21st Century Tolkien

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

But not have the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, or the HoME? I'd rather lose the Lord of the Rings than the Silmarillion at this stage in my fandom. That bittersweet feeling of the Fall of Noldor, the endless progression of defeat after defeat until the final and sudden eucatastrope of Eärendil... it comes to mean more to mean than the success of Frodo.

I can see what you mean. However, much as I love The Sil, it has never touched my heart in the way TH & LotR always have. Its very big & impressive (& I mean that), but just as, with age, Frodo & Sam's story have come to mean more to me than the Three Hunters, Helm's Deep & Pelennor Fields, so, the epic tales of the First & Second Age mean less to me as I grow older. LotR is Tolkien's great work, because of the smallness, the intimacy & humanity, of Frodo & Sam's struggle through Mordor, & of Frodo's last days & departure. If the tales of The Sil have any real meaning & relevance, it is because of the simple humanity given them by the Hobbits. If it wasn't for the existence of Frodo, Sam, Bilbo & all the 'charming, absurd Boffins, Bolgers & Bagginses' I wouldn't care at all for Beren & Luthien, Feanor, Earendel, Turin & the rest. Mr Baggins (as far as I'm concerned) didn't 'stray into their world', they 'strayed into his'.

Now, I can see & accept that LotR is properly part of the Legendarium, & that the events of The Sil are what 'explain' LotR, but LotR is what gives The Sil meaning. As far as I am concerned, there are 'two' works here - The Sil/LotR (excluding TH for reasons of style, depth, characterisation of the Elves & Trolls, etc) - & TH/LotR (only including The Sil peripherally if at all, due to its absence of Hobbits & what they symbolise in the main). Originally I read the 'first', & that was the story I came to love. Later I came to favour the 'second'. Now, for whatever reason (or none at all) I find myself increasingly moving back to my first love. Maybe its a phase I'm going through.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by davem

I can see what you mean. However, much as I love The Sil, it has never touched my heart in the way TH & LotR always have. Its very big & impressive (& I mean that), but just as, with age, Frodo & Sam's story have come to mean more to me than the Three Hunters, Helm's Deep & Pelennor Fields, so, the epic tales of the First & Second Age mean less to me as I grow older. LotR is Tolkien's great work, because of the smallness, the intimacy & humanity, of Frodo & Sam's struggle through Mordor, & of Frodo's last days & departure. If the tales of The Sil have any real meaning & relevance, it is because of the simple humanity given them by the Hobbits. If it wasn't for the existence of Frodo, Sam, Bilbo & all the 'charming, absurd Boffins, Bolgers & Bagginses' I wouldn't care at all for Beren & Luthien, Feanor, Earendel, Turin & the rest. Mr Baggins (as far as I'm concerned) didn't 'stray into their world', they 'strayed into his'.

'tis the opposite for me- and perhaps therein one may see some light cast upon our rather different looks at many matter in the Legendarium- the Hobbits were my first love, above and beyond the High and Mighty, with my interest gradually shifting to fading and forgotten Númenor, and now resting at last with the tragedy of the Elves and Valar. I cannot say that my interests shall not shift back to Hobbits at some distant date... but I shall never likely see my interest in the Elves fade. The painful bittersweet has more tug on my heart than the charming and absurd- for which reason Frodo is my favourite hobbit, and his end the most satisfying.

Now, I can see & accept that LotR is properly part of the Legendarium, & that the events of The Sil are what 'explain' LotR, but LotR is what gives The Sil meaning. As far as I am concerned, there are 'two' works here - The Sil/LotR (excluding TH for reasons of style, depth, characterisation of the Elves & Trolls, etc) - & TH/LotR (only including The Sil peripherally if at all, due to its absence of Hobbits & what they symbolise in the main). Originally I read the 'first', & that was the story I came to love. Later I came to favour the 'second'. Now, for whatever reason (or none at all) I find myself increasingly moving back to my first love. Maybe its a phase I'm going through.

I agree that, as presented, there is a bit of a "lack" to the Silmarillion- that it does, in fact, require some "meaning", as you put it- or as a "grounding" in our world. However, where you find this meaning in the Lord of the Rings, as do most readers, I suspect, I'm increasingly come to find it in the so sadly neglected tale of Ælfwine/Eriol... And here the Book of Lost Tales plays a major part- but not the only one. Although there was really no way Christopher Tolkien COULD have written the Silmarillion into a publishable form, while keeping Ælfwine and remaining as close as possible to his Father's works, I wish indeed that it HAD been completed by Tolkien as such...

[davem]

I think it was with LotR that Tolkien found his voice as a writer & was where he gave us his Art in its purest form. Like Rivendell itself, in LotR there's something for everyone - TH & The Sil, Smith & Niggle, the High & the Mundane. On its own The Sil is too High & tragic, 'For God's sake let us sit upon the ground & tell sad stories of the death of kings' about sums up The Sil. Its one of those books that I'm glad to have read, but not one that I actually enjoy reading very much anymore. Oh, there re moments of grandeur I wouldn't be without, clever things, interesting things, but I'm not sure its a book (especially not in CT's redaction) that one could 'love' in the way so many of us love LotR & TH. There's no-one in there that I can truly relate to. Its rather like Morris's fantasies which inspired Tolkien.

I think Carpenter's (??) analogy between The Sil & the Old Testament & LotR & the New is valid. I'm sure our medieval ancestors would have favoured The Sil over LotR, because TS is a High Epic of Gods & Heroes, whereas LotR (&TH) are stories of ordinary blokes doing extraordinary things. So, for me, Sam is Tolkien's greatest hero. He's who we are at our best - or what we'd like our best to be. Sam 'earths' the whole Legendarium & gives it meaning. The world of TS is too 'distant', the world of the Hobbits still feels as if its 'just round the corner'. They are what provide the link to the world of TS, & what give it whatever attraction it has for me.

[Ainaserkewen]

I keep encountering former Tolkien lovers on other non-related forums. People with usernames like "elvenlady" and "LordMorgoth" and I ask them if they are fans and they say "I used to be, now I can't change my username." And I ask them about their former fanhood. Many tell me that they were right in there, reading the Silm, the various companions, going to the big websites and talking about nothing but the Lord of the Rings. Now they're just usernames.

I know it will never die for me. I've got my book collection and my three movie posts looming over my bed. A reminder that it's part of me.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

I'm sure our medieval ancestors would have favoured The Sil over LotR, because TS is a High Epic of Gods & Heroes, whereas LotR (&TH) are stories of ordinary blokes doing extraordinary things. So, for me, Sam is Tolkien's greatest hero. He's who we are at our best - or what we'd like our best to be. Sam 'earths' the whole Legendarium & gives it meaning. The world of TS is too 'distant', the world of the Hobbits still feels as if its 'just round the corner'. They are what provide the link to the world of TS, & what give it whatever attraction it has for me.

Hmm. I'm not so sure that our medieval ancestors would necessarily have gone always for High Epic of Gods & Heroes. Think of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Some of the most boring stories--and told at the expense of their pilgrim tellers--are the high ones. And The Miller's Tale with all its ribald humour was quite popular, as is The Wife of Bath's prologue and tale. And the most scurrilous pilgrim tells the most pious tale. I don't think a medieval audience would have looked askance at Sam. There's much there with his pans and his conies that would have fit right in with medieval life--not the Arthurian kind maybe, but Arthur's Round Table is not necessarily the most representative of the art of the time.

Gosh, elempi, there we go again.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Some of the most boring stories--and told at the expense of their pilgrim tellers--are the high ones. And The Miller's Tale with all its ribald humour was quite popular, as is The Wife of Bath's prologue and tale. And the most scurrilous pilgrim tells the most pious tale. I don't think a medieval audience would have looked askance at Sam. There's much there with his pans and his conies that would have fit right in with medieval life--not the Arthurian kind maybe, but Arthur's Round Table is not necessarily the most representative of the art of the time.

I think they would have loved Sam as comic relief, but not accepted him as a 'hero'. Chaucer satirises the ordinary folk as much, if not more than he 'celebrates' them. I don't think his original hearers/listeners would have found the 'high' tales 'boring' - or if they did they would not have admitted it. I'm not sure the Canterbury Tales would ever have been considered 'high' or 'serious' literature in the way Malory, Chretian or The High History of the Holy Grail was.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Hmm. I'm not so sure that our medieval ancestors would necessarily have gone always for High Epic of Gods & Heroes. Think of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Some of the most boring stories--and told at the expense of their pilgrim tellers--are the high ones.
------------------------
I don't think a medieval audience would have looked askance at Sam. There's much there with his pans and his conies that would have fit right in with medieval life--not the Arthurian kind maybe, but Arthur's Round Table is not necessarily the most representative of the art of the time.

Arthur's Round Table (from Malory version onwards, or something?) could easily be seen as more of a story of a "pre-pre-romantic" upperclass. But the stories had been about for centuries, not as rigid tales of Christian might and the things high and noble, but as living tradition of stories about people and their fortunes.

So in this I side with Bêthberry. If you look at medieval culture at large, you shouldn't forget the distinction between the high & low (well that shouldn't be forgotten in any phase of the history). The canon of "great works" just rarely reflects the ideals of the common folks. Think about the success of Rabelais as an exception (I haven't ever studied litterature, so I'm not sure about it's initial reception by the high-class, but could imagine it got somewhat well into them because of all those philosophical jokes etc): folksy-humour with the lowest common denominator attached with picking on trendy theories of the upper-class.

SEEM TO BE CROSS-POSTING...

= Davem
I'm not sure the Canterbury Tales would ever have been considered 'high' or 'serious' literature in the way Malory, Chretian or The High History of the Holy Grail was.

That's just the point. They would not have been considered "high", but would have been loved... unlike the one's you cite there. They are the official canon, made by the theologians and other university-people (who knows history? what's the percentage of them in the Middle-ages, 2%?)...

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

I think it was with LotR that Tolkien found his voice as a writer & was where he gave us his Art in its purest form. Like Rivendell itself, in LotR there's something for everyone - TH & The Sil, Smith & Niggle, the High & the Mundane. On its own The Sil is too High & tragic, 'For God's sake let us sit upon the ground & tell sad stories of the death of kings' about sums up The Sil. Its one of those books that I'm glad to have read, but not one that I actually enjoy reading very much anymore. Oh, there re moments of grandeur I wouldn't be without, clever things, interesting things, but I'm not sure its a book (especially not in CT's redaction) that one could 'love' in the way so many of us love LotR & TH. There's no-one in there that I can truly relate to. Its rather like Morris's fantasies which inspired Tolkien.

LOTR will always be Tolkien's finest work for me. Of course, I love his other works, but LOTR easily outshines them all. davem is right that the book does have something for everybody both in terms of character and plot. The style even shifts throughout the book, but the one constant is that with this book, Tolkien demonstrated the power of story.

Story is most definitely there in The Hobbit, and it is also present in Smith, though the former lacks the higher tone of LotR and the latter is not as developed as LotR. The Sil, however, lacks that essential element of Story. At times it can read like extracts from a notebook giving outline plots for other novels; the stories therein are not very detailed, and the characters do not have the room to grow and develop. In reality, The Sil could have been the basis for many other novels which Tolkien did not have the time to write. Had Tolkien been for much of his adult life a professional writer I feel that he would have developed these tales into true novels, however he was an academic with a full time job, and a perfectionist too. He simply would not have had the time to really develop these tales if he had wished to. How many modern professional writers would be jealous of this wealth of stories waiting to be developed?!

I think the Silmarillion is wonderful, but also very frustrating as it offers so many tantalising glimpses of what might have been. And it is also so different in style that it is absolutely clear to me that it was not all Tolkien's own work. It does not have his 'voice' like other works do.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I think the Silmarillion is wonderful, but also very frustrating as it offers so many tantalising glimpses of what might have been. And it is also so different in style that it is absolutely clear to me that it was not all Tolkien's own work. It does not have his 'voice' like other works do.

In a way, though, that's a part of its charm- at least for me. The Silmarillion ISN'T supposed to be Tolkien's voice, or a novel... it's historically impersonal. In the Lord of the Rings and elsewhere, we hear Tolkien's voice. In the Silmarillion we hear... history's voice. All we hear is a translator, or, at best, an Elf ala Lost Tales: ie. Pengolod. One could say that Tolkien was SUCCESSFUL in suppressing his own voice, since it is the LACK of a person's idiosyncratic voice that truly makes the stories of the Silmarillion seem real. Told in a normal fashion, such as a novel, the Lay of Leithien, for example, seems merely like a

Mind you, I'm not so much trying to convert everyone to Silmarillionism as I am trying to show that there is an alternative view to these things. The Lord of the Rings has everything... well, of that everything, 'twas the Silmarillion-esque part that truly acquires my interest.