Tolkien and Negative Capability

[Galin]

Originally Posted by Findegil

I do not agree that the matter of internal or external is that simple as Galin put it. Let's take up the example of Amroth again. At first view Galin is right. Since Tolkiens is drafting diffrent version at diffrent times this seems to be claer case of external uncertainty.

But you don't appear to disagree with me that the Amroth matter is anything more than Tolkien revising an idea within the context of external drafts. Rather, you seem to want to include this issue under an altered characterization (as you describe below): unintended uncertainties.

But that is not the end of the story. A secondary reality is formed in the mind of the reader while he reads and reflects about it. And Tolkien left diffrent versions. So in the mind of the reader uncertainty is created. Obviously the degree of uncertainty differs individualy. So you, Galin, might have found a clear line how to decied which version of Amroth family is true for your secondary reality of Middle-Earth. But other poeple might find even clearly reported events in Middle-Earth so unbeliviable that their secondary reality of Middle-Earth contains uncertainty were you would never have expacted them.

In general the degree of uncertainty will differ individually, yes, which is essentially why I can't answer for Tolkien on the matter -- what he thinks is an acceptable variation within his Subcreated World might not be what I, or the next guy, thinks is acceptable when creating that believable world.

That said, I'm not sure I follow the point in categorizing certain external revisions as unintended obscurities.

Better categories then internal and external in the case of uncertainties might be intended and unintended by the author. Thus the case of the Elessar or Tom Bombadil might be intended and Amroth might be unintended.

If you think that's a better distinction then so be it, but an unintended uncertainty is still (obviously) not the intent of the author.

If I use Qenta Noldorinwa to answer questions about the Elder Days I will (no doubt) be 'corrected' about certain 'facts' all over the web, in any forum I choose to do this -- such facts as were clearly enough rejected in the 1950s and 1960s, although no version of Quenta Silmarillion was ever published by the creator of Middle-earth. Can I simply respond: though unintended by Tolkien, Qenta Noldorinwa can represent a variation of the Silmarillion tale, and can carry just as much weight as 1950s (and post 1950s) unpublished texts.

I 'can' but I wouldn't

But we come to a grey area when we look at the question were the Orks come from. The account in the Silmarillion is uncertain by intention, but we learn by reading further that the author himself didn't know the 'true' answer, so the uncertainty in the text was probably forces upon him by his own uncertianty.

Each case has its own considerations.

It seems to me Tolkien is ultimately upon firm enough ground that the author(s) of the Silmarillion can't and don't know the origin of Orcs with certainty. The Elves of Eressea weren't there in Morgoth's realm, and there is nobody from Morgoth's employ recording such things for the scribes of the West. The essay characterized as a very finished essay on the origin of the Orcs (Text X, Myths Transformed) also contains a measure of uncertainty as well (statements like: 'the theory remains nonetheless the most probable' for example), or I note the wording in note 5 to The Drúedain.

So while Tolkien as author (external) was uncertain about the ultimate Orc-stock, I do not see this as the reason behind the ambiguity in the internal text. Rather I see this uncertainty as a natural reflection of the issue at hand, no matter what Orc-stock Tolkien was going to ultimately land on.

I think Orc-origins naturally lends itself to historical ambiguity, and it seems to me that Tolkien knew that. I would also suggest that variations on the fate of Maglor would be another matter in which contradiction (due to source perhaps) would actually work very well. That said, I would not argue that the two versions of Maglor's fate were intended internally (seems 'possible' but all I really have are variant texts expressing different ideas), as with the Elessar story.

As with the case of Amroth, more than one version of Maglor's tale (at least concerning his fate) simply exists externally, and this is a different animal than the Elessar-stone, or the confusions and variations (when compared to a 'mixed' version like Akallabêth) purposely injected into the Mannish The Drowning of Anadûnê, for example.