Harken Not to Wild Beasts: Between Rage and Eloquence in Saruman and Thrasymachus

One of the giant gaps in Tolkien scholarship has been to miss how deeply Saruman answers the age-old antagonism between rhetoric and philosophy. Like John Milton, Tolkien cannot bring himself to trust rhetoric. It threatens the unitary truth of a divinely-revealed moral order and, ironically, Tolkien applies great rhetorical skill to convince his reader of rhetoric’s illusionary nature. In this matter Tolkien has been largely successful, since few readers (if any) question the de-privileging of Saruman’s perspective. In the process, though, I suggest that Tolkien has developed in his master rhetorician a new relationship between rhetoric (eloquence) and rage (thymos). The “wild beast” (LOTR III.10 563) in Saruman’s nature eventually overwhelms the Art of his Voice. Yet by examining Saruman in light of another “wild beast,” Plato’s Thrasymachus (Republic 336b), we begin to see how Tolkien has subverted the hierarchy first established by Plato between art and anger. Thrasymachus subordinates his rage to his rhetorical skills, but Saruman allows his skills to wane as his anger waxes. The example of Sauron, who needs no rhetoric, drives home to Saruman the (mistaken) lesson that rhetoric is superfluous. It belongs to the weak. Saruman thereby allows his anger freer rein. Following his defeat at the Battle of Isengard, Saruman’s rage overwhelms him completely, and that rage quickly turns to resentment (ressentiment). After Saruman escapes Treebeard’s watchful eye, a “new” Saruman emerges. Following Peter Sloterdijk’s Rage and Time, I then expand my argument to suggest that Sharkey’s Shire exemplifies the forces of rage and resentment in modern politics. Defeating Sharkey, though, comes at a high price for the hobbits of the Shire. Since the meek do not inherit the earth, rage and eloquence must be marshalled together to defeat their oppressor—a situation tragic to Tolkien because it finds no easy reconciliation with his Christian beliefs

Sub-creating Arda (2019), edited by Dimitra Fimi and Thomas Honegger

Book review by Dennis Wilson Wise of Sub-creating Arda (2019), edited by Dimitra Fimi and Thomas Honegge

The Return of the Ring (2016), edited by Lynn Forest-Hill

Book review, by Dennis Wilson Wise, of The Return of the Ring (2 vols, 2016), ed. by Lynn Forest-Hil

Classical Poetry and Modern Political Philosophy: Spenser and Machiavelli in A View of the State of Ireland

The sixteenth-century English poet Edmund Spenser has long seemed full of contradictions. On one hand, Spenser is a poet of “twelue priuate morall vertues,” falling into the civic-humanist tradition advocated by his predecessor Sir Philip Sidney. On the other hand, Spenser’s A View of the State of Ireland advocates a brutal and bloody colonial policy in relationto the Irish, views that seem incompatible with a master of moral poetry. I suggest that we understand the apparent contradiction as a conflict between Spenser’s classicism and his apparent acceptance of modern political philosophy, initiated by Niccolò Machiavelli. According to LeoStrauss, Machiavelli was an “esoteric” writer, someone who did not openly proclaim his doctrines of realpolitik. Machiavelli’s method broke with classical political philosophy, which—like the classical literature championed by Sidney—often taught moral or imaginary ideals as a guide to action. Iargue that Spenser read Machiavelli well, understanding those chapters of The Prince most closely pertaining to Spenser’s own colonial situation in Ireland, and wrote A View according to those views. Spenser’s personal experience as a colonial administrator led him (following Machiavelli)to break decisively with classical political philosophy, even while Spenser’s literary theory refused to diverge from Sidney. In other words, Spenser is ancient in his art and modern in his politics. Rather than being simply a poet of the “State” or of nascent English nationalism, Spenser actuallyunderstands and encompasses the contradictions and changes of his own historical moment

The Return of the Ring (2016), edited by Lynn Forest-Hill

Book review, by Dennis Wilson Wise, of The Return of the Ring (2 vols, 2016), ed. by Lynn Forest-Hil

“Violations as Profound as Any Rape”

In the last few years, literary representations of sexed violence (sometimes known as "gender violence") have been increasingly scrutinized. Such scrutiny has made some aspects in the work of Stephen R. Donaldson, who frequently employs rape as a theme, disquieting. This article attempts a critical intervention on Donaldson's behalf. First, I situate Donaldson vis-a-vis his engagement with second wave radical feminism, particularly in terms of reinterpreting rape as a matter of power. Then I pose a number of postmodern feminist challenges to Donaldson's two major epics, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever and the Gap sequence. Ultimately, I find that his core existential humanism nonetheless produces some valuable insights into the men who commit acts of sexed violence.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

A Sense of Tales Untold: Exploring the Edges of Tolkien\u27s Literary Canvas (2021) by Peter Grybauskas

Book review by Dennis Wilson Wise of A Sense of Tales Untold: Exploring the Edges of Tolkien\u27s Literary Canvas (2021) by Peter Grybauska

J.R.R. Tolkien\u27s Utopianism and the Classics (2023) by Hamish Williams

Book review, by Dennis Wilson Wise, of J.R.R. Tolkien\u27s Utopianism and the Classics (2023) by Hamish Williams

On Ways of Studying Tolkien: Notes Toward a Better (Epic) Fantasy Criticism

This article examines major academic approaches used in the study of J.R.R. Tolkien. It argues that certain themes from political philosopher Leo Strauss, by helping us to develop a new theoretical lens, can elucidate several politically salient aspects of Tolkien\u27s work, including thymos and his dialectic between ancient and modern. Four previous (though flawed) Straussian interpretations of Tolkien are highlighted. Finally, by analyzing the tensions that arise when pairing critical theory and its attendant bias against nature with Tolkien and epic fantasy, this article argues for the timeliness of a Straussian lens for studying fantasy and Tolkien alike

Just Reading \u3ci\u3eA Spell for Chameleon\u3c/i\u3e: An Appreciation with Caveats, and an Elegy

In 1977, a landmark year for fantasy publishing, Piers Anthony’s A Spell for Chameleon emerged as one of the era’s most popular fantasy novels. Since then, however, the novel’s reputation (as well as Anthony’s) has fallen precipitously. The reason for this, I suggest, involves our changing habits of critical reading, which view Anthony’s sexism and outdated gender stereotypes as conduits for deeper and more reactionary viewpoints like misogyny and anti-feminist ire. In contrast, I argue that a “surface” reading of the novel can help recover those meanings foreclosed by more critical approaches. In particular, I examine A Spell for Chameleon in light of Bink’s sexist views, the novel’s odd rape trial, and the presence of a confessed misogynist within the text