Tuor,
Mariner
Alliance: House of Hador
Last Visited: 25 Jan 2010
Joined: 29 Jun 2001
Posts: 6674
|
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:10 pm |
     |
|
Schools of Thought Concerning Tolkien's Works
After several years of wandering the internet, I've come to the conclusion that there are many kinds of people who like to discuss Tolkien.
There's the obvious groups based on the level of knowledge of Tolkien lore, but there are groups within groups.
As far as 'experts' go, it seems to me that there are several groups:
"Stuck in the pre-Silmarillion days"- experts who know TH and the Trilogy backwards and forwards and have their own ideas about Tolkien's Legendarium.
"I'll pick and choose"-These experts don't really care about 'canon' and simply like to pick and choose the stories they want to accept
"Published Silmarillion is Canon"- These experts believe that only that everything hinges on what was published in the Silmarillion.
"Tolkien Last thoughts on the Legendarium"- These experts try to figure out where Tolkien was headed as the deciding factor as to which stories should be kept and which should be thrown out.
I'd be interested in seeing others views on the kind of people they've run into over the years.
|
|
Last edited by Tuor, on Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Eluchil
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elwe
Last Visited: 16 Aug 2006
Joined: 19 Nov 1999
Posts: 6151
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:04 pm |
|
|
An interesting and provocative topic, Tuor,. And one that is rather dear to my heart. I'll pause a moment to outline my own position which I think is encompassed within your "I'll pick and choose" category, but I think not adequately described by it.
What interests me is the totality of Tolkien's creative output. Changes from version to version and incompatible stories are not, in my mind, problems to be smoothed away, but interesting features to study. While I am uncomfortable with the idea of 'canon' I prefer to hold the truth in abeyance, if you will, not to be discovered in this life, rather than promoting, or even clearly forming, my own personal ideas about which version is right or best.
That aside, my own thoughts on this issue have been largely orthogonal to yours. I prefer to think of Tolkien experts as tending towards either the
Visualizing Middle-earth
school of thought or is opposite the
Tolkien's Legendarium
school. Irrespective of knowledge of the texts or opinions as to their respective value, these two schools can be seen running through all of Tolkien fandom and scholarship, and leading, I may say, to a fair amount of confusion and annoyance.
The 'Visualizing' school, named after one of its signature books by noted "Tolkien Researcher" Michael Martinez", is made up if those people who "play the game" and treat Tolkien's world as if it were a real place. Here belong questions about the government of the Shire or the economy of Gondor and a great many others.
In contrast, the 'Legendarium' school, whose title work is edited by Carl Hostetter and Verlyn Flieger, contains such projects as are Annotated LotR or Tom Shippey's writings which seek to place Tolkien's work in the context of its Primary World antecedents or analyze it as a literary work of art. Here belong references to the sources of Tolkien's names or motifs as well as studies of his process of composition.
While these schools are certainly contrastive and people can feel misled when they are looking for one and get the other, I do not think that they are necessarily at war. Christopher Tolkien worked to address questions from both perspectives in his History of Middle-earth masterwork and plenty of issues are enlightened by both views, IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuor,
Mariner
Alliance: House of Hador
Last Visited: 25 Jan 2010
Joined: 29 Jun 2001
Posts: 6674
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:58 pm |
|
|
Eluchil said:
An interesting and provocative topic, Tuor,. And one that is rather dear to my heart. I'll pause a moment to outline my own position which I think is encompassed within your "I'll pick and choose" category, but I think not adequately described by it.
I'm glad you like the topic. I'm sorry if any of my categories offend people. They were not meant to be offensive, simply how I actually see it. I probably fit in the Visualizing Middle-earth category. We'll see if I have a handle on your categories in a second.
Quote:
What interests me is the totality of Tolkien's creative output. Changes from version to version and incompatible stories are not, in my mind, problems to be smoothed away, but interesting features to study. While I am uncomfortable with the idea of 'canon' I prefer to hold the truth in abeyance, if you will, not to be discovered in this life, rather than promoting, or even clearly forming, my own personal ideas about which version is right or best.
I think we bring into this how we actually view truth. I believe we can know truth (at least to a certain point) and that there is such a thing as actual truth and actual lies. Which is why I try to make everything fit together. Both the "Published Silmarillion is Canon" and "Tolkien Last thoughts on the Legendarium" groups fall into my category. I never stopped to think why a person would not want to try to create a clear picture of Middle-earth. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Quote:
That aside, my own thoughts on this issue have been largely orthogonal to yours. I prefer to think of Tolkien experts as tending towards either the
Visualizing Middle-earth
school of thought or is opposite the
Tolkien's Legendarium
school. Irrespective of knowledge of the texts or opinions as to their respective value, these two schools can be seen running through all of Tolkien fandom and scholarship, and leading, I may say, to a fair amount of confusion and annoyance.
I have never recognized this distinction. If I understand you correctly, the Visualizing group are worried about the correct stories for the myth itself, while the Legendarium group is more concerned about the truths of the myths. The 'truth' that Tolkien was trying to tell through his stories, finding the common threads with other myths.
Quote:
The 'Visualizing' school, named after one of its signature books by noted "Tolkien Researcher" Michael Martinez", is made up if those people who "play the game" and treat Tolkien's world as if it were a real place. Here belong questions about the government of the Shire or the economy of Gondor and a great many others.
I've had dealings with Michael. He is of the "Published Silmarillion" school of thought.
Quote:
In contrast, the 'Legendarium' school, whose title work is edited by Carl Hostetter and Verlyn Flieger, contains such projects as are Annotated LotR or Tom Shippey's writings which seek to place Tolkien's work in the context of its Primary World antecedents or analyze it as a literary work of art. Here belong references to the sources of Tolkien's names or motifs as well as studies of his process of composition.
I haven't read Shippey's book writings, although they have been recommended. Perhaps when I'm done with what drives me at the moment, I'll take time to read his work.
Quote:
While these schools are certainly contrastive and people can feel misled when they are looking for one and get the other, I do not think that they are necessarily at war. Christopher Tolkien worked to address questions from both perspectives in his History of Middle-earth masterwork and plenty of issues are enlightened by both views, IMO.
I'd tend to agree. If I read material that did not deal with what I was looking for, I'd simply put it aside and say "that doesn't do anything for me". The groups that tend to war are the "Published Silmarillion" school and the "Later thoughts" school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luinnenion
Ranger of the North
Alliance: House of Finrod Felagund
Last Visited: 20 Jan 2010
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 1539
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:29 pm |
|
|
Tuor, said:
I haven't read Shippey's book writings, although they have been recommended. Perhaps when I'm done with what drives me at the moment, I'll take time to read his work.
Dude, go out tomorrow and get a copy of Shippey's
Road to Middle-earth
. Read it when you have some free moments; in the bath, in the john, exercising, what have you. But it is simply the best book of Tolkien criticism out there. Even Michael Drout thinks that, and he's pretty tough when it comes to most Tolkien criticism. In fact, and this may be somewhat blasphemous, I would place it right next to HoME in importance for any kind of Tolkien study. No matter how many times people have recommended it, if you haven't read it yet, they haven't recommended it enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RoseMorninStar
Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the Moon.
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 07 Feb 2010
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 8715
Location: North Shire, USA
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:27 am |
|
|
I am not quite sure if I understand the entirety of this conversation although I think it is a great topic. I don't think I look at Tolkien's works in such a scholarly manner. I revel in it all. I guess I reconcile any discrepancies as much as one would in the reading of several versions of any story...especially a legend/epic/mythical/ type story. There is perhaps a version that is more common or accepted, and there might be other stories and you are not quite sure how they fit into the picture or which version is most accurate or parts that contradict one another. One example might be the Dead Sea Scrolls or different versions of the Great Flood story from a variety of cultures or the same basic story of creation as told by Native Americans... but always with some variations. I think Tolkien would have liked it that way.
When one is studying ancient texts, it always seems as if there are some gaps in understanding or text, some mysteries, unanswered questions, conflicting stories or outright contradictions. That is part of what makes them so compelling. Were the stories true? If they were, what parts are 'real' history and which parts are symbolic or parable? Why does this story say one thing... and someone else records the same event with different facts? Which is true? That is what real history is often like.
Not only that, but (having only read a bit of HoME) there are real gems to be discovered, such as the Epilogues. It is also a treat to take a look into the creative mind of Tolkien, a master artist of the printed word, and enjoy the process of creation.
|
|
 |
''The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you choose, what you think, and what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny...it is the light that guides your way.'' ~ Heraclitus
|
|
|
|
|
Kurufinwë
Petitioner to the Council
Alliance: House of Feanor
Last Visited: 12 Feb 2008
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 19
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:04 am |
|
|
As
Eluchil
said, it seems to me that the main division is not between the supporters of the various versions of the
Silmarillion
, but rather between those who, when writing about Tolkien, have a ‘guidebook’ approach and those who have a ‘literary criticism’ approach. Over the years, I have grown more and more convinced that the ‘guidebook’ approach is both wrong and intrinsically flawed.
Wrong, for exactly the same reasons that most of
Beowulf
criticism before Tolkien’s landmark conference
Beowulf, the monsters and the critics
was wrong. As Tolkien pointed out in that conference, most critics studying Beowulf before him were looking in the text for elements of history of the Anglo-Saxon culture, paying little attention to the poem itself. On the other hand, Tolkien’s views on
Beowulf
emphasized on the poem’s artistic virtues:
Quote:
The illusion of historical truth and perspective, that has made
Beowulf
seem such an attractive quarry, is largely a product of art. The author has used an instinctive historical sense – a part of the ancient English temper (and not unconnected with its reputed melancholy), of which
Beowulf
is a supreme expression; but he has used it with a poetical and not an historical object. The lovers of poetry can safely study the art, but the seekers after history must beware lest the glamour of Poesis overcome them.
It seems to me that many people studying Tolkien make the same mistake, forgetting that
The Lord of the Rings
,
The Silmarillion
and the rest are first and foremost works of art and should be studied as such. On a more sentimental note, it seems that such an angle of study is the way Tolkien would have liked his works to be studied.
It seems to me that the ‘guidebook’ approach is furthermore intrinsically flawed. While the
Beowulf
poet was indeed referring to various consistent and fixed sources, Tolkien was not. Or, rather, he was, but his sources were extremely varied and changed over the course of his life. Therefore, it is not only simply impossible to form a completely consistent picture of Arda, it is also impossible to understand what the problems with Tolkien’s subcreation are without looking at it form the outside.
To give a very simple example, a ‘guidebook’ approach has very little to say about the nature of Orcs. People may debate
ad nauseam
about whether the Orcs are corrupted Elves or sentient beasts, without ever settling the dispute. Indeed, the whole question arose because Tolkien’s older conception contradicted his Christian faith (as to the question of the powers of Evil and as to that of salvation). Of course, such considerations cannot be treated within a ‘guidebook’ approach.
Naturally, literary criticism without a deep knowledge of the texts is even more pointless. All and sundry have given their opinion in the media about the significance of the Ring; but most of those analyses are worthless as their authors often failed to understand exactly what the Ring did and how it ‘worked’.
To give a more elaborate example, one of the major themes of the second half of Tolkien’s literary life is the question of incarnation and of the relationship between the soul and the body. Of course, one may write hundreds of pages about what catholic theology has to say on the matter, but to fully understand Tolkien’s take on the subject, one has to look at what he wrote about it; that means both analysing the explicit theories he wrote concerning Elves and Men, but also to piece together bits of information he gave on the matter of the incarnation of the Maiar, as has been done in
this thread
.
Therefore, an ‘internal’ study of Tolkien’s works is essential; it is also probably what most people studying Tolkien started with. But it seems to me that going further than that is eventually necessary. Reading Shippey and HOME (not a few texts here and there but the whole thing, in its historical progression) is probably a good way to start on that path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
starlin
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Gondor
Last Visited: 03 Feb 2010
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 2333
Location: LT (Vilnius) - UK (London)
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:14 am |
|
|
I think that it is now quite difficult to appreciate Tolkien's writings as purely literary works, I mean, ignoring the 'guidebook' approach. Personally I am only beginning to read HoME, but I've read Shippey's "Tolkien - Author of the Century" and lots of articles - where does it lead me? It leads me to a
confusing
, or rather
many-sided
(?) picture of Middle-earth. If Hob, LotR and Sil were all we had, we could take the 'literary criticism' approach, not bothering ourselves with those drafts and early versions of the stories. But it is so with Tolkien, that he was leaving those "unexplained vistas" everywhere which lead us to hungering for better understanding and greater knowledge.
I have recently written a lengthy article (not in English, though) in which I tried to define what a "tolkienist" is. One of the biggest problems was whether "moobies" who hold films above the books can really be considered
tolkien
ists, but there were also some thoughts on different types of tolkienists and Tolkien lovers. Some read books over and over again, among them there are those who simply enjoy the story and those who like participating in discussions or at least analyzing the texts on their own (I do some analysis of LotR, just for myself). There are those who like 'visualising' ME, and they take up fanfiction, art, music in order to appreciate Tolkien deeper. There are lots of ways and the question of 'types' is a wide one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuor,
Mariner
Alliance: House of Hador
Last Visited: 25 Jan 2010
Joined: 29 Jun 2001
Posts: 6674
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:31 am |
|
|
RoseMorninStar,
Quote:
One example might be the Dead Sea Scrolls or different versions of the Great Flood story from a variety of cultures or the same basic story of creation as told by Native Americans... but always with some variations. I think Tolkien would have liked it that way.
I agree. With any 'history' there needs to be a kernel based on the perspective. As I've said in another thread, I'm a fan of the 'different traditions' aspect of events, ie Elvish, Dwarvish, and Mannish traditions. It brings harmony and real texture to Tolkien's myth. I do not believe it was intentional, but harmonizing the different traditions this way really does add to the myth.
Kurufinwë
Quote:
Over the years, I have grown more and more convinced that the ‘guidebook’ approach is both wrong and intrinsically flawed.
I did not intend for this thread to be about why one view is right or wrong, but as long as we all take this as information, instead of an attack I believe this kind of discussion can be very helpful.
Quote:
It seems to me that the ‘guidebook’ approach is furthermore intrinsically flawed. While the Beowulf poet was indeed referring to various consistent and fixed sources, Tolkien was not. Or, rather, he was, but his sources were extremely varied and changed over the course of his life.
I very much agree that Tolkien's emphasis changed over the course of his life. It seems to me that at first he made efforts to distance his myth from his Catholic beliefs. This was one of the major reasons why he limited the number of Balrogs. Yet as he aged, it seems that he made a 180 degree turn on this with his attempt to make Galadriel more perfect, more like the Virgin Mary.
Quote:
Therefore, it is not only simply impossible to form a completely consistent picture of Arda, it is also impossible to understand what the problems with Tolkien’s subcreation are without looking at it form the outside.
It seems to me that it would only be impossible if we were to give equal weight to all of the conflicting drafts. In any case, you are correct that in order to give weight to some and ignore others, it would require looking at it from the outside.
This aspect puzzles me about the difference between the two groups. From my understanding both the 'guidebook' and the 'literary criticism' schools look at the myth from the outside. Perhaps I'm not grasping what you mean when you use the term. Or perhaps I don't a good understanding of the two schools.
Quote:
To give a very simple example, a ‘guidebook’ approach has very little to say about the nature of Orcs.
I would say that they do have a good view about the nature of Orks  , but they are not as concerned about it because the other aspect makes the 'bigger squeak'. People argue about their differences rather than discuss what they agree upon.
Quote:
People may debate ad nauseam about whether the Orcs are corrupted Elves or sentient beasts, without ever settling the dispute.
I say that there is no way to come to agreement on it. All that such people can do is state why they believe as they do, and generally it is based on the distinction between "Later Writings" vs "Published Silmarillion".
Quote:
Indeed, the whole question arose because Tolkien’s older conception contradicted his Christian faith (as to the question of the powers of Evil and as to that of salvation). Of course, such considerations cannot be treated within a ‘guidebook’ approach.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. It might be possible for an Elvish or Mannish ork, when unhoused and freed of the Morgoth influence to repent a purge the sin in the Halls of Mandos. I believe that the problem arose out of Morgoth's inability to sub-create independent beings. This too would be a contradiction of his Christian faith.
In any case, I do believe this can be treated within a 'guidebook' approach, as long as one is willing to choose a "Silmarillion" and stick with it. True, neither side can convince the other, but as long as each side realizes that the assumption the other is making, I believe people can get along. That is what basically happened in my discussion with Michael Martinez.
Quote:
All and sundry have given their opinion in the media about the significance of the Ring; but most of those analyses are worthless as their authors often failed to understand exactly what the Ring did and how it ‘worked’.
I couldn't agree more, at least from the ones I've read.
Quote:
Tolkien’s literary life is the question of incarnation and of the relationship between the soul and the body.
I agree. It plays an important role in many aspects of the myth, including the Ork debate.
Quote:
Of course, one may write hundreds of pages about what catholic theology has to say on the matter, but to fully understand Tolkien’s take on the subject, one has to look at what he wrote about it; that means both analysing the explicit theories he wrote concerning Elves and Men, but also to piece together bits of information he gave on the matter of the incarnation of the Maiar, as has been done in this thread.
I agree, but there are very few who have the mind to pull this off.
I'm not saying that this is an excuse for not doing it, I'm just saying that there are very few who have the desire and ability to do it.
Quote:
Therefore, an ‘internal’ study of Tolkien’s works is essential; it is also probably what most people studying Tolkien started with. But it seems to me that going further than that is eventually necessary. Reading Shippey and HOME (not a few texts here and there but the whole thing, in its historical progression) is probably a good way to start on that path.
I'm still struggling with the the 'internal' study. I'm trying to put together all the information from all the different sources. It will end up an 'Encyclopedia', but much more in depth than any I've seen. I haven't even left Melkor yet and the sheer size of it is incredible.
Since I am a "Later Writings" guy, I explain my reasoning:
Tolkien did go into alot of effort to bring his mythology in line with his Catholic beliefs, and therefore I believe it is my obligation to find out where he was headed. I would think it a shame that all of that work should simply be ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurufinwë
Petitioner to the Council
Alliance: House of Feanor
Last Visited: 12 Feb 2008
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 19
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:02 pm |
|
|
Starlin
:
Quote:
I think that it is now quite difficult to appreciate Tolkien's writings as purely literary works, I mean, ignoring the 'guidebook' approach. Personally I am only beginning to read HoME, but I've read Shippey's "Tolkien - Author of the Century" and lots of articles - where does it lead me? It leads me to a confusing, or rather many-sided (?) picture of Middle-earth.
I am afraid that this probably one of the things that I like most about Tolkien: the complexity, the confusion, the many-sidedness. Since Romanticism, writers have been trying to express their inner feelings on the page; Tolkien never tried to do that, and yet he did it better than most. More than the history of Middle-earth, HOME is, to me, the story of JRR Tolkien, from the youthful enthousiasm of the
Lost Tales
to the fears and doubts of an old man facing the destruction of his life’s work, reaching towards the divine and yet foundering under the weight of his own contradictions; and with all that there has been in between, all the fantastic stories, places, characters, and an ever-present love of language.
So obviously the complexity of Tolkien’s writings is definitely not something I dislike. But maybe I am just odd.
Tuor,
:
Quote:
I did not intend for this thread to be about why one view is right or wrong, but as long as we all take this as information, instead of an attack I believe this kind of discussion can be very helpful.
I completely agree on that! I realise that the beginning of my reply may have come across as rather confrontational; that not what I intended. Although I stand by what I wrote concerning the two approaches to Tolkien, I am certainly not trying to say that those who are not approaching Tolkien the way I am are silly or wasting their time. 
Quote:
This aspect puzzles me about the difference between the two groups. From my understanding both the 'guidebook' and the 'literary criticism' schools look at the myth from the outside. Perhaps I'm not grasping what you mean when you use the term. Or perhaps I don't a good understanding of the two schools.
It seems to me that there is a distinction between two schools of thoughts. On the one hand, those who are chiefly interested of the world Tolkien tried to create; those people mainly trying to form a picture as complete as may be of this world; if Tolkien had actually completed the Silmarillion (a very complete version, with all sorts of appendices), they probably would not have had to care about the fact that this all, first and and foremost, a literary work, made by a specific person in specific circumstances. Since the things are a bit more complicated than that, they actually have to delve into the history of the texts, but only as to get more information and to decide (but how can they do that?) which piece is ‘canonical’ and which is not. On the other hand, you have those who are mostly interested in the books as books, as artistic creations, who, of course, love those worlds but do not treat them as one would treat a real world and real people, and therefore look at all that always from the outside. I hope I am expressing myself clearly, though it does not seem very clear even to me.
Quote:
All that such people can do is state why they believe as they do, and generally it is based on the distinction between "Later Writings" vs "Published Silmarillion".
I think this is exactly why I think the ‘guidebook’ perspective is very limited. No version has been complete or entirely consistent since the c. 1932
Qenta Noldorinwa
. Choosing that version means losing any sort of consistency with
The Lord of the Rings
; choosing a later one means having to settle for an incomplete text with often inconsistent conceptions. As to the 1977
Silmarillion
, for all its merits, it remains problematic (if only because of the unresolved question of enunciation – cf. Christopher Tolkien’s preface to HOME I) and its bareness which makes any reader beg for more – which sends us back to the original problem...
Quote:
I'm not sure I agree with you here. It might be possible for an Elvish or Mannish ork, when unhoused and freed of the Morgoth influence to repent a purge the sin in the Halls of Mandos. I believe that the problem arose out of Morgoth's inability to sub-create independent beings. This too would be a contradiction of his Christian faith.
I do not think here is the place to go into an in-depth discussion of the question of Orcs. Very quickly, it seems to me that one of the main problems is (once again!) a question of incarnation: since soul and body are meant to fit together, and since Evil cannot change the fundamental ordering of the world as set by the One, then how could Morgoth have made mortal Orcs out of immortal Elves? And how could he change their bodies so much that their offspring would be orcs as well? And what about reincarnation?
When I mentioned salvation, I was more thinking of the problem of how, if Orcs can be saved, it can be acceptable for Elves and Men to slaughter them by the dozen without even blinking (except, maybe, Gandalf, who
‘pit[ies] even [Sauron’s] slaves’
).
Quote:
Since I am a "Later Writings" guy...
Hence the use of ‘Orks’? Actually, I know that this is probably how I should spell it, but it has already taken me a long time to get used to writing ‘Ñoldor’ instead of ‘Noldor’ (though only in the
Silmarillion
context, as ñ > n in the Third Age) and I am not sure I will ever be able to bring myself to move to ‘Orks’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eluchil
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elwe
Last Visited: 16 Aug 2006
Joined: 19 Nov 1999
Posts: 6151
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:58 pm |
|
|
Personal aside to Tour,: (anyone can respond if they like but I'd hate to Osgiliate the thread, i.e. send it into off-topic discussion). I do want to clarify that in general I absolutely believe in absolute truth that is knowable, through both reason and revelation, and have a world view fairly similar to yours, as I understand it, in many respects, i.e. traditional/conservative/orthodox/evangelical Christian. I do believe that the canon of Holy Scripture is the inspired revelation of God and the absolute basis for answers to all questions of faith and practice. It is with respect to fictional universes that I distrust the concept of canon, because I don't see what it adds. In my view, the best way to judge artistic productions (ie books, movies, tv series) is in how the meet artistic standards (which means for me how much I enjoy it) rather than how accurate they are with respect to their world. In concrete terms I would rather the next Star Trek show be exciting than exactly hew all the details set out in previous incarnations, though of course I would prefer to have both. I am also pretty insatiable and non-discerning in this regard, so that I'd rather get to watch the ill-fated cartoon version rather than have it ignored because Gene Roddenberry declared it "not canon". In a similar way, I like to have Tolkien's own drafts and early texts to read and enjoy even if they are supperceded and not "what really happened". In the Primary World the question of what it true is of desperate importance but in a fictional world what does it mean? None of it is real and true in the sense that the Virgin Birth of Christ or the Second World War is real. If we are to seek truth we must, in my view, use another set of tools. But that road leads to such nonsense as "this version is true for me". I much prefer the more honest "I prefer this version" or the correct philosophy "This version communicates something of ultimate truth to me". My comment about "in this life" are also important. Now my perception of truth (of any kind) is cloudy as in a dim mirror but later I will see it face to face. See for instance Tolkien's story "Leaf by Niggle", while the presence of a somewhat penal purgatory is potentially problematic, to me as a Protestant (more or less), I think that Tolkien's broader point about art coming to full fruition only in eternity is correct.
End of digression. For people who are interested in Tolkien's own ideas about the value and way to approach his work I would recommend both "Leaf by Niggle" that I mentioned above and the poem "Mythopoeia" which is virtually a manifesto of Tolkien's aims and aspirations. "On Fairy Stories" and "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" are also useful but they focus on his analysis of others work rather than his thoughts of beliefs about his own.
Tour, said:
If I understand you correctly, the Visualizing group are worried about the correct stories for the myth itself, while the Legendarium group is more concerned about the truths of the myths. The 'truth' that Tolkien was trying to tell through his stories, finding the common threads with other myths.
Well that and run of the mill literary criticism whether biographical or psychological or whatever. The point is whether you are talking about a world or a book.
Quote:
I've had dealings with Michael. He is of the "Published Silmarillion" school of thought.
I mention Mr. Martinez because he is well known. He's also one of the few serious 'Visualizing' people to be published as paper books (though its the more popular school on the web, I think). David Day tends toward 'Visualizing' though his Hobbit Companion is more 'Legendarium' though all his books are risabley bad, and Robert Foster is much more limited basically collating and summarizing The Hobbit, LotR, and the Sil.
I've also posted with Mr. Martinez both on rec.arts.book.tolkien and on this message board, but have not kept up with his recent writings or managed to read any of his books. I could make remarks of my own but lets keep this thread descriptive rather than critical.
Further explanation, because my preference is to "reject" as little as possible of what Tolkien actually wrote the "Published Silmarillion" school is the one with which I least identify and the one I understand worst of all, though I also find "Stuck in the pre-Silmarillion days" people a bit mystifying.
Quote:
I haven't read Shippey's book writings, although they have been recommended. Perhaps when I'm done with what drives me at the moment, I'll take time to read his work.
I haven't either in all honesty. He's just a popular writer on things which I consider to fall under this topic. I certainly intend to one of these days its just that my interest in secondary authors is quite low. Indeed, I don't think I've ever made an affirmative choice to buy a secondary resource (they have all been given as gifts) with the exception of the biography by Carpenter. When I branch out I tend to do so into other primary sources like the Elder Edda or the Pearl Poet.
[Edit to repond to a point of Kurufinwe's]
Quote:
When I mentioned salvation, I was more thinking of the problem of how, if Orcs can be saved, it can be acceptable for Elves and Men to slaughter them by the dozen without even blinking (except, maybe, Gandalf, who ‘pit[ies] even [Sauron’s] slaves’).
Note also Faramir who "would not snare even on Orc [sic!] with a falsehood". I have a memory of once reading somewhere, probably in HoME X
Morgoth's Ring
that the Elves were actually supposed to show mercy toward Orcs, not slaying them mercilessly and allowing them to surrender etc. but that they did not always do this. However, Tolkien's original idea seems certainly to have been to treat the Orcs as non-moral beings but as you noted that creates all sorts of problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
roaccarcsson
Mariner
Alliance: Stewards of Gondor
Last Visited: 28 Jan 2006
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 5542
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:26 pm |
|
|
Some disjointed observations in lieu of sustained thinking about this topic or topics:
The two approaches in question are hardly mutually exclusive. If you are going to deal with Tolkien from the point of view of literary scholarship/criticism (as I do), then you had better learn as much as you can about the actual content of his works. These are your primary data after all.
The difference is about the
objective
of the study: Is it all a game of lets-pretend, or is it about the connections between Tolkien and the big wide world? (In case anybody wants to object to the "game" label, it should be noted that JRRT copped to it in Letters.) The game is fun. I have nothing against it. I can play it myself. But ultimately it is finite - restricted to the materials that Tolkien left behind. (Not all of which are accessible to us by any means, but the boundary is out there somewhere.) Whereas if you look at the connections between Tolkien and the rest of the world, there is no theoretical limit to what the world might teach you about Tolkien, or what Tolkien might teach you about the world.
I agree wholeheartedly with whoever wanted to get rid of the word "canon." If it means anything at all, it is restricted to those writings Tolkien edited for publication, in the last form in which he approved them. Nothing else is "canon," and that emphatically includes the Sil materials in all their versions. The alternative meaning of the word, in its original sense derived from Biblical scholarship, is: Which of these writings were Divinely inspired, and which were not.
JRRT was receptive to the idea that he was in some way and at some moments a channel for something transcendental (I don't have Letters here or I would provide the cite). But he would certainly have rejected with horror the full-fledged equation of his works with Scripture.
From my lengthy experience on these boards, however, I would say that not all Tolkien fans feel the same way. The instinct toward some kind of religious belief is hard-wired, as far as I can tell, and people who are cut loose from its traditional expressions will construct their own religions out of anything that comes to hand. Some who have made Tolkien into a religion can be found posting in this general vicinity.
And they can become pretty irate if anyone suggests to them that LotR etc are the constructions of a mere fallible human being. These people I find a little hard to take, because they do not subscribe to live-and-let-live but are ready with denunciations. (In one of my most recent and possible last ever posts on Movies, I ventured to say that there is no meaningful sense in which the
LotR
books are "real" and the Peter Jackson movies (and Bakshi, and Rankin-Bass, though I didn't say so) are not equally real. Such a flaming as I was subjected to shouldn't happen to a dessert.
Oh - Kurufinwë, a hearty welcome to you from one of like mind. Please check out the Annotated LotR project if you have not already done so. We could use your help!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuor,
Mariner
Alliance: House of Hador
Last Visited: 25 Jan 2010
Joined: 29 Jun 2001
Posts: 6674
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:46 pm |
|
|
Starlin,
Quote:
If Hob, LotR and Sil were all we had, we could take the 'literary criticism' approach, not bothering ourselves with those drafts and early versions of the stories. But it is so with Tolkien, that he was leaving those "unexplained vistas" everywhere which lead us to hungering for better understanding and greater knowledge.
When I first started reading HoME, all those conflicting drafts drove me nuts. Which one is right? Then I started to look at the different stories for what they were, attempts to tell the story that Tolkien was trying to tell. Which means that although rejected stories and ideas were from Tolkien's mind, they did not tell the story Tolkien wanted to tell. It is as simple as that. Of course the question then becomes what did he reject and what did he embrace or grudgingly accept because there was no way around it.
Quote:
One of the biggest problems was whether "moobies" who hold films above the books can really be considered tolkienists, but there were also some thoughts on different types of tolkienists and Tolkien lovers.
"Moobies" are PJists. I can see how one might call them "Lord of the Ring-ists", but I do not see how they could be considered Tolkienists.
Quote:
Some read books over and over again, among them there are those who simply enjoy the story and those who like participating in discussions or at least analyzing the texts on their own (I do some analysis of LotR, just for myself). There are those who like 'visualising' ME, and they take up fanfiction, art, music in order to appreciate Tolkien deeper. There are lots of ways and the question of 'types' is a wide one.
Exactly! There are groups and within groups there are groups. I've never seen it discussed. I've never heard of the "guidebook" vs "literary criticism" distinction.
Kurufinwë,
Quote:
More than the history of Middle-earth, HOME is, to me, the story of JRR Tolkien, from the youthful enthousiasm of the Lost Tales to the fears and doubts of an old man facing the destruction of his life’s work, reaching towards the divine and yet foundering under the weight of his own contradictions; and with all that there has been in between, all the fantastic stories, places, characters, and an ever-present love of language.
I have a different idea about why Tolkien's view toward his myth changed over the years. When he was younger he was not as comfortable with his beliefs. In order for his myth to be better, he must keep it as free as possible of his own Christian beliefs. There is a certain expectation of what it means to write a good myth. But over time, he allowed Middle-earth to be his. As he owned Middle-earth, he embraced the Catholic influence he had originally tried to avoid.
Quote:
Since the things are a bit more complicated than that, they actually have to delve into the history of the texts, but only as to get more information and to decide (but how can they do that?) which piece is ‘canonical’ and which is not.
As you can see from what I've already said, I do not have this problem. Early on, yes I had that problem. As I have struggled with this issue, I have resolved the issue to a certain point. My only problem now lies in what must be grudgingly kept.
Quote:
. On the other hand, you have those who are mostly interested in the books as books, as artistic creations, who, of course, love those worlds but do not treat them as one would treat a real world and real people, and therefore look at all that always from the outside. I hope I am expressing myself clearly, though it does not seem very clear even to me.
I believe so yes. If you can't come to a conclusion about what you want to keep and throw out, then you simply decide to keep everything. Instead of trying to find out 'the true story', you simply find out all of the possible stories. In other words, the "if you decide not to decide, you still have made a choice" group. Am I dating myself?
Quote:
No version has been complete or entirely consistent since the c. 1932 Qenta Noldorinwa. Choosing that version means losing any sort of consistency with The Lord of the Rings; choosing a later one means having to settle for an incomplete text with often inconsistent conceptions.
I have no problem with incomplete texts, nor do I have a problem with inconsistencies with The Lord of the Rings. If Tolkien had not amended his works to better fit his Legendarium, then I'd have a problem with it. From what I understand, any changes to The Lord of the Rings would be minimal.
Quote:
I do not think here is the place to go into an in-depth discussion of the question of Orcs.
Perhaps I should resurrect my old thread on the subject to continue this discussion.
Eluchil,
Quote:
). I do want to clarify that in general I absolutely believe in absolute truth that is knowable, through both reason and revelation, and have a world view fairly similar to yours, as I understand it, in many respects, i.e. traditional/conservative/orthodox/evangelical Christian.
I am glad to hear that. Thank you for correcting my error.
Earlier I tried to answer your other comments about movies, but I'm afraid it went to Osgiliath. I'm glad you posted your views, now I have a better understanding.
Quote:
I've also posted with Mr. Martinez both on rec.arts.book.tolkien and on this message board, but have not kept up with his recent writings or managed to read any of his books. I could make remarks of my own but lets keep this thread descriptive rather than critical.
That's a good idea. I did not bring Michael up to be criqued, but simply as an example of a "Published Silmarillion" person who I've gotten along with even though we have a fundamentally different view which story we should accept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MithLuin
Mariner
Alliance: House of Finrod Felagund
Last Visited: 08 Feb 2010
Joined: 16 Oct 1999
Posts: 7843
|
|
|
|
|
roaccarcsson
Mariner
Alliance: Stewards of Gondor
Last Visited: 28 Jan 2006
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 5542
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:31 pm |
|
|
Uh - not as far as I know, Mith! Not on the basis of any post of yours I have seen.
I had no particular post or poster in mind. In general, I was thinking of people (no names) who will come out and say that they will accept any interpretation, however strained, in preference to concluding that Tolkien made a mistake. About anything.
If you are playing the Game, that goes without saying. If you are making a statement about the real world, it looks like idolatry to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuor,
Mariner
Alliance: House of Hador
Last Visited: 25 Jan 2010
Joined: 29 Jun 2001
Posts: 6674
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:54 pm |
|
|
One other thing I was wondering about, are there a rather small group of 'gurus' that have had a great impact on how most people on these boards view Tolkien's works.
I first started posting at Minas Tirith and happened to run into Nimruzir, who went by Saulotus (?) at Barrowdowns. He was instrumental in forming my early views of Tolkien when I first found out there was more to read than the Silmarillion, TH, and TLotR.
I know that Michael Martinez has his following at his site. Here it seems that -Rómestámo- has had a strong influence on how people view Tolkien's work. I'm sure there are others. One thing I would like to clarify is that I'm not looking for a popularity contest here, but a list of people that many look to when it comes to understanding Tolkien's work.
I was wondering if it would be helpful to identify the different 'gurus' and define their school of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eluchil
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elwe
Last Visited: 16 Aug 2006
Joined: 19 Nov 1999
Posts: 6151
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 7:43 pm |
|
|
A few minor
[NOTE 1]
points.
Roac Carc's Son said:
JRRT was receptive to the idea that he was in some way and at some moments a channel for something transcendental (I don't have Letters here or I would provide the cite). But he would certainly have rejected with horror the full-fledged equation of his works with Scripture.
Certainly. But the idea that Tolkien as "sub-creator" stands in a relationship to Middle-earth
[NOTE 2]
analogous to that of God to the Primary World is, perhaps, less problematic. I am not sure what Tolkien himself would say. He certainly felt very proprietary towards his creations once others began using them for purposes that he didn't approve.
Roac Carc's Son said:
From my lengthy experience on these boards, however, I would say that not all Tolkien fans feel the same way. The instinct toward some kind of religious belief is hard-wired, as far as I can tell, and people who are cut loose from its traditional expressions will construct their own religions out of anything that comes to hand. Some who have made Tolkien into a religion can be found posting in this general vicinity.
Certainly true. Witness the recent attempts to get people to write in Jedi as thier religion in various national censuses. I tend to simpy avoid such discussions as I don't feel anything productive can come out of them. As for the movies. There may be a difference between telling a story of ones own creation (however ancient the constituent pieces) and retelling an existing story in a new medium (or the same one for that matter). I can think of two senses in which Tolkien's books are true but PJ's films are not.
[NOTE 3]
Provactative statements aside, I'll simply agree with you that such a defense of the books is very natural but not in the long run very objectively reasonable.
Tuor, said:
When I first started reading HoME, all those conflicting drafts drove me nuts. Which one is right? Then I started to look at the different stories for what they were, attempts to tell the story that Tolkien was trying to tell. Which means that although rejected stories and ideas were from Tolkien's mind, they did not tell the story Tolkien wanted to tell. It is as simple as that. Of course the question then becomes what did he reject and what did he embrace or grudgingly accept because there was no way around it.
This leads one naturally and inevitably to the "Tolkien's Last thoughts on the Legendarium" point of view. I have a twofold critique. The basic problem is that, in my view, "the story that Tolkien wanted to tell" was not a constant but, like all things was subject to the viscisitudes of mortal existence. Firstly over the course of his life. There are lots of things which were of interest and importance to young Lt. Tolkien which were neglected by the old professor and some of the Lost Tales have no later counterparts. Secondly according to his mood or memory. Especially in his later years he seems to have equivicated between wholesale revision and largely retaining the structure of the earlier versions. Many things, including some of importance, remained unsettled throughout his life. Using a 'last known intentions' standard is reasonable but imperfect since it doesn't record any decisions or reversals that were not written down or have subsequently become lost. Because for any given moment we have only a limited amount of Tolkien's thoughts any construction must be somewhat artificial and we can have no complete assurace that it fully reflects Tolkien's own ideas in 1973 or any other time, for that matter. Thus my feeling that it is better to leave any definitive statements about what is 'true' until that later point where I can ask Tolkien and get a definitive and unchanging answer. This does not mean that no answers are better than others, however.
[NOTE 4]
Tuor, said:
I have a different idea about why Tolkien's view toward his myth changed over the years. When he was younger he was not as comfortable with his beliefs. In order for his myth to be better, he must keep it as free as possible of his own Christian beliefs. There is a certain expectation of what it means to write a good myth. But over time, he allowed Middle-earth to be his. As he owned Middle-earth, he embraced the Catholic influence he had originally tried to avoid.
Well, yes and no. A full discussion of "The External History of Catholic Influences on Tolkien's Middle-earth" deserves its own thread, but I think that you are, perhaps, overstating the case. I am pretty sure that the only one of Tolkien's writings of Middle-earth that includes the phrase "Blessed Trinity" is his first the
Qenya Lexicon
a dictionary of the Elvish language, a later version of which appears in Galadriel's poem Namarie. The earliest layer of entries includes many explicit Catholic words like monk, Holy Spirit, etc. And the fate of Men in the Lost Tales seems clearly indebted to Catholic theology whereas his later idea of leaving the Circles of World is very vague. Of course, after the publication of The Lord of the Rings Tolkien made a serious attempt to review his mythology in the light of Catholic doctrine, which led to the problemof Orcs, as well as such texts as the Athrabeth. Tolkien's translations of several prayers
[NOTE 5]
into his Elvish languages also date from this later period. On the whole I think you may be largely right, but I want to examine the matter more closely.
Tuor, said:
One other thing I was wondering about, are there a rather small group of 'gurus' that have had a great impact on how most people on these boards view Tolkien's works.
We'll see what other people say, but I don't really think so. I think alot of people are more or less like me: they read Tolkien, form their own opinions, and then compare it with others, but reserve the right to disagree even with the experts. Also note that until the rise of the Internet the reach of any guru would be
very
limited, probably no more than a local Tolkien Society chapter, if that.
Tuor, said:
I was wondering if it would be helpful to identify the different 'gurus' and define their school of thought.
This is more promissing and a good way, I think, of "getting down to brass tacks", as it were. It is easy to argue in the abstract that certain schools are "not like that" but have real people to quote and compare can only clarify the discussion, IMO. Which is why I named my schools after representitive texts, after all. "What do you mean by 'The Xyzzy School'" is a fair question, but "The kind of scholarship examplified in this book" is a fair answer.
I'll just throw out some names to get the ball rolling. The people I've already mentioned (Martinez, Flieger, Hostetter, and Shippey) are probably big lights in the constelation of Tolkien guru's. In the study of Tolkien's languages oposition to Hostetter is led by David Salo and Helge Fauskanger whose aproach I would characterize as 'Visualizing' (indeed my thoughts on this matter first arose in the context of explaining the extremely stark division in the study of Tolkien's languages). However, they emphatically reject the "game" label. Other than that I can't think of anyone who's influenced me much besides JRRT and Christopher Tolkien whose discussion on these topics I find both lucid and illuminating if at times frustratingly incomplete.
Notes:
1:
Minor must obviously be taken in the sense of trivial rather than short.
2:
Throughout this post I use the term "Middle-earth" to refer to Tolkien's sub-created world in all its permutations from the Lost Tales to the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion. Eä would be a technically better term in such a broad sense, but Middle-earth has the advantage of wide currency and immediate recognition.
3:
First, Tolkien's books are true to "the story Tolkien wanted to tell" in ways that the films obviously aren't, though how much is a matter of translation to the screen and how much unwarranted change is a subject of reasonable debate. Second, Tolkien's books have the ability to communicate deep eternal truths to the reader and the films, with a few minor exceptions, do not.  <ducks flames> [That's why you don't see me much in Movies ] [Edit: But see my clarifications in my next two posts as well as my comment on the topic of "real and true" in my prior one.]
4:
If someone says, "Gil-Galad was Finrod's son", I'll happily say, "For a moment, maybe, but Tolkien's clear later intention was for him to be the son of Orodreth and it is still not fully clear to me why Christopher Tolkien felt it was impossible to integrate this change into the published Silmarillion. I mean, sure, one could accomplish it by a wholesale rewriting of the role of the House of Finarfin in the revolt of the Noldor and all the the chapters dealing with Nargothrond, but one could also change a few names, add a couple of sentences, and update the family trees. Orodreth already had been changed to
act
like the young son of Angrod rather than a proud Noldo of Valinor, that's presumably why Tolkien felt the need to make the change in the first place."[/rant]
5:
Lord's Prayer
Pater Noster
, Hail Mary
Ave Maria
, Litany of Loretto, and
Gloria Patri
, published in
Vinyar Tengwar
43
and 44.
Thanks again Tuor, for such an interesting thread and to everyone who has contributed. I couldn't sleep as I thought about it and so got up to make a small post. 
|
|
Last edited by Eluchil on Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
roaccarcsson
Mariner
Alliance: Stewards of Gondor
Last Visited: 28 Jan 2006
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 5542
|
|
|
|
|
Luinnenion
Ranger of the North
Alliance: House of Finrod Felagund
Last Visited: 20 Jan 2010
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 1539
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:26 pm |
|
|
Tuor, said:
Quote:
One of the biggest problems was whether "moobies" who hold films above the books can really be considered tolkienists, but there were also some thoughts on different types of tolkienists and Tolkien lovers.
"Moobies" are PJists. I can see how one might call them "Lord of the Ring-ists", but I do not see how they could be considered Tolkienists.
Ahem. As a frequent sojourner into "Movies", I feel I must offer clarification here. "Moobies" or "m00bies", as typically used here on TORC, refers to regular posters in Movies - Lord of the Rings. Among them are some highly critical of the film, and some highly praising of the film. But in the three years I've been frequenting the forum I have
never
come across someone who held the films higher than the books, save the odd hit-and-run troll. Some feel the books have executed certain
aspects
of the story better, but no one, not even arch-defender of the movies Iavas_Saar, has ever expressed the sentiment that the movies as a whole are better than the books as a whole.
Now, there may certainly be a group of people out there who enjoyed the movies more than the books. But, as a group I doubt they are as big and cohesive enough to require classification (which, as a m00bie, I would prefer to be something else). Perhaps the closest one gets to such a creature are the denizens of TORN, but I do not feel that as a group they have a comparative aspect, and it does not seem to me that they lay any claim to being "Tolkienists". They are not really relevant to the discussion, any more than Star Wars fans.
Other than that, I'm afraid I don't have anything else to offer this thread, other than to say I find myself in total agreement with roaccarcsson and Kurufinwë.
Oh, except,
Eluchil
, see my post above re: Shippey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eluchil
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elwe
Last Visited: 16 Aug 2006
Joined: 19 Nov 1999
Posts: 6151
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:50 am |
|
|
Eagle eyes roac. I had hoped that putting my points in a footnote and including some friendly smilies would camaflouge my disagreement, but you completely saw through my ruse.
Roac Carc's Son said:
The first of these sentences is accurate but trivial.
Tautalogical, I'll admit but I'm less sure about trivial. True to "the story that Tolkien was trying to tell" means true in the context of the game of the 'Visualizing' school that I do not regard as necessarily illegitimate. It is not the fullest or deepest meaning of true but I think it is a real one.
Roac Carc's Son said:
The second statement is not a matter of "truth" but a value judgment.
I think that true can legitmately be given the meaning communicating truth through a fictional frame. Otherwise one must acept C.S. Lewis claim that myths are lies "even though breathed through silver" which Tolkien so vigorously countered in "Mythopoeia".
Roac Carc's Son said:
Artistic merit is not the same thing as "reality."
True enough. I've been fixating on the word 'true' but double checking you actually used the word 'real' where I wouldn't want to argue with you. I'll make two parting observations. I would not equate "communicating eternal truth" and "artistic merit" as you seem to be doing. Indeed I wouldn't see them as related. "Reality" is a harder nut to crack. The Lord of the Rings is a book. I am perfectly happy to approach and study it as a book. It gives a taste, however, of something more than that. As I intimated to Tuor, I remain hopefull that (to be blunt) in the afterlife I will be able to better experience Tolkien's world in its completed and harmonized form, as Tolkien describes in Leaf by Niggle.
Thus, I am at heart a Visualizer; I want Tolkien's world to be real. Questions about how old Cirdan was or how tall Galadriel interest me more than which characters partake of Odin's traits and symbolism or what meaning and history Earendel has in Germanic legend. What I regard as a mistake is speaking as if we have the "story that Tolkien was trying to tell" (can I call it the Platonic ideal of Middle-earth? ) fully availible to us or that our speculations, no matter how well founded, must agree with it. It is, of course, as you say, idolatrous to assert the Primary truth of Tolkien's world, as I have seen done, or to hold it in actual religious veneration. As a
fan
I prefer explanations to errors, but LotR has typos, ommissions, and a couple of outright mistatements. But likewise, I think that it is, at least, ill-mannered to reject that the "game" is as a harmless passtime or to assert that Tolkien's work is only interesting as a starting point into other realms. That would be the very error Tolkien berrates in his contempory scholars of Beowulf. They were only interested in the conections and origins, and never stopped to consider and enjoy the work itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luinnenion
Ranger of the North
Alliance: House of Finrod Felagund
Last Visited: 20 Jan 2010
Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 1539
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:46 am |
|
|
Eluchil said:
But likewise, I think that it is, at least, ill-mannered to reject that the "game" is as a harmless passtime or to assert that Tolkien's work is only interesting as a starting point into other realms. That would be the very error Tolkien berrates in his contempory scholars of Beowulf. They were only interested in the conections and origins, and never stopped to consider and enjoy the work itself.
Whoops! Now both sides have suggested the other are going down the road of the old Beowulf critics!
And having read both "Monsters & the Critics" and "Beowulf and the Critics", IMO both sides are wrong, in general.
What Tolkien was suggesting in M&tC and BatC is
not
that historical quarrying (Visualization) was wrong, nor that source criticism (Legendarium) was wrong. In fact, he gives explicit approval to both. What he was very specifically combating was the tendency of Beowulf research to
ignore
the poem itself, and circumstances of its composition, and by not properly looking at the poem itself, to write it off as unskilled or poorly done, and then because they thought it was poorly done, to
only
quarry it for historical information.
I hardly think that applies in this case, as nobody ignores the narrative aspect of the stories, nor does anyone think Tolkien's work lacks artistic merit.
I wasn't aware of any real schism between so-called "Visualist" and "Legendarium" schools of thought. Both seemed to co-exist pretty easily here on TORC. The strongest strains of it seem to be in the area of linguistics, and frankly, I think that schism has more to do the personalities of the participants at this point than it does schools of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuor,
Mariner
Alliance: House of Hador
Last Visited: 25 Jan 2010
Joined: 29 Jun 2001
Posts: 6674
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:12 am |
|
|
Eluchil,
Quote:
I have a twofold critique. The basic problem is that, in my view, "the story that Tolkien wanted to tell" was not a constant but, like all things was subject to the viscisitudes of mortal existence. Firstly over the course of his life. There are lots of things which were of interest and importance to young Lt. Tolkien which were neglected by the old professor and some of the Lost Tales have no later counterparts. Secondly according to his mood or memory.
Let me preface this by saying what I believe most believe and that each of us have our own Middle-earths, but once we make certain assumptions then we have the obligation to be consistant with our basic assumptions.
Keeping this in mind, what you've written is simply the reason why you haven't taken my course. Every decision we make concerning Tolkien's work will have its good side and its bad side and we must judge if the good out weighs the bad. For me, the neglected tales are interesting and it is nice to see how the Legendarium developed, but I simply do not consider it a part of 'the game'.
In other words, it doesn't bother me.
Quote:
Especially in his later years he seems to have equivicated between wholesale revision and largely retaining the structure of the earlier versions. Many things, including some of importance, remained unsettled throughout his life.
This is definitely a fact. That is why I mentioned earlier that I still have to struggle with what should be thrown out and what should be grudgingly accepted.
Quote:
Using a 'last known intentions' standard is reasonable but imperfect since it doesn't record any decisions or reversals that were not written down or have subsequently become lost.
I would argue that taking any stance, even the stance of not making a decision, has the same possibility of being imperfect for the exact same reasons. As long as we all realize this and remember this about or own views, alot of contention can easily be avoided.
Quote:
Thus my feeling that it is better to leave any definitive statements about what is 'true' until that later point where I can ask Tolkien and get a definitive and unchanging answer. This does not mean that no answers are better than others, however.[NOTE 4]
4: If someone says, "Gil-Galad was Finrod's son", I'll happily say, "For a moment, maybe, but Tolkien's clear later intention was for him to be the son of Orodreth and it is still not fully clear to me why Christopher Tolkien felt it was impossible to integrate this change into the published Silmarillion. I mean, sure, one could accomplish it by a wholesale rewriting of the role of the House of Finarfin in the revolt of the Noldor and all the the chapters dealing with Nargothrond, but one could also change a few names, add a couple of sentences, and update the family trees. Orodreth already had been changed to act like the young son of Angrod rather than a proud Noldo of Valinor, that's presumably why Tolkien felt the need to make the change in the first place."[/rant]
I think that in spirit we agree upon how we should interact with people. It isn't as if I'm trying to force my view as the definative view.
Quote:
On the whole I think you may be largely right, but I want to examine the matter more closely.
I'm glad to see that you agree with me. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, I've simply stated how I view it. I will gladly be corrected, as long as it is with evidence.
Quote:
This is more promissing and a good way, I think, of "getting down to brass tacks", as it were. It is easy to argue in the abstract that certain schools are "not like that" but have real people to quote and compare can only clarify the discussion, IMO. Which is why I named my schools after representitive texts, after all. "What do you mean by 'The Xyzzy School'" is a fair question, but "The kind of scholarship examplified in this book" is a fair answer.
I'm glad you like the idea. We'll see if it gets any traction.
Luinnenion
Quote:
Ahem
I did not mean to offend.
Quote:
Now, there may certainly be a group of people out there who enjoyed the movies more than the books. But, as a group I doubt they are as big and cohesive enough to require classification (which, as a m00bie, I would prefer to be something else). Perhaps the closest one gets to such a creature are the denizens of TORN, but I do not feel that as a group they have a comparative aspect, and it does not seem to me that they lay any claim to being "Tolkienists". They are not really relevant to the discussion, any more than Star Wars fans.
I agree. I was simply trying to give a solution what starlin saw as a problem.
roaccarcsson
Quote:
Artistic merit is not the same thing as "reality." The book is marks on paper. The movie is patterns of colors on chemical film and/or very long sequences of ones and zeros. Neither is real in any meanigful sense.
I didn't forsee the Purist vs. Revisionist debate rearing its ugly head here, but I feel that I must give my view on this one:
I believe that Middle-earth is real and meaningful in the sense that it is Tolkien's myth which he spent a great deal of his life trying to get right. That is why I believe anyone who is trying to tell any story of Middle-earth should strive to tell Tolkien's story and not take 'liberties' as PJ described his diversions from Tolkien's myth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
roaccarcsson
Mariner
Alliance: Stewards of Gondor
Last Visited: 28 Jan 2006
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 5542
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:13 pm |
|
|
Quote:
I didn't forsee the Purist vs. Revisionist debate rearing its ugly head here
I was the one who brought it in. I apologize and will not reply further. Let it lie.
I do not mean to be dismissive about game-playing. Some author somewhere defined the human species as the Game-Playing Animal (
Homo Ludens
) and wrote a book with that title. There are millions and millions of people for whom some game such as chess or golf is one of the most important things in their lives - far more important than the way they make a living. (Leaving aside the ones who make a living playing the game, of course.) Obviously there is some deep need that is being satisfied by these activities, and it would be pointless to scoff.
The problem is that
from the outside
these games look silly, or at least not worthy of the effort being put into them. I mean, look at the time and money you are spending reading and talking about hitting a ball with a stick and making it go into a hole! let alone actually trying to do it,
As some are tired of hearing, I first read LotR at the age of 10, so long ago that after finishing TT, I had to
wait for the publication of RK
to see how the story came out.
Ever since that time I have been engaged in a steady effort to try to get other people to read the book - and to share my understanding & appreciation of it. (I had very little success outside my own family before the Tolkien boom of the '60s. Which helped some, but nowhere near as much as the PJ movies! A fact which has a lage effect on my attitude for them.)
My college training was in literary criticism, and though I make my living in another field, thank God, I have never ceased to think of myself as a member of the
literati
. It has been said in scorn that nobody ever grew up wanting to be a critic. This is not true.
I
did. I never thought for a minute that I had it in me to write a work of fiction that was any good, but from when I was a small child I wanted to learn
about
books - how they are put together, how different authors do things in diffeent ways, and so on. It didn't take long from the time I read
LotR
to figure out that
this
was the book I wanred to learn about above all others. And not only to learn about it - to try and convince other members of my caste, who mostly thought otherwise and probably still do, that it was worthy of their attention.
So I have a little bit of a problem with the Tolkien game-players, because they make it a little bit easier for the sceptics to laugh the whole thing off. I mean, if there is someone out there (as no doubt there is) who has taken the
oeuvre
of Gene Roddenberry as an field of academic study, I guarantee that when that person is given the Vulcan salute by someone in prosthetic ears and a polyester jumpsuit two sizes too small, his or her blood pressure is going to go up
(This is emphatically not directed at anyone participating in this thread!)
I had several other things to say but this post is plenty long enough. Later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eluchil
Mariner
Alliance: House of Elwe
Last Visited: 16 Aug 2006
Joined: 19 Nov 1999
Posts: 6151
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:31 pm |
|
|
Just to further clarify my responses to Roac. Though he may have first mentioned the issue I jumped in the with two feet (though I should have known better). In my zeal to defend Tolkien, understandable as a
fan
, I was too hasty and did not carefully consider the actual point he was making and so we have largely talked at cross-purposes. He said that Tolkien's stories were no more real than PJ's (while I still bristle at the implied equivalency between someone who would be deeply embarrassed by my extremely high judgment of his literary worth and a competent movie director), he is right. 'Real' is a property of things. The Lord of the Rings is a real book and a real movie (or 5 ) but they tell about places and people that are not real. There is not and never was a wizard called Gandalf the Grey or a village called Hobbiton. 'True' is a property of statements. My position is that what Tolkien was saying is, in some valid senses, true, whereas PJ's work is true in fewer or other senses. I hate sounding like some post-modern relativist talking about different 'truths', but I think that in dealing with fiction the fact that the word is used in more ways than one is inescapable.
I would like to thank roac for his indulgence. I for one did not know that his connection with The Lord of the Rings was so venerable. By comparison, I have a copy of Unfinished Tales that is probably older than I am and used a second hand 25th anniversary edition paperback as my standard copy though I was also 10 years old when I read it. I certainly appreciate his perspective even though (or is it because?) it is so different from my own. I'll forebear to take us off track with more Star Trek (which is relevant because they too have canon debates though the issues are rather different) or literary criticism discussion so that we can concentrate on the main point. Does anyone have more thoughts to offer? Or a proposal for unifying terminology? We all seem to understand one another, but we all prefer are own terms.
One more thing:
Luinnenion said:
Whoops! Now both sides have suggested the other are going down the road of the old Beowulf critics!
It is a pretty old debating tactic. When it doubt apply to authority and imply your opponents are on the wrong side of it. You are probably right that both sides (to the extent we may speak of sides cf. Tolkien's discussion in his Valedictory Address about 'facets' v 'factions') are overstating their case. Everyone views there preferred method of enjoying Tolkien as the right and proper one and can't help sometimes accusing others of missing the boat. Perhaps we can modify Tolkien's metaphor a bit. He said that from the top of the tower (the poem) the poet could look out and see the sea. Tolkien's own tower is rooted in the soil of the West Midlands but it rises to heights so celestial and sublime that it has two windows. From one you can see the Irish Sea and from the other the North. How's that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
roaccarcsson
Mariner
Alliance: Stewards of Gondor
Last Visited: 28 Jan 2006
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 5542
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:20 pm |
|
|
An analogy that occurred to me is to the difference between a Civil War historian and a Civil War reenactor.
Either might want to put on the authentic equipment of a Civil War soldier and run across the field where a great battle took place. In order to understand first-hand what the experience was like for those who participated in it.
The difference would be that the historian's purpose would be to
communicate
that understanding - to students, to other historians and to the general public - and perhaps to throw new light on why things happened the way they did.
While for the reenactor, the point is to have the experience for one's own benefit. (I gather this can slide over the border into a mystic identification with the participants. I don't claim to understand.) Of course there is no reason at all why the same person might be both a reenactor
and
a historian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MithLuin
Mariner
Alliance: House of Finrod Felagund
Last Visited: 08 Feb 2010
Joined: 16 Oct 1999
Posts: 7843
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:04 pm |
|
|
Sorry,
roac
, I didn't mean to sound so paranoid! I like to think I don't idolize dear old J.R.R.T., but I certainly have a huge respect and come rushing to his defence often enough....not to mention that I posted in the thread about canonizing him .
Yes, 'fandom' often looks silly. It is people making costumes, talking in fake Elvish and writing sappy fanfiction. I feel ok saying that because I have done all of those things . But I do think that that is another way of getting at the truth of the story (or is it the reality? I must read Plato some day...) Meaning, if you are going to (for instance) write a fan-fiction about hobbits, and you want to do a good job, you are going to look up details about the Shire, etc. so that you 'get them right'. At this level, it is no different than other research. But then, once you find these details, you put them together and try them out in new circumstances. This type of experimentation takes you beyond the places you can get to by reading the story. It raises questions. You have to think about new things and new situations, and by doing this, your understanding can grow. The same with other areas of fandom - researching the recipe for lembas requires you to look up all the relevant quotes, but also to play around a bit in the kitchen. To use the language examples above - it is one thing to study Tolkien's Quenya samples; it is quite another to compose your own poetry in Quenya! I am not suggesting that every member of fandom is in it for the learning experience, but I
am
suggesting that different approaches teach you different things. It is worthwhile to explore these avenues. (so we should include that category, even if it is just a subset or footnote).
And yes, I know: you can tell people as much as you want that Tolkien wrote about real life and eternal truth, but all it takes is for someone like me to walk by in my cloak to ruin it all .
I apologize if this confuses matters, but I'd like to throw in yet another system. One way of classifying different fans (and by this I mean fans who are interested in some form of research/discussion of Tolkien's works) would be to focus on their product (fandom, pseudo-science, and literary criticism):
Fans who want an answer. They do not care if you have to make it up, or ignore some details: they just want a concrete answer (the answer can't be 'we don't know'). This approach makes sense if you are going to
do
something with the information (draw a picture, make a card game, write a fanfiction). I would call these people pragmatists if the word did not have certain Moobies-forum connotations; perhaps concretists. Typical questions in this category would be: what color was Legolas' hair (or how old was he)? What were the Nazgul's names? Why didn't the Eagles fly the Ring to Mt. Doom?
More scholarly than this would be people who are interested in the
right
answer. They want to thoroughly analyze every detail available to come up with the answer that best fits the data. The answer does not have to be popular, and can be 'we can't be sure', but it should be logically satisfying. I think this would be the "Visualizing" school above. People in this group do not understand the interest in Lost Tales or languages such as Qenya, since these things aren't the real deal. Typical questions might be: what was the population of Gondor? What was the relationship between the Dwarves of Durin's House and the other Houses of the Dwarves? Did the Knights of Dol Amroth have chain mail or plate armor? Did the Balrog have wings?
Then there are people who are interested in the full scope of answers. They don't want one answer to a question: they want all the answers. The idea here would be to look at the development of ideas. This group might be least likely to claim any sort of reality, because they are not hammering things down in one way. So, some questions might be: what was the fate of Amrod and Amras (or Elwing's brothers)? How many Balrogs were there? Who is Tom Bombadil? (actually, everyone wants to give that a single answer, but I think the question begs for a list of possibilities) Who was Celeborn?
These categories
only
deal with the rather external questions. They don't deal with things like what the effect of the Ring was on Frodo, because that discussion gets tied up much more with the meaning of the story. I find the external questions much less interesting than some of the more metaphorical questions, but I don't have a category for that. I just know that the discussions that result from this end up in threads like Frodo's Kitchen and
ArPhy
's Myth for England.
There is one thing I want to say, though: people in any category can truly love these books. What you choose to mine them for on a given day is up to you, but the measure of a fan is not in approach, but rather in how much they cherish the books. But I think this exercise is very useful, because fans approach questions from different points of view. I hestitate to put names with my categories, though. I think the same person can address these questions on different levels.
I must admit that I did not read LotR until I was 12  , and though the copy I read was a Ballantine paperback with the "living author" disclaimer on the back, I must admit that the professor and I did not walk this earth at the same time. So, I am quite a newbie compared to some of you folks .
|
|
|
|
|
|
RoseMorninStar
Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the Moon.
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 07 Feb 2010
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 8715
Location: North Shire, USA
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:30 am |
|
|
Well, I must fall somewhere inbetween the two of you MithLuin and Roac!!  I did not have the pleasure of being introduced to the wonderful world of Middle Earth until about 6 years ago (before I knew the movies were being made). I had never been a fan of fantasy (preferring historical fiction) and when I proof-read Harry Potter to see if it was appropriate for my daughter, I loved it and decided perhaps I was missing out on something in this genré. I decided to take a look at 'The Hobbit'. I have been hooked evermore.
Roac.. I, for one, did not know your long history with LotR and find it fascinating!! I also find it amusing that I was about to use the same comparison to civil war re-enactors (as that is something I also used to partake in!) I think that is a wonderful analogy.
Tolkien had a vision. His vision was formed and inspired by his love of languages. And also for his love of mythology and legend. He must have felt the loss of his own countries' verbal & written stories quite deeply. So he set about devising one in his own mind and heart. We are fortunate enough that he also decided to commit it to paper. As with all ancient texts, myths and legends, there are mysteries and missing bits & pieces. As I have said before.. inconsistencies and inconguencies. Such is the stuff of legends. Literally.
I think that when all is said and done, Tolkiens' work is a masterpiece. It is a work of art. There is a greatness about it. And I think that people like to make a personal connection to something so great. I think that is why they like to 'infuse' themselves into its 'history', its depth that Tolkien took such pains to create. Middle Earth is pure creativity and inspiration at its finest. A labor of love and talent. We all learn in different ways. Some of us are verbal learners, others visual or tactile. We all want to 'take things in'... to fill our senses with things we relate to. Such it is with Tolkiens beautifully crafted work of art. It is probably as close as some of us will ever come to being a part of something great.
It is the same with re-inactors (I did not take this up civil war re-inacting out of my own passion, but that of my husband). Wars have a greatness about them...a terrible type of greatness, but great none-the-less. It is a connection with history...with the story of living that attracts us.
I am an artist, and I find it just plain fun to infuse myself into character. In my closet I have civil war ball gowns, prairie dresses, Middle-eastern dance costumes (did that for 8 years), medieval costume and a hobbit lass outfit, among others. I have made countless other costumes for my daughter who also likes to 'dress-up', raccoons, hummingbirds, Hermione Granger Griffindor robe, matching hobbit lass dress, etc..
I also have an awesome Lembas recipe for anyone who is interested!
|
|
|
''The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you choose, what you think, and what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny...it is the light that guides your way.'' ~ Heraclitus
|
|
|
|
|
starlin
Ranger of the North
Alliance: Gondor
Last Visited: 03 Feb 2010
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 2333
Location: LT (Vilnius) - UK (London)
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:44 am |
|
|
Kurufinwë said:
I am afraid that this probably one of the things that I like most about Tolkien: the complexity, the confusion, the many-sidedness.
Oh, I don't say I don't like it. In fact, I quite agree with you that the complexity and details of Tolkien and his works are one of the greatest features in the whole tolkienism as such (at least I enjoy reading Tolkien because everytime I read LotR or any other book, I find something new). What I mean is that it goes beyond simple literary work, in the way in which literary works are usually appreciated. It is more a question of being a fan, admirer or whatever, not a mere reader. That's why I said that to take Tolkien (and criticize him) in purely literary terms, on the grounds of the published 'canon', is quite impossible when you have acquainted with all that other material, or at least part of it.
This discussion is getting very interesting. Unfortunately, I have no time now to read it all, so I will lurk a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
RoseMorninStar
Don't tell me the sky is the limit when there are footprints on the Moon.
Alliance: The Shire
Last Visited: 07 Feb 2010
Joined: 30 May 2004
Posts: 8715
Location: North Shire, USA
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 12:42 pm |
|
|
Starlin, I think I may understand what you mean. It is because this was such a life-long labor of love. Something that was forming in Tolkien's mind...long before he probably concieved of publishing it. So, in a sense, the work of 'Middle-earth'...all of it, the Sil, HoME, LotR, Hobbit...
does
have a 'history' of sorts. Even if it was only in the mind of the creator, Tolkien himself. He was not writting for the sake of publishing a good yarn. He was trying to get the history right..as he concieved it in his mind/memory. It is also a rare treat (with the publication of HoME) to be able to delve into the mind of such a creative genius and watch the process unfold and develop.
|
|
|
''The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you choose, what you think, and what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny...it is the light that guides your way.'' ~ Heraclitus
|
|
|
|
|
MithLuin
Mariner
Alliance: House of Finrod Felagund
Last Visited: 08 Feb 2010
Joined: 16 Oct 1999
Posts: 7843
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:27 pm |
|
|
Rose
- I'm interested in that recipe!
There is an entire thread dedicated to the making of Lembas and all related research:
The Lembas Workshop (Coimoro Aulemar)
scirocco
has kindly included it in his Big List.
Feel free to post your recipe there!
Usually, I just make pizzelles and call them lembas, but sometimes I like to try more exotic things. I am particularly interested in flavorings - I tend to stick to vanilla or lemon, but I would like something unique (and yummy!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuor,
Mariner
Alliance: House of Hador
Last Visited: 25 Jan 2010
Joined: 29 Jun 2001
Posts: 6674
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 6:50 am |
|
|
I read this and thought it would be a nice twist on the discussion. Tolkien commenting on his readers.
From Letter 328
Not until I got your letter did I learn that he had done me the honour of placing the works of his old colleague in the ranks of 'literature', and gaining me intelligent and well-equipped readers. Not a soil in which the fungus-growth of cults is likely to arise. The horrors of the American scene I will pass over, though they have given me great distress and labour. (They arise in an entirely different mental climate and soil, polluted and impoverished to a degree only paralleled by the lunatic destruction of the physical lands which Americans inhabit.)
The letter continues giving JRR's view of the different interpretations of Middle-earth.
Of course The L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its fortunes, as a parent would of a child. I am conforted to know that it has good friends to defend it against the malice of its enemies. (But all the fools are not in the other camp.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
Goto:
|
|
| Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
|
| The time now is Tue Feb 9, 2010 4:34 am ... All times are GMT - 8 Hours
|
|
| |
Give Tuor, a Premiere Membership!
