Tolkien the Metafictionist

[Mornorngûr]

Yeh welcome NogrodtheGreat and avar, I am only new here too really and I think its great.

How bout we call you Tumun? Short for Tumunzahar. Or Firebeard?

[NogrodtheGreat]

Tumun - I like that

[jallanite]

Tolkien wrote an original Forward to The Lord of the Rings which he later replaced in the second edition. This Foreward reads in part:

I have supplemented the account of the Red Book, in places, with information derived from the surviving records of Gondor, notably The Book of Kings; but in general, though I have omitted much, I have in this tale adhered more closely to the actual words and narrative of my original than in the previous selection from the Red Book, The Hobbit. That was drawn from the early chapters, composed originally by Bilbo himself. If “composed” is a just word. Bilbo was not assiduous, nor an orderly narrator, and his account is involved and discursive, and sometimes confused: faults that still appear in the Red Book, since the copiers were pious and careful, and altered very little.

This then can be used to explain much of the chronological and geographical discrepancies in The Hobbit, in that the account is supposed to derive from the writing of a single person, possibly years after the events, with no help at the time from anyone who was with him on his journey. That errors are to be supposed to have been made is understandable, some by the original author, some by later copiests, and some by the modern teller.

Whether Tolkien originally intended this as an explanation for these problems I do not know.

Tolkien once in The Lord of the Rings explains an error in his account, supposedly derived from Frodo, by this method. In a footnote to the first page of Appendix F Tolkien in the second edition:

In Lórien at this period Sindarin was spoken, though with an ‘accent’, since most of its folk were of Silvan origin. This ‘accent’ and his own limited acquaintance with Sindarin misled Frodo (as is pointed out in The Thain’s Book by a commentator of Gondor). All the Elvish words cited in Book II, chs 6, 7, 8 are in fact Sindarin, and so are most of the names and persons, But Lórien, Caras Galadhon, Amroth, Nimrodel are probably of Silvan origin, adapted to Sindarin.

This footnote is referenced by Tolkien in a further footnote in the chapter “Lothlórien” attached to the statement that:

Frodo could understand little of what was said, for the speech of the Silvan folk east of the mountains used among themselves was unlike that of the West. Legolas looked up and answered in the same language.

When Tolkien wrote this passage in his mind the Elves of Lórien did speak a Silvan tongue different from Sindarin and Tolkien later corrects this by making it an error attributed to Frodo.

There are various other apparent discrepancies in The Lord of the Rings some of which might be explained by a metafictional assumption. See http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Mista...kien%27s_works which includes most of them. Whether Tolkien intended them to be explained in this fashion I see as dubious. Cannot most of them be simple errors?

Besides these two examples I mention, the only other well-known example I know of is Tolkien’s statement in Morgoth’s Ring that:

What we have in the Silmarillion etc. are traditions (especially personalized and centered 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 Dúunedain and Elf-friends with the Eldar in Beleriand – blended and confused with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.

Tolkien then partly imagines a scientific version of his cosmos in which the earth rotates around the Sun and the Sun is as old as the Earth. But in his Silmarillion story the Sun and Moon are created late in history from the Two Trees.

But this is only two versions of the history, a false but poetic mythological version and a supposedly historical version. Tolkien surely knew that genuine mythological traditions have stories that greatly contradict each other while he, except for the one case, continues to write a single version of his legendarium which changes. For example, his story of the Children of Húrin is a version of the tale that is consistent with itself, not like genuine mythological stories which have many variants.

Tolkien in general makes changes in his thinking which replace his earlier ideas across-the-board. Brljak states:

Tolkien’s mature fiction is centrally concerned precisely with this inability of the text to ever take us to that vanished, irretrievable “there”, from which even living memory was but the first remove.

That seems to me to be very wrong. The Lord of the Rings and The Children of Húrin work very much by taking us to what Brljak would like to see as a “vanished, irretrievable ‘there’”. So do individual genuine mythological works for the most part. Homer tells one version of a story, Apollonius Rhodes tells another, Ovid also tells another, and the stories often disagree when they overlap. Euripides’ plays sometimes disagree with one another when they touch the same story.

Tolkien also puts a strong emphasis on consistency. I see his works putting us there as much as any author’s works do, whether the author is writing in an existent mythology as Shakespere does in Troilus and Cressida and A Midsummer Night’s Dream or an invented mythology as Mervyn Peake does in his Gormenghast books or Lord Dunsany does in The King of Elfland’s Daughter.

That Tolkien has two versions of The Silmarillion in theory comes, it seems to me, from is growing to dislike much of his Silmarillion mythology because it breaks with science but still liking it for poetic reasons. Tolkien is attempting to have his cake and eat it too.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Originally Posted by NogrodtheGreat

Brljak's article (2011) for instance argued that the overall conceit of the Lord of the Rings - that it is ultimately a translation of an unknown number of 'manuscripts' (only the initial manuscripts in the tradition having been actually written by Bilbo, Frodo and Sam) - is actually its defining characteristics and should be granted far more attention.

Welcome to the Downs, New Nogrod. Please try not to look too much like the old Nogrod, because that would be hideous and disturbing.

I'm afraid I don't have time for a full and detailed consideration of the whole thread, so I'll just offer a couple of thoughts about the main subject if I may.

Not being familiar with the article in question, I can't really comment on its content, but Tolkien's repeated uses of the found manuscript topos in his fiction are common enough to be significant. As early as The Battle of the Eastern Field (King Edwards School Chronicle, 1911) he was passing off his own work as that of other, anonymous scribes, and in my opinion this reached its acme, not in LR but in the various 'translations' by Ælfwine from the work of Pengolod (mainly HME IV). Clearly a chain of transmission, a provenance for his stories was important to Tolkien, possibly because he felt that it lent them authenticity or context, or because he was naturally modest or reticent about his writing and felt more comfortable presenting it as the work of others. My own opinion tends toward the former. I think that Tolkien was seeking a legitimacy for his fiction akin to that of collected fairly tales. Providing a fictional chain of transmission from scribe to scribe, then Tolkien himself and finally the reader assists in the suspension of disbelief and does so in a particularly inclusive way. We are all part of the story, along with the many scribes, both named and anonymous who have copied the manuscripts of the Red Book, along with Tolkien himself as editor and translator. Tolkien is perhaps most explicit about this attitude through Sam, when he realises (The Stairs of Cirith Ungol) that he and Frodo are themselves part of the wider tale of the Silmarils, and Frodo's answer that '[the great tales] never end as tales'. It would be very much JRRT's sense of humour to include himself, the Inklings (in the original Foreword) and his readers in the same story.

I find it difficult to see how the found manuscript conceit introduces any problems into (English for 'problematizes') the reader's relationship with the text. The reader is, I hope, aware that he is holding a work of fiction (Tolkien's name as sole author on the cover is a bit of a hint) and that therefore anything within its covers about the history of the text that presents it as somebody's work other than Tolkien's is part of that fiction. If anything the real problem consists in the tone of LR, which is novelistic and simply inconsistent with the conceit that it is a translation of historical documents by different authors. In my opinion, The Hobbit suffers in the same way, since well-adjusted people do not refer to themselves in the third person in their own diaires. Perhaps that was the argument presented in Tolkien Studies.

That would appear to be all I have time for this evening. Hopefully I can find some time later in the week to do the thread a bit more justice.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by The Squatter of Amon Rûdh

If anything the real problem consists in the tone of LR, which is novelistic and simply inconsistent with the conceit that it is a translation of historical documents by different authors. In my opinion, The Hobbit suffers in the same way, since well-adjusted people do not refer to themselves in the third person in their own diaires. Perhaps that was the argument presented in Tolkien Studies.

The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are claimed by Tolkien to be retellings from the Red Book of Westmarch in which presumably he retells the tales originally written in the first person in the third person. Never is it indicated that the original text supposedly used by Tolkien was written in the third person.

Though it might be supposed to be.

Julius Ceasar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War and Commentaries on the Civil Wars are both written in the third person and speak mostly about Caesar’s activities. I have never encountered any scholar who claims that this means the works are not genuinely written by Caesar. Similarly if the Red Book was supposedly also written in the third person, this would indicate nothing about how well-adjusted the authors were.

Traditionally the first five books of the Bible were written in the 3rd person by Moses and the next book was written by Joshua in the third person.

Works which are presented as though they were derived from an original document but are in fact simply fiction are very common. In the 4th century appeared “The Chronicle of the Trojan War” in Latin, supposedly written by Dictys of Crete, claiming to be a translation of an account of the Trojan War written by a contemporary. Similar was a work attributed to Daries Phrygius.

The medieval “Prose Lancelot” claimed to be an adaptation from an older work written by contemporaries of King Arthur, and later works, such as the “Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle” and the “Prose Tristan” claimed to also come from the same source. The 14th century Perceforest, an account of early kings of Britain, claims to be a translation from ancient Greek of a manuscript found in an abbey near the river Humber. The fantasy author James Branch Cabell attributes some of his works to a non-existent 15th century writer Nicholas de Caen and fantasy author Willam Goldman pretends that his book A Princess Bride is an abridgement of a work by a non-existent author S. Morgenstern.

Other works that claim, sometimes not explicitly, to be from a manuscript are Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, Jonathan Swift’s Gullivar’s Travels, William Hope Hodgson’s The House on the Borderland, Jan Potocki’s The Manuscript Found in Saragossa, and Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, a well as many others.

The problem with Brljak’s hypotheses is that nowhere does Tolkien or any of the other authors I mention put much or any emphasis on various copies of the supposed original manuscript. Tolkien does mention various versions of the Red Book, but places these versions, when he mentions them, early in the Fourth Age.

The works do not attempt to use supposed variant versions of these manuscripts, except for Ťolkien’s use of two versions of the riddle games in The Hobbit, and the two versions are apparently found in most if not all manuscript versions.

Brljak’s claim that a transfer of the original documents through an untold number of copiests is of primary importance for understanding Tolkien seems to me to be nonsense. Tolkien never mentions any details of the manuscript transmission beyond the early Fourth Age. The matter of transmission is more important in the Sherlock Holmes stories where the supposed author Doctor Watson admits to having fictionalized his accounts to protect the innocent.

[littlemanpoet]

I'd like to pick up on one piece of this thread's themes, the relationship of the reader to the text.

In the back of my mind I always knew I was reading a fictional work. But I wanted it to be true. It felt true. I was half convinced that it must, somehow, be true. I wanted to go there. I desperately wanted it to be true. The why for this desire could become a thread all its own, and may have been discussed already, maybe often.

But for me, this is one of the greatest successes of LotR and The Hobbit. I think it's achieved, in small part, by the conceit to which NogrodtheGreat refers. I think that it is achieved to a far greater extent by Tolkien's skill as a storyteller. But the greatest reason is that Tolkien was writing about things that partake of our heritage. I knew deep down in my bones that, somehow, this was real.

Thus, it took on greater significance for me than anything else I had ever read, maybe even the bible. This, at least, is the relationship of this reader to the text.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

But the greatest reason is that Tolkien was writing about things that partake of our heritage. I knew deep down in my bones that, somehow, this was real.

What is our heritage? Are you suggesting that only people descended mostly from English stock can appreciate Tolkien while Spaniards and Turks and Indonesians and Scots and Irish and others cannot? Or do you mean something else?

And in reality you cannot know anything in your bones. This story, as you should know by now, was invented by Tolkien, though parts of it are derived from motifs in older stories.

I agree with you that many, including myself, very much wanted the story to be real. Others point to other books that have similarly inspired them, notably Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged.

Thus, it took on greater significance for me than anything else I had ever read, maybe even the bible. This, at least, is the relationship of this reader to the text.

Thanks for sharing this. Many of us have encountered a book which seemed to contain all wisdom. For me it was James Branch Cabell’s Jurgen.