Tolkien the Metafictionist

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

If anything the real problem consists in the tone of LR, which is novelistic and simply inconsistent with the conceit that it is a translation of historical documents by different authors. In my opinion, The Hobbit suffers in the same way, since well-adjusted people do not refer to themselves in the third person in their own diaires. Perhaps that was the argument presented in Tolkien Studies.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are claimed by Tolkien to be retellings from the Red Book of Westmarch in which presumably he retells the tales originally written in the first person in the third person. Never is it indicated that the original text supposedly used by Tolkien was written in the third person.

Though it might be supposed to be.

Julius Ceasar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War and Commentaries on the Civil Wars are both written in the third person and speak mostly about Caesar’s activities. I have never encountered any scholar who claims that this means the works are not genuinely written by Caesar. Similarly if the Red Book was supposedly also written in the third person, this would indicate nothing about how well-adjusted the authors were.

Traditionally the first five books of the Bible were written in the 3rd person by Moses and the next book was written by Joshua in the third person.

Works which are presented as though they were derived from an original document but are in fact simply fiction are very common. In the 4th century appeared “The Chronicle of the Trojan War” in Latin, supposedly written by Dictys of Crete, claiming to be a translation of an account of the Trojan War written by a contemporary. Similar was a work attributed to Daries Phrygius.

The medieval “Prose Lancelot” claimed to be an adaptation from an older work written by contemporaries of King Arthur, and later works, such as the “Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle” and the “Prose Tristan” claimed to also come from the same source. The 14th century Perceforest, an account of early kings of Britain, claims to be a translation from ancient Greek of a manuscript found in an abbey near the river Humber. The fantasy author James Branch Cabell attributes some of his works to a non-existent 15th century writer Nicholas de Caen and fantasy author Willam Goldman pretends that his book A Princess Bride is an abridgement of a work by a non-existent author S. Morgenstern.

Other works that claim, sometimes not explicitly, to be from a manuscript are Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, Jonathan Swift’s Gullivar’s Travels, William Hope Hodgson’s The House on the Borderland, Jan Potocki’s The Manuscript Found in Saragossa, and Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, a well as many others.

The problem with Brljak’s hypotheses is that nowhere does Tolkien or any of the other authors I mention put much or any emphasis on various copies of the supposed original manuscript. Tolkien does mention various versions of the Red Book, but places these versions, when he mentions them, early in the Fourth Age.

The works do not attempt to use supposed variant versions of these manuscripts, except for Ťolkien’s use of two versions of the riddle games in The Hobbit, and the two versions are apparently found in most if not all manuscript versions.

Brljak’s claim that a transfer of the original documents through an untold number of copiests is of primary importance for understanding Tolkien seems to me to be nonsense. Tolkien never mentions any details of the manuscript transmission beyond the early Fourth Age. The matter of transmission is more important in the Sherlock Holmes stories where the supposed author Doctor Watson admits to having fictionalized his accounts to protect the innocent.

[littlemanpoet]

I'd like to pick up on one piece of this thread's themes, the relationship of the reader to the text.

In the back of my mind I always knew I was reading a fictional work. But I wanted it to be true. It felt true. I was half convinced that it must, somehow, be true. I wanted to go there. I desperately wanted it to be true. The why for this desire could become a thread all its own, and may have been discussed already, maybe often.

But for me, this is one of the greatest successes of LotR and The Hobbit. I think it's achieved, in small part, by the conceit to which NogrodtheGreat refers. I think that it is achieved to a far greater extent by Tolkien's skill as a storyteller. But the greatest reason is that Tolkien was writing about things that partake of our heritage. I knew deep down in my bones that, somehow, this was real.

Thus, it took on greater significance for me than anything else I had ever read, maybe even the bible. This, at least, is the relationship of this reader to the text.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

But the greatest reason is that Tolkien was writing about things that partake of our heritage. I knew deep down in my bones that, somehow, this was real.

What is our heritage? Are you suggesting that only people descended mostly from English stock can appreciate Tolkien while Spaniards and Turks and Indonesians and Scots and Irish and others cannot? Or do you mean something else?

And in reality you cannot know anything in your bones. This story, as you should know by now, was invented by Tolkien, though parts of it are derived from motifs in older stories.

I agree with you that many, including myself, very much wanted the story to be real. Others point to other books that have similarly inspired them, notably Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged.

Thus, it took on greater significance for me than anything else I had ever read, maybe even the bible. This, at least, is the relationship of this reader to the text.

Thanks for sharing this. Many of us have encountered a book which seemed to contain all wisdom. For me it was James Branch Cabell’s Jurgen.

[littlemanpoet]

Jallanite.

I'm 100% Dutch by descent, not English. The reason I say "our" heritage is because what I'm talking about is something that is human. LotR has been translated into Russian and Japanese, and it has documented that readers in those languages have just as keen an appreciation for LotR as anyone of Germanic descent.

"Know in my bones" is metaphorical. Considering the erudition with which you usually write, you should know that. Although it is a poorer way of saying the same thing, the knowing I am talking about is not merely rational. It's not only emotional, either. There is something deep inside me that is mysterious to myself that LotR connects to in a way that gives deep meaning to me. I do not understand it. I don't think it can be understood.

The motifs you mention are a piece of it. It strikes me that Jean Sibelius' music affects me and my siblings (who have also thoroughly read Tolkien) in the same way.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I agree with you that many, including myself, very much wanted the story to be real.

It puzzles me that you are talking the way as if it wasn't real...

(/end of remark, you may continue with the discussion )

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Brljak's argument would have greater force if the 'fiction of translation' were present in the writing of the story, but we know that it was a concept that arose during the writing of the appendices/Prologue (which in their first drafts were actually done before 'The Grey Havens', where the 'metafiction' is present in the form of the Red Book).*

This 'after the fact' manner is clearly shown I think in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, where the Preface employs the Red Book fiction, but all** the poems had in fact been written many years before, almost all before the Lord of the Rings and some even before The Hobbit, and which when composed had no connection to the Legendarium at all.

This is I think unlike the very conscious metafiction of The Name of the Rose, where Eco postulates a (vanishing) manuscript tradition right from the start in order to shroud his tale in a sense of did it/didn't it?, and the questions of whether Adso is telling the truth, and whether Adso even existed or it's all a clever forgery, are constantly at play in the background

-------------------
*In this context it's worth noting that the idea of The Hobbit being taken from Bilbo's memoirs nowhere appears during TH itself; it was a post-facto element that arose in the final epilogue.

**Except "Bombadil Goes Boating," which was new

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

It puzzles me that you are talking the way as if it wasn't real...

Of course I was!.

[littlemanpoet]

It's not just metaphorical versus literal, but spiritually real and true. And by spiritual I mean more than ephemeral ghosts or angels or what have you.

Yes, it's real. Deeply real. Not literal, but real.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It's not just metaphorical versus literal, but spiritually real and true. And by spiritual I mean more than ephemeral ghosts or angels or what have you.

Yes, it's real. Deeply real. Not literal, but real.

If we didn't see Tolkien's works in particular as "real", would they be worthy of the time and effort spent on discussion, here and elsewhere? Would they have caused such polarization among readers regarding adaptations, if the individual's sense of the books' "reality" was not so deep?

These books, to engender such devotion, must strike some chord beyond the usual fantasy aspect, touching one's convictions and observations of the world. We're not exactly talking Alice In Wonderland here. Isn't Tolkien's ability to present a fantasy realm that seems to have such parallels with the "real" one thing that makes his stories so extraordinary?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It's not just metaphorical versus literal, but spiritually real and true. And by spiritual I mean more than ephemeral ghosts or angels or what have you.

Yes, it's real. Deeply real. Not literal, but real.

Unlike other posters who reply with a level of constipation that requires a heavy dosage of bran to alleviate, I understand where you are coming from.

Like all works of literature that have enthralled us, the immersive nature of the tale was quite overwhelming, to the point where one got both emotional and emotionally attached (and it has to be a damned good book to get me teary-eyed, I assure you). The suspension of disbelief was complete, and as with all great moments of our lives (whether real or imagined), we don't want the feeling to end. We savor each word like fine drops of wine, till the glass is drained dry.

From the standpoint of an eleven year-old reader (when I first read Tolkien), I was rapt and the experience was indeed very real to me. That feeling has remained many decades hence, and colors my view of other literature, particularly works of fantasy.

I suppose it was rather like a religious epiphany, except I am atheist, not a nutbag.