Has it all been said?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

This is probably way off topic from what you wanted and, if so, I apologize.

Its not.

I find myself wondering what would happen if CT was to be a little bit more 'lax' in his approach to copyright over the stories. His approach seems to be that he puts up with what he can't do anything about. CT is, I suppose, in the main responsible for the 'scholarly', creator rather than creation approach. No-one can legally write & publish Middle-earth fiction, so writing about M-e & its creator is the only option. Not that I'm entirely decrying the 'scholarly' stuff. Shippey & Flieger among others have shed important new light on M-e. But is that what we really want? Don't we actually want more tales of Elves & Hobbits (& Dragons!), rather than more analysis of Tolkien's use of the Legends of the Liosalfar, or the way the Kalevala inspired the Legendarium?

Of course, one cannot expect CT to allow a free for all - as we've seen most fan-fic is not simply poor, its embarrassingly bad! Also, one could argue that writers should come up with their own stuff & not 'leech' off others - to put it at its most extreme. But there may well be a 'White' out there who could do more with the material, but is not allowed to. And fantasy as a genre uses 'Tolkienian' themes already. Yet CT seems desirous that his father's creation be seen, & treated, not as a mythology, but as a literary work.

All the scholarly analysis will not make M-e any more accessible, or really, any more interesting. In fact, its quite likely to make it less so, a it will likely put off readers who just want to wander the forests of M-e & visit the Elves. There's a lot more of Sam in most of us than of Pengolodh. I think Tolkien knew this. I find myself wishing that Priscilla, Michael or John had been able to be that 'Sam' as Christopher is that 'Pengolodh'.

But there's the rub. One could argue that PJ is a kind of 'Sam', giving us another account of M-e - & I'm not a fan of what he did! So I can't say I'd be pleased with what the 'Sams' produced. However, that's my opinion. Some good things would undoubtedly come of allowing others to use the materials Tolkien gifted us with.

But this is not really about arguing for more fan-fic. I suppose its a bit of a rant against a 'scholarly' approach which inevitably moves towards a deeper & deeper analysis of aspects of Tolkien's creation which have at best a curiosity value for a certain type of 'intellectual' fan.

We seem to be on the verge of a two-tier fandom - the ones who want to, if not demolish the Tower, at least want to perform analyses on its stones, & the ones who simply want to climb it & look out on the Sea. After all, there are very few other things one can do with such a Tower.

[Holbytlass]

And when one loves, one wants to know...more.
Yes, there is that danger of strapping the beloved on the surgical table and dissecting. But where is that fine line? I find that most of the works people write in trying to carry on the mythology is poor because they didn't seem to do research (or not enough).

It's what I try to tell my sister who wants to write a published fantasy story and she thinks it's good because she named her characters odd names.

[davem]

Well, I didn't set out in this thread to advocate the writing of fan fic, so I can't really argue in favour of it.

My point was about the increasing amount of secondary literature. I can only imagine the effect on a potential reader of Tolkien's works wandering into a largish bookstore & seeing all those books there 'explaining' the meaning of Tolkien's work. They're likely to think 'Whoa! the book itself is over a 1000 pages, if I have to read a whole lot of other books to explain it to me as well, I'll just go for something simpler!'.

The whole point of LotR is that it is a beautiful, moving story, with characters & places we love, not some complex text which has to be translated, de-constructed & explained to the uninitiated .

And there's another thing - some 'fans' actually seem to get off on knowing more than others & being able to 'deliver the LAW about Tolkien' from their own self built pulpit, crushing any 'heresies' with a blistering quote from p.379 of HoM-e 4 like a thunderbolt from on high.

What all the secondary stuff, the scholarly analysis, does is take away the fun, the sheer pleasure of the stories.

So, I'm not criticising someone who wants to go in for all that kind of thing. It just seems to me that the interesting stuff has mostly been said by the serious scholars & that what's coming out now is so obscure as to be irrelevant to most of us, & that even the interesting stuff can actually get in the way.

[Lalwendë]

I think that the profusion of books on Tolkien are a sign of the times.

I was thinking the other day about how 15 years ago our newspapers had news in them, and how celebrity stories were only found in the Sunday tabloids, but today all the papers are stuffed full of celebrity stories - even the broadsheets had front pages about Macca's divorce. It's because we've slipped deep into celebrity culture. This has had a big effect on the publishing houses as they seek t fill Waterstones with ever more biography and autobiography. Geri Halliwell has written two already and we are facing the prospect of one from Chantelle, the noby made famous by going on Celeb Big Brother a few months ago!

Tolkien is not exempt from this. We are fans, and what's more, we are pretty rabid, obsessed fans. So the publishing houses know that a new book on Tolkien will sell. So they publish them.

I can't help thinking that anyone wanting an academic career would do well to get into Tolkien as they will soon become a mini-celebrity themselves, attracting large queues for book signings at Tolkien conferences, and supplementing a meagre academic salary in the process. Much better to get into being a Tolkien scholar than becoming an expert on obscure 19th century chapbooks or somesuch.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Has it all been said?

I seriously doubt that davem would ever reach a limit on what he can say. About Tolkien or about any topic I suspect.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

It just seems to me that the interesting stuff has mostly been said by the serious scholars & that what's coming out now is so obscure as to be irrelevant to most of us, & that even the interesting stuff can actually get in the way.

I rather suspect that scholarship is much like fandom in that it has trends and styles and special interests. Once a topic has been explored to the extent that either scholars or fans wish, it quietly is relegated to the back of the library shelves or discussion forum backpages and a new topic arises.

What is fascinating about scholarship (as about pop culture or fandom) is that all the interesting stuff is never done and said. The boredom lies only in the minds of those who cannot see beyond the current fad. One particular approach will hold sway for awhile but it will pass and someone else, with a different approach, will suddenly bring to light an entirely new idea or avenue of thought. The current fad for sources which bores davem (and in some of its applications, me) will wear itself out eventually OR will be overwhelmed by some scholars' new approach. That new approach will be something inspired by an entirely new imaginative appreciation of Tolkien and his stories and will lead to a swarm of papers in its fashion, eventually to fade out and be replaced by a new 'paradigm shift'. We need only consider the changes in, say, the appreciation of Kipling, to understand that scholarship as with fandom has its ebb and flow.

It is true that students moan about how everything has already been said about Shakespeare, or about Milton, or, now perhaps about Tolkien, but what is interesting is how new approaches arise which provide new ways of thinking about a story or an author. Literature, after all, isn't an archeology of digging up what is significant, but a vital process of the human mind, of making connections. Each new reading or new generation of readers will find its own unique approach, taste, preferences. Maybe the current trend is one which some fans don't appreciate, but they don't need to read it. And it won't necessarily remain the favoured way of reading. Some new writer will come along and make us see story in a new way--the way Tolkien made students see Beowulf or fairey in a new way--and bam! people will wonder, hey, didn't Tolkien do that too? And they'll go back and read LotR in light of what that other writer taught them about story, or about character, and suddenly, there will be new interesting stuff to see in Tolkien.

In short, there is no limit to readers' or scholars' or fans' imaginations. Sometimes they just have to work a vein to death before finding new gems down another shaft.

Oh, and has Christopher Tolkien ever made any public comments on the scholarly stuff? As a scholar himself, has he expressed any opinion about that heavy lable "Tolkien Studies"?

You know, early BD topics of 'merit' were quite different from what they were when I joined, and again different now from the popular threads. Some people care that the Legendarium has to be consistent, and suss out every potential inconsistency. Others just enjoy the stories. And still others are intrigued by how comparing events and characters sheds new ways of thinking about them. And still others find their way back to earlier mythologies and legends through Tolkien. Chaqu' un a sa gout.

[davem]

Well, we've had the 'sources' approach, the 'biographical' approach', the 'religio-philosophical' approach & the 'socio-cultural-historical' approach. We've had the 'applicability' approach ('ie 'This is what it means to me'). I'm sure there will be new angles/insights from the 'scholars', but the 'creative' side seems to be very much a poor second, apart from fan-fic. In other words the division seems to be 'scholarly=Proffessional' & 'creative=Amateur'.

It could be argued, I suppose, that the 'creative' side could include those professional writers of fantasy who were inspired by Tolkien to create their own secondary worlds (Patricia McKillip & Gene Wolf spring to mind), or the movie makers & the people behind the musical.

As an aside I do find myself wondering how much 'analysis' a work of literature can survive? Does a novel only get accepted as 'literature' once it can be dissected for analysis & taught in class?

[davem]

The Book that Inspired Tolkien (yes, another one)

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1150764276 http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...=UTF8&v=glance

Clearly a bit of a cash-in on Tolkien's name, but more confirmation that Tolkien was inspired as much by contemporary literature as by ancient myths. That said, its probably only the Tolkien connection that has seen this work published. I also notice that recent re-prints of some of Morris's romances are sold as 'books that inspired Tolkien'. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...books&v=glance

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...books&v=glance

(Note in both cases how Tolkien's name is more prominent on the cover than Morris's)
This is obviously another attempt to use Tolkien. Having said that, the book does look interesting....

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Surely there can't be more than one book that inspired Tolkien? Nobody reads that much.

Actually, quite a few of the elements of Tolkien's fiction are present in Morris, but the earlier writer tends to base his fantasy more firmly on actual history and legend. Whereas Tolkien would adopt a story, add elements of another and then give the whole a personal twist, Morris would re-tell one story in his own style. Both were drawing inspiration from the medieval world, but they did so in different ways. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Tolkien had read and enjoyed medieval historical fiction (perhaps we'll see Conan Doyle's The White Company and Sir Nigel released with a similar puff soon), but all this publisher's blurb is just that: marketing spiel with no real meaning. William Morris at least deserves better of posterity than to sit in Tolkien's shadow.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lal

The whole business of doing a degree in English is designed to make you almost hate literature. I wouldn't recommend the subject to someone who finds a lot of 'magic' in their leisure reading, as you will be required to pull apart and analyse everything you read, and you will also have to read a lot - not just the primary texts (AKA the novel, story, or poem, in human language) but also many critical works and articles. You will be required not just to analyse but to apply types of critical analysis, maybe doing a feminist criticism or a marxist one or a post structuralist one.

Originally Posted by davem

Well, we've had the 'sources' approach, the 'biographical' approach', the 'religio-philosophical' approach & the 'socio-cultural-historical' approach. We've had the 'applicability' approach ('ie 'This is what it means to me'). I'm sure there will be new angles/insights from the 'scholars', but the 'creative' side seems to be very much a poor second, apart from fan-fic. In other words the division seems to be 'scholarly=Proffessional' & 'creative=Amateur'.

It could be argued, I suppose, that the 'creative' side could include those professional writers of fantasy who were inspired by Tolkien to create their own secondary worlds (Patricia McKillip & Gene Wolf spring to mind), or the movie makers & the people behind the musical.

As an aside I do find myself wondering how much 'analysis' a work of literature can survive? Does a novel only get accepted as 'literature' once it can be dissected for analysis & taught in class?

On the one hand, I think both Lal and davem rightly identify an overwhelming aspect of formal English studies, its tendency towards autopsy. Traditional university curricula gave prominence to abstract thought and philosophical debate and looked it long nose down at many things which didn't fit this ancient model of study. The themes and topics and approaches at universities have shifted slightly in the last few years and performing arts as well as creative studies can be found at least in the newer unis--dare I say redbrick?

On the other hand, I am often amused by those who have such a negative response to traditional literary studies, because Tolkien himself was part of that entire enterprise. While his best work opened up literature to appreciation as literature (my own POV here), he also produced, as an academic, lots of textual analysis of language that ignored the creative aspects of the books--or manuscripts as the case was. (For a very tiny look at that aspect, see this post about Tolkien on medieval dialect )

At its best, discussion of literature ought to be a process of learning how to read with greater awareness, which to my mind means learning how to appreciate/enjoy story and book and verse in as wide a range as possible. Like all learning, sometimes this requires analysis. It also requires self-reflection and awareness of all the 'tricks' of language available to writers. Too often academics don't approach stories as creative writers would, but that in itself does not mean their approach can't produce minds in greater awareness of themselves and of story. My favourite teachers were always those who insisted upon a reading of the text and not the outside apparatus of scholarship, except where that scholarship actually illuminated something. One sad result of all the emphasis on 'critical theory' it seems to me is this emphasis on the theorists first and the creative texts second. Backwards!

Originally Posted by Mister U

Learning about sources and inspirations of a favorite author can lead you to many interesting works. But in my opinion, if you read Tolkien's inspirations (or supposed inspirations) primarily with an eye out for how they influenced the professor, you're doing both Tolkien and the original work a disservice.

I think this is the wrong way 'round--or maybe we are agreeing. I don't think people necessarily read "the sources" to understand how they influenced Tolkien--this was always one of the reasons why I downplay 'author' as opposed to 'text'--but because they are interested in fantasy, in all its forms and permutations. It is a shame that De La Motte Fouqué is being marketed as Tolkien's 'source', but that marketing ploy should not itself detract from what might be a fascinating read. I would really like to see how Moorish Spain is handled! Also fascinating is the question why fantasy developed at this cusp of the twentieth century. Maybe that doesn't lend itself to enjoying the fantasy on its own--a biggish maybe--but it is nonetheless a legitimate reading response.

Why should any one way of reading literature be the only way? After all, Tolkien himself likely had many different reading strategies behind his eyes.

Oh, and Azaelia--it isn't only literature and essays than can ruin kids' reading. Nowadays teachers force kids to keep journals, even if the kids don't wish to put their private feelings on the page for a teacher to read. There's always something out of whack when learning is structured.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Also fascinating is the question why fantasy developed at this cusp of the twentieth century. Maybe that doesn't lend itself to enjoying the fantasy on its own--a biggish maybe--but it is nonetheless a legitimate reading response.

I've always found it interesting that there was an upsurge in interest in the Occult at exactly that time too. Not just the fascination with spiritualism, but also Aleister Crowley, AE Waite & the Golden Dawn. Perhaps it was in reaction to the extreme materialism of the Victorian/Edwardian Age, industrialism & the appearance of of Darwin's evolutionary theories. Its as if the one produced the other.

Certainly there was a near obsession with fairy stories & the fantastic among soldiers in the trenches, & both Tolkien & Lewis were WWI veterans who went on to write fantasy. We could also bring in Mervyn Peake, who served as a war artist & who was a witness of the opening of the death camps.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh, and Azaelia--it isn't only literature and essays than can ruin kids' reading. Nowadays teachers force kids to keep journals, even if the kids don't wish to put their private feelings on the page for a teacher to read. There's always something out of whack when learning is structured.

Yes...I do hold certain unpleasant memories about journals of school days gone by...A couple of my teachers actually counted any lines I'd left blank at the end of whatever meaningless rambling I'd written, and took points off for not filling them. Little did they know that I already kept a journal hidden away at home, and also wrote short fiction for fun (none of which will ever see the light of day).

The things they do to get kids to write are just as bad as the things they do to get kids to read.

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not sure its possible to define 'western culture' precisely enough to be able to say its waning. Certainly its changing, but its as likely as not to be changing in a 'western' way into another phase of 'western' culture. Change is inevitable in any case, & to be welcomed if only because the alternative is stagnation. Besides, if 'Western Culture' does disappear it will be because it wasn't going anywhere, & couldn't adapt.

Very true... I think it's certainly changing faster than it was 10 years ago, at least in the USA. Changing into what, I'm not quite sure. Who knows what the history books are going to make of the early 2000's...?

On the subject of Tolkien becoming dated that LMP brought up, I also doubt LOTR will ever be dated--Its continued popularity even over half a century after it was written is definite evidence of that. I certainly get different things out of the book each time I read it, depending on what's going on in my immediate surroundings, my own life...and what's going on on a world level. It's always interesting to see what stands out to me on a new read, and how it differs from what I especially noticed the time before.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Yet CT seems desirous that his father's creation be seen, & treated, not as a mythology, but as a literary work.

This is hardly surprising given that CT is an academic, a literary academic and more than anyone must have been aware of the amusement bordering on scorn with which his father's work was treated by colleagues in his lifetime and the literati since.


While I desperately wanted Middle Earth to be real when I was 12, now I can't help thinking that to treat it as a mythology primarily is to demean Tolkien's achievement in creating what seems plausible as a mythology, what seems plausible as a world.

For myself, I don't have a problem with the scholarly works - and in most bookshops you are unlikely to find many on the shelf so I don't think they are going to daunt that many people.

I own all of HoME and have gained great pleasure from some of it ( I like knowing what Elf marriage rites were and the names of Imrahil's children ) other parts I haven't even looked at yet. People will find their own level.

I enjoy some fanfic and RPG but I wouldn't want any "authorised". And HoME is a great resource for those of us who want to RPG with respect to the integrity of Tolkien's creation. Personally I am very glad that CT inclination or duty turned him to editing his fathers notes rather than using them to create "new" stories. THe only caveat is that there must be so much he "knows" through conversations etc but hasn't included in HoME due to lack of documentation. I just hope that he has recorded it somewhere....

I do find it a little ironic that having been embarrassed by my love of Tolkien during my degree that it is cause for compalint that JRRT is being taken TOO seriously by the scholars.

The companion is wonderful by the way...

[Lalwendë]

No, I don't want any 'authorised' fan-fic either. Not because I think it is bad (much of it is very good), but because I don't want the waters to be muddied. I want to read what Tolkien wrote, and to know that any other 'spin-offs' are just that, spin-offs. I want clear lines where possible.

Aside from anything else, this helps keep it clear what Tolkien wrote and what he did not. I've read a fair few posts/articles where people have named all the Nazgul and claimed their information was correct because 'it's in the books'. But it isn't. That info came from a computer game as far as I know. Imagine how much misinformation there would be if we had authorised fan fiction?

The other thing is that Tolkien's work is not a natural mythology, it is a created one. I wonder how much it really has to say about the history of our real world? Do 'natural' mythologies have more to say about the 'truth'? I'd hate to think that people ditched what was left of England's actual folklore and myth in favour of what Tolkien had written down. That would be very sad indeed.

[davem]

Mith. I understand what you mean. I also own (& have read!) HoM-e (in paperback & the three volume hardback set in the slipcase. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been produced - we all owe CT a debt of thanks.

I also own a good 50-60 volumes of secondary literature on Tolkien, so I'm not opposed to such things. My point was that the important things on Tolkien seem to have been said & what we're getting now is really not all that important - essays in the last two volumes of Tolkien Studies have speculated on the possible influence on Tolkien of King Solomon's Mines & The Old Curiosity Shop. We've had a slew of books showing how LotR is a 'fundamentally Christian work', or 'revealing' the Norse & Celtic influences on Tolkien's writings. The point is - we know all that - whether we agree with it or not is another matter.

now I can't help thinking that to treat it as a mythology primarily is to demean Tolkien's achievement in creating what seems plausible as a mythology, what seems plausible as a world.

I don't see that it is - that was Tolkien's desire - to create a mythology he could dedicate to his country. Neither am I arguing for an 'authorised' sequel(s). I'm making the point that all we are getting now is a scholarly dissection (with an increasing obsession with the obscure & unnecessary) & that that is not what attracted us to Tolkien's creation in the first place, or what draws us back to it.

[Mithalwen]

I mean that if people think of it as a "true" mythology as opposed to a synthetic one it means that Tolkien's role is forgotten... so successful he disappears.

While there may be a good deal of dross to gold, if it means that Tolkien takes his proper place in the literary world rather than being regarded as "unplaceable".

Actually, having read Haggard and seen paralels drawn elsewhere ..I think that sounds interesting. I haven't read The Old Curiosity Shop (can't get beyond Wilde's comment about the death of Little Nell) so that would be less so.... interesting is very subjective...... Tolkien recognised this....... I guess even the most hardened fan has to admit that there is a point where interest flags (mine did in the early volumes of HoME but I read the History of LoTR ones from cover to cover) and accept that there are people more obsessed than you. In some ways that is comforting......

[davem]

I mean that if people think of it as a "true" mythology as opposed to a synthetic one it means that Tolkien's role is forgotten... so successful he disappears.

I suspect he may have wanted that.The art transcends the artist. I'm not sure what we gain by knowing so much about Tolkien's personal history. Doesn't it get in the way? If we read The Passage of the Marshes with thoughts of Tolkien's Somme experiences in our minds we are not fully 'there' with Frodo & Sam & the power of the moment will be lost on us. Same with the 'fact' that there are 'similarities' between the descriptions of Mordor & Dickens description of factory polluted northern towns.

While there may be a good deal of dross to gold, if it means that Tolkien takes his proper place in the literary world rather than being regarded as "unplaceable".

Is that really important? I'm less & less interested in whether Tolkien is accepted into the Literature Hall of Fame. I just want to wander in Middle-earth. That's why I came to love Tolkien's work in the first place. I didn't read LotR or TH for the first time thinking 'Well, I'm shocked that this wasn't in the classics section along with Cervantes & Austen! I must campaign to get this book accepted by the literati!' I just fell in love with world Tolkien had created.

As I say, my complaint is that the scholars don't seem to be saying anything of any great importance anymore. Shippey's Author of the Century is an important work, so is Fliger's Splintered Light, & A Question of Time. But those books are years old. What we are getting now is just more & more about less & less. And none of it has any of the 'magic' that I find in an actual reading of the stories.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Is that really important? I'm less & less interested in whether Tolkien is accepted into the Literature Hall of Fame. I just want to wander in Middle-earth. That's why I came to love Tolkien's work in the first place. I didn't read LotR or TH for the first time thinking 'Well, I'm shocked that this wasn't in the classics section along with Cervantes & Austen! I must campaign to get this book accepted by the literati!' I just fell in love with world Tolkien had created.

I fell in love with the world and then had to spend 4 years more or less in the closet during my literature degree. Tolkien fandom was a love that dare not speak it's name outside linguistics class. So I am glad that he is being taken seriously. As someone who prefers the world to the stories, the idea that it was influenced by the Somme, which had never occured to me, may actually get me to reread what I found one of the most tedious parts of the book.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I fell in love with the world and then had to spend 4 years more or less in the closet during my literature degree. Tolkien fandom was a love that dare not speak it's name outside linguistics class. So I am glad that he is being taken seriously. As someone who prefers the world to the stories, the idea that it was influenced by the Somme, which had never occured to me, may actually get me to reread what I found one of the most tedious parts of the book.

Having missed out on 'Higher' education this is a trauma I have managed to avoid. I'm not sure I would have cared all that much about the reaction of others even so. As to Tolkien being 'taken seriously' I think those who love the stories have always taken him seriously & as far as the others are concerned I simply couldn't care less about them or their opinions - on Tolkien or probably anything else.

the idea that it was influenced by the Somme, which had never occured to me

John Garth's book, Tolkien & the Great War, will tell you everything you want to know. And that one is another of the very few recent books on Tolkien that is worth reading. Also full of interesting stuff on the early phases of the Legendarium.