Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

For what it’s worth, davem and Lalwendë are, as one would expect, correct in their description of English terminology differing between the classes. In my experience, this is far less of an issue these days, although it can still crop up from time to time (as in the case of the recent fuss over words used by Kate Middleton’s mother, which I personally found rather cruel and silly). However, I still have my lunch during the day and my dinner in the evening, and would find it strange to do otherwise (although I use serviettes, rather than napkins, and relax on the sofa in the lounge, rather than sitting on the settee in the sitting-room ).

It is also fairly clear, in my view, that Tolkien based Hobbit society primarily, although not wholly, on English country life around the turn of the century, and that there is a palpable “class system” in the Shire.

That said, I find the evidence suggesting that Tolkien used the word “lunch” in LotR to support this portrayal of Hobbit society extremely thin. Had he intended to do so, I strongly suspect that he would have been more careful in his use of terminology when acting as narrator, particularly in describing proceedings at the Long Expected Party, and he would not have had Old Nokes use the term “dinner” to describe an evening meal (and nor would he have had Bilbo, an affluent middle-classed Hobbit, use the same term for the midday meal).

However, while (for these reasons) I find the substance of this digression irrelevant to the main thrust of this thread, it does raise a valid issue, which is the one that Thena has been trying to tease out. Given that Tolkien, being an individual, had a unique perspective on life, no one (not even Christopher, although he would come the closest) could ever write a tale set within Middle-earth which would be entirely consistent with Tolkien’s own Middle-earth writings. None of us would be able to ‘get’, let alone reproduce, every single ingredient which went into making his tales what they are. Does that mean that no one should try? Leaving aside the question of authorisation, which is a matter for the Estate, I cannot for the life of me see why not. If people derive pleasure from writing fan-fic and others derive pleasure from reading it, what is the problem? What does it matter if Hobbits do lunch or Elves snort? If you do not like it, you do not have to read it.

I think most readers of Tolkien get the point, SpM, about terminology and class distinctions. To belabour the point is to impose an inviolable meaning on the usage that is not consistently born out by the text--it is, as you say, "thin". After all, all this digression really arose from the complaint about a fanfiction that used the term "lunch" for hobbits. It was said to demonstrate the difficulty in emulating Tolkien's style.

The style/language associated with M-e is Tolkien's own, & in a strange way the tales, for me have to be told in that style, using that language. The style is an essential part of the tale being told. Hence my sudden feeling of 'NO!!!' when on reading Mith's tale of Eressea last night I came across 'Pengolodh snorted'. Elves do not 'snort'. Well, Tolkien's Elves don't. Come to that, I read one of the Downs RPG's long ago, in which a character had to run home for 'Lunch'. Now, lunch is wrong. 'Luncheon' is pushing it. 'Nuncheon' might work for a midday meal, but Hobbits would have Dinner at mid-day. Breakfast, dinner, tea, supper. That's what Tolkien's models in Warwickshire & Berkshire would call them. Hobbits, in short, never, ever have 'lunch'. Even something as trivial as that will jar some of us out of the story.

With the several examples, from both hobbits and narrator, that some of Tolkien's hobbits did in fact do lunch, the original complaint about a fanfiction's incorrect style should, I think, now be dismissed.

The interpretation of Thena's point applies not only to Christopher Tolkien but to Tolkien himself. After all, he was constantly revising for consistency, no? It is difficult to define absolutely a "Style" that evolved even with the original author, over decades.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

With the several examples, from both hobbits and narrator, that some of Tolkien's hobbits did in fact do lunch, the original complaint about a fanfiction's incorrect style should, I think, now be dismissed.

The fanfic or rpg - whichever it was (can't remember) was set in a rural Hobbit community & I think I've shown that rural usage would exclude the usage of 'lunch' for the mid-day meal. That was the point I was making. I'm sorry that American English doesn't correspond exactly to British-(let alone late 19th Century Warwickshire-) English, but that doesn't justify dismissing as non-existent something which any English speaker of English would recognise as significant. Claiming the evidence is 'thin' is hardly relevant or correct here - I ask again whether any English person (up to very recent times at least) would not naturally choose one over the other & whether they would not be able to tell which class said choice would place a speaker in. Again, sorry, but just because in American/Canadian usage there is no significant difference between the two doesn't mean there is no significance in English usage. Unfortunately for some Tolkien was English & there are subtleties of English usage which non English people will not pick up on.

These are cultural niceties, admittedly. I'm sure, for example, a Canadian would have no problem with an American 'dismissing' similar uniquely Canadian cultural niceties & turns of phrase as meaningless, or refusing to acknowledge they even exist ....

EDIT oh yes....

[Morwen]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Well, I know that we jokingly call ourselves dead here, but I didn't think CSI type forensic data was the bailiwick of literary discussions.

alatar could be heading us in that direction though, with his scientific threads and all.

In this case we are addressing a specific question, the answer to which may or may not appear in material written by Tolkien and published either before his death or after. If it is that someone is convinced that Tolkien did encourage more ME stories by other writers, then I think the first question to ask is "Did he say so?" Looking at his actions to establish that he did encourage new tales has to be a secondary activity, a question of looking for indirect evidence where direct evidence doesn't exist. "Actions speak louder than words" isn't applicable here. Words directly address the issue. Actions have to be interpreted and interpretations may differ.

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by Davem

I'm sorry that American English doesn't correspond exactly to British-(let alone late 19th Century Warwickshire-) English, but that doesn't justify dismissing as non-existent something which any English speaker of English would recognise as significant.

The very point I've been trying to make, so far unsuccessfully, is not that such cultural minutia is non-existent (though it might be), but that whether or not it exists it is irrelevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the story as Tolkien intended it for a worldwide audience.

I have read all the foregoing posts about the varying interpretations of the noonday meal versus the evening meal, and come away not only unconvinced one way or the other, but reduced to a frustrating apathy about it. To me, if Tolkien had intended to make some kind of statement about the English classes, he was possessed of the wit, vocabulary, and intelligence to make it as obvious as he desired in the text, something that would be readily discerned in whatever language into which LOTR might be translated. The fact that it is not obvious (as shown by the fact that it has to be dragged through such pointed discussion) demonstrates to my own satisfaction that the niceties of meal timing were not uppermost in the author's intents.

LOTR is a genius fantasy with soaring overarching themes: Justice, mercy, defeat, triumph, comradeship, loyalty, honor, courage...and here we are consuming prodigious quantities of Net bandwidth discussing the definition of "dinner". PUH-lease, do you not see the absurdity of it?

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I am the culprit.

I used the word "lunch" in my fan fiction!

In the serious one, telling the story of Frodo's friend Folco, who is mentioned at the beginning of LotR and then drops completely out of the story.

However, as I researched painstakingly, the "lunch" reference came directly from Tolkien's own words. In "Three is Company", we read:

Folco went home after lunch...

Since it is the last time one of Frodo's closest friends is mentioned in the book, that line sparked my interest and led me write the story.

So sue me.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

The very point I've been trying to make, so far unsuccessfully, is not that such cultural minutia is non-existent (though it might be), but that whether or not it exists it is irrelevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the story as Tolkien intended it for a worldwide audience.

I have read all the foregoing posts about the varying interpretations of the noonday meal versus the evening meal, and come away not only unconvinced one way or the other, but reduced to a frustrating apathy about it. To me, if Tolkien had intended to make some kind of statement about the English classes, he was possessed of the wit, vocabulary, and intelligence to make it as obvious as he desired in the text, something that would be readily discerned in whatever language into which LOTR might be translated. The fact that it is not obvious (as shown by the fact that it has to be dragged through such pointed discussion) demonstrates to my own satisfaction that the niceties of meal timing were not uppermost in the author's intents.
LOTR is a genius fantasy with soaring overarching themes: Justice, mercy, defeat, triumph, comradeship, loyalty, honor, courage...and here we are consuming prodigious quantities of Net bandwidth discussing the definition of "dinner". PUH-lease, do you not see the absurdity of it?

I don't think Tolkien intended hos work for any audience in particular beyond his kids for The Hobbit and himself and the Inklings for LotR, all people from his little world. He had no 'global vision' in mind - such things are reserved for the modern writer and we are imposing our modern views upon him. Had he been intending such Politically Correct things for his work he might also have been a tad more careful about his 'swarthy' baddies and his lack of modern bluestocking women he was also not given to writing things that might hit the reader over the head with a sledgehammer to make a 'point'. He spoke of how he disliked the tendency of Lewis to do this, he spoke of his dislike of allegory. He was subtle. Of course it is not obvious to all, but his use of class is certainly obvious to many - not only me, davem, SpM have noticed it, but you'll find Shippey and Garth too have noticed it.

The Sackville-Baggins are directly drawn from a certain class of arriviste, nouveau, middle-class English that were (and still are) prevalent when Tolkien wrote - their vocal and visible pre-occupation with money and property in contrast to Bilbo's quiet gentility.

Garth and Shippey also pointed out that they are also drawn from Tolkien's particular distaste for the self-styled Aesthetes and the Bloomsbury Set. Sackville? A name also to be found in one Bloomsbury personage Vita Sackville-West. Tolkien was known to associate more with the 'hearty' set at Oxford.

Another example is the wonderful flustering of Bilbo early in the Hobbit - it is exactly the reaction of a typical English person to an unwanted visitor - unable to turn Gandalf away and yet desperate to do so. He's suspicious of strangers, as are all Hobbits, yet unable to bring himself to be rude to them. He does not want these Dwarves eating his food yet he feels he must be hospitable. It's just wonderful. Bilbo is the perfect gentle pen-picture of the Little Englander.

And of course we all know about Sam, drawn from the ordinary English soldier, the rural boy cast into desperate circumstances.

Now, why can nobody answer my question about why you are all so flustered by the simple fact that Tolkien was English and did make use of English things? Why must we be so bland and Politically Correct? People the world over love Tolkien, Americans more than most, but they can also accept the wonderful quirky English stuff contained therein.

I know it's a hard thing to take on board that some (not necessarily all) British readers will understand some of the subtleties more than some (not necessarily all) non-British readers, but hey, it's a fact that I really don't understand many of the references in Hollywood films - I'm not insulted when someone explains them though. Someone please answer exactly what is so insulting about a British reader pointing up a British quirk to be found in a British book? Are you also insulted by reading footnotes in a Chaucer text? The Director's commentary on a difficult arty film?

So, if nobody can answer that, then the position now is that his Englishness and his class and his background is just a bit dirty somehow? Is that Political Correctness not also insulting to British readers and to Tolkien himself?

[Thenamir]

Now, why can nobody answer my question about why you are all so flustered by the simple fact that Tolkien was English and did make use of English things?

I'm not flustered, except by the noise being generated by arguing the point, not whether Tolkien acknowledged class differences in the Shire, which could very well be, but by the flatulence being spewed over "dinner" versus "supper".

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

The very point I've been trying to make, so far unsuccessfully, is not that such cultural minutia is non-existent (though it might be), but that whether or not it exists it is irrelevant to the enjoyment and understanding of the story as Tolkien intended it for a worldwide audience.

Its not 'irrelevant' if Tolkien put it in. Look at the nasturtians vs. nasturtiums thing. Its not a major theme in the book, & the bigger themes are accessible to everyone. But the little things which are interesting & enlightening in their own way too. If Tolkien had only wanted to focus on the big things there would be no Hobbits in the book.

I have read all the foregoing posts about the varying interpretations of the noonday meal versus the evening meal, and come away not only unconvinced one way or the other, but reduced to a frustrating apathy about it. To me, if Tolkien had intended to make some kind of statement about the English classes, he was possessed of the wit, vocabulary, and intelligence to make it as obvious as he desired in the text, something that would be readily discerned in whatever language into which LOTR might be translated. The fact that it is not obvious (as shown by the fact that it has to be dragged through such pointed discussion) demonstrates to my own satisfaction that the niceties of meal timing were not uppermost in the author's intents.

Well, first of all, to me it is glaringly obvious - it screams out. But it wouldn't necessarily do so to a non-English reader. Look, this isn't about whether the mid-day meal is called dinner or lunch. Its about who calls the mid day meal what. 'Lunch' is a term used by one class & 'dinner' is used by another class. And for the record Bilbo & Frodo are certainly not the same class as Merry & Pippin. Merry & Pippin are the closest the Shire has to an upper class, yet they are clearly not 'upper class' in the sense that Aragorn, Elrond & Galadriel are - they are 'Gentry'. Bilbo & Frodo are middle-class - but of a particular kind - Bilbo in particular is a one-nation Tory & Frodo shows much the same inclinations. M&P, to my mind, are Blairites - which is why they will adopt a neologism like 'lunch' over 'dinner', because they are 'trendy liberals' - or like to think of themselves so (as long as they can keep their nice stuff & give orders to the lower orders when necessary. Bilbo & Frodo, like Sam & the Gaffer, will favour older terms like 'dinner'. Its not about the words, but about who is speaking them. Hence, these terms are not 'interchangeable'.

LOTR is a genius fantasy with soaring overarching themes: Justice, mercy, defeat, triumph, comradeship, loyalty, honor, courage...and here we are consuming prodigious quantities of Net bandwidth discussing the definition of "dinner". PUH-lease, do you not see the absurdity of it?

Hobbits are 'absurd'. And in a sense that is the real point. Tolkien points up their absurdity repeatedly. 'We can't live too long on the heights'.

Justice, mercy, defeat, triumph, comradeship, loyalty, honor, courage.

Yes, yes. The Sil is full of that - & there's no arguing about whether its lunch or dinner in there.....only thing is The Sil doesn't touch our hearts in the way LotR does. If you look at the greats of English literature - from Chaucer down through Austen to the Brontes & Hardy, you'll find subtle commentaries on social mores - & I dare say most readers miss out on a lot of them, or dismiss them as irrelevant to the bigger points the author is making.

Everything in LotR is in there because Tolkien chose to put in there. To say 'I acknowledge it's there, but it doesn't interest me' is fine. To say 'It's not there' when it clearly is is not. Hobbits are not Numenoreans - ie they are not some kind of mid Atlantic race & The Shire is not the 51st State. It is an idealised (though not perfect) representation of the rural England Tolkien knew as a child - with its class differences, its language & its values. You can't simply dismiss that. Now, once the Shire is left behind we enter a more universal, historical/mythical world. This is not about staking a claim to Tolkien's work - its about acknowledging the sources Tolkien drew on.

[Bêthberry]

Ah ha! Estelyn has spilled the beans, drawn my thunder, precipitated my plans. I was all set to announce a contest where we all read the BD fanfiction and RPGs to find this lunch that was so nauseating for davem, but alas elves pulled me away from this sub-topic and now we all know to pursue the MeriSue.

The point is not that we North Americans just don't get English social status. We do. The point is not that we demand some bland Politically Correct interpretations. We don't. Those are mischaracterisations of the argument here. They are in fact red herrings that ignore the basic thrust of the various positions here.

The point is that there is no one absolute, authoritative way to read LotR or to judge its style or to hold fanfiction writers to some absolute way of writing. If lunch jumps out for some Yorkshire readers, Roman Catholic symbols and colours jump out for other readers. And literary allusions to all kinds of sagas, myths, legends, literary works, and archetypes keep wafting into other readers' minds, like savoury stew simmering.

Language changes over time as well as over water. What may serve to inspire readers of one generation will perhaps bore another generation, who will find something else in the books. And the really good fanfiction writers will be doing that mediating between their culture and the books and the milieu which formed Tolkien, if they are to attract readers to their imagined world of Middle-earth.

There are, indeed, many ways to do lunch.