What's "real," anyway?

[Evisse the Blue]

insofar as the only way for the book to get me to accept it as true, is by being well-written!?!?

*nods head in agreement*

I'm sorry, I can't help to throw my three pieces of mithril in the pot:
Good book = true book = well-written book.
If Tolkien hadn't been such a talented writer, we wouldn't be here discussing the moral implications of the story. So everything begins with a well-written book. And a well-written book is a believable one, and it's true in the sense that it's believed to be true.

Another quote that may be more or less applicable here: "A poem must not mean but be" (Archibald MacLeish). For me that quote has come to imply that a good poem , or any work of art for that matter, is understood intuitively to 'exist'. Not in the sense of wishful thinking, in an alternate universe or something ... By accepting that it's true you recognize its 'wholeness', its beauty and the writer's talent in bringing it to life, if you will.
Maybe that is the greatest compliment to be payed to a work of art: that it is.
My apologies for being so incoherent at this time, maybe I'll manage to make more sense after I've slept on it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I too thought of Tolkien's essay 'On Fairy Stories' upon reading Fordim's first post on this excellent new discussion. I looked at a different passage than Encaitare though, the one which begins

'"Is it true?" is the great question children ask', Lang said.

I was especially interested in what JRRT says about his reaction to stories as a child.

Fairy-stories were plainly not primarily concerned with possibility, but with desirability. If they awakened desire, satisfying it while often whetting it unbearably, they succeeded.

This seems to me to show what makes a story "true" in the deep sense of the word. Does it awaken emotions in me? If it can touch my heart, show me things about myself that I only vaguely suspected before reading, show me what is lacking in my real life and make me long for it and try to find a way to get it; if it can help me to understand others better; if it can give me insight into what the meaning of my life is and help me accept things that happen to me; if it can show me how to fight the necessary battles - yes, then it is true. There are certainly more aspects to it than that, but to me, emotions are the key to inner truth in literature.

[davem]

I suppose we're starting from a 'logical' position - asking what 'reality' means in this context - of course Middle earth is not 'real' in the sense of having actually existed in the primary world, so its reality must be a secondary reality. In the primary world it cannot be real, so its 'reality' must come down in the end to self consistency. It is fully imagined - even to the extent of including people, places & things which play no part in the main story. It is 'real' within its own dimension, which simply means that it is believable to us when we enter into it, enough that we don't question it. So perhaps that's it - its self consistent enough that we don't ask questions & break the spell - or at least that any questions we ask about it can be answered - it contains sufficient 'redundancy'.

But if we are to accept it - & which is more important, if we are to feel it to be relevant to us, then we must be able to relate the people & events of the story to our own 'primary' world. So, its 'reality' depends not only on its internal self consistency but on its relevance to our world. Its not 'real' to us simply because it is a self contained, logically consistent , world, but because we can relate it to our lives. So, 'reality' depends on applicability - but not on any 'allegorical' aspect it may contain (yet where do the two meet?:http://www.geocities.com/ct70815/my_page.html). Clearly, it isn't simply a matter of relevance alone, though, as an allegory may seem 'relevant' & yet not 'real'.

What I'm trying to say (sorry, but I'm still in shock after reading the article on the above link - thanks (?) to TORN for that, btw!), is that there are two kinds of 'reality' involved here - one is the 'reality', ie the conviction that the secondary world carries that it is 'true' & the other is the 'reality', ie the relevance it has for us in our lives.

For me, Middle earth is 'real' in both ways, & its that that speaks to me so strongly.

If none of that makes sense you'll have to blame that Carole person!

[Imladris]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedthistle

Sounds good, until I get to the example you cite. I do not share your reservations with The Sting, since I have no problem whatsoever with accepting the 'bad guy' as the 'good guy' in the context of the story. So here we get into the messy part -- is this movie real for me (because it and I share a truth: bad guys can be good guys) and not real for you (because you and it do not share that truth with us)? In this case, aren't we moving into some kind of acknowledgement that the reality of the art (in this case LotR) is entirely dependent upon the reader?

Heh, I probably used a rotten example..but oh well..

But I believe you yourself hit it on the head. That the reality of art is based upon the reader is entirely logical. Why? Because everybody has their own world views, has their own sense of "truth." That's why there are people who love LotR (it speaks truth to them), people who are indifferent to it (it doesn't speak their idea of truth but it doesn't contradict it either) and then there are people who hate it (because it is opposite of their truth -- it is against that which they think is true -- it conflicts with their world view).

This conclusion leads me to Oscar Wilde's quote: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written."

And then this is what you said:

If I am willing to accept the art as true, then I make it real. And then this, ironically, leads us right back to the Wilde quote you dispute, insofar as the only way for the book to get me to accept it as true, is by being well-written!?!?

If we accept that truth is relative according to each person's world view, then we must accept they have their own sense morality/immorality. Thus, LotR could be as brilliant as Shakespeare or it could be as poor as [insert example here] but that wouldn't really make a difference in the long run, would it? Naturally books that are well written are more convincing and real, but in the end, their story -- their point-- is still the same. And if that story/point contradicts a person's truth that stems from their world view, then it doesn't matter how well or poorly it is written.

Just to clarify, I do believe that how well a book is written matters tremendously. It is just not the deciding factor.

[Mithalwen]

I have a spooky premonition that I am going to get at least one more gauntlet around the face for what I am going to say, so would all would be challengers please read carefully and inwardly digest the following paragraph before they read what will follow it and try to kill me.

I love the Middle Earth. I love its people, languages, geography and history. I am perpetually grateful to the Prof and Christopher Tolkien for making it available to me. It gave me a refuge during an unhappy adolescence and a major bereavement. The Lord of the Rings is my favourite book and it would be my "Desert Island" Choice.


However, I don't think LOTR is that well written ...... parts are marvellous but others I usually skip in re-reading - the style is all over the place in the early chapters.... and some of the poetry is actively dire..... I usually think of Tolkien as the historian and archivist of the world he created not as a writer of literature. When I read Shakespeare, I do so for the language more than the story I mean most of his stories were taken from Holinshed (?) ..... I read Tolkien for the story and its setting .... not usually for the writing .... although a few passages and poems are dear to me . I get swallowed up into Middle Earth so easily but if I detatch and look objectively , I sometimes yearn for it to be tightened up a bit....

OK shall I shoot myself now and save yourselves the bother?

[Novnarwen]

However, I don't think LOTR is that well written .....

*gasp* (!!)

That sentence came as a real shock! I won't shoot you; just give a few comments before I take my leave.

I do think it's a surprising approach of the book and the author. Tolkien was after all a Professor in English language and literature. Surely, he had his way with words. How could it not be well written?

Comparing Shakespeare and Tolkien is like comparing the Queen and me. Imagine that! :P (Eeek, bad example, but I have no other.) Shakespeare and Tolkien are completely different, as they not only write differently (in style and language), they also lived in two different periods of time. Shakespeare has this old elegant English (I have no other name for it). Yes of course, it seems so romantic, so wonderful, and so incredibly brilliant! But Shakespeare doesn't have these descriptions Tolkien has in, amongst others, Lord of The Rings. The wonderful paragraphs where Tolkien describes to us Middle-earth so clearly, make us think that it's all real! Shakespeare's stories are real. His stories are set in France, in Denmark, Greece etc. . . Tolkien’s world is not real, it's not set in a country we know of. That's why it's so real, because Tolkien actually manages to successfully create a world we are willing to believe in. (So how can Lord of the Rings possbly not have been written that well?) Shakespeare didn't do any of that that; he didn't create France or Denmark. We know where France is, we know that Frenchmen speak French and we know that they have moustaches. (Hehe. Not women.. Men only ) We did not know of Middle-earth before Tolkien described it to us. He described all of it to us; the history of Middle-earth, the people, the languages etc. He gave us a whole world, his descriptions were annoyingly () real. How can that be? Because he writes well! Because Lord of The Rings is amazingly well written!

Yeah, I'm done.

Nova

[Lush]

Good writing can open up awesome depths inside the human heart (or something profound like that). The sensations that arise from that are as real as the reality of, say, eating an orange. That's why we consider great writing to be immortal. That's why I say, for example, "Dante is..." instead of "Dante was..." Of course, there are plenty of people who can't get that from writing, but that's another story.

[Encaitare]

Well, Mithalwen, I think one gauntlet slap is enough, so I won't! But I really do disagree, I think it is very well written. You say there are certain parts you skip or find boring, and I'm thinking maybe this isn't because it's not well written, but because of a simple matter of opinion and preference. It seems some parts just don't "speak" to you like other parts do, and that's fine. The tone can be somewhat dry and if that's not your thing, no problem. At least you have great things to say about it anyway!

davem-- Regarding that article, all I can give is a

[Legolas]

Let's keep the original post in mind - this is not a thread discussing whether or not The Lord of the Rings is well written. We have plenty of those already.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

davem: in light of recent events on this thread, I shall fight the urge to give you some negative rep for having tempted me with the link to that article. What in the world is there else to say. . .

There's been a lot of interesting responses so far, but I remain intrigued by a certain area of silence; I accept that you all sense or gain a 'reality' from LotR, I do too, but is it real in the same way that other other works of non-fantasy are real? I shall put my neck out there with Mithalwen's and argue that it is not real in the same way, not at all.

I don't think that the reality of Tolkien's art is like the reality of Shakespeare's (to continue the comparison) simply because Tolkien is so much more in control of the reality of his world than was Shakey. The Denmark of Hamlet is not the 'real' Denmark, but the people and situations that inhabit it are real. A hobbit with a magic Ring is simply not real in any place other than in the art of Tolkien. Both works are real, but I have a bigger slice of the reality in a work of art that reimagines the primary world rather than imagining a secondary world.

I'm not trying to argue that this is good or bad, just that there's a different relation between art and reality with Tolkien -- I would almost say with any work of fantasy, but I think that in this regard, Tolkien might actually be unique.

Imladris you wrote (quite disconcertingly for me) that

and then there are people who hate it (because it is opposite of their truth -- it is against that which they think is true -- it conflicts with their world view).

I find this disconcerting, because apparently I am to hate LotR????? I don't say this for rhetorical effect, but simply because, well, Tolkien's views do conflict with my own, in just about every way. (Well, OK, he and I are closer together than I am with, say, the author of the article that davem has cited above, but that's hardly a fair comparison; I have more in common with a turnip than with the author of that article. . .but I digress). I still find the same sort of reality in the book that I find in works with views that are more like my own, but this is natural and to be expected: most of the real people, cultures and practices in the world are not run according to my view of things! That’s the neat thing about truth and reality: we can all have different truths, but we all share the same reality.

And that’s where I come back to Tolkien: do his works share the same reality? Or are they ‘merely’ very pleasing tales, divorced from reality? Or do they create a new or different reality, that in some way is connected to our own?