Fantasy Morality

[leapofberen]

My God, people...I think Tolkien would appreciate this discussion about as much as he appreciated hippies making LOTR into something other then what he originally intended. Granted, Tolkien's work is intellectual, but it is not intellectualism.

One of the biggest tragedies is approaching his works or ending his works in something other than the faerie that birthed it. We all appreciate the in depth discussion (I certainly love the finer points of Tolkien) but some of this is insane. His works were meant to be left somewhat open ended. Tolkien himself said,

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

There was a never a sequel to the Return of the King or a detailed look into life in the Uttermost West after the Third Age (and only some glimpses in his other works) for good reason: the minute you try to define (or intellectualize too much) eternity, you lose it. Tolkien stayed just on the borders (or beyond for short amounts of time) of faerie or heaven or The West or whatever else you want to call it, because he understood this. It is in the midst of the struggles of life in Middle Earth that we hear rumor of the Light in the West, the Undying Lands, or we encounter briefly those who have dwelt in the Light, that stir our heart for greater and eternal things. Eternity is in our hearts, but we cannot comprehend it. That is the desire that Tolkien awakens in us. The pain of loss, the greatest joys, the deepest longings. His stories are littered with characters that embody these, and we CANNOT trade that in for intellectualism...although it is hard after so many years of being a Tolkien fan and longing for Middle Earth and the West myself...the heart must always remain central in Tolkien, even if it is painful and at other times, joyful beyond words. Intellectualizing is not a substitute. We quickly lose the spirit that Tolkien imparted in his writings. The simplicity of Tolkien is his genius, the ability to cut straight to our hearts.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

I'll second what Leap says above, as well as the quote.

I'd add, though, that different people find enjoyment in different aspects of Tolkien's works. There are a fair number of people posting here who approach things from an intellectual perspective. Me, I'm a role player. In attempting to live in Tolkien's world, I have to fill in the gaps somewhat, but don't any of the filling in seriously.

I'd like to chase the feel, values and culture of a given Tolkien nation, knowing that each culture is different, and different people will have different interpretations. I've worked with others who appreciate realistic interpretations of periods weapons and armor. There are seemingly some who care a lot about getting hair and eye color right.

I'm a bit dubious about taking stuff unpublished in Tolkien's lifetime seriously when it conflicts with or reduces the feel of the published works. His vision for his reality was constantly changing, yet some embrace the unpublished work as canonical.

I'd be dubious about declaring any interpretation as correct, or thinking adversarial debate constructive in finding a best and final canon answer. "Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude." If so, perhaps the hidden and unexhibited was supposed to remain hidden and unexhibited.

I'm tempted to suggest the idea expressed by another famous fictional wizard. 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.' That takes it to far. Tolkien shouldn't stay entirely behind the curtain. Still, some of the fantasy is done with smoke and mirrors. There is supposed to be smoke and mirrors. Precisely locating the placement of the smoke bombs and mirror placement helps how? Dragging the wizard out from behind the curtain might not be entirely optimal.

Of course, I do it too, spelling out in too much detail why I'll embrace this interpretation of magic or that extrapolation of elven culture. I just don't try to claim mine are the only possible interpretations.

[Pitchwife]

First of all, welcome to the Downs, leapofberen! Enjoy being dead!

Originally Posted by leapofberen

My God, people...I think Tolkien would appreciate this discussion about as much as he appreciated hippies making LOTR into something other then what he originally intended.

Maybe... but I think he would have appreciated the spirited and well-argued defense of his work against esoteric crackpottery made by some of my colleagues here. (And I'm sure he would have been positively delighted at seeing Morth, of all people, stress his catholicism!)

Originally Posted by leapofberen

Eternity is in our hearts, but we cannot comprehend it. That is the desire that Tolkien awakens in us. The pain of loss, the greatest joys, the deepest longings. [...] .the heart must always remain central in Tolkien, even if it is painful and at other times, joyful beyond words. Intellectualizing is not a substitute.

Agreed in so far as I'd say that if Tolkien's work didn't move our hearts, all discussion of it would be an idle (if possibly still amusing) exercise - which, by the way, is true of all great works of art IMO. On the other hand, I don't see why, being so moved, we shouldn't apply our intellect (which is not the same as intellectualism) to discussing how and why it moves us.

Originally Posted by blantyr

I'd add, though, that different people find enjoyment in different aspects of Tolkien's works. [...]
I'd be dubious about declaring any interpretation as correct, or thinking adversarial debate constructive in finding a best and final canon answer.
[...]
Of course, I do it too, spelling out in too much detail why I'll embrace this interpretation of magic or that extrapolation of elven culture. I just don't try to claim mine are the only possible interpretations.

I don't think anybody else here was seriously making that claim. That's the beauty of Tolkien's work world - it appeals to so many people on so many levels, whether they be roleplayers or textual scholars, linguists, theologians or fan-fiction writers or whatsoever. Yet, without you thinking you're right and trying to convince me I'm wrong, what's the point of having a discussion and a forum for it? That's not saying we'll ever arrive at a 'best and final canon answer' - thank Eru, Middle-earth is big enough for all of us to be wrong.

[Nerwen]

blantyr and leapofberen both–

The thing is, that when a person has made definite claims regarding the "true meaning" of a writer's work, I think it quite reasonable that others may wish to challenge those claims, and point out the lack of evidence for them. In this case, the claims are in my opinion far-fetched indeed, and seem to me to have more to do with the poster's own intense preoccupation with some sort of quasi-Gnostic mysticism.

Is Dak free to hold those views? Of course. Are you two free to hold whatever opinions you may hold? Of course. But when a person states a point of view or a belief over and over and over, I consider it a fair assumption that that person does in fact wish to promote it. He should, anyway, be prepared to accept that others may put up counter-arguments. If A is free to state an opinion, B is free to do so also, even if that opinion is in conflict with A's. (To do Dak justice, I don't think– though I may have missed it– that, when things started to go against him, he fell back on claiming that he was just saying what he thought, not trying to push his views on anyone else etc., etc.)

Also– what Pitch said. It's a discussion forum, all right? You two may not approve of the practice of critiquing and analysing books (or films, or paintings) altogether and feel that it's a form of "breaking a thing to find out what it is". Well and good. But you must admit it is a fairly widespread one, yes?

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

One of the biggest tragedies is approaching his works or ending his works in something other than the faerie that birthed it. We all appreciate the in depth discussion (I certainly love the finer points of Tolkien) but some of this is insane. His works were meant to be left somewhat open ended. Tolkien himself said,

"A precise account, with drawings and other aids, of Dwarvish smith-practices, Hobbit-pottery, Numerorean medicine and philosophy, and so on would interfere with the narrative [of the Lord of the Rings], or swell the Appendices. So too, would complete grammars and lexical collection of the languages. Any attempt at bogus 'completeness' would reduce the thing to a 'model', a kind of imaginary dolls house of pseudo-history. Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude..."

One thing I've learned in all my years of debating Tolkien cosmology, esthetics, chronology, etc. is never trust a Tolkien comment or take it out of context, because he is often contradictory. Take the Tolkien quote you used above. For an author who supposedly claimed that "Much hidden and unexhibited work is needed to give the nomenclature a 'feel' of verisimilitude" certainly didn't follow his own proviso.

Most authors write a book and move on; Tolkien, however, left enough written background material so that his son, Christopher, could edit and publish The Silmarillion, The Unfinished Tales, the twelve-volume History of Middle-earth and The Children of Húrin. Add to that The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien and various other supplementary publications, and it is quite evident that Tolkien did not blithely rely on "smoke and mirrors" when creating his universe; on the contrary, he expanded, tinkered and continued revising his work until the end of his life. The depth and breadth of his singular, obsessive work leads me to one conclusion: had Tolkien lived another decade, we'd have several other volumes of Elvish minutiae to delve into.

[Nerwen]

Also, leap, I see that in your other posts you have in fact put forward "canon"-based analytical arguments, and have gone so far as to cite HoME in support of them. A double standard, surely?

[leapofberen]

@ Pitchwife: I like the way you think. Very well balanced. I enjoy the creative discussions.

@ Nerwen: You sound mad. Of course, what I post is only what I think. I just love to explore the different aspects of Tolkien with others, and if you felt I was trying to proselytize, please forgive me. As it is a forum, I didn't think of reiterating my position of "I think" and "I feel." My natural take in creative discussions is to build on what each says and see where it takes us, not to hurt feelings or offend. Although it happens, regrettably. I think I found one post especially frustrating, which set me off. Yes, I can see that I used some "definite" language. Oops... I am sorry if you were offended or otherwise. It was not my intent to make claims that others feel are intrusive or "definite." Of course, that doesn't mean we don't/can't feel differently...and feel strongly. I appreciate what you said, and I can see where you see that it might seem I am trying to "promote" my own way of thinking. Probably my word choice, my bad. Nonetheless, it seems that most of us on here have "intense preoccupations" anyhow, judging by a lot of the posts. That isn't a bad thing necessarily, in any case.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

blantyr and leapofberen both–

The thing is, that when a person has made definite claims regarding the "true meaning" of a writer's work, I think it quite reasonable that others may wish to challenge those claims, and point out the lack of evidence for them. In this case, the claims are in my opinion far-fetched indeed, and seem to me to have more to do with the poster's own intense preoccupation with some sort of quasi-Gnostic mysticism.

Is Dak free to hold those views? Of course. Are you two free to hold whatever opinions you may hold? Of course. But when a person states a point of view or a belief over and over and over, I consider it a fair assumption that that person does in fact wish to promote it. He should, anyway, be prepared to accept that others may put up counter-arguments. If A is free to state an opinion, B is free to do so also, even if that opinion is in conflict with A's

I haven't countered or stated anything over and over yet, only expressed how I felt once in this particular thread (and how I thought Tolkien might feel too...whoops.) And of course you are free to challenge if you wish, I don't think I stated otherwise. Totally prepared. Gnosticism can be such a broad thing with many different schools of thought...not sure what you are getting at there. And I don't like breaking things...but its all good. Also, please explain the double standard...I am not sure if I understand what you are getting at...would like to know though. You can message me if you feel its more personal and drifts too much from the thread. I don't want the thread to turn into something other than it was intended. Thanks for your feedback, I enjoy being around so many people who are passionate and knowledgeable about Tolkien and his works.

@ Morthoron: I can't say I disagree with anything you said here. I too wish Tolkien had lived another decade (or two) and put out much more material. I am aware that Tolkien was quite obsessive and often, contradictory. What a great man.


I remember reaching the end of Tolkien's most prominent works, particularly The Hobbit, LOTR and the Silmarillion, and feeling so sad that it was over. But they changed my life. My only recourse was to eventually go back and start over and read it with fresh eyes and heart again. The simplicity (the heart) of Tolkien is what kept things alive and real for me, and I think that is what I am getting at in my initial post...though I understand how others might have interpreted what I said for worse. It is ALWAYS sad (and happy) for me at the end of his stories. Like The Return when Tolkien writes,
"And he sang to them, now in the elven-tongue, now in the speech of the West, until their hearts, wounded with sweet words, overflowed, and their joy was like swords, and they passed in though out to regions where pain and delight flow together and tears are the very wine of blessedness."
The Field of Cormallen scene. That's it right there. So for me no amount of debating or dissecting does the trick...just going back again and again...that is just me though, at the moment. Tolkien was a master of Faerie story, and I just feel it needs to be...handled with care, "lest the gates should be shut, and the keys be lost." That's just me. Though I LOVE the debate and dissecting too.

I think that is what I was getting at in my initial post. To me, Middle Earth was, and is real. I think it is for all of us, in our hearts. Yet I am still holding out within the design that it really is tangible.

Ok, so that was my heart to heart in what could be a hostile situation...*sigh*oh well. thanks for your feedbacks, I appreciate it.

[Nerwen]

leapofberen– My comments about "stating things over and over" and about "quasi-gnostic mysticism" refer to Dakêsîntrah, not to you, in case that was the source of your confusion.

If not, well, I thought I was being straightforward, but here it is another way. You jumped into this thread and started attacking us in what I can only call a pretty darned hostile fashion for arguing with Dakêsîntrah's interpretation of Tolkien's work, and especially for asking him to provide evidence for his remarkable claims. This is because, for you, this is "intellectualising" and destroys the book's illusion of reality. I mean, what can I say? Yes, leap we like to discuss books in our book discussion forum. Further, we like to discuss them as books, that is, as works of fiction. Again, this is a pretty normal thing to do, and I think you were quite out of line getting angry about it.

And of course you are free to challenge if you wish, I don't think I stated otherwise.

Ahem. Maybe I'm totally out, leap, but it seems to me the entirety of your first post was you expressing your anger and contempt at the analytical, evidence-based style of debating used by myself and others.

By the way, I said you had a double-standard because I see you have yourself argued in this way on another thread. That's a minor point however.

[Nerwen]

It occurs to me that we are perhaps both missing something. leap and blantyr, how much of this thread did you read before you posted? Do you have any idea what we were arguing about?

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

It occurs to me that we are perhaps both missing something. leap and blantyr, how much of this thread did you read before you posted? Do you have any idea what we were arguing about?

I had been skimming it. I have my own personal views on the subject. A creator might be judged by his creation. A judgmental god might well be judged according to the same standard that he judges others by. If a god, through inaction, allows gross evil to continue, some of the responsibility for that evil belongs to the god.

I might even extrapolate such thoughts into The Lord of the Rings. I see divine influence as well as the free will of the 'children' effecting the story. To me it is proper that powers make it at least possible for the children to find a good resolution.

But I also see a basic difference between the morality and values of the First and Second Age stories, unpublished in Tolkien's lifetime, and TH and LotR. The former works seem coupled with the old medieval epic tragic traditions, which hold that the greed and pride of the great leads to disaster for everybody. (One might not be able to criticize the nobility, but one could make up stories about heroes and gods which show one's opinion of bad lords.) TH and LotR are far more Christian in portraying benevolent if hidden divine assistance guiding history and preventing the worst tragedies.

I was and remain dubious about applying study of First and Second age divinity and morality to the Third Age. The basic themes of the works are different. In order to help my own suspension of disbelief, I'd like to think that everyone immortal learned from their mistakes in the First and Second Ages, that they operated with different goals, rules and methods in the Third Age. Instead of sending armies or wielding great magics to reshape the world, they'd send five wizards with instructions to be subtle. Magic and intervention became must less blatant. The divine powers and the wisest of the Wise were capable of making mistakes, recognizing mistakes, learning and growing.

(Which is in good part why Goldie walked away from Al. Goldie is a minstrel who knows all the old songs. Prolonging conflict out of a sense of pride just isn't a good idea.)

All of the above opinions, I think, are viable, but I'm not going to attempt to prove that my way of looking at things is the same as Tolkien's, or that my interpretation of the story is more plausible than many others. Myth and legend might properly be like that, and be treated like that.

Anyway, I'm far more a fan of TH and LotR than the First and Second Age writings. I have an emotional and perhaps irrational dislike for the academic perspective that holds the First and Second Age stuff as canon, as cleanly trumping interpretation of the Third Age stuff. As the strict Old Testament God of laws and judgement morphed into the more loving and forgiving God of the New, I see Tolkien's divinities as learning, growing and changing too.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by leapofberen

@ Pitchwife: I like the way you think. Very well balanced.

...and apt to get me suspected in Werewolf for being wishy-washy.

Originally Posted by leapofberen

@ Nerwen: You sound mad.

No she doesn't - she's the voice of reason itself, only a little bit grumpy at times.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

You jumped into this thread and started attacking us in what I can only call a pretty darned hostile fashion for arguing with Dakêsîntrah's interpretation of Tolkien's work, and especially for asking him to provide evidence for his remarkable claims.

Actually, I don't see all that anger and hostility in leap's post - s/he was critical of the previous discussion, to be sure, but didn't make a hostile impression on me. I may of course not have gotten some nuances of language, not being a native speaker etc.

leap and blantyr, if you're interested in a discussion of the pros and cons of what I think you call intellectualizing, you might like to have a look at this thread.

[Mithalwen]

Actually, Pitch, I think to start a post - particularly your first ever post on a message board with "My God, people..." followed by an attack on posters you don't know and a reprimand that they are going against what the Professor would have appreciated, is hostile and frankly when I read it I assumed the poster was a troll.

Apart from saying stuff that just don't bear scrutiny (Tolkien did start a sequel to ROTK and those aren't the reasons he abandoned it - he simply thought it would be depressing and not worth doing) there was the diktat on how the work should be taken and describing not doing it the poster's way as one of the "biggest tragedies"....

Tolkien is very far from a simplistic writer - the more I read him the more I aprreciate the depth and complexity of his work, the care given to give characters an ideolect appropriate to their history.

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

As a matter of polite discourse, it is always a good thing to avoid ad hominem attacks, and simply focus on the topic at hand--but if you're going to jump into an argument (or discussion, if "argument" sounds divisive rather than logical to you), it helps to know what ideas you're debating against... and the whole thread is a matter of public record. While it's laudable to avoid saying "Downer X is a blithering idiot" and "Downer Y is clearly an idiot," there is nothing wrong at all with saying "Downer A, Downer B, and Downer C all seem to be arguing from an intellectualist perspective--insert quotations here--and I think they're missing the boat with regards to the proper spirit of Tolkien--insert quotation from Tolkien here."

There is nothing wrong with the above style of discussion. Still, I don't see it as the only possible style of discussion.

I don't know that any of us ought to consider ourselves keepers and defenders of the proper spirit of Tolkien. He wrote different works in different styles at different points in his career. I don't know that there is any single 'proper' spirit. I feel it is art, and that beauty in art comes to a great extent from the perspective of the observer. Even if there was a proper spirit of Tolkien, different aspects of it would resonate in different readers. If five blind hobbits were to stumble into an Oliphant, and we were to find ourselves involved in a rope / snake / fan / tree / wall sort of discourse, you might find me off the the side practicing my face palms. Tolkien's works are as complex and multi-faceted as any Oliphant.

And I fear I for one will base my perspectives from the art rather than academic sources. If I believe the magical conflict more blatant in the First Age than the Third, I'll work from examples rather than trying to access academic works looking for an appropriate quote. I've read and reread The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings often enough that my originals are falling apart, but I'm not into the First and Second Age stuff, let alone any of the professor's notes or letters.

Originally Posted by Pitchwife

leap and blantyr, if you're interested in a discussion of the pros and cons of what I think you call intellectualizing, you might like to have a look at this thread.

The text was interesting and worthy. I can see how the thread ended with the cartoon, though.