What does it mean to Write in the Spirit of Tolkien?

[littlemanpoet]

You may think you understand what I am saying, Child, but your rather bald misappropriation of my clear wording in regard to Eowyn leads me to conclude that you don't really. I did not say that Eowyn is idealized. Rather, I said that she is masculinized, and therefore the idealization does not and cannot be applied to her. Expectation of marriage is not to my point.

As for Andreth, when did Tolkien write her? Due to the fact that the incarnation of Christ is implied in her words, I'm given to thinking that this was a product of Tolkien's later-in-life theologizing. Granted, it's some of the best writing out of that theologizing that he did, and I give it more credence than most of the other stuff like it that he wrote, but Andreth is a produce of his later years, and is therefore not applicable to my argument. Tolkien was in decline, and from my reading it seems pretty clear that he is identifying directly with Andreth; whereas Galadriel and the other idealized women of the Legendarium are described at one remove, always through the eyes of a man (or dwarf) adoring them. Adoration is probably the best word (here I've just stumbled on it) that describes the particularity of which I speak.

Originally Posted by Child

There are so many styles of fantasy hailing from such diverse lands, so many different ways to approach the genre, that I truly believe it is impossible to generalize as you have done.

Pleae describe back to me precisely the generalization of which you think I'm culpable, because I'm missing it.

Originally Posted by Child

... their feelings are akin to what you would dub "hero worship". That trait or feeling is as typical of men as of women.

But I'm not talking about mere hero-worship. I'm saying that there is a specific way that some men think and feel about particular women that most women would find frankly odd, except those who happen to be the recipients thereof (because it apparently really pleases them ).

Originally Posted by Child

There are a great many characters whom Tolkien idealizes, and they are not all women.

This does not obtain to my point. I'm talking about a particular kind of idealization that is unique to that which some men regard some women. Gimli's adoration of Galadriel, Beren's of Luthien, Frodo's of Goldberry; and from RPs Falowik's of Uien; knights of medieval ladies; and (allow me to push the envelope) Catholic men of the Blessed Virgin, are all examples. Adoration.

The kind of idealization you are talking about is necessary to the writing of romance in general.

Originally Posted by Child

If Tolkien "fell in love" with Galadriel, he also "fell in love" with Faramir , though in a different way.

Precisely; note my bolds of your quote.

Originally Posted by Child

I just don't see the ironclad gender wall that you do within the fantasy genre as a whole. Good male writers of fantasy can write believable female characters, and vice versa.

Again, and again and again, that's not what I'm saying. It's not about ability to write one gender or the other well; I'm not interested in that at all. I'm saying that there is a particular aspect of writing of women that some men do that comes not at all naturally to women, but may be learned. Women are too well aware of their own foibles from the inside, as are men of their own, to naturally write at the idealized remove I'm speaking of. But now I'm beginning to repeat myself ad nauseum, so I'll stop now.

[Nogrod]

What does it mean to write in the spirit of tolkien?

It clearly is a different thing to try and write a Homeric epos, a medieval romance, a fully grown (nationalistic)romantic version of it of the 19th/20th century or a story inspired by the popular culture and the values of the western world by the late 20th century (Matrix, Tomb Rider, whatever you want).

Tolkien might be easily identified in here, but let that matter be.

But is the writing here at BD following the nationalistic-romantic style of Tolkien? No it isn't. And I can't blame the site for that, on the contrary. But the issue of women is one of the most noteworthy, going so clearly against the ideas of Tolkien vs. modern emancipatory women.

But what's the mix?

Let's take an example. The Eorling Mead Hall has writers from plain 21st century individuals to those who try to catch a medieval twist on their characters. There are people who try to write on a romance style and those who write like Philip Marlowe or K. Dick. What is Tolkien style writing - and what is true to what? What should the writers strive for? Should (historically / stylistically) incompetent writers be blocked? Nasty questions...

Diversity is mostly a blessing, but sometimes one would like to require a kind of restraint and role-playing skills not to bring all their "Teen-age-mutant-Ninja-Turtles" -stuff in to the games here. Or 21st century individualistic ethos to the romance world of Tolkien...

But which one should we follow?

That is much harder question...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet -

Our views on this are not that far apart, but they are different and unlikely to change. Since both my own words and yours feel unnecessarily pointed, I will respond to two items and courteously depart, at least from this particular discussion on the thread.

First regarding Eowyn.... I concur that Tolkien does not idealize her. And I think we both agree that she herself idealizes. Perhaps it is my use of the word "but" near the end of my post that gives the opposite impression. That was not directed at you and, if you thought so, I apologize.

My basic point stands. Idealization is a major part of Tolkien's writing (both the one who idealizes and the one who is idealized), and I do not see it tied to gender to the same degree that you do. Thus, Eowyn, Gimli, and Frodo all idealize the opposite sex at certain points. This is more than simple hero worship. There are also times when Luthien, for example, idealizes Beren just as she is idealized by him.

Secondly, I'm not comfortable setting aside Andreth merely because she was part of the "later writings". CT certainly felt this way about these writings, but many disagree. The one thing about Tolkien is that he was constantly changing his mind, and that was as true in his youth and prime as it was in his old age. If you automatically dismiss one aspect of Tolkien like the later writings, you can just as easily dismiss others like the Tolkien who wrote the Hobbit.

There have been lengthy discussions on the Downs concerning Andreth, Osanwe, Morgoth's Ring, etc. where many posters confessed that they find some of these later writings especially close to their hearts. I know that you don't feel this way from other posts I have read on different threads, but I don't think we're anywhere near the point where a final decision can be made on the value of these later writings. Given that situation, Andreth can't be overlooked. She is a very real woman--not idealized or idealizing. I would not call her typical, but she is still worthy of consideration.

[Lalaith]

Oh, we always talk about women, lets talk about men for a change....

I'm also saying that it's hard (not impossible) for a woman to write a Romantic man. It doesn't come naturally because I don't think many women writers understand, or are interested, in the mindset of Romantic men for whom the idealization of women speaks profoundly

I'm really interested by this, elempi, but I'd like you to elaborate before I go on because I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Tolkien's men were Romantic men, prone to idealising women? What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?

I was for example irritated by the change in Aragorn's character from book to film because he was given flaws and doubts that the book-Aragorn did not have - the book-Aragorn had a mission and purpose which he was constantly striving for, he was at no point "running away" from his destiny. Is this the kind of thing you mean?

[littlemanpoet]

Sorry, Child, I'm not usually this sure of myself on an issue, and I guess I got a little * ahem * emphatic. Sorry if I upset you. Being sure of myself tends to bring out that masculine bull-in-the-chinashop side of me and then I start to - er - plow, as it were.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

I'm really interested by this, elempi, but I'd like you to elaborate before I go on because I want to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Tolkien's men were Romantic men, prone to idealising women?

Yes. Some of them. Your question made me reconsider some men that I had not yet thought about: Aragorn, for instance. He doesn't idealize Arwen, which is rather surprising. Nor does Faramir idealize Eowyn. Nor does Sam idealize Rosy. It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives. This is curious. The men that stand out as idealizers of some woman are Gimli and Frodo. Elves sang the praises of Elbereth, surely an ideal female; and outside LotR but inside the Legendarium you have Beren and Thingol who did in fact marry those whom they idealized. Interesting.

What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?

I'll have to come back to this later when I have more time.

I was for example irritated by the change in Aragorn's character from book to film because he was given flaws and doubts that the book-Aragorn did not have - the book-Aragorn had a mission and purpose which he was constantly striving for, he was at no point "running away" from his destiny. Is this the kind of thing you mean?

This is an interesting point. There is a masculinity issue revolving around it, I believe; but it strikes me that the characteristic you are describing is not Romantic man, but a righteous man. This is something that irritates the modern critic to no end, because righteousness is, well, passé (which is a real shame). I suppose righteousness in a man is one of those things that "the sixpence equals", to refer to another thread. It is believed that righteousness in a man is simply unrealistic: "He must be hiding some hideous secret. No-one is that good!" Righteousness is considered to be 2-dimensional, shallow; yet Aragorn and Faramir - and Gandalf - are most certainly not two-dimensional characters! They are criticized for being so on the grounds that they are good, but that's not the same as being poorly written. This masculine righteousness could be an additional aspect of "writing in the spirit of Tolkien".

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Your question made me reconsider some men that I had not yet thought about: Aragorn, for instance. He doesn't idealize Arwen, which is rather surprising. Nor does Faramir idealize Eowyn. Nor does Sam idealize Rosy. It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives.

Then Noldo is not so lacking as you had previously supposed?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Then Noldo is not so lacking as you had previously supposed?

It seems to me that Noldo is not the real issue; Sindo is. Noldo got seduced veritably against his will, by BOTH Lorien and Sindo! Sindo was the one who worshiped Lorien, not Noldo. Go check out Helen's "Fairy Wife" for yourself for a very, very interesting read.

Originally Posted by Lalaith

What other character traits, other than their attitude to women, does the Romantic man have?

I'll try to answer this better this time. Traits:

• closeness to nature
• a sense of the spirituality of nature
• a rejection of "the machine" as "the answer"
• a hunger for SOMETHING MORE
• an appreciation of beautiful women as expressions of divinity; note: beauty of heart is at least as important as that of appearance

More could be said, but I think this sort of clarifies it.

I fear that I am not well read enough to help you with your examples. The only book that I've read by a woman about an honorable and righteous man is Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, and I did read it before I saw any of the movie versions and consider her hero to be a very good model; and he does marry the heroine. The most recent movie was a delight as it portrayed this very well.

The problem with the 19th century (if problem we can really call it) was that there wasn't the sheer inundation of technology and machinery that we face. So "closeness to nature" is relative. In a certain sense, I might consider myself more of a Romantic than men of the Romantic era because I have an even greater appreciation for nature than they have who had a wealth of it surrounding them.

I notice a shift from idealization to idolatry. These are two quite different terms and mean very different things. There concommitant verbs clarify this: adoration versus worship. It's a fine line, but I don't think Gimli worshiped Galadriel. He did revere, honor, and adore her. But not worship. Even less so with Frodo. Since it is a fine line, it is quite possible to slip from idealization into idolatry, and that would be a bad thing. Eowyn, idolatry? I don't think so here either. She found a man she could honor and had a legitimate hope; which could not be returned because though legitimate, it was a hope that could not be fulfilled, not unless Aragron foreswore the virtue that attracted Eowyn to him.

To review: to write in the spirit of Tolkien means:

1) something more mystical than mere fantasy.
2) to the same depth as Tolkien.
3) detailed feigned history.
4) consistency in the languages spoken by the people in the story.
5) writing both the small and the large, the comic and the sublime.
6) a deep theme, such as "hope and despair".
7) detailed yet interesting description (not boring).
8) a subtlety by which the unfamiliar is presented along with the familiar to give it an easier entrance into the reader's mind.
9) one must go beyond Tolkien's accomplishment (yikes!) &, I would add, avoid being 'thick as bricks doing it'.
10. find that balance between the epic romance, the continuation of grand themes, AND the experience of every-day made vivid.
11. braided themes - all the issues the characters must confront.
12. braided world view aspects.
13. use the archetypes that run deep within all of us.
14. The Fae feel.
15. Creating a world so rich and believable that the reader feels like it's history instead of fantasy.
16. a community worth saving.
17. Leave tantalizing mysteries unexplained.
18. Eucatastrophe.
19. Revelation.
20. Honor, valor, courage, humility, good manners, honesty.
21. Nasssssty villians (what I find the most difficult.)
22. Both detail and sweep.
23. The open reader is changed.

Wow! It's time we started joining like to like and see if we can come up with maybe three to seven over-arching themes, don't you think?

[Lalaith]

It seems that all the men who ended up marrying in LotR, did NOT, as a matter of fact, idealize the main woman in their lives.

Yes, you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Although I'm not sure we actually know whether or not Aragorn idealised Arwen before they married...
The other thing I was thinking about was the way that the idealised women in Tolkien behaved to the men idolising them. Even though they are - presumably - good and honourable women, they blithely accept the worship as their due, they don't have a problem with it. Compare this to the good and honourable Aragorn's shame at being worshipped by Eowyn.
And I also agree with you about this:

because righteousness is, well, passé (which is a real shame).

It is quite possible for good men to be interesting as well as bad ones. But to go back to Romantics, the trend of which you speak is linked to righteousness, in that it is about having and pursuing an ideal, and probably why I had to go back to the Victorians to come up with Romantic men (idealisers of women) created by female writers. I've come up with a couple of examples that you're welcome to knock down if you don't think they fit. (Particularly as I still need a better definition from you of what a Romantic man is! Is Gatsby one, for example? He's certainly not righteous...)

Anyway, what do you reckon about Adam Bede (George Eliot)? Also Tertius in Middlemarch...And I'm pretty sure Mrs Gaskell had a couple of similar types but I can't remember them right now... One thing though, these female-created idealists typically idealise the wrong women.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Lalaith

The other thing I was thinking about was the way that the idealised women in Tolkien behaved to the men idolising them. Even though they are - presumably - good and honourable women, they blithely accept the worship as their due, they don't have a problem with it. Compare this to the good and honourable Aragorn's shame at being worshipped by Eowyn.

IMO-- thie difference between Gimli and Frodo's idolatry , on the one hand, and Eowyn's idolatry , on the other, was that Eowyn reasonably hoped that Aragorn would fall in love with her, and marry her. And she pursued him with that in mind, to the point that others remarked about it (even Faramir.) Aragorn rebuffed her because he saw that she was serious about him and had marital hopes.

Frodo and Gimli had no such illusions, but only adored from afar. Hence they were no threat to Goldberry's marriage, Galadriel's marriage, or even Arwen's engagement.

'***************************************

EDIT, Postscript, etc etc: Before going back and reviewing the first page, I decided I'd brainstorm my own "spirit of TOlkien" requirements, and for a first-shot quickie, I wrote these:

--Eucatastrophe.
--Revelation.
--Honor, valor, courage, humility, good manners, honesty.
--Nasssssty villians (what I find the most difficult.)
--Both detail and sweep.
--The open reader is changed.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Child of the 7th Age

I'm not comfortable setting aside Andreth merely because she was part of the "later writings". CT certainly felt this way about these writings, but many disagree. The one thing about Tolkien is that he was constantly changing his mind, and that was as true in his youth and prime as it was in his old age. If you automatically dismiss one aspect of Tolkien like the later writings, you can just as easily dismiss others like the Tolkien who wrote the Hobbit.

I'm glad the personal clarification helped, Child. Just by way of clarification, I wish to draw your attention to precisely what I said in regard to your above point.

Originally Posted by me

Due to the fact that the incarnation of Christ is implied in her words, I'm given to thinking that this was a product of Tolkien's later-in-life theologizing.

It is the theologizing as a basis for revision, instead of his philological hobbies that I think caused him to err in most cases when he was older. Tolkien was at his best when he was subcreating stories based on the myths he knew. When he did this, his process was to (1) write the story, (2) wonder how the words in the story could have come to be, based on philological principles, (3) he devised 'how it must have happened', which resulted in the (4) powerfully complex feigned history. By comparison, his late-in-life theological bases for writing set aside this intuitive process of story subcreation in order to work out logical systems that satisfied his theological mind but often did harm to the "real-feel" of the stories. And by means of this artificial approach, he got himself into all kinds of unlikely problems such as with Galadriel and Celeborn, and with the origin of Orcs, to name the two examples I know of best.

Okay, enough about that.

Originally Posted by Child

One factor that divides even very good fanfiction and rpgs from the original is the way the characters' internal lives are portrayed.

Ah yes. The current vogue for all fiction is Characterization. Back before the novel was invented, the vogue was Plot. In early Science Fiction it was the Idea, and still is in murder mysteries. RPGs lend themselves to characterization. One notable exception is the Assigned to Mordor set, which, being spoof, is plot-based to a large degree, although there is characterization going on.

But the question must be asked, why didn't Tolkien do deep characterization? I personally don't think he should have, but others may; it wasn't what he was trying to do; but why?

I don't think it can safely be said that angsty RPGs (that is with deep characterization) automatically cannot be written in the spirit of Tolkien; but I know it's hard.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

But the question must be asked, why didn't Tolkien do deep characterization? I personally don't think he should have, but others may; it wasn't what he was trying to do; but why?

He was capable of it - in both The Athrabeth & Aldarion & Erendis he explores character in great depth (interestingly in both it is the female character Tolkien focusses on). Generally though, what he does seem to do is focus on the plot in the main - the story is told in long/medium shot - & then suddenly switch to close up. This actually makes the glimpse of character he then gives very intense.

Of course, he was a very subtle writer. There is characterisation there, but he doesn't hit you over the head with it - as PJ did in the movies. You have to pay attention. An old post of Squatter's comes to mind, speaking of an episode in 'Farewell to Lorien':

Is this the conversation of two characters without depth? It takes little imagination to see in Legolas' words the pity of the Elves' relations with other races. The mortals move on and leave, but the Elves are trapped within the world, unchanging and unable to follow. The most beautiful of their creations are destroyed, and they live to see most triumph turn back to disaster. Legolas speaks with the voice of experience. He has had many years to learn that we cannot hold on to the world; but Gimli is feeling for the first time the pain that the Elves feel at the passing away of beautiful things: a pain that they live with daily, and must overcome in bringing about the fall of Sauron. Even for one whose memory is like waking life, memory is not enough, and it is telling that Legolas never claims that it is. What he says is that an unstained memory is a great gift, and he has already implied that memory is what everything must eventually become. Who among the Fellowship is so well-placed as he to know this? This is a conversation about very profound thoughts, and if the characters are talking about them, they must also be thinking them. They might be talking about Lórien on the surface, but on a deeper level they are talking about the very relationship between experience and memory. This seems to indicate as well as anything that there is more to Gimli than a solid Dwarven miner and more to Legolas than the woodland prince. It may not come out often, but it is there; and we need to know that it is there if we are to feel for those characters at all.

So, the characterisation is there, but its easy for us to miss it, as we're so used to having everything spelt out for us by modern authors/film-makers. We must adopt a different approach when reading Tolkien, & be prepared to pay attention to every detail.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

He was capable of it - in both The Athrabeth & Aldarion & Erendis he explores So, the characterisation is there, but its easy for us to miss it, as we're so used to having everything spelt out for us by modern authors/film-makers. We must adopt a different approach when reading Tolkien, & be prepared to pay attention to every detail.

If I may add a small emendation to this advice about paying attention to every detail, davem, I think your words apply to any writer worth his ink--or his internet ether--modern as well as any other classifcation readers can make. The finer the tuning, the finer the writing, in any genre--I so dislike to see Tolkien separated from any other class of writers.

Of course, if the details are cast in such chiaroscuro as to be overshadowed by plot, description, other aspects of story, then of course it is possible to ask why an author chose to highlight some aspects to the eclipsing of others. (And please note that eclipse is a fascinating event wherebye what one 'ought to see' is occluded.) This is all part of establishing a book's priorities, which is what a good reader ought to do, imho, submit himself (or herself ) to the priorities of the text.

[littlemanpoet]

Another aspect of the idealization of women occurred to me, linked to the fact that the women who married by the end of the appendices were not idealized by their new husbands.

An idealized woman is beyond reach.

This is one way in which Ellen Kushner failed in Thomas Rhymer: the Queen of Fairy was pretty much at Thomas' "personal disposal", to euphemize, for the entirety of his seven years in fairy. This misses the point.

Galadriel was beyond Gimli's reach; Goldberry was beyond Frodo's; Arwen was beyond Eomer's reach (recall the discussion between Eomer and Gimli regarding Galadriel and Arwen).

Frankly, lust is not the point. Adoration is. In the medieval courtly love 'vogue', the knight's goal was to 'win' the heart of the lady of his desire. This often resulted in his 'having' her as well. But in the 'getting', the ideal is lost and the besmirched couple is thrown into the ravages of infidelity in a culture that deplores it. Tolkien cleans all that up.