There has been some critical discussion lately on Tolkien as a 'modernist' author - aesthetically, if not ideologically. The sources escape me at the moment, but it's clear that Tolkien was not attempting to replicate any medieval literary style (except occasionally and on a very small scale - e.g. certain alliterative poems that resemble Old English verse forms). Overall, LotR is worlds away from, say, the Icelandic sagas in terms of structure and presentation of interiority.
I'd be curious on your thoughts about the extent to which any modernism of his style may (or may not) reinforce, or undercut, the ideologies of modernity that Tolkien was clearly opposed to. Of course, your post is more about the content of the message than the manner of its craft - but how do the two link up (if at all)?
Thank you very much for this comment, Paul! I am highly interested in Tolkien's style (strictly aesthetically speaking), and I consider this type of reception of a literary creation extremely important. At the same time, I think this is a very delicate and difficult subject. That is why, until now, I have avoided such issues. But sooner or later, I must dare to tackle the core of the matter.
Indeed, Tolkien is, in certain respects, a "modern" writer. And one characteristic of "modernity" is its lack of "form"—you can try whatever suits your taste and "philosophy" (like in the case of the so-called "free verse.) In the particular case of Tolkien, I think one major modern literary source is the elaborate simplicity of Romanticism. And I am not necessarily thinking of major authors like Novalis, the Brothers Grimm, and the Brothers von Schlegel, but rather of much lesser-known authors like Karl Wilhelm Salice-Contessa.
This is a huge topic that I am exploring right now. I will try to write something related to this as soon as possible. And - of course - on the other topic (the one mentioned by you): "Tolkien was not attempting to replicate any medieval literary style." Meanwhile, do not hesitate to add more comments (and, if you wish, send me your thoughts in my chat/message box). Once again, thank you!
I haven't read any of the critical discussion you're referring to, but to describe Tolkien as an aesthetically "modernist" author appears to be a serious confusion of terminology. The term "modernism" as a literary style or aesthetic ethos has a well-established meaning that cannot be applied to Tolkien. This is the term that we use for the works of James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Gertrude Stein, etc. If Tolkien had indeed embraced the aesthetic principles of literary modernism, we would have a problem on our hands, because these principles would clash to some extent with his ideological or religious principles. But he did not embrace these modernist principles, nor did he incorporate modernist techniques, to any significant degree, into his works of fiction.
The confusion perhaps stems from using the word "modernist" instead of simply "modern." It is true that Tolkien did not write his stories in imitation of medieval styles or forms. He wrote them basically as novels, and more specifically, as what a modernist might call the "conventional" novels of the nineteenth century. If we look forward in time from the Middle Ages, the style of nineteenth-century novels is "modern." If we look backward from the twenty-first century, the style of nineteenth-century novels is "conservative" or "traditional," or even "classical" (some people will say "we need to read the classics" and then mention, not Ovid or Virgil, but Dickens, Austen, George Eliot, Brontë, etc.).
Thus, Tolkien (like Dickens, Austen, etc.) was a "modern" author. He was emphatically not a "modernist" author. And it is important to recognize that Tolkien's immense popularity is due in large part to his combination of highly medievalized content with form and prose style that are essentially modern (though with some archaizing flair that resonates nicely with the medieval content). His writing draws from the mystique, idealism, strength, grandeur, and elemental beauty of medieval culture, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 from the accessible, highly engaging narrative techniques that reached their apogee in the nineteenth century.
Tolkien's form could in theory have been more "traditional." He could have written the entire Lord of the Rings in alliterative verse, for example, or in rhymed pentameter couplets. But the novelistic form that he chose, in addition to being enormously successful, nonetheless shows respect for the literary principles of an era that was much less industrial, technological, progressive, and secular than the twentieth century.
This is a good point: "The confusion perhaps stems from using the word 'modernist' instead of simply 'modern'." I have always considered that the sense in which the term “modernist” is used here, in Paul’s commentary, is the broad sense of “modern.” Thank you very much, Robert, for this substantial (and helpful) note!
I haven’t read any of the critical discussion I’m referring to, either, so that makes two of us :) My comment depended on a (vague) memory of something I had read or seen to that effect. I may indeed have conflated “modern” with “modernist” as well. I certainly wouldn’t claim Tolkien was writing like Gertrude Stein.
Still, a quick google just now provides a little corroboration for my memory. I haven’t fully explored the link below, but for what it’s worth, there seem to have been a few critics willing to claim some degree of modernism for Tolkien’s writing. I would guess that they are making a narrower sort of claim; that they would suggest it is possible for a writer to take on some of the techniques or attitudes of modernism without hewing to all of the principles.
That said, modernism is well outside my wheelhouse. I’m aware of Tolkien’s indebtedness to pre-modern influences, but I wonder sometimes if we tend to press that point too hard and, in doing so, miss the opportunity to discuss his innovations in form, inversions of tropes, etc.
This short sub-title from the recommended article is significant: ”Modern but not a modernist.” In any case, this topic deserves to be explored and addressed in articles specifically dedicated to it. But if we are talking strictly about the author's philosophy (with all the implications of his Catholic faith), then Tolkien was certainly an "anti-modern" (Jacques Maritain) - that is, a serious critic of the analytical, "scientific" spirit of post-Enlightenment civilization.
Envy is an emotion which occurs when a person lacks another's quality, skill, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it.
There has been some critical discussion lately on Tolkien as a 'modernist' author - aesthetically, if not ideologically. The sources escape me at the moment, but it's clear that Tolkien was not attempting to replicate any medieval literary style (except occasionally and on a very small scale - e.g. certain alliterative poems that resemble Old English verse forms). Overall, LotR is worlds away from, say, the Icelandic sagas in terms of structure and presentation of interiority.
I'd be curious on your thoughts about the extent to which any modernism of his style may (or may not) reinforce, or undercut, the ideologies of modernity that Tolkien was clearly opposed to. Of course, your post is more about the content of the message than the manner of its craft - but how do the two link up (if at all)?
Thank you very much for this comment, Paul! I am highly interested in Tolkien's style (strictly aesthetically speaking), and I consider this type of reception of a literary creation extremely important. At the same time, I think this is a very delicate and difficult subject. That is why, until now, I have avoided such issues. But sooner or later, I must dare to tackle the core of the matter.
Indeed, Tolkien is, in certain respects, a "modern" writer. And one characteristic of "modernity" is its lack of "form"—you can try whatever suits your taste and "philosophy" (like in the case of the so-called "free verse.) In the particular case of Tolkien, I think one major modern literary source is the elaborate simplicity of Romanticism. And I am not necessarily thinking of major authors like Novalis, the Brothers Grimm, and the Brothers von Schlegel, but rather of much lesser-known authors like Karl Wilhelm Salice-Contessa.
This is a huge topic that I am exploring right now. I will try to write something related to this as soon as possible. And - of course - on the other topic (the one mentioned by you): "Tolkien was not attempting to replicate any medieval literary style." Meanwhile, do not hesitate to add more comments (and, if you wish, send me your thoughts in my chat/message box). Once again, thank you!
I haven't read any of the critical discussion you're referring to, but to describe Tolkien as an aesthetically "modernist" author appears to be a serious confusion of terminology. The term "modernism" as a literary style or aesthetic ethos has a well-established meaning that cannot be applied to Tolkien. This is the term that we use for the works of James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, T. S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Gertrude Stein, etc. If Tolkien had indeed embraced the aesthetic principles of literary modernism, we would have a problem on our hands, because these principles would clash to some extent with his ideological or religious principles. But he did not embrace these modernist principles, nor did he incorporate modernist techniques, to any significant degree, into his works of fiction.
The confusion perhaps stems from using the word "modernist" instead of simply "modern." It is true that Tolkien did not write his stories in imitation of medieval styles or forms. He wrote them basically as novels, and more specifically, as what a modernist might call the "conventional" novels of the nineteenth century. If we look forward in time from the Middle Ages, the style of nineteenth-century novels is "modern." If we look backward from the twenty-first century, the style of nineteenth-century novels is "conservative" or "traditional," or even "classical" (some people will say "we need to read the classics" and then mention, not Ovid or Virgil, but Dickens, Austen, George Eliot, Brontë, etc.).
Thus, Tolkien (like Dickens, Austen, etc.) was a "modern" author. He was emphatically not a "modernist" author. And it is important to recognize that Tolkien's immense popularity is due in large part to his combination of highly medievalized content with form and prose style that are essentially modern (though with some archaizing flair that resonates nicely with the medieval content). His writing draws from the mystique, idealism, strength, grandeur, and elemental beauty of medieval culture, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 from the accessible, highly engaging narrative techniques that reached their apogee in the nineteenth century.
Tolkien's form could in theory have been more "traditional." He could have written the entire Lord of the Rings in alliterative verse, for example, or in rhymed pentameter couplets. But the novelistic form that he chose, in addition to being enormously successful, nonetheless shows respect for the literary principles of an era that was much less industrial, technological, progressive, and secular than the twentieth century.
This is a good point: "The confusion perhaps stems from using the word 'modernist' instead of simply 'modern'." I have always considered that the sense in which the term “modernist” is used here, in Paul’s commentary, is the broad sense of “modern.” Thank you very much, Robert, for this substantial (and helpful) note!
I haven’t read any of the critical discussion I’m referring to, either, so that makes two of us :) My comment depended on a (vague) memory of something I had read or seen to that effect. I may indeed have conflated “modern” with “modernist” as well. I certainly wouldn’t claim Tolkien was writing like Gertrude Stein.
Still, a quick google just now provides a little corroboration for my memory. I haven’t fully explored the link below, but for what it’s worth, there seem to have been a few critics willing to claim some degree of modernism for Tolkien’s writing. I would guess that they are making a narrower sort of claim; that they would suggest it is possible for a writer to take on some of the techniques or attitudes of modernism without hewing to all of the principles.
That said, modernism is well outside my wheelhouse. I’m aware of Tolkien’s indebtedness to pre-modern influences, but I wonder sometimes if we tend to press that point too hard and, in doing so, miss the opportunity to discuss his innovations in form, inversions of tropes, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien_and_the_modernists#:~:text=In%20short%2C%20Rosebury%20writes%2C%20Tolkien,uses%20myth%20creatively%20and%20adaptively.
This short sub-title from the recommended article is significant: ”Modern but not a modernist.” In any case, this topic deserves to be explored and addressed in articles specifically dedicated to it. But if we are talking strictly about the author's philosophy (with all the implications of his Catholic faith), then Tolkien was certainly an "anti-modern" (Jacques Maritain) - that is, a serious critic of the analytical, "scientific" spirit of post-Enlightenment civilization.
Agreed with everything here! I'm looking forward to your further thoughts.
Envy is an emotion which occurs when a person lacks another's quality, skill, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it.
Thank you!
Thank you, too, Shannon!