Welcome Guest 

Register

Forum Home » Books Discussion » Discuss the Books » Tolkien and Shakespeare
Author Topic:
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 10, 2010 09:13
It is said that Tolkien hated Shakespeare. It was more that he was disappointed by his plotting, famously regretting that Burnham Wood was merely a lot of soldiers with twigs in their hats. Tolkien remedied this with his marching ents but it occurs to me that there are many more Shakespearian echoes in Tolkien’s work, and in which he has given a twist to the tale.

For me, Elrond and Arwen echo Prospero and Miranda: father and daughter living in an isolated spot while her future is decided. And there’s Theoden and Eowyn as Lear and Cordelia, except that Theoden is rescued from his dotage to fight and die another day and Eowyn finds her way to Faramir.

There’s Caliban and Gollum, and there’s Frodo’s drowned father. “Full fathom five thy father lies.”

What other parallels can we spot, and how did Tolkien change the outcome?
Iavas87
Council Member
Posts: 66
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 11, 2010 06:40
I have heard that Tolkien's biggest gripe with Shakespeare, not including Burnham Wood, was his treatment of Faerie in the light and frivolous way later associated with the Victorian era - i.e. happy little flower fairies hanging pearls in flowers and sparkling with fairy dust. Tolkien's reactive parallel to that, of course, is his invention of the Eldar, who were originally dubbed Faeries in his earliest writings, and who have more to do with the angelic Álfar of Norse myth than with frivolous flower fairies of the Victorian age.

However, I must somewhat disagree with the Professor's reading of the Bard on that account. Looking specifically at 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', which is probably his most extensive play with fairies, the fairies seem quite paradoxical. They have some of the fluffy Victorian-esque traits that Tolkien reviled, such as little fairy girls called "cobweb", "peaseblossom", and "mustardseed" that go around gathering dewdrops, killing cankers, keeping back owls, and hunting bats to make little coats from their wings for the tiny elves that hide in acorn cups for fear. Admittedly, this seems almost sickeningly cute at times. However, herbal names do not a character define, and I only need to point you as far as Bree to show that Tolkien made many such appellations himself. It is simply another hint at their association with nature. Likewise, the servant fairies' work can also be interpreted as a symbolic tie to the natural cycles, either as their stewards or originators. This is further expounded through Titania's spiel to Oberon regarding how their contention has resulted in a whole slew of natural disasters. So great is the quarrel of these two that even their own subjects fear them, and while the 'elves' of the play are almost always described as small or tiny, allowing them to hide in acorn cups like a child would under his covers when witnessing his arguing parents, some of their assignments are not very kid-friendly in the modern sense. They are, in fact, downright red in tooth and claw, albeit on the smaller scale in which Shakespeare envisioned the lesser fairies.

Overall, I'd say that while Tolkien's Elves can be viewed from an almost anthropological perspective, Shakespeare's fairies are more anthropomorphized representations of natural cycles, with little coherent culture but a far closer tie to nature than even the greenest of the Laiquendi. They are, in fact, more like the Maiar, and though Tolkien might cringe at the association, I would still argue that they are far from frivolous, despite the descriptive frills that Shakespeare seemed to attach to them at times, presumably so that his audiences would relate to them as lighthearted fairytales rather than as the powerful pagan gods from which they no doubt mythologically evolved.

[Edited on 11/4/2010 by Iavas87]
Ilandir
Council Member
Posts: 475
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 11, 2010 06:49
I can't say that I'm into Shakespeare very much (and haven't read any of his play - but know the basics) so I cannot compare anything with Tolkien.

But I do agree with what cirdaneth and Iavas have said. I've always believed that Tolkien shunned Shakespeare for certain representations and therefore he applied what HE (Tolkien) would have wanted to see in Shakespeare. It seems as if Tolkien is correcting the characters and works as they should have been or he would liked them to have been - through his own works on Middle-Earth.
'A Tolkienist's Perspective' Blog
Hercynian
Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 11, 2010 03:25
I think S was leaning into modernism/realism and T was definitely leaning out of it. That's the main difference. The medium of novel and the medium of play are all but completely exclusive and invite/allow little good comparison, IMHO. As far as S-fairies v. T-elves, I think T was describing in all seriousness a different humanoid race, one in many ways superior to us Homo sapiens. S on the other hand, was dealing with a Christian-, fairytale/folktale-tainted fairy model. In that sense, S was working inside the fairytale box, while T was more similar to sci-fi writers' descriptions of alien races -- even though he was probably more true to scholarly sources.

[Edited on 12/4/2010 by Hercynian]
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 13, 2010 12:01
Of course, Tolkien and Shakespeare were working with historically different attitudes to magic. As an academic in the 20C Tolkien was free to dissect and analyse beliefs of all kinds without compromising is own Catholic faith and had friends who were Masons, or Rosicrucians or members of the Golden Dawn system of “High Magic”

Shakespeare on the other hand risked execution if he treated magic publicly with any degree of serious approval. Elizabethan “flower power” consisted of herbal medicines and spells for lovers which is why A Midsummer Night’s Dream is cast as a) a comedy b) a dream. This was, however, the era of the great herbalists and every plant had symbolic significance, and properties ruled over by planets, elements, angels and ultimately God. The Queen had a personal astrologer and magician.

Any writer was on a knife-edge, and whatever the Queen’s beliefs and practices, what would come after her? Witches were another matter; greatly feared and believed to be working in league with Satan. Shakespeare kept his most famous witches safely over the Scottish border and in an earlier time.

The Dream was first produced in 1596. Elizabeth died in 1603, succeeded by James, the son of her old enemy Mary, and when Shakespeare’s last great play, The Tempest, was produced in 1611 it featured a full-blown magician, capable of controlling spirits and raising a storm that would wreck ships. By his arts he facilitated his daughter’s romance with the King’s son ensuring that she would become Queen of Naples. (Echoes of Elrond/Arwen here).

The Tempest of 1611 accompanied speculation as to whether Prince Henry would take a Protestant or Catholic bride. In fact Henry died the following year and Charles became Prince of Wales, his eventual reign ending in Civil War, republic, and the biggest ever clamp-down on all forms of magic and superstition, including all forms of religious ritual.

Here endeth your British history lesson. Sorry. Got carried away a bit there.
Hercynian
Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 13, 2010 06:49
Actually, I always thought that Tolkien was greatly restricted by the times and the general attitudes toward things not status quo. It has been argued that Tolkien was a "closet pagan." If Tolkien was indeed taking a holiday from his supposed staunch Catholicism, he would have to disguise it very well -- even in our supposed modern times.

IMHO, the closet pagan arguments fits just as well as the staunch Catholic arguments. So if Tolkien was "way ahead of his time" as a nature-worshiping neo-animist and he had shown it openly ... he would not have been published. Intellectuals in the '50s were open to atheism and agnostic spins, but eco-pagan? Naaah.

Middle Earth theology was, IMHO, his very own creation, leaning toward neo-, eco-pagan. In this context, I would assert that Tolkien dealt with as much socio-political boundary issues as Shakespeare did, and, thus, had to disguise and codify his underlying "metaphysics" just as Shakespeare had.

Books have been written ‘proving’ the Catholic basis of Tolkien’s writing but one could just as easily write one ‘proving’ the closet pagan theory. I'd say my conjecture that Tolkien "escaped" into a radical eco-pagan world in his writings is the stuff of another thread, one that even I might shy away from.


Moderator's Note:

Site rules have required that I subject Hercynian's very interesting post to some necessary editorial adjustment.

[Edited on 13/4/2010 by cirdaneth]
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 13, 2010 09:14
Some interesting points here, Hercynian, though a bit off-topic.

Actually Christianity in Britain was originally bound closely to nature-worship. It was strongly Celtic but was at loggerheads with the Roman school of thought introduced by St Augustine. Finally, at the Synod of Whitby in the 7C Celtic Christianity backed down over the calculation of Easter and the Roman model was adopted throughout.

At least the Roman model took over the heart of organised worship, but the people retained their own beliefs and in the Celtic corners of these islands they are as strong as ever. My grandmother, widow of a parson, believed that an incantation was the same as a prayer, and that magic was something God had given us to help things along a bit. (Healing in her case). What goes around comes around and there is currently a resurgence in Celtic Christianity in Britain.

In his writing Tolkien seems to be examining some tenets of his faith, i.e. damnation, original sin, versus the concept of a loving and forgiving creator, and as you suggest he could not have expressed doubts openly for fear of excommunication.

I could go on, but I mustn't and as you say, giving the subject its own thread would be risky.

So ...

... back to Shakespeare.
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 15, 2010 03:15
... back to Shakespeare.

Tolkien and Shakespeare had very different aims as artists. Tolkien's idea was to create a mythology for England, while Shakespeare, concentrated on exploring human psychology. Tolkien's area of interest was northern mythology, while Shakespeare, to quote one of his characters, "studied his companions."

Tolkien was a highly educated Professor, while Shakespeare was, to quote one of his contemporaries, an "upstart crow" without a University education. Tolkien wrote for his own pleasure while Shakespeare wrote to entertain a mass audience, having to compete with other popular entertainments like bear-baiting.

While I am a fan of Tolkien's work, I am a far greater fan of Shakespeare's, and I would say that Tolkien never equalled Shakespeare's depth of characterisation and his sensitive understanding of human nature.

But Tolkien was an honourable man.

http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 15, 2010 03:27
I have heard that Tolkien's biggest gripe with Shakespeare, not including Burnham Wood, was his treatment of Faerie in the light and frivolous way later associated with the Victorian era - i.e. happy little flower fairies hanging pearls in flowers and sparkling with fairy dust. Tolkien's reactive parallel to that, of course, is his invention of the Eldar


I think that it is unfair to compare the Eldar, who were an important area of focus for Tolkien, with Shakespeare's fairies, which are on the periphery of his work, and not his main area of focus.
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
Hercynian
Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 15, 2010 12:08
I always come back to my deepest conviction about Tolkien, i.e., that he was reactionary against modern realism. Shakespeare is lauded so because he was such a precursor for modern realism.

One aspect of mod-real you always hear touted is the "complexity of characters." Tolkien seemed to purposefully go in the other direction, giving, IMHO, just the right doses of complexity to the characters, but heaping complexity/depth on the setting, the backdrop, the vibe, the world of Middle Earth itself. This is, of course, unheard of in mod-real, where the setting, the world is, by their definition, the "real world." This, in turn, frees them up to develop "complex" characters and situations (read predictably dysfunctional tripe).

If you think about it, literature is similar to war, he who wins writes the history books. So is it any wonder that Shakespeare is "beloved?" Consider D.H. Lawrence. You hear so much about "Lady Chatterly's Lover," but have you seen anything else of his touted so high? The Bronte sisters are similar in that they have legions of mod-fem champions who love them for reasons totally different from why I would like Wuthering Heights or Jane Eyre. I'm saying that if you seem to be a harbinger of something accepted today, you'll be lauded (in a patronizing sort of way), if not, then you're forgotten or mentioned as an also-ran hack.

Go to English departments the world over and you'll find no one who takes Tolkien serious as mod-real authors are taken serious. Sure, there's a few scholars who have specialized in Tolkien, but he's seem more as a phenomenon than a serious author ... which makes the whole scholarly crowd a Ship of Fools, IMHO. Again, the Middle Earth world Tolkien created and populated was a literary feat unprecedented. Maybe someday these scholars will get off their "complex character," "conflicted protagonist" fetish and see what a genius Tolkien really was.

I guess I don't want to take anything away from Shakespeare, but I believe the whole mod-real episode is coming to an end. It simply has nothing more to offer. Unfortunately, there hasn't really been a serious non-mod-real author since Tolkien. Alas, humanity needs a new sort of author. What he/she needs to say and how to say it are very ephemeral things indeed. But Tolkien blew a huge hole in mod-real and it has all but sunk. Rowling proved that by selling a billion copies of a teen series. Two alases: Whither literature?

(Such a glorious rant, no?)
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 15, 2010 08:17
I would say that both idealistic and realistic thinking have their value. We are all dealing with the problem of a less than ideal world - so it's wonderful to have people like Tolkien around to show us how an ideal world would look and how ideal people would behave. But on the other hand it's even more useful to have people like Shakespeare around who would go into specifics and say "So you don't get on with your father? Let's look at this particular problem, lets examine it from every angle..."

I don't think that Shakespeare's type of realism is the same as the genre of modern realism that hercynian hates so much. For one thing, he examines the psychology of normal human beings, not dysfunctional ones. For another, Shakespeare does not have the hard-boiled, cynical, world weary attitude that modern "realistic" writers often seem to have. He is in his own way as idealistic as Tolkien.
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
Hercynian
Council Member
Posts: 118
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 16, 2010 04:19
Yes, pv, Shakespeare's "realism" was probably what realism was meant to be, i.e., social critique. In other words, a problem was being explored intelligently, with a mind to enlighten, if not offer solutions. But then take Fassbinder's film "Despair." This is nothing but depravity and degeneracy offered up to you, the voyeur sitting in the audience. In other words, a line has been crossed and we are simply absurdists, ostensibly wealthy enough to waste time being part of an absurd subculture. Go see "Waiting for Godot." If you're smart, you'll realize that you, sitting in the audience, are the fool waiting for Godot.

I'm not against absurdity as a reaction to the modern mess we're in. I've read that Tolkien had bouts of depression. His last writings on a post-Aragorn Gondor show me that he "despaired" of the modern world just a little bit. As I just read in the latest "Adbusters" (radical magazine from Canada), people today are grasping at absurdity and irrationality in a sort of "chemotherapy" (cure almost as deadly as the disease) way to cure the existential meaninglessness so rampant today. They are playing with various forms of fire: concepts, ideas, lifestyles that are plainly irrational if not self-destructive in desperate attempts to find some ascendancy. I guess mine is the fantasy world of Tolkien -- with maybe some sort of magical realism hoped for.
pv
Council Member
Posts: 523
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: April 17, 2010 06:04
You're right, realism is useless, unless as you said, "a problem was being explored intelligently, with a mind to enlighten, if not offer solutions."

But many excellent writers have imitators who copy the outward aspects of their work, but miss the main point of it. Modern realists explore the negative aspects of life in a pointless, unintelligent manner.

And there are many writers who copy the outward aspects of Tolkien's work - they create maps, languages, etc, but miss what is essential.
http://monstersandcritics.wordpress.com/
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: September 14, 2011 09:11
I am honoured to accompany Shakespeare in being an "upstart crow without a university education" and would point out that Tolkien's works elevate those with simpler backgrounds to examples of innate heroism, loyalty, and love of life.

Now here's a subject to consider: What comparisons can be made between Shakespeare and Tolkien's handling of physical deformity, congenital or otherwise?
Huin
Council Member
Posts: 803
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: September 16, 2011 08:40
What a great thread. My love for Tolkien's works and Shakespeare's is about equal, so it rather pains me to hear that Tolkien evidently did not like Shakespeare.

I don't have time to say much substantial at the moment and am mainly posting so that I can follow this thread (does anyone know if there's a simpler way to do this?)

I did want to ask Cirdaneth: Did you see a Caliban / Gollum parallel on your own, or is there extant analysis concerning that? I was thrilled to be able to portray Caliban for my Shakespeare final last spring and I immediately drew parallels between him and Gollum: "Smarter, drunker Gollum" was the tack I took in my portrayal.
Image ImageRealm of Vairë, Corrupted faction
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: September 16, 2011 11:13
The Caliban connection came to me in one of those flashes you get. I don't think Tolkien actively disliked Shakespeare, but he found certain aspects of character and plotting disappointing. His first experience of this being Burnham Wood not really coming to Dunsinane. He satisfied his disappointment by working animated trees into his own work. Tolkien seems to disect the works of others into tiny elements which he uses to produce echoes in the readers mind. Very clever stuff.

I don't know of any extant anysis, maybe someone else does.

Interesting parallels in the negative aspects of the 'strong woman' motif here. Caliban' mother, the witch Sycorax and Gollum's matriarchal grandmother.
cirdaneth
Books Admin & Books Forum Moderator
Posts: 2069
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: September 21, 2011 07:12
Eureka!! Guess what I've found.

In a letter to son Christopher in 1944 Tolkien mentions that Sam treats Gollum as Ariel treated Caliban ...

Have just re-read The Tempest and find a few more echoes. Does Caliban's oath of alegiance to Trinculo as a god, echo Gollum's oath to Frodo, but in a comedy setting? Does Caliban's fear of Prospero's pain-inducing magic ... pinching and night-cramps, ... echo Gollum's reaction to the touch of elvish rope? "It freezes, it burns" and has Tolkien deliberately exchanged Prospero's cruelty and scorn toward Caliban for the pity and mercy shown to Gollum?

Interesting ...
Huin
Council Member
Posts: 803
Send Message
Avatar
Post RE: Tolkien and Shakespeare
on: September 23, 2011 07:14
Ooh, interesting, thanks for that bit of info, Cirdaneth.

I'd like to think there is an intended parallel there. Though the story of Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo is portrayed humorously, the subject matter dealt with is--to my mind--rather severe.

In Caliban we have an isolated, deformed (whether literally or just mentally deranged), enslaved figure, who is obsessed with a particular goal (Prosper's demise), and who somewhat befriends his new masters even as he still loathes them. This does sound rather like Gollum; but yes, Gollum is shown pity and his situation is treated by both Tolkien and Frodo as tragic business.

I'm going to think more about this, I'm now drawing probably grossly excessive but perhaps interesting parallels between Sauron and Prospero as relates to the two respective trios.
Image ImageRealm of Vairë, Corrupted faction
Members Online
Print Friendly, PDF & Email