Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

What I would like to see: ideally - some sort of effort every few years where writers across the world are asked to submit stories of Middle-earth to a group set up by the Estate and their official publishers. A vetting process could be employed to insure quality and historical accuracy within the canon of work that we have now. Rules could be laid down to tell writers they cannot change anything that Tolkien already has established within that world. Then a book published - perhaps every few years - of authorized Middle-earth stories which clearly state who wrote them and they are not the work of JRRT, Christopher or anyone else Tolkien. I think that would be the best compromise that we could see.

After reading that I just give up on the whole thing. I hope that if they do it the first volume is dedicated to you.

[Morwen]

Yes - I do understand that a certain hardcore Tolkien following will resist any efforts to introduce new works in exactly the same spirit that we have seen evidenced here.

Yes - I do understand that there will always be a hard and firm difference which can never be changed or altered between what was written by JRRT and anyone else no matter how good or how bad.

Well I've never thought of myself as a hardcore Tolkien follower. Let me say this though - when you speak of efforts to resist the introduction of new tales this conveys the idea that the creation of new ME stories is simply a natural and logical progression. Speaking for myself, I don't see it that way. I see Middle Earth as Tolkien's creation, in the way that any author's writings are his/her creation. If there are "gaps" he never filled, then so be it. IMO I don't think that their existence is an argument for saying that someone must officially take up the task of telling those stories.

What I would like to see: ideally - some sort of effort every few years where writers across the world are asked to submit stories of Middle-earth to a group set up by the Estate and their official publishers. A vetting process could be employed to insure quality and historical accuracy within the canon of work that we have now. Rules could be laid down to tell writers they cannot change anything that Tolkien already has established within that world. Then a book published - perhaps every few years - of authorized Middle-earth stories which clearly state who wrote them and they are not the work of JRRT, Christopher or anyone else Tolkien. I think that would be the best compromise that we could see.

While you may understand that there is a hard and firm difference between the works of Tolkien and latter day efforts I'm not sure that others will maintain that distinction even if it is made clear that the later stories are not the work of Tolkien. It seems to me that if the Estate expressly authorises someone to write stories to "fill in the gaps" it will end up changing the way in which the existing material is read and how existing characters are perceived. And inevitably that alters the Legendarium. Just my view, but I don't see that as a good thing.

[Sauron the White]

davem ... I certainy respect your opinion and your scholarship. We will agree to disagree -- hopefully.

Allow me to ask this of you and others .... according to current laws, it will be 36 years until copyright expires barring future changes. If the copyright expiration were only a couple of years away, would you be more open to some sort of sanctioned ME stories by others with the blessing of the Estate to publicly and openly differentiate them from the eventual floodgates being opened and every hack writer trying their hand at it with no oversight at all? You probably cannot stop them once copyright expires, but you may be able to carve out a sanctioned vs. unsanctioned niche that would help readers make their choices with their purchasing dollars.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Allow me to ask this of you and others .... according to current laws, it will be 36 years until copyright expires barring future changes. If the copyright expiration were only a couple of years away, would you be more open to some sort of sanctioned ME stories by others with the blessing of the Estate to publicly and openly differentiate them from the eventual floodgates being opened and every hack writer trying their hand at it with no oversight at all? You probably cannot stop them once copyright expires, but you may be able to carve out a sanctioned vs. unsanctioned niche that would help readers make their choices with their purchasing dollars.

I think the problem is in the way we think of Middle-earth. I don't see it as a fictional world' that other writers can write stories about, but rather Tolkien's attempt to explore & communicate his ideas about myth & language, & to tell specific kinds of tales. There is a strong autobiographical element which colours what he wrote, & that no-one else can re-create.

I can only repeat that this is not about whether another writer can write entertaining stories set in Middle-earth, but whether they would be 'genuine'. What I'm arguing here is that what distinguishes Tolkien's creation from other fantasy worlds (& this statement would apply to Howard's Hyborean Age, Mirlees' Lud in the Mist, Dunsany's Pegana, Peake's Gormenghast, Eddison's Mercury, etc) is what he brought out of his experience. Other great fantasy worlds are great because they are unique. There are lots of generic fantasy worlds out there which anyone could set stories in, but the great fantasy worlds are special because of who wrote them.

In short, what you're asking for is impossible. I've read some good M-e fanfic. I wrote a (so-so) M-e fanfic. The problem is, no fanfic is 100% convincing - there's always something 'missing', some point at which you stop & think, 'No, that doesn't seem right. And its not because the writer is a bad storyteller. Its because they're not Tolkien.

If you haven't done so yet, get hold of John Garth's 'Tolkien & the Great War'. That will spell out to you as clearly as possible why only Tolkien could write convincing M-e stories.

EDIT

Look. If you take CoH as an example, you have one of the darkest, most hopeless, most tragic pieces of fiction ever produced. Its also one the earliest M-e stories Tolkien wrote. It has two 'sources', or two 'seeds'. First, mythological - the characters of Kullervo in the Kalevala & of Sigurd in the Volsungasaga, & second, 'biographical', in that it came into being in the post WWI period, when Tolkien had lived through the horrors of the Somme, & lost two out of his three closest friends. Garth talks about Tolkien 'seeing the world through enchanted eyes'. In other words the myths & fairy stories he had loved since childhood coloured his perception of the horror & loss he knew. There was a kind of 'feedback loop'. Myth fed into reality & reality fed into myth.

What I would argue is that CoH could only come out of a personal experience of horror & loss of the most extreme kind. If another writer who had not had that kind of experience tried to write a tale like CoH they would either produce melodrama or farce. Same with Beren & Luthien - too autobiographical (as is Gondolin - as Garth shows).

Other writers could, as I said, set stories in M-e. They could perhaps write good stories, as good, in their own way as Tolkien's own. But the 'Tolkien' element - which is the unique element in the M-e tales he gave us - would be absent.

[Bêthberry]

Post #111:

Originally Posted by davem

After reading that I just give up on the whole thing. I hope that if they do it the first volume is dedicated to you.

Post #114:

Originally Posted by davem

I think the problem is in the way we think of Middle-earth. I don't see it as a fictional world' that other writers can write stories about, but rather Tolkien's attempt to explore & communicate his ideas about myth & language, & to tell specific kinds of tales. There is a strong autobiographical element which colours what he wrote, & that no-one else can re-create.

I can only repeat that this is not about whether another writer can write entertaining stories set in Middle-earth, but whether they would be 'genuine'. What I'm arguing here is that what distinguishes Tolkien's creation from other fantasy worlds (& this statement would apply to Howard's Hyborean Age, Mirlees' Lud in the Mist, Dunsany's Pegana, Peake's Gormenghast, Eddison's Mercury, etc) is what he brought out of his experience. Other great fantasy worlds are great because they are unique. There are lots of generic fantasy worlds out there which anyone could set stories in, but the great fantasy worlds are special because of who wrote them.

In short, what you're asking for is impossible. I've read some good M-e fanfic. I wrote a (so-so) M-e fanfic. The problem is, no fanfic is 100% convincing - there's always something 'missing', some point at which you stop & think, 'No, that doesn't seem right. And its not because the writer is a bad storyteller. Its because they're not Tolkien.

If you haven't done so yet, get hold of John Garth's 'Tolkien & the Great War'. That will spell out to you as clearly as possible why only Tolkien could write convincing M-e stories.

EDIT

Look. If you take CoH as an example, you have one of the darkest, most hopeless, most tragic pieces of fiction ever produced. Its also one the earliest M-e stories Tolkien wrote. It has two 'sources', or two 'seeds'. First, mythological - the characters of Kullervo in the Kalevala & of Sigurd in the Volsungasaga, & second, 'biographical', in that it came into being in the post WWI period, when Tolkien had lived through the horrors of the Somme, & lost two out of his three closest friends. Garth talks about Tolkien 'seeing the world through enchanted eyes'. In other words the myths & fairy stories he had loved since childhood coloured his perception of the horror & loss he knew. There was a kind of 'feedback loop'. Myth fed into reality & reality fed into myth.

What I would argue is that CoH could only come out of a personal experience of horror & loss of the most extreme kind. If another writer who had not had that kind of experience tried to write a tale like CoH they would either produce melodrama or farce. Same with Beren & Luthien - too autobiographical (as is Gondolin - as Garth shows).

Other writers could, as I said, set stories in M-e. They could perhaps write good stories, as good, in their own way as Tolkien's own. But the 'Tolkien' element - which is the unique element in the M-e tales he gave us - would be absent.

My, for a brief spell there I thought Sauron the White had actually got davem to forsake his MO of always having the last word. I was mistaken, obviously.

Originally Posted by Lal

Given Tolkien's feelings about Drama, he would most certainly not count it as 'writing'! He saw Drama as something strictly for performance, not for reading, so No! Drama would not include other forms of writing to Tolkien!

But it would then include such productions as the LotR musical currently in pre-production in Drury Lane and late of Toronto? It appears that Tolkien did countenance such productions, along with "paint" and "music." Productions by other hands.

However, if the defining criteria of acceptable writing about Middle-earth by another authors is this issue of "authenticity" -- lacking the genuine Tolkien element of autobiographical mind-mold (if not leafmold)--then why doesn't this issue of being genuine apply to Tolkien's own acceptance of his mythology in other art forms by other people? Autobiographical genuineness clearly didn't matter to Tolkien there.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

My, for a brief spell there I thought Sauron the White had actually got davem to forsake his MO of always having the last word. I was mistaken, obviously.

Yes, but I was addressed directly & asked for a response. I think you would be the first to admit that politeness is my greatest fault.

Autobiographical genuineness clearly didn't matter to Tolkien there.

I think it did. We need to keep in mind that Tolkien was, in that letter to Waldman, attempting to 'sell' his books to a publisher who he hoped would agree to publish both LotR & The Sil.

That said, I think we have to go back to the vision of the TCBS if we're to understand where Tolkien was coming from in that desire that 'other hands' would be moved to add to his creation. Their sense of themselves as another pre-Rapaelite Brotherhood, the source of a potential moral regeneration of England is behind Tolkien's words.

Finally, I can't help but feel that Tolkien underestimated his skill as an artist. He may have wished for other hands to add to his creation, but I think its clear that he, also, was wishing for this elusive 'genius' to appear out of nowhere.

As with most of the letters, its best not to just take his statements at face value.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, but I was addressed directly & asked for a response. I think you would be the first to admit that politeness is my greatest fault.

I believe you have me confused with Estelyn Telcontar, who has met you and who has attested to your politeness. Having never met you, I cannot of course admit to anything, even if by chance our paths had crossed unknowingly some three years ago when I was in York, Oxford, and London--of the English variety.

Originally Posted by davem

I think it did. We need to keep in mind that Tolkien was, in that letter to Waldman, attempting to 'sell' his books to a publisher who he hoped would agree to publish both LotR & The Sil.

So when Tolkien attempts to persue monetary gain, that's okay.

Originally Posted by Lal

But somehow I don't think the 'authenticity' issue is of any matter when someone is adapting a story that's already been written by Tolkien. What are they gonna do? Hop in the nearest Tardis and go back and change details of his life?

Authenticity is an issue when biography is used as one of the main criteria for explaining the provenance of the texts, because even adaptations will be effected by biography.

Raynor, I appreciate your query about subjective perception and objectively true statements.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So when Tolkien attempts to persue monetary gain, that's okay.

Well, I have no problem with it. Genius deserves payment (though how that fits in with my unpaid posting here on the Downs I'm not certain). Its people attempting to cash in on Tollkien's work that I have a problem with....

Raynor, I appreciate your query about subjective perception and objectively true statements.

Me too.

I still am not sure what you mean, and you didn't read my PM request for clarification, apparently. If you agree that subjective perception is the only thing that matters, then how come you make judgements of value which you consider to be objectively true??

Of course, I don't see that the former necessarily precludes the latter. One can give absolute priority to the former, & note, en passent, that the latter is also the case. Or vice versa. You could even argue that the former position is 'subjective' & the latter 'objective'.

And yet, I don't see that this is anything other than a side issue, a crazy tangential foray down a dead end road n'stuff. We're supposed to be discussing whether JRRT encouraged new M-e stories, not psycho-analysing each other, or indulging in a philosophical debate on subjectivity vs objectivity.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

One can give absolute priority to the former, & note, en passent, that the latter is also the case.

But we are not talking about what would be true in a particular subjective perception and what would be true in a general objective judgement. Accidentally, this two may coincide in some cases, but it is reasonable to believe that, given a large enough sample, objective judgement will be at odds with some subjective perceptions. What is at stake is which position is acceptable: the objective one - or the subjective one (in which case, this discussion is superfluous, since anyone can chose what works to accept or not, and if others, including scholars, have an issue with that, no biggie).

And yet, I don't see that this is anything other than a side issue, a crazy tangential foray down a dead end road n'stuff.

We're supposed to be discussing whether JRRT encouraged new M-e stories, not psycho-analysing each other, or indulging in a philosophical debate on subjectivity vs objectivity.

As noted above, I believe this is the core of the problem, whether we take an objective or a subjective stance. Since this is an issue of art, perception, taste, I believe the answer is obvious.

You previously phrased the subject in the subjective terms of whether someone can "create convincing stories set in his world"

"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."

We need to define a common point of reference, that is, are we talking objectivity or subjectivity, and not attempt to simultaneously play two irrenciliable positions.

And, frankly, I expect even the "objective" position to be variable in time or geographically - just as morality is, as you and Lalwendë argued in other threads.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Authenticity is an issue when biography is used as one of the main criteria for explaining the provenance of the texts, because even adaptations will be effected by biography.

Err, the question here is simply this:

Did Tolkien write the story or was it written by Bubba Ray Bloggs? The former - then it is authentic. The latter - then it is not. No amount of 'cognitive dissonance' or some other babble such as might come forth from Brian Sewell can alter that.

Though I do like to see the old subjective/objective psycho-babble eventually rear its ugly head on a thread yet again. It usually signals that there are no further useful contributions to make and the discussion can now move on to other matters.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Did Tolkien write the story or was it written by Bubba Ray Bloggs? The former - then it is authentic. The latter - then it is not. No amount of 'cognitive dissonance' or some other babble such as might come forth from Brian Sewell can alter that.

I believe you are refering to the formal aspect of authenticity. It is not a given that the original author can make each and every time an authentic story in regards to a particular universe he created; in fact, in the case of Tolkien, he discarded many of his stories (even storylines) several times. Also, as mentioned previously, it is not a given that no other author, but the initial one, can make a story which is authentic in regards to that fictional universe.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Though I do like to see the old subjective/objective psycho-babble eventually rear its ugly head on a thread yet again. It usually signals that there are no further useful contributions to make and the discussion can now move on to other matters.

In various debates you raised the subjectivity argument, that no one can tell you what to think in regards to a particular M-E subject (despite the evidences, I might add). Funny thing that you now characterise such an action in this way.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Although it's apparent that I don't speak for everyone here, I think that the very much greater part of us are fans of Tolkien, not fans of Middle-earth. We love Giles and Smith and Niggle as well, and the Letters- all as windows into an idiosyncratically brilliant mind. Who on earth would read a book about Leopold Bloom by somebody other than Joyce? Would you give two pins for the Further Adventures of Huck Finn by I. M. A. Hack--- or even by Saul Bellow?

Great authors are unique. They're not fungible commodities.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But it would then include such productions as the LotR musical currently in pre-production in Drury Lane and late of Toronto? It appears that Tolkien did countenance such productions, along with "paint" and "music." Productions by other hands.

However, if the defining criteria of acceptable writing about Middle-earth by another authors is this issue of "authenticity" -- lacking the genuine Tolkien element of autobiographical mind-mold (if not leafmold)--then why doesn't this issue of being genuine apply to Tolkien's own acceptance of his mythology in other art forms by other people? Autobiographical genuineness clearly didn't matter to Tolkien there.

He'd no objections to songs and stuff as he worked with Donald Swann, but I don't know if he'd have gone much for the music in the current musical as he was known not to be fond of pop music at all, as you might expect for someone born when he was.

But somehow I don't think the 'authenticity' issue is of any matter when someone is adapting a story that's already been written by Tolkien. What are they gonna do? Hop in the nearest Tardis and go back and change details of his life?