Time to Talk About Tolkien (Not the Movie)

For the 800s (Literature), I am re-posting thoughts related to Tom Shippey's book Tolkien, Man of the Century.

The original post can be found on my Tolkien page. I have altered the below post slightly to be more of a review of the book (rather than thoughts on The Lord of the Rings generally).

Haven't seen the movie Tolkien yet--plan to!

***

In his excellent book, J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, Tom Shippey tackles Tolkien's use of evil. He makes the valid and fascinating point that Tolkien treads a line between Boethian and Manichaean views of evil, between a view of evil as coming from inside us (humans create evil through their bad desires and choices) versus coming from outside us (goodness and badness are in eternal and external conflict; every individual has to pick a side).

Shippey points out that Tolkien deliberately trends a line between these two views. Tolkien's approach isn't clumsy; rather, he uses the inherent tension between the two views to reflect on the human condition--because sometimes the badness we face is the result of our choices and sometimes the badness we face seems to come from something external, bigger than our simple, petty selves.

Shippey also tackles critics' arguments over Tolkien's use of the one ring, pointing out that it is not simplistic magic. He proposes the metaphor of "addiction" to explain how the ring works throughout Tolkien's trilogy.

I agree that addiction is a good metaphor for the ring's effects--with a caveat. I think it comes down to addiction + ambition.

The addiction element is definitely at work: the more the ring is used, the more it enslaves its owner; it engenders "cravings"; the closer it gets to its "source" (think stash), the stronger the cravings and more concentrated the dose. Consequently, the ring has less effect in the Shire than it does in Gondor.

At the same time, the intrinsic character of the user, specifically regarding ambition, is a major factor. Bilbo, after all, uses the ring quite often in both The Hobbit and before he gives it away in The Lord of the Rings (Meriadoc learns about the ring years before Frodo inherits it; he saw Bilbo use it to escape encountering the Sackville-Baggineses!).

Bilbo's protection/immunity is that he exhibits zero interest in running anything: a dwarf company, village, town, kingdom . . . He additionally demonstrates a complete readiness to hand over his "estate" to Frodo when the time comes. Only giving up the ring proves difficult.

In other words, Bilbo is the ultimate Libertarian-mind-my-own-business-leave-me-to-my-hobbies kind of guy. Consequently, the ring has little power over him. He is the only person other than Sam (who is quite similar in personality) to give up the ring voluntarily.

Addiction + character explains why Gandalf so resolutely refuses to even touch the ring. And why Galadriel, after a struggle, refuses it so graciously.

Gandalf, troubled: the ring is THAT ring.

The point with Galadriel and Gandalf is that leadership and ambition are not by themselves evil . . .

RATHER . . .

The ring does greater harm to those with worldly ambitions. 

Its corruption is inevitable since unchecked and unbalanced, the desire to get ahead can become a demand for respect, then for compliance, then for domination, followed by an obsessive need to enforce a particular vision or plan  "for the good of others" no matter what the cost.

Some LOTR philosophers argue that a truly perfect being or at least one entirely without ambition--like Tom Bombadil--could never be corrupted by the ring. Possibly. But most of Middle Earth is filled with beings who behave like, well, people. Whether it be "original sin" or the "natural man," the desire to bonk YOU on the head for the sake of MY PRECIOUS will eventually overcome any fellow feeling. Even Bilbo only gives up the ring at Gandalf's insistence. (Bilbo's lack of lasting corruption is where free-will comes in--as well as Gandalf's refusal to take the ring by force.)

The ring's insidious nature is necessary to Tolkien's plot. The entire trilogy rests on the belief that the ring is bad and MUST be destroyed. If the ring can corrupt such good and noble beings as Gandalf and Galadriel, the author must be telling the truth.

Back to Shippey's book: it is the kind of part-biography-part-literary-analysis that I prefer to straight biography. If I pick up a biography and it immediately starts listing the dates of the subject's parents' births and marriages--YAWN (I can look up that stuff on Wikipedia, thank you very much).

Shippey's Tolkien is similar to The Narnian by Alan Jacobs--also a very good book--an analysis of writing and personal philosophy.

In addition, check out A Hobbit, A Wardrobe, and a Great War by Joseph Loconte. I'm not usually a fan of "every author's experience shows up directly in that author's writing" but the truth is, experience does shape people, even authors. The book is worth a read.