I love Tolkien's distinction between the types of escape. I've been trying to explain why "escapism" is bad for so long, but after reading "On Fairy Stories" and with some further help from this excellent essay, I feel confident to go back into that discussion.
Such an interesting distinction, isn't it? You can see that Tolkien clearly didn't like the "escapist" criticism and probably had to spend a while figuring out what bothered him about it, sifting through the good from the bad within the idea.
Great piece, Eric! I love the notion that ancient and medieval stories are able to cut through the noise by reducing the world to its most simple and human parts. That’s certainly how I view writing, and one of the main reasons I enjoy fantasy and historical fiction.
It’s also interesting to see how opinionated Tolkien could be. I couldn’t disagree more with his view on science fiction, haha!
Thanks, Keyon! You and I see writing in a similar vein, then (not that I'm surprised given our respective interests and stories)! And yes, Tolkien was very opinionated. One thing that makes some of his non-fiction writing hard to parse (including his letters) is that he constantly writes in absolutes, sometimes bombastic, but then he'll qualify his proclamations later on or even sometimes even contradict himself with a different absolute. Is it sarcasm? Is it exaggeration for effect? Is he dead serious? He'll use all three across an essay.
I was skulking about Substack this morning, waiting for this post to drop. I’ve very much enjoyed the series so far - you’ve both done a fantastic job with your exploration of the material.
I’m very curious as to how we distinguish between the Escapee and the Deserter, and how dogmatically we can classify the indicators of one type of literature against the other.
I admit that I come to the conversation having begun as an escapee, converted to a realist and then embracing a deserter’s flight. (Which, I’m gonna be honest - it feels like there’s a pipeline effect here. . .) and I do feel very sympathetic towards the deserter. Why are they running from realty? Why have they rejected it and sought to lose themselves in another world that has no direct bearing or impact on their return to the real world? What about the deserter’s flight drew them over the prisoner’s escape? I did very much appreciate how well you explored the conditions an escapee might find themselves in, from the challenges of the day to day to the horrors of war - it’s a huge range of experience and need, to be sure.
It's a great question, Monique, and it's one that Tolkien doesn't answer explicitly in OFS. However, from his larger treatment of it, I'd say it's just as much about the attitude of the reader as it is about the design of the literature (ie the author's intent). The biggest difference, if you ask me, is that the Deserter does not have hope. They flee because they believe all is lost. But the Escapee (to think of a prisoner of war) longs to get out and rejoin the fight; they have hope. Then there's the question of whether you're going to/from something good or bad, in a moral sense. Escaping from Bad towards Good should instill Hope and refreshment, whereas Flight from Good towards Bad looks more like denialism, or laziness. One could read LOTR instead of taking care of their responsibilities, just the same as a lazy student playing video games instead of going to class. But the same activities could be used for higher ends, including human connection. It's the question of: does this help you endure life or draw you away from it? Are you plugging into the Matrix or waking up changed? I also think its hard to definitively say that certain books will always be one or the other because some of that depends on the reader's own attitude. In any case Tolkien was mostly saying that there's a deeper need there that stories can give than just distraction.
I have to say, the only bone to pick I had with your analysis in this piece, which I'd forgotten about till I read this comment, was the framing of "running from good towards bad." I think I get what you're trying to say, but I don't feel it's quite the right way to say it.
Escapism doesn't strike me as running from good towards bad. It's more like an abdication. It's giving up.
I'm not religious, and I haven't had too many philosophical debates, but I understand conversations about both often end up at (devolve to?) the free will question. This may seem irrelevant, but I was having a debate with a couple of Christian friends about free will, and they, happening to be the sort of Christians that believe in predestination, were telling me that their belief in it didn't absolve them of the responsibility to strive or to do good works. It simply meant that they couldn't expect to be rewarded for it.
From my perspective, I'd say free will is hard to prove or disprove either way, but from a functional perspective it's somewhat ineffective to attempt to disbelieve in it. Whether you're in control of your actions or not, behaving as if you aren't will like as not lead to nihilism or denial of responsibility. It seems to me that this is the pitfall of escapism as well. Favoring mental departure to a fictional, more appealing world over striving in the real one.
Perhaps the goal (other than simple enjoyment) of reading these stories is to enrich ourselves that we might live better lives when the books are back on the shelf.
While not a Progressive, Tolkien was not against progress. He disliked a great deal of it, but he made frequent use of it. What he hated, I believe, was rapid, unthinking progress, the kind that moved forward expediently and without concern for consequences to both humanity and nature. Personally, he moved at a far slower pace than most in this modern world (as seen by the absolutely plodding writing pace in composing LOTR in comparison to today's book-a-year goal), which gave him time to consider matters deeply. I think that is why his opus holds together so well: He took the time to think it through and make it consistent and intricately interconnected. This process reflects his wider views, and certainly his view of "progress": It should be slow and well-considered with the good of humanity and nature always a priority. I admit, this perspective is quite idealistic and strains against the common drives of human nature.
I love that you brought this up, Richard. If progress is defined as "getting better," then Tolkien makes an interesting case to show that technological progress does not mean human progress.
I see you're a fantasy reader too. Do you think fantasy has any ability to help correct the mindless "progress" that Tolkien talks about? Do you think its as much of a problem as Tolkien does? Curious for your thoughts.
Yes, indeed, I think it's a huge problem! Just look at the mad dash into AI and all its "wonderful" uses, with only a few voices crying, "Whoa! Slow down. Let's think this through!" How soon will some nation marry it to weaponry? Have some already done so? Probably, even if it's just rudimentary so far.
But how much can fantasy do to stem the tide of the human desire to dominate? Very little, I think. As Douglas MacArthur said in his farewell speech before Congress (it was also part of his speech at the Japanese surrender), "The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh." Good, deep, thoughtful fantasy might change a few hearts and minds, but alas! such writing never grabs the attention of many or simply sails over the readers' heads.
That said, however, I think it should be attempted.
Really enjoying this series! It occurred to me as I was reading it that to Tolkien the escapism / Escapism dichotomy Falden describes might also be characterized by the fairy story's vector of escape, i.e. what the escapee is escaping unto. Is the fairy story trending toward something more deeply true, or something delusional?
Very well explained! The section about the Deserter/the Realists reminds me of this quote from Capitalism Realism:
The 'realism' here is analogous to the deflationary perspective of a depressive who believes that any positive state, any hope, is a dangerous illusion.
I too easily fall into cynicism in my reasoning and pessimism in my outlook. But I’ve learned over time that no one is more deserving of our skepticism than someone who treats hope as a lie. Thanks for sharing that quote.
"There are other things more grim and terrible to fly from than the noise, stench, ruthlessness, and extravagance of the internal-combustion engine. There are hunger, thirst, poverty, pain, sorrow, injustice, death." -- Yes, Professor Tolkien, one finds oneself wanting to say, and the internal combustion engine has done as much as anything you care to name to help people escape from hunger, thirst, poverty, and pain. (Sorrow, injustice, and death are more intractable problems.)
But on the defense of fairy stories, I think that Chesterton had in fact the more devastating (and succinct) argument. In Orthodoxy, he wrote:
“Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dullness of life. This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.”
Or, I suppose, one might say it like this, that art thrives on contrast and that one may increase the contrast between the character and their environment either by making the environment mad or by making the character mad. And of these choices, making the environment mad and leaving the character sane is not in fact the escapist path but the realist path.
One might also note that the error or trying to tell the story of a dragon among dragons is exactly the mistake that so much modern fantasy makes in its quest to be ever more fantastic.
As industrialization, globalization, and technology become ever more pervasive in our lives, it becomes more and more difficult to Recover and Escape through daily activities. Certainly not impossible, but the endless distractions and noise of modern life are ever seductive. While not a Fairy-Story, travel used to be a major form of Recovery (I didn't fly, I "air-sailed" as noted in my journals) and Escape, but over time it became too difficult to keep up the sincerity of my inner sub-creation when I would hold the same phone as my 'real life', see the same products, hear the same languages, etc. I recently read Tolkien's On-Fairy Stories and was delighted to see my past subconcious put to the page. I haven't engaged with Tolkien in nearly a decade until this summer and am finding an element of renewal these days. Thank you for this series.
Excellent, you really know your stuff. I never realized until your Substack that Tolkien distinguished his writing as fairy rather than fantasy. I think the novel I finished recently better qualifies as fairy than fantasy.
The question of escape is a compelling one as it applies to real life. I kept wanting to jump to the comments as I was reading through the anti-industrialist bit, because it resonates so strongly with a conflict in my own life.
On the one hand, living in a small rural town like the Shire sounds idyllic; reconnecting with nature and leaving behind the traffic, the smog, the noise of the city. On the other hand, I know I'd miss people, and culture. I'd miss the mall, and the movies. I'm certainly not as anti-industrialist as Tolkien seems to have been, but I do feel like my life would be better for a closer relationship with nature and a looser relationship with my car.
I could do it, too. Leave. My wife is Japanese, and after 6 years living in Japan I can safely say I love the country. There are houses there out in the countryside to be had practically for free, especially compared to what we'd have to pay to stay in southern California. Right now it's mostly my mom keeping me here, but the itch to leave is strong.
It's nice to imagine--to fantasize--about a life with more balance. A healthier, more fulfilling life. I'd like to run towards that.
Thanks as ever for the thoughtful writing. Looking forward to installment four.
I love Tolkien's distinction between the types of escape. I've been trying to explain why "escapism" is bad for so long, but after reading "On Fairy Stories" and with some further help from this excellent essay, I feel confident to go back into that discussion.
Such an interesting distinction, isn't it? You can see that Tolkien clearly didn't like the "escapist" criticism and probably had to spend a while figuring out what bothered him about it, sifting through the good from the bad within the idea.
Great piece, Eric! I love the notion that ancient and medieval stories are able to cut through the noise by reducing the world to its most simple and human parts. That’s certainly how I view writing, and one of the main reasons I enjoy fantasy and historical fiction.
It’s also interesting to see how opinionated Tolkien could be. I couldn’t disagree more with his view on science fiction, haha!
Thanks, Keyon! You and I see writing in a similar vein, then (not that I'm surprised given our respective interests and stories)! And yes, Tolkien was very opinionated. One thing that makes some of his non-fiction writing hard to parse (including his letters) is that he constantly writes in absolutes, sometimes bombastic, but then he'll qualify his proclamations later on or even sometimes even contradict himself with a different absolute. Is it sarcasm? Is it exaggeration for effect? Is he dead serious? He'll use all three across an essay.
I guess that’s what makes him an interesting subject to put under the microscope, haha!
I was skulking about Substack this morning, waiting for this post to drop. I’ve very much enjoyed the series so far - you’ve both done a fantastic job with your exploration of the material.
I’m very curious as to how we distinguish between the Escapee and the Deserter, and how dogmatically we can classify the indicators of one type of literature against the other.
I admit that I come to the conversation having begun as an escapee, converted to a realist and then embracing a deserter’s flight. (Which, I’m gonna be honest - it feels like there’s a pipeline effect here. . .) and I do feel very sympathetic towards the deserter. Why are they running from realty? Why have they rejected it and sought to lose themselves in another world that has no direct bearing or impact on their return to the real world? What about the deserter’s flight drew them over the prisoner’s escape? I did very much appreciate how well you explored the conditions an escapee might find themselves in, from the challenges of the day to day to the horrors of war - it’s a huge range of experience and need, to be sure.
It's a great question, Monique, and it's one that Tolkien doesn't answer explicitly in OFS. However, from his larger treatment of it, I'd say it's just as much about the attitude of the reader as it is about the design of the literature (ie the author's intent). The biggest difference, if you ask me, is that the Deserter does not have hope. They flee because they believe all is lost. But the Escapee (to think of a prisoner of war) longs to get out and rejoin the fight; they have hope. Then there's the question of whether you're going to/from something good or bad, in a moral sense. Escaping from Bad towards Good should instill Hope and refreshment, whereas Flight from Good towards Bad looks more like denialism, or laziness. One could read LOTR instead of taking care of their responsibilities, just the same as a lazy student playing video games instead of going to class. But the same activities could be used for higher ends, including human connection. It's the question of: does this help you endure life or draw you away from it? Are you plugging into the Matrix or waking up changed? I also think its hard to definitively say that certain books will always be one or the other because some of that depends on the reader's own attitude. In any case Tolkien was mostly saying that there's a deeper need there that stories can give than just distraction.
This was very insightful, thank you.
I have to say, the only bone to pick I had with your analysis in this piece, which I'd forgotten about till I read this comment, was the framing of "running from good towards bad." I think I get what you're trying to say, but I don't feel it's quite the right way to say it.
Escapism doesn't strike me as running from good towards bad. It's more like an abdication. It's giving up.
I'm not religious, and I haven't had too many philosophical debates, but I understand conversations about both often end up at (devolve to?) the free will question. This may seem irrelevant, but I was having a debate with a couple of Christian friends about free will, and they, happening to be the sort of Christians that believe in predestination, were telling me that their belief in it didn't absolve them of the responsibility to strive or to do good works. It simply meant that they couldn't expect to be rewarded for it.
From my perspective, I'd say free will is hard to prove or disprove either way, but from a functional perspective it's somewhat ineffective to attempt to disbelieve in it. Whether you're in control of your actions or not, behaving as if you aren't will like as not lead to nihilism or denial of responsibility. It seems to me that this is the pitfall of escapism as well. Favoring mental departure to a fictional, more appealing world over striving in the real one.
Perhaps the goal (other than simple enjoyment) of reading these stories is to enrich ourselves that we might live better lives when the books are back on the shelf.
While not a Progressive, Tolkien was not against progress. He disliked a great deal of it, but he made frequent use of it. What he hated, I believe, was rapid, unthinking progress, the kind that moved forward expediently and without concern for consequences to both humanity and nature. Personally, he moved at a far slower pace than most in this modern world (as seen by the absolutely plodding writing pace in composing LOTR in comparison to today's book-a-year goal), which gave him time to consider matters deeply. I think that is why his opus holds together so well: He took the time to think it through and make it consistent and intricately interconnected. This process reflects his wider views, and certainly his view of "progress": It should be slow and well-considered with the good of humanity and nature always a priority. I admit, this perspective is quite idealistic and strains against the common drives of human nature.
I love that you brought this up, Richard. If progress is defined as "getting better," then Tolkien makes an interesting case to show that technological progress does not mean human progress.
I see you're a fantasy reader too. Do you think fantasy has any ability to help correct the mindless "progress" that Tolkien talks about? Do you think its as much of a problem as Tolkien does? Curious for your thoughts.
Yes, indeed, I think it's a huge problem! Just look at the mad dash into AI and all its "wonderful" uses, with only a few voices crying, "Whoa! Slow down. Let's think this through!" How soon will some nation marry it to weaponry? Have some already done so? Probably, even if it's just rudimentary so far.
But how much can fantasy do to stem the tide of the human desire to dominate? Very little, I think. As Douglas MacArthur said in his farewell speech before Congress (it was also part of his speech at the Japanese surrender), "The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh." Good, deep, thoughtful fantasy might change a few hearts and minds, but alas! such writing never grabs the attention of many or simply sails over the readers' heads.
That said, however, I think it should be attempted.
Really enjoying this series! It occurred to me as I was reading it that to Tolkien the escapism / Escapism dichotomy Falden describes might also be characterized by the fairy story's vector of escape, i.e. what the escapee is escaping unto. Is the fairy story trending toward something more deeply true, or something delusional?
Very well explained! The section about the Deserter/the Realists reminds me of this quote from Capitalism Realism:
The 'realism' here is analogous to the deflationary perspective of a depressive who believes that any positive state, any hope, is a dangerous illusion.
I too easily fall into cynicism in my reasoning and pessimism in my outlook. But I’ve learned over time that no one is more deserving of our skepticism than someone who treats hope as a lie. Thanks for sharing that quote.
This is what I love
"There are other things more grim and terrible to fly from than the noise, stench, ruthlessness, and extravagance of the internal-combustion engine. There are hunger, thirst, poverty, pain, sorrow, injustice, death." -- Yes, Professor Tolkien, one finds oneself wanting to say, and the internal combustion engine has done as much as anything you care to name to help people escape from hunger, thirst, poverty, and pain. (Sorrow, injustice, and death are more intractable problems.)
But on the defense of fairy stories, I think that Chesterton had in fact the more devastating (and succinct) argument. In Orthodoxy, he wrote:
“Oddities do not strike odd people. This is why ordinary people have a much more exciting time; while odd people are always complaining of the dullness of life. This is also why the new novels die so quickly, and why the old fairy tales endure for ever. The old fairy tale makes the hero a normal human boy; it is his adventures that are startling; they startle him because he is normal. But in the modern psychological novel the hero is abnormal; the centre is not central. Hence the fiercest adventures fail to affect him adequately, and the book is monotonous. You can make a story out of a hero among dragons; but not out of a dragon among dragons. The fairy tale discusses what a sane man will do in a mad world. The sober realistic novel of to-day discusses what an essential lunatic will do in a dull world.”
Or, I suppose, one might say it like this, that art thrives on contrast and that one may increase the contrast between the character and their environment either by making the environment mad or by making the character mad. And of these choices, making the environment mad and leaving the character sane is not in fact the escapist path but the realist path.
One might also note that the error or trying to tell the story of a dragon among dragons is exactly the mistake that so much modern fantasy makes in its quest to be ever more fantastic.
As industrialization, globalization, and technology become ever more pervasive in our lives, it becomes more and more difficult to Recover and Escape through daily activities. Certainly not impossible, but the endless distractions and noise of modern life are ever seductive. While not a Fairy-Story, travel used to be a major form of Recovery (I didn't fly, I "air-sailed" as noted in my journals) and Escape, but over time it became too difficult to keep up the sincerity of my inner sub-creation when I would hold the same phone as my 'real life', see the same products, hear the same languages, etc. I recently read Tolkien's On-Fairy Stories and was delighted to see my past subconcious put to the page. I haven't engaged with Tolkien in nearly a decade until this summer and am finding an element of renewal these days. Thank you for this series.
Excellent, you really know your stuff. I never realized until your Substack that Tolkien distinguished his writing as fairy rather than fantasy. I think the novel I finished recently better qualifies as fairy than fantasy.
The question of escape is a compelling one as it applies to real life. I kept wanting to jump to the comments as I was reading through the anti-industrialist bit, because it resonates so strongly with a conflict in my own life.
On the one hand, living in a small rural town like the Shire sounds idyllic; reconnecting with nature and leaving behind the traffic, the smog, the noise of the city. On the other hand, I know I'd miss people, and culture. I'd miss the mall, and the movies. I'm certainly not as anti-industrialist as Tolkien seems to have been, but I do feel like my life would be better for a closer relationship with nature and a looser relationship with my car.
I could do it, too. Leave. My wife is Japanese, and after 6 years living in Japan I can safely say I love the country. There are houses there out in the countryside to be had practically for free, especially compared to what we'd have to pay to stay in southern California. Right now it's mostly my mom keeping me here, but the itch to leave is strong.
It's nice to imagine--to fantasize--about a life with more balance. A healthier, more fulfilling life. I'd like to run towards that.
Thanks as ever for the thoughtful writing. Looking forward to installment four.