More! More! More!

[Boromir88]

I can never figure out how to open a thread, so I think I'm just going to delve right into this. Basically I want to ask is it better for you to only read about 'glimpses' of stories (The Lord of the Rings) or are you driven by a curiosity for 'more?'

In the late 1930's Tolkien had wanted to publish The Silmarillion along with the Lord of the Rings. But, as his publisher Rayner Unwin later explained The Silmarillion was not in a 'presentable publishing format.' And only the Lord of the Ring's was published. And after the Lord of the Rings gets out to the public, there is an outcry for more. They want to hear more...because the Lord of the Rings is filled with 'glimpses,' glimpses of past stories, we get brief looks of the past. So, with the outcry Tolkien starts to revise, revise, and more revising, on the Silmarillion, trying to get it all inmeshed and tied into the Lord of the Rings. A big intricate web, making sure everything fits into the story and there's no big glaring contradictions. However, around in the 1960's he just abandons it. He just stops and leaves The Silmarillion to rest. I've always found this curious, as he had pushed to get it published with the Lord of the Ring's, than spent years and years trying to get it to all fit together, but then he just stops and abandons it.

Tolkien began to doubt this undertaking of revising the Silmarillion, and it seemed he started to grow weary of 'getting it ready.' In a letter dated September 20, 1963:

I am doubtful myself about the undertaking [to write The Silmarillion]...'

And earlier in this same letter:

I am afraid all the same that the presentation will need a lot of work, and I work so slowly. The legends have to be worked over (thy were written at different times, some many years ago) and made consistentl and they have to be integrated with the L.R.; and they have to be given some progressive shape. No simple device, like a journey and a quest, is available.

Lay all of that on top of the unceasing amount of Letters he got of all kinds of people wanting 'more, more, more'...in a letter to H. Cotton Minchin:

... while many like you demand maps, others wish for geological indications rather than places; many want Elvish grammars, phonologies, and specimens; some want metrics and prosodies.... Musicians want tunes, and musical notation; archaeologists want ceramics and metallurgy; botanists want a more accurate description of the mallorn, of elanor, niphredil, alfirin, mallos, and symbelmynë, historians want more details about the social and political structure of Gondor; general enquirers want information about the Wainriders, the Harad, Dwarvish origins, the Dead Men, the Beornings, and the missing two wizards (out of five).

Compounding everyone's desires for 'more, more, more' it appears Tolkien came to the realization that this would actually 'destroy the magic' of the stories. And is remarked by Tom Shippey:

'One quality which [The Lord of the Rings] has in abundance is the Beowulfian 'impression of depth', created just as in the old epic by songs and digressions like Aragorn's lay of Tinuviel, Sam Gamgee's allusions to the Silmaril and the Iron Crown, Elrond's account of Celebrimbor, and dozens more. This, however, is a quality of The Lord of the Rings, not of the inset stories. To tell these in their own right and expect them to retain the charm they got from their larger setting would be a terrible error, an error to which Tolkien would be more sensitive than any man alive.'

And following along Shippey's thoughts, going back to the September 20th Letter:

'Part of the attraction to The L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city glaming in the sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new attainable vistas are revealed.'

Lord of the Ring's is filled with glimpses of the past, and that drove a desire for readers of 'more, more, more.' But, I think Tolkien felt like the 'unknown' is the greatest magic. We have these brief looks into the past, through songs, poems, accounts, and that right there is the attraction. And to actually go there, and explore those stories further, would 'destroy the magic.' This is exactly what he was doing with the Silmarillion, it was to explain more, and give more, to his readers of LOTR, wanting to hear more about the stories of Beren and Luthien...etc.

So, are you somebody who likes the 'glimpses' we get in LOTR? Is that what makes the story 'magical.' Or are you driven to wanting 'more, more, more' , because of these 'glimpses?' And after reading the Silmarillion, 'going to the untold places, people...etc' did it destroy that magic (for you) that is established in The Lord of the Rings?

[Kuruharan]

We sort of touched on this in the "Wrong Kind of Details" thread of many moons ago.

The short answer to the question is "yes, I think the glimpses are one of the best qualities of the works." It is important they be glimpses and not expositions for a few reasons. First, the glimpses help maintain that air of mystery and excitement. Second, and more important from a storytelling perspective, you don't want full-on expositions of unnecessary background information distracting you from the main story.

On the other hand, if I were satisfied with just these glimpses I probably would not be here right now.

did it destroy that magic (for you) that is established in The Lord of the Rings?

That has never been my experience. Obviously my interest in Tolkien's work waxes and wanes over the years but I've never found them to be less magical the more I've come to understand them.

And there will always be material about which we cannot arrive at a definitive answer.

[Lalaith]

The glimpses were definitely not enough for me, and I first read LotR as a seven-year-old.
I was desperate to know more about Valinor and Elbereth, about Feanor's hands at work, about Numenor before its fall, about the Elf-friends of old, the First Age and everything that happened there. I got some from getting a copy of Return of the King from the library with all appendixes complete (my paperback only had the Arwen and Aragorn appendix) but I wasn't truly satisfied until I got hold of the Silmarillion. I was a bit put off when it plunged first into the Ainulindale, (well, I was very young!) but I was delighted by all the stories of the Quenta Sil.
The Unfinished Tales I read much later, and while I really enjoyed them, I didn't have the same sense of urgency, I now knew the answers to most of what I really *needed* to know.

I never got that feeling of wanting more from the Hobbit, however. (Which was the first Tolkien I read) Yes, there was that paragraph about Deep-Elves and Sea-Elves etc, also the swords from Gondolin, but these references didn't have the same glamour, somehow.

But it is interesting, why Tolkien abandoned the attempt to edit the Sil for publication? Was it a classic case of scholarly procrastination - a touch of the Casaubons - or did Allen & Unwin not encourage him as much as they could have done, that the work would have a ready market, which might have put him off?

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

I feel much the same, Kuruharan. I have never found LR to lose any of its appeal when I learn more about its world. On the contrary, I find the references more appealing as compressed meaning, evoking by allusion entire legends and poems. Authors writing in the realistic mode constantly make allusions to real-world myths and history, which can be followed up and used to gain a better understanding of their work, and a knowledge of Tolkien's wider legendarium does no more or less for a reader of The Lord of the Rings. In fact, the tantalising[1] glimpses that Tolkien gives us of wider vistas stimulate our natural inquisitiveness, so that it seems inevitable that we should always want to know more. Significantly, Tolkien himself approached his fiction in the same way. It's possible for a skilled author to refer to a wider body of knowledge which need not necessarily exist, and Tolkien could easily have done just that. The fact that he fleshed out the story of Queen Beruthiel, and wrote about the Five Wizards implies to me that he asked himself N&N questions about who they were, and answered them for his personal amusement. He may have seen the power of unexplored landscapes, but nevertheless he constantly set out to explore them. Fortunately, as I'm sure he realised, each new exploration simply opens up many more distant horizons, and eventually even his own prolific imaginings come to an end without the effect being spoiled.

It's natural that Tom Shippey should refer to Beowulf, since that poem looms large over his and Tolkien's area of professional interest. However, as I am sure that Professor Shippey is aware, the effect which the Beowulfian digressions have on a modern audience is not that which its author intended. When the Beowulf poet refers to the tragedy of Finnsburh or the destruction of Heorot, he is alluding to stories well known to his intended audience, just as a modern poet might refer to the death of Arthur or Robin Hood's last arrow. Tolkien himself awards Heorot a place in Germanic legend similar to that of Camelot, and many scholars, Tolkien and Shippey among them, have spent much study and thought in attempts to follow the references in Beowulf. Tolkien's own theories on the Finnsburh digression have been published relatively recently as Finn and Hengest, and some of his theories about other aspects of Beowulfian mythology are published in HoME V, from which it seems clear that he was fascinated by the unexplored vistas left so quite accidentally by the Anglo-Saxon poet. The very phrase terra incognita practically invites at the very least an immediate aerial survey.

A 1954 Silmarillion would have changed the effect of the LR references from that of Beowulf today to that of Beowulf in , for the sake of argument, 750 a.d. As I said in littlemanpoet's thread on the wrong kind of details, it's not so much detail as irrelevant detail, or detail clumsily introduced that really ruins a good fantasy story. Characters who know more than they ought to know, and explain it at more length than necessary; long, rambling digressions about social and political history: these are the killers of a good tale. Tolkien's solution is typically academic: simply add all of the details as a scholarly appendix and free up the narrative for storytelling. Since he did this, and even considered defecting to Collins so that LR and The Silmarillion could be published as companion volumes, it seems to me that at least in the late 1940s he still felt that he had left enough vistas unexplored to preserve the effect in his novel, even with the legends of the Elder Days in print. Even the posthumous material released by Christopher Tolkien raises many more questions than it answers, and Tolkien left us more of that than we could reasonably expect of him. That the Silmarillion was never completed seems to me more a result of despair, perfectionism and restless creativity in equal measure: despair that it would ever be accepted for publication, the desire to create the best possible version and a creativity that simply had to adapt and expand his earlier ideas. In the 1940s a definitive, complete Silmarillion seemed a realistic goal; by the end of his life, he had made so many major changes of direction that his latest thoughts could not be reconciled with his earlier publications. I don't think it had anything to do with preserving the magic, but it had a lot to do with Tolkien's character, and his working methods or lack thereof.

Besides, how would we have had so many threads if there weren't whole books of rejected, abandoned or otherwise unreleased fragments? When it comes to information about Middle-earth, more is more.

[1] This word is itself an allusion to the Greek myth of Tantalus. You don't need to know that to understand the sentence, but it's interesting, isn't it?

[Boromir88]

Great posts, Lal and Kuru.

On the other hand, if I were satisfied with just these glimpses I probably would not be here right now.

Neither would I.

And it's indeed these glimpses that make LOTR so attracting. We have the main story of this quest motif, filled with stories, songs, and poems of the past. And I think what makes it magical, at least for me, is that it left me with a sense of wanting more. It feuled me into reading more. It was sort of like someone was teasing me feeling...you know, like here's a little bit, but you never got enough.

I think with the Silmarillion it was harder to do that...because with the Silmarillion, he had to write something from the beginning, there were no 'back stories.' And he wasn't able to create this simplistic 'quest/journey' as he puts it, because it all had to tie in and progress to LOTR.

That's also kind of why we had Christopher too, or why Christopher did what he did. In the Foreward to Book of Lost Tales, he talks about all his long hours of putting The Silmarillion together, and all his fathers other writings, was for those who were like him and felt the desire to want more and know more.

I never got that feeling of wanting more from the Hobbit, however.

That's interesting...I wouldn't know though, I think that's because I read LOTR first, then I went to The Hobbit.

But it is interesting, why Tolkien abandoned the attempt to edit the Sil for publication? Was it a classic case of scholarly procrastination - a touch of the Casaubons - or did Allen & Unwin not encourage him as much as they could have done, that the work would have a ready market, which might have put him off?

It was probably a bunch of stuff. He knew that revising the Silmarillion to fit with LOTR was going to be a daunting task, especially since many of his stories were written at different times. Also, he seemed to have been a sickly guy and would remark a lot about falling 'under the weather' and his health began to decline in his later ages...and this really starts effecting him a lot around the time he just kind of let the Silmarillion go:

I never recovered form the confusion of my affairs when I had a terrible bout of fibrositis and neuritis of the arm last October.~Letter 22, (1952)

…my wife’s in creasing ill-health ..has involved me in various distresses since November…In addition the ill will of Mordor decreed that I should lose most of the vital Christmas vacation being ill.~Letter 133 (1953)

In 1959 he retires, and is followed by more health problems:

I am glad to say that we are both rather better this year….I had some treatment last September, and have been free and easy on the legs since, though my usual lumbago afflicted me in June.~Letter 236 (1961)

Then once he reaches the age of 70, in Letters 245, 247, 248, and 250, he talks about his rheumatism in his right arm and hand, and he becomes as 'unbendable as an Ent.'

I don't think he ever lost love for his stories, or a desire to write more. Because in Letter 250, he talks about his health, but rather jokingly compares his 'old/unbendable bones' to the Ents. But, I think getting the Silmarillion ready and out there to get published, compounded with his ailing health, and answering his Letters, he just got more or less tired and bogged down.

(Cross-posted with Squatter)

[alatar]

This post may or may not make a point, obscure or otherwise; be warned.

• Anyone with access to time-travel technology please take a laptop back to the good Professor, one preferably with speak/write and word processing software installed. Ever think what we would have today if we weren't limited by the physical writing process?

• Maybe, after devoting much of his life to Middle Earth, Tolkien wanted to get away from fulfilling the insatiable fan requests and simply just write greeting card text.

• Do we truly want more, or is it that we just want that feeling back that we had when we first read LotR, when we were innocent and Middle Earth was brand new? Is this feeling nothing more than the adrenaline rush that we got when we first walked across Middle Earth with Frodo? Does that not mean that the amount of text that is or could have been provided meaningless as it would never bring back that chemical rush of the 'first time?' Surely if the appendices or the Silmarillion were rubbish, we would lose all hope and possibly move on, but they weren't and so we got strung along a bit longer than usual, letting the addiction/desire gain a better foothold on our hearts. I think that, even if we knew what Beren had for breakfast on the morning that he lost his hand, it still wouldn't be enough.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Do we truly want more, or is it that we just want that feeling back that we had when we first read LotR, when we were innocent and Middle Earth was brand new? Is this feeling nothing more than the adrenaline rush that we got when we first walked across Middle Earth with Frodo?

Good point, alatar, on whether we want to get back to the garden. But in a post-lapsarian world, what are we to do?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and hope it is an entish limb that will catch me should I fall.

To be entirely honest, it wasn't any of Tolkien's glimpses that got me reading more, nor was it Middle-earth itself (herself?). Nor was it the hobbits, who are so endearing, nor Gandalf, who as the Grey is one of the bestest wizards ever. There are two things that have compelled me to delve deeper into Tolkien lore, ever watchful for balrogs along the way.

First, it was Tolkien's essay On Fairie Stories that intrigued me so much I wanted to know more of his brand of fairie. That got me reading the Minor Works and rereading TH. And, then, it was this forum which prompted me to read on, read on. Had I not seen the enthusiasm for the Legendarium and the intense curiosity for The Silm which many of you Downers passionately declare, I might never have bothered to finish The Silm, which I treat as an encyclopedia rather than a story. Even now it remains for me a bit of a curiosity piece rather than a good old fashioned page-turner, which LotR and TH are, for me.

So credit must rightfully belong to you Downers and not only The Professor. It is you also who fuel the magic.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So credit must rightfully belong to you Downers and not only The Professor. It is you also who fuel the magic.

Interesting. So your desire is external. Think that the first 20 or so times that I read LotR and the Sil that this site didn't even exist; the internet wasn't even created for many of those readings. In my case then the magic was that there was more, and I think that, in retrospect, though I liked the additional information I was in reality chasing that initial thrill in the appendices and Sil. Surely I must have given up on that long ago, but by then I was hooked, in love perhaps, and so the rush wasn't as important.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Interesting. So your desire is external. Think that the first 20 or so times that I read LotR and the Sil that this site didn't even exist; the internet wasn't even created for many of those readings. In my case then the magic was that there was more, and I think that, in retrospect, though I liked the additional information I was in reality chasing that initial thrill in the appendices and Sil. Surely I must have given up on that long ago, but by then I was hooked, in love perhaps, and so the rush wasn't as important.

Oh, I first read LotR and TH looong before the Internet and looong before we knew The Silm! It's The Silm I am mainly referring to here. And in between, I was introduced to Tolkien's academic work, too.

But I don't quite get your distinction between external and internal. Maybe it is all the paint fumes I've been breathing lately, but it seems to me that whether we read internet posts or books on the printed page, that desire is created, is mediated, in the space between the object we read and our eyes.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But I don't quite get your distinction between external and internal. Maybe it is all the paint fumes I've been breathing lately, but it seems to me that whether we read internet posts or books on the printed page, that desire is created, is mediated, in the space between the object we read and our eyes.

You state that the "magic" resides not only in the Professor's works but also in our fellow Downers' writings. To me that means that some percentage of your desire is external, meaning that if not for this site, you would read/have read less etc. If I were to have access only to the books and no other materials, I would still read them at least once per year. Surely this site keeps me 'thinking Tolkien' a bit more of my day than if it weren't available, but it doesn't effect my desire that much more.

Hopefully I've painted a better picture this time.

[Boromir88]

To explain a little more about internal and external. Internal influence would be the books themselves, the words, the writings, the 'glimpses,' its the 'primary source.' External would be anything related to the books, but not the books themselves...so a forum, a guidebook, anything related to the books that gets you stimulated and created the 'magic.'

I think Bethberry, you and I are very similar than. I do read The Lord of the Rings quite a bit. But, this forum and others like it sort of keep me in it. With The Sil, or Book of the Lost Tales...etc I treat more as a reference. Not something I go cover to cover with and read. Because, I get a different feeling with them.

The Lord of the Ring's is a progressive storyline, it's got a quest motif. And it just seems awkward jumping somewhere in the middle, and just reading that part. It's one progressive story, where we follow the characters, the quest to destroy the Ring, and then all the other little subplots. And to hop right in the middle of that, just feels wierd. It seems like I have to read it from cover to cover.

Where The Silmarillion and books like that, it isn't that same feel. The Sil reminds me a lot like Graham Greene's Power and the Glory (which I did absolutely love). The Power and the Glory has this choppy pattern. The Priest (which I don't think is ever named) is trying to avoid the police because there is a mass extermination of them during this time in Mexico. But the chapters are very choppy. The Priest is in one town, he gets out of a problem, then next chapter, he's suddenly in another place, and the action picks right up again. You don't get to see what goes on 'inbetween the chapters,' the priest is from one place to the next. I feel the same way when reading the Sil...there is a rough timeline of stories, but we have a collection of stories, put together. We go from one to the next, and there's really nothing to 'connect them.' Where the Lord of the Rings is much more tightly written and progressive from one chapter to the next.

So, it doesn't feel as awkward jumping into the middle of the Sil and reading something, because of the way the chapters and the stories go. With the Silmarillion there was no 'quest' to follow our characters a long the entire way, it was a collection of stories from earlier ages and the battles of those earlier ages. We pretty much jump from one story to the next.

Maybe, after devoting much of his life to Middle Earth, Tolkien wanted to get away from fulfilling the insatiable fan requests and simply just write greeting card text.

That's what I thought as well, for a little while, and perhaps it bogged him down more, but he never really seemed to lose love for his stories. In Letter 250, with his declining health he is still jokingly referring to him being like the Ents. And also:

Of course the L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes , as a person would of a child.~Letter # 328

I think he took a great interest in watching his stories grow and develop with the 'public's opinion,' and he never lost love for his stories. (As he always seemed to staunchly defend them if someone - Zimmerman - made a screen play or wanted to make them into 'movies.') I do think that he probably got frustrated, hampered down, but all the fan mail and people asking for 'more.' Of course I don't really know that, but I certainly would and could put myself in his situation...with his ailing health, answering letters, I think Sqautter brings up some good points with his 'perfectionism' of The Sil, making it fit with LOTR, it all bogged him down and had an effect...but I don't really think he ever lost a passion of the magic for his stories and still took interest in watching his books develop after being published.

[Lalwendë]

Personally I like the way that there a lots of shifting details around the edges of Tolkien's work. For one, it denies any pain in the bum Mr Logic type to come along and lay down the law about everything, as there are just so many points to be argued over! And also because it allows the imagination room to grow and breathe within Middle-earth; possibly one of the reasons why so many readers are taken with the place - it seems all the more 'real' for remaining unexplored by us.

Yes, I'd love to know the final word on exactly what Saruman was up to with his experiments with Light, but I'm also pleased that we don't know, as I'm able to think about it, to consider, and to speculate.

Why did Tolkien not write more than he did? Frankly I'm amazed that he managed to write what we have got! He must have had an incredible mind to keep all that complex, interweaving information in his head (no PCs with databases!), and he was a perfectionist, paying a great deal of attention to detail, rather than giving us silly made-up-names and thinly painted places.

Its also worth remembering that Tolkien was not a full time writer holed up his house, devoting all his time to his novels, he was also an academic, part of a cut-throat world of intellectual one-upmanship and will have had to devote much of his time to maintaining the position he held. Not only that but he had the practicalities of tutoring and raising a family, running a house, meeting friends. During the 60s there was the additional burden of all those letters to read and write. I seem to remember reading something about how he could not ignore a letter or a question and aimed to answer as many as possible. So maybe the fans, in a way, have only themselves to blame if they wanted more!

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

He just stops and leaves The Silmarillion to rest.

I wouldn't agree; he wrote about the Elder Days all the way till 1970, as noted in Late Writings, HoME XII, for example.

So, are you somebody who likes the 'glimpses' we get in LOTR? Is that what makes the story 'magical.' Or are you driven to wanting 'more, more, more' , because of these 'glimpses?' And after reading the Silmarillion, 'going to the untold places, people...etc' did it destroy that magic (for you) that is established in The Lord of the Rings?

Tolkien stated in the On Fairy-stories essay that magic [_in_ the stories] should not be explained away and I guess it can be inferred that too much explanation would also negatively affect the magic _of_ the stories. That being said, I am not satisfied with glimpses

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

You state that the "magic" resides not only in the Professor's works but also in our fellow Downers' writings. To me that means that some percentage of your desire is external, meaning that if not for this site, you would read/have read less etc. If I were to have access only to the books and no other materials, I would still read them at least once per year. Surely this site keeps me 'thinking Tolkien' a bit more of my day than if it weren't available, but it doesn't effect my desire that much more.

Hopefully I've painted a better picture this time.

Ah, I see-- Primary versus Secondary Bibliography! Is our reading canonical or not?

Actually, I'm not sure I would accept that statement I would have read less. After all, for quite some time, all readers had were just TH and LotR. I half suspect that it is the rise of all the secondary material that stimulates much rereading. I mean, once one knows The Silm, does one go back to LotR to catch all the references to the Legendarium? Does Aragorn the character make more sense after reading The Silm?

Then again, I suppose it all depends on what one does when one reads, how one reads Tolkien. It's like there are different ways of reading The Bible. I don't mean different interpretations, but differing attitudes towards the activity.

Do Tolkien's books turn one inward, so that one ritually rereads Tolkien, as a kind of mantra? (I could certainly see Entish easily substituting for a focus word enabling concentration. Hooommm. Hoooommmm.) Or do his books turn one to reading other books? His OFS, for example, makes a fascinating template against which to consider other writers of fantasy and earlier fantasy/mythology. His hints of other mythologies lead out to a variety of myths, legends and folklore while his rhythms turn towards other writers-- W.H. Auden, for instance -- who sought to recover the old forms of Old English for modern times. To say nothing of the utterly fascinating way that Tolkien has influenced SF writers who have come after him.

Perhaps it all depends on what one means by "more" -- more of the same or more sub-creation.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Ah, I see-- Primary versus Secondary Bibliography! Is our reading canonical or not?

Don't even go there...I have no clue what that all even means and I think that that's due to my mind retreating from some horror in the past .

Actually, I'm not sure I would accept that statement I would have read less.

Um, I'm not exactly how else one would read the following words:

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

And, then, it was this forum which prompted me to read on, read on. Had I not seen the enthusiasm for the Legendarium and the intense curiosity for The Silm which many of you Downers passionately declare, I might never have bothered to finish The Silm, which I treat as an encyclopedia rather than a story.

Then again, as I'm not able to recreate you nor your history sans the Downs, I'll never to be able to know for sure, so my observation is purely conjecture. Still, I would say that there's a high probability that in some parallel universe where the Downs doesn't exist that there's one Bêthberry that never finished the Sil.

After all, for quite some time, all readers had were just TH and LotR. I half suspect that it is the rise of all the secondary material that stimulates much rereading.

Weren't the LotR and TH the books that got the craze started for more? I reread these two, and the Sil not as much - as you say, it's more of a reference book that, if I could ever find it, would be pulled out when conversing in a thread with davem. Anyway, the rereading, the magic that I'm trying to recapture, is from the LotR text. The other material just adds volume to the siren's song.

Does Aragorn the character make more sense after reading The Silm?

No. That took the Peter Jackson's movies ("If it weren't for Brego the Horse...").

Do Tolkien's books turn one inward, so that one ritually rereads Tolkien, as a kind of mantra?

Don't think that I reread LotR as a mantra. It's more like a vacation from Real Earth.

Or do his books turn one to reading other books? His OFS, for example, makes a fascinating template against which to consider other writers of fantasy and earlier fantasy/mythology. His hints of other mythologies lead out to a variety of myths, legends and folklore while his rhythms turn towards other writers-- W.H. Auden, for instance -- who sought to recover the old forms of Old English for modern times. To say nothing of the utterly fascinating way that Tolkien has influenced SF writers who have come after him.

I've looked elsewhere for the same fix, and have yet to find it (Frank Herbert is a whole other drug). Jordan's WoT books, I was told, were comparable, but I never got the initial rush and so have never had the urge to pick one of those books up ever again (despite the plethora of external material).

[HerenIstarion]

Have to be (not able not to be?) a little clumsy here:

A. Original thrill - oh yeah, I would have dearly liked to feel it once again. I remember how it was in first reading, and I remember what if felt like to see scraps of other writings published/circulated from hand to hand in amateur translations.

B. Yet, I would not like to have volumes upon volumes explaining everything (literally) from botanies to astronomy (per aspera ad astra, heh). On the other hand, I do not normally read everything there is written about this, primary world, so that seems natural - I'm interested in certain things and not at all in others. (Per instance, I would dearly love to read more about Gandalf, but I would not care to look at hobbit genealogies. So, to be more precise, I would like to have said volumes, but I would not read them all, or, maybe I'll be tempted to, but than it will be selective reading - when (and if I manage to) I'm through with Gandalf, than bring in the genealogies, if you follow my meaning.

C. As for Bb's point, it seems quite valid one to me, as I do not see external/internal distinction you make, guys - it's all in the head, now ain't it? Quite often certain members here have given me insights on things I thought of in different manner/haven't thought at all before and thus made me reread some passages or entire volumes again. Good half (or good nine tenths more likely) of my posting here is reaction to what my co-Downers have to say on Tolkien's Middle-Earth (or even, on their own version of Middle-Earth) than to what Tolkien himself had to say about it. Interaction with Tolkien is more direct in a way - I rather feel/appreciate/listen/go along/enjoy than think per se about ME when I settle down to read for reading's sake. Than I do not need discussion board. It is good afterwards, when evaluation/understanding etc is what i'm after. It is my version of ME I share here, and that now is in permanent state of altering under your (Downers) influence. Or to try and clarify it a little bit more - reading a book and talking about it we truly do different things, but both are part of the fun for sure? I was very lonely when nobody round me have heard about Tolkien, let alone reading, let alone being crazed with him. I don't suppose I would have given ME up even if I were lone inhabitant of an island, but I feel so much more alive for being able to talk about him now, that it is part of the whole thing for me now.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by alatar

Quote:
Actually, I'm not sure I would accept that statement I would have read less.


Um, I'm not exactly how else one would read the following words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
And, then, it was this forum which prompted me to read on, read on. Had I not seen the enthusiasm for the Legendarium and the intense curiosity for The Silm which many of you Downers passionately declare, I might never have bothered to finish The Silm, which I treat as an encyclopedia rather than a story.

Then again, as I'm not able to recreate you nor your history sans the Downs, I'll never to be able to know for sure, so my observation is purely conjecture. Still, I would say that there's a high probability that in some parallel universe where the Downs doesn't exist that there's one Bêthberry that never finished the Sil.

Hmm. I wouldn't say that not 'finishing' The Silm as a straightforward narrative would necessarily consitute less, rather just an alternate tangent. After all, I would still be reading and rereading the other works. Besides, if the Downs doesn't exist in a parallel universe, then neither would Bethberry, as she came forth solely for Tolkien discussion boards.

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

C. As for Bb's point, it seems quite valid one to me, as I do not see external/internal distinction you make, guys - it's all in the head, now ain't it? Quite often certain members here have given me insights on things I thought of in different manner/haven't thought at all before and thus made me reread some passages or entire volumes again. Good half (or good nine tenths more likely) of my posting here is reaction to what my co-Downers have to say on Tolkien's Middle-Earth (or even, on their own version of Middle-Earth) than to what Tolkien himself had to say about it. Interaction with Tolkien is more direct in a way - I rather feel/appreciate/listen/go along/enjoy than think per se about ME when I settle down to read for reading's sake. Than I do not need discussion board. It is good afterwards, when evaluation/understanding etc is what i'm after. It is my version of ME I share here, and that now is in permanent state of altering under your (Downers) influence. Or to try and clarify it a little bit more - reading a book and talking about it we truly do different things, but both are part of the fun for sure? I was very lonely when nobody round me have heard about Tolkien, let alone reading, let alone being crazed with him. I don't suppose I would have given ME up even if I were lone inhabitant of an island, but I feel so much more alive for being able to talk about him now, that it is part of the whole thing for me now.

Exactly my point, HI! It is the Community that sub-creates the furtherance, just like the Inklings's meetings at the Bird and Baby led them on to their explorations.

[Boromir88]

I wouldn't agree; he wrote about the Elder Days all the way till 1970, as noted in Late Writings, HoME XII, for example.

I admit putting to 'rest' was a bad way of saying it. I meant that he had wanted to publish The Silmarillion along with the Lord of the Rings, but after his publishers only took LOTR saying "The Sil wasn't in a presentable publishing format...". He tried to revise it and get it published, up until the 1960's where it seemed he just stopped trying to get it published.

[Rune Son of Bjarne]

I just started reading The Book of Lost Tales and when I read the foreword I was stumpled upon that discution about "depth" and "glimpses" and whether or not the Silmarillion should have been published or not. I wanted to start a thread about it, but for the first time ever I actually managed to find an already existing thread about the subject via the search function.

It seems that I share my opinion with quite a few in here that these glimpses where brilliant and I wanted to know more about that history, but this tales should not be told in LotR as it would destroy the balance of the tale. The Silmarillion was an amazing discovery for me and I love it to bits as I adore that kind of writting, I guess it comes with studying history.

Even though I like Silmarillion as much as LotR I would probably not have loved its tales as much had I not fallen in love with LotR first.

[lindil]

Re: Boromir88's internal/external thing. I must agree with BB and H.I.

The line between JRRT's co-creation and our co-experience is better when it is dissolved or very, very thin.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say learning something like Tai-Chi will allow one to enter the realm where co-creation *is* the very air one breaths - so that all those well read texts gain a completely new lease on life. Any skill where one carefully and consciously learns to experience life with the body energised, the heart open and the mind clear all at once, will open this door, JRRT's magic [literally] is that he could by and large do it for us, 'without going out of our chair'. But such a gift over time must be earned or it becomes a mere shadow of itself.

With any Lit., but the Legendarium in particular, it is all about WHO is doing the reading, how deeply in one's true self are you whilst reading? Of course the tales draw one in farther than one's everyday state - thus the initial attraction, but to use that wisely, too let it guide our lives to a certain degree - to pull us higher than we might think to climb ourselves - therein lies the value of the stories [imo].

As for the layers of M-E glimpsed one behind the other in TH, LOtR, Silm, UT etc. sooner or later one will reach the end of the story, and we must choose one of 3 things:

*go back to page one of TH
*go back to life and see how we can approach it in a more real/magical/virtuous, etc fashion
*log into the Downs




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j.g. bennett :: deeper man ~~~~~~~~~~~~
possibly the best guide to what I was trying to talk about.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by lindil

As for the layers of M-E glimpsed one behind the other in TH, LOtR, Silm, UT etc. sooner or later one will reach the end of the story, and we must choose one of 3 things:

*go back to page one of TH
*go back to life and see how we can approach it in a more real/magical/virtuous, etc fashion
*log into the Downs

Ah, lindil. Thank you for saying so. I have been ravenous for, if not eucatastrophe, at least revelation. And so back-- not to Tolkien, but through or behind him, to St John and St Paul; back to the Ainulindale, forward to the Final Music-- the soul of Valinor is Agape, even to the elves strewing jewels on the sands, the shining of Valinor is Shekinah-- ...Lord, Enlighten me.

But even then I still log onto the Downs, or listen-- one more time-- to "Use Well the Days".

[Selador]

I am reminded of the move The Prestige, wherein Michael Caine's character explains the second act of every magic trick:

"The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you’re looking for the secret. But you won’t find it. Because of course, you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be fooled."

I did feel like that after reading Lord of the Rings. That is, I didn't feel any need to know any more, and I did sense that all the glimpses of the greater story were better left as such and only made the story itself more fascinating. What I did crave, however, was more of JRRT's storytelling. I suppose that is why I was never overly thrilled with the Silm. I do like it, and it is very interesting and informative, but it is all too brief and sketchy for me. I much prefer the fuller, more descriptive texts of UT (overlooking all the academic interruptions). And Eru bless Christopher for finishing and publishing CoH! Yes! A fully rendered tale from the master storyteller himself interrupted only by Alan Lee's amazing artwork. Bliss!

[Lush]

How do most of us see human history? Even the history of our own little lives?

Through glimpses - remembered, or imagined.

[mark12_30]

And sometimes, the glimpses of our real world that somehow cry "Eriador!" to us, make the glimpses of the legendarium that much more poignant.

Once, driving with my mom when I was a young teen, I caught sight of a hillside that cried out "Shire!" to me. I said "Ooooh!" out loud. And then cound't explain why to my mom.