tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629109195548240025.post4591417342903315669..comments2023-11-22T01:33:25.195+00:00Comments on Dr. Wotan's Musings: Richard Wagner and J.R.R Tolkien The Forgers of their RingsDr. Andrew Higginshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16695949868240167504noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629109195548240025.post-91951052077837222642011-02-23T18:02:00.859+00:002011-02-23T18:02:00.859+00:00Troels claim that my argument is "comically f...Troels claim that my argument is "comically flawed" might have been right if that were all I said. But of course it wasn't; that is just how it's quoted here, and IMHO misleadingly, since it has so much in common with the subject. Perhaps he should read it before commenting.But as a pointer, I maintained Tolkien's utter originality, yet traced a much greater fascination with Wagner than he would admit to, even from his childhood. I traced parallel themes -- the decline of elder powers in the face of humanity, for example -- though in no way suggested these were copied, let alone plagariarized. Except in one place. Both creators centre on a Ring -- not just a magical tool or symbol, but a conscious protagonist, conscious, semi-independent, not merely malevolent but directing that malevolence to doom all its holders and bring it back to the hand of its maker. That cannot be traced to any other source, real or partial; and Tolkien knew about it, in detail. Can we then believe that he never had it in mind while creating his own very different world? In a sense, he was recasting Wagner as he felt it ought to be, by a real expert who knew the sources. His deliberate downplaying of other quasi-Wagnerian material -- the reforging of Anduril,for one -- more than suggest a conscious effort to avoid Wagner. The opening of my talk said it was about "idiots", meaning those like Philip Pullman, who claimed Tolkien had stolen the whole thing from Wagner, who'd done it ten times better. My intention was to acknowledge and explain the surface resemblances, while squashing any question that Tolkien had "stolen" them. I would have done that with the Ring, if I could; but no amount of argument can honestly explain it away. But why should it? We know Tolkien drew on other sources, often very closely -- Beowulf, Rider Haggard, Morris, 'The Mysterious Land of Snergs" and whatever. It's what he did with them that matters, and is so totally different. And that is the case with the Ring, also; it belongs, now, to them both.Mike Scott Rohanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00749935376275307962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629109195548240025.post-91384254957861279882011-01-03T23:17:46.764+00:002011-01-03T23:17:46.764+00:00Actually, according to the note to 26 March 1934 i...Actually, according to the note to 26 March 1934 in Hammond and Scull's <i>Chronology</i> (p. 788) ‘Tolkien and the Lewis brothers met regularly in early 1934 to read the four operas of Wagner's <i>Der Ring des Nibelungen</i>, in preparation for a planned attendance of the complete cycle at Covent Garden in London’. If he read through all four operas, his claim that there is no other connections than both rings being round becomes even more outrageous. <br /><br />With that in mind, I think it can be easily shown that it is impossible that Tolkien was completely unaffected by Wagner's work when he was struggling with the beginning of <i>The Lord of the Rings</i> some four years later. However, it can just as easily, in my opinion, be shown that Tolkien's Master Ring is much more than just a copy of Wagner's Ruling Ring. This leaves a whole range between these two, as I see it equally outrageous positions, and my point is that we really have no way of narrowing it down any further. <br /><br />Probability considerations would indicate somewhere in some generalized ‘middle’, and I am well aware that my respect for Tolkien is pulling me in the direction of greater independence on his part, but such are only idle meanderings of the mind — not even something I'd call speculation ;-)Troelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07515711722551393026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629109195548240025.post-42814453721968531902011-01-02T11:42:16.933+00:002011-01-02T11:42:16.933+00:00Troels thanks very much for your comments. I agree...Troels thanks very much for your comments. I agree with your thoughts that both Tolken and Wagner could have come up with the idea of the ring from the same "soup" of Northern sources and trying to draw a direct connection is fraught with problems. We do know that Tolkien attended. The Ring at Covent Garden with CS Lewis (and according to his daughter Priscilla were the only two not dressed formally) and that Tolkien and Lewis spent an entire evening reading the libretto of Die Walkure. So Tolkien was certainly aware of Wagner's Ring but how much of this made it into his soup is up for debate Perhaps by looking at some of the possible narrative parallels I will explore this may become clearer or not!!! <br /><br />Thanks again and Happy New Year!!<br />AndyDr. Andrew Higginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16695949868240167504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1629109195548240025.post-15828996592616513922010-12-28T14:37:49.809+00:002010-12-28T14:37:49.809+00:00Courageous ;-)
I cannot say what, if any, inspir...Courageous ;-) <br /><br />I cannot say what, if any, inspiration Tolkien got from Wagner, but Mike Rohan's argument is certainly critically flawed. If he were right, we should never have had any of the Rings, because Wagner would have had nowhere to come by it. If Wagner could have come up with it independently based on the Germanic sources, then so could Tolkien. <br /><br />There is in this discussion too many cases of otherwise intelligent people making the logical error of <i>post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> — but two people facing similar problems and basing themselves on similar sources may come up with the same solution independently: the independent discoveries of differentiation by Leibnitz and Newton also comes to mind. <br /><br />This is <i>not</i> to say that Tolkien got no inspiration from Wagner's ring. It is possible that Tolkien was inspired — even strongly inspired — by Wagner, but I would encourage those who wish argue so to use more convincing arguments than the fallacy of <i>post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> and the implication that Tolkien was unable to come up with the One Ring independently (of course Åke Ohlmarks ended up arguing that it was C.S. Lewis that had written <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>, but I don't see much basis for that claim either). <br /><br />Apart from that, this is very interesting, congratulations! I really wish that I had had the money (and the time) to take the course. <br /><br />There is, of course, a significant difference between the two curses: while one is essentially a curse of death (and misery until then), the other is a curse of non-death, and of eternal misery that would, however, not start immediately. <br /><br />I will certainly be looking forward to see more from your paper, thank you!Troelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07515711722551393026noreply@blogger.com