The Translator Conceit

[Lalwendë]

Orominuialwen, that wasn't confusing at all. The development of the languages is one of the most convincing arguments in favour of the translator conceit. In order for so many languages to have developed, and in such complexity, there would have to be some considerable history to Middle Earth, and that the development of these languages is traced by the author is made much more real considered in light of the translator conceit.

Originally Posted by lmp

Translator Backstory?

But when I read The Hobbit I had no idea of the translator conceit whatsoever, and yet I was still drawn right in to Middle Earth as being a real place. OK, so it could be backstory to LotR which the translator has added, but I didn't know of any of that when I read it, so how did the conceit help me enter Middle Earth at The Hobbit stage?

[littlemanpoet]

Lalwendë, you have a knack for asking probing questions about yourself that only you can really answer; nonetheless very intriguing, for all that.

"Backstory" was just a spur of the moment whim, and I don't like it.

From my Webster's:

conceit: an elaborate or strained metaphor (other definitions don't fit our context)

notion: (1) an inclusive general concept (2) an individual's conception or impression of something known, experienced, or imagined (other definitions don't fit our context)

innovation: the introduction of something new; a new idea, method, or device

device: something devised or contrived ... something fanciful, elaborate, or intricate in design; something in a literary work designed to achieve a particular artistic effect

There you have it. Whereas conceit, notion, and innovation do communicate something about it, I think the best word is perhaps the simplest: The Translator Device. If I could change the thread title, I would.

[Lalwendë]

Well if the conceit is so central to our acceptance of Middle Earth as something real, then considering many of us enter Middle Earth with The Hobbit, which does not have that, is it so necessary?

Originally Posted by LMP

conceit: an elaborate or strained metaphor (other definitions don't fit our context)

This definition doesn't really fit does it? It's more applicable to poetry, particularly to the Metaphysical poets, which was what I had been thinking all along in the back of my mind but couldn't quite place! The idea of there being a translator is certainly elaborate, but it is in no way strained; in fact it is very subtly used.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Well if the conceit is so central to our acceptance of Middle Earth as something real, then considering many of us enter Middle Earth with The Hobbit, which does not have that, is it so necessary?

Good question. It depends upon how subtle it is. Is it not in The Hobbit? What of Bilbo's "There and Back Again" adventure story he wrote? Granted, the translator device is not worked out nearly to the depth of LotR, but is it not ther in TH?

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

This definition doesn't really fit does it? It's more applicable to poetry, particularly to the Metaphysical poets, which was what I had been thinking all along in the back of my mind but couldn't quite place! The idea of there being a translator is certainly elaborate, but it is in no way strained; in fact it is very subtly used.

I just listed the definitions that were most applicable; I don't necessarily agree that they completely apply. In the case of "coceit", it's that definition including "strained" that pulls me away from that word. "Device" is much better, I think.

[davem]

Came across this which may give some insight into the transmission of the legends:http://www.forodrim.org/gobennas/chron_en.html#kings

[littlemanpoet]

It suddenly occurred to me that in recent discussion involving the Translator Conceit, there has been a confounding of ideas that need distinction. The two ideas are:

(1) The translator conceit that Tolkien set up with great care throughout the Legendarium

(2) The choice of the reader to view this translator conceit in terms of a Received Tradition of Venerable Recorders or a Series of Fallable Historians whose interpretations may be called into question.

I'm quite convinced that Tolkien intended the former, but I'm not convinced that he would deplore the latter. The former is a typically pre-Renaissance approach toward ancient documents, the latter a typically post-Renaissance.

However, I think it we would do ourselves a favor to have this confoundment cleared up and realize which view each of us tends to intepret the Legendarium from.

I know that I (with rare exceptions) proceed from the Venerable Recorders framework, and generally prefer to. This also frees me from the rather unpalatable position I have previously taken of making light of the Translator Conceit when it seemingly failed to take me in the direction my thoughts tended. Now I see that that had to do with the confounding of the two distinct approaches.

So I hope this little post helps others in their thinking about Tolkien and the Legendarium as much as it already has mine.

[HerenIstarion]

Newly consecrated young monk has entered into service at a monastery famous for its archive of sacred texts, and has been given a task of copying manuscripts. Despite availability of originals, he found that monks were copying from earlier copies, whilst originals were kept in the basement for safekeeping. Being of inquisitive mind, young monk asked an audience with the prior to learn the reason of such practice.

'Why don't we copy from originals, father?' he asked.
'Why? My son, I'm not sure... it is tradition, I suppose. Besides, if we take them out too often, we may damage them'
'Yes, father, you're right. But, if we never take them out for comparison, we may omit incorrigible errors in our copying. How do you know we are not copying some error, or number of such, for generations already?'
'You know, my son, I believe our copiers, you yourself included, are mostly diligent, so no errors slipped our notice. Yet, to sooth your worries down, I'll check documents you've copied against originals myself. Wait for me here; it must not take more than half an hour.

Prior went off to the basement where originals were kept, yet came not back in half an hour, nor in an hour. In fact, he’s been missing for a day or two. Worried, young monk went after him to the basement, and found him in poor state. Prior's garments were in disorder, hair stood on end, cheeks were feverishly red. He sat on the floor, and all round him original manuscripts were scattered. Monk ran down the stair to him.

‘What happened, father? Why do you sit on the floor? Are you feeling well?’
‘What?... Who?!... Ah, it's you, my son…you were right, we’ve been copying an error for generations… too late now… yet it was written that monks should celebrate in the original, as I’ve just found out… not monks should celibate … too late now….'

Kidding apart, but approaches as you suggest are not alternative. If the story I’ve just provided you with (and do hope all who’ve read it took it as light humor and nothing more) have been true, it would illustrate that even venerable (and diligent) scribes may err sometimes.

So, my own approach would be a mix, something along the lines of Received Tradition of Venerable, yet sometimes Fallible (for records being in contradiction) Recorders

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I'm quite convinced that Tolkien intended the former, but I'm not convinced that he would deplore the latter. The former is a typically pre-Renaissance approach toward ancient documents, the latter a typically post-Renaissance.

But surely we have in Bilbo's own story a clear account of a 'false' version of events deliberately concocted by a scribe.

The very existence of one 'false' account of historical events in the Legendarium calls the veracity of the others into question. Plus, which of the many versions of the Sil are the 'correct' one - the many, sometimes Fallible Authors theory allows us all of them, the 'Venerable Recorders' version requires us to through most of them out.

In other words, if we think in terms of FA's we can accept all the writings as part of a vast mythology, constructed by various hands, with different agendas, different kinds of information & differing levels of talent, but if we choose to go down the VR road, we have to reject, say, the Quenta in favour of the 77 Sil, or both of them in favour of the BoLT.

Now, possible Tolkien wanted us to have one final version of the stories after he had rejected all the others, but he never got there, so we can have all the M-e writings together - but only if we reject the VR approach in favour of the FA.