Mythic Unities in The Lord of the Rings

[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...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

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

But of course. It's precisely the kind of discussion that always has me scurrying for my keyboard.

Originally Posted by davem

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' ... 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.

Originally Posted by mark12_30

But Tolkien (more, IMO, than other writers) takes the mythic unities deeply *inside* his characters

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

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 ... 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.

Fair answers. And ones which most certainly ring true. But isn't this really the same as saying that Tolkien was simply more skilful than other authors in his use of this technique and/or that he devoted far more time and energy into doing so? (I do, of course, accept that his motives for doing so was entirely pure and devoid from commercial considerations, at least at the outset.)

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Is it possible for a reader to enjoy and understand something that others believe in but the reader does not?

Which rather implies that all those upon whom LotR has made an impact share the same, or at least similar, beliefs, and that those who do not respond to it in such a way do not share those beliefs. And I don't think that that's the case. So why is it that LotR appeals to so many different kinds of people with so many different kinds of belief, and yet leaves many others cold?

I do love your tenacity, old bean.

Well you know me. It's rather a habit.

[davem]

Originally Posted by 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...
.

There's a very interesting essay in the collection 'Tolkien the Medievalist': 'Augustine in the Cottage of Lost Play: The Ainulindale as asterisk cosmogony' which may answer some of your questions. Its too long & complex to go into at the moment, but is certainly worth looking at. The author shows that the Ainulindale account is much more than merely 'similar' to the Biblical, & in fact could almost be seen as a variant version....

[drigel]

Facinating thread and posts!

The unifying factor for me is language. We are blessed to have the author's primary love and talent to be language. Through it, he was drawn into (or pulled back) ME, and with it, he was able to create something so concise in idea and purpose that people of many cultures can not only enjoy but relate to. Here was a man who also understood myth enough to recognize that the essense that translates so well was the truths that lie in the kernal of any myth. At its source of course was language of the spoken word.

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.

What other than language (besides visual art and mabye mathematics) decribes our universe? Here was the tool that binds (hehe) the story to the myths. Whats facinating to me is that what is the "real" feeling that we get? This gets into what makes a myth a myth. Is it the use of mythological references that makes the story real, or is it that we feel in our genes that there is something real in the myth that was referenced? Here IMO is the unifyer - we are all on different branches of the same tree, but it's roots we all share.

JRRT's world/myth to me is not the unifyer - its the idea that is presented. The sub-creation is as flawed as it's creator. His mind's eye saw something, and his language presented it to us. But his vision was only a splinter among billions.

Littleman - here is my shameless plug for my own thesis concerning hobbits:

hobbitses

[mark12_30]

Which rather implies that all those upon whom LotR has made an impact share the same, or at least similar, beliefs, and that those who do not respond to it in such a way do not share those beliefs.

Disagreed. Many folk who do not believe in Tolkien's catholicism at all nonetheless percieve the truths that he reveals, and describe his myths and eucatastrophes as impacting and working in their lives. And some who enter without the beliefs eventually come around to the beliefs through the working of the myth; therefore the belief can't be a limiting factor, or the lack of belief would block the impact of the myth and forbid the journey into faith of those so affected.

So why is it that LotR appeals to so many different kinds of people with so many different kinds of belief, and yet leaves many others cold?

We've wrestled with that before. But is discussion 'appeal' the same as discussing 'mythic unity'? Certainly the reader has to survive the books for the mythic unities to work. Perhaps their effect is stronger when there's appeal. But

Threadwise I think the pertinent question might be do the mythic unities under discussion transcend the readers' conscious belief systems, penetrating below their awareness and affecting them on a mythic level? However, although I do think that's a pertinent question, I don't see how we can decisively answer it this side of eternity.