What does it mean to Write in the Spirit of Tolkien?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Celuien

I would particularly posit that the last sentence from the quote Bethberry gave does not necessarily follow in the LotR. Aragorn and Arwen. Beren and Luthien. Those matches were required by 'fate,' if you will, for the story of Middle-earth to unfold as it did. In addition to the appearance that the couples in question were just made for each other. What could be more suitable than that?

So, to write in the spirit of Tolkien in this particular case, how much would one draw from the rather pragmatic advice he gave his son, and how much from the admittedly less detailed view of relationships he gave in the published works? And how similar are they really?

Interesting. LotR is a Romance, according to Tolkien. Thus the courtly love mode is more likely to be there; and so we find it. Eowyn hero-worships Aragorn before she is drawn into the protective and nurturing care of Faramir (rather maternal terms!).

The only intergender relationship that does not seem to follow this is Samwise and Rosy. Does it appear that Sam has found his star, and Rosy wants to bear his children? As like it does as not, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Celuien

Is it an expression of a vision of what might be for this world, in a less direct and non-allegorical sphere?

By "it", I believe you refer to fantasy as a genre. So what you're suggesting is that fantasy performs the same functions, within its own genre, that science fiction does in its genre? If so, what are they? And what does that tell us about fantasy?

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Elempi

By "it", I believe you refer to fantasy as a genre.

Yes.

So what you're suggesting is that fantasy performs the same functions, within its own genre, that science fiction does in its genre? If so, what are they? And what does that tell us about fantasy?

Indeed. It goes back to the idea of purging the gross, again. Where the mythic (Aragorn) and not so mythic (Sam, though by definition, he is fantasy as a member of a non-existent subspecies of humans ) characters adhere to the right path, where there's more beauty and appreciation of beauty than we sometimes remember to give in reality, and where, at least with regard to the LotR, the 'right' outcome always takes place. Keeping in mind, of course, that the right outcome isn't always the happy outcome.

Fantasy as an instruction book on life?

[Bêthberry]

Interesting thoughts here! I see that Celuien just couldn't resist moving the discussion to Books! Great choice of thread, eh, lmp

A couple of points come to my mind as I read over your posts here. First, if LotR is a matter of Tolkien appropriating Romance for his story, does that use of Romance so thoroughly alter the depiction of men as well as of women? Second, is Tolkien, in both cases--his letter to his son and his creative writing--engaged in discussing or portraying cultural constructs of women? And, thirdly, what would it mean to portray women this way--"free of the dross" as we seem to say here on the Barrow Downs. Is this a matter of Tolkien's faith assuming that human sexual identity is all part and parcel of "evil" in this world?

Tolkien's letter finds fault with the courtly love mode, after all.

Originally Posted by Celuien

I was thinking most specifically of the letter we were debating over on the planning thread, and wondering if there's a case to be made that Tolkien, since he didn't seem to like the state of things to which he made reference in that letter, might have altered it in the same way as he altered the Orcs.

You mean, his curious ways of sidestepping the issue of moral choice and redemption of orcs?

And, what ever was behind Fea's outburst that Tolkien can go suck lemons? Perhaps she should join this discussion here, eh?

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Interesting thoughts here! I see that Celuien just couldn't resist moving the discussion to Books!

Of course not. The dicussion was far too interesting to stop where we were.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

You mean, his curious ways of sidestepping the issue of moral choice and redemption of orcs?

Well, I was referring to lmp's point about cursing and cleaning up orcish language.
But it extends to moral choice as well, I think. I suppose getting into that knotty point about the orcs might have loosened the rather clear cut roles they play throughout the Legendarium as out and out 'baddies.' Not sure where I'm going with this line of thought, though. I'm working on running out the door to go to a meeting and can't attend to it properly just now. More later...

[littlemanpoet]

Crap. I just lost all of what I answered to this. Here goes again....

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

First, if LotR is a matter of Tolkien appropriating Romance for his story, does that use of Romance so thoroughly alter the depiction of men as well as of women?

It would be a mistake to reduce it to that. Actually, the contemporary understanding of gender role and nature is the historical aberration. Granted, we may see it as the most evolved or developed state (or not), but general intellecutal, values-oriented, socio-economic, and political equality (or at least the belief that so it ought to be) has not been the norm.

Originally Posted by Bb

Second, is Tolkien, in both cases--his letter to his son and his creative writing--engaged in discussing or portraying cultural constructs of women?

Most assuredly.

Originally Posted by Bb

And, thirdly, what would it mean to portray women this way--"free of the dross" as we seem to say here on the Barrow Downs?

That would be "free of the gross", to be accurate. One writer's "gross" may be another's "passable". What, in gender role, be considered "gross" on the Rohan RP forum? Most RPrs do make a conscious effort to employ in their writing as much as they can discern of Eorling culture. That as a given, we would have to go with what Tolkien has told us about that culture, which is (with translator's conceit accounted for) basically and only Anglo-Saxon in nature, and loosely based on medieval conceptions (though not entirely, whatever that is supposed to mean). So is "gross", perhaps, "practical woman employing the language of Romance in order to find a man to marry"? I think not. Romance, as such, was high-medieval, and Eorling culture was based on more or less (c)1000 A.D. Anglo-Saxon culture (I think).

Originally Posted by Bb

Is this a matter of Tolkien's faith assuming that human sexual identity is all part and parcel of "evil" in this world?

I think Tolkien took "practical female" and "idealistic male" as creationally normative. Evil, he would say (I think), would be any aberrations thereto (such as contemporary understandings).

Originally Posted by Bb

Tolkien's letter finds fault with the courtly love mode, after all.

It is an aberration.

Originally Posted by Bb

You mean, his curious ways of sidestepping the issue of moral choice and redemption of orcs?

How does he do this?

Originally Posted by Bb

And, what ever was behind Fea's outburst that Tolkien can go suck lemons?

Oh, that's easy. She was horrified and depressed that someone who could write something as great as LotR could have such ridiculous views..... (if I know Fea...)

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

How does he do this?

Possibly through the various modifications of Orcish origins. I'm not clear on the story, but I think I read somewhere that the origin was changed from corrupted Elves, who could have sought redemption in Mandos, to animals without fëar animated through the will of Sauron/Morgoth, and therefore not really acting through free will -- and also not capable of being redeemed, I would suppose.

I could have that wrong though, and I invite Bethberry's correction.

[littlemanpoet]

As I have said elsewhere (and SPM agreed!), I think the Orcs-from-animals notion was a mistake, as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the Legendarium; it only achieved their irredemptability. Just goes to show what can happen if you start using theology to determine what must be instead of using reality (even feigned).

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As I have said elsewhere (and SPM agreed!), I think the Orcs-from-animals notion was a mistake, as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the Legendarium; it only achieved their irredemptability.

Agreed. I prefer the explanation as given in the Sil, because it does make a lot more sense to me than the other explanation considering the complex (and I would argue indepenent) behavior of Orcs that is seen in both the LotR and The Hobbit (and, yes, I will disagree with those who argue it isn't part of the Legendarium proper ).

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Just goes to show what can happen if you start using theology to determine what must be instead of using reality (even feigned).

Agreed again.

And so...writing means that striving to maintain the subcreated world's realistic integrity should trump allowing personal views to slip in? Again, I'm thinking of the avoidance of allegory.

I think that's where I wanted to go yesterday.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Celuien

Possibly through the various modifications of Orcish origins. I'm not clear on the story, but I think I read somewhere that the origin was changed from corrupted Elves, who could have sought redemption in Mandos, to animals without fëar animated through the will of Sauron/Morgoth, and therefore not really acting through free will -- and also not capable of being redeemed, I would suppose.

I could have that wrong though, and I invite Bethberry's correction.

Originally Posted by lmp

I think the Orcs-from-animals notion was a mistake, as it doesn't really fit with the rest of the Legendarium; it only achieved their irredemptability. Just goes to show what can happen if you start using theology to determine what must be instead of using reality (even feigned).

I suppose this would be somewhat akin to davem's notion about a completely self-contained subcreated world. Tinkering with a story to make it conform to primary world notions disrupts the inherent wholeness of the story. But how you got to orcs from women and gender, Celuien, is quite a feat of non-lateral thinking.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Seems to me that the question here is turning on two points:

1) Stylistic: to write like Tolkien in the sense that the story is an amalgam of contemporary novelistic realism and Romance.

2) Thematic: to write about the same kind of world or world-view as Tolkien did, in the sense that the story is an amalgam of contemporary beliefs, ideals and more archaic ones including Romance (but, I think, more forcefully Anglo-Saxon ideals).

In my own humble opinion, very few writers before or after Tolkien have been able to pull off both of these very tricky balancing acts as well as the professor...but I shall avoid "gushing" (! !) For my own tastes, fantasy that does both at the same time is the most pleasurable for me to read. But there are other finely crafted and engaging fantasy tales that do one or the other, or which priviledge one over the other.

Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea is a story in which contemporary values and beliefs about race, gender, existential philosophy and psychology are fully at the front of consideration, but it is told in a consciously archaic mode with a narrator reminiscent of folk-tale and all the motifs of fairy-tale and mytho-heroic quests.

Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series are written in an entirely contemporary fashion with no sign of archaism in the narrative style (that I can see) but it presents a world governed by a more remote and distant set of values which are presented as the key to curing the "disease" of modernity: disbelief.

Both of these works were and are hailed by critics and audiences as being in the "spirit" or "tradition" of Tolkien, which is I think legitimate. Like Tolkien they work with this mix of contemporary and archaic in both style and theme, only they do so in slightly altered form in terms of that mixture.

Back to lurking.

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But how you got to orcs from women and gender, Celuien, is quite a feat of non-lateral thinking.

For that feat of connection making, I'll take a bow. Actually, that's the sort of thing I can be notorious for in RL. An unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your point of view) habit of making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas and then filling in the stepwise progression later...if ever.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.

As did I. All of the paths to evil I can think of lead through a desire for power or power struggles. Saruman. Morgoth. Sauron. Even (if I may stretch the point a bit) the Kinslaying, since that was in essence the result of the Teleri's failing to bend to Feanor's will that they turn over their ships. Along with Feanor's issues with pride.

I'm quite interested in the idea of mixing the archaic and contemporary. More thoughts on that when I'm not worn out by 350 miles of driving, with unpacking still to be done...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It would be a mistake to reduce it to that. Actually, the contemporary understanding of gender role and nature is the historical aberration. Granted, we may see it as the most evolved or developed state (or not), but general intellecutal, values-oriented, socio-economic, and political equality (or at least the belief that so it ought to be) has not been the norm.

The desire to eliminate slavery--an form of supreme inequality--is also a "historical aberration" as you use the term. And I think it is fair to say that Tolkien repudiates slavery in LotR.

Originally Posted by LMP

That would be "free of the gross", to be accurate. One writer's "gross" may be another's "passable". What, in gender role, be considered "gross" on the Rohan RP forum? Most RPrs do make a conscious effort to employ in their writing as much as they can discern of Eorling culture. That as a given, we would have to go with what Tolkien has told us about that culture, which is (with translator's conceit accounted for) basically and only Anglo-Saxon in nature, and loosely based on medieval conceptions (though not entirely, whatever that is supposed to mean). So is "gross", perhaps, "practical woman employing the language of Romance in order to find a man to marry"? I think not. Romance, as such, was high-medieval, and Eorling culture was based on more or less (c)1000 A.D. Anglo-Saxon culture (I think).

Oh, when I posted Tolkien's letter, the context was a discussion thread in Rohan, but I wasn't thinking solely in terms of Rohan RPGs. Actually, I was thinking more in terms simply of the nature of fanfictioning RPGs. Is such related only to a faithful imitation of the original, or can it provide imaginative re-interpretation of the original, or can it incorporate--*gasp*--revisions of the original? Is fanfiction ever free to be a wholly unique, original art, as Tolkien's art was?

Originally Posted by lmp

I think Tolkien took "practical female" and "idealistic male" as creationally normative. Evil, he would say (I think), would be any aberrations thereto (such as contemporary understandings).

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.

Originally Posted by lmp

Oh, that's easy. She was horrified and depressed that someone who could write something as great as LotR could have such ridiculous views..... (if I know Fea...)

Feet of clay, eh? tsk.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The desire to eliminate slavery--an form of supreme inequality--is also a "historical aberration" as you use the term. And I think it is fair to say that Tolkien repudiates slavery in LotR.

My understanding of Tolkien's views would therefore include a qualification that the gender differences he saw as normative, he did not see as unjust, whereas he saw slavery as unjust and therefore, though "aberrant", nevertheless wrong.

Originally Posted by Bb

Oh, when I posted Tolkien's letter, the context was a discussion thread in Rohan, but I wasn't thinking solely in terms of Rohan RPGs. Actually, I was thinking more in terms simply of the nature of fanfictioning RPGs. Is such related only to a faithful imitation of the original, or can it provide imaginative re-interpretation of the original, or can it incorporate--*gasp*--revisions of the original? Is fanfiction ever free to be a wholly unique, original art, as Tolkien's art was?

Well, we run the gamut right here at BD. Assigned to Mordor is virtual spoof while Prisoner of Numenor & Tapestry of Dreams, to speak of ones I know, are attempts to "spin off" of the Legendarium and at the same time abide as closely as we know how, to the content and its norms. As for revisions, do you have something in mind? .... such as gender relatedness?

Originally Posted by Bb

I thought evil for Tolkien was the desire for power over others, even power which purports to be in service of others.

That is one aspect of evil, but certainly not the only one. However, I can imagine that Tolkien would have understood modern day feminists as trying to wrest from men what should be left to them, especially as those things women must give up in order to have what the feminists desire, are the things that women, if they really understood themselves, treasure most. Not that I agree with such a view, but I understand it and its mindset.

There is a side issue that I want to raise. The female writers at BD (such as Fea) protest at Tolkien's outdated view of women. However, might it not be that Tolkien's view, half of it anyway, is based on his (dare I say it) accurate understanding of a man's inner workings as regards gender relations? Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women? I daresay I can spot a female writer trying to write a man attracted to a woman: the narrative is missing certain things. Care to make an attempt (based on Tolkien's essay oh so many posts above) as to what these might be?

[Celuien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That is one aspect of evil, but certainly not the only one. However, I can imagine that Tolkien would have understood modern day feminists as trying to wrest from men what should be left to them, especially as those things women must give up in order to have what the feminists desire, are the things that women, if they really understood themselves, treasure most. Not that I agree with such a view, but I understand it and its mindset.

LMP treads on dangerous ground. This writer is tempted to compose a rant, but because it would be strictly off topic, I won't.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women?

Probably not. At least I don't. I think I can guess what those missing items are that you allude to.

...whereas he saw slavery as unjust and therefore, though "aberrant", nevertheless wrong.

Far more succinct summary of the mixture of contemporary and old issue than I was going to attempt.

Back to ruminating...

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

There is a side issue that I want to raise. The female writers at BD (such as Fea) protest at Tolkien's outdated view of women. However, might it not be that Tolkien's view, half of it anyway, is based on his (dare I say it) accurate understanding of a man's inner workings as regards gender relations? Do women (let's be specific: women who are members of the Barrowdowns) really understand what it is like to be a man relating to women? I daresay I can spot a female writer trying to write a man attracted to a woman: the narrative is missing certain things. ...

I'm not sure, so I'll ask you: how close was Noldo?