Mythic Unities in The Lord of the Rings

[littlemanpoet]

Over the past year or so, I've posed myself a difficult question to answer, which is why it took me a whole year to find the answer.

The Question(s): Is mythic fantasy qualitatively different from other genres of literature, and if so, how? Another form of this question might be rendered: Why do I love LotR and find so few books that come anywhere near its standard? (reminiscences of Kalessin's rant, eh?)

I came up with a definition of mythic fantasy that sufficiently answers the question for me. Call it "LMP's personal definition of mythic fantasy", for what it's worth. So I'll quote myself.

Mythic fantasy is story that contains the stuff of myth, legend, and fairy tale; it works like waking dream and nightmare; in it, concrete and abstract, previously distinguished, have been reintegrated; it is apprehended by the reader as a unity of meaning and being; the signal of this apprehension is a sense of wonder or a thrill of horror, or both.

If you choose to read any further, you will see that this amounts to a thesis of sorts. Maybe some of you here can help refine, or explode, this definition or thesis and its explications. I welcome either action.

Member Alert! The next section is full of theory and may be a little deep. Venture forth those of you who care for this kind of thing.
**********************************************
BEGIN ESOTERIC BACKGROUND

I think the qualitative difference in mythic fantasy has to do with the nature of language. Owen Barfield, in his seminal work, Poetic Diction, demonstrated how meaning has evolved in the languages of the West. He says that among the early speakers of Greek, Latin and English, for example, language was simpler and more organic. And meaning was not splintered into a mix of things we sense on the one hand, and concepts we comprehend on the other.

The best example, but certainly not the only one (English is littered with examples), is the Greek word for "breath" and "spirit", which was "pneuma". It has entered our language as "pneumatic", which means, "of or relating to the use of gas (such as air)". The early Greeks were not confused in naming both breath and spirit the same thing. Rather, they saw no difference. Breath was spirit and spirit was breath. It meant the same thing to them. They would be confounded by our separation of the two. They saw no need to distinguish between them. Later Greeks, such as the early philosophers, did see a distinction, because their ability to do abstract thinking was developing. Greeks are credited as the first people to think abstractly. But the later Greeks continued to use the same word for the two different meanings, using context to distinguish between them. If that seems silly, so be it, because the English language is rampant with multiple meanings for the same word. Look up the word "irony" in the dictionary some time - I chose that one just by flipping it open and finger pointing!

But so what? Here's what: It's the nature of myth to retain the unities of meaning. To quote Barfield:

"... myth ... is intimately bound up with the early history of meaning. It is the same with innumerable words; if one traces them back far enough, one reaches a period at which their meanings had a mythical content ... [such as] "panic", "hero", "fortune", "fury", "earth", "North", "South".

The concrete "breath" and the abstract "spirit" are held together as one. It is this unity in myth and fairytale that calls to us. Why? These unities of meaning are the means by which we are able to access the unity of being.

But aren't the distinctions that we've discerned over the ages, valid? Aren't we better off knowing that breath is a biological phenomenon having to do with the interaction of lungs and oxygen? This knowledge has resulted in much good; but at a price: spirit has become disembodied. We've lost our grasp of it, and are forced to use theology (abstraction!) or artful (and sometimes tortuous) metaphors to get a grasp at what spirit is and how it affects us. And this has happened to us in every case in which a distinction has been discerned between a concrete and an abstract. Is it any wonder that there's a school of thought that has decided that only what we perceive with our senses is real? And is it any wonder, having lost the unity of abstracts to their concretes, that we crave unity of meaning and being?

This unity is what story is all about. Through story, or fiction, we achieve unity as in no other way. Myth and fairytale achieve it best, because they are closest to the original unity. It should come as no surprise that Tolkien was so successful at it in LotR, being a philologist and a monist (Roman Catholic). He knew language and myth from the inside. There is no better knowledge base for creating new myth. Was he completely successful? Probably not; but no modern writer has done better.

END ESOTERIC BACKGROUND
***********************************************

It was unity of meaning, and not nostalgia, nor magic, nor romance, nor Elves, Hobbits, or what have you, in and of themselves, that drew so many people to Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. His work is free of the splintered and dead abstractions of the world in which we live. It partakes of myth.

Can mythic unity be exhibited in LotR? If my guess is right, at least in part, we should find instances in the story where the abstract and the concrete have been joined in a harmonious unity. But allow me one clarification. Above I said that Elves, Hobbits, etc. in themselves, did not draw people to LotR. I stand by that. So my examples of Elves, Hobbits, and Tom Bombadil and Goldberry may seem like contradictions; they are not. Middle Earth, which is what LotR is about, must be taken as a whole, and these three examples are only three that, together with the totality, achieve the myth. They are my three examples because I think I can explain them most easily.

The Elves are such an instance. Like Native Americans and many other so-called primitive cultures, they are close to the earth. But they are not primitive; rather, they are an advanced culture, complete with a technology and developed languages, joys and sorrows, wisdoms and foolishness, characterized by a need to talk to everything. They are spirit married to matter in a way that cannot be found this side of Eden, nor before it - for Elves are fallen and still at unity with themselves. Being Elvish is to be both spirit and matter in harmony with a destiny wrapped up in the world they live in.

Then there are the Hobbits. It has been said, I think mistakenly, that Tolkien set them up as a pre-World War One utopia about which he is nostalgic. This misses the point. For one thing, it does not account for the animality of Hobbits: the hairy feet and barefootedness; the penchant for eating at all times of the day; living in holes; their ability to move quickly and quietly so as not to be seen by Big Folk. This aspect of Hobbits has been made endless fun of, but that misses the point as well. Hobbits are quite comfortable with their animality; they frankly revel in it. At one and the same time they are quite clearly human: they farm, they smoke, they read and write, they have a society with customs. Though drastically different from Elves, the Hobbits live in a unity of being. They too are fallen, rife with all the pettinesses of pride and foolishness and greed; yet they live in a unity of being.

So in one case we see the unity of spirit with matter; in the next, we see the unity of animal and human.

Tom Bombadil and Goldberry are another example of unity of being. I sympathize with those who complain that Goldberry is stereotypical; but to ask that she be different is like asking for fuel injection before the combustion engine is invented: Tolkien did the most humanely he could, writing in the era he did. But it must also be remembered that Tolkien is constructing myth, and Tom and Goldberry are Father and Mother. The two live together as in a dance, each having their roles, confident in themselves and in each other, in control (but not abusively) of that which they rule. They are at unity with themselves, each other, their home, and their surroundings. They are married to their lives in a unity of harmony and bliss. It is not an empty bliss that ignores or is deluded about the Darkness beyond their borders, but one that recognizes the realities of their lives, including precisely where their borders are. To be guests there is to be safe and at peace, and in the case of at least Frodo Baggins, to partake of myth. In short, to live within a myth.

If these examples do not prove my claim, they at least provide some weight of evidence.

Are there other unities in LotR? Am I all wet? Are there refinements needed, to my definition and/or explication? I welcome your responses.

LMP

[obloquy]

Phat post. Wish I had something to add to it, but I can't come up with anything at the moment. Oh well, phat post anyway.

[Kuruharan]

Ave LMP.

Mythic fantasy is story that contains the stuff of myth, legend, and fairy tale

Hmm, I fear if this were a real thesis you would probably be battered about the head and shoulders to provide clear definitions of these as part of your background.

I like the way you trace back the changes in languages to help the definition of myth. I would be interested to see more about how in modern times the story requires the presence of archaic languages to give the story the right tone. This is something that was totally unnecessary in the early times of myth and legend.

for Elves are fallen

In what sense do you mean this? I believe Tolkien said that the Elves were not fallen in a theological sense i.e. they do not “sin.” (At least I believe I read that.)

[mark12_30]

Kuruharan, I am not certain (not having Letters with me) but I think it was that elves do not have 'original sin.' In terms of their behavior, however, they are not blameless. Feanor, without sin...?

lmp, this will require much further thought. You are on a similar direction as Flieger, but you are taking a different track. Very intriguing. (Don't get distracted....)

At the moment I feel that finding such re-united splinters would be greatly helped by knowing more about language history (as you do.) For some reason I keep veering off into other authors' works... response TBD.

[Kuruharan]

That does sound about right. My copy of Letters is about 300 miles north of me at the moment. I'll have to look that up when I get home.

EDIT: Disregard the second part of the original post (now deleted). I misread mark's statement.

[littlemanpoet]

Quite right, Kuruharan.

Actually, my purpose in using all three terms (myth, legend, & fairy-tale) is for the sake of inclusivity and overlap. It's quite hard to pin down definitions of myth, especially. Tolkien comes close to defining fairy tale in On Fairy Stories, and I'd have to say that I use that as my basis for the one term. In the P.J. movie, the Galadriel character narrates the opening prologue, and at one point she says that history has turned to legend, and legend to myth. That seems like the usual transition. One of the fundamental aspects of the transition is distance in time. Another seems to be the untrustworthiness of the facts of the story.

However, since Tolkien, a more positive idea of myth has come into usage, especially among those who are fans of Tolkien. It names, for example, the story of Jesus of Nazareth, and all the events leading up to it, a myth, only in this case (as Tolkien - and I - would say), a true myth. What about the Christian story is mythical? Plenty. Incarnation. Miracles. The resurrection from the dead. But in this one case it claim historicity. In the same sense, the LotR story partakes of myth. Many strange things happen that are not explainable scientifically, but the events have an element of historicity that Tolkien intentionally put in the story.

Based on that, here are some definitions, from Webster's:

Myth:

1a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice. 3 a a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence b: an ill-founded belief held uncritically especially by an interested group 4 the whole body of myths.

For our purposes, I would dispense with 3b but incorporate the rest of them. That which I describe in terms of the Christian myth falls under the rubric of 1

Legend:

1 a: a story coming down from the past; especially one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable b: a body of such stories <a place in the legend of the frontier> c: a popular myth of recent origin d: a person or thing that inspires legends

There are other definitions of legend having to do with inscriptions and captions, but we know that's outside our scope. As you see, it's no longer quite historical, but not yet myth.

Fairy-tale:
1. From Webster's:

adj:a characteristic of or suitable to a fairy tale; especially marked by unusual grace or beautynoun:1a narrative of adventures involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) - called also fairy story 2: a made-up story usually designed to mislead.

We can dispense with 2. Notice that Webster's seems to be accounting for Tolkien's seminal treatise!

2. From Tolkien's On Fairy-Stories: To summarize, Tolkien said that Webster's 1 is too narrow to cover actual usage, while 2 is hopelessly vast. Tolkien rejects supernatural as causing more problems than it solves. In the end he says,

Most good "fairy-stories" are about the adventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches. ... The definition of fairy-story .... does not depend on any definition or historical account of elf or fairy, but upon the nature of Faërie: the Perilous Realm itself, and the air that blows in that country. I will not attempt to define that, nor to describe it directly. It cannot be done.

If the master refused to define fairy-story, who am I to make the attempt? At least he has pointed us in the right direction.

[littlemanpoet]

So what is it about LotR that sets it apart from these other stories that use similar techniques (often, indeed, borrowed from Tolkien). Is there something more than just unity of meaning that lends LotR its mythical quality? Or is it simply that Tolkien uses this technique more effectively than any other authors in this genre? If so, how?

Thank you, Sauce Pan Man, for your astute question.

Thanks to davem and Helen for their equally astute observations by way of attempting an answer. Your points are apt and I think they add insight.

I do think that Tolkien's LotR is unrivaled in its achievement in terms of re-creating mythic unities, and it is because Tolkien was uniquely gifted to achieve it. He knew and understood the connectedness of myth, folklore, history, and language, in ways that we can only dream of. He was able to play with and create languages with as much ease as Mozart composing. Added to that was Tolkien's Beethovian perfectionism (generally lacking in Mozart).

Owen Barfield was a member of the Inklings, and it would be surprising if his ideas had not been discussed in one or more of their meetings. It is known that Tolkien did read Barfield's Poetic Diction, and it comes as no surprise that he agreed with him; what is uncertain (at least to me) is whether Tolkien was influenced by Barfield, or whether it was the other way around (or both ways).

At any rate, I think that Tolkien's unique ability with language as well as his understanding of its connections with myth, folklore, and history, came through in LotR such that he was able to bring about so many mythic unities. I'm sure we haven't uncovered them all, nor the depth of them in LotR.

This thread has sent me back to Tolkien's biography, and I'm finding this second reading of it quite enjoyable already!

I am far too busy this week and have been able only to give this thread a cursory reading and response. I'll do better as soon as I can.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Many folk who do not believe in Tolkien's catholicism at all nonetheless percieve the truths that he reveals, and describe his myths and eucatastrophes as impacting and working in their lives.

Which is precisely the point that I am making. It is not the resonance with an individual's particular beliefs that causes them to respond to LotR, but something much deeper. It seems to me that LotR can still have great appeal to those who have (and continue to have) no, or very vaguely defined, spiritual beliefs. (The latter would describe the 70% to 80% of UK residents who describe themselves as believing in God but do not adhere to any organised religious group.)

This is the reason why I find littlemanpoet's thesis on mythic unities so interesting. For me, it touches on ideas of archetypes, shared experience and synchronicity, although I know far too little (or have forgotten far too much) about these concepts to go into great detail. All I can say is that LotR, it seems, touches a significant number of people on a much deeper level than any defined form of belief system.

But is discussion 'appeal' the same as discussing 'mythic unity'?

Well I think that "appeal" is relevant here, since it is the widespread and consistent appeal of LotR (which exceeds that of any other single novel, if the polls are to be believed) that makes me respond to the idea that there is something more than simply "a darn good read" at work here. Put simply, LotR appeals to a great many people. And, as you say, for a significant number of people (although perhaps not the majority of those to whom it appeals) it takes on a greater meaning, in the sense of making an appreciable difference in their lives. Why is this?

Threadwise I think the pertinent question might be do the mythic unities under discussion transcend the readers' conscious belief systems, penetrating below their awareness and affecting them on a mythic level?

In light of what I have said above, I would answer yes to this. And while there may be no decisive answer to the question of why this is the case, it seems to me that littlemanpoet has made a worthy and credible attempt to come up with one. I certainly think that it merits further exploration.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I do think that Tolkien's LotR is unrivaled in its achievement in terms of re-creating mythic unities, and it is because Tolkien was uniquely gifted to achieve it. He knew and understood the connectedness of myth, folklore, history, and language, in ways that we can only dream of. He was able to play with and create languages with as much ease as Mozart composing. Added to that was Tolkien's Beethovian perfectionism (generally lacking in Mozart).

Spot on. Although you are, in effect, again saying that Tolkien had a particular flair in this department, you capture perfectly for me precisely what it is that sets him out from other authors in the fantasy genre and, indeed, literature in general. Was he in fact unique in these regards or have there been other authors with the same mix of skills?

What I think might be useful is to examine exactly how he used these skills, not simply by pointing out the mythic unities to which littlemanpoet refers, but by also considering how he uses them in ways that set LotR apart from the works of other authors who have used similar techniques, and which give the book its widespread appeal. I fear that I may be poorly-qualified to comment further in this regard, but I would be interested to see the thoughts of others.

[davem]

I wonder if the 'uniqueness' of LotR is in part explained by something Lalwende alluded to in her comparison of the work with a 'dictionary'.

What is unique, certainly, is that the stories were never 'fixed', never 'finished'. Even the published versions were subject to revision. Major changes were made to The Hobbit ('Riddles in the Dark' being the prime example of a major change, but there were other lesser ones). There were changes made to LotR for the second edition & this is something that is continuing - we've had between three- & four hundred amendations to the text for the 50th anniversary edition. The unpublished (at the time of their author's death) writings went through constant changes & a steady evolution up to his death.

In this sense the Legendarium was never finished & probably never would have been - however long Tolkien lived. In this sense it is like language itself, constantly evolving & developing. It was in a constant state of change. As its author grew & changed so did his creation. This is perhaps why it is unique, why it seems so 'alive' to us. I can't think of any work of art which is comparable. Certainly no modern work of fantasy is like it. Authors now want to finish & publish & move on to something else. They are looking to bring their work to completion - they actually don't want the thing to keep changing & evolving.

Perhaps its because Tolkien was so affected by the way Language changes & evolves (& by the way myth & legend - & particularly folkore - do as well) that he thought differently to the way the rest of us do & that came out in his writings, in the way he worked.

There is another 'unity' - that between the author & language (& myth) that maybe explains Tolkien's uniqueness.

Perhaps also this is why the movies don't satisfy in the same way as the books - the movie makers wanted to 'finish' their movies, to bring them to a state of 'completion' - though the EE's do resemble Tolkien's approach in a kind of way, as they are also 'revisions' of an original version.

I think it was this freedom that Tolkien had to amend, revise, evolve his work that makes it seem more 'alive', more 'true' (or even 'True') than other works of fiction. Its not a fixed, 'dead' thing - or that's not the sense one gets about it from immersing oneself in it. Its almost as if something of the 'uncertainty' of the secondary world that the author felt himself is communicated to us. Its 'alive' because its 'moving' & changing, always in a state of 'becoming' - like language itself, like his own invented languages, which were never 'fixed'. In that sense his languages never became like Latin for us - a dead tongue. The whole creation was in flux from the moment it came into being, so it was always 'alive' & I think that's what communicates itself to us, & why we keep going back to Middle earth. Its never the same for us - its' 'changing' state reflects our own.

Or something like that......

[The Saucepan Man]

Your points are well made, davem, and no doubt account for the appeal of Tolkien to his more committed fans (such as us). But the evolving nature of his work cannot account for his broader appeal, given that most of his readers will only have read LotR and (possibly) The Hobbit.

Where it is quite possibly relevant in this regard, however, is in giving the impression of a wider history and wider world than simply that depicted in the book. Because there was such a vast wealth of evolving material for Tokien to draw on, he was able to incorporate aspects of it within LotR (the tales of Beren and Luthien and of Earendil the Mariner, for example). Not only does this enhance the credibility of the world that he portrays, but it gives it its own sense of mythology. Thus Tolkien is weaving "real world" myth and folklore in with his own mythology (itself deriving in many respects from our own myth and folklore) to create something akin to a "complete" mythology.

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

Where it is quite possibly relevant in this regard, however, is in giving the impression of a wider history and wider world than simply that depicted in the book. Because there was such a vast wealth of evolving material for Tokien to draw on, he was able to incorporate aspects of it within LotR (the tales of Beren and Luthien and of Earendil the Mariner, for example). Not only does this enhance the credibility of the world that he portrays, but it gives it its own sense of mythology. Thus Tolkien is weaving "real world" myth and folklore in with his own mythology (itself deriving in many respects from our own myth and folklore) to create something akin to a "complete" mythology.

So there's a 'dual' process of growth & development percievable, a 'parallel evolution' - the evolution within the Legendarium which I described & a corresponding one - the evolution of England's mythology into Tolkien's Legendarium.

Its as if we have the process taking place in both the Primary & the Secondary worlds at the same time???

That's if I understand your point correctly....

[Kuruharan]

First, he carefully created names in his made-up languages. Then he asked himself, "how did that name come to be?" A typical philologist's question. So he subcreated stories that explained the names.

Aha! I think we’ve stumbled upon something. Tolkien did something he loved, and then made the story out of it. That helps to create the sense of expansive background.

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien did something he loved, and then made the story out of it. That helps to create the sense of expansive background.

Please pardon my obtuseness, but .... how?

[Kuruharan]

For instance, I think one of the most important things is that it provides for a vast array of potential materials for the created world. As long as the love of the source remains, there are always layers to be explored.

It is sort of that “there’s always something more” effect.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

An excellent thread, and I think it's time to take another look at it.

I have several things to say, most of which were brought up already by mark12_30 in this thread, and by reading Bethberry's posts in the CbC thread on Treebeard. And a few that are my own, and are developing through conversations in my classes and things I've been discussing with LMP lately.

First and foremost is the three way unity of Truth-Beauty-Good. This unity is found in Greek philosophy, particularly, I believe, in Platonism. It is also present in Jewish and Christian thought, and so it is likely a strong subconscious factor in current Western culture, although I think recently we've tried fairly hard to escape it.

This unity is certainly present in LOTR, particularly the unity of Good and Beauty. Sauron, through his consistent failure to do good, loses his capacity for beauty; the works of the enemy are evil and ugly; Saruman, when he falls, destroys the former beauty both of Isengard and the Shire. Those who do good are consistently described in terms of the beauty of themselves and their surroundings: Faramir in Ithilien, Minas Tirith (compare descriptions of the White tower to those of the Towers of the Teeth! Both were built by Gondor, but when used for evil purposes, the beauty seems to have departed entirely from Narchost and Carchost), Elrond in Rivendell, Galadriel in Lorien, Celeborn at the Havens [leaving that for humor value, but I did mean Cirdan]. Even Treebeard's Wellinghall is beautiful, Rohan houses the Glittering Caves, Moria is beautifully solemn. Even the long abandoned land of Eregion is still beautified by the long ago presence of the Noldor.

There are exceptions to this, the Barrow Downs and the nearby Arnorian ruins being one where the original inhabitants were good and the place has turned ugly. The beauty of the Silmarils brought about horrible destruction, Rath Dinen is rather horrifying, and the Dwarves are hardly physically beautiful. But as a rule, I think it holds.

I haven't quite worked Truth into the picture thoroughly yet, but I thought I'd throw it out for comments.

The other thought I had on the subject, is whether Tolkien would want to incorporate the idea of Joy into this unity? His idea of Eucatastrophe brings Joy-Beauty-Truth together almost seamlessly, I think that Good is hovering in there beneath the surface as well. What would this shift in unity say about his larger view of the world I wonder? How would it work into LOTR and perhaps more interestingly, Silm?

Secondly is the unity involving NAME. This is where I thought I would be strongly influenced by Helen and by Bethberry. Warning to any who are irritated by outside references, I'm going to dive right into them here.

The proposed unity has many component parts, or at least factors, which include but are not necessarily limited to Name-Word-Power-Language-Story-Identity

Word and Power are exemplified in ideas like Gandalf's Words of Command, Name and Power in the invocation of Elbereth.

Name and Story are clearly identified with each other by the Ents and perhaps, as Helen suggested in Aragorn's list of titles; and Language-Name-Power is a connection established by the Dwarves who hide their secret names in Khuzdul. Perhaps this is also seen in Elvish naming customs: the mother name, the father name, and many elves seem to pick up other names as they go. No name is their "real" name; all the names together describe who and what the elf is.

Identity becomes a factor with the case of Aragorn's many names, in which each name is almost another persona he steps into. It is interesting that Aragorn has a different 'feel' as Strider than as Aragorn, and interesting to note that when he steps momentarily back into his Ranger-Role (Book 3, ch. 9) Pippin and Merry immediately comment that 'Strider' has returned. This same thing occurs with Gandalf as well. He has faintly different personas for Mithrandir and Lathspell, and particularly Olorin. Name and Identity seem to be involved in the Dwarves' wish to hide their names as well.

I think, however, that this identification comes most strongly into play in the case of the Nazgul. They not only lose their identities and become faceless wraiths in the service of Sauron, they lose their names as well. Khamul is the only recorded name we have, and never once in the story is the name used, nor is it ever indicated that it was used after his subservience to the Ring began. In a way, this also happens to Frodo, who as the Ring begins to take more control of him he loses his identity to it. He ceases to become 'Frodo' to a certain extent and becomes 'the Ringbearer:' an eerily similar word to Ringwraith, really.

Alright, enough with my speculations, lest this post becomes unreadable. Here are allusions to a unity of this kind I found outside Tolkien. I think these are important and relevant as they set the tone for this particularly unity being one that is key to understanding the nature of myth (true and otherwise), fantasy and fairy story.

Name and Power- The Ten Commandments, "thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain." If I'm recalling correctly Orthodox Jews still don't even pronounce the word Yahweh for fear of lowering it to common status. Instead the phrase "THE NAME" is used. Also brings to mind the story of Moses asking God to reveal his name so that the Israelites would believe his (Moses') message.

Language and Power- davem said:

I also find it interesting that Sauron actually created the Black SpeechIts a language intended to create a new kind of link between name & thing named. Its an attempt, in a sense to change the world, to impose a new meaning on things- actually to alter the way his servants think about the world.

This idea forcibly reminds me of George Orwell's 1984, in which Newspeak is so structured as to make independent thought impossible. Sauron as the original Big Brother... hm.

Name and Identity- this is a theme found in much of fantasy (good and bad). Not only do revealed lines of descent play a large role, and sometime become sources of power (here I'm reminded of the rather subpar, in my opinion, Shannara novels, and also Terry Goodkind's character Richard Cypher/Rahl), but in some fantasy names are things of power in themselves. Particularly Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea is a world where names are so powerful that they are never revealed, save to people who are utterly trusted or by those who are strong above the norm. For instance, the Tombs of Atuan is amost entirely about this idea: Tenar loses her name when she is made the One Priestess and becomes Ahra, the Eaten One. Supposedly her identity goes with it, but through her experiences she becomes one of the rare ones who casts off the name Goha, her commonplace "epesse" (if I may transplant the Elvish here) and uses her real name. Likewise, Ged the Archmage (formerly Sparrowhawk) and Lebennin, the young King (formerly Arren) use their real names in public. The true name of the young girl, Tehanu, also has some real significance.

Name and Power- There is a lot of play on this in Harry Potter. Particularly with the names of Voldemort: He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, and the anagram of "Tom Marvolo Riddle" and "I am Lord Voldemort." Rowling seems to have chosen even her minor character's names, however, carefully and with purpose.

I think there is significance to this idea in the story of Adam naming the animals. To name a thing is to have dominion over it. The Entwives would certainly think so.

There is so much here. I think this is the longest non-RPG post of my life, and I've barely skimmed the surface. Thanks for your perseverence.

Sophia

[Lalwendë]

Sophia, that was fascinating stuff, and I have to respond to some things, though how random they will be I am not sure yet.

Good and beauty - I can see that there is this link in Tolkien's work, indeed it is something that would be common through most of literature and art, that the inherently good is usually portrayed as beautiful. I say usually, because sometimes it is not portrayed as beautiful. And this happens in Tolkien's work too. Consider Aragorn's words at The Prancing Pony:

'I look foul and feel fair. Is that it? All that is gold does not glitter, not all those that wander are lost.'

Even in terms of language, those who speak beautifully can be speaking words which have evil intent, Saruman being the prime example. The Silmarils are beautiful, but they also provoke turmoil. The One Ring is an eye catching item, literally, and it tempts Smeagol into murder. Perhaps things of evil necessarily have to adopt the appearance of beauty in order to worm their way into the hearts and minds of the good. So Gandalf's words to Frodo, "All that is gold does not glitter" can not only apply to Aragorn as Strider, but to many things Frodo is likely to come across on his way.

I have also been thinking about the link between language and power lately in the light of the 'dumbing it down' thread. In seeking to make his films more accessible, Jackson's team have edited and altered Tolkien's language, which I see as denying audiences the chance or the opportunity to enjoy that more complex and beautiful language. Cultural products are all too often deemed 'too complicated' for large groups of society, including the young, the supposedly less well educated, and watered down versions are presented instead, if indeed at all. The works of Shakespeare and Chaucer all too often come in for this kind of treatment in our schools. News also suffers in this way in much of the media. This is the exercise of language as a tool of power. We offer a simplified version but in the long run this can also deny the audience the full truth. And it can work the other way. In the workplace bosses will often produce documents wreathed in complex language in order to confuse and bewilder and effectively exclude those who they deem ought not to be included. Personnnel departments frequently do this with contracts, as do financial companies, hoping for the innocent debtor to sign on the dotted line for excessive payments. Language and power are inextricably linked.

In Tolkien's world, there are many examples of this. Saruman attempts to coerce Gandalf by using language which those listening do not understand; the image used is of people listening to a king talking to a minister. They are excluded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Eldar are not supposed to use Quenya in exile, which makes me think of periods in our own history when we have attempted to quell use of languages which have political significance, such as Gaelic in Ireland. And yet Quenya is the 'high' language. Would this not exclude the elves who have never been to Valinor? The 'native Sindarin speakers'? Again I'm reminded of the Norman invasion of England and the use of Latin as the 'official' langauge, which excluded English speakers from high office; the introduction of the English bible and prayer book was nothing short of a revolution. Could this link be drawn to the more widespread use of the Common Speech over Elvish tongues?

I hope that didn't ramble too much, I've had such thoughts in the back of my mind for a while but haven't written them down til now.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

I say usually, because sometimes it is not portrayed as beautiful. And this happens in Tolkien's work too. Consider Aragorn's words at The Prancing Pony

I knew I had forgotten something I intended to mention. Thanks for catching it for me.

Although he looked fair enough to me.

[littlemanpoet]

The other thought I had on the subject, is whether Tolkien would want to incorporate the idea of Joy into this unity? His idea of Eucatastrophe brings Joy-Beauty-Truth together almost seamlessly, I think that Good is hovering in there beneath the surface as well. What would this shift in unity say about his larger view of the world I wonder? How would it work into LOTR and perhaps more interestingly, Silm? - Sophia

Was there a eucatastrophe in The Sil? The only one that comes to mind is Beren and Luthien getting the Sil back from Morgoth. Otherwise, the Sil seems to be a reflection of the pessimism for which Tolkien was known by his close friends.

He did say that Fairy Story is more real than much of modern literature because it accounts for real evil, as well as the evangelium, in which is joy, according to the professor.

I've just realized all over again that my first exposure to the importance of naming came from the Bible. Adam and Eve resonate with meaning. So does Abram/Abraham. Moses. Joshua/Jesus. Every name has a meaning, and the people who names, recognized the importance of names. This would be an example that the Bible is home to mythic unity. It's obvious that Tolkien drew from this rich source of mythic unity as well as the Nordic, in the Sil.

I'm a little unclear what you mean by "shift in unity", actually....