Goodness, I must be the only one who reads these things as just stories. I just like to read them, and mayhap imagine being part of them.

[ June 09, 2003: Message edited by: Tinuviel of Denton ]

Well, Tinuviel, that's after all what Tolkien wrote his stories for: to be enjoyed , not to be analyzed!

from letter 181:
But:

If I may offer a few observations here...

I think we often have a tendency to set up a false opposition between "enjoy" and "analyze". Enjoyment need not be a passing bit of fun, but can involve reflection and thoughtful consideration after the reading is done. Analysis can include the happy sense of fulfilment after one has come to a fuller or more satisfying understanding of why something was good to read.

Tolkien's "amused in the highest sense" is likely a significant phrase here. His essay, "On Fairy Stories" would be a good complement here, if we were interested in articulating more specifically what Tolkien's expectations for 'reading' or 'readable' are.

This false dichotomy is, sadly, encouraged through formal education. I have always been the type of person who reads beyond the surface with little trouble and who enjoys discussing the things I have read, even if only between the lines. As a student, however, I was taught that if I enjoyed reading a book then I probably wasn't learning anything. I remember telling a literature teacher that I very much liked the story of "Tale of Two Cities." She responded that my liking it was irrelevent and I should focus on understanding it. Thankfully, my love of reading and story was well entrenched by that time.

I agree that "On Fairy Stories" is an excellent companion to reading "Leaf by Niggle." Their pairing togther in "Tree and Leaf" seems almost to have been haphazard when one reads the Letters, but in reality they both shed a lot of light on Tolkien's views of art, story, and the value of meaning versus fun.

When I read "Leaf" the first time I didn't see Tolkien as Niggle simply because Niggle is alone, and I have always thought of Tolkien as being involved with his family. If anything, I would say the farmer and the artist are, instead, two sides of the same personality, the fanciful and the practical. This is why they can only create their "heaven" together. Obviously, however, there is a strong element of grace in the story, and that has always struck me as the most important aspect.

One sentence in Smith got me thinking about Christopher as Ned again - I mentioned earlier in this discussion that I think he was the main inspiration for Smith's son. The sentence is: Now, one who knows a trade well can best recognize skill, even genius, in another person of that trade. Ned and his father share the same trade, and reading Tolkien's biography (a different one than I had read so far) in the last weeks made me newly aware that Christopher followed in his father's footsteps (though he could not fill his shoes!) and was also an Oxford professor.

Ned later says: - and is the one who speaks with his father of the bereavement of giving up the star. Christopher shared his father's dreams more than anyone else, at least late in Tolkien's life, and he was the one child consulted by JRRT about the development of LotR and later, the Silmarillion.

I'm not trying to milk the story to get more out of it than is in it, but thinking about Christopher brought me back to Ned more than once. Perhaps someone else has additional thoughts about these autobiographical aspects and we can revive the discussion again - I know Smith has been mentioned on another thread several times recently.

up

Niggles Tree
 

After many years of exploration, he found himself back on familiar roads. he knew this place, it was engraved into his mind. Stopping for a rest, he placed his back against the trunk of a big tree. Looking into the distance, he could see the mountains that he had so recently traveled. It seemed to him that he had spent too long exploring every inch of them, and had forgotten why he set out in the first place. Having rested, he resumed his journey back to the place he was seeking. Sometime later he crested a rise in the path, the sight that greeted him was not what he had been expecting. In front of him was a massive tree, yet most of it was hidden by a wall. In the wall was a small door, with a sign saying keep out. He was very angry, the reason he had made the tree, was for everyone to see it. Where there should have been saplings growing from the roots, someone had viciously tore them up. He had given the tree to everyone, but someone had claimed it for their own. He walked up to the door and saw that it was locked, a huge padlock barred the way. However he was not just anyone, this was his world and no barrier could stay his mighty hand. He touched the door and it splintered. Through the gap he walked. What confronted him was a group of Gollums, all linking arms around the tree and chanting "mine, mine, mine". He wept then to see what his kin had become.

What is to follow seems relevant, so here it comes:

I'm not outright Kipling fan, and some of his poetry does not ring true at all to me, but this one verse is worthy of attention. For one, it's final half-stanza is currently my sig ;) For two, though some of the verse be a bit highly coloured (what 'golden chair', my precious?) it seems to express same hope (though Kipling pretends it is not hope but confidence, I still tend to believe he puts a brave face on half-feared hopes) with which Leaf by Niggle is soaked. Just that Tolkien's is a way more personal, not depicting some general 'good chaps', but himself

What have I dragged all of this in for? I'm not quite sure, I've said it seemed relevant. Do of it what you will :)

cheers

That's interesting. I'd thought about this poem in connection to Leaf as well.

I've dug up this old thread to research for a lecture I'd like to give at the next German Tolkien seminar coming spring. As I started and named the thread, I feel entitled to use the title (sorry, pun unintentional, but can't find a good substitute for either word) for my paper. I'm not yet sure whether I will be quoting some of the posts here, but I would like to ask in advance whether the members involved in the discussion allow me to use it as part of the "leaf-mould" for my topic. When I have it worked out in detail, I will contact those individuals whose words I would like to use verbatim.

Thanks in advance!

Browsing through Tolkien's letters , I recently came upon a sentence which ties in nicely with Niggle's Parish! I thought I'd share it with you! :)

So he had this idea, years before writing "Leaf by Niggle".
(Too bad I didn't discover this before your lecture, Esty!)

Oh, but I can include that in my revision for the printed version of my lecture! Thanks for a great quote, Guinevere! (Revising and formatting for printing will be a major project this summer.)

1) On Christopher, I can't find it at the moment (my collected Letters are literally in a box as I prepare to move), but I remember somewhere Tolkien warning his son that
a) He had great literary talent, but
b) It may not be the same as his, and that Christopher should try to find his own voice and distance himself from his shadow.

2) On the autobiographical/allegorical elements of Leaf by Niggle, I can only really present my own views and experiences. On the one hand, I know that Tolkien reveled in a bit of allegorical caricature (see pretty much everyone in Farmer Giles, representing the most ridiculous characteristics) of their "types." And perhaps that is at work in the utterly lawlike and practical Inspector, as Littlemanpoet pointed out.

I personally see Leaf by Niggle as a quiet reflection on the themes discussed above, and see Niggle as allegorically depicting Tolkien as Artist, but also feel I can understand why Tolkien didn't want it to be considered an allegory. I guess I would disagree if you said "so-and-so is such-and-such," but if you say "so-and-so exists and is this way in the story, and means this much to Tolkien, because of Tolkien's experiences with such-and-such," I wouldn't object. But I think the point of seeing the "allegory" is to understand the story as a story and absorb the meaning into our own lives, rather than merely to "figure it out." If that makes sense.

I finished revising and formatting my lecture in preparation for publishing and am now proofreading a related lecture. Interestingly (though I will reveal no details, since I'm not the author) the author brings up the idea I had long ago, that Parish could be a representation of Edith!! Of course he realizes that the comparison doesn't work out completely. And of course I gave up that interpretation after discussing it here, and after reading Shippey's views on the topic...

It seems to me - & I was discussing this elsewhere - that while the first part of Niggle may be seen as 'autobiographical', the second part (after he leaves on his 'journey') cannot be. It strikes me that it is more 'hope', or 'wishful thinking'. In other words its what he hopes his work will become - that it will be 'accepted' by the Voices, taken up & made something 'more', made 'Real'.

Yet he couldn't know that it would be. Part One is where he is, Part Two is where he hopes to be. Hence it could be argued that the least important part of LbN is the autobiographical part & the most important part the one that follows. And yet, the First Part would be simply 'bland', merely a resetting of his own life (or his perception of it), & tell us not very much. It is the 'dream' (or Dream) of what it will become that is significant - not the (allegorised) reality, but the Reality he hopes for. Hence it is not really 'autobiographical' at all. If Part To is an 'allegory' at all it is an allegory of his hope, of something that does not (or cannot be proved to) exist. One could almost call it a plea to the voices (& yet the Voices too are a Dream).

This calls into question his motivation, because for all he claims that his work has no 'meaning' or purpose beyond itself, it clearly does (in hope if not in actual fact). He desires that his work may be taken up & made into a Way beyond, in to & beyond the Mountains.

And yet, that being the case, was this little story the only way he could express that desire? He (it seems) could not state that his Legendarium would open a door to something greater, that it could open the gates of Heaven. That would be too much, too presumptious. But he could write a story about a little man, a painter, who painted a picture of a tree which proved to be a real Tree in a little land at the foot of the Mountains.

Generally being in agreement with you, davem, I have one tiniest bone to pick:

Not beyond the Mountains - the work (Niggle's Parish) stays this side of the range, it is Niggle himself who goes with the shepherd. Toklien has been more humble than that :)

A new book has just been released by Walking Tree Publishers: Tolkien's Shorter Works. It has a chapter on this topic; even the title is identical to that of this thread, though it's not a plagiarism - the author has my permission! ;)

I heard most of the papers it contains as lectures at last year's Tolkien Seminar here in Germany, and they are well worth reading - highly recommended!

Well, authorial permission or not, I canna get that link or any other links to the book to work. :(

Kudos to that author who's interested in the autobiographical Tolkien though. It requires courage, persistence, patience, talent, to get something into real print as opposed to internet print. Well done! :)

:Merisu:

I hope I will have occasion to buy this book in Jena at the Tolkien Seminar this spring ! :)

I'm sure you will - plus the opportunity to hear the contents of next year's publication. Walking Tree co-sponsers the seminar and always brings lots of interesting books along.

I'd better leave lots of spare space in my suitcase then!;)