What was it all for?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Whilst I'm not prepared summarily to dismiss the Tea Club and Barrovian Society as a major influence on Tolkien, I feel compelled to ask the obvious question: if he set out to write The Lord of the Rings as part of an over-arching agenda to change the world through art, why did Tolkien wait until he was asked for a sequel to a children's story to write it? Why is it that the earliest part of the Silmarillion concerns a philological problem, and why does a large component of the Book of Lost Tales patently derive from his relationship with the woman he loved? Why did he only publish The Hobbit when a former student asked him to do so, and why was he not more forceful in his insistence that his world-changing works be published?

I don't doubt that the values of the TCBS formed one of the components from which Tolkien built his fiction, but as I should have pointed out above, the whole is greater and more complex than the sum of its parts. One cannot take the private communications of a group of young men to reflect their motivations ten or twenty years later, particularly since an horrific war intervened; and I would need to see Tolkien deliberately pursuing an artistic and moral agenda to be convinced that these were anything other than the fervent declarations of sensitive young men carried away by a sense of brotherhood and like-mindedness. The development of Tolkien's fiction seems too unplanned, too private and too concerned with other issues to be the result of a premeditated strategy devised by Tolkien and his schoolfellows. Now, the values of the TCBS do appear in Tolkien's fiction: the replacement of the corrupt master of Laketown with Bard the Bowman, the Scouring of the Shire and the conclusion of Leaf by Niggle are all instances in which Tolkien ridicules and routs the very sorts of people so vilified in the comments above. However, there is a difference between a deeply held belief being incorporated into a work of art and the work of art being produced for the purpose of communicating that conviction. This is exactly the same argument that I would use against anyone who claimed that The Lord of the Rings is deliberately intended to promulgate a Christian message: Tolkien's own working methods and early drafts, as clarified by HoME, argue against premeditation beyond the events in the next chapter. His declaration that he was trying to find out what really happened (I would say that he was feeling his way through his own stories) argues against there being a single aim behind any of his fiction, let alone all of it.

Since the initial question was 'what was it all for?' and not 'what was it all about?' I have to answer 'nothing'. Tolkien was one of those people who had to write, and he incorporated into his fiction all of the influences and material that were closest to his heart. It is not to denigrate him to point out that aspects of his work derived from his religion, or his professional interests, or his political beliefs; nor is that to suggest that crowing triumphantly each time one finds a parallel with something else is a constructive or valuable way to approach his fiction. If, however, the use of a particular meme (one which can be demonstrated by direct textual reference), leads us to a greater understanding of the story, then the search was valuable. Even cultural touchstones are components in a narrative. Why does Tolkien recast the names of real-life cities instead of using them unaltered? Surely because he means to take possession of those cultural touchstones and incorporate them into his legends. Why does he re-write The Seafarer and put it into the mouth of Ælfwine? Surely to help provide a bridge between his legends and the real world. Those are demonstrable uses of real-world material for specific narrative purposes. I would discount the use of Norse names for the Dwarves of The Hobbit since this looks more like a philological joke: of course Dvergatál is the place to find dwarf-names, since its very title means 'List of the Dwarfs'.

Source-hunting is a valueless and rather silly occupation unless the eventual discoveries add to the understanding of the text which incorporates them; and simply suggesting sources without any solid evidence is an invitation to a list thread. However, Tolkien did not exist in a vacuum, and his use of material gathered from outside his own imagination is neither random nor acritical. For a long time he was consciously and deliberately building links between The Silmarillion and real-world mythologies; and the development of Eriol into Ælfwine the Anglian (significantly from just that part of England for which Tolkien had an especial love), is an example of that development. This puts his use of medieval European myth and literature into the context that source-hunting requires to render it of any use to the reader. However, the aim to tie in his legends with the real world was itself developed over time, and I am not entirely sure whether or not Tolkien ever abandoned it.

I shall conclude by reiterating my main point: Tolkien had no overall literary aim. He wrote because his imagination would not rest unless he did so, and what he produced needs no aim or intent to give it value. In point of fact I value it more because it does not try to force a political, religious or moral agenda down my throat: it incorporates Tolkien's thoughts and opinions on those subjects, but never does he say: 'Thou shalt believe these things I speak'. I think that if a single aim or moral agenda had guided his work it would have read like much of C.S. Lewis' fiction: powerful, but marred by didacticism. I am grateful to Tolkien that he did not write in such a way.

[davem]

I'm not necessarily arguing that his aim was to create anything other than a work of Art. Though I would argue that the desire to inspire a moral regeneration was in his mind at the start. It is clear that he felt he had an obligation to set out the ideals of the TCBS in his fiction.

It also seems clear that in his desire to create a mythology for England (or perhaps we should say a mythology which he could dedicate to England) he was not just inspired by what Lonrot had done in bringing together the legends of Finland into the Kalevala, but in a way hoping to achieve a similar efffect through his art on the English people - a strengthening of English identity.

What we have to say as regards 'source hunting' is that, as you say (& as I've argued myself) the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - ie in writing the Legendarium Tolkien was not simply collating, amalgamating & re-writing his sources & his own life experiences. He was using those things as raw material to fashion something - even if that was 'only' a work of Art.

So, my purpose in this thread is to focus on what, exactly, his intention was. Its interesting to me that even though his motivation changed over time the stories, as I said, essentially didn't - we're talking about The Silmarillion writings here. They were written with a 'moral' intent (to put it crudely), to point up certain moral values. If the intent or desire changes the moral core of the vision doesn't. Essentially, even when Tolkien no longer wishes to bring about the moral regeneration of England, the moral core of the stories remains - which is ineresting in itself. the underlying moral value system remains even when he no longer wishes to 'moralise' through them.

I suppose the point of this thread is my own feeling that rather than looking at what Tolkien drew on to create what he did, there is more to be gained by focussing on what he actually produced. An oak tree may start out as an acorn, but the oak tree is far more than, & far other, than the acorn.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm not necessarily arguing that his aim was to create anything other than a work of Art.
...
So, my purpose in this thread is to focus on what, exactly, his intention was.

I am interested in your definition of this Art; do you see it as something different from the one "presented" in my first post, and if so, how?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am interested in your definition of this Art; do you see it as something different from the one "presented" in my first post, and if so, how?

Would you like a quick definition of the meaning of life, too

For myself it seems that the purpose of Art is to give us an experience of a deeper reality - or a deeper experience of reality - if they aren't the same thing. But that is the role of 'religion' too, I suppose. The man built the Tower so he could look out upon the Sea.

I think, at one time, Tolkien had this wish for his 'Art'. He talked of 'passing beyond the veil' or somthing.

Something in his work touches (some of) us in some deep way, opens (some of us) us up to 'something', or at least makes us more 'aware' of the living world around us & invites a response of some kind. One can argue over whether that is a 'religious' response till the cows come home, but we do respond to something.

Great Art exerts a 'pull' on us - like the 'pull' of a distant horizon - we want to know what lies beyond it.

'Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate...'

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by davem

Would you like a quick definition of the meaning of life, too

Yes, pretty please

Or, it seems to me you are answering your own question by not, in a way, answering it. What is the meaning of you opening a thread, what is it for you've done it? Well, answer, I presume, is to find out what Tolkien has been writing his stories for. But beyond? What is it for you want to know it? What is it for I sit deep into the night typing an answer to the thread you've strated, ultimately, you yourself know not what for? What is it for one wakes up each morning to do each day's chores or enjoy each days hobbies (or both) to go to sleep each evening (m-m, with an exeption of yours truly typing into the night not knowing what for, maybe).

If there is a meaning than same meaning applies to anything man does. And thing goodly done (any thing, even if it is a bowling strike masterfully performed) may be appealing, delightful, drawing, 'opening up new horizons'. The more complex the thing, the more impact.

If there is no meaning, than no thing has it, including Tolkien and his writings and us discussing these online and offline.

[davem]

Elves look backward, men look forward.
Elves have been somewhere, Men are going somewhere.
And yet both are aspects of the Human.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

In order to have been somewhere, or to be going somewhere, first somebody or something has to be. Bombadil said it: I am.

He does things, yes, but he does them for delight. Because he can. He does what seems right and he doesn't particularly fret about what he can't do. He is the Master.

Perhaps the secret identity of Bombadil isn't "He's a Maia!" or "He's Eru incarnate!". Perhaps Bombadil is Tolkien. Why write? Because he can, he's gifted with the ability and the fascination, and because it's not hurting anybody, and because he and others take pleasure from it. What does he write? That of which he is capable. He does it. Tolkien was a master, as far as that thing goes, of his play.

Maybe Middle Earth is secretly Taoist in nature.

Or maybe it just is.

What's the point of asking why? After all, why not?