Tolkien and Shrek
Reclaiming the Realm of Faërie for the Modern World
What’s up Tolkien Poppers!
This is one I’ve been meaning to get to for awhile now, but I am excited to finally share with you some thoughts I’ve had on Shrek, Tolkien, and fantasy in general. While all of us probably know every word to All Star by Smashmouth and can quote Donkey lines at command, I hope to show that Shrek has some important things to say about fantasy and the traditional stories surrounding heroes and the slaying of monsters. So, please keep your feet off the grass, shine your shoes, and wipe your face as we get into the not so perfect place of Duloc and its usage of fairy tales.
This post is brought to you by Theology Beer Camp: The Return of the God-Pods. This October 17-19 in Denver, CO you can come hang out with me and a bunch of other nerdy friends and talk Tolkien and other aspects of theology and philosophy. If you want to day drink and talk Tolkien, you can use code TOLKIENRING at checkout for $50 off your ticket for Theology Beer Camp 2024: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/theology-camp-the-return-of-the-god-pods-tickets-824208298207
Now onto the rest of the article!
In medieval tales and those inspired by them, we usually find a virtuous hero that rises against a demonic monster, defeats the monster, and brings about a happy ending while learning a lesson along the way. Medieval examples range from Beowulf, Le Morte D'Arthur, and legends like Saint George and the Dragon. Modern examples are The Hobbit, Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, and Clash of the Titans. Now, there is nuance to these tales and others. They’re not only about slaying monsters, but all these stories share this trope - even if some are adaptations of older and more ancient legends. Highlighting this trope is important because dealing with this monster slayer trope is an aspect of contemporary storytelling. Tolkien was a Beowulfian scholar and much of his legendarium draws from Beowulf and other monster slayer myths. Alongside Beowulf, Tolkien borrows from the Poetic Edda and The Kalevala in the construction of his secondary world.
Taking elements from other stories to cook up our own is part of human nature. Tolkien calls the place where the human zeitgeist stores these elements the “cauldron of story,” where over the years of human storytelling there are some thematic, plot, and symbolic parts of stories that get thrown into the cauldron and become part of the greater stew of story. In doing this, humans have both transgressed, reinforced, and transcended stories from the past. Constructing tales is how humanity has largely dealt with the questions of meaning and negotiated our values. Mythmaking is a way to engage this process. In the 21st century, there has been, what I would term, a postmodern approach to the ingredients in the cauldron of story. The questions posed by these postmodern tales are: Who are the heroes? What is virtue? What makes a monster? As we step from the era of modernity, which promised concrete answers to questions such as these, many people are not satisfied with the “certainty” modernism has promised to provide. To deal with this, some have flocked to certainties offered by others, including religions, political movements, careers etc. A popular reaction to modernism is a retreat to pre-modern formulations of and approaches to the world. Others inhabit a radical skepticism. Regardless of where we land, our contemporary stories are dealing with the same issues posed by a modern age and those that have come before it. One of the most prevalent 21st century stories that does just this is Shrek.
Before jumping into Shrek and how it relates to the hero/monster trope and Tolkien, I want to briefly explain what I mean when using the word postmodern. Pop-internet warriors of “western culture” tend to define postmodernism as a foundationless relativism specifically utilized by “leftists” to dismantle “western society.” Now, there are forms of postmodernism that are more critical of the mythology of “the West” and do wish to tear down the walls that modernism has built around this mythology. However, there are other iterations of postmodernism that mean different things and have different goals. One such aspect of postmodernism, the one that I utilize, is the postmodernism as laid out by Linda Hutcheon. She applies this primarily to art and architecture, which will be fitting for dealing with Shrek. Hutcheon’s postmodernism, as paraphrased by me, is the simultaneous reinforcement of entities that hold sway in the present through referencing and transgressing of these entities by taking them off their abstract pedestals of tradition to shape them for their own purposes. By practicing this sort of postmodernism, especially in the creation of art, there are elements from entities such as stories that stay while being transformed and others that fall out of use. Hutcheon’s postmodernism carries with it resonances of Tolkien’s cauldron of story. Shrek, is a product of many of the ingredients in the cauldron while negotiating these ingredients through something akin to a Hutcheon postmodernism.
Okay, now to the fun stuff. In light of the monster slayer trope, it is not difficult to point out how the traditional aspects of this trope do not manifest in Shrek. In fact, much gets flipped on its head when it comes to the status quo of heroes, monsters, and virtue. At the beginning of the movie, the audience is presented with a medieval storybook that begins with the traditional tale of a damsel in distress that is guarded by a dragon who is eventually saved by a loving prince. A green hand suddenly rips the happy ending out of the book and Shrek laughingly says, “Like that’s ever gonna happen!” The scene then cuts to an outhouse where we hear a toilet flush, Shrek emerges while scratching his ass, and kicks the happy ending page of the book from the bottom of his foot like it’s a piece of toilet paper. It doesn’t take three minutes before we are given the framework for how this movie’s story is being told. These traditional tales do not belong on a lofty bookshelf, but in the bathroom as toilet reading.
Shrek shares many characteristics with traditional monsters such as Grendel from Beowulf and the Tursas from the Kalevala.1 He is large, has human features, lives in a swamp, and lives life outside of popular society. Although Shrek is monstrous, it is clear that in the movie that he desires the mundane pleasures of domestic life that many of us do: privacy, freedom to do what he wants without hindrance, and land not to be trespassed. Here, the monster looks more like us than in the legends and folktales of the past.
During the domestic montage of Shrek’s daily life, he settles down for dinner and a night of relaxation. Before he can get comfortable, he is interrupted by a mob carrying torches and pitchforks trespassing in his swamp. He makes quick work of scaring them out of his land and discovers that the mob was carrying a wanted poster for fairytale creatures. We’re then brought to a prison encampment where people are selling their fairytale creatures to a group of imperial soldiers. Donkey is introduced and he tries to escape the soldiers. While running away, he bumps into Shrek, who is posting a “keep out” sign to a tree. The soldiers run into Shrek and fearfully inform him that by the order of Lord Farquad they are to arrest him. Again, it takes no effort to scare the soldiers away and Donkey and Shrek retreat back to his place in the swamp. It is soon evening and Shrek sits down for another peaceful supper - that is, until he learns that all the fairytale creatures have been relocated to his swamp. Shrek is informed that Lord Farquad is responsible for this and he vows to talk to Farquad and send all the fairytale creatures back to where they came from.
As the rest of the story progresses, we learn that Lord Farquad is the true monster and idiot (hence the name), Princess Fiona has been staying in the tower, not because she is trapped, but because she wants someone to come and reverse her enchantment so others won’t have to see her in her ogre form, that Dragon isn’t truly a monster, and that what is perceived as “ugliness” or “monstrous” can be beautiful - especially in light of the monstrosity of Lord Farquad’s narcissistic rule.
There is a reason why Shrek is so popular over twenty years later, to the point where there is Shrek the Musical, Shrek raves, and even more Shrek movies anticipated for future release. I could point to its innovative CGI for its time, effective comedy, and great voice acting, but I want to focus on how Shrek addresses the natures of value, beauty, virtue, heroes, and monsters.
Traditionally, beauty and virtue has been largely dominated by the standards put forth by Aristotle. He argued that beauty, like goodness, has to be self-subsistent and primary. I’m going to quote him at length here:
“Now since the good and the beautiful are different (for the former always implies conduct as its subject, while the beautiful is found also in motionless things), those who assert that the mathematical sciences say nothing of the beautiful or the good are in error. For these sciences say and prove a great deal about them; if they do not expressly mention them, but prove attributes which are their results or their definitions, it is not true to say that they tell us nothing about them. The chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness, which the mathematical sciences demonstrate in a special degree. And since these (e.g. order and definiteness) are obviously causes of many things, evidently these sciences must treat this sort of causative principle also (i.e. the beautiful) as in some sense a cause.”2
Because beauty is definite and self-subsistent, it can be measured - at least according to Aristotle. Modern science tends to promote that beauty can be measured through mathematics and religious schools influenced by Aristotle purport that beauty is established by God. This approach to beauty has influenced both modernism and various religions, particularly Christian traditions with roots in those that have emerged from Europe. Most of the legends, tales, and myths that Shrek addresses are ones that are developed under both medieval Christianity as well as modernity.
The way Shrek goes about dealing with beauty as promoted by the traditional fairytales is through (you guessed it) postmodernism. And like the Hutcheon version I laid out about earlier, Shrek does not destroy traditional notions of beauty, but demonstrates how modern society has embodied a beautiful facade to hide the ugliness and evil beneath it. Shrek, who is supposed to be the incarnation of evil, ugliness, and the monstrous, is living a domestic life, a life normally valued as good by modern society. However, it is clear that Lord Farquad, who is the ruler of modern society (in the movie that is) believes that the good life is reserved for only a select few, i.e., those who adhere to the rules of Duloc. Fairytale creatures, which used to communicate life lessons and promote traditional notions of beauty have been exiled into the swamp, the home of monstrosity. Lord Farquad makes it clear that fairy tales have no value in modern society - unless, it serves his selfish desires.
It is clear that the everyday person is also not valued, as Farquad exclaims one his most famous lines as he attempts to motivate others to retrieve Fiona on his behalf. “Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make.” Cowardice replaces heroism as the dominant force. Heroism is only utilized by the spineless tyrant who arbitrarily controls the standard of goodness, beauty, and virtue. Shrek is a hideous monster until he proves himself useful in fulfilling Lord Farquad’s desires.
There is a double standard present in the logic of Lord Farquad. Duloc is supposed to be a “perfect place,” but this “perfection” is achieved through imperfect ends - at least, according to its own standards. Fairytale creatures, including Shrek, are the mirror that can show who Farquad really is. As the Gingerbread Man says before spitting in Farquad’s eye, “You’re a monster!”
The layers of monstrosity continue to be peeled away along Shrek and Donkey’s journey. Dragon is not truly a bloodthirsty monster, but a creature who desires love who has experienced nothing but attacks from strangers. Fiona and Shrek begin falling in love and we discover that Fiona transforms into an ogre at night. She articulates a desire for someone to know and love who she really is, believing Shrek to be that someone. On the other end, the true face of those we have traditionally considered heroes such as Robinhood and his Merry Men are exposed. The Shrek franchise further explores this through the character of Prince Charming in Shrek 2. This is not to say that all notions of traditional beauty are bankrupt. Only, as we progress through Shrek, we slowly begin to see that “objective” standards of beauty tend to only be “objective” when they can be used to manipulate others to achieve one’s own ends.
Towards the end of the movie, Shrek plans to confess his love to Fiona, not knowing that she turns into an ogre. He overhears her talking to Donkey and only catches a small part of what she discloses to him, misinterpreting her meaning. Feeling hurt and betrayed, Shrek gives up Fiona to Farquad. Confused and also hurt, Fiona decides to accept Farquad’s offer in marriage - even though he quite literally turns out to be someone else than he appears to be. This leads to Shrek and Fiona getting what they originally thought they wanted. Shrek gets the sole custody of his swamp back and Fiona is being married off to a member of royalty. Both are uncomfortable in these bankrupt ends. It takes a talking Donkey and Dragon to convince Shrek to throw away the notions of domestic isolation and the traditional happy ending.
In one of the most visually significant portions of the story, Shrek shows up to protest the wedding of Fiona and Farquad at the chapel in Duloc. The inside of the chapel is not filled with any traditional religious symbols but statues and stained glass images of Farquad. Here, we can see that these “objective” standards of beauty are used by both religious and secular entities - blended in this scene - as means to accomplish their ends. Fiona, moved by Shrek’s actions, allows herself to transform into an ogre, i.e., a fairytale creature. Farquad is disgusted. He commands his soldiers to seize Shrek. While the guards subdue Shrek, Farquad claims that his and Fiona’s marriage is binding so that he can be king, but will keep Fiona locked in the tower where she came from while he rules. Again, fairytale creatures and the values they bring are only deemed worthy if they bring about the domineering desires of people in power. Then they are tucked away where no one can see or hear them until they are needed. Before Farquad can succeed, Dragon breaks through the stained glass window at the altar and devours the newly self-appointed short king. It is not the power of church and the state of Duloc or the narcissistic Lord Farquad that win the day, but the fairytale freaks who rise up against the abuse of tradition, value, and monsters to bring about a better place through love (see Shrek and Fiona as well as Dragon and Donkey).
Tolkien, while largely writing in a way that props up some of these arbitrary notions of beauty, sometimes in ways that can be interpreted as harmful, also subverts some of the standards of beauty and monstrosity. Unfortunately, monsters like Orcs and Gollum remain monsters. Again, there is nuance, but these monsters serve the ends of the good guys as either objective enemies to kill or, in Gollum’s case, a cosmological sacrifice for the destruction of the One Ring. Tolkien explores standards of beauty and virtue through the Free Peoples of Middle-earth. While Aragorn plays a part in the defeat of Sauron, it is not he who takes the One Ring into Mordor to be destroyed. It is Frodo and Sam. It is not Gandalf who carries the Ring, but Frodo, for he is one of the few who can carry it without being corrupted. Another prime example of this subversion of expectations of those who are to uphold goodness is Saruman. Being the head of White Council and the Istari, one would expect Saruman to be the first to move people to action against the dominant work of Sauron. Instead, he is one of the first to seize the opportunity to seek for the Ring so that he may shape the world as he sees it. The good that Saruman stands on becomes the very catalyst that moves him to self-destruction. This is the very reason why Gandalf refuses the Ring when Frodo offers it to him. In The Lord of the Rings, beauty does not reach its height in Gondor or in Valinor but when the hobbits fight for their home and beautify it together in loving friendship with the help of others.
At the end of Shrek, our favorite ogre couple gets married in the swamp with all the fairytale creatures and even some common people in attendance. Where the swamp began as the home of monstrosity and then of rejected fairy tales, it becomes the place where love comes to fruition. Instead of being forced to abide by Duloc’s arbitrary and exclusionary laws, Shrek’s abode brings together a mishmash of humans, witches, dwarves, and blind mice to dance together in the messiness of the swamp. Here, we do not have to choose between the binary of monster and hero, but recognize the monstrosity in people like Farquad and the humanity in ogres like Shrek along the journey. Love, accepting the inherent beauty in everyone, and fighting for the dignity of people and fairytale creatures alike, together, is the virtue that arises out of Shrek. And thus, another addition to the cauldron of story for us and future storytellers and hearers to utilize in our own narrative recipes. Hopefully, like Shrek, for the reinvigoration of fantasy in opposition to the dominance of rigid certainty.
Thanks for reading this latest Tolkien Pop! post. If you enjoyed it, please consider financially supporting us here, so that we can keep putting out quality Tolkien internet goodies!
If you love coffee - particularly nerdy coffee then you should check out Comics On Coffee! They’re an amazing specialty coffee company that roasts great coffees such as Batman: The Dark Knight Roast and The Lord of the Rings: The Baggins Blend. Pick up some geeky jitter juice: https://comicsoncoffees.com/tolkienpop or use code TOLKIENPOP at checkout!
Swank, Kris. Grendel, Tursas, Shrek. Available at https://www.academia.edu/10326394/Grendel_Tursas_Shrek.
Aristotle. “Metaphysics” in The Basic Works of Aristotle. Edited by Richard McKeon. The Modern Library, 2001. 893-894.