Leaf by Niggle - Allegory??

[doug*platypus]

I've equipped my Rohan shield in anticipation of the usual barrage of anti-allegory JRRT quotes.

Leaf by Niggle showed me a different side of Tolkien the writer, and I really enjoyed it. It seems a rail against the modern world in the spirit of George Orwell's 1984 or The Wall by Pink Floyd. Am I wrong, or does Niggle get judged and placed into heaven by a panel of godlike judges? And then Parish comes along as well, because Niggle wanted him there, right? What kind of a place does he end up in? It's not a lunatic asylum, is it?

I've only read the story once so far, and am still very confused about it. I'd be interested to hear from any other people who have read it. If you haven't read it, it can be found in compilations Tales from the Perilous Realm or Tree and Leaf.

[Belin]

Let's see, "Leaf by Niggle" as an allegory... *digdigdig*

Aha! Here it is!

Of course, the focus there is slightly different from yours, but it's worth a look.

Boy, I really seem to be functioning a lot as a search engine lately... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

--Belin Ibaimendi

[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: Belin ]

[doug*platypus]

functioning a lot as a search engine

And fair enough, too, Belin! Unfortunately I only read a couple of the results it turned up before I decided I could post a new one. The link you have there is the most elaborate, and if I had read that first I probably would have not started a new topic.

Nevertheless, my title was mainly designed to refer to Tolkien's supposed hatred for allegory, hopefully toning down his perceived strictness on the subject and allowing all to delve into his works for meaning without any feelings of guilt. And it's also good to bring up the topic again. It's a fantastic story, and the more we refer to it the more people will read it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

doug, the story is indeed allegorical, but less about outside issues than about inner personal issues. Tom Shippey calls it an 'autobiographical allegory' and I agree with that opinion. There is more about that in the thread to which Belin linked, but I would like to answer the main question you asked here.

The place to which Niggle comes (and later Parish) is the afterlife, since the journey he had to make was death. At first he comes into Purgatory, a Catholic concept which involves penance for sins. After that he 'graduates' to Heaven, in this case, seeing the results of his lifelong work come to fruition.

This story was written at a discouraging time of Tolkien's life. The second 'autobiographical allegory' he wrote in the last years of his life is Smith of Wootton Major. It has quite a different outlook on his life. It is also discussed in the above-mentioned thread, the Autobiographical Tolkien, which I recommend reading.

I also highly recommend Tom Shippey's book Tolkien: The Author of the Century. It explains much of the background of Tolkien's works and gives some interpretations as well.

[Kalessin]

The analysis of Leaf by Niggle and other stories as either allegories or similar is very erudite, and the thread linked to by Estelyn is fascinating and full of interesting detail about Tolkien's life.

However, I would just draw back slightly from the inevitable game of "who does x represent?" and "Tolkien had a bad leg, so this is all about that" etc.

These kinds of analysis carry the danger - not the certainty, but the possibility - of becoming a reductive exercise, a deconstruction of something that is inherently more than the sum of its parts into a kind of code. It is symptomatic perhaps of our tendency to equate understanding with order. The end result is that the story or art need never have been created at all, or that it was/is simply introspective therapy.

If we take every scene, perhaps every word, as a symbol - a code - that can and should be cracked and rationalised, that all ambiguity can be washed away by inference, that we can fill in the gaps by assuming "this obvious reference to x was subconscious" or similar, what we are doing is emasculating the art of what it is that makes it art.

The exercise of decoding symbols, interpreting the authors intent as well as execution, and acknowledging the personality and presence of the author's life as a de facto essence of the work, is not wrong, or inappropriate, and indeed can enhance our experience. However, it seems to me, though perhaps the intent is whimsical, that the trend in these discussions is a reduction to the point of mathematical equation.

There is an ambiguity here - demystifying as both a necessary and inevitable interaction with art, and yet also as the conceptualising (or abstracting) of something which depends so much upon intuitive truths and the imagination. To some extent there is also always the possibility of a 'personality cult', something that Tolkien was aware of in his comments about allegory, where one analyses the author as though he was the art - a sort of performance art "happening", so to speak.

Please note I only speak of dangers and trends - let me try and illustrate with something we can probably share. I would guess that when most people first read LotR, or other works by Tolkien, this simultaneous labelling and decoding was not taking place. The books and stories were experienced 'first-hand', a kind of direct and probably magical communion. We probably all remember the transforming and powerful effect of those first readings. I am only reminding that it is this, as much as (if not more so than) the inevitable demystification, that should be seen as precious, since that experience is no less valid or meaningful.

Now, as I have already told Doug, I consider Leaf by Niggle one of Tolkien's best stories. If I ever want to illustrate to people that he was a gifted writer, I would direct them here rather than to the vast summits of The Silmarillion. It is meaningful for all the reasons of personal significance that have been discussed, and for the success of the allegorical device, but it is also more (or perhaps less) than that - in itself, it is a fairy tale told with gentle humour and feeling. It is art.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ January 19, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[greyhavener]

If we take every scene, perhaps every word, as a symbol - a code - that can and should be cracked and rationalised, that all ambiguity can be washed away by inference, that we can fill in the gaps by assuming "this obvious reference to x was subconscious" or similar, what we are doing is emasculating the art of what it is that makes it art.

Indeed, Kalessin, "Leaf by Niggle" deserves a better reading. The real enjoyment of a story that is art comes when it not only communicates something about the author, but something about the reader. I enjoyed "Leaf by Niggle" as a story, as a personal expression by an author I love, and as a framework for some of my own interior experiences. Isn't that ultimately why any of us connects to a piece of art or music or literature...because it is in some small way also about us.

[Nibinlondwen]

yeah leaves bu niggle is very special. its my favorite story by tolkien.
when i read it for the 20.th time, i felt like I came closer to death, like i know it better.
And that links us all together, cuz we're all gonna die someday.
everyone cant feal conected to the lotr for example, for who carries a magic ring? Sure, the fealings may be the same.

[Aelfwine]

leaves bu niggle

What book or story are you referring to, Nibinlondwen?

The rest of us here are discussing Tolkien's story Leaf by Niggle. We are also using correct English grammar and spelling, not chatese, because we respect Tolkien, who cared about language so much. Please take the time to write correctly also.

Aelfwine

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I must agree with Kalessin, firstly that Leaf by Niggle is an excellent short story and secondly that the autobiographical allegory approach can be detrimental to our understanding of the work.

Obviously Niggle's huge painting can be seen as the sprawling mythology of the Lost Tales, Silmarillion and so forth; we can see Parish as an allegory of Edith Tolkien or any number of others, and we can speculate however we will about other characters, such as Mrs. Parish and Councillor Tompkins, but we can also see them as just what they appear to be. Perhaps the painting is just a painting and maybe Parish and Tompkins sprang from Tolkien's imagination without ever existing in his real life. This is not to say that there was no autobiographical intent in the story, but that there are themes that, whilst they are obviously very applicable to Tolkien himself, are equally relevant to the rest of us: the ephemeral nature of posterity; the frustrations of invention; the idea that art is something that needs no purpose and the importance of looking after others are all obvious examples.

I prefer to see Leaf by Niggle as an exploration of Tolkien's feelings about art, sub-creation, people and God. Niggle is always being judged by those around him and being found wanting as often as not, but his vision is considered important enough by a higher authority, represented by the two Voices, to become "Niggle's Parish", a most successful introduction to the new country in which he finds himself. Here we see Niggle, like Pygmalion, finding the fruits of his imagination made physical reality, even while at home the records he had made of them are destroyed. We see the various opinions of posterity, expressed by the Councillors, and above all we see justice. Niggle is cured of his personal failings in a purgatorial Workhouse before being allowed to inhabit the paradisiacal world that lies beyond, yet all of the judgements passed on him at his strange destination are entirely fair, with no taint of self-interest or jealousy about them, and making no reference to his standing in society or his contributions thereto.

To my mind, then, Niggle is the sub-creator, attempting through his imagination to realise a divine vision, which can only truly exist by the hand of the creator, but he is also the man, who must face divine judgement for his whole life and not his art alone. In the end it is Niggle's bicycle ride in the rain on Parish's behalf that weighs most heavily with those deciding his fate. He is also an endearing character in a well-conceived and well-written short story, which is how I most like to regard this little tale.

[ January 21, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ]

[Kalessin]

Squatter, a very succinct and persuasive reflection [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I also think leaves bu niggle deserves special mention for spectacular philology [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img].

I think there is a fine (and perhaps subjective) line between the sterile reductive analysis and the 'organic' experience of art. Indeed, sometimes the latter can be a self-indulgence, a cosy and contrived isolation, while the former can be part of a valuable and incisive process of discovery.

This (personal) tension is something I am always aware of when discussing Tolkien, given that his major works lend themselves so readily to both spiritual and technical interpretation. And in this case, the apparent contrast between the explicit non-allegory of his major work and the many autobiographical resonances of Leaf by Niggle and Smith of Wootton Major.

This subtlety, or contradiction, is part of both the humanity of Tolkien and his depth as an author, which in many debates here I have cited as mitigating against the obsession with an exact and integral 'system' behind his work, whether religious or literary.

The precision and tenderness of Tolkien's observations of Niggle clearly carry the authority of personal experience. Yet I think there is a tenuous, intuitive link between the gentleness and humility of the central character and something of the nature of hobbits. Perhaps this is a quality that resonated with Tolkien, and does so with all of us, as an essential component of goodness. And in his many contextual comments the author himself is appealingly self-deprecating.

And thus, my attempt to tread this fine line to which I alluded.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin