What was it all for?

[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?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

Maybe Middle Earth is secretly Taoist in nature.

Or maybe it just is.

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

Well, it certainly is. It exists. Therefore it is something. It was intended (by Tolkien at least) that it exist. He desired that it be. More than that he desired that it be something specific. He was working toward a goal. He wanted to make something.

I suppose there's as much point in asking why as there is in asking how, in asking what did he create as in asking what did he use?

Why do we focus on his sources, on his biography, explore the world he created if it means nothing. We're constantly attempting to understand M-e & how it came to be. If it is entirely without meaning why do we respond so deeply to it?

If we find meaning in it is that meaning just imposed on it by us? Are we actually just seeking to impose a meaning on it, or are we seeking a meaning which we feel, on some level, to be there?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem --

I am looking at this differently than you are.

The way that I approach this is by examining those moments in my own life where I made a decision to create something----to invest my time and labor and heart in something that had particular meaning for me. I am not just limiting myself to writing but am speaking of all forms of subcreation: literary, academic, or personal. Certain landmarks stand out in my own life--- my decision to invest years earning a doctorate in medieval history, my interest in social history and a devotion of time and effort to produce studies based on that research, my decision to have a family and to try to impart certain values within the structure of that family. This list could go on. Nothing so grand as Master Tolkien---small commitments that make up a normal lfe. Still, I don't think the process of searching for meaning and commitment was that different for him than it was for the rest of us. He just did a much better job at what he attempted to do.

What strikes me is that I can not give you a single motivation as to why I decided to undertake a particular task on that list. What I can give you for every one of my "subcreations" is a tangled and multi-layered explanation of what attracted me to that endeavor: what it was that made my heart light up so I felt compelled to wander in that direction. The personal, the academic, the literary, and the spiritual are all tangled up.

And for me, at least, that choice of commitment represents a process of wandering---many questions asked, some wrong turns and detours. Where I eventually ended up was never the exact point I had initially envisioned. Things took shape slowly over many years. Could it have been any different for Tolkien? His desire to create languages, his love of stories, his youthful determination to ignite a moral rejuvenation in his contemporaries, his homage to the young Edith---there is no one purpose; there are many.

To try and isolate a "single" key to understand this author is not possible. You are looking for a simplicity that doesn't exist in real life. Indeed it is contrary to everything Tolkien stood for, his very nature and personality. Remember this is the author who couldn't bear to put the finishing touches on the Silmarillion and who was attempting to change some of the underlying philosophy behind Arda right up to the end of his life.

Kilby was right in using the term "contrasistency" to describe Tolkien. JRRT simply couldn't be pinned down, which is why we can endlessly debate how great an influence X or Y had on the finished text. His reasons for subcreating were many: they seem to have changed from one year, one decade, even one minute to the next. There was no one overarching goal that was set in stone from the very beginning. He had many reason for writing, and these shifted and changed over time, helping to redefine Middle-earth.

[davem]

Ok, but is it an important inquiry? When I ask what was it all for I'm attempting to focus on where he ended up, rather than where he started.

Or put aside any conscious intent on Tolkien's part. Let's say he had no 'blueprint' - we can still ask whether he created something with 'value'. Is it an abstract painting, or a Rorshach blot, into which we read meaning, see something which wasn't actually put there by the artist, or did Tolkien create something very specific (even if he didn't intend to, or realise he was actually doing so).

[Aiwendil]

Davem, it seems to me that you are changing the question in mid-argument. Perhaps I simply misunderstood your earlier posts on this thread. But you said:

Tolkien spent 60 years doing something, & he must have had a reason for devoting such time & energy to it. He wasn't just using 'sources', he was using them for something.

And:

Just attempting to understand why he did what he did.

Now you say:

When I ask what was it all for I'm attempting to focus on where he ended up, rather than where he started.

I think it's clear that there are two distinct questions here, but I don't think it's at all clear which you intended to discuss in this thread. Which are we discussing:

1. Why Tolkien wrote - i.e. what his intention was
or
2. What the result was (related to the issue of what value the work has)?