Heren Istarion Interviews:
Anne Petty

Heren Istarion. When did you first read Tolkien's stories? Which of his works made the biggest impression on you, and why?

I first read The Hobbit around age 15, about the time I was starting to devour a lot of fantasy/horror fiction by people like E. R. Burroughs, Lord Dunsany, Andrew Lang, Frank L. Baum, Lewis Carroll, E. R. Eddison, Kenneth Grahame, George MacDonald, A. A. Milne, Mervyn Peake, E. A. Poe, H. P. Lovecraft, and Bram Stoker.

I read The Lord of the Rings in college, but it was The Silmarillion that totally swept me away in 1977. I loved Rings, but with The Silmarillion I felt like I was reading the actual manuscripts of a lost age. The weight and heft of the language, the incredible sense of sadness and loss as the bright promise of Ilúvatar's creation became increasingly tarnished, the poetry that tasted so strongly of the sea air … I couldn't get enough of it. I had already taken some courses in Old English and was completely in love with anything having to do with Anglo-Saxon culture or Northern mythology and literature. When Christopher Tolkien began to gradually release more of his father's papers and drafts, filling in the backstory and giving fuller versions of some of the tales, I was completely sucked into Tolkien's world.

Heren Istarion. It has been said that Tolkien is the father of modern fantasy; can you comment on this? Do you think Tolkien helped shape and give value to the genre? Can you please explain.

I think there can be no doubt at this point that Tolkien's creation of Middle-earth with its richness of history, language, and characters has been the model for much imaginative fiction that has followed him. As a mythologist, I see archetypes and paradigms in what he created, but I think he used them in a very unique and individual way - which is to say that the author's voice has taken universal elements and made them his own, something many writers aspire to do but not all succeed.

Archetypal characters such as the elderly shaman or magician, the lost heir to a kingdom, the goddess or fairy queen, a dark force embodied as an evil being with destructive power, the hoard-guarding dragon… Tolkien didn't invent them, but he certainly took those elements and made them completely unique to Middle-earth and his own world view. Unfortunately, too many fantasy writers after him have treated his specific creations as the archetypes for telling tales about magical realms, without developing their own unique voices. There are exceptions, of course. Certainly there are writers who admired Tolkien yet developed their own distinctive brand of fantasy. Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea comes to mind.

Heren Istarion. In your opinion, does fantasy have a purpose, a function, in modern society? Can you tell us what you think this function is?

I believe fantasy literature serves several purposes: it provides entertainment, of course, but it can also give an experience of art through poetry and diction, and an elevation of spirit through vicarious experience. Yes, some part of it is escapism (not necessarily a bad thing), but at a deeper level, we experience the power of metaphorical language, of looking at the world in non-ordinary terms. That's what I mean by elevation - an expansion of the reader's consciousness and perception regarding life's challenges (which include facing death and whatever lies beyond). I'm reminded of an important little book written by children's author Jane Yolen called Touch Magic. In it she says "…metaphor and her sisters-poetry and story-are as natural to humans as breathing…. Then why are we mistrustful of metaphor?" Why is fantasy literature considered of less value than realistic or historical fiction? You might also ask why some criticism of Tolkien has been so venomous, or what makes some parents are so afraid to let their children read the Harry Potter books. As Yolen points out, metaphor "helps us explain ourselves to ourselves. It helps us explore and examine forces that we cannot otherwise come to terms with." I'm with you, Jane. Touch magic. Pass it on.

Heren Istarion. In the opening pages of Chapter 1: Dissonance in the Great Music you speak of his literary version of The Fall as 'non-sectarian', and that his fictional world according to his letters is "not like anything else with which we may be familiar, especially regarding Christianity." This is later supported by your comparing him to the Beowulf-poet. In light of this, what are your thoughts on the 1:1 allegorical comparisons that are made of The Lord of the Rings to Christian ideology? i.e., Lembas=Eucharist, Galadriel=Virgin Mary, Aragorn/Frodo=Jesus Christ.

Well, people can force those comparisons if they want to, but I personally don't think that was intended by Tolkien. His Catholicism gives a certain resonance to the imagery he uses, but I think a one-to-one allegory narrows and limits the scope of Tolkien's vision far too greatly.

Heren Istarion. How would this relate if at all to: "No matter how many weighty tomes of literary criticism you wade through or pieces of fan analysis you skim, the fact remains that the truth of Tolkien's accomplishment is in the eye of the reader."

People love Tolkien's books for differing reasons; what resonates with one reader may not hold interest for another. On a personal level, you can read anything you want into the works, especially if it's an agenda you feel strongly about. That's less true if you want to argue from an academic point of view, where a certain amount of rigorous scholarship and knowledge of the field would be required.

Heren Istarion. 'In a sense, he models for us the attitudes and behavior we should and shouldn't espouse, but without religious didactics," does Tolkien envision a more universal system of belief outside the religious framework of the world? Could this be why his works are viewed as more believable than biblical literature?

Characters in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion exhibit universally admired attributes of fellowship, loyalty, honor, tolerance, generosity, selflessness, perseverance, courage, and the like (against whom are contrasted characters who exhibit the opposite), but they do these things out of a sense of justice and ethics (it's the right thing to do) rather than fear of divine retribution or hope of heavenly reward. I'm not sure this makes the works any more believable than stories from the Bible, but it could probably explain their broad appeal to people of many religious (and non-religious) persuasions.

Heren Istarion. 'Dissonance in the Great Music' brilliantly lays out structure and comparisons/differences of The Silmarillion to The Bible; what are your thoughts on The Silmarillion being a supplement to The Bible, answering questions and contradictions of the text?

I don't really see The Silmarillion as a supplement to the Bible. Actually, like any collection of myths and legends about how the world began, it has its own contradictions and questions that keep plenty of Tolkien scholars busy!

Heren Istarion. Tolkien carried with him a great sense of loss, a depression concerning the affairs of the world, and a melancholy outlook toward it which had an apparent effect on his work. This many years later, since his letters to his son Christopher, which you cite in your book, concerning the state of mankind and the world, how do you think he would feel about our world today?

I think he would be disappointed that so little has changed. In spite of the advances technology continues to make, our use of it to ensure we don't deplete our planet of the resources necessary to sustain life hasn't gone very far. Urban centers continue to sprawl. Humanity still has an alarming tendency to think that might makes right and brute force is preferable to diplomacy. National leaders with the worldliness, ethics, and compassion of Aragorn are hard to find. Religious intolerance continues to flourish. I think he would be sorry to discover that humanity as a species is about where he left it.

Heren Istarion. 'By internal power, Tolkien refers to the natural, innate abilities that are of the spirit or soul, the indwelling intelligence derived from the light of the Creator.' The light as dwelling in all created beings is essential to Tolkien's world, how would this be applicable to the world today that reads these works as escapist fantastical literature (not that there is anything wrong with that :-))?

See my answer to question #3, on touching magic and the rewards of metaphorical language.

Heren IstarionDo you feel that Tolkien's humanity and world concerns come across in Peter Jackson's film trilogy of The Lord of the Rings?

That is perhaps where Jackson's films most closely resemble Tolkien's great story. I think the films convey a genuine sense of concern for one's fellow creatures and for the fate of their world in general. The emotional impact of the films on that level seems to be quite strong.

Heren IstarionCiting Tolkien's legendarium as an example of Joseph Campbell's 'war mythology,' do you feel that Tolkien's own reasoning for creating a war mythology also comes across in the Peter Jackson films?

To some extent, yes. I think some viewers of the films enjoy the spectacle of the battles for their own sake and don't think much about the philosophy behind why they are being fought. But for viewers who don't fall into the culture of violence mindset, especially regarding the second and third films where the visual spectacle is so overwhelming, I think it's pretty clear the chieftains who gather forces against their enemies (Isengard and Mordor) do so out of defensive necessity rather than a desire to obliterate the opposition so they can become the dominant force of their world.

Heren Istarion. Do you feel there is justification for the changes made to characters in the films?

I have a love/hate relationship with Jackson's films. I love the look and feel of the films and the exquisite detail put into the production. For the most part, I also enjoyed the earnestness and integrity with which the actors portrayed their characters; Jackson's attitude of approaching the films as if they were shooting history rather than fantasy contributes to the things that make me happy about the films. On the "hate" side of the equation I have to place the scriptwriting and the film editing (i.e., the manipulation of the storyline). I am most appalled by the way some characters have been shifted off plumb and torqued to serve a dramatic purpose that has little to do with Tolkien's story.

My chief objection is the way Aragorn has been turned into a mostly physical action hero who is completely human, with no magical or heightened qualities. Gone is the aura and radiance of the kings of old with the hint of a star on his brow that on several occasions signifies to others who he is and why they should follow him. Film Aragorn has lost his greater than human powers such as understanding the speech of birds and healing with the touch of his hands. He is of "supra-human" lineage, yet the scriptwriters have him continually harping on the weakness that flows in his veins, without acknowledging the fact that his bloodline flows straight from High Elven sources: from Lord Thingol (a High Elf) and Melian (a Maia) to Lúthien Tinúviel and Beren to Dior (Thingol's heir) and Nimloth to Eärendil and Elwing to Elros (Elrond's brother and founder of the Númenórean line of Men). In the films he is just an ordinary man, albeit a great fighter, but in the book he is so much more and clearly worthy of marrying into the Elvish side of the family once he accomplishes the task of regaining the throne of the kings of Men.

I also highly dislike the misuse (and deliberate misreading) of Faramir. I really don't buy the excuses the scriptwriters have given for this change, and feel compelled to point out that it's important for Faramir to mirror Aragorn in his ability to withstand the lure of the ring and to see the greater vision of where Middle-earth is headed. Faramir is the type of Steward required for Aragorn's type of king - they complement and reflect each other. This is the kind of symmetry with which Tolkien carefully crafted every aspect of his story. Denethor is yet another problem. In the books, he is stern, with the potential to become a tyrant, but he's a genuinely noble, capable leader for much of his stewardship. Tolkien says he's the closest the line of Stewards has come in many years to the Númenóreans of old. It's Denethor's belief that he has the High Númenórean ability (supra-human strength of will) to challenge Sauron through use of the palantír that erodes his leadership into madness. In the films he is just a crazy old pig of a despot who hates his second son for no apparent reason. Film Denethor gives Faramir no reason to want his favor or love, especially at the risk of death. Book Faramir and Denethor have a less simplistic relationship, wherein Denethor was once someone worthy of a son's worship and love.

And Elrond… eh, don't get me started. Hugo Weaving certainly looks the part and acts with dignity, but the scriptwriters have turned him into a cranky, frowning, angry old Elf who shows no love at all toward his foster son Aragorn. I think the Hobbits were better served than Men and Elves by the scripts. But the films certainly are beautiful to look at, and the music is rapturous for most of the ride.