Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[davem]

Where in OFS did he say that?

Let us take what looks like a clear case of Olympian nature-myth: the Norse god Thorr. His name is Thunder, of which Thorr is the Norse form; and it is not difficult to interpret his hammer, Miollnir, as lightning. Yet Thorr has (as far as our late records go) a very marked character, or personality, which cannot be found in thunder or in lightning, even though some details can, as it were, be related to these natural phenomena: for instance, his red beard, his loud voice and violent temper, his blundering and smashing strength. None the less it is asking a question without much meaning, if we inquire: Which came first, nature allegories about personalized thunder in the mountains, splitting rocks and trees; or stories about an irascible, not very clever, redbeard farmer, of a strength beyond common measure, a person (in all but mere stature) very like the Northern farmers, the bœndr by whom Thorr was chiefly beloved? To a picture of such a man Thorr may be held to have “dwindled,” or On Fairy Stories from it the god may be held to have been enlarged. But I doubt whether either view is right—not by itself, not if you insist that one of these things must precede the other. It is more reasonable to suppose that the farmer popped up in the very moment when Thunder got a voice and face; that there was a distant growl of thunder in the hills every time a storyteller heard a farmer in a rage.

As to the 'Not inventing but receiving' thing. I don't think Tolkien ever made that statement publicly - or if he did that it was anything more than a way of referring to his 'muse'. I've lost count of the number of writers who have claimed that once they started writing their story 'wrote itself' & that the characters 'took on a life of their own'.

I don't think there's a one that wouldn't sue for plagiarism anyone who wrote a sequel to one of their books. And why? Because however you dress it up, & whatever clever arguments you use & words you twist, stealing is stealing.

[Raynor]

Davem, the passage you quoted has zero relevance to your claim "its impossible to trace any mythology back to an individual - as Tolkien points out in OFS". As far as I can tell, it discusses the subject of a story, not its authorship.

I don't think there's a one that wouldn't sue for plagiarism anyone who wrote a sequel to one of their books. And why? Because however you dress it up, & whatever clever arguments you use & words you twist, stealing is stealing.

I disagree. If I would write a book, I would definitely be thrilled if someone else picked up on it and write a sequel; I would hold the same to be true for a good deal of my friends. Not all writers are in it for the fame, the money or whatever other perks come with 'intelectual property rights'. Some would be actually pleased to see that their message got across and that it begins to have a life of his own.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I disagree. If I would write a book, I would definitely be thrilled if someone else picked up on it and write a sequel; I would hold the same to be true for a good deal of my friends. Not all writers are in it for the fame, the money or whatever other perks come with 'intelectual property rights'. Some would be actually pleased to see that their message got across and that it begins to have a life of his own.

You do it then, if you are silly enough. Sorry but after the journey I have had to endure this morning with some of Britain's finest examples of scum I am not going to put up with silliness gently.

If you really do believe that All Property Is Theft then what about I wholescale copy your posts and post them as my own work elsewhere? maybe even put them in a pamphlet of some kind and self-publish it for profit? Would you like it if another University student say copied your work and handed it on?

Of course in this day and age it is not surprising that we follow the ideas of folk like Barthes who believed the Author Is Dead and we should have a free-for-all on intellectual property. After all, we live in a society where the young do not respect the old, the rich are not kind to the poor, the chav steals from the working person etc....Such intellectual ideas are OK with the sandal wearing Islington set as hey, man, they have the trust fund to fall back on, and like, man, they don't need the dough anyway, yeahhhhh.... while all around them other people who do not feel the same see millennia-old moral codes such as Do Not Steal crumble into dust.

Course, following Barthes idea is rarely followed to the letter. Firstly as if I was to copy out one of his works and pass it off as my own, the All Property Is Theft high-mindedness would soon disappear as the lawyers came rolling in to take some royalties (not that Barthes would see any, he was knocked down by a laundry van ). Funny how in the Real World people actually DO want to make some money from their work. Although in Cloud Cuckoo Land...

And secondly - if you are on here propounding the theories of Barthes, then kindly go right now and burn all your copies of Letters, of the Biography, in fact of anything which might make you think for one second of the Author. or you are a hypocrite.

But then that is the essential downfall of Barthes and his ilk, and their theories and why they are coming to a close at last. People cannot reconcile looking at what the author says with having to accept he is dead - though they are quite happy, thank you very much, to be allowed to Say What I Like And Like What I Ruddy Well Say. Sorry guys, but even Stevie Wonder could see right through the double standards of that one

And finally if we have folk saying this:

Not all writers are in it for the fame, the money or whatever other perks come with 'intelectual property rights'.

Then what on earth is this thread still doing open?! Surely You Already Have The Opportunity To Write Fan-Fic?! is all that needs to be said. Now stop Bellyaching and go back to your desk and flipping write some, you moaning minnies!

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

You do it then, if you are silly enough.

I truly wonder, for how long does this notion of literary rights exist? Were all the writers, from the dawn of time of literature, born with it? And if not, were they silly for writting without expecting others to treat their work as untouchable?

If you really do believe that All Property Is Theft then what about I wholescale copy your posts and post them as my own work elsewhere? maybe even put them in a pamphlet of some kind and self-publish it for profit? Would you like it if another University student say copied your work and handed it on?

Anyone can go ahead and do that for my posts; they have my blessing, and it won't affect my sleep at night. I would actually be quite pleased if my thoughts are worthy of repetition in other forums, or of publishing, or of being quoted in an University environment. Conditional joy is a source of suffering .

And secondly - if you are on here propounding the theories of Barthes, then kindly go right now and burn all your copies of Letters, of the Biography, in fact of anything which might make you think for one second of the Author. or you are a hypocrite.

I hope that your flow of unjustified personal remarks will stop with your last post. I am not acquainted with the ideas of Barthes; but you pose a false dilemma, between participating with new stories to a particular universe, and valuing the contribution of the initial author; the two can perfectly coexist, without implying any fault of character on behalf of the new writer.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I truly wonder, for how long does this notion of literary rights exist? Were all the writers, from the dawn of time of literature, born with it? And if not, were they silly for writting without expecting others to treat their work as untouchable?
Anyone can go ahead and do that for my posts; they have my blessing, and it won't affect my sleep at night. I would actually be quite pleased if my thoughts are worthy of repetition in other forums, or of publishing, or of being quoted in an University environment. Conditional joy is a source of suffering .
I hope that your flow of unjustified personal remarks will stop with your last post. I am not acquainted with the ideas of Barthes; but you pose a false dilemma, between participating with new stories to a particular universe, and valuing the contribution of the initial author; the two can perfectly coexist, without implying any fault of character on behalf of the new writer.

It's no fault of character nor is it personal but a fault of the theories of Barthes and his ilk, which are thankfully now being challenged and will soon enough be abandoned by the global education system (as theories inevitably are - they cannot resist change as nothing can - which is why it's a good idea not to be too wedded to them). If you choose to believe the Author is an outmoded concept and he/she has no rights over their own work then you must also desist from making reference to said Author. I am not saying you are a hypocrite personally, but alas, not many who opt to follow those reader response/author is dead theories can find the courage to completely ignore the existence of an author - it is the inevitable result of following such an incorrect theory which causes hypocrisy. You might compare it to these people who bang on about being Green but somehow manage to justify regular global flights or owning an SUV. Annoying, isn't it?

From reading your past posts, you do seem to come down on the side of the Author - you like the Letters, you like to try to find out what Tolkein meant and get quite annoyed when people make 'subjective statements' - however this does not and cannot co-exist with the idea that Tolkien's work is also free to use as you want.

As for writers in ages long, long past, they were not making a living from their work as they are now - and like any worker a writer deserves to have their income protected - and that includes after death as that is their legacy to their family. You would not like it if the state took your house from you and installed a lot of civil servants in it when you hoped to pass it to your children? Tolkien's family deserve to benefit from his legacy - and not just his family, but all those charities - I reiterate again just what thoroughly nice people they all are.

Remember, Tolkien specified a person to have control over his literary assets - not me, not you, but Christopher and whoever CT might then deem fit. For all the muddling around over if it was mythology and if that means you may plagiarise in the next few decades at some point, The Law Says No. And Tolkien specifies that.

It's time to draw sides - are you on the side of the Marxist Barthes (far be it from me to deride a fellow leftist, but this is one who was an idiot) and want a free for all and no rights for the Author or are you on the side of the Estate, who are actually very generous to fans, already welcoming fan-fic and parody, which they are even happy to allow publication of?

[Child of the 7th Age]

It's time to draw sides - are you on the side of the Marxist Barthes (far be it from me to deride a fellow leftist, but this is one who was an idiot) and want a free for all and no rights for the Author or are you on the side of the Estate, who are actually very generous to fans, already welcoming fan-fic and parody, which they are even happy to allow publication of?

Lal,

I don't agree with the way you've posed this question. I'm uncomfortable with the "either/or".

I don't feel that anyone here is carrying a banner against the Estate or suggesting that they must immediately change an existing policy. And why must there be just two possible positions on this issue with the need to "choose sides"? On a question this complex, there can be a variety of views and approaches expressed. I almost sense that you see this as some sort of basic test of "loyalty". That also makes me uneasy.

The only thing we can be sure of is that there will be changes in the future. No one can say for sure what those changes will bring. There will be changes in technology, changes in the law, and changes in the way information is disseminated. We can only guess what all this will mean in relation to Tolkien and the Legendarium.

There are legitimate things to be said in favor of a freer sharing of information. For better or worse, technology is pulling us in that direction. There are also very legitimate things to be said in favor of protecting the author and/or the composer so that he or she can enjoy merited recognition and financial reward. But I don't think all the good or bad is on one side or the other.

If I've misread you in this, I apologize.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If you choose to believe the Author is an outmoded

I don't. I believe in cherishing the work and its author, esspecially in this case.

From reading your past posts, you do seem to come down on the side of the Author - you like the Letters, you like to try to find out what Tolkein meant and get quite annoyed when people make 'subjective statements' - however this does not and cannot co-exist with the idea that Tolkien's work is also free to use as you want.

I believe that many readers, if not most, are capable of discussing about Tolkien's work, give it its due, and at the same appreciate a new work on this universe, if it is worth it.

It's time to draw sides

To paraphrase captain Barbossa, I feel disinclined to aquiesce your request . Honestly, I don't know enough about this theory, and I am content with my own thoughts, as unstructured as they are. But perhaps the rest of my presented ideas can help you decide.

theories inevitably are [abandoned]- they cannot resist change as nothing can - which is why it's a good idea not to be too wedded to them

Then why insist on a perennial, objective theory about what should or should not be allowed?

[Lalwendë]

What makes me uneasy is this pushing at boundaries that are there, ultimately, for our benefit too.

As I keep saying - nobody is denied the opportunity to play in Middle-earth, to create anew and to rewrite as they see fit - and what's more, with the net you can share it. Why, you can even write up some absolute filth if that is how you get your kicks, and the Estate does not stop you, even though it can. If your mind strays to parody, why, then they will even allow you to publish it and profit from it. They even allow the TS, close afiliates of the estate, to publish fan-fic in their magazine and there have been numerous comic books and other interesting things based on Tolkien and his work, including a truly barking whacko mad Doctor Who novelisation (check it out, it's a hoot).

You are already adding to the stories. What more do you want?

Nobody has honestly answered that.

Raynor admits not to having a commercial or ego interest, in which case, where's the beef? Get writing!

You know who decides if this stuff is permissible within canon or not? The readers, and they say it's fun but it aint canon - so I guess that's where the gripe lies. If folk are hoping to convince readers that their creation Tharg, War-Dwarf of the Second Age, Wielder of ElfScraper is the long lost son of Gil-galad then you are going to face a long, hard struggle. Many's the time someone on here has confused a D&D or PJ creation with a Tolkien creation and been shot down in flames (ironically, by some arguing against me here I must note) with the anguished cry "Tolkien did not say that! You Infidel!"

Be honest now...

And don't flatter yourself that if you are a genuine expert and a genuinely good writer that you will get away with formally publishing even a mild re-write, a filling up the corners type of thing, because someone very well known in the TS did just that after 'persuading' a certain someone and has met with widespread approbation (and eventually ridicule) from the community. And then think of other fan communities, most of which are far less formal and pedantic than the Tolkien one (we are the biggest pedants going) and how much they hate the intrusion of non-canon material. The 'mythology or not' argument is a big stinky red herring - Star Wars fans have that one too and in the end they come down firmly against sanctioned fan-fic and some quite clever novelisations as inevitably they are not by Lucas. Despite outmoded literary theory (and pointing to why such theories are bunkum) to the reader, to the fan, the Author is still the Master of the Piece.

What I say is be happy with things as they are - people will find the good stuff. They will find davem's poetic tale, they will find the witty Entish Bow, they will find the interesting Silmarillion project, and they may even find a certain narfforc's marvellous works on a shelf one day. Things are good. What do you want to start a war for? And more importantly to me, why?

Far more fruitful is to think instead how you might draw attention to the good stuff - as there aint half a lot of chaff too, everyone knows that.

[Child of the 7th Age]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this again, but.....

Just to reiterate, I am not really interested in what is going to happen tomorrow or in the next 100 years. My interest in and reading of fanfiction is minimal. My concern lies on a broader scale. I feel this issue boils down to one central question: to what extent can/will the Legendarium be regarded as mythology and/or legend 500 years from now. Myth/legend can legitimately be told, retold, and expanded. No one, for example, would call Thomas Malory or T. H. White "fanficton" writers or look down their noses at them because they stole ideas from someone else. No poster on this thread (myself included) can answer that question with certainty, but I think it is a legitimate exercise (as Davem has done) to ask in what ways the Legendarium comes close to qualifying as "mythology" and in what ways it does not.

Davem,

You point to legitimate distinctions between the Legendarium and other forms of myth. However, I feel you stress these differences to the exclusion of some very important similarities. Specifically, I think that your proposed "tests" for determining what is myth and what is not fail to take into account the very complex and tangled nature of any mythology in terms of its creation and transmission. Your tests rest on certain assumptions about "natural myth" that I don't feel hold true.

Let's start with the question of "who" creates a myth. You see a stark line between "natural" mythology, which is created by "many" authors, versus the Legendarium, which you describe as the product of a single mind and, therefore, totally different. In reality, that distinction is not so clear cut. In 98% of the mythologies in our world, there are two phases of creation. First comes the oral tradition--verbal folklore and its transmission--that normally involves a multiplicity of tellers in a variety of settings. However, the process of telling, retelling, and creating does not stop there. The second phase is when the myth is reshaped , formalized, and most frequently put into writing. Almost always, this involves one or more specific individuals who take the older material and its many divergent and conflicting stories; make significant changes and choices; and eventually come out with a unified narrative, one that is loosely based on the old but which may be strikingly different in terms of emphasis, characters, and plotline. These differences may be so great that the author virtually creates a new myth.

Just look at the Illiad and Odyssey. With few exceptions, classical scholars have come to belive that Homer was a real person who made significant changes to the oral tradition of Greece/Asia Minor and thereby created the 24 books of the Illiad and the 24 books of the Odyssey. (Some have suggested that one writer was responsible for the Illiad and another for the Odyssey but 95% of recent scholarship is agreed that each was the work of a single author, and that this individual put them through multiple revisions before the final draft was produced.) Moreover, most classicists conclude that this involved much more than the simple retelling of an old story: the changes made by Homer were so significant that he virtually created a new story.

We can find the same process of creation and transmission if we look at Norse mythology. What started as loose oral tradition crafted by many minds was formulated and put to paper in the ninth through the twelfth centuries in what came to be known as the Elder (Poetic) Edda and the Younger or Prose Edda. In some cases, we know the names of the specific author.

The second phase of creation when the myth is sorted out by one or more specific persons and set down on paper is absolutely essential. Oral and folkloric transmission is not enough; it is the genius of a Homer or a Snorri (or a Tolkien) that allows the myth to be transformed and passed on to future generations. Without that step, without that specific person, we would be left in the dark.

While there are obvious differences between the role of Homer and Snorri on one hand, and Tolkien on the other, there are also points of similarity that should not be ignored. You have suggested that these works are different because the "natural" myths were based on an historical truth, while Tolkien's world was purely fantasy. It is true that there is a tiny grain of historical truth at the core of the Illiad and the Odyssey but 95% of the characters and episodes in those 48 books are not historical; they are fantasy--the product of Homer's imagination based on the earlier oral tradition. Thus, while Tolkien's Legendarium is "less historical" than Homer's poems, that difference is not as sharp as your posts suggest. Secondly, as Shippey and others have shown, Tolkien draws very heavily on the older mythic creations for his own subcreations. Names, races, themes, symbols--you name it--he derived them from existing myths that reach back into the oral tradition. Is this so different from what Homer and Snorri did?

Secondly, I am not comfortable with your assessment of how JRRT viewed his own work: first seeing it as myth but then consciously rejecting that formula as a result of what happened during the war. As a philologist, Tolkien was always careful about language. In the published Letters, right up to the end of his life, he referred to his writings as "mythology". Why would he use this word if he had rejected the idea of his writings as mythology? In the interests of brevity, I'll give just one example. There is a letter written in 1964 to Christopher Bretherton. It is filled with phrases like this:

....In O(xford) I wrote a cosmogonical myth.
....The magic ring was the one obvious thing in the Hobbit that could be connected with my mythology.
.....so I brought all the stuff I had written on the originally unrelated legends of Numenor into relation with the main mythology.

Altogether, he used the words "mythology" and "legend" five times in this letter when talking about his own writings. I don't think he would have loosely thrown around these terms unless they had some meaning behind them.

Another point that bears a closer look is that of belief, especially"religious belief", and its relation to Tolkien's writings. The gist of what you are saying seems to be that Tolkien cnosciously wrote fantasy. Since he did not believe these writings were "true", they could not be true myth.

I agree with your premise. At the core of a myth must lie a modicum of truth and belief. If those elements are missing, the Legendarium is not any form of myth whatever words Tolkien used to describe it. I sat and scratched my head over this for a while, but it was Bethberry's post that set off bells in my head. (Thank you. )

I can't find that source now where Tolkien says he felt like he was merely recording and not creating. I'm sure you folks with the pulse of the Letters and HoMe at your fingertip can find that passage, particularly if you think you can work it round to your side of things as the context and recipient and date must be pondered like the entrails of sacrificial animals.

Just take a look at a letter written to Carole Batten-Phelps in 1971. I am going to quote it at some length, because it is directly pertinent to this discussion of whether or not Tolkien believed what he was saying was true, and exactly where the Legendarium was coming from (the italics are Tolkien's):

I am very grateful for your remarks on the critics and for your account of your personal delight in the Lord of the Rings. You write in terms of such high praise that [to] accept it with just a 'thank you' might seem complacently conceited, though actually it only makes me wonder how this has been achieved--by me. Of course the book was written to please myself (at different levels), and as an experiment in the arts of long narrative and of inducing "Secondary Belief". It was written slowly and with great care for detail, & finally emerged as a Frameless Picture: a searchlight as it were on a brief episode in history, and on a small part of our Middle-earth, surrounded by the glimmer of limitless extensions in time and space. Very well: that may explain to some extent why it 'feels' like history; why it was accepted for publication' and why it has proved readable for a large number of very different kinds of people. But it does not fully explain what has actually happened. Looking back on the wholly unexpected things that have followed its publication--beginning at once with the appearance of Vol. I--I feel as if an ever darkening sky over our present world had been suddenly pierced, the clouds rolled back, and an almost forgotten sunlight had poured down again. As if indeed the horns of Hope had been heard again, as Pippin heard them suddenly at the absolute nadir of the fortunes of the West. But How? and Why?

I think I can now guess what Gandalf would reply. A few years ago I was visited in Oxford by a man whose name I have forgotten (though I believe he was well-known.) He had been much struck by the curious way in which many old pictures seemed to him to have been designed to illustrate The Lord of the Rings long before its time. He brought one or two reproductions. I think he wanted at first simply to discover whether my imagination had fed on pictures, as it clealy had been by cetainkinds of literature and languages. When it became obvious that , unless I was a liar, I had never seen the pictures before and was not well acquainted with pictorial Art, he fell silent. I became aware that he was looking fixedly at me. suddenly he said: "Of course you don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?"

Poor Gandalf! I was too well acquainted with G. to expose myself rashly, or to ask what he meant. I think I said: "No, I don't suppose so any longer." I have never since been able to suppose so. An alarming conclusion for for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusement. But not one that should puff any one up who considers the imperfections of 'chosen instruments', and indeed what sometimes seems their lamentable unfitness for the purpose.

The contents of this letter has always been mind-boggling to me. Obviously, Tolkien did not worship Manwe or believe that he actually existed, but on some level, there was belief: the belief that the Legendarium was not simply coming out of his own human brain but out of somewhere else. Tolkien's religious beliefs are such that he expresses this in terms of being a "chosen" instrument presumably of providence. Perhaps a number of us would feel more comfortable using terminology and images that draw on Jung. But, either way, aren't we talking about belief...the same kinds of belief that lies behind "natural myth"? What do we do with this letter? How else can we understand the sentiments that are expressed here?

And that isn't even getting into the question of the dreams of Atlantis that came to form the core of the Numenor myth!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Davem, the passage you quoted has zero relevance to your claim "its impossible to trace any mythology back to an individual - as Tolkien points out in OFS". As far as I can tell, it discusses the subject of a story, not its authorship.
.

No, its absolutely relevant. The hardest thing about having a discussion is when your opponent takes statements used in support of your argument literally - for instance if an advert for a new Jaguar sports car stated 'The New electric Blue Jaguar - 0 to 250 mph in less than 5 seconds! *(also available in red)' & I offered this as evidence that I'd seen a Red Jaguar doing 250mph. You, seemingly would come back & state 'The advert only states the Blue Jaguar can do 250 mph!'

Now, on to the Homer/Malory point. What both H&M did was to produce a work of literature, not myth. They used an existing mythic background but they were pretty free with it. As was Tolkien in his use of Nortern myth.

There are two points to make here. First no individual can invent a myth in the true sense - all an individual can do is tell a story. That story may be taken up into an existing set of other stories/traditions/lore & be absorbed, adding something new to the mix. Second, there is a difference between Myth & revelation. One person may recieve a revelation & go on to found a religion, but that it not the same thing at all as a mythology.

From this perspective it is neither here nor there that Tolkien 'believed' that in some sense his creation was 'true'. It would not be a 'myth' in the real sense unless a whole people shared that belief. If one person believes 'x' its an idiosyncracy, if a hundred people believe it its a cult. If a few thousand people believe it, its a religion. What is isn't, in any of those cases, is a myth in the true sense.

Now, as for Tolkien being happy for other's to write & publish new M-e stories with any kind of 'official' status, I can only reiterate my earlier point that

HE DIDN'T PLACE HIS WORKS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN IN HIS WILL.

He could have done. In fact what he did was bequeath his unpublished works to his son, to whom he gave absolute control, even to the point of authorising him to destory them in whole or in part if he so chose. Does this seem to anyone evidence that Tolkien wanted sequels to his work?

I also accept that Tolkien used the term 'mythology' to refer to his work in various places - most of them in private correspondence, & I can only read it as a 'shorthand' way of referring to his creation. There aren't many other words one could use to communicate the idea. Most of his correspondents would have no-more knowledge of what a 'Legendarium was than Brian's mother had of what a 'balm' was:

Mandy: What is myrrh, anyway?
Wise Man 3: It is a valuable balm.
Mandy: A balm, what are you giving him a balm for? It might bite him.
Wise Man 3: What?
Mandy: It's a dangerous animal. Quick, throw it in the trough.

[Raynor]

What more do you want?

What we already have, I guess. Freedom to decide each for ourselves what we consider allowable, appropriate, good in matters of art and culture. Regardless of the present scholar and judicial positions, be they worldwide adopted or not.

No, its absolutely relevant. The hardest thing about having a discussion is when your opponent takes statements used in support of your argument literally - for instance if an advert for a new Jaguar sports car stated 'The New electric Blue Jaguar - 0 to 250 mph in less than 5 seconds! *(also available in red)' & I offered this as evidence that I'd seen a Red Jaguar doing 250mph. You, seemingly would come back & state 'The advert only states the Blue Jaguar can do 250 mph!'

Now, on to the Homer/Malory point.

I fail to see the grounds for your generalisation, and presenting opinion as fact is not helpful. In that section, Tolkien talks about the fact that the "personality [of mythological heroes] can only be derrived from a person", that all the aspects, even those of gods, are created by humans.

The gods may derive their colour and beauty from the high splendours of nature, but it was Man who obtained these for them, abstracted them from sun and moon and cloud; their personality they get direct from him; the shadow or flicker of divinity that is upon them they receive through him from the invisible world, the Supernatural.

This is clearly a case of [conscious] invention of myths. Furthermore, at the begining of this chapter on the Origins (of fairy stories), he mentions that all the three possible origins (original invention, inheritance or diffusion) 'ultimately lead back to an inventor'. Taken figuratively or directly, neither of this passages constitute evidences of your position.

[The Saucepan Man]

In the interest of preserving the sanity of our readers, here is a handy guide to the issues raised in this thread:

Q: What was the original question?
A: Did JRRT encourage new ME stories.

Q: And the answer?
A: Well, the evidence presented seems to be that, while he did not explicitly encourage such stories, neither he nor the Estate are actively discouraging people from writing such stories (commonly known as fan fic) for their own amusement and publishing them on a non-commercial basis for the amusement of others.

Q: So what’s the rest of the thread about?
A: There would appear to be an underlying feeling that, were a sufficiently talented writer to come along and wish to add to the body of Tolkien’s published works on Middle-earth by publishing their own work based on it, this should be permitted.

Q: And the answer?
A: Well, it’s a matter of personal opinion as to whether it should be permitted. But, in practical terms, it’s up to the Estate - at least for the next 40 years or so, while the original works remain subject to copyright.

Q: Are the Estate likely to sanction such a work.
A: Unlikely, but not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Q: What about when copyright runs out.
A: Who knows? It’s far too distant in the future to be able to make any reasonable assessment.

Q: If such a work were produced, either with the approval of the Estate, or after copyright runs out, would it be canonical?
A: Don’t ask. Therein lies madness.

Q: So, if people can produce fan-fic at the moment and the prospect of any commercially published and officially sanctioned work is currently a matter for the Estate, what’s all the argument about?
A: Search me.

Q: What’s all this discussion about whether Tolkien’s Middle-earth works constitute a mythology?
A: I’m not certain, but I think that those who consider that Tolkien intended his work to constitute a mythology are asserting that this indicates an encouragement to those who might wish to add to it.

Q: And the answer?
A: There doesn’t seem to be a definitive answer, but it’s irrelevant to the current situation anyway, given the practical and legal position, as noted above. There is an interesting residual question over how Tolkien’s works might come to be regarded in the future, which may be of interest to some, but this is certainly something on which no definitive conclusion may be reached.

Q: Anything else worth noting?
A: No, not really apart from a lot of unnecessary assertions and counter-assertions, much bluster, a modicum of personal prejudice and not a little showing off.

Q: Aren't you showing off by posting this?
A: Probably, yes.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

Q: So, if people can produce fan-fic at the moment and the prospect of any commercially published and officially sanctioned work is currently a matter for the Estate, what’s all the argument about?
A: Search me.

Indeed.

The only honest answer I've got to that so far is that I wanna be free, man.

Oh honestly, quit bellyaching and go and write some fan-fic if you must, you lot - but no Princess Tippy Toes or you're dead!

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I fail to see the grounds for your generalisation, and presenting opinion as fact is not helpful. In that section, Tolkien talks about the fact that the "personality [of mythological heroes] can only be derrived from a person", that all the aspects, even those of gods, are created by humans.
.

Of course. Just because a scientist shows how life originated on earth, it doesn't disprove your theory that it originated on the moon & was carried here by space monkeys - because while he spelled out how it originated on earth, he didn't actually write the words 'Life did not originate on the moon & there are no such things as space monkeys,'