What was it all for?

[davem]

I'm not necessarily arguing that his aim was to create anything other than a work of Art. Though I would argue that the desire to inspire a moral regeneration was in his mind at the start. It is clear that he felt he had an obligation to set out the ideals of the TCBS in his fiction.

It also seems clear that in his desire to create a mythology for England (or perhaps we should say a mythology which he could dedicate to England) he was not just inspired by what Lonrot had done in bringing together the legends of Finland into the Kalevala, but in a way hoping to achieve a similar efffect through his art on the English people - a strengthening of English identity.

What we have to say as regards 'source hunting' is that, as you say (& as I've argued myself) the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - ie in writing the Legendarium Tolkien was not simply collating, amalgamating & re-writing his sources & his own life experiences. He was using those things as raw material to fashion something - even if that was 'only' a work of Art.

So, my purpose in this thread is to focus on what, exactly, his intention was. Its interesting to me that even though his motivation changed over time the stories, as I said, essentially didn't - we're talking about The Silmarillion writings here. They were written with a 'moral' intent (to put it crudely), to point up certain moral values. If the intent or desire changes the moral core of the vision doesn't. Essentially, even when Tolkien no longer wishes to bring about the moral regeneration of England, the moral core of the stories remains - which is ineresting in itself. the underlying moral value system remains even when he no longer wishes to 'moralise' through them.

I suppose the point of this thread is my own feeling that rather than looking at what Tolkien drew on to create what he did, there is more to be gained by focussing on what he actually produced. An oak tree may start out as an acorn, but the oak tree is far more than, & far other, than the acorn.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not necessarily arguing that his aim was to create anything other than a work of Art.
...
So, my purpose in this thread is to focus on what, exactly, his intention was.

I am interested in your definition of this Art; do you see it as something different from the one "presented" in my first post, and if so, how?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am interested in your definition of this Art; do you see it as something different from the one "presented" in my first post, and if so, how?

Would you like a quick definition of the meaning of life, too

For myself it seems that the purpose of Art is to give us an experience of a deeper reality - or a deeper experience of reality - if they aren't the same thing. But that is the role of 'religion' too, I suppose. The man built the Tower so he could look out upon the Sea.

I think, at one time, Tolkien had this wish for his 'Art'. He talked of 'passing beyond the veil' or somthing.

Something in his work touches (some of) us in some deep way, opens (some of us) us up to 'something', or at least makes us more 'aware' of the living world around us & invites a response of some kind. One can argue over whether that is a 'religious' response till the cows come home, but we do respond to something.

Great Art exerts a 'pull' on us - like the 'pull' of a distant horizon - we want to know what lies beyond it.

'Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate...'

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

Would you like a quick definition of the meaning of life, too

Yes, pretty please

Or, it seems to me you are answering your own question by not, in a way, answering it. What is the meaning of you opening a thread, what is it for you've done it? Well, answer, I presume, is to find out what Tolkien has been writing his stories for. But beyond? What is it for you want to know it? What is it for I sit deep into the night typing an answer to the thread you've strated, ultimately, you yourself know not what for? What is it for one wakes up each morning to do each day's chores or enjoy each days hobbies (or both) to go to sleep each evening (m-m, with an exeption of yours truly typing into the night not knowing what for, maybe).

If there is a meaning than same meaning applies to anything man does. And thing goodly done (any thing, even if it is a bowling strike masterfully performed) may be appealing, delightful, drawing, 'opening up new horizons'. The more complex the thing, the more impact.

If there is no meaning, than no thing has it, including Tolkien and his writings and us discussing these online and offline.

[davem]

Elves look backward, men look forward.
Elves have been somewhere, Men are going somewhere.
And yet both are aspects of the Human.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

In order to have been somewhere, or to be going somewhere, first somebody or something has to be. Bombadil said it: I am.

He does things, yes, but he does them for delight. Because he can. He does what seems right and he doesn't particularly fret about what he can't do. He is the Master.

Perhaps the secret identity of Bombadil isn't "He's a Maia!" or "He's Eru incarnate!". Perhaps Bombadil is Tolkien. Why write? Because he can, he's gifted with the ability and the fascination, and because it's not hurting anybody, and because he and others take pleasure from it. What does he write? That of which he is capable. He does it. Tolkien was a master, as far as that thing goes, of his play.

Maybe Middle Earth is secretly Taoist in nature.

Or maybe it just is.

What's the point of asking why? After all, why not?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Maybe Middle Earth is secretly Taoist in nature.

Or maybe it just is.

What's the point of asking why? After all, why not?

Well, it certainly is. It exists. Therefore it is something. It was intended (by Tolkien at least) that it exist. He desired that it be. More than that he desired that it be something specific. He was working toward a goal. He wanted to make something.

I suppose there's as much point in asking why as there is in asking how, in asking what did he create as in asking what did he use?

Why do we focus on his sources, on his biography, explore the world he created if it means nothing. We're constantly attempting to understand M-e & how it came to be. If it is entirely without meaning why do we respond so deeply to it?

If we find meaning in it is that meaning just imposed on it by us? Are we actually just seeking to impose a meaning on it, or are we seeking a meaning which we feel, on some level, to be there?