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

[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?

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Go check out Helen's "Fairy Wife" for yourself for a very, very interesting read.

*bows*

The Fairy Wife

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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.

I don't see the difference between adoration and worship, I'm afraid. I was responding to Lalaith's turn of phrase. But either way, I would stop at "revere and honor"-- and leave out both the adoration and the worship.

My take on Goldberry In Frodo's Eyes has been discussed elsewhere...

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

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?

For starters, 22 and 5 are related. So are 18 and 14, if remotely.

Edit: Cross-posted with Child: Aye, Angst R Us....

[Child of the 7th Age]

We are all cross posting with each other.

[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.

[Child of the 7th Age]

--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.

An interesting list, Helen , especially the last one, which is difficult but something that ideally should happen. While I have no trouble agreeing with your points, where I personally have problems is deciding how different certain elements of the story can be and yet still qualify as writing in the spirit of Tolkien. In other words, this list is meaningful not only for what is on it but also for what is not.

Nogrod brought up considerations of style a while back, mentioning posters who write with a distinct medieval flavor versus those who consciously express themselves in a decidedly "modern" tone. It's a point worth exploring. My personal preference is not to disqualify a work merely because of style. LotR had vast differences in style and voice from one chapter or episode to the next. If you add Hobbit and Silm into the equation, the differences become even more pronounced. JRRT frequently had to defend himself against critics who did not like this. At the very least we can say that the author shifted from voice to voice depending on his audience, the particular character involved, or the subject he was discussing. For that reason alone, I would not feel comfortable adding stylistic requirements to your list.

There is another question that's bothered me a long time. One factor that divides even very good fanfiction and rpgs from the original is the way the characters' internal lives are portrayed. Very rarely does Tolkien let us get into the head of a particular individual. More frequently, we see that character through another's eyes. (There are exceptions, but these are rare.)

Sometimes, when outside people ask me what I write on the Downs, I jokingly answer "Middle-earth soap operas". So many fanfiction works and rpgs, even those that are very well written, have a definite "angsty" flavor. There are a few exceptions--Mithadan comes to mind. But many of us do delight in plumbing internal depths, something which JRRT rarely did. So, anyone out there, do you think it is possible to craft angsty fantasy of this type (inside or outside of Middle-earth) that still qualifies as "being written in the spirit of Tolkien"?


Littlemanpoet - Thanks for the personal clarification. It was indeed helpful.
Whoops! I just crossposted with you.....

[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.

[Bêthberry]

Hmm. The heat of the day must be getting to me, as I've decided to bite.

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ellen Kushner failed. I haven't read her Thomas, so quite possibly I'm missing part of your point. Yet she is far from being the only one having her protagonists romp in the hay or the bower or wherever the trysts take place. Fairy and fantasy and medieval courtly traditions are, first of all, related but not the same thing and I'm not sure we can lump them all together here under some rubric of adoration or idealisation. I am here thinking of cultural legends and mythologies, not just modern fantasy. Second, each 'genre' is replete with blood, lust, gore, passion, fright and doom. The original tales are not sanitised. However, I am gathering the suspicion here that you are talking Tolkien's version of Fantasy or Fairy or Courtly Love as the definitive one. Are you suggesting that Tolkien bowlderised Fairy, the same way that other fairy stories were watered down to make them acceptable for children? I'm also a bit thrown by the tone of your words--besmirched, ravages of infidelity, deplores. These sound more like latter day "Scarlet Letter" attitudes rather than the more complex attitude that I recall from my reading of medieval romance. And then too this idealisation almost always involved the opposite with a woman of lower rank.

To bring this back to the current phase of the discussion, is this view of adoration/idealisation what is going on in the current Mead Hall?

Now, it is exceptionally hot and humid out here and I've spent most of the day outside, so if my points sound way off base--not first or second, or third, but completely out in left field, from what you meant, you might want to put them down to some form of sunstroke.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that Ellen Kushner failed.

If she was attempting to show Thomas as one a romantic (small 'r') bard who idealiz(s)ed the Fairy Queen, she messed it up by making the story about lust and craving need, whereas I think that a more effective handling of it is like Smith of Wootton Major, Gimli, Eomer, and Frodo, and others. Now, Tolkien made it clear in his Letters (and I choose to believe that he meant and understood what he said) that 'all that adolescent stuff' was something he was mature enough not to need in his Legendarium. Bowdlerized? Nah. He was not on some mission to 'clean it all up'; it just didn't have the kind of front-and-center importance to him that it seems to have for so many authors of our era.

Originally Posted by Bb

Fairy and fantasy and medieval courtly traditions are, first of all, related but not the same thing and I'm not sure we can lump them all together here under some rubric of adoration or idealisation. I am here thinking of cultural legends and mythologies, not just modern fantasy. Second, each 'genre' is replete with blood, lust, gore, passion, fright and doom.

Quite right. The fact is that in courtly love the knight's goal was adultery with the Lady. I think it would have been a mistake for Tolkien to visit the issue of sexual lust in LotR; it would have drawn far too much attention to itself and away from the powerfully important things he believed worth telling a story about. I'm not saying that Tolkien's approach is definitive. I'm saying that he was on to something though.

The language I was using -- besmirched, ravages of infidelity, deplores -- have to do with the realities of adultery in a society that holds as its rule of law Christian standards, as did the high medieval. I'm not talking in Victorian terms here, just the realities of what a Lady faced from her Lord if she had been unfaithful with one of his knights.

Originally Posted by Bb

To bring this back to the current phase of the discussion, is this view of adoration/idealisation what is going on in the current Mead Hall?

I don't know. Degas and Linduial are one example to look at, their writers being two yound ladies. The other is the case of Eodwine and Saeryn, written by a man and by a yound lady. However, the issue of the latter is not that of idealization. I don't know if the former is, or is even meant to be. What I do know is that it's not being written that way. Which may feed into my main point: female writers are generally unaware of the inner workings of the romantic currents in a romantic male character; it's about all those things you probably already think it is, PLUS a tendency toward idealization.