Has it all been said?

[davem]

It seems that most of the new Tolkien related books coming out are mainly about Tolkien himself, rather than about the stories & the world he created. The focus now seems to be on his life & infuences, rather than on the creation.

Is Tolkien himself as, or perhaps more, important than the stories he told - or is it simply that there is only so much one can say about stories which we love without pulling them to pieces & just being left with vaguely interesting 'shreds'? Certainly the next two major works - Hammond & Scull's Tolkien Companion & Guide & Routledge's Tolkien Encyclopedia seem to be more about the creator than the creation.

A 'good thing'? Well, Tolkien himself was not a fan of 'biography' - as he stated on numerous occasions. He felt that his stories were what mattered & saw a real danger in looking too deeply into his own life & influences. Even in-depth analysis of the stories & their 'meaning' wasn't something he seemed very keen on - despite his own tendency to over analyse his work (cf the Letters).

For most of us it is the actual experience of being 'in' Middle-earth that matters. My own forays into 'analysis' with the recent LotR CbC read through was an odd one. I learned a lot, but I'm not sure it was all worth learning. Usually when I read the book I just let the experience 'wash' over me & let myself just be swept along without analysing what's going on - & to be honest that's what I enjoy about it. Its why I avoided the Hobbit CbC in the main. The more the author & his 'sources' intrude on my consciousness the more of a 'false' construction it all seems to become.

The recent 50th Anniversary edition of LotR had 300-400 changes made to produce the text 'Tolkien really intended' to give his readers, & I wondered why they bothered. Subtle changes of a word here or there, the capitalisation of a previously un-capitalised word, etc, seems obsessive (not that Tolkien himself wasn't obsessive - but shouldn't an artist be obsessive over his creation? That doesn't require us to be equally obsessive, does it?). This, it seems to me, is due to an obsession with placing the creator above the creation, placing him in the dominant position, when he himself wanted the opposite to be the case.

So, are we destined to see the creation become increasingly placed in the service of finding out more & more detail about the creator? And, if so, will we actually gain all that much from doing so? I just found myself in the position of buying either the latest volume of Tolkien Studies, which includes lots of analysis & investigation of the man & his background sources, or the Houghton Mifflin 50th Anniversary edition of LotR. I bought the latter, 'cos its LotR, it looks nice (production values nowhere near as high as the superior Harper Collins 50th Anniversary edition btw - if you're stuck choosing between them). Now, I'll probably get around to buying TS3 eventually, along with the Companion & Guide. I may even save up for the Encyclopedia. But I'm not sure whether I'll get too much out of them that will stay with me.

Of course, after exploring Middle-earth we all want more, but is the latest tendency - to give us more of Tolkien himself - really satisfying that need, or is it leading us down a blind alley to a dead end? I'm starting to wonder whether what we're all looking for isn't more likely to be found in (good) fan-fic than in 'Tolkien Studies'.

[HerenIstarion]

It seems to me that in the very asking of the question you partially answer it in favour of the latter option. Indeed, sub-creation is finite - you can't get more out than there was put in. But why 'dead end'? Creator is no less interesting, and even more interesting, since his [sub]creation was only part of him, and there must be 'layers' upon 'layers' of things other.

Though, learning 'about' the man always seemed to me an approach losing as compared to 'knowing the man'. Unfortunately, we can no more get to 'know the man', but we may, at least, get to know each other (feat we already are on the way of accomplishing, however imperfect the medium may be) on the way, which would be quite signigicant gain.

To add to the saying, 'those to seek shall find', but who ever said they'll find exactly the thing they were looking for?

Evasive mood on me, but maybe I'll get back to this later...

[Child of the 7th Age]

I'm starting to wonder whether what we're all looking for isn't more likely to be found in (good) fan-fic than in 'Tolkien Studies'.

Yes. Hopefully I will not be tossed out of the Books forum for saying this, but I agree.

I will not get into the discussion of the scholarly literature coming out this year, at least not in this particular post, since I am keeling over and about to fall asleep. And I will certainly concede that much of what passes as fanfiction is not well done. I've said this before on other threads, but I think it bears repeating. I feel that in the long run--the very long run after copyright expires--that, if Middle-earth survives as "true myth", it will eventually go the same path as the Arthurian legend, albeit in a modern mode and with modern means of transmission.

The heart of the thing lies in the stories, and there will be---dare I say must be--other storytellers to carry on the world. Otherwise, it becomes a dead place that only scholars mull over. A dead place will lose its vitality and wither, and I don't want that to happen to Middle-earth. When Tolkien rhapsodized in his Letters about the need for other hands to fill in the empty spaces, I don't think he was kidding. Maybe he was thinking more of music and art, but I believe he would eventually have extended that to written and spoken words. That is the nature of myth. To survive in a meaningful form, myth must be constantly reinterpreted. The best way to do that is not by scholarly essays but by stories.

Some of my fondest depictions of the Arthurian world are through "secondary" authors like T. H. White, who essentially gave us a reinterpretation of Mallory. His story did not take away anything from Mallory but merely added something new. Someday, perhaps, eons in the future, if the Middle-earth writings survive Tolkien will have a T.H. White as Mallory had one (and Mallory himself, of course, is a gloss on even earlier chroniclers of the Arthurian tale). As a man who loved and believed in myth, Tolkien, I think, would not have disapproved.

I love to read some of the threads in the Books forum but this is why I put most of my personal energy into the RPG forums and private short fanfics. I truly believe that, if all I had focused on was the scholarly end of things, I might have left the Downs some time ago. As it is, I feel I have a great deal more that needs to be said, but largely in story format. It's the pull of the story that draws me back.

This is probably way off topic from what you wanted and, if so, I apologize.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

This is probably way off topic from what you wanted and, if so, I apologize.

Its not.

I find myself wondering what would happen if CT was to be a little bit more 'lax' in his approach to copyright over the stories. His approach seems to be that he puts up with what he can't do anything about. CT is, I suppose, in the main responsible for the 'scholarly', creator rather than creation approach. No-one can legally write & publish Middle-earth fiction, so writing about M-e & its creator is the only option. Not that I'm entirely decrying the 'scholarly' stuff. Shippey & Flieger among others have shed important new light on M-e. But is that what we really want? Don't we actually want more tales of Elves & Hobbits (& Dragons!), rather than more analysis of Tolkien's use of the Legends of the Liosalfar, or the way the Kalevala inspired the Legendarium?

Of course, one cannot expect CT to allow a free for all - as we've seen most fan-fic is not simply poor, its embarrassingly bad! Also, one could argue that writers should come up with their own stuff & not 'leech' off others - to put it at its most extreme. But there may well be a 'White' out there who could do more with the material, but is not allowed to. And fantasy as a genre uses 'Tolkienian' themes already. Yet CT seems desirous that his father's creation be seen, & treated, not as a mythology, but as a literary work.

All the scholarly analysis will not make M-e any more accessible, or really, any more interesting. In fact, its quite likely to make it less so, a it will likely put off readers who just want to wander the forests of M-e & visit the Elves. There's a lot more of Sam in most of us than of Pengolodh. I think Tolkien knew this. I find myself wishing that Priscilla, Michael or John had been able to be that 'Sam' as Christopher is that 'Pengolodh'.

But there's the rub. One could argue that PJ is a kind of 'Sam', giving us another account of M-e - & I'm not a fan of what he did! So I can't say I'd be pleased with what the 'Sams' produced. However, that's my opinion. Some good things would undoubtedly come of allowing others to use the materials Tolkien gifted us with.

But this is not really about arguing for more fan-fic. I suppose its a bit of a rant against a 'scholarly' approach which inevitably moves towards a deeper & deeper analysis of aspects of Tolkien's creation which have at best a curiosity value for a certain type of 'intellectual' fan.

We seem to be on the verge of a two-tier fandom - the ones who want to, if not demolish the Tower, at least want to perform analyses on its stones, & the ones who simply want to climb it & look out on the Sea. After all, there are very few other things one can do with such a Tower.

[Holbytlass]

And when one loves, one wants to know...more.
Yes, there is that danger of strapping the beloved on the surgical table and dissecting. But where is that fine line? I find that most of the works people write in trying to carry on the mythology is poor because they didn't seem to do research (or not enough).

It's what I try to tell my sister who wants to write a published fantasy story and she thinks it's good because she named her characters odd names.

[davem]

Well, I didn't set out in this thread to advocate the writing of fan fic, so I can't really argue in favour of it.

My point was about the increasing amount of secondary literature. I can only imagine the effect on a potential reader of Tolkien's works wandering into a largish bookstore & seeing all those books there 'explaining' the meaning of Tolkien's work. They're likely to think 'Whoa! the book itself is over a 1000 pages, if I have to read a whole lot of other books to explain it to me as well, I'll just go for something simpler!'.

The whole point of LotR is that it is a beautiful, moving story, with characters & places we love, not some complex text which has to be translated, de-constructed & explained to the uninitiated .

And there's another thing - some 'fans' actually seem to get off on knowing more than others & being able to 'deliver the LAW about Tolkien' from their own self built pulpit, crushing any 'heresies' with a blistering quote from p.379 of HoM-e 4 like a thunderbolt from on high.

What all the secondary stuff, the scholarly analysis, does is take away the fun, the sheer pleasure of the stories.

So, I'm not criticising someone who wants to go in for all that kind of thing. It just seems to me that the interesting stuff has mostly been said by the serious scholars & that what's coming out now is so obscure as to be irrelevant to most of us, & that even the interesting stuff can actually get in the way.

[Lalwendë]

I think that the profusion of books on Tolkien are a sign of the times.

I was thinking the other day about how 15 years ago our newspapers had news in them, and how celebrity stories were only found in the Sunday tabloids, but today all the papers are stuffed full of celebrity stories - even the broadsheets had front pages about Macca's divorce. It's because we've slipped deep into celebrity culture. This has had a big effect on the publishing houses as they seek t fill Waterstones with ever more biography and autobiography. Geri Halliwell has written two already and we are facing the prospect of one from Chantelle, the noby made famous by going on Celeb Big Brother a few months ago!

Tolkien is not exempt from this. We are fans, and what's more, we are pretty rabid, obsessed fans. So the publishing houses know that a new book on Tolkien will sell. So they publish them.

I can't help thinking that anyone wanting an academic career would do well to get into Tolkien as they will soon become a mini-celebrity themselves, attracting large queues for book signings at Tolkien conferences, and supplementing a meagre academic salary in the process. Much better to get into being a Tolkien scholar than becoming an expert on obscure 19th century chapbooks or somesuch.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

It just seems to me that the interesting stuff has mostly been said by the serious scholars & that what's coming out now is so obscure as to be irrelevant to most of us, & that even the interesting stuff can actually get in the way.

I rather suspect that scholarship is much like fandom in that it has trends and styles and special interests. Once a topic has been explored to the extent that either scholars or fans wish, it quietly is relegated to the back of the library shelves or discussion forum backpages and a new topic arises.

What is fascinating about scholarship (as about pop culture or fandom) is that all the interesting stuff is never done and said. The boredom lies only in the minds of those who cannot see beyond the current fad. One particular approach will hold sway for awhile but it will pass and someone else, with a different approach, will suddenly bring to light an entirely new idea or avenue of thought. The current fad for sources which bores davem (and in some of its applications, me) will wear itself out eventually OR will be overwhelmed by some scholars' new approach. That new approach will be something inspired by an entirely new imaginative appreciation of Tolkien and his stories and will lead to a swarm of papers in its fashion, eventually to fade out and be replaced by a new 'paradigm shift'. We need only consider the changes in, say, the appreciation of Kipling, to understand that scholarship as with fandom has its ebb and flow.

It is true that students moan about how everything has already been said about Shakespeare, or about Milton, or, now perhaps about Tolkien, but what is interesting is how new approaches arise which provide new ways of thinking about a story or an author. Literature, after all, isn't an archeology of digging up what is significant, but a vital process of the human mind, of making connections. Each new reading or new generation of readers will find its own unique approach, taste, preferences. Maybe the current trend is one which some fans don't appreciate, but they don't need to read it. And it won't necessarily remain the favoured way of reading. Some new writer will come along and make us see story in a new way--the way Tolkien made students see Beowulf or fairey in a new way--and bam! people will wonder, hey, didn't Tolkien do that too? And they'll go back and read LotR in light of what that other writer taught them about story, or about character, and suddenly, there will be new interesting stuff to see in Tolkien.

In short, there is no limit to readers' or scholars' or fans' imaginations. Sometimes they just have to work a vein to death before finding new gems down another shaft.

Oh, and has Christopher Tolkien ever made any public comments on the scholarly stuff? As a scholar himself, has he expressed any opinion about that heavy lable "Tolkien Studies"?

You know, early BD topics of 'merit' were quite different from what they were when I joined, and again different now from the popular threads. Some people care that the Legendarium has to be consistent, and suss out every potential inconsistency. Others just enjoy the stories. And still others are intrigued by how comparing events and characters sheds new ways of thinking about them. And still others find their way back to earlier mythologies and legends through Tolkien. Chaqu' un a sa gout.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Yet CT seems desirous that his father's creation be seen, & treated, not as a mythology, but as a literary work.

This is hardly surprising given that CT is an academic, a literary academic and more than anyone must have been aware of the amusement bordering on scorn with which his father's work was treated by colleagues in his lifetime and the literati since.


While I desperately wanted Middle Earth to be real when I was 12, now I can't help thinking that to treat it as a mythology primarily is to demean Tolkien's achievement in creating what seems plausible as a mythology, what seems plausible as a world.

For myself, I don't have a problem with the scholarly works - and in most bookshops you are unlikely to find many on the shelf so I don't think they are going to daunt that many people.

I own all of HoME and have gained great pleasure from some of it ( I like knowing what Elf marriage rites were and the names of Imrahil's children ) other parts I haven't even looked at yet. People will find their own level.

I enjoy some fanfic and RPG but I wouldn't want any "authorised". And HoME is a great resource for those of us who want to RPG with respect to the integrity of Tolkien's creation. Personally I am very glad that CT inclination or duty turned him to editing his fathers notes rather than using them to create "new" stories. THe only caveat is that there must be so much he "knows" through conversations etc but hasn't included in HoME due to lack of documentation. I just hope that he has recorded it somewhere....

I do find it a little ironic that having been embarrassed by my love of Tolkien during my degree that it is cause for compalint that JRRT is being taken TOO seriously by the scholars.

The companion is wonderful by the way...

[Lalwendë]

No, I don't want any 'authorised' fan-fic either. Not because I think it is bad (much of it is very good), but because I don't want the waters to be muddied. I want to read what Tolkien wrote, and to know that any other 'spin-offs' are just that, spin-offs. I want clear lines where possible.

Aside from anything else, this helps keep it clear what Tolkien wrote and what he did not. I've read a fair few posts/articles where people have named all the Nazgul and claimed their information was correct because 'it's in the books'. But it isn't. That info came from a computer game as far as I know. Imagine how much misinformation there would be if we had authorised fan fiction?

The other thing is that Tolkien's work is not a natural mythology, it is a created one. I wonder how much it really has to say about the history of our real world? Do 'natural' mythologies have more to say about the 'truth'? I'd hate to think that people ditched what was left of England's actual folklore and myth in favour of what Tolkien had written down. That would be very sad indeed.

[davem]

Mith. I understand what you mean. I also own (& have read!) HoM-e (in paperback & the three volume hardback set in the slipcase. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been produced - we all owe CT a debt of thanks.

I also own a good 50-60 volumes of secondary literature on Tolkien, so I'm not opposed to such things. My point was that the important things on Tolkien seem to have been said & what we're getting now is really not all that important - essays in the last two volumes of Tolkien Studies have speculated on the possible influence on Tolkien of King Solomon's Mines & The Old Curiosity Shop. We've had a slew of books showing how LotR is a 'fundamentally Christian work', or 'revealing' the Norse & Celtic influences on Tolkien's writings. The point is - we know all that - whether we agree with it or not is another matter.

now I can't help thinking that to treat it as a mythology primarily is to demean Tolkien's achievement in creating what seems plausible as a mythology, what seems plausible as a world.

I don't see that it is - that was Tolkien's desire - to create a mythology he could dedicate to his country. Neither am I arguing for an 'authorised' sequel(s). I'm making the point that all we are getting now is a scholarly dissection (with an increasing obsession with the obscure & unnecessary) & that that is not what attracted us to Tolkien's creation in the first place, or what draws us back to it.

[Mithalwen]

I mean that if people think of it as a "true" mythology as opposed to a synthetic one it means that Tolkien's role is forgotten... so successful he disappears.

While there may be a good deal of dross to gold, if it means that Tolkien takes his proper place in the literary world rather than being regarded as "unplaceable".

Actually, having read Haggard and seen paralels drawn elsewhere ..I think that sounds interesting. I haven't read The Old Curiosity Shop (can't get beyond Wilde's comment about the death of Little Nell) so that would be less so.... interesting is very subjective...... Tolkien recognised this....... I guess even the most hardened fan has to admit that there is a point where interest flags (mine did in the early volumes of HoME but I read the History of LoTR ones from cover to cover) and accept that there are people more obsessed than you. In some ways that is comforting......