Fiction in Middle Earth

[davem]

Silly question, maybe, but why is there no 'fiction' in Middle Earth? There don't seem to be any novels or stories in that world. All the characters refer to historical events, but all the stories mentioned are about things & places that 'actually' existed there. There seems to have been a total absence of invention in this one area. You'd think the Elves, being so incredibly creative, would have 'made up' stories. Tolkien doesn't mention anything about this aspect of ME life, when he put so much effort into creating the world in such detail. As a fiction writer himself, isn't this odd?

[Tinuviel the Nightingale]

But the elves created songs didn't they? I think they count as they are telling some sort of story only in well, song form. I think there must have been stories in Middle Earth, it just hasn't been focused on as much.

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Bilbo wrote his book...I would think he may have written some sort of fiction before that, wouldn't you? Or just start writing the story of his life off the top of his head? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Annunfuiniel]

I have no coherent answer to give to your question, davem, but I'd like to post some ideas I had concerning this topic.

At first sight there indeed seems to exist no pure invention in the area of fiction in M-E. But that appears to us that way because we know the legends/"historical" events behind those stories that live in the tradition of elves, men, dwarves and hobbits in the later ages (e.g. during the time of the War of the Rings). If you have noticed the lines that Galadriel states in the prologue of the FoTR you might know what I'm talking about here: "History became legend, legend became myth..."

That's the way our own myths have begun in this real world; the proportion of truth in them might be quite paltry but it is there somewhere. Nowadays the history-part in say the King Arthur tales is so intertwined to the purely fictional parts that to separate them is quite impossible not to say futile.

Now my point is that Tolkien loved myths of our world and wanted to create a myth of his own. Mark this; he wrote a myth not just a fictional story. Well, we know of course that his myth wasn't based on any historical events of our world but on the historical events that took place in M-E or more generally in Arda. So let's pretend we live in e.g. Rohan and hear an old tale about Lórien. Can you tell whether it is true or false or something between? Remember Eomer's reaction when he first met Aragorn and co. And what about the tales of dragons, orcs, giants and other creatures told in Shire? Well, Bilbo knew otherwise but I doubt any Chubb or Boffin took those stories really seriously.

Ok, what I'm trying to say here is that those stories that emerge in LoTR are mostly just that, stories, fiction, to the peoples of M-E whereas we see them automatically as part of their history; the historical truth behind the tales had long been forgotten to those who heard them in M-E. Yes, the tales were no inventions, no pure fiction, but who could tell that? Maybe the elves but they are different in many other aspects as well.

I would argue though that there indeed existed some true inventions i.e. fiction. For example Sam's rhyme of the troll or Frodo's song in Bree strike me as something quite unfitting to the category of old legends (based on history).
Well, I think that's enough nonsense for now. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

-Annun-

[ April 10, 2003: Message edited by: Annunfuiniel ]

[ April 10, 2003: Message edited by: Annunfuiniel ]

[davem]

Annunfuiniel, yes, i can see what you mean. Also, In our own world the novel is a recent creation, & in the ancient world most storys were based on myths & traditions. Maybe the real question is, how far did the various cultures 'invention' go. Obviously, for the Elves, who can remember the Elder days, there will be less invention involved in thier accounts of historical events than for men, or hobbits. So the Elves would really be less free in writing poems/lays about historical events.
But given that Tolkien puts so much emphasis on sub creation its odd that subcreation in his secondary world is so limited.
Wish I had more time to pursue this!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Oh, but there is fiction.....it just happens to be fictional poetry. Annunfuiniel mentioned two examples at the end of her post. But, if you want more instances of this, look at The Adventures of Tom Bombadil. JRRT says these poems are "mainly concerned with legends and jests" from the late Third Age. There are several humorous poems about the Man in the Moon as well as others about stone trolls, the mewlips, and Fastitocalon, the giant turtle that resembles an island.

It does appear that residents of Middle-earth never developed the form of literature we would call a novel. But then neither did our own ancestors for a very long time. Remember that, historically, the novel is a relative newcomer. In the ancient and medieval world, folk listened to various sagas and epics and ballads which generally purported to be historical. The Norse legends, the Illiad, the Arthurian tales--Tolkien's residents of Middle-earth stand closer to tales like these than to the modern novel. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons that modern critics have trouble relating to his stories.

We are used to thinking of fiction strictly in terms of the novel or short story, but these are not the only way to express imaginative ideas. Hobbit rhymes, at least, incorporate fictional devices. Indeed, I would say these hobbit verse has gone beyond any pretense of myth over to the realm of faerie.

Annunfuiniel makes a good argument that there is a very thin line between historical fact, legend, and myth in Middle-earth. Part of it also depends on who is telling the story and who is listening to it. Elvish lore, serious historical accounts, are often transformed into fantastic, humorous jests when hobbits get hold of them! (The exception to this statement was, of course, Bilbo, but then he was an exceptional hobbit.) And again, historically, the line between history and imaginative tales was much less stark than today.

Actually, now that I think about it, this stark contrast may not be totally accurate. History, as written by us today, also contains doses of fiction. It's just that we don't call it that, since it's hard for us to recognize our own biases and fancies. Yet, we moderns wear a prism over our eyes when dealing with any age different than our own. Our own experieces color how we present and interpret the past. This creates a patina of fiction over any historical reality. Just how different is that than the legends of Middle-earth. Yes, the intent of the modern historian is different, but the end result may be closer than we'd like to admit.

[davem]

But why does Tolkien sub create a secondary world where subcreation is so restricted? There's nothing really comparable in Middle Earth to Tolkien's own sub creative act.
Sub creation is really absent in a developed form in ME.
WHERE IS THERE AN EXAMPLE OF 'TOLKIENESQUE' SUB-CREATION (according to Tolkien, the ability in which we are closest to our creator) IN ME?!!
Sorry, but this is getting to me more & more as I think about it. There should be some Elvish equivalent of The Silmarillion! - ie an invented mythology within ME. Why are the great 'sub-creator's' sub-creations not also subcreative - & I'm not talking about objects, comic songs or 'histories'. Why don't they also create 'secondary realities'? They're also the children of a creative God.

But what you say reminds me of an article in the essay collection Proceedings of the 1992 Tolkien centenary conference, which suggests that the reason Feanor & his sons come off so badly in the legends of the Elder days is that Bilbo got his information about those times from Elrond & the Elves of Rivendell, who had reasons of their own to make the Feanorians look as bad as possible, & also suggests that Bilbo chose to write & perform his Lay of Earendel as a way of sucking up to Elrond by praising his father! The article was slightly tongue in cheek, but it does cause one to question how much the Elves did invent, & how biased their histories were.

[Annunfuiniel]

WHERE IS THERE AN EXAMPLE OF 'TOLKIENESQUE' SUB-CREATION (according to Tolkien, the ability in which we are closest to our creator) IN ME?!!(...)There should be some Elvish equivalent of The Silmarillion! - ie an invented mythology within ME.

Well, could the answer be as simple as that there was no need for a wholly invented mythology? The elves still possessed first hand knowledge (learned from the Ainur) concerning the creation of Ea and the early days. To the elves the Silmarillion (which of course wasn't called that but anyway) was their mythology, based on true stories. (May I add that the word 'myth' (in greece) means the speech of god(s). Our way of seeing myths as fictional is therefore a late transformation; to the old Greeks as to the elves the myths were de facto the words of god)

I assume that the men also had learned this information from the elves ages ago. And here's the place where sub-creation enters the picture: as time went by men became estranged from elves and their "world view" ie. the creation story. It became more and more of just a legend to them. So if there were invented mythologies inside the invented mythology they would most likely be man-made. Hobbits' world view was so narrow that they doubtly had any interest in creating a whole mythology. Then again dwarves had their own concepts of their origin. Maybe that's the closest thing to a sub-creation in M-E?

[Manwe Sulimo]

If you think about it in a more real-worldish view, it makes sense. The Third Age was like the Dark Ages--approximately AD 500-1100. During that time, there wasn't a great deal of creative fiction circulating around the world (or Europe, at least, which ME is based on). Save for some wandering minstrels (elves) and great myths (real world: dragons and sea monsters, great knights; ME: the same, but it's real), there really wasn't fiction. There was really no need, and no means of doing it. The printing press had not yet been invented, and people lived by working all the time. Unless very old (something that didn't happen often), people didn't have the time to make such stories up.

In Middle-earth, the same problems arise, but at the same time there is a reason unique to ME: anything a myth would be made of, it already exists. As Annunfuiniel said, they already had mythology in their own history. They didn't have to make up deities; they knew them personally (the older elves, at least). Exotic creatures like dwarves, dragons, and sea monsters all existed. Now I'm not saying that hobbits or men couldn't have created even wilder stories; it's just that all myths have a basis in fact, and real things in ME were real to the extreme. You couldn't exaggerate things much farther than they really were; hence, there were no tales that couldn't be confirmed one way or another.

There were probably some hand-written novels in the Shire; fictional stories of adventure written by some lazy hobbit. However, there would only be a few copies (printing press issue again). Bilbo did receive some books from the Elves (three, I think, including the Quenta). But these weren't fiction.

Now I'm starting to ramble.

[Mister Underhill]

I've often meant to start a thread to discuss the self-consciousness with which some of the characters in LotR perceive that their adventures will someday be told and retold as stories, but I've never gotten around to digging up the references.

Some of the conversations that Sam and Frodo have about such matters imply that there are plenty of stories and epic poems in ME. Sam certainly seems to have been a fan of adventure tales.

And anyway, who's to say that there isn't a great subcreative work in ME? Penned by an unremarkable Hobbit, no doubt, a teacher perhaps, a queer fellow with a penchant for mumbling to himself in outlandish tongues and drawing maps of places that never were.

[davem]

I still wonder why the Elves, the great creators of ME, aren't also depicted as sub-creators. To what extent are their tales of the past 'embellished', & if at all, how could they get away with it, being surrounded by other Elves who had experienced the Elder days directly. Did Elves make up tales? If not, why not? I suppose the question is, did Tolkien concieve of the Elves as being sub-creators? If not, doesn't that limit their creativity? You would think they'd be the greatest inventors of stories. Especially the Noldor.
When our ancestors created their myths, they had a lot of leeway. They could give their imagination a lot of freedom to invent & embellish. The events & people they were writing or telling of, were long gone. It seems to me that the fact the Elves weren't in that position would have been more likely to push them into inventing tales.


Annunfuiniel, its not really a matter of whether there was a 'need' for an invented mythology - there was no real 'need' for poetry or calligraphy, or any of the other 'art forms' which Tolkien tells us the Elves excelled in.
Manwe, I don't think we should underestimate the importance of tales to our pre-industrial ancestors. Look at the great folk tale collections of the Grimms or campbell's 'Popular Tales of The West Highlands'. there was time, & 'hunger' especially on long winter nights, for tales. Some Tales were real epics, & would be told around the fireside over a period of weeks.
Finally, Mister Underhill, yes, there were plenty of stories & epic poems in Middle Earth, but all of them about 'actual' historical events.

[ April 11, 2003: Message edited by: davem ]

[Estelyn Telcontar]

davem, you are assuming that everything that is not specifically mentioned does not exist. I have heard that kind of argumentation in other contexts (church doctrine, for example: "Since musical instruments aren't specifically mentioned in the New Testament and our church is patterned on the NT church, we shall have no musical instruments in our worship services.") Tolkien's created world is not so detailed that we are told everything about it, and his attitude would certainly leave leeway for sub-creation. We simply do not know the fictional works of Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits - and Men.

I think Manwe Sulimo brought up a very important point with the absence of the printing press in M-E. Widespread distribution of fictional works is certainly dependent on a mass reproduction method. Without that, written works, fictional and factual, are a luxury for the rich and learned.

[Annunfuiniel]

Annunfuiniel, its not really a matter of whether there was a 'need' for an invented mythology - there was no real 'need' for poetry or calligraphy, or any of the other 'art forms' which Tolkien tells us the Elves excelled in.

Ok, I can see why you missed my point on that occasion, my choosing of words was a bit vague. What I meant to say was that the elves (as well as other races in different proportions) possessed the knowledge of the Creation story etc. and so they already had the 'themes' which usually appear in mythology. And so they didn't "need" to create everything from a scratch. They could of course have done that; but seeing that in our own world different cultures share the same themes in mythology I think it would be safe to assume that the later writers of M-E would have borrowed terminology and motifs (e.g. names of their gods or the creation of the earth through the music of the Ainur) from the already existing mythology.

As I have tried to say earlier, the mythologies of our world arise from history or at least peoples attempt to understand 'history' i.e. the earlier days ("Where it all began"). I believe that this was one motive that also inspired Tolkien; he saw that England lacked a mythology of its own and wanted to create it to her. I imagine that for Tolkien no mythology equaled no 'pre-history'; and that was an intolerable situation, something had to be done. For the writers of M-E there existed no such urge to create, in this particular sense; for M-E had its own lively tradition from where its myths arose.

Sad but true: I can't be certain of the accuracy of any of my arguments for the reasons stated in earlier posts. Tolkien's writings describe M-E lively but not all-inclusively.

[davem]

Ok, Estelyn, Tolkien didn't mention everything that must have existed in ME, but as sub creation was of such importance to him, how come it doesn't exist in ME?

Annunfuiniel, Surely there's more to mythology than an attempt to 'explain' why things are the way they are, or how they came to be. 'Creating' a mythology is what its about - creating - its a creative act. KNOWING how things actually happened is psychologically quite limiting. It limits the freedom of the imagination. Besides, as a Christian, Tolkien would have said he 'knew' how the universe was created, but that still didn't stop him creating his own mythology. So, 'knowing' the truth about the creation doesn't deter one from inventing ones own account. Also, there seems, as Tolkien himself states, to be a need to 'sub create', which get from the source (God) which created us.
I still wonder why there's no example of sub creation in ME!

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem,

Let me pose some other ways of looking at this problem.

Argument #1 : when Tolkien created Middle-earth, he did not say it was a faerie world existing in some other reality, as so many books of fantasy do. Instead, he said it was the actual history of our own world. And it wasn't the history of the "dark ages", ca. 500-1100 (I strongly dislike that term, but it was used by another poster), but our own pre-history--that period of time beyond which our own written history exists.

If you think of it in Tolkien's perspective, rather than the terms of modern fantasy books, the residents of Middle-earth, and specifically the Elves, have done exactly what Tolkien did. They've taken their own past history and woven them into marvelous, miraculous tales. They've created something I would call "lore", which has one foot in history (atleast in Tolken's terms) and one foot in faerie.

For them to introduce a totally different fantasy world into Middle-earth that had no roots in that world would be a deviation from the model that Tolkien himself proposed. It just wouldn't feel right. It would go against the themes and ways of thinking the author says is important in this particular subcreation.

Argument #2: If we accept Middle-earth on the terms that Tolkien gave us, as part of our own past history, then we must look to our earliest recorded history and literature to understand why JRRT did what he did. Folk in ancient times had a much different attitude than we do. The general assumption was that the golden age was in the past, not in the future.

This same attitude is part of Tolkien's mythology. It can be seen in the depiction of Middle-earth before Melkor's worst attacks. The whole idea of Elvish "embalming" also hints at such a perspective. The Elves do not want their world to change, because change is generally viewed as a negative. As Tolkien so eloquently put it, history is a series of tiny and fleeting moments of victory, followed by long and inevitable defeats. The only exception to this is the final battle and what lies beyond, but that age is in such a distant future, and its exact nature so sketchy, that his characters give little thought to it. Given this perspective, it's not surprising that any imaginative subcreation would be set in the past--which is regarded as closer to the lost golden age--rather than in the future or some alternate reality.

There's also something else coming into play here. Ancient man lived closer to the mythic mode than we do. He could look about him and see wonder in every grain and fiber of the earth. Why create another world, when there is so much wonder in this one? It's only us moderns, who are so divorced from that sense of wonder, who must push our imaginative subcreations out into another reality, rather than seeing and feeling the wonder of this reality.

Argument #3: This one may get me in trouble! Hey, what the blazes are we doing here? It seems to me this is a little piece of hubris on our part. Yes, our own fantasy literature or depiction of different worlds tend to be presented as alternate reality or future developments. But who says you can't have this same employment of imagination when dealing with the past. This is what works like the Illiad and Odyssey represent.

OK, let me turn this equation on its head. First, Tolkien clearly sees subcreation in much wider terms than we've used in this thread. In Letter 131, he says that Elvish "magic", more properly described as Art, is one of the richest veins of Elvish subcreation. Now, I defy you to find any instances in the modern world of people practicing or even accurately depicting in literature this same type of magical subcreation. (I would consider most portrayal of magic in fantasy worlds to be far afield from what Tolkien is referring to when he speaks of Elvish Art.)

So, just because we don't practice this particular form of subcreation, does it negate the other forms of subcreation which we do have? The answer is no. I don't think it's fair for modern man to point to his own particular accomplishments (the depiction of alternate reality worlds, for example and set those up as a standard. As an historian, it really gripes me when people do this when assesing the contributions of past ages. And since Tolkien says his own world is history, we have to accept him at his word and look at Middle-earth from that perspective.

sharon

P.S. I crossposted with Annunfuniel, since it took me a while to hack this out on the keyboard. She has also made reference to my first argument--the fact that Tolkien was dealing with our own history. I do think this is critical to understanding this question.

P.P.S. I also cross posted with Davem! I am reposting this ahead of him so it doesn't get "lost".

[ April 11, 2003: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Mister Underhill]

Sheesh: I cross-posted too. Edits are to try to catch up to posts made subsequent to my composing this...

davem, I wonder, what leads you to so categorically conclude that all the tales and poems of ME are necessarily based on historical events? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the tales told by Hobbits, in particular, who kept themselves so insulated from the "real" events of the outside world and who had only a dim picture of their own past history, would be rife with pure fantasy and invention.

Besides, a decent work of fiction that is based on historical events soon loses any real resemblance to the true facts of the events. Shakespeare's "Histories" are prime examples (as are Child's examples of The Iliad and The Odyssey). This would be even more true if the prime method of the tale's transmission were through oral rather than written means.

My instinct has always been that it wouldn't be Elves who created the great subcreative works -- you have too many deathless old codgers hanging around who can tell you "what really happened" on such and such an occasion. And Elves are always so serious, if not downright dour, and don't seem inclined to whimsical creations. That "tra-la-la-lally" gang seem to have been anomalies. I always thought that if imaginative fiction had a heyday, it was probably during the height of Númenorean civilization.

On the other hand, I'll contradict myself and cite The Istari in UT:

olo-s: vision, 'phantasy': Common Elvish name for 'construction of the mind' not actually (pre)existing in Ëa apart from the construction, but by the Eldar capable of being by Art (Karmë) made visible and sensible. Olos is usually applied to fair construction having solely an artistic object (i.e. not having the object of deception, or of acquiring power).

If the Elves had the vocabulary for fantasy, I'm sure it manifested in their art, including their tales and poems.

Regarding Middle-earth as our own "prehistory", I must confess that I never really caught that intention when I first read the books lo these many years ago, and instinctively rejected it when I realized it years later. It breaks the reality of the story for me, since ME is so patently not the prehistory of our world.

[ April 11, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[drigel]

I like this thread! But isnt the sub-creation enough? lol Wasnt that the goal of the author, or possibly the subcreation simply not filled in all the way because of the time factor?

I think a main point of JRRT's work was the regret of the loss of Anglo Saxon history due to the fact that it was all in the oral tradition. And although i am a fan of the Iliad and such i dont think you would capture many readers attention by having an entire novel going at the pace of , say, The Council of Elrond.... I agree somewhat that the time of the LOTR was similar to our dark ages in the sense that, while there were some established realms, this was a time of war and instability and the general populace didnt have the ways and means and recreational time to "invent" stories. The only writing going on was by old men in dark towers at Minas Tirith.

[Annunfuiniel]

First of all: Thank you Child for pointing me what my point was! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I took an one hour walk and started to question if I had said anything reasonable.

'Creating' a mythology is what its about - creating - its a creative act.

I would tend to disagree. Think about the previously mentioned examples of mythologies or say Kalevala. They weren't consciously created but born during only God knows how long a period. Homer (even if he were a historical figure) didn't create The Iliad and The Odyssey, he just put together the puzzle so to say. Even better example of this is The Kalevala (closest to my heart anyway as I'm a Finn): the Finnish mythology certainly wasn't E. Lönnrot's creation or even his sub-creation (I'm getting tired of this term...), he just put the various existing pieces together in his epic (published as late as 1835). So, the myths arise from a basic human need: the desire to understand "Why?". And the answer to that question is what we refer to as a myth. Notice: a i.e. one myth not a mythology. And even the singular myths, tales, faeries or whatever you call them weren't creations as we understand the word. As Child pointed out the men of earlier times were more closely and very differently connected to earth, gods and such than we are; when one of them explained e.g. why the sun was in the sky and moved across it or why it rained/stormed his explanation wouldn't have been conceived as a created tale but as the way things actually were in nature.

Ok, I have to get back to this subject later for this is taking the time from my actual studies (I should be reading for an exam which is tomorrow; how inhuman is that, an exam on Saturday!).

[davem]

Annunfuiniel. I can see all the points being made here (I Love the Kalevala, by the way. First time I read it I read for about 3 hours straight, & the effect of the poetry was very strange - quite hypnotic).
But sub creation doesn't require writing, let alone printing. Also Tolkien wrote one of his most moving stories, Leaf by Niggle, about a sub creator. I'm not (however I may come across) making any point here, I'm really just asking the question. If, as Tolkien said, sub creation is the ultimate expression of human creativity, why no sub creation in his world? Sub creation is central to his understanding of human nature, yet, its absent from his created world. He seems to consider it to be the highest expression of human creativity, yet his greatest creators, his greatest artists, don't produce an example of the highest art form. And Niggle shows that the idea of a sub created world containing a sub creator wasn't an idea that hadn't occurred to him.
I have difficulty with the idea of the Elves 'embellishing' their history, as that throws everything into question, & leaves us not able to trust any of the legends. Everyone from Elrond & Galadriel down could be making stuff up!.
I also feel that myth is creative - whether consciously or unconsciously creative is the question. It comes from the human mind, its not imposed.
I have to say I'm feeling pretty isolated in the position I've taken, but I'm not trying to be awkward [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Annunfuiniel]

Greetings once more, davem! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Ok, I've gone quite far from Tolkien and his writings in my previous posts so now I try to cover that "flaw". The next quote is from The Lost Tales (1): The Cottage of Lost Play

Of the misty aftermemories of these[the experiences of the children of Men in Eldamar], of their broken tales and snatches of song, came many strange legends that delighted Men for long, and still do, it may be; for of such were the poets of the Great Lands[Middle-Earth]

Yes, I know Tolkien changed his views on these occasions many times and eventually disowned Eriol as the intermediary of the elvish knowledge back to M-E or moreover he abandoned the idea that there was a straight pass for the Children of Men to Eldamar. But that quote shows at least in my opinion that Tolkien did consider sub-creation in the scope of M-E and he beheld men capable of that act.

Now, it has been pointed out many times that:
First of all sub-creation did exist in M-E; in various forms (in poetry and tales as well as in "non-literary" connections).
Secondly: Tolkien didn't give us any example of "great" sub-creations ie. whole mythologies and such but it seems quite safe to assume that the peoples of M-E were indeed quite capable to create such works of art as well.

Now I will come to your question, davem, that is "why no sub creation in his[Tolkien's] world?" Referring to the previous statements I assume you mean to ask why there existed or more accurately why there is no examples of "great" works of sub-creation - created mythologies - in M-E. Now that I've thought about this a while I would put it this way: in the LoTR as well as in Tolkien's other writings the existent sub created works didn't just come to the fore.

The stories recited in the LoTR are usually organically related to the plot; their main function was to give the reader (and some ignorant hobbits?) a deeper insight to the events, give him some glimpses to the history. Tolkien had difficulties with the length of his epic without any fictional tales (recited by say good ol' Sam) which wouldn't have taken the story forward. Where as in the Silmarillion the confusion created by such sub created stories in the middle of (a sub created) mythology would have been great not to mention they wouldn't have served any purpose in a book which recounts "historical" events. If Tolkien had written an independent story portraying the culture and social life of e.g. Gondolin or Rohan I bet he would have painted a colorful picture of poets singing purely fictional stories to their enchanted listeners in the courts as well as on the streets.

[Novhloke]

Elves were skilled at makeing songs, and i dont remember were, but it said that the songs that the elves write always tell a story. Same with every song.

[davem]

Annunfuiniel, still doesn't explain why something which Tolkien considers an essential aspect of our nature as created beings doesn't even get a mention. He wouldn't have to have related any of the tales of the subcreators, just mentioned that there were sub creators in ME. Of course, there is the danger of a kind of 'infinite regression - the sub created worlds of the sub creators would also have to contain subcreated worlds, ad infinitum

('It was a dark & stormy night.
We sat by the calcined wall
It was said to the Taleteller
"Tell us a tale" & the Tale ran thus:
"It was a dark & stormy night.....'
-David Jones, The Anathemata)
But I wonder why Tolkien never approached the area at all.

[Annunfuiniel]

I give up... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

You're exploring unknown paths
your eye fixed keen
- as I have seen
on great new lands
with clear blue skies
straight roads ahead
and a new sunrise
that light shall shed
- and shadows will be dead
But in this place
that has you enchanted
you will likely face
many dangers And granted
that you don't watch where you go
when seeking your goal
be it right or foul
- I really don't know!
you might fall for a rabbit hole.

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Keep the discussion up and rolling I shall follow it with great interest! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Yours truly, Annun

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

A few thoughts. Hm, davem, are you talking about literary subcreation alone? or subcreation of all kinds? Because I think that makes a bit of a difference in the way you look at the subject.

I know the elves' "magic" has already been discussed, but their visual artistic creation was present too. An example being the Halls of Menegroth fashioned to resemble the gardens of Lorien, or the trees Brethil and Glingal of Gondolin, or the swan boats of the Teleri, the Gems of the Noldor, the architecture of Rivendell and Tirion...

Tolkien does say expressly that the elves are to function as subcreators in ME

"By the making of gems the sub-creative function of the Elves is chiefly symbolized..." Letter 131

That however, doesn't mean they are the only ones taking part in the act of subcreation. We also see the Valar as subcreators, as their thoughts in the great music are realized (the Ents, snow, etc.)
This seems to be a theme in Tolkein as well, the Creator realizes the subcreations of his people; it also appears in Leaf by Niggle.

I also wanted to point out, that most mythology is, as others have said well, organic, growing out of a people and a culture. Tolkien is, to my knowledge, the only one to try to "create" the kind of mythology he undertook. Other writers write fantasy, Tolkien writes translated history. If there's only one of him on the current Earth, why do we expect ME to be abounding with this sort of behavior? Only one Vala created Dwarves, only one Noldo created Silmarilli, only one man created myths (in the way that Tolkien did...). I for one, am not surprised that the myths of middle earth are organic rather than created.

-Sophia

[davem]

Sophia, one of the main reasons I'm surprised at the lack of sub creators in ME is that Tolkien was THE great subcreator.
I'm not sure what Tolkien meant by the creation of Jewels being a sub creative act, as in other writings Tolkien was clear that sub creation is the creation of a 'Secondary world' in the mind, which is often, but not always set down in some physical form. There is just no sub creation of that kind in ME.
Niggle sub creates a secondary world in his painting of the Tree. Maybe you could even see Smith's productions as attempts at subcreation ('essays in the craft', if you like). But the peoples of ME seem to restrict themselve to re-creation of their own world/experiences/history, rather than sub creation of other worlds/experiences/histories. Was there no desire to sub create in that way? And if not, how does that fit in with Tolkien's own views on sub creation being an essential 'drive' in all of us? Is it deliberate on Tolkien's part to exclude sub creation in his subcreated world, or did he just forget? Could he really have considered such sub creation 'unnecesary'?

[Annunfuiniel]

Forget what I wrote earlier, here I am again! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
I don't know what it's worth to this subject as you conceive it, davem, but here is a long list of quotes from the letter (131, To Milton Waldman) which Sophia quoted above. ([brackets] and bold texts are my alterations)

(...)Anyway, all this stuff*[ie. Tolkien's mythology] is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality, and the Machine.(...)With Mortality, especially as it affects art and the creative (or as I should say, sub-creative) desire(...). This [subcreative]desire is at once wedded to a passionate love of the real primary world, and hence filled with the sense of mortality, and yet unsatisfied by it. It has various opportunities of 'Fall'. It may become possessive, clinging to the things made as 'its own', the sub-creator wishes to be the Lord and God of his private creation. He will rebel against the laws of the Creator - especially against mortality. Both of these (alone or together) will lead to the desire for Power,(...)
---------------
*It is, I suppose, fundamentally concerned with the problem of the relation of Art (and Sub-creation) and Primary Reality.

Later in the same letter:

Their [Elves'] 'magic' is Art, delivered from many of its human limitations(...) And its object is Art not Power, sub-creation not domination and tyrannous re-forming of Creation.(...)The Enemy in successive forms is always 'naturally' concerned with sheer Domination [ie. Power](...)

In a side note:

(...)the Beginner of Evil: his was a sub-creative Fall, and hence the Elves (the representatives of sub-creation par excellence) were peculiarly his enemies, and the special object of his desire and hate - and open to his deceits. Their Fall is into possessiveness ans (to a lesser degree) into perversion of their art[ie. sub-creation] to power[ie. domination]

And finally:

By the making of gems[the Silmarils] the sub-creative function of the Elves is chiefly symbolized, but the Silmarilli were more than just beautiful things as such. There was Light.(...)*
--------
*(...)The Light of Valinor (derived from light before any fall) is the light of art undivorced from reason, that sees things both scientifically (or philosophically) and imaginatively (or subcreatively) and 'says that they are good' - as beautiful.(...)

So,
#1: Sub-creation, as Tolkien conceived it, wasn't bounded solely on "creation of 'Secondary World' in the mind"; he used the concept in far wider scale and so should we too.
#2: Sub-creation as Elves' Art is basically good but still "has various opportunities for 'Fall'". Elves', more specifically the Noldor's, Fall is a result from their sub-creative desire, which eventually led to the desire to possess, to dominate. Melkor truly knew what strings to pull for he was the first Sub-creator!
#3: I would assume when facing this evidence that Tolkien didn't want to represent any of the characters of LOTR as 'Great Sub-creators', that is, as rebels against the Creator etc. The Elves' (Noldor) great subcreating acts had formerly led to their downfall: and I think they learned from that. Galadriel is an example of this: she passed her test, the temptation of the Ring (one great sub-creation in the wider context of the word, I'd say) and thus was allowed to return.
And now I'll shut up.

[davem]

Don't really have time today to pursue this. But I do think there's a substantial difference between the creation of a gem (even of a Silmaril) & the sub creation of a world which may contain numerous Silmarilli, if the sub creator so desires.
My whole difficulty all along has been that the Elves, especially the Noldor, are the great creators of ME, but, even if we accept their works of art as sub creative acts, they are limited. Too limited. Even the Silmarils are 'simple' creations. Of course, in terms of what it took to make them they weren't 'simple' tasks for Feanor, but end the end, for all the work involved, for all their beauty, they are a less 'complex' creation than a sub created world, like Tolkien's own, which can contain not only Silmarils, but whole races, creatures, languages, art, good, evil, sacrifice, life & death. In other words, Tolkien's sub created world is infinitely more complex than anything it contains. But WHY? Why is there no comparable sub creation even referred to?
I will try & pursue this more tomorrow.

[davem]

Something occured to me last night, but maybe I'll be arguing against myself, because I now think there is 'fiction', or sub creation in ME.
Its to do with the difference between magic & art.
In an interview Christopher Tolkien has said that Magic is the Machine, it attempts to change the 'primary' world. Art, on the other hand, at least in its highest form, attempts to sub create a 'secondary' world in the mind.
There is an Elvish sub creation in ME, but its not to do with telling stories, its to do with sub creating 'secondary' worlds in a more 'substantial' way. Elvish sub creation is found in both Lorien & Rivendell.
This brings in an idea from another thread, on 'Gated Communities' in ME, where I suggested it was more a case of 'gated worlds'.
The key, I think, is the way those 'worlds' seem to have a different atmosphere, even Time moves/is experienced differently there.
Lorien & Rivendell are sub created, dream, worlds. They 'impinge' on the 'primary' world of ME, but exist outside of it. There are 'gates' through which it is possible to enter them, but they are not part of the 'primary' ME.
Unfortunately, as 'dreams' they must fade, naturally, or be held in being by some force, which is where 'magic, the Machine' comes in, so the Elves turn to the Rings. It is the Machine which 'embalms' the Elves Art. But the Elves finally realise this, & in the episode where Galadriel rejects the One Ring, they accept it & move on from ME.

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I think you may have a very good point there... Something I will continue to think about.

I want to say what you're saying has a link to the elves' role as preservers. They seem to be attempting to preserve their history, but I think, perhaps, that there's another link in there that we are missing. The elves' history is grand and beautiful and touched with sadness, but (and here I bring in a thought from Bethberry, also in the Gated Community thread) they do have a tendency to project their failings on anything but themselves. Much of the grief of the elves is in fact caused by the fact that they seem unable to learn from the mistakes of the past (Feanor falls with his Silmarils, yet Celebrimbor still judges ring-making safe???)

Considering their tendencies both to preserve their history, and to see it through lenses that obscure their own faults, I think it is plausible to say that they aren't preserving their true history (which I don't think would qualify as sub-creation), but that they are preserving an idealized version of their history. The atmosphere in Lorien or Rivendell, or even in Mithlond, is not the same as the atmosphere in Beleriand, First Age, which is what they are doubtlessly trying to recapture. The atmosphere of the elven realms in Beleriand was not the same as the atmosphere of Valinor, not even Gondolin, which was directly modeled on Tirion upon Tuna.

While the events of their history may have been recorded accurately, if you are coming from the point of view that davem is taking, then the primary act of subcreation of the elves in the Third Age was the preservation of an ideal take on a historical world.

Did that make any sense? I had one of those quick ideas that's gone before you can finish writing it out, so I did the best I could [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Sophia

Happy 400th post to me [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[davem]

I think you're right (if I've understood you!). The Elves greatest 'sub creation' or 'fiction', is in turning not just their world but their history & even themselves, into ART. So we're actually seeing the history of the three ages as they wanted it to be, rather than as it actually was. They are sub creators, but in a way they're sub creating themselves, constantly. Their real history is the raw material they work with to produce their 'art'. In a way, they themselves are also raw material which they fashion into ideal forms.
But how far can that be taken before you lose any sense of who & what you actually are? So, the Elves are their own greatest sub creation! Talk about Art for Art's sake.
I'm leaving this here - as a very wise person once said, this will take a week's answer or none! I have to think about this.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Davem and everyone,

YES! This was exactly what I was trying to say in my earlier post, only my own thoughts were not as explicit as yours and I used different descriptive terms. See quote below:

If you think of it from Tolkien's perspective, rather than the terms of modern fantasy books, the residents of Middle-earth, and specifically the Elves, have done exactly what Tolkien did. They've taken their own past history and woven them into marvelous, miraculous tales. They've created something I would call "lore", which has one foot in history (at least in Tolken's terms) and one foot in faerie.

I was talking about sub-creation when I said the Elves "did exactly what Tolkien did" regarding the creation of their own history. I called these "miraculous tales" and "lore" but these terms come more naturally to me as an historian, and they are, I believe, the same thing you, Davem, term "Art".

If we are honest about what our past is, I believe that the very best written or oral history, whether you are talking about Men or Elves, involves an act of sub-creation or Art, and, by implication, the creation of alternate worlds (or realities). Believe me. There is no "objective" history, once you get beyond a certain level. Man is merely copying the practices of the Elves in this regard, but our results are not as fine as theirs.

sharon

[Sophia the Thunder Mistress]

Hmm, Child, I think I must have missed that quote when I read the rest of the thread. *frowning to self*

I think you're right about the idealized history (and our history too, nothing's ever objective because there is no "disinterested observer"). My next comment is this: I wonder if the elves know that they color their history?

[ April 17, 2003: Message edited by: Sophia the Thunder Mistress ]

[davem]

Sophia, I wonder if they do consciously 'sub create' their world/themselves. I suspect its 'automatic', an essential part of the way they relate to things. I even begin to wonder if they could respond in any other way. Art, after all, is essentially an 'embalming' process. It is about capturing a moment, a thought, an image, & 'freezing' it forever. So, the Elves are 'embalmers' because they're artists. Being embalmers in this sense is not something they sould be condemned for. Artists embalm. They create & embalm. That's art. They do it to their world, their history, themselves, even time itself. How could it be otherwise with the greatest works of art of the greatest artists. That's why it has to be 'gated worlds' rather than 'gated communities' - every work of art, poem, painting, story, is in this sense, a 'gated world'. You enter into it through a 'gate', but once you've passed through the gate, you're in another world, not a different community in this world.
This is why, I suppose, there's no 'fiction' at least from the Elves. For them everything as far as they can make it be, is 'fiction'. Which is not to denigrate what they do, making the world (& yourself as part of that world) into a work of art is as valid an approach to living as any other - is our way, of seeing the living world as a source of raw materials to exploit, any better. Is embalming worse than destroying?

[Lyra Greenleaf]

Thanks for the link, Sophia. I think I may revive this thread. I don't have very sophisticated points to give but this is a fascinating discussion, so I hope people will continue it!

OK, I have to agree with whoever said this:

davem, I wonder, what leads you to so categorically conclude that all the tales and poems of ME are necessarily based on historical events

How do we know how much of the Sil is "true"? Take Beren and Luthien. Perhaps the shape changing is to be seen as embellishment and what they actually did was to camouflage themselves? This is the kind of tale that springs up in our world- so why not ME too?

In addition, I know lots of people have said this, but LOTR coincides with centuries ago in our world, when their fiction was songs, legends, etc- not Catherine Cookson novels!

Finally, can you imagine the Elves reading novels? I can't, I think they wouldn't be high brow enough, and anyway the Elves like the community "performance" type of tale. Dwarves? I have to say no, it doesn't quite fit. Gondorians? In their troubled lives, would they have the time or inclination? Lets not forget they have to spend a LOT longer doing chores due to lack of washing machines, etc too. The Rohirrim aren't known for being very creative- as Faramir points out when he says Gondor is becoming too like them. Which leaves, pretty much, the Hobbits and Bree dwellers who we get told about in any detail. But not that many Hobbits can read or write, which probably holds true for Bree, as well. So who is going to read ME novels? And if there's no audience why would you create them?