The Single Greatest (Publishing) Tragedy in Tolkien's Life (yet another rant)

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, this is going to be traveling all over the place. I'll state some points that have been cooking in my gray matter for some while now (and some more recently), and I hope this will help you see how I get where I got.

I've been reading Letters and the Authorized Biography lately, and so far I've managed about half of the first page of the Canonicity thread, which I've discovered was tackling issues that have been hovering around my awareness for some time. That said:

1. I read Tolkien's Letter # 353 (written within the last 30 days of his life) in which he declares

Galadriel was 'unstained': she had committed no evil deeds. She was an enemy of Fëanor. She did not reach Middle-earth with the other Noldor, but independently. Her reasons for desiring to go to Middle-earth were legitimate, and she would have been permitted to depart, but for the misfortune that before she set out the revolt of Fëanor broke out, and she became involved in the desperate measures of Manwë, and the ban on all emigration.

In a much earlier letter, # 213, Tolkien says

...one critic (by letter) asserted that the invocations of Elbereth, and the character of Galadriel as directly described (or through the words of Gimli and Sam) were clearly related to Catholic devotion to Mary.

Letter #213 reveals that Tolkien was not conscious of Galadriel as reminiscent of the Virgin Mary while he wrote LotR.

2. In some thread or other I was reading recently (I can't remember whether it was "Smith of Wooton Major in Middle Earth?" or the Canonicity thread), it was stated that The Silmarillion was complete when Tolkien was trying to get them both published by Allen & Unwin.

3. The huge success of LotR resulted in demand for the publication of The Silmarillion, but Tolkien was faced with a difficult choice: either allow the Sil to be published as it was in its pre-LotR completed state with no mention of Galadriel and other entities that were not in that version of the Sil, OR rewrite the whole thing, finding a way to harmonize LotR and the Silmarillion. Being a natural niggler, Tolkien chose the latter. Being a natural niggler and without the prodding of C.S. Lewis, Tolkien took the rest of his life and still never succeeded in completing the thing.

Instead, we now have the plethora of Christopher's industrious tearing apart of the tower of story to see what stones were used, otherwise known as The History of Middle Earth. Christopher's father would have deplored it, I rather think, even though the current state of affairs is surely quite interesting, educational, and entertaining to those who love Middle-earth.

The Tragedy: It's a shame that The Silmarillion wasn't accepted by Allen & Unwin along with LotR.

See, if both had been accepted, Tolkien would have had to throw up his hands and say something to the effect of "the tales do have contradictions, yes, but they are separate works that must stand on their own merits". Instead, he apparently felt that he had to take on the gargantuan, impossible, and unnecessary task of harmonizing the whole mythology, removing as many contradictions as possible. Just imagine if he had been freed from that burden, freed to write all manner of tales, some like Smith, some like The Hobbit, some like LotR, some like that which is found in Unfinished Tales.

I don't think this could have happened. I just wish it had.

Back to points (1) and (2). Letter #353 reads like a papal bull. Here he is, toward the end of his life, trying to turn his mythology more and more into a mirror of primary reality (as in Morgoth's Ring). And not unlike the pope declaring Mary without sin from birth (the basis for which is very debatable even among those who accept the scriptures as divinely inspired and/or the church as the interpreter of that scripture), here is Tolkien declaring Galadriel completely without blemish, just the victim of bad timing. Blah. It seems like patent nonsense to me. He let the Virgin Mary thing take root, which wasn't even conscious to him in his writing of LotR, and seems to have turned it into a primary principle for his attempted harmonization. It's what comes from spending a lifetime trying to iron out knots that cannot by ironed out, not unlike the centuries the Roman church has spent trying to make a cohesive and logical system out of received revelation which necessarily contains paradox.

Oh, and by the way, even though I was born and raised protestant, I have a far higher opinion of and appreciation for the Roman Catholic church than most of my kind. Just wanted to get that straight.

I feel that Tolkien's latter creative life was misspent. That's the shame. I would much rather have more of his creative power in writing story than the reinterpretive philosophizing and theologizing he spent his later years in. Maybe that's what giving up the Star was partly about in SWOM.

[davem]

I can accept this up to a point. I would argue though, that he would probably have continued to develop the story of Middle earth in other ways, & not gone on too write more 'Smiths'. Middle earth dominated his thinking, & became his way of analysing the human condition. He wasn't a theologian so his way of doing this was through fantasy rather than through non fiction.

HoME isn't an attempt to 'tear apart the tower to see what it is made of, it is an attempt to present his father's life's work in as coherent a form as possible - in which he succeeds magnificently I might add. Also, just because the tales were left incomplete doesn't make them valueless. In fact, one can see them as 'complete' in a way - they are a continuing & evolving expression of his thought & understanding. David Jones 'unfinished' poem Anathemata springs to mind here. The 'philosophizing & theologizing' is also Tolkien, as much as is LotR, TH & Smith. What I mean by that is, they aren't 'secondary' stuff that he got sidetracked into. They are where he was going. The Sil wasn't finished because it was unfinishable - it was him & he was it. HoME is a collaberative work of literature between father & son, & will come increasingly to be seen as that. Anyone who hasn't read it really should - not as background to the work Tolkien published in his lifetime, but as a literary work n its own right. CT says in his introduction to the final volume that it has become a kind of 'literary biography' of his father. read in that light, it has great value - not least in the way it shows the workings of a mind steeped in myth & language. It may even be that in the end HoME comes to be valued as highly as LotR & TH - or even in some ways more highly valued...

[Child of the 7th Age]

I feel that Tolkien's latter creative life was misspent. That's the shame. I would much rather have more of his creative power in writing story than the reinterpretive philosophizing and theologizing he spent his later years in. Maybe that's what giving up the Star was partly about in SWOM.

Strong words! Even fighting words....

This is a fascinating topic, and I imagine you are going to get some firmly worded replies. Readers seem to have such differing responses to the material that Tolkien produced during the final years of his life. Some love the stuff, and others hate it. Christopher himself seems to have mildly "disapproved" of the direction his father's writing took towards the end.

My own feelings are mixed. There were certain issues addressed in this period that I could do without. The first one that comes to mind is the "flat versus round earth" controversy. I have never understood why Tolkien felt the need to get into that. He was a mythmaker, even a philosopher, but surely not a scientist.

I won't respnd to the specific question of Galadriel (at least on this post) yet there are three things I feel compelled to say. I am writing this off the top of my head. If I spew out a fact that is blatantly "untrue", please bring it to my attention.

First, you are asking for the impossible. You are essentially saying that Tolkien should have stopped revising the basic structure of the legendarium and simply go ahead and fill in the gaps to craft a "completed" story. I frankly think that is impossible. Tolkien simply couldn't sit still.

If you look at the history of the legendarium, its composition and evolution, the one thing that strikes you is how much everything changes: the Tolkien of the early Lost Tales, the Tolkien of the Athrabeth and everything in between. There was no "definitive form" for Tolkien. He simply couldn't stop toying and changing things.... not just the details, but the very heart of the story. I think it is one reason why so many feel impelled to write fanfiction and rpgs (or for that matter, a revised Silm). They are essentially continuing a tradition that the Professor himself started: to pull, to shift and come out with something virtually new.

Secondly, those latter writings contain much that I think is priceless. You speak of "philosophizing and theologizing", but something like the Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth is literally priceless to me (also the tale of Adanel). (And I am not, as you know, a Christian.) Tolkien was wrestling with some of the deepest issues in his soul, and the Athrabeth was, I believe, a reflection of that. Both its characters and ideas are among my favorites. The same is true for much of UT. For example, what I learn of Bilbo in UT gives me a whole new insight into what motivated him, the overall hand of providence in the great design, and the responses of his neighbors.

One of the things that strikes me is how "religious" issues/emblems/ideas crept into Middle-earth in the later years. I did not get a chance to post on the recent "Emblems" thread. However, my gut feeling is this: it is "artificial" to try and create a society devoid of religious content. To my knowledge, no such society has existed on this earth. (Bird and I once had a long talk abut this shortly after I joined the forum.) If you consciously try to keep religion out, as Tolkien claimed he did, it will come creeping back in some form or fashion. This seems to have been happening in the later writings.

Lastly, I would not agree that Silm was "finished" prior to the publication of LotR. It wasn't until LotR, I believe, that we get Numenor and all the events of the second age. Again, to me, these are among the richest of Tolkien's creations. I only wish that he would have focused on these in the last years of his life.

Misspent? No, I can't agree with you. I can look at any period in Tolkien's writings and find some tales and approaches I like better than others. That is as true of the last years as the earlier period. Tolkien wasn't just writing a body of stories. He was creating a world. And worlds aren't static. They change and evolve. Why should philosophy and theology not me part of that world? The more critical question to me is why Tolkien's emphasis shifted in this latter period. What was it that caused the Professor to bring up "philosophy" and "theology" more frequently in his latter works?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Child

However, my gut feeling is this: it is "artificial" to try and create a society devoid of religious content.

I don't disagree. However, I do think that to attempt to shape a fictional world founded on myths and legend so that it accorded more with his own specific religious beliefs was as much a mistake as to convert it from a flat world to a round one.

That is not to say that these were wasted years. I have not read the HoME series myself but, from what I have seen and read, there is much in there that is of biographical and philosophical interest.

From my perspective, however, Tolkien hit exactly the right note with religious content in LotR.

[Lalwendë]

I get the sense from reading Tolkien's Letters that he never really considered any of his Middle Earth work to be truly finished. In Letter 109, written in 1947 to his publisher, he says of LotR:

The thing is to finish the thing as devised and then let it be judged. But forgive me! It is written in my life blood, such as that is thick or thin; and I can no other. I fear it must stand or fall as it substantially is. It would be idle to pretend that I do not greatly desire publication, since a solitary art is no art; nor that I have not a pleasure in praise, with as little vanity as fallen man can manage (he has not much more share in his writings than in his children of the body, but it is something to have a function); yet the chief thing is to complete one's work, as far as completion has any real sense.

He makes a postscript:

Talking about revising The Hobbit. Any alteration of any radical kind is of course impossible, and unnecessary. But there are still quite a number of misprints in it. I have twice, I think, sent in lists of these, and I hope they have been corrected this time. Also there are minor errors, which the researches of fans have revealed, and some closer attention of my own has discovered. I wish there could be a chance of putting them right. I enclose a list again.

He also makes similar statements in Letter 271, talking of the revisions for the American edition (1965).

Bearing in mind that Tolkien was not a career writer such as we have today, he was in fact holding down a demanding academic job, and despite his capacious intellect he did not also have the luxury of modern computer systems which could cross-reference his works, it is not at all surprising that in work of such complexity some errors or inconsistencies might occur. Tolkien was clearly also a perfectionist, even something of a pedant, and coupling this with the fact that creating Middle Earth was his lifetime's work and as such must have held deep emotional significance to him, the actual 'letting go' of any work to be published must have been difficult.

I am not at all surprised that so much of his work went unfinished in the sense that he never deemed it ready for publishing and wished to revise it. It makes me wonder if he had the immortality of an Elf would he ever have got anything published or would still have been perfecting it!

Tolkien however was a mortal like the rest of us, and his life experience would be different as he aged, so it does not surprise me that his later work is more contemplative, even slightly esoteric, as he faced up to life's biggest question when he entered old age. For myself, I like this later work as it raises more questions than answers.

There is one statement he made in the letter mentioned above which stood out for me as a member of the Downs:

Also there are minor errors, which the researches of fans have revealed

If the internet had been around when Tolkien was alive, would he have ever reached the sense of semi-satisfaction which enabled him to 'let go' of his work? Would we have had multiple versions of the books? Looking at the way we examine the detail of the films, and thinking about how much more we examine the books, Peter Jackson actually got off lightly.

[mark12_30]

lmp:

"BURN THE HERETIC!" .... oh, sorry, wrong century.

"Have a beer, you're too uptight." Oh, sorry, wrong forum.

"What kind of fan are you, story or world?" --At the moment, lmp, you appear to be a "Story" fan. But I'm not sure that that is really true.

Maybe the question is: what kind of fan are you, a Story fan or a philosophy fan. Or, What kind of eucatastrophe do you prefer?

Do you like a bit of faerie in your revelation, or a bit of revelation in your faerie? There are those "purists" who choose either faerie OR revelation.

Saucie:

However, I do think that to attempt to shape a fictional world founded on myths and legend so that it accorded more with his own specific religious beliefs was as much a mistake as to convert it from a flat world to a round one.

Those changes are part of Tolkien's story and Tolkien's shaping. He was what he was.

And I think that's Child's (and my) response to the original post (which is up to your usual high standard, lmp) -- Tolkien's writing was an outflow of his innermost being. Since he was a devoutly surrendered man, that innermost being was destined to change. I wouldn't want it any other way.

I think we're lucky that Tolkien kept writing. It's too common for older mystics to compare their writing with the vision that they see, and give up writing in disgust. John of the Cross did that. The author of The Cloud of Unknowing came close.

(Edit: cross-posted with Lalwende...)

[drigel]

nice posts here. I dont think they were wasted years. Consider TH and LOTR as the original, organic works that they were. And consider the author at the time when the works were written. The whole premise of the idea of ME is the recounting of a history that has already been written, as it were. Publication has its impact. Who knew that TH was going to run away with sales? While not a professional author per say, I would say that wrapped up in the ideas discussed here was some sense of responsibility to the published works and also to those who purchased the material.

The bigger question to me is: What would the legendarium be like if there was NO Hobbit and LOTR....? Or, what would the history be like if only the FINISHED Silm ONLY was put out for publication, say in the mid 1960's, only to find weak or mediocre sales? What then would Christopher find after his father died?

[Child of the 7th Age]

Everyone....many good points here. But I do feel compelled to add something.

Saucepan Man I don't disagree. However, I do think that to attempt to shape a fictional world founded on myths and legend so that it accorded more with his own specific religious beliefs was as much a mistake as to convert it from a flat world to a round one.

Yes, I do think that would have been a mistake. But I can't help feeling that Tolkien's beliefs were so strong that they are inevitably mirrored in his writing, even when there was no conscious attempt to mold a world according to his personal leanings. And yet, there is even more to it than that. Let's take the example of the dialogue between Andreth and Finrod. Most readers focus on the idea of Eru taking on incarnate form and coming into the world, a clear connection with the Christian view of history. There is also a veiled reference to the "fall of Man". Both those elements are definitely there. Yet so are others, equally important.

In fact, I'd like to go out on a limb and push this a little further. In some ways the Athrabeth is the definitive statement of Tolkien's legendarium (and strangely I don't think we've ever had a serious discussion about it on this site despite a thread started several eons ago). The author has told us repeatedly that the Lord of the Rings and, by extension, the entire legendarium is about death. This is the one and only place where we get a clear idea of what the author is actually thinking about death, at least as mirrored in the human and Elvish viewpoints. Nor is this a philosophical discussion set in a vacuum. We know that Andreth speaks with bitterness out of her love for Aegnor; she represents the human mind. Finrod responds from the Elvish perspective. In my opinion, he is slightly condescending to her. He has trouble comprehending what the aging (48) Andreth feels as she sees herself eternally separated from her lover, the beautiful young Elf who will never age (at least not for several eons).

In much of LotR, we are given very clear ideas about what's right and wrong. Aragorn is the classic illustration of this: his firm statement that, whatever the age, right and goodness do not change. In the Athrabeth, however, there is not statement but dialogue: a dialogue that ends in question and speculation rather than firm answers. The two characters are in the dark: they know so little and the answers are so uncertain.

If Lord of the Rings and the legendarium as a whole is "all about death and dying", then the Athrabeth is an integral part of that very concept. And, if it is so, how can we think that Tolkien may have "misspent" his latter years in producing something as poignant as the Athrabeth?

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

I owe a heavy debt to Verlyn Flieger in the specifics of this argument about Andreth, although I've always felt this way myself. I've just gotten Flieger's new book "Interrupted Music: The Making of Tolkien's Mythology". It was in paperback at Amazon. Littlemanpoet -- Flieger has a lot to say that is relevent to the question you've raised. She looks not at the content of the mythology but the logistics of its development, start to finish. And some of her conclusions are pertinent to your question: understanding how the later writings fit in. I am just reading it now, so can't say much more than that. (I cheated and skipped ahead to the section on Andreth. )