Tolkien and the Book

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

In folk tale and oral literature, the story-teller has a wide variety of tricks-of-the-trade that she or he uses both to remember the story without benefit of literacy and to tell it in an engaging way. These tricks include things like repeated actions and motifs, things happening in threes, the inclusion of songs and rhymes, doubling of parts and characters and – almost universally – structuring the tale around a story of the hero’s journey through a series of challenges, riddles, tests or dangers toward a new sense of him or herself, and then back home to a transformed state of existence.

Sound familiar? It should, since all of these things happen in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Now, I am far from the first person in this forum to make this point, but thinking about it the other day got me to thinking about the role and status of literacy and orality in the tales. And it occurred to me that, interestingly, Elves don’t seem to use books. This was at first surprising to me, as I rather immediately associate an advanced state of culture with literacy, but I don’t recall mention of an Elvish library or a book really anywhere in the legendarium (although I am sure that such references exist…don’t they?). Whether or not Elves read books is not really the point though. What’s intriguing to me is that they don’t seem to place as much stock or importance in books as do other races (Hobbits especially). But then it occurred to me that they don’t really need to. The point of literacy is that it allows people to put down information in a more or less permanent form that will not alter through the years. But Elves, being immortal, don’t need to worry about that so much: if the teller of a tale three thousand years later is going to be someone who was actually there, there’s not much to be gained by committing it to print!

But it’s not that Elves are anti-book. It’s more that they are themselves so bookish that they don’t need books. That is, they don’t need to write things down because they can remember them for hundreds and thousands of years, and they hate change and want always to preserve the past unaltered, so (presumably) the stories as they tell them will not vary or alter – they do orally what mortals can do only in print.

The other ‘type’ for this is the Ents. They don’t need books because they live for so long and have such long memories that they can record their knowledge within an oral tradition that traces its way back through the history of the Three Ages. It’s interesting, too, that they are themselves trees, from which paper is made – it’s like they’re living books already!

So all this leads me to wonder about the status and view of books and reading, literacy and orality in Middle-Earth. We seem, on the one hand, to have a world in which the book – or the idea of the Book – is the highest ideal there is, with the Elves and the Ents being living, breathing books: books as they should be. In this view, peoples like the Hobbits and Men (and Dwarves who provided the only book I can remember from the story proper: The Book of Mazarbul which is only a record of woe) are using books as a kind of poor substitute for memory and orality.

On the other hand, LotR goes to great lengths to present itself as a book: the translator conceit, the appendices, the prologue, the extended history of the Book of Westmarch, etc. So perhaps the book – or the idea of the Book – is being celebrated insofar as after the Elves are gone, and the Ents have departed, it’s up to the mortal beings and their books to record the tales of the oral culture that’s gone.

I’m just intrigued by a book that is written like an oral tale, in which people who have no use for books are celebrated as the highest beings by people who depend upon books for the transmission of knowledge.

[Gurthang]

That's a very interesting thought: how elves really don't need or want books. I'd have to say that, and this is probably obvious, the elves replaced books with songs. Elvish songs were far more potent than books, their minstrels revered above most, and the songs could be preserved in completeness because they had a virtually unlimited time to teach them. This would explain why Hobbits and Men used books, since their skill with song was somewhat less.

I would almost even say that if Middle Earth had video cameras, the elves would not use them. Their songs are even more glorious than movies, since songs can not only give the listener a mental image, but almost put them into the story. With such a powerful form of storytelling, who would need even movies... or books, since that is the discussion.

But this also makes me wonder why elves even had letters and words at all. They were very keen at making script, but they really had little use for it. If they wanted a message sent, they would just use a messenger, or Osanwe(sp). So, if they wouldn't need written language for communication or preservation of history, why have it at all?

[Mister Underhill]

Interesting topic, as usual, Fordim. I unfortunately don't have time to reply at length, but before things get carried away, I feel compelled to mention at least two obvious book references in the story proper that you've missed: Bilbo's extensive collection and his Red Book (natch), and Elrond's books of lore (from which, presumably, Bilbo's "Translations from the Elvish" are translated?):

Then through all the years that followed [Elrond] traced the Ring; but since that history is elsewhere recounted, even as Elrond himself set it down in his books of lore, it is not here recalled...

Aragorn and Gandalf walked together or sat speaking of their road and the perils they would meet; and they pondered the storied and figured maps and books of lore that were in the house of Elrond.

Then again, Elrond is half-Elven...

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Elvish songs were far more potent than books

This is a great point too -- Elvish oral tales and songs, perhaps with a dose of ósanwe, go far beyond what a simple book is able to create:

At first the beauty of the melodies and of the interwoven words in elven-tongues, even though [Frodo] understood them little, held him in a spell, as soon as he began to attend to them. Almost it seemed that the words took shape, and visions of far lands and bright things that he had never yet imagined opened out before him; and the firelit hall became like a golden mist above seas of foam that sighed upon the margins of the world. Then the enchantment became more and more dreamlike, until he felt that an endless river of swelling gold and silver was flowing over him, too multitudinous for its pattern to be comprehended; it became part of the throbbing air about him, and it drenched and drowned him.

[Formendacil]

Just a couple of reference points:

1) You are quite correct, Master Fordhim, in suggesting that Elves do not make regular use of books. Tolkien confirms this in one of the writings published in one of the later History of Middle-Earth volumes. I believe it is in a discourse that had Pengolodh telling Aelfwine that in the First Age, much knowledge was lost to the Elves, because they did not have their lore in written form, for the most part, since the scholars retained it all in their minds, and so much knowledge was lost thanks to Morgoth. However, from the wording, I seem to recall that it could be implied that Elves had since taken to greater use of books, due in large part to disasters such as that.

2) This is just conjecture on my part, but Elrond's library may well be derived in large part from the archives of the Kingdom of Arnor, since it is said, in the Akallabeth, I believe, that such lore concerning Numenor was preserved mainly in Gondor, namely in Minas Tirith, and in Imladris, where the remnants of knowledge in the north kingdom were deposited. That doesn't conclusively make Elrond's library Mannish in origin, but it DOES support the idea that it isn't really an Elvish idea.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Interesting post, Fordim . My image of Elves and books is quite different than your own. I have always imagined Rivendell as having quite a collection of Elvish works. This is based on the quote that Mr. Underhill mentions as well as another brief comment in the Prologue to LotR in regard to Bilbo's work on the Translations from the Elvish. The italics are my own....

These three volumes were found to be a work of great skill and learning in which, between 1403 and 1418, he had used all the sources available to him in Rivendell, both living and written. But since they were little used by Frodo, being almost entirely concerned with the Elder Days, no more is said of them here.

The wording in this is such that, to me, it implies the existence of a considerable library of works in Elvish. Sure sounds like the Elves were history buffs, which would go along with their general orientation to things. Unfortunately, we know little about the compilers of these works.

[Bêthberry]

Another intriguing thread with which to embroider our thought! Good to see you returning to the shuttle and loom, Fordim. I hesitate--but not overly long--to say, with a woof and warp.

I have always been intrigued by that description of the effect of the Elven music upon Frodo. But to consider it here under a new light: For Frodo, the visions which the music and singing inspire are of sights unseen and lands unknown. This would seem to imply the experience of fiction--nay, fantasy. Yet at the conclusion of the experience, which Frodo says he begins to understand only towards the end, we find that the final piece has been created by Bilbo and Strider/Aragorn. And it is a tale of history.

Is the elven art devoted entirely to recounting tales of yore, the artistic remembrance of times past. À la recherche du temps perdu? Does elven art include the conscious and deliberate creation of stories that are wholly imagined but presented as if they 'really happened'? I know the demarcation is tenuous between history and fiction, yet we ourselves have this artistic difference, of stories wholly made up and stories that are histories. Did the elves? Is their 'knowledge', their 'lore' only completely associated with their past? Aside from Merry's Herblore of The Shire, which is limited to one botanical species only and is a history at that, are books associated with anything other than history in Middle-earth?

A secondary observation is that the elves don't appear to have something which we might recognise as dramatic productions.

not very entish today... in haste.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Is the elven art devoted entirely to recounting tales of yore, the artistic remembrance of times past. À la recherche du temps perdu? Does elven art include the conscious and deliberate creation of stories that are wholly imagined but presented as if they 'really happened'?

Intriguing question. Essentially, the difference between memory & written record is that memory is 'active' & unfixed - what it records is changeable & updatable if new facts are discovered or enhancements desired. In short, memory is a living process.

Writing on the other hand is fixed, static, unchangeable - or if you do change it you are in effect producing something different. Records held in the memory are alive, written records are dead. Its perhaps significant that those who do not die have (are) living records of the past, so that in a way the past is 'alive' & evolving within them, whereas those who do die produce 'dead' fixed, records.

Hope that makes some kind of sense - the way a race or culture's lore is retained (in fact the very nature & form :fixed or changeable, active or static, open -ended or precisely defined) is a product of that race/culture's nature.

Except.....

Rohan is an oral culture, without written records of any kind.

('I'll get me coat....')

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Intriguing question. Essentially, the difference between memory & written record is that memory is 'active' & unfixed - what it records is changeable & updatable if new facts are discovered or enhancements desired. In short, memory is a living process.

I imagine that the living history of the Elves would be influenced greatly by how events have turned out over time. Like looking at the place a pebble (or boulder) has been dropped in the water. When you are close to it, you tend to fix your eye on the spot and see nothing else, but as the ripples drift out and you are very far from the epicenter (forgive the pun) you look back and see happenings in relation to a whole backdrop.

I wonder at how different the same tale might become given a few intervening Ages.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

the way a race or culture's lore is retained (in fact the very nature & form :fixed or changeable, active or static, open -ended or precisely defined) is a product of that race/culture's nature.

I think this is right, and the example of the Rohirrim keeping oral histories can be explained by the fact that they have a very different culture to the Gondorians. Rohan is a relatively young nation and it is a culture which is quite literally 'moving' all the time; in LotR chapters dealing with the Rohirrim tend to be filled with movement, conveying the idea of an active people. The culture of Minas Tirith on the other hand is very static, almost stagnant; this is a much older culture, well established and is represented by a lack of movement, and with much self-examination by characters such as Denethor. A comparison might be found between the US (or Australia or India etc) and the UK at the time of gaining independence; the former striving and growing, the latter tending to build upon itself rather than looking outwards.

This is not to say that the Rohirrim are 'uncultured' because they do not (as far as we know) keep written histories; their culture is more fluid than that of Gondor. In contrast, the Gondorians seek to 'save' their past and to protect it from the passage of many long years by recording it.

I think that the Elves would broadly have little use for written histories due to their long lives, however, Elves can still be killed and do not return to Middle-earth so some need for written histories may have been necessary. In the case of Rivendell having books, it seems to have been a place which was not entirely closed off to Men and other mortals, who would have need of books and histories. No doubt it would have been useful for Elrond and his kin to be able to despatch visitors to a library rather than recount long tales to each and every visitor! In contrast, Lothlorien was not a place which Men would tend to visit, and so I would imagine it had much less need for written histories.

What is very odd indeed is that such a person as Tolkien who was clearly well and truly a bookworm should leave out mention of extensive libraries in his own story. Have other writers done this too? There is a fabulous library in Gormenghast, and a book collector in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell; Harry Potter also features a wonderful library and uses the 'book' as a plot device. Maybe Tolkien cared more for what books did, or what they contained (i.e. stories) than books as artefacts or repositories?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Intriguing question. Essentially, the difference between memory & written record is that memory is 'active' & unfixed - what it records is changeable & updatable if new facts are discovered or enhancements desired. In short, memory is a living process.

Not so with the elves, though. They've embalmed their memories. Their tragedy is that all they do is look back. There is no active growth principle in their art.

But this living/dead dichotomy doesn't really pertain to what I find intriguing, how their art is fixated on history and its reconstuctions. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's anything in their stories that are "make believe." It is all "once was."

Strange, too, that Tolkien would make the Rohirrim such an oral culture, for the Anglo-Saxons of course did leave written records. Not that I mean to make a crude Rohirrim = Anglo Saxon analogy.

Originally Posted by Lal

What is very odd indeed is that such a person as Tolkien who was clearly well and truly a bookworm should leave out mention of extensive libraries in his own story. Have other writers done this too? There is a fabulous library in Gormenghast, and a book collector in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell; Harry Potter also features a wonderful library and uses the 'book' as a plot device. Maybe Tolkien cared more for what books did, or what they contained (i.e. stories) than books as artefacts or repositories?

You know, I'm not so sure Tolkien was a book person per se. I think language was his bag, language in all its shifting and shifty complexities. And perhaps that's why he was so drawn to creating languagues and then hanging cultures on them. I think he was caught in the web of performative language. Think of all those hours in the Bird and Baby! And the Inklings reading their works aloud. We're back to 'cellar door' territory.

Hilde, that image of being torn between the waves and the pebble's drop is quite beautiful and extraordinary!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

But this living/dead dichotomy doesn't really pertain to what I find intriguing, how their art is fixated on history and its reconstuctions. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's anything in their stories that are "make believe." It is all "once was."

This is an intriguing point that I'd not considered (love when that happens). Of course, I am forced to ask, if one lives in a world in which the story of Luthien and Beren actually happened, why would one need to make believe? The history of the Elves is already itself (written by Eru?) the most fabulous (in the sense of fabled and wonderful) of stories -- mere invention pales by comparison.

When I cast my mind back over the story, the only instances I can come up with of "true" invention (i.e. "make believe") was Sam's song about the trolls and that wonderful shin-bone! Oh, and Frodo's song about the cat and the fiddle. There are more I'm sure, but it seems interesting that the only true story-tellers (as opposed to history/memory recallers) are the Hobbits...they are also, as Mister Underhill has pointed out, the race most deeply interested in books (to the references to Elrond's library I would respond that the only people who seem interested in using those tomes were the Hobbits and the Wizard -- not the Elves! And I do think that it is relevant that Elrond is a Half Elven: in Lorien there's not even a single piece of parchment that I can recall, and that's the last place in Middle Earth where one can find the Noldorian culture in full, if failing, flower).

But the other aspect of orality/literacy that bears mentioning is the difference between communal and individual action: oral cultures are communal (teller and listeners) literate cultures are privat (the book and the single reader). And yet in M-E each reference to a book is made in reference to its communal function:

-- The Book of Mazarbul is read aloud by Gandalf to the Fellowship; it has multiple authors

-- The Red Book of Westmarch is also read aloud by Sam and Rose to their children (and by their children); it also has multiple authors

-- The books of lore in Elrond's library are examined by pairs of characters (Gandalf and Aragorn, Gandalf and Elrond, Bilbo and Frodo) who discuss the contents of the books ("take counsel" with them).

Given this I think that Bethberry may be quite right in her view of Tolkien as being a 'language man' rather than a 'book man'. It's almost as though the only "good" book for him was a book that performed or acted like an oral tale. Which means, of course, he would be delighted by this kind of reading community (and perhaps even by the RPGs?) which is dedicated to taking the book he wrote and putting it into constant communal performance.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Not so with the elves, though. They've embalmed their memories. Their tragedy is that all they do is look back. There is no active growth principle in their art.

Maybe. I do wonder whether the works they create - from handicrafts to Lorien - are straight recreations of what was, or whether they are 'idealised' versions, which they have built up in their minds over the millenia. If they have no (or few)books & depend mainlElves y on memory then maybe those memories aren't as 'fixed' as they may at first seem. Human memory seems to work not through exact recollection but rather through a process of 're-creation' - is Elven memory totally different?

Whatever. I've asked a few times on various threads why the Elves don't 'sub-create' in the strict sense of creating secondary worlds in the mind - ie fictions - which Tolkien claims is innate in us as children of a Creator. Is Lorien (& Rivendell, Gondolin, etc) such a -sub creation? If so, then to what extent are they 'copies' & to what extent 'enhancements' (ie, fictions)? Certainly, their innate sense of sadness & loss will affect how they experience reality, so even if they were to copy/store things in as pure a form as they were capable of, they would not prove to be objective sources. They don't, after all, 'embalm' facts but perceptions.

[Kuruharan]

While I think Fordim raises an interesting point, I think it is possible to take this idea too far. After all, the Elves invented writing twice. The first time it was specifically for writing with pens and brushes. It is kind of hard to imagine what they used this for if not books or scrolls (which for the discussion amount to practically the same thing).

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Originally Posted by davem

I've asked a few times on various threads why the Elves don't 'sub-create' in the strict sense of creating secondary worlds in the mind - ie fictions - which Tolkien claims is innate in us as children of a Creator. Is Lorien (& Rivendell, Gondolin, etc) such a -sub creation? If so, then to what extent are they 'copies' & to what extent 'enhancements' (ie, fictions)?

Do we have any real sort of indication that elves don't indulge in 'making things up' other than Tolkien not including examples? We are generally exposed to the elves in reference to world affairs. Very sober times. But I do not find it hard to believe that the elves of Rivendell in the Hobbit would spin yarns, if of course you concider them truly elves. And that such gifted artists would not play with words just for the love of language, seems unlikely to me.

But as for the purpose of written language, it might not be such a leap to assume that it might have been developed for another purpose than merely recording events or ideas. For example, having just watched the movie Hero, I am particulary thinking of the connection that movie places between calligraphy and swordsmanship.

[Aiwendil]

Hilde Bracegirdle wrote:

Do we have any real sort of indication that elves don't indulge in 'making things up' other than Tolkien not including examples?

A good point. In fact, if the Elves did create fiction, it's a little hard to imagine in what context we would hear about it. But I also think there's something to Fordim's point:

if one lives in a world in which the story of Luthien and Beren actually happened, why would one need to make believe?

Hilde Bracegirdle also wrote:

But as for the purpose of written language, it might not be such a leap to assume that it might have been developed for another purpose than merely recording events or ideas. For example, having just watched the movie Hero, I am particulary thinking of the connection that movie places between calligraphy and swordsmanship.

This is an interesting idea, but ultimately I must say I don't buy it. Writing is always associated with lore by Tolkien. And was not Rumil, who first invented Tengwar, a sage and historian?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Hilde

Do we have any real sort of indication that elves don't indulge in 'making things up' other than Tolkien not including examples? We are generally exposed to the elves in reference to world affairs. Very sober times. But I do not find it hard to believe that the elves of Rivendell in the Hobbit would spin yarns, if of course you concider them truly elves. And that such gifted artists would not play with words just for the love of language, seems unlikely to me.

I'm still intrigued by the fact that Tolkien, for whom sub creation (the creation of a secondary world which exists in the mind) was the highest form of Art, did not include any references to sub creation among the Elves - no mention of Feanor making up tales or composing Epic poems about his equivalent of 'Middle-earth'.

We are given a lot of Elvish poetry in the Legendarium, but all of it is about actual persons/events in their history.

Or are they? Do we know for certain that all these references are to actual events & people? was there no embellishment in the accounts & poems - even in the 're-tellings'? No bias, no stressing one aspect of an event & playing down others?

As I said, this is the thing about written records - they tend to tell you what they are - fiction, history, philosophy, science, & once written down they are fixed. Memory, especially the memory of an immortal, is a much more dynamic process. But its more complicated than that - whose books are they?

(Also, its cheaper & less hassle to alter & amend memories - no typos to put right & errors in the text to discover, requiring one to buy an expensive 'new' edition or make do with the 'inaccurate' version. Chizz chizz....)

Let's look at the Silmarillion - put together by Bilbo: his 'Translations from the Elvish'. His main source? The Elves & books at Rivendell. Now, in the Sil, the Feanoreans don't come off very well. Not quite the villains of the piece, but hardly the heroes.

But can we trust what we're told about them in a work based on the the library & inhabitants of Elrond's House? Would Elrond have been entirely unbiassed as regards the Feanoreans? Would his Mother-in-law, given that she & their father were 'unfriends for ever'?

Both books & memories are consciously or unconsciously biassed, no less in Middle-earth than here, but memory, being a living process, is more malleable.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

It is a rather strange thing that springs to mind. If you set down these histories on paper and they become fixed they may be biased not only because of the historian but also the era they were written in, lacking the broader scope that time grants. But if the history is an oral one, they now no doubt continually gain the perspective of time, but as davem suggests, they might also become distorted from the original telling. I could see this easily happening in order to emphasize key points if nothing else.

Good point about Rumil. Perhaps this might be why he felt compelled to come up with a writing system. In his own lifetime he could have conceivably seen histories embellished.

So it looks as though the elves wrote volumes of history, either prose or song and perhaps of varying accuracy, but we only know of non-elves (or half elves) actually reading them. And as for pure fiction, maybe in the late 4th Age the non-elves will have gotten around to reading that lighter fare, and put hints out there for us to find them. If only we knew where to look!

[Child of the 7th Age]

There are so many interesting ideas in this thread! A number of points ring very true: that Elves are less dependent on the physical book than those who follow them, and that Tolkien's emphasis and hence that of the Elves is more on language and stories than collections of books per se.

I'd like to point to two areas, however, where I think we need to be careful how we are using terms. At points, this thread perhaps postulates too sharp a distinction between certain categories of writing: "history" versus "not history", and oral versus the written transmission of the past.

Let's start with the latter, which is easier to deal with: the supposed distinction between the "shifting annals of oral history" and the more "rigid" history recorded in books. A slew of recent studies have shown that this distinction is not as clear-cut as one might suppose. The very nature and essence of history is change, at least if we are referencing the history of modern Western Man (the tradition with which JRRT was concerned). Although a cliche, it is nonetheless true that every generation of Western Man regularly rewrites its past. Whether the record is oral or written, new material and interpretations are put forward. In the case of oral history, the changes in the record are more often accidental and less often intentional. With written history, the equation is reversed, but change is the mode of operation for all varieties of Western History. As to why history changes, it is quite often a reflection of the fact that changes are occurring in the present: new material is found and attitudes change. Changes in modern ideologies and technology actually bring about new ways of looking at the past.

The Elves are wholly exempt from this equation. Unlike Men who are somewhat more accepting of change, the Elves desire to embalm both the past and present to ensure that no change occurs. This would be as true of their oral history accounts as it would be of those chronicles that are set down in book format. It is the intention of the Elves that is the key rather than the mode of transmission of their stories. It's interesting to note that there are certain traditional cultures (not part of the modern West) similar to the Elves in that they cling to the ideal of an unchanging past. These tribes pass along sacred stories in an oral format that never varies. The worth of the storyteller is judged by the degree to which he/she is able to replicate a story without a single change.

Judging from what Tolkien tells us, I would guess that this changeless transmission would also have appealed to the Elves. Even if a story was phrased in new words, perhaps written in prose rather than poetry, they would not have wanted to see the heart of the story alter in any meaningful respect. It would have gone against everything they stood for. Yet, at the same time, there would have to be some inherent tension between the desire to preserve and the desire to sub-create. The two could not always have been an easy fit.

Will post later about "history" versus "non-history" (fantasy, fiction, ...or whatever you prefer to call this category).

[davem]

'There is more than one history of the world'. ' Aegypt' John Crowley.

Originally Posted by Child

The Elves are wholly exempt from this equation. Unlike Men who are somewhat more accepting of change, the Elves desire to embalm both the past and present to ensure that no change occurs.

But doesn't this assume there is a single Elvish history, agreed upon by all parties? Would the 'unchangeable', fixed account of the Feanoreans match the 'unchangeable', fixed account of the Elves of the Havens of Sirion? Would there be an agreed upon version of what happened to Aredhel accepted by Eol, Maeglin & Turgon, et al? Would Feanor's account of the Rebellion be the same as Fingolfin's, or Galadriel's, or of the Teleri? Etc, etc...

There may be unchangeable accounts, but to what extent would these accounts differ from each other? It seems to me that for these accounts to become 'embalmed', those retaining them rejecting any consensus in favour of preserving inviolate what they had experienced/recieved, would actually exacerbate tribal seperations & mistrust. In order to produce an objective account - or the closest equivalent - the different accounts would have to be amalgamated, which is precisely what Elves would not naturally do. Which account would win out in the end?

Yet if they, with the best will in the world, attempted to produce a single, coherent account of 'what really happened', how much would be lost - & how could they be certain that what was discarded was actually false? I think perhaps what they ended up with was a series of versions of history, most, if not all, containing the central events, but with different biases. The version any individual (in particular any mortal) accepted would be down to chance to a great degree. Through Bilbo's Translations from the Elvish we have an acount of 'what really happened', but do we have the account? Bilbo only had access to the versions available in Rivendell.

In short, accounts of 'what really happened', whether written or oral, are from a particular point of view - whether they change over the years (or the millenia) or not. Politics comes into it, personal bias & trauma too.

So, if what we have by the end of the Third Age is an 'objective' history of the Elves in Middle earth, then we don't have 'embalming', if we have 'embalming' we don't have an 'objective' history - however well preserved it may have been.

This is not even to get into the human (or 'Sauronic') versions of 'what really happened'.......

[Lalwendë]

What kind of culture would need books and libraries? It would need to be a settled culture, one which is not about to remove itself to another part of Middle-earth in the future, or indeed another part of Arda (libraries are not easily moved....I know). It would also have to be a relatively secure culture which put the effort into producing books. Even if Middle-earth possessed the printing press, would it be a very advanced technology? I would doubt it, taking historical precedent into account; the availability of affordable books is a relatively recent development. So it must presumably have taken up a great deal of time to produce just a single volume, time which may not have been to spare if a culture was engaged in either the struggle to survive or to wage war.

A culture which placed great importance on books would also need to be a stable culture. Books would have been valuable items, tempting to invaders looking for loot (I wonder if Osgiliath had a library and if it was saved?). If the people were constantly on the move, either running from or attacking enemies, and generally engaging in strategic movements of people, then collections of books would be a burden. Emphasis would be placed upon 'portable wealth'; single books might form part of this, but libraries would be impractical.

I would hazard a guess that at the time of the War of the Ring, book production would not have been uppermost in the minds of the peoples of Middle-earth apart from Hobbits who led a relatively peaceful and settled existence, amenable to gathering books and mathoms. Such books as were produced would have been for practical purposes, e.g. the Book of Mazarbul. But this does not mean that storytelling would have come to a close. All the cultures seem to possess a keen instinct for storytelling, even if such tales are based upon history and recent events. Gondor and Rohan even seem to have pre-existing accepted forms of verse, as seen in the inpromptu verses recited at Boromir's funeral or when Eomer is on the Pelennor Fields.

What I have noticed is that one culture in particular seems to possess a very strong oral culture which appears to be on the verge of becomong written down. That is Rohan. They have minstrels, the King even has a personal minstrel, indicating how important the role of storytelling is to them as a people. Aragorn says they have:

a forgotten poet long ago in Rohan, recalling how tall and fair was Eorl the Young, who rode down out of the North; and there were wings upon the feet of his steed, Felarof, father of horses.

This suggests to me that there have been other poets too, and that this poet was writing some time in the past. Rohan places enough importance on oral literature that it has a literary heritage. When Eomer meets Aragorn he talks as a man with broad experience of stories, legends and songs:

The Rider looked at them with renewed wonder, but his eyes hardened. "Then there is a Lady in the Golden Wood, as old tales tell!" he said.

Eomer stepped back and a look of awe was in his face. He cast down his proud eyes. "These are indeed strange days," he muttered. 'Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass.

"Halflings!" laughed the rider that stood beside Eomer. "Halflings! But they are only a little people in old songs and children's tales out of the North. Do we walk in legends or on the green earth in the daylight?"

"Wingfoot I name you. This deed of the three friends should be sung in many a hall.

This culture has been in Rohan for some hundreds of years, not long in comparison to the age of Gondor, but we would guess quite long enough to settle down to such a level that it could begin producing written literature. However the Rohirrim seem to have been engaged in war for much of their time in Rohan. The men seem to have been called off to become warriors or farmers so it seems they may have had little time for writing. The wealth of the Rohirrim is in horses, weaponry, armour, and the tapestries which decorate the walls of Meduseld; all these things are portable, suitable treasures for a people who are not wholly safe in their own realm. Even the tombs of the Kings are unmarked, wordless Barrows.

But though they do not write their stories down, their culture places such an importance upon them that it can only be a matter of time before they start to do so. Given the peace and security that Aragorn's kingship must have brought, the Rohirrim must have soon begun to do so, and to produce books. I can't help but draw conclusions comparing Gondor to the old Greek/Latin culture and Rohan to the new Anglo-Saxon culture which sprang up once they had found security and the time to actually write their stories down.

[Anguirel]

Originally Posted by davem

Let's look at the Silmarillion - put together by Bilbo: his 'Translations from the Elvish'. His main source? The Elves & books at Rivendell. Now, in the Sil, the Feanoreans don't come off very well. Not quite the villains of the piece, but hardly the heroes.

But can we trust what we're told about them in a work based on the the library & inhabitants of Elrond's House? Would Elrond have been entirely unbiassed as regards the Feanoreans? Would his Mother-in-law, given that she & their father were 'unfriends for ever'?

Both books & memories are consciously or unconsciously biassed, no less in Middle-earth than here, but memory, being a living process, is more malleable.

davem, while you're asking exactly the right question, opening up fascinating lines of thought, I think that your example is perhaps a bit flawed. If I wanted to find an unbiased commentator on the War of the Jewels, I could scarcely do better than Elrond, who is committed personally to every camp involved except Morgoth's.

Remember that though he might have been Earendil's son, he was Maglor's foster-son from a young age, and after his early childhood never saw, well, never encountered, his true father again. (I use the distinction because I can well imagine him gazing sadly at the Evening Star...) The path Elrond took, as a lormaster and one of the Wise rather than a great warrior, shows far more of Maglor's influence than Earendil's. In any case, his personal reactions to much of the deeds of Feanor's sons would undoubtedly be complex.

It is in other areas we should look for bias. You were spot on when you spoke of Eol, who is given a lot of stick for his status as an outsider; similarly Mim. Both stand for oppressed races, incidentally, the wild Teleri and the Petty-Dwarves...

I always imagine the Silmarillion as solid evidence that Elves were loremasters and scholars. One of the most clear points of Elven authorship can be found by comparing two groups of heroes, to my eyes:

Beren's outlaws. Each one of them is named, as if to save their memory from oblivion. It is mentioned that songs of their deeds are still sung by Elves.

and

Finrod and Beren's companions, apart from Edrahil entirely anonymous. Because they're Elves. They have not died as mortals do, and there is no need to urgently preserve them.