modelled on the WWI archetype of the officer and his batman. You know the story: young, upper-class type joins the army and is immediately promoted — gotta love ye olde pre-1914 British class system! — to Second Lieutenant. Then, in deference, to the, tricky fact that said aristocrat is -eighteen- and knows nothing but cricket, Latin declensions (“rum, sodomy and the lash”), the officer is given over to the care of an older, more competent, working class guy (probably a professional soldier of NCO rank) whose job is nonetheless to “take care of” his [sic] “Master”. Anyway, the expected happens: the two hobbits…guys..whatever face terrible dangers, endure terrible suffering and learn to love each other beyond the gulf of…but you get the idea…
On this note, it’s really very interesting how much the films are forced to gloss over all the class stuff in the book to stop it from being totally outrageous, e.g. the number of times Merry and Pippin say things like “Fetch the bath-water, Sam!” (actual quote), or that Aragorn, far from being the self-doubting modern guy he is in the films says things like ‘Do you know whose sword this is? It’s, like, totally a King’s sword. Yep. I’m certainly -pretty- Kingly right about now.” “(paraphrase: omits random acts of elvish.)
Last, I just wanted to agree with some of the other posters about not dismissing the use of fictional utopias altogether, just because some (or even many of them) are worrying Miblankian attempts to bring about “Feudalism in Our Time”. On this note, I’m reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Mars” trilogy at the moment, and I keep thinking “here is someone — what would you expect from one of Jameson’s students? — who knows how to think about a post-capitalist utopia and the struggle to bring it about.” And, hell, it’s hard to fight for a future if you can’t imagine it…