What's "real," anyway?

[davem]

I suppose this sums up the problems I have with the Narnia books (& with most fantasy novels - the only ones that have really drawn me in, apart from Tolkien's - even the 'lesser' works like Niggle & Roverandom - are Hope Mirlee's Lud in the Mist & John Crowley's Little, Big). The 'reality' of Tolkien's works is due to a number of things - principally perhaps the time he took developing them. Tolkien's novels are not 'word processor' novels; they were written out long hand, amended, begun over & over, & we have all the texts, all the failed attempts, & since CT has made them available, all those versions now exist alongside the works published during Tolkien's lifetime. Trotter is a 'real' Tolkien character for me, for instance.

In a sense, all these texts add to the reality, because I think that's how they served Tolkien himself - they provided different angles, & he could explore Middle earth in numerous ways through this approach. Gergely Nagy has shown (The Adapted Text: The Lost Poetry of Beleriand) how in some of the versions of the stories certain poetic phrases have been lifted from the early versions like the Lost Tales or the poetic Lays & placed in the prose versions. This gives a sense of the'final' versions (if we can speak of such things) being constructs put together from earlier 'lost' versions of the stories. Take a passage from the Silmarillion, (ch 13, Of the Return of the Noldor. we have the prose 'version' in the book, but as Nagy points out, it seems to have been constructed from a 'lost' verse original:

and even as the Noldor set foot upon the strand
their cries were taken up into the hills & multiplied,
so that a clamour as of countless mighty voices
filled all the coasts of the North;
and all the noise of the burning of the ships at Losgar
went down the winds of the sea as a tumult of great wrath
and far away [all who heard that sound were filled with wonder]. Nagy, in Tolkien Studies, vol 1

Whether we consciously pick up on this at all, on some level we recognise, with the different styles we encounter even within a single paragraph, that it is a 'construct', & that some other texts, which we don't have, lie behind what we do. This gives an illusion of 'depth', as Nagy points out.

With other writers, who don't have that wealth of background material to draw on, we don't get that sense, so the story, however 'psychologically complex' the characters may seem, is 'one dimensional'.

When Tolkien adds to that fragments of ancient myth (see Shippey in the same volume 'Light Elves, Dark Elves & Others: Tolkien's Elvish Problem), fairy story, folk lore, things we know, or half-know & so recognise on some level, his 'secondary world' takes on a feeling of 'reality'.

As John Crowley states in Aegypt 'There is more than one history of the world' - there is the 'mythic' history, the 'artistic' history, running alongside the 'facts' that we're taught in school - which is the 'real' Arthur? - there's the fifth century Romano British warlord who fought a desperate defensive war against the invading Saxons, with ordinary swords & spears, & there's the Arthur of legend, guided by Merlin, & with his magical blade Excalibur uniting his people, sending off his knights on the Quest of the Holy Grail (another 'variant history', this time of the Church), & falling in battle with his nephew Mordred, embodiment of evil, but who did not truly die &, (like other heroes, including Finn MacCool) is only sleeping, & will awake when his land & people are in need.

Tolkien's 'history' is an alternative to the 'facts', yet both histories contend in our minds (& hearts). Tolkien's creation is speaking the 'language of the heart', & our hearts respond to its 'truth', because there is more than one history of the world.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Encaitare and davem, thanks for the references to those particular texts, but if I might be allowed to nitpick somewhat. . .they are not really on point, I'm afraid.

In that extract from FT, for example, Tolkien is talking about making the world seem "true" -- that is, believeable and consistent with itself. This is, I would posit, somewhat different from being real. Something can be, to quote the professor, "presented as 'true'" (and the quotation marks he puts around "true" are telling aren' they?) but still be "unreal". Take trolls, for example. . .

davem, those papers you cite are fascinating, in particular the Nagy, which I've not read but suddenly I want to. But I think that perhaps you are moving into the same territory of the text as being "presented as true" rather than the trickier idea of its reality. You say intriguing that Trotter is a "real character for you" -- I would love to know what is so real about him? He is a hobbit and a character that Tolkien decided not to use. He is the perfect example of the difference I see between the idea of the text being "presented as true" and the reality of it for us. A ranger hobbit is something that Tolkien realised would never be "true" in his world, and so he removed him. It would not have been internally consistent, and would have jarred the reader so that the appearance of the tale's reality would have been undone. And yet he "is a 'real' character" for you (and your use of those quotation marks is interesting).

Imladris -- thank you for tackling the truth/real conundrum head on when you write that

What makes a book real, I believe, is if it speaks truth

Sounds good, until I get to the example you cite. I do not share your reservations with The Sting, since I have no problem whatsoever with accepting the 'bad guy' as the 'good guy' in the context of the story. So here we get into the messy part -- is this movie real for me (because it and I share a truth: bad guys can be good guys) and not real for you (because you and it do not share that truth with us)? In this case, aren't we moving into some kind of acknowledgement that the reality of the art (in this case LotR) is entirely dependent upon the reader?

If I am willing to accept the art as true, then I make it real. And then this, ironically, leads us right back to the Wilde quote you dispute, insofar as the only way for the book to get me to accept it as true, is by being well-written!?!?

[Evisse the Blue]

insofar as the only way for the book to get me to accept it as true, is by being well-written!?!?

*nods head in agreement*

I'm sorry, I can't help to throw my three pieces of mithril in the pot:
Good book = true book = well-written book.
If Tolkien hadn't been such a talented writer, we wouldn't be here discussing the moral implications of the story. So everything begins with a well-written book. And a well-written book is a believable one, and it's true in the sense that it's believed to be true.

Another quote that may be more or less applicable here: "A poem must not mean but be" (Archibald MacLeish). For me that quote has come to imply that a good poem , or any work of art for that matter, is understood intuitively to 'exist'. Not in the sense of wishful thinking, in an alternate universe or something ... By accepting that it's true you recognize its 'wholeness', its beauty and the writer's talent in bringing it to life, if you will.
Maybe that is the greatest compliment to be payed to a work of art: that it is.
My apologies for being so incoherent at this time, maybe I'll manage to make more sense after I've slept on it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I too thought of Tolkien's essay 'On Fairy Stories' upon reading Fordim's first post on this excellent new discussion. I looked at a different passage than Encaitare though, the one which begins

'"Is it true?" is the great question children ask', Lang said.

I was especially interested in what JRRT says about his reaction to stories as a child.

Fairy-stories were plainly not primarily concerned with possibility, but with desirability. If they awakened desire, satisfying it while often whetting it unbearably, they succeeded.

This seems to me to show what makes a story "true" in the deep sense of the word. Does it awaken emotions in me? If it can touch my heart, show me things about myself that I only vaguely suspected before reading, show me what is lacking in my real life and make me long for it and try to find a way to get it; if it can help me to understand others better; if it can give me insight into what the meaning of my life is and help me accept things that happen to me; if it can show me how to fight the necessary battles - yes, then it is true. There are certainly more aspects to it than that, but to me, emotions are the key to inner truth in literature.

[davem]

I suppose we're starting from a 'logical' position - asking what 'reality' means in this context - of course Middle earth is not 'real' in the sense of having actually existed in the primary world, so its reality must be a secondary reality. In the primary world it cannot be real, so its 'reality' must come down in the end to self consistency. It is fully imagined - even to the extent of including people, places & things which play no part in the main story. It is 'real' within its own dimension, which simply means that it is believable to us when we enter into it, enough that we don't question it. So perhaps that's it - its self consistent enough that we don't ask questions & break the spell - or at least that any questions we ask about it can be answered - it contains sufficient 'redundancy'.

But if we are to accept it - & which is more important, if we are to feel it to be relevant to us, then we must be able to relate the people & events of the story to our own 'primary' world. So, its 'reality' depends not only on its internal self consistency but on its relevance to our world. Its not 'real' to us simply because it is a self contained, logically consistent , world, but because we can relate it to our lives. So, 'reality' depends on applicability - but not on any 'allegorical' aspect it may contain (yet where do the two meet?:http://www.geocities.com/ct70815/my_page.html). Clearly, it isn't simply a matter of relevance alone, though, as an allegory may seem 'relevant' & yet not 'real'.

What I'm trying to say (sorry, but I'm still in shock after reading the article on the above link - thanks (?) to TORN for that, btw!), is that there are two kinds of 'reality' involved here - one is the 'reality', ie the conviction that the secondary world carries that it is 'true' & the other is the 'reality', ie the relevance it has for us in our lives.

For me, Middle earth is 'real' in both ways, & its that that speaks to me so strongly.

If none of that makes sense you'll have to blame that Carole person!

[Imladris]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedthistle

Sounds good, until I get to the example you cite. I do not share your reservations with The Sting, since I have no problem whatsoever with accepting the 'bad guy' as the 'good guy' in the context of the story. So here we get into the messy part -- is this movie real for me (because it and I share a truth: bad guys can be good guys) and not real for you (because you and it do not share that truth with us)? In this case, aren't we moving into some kind of acknowledgement that the reality of the art (in this case LotR) is entirely dependent upon the reader?

Heh, I probably used a rotten example..but oh well..

But I believe you yourself hit it on the head. That the reality of art is based upon the reader is entirely logical. Why? Because everybody has their own world views, has their own sense of "truth." That's why there are people who love LotR (it speaks truth to them), people who are indifferent to it (it doesn't speak their idea of truth but it doesn't contradict it either) and then there are people who hate it (because it is opposite of their truth -- it is against that which they think is true -- it conflicts with their world view).

This conclusion leads me to Oscar Wilde's quote: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written."

And then this is what you said:

If I am willing to accept the art as true, then I make it real. And then this, ironically, leads us right back to the Wilde quote you dispute, insofar as the only way for the book to get me to accept it as true, is by being well-written!?!?

If we accept that truth is relative according to each person's world view, then we must accept they have their own sense morality/immorality. Thus, LotR could be as brilliant as Shakespeare or it could be as poor as [insert example here] but that wouldn't really make a difference in the long run, would it? Naturally books that are well written are more convincing and real, but in the end, their story -- their point-- is still the same. And if that story/point contradicts a person's truth that stems from their world view, then it doesn't matter how well or poorly it is written.

Just to clarify, I do believe that how well a book is written matters tremendously. It is just not the deciding factor.

[Mithalwen]

I have a spooky premonition that I am going to get at least one more gauntlet around the face for what I am going to say, so would all would be challengers please read carefully and inwardly digest the following paragraph before they read what will follow it and try to kill me.

I love the Middle Earth. I love its people, languages, geography and history. I am perpetually grateful to the Prof and Christopher Tolkien for making it available to me. It gave me a refuge during an unhappy adolescence and a major bereavement. The Lord of the Rings is my favourite book and it would be my "Desert Island" Choice.


However, I don't think LOTR is that well written ...... parts are marvellous but others I usually skip in re-reading - the style is all over the place in the early chapters.... and some of the poetry is actively dire..... I usually think of Tolkien as the historian and archivist of the world he created not as a writer of literature. When I read Shakespeare, I do so for the language more than the story I mean most of his stories were taken from Holinshed (?) ..... I read Tolkien for the story and its setting .... not usually for the writing .... although a few passages and poems are dear to me . I get swallowed up into Middle Earth so easily but if I detatch and look objectively , I sometimes yearn for it to be tightened up a bit....

OK shall I shoot myself now and save yourselves the bother?

[Novnarwen]

However, I don't think LOTR is that well written .....

*gasp* (!!)

That sentence came as a real shock! I won't shoot you; just give a few comments before I take my leave.

I do think it's a surprising approach of the book and the author. Tolkien was after all a Professor in English language and literature. Surely, he had his way with words. How could it not be well written?

Comparing Shakespeare and Tolkien is like comparing the Queen and me. Imagine that! :P (Eeek, bad example, but I have no other.) Shakespeare and Tolkien are completely different, as they not only write differently (in style and language), they also lived in two different periods of time. Shakespeare has this old elegant English (I have no other name for it). Yes of course, it seems so romantic, so wonderful, and so incredibly brilliant! But Shakespeare doesn't have these descriptions Tolkien has in, amongst others, Lord of The Rings. The wonderful paragraphs where Tolkien describes to us Middle-earth so clearly, make us think that it's all real! Shakespeare's stories are real. His stories are set in France, in Denmark, Greece etc. . . Tolkien’s world is not real, it's not set in a country we know of. That's why it's so real, because Tolkien actually manages to successfully create a world we are willing to believe in. (So how can Lord of the Rings possbly not have been written that well?) Shakespeare didn't do any of that that; he didn't create France or Denmark. We know where France is, we know that Frenchmen speak French and we know that they have moustaches. (Hehe. Not women.. Men only ) We did not know of Middle-earth before Tolkien described it to us. He described all of it to us; the history of Middle-earth, the people, the languages etc. He gave us a whole world, his descriptions were annoyingly () real. How can that be? Because he writes well! Because Lord of The Rings is amazingly well written!

Yeah, I'm done.

Nova

[Lush]

Good writing can open up awesome depths inside the human heart (or something profound like that). The sensations that arise from that are as real as the reality of, say, eating an orange. That's why we consider great writing to be immortal. That's why I say, for example, "Dante is..." instead of "Dante was..." Of course, there are plenty of people who can't get that from writing, but that's another story.