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

[littlemanpoet]

Off hand quick comments:

If you think that I was referring to Chaucer with my quote of Tolkien regarding adolescence, then you are taking both Tolkien and me out of context. He made this comment in reference (rather specifically I think) to the modern, post WW One, type of novel.

The Canterbury Tales, on the other hand, reflect an earthiness typical of the peasantry of the time.

16th century beheading did occur to me, but I think that era was more, rather than less barbaric than, say, the 10th -12th centuries, and the Kings were to blame for the increasing ferocity of punishments.

As to changing cultural constructs versus 'lasting stereotypes' (I would try to find less negatively implying words but haven't the time), it's probably a messy mix and always will be. There are obviously some basic biological differences that will always have their implications. And there are some general tendencies engendered by hormonal differences (testosterone etc.) that will necessarily affect the issue (oh, hang, I'm being overly diplomatic here): yes, I think there are "stereotypes", but I prefer to understand them as "universals" - the reason they seem like stereotypes are precisely because they are universal. Hence, any efforts to undo them will be to work against nature, and nature has a way of reasserting itself. As with flaura and fauna, so with humans and their stories.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

It is not 'maturity' which made Tolkien omit 'lust', but rather a function of his system of belief. Nor is it a function of modern author's scatological interest or immaturity that 'lust' appears more dominantly in modern literature. It is a function of different understanding and different beliefs.

Agreed - up to a point. Tolkien did not omit lust but when he did present it it was always in a negative light - but then it is a 'sin' in Catholic doctrine. At the same time desire is certainly present & is often positive. Beren & Luthien clearly desire each other sexually. Hence sexual desire is not omitted, but is only acceptable if it is an aspect of love, not if it exists for its own sake.

I'm not sure Tolkien idealised women - he was a sufficiently competent psychologist to be able to show his female characters as complex beings in their own right. If the men around them idealised them the was something that was going on inside them. Tolkien did not idealise his female characters, but merely had some of hiis male characters do so.

As to the idealisation of women in the primary world - perhaps, but at the periods of greatest 'idealisation' there was a corresponding denegration of 'real' women. One produced the other - though which came first I don't know.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Off hand quick comments:

If you think that I was referring to Chaucer with my quote of Tolkien regarding adolescence, then you are taking both Tolkien and me out of context. He made this comment in reference (rather specifically I think) to the modern, post WW One, type of novel.

The Canterbury Tales, on the other hand, reflect an earthiness typical of the peasantry of the time.

16th century beheading did occur to me, but I think that era was more, rather than less barbaric than, say, the 10th -12th centuries, and the Kings were to blame for the increasing ferocity of punishments.

My sincere apologies if I have taken anything out of context. Perhaps if you could give me the specific reference Tolkien's letter, I could better understand your point. As it is, I just don't see how it relates solely to modern literature. Perhaps you could PM me the info so we won't belabour the thread? Many thanks!

Originally Posted by lmp

yes, I think there are "stereotypes", but I prefer to understand them as "universals" - the reason they seem like stereotypes are precisely because they are universal. Hence, any efforts to undo them will be to work against nature, and nature has a way of reasserting itself. As with flaura and fauna, so with humans and their stories.

There's probably no point in getting into a nurture versus nature kind of discussion, but on the other hand I am very skeptical of your characterisation that, to examine or question the kind of depictions Tolkien used is to go against nature. It is, once again, an opinion that these are based on 'universals' rather than culturally determined. To what extent, for instance, can this kind of idealisation be found in non-Western literatures? The epic of [i]Gilgamesh[/b]--called "The oldest story in the world" by its recent translator, for example, posits a very different relationship with the woman, for there intercourse is a civilising event, an initiation into full humanity, rather than a fall.

Originally Posted by davem

If the men around them idealised them the was something that was going on inside them. Tolkien did not idealise his female characters, but merely had some of hiis male characters do so.

I find this observation fascinating, as I think this could be the first time that anyone here has put forth the idea of distance between Tolkien's view, as author or as narrator, and his characters' view. We have the external evidence that he did change or alter Galadriel's character so that she came more and more to represent his developing theological ideas and we also have Tolkien's letters which show that he did not idealise women in real life.

What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bethberry

What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?

I confess little interest in such research, probably because of where I stand on the canonicity issue. (I'll let you figure that one out for yourselves.)

The Letter that I was referring to was #177:

First, in the preliminary note:

...Edwin Muir, reviewing The Return of the King in the Observer on 27 November, wrote: 'All the characters are boys masquerading as adult heroes . . . . and will never come to puberty . . . . . Hardly one of them knows anything about women.'

and Tolkiens' response to this:

Blast Edwin Muir and his delayed adolescence. He is old enough to know better. It might do him good to hear what women think of his 'knowing about women', especially as a test of being mentally adult. If he had an M.A. I should nominate him for the professorship of poetry - a sweet revenge.

As for Gilgamesh and cultural influence versus universal rootedness, I fear that you are right that it's a matter of opinion, having mostly to do with philosophical world view, and thus is probably something best avoided, as most of you already know what I believe, and this thread is not supposed to be about what I believe, but about what's in the spirit of Tolkien and what's not.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I find this observation fascinating, as I think this could be the first time that anyone here has put forth the idea of distance between Tolkien's view, as author or as narrator, and his characters' view. We have the external evidence that he did change or alter Galadriel's character so that she came more and more to represent his developing theological ideas and we also have Tolkien's letters which show that he did not idealise women in real life.

What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?

Its certianly significant that when (predominantly male) characters 'fall in love' with a Lady it is love at first sight - they don't actually know the Lady as a person - she is a symbol of beauty, of perfection, which she embodies for the male (Frodo, Gimli, Aragorn, Beren). In a real sense then, they don't 'love' her at all, because they don't know her. It is perhaps, in the Jungian sense, an 'Anima' projection. She symbolises the Other, the Unknown, the Unconscious, 'Mystery'. I think this is why sexual desire is absent - or more probably is subsumed into overwhelming feelings of awe, of 'worship'.

Yet, in LotR at least, Galadriel the woman is not 'worthy' of Gimli's worship - she is an unforgiven rebel, one who sought power & control over others. She is actually an Elf-Woman, clad in simple white - something Frodo comes to see after the incident at the Mirror, but which Gimli never does see. Frodo's 'projection' is withdrawn at that point & he sees her for what she truly is - Gimli's projection never is.

For Tolkien, however, Galadriel is always an Elf-Woman, clad in simple white - he never 'worships' her. In showing the withdrawing of Frodo's projection onto her he makes plain who & what she is, & tells us plainly that there is something else going on with Gimli.

[littlemanpoet]

Good thoughts, davem. This tells me that Tolkien was well acquainted with the romantic man's idealisation, and in control of it in his writing.

[davem]

It seems as if Eowyn's 'love' for Aragorn is of the same kind. Interestingly this doesn't seem to be the case with her love for Faramir - though it does seem to happen with Faramir for Eowyn - he compares her to a flower (which Aragorn does too - yet with Aragorn it is a flower stricken dead by frost). Her reluctance to accept Faramir's suit seems to imply that this kind of initial 'projection' is the rule for love relationships. She doesn't feel an instantly overwhelming 'love' for him, so its as if she thinks there can be nothing between them.

Yet, as I said, Tolkien is a very detatched observer of the Lovers' characters. He understands the overwhelming effect of this kind of idealisation of the beloved on the lover, yet he never presents the beloved in this light for the reader. Maybe what we are seeing is an expression of the conflict he experienced in himself between hope & pessimism which we are told was his natural state much of the time - or maybe it is his 'ironic' comment on the medieval 'Courtly Love' literature, but I wonder.....

Of course, he experienced the same kind of thing with Edith (she was his Luthien as he put it, yet he must also have realised that she was 'simply' a woman). I suspect that one reason Tolkien speaks to us (& appalls others) is this very acknowledgement of the lover's idealisation of the beloved. Modern authors seem (apart from the writers of Mills & Boon/Barbara Cartland' type 'Romantic' novels) desperate to give us a 'detached', realistic view of their protagonists, to the extent that they deny this kind of idealisation of the beloved on the part of the lover - or if they do show it it is almost always depicted as foolishness or the cause of coming disaster for one or both parties. Tolkien acknowledges the simple reality of this 'idealisation' while at the same time making it clear that it has nothing to do with the reality of who the beloved is.

Now I'm thinking of William's 'Romantic Theology', but that's a whole other tangent...

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Its certianly significant that when (predominantly male) characters 'fall in love' with a Lady it is love at first sight - they don't actually know the Lady as a person - she is a symbol of beauty, of perfection, which she embodies for the male (Frodo, Gimli, Aragorn, Beren). In a real sense then, they don't 'love' her at all, because they don't know her. It is perhaps, in the Jungian sense, an 'Anima' projection. She symbolises the Other, the Unknown, the Unconscious, 'Mystery'. I think this is why sexual desire is absent - or more probably is subsumed into overwhelming feelings of awe, of 'worship'.

Yet, in LotR at least, Galadriel the woman is not 'worthy' of Gimli's worship - she is an unforgiven rebel, one who sought power & control over others. She is actually an Elf-Woman, clad in simple white - something Frodo comes to see after the incident at the Mirror, but which Gimli never does see. Frodo's 'projection' is withdrawn at that point & he sees her for what she truly is - Gimli's projection never is.

For Tolkien, however, Galadriel is always an Elf-Woman, clad in simple white - he never 'worships' her. In showing the withdrawing of Frodo's projection onto her he makes plain who & what she is, & tells us plainly that there is something else going on with Gimli.

This is a fascinating view, davem, and a very seductive one. However, like many theories, it is one which cannot fit all the details.

How would, for instance, this idea of the projected Jungian anima fit Gilgamesh? You are positing a sublimation of sexuality here which accords with the story at hand, but is this sublimation in accord with Jung? I don't know Jung well enough to say if you are retooling his idea to suit this story or not.

Also, you seem to conflate the Galadriel of The Silm with the Galadriel of LotR. The latter has much less of the unforgiven rebel in her. Even with the hints of the Legendarium in LotR, I'm not sure it is appropriate to "bring in" those details. A bit too much analysis?

Furthermore, Aragorn will not contenance any harsh words about Galadriel--"Speak no evil of..." What would it suggest if the future king never rids himself of this 'projection' while Frodo does? For your idea--and it is a very attractive idea--to be fully at play one would expect to see Aragorn also come to this position. Or perhaps this is a problem with so many heroes? We must wait until later to see how Aragorn handles his Lady?

Nor do I think it is quite in agreement with the textual descriptions of Galadriel to say that for Tolkien she is always just an elf-woman. Until the scene with the mirror, the text, if I am not mistaken, fully invites the reader to partake of the mystification of the Lady which these males fall under (or into?). What changes in the Mirror scene is Galadriel herself, who allows that in Frodo she has met her match in courtesy at least. It is she who refuses the offer to be loved by all and who, in rejecting the Ring, allows Frodo to see the plain elf woman.

The Mirror scene is remarkable, for it is meant to be an encounter with the goddess. The symbolism of the round bowl, the water, the seeing-beyond, the roiling waters turning to steam which curl around the edges of the open bowl, all suggest a highly charged experience between the two. And Galadriel is changed as is Frodo, who sees the eye of the One. The goddess is unthroned to become simply "a living vision of that which has already been left far behind by the flowing stream of Time".

In Tolkien's vision, the female principle, in standing in for elves, is the one reduced, diminished. That much of the development of monotheism Tolkien seems to have recognised.

[davem]

Its also possible that Galadriel deliberately acted so as to break Frodo's Anima projection on her - he must be shown that he faces not just real threats but 'Glamour' in the form of 'Powers, Thrones & Dominions', To do that she must make herself a 'Goddess' in his eyes, a monster, manifestation of the Numinious - & then shatter the image, reveal the truth underneath. What Frodo learns is that there is no 'SuperWoman (or -Man) who can take it all away & let him go back to his comfortable life in the Shire. The 'Goddess' is a delusion, one that can inspire, raise up (Gimli, Legolas & her own folk), but Frodo's need is different, so she has to shatter the illusion he has about her. I'm not sure that she hadn't already faced her own crisis some while back. But that's just my reading.

As to your point about Aragorn, I'm not sure Aragorn is projecting anything onto Galadriel - if he is projecting his Anima on anyone it is Arwen. However I wouldn't push this idea too far with Aragorn

I don't think I am bringing in the Galadriel of the Sil in this. At the time of LotR Galadriel was one of the Noldor, & all the Noldor were 'rebels', 'fallen' & unforgiven (Appendix A 'The Numenorean Kings') . I'm deliberately focussing on Galadriel as we know her from LotR. And as to Gilgamesh, its too long since I read it, & I've just started on The Paston Letters, so it'll have to wait a bit

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

The 'Goddess' is a delusion, one that can inspire, raise up (Gimli, Legolas & her own folk), but Frodo's need is different, so she has to shatter the illusion he has about her

This seems a likely place for a final comment to this chapter of the discussion: it is well to recall that, in this unquaintly substition of the gaze (O Fordim, where art thou?), the only injunction is "Look but don't touch."

Originally Posted by lmp

this thread is . . . supposed to be about . . . what's in the spirit of Tolkien and what's not.

Is that spirit as opposed to letter? And does it include parody?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bb

Is that spirit as opposed to letter? And does it include parody?

I confess that I fail to comprehend the import of your questions. Your erudition, as has often been the case, confounds me.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Is that spirit as opposed to letter?

And does it include parody?

Hmmm. Did Tolkien write parody...? How shall we qualify Giles?

And with regards to Spirit vs Letter, my reaction would be-- Perhaps neither; Perhaps either; Perhaps both. If both then it calls us higher still. Or as Lewis said "Further up and further in".

I think it depends on what you are writing. If you are writing something as an addendum to Tolkien's existing writings, then IMO you are oblidged to strive for canonicity as best you can both of spirit AND letter. By letter I mean fitting in the details to the best of your ability. And if you are writing something to fill in something he only hinted at and gave very few connections to, then your freedom is increased, and you are less obliged to follow his work "to the letter."

If you are writing outside the legendarium, which I suspect is also included in this discussion, then spirit becomes the primary thing. At which point I would ask, why worry about the spirit of Tolkien, really? Write what is in your heart; if your heart is full of light, so will the fruit of your work be. The whole thing goes to a higher plane.