(The relevance of the title will not be apparent until the end of this post.)
Fordim
Your story is fascinating, although I would question the merit of providing such an analysis, even one pitched at a general level, at a bunch of people who have not yet read the primary text. Even though it might inspire them to go and read the book, it is difficult to see how being told about the themes and sources underlying Tolkien's works can be of any benefit to them when they have no (or limited) knowledge of the works themselves. On the other hand, if they were interested enough to choose to attend, then I suppose (on the basis of my own reasoning with
davem) there must be some value in it to them.
But I think that your old lady does highlight a risk inherent in the exercise. It seems to me that you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you described it as breaking the enchantment (ensorcelment?) before the spell has even been cast. For many, perhaps even for everybody, the enchantment arises when they first read the text themselves, free from any externally derived influences concerning it. It seems to me that this lady was wise enough to recognise this herself. But we will never know whether (and if so how) the other attendees might react differently to the book when they read it than they would have done if they had not been privy to this background information in advance.
For someone who has already read LotR and then chooses to go on to read more widely concerning Tolkien and his works, I think that the position is different. As I said in response to a point raised by
Helen (somewhere back on the first page, I think), that initial enchantment will still be part of their experience, even though it may develop into something slightly different as they work through the secondary materials.
Davem
Thank you for clarifying your position on the published Silmarillion. Nevertheless, had you had access to the UT and HoME papers and been acquainted with Christopher Tolkien prior to its publication, wouldn't you be saying precisely the same thing to him as you are saying to
Maedhros and co now? Prior to its compilation and publication, it too was one of a potential "series of Silms". And yet, from your current perspective, ie here and now, you regard it as incredibly important.
It seems to me that everyone here who has sought to defend the "Revised Silmarillion" project (whether they are involved in the project themselves or not) has said much the same thing, namely that it is a worthwhile exercise because it has value to those involved in its creation and it will no doubt be of interest, and therefore of value, to others when complete. You recognise the former (its value to its creators), but appear not to accept the latter (its potential value to others).
I suspect that you are trying to work through your own feelings about it. You may be persuaded by some of the arguments being put forward, but then again you may not. You may ultimately decide that it really does have no subjective value to you. But you surely cannot deny its value (or potential value at least) on an objective level.
As for your "two way communication with Tolkien" idea, I am not familiar with the Lost Road and Notion Club papers, so I cannot comment on them. But I would disagree that I am under any obligation to "disprove" it. As the proposer of the theory, the burden of proof is upon you to establish it.
And as yet I remain far from convinced. Perhaps it would help if you clarified exactly how you regard it as a two way conversation given that conversation is an active process whereby each participant reacts to the views put forward by the other paticipant(s). I can see how Tolkien might be talking to me from the grave when I read his works, but how is he reacting to my own views and interpretations? And, if he is not reacting to them, how can he truly be described as playing an active (and therefore living) role?
Finally, at the risk of inducing further complexity into this discussion, may I take the liberty of introducing an additional theme? It was one which occured to me late last night after I had logged off, when I caught sight of a spider in the bath. I have never been fond of spiders and, as I gazed at it, I experienced a feeling of primordial fear (no doubt intensified by my drowsiness). It got me to thinking about archetypes and shared experience. I think it was
davem who mentioned that Jung was no doubt lurking around the edges of this discussion somewhere. And Jung's ideas concerning archetypes have been applied to Tolkien's works, LotR in particular, which is hardly surprising given how heavily he drew on ancient mythology. LotR is itself a kind of "Hero Myth" replete with Jungian archetypes.
Now I am certain that these ideas have been raised and discussed elsewhere on this forum, but I was wondering how they might impact upon one of the central themes in this thread, namely our approach towards the interpretation of Tolkien's works. Does the presence of these archetypes from our shared experience (collective consciousness?) mean that there will be a level upon which we will all react to these materials in the same way, just as spiders evoke in all of us at some level a feeling of revulsion, if not fear? Does this mean that there may in fact be a "right" approach towards interpreting Tolkien at some level?
As will be clear from the clumsy way in which I have raised this idea, it is not something upon which I have a great breadth of knowledge. I was once very interested in Jung's ideas but it is a long time since I last studied them, so I am simply raising the point for possible further discussion. And I am sure that there are others out there who are far better qualified than me to expand on this theme and consider whether (and if so how) it might be relevant to the topic at hand (*looks appealingly at
Bęthberry*
).