What does it mean to Write in the Spirit of Tolkien?

[littlemanpoet]

What does it mean to write in the spirit of Tolkien? You know how it is. All those back covers of books by this or that fantasy or science fiction author with blurbs that include - somewhere - in the tradition of Tolkien or in the spirit of Tolkien.

Are they right? Is there a general sense in which they are right, and a more purist sense in which they're way off?

Just what does it mean to write in the spirit of Tolkien?

I would really appreciate it if any responders could be specific and substantive, and I would also really appreciate it if "gushing" about Tolkien or any other could be kept to a minimum. Heck, I've done it myself in the past, but I really need some answers and I believe you guys can give very, very solid answers to this question.

Yes, this topic has been addressed in a different manner by Kalessin in his famous "Are There Any Valid Criticisms" thread - quite a good one, worth the read. And this has also been addressed - piecemeal - in "Are You Writing Serious Fantasy". I hope you will indulge my interest in this aspect of Tolkien's legacy. Thank you.

[Arwen Imladris]

I think that it just means to right in the fantasy style, perhaps more mystical then just plain fantasy. Perhaps it means to write with the same depth as Tolkien.

[Diamond18]

Well, as to the "tradition" of Tolkien, I would think that (for the description to be accurate) the writing has to have great depth and detail; the fantasy world should have at least some history that comes into play. Also languages. While not having to be as extensive, I would say it would have to have some consistency. Instead of just making up names that have no relation to each other, and merely sound or look good.

As to the "spirit of Tolkien", I think that means having the talent to write both the small and large and make them interesting. He created both Hobbits and Elves; the comic and the sublime. Instead of just writing "battle fantasy" his works had that personal touch. But he still wrote great battles. I think that's a delicate balance to acheive. It's easier said than done. (I've never managed to do it!).

Since one of his themes in LotR, at least, is largely "hope versus despair" that would, I think, help in relating a work to his.

I'm sorry if this isn't as specific or substansive as you'd like, but the "spirit" of anything is always rather intangible.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Diamond18 ]

[Arwen1858]

I think when it's seen on the cover of books, they mean just fantasy, and they hope it's as good as Tolkien's. To me, it means something different. I think Tolkien's books have a lot of depth to them, not just light fluff. I also love the way he wrote a history of ME, as if it were a real place, not a figment of his imagination. Granted, ME wasn't real, but they way he wrote it, it seems real. Sometimes I forget it isn't! Also all his description. I love the way he describes things! He describes them in great detail, without it being boring or too much. Anyways, I think many things come together to be 'the spirit of Tolkien.' It's hard for me to put into words.
Arwen

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Arwen1858 ]

[Nar]

*blows the dust off the bar*
*shouts* Hey, Saxony Tarn, where's you put that barrel O' Mead of Inspiration 1420? Ah, here it is! I like my Mead in a teacup.
\_/? Ahh! I believe something's coming to me! Have one yourself, LMP! |_|)

Arwen I., Diamond, and Arwen 1858, excellent responses! Have a round, beverage of your choice: |_|) |_|) |_|) Very thoughtful. Details, themes, seriousness, it's a hard question to answer. Arwn I., you mention a mystical spirit -- the writing puts you into a mood. Diamond and Arwen1858 put their focus on a rich background and details. Languages, or at least if words are invented, they'll have a consistent sound. A lot of times Tolkien introduces words with variations and a little prose poem that gives the reader a breath to take it in -- I think a lot of fantasy writers miss this and just slam each new word in there -- I find that alienating. I need at least a couple of sentences playing with the new word to accept and absorb it. I think the way Legolas introduces Lothlorien is a brilliant example.

'To write in the spirit of Tolkien' -- this can only be accomplished if you include 'To write BEYOND the spirit of Tolkien'. Tolkien wasn't trying to recreate the old literature he loved, he was trying to develop it for his age. If you want to write something in the least comparable, you've got to have a similar intent.

What do I do in practice? Read what Tolkien himself read, not just LotR itself or all the books that come from it. Walk in the forest, trying to see the hills and rocks, the brush and trees with other vision ... it often works. Tune in to the elemental side of life ... the life of the animals around me. Try to see others with the insight of Frodo and the deep loyalty and love of Sam. When I'm ready to write more on my stories, I read them aloud to get back the mood and voice. I usually rant my work aloud to myself or my cats --my Jalepeno plant is also a big fan (maybe it just likes the CO2 I exhale) besides being so resistant to drought that even *I* have not managed to kill it. I have two cacti also, but they don't like my stories. I can tell.

Now, I'd love to hear a variety of responses to this thread, so if hifalutin literary criticism bothers or irritates you, don't read the rest of this post, just hit reply and give your own take on this, ok? smilies/wink.gif

As an example of Tolkien's DEVELOPMENT of the Epic Romance, he braided together two distinct narrative voices: the 'Tale of the High King' voice and the 'Tale of the Wandering Hobbits' voice. The first one uses language and attitudes drawn from epics and is remote, poetic, anti-psychological and shaped by secondary sources --a story drawn from old stories read and loved. It has something in common with stories about stories like Rhys' Wide Saragasso Sea (Jane Eyre from the point of view of the mad wife) or Lewis' Til We Have Faces (Cupid and Psyche (or Beauty and the Beast) from the point of view of the ugly stepsister) --but with one crucial difference, Tolkien's epic romance is not a commentary or a response but a continuation, absolutely straight and sincere. Tolkien's 'High King' narrative bears the marks of being conceived by reading sources rather than being conceived from direct experience, but the story is delivered primarily as a story and not as a commentary on a source.

The narrative voice of the 'Wandering Hobbits' is drawn from direct experience -- Tolkien's friendsips, his hill walking, his life experiences -- that's why the narrations so much more tactile and sensory and physical when the Hobbits are on stage. That's why the emotions are so much more accessible. This is a major addition to the Epic Romance, and it's pulled off beautifully, with a narrative structure that's quite complex -- there's the interlacing of the various groups of heroes, for example, in TTT, back and forth between Frodo/Sam, Merry/Pippin and Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli. Then there's the narrative effect of whether there's a hobbit around to be immediatly affected by events, or whether we're solely with figures of romance whose psychology is withheld.

All of this creates a composition of narrative voices, of styles, of the kind and character of story, that winds under and around
1)the braided themes of the story itself: sacrifice, transcendence, survival, assumption and restoration of true authority, adventure, friendship and love --all the issues the characters must confront;
2)the braided religious aspects -- deeply rooted assuptions about the world, truth, life and death, morality;
3)the archetypes themselves, drawing so powerfully on sources from many faiths and dreams and nightmares: Shelob, Sauron, Galadriel, Smeagol/Gollum, the ring, etc.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Arwen1858]

Languages, ah yes! How did I forget to mention them? That's one of the many things I love about his works! I remember I forgot them while reading your post, Nar. Oh, and thanks for the drink smilies/smile.gif I love the way he created all the languages. I think it makes it seem more real, because they have their owns languages. The elves even have Quenya, which is sort of like latin to us. I love the elvish languages so much! I would love to learn Sindarin, then Quenya, but I don't really have time. Tolkien created languages that are so interesting, many other people want to learn them. Not many people could do that as well as he did.
Arwen

[TolkienGurl]

The Fae feel, littlemanpoet! Its all about the Fae feel!

[Elenna]

Writing in the spirit of Tolkien, to me, doesn't mean using Middle Earth and its characters and languages. To me it means creating a new world, and making it so rich and believable that people almost think that they're reading about history, instead of a fantasy.

Also, Tolkien was a revolutionary. Nobody had written anything approaching the scale of Lord of the Rings before he did it. Writing in the spirit of Tolkien means doing something different.

As a fanfic writer, among other things, I love to use Tolkien's world as a backdrop for my stories. However, I don't think that's truly "in the spirit". It is fun, though!

[Childlike Empress]

Nobody had written anything approaching the scale of Lord of the Rings before he did it
I can't think of anyone who's done it since, either. Methinks Lord of The Rings to be one of a kind. Marvelously unique smilies/smile.gif

[TolkienGurl]

Ditto, Childlike Empress!

[littlemanpoet]

\_/)---aaah! Thanks, Nar, quite good. I'd say the WWST may have some staying power, if not as long, perhaps, as the AYWSF. Time will tell.

Thanks kindly for the replies so far. To review: to write in the spirit of Tolkien means:

1) something more mystical than just plain fantasy.
2) to the same depth as Tolkien.
3) great depth and detail, such as a fabricated (poor word) history.
4) consistency in the languages spoken by the people in the story.
5) writing both the small and the large, the comic and the sublime.
6) a deep theme, such as "hope and despair".
7) detailed yet interesting description (not boring).
8) a subtlety by which the unfamiliar is presented along with the familiar to give it an easier entrance into the reader's mind. (Excellent one, Nar!)
9) one must go beyond Tolkien's accomplishment (yikes!) &, I would add, avoid being 'thick as bricks doing it'.
10. find that balance between the epic romance, the continuation of grand themes, AND the experience of every-day made vivid.
11. braided themes - all the issues the characters must confront.
12. braided religious/world view aspects.
13. use the archetypes that run deep within all of us.
14. The Fae feel. smilies/smile.gif
15. Creating a world so rich and believable that the reader feels like it's history instead of fantasy.

As to the comment that no one has done it as well before or since, I'd say that so far that is true. But I think there have been some who have done admirably.

Granted, some of the 15 items above are more general, others more specific. So far so good.

I guess I need a little more explanation about "mystical" and "same depth as Tolkien". What do those mean? smilies/wink.gif

[burrahobbit]

I don't think that there is such a thing, and if there is it doesn't matter anyway. It isn't the sort of thing that you could do on purpose and still retain the certain something that makes Tolkien worth reading. If you try to write in the spirit of Tolkien you won't be writing in the spirit of You, and whatever you come up with will feel forced and contrived.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: burrahobbit ]

[littlemanpoet]

Despite the wise words of burrahobbit, I prefer a less reductionist approach, and consider "in the spirit of Tolkien" to be not constricting, but a wide open vista of possibility.

One more aspect:
16. a community worth saving.

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[HerenIstarion]

I'm rather at a loss, especially with just plain fantasy and thing that is more mystical than that. Do you intend to mean that, say, fantasy book where there is one werewolf is plain fantasy, and where there are, say, 5 werewolves, is more mystical? k, just kidding

As of my opinion, I count those cover statements for what they are, namely, advertisements devised to attract my attention by the famous name and make me buy the thing which, otherwise I may pass by without second glance at. Alas.

[HerenIstarion]

BTW, if one excluded entries 1 and 14, it may have resulted in masterpiece in almost any genre of literature

[Diamond18]

The list does make a nice guide to keep in mind when reading a book that is purported to be "in the style of Tolkien". Just to be cantankerous and hold them to the literal meaning of their statement. ('They' being the publishers, as seldom do authors write their own adverts, I would think.)

And by depth I (I know others used the word, but this was my intent) meant the same thing as history, I suppose. For instance, when Bilbo and Gandalf get their swords from the trolls, they are swords of Gondolin. Gondolin isn't just a fancy word made to make them sound important. It actually was a place with history and characters surrounding it. Therefore, when you look "deeper" into Tolkien's works, you don't find an empty bottom but more and more to read and discover about his world.

[Nar]

I consider a work in the spirit of Tolkien to be a work that is cathartic, well-told and well-characterized, with a sense of place which may include a sense of history. It need not be fantasy. I don't only read fantasy hoping for that deep reaction I got from LotR. Most of the works on my list of comparable books aren't fantasy. That inspires me to try where others have failed.

My view on cover blurbs is if your publisher feels they have to SAY a thing like that, they're tactless jerks, and as the judgement of tactless jerks is not to be trusted, this blurb tells me nothing about the author's work except that the author was unfortunate in his/her publisher. I don't hold that against the book or author. It's difficult enough to get published and if one does a 'tastefulness check' the task becomes hopeless. Publishers are going to slap across the cover the art they think will move the book, however stupidly literal, and the blurbs they think will sell, however ineffective.

The subtext of Burra's question is that it's dangerous to contemplate questions like this: 'how to be like [your favorite author here]' questions. It IS dangerous if you take a thread like this as a recipe to be followed slavishly, but I don't think anyone here does that.

A)Talking about JRRT's works gets us into the mood and mental place to work on our stories, and being aspiring writers, we like to talk about the literary aspects of his work.
B) Reading good works and analyzing how the authors pulled them off helps us learn to write more skillfully.
C) JRRT cited older works that inspired him, and devoted time to analyzing them for their literary aspects. If it worked once...

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Evenstar1]

Provocative topic, as always, lmp! And great answers all (so far)!

Okay, at the risk of sounding like one of those "thick as brick" people, I'm going to submit here that Tolkien was not writing stories, he was writing myths, myths being defined as 'stories told to explain why things happened, or to illustrate a point.' So it is not enough for a writing to just be a story, it must first be a myth, in order to first be capable of being considered in the spirit of Tolkien.

Secondly, as pointed out in #12, the myth must be religious in nature, but to be considered in the spirit of Tolkien, the myth must have its roots in Roman Catholicism. Tolkien saw the world through the eyes of a Roman Catholic (can you imagine how different LOTR would have been if he had been, say, Hindu?), but he had a far deeper understanding of Catholicism -- and of God in general -- than do most Catholics that have ever been around. His myths are so deeply spiritual and they contain such profound explanations for the truths that are tenets of the Catholic faith, that it has been suggested by some that Tolkien was a mystic. (Okay, I've started to ramble and gush, but have stopped myself. Sorry!)

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: Evenstar1 ]

[Nar]

While I think you've hit on a truth here, Evanstar1, I would qualify it a bit. I would say JRRT was writing stories backed by myths, among other things. Some of the Silmarillion reads like myth but elsewhere it's story, and the Hobbit and LotR read like story to me.

As to the religious themes, of course they're there. I see at least three sources of religious themes, and there may be more that I'm blind to, being a faillable person. One: pagan or other pre-christian themes (I'm talking about attitudes, codes, and the way the story works out not overt ritual) -- anything with Theoden would be an example. The source of these is JRRT's love, knowledge and respect for his sources, including the epic romance he studied and local folklore. Two: Christian themes -- these are indeed powerful, and come from his Catholicism, his world view, debate with friends and family and his thoughfulness. Three: convergence with other living faiths. This does not come from any direct source, but from the 'great minds think alike' phenomenon. JRRT was dealing with deep stuff and powerful themes, and some of the working out of these ideas converge with similar working out in other faiths. I'm not qualified to expand on this, but some of the elements of Frodo and Sam's journey reminds me of tales in other traditions with sophisticated faiths-- Buddhism, for example. I see this as a convergence of like minds examining common themes. Not every idea has to be inherited from an outside source to be held in common with others.

[Arwen1858]

It IS dangerous if you take a thread like this as a recipe to be followed slavishly, but I don't think anyone here does that.
My intent in all this is to find out what sets Tolkien's books apart. What makes them so much better that other stuff out there? I hope if I figure that out, and read and study Tolkien's works, I might have some hope of getting somewhere near writing like he does. I'm not going to use it like a set of rules to strictly adhere to, but like a tool. Well, I hope this makes sense, and if not, I'll try to explain what I mean better.
Arwen

[TolkienGurl]

Maybe the "Spirit of Tolkien" isn't something we can obtain in our writings. Maybe it was God's gift to Tolkien, and only for him. I do understand what you guys are driving at, though I think it is a one of a kind "feeling." We have what he wrote, and he passed away, so we must cherish the rich books filled with the "Spirit of Tolkien." They are the only ones we will ever come in contact with. An exception would be, of course, if he's writing away up in heaven! smilies/wink.gif

Oh and Nar, I totally agree with you when you said that Tolkien took qualities from paganistic and prechristian beliefs (the polytheism), Christianity, and other faiths. Its a very unique combination, and I doubt that we'll ever see it again!

[ October 31, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[littlemanpoet]

Your point is well taken, Tolkiengurl. Nevertheless, I encourage Arwen1858 to persevere. I think that Nar's point about going beyond Tolkien obtains here. I am very much attempting to write in the spirit of Tolkien, but I think Nar would be the first to tell you that my story is greatly at variance to what Tolkien was up to, while nevertheless being true (at least in part) to its spirit, because I'm me, and who I am is clearly going to invest my story, making it different form LotR. While that is so, I still endeavor to write to as high a standard as I can of integrity of story telling, depth of theme, consistency of plot and character, sense of place, feel of Faerie, and drum rollllllll (new idea for me): building a highly valued backdrop, (like Tolkien's Shire but in my own way), the loss and recovery of which invests deep meaning. As has been said by others before, I hope that makes sense.

[Rumil]

At the risk of lowering the tone somewhat -

Tolkien seems to be devoid of the need of modern fantasy writers to explain everything. OK, I know you're thinking that he went to extreme lengths to fit everything into the mythology and language structure, but think in terms of geography.

We have no clue what is beyond Rhun, the appearence of the Variags (or even whether Balrogs have wings!) Of course, this infrormation wouldn't be known by the authors of the Red Book. He justifies the 'mystery' by the necessities of internal consistency. How would hobbits know anything about Far Harad after all? It's like the mediaeval maps which confidently stated 'here be dragons!' The snippets of information tantalise us !

In a related question, the style of Tolkiens wring (much pastiched) is surely 'copyable' (if that's a word) but woe betide those who reveal the mysteries, there wouldn't be anything left for us to discuss!

[littlemanpoet]

Well done, Rumil! I sympathize with your point very much. Though how to say it is difficult. Here's my best shot at a summary:

17. Leave tantalizing mysteries unexplained.

Good one!

[Nar]

but I think Nar would be the first to tell you that my story is greatly at variance to what Tolkien was up to, while nevertheless being true (at least in part) to its spirit LMP, Yer flaming right I would! Have a flaming rum punch!
(&)
Rumil, Well said: Tolkien seems to be devoid of the need of modern fantasy writers to explain everything Another thing I notice is that whatever Tolkien introduced, he took his time with variations on the words ... Lorien, Lothlorien, Laurelindorean, prose poems describing the place or the story or the entity, songs, always a breath in the text, time and space to allow the reader to absorb the new element. I particularly missed this in the movie... everytime the movie has Gandalf shout: 'We must take the @#$#@%@#%!' I winced-- it was sounding so like a standard fantasy story -- a new word every paragraph but no responsiveness to the word or the reader.

[Celuien]

Events on the planning thread for a certain RP caused me to rattle in the back of the barrow. And look what I found!

If limited to writing within the context of Middle-earth, does writing in the spirit of Tolkien also mean adopting his view of the 'real-world' (so to speak) while composing a work? How much does a view of how the world 'is' impact fantasy writing, and how much is the world portrayed refined to conform to "the high, purged of the gross" rather than the mundane world with all its flaws?

[littlemanpoet]

Wow! I forgot about this. Good find!

...does writing in the spirit of Tolkien also mean adopting his view of the 'real-world' (so to speak) while composing a work?I suppose it depends on what particularities of his view with which you are contending or working.

How much does a view of how the world 'is' impact fantasy writing[?]I think this is a critical element in how and why LotR has proven to have such relevance; because so much of what is written into the warp and weft of the story is precisely about the way the world is. Many people do stand by and let evil happen. Many people wrestle with the fact of leaders doing evil in the name of good. These are just two things I can think of that are contained in LotR and are very much with us, and always will be.

How much is the world portrayed[,] refined to conform to "the high, purged of the gross" rather than the mundane world with all its flaws?Orcs are perhaps the best example of how Tolkien handled this. In fact, I think there's a Letter in which he describes his approach. Basically, the Orcs may be considered to speak much more foully than what Tolkien wrote, but Tolkien refused to go there; he deemed it unnecessary, and achieved the sense of their foulness in other, and in my opinion more effective, ways than to put modern cuss words in their mouths.

[Celuien]

I suppose it depends on what particularities of his view with which you are contending or working.
*coughMeadHallcough* :D

I was thinking most specifically of the letter we were debating over on the planning thread, and wondering if there's a case to be made that Tolkien, since he didn't seem to like the state of things to which he made reference in that letter, might have altered it in the same way as he altered the Orcs. ;)

For those not familiar with the debate I'm talking about, here's a quote from the letter we were discussing:

In this fallen world, the friendship that should be possible between all human beings, is virtually impossible between man and woman...This 'friendship' has often been tried: one side or the other nearly always fails.

And from Bethberry: [Courtly love diverts] the young man's eyes off women as they are, as companions in shipwreck not guiding stars. . . . It inculcates exaggerated notions of 'true love', as a fire from without, a permanent exaltation, unrelated to age, childbearing, and plain life, and unrelated to will and purpose.. . . Women really have not much part in all this, though they may use the language of romantic love, since it is so entwined in all our idioms. The sexual impulse makes women (naturally when unspoiled more unselfish) very sympathetic and understanding, or specially desirous of being so (or seeming so),...the servient, helpmeet instinct, generously warmed by desire and young blood. . . . Before the young woman knows where she is (and while the romantic young man, when he exists, is still sighing), she may actually 'fall in love'. Which for her, an unspoiled natural young woman, means that she wants to become the mother of the young man's children, even if that desire is by no means clear to her or explicit. . . . You may meet in life (as in literature) women who are flighty, or even plain wanton--I don't refer to mere flirtatiousness, the sparring practice for the real combat, but to women who are too silly to take even love seriously, or are actually so depraved as to enjoy 'conquests' or even enjoy the giving of pain--but these are abnormalities. . . . Unless perverted by bad contemporary fashions they do not as rule talk 'bawdy'; not because they are purer than men (they are not) but because they don't find it funny. I have known those who pretended to, but it is a pretence. It may be intriguing, interesting, absorbing (even a great deal to absorbing) to them: but it is just p lumb natural, a serious, obvious interest; where is the joke? ... But they are instinctively, when uncorrupt, monogamous... Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world) or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one), both partners might have found more suitable mates...

I would particularly posit that the last sentence from the quote Bethberry gave does not necessarily follow in the LotR. Aragorn and Arwen. Beren and Luthien. Those matches were required by 'fate,' if you will, for the story of Middle-earth to unfold as it did. In addition to the appearance that the couples in question were just made for each other. :p What could be more suitable than that?

So, to write in the spirit of Tolkien in this particular case, how much would one draw from the rather pragmatic advice he gave his son, and how much from the admittedly less detailed view of relationships he gave in the published works? And how similar are they really?

I think this is a critical element in how and why LotR has proven to have such relevance; because so much of what is written into the warp and weft of the story is precisely about the way the world is. Many people do stand by and let evil happen. Many people wrestle with the fact of leaders doing evil in the name of good. These are just two things I can think of that are contained in LotR and are very much with us, and always will be.

And of course, there is applicability. Great point, and maybe something to be added to the dream or escape explanation of fantasy as a genre. Is it an expression of a vision of what might be for this world, in a less direct and non-allegorical sphere?

[littlemanpoet]

I would particularly posit that the last sentence from the quote Bethberry gave does not necessarily follow in the LotR. Aragorn and Arwen. Beren and Luthien. Those matches were required by 'fate,' if you will, for the story of Middle-earth to unfold as it did. In addition to the appearance that the couples in question were just made for each other. :p What could be more suitable than that?

So, to write in the spirit of Tolkien in this particular case, how much would one draw from the rather pragmatic advice he gave his son, and how much from the admittedly less detailed view of relationships he gave in the published works? And how similar are they really?Interesting. LotR is a Romance, according to Tolkien. Thus the courtly love mode is more likely to be there; and so we find it. Eowyn hero-worships Aragorn before she is drawn into the protective and nurturing care of Faramir (rather maternal terms!).

The only intergender relationship that does not seem to follow this is Samwise and Rosy. Does it appear that Sam has found his star, and Rosy wants to bear his children? As like it does as not, I'd say.

Is it an expression of a vision of what might be for this world, in a less direct and non-allegorical sphere?By "it", I believe you refer to fantasy as a genre. So what you're suggesting is that fantasy performs the same functions, within its own genre, that science fiction does in its genre? If so, what are they? And what does that tell us about fantasy?

[Celuien]

By "it", I believe you refer to fantasy as a genre.
Yes.
So what you're suggesting is that fantasy performs the same functions, within its own genre, that science fiction does in its genre? If so, what are they? And what does that tell us about fantasy?
Indeed. It goes back to the idea of purging the gross, again. Where the mythic (Aragorn) and not so mythic (Sam, though by definition, he is fantasy as a member of a non-existent subspecies of humans ;)) characters adhere to the right path, where there's more beauty and appreciation of beauty than we sometimes remember to give in reality, and where, at least with regard to the LotR, the 'right' outcome always takes place. Keeping in mind, of course, that the right outcome isn't always the happy outcome.

Fantasy as an instruction book on life? :D

[Bêthberry]

Interesting thoughts here! I see that Celuien just couldn't resist moving the discussion to Books! Great choice of thread, eh, lmp

A couple of points come to my mind as I read over your posts here. First, if LotR is a matter of Tolkien appropriating Romance for his story, does that use of Romance so thoroughly alter the depiction of men as well as of women? Second, is Tolkien, in both cases--his letter to his son and his creative writing--engaged in discussing or portraying cultural constructs of women? And, thirdly, what would it mean to portray women this way--"free of the dross" as we seem to say here on the Barrow Downs. Is this a matter of Tolkien's faith assuming that human sexual identity is all part and parcel of "evil" in this world?

Tolkien's letter finds fault with the courtly love mode, after all.



I was thinking most specifically of the letter we were debating over on the planning thread, and wondering if there's a case to be made that Tolkien, since he didn't seem to like the state of things to which he made reference in that letter, might have altered it in the same way as he altered the Orcs.

You mean, his curious ways of sidestepping the issue of moral choice and redemption of orcs?

And, what ever was behind Fea's outburst that Tolkien can go suck lemons? Perhaps she should join this discussion here, eh?

[Celuien]

Interesting thoughts here! I see that Celuien just couldn't resist moving the discussion to Books!
Of course not. The dicussion was far too interesting to stop where we were. :D

You mean, his curious ways of sidestepping the issue of moral choice and redemption of orcs?

Well, I was referring to lmp's point about cursing and cleaning up orcish language. ;)
But it extends to moral choice as well, I think. I suppose getting into that knotty point about the orcs might have loosened the rather clear cut roles they play throughout the Legendarium as out and out 'baddies.' Not sure where I'm going with this line of thought, though. I'm working on running out the door to go to a meeting and can't attend to it properly just now. More later...

[littlemanpoet]

Crap. I just lost all of what I answered to this. :mad: Here goes again....

First, if LotR is a matter of Tolkien appropriating Romance for his story, does that use of Romance so thoroughly alter the depiction of men as well as of women?It would be a mistake to reduce it to that. Actually, the contemporary understanding of gender role and nature is the historical aberration. Granted, we may see it as the most evolved or developed state (or not), but general intellecutal, values-oriented, socio-economic, and political equality (or at least the belief that so it ought to be) has not been the norm.

Second, is Tolkien, in both cases--his letter to his son and his creative writing--engaged in discussing or portraying cultural constructs of women?Most assuredly.

And, thirdly, what would it mean to portray women this way--"free of the dross" as we seem to say here on the Barrow Downs?That would be "free of the gross", to be accurate. One writer's "gross" may be another's "passable". What, in gender role, be considered "gross" on the Rohan RP forum? Most RPrs do make a conscious effort to employ in their writing as much as they can discern of Eorling culture. That as a given, we would have to go with what Tolkien has told us about that culture, which is (with translator's conceit accounted for) basically and only Anglo-Saxon in nature, and loosely based on medieval conceptions (though not entirely, whatever that is supposed to mean). So is "gross", perhaps, "practical woman employing the language of Romance in order to find a man to marry"? I think not. Romance, as such, was high-medieval, and Eorling culture was based on more or less (c)1000 A.D. Anglo-Saxon culture (I think).

Is this a matter of Tolkien's faith assuming that human sexual identity is all part and parcel of "evil" in this world?I think Tolkien took "practical female" and "idealistic male" as creationally normative. Evil, he would say (I think), would be any aberrations thereto (such as contemporary understandings).

Tolkien's letter finds fault with the courtly love mode, after all. It is an aberration.

You mean, his curious ways of sidestepping the issue of moral choice and redemption of orcs?How does he do this?

And, what ever was behind Fea's outburst that Tolkien can go suck lemons?Oh, that's easy. She was horrified and depressed that someone who could write something as great as LotR could have such ridiculous views..... (if I know Fea...)

[Celuien]

How does he do this?
Possibly through the various modifications of Orcish origins. I'm not clear on the story, but I think I read somewhere that the origin was changed from corrupted Elves, who could have sought redemption in Mandos, to animals without fëar animated through the will of Sauron/Morgoth, and therefore not really acting through free will -- and also not capable of being redeemed, I would suppose.

I could have that wrong though, and I invite Bethberry's correction. :D

[littlemanpoet]

As I have said elsewhere (and SPM agreed!), I think the Orcs-from-animals notion was a mistake, as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the Legendarium; it only achieved their irredemptability. Just goes to show what can happen if you start using theology to determine what must be instead of using reality (even feigned).

[Celuien]

As I have said elsewhere (and SPM agreed!), I think the Orcs-from-animals notion was a mistake, as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the Legendarium; it only achieved their irredemptability.
Agreed. I prefer the explanation as given in the Sil, because it does make a lot more sense to me than the other explanation considering the complex (and I would argue indepenent) behavior of Orcs that is seen in both the LotR and The Hobbit (and, yes, I will disagree with those who argue it isn't part of the Legendarium proper ;)).
Just goes to show what can happen if you start using theology to determine what must be instead of using reality (even feigned).
Agreed again.

And so...writing means that striving to maintain the subcreated world's realistic integrity should trump allowing personal views to slip in? Again, I'm thinking of the avoidance of allegory.

I think that's where I wanted to go yesterday. :D

[littlemanpoet]

And so...writing means that striving to maintain the subcreated world's realistic integrity should trump allowing personal views to slip in?Certainly.

Again, I'm thinking of the avoidance of allegory.I don't grasp the connection. Sorry for my density. :rolleyes:

[Celuien]

I don't grasp the connection. Sorry for my density.
Sorry for my unclarity. I think in a somewhat non-linear fashion on occasion, which can make me hard to follow. :rolleyes:

The Orcs' origins were modified for real world theological reasons, possibly making events in the Legendarium more allegorical by transferring more comparisons to the primary world to the story. Yeah, out on a limb, I know.

What I'm saying is that allegory doesn't work because it requires too many deliberate parallels which may or may not work in the story's internal logic, and that potentially compromises the believability of the story. Which is why I agree with Tolkien's stated dislike of allegory.

Better?

[littlemanpoet]

The Orcs' origins were modified for real world theological reasons, possibly making events in the Legendarium more allegorical by transferring more comparisons to the primary world to the story. Yeah, out on a limb, I know.

What I'm saying is that allegory doesn't work because it requires too many deliberate parallels which may or may not work in the story's internal logic, and that potentially compromises the believability of the story. Which is why I agree with Tolkien's stated dislike of allegory.

Better?Quite. :) I agree.

And now back to gender roles and aberrations and whatnot.... anybody want to tackle some of what I said a couple posts back?

[Celuien]

And now back to gender roles and aberrations and whatnot.... anybody want to tackle some of what I said a couple posts back?
Possibly. But I need to think it through first to avoid non-linearity and confusion. :D Hopefully ruminated upon sufficiently before potential loss of Downs access tomorrow...

[Bêthberry]

It would be a mistake to reduce it to that. Actually, the contemporary understanding of gender role and nature is the historical aberration. Granted, we may see it as the most evolved or developed state (or not), but general intellecutal, values-oriented, socio-economic, and political equality (or at least the belief that so it ought to be) has not been the norm.

The desire to eliminate slavery--an form of supreme inequality--is also a "historical aberration" as you use the term. And I think it is fair to say that Tolkien repudiates slavery in LotR.



That would be "free of the gross", to be accurate. One writer's "gross" may be another's "passable". What, in gender role, be considered "gross" on the Rohan RP forum? Most RPrs do make a conscious effort to employ in their writing as much as they can discern of Eorling culture. That as a given, we would have to go with what Tolkien has told us about that culture, which is (with translator's conceit accounted for) basically and only Anglo-Saxon in nature, and loosely based on medieval conceptions (though not entirely, whatever that is supposed to mean). So is "gross", perhaps, "practical woman employing the language of Romance in order to find a man to marry"? I think not. Romance, as such, was high-medieval, and Eorling culture was based on more or less (c)1000 A.D. Anglo-Saxon culture (I think).

Oh, when I posted Tolkien's letter, the context was a discussion thread in Rohan, but I wasn't thinking solely in terms of Rohan RPGs. Actually, I was thinking more in terms simply of the nature of fanfictioning RPGs. Is such related only to a faithful imitation of the original, or can it provide imaginative re-interpretation of the original, or can it incorporate--*gasp*--revisions of the original? Is fanfiction ever free to be a wholly unique, original art, as Tolkien's art was?


I think Tolkien took "practical female" and "idealistic male" as creationally normative. Evil, he would say (I think), would be any aberrations thereto (such as contemporary understandings).

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.


Oh, that's easy. She was horrified and depressed that someone who could write something as great as LotR could have such ridiculous views..... (if I know Fea...)

Feet of clay, eh? tsk.

:p ;) :)

[Bêthberry]

Possibly through the various modifications of Orcish origins. I'm not clear on the story, but I think I read somewhere that the origin was changed from corrupted Elves, who could have sought redemption in Mandos, to animals without fëar animated through the will of Sauron/Morgoth, and therefore not really acting through free will -- and also not capable of being redeemed, I would suppose.

I could have that wrong though, and I invite Bethberry's correction. :D


I think the Orcs-from-animals notion was a mistake, as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the Legendarium; it only achieved their irredemptability. Just goes to show what can happen if you start using theology to determine what must be instead of using reality (even feigned).

I suppose this would be somewhat akin to davem's notion about a completely self-contained subcreated world. Tinkering with a story to make it conform to primary world notions disrupts the inherent wholeness of the story. But how you got to orcs from women and gender, Celuien, is quite a feat of non-lateral thinking. :D

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Seems to me that the question here is turning on two points:

1) Stylistic: to write like Tolkien in the sense that the story is an amalgam of contemporary novelistic realism and Romance.

2) Thematic: to write about the same kind of world or world-view as Tolkien did, in the sense that the story is an amalgam of contemporary beliefs, ideals and more archaic ones including Romance (but, I think, more forcefully Anglo-Saxon ideals).

In my own humble opinion, very few writers before or after Tolkien have been able to pull off both of these very tricky balancing acts as well as the professor...but I shall avoid "gushing" (! ;) !) For my own tastes, fantasy that does both at the same time is the most pleasurable for me to read. But there are other finely crafted and engaging fantasy tales that do one or the other, or which priviledge one over the other.

Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea is a story in which contemporary values and beliefs about race, gender, existential philosophy and psychology are fully at the front of consideration, but it is told in a consciously archaic mode with a narrator reminiscent of folk-tale and all the motifs of fairy-tale and mytho-heroic quests.

Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series are written in an entirely contemporary fashion with no sign of archaism in the narrative style (that I can see) but it presents a world governed by a more remote and distant set of values which are presented as the key to curing the "disease" of modernity: disbelief.

Both of these works were and are hailed by critics and audiences as being in the "spirit" or "tradition" of Tolkien, which is I think legitimate. Like Tolkien they work with this mix of contemporary and archaic in both style and theme, only they do so in slightly altered form in terms of that mixture.

Back to lurking.

[Celuien]

But how you got to orcs from women and gender, Celuien, is quite a feat of non-lateral thinking.
For that feat of connection making, I'll take a bow. :D Actually, that's the sort of thing I can be notorious for in RL. An unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) habit of making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas and then filling in the stepwise progression later...if ever. :p

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.
As did I. All of the paths to evil I can think of lead through a desire for power or power struggles. Saruman. Morgoth. Sauron. Even (if I may stretch the point a bit) the Kinslaying, since that was in essence the result of the Teleri's failing to bend to Feanor's will that they turn over their ships. Along with Feanor's issues with pride.

I'm quite interested in the idea of mixing the archaic and contemporary. More thoughts on that when I'm not worn out by 350 miles of driving, with unpacking still to be done...

[littlemanpoet]

The desire to eliminate slavery--an form of supreme inequality--is also a "historical aberration" as you use the term. And I think it is fair to say that Tolkien repudiates slavery in LotR. My understanding of Tolkien's views would therefore include a qualification that the gender differences he saw as normative, he did not see as unjust, whereas he saw slavery as unjust and therefore, though "aberrant", nevertheless wrong.

Oh, when I posted Tolkien's letter, the context was a discussion thread in Rohan, but I wasn't thinking solely in terms of Rohan RPGs. Actually, I was thinking more in terms simply of the nature of fanfictioning RPGs. Is such related only to a faithful imitation of the original, or can it provide imaginative re-interpretation of the original, or can it incorporate--*gasp*--revisions of the original? Is fanfiction ever free to be a wholly unique, original art, as Tolkien's art was?Well, we run the gamut right here at BD. Assigned to Mordor is virtual spoof while Prisoner of Numenor & Tapestry of Dreams, to speak of ones I know, are attempts to "spin off" of the Legendarium and at the same time abide as closely as we know how, to the content and its norms. As for revisions, do you have something in mind? .... such as gender relatedness?

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.That is one aspect of evil, but certainly not the only one. However, I can imagine that Tolkien would have understood modern day feminists as trying to wrest from men what should be left to them, especially as those things women must give up in order to have what the feminists desire, are the things that women, if they really understood themselves, treasure most. Not that I agree with such a view, but I understand it and its mindset.

There is a side issue that I want to raise. The female writers at BD (such as Fea) protest at Tolkien's outdated view of women. However, might it not be that Tolkien's view, half of it anyway, is based on his (dare I say it) accurate understanding of a man's inner workings as regards gender relations? Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women? I daresay I can spot a female writer trying to write a man attracted to a woman: the narrative is missing certain things. Care to make an attempt (based on Tolkien's essay oh so many posts above) as to what these might be? ;)

[Celuien]

That is one aspect of evil, but certainly not the only one. However, I can imagine that Tolkien would have understood modern day feminists as trying to wrest from men what should be left to them, especially as those things women must give up in order to have what the feminists desire, are the things that women, if they really understood themselves, treasure most. Not that I agree with such a view, but I understand it and its mindset.
LMP treads on dangerous ground. This writer is tempted to compose a rant, but because it would be strictly off topic, I won't. :p :D
Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women?
Probably not. At least I don't. I think I can guess what those missing items are that you allude to. :rolleyes:

...whereas he saw slavery as unjust and therefore, though "aberrant", nevertheless wrong.
Far more succinct summary of the mixture of contemporary and old issue than I was going to attempt.

Back to ruminating...

[littlemanpoet]

All of the paths to evil I can think of lead through a desire for power or power struggles.Not all. There is hoarding. This tends to be a Dwarvish evil, but no less evil for that. There is also the evil of wanton destruction; orcs in Fangorn. And there is the evil of lust: the most evocative example I can think of is the orc who licks the fresh blood of his dagger. (ick)

[mark12_30]

There is a side issue that I want to raise. The female writers at BD (such as Fea) protest at Tolkien's outdated view of women. However, might it not be that Tolkien's view, half of it anyway, is based on his (dare I say it) accurate understanding of a man's inner workings as regards gender relations? Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women? I daresay I can spot a female writer trying to write a man attracted to a woman: the narrative is missing certain things. ...

I'm not sure, so I'll ask you: how close was Noldo?

[Child of the 7th Age]

There is a side issue that I want to raise. The female writers at BD (such as Fea) protest at Tolkien's outdated view of women. However, might it not be that Tolkien's view, half of it anyway, is based on his (dare I say it) accurate understanding of a man's inner workings as regards gender relations? Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women? I daresay I can spot a female writer trying to write a man attracted to a woman: the narrative is missing certain things. ...

Littlemanpoet - I truly believe you are treading on dangerous ground. You are making generous assumptions. Gender differences are only one small ingredient in a much larger pot. Tolkien, for example, was operating out of a particular value system, historical vantage, and social/economic viewpoint (as we all do). Because of that intense but limited perspective, Tolkien had a better understanding of certain men and women whose ethics, status, and historical standing were somewhat similar (or at least sympathetic) to his own. Would Tolkien have had an equal understanding of gender relations vis-a-vis a male character who was a slave on a large plantation in the antebellum South, or a man incarcerated in a death camp during the second World War? Or would someone closer to that era and mindset ( or at least one who had studied these particular periods to a greater degree) have an advantage in understanding the male in question...... even if that someone was a female? These are extreme examples, but you get my drift.

We are talking about something much more basic than whether a woman can or cannot be classed as a feminist. Rather, it all gets down to how any person, male or female, views the divide between men and women. Some folk see that divide as being virtually unbridgable. I am not one of them. I believe there is more that binds us together than separates us. And because of that, I believe that a female writer can realistically portray a man and his thoughts/feelings, just as an excellent male author can depict a woman with such sensitivity that it makes the reader cry.

Surely you don't believe, for example, that Tolkien's Beren is more successful than his Luthien, merely because Tolkien was a male. Luthien has one foot in faerie but the rest of her is very "real", and I have no trouble accepting her feelings for Beren. And would you criticize Luthien for going out on the road on a wild adventure in a manner that most women would not do, as someone who was trying to wrest from men the role that rightly belongs to them? She was definitely a nonconformist by the standards of Elven society and even by our own contemporary standards.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm not sure, so I'll ask you: how close was Noldo?
Mark is referring to her Fairy Wife fan-fic. You had a female Elf as the object of a Hobbit's desire. That means that you had a "star", so to speak, but not one that 'guided' so much as, well, seduced. However, there was a real sense of "companions in shipwreck". So I'd say that you did as well as a female writer could short of getting inside a man's skin. Which is to say ... not quite there. ;)

[littlemanpoet]

Littlemanpoet - I truly believe you are treading on dangerous ground. .... Would Tolkien have had an equal understanding of gender relations vis-a-vis a male character who was a slave on a large plantation in the antebellum South, or a man incarcerated in a death camp during the second World War? Or would someone closer to that era and mindset ( or at least one who had studied these particular periods to a greater degree) have an advantage in understanding the male in question...... even if that someone was a female? These are extreme examples, but you get my drift.Yes, Child, I do. You're not quite catching mine. Nor is my "ground" as dangerous as you think or fear. I'll explain below.

We are talking about something much more basic than whether a woman can or cannot be classed as a feminist. Rather, it all gets down to how any person, male or female, views the divide between men and women. Some folk see that divide as being virtually unbridgable. I am not one of them. I believe there is more that binds us together than separates us. And because of that, I believe that a female writer can realistically portray a man and his thoughts/feelings, just as an excellent male author can depict a woman with such sensitivity that it makes the reader cry.Quite. I do NOT consider the divide to be unbridgeable. Both genders are able to write portrayals of their opposites that capture all of what the genders have in common. However, there are aspects of gender that are peculiar to fantasy & romance that are not readily understandable and must be interpreted by men to women, and probably vice versa (it's just that I am familiar with my gender only). Your next quote, Child, brings us right to my point:

Surely you don't believe, for example, that Tolkien's Beren is more successful than his Luthien, merely because Tolkien was a male. Luthien has one foot in faerie but the rest of her is very "real", and I have no trouble accepting her feelings for Beren. And would you criticize Luthien for going out on the road on a wild adventure in a manner that most women would not do, as someone who was trying to wrest from men the role that rightly belongs to them? She was definitely a nonconformist by the standards of Elven society and even by our own contemporary standards.It's not a matter of success, but that a man wrote Luthien and not a woman. Tolkien wrote fantasy (myth/legend/feigned history, etc.) because it best communicated his vision, which included certain aspects of his understanding of and appreciation of both genders.

Most of his women are idealizations. An Elf is by definition an idealization, which includes Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel. Eowyn is not an idealization; but she is masculinized in that she is a warrior, and a hero-worshipper (Aragorn); she idealizes. Rosy is one of the few women in LotR that are not idealized; she shouldn't be, for she is intended for Sam the gardener. Lobelia is enough of a villainess that she does not fit the idealization pattern. Melian is not only an Elf, but a Valar! Ioreth is a foil for Aragorn.

Why does Luthien go out and have an adventure? To save her man; not for glory, honor, riches, or anything else -> for love. Therefore, she is perfectly acceptable to the most unabashedly sexist men. But that's not my point.

I understand the idealization pattern from the inside (check out Green Dragon VII: Falowik and Uien for an example). In Romance particularly, idealization is the pattern dé jeur for men who write women. Tolkien frankly fell in love with Galadriel and kept further idealizing her the older he got. Luthien is Tolkien's idealization of Edith.

So women writers, if you want to fool this male reader as to your gender, write your women idealized, and your men virtually worshiping them. This is, I think, a small part of what it involved in "writing in the spirit of Tolkien".

[Lalaith]

LMP - what about quite difficult, complicated women like Morwen and Erendis?

[Anguirel]

Surely you don't believe, for example, that Tolkien's Beren is more successful than his Luthien, merely because Tolkien was a male. Luthien has one foot in faerie but the rest of her is very "real", and I have no trouble accepting her feelings for Beren. And would you criticize Luthien for going out on the road on a wild adventure in a manner that most women would not do, as someone who was trying to wrest from men the role that rightly belongs to them? She was definitely a nonconformist by the standards of Elven society and even by our own contemporary standards.

I'm afraid, like LMP, I don't really buy perfect, invincible, silent (except for her blasted caterwauling) Luthien as a particular advertisement for Tolkien's ability to write women. Nor though would I take Tolkien as a testament to the inability of men as a whole to write women.

Idealising isn't quite the same as whitewashing, and I don't believe that being an Elf necessarily equals either-look at poor Aredhel. Even Finduilas isn't exactly a paragon of constancy and perfect virtue. Haleth is far more unconventional than Eowyn. Granted, these are glimpses from the Silmarillion, but I'm not sure I'd call Galadriel idealised either...she's too...perilous. She almost has the danger of TH White's Morgause, the first character whose beauty I felt as an extremely attractive threat.

So, despite, rather than because of evidence garnered from Luthien, in my view Tolkien can write women. And Men can certainly write Women. Allow me to kick Tolstoy pointedly...

[littlemanpoet]

LMP - what about quite difficult, complicated women like Morwen and Erendis?Yes, I had thought of Morwen though not Erendis, but forgot in my rush to mention them. Note that Morwen's and Erendis' stories are Romantic Tragedy rather than Romantic Comedy (in the classic sense of the word: 'happy ending'). A tragedy necessitates characters, both men and women, with crucial character flaws. Therefore the idealization mode must be set aside for the sake of the story. Thinking on my feet, but I think it works.

Tolkien can write women. Please don't misunderstand me. I for one am not in any way, shape, or form, saying that Tolkien can't write women, or isn't as good as others at it. Rather, I'm saying that Tolkien writes idealized women. 'Perilous' does not remove Galadriel from the ideal. The Queen of Fairy is perilous. (Speaking of which, I have to say that Ellen Kushner in Thomas the Rhymer does a rather passable job of writing an idealized woman (the queen of fairy) from a man's point of view.) I'm also saying that it's hard (not impossible) for a woman to write a Romantic man. It doesn't come naturally because I don't think many women writers understand, or are interested, in the mindset of Romantic men for whom the idealization of women speaks profoundly. It obviously did to Tolkien, though as some have already pointed out, he wrote non-idealized women too. But which women did he give the most ink to?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet

....there are aspects of gender that are peculiar to fantasy & romance that are not readily understandable and must be interpreted by men to women, and probably vice versa (it's just that I am familiar with my gender only).

I did understand what you were saying. I just don't agree. :D Please excuse me if I didn't frame my response more strictly in terms of fantasy and romance. A full fledged rebuttal of this point would require an extended discussion covering everything from the Arthurian legend to Pullman and other modern authors, but that is way outside the focus of the Downs so I won't be tempted.

There are so many styles of fantasy hailing from such diverse lands, so many different ways to approach the genre, that I truly believe it is impossible to generalize as you have done. The only way to do that is to confine your discussion to one or two types and state that these types are the only legitimate fantasy that exists. If you define the genre very strictly, I might be able to agree with your statement in relation to certain types of fantasy. But I am not willing to exclude other styles and types from an overall consideration of fantasy.

But let me address one point that does relate strictly to Tolkien:

Most of his women are idealizations. An Elf is by definition an idealization, which includes Luthien, Arwen, and Galadriel. Eowyn is not an idealization; but she is masculinized in that she is a warrior, and a hero-worshipper (Aragorn); she idealizes. Rosy is one of the few women in LotR that are not idealized; she shouldn't be, for she is intended for Sam the gardener. Lobelia is enough of a villainess that she does not fit the idealization pattern. Melian is not only an Elf, but a Valar! Ioreth is a foil for Aragorn.

My favorite woman in Tolkien is none of these. It is Andreth. Andreth is not "ideal". Despite the fact that she loves an Elf, she comes across as the opposite of ideal: there is a sharp edge in her grieving that goes beyond romance. This is not the romantic woman scorned. This is a living and breathing older woman who has lived with sadness many years. And she is not a mere foil for Finrod as Ioreth may be said to be for Aragorn. She is a thinking and arguing character who appears as Finrod's equal, albeit coming from a very different background and perspective. I don't think she fits the model of "idealization" you are putting forward. And Tolkien gave pages and pages to her depiction. It was CT's choice to leave her out of the Silm, not his father's.

I would even disagree about Eowyn. Eowyn is a hero worshipper and therefore idealizes? But this is a trait that Tolkien never ties to gender. How different is Gimli's response to Galadriel, or even Frodo's feeling when he meets Goldberry? No, the men didn't expect to "marry" the objects of their worship because of obvious differences in station, but in all three cases their feelings are akin to what you would dub "hero worship". That trait or feeling is as typical of men as of women.

There are a great many characters whom Tolkien idealizes, and they are not all women. Unfriendly critics have castigated Tolkien again and again because of this. And though I don't agree with their overall assessment, there is some truth in the accusation. There is an element of idealization underlying many of Tolkien's characters, male and female. If Tolkien "fell in love" with Galadriel, he also "fell in love" with Faramir , though in a different way. It is clearly the character whom he uses to voice his own feelings and beliefs. This is made even clearer in the Letters. Idealization is part of many characters; it's not just the women.

Littlemanpoet -- Yes, I don't think that anyone could deny Tolkien does idealize many of his women. But personally I would not include Eowyn in that group, and there are other characters from Silm and HoMe like Andreth who just don't fit the mold. Moreover, devices like idealization and hero worship also cut across gender lines, touching more than one type of character. I just don't see the ironclad gender wall that you do within the fantasy genre as a whole. Good male writers of fantasy can write believable female characters, and vice versa.

Ang .... "perfect, invincible, silent". Almost sounds like a description of Aragorn at certain points in the book and of several male characters I know in Silm! But that's my point. Tolkien uses some of these same devices in depicting both men and women. Yes, Luthien is clearly an idealized Edith, but so too is Beren idealized.

[littlemanpoet]

You may think you understand what I am saying, Child, but your rather bald misappropriation of my clear wording in regard to Eowyn leads me to conclude that you don't really. I did not say that Eowyn is idealized. ;) Rather, I said that she is masculinized, and therefore the idealization does not and cannot be applied to her. Expectation of marriage is not to my point.

As for Andreth, when did Tolkien write her? Due to the fact that the incarnation of Christ is implied in her words, I'm given to thinking that this was a product of Tolkien's later-in-life theologizing. Granted, it's some of the best writing out of that theologizing that he did, and I give it more credence than most of the other stuff like it that he wrote, but Andreth is a produce of his later years, and is therefore not applicable to my argument. Tolkien was in decline, and from my reading it seems pretty clear that he is identifying directly with Andreth; whereas Galadriel and the other idealized women of the Legendarium are described at one remove, always through the eyes of a man (or dwarf) adoring them. Adoration is probably the best word (here I've just stumbled on it) that describes the particularity of which I speak.

There are so many styles of fantasy hailing from such diverse lands, so many different ways to approach the genre, that I truly believe it is impossible to generalize as you have done.Pleae describe back to me precisely the generalization of which you think I'm culpable, because I'm missing it.

... their feelings are akin to what you would dub "hero worship". That trait or feeling is as typical of men as of women.But I'm not talking about mere hero-worship. I'm saying that there is a specific way that some men think and feel about particular women that most women would find frankly odd, except those who happen to be the recipients thereof (because it apparently really pleases them :D ).

There are a great many characters whom Tolkien idealizes, and they are not all women.This does not obtain to my point. I'm talking about a particular kind of idealization that is unique to that which some men regard some women. Gimli's adoration of Galadriel, Beren's of Luthien, Frodo's of Goldberry; and from RPs Falowik's of Uien; knights of medieval ladies; and (allow me to push the envelope) Catholic men of the Blessed Virgin, are all examples. Adoration.

The kind of idealization you are talking about is necessary to the writing of romance in general.

If Tolkien "fell in love" with Galadriel, he also "fell in love" with Faramir , though in a different way. Precisely; note my bolds of your quote.

I just don't see the ironclad gender wall that you do within the fantasy genre as a whole. Good male writers of fantasy can write believable female characters, and vice versa.Again, and again and again, that's not what I'm saying. It's not about ability to write one gender or the other well; I'm not interested in that at all. I'm saying that there is a particular aspect of writing of women that some men do that comes not at all naturally to women, but may be learned. Women are too well aware of their own foibles from the inside, as are men of their own, to naturally write at the idealized remove I'm speaking of. But now I'm beginning to repeat myself ad nauseum, so I'll stop now.

[Nogrod]

What does it mean to write in the spirit of tolkien?

It clearly is a different thing to try and write a Homeric epos, a medieval romance, a fully grown (nationalistic)romantic version of it of the 19th/20th century or a story inspired by the popular culture and the values of the western world by the late 20th century (Matrix, Tomb Rider, whatever you want).

Tolkien might be easily identified in here, but let that matter be.

But is the writing here at BD following the nationalistic-romantic style of Tolkien? No it isn't. And I can't blame the site for that, on the contrary. But the issue of women is one of the most noteworthy, going so clearly against the ideas of Tolkien vs. modern emancipatory women.

But what's the mix?

Let's take an example. The Eorling Mead Hall has writers from plain 21st century individuals to those who try to catch a medieval twist on their characters. There are people who try to write on a romance style and those who write like Philip Marlowe or K. Dick. What is Tolkien style writing - and what is true to what? What should the writers strive for? Should (historically / stylistically) incompetent writers be blocked? Nasty questions...

Diversity is mostly a blessing, but sometimes one would like to require a kind of restraint and role-playing skills not to bring all their "Teen-age-mutant-Ninja-Turtles" -stuff in to the games here. Or 21st century individualistic ethos to the romance world of Tolkien...

But which one should we follow?

That is much harder question...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet -

Our views on this are not that far apart, but they are different and unlikely to change. Since both my own words and yours feel unnecessarily pointed, I will respond to two items and courteously depart, at least from this particular discussion on the thread.

First regarding Eowyn.... I concur that Tolkien does not idealize her. And I think we both agree that she herself idealizes. Perhaps it is my use of the word "but" near the end of my post that gives the opposite impression. That was not directed at you and, if you thought so, I apologize.

My basic point stands. Idealization is a major part of Tolkien's writing (both the one who idealizes and the one who is idealized), and I do not see it tied to gender to the same degree that you do. Thus, Eowyn, Gimli, and Frodo all idealize the opposite sex at certain points. This is more than simple hero worship. There are also times when Luthien, for example, idealizes Beren just as she is idealized by him.

Secondly, I'm not comfortable setting aside Andreth merely because she was part of the "later writings". CT certainly felt this way about these writings, but many disagree. The one thing about Tolkien is that he was constantly changing his mind, and that was as true in his youth and prime as it was in his old age. If you automatically dismiss one aspect of Tolkien like the later writings, you can just as easily dismiss others like the Tolkien who wrote the Hobbit.

There have been lengthy discussions on the Downs concerning Andreth, Osanwe, Morgoth's Ring, etc. where many posters confessed that they find some of these later writings especially close to their hearts. I know that you don't feel this way from other posts I have read on different threads, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point where a final decision can be made on the value of these later writings. Given that situation, Andreth can't be overlooked. She is a very real woman--not idealized or idealizing. I would not call her typical, but she is still worthy of consideration.

[Lalaith]

Oh, we always talk about women, lets talk about men for a change....

I'm also saying that it's hard (not impossible) for a woman to write a Romantic man. It doesn't come naturally because I don't think many women writers understand, or are interested, in the mindset of Romantic men for whom the idealization of women speaks profoundly

I'm really interested by this, elempi, but I'd like you to elaborate before I go on because I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Tolkien's men were Romantic men, prone to idealising women? What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?

I was for example irritated by the change in Aragorn's character from book to film because he was given flaws and doubts that the book-Aragorn did not have - the book-Aragorn had a mission and purpose which he was constantly striving for, he was at no point "running away" from his destiny. Is this the kind of thing you mean?

[littlemanpoet]

Sorry, Child, I'm not usually this sure of myself on an issue, and I guess I got a little * ahem * emphatic. Sorry if I upset you. Being sure of myself tends to bring out that masculine bull-in-the-chinashop side of me and then I start to - er - plow, as it were. :rolleyes:

I'm really interested by this, elempi, but I'd like you to elaborate before I go on because I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Tolkien's men were Romantic men, prone to idealising women?Yes. Some of them. Your question made me reconsider some men that I had not yet thought about: Aragorn, for instance. He doesn't idealize Arwen, which is rather surprising. Nor does Faramir idealize Eowyn. Nor does Sam idealize Rosy. It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives. This is curious. The men that stand out as idealizers of some woman are Gimli and Frodo. Elves sang the praises of Elbereth, surely an ideal female; and outside LotR but inside the Legendarium you have Beren and Thingol who did in fact marry those whom they idealized. Interesting.

What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?I'll have to come back to this later when I have more time.

I was for example irritated by the change in Aragorn's character from book to film because he was given flaws and doubts that the book-Aragorn did not have - the book-Aragorn had a mission and purpose which he was constantly striving for, he was at no point "running away" from his destiny. Is this the kind of thing you mean?This is an interesting point. There is a masculinity issue revolving around it, I believe; but it strikes me that the characteristic you are describing is not Romantic man, but a righteous man. This is something that irritates the modern critic to no end, because righteousness is, well, passé (which is a real shame). I suppose righteousness in a man is one of those things that "the sixpence equals", to refer to another thread. It is believed that righteousness in a man is simply unrealistic: "He must be hiding some hideous secret. No-one is that good!" Righteousness is considered to be 2-dimensional, shallow; yet Aragorn and Faramir - and Gandalf - are most certainly not two-dimensional characters! They are criticized for being so on the grounds that they are good, but that's not the same as being poorly written. This masculine righteousness could be an additional aspect of "writing in the spirit of Tolkien".

[mark12_30]

Your question made me reconsider some men that I had not yet thought about: Aragorn, for instance. He doesn't idealize Arwen, which is rather surprising. Nor does Faramir idealize Eowyn. Nor does Sam idealize Rosy. It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives.

Then Noldo is not so lacking as you had previously supposed?

[Lalaith]

It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives.
Yes, you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Although I'm not sure we actually know whether or not Aragorn idealised Arwen before they married...
The other thing I was thinking about was the way that the idealised women in Tolkien behaved to the men idolising them. Even though they are - presumably - good and honourable women, they blithely accept the worship as their due, they don't have a problem with it. Compare this to the good and honourable Aragorn's shame at being worshipped by Eowyn.
And I also agree with you about this:
because righteousness is, well, passé (which is a real shame).
It is quite possible for good men to be interesting as well as bad ones. But to go back to Romantics, the trend of which you speak is linked to righteousness, in that it is about having and pursuing an ideal, and probably why I had to go back to the Victorians to come up with Romantic men (idealisers of women) created by female writers. I've come up with a couple of examples that you're welcome to knock down if you don't think they fit. (Particularly as I still need a better definition from you of what a Romantic man is! Is Gatsby one, for example? He's certainly not righteous...)

Anyway, what do you reckon about Adam Bede (George Eliot)? Also Tertius in Middlemarch...And I'm pretty sure Mrs Gaskell had a couple of similar types but I can't remember them right now... :o One thing though, these female-created idealists typically idealise the wrong women.

[mark12_30]

The other thing I was thinking about was the way that the idealised women in Tolkien behaved to the men idolising them. Even though they are - presumably - good and honourable women, they blithely accept the worship as their due, they don't have a problem with it. Compare this to the good and honourable Aragorn's shame at being worshipped by Eowyn.

IMO-- thie difference between Gimli and Frodo's idolatry ;) , on the one hand, and Eowyn's idolatry :( , on the other, was that Eowyn reasonably hoped that Aragorn would fall in love with her, and marry her. And she pursued him with that in mind, to the point that others remarked about it (even Faramir.) Aragorn rebuffed her because he saw that she was serious about him and had marital hopes.

Frodo and Gimli had no such illusions, but only adored from afar. Hence they were no threat to Goldberry's marriage, Galadriel's marriage, or even Arwen's engagement.

'***************************************

EDIT, Postscript, etc etc: Before going back and reviewing the first page, I decided I'd brainstorm my own "spirit of TOlkien" requirements, and for a first-shot quickie, I wrote these:

--Eucatastrophe.
--Revelation.
--Honor, valor, courage, humility, good manners, honesty.
--Nasssssty villians (what I find the most difficult.)
--Both detail and sweep.
--The open reader is changed.

[littlemanpoet]

Then Noldo is not so lacking as you had previously supposed?It seems to me that Noldo is not the real issue; Sindo is. Noldo got seduced veritably against his will, by BOTH Lorien and Sindo! Sindo was the one who worshiped Lorien, not Noldo. Go check out Helen's "Fairy Wife" for yourself for a very, very interesting read.

What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?I'll try to answer this better this time. Traits:


closeness to nature
a sense of the spirituality of nature
a rejection of "the machine" as "the answer"
a hunger for SOMETHING MORE
an appreciation of beautiful women as expressions of divinity; note: beauty of heart is at least as important as that of appearance


More could be said, but I think this sort of clarifies it.

I fear that I am not well read enough to help you with your examples. The only book that I've read by a woman about an honorable and righteous man is Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, and I did read it before I saw any of the movie versions and consider her hero to be a very good model; and he does marry the heroine. The most recent movie was a delight as it portrayed this very well.

The problem with the 19th century (if problem we can really call it) was that there wasn't the sheer inundation of technology and machinery that we face. So "closeness to nature" is relative. In a certain sense, I might consider myself more of a Romantic than men of the Romantic era because I have an even greater appreciation for nature than they have who had a wealth of it surrounding them.

I notice a shift from idealization to idolatry. These are two quite different terms and mean very different things. There concommitant verbs clarify this: adoration versus worship. It's a fine line, but I don't think Gimli worshiped Galadriel. He did revere, honor, and adore her. But not worship. Even less so with Frodo. Since it is a fine line, it is quite possible to slip from idealization into idolatry, and that would be a bad thing. Eowyn, idolatry? I don't think so here either. She found a man she could honor and had a legitimate hope; which could not be returned because though legitimate, it was a hope that could not be fulfilled, not unless Aragron foreswore the virtue that attracted Eowyn to him.

To review: to write in the spirit of Tolkien means:

1) something more mystical than mere fantasy.
2) to the same depth as Tolkien.
3) detailed feigned history.
4) consistency in the languages spoken by the people in the story.
5) writing both the small and the large, the comic and the sublime.
6) a deep theme, such as "hope and despair".
7) detailed yet interesting description (not boring).
8) a subtlety by which the unfamiliar is presented along with the familiar to give it an easier entrance into the reader's mind.
9) one must go beyond Tolkien's accomplishment (yikes!) &, I would add, avoid being 'thick as bricks doing it'.
10. find that balance between the epic romance, the continuation of grand themes, AND the experience of every-day made vivid.
11. braided themes - all the issues the characters must confront.
12. braided world view aspects.
13. use the archetypes that run deep within all of us.
14. The Fae feel.
15. Creating a world so rich and believable that the reader feels like it's history instead of fantasy.
16. a community worth saving.
17. Leave tantalizing mysteries unexplained.
18. Eucatastrophe.
19. Revelation.
20. Honor, valor, courage, humility, good manners, honesty.
21. Nasssssty villians (what I find the most difficult.)
22. Both detail and sweep.
23. The open reader is changed.

Wow! It's time we started joining like to like and see if we can come up with maybe three to seven over-arching themes, don't you think?

[Child of the 7th Age]

--Eucatastrophe.
--Revelation.
--Honor, valor, courage, humility, good manners, honesty.
--Nasssssty villians (what I find the most difficult.)
--Both detail and sweep.
--The open reader is changed.

An interesting list, Helen , especially the last one, which is difficult but something that ideally should happen. While I have no trouble agreeing with your points, where I personally have problems is deciding how different certain elements of the story can be and yet still qualify as writing in the spirit of Tolkien. In other words, this list is meaningful not only for what is on it but also for what is not.

Nogrod brought up considerations of style a while back, mentioning posters who write with a distinct medieval flavor versus those who consciously express themselves in a decidedly "modern" tone. It's a point worth exploring. My personal preference is not to disqualify a work merely because of style. LotR had vast differences in style and voice from one chapter or episode to the next. If you add Hobbit and Silm into the equation, the differences become even more pronounced. JRRT frequently had to defend himself against critics who did not like this. At the very least we can say that the author shifted from voice to voice depending on his audience, the particular character involved, or the subject he was discussing. For that reason alone, I would not feel comfortable adding stylistic requirements to your list.

There is another question that's bothered me a long time. One factor that divides even very good fanfiction and rpgs from the original is the way the characters' internal lives are portrayed. Very rarely does Tolkien let us get into the head of a particular individual. More frequently, we see that character through another's eyes. (There are exceptions, but these are rare.)

Sometimes, when outside people ask me what I write on the Downs, I jokingly answer "Middle-earth soap operas". So many fanfiction works and rpgs, even those that are very well written, have a definite "angsty" flavor. There are a few exceptions--Mithadan comes to mind. But many of us do delight in plumbing internal depths, something which JRRT rarely did. So, anyone out there, do you think it is possible to craft angsty fantasy of this type (inside or outside of Middle-earth) that still qualifies as "being written in the spirit of Tolkien"?


Littlemanpoet - Thanks for the personal clarification. It was indeed helpful.
Whoops! I just crossposted with you.....

[mark12_30]

Go check out Helen's "Fairy Wife" for yourself for a very, very interesting read.

*bows*

The Fairy Wife (http://members.cox.net/hrwright61/noldo.html)


I notice a shift from idealization to idolatry. These are two quite different terms and mean very different things. There concommitant verbs clarify this: adoration versus worship. It's a fine line, but I don't think Gimli worshiped Galadriel. He did revere, honor, and adore her. But not worship.

I don't see the difference between adoration and worship, I'm afraid. I was responding to Lalaith's turn of phrase. But either way, I would stop at "revere and honor"-- and leave out both the adoration and the worship.

My take on Goldberry In Frodo's Eyes has been discussed elsewhere...



Wow! It's time we started joining like to like and see if we can come up with maybe three to seven over-arching themes, don't you think?

For starters, 22 and 5 are related. So are 18 and 14, if remotely.

Edit: Cross-posted with Child: Aye, Angst R Us.... :rolleyes:

[Child of the 7th Age]

We are all cross posting with each other. :rolleyes:

[littlemanpoet]

I'm not comfortable setting aside Andreth merely because she was part of the "later writings". CT certainly felt this way about these writings, but many disagree. The one thing about Tolkien is that he was constantly changing his mind, and that was as true in his youth and prime as it was in his old age. If you automatically dismiss one aspect of Tolkien like the later writings, you can just as easily dismiss others like the Tolkien who wrote the Hobbit.

I'm glad the personal clarification helped, Child. Just by way of clarification, I wish to draw your attention to precisely what I said in regard to your above point.

Due to the fact that the incarnation of Christ is implied in her words, I'm given to thinking that this was a product of Tolkien's later-in-life theologizing.

It is the theologizing as a basis for revision, instead of his philological hobbies that I think caused him to err in most cases when he was older. Tolkien was at his best when he was subcreating stories based on the myths he knew. When he did this, his process was to (1) write the story, (2) wonder how the words in the story could have come to be, based on philological principles, (3) he devised 'how it must have happened', which resulted in the (4) powerfully complex feigned history. By comparison, his late-in-life theological bases for writing set aside this intuitive process of story subcreation in order to work out logical systems that satisfied his theological mind but often did harm to the "real-feel" of the stories. And by means of this artificial approach, he got himself into all kinds of unlikely problems such as with Galadriel and Celeborn, and with the origin of Orcs, to name the two examples I know of best.

Okay, enough about that.

One factor that divides even very good fanfiction and rpgs from the original is the way the characters' internal lives are portrayed. Ah yes. The current vogue for all fiction is Characterization. Back before the novel was invented, the vogue was Plot. In early Science Fiction it was the Idea, and still is in murder mysteries. RPGs lend themselves to characterization. One notable exception is the Assigned to Mordor set, which, being spoof, is plot-based to a large degree, although there is characterization going on.

But the question must be asked, why didn't Tolkien do deep characterization? I personally don't think he should have, but others may; it wasn't what he was trying to do; but why?

I don't think it can safely be said that angsty RPGs (that is with deep characterization) automatically cannot be written in the spirit of Tolkien; but I know it's hard.

[davem]

But the question must be asked, why didn't Tolkien do deep characterization? I personally don't think he should have, but others may; it wasn't what he was trying to do; but why?

He was capable of it - in both The Athrabeth & Aldarion & Erendis he explores character in great depth (interestingly in both it is the female character Tolkien focusses on). Generally though, what he does seem to do is focus on the plot in the main - the story is told in long/medium shot - & then suddenly switch to close up. This actually makes the glimpse of character he then gives very intense.

Of course, he was a very subtle writer. There is characterisation there, but he doesn't hit you over the head with it - as PJ did in the movies. You have to pay attention. An old post of Squatter's comes to mind, speaking of an episode in 'Farewell to Lorien':

(Gimli) repeats it in Lothlórien in his scenes with Galadriel, and we see it again when he has his first glimpse of the Glittering Caves. His conversation with Legolas as they leave Lothlórien reveals depths to each character that are not admitted by the 'paper-thin' argument:
Quote:

The travellers now turned their faces to the journey; the sun was before them, and their eyes were dazzled, for all were filled with tears. Gimli wept openly.
'I have looked the last upon that which was fairest,' he said to Legolas. 'Henceforward I will call nothing fair, unless it be her gift.'
He put his hand to his breast.
'Tell me, Legolas, why did I come on this Quest? Little did I know where the chief peril lay! Truly Elrond spoke, saying that we could not forsee what we might meet upon our road. Torment in the dark was the danger that I feared, and it did not hold me back. But I would not have come had I known the danger of light and joy. Now I have taken my worst wound in this parting, even if I were to go this night straight to the Dark Lord. Alas for Gimli son of Glóin!'
'Nay!' said Legolas. 'Alas for us all! And for all that walk the world in these after-days. For such is the way of it: to find and lose, as it seems to those whose boat is on the running stream. But I count you blessed, Gimli son of Glóin: for your loss you suffer of your own free will, and you might have chosen otherwise. But you have not forsaken your companions, and the least reward you shall have is that the memory of Lothlórien shall remain ever clear and unstained in your heart, and shall neither fade nor grow stale.'

'Maybe,' said Gimli; 'and I thank you for your words. True words doubtless; yet all such comfort is cold. Memory is not what the heart desires. That is only a mirror, be it clear as Kheled-zâram. Or so says the heart of Gimli the Dwarf. Elves may see things otherwise. Indeed I have heard that for them memory is more like to the waking world than to a dream. Not so for Dwarves.
'But let us talk no more of it. Look to the boat! She is too low in the water with all this baggage, and the Great River is swift. I do not wish to drown my grief in cold water!'

Is this the conversation of two characters without depth? It takes little imagination to see in Legolas' words the pity of the Elves' relations with other races. The mortals move on and leave, but the Elves are trapped within the world, unchanging and unable to follow. The most beautiful of their creations are destroyed, and they live to see most triumph turn back to disaster. Legolas speaks with the voice of experience. He has had many years to learn that we cannot hold on to the world; but Gimli is feeling for the first time the pain that the Elves feel at the passing away of beautiful things: a pain that they live with daily, and must overcome in bringing about the fall of Sauron. Even for one whose memory is like waking life, memory is not enough, and it is telling that Legolas never claims that it is. What he says is that an unstained memory is a great gift, and he has already implied that memory is what everything must eventually become. Who among the Fellowship is so well-placed as he to know this? This is a conversation about very profound thoughts, and if the characters are talking about them, they must also be thinking them. They might be talking about Lórien on the surface, but on a deeper level they are talking about the very relationship between experience and memory. This seems to indicate as well as anything that there is more to Gimli than a solid Dwarven miner and more to Legolas than the woodland prince. It may not come out often, but it is there; and we need to know that it is there if we are to feel for those characters at all.

So, the characterisation is there, but its easy for us to miss it, as we're so used to having everything spelt out for us by modern authors/film-makers. We must adopt a different approach when reading Tolkien, & be prepared to pay attention to every detail.

[Bêthberry]

He was capable of it - in both The Athrabeth & Aldarion & Erendis he explores So, the characterisation is there, but its easy for us to miss it, as we're so used to having everything spelt out for us by modern authors/film-makers. We must adopt a different approach when reading Tolkien, & be prepared to pay attention to every detail.

If I may add a small emendation to this advice about paying attention to every detail, davem, I think your words apply to any writer worth his ink--or his internet ether--modern as well as any other classifcation readers can make. The finer the tuning, the finer the writing, in any genre--I so dislike to see Tolkien separated from any other class of writers.

Of course, if the details are cast in such chiaroscuro as to be overshadowed by plot, description, other aspects of story, then of course it is possible to ask why an author chose to highlight some aspects to the eclipsing of others. (And please note that eclipse is a fascinating event wherebye what one 'ought to see' is occluded.) This is all part of establishing a book's priorities, which is what a good reader ought to do, imho, submit himself (or herself ;)) to the priorities of the text.

[littlemanpoet]

Another aspect of the idealization of women occurred to me, linked to the fact that the women who married by the end of the appendices were not idealized by their new husbands.

An idealized woman is beyond reach.

This is one way in which Ellen Kushner failed in Thomas Rhymer: the Queen of Fairy was pretty much at Thomas' "personal disposal", to euphemize, for the entirety of his seven years in fairy. This misses the point.

Galadriel was beyond Gimli's reach; Goldberry was beyond Frodo's; Arwen was beyond Eomer's reach (recall the discussion between Eomer and Gimli regarding Galadriel and Arwen).

Frankly, lust is not the point. Adoration is. In the medieval courtly love 'vogue', the knight's goal was to 'win' the heart of the lady of his desire. This often resulted in his 'having' her as well. But in the 'getting', the ideal is lost and the besmirched couple is thrown into the ravages of infidelity in a culture that deplores it. Tolkien cleans all that up.

[Bêthberry]

Hmm. The heat of the day must be getting to me, as I've decided to bite. :p

Another aspect of the idealization of women occurred to me, linked to the fact that the women who married by the end of the appendices were not idealized by their new husbands.

An idealized woman is beyond reach.

This is one way in which Ellen Kushner failed in Thomas Rhymer: the Queen of Fairy was pretty much at Thomas' "personal disposal", to euphemize, for the entirety of his seven years in fairy. This misses the point.

Galadriel was beyond Gimli's reach; Goldberry was beyond Frodo's; Arwen was beyond Eomer's reach (recall the discussion between Eomer and Gimli regarding Galadriel and Arwen).

Frankly, lust is not the point. Adoration is. In the medieval courtly love 'vogue', the knight's goal was to 'win' the heart of the lady of his desire. This often resulted in his 'having' her as well. But in the 'getting', the ideal is lost and the besmirched couple is thrown into the ravages of infidelity in a culture that deplores it. Tolkien cleans all that up.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ellen Kushner failed. I haven't read her Thomas, so quite possibly I'm missing part of your point. Yet she is far from being the only one having her protagonists romp in the hay or the bower or wherever the trysts take place. Fairy and fantasy and medieval courtly traditions are, first of all, related but not the same thing and I'm not sure we can lump them all together here under some rubric of adoration or idealisation. I am here thinking of cultural legends and mythologies, not just modern fantasy. Second, each 'genre' is replete with blood, lust, gore, passion, fright and doom. The original tales are not sanitised. However, I am gathering the suspicion here that you are talking Tolkien's version of Fantasy or Fairy or Courtly Love as the definitive one. Are you suggesting that Tolkien bowlderised Fairy, the same way that other fairy stories were watered down to make them acceptable for children? I'm also a bit thrown by the tone of your words--besmirched, ravages of infidelity, deplores. These sound more like latter day "Scarlet Letter" attitudes rather than the more complex attitude that I recall from my reading of medieval romance. And then too this idealisation almost always involved the opposite with a woman of lower rank.

To bring this back to the current phase of the discussion, is this view of adoration/idealisation what is going on in the current Mead Hall?

Now, it is exceptionally hot and humid out here and I've spent most of the day outside, so if my points sound way off base--not first or second, or third, but completely out in left field, from what you meant, you might want to put them down to some form of sunstroke. ;)

[littlemanpoet]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ellen Kushner failed.If she was attempting to show Thomas as one a romantic (small 'r') bard who idealiz(s)ed the Fairy Queen, she messed it up by making the story about lust and craving need, whereas I think that a more effective handling of it is like Smith of Wootton Major, Gimli, Eomer, and Frodo, and others. Now, Tolkien made it clear in his Letters (and I choose to believe that he meant and understood what he said) that 'all that adolescent stuff' was something he was mature enough not to need in his Legendarium. Bowdlerized? Nah. He was not on some mission to 'clean it all up'; it just didn't have the kind of front-and-center importance to him that it seems to have for so many authors of our era.

Fairy and fantasy and medieval courtly traditions are, first of all, related but not the same thing and I'm not sure we can lump them all together here under some rubric of adoration or idealisation. I am here thinking of cultural legends and mythologies, not just modern fantasy. Second, each 'genre' is replete with blood, lust, gore, passion, fright and doom.Quite right. The fact is that in courtly love the knight's goal was adultery with the Lady. I think it would have been a mistake for Tolkien to visit the issue of sexual lust in LotR; it would have drawn far too much attention to itself and away from the powerfully important things he believed worth telling a story about. I'm not saying that Tolkien's approach is definitive. I'm saying that he was on to something though.

The language I was using -- besmirched, ravages of infidelity, deplores -- have to do with the realities of adultery in a society that holds as its rule of law Christian standards, as did the high medieval. I'm not talking in Victorian terms here, just the realities of what a Lady faced from her Lord if she had been unfaithful with one of his knights.

To bring this back to the current phase of the discussion, is this view of adoration/idealisation what is going on in the current Mead Hall?I don't know. Degas and Linduial are one example to look at, their writers being two yound ladies. The other is the case of Eodwine and Saeryn, written by a man and by a yound lady. However, the issue of the latter is not that of idealization. I don't know if the former is, or is even meant to be. What I do know is that it's not being written that way. Which may feed into my main point: female writers are generally unaware of the inner workings of the romantic currents in a romantic male character; it's about all those things you probably already think it is, PLUS a tendency toward idealization.

[Bêthberry]

['all that adolescent stuff' was something he was mature enough not to need in his Legendarium. Bowdlerized? Nah. He was not on some mission to 'clean it all up'; it just didn't have the kind of front-and-center importance to him that it seems to have for so many authors of our era.

Oh dear, I'd never thought of Chaucer as an author of our era. Nor as particularly of an adolescent flavour. ;)


The language I was using -- besmirched, ravages of infidelity, deplores -- have to do with the realities of adultery in a society that holds as its rule of law Christian standards, as did the high medieval. I'm not talking in Victorian terms here, just the realities of what a Lady faced from her Lord if she had been unfaithful with one of his knights.

Hmmm. Hmmm. Hmmm. I rather think there was a bit of difference between the historical reality of medieval times and Christian standards and literary genres. For the women of, say, Henry VIII's court--which is a bit late to the times we are talking of--beheading was the more likely consequence rather than besmirched. ;)

And about writing in the spirit of Tolkien: if, as you admitted a few posts back, that Tolkien was clearly working within cultural constructs of feminity, then what will happen to his concept of fantasy as those cultural constructs change? Or are you suggesting that there is some eternal stereotype about romantic males and idealisation? (Kudos by the way, for the way you have inverted the standard feminist complaint that male authors don't know what's going on in female characters' minds.)

[Aiwendil]

Oh dear, I'd never thought of Chaucer as an author of our era. Nor as particularly of an adolescent flavour.

No? If you ask me, a good deal of The Canterbury Tales IS rather adolescent.

I think it's clearly true that Tolkien's avoidance of lust and such in his tales is unusual, but I don't see that he should be blamed for it. If you ask me, he improved on traditional faerie stories in several ways, including this. If Tolkien is more mature than many of his predecessors, then I say good for him.

[Bêthberry]

No? If you ask me, a good deal of The Canterbury Tales IS rather adolescent.

I think it's clearly true that Tolkien's avoidance of lust and such in his tales is unusual, but I don't see that he should be blamed for it. If you ask me, he improved on traditional faerie stories in several ways, including this. If Tolkien is more mature than many of his predecessors, then I say good for him.

Well, I don't think 'blame' is quite what was going on here, however. ... Perhaps some of our difference of opinion rests on different understanding. I think Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale is one of the most subtle and complex narratives going--hardly immature. Certainly some of Chaucer's stories are ribald, but defining those as adoslescent is a value judgement. Even the idea that as one gets older, one leaves 'sex' behind is a value judgement. It may be an idea Tolkien had, which is all well and good to his beliefs, but it is not an absolute value or necessarily a historical fact.

That said, to me the difference here lies in the idea that any depiction of what is being called 'lust' is a lower form of intellect, being, literary interest, and morality/ethics. Like any aspect of the strange, weird, and wonderful complex we call human beings, sexual desire can be depicted crudely or honestly, immaturely or maturely, wisely or sillily, postively or negatively. It is, however, a moral value rather than an absolute standard which says that any discussion of sexuality is 'less, lower, somehow substandard and even dirty.' Perhaps this is part of the Christian heritage that sees sex as demeaning and dirty and which denies the body in favour of intellection, (part of our inheritance from Greek philosophy also) but it is--at the risk of repeating myself--one that is a value judgement.

The idealisation of women which is being discussed here had--in the primary world as opposed to the subcreated world--historically and politically and culturally, a profoundly and seriously detrimental consequence not only for women but for all human beings. It is not 'maturity' which made Tolkien omit 'lust', but rather a function of his system of belief. Nor is it a function of modern author's scatological interest or immaturity that 'lust' appears more dominantly in modern literature. It is a function of different understanding and different beliefs.

My opinion likely is not shared by many here at the Downs, and in that case I suspect discussion here will finish, at least on my part.

[littlemanpoet]

Off hand quick comments:

If you think that I was referring to Chaucer with my quote of Tolkien regarding adolescence, then you are taking both Tolkien and me out of context. He made this comment in reference (rather specifically I think) to the modern, post WW One, type of novel.

The Canterbury Tales, on the other hand, reflect an earthiness typical of the peasantry of the time.

16th century beheading did occur to me, but I think that era was more, rather than less barbaric than, say, the 10th -12th centuries, and the Kings were to blame for the increasing ferocity of punishments.

As to changing cultural constructs versus 'lasting stereotypes' (I would try to find less negatively implying words but haven't the time), it's probably a messy mix and always will be. There are obviously some basic biological differences that will always have their implications. And there are some general tendencies engendered by hormonal differences (testosterone etc.) that will necessarily affect the issue (oh, hang, I'm being overly diplomatic here): yes, I think there are "stereotypes", but I prefer to understand them as "universals" - the reason they seem like stereotypes are precisely because they are universal. Hence, any efforts to undo them will be to work against nature, and nature has a way of reasserting itself. As with flaura and fauna, so with humans and their stories.

[davem]

It is not 'maturity' which made Tolkien omit 'lust', but rather a function of his system of belief. Nor is it a function of modern author's scatological interest or immaturity that 'lust' appears more dominantly in modern literature. It is a function of different understanding and different beliefs.

Agreed - up to a point. Tolkien did not omit lust but when he did present it it was always in a negative light - but then it is a 'sin' in Catholic doctrine. At the same time desire is certainly present & is often positive. Beren & Luthien clearly desire each other sexually. Hence sexual desire is not omitted, but is only acceptable if it is an aspect of love, not if it exists for its own sake.

I'm not sure Tolkien idealised women - he was a sufficiently competent psychologist to be able to show his female characters as complex beings in their own right. If the men around them idealised them the was something that was going on inside them. Tolkien did not idealise his female characters, but merely had some of hiis male characters do so.

As to the idealisation of women in the primary world - perhaps, but at the periods of greatest 'idealisation' there was a corresponding denegration of 'real' women. One produced the other - though which came first I don't know.

[Bêthberry]

Off hand quick comments:

If you think that I was referring to Chaucer with my quote of Tolkien regarding adolescence, then you are taking both Tolkien and me out of context. He made this comment in reference (rather specifically I think) to the modern, post WW One, type of novel.

The Canterbury Tales, on the other hand, reflect an earthiness typical of the peasantry of the time.

16th century beheading did occur to me, but I think that era was more, rather than less barbaric than, say, the 10th -12th centuries, and the Kings were to blame for the increasing ferocity of punishments.

My sincere apologies if I have taken anything out of context. Perhaps if you could give me the specific reference Tolkien's letter, I could better understand your point. As it is, I just don't see how it relates solely to modern literature. Perhaps you could PM me the info so we won't belabour the thread? Many thanks!


yes, I think there are "stereotypes", but I prefer to understand them as "universals" - the reason they seem like stereotypes are precisely because they are universal. Hence, any efforts to undo them will be to work against nature, and nature has a way of reasserting itself. As with flaura and fauna, so with humans and their stories.

There's probably no point in getting into a nurture versus nature kind of discussion, but on the other hand I am very skeptical of your characterisation that, to examine or question the kind of depictions Tolkien used is to go against nature. It is, once again, an opinion that these are based on 'universals' rather than culturally determined. To what extent, for instance, can this kind of idealisation be found in non-Western literatures? The epic of [i]Gilgamesh[/b]--called "The oldest story in the world" by its recent translator, for example, posits a very different relationship with the woman, for there intercourse is a civilising event, an initiation into full humanity, rather than a fall.


If the men around them idealised them the was something that was going on inside them. Tolkien did not idealise his female characters, but merely had some of hiis male characters do so.


I find this observation fascinating, as I think this could be the first time that anyone here has put forth the idea of distance between Tolkien's view, as author or as narrator, and his characters' view. We have the external evidence that he did change or alter Galadriel's character so that she came more and more to represent his developing theological ideas and we also have Tolkien's letters which show that he did not idealise women in real life.

What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?

[littlemanpoet]

What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?

I confess little interest in such research, probably because of where I stand on the canonicity issue. (I'll let you figure that one out for yourselves.) ;)

The Letter that I was referring to was #177:

First, in the preliminary note:...Edwin Muir, reviewing The Return of the King in the Observer on 27 November, wrote: 'All the characters are boys masquerading as adult heroes . . . . and will never come to puberty . . . . . Hardly one of them knows anything about women.'

and Tolkiens' response to this:

Blast Edwin Muir and his delayed adolescence. He is old enough to know better. It might do him good to hear what women think of his 'knowing about women', especially as a test of being mentally adult. If he had an M.A. I should nominate him for the professorship of poetry - a sweet revenge.

As for Gilgamesh and cultural influence versus universal rootedness, I fear that you are right that it's a matter of opinion, having mostly to do with philosophical world view, and thus is probably something best avoided, as most of you already know what I believe, and this thread is not supposed to be about what I believe, but about what's in the spirit of Tolkien and what's not.

[davem]

I find this observation fascinating, as I think this could be the first time that anyone here has put forth the idea of distance between Tolkien's view, as author or as narrator, and his characters' view. We have the external evidence that he did change or alter Galadriel's character so that she came more and more to represent his developing theological ideas and we also have Tolkien's letters which show that he did not idealise women in real life.

What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?

Its certianly significant that when (predominantly male) characters 'fall in love' with a Lady it is love at first sight - they don't actually know the Lady as a person - she is a symbol of beauty, of perfection, which she embodies for the male (Frodo, Gimli, Aragorn, Beren). In a real sense then, they don't 'love' her at all, because they don't know her. It is perhaps, in the Jungian sense, an 'Anima' projection. She symbolises the Other, the Unknown, the Unconscious, 'Mystery'. I think this is why sexual desire is absent - or more probably is subsumed into overwhelming feelings of awe, of 'worship'.

Yet, in LotR at least, Galadriel the woman is not 'worthy' of Gimli's worship - she is an unforgiven rebel, one who sought power & control over others. She is actually an Elf-Woman, clad in simple white - something Frodo comes to see after the incident at the Mirror, but which Gimli never does see. Frodo's 'projection' is withdrawn at that point & he sees her for what she truly is - Gimli's projection never is.

For Tolkien, however, Galadriel is always an Elf-Woman, clad in simple white - he never 'worships' her. In showing the withdrawing of Frodo's projection onto her he makes plain who & what she is, & tells us plainly that there is something else going on with Gimli.

[littlemanpoet]

Good thoughts, davem. This tells me that Tolkien was well acquainted with the romantic man's idealisation, and in control of it in his writing.

[davem]

It seems as if Eowyn's 'love' for Aragorn is of the same kind. Interestingly this doesn't seem to be the case with her love for Faramir - though it does seem to happen with Faramir for Eowyn - he compares her to a flower (which Aragorn does too - yet with Aragorn it is a flower stricken dead by frost). Her reluctance to accept Faramir's suit seems to imply that this kind of initial 'projection' is the rule for love relationships. She doesn't feel an instantly overwhelming 'love' for him, so its as if she thinks there can be nothing between them.

Yet, as I said, Tolkien is a very detatched observer of the Lovers' characters. He understands the overwhelming effect of this kind of idealisation of the beloved on the lover, yet he never presents the beloved in this light for the reader. Maybe what we are seeing is an expression of the conflict he experienced in himself between hope & pessimism which we are told was his natural state much of the time - or maybe it is his 'ironic' comment on the medieval 'Courtly Love' literature, but I wonder.....

Of course, he experienced the same kind of thing with Edith (she was his Luthien as he put it, yet he must also have realised that she was 'simply' a woman). I suspect that one reason Tolkien speaks to us (& appalls others) is this very acknowledgement of the lover's idealisation of the beloved. Modern authors seem (apart from the writers of Mills & Boon/Barbara Cartland' type 'Romantic' novels) desperate to give us a 'detached', realistic view of their protagonists, to the extent that they deny this kind of idealisation of the beloved on the part of the lover - or if they do show it it is almost always depicted as foolishness or the cause of coming disaster for one or both parties. Tolkien acknowledges the simple reality of this 'idealisation' while at the same time making it clear that it has nothing to do with the reality of who the beloved is.

Now I'm thinking of William's 'Romantic Theology', but that's a whole other tangent...

[Bêthberry]

Its certianly significant that when (predominantly male) characters 'fall in love' with a Lady it is love at first sight - they don't actually know the Lady as a person - she is a symbol of beauty, of perfection, which she embodies for the male (Frodo, Gimli, Aragorn, Beren). In a real sense then, they don't 'love' her at all, because they don't know her. It is perhaps, in the Jungian sense, an 'Anima' projection. She symbolises the Other, the Unknown, the Unconscious, 'Mystery'. I think this is why sexual desire is absent - or more probably is subsumed into overwhelming feelings of awe, of 'worship'.

Yet, in LotR at least, Galadriel the woman is not 'worthy' of Gimli's worship - she is an unforgiven rebel, one who sought power & control over others. She is actually an Elf-Woman, clad in simple white - something Frodo comes to see after the incident at the Mirror, but which Gimli never does see. Frodo's 'projection' is withdrawn at that point & he sees her for what she truly is - Gimli's projection never is.

For Tolkien, however, Galadriel is always an Elf-Woman, clad in simple white - he never 'worships' her. In showing the withdrawing of Frodo's projection onto her he makes plain who & what she is, & tells us plainly that there is something else going on with Gimli.

This is a fascinating view, davem, and a very seductive one. However, like many theories, it is one which cannot fit all the details.

How would, for instance, this idea of the projected Jungian anima fit Gilgamesh? You are positing a sublimation of sexuality here which accords with the story at hand, but is this sublimation in accord with Jung? I don't know Jung well enough to say if you are retooling his idea to suit this story or not.

Also, you seem to conflate the Galadriel of The Silm with the Galadriel of LotR. The latter has much less of the unforgiven rebel in her. Even with the hints of the Legendarium in LotR, I'm not sure it is appropriate to "bring in" those details. A bit too much analysis? ;)

Furthermore, Aragorn will not contenance any harsh words about Galadriel--"Speak no evil of..." What would it suggest if the future king never rids himself of this 'projection' while Frodo does? For your idea--and it is a very attractive idea--to be fully at play one would expect to see Aragorn also come to this position. Or perhaps this is a problem with so many heroes? We must wait until later to see how Aragorn handles his Lady?

Nor do I think it is quite in agreement with the textual descriptions of Galadriel to say that for Tolkien she is always just an elf-woman. Until the scene with the mirror, the text, if I am not mistaken, fully invites the reader to partake of the mystification of the Lady which these males fall under (or into?). What changes in the Mirror scene is Galadriel herself, who allows that in Frodo she has met her match in courtesy at least. It is she who refuses the offer to be loved by all and who, in rejecting the Ring, allows Frodo to see the plain elf woman.

The Mirror scene is remarkable, for it is meant to be an encounter with the goddess. The symbolism of the round bowl, the water, the seeing-beyond, the roiling waters turning to steam which curl around the edges of the open bowl, all suggest a highly charged experience between the two. And Galadriel is changed as is Frodo, who sees the eye of the One. The goddess is unthroned to become simply "a living vision of that which has already been left far behind by the flowing stream of Time".

In Tolkien's vision, the female principle, in standing in for elves, is the one reduced, diminished. That much of the development of monotheism Tolkien seems to have recognised.

[davem]

Its also possible that Galadriel deliberately acted so as to break Frodo's Anima projection on her - he must be shown that he faces not just real threats but 'Glamour' in the form of 'Powers, Thrones & Dominions', To do that she must make herself a 'Goddess' in his eyes, a monster, manifestation of the Numinious - & then shatter the image, reveal the truth underneath. What Frodo learns is that there is no 'SuperWoman (or -Man) who can take it all away & let him go back to his comfortable life in the Shire. The 'Goddess' is a delusion, one that can inspire, raise up (Gimli, Legolas & her own folk), but Frodo's need is different, so she has to shatter the illusion he has about her. I'm not sure that she hadn't already faced her own crisis some while back. But that's just my reading.

As to your point about Aragorn, I'm not sure Aragorn is projecting anything onto Galadriel - if he is projecting his Anima on anyone it is Arwen. However I wouldn't push this idea too far with Aragorn

I don't think I am bringing in the Galadriel of the Sil in this. At the time of LotR Galadriel was one of the Noldor, & all the Noldor were 'rebels', 'fallen' & unforgiven (Appendix A 'The Numenorean Kings') . I'm deliberately focussing on Galadriel as we know her from LotR. And as to Gilgamesh, its too long since I read it, & I've just started on The Paston Letters, so it'll have to wait a bit :)

[Bêthberry]

The 'Goddess' is a delusion, one that can inspire, raise up (Gimli, Legolas & her own folk), but Frodo's need is different, so she has to shatter the illusion he has about her

This seems a likely place for a final comment to this chapter of the discussion: it is well to recall that, in this unquaintly substition of the gaze (O Fordim, where art thou?), the only injunction is "Look but don't touch." ;)


this thread is . . . supposed to be about . . . what's in the spirit of Tolkien and what's not.

Is that spirit as opposed to letter? And does it include parody?

[littlemanpoet]

this thread is . . . supposed to be about . . . what's in the spirit of Tolkien and what's not.Is that spirit as opposed to letter? And does it include parody?I confess that I fail to comprehend the import of your questions. Your erudition, as has often been the case, confounds me.

[mark12_30]

Is that spirit as opposed to letter?

And does it include parody?

Hmmm. Did Tolkien write parody...? How shall we qualify Giles?

And with regards to Spirit vs Letter, my reaction would be-- Perhaps neither; Perhaps either; Perhaps both. If both then it calls us higher still. Or as Lewis said "Further up and further in".

I think it depends on what you are writing. If you are writing something as an addendum to Tolkien's existing writings, then IMO you are oblidged to strive for canonicity as best you can both of spirit AND letter. By letter I mean fitting in the details to the best of your ability. And if you are writing something to fill in something he only hinted at and gave very few connections to, then your freedom is increased, and you are less obliged to follow his work "to the letter."

If you are writing outside the legendarium, which I suspect is also included in this discussion, then spirit becomes the primary thing. At which point I would ask, why worry about the spirit of Tolkien, really? Write what is in your heart; if your heart is full of light, so will the fruit of your work be. The whole thing goes to a higher plane.

[Parmawen]

I think there's a big difference between writing in the spirit of Tolkien and just plain mirroring his work. For instance...writing in the spirit of Tolkien is incorporating his subtle nuances and sense of humour into your work, almost as if Tolkien himself could have written it. Unlike using his plot lines or ideas to suit one's own work.

For example, my brother claims Terry Brook's The Sword of Shanara (i think that's correct) is "writing just like Tolkien" but in reality, it's a similar story (and still a good one)...but the writing lacks the characteristics of Tolkien.

I think a lot of stories today are given that description...but I've yet to see a book that when I read, I immediately think of Tolkien or could ever mistake as his own writing.

[littlemanpoet]

I would ask, why worry about the spirit of Tolkien, really?Well, I'd quibble over 'worry', but that's minor. To your question: because he did something unique, profound, and important that I believe is so far, but should not be, a lone tree with no forest having grown from its seeds.

Write what is in your heart; if your heart is full of light, so will the fruit of your work be. The whole thing goes to a higher plane.Ah but the heart is a dicey thing, and how full of light it is depends on a few key factors; and even after that is ascertained, it may be that what is in your heart is not after all a seed from that same tree, though it may be good seed.

[mark12_30]

Well, I'd quibble over 'worry', but that's minor. To your question: because he did something unique, profound, and important that I believe is so far, but should not be, a lone tree with no forest having grown from its seeds.

Ah but the heart is a dicey thing, and how full of light it is depends on a few key factors; and even after that is ascertained, it may be that what is in your heart is not after all a seed from that same tree, though it may be good seed.

OK. I grant you your points. But I think that there are times for writing to (in essence) please Tolkien; a valid goal (eg. Tapestry) and there are times for writing to please the master of your soul. Which do you aim for when, and why? And I would argue that the second is a more valid pursuit than the first, unless one is specifically aiming to add to Tolkien's legendarium. If one is creating one's own legendarium (as you are) then you are not beholden to Tolkien for guidance or example; and while you may strive in that direction, the work that you produce will be purer if you strive to write as you are called, rather than to write as he was called.

If the seed that is in your heart is not from that same tree, still, who gave you the seed? And should you challenge the source-- or should you nurture that seed with all the skill that you have, and let the seed produce what it was meant to produce? To stretch the analogy: If Tolkien's tree was a mighty beech, and your seed is an apple seed, are you doing your seed justice if you strive to imitate the beech? Or pick any other seed. Pine, hemlock, maple, oak. Still a proud member of the forest; mighty in its own right; and deserves to be cultivated as what it is, not as what it is not.

Taking that thought to its logical extreme, then I would suggest that writing in the spirit of Tolkien is to profoundly and deeply cultivate the seed in your own heart-- illumination, real water, good soil. See Psalm 1.

[littlemanpoet]

If the seed that is in your heart is not from that same tree, still, who gave you the seed? And should you challenge the source-- or should you nurture that seed with all the skill that you have, and let the seed produce what it was meant to produce? To stretch the analogy: If Tolkien's tree was a mighty beech, and your seed is an apple seed, are you doing your seed justice if you strive to imitate the beech? Or pick any other seed. Pine, hemlock, maple, oak. Still a proud member of the forest; mighty in its own right; and deserves to be cultivated as what it is, not as what it is not.All valid points; if the two are not the same. And if they are the same, there is no dissonance.

Taking that thought to its logical extreme, then I would suggest that writing in the spirit of Tolkien is to profoundly and deeply cultivate the seed in your own heart-- illumination, real water, good soil. See Psalm 1.Yes and no.

You see, part of what writing in the spirit of Tolkien has to do with, is love of language and lore; another part is cherishing aspects of western culture that the west has largely set aside, namely Christian world view and Northern culture-stock (including its myths and legends). Meanwhile the Latin/Greek aspects of western culture are not derided, but understood as imports. (YOu may wish to ask me: Why is Latin/Greek culture-stock an import and Christian world view not? ... because the former is a matter of the mind whereas the latter is a matter of the heart; the latter goes deeper; and Northern culture stock is in our heart already.)

[Lalwendë]

I think it depends on what you are writing. If you are writing something as an addendum to Tolkien's existing writings, then IMO you are oblidged to strive for canonicity as best you can both of spirit AND letter. By letter I mean fitting in the details to the best of your ability. And if you are writing something to fill in something he only hinted at and gave very few connections to, then your freedom is increased, and you are less obliged to follow his work "to the letter."

If you are writing outside the legendarium, which I suspect is also included in this discussion, then spirit becomes the primary thing. At which point I would ask, why worry about the spirit of Tolkien, really? Write what is in your heart; if your heart is full of light, so will the fruit of your work be. The whole thing goes to a higher plane.

I agree with all this! If you are writing fan fic, RPGs etc, then there should be at least an effort to reflect Tolkien's ideas and the tone of the world he created, even if you are creating the types of characters and situations that he did not tackle. There's even room to deal with morally ambiguous characters as Tolkien himself created fascinating characters such as Boromir, Denethor, Eol and last but not least, Gollum. There's room for humour, rom for tragedy and room for horror. All of which can be played with inside a ready made framework.

But when it comes to creating your own worlds, this is the time when its probably wise not to think about Tolkien too much. His influence is overbearing and when the writer thinks about the extent and complexity of his creation, that influence is stifling and daunting. I think the only way a writer should try to emulate Tolkien is by doing what he did and turning that churning mass of myth and story and experience that we carry around in our heads into unique creations.

There cannot be another Tolkien, just as there cannot be another Hardy or Plath or Blake. There can be a You though. ;)