Mythic Unities in The Lord of the Rings

[davem]

Originally Posted by Helen

Those who speak elvish are Good Guys. Those who use the black speech are Bad Guys. But both orcs and men speak Westron at need. Interesting that the language of men is useable by the corrupt while the language of elves resists use by corruption.

I agree - yet wouldn't Sauron as Annatar' have spoken Elvish with the Elves of Eregion? And I also find it interesting that Sauron actually created the Black SpeechIts a language intended to create a new kind of link between name & thing named. Its an attempt, in a sense to change the world, to impose a new meaning on things- actually to alter the way his servants think about the world.

Surely, what he's attempting with the Black Speech is to change 'perceptions'. Its a bit like calling wild creatures 'game', or foxes 'vermin'. If a language is full of words for ugliness, violence, cruelty, that must inevitably affect the mindset of those who speak it. As we know, it never caught on among the orcs - perhaps they retained enough of their 'eruhini' nature that they couldn't adopt it fully, but the mentality behind it seems to have 'infected' the Westron they used. The orcs seem to have spoken almost a 'black Westron'.

Language, the words we use to refer to the 'things' of experience, affect the way we relate to them, so manipulation of language affects our behaviour, because it determines the way we treat things.

So, 'Those who speak elvish are Good Guys. Those who use the black speech are Bad Guys.' Yes, but are to what extent do the Elves 'speak' a 'good' language because they're 'good' beings, & to what extent are they 'good' because they speak a 'good' language'. & obviously the opposite point could be made in regard to Orcs? Do races (&individuals) shape the language they use, or does it shape them?. How 'orcish' would an orc be if he had been brought up speaking only Elvish? Or, how much 'magic', or 'genetic manipulation' did Morgoth use in making Orcs from Elves? Maybe his most powerful tool in that 'transformation' was language.....

[mark12_30]

Yes, but are to what extent do the Elves 'speak' a 'good' language because they're 'good' beings, & to what extent are they 'good' because they speak a 'good' language'. & obviously the opposite point could be made in regard to Orcs? Do races (&individuals) shape the language they use, or does it shape them?.

That's the point. It's a unity: cause and effect are effect and cause... sort of. Well, I didn't say that very well but I'm not sure how to improve on it.

And it's not the chicken/egg thing either. It's that they are the same thing, mythically. Not that one causes another; they both are inter-related. Undividable. ..... edit: okay, that doesn't work either because obviously we've divided them. But we've only divided them lately, so to speak. They used to be one and the same.

[littlemanpoet]

Helen, I was going to give davem precisely the same answer to precisely the same quote. By Jorje, I think you've got it! (sorry, folks, inside joke)

The unities you pointed out are on target, and reminded me of yet another (I'm watching the extended dvd of all three right now, and it's like reading Cliff's notes, if you know what I mean). Gollum can't stand the Elven rope or Lembas. He's tortured by the former and chokes on the latter. This tells the reader/viewer that Gollum is so corrupted that he cannot abide that which is uncorrupted, or to use a less indirect word, holy. We would do well to recall another unity: the relation between holy and [/i]whole[/i].

davem, your comments about language remind me of a comparison between Norman-derived English vocabulary and Anglo-Saxon-derived English vocabulary. Or, for that matter, Latin-derived, and Greek-derived. Anglo-Saxon words are the heart of the language. Norman words are at one remove. Thus we have words like beef and pork standing in for cow and hog. We eat the one and raise the other, but it's an artificial distinction that removes us one step away from the concrete reality that we kill in order to eat; the process has been sanitized. French-, Latin-, and Greek- borrowings into English are at an even greater remove from the concrete.

Related to this is that writers often give their villains the most latinate forms of speech. Thus, the Black Speech functions somewhat like Latin does in English. I would not at all be suprised if this is an aspect of why Tokien so deplored the Norman conquest.

[The Saucepan Man]

A very interesting topic littlemanpoet, and one that certainly has me thinking, since I would certainly place LotR (together with The Hobbit) apart from other examples of fantasy literature in terms of its impact on me.

But I do have one question. You put the Question as follows:

The Question(s): Is mythic fantasy qualitatively different from other genres of literature, and if so, how? Another form of this question might be rendered: Why do I love LotR and find so few books that come anywhere near its standard?

And you answer this Question by positing that it is because LotR brings unity of meaning, in the sense of unifying the abstract and the concrete within the story.

Now it is a long time since I read any fantasy literature other than LotR. But it does seem to me that the examples of unity of meaning that you and Helen have given are commonly found in other stories within the fantasy genre. For example, there are often beings present who have a unity of spiritual and physical presence in the same way that you describe Tolkien's Elves. Similarly, fantasy stories will often contain beings who unify the animal and the human, much as you describe Hobbits. Fantasy novels will also often unify the spoken word and/or music with power, and almost all of them equate the concepts of light/good and darkness/evil.

So what is it about LotR that sets it apart from these other stories that use similar techniques (often, indeed, borrowed from Tolkien). Is there something more than just unity of meaning that lends LotR its mythical quality? Or is it simply that Tolkien uses this technique more effectively than any other authors in this genre? If so, how?

And what of the (no doubt) many people who have read LotR who do not find it making any impact on them, or any impact which is significantly greater than other works of literature that they have read?

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

So what is it about LotR that sets it apart from these other stories that use similar techniques (often, indeed, borrowed from Tolkien). Is there something more than just unity of meaning that lends LotR its mythical quality? Or is it simply that Tolkien uses this technique more effectively than any other authors in this genre? If so, how?

I suppose it could be that Tolkien was not writing a 'genre' novel, so he was not bound by the requirements of 'fantasy'. He was attempting to recreate England's lost mythology. Perhaps its because he put so much real mythology into his creation (modified to some extent) that we get such a strong sense of his stories being real'. In other words, with most fantasy novels we have a feeling, however well written they may be, however clever the plot, that we're reading an invented story, because its all coming out of the author's imagination. With Tolkien I get more of a sense that he's telling me something I once knew, but have forgotten - he's reminding me of the 'Truth', not simply making up a story to entertain me. There was a pupose behind Tolkien's work. It grew out of his desire to recreate England's lost mythology, & he wanted to do that because he felt it was important that his country have its own story - & that that story should be the right kind of story. He wanted it to affect, & in some real sense to change his readers - perhaps 'morally', but certainly in terms of their 'perception' of their history & of the land they lived in.

I think its this that makes Tolkien's work different. How many modern authors want to change their readers in that way - how many believe they have anything to teach? I think this would apply especially to writers of fantasy. I can only think of Ursula Le Guin who takes this approach - though to be honest I'm not a fan of fantasy fiction as such. I think we respond to Tolkien in the way we do because on some level we feel we're learning (or re-learning) something important.

Originally Posted by LmP

Related to this is that writers often give their villains the most latinate forms of speech. Thus, the Black Speech functions somewhat like Latin does in English. I would not at all be suprised if this is an aspect of why Tokien so deplored the Norman conquest.

I suppose it does - in the particular way that you mean. However, Tolkien often referred to Quenya as 'Elven Latin' (aside:in the documentary 'JRRT A Film Portrait, his som Michael tells a nice story about how when attending Mass after Vatican II 'did away' with Latin Tolkien would still try to read along from his little Latin)Missal). Latin for Tolkien, I suppose, was the language of the scriptures, the language which 'reavealed' the Light of God to mankind. In Middle earth Black Speech does the opposite, it reveals the darkness. Your point still stands, though, in terms of the way Latin may be used - just not in terms of its function or what it symbolises.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

With Tolkien I get more of a sense that he's telling me something I once knew, but have forgotten - he's reminding me of the 'Truth', not simply making up a story to entertain me. ..... that that story should be the right kind of story. He wanted it to affect, & in some real sense to change his readers - perhaps 'morally', but certainly in terms of their 'perception' of their history & of the land they lived in.

"High, purged of the gross." (How can I possibly disagree?)

Originally Posted by davem

I think its this that makes Tolkien's work different. How many modern authors want to change their readers in that way - how many believe they have anything to teach?

That I wouldn't want to guess at; but how many still are teaching-- deeply-- after a twelfth reading?

Originally Posted by davem

I think this would apply especially to writers of fantasy. I can only think of Ursula Le Guin who takes this approach ...

She's the one who popped into my mind, too. Odd. But (and I'm referring to her Earthsea stories here) they had an impact on me, but it was not the same, not as deep or as lasting. Her main impact on me was that she could write an incredible sentence. One that haunts me over two decades later: "He raged at his weakness, for he knew his strength." Brilliant. But I don't put her on a par with Tolkien; and I don't embrace her myths as my own. I didn't feel that Earthsea was a place I'd been before, nor was it a place I felt at home in. She certainly dealt with character; but the resonance wasn't on a mythical scale, not for me personally.

Originally Posted by davem

I think we respond to Tolkien in the way we do because on some level we feel we're learning (or re-learning) something important.

I would heartily agree.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

So what is it about LotR that sets it apart from these other stories that use similar techniques (often, indeed, borrowed from Tolkien). Is there something more than just unity of meaning that lends LotR its mythical quality? Or is it simply that Tolkien uses this technique more effectively than any other authors in this genre? If so, how?

'Ere's me tuppence: Outside of a character, within the machinations of "the world", it's fairly easy to grasp the old unities, I think. Name/Power, etc. And it's entertaining, because it would be nice to be able to do that.

But Tolkien (more, IMO, than other writers) takes the mythic unities deeply *inside* his characters, dealing with character and holiness and struggle and purity. What other author would give his mythic "Enchantress of the Golden Wood" her own personal history of rebellion, repentance, and desire for redeemption? As we are exploring elsewhere, Boromir is redeemed, and even Gollum gets a shot at it. Amazing stuff. (Here again -- the dead Boromir, floating past Faramir while he is on watch, *shines* with an inner light-> redeemption & forgiveness produced holiness in him, and if he's holy, he must shine, for mythically they are one and the same.)

And in that sense he brings the myth inside our own souls as well, and we can tell our story in similar terms.

And what of the (no doubt) many people who have read LotR who do not find it making any impact on them, or any impact which is significantly greater than other works of literature that they have read?

You tell me, Saucie! Is it possible for a reader to enjoy and understand something that others believe in but the reader does not? If the reader believes in five dimensions and the author discusses six, can the reader enjoy the sixth without believing in it? Can he understand it? The question sounds extremely familiar, despite my leaky memory. I do love your tenacity, old bean.

Cheers, old chap, and it's good to see you here. c|_|

Edit: Cross-posted with davem...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by SpM

I would certainly place LotR (together with The Hobbit) apart from other examples of fantasy literature in terms of its impact on me.

Originally Posted by davem

I suppose it could be that Tolkien was not writing a 'genre' novel, so he was not bound by the requirements of 'fantasy'.

I too would certainly place Tolkien outside any notion of 'genre', not just in terms of his impact, but quite literally. His work was not a 'novel'; LotR was just one moment, one extract if you will, from an entire work, a lifetime's work. It is a story frozen at one point, and it is easy to imagine that had he not been asked to write it by a publisher, it would never have been finished.

Also worth considering is that LotR was published in very different times. Today literature is very much 'product' to be consumed and as such needs to be marketed. This is how we have come by such strong notions of genre. They did exist in the past, as an example, the Gothic novels of the 18th/19th century period were perceived as 'genre' fiction. But fantasy fiction came along as a genre after Tolkien. He was the predecessor and as such was able to do exactly as he pleased with no pressure from editors to make his work 'fit'.

LotR was not written as one novel, it was seemingly just one part of a greater whole, a whole that was growing all the time. It was one part of a greater artwork that just happened to be published an in effect 'fixed'. The fact that we can all spend so much time endlessly discussing Tolkien's work shows that there is a lot more to it than just one novel. A comparison is hard to find, the only thing I can think of is a dictionary - which is also constantly changing; the 'edition' we have is just that dictionary as it is at that point.

[mark12_30]

Anybody out there have a working knowledge of the septuagent? I'm developing a theory on a possible catholic perception of genesis 1-3 to speculate on whether that might show similarities to the Ainulindale...

Actually for the catholic view of Genesis I should probably check the latin... ack! Latinately clueless, even worse than hebrew or greek. At least with hebrew or greek there's strongs...