Ents, Elves, and Eriador: The Environmental Vision of J.R.R. Tolkien by Matthew Dickerson, Jonathan Evans
2007; Volume: 11; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1353/itx.2007.0006
ISSN2156-5465
Autores Tópico(s)Folklore, Mythology, and Literature Studies
Resumo8 9 R e v i e w s Bakhtin and the Classics. Ed. RB. Branham. Evanston, IL: Northwestern UP, 2002. 5 9 - 7 0 . Platter, C. “Novelistic Discourse in Aristophanes.” In Camivalizin^ Difference. Ed. P. I. B a r t a e t a l . 5 1 - 7 7 . .’’The Uninvited Guest: Aristophanes in Bakhtin’s ‘History of Laughter. Arethusa 26(1993); 201-16. Revermann, M. Comic Business: Theatricality, Dramatic Technique, and Performance Contexts of Aristophanic Comedy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Willi,A. “Languages on Stage:Aristophanic Language, Cultural History, andAthenian Identity.”InTheLattgtm^eofGreekComedy.Oxford;OxfordUP ,2002.111-49. Tom Hawkins The Ohio State University Dickerson, Matthew^ and Jonathan Evans. Ents, Elves, andEriador: The Environmental Vision ofj. R. R. Tolkien. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 2006. xxvi +316 pp. In the introduction to the second edition of The Lord of the Rinffs, J. RR Tolkienfamouslywrotethathe“cordiallydisliked”allegoryandthathepre¬ ferredtheterm“applicability”forhiswork;“theoneresidesinthe of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author. n Ents, Elves, and Eriador, Matthew Dickerson and Jonathan Evans argue that the repeated application of Tolkien’s work to environmental issues suggesK thatTolkienhadanearlyyetsophisticatedenvironmentalvision,andthathis nature writing inThe Silmarillion,The Hobbit, andThe Lord of the Ririgs effectivelypredictsmoderncallsforsustainableagriculture.Inthisplausible and well-argued book, Dickerson and Evans argue that the good characters in Tolkien’s le^endarium use the goods of the earth in away that preserves both nature and their own freedom, while the evil characters dominate naturewithashort-term,profit-basedmindsetthatultimatelyharmsboth the environment and themselves. In the first chapter, Dickerson and Evans argue mainmythologicalprinciplesinTheSilmarillionisthat“thebeautyandvalue of [creation] are independent of any practical or utilitarian purposes.. .. Their importance inheres in nature for its own sake” (II)- Dickerson and Evans note that while the race of hobbits is connected closely to this creation, modern technological societies have broken this bond; they have much machinery and wealth, but also much more stress from living in an overly complex system. The authors illustrate such breakdowns through Tolkien’s depictionofcharacterssuchasSmaug,Saruman,theDwarves,andtheOres, who ruin themselves by overusing technology and resources. Dickerson and Evans suggest that they are bound to their wealth and “enslaved to the very machines meant to free them from toil” (17), in contrast to characters like that one of Tolkien’s 9 0 I N T E R T E X T S Gandalf and Tom Bombadil, who are powerful but do not desire to hoard goods or control people. The authors argue that loving the world without dominating it derives from Tolkien’s Catholic beliefin adivinely created uni¬ verse that is inherently good and designed for the pleasure of its people and creator, yet vulnerable to evil. Such abelief calls for reimagining the concept of stewardship; rather than exploiting nature, even with an eye towards its vtise use, humans must defend and repair the earth for its own sake and for the sake of posterity. Dickerson and Evans carefully note that non-Christians and persons of ano-faith system may disagree with the spiritual basis of Tolkien’s principles, but they may easily agree with the notion that “cre¬ ativity, love, humility, and responsibility” are “the foundation—if not the only one, then one of the best—for aviable environmental ethic” (35). Chapter 2deals with this revised notion of stewardship. The authors cite Jim Ball’s work on stewardship and note that Gandalf—and Tolkien—seem to promote “servanthood stewardship” based on service to the world and to others in it, while characters like Denethor refuse to abandon power and manipulate others to promote their own agendas. Dickerson and Evans note that The Silmarillion has been criticized in light of the Judeo-Christian com¬ mand to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28) and the divine wish for humanity to have “dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth” (Genesis 1:26). However, they also argue that Tolkien views dominion as apositive tool with great abuse poten¬ tial; although Men (to use Tolkien’s term). Elves, and Dwarves are made in Iluvatar’s image and share in his creative power, they also have the ability to use it selfishly, since “the exploitation of...
Referência(s)