Metareferences and Intertextuality.

[Boromir88]

I might also get this into the movie discussions, because this topic can apply to either books or movies.

Intertextuality and metarefences take one part from a piece of literature, and it draws attention to a previous work of literature. It's the idea that literature now adays is not "fully original," that everything that has been written about can be written about. And when we see intertextuality and metareferences we think "this reminds us of this..." or "this sounds like this..."

An example of intertextuality would be like the feud between dwarves and elves. Like a lot of feuds, they have been lasting for years, and none of it's descendants really know how the feud started, they just know their in a feud. When I see this feud talked about in LOTR, I automatically think to the Hatfield and the Mccoys, or Montagues and Capulets. That is intertextuality, drawing attention to a previous work of literature (or in other cases movies).

The difference between a metareference and intertextuality is this: think of Shakespeare, he took written historical documents, and historical characters, and made his own plays. Like "Julius Caesar," these characters have been written about, and Shakespeare is adapting them, changing them, to make his plays more dramatic. That is a metareference, that he actually took the already written about Caesar, and put them in his story, and then changed him. If he wrote a similar story about a guy named Larry, who is King of some big empire, and a group of people plot to murder him, and take control of the government, that would be intertextuality. But since, Shakespeare used Caesar, and not some guy named Larry, that makes it a metarefence.

Writers often use these two mecanics to serve a purpose, or many of them just do it unconsciously. I don't know any other examples right now off the top of my head. So, try to find an event in Tolkien, that reminds you of some previous written work (whether it be a book or movie). The big debate is whether Tolkien was using intertextuality and metareferences to get a point, or theme, across. He's purposefully drawing attention to that specific text? If he is doing that, then why? What is he trying to get across? If you simply believe he did it unconsciously, then there is no why, there is no point. He simply read "Romeo and Juliet," and as human nature, locked it away in his head, and wrote about a feud between elves and dwarves, with no purpose for it at all.

[A_Brandybuck]

Tolkien used intertextuality in a great way. He took much stuff, which he elaborated in his world, of the nordic mythology. One example is the ring.

A ring, especially a golden ring, was often used in mythologies. Mostly the ring is a symbol of something evil or bad. There was a magic ring, which was possessed by a Dwarf in a part of the Edda. The ring was stolen by a "God" and became the source of a dragon-hoard. The connections to Tolkien are obvious.
In the "Nibelungen", an old German myth, there was the "Ring of the Nibelungen", which brings his owner more power. But this Ring was cursed, too.

I think, that there is more stuff like this, but I need time to look it up and put it into the right context. ;-)

[Boromir88]

Good finds Brandybuck, now what Tolkien doing this for a purpose? Or did he just write it down unconsciously? With intertextuality it's hard to tell if he did it for a purpose, you got to know the author, and think, would he write something down like this in a story to serve a purpose? With metareferences it's a lot easier, if Tolkien used the same names that were used in the Nordic/German story, it would be a metareference, and there it's pretty easy to tell, that the author is using to serve as a purpose. Where intertextuality it's more difficult.

I could be wrong, but I'm almost positive in LOTR, and The Hobbit, Tolkien doesn't use metareferences.

[radagastly]

This is interesting. A quick scan of the index for the Eddas (online) I found the following names:

Bifur, Bjorn, Bomburr, Dainn, Dori, Durinn, Dvalinn, Fili, Gandalfr, Frodi, Gimle, Gloinn, Kili, Nori, Ori, Thorinn, Thror.

I haven't read the Eddas so I don't know if these involve references to any particular personality or action or behavior on the part of any of these characters, or if he just used the names from the Eddas to influence the names he chose for the Dwarves etc. I think the reference is pretty obvious, though, and no doubt deliberate on Tolkien's part. Sort of like scanning the phone book to find unusual names for your own fiction.

[A_Brandybuck]

This is now my long version, I am not very kind with the expressions "meta-reference" and intertextuality' Please forgive my eventual faults. ;-)
I needed much time to elaborate, so my post overlaps with the post of radagastly in one case. ;-)

In Tolkien's own world, there are some parallels to old european myths, especially to nordic myths.

#1 – Edda:
In the Edda (nordic collection of legends, written down in Iceland and Norway hundreds of years ago), there is an epic called Völsungen. In this epic Andwari, a Dwarf, had possessed a magic Ring (Andvarinaut), which was stolen by a God of Fire Loki.
Andwari cursed all future keeper of this Ring. Then there was Fafnir, who killed his father to get this Ring. He took the Ring and guared it in a cave. In this cave the Ring poisoned him and his body, so that he transformed into a dragon or wyvern. After that he was slayn by Sigurd, who then possessed the Ring.

The Völsungen-epic ands shortly after this point, but nearly the same storyline, we find in the Nibelungen-Song. Doubtless it is based on the Völsungen. There is also an older version of the epic, in which the Ring is called Draupnir and was possessed by the godfather Odin. It was said, that this Ring was spawning. Every ninth night, there were 8 Rings more. The root of a great treasure. This Ring was also cursed and went to Fafnir (-> Völsungen), who was (as a wyvern) slayn from Siegfried (= Sigurd).
The Nibelungen-Song continues this story. The Nibelungen-Ring is the root of a great treasure (Nibelungen-treasure) and went to Siegfried, after he had slayn Fafnir.
Then the Ring is, after much trouble about the owning rights, one of the reasons, why Siegfried died. (Short version)

The connection to Tolkien is obvious, a cursed Ring, who poisoned his bearer gives it also by Tolkien. The cave of Fafnir reminds of Gollum's cave and changing. The idea of a Ring being the fundament of a great treasure is similar to Tolkien, where the Seven Dwarven-Rings are said to be the fundament of the Dwarven-treasure.

There are also some similarities of names in the Edda. We find lots of names in it, which are also in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Tolkien himself said, that he took them out of the Edda:
There is the question of nomenclature. The dwarf-names, and the wizard's, are from the Elder Edda. (Letter 25)

Thus there is much intertextuality in Tolkien's works.

#2 – Atlantis
The case of Atlantis is more or less equal. A high civilization lives on an island. This civilization is really far advanced in technology. Both islands will be swallowed by the sea. Tolkien himself said, that the Downfall of Númenor[is] a special variety of the Atlantis tradition (Letter 154) and that he has what some might call an Atlantis complex (Letter 163). He also dreamed of the ineluctable Wave, either coming out of the quiet sea, or coming in towering over the green inlands (Letter 257).
I think that here is a point, where we could call it nearly a meta-reference. Of the story of Atlantis is not much known, save there details, which Platon wrote down, but he heard only rumours. Tolkien took the story of Atlantis and put it into his own context. He wrote in Letter 276:
N[umenor] is my personal alteration of the Atlantis myth and/or tradition, and accommodation of it to my general mythology."

#3 – Beowulf and Kalevala
Sadly I haven't read them, so I can't give you any parallels concerning them. I only have some quotes from Tolkien.
Beowulf:
Letter 25:
Beowulf is among my most valued sources; though it was not consiously present to my mind in the process of writing, in which the episode of the theft arose naturally (and almost inevitably) from the circumstances.
Beowulf influenced Tolkien very strong, but I can't say how strong, I don't read it. There are many quotes in his Letters concerning Beowulf.
Kalevala:
This Finnish-National-epic has influenced Tolkien's world also very strong (maybe much stronger).
He was immensely attracted by something in the air of the Kalevala,[...] But the legendarium, of which the Triology is part (the conclusion, was in an attempt to reorganize some of the Kalevala, especially the tale of Kullervo the hapless, into a form of my own. (Letter 163)
We recover the story of the Children of Hurin in the tale of Kullervo, [i]the tragic tale [...] of which is Turin the hero: a figure that might be said [by people who like that sort of thing, though it is not very useful) to be derived from elements in Sigurd the Volsung [-> Edda], Oedipus and the Finnish Kullervo.

There are much more things, that he took out of other things (especially the languages, which I let out).

The central point of his intention is, that he wanted to write a collection of myths, legends or something similar for his England. He wanted to give England an own mythology, because England had no mythology, while other peoples around England have some great legends (Can be found in Letter 131 and indirectly in Book of Lost Tales).
My personal opinion is, that at the beginning of his writings, he took consciously myths from other nations (-> Kullervo) and put them into his own context. That is a wide spread thing. We only need to look to the Rings and the Edda. Parts of stories became reused in other legends in another context. He wrote his mythology in the style of the other mythologies, which had impressed him much. So he used while he was writing known schemas. He worked them in. This was also I think consciously (sometimes more, sometimes less). He mixed the contents of them to create his world (using intertextuality). Atlantis – Numenor was a special case, which can be traced back to his complex.
With his process of writing, his world was growing and changed from a mythology, which was dedicated to England, to an own world with own schemas. The old schemas, which he had adopted, were fading and replaced with his own schemas. Everyone, who has read the Book of Lost Tales could surely confirm this fact. The similarities to the nordic myths, which can be found in the actual status could be traced back to the beginning of his writing.

[Boromir88]

A wonderful post A_Brandybuck, Beowulf was definately an influence on Tolkien, and a good job explaining the Edda. Since Tolkien mentions using these sources he definately intended to use them for a purpose.

A wonderful post. There was this thread that contained a website to look at all the mythologies of Europe, and one was a Baltic myth about the battle of a "good wizard" and "wicked wizard." Unfortunately, I can't find that thread, or can't remember the website. It was a handy website that went in depth to the mythologies of Europe (including Beowulf, King Arthur...etc). I will have to search for the thread to find it again.

[ninlaith]

I think we can all agree upon one thing...if you read something you really like it sort of sticks to you forever. Tolkien had a major major affinity for Anglo-Saxon literature. In fact that was one of the subjects he studied at Oxford, but you all probably knew that. He was reading Beowulf while he was writing down the Hobbit. I believe he loved the book so much he couldn't help adding some of it to his own work. For example: a dragon resting on mounds of gold was in Beowulf which ties to our beloved Smaug, another congruence is when Beowulf arrived at Herod he was met by a guard who would not let them proceed which ties to the same incident in The Hobbit when they were met by the challege of goards blocking their path. Sorry if that's all a little vague. I must admit I have not read either of the books for a long time. I feel very remorseful for neglecting my Tolkien rituals. I'll get right on it.

[Boromir88]

I think we can all agree upon one thing...if you read something you really like it sort of sticks to you forever.

Exactly ninlaith, and that is the point behind metareferences and intertextuality. That anything (now adays) that is written in books, or made into movies, has been done before. So no piece of literature or film is entirely original, or entirely "new." It has ties back to previous works. I think you hit the nail on the head, when we read something we really like, it sticks with us.

I wonder if I should clear this up, or not, since you all seem to be getting the point, and posting some really nice stuff , but this was something I forgot to mention in my first post. The intentions of metareferences and intertextuality isn't to say "Ahhh, Tolkien took ideas, copied ideas from Beowulf, mythologies, religions...etc." It's ment to find out who influenced Tolkien (or other authors) to come up with their stories, and then to figure out for what purpose they were doing it for. No one has done that here, it's just something I forgot to mention. I've really enjoyed reading all the posts so far .

[Saraphim]

I happen to own a great book called Tolkien's Ring, written by David Day, I believe. In there it outlines most of the mythological and religious influences on Tolkien.

I very much admire the tactics of Metareference and Intertextuality. I think it not only gives homage to a certain writer or culture, (in the case of mythology) but it provides a good, solid base for a specific idea.

It's almost as if Tolkien thought "Alright, rings seem to be a good source of storytelling. We'll start with that and see what develops."

In a story I'm working on, there is a small side-plot that was partially inpired by a Japanese Anime called Trigun. This doesn't mean I copied the storyline or characters in any way, or even the basic idea. I simply found something I liked that seems to follow me around and lend itself to my story.

I think we can all agree upon one thing...if you read something you really like it sort of sticks to you forever.

...which is sort of my point exactly.

[Boromir88]

It's almost as if Tolkien thought "Alright, rings seem to be a good source of storytelling. We'll start with that and see what develops."

In a story I'm working on, there is a small side-plot that was partially inpired by a Japanese Anime called Trigun. This doesn't mean I copied the storyline or characters in any way, or even the basic idea. I simply found something I liked that seems to follow me around and lend itself to my story.

Exactly, there are only two things writers tend to do during a Literary "period." If that style of writing is popular, then they will continue on the trend. If they feel a need for a change, or just want to be different from everyone else, then they will go with the complete opposite of the trend, in hopes to start a new trend.

Hope your story goes well Saraphim .

[Sapphire_Flame]

Originally Posted by A_Brandybuck

One example is the ring.

I was reading Plato's Republic and came across something rather interesting:

According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result-when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.

I don't know if this was an influence to Tolkein in any way, but it struck me as being very relevent to the topic at hand.

On the subject of Beowulf, in a video documentary on Tolkien that I have, it mentions that, in the scene where Gandalf and company arrive at the doors of Meduseld, Tolkien inserted word for word some of the dialogue from a similar scene in Beowulf; in fact, the entire incident at the doors of Meduself was strongly based on that scene in Beowulf. I good example of intertextuality, I thought.

Great thread, Boromir!

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[davem]

Not sure it belongs here, but something Tolkien wrote about Ents did strike me. I'll need to quote a bit from one of my recent CbC posts:

So, Tolkien has invented the Ents, but hasn’t come up with an account of them. It seems like he knew they were there, but had no idea where they had come from. In fact, in letter 157 he says:

'I always felt something ought to be done about the peculair Anglo-Saxon word ent'. Note, not 'something could be done' but ought to be done.

To me this says that Tolkien was not only using some old ideas/themes because he was struck by them in some way, he was doing it deliberately, because it ought to be done. This clearly goes back to his original intent of recreating England's lost mythology. 'ents' were a part of A-S mythology, even if little or nothing about them had survived beyond the name. But Tolkien felt they were important to our ancestors, whatever they had been, so he had to find some way to incorporate them into the mythology for England he was writing.

Shippey has also shown how other things in the Legendarium were incorporated for the same reason - like the Eddaic Dwarves already mentioned, or the unexplained account in the same work of the different kinds of Elves - Light Elves, Dark Elves, etc. In ancient Northerm myth there were these different kinds of Elves, but if there ever was any explanation of why some were 'Light' & some were 'Dark' it has been lost. As Shippey shows - specifically regarding the Elves issue - was to try & explain this difference. The difference was there in the myths, Tolkien was attempting to create (or perhaps 're-create' as he was always trying to find 'what really happened') a story which would acount for this difference is Elvish types. (See Shippey's essay 'Light-Elves, Dark-Elves & Others: Tolkien's Elvish Problem' in Tolkien Studies vol1)

In short, I think Tolkien did take things from earlier myths, legends & stories, both consciously & unconsciously, but he also took somethings because he felt he should - because something ought to be done with those things.

[A_Brandybuck]

Originally Posted by davem

'I always felt something ought to be done about the peculair Anglo-Saxon word ent'. Note, not 'something could be done' but ought to be done.

I have used this quote already in the Chapter-by-Chapter-section, but it is helpful here, too.
This is from a footnote in Letter #163.

Take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The chapter called 'Treebeard', from Treebeard's first remark on p. 66, was written off more or less as it stands, with an effect on my self (except for labour pains) almost like reading some one else's work. And I like Ents now because they do not seem to have anything to do with me. I daresay something had been going on in the 'unconscious' for some time, and that accounts for my feeling throughout, especially when stuck, that I was not inventing but reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till 'what really happened' came through. But looking back analytically I should say that Ents are composed of philology, literature, and life. They owe their name to the eald enta geweorc of Anglo-Saxon, and their connexion with stone. Their pan in the story is due, I think, to my bitter disappointment and disgust from schooldays with the shabby use made in Shakespeare of the coming of 'Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill': I longed to devise a setting in which the trees might really march to war. And into this has crept a mere piece of experience, the difference of the 'male' and 'female' attitude to wild things, the difference between unpossessive love and gardening.

Tolkien describes en detail, where the word ent came. He also described, that he included them 'unconsciously'. Thus he included them not deliberately. Not until with hindsight he knew, where they came from.
But davem's conclusion could fit still. That have to do with Tolkien style of writing. The story came often from his mind 'unconsciously'. I cannot explain that very well, but I hope you will understand.
davem said, that he did create the ents, because it fits an Anglo-Saxon mythology. Tolkien was very interested in all kinds of mythologies and old Anglo-Saxon literature. So he read a lot and knew a lot. Regarding the style of writing, his mind could have included the aspect of trees marching to war 'unconsciuously' based of the experiences he had with the literature. Not until after that he noticed what he had done.
The key-aspect is here, his style of writing. He wrote all down without knowing, where it came. He often said, that the story has developed itself.
Hope you understand what I wanted to say. ;-)

[Gurthang]

I understand perfectly. Tolkien didn't think about putting stuff like trees marching or Atlantis(Numenor) into his writings. They were just sitting in the back of his head, and then came out into the story. When the story was being composed smoothly, the influence of other works he had read came out.

Tolkien was a master at this. He soaked up all the good parts of Macbeth, Atlantis, Beowulf, the Edda, and countless other works, and used what he had absorbed to write a really beautiful tale. I agree that he was a master of both metareference and intertextuality, and that's what keeps us in ME. When we read it for the first time, the story wasn't something we'd seen before, but it still seemed... almost familiar.

One thing I'd like to bring up is that there comes a point when some people look at writings and say, 'Hey that looks like....'. Immediately rumors of plagiarism fly. There is a rather fine line between plagiarism and metareference, and its a pretty big deal when an author crosses it.

Tolkien never came near that line, but still used metareference extensively. That's why we love LOTR so much, it sort of brings all the best together.