The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-16-2012, 06:27 PM   #1
jallanite
Shade of Carn Dûm
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 479
jallanite is a guest of Tom Bombadil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim View Post
Those works, while beautiful, are shallow compared to The Silmarillion and his other writings. … He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.
Tolkien disagreed with you.

See Morgoth’s Ring (HoME X), page 370 (emphasis mine):
This descends from the oldest forms of the mythology – when it was intended to be no more than another primitive mythology, though more coherent and less ‘savage’. It was consequently a ‘Flat Earth′ cosmogony (much easier to manage anyway): the Matter of Númenor had not been devised.

It is now clear to me that in any case the Mythology must actually be a ‘Mannish’ affair. (Men are really only interested in Men and in Men’s ideas and visions.) The High Eldar living and being tutored by the demiurgic beings must have known, the ‘truth’ (according to their measure of understanding). What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions (especially personalized and centred upon actors, such as Fëanor) handed on by Men in Númenor and later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far back – from the first association of the Dúnedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand – blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.
Tolkien’s story of Elvish kings and nobles is not supposed to be true even within his imaginary world. Fëanor presumably really existed in this imaginary world, but much that is told of him in these Manish tales were deeds of other folk that were later “personalized and centered” on Fëanor.

Tolkien certainly knew that in reality Fëanor was invented by him.

Tolkien tried to rework his Silmarillion material to fit with scientific findings, which Tolkien himself really believed. However, in trying this, he found that he was destroying most of the basis of the Silmarillion story. So he ended up accepting it as yet another false Mannish mythology. Occasionally in his later writing Tolkien refers to what must have supposedly really happened.

Quote:
If Tolkien had lived and had written The Silmarillion and his other works in ancient times, we'd probably consider them holy scripture today. That's how beautiful it is, and how much of a brilliant, insightful, gifted man he was.
Who are this we you mention? Do you mean the exclusive we, which means yourself personally and some others but not everyone you are posting to. Or do you mean the inclusive we which means yourself and everyone you are posting to? European languages avoid making it easy to make such an obvious distinction in simple speech. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity .

I personally resent being told by anyone what I would believe, especially when it is something I very much do I not believe. Speak for yourself only and for others who you have reason to believe agree with you, and speak clearly.

As to people who believe in religions, there are thousands of differing contradictory religious beliefs in the world. It is possible that somewhere there are some people who believe in Manwë and Varda as non-fictional entities, just as occasionally one discovers that some people believe that Sherlock Holmes is real. I don’t find either belief at all uplifting. I very much doubt that Tolkien would.

Tolkien often makes it clear that he knew quite well that he was inventing, though at times he hoped that his inventions would prove pleasing to God. Tolkien certainly believed his fictional creations were in some way true, in the same way that almost every writer believes that his or her fictional creations are true in some way when they are writing them.

But the same writers also know that their creations are fictional.
Tolkien himself when writing about his fiction often appears to take it less seriously than some obsessive fans.

Tolkien was no different from most writers. Sometimes he was very into playing the game and sometimes he was not. But he knew at some level that it was a game.

From an interview with Henry Resnik, published in Niekas 18, page 38 (http://efanzines.com/Niekas/Niekas-18.pdf ):
T:  Yes I do. I shouldn't call it a fad; I wouldn't call it underground. I'd call it a game.
R: A game?
T:  Yes, because there is a whole lot of stuff that amuses people -- alphabets. history, etc.
R: Then I take it you approve of the game?
T:  I don't mind it, as long as it doesn't become obsessive. It doesn't obsess me.
R: Have you noticed any similar widespread game-playing in England?
T:  No, I don't think things catch on like that here quite so much.
R: I wonder if you have any suggestions about why it has caught on so widely in America; could it be anything other than the paperback edition, which came along logically?
T:  Why I've even had letters from children who have saved up, you know, who have gone to some work to get the hardback edition. I think it is, if you really want to know my opinion, a partly reactionary influence. I think it's part of the fun after so much more dreary stuff, isn't it?
R: What sort of dreary stuff are you referring to?
T:  I should say the Lord of the Flies, wouldn't you?
R: Many people I've spoken with here told me they enjoy the sheer fun of being in Middle-Earth.
T:  It's meant to please; it doesn't horrify.
Christopher Tolkien, who should know, writes in The Children of Húrin, page 7:
It is undeniable that there are a great many readers of The Lord of the Rings (as previously published in varying forms in The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and The History of Middle-earth) are altogether unknown, unless by their repute as strange and inaccessible in mode and manner.
It was Christopher Tolkien’s hope that by publishing The Children of Húrin in full for the first time, with little commentary, he might present some of this “inaccessible” material more accessibly.

Other fantasy writers have created what one might call universes in more than one book before Tolkien: William Morris, George MacDonald, James Branch Cabell, Lord Dunsany, Robert E. Howard, Mervyn Peake, E. E. Eddison, and probably others.

I do not think it does the works of Tolkien or any of these writers any favours to compare them with numerous books that disagree with one another: the Qurʼan, the Book of Mormon, the Mahabharata, the Gathas of Zarathusta, any of the Christian Bibles, Jewish scriptures, Buddhist scriptures, the Norse Eddas and so on.
jallanite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 10:07 PM   #2
Morthoron
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
 
Morthoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,515
Morthoron is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Morthoron is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Morthoron is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Morthoron is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.Morthoron is a guest of Galadriel in Lothlórien.
Who peed on your lembas, Jallanite? Here you have a poster, TheLostPilgrim, who I will assume is young (if that is not the case, please excuse me), and who has just read The Silmarillion for the first time within the last year (and I believe I remember Pilgrim saying so). The poster is excited, as excited as I was when I first read The Silmarillion, a far different book than The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings. When Pilgrim said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim
Those works, while beautiful, are shallow compared to The Silmarillion and his other writings. … He created more than simply "fantasy" works--He created a universe, which I believe he on some level himself believed in.
You, Jallanite, tried to find a Tolkien quote to disprove a noble sentiment of a reader in the first blush of love for an author and his great work. What a way to quash enthusiasm (and conversation for that matter)! But Tolkien certainly did not disagree with the poster's sentiment, and the quote you provided has literally nothing to do with what the poster was saying. In a long letter circa late 1951 (Letter 131, to Milton Waldman of the Collins Publishing House). Tolkien stated:

Quote:
They [the stories of The Sil] arose in my mind as 'given' things, and as they came, separately, so too the links grew. An absorbing, though continually interrupted labor (especially since, even apart from the necessities of life, the mind would wing to the other pole and spend itself on the linguistics): yet always I had the sense of recording what was already 'there', somewhere: not of 'inventing'.
This, to me, sounds like someone believing, on some level, what was written. The greatest danger in quoting Tolkien is finding how often he disagreed with himself.

For instance, in the same letter to Waldman, Tolkien makes no reference to the cosmological mythos as a "mannish affair"; on the contrary, he states the early myths are literally devoid of mannish thought and intention:

Quote:
As the high Legends of the beginning are supposed to look at things through Elvish minds, so the middle tale of the Hobbit takes a virtually human point of view - and the last tale blends them.
and later in the same letter:

Quote:
As I say, the legendary Silmarillion is peculiar, and differs from all similar things that I know in not being anthropocentric. Its centre of view and interest is not Men but 'Elves'. Men came inevitably: after all the author is a man, and if he has an audience they will be Men and Men must come into our tales, and not merely transfigured or partially represented as Elves, Dwarfs [sic for Tolkien], Hobbits, etc. But they remain peripheral - late comers, and however growingly important, not principals.
This way of thinking is at odds with the quote from Morgoth's Ring, and, as is often the case, Tolkien seems to rebut his own beliefs. Whether the belief quoted in Morgoth's Ring is the final say, who knows? Tolkien changed opinions on his cosmos like other men change underwear. But the first section of The Silmarillion is certainly written in an Eldarcentric and not anthropocentric tone and point of view, which is at odds with a retelling with the usual conceits, flaws and historiographical integration of later mannish political and sociological creeds and concerns.

When TheLostPilgrim said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLostPilgrim
If Tolkien had lived and had written The Silmarillion and his other works in ancient times, we'd probably consider them holy scripture today. That's how beautiful it is, and how much of a brilliant, insightful, gifted man he was.
You again decided to attack, presumably in regards to the use of the "Royal We" . When Pilgrim refers to "we" he is speaking of mankind, a greater part of which seeks the supernatural as a means to systematize and make sense out of the world.

Taken in context with that Pilgrim actually said, if Tolkien's work was written during the time of the writing of the Mosaic Laws in the Babylonian exilic period, why wouldn't his cosmology be taken as scripture now? It certainly not as boring as the Bible or the Quran. The breathtaking description of Creation in the Ainulindalë is more stirring than Yahweh plopping down cows on the Fifth Day.

The stories in The Silmarillion are far-fetched, certainly, but then so is most scripture from the Bible, Quran or the Vedas. In its mode of storytelling, The Silmarillion is a unique synthesis of biblical, Icelandic, Norse and Finnish legends with a bit of the Greek Pantheon sprinkled on top, and I don't see Snorri Sturluson or the writer of Beowulf being at odds with what was presented. And as far as a synthesis, it is less dependent on source material than the huge amount Mohammed lifted from the Torah when he cobbled together the Quran (amounting to plagiarism in the current litigious climate).

When you made the comment (with the finality of a patriarch):

Quote:
Originally Posted by jallanite View Post
I do not think it does the works of Tolkien or any of these writers any favours to compare them with numerous books that disagree with one another: the Qurʼan, the Book of Mormon, the Mahabharata, the Gathas of Zarathusta, any of the Christian Bibles, Jewish scriptures, Buddhist scriptures, the Norse Eddas and so on.
Who are you to demand such prohibitions? One fairy tale is as good as the next, or better depending on the writer. Posters here can discuss what they damn well please. A collegiate comparative religion course is replete with varying viewpoints. To make a comparative analysis of Tolkien's creation as opposed to the biblical version is a decent way to waste time posting on a forum such as this.

But I do love Tolkien's ironic quote:

Quote:
I don't mind it, as long as it doesn't become obsessive. It doesn't obsess me.
If Tolkien were honest with himself, he would have to admit he was perhaps the most obsessive writer that ever lived. And he expects his fans to be different?

So, TheLostPilgrim, revel in The Silmarillion. Enjoy the reading. Just remember, a wet blanket will never keep you warm.
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision.

Last edited by Morthoron; 11-17-2012 at 06:26 AM.
Morthoron is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:13 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.