Wings & Ears: Why Bother?

[Lalwendë]

To me, it would matter greatly, because it would be the 'word' of the author. Imagine if a text was found, which was absolutely proved to be the very word of Jesus (if there is such a thing as 100% proof outside the world of weird and slightly scary alcoholic drinks), would Christians reject it saying that they preferred to make up their own interpretations, thanks very much? They would certainly debate it, but they would not necessarily reject it. Likewise, I would not reject a new text by Tolkien, but assimilate it into my view, and it would quite possibly change my view of something if I could see that this text proved that Tolkien intended something else to that which was originally published. Again, if it could be proved that he intended something else and the recent discussions over the new edition of LotR show that this is not always provable!

Hmmm, this brings to mind the various arguments which have raged over the 'meaning' of the works of Plath. To some, to many, for years she was writing as a feminist poet who raged against the actions of her errant husband and her whole output was judged against these standards. But with more biographical information it gradually became clear that she loved her husband intensely, and her poetry was carefully controlled and measured. Now, with these new critical opinions based on biographical information, again it became hard to discern whether this information (e.g. the journals, only relatively recently published) was in fact 'correct', or was it carefully released by the Hughes estate to improve their own image after the vituperative criticism first seen?

This example shows how, if indeed something was 'found' on whether Balrogs had wings and Elves had pointy ears it might easily be questioned anyway. We'd ask "Ah, but did Tolkien intend that?", "When, exactly, did he write this and why did he not include it?" and maybe even (possibly, I admit, just in my dreams ) "Is this only being released to stop Barrow-Downers tearing each others' throats out?"

[drigel]

Something so close to the heart as the works are with me causes such intense feelings. I personally love to hear other views on this but in any case it is testimony to a body of work that has literally taken a life of its own.

I love it Fordim - forget Gothmog - did you check out that balrog with the oakleaf shaped ears? Aaaii Aaaii!

[Child of the 7th Age]

"Sneaky" Fordim ! I think we are revisiting the "Canonicity Thread", only coming in through the back door.....

We can look at this question on two levels. First, Fomendacil made a good point. If Tolkien had ever finished his "final" revisions on the Legendarium, we would at least have a common text to start from. But he did not so we are often left pointing to one interpretation cited in BoLT2 and another conflicting view that appears in Morgoth's Ring. Tolkien evolved over time, and part of our problem is that we are free to pick and chose what particular ideas we will stress in our own mind.

But beyond that is the wider question: how much are we bound by Tolkien's vision (as the author) and how free are we to exercise our own imagination (as the reader). The last time we discussed this, I was driven to literary sites to read essays about the "death of the author"! That is a terrible admission for an historian to make.

I still feel that Tolkien should define the parameters of our discussion. If a new Letter or unpublished essay was discovered, written near the end of Tolkien's life, I would theoretically feel that I should follow along and accept the guidelines the author had written down.

And yet, part of me isn't so sure about that. Let's imagine we're not talking about Elf Ears or Balrog Wings, which frankly have limited meaning for me. Let's take something that touches at the heart of my understanding of the story. What if Tolkien wrote an unpublished epilogue to LotR in which he discusses what happens to Frodo after his arrival in the West? And let's imagine that Tolkien had decided that Frodo would never recover from his wounds, or reach an understanding of his place in the scheme of things. Instead, I am given the poem "Seabell", and told that this was Frodo's final fate: to feel alienated from those about him, to feel unending desire for the Ring, to never go beyond the point he was when he left the Shire.

What a bummer! Whatever I might say about the author logically having the right to guide our judgments, I would not accept that because it goes to the heart of my understanding of the story. I am willing to stand on the shores and not know what happened to Frodo. I am also willing to make up alternate positive scenarios within my head. But I would not be willing to accept a Frodo mired in unremitting despair, even if Tolkien said it was so.

I guess I feel I have invested too much of myself in this tale. There's a piece of me in Middle-earth, and I can't ignore that fact. Such areas of possible disagreement are few and far between: in most situations, I read the text and try to follow closely. But I will admit there is a point where my own imagination would take over and the professor's opinion would be second. I wonder if there is anyone else who feels this way....

[mark12_30]

You know, Child, I'd shrug (after a bit of sobbing) and say, "If Frodo is not healed in 'purgatory' (cough) then he'll be healed in paradise... beyond the circles of the world."

The doctrinal consistency is a big part of what I love in Tolkien. He's easy to trust.

[Encaitare]

But I will admit there is a point where my own imagination would take over and the professor's opinion would be second. I wonder if there is anyone else who feels this way....

I don't really feel this way about anything M-e related, but (also going along with one of Child's examples) it is my belief that if you don't like the ending to a story, there is nobody to say that you cannot make up your own. To continue this idea, I conclude that none of this "really" matters. I don't think that Balrogs were "supposed to" (i.e.: according to what Tolkien wrote) have wings, yet all the images I see of them are wingéd. So sometimes in my mind they have wings, and sometimes they don't. Usually I'm not thinking about Balrogs, so this is an internal debate which I fortunately must face only rarely.

[HerenIstarion]

The whole issue has a cheezy aroma of C-thread, Professor Hedgethistle, sir. You are trying to revive canonicity issue again? Six armed winged bark eater by any other name...

EDIT lol, mark, funny how golf ball of the thought may fall into the same slot sometimes... END OF EDIT

[Linnahiril Tinnufinwen]

I would have to agree with Lalwende that a "letter" from Tolkien ought not to be dismissed outright. But I do believe also that one's own imagination is very important. I am (or have at least attempted to be) a writer myself. I have my own views of the characters and worlds that I create, but I would in no way wish to impede the imaginations of my readers. If it suited someone to read my story, and imagine that the main character looked completely different than what was described (even if the description was in incredible detail), then I wouldn't mind in the least. As long as it contributed to the enjoyment of the book, why should that be a problem? As it is, Tolkien tends to leave many things to the imagination. His descriptions of appearances and such can be vauge, unless he deemed it important. Of course, I didn't know him personally, but I really don't think he is the kind of author that would be bothered by the fact that his readers have their own interpretations of his books. I believe that anyone can feel free to imagine anything they wanted: Legolas with red hair, balrogs with seven arms, etc. The LOTRs would still be just as enjoyable to them as to the next person.

[mark12_30]

Fordim! Fordim Hedgethistle!

Triflest thou with thy boardmates?!? Villain, o, most pernicious villain-- meet it is that I set it down, that one may poll, and poll, and be a villain! Pah! Thou art a scoundrel of the lowest rank and file, breathing the reek of the deepest foundries of Moria. I, Roggie, whether I am winged or not, do scoff at thee and smite thee with this, my stolen Gnome-Gauntlet. Neither thy dark hair nor thine rounded ears shall avail thee, for lo, the souls of our slain debates do hover over us, and either thou or I shall accompany them hence. Quail, quail, I say, for the chasm opens before us both! Do thy worst! Have at thee, thou inveterate paper-shuffler!

[radagastly]

Told you so! I knew it!

In any case, I'm afraid I'm a bit like Gildor on this question, and must say both no and yes.

While the existence of such a letter would certainly make good fodder for these debates, (fodder I would not be above using if it suited me) I suspect that while reading through the story the momentum of the journey through Moria, or the description of Legolas or the other elves would carry me into my own, accustomed view of things, regardless of what Tolkien has said subsequently. It is the way of good fiction that a well chosen description taps into the readers imagination to fill in the blanks. Bilbo's brass buttons imply a level of wealth that most of his fellow hobbits do not enjoy. Gollum's teeth are sharp because he files them, but are they sharp like incisors, or needle-like canines? I may have forgotten a detail, but I don't believe Tolkien specifies (thank goodness.) I can barely tolerate a basic cleaning at the dentist, much less file my own teeth sharp with a stone.

So, while I might enjoy arguing against balrog-wings and for pointy ears, the balrog I see when I accompany the Fellowship through Moria will have very frightening wings, and Legolas' ears will be as round on top as mine are. That's just the way I've always seen it.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Helen, Encaitare -

I have no doubt Frodo will be all right in the end, but I hereby assert my rights as a reader to make certain judgments! I have always considered myself to be someone who makes every effort to follow Tolkien not only in terms of the text of the book, but also the ideas set forward in the Letters and in the unpublished essays. I consider it a way of showing respect to the author. It is also a natural outcome of my training as a historian: to search for documented evidence and make a decision based on that evidence. And yet, thinking about Fordim's question, I came to the realization that there potentially could be certain situations where I would not be comfortable with that approach.

While I singled Frodo out as an example, and it happened to be the ending of the book, I did not mean to limit myself to that. I guess what I am saying is this: there might be instances where I would take my own clue from the existing book rather than follow an essay or letter that was outside the actual published text, especially if it represented a change in the way a character was presented. I would make a conscious choice to assert my own interpretation of the text rather than the explanation given by Tolkien. This would certainly not be something that would apply to Balrog Wings or Elf Ears, but there are theoretically other instances where it could come into play. I objected to PJ changing the depiction of key characters, and I just might do the same with Tolkien!

The chances of this occurring are about 1 in 500,000 as I doubt any posthumous papers will be found that fall into this category. Still, the fact that I would even consider this is somewhat surprising to me. I fear I will have to go back and edit my posts on Canonicity. This is what happens when you hang around with English majors and other 'literary folk'!

[mark12_30]

With a terrible cry Fordim fell forward, and his shadow plunged down and vanished. But even as Fordim fell he swung his whip, and the thongs lashed and curled about Cami's knees, dragging her to the brink. She staggered, and fell, grasped vainly at the stone, and slid into Canonicity Chasm.

'Fly, you fools!' she cried, and was gone.

[Ainaserkewen]

Hmm, yes, much to ponder...

I'd like to share a similar example non-Tolkien related to make a point.

I like to read fanfiction of many kinds. One faithful day I came across an absolutely beautiful crossover of my two favourites. It still remains to this day my favourite. I read through the over 30 chapters gasping for more when it promptly, like most fanfics, dropped off. Giving into despair, I realised that this was the end and stopped checking for updates, but my imagination didn't stop there. I started dreaming up later chapters, how other characters were introduced and woven into the complex plot that was set up for me and generally finished the story myself. Just as I'm running out of ways to end it low and behold one day the author adds three more chapters. I have the ending that I dreamt up, but now there is the real thing from the original mind that had absolutely nothing to do with mine. Rather than feel disapointed, I was once again entranced in the new chapters totally unique to my own thoughts and on different tangents. I sort of forgot my own interpretation and invented new tangents that went with the new chapters.

My point, if you read the last paragraph, is that there is a reason why you fell in love with the original story...because you love the imagination and the thought and storytelling process of the author. We all have personal imagination deviations from Tolkien's stories but if such a letter or continuation were to be found concerning some finer points such as ears and wings (which I believe are very important to the story) then we'd all settle down with the new information and then go at it all again in a new and different angle.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

To me, it would matter greatly, because it would be the 'word' of the author. Imagine if a text was found, which was absolutely proved to be the very word of Jesus (if there is such a thing as 100% proof outside the world of weird and slightly scary alcoholic drinks), would Christians reject it saying that they preferred to make up their own interpretations, thanks very much? They would certainly debate it, but they would not necessarily reject it.

Ah but what about the Babel fish argument? God would disappear in a fit of Logic...