Quote:
davem
Sadly, this is a trap the older Tolkien fell into more & more often
|
Well, I'll risk being called visionist (which I am not), but I'd say (in this lining up with mark:12-30, if I were to understand her post as she meant it), that in his late years (as in his young years, I'd say, but more obvioulsy so in later writings) Tolkien was not so much trying to conform his secondary world to the primary world, but to the Absolute Truth (call it Primary World with capitalization if you will). I may also risk being a bit platonic, but I assume that it may be said that both secondary world [sub]created by the writer, and the primary world we live in are images of some other more 'real' word, and there is such a thing as Absolute Truth (to use Mr. U (even if unconscious) support:
If something is wrong, it must be wrong in relation to something that is right, no?. Yes. And for something to be true or untrue, or proved to be true or untrue, it must be measered against something which is True. And the thing we measure something against is not, by definition of the process itself, equal to things measured. To add up to the soup, I will draw Kant to my support too, with his 'moral law inside me' maxim
I do not intend to present you with the idea that Tolkien was some kind of a medium 'recording' things he have seen in a vision. I know he has been inventing his places and characters. In this I line up with Aiwendil, I believe. What I'm driving at may be listed as follows:
1. Talking about 'moral tenets' - all human race has moral code which is basically the same (whatever minor differences amounting to different cultures, major evaluation is the same - kindness and bravery are valued everywhere, and cowardice and treachery are vices everywhere likewise etc.)
2. The existence of such uniformity is not explainable without drawing on Absolute Truth resources.
3. The primary world itself is less true in relation to Absolute Truth, for every event in it has to be measured against it and the level of its conformity to be found out (the whole Freedom of Will/Choice issue hangs on these hinges).
Now, having the general postulates, I will move on to more concrete maxims:
4. Tolkien was trying to bring his secondary world in conformity not with the primary world, but with the Absolute Truth, which took considerable effort, and brought an end to it being self contained.
5. What has been called Faerie throughout this thread, to me seems like just another mirror (as our world is mirror too) of the same Absolute Truth. Again, I do not intend to indicate that Faerie as Faerie is real place, with that particular mountain and this particular river placed indeed as drawn by JRR Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien on their home made map, but as the reflection of concepts. So again I'm with Aiwendil here up to a point, but another point may be added – the whole aim of fantasy (as of other arts too), is not to open a window, but to reflect the Truth, to be a mirror. As cherubs are calling to eaceh other, so, as no creature can contain the greatness of the Creator all in itself, we have to tell each other about Him.We should be grateful to Tolkien for telling us such a strong word of it.
6. In this context, the unifromity, or self contained substance of any [sub]created secondary world is of less value that its relation to the Absolute Truth. And that is why Tolkien was leaning so heavily on the concept of Eucatastrophe
Hence it is to be concluded, that:
A) Some interpetations may be indeed more right, and others more wrong
B) The way of judging the rightness/wrongness of the intepratation lies indeed with the consensus of the society, general 'reasonable man' (what was the name of the chap on a bus?)
I would briefly add that enchantment much discussed here may be subsequent to all three given reasons indeed, but it all comes down to the Absolute Truth in the end. (And well, call it universal archetypes who will, I will stick to Absolute Truth rather) Going back to clause 5 of my statements above, it may be said that some that do not fall in for fantasy, have some other ways to the Truth, as good and as justified as fantasy/Faerie may be.
PS. Well, I'm afraid I've just pushed this thread in "Finding God in JRRT" direction, but I do believe that without such a concept there is not way of understanting Tolkien. Appreciation, love, enjoyment – yes. Understanding – no.
Disclaimer – the Post Scriptum does not state my claim of having absolute understanding myself, I just have a feeling that my efforts are in the right direction, in a sense as in clause A of a conclusion