LotR - Foreword

[Estelyn Telcontar]

This tale grew in the telling

These are the first words (except for the Ring poem) in my edition of The Lord of the Rings; probably in most of yours as well. The Foreword dates much later than the book itself; Tolkien wrote it in 1965 for the first official American paperback edition (Ballantine’s), after the pirated Ace version had become enormously popular in the U.S. The closing sentences of the Foreword refer to that, including the famous words beginning “This paperback edition, and no other…”

There are several aspects we can discuss:

1) The autobiographical comments Tolkien makes
2) The glimpses he gives us of the development of the story
3) The explanation of his intention in writing the tale
4) His comments on the reactions of readers and critics


I am always touched by his statement

I had many duties that I did not neglect, and many other interests…

It sounds a bit wistful; what could he have accomplished with less distractions?! But it also shows me the greatness of his spirit, the creativity which came through despite the necessities of daily life. He mentions one of those necessities:

…it had to be typed, and re-typed: by me; the cost of professional typing by the ten-fingered was beyond my means.

What a waste of time and energy, I think when I read that – and am reminded of J. S. Bach, who had to spend time engraving the notes for his compositions, since he also couldn’t afford help.


I look forward to reading your opinions and thoughts on the Foreword!

*IMPORTANT ADDITION: The original foreword, written for the first edition, has been passed on to us by Squatter in post #25 on this thread - we are including it in our discussion. Thanks, Squatter, for that important supplement!

[Fingolfin II]

In the Foreword, Tolkien gives us some very interesting insights into the problems he faced in creating Lord of the Rings and also shows us how exact and thorough he was in the creation of his world.

It sounds a bit wistful; what could he have accomplished with less distractions?!

I don't know if he could have accomplished much more than the creation of Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. Both are very in-depth books and cover most details in the novels very comprehensively- I suppose all he could really have done is to amend all the typing and phrasing errors made by the editors. However, I'm not sure whether he could have created a complete consistency between all his works in one lifetime.

As for anny inner meaning or "message", it has in the intention of the author none.

What is interesting here is that Tolkien admits that while he has borrowed from other sources, it is not exactly based on what would happen in real life. He says that in real life the Ring would have been used against Sauron, but in order to make a story of it he had to change reality to idealism, in the sense that Frodo and Gandalf are able to resist the temptation of the Ring for so long.

That's all I can think of now; I look forward to discussing this and all other opinions about the Foreword and the rest of the book.

[Arry]

The thought of him using the term ‘ten-fingered’, for a paid typist, was quite amusing. It conjured up the image of him hunched over an old Royal typewriter, the smell of a freshly inserted ribbon wafting out as the keys strike it with a clackety – clack . . . the rhythm syncopated and marked with pauses as the determined author pecks the keys with two fingers.

This particular part of the Foreword also talks about the process of writing such a layered and detailed storyline.

Then when the ‘end’ had at last been reached the whole story had to be revised, and indeed largely re-written backwards.

The end of the writing process for the main storyline has to be looked at closely - ideas which have come to fruition in the final chapters have to be enhanced or even planted in the initial chapters so that the entire creation becomes as close to a seamless, consistent whole as it can.

I appreciate the fact that he stuck with the process over that thirteen year period!

[Saraphim]

All great tales evolve, and it is something more than magical to watch a seed of an idea blossom into a full tale, something that I can, to a small degree, relate to.

But one of the bits that really stuck with me is this:

I had little hope that other people would be interested in this work [of the Elder Days, ect]...When those whose advice and opinion I sought corrected little hope to no hope, I went back to the sequel...

This struck me ironic, for the obvious reason that here we are, on this lovely web site, doing the best we can to enshrine his works into history.

What if, although the anwer will of course never be known, the Professor had neglected writing the Lord of the Rings and chose instead to finish the histories of Middle-Earth, what he truly desired to accomplish all his life?

Although it was the Silmarilion and the History of Middle Earth that gave him cause and basis to write, it was his seemingly secondary work that drew people by the thousands to in turn come to love his tales of the Elder Days.

What I admire most about Tolkien as a man was his unflagging perseverence, even at the times that things seemed most dreary and pointless.

In spite of the darkness of the next five years, I found that the tale could not be wholly abandoned, and I plodded on, mostly by darkness, till I stood by Balin's tomb in Moria...

He goes on to say that he stopped there for about a year before coming back, and I must say, that a year is an awfully long time for writer's block, or even writer's stagnation. I've gotten both (the latter term being my invention) but I usually abandon what I had been working on before too long.

Not Professor Tolkien. Not in the least. After that, he most likely had many more blocks than he mentioned in the foreward, but never once did he give up. Even, as Estelyn said, when he had to type it all up by hand himself, a daunting prospect for anyone, especially in the days before spellcheck and the automatic 'delete' button.


I hope you all note that I did not mention anything about canonicity in my post, allegorical, topical, or otherwise. I try to leave that to the rest of you, who are unflaggingly better at it than me.

[davem]

Well, I don’t know how relevant this will be, but as we’re starting with the Foreword, I thought it might be interesting to look at Tolkien in the period just prior to, & just after publication of LotR, & his feelings about the work.

This is an excerpt from a talk given at the 1992 Centenary conference in Oxford, published in the Proceedings of the Conference, & published jointly by The Tolkien Society in the UK & the Mythopoeic Society in the US.

The speaker was George Sayer. He tells about the time he spent walking with Tolkien & the Lewis brothers in the Malvern Hills.

“Though he (Tolkien) was generally interested in birds & insects, his greatest love seemed to be for trees. He had loved trees ever since childhood. He would often place his hand on the trunks of ones we passed. He felt their wanton or unnecessary felling almost as murder. The first time I heard him say ‘’ORCS’ was when we heard not far off the savage sound of a petrol driven chainsaw. ‘’That machine,’ he said, ‘is one of the great horrors of our age.’ He said that he had sometimes imagined an uprising of trees against their human tormentors. ‘Think of the power of a forest on the march. Of what it would be like if Birnam Wood really came to Dunsinane.’....


‘Except at Inklings mettings I saw nothing of Tolkien for perhaps two years after this. Lewis gave me bulletins about him, & talked quite a lot about the Lord of the Rings, its greatness & the difficulty oof getting it published. He thought this was largely Tolkien’s fault because he insisted that it should be published with a lengthy appendix of largely philological interest. In negotiation with Colllins he had even gone so far as o insist that it should be published with the earlier work, The Silmarillion, a book that Lewis had tried to read in typescript, but found very heavy going. The two together would make a volume of over a million words. Even alone The Lord of the rings would. Lewis thought, be the better for pruning. there was a large section that in his opinion weakened the book.

Of course Lewis’s enthusiasm made my wife & me mnost eager to read the book. Lewis said that he would try & get a copy for us, but he did not see how. Then on one of my visits to Magdalen he told me that Tolkien had given up hope of ever having it published. This was a real calamity, but it brought great good to me. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘at what I have here for you!’ There on his table was the typescript of The Lord of the Rings. Of course i must take the greatest care of it, read it in a month or less, & return it personally to the author, ‘phoning him first to mmake sure that he would be there to recieve it. It was far too precious to be entrusted even to the more reliable post of forty years ago.

Of course my wife & I had the thrilling experience that all of you remember vividly. Well before the month was up, I turned up with iit at Tolkien’s house, then in Holywell. I found him obviously unhappy & dishevelled. He explained that his wife had gone to Bournemouth & that all his friends were out of Oxford. He eagerly accepted my invitation to come to Malvern for a few days. ‘But what about the other book? I can’t leave it here.’ So i drove Tolkien to Malvern with the typpescripts of The Lord of the Rings & The Silmarillion on the back seat. What a precious cargo!

His talk now was mainly of his books. He had worked for fourteen years on The Lord of the Rings & before that for many years on The Silmarillion. They really were is life work. He had in a sense planned them before he went to school, & actually written one or two of the poems while he was still at school, I think the Tom Bombadil poems. He had now nothing to look forward to except a life of broken health, making do on an inadequate pension. He was so miserable & so littlle interested in anything except his own troubles that we were seriously worried. What could we do to alleviate his depression? i could walk with him & drive him around during the day, but how were we to get through the evenings? Then I had an idea. I would take the risk of introducing him to a new machine I had in the house & was trying out because it seemed that it should have some valuable educational applications. It was a large black box, a ferrograph, an early model tape recorder. To confront him with iit was a risk because he had made it clear that he disliked all machinery. He might curse it & curse me with iit, but there was a chance that he would be interested in recording on it, in hearing his own voice.

He was certainly interested. First he recorded the Lord’s Prayer in Gothic to cast out the devil that was sure to be in iit since it was a machine. This was not just whimsey. All of life for him was part of a cosmic conflict between the forces of good & evil, God & the devil. I played it back to him. He was surprised & very pleased. He sounded much better than he had expected. He went on to recoord some of the poems in The Lord of the Rings. Some he sang to the tunes that were in his head when writing them. He was delighted with the resullt. It was striking how much better his voice sounded recorded & amplified. the more he recorded, & the more often he played back the recordings, the more his confidence grew. He asked to record the great riddle scene from the Hobbit. He read it magnificently & was especially pleased with his imppersonation oof Gollum. Then I suggested he should read one or two of the best prose passages from The Lord of the Rings, say, the ‘Ride of the Rohirrim’, & part of the account of the events on Mount Doom. He listened carefullly &, I thought, nervously, to the playback. ‘You know,’ he said, ‘they are all wrong. The publishers are wrong, & I am wrong to have lost my faith in my oown work. i am sure this is good, really good. But how am I to get it published?’

Of course I had no idea. But i had to say something, so I said, ‘Haven’t you an old pupil in the publishing business?’ After a pause he said:’There’s only Rayner. ‘Then send it to him & ask him to help.....

He doubted if many people would buy the book at the high price of 25 shillings a volume. He feared too that the few people who read it would treat it as an allegory oor morality tale about the nuclear bomb or the horrors of the machine age. He insiisted over & over again that his boook was essentially a story, without any further meaning. 'Tales of Faerie,' he said, 'should be told only for their own sake.'

At long last, after the three volumes were successfully launched, he became ‘cock-a-hoop’ & talked with great enthusiasm of the fate of the pirated paperback version & the astonishing growth of the tolkien cult. He enjoyed recieving letters in Elvish from boys at Winchester & from knowing that they were using it as a secret language. He was overwhelmed by his fan mail & would be visitors. It was wonderful to have at long last plenty of money, more than he knew what to do with. He once began a meeting with me by saying: ‘I’ve been a pooor man all my life, but now for the first time I’ve a lot of money. Would you like some?’

Sorry for such a long quote, but I think its fascinating to get that insight into Tolkien's state of mind & his feelings about the book, as we set off.

[Kransha]

There I halted for a long while. [etcetera]

As mentioned, the Foreward to LotR gives us some abnormal insight into the mind of our revered author, Professor Tolkien. Here, specifically, Tolkien speaks of the generic hardships of writing literature. Note, perhaps, that he was drawn to a halt in his writing at numerous places, all of which would've left his readers hanging in the dankes, darkest pit of suspense-wrought confusion. This leads those who speculate on such matters to believe that Tolkein may not, in fact, have known where his books were headed on their grand scale abroad. This may be an incorrect assumption, since the dramatic haltings of the 'typing and re-typing' may merely have been based in time management, or simple author interest in the subject matter, but one would think that the latter was not the case, since Tolkien indicates that most of the points he stopped at were points of crucial importance (i.e. Moria, prelude to Pelennor, etc). But, yet again, I may be generalizing.

Some quotes to be paraphrased that have aroused controversy, or possibly confirmed its absence resolutely, are as follows, unmentioned above:

'I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author'

One of the singular quotes from the forward (as read from my beloved, two-decade old, leftover Ballantine edition with the jacket withered off), represents a great deal of importance, at least in my mind, since so many thoughts of allegory or symbolism have 'spawned,' for lack of a better word, around this edition and the Professor's whole legacy. For purpose, Tolkien suggests with a blunt but eloquent simplicity, in my opinion (must be careful not to incur the wrath of those who disagree), that the two areas exist, both, in the works present under his name. There is a certain degree of allegory that is applicable, though it has been somewhat contorted over the years, but not to rashly, and a certain degree of applicability that is allegorical, though I have no idea whatsoever that statement intends...

To them, and to all who have been pleased by this book, especially those Across the Water for whom it is specially intended, I dedicate this edition.

(Italics mine own). Since I have read the paraphrased quote above this one, referencing allegory and applicability, this line means little to me except as a dedication from a father of a soldier and a grandfather to those who read and were, in turn, inspired by his works, to them. After reading the above quote, you see that this is all this is, since the remark entailing special intention probably refers in full to the fact that Chris Tolkien was enlisted in the RAF at the time (aldo subsequently revealed through the Foreward at the dawn of this edition. Some would-be philosophers of yesterday and today, may have found 'unapplicable allegory' in this statement, and allegory which I saw, but didn't exactly confide in. I make the assumption that you, my fellow BDers, know of the allegorical symbolism I speak of, so I will fade here, as the discussion is oozing into controversy, which my feeble brain is oft unable to comprehend.

[mark12_30]

Edit: Dave and Kransha, we cross-posted, so there's no response to your peices in this... Edit #2, Davem, thanks so much for that long quote, it was wonderful!!! I must go back and listen again to those recordings!

Esty, I'll start with #2, the glimpses he gives us of the development of the story.

As a writer, his admissions of difficulty have always given me great hope.

Stories, apparently, can get stuck for other writers too. If Tolkien plodded for five *years* til he stood by Balin's tomb in Moria for a year, perhaps I am not so stuck as I think. When greeted by surprises in my stories I am assured by Tolkien that's all right too. Arry "Revised and indeed largely re-written backwards"-- that strikes me too.

His defiant dismissal of the critics I find both charming and encouraging. Beauty is in the eye of the reader.

His WW2 outline: Sauron is subjugated, Barad-Dur is occupied, Saruman comes up with a ring of his own. The man's wit is sharper than the shards of Narsil.

His diatribe against allegory is neatly balanced against his preference for history, real or feigned, and his endorsement of applicability.

His list of desires: to write a tale that would entertain, etc-- is that the reader may "even" be deeply moved. Here is a hint of his aim at eucatastrophe, his admission that all will not experience it, his hope that some will.

And lastly, the first-person narration always brings me to the same conclusion: how I love Tolkien as a professor, as a creative and witty Loremaster, as a staunch and kindly man of faith who wrote stories for his children. I'd like the chance of adopting him as an uncle, although I'm not sure he and my other family members would have gotten along!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

...those Across the Water for whom it is specially intended...

Kransha, the Foreword was written for the American edition, for those who are, from the author's point of view, "across the water" - in this case, the Atlantic Ocean.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

His diatribe against allegory is neatly balanced against his preference for history, real or feigned, and his endorsement of applicability.

The thing that always strikes me about the Foreward is Tolkien’s very clear insistence that the LotR is a ‘historical’ work in which he attempts to recover the events that the hobbits got caught up in. His insistence as well that the work is “philological” in nature is an incredibly important point. The very genesis of Middle-Earth was the invention of Quenya and Sindarin: he made up the languages first, then had to find the speakers of that language, whom he called Elves, then he had to figure out their history, and thus it all began. I think this is so important to acknowledge from the outset because it will call our attention to the primacy of language and words in the book. As a professor of philology – indeed, as one of the founders of modern approaches to linguistics-based analysis of literary texts – Tolkien was a master of the English language like very few before or since. I think it is no bad comparison to put him alongside Shakespeare, Chaucer and Milton in his careful and full response to the richness of English and the wide possibilities it contains. All that time he spent rewriting and then typing the book was far from wasted, I think, insofar as it would have given him the opportunity to revise and revise and rework the prose word-by-word, with the result that his text will, I think, bear great fruit when brought under the kind of extremely close scrutiny that I hope this forum will provide.

The sense of passivity that he expresses before the story is more than charming, it seems genuine. Kransha makes an excellent point when he indicates that the great ‘gaps’ in the writing took place just before the major turning points in the narrative. I think that is because Tolkien kept writing himself to a point where he did not know what was going to happen next, and was able to resolve this only be ratcheting up the stakes. While he doesn’t mention the particular emergence of Aragorn in Bree here, that was another point at the narrative where he got stuck very early on (in Bree, the hobbits originally met another hobbit ranger called Trotter). The impasse in Moria was resolved by Gandalf’s death, and the impasse of the Pelennor by Aragorn taking the Paths of the Dead. This is why the tale “grew in the telling” as that ‘older’ material of the Second Age just kept impressing itself onto what began as a relatively simple story giving more hobbit-stuff.

Then when the ‘end’ had at last been reached the whole story had to be revised, and indeed largely re-written backwards.

The quotation marks around ‘end’ here are just wonderful as they invite – demand – us to move past the simple idea of his book as being one composed of beginning middle and end in some linear form. The tale did indeed “grow in the telling” and continued to do so after its ‘completion’ – the Appendices were added, and a Prologue written; then the Foreward. And even after his death it continued with the publication of the Sil, and then the HoME – and then with places like this Forum! The most important connection between this book and history is that neither one is a ‘closed shop,’ constructed by the author for the benefit of the reader. The book challenges us to reinterpret it and make it our own; only a very great fool accepts unquestioningly somebody else’s version of history, and the same is to be said of this book. That’s why, I think, Tolkien writes with such vigour and energy in the Foreward about allegory and applicability. Having created a book that lends itself to such openness (that is, it’s such a readerly book that the author has little or no ‘control’ over its reception – and he doesn’t want any) that there were a lot of people who were perhaps abusing that freedom, and Tolkien wanted to add a minor corrective to that by nudging people away from simplistic interpretations of the tale (the War of the Ring is World War II) and toward more subtle and fluid interpretations. Just as historical events are never allegorical (the War of 1812 is not an allegory of the Expulsion from Eden!) but are examples of certain ideas and themes (imperialist aggression, revisionist history, birth of a national identity), so too is LotR.

So, to finish my long first post (I’m just so excited to be underway) – what are the themes that Tolkien seems to be indicating his book is ‘about’? The one thing he identifies as being central is, quite brilliantly I think, the Ring itself. He says that having chosen to use the Ring as the “link” between [/I]The Hobbit[/I] and LotR, the story was pretty much determined to proceed as it did. So the book is ‘about’ the (history of) the Ring – that, for me, will be the point I try very much to keep in mind as I go through it this time.

EDIT -- I forgot to say thanks very much davem for that interesting (and lengthy!) quote. I get chills when I think how close we all came to never having LotR!!!

[HerenIstarion]

When those whose advice and opinion I sought corrected little hope to no hope

That allegedly refers to Allen and Unwin and their reader. But Tolkien knew not that reader haven't seen what was sent to publisher, by and large, but only portion of Lay of Leithan (or maybe some other lay, but some lay it was for sure). So, there probably was a bit of misunderstanding there - no knowing what would have happened if the reader was to see all of the paperwork provided. There is no conjuctive mood to history, it is said, and one of my mostly beloved quotes of Tolkien is 'things might have been different, but they could not have been better', but sometimes I feel inclined to muse over things, I do

[davem]

My immediate thoughts on the first forword - If I cross post with anyone, or repeat points already made, sorry. this has come to me as I write

The thing that strikes me most strongly in reading the first forword is that I want it to be TRUE. I want LotR to be a translation of the Red Book. I want it all to have happened - Frodo & Sam, Aragorn & Arwen, Gandalf, & even Gollum! When I allow myself that fantasy it all becomes much more powerful, more affecting, more beautiful & precious - & is this Tolkien’s intention in presenting us with this forword? But if it is, then why change it ten years on? Why change role from translator to composer, from teller of an old story to writer of a new one?

Why, in the first forword does he point out that:

‘ it is not yet universally recognized as an important branch of study.’

(implying that it will be, & perhaps also that it should be).

But then go on to say:

‘It has indeed no obvious practical use, and those who go in for it can hardly expect to be assisted.’

(attempting to have it both ways again?)


Those two ‘contradictory’ statements are reflected in the second forward, & in other statements & letters. He seems to be saying on the one hand ‘this is important stuff, you should take note of this, you need to know it’ & then, almost immediately, telling us it’s meaningless - unless we can apply it to something in our own experience (well, if he’ll let us apply it in that way, & not show us we’re wrong & that it can’t be applied to that particular situation!)

That’s what I find odd - why put in all that work if the goal is merely to produce an entertaining story, why struggle so hard to get it published, as it was, even if possible with the Silmarillion, if he really believed it didn’t mean anything? He strikes me rather as a man who knew he had something very important to say, something which he believed needed to be ‘universally recognised as an important branch of study’.

He seems to want us to take it all as seriously as he does, place the same value on it as he does - but I don’t think his motive is vanity. He comes across as if he has something vital to say to us, something that we need to hear, but as soon as he catches our attention, has us believing he’s going to reveal the secrets of the Universe & the meaning of life to us, has our full attention, he immediately laughs & says ‘of course, you shouldn’t believe any of it, or take it seriously!”

And our response? Well, we laugh at the ‘joke’, repeat the ‘applicability not allegory’ statement as a kind of Paternoster for ‘protection’ & plunge in, taking it all absolutely seriously, as though its the most important branch of study there is. And when we emerge from Middle Earth, transformed, different, hopefully better, human beings, we repeat ‘applicability not allegory’ & laugh again.

Yet, he has actully said it has no ‘obvious’ practical use - implying that it does have practical use, but that use is not obvious - not obvious to whom? I think it was obvious to him, & that he wanted it to be obvious to us. So, the stories of Middle Earth are ‘practically’ useful. They are useful ‘in practice’ - practice of what? Jesus said those who are well don’t need a doctor, only those who are sick. I think Tolkien was offering us a cure for an illness that most of us had forgotten we had, because we’d had it for so long. But to trick us he ‘sweetened the medicine’ with sugar, & told us its just candy. Yet, he drops hints for those ‘with ears to hear’, that its much more than that, but that it will work if we trust it. We just have to let it do its work on us, & one day we’ll wake up, cured.

************************************************** ***************

Just wondering if anyone thinks we should have the original text of the Riddles in the Dark section posted for next week, to help with understanding that part of the Prologue? I have it in Annotated Hobbit & could post it, unless anyone else wants to - or unless someone knows of a site where its available?

[HerenIstarion]

Just wondering if anyone thinks we should have the original text of the Riddles in the Dark section posted for next week

I do. It would be nice, since, having only brief summary of what was in the original edition of the Hobbit, I would be glad to read it in full

[Orofaniel]

Orofaniel, you suggest, if I have understood your post correctly, that Tolkien, when faced with some of the 'fallow' periods in the writing, would have turned to his own life's experience for inspiration. This is, I think, tempting, but two points make me hesitate to accept such a possibility for a writer like Tolkien. This first is how he talked about 'what gets into the cauldron of story' in his essay "On Fairy Stories". I know we should limit our main discussion here to the text of the Forewards, but I think it is valuable to recognise that for Tolkien, story or narrative had a life or purpose or MO of its own, separate from any private personal experience. (Think of his funny line about the bishop and the banana peel.) If anything from his private life, which, as Child says, he treated modestly and reticently, did get into the stew, he would, I am sure, include it only if it made sense in terms of the story, not in terms of personal self-expression. Certainly the way Tolkien defended the poem Beowulf as a unified work of art in his "Monsters and the Critics" essay suggests that he valued narrative as artistic expression rather than as personal expression. I think it is us in our post-Freud, post-psychoanalytical age that wants to reduce everything to an author's psyche, but this perspective is only a recent one of the last hundred years and does not represent the kind of understanding of philology or of ancient literature with which a scholar like Tolkien would be familiar.

About his own life, I think that, perhaps when he was "stuck" he used his own life as an inspiration. I'm not saying that he directly "used" his life in the tale, just that he used it as a source. I think your point Bethberry is very reasonable and good. I also think that Tolkien is such a writer that would look beyond most of his personal experiences when he writes. I don't think that LotR would have turned out like the LotR we know if Tolkien had surely just written about his own personal experiences. He had a story he wanted to convey, I'm sure of that, but it doesn't mean that his life hasn't inflicted him during the writing process. However, I think the valuable and the importance of that personal experience that the writers put in their work is very different from each and everyone. Maybe Tolkien felt that his story was so strong in itself that he didn't need much inspiration from his own life?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Why, in the first forword does he point out that:

‘ it is not yet universally recognized as an important branch of study.’

(implying that it will be, & perhaps also that it should be).

But then go on to say:

‘It has indeed no obvious practical use, and those who go in for it can hardly expect to be assisted.’

I don't see this as a contradictory statement, given its context. Rather I see it as an oblique reference to those studies in which Tolkien was engaged that are recognised as important branches of study, and which kept him away from his manuscript for months at a time. 'I am not complaining about my lack of leisure,' says Tolkien. 'But the academic community has yet to legitimise the subject that we find so interesting; so we can expect no help from them in our studies.'

It is interesting that Tolkien expands upon the pretence of having translated a history by presenting his 'history' as a minor and unregarded academic subject, deprecated by the establishment and yet awaiting a resurgence. This is a common occurrence in the academic world, and Tolkien's own area of expertise is suffering because fewer and fewer people nowadays can see the value in studying ancient languages. If you want to learn Gothic, you will probably find that you can expect little help; and if you compile a set of translations, the chances are that it will have to be done in your spare time and take second place to paying work.

As for wanting The Lord of the Rings to be true, I can see what you mean. Personally I find pretend history amusing; and particularly so when the author throws in knowing digs against his own work by criticising the 'author' or the 'copyists' of his source. Whilst I'm content to see the story as a work of literature in an unusual vein, it is nice in more fanciful moments to imagine that it could be true, and that one day someone may find the Westron Rosetta Stone and set to publishing great tracts of unknown Endorian history. Certainly, although the later foreword is more useful as a guide, the earlier is a lot more fun. I agree with Child that it makes things seem as though Tolkien and the reader are co-conspirators or at least fellow scholars in an esoteric and obscure field; and that is the impression that I think he intended to convey. The second foreword is, I think, intended to reach out to those people whose letters Tolkien had not had the opportunity to answer; to explain a few points about the work and to set people on the right road to understanding it. In order to do this, Tolkien had to drop the mask of the translator and admit to his authorship, thus losing the opportunity to take the new comments in the same direction as the old. Perhaps this is also an admission that his histories were becoming for many an important branch of study, and one in need of some sober academic guidance from its leading authority.

[Durelin]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry...Tolkien, when faced with some of the 'fallow' periods in the writing, would have turned to his own life's experience for inspiration. This is, I think, tempting, but two points make me hesitate to accept such a possibility for a writer like Tolkien. This first is how he talked about 'what gets into the cauldron of story' in his essay "On Fairy Stories". I know we should limit our main discussion here to the text of the Forewords, but I think it is valuable to recognise that for Tolkien, story or narrative had a life or purpose or MO of its own, separate from any private personal experience. (Think of his funny line about the bishop and the banana peel.) If anything from his private life, which, as Child says, he
treated modestly and reticently, did get into the stew, he would, I am sure, include it only if it made sense in terms of the story, not in terms of personal self-expression. Certainly the way Tolkien defended the poem Beowulf as a unified work of art in his "Monsters and the Critics" essay suggests that he valued narrative as artistic expression rather than as personal expression. I think it is us in our post-Freud, post-psychoanalytical age that wants to reduce everything to an author's psyche, but this perspective is only a recent one of the last hundred years and does not represent the kind of understanding of philology or of ancient literature with which a scholar like Tolkien would be familiar.

A long quote, but there is little that can be pulled out! It all goes so well together...

I see little difference between artistic and personal expression. At least, these two may constantly intertwine. The fact is that in our creative natures as humans, we express so much personal experiences, thoughts, and what makes 'you, you'. Now, I have constantly been annoyed by the much-overused phrase 'express yourself', but this is mainly because it has been abused. Still, in an artistic creation of your own, formed from your own creativity, it cannot be free of personal expression. The artistic forms are a way of expression, if not necessarily displaying any personal beliefs or experiences. I believe this is basically what you were suggesting, Bêthberry, but I think you went a little too far in saying that The Lord of the Rings, or any of Tolkien's works, were not personal expressions. Though I of course agree that any personal expression would be for the benefit of the story, mainly because it is an artistic expression.

Whilst I'm content to see the story as a work of literature in an unusual vein, it is nice in more fanciful moments to imagine that it could be true, and that one day someone may find the Westron Rosetta Stone and set to publishing great tracts of unknown Endorian history.

Most likely just how Tolkien wished the reader to think of his feigned history.

Tolkien had to drop the mask of the translator and admit to his authorship, thus losing the opportunity to take the new comments in the same direction as the old. Perhaps this is also an admission that his histories were becoming for many an important branch of study, and one in need of some sober academic guidance from its leading authority.

Tolkien had taken an obscure and unrecognized 'subject of study' and made it recognized. Perhaps this was pleasing to, in a way, 'show them', but most likely he found it less enjoyable once he was forced to take on the role as the author rather than the translator and a fellow enthusiast of the subject.

-Durelin

[Aiwendil]

I have been hesitant to enter the discussion for fear of repeating all the arguments from the Canonicity thread (though I do eagerly await discussion of the chapters themselves). But I guess that some people will be reading this thread that have not put in the necessary hours of reading to keep up with the Canonicity thread, so I'll repeat, briefly, the gist of my argument against some of the views espoused by Davem.

Davem wrote:

That’s what I find odd - why put in all that work if the goal is merely to produce an entertaining story, why struggle so hard to get it published, as it was, even if possible with the Silmarillion, if he really believed it didn’t mean anything?

I don't see why we must qualify it as "merely" an entertaining story. To me that would seem to be exactly the point. Why is it not enough to "merely" create a good story? Is the creation of a thoroughly and profoundly enjoyable work of art not something worthwhile in itself?

I, for one, think it is. And to be quite honest, this view strikes me as the one requiring the least clarification and interpretation in order to make it fit with Tolkien's statements about allegory and applicability.

But this certainly does not mean that it is not to be taken seriously! On the contrary, I think that Davem is quite right when he says:

He seems to want us to take it all as seriously as he does, place the same value on it as he does - but I don’t think his motive is vanity.

But there is serious and then there is serious. The issue becomes confused because in the modern and post-modern mind set "serious" can refer only to the most pretentious sort of allegory. I think the critical point is that Tolkien wants us to take it seriously just as a story, because Tolkien thinks that stories are serious things in themselves - not because they have some hidden meaning, not because they change us or teach us how better to live our lives, but just because they are good stories.

As I said, I don't want to get carried away; so I'll end on a completely different point. Mr. Underhill wrote:

I've always meant to start a thread that focused on Tolkien's working methods, and any such thread would certainly have to start here with the second edition foreword. I think it's great that Tolkien wrote the book mostly on instinct and without a clear outline. It seems you can divide writers into two groups -- those who plan, outline, and structure aforehand, and those who dive right in and trust to gut instinct, inspiration, and blind luck to carry them through. The latter method seems to me to be the most romantic and pure sort of writing.

I once had the very same idea for a thread, but for some reason I never got around to it. One of us should start one some day. The insight it affords into Tolkien's writing habits is certainly one of the most interesting features of the foreword - though of course it cannot compete with the exceedingly (sometimes tediously) thorough work of Christopher Tolkien in HoMe VI, VII, VIII, and IX. Also, it must be noted that the foreword cannot be considered the final authority on matters of the dates at which various sections were written - for example, in the foreword Tolkien says that the whole was written between 1936 and 1949, but it seems completely clear from the extant manuscripts as well as from a letter to Stanley Unwin that it was in fact begun not in 1936 but late in 1937. For these matters, HoMe is the most accurate authority.