Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Which mythologies, exactly, are based on the word of one person? I'm sure the experts would like to know!

Ummmm.....The Book of Mormon? Scientology? The Quran?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Ummmm.....The Book of Mormon? Scientology? The Quran?

None of 'em.

Especially the Book of Mormon which was nicked from other texts - as for the Koran/Quran (however we're spelling it), like the Bible it had multiple hands involved in writing it. I don't know of any Scientology texts as I'm not a billionaire. But whatever Tom Cruise and co read at bedtime, like the Book of Mormon, it all stems from other stuff and it's not mythology anyway, just textbooks.

[davem]

I think the essential feature of any true myth is that at some point it was believed to be 'true' (whatever 'true' meant to our ancestors). They believed that the world worked that way. So the mythology was a reflection of their beliefs, philosophy & science. They didn't 'invent' it.

Tolkien clearly did make the whole Legendarium up. It may have started as an attempt to recreate England's lost mythology, but Tolkien didn't believe things had really happened that way. Of course, he pretended that it was a translation from an 'old book' (a la Geoffrey of Monmouth), & that he was merely the last in a long line of redactors. A comparison between the First Edition Foreword & the more familiar Second Edition Foreword is interesting:

First Ed:

Lord of the Rings First Edition Foreword

This tale, which has grown almost to be a history of the great War of the Ring, is drawn for the most part from the memoirs of the renowned Hobbits, Bilbo and Frodo, as they are preserved in the Red Book of Westmarch. This chief monument to Hobbit-lore is so called because it was compiled, repeatedly copied, and enlarged and handed down in the family of the Fairbairns of Westmarch, descended from that Master Samwise of whom this tale has much to say.I have supplemented the account of the Red Book, in places, with information derived from the surviving records of Gondor, notably the Book of the Kings; but in general, though I have omitted much, I have in this tale adhered more closely to the actual words and narrative of my original than in the previous selection from the Red Book, The Hobbit. That was drawn from the early chapters, composed originally by Bilbo himself. If 'composed' is a just word. Bilbo was not assiduous, nor an orderly narrator, and his account is involved and discursive, and sometimes confused: faults that still appear in the Red Book, since the copiers were pious and careful, and altered very little.The tale has been put into its present form in response to the many requests that I have received for further information about the history of the Third Age, and about Hobbits in particular. But since my children and others of their age, who first heard of the finding of the Ring, have grown older with the years, this book speaks more plainly of those darker things which lurked only on the borders of the earlier tale, but which have troubled Middle-earth in all its history. It is, in fact, not a book written for children at all; though many children will, of course, be interested in it, or parts of it, as they still are in the histories and legends of other times (especially in those not specially written for them).I dedicate this book to all admirers of Bilbo, but especially to my sons and daughter, and to my friends the Inklings. To the Inklings, because they have already listened to it with a patience, and indeed with an interest, that almost leads me to suspect that they have hobbit-blood in their venerable ancestry. To my sons and my daughter for the same reason, and also because they have all helped me in the labours of composition. If 'composition' is a just word, and these pages do not deserve all that I have said about Bilbo's work.For if the labour has been long (more than fourteen years), it has been neither orderly nor continuous. But I have not had Bilbo's leisure. Indeed much of that time has contained for me no leisure at all, and more than once for a whole year the dust has gathered on my unfinished pages. I only say this to explain to those who have waited for the book why they have had to wait so long. I have no reason to complain. I am surprised and delighted to find from numerous letters that so many people, both in England and across the Water, share my interest in this almost forgotten history; but it is not yet universally recognised as an important branch of study. It has indeed no obvious practical use, and those who go in for it can hardly expect to be assisted.Much information, necessary and unnecessary, will be found in the Prologue. To complete it some maps are given, including one of the Shire that has been approved as reasonably correct by those Hobbits that still concern themselves with ancient history. At the end of the third volume will be found some abridged family-trees, which show how the Hobbits mentioned were related to one another, and what their ages were at the time when the story opens. There is an index of names and strange words with some explanations. And for those who like such lore in an appendix some brief account is given of the languages, alphabets and calendars that were used in the West-lands in the Third Age of Middle-earth. Those who do not need such information, or who do not wish for it, may neglect these pages; and the strange names that they meet they may, of course, pronounce as they like. Care has been given to their transcription from the original alphabets and some notes are offered on the intentions of the spelling adopted* But not all are interested in such matters, and many who are not may still find the account of those great and valiant deeds worth the reading. It was in that hope that I began the work of translating and selecting the stories of the Red Book, part of which are now presented to Men of a later Age, one almost as darkling and ominous as was the Third Age that ended with the great years 1418 and 1419 of the Shire long ago.

Tolkien is clearly claiming that LotR is not an 'invention' of his own, but an ancient history. Its an account of something that happened 'once upon a time'. Compare that to the Second Edition Foreword:

FOREWORD

This tale grew in the telling, until it became a history of the Great War of the Ring and included many glimpses of the yet more ancient history that preceded it. It was begun soon after The Hobbit was written and before its publication in 1937; but I did not go on with this sequel, for I wished first to complete and set in order the mythology and legends of the Elder Days, which had then been taking shape for some years. I desired to do this for my own satisfaction, and I had little hope that other people would be interested in this work, especially since it was primarily linguistic in inspiration and was begun in order to provide the necessary background of 'history' for Elvish tongues. When those whose advice and opinion I sought corrected little hope to no hope, I went back to the sequel, encouraged by requests from readers for more information concerning hobbits and their adventures. But the story was drawn irresistibly towards the older world, and became an account, as it were, of its end and passing away before its beginning and middle had been told. The process had begun in the writing of The Hobbit, in which there were already some references to the older matter: Elrond, Gondolin, the High-elves, and the orcs, as well as glimpses that had arisen unbidden of things higher or deeper or darker than its surface: Durin, Moria, Gandalf, the Necromancer, the Ring. The discovery of the significance of these glimpses and of their relation to the ancient histories revealed the Third Age and its culmination in the War of the Ring. Those who had asked for more information about hobbits eventually got it, but they had to wait a long time; for the composition of The Lord of the Rings went on at intervals during the years 1936 to 1949, a period in which I had many duties that I did not neglect, and many other interests as a learner and teacher that often absorbed me. The delay was, of course, also increased by the outbreak of war in 1939, by the end of which year the tale had not yet reached the end of Book I. In spite of the darkness of the next five years, I found that the story could not now be wholly abandoned, and I plodded on, mostly by night, till I stood by Balin's tomb in Moria. There I halted for a long while. It was almost a year later when I went on and so came to Lothlorien and the Great River late in 1941. In the next year I wrote the first drafts of the matter that now stands as Book III, and the beginnings of Chapters 1 and 3 of Book V; and there, as the beacons flared in Anorien and Theoden came to Harrowdale, I stopped. Foresight had failed and there was no time for thought. ....

The Lord of the Rings has been read by many people since it finally appeared in print; and I should like to say something here with reference to the many opinions or guesses that I have received or have read concerning the motives and meaning of the tale. The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them. As a guide I had only my own feelings for what is appealing or moving, and for many the guide was inevitably often at fault. Some who have read the book, or at any rate have reviewed it, have found it boring, absurd, or contemptible; and I have no cause to complain, since I have similar opinions of their works, or of the kinds of writing that they evidently prefer. But even from the points of view of many who have enjoyed my story there is much that fails to please. It is perhaps not possible in a long tale to please everybody at all points, or to displease everybody at the same points; for I find from the letters that I have received that the passages or chapters that are to some a blemish are all by others specially approved. The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short. As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, 'The Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted. Its sources are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or its sequels.

If we compare the two we can see that this is bigger than Tolkien simply re-writing the Foreword for the revised edition. Of course, the revision was 'forced' on him to some extent by the Ace Books problem, but the two Forewords are not just different in length, but in approach, & in what they say about the relationship of Tolkien to his material. In the SE Foreword Tolkien is stating as clearly as he can that he made the whole thing up - its not 'real', its a story. Now, there's no way that anyone reading the Foreword could make the mistake of believing its in any way 'true'.

If, however, the Ace Books problem hadn't created the need for a Second Edition, would we have ever got one? Would we have been treated to that new Foreword? Its possible we would still have the First Edition text, with Tolkien's clear statement that he was only a translator of an ancient history book. If that edition fell into the hands of one of our distant decendents would they take it at face value & believe it was indeed an account of a long past period in our history?

(on a side issue, one could also ask whether if the SE hadn't appeared we would ever have had an index in LotR - even up to the 1965 11th impression of the FE there is only an apology for its absence, & the 'Golden House' is that of Finrod, not Finarfin - another exapmple of a change Tolkien was free to make, but another writer of M-e stories would not be).

In short, Tolkien never believed the the Legendarium was in any way 'true' - in a literal sense at least. In fact, as 'Myths Transformed' shows, he eventually reached a point where he felt driven to change central elements of the story simply to make it fit with what science - not religion stated about the origin of the Earth.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

None of 'em.

Especially the Book of Mormon which was nicked from other texts - as for the Koran/Quran (however we're spelling it), like the Bible it had multiple hands involved in writing it. I don't know of any Scientology texts as I'm not a billionaire. But whatever Tom Cruise and co read at bedtime, like the Book of Mormon, it all stems from other stuff and it's not mythology anyway, just textbooks.

I think you're missing my point, Lal. No matter what sources Joseph Smith may have borrowed from, there's no question but that he wrote The Book of Mormon just as much as Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings (which of course borrowed from a lot of sources.) Similarly the Quran was written by Mohammed, no matter what Hebrew and Christian influences show through. Scientology isn't contained in a single book, but who said a mythology has to be? And it certainly is or contains a mythology: the whole business with Galctic Overlord Xenu and his interplanetary DC-8's (I am not making this up!)

The important point is that millions of people believe that these accounts of gods and other supernatural beings are literally, historically true--and also that they were written (or "revealed") by one man.

I hope you're not suddenly suggesting that the Author doesn't matter!

[Lalwendë]

Apparently one of the main things about the Book of Mormon is the extent to which it was plagiarised - this is something I've been told by Mormons themselves, note, and read elsewhere. Joseph Smith didn't write that much of it.

Hmm, now with texts like the Bible and Koran, these were written by many scribes over time, not by one writer. They may be the 'revelation' of one man but that simply doesn't count - it's who writes it that counts. If you took that line then Coronation Street or Eastenders could be counted as mythologies - they certainly have a following in the UK that's several hundred percent higher than either religious text

*shudders at the thought of people worshipping at a graven image of Pat Butcher*

Originally Posted by Raynor

How many examples of letters contradicting each other can you provide? Or would you like me to challenge you with 10, 20 such statements, and you find where they are contradicted? The letters only reflect the stage of the work in progress, and ocasionally we may find some pen slip -but that happens even with the final work.

All you need to do is look through some random threads and you'll find oodles of contradictory quotes folk have flung at each other so save yer brains

However, how do we know what was a 'pen slip' and what was correct? Would that not be down to personal opinion? We agree with what supports our argument, no?

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Hmm, now with texts like the Bible and Koran, these were written by many scribes over time, not by one writer. They may be the 'revelation' of one man but that simply doesn't count - it's who writes it that counts.

I think you misunderstand the essential difference between the Bible and the Quran. While even the most hardcore snake-handling Bible-thumping KJV-only Baptist fundie will acknowledge that the Bible was written by many hands over many centuries (even if he does believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch), it is a fundamental article of Islamic belief that Muhammed personally wote down every jot and tittle of the Quran as dictated to him by the archangel Gabriel, Allah's personal messenger. Very much like Joseph Smith and his angel, come to think of it.

Again, you're not going Bartheist on us, are you?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

I think you misunderstand the essential difference between the Bible and the Quran. While even the most hardcore snake-handling Bible-thumping KJV-only Baptist fundie will acknowledge that the Bible was written by many hands over many centuries (even if he does believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch), it is a fundamental article of Islamic belief that Muhammed personally wote down every jot and tittle of the Quran as dictated to him by the archangel Gabriel, Allah's personal messenger.

Again, you're not going Bartheist on us, are you?

I'd bet a hundred shiny pounds that he didn't though.

And I've committed two 'sins' at once there...

[William Cloud Hicklin]

I'm not quite sure in which direction you're tacking now.

After an extensive defense of the Author against PoMo drivel, I don't think that you're now taking the position that an Author who plagiarises doesn't count- even the act of choosing what to steal is still an independent creative act.

On the other hand, I'm not sure you're asserting that the Quaran has been 'garbled in transmission'- in fact its text from the oldest extant manuscripts down to the present are at least as consistent as the Vulgate and Septuagint.

There's no doubt in my mind that Muhammed, like Smith and Hubbard after him, set out consciously to create (or forge) a new "Mythology" as the fundamental step in that ancient scam, "Profiting Through Propheting."

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

All you need to do is look through some random threads and you'll find oodles of contradictory quotes folk have flung at each other so save yer brains

I would be in debt if you could mention one such thread where letters contradict each other

However, how do we know what was a 'pen slip' and what was correct?

IIRC, Tolkien mentioned in a letter that it was the valar who destroyed Numenor; that appears only in one of the initial versios of the story; the rest of them have Eru do it. I would call that a pen slip - mixing versions, timelines, etc. As I mentioned, this happens even with the final version, where we know Tolkien pondered each and every word.

[Bêthberry]

What exceptional synchronicity! Just as I hit the quote button to reply to drigel's post about this thread jumping the shark, his post disappears! I was going to tell him that this thread just gets funnier and funnier.


Morthoron, thank you for those illuminating quotations from Dr. Johnson and that Southern Yankee who wrote about fetishes with dead bodies. We can probably find any number of authors who hold any number of positions regarding reimbursements and motivations, none which in any way discounts how other writers feel. However, I do think it is well to remember that in days long past when the darkness had not crept widely over the earth, giants reigned. They were giants because their vision and strength and honour outstripped those of other men. And as they walked the earth, other men trembled at their approach, so stern was their bearing and so noble their deportment and so pure their vision. These giants, if they were warriors, fled no battle, avoided no enemy, and feared no foe. They desired but to die nobly and with honour. A paltry remant of their code of honour survives to this day in the pitiable expression, "It is a good day to die." Yet not all these giants were warriors; some were of the noble calling yclept scop and bard and to them fell the honour and the duty to record the valorious actions of the noble warriors. In the mead hall and at the parting of the waves it was their words, pure and clean of the dross, which gave voice and vision to the warriors' laments and sacrifices. For this, the cup was raised in their honour, and many were the nights that the bards led the warriors in their cups. It was their just reward, before the evil days of publishers and agents darkened noble writ.



But on to the response of my response to davem's plea for a name, a one name like a One Ring to rule them all. We seem to have such short memories here that I will remind anyone still reading this of his plea:

Originally Posted by davem

Could you please tell me who you think is going to write this 'play'? Please, ONE name, one author who you think will do a decent job.

Of course, I don't expect to get one - because whoever you name someone is going to object, & say they aren't the right person for the job. You see, the problem you have is that while in a fantasy world you can simply invent a writer of genius, in the real world you can't. Suitable writers don't just appear when you snap your fingers, or because you fancy reading a new M-e novel. Asking 'what would happen if someone wrote a 'dramatic play' (sic) based on First/Second Age events?' is a bit like asking 'What would happen if aliens landed in front of the White House & turned George Bush into a three headed chicken?' I can't prove that such an event is impossible, but before I spend time & energy speculating on how the free world would cope with a three headed chicken with its claw on The Button, I'd want some evidence its anything like a real possibility.....

Now, the criterion here is to Name That Writer Who No One Will Object To, otherwise known as Name That Writer to Whom No One Will Object. This is important, because in this pleas from davem there is no mention of The Estate. The sole criterion is to name a writer who is without stain.

So, I named a person from this forum who has garnered accolade after accolade for the quality of his fanfiction, the mighty Mithadan, whose Tol Eressëa
stories were held to be the highest and finest attempt to capture the elusive elements of Tolkien's writing. (I won't say anything about his REB fanfic, because he was positively scandalous there.)

And was this writer's work considered at all? Nay, suddenly cold feet seemed to sweep through the dusty, dark Barrows and in reply to my nomination, suddenly the criteria shifted, like tectonic plates grinding up against each other, but without the earth really moving.

Originally Posted by davem

For now I'll just ask, is it worth it? Once the Estate authorises a new M-e novel the floodgates will be open. M-e will no-longer be Tolkien's creation, but a franchise. There will be a stream of novels, as with the Star Wars/Star Trek franchises, some good, some bad, accepted by some, rejected by others - & all of them, ultimately, unnecessary.

Now it's The Estate who will authorise Mithadan. (Like Fordim, I don't give a hoot for a legal and formal imprimatur, for stories don't survive by critics and reviewers and publishers alone. The mark of The Estate is irrelevant here.) Yet where were the naysayers who repudiated Mithadan's writing? Left speechless to deflect the topic yet again back to the enigma of Tolkien's style. Now if that isn't funny, what is?

Raynor, I had time to skim only one of your links. You aren't by any chance a fan of Georgette Heyer, are you?

The bogey of style and the bully of Estate authorisation are irrelevant. There's a clue, though, in the reception of Tolkien's work. Where once he was pooh-poohed and then cultishly embraced and then fan-adulated, he now is coming into greater and greater repute. Time does that, if you're good. Let the base imitators mimic and the imaginative writers take inspiration and somewhere down the line, as Child has suggested, the stories that matter will take hold on the consciousness of the reading and story-telling public. After all, Milton does not sound like the Bible, and Blake does not sound like Milton. But the cauldron bubbled.

There, like the proverbial cat, I think I've caught my tale again.

[Raynor]

Raynor, I had time to skim only one of your links. You aren't by any chance a fan of Georgette Heyer, are you?

I haven't heard of her .

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So, I named a person from this forum who has garnered accolade after accolade for the quality of his fanfiction, the mighty Mithadan, whose Tol Eressëa
stories were held to be the highest and finest attempt to capture the elusive elements of Tolkien's writing. (I won't say anything about his REB fanfic, because he was positively scandalous there.)

And its very good....yet, a line of Aneurin's came to mind as I read, an elegy for one of the men of Gododdin who fell at Catraeth:

'He glutted black ravens on the walls, but he was no Arthur.' I don't want to sound too negative - I was impressed, yet some things jarred ("Pengolodh snorted" )

[drigel]

Just as I hit the quote button to reply to drigel's post about this thread jumping the shark, his post disappears!

The reason I put in the space that asks for a reason for deletion: manners

I have never wanted to offend anyone here. My hackles have been raised enough to warrant my self imposed exile. I havent lightened up yet. Im a purist, I suppose.

So, I named a person from this forum who has garnered accolade after accolade for the quality of his fanfiction, the mighty Mithadan, whose Tol Eressëa

So says the BDner's. Good enough quality, I suppose. And then the 20-40 other ME fanfic sites will support their hero. We can all have them fight Sparticus style at MSG. The winner will recieve a chat squirrel with oak cluster flourish. Then the ME mythology will take it's rightfull place somewhere, but well underneath, The Matrix, D&D, Star Trek\Wars and L Ron Hubbards alien invaders who like to get it on with with Australopithecus africanus women like the freaks they are. Then the pantheon of knock-off mythologies will be complete, amen. We are all free to do what we want, or not.

You see, I believe Davem's point is just that: if there was something that good out there, we would all have already heard about it, read it, and petitioned the Estate for endorsement. Thing is (for folks like me), unless you follow, contribute or participate in fanfics, it's really not that interesting or compelling. And if we read the whole thing, it's because we want to be polite. Because in reality, after about the 2nd or 3rd paragraph, we have completely checked out. Why? The author isnt Tolkien. As is the nature of these things, the product is never as good as it was fun to write.

go figure

[Child of the 7th Age]

Drigel,

Why do we have to be in this much of a hurry? People are too impatient. We’re not talking about something that starts and finishes in our lifetime. It’s a process that will sort itself out over hundreds, possibly thousands of years. Most of these retellings will be garbage, sinking to the bottom unread and unlamented. Maybe three percent will be worth a read. No one can be sure if any of those will be worth remembering. But, over 500 years, my bet is that someone will come up with something that actually touches some hearts and minds.

“Successor?” Ugh! Tolkien has no “successor” because he is unique. If crowning a “successor” is our only choice, I defer to Davem and throw the whole thing in the trash.. Again, I don’t think it’s that simple. Sagas and myths are normally told and retold from different perspectives over a very long time. Thomas Mallory, Alfred Lord Tennyson, T.H. White, Charles Williams, Vera Chapman, Kevin Crossley-Holland, Marian Zimmer Bradley and a host of others drew on the same body of Arthurian stories, each expressing them in a different way. I believe the same will eventually happen with the Legendarium.

Davem is wise in saying that the Legendarium is closer to saga than fantasy. I also agree with Bethberry on Mithadan. His writing at least points in the right direction. Mithadan’s stories feel like history written at some point in the past.

Since Tolkien stands at the end of the tradition of Saga, Davem suggests it would be impossible for latecomers to latch onto the tradition, and continue it on. I’m not so sure. Many readers fell in love with the ancient sources after reading LotR and ended up going back and devoting their lives to studying medieval languages or history or literature. I would guess about a third of medievalists teaching in colleges and unis today in this country owe some debt to Tolkien. As readers of LotR, these individuals were able to see beyond the veneer of "fantasy" and reconnect with that older heritage. If that recognition exists,it may be possible to continue with the tradition in written form. Not an exact replica, which would be impossible, but something that captures the spirit of the thing. I have never read any of Verlyn Flieger’s imaginative fiction. Just curious what tone is used in those.

All this assumes that people still care about Middle-earth 500 years from today. If they still care, they will retell and expand. The alternative is to think of the Legendarium as a series of very specific novels and poems, with no possibility of expansion.

Ironically, the one person who has done more than anyone to ensure that people think of the Legendarium as an expanding world rather than a series of discrete works with strict borders is Christopher Tolkien. Without Silm, without HoMe, without UT and Children of Hurin, Tolkien would look much more like a "conventional" author, and people would respond accordingly. There would be far fewer people who get the bug to retell the tale and to explore the hidden recesses of Middle-earth. By showing us more of what was in his father's mind, Christopher has actually helped writers break through to a wider Middle-earth. He has given us a tiny glimpse of the hidden vistas and distant mountains that Tolkien loved to put in his stories. If there are retellers of the future, it will because of Christopher’s very hard work, and I am extremely grateful for that.