Smith of Wootton Major in Middle Earth?

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:

n the interest of saved time for those (such as myself) who have not read the Canonicity thread, could you (or someone) provide a link to the points you reference, if you don't mind, in regard to meta-fantasy and the requirements of fantasy?

The discussion of Smith in the canonicity thread is on page six.

There are two matters you raise to show why the Sil is more powerful to you than SWOM: transitional versus immersive fantasy (where did these terms originate?), and whether SWOM is more a treatise or more a story.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I was offering a proof that the Silmarillion is more powerful than Smith. Rather, I noted that in my experience the Silmarillion is the more moving work; then, in an effort to get at the reasons for the differing views of the two works, I tried to give an account of their chief differences.

I agree that Smith is not just a literary treatise. Still, I do think that in certain important respects it has the character of a meditation on the nature of fantasy literature, as opposed to a work of fantasy literature.

I'm still very interested to hear where others come down in the Silmarillion vs. Smith issue.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Aiwendil, for the link.
I've scanned through it once, and I think
that I haven't got near deep enough
into the very packed segment of stuff
in about as deep a thread
as, at Barrowdowns, I've read.

[Lalwendë]

A few thoughts about the difference between the Sil and Smith...

Originally Posted by Felagund

I do know what it is that moves me about the Silmarillion. It is the tragedy about it. The utter tragedy. So many noble figures, paragons of virtue that no mere mortals could aspire to be

Someone once said after first reading the Sil that they had found it to be 'biblical', and this statement struck me as similar to how I view the work. It is grand in scope, full of 'large' and legendary figures and tales from Arda, the world in which we have entered when we read it. Just like the characters and tales from the bible (and in particular the Old testament) the characters and tales of the Sil are slightly remote from our experience, and when such grand and lofty characters fall, they seem to fall even further and that fall is a greater tragedy.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I agree that Smith is not just a literary treatise. Still, I do think that in certain important respects it has the character of a meditation on the nature of fantasy literature, as opposed to a work of fantasy literature.

I do agree that there is this aspect to Smith. Whether intentional or not I do not know, but I'm thinking it may originate from our knowledge that it is not a tale of Arda. It is a tale of faerie, which is at once a different world and the same world as Arda. Smith is more a tale of a shifting and intangible world, and it has a link to our own world in the world of Wooton Major. The Sil does not have that, it is self contained. Smith is also a much more intimate tale in that we follow a narrator, a protagonist into faerie, while in The Sil we watch many characters.

Thinking about the narrator idea, Smith has a lot more in common with LotR and The Hobbit than it does with The Sil; in both of those we journey into the new worlds alongside the major characters, even in the parts of LotR where we are not with Frodo, then he is very much on our minds as everything which is done is done for the success of his mission. In Smith we also journey with the main character. These books are more like tales, while The Sil is more like scripture, if that's the correct word to use!

So I can see what lmp is getting at by thinking of Smith's faerie as another offshoot of Arda; the way we get there and the sensations we get from the place are very similar. But is it really part of Arda? I think it is like it, but it is another place.

[Bêthberry]

So much to contemplate here and reply to! If I may, I shall begin at the beginning and see where the currents lead me.

littlemanpoet quotes from that most fascinating letter, # 131, Tolkien's very long explanation to Milton Waldman about not simply the interdependence of LotR and TheSilm but of the generation of Tolkien's habits of thought and creation. I have always wished that Carpenter had not expurgated the letter: knowledge that something has been left out has always made me curious. Not to say that Carpenter mispresented anything, of course. The absence makes me fonder!

So much for my preamble. I am well aware that a goodly part of the discussion here at the Downs has been to consider this same question of the interdependence of Tolkien's works and the internal consistency of the Legendarium. Much jocularity has ensued, of the sort which I suspect Tolkien himself would highly approve. And of course I have approved also.

Yet picking through for strands for inconsistencies and logical conundrums has never quite been my (tea) bag, any more than has the theme of defining Reality/reality or Truth/truth, perhaps in part because when we link Middle-earth (or Tolkien's sub-creation) too closely to the 'primary world'--our world--the whole delight of fairey begins to unravel. This quotation about the Numenorians is exactly a tempest in this particular (tea) pot.

In those days [the Númenóreans] would come amongst Wild Men an almost divine benefactors, bringing gifts of arts and knowledge, and passing away again - leaving many legends behind of kings and gods out of the sunset.

You see, I live in a land where Europeans came upon "Wild Men", aboriginal tribes who are now referred to as "First Nation Peoples." And the terrible part of that misadventure is that the Europeans were anything but divine benefactors. And even worse, the Europeans by and large, at least in their legal and official status, did everything they could to erradicate the legends and tales and myths of those First Nation. Potlach was banned and participation in it made illegal on the West Coast. Children were sent far from home to "residential schools" where they could be "englightened" away from the supposed pernicious influence of their parent's primitive culture and made to embrace the European faith. So, for me, this question of "Truth/truth" or "primary/subcreated world" tends to result in a highly tannic, over steeped brew. I don't want to have to choose between birch or pine tea, sweetened with maple syrup, and PG Tips.

I don't want Smith to be part of Silmarillion Arda because parts of it, when I view them in the harsh sunlight of my primary world, begin to fade. This is why I laugh so sardonically when I see elves joking that all men look alike, for that gives to the elves the sorry, blinkered, parochial, fearful perspective of the western world and all it must atone for. I want to stir through the loose leaves of Tolkien's fairey without some of the cultural baggage. I want to revere his appreciation of that space where imagination is whetted and explored for its own sake and benefit. I want it to remain, as Aiwendil has called it,

the character of a meditation on the nature of fantasy literature, as opposed to a work of fantasy literature.

Perhaps for me The Silm is not fairey? Would I go so far as to say this? Well, however that may or may not be, this meditation in Smith has for me the mystery which Helen identified, and the power of such a mystery.

The word "trespassing" comes to mind. (Remember the salmon swimming into the hot spring at the bottom of the lake? The narrator was out of his element, and you loved it, as I fondly recall.) Smith is essentially trespassing; Frodo is frequently trespassing; by contrast the Sil narrator has every right to be there. So where's the mystery that creates thirst in the soul? I suspect that what moves you is your desire for transcendance-- and that hunger is best whetted by mystery.

Perhaps the Sil creates regret, longing for the good old days, rather than the longing to pierce and percieve a mystery.

Trespass, to go beyond the normal boundaries and borders, and come back with greater knowledge of an unexpected mystery, lies at the heart of faerie, which is less a long ago world of stark contrasts and more the realm of imaginative creation where eucatastrophe is possible (not that it isn't possible in the primary world, but that it doesn't happen often enough, or at least not as often as in faerie). However, The Silm doesn't do this for me.

But Aiwendil also posited a theory about Smith and The Silm.

I am curious regarding other people's opinions of Smith vs. the Silmarillion. In particular, I wonder whether the divide between those who find Smith more moving and those who prefer the Silmarillion might roughly coincide with the divide between those who are interested in authorial intention and those who fall into the "reader's freedom" or "textual supremacy" camps. For it seems to me that in Smith the voice of the author is more clearly revealed; there is a stronger authorial presence. In the Silmarillion, the art and the artist seem to be more fully concealed.

Now, I am one of those who prefers Smith to The Silm but I am also one of those who is far more cautious about thinking we can ascertain authorial presence or intention. The text's the feeder wherein we catch the conscience of the reader.

It is very, very tempting to read Smith as an allegory of Tolkien's own experience as a writer of fairey. But I wonder if this is not a believed effect of the story's structure and conventions. (Is there any kind of admission in the Letters and if so, how is it to be taken? with lemon or sugar?) The Wootton Major story follows Smith's own personal experiences far more closely than The Silm follows the personal feelings of any of the elven characters of the Legendarium. Smith is a story of personal feeling and experience and as such it is closer to the kind of narrative that has held sway in our culture for the last two hundred years or so, "realistic fiction" which examined in psychological detail character's minds. It is tempting to relate this personal view of Smith with Tolkien, but what evidence do we have for equating Smith's experience with Tolkien's? Maybe we want to think this is Tolkien because we want to find some place where we are certain he speaks to us, the reader? We want to know him and so we resurrect him in those places of his fiction which give us a sense of intimacy with the character.

The Silm on the other hand is written in a different kind of style, the style of ancient mythologies and hero legends. It has a distance from the kind of emotive feeling we have come to expect in fiction. Yet who is to say that Tolkien did not in fact create "himself" as an omniscient authority, speaking/writing a world into being but withdrawing from that world? Why do we not say, here is Tolkien the artist telling us about the artist's omnisicent control?

From my personal perspective, The Silm never leaves me wanting more. Admittedly, I am a late comer to its appreciation and often early on used it encyclopedically rather than for its story value. I mined it, dwarven-like, but let us hope not so deeply as to raise balrogs.

I keep harping on story as construct, as convention, as work of art which is intended to make us feel as if. Perhaps this is because every one of Tolkien's texts takes a different style, different form of narrator/narration. It is almost as if he explores in each tale a different kind of story form in early literature--all the kinds for which he hungered himself. Let's look back at Letter # 131.

But once upon a time [oh, that recurrent opening of all things Fairey, which Tolkien himself spoke so highly of!] ... I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story... I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. . . .

Of course, such an overwhelming purpose did not develop all at once. The mere stories were the thing. They arose in my mind as 'given' things, and as they came, separately, so too the links grew.

The realm of legend which Tolkien hungered for was various and vast, and so his stories themselves are various, and not all of the same piece, despite the fascinating, overarching Legendarium which supplies the bag for the various mixtures of tea leaves. I tend to think that what we have as The Silm was a stupendous map of the kind Tolkien sketched for LotR, his very own Encyclopedia of Arda, out of which he drew elements for his fascination with fairey. Those with a taste for such anatomies will find it incredibly rich. Those with a taste for something smaller and more personal might prefer the smaller stories along the way. Tolkien's work is heterogeneous, just as is the Bible and each story has something unique to commend itself.

But who knows. Perhaps because I am not especially anamoured of elves I can't appreciate the story told mainly from their point of view.

Cuppa anyone?

[littlemanpoet]

Your insights, Lalwendë and Bethberry,
will require a second and third reading, without hurry,
to sufficiently process their content.
It will not be time mis-spent.

Garnering quotes from the Letters,
Here's Tolkien's thought on these matters.

#299 To Roger Lancelyn Green [who in reviewing SWOM wrote: 'To seek for the meaning is to cut open the ball in search of its bounce.'] Thank you for your most gracious review (esp. for comment on the search for source of bounce!). ... But the little tale was (of course) not intended for children! An old man's book, already weighted with the presage of 'bereavement'.

I had thought there was more in the Letters on Smith.
At any rate, I've noticed that Tolkien refers to his myth
in various ways. The Silmarillion is "a history" (unless
that's Christopher's subtitle?), which fits, I guess,
the sense of its biblicality. But there's more
than that in The Sil; there's something in its lore
that goes beyond, or at least otherwhere,
so to speak. By contrast, LotR, is that rare
thing (in our day at least), a heroic romance.


What then of Smith?
Not a myth?

Sorry, no more rhymed verse. It's too difficult to find the right wording as it is.

I notice that nowhere does Tolkien name
what the story of Wootton's Smith is.
A 'book' with bereavement weighted.
The transition traverses both In and Out
of Faery; for Alf dwells in Wootton,
bringing Faery back to our(?) world while
Smith of Wootton wanders wayward.
Perhaps this cross-pollenation pertains
to why its magic moves some of us wights.(?)

[davem]

Not sure where I'm going with this but...

Smith seems, on one level, to be a series of images, incredibly bright, colourful & intense, strung together with connecting narrative, rather like a 'necklace'. The 'storyline' seems less important than the images it contains. This thread was sparked by a single image - a scene illustrated by Pauline Baynes. In fact, I'd go so far as to ask how important Pauline Baynes illustrations are. My edition of Smith has those illustrations (& so does the upcoming Flieger edited edition I referred to earlier) & I have to admit that they are what first struck me about Smith (LMP's avatar is one for anyone who hasn't seen them). When I think of Smith it is those pictures that first come to mind - actually I remember little of the actual text itself, only the general storyline.

I wonder about this. Hearing the BBC radio adaptation of Smith a few years back I remember feeling disappointed & it took me a while to work out why - the acting wasn't bad, the adatation (by Brian Sibley who had previously co-adapted the BBC LotR) was good, but it somehow wasn't the Smith that I know & loved. I realised later that it was the absence of Baynes' illustrations. Oh to see an animated version of Smith in that style!

I'm beginning to wonder if it is the illustrations,not the text, of Smith that provide the real doorway into Faerie for me in terms of this story.' The one of the 'Eleven' Mariners', 'the one of Smith & Alf returning to the Great Hall', etc: these are 'Smith' to me. What I'm also beginning to wonder is whether the reason for this is that the pictures can stand alone, & thus, not necessarily being bound to the story Tolkien wrote, can spark the imagination, or open the mind & heart, to Faerie itself.

I wonder if the 'split' between the 'Sils' & the 'Smiths' might have something to do with which edition of the text they have read - maybe those of us who have read the illustrated edition of Smith find it the more 'Faerielike' of the two, & I wonder how much Pauline Baynes work has to do with that.

(Waits for loads of people to say they prefer Smith even though they've never seen the illustrations....)

[Findegil]

I wanted to put in my feelings about Smith already a week ago, but never found time to put it into words. So now there is even more to say.

In view of davem's interest in it: In my German translation of the story (which was the one did read first) and in my English edition there are no illustrations to the text. But I did not miss them, while reading. I am more fascinated by The Silmarillion, but I do not think that any illustration would have changed this.

Posted by Aiwendil:

In particular, I wonder whether the divide between those who find Smith more moving and those who prefer The Silmarillion might roughly coincide with the divide between those who are interested in authorial intention and those who fall into the "reader's freedom" or "textual supremacy" camps. For it seems to me that in Smith the voice of the author is more clearly revealed; there is a stronger authorial presence. In The Silmarillion, the art and the artist seem to be more fully concealed.

I never counted my self in one of the camps, and I will not do so now. But I think that both books did work on me in a completely different fashion. Smith as a stand-alone work does work on me with the story it reveals - nothing more but also nothing less. The story it self is greatly moving, but it is a closed cycle or better a finished tale. As in any good fiction of that kind a reader can identify with the protagonist at least to some degree. But there is not much going beyond the point when you have read the end of the tale.

The Silmarillion works otherwise for me: There are only in a few places protagonists which whom I can "feel" the story, like I can do with [i]Smith[I] (one of the places that comes to mind is the last stand of the Húrin). Thus while reading the text Smith is the greater pleasure, but that is only one side of the coin and for me not the one were the value is printed. It is like saying that the German 5 Euro-Cent coin does show the nicer picture on its motive side (oak-leaves) than the German 10 Euro-Cent coin (Brandenburger Gate). The Silmarillion provides for my mind much more fuel for imagination beyond the text than does Smith. What builds the fascination of The Silmarillion for me are all the untold story, which are left for the reader to imagine by himself. The way in which The Silmarillion does tell the stories it contains leaves even in the stories told much more room for the imagination of the reader. In Smith and also in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings the text does provide the reader with a clear picture of landscape, scenery and the ongoing story which is detailed enough to catch the imagination at once. In The Silmarillion on the other hand we get not much more than the bare facts of the narrative, to imagine all the details of the picture is left to the readers mind. That I think is, by the way, one of the reason why the appeal of The Silmarillion is often not found while reading it the first time.
For me at least it was a great pleasure to find some of the stories of The Silmarillion told in more detail in later publications like Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-Earth but part of that pleasure was also the fact that with climbing each mountain ridge of full-told stories and solved riddles a further even higher ridge of new untold stories or new unravelled riddles would come into sight.

Thus I am a lover of The Silmarillion and it has the higher value for me than Smith of Wootton Major or even The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

Respectfully
Findegil