What was it all for?

[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?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem --

I am looking at this differently than you are.

The way that I approach this is by examining those moments in my own life where I made a decision to create something----to invest my time and labor and heart in something that had particular meaning for me. I am not just limiting myself to writing but am speaking of all forms of subcreation: literary, academic, or personal. Certain landmarks stand out in my own life--- my decision to invest years earning a doctorate in medieval history, my interest in social history and a devotion of time and effort to produce studies based on that research, my decision to have a family and to try to impart certain values within the structure of that family. This list could go on. Nothing so grand as Master Tolkien---small commitments that make up a normal lfe. Still, I don't think the process of searching for meaning and commitment was that different for him than it was for the rest of us. He just did a much better job at what he attempted to do.

What strikes me is that I can not give you a single motivation as to why I decided to undertake a particular task on that list. What I can give you for every one of my "subcreations" is a tangled and multi-layered explanation of what attracted me to that endeavor: what it was that made my heart light up so I felt compelled to wander in that direction. The personal, the academic, the literary, and the spiritual are all tangled up.

And for me, at least, that choice of commitment represents a process of wandering---many questions asked, some wrong turns and detours. Where I eventually ended up was never the exact point I had initially envisioned. Things took shape slowly over many years. Could it have been any different for Tolkien? His desire to create languages, his love of stories, his youthful determination to ignite a moral rejuvenation in his contemporaries, his homage to the young Edith---there is no one purpose; there are many.

To try and isolate a "single" key to understand this author is not possible. You are looking for a simplicity that doesn't exist in real life. Indeed it is contrary to everything Tolkien stood for, his very nature and personality. Remember this is the author who couldn't bear to put the finishing touches on the Silmarillion and who was attempting to change some of the underlying philosophy behind Arda right up to the end of his life.

Kilby was right in using the term "contrasistency" to describe Tolkien. JRRT simply couldn't be pinned down, which is why we can endlessly debate how great an influence X or Y had on the finished text. His reasons for subcreating were many: they seem to have changed from one year, one decade, even one minute to the next. There was no one overarching goal that was set in stone from the very beginning. He had many reason for writing, and these shifted and changed over time, helping to redefine Middle-earth.

[davem]

Ok, but is it an important inquiry? When I ask what was it all for I'm attempting to focus on where he ended up, rather than where he started.

Or put aside any conscious intent on Tolkien's part. Let's say he had no 'blueprint' - we can still ask whether he created something with 'value'. Is it an abstract painting, or a Rorshach blot, into which we read meaning, see something which wasn't actually put there by the artist, or did Tolkien create something very specific (even if he didn't intend to, or realise he was actually doing so).

[Aiwendil]

Davem, it seems to me that you are changing the question in mid-argument. Perhaps I simply misunderstood your earlier posts on this thread. But you said:

Tolkien spent 60 years doing something, & he must have had a reason for devoting such time & energy to it. He wasn't just using 'sources', he was using them for something.

And:

Just attempting to understand why he did what he did.

Now you say:

When I ask what was it all for I'm attempting to focus on where he ended up, rather than where he started.

I think it's clear that there are two distinct questions here, but I don't think it's at all clear which you intended to discuss in this thread. Which are we discussing:

1. Why Tolkien wrote - i.e. what his intention was
or
2. What the result was (related to the issue of what value the work has)?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Davem, it seems to me that you are changing the question in mid-argument.

I think it's clear that there are two distinct questions here, but I don't think it's at all clear which you intended to discuss in this thread. Which are we discussing:

1. Why Tolkien wrote - i.e. what his intention was
or
2. What the result was (related to the issue of what value the work has)?

Its a discussion. It seemed to me that there has been an increasing focus recently on sources & biography in Tolkien discussions - both here & in books & essays, as though those things somehow 'explain' or can account for what he created.

It just seemed to me that the important thing here is what he created - at the risk of repeating myself - which doesn't go down too well with some Downers.

For example, we can find elements of Odin in Gandalf, yet Gandalf is not Odin in another form, he is a character in his own right. For all his 'Odinic' aspects he also has a many more 'Gandalfian' aspects - & they are the most important thing about him.

So, however you want to go with this thread I'm happy.

[littlemanpoet]

Sorry if this has been said already (only scanned the thread so far), but as davem has suggested already, Beowulf was very important to Tolkien. Is it not true that Tolkien considered himself to be, among other things, writing a modern day Beowulf for modern readers? And if so, what does that tell us?

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Sorry if this has been said already (only scanned the thread so far), but as davem has suggested already, Beowulf was very important to Tolkien. Is it not true that Tolkien considered himself to be, among other things, writing a modern day Beowulf for modern readers? And if so, what does that tell us?

I suppose we could ask whether the Beowulf poet had a 'goal' in mind, or whether he considered his work to be 'meaningless', or at best mere 'entertainment'? It seems to me that he was dealing with some profound themes (this seems to have been Tolkien's view also).

Of course, just because the poet doesn't offer an 'answer' doesn't invalidate the poem. He sets out Man's position in the Universe, standing in a little circle of light amidst endless darkness awaiting, with courage or despair, the coming of the Dragon.

It could be argued that, if we strip away the metaphysics, both Tolkien & the Beowulf poet show us ourselves, our lives & the fate which awaits us. Whether there is anything beyond the Circles of the World is the great unknown, & some of us will face the Dragon with hope that beyond that confrontation there will be something else, some kind of continuation, or with acceptance - there may be nothing afterwards, but we can stand & face it anyway, This is the choice both Beowulf & Frodo are confronted with – not whether to confront the Dragon or live in peace, but whether to look it in the eye when it comes, or to look away.

Tolkien stated LotR was about 'Death, the inevitability of Death' - & so is Beowulf. If its 'only' about that, then its certainly not about 'nothing'. If its 'just a story' then that story is 'our' story. It is the story of our life, & more importantly of our death. Both works, perhaps, are 'meditations' on the coming of the Dragon, & how we must find a way to live while we await it.