Tyler van Opstal "Glowing Review"

     Any author of prominence is often asked to review other books, so that snippets of their reviews might be used in advertising materials, or as filler in subscription publications, and of course there is the fringe benefit hardly worth mentioning that the public might actually like to know what a famous author thinks of a book- a matter I find very strange. It seems to me that in the creative fields, the opinion of one creator on the works of another is hardly more relevant to me than the opinion of a friend, for some very talented artists have very horrible taste. Much of the incessant needling for famous people to review things is left safely ignored by secretaries or agents, but for those too modest to have a secretary, too weak-willed to say no, or too unfortunate as to have friend's who seek your reviews, from them we receive reviews.

    In On Stories, we are either blessed or cursed with three reviews by Lewis of his friend and fellow Inkling J.R.R. Tolkien's works, one on the Hobbit and two on the Lord of the Rings. This blog post is going to focus on Lewis' review of the Hobbit (1937), which I consider the most egregious offender of the lot.

    This is not to say the review is not interesting- Lewis pulls in the idea of Secondary Worlds, applauding the way in which Tolkien introduces the reader to the world of the Hobbit in a way that it is clear Middle Earth is the Primary World to its residents, and that these strange things the narrator introduces to the reader are perfectly normal and not actually anything strange at all. On this manner, he compares The Hobbit favorably with beloved books including Alice and Wonderland and The Wind in the Willows, along with less known but still influential titles such as Flatland (which I have written a blog post on) and Phantastes. 

    There is one specific line that I wish to highlight regarding our discussions of secondary worlds. Lewis proclaims that "Though all is marvelous, nothing is arbitrary: all the inhabitants of [Middle Earth] seem to have the same unquestionable right to their existence as those from our world (p. 124)." This encapsulates much of what our semester has decided of myth, and while this review is entirely glowing in the way you might expect a published review between friends (there would certainly be much more prodding in private) would be, the small gleams of brilliance revealed make this review a worthwhile read. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

McDermott The Social Ethic

  My final paper for my honors seminar was about how Americans form their moral compasses and one of the things I researched for it was called the “Social Ethic.” It describes the tendency to submit yourself, as an individual, to the whims of the group, such as religious organizations or political parties. I think that myth can be a tool of the social ethic – in this sense, reason can function as an organization or group. Reason relies on imagination (we perceive the senses through it), and while too much pure logic can be bad, so can too much imagination. For example, back when the pandemic hit there were a bunch of people who said that they were immune to covid because they didn’t have the right “waves” for it to transmit to them because their political party and the people within it told them so (a view relying almost entirely on imagination with very little science to back it up, if any at all). It was almost like mob mentality. We saw this happen in Big Fish . The son was affe...
Read more

Tyler van Opstal "Inklings Apart"

    In the 1968 Understanding Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings (alternatively titled The Tolkien Relation ) by William Ready, C.S. Lewis is mentioned more regularly than anyone but Tolkien himself. This itself is entirely rational, Lewis having been another member of the Inklings club to which Tolkien also belonged, but the treatment of Lewis by Ready is often strange or otherwise notable.     Lewis is first mentioned in Understanding Tolkien in the first chapter, after Ready discusses the Andrew Lang lecture by Tolkien that we read at the beginning of class to lay a framework for how myth and story can be understood. Ready takes umbrage with what he sees as an unfair treatment of Tolkien by scholars, blaming the fame of Lewis for coloring their opinions of him (Dr. Thompson states it is his recollection that Lewis was indeed more famous than Tolkien prior to the LotR movies). Ready complains that "Tolkien has been tarred by [Lewis'] brush" and that the resulting mi...
Read more

Tyler van Opstal "Here There Be Dragons"

     In Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet , when the protagonist has his revelation about the nature of Space and its true identity as the Heavens, he is realizing that the maps of the storytellers are more accurate than any map that science can produce. And if the storytellers can chart the stars better than the physicists, then perhaps the storytellers also charted the seas better than the satellites have.      Many older maps feature creatures and gods. Even when the explorers had discovered the world was a sphere and that there was not a giant cliff at the end of a flat world guarded by dragons, storytellers continued to etch their maps with "Here there be dragons." The winds remained portrayed by the four wind gods perched in the map corners, and the sketches of great serpents in the oceans were kept. The storytellers understood that it did not matter whether there were literal dragons and wyverns lurking in and above the ocean, the danger they represent...
Read more