Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
03-31-2010, 09:44 AM | #1 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Tolkien and Negative Capability
DISCLAIMER: After a quick precursory thread search on the word "ambiguous" I couldn't find anything specifically having to deal with this topic; however, I know that people have touched on it briefly here and there in other threads. So I'm going out on a limb here and trying to give it a thread of its own, if it hasn't been given one in the past (I'm sure if so, one of the venerable wights on this site will graciously link this one into irrelevance).
YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED POST The other night I was reading (translate: "had to read, but in a very good sort of way") one of Keats' letters, where he discussed the work of great poets as one of "Negative Capability"--that was, the ability to revel in the mysterious and present questions without this compelling urge to arrive at an answer: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I find most interesting about this, I think, is that things like Queen Beruthiel ended up getting their own explanation, and even matters such as scientific accuracy in Middle-earth, some form of the Incarnation, and other things that suggest that Tolkien was "incapable of remaining content with half knowledge" as it were, crept into Middle-earth over time. And yet he never explained Bombadil to us. The other thing I find so fascinating about this is that we often look at Tolkien as drawing inspiration from things very early and very late, but not necessarily from such people as the Romantic poets. And granted, there's no reason to think that people didn't revel in the unknown before the Romantic Era; but I don't think I've ever seen the idea presented half so well and I think articulations like that increase the demand for the unknown as it's presented in Faerie. So on the one hand we have Tolkien the Fairy-story-writer, who is content that things don't always make sense; and on the other hand we have Tolkien the Sub-creator, who needs things to make sense for the world he made to be viable. How was this tension resolved, if ever? Did the balance shift one way or another over time? Did publication and the establishment of a "canon" have any effect on the matter? And where do you prefer to stand as a reader? Do you prefer the ambiguities, or the explanations?
__________________
Got corsets? |
|||
03-31-2010, 04:35 PM | #2 | ||
Wight of the Old Forest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall
Posts: 3,329
|
OK, as a great opening post by itself does not an interesting discussion make, I'll give it a try.
Starting from the end: Quote:
Quote:
Great fantasy, I believe, is where both work together and complement each other; but for every Tolkien (what am I saying, there can be only one, but you know what I mean) there are countless people out there on the internet nowadays who have the most imaginative conworlds with every geographic, historical and linguistic details fleshed out but never get beyond first chapters...
__________________
Und aus dem Erebos kamen viele seelen herauf der abgeschiedenen toten.- Homer, Odyssey, Canto XI |
||
04-07-2010, 06:13 AM | #3 | |
Auspicious Wraith
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 4,859
|
Quote:
So I reckon it's hard to choose one over the other because the effectiveness of the mysteries is achieved only though their placement in the detailed subcreation, which is in turn ... um, embiggened by the ambiguities.
__________________
Los Ingobernables de Harlond |
|
04-07-2010, 08:30 AM | #4 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
Part of Pitchwife's response above inspires a slight niggle from me. Just a part
I think the two-part Elessar tale intends to echo the Primary World with purposed uncertainties that might arise in a legendarium, and arguably lends a measure of reality in this way. The 'Amroth matter' is external however, a writer writing, creating and revising, and there is no indication (that I'm aware of, and not that you said there was) that the Secondary World was to be ambiguous concerning Amroth as Galadriel's son. The (perhaps obvious) point could be made by pointing out that there's only two variations concerning the Elessar, not more, despite that at least one other 'history' exists (written earlier than the Elessar text). I certainly enjoy the multi-source approach to the legendarium: I suggest that Tolkien 'ratified' the Mannish tradition The Drowning of Anadűnę in later years, for example, to stand in comparison to the mixed (Elvish/Mannish) tale published with the Silmarillion. I also like the approach exampled by the text on the Elessar-stone (despite my problems with The Elessar itself, as a very rough text). And I have no problem in general with ambiguities. But in what measure, and in what circumstance, do these things add to the reality of the Subcreated World, rather than possibly (or arguably) undermine it? Again that's for the author to decide in each case: would the Secondary World be enhanced -- or undermined -- if there were two conflicting stories concerning whether or not Amroth was Galadriel's son, for instance. I have my opinion there (and in the end only Tolkien could really answer that question for himself), but in any case my point above is rather that 'Amroth as Galadriel's son or not' is not an internal matter anyway -- this idea appears to arise only from draft writings, in which context Tolkien subsequently rejected the notion. This issue was always an external one. Despite these things, consistency within the Subcreated World looms large (and one can have mystery without creating specific conflicting versions, of course). And despite that Tolkien seemingly could not help himself at times*, publication became an important factor here -- not unnaturally, as it must for anyone trying to create a believable world. And I like the way Eomer of the Rohirrim put it (with help from Lisa Simpson?)! ____________________ *I don't think it's a big deal really, but in the end I feel there was no real 'need' to change Inglor to Finrod for example -- especially as Tolkien's stated reason to do so between editions ultimately fell by the wayside, as Finarfin was retained and characterized as Sindarized in any case. Thus this change to the second edition resulted in a revision that didn't really fix Tolkien's problem, and seems like an external error by comparison (considering too that it lacks an internal explanation from the author). |
04-09-2010, 04:49 AM | #5 |
King's Writer
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,716
|
I do not agree that the matter of internal or external is that simple as Galin put it. Let's take up the example of Amroth again. At first view Galin is right. Since Tolkiens is drafting diffrent version at diffrent times this seems to be claer case of external uncertainty. And we all can be sure that Amroth and Galadriel had never any doubt about the matter (alltough Celeborn might have ).
But that is not the end of the story. A secondary reality is formed in the mind of the reader while he reads and reflects about it. And Tolkien left diffrent versions. So in the mind of the reader uncertainty is created. Obviously the degree of uncertainty differs individualy. So you, Galin, might have found a clear line how to decied which version of Amroth family is true for your secondary reality of Middle-Earth. But other poeple might find even clearly reported events in Middle-Earth so unbeliviable that their secondary reality of Middle-Earth contains uncertainty were you would never have expacted them. Better categories then internal and external in the case of uncertainties might be intended and unintended by the author. Thus the case of the Elessar or Tom Bombadil might be intended and Amroth might be unintended. But we come to a grey area when we look at the question were the Orks come from. The account in the Silmarillion is uncertain by intention, but we learn by reading further that the author himself didn't know the 'true' answer, so the uncertainty in the text was probably forces upon him by his own uncertianty. Respectfuly Findegil |
04-09-2010, 02:35 PM | #6 | ||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
Quote:
Quote:
That said, I'm not sure I follow the point in categorizing certain external revisions as unintended obscurities. Quote:
If I use Qenta Noldorinwa to answer questions about the Elder Days I will (no doubt) be 'corrected' about certain 'facts' all over the web, in any forum I choose to do this -- such facts as were clearly enough rejected in the 1950s and 1960s, although no version of Quenta Silmarillion was ever published by the creator of Middle-earth. Can I simply respond: though unintended by Tolkien, Qenta Noldorinwa can represent a variation of the Silmarillion tale, and can carry just as much weight as 1950s (and post 1950s) unpublished texts. I 'can' but I wouldn't Quote:
It seems to me Tolkien is ultimately upon firm enough ground that the author(s) of the Silmarillion can't and don't know the origin of Orcs with certainty. The Elves of Eressea weren't there in Morgoth's realm, and there is nobody from Morgoth's employ recording such things for the scribes of the West. The essay characterized as a very finished essay on the origin of the Orcs (Text X, Myths Transformed) also contains a measure of uncertainty as well (statements like: 'the theory remains nonetheless the most probable' for example), or I note the wording in note 5 to The Drúedain. So while Tolkien as author (external) was uncertain about the ultimate Orc-stock, I do not see this as the reason behind the ambiguity in the internal text. Rather I see this uncertainty as a natural reflection of the issue at hand, no matter what Orc-stock Tolkien was going to ultimately land on. I think Orc-origins naturally lends itself to historical ambiguity, and it seems to me that Tolkien knew that. I would also suggest that variations on the fate of Maglor would be another matter in which contradiction (due to source perhaps) would actually work very well. That said, I would not argue that the two versions of Maglor's fate were intended internally (seems 'possible' but all I really have are variant texts expressing different ideas), as with the Elessar story. As with the case of Amroth, more than one version of Maglor's tale (at least concerning his fate) simply exists externally, and this is a different animal than the Elessar-stone, or the confusions and variations (when compared to a 'mixed' version like Akallabęth) purposely injected into the Mannish The Drowning of Anadűnę, for example. Last edited by Galin; 04-10-2010 at 07:45 AM. |
||||
04-09-2010, 03:05 PM | #7 |
Wight of the Old Forest
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Unattended on the railway station, in the litter at the dancehall
Posts: 3,329
|
Galin and Findegil, thanks for some good points about distinguishing between different kinds of ambiguity. As for terminology, both of the distinctions you've suggested (internal/external vs intended/unintended) have their merits in my eyes, and I don't think one can replace the other - meaning that while it's probably safe to assume that an external ambiguity is unintended, the reverse isn't necessarily true: e.g. the two versions of The Elessar constitute an internal ambiguity in so far as they're presented as conflicting traditions within the secondary world, but does that mean the ambiguity is therefore intended? In other words, did the Prof leave the story ambiguous because he wanted it that way, or was he experimenting with two different stories on the spot and using the translator conceit to camouflage his own indecision? (The final note which has two Elessars and Celebrimbor as the smith of both seems to indicate the latter - apparently he had made up his mind [for the moment at least], therefore no more need for having two differing traditions.)
But *sticks out his neck* how much does it really matter? It obviously does a lot if you're trying to construct something like the New and Definitive Silmarillion (and if I'm not mistaken, both of you are among our Translators from the Elvish, aren't you?), coming as close as possible to what a final authoritative text might have looked like if the Prof had ever got around to publishing it himself. But otherwise? To be sure, the high degree of internal consistency within the subcreated world is what makes Tolkien's Legendarium so fascinating and unique among works of fantasy (and I don't think this consistency is seriously compromised by a few vague spots at the margins of the elaborate map, labelled 'Here There Be Uncertainties'). But as far as I'm concerned, achieving this consistency was the author's job, it's not mine. If you manage to reconcile some of the conflicting versions by ascribing them to differing sources in the secondary world (as in Galin's case of The Drowning of Anadűne vs Akallabęth), that's nice - I guess you could even explain the BoLT Tale of Tinúviel as a children's fairy-tale version from Fourth Age Gondor, or something of the like - , but it's not necessary for me in order to appreciate them. (This isn't, of course, meant to diss your dedicated efforts, nor to niggle with anything in either of your posts - and btw, I feel Galin's wasn't so much niggling with mine as coming from a rather different angle. I'm just elaborating on what I said before and thinking aloud to clarify my own position.) To sum it up, I've discovered that, as a reader of Tolkien, I find the process of his subcreation at least as fascinating as the result, and looking at all the various transmutations of the Legendarium from BoLT to Myths Transformed, I'm rather more interested in observing his mind and imagination at work, seeing him trying out and rejecting different names and stories as he struggled to 'find out what really happened' (as he'd no doubt have put it) than I am in 'finding out what really happened' myself, or in determining his final thoughts on 'what really happened' (especially as he'd probably have flip-flopped time and again over any given question if he'd had enough time; it seems publication was the only thing that could make him settle on one version and stick with it). I have my preferences, of course, but those have (at the risk of disturbing a famous canned worm in its sleep) everything to do with my subjective aesthetic taste and rather little with the author's presumed last will - for me, Anar and Isil will always be the last fruit of Laurelin and Telperion's last blossom, and my Orcs are corrupted Elves, period. (As for the Elessar, I don't care much who made it, but there was only one.) (x-ed with Galin's last) EDIT: some paragraph spacing to improve readability
__________________
Und aus dem Erebos kamen viele seelen herauf der abgeschiedenen toten.- Homer, Odyssey, Canto XI Last edited by Pitchwife; 04-09-2010 at 03:12 PM. |
04-09-2010, 10:25 PM | #8 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,033
|
Quote:
Quote:
In other words, Tolkien's note here might indicate that the Elessar text 'proper' was written so because he couldn't make up his mind at the point it was written... or it might just as easily represent Tolkien tossing out Enerdhil for Celebrimbor, and the seeming certainty of the fate of the first Elessar might be due to the brief nature of the note. Quote:
Generally speaking, lack of distinction might gived a skewed picture of Tolkien as a World Builder. For example, I wonder how many websites out there present Tolkien's history of Galadriel and Celeborn as a jumbled set of contradictory texts, making no distinction between published and 'private', letter or essay, or even a hard to read note versus a finished and polished piece. If memory serves, sometimes all the distinction one reads is: 'in another version...' If we are essentially sifting through drafts we are bound to find contradictions, and I say let's keep that in mind (seems only fair to Tolkien as an imaginative World-builder), and not further muddle the picture. To me, treating the Amroth contradictions as equivalent to what Tolkien was doing with the Elessar-stone (again no matter his motive to do it, he was fully aware of how it would play as part of the legendarium) is helping to muddle the picture a bit. Not that it's a big deal necessarily... but it also gives me something to post (and this all disregarding the fact that The Elessar itself is a rough draft text! but that's another matter) Last edited by Galin; 04-11-2010 at 07:18 AM. |
|||
|
|