The Autobiographical Tolkien - 'Leaf by Niggle'...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

...and perhaps other passages, letters, etc., in which he tells us something about himself.

I was touched on reading Tolkien's short story 'Leaf by Niggle'. It begins with so much sad poignancy, telling of a life seemingly wasted, then ends with a joyous eucatastrophe. When I subsequently read Carpenter's biography and even more so Tom Shippey's J.R.R.Tolkien: Author of the Century, I realized that he was writing of himself. I'd like us to explore what Shippey calls Tolkien's "autobiographical allegory".

It begins with the character's name - Niggle. The verb "to niggle" means

to work... in a trifling, fiddling or ineffective way... to work or spend time unnecessarily on petty details; to be over-elaborate in minor points. (Oxford English Dictionary)

This was certainly a vice of which Tolkien could be accused.
It is a failing of which Tolkien was conscious, and which he ascribed to himself ('I am a natural niggler, alas!' he declared in a letter to Rayner Unwin in 1961). (Shippey)

Clearly, Tolkien and Niggle are one and the same.

Niggle's life's work as a painter and Tolkien's as an author are easily compared as well. The huge picture that began as a painting of a single leaf and grew into a tree, with an ever-increasing background landscape, is readily recognizable as Tolkien's mythology.

The journey he must make is of course death, and his stay in the Workhouse, where he must learn to work as he was not able to in his lifetime, is quite obviously purgatory. Fortunately, the story does not end there, but goes on to a heavenly paradise.

So far, so easy. But how can we interpret other aspects of Niggle/Tolkien's tale? Who, for example, is the real-life counterpart to his neighbor Parish? Who the Inspector? What is the meaning of the neglected garden, the shed, the interruptions?

And what do you think of Tolkien's evaluation of his own (un)importance and his fears that his work would not be remembered? I find it heart-rending that this great genius had so many doubts about himself and his life's work. Niggle's story

...springs from a sense of earthly tragedy: failure, anxiety, and frustration. (Shippey)

Perhaps it is precisely that which makes 'Leaf by Niggle' so touching; its author shows his humanity and becomes one of us.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Estelyn Telcontar ]

[Kuruharan]

the interruptions

I'd say that those are the unplanned things that come up in life that you can do to help others but you consider them to be a tremendous bother and most people won't do them. (I know that I usually don't.)

the neglected garden

Those things in life that he felt that he should be doing instead of working on Middle earth.

And what do you think of Tolkien's evaluation of his own (un)importance and his fears that his work would not be remembered? I find it heart-rending that this great genius had so many doubts about himself and his life's work.

I'd say that's ventage Tolkien. That was part of his personality.

Perhaps it is precisely that which makes 'Leaf by Niggle' so touching; its author shows his humanity and becomes one of us.

Yes, I think that's true. And maybe that the story carried a hope that our small accomplishments could mean more than we think they could and that we'll be given an opportunity to see the big picture and to finish what we started better than we could have before.

[littlemanpoet]

A chance to finish what we've started? Oh, wouldn't that be truly wonderful? One can only hope.

Perhaps another application of the neglected, untended garden, was Tolkien's wife. She did not like Oxford, nor Tollers's penchant for spending so much time with Oxford men. The biographers tell us that their married life was not easy, them being so different from each other.

Parish would be anyone who had a real need but had the habit of expressing it poorly and being demanding about it, and who considered Niggle's work not worth the paper it's painted on. It's interesting how both Niggle and Parish had to learn from each other in the gateway to Paradise.

More later. I hope.

[Kuruharan]

Perhaps another application of the neglected, untended garden, was Tolkien's wife.

That's kind of a sad way of looking at that, lmp, but that could very well be.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Imp and Kuruhran--

I actually think that Tolkien began work on that "unfinihed business" in his own retirement when he agreed to go live in Bournemouth. I've visited there, and I don't think it would be his kind of place (My apologies to anyone living there. I live in Houston, and I'm quite sure Tolkien would have disliked it intensely!)

His wife, however, was very happy. Her home had modern conveniences for the first time, and there was a low key social life with the kind of folk she felt so comfortable with. For Tolkien, it meant isolation from academics and the type of men he enjoyed conversing with. In many ways, Bournemouth represented a real sacrifice for him, but he did it readily and with apparently no complaint, much to Edith's delight.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[Nar]

Good question, Estelyn! Leaf by Niggle does seem to be conceived in a fairly allegorical way despite the famous quotes about detesting allegory-- but I think it grows beyond its original seed as all stories should. So, with mild apologies to the Professor for playing at allegory-- I thought when I read it that Parish was literally the local Parish-- the local community -- the indefatigable ladies who organize the church functions and the Pastor pestering for contributions and volunteers. That annoying fellow in the next pew who wants to confide in someone. Needy old ladies in the front pew-- someone has to linger afterwards to help them totter down the steps. All the claims of love and neighborly charity on an irritable citizen who only wants to get back to painting his tree.

[Kuruharan]

I thought when I read it that Parish was literally the local Parish-- the local community

HA-HA I like that! So it's an elaborate pun! I hadn't thought of that. I could never resist a good pun! (Yes, I know *groan* )

[HerenIstarion]

well, I don't think Bournemouth has anything to do with the story. It was published in 1945, and written some years before, when LoTR was not yet even in shape, an QS was rejected. JRRT felt he was getting old, and not much of his heart's work was likely to appear in print at all. only "leaves" of his "tree" seemd good to him, and the whole appeared (and not completed at that) only after his death. Yet, despite all this, in Leaf by Niggle his great humility is also shown:

things might have been different, but they could not have been better

one of the "life shaping motto" of JRRT's

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I like that! So it's an elaborate pun!

In reference, I think, to an early English form of unemployment relief, where the poor could go "on the Parish", ie certain basic needs would be provided by the parish in which they lived. This was replaced with parish workhouses in the mid-nineteenth century due to the very Victorian distinction between the "deserving" poor, who were virtuous but unlucky, and the "undeserving" poor, who had been brought low by vice. There was also a concern that paupers would move to richer parishes where the provision of benefits was better, causing a disproportionate burden to fall on those communities.

As you may have noticed from reading the story, Parish does seem to feel entitled to charity from his neighbours, which puts him in the "undeserving" category, in that he doesn't feel a due sense of gratitude towards his benefactors.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Interesting thoughts, all of you - thanks! Nar, the idea that the name 'Parish' be taken literally is an angle I hadn't thought of before. It would correspond with the use of 'Niggle' as the name of the main character and Squatter's additional information would go with it. However, I'm not quite convinced!

For one thing, something as generalized as a church parish doesn't seem to fit in with the fact that Parish is a person - Niggle's closest neighbour at that. Also, I don't recall reading that Tolkien felt that his church made such personal demands on him. Let me tell you what my notion is:

Parish is Edith!!

Mind you, I am not absolutely convinced of this on all points, so my opinion is open to discussion; however, I will explain my idea. First, the closest neighbour: Who would be closer than the spouse? Tolkien had male friends, but though Parish's gender is male, the personality does not correspond to one of them. Then, Edith was (emotionally) dependant on JRRT, making demands on his time and almost certainly not appreciating his work or realizing its scope. She interrupted him with matters he considered unimportant, insisted on punctuality at meals etc. and resented his evenings away with his male friends and colleagues.

Niggle's reunion with Parish after death and purgatory, both having come closer to each other's attitudes and priorities, suggest to me that Tolkien hoped to reach that closeness with Edith in the afterlife which they could not quite achieve during lifetime. They then would accomplish something wonderful and sub-creative together.

Is this interpretation possible? If so, I am convinced that JRRT was not aware of it and created Parish without consciously knowing whom he meant.

[Child of the 7th Age]

HerenIstarion--

I believe you misunderstood my post. I was not saying that Bouremouth had anything to do with Leaf by Niggle per se. Merely that, in his own life, Tolkien may also have perceived some "unfinished business" in his relationship with his wife and that his willingness to "go into exile" in Bournemouth may have been an example of that. Sorry if I was unclear.

Sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Exile in Bournemouth? Nasty. Still, at least it wasn't Bognor Regis.

[Kuruharan]

Parish is Edith!!...Is this interpretation possible? If so, I am convinced that JRRT was not aware of it and created Parish without consciously knowing whom he meant.

Possible, yes. But always be wary of interpretations that would be in the author's subconscious.

Besides, if Edith is Parish then who is Parish's wife?!

(Some people just don't have proper appreciation for a good pun. )

[littlemanpoet]

I had just been thinking that Niggle had no wife, and how sad that Tolkien left his own married partner out of 'Leaf By Niggle', then I read your fascinating theory. I'm astonished! It could be that Parish is Edith. Then again, I wouldn't want to limit it to that reading only.

Who the Inspector? What is the meaning of the neglected garden, the shed, the interruptions?...And what do you think of Tolkien's evaluation of his own (un)importance and his fears that his work would not be remembered? I find it heart-rending that this great genius had so many doubts about himself and his life's work.

The inspector? He seems to represent the Law. Horrid man. And absolutely correct in all that he says. That's the trouble with the Law. It's right, darn it.

Based on the theory that Tolkien wrote Niggle autobiographically, this tells me that he was ambivalent about his hobby. On one hand he can write a powerful poem concluding in the line that goes something like 'we make in the image of the maker'. Yet he feared that all he did was not only a waste of effort. Worse, he feared that it was a wrong thing to be doing with his God-given time and energy. He seems to have believed that since he was not helping the poor and so forth, he was not doing what he as a christian was supposed to do. Being the sensitive man that he was, I can imagine how this fear must have hounded him.

And maybe his feeling that his work was unimportant was partly connected to a feeling that he was not clothing the naked, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, et cetera. So I would say that I agree with Parish representing the area of ministry represented by the Roman Catholic parish in which JRRT dwelt. This would be a geographical area that includes all elements of the population, not just fellow Catholics. "Love your neighbor".

The eucatastrophic aspect of this to me is that despite the condemnation found in Matthew chapter 25, Tolkien's story still has Niggle go to Purgatory and then to an entry to Paradise. So he is NOT condemned, despite having wasted his life on unnecessary art.

Not that I agree with such an assessment. Far from it, or I would not be discussing this topic on this board!

Nevertheless, I can see Tolkien having such a deep ambivalence in terms of his christian duty. I'm happy that he was able to resolve it in Niggle the way he did.

Some may disagree, but I like to think of Smith of Wooton Major as being a kind of sequel to Niggle, also autobiographical. Tolkien is Smith. He has to give up faerie after a full life. In SOWM, Smith has no ambivalence. Faerie is a gift instead of an unnecessary and wasteful pursuit.

[HerenIstarion]

Sharon maybe I was wrong myself, sorry

Niggle’s art is not so vain in the story itself:

"I think he was a silly little man," said Councillor Tompkins. "Worthless, in fact; no use to Society at all."
"Oh, I don't know," said Atkins, who was nobody of importance, just a schoolmaster. "I am not so sure: it depends on what you mean by use."

It’s “nobody of importance” that's saying that, yet “the last will become first”

When SOWM came out, JRRT already was "published" author, so Smith being himself, and Alf representing the gift (or the giver) he had in writing, Nokes may be pictured as unlearned critic(s). In Niggle he was not certain of anything yet. Parish's wife does not make the Edith theory incredible - Parish and his wife together may represent Edith, Parish being part of her personality most close to JRRT. Remember Parish's refusal to go with Niggle and shepherd based on an argument that his wife was to be sent after him. But those are all speculations, of course.

One can also speculate that JRRT is represented by both Parish and Niggle – one being his “lower” part, and other “higher” (some kind of jekyll and Hide). in afterlife his lame “lower” part of mentality is set right, and the both work together creating things impossible otherwise. In this case Parish’s wife becomes edith, and when she grumbles “this Niggle” she is grumbling against JRRT’s “higher” half, one interested in poems and not in bills.

Well, enough with speculations for now

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thanks, all of you, for your thoughts - I'm glad no one tore me apart for my revolutionary theory! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

littlemanpoet, I haven't read 'Smith of Wootton Major', but Shippey calls it Tolkien's second autobiographical allegory, so your thoughts are certainly valid.

HerenIstarion, your speculation that both Parish and Niggle represent Tolkien is quite plausible - Shippey calls this

a 'bifurcation', as two aspects of Tolkien's own personality which he wished he could combine: the one creative, irresponsible, without ties..., the other scholarly, earthbound, practical, immediately productive...

This interpretation has a psychological depth which is almost Jungian in its implications. Shippey again:

The successful or 'eucatastrophic' end of the story depends on Niggle and Parish cooperating...

It isn't difficult to perceive Tolkien as torn, desiring to be whole (much as Sam at the end of LotR?). The mystery of Parish's wife's identity, raised by Kuruharan, is also satisfactorily answered by this reading of the allegory.

An additional comment to the various ideas about the neglected garden - Shippey says it

surely represents the professional field which Tolkien had been appointed to cultivate, and which some certainly thought... he had indeed been neglecting.

That sounds quite logical to me; however, it raises the question of the identity of the Inspector - the Law, which littlemanpoet suggests, doesn't quite fit, in my opinion.

Hmmm, seems I'm leaning rather heavily on Shippey in this reply, but he says it so well that I can't improve on his words! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[littlemanpoet]

I'm not really happy with calling the Inspector 'the Law' either. He is the one who informs Niggle of what ought to be, though; yet, whereas he's technically right, we sense that he's on the side of Parish and not at all on Niggle's. He sees no value in Niggle's art. So to me the Inspector represents a small-minded aspect of society that supports the professional, immediately productive side and is, if not opposed to then at least cares nothing for, the creative. There's something proletarian about that in my mind, socialist in the worst sense. I don't know that I'm getting to the bottom of it, just thinking out loud.

But here's a further twist on the autobiographical, and here I march blithely into open heresy:

It isn't difficult to perceive Tolkien as torn, desiring to be whole (much as Sam at the end of LotR?).

Indeed! Might we then say that perhaps the ending, about which there has been so much inconclusive discussion on this board, reflects something very personal about Tolkien's bifurcation? Frodo, symbolic of the creative, passes over sea to be healed while Sam, symbolic of the productive, must remain behind? Did Tolkien perhaps write Leaf by Niggle as a means of resolving for himself the bittersweet (un)ending of LotR?

[HerenIstarion]

I think Inspector is Conscience, than Driver is Death, and Porter - Guarding Angel

Go, speculate bravely, my people

[mark12_30]

lmp-- Woe, Dismay, and Ouch, thou gougest far too close to the soul. Sounds very plausible. (Do you really see Frodo as creative? Sam is productive, certainly, but Frodo seems to me more of a prophet/ seer than creative. Although he DID write a very significant and magnificent book. Okay, I stand corrected.)

I thought that Parish stayed behind in Purgatory begause he still needed more purging; isn't that the way of it? When he's purged, he'll leave too.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

No, no - Parish is no longer in purgatory in the story - the Workhouse is purgatory!

[mark12_30]

Eh, guess it's time to reread it, sorry.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I just read Tolkien's second autobiographical allegory, Smith of Wootton Major, for the first time. If you've read it, we can share our ideas on the analogies to JRRT's life. I'm not quite ready to analyze it yet, though; my first reaction is purely emotional - tears for so much beauty, sadness and loss.

[mark12_30]

Yes-- Smith goes off into Faeryland over and over again and comes back glassy-eyed to his wife and kids, and wishes he could only explain... Dances with the queen? Meets the king? The king is the baker all along? If one guesses that the queen might relate to the VIrgin Mary and the king might relate to Jesus (I didn't say allegory, I said RELATE) then the implications are fascinating.

What was Edith's church life like...? From the letters, I know his sons eventually went deep with God, at least, I think so, but if there are letters about Edith's relationship with God I haven't run across them yet. What does the biography say, anything?

Anyway, I agree, Estelyn, I would like to discuss Smith, (or at least see him discussed) in light of Tolkien's life-- that is, once I finish digesting it a bit more! I mentioned it in the eucatastrophe thread-- man, did I get zapped. What an incredible short story.

Thanks for bringing up Smith...

--Helen

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Now that I've read 'Smith of Wootton Major' a second time, I'm beginning to think about the autobiographical aspects of the story. Smith is the obvious characterization of Tolkien himself - probably not many who would argue that point. The difference between him and Niggle lies in the fact that 'Smith' was written 20 years later, the last fiction Tolkien completed. We should go into more detail on that comparison, but for now, one thought is puzzling me:
I made the same deduction you did, Helen - Alf Prentice, the Faery King come to live among the humans, seems to be an obvious Christ reference. Same connection for the Faery Queen = Mary, Queen of Heaven. That would make the Realm of Faery equivalent to Heaven!! In my mind, Faery seems traditional and rather pagan; I cannot connect the two with each other.

Shippey says that Tolkien himself remarked that Hall and Cook were allegories of church and parson and goes on to say:

The revelation that a Cook can also come from Faery very much supports Tolkien's deep belief (or desire to believe) that his gift for fantasy in no way comprimised his religion. Fantasy and faith...are harmonized.

This is quite a revolutionary thought to me; can you reconcile Faery and the Christian faith?

[littlemanpoet]

mark: Did I zap you in the eucatastrophe thread? I'm sorry, didn't mean to cause any scarring. I tend to agree that there is some allegorical feel, at least application, to Smith.

This is quite a revolutionary thought to me; can you reconcile Faery and the Christian faith?

I've been wrestling with precisely this question for about fifteen years in my never-to-be-finished magnum opus (see my sig).

I think the best real-time reconciliation of this was Celtic Christianity from the time of Patrick until it was subsumed by the Latin behemoth. The same lightness and whimsicalness, and danger, that we find in Smith can be found in everything having to do with that era. Read Thomas Cahill's "How the Celts Saved Civilization" to get a sense of what I mean. I highly recommend the book if you like Tolkien.

[HerenIstarion]

Another discussion of Smith may be found here: Smith of Wotton Major

[Bêthberry]

Just a thought here about aspects of the autobiographical interpretation, Estelyn. Is anything suggested by the fact that Smith's son does not inherit the star, particularly in terms of the role which Christopher played in publishing his father's work?

And if Smith is Tolkien, what does the loss of the star suggest? That Tolkien lost his imaginative involvement with Faery later in life? Was this the movement away from the poetry towards the theology which Christopher suggests?

Bethberry

Edit: As to your question of whether Faery and Faith can be united, I would agree with littlemanpoet that they can, although it is for him to say how closely my explanation here speaks to his. Both provide consolations, satisfactions which the limitations of this world cannot provide. Both speak of longing. I might even say that Tolkien 'justifies' his faith (using that word as Milton does) by story.

[littlemanpoet]

Smith dancing with the Queen of Fairy reminds me more of Luthien than of the Mother of Jesus. But Smith is not Beren, though. For that matter, I don't think Alf is, either. Alf is the King of Fairy, a level Beren did not attain because Luthien humbled herself to Beren's level. So I guess whereas there are similarities, we seem to be talking about two very different times, governed by two very different sets of rules. I'd have to agree with whoever said that Smith is 6th age (Medieval period).

I'll talk about the connection between fairy and xianity more on my next break.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Bethberry, I have been thinking about JRR and Christopher Tolkien in relationship to the story characters. Smith's son Ned was a craftsman, but not an imaginative creator like his father. I think that applies to Christopher as well - he gathered, edited and published his father's work but did not really wander on the paths of fantasy himself.

So who was the child to whom Smith passed on the star? My guess is that Tolkien would like to have known, if he had the feeling the gift was taken from him, so he wrote that answer into the story. Wishful thinking, perhaps? I have seen no indication that there was an heir to his gift; can someone who has read the letters add fact to this speculation?

As to why he had the feeling that the gift was taken from him, I have been wondering about that too, since that is the sad conclusion of the story. I do miss the sense of eucatastrophe in 'Smith' that the ending of 'Leaf' has! I suppose it is "better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all", but the grief over the loss of entrance to Faery is almost overwhelming. Any more about that in the 'Letters'?

[littlemanpoet]

Estelyn Telcontar, the eucatastrophe is indeed hard to locate in Smith. I think it's because, though this is a Fairy Tale, it is just as much an Elegy. If there was one, I think it is to be found in that Smith was given the right to name his heir to the Star. I don't know if the letters shed any light on Tolkien's life in this regard, but I think that JRRT did not have or name an heir apparent. Really, even thought Alf grants Smith the honor of naming his heir, it was ultimately up to Alf, who apparently would have overturned Smith's choice had it been a bad one (which, of course, it could not be if he truly had been affected by Faerie as profoundly as the story suggests). I do think that Tolkien expected there to be someone who took up the Star, maybe not in his lifetime. I'm afraid I haven't seen it yet though, not in terms of an author of his power and scope of vision. No, I think JRRT was unique and the Star that came to him seems to have been divided into bits and handed piecemeal to those who could make what they could out of a little bit of the dream, wonder, what have you. There are a number of us who are really trying to recapture the spirit of Tolkien in fantasy, but it's an uphill struggle.

[Guinevere]

Hi everyone, mae govannen !

Wow, yet another of these fascinating threads! Actually I,too, have just finished reading Prof.Shippeys excellent book on Tolkien. It really made me appreciate Tolkiens works even more.
Even before that, when I read "Leaf by Niggle", it struck me immediately as being a kind of allegory of Tolkien and his work. Especially the picture of the tree "sending out innumerable branches and thrusting out the most fantastic roots" is most suggestive. I haven`t read "Smith of Wootton Major" (yet).

But I keep wondering why Tolkien himself in 1962 denied that "Leaf by Niggle" was an allegory at all, and why he (in the Foreword to LotR) expressed such a strong dislike of "Allegory in all its manifestations".

I`ve read all your fascinating speculations with great interest, but I can`t help feeling that Tolkien would have hated that!
(No offence meant)
Suilad, Guinevere

[Kuruharan]

I think that Tolkien did not name an "heir apparent" because he couldn't. I rather doubt that he ever even thought about it. No one could take up Middle earth again because it was his world and nobody else could take his place in it. In the fantasy genre as a whole, nobody could come after and do what he did. He injected new life into it and created a different strand of fantasy (that many writers have grabbed onto, but none of them are as memorable). I don't feel that his tales were something that somebody could come and take up where he left off. He had his own unique work to do and nobody else could do it.

His stories were originally for his own amusement (more or less). The public aspect of them came later, but they remained a very personal part of him. I believe that type of possession is something that you can't leave to anybody else to continue, it is too closely attached to your own being.

[littlemanpoet]

What do you suppose the Star is? If you're not repelled by allegory, what does the Star represent? Or if you like Tolkien's terminology best, what applications adhere to the Star? The reason I ask is because of Kuruharan's wise comments (for a dwarf [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] - no, honest, I really like dwarves - just kidding). Nobody has been able to do what Tolkien did, but is that what the Star stands for? Or is it the ability to just enter Faerie? And if so, how does one do it, besides reading LotR and other almost-as-good fantasy? Are there other ways? Can you and I have access to the Star? How special is it? And what does it have to do with parish and church (harking back to an earlier post)? I really, really, want to know if any of you have answers or at least speculations to these questions.

[Kuruharan]

[ignoring the *ahem* comments made about his race's intelligence]

I really, really, want to know if any of you have answers or at least speculations to these questions.

Famous last words.

It may not be something that applies to Tolkien personally. It may be more impersonal. Something relating to all humanity rather than just Tolkien the man. Harking back to the "lost in the past" theme of which Tolkien was so fond.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

littlemanpoet, I am thinking hard about the question of the nature of Faërie (and trying to decide how it is definitively spelled!). I wonder if it is broader in scope than we think - everything that transcends our visible daily life. Perhaps music, meditation or prayer can be our passport-star, or a good book that lifts us right out of the hum-drum and into infinity. Smith's star is apparently a passport. But it still puzzles me to think that it could be lost...

Another thing has occurred to me in comparing the stories of Niggle and Smith - the early one looks forward. Perhaps because there is yet not much visible success in real life, Tolkien focuses on the rewards of life after death. The late story looks back; there is more sense of fulfilled life in it, but also the sense of great loss at the end and no look at all beyond earthly life itself. I've now started reading the Letters to compare these impressions with JRRT's own life.

And Guinevere, Tolkien himself said that the Hall and the Cook are allegorical, as quoted by Shippey. I think we can look for more without worrying about what he would have said! I like Professor Shippey's comment on the search for allegory in this story - he thinks the analogy that

To seek for the meaning is to cut open the ball in search of its bounce.

is mistaken. Rather,

An allegorical story is much more like a crossword-puzzle. Solutions which are too easy are no fun.
The more correct solutions that are filled in, the narrower becomes the range of possibilities for what is left. The attraction of both allegories and crossword-puzzles is an intellectual one - the reader of an allegory is actively engaged, not being passively led. Solving an allegory gives... a new awareness which entirely reshapes one's understanding of the surface narrative. It is not essential to come up with the one single correct solution. A suggestive or provocative one will do. The story... makes more sense. Only the laziest of readers make no effort at all to respond to the clues given by authors of allegory.

Who am I to contradict a professor? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] (Especially when he agrees with the opinion I have already formed!)

[littlemanpoet]

Estelyn: My mind wandered to The Divine Comedy in response to your last post's reply. I'm thinking particularly of the paradisal garden at the top of the Purgatorial mountain, through which flowed the River Lethe. That had the same feel to me, and I recall that it is where Beatrice finally comes to meet Dante. That had the feel of Faerie for me, too, but for me that feeling was lost the further into the heavens they went...

That tells me that the somewhat bodiless existence Dante describes in Paradiso lacks what the pinnacle of Purgatorio has, which is enfleshed reality. That's why I find Paul's writings at the end of his letter to the Corinthians (think of the Bass soloist toward the end of Handel's Messiah, to be so spine tinglingly wonderful. "In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we shall all be changed..." having resurrection bodies, and from John's Revelation, a New Heaven and a New Earth, not a bodiless Nirvana. What does all this hunger represent? A desire to get back to Eden, or else as close as possible to the next best thing. Whenever I can envision that, it is ecstasy. Does this make sense?

[Bêthberry]

Smith's son Ned was a craftsman, but not an imaginative creator like his father. I think that applies to Christopher as well - he gathered, edited and published his father's work but did not really wander on the paths of fantasy himself.

This exactly how I would read the relationship, Estelyn. At the same time, however, part of me wants to say, "Wow, what a heavy trip (if I may be allowed that ancient expression to lay on a son".

What were Christopher's motivations in preserving his father's papers? Was he trying to grasp a bit of Faerie for himself? Was he proving himself? Do you know when Christopher began his work compiling his father's writing? I suspect there are many ways to interpret the relationship.

Greetings, Guinevere. Your point about Tolkien's comment on allegory is a good reminder, but I agree with Estelyn that it needs to be seen in context with the introduction to LOTR, where Tolkien was denying that WWII inspired the Quest. And in place of allegory, Tolkien posited 'applicability.' I would say that his hesitations over allegory relate to a reductive way of interpreting it rather than a rejection of it as a form of narrative.

No time for more in this interesting discussion.

Bethberry

[littlemanpoet]

Each of you are probably well aware that Christopher was an integral part of JRR's creative process from early on. A sympathetic reader before publishing, which Christopher was, was essential to the development of LotR, it seems to me. Christopher's map of Middle Earth is the one that made it into the published version of LotR. So at the very least, Christopher has acted as one who reflects back to the subcreator something about the subcreation, namely his own enjoyment and relation to it. Talk about a special father-son bond! So for Christopher to become heir to the legacy and become publisher of his father's works continues that reflection that has been the son's legacy from early on. It doesn't seem to me that that compares cleanly with Smith.

[Bêthberry]

lmp,

That's a very nice analogy, of CT as the reader who reflects back an enthusiasm for the author. It certainly is far more sympathetic and (more to my own inclinations) literary than the old psychoanalytic interpretation of daddy saying that son wasn't as gifted as the old man.

What I would like to bring to this discussion is a point which came out of another thread here, Child's on what we would like to see expanded in The Silm. I had asked the question of why the Tale of Tuor is so much more compressed than the Tale of Turin (to me, a far less satisfactory tale). Various answers were given, particularly Mithadan's that JRRT never finished Tuor's tale. Now, just this morning, I found Mhoram's link to Michael Martinez's article where Martinez claims that Tuor's tale was written solely by CT. If this is the case, it suggests to me that CT was either simply trying for a factual rendition of Tuor's story OR was unable to achieve the kind of narrative development and style which JRRT had in Turin's tale. Thus, evidence that, despite all his very faithful and legitimate and intimate involvement in his father's writing, CT did not have the gift of faerie which his father had.

For reference, here's the quote from Martinez:

"The Fall of Gondolin" is important to The Silmarillion. There is no doubt about that. But "The Fall of Gondolin" is not a part of The Silmarillion . "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin" was literarlly written by Christopher Tolkien. Sure, he tried to follow his father's writings, but what he calls editorial compression is, in fact, writing. Christopher Tolkien had to sit down and compose his own version of the tale, which already existed in at least four different versions (as "The Fall of Gondolin" from The Book of Lost Tales , as sections in "Quenta Noldorinwa" and "Quenta Silmarillion" from the 1930s, and in the fragment "Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin").

The Silmarillion is a book, composed or compiled by Christopher Tolkien. "The Silmarillion" is a story which J.R.R. Tolkien began working on about 1930. The story became the book, but the book is not the story.

And here is a link to the entire article:
http://www.suite11101.com/article.cfm/4786/63343

Would it be possible to suggest that JRRT saw that CT's work, however admirable and respectful, was not that of a sub-creator, but the other one of editor?

Bethberry

[Tirned Tinnu]

Ah! Just stumbling back on subject for a moment - I know everyone's popped in their two cents and I thought I might too.
*Frowning in concentration and with care*
It's often that a writer will take up his pen to scribble a fantastical ditty about himself. It reflects his views on how he is treated, and how he expects to be treated.
I think Tolkien wrote "Leaf" because of his own conflicts, and because it makes a wonderful story! It's a metaphor, of course, for Life and God, and Purgatory and Heaven. But I stop there - who is Parish, then, in Tolkien's life? It's almost like Tolkien has already met his Parish. He describes the character so well. If not for Parish's crippled condition, I might think he was Lewis or Chris or Tolkien's editor!
But right back to the point - The story is one of morals. I think Tolkien was out to create a moral story, without actually naming God or Christ, or St. Peter! He wanted us to see our own versions of who the Jailers were. I loved "Leaf By Niggle", and I loved the way two men could work together to provide harmony for others.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tirned Tinnu ]

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Tirned Tinnu ]