Mythic Unities in The Lord of the Rings

[davem]

Originally Posted by SpM

So what is it about LotR that sets it apart from these other stories that use similar techniques (often, indeed, borrowed from Tolkien). Is there something more than just unity of meaning that lends LotR its mythical quality? Or is it simply that Tolkien uses this technique more effectively than any other authors in this genre? If so, how?

I suppose it could be that Tolkien was not writing a 'genre' novel, so he was not bound by the requirements of 'fantasy'. He was attempting to recreate England's lost mythology. Perhaps its because he put so much real mythology into his creation (modified to some extent) that we get such a strong sense of his stories being real'. In other words, with most fantasy novels we have a feeling, however well written they may be, however clever the plot, that we're reading an invented story, because its all coming out of the author's imagination. With Tolkien I get more of a sense that he's telling me something I once knew, but have forgotten - he's reminding me of the 'Truth', not simply making up a story to entertain me. There was a pupose behind Tolkien's work. It grew out of his desire to recreate England's lost mythology, & he wanted to do that because he felt it was important that his country have its own story - & that that story should be the right kind of story. He wanted it to affect, & in some real sense to change his readers - perhaps 'morally', but certainly in terms of their 'perception' of their history & of the land they lived in.

I think its this that makes Tolkien's work different. How many modern authors want to change their readers in that way - how many believe they have anything to teach? I think this would apply especially to writers of fantasy. I can only think of Ursula Le Guin who takes this approach - though to be honest I'm not a fan of fantasy fiction as such. I think we respond to Tolkien in the way we do because on some level we feel we're learning (or re-learning) something important.

Originally Posted by LmP

Related to this is that writers often give their villains the most latinate forms of speech. Thus, the Black Speech functions somewhat like Latin does in English. I would not at all be suprised if this is an aspect of why Tokien so deplored the Norman conquest.

I suppose it does - in the particular way that you mean. However, Tolkien often referred to Quenya as 'Elven Latin' (aside:in the documentary 'JRRT A Film Portrait, his som Michael tells a nice story about how when attending Mass after Vatican II 'did away' with Latin Tolkien would still try to read along from his little Latin)Missal). Latin for Tolkien, I suppose, was the language of the scriptures, the language which 'reavealed' the Light of God to mankind. In Middle earth Black Speech does the opposite, it reveals the darkness. Your point still stands, though, in terms of the way Latin may be used - just not in terms of its function or what it symbolises.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by davem

With Tolkien I get more of a sense that he's telling me something I once knew, but have forgotten - he's reminding me of the 'Truth', not simply making up a story to entertain me. ..... that that story should be the right kind of story. He wanted it to affect, & in some real sense to change his readers - perhaps 'morally', but certainly in terms of their 'perception' of their history & of the land they lived in.

"High, purged of the gross." (How can I possibly disagree?)

Originally Posted by davem

I think its this that makes Tolkien's work different. How many modern authors want to change their readers in that way - how many believe they have anything to teach?

That I wouldn't want to guess at; but how many still are teaching-- deeply-- after a twelfth reading?

Originally Posted by davem

I think this would apply especially to writers of fantasy. I can only think of Ursula Le Guin who takes this approach ...

She's the one who popped into my mind, too. Odd. But (and I'm referring to her Earthsea stories here) they had an impact on me, but it was not the same, not as deep or as lasting. Her main impact on me was that she could write an incredible sentence. One that haunts me over two decades later: "He raged at his weakness, for he knew his strength." Brilliant. But I don't put her on a par with Tolkien; and I don't embrace her myths as my own. I didn't feel that Earthsea was a place I'd been before, nor was it a place I felt at home in. She certainly dealt with character; but the resonance wasn't on a mythical scale, not for me personally.

Originally Posted by davem

I think we respond to Tolkien in the way we do because on some level we feel we're learning (or re-learning) something important.

I would heartily agree.