![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#1 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
The Nazis & a Mytholgy for England
First of all, I hope Aiwendil will forgive me for posting a PM I sent to him. Its really part of a 'debate' we've been having regarding Tolkien's changed attitude to the Legendarium during & after WW2. This is the post:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
The Perilous Poet
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Heart of the matter
Posts: 1,062
![]() |
![]()
One brief comment I would make in response to this would be that although the horrors of WWII cannot be overstated, Tolkien was not naive to the truth of conflict prior to 1939. Having lived through the Great War of 1914-1918, and been aware of numerous contemporary smaller but equally bloody conflicts elsewhere in the world, he was only too aware of the truth of these matters.
Your point on the adoption of elements of Northern mythology by the propagandists of the Third Reich is well-drawn, and his bitter resentment of this is evident in the quote you provide and elsewhere. Quote:
These explanations run from the mundanely deliberate - very naturally, Tolkien would want the scenes of the Shire and Old Forest to be markedly distinct from those epic scenes in Gondor and Mordor in RotK - to the sub-conscious - Tolkien had always intended to weave such a powerful tale, you can see it screaming to be released from all his earlier writings.
__________________
And all the rest is literature |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Good idea, putting this in a thread.
As I was going to say in an aborted PM response, I certainly agree that after LotR there was a change away from a mythological perspective toward a mixed theological and scientific one. Where I think that I disagree with you is in these points: 1. I don't think that the change in attitude was simply a result of his being scared away from mythology by the war; 2. I don't think that the change was complete; 3. I don't think that the change was detrimental to the quality of his work. Certainly he saw in World War II the horrors that were associated with the misuse of the "Northern spirit". But surely he had seen the misuse of that spirit before. Wagner misused it long before. And Tolkien had faced German nationalism (albeit of a different sort) in a far more personal way in World War I. So World War II, I think, intensified certain sentiments rather than creating them. I also would not analyze the change in terms of pre-LotR optimism and post-LotR pessimism. Loss and renunciation were key themes, even perhaps the main themes, of the Legendarium right from the beginning. Remember when the Book of Lost Tales was begun. If the post-LotR writings can be seen as responding to or dealing with the second World War, certainly the Book of Lost Tales deals in a much more personal and intense way with the first. As I stressed earlier, the planned ending for the Book of Lost Tales is much more tragic than the end of the Silmarillion. Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
![]() |
Thanks, Davem. This is a fascinating argument. I have never heard anyone set forward this idea in quite this way, although many early critics contended that LotR was an "allegory" of WWII, a contention that the author denied.
Yet my own perception is different than your own. It's certainly true that the earlier drafts in HoMe were more light hearted, especially in their use of language and depiction of the hobbits, and that this tone grew progressively darker. Most would attribute this to the fact that Tolkien was gradually shifting away from the mode of writing and thought that had shaped the Hobbit. Even so, there could have been a more profound underlying element at work to produce such a shift. And, as Rimbaud has said, it's clear Tolkien resented how the Nazis had abused Northern myth. But I read this whole thing differently than you do. If we compare what had been written of the Legendarium prior to LotR with the tone of the Rings itself, I think you come away with a different picture. My impression is that those portions of the Legendarium constructed from the early 1900s down to the start of World War II were often pessimistic in the extreme. With only one or two notable exceptions, it seems to be an unmitigated tale of sorrow and disaster: Men, Elves, and even the Valar making horrible mistakes. The depth of tragedy that permeates these tales is profound and, I always saw it as indicative of the kind of "doom without hope" that permeates most of the early Northern legends. When I read the current Silm up to the Third Age, which admittedly contains material pre and post World War II, I sometimes come away with the feeling of that the history of Middle-earth is an unmitagated tragedy. The tone is extremely grim. Lord of the Rings itself seems almost like a miracle of hope when compared with these earlier tales. After all those great heroes of the past have gotten it "wrong", you are given the unlikely and almost unbelievable scenario of hobbits, supported by loyal friends from all the Free Peoples, who somehow--with help from providence-- manage to get things right. In view of the failings of most of the earlier heroes, their success, although temporary, is a welcome respite. Many have described the tone of the final chapters as "bittersweet", and I would agree. Great sadness surely, but also profound joy. Some of the later writings -- the debate between Finrod and Andreth, for example -- are even more explicitly hopeful. As to what caused this change in writing and tone, I don't think we will ever know for sure. Each of us will probably have a different view. I see two things at work, probably related. As Tolkien grew older, he probably began to muse long and hard on what mortality means. Speaking as an Elder (age-wise, I mean) on this board, I know that such questions often begin to intrude more seriously. And in those musings, Tolkien seems to have placed greater emphasis on his religious beliefs and had less faith in the physical world about him. WWII would certainly have been another part of this process of disillusionment. It must have seemed like a replay of the kind of horror he'd known in the Great War. And yes, the misuse of the "Nordic spirit" must have made him very uncomfortable. There are indications in the minor writings that he indeed began to question the accessibility of faerie. Perhaps this betrayal by the Nazis, placed alongside the fact that mortality seemed to be looming closer, led him to re-emphasize his own beliefs. This is why I believe that Christian themes and symbols unwittingly crept into the Rings, a reflection of what was going on inside of him. And this is why the tone and ending of LotR is different than many of the early tales. The culmination of this would be the Athrabeth. Yes, I think the Nazi's betrayal, the War and the fact that he had two sons serving underlined Tolkien's sense of urgency and frustration as he rewrote those earlier chapters and the book took on more serious tones. Perhaps he even began to question his own access to the Faeire realm. Yet, the ending of LotR is far more hopeful than most of the tales that made up the Legendarium. It is this that sticks in my mind. Edit: I have cross posted with Aiwendil as it took me forever to write this thing. I think that he and I are saying some similar things but coming at it from a different vantage point. Like Aiwendil, I would totally agree that the changes we see in Tolkien's writings were overall not bad: they were just different. I have long disliked Christopher's tone and handling when he deals with some of these differences with references in HoMe.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 08-13-2004 at 10:12 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Short note: I think what did change was what Tolkien wanted to do - without repeating all the quotes from Tolkien & the Great War which I gave in the Canonicity thread, its clear that Tolkien, under the influence of what Lonrot had achieved for Finland with the Kalevala, wanted to inspire some kind of 'moral regeneration' in England through providing it with a mythology of its own.
What the example of Germany confronted him with was the danger of that -providing England with its own mythology wouldn't ncessarily produce the effect it had in Finland - the consequences could be more akin to Nazi Germany - & that wasn't a far fetched fantasy. Tolkien had been confronted with the 'fact' of how devastating a mythology could be. In a way he had had the power of myth confirmed to him by the war. I think he had decided he didn't want to take the risk, so he actually stopped writing a 'mythology' - at least in the sense that he had understood the term, & had decided to write something else entirely. What he 'renounced' was writing a mythology for England, with all that implied.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-13-2004 at 10:29 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
![]() |
Davem,
Quote:
I can agree with you that the Nazi example must have underlined to Tolkien the dangers of using any mythology to define what a country is: that he could not be assured of producing the same effect that the Kalevala did in Finland. I have never seen anything written by the author concerning the large number of fascist sympathizers in pre-war Britain, but he certainly would also have been aware of their presence. However, I don't think this problem of abuse of mythology and its symbols was totally unknown to him prior to Hitler. The simple fact is that Hitler was not the only one to misuse myths and symbols in the name of nationalism. He was the last in a long line. A look at modern European and U.S. history is replete with such examples, mostly from the right but even from the left. There were certainly examples of this in World War I propaganda. While some instances of modern abuse are perhaps more subtle, Tolkien was certainly not unaware of this potential downside of myth even before encountering Hitler's stark example. The whole process of "abandoning" or at least downplaying the writing of a mythology was, to me, a more subtle and gradual thing that actually began soon after he started setting the stories down on paper. We can see it in his struggle with the whole issue of narrators, his abandonment of the idea of equating England with Tol Eressea, the way he used actual English place names in the writing but later abandoned them. The list could go on and on. Did he ever abandon this goal completely, or did it instead succumb under the gradual force of a different ideal: that of general world-building? This would be a more difficult question to answer. Davem - I think you are right in stressing that the Nazi example could have had a greater effect on Tolkien and his writing than we've admitted before. Now that Garth has documented the impact of World War I (which I still see as more seminal), perhaps it's time for someone to examine this question with more seriousness. I do not know if you could corrolate changes in the actual manuscripts with things in the society or his wider response and feelings about the War. And, as you say, those unpublished materials may throw light on his attitudes and feelings. But I still see these changes precipitated by the War as one factor among many, and perhaps not the dominating one in explaining the obvious shifts in emphasis that occurred in his writing towards the end of his life. Incidentally, I'd love to know how much unpublished material exists that the family has not released to the public archives. Or are there troves of letters in Marquette or Wheaton that no one has drawn attention to? That wasn't the impression I had. Also, there's another question related to this that deserves to be raised. If Tolkien seemed to move away from his mythological base in later years, you could make the same argument in regard to faerie itself. And I would be hard pressed to explain that solely on the basis of the WWII and Hitler. I am struck, for example, that by the mid-sixties Tolkien had moved far in the direction of interpreting the LotR from a Christian perspective, things that he said initially crept into his writing without conscious realization (see Kilby's book).
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 08-13-2004 at 06:38 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
My feeling, based on the material Garth has published in Tolkien & the Great War, is that Tolkien's purpose in trying to create a Mythology for England was, as I said, 'moral regeneration'. England had lost its identity, its moral values; society was on a very slippery downward slope. His inspiration was Lonrot - the Kalevala had reawakened the Finns; their country, which had been a 'shuttlecock' between the superpowers Sweden & Russia for centuries, had found a new identity through that work & the anniversary of its publication is still a national holiday. I think Tolkien took this as an example of what mythology could do for a nation. He decided that a mythology for England, which fused Christianity with that 'noble northern spirit' which he so loved, could do that job for his own country.
The point is that, far from being simply the 'subcreation of a secondary world in the mind', which bore no relation to the primary world, when he began his intention was that it would have a very powerful & direct impact on the primary world - of course he tries different ways to link it to the primary, but the intent is there all through the twenties & into the thirties. Flieger has shown in a recent essay that one of the ways he tries to link it to the English is by having English characters linked 'psychically' to the past (as in Lost Road & Notion Club Papers) - the past of Middle earth would be seen to be alive in the English people of today. But then something changes. He no longer wishes his mythology to impact in any way on the primary world. He wants it to be taken as a story of a secondary world only, & he will deny as vociferously as he can any suggestion of a relationship with the primary. I accept that mythology had been misused in the past, & that Tolkien would have been perfectly aware of that, but it had never been so misused as it had by the Nazis. Tolkien blames the Nazis specifically for making the noble northern spirit 'forever accursed' - meaning what? - that although in the past similar misuse of mythological symbols had occurred, something qualitatively different had occured this time? I suspect that's it. We can't underestimate the effect on a man like Tolkien, with his deep love of northerness, of what the Nazis had done. That 'noble northern spirit' had been 'Ruined, perverted, misapplied, & made forever accursed'. Tolkien had seen the extremes of what national mythologies could lead to - liberation & regeneration for Finland, moral depravity & the Holocaust for Germany. I think he became frightened not that he would fail in his dream of creating a mythology for England, but that he would succeed, & that dream would translate from the secondary world into the primary world as a nightmare. As to what's unpublished - well, we don't have his diaries, & the only letters Christopher Tolkien has allowed to be published are the ones that relate directly to Middle earth. Lets speculate on a 'nightmare scenario' some letters from the early thirties, where, before the horrors of Nazism have appeared, or at least been made known - Tolkien sees Germany arising from the depression, inspired by the nordic myths & fired by the noble northern spirit, & makes some positive comments. Of course, as soon as the truth about Nazism comes out he rejects it all immediately, but if such letters, or diary passages, existed, one could understand CRT not wanting them to appear. I certainly wouldn't deny the impact of WW1 on Tolkien, but he comes out of that war with a desire to give his country its own mythology, in order to inspire its moral regeneration & make it a great nation once again (as, ironically, did Hitler). It was WW2 which confronted him with the reality of how terrible the downside of national mythologies could be. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Gibbering Gibbet
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Beyond cloud nine
Posts: 1,844
![]() |
An interesting thread topic indeed! I do not have the requisite knowledge of works such as the HoME (which I have yet to read. . .*chagrin*) but I could not help myself from responding to this discussion, even if at something of a tangent.
Obviously, no work of art or artist is so easily understood in terms of straightforward cause and effect: I don’t think there’s any way to know or discover a line or point at which LotR can be divided into pre- and post-war. That having been said, there are some very tantalising notions being bandied about here. And there’s the old adage that “there can be no poetry after Auschwitz” to remember. In one of history’s great ironies, post-war German and Jewish artists both faced the same problem: how can one maintain faith in art (an essentially humanist endeavour) in the face of the mechanised inhumanity of the Holocaust? The profound impact of the War on all who went through it cannot be overstated. Still, I agree with those who point to WW1 as the more definitive crisis in Tolkien’s own life. I fully understand and take to heart the terrible depredations done by Nazism to the northern myths cherished by Tolkien, but I think it is wrong to see this as anything other than part of a long road he’d been on (with most of his generation) for several decades. The War to End Wars, the dawning recognition among Englishmen of the essentially totalitarian and despotic nature of their Empire, the breakdown of communal faith, class revolution and consciousness, mechanisation, industrialisation, urbanisation – all of these stresses had been operative for a long time, and resulted in what we now rather inaccurately call the Modernist Crisis. This crisis resulted in, broadly speaking, two kinds of artistic reaction. There were the High Modernists like Joyce, Eliot and Woolf who sought to explore or reflect the meaningless they felt in their lives and world in an art that was radically experimental. Where meaning failed, Art and Aesthetics would prevail. For writers like Tolkien, Waugh and Greene, however, who steadfastly (and at times shrilly) maintained their faith against the stresses of their society, art was not something to substitute for meaning, but a vehicle whereby they could embody their faith and render it concrete for others. I’ve always thought that in both cases the results were the same – as soon as one places all of one’s faith in art, then the art can never stop or cease, because that would be the death of faith. In this respect, I’ve always thought it fair to compare Tolkien’s writing to James Joyce’s. Each of them had a brilliant and early success in which they did something that no-one had done before: for Joyce it was Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, for Tolkien The Hobbit. They then each went on to write a more elaborate and mature ‘sequel’ that came to surpass the original achievement and become, in effect, created worlds all of their own – the Dublin of Ulysses is no less fully realised a sub-creation than the Middle-Earth of LotR. But having written their great works, neither one of them could cease. Each had invested so much of themselves and of their faith into their art, that for each of them, their art had become their new faith. So Joyce took his radical experimentation further and further, trying to give his faith the greatest expression possible, and the result is the almost unreadable Finnegan’s Wake. Tolkien did the same, and the result was the vast repository of his later writings only dimly captured in Christopher Tolkien’s Silmarillion. Both Joyce and Tolkien tried to ‘fix’ a broken world and faith through their arts – but the only way they could do this was to create an art so vast that one could fit the world into it. For Joyce, he tried to cram every detail of Dublin into his works, to the point where the narratives simply fall apart beneath the weight. For Tolkien, he tried to so fully realise his secondary world that it became an end to itself in neglect of the primary world. For both of them, their art become and end to itself, which is both their great strength and weakness as writers.
__________________
Scribbling scrabbling. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
![]() |
Davem ,
Another long reply! Sorry.... I agree with much of what you say. Tolkien told us he had intended to create a "mythology for England" and he certainly drew on the example of Elias Lönnrat and Finland. Garth provided the 'missing piece' in the puzzle by showing us how Tolkien "inherited" the TCBS mantle of using writing to prompt a "moral regeneration". About two years ago (perhaps before you came?), we had a wide-ranging but disjointed discussion of the English elements reflected in Tolkien's Middle-earth (Victorian, medieval and otherwise) and the issue of whether the author was attempting to create a "mythology for England". The discussion was spread out over several threads and by pm, and addressed a range of topics: class relations, the characterization of Bilbo, the nature of the Shire and its relation to faerie, as well as how the "myth of England" underlay the Legendarium via place names, narrators, etc. I defended the idea that the desire to create such a myth for England was central to Tolkien right from the beginning and took several hard knocks from others who regarded the motivation as more linguistic, or who thought I was pressing too hard. Before I read Shippey and Garth, even before the Letters and Silm were published, I could sense some of this as I read Hobbit and LotR (although I had no idea about moral regeneration or TCBS.). Strangely enough, this undertone sent me chasing back into medieval history and lit, and I have since learned that I was not the only one to do this. In that sense, I think Shippey is absolutely right about Tolkien: Quote:
You are absolutely right to ask what impact the Nazi abuse of the Nordic myths had on his own thinking and writing, especially in relation to what Garth has shown. I haven't heard this issue seriously discussed before and it is worth a lot of thought. But I don't think we have enough evidence to come up with an answer. Like Aiwendil, I am cautious. I don't think Tolkien ever totally gave up the "dream" of myth creation, even if the Nazi experience might have made him more cautious about the possible end results. To me, myth still lies at the heart of the Silm. I would take the author's flip assertion in the Milton Waldman letter of 1951-- the point where he mocks his myth creation with the exclamation "Absurd"-- as more indicative of the kind of humility that marked the man rather than an actual repudiation of myth creation itself. I also think you have to be very careful about the chronology of all this in building any case. For example, you cite Shippey's study (don't think I saw this -- where is it?) in which he shows how English characters are psychically linked to the past vis a vis the Lost Road and The Notion Club papers as an instance of Tolkien trying to link things to an actual past. The Lost Road does come from the pre-Nazi era, but The Notion Club papers weren't done till 1945, which is after the Nazi regime had been exposed. Why would he do this if the Nazi example had caused him to shy away from myth building as too "dangerous" and capable of abuse. You also mention the first and second forewards of LotR (the contrast) as evidence of a shift, but both of these came some time after the war itself. Quote:
That draft letter to Carole Batten-Phelps from 1971 has always struck me--the one where the prominent visitor asked: "Of course you don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?" Then Tolkien responded, "No, I don't suppose so any longer." This can be interpreted so many ways. It can be tied in with the theological tones that underlie the later Legendarium, but it can also be seen as a validation of the point that Shippey raised: that an imaginative realm of myth existed, which Tolkien felt he was tapping into. Somehow, I don't think that myth disappeared, even if it changed in form and content. The Nazi experience undoubtedly disheartened him, and I think you are right in stating that it should be looked at more seriously. Yet it was not, to my mind, at least not without more evidence, the dominant factor that you've suggested. Thanks for this thread. It has gotten me thinking. ************************* Fordim - Sorry! I am so long-winded that we cross posted. I think your last paragraph has much to say.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. Last edited by Child of the 7th Age; 08-14-2004 at 09:35 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | ||||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I have to say that this idea of the effect of WW2 on Tolkien was inspired, as I mentioned in the Barrow Downs chapter which first sparked off my PM debate with Aiwendil, is an essay in Tolkien the Medievalist by Christine Chism: Middle earth, the Middle Ages, & the Aryan Nation: Myth & History in WWII. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Again Quote:
I think what's needed is a sequel to Tolkien & the Great War: Tolkien & the Second World War. John Garth is suppposed to be attending Oxonmoot again this year (he was there last year reading excerpts from his book) - I may suggest it to him if I get a chance. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,455
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
[QUOTE=Child of the 7th Age]Thanks, Davem.
Perhaps this betrayal by the Nazis, placed alongside the fact that mortality seemed to be looming closer, led him to re-emphasize his own beliefs. This is why I believe that Christian themes and symbols unwittingly crept into the Rings, I feel like a hobbit at the council of the wise but I am sure I read a quote from Tolkien that the rings was Christian and specifically Catholic by intention? Also I wonder how much more really there is of use rather than curiousity to emerge from letters and diaries ..... love him or loathe him CRT IS a scholar and I doubt that he would suppress much that was relevant to the opus, however loyal and loving a son he also is ..... but then although they are fascinating, I can't help think there is something deeply unpleasant about reading letters intended for one recipient and even more a diary intended for no-one (not everyone does write them with an eye to posterity ) ... I felt like a voyeur reading even my mother's after she died...
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
Tolkien said that Lord of the Rings was "a fundamentally Catholic work". I think that Tolkien didn't intend his writing to reflect the moral strictures/theology of the catholic church, more the spiritual element of his Catholic faith - as seen in the good/evil struggle (yet with shades of grey), or the redemption of characters such as Boromir. And what is interesting is that Catholicism is quite different to many other Christian churches in that it has an elaborate 'mythology' system (saints), and the tenets of Celtic Catholicism were often built upon older non-Christian beliefs.
This opens up another can of worms...but no offence intended! I myself get the feeling that as Tolkien got older more sadness did creep into his work, and more emphasis on his own beliefs was evident - perhaps this is as a result of him getting older - I do find that as age creeps up on you either grow more reliant upon your faith or you lose it altogether (my own parents are at these two polar ends of the scale). The other day I read, for the first time, Tolkien's draft of a story set in the fourth age (it can be found in Peoples of Middle Earth), and what struck me was how he was struggling with the implications of a world now at peace. It was as though he believed there never could be peace, and I was affected by how he was obviously struggling with this concept, and was unable to produce a story he felt was worthwhile. In the notes it mentions how Tolkien thought that in the fourth age there might be those who would forget the wars their forefathers had fought and would look to stir up conflict for the sake of it. I did get the feeling that this was Tolkien's own regretful view of human existence, as he got older and saw constant conflict around the world, despite the message of the two world wars he had seen. I hadn't before given thought to how Tolkien might view the Nazi mis-appropriation of Nordic myths, but I do think, from tying what I have read on here with my recent reading of the abandoned 4th age tale, that Tolkien was deeply upset by this misuse of stories he held so dear. There are many areas of culture which the Nazis 'soiled', and which racists still soil to this day. The appropriation of the English flag by jingoists and racists is just one example. So yes, I think it is probable that Tolkien did lose faith in his original intention somewhat. This is an interesting topic, but it's hard to express yourself when discussing religion and politics via this medium! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
I suppose we can only speculate on whether Tolkien would have ended up in the place he did - the philosophy of 'subcreation', as the creation of a secondary world existing solely in the mind, which, if it has any relevance to the primary world, is due to the way an individual reader 'applies' what they read - even if Nazism had not raised its ugly head. All we can say, after reading the words of the TCBS in Garth's 'Tolkien & the Great War', is that he began wanting to produce a mythology which would lead to a moral regeneration of his nation, & he ended his life, ostensibly, wanting nothing of the sort. In the 40 years or so between beginning BoLT & the writing of the 2nd foreword to LotR his outlook & philosophy changed totally. Perhaps no event in the primary world affected his outlook, & the change was purely a result of his own psychological & spiritual growth & the growth of his understanding of myth.
Yet, even this would have to be explained, because clearly in his early life - into his '20's - his concern was focussed on the 'practical' value of myth to effect change on individuals, & he also seems to have believed that that change could be in some way 'directed' - giving England a mythology of its own would re-establish its moral values, its sense of identity, & its sense of purpose. So we'd still have to explain when & why he rejected, or at least moved away from, that belief. Quote:
Quote:
And this thread? Should we be even discussing this subject? Well, Tolkien published the Fairy Stories essay, which is a discussion on the nature & value of myth, legend & fairystory, which sets out his own 'philosophical' stance on the subject. Are we to simply accept what he says there, without asking what he means, & how he came to his position on the subject? If his stories become in a sense public property when they're published, then don't his views & beliefs also become public property when he 'publishes' them? Perhaps if the rest of his letters & his diaries were published we would be able to end this kind of speculation.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-18-2004 at 03:02 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,455
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I WAS trying to make a distinction between stuff he had written regarding Middle Earth ( and from even my superficial reading of HoME it seems to contain every last jotting on the back of an envelope.) and private writing.
I want to know everything there is about Middle Earth certainly, and he put Middle Earth into the public domain so I think it is reasonable that these be published or accessible ...( but when reading them I think it should be remembered that they are unfinished work at best and much is in draft or part- formed ideas) HoweverI am not sure we have the right to know everything about the man. As with not knowing more of Olorin, than was revealed in Gandalf, I don't think we have the right to know to know more about him than he reveals in his work. So I think we don't have the right to have unlimited access to personal letters and diaries and the question of whether he was a great artist or a great storyteller is irrelevant. It has to stop somewhere.... would it be ok to see his medical records? Get his priest to break the seal of confession? Exhume him to see if he were genetically programmed to some mindview........ Biographical information can be a distraction from the work.... I don't think that venturing part of yourself into public life means you totally lose the right to any privacy, though given the success of the tabloid press in the UK I am clearly in a minority on this one. Finally I don't think for a moment that it would end speculation - much more likely to feed it. After all if "published" essays such as Tree and Leaf are obscure enough to need explanation then how much more explanation are letters and diaries going to need? After all the only person who usually reads a diary knows exactly what the writer means!.... and generally such documents are less considered than more formal writings. Tolkien lived in the age of the letter which may have given permanent form to trivial thought and so disproportionate significance to those who would praise and blame them....... More information doesn't always resolve matters just raises more questions...
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
To what extent is the story seperate from the storyteller? I think this is the question. If the mythology stands alone, as if it were history, then we would have no real requirement to know about the historian - though that might help us to understand if the historian was biased in any way, & whether he was being selective in the facts he gave us.
But if the mythology is the man in some sense, then an understanding of the man will give an insight into the mythology. It brings us back to the question of whether the mythology was intended to impact on the primary world in any way. If it was, then Tolkien the man was attempting, through his mythology, to affect us & our world. So, we're back to the question of what Tolkien's intention was, whether it changed, & if it did, why? Suppose he'd succeeded in his original intent, & our world had been impacted to some extent, wouldn't we have the right to know about the man who had done that? Yet, if he did change in his intentions, a more interesting question - in the context of this thread - arises - how can it be that a mythology which began with that intent of 'moral regeneration' of the English, produced as its greatest manifestation a work (LotR) which had no purpose behind it than simple entertainment? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,455
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I am aware I may have dragged this discussion somewhat off topic but one line of thinking leads to another ....... and I am aware that I may be getting out of my depth.....
don't think I can reply on the hoof withgout my brain exploding ![]()
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |