Why Tolkien Hated Shakespeare
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 พ.ค. 2024
- In this video we explore Tolkien's opinions on William Shakespeare and his works, primarily Macbeth, and how the Bard influenced the development of the Lord of the Rings!
Press this link if you wish to support the channel via TH-cam Membership and gain access to some awesome exclusive perks!
/ @inkandfantasy
You can join the discord server here!
/ discord
I do not own the footage, art or music within this video.
Any feedback is always welcome, I hope you enjoy!!
(Some of the) Artists featured in my videos:
Daniel Jeffries
Lorenzo Colangeli
Ted Nasmith
John Howe
Greg and Tim Hildebrandt
Bohemian Weasel
Joe Gilronan
Matt Stewart
Alan Lee
Melissa Myra
John Paul Cavara
Pasi Leinonen
Alyxandria Davis
Dartxo
Franz Fdez
Alan Lee
Ludovic Bourgeois
Federico Musetti
Anato Finnstark
Ahmet Can Kahraman
Jenny Dolfen
Justin Gerard
Donato Giancola
Anna Kulisz
Stevce Lazarevski
Coliandre
Antonello Venditti
Matt DeMino
Lady Elleth
DarianaLoki
Ainave
Shalizeh
Marek Madej
Bastien Lecouffe
Sniжna Barbarian
Vladimir Kafanov
Neyrefen
Natalia Be
NastyaSkaya
Anna Butova
Dane Madgwick
Amir Zand
Andrea Guardino
William Robinson
-and many more that I will add soon!!!-
Below are the songs used in the order they are played:
Recollections by Asher Fulero
Falling Snow by Aakash Gandhi
Arms of Heaven by Aakash Gandhi
Forest Lullabye by Asher Fulero
Swans in Flight by Asher Fulero
Chapters:
0:00 Intro and Tolkien's Youth
0:47 Tolkien's Early Dislike
2:13 Tolkien's Literary Objection
6:07 Tolkien's Dislike of Shakespeare's Legacy
8:02 Shakespeare in the Lord of the Rings
11:00 Conclusion - บันเทิง
To be fair, Tolkien probably thought it was all downhill for English literature from the Norman conquest onwards.
Probably especially as he was a fellow Catholic and was hated by his protestant relatives
Not really, he wasn’t some linguistic “purist” who only wanted Germanic elements in English, there’s no indication of that, however he did think English would suffer if tons of people started speaking it outside of the anglophone world, which was starting to happen at the time and has happened since
There WAS no "English literature" in 1066. One of the earliest literary applications of English was Chaucer's Canterbury Tales a few hundred years later.
@@pricklypear7516 Fellas, no offence, really, but I’m just sort of joking here.
@@pricklypear7516Man are you ignorant. Beowulf, Venerable Bede's voluminous writings, Alfred the Great's Psalms and other translations, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, hymns, homilies, poems, riddles, letters and elegies all existed before the Normans.
Should be retitled "why Tolkien sorta disliked Shakespear a bit sometimes".
Agreed. I thought the video was great and seemed well researched, but the title is definitely clickbait
Clickbait is the mouth of Sauron
Could've been a video about guessing what his reaction would be to the film adaptations, via his critique of Shakespeare
no, sounds like he REALLY didnt like Shakespear to me
Agreed.
Much of the criticism wasn't specific to Shakespeare, but instead directed at the tension between fantasy and drama.
I think it's mostly sour grapes because Shakespeare wrote a terrible review of The Lord of the Rings.
Lol !
I knew it...!
I almost Googled what Shakespeares review.
But then I was like hold up wait, a minute I ain’t that stupid.
I laughed so hard the cat jumped off my lap.
@@mrgandolf5349 Good you caught yourself in time.
@@emilyburton4095 bro I was that 👌close
i had google open.
He didnt hate Shakespeare. He may have taken issue with how the prophecy played out in Hamlet, not the same thing as hating Shakespeare.
I think he uses the word "hated" in these titles to grab people's attention, but in the video you he uses the word "disliked" instead. I also get the impression that Tolkien had more of a love-hate relationship with the bards works.
Hyperbolic language is how some people get clicks.
You meant Macbeth didn't you.
@@ccgamedes33 yesh I did
All I can say is that when i started college in 1969, Tolkien books were very popular. I thought the stories were garbage and couldn’t finish any of them. When the famous movies came out 32 years later,i still wasn’t impressed, though i sat through them(easier than reading them) But I’m still in awe of all things Shakespeare. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it
"To Ring or not to Ring, that is the question" - Sauron Probably
Polite golf clap
My feed is flooded with videos about all the writers Tolkien hated. I wouldn't think too much about it.
I'm sure that if they were reincarnated, they wouldn't think too much about it either
Not just writers, either; he seemed to pretty much hate everyone, just like he hated everything that was not created by himself.
Got the same - this afternoon. Ignored them - a cursory glance - even cars were mentioned.
Fare thee well.
He is simply the type to be roused into expression when dissatisfied. "The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were." - C. G. Jung
@@hugoclarke3284 Ghad, I'd hate to live inside such a head. Sounds like a pretty miserable place to be.
Overwriting the whimsical view on Elves and Dwarfs in our culture is probably one of his biggest archievements.
Except he didn't do that since it prevails over his version
"I don't like this, it *should* be like this" is pretty much the basis for anyone to create something new or interesting.
Unless they try to impose it to other people too
Tolkien about Shakespeare: needed more trees and less people
😂
Fewer people
....and. more Orkes
Oops, Orcs
And not enough cowbell
To paraphrase Cunk on Shakespeare, Shakespeare had it much easier in school because he didn’t have to learn Shakespeare. But it is interesting to learn about Tolkien’s take on Shakespeare. I would love to know what he thought of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus because that is sooooooo dark and messed up.
I think the loophole prophecies in Macbeth work because we get to see Macbeth's arrogance beforehand. He is undone and undone cruelly and cheaply by fate. In contrast, we never look inside the Witch King's mind like we Macbeth, so cheap loopholes would carry no sting and would just look, well, cheap. Both prophecies work in both stories because they fit the essence of either story.
What "prophecies" in Macbeth? The whole point of the tale is that, while the Weird Sisters baited Macbeth with a suggestion, his blind ambition did all the rest. Only their scrap to Banquo proved prophetic ("You shall not be king, but you shall get kings"), but this was only to connect the later survival of Fleance to the new King James I (for whom Shakespeare wrote the play).
There's no substantial difference between the MacDuff v MacBeth prophecy and the Arwen v the Witch King prophecy. They both rely on a semantic loophole.
In fact, historically, it was Duncan that was a tyrant, he invaded Moray, his own vassal, & got killed by Macbeth's troops. So, Macbeth became king, & many historians today agree that Macbeth was a good king. The story is just no historical accuracy, pure slander. Also, Macbeth is a direct ancestor of mine, so I may be a little biased.
@@tenthclassgaming - Turns out that learning history from Shakespeare is no more educational than learning from Hollywood.
@@tenthclassgaminghow can Macbeth be your direct ancestor? He had no children. His stepson Lulach became king (briefly) after his death.
If you write literature, poetry or theater in English, whether you know it or not you were influenced by William Shakespeare. Literally; when Shakespeare started writing English grammar & spelling still weren’t standardized and his use of language helped shape our vocabulary, spelling, grammar and manner of speaking. This is in addition to creating what we think of as modern plot structure and character archetypes, pioneering many of the techniques that are now essential to theater and creating new poetic styles. Tolkien was a once in a generation literary mind, but Shakespeare was truly a once in a millennium sort of storyteller if not rarer.
Hard disagree with the last line. Shakespeare was all of those things, except a once in a millenia storyteller. He was an unmatched wordsmith, brilliant poet as well as prose writer, a true bard and rhyme machine, but there were many before him and many after him that were simply better storytellers, writing deeper narratives with more fleshed out characters
True enough, but it misses the specific point Tolkien was making about Fantasy.
As I recall , in a worldwide poll, Shakespeare was voted Man of The Millennium in 2000AD
Eh, art is subjective I suppose. That can be your opinion. Just saying if people are still buying tickets to see your plays 500 years after you died I think you probably did something right.
It’s incredible to consider that Tolkien’s influence has been so great that his versions of Elves and Dwarves have supplanted both Shakespeare’s and Disney’s respective interpretations in the public imagination. No mean feat!
For Shakespeare, elves were a device, not a belief. What was in that pipe JR was puffing on? The same stuff that started the Boxer Rebellion?
As always, Tolkein articulated his opinions clearly
Tolkien was a mentally ill brat who stole from fantasy and paved a way for generations of hacks.
If Shakespeare didn’t make the cut then it makes a little more sense why he didn’t like Narnia
He disliked Narnia for different reasons, namely the heavy allegory.
The great Tolkiens objection to the trees of Burnham Woods being cut down and moved is silly.
The whole point of MacBeth not taking that prophecy serious was the common view that trees are fixed in place and can not walk.
If MacBeth lived in a world where trees could move then there would be no reason for him to let his guard down regarding that prophecy.
It's sad that even Tolkien fell into the trap that only 'gentlemen' and those with the 'proper' education could truly write. It's a relic of the English class system, and one held by far too many even among writers today.
But in this case, Tolkien was correct, though he had the wrong man behind the name. That was Edward De Vere, the 18th Earl of Oxford. Loo😮k up Alexander Waugh, grandson of noted English author, Evelyn Waugh (a man). He has videos on youtube that will convince you
@@MundaSquire advising someone to 'watch a video on TH-cam' so they can have some point 'proven' to them is hardly scholarly research. if you want to know why, google 'chemtrails are real' and find out just how insane some of the video 'proofs' available on TH-cam are.
He enjoyed the writings of Mary Renault, a former student of his at Oxford ( meaning she attended classes of his, not that he was her advisor), writing her a letter of praise for her books- even though she was a prominent lesbian and feminist, and her books, set in ancient Greece, referenced the powers of the Greek gods and goddesses, and had openly sexual elements involving heterosexual and homosexual relationships between both men and women. A catholic reader as well as a Catholic writer.
In terms of theatre. I would agree it cannot not do Fantasy justice because of the visual limitations but Tolkien was a product of his time, it would be interesting to see if his opinion changed where he able to see fantasy in video games, or the cinema with today's technology. LoTR on stage would look ridiculous, it's too grand, too big in scale for the Theatre, but with modern technology that scale can be visualised on screen.
"While still a young boy, like countless others of his age and background, J.R.R. Tolkien would've been immersed in Shakespeare's works and taught them extensively during his school years."
Whew! From question to answer in under a minute! _Very_ concise! So what will the next 11 minutes be about, then?
"Hated" seems to be a overstatement for the evidence provided. If I say "The 3rd season of the origional Star Trek had some weak episodes", that doesen't mean I hate Star Trek, and if I was given an assignment to take the debate position that Tolken wrote poor quality literature I could make a caes for it, though I read LOTR at least 6 times.
whether you agree with his other opinions of shakespeare or not, it's hard to disagree with him that fantasy is meant to be written not performed. in plays back then or on tv today, fantasy is always held back by the medium and the imagination of the writer, and no matter how fancy that medium is or how great the writer, it leaves no room for your own imagination which defeats the whole point. and it gets worse when you consider how those movies and plays have influenced modern fantasy writing, these days fantasy books have no subtlety or mystery about them at all which is really sad. magic is either some oddly convoluted system that gets treated like a mundane tool by the characters, or it's simplistic and tries to amaze you by being really over the top, it's always a very tangible thing that's easy to explain. there are some books that overcome this like harry potter, but for the most part the fantasy genre today fails to achieve it's main objective which is creating a sense of wonder. this isn't a personal attack but it always frustrates me when i see people dissecting the lore of lotr and explaining how things work, or worst of all when someone tries to quantify how powerful the characters are, because the entire point of the genre is that you aren't meant to know everything. you don't know how powerful gandalf is, you don't know what it looked like when he became really tall to fight the wolves, and you don't know what kind of spells he can use. that's a good thing because it lets your imagination come up with an answer, and it'll be far more enjoyable than whatever answer a screen or lore expert can give you
As an early, enamoured reader of LOTR I must agree with you on how disappointing the films were for this reason
@@bigdog1391 i've never bothered watching them myself for the same reason. i love lotr because it's an amazing world full of wonder and mystery, and it really pushes the limits of my imagination. turning it into a movie strips all of that away, and usually rather than adding anything it just confuses the narrative. that's not true for every tv adaptation, just as an example i think the first hunger games movie does a really amazing job of bringing the world to life, but there's no wonder or mystery getting lost in the process there. a similar thing happens with video games, having a character driven narrative works really well when you spend so long with the character and actively control them, that's part of why the stories in god of war or the last of us can cause such strong emotions. it just comes down to different mediums being suited to different stories, and traditional fantasy really works best in a book
@@aldrichunfaithful3589 Agreed! I also wonder how much DND's magic system has influenced the genre. And don't get me started on Terry Pratchett (RIP) and his 'belief makes gods and makes them stronger' tropes. I love his humor, but his cosmology is a tad terrifying.
@@zachlong5427 i don't have any experience with DND, but in general i don't think games have had a negative effect on fantasy. particularly video games are pretty cool with magic when it's done properly, it's usually just treated as a game mechanic and the focus of the story has nothing to do with it. the point is for you to be fully immersed in what you're doing, which works great with fantasy elements because it's so far outside of our own experience. and video games are unique because you're getting a very hands on experience with the world, which leaves a lot of room for interesting lore that doesn't need to be shoved down your throat, from software are excellent at that.
just to clarify, i don't think it should be illegal for people to use fantasy elements in their stories without following the traditional fantasy genre, what i have a problem with is people trying to do traditional fantasy and missing the entire point of it. there are loads of lotr clones or similar books and movies, and all of them expect you to be amazed despite doing everything they can to limit your imagination lol. the point is that if you want the audience to be fascinated by something you can't give them all the information, you need to let them wonder, but how you go about that doesn't need to follow a formula
@@aldrichunfaithful3589 Boy howdy don't I know it. I'm launching a sci fi book and a fantasy book today on Amazon (long story), and I have to have 2 different minds when writing one or the other.
Interesting, considering that the Witch King's warning to Eowyn, "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!" Is a close paraphrasal of a line from King Lear.
yes..I think there are other direct echoes from time to time
Another great video.... I've also read Tolkien's essay on fairy tales and fantasy. It's very inspirational 🥹
That book is on my Tolkien library wish list!
What didn't Tolkien hate?
What you imagine in your own mind is going to be greater than any stage play or movie. Literature is indeed the best way to convey fantasy.
All of this being said, im very excited to hear about the operatic adaptation of LoTR. Tolkien's love and inspiration owing to opera really gives me hope it will go well
Tolkien thought that Shakespeare's plays work better as performed than as just read? I doubt that Shakespeare himself would have disputed that! Shakespeare never intended for his plays to be read as literature, he wrote them to be performed on stage!
I disagree that visual medium can't portray fantasy as well as literature, a story like berserk will not work as a novel for example because its art is essential to its storytelling
Yes, but Berserk was made waaaaay after Tolkien's time.
Techonology
@@gustyko8668 berserk is just one example
It is true tho that technology is his time wasn't advanced enough, I think if he seems some modern attempts like berserk or even games like souls game that he'll change his mind
@@GILGAMESH069 I'm not so sure, Berserk world view and philosophy is in opposition to the one in Middle Earth.
@@gustyko8668 maybe on the surface but its themes about human connections, the strength of the human will, overcoming truma and pain through opening ourselves to other people are pure universal themes that I think Tolkien would've at least appreciate even if he didn't like the gore and violence
For Tolkien's beloved Fantasy I can understand his dislike, but I would dislike a wit that didn't love the Bard's.
The debate means nothing about Tolkien's own beliefs. It's a debate. He's required to take a stance, and as the Baconian Theory requires Bill Shakespeare to be too thick to have written the works, Tolkien therefore used rhetoric to play up Shakespeare (the man's) supposed thickness.
With Shakespeare, doubt about his authorship is a class thing. Typical of Britain.
@@normanmeharry58this is the most common tactic of Stratfordians. Accusing people of elitism because they doubt that a man who died with no books in his possession, no surviving writing in his hand and two illiterate children; a venal moneylender and aspirant to titled privilege, wrote the greatest dramatic works in the English language. Well Mark Twain, to name one of many Baconians, was hardly some English fop with an antipathy for the working class, thou addle-pated knave!
Tolkien makes some good points. This may seem like a tangent, but I think this might also be the reason why Baldur's Gate 3 feels so hollow to me compared to the original games. A fantasy-themed RPG game like this should have loads of text and sparse graphics and effects. A still portrait and a wall of written dialogue in a text box simply works better for this kind of game and story than a hyper-detailed 3D-animated model overacting their tragic backstory.
I disagree I would hate the wall of text. I like even voiceless cut scenes
I dislike walls of text but BG3 is soulless
I think this is the second of your videos I've seen. Your presentations are well researched, well thought out, and well presented.
Thank you so much!!!
Tolkien's words about Shakespeare's humble beginnings reminded me of the line in his book "What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among the dogs?"
George Bernard Shaw: “With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer…..that I despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his.” lol
“Why Tolkien had a reasonable and thoughtful critique about Shakespeare’s way of handling fantasy, and a few of the resolutions to his stories.” I guess that title would be a little too long, but what would’ve been more accurate and less inflammatory is “Tolkien’s Problem with Shakespeare”
Imagine if the algorithm suggested videos based on the title being as long as possible. We could have titles as thorough as a 19th century book.
George Bernard Shaw also had beef with Shakespeare and compared him unfavorably with Bunyan. He too criticized Macbeth, calling the language of the play "right in feeling but silly and resourceless in thought and expression."
Good thing that his opinion is irrelevant as an atheist.
Tolstoy also hated Shakespeare and there is even a long passage in Anna Karenina just tearing down the mid 19th century cult of Shakespeare in Western Europe. As a fan of all the writers mentioned in this thread, I think my main takeaway is that writers of their caliber have giant egos
@@joegibbskins Which proves Dostoevsky to be the superior 19th century Russian author as he loved, respected and was influenced by Shakespeare.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy I honestly think they are too different to compare and honestly love all of them for very different reasons
GBS would've cut LotR to pieces
I "hate" to think what Tolkien felt about Delphi Oracle's prophecies.
This makes me wonder what Tolkien felt about Wagner.
IIRC he disliked Wagner and denied the alleged influence of the Tetralogy, which, to me, seems a bit the lady doth protest too much
Tolkien was a prude so I'm sure he disliked Wagner as a person.
As for the Ring Cycle, its fingerprints are all over the trilogy regardless of what Tolkien claimed.
Wagner?Pinched Richards best ideas!😊
I heard on a podcast that he said the only thing the stories had in common was that they both had a ring..he didn't like Wagner at all
@@q45ij54q To be fair to Tolkien, both he and Wagner drew influence from the same source material. Most of the similarities, such as a broken sword being re-forged, or a sinister ring, come from Norse and Germanic mythology.
P.G. Wodehouse was so well educated and intelligent he had Shakespeare and the Bible almost memorized. His books bring so much humor and joy....
This raises the question of what Tolkien would have thought about the Peter Jackson trilogy. (Lord of the Rings of course, not The Hobbit) I wonder if he would have thought it was fantasy, would the technology used give it that fantasy element he was talking about.
Tolkien just needs to embrace a wider variety of dwarven songs: “Hi ho! Hi ho! It’s off to work we go!”
I always had a problem with "Macbeth", too. If the witches' prophecies are curses, then Macbeth isn't responsible for his actions. If they are true predictions, then his fate is pre-determined, and he also isn't responsible. Even if they just put ideas into his head, the truth of their other predictions forces Macbeth to consider the ones concerning him to be unavoidable.
Shakespeare's plays were probably written in a rush, with the deadline of the date set for their performance. Hence their defects. And yet, their genius shines down the centuries.
Great video thank you!
Precious, precious, where art thou precious
Did he like anybody?
one day we'll learn he loved Howard Sprague and the show My Mother the Car.
I revere Shakespeare but for character, language, timeless insights into human nature NOT plot, which everyone knows he ripped off. Tolkien in other words has a point but makes a category error (as I am sure he knew better than I).
I’ve only read Romeo & Juliet and Julius Caesar, so I’m not that knowledgeable on Shakespeare, but great video nonetheless. 👍
Thank you very much, Caesar is probably my favorite!!
@@InkandFantasy It was very good, I read it back in college.
Cutting and dicing the fact that Shakespeare wrote the plays to be PERFORMED (and didn’t publish them himself so we only have pirated texts)
This is like criticizing ‘music’ by how it’s annotated on the sheet… and never play it! “I don’t like his treble clef!” 😅😂🤣
@@georgerady9706 Okay. Is that aimed at me or Tolkien? I assume it’s Tolkien.
Tolstoy also had issue with the Bard but was effectively rebutted by Orwell
Tangent: From a modern perspective, Shakespeare feels close to Tolkien because it's set in an historical period filled with sword-wielding knights, rapier-fencing rogues, conniving kings and evil witches. Unfortunately, most modern Shakespeare renditions render the material in a contemporary "relevant" setting, completely un-moored from the context and visual cues modern audiences need to understand the language. Richard III in World War II. Hamlet in a corporate boardroom. Besides, the farther we travel in time, the more fantastical Shakespeare gets. People like sword fights and witches. We need a real period Shakespeare movie. Not a modern setting, not a minimalist abstraction. Period, period. It would be metal AF.
Arguably, the reason why anyone writes a novel - or makes a film, or records an album, or creates any kind of art - is because of a certain dissatisfaction with everyone else's efforts in that direction, i.e. because no-one's done it exactly the way they would want to see it done, so it falls to them to do it.
I'm sure Peter Jackson would have preferred that some other competent director had made a top-notch cinema adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" so that he could simply watch it as a member of the audience and be swept along by it without knowing how it was all achieved. But no-one else was capable of doing it properly, and so it fell to him to do it.
The curse that any creator is under is that, because they made the work, they're one of the few people on earth - or in an author's case, the _sole_ person on earth - denied the pleasure of ever experiencing it.
"...Tolkien believed that Shakespeare's works were at their best when they were being performed..." Well, after all, they were plays, not novels. Bernard Shaw was the first dramatist that really worked to make his plays readable as stories. In Shakespeare's day, you didn't spend a lot of money printing plays for the general public. They were printed for the actors, and each copy ended up with all sorts of marks and notes. More than that, they didn't include much detail about settings, and stage "business". When you write a story, you have to include gestures, facial expressions, etc. In a play, that is contributed by the actors.
Good video! There's no "-size" in any form of the verb "prophesy" (or "prophesies" or "prophesied"). E.g., 9:44
Yeah I seem to make that mistake a lot. It’s kind of hardwired for some reason. Thanks for pointing it out!!!
Si despreciaba a Shakespeare es porque no era tan culto como él suponía,ni sabía nada de teatro y prefería en sus ratos libres leer novelas policiacas,lo mismo pasaba con Tolstoi,que también menospreciaba a Shakespeare y a su amigo Chéjov.
Regarding the prophecies of Macbeth, Tolkien may have had a point about the trees, but he, like many others, was wrong about the other one. The apparition actually said that " *none* of woman born shall harm Macbeth," so Eowyn would have been out of luck unless she had a caesarean section. Also, in Medieval times, Caesarean sections had a 100% fatality rate for the mother, so in Macduff's case, the surgeon would not have even tried it unless Macduff's mother were already dead as a last-ditch attempt to save the baby. That is why Macduff was not "of woman born:" his mother died before she could properly finish giving birth to him, so he was born of the knife. The modern C-section is more like "of woman born, with some surgical assistance."
Shakespeare has characters on more than once suggest one's mind and soul is vulnerable and weak. Because of that director's can take the view Macbeth himself becomes deranged with ambition and disgard the magic as mere delusion. Having the trees uproot and march just destroys the play. It goes from a human play with whispers of remote devilish interference to an all out ahistorical fairy tale. He might as well bring in a unicorn and pegasus after that stunt.
Tolstoy took Shakespeare to task as well.
If anyone is interested in a differing, and exceptionally well researched, opinion, regarding the authorship of the plays, read “The Truth Will Out” by Brenda James. I frankly don’t understand why anyone in the 20th or 21st century would get their panties so twisted up whether William Shakespeare may or may not have been the actual author. It doesn’t change the brilliance of the writing. At least read the first chapter.
Whats funny is both are the same personality type yet clearly that doesn't mean they naturally will enjoy each other's works. I personally love jrr tolkien and while i see the talent of shakespear it is not my preference.
The Bard of Stratford might have had humble origins, but some achieve greatness.
I think Tolkien's personal definition of "fantasy", which it seems he held since childhood, is the root of his misinterpretation of the fantasy elements in Shakespeare. They're not there because Bill is trying to write fantasy and failing, they're there because he's trying to create drama, and succeeding.
Midsummer Night's Dream satirises sexual infatuation using fairies, it isn't a fairy story, and the way he's written them uses a variety of contemporary presentations that his audience would know - otherwise the satire wouldn't work. Nor does the play require a belief in fairies - which would have been considered as rather unsophisticated even then.
Tolkien's view of Macbeth is even wider of the mark and he also disliked nearly all literature by his own contemporaries. Much as I have enjoyed reading LOTR over the decades, and recognise T's scholarship in philology and Old English, he was, I think, a rather a limited man in his literary taste.
Cause he’s smart. Moving on…
I'm not a hardcore Tolkien nerd, but I appreciate how often he and I are in agreement--all of my unpopular dislikings, lol.
There is a strong theory that Macbeth is an unfinished work. It is substantially shorter than most of the tragedies.
The approx 5:20 point is exactly the opposite of Shakespeare - there is no attempt to 'realize'. There is only 'play' - 'the play's the thing' - Renaissance drama is a non-realistic non-fantastic genre. Tolkien is talking (well, writing!) across it. I think it's informative to recognize Tolkien's antipathy to adaptations of his work - feeling that something would be lost. Whereas in Renaissance drama the audience interaction is written into the text - drama/performance is a communal act. Implicit in Tolkien's view of Fantasy is the reader as recipient, not participant. It's not that one is right or, wrong but that there is a misunderstanding of genre and expectation here.
It sounds like he had issues with a couple of plays, the more magical ones to be specific and even then only elements of the stories.
😁
To be critical is not to dislike.
Super interesting and beautifully scripted and read, excellent work! I also appreciate the parallels to Ancient Greek myth and legend when it comes to the ambiguity of prophecy - the foretold event occurs but in an unexpected way,- and not just in Ancient Greece, the ambiguity of prophecy is a feature of many world mythologies. To be honest, Tolkien comes across as pompous and precious for being so censorious about the "reveals" of the prophecies in Hamlet. Incidentally, in a few of the quoted letters, the word 'pan' is used in an odd way - are you sure that the word shouldn't have been 'part', which makes much more sense?
Tolkien wanted a high fantasy based on the earliest myths that could be found in English folklore. He saw the potential to influence culture in a positive way. The cheap versions of these myths like Disney dwarfs greatly destroyed the potential of Tolkien’s gifts. It’s a bit like the two towers. Disney the sell out, and Tolkien the Gray.
hate and critique are not synonymous -what he "hated" primarily was Shakespeare's use as literature, not drama. but his critique of Macbeth showed true disdain...
Tolstoy also hated Shakespeare. Orwell wrote an article about it entitled, “Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool.”
I agree with Tolkien up to a point.
Theater and prose are very different.
Although it is true the theater is less than Ideal form for fantasy, for the reasons stated,
does that mean that fantasy should never be portrayed in plays??
I think that conclusion is wrong.
But, we must understand Tolkien and his issues.
The fact that it took 30 years for Tolkien to bring the Hobbit and LOTR to publication,
and that his supporting notes are the bases for many books after his death,
means that JRR Tolkien was an extreme perfectionist.
Tolkien's criticism of Shakespeare comes from his wanting perfection.
He rejects Shakespeare for not being PERFECT.
I look at things differently. Shakespeare's work's may not be perfect.
But, is the world better off with them??
Despite their flaws, doesn't the existence and reverence of Shakespeare's plays
after 400 years imply a unique quality??
Few literary works have had such longevity of love.
Don Quixote, Gulliver's Travels, Don Juan, Leviathan and others are still revered.
But, I think none have the following and respect that Shakespeare still receives.
Despite Tolkien's valid criticisms, I wish Tolkien had been more humble and accepted the greatness of Shakespeare.
I knew I liked JRRT for more than just the Lotr stories.
Thank you. A fascinating video. Tolkien was somewhat hypercritical regarding literature. I guess CS Lewis, JRT''s fellow Inkling, would have been more sympathetic to Shakespeare as his understanding of fantasy was less literary than Tolkien's.
Plays, in the time of Willy Shake, were performed by traveling actors and the plays (not written down added too and changed etc. as time went on) As the son of a dodgy business man and having friends in the publishing world, he simply followed these players around and wrote them down in his own style and put his name to them, I suppose if he had not carried out this, what could be seen as play -giarism , the plays would of been lost. Anyway that is what this old nemo thinks.
From how he described what he thinks fantasy should be, i wonder what hed have thought about dungeons and dragons
The real problem that Tolkien was encountering was the snobbery of literary critics which was extreme during his time. It’s the literary critics at the time that didn’t see elves as serious entities. Shakespeare was just trying to write excellent drama. He wasn’t trying to degrade elves. Thank God Tolkien ignored the critics. In addition, great literature is usually created as a reaction to past literature, so it makes sense that Tolkien had some bones to pick with the bard.
What bothers me about MacBeth is that someone is considered not to have been born of a woman if they were breeched. He’s still born of a woman-of course, this is because of my modern understanding of being born. (I’m being a bit tongue in cheek with the last point.)
I wonder what he would have thought of Jackson's trilogy. When the technology was good enough to render it well.
I look forward to next episode of "Whom did Tolkien hate?" I expect it will be another master whom I revere. Debussy? Oscar Wilde? Richard Strauss? Van Gogh? Arnold Schoenberg? George Gershwin? Sinclair Lewis?
Tolkien did win one battle. The noble elf and the stalwart dwarf are the primary archetypes in the popular imagination of today, championed by his book, then later in a massive way by Peter Jackson's adaptation, along with all the works _LOTR_ inspired. I'm enjoying the anime series _Dungeon Meshi_ at the moment, and it traces a long but direct line to Tolkien, via its source manga, computer/video games, tabletop games, and the rest.
The part in The Hobbit (book, not crap movies) where the starving Dwarves try to burst in on an Elven dinner party in the forest and it just disappears was definitely like Shakespeare stuff. Primal nature spirits that do not enjoy being interrupted by ignorant, unwashed mortals, existing just beyond their grasp (also as a metaphor for imagination and the meaning of fantasy, I guess) and that must be appeased to be made contact with. They live physically within, yet in the sense of immortality outside and beyond our world and will continue to do so even forever after it is no more, caring nothing for the troubles of those born damned with death.
Video liked at doggo video farewell. Good boy, thanking the patrons.
Wow. Didn't expect to agree with Tolkien on this one, but he certainly won me over!
He used a direct quote from Shakespeare in the Fellowship.
Everybody, even great writers, has their own taste. Leo Tolstoy and George Bernard Shaw also hated Shakespeare. I love the works of all three writers - and Tolkien, too.
Interesting. Based on these words of Tolkien I think that the common idea that Tolkien would have hated Peter Jackson's movies is surely wrong, as I have always believed. I think he would have been blown away by the movies and have understood the changes that were made.
“Why did Tolkien hate the Avengers?”
Future video probably
I remember when Blackadder punched out Shakespeare and told him that it was because of all the suffering he was going to cause for every boy and girl for the next 400 years.
Given Shakespeare drew on older and wider traditions saying something genral can be traced back to him is a rather false premise unless clarified with more detail.
Tolkien may have regretted using the term "Elf" back then because of the overwhelming connotation it had to the bastardized version from classical literature, but I don't he would have any regrets now that the term "Elf" has become once again associated with the archetype which Tolkien employed, and knowing that makes me happy for him.
Shakespeare was a cover for the Earl of Oxford.
Leo Tolstoy also didn't like Shakespeare much either. It's probably not a bad thing to have a few critics.
I think talking about this without taking into account the fact that Shakespeare wrote in Iambic Pentameter is ignorant. Writing a fantasy tale...into a play...using a poety form...makes it impossible to compare it to any other litterature. It's like saying math is better than architecture.
If only tolkien was around for Anime : D
He hated Dune, he hated Shakespeare, he seemed to hate anything that wasn't him. What a jerk.
Tolkien had a point, though I think he was more right about Disney than about Shakespeare. At any rate I'm certain he WOULDN'T be happy if he'd known the Middle Earth saga would eventually be filmed - especially if he'd known they'd turn it into action movies.
Tolkien's dislike of Shakespeare's use of fantasy is precisely why the movies are so exasperating for a true fan to suffer through.
Did Tolkien not use the word "fantasy" in its original mening though, and not as the name of a genre that didn't have that name yet?
I read somewhere that Shakespeare introduced hundreds of foreign words into the English language.
Tolkien admired the old anglo saxon culture and language, so it's no wonder he hated him.
I think Tolkien hated anyone who happened to possess better penmanship (😅), especially if they had a less binary take on moral matters (as is the case of Frank Herbert, the only writer whose work, Dune, I actually happen to know of his avowed hatred towards, as can be found in a letter he wrote, if memory serves me well).
Besides Tolkien's inventive and inspiring commitment to truly genius and rich world building and the very, very palpable historical dimension imbued in his worlds and narrative, he can, easily and not with much subsequential consequences, be dismissed with.
I understand that, due to linguistic, cultural and various disparities, Shakespeare can seem daunting and unapproachable-even 'corny' (I've heard so before).
His work, however, has a timeless and transformative attribute which is outstanding and edifying in many, many degrees. His ability to turn the simple, the commonplace, the otherwise reproachful into epic, complex poetic opera of the inner tribulations of the human consciousness without having to resort to the sensationalism of fantastical elements, employing fabulous use of diction, expressionistic characterisation which are humane, relatable and touching in spite of the often carnivalesque verbosity and dramaturgical indulgence is paramount and, quite frankly, unparalleled. In some sense, I see Shakespeare as the Plato of the English Language.
Even if the authorship theories hold up in your view, think of Shakespeare as a Pseudonymous entity, because the integrity of the writing remains singular, consistent, and progressively grows in a manner that does not sem to be conflicting or resisting to acquiesce to authorial harmony.
Perhaps if the Shakespearean canon was approachable non-traditionally without the risk of a significant loss of his artistry, the narrative would have been drastically different. I myself think that the Shakespeare Oeuvre is what it is because of how it is. I just wish people were able to immediately see how Shakespeare was and still is (especially if you study him) a most integral corner stone of not only the English language and world literature, but of even some substratum of the human/sociological psyque itself.
You can come upon writers of the same ilk as Tolkien (by which I mean authors with affluent & elaborate-and even exhaustive- world-building) with great ease. I can think of Homer, Luis de Camões, Hesiod, Ovid, Virgil, Dante Alighieri, Milton Cervantes, Jorge Luis Borges, Garcia Márquez, Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Ursa K. Le Guin, C. S. Lewis, G. R. R. Martin, B. Sanderson, Neil Gaiman- and a plethora of Mangaka as well: Eichiro Oda, Kamome Shirahama, Yoshihiro Togashi, Kentaro Miura, et al.)
P.S.: I hope you do not arrive at the conclusion that I dislike Tolkien, undermine, or underestimate his body of work. I do not. I am simpy of the opinion that the angle of his dislike towards Shakespeare isn't substantial. More importantly, I hope that his view on the bard does not compel anyone to skip Shakespeare or propagate one man's view into a sphere in which the views of many could take a blow, especially when reading Shakespeare can have a variety of unique and accumulative experiences.
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare, Hamlet.
Yours truly,
- E.