Smith of Wootton Major in Middle Earth?

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:

Does The Sil convey truth with the same power that Smith does? I don't think so. I've rarely been moved by The Sil (cannot include Valaquenta, etc. - Tolkien didn't); but I am moved deeply every time I re-read Smith.

Davem wrote:

Like LMP I've always been more moved by Smith than by the Sil.

Mark12_30 wrote:

I'd guess that the Sil has too much "elven anthropology" and not enough mystery.

I find this very interesting. My reaction is quite different; I have always found the Silmarillion to be much more powerful and more moving than Smith. I wonder why it is that we have such different reactions to the two works.

It seems to me that the fundamental difference between Smith and the Silmarillion is that the former is a work about fantasy while the latter is fantasy. This is partly because of the difference between the "transitional fantasy" of Smith and the "immersive fantasy" of the Silmarillion; but it is deeper than that. Smith seems almost to be a literary treatise presented in the form of a story. We touched on this in the Canonicity thread; the word I used there was "meta-fantasy". In my view, Smith sketches out the requirements for a succesful work of fantasy story-telling, but it does not, in itself, fulfill those requirements. That isn't to say that I don't like it, or that I think it's unsuccesful - rather, that whatever it is, it isn't really a faerie story in the sense that Tolkien's other works are.

The Silmarillion, on the other hand, is a kind of total faerie story. The immersion here is more complete than that in a work like LotR; for in the Silmarillion the story is the world. The story begins when the world begins, and the faerie setting is built up not merely in aid of the story, but as the story.

I am curious regarding other people's opinions of Smith vs. the Silmarillion. In particular, I wonder whether the divide between those who find Smith more moving and those who prefer the Silmarillion might roughly coincide with the divide between those who are interested in authorial intention and those who fall into the "reader's freedom" or "textual supremacy" camps. For it seems to me that in Smith the voice of the author is more clearly revealed; there is a stronger authorial presence. In the Silmarillion, the art and the artist seem to be more fully concealed.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I am curious regarding other people's opinions of Smith vs. the Silmarillion. In particular, I wonder whether the divide between those who find Smith more moving and those who prefer the Silmarillion might roughly coincide with the divide between those who are interested in authorial intention and those who fall into the "reader's freedom" or "textual supremacy" camps. For it seems to me that in Smith the voice of the author is more clearly revealed; there is a stronger authorial presence. In the Silmarillion, the art and the artist seem to be more fully concealed.

Oh, now this is a challenge I cannot resist. Must go off and reread Smith and cogitate. *waves with gauntlet gently held*

[davem]

Don't know if anyone else is aware of this, but Verlyn Flieger has a new book coming out on Smith in September time. Not much info at the moment - this on her website:http://www.mythus.com/smith.html

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

It seems to me that the fundamental difference between Smith and the Silmarillion is that the former is a work about fantasy while the latter is fantasy.

There are two matters you raise to show why the Sil is more powerful to you than SWOM: transitional versus immersive fantasy (where did these terms originate?), and whether SWOM is more a treatise or more a story.

It is known that SOWM was begun by Tolkien as an illustration of a point he was making in an abortive preface to a republication of George MacDonald's The Golden Key. It is also known that SOWM had a life of its own and transcended its original purpose.

In the interest of saved time for those (such as myself) who have not read the Canonicity thread, could you (or someone) provide a link to the points you reference, if you don't mind, in regard to meta-fantasy and the requirements of fantasy?

[Felagund]

Having never read Smith I cannot post with much authority, but I do know what it is that moves me about the Silmarillion. It is the tragedy about it. The utter tragedy. So many noble figures, paragons of virtue that no mere mortals could aspire to be as (Finrod Felagund, for example. Or Beren), come to such bad ends. Even the tidings of hope are frought with sadness, such as Earëndil's coming into the West, but being never to retrun amongst Men, whom he loves, and following his wife into the "immortality" of the Firstborn. The Silmarillion is probably one of the overall most depressing reads ever, yet it to creates a sense of longing... I never know what it is I long for when I'm done reading it, I just know it's there.

"Their Oath shall drive them, and yet betray them, and ever snatch away the very treasures they have sworn to pursue."

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:

n the interest of saved time for those (such as myself) who have not read the Canonicity thread, could you (or someone) provide a link to the points you reference, if you don't mind, in regard to meta-fantasy and the requirements of fantasy?

The discussion of Smith in the canonicity thread is on page six.

There are two matters you raise to show why the Sil is more powerful to you than SWOM: transitional versus immersive fantasy (where did these terms originate?), and whether SWOM is more a treatise or more a story.

I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I was offering a proof that the Silmarillion is more powerful than Smith. Rather, I noted that in my experience the Silmarillion is the more moving work; then, in an effort to get at the reasons for the differing views of the two works, I tried to give an account of their chief differences.

I agree that Smith is not just a literary treatise. Still, I do think that in certain important respects it has the character of a meditation on the nature of fantasy literature, as opposed to a work of fantasy literature.

I'm still very interested to hear where others come down in the Silmarillion vs. Smith issue.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Aiwendil, for the link.
I've scanned through it once, and I think
that I haven't got near deep enough
into the very packed segment of stuff
in about as deep a thread
as, at Barrowdowns, I've read.