Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Morwen

So origin doesn't matter? Authenticity is merely a question of getting the details right?

Authenticity can be determined or guided by consistency with the text, the work itself. After all, medieval scholars like Tolkien often worked with texts with unknown authors, and so they did their work based on textual and linquistic considerations, not on who the author was.

You know, Lal, there was a time when the Downs had a very strong sense of courtesy and decorum regarding how to conduct our discussions. We would query and refute the ideas but we would not resort to attacking our "opponents" by claiming they situated themselves in scatological places. Cleverly contrived ad hominem attacks, even with wit, are still attacks on the person rather than the ideas. They demean the entire discussion.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Authenticity can be determined or guided by consistency with the text, the work itself. After all, medieval scholars like Tolkien often worked with texts with unknown authors, and so they did their work based on textual and linquistic considerations, not on who the author was.

You know, Lal, there was a time when the Downs had a very strong sense of courtesy and decorum regarding how to conduct our discussions. We would query and refute the ideas but we would not resort to attacking our "opponents" by claiming they situated themselves in scatological places. Cleverly contrived ad hominem attacks, even with wit, are still attacks on the person rather than the ideas. They demean the entire discussion.

Maybe Downers should not dish out such tasty dishes of vitriol and then complain when their dinner guests serve up bile on the return visit? When I have a fight, if my opponent chooses a brace of pistols I will not be satisfied with accepting a mere wet handkerchief for myself. One is not the only shrew around these parts.

Oh yes, the thread....Tolkien working on the text of Beowulf with its unknown author is a whole different kettle of fish than one of us thinking about Tolkien - who was, errr, Tolkien! Or maybe Lewis wrote LotR, in a kinda 20th century Shakespeare/Marlowe type twist? That way madness lies.....

[Child of the 7th Age]

Frankly, I think SpM's earlier post summed up the current situation with a fair degree of accuracy. There is little doubt as to the short-term answer to this question. There is little financial or literary reason for the Estate to open up the floodgates to one or more "authorized" extensions of Middle-earth. Whether we want more stories or hate the whole idea of any additions to the Legendarium, I doubt it's going to happen in the short term beyond what is registered on ephemeral fanfiction sites. So where does that leave us?

I would say that the ins and outs of what will happen in the next fifty years--which "products" or "expressions" are licensed and which are not-- hold only limited interest for me. What I am more interested in knowing is this: what will happen to Tolkien's writings and to Middle-earth 200 or 500 or 1,000 years from now? That seems to me a much more legitimate question, and one that does not have a clear cut answer. The Estate as a legal entity is unlikely to exist. Copyright will be gone. Will interest in Tolkien still be as strong and vibrant as it is today? Will people connect with the story and characters on some essential level, or will Middle-earth simply be regarded by a few interested scholars as a pleasant but anachronistic expression of the twentieth century?

Earlier in this thread--I am too lazy to lay my hands on it, Davem dismissed the idea that the body of Tolkien's writings could be viewed as mythology. I do not agree. I feel that if the Legendarium holds meaning -- real long term meaning that spills over into the future -- then Middle-eath will ultimately be viewed as a mythic creation rather than a series of discrete novels and poems. Interestingly, it's the work of Christopher that has made this possible. By presenting us with HoMe, we are given a wider picture of Tolkien's world than is possible from merely reading those stories that were published in the author's lifetime. It's also because of the work of scholars like Flieger and Hammond and especially Shippey. We understand to what extent Tolkien drew on existing myth and legend and history for his own subcreation, just as all true myth does.

And like other true myths, the Legendarium touches us because it explains something about how our world and feelings and values evolved. It does this by creating a world and a time that have no exact parallel in the historical framework of mankind as we know it. That is exactly what works like the Illiad and Odyssey or the Arthurian legends do. Some people see the Legendarium's meaning in the context of Christianity; others focus on faerie, on the natural world, the Norse/Finnish paradigm, or even the "post-modern" dispair of the Children of Hurin. But almost all who read Tolkien are seeing and hearing not just the specific characters he's created, but ghostly spirits of meaning that haunt the surrounding landscape.

If the Legendarium is nothing more than a number of specific, finite pieces of literature (however well crafted), then it would be inappropriate for anyone to try and write another story and say that it is a legitimate extension of Tolkien's Middle-earth. But if Middle-earth is more than that, if it comes to be regarded as myth or the creation of an alternate world, why can't we have other people continuing the same story some 500 years from now?

I'm not afraid about the quality of the stories that will be passed on. There are some dreadful retellings/extensions of the Arthurian legends, but there are also wonderful and vibrant expressions of these stories in the form of novels, poetry and drama. These adaptations have enriched our understanding; they have added to the orginal telling rather than diminished it in any way. Moreover, time and good taste has winnowed the good from the bad. We don't remember the potboilers. We do remember retellings by folk like Malory, T.H. White, Tennyson, and Charles Williams. The same is true for the ancient legends. I am willing to admit that Homer (or whoever he was) stands head and shoulders over all his later interpreters, but I wouldn't want to lose the latter, simply because they didn't supply the original genius. And, again, I don't think their adaptations in any way diminish what Homer accomplished.

Why can't it be the same for Middle-earth?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

Why can't it be the same for Middle-earth?

Because it is only a faux mythology. Sorry, but that's what it is. It was created out of the imagination of one man. A Mythology or legend is wholly different and springs from the collective mind. Tolkien, unless he had some kind of split personality disorder, was a man with only one mind.

Myth cycles are/were sacred to the peoples who wrote them down and who passed on the stories. They are religious texts in effect which have become denigrated by other religions and regimes which followed. They have been left free to muck around with as we see fit.

I have to say that Tolkien would have been horrified to think that his little story, his personal creation, would one day replace all the genuine myths and legends out there, would stomp all over the fragility of our real history. Arthur was a real person, so was Robin Hood, and Atlantis is from the collective ancient memory. They are ours, but can so easily be lost. Once we start muddying the waters - as the French did with Arthur - what was real will so easily be lost. Not only can we lose our genuine Mythology but we could lose the coherence of Tolkien's Art too.

Someone once said in relation to Tolkien's misquoted line about dedicating a mythology to England (not replacing one, or providing one, but honouring us as a people with one he had made up) that he was wrong. What he achieved in actuality was to create a mythology for Americans. And I think that's the way it is going - you can see it in the Disneyfied Hobbit holes being built, the way a very different type of Christian to what Tolkien was is claiming the text for themselves, the way the Beautiful People of the Elves have been latched onto...Someone may well be the brightest, most creative Tolkien expert in the world, but if they are a sunny Floridian Baptist product of a right wing meritocracy then I'm afraid they are worlds away from the mindset of a gently eccentric, Middle class, Oxford boffin living in post war austerity England.

Sorry to bust a few daydreams of RPG-ers but under all this clever talk of postmodernism blah blah lies the simple fact that if you are any good at writing and have an ounce of creativity then one day you ought to go and found your own worlds instead of copying Tolkien. Not only is that lazy but it also means the general public will continue to suffer from a dearth of genuine, decent original fiction and have to continue to put up with the derivative pap that calls itself 'postmodern'.

And there's the rub. Some people see it as legitimate fun, which it genuinely is in its current state. But as for commercial gain or getting the ego boost of the shiny gold JRRT logo on a book with your name on it - I see that as cheap and tacky. Tolkien's might only be a faux mythology but it's as fragile as a real one.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Because it is only a faux mythology. Sorry, but that's what it is. It was created out of the imagination of one man. A Mythology or legend is wholly different and springs from the collective mind. Tolkien, unless he had some kind of split personality disorder, was a man with only one mind.

The very fact that a Legendarium is made by several persons goes against your argument. If a Legendarium is better/ more real/ more authentic based on the fact that more people contributed to it, then, by your own line of reasoning, we need more authors to contribute to this Legendarium. Ironic .

Anyway, Tolkien had zero problems with making myths. Not only did he consider this possible, even nowadays, he also didn't exclude anyone from being able to make myths, as far as I am aware. And as far as your statement that "Myth cycles are/were sacred to the peoples who wrote them down and who passed on the stories", Tolkien did consider myths as a spiritual instrument.

Originally Posted by Chapter three, Part Four, "J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography" by Humphrey Carpenter

Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man aspire to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall.

[Lalwendë]

Legendarium is an archaic word chosen by Tolkien to distinguish between his created faux mythology and a genuine one.

What we are forgetting is that Tolkien intentionally left holes in his work as real mythology has holes. He left enigmas that cannot and maybe ought not be explained:

even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).

It is an incredible work of forgery on one level, a work which makes you believe you are reading real myths and legends. I could go on for days listing all the clever tricks he uses, but one of them is to fool you into thinking there is something else, just there, over the horizon...make you think there are untold tales. But there aren't. It's the scenery. And he warns us that like Fairy Gold, if we go chasing after it we might not find it, nor might we be very pleased when we get there and find it was just an illusion:

I am doubtful myself about the undertaking [of finalizing The Silmarillion]. Part of the attraction of the L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed. Also many of the older legends are purely 'mythological', and nearly all are grim and tragic: a long account of the disasters that destroyed the beauty of the Ancient World, from the darkening of Valinor to the Downfall of Númenor and the flight of Elendil.

All this wanting to 'perfect' Tolkien's work - where does it end? We don't do this to other writers or artists, we don't scrape little bits off Monet's Lily Pond and make it nicer! We're free to use it as a basis for witty parody and paint a new one with a shopping trolley dumped in the middle (like Banksy did) but not to rearrange the original to fit our own needs. I have to say that this tendency displays a lot about Tolkien fans - do we have this Asperger's type tendency to be pedants and want to alphabetise everything? Have it in order? Gather every 'factoid' as a geek might say? Can't we just enjoy what we have rather than treating his work as some science experiment to be 'written up' at some point in the future? At the heart of this lies a simple decision to be made - do you view Tolkien's work as literature or as 'product'?

Tolkien has had people fooled - making us think he left gaps to be filled, to be rearranged, but he left them there just because. He was an Artist. Leave Him Alone!

[davem]

Seems Lal said a lot of this while I was writing this post, but I'll add it anyway.

Sorry, but JRRT didn't create a myth – for all the reasons Lal gave. One man cannot create a mythology. A mythology is the remnant of a religious system, not simply a set of stories.

What Tolkien did was create a pseudo-mythology, & did it so well that he fooled a lot of his readers into thinking it genuine – or at least that it has the potential to become genuine. And that's an interesting angle.

You could treat Tolkien's creation as a mythology, & open it up to other contributors. Yet at that point it would cease to be what it is & begin to become something wholly other. Tolkien's original would become no more than a starting point, & ultimately his writings would have no more 'authority' than those of any other writer – that's the central point about a true myth – no version has authority – some may be seen as more 'authentic' – but even that is a value judgement. No. As soon as you declare Tolkien's writings to be a 'myth' you turn Tolkien himself into one among many creators of M-e.

IF you're not prepared to relegate Tolkien to that position you're already denying that the Legendarium is a true mythology. If it’s a myth then its up for grabs for anyone to do anything with it. If its not up for grabs in that way then its not a true myth –which is a possession of mankind to do with as it will.

The idea of 'authorising' certain individuals to continue the story is a clear denial of the idea that we are dealing with a 'myth' in the true sense. And if its not a 'myth' then it’s the creation of one individual – a work of Art rather than a myth, & from that point of view the artist is the only true source.

Sorry, but the Legendarium is no more a 'mythology' than the work of an artist who produced a new 'medieval' manuscript by using authentic materials & bindings & cleverly aging the product so as to make it look like it was centuries old. That's effectively what Tolkien did.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Legendarium is an archaic word chosen by Tolkien to distinguish between his created faux mythology and a genuine one.

You claim to protect Tolkien's authenticity and heritage, yet you disregard his own view on myths, and his work as myths. I keep getting amused in this thread.

What we are forgetting is that Tolkien intentionally left holes in his work as real mythology has holes. He left enigmas that cannot and maybe ought not be explained:

Some are intended enigmas, as Bombadil, some are simply unfinished stories. The very quote you gave leaves room for new stories, provided that "new unattainable vistas are again revealed".

Originally Posted by davem

Now, Tolkien did not create a 'myth' in this sense. What he did was, through his familiarity with myth, create the illusion of 'myth'. His work reads like myth, but it is art, illusion, fantasy.

So, like Lewis, you think that myths (or these myths) are simply lies, "breathed through silver"? Again, you would be at odds with Tolkien's own ideas. I am certain you are familiar with the discussion from the Biography which I quoted previously.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

You claim to protect Tolkien's authenticity and heritage, yet you disregard his own view on myths, and his work as myths. I keep getting amused in this thread.
Some are intended enigmas, as Bombadil, some are simply unfinished stories. The very quote you gave leaves room for new stories, provided that "new unattainable vistas are again revealed".

And he also made references to works like 'The Fall of Gil-Galad' ("which Bilbo must have translated" which he never actually wrote, or intended to write. The idea of 'lost' works was deliberate, & adds to the sense of M-e having a 'real' historical existence. The fact that some tales which Tolkien intended to complete remained incomplete actually adds to that sense. Completing unfinished tales & writing new ones would actually work against the effect.

So, like Lewis, you think that myths (or these myths) are simply lies, "breathed through silver"? Again, you would be at odds with Tolkien's own ideas. I am certain you are familiar with the discussion from the Biography which I quoted previously.

So, like (fill in the blank) you like to put words in people's mouths in order to create straw men which you can knock down?

You are confusing Tolkien's views on myth with the nature of myth itself. One person cannot create a mythology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology.

Historically, the important approaches to the study of mythological thinking have been those of Vico, Schelling, Schiller, Jung, Freud, Lávy-Bruhl, Levi-Strauss, Frye, the Soviet school, and the Myth and Ritual School.[12]

Myths are narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests. Once this link to the spiritual leadership of society is broken, they lose their mythological qualities and become folktales or fairy tales.[13] In folkloristics, which is concerned with the study of both secular and sacred narratives, a myth also derives some of its power from being more than a simple "tale", by comprising an archetypical quality of "truth".

Myths are often intended to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions or rituals, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself. This broader truth runs deeper than the advent of critical history, and it may or may not exist as in an authoritative written form which becomes "the story" (preliterate oral traditions may vanish as the written word becomes "the story" and the literate class becomes "the authority"). However, as Lucien Lévy-Bruhl puts it, "The primitive mentality is a condition of the human mind, and not a stage in its historical development."[14]

Most often the term refers specifically to ancient tales of historical cultures, such as Greek mythology or Roman mythology. Some myths descended originally as part of an oral tradition and were only later written down, and many of them exist in multiple versions. According to F. W. J. Schelling in the eighth chapter of Introduction to Philosophy and Mythology, "Mythological representations have been neither invented nor freely accepted. The products of a process independent of thought and will, they were, for the consciousness which underwent them, of an irrefutable and incontestable reality. Peoples and individuals are only the instruments of this process, which goes beyond their horizon and which they serve without understanding."

Tolkien could not have created a genuine mythology - mythologies cannot be 'created' by individuals. Tolkien wrote a series of interlinked tales. I don't know if you genuinely do not understand the nature of 'mythology' or whether you're just attempting to score points here, but we have to get our terms right if we're to get anywhere in this discussion. If Tolkien created a 'mythology' then every writer of fantasy stories has also created a 'mythology'. Making up a story with gods & goddesses in it is not 'inventing a mythology' - though that phrase may be a convenient shorthand.

Myths, clearly, are not 'lies'. They were, in origin, religious tales, believed in as completely as the stories in the Bible or Koran. And that's the point - no-one (if they're classifiable as sane) believes Tolkien's stories are remnants of genuine beliefs. Of course, Tolkien played the game of being merely a 'translator' in both the Hobbit Forword & the Foreword to the First Edition of LotR - though that foreword was re-written for the Second Edition & any idea (however tongue in cheek) that LotR was anything other than a fictional work was removed.

Homer drew on a existing mythology (as did Dante) to produce their Art. Tolkien invented a 'mythological' background for his tales.

Its vital to distinguish between mythology & 'mythology' here.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

The fact that some tales which Tolkien intended to complete remained incomplete actually adds to that sense. Completing unfinished tales & writing new ones would actually work against the effect.

Again, we are talking about a personal opinion, being satisfied with it is and what is not. Far from being an objective truth, because an absolute, objective truth in this field does not actually exist; it may be adopted in certain places, in certain times. But that's it.

So, like (fill in the blank) you like to put words in people's mouths in order to create straw men which you can knock down?

Since you qualified his myths, among others, as illusions, I find that me asking you (not putting words in your mouth) if you consider myths as lies, is quite an appropriate question - and the parallel I drew with Lewis a valid one.

One person cannot create a mythology.

That is quite a statement. What evidence do we have in that regard, seeing that we are talking about past, oral traditions? In fact, since it has been already pointed that myths come down from religions or some spiritual beliefs - it is often the case that a religion or a spiritual belief comes from one individual, through revelation, or other means. Therefore, at least some myths or mythologies, at least in origin, come from one individual. How much did others add to this? I don't know and I doubt anyone can proclaim that he does. And if anyone has concerns about me taking a parallel between Tolkien's myths and religious-originated myths, it was Tolkien's idea, mentioned in the letters or biography, that myths contain religious truths also. When talking about a mythology we have therefore a "semantic" aspect (what it transmits) and a historical/social aspect (who adopts it). I daresay that at least on some level (bening, of course) some of the many readers of Tolkien have adopted, have internalised, the message of his work - and therefore, even the historical/social condition may be satisfied. At least in the modern sense of the word (or in the modern, disperse, conditions), we have a live, "true" mythology, whose message and images are adopted. Maybe not by the majority of readers, maybe not in all cases in a sufficientl way. But even past mythologies were not adopted by all their formal followers, nor were they completely internalised in all cases.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

If the Legendarium is nothing more than a number of specific, finite pieces of literature (however well crafted), then it would be inappropriate for anyone to try and write another story and say that it is a legitimate extension of Tolkien's Middle-earth. But if Middle-earth is more than that, if it comes to be regarded as myth or the creation of an alternate world, why can't we have other people continuing the same story some 500 years from now?

I think you have put the question in a true light, Child, thinking not now of fanfics and Estates and canonicity questions, but ruminating on how people might respond a hundred, two hundred, five hundred years from now. I don't think the question can be absolutely determined ideologically, by saying either yay or nay to definitions of mythology, copyright, etc. It will be determined by how the stories themselves take life in the mind of readers and tellers. If the stories do come to ressemble our Arthurian legends, or the Greek ones, or the Norse ones in their status as stories told and retold, then in fact Tolkien will have encouraged new ME stories, through the inspiration of his stories, rather than through any prose edict or letter.

The elder myths were oral tales which were then collected and written down. Who is to say that whatever lies ahead for this planet, the reverse cannot happen, that written tales come to have life as oral tales. That scenario may or may not depend upon the eradication of books and reading, but even now it is amazing to hear what tales be retold and reshivered around summer campfires in my part of the world.

[Sauron the White]

One of the things I remember from my Debate class in college (so many many years ago) was a lesson very early that went like this:

"One of the most important things in Debate is the definition of terms. How you define the important terms central to the issue - broadly or narrowly - can significantly determine your success."

Its sad that these type of things always come down to definitions and how people attempt to twist them to their own purposes. This latest business about how JRRT was NOT creating a mythology but a fake mythology is simply more intellectual craftsmanship designed to "win" this particular argument. What ever happened to all I have read over the years that one of the goals of JRRT was to create a mythology for England?

All of this becomes an exercise in semantics and legalism and borders on the arcane. Intellectual gymnastics employed to justify a particular personal position on an issue which is not clear at all. More heat than light is shed.

[drigel]

What ever happened to all I have read over the years that one of the goals of JRRT was to create a mythology for England?

In a casual sense, yes, he did. But anything beyond the alternate faerie world that his works inhabited, I would say that Beth's term (in another context) is apt. He would consider anything beyond the story as pornography in its most base sense.

[Morwen]

Originally posted by Sauron the White

What ever happened to all I have read over the years that one of the goals of JRRT was to create a mythology for England?

In all that you have read where does Tolkien say that he wanted others to write stories about Middle Earth? When he specifically mentions that scope is left for persons to contribute to what he has written using paint, music, drama why does he specifically leave out further tales, stories?

[Sauron the White]

So then, to honor the intentions of JRRT, I can take what he has created and use the medium of drama to add to it?

Is this a correct assumption based on the words of JRRT?

"But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story....I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama. "

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

Its sad that these type of things always come down to definitions and how people attempt to twist them to their own purposes. This latest business about how JRRT was NOT creating a mythology but a fake mythology is simply more intellectual craftsmanship designed to "win" this particular argument. What ever happened to all I have read over the years that one of the goals of JRRT was to create a mythology for England?

All of this becomes an exercise in semantics and legalism and borders on the arcane. Intellectual gymnastics employed to justify a particular personal position on an issue which is not clear at all. More heat than light is shed.

Twist things to my own purposes? Excuse me but I am English and speak and read English and Tolkien did not say he wanted to create a mythology FOR England - please tell me how 'dedicate to' means 'create for'? The two are wholly different things. Not least because Tolkien of all people would know that England certainly did not need someone to come along and impose a fictional story upon it.

He bases his stories on a lot of English cultural touchstones, he hopes he loads his work with 'Englishness', and finally, he has what he admits is a slightly pompous aim - to create a work of Art for us.

As to what happened to all you have read about him creating a mythology For England you can put that down to Ye Olde Misquoting. Beginning with Humphrey Carpenter, alas.

It might well be an exercise in semantics or whatever but what Tolkien said was as clear as it could be. And he did not say he wanted to create a mythology for England. Sorry but this cannot be stressed highly enough as not only does the misquoting reflect incorrectly on Tolkien's intentions, but it gives the impression that England does not have a mythology of its own, when it has one of the richest folk histories in the world. And even if we didn't have one, then Tolkien of all people, as an expert in the subject, would not be so presumptive as to hope he could impose one on any nation.

Now bring me my chariot of fire...

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Whatever Tolkien may have intended or wanted the fact is that people are writing new stories, and there's nothing that's going to stop them from doing so. And no matter how the Professor would have reacted to these tales there are lots of people reading and enjoying these new stories.

The horse, as they say, has already left that particular barn...

[Sauron the White]

Lalwende

Humphrey Carpenter is not beyond making a mistake. Anyone can of course.
I do attach some extra importance to the fact that the Carpernter biography of JRRT is labeled as THE AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY. Its right there in big capital letters at the very top of the book dust jacket TOLKIEN. So this book - and it contents, its statements, its claims, it reporting of the 'facts' were authorized by whom?

Allow me to wildly speculate - The Tolkien Estate.

Was the manuscript not read? Were the facts not checked, double-and triple checked? Was Carpenter allowed to pass off lies and mistruths as part of the Tolkien biography with the blessing of the Estate?

The subject of mythology for England is discussed in Part III 1917-1925 : The making of a mythology. On page 89 of the chapter Lost Tales, it clearly states that Tolkien wrote his stories in part out of "... his desire to create a mythology for England." (the italics are those of Carpenter)

If this statement is in error as you claim, has it been officially corrected by the same people who authorized its printing in the first place?

[Child of the 7th Age]

The elder myths were oral tales which were then collected and written down. Who is to say that whatever lies ahead for this planet, the reverse cannot happen, that written tales come to have life as oral tales. That scenario may or may not depend upon the eradication of books and reading, but even now it is amazing to hear what tales be retold and reshivered around summer campfires in my part of the world.

Yes, Bêthberry, thanks. That was the basic mindset behind my post. The advent of new technologies and methods of dissemination for both stories and music is already making old paradigms obsolete. This is true not only in relation to Tolkien but for other authors and composers as well. I am not sure what the future will hold but I don't think it's wise to shut the door and deny the reality of further change. I can't say with one hundred percent certainty that the Legendarium will be regarded in the same light as the Arthurian tales are today, but I think there is a strong possibility this will happen.

In any case, I am uncomfortable with looking at things purely from the vantage of 2007, and saying that our present framework is set in stone and will never change. The one consistency over time is change. Five hundred years ago, books were uncommon; today we have mass market paperbacks and people sharing their creations and thoughts on the internet. While I have no precise idea what tomorrow will bring, I do see a general trend that is already in progress: the freer dissemination and spread of ideas and stories. This not only affects the reader; it also affects the author and the way stories are created, spread, and retold.

In terms of retelling or expanding on the Legendarium, I would prefer to focus on Tolkien's own behavior during his lifetime rather than second guessing his words after his death. The change I'm describing had already started in the sixties when appreciative fans regularly published fanfiction stories in the zines of local Tolkien groups, at least within the U.S.. (I am less familiar with what happened in Britain.) JRRT was certainly aware of that fact. Interviews with the author and other family members (especially Priscilla) appeared in the very same issues of journals that contained new Middle-earth stories. These stories were generally written by people who were more than "casual fans"; the authors were individuals like Vera Chapman who cared about Middle-earth and who spun stories very much in keeping with the values and ideas expressed in the Legendarium (or the portion of the Legendarium that was publically known at that time). Some of these folk (like Chapman) did go on to create their own published fantasy novels. These same people attended annual conferences and meetings and shared stories in small group sessions. In all those years, I can not recall a single instance when JRRT complained about what these people were doing.

Today we have millions of folk around the world who call themselves fans of Middle-earth. Back then, it was different. Fan groups were small and intimate; many had personal ties with the author. I know at least two people from college who wrote Tolkien and received courteous replies. If at any time in these years, Tolkien would have objected to fanfiction stories (as Anne Rice, for example, has done), the local societies would have pulled back and never published any additional stories. They respected Tolkien too much to go against his wishes. But that never happened because no complaint was ever made by JRRT or any other family member.

JRRT did howl about the way professional screenwriters proposed to treat Lord of the Rings; he disliked what they were doing to his characters and plot. His attitude towards what was happening on campuses in the U.s. and in local Tolkien groups was quite gentle. He was baffled and amused by the craziness: activities such as donning costumes, writing fanfiction and songs, mimicking hobbit behavior, distributing Middle-earth buttons and taking Middle-earth names. But, although JRRT considered such intense involvement with the Legendarium as rather odd, he did not express anger or take a strictly dogmatic position. He even proposed a scheme for doling out names for conference attendees: every delegate should be called by the name of a particular community in the Shire.

Over the years, with the explosion of the fan base, the proliferation of fanfics (including ones that would have made JRRT groan), and the fact that major bucks are definitely at stake, the situation is no longer this fluid or friendly. The Estate has understandably taken a more conservative stance. Things have become institutionalized. There's nothing wrong with this. It's needed. But we should remember there was a time when things were different, and we can't assume that the future will be an exact replica of what exists in 2007. Needs, techologies and perspectives probably will change in ways I can't even imagine.

Plus, I still can not get over the fact that Tolkien himself felt that he was "subcreating" a world. He used the word mythology to describe his own writing. My gut feeling is that there are many points of similarity between bodies of myth/legend like the Illiad, Beowulf, and the Arthurian tales and what Tolkien produced. Beowulf is certainly not based on any significant historical fact, but who would deny that the story has become part of the legends of the western world? And it has been told and retold by other minds. Ninety percent of what is in the Odyssey and Illiad is sheer fantasy despite the tiny grain of historical fact that lies at the center. Given the passage of 500 years, I don't think we'll see a huge distinction between these works and what Tolkien did.

And if you deny that Tolkien was producing "written myth", then how do you account for the Kalevala and the author's own attitude towards the modern rendition of that work? Tolkien was certainly inspired by these tales. He considered the modern telling to be a form of myth. The modern telling went far beyond the original tales almost to the point of transforming them. Moreover, Tolkien himself wrote a "fanfiction" based on the tale of Kullervo. Eventually, those themes and ideas came peaking through in his own rendition of the Children of Hurin. Just how different is that? Tolkien drew upon faerie paradigms as well as character names, northern attitudes, and even plot twists that originated in Norse and Germanic legends. He took these one step further and subcreated another world. I see this as one step in a continuing process that does not stop, and eventually other voices and other retellings will be heard....perhaps 500 years from now...long after anyone here is around.

[Quempel]

/delurk/

After reading this thread more than a few times I thought I would chime in.

I believe that Tolkien himself is the only expert on ME. Since he is no longer with us, other's have tried to take up the helm of ME. Are those new writings legitimate ME stories? In my opinion no, they are the new authors take on ME. Only Tolkien would know his own mind on ME. However, this does not mean a new author could not take what is already written by Tolkien and write new, and dare I say, better stories on ME or the mythology of ME. Should we discount new writings on and about ME, no. But should we say they are official Tolkien stories, no, Tolkien did not write them, they would be official John Smith stories on ME.

This can be said of the movies also. PJ and co. did not write the stories, but they made great movies of what their own interpretation of the stories. Could another director and co. make worse movies, yes (RB comes to mind), but could another director make better movies about the same story, yes. Could someone besides PJ make a better Hobbit, maybe, maybe not. But the bottom line is Tolkien is still the composer, PJ is just directing the players to his interpretation of the story. Does it make PJ's interpretation better or worse than what Tolkien original work that is totally up to the audience to decide.


/lurk/

[davem]

http://desicritics.org/2007/06/12/042334.php

Mythmaking is normally a product of the relentless march of history, when the passage of hundreds of years rubs and rubs against a tale until it has the warm, glowing veneer of antiquity. Time shapes a tale's language, giving it the ring of proclamatory truth; time shapes its texture, adding further strands of plot and character; time shapes its appeal, stretching it to include elements that, at the risk of over-simplification, can only be called universally human.

Now, Tolkien did not create a 'myth' in this sense. What he did was, through his familiarity with myth, create the illusion of 'myth'. His work reads like myth, but it is art, illusion, fantasy.

In order for the Legendarium to become a true myth it would have to be taken up by an entire people, adapted, modified, & made in to something 'other'. It may provide the seed for a new myth, but it would not be the myth, & half a millenia from now the 'Tree' would be as different from the seed as an oak is from an acorn. The point is none of us would recognise that tree, & none of those who knew the tree would recognise the seed.

Originally Posted by Sauron the White

So then, to honor the intentions of JRRT, I can take what he has created and use the medium of drama to add to it?

Is this a correct assumption based on the words of JRRT?

And do you understand the context of those words? Are you really Milton Waldman of Collins - was that letter addressed to you?

Firstly, Tolkien states that though that may have been his original intention, 'his crest had since fallen' - ie - he recognises that such a project is no longer an option. And why? What happened to cause that crest fallen state? My suggestion would be that what happened was WWI & its aftermath. Read John Garth's book 'Tolkien & the Great War', & look at the dreams of the TCBS for a 'moral regeneration' of England, their hope to become a new 'Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood'.

In short, 'other minds & hands' does not necessarily mean you, me, or FRR Bloggs. These 'other minds & hands' - even if Tolkien hadn't completely given up hope of finding them (which the statement in the letter seems to imply) may have referred to specific individuals - Christopher Tolkien for example. In short, you don't have the right to decide who those 'minds & hands' belong to - only Tolkien did, & he's gone. There's no way that that statement can be taken to imply a free-for-all.

Look, a wealthy man may declare that he intends to leave his fortune to 'the needy'. That would not justify you turning up at the reading of the will & demanding some cash because you're in need yourself. You may well be needy, but you are not necessarily among the 'needy' the man meant. What we know is that in his will JRRT gave only ONE mind & hand the right to take up his work & continue it, & that mind & hand belonged to his son Christopher. I'm certain that JRRT was intelligent enough to realise that he could have placed his work in the public domain & authorised a free-for-all if he'd wanted to.