Mythic Unities in The Lord of the Rings

[littlemanpoet]

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?

Thank you, Sauce Pan Man, for your astute question.

Thanks to davem and Helen for their equally astute observations by way of attempting an answer. Your points are apt and I think they add insight.

I do think that Tolkien's LotR is unrivaled in its achievement in terms of re-creating mythic unities, and it is because Tolkien was uniquely gifted to achieve it. He knew and understood the connectedness of myth, folklore, history, and language, in ways that we can only dream of. He was able to play with and create languages with as much ease as Mozart composing. Added to that was Tolkien's Beethovian perfectionism (generally lacking in Mozart).

Owen Barfield was a member of the Inklings, and it would be surprising if his ideas had not been discussed in one or more of their meetings. It is known that Tolkien did read Barfield's Poetic Diction, and it comes as no surprise that he agreed with him; what is uncertain (at least to me) is whether Tolkien was influenced by Barfield, or whether it was the other way around (or both ways).

At any rate, I think that Tolkien's unique ability with language as well as his understanding of its connections with myth, folklore, and history, came through in LotR such that he was able to bring about so many mythic unities. I'm sure we haven't uncovered them all, nor the depth of them in LotR.

This thread has sent me back to Tolkien's biography, and I'm finding this second reading of it quite enjoyable already!

I am far too busy this week and have been able only to give this thread a cursory reading and response. I'll do better as soon as I can.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

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.

Which is precisely the point that I am making. It is not the resonance with an individual's particular beliefs that causes them to respond to LotR, but something much deeper. It seems to me that LotR can still have great appeal to those who have (and continue to have) no, or very vaguely defined, spiritual beliefs. (The latter would describe the 70% to 80% of UK residents who describe themselves as believing in God but do not adhere to any organised religious group.)

This is the reason why I find littlemanpoet's thesis on mythic unities so interesting. For me, it touches on ideas of archetypes, shared experience and synchronicity, although I know far too little (or have forgotten far too much) about these concepts to go into great detail. All I can say is that LotR, it seems, touches a significant number of people on a much deeper level than any defined form of belief system.

But is discussion 'appeal' the same as discussing 'mythic unity'?

Well I think that "appeal" is relevant here, since it is the widespread and consistent appeal of LotR (which exceeds that of any other single novel, if the polls are to be believed) that makes me respond to the idea that there is something more than simply "a darn good read" at work here. Put simply, LotR appeals to a great many people. And, as you say, for a significant number of people (although perhaps not the majority of those to whom it appeals) it takes on a greater meaning, in the sense of making an appreciable difference in their lives. Why is this?

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?

In light of what I have said above, I would answer yes to this. And while there may be no decisive answer to the question of why this is the case, it seems to me that littlemanpoet has made a worthy and credible attempt to come up with one. I certainly think that it merits further exploration.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I do think that Tolkien's LotR is unrivaled in its achievement in terms of re-creating mythic unities, and it is because Tolkien was uniquely gifted to achieve it. He knew and understood the connectedness of myth, folklore, history, and language, in ways that we can only dream of. He was able to play with and create languages with as much ease as Mozart composing. Added to that was Tolkien's Beethovian perfectionism (generally lacking in Mozart).

Spot on. Although you are, in effect, again saying that Tolkien had a particular flair in this department, you capture perfectly for me precisely what it is that sets him out from other authors in the fantasy genre and, indeed, literature in general. Was he in fact unique in these regards or have there been other authors with the same mix of skills?

What I think might be useful is to examine exactly how he used these skills, not simply by pointing out the mythic unities to which littlemanpoet refers, but by also considering how he uses them in ways that set LotR apart from the works of other authors who have used similar techniques, and which give the book its widespread appeal. I fear that I may be poorly-qualified to comment further in this regard, but I would be interested to see the thoughts of others.

[davem]

I wonder if the 'uniqueness' of LotR is in part explained by something Lalwende alluded to in her comparison of the work with a 'dictionary'.

What is unique, certainly, is that the stories were never 'fixed', never 'finished'. Even the published versions were subject to revision. Major changes were made to The Hobbit ('Riddles in the Dark' being the prime example of a major change, but there were other lesser ones). There were changes made to LotR for the second edition & this is something that is continuing - we've had between three- & four hundred amendations to the text for the 50th anniversary edition. The unpublished (at the time of their author's death) writings went through constant changes & a steady evolution up to his death.

In this sense the Legendarium was never finished & probably never would have been - however long Tolkien lived. In this sense it is like language itself, constantly evolving & developing. It was in a constant state of change. As its author grew & changed so did his creation. This is perhaps why it is unique, why it seems so 'alive' to us. I can't think of any work of art which is comparable. Certainly no modern work of fantasy is like it. Authors now want to finish & publish & move on to something else. They are looking to bring their work to completion - they actually don't want the thing to keep changing & evolving.

Perhaps its because Tolkien was so affected by the way Language changes & evolves (& by the way myth & legend - & particularly folkore - do as well) that he thought differently to the way the rest of us do & that came out in his writings, in the way he worked.

There is another 'unity' - that between the author & language (& myth) that maybe explains Tolkien's uniqueness.

Perhaps also this is why the movies don't satisfy in the same way as the books - the movie makers wanted to 'finish' their movies, to bring them to a state of 'completion' - though the EE's do resemble Tolkien's approach in a kind of way, as they are also 'revisions' of an original version.

I think it was this freedom that Tolkien had to amend, revise, evolve his work that makes it seem more 'alive', more 'true' (or even 'True') than other works of fiction. Its not a fixed, 'dead' thing - or that's not the sense one gets about it from immersing oneself in it. Its almost as if something of the 'uncertainty' of the secondary world that the author felt himself is communicated to us. Its 'alive' because its 'moving' & changing, always in a state of 'becoming' - like language itself, like his own invented languages, which were never 'fixed'. In that sense his languages never became like Latin for us - a dead tongue. The whole creation was in flux from the moment it came into being, so it was always 'alive' & I think that's what communicates itself to us, & why we keep going back to Middle earth. Its never the same for us - its' 'changing' state reflects our own.

Or something like that......

[The Saucepan Man]

Your points are well made, davem, and no doubt account for the appeal of Tolkien to his more committed fans (such as us). But the evolving nature of his work cannot account for his broader appeal, given that most of his readers will only have read LotR and (possibly) The Hobbit.

Where it is quite possibly relevant in this regard, however, is in giving the impression of a wider history and wider world than simply that depicted in the book. Because there was such a vast wealth of evolving material for Tokien to draw on, he was able to incorporate aspects of it within LotR (the tales of Beren and Luthien and of Earendil the Mariner, for example). Not only does this enhance the credibility of the world that he portrays, but it gives it its own sense of mythology. Thus Tolkien is weaving "real world" myth and folklore in with his own mythology (itself deriving in many respects from our own myth and folklore) to create something akin to a "complete" mythology.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Where it is quite possibly relevant in this regard, however, is in giving the impression of a wider history and wider world than simply that depicted in the book. Because there was such a vast wealth of evolving material for Tokien to draw on, he was able to incorporate aspects of it within LotR (the tales of Beren and Luthien and of Earendil the Mariner, for example). Not only does this enhance the credibility of the world that he portrays, but it gives it its own sense of mythology. Thus Tolkien is weaving "real world" myth and folklore in with his own mythology (itself deriving in many respects from our own myth and folklore) to create something akin to a "complete" mythology.

So there's a 'dual' process of growth & development percievable, a 'parallel evolution' - the evolution within the Legendarium which I described & a corresponding one - the evolution of England's mythology into Tolkien's Legendarium.

Its as if we have the process taking place in both the Primary & the Secondary worlds at the same time???

That's if I understand your point correctly....

[littlemanpoet]

By way of summary, I'm going to try to state that which we have either agreed on or at least suggested:

LotR and The Hobbit ...

• touch us at a deep level
• are qualitatively different and better than any other literature like them
• often do not lose their appeal over the course of readers' lives
• have had lasting appeal to a broad readership

...and this has been accomplished by Tolkien through the use of varied and rich mythic unities.

Q1: How did Tolkien do it?
A1: He was uniquely gifted in terms of his knowledge and understanding of language, myth, folklore, and history, and the ways they are connected to each other; he used these as the means by which he wove the mythic unities into the fabric of the story.

Q2: What are the mythic unities?
A2: We have pointed out the following so far:

• Elves as both natural and spiritual
• Hobbits as both human and animal
• Tom Bombadil and Goldberry as married to each other and the land
• holiness and light
• spoken word and power
• music - specifically singing - and power (subset of the previous)
• name and power
• language and allegiance

There are most likely many more; they will best surface in the context of the next question.

Q3: How did Tolkien do this "weaving" of mythic unities into his story?

SpM, if I have adequately paraphrased your question, I have generated, so far, six possible, provisional and overlapping answers to the question.

1. Tolkien had a mission to give England its own mythology. This does not so much answer your question as posit a basis for the following answers.

2. Tolkien created something he could believe in. I do not mean this only in terms of Secondary Belief, although that is certainly important. This provisional answer harks back to davem's fascinating statement which seems true to me:

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 think that Tolkien was answering questions like, "what story/events in the past could have generated a name like Earendil?" His language capabilities (as drigel has said) made him singularly gifted to posit believable answers to such questions.

3. Tolkien wove feigned language, history, myth, and folklore into a believable if seamy fabric. The very seaminess of it is part of its charm.

4. The works were never completed. This is an additional aspect of the feignedness/life-likeness.

5. The content is real; that is, we feel its realness in our bones. Tolkien has modified that which really was to fit his corpus.

6. Tolkien was a realist and modern who straddled the "great divide" between the pre-modern and modern eras. Tolkien was born in the pre-modern era, and loved it. He lived through the change to the modern era, and while mourning the losses that accompanied it, had a modern man's mindset, and was therefore able to communicate all he knew from myth to a modern audience such that we could make it our own.

In the late Humphrey Carpenter's biography (paperback page 66), quotes Tolkien as having said of the Finnish Kalevala in his first year at Oxford (1912),

These mythological ballads are full of that very primitive undergrowth that the literature of Europe has on the whole been steadily cutting and reducing for many centuries with different and earlier completeness among different people .... I owuld that we had more of it left - - - something of the same sort that belonged to the English.

One last thing. I've played around with a theory that Western Civilization is made up of three branches: the Romano-Greek, the Celto-Germanic, and the Judeo-Christian. All three of these branches are still functional at very deep levels in all Western people. Tolkien's LotR is grounded in all three branches as well. By this I'm not saying that Tolkien was using LotR as an evangelical tool! Not even that LotR was "consciously Christian in the revision", which Tolkien himself claims; rather, I'm saying that the mindset of LotR consists of Christian content, although at a very deep level, every bit as much as it consists of Romano-Greek and Celto-Germanic content.

[Kuruharan]

holiness and light

Painfully obvious observation here, but evil and darkness.

Tolkien had a mission to give England its own mythology

Now for a vague observation/question of sorts.

I’m not entirely certain how Tolkien’s work fulfilled the role of providing a mythology for England. I’ve never really been able to see a strong connection between the tales and some feeling of primordial “Englishness.” Yes, I know the hobbits are sort of English, but the stories are so much more than them. Any theories on this?

It may be that my sense of history is too strong that I can’t suspend it. The fundamental problem with developing a mythology for “England” is that the “English” all came from someplace else and knew they had come from someplace else. Of course, Tolkien referred to his desire as “absurd.” (Letter 130)