Tolkien and Negative Capability

[Mnemosyne]

DISCLAIMER: After a quick precursory thread search on the word "ambiguous" I couldn't find anything specifically having to deal with this topic; however, I know that people have touched on it briefly here and there in other threads. So I'm going out on a limb here and trying to give it a thread of its own, if it hasn't been given one in the past (I'm sure if so, one of the venerable wights on this site will graciously link this one into irrelevance).



YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED POST

The other night I was reading (translate: "had to read, but in a very good sort of way") one of Keats' letters, where he discussed the work of great poets as one of "Negative Capability"--that was, the ability to revel in the mysterious and present questions without this compelling urge to arrive at an answer:


I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, on various subjects; several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in Literature & which Shakespeare posessed so enormously--I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason--Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half knowledge. This pursued through Volumes would perhaps take us no further than this, that with a great poet the sense of Beauty overcomes every other consideration, or rather obliterates all consideration.

And this immediately struck me on several levels, because of course I thought of this:

"Fair lady!" said Frodo again after a while. "Tell me, if my asking does not seem foolish, who is Tom Bombadil?"

"He is," said Goldberry, staying her swift movements and smiling.

Frodo looked at her questioningly. "He is, as you have seen him," she said in answer to his look. "He is the Master of wood, water, and hill."

And this:


These rhymes and names will crop up; but they do not always explain themselves. I have yet to discover anything about the cats of Queen Beruthiel.

And the fact that Tolkien intentionally wrote two contradictory accounts of the Elessar stone, and pretty much any statement from Tolkien saying that there is no outright Message to be read into his works.

What I find most interesting about this, I think, is that things like Queen Beruthiel ended up getting their own explanation, and even matters such as scientific accuracy in Middle-earth, some form of the Incarnation, and other things that suggest that Tolkien was "incapable of remaining content with half knowledge" as it were, crept into Middle-earth over time.

And yet he never explained Bombadil to us.

The other thing I find so fascinating about this is that we often look at Tolkien as drawing inspiration from things very early and very late, but not necessarily from such people as the Romantic poets. And granted, there's no reason to think that people didn't revel in the unknown before the Romantic Era; but I don't think I've ever seen the idea presented half so well and I think articulations like that increase the demand for the unknown as it's presented in Faerie.

So on the one hand we have Tolkien the Fairy-story-writer, who is content that things don't always make sense; and on the other hand we have Tolkien the Sub-creator, who needs things to make sense for the world he made to be viable.

How was this tension resolved, if ever? Did the balance shift one way or another over time? Did publication and the establishment of a "canon" have any effect on the matter?

And where do you prefer to stand as a reader? Do you prefer the ambiguities, or the explanations?

[Pitchwife]

OK, as a great opening post by itself does not an interesting discussion make, I'll give it a try.
Starting from the end:
And where do you prefer to stand as a reader? Do you prefer the ambiguities, or the explanations?
Both, in a way, but leaning slightly more to ambiguity. I'm glad to have the two versions of the Elessar and the various versions of the history of Celeborn and Galadriel and their relation to Amroth and what-have-you-got, and wouldn't want to miss any of them, but I can live very well without deciding which of them is the 'definite' one, and with being free to prefer one or the other depending on my mood of the day. And I'm quite satisfied with Bombadil, at least, remaining forever an enigma.
So on the one hand we have Tolkien the Fairy-story-writer, who is content that things don't always make sense; and on the other hand we have Tolkien the Sub-creator, who needs things to make sense for the world he made to be viable.
Shrewd observation! If I may try to elaborate on it a bit, I think we here see a dichotomy between actual writing as storytelling or poetry and pure subcreation for its own sake (nowadays, I believe, better known as 'worldbuilding' outside strict Tolkien fanship communities). Both are, in my eyes, forms of art, exercises of the creative imagination, and both have to do with exploration of the unknown, but the difference is somewhat like between drawing a map of a piece of countryside and exploring it by walking, without knowing beforehand what you'll find around the next corner (like Tolkien first invented, or rather discovered, the Black Riders and Trotter/Strider with no idea who they really were).
Great fantasy, I believe, is where both work together and complement each other; but for every Tolkien (what am I saying, there can be only one, but you know what I mean) there are countless people out there on the internet nowadays who have the most imaginative conworlds with every geographic, historical and linguistic details fleshed out but never get beyond first chapters:(...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

So on the one hand we have Tolkien the Fairy-story-writer, who is content that things don't always make sense; and on the other hand we have Tolkien the Sub-creator, who needs things to make sense for the world he made to be viable.

I wouldn't say there's a tension; rather, a juxtaposition without which the stories would be less interesting. The important thing is that most of it has been carefully crafted to make good sense, whereas there's been a conscious decision to keep a few mysteries open to speculation.

So I reckon it's hard to choose one over the other because the effectiveness of the mysteries is achieved only though their placement in the detailed subcreation, which is in turn ... um, embiggened by the ambiguities.

[Galin]

Part of Pitchwife's response above inspires a slight niggle from me. Just a part :)

I think the two-part Elessar tale intends to echo the Primary World with purposed uncertainties that might arise in a legendarium, and arguably lends a measure of reality in this way. The 'Amroth matter' is external however, a writer writing, creating and revising, and there is no indication (that I'm aware of, and not that you said there was) that the Secondary World was to be ambiguous concerning Amroth as Galadriel's son. The (perhaps obvious) point could be made by pointing out that there's only two variations concerning the Elessar, not more, despite that at least one other 'history' exists (written earlier than the Elessar text).

I certainly enjoy the multi-source approach to the legendarium: I suggest that Tolkien 'ratified' the Mannish tradition The Drowning of Anadûnê in later years, for example, to stand in comparison to the mixed (Elvish/Mannish) tale published with the Silmarillion. I also like the approach exampled by the text on the Elessar-stone (despite my problems with The Elessar itself, as a very rough text). And I have no problem in general with ambiguities.

But in what measure, and in what circumstance, do these things add to the reality of the Subcreated World, rather than possibly (or arguably) undermine it? Again that's for the author to decide in each case: would the Secondary World be enhanced -- or undermined -- if there were two conflicting stories concerning whether or not Amroth was Galadriel's son, for instance. I have my opinion there (and in the end only Tolkien could really answer that question for himself), but in any case my point above is rather that 'Amroth as Galadriel's son or not' is not an internal matter anyway -- this idea appears to arise only from draft writings, in which context Tolkien subsequently rejected the notion. This issue was always an external one.

Despite these things, consistency within the Subcreated World looms large (and one can have mystery without creating specific conflicting versions, of course). And despite that Tolkien seemingly could not help himself at times*, publication became an important factor here -- not unnaturally, as it must for anyone trying to create a believable world.

And I like the way Eomer of the Rohirrim put it (with help from Lisa Simpson?)!

____________________

*I don't think it's a big deal really, but in the end I feel there was no real 'need' to change Inglor to Finrod for example -- especially as Tolkien's stated reason to do so between editions ultimately fell by the wayside, as Finarfin was retained and characterized as Sindarized in any case. Thus this change to the second edition resulted in a revision that didn't really fix Tolkien's problem, and seems like an external error by comparison (considering too that it lacks an internal explanation from the author).

[Findegil]

I do not agree that the matter of internal or external is that simple as Galin put it. Let's take up the example of Amroth again. At first view Galin is right. Since Tolkiens is drafting diffrent version at diffrent times this seems to be claer case of external uncertainty. And we all can be sure that Amroth and Galadriel had never any doubt about the matter (alltough Celeborn might have ;)).

But that is not the end of the story. A secondary reality is formed in the mind of the reader while he reads and reflects about it. And Tolkien left diffrent versions. So in the mind of the reader uncertainty is created. Obviously the degree of uncertainty differs individualy. So you, Galin, might have found a clear line how to decied which version of Amroth family is true for your secondary reality of Middle-Earth. But other poeple might find even clearly reported events in Middle-Earth so unbeliviable that their secondary reality of Middle-Earth contains uncertainty were you would never have expacted them.

Better categories then internal and external in the case of uncertainties might be intended and unintended by the author. Thus the case of the Elessar or Tom Bombadil might be intended and Amroth might be unintended. But we come to a grey area when we look at the question were the Orks come from. The account in the Silmarillion is uncertain by intention, but we learn by reading further that the author himself didn't know the 'true' answer, so the uncertainty in the text was probably forces upon him by his own uncertianty.

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

I do not agree that the matter of internal or external is that simple as Galin put it. Let's take up the example of Amroth again. At first view Galin is right. Since Tolkiens is drafting diffrent version at diffrent times this seems to be claer case of external uncertainty.

But you don't appear to disagree with me that the Amroth matter is anything more than Tolkien revising an idea within the context of external drafts. Rather, you seem to want to include this issue under an altered characterization (as you describe below): unintended uncertainties.

But that is not the end of the story. A secondary reality is formed in the mind of the reader while he reads and reflects about it. And Tolkien left diffrent versions. So in the mind of the reader uncertainty is created. Obviously the degree of uncertainty differs individualy. So you, Galin, might have found a clear line how to decied which version of Amroth family is true for your secondary reality of Middle-Earth. But other poeple might find even clearly reported events in Middle-Earth so unbeliviable that their secondary reality of Middle-Earth contains uncertainty were you would never have expacted them.

In general the degree of uncertainty will differ individually, yes, which is essentially why I can't answer for Tolkien on the matter -- what he thinks is an acceptable variation within his Subcreated World might not be what I, or the next guy, thinks is acceptable when creating that believable world.

That said, I'm not sure I follow the point in categorizing certain external revisions as unintended obscurities.

Better categories then internal and external in the case of uncertainties might be intended and unintended by the author. Thus the case of the Elessar or Tom Bombadil might be intended and Amroth might be unintended.

If you think that's a better distinction then so be it, but an unintended uncertainty is still (obviously) not the intent of the author.

If I use Qenta Noldorinwa to answer questions about the Elder Days I will (no doubt) be 'corrected' about certain 'facts' all over the web, in any forum I choose to do this -- such facts as were clearly enough rejected in the 1950s and 1960s, although no version of Quenta Silmarillion was ever published by the creator of Middle-earth. Can I simply respond: though unintended by Tolkien, Qenta Noldorinwa can represent a variation of the Silmarillion tale, and can carry just as much weight as 1950s (and post 1950s) unpublished texts.

I 'can' but I wouldn't ;)

But we come to a grey area when we look at the question were the Orks come from. The account in the Silmarillion is uncertain by intention, but we learn by reading further that the author himself didn't know the 'true' answer, so the uncertainty in the text was probably forces upon him by his own uncertianty.

Each case has its own considerations.

It seems to me Tolkien is ultimately upon firm enough ground that the author(s) of the Silmarillion can't and don't know the origin of Orcs with certainty. The Elves of Eressea weren't there in Morgoth's realm, and there is nobody from Morgoth's employ recording such things for the scribes of the West. The essay characterized as a very finished essay on the origin of the Orcs (Text X, Myths Transformed) also contains a measure of uncertainty as well (statements like: 'the theory remains nonetheless the most probable' for example), or I note the wording in note 5 to The Drúedain.

So while Tolkien as author (external) was uncertain about the ultimate Orc-stock, I do not see this as the reason behind the ambiguity in the internal text. Rather I see this uncertainty as a natural reflection of the issue at hand, no matter what Orc-stock Tolkien was going to ultimately land on.

I think Orc-origins naturally lends itself to historical ambiguity, and it seems to me that Tolkien knew that. I would also suggest that variations on the fate of Maglor would be another matter in which contradiction (due to source perhaps) would actually work very well. That said, I would not argue that the two versions of Maglor's fate were intended internally (seems 'possible' but all I really have are variant texts expressing different ideas), as with the Elessar story.

As with the case of Amroth, more than one version of Maglor's tale (at least concerning his fate) simply exists externally, and this is a different animal than the Elessar-stone, or the confusions and variations (when compared to a 'mixed' version like Akallabêth) purposely injected into the Mannish The Drowning of Anadûnê, for example.

[Pitchwife]

Galin and Findegil, thanks for some good points about distinguishing between different kinds of ambiguity. As for terminology, both of the distinctions you've suggested (internal/external vs intended/unintended) have their merits in my eyes, and I don't think one can replace the other - meaning that while it's probably safe to assume that an external ambiguity is unintended, the reverse isn't necessarily true: e.g. the two versions of The Elessar constitute an internal ambiguity in so far as they're presented as conflicting traditions within the secondary world, but does that mean the ambiguity is therefore intended? In other words, did the Prof leave the story ambiguous because he wanted it that way, or was he experimenting with two different stories on the spot and using the translator conceit to camouflage his own indecision? (The final note which has two Elessars and Celebrimbor as the smith of both seems to indicate the latter - apparently he had made up his mind [for the moment at least], therefore no more need for having two differing traditions.)

But *sticks out his neck* how much does it really matter?

It obviously does a lot if you're trying to construct something like the New and Definitive Silmarillion (and if I'm not mistaken, both of you are among our Translators from the Elvish, aren't you?), coming as close as possible to what a final authoritative text might have looked like if the Prof had ever got around to publishing it himself. But otherwise?

To be sure, the high degree of internal consistency within the subcreated world is what makes Tolkien's Legendarium so fascinating and unique among works of fantasy (and I don't think this consistency is seriously compromised by a few vague spots at the margins of the elaborate map, labelled 'Here There Be Uncertainties'). But as far as I'm concerned, achieving this consistency was the author's job, it's not mine. If you manage to reconcile some of the conflicting versions by ascribing them to differing sources in the secondary world (as in Galin's case of The Drowning of Anadûne vs Akallabêth), that's nice - I guess you could even explain the BoLT Tale of Tinúviel as a children's fairy-tale version from Fourth Age Gondor, or something of the like - , but it's not necessary for me in order to appreciate them.

(This isn't, of course, meant to diss your dedicated efforts, nor to niggle:) with anything in either of your posts - and btw, I feel Galin's wasn't so much niggling with mine as coming from a rather different angle. I'm just elaborating on what I said before and thinking aloud to clarify my own position.)

To sum it up, I've discovered that, as a reader of Tolkien, I find the process of his subcreation at least as fascinating as the result, and looking at all the various transmutations of the Legendarium from BoLT to Myths Transformed, I'm rather more interested in observing his mind and imagination at work, seeing him trying out and rejecting different names and stories as he struggled to 'find out what really happened' (as he'd no doubt have put it) than I am in 'finding out what really happened' myself, or in determining his final thoughts on 'what really happened' (especially as he'd probably have flip-flopped time and again over any given question if he'd had enough time; it seems publication was the only thing that could make him settle on one version and stick with it). I have my preferences, of course, but those have (at the risk of disturbing a famous canned worm in its sleep) everything to do with my subjective aesthetic taste and rather little with the author's presumed last will - for me, Anar and Isil will always be the last fruit of Laurelin and Telperion's last blossom, and my Orcs are corrupted Elves, period. (As for the Elessar, I don't care much who made it, but there was only one.)

(x-ed with Galin's last)

EDIT: some paragraph spacing to improve readability ;)

[Galin]

(...) meaning that while it's probably safe to assume that an external ambiguity is unintended, the reverse isn't necessarily true: e.g. the two versions of The Elessar constitute an internal ambiguity in so far as they're presented as conflicting traditions within the secondary world, but does that mean the ambiguity is therefore intended? In other words, did the Prof leave the story ambiguous because he wanted it that way, or was he experimenting with two different stories on the spot and using the translator conceit to camouflage his own indecision?

OK, but regardless of that question, The Elessar presents a multi-version (internal) tale within the legendarium. If Tolkien isn't sure which story he likes, to me this approach is intended in any case, as JRRT can't be confused about the nature of the text he has produced, and can't not have considered the measure of ambiguity it introduces with respect to Secondary World building.

(The final note which has two Elessars and Celebrimbor as the smith of both seems to indicate the latter - apparently he had made up his mind [for the moment at least], therefore no more need for having two differing traditions.)

Tolkien appears to have later revised a detail concerning Galadriel in the 'Elessar-proper', and if done later than the end-note, this could indicate he might be 'back' to the first notion, or perhaps that he never really left, and that the end note only seems to be more certain because it's a very abbreviated summation.

In other words, Tolkien's note here might indicate that the Elessar text 'proper' was written so because he couldn't make up his mind at the point it was written... or it might just as easily represent Tolkien tossing out Enerdhil for Celebrimbor, and the seeming certainty of the fate of the first Elessar might be due to the brief nature of the note.

But *sticks out his neck* how much does it really matter? It obviously does a lot if you're trying to construct something like the New and Definitive Silmarillion (and if I'm not mistaken, both of you are among our Translators from the Elvish, aren't you?), coming as close as possible to what a final authoritative text might have looked like if the Prof had ever got around to publishing it himself. But otherwise?

I'm not one of the Translators from the Elvish, actually :)

Generally speaking, lack of distinction might gived a skewed picture of Tolkien as a World Builder. For example, I wonder how many websites out there present Tolkien's history of Galadriel and Celeborn as a jumbled set of contradictory texts, making no distinction between published and 'private', letter or essay, or even a hard to read note versus a finished and polished piece. If memory serves, sometimes all the distinction one reads is: 'in another version...'

If we are essentially sifting through drafts we are bound to find contradictions, and I say let's keep that in mind (seems only fair to Tolkien as an imaginative World-builder), and not further muddle the picture. To me, treating the Amroth contradictions as equivalent to what Tolkien was doing with the Elessar-stone (again no matter his motive to do it, he was fully aware of how it would play as part of the legendarium) is helping to muddle the picture a bit.

Not that it's a big deal necessarily... but it also gives me something to post :D

(and this all disregarding the fact that The Elessar itself is a rough draft text! but that's another matter)

[Findegil]

To me, treating the Amroth contradictions as equivalent to what Tolkien was doing with the Elessar-stone (again no matter his motive to do it, he was fully aware of how it would play as part of the legendarium) is helping to muddle the picture a bit.That was not what I intended, for sure. I only wanted to add some additional piont of view. (Which is, if looked closer, exactly what is 'muddling the picture'. But aren't discussion exactly for that?)
It obviously does a lot if you're trying to construct something like the New and Definitive Silmarillion (and if I'm not mistaken, both of you are among our Translators from the Elvish, aren't you?), coming as close as possible to what a final authoritative text might have looked like if the Prof had ever got around to publishing it himself. But otherwise?I am one of the 'Translators' as you liked to call it, even so there was near to no activity in the last 2 years. But anyway working in this project is rather a result of then a reason for thinking as I do.To sum it up, I've discovered that, as a reader of Tolkien, I find the process of his subcreation at least as fascinating as the result, and looking at all the various transmutations of the Legendarium from BoLT to Myths Transformed, I'm rather more interested in observing his mind and imagination at work, seeing him trying out and rejecting different names and stories as he struggled to 'find out what really happened' (as he'd no doubt have put it) than I am in 'finding out what really happened' myself, ...Well, thanks God, poeple are diffrent. For me it is just the other way around. I am more interetsed in finding out 'what really happend'. That said it is of course interisting to see the author strugle at that task, but the result or intended and unitended uncertainties are far more fazinating for me. This does not neccessarly mean that I try to find out what were Tolkiens last ideas of any given issue in Middle-Earth. There can be and certainly are often enough quite diffrent creteria that decide what is seems for me to be the most reasonable picture of Middle-Earth.
If I use Qenta Noldorinwa to answer questions about the Elder Days I will (no doubt) be 'corrected' about certain 'facts' all over the web, in any forum I choose to do this -- such facts as were clearly enough rejected in the 1950s and 1960s, although no version of Quenta Silmarillion was ever published by the creator of Middle-earth. Can I simply respond: though unintended by Tolkien, Qenta Noldorinwa can represent a variation of the Silmarillion tale, and can carry just as much weight as 1950s (and post 1950s) unpublished texts.If you would put done reasons why you place more weight on the Qenta Noldorinwa then on the later texts, you would at least have some good discussions about these reasons, that's sure. E.g. if I consider a unique text from the Legendarium that was written contemproary with the Qenta Noldorinwa, it would be a very good idea to put the most weight on that text an consider earlier and later texts only in sofare as they show the development.
But of course you are right, ;) there would be in each Forum imagianable one guy how would take out his blunderbuse and fire the rubish on you that he has grabed here and there. And he will be bold enough to call the result that he hope might kill your argument 'cannon'. But we both know that the harm he would do, would not be more then the one Giles did to the Giant. And as Giles did find out the cane of worms that is opened by fireing that blunderbuse might be wroth.
Or would you shriek back from a 'cannon'-discussion?:D

Respectfuly
Findegil

[Galin]

Well, in my theoretical there isn't any real reason besides the approach, that is: characterizing Qenta Noldorinwa as not an old, abandoned version of later Quenta Silmarillion texts (where they overlap at least), but as an internal variation of 'another' Quenta Silmarillion -- in other words, of the same nature as the Drowning of Anadune compared to AK.

And from that characterization alone, I then argue a different family tree existed, for example, because 'now' I have two internal competing texts. That's the analogy to the Amroth matter that made me jump in here in the first place: unintended uncertainty? yes unintended, and thus external.



But, for example, I can (and have) used DA in round versus flat world discussions, because DA is not an older abandoned version of AK, but a variation of the same tale within the legendarium.


If I characterize QN as internal, I think that is going to be the first target of the blunderbuss... and how would you suggest one ignore that theoretical sting?

:D