Did JRRT encourage new ME stories?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

My, for a brief spell there I thought Sauron the White had actually got davem to forsake his MO of always having the last word. I was mistaken, obviously.

Yes, but I was addressed directly & asked for a response. I think you would be the first to admit that politeness is my greatest fault.

Autobiographical genuineness clearly didn't matter to Tolkien there.

I think it did. We need to keep in mind that Tolkien was, in that letter to Waldman, attempting to 'sell' his books to a publisher who he hoped would agree to publish both LotR & The Sil.

That said, I think we have to go back to the vision of the TCBS if we're to understand where Tolkien was coming from in that desire that 'other hands' would be moved to add to his creation. Their sense of themselves as another pre-Rapaelite Brotherhood, the source of a potential moral regeneration of England is behind Tolkien's words.

Finally, I can't help but feel that Tolkien underestimated his skill as an artist. He may have wished for other hands to add to his creation, but I think its clear that he, also, was wishing for this elusive 'genius' to appear out of nowhere.

As with most of the letters, its best not to just take his statements at face value.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, but I was addressed directly & asked for a response. I think you would be the first to admit that politeness is my greatest fault.

I believe you have me confused with Estelyn Telcontar, who has met you and who has attested to your politeness. Having never met you, I cannot of course admit to anything, even if by chance our paths had crossed unknowingly some three years ago when I was in York, Oxford, and London--of the English variety.

Originally Posted by davem

I think it did. We need to keep in mind that Tolkien was, in that letter to Waldman, attempting to 'sell' his books to a publisher who he hoped would agree to publish both LotR & The Sil.

So when Tolkien attempts to persue monetary gain, that's okay.

Originally Posted by Lal

But somehow I don't think the 'authenticity' issue is of any matter when someone is adapting a story that's already been written by Tolkien. What are they gonna do? Hop in the nearest Tardis and go back and change details of his life?

Authenticity is an issue when biography is used as one of the main criteria for explaining the provenance of the texts, because even adaptations will be effected by biography.

Raynor, I appreciate your query about subjective perception and objectively true statements.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

So when Tolkien attempts to persue monetary gain, that's okay.

Well, I have no problem with it. Genius deserves payment (though how that fits in with my unpaid posting here on the Downs I'm not certain). Its people attempting to cash in on Tollkien's work that I have a problem with....

Raynor, I appreciate your query about subjective perception and objectively true statements.

Me too.

I still am not sure what you mean, and you didn't read my PM request for clarification, apparently. If you agree that subjective perception is the only thing that matters, then how come you make judgements of value which you consider to be objectively true??

Of course, I don't see that the former necessarily precludes the latter. One can give absolute priority to the former, & note, en passent, that the latter is also the case. Or vice versa. You could even argue that the former position is 'subjective' & the latter 'objective'.

And yet, I don't see that this is anything other than a side issue, a crazy tangential foray down a dead end road n'stuff. We're supposed to be discussing whether JRRT encouraged new M-e stories, not psycho-analysing each other, or indulging in a philosophical debate on subjectivity vs objectivity.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

One can give absolute priority to the former, & note, en passent, that the latter is also the case.

But we are not talking about what would be true in a particular subjective perception and what would be true in a general objective judgement. Accidentally, this two may coincide in some cases, but it is reasonable to believe that, given a large enough sample, objective judgement will be at odds with some subjective perceptions. What is at stake is which position is acceptable: the objective one - or the subjective one (in which case, this discussion is superfluous, since anyone can chose what works to accept or not, and if others, including scholars, have an issue with that, no biggie).

And yet, I don't see that this is anything other than a side issue, a crazy tangential foray down a dead end road n'stuff.

We're supposed to be discussing whether JRRT encouraged new M-e stories, not psycho-analysing each other, or indulging in a philosophical debate on subjectivity vs objectivity.

As noted above, I believe this is the core of the problem, whether we take an objective or a subjective stance. Since this is an issue of art, perception, taste, I believe the answer is obvious.

You previously phrased the subject in the subjective terms of whether someone can "create convincing stories set in his world"

"The point is whether anyone else can do what Tolkien did, have Tolkien's insight in to his own creation sufficient to enable them to create convincing stories set in his world."

We need to define a common point of reference, that is, are we talking objectivity or subjectivity, and not attempt to simultaneously play two irrenciliable positions.

And, frankly, I expect even the "objective" position to be variable in time or geographically - just as morality is, as you and Lalwendë argued in other threads.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Authenticity is an issue when biography is used as one of the main criteria for explaining the provenance of the texts, because even adaptations will be effected by biography.

Err, the question here is simply this:

Did Tolkien write the story or was it written by Bubba Ray Bloggs? The former - then it is authentic. The latter - then it is not. No amount of 'cognitive dissonance' or some other babble such as might come forth from Brian Sewell can alter that.

Though I do like to see the old subjective/objective psycho-babble eventually rear its ugly head on a thread yet again. It usually signals that there are no further useful contributions to make and the discussion can now move on to other matters.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Did Tolkien write the story or was it written by Bubba Ray Bloggs? The former - then it is authentic. The latter - then it is not. No amount of 'cognitive dissonance' or some other babble such as might come forth from Brian Sewell can alter that.

I believe you are refering to the formal aspect of authenticity. It is not a given that the original author can make each and every time an authentic story in regards to a particular universe he created; in fact, in the case of Tolkien, he discarded many of his stories (even storylines) several times. Also, as mentioned previously, it is not a given that no other author, but the initial one, can make a story which is authentic in regards to that fictional universe.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Though I do like to see the old subjective/objective psycho-babble eventually rear its ugly head on a thread yet again. It usually signals that there are no further useful contributions to make and the discussion can now move on to other matters.

In various debates you raised the subjectivity argument, that no one can tell you what to think in regards to a particular M-E subject (despite the evidences, I might add). Funny thing that you now characterise such an action in this way.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Although it's apparent that I don't speak for everyone here, I think that the very much greater part of us are fans of Tolkien, not fans of Middle-earth. We love Giles and Smith and Niggle as well, and the Letters- all as windows into an idiosyncratically brilliant mind. Who on earth would read a book about Leopold Bloom by somebody other than Joyce? Would you give two pins for the Further Adventures of Huck Finn by I. M. A. Hack--- or even by Saul Bellow?

Great authors are unique. They're not fungible commodities.

[Bêthberry]

I simply must bring to everyone's attention a post Guinevere made on the Autobiographical Tolkien thread--"Leaf by Niggle".

Originally Posted by letter #45 to his son Michael, written in June 1941

"There is a place called "heaven" where the good here unfinished is completed; and where the stories unwritten, and the hopes unfulfilled, are continued."

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Although it's apparent that I don't speak for everyone here, I think that the very much greater part of us are fans of Tolkien, not fans of Middle-earth. We love Giles and Smith and Niggle as well, and the Letters- all as windows into an idiosyncratically brilliant mind. Who on earth would read a book about Leopold Bloom by somebody other than Joyce? Would you give two pins for the Further Adventures of Huck Finn by I. M. A. Hack--- or even by Saul Bellow?

Great authors are unique. They're not fungible commodities.

Eggzackly. It's all fine and dandy all this postmodern footling and pottering, but there are ultimately a few rules and one of them, no matter how much French academics in the 60s doped up on who-knows-what try to be all clever about the Author being Dead, is that a particular person writes a book. No, you don't write it. No, I don't write it. Only one person writes it. Sorry, but there is no glory in the reader claiming to be the author too, because they aren't. They are a reader, and are free to make up what 'meaning' they will from a book, but they did not sit there and put the words on the page, and that's the end of it.

Theories? There's only so far that the theory can go until like all theories, it collapses in a gibbering heap somewhere around its own hairy navel and we all start laughing at it. If that makes me no better than one of the apes who puzzles at the monolith at the beginning of 2001 A Space Odyssey then so be it. Rather that than make myself disappear up said ape's butt.

[Morwen]

Originally posted by Raynor
Also, as mentioned previously, it is not a given that no other author, but the initial one, can make a story which is authentic in regards to that fictional universe.

So origin doesn't matter? Authenticity is merely a question of getting the details right?

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Although it's apparent that I don't speak for everyone here, I think that the very much greater part of us are fans of Tolkien, not fans of Middle-earth.

I daresay it is not the author, but a particular style of writing. Sure, many of us would read some works by the author, even if he doesn't "deliver" anymore. But besides the abstract concept of the author behind the book, it is the "palpable" part, that is, what we perceive of the work, that ultimately matters to us, readers. If some of us perceive it in a new work, by a different author, then why not?