Who uses this term? Politicians? Literary critics?
by whom?
Mainly by people who do not subscribe to exclusive racist ideologies. sjc
self-identified? Or so described by whom?
This statement seems somewhat a) unsupported by reference experts, and b) under supported by reference to the works themselves.
It is hard for me to accept that Tolken's view of the "masses" is characterized by the orkish hoards. There are great cities which stand against Sauron, the dwarfish city of Moria is depicted as once great but fallen. Cities are not primarily the residences of evil, instead we find great evils living in the dark woods and underground. Much more would need to be said for me to accept the proposition that Tolken -- in spite of his own claims about his work -- was writing an allegory about the true meaning of England. Moreover, in the context of the article, there seems to be an attribution of racist ideology, which is also unsubstantiated in the case of the writers mentioned in the text itselv. I don't know much about Tolken, and Kipling, but IIRC, Blake was actively opposed to england's participation in the slave trade.
Most Men in Tolkien aren't wanderers--the Dunedain are specifically the emigres from foundered Numenor, and the Rangers are a small, specifically trained group within that. Men live in Bree, in Lake-town, in Rohan and Anorien.
The idea of orcs as "the masses" (not a concept I think Tolkien was much concerned with) seems pretty dubious: Tolkien said "I was an orc in the Great War." Orcs are the poor bloody infantry, taking orders and dying while others make the decisions. Vicki Rosenzweig
With all the due respect, Tolkien was strictly opposed to allegorical interpretation of his works (just read his Prologue to the Second Edition of the Lord of the Rings). So while it's possible to analyze the literary and psychological motives behind LoTR, I really doubt whether one can dig something conclusive out of it. This is reaffirmed by what I've read so far in this discussion. -- Uriyan
PPS: I just found this really nice piece of dissection by a truly intelligent writer of fantasy, Michael Moorcock, which strikes a chord with me:
Wouldn't it be useful simply to distinguish between Tolkien and Tolkien's work? Tolkien surely had his own views, some of which were expressed explicitly in print. But Tolkien's claimed intentions, or his own way of reading his work, is not quite the same thing as how others have read his work. It seems to me that regardless of Tolkien's intentions, many people have found reasons of their own to enjoy his books, and have found their own meaning in it. How other people have read and interpreted these books seems to me to be an entirely legitimate, and interesting, topic. All I am saying is that the two readings of the books need to be distinguished clearly,
SR
Removing this paragraph from the main page; perhaps it should be rewritten by someone who has read the works in question (destroyers of the rural lanes of the Shire? fair-haired elven master-race)?
That's fine, but not very relevant to this page. The trouble I find with the page as presently written is that it doesn't make it very clear what its subject is. Deep England is variously a vision, an ideological construct, a concept, a place in which J B Priestly could reside, and a perspective with proponents and opponents. The most important thing which I would like to see clarified is whether the various writers listed would have seen themselves as part of a school with something in common (and if so, what), or whether this school is identified by others. If the latter, is the school only identified by those critical of it? Is the term Deep England particularly used by those critical of it? Is the used for anyone who writes (or paints?) positively of rural England, or only those who combine this with a reactionary viewpoint?
As to Tolkien, I don't think it's controversial that he was deeply politically reactionary. But symbolic interpretations of literary works in ways that wouldn't be recognised by the author need a little more context than the psychohistory suggested above. I think there is something interesting to be written here, and I agree that the connections between Tolkien's racial mythology and the myths built on by the Nazi party for their own purposes go deeper than is often observed. If this John Carey is interesting, please write about him - but don't expect people to accept a point of view merely because it is propounded by a 'serious literary critic'. Many people so described don't actually read the works they criticise.
There's no need for this to be infinite regress. If the term is used in an incoherent manner, that's fine, but the explanation needs to be on the main page, not here.
What's missing from this page at present is the step between an artistic portrayal of an ahistorical rural idyll and the reactionary political points of view associated with it? Why (according to its critics) does this connection arise?
At the moment, this page has little more useful content than:
plus a pile of name-checks.
And don't fall into the trap of believing your enemies are stupid. Neither Priestly nor Kipling was a stupid person. Nor was Enoch Powell, come to that. Being clever and being correct don't automatically go together, right?
Fine. I accept your reductionist argument. I have better things to do than argue the toss. sjc
Me again: sjc writes "They were certainly not rational political animals, capable of running a computer... " The latter I'll grant you, but not the former. They have a higher tech than, for example, the writer who first claimed that Humans are political animals; about the same level as the writers of the US Constitution, or higher than that in the UK at the time of the Glorious Revolution. I'm unconvinced about "Deep England," but fairly sure that being agrarian doesn't mean people are politically unsophisticated.
I have trouble giving credence to Moorcock as an authority here, given that he blithely ignores the differences, *for story purposes*, that is, within the secondary creation that is Lord of the Rings, between magic and technology: he doesn't see why the good guys didn't take cannon up against Barad-dur, ignoring both the military strength of Sauron and the point that Gandalf and Elrond know that it wouldn't do any good, that the need is to destroy the Ring. (See Ansible 174, at http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Ansible/a174.html). Vicki Rosenzweig
Calder cites, amidst a myriad of examples, the city-bred northener J.B. Priestley who by inclination had become a denizen of Deep England What does this last mean? He was walking around in a vision?.
If you mean that, then say it. Yes, your page is difficult to comprehend. Please help to improve it. You're not just writing for an audience whose political views will match yours; people will read this page whose point of view is closer to that of the writers you criticise. Be direct, not allusive.
You seem to be saying that Priestley, who ought to know better, found a romanticised view of (particularly English?) rural life sufficiently attractive that he overlooked the opression historically involved. Or do you mean that he was deliberately colluding with the 'various interested organisations'?
Phrases like a clearly defined political and cultural purpose in the hands of various interested agencies are unclear. Why not just say what the purpose was, and who the agencies were? You're already making it clear whose view this is, so if you mean oppressive, or racist, or sexist, then just say so.
This ought to be a useful page, if it can focus on the movement (?) described by its title.
Fine. I accept your reductionist argument (bis). I still have better things to do than argue the toss. sjc
I have re-edited an earlier version of the article, which appears to describe a concept actually used in criticism: Google gives examples. I have tried to turn the rhetoric down a bit (actually, a lot), and edit for NPOV. I hope that in doing so I have not created any distortions of fact. And yes, more research is needed to make the article useful. The Anome
Google search gives about 85 hits for "Deep England" - about 40 are in the same usage as this article. So people are using this term, but it's pretty rare.
I'm not sure about the validity of this term as an encyclopaedia article. It appears to be an idiosyncratic term used by Robert Hewison and Angus Calder and few others as a criticism of Priestley.
Google hits: +"deep england" +"julian barnes" = 0 +"deep england" +utopian = 0 +"deep england" +"john major" = 1 (out of context) +"deep england" +"Angus Calder" = 2 +"deep england" +"Robert Hewison" = 3 +"deep england" +"J.B. Priestley" = 5 +"deep england" +"Rudyard Kipling" = 1 (out of context) +"deep england" +"Tolkien" = 0 +"deep england" +"Beatrix Potter" = 0
The term "Merry England" which has similar meanings deserves an article. Mintguy
Strongly recommend moving much of the above to Talk:Lord of the Rings and Talk:Tolkien.
Also consider role of C. S. Lewis, another notable Catholic Englander... like Tolkien he tended to see the enemy as TECHNOLOGY (note "the one ring" is a TECHNOLOGY, and the Orcs and Saruman are delighted/seduced by killing machines) - so most of the allegorical reads are just off the mark above.
This is certainly a real subject, with major importance in British culture and politics, even if "Deep England" might be the wrong title: possible alternative titles might be "Merrie England", or "English reactionary romanticism"?
There is most certainly a good article in here somewhere, but first we must give it a good NPOV kicking, and the benefit of some more research...
Who uses this term? Politicians? Literary critics?
by whom?
Mainly by people who do not subscribe to exclusive racist ideologies. sjc
self-identified? Or so described by whom?
This statement seems somewhat a) unsupported by reference experts, and b) under supported by reference to the works themselves.
It is hard for me to accept that Tolken's view of the "masses" is characterized by the orkish hoards. There are great cities which stand against Sauron, the dwarfish city of Moria is depicted as once great but fallen. Cities are not primarily the residences of evil, instead we find great evils living in the dark woods and underground. Much more would need to be said for me to accept the proposition that Tolken -- in spite of his own claims about his work -- was writing an allegory about the true meaning of England. Moreover, in the context of the article, there seems to be an attribution of racist ideology, which is also unsubstantiated in the case of the writers mentioned in the text itselv. I don't know much about Tolken, and Kipling, but IIRC, Blake was actively opposed to england's participation in the slave trade.
Most Men in Tolkien aren't wanderers--the Dunedain are specifically the emigres from foundered Numenor, and the Rangers are a small, specifically trained group within that. Men live in Bree, in Lake-town, in Rohan and Anorien.
The idea of orcs as "the masses" (not a concept I think Tolkien was much concerned with) seems pretty dubious: Tolkien said "I was an orc in the Great War." Orcs are the poor bloody infantry, taking orders and dying while others make the decisions. Vicki Rosenzweig
With all the due respect, Tolkien was strictly opposed to allegorical interpretation of his works (just read his Prologue to the Second Edition of the Lord of the Rings). So while it's possible to analyze the literary and psychological motives behind LoTR, I really doubt whether one can dig something conclusive out of it. This is reaffirmed by what I've read so far in this discussion. -- Uriyan
PPS: I just found this really nice piece of dissection by a truly intelligent writer of fantasy, Michael Moorcock, which strikes a chord with me:
Wouldn't it be useful simply to distinguish between Tolkien and Tolkien's work? Tolkien surely had his own views, some of which were expressed explicitly in print. But Tolkien's claimed intentions, or his own way of reading his work, is not quite the same thing as how others have read his work. It seems to me that regardless of Tolkien's intentions, many people have found reasons of their own to enjoy his books, and have found their own meaning in it. How other people have read and interpreted these books seems to me to be an entirely legitimate, and interesting, topic. All I am saying is that the two readings of the books need to be distinguished clearly,
SR
Removing this paragraph from the main page; perhaps it should be rewritten by someone who has read the works in question (destroyers of the rural lanes of the Shire? fair-haired elven master-race)?
That's fine, but not very relevant to this page. The trouble I find with the page as presently written is that it doesn't make it very clear what its subject is. Deep England is variously a vision, an ideological construct, a concept, a place in which J B Priestly could reside, and a perspective with proponents and opponents. The most important thing which I would like to see clarified is whether the various writers listed would have seen themselves as part of a school with something in common (and if so, what), or whether this school is identified by others. If the latter, is the school only identified by those critical of it? Is the term Deep England particularly used by those critical of it? Is the used for anyone who writes (or paints?) positively of rural England, or only those who combine this with a reactionary viewpoint?
As to Tolkien, I don't think it's controversial that he was deeply politically reactionary. But symbolic interpretations of literary works in ways that wouldn't be recognised by the author need a little more context than the psychohistory suggested above. I think there is something interesting to be written here, and I agree that the connections between Tolkien's racial mythology and the myths built on by the Nazi party for their own purposes go deeper than is often observed. If this John Carey is interesting, please write about him - but don't expect people to accept a point of view merely because it is propounded by a 'serious literary critic'. Many people so described don't actually read the works they criticise.
There's no need for this to be infinite regress. If the term is used in an incoherent manner, that's fine, but the explanation needs to be on the main page, not here.
What's missing from this page at present is the step between an artistic portrayal of an ahistorical rural idyll and the reactionary political points of view associated with it? Why (according to its critics) does this connection arise?
At the moment, this page has little more useful content than:
plus a pile of name-checks.
And don't fall into the trap of believing your enemies are stupid. Neither Priestly nor Kipling was a stupid person. Nor was Enoch Powell, come to that. Being clever and being correct don't automatically go together, right?
Fine. I accept your reductionist argument. I have better things to do than argue the toss. sjc
Me again: sjc writes "They were certainly not rational political animals, capable of running a computer... " The latter I'll grant you, but not the former. They have a higher tech than, for example, the writer who first claimed that Humans are political animals; about the same level as the writers of the US Constitution, or higher than that in the UK at the time of the Glorious Revolution. I'm unconvinced about "Deep England," but fairly sure that being agrarian doesn't mean people are politically unsophisticated.
I have trouble giving credence to Moorcock as an authority here, given that he blithely ignores the differences, *for story purposes*, that is, within the secondary creation that is Lord of the Rings, between magic and technology: he doesn't see why the good guys didn't take cannon up against Barad-dur, ignoring both the military strength of Sauron and the point that Gandalf and Elrond know that it wouldn't do any good, that the need is to destroy the Ring. (See Ansible 174, at http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/SF-Archives/Ansible/a174.html). Vicki Rosenzweig
Calder cites, amidst a myriad of examples, the city-bred northener J.B. Priestley who by inclination had become a denizen of Deep England What does this last mean? He was walking around in a vision?.
If you mean that, then say it. Yes, your page is difficult to comprehend. Please help to improve it. You're not just writing for an audience whose political views will match yours; people will read this page whose point of view is closer to that of the writers you criticise. Be direct, not allusive.
You seem to be saying that Priestley, who ought to know better, found a romanticised view of (particularly English?) rural life sufficiently attractive that he overlooked the opression historically involved. Or do you mean that he was deliberately colluding with the 'various interested organisations'?
Phrases like a clearly defined political and cultural purpose in the hands of various interested agencies are unclear. Why not just say what the purpose was, and who the agencies were? You're already making it clear whose view this is, so if you mean oppressive, or racist, or sexist, then just say so.
This ought to be a useful page, if it can focus on the movement (?) described by its title.
Fine. I accept your reductionist argument (bis). I still have better things to do than argue the toss. sjc
I have re-edited an earlier version of the article, which appears to describe a concept actually used in criticism: Google gives examples. I have tried to turn the rhetoric down a bit (actually, a lot), and edit for NPOV. I hope that in doing so I have not created any distortions of fact. And yes, more research is needed to make the article useful. The Anome
Google search gives about 85 hits for "Deep England" - about 40 are in the same usage as this article. So people are using this term, but it's pretty rare.
I'm not sure about the validity of this term as an encyclopaedia article. It appears to be an idiosyncratic term used by Robert Hewison and Angus Calder and few others as a criticism of Priestley.
Google hits: +"deep england" +"julian barnes" = 0 +"deep england" +utopian = 0 +"deep england" +"john major" = 1 (out of context) +"deep england" +"Angus Calder" = 2 +"deep england" +"Robert Hewison" = 3 +"deep england" +"J.B. Priestley" = 5 +"deep england" +"Rudyard Kipling" = 1 (out of context) +"deep england" +"Tolkien" = 0 +"deep england" +"Beatrix Potter" = 0
The term "Merry England" which has similar meanings deserves an article. Mintguy
Strongly recommend moving much of the above to Talk:Lord of the Rings and Talk:Tolkien.
Also consider role of C. S. Lewis, another notable Catholic Englander... like Tolkien he tended to see the enemy as TECHNOLOGY (note "the one ring" is a TECHNOLOGY, and the Orcs and Saruman are delighted/seduced by killing machines) - so most of the allegorical reads are just off the mark above.
This is certainly a real subject, with major importance in British culture and politics, even if "Deep England" might be the wrong title: possible alternative titles might be "Merrie England", or "English reactionary romanticism"?
There is most certainly a good article in here somewhere, but first we must give it a good NPOV kicking, and the benefit of some more research...