Tolkien: Man and Myth

By Joseph Pearce

J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings took first place in several nationwide British polls on the "greatest book of the century". He may be the most popular writer of our age, but Tolkien is often misunderstood. This major new study of his life, his character, and his work reveals the facts and confronts the myths. It explores the man's background and the culture in which he wrote.

Tolkien: Man and Myth observes the relationships that the master writer had with his closest literary colleagues. It sheds light on his unique relationship with C. S. Lewis, the writer of the Narnia books, and the roots of their eventual estrangement.

In this original book about a leading literary life, Joseph Pearce enters the world that Tolkien created in the seven books published during his lifetime. He explores the significance of Middle Earth and what it represented in Tolkien's thinking. Myth, to this legendary author, was not a leap from reality but a leap into reality.

The impact of Tolkien's great notoriety, his relationship with material possessions, and his deep religious faith are all examined at length in this biography, making it possible to understand both the man and the myth that he created.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ignatius Press
• Release date: Jul 2, 2019
• ISBN: 9781642290912

Joseph Pearce

Joseph Pearce is the author of numerous literary works including Literary Converts, The Quest for Shakespeare and Shakespeare on Love, and the editor of the Ignatius Critical Editions series. His other books include literary biographies of Oscar Wilde, J.R.R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Book preview

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I scarcely know where to begin in the endeavour to acknowledge all the help I have received in the researching and writing of this volume. Perhaps, therefore, it is best to proceed in random fashion, mentioning the individuals concerned without any particular order of priority.

The principal published sources have been acknowledged in the Notes and are listed in the selective Bibliography at the end of the book. I am indebted to HarperCollins for permission to publish extracts from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, a short extract from The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays, the second verse of one of the poems from The Lord of the Rings, and several lines from the poem ‘Mythopoeia’. Various unpublished material was provided by Stratford Caldecott, the Director of the Centre for Faith and Culture at Westminster College, Oxford. I am also indebted to Mr Caldecott for allowing me to quote from his own essay, ‘Tolkien, Lewis and Christian Myth’, and for the hospitality he has shown me on my visits to Westminster College. While at Westminster College I also received valued assistance from Aidan Mackey, administrator of the G.K. Chesterton Library, formerly situated at the college before its recent relocation to Plater College. Staying in Oxford, I have enjoyed the help and friendship of Walter Hooper, the world’s leading authority on C.S. Lewis, and have been helped by other members of the Oxford C.S. Lewis Society, not least of whom was Richard Jeffery who was kind enough to share his considerable knowledge of both Lewis and Tolkien with me. George Sayer, Lewis’s friend and biographer, has been of invaluable assistance, especially in recounting his memories of discussions with Tolkien in the 1960s. Dr Patrick Curry, author of Defending Middle Earth, has offered both advice and encouragement, as has Charles Noad, the Bibliographer of the Tolkien Society. Of the clergy who have helped, Father Charles Dilke of the London Oratory and Father Ricardo Irigaray of Buenos Aires, author of The Theological Style of J.R.R. Tolkien, deserve special mention, as does Father Robert Murray SJ. I am grateful to Paul Ellis, Elwyn Fairburn, Helene Felter, Michael Ward and Alan Young for help in various ways; to A.F.W. Simmonds who has helped in ways too numerous to mention; and to Sarah Hollingsworth, as ever, for her critical appraisal of the original manuscript. Neither must I omit to mention the crucial part played by James Catford whose enduring faith in my work has helped to bring my efforts to fruition.

Finally, I must acknowledge a debt to Owen Barfield, a key member of the Inklings and a friend of both Lewis and Tolkien, who agreed to meet me even though he was in deteriorating health. Sadly, he died shortly before this volume was completed. I dedicate what follows to his memory and as a tribute to his literary achievement.

PREFACE

When Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings was voted the ‘greatest book of the century’ in a nationwide poll at the beginning of 1997 the critical response was not one of approbation but of opprobrium. Tolkien, it seemed, was as controversial and as misunderstood as ever, prompting the same popular acclaim and critical hostility that had greeted the book’s initial publication more than forty years earlier.

It was in the wake of the controversy caused by Tolkien’s triumph in the Waterstone’s poll that the idea for this volume was conceived. Tolkien: Man and Myth is an effort to get to grips with the man, the myth and the whole phenomenon that has delighted millions of readers and perplexed and apoplexed generations of critics. It is an attempt to unravel the mystery surrounding this most misunderstood of men. In order to do so, a biographical approach has been adopted that endeavours to adhere to the ‘scale of significance’ which Tolkien himself ascribed to the facts of his life in a letter written shortly after The Lord of the Rings was published. In this letter Tolkien expressed his distrust of much modern biography:

I object to the contemporary trend in criticism, with its excessive interest in the details of the lives of authors and artists. They only distract attention from an author’s work. . . and end, as one now often sees, in becoming the main interest. But only one’s guardian Angel, or indeed God Himself, could unravel the real relationship between personal facts and an author’s works. Not the author himself (though he knows more than any investigator), and certainly not so-called ‘psychologists’.

But, of course, there is a scale of significance in ‘facts’ of this sort.¹

Tolkien then divides the ‘facts’ of his own life into three distinct categories, namely the ‘insignificant’, the ‘more significant’ and the ‘really significant’:

There are insignificant facts (those particularly dear to analysts and writers about writers): such as drunkenness, wife-beating, and suchlike disorders. I do not happen to be guilty of these particular sins. But if I were, I should not suppose that artistic work proceeded from the weaknesses that produced them, but from other and still uncorrupted regions of my being. Modern ‘researchers’ inform me that Beethoven cheated his publishers, and abominably ill-treated his nephew; but I do not believe that has anything to do with his music.²

Apart from these ‘insignificant facts’, Tolkien believed that there were ‘more significant facts, which have some relation to an author’s works’. In this category he placed his academic vocation as a philologist at Oxford University. This had affected his ‘taste in languages’ which was ‘obviously a large ingredient in The Lord of the Rings’. Yet even this was subservient to more important factors:

And there are a few basic facts, which however drily expressed, are really significant. For instance I was born in 1892 and lived for my early years in ‘the Shire’ in a pre-mechanical age. Or more important, I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic.³

Accepting Tolkien’s premise that the author ‘knows more than any investigator’ about the important events in his life, his own ‘scale of significance’ has been employed as the starting point in the effort to unmask the man and unravel the myth. Consequently, those facts which Tolkien considered most significant to his life and work have formed the basis of this book. His academic career and his ‘taste in languages’ have not been discussed at length, partly because the author is not qualified to do so and partly because this aspect of his life and creativity has been covered extensively in learned studies by T.A. Shippey and Verlyn Flieger. Instead, the crucial importance of Tolkien’s Christianity and the enduring importance of his early years in the pre-mechanical ‘Shire’ are given priority.

One result of Tolkien’s Christianity was his development of the philosophy of myth that underpins his sub-creation. In fact, to employ a lisping pun, Tolkien is a misunderstood man because he is a mythunderstood man. He understood the meaning of myth in a way which has not been grasped by his critics and this misapprehension is at the very root of their failure to appreciate his work. For most modern critics a myth is merely another word for a lie or a falsehood, something which is intrinsically not true. For Tolkien, myth had virtually the opposite meaning. It was the only way that certain transcendent truths could be expressed in intelligible form. One has to understand this in order to understand Tolkien. It is hoped that this volume will go some way to removing the falsehoods and revealing the myth.

CHAPTER 1

A MISUNDERSTOOD MAN:

TOLKIEN AND THE MODERN WORLD

‘Oh hell! Has it? Oh my God. Dear oh dear. Dear oh dear oh dear.’ I’d woken Bob Inglis from deep sleep with the news that Lord of the Rings had been voted, by the readers of Waterstone’s and Channel 4 viewers, the best book of the century. Inglis’s reaction was echoed up and down the country wherever one or two literati gathered together.

These words opened an article by Susan Jeffreys in the Sunday Times on 26 January 1997. Like so many other members of the literati she was dismayed by the emergence of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings as the ‘greatest book of the century’ in a poll of more than 25,000 people throughout Britain. ‘Personally,’ she continued, ‘I won’t keep the thing in the house, but I have borrowed a boxed set for the purpose of this piece. It sits on the table like a horrible artifact, giving off a stale bedsitterish aroma. With its awful runes and maps and tedious indexes, the sight of it filled me with depression. . . A depressing thought that the votes for the world’s best 20th-century book should have come from those burrowing an escape into a nonexistent world.’

Jeffreys’ views were shared by others. The writer Howard Jacobson reacted with splenetic scorn: ‘Tolkien—that’s for children, isn’t it? Or the adult slow. . . It just shows the folly of these polls, the folly of teaching people to read. Close all the libraries. Use the money for something else. It’s another black day for British culture.’¹ The actor Nigel Planer was equally dismissive, complaining that those who voted for The Lord of the Rings were ‘the same lot who phoned in to make John Major Man of the Year and to keep the royal family’.² Griff Rhys Jones on the BBC’s Bookworm programme appeared to believe that Tolkien’s epic went no deeper than the ‘comforts and rituals of childhood’.³ The Times Literary Supplement described the results of the poll as ‘horrifying’⁴ while a writer in the Guardian complained that The Lord of the Rings ‘must be by any reckoning one of the worst books ever written’.⁵

Rarely has a book caused such controversy and rarely has the vitriol of the critics highlighted to such an extent the cultural schism between the literary illuminati and the views of the reading public. More than five thousand, i.e. one-fifth, of those polled in the 105 branches of Waterstone’s up and down the country gave The Lord of the Rings first-place votes. This made it a runaway winner, 1,200 votes ahead of its nearest rival, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four. Graham Kerr, marketing manager of Waterstone’s, reported that The Lord of the Rings came consistently top at almost every branch in Britain and in every region, with the exception of Wales where James Joyce’s Ulysses topped the poll. Martin Lee, marketing director of Waterstone’s, described the poll as ‘one of the widest-ranging surveys of reading tastes ever to be compiled’ and added that he hoped it would ‘stir a passionate debate about the merits of the century’s writing’.⁶

Debate was certainly passionate, if not always conducted with either charity or restraint. Mark Lawson on the BBC’s Today programme was the first to suggest that the Tolkien Society had conspired to orchestrate mass voting for The Lord of the Rings, an allegation which other critics were quick to repeat. Professor John Carey told Susan Jeffreys that ‘I rather agree with Mark Lawson on the radio last week that a Tolkien pressure group had been at work.’⁷ Auberon Waugh, editor of The Literary Review, also expressed disbelief at Tolkien’s triumph, describing it as ‘a little bit suspicious’ and suggesting that ‘the author’s fans might have orchestrated a campaign’.⁸ Humphrey Carpenter, Tolkien’s biographer, joined the ranks of the scoffers, suspecting that the Internet culture had helped mobilize Tolkien’s ‘anorak-clad troops’. Carpenter was more surprised than most by the success of The Lord of the Rings because he ‘had the impression that the Tolkien culture had dwindled to a hard core of fans’.⁹

The allegations of foul play were finally silenced when similar surveys vindicated Tolkien’s position as the nation’s most popular writer. On 25 January, the Daily Telegraph responded to the Waterstone’s poll by inviting its own readers to vote for the best book of the century. The results were published on 22 February. They revealed The Lord of the Rings as the greatest book of the century in the view of Telegraph readers and Tolkien as the greatest author, ahead of George Orwell and Evelyn Waugh in second and third place respectively. Two months later, a poll published by the Folio Society ranked Tolkien’s epic as Britain’s favourite book of any century. The Folio Society had asked its fifty thousand members to name their ten favourite books from any age. More than ten thousand members voted and The Lord of the Rings polled 3,270 votes. Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice was second with 3,212 votes and David Copperfield by Charles Dickens was third with 3,070 votes. Sue Bradbury, editorial director of the Folio Society, admitted to ‘great surprise’ at the result. She added, however, that only members of the society had voted, which ruled out the possibility of pressure group voting. ‘With two surveys so close together putting it top, I think it has to be taken seriously now,’ she said.¹⁰ Commenting on the results of the Folio Society’s poll, Ross Shimmon, chief executive of the Library Association, said, ‘It’s astonishing that The Lord of the Rings has this impact. The idea of a parallel world. . . I wonder whether it’s something to do with trying to make sense of the world around us.’¹¹

In spite of the surprise and disbelief of critics, those trying to make sense of the polls needed to look no further than Tolkien’s enduring popularity in terms of sales. Tolkien’s books had sold more than fifty million copies worldwide, and HarperCollins, his publisher, reported that they ‘still sell very vigorously all around the world’.¹² Neither was there any sign of Tolkien’s popularity abating. In September 1997 The Hobbit topped the bestseller list of audio books for children, even though its retail price of £16.99 was double that of most other titles on the list. Meanwhile, Horace Bent, writing in The Bookseller, reported that Tolkien topped the Public Lending Right’s list of the ten classic authors borrowed most from libraries.¹³

Bought, borrowed or voted for, it seemed that Tolkien was undisputed Lord of Writers, a fact which caused Chris Woodhead, the Chief Inspector of Schools, to complain of ‘low cultural expectations’: ‘If The Lord of the Rings is our favourite book, what is it saying about our attitude towards quality in the arts? English teachers ought to be trying to develop discrimination. The Lord of the Rings is an immensely readable book, but it is not the greatest work of English literature this century.’¹⁴ Woodhead, a former English teacher, was echoing the concerns of many educationalists who were as baffled by Tolkien’s success as the literary critics.

Victoria Millar, writing in the Times Educational Supplement, suggested that the results of the Waterstone’s poll ‘certainly showed the formative influence of school set texts on a nation’s reading habits. George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-four and Animal Farm both came in the top five, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger came sixth.’¹⁵ This observation was repeated by Ann Barnes, General Secretary of the National Association for the Teaching of English, who suggested that the Waterstone’s survey illustrated ‘that the nation is hidebound by GCSE syllabuses’. ‘At least a quarter of the books named regularly appear on GCSE and A-level syllabuses,’ she said. ‘Some have been on literature syllabuses for at least thirty years.’¹⁶ Yet if this is true, Tolkien’s runaway success was all the more remarkable because, as Ann Barnes admitted, The Lord of the Rings was ‘rarely taught’.¹⁷

Barnes, like so many of her colleagues, was clearly bemused: ‘Are we really so hooked on fantasy as the list suggests? What is it that we—or Waterstone’s customers—are so hell bent on escaping from that we look back for solace to The Wind in the Willows and Winnie the Pooh, or to elaborate sagas about imaginary creatures (Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings came top) to find expressions of our lives in the twentieth century?’¹⁸ This was both a perceptive and a pertinent question but Barnes was not particularly interested in answering it. Instead she was concerned that the results displayed ‘a predominantly masculine tone’: ‘It is not just that out of the first fifty titles only six are written by women,—it is that in the list as a whole, the emphasis is on the sort of fantasy or horror fiction which particularly appeals to adolescent boys.’

In fact, it seemed that adolescent boys had become the particular bete noire of feminist writers eager to pour scorn and derision on the Waterstone’s poll. For a writer in the Guardian it was sufficient to point out merely that ‘Tolkein’s [sic] The Lord of the Rings [was] a favourite with adolescent boys.’¹⁹ Having made this most damning of all criticisms, no further comment was required. Interestingly, however, the comedy writer Andrew Nickolds remembered travelling on the Northern Line in London in the 1970s: ‘You’d walk up the escalator that had all these girls standing on the right-hand side in big long pea coats from Lawrence Corner, all with a copy of Lord of the Rings bent open at a page.’²⁰

Probably the most bitter attack on Tolkien’s triumph came from Germaine Greer. Writing in W Magazine, Waterstone’s own literary journal, Greer complained that the enduring success of The Lord of the Rings was a nightmare come true:

As a fifty-seven-year-old lifelong teacher of English, I might be expected to regard this particular list of books of the century with dismay. I do. Ever since I arrived at Cambridge as a student in 1964 and encountered a tribe of full-grown women wearing puffed sleeves, clutching teddies and babbling excitedly about the doings of hobbits, it has been my nightmare that Tolkien would turn out to be the most influential writer of the twentieth century. The bad dream has materialised. At the head of the list, in pride of place as the book of the century, stands The Lord of the Rings. Novels don’t come more fictional than that. Most novels are set in a recognisable place at a recognisable time,—Tolkien invents the era, the place, and a race of fictitious beings to inhabit it. The books that come in Tolkien’s train are more or less what you would expect; flight from reality is their dominating characteristic.²¹

The nature of this and other attacks on Tolkien’s achievement induced Paul Goodman to offer the case for the defence in a review of The Lord of the Rings in the Daily Telegraph. Far from fleeing from reality, Goodman argued, Tolkien was concerned with the ultimate reality of human life. All humanity has one thing in common, ‘the readers and writer of this article, and Ms Greer too: all of us are going to die.’

Here, surely, lies the most persuasive reason for the enduring success of The Lord of the Rings. That circular journey from the Shire to Mordor and back to the Shire again is all about growing older—or, rather, about growing up.²²

According to Goodman the various aspects of the book’s plot ‘all point to conclusions as true as they are commonplace: that growing up is painful, but cannot be avoided; that it involves hard choices, which we are free to take; that choices have consequences, and that even good ones will not bring back the past.’

‘If the book leaves many parts of the human experience unaddressed,’ Goodman continued, ‘it none the less explores the parts that are of the greatest importance. Ms Greer was not quite right in implying that Tolkien has nothing to say about war or politics, though what he does have to say may not please her.’

Goodman concluded his article by suggesting that ‘the key’ to The Lord of the Rings was its ‘religious sensibility’: ‘a sense that there is a final bliss to be enjoyed, though neither in Middle Earth nor on this earth. And though it has undoubted weaknesses, do they really outweigh its strengths—its scale of vision, its fecundity of invention, the rhythmic power of much of the writing? No: Tolkien’s epic is not the greatest book of the century: but be wary of the judgment of anyone who hates it.’

Goodman was not the only writer to spring to Tolkien’s defence. Patrick Curry, author of Defending Middle Earth: Tolkien, Myth and Modernity, argued that The Lord of the Rings was anything hut a ‘flight from reality’:

Tolkien did not simply lecture us, like Ruskin and Chesterton, about the dangers of the modern world; instead he wove his anti-modernism into a

Reviews for Tolkien

[waltzmn · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Sometimes a flat coat of paint just won't do.J. R. R. Tolkien was a very unusual man -- linguist, author, teacher, recluse. Few of us can ever hope to capture the whole essence of the man.Unfortunately, Joseph Pearce seems to think that, just because others can't see all of Tolkien, he can. He rejects psychological studies (with, it must be admitted, some justice) -- but then starts digging into Tolkien's brain in his own way. The result places most of its attention on Tolkien's Catholicism.This is important, and Pearce is right that we cannot understand the Middle-Earth cycle without seeing it through a Catholic prism. But Tolkien's world has many facets: His languages, his religion, his ethics, his personality. Trying to squeeze everything through one filter just won't work.The result is sometimes rather tedious, and it isn't a true biography; it's a strange mix of literary criticism and biography. It is a useful book -- but certainly not the place to start when studying Tolkien. The best biography is probably still Humphrey Carpenter's, and if you want literary insight, the works of Tom Shippey come close to being definitive.