The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - What does it mean to Write in the Spirit of Tolkien?

Nar · 10-26-2002, 10:39 AM

*blows the dust off the bar*
*shouts* Hey, Saxony Tarn, where's you put that barrel O' Mead of Inspiration 1420? Ah, here it is! I like my Mead in a teacup.
\_/? Ahh! I believe something's coming to me! Have one yourself, LMP! |_|)

Arwen I., Diamond, and Arwen 1858, excellent responses! Have a round, beverage of your choice: |_|) |_|) |_|) Very thoughtful. Details, themes, seriousness, it's a hard question to answer. Arwn I., you mention a mystical spirit -- the writing puts you into a mood. Diamond and Arwen1858 put their focus on a rich background and details. Languages, or at least if words are invented, they'll have a consistent sound. A lot of times Tolkien introduces words with variations and a little prose poem that gives the reader a breath to take it in -- I think a lot of fantasy writers miss this and just slam each new word in there -- I find that alienating. I need at least a couple of sentences playing with the new word to accept and absorb it. I think the way Legolas introduces Lothlorien is a brilliant example.

'To write in the spirit of Tolkien' -- this can only be accomplished if you include 'To write BEYOND the spirit of Tolkien'. Tolkien wasn't trying to recreate the old literature he loved, he was trying to develop it for his age. If you want to write something in the least comparable, you've got to have a similar intent.

What do I do in practice? Read what Tolkien himself read, not just LotR itself or all the books that come from it. Walk in the forest, trying to see the hills and rocks, the brush and trees with other vision ... it often works. Tune in to the elemental side of life ... the life of the animals around me. Try to see others with the insight of Frodo and the deep loyalty and love of Sam. When I'm ready to write more on my stories, I read them aloud to get back the mood and voice. I usually rant my work aloud to myself or my cats --my Jalepeno plant is also a big fan (maybe it just likes the CO2 I exhale) besides being so resistant to drought that even *I* have not managed to kill it. I have two cacti also, but they don't like my stories. I can tell.

Now, I'd love to hear a variety of responses to this thread, so if hifalutin literary criticism bothers or irritates you, don't read the rest of this post, just hit reply and give your own take on this, ok? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

As an example of Tolkien's DEVELOPMENT of the Epic Romance, he braided together two distinct narrative voices: the 'Tale of the High King' voice and the 'Tale of the Wandering Hobbits' voice. The first one uses language and attitudes drawn from epics and is remote, poetic, anti-psychological and shaped by secondary sources --a story drawn from old stories read and loved. It has something in common with stories about stories like Rhys' Wide Saragasso Sea (Jane Eyre from the point of view of the mad wife) or Lewis' Til We Have Faces (Cupid and Psyche (or Beauty and the Beast) from the point of view of the ugly stepsister) --but with one crucial difference, Tolkien's epic romance is not a commentary or a response but a continuation, absolutely straight and sincere. Tolkien's 'High King' narrative bears the marks of being conceived by reading sources rather than being conceived from direct experience, but the story is delivered primarily as a story and not as a commentary on a source.

The narrative voice of the 'Wandering Hobbits' is drawn from direct experience -- Tolkien's friendsips, his hill walking, his life experiences -- that's why the narrations so much more tactile and sensory and physical when the Hobbits are on stage. That's why the emotions are so much more accessible. This is a major addition to the Epic Romance, and it's pulled off beautifully, with a narrative structure that's quite complex -- there's the interlacing of the various groups of heroes, for example, in TTT, back and forth between Frodo/Sam, Merry/Pippin and Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli. Then there's the narrative effect of whether there's a hobbit around to be immediatly affected by events, or whether we're solely with figures of romance whose psychology is withheld.

All of this creates a composition of narrative voices, of styles, of the kind and character of story, that winds under and around
1)the braided themes of the story itself: sacrifice, transcendence, survival, assumption and restoration of true authority, adventure, friendship and love --all the issues the characters must confront;
2)the braided religious aspects -- deeply rooted assuptions about the world, truth, life and death, morality;
3)the archetypes themselves, drawing so powerfully on sources from many faiths and dreams and nightmares: Shelob, Sauron, Galadriel, Smeagol/Gollum, the ring, etc.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

10-26-2002, 10:39 AM	#5
Nar Wight Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 228	blows the dust off the bar shouts Hey, Saxony Tarn, where's you put that barrel O' Mead of Inspiration 1420? Ah, here it is! I like my Mead in a teacup. \_/? Ahh! I believe something's coming to me! Have one yourself, LMP! \|_\|) Arwen I., Diamond, and Arwen 1858, excellent responses! Have a round, beverage of your choice: \|_\|) \|_\|) \|_\|) Very thoughtful. Details, themes, seriousness, it's a hard question to answer. Arwn I., you mention a mystical spirit -- the writing puts you into a mood. Diamond and Arwen1858 put their focus on a rich background and details. Languages, or at least if words are invented, they'll have a consistent sound. A lot of times Tolkien introduces words with variations and a little prose poem that gives the reader a breath to take it in -- I think a lot of fantasy writers miss this and just slam each new word in there -- I find that alienating. I need at least a couple of sentences playing with the new word to accept and absorb it. I think the way Legolas introduces Lothlorien is a brilliant example. 'To write in the spirit of Tolkien' -- this can only be accomplished if you include 'To write BEYOND the spirit of Tolkien'. Tolkien wasn't trying to recreate the old literature he loved, he was trying to develop it for his age. If you want to write something in the least comparable, you've got to have a similar intent. What do I do in practice? Read what Tolkien himself read, not just LotR itself or all the books that come from it. Walk in the forest, trying to see the hills and rocks, the brush and trees with other vision ... it often works. Tune in to the elemental side of life ... the life of the animals around me. Try to see others with the insight of Frodo and the deep loyalty and love of Sam. When I'm ready to write more on my stories, I read them aloud to get back the mood and voice. I usually rant my work aloud to myself or my cats --my Jalepeno plant is also a big fan (maybe it just likes the CO2 I exhale) besides being so resistant to drought that even I have not managed to kill it. I have two cacti also, but they don't like my stories. I can tell. Now, I'd love to hear a variety of responses to this thread, so if hifalutin literary criticism bothers or irritates you, don't read the rest of this post, just hit reply and give your own take on this, ok? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] As an example of Tolkien's DEVELOPMENT of the Epic Romance, he braided together two distinct narrative voices: the 'Tale of the High King' voice and the 'Tale of the Wandering Hobbits' voice. The first one uses language and attitudes drawn from epics and is remote, poetic, anti-psychological and shaped by secondary sources --a story drawn from old stories read and loved. It has something in common with stories about stories like Rhys' Wide Saragasso Sea (Jane Eyre from the point of view of the mad wife) or Lewis' Til We Have Faces (Cupid and Psyche (or Beauty and the Beast) from the point of view of the ugly stepsister) --but with one crucial difference, Tolkien's epic romance is not a commentary or a response but a continuation, absolutely straight and sincere. Tolkien's 'High King' narrative bears the marks of being conceived by reading sources rather than being conceived from direct experience, but the story is delivered primarily as a story and not as a commentary on a source. The narrative voice of the 'Wandering Hobbits' is drawn from direct experience -- Tolkien's friendsips, his hill walking, his life experiences -- that's why the narrations so much more tactile and sensory and physical when the Hobbits are on stage. That's why the emotions are so much more accessible. This is a major addition to the Epic Romance, and it's pulled off beautifully, with a narrative structure that's quite complex -- there's the interlacing of the various groups of heroes, for example, in TTT, back and forth between Frodo/Sam, Merry/Pippin and Aragorn/Legolas/Gimli. Then there's the narrative effect of whether there's a hobbit around to be immediatly affected by events, or whether we're solely with figures of romance whose psychology is withheld. All of this creates a composition of narrative voices, of styles, of the kind and character of story, that winds under and around 1)the braided themes of the story itself: sacrifice, transcendence, survival, assumption and restoration of true authority, adventure, friendship and love --all the issues the characters must confront; 2)the braided religious aspects -- deeply rooted assuptions about the world, truth, life and death, morality; 3)the archetypes themselves, drawing so powerfully on sources from many faiths and dreams and nightmares: Shelob, Sauron, Galadriel, Smeagol/Gollum, the ring, etc. [ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]