Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[Lalwendë]

As I've said many times there's nowt wrong at all with having some fun writing stories based in Middle-earth. And in fact if you are talented and sensitive to Tolkien's style, then they would be worthwhile reading for the sheer fun of it, even if they are not going to expand your knowledge of Tolkien's work. I know of a fair few people who seek out the best ones and some are popular writings in their own 'right'.

BUT there has already been adequate space made by the Estate to indulge such whimsies - they are quite entitled to disallow any kind of fan-fic or RPG if they so wish. Why do they not allow 'novelisations'? Because Tolkien wrote Books, big long things with lots of words in them, lots of infinite scope for your imaginations to wander - a very different thing to films which are restrictive universes and so lend themselves more readily to expansion via novelisation. But even in that ouevre 90% of novelisations are Pants! Not just Pants, but Big Smelly Pants! Not only are they often cheesy, they confuse matters. Yeah, a new novel about Hobbits tootling round at some point in the 4th age may be entertaining but it might also be extremely confusing. Reading such things may even Ruin Your Tolkien Knowledge if you are not careful - judging by the ongoing silly confusion over names of Nazgul created by Dungeons and Dragons imaginings...

Why do people want to have their names and their work linked to Tolkien so badly?

To reflect/bask in the glory? Make themselves seem more important amongst the fans. I know of one person who has a sanctioned and published fan-fic out there (in severely limited quantities) who has actually made himself look like a bit of a you-know-what by his posturing in this way.

To make money? If so, then that makes me slightly sick.

Or do you just want to read more stories? If so then what are you belly-aching over?! There's enough good uns out there - for starters, just direct yon cursor to top o't' page and you'll find some great 'uns on this here site's own fan-fic section....

Or does everything have to be Brand Names these days?

[Morwen]

In Wide Sargasso Sea Jean Rhys, writes about Mr. Rochester's mad wife, a character from Jane Eyre. The story is about who this woman was before she became an insane, attic dwelling pyromaniac.Now if the novel had been written by Charlotte Bronte it would have been a prequel to Jane Eyre. You could have used info found there to discuss, say, the development of the character of Mr. Rochester. But Wide Sargasso Sea is the work of Jean Rhys. It's an independent work with merit of its own but it does not contribute to or expand the world of Jane Eyre. Only Charlotte Bronte could do this and indeed I don't know that it was ever Jean Rhys' intention to try. And I don't know that Bronte scholars use Ms. Rhys' work as a tool for analysing either Rochester or his mad wife. At least I have not heard of this. I would welcome corrections on the point.

Now I have understood some to say that other persons should pick up where Tolkien left off and compose new stories set in Middle Earth and I suppose using the frame work that Tolkien has provided. However, I don't see stories by other authors as adding to or expanding what Tolkien created. They would be creating something distinct. Now these works may have a value of their own but I agree with Davem that they would not be used by Tolkien scholars to discuss his work. And I also think that a lot of fans would distinguish between Tolkien's Middle Earth and the stories told by John Smith and Jane Doe.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Morwen

In Wide Sargasso Sea Jean Rhys, writes about Mr. Rochester's mad wife, a character from Jane Eyre. .

Have to say that was one that popped into my mind - haven't read it but I did catch the recent BBC adaptation of it.

Now, I've never stated that it would be impossible for someone to write a great book based in Middle-earth. Perhaps one day they will. It won't be Tolkien though. As to it being seen as independent of Tolkien's work, that would depend on it not being authorised by the Estate - if the Estate authorised it it would inevitably be seen as part of the Legendarium. But no stories of Middle-earth can be published without the authorisation of the the Estate. Catch 22.


I just don't see that anyone will ever have the skill & insight that Tolkien had - such a writer would have to have Tolkien's intimate knowledge of Middle-earth history & languages & be as great a writer - something I think is often underplayed. AN Wilson makes some good points here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...71522693538744
(ignore the typos!)

Now the army of Tolkien imitators and creators of alternative universes fill the fantasy sections of the libraries. They are books largely written by and for nerds.

Yet with the master, it isn't so. In this new book, as in The Silmarillion, you feel yourself in the presence of a personal genius.

It is an odd thing to say, since his aim was to create an impersonal mythology, and you can see the affinities it has with Hebrew, Greek and Nordic equivalents. The ineluctable tendency for events to go wrong, and for the beautiful and the delicate to be vanquished, knows no let-up.

Yet, though there is not one word of preaching in The Children of Hurim, you never doubt that it is worth being good, even though evil triumphs.

You close it thinking how extraordinary was the life of Tolkien, who for well over half a century, while pursuing an academic career, continued to evolve - unpublished and without much encouragement - a self-contained world of myth.

That first bit is worth re-reading: 'Now the army of Tolkien imitators and creators of alternative universes fill the fantasy sections of the libraries. They are books largely written by and for nerds.'

I think that's what we'd get - however much some may wish for a genius to give us a masterpiece.

[Bêthberry]

What Rys'work does is contribute a way of considering Brontë's Jane Eyre. It suggests readers ask why Rochester's first wife went mad--that is, it prompts readers who might not think to question Rochester's version of events. Certainly the events are momentous enough that Jane solidly understands the potential for her to become a second madwoman, (and who knows, perhaps she does) even as many readers fall under the sway of Rochester.

I'm not particularly a fan of Wide Sargasso Sea as I always felt that it could have done better at exploring the Creole woman's plight. Still, it stands as an interesting extrapolation of a world beyond the constricted Victorian moors--Caribbean colonial expansion, race relations, second sons and remittance men. In giving 'voice' to a character who is spectacularly silent in the original text, it of course presents a perspective which may or may not have been outside or beyond that of the original author. That is, it gives us a more contemporary reading of one aspect of the original work.

There's lots being done about Victorian fiction this way. Consider The French Lieutenant's Woman, or A. J. Byatt or even Johanna Clarke. If this is 'fair'--that contemporary writers look at the silent spots in earlier work, to explore those gaps from our world view--then there's no reason why a writer can't do the same thing to Tolkien. It wouldn't necessarily be from a "politically correct" point of view, but would in fact represent a way one writer critically rewrites a predecessor. This, I think, is a far different kettle of fish than that earlier discussed here.

Frankly, I'm waiting for a post modern deconstruction of Tom Jones. Fielding already provided one for Pamela but I think Fielding is ripe for the taking.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

What Rys'work does is contribute a way of considering Brontë's Jane Eyre. It suggests readers ask why Rochester's first wife went mad--that is, it prompts readers who might not think to question Rochester's version of events. Certainly the events are momentous enough that Jane solidly understands the potential for her to become a second madwoman, (and who knows, perhaps she does) even as many readers fall under the sway of Rochester.
I'm not particularly a fan of Wide Sargasso Sea as I always felt that it could have done better at exploring the Creole woman's plight. Still, it stands as an interesting extrapolation of a world beyond the constricted Victorian moors--Caribbean colonial expansion, race relations, second sons and remittance men. In giving 'voice' to a character who is spectacularly silent in the original text, it of course presents a perspective which may or may not have been outside or beyond that of the original author. That is, it gives us a more contemporary reading of one aspect of the original work.

These are things that I think make Wide Sargasso Sea interesting to discuss as an independent work. But if I were analysing Bertha or Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre I don't know that I could or should rely on interpretations of those characters that Bronte never suggested. And this is why I think that Rhys' work has to be treated as distinct.

Originally posted by davem
As to it being seen as independent of Tolkien's work, that would depend on it not being authorised by the Estate - if the Estate authorised it it would inevitably be seen as part of the Legendarium. But no stories of Middle-earth can be published without the authorisation of the the Estate. Catch 22.

But shouldn't one draw a distinction between what authorisation would mean for Tolkien scholars as opposed to readers/fans? For the former authorisation by the Estate wouldn't matter, the works still wouldn't be Tolkien's and therefore wouldn't fall within their area of study/research. (Of course your area of study may strictly be Middle Earth in which case authorisation might make a difference.)

For readers/fans I can see such authorisation dividing that group into two camps - purists who wouldn't accept such works as part of the Legendarium and others who would wish to refer to and quote such works in Tolkien discussions. The debates on Balrog wings and Bombadil will pale in comparison.

[Lalwendë]

Alas the Wide Sargasso Sea is a case in point of exactly why we should not allow Tolkien rip-offs. No student now can read Jane Eyre unadulterated, no student can take Charlotte Bronte's word for what it is - it is now forever tarnished thanks to Jean Rhys and her provocative, oppositional take on Bronte's work. She's entitled to do this of course, but I think it should have been left as an iconoclastic curiosity - instead it has been taken to heart by generations of lecturers scrambling for 'different interpretations'. Sigh. Poor Charlotte. But then she were only a humble Yorkshirewoman. What did she know in comparison to these clever Postmodernists.

Nothing wrong with Wide Sargasso Sea on its own, but alas, it is what it has been used for that makes it a good example here. It has been used and abused as a 'tool' to alter the thoughts and interpretations of a whole generation or more of students and young readers. And the original author cannot defend herself. I can see this happening in a hundred years' time - some post-post-modernist interpretation of Beren and Luthien in which Luthien is an oppressed Elf, raped by Beren in the woodlands and forced to go on a quest by him - and so the original thoughts of Tolkien, that it sprang from his own love for his wife, will eventually be drowned and lost.

Alas, I don't think it would even amount to that with Tolkien's work being re-interpreted and turned over for bones of spurious stories - he is not yet a literary icon, so I fear such 'books' would just be lurid nerd fodder and would only stoke the fires of those who shout about Tolkien being a load of tripe and not worthy of serious attention.

Interestingly, there are some 'follow-ups' to Jane Austen's novels too - but they did not get good reviews and the Austenites seem to hate them, no matter how skillful the author who wrote them. And look at the incredible fuss made when whoever wrote the script to the recent film of P&P had Lizzie and Darcy kiss at the end. Just think of the book bonfire if someone tampered with Tolkien in that way!

Note - I read earlier this afternoon that some novelisations from Serenity/Firefly will be written soon. However the fans are already yelling loudly that these will NEVER be accepted as canon as Joss Whedon is not involved with them! So which fans, exactly, would be lapping up the Tolkien Pulp Fiction?

[Feanorsdoom]

Again, the assumptions are being made that A) no one could understand M-e in the intimate way JRRT did (never mind that it is a flawed universe that Tolkien himself never finished); B) that no one could wish to continue the tradition for any reasons but money or self-agrandizement; C) that Middle-earth will now and forever be considered by fans and "Tolkien scholars" only within the scope of what was written by JRRT; and D) that fans and scholars would be asked thereby to consider new stories alongside the old as both being within "Tolkien's world".

A) M-e, as written by Tolkien, never was intimately understood by anyone, even Tolkien. See HoMe for details.

B) Some of us actually love M-e, and a few can actually write well, to boot.

C) Tolkien scholars can study the Tolkienesque parts of M-e stories; scholars of Middle-earth can study all stories written about it. There is no reason to equate Tolkien scholarship with Middle-earth necessarilly; in fact, there are Tolkien scholars who might only be interested in his other writings.

Also, who speaks for all or most fans of Middle-earth? I dare say that a good percentage of them are under 20, had never read any Tolkien before the movies came out, and could not get halfway through the Silmarillion. Who are we to consider our opinions more true or important than theirs?

D) Middle-earth is no longer Tolkien's world. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanorsdoom

A) M-e, as written by Tolkien, never was intimately understood by anyone, even Tolkien. See HoMe for details.

M-e is not a place external to Tolkien's writings. Tolkien's writings are M-e. Who understands what is neither here nor there in this context.

B) Some of us actually love M-e, and a few can actually write well, to boot.

Agin, I can't see how this relates to whether there should be officially sanctioned sequels.

C) Tolkien scholars can study the Tolkienesque parts of M-e stories; scholars of Middle-earth can study all stories written about it.

There are only 'Tolkienesque' parts of M-e. The idea they are two different things is a misunderstanding, based primarilly on how successful Tolkien was in creating the sense of secondary reality.

There is no reason to equate Tolkien scholarship with Middle-earth necessarilly; in fact, there are Tolkien scholars who might only be interested in his other writings.

I think your second point is pretty much a non sequetur -

Also, who speaks for all or most fans of Middle-earth? I dare say that a good percentage of them are under 20, had never read any Tolkien before the movies came out, and could not get halfway through the Silmarillion. Who are we to consider our opinions more true or important than theirs?

Good point. I think the teenage movie fans who can't manage to actually read Tolkien's books should have the last word.

Really! If we're talking here about people who couldn't actually manage to get through The Sil, I can just imagine the quality & depth of these proposed new stories.

D) Middle-earth is no longer Tolkien's world. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

Let's form a circle & hold hands & see if we can channel him.....

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Feanorsdoom

Again, the assumptions are being made that A) no one could understand M-e in the intimate way JRRT did (never mind that it is a flawed universe that Tolkien himself never finished); B) that no one could wish to continue the tradition for any reasons but money or self-agrandizement; C) that Middle-earth will now and forever be considered by fans and "Tolkien scholars" only within the scope of what was written by JRRT; and D) that fans and scholars would be asked thereby to consider new stories alongside the old as both being within "Tolkien's world".

A) M-e, as written by Tolkien, never was intimately understood by anyone, even Tolkien. See HoMe for details.

B) Some of us actually love M-e, and a few can actually write well, to boot.

C) Tolkien scholars can study the Tolkienesque parts of M-e stories; scholars of Middle-earth can study all stories written about it. There is no reason to equate Tolkien scholarship with Middle-earth necessarilly; in fact, there are Tolkien scholars who might only be interested in his other writings.

Also, who speaks for all or most fans of Middle-earth? I dare say that a good percentage of them are under 20, had never read any Tolkien before the movies came out, and could not get halfway through the Silmarillion. Who are we to consider our opinions more true or important than theirs?

D) Middle-earth is no longer Tolkien's world. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

A - nobody can understand it like he could. That's a fact. When he said he was 'finding out what happened' it didn't mean that Middle-earth actually existed at some mysterious point beyond platform 9 and three-quarters, he was talking about the creation which existed within his mind, as many creations exist within many minds. I have my own and find out new things about it daily - it doesn't mean it is real. It's like the explanation that Father Ted had to give Father Dougal about Dreams and Reality.

B. First off, if you don't want money or fame then what's wrong with writing fan-fic as you can right now? What possible reason could there be for you to want to publish a book when the internet already offers you the chance for your fan-fic to be well loved by fans? If, of course, you are prepared to make the effort that is...

And anyone may well be a good writer, they may well be the best writer, but they are not nor ever will be Tolkien - many nuances go into creating a writer and their unique style, from their early education and influences to where they live, their specific social class, their gender, race, even what technical methods they use to write - pen or word processor. Nobody could ever hope to replicate those circumstances. And look at the controversy over how much and if his religion influenced him - how could anyone hope to get over that?

C. I'm neither interested in anything written in Tolkien's name by anyone so utterly pretentious as to call themselves a 'Tolkien Scholar' nor by some 15 year old Christopher Paolini clone. Hmmm, funny how that 500 years down the line Shakespeare's work has not been 'expanded' by the ponderings of ghost writers - you know, there is no Midsummer Nights Dream Part VIII (in the manner of Police Academy's many interminable parts). Why would Tolkien be any different? Only if he's to be considered not as a serious writer but as a producer of mere entertaining pap of course.

D. Legally, it is I'm afraid. And is likely to remain so due to use of Trade Marks. We're privileged enough to be allowed to write and independently publish on the net our fan-fics, which is very generous of the Estate as it is. Wanting more for ourselves is just submitting to Greed and likely, Pride too.

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Feanorsdoom

Also, who speaks for all or most fans of Middle-earth? I dare say that a good percentage of them are under 20, had never read any Tolkien before the movies came out, and could not get halfway through the Silmarillion. Who are we to consider our opinions more true or important than theirs?

If I were petitioning the Estate to officially sanction new stories this is not an argument that I would use. If the fans you mention have not exhausted what material is currently available then why exactly should they be clamouring for more stories? If their problem is that they cannot "get through" the available material then what sort of stories should the Estate be sanctioning for them? Some sort of Middle Earth Lite fiction?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morwen

These are things that I think make Wide Sargasso Sea interesting to discuss as an independent work. But if I were analysing Bertha or Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre I don't know that I could or should rely on interpretations of those characters that Bronte never suggested. And this is why I think that Rhys' work has to be treated as distinct.

Originally Posted by Lal

Alas the Wide Sargasso Sea is a case in point of exactly why we should not allow Tolkien rip-offs. No student now can read Jane Eyre unadulterated, no student can take Charlotte Bronte's word for what it is - it is now forever tarnished thanks to Jean Rhys and her provocative, oppositional take on Bronte's work. She's entitled to do this of course, but I think it should have been left as an iconoclastic curiosity - instead it has been taken to heart by generations of lecturers scrambling for 'different interpretations'. Sigh. Poor Charlotte. But then she were only a humble Yorkshirewoman. What did she know in comparison to these clever Postmodernists.

Reading books is a dangerous thing. No telling who will come off better or worse, the ancients or the moderns.

Originally Posted by Lal

Hmmm, funny how that 500 years down the line Shakespeare's work has not been 'expanded' by the ponderings of ghost writers - you know, there is no Midsummer Nights Dream Part VIII (in the manner of Police Academy's many interminable parts). Why would Tolkien be any different? Only if he's to be considered not as a serious writer but as a producer of mere entertaining pap of course.

Shakespeare didn't write a mythology, didn't create a Legendarium, as Tolkien, Lewis, Asimov, Lucas, Whedon have done. And the interminable parts belong to the debate over who actually wrote the plays.

Originally Posted by davem

The point is whether anyone else can do what Tolkien did, have Tolkien's insight in to his own creation sufficient to enable them to create convincing stories set in his world. The answer is no.

There's the rub: convincing stories set in his world. convincing is a subjective state, so no follows only for you.

Originally Posted by davem

What you seem to be asking for is another writer's personal interpretation to be given extra weight by being officially sanctioned.

The original post asked if Tolkien encouraged others to take up his mythology. No mention of official sanction there.

[Lalwendë]

Well SpM is saying what I'm trying to say which is where is the beef?! You can all read and write as much fan fic as you like!

But no, it seems it has to have a brand name on it these days - alas that's the world we now live in where Nike Tolkien is going to be better than Tesco Value Tolkien. Never mind what's inside, just feel the packaging, check out the gold leaf JRRT Logo!

Yet how about Tolkien's own feelings about the machine? His name being utilised to Brand Name spurious extra 'stuff', more 'product'?

So for those who want to get Back To Basics, even though there is no argument to be won as Nobody Is Stopping You From Writing Fan-Fic, what did he say?:

But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) 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.

Yes, nothing about writing more stories. And if you're not reading that quote right then I sincerely hope you're not thinking yourself good enough to follow in his footsteps.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Lal

But no, it seems it has to have a brand name on it these days - alas that's the world we now live in where Nike Tolkien is going to be better than Tesco Value Tolkien.

Actually, I suspect that the choice would be between Tesco Tolkien and Tesco 'Read the Difference' Tolkien - same thing, just more nicely packaged and double the price.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Yes, nothing about writing more stories. And if you're not reading that quote right then I sincerely hope you're not thinking yourself good enough to follow in his footsteps.

Tolkien omitted tapestry and embroidery and quilting too, so I suppose that means no Middle-earth Bayeux Tapestry either. No need to say England should have a copy of her (?) own.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

There's the rub: convincing stories set in his world. convincing is a subjective state, so no follows only for you.

All my statements should be taken as subjective. The fact that they also happen to be objectively true merely strengthens my position.