The Single Greatest (Publishing) Tragedy in Tolkien's Life (yet another rant)

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I am afraid that to a significant extent, this issue is really one of personal taste ...So perhaps this is a subjective thing. .... I can't believe that the enchantment is that brittle.

Whereas discussing this under the rubric of personal taste may reveal some interesting facets, I think there's more to this issue than that. I also think that there is a subjective element to it; how could it not be so when we speak of enchantment?

But what do we mean by enchantment? It seems clear enough that what we're talking about here is related to our comparison of Smith of Wooton Major and The Silmarillion in the "SWOM in Middle-earth" thread. There, davem and I, and others, wrote how we found ourselves more moved by SWOM than by the Sil, whereas others had the opposite experience. "Moved" is obviously an extremely subjective term.

The words you use, Aiwendil, reveal an approach to the work of Tolkien that is not "home" for me, though clearly it is "home" for you. Just two examples: "close scrutiny"; "act of studying". HoME, as presented by Christopher Tolkien, renders such activity a necessity. It seems to me (and correct me if I err) that you approach HoME as a historian, or even perhaps as a lay philosopher. I respect such an approach. However, as I said above, it is not "home" for me. For me, the enchantment is the thing, and it is no simple thing.

I suppose it's time to wander into that second thread I had mentioned earlier. Pardon me for the rehash, but I feel it's necessary. Some of you know this stuff already, so I'm sorry for creating unnecessary boredom. You might want to check my facts to make sure I'm expressing this correctly.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge posited "suspension of disbelief" as an activity a reader brings to a work of fiction. He meant that the reader realizes, of course, that the work of fiction is not true, but suspends that realization for the sake of enjoyment of the story. J.R.R. Tolkien made a further distinction between suspension of disbelief and "secondary belief". JRRT felt that the mere suspension of disbelief was not an adequate description of what occurs in reading fairy story. The author weaves a spell by means of the subcreation of a feigned reality, a secondary reality. If the author does well, the reader is cast (voluntarily) under the author's spell for the duration of the reading (and perhaps longer). This is the enchantment. Its effect is to experience that subcreation as real, even though it is feigned. At no point need the reader be truly deluded that the feigned reality is primarily real, but for the sake of the story, that secondary reality may be entered into as if passing into a room in one's house.

But there are things that break the enchantment. It no doubt varies from reader to reader. I find that the enchantment is more easily broken the more I learn of the craft of writing. Thus, my own extended knowledge threatens the enchantment.

What about Christopher's commentary on his father's multiplicitous (yes, it is a word, Bethberry ) versions of all manner of story from the First Age? My recollection is that Christopher refers to "my father's" this, and "my father's" that. Rather than attempt the feigned history, he presents it as his father's creation. He was probably wise not to attempt the feigned history, if he felt that he was not capable of it. Nevertheless, all of Christopher's commentary sets the feignedness aside. There is no possibility of secondary belief. One may suspend one's disbelief, but that is not the same as the enchantment of secondary belief.

Please understand that in all this explication, I'm not really being successful in communicating the reality of the experience of secondary belief enchantment. If one has not experienced it, I most assuredly cannot adequately describe it.

Just a quick question for davem: could you please start your own darned thread? Just kidding. The real question is: do you really think Tolkien had to attempt Myths Transformed, or do you just think it was inevitable that he would try?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The author weaves a spell by means of the subcreation of a feigned reality, a secondary reality. If the author does well, the reader is cast (voluntarily) under the author's spell for the duration of the reading (and perhaps longer). This is the enchantment. Its effect is to experience that subcreation as real, even though it is feigned. At no point need the reader be truly deluded that the feigned reality is primarily real, but for the sake of the story, that secondary reality may be entered into as if passing into a room in one's house.

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this, but I am curious about how you will answer. If the subcreation is or should be read "as if real", how are we readers to take the various passages which refer to LotR's nature as story? The example which most recently comes to my mind is Sam's and Frodo's conversation in the chapter "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol."

'But those aren't always the best tales to hear, thought they may be the best tales to get landed in! I wonder what sort of tale we've fallen into?'

'I wonder,' said Frodo. 'But I don't know. And that's the way of a real tale. Take any one that you're fond of. You may know, or guess, what kind of tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don't know. And you don't want them to.'
. . . .

'Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?

Is this Tolkien's way of incorporating in his story his thoughts from "On Fairy Stories"? Is this his way of suggesting that LotR must be read as a real history come out of the past legends? For myself, this does not destroy any of the great magic of Tolkien's writing but it does bring to the fore thoughts about the differences between story and real life.

Any thoughts?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

So, if the Legendarium was to be history as well as myth, the true account of what had really happened, then Tolkien would eventually have had to bite the bullet & account for why the world of the early Ages was so physically different from the world we live in now. Of course, he tried various explanations -principally that the world was physically changed at the Fall of Numenor - actually that doesn't work because we know that this world was never flat.

I think the attempt was fundamentally misguided because it operates on the false assumption that the mythology could be made scientifically plausible. It couldn't. It is a work of fantasy that, like any work of fantasy, is filled with violations of known science. It seems quite absurd to me to think that the "flat earth" cosmology is not believable but that it is scientifically plausible for Venus to be Earendil!

If what Tolkien wanted was a story that readers could literally believe to be true, he would have had to give up the fantasy/faerie-story genre.

littlemanpoet wrote:

My recollection is that Christopher refers to "my father's" this, and "my father's" that. Rather than attempt the feigned history, he presents it as his father's creation.

The thing is that it is his father's creation.

I still find myself incredulous about the Spell of Faerie being broken so easily. If you are reading LotR and, setting the book down for a moment, you happen to see the words "by J.R.R. Tolkien", does this break the enchantment? I honestly don't see how Christopher's commentary does anything more severe.

But clearly we're not going to agree on this, and it seems to me that further discussion will come down to nothing more than restatements of the respective opinions.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

My recollection is that Christopher refers to "my father's" this, and "my father's" that. Rather than attempt the feigned history, he presents it as his father's creation. He was probably wise not to attempt the feigned history, if he felt that he was not capable of it. Nevertheless, all of Christopher's commentary sets the feignedness aside. There is no possibility of secondary belief. One may suspend one's disbelief, but that is not the same as the enchantment of secondary belief.

What is interesting to me in this context is the number of times CT talks about his father making changes when he 'realised what really happened'. I think this is essential. Tolkien repeatedly uses this phrase himself. Taking into account The Notion Club Papers I think we must take this statement quite (if not entirely) seriously. Tolkien had a very real sense, increasingly so as he grew older that he was not 'inventing'. Ct's commentary does not dispell or reject this possibility. In fact he mostly just analyses the differences between versions.

The real question is: do you really think Tolkien had to attempt Myths Tran
sformed, or do you just think it was inevitable that he would try?

Probaly it was inevitable in both ways. In NCP he goes into this whole question of the relationship of history to myth in some detail. The central idea there is that of inherited memory. Modern characters experience the past directly through visions & dreams and also come into possession of a page of text which is a copy in anglo saxon of a Numenorean original. Tolkien is attempting to tie his mythic past into the primary world through the inner, psychic experiences of his characters & through a genuine physical artefact. Of course, it is possible to argue that the 'primary' world of that story is itself a 'secondary' world as far as the reality we inhabit is concerned. Yet, the text which contains that 'secondary' equivalent of our primary world does exist within our, 'primary' world. As does the LotR.

What I mean is that LotR/NCP exist as real physical objects in our world, but contain within themselves as a 'frame' the contents of a 'secondary' world text - the Red Book/page of anglo saxon text - which refer to another time/place & have come down to us by a number of removes - if that makes sense. Tolkien was attempting to analyse the way history is mythologised & how the past can be alive in the present. That happens in two ways - at least in NCP - one, by artifacts & stories, two, by 'psychic' means whereby the memories of people living in past ages can be accessed by those in the present - which is what Tolkien himself seems to have believed. He studied ancient texts to discover the origins of words & beliefs, but he also believed he was setting down 'what really happened'.

[drigel]

LMP/Davem are spot on for me. You guys have the gift of consise gab! Here is my take:

The crafting of the published work incorporated all the authors aforementioned skills, resulting in a work that is both heavy as a freight train and subtle as feather. I am walking in fairie when I read LOTR.

We all become literary scholars of a sort with HOME and UT. Its how we each use that information that's the difference. The gift for us was the subcreation. Now that its inside my own personal universe, HOME and UT merely fill in the empty gaps and plug a few holes. But it's the joy of creativity of the author that I encompass when I take on these books. I am wrapping my head around the creative process as I read how the author tried to wrap his head around his creation. Otherwise for me, its as dry as any other literary breakdown that an academic is attempting on another's creation.

The Silm has to be taken for what it's worth. Like other threads have concluded: it was better than nothing. I read through it, and imagine an ancient tome that has weathered and decayed to a point that half (if not most) of its contents are missing, and I must be carefull as I turn the brittle pages (or enchantment), as I read the primeval elvish histories. If you want Histoy, then don't expect a Tale, or a Myth. What you will get ultimately is page after page of what's in the appendixes - which I truly enjoy myself, because it adds to the enchantment - it doesn't detract from it, and it certainly doesnt stand on it's own feet.

Heres a timely analogy of continuity: Lucas had a rough story line for all 9 episodes when he cranked out the 1st Star Wars movie (Ep 4), never really imagining the tremendous popularity of that original work. But, when it comes to enchantment, do the other episodes (other than mabye Ep 5) come even close to the original? Does all the merchandise, books, techie manuals adnauseum that the scifi fans consume to "fill in the blanks" do anything for those other movies as far as treatment of the medium (cinema)? Then factor in time (the original premise being a fairie tale set in space- the fall from democracy to empirialsim a morality tale based on the Vietnam war), and success (ewoks and JarJar ), then you have a comptletely different critter than the original. In fact, for me, it did evaporate the rare, effusive enchantment of the original work. The blush is off the rose, and the dew has dried...

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this, but I am curious about how you will answer. If the subcreation is or should be read "as if real", how are we readers to take the various passages which refer to LotR's nature as story? The example which most recently comes to my mind is Sam's and Frodo's conversation in the chapter "The Stairs of Cirith Ungol."

Is this Tolkien's way of incorporating in his story his thoughts from "On Fairy Stories"? Is this his way of suggesting that LotR must be read as a real history come out of the past legends? For myself, this does not destroy any of the great magic of Tolkien's writing but it does bring to the fore thoughts about the differences between story and real life.

Any thoughts?

Bb-- there's a difference? .....I'm only half kidding.

The telltale phrase for me is " 'The Author of the Story' (by which I do not mean myself.) "

What serious gardener maintains a careful separation between soil and plants?

[Bêthberry]

Hi Helen. Nice to see you around.

What serious gardener maintains a careful separation between soil and plants?

Well, maybe not separation, but I surely do have to keep track of which plants want rich soil and which sandy soil. And sometimes peat is needed in some places where it isn't in others.

While Sam's thoughts about being in the worst part of the story actually cheer Frodo, they sadly don't stop the poignant misunderstanding between Sam and Gollem, do they?

[Aiwendil]

What serious gardener maintains a careful separation between soil and plants?

What serious gardener can't distinguish one from the other?

[HerenIstarion]

What serious gardener can't distinguish one from the other?

Bonsai are trees nevertheless...

[littlemanpoet]

Quickly, because it's all I have time for, I like to see Frodo and Sam's conversation as feigned reality.... we are still in the same story ourselves!