Tolkien the Postmodernist

[Aiwendil]

All right, I admit that the title was clickbait, and I do not actually think Tolkien was a postmodernist in any sense.

But I was re-reading the Notion Club Papers recently, and I was struck this time by the elaborate narrative framework that Tolkien sets up for his narrative in the introduction. It is presented as a manuscript discovered in a wastepaper basket in the (then far future) year 2012, purporting to be the notes from meetings of the titular Notion Club at Oxford in the 1980s. But, our fictional editor goes on to say, the quality of paper and ink, as well as the writing style, suggest rather that it dates from the 1940s (i.e. the time at which Tolkien was actually writing it). And moreover, the names of the alleged members of the Club cannot be found in any of Oxford's records (neither from the 1980s nor the 1940s).

This introduction is delightfully elaborate, baroque, and - on the face of it - unnecessary. None of the matter of the provenance of the text that is discussed there would appear to have any bearing on the story itself (whether in the part that was actually completed or in the unwritten portions). Its function would, it seems, be instead to place it at a greater remove from the reader than it otherwise would be, to put it at one step further a fictional distance from the reader, and perhaps to call attention to the fact of its artfulness.

And on this recent re-reading, it couldn't help but remind me of the masterpiece by another of my favourite authors, Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, which begins with an introduction that does much the same thing. There, our fictional redactor recounts how he chanced upon the manuscript that forms the bulk of the book and translated it from Latin, but soon thereafter lost the manuscript and has since been unable to recover it. Further, he goes on to detail his attempts to track down its source, and he finds that the sources that it cited do not seem to exist.

The details are different, but Eco's introduction strikes me as doing exactly the same things as Tolkien's - framing the story he is about to tell as a manuscript of unknown origin and casting doubt on its veracity. Moreover, both introductions are (apparently) needlessly elaborate and complex, seeming to call attention to themselves and thereby to the artfulness of the work.

In Eco's case, of course, this introduction is often discussed as an element of postmodernism, with its interest in playing with form and metatextuality and the notion that "books always speak of other books". I find it profoundly interesting, then, that we see an introduction of exactly the same sort, achieving largely the same effect, written by someone like Tolkien nearly forty years earlier.

Anyway, this was something I found interesting that I thought I'd share. What do others think of this? Are there other instances in which you see Tolkien using devices that are more usually associated with postmodernist literature?

[Zigûr]

In "A Postmodern Medievalist" in Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages Verlyn Flieger makes a similar argument to this, so you're definitely not alone in observing the similarities.

Obviously, as you've said, Tolkien could not be called a postmodernist in any serious or formal sense but he (and indeed many other authors before him) took approaches which would later be formalised, codified and (post)modernised by the postmodern movement; consider all the authors who are called "postmodern before postmodernism" even hundreds of years in advance, like Cervantes, Laurence Stern etc. Flieger goes as far back as the Beowful poet as an author who used techniques which might be called postmodern were they to have appeared in, say, 1960s or 1970s literature.

Personally as an enthusiast of both Tolkien and postmodern literature (and I think it is entirely possible to enjoy both) I appreciate seeing the connections. But postmodernism I think, somewhat ironically, has never been as original as its definition suggests. But I still enjoyed Gravity's Rainbow.

[Bêthberry]

Having read neither the Notion Club papers nor Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages, I'm not sure I have much to contribute here. However, I will throw an oar into the stream to keep the thread afloat.

First of all, I think we can differentiate between post modern narrative techniques and postmodern philosophical perspective. The narrative techniques have been around as long as narrative has and individually are nothing new. I don't know what authors Flieger names, but I can add Charlotte Bronte to the list of those who used "post modern techniques". However, I'm not sure we can say that textually Tolkien's work demonstrates narrative unreliability or language unreliability.

[mhagain]

This kind of framing device is a common enough trope, at least in my own personal reading experience. Moorcock used it as well, for example the "Opium eater of Rowe Island" introduction to "Warlord of the Air". It's an interesting narrative conceit but I don't view it as significant.

We all know that Tolkien liked a good framing device, put significant work into them, and - in common with his main narratives - went back, revised, expanded, discarded or completely changed them.

So Lord of the Rings is feigned to be an editorial translation of the Red Book, and there is a great deal of framework and structure around that feigning, including translators notes, but absolutely none of it intrudes into the main narrative. The Silmarillion has it's own history here, where the framing device almost becomes as much a story as the tales embedded in it.

Tolkien admitted in Letter 160 that "I am not now at all sure that the tendency to treat the whole thing as a kind of vast game is really good – cert. not for me, who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive" and that is really what we're seeing here.

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Zigur

In "A Postmodern Medievalist" in Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages Verlyn Flieger makes a similar argument to this, so you're definitely not alone in observing the similarities.

Interesting! I'll have to try to get my hands on Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

First of all, I think we can differentiate between post modern narrative techniques and postmodern philosophical perspective. The narrative techniques have been around as long as narrative has and individually are nothing new. I don't know what authors Flieger names, but I can add Charlotte Bronte to the list of those who used "post modern techniques". However, I'm not sure we can say that textually Tolkien's work demonstrates narrative unreliability or language unreliability.

I certainly agree with the first part of this, and as Zigur points out, postmodern techniques have been around a lot longer than the name would suggest. And, as I said, I would not seriously suggest that Tolkien be classified as a postmodern author!

However, I will point out that Tolkien did on at least one or two occasions dip into the realm of narrative unreliability. I'm thinking mainly of the way he treated "Riddles in the Dark" from The Hobbit when he was writing LotR. The first edition of The Hobbit, of course, portrayed Gollum rather differently, and had him intend to give the Ring to Bilbo as a condition of losing the riddle contest. Tolkien decided that this was an instance of Bilbo twisting the truth to justify his ownership of the Ring, though of course in the event, the publisher allowed him to substitute a revised chapter for later editions of The Hobbit. Now, I grant that this example of an unreliable narrator was a practical solution to a practical problem and not something Tolkien set out to do from the start, but it's also a solution he readily arrived at, and one he was willing to let stand as part of his published work.

The other place where unreliable narrative comes up is in his idea that the Silmarillion's provenance was not Elvish but Numenorean, with the suggestion that, therefore, it may not at all points tell the "true" story. When, and to what degree, he entertained thoughts along these lines is a complex issue, but the most notable place where they emerge is in "The Drowning of Anadune", which is explicitly a "mannish" history of the fall of Numenor and gets things "wrong" as compared to the rest of Tolkien's writings (e.g. it confuses the Elves and the Ainur). Perhaps it's not entirely beside the point to note that the composition of this text was closely associated with that of "The Notion Club Papers".

But, of course, it would be a great stretch to make any real connection between these examples and the work of authors generally classed as postmodernist. I think, rather, that they stem from Tolkien's philological consciousness of texts as texts - that is, as things that were written in the past and have come down to us, rather than as narratives that float free of any connection to the world. If one is conscious of the fact that a book is just a body of writing that is being presented to the reader, one needn't be a postmodernist to come up with the idea of an unreliable narrative!

Originally Posted by mhagain

This kind of framing device is a common enough trope, at least in my own personal reading experience. Moorcock used it as well, for example the "Opium eater of Rowe Island" introduction to "Warlord of the Air". It's an interesting narrative conceit but I don't view it as significant.

We all know that Tolkien liked a good framing device, put significant work into them, and - in common with his main narratives - went back, revised, expanded, discarded or completely changed them.

So Lord of the Rings is feigned to be an editorial translation of the Red Book, and there is a great deal of framework and structure around that feigning, including translators notes, but absolutely none of it intrudes into the main narrative. The Silmarillion has it's own history here, where the framing device almost becomes as much a story as the tales embedded in it.

This is fair, and again, I was being deliberately provocative with the threat title. But allow me to push back on this just a tiny bit. I think that the frame for The Notion Club Papers is actually rather a different beast from that for LotR. The "translator conceit" of the latter is intended to position the story as if it were a real legend that had come down to us out of the past. It puts the work on similar footing to, say, "Beowulf", or the sagas. Its elaboration seems to be primarily to achieve verisimilitude, and in that way I'd say its effect on the reader is actually to make the story seem more real, rather than less - to weave a kind of scholarly spell that almost allows the reader to believe that the Red Book of Westmarch really exists.

The frame for The Notion Club Papers, on the other hand, goes to great lengths to cast doubt on the narrative. First of all, it places the whole thing decades in the future (from when Tolkien was writing it), which drives home to the reader the point that it is fictional. And then, it adds the implication that the narrative itself is a fiction within the already fictional frame. Now, I don't think this is anything unprecedented or revolutionary, but it is a different and stranger sort of thing than the transmission stories Tolkien came up with for LotR or the various versions of the Silmarillion.

I don't know that I'm making any real point here; just find it interesting to think about this kind of thing and analyze it at greater length than it perhaps deserves!

[Findegil]

The difference of the frame stories between LotR and The Notion Club Papers might steem a good deal from the conntent of the work they frame.

In the The Notion Club Papers Tolkien set out to write a story about time travel. And I beleive that the frame story was written with that in mind. And as the frame story is in existance while the The Notion Club Papers are not completed, they frame story was written relativly early.

In contarst the translator conceid of LotR was a late addition, after at least the arc of the main story was completed. And the story it frames is a fairy tale grown out of th hand of its outer and of its originally aimd readers into a legend.

So the frame story is a kind of test: If your are not totaly taken a back by it, you may more probabaly enjoy what follows.

Respectfully
Findegil

[Huinesoron]

Originally Posted by Findegil

In contarst the translator conceid of LotR was a late addition, after at least the arc of the main story was completed. And the story it frames is a fairy tale grown out of th hand of its outer and of its originally aimd readers into a legend.

Do you happen to know when the translator/Found Document frame of the Book of Lost Tales emerged? The title suggests it was fairly early, but the only explicit linking of Eriol's hearing the tales to a physical book is the "Golden Book of Tavrobel" fragment or note, which I have a vague impression is late.

~

While trying to find a relevant 19th century story I can't remember the title of (no luck yet). I stumbled across the Wikipedia article on time travel in LotR, which is longer than the "Time travel in fiction" article. o.O

hS

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I certainly agree with the first part of this, and as Zigur points out, postmodern techniques have been around a lot longer than the name would suggest. And, as I said, I would not seriously suggest that Tolkien be classified as a postmodern author!

However, I will point out that Tolkien did on at least one or two occasions dip into the realm of narrative unreliability. I'm thinking mainly of the way he treated "Riddles in the Dark" from The Hobbit when he was writing LotR. The first edition of The Hobbit, of course, portrayed Gollum rather differently, and had him intend to give the Ring to Bilbo as a condition of losing the riddle contest. Tolkien decided that this was an instance of Bilbo twisting the truth to justify his ownership of the Ring, though of course in the event, the publisher allowed him to substitute a revised chapter for later editions of The Hobbit. Now, I grant that this example of an unreliable narrator was a practical solution to a practical problem and not something Tolkien set out to do from the start, but it's also a solution he readily arrived at, and one he was willing to let stand as part of his published work.

The other place where unreliable narrative comes up is in his idea that the Silmarillion's provenance was not Elvish but Numenorean, with the suggestion that, therefore, it may not at all points tell the "true" story. When, and to what degree, he entertained thoughts along these lines is a complex issue, but the most notable place where they emerge is in "The Drowning of Anadune", which is explicitly a "mannish" history of the fall of Numenor and gets things "wrong" as compared to the rest of Tolkien's writings (e.g. it confuses the Elves and the Ainur). Perhaps it's not entirely beside the point to note that the composition of this text was closely associated with that of "The Notion Club Papers".

But, of course, it would be a great stretch to make any real connection between these examples and the work of authors generally classed as postmodernist. I think, rather, that they stem from Tolkien's philological consciousness of texts as texts - that is, as things that were written in the past and have come down to us, rather than as narratives that float free of any connection to the world. If one is conscious of the fact that a book is just a body of writing that is being presented to the reader, one needn't be a postmodernist to come up with the idea of an unreliable narrative!

I will have to disagree with you about what "unreliable narrative" means, particularly in connection with postmodernism.

The revision or editing of the "Riddles in the Dark" does not represent unreliable narrative. It more closely resembles the kind of niggling and endless changes that Tolkien submitted his Legendarium to, in his attempts to create a reliably consistent narrative. The fact that the chapter was changed after initial publication does not demonstrate unreliability but in fact a determined effort to provide consistency. Even more significantly, there is nothing in the revised chapter which points to any changes, which identifies any unreliablity. Contemporary readers only know about the change by reading material extraneous to the actual story of TH, epitextual devices that can mediate for the reader, to use Gerard Genette's term.

Nor does the suggestion that the

Silmarillion's provenance was not Elvish but Numenorean

really fit postmodern ideas about the inability of language at all to reflect reality or truth. Differences of interpretation have long been part of literary texts and characters galore are known for their lies, their loss of memory, their misrepresentation and fairy otherworlds are part of European literature for centuries.

Perhaps the best way I can try to explain how Tolkien's work differs from the postmodern idea that language cannot represent the external world is to follow through a theme from LotR, that of pity.

The theme begins with Bilbo's decision not to kill Gollem once he suddenly feels pity for the creature. This becomes a central discussion between Gandalf and Frodo early in LotR and the pity shown to Gollem is rehearsed by other characters. Gandalf and Aragorn bring Gollem to Mirkwood, hoping for a cure. Faramir shows restraint by not immediately slaying Gollem and shows mercy by accepting Frodo's pleas for him. Sam spares Gollem. Had anyone of these characters not spared Gollem, the Guest to destroy the Ring would not have been fulfilled. This lesson of pity, mercy, and compassion, where unselfish decisions overcome selfish urges and where nonetheless the amazing quest is fulfilled, would not, I would argue, be possible in a postmodern novel where the pity would be meaningless and just a random act.

I hope this makes sense!

[Aiwendil]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

I hope this makes sense!

It certainly does, and I fundamentally agree with you. Indeed, I think the gist of this thread is everyone vehemently agreeing that Tolkien was not a postmodernist. But let me just quibble and clarify what I was saying slightly.

The revision or editing of the "Riddles in the Dark" does not represent unreliable narrative. It more closely resembles the kind of niggling and endless changes that Tolkien submitted his Legendarium to, in his attempts to create a reliably consistent narrative. The fact that the chapter was changed after initial publication does not demonstrate unreliability but in fact a determined effort to provide consistency. Even more significantly, there is nothing in the revised chapter which points to any changes, which identifies any unreliablity. Contemporary readers only know about the change by reading material extraneous to the actual story of TH, epitextual devices that can mediate for the reader, to use Gerard Genette's term.

To be clear, I'm not saying that revising the chapter has anything to do with an unreliable narrator. What I'm saying is that Tolkien's intention at one time was to let the first edition of TH stand, and to let LotR reveal that TH has an unreliable narrator (by having Gandalf offer a correction to Bilbo's account). He came up with this solution because he did not think the publisher would allow him to substitute a whole new chapter in a revised edition of TH, but as it turned out, the publisher did allow the substitution. So, yes, it's an unreliable narrator that he only came up with out of (imagined) practical necessity, it's one that is not shown to be unreliable within its own work, but only by a sequel, and it's one that only exists in the first edition of the book and thus doesn't exist at all for today's readers. But I nonetheless think that it does technically fit within the term "unreliable narrator".

Nor does the suggestion that the

really fit postmodern ideas about the inability of language at all to reflect reality or truth. Differences of interpretation have long been part of literary texts and characters galore are known for their lies, their loss of memory, their misrepresentation and fairy otherworlds are part of European literature for centuries.

Yes, but the idea Tolkien was toying with here was quite different from a character lying or misrepresenting something. It's most acutely seen with "The Drowning of Anadune". If, as Tolkien apparently contemplated at one time, he had published some form of the Silmarillion in which "The Drowning of Anadune" was included, then we would have had a pretty clear case of unreliable narration, since one section of the work would have given us one account of the creation and history of the world and the nature of the Valar and the Elves, and another section would have given us quite a contradictory account - with neither of these accounts being framed as an interpretation or lie or misunderstanding on the part of any character within the work. So again, even though the motivations here are completely different from those that lead to interest in unreliable narrators by postmodernists, I'd still argue that Tolkien at least contemplated using a device that technically fits under the definition of unreliable narration.

Again, though, this is quibbling stuff about definitions, and I mainly just wanted to clarify that no, I'm not claiming that revising one's book after it's been published, or writing about fairy otherworlds, somehow constitutes unreliable narration!

Incidentally, and probably somewhat beside the point, I'm not sure I agree that postmodernism necessarily has as a central tenet that

inability of language at all to reflect reality or truth.

Certainly, this is an idea underlying some works of postmodernism, but I'd argue that more generally, postmodernism is interested in questioning whether, and how, language is able to reflect reality or truth, without necessarily positing a particularly firm answer to that question.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Originally Posted by mhagain

This kind of framing device is a common enough trope, at least in my own personal reading experience. Moorcock used it as well, for example the "Opium eater of Rowe Island" introduction to "Warlord of the Air". It's an interesting narrative conceit but I don't view it as significant.

We all know that Tolkien liked a good framing device, put significant work into them, and - in common with his main narratives - went back, revised, expanded, discarded or completely changed them.

So Lord of the Rings is feigned to be an editorial translation of the Red Book, and there is a great deal of framework and structure around that feigning, including translators notes, but absolutely none of it intrudes into the main narrative. The Silmarillion has it's own history here, where the framing device almost becomes as much a story as the tales embedded in it.

Tolkien admitted in Letter 160 that "I am not now at all sure that the tendency to treat the whole thing as a kind of vast game is really good – cert. not for me, who find that kind of thing only too fatally attractive" and that is really what we're seeing here.

But there is rather a difference between the very common frame device of a story purported to come from an old book or manuscript (medieval authors regularly did this to claim authenticity, even when like Geoffrey of Monmouth or the later editor of "Nennius" they were lying through their teeth), and what Tolkien in Notion Club and Eco are doing, which is to make the claim while simultaneously implying that the claim may well be untrue, that the source document is highly dubious.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Certainly, this is an idea underlying some works of postmodernism, but I'd argue that more generally, postmodernism is interested in questioning whether, and how, language is able to reflect reality or truth, without necessarily positing a particularly firm answer to that question.

I would agree with you. I was using hyperbole for the point of clarifying Tolkien's difference with the post modernists.

Just as a suggestion, there might be something relevant in Tolkien's "Essay on Phonetic Symbolism" , included in the new Fimi edition of "A Secret Vice", for his thoughts on sound and sense or Fimi's essay "Language as Communication vs Language as Art: J.R.R. Tolkien and early 20thcentury radical linguistic experimentation” which is in the JoTR. I don't remember them well enough to offer any thoughts and my reading time is limited these days.

[Bêthberry]

I recently discovered this essay by Verlyn Flieger, from about 15 years ago, "A Post-modern Medievalist" in Green Suns and Faerie. It's a thoughtful analysis of what "medieval" means in terms of Tolkien and provides a decent explanation of what "post-modern" means. It's good at pointing out just how modern Tolkien's writing is, in terms of use of modern vernacular and also provides an extended discussion of Sam and Frodo's discussion of story on the Stairs of Cirith Ungol. A good read. Originally posted in Tolkien's Modern Middle Ages, edited by Jane Chance, 2005.

[paulag]

Read it about a month ago. I thought it was very well-written, and appreciated how Ordway tried to stick as close as possible to the known facts. There were a few places where it seemed a bit like she was grasping at straws to make connections between his reading and the legendarium, but most of the analysis was very good.

My website