Revised and Expanded Edition of the Letters - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Huinesoron · 01-10-2024, 05:46 AM

I also got the NuLetters for Christmas, and wanted to take a look at the letter mentioned in the article Bethberry linked. I don't think the article gives the number, but it's 38a.

What seems to have happened is that Michael Tolkien's regiment had moved, and Michael had written to his girlfriend "A." (not his future wife, who he would meet the next year) to tell her of the move. She had passed the news on to her family, who (living near the Tolkiens) had mentioned it to them - before they heard it from Michael. Edith then wrote to Michael; JRRT wasn't privy to what she said, but Michael's reply a) was clearly a grovelling apology, and b) mentioned that Edith had been very negative about his relationship with A. It seems Michael also felt his father disapproved of A., though this may be from previous contact between them. So JRRT is writing to smooth things over and try to restore what he thinks should be proper family relations.

The review is right that JRRT doesn't come over that well in 38a. His comments on why his son might feel a bit peeved at him range between self-righteous and the classic "oh haha I was only joking":

Quote:

I am so glad you wrote to me out of your heart: you (and J and C) don't open out to me enough. You would probably usually get a spot of comfort, if you did. I daresay with my jesting I am a bit forbidding and give the impression of being critical and apt to think things ridiculous; but it is not so really. [...]

As for your gratitude to me, and your sense of unworthiness: God bless you. You do (from your point of view) owe me a lot. [...] Every good father deserves the fraternal friendship of his sons when they grow up.

His non-apologies for what seem to be his own previous words paint a rather grim picture:

Quote:

I was neither angry nor grieved with you [...]. Let us get this straight: I do not and never have felt your love for A. ridiculous. [...] You shall certainly never be forbidden by me to write to A., and to see her.

(The latter may not be a reference to something he had threatened; it would surprise me, given JRRT's own agonies over being kept away from Edith.)

His advice on romance is probably fine, though I doubt "either of you might change so don't count on it lasting" sank in. And then we come to his comments on Edith, which are indeed pretty bad. The general commentary on mothers is eeeesh:

Quote:

As for your dear mother: you have to realise that you are now up against a fundamental difficulty of life, which needs care and tact. Women are often far less introspective than men, and apt to understand their own motives very little. Sons are peculiarly dear to mothers, although it often takes the transformed shape of being critical and censorious. Also when another woman comes on the scene, they feel a certain jealousy (the jealousy of age for youth and of one woman for another competitor for the love of lover or son) which few of them are aware of, and only the most saintly are able to control.

Jeepers flying Cripes, professor! Oh wait, maybe he's only "jesting"?

Then we come to the passage that formed the centre of the article, and... basically... it's fine?

Quote:

In her case there are several other considerations. First of all her not practicing her religion which in her heart of hearts (now rather hidden under the sad years) sets up a discord which makes her not really happy, and so irritable. Then for a long time she has been going through the process known as the "change of life" - it is sometimes slow and difficult as in her case, sometimes quicker and easier - when a woman ceases physically to be fit for childbearing, and her whole physical economy has to be readjusted. It makes them nervously unstable; and often hardly accountable for their sudden feelings. And now just when this was settling down, she has been attacked by neuritis. All her nerves are on a tingle, and she is both in pain often, and physically irritable. It has been worse again for the last week. Try and forgive and forget all the past. Pray for her.

It seems pretty clear that Tolkien is repeating what he's been told here, probably by the family physician the article admits to for the "neuritis" section. "Fit" is of course a perfectly standard word for indicating whether one can physically do something (I am not fit to drive a train, because I'm colourblind; that's not a value judgement). In context, "physical economy" seems to mean "biological systems" - ie, Edith's hormonal balances are shifting. I don't know to what extent it is "replete with common misconceptions", but the symptoms JRRT mentions - nervous instability and mood swings - are some of those cited by Wikipedia (with three citations!) as common symptoms.

Does it still come across a bit condescending? In light of the previous passage about women's lack of introspection, yes. But all the parts about how Michael needs to forgive and forget are not Edith being "blatantly objectified, and perhaps even infantilised" - they're JRRT trying to keep his son from holding a grudge after Edith bit his head off. And it's not all negative:

Quote:

You three boys all seem to have a decent share of courage and guts. You owe that to your mother.

The letter also includes some of Tolkien's thoughts on WWII, and on his own service as a soldier in WWI; and the tidbit that Edith had a really rough birth with John, while JRRT wasn't even able to be there. But that's out of scope for the article we're looking at, so I think I'll stop here.

Quote:

God bless you. There is nothing you can do, except be frank, and keep a supply of stamps on you!

hS

Galadriel55 · 01-10-2024, 11:27 AM

Iiiinteresting. Thank you for posting, Hui.

My first impression is indeed that the first part of the letter sounds worse than the second, as you say. And still to me the main (or perhaps only?) problematic assertion is with regards to introspection. This conclusion stuck to me as so odd, I did a little experiment. I asked several people in my acquaintance whether they thought men or women were more introspective. And interestingly, if I could persuade people to come out of the non-committal "it's equal, gender doesn't matter, etc" zone and share their actual thoughts... Males usually thought men are more inteospective, while females thought women were. What a conundrum. A case of better-than-average effect?

Bêthberry · 01-17-2024, 11:40 PM

I've been waiting to reply until I receive the "Nuletters" (a Christmas gift ordered that apparently has not yet been delivered) so I thank Huinesoron for responding after reading the letter.

I will respond more fully once I receive the book but for now let me correct a slight error.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huinesoron

I also got the NuLetters for Christmas, and wanted to take a look at the letter mentioned in the article Bethberry linked. I don't think the article gives the number, but it's 38a.

In fact, Larsen does give the number of the letter she is discussing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menelrond

... what caught my eye was a previously unpublished letter to Michael, designate 38a, also largely on the topic of women and relationships with them.

She also identifies the page number as 59.

'tis late tonight but perhaps I can return tomorrow to address some other points in the posts here before I see the letter myself. I posted the link because I thought it might encourage discussion. Good to see that it has!

Bêthberry · 01-24-2024, 06:17 PM

Well, I'm back. And have the NuLetters in hand. (I like that spelling very much, thanks hS

In rereading the comments here, I find it striking that the initial and possibly major points made relate not to the topic of the blog post but to the tone of the author. She is allegedly some sort of shrew who has an axe to grind against cis men of another time, almost a feminazi. My initial response of "really?" still holds up. It's like attacking the messenger rather than the message, or, in the old rhetorical nomenclature, ad hominem attack, although in this case it isn't against the man.

Larsen is sharp, yes, but hardly antagonistic to Tolkien; her point is not to, as she says, pillory him for not being modern or progressive. In fact, as she makes clear in the first paragraph, she is interested in showing how some current views of him as "being ahead of his time" are misplaced; she is more interested in seeing how he relates to his own time, and what those values may or may not be. So she is putting her reading of the nuletter to Michael in the context of critical commentary on Tolkien. If you don't like the word Larsen uses, "cringeworthy", then think embarassing or awkward. Yes, he was a man of his time. Accept him for that.

The nuletter (number 38a) is clearly about family relations and should be read also in the context of the very long letter 43 where Tolkien offers fatherly advice about marriage as companions in a shipwreck. (As an aside, Michael's loves in question in the two letters are different women, A in the first and Joan Griffiths in the second, who he would go on to marry.)

The difficulty appears to have been that Edith wrote a letter to Michael after his girlfriend's parent informed the Tolkiens where Michael, then currently in training for the war, had been reposted. This apparently was an embarrassment, that others had been informed before the parents, and Tolkien is writing to Michael how to handle the situation. Of course we don't have Edith's letter to read, so we don't know what she wrote, and we don't have Michael's letter to Tolkien to see what prompted letter 38a. It is quite difficult, after decades, to try to decipher family relationships. However, it appears that Tolkien is trying to excuse Edith for what she wrote, or provide reasons for her comments. Did Tolkien speak with Edith about this situation? It does not appear so. In any case, what we have are Tolkien's thoughts about his wife in mid life. They are patronising and infantalising. Tolkien spends more time using Edith's lack of attendance to the Catholic faith (which he demanded she convert to despite the fact that the Church herself did not require partners to become Catholic (only to bring up children in the Catholic faith); here Tolkien gives no sign of introspection (I used that word in particular) about how the loss of her own personal faith in the Anglican church may have left Edith lonely and in a strange land--certainly she found confession to a strange man awkward), and then this bit about "women's economy" and menopause. He spends time surmising how women feel about other women who are attractive to their sons, despite saying later in the letter that Edith is quite "reconciled" to the relationship. His thoughts are entirely consistent with common cis men's patronising attitudes towards women at the time; they display very little introspection or sympathy for what Edith might have been feeling and instead offers social/cultural cliches. What Tolkien does not express is any idea how Edith might be very concerned about her son because he is in military service during wartime and whose very life could be at risk. (Michael was in fact injured during a training exercise.) And how it felt to have other people report about him concerning something he had not told his parents.

Larsen provides six--yes, six--references to studies on menopause, so she isn't talking hot air, or merely her opinion, or post modern revisionist complaints about men in earlier times. Larsen is a scientist, and evidence, true evidence and research, are both her bread and butter and her MO in her scientific research and in her articles on Tolkien.

To demonstrate her respect for Tolkien, here is her article on the aurora in the Father Christmas Letters, "Rayed Arcs and the ‘Rory Bory Aylis’: Primary World Aurorae and Tolkien’s 'Father Christmas Letters'": http://https://scholar.valpo.edu/journaloftolkienresearch/vol18/iss1/5/

Suffice to say I think many of the claims made here about her blog are misguided attacks on her rather than on what she shows Tolkien thought about his wife at mid life. Like me, she is a big fan of Tolkien, but that does not mean that either of us engage in idealising a favourite author. Authors are human and have feet of clay.

EDIT: Haven't had time to do a thorough reading of the NuLetters. It is a very handsome hardcover, approximately 50,000 words more than what the original had been reduced to, with 150 new letters and 45 of the original letters newly expanded, a hefty book. When I have time I will do a quick search for letter numbers that have been appended a letter after the original number, as in 38a with the letter in question. Particularly welcome is the new and expanded Index by Wayne G Hammond and Christina Scull (best known for their JRR Tolkien companion and Guide as well as their Reader's Guide to LotR).

Mithadan had asked about reviews of the new edition: an extended one with particular details can be found at Tolkien Collectors' Guide: http://https://www.tolkienguide.com/...forumpost52679

01-10-2024, 11:27 AM	#2
Galadriel55 Blossom of Dwimordene Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The realm of forgotten words Posts: 10,494	Iiiinteresting. Thank you for posting, Hui. My first impression is indeed that the first part of the letter sounds worse than the second, as you say. And still to me the main (or perhaps only?) problematic assertion is with regards to introspection. This conclusion stuck to me as so odd, I did a little experiment. I asked several people in my acquaintance whether they thought men or women were more introspective. And interestingly, if I could persuade people to come out of the non-committal "it's equal, gender doesn't matter, etc" zone and share their actual thoughts... Males usually thought men are more inteospective, while females thought women were. What a conundrum. A case of better-than-average effect? __________________ You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera

01-24-2024, 06:17 PM	#4
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	Well, I'm back. And have the NuLetters in hand. (I like that spelling very much, thanks hS In rereading the comments here, I find it striking that the initial and possibly major points made relate not to the topic of the blog post but to the tone of the author. She is allegedly some sort of shrew who has an axe to grind against cis men of another time, almost a feminazi. My initial response of "really?" still holds up. It's like attacking the messenger rather than the message, or, in the old rhetorical nomenclature, ad hominem attack, although in this case it isn't against the man. Larsen is sharp, yes, but hardly antagonistic to Tolkien; her point is not to, as she says, pillory him for not being modern or progressive. In fact, as she makes clear in the first paragraph, she is interested in showing how some current views of him as "being ahead of his time" are misplaced; she is more interested in seeing how he relates to his own time, and what those values may or may not be. So she is putting her reading of the nuletter to Michael in the context of critical commentary on Tolkien. If you don't like the word Larsen uses, "cringeworthy", then think embarassing or awkward. Yes, he was a man of his time. Accept him for that. The nuletter (number 38a) is clearly about family relations and should be read also in the context of the very long letter 43 where Tolkien offers fatherly advice about marriage as companions in a shipwreck. (As an aside, Michael's loves in question in the two letters are different women, A in the first and Joan Griffiths in the second, who he would go on to marry.) The difficulty appears to have been that Edith wrote a letter to Michael after his girlfriend's parent informed the Tolkiens where Michael, then currently in training for the war, had been reposted. This apparently was an embarrassment, that others had been informed before the parents, and Tolkien is writing to Michael how to handle the situation. Of course we don't have Edith's letter to read, so we don't know what she wrote, and we don't have Michael's letter to Tolkien to see what prompted letter 38a. It is quite difficult, after decades, to try to decipher family relationships. However, it appears that Tolkien is trying to excuse Edith for what she wrote, or provide reasons for her comments. Did Tolkien speak with Edith about this situation? It does not appear so. In any case, what we have are Tolkien's thoughts about his wife in mid life. They are patronising and infantalising. Tolkien spends more time using Edith's lack of attendance to the Catholic faith (which he demanded she convert to despite the fact that the Church herself did not require partners to become Catholic (only to bring up children in the Catholic faith); here Tolkien gives no sign of introspection (I used that word in particular) about how the loss of her own personal faith in the Anglican church may have left Edith lonely and in a strange land--certainly she found confession to a strange man awkward), and then this bit about "women's economy" and menopause. He spends time surmising how women feel about other women who are attractive to their sons, despite saying later in the letter that Edith is quite "reconciled" to the relationship. His thoughts are entirely consistent with common cis men's patronising attitudes towards women at the time; they display very little introspection or sympathy for what Edith might have been feeling and instead offers social/cultural cliches. What Tolkien does not express is any idea how Edith might be very concerned about her son because he is in military service during wartime and whose very life could be at risk. (Michael was in fact injured during a training exercise.) And how it felt to have other people report about him concerning something he had not told his parents. Larsen provides six--yes, six--references to studies on menopause, so she isn't talking hot air, or merely her opinion, or post modern revisionist complaints about men in earlier times. Larsen is a scientist, and evidence, true evidence and research, are both her bread and butter and her MO in her scientific research and in her articles on Tolkien. To demonstrate her respect for Tolkien, here is her article on the aurora in the Father Christmas Letters, "Rayed Arcs and the ‘Rory Bory Aylis’: Primary World Aurorae and Tolkien’s 'Father Christmas Letters'": http://https://scholar.valpo.edu/journaloftolkienresearch/vol18/iss1/5/ Suffice to say I think many of the claims made here about her blog are misguided attacks on her rather than on what she shows Tolkien thought about his wife at mid life. Like me, she is a big fan of Tolkien, but that does not mean that either of us engage in idealising a favourite author. Authors are human and have feet of clay. EDIT: Haven't had time to do a thorough reading of the NuLetters. It is a very handsome hardcover, approximately 50,000 words more than what the original had been reduced to, with 150 new letters and 45 of the original letters newly expanded, a hefty book. When I have time I will do a quick search for letter numbers that have been appended a letter after the original number, as in 38a with the letter in question. Particularly welcome is the new and expanded Index by Wayne G Hammond and Christina Scull (best known for their JRR Tolkien companion and Guide as well as their Reader's Guide to LotR). Mithadan had asked about reviews of the new edition: an extended one with particular details can be found at Tolkien Collectors' Guide: http://https://www.tolkienguide.com/...forumpost52679 __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bêthberry; 01-25-2024 at 08:18 AM.