Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

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.

Eggzackly. It's all fine and dandy all this postmodern footling and pottering, but there are ultimately a few rules and one of them, no matter how much French academics in the 60s doped up on who-knows-what try to be all clever about the Author being Dead, is that a particular person writes a book. No, you don't write it. No, I don't write it. Only one person writes it. Sorry, but there is no glory in the reader claiming to be the author too, because they aren't. They are a reader, and are free to make up what 'meaning' they will from a book, but they did not sit there and put the words on the page, and that's the end of it.

Theories? There's only so far that the theory can go until like all theories, it collapses in a gibbering heap somewhere around its own hairy navel and we all start laughing at it. If that makes me no better than one of the apes who puzzles at the monolith at the beginning of 2001 A Space Odyssey then so be it. Rather that than make myself disappear up said ape's butt.

[Morwen]

Originally posted by Raynor
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.

So origin doesn't matter? Authenticity is merely a question of getting the details right?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morwen

So origin doesn't matter? Authenticity is merely a question of getting the details right?

Authenticity can be determined or guided by consistency with the text, the work itself. After all, medieval scholars like Tolkien often worked with texts with unknown authors, and so they did their work based on textual and linquistic considerations, not on who the author was.

You know, Lal, there was a time when the Downs had a very strong sense of courtesy and decorum regarding how to conduct our discussions. We would query and refute the ideas but we would not resort to attacking our "opponents" by claiming they situated themselves in scatological places. Cleverly contrived ad hominem attacks, even with wit, are still attacks on the person rather than the ideas. They demean the entire discussion.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Authenticity can be determined or guided by consistency with the text, the work itself. After all, medieval scholars like Tolkien often worked with texts with unknown authors, and so they did their work based on textual and linquistic considerations, not on who the author was.

You know, Lal, there was a time when the Downs had a very strong sense of courtesy and decorum regarding how to conduct our discussions. We would query and refute the ideas but we would not resort to attacking our "opponents" by claiming they situated themselves in scatological places. Cleverly contrived ad hominem attacks, even with wit, are still attacks on the person rather than the ideas. They demean the entire discussion.

Maybe Downers should not dish out such tasty dishes of vitriol and then complain when their dinner guests serve up bile on the return visit? When I have a fight, if my opponent chooses a brace of pistols I will not be satisfied with accepting a mere wet handkerchief for myself. One is not the only shrew around these parts.

Oh yes, the thread....Tolkien working on the text of Beowulf with its unknown author is a whole different kettle of fish than one of us thinking about Tolkien - who was, errr, Tolkien! Or maybe Lewis wrote LotR, in a kinda 20th century Shakespeare/Marlowe type twist? That way madness lies.....

[Child of the 7th Age]

Frankly, I think SpM's earlier post summed up the current situation with a fair degree of accuracy. There is little doubt as to the short-term answer to this question. There is little financial or literary reason for the Estate to open up the floodgates to one or more "authorized" extensions of Middle-earth. Whether we want more stories or hate the whole idea of any additions to the Legendarium, I doubt it's going to happen in the short term beyond what is registered on ephemeral fanfiction sites. So where does that leave us?

I would say that the ins and outs of what will happen in the next fifty years--which "products" or "expressions" are licensed and which are not-- hold only limited interest for me. What I am more interested in knowing is this: what will happen to Tolkien's writings and to Middle-earth 200 or 500 or 1,000 years from now? That seems to me a much more legitimate question, and one that does not have a clear cut answer. The Estate as a legal entity is unlikely to exist. Copyright will be gone. Will interest in Tolkien still be as strong and vibrant as it is today? Will people connect with the story and characters on some essential level, or will Middle-earth simply be regarded by a few interested scholars as a pleasant but anachronistic expression of the twentieth century?

Earlier in this thread--I am too lazy to lay my hands on it, Davem dismissed the idea that the body of Tolkien's writings could be viewed as mythology. I do not agree. I feel that if the Legendarium holds meaning -- real long term meaning that spills over into the future -- then Middle-eath will ultimately be viewed as a mythic creation rather than a series of discrete novels and poems. Interestingly, it's the work of Christopher that has made this possible. By presenting us with HoMe, we are given a wider picture of Tolkien's world than is possible from merely reading those stories that were published in the author's lifetime. It's also because of the work of scholars like Flieger and Hammond and especially Shippey. We understand to what extent Tolkien drew on existing myth and legend and history for his own subcreation, just as all true myth does.

And like other true myths, the Legendarium touches us because it explains something about how our world and feelings and values evolved. It does this by creating a world and a time that have no exact parallel in the historical framework of mankind as we know it. That is exactly what works like the Illiad and Odyssey or the Arthurian legends do. Some people see the Legendarium's meaning in the context of Christianity; others focus on faerie, on the natural world, the Norse/Finnish paradigm, or even the "post-modern" dispair of the Children of Hurin. But almost all who read Tolkien are seeing and hearing not just the specific characters he's created, but ghostly spirits of meaning that haunt the surrounding landscape.

If the Legendarium is nothing more than a number of specific, finite pieces of literature (however well crafted), then it would be inappropriate for anyone to try and write another story and say that it is a legitimate extension of Tolkien's Middle-earth. But if Middle-earth is more than that, if it comes to be regarded as myth or the creation of an alternate world, why can't we have other people continuing the same story some 500 years from now?

I'm not afraid about the quality of the stories that will be passed on. There are some dreadful retellings/extensions of the Arthurian legends, but there are also wonderful and vibrant expressions of these stories in the form of novels, poetry and drama. These adaptations have enriched our understanding; they have added to the orginal telling rather than diminished it in any way. Moreover, time and good taste has winnowed the good from the bad. We don't remember the potboilers. We do remember retellings by folk like Malory, T.H. White, Tennyson, and Charles Williams. The same is true for the ancient legends. I am willing to admit that Homer (or whoever he was) stands head and shoulders over all his later interpreters, but I wouldn't want to lose the latter, simply because they didn't supply the original genius. And, again, I don't think their adaptations in any way diminish what Homer accomplished.

Why can't it be the same for Middle-earth?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Why can't it be the same for Middle-earth?

Because it is only a faux mythology. Sorry, but that's what it is. It was created out of the imagination of one man. A Mythology or legend is wholly different and springs from the collective mind. Tolkien, unless he had some kind of split personality disorder, was a man with only one mind.

Myth cycles are/were sacred to the peoples who wrote them down and who passed on the stories. They are religious texts in effect which have become denigrated by other religions and regimes which followed. They have been left free to muck around with as we see fit.

I have to say that Tolkien would have been horrified to think that his little story, his personal creation, would one day replace all the genuine myths and legends out there, would stomp all over the fragility of our real history. Arthur was a real person, so was Robin Hood, and Atlantis is from the collective ancient memory. They are ours, but can so easily be lost. Once we start muddying the waters - as the French did with Arthur - what was real will so easily be lost. Not only can we lose our genuine Mythology but we could lose the coherence of Tolkien's Art too.

Someone once said in relation to Tolkien's misquoted line about dedicating a mythology to England (not replacing one, or providing one, but honouring us as a people with one he had made up) that he was wrong. What he achieved in actuality was to create a mythology for Americans. And I think that's the way it is going - you can see it in the Disneyfied Hobbit holes being built, the way a very different type of Christian to what Tolkien was is claiming the text for themselves, the way the Beautiful People of the Elves have been latched onto...Someone may well be the brightest, most creative Tolkien expert in the world, but if they are a sunny Floridian Baptist product of a right wing meritocracy then I'm afraid they are worlds away from the mindset of a gently eccentric, Middle class, Oxford boffin living in post war austerity England.

Sorry to bust a few daydreams of RPG-ers but under all this clever talk of postmodernism blah blah lies the simple fact that if you are any good at writing and have an ounce of creativity then one day you ought to go and found your own worlds instead of copying Tolkien. Not only is that lazy but it also means the general public will continue to suffer from a dearth of genuine, decent original fiction and have to continue to put up with the derivative pap that calls itself 'postmodern'.

And there's the rub. Some people see it as legitimate fun, which it genuinely is in its current state. But as for commercial gain or getting the ego boost of the shiny gold JRRT logo on a book with your name on it - I see that as cheap and tacky. Tolkien's might only be a faux mythology but it's as fragile as a real one.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Because it is only a faux mythology. Sorry, but that's what it is. It was created out of the imagination of one man. A Mythology or legend is wholly different and springs from the collective mind. Tolkien, unless he had some kind of split personality disorder, was a man with only one mind.

The very fact that a Legendarium is made by several persons goes against your argument. If a Legendarium is better/ more real/ more authentic based on the fact that more people contributed to it, then, by your own line of reasoning, we need more authors to contribute to this Legendarium. Ironic .

Anyway, Tolkien had zero problems with making myths. Not only did he consider this possible, even nowadays, he also didn't exclude anyone from being able to make myths, as far as I am aware. And as far as your statement that "Myth cycles are/were sacred to the peoples who wrote them down and who passed on the stories", Tolkien did consider myths as a spiritual instrument.

Originally Posted by Chapter three, Part Four, "J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography" by Humphrey Carpenter

Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

If the Legendarium is nothing more than a number of specific, finite pieces of literature (however well crafted), then it would be inappropriate for anyone to try and write another story and say that it is a legitimate extension of Tolkien's Middle-earth. But if Middle-earth is more than that, if it comes to be regarded as myth or the creation of an alternate world, why can't we have other people continuing the same story some 500 years from now?

I think you have put the question in a true light, Child, thinking not now of fanfics and Estates and canonicity questions, but ruminating on how people might respond a hundred, two hundred, five hundred years from now. I don't think the question can be absolutely determined ideologically, by saying either yay or nay to definitions of mythology, copyright, etc. It will be determined by how the stories themselves take life in the mind of readers and tellers. If the stories do come to ressemble our Arthurian legends, or the Greek ones, or the Norse ones in their status as stories told and retold, then in fact Tolkien will have encouraged new ME stories, through the inspiration of his stories, rather than through any prose edict or letter.

The elder myths were oral tales which were then collected and written down. Who is to say that whatever lies ahead for this planet, the reverse cannot happen, that written tales come to have life as oral tales. That scenario may or may not depend upon the eradication of books and reading, but even now it is amazing to hear what tales be retold and reshivered around summer campfires in my part of the world.

[Sauron the White]

One of the things I remember from my Debate class in college (so many many years ago) was a lesson very early that went like this:

"One of the most important things in Debate is the definition of terms. How you define the important terms central to the issue - broadly or narrowly - can significantly determine your success."

Its sad that these type of things always come down to definitions and how people attempt to twist them to their own purposes. This latest business about how JRRT was NOT creating a mythology but a fake mythology is simply more intellectual craftsmanship designed to "win" this particular argument. What ever happened to all I have read over the years that one of the goals of JRRT was to create a mythology for England?

All of this becomes an exercise in semantics and legalism and borders on the arcane. Intellectual gymnastics employed to justify a particular personal position on an issue which is not clear at all. More heat than light is shed.

[Child of the 7th Age]

The elder myths were oral tales which were then collected and written down. Who is to say that whatever lies ahead for this planet, the reverse cannot happen, that written tales come to have life as oral tales. That scenario may or may not depend upon the eradication of books and reading, but even now it is amazing to hear what tales be retold and reshivered around summer campfires in my part of the world.

Yes, Bêthberry, thanks. That was the basic mindset behind my post. The advent of new technologies and methods of dissemination for both stories and music is already making old paradigms obsolete. This is true not only in relation to Tolkien but for other authors and composers as well. I am not sure what the future will hold but I don't think it's wise to shut the door and deny the reality of further change. I can't say with one hundred percent certainty that the Legendarium will be regarded in the same light as the Arthurian tales are today, but I think there is a strong possibility this will happen.

In any case, I am uncomfortable with looking at things purely from the vantage of 2007, and saying that our present framework is set in stone and will never change. The one consistency over time is change. Five hundred years ago, books were uncommon; today we have mass market paperbacks and people sharing their creations and thoughts on the internet. While I have no precise idea what tomorrow will bring, I do see a general trend that is already in progress: the freer dissemination and spread of ideas and stories. This not only affects the reader; it also affects the author and the way stories are created, spread, and retold.

In terms of retelling or expanding on the Legendarium, I would prefer to focus on Tolkien's own behavior during his lifetime rather than second guessing his words after his death. The change I'm describing had already started in the sixties when appreciative fans regularly published fanfiction stories in the zines of local Tolkien groups, at least within the U.S.. (I am less familiar with what happened in Britain.) JRRT was certainly aware of that fact. Interviews with the author and other family members (especially Priscilla) appeared in the very same issues of journals that contained new Middle-earth stories. These stories were generally written by people who were more than "casual fans"; the authors were individuals like Vera Chapman who cared about Middle-earth and who spun stories very much in keeping with the values and ideas expressed in the Legendarium (or the portion of the Legendarium that was publically known at that time). Some of these folk (like Chapman) did go on to create their own published fantasy novels. These same people attended annual conferences and meetings and shared stories in small group sessions. In all those years, I can not recall a single instance when JRRT complained about what these people were doing.

Today we have millions of folk around the world who call themselves fans of Middle-earth. Back then, it was different. Fan groups were small and intimate; many had personal ties with the author. I know at least two people from college who wrote Tolkien and received courteous replies. If at any time in these years, Tolkien would have objected to fanfiction stories (as Anne Rice, for example, has done), the local societies would have pulled back and never published any additional stories. They respected Tolkien too much to go against his wishes. But that never happened because no complaint was ever made by JRRT or any other family member.

JRRT did howl about the way professional screenwriters proposed to treat Lord of the Rings; he disliked what they were doing to his characters and plot. His attitude towards what was happening on campuses in the U.s. and in local Tolkien groups was quite gentle. He was baffled and amused by the craziness: activities such as donning costumes, writing fanfiction and songs, mimicking hobbit behavior, distributing Middle-earth buttons and taking Middle-earth names. But, although JRRT considered such intense involvement with the Legendarium as rather odd, he did not express anger or take a strictly dogmatic position. He even proposed a scheme for doling out names for conference attendees: every delegate should be called by the name of a particular community in the Shire.

Over the years, with the explosion of the fan base, the proliferation of fanfics (including ones that would have made JRRT groan), and the fact that major bucks are definitely at stake, the situation is no longer this fluid or friendly. The Estate has understandably taken a more conservative stance. Things have become institutionalized. There's nothing wrong with this. It's needed. But we should remember there was a time when things were different, and we can't assume that the future will be an exact replica of what exists in 2007. Needs, techologies and perspectives probably will change in ways I can't even imagine.

Plus, I still can not get over the fact that Tolkien himself felt that he was "subcreating" a world. He used the word mythology to describe his own writing. My gut feeling is that there are many points of similarity between bodies of myth/legend like the Illiad, Beowulf, and the Arthurian tales and what Tolkien produced. Beowulf is certainly not based on any significant historical fact, but who would deny that the story has become part of the legends of the western world? And it has been told and retold by other minds. Ninety percent of what is in the Odyssey and Illiad is sheer fantasy despite the tiny grain of historical fact that lies at the center. Given the passage of 500 years, I don't think we'll see a huge distinction between these works and what Tolkien did.

And if you deny that Tolkien was producing "written myth", then how do you account for the Kalevala and the author's own attitude towards the modern rendition of that work? Tolkien was certainly inspired by these tales. He considered the modern telling to be a form of myth. The modern telling went far beyond the original tales almost to the point of transforming them. Moreover, Tolkien himself wrote a "fanfiction" based on the tale of Kullervo. Eventually, those themes and ideas came peaking through in his own rendition of the Children of Hurin. Just how different is that? Tolkien drew upon faerie paradigms as well as character names, northern attitudes, and even plot twists that originated in Norse and Germanic legends. He took these one step further and subcreated another world. I see this as one step in a continuing process that does not stop, and eventually other voices and other retellings will be heard....perhaps 500 years from now...long after anyone here is around.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Morwen

So origin doesn't matter?

It is not the only issue; if the value of the work itself dissapears, or its relation to the original fictional universe, then what would drive one forward is simply curiosity, I believe

Authenticity is merely a question of getting the details right?

I doubt that art can be reduced to this.