Did Tolkien Hate Shakespeare?

Tolkien was not the biggest fan of Shakespeare…but why? Today, I go through Tolkien’s issue with Shakespeare, and why it goes much deeper than differing morals.
*Support me on Patreon:* patreon.com/user?u=83474753
Donate to my tip jar: ko-fi.com/parttimehobbit12870
Follow me on Instagram: jess_of_the_shire
Contact me: [e-mail]
Sources: docs.google.com/document/d/1dly9VRedekqq-May4tV_r1tZt5dvVqfEPX_FFpM8oR8/edit?usp=drive_link
Music by Epidemic Sound. Check out my referral link here: share.epidemicsound.com/yz6hu0

[@calebleland8390]

I absolutely love Tolkien, but he was certainly firmly rooted in his ideas, and he was unbending in how he defined good fantasy. His crushing critiquing of his own friends, especially CS Lewis, shows that he had a mentality of "I know what's right and nobody else does". I feel like I would have loved to have heard him talk at length on the subject, but I'm certain that I would have had several arguments with the man. Great video!

[@JonBrase]

To be fair to Tolkien, I really like CS Lewis, but he really wasn't good at subtle worldbuilding or at borrowing from life or from earlier work in a smooth way. Many people have complained about how the religious themes in Chronicles of Narnia hit the reader over the head, but the same is true of the themes from Greco-Roman mythology: Jesus at least gets called "Aslan" and shows up as a lion, while *Bacchus*, of all people, shows up *as Bacchus* 😒.

[@Checkmate1138]

Tolkien would have been quite the Redditor 😂

[@Ned_of_the_Hill]

I think at least some of the witches' prophecies in "Macbeth" are tests of character, which Macbeth utterly fails. An alternate timeline could have King Duncan and his sons dying in battle or of disease; Macbeth then takes the throne without murder. Macbeth and his wife then have a daughter who marries Banquo's son; Macbeth wouldn't be the direct father of a king but the ancestor of many kings. Macbeth even considers this: "If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me. Without my stir." However, his ambition and unwillingness to wait drive him to disloyalty and cause his doom. This also reminds me of how Galadriel and Faramir are tempted by the Ring but can resist its lure, thus showing their true nobility.

[@brucealanwilson4121]

Lady Macbeth's father had been King Malcom's brother, so as her husband Macbeth would, if anything happened to Duncan and his sons, have a colorable claim to the throne. (That's why she hesitates to kill Duncan because he looks so much like her father---it was a family resemblance.)

[@MsJaytee1975]

@@brucealanwilson4121 In 11th century Scotland the maternal line also provided a claim to the throne.

[@MsJaytee1975]

The timeline where Duncan dies in battle is known as reality.

[@brucealanwilson4121]

@@MsJaytee1975 I know. That's why so many Scottish peerages can pass to a woman, while few English ones can.

[@honourabledoctoredwinmoria3126]

​@@MsJaytee1975 He died in battle against troops almost certainly sent by Macbeth. But it sounds like he brought it on himself, because he was invading Macbeth's lands.

[@finrod55]

As Tolkien said in some lectures and conversations (according to Shippey) a lot of what he regretted or “cordially disliked” about Shakespeare simply had to do with the Bard’s success. His presentation of Faerie, the operation of prophecy, etc was SO successful that trying to present a Tolkienian (or Dunsanian) view was a very difficult uphill battle: hard for some readers to grasp. Tolkien said he heard from people who had read and enjoyed The Hobbit and LOTR, yet who somehow persisted in the delusion that Legolas and Elrond (for example) were not man-sized but diminutive, despite what’s clearly written in Tolkien’s books. Such was the power of Shakespeare (and Spencer) to solidify a cultural image of Faerie. It was hard for JRR to overcome those misconceptions.

[@k0rppi259]

When Tolkien says he "cordially dislikes" it literally means "intensely dislikes". I realize that "cordially" by itself means "in a friendly way", but when talking specifically about disliking something it usually means "intensely". Tolkien, being a philologist, would definitely know and appreciate this.

[@father_flair]

Pretty sure "cordially" (like Cordellia) comes from Latin "cor", i.e. "heart." So I guess JRR had a hearty dislike?

[@fariesz6786]

there is an adorable and also bitter-sweet irony in that Tolkien's work, in its fleshed-out grandeur and - albeit embued with mythical aura - harsh definiteness, feels so much more cerebral and not quite filled with the childlike kind of wonder as the chaotic place of A Midsummer Night's Dream

[@trentonbuchert7342]

Writers can be playfully spiteful. For example, CS Lewis put a lamppost in Narnia specifically because Tolkien said such a thing didn’t belong in fantasy, or so I’ve heard.

[@spencerd6126]

I would love to take Tolkien to a modern production of Wicked and hear his thoughts. It certainly used the fantasy elements as part of a larger theme and hints and larger world building. It Lao has great stage effects which help, rather than hurt, the immersion. So I wonder if he would like it. I would guess probably not, but I would be very interested in hearing his thoughts on the matter

[@Jess_of_the_Shire]

Stage effects have definitely advanced! I think he would have been awed by it, but knowing how stubborn he was, he'd likely find something to pick on haha

[@marieroberts5664]

​@@Jess_of_the_Shireif he saw Aladdin, Army landlubber that he was, he'd likely complain of seasickness...

[@robofwonder]

He'd probably have hated how far from the book that the musical went.

[@Quirderph]

@@robofwonder Would that have been the book Wicked or the original The Wonderful Wizard of Oz?

[@robofwonder]

@@Quirderph Just from WIcked. Honestly, I much prefer the musical to the book. But I suspect Tolkein would not have agreed!

[@DiabeticAdventurer]

Hi there, I enjoyed the video, and have been a subscriber for some time. I thought I’d chime in. I’m a PhD student looking at Shakespeare’s oeuvre, generally as it is performed in the plays, through Tolkien’s lens of Faerie stories, to show that the plays are Fairy Stories, which render arts of enchantment. I’m glad to see that the theme resonates with your interest. My master’s thesis dove into the subject examining Hamlet’s purpose of playing in dialectic with On Fairy Stories’ purpose of true/ good fairy tales.

[@kenzodiaze....]

hey that's p interesting, thank you for sharing ur expertise!

[@Jess_of_the_Shire]

That sounds fascinating! Shakespeare's fantasy is such an interesting topic.

[@VerticalBlank]

Past tense of 'dive' is 'dived'. A 'dove' is a bird.

[@DiabeticAdventurer]

@@VerticalBlank while in England I would more often agree with you, however both are accepted, and North America uses dove more often.

[@marieroberts5664]

​@@DiabeticAdventurerand in American English, 'dove' as past tense of 'dive' rhymes with 'stove'. The bird rhymes with 'love'.

[@paulbrickler]

With regard to the witch-king's demise, I think it's worth noting that Merry, who struck the first blow, being a halfling, was also not considered a 'man' by the conventions of the day. So it was kind of a 'no-man-am-I' combo.

[@jimstock2054]

My favorite Shakespeare is the tempest since it was read to me in the 5th grade and I've seen it performed live several times. I also had the pleasure of seeing Sir Ian McClellan perform Richard III live from the second row about 30 years ago It was awesome.

[@timw8398]

Absolutely love the direction you're going with this, Jess! I always feel smarter after watching your videos. Both your creative and academic acumen are truly starting to shine through. Eagerly anticipating whatever is next!

[@johnsaporta4633]

(27:00) Fantasy vs realism and writing 400 years ago (unfair comparison). Thunderous point. Well done.

[@Hamokk]

I adore Tolkien but he had some snobbish qualities even later in life where he fixated in the use of language from other authors.

[@fallenhero3130]

There's definitely a Shakespeare influence on any modern author who sets a story in a medieval Europe setting (or fictional analog of it), whether consciously or subconsciously. Even a lot of the dialog in LOTR is very Shakespearean.

[@Treia24]

When a friend of mine played Rosalind in their late teens, the "costume change" between Rosalind mode and Ganymede mode was just tossing a codpiece on over a sundress, and it was AMAZING.

[@mechanicaldavid4827]

Tolkien forgot "what fools these mortals be" and went on to accuse drama of being silly. As for elemental power, I wonder about his take on Syccorax and Ariel, as well as Prospero's borrowing of their forces?

[@forgiven36511]

I would say that Tolkien dabbled a bit in this more ambiguous form of storytelling in works such as "Roverandom" and "Smith of Whooton Major". He he also delved heavily (though not too greedily or too deep) into allegory in "Leaf By Niggle". They are well worth a read if you haven't. Also, awesome video.

[@HughCStevenson1]

A fascinating reflection - thanks. I played Oberon when at university so have a particular interest! I love both Tolkein and Shakespeare. I hope I don't have to choose! :)

[@andeeanko7079]

Jess, this was fascinating and brilliant - in less than 30 minutes you really explored and explained not only the magic of theatre and how it's physical constraints make it different from books, but also how our psyche and the way we think is absolutely so different now than it was in Shakespeare's time and earlier. ❤

[@matthewlakes7780]

I really like your analysis of stories. My girlfriend and I have fallen asleep to your voice. Keep it up. It's fun to follow you in your interests. You're really good at this🙂 All best wishes to you and yours.

[@endymionredacted1304]

I can't help but see Tolkien's dismissal of Shakespeare as rooted in classism. The British upper classes are actually very quick to dismiss Shakespeare for reasons of his "background." Even fueling conspiracy theories that his plays were instead written by the members of the upper class that he spent time with.

[@hannahk.5500]

Whoa. I, admittedly, wasn't as exposed to Shakespeare growing up as many others, and had never thought of his works this deeply before. Looking forward to hearing more about those pre-Tolkienian fantasies, but I hope maybe you're able to focus on Shakespeare again sometime in another video too!

[@jamespfp]

10:00 -- RE: The Scottish Play; So Yeah, this is worth mentioning as an aside. "Macbeth" has been performed by theatrical troupes all over the world, *but the best Film version ever was done by?* A: Akira Kurosawa, in 1957's "Throne of Blood". Kurosawa makes several significant changes to the Play, including reducing the number of witches down to 1, and also making an effort to present the witch more like a Ghost than a living human at all. However, it is incredible how well the story can be re-interpreted for a feudal Japanese setting. Kurosawa did this with more than one play by Shakespeare. In the 1980s, he did an epic re-interpretation of "King Lear" called "Ran" (and this one is in color, too!), but *also* in 1957 he did a film called "The Lower Depths" based on the 1902 play by Maxim Gorky, and also set in feudal Japan. The two films from 1957 offer a pretty wide contrast between them. In many ways, I prefer "The Lower Depths" for its simplicity (most of the action occurs in a single ramshackle shed or the courtyard just outside of it) as well as its presentation of realistic human patterns of behavior. However, when it comes to "popcorn" pure entertainment value, special effects, and battle sequences, "Throne of Blood" wins.

[@jamespfp]

^^ Oh Yeah, why did this matter again? "Throne of Blood" is also known by a direct translation of the Japanese title, which was "The Spider Web Castle". Another of the changes that Kurosawa made was to give the Forest around "Spider Web Castle" more agency: it is full of hidden or secret pathways, it is inhabited by the spirit of the Ghost Witch, and if "it" wants you to get lost within it on the way to the Castle, you will. It's not quite "Ents" but it is a good part of the way towards the approach Tolkien took with LOTR. The inhabitants of the Castle, the nominal feudal Lord (analogous to the King) relies on the mysteries of the Forest around it to keep the Castle safe from attack by any army, until (of course) this assumption is proved to be a fallacy.

[@johnwalsh5393]

I was a bit disappointed that you didn't mention my favorite fantastic Shakespeare play, The Tempest!

[@patricksullivan6988]

Favorites: Tragedy - Hamlet Comedy - Much Ado about Nothing

[@masontrent5543]

Very interesting video! I remember doing a Shakespeare skit for school talent show. I was Puck and my friend was Peaseblossom. So much fun. Then at 17 I was very much drawn to Shakespeare’s works and various movies of them. Enjoyed that immensely! Now when I was younger my Dad used to recite the Misty Mountain poem to me from the Hobbit. And Gil Galadriel is an elven king… My family loved Tolkien. And my Dad even used to read the hobbit on fridays to one of his high school math classes for good behavior. I’ve read LOTR and seen the movies. One thing I wanted to address was Faeries and Elves and power. You mentioned power as in having control over others but I also remember reading somewhere that Tolkien contrasted the “magic of the elves” with the kind of magic Saruman and Sauron are using. I think he said something like the real magic or power of the elves was “their art.” I think that went beyond just beautifully crafting items but also the art of preservation such as the life in the elven forest but I know that’s tenuous because Galadriel was also using her ring to help keep the beauty within Lothlorien. Yet whether or not Rivendell or Lothlorien of the movies are as Tolkien imagined them…I think the artists on the film make those places blend harmoniously with the surroundings of nature. And to me THAT would be a Great Magic. And yes to be fair I’m perfectly aware other elves were drawn to power Feanor *cough* chuckle. And that Galadriel herself “passed the test.” But I had the impression Tolkien saw the Art of the elves as a higher magic. And meant to contrast that with the magic that seeks power. But to be fair Tolkien is as full of contradictions and moods and riddles as Gandalf the gray. :-)

[@corinnecivish7673]

Your description of losing oneself in a world that is only happening on stage, is so apt. It's what makes theater geekdom possible, and so wonderful. The ancient Greeks believed that theater had a supernatural ability to engage and "enthuse" (literally to "fill with spirit") an audience. Considering that books weren't widely available to any but the very richest people, until the mid-19th century, and that the novel as a literary genre didn't really come into being in the English world, until the later 18th century, oral story telling, songs and/or acting out stories, was all there was. And the more people you had around when it was being done really well, the more everyone was excited by it. I'm really surprised that Tolkien didn't appreciate the theater more.

[@rubenhinze7695]

It's pretty interesting, because I just finished watching a video about George R.R. Martin criticizing Tolkien's work because he didn't value the same things as Martin, and wondered why he was criticizing Tolkien over not writing what he wanted to write, but now I see that Tolkien did the exact same thing with Shakespeare. In the end I think every artist should just make the art they want to make and not criticize others for not making that art, because if they did, the new artist would have no reason to make the art because it had already been done.

[@NeroSparda99]

I mean George’s criticisms are incredibly silly though, and although Tolkien does suffer from the same issue of “his stuff isn’t like my stuff” Tolkien raised some points. When George suggested we should know what Aragorn’s tax policy was I laughed out loud

[@NeroSparda99]

Also George otherwise loves Tolkien and was directly inspired by him, Tolkien with Shakespeare? Not so much lol

[@Siegfried5846]

George R.R. Martin does not hold a candle to Tolkien. He is a slug. I don't like looking at him.

[@mattmorehouse9685]

@@NeroSparda99 Have you read Brett Devereaux's That Dothraki Hoard? Devereaux is a historian and says that Martin fundamentally misunderstood the steppe and plains people he supposedly based the Dothraki off of. Like how he has them eating horse meat as a staple, when steppe peoples' main food was mutton and plains people mainly ate bison. Devereaux also says that the Dothraki are culture less, aside from one song, their entire society is based on pillage, rape and murder.

[@yw1971]

11:26 - And also Merry the Hobbit, who is also no 'man' (Pippin said it on himself at the beginning of Vol 3).

[@johnweigel9761]

Jess, beware of the difference between "tenets" and "tenants." The one is a guiding principle, the other pays rent.

[@jessebechtold2973]

Love your analysis! To me it feels as if Tolkien, the master landscape painter found his pictures at odds with Shakespeare, a master portraitist.

[@Shadowace724]

Much Ado about Nothing would be my favorite play of the Bard. Sonnet 130 is by my favorite as well. Great video as always!

[@TheEvertw]

As a teacher of ancient literature, Tolkien must have been at least a bit fed up with Shakespeare. His field of expertise, and no doubt his passion, was WAY older than that. No doubt he felt that all the attention for Shakespeare detracted from what he felt must have been more deserving works. Oh, lovely speculation... But surely Tolkien must have made a conscious choice not to focus on The Bard, but on the work of _actual_ bards.

[@HughCStevenson1]

The Eowyn scene always gives me goosebumps!

[@pamdawkins13]

As a fan of both Shakespeare and Tolkien, I appreciated this very much. There is great value to Tolkien's beautifully in depth style of story-telling, but the same can be said of Shakespeare's style. I would argue that part of the reason they've both aged so well is because neither exclusively tied their work to a specific time in real world history. Yes, Tolkien had a highly detailed, very well thought out history in his books, but that history was separate from our own. Yes, Shakespeare did set his plays in specific times, but they're also written in such a way that they can be translated into other times. I've seen three versions of Much Ado About Nothing, and none of them were set in the time they had been written for. As a result, both are able to connect with people from incredibly different settings and times. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that setting a story in a particular historical time means it will age poorly, only that both of these authors used this dynamic to their advantage, intentionally or not. On a separate note, this comment section is a freaking gold mine.

[@Siegfried5846]

Wagner is another great one

[@pamdawkins13]

@@Siegfried5846 I don't know much about Wagner, but from what I do know... yeah, I can see it.

[@Siegfried5846]

@@pamdawkins13 Check out the Ring of the Nibelung. You can't really see any good productions in life unless you're very lucky, but the metropolitan opera put out a good one that Otto Schenk worked on. You can also look at Arthur Rackham's wonderful illustrations.

[@thegreatermysteries4134]

Interesting take! I think you've made a very interesting and compelling point with this video, but with due respect, as a former English instructor, I feel that it in someways misconstrues Tolkien's overall point in his later critiques of Shakespeare. It seems more likely that its less that he wanted people to know why he thought fantasy was better done it literature, I think, and more generally that he was correctly noting that Shakespeare's use of mythological symbolism was trite and an abuse of its intended philosophical/cultural purposes.

[@hamishl4498]

Thanks very much for this little gift to the world Jess. I thought the way you turned your expertise to develop this analysis was particularly clever and effective (I like Tolkien’s work very much, but it is - perhaps paradoxically- constrained by the 20th century world view of its creation. Shakespeare’s work on the other hand is still astonishingly timeless in a way that you could study and/or perform for a lifetime and still find generating new insights. And yes I agree with you, it is exactly because its inherent truth about the human condition constantly lives anew through the ephemeral medium of theatre and performance. Now THAT is real magic.)

[@cmschmidt]

Tolkien was many things, a good theatre critic was not one of them. I have two favorites from Shakespeare Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew. I stage managed Hamlet in college, keeping 20 yr old guys away from foils was… challenging. I have always wanted to play Kate in Taming. It would be so much fun!

[@st.anselmsfire3547]

"Wow, the new king is an idiot." "Let's make a play for him!"

[@chaosPneumatic]

I wonder what Tolkien might have thought of Magic Realism literature like Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Jorge Luis Borges. It would be interesting to know whether he was aware of it at all. I love Fantasy and the immersive worlds it creates but I also really love how Magic Realism can ignite as much wonder and mystery at the real world.

[@AnthonyAcriaradiocomix]

I know hed hate Italo Calvino, just on general principal.

[@WolfShadowwhisper]

What a beautifully crafted and informative video. As a fan of both Tolkien and Shakespeare myself this is mind candy. Thanks for your diligent work to entertain and educate. I am subscribing to your channel, I need more of this content in my life. My favourite Shakespeare plays are Macbeth and A Midsummer Night's Dream.

[@maracarlisle]

Tolkien didn't like someone??! Unbelievable!

[@JonathanRossRogers]

It sounds like one problem Tolkien had with stage performances was that they couldn't portray a fantasy realm well enough to suspend the audience's disbelief. He also didn't think that his stories could be adapted for the screen, which was true during his life. Jess has covered a bunch of screen adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, most of which fail miserably. I like to think that Tolkien would have recognized the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings trilogy as successful adaptations, though I'm sure he'd have objected to certain changes.

[@d.edwardmeade3683]

@26:00 These next two minutes are such a good perspective. Well explained!! 👍

[@Radien]

Many of the people whose creations we love nevertheless hated the works of *other* people whose creations we loved. We'd better start consolidating our feelings on this right away if we haven't already, because it will definitely continue.

[@kevinsullivan3448]

My Freshman year we read both The Hobbit and Romeo and Juliet in English class.

[@benjaminbrewer2569]

Dear Jess, Sometimes you ask for suggestions. Here are two I would love to see. A deep dive into Joan of Ark. Mark Twains Joan of Ark is a lovely read. Bernard Shaws Play is awesome and there’s a few movies including an old silent film. Secondly, I believe you will love Puck of Pooks hill by Rudyard Kipling. It’s another book I wonder if Tolkien read. The basic story is two children get introduced by Puck to various historical characters from England. The characters tell their own stories so we get a fun history of the country. Theres a second book in this series called Rewards and Fairies. Also lovely to read. Thanks. I enjoy everything you make.

[@jessicascoullar3737]

I saw an interview with George R. R. Martin criticising Tolkein as a bad writer because the politics in Lord of the Rings wasn’t like the politics in Game of Thrones and seemingly not realising that it isn’t because Tolkein didn’t understand real world politics but because that wasn’t the type of book Tolkein was trying to write. I thought Martin very arrogant for criticising another author for not writing exactly the same way he did. Funny to see Tolkein doing the same with Shakespeare.

[@genghisgalahad8465]

It's Tolkien ("I before E Except after C") Spelling aside, yes, Martin who hasn't yet written his last book is criticizing the world made by the guy who started it all and JRRT who actually finished his work, unlike GRRM.

[@jessicascoullar3737]

@@genghisgalahad8465 ahh, my dyslexia strikes again. I don’t know why my brain has so much trouble with ie/ei arrangement but I can’t seem to get it right.

[@d.edwardmeade3683]

Fantastic deep dive!! Very much enjoyed this 👍 .... I appreciate the time and effort you put into this! Thank you for sharing!! 😁❤

[@thepaulwalkerexperience8727]

20:23 "They pull the strings behind the scenes..." Haha nice. Mind if I steal that for my own fantasy writing?

[@marieroberts5664]

Jess, I would posit that Shakespeare took a shortcut when it came to world building. The settings of his plays are all in his and his audience's version of (Middle) Earth. He does set a lot of his plays somewhere in Italy, Verona seems to be his go to vacation spot, while his historical plays are supposed to be in the country of origin... Caesar's Senate is definitely in Rome, while Cleopatra and the asp are somewhere in Egypt, and the Danes have just come back from fighting in Poland? So no need to reinvent the wheel, but as you said, the play was the thing, not the setting. For Tolkien, Arda itself, and Middle-earth in particular, was more than setting, it was a character, and brought a feeling that it was both fantastic and familiar "you speak of the green earth...a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it lightly under the light of day". I wish that you had identified the actors...Denzel Washington should still be recognizable to younger folk, but I bet more than a few couldn't quite place our own Gandalf, Sir Ian McKellen.

[@boogerie]

Tolkein didn't hate Shakespeare--or Drama. Tolkein hated modernity--and maybe the late Medieval period

[@milfredcummings717]

Shakespeare was too modern for him. ☺

[@chronoscat3371]

I haven't had much chance to see live theater, but I love televised theater as well as movies and TV with a theatrical feel. I find it interesting Tolkien felt creating a secondary world in theater was a step too far; while suspension of disbelief may take a bit more imagination when costumes/sets/effects aren't entirely realistic, I find putting in that effort as an audience member makes me feel more connected to the play/movie/show. It's also fun, like playing pretend as a kid.

[@MrStroodle]

Othello is my favorite work of Shakespeare’s. I love how realistic it is

[@stuartdryer1352]

Judging Shakespeare on the basis of only his works that have supernatural elements -- witches and fairys and such -- is not sufficient to "cordially dislike" him. But if your main tool is a hammer (building secondary worlds) everything you see is a nail. I love Tolkein but he was maybe a lousy literary critic.

[@bsa45acp]

It is really unfair (if that is the proper word) to compare Shakespeare and Tolkien as one was an extraordinary master of the english language from 400+ years ago and the other was of the modern age whose style is almost classical biblical prose across time. Shakespeare is timeless, if Julius Caesar be performed as it was back in the 1600s or with actors in German Nazi uniforms against a backdrop of a brick wall or as a classic rendition of Midsummer Night's Dream performed in an outdoor theater in the woods on a midsummer eve or Taming of the Shrew performed by campy and talented male drag queen actors, which by the way was absolutely hilarious. Shakespeare spans the ages but Tolkien defines a specific age lost in the group collective subconscious, Both author's are to be celebrated for their genius of the English language, however both arise from different ages of history and should never be compared one to the other. Honor both for what they have given us and leave it at that.

[@colindunnigan8621]

It's okay, William, Tolkien was savaged by his share of critics: Harold Bloom found his prose "stiff" and "false archaic," while Edmund Wilson dismissed the Lord of the Rings as "juvenile trash." I fear that Bloom's criticism has some merit. "In the Houses of the Healing," Aragorn spends so much time talking about his lineage, one wonders where he found time to heal people (okay, okay, maybe he did most of the pontificating while they were out searching for Athelas). Aragorn seems particularly susceptible to this florid dialogue. In The Two Towers, he yammers on about having to part with his sword so much that I would not have been surprised that the instant after he entered Theoden's hall, one of the guardsmen said to the other: "Fetch a bunch of grapefruits Bothius, I wanna see how sharp this Wonderblade here is...." Yes, I know, I'm going to Udun for saying these things, to be tormented by Balrogs for all eternity... And I like Tolkien!

[@CAP198462]

My favourite Shakespeare play, Henry V, It’s just so quotable. I used quotes from it all the time in school papers.

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

Once more unto the breach

[@lizsmith9873]

I am a huge Shakespeare fan. I love his plays and poetry. One of my fondest memories is a visit to Stratford and singing with a player 'Sigh no more,' from Much Ado About Nothing. I don't think the people listening think back on it fondly, I am a terrible singer but I did know the song. My favourite play is King Lear, I love that play...I've seen it about 10 times. Both on TV and live. I also love Tolkien, I've read the books about 8 times and lost count of the times I watched them. I think that both Tolkien and Shakespeare are towering figures in Western literature. The third giant in Western literature is of course Jane Austin.

[@stellagetreuer5164]

Thank you for this video. I very much agree with you on Shakespeare. I always roll my eyes a bit at Tolkien’s rants on him (though it is also borne of the literary landscape he grew up in and where he established his wholly new approach to creating fantasy). Still, Tolkien’s dislike of Shakespeare’s interpretation of fairy brought us Melian, who is my favorite chatacter by far (well, both she and Thingol). So I won’t complain 😂

[@alexabney7913]

Shakespeare is definitely legendary but he can NOT be extricated for his penchant for god damn meming (meme-ing) on all of us. Shakespeare memes and Tolkien themes lol

[@Nibelheim1989]

TBF, Tolkien disliked and hated A LOT of things.

[@user-martinpd]

I think on those fairies Don, Hill, Jr. And the Black Pill- where are their funerals?

[@apm77]

I have a time travel fantasy based on the idea that if Shakespeare met a time traveller he would be curious about developments in story telling beyond his lifetime, and as for the evolution of the English language, would be smart enough to figure most things out from context well enough to get the gist. With that in mind, imagine lending Shakespeare a copy of _The Hobbit_. What do you think he would say in his review?

[@stefanlaskowski6660]

"Shallow, predictable story line, clearly written for children. The use of Norse names for the dwarves and wizard was particularly egregious." 😉

[@thomaskalinowski8851]

If you're looking for non-Tolkien fantasy I've got a fairly obscure example for you: The Well of the Unicorn by Fletcher Pratt. It's got a Tolkien-style secondary world where magic works, though it was published several years before LotR. It also has a surprising number of queer characters for a book published in 1948. As for my favorite Shakespeare play, I've always been fond of the BBC's 1983 version The Comedy of Errors with Roger Daltry as the Dromios.

[@thecascade1440]

Tolkien wrote epic fantasy and he could be pompous about it. I always found C.S. Lewis more relatable despite preferring Middle Earth over Narnia. Shakespeare wrote plays that were like soap operas. Crude, dramatic, and nonsensical. It doesn’t have to make sense it just has to entertain. I know he wrote plays and poetry but I always saw Shakespeare as a trashy romance novelist of his day. If he were alive today I would expect something like Twilight from him. I don’t think he would stand out today in a world oversaturated with entertainment.

[@johnmeyer2072]

Sorry, I had another paragraph!!! Tolkien, like Shakespeare, was reacting to something as well, although in a sense he was driven by what he saw as the the logical conclusion of scientific rationalism: The ugliness and even horror of the Industrial Revolution as embodied in the factories popping up in the pristine English countryside and his own personal experience of WWI. As you suggested, it's one leader of a major literary genre critiquing another leader of a major, but entirely DIFFERENT, genre. An apple criticizing an orange for not being an apple, but for a deeper reason than just that (an orange tree farmer cutting down an apple orchard he can plant more orange trees).

[@RomanII1997]

From what I know about literature, many authors, in their time, developed their own style and poetology by heavily criticizing some of their predecessors.

[@allisongliot]

I think Tolkien was limited by the fact that he loved books so much that he had trouble appreciating the strengths of other storytelling media (like theater, and you’ve also discussed his harsh opinions on film before). Nothing wrong with loving books, but I also want to be open to different and new ways of telling stories beyond my usual preferences.

[@georgemoore-wg5jj]

Hi

[@lProN00bl]

So basically Tolkien is mad Shakespear revealed to him magic was not real and he does not like tonal inconsistency even when it is intentional. A dude that can't stand writing styles that are not his own. Also you can figure out how MacBeth dies if you just know C-Sections. So there is that.

[@Thraim.]

I'm not terribly surprised, someone who worked on the dictionary and was a professor of Anglo-Saxon would have a few choice words for the Bard.

[@jimsteele9559]

Good to see a Shakespeare fan among young people. Good talk.

[@benzell4]

P.S. Having finished the vid... I am fairly certain that Puck does use an ‘herb,’ as directed by Oberon... Thereby, solidifying an earthly bound,’ for such fantasy in the story!

[@aleksanderuzelac3319]

Am sorry but Shakespeare the playwright from a historical perspective likely didn't even exist and whose work is overrated. If you're interested in the authorship question, I recommend Mark Twain's book on the subject.

[@stefanlaskowski6660]

Although I've tried repeatedly over the years to read Shakespeare's plays, I just can't enjoy that format. On the other hand, I absolutely ❤️LOVE❤️ watching his plays being performed on stage or on the big screen.

[@jenneacubero1036]

If this wa show Tolkein felt about Oberon and Titannia than I fear as to how he'd view Jareth. Then again, considering the fact that Jareth can change time, teleport and wield dreams, Tolkein would probably (?) be more merciful.

[@markusrobinson3858]

Perhaps I miss-rember, but I believe that at one point you commented that you feel uncomfortable doing criticism, and so that you "restrict myself to analysis." This video, by a self-described huge fan of Tolkien, is brilliant, insightful, and frankly somewhat damning both of Tolkien's blinders about the varied natures of mythology, and his narrow-mindedness with respect to theater as an art form. You make your case respectfully and forcefully. And I fully agree with it. This video does another thing however, it clearly establishes you not as a 'fan-boy' (yes I know, fan-girl) but as a thoughtful fan of everything that Tolkien gets right in his own fantasy writing. Well done! So... please, please, when appropriate be a critic of the artists, directors, stylists, whaterver, that portray Tolkien or Herbert or whomever. Don't underrate your capacity to do that well.

[@Pingwn]

I used to have very similar opinions to Tolkein, even before I knew about him. I wanted fantasy to feel real, magic is unambiguously true and the secondary world the author created may not exist, but it could have. It's consistent and makes sense. But I learnt to appropriate different types of stories, ones where magic is less clearly real or the world isn't as detailed or makes sense because it isn't always what matters. Admittedly the stage is not my favourite form of art, but I know today this is just my personal preference and not a fundamental objective fact about art.

[@lostcauselancer333]

James I also believed that his house was descended from Banquo.

[@hen-riches5531]

Beautiful video and the way you explained it was poetic at the least. thanks now i see where both men were coming from. it is a question of perspective on each end.

[@winterburden]

I heard Shakespeare hated Tolkien too.

[@PrincessOzaline]

I think an interesting point of comparison is L Frank Baum's Oz books. He had powerful Fairies, and maps, and world building with an interconnected universe of all his fantasy books. He even had the conceit that he was a historian presenting the real history of a real place. But he'd also unapologetically retcon things... Was Ozma the daughter of the previous King of Oz or a fairy left behind at Oz's creation? Did the Wizard create the Emerald City or had it always been there? You kinda have to pick or try to synthesize the answers to those, because they're all in the books.

[@MsJaytee1975]

So, I really hate MacBeth, it’s the 17th century equivalent of Braveheart in my opinion. That will inform the rest of my comment. Also this is a general response to every person I’ve ever heard say that MacBeth was written for James VI That Shakespeare set a play in Scotland to sook up to James VI I get, but I never understood why James would’ve been impressed with a play which is a garbage retelling of Scottish history. The murder replaces an actual battle in real life, and the play doesn’t have the real life third act twist: although MacBeth was killed in battle by Duncan’s son Malcolm, MacBeth’s stepson Lulach got to Scone first, so he was crowned as king and actually reigned for about a year before he was killed in battle by Malcolm. Also MacBeth was a decent king and reigned for 17 years, why Shakespeare chose him I don’t know, he could’ve chosen Alexander II, then all the torture and murder is there, or Robert the Bruce, he murdered someone in a church. I don’t thinkJames be impressed with witches who do nothing, in reality he thought they were the epitome of evil. In Scotland he set in motion witch-hunts that would lead to the torture and execution of around 2500 people, mostly women, in Scotland over 140 years. The first major trial of witches was the North Berwick with trial and James was literally involved in interrogating one of those convicted. If Shakespeare really understood James the witches would be the main villain. I do think James would like the rampant misogyny. There’s literally no historical evidence for any part of Lady MacBeth’s character, which I think is evidence itself that she wasn’t evil, but Shakespeare takes everything away from the real life woman, motherhood, that she married her first husband’s killer, even her name, and replaces it with an evil crazy lady. I’ve no evidence for this but I’ve always presumed Shakespeare and his company couldn’t pronounce Gruoch, so she became Lady MacBeth. Useless trivia: Thane only became a title used in Scotland in the 12th century, in MacBeth’s time no-one was Thane of anywhere.

[@willmassey-x9z]

Technically i think that what Tolkien was talking about that the idea mythology has to be a part of fantasy storytelling because that factors in the idea folklore based on the principles of what he calls faery stories but for William Shakespeare what was the beef that Tolkien had about him was that he to much of a modernist with his ideas of rationalism of the mondain world and in which based on his religious faith which plays into his work of medieval fantasy

[@--..-...-..-.--....]

What is the music playing in the very beginning? It's so familiar but i can't place it😭

[@RandomRhyme]

1700 invented words? rookie numbers ^-^

[@AdDewaard-hu3xk]

So, Prospero is not Gandalf, Ariel not Galadriel, and Caliban, all right, stretching here, not Gimli. Ill now have to read MsN'sDream. I think JRRT really had an issue with whatever dramatic productions he saw.

[@RingsLoreMaster]

He also found cricket a challenge to watch, never mind cheering on one side of the other.

[@TimvanderLeeuw]

I did not study English beyond the equivalent of highschool and I really do not know much about Shakespeare, nor was I aware of Tolkien's dislike of Shakespeare and drama, but I really enjoyed your analysis and the parallels between some storylines in Tolkien's work and MacBeth. Now that makes me wonder, are you familiar with the books of Terry Pratchett, and what do you think of how he used some of Shakespeare's dramas as inspiration for his stories, in particular MacBeth in Wyrd Sisters and of Midsummer Night's Dream in Lords & Ladies. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that, if you have any, although of course that is outside the scope of Tolkien!

[@Frank_D]

The problem with prophesy is that it's not always clear. Often the prophet is tasked with interpreting vague words and/or obscured visions to try to suss out a meaning. In my opinion, the seeming impossibility having a practical solution is very satisfying, and further demonstrates the unreliability of prophesy. If a watcher is fooled by the army's camouflage, then surely witches who are presumably not versed in the ways of war, would be fooled as well. Using a creature like an Ent as a solution feels like it would be cheating. To Tolkien's credit, the Eowyn solution is a better solution than the reveal that MacDuff being born by c-section, and not being "born" in the traditional sense.

[@justincurll1110]

I wish Tolkien had expressed his thoughts on William Blake.

[@joseluisdevinalsruiz7954]

Hi Jess, I believe I can help to clarify this; Tolkien was a strict Catholic with a very defined set of principles and cosmo-vision. Shakespeare's works offer a different world view that is often despised by religious authors as Tolkien. Tolstoy also depised Shakespeare, and if you check Orwell's essay about the Tolstoy vs Shakespeare matter (if you have not read it yet, available on the internet) you will see, in my opinion, a perfect explanation on this. By the way, I am a practicing catholic but I disagree with Tolkien here.

[@nebojsag.5871]

The more of your videos I watch, the more I realize that Tolkien prized world-building above every other aspect of fiction and therefore "cordially disliked" any piece of writing that prioritized anything else whatsoever.

[@masontrent5543]

Have you ever read Charles Delint? More urban fantasy. You mentioned that bit about separating reality and fantasy a little bit. There is a character in Charles Delint books, who throws this upside down even though it’s a modern urban fantasy (well at least circa 1990s) Jilly Coppercorn is a young talented artist and painter. (20s-30s maybe) So some other character makes the point that there is a line between what is real and what is not real. And without missing a beat Jilly says something like “The line between what is real and not real is also an imaginary line.” Found that to be very interesting.

[@HrothgarTheSaxon]

Favourite Shakespeare? 🤔 "Hot potato, off his drawers, pluck to make amends"

[@cjb_writings]

I can sympathise with Tolkien here. Every class I took at uni that covered Shakespeare in someway would inevitably cover Hamlet. It's safe to say I'm not a big fan of Hamlet...

[@patricktilton5377]

Tolkien's beef with Shakespeare in regards to the latter's dramatization of Fantasy is one thing, but the quote given at 2 minutes in is in regards to the AUTHORSHIP of the Shakespeare canon: ". . . while in a debate about the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, he 'poured a sudden flood of unqualified abuse upon Shakespeare, upon his filthy birthplace, his squalid surroundings and his sordid character." Many MANY educated people have questioned whether or not the William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon was actually the "VVilliam Shake-speare" whose name appeared on the narrative poems first (VENUS AND ADONIS and LUCRECE) and then on quarto editions of certain plays -- with many of the quartos being published anonymously, without the name 'Shakespeare' attached to them. People who began to question the Stratfordian Theory of 'Shakespeare' sought out an alternative candidate for the laurels, with 19th Century Anti-Stratfordians gravitating to Francis Bacon being the Bard, due to the fact that the Plays were replete with expert knowledge of the Law. Other candidates were offered as possibilities, from Marlowe to the Earl of Derby to Dyer, etc. etc. But it wasn't until 1920 that the name of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford was rescued from oblivion by a Sherlockian sleuth -- an English teacher named John Thomas Looney -- that the 'Oxfordian' Theory was begun. Lord Oxford is, by far, the most likely candidate for the laurels of 'Shakespeare', with the vast majority of 'Post-Stratfordians' being Oxfordians. I don't know who Tolkien may have believed to be the true author of the Shakespeare canon, but he wasn't alone in decrying the facts known about the man named William Shakspere, born in 1564 in Stratford. He was known, according to extant records, of having hoarded grain during a famine, and his own daughters remained illiterate. Hardly the type of man one would associate with the works depicting intelligent women of consequence in the Age of Elizabeth.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

You've been corrected on these lies so many times, yet you continue to spew them. Why is that?

[@patricktilton5377]

@@Jeffhowardmeade You're a Stratfordian. Stratford-upon-Avon makes millions and millions every year in tourism money. All on a lie. The Stratfordian Shakspere-as-'Shakespeare' industry is the biggest red herring in history -- and I believed it, such as it was, up until I was about 25 years old, because I didn't know any better, because every Shakespeare text used in my schooling -- from Junior High through College -- was edited (with written introductions) by Stratfordians who trotted out the same line of presumptuous bullshit they've been spewing ever since the Stratfordian Myth was first celebrated in 1769 by David Garrick et al. It wasn't until I chanced upon books advocating the Anti-Stratfordian theories, back in 1990, that I began to see how full of shit the Strats were. Lord Oxford was a flawed man, no doubt about it, and he pilloried himself for those flaws when he portrayed versions of himself both in whimsical Comedies and in trenchant Tragedies -- writing under the pseudonym 'VVilliam Shake-speare'. I became an Oxfordian 33 years ago, and everything I've learned about the case since then -- and more and more about it is being discovered by researchers every year -- has only bolstered my basis for belief that Edward de Vere was the genius behind the 'Shakespeare' works. He was able to give voice to aristocrats because he was, himself, an aristocrat, born to wealth and prestige due to the accident of his birth to the 16th Earl of Oxford. The Shakespeare plays reek of class-snobbery, with the contrast between what is 'noble' and what is 'base' being an ever-present theme throughout the works. Nowhere does 'Shakespeare' trumpet a fanfare for the Common Man -- being 'common' is an INSULT in the mouth of Hamlet. I wasn't born to great wealth or 'aristocratic' pedigree. When going to college, I had to work a full-time job just to pay my bills -- unlike the Privileged Class which could skate through life not having to worry about a paycheck-to-paycheck grind. 'Shakespeare' had to have acquired his extensive education from SOMEWHERE -- and that included access to Books and Manuscripts which weren't available to the Masses, as well as the time to read them. Edward de Vere had PRIVATE TUTORS who could teach him one-to-one, rather than him being just one student out of dozens, as would have been Shakspere's experience at the Stratford Grammar School (assuming he actually attended it, there being no evidence that he ever did). 'Shakespeare' had to have known enough Latin AND Greek AND Italian AND French to have been able to read all the various sources which were made use of by the true Author. Only the very best of educations could have afforded someone to have been able to do what 'Shakespeare' did -- and that rules out Shakspere. The ONLY reason that ANYBODY believes that Shakspere was Shakespeare is because the true Author -- Edward de Vere -- acceded to the plan that would seemingly credit the man Shakspere (whose actual name bore a similarity to Oxford's pseudonym) with the laurels. The ambiguous references to a "Stratford moniment" and to Shakespeare being the "Sweet Swan of Auon," coupled with the erection of the Shakspeare MONUMENT in the Holy Trinity Church -- as well as after-the-fact interlineations in Shakspere's will by another hand -- are all the evidence, such as it is, that Shakspere was 'Shakespeare'. Well, Time has already 'dissolved' that Stratford moniment, in that Alexander Waugh has decrypted what that Monument actually says (it's all about where the true Shakespeare ended up being buried: at Westminster in Poets' Corner near 'judicious' Beaumont, Chaucer, and the 'English Virgil' Spenser). And 'Avon' was what Camden wrote Hampton Court was nicknamed, the place where "Eliza and our James" saw Shakespeare's plays performed, on the banks of the Thames. Oh, and it was Ben Jonson who actually wrote the epistles supposed to have been penned by Heminges and Condell for the Folio. The same Folio re-uses a 'header' (for both the 'CATALOGVE' Page and for Page 1 of "THE TEMPEST") that had originally been used as the 'footer' for the title page of Thomas Watson's "THE HEKATOMPATHIA, or Passionate Centurie of Loue" -- a book dedicated to Edward de Vere -- which has in it Calygreyhounds as heraldic motifs, symbols unique to the Vere family. Of ALL the headers the Shakespeare Folio's editors could have chosen from to use more than once to prettify its pages, they chose the ONE header that absolutely SCREAMS that Edward De Vere was the man -- as long as one had eyes to see what was there all along to be seen, except by the willfully blind, following after their Red Herring. The only 'answers' that Stratfordians have to all this is either Silence or hogwash.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@patricktilton5377 So you have immunized yourself against logic and evidence. Got it. Don't worry. I don't expect you to ever regain your senses. I just enjoy picking low-hanging fruit. So, as you were.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

@@patricktilton5377 And just for the record, and because I'm bored right now, let's go though all the claims you've made which you've either been unable to back up with evidence in the past or have been shown conclusive evidence to be false. "... the Plays were replete with expert knowledge of the Law." In the entire Shakespeare canon, there is only one courtroom scene, in The Merchant of Venice, and it's a total farce. It gets Venice wrong, and it gets the law wrong. Shakespeare knew just enough about the law to make fun of it. Go ahead. Prove me wrong with actual evidence, not that 19th Century quote from Greenwood. "I don't know who Tolkien..." You don't know that Tolkien was even a Shakespeare denier. He never said so. Tolkien was devoutly religious, and is likely to have thought the inventor of the yo mama joke to be a sordid character. Tolstoy thought the same of Shakespeare. "He was known, according to extant records, of having hoarded grain during a famine." No, he wasn't. The 1598 survey of householders found that he was tied for 17th place (yes, it's just a coincidence) in the amount of malt he possessed, despite having the second largest house in town. The amount of malt he held was about enough to keep half a dozen supplied with beer (the most common drink in an age of tainted water) until the next harvest. "...and his own daughters remained illiterate." Spectacularly untrue, and you've been shown the evidence many times before. "You're a Stratfordian." No, I'm a Shakespearean. "Lord Oxford was a flawed man, no doubt about it..." Finally you wrote something that is true! "... and he pillioried himself for those flaws..." Well that didn't last long. If there were any connection at all between the plays and Edward De Vere, it would be far more believable that someone else was pillorying him than that an earl (when are they addressed as "Lord"?) who was famously pompous and arrogant, would do so to himself. "He was able to give voice to aristocrats..." As was every other poet of the era. Marlowe, son of a shoemaker, did just fine at it. "The Shakespeare plays reek of class-snobbery..." Yes, MIDDLE class. His clowns are all low class and regularly make fun of the high born. He has Henry V hanging with his common soldiers. "...being "common" is an INSULT in the mouth of Hamlet." Feel free to cite that one. "...had to have acquired his extensive education from SOMEWHERE -- and that included access to Books and Manuscripts which weren't available to the Masses..." What are these restricted books and manuscripts, pray tell? Also, what's with the weird capitalization? This isn't the 17th Century. "...had to have known enough Latin AND Greek AND Italian AND French to have been able to read the various sources..." Aside from Ben Jonson saying that Shakespeare had exactly the amount of Latin and Greek one typically learned at a grammar school, there's the matter of Richard Field. Son of a poor tanner, he left Stratford in possession of enough Latin, French, Italian AND Spanish to get an apprenticeship with a polyglot printer in London. He went on to print all of Shakespeare's narrative poetry. But since you brought it up, why don't you tell us which Greek Shakespeare sources hadn't already been translated? "The ONLY reason that ANYBODY believes..." Here we go again with you forgetting the copious amount of contemporary references to Shakespeare the poet as also being an actor and a gentleman, the many play references to people, places, and events in Stratford, his association with the company with exclusive right to perform his plays, the many contemporary references which appear in the plays post-1604, and the fact that nobody ever said Shakespeare was anyone else. "And Avon was what Camden wrote Hampton Court was nicknamed..." No, Camden did not. In a footnote, he mentioned that Leland said it was once called Avon. Leland is the only source for the claim, and there's no record of anyone else ever referring to the place as Avon. "...the place where "Eliza and our James" saw Shakespeare's plays performed..." There's no record of a Shakespeare play ever being preformed at Hampton Court. Anyway, for the Sweet Swan of Avon to "appear in our waters", it would have to be coming from somewhere else, not just upriver. "Oh, and it was Ben Jonson who actually wrote the epistles..." Evidence, please, not just more of your wild assertions. "The same Folio re-uses a 'header'..." The same header used in lots of different books, and one of several used in the Folio. So if that's all you've got, yeah, you're chasing phantoms.

[@Jeffhowardmeade]

And because I'm a Tolkien fan as well, I just pulled up the Humphrey Carpenter biography and found the full quote. "Ronald was now supposed to be working for an Oxford scholarship, but it was hard to concentrate on classical texts when one half of his mind was occupied with language inventing and the other with Edith. There was also a new attraction for him at school: the Debating Society, highly popular with the senior boys. He had not yet spoken in debate, perhaps because of his still-squeaky adolescent voice and his reputation, already acquired, as an indistinct talker. But this term, spurred on by a new-found confidence, he made his maiden speech on a motion supporting the objects and tactics of the suffragettes. It was judged a good effort, though the school magazine thought that his talents as a debater were 'somewhat marred by a faulty delivery'. In another speech, on the motion (probably of his own devising) 'That the House deplored the occurrence of the Norman Conquest', he attacked (so the magazine reported) 'the influx of polysyllabic barbarities which ousted the more honest if humbler native words'; while in a debate upon the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, he 'poured a sudden flood of unqualified abuse upon Shakespeare, upon his filthy birthplace, his squalid surroundings, and his sordid character." -- J.R.R. Tolkien, a Biography by Humphrey Carpenter, William Morrow (2001). He was taking part in a school DEBATE. He had no control whatsoever over which side he got to argue.

[@jimluebke3869]

"Theater is hostile to fantasy" -- All of the following animated fantasy features were released before _The Lord of the Rings_ Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) Pinocchio (1940) Fantasia (1940) Dumbo (1941) Bambi (1942) The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949) Cinderella (1950) Alice in Wonderland (1951) Peter Pan (1953) It seems to me that animation transcended the boundaries that Tolkien decried.

[@PJ818]

My favorite Shakespeare play is Twelfth Night: Or What You Will. I've dabbled in reading some George MacDonald, and it is interesting to see what 19th century British fantasy was like. It is interesting to see late 20th/early 21st century takes on that sort of fantasy, with interpretations like Neil Gaiman's in Stardust, or Susanna Clark's Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. I love Tolkien; but he could be an intractable opinionated curmudgeon, though he is our intractable opinionated curmudgeon. He was a little too consumed with Viking sagas and the Icelandic Eddas, where fantasy and the real world went hand in hand, rather than the more Celtic/British fairy relms separated a veil away from the real world. I see the value of both sorts of stories, and can't say one is empirically better than the other, and subjectively both have their place. I love your point on the historical context of James I of England/James VI taking the throne and his anti-witch policies. He is also behind the King James Bible, wanting a wholly English translation of the Bible. Shakespeare did well to cater to the new monarch's world view.

[@GravesRWFiA]

but in JRR's RotK Theoden leads the Rohirim towards the Pelanor upon St Crispin's day McBeth= lord of the nazgul? "I am no man!" my fav' part of that story-but Merry is no MAN either we with 3 or 4 foils ridiculous...Agincourt

[@RingsLoreMaster]

In the story, of course hobbits were not men. Yet, perhaps you know of Tolkien's identifying himself with hobbits? So much so that in one letter he wrote, "I am a hobbit." For whatever that is worth.

[@Kuudere-Kun]

I'm a Tolkien fan for various conceptual reasons but I actually don't like Tolkien's actual writing. A lot of Anime retains that old pre-modern refusal to distinguish between science and magic.