Of Mice and Men: Comparing Tolkien and Jacques
***
The world as whole knows the name of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, but perhaps by the shorter name off J.R.R., writer of the epic work �The Lord of the Rings�, one the most critically acclaimed masterpieces to date. This single novel has been printed in twenty-seven languages over the last fifty years, and owing to this large availability and the unsurpassable quality of the book itself, statistics tell us that, in the 1960's and for some time after, �The Lord of the Rings� was the second most popular book on the planet, bested only by the Holy Bible. As statistics also show that over thirty-five percent of the population is Christian and somewhere around sixty percent own a Bible, I assume that this man was doing quite well for himself. Because of his enormous popularity, many great writers have followed in the imprints left by his feet (which are, perhaps, large and furry). Among these many men and women is Mr. Brian Jacques, creator of the beloved abbey of Redwall, and hence the beloved book-series of �Redwall�, as well.
At first glance, these men are hardly peas in a pod, but what two authors should be? Rather, I believe that Mr. Jacques and Mr. Tolkien could be called two pods of the same stalk Of course; peas may not grow on a stalk. They may be two pods of the same pea-tree, but now, let us to return to the realm of relevance.
Though tall, fair Elves and those loveable hobbits of the Shire are Tolkien's true calling and Jacques is besotted with the small, furry creatures that abide in Mossflower Wood, their stories are actually quite similar in their respective basic natures. The majority of both author's stories were written for children, for example. Here, I shall express my views on how the lives, beliefs, and values of Tolkien and Jacques have affected their books.
Brian Jacques was born in June of 1939, two years after Tolkien published �The Hobbit�. Obviously, there is a significant lapse of time between the literary floruits of these men, but over the years, the classics that we look upon with reverence and veneration have remained the same. The material they read and absorbed as young and wayward British schoolboys would have been all but the same. Authors such as Sir Thomas Malory, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Daniel Defoe, Robert Lois Stevenson, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Kenneth Grahame would have been staples in their erudite diets. Kenneth Grahame, of course, was a given in the case of Brian Jacques, for it has even been said that had Grahame not passed away in 1932, Jacques may have been receiving devastating bills with every publication.
To compare Jacques and Tolkien, we must first recognise two things: how similar their themes are, and how different their writing styles are. Through much preliminary research, I have deduced probable explanations for both.
One key reason for any writer to choose a certain theme is his religion. I feel that a writer's faith is the part of him most evident in his writing. Since both Tolkien and Jacques are devout Roman Catholics, they like to focus on the idea of absolute good pitted against absolute evil. Given that this is a common theme, we may also recognise the belief that good would prevail over evil, and even that good and evil exist are both widely accepted. Very few books are written sole from the point of view of a villain.
Many would say that Tolkien kept his religion quiet in �The Lord of the Rings�, and silent in �The Silmarillion, but I object. These opinions are based solely on the fact that Elves practice polytheism, which is very much an anathema of Catholicism. However, Tolkien believed that there could be no such things as polytheism as long as there is a single entity that began the process of creation. Il�vatar is that entity, in the case of Middle-earth's Elves as elaborated on in �The Silmarillion�. This being then creates all other gods and goddesses from parts and aspects of himself. When Elves worship, the Ainur or Maiar, they are actually giving praise to different aspects of Il�vatar, and are, therefore, monotheistic. Even the name Il�vatar is demonstrative of Tolkien's Catholicism. In the language of Quenya, or High Elvish, the word ilu (one as a whole, all; single) and atar (father) are combined to form this name meaning �the one father�. Eru, a name that was commonly applied to Iluvatar in the Elves' latter years of existence, is the Sindarin (Grey Elven) word for the numeral one.
Self- Sacrifice is also commonly found in Tolkien's writing. The quest of Frodo Baggins is the most well known of these scenarios, in which the small hobbit forsakes his peaceful life in the Shire to attempt to throw down the very essence of evil. When his purpose is fulfilled and the quest at an end, he is granted passage into Valinor, the Undying Lands. This is a land reserved for Elves who have come to the end of their time in Middle-earth, and, as they cannot die, wish to move on to a place of rest. Here in this reality, we might call such a place heaven. Obviously, all of this points toward a definite parallel of Jesus Christ. Aragorn was meant as a Christ-figure, as well. In that particular case, Tolkien used the idea of an exiled king as his hint toward the Holy Book.
Brian Jacques is much more obvious about his Christianity. In his first book, the aptly titled, �Redwall�, characters were called such things as Matthias and Methuselah, and must I mention that the entire book series is set at an abbey?
Furthermore, Jacques is the author of the book �Castaways of the Flying Dutchman�, and its sequel, �The Angel's Command�. In �Castaways of the Flying Dutchman�, a young muted boy is found aboard the vessel Fleiger Hollander (for those readers who are not fluent in Finnish, that is �Flying Dutchman�). In exchange for his life, he becomes a slave to the ship's cook, where he works hard and tirelessly, ever thankful that he has all he still does, for he recognises how much worse things could be. Despite the quality of his service, the evil crew of the Fleiger Hollander constantly criticise him for his inability to speak. His only true companion is the faithful Labrador that came to him when the ship stopped for supplies in Denmark.
However, when the captain commits an unforgivable sin, he brings the wrath of the Almighty down upon all aboard the ship, and he and his crew are eternally damned. The boy and his dog are the only ones the Archangel finds wholly innocent. The Archangel not only spares them from the damnation inflicted upon the rest of the crew and grants them the ability to communicate with one another, but also bestows the gift of immortality upon them. �The Angel's Command� continues this wonderful story.
If you are familiar with Jacques and Tolkien, you may have already begun to anticipate my next topic. Unlikely heroes often define Tolkien, it is true, and critics are now beginning to recognise such an interest in Jacques, but few have asked how these two authors became so fascinated by this recurring theme. From Sam Gamgee to Grumm the mole, many have emerged unexpectedly as driven warriors, or have simply proven their worth as loyal friends, heedless of their own well-being. It has been said by numerous biographers that Tolkien and Jacques trying to prove that quiet, simple or bookish people such as themselves can hold their own in battle. Again, I feel that I can prove rumour wrong. It is my opinion that they are not trying to prove a false point, but emphasise a very true one.
It was for the sake of his education that Tolkien avoided the war for as long as possible, not at all out of cowardice. When he finally earned his first-class degree from Oxford University, he enlisted as a second lieutenant in the Lancashire Fusiliers.
After waiting in quiet suspense for many months, Tolkien was sent to active duty on the Western Front. Unfortunately, he arrived just in time for the famous Battle of Somme. The Somme offensive was a gruelling and bloody matter for a young writer and Oxford student such as Ronald, and after spending four miserable months in and out of the trenches, he became bedridden. Tolkien soon succumbed to �trench-fever�, a typhus-like infection common in the unsanitary conditions in which he had been living. Early that November, he was sent back to England, where he was kept for a month at hospital in Birmingham, recovering slowly from illness and wounds. By Christmas, he was well enough to return with his wife, Edith, to his home in Great Haywood in Staffordshire.
Although Jacques never had such time in war, he did hold many jobs that led him to adventure and travel. He began his working like at the ripe young age of fifteen, as a sailor. He met strange new ports in distant lands with a boyish eagerness and curiosity that sometimes overpowered his better judgement. However, it was not long before young Brian again grew restless and took to land again. Since his childhood, he has served as a railway fireman, a bobby, a long distance truck driver, a longshoreman, boxer, bus driver, postmaster, and (as is occasionally apparent in his writing) a stand-up comedian. I daresay that I should mention here that he spend much of his time writing, but to touch a lesser known fact, he currently hosts his own radio-show, Jakestown. And so, Mr. Jacques has bravely turned to face the world before him and done all of which his elders had warned him when he was a child, for they had seen him as a frail, bookish boy, who would be a fine scholar (but little else). He has become one of his own �unlikely heroes� in every respect.
Now, at last, we can recognise some of the more prominent differences between my two favourite writers. Even our earliest memories sometimes turn up in fictitious tales, and much of the time we unintentionally let our current circumstances filter through our heads and onto the beloved blank page. Not the wittiest of authors could control this, and an author with wits at all would never try. Our own life is real and true, while our characters, no matter how well developed, can never have life without us. Their entire being is no more than useless, meaningless words on a dead tree if the writer does not give them emotion and feeling. Such human characteristics are essential to our perception (as we are, presumably, humans ourselves). I, for one, have found it quite difficult to reach into a close friend's cranium and extract their various thoughts and emotions for my own uses. Ergo, I have concluded that it is my personal preference to make use of my own, as this process involves no cracking of any craniums, whatsoever.
I feel that a brief word must be said of their outlooks on the presence of heroines in their writings. Jacques makes a point to keep the numbers even, and feature just as many of one as the other. He always had a number of strong women about him, it would seem, and many of us know that the character Mariel was created for a beloved niece. The wonderful thing about Jacques female characters is that, in most cases, the same part could have been played by a male. This gives the girls an awesome boost to the ego, and really serves to say that anything boys can do, they can do.
Tolkien works on a different balance, and one that is much more difficult to achieve. Of the uncountable number of characters in �The Lord of the Rings�, only two women have major parts. Galadriel and �owyn have been left to hold the fort for females in such a large epic, and though Goldberry had lines here and there, she had literally no contribution to the plot. Many may already be disputing that point, because it cannot be denied that Goldberry adds a wonderful bit to �The Fellowship of the Ring�, and certainly interacts quite closely with Frodo and Company, but she only ever adds depth to the story. The plot simply revolves around getting the Ring to Mount Doom and by so doing save Middle-earth and the freedom of the peoples therein, in which Goldberry, lovely water-sprite though she is, had no part. If you still disagree, I personally do not consider Arwen to be a major character in the books (if you do, then you should consider comparing the number of times you've watched Jackson's films to the number of times you've read the Tolkien's idea of things). I support both conclusions in these cases only by saying that if Tolkien had decided to do away with Arwen and Goldberry, the story would have remained almost exactly the same.
In summary, Tolkien kept his balance by using a majority of male characters, but giving his women very strong roles in the plot. In other words, the whole quest might have failed without them, which, in either scenario, is true.
We have all marvelled at Jacques's usage of spelling to show accent, and many have harshly criticised it. In the series �Redwall�, for example, an otter will speak differently than a mouse because they are of different hypothetical nationalities to Jacques. Hedgehogs may sometimes be hard to understand, and you had better be fluent in Molespeech before entering the Abbey. For those who don't know, Molespeech is only the extremely exaggerated accent of one living in Liverpool, so needn't fret much. Unlike Tolkien, who completely developed a total of sixteen highly complex languages, you can usually figure out what Jacques is trying to tell you (with the exception of Shrewish, which should never be attempted).
All this was inspired by a few of his jobs. Working as a merchant seaman, a long-distance truck driver, and a bus driver, he heard so many voices and so many different dialects, that it became evident in his books. He even began to relate certain types of people with animals. Hence, the peace loving mice, the jesting hares, the wise but wrathful badgers, and the cunning, evil stoats and ferrets. Odd, no?
Tolkien's influences required much more of me to understand. When we read �The Lord of the Rings� or �The Silmarillion�, we are often left with the feeling that there is much more to the story. We sometimes feel that what we see on the page is only the surface of far darker themes. In fact, Tolkien was badly traumatised by the second World War, and it was in those trenches that his fantastical imagining of Middle-earth began to shape themselves into written word.
�...in tents full of blasphemy and smut..." Tolkien described his surroundings as such, and we must also remember all of humanity's sufferings during this era, to which this young man became witness. As a strict Catholic, Tolkien battled with gnawing guilt over the issue of this newly developed masochism, and found that the only safe outlet was his writing. Various times, a captive is taken before the Dark Lord (or into the captivity of his realm), stripped, questioned, and tortured, and though other, worse things are implied, it is usually left at that. However, in additional writings that remain locked in Professor Tolkien's safe, there are continuations of these brief scenes in which he vents his extreme tension, going even further than he did in the chapter �The Tower of Cirith Ungol� in �The Return of the King�, in which Sam find Frodo lying naked on the floor of cell, having only just been whipped. So deep was this psychology that Tolkien often went to the point of graphically describing the humiliation, sexual torture, and rape of a character.
As I mentioned earlier, both Tolkien and Jacques took special interest in telling their stories to children. In this is the explanation for an extreme difference in their writing styles. It is a widely known fact that Jacques wrote �Redwall� for children who attended a school for the blind, where he delivered milk. Because his stories were meant for these children who had never been gifted with sight, he focuses on other senses and perceptions, going into the greatest of detail possible. His writing comes across to us as sometimes being overly flowery and sometime drowned in adjectives, but portrays such a vivid, splendid image that we don't complain.
Although he wrote �The Hobbit� for his young children, Tolkien cannot escape writing like a textbook. He embodies the dry, English writing style that uses more text than dialogue and documents a story rather than animates it. However, when he would read �The Hobbit� to little John and Christopher at bedtime, he would perform things so wonderfully that it became impossible to separate word from action, making it seem as if he were giving a flawless description of events. Without being able to present this advantage to his larger audiences, he became fluent with a such adjectives that, when used sparingly, are easily remembered and actually serve to single-handedly set the mood for any given scene.
On a final note, I would very much like to say that both J.R.R. Tolkien and Brian Jacques dislike Shakespeare. Already, I hear the gasps of my readers. Jacques finds that much of the Bard's work seems stiff and forced, which is legitimate enough. Tolkien has his own curious reasoning. When he was a boy of twelve years old, he went to see a performance of �Macbeth�, having never read the play. His excitement built as the forest began to advance and come to life.
�I remember being so thrilled at the idea of this forest being alive and participating in this great battle,� said the professor around a pipe in one of his rare filmed interviews. The reporter laughs as the old man gesticulates furiously. �Then I found out that they were just some soldiers with bloody bushes on their heads! My heart was nearly broken. I said to myself, 'What a bloody idiot this Shakespeare is!' I later decided that I would take such an idea and portray it correctly.�
And from this episode came the Ents.
For anyone who has absorbed my opinions and agrees with them, you may find reason to argue when next you hear talk of who stole from whom, for their really is no line between themes anymore, and there may never have been an original concept but that of the one who created all things. To be completely hypocritical, I would like to put a close to this essay by saying that J.R.R Tolkien and Brian Jacques are two different men with two different lives, and should never be compared.