1 thought on “Deconstructing Tolkien”

1. That’s very much the point with Tolkien – that it isn’t the great and grand that wins, but the small, the humble and the underappreciated. Tiny acts swell to change the tides of the world in ways no-one expects, small evils do tremendous damage, and all the good intentions in the world add up to very little if they don’t consider the little people first and foremost.

   Tolkien was very much interested in conveying the message of power in small things, and of the evils of industrialization for its own sake. In his world, oaths mean everything, whether sworn for good or evil, and the deeds of the heroes resound more often to their own sacrificial ruin than to any good end as a personal reward. Even Frodo, who got to see the Undying Lands, only went there to heal before he died. But all of those costs add up to safety for everyone else – so the tale becomes one of a sacrificial redemption, which is perhaps unsurprising for a Catholic writer.

   In truth, Tolkien’s work held a very critical candle up to many of the ideas of heroic storytelling. He represented heroes as flawed individuals who could and often would fail, and gave the ultimate victory to the hands of a simple gardener rather than a wealthy hobbit or a mighty elven, dwarven or human king. And he showed evil betraying itself, in arrogance or malice or lust for dominion, to its own demise. These were largely very new ideas in the field of heroic storytelling in his time. And people who think they’re subverting Tolkienian tropes by doing the same thing are in fact merely following belatedly in Tolkien’s well-trodden footprints.

   Reply