Tolkien the Metafictionist

[NogrodtheGreat]

Hey, first time poster here!

As my first post I thought I'd start a pretentious thread about Tolkien and the notion of 'meta-fiction'. If anyone follows the journal 'Tolkien Studies' you may have noticed that over the last few years they've been running quite a few papers on the question of Tolkien's meta-fictional conceits. Brljak's article (2011) for instance argued that the overall conceit of the Lord of the Rings - that it is ultimately a translation of an unknown number of 'manuscripts' (only the initial manuscripts in the tradition having been actually written by Bilbo, Frodo and Sam) - is actually its defining characteristics and should be granted far more attention.

For example Brljak argues that we cannot 'view' the story contained within the pages of LoTR without some degree of readerly skepticism, given that Tolkien alerts us to the manuscript conceit in the Prologue (indeed explains it in considerable depth). He therefore argues for a new approach to Tolkien that "problematizes", to use that hideous piece of Po-Mo jargon, the novel's claim to authenticity. Furthermore, he argues that the prevalence of novelistic technique argues against the status of the work as a straightforward translation of 'Frodo's memoir' - instead we should see it as a 'history' that has been 'novelised' by successive generations of scholars.

But if we view the work in this way, what are we to make of its claims to verisimilitude? We treat the LoTR as though it were an unproblematic window into this 'Secondary World' - but what if (just bear with me!) it is nothing of the sort, and instead is an artistic compilation from out of that secondary world, but which represents it only fictionally.

This is perhaps all very ridiculous, but Brljak and Gergely Nagy have been arguing for some years that some kind of meta-fictional approach to Tolkien's work is essential. It both creates, and possibly distorts and undercuts, that familiar sense of 'depth' that Shippey and others have commented on.

Your thoughts about this?

[avar]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

We treat the LoTR as though it were an unproblematic window into this 'Secondary World' - but what if (just bear with me!) it is nothing of the sort, and instead is an artistic compilation from out of that secondary world, but with represents it only fictionally.

Welcome Nogrod - although I am new here too and this is my first post

I think there are statements of Tolkien that should be interpreted exactly like this - that the Lord of the Rings is a translation/adaptaion of (parts of) the Red Book, a fictional work mentioned in the text. The difference in tone between the Hobbit and LotR, for instance, is due to Bilbo being responsible for the former.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Originally Posted by avar

I think there are statements of Tolkien that should be interpreted exactly like this - that the Lord of the Rings is a translation/adaptaion of (parts of) the Red Book, a fictional work mentioned in the text. The difference in tone between the Hobbit and LotR, for instance, is due to Bilbo being responsible for the former.

Yes, this is correct. The Red Book of Westmarch, is, as I understand it, that copy of the memoirs of Bilbo, Frodo and Sam that is kept by Sam's family for generations at Undertowers in the Fourth Age. - but it is only one copy of several that were made.

In order to flesh out Brljak's thesis a little more I'll quote a couple of passages. Here he makes the point that 'depth' is created by Tolkien's style, and thereby a sense of "reality" is created.

The vistas remained in background, unexplained and unattainable, but depicted against such a background, the foreground could jump off the page, immersing its reader in a fantastic world realized with an unprecedented "reality" or "depth".

He then sums up what he calls the "dominant view":

...according to...[Shippey, Flieger et al.] the metafictional element...is important, but primarily as a frame, validating and authenticating the frame by producing the quality one may refer to as verisimilitude, depth, credibility and so forth.

Brljak then goes on to challenge this view, and reading about his ideas here prompted me to create this thread, because they genuinely challenge a 'consensus' that has developed in Tolkien studies in a very fascinating way:

In the midst of great adventure the reader, especially a careless one, is prone to submit to the illusion: after all, a good tale is supposed to "take us there". But the pseudophilological metafictional interface fulfills a task which is equally, if not more important - the task of dragging us back again, back to the "here", into the poignant awareness of the distance, of the chain of mediations stretching across an immense span of time and through the hands of various intermediaries. Tolkien's mature fiction is centrally concerned precisely with this inability of the text to ever take us to that vanished, irretrievable "there", from which even living memory was but the first remove.

[avar]

I see, you wished to discuss the implications of this. (I read the first post to cursively )

I agree that strictly, one may not be bound to take stuff recorded even in the LoTR - for instance, concerning the wings of the Balrog - as necessarily "canonical". As implied by the Red Book fiction, they are supposed to be ultimately based on the observations of the participants.

Then again, are there not statements by the author who suggest that he himself regarded the stories as recorded as basically "accurate"? (If you are right about the "pomo" inclination of the mentioned scholars, they may not regard this authorial intention as relevant, though.)

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

. . .

Brljak then goes on to challenge this view, and reading about his ideas here prompted me to create this thread, because they genuinely challenge a 'consensus' that has developed in Tolkien studies in a very fascinating way

I don't think one needs to go to po-mo theory to discuss the sense of layers of story--if that is what is meant by depth and not degree of realistic detail.

Tolkien himself had a theory of the the transmission of story and it's effect in story. See his essay on Gawain and the Green Knight. His comments are tantalizingly brief but I do believe he was there first.

And welcome to the Downs, NogrodtheGreat and avar. We already have a Nogrod so my money's on folks coming up with a different short nick for you than 'Nogrod'.

[NogrodtheGreat]

hmmm, "nog"?

[NogrodtheGreat]

hmmm, "nog"?

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

hmmm, "nog"?

Even that is sometimes used, and still might produce confusion. The nickname should make it perfectly clear which person we are referring to, so it should be completely different: therefore, I'm afraid you'd have to settle with "Great".

In any case, welcome both to the 'downs...

[Mornorngûr]

Yeh welcome NogrodtheGreat and avar, I am only new here too really and I think its great.

How bout we call you Tumun? Short for Tumunzahar. Or Firebeard?

[NogrodtheGreat]

Tumun - I like that

[jallanite]

Tolkien wrote an original Forward to The Lord of the Rings which he later replaced in the second edition. This Foreward reads in part:

I have supplemented the account of the Red Book, in places, with information derived from the surviving records of Gondor, notably The Book of Kings; but in general, though I have omitted much, I have in this tale adhered more closely to the actual words and narrative of my original than in the previous selection from the Red Book, The Hobbit. That was drawn from the early chapters, composed originally by Bilbo himself. If “composed” is a just word. Bilbo was not assiduous, nor an orderly narrator, and his account is involved and discursive, and sometimes confused: faults that still appear in the Red Book, since the copiers were pious and careful, and altered very little.

This then can be used to explain much of the chronological and geographical discrepancies in The Hobbit, in that the account is supposed to derive from the writing of a single person, possibly years after the events, with no help at the time from anyone who was with him on his journey. That errors are to be supposed to have been made is understandable, some by the original author, some by later copiests, and some by the modern teller.

Whether Tolkien originally intended this as an explanation for these problems I do not know.

Tolkien once in The Lord of the Rings explains an error in his account, supposedly derived from Frodo, by this method. In a footnote to the first page of Appendix F Tolkien in the second edition:

In Lórien at this period Sindarin was spoken, though with an ‘accent’, since most of its folk were of Silvan origin. This ‘accent’ and his own limited acquaintance with Sindarin misled Frodo (as is pointed out in The Thain’s Book by a commentator of Gondor). All the Elvish words cited in Book II, chs 6, 7, 8 are in fact Sindarin, and so are most of the names and persons, But Lórien, Caras Galadhon, Amroth, Nimrodel are probably of Silvan origin, adapted to Sindarin.

This footnote is referenced by Tolkien in a further footnote in the chapter “Lothlórien” attached to the statement that:

Frodo could understand little of what was said, for the speech of the Silvan folk east of the mountains used among themselves was unlike that of the West. Legolas looked up and answered in the same language.

When Tolkien wrote this passage in his mind the Elves of Lórien did speak a Silvan tongue different from Sindarin and Tolkien later corrects this by making it an error attributed to Frodo.

There are various other apparent discrepancies in The Lord of the Rings some of which might be explained by a metafictional assumption. See http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Mista...kien%27s_works which includes most of them. Whether Tolkien intended them to be explained in this fashion I see as dubious. Cannot most of them be simple errors?

Besides these two examples I mention, the only other well-known example I know of is Tolkien’s statement in Morgoth’s Ring that:

What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions (especially personalized and centered upon actors, such as Fëanor) handed on by Men in Númenor and later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far back – from the first association of the Dúunedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand – blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.

Tolkien then partly imagines a scientific version of his cosmos in which the earth rotates around the Sun and the Sun is as old as the Earth. But in his Silmarillion story the Sun and Moon are created late in history from the Two Trees.

But this is only two versions of the history, a false but poetic mythological version and a supposedly historical version. Tolkien surely knew that genuine mythological traditions have stories that greatly contradict each other while he, except for the one case, continues to write a single version of his legendarium which changes. For example, his story of the Children of Húrin is a version of the tale that is consistent with itself, not like genuine mythological stories which have many variants.

Tolkien in general makes changes in his thinking which replace his earlier ideas across-the-board. Brljak states:

Tolkien’s mature fiction is centrally concerned precisely with this inability of the text to ever take us to that vanished, irretrievable “there”, from which even living memory was but the first remove.

That seems to me to be very wrong. The Lord of the Rings and The Children of Húrin work very much by taking us to what Brljak would like to see as a “vanished, irretrievable ‘there’”. So do individual genuine mythological works for the most part. Homer tells one version of a story, Apollonius Rhodes tells another, Ovid also tells another, and the stories often disagree when they overlap. Euripides’ plays sometimes disagree with one another when they touch the same story.

Tolkien also puts a strong emphasis on consistency. I see his works putting us there as much as any author’s works do, whether the author is writing in an existent mythology as Shakespere does in Troilus and Cressida and A Midsummer Night’s Dream or an invented mythology as Mervyn Peake does in his Gormenghast books or Lord Dunsany does in The King of Elfland’s Daughter.

That Tolkien has two versions of The Silmarillion in theory comes, it seems to me, from is growing to dislike much of his Silmarillion mythology because it breaks with science but still liking it for poetic reasons. Tolkien is attempting to have his cake and eat it too.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

Brljak's article (2011) for instance argued that the overall conceit of the Lord of the Rings - that it is ultimately a translation of an unknown number of 'manuscripts' (only the initial manuscripts in the tradition having been actually written by Bilbo, Frodo and Sam) - is actually its defining characteristics and should be granted far more attention.

Welcome to the Downs, New Nogrod. Please try not to look too much like the old Nogrod, because that would be hideous and disturbing.

I'm afraid I don't have time for a full and detailed consideration of the whole thread, so I'll just offer a couple of thoughts about the main subject if I may.

Not being familiar with the article in question, I can't really comment on its content, but Tolkien's repeated uses of the found manuscript topos in his fiction are common enough to be significant. As early as The Battle of the Eastern Field (King Edwards School Chronicle, 1911) he was passing off his own work as that of other, anonymous scribes, and in my opinion this reached its acme, not in LR but in the various 'translations' by Ælfwine from the work of Pengolod (mainly HME IV). Clearly a chain of transmission, a provenance for his stories was important to Tolkien, possibly because he felt that it lent them authenticity or context, or because he was naturally modest or reticent about his writing and felt more comfortable presenting it as the work of others. My own opinion tends toward the former. I think that Tolkien was seeking a legitimacy for his fiction akin to that of collected fairly tales. Providing a fictional chain of transmission from scribe to scribe, then Tolkien himself and finally the reader assists in the suspension of disbelief and does so in a particularly inclusive way. We are all part of the story, along with the many scribes, both named and anonymous who have copied the manuscripts of the Red Book, along with Tolkien himself as editor and translator. Tolkien is perhaps most explicit about this attitude through Sam, when he realises (The Stairs of Cirith Ungol) that he and Frodo are themselves part of the wider tale of the Silmarils, and Frodo's answer that '[the great tales] never end as tales'. It would be very much JRRT's sense of humour to include himself, the Inklings (in the original Foreword) and his readers in the same story.

I find it difficult to see how the found manuscript conceit introduces any problems into (English for 'problematizes') the reader's relationship with the text. The reader is, I hope, aware that he is holding a work of fiction (Tolkien's name as sole author on the cover is a bit of a hint) and that therefore anything within its covers about the history of the text that presents it as somebody's work other than Tolkien's is part of that fiction. If anything the real problem consists in the tone of LR, which is novelistic and simply inconsistent with the conceit that it is a translation of historical documents by different authors. In my opinion, The Hobbit suffers in the same way, since well-adjusted people do not refer to themselves in the third person in their own diaires. Perhaps that was the argument presented in Tolkien Studies.

That would appear to be all I have time for this evening. Hopefully I can find some time later in the week to do the thread a bit more justice.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

If anything the real problem consists in the tone of LR, which is novelistic and simply inconsistent with the conceit that it is a translation of historical documents by different authors. In my opinion, The Hobbit suffers in the same way, since well-adjusted people do not refer to themselves in the third person in their own diaires. Perhaps that was the argument presented in Tolkien Studies.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are claimed by Tolkien to be retellings from the Red Book of Westmarch in which presumably he retells the tales originally written in the first person in the third person. Never is it indicated that the original text supposedly used by Tolkien was written in the third person.

Though it might be supposed to be.

Julius Ceasar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War and Commentaries on the Civil Wars are both written in the third person and speak mostly about Caesar’s activities. I have never encountered any scholar who claims that this means the works are not genuinely written by Caesar. Similarly if the Red Book was supposedly also written in the third person, this would indicate nothing about how well-adjusted the authors were.

Traditionally the first five books of the Bible were written in the 3rd person by Moses and the next book was written by Joshua in the third person.

Works which are presented as though they were derived from an original document but are in fact simply fiction are very common. In the 4th century appeared “The Chronicle of the Trojan War” in Latin, supposedly written by Dictys of Crete, claiming to be a translation of an account of the Trojan War written by a contemporary. Similar was a work attributed to Daries Phrygius.

The medieval “Prose Lancelot” claimed to be an adaptation from an older work written by contemporaries of King Arthur, and later works, such as the “Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle” and the “Prose Tristan” claimed to also come from the same source. The 14th century Perceforest, an account of early kings of Britain, claims to be a translation from ancient Greek of a manuscript found in an abbey near the river Humber. The fantasy author James Branch Cabell attributes some of his works to a non-existent 15th century writer Nicholas de Caen and fantasy author Willam Goldman pretends that his book A Princess Bride is an abridgement of a work by a non-existent author S. Morgenstern.

Other works that claim, sometimes not explicitly, to be from a manuscript are Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, Jonathan Swift’s Gullivar’s Travels, William Hope Hodgson’s The House on the Borderland, Jan Potocki’s The Manuscript Found in Saragossa, and Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, a well as many others.

The problem with Brljak’s hypotheses is that nowhere does Tolkien or any of the other authors I mention put much or any emphasis on various copies of the supposed original manuscript. Tolkien does mention various versions of the Red Book, but places these versions, when he mentions them, early in the Fourth Age.

The works do not attempt to use supposed variant versions of these manuscripts, except for Ťolkien’s use of two versions of the riddle games in The Hobbit, and the two versions are apparently found in most if not all manuscript versions.

Brljak’s claim that a transfer of the original documents through an untold number of copiests is of primary importance for understanding Tolkien seems to me to be nonsense. Tolkien never mentions any details of the manuscript transmission beyond the early Fourth Age. The matter of transmission is more important in the Sherlock Holmes stories where the supposed author Doctor Watson admits to having fictionalized his accounts to protect the innocent.

[littlemanpoet]

I'd like to pick up on one piece of this thread's themes, the relationship of the reader to the text.

In the back of my mind I always knew I was reading a fictional work. But I wanted it to be true. It felt true. I was half convinced that it must, somehow, be true. I wanted to go there. I desperately wanted it to be true. The why for this desire could become a thread all its own, and may have been discussed already, maybe often.

But for me, this is one of the greatest successes of LotR and The Hobbit. I think it's achieved, in small part, by the conceit to which NogrodtheGreat refers. I think that it is achieved to a far greater extent by Tolkien's skill as a storyteller. But the greatest reason is that Tolkien was writing about things that partake of our heritage. I knew deep down in my bones that, somehow, this was real.

Thus, it took on greater significance for me than anything else I had ever read, maybe even the bible. This, at least, is the relationship of this reader to the text.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

But the greatest reason is that Tolkien was writing about things that partake of our heritage. I knew deep down in my bones that, somehow, this was real.

What is our heritage? Are you suggesting that only people descended mostly from English stock can appreciate Tolkien while Spaniards and Turks and Indonesians and Scots and Irish and others cannot? Or do you mean something else?

And in reality you cannot know anything in your bones. This story, as you should know by now, was invented by Tolkien, though parts of it are derived from motifs in older stories.

I agree with you that many, including myself, very much wanted the story to be real. Others point to other books that have similarly inspired them, notably Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged.

Thus, it took on greater significance for me than anything else I had ever read, maybe even the bible. This, at least, is the relationship of this reader to the text.

Thanks for sharing this. Many of us have encountered a book which seemed to contain all wisdom. For me it was James Branch Cabell’s Jurgen.

[littlemanpoet]

Jallanite.

I'm 100% Dutch by descent, not English. The reason I say "our" heritage is because what I'm talking about is something that is human. LotR has been translated into Russian and Japanese, and it has documented that readers in those languages have just as keen an appreciation for LotR as anyone of Germanic descent.

"Know in my bones" is metaphorical. Considering the erudition with which you usually write, you should know that. Although it is a poorer way of saying the same thing, the knowing I am talking about is not merely rational. It's not only emotional, either. There is something deep inside me that is mysterious to myself that LotR connects to in a way that gives deep meaning to me. I do not understand it. I don't think it can be understood.

The motifs you mention are a piece of it. It strikes me that Jean Sibelius' music affects me and my siblings (who have also thoroughly read Tolkien) in the same way.

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by jallanite

I agree with you that many, including myself, very much wanted the story to be real.

It puzzles me that you are talking the way as if it wasn't real...

(/end of remark, you may continue with the discussion )

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Brljak's argument would have greater force if the 'fiction of translation' were present in the writing of the story, but we know that it was a concept that arose during the writing of the appendices/Prologue (which in their first drafts were actually done before 'The Grey Havens', where the 'metafiction' is present in the form of the Red Book).*

This 'after the fact' manner is clearly shown I think in The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, where the Preface employs the Red Book fiction, but all** the poems had in fact been written many years before, almost all before the Lord of the Rings and some even before The Hobbit, and which when composed had no connection to the Legendarium at all.

This is I think unlike the very conscious metafiction of The Name of the Rose, where Eco postulates a (vanishing) manuscript tradition right from the start in order to shroud his tale in a sense of did it/didn't it?, and the questions of whether Adso is telling the truth, and whether Adso even existed or it's all a clever forgery, are constantly at play in the background

-------------------
*In this context it's worth noting that the idea of The Hobbit being taken from Bilbo's memoirs nowhere appears during TH itself; it was a post-facto element that arose in the final epilogue.

**Except "Bombadil Goes Boating," which was new

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

It puzzles me that you are talking the way as if it wasn't real...

Of course I was!.

[littlemanpoet]

It's not just metaphorical versus literal, but spiritually real and true. And by spiritual I mean more than ephemeral ghosts or angels or what have you.

Yes, it's real. Deeply real. Not literal, but real.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It's not just metaphorical versus literal, but spiritually real and true. And by spiritual I mean more than ephemeral ghosts or angels or what have you.

Yes, it's real. Deeply real. Not literal, but real.

If we didn't see Tolkien's works in particular as "real", would they be worthy of the time and effort spent on discussion, here and elsewhere? Would they have caused such polarization among readers regarding adaptations, if the individual's sense of the books' "reality" was not so deep?

These books, to engender such devotion, must strike some chord beyond the usual fantasy aspect, touching one's convictions and observations of the world. We're not exactly talking Alice In Wonderland here. Isn't Tolkien's ability to present a fantasy realm that seems to have such parallels with the "real" one thing that makes his stories so extraordinary?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

These books, to engender such devotion, must strike some chord beyond the usual fantasy aspect, touching one's convictions and observations of the world. We're not exactly talking Alice In Wonderland here. Isn't Tolkien's ability to present a fantasy realm that seems to have such parallels with the "real" one thing that makes his stories so extraordinary?

Ohh! What pray tell brings on this snarky reference to Alice in Wonderland?

Alice has a huge fandom, engaged with many, many understandings and re-interpretations. For those readers, it strikes chords deeply relevant to their lives today. It "works" in a different direction than Tolkien's influence in that it does not have a reminiscence of a primal past, but for her readers her adventures have a profound sense of significance that involves the contemplation of their lives today.

I'm not sure that it is so easy to highlight Tolkien's effects as a storyteller by dismissing or denying the effects of other writers.

Or perhaps I'm missing or misunderstanding your comparison, Inzil? If so, sorry.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Alice has a huge fandom, engaged with many, many understandings and re-interpretations. For those readers, it strikes chords deeply relevant to their lives today. It "works" in a different direction than Tolkien's influence in that it does not have a reminiscence of a primal past, but for her readers her adventures have a profound sense of significance that involves the contemplation of their lives today.

My apologies! I was using that as a personal example of a work that, as far as I was aware, did not have as devoted a following as apparently it does. No offense intended.

Do admirers of Alice debate the merits of its film adaptations? Is that any sort of barometer of how deeply a book moves its audience?

[littlemanpoet]

Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between LotR and AiW. The term "snarky" rather well encapsulates the spirit of AiW. "Reminiscence of a primal past" rather well encapsulates the spirit of LotR. Well done, Bethberry!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Do admirers of Alice debate the merits of its film adaptations? Is that any sort of barometer of how deeply a book moves its audience?

I do know that my daughter was extremely disappointed with Tim Burton's 2010 Alice film. It's not a topic I raise often in our house. Some members of the fandom condone very arch and post modern interpretations, I think in part because the adapters make clear these are their own personal interpretations and not a "faithful depiction" as PJ had once claimed for the first trilogy, and also in part because they move the Alice character into contemporary but similarly bizarre or nonsense contexts.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between LotR and AiW The term "snarky" rather well encapsulates the spirit of AiW. "Reminiscence of a primal past" rather well encapsulates the spirit of LotR. Well done, Bethberry!

Thank you, but that difference does not mean that the effect for readers is any less profound or meaningful. Maybe you and others here don't read AiW that way, but then, there are many people who do not appreciate or accept the concept of 'reality' which you propose for your experience of LotR.

My interjection has taken the thread off the topic of metafiction. Sorry.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Yes, it's real. Deeply real. Not literal, but real.

That sounds like what a religious nut might say, and perhaps refer to Truth with a capital T.

I say it is fantasy fiction.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If we didn't see Tolkien's works in particular as "real", would they be worthy of the time and effort spent on discussion, here and elsewhere? Would they have caused such polarization among readers regarding adaptations, if the individual's sense of the books' "reality" was not so deep?

Who do you mean by we? One find just as much debate over Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories or the Doctor Who stories, or James Branch Cabell’s fantasy, or Star Trek, or Star Wars, and various other works and series.

I am quite ready to discuss any of these, but I and many others do not consider these works real.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thank you, but that difference does not mean that the effect for readers is any less profound or meaningful. Maybe you and others here don't read AiW that way, but then, there are many people who do not appreciate or accept the concept of 'reality' which you propose for your experience of LotR.

I quite agree. I also found the recent Alice in Wonderland film quite silly, as did many others. Although many did not.

I do not understand the concept that any book is only appreciated because it is real. Not literal but real is a statement that doesn’t compute as far as my mind works. Part of the joy of reading a fantasy work for me is that it is not real.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

That sounds like what a religious nut might say, and perhaps refer to Truth with a capital T.

I find your choice of words here objectionable: needlessly inflammatory.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Who do you mean by we? One find just as much debate over Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories or the Doctor Who stories, or James Branch Cabell’s fantasy, or Star Trek, or Star Wars, and various other works and series.

"We", as in the readers. That's all.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It's not just metaphorical versus literal, but spiritually real and true. And by spiritual I mean more than ephemeral ghosts or angels or what have you.

Yes, it's real. Deeply real. Not literal, but real.

Unlike other posters who reply with a level of constipation that requires a heavy dosage of bran to alleviate, I understand where you are coming from.

Like all works of literature that have enthralled us, the immersive nature of the tale was quite overwhelming, to the point where one got both emotional and emotionally attached (and it has to be a damned good book to get me teary-eyed, I assure you). The suspension of disbelief was complete, and as with all great moments of our lives (whether real or imagined), we don't want the feeling to end. We savor each word like fine drops of wine, till the glass is drained dry.

From the standpoint of an eleven year-old reader (when I first read Tolkien), I was rapt and the experience was indeed very real to me. That feeling has remained many decades hence, and colors my view of other literature, particularly works of fantasy.

I suppose it was rather like a religious epiphany, except I am atheist, not a nutbag.

[littlemanpoet]

Part of a poem I wrote back in 2002 seems an apt answer:

my hope
that you see
the world in color

That, too, is metaphorical.

I would find such comments objectionable if they weren't so sad. I'm left wondering what someone, who has such little use for metaphor and depth of reality, finds so compelling in LotR that one would spend so much time on a site like this discussing it?

[Mithalwen]

I know that Tolkien's work is fiction but I love the level of detail that makes Middle Earth so vivid, that as you read LOTR you glimpse the Silmarillion. It isn't real but it has a plausibility about it, a degree of coherence and scope it does seem different from the likes of Alice, which i loved but which doesnt have the same hold on me and which is clearly made up with its dream conceit...oh I am finding this idea hard to express.

I suppose what it boils down to is that Tolkien may be no more real than other fantasy novels but I find it hard really to find it less real than other mythologies which I know aren't real either. They may have elements from genuine events but are they not just asbmade up albeit by more people over a longer time. Does that process make them more real than the synthetic mythology produced from the learning and imagination of one man?

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

I find your choice of words here objectionable: needlessly inflammatory.

Well, I could say the same about yours. So what do you do about that?

"We", as in the readers. That's all.

But do you mean all the readers? That is simply not true for all readers.

Use of we in an article meant to persuade often does just the opposite to a critical reader. Use of we is often a trick by the writer to create a connection to the reader of the article. See how often it is used by Edmund Wilson in his notorious review of Tolkien at http://www.jrrvf.com/sda/critiques/The_Nation.html , when Wilson is not instead using the word one. Don’t use either word to persuade people.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Part of a poem I wrote back in 2002 seems an apt answer:

my hope
that you see
the world in color

That, too, is metaphorical.

So you use a metaphor for anyone who sees the world differently than you do. What does that prove? Not a thing. I am in reality not colour-blind and someone who is might otherwise see the world as you do.

I reject your metaphor as not applicable and inappropriate and insulting.

I would find such comments objectionable if they weren't so sad. I'm left wondering what someone, who has such little use for metaphor and depth of reality, finds so compelling in LotR that one would spend so much time on a site like this discussing it?

You are left wondering about something which you should be able to easily figure out, or perhaps you can’t understand anyone who feels differently than you do about anything.

In his prologue to the second edition, Tolkien writes, “As for an inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical or topical.”

I am quite aware that Tolkien wrote in letter 142:

I think I know exactly what you mean by the order of Grace; and of course by your references to Our Lady, upon which all my own small perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded. The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.

But to take this fully one must be a Roman Catholic and believe in the Virgin Mary as a being of unusual power in the world. Are you?

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I know that Tolkien's work is fiction but I love the level of detail that makes Middle Earth so vivid, that as you read LOTR you glimpse the Silmarillion. It isn't real but it has a plausibility about it, a degree of coherence and scope it does seem different from the likes of Alice, which i loved but which doesnt have the same hold on me and which is clearly made up with its dream conceit...oh I am finding this idea hard to express.

I suppose what it boils down to is that Tolkien may be no more real than other fantasy novels but I find it hard really to find it less real than other mythologies which I know aren't real either. They may have elements from genuine events but are they not just as made up albeit by more people over a longer time. Does that process make them more real than the synthetic mythology produced from the learning and imagination of one man?

I agree almost entirely with this. I can think of fantasy novels that seem as real as Tolkien when I read them, and also some fantasy works that others like more. Others become a chore to read. But there is no fantasy novel or mythological text which seems as real as the real world.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Well, I could say the same about yours. So what do you do about that?

Personally I take "religious nut" as a complement, but others could see it as an insult. If you aren't open to perhaps being a little less confrontational in your posting, then I will say nothing more.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Use of we in an article meant to persuade often does just the opposite to a critical reader. Use of we is often a trick by the writer to create a connection to the reader of the article. See how often it is used by Edmund Wilson in his notorious review of Tolkien at http://www.jrrvf.com/sda/critiques/The_Nation.html , when Wilson is not instead using the word one. Don’t use either word to persuade people.

I wasn't trying to "persuade" anyone. I was simply stating a thought about the matter.

Originally Posted by jallanite

I can think of fantasy novels that seem as real as Tolkien when I read them, and also some fantasy works that others like more. Others become a chore to read. But there is no fantasy novel or mythological text which seems as real as the real world.

And that is your opinion, to which you are welcome. Please respect those belonging to others.

I personally have sometimes felt LOTR, along with a handful of other books, to be at least as "real" as the corporal world I inhabit (since you dislike the use of "we"). Is it that way every time I read Tolkien? No. But when my mind is set the right way, and daily cares retreat temporarily, I can lose myself in the world he created so that it has as much emotional, intellectual, and even spiritual impact on me as whatever the "real" day has brought.

[Morthoron]

There once was a rumor
Of a man without humor
Who posted at night --
And always in black and white.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

"It is not difficult to imagine the peculiar excitement and joy that one would feel, if any specially beautiful fairy-story were found to be “primarily” true, its narrative to be history, without thereby necessarily losing the mythical or allegorical significance that it had possessed." From "On Fairy Stories"

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

"It is not difficult to imagine the peculiar excitement and joy that one would feel, if any specially beautiful fairy-story were found to be “primarily” true, its narrative to be history, without thereby necessarily losing the mythical or allegorical significance that it had possessed." From "On Fairy Stories"

Good quote. Interesting his use of "allegory" though.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

And that is your opinion, to which you are welcome. Please respect those belonging to others.

Yet you seem not to respect my opinion in this matter. Fair enough. I don’t necessarily respect every opinion of every poster in this or any other forum.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Yet you seem not to respect my opinion in this matter. Fair enough. I don’t necessarily respect every opinion of every poster in this or any other forum.

While we don't have to agree with everyone here, we do tend on this forum to respect everyone, regardless of whether we agree with their opinions or not. Needless personal attacks, ad homimen attacks on the person rather than on the ideas, are not part of Downs culture and really diminish the quality of the discussion.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

Yet you seem not to respect my opinion in this matter. Fair enough.

Certainly, I respect your opinion. My issue is with the manner in which you express it. I wish that, as Bêth says, you would confine your comments to what people say, rather than the poster themselves.

[Morthoron]

I believe it was John Lennon who put it most succinctly:

"Yellow matter custard dripping from a dead dog's eye."

*Blinks*

Ummm...perhaps that wasn't the right Lennon quote for this situation. Never mind.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Certainly, I respect your opinion. My issue is with the manner in which you express it. I wish that, as Bêth says, you would confine your comments to what people say, rather than the poster themselves.

The same is true for me.

What you said was “If we didn't see Tolkien's works in particular as "real", would they be worthy of the time and effort spent on discussion, here and elsewhere?” Then you defined we as meaning “‘We’, as in the readers. That's all.”

My comments were entirely on what you said, not personal. I am a reader of Tolkien and have been for years. So is Mithalwen. In this as on any forum people at various times have disagreements with other members, on what they said. Any poster will often find that another posters comment they disagree with entirely, and then the same poster will support their comments in another area.

The difficulty with the use of we in arguments is that it often comes down to meaning I and you and essentially means you. By readers you are, as you claim, meaning readers that is all readers, and by all readers you mean you. I don’t mean you are intentionally doing it, but to a critical reader being told how they read and what they appreciate is infuriating, when it is very much not how they read or what they read. I do not think you really meant to tell me that I was not a reader of Tolkien if I did not think of his writing as real.

Well I do not think of it as real. Nor do I think of any fictional work as real. Especially fantasy fiction. Tolkien refers to the world in a fictional work as a secondary world or a secondary reality, subordinate to his own. He also for years worked as a Professor of English, in which he often thought unreal secondary works to be worthy of the time and effort spent on discussion, whether it was Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, or Pearl. And in his letters he appears to consider his own work so worthy, though never considering it to be real either.

Tolkien never confuses a secondary reality with the primary reality. Two posters, you one of them, seemed to me to be doing this. If what you said is the difficulty, then, again, look at what you said: “If we didn't see Tolkien's works in particular as "real", would they be worthy of the time and effort spent on discussion, here and elsewhere?” I say yes, at least as worthy as spending time on many other kinds of amusement. That a person spends time on a play by Shakespeare or a book by James Joyce or supposedly lower levels of literature has no relation to the reality of such works.

Any literary work may feel real when one is reading it, and even later when one is engaged in the study of it. But it is still not real, and I think it wrong to believe otherwise, especially when the work is sold as fiction.

You said, “I wasn't trying to "persuade" anyone. I was simply stating a thought about the matter.”

It seems to me that many posts are an attempt to persuade others that the poster is correct. What clue did your post contain to indicate that you really didn’t mean it? Why am I to be blamed for taking you at your word if indeed you really didn’t mean it? How was I to know? Or did you mean this thought about the matter? Then why am I to be blamed for my thoughts about the matter?

Where have I not commented totally on what other posters have said in this debate, along with my own thoughts about the matter?