The wrong kind of details: the components of wonder (aka lmp's rant)

[Kuruharan]

lmp: Cross examined? What have you been up to?!

My problem with Redwall is that the author used the same tired formula FIVE TIMES in the SAME BOOK! Come ON!

I agree with you on that. It seems to me that if the eucatastrophe happens the same way more than once in the same story it ceases to be a eucatastrophe. (I have a keen grasp of the obvious don't I!)

I like your illustration about the rivers flowing from the mountains to the sea. But I have a question about the cultural difference between the "mountain" and the "sea-coast." Would it make any difference in the types of details that an author put into a story depending on which "stream" he/she was drawing from? Meaning, in the original mythos certain things would be more important to the authors than they would be to people reading a story derived from this myth a few thousand years later. Is that where "the writer must draw from her own mind...and bring her own unconscious/subconscious to bear upon the fresh spring water" to make the story more accessible to the audience? That is, if that is something important to the author in question.

[Mister Underhill]

Good points, as usual, Squatter. I'm just saying you better have your act together if you're gonna hit me with:

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! fal lal the willow!
Tom Bom, jolly Tom, Tom Bombadillo!

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Absolutely. Taken out of context that could be used as evidence that Tolkien was a bad poet (now where do I remember that from?)

[littlemanpoet]

Naaramare: At the risk of going way off topic, I found your comparison of the cosmological structures in LotR and Fionavar Tapesty to be quite interesing in spite of your early morning inarticulateness. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] - specifically your point that the Weaver does not overwhelm our free will. I as a christian came to that very conclusion about the christian God. Once I came to this realization, little by little the ugly aspects of the faith-that-I-had-been-taught-to-believe began to fade. For example, it is illogical to say that the christian god is omnipotent precisely because s/he has made room in heris universe for the free will of his humans. That's a lot of control to have given up, and a lot of possibility and responsibility (that many christians would rather not admit existed) to own up to.

Kuruharan: Frodo also sees Sauron - in Galadriel's Mirror and upon Amon Hen when he wears the Ring - and more and more as he approaches and passes through Mordor. Other than that, I think you're explication is right on.

Squatter: I like your point on Tom Bombadil and continued mystery and unexplainability in LotR. I suppose not even JRRT knew the answers to ALL the mysteries...

Mister Underhill: Did you know that the ring a ding dillo is actually a recurrence of English Madrigal lyric decoration?

All right, I've caught up on page 1. Wow! This things taking off! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Birdland]

IMP - I like your analogy of the waters. The trouble I have is when authors bottle the waters in shiny bottles with precious pink bows.

Now granted, I have not read the novel where this "winged unicorn" appeared, but the very image makes me cringe. Perhaps I am being "hasty". But I bet I ain't.

I'm a great lover - and defender of - the Animal Spirit in the world's mythologies. The Coyote Trickster of the Native Americans, the Russian fable of the Firebird, The extensive lore of Dragons, both wise and cruel, and on and on. Each plays a very important role. They are not portrayed as "pets", but as complex thinking beings, who still have a connection to the Natural World, which too many people throughout the ages have felt they have lost.

Tolkien acknowledged the importance of the Animal Spirit in Myth with his characters of the Eagles, Shadowfax, the Wargs, and the Ents. Not to mention Tuor's swans.

When Beagle chose a Unicorn for the hero of one of his stories, his inspiration was the sublime, beatific images of the Unicorn Tapestries at the Cloister Museum. When the above author (sorry, name thankfully not remembered) chose a "winged unicorn" for the hero of his novel, I fear his inspiration was My Pretty Pony.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Mr. Underhill:

Hail and well met. I couldn't help overhearing your most fascinating contributions to this worthy discussion. While many are the points I heartily agree with, I'm here to offer a different perspective, at the risk of stirring the pot. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

* a familiar figure whose echoing voice preceeded him now enters from the deeper shadows of the Barrow, with his staff lit to dispell a thin veil of night mist. another smaller light flickers into being at the lighting of a pipeweed bowl for the purpose of a conversational smoke. the wizard turns, offering you the rain-stained pouch from which he'd plucked his own supply of Old Toby, then resumes speaking *

You say, Mister Underhill, that:

Frodo never had to remortgage Bag End or stave off telemarketers.

To which I reply, whom would you rather stave off ... the world's most obnoxious and persistent telemarketer, or Lobelia Sackville Baggins? * smiles with a hint of gentle mischief * Indeed, Frodo did not remortgage Bag End ... rather, he sold it ... and to whom, eh?

And what of the lawyerly paperwork inherent in Frodo's becoming heir of Bag End in the first place? Though of course it was Bilbo, not Frodo, who had to go to the trouble of drawing up a proper will complete with seven signatures of witnesses in red ink.

* blows several smoke rings, sets to juggling them for a bit before finally directing them up through the mist *

And of course it was Frodo, left holding the Bag and tying up the loose Ends immediately after the noteworthy departure of Bilbo, if you'll pardon the puns. * bows *

At your Service,

Gandalf the Grey

[Kuruharan]

Frodo also sees Sauron - in Galadriel's Mirror and upon Amon Hen when he wears the Ring - and more and more as he approaches and passes through Mordor. Other than that, I think you're explication is right on.

Quite right! I had forgotten.

Although I would categorize each of those slightly differently.

At the Mirror Frodo had a more visual encounter, but he was protected by Galadriel. Sauron did not actually make contact with Frodo. (I'd also argue that it was a lower intensity vision than Pippin had for that very reason. And for some reason I always thought that Pippin saw more than just an Eye, even though there may be little reason for such a belief.)

On Amon Hen Frodo only saw a shadow, but he was fully exposed to the influence of that Shadow and it was only through the timely intervention of Gandalf that he held up.

On the walk through Mordor I'm not so sure that I think that was a personal encounter with Sauron. Frodo was aware that Sauron was looking for him, he felt the presence of Sauron's Ring on his person, but the overwhelming, terrible Presence is absent. I mentioned this briefly at the end of my post on this subject.

Tolkien actually addressed this issue when he discussed what would have happened if Frodo had claimed the Ring. From his description of this supposed encounter I feel that there was a tremendous difference between just being aware that Sauron was somewhere in the world and being immediately before him (and him being in a bad mood at that!)

But in any case, Sauron was one of the most integral characters, but we never really "see the monster."

[Mister Underhill]

Did you know that the ring a ding dillo is actually a recurrence of English Madrigal lyric decoration?

Well, duh! Doesn’t everyone? I guess they don’t at that. It’s these youngsters they have around nowadays. You know – when Eminem sings “ring a ding dillo” they think he’s the one that made it up; they have no sense of history. In my day we had to memorize motifs of English Madrigal lyric decoration in second grade for crying out loud.

Hi there, GtG. Welcome to the Downs, since this is the first time our posts have crossed paths. I guess the Shire did have its own sort of humdrum business after all. In answer to your first question, though – I think I’d take Lobelia. At least you can tell the story and laugh about it with your friends afterwards, plus she has to walk over to your house if she wants to trouble you and you have the consolation of knowing she has to hoof it on back where she came from, too. There are so many things that are depressing about getting a telemarketing call – the fact of a stranger who’s been trained to ignore “no” as an answer pitching me a product I don’t want or need; the idea that he’s sitting in a (no doubt drab, windowless, and grey) room with dozens, maybe hundreds of others who do the same thing all day long; the fact that I’ve been reduced to an anonymous number on a list in a computer somewhere; etc.

I’d also trade my real-life legal code for whatever passes for Hobbit legalese. I can’t picture the Shire code taking up much more space than a pamphlet. If seven witnesses is the extent of Shire red-tape and bureaucracy, count me in!

To drag this post somewhat back on topic, though, I’ll concede that you do make a relevant point. The Hobbits, as mediators, have a lifestyle which is recognizable to us. It’s not all living in trees and walking on top of snow and being stunningly beautiful and eternally young and all that jazz. It’s comfy homes and good food and honest work and the occasional nuisance relative or dimwit know-it-all down at the local pub to make sure things aren’t too perfect. And when somebody dies (or permanently moves on) there are a few affairs to be settled. But it’s an idealized version of the world we know – recognizable, but infinitely simpler and more rustic. This sort of setting has its own sense of wonder. It’s life as it ought to be.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

The trouble I have is when authors bottle the waters in shiny bottles with precious pink bows.

Couldn't agree more. There's nothing less wonderful than sugary prettiness, especially when myth has been plundered and mutilated to achieve that effect. In my opinion, the Disney versions of the brothers Grimm (and their stories' antecedents) not only had the biggest, pinkest bows imaginable, but were gathered into plastic bottles and scented with artificial rose water to boot.

My problem with Redwall is that the author used the same tired formula FIVE TIMES in the SAME BOOK! Come ON!

And then proceeded to use it again and again and again in every single one of the umpteen sequels, along with the plot structure, descriptions of food, characterisation and so on, until a reader could program a computer to write the next novel as a money-saving ploy. Brian Jaques should have called the series "The Formulaic Chronicles". Mind you, I quite like the Redwall books in small doses: they're so undemanding, like candy-floss for the mind.

But in any case, Sauron was one of the most integral characters, but we never really "see the monster."

I agree. I always got the impression that Sauron's appearances in LoTR were aspects of his spirit projected over a distance. As such they're not quite the same thing as seeing him in the flesh, so to speak, as the leaders of the Last Alliance would have seen him, and this adds to his threatening presence throughout the story.

Following up on GtG and Underhill's discussion, I'll throw in my lot with the "Shire as an idealised society" thesis: I can't imagine living in, for example, Gondor or Lothlorien; Rohan would be a good place to visit for a couple of years if you like mead-halls, riding competitions and Saxons being Saxons; but the Shire is a comfortable nostalgic fantasy of rural England as it should have been, flawless in its small imperfections.

On the subject of telemarketers, I envy Tolkien in that he died before that insidious sales technique took off: bearing in mind how he felt about being pestered over the 'phone by fans, I should imagine that he'd have been apoplectic at a complete stranger wasting his time with exhortations to buy double glazing or life insurance. Those people in their dreary little offices, with their rigid lists of questions would definitely have been among the "maggot folk"; a disembodied army of the damned, spreading irritation and despair.

[Naaramare]

chose a "winged unicorn" for the hero of his novel, I fear his inspiration was My Pretty Pony.

Considering the quality of Guy Kay's work, I doubt it.

In the difficult and doubtful task of preparing the text of the book I was very greatly assisted by Guy Kay, who worked with me in 1974-1975.

-Christopher Tolkien, Silmarillion, Foreward

::quietly follows LMP off topic, but very briefly:: I have the feeling that this could be extremely interesting, but I can't think of a thread to put it under in open forum on the downs. [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Watch how he [Tolkien] uses the reactions and the dialogue of his characters to set us up for Khazad-dûm, for Lothlórien, for Mordor. He creates an air of wonder and mystery about these places well before we even get there...

Another thing this has the effect of doing is creating a sense of age and old legends creeping across countless leagues to be told in hushed voices in warm, smoky pubs.

Now for my thoughts on all this:
A fantasy story must ring of truth. It's difficult to believe an otherwise idealized story devoid of morality, just as no one can believe the inverse: a story where superb beings (i.e. Mary Sue shieldmaidens) dance through troubles like a rose garden. Idealizations should lie in how the character grows, not in how lovely the jeweled curtains or silver spoons are. Those things pass away, but the truth one implants in a story flourishes if done artfully.

[littlemanpoet]

Muse: Though truth is undeniably important, I think fantasy and myth does us the favor (when done well) of recovering reality the way it is meant to be seen, as compared to the way we all take it for granted because our eyes get old.

I will have to get back to the questions asked of me a good ways above, but I dont' have time right now. I promise I'll get to them.

[littlemanpoet]

Kuruharan:

Cross examined? What have you been up to?!

Um, logging onto a new website. No kidding. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

...about the cultural difference between the "mountain" and the "sea-coast." Would it make any difference in the types of details that an author put into a story depending on which "stream" he/she was drawing from? Meaning, in the original mythos certain things would be more important to the authors than they would be to people reading a story derived from this myth a few thousand years later. Is that where "the writer must draw from her own mind...and bring her own unconscious/subconscious to bear upon the fresh spring water" to make the story more accessible to the audience?

In a word, yes. My tastes in fantasy are admittedly eclectic, so I love the stuff that's drawn straight from the high mountain streams, and I also love some of the stuff drawn from the briny wide river flowing into the harbor. But in terms of modern fantasy stories, every old myth has to be mediated for the reader in order for (1) the original meaning to come across the cultural and chronological divide, and (2) for the author/writer's gloss on that meaning to do so as well.

Just to explicate the analogy a little further, Tolkien drew from a specific set of streams while, say, Robert E. Howard drew from some of the same streams, but some different as well. Beside that, they brought differing world views to their writing. Tolkien was concerned with (among other things) nobility of character while Howard was concerned with the innate incorruption of the uncivilized as compared to inevitably corrupt civilization.

But here's a new question based on the old:
If the Hobbits are Tolkien's mediation for Middle Earth, what mediates for other authors, such as Howard, Kay, LeGuin, etc.?

By the way, I agree with your thoughts on Frodo "seeing" the Enemy at the Mirror and on Amon Hen and on the way to Mordor.

On the choice between Lobelia and telemarketers, Lobelia hands down. Hear hear! Especially the way she has a final curtsy at the end of the book. Nice touch, no?

[The Silver-shod Muse]

lmp, agreed. Is there not much truth in our own reality that we never see until it has been mirrored and brightened by the wonder of fantasy?

Ah, the joys of writing...

[Kuruharan]

Um, logging onto a new website. No kidding.

Ummm...*cough*cough* ahem...anyway...

(1) the original meaning to come across the cultural and chronological divide,

But is this always possible? Is there a possibility that the meanings and themes of the original work would not translate across that barrier?

This is not to say that the message could not be academically understood by those on the sea coast (I just love that analogy ) but it might not be able to create an emotional gut reaction in the readers. The values of the mountain are most often different from those of the coast. In some cases VERY different. The story itself could still be edifying (or whatever other constructive adjective you care to insert) but IMO to be great a story has to strike an emotional chord. It might not be able to do this if it is displaying the value system of the mountain.

(2) for the author/writer's gloss on that meaning to do so as well

Just to contradict what I said above, if the author puts his own gloss on the story is it still true(ish) to the original?

(P.S. I'm not disagreeing with you, but raising points for discussion since I'm interested in reading interpretations of an author's responsibility [or not] to make the material accessable to the audience, and retain a cultural "feel" to his story.)

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

An author who fails to bring something of themselves to a story has become a mere parrot. What would be the point of re-telling the story of Aeneas, of which a number of versions already existed, if Virgil hadn't added his own slant? It would have been a waste of ink.

[Kuruharan]

Indeed! However, an author has to be a little bit careful in what they bring into a story or we could end up with something like "Agamemnon of Mycenae meets Bullwinkle the Moose." (slightly extreme example. )

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

You have to admit, though, that it would be funny: Superman saves Hector's life; Achilles is killed by Robin Hood and Long Will relates the story to Prester John in Heorot.

[Kuruharan]

Bullwinkle: Gosh Rocky! Here comes a funny lookin' feathered man in tights!

Rocky: It's probably that funny psuedo-Soviet that's always hanging around that we can never see through his pathetic disguises. See, that woman is with him, I can tell because she is wearing a dress.

Robin Hood: Zounds! A talking moose and squirrel, forsooth!

Agamemnon: Yon talking squirrel just called me a woman, taking my tunic for a dress, which offends my sense of arete! I fear I shall have to skewer him!

[attempts to stab Rocky, spear gets tangled in Bullwinkle's antlers]

Agamemnon: Now what?!

Robin Hood: Thine thrashing about preventeth me from sending a goose-feathered shaft through yon vile moose! Thou might try holding still!

Sam Gamgee: One sees strange sights outside the Shire, and that's a fact!

(I fear this thread has just fallen from the sublime to the surreal. )

[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Sir Lancelot du Lac Look thou not at me, for verily I am a later addition.

Menelaus When are we going to fulfil my geas to save the Princess Leia from the Martians?

Cuchulain After we've saved Captain Scarlett from Anubis, of course.

Captain James Bigglesworth, RFC I'm sure I could fly the chariot of the sun as far as his secret lair, but I'd have to stunt like mad to avoid the SAMs of Professor Moriarty

Can Hercule Poirot defeat Tiamat before she can join forces with the Midgard Serpent? Will Flash Gordon and Sherlock Holmes recover Persephone from Purgatory before she eats that quarter-pounder with cheese? Will Donald Duck ever defeat the Forty Thieves and save Anansie from the clutches of Brer Bear? Does anyone really give a monkey's? Tune in next week to find out.

[littlemanpoet]

Having set down my pipe to giggle helplessly.... [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] You guys are nuts. Good nuts, mind you, but a nut by any other name.....

Really, though, excellent questions, Kuruharan.

Is there a possibility that the meanings and themes of the original work would not translate across that barrier?

if the author puts his own gloss on the story is it still true(ish) to the original?

I think Tolkien is about as good an example of achieving both as one can find anywhere. Though he may not have achieved his original goal of creating a myth for England, he did adapt Scandinavian (dwarves), Celtic (elves), and other Norse legendary and mythical ingredients to a modern audience's mental framework, and definitely brought his own themes to the work, themes that the author of Beowulf, the teller of the oral traditions, Mallory, and all the rest, could not have, would not have brought, precisely because they were not Tolkien, and because they had no idea what the 20th century was like. This is only a partial answer, leaving you to do a lot of filling in the blanks in terms of examples, but I gotta run. Happy farcing! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Kuruharan]

Alas! Too much of that and the thread would be closed, I fear. (And Squatter and myself would probably be hung, drawn, and quartered!)

Though he may not have achieved his original goal of creating a myth for England, he did adapt Scandinavian (dwarves), Celtic (elves), and other Norse legendary and mythical ingredients to a modern audience's mental framework

In a way he did create a mythology for England. At least, those are some of the elements that went together to make up English culture.

[Naaramare]

If the Hobbits are Tolkien's mediation for Middle Earth, what mediates for other authors, such as Howard, Kay, LeGuin, etc.?

If by mediation you mean person-to-whom-the-reader-may-relate-to, Kay's five "real world" protagonists are his mediators, I would think. They are, after all, from our own world.

[littlemanpoet]

Kuruharan: The point is forever arguable whether Tolkien succeeded. He himself did not think so, if I recall my readings correctly. England is such a "mutt" nation with its original indigenous population, then the Celts, then Anglo-Saxons, then Vikings, and finally Normans to stir the pot; of course, the last admixture was almost 1,000 years ago. One would expect some settling. ACtually, Tolkien was reacting against the Arthurian legendarium as the so-called myth of England. In his mind, I believe, it could not function well enough as it contained too much obviously christian content, bastardized as it was from Celtic mythology.

Naaramare: That's generally what I figure to be true in most cases. In Kay, however, Jennifer turns into an exception, [SPOILER ALERT!] seeing as she turns out to be the reincarnation of Guinevere and as such, begins to function more archetypally and less mediatorally. No? In fact, the red-headed priestess (I forget her name) becomes more real and mediatorial by the end of the series than Jennifer, and, for that matter, more so than Paul (with whom I tried and tried to relate to the whole way through and failed - he has my name after all).

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Kuruharan]

and finally Normans to stir the pot

I was thinking somewhere at the back of my mind when I made my last post that the Normans didn't make it into Middle earth.

Undoubtedly because Tolkien regarded the Norman Conquest as being an unmitigated catastrophe.

[Naaramare]

Mmm. I suppose you're right, lmp. Paul, Jennifer/Guinevere and to a certain extend Kevin (what with the . . yeah) become less so. By the end, I think it's mostly Kim and Dave. ^^

[littlemanpoet]

Kuruharan: I had forgotten Tollers' opinion on the Norman conquest - and of course, you're right. And he was right. [sic] Some things just should never have been. It would be like a tribe of the Dunlendings having lived for two generations in Gondor, gained enough culture to make them trouble but not enough to make them civilized, and descend upon Edoras and own it for good, foisting some 'mutt' Gondorian speech upon the Rohirrim. Of course, the analogy is not adequate since the Gondorians were a bit more civilized than the French of that era (sorry if you're French).

Naaramare: Just so. And here's an addition to my little rant: there's not really much charm to speak of in Kay, not of the Holbitla ilk. Not that the absence weakens Kay's story, which is wonder-ful in its way. But somehow the Hobbits function with their charm so as to cause wonder in such a way that cannot be found in any other book. When an author provides a version of hobbits, it comes off false, or sugary, or imitative or worse. Why is this? Or can anyone think of any exceptions? What other kinds of charm might be subcreated if not Hobbits?

[Kuruharan]

Of course, the analogy is not adequate since the Gondorians were a bit more civilized than the French of that era (sorry if you're French).

I do have some French ancestory back in my pedigree, but just a little.

There is an interesting parallel between Gondor and France at the time of the Norman Conquest. Their feudalistic political structure. Not that I think that's particularly "advanced." That system has many chronic problems, but so do most.

King William the Conqueror is actually a good example of one individual having an enormous impact on history, because it is unlikely that the Norman Conquest would have happened just through "force of history." I may have to dig up the "Historical Relevance" thread since this came up in that discussion.

[Naaramare]

lmp: I think it may possibly be centered around a classism thing. The hobbits are of a different class than the other races; Frodo notes feeling "rustic and untutored", when the Rangers of Ithilien observe the standing silence. We don't really have that anymore. There's sort of two classes: children, and adults. When people like McKiernan try to mimic hobbits with warrows, he ends up writing them like children, which comes off as annoying.

We have such an emphasis on "different, not better" . . .hobbits are 'quaint' and 'charming', and it denotes a difference of status. Frodo loses that 'quaintness' by the end of the book (innocence, I suppose); in a way, he has to so that he can become an equal of such people as Aragorn (who are not in any way 'quaint').

That's just what occurs to me right now. Again, it's like aping the lingual style instead of internalizing it. I think that Kay made a wise choice not to attempt a hobbit-like race--he had his Daleri for the innocence and simplicity . . .actually, now that I think of it, the Daleri charm me quite readily. *L* So I'm not entirely certain, the above is merely an idea.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

You guys are nuts.

Absolutely. Cluck, cluck; gibber, gibber; my old man's a mushroom, etc.
Surely hanging, drawing and quartering doesn't frighten you, Kuruharan? For myself, I would go to the scaffold proudly, knowing that I died for comedy.

England is such a "mutt" nation

Oh I see: first I'm a nutter and now I'm a mongrel. Thanks a lot.

Seriously, though: you're right, although you missed out the Romans, and the Vikings never captured the whole lot (unless you count the Normans in that category).

themes that the author of Beowulf, the teller of the oral traditions, Mallory, and all the rest, could not have, would not have brought, precisely because they were not Tolkien, and because they had no idea what the 20th century was like.

Although what Malory and the Beowulf poet did achieve was to put the myths into the context of their own times. Arguably the Anglo-Saxon author did a better job of it, since he keeps his text relatively free of anachronism, with which the Morte d'Arthur positively brims. Tolkien thought very highly of the use of earlier themes by the author of Beowulf, as we can see from his essay Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics (1936)

[littlemanpoet]

Kuruharan: I remember that thread, and I completely agree with you, William the [formerly bastard] Conqueror is a singularly good example of people rather than forces. Although I think it wise not to argue exclusively for one or the other.

Naaramare:Yes, I recall the discussion in which class was bandied about. I confess I'm not entirely satisfied with it as an explanation. Consider, Sam never loses his charm. I think it has more to do with 'rustic and untutored' as such than with 'class', per se. With one you're comparing poor versus rich, an economic standard, and with the other you're comparing country/largely oral tradition/memory going back a few generations versus city/written history/memory going back centuries, perhaps millenia. The latter has no innocence left and is painfully conscious of itself, whereas the former is innocent in its unconscious daily ritual. I think of Pullman's His Dark Materials, how (i forget her name) the protagonist girl is described as still a child an unaware. That's what the hobbits are like, though even Sam is less so by the end of the book but retains enough to hold his charm, I suppose. I think also of Brother Mine and the painful self-consciousness of the urban protagonist in her modern life, which is a little off-topic but serves as an illustration (sorry to the rest of you: Brother Mine is Naaramare's own fantasy work-in-process - check out her signature).

Squatter: But of course, the Romans. They did, after all, forcibly remove the Druids from southern England.

And we States Americans are far more 'mutty' than you Brits! So we're only trying to smear your reputation in our own dirt. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] I don't know how much that goes for Canadian Americans, but I suppose there's probably about as much muttiness.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

But of course, the Romans. They did, after all, forcibly remove the Druids from southern England.

And destroyed the Druidic sanctuary at Llyn Cerrig Bach on Anglesey (North-West Wales). When the Romans destroyed something it stayed destroyed.

This is why Tolkien's self-appointed task was so impossibly huge: all of the earlier Celtic myths that were remembered after the Romans left were carried into Wales when the Anglo-Saxons pushed the Celts out of what is now England, becoming Welsh rather than English tales. The Anglo-Saxons didn't start writing things down until after they were Christianised, by which time they had a very good reason to bowdlerise or ignore their pagan myths, which presumably survived in an oral tradition until some time after the Norman conquest. The Normans, however, just brought their borrowed culture over and established it as the ruling ideology, until none of the literate could or would remember the old stories. Tolkien could only guess at what had been by reference to known mythology from all over Europe, and from what little of real English myth was written down; but he did a good enough job for my, admittedly less cultivated, taste.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Undoubtedly because Tolkien regarded the Norman Conquest as being an unmitigated catastrophe.

I bet he did. There were so many cultural facets that were drowned out in those conquests. Reading history books (yes, I do read those) I've always rooted for the Saxons, as the underdogs. Needless to say, they always lose.

[Kuruharan]

Surely hanging, drawing and quartering doesn't frighten you, Kuruharan? For myself, I would go to the scaffold proudly, knowing that I died for comedy.

"I don't know about you, but I'm not a gentleman o' comedy to get hung for it. I intend to collect my yuk-yuks, and then make a mad dash for my life before the irate mob catches up to me!"

(With apologies to R.L. Stevenson for so crudely adapting some of his material to suit my purpose. )

Tolkien thought very highly of the use of earlier themes by the author of Beowulf, as we can see from his essay Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics (1936)

Speaking of rivers and streams, that's a stream that Tolkien dipped his bucket rather deeply into.

Although I think it wise not to argue exclusively for one or the other.

True, true.

Tolkien could only guess at what had been by reference to known mythology from all over Europe, and from what little of real English myth was written down

There were some Irish myths that might have been closer to the original English (Welsh, Celtic, whatever).

I've always rooted for the Saxons, as the underdogs. Needless to say, they always lose.

If Harold had enough sense to wait in London until his army was reinforced and a little rested, things might have turned out differently. But then again maybe not. William the Conqueror was a soldier born. "Never fought a battle he did not win, and never sieged a castle he did not take," as the saying goes. Odd that he died by falling on his saddle pommel.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kuruharan ]

[Nar]

Another excellent topic which has had me stewing about it, LMP.

Been trying to wrestle a clarifying analogy into shape to tell me how the details=themes=voice conjunction works—Streams flowing down mountains, flowing with the force of the story’s archetypes and themes. Themes and archetypes suggest and require certain details to fill them out—those you want to see in a story. I would guess that those details that destroy the wonder are the ones that arise from expanding the world around the protagonists according to general knowledge, rather than those that –hmm—grow and germinate—let a thousand flowers bloom—where the streams/ themes are flowing in and your archetypes welling up from that artesian spring deep below.

The details that touch on the themes add to the wonder and dream-state, the details that come from elaborating the world as a sociologist or civil engineer will probably kill the wonder. How can you tell? As a reader, you know if you’re responding. As a writer, it comes from not forcing the story, from doing the back-of-the-mind dreaming and discussion beforehand, and writing from the mood and frame of mind required for the story—getting into character as the narrator, you might say.

So William the Conqueror died by falling on his saddle pommel, did he, Kuruharan? I never knew that. The saddlehorse that avenged a nation. My kingdom for a horse, indeed!

Class issues are tough for me to think clearly about, Naaramare and LMP. It's difficult to give the different cultures their proper weight, not to assume lower=impoverished in almost every way and upper=higher in almost every way. It might be illuminating to try thinking of different classes as competing tribes, or, better yet, competing cliques of professorial theory in a Univeristy-- the higher, tasteful yet all too painfully self-aware Classisists versus the lusty, simple Postmodern Hermeneuticals --or vice versa, it's just a thought experiment.

[Kuruharan]

The saddlehorse that avenged a nation. My kingdom for a horse, indeed!

The horse was probably expressing its displeasure at having such a fat rider on its back rather than making a political statement. And it was probably a Norman horse.

Rather nasty way to go though. It ruptured his stomach, he lingered quite awhile. *Eck*

Class issues are tough for me to think clearly about, Naaramare and LMP. It's difficult to give the different cultures their proper weight, not to assume lower=impoverished in almost every way and upper=higher in almost every way.

Just to further the confusion, there have been occasions when the politically powerful have not been the economically powerful in a society. Ancient Athens is an example. The citizen body had the political power, but the commercial economy was primarily in the hands of metics (resident aliens) who had no political rights.

[Nar]

That horse did not consider himself a Norman horse! That horse was a member of the brotherhood of horse, striking a determined blow against -- ok, against inconsiderately heavy riders. Yes, that sounds like a crusade a horse could get into.

The situation in ancient Athens does not sound stable-- I thought it was a golden age if they'd only stayed away from Sparta. How did the political center resist the temptation to loot the economic center and why didn't the economic center agitate for more rights? Was this strange truce because campaign finance 'reform' hadn't been invented yet, she asked facetiously? Never mind, off topic. (but I still want to know why it was stable-- or wasn't it stable?) It all goes to show that reasoning about class is complicated, and avoid looking for the underdog, he'll trip you up every time.

I've often wondered if some kind of dream of being able to meet and talk with the ancient Greeks inspired Tolkien's creation of the elves, and a fantasy of going and meeting the noble (but lethal) Romans inspired the creation of the Numenoreans. The enlightened and philosophical ones, pale and beautiful in marble; and the empire-builders, awesome and marital in --um, road-building. Each with their own currently 'dead' language, inaccessible across centuries. Did Tolkien's boyhood curriculum include learning Greek and Latin and reading classics in the original languages, as I fondly imagine all the English students engaged in, translating away?

[The Silver-shod Muse]

...the details that come from elaborating the world as a sociologist or civil engineer will probably kill the wonder.

Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, (in which case I wouldn't be surprised) but I don't think this statement is really valid. If you have ever read 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, a novel written in first person from the POV of a naturalist, you'll see what I mean. The thwarting of a civil engineer or sociologist's logic in Faerieland could, if written correctly, be quite interesting. The wonder of a situation lying outside of science (provided there is such a thing even in Faerieland) would likely be greater viewed through a pragmatic sociologist's eyes than through the eyes of a person that believes him/herself to be intrisically inclined to such "magic".

...why didn't the economic center agitate for more rights?

Because so much of the economic center was tied up in slaves who had absolutely no say in the political center (they comprised something like 30% of the population at one point, though I don't think this number applies specifically Athens) even after they were freed.

[DISCLAIMER] Most of the above statement is based on the later Roman condition, so it may or may not apply in its entirety to Athens)

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks, Nar

::the brooding bard blushes modestly::

I'm going to dip into Owen Barfield's Poetic Diction (at least my memory of it) and apologize before hand if it seems highly esoteric, but it obtains to your comments, as well as those of SSM.

In Poetic Diction, Barfield made the case that we as culture groups (and individuals) have ever increasing consciousness, (Barfield called it an evolution of consciousness) which is mainly caused by becoming aware of new distinctions. For example, neolithic cultures did not distinguish between "breath" and "spirit". For them, the wind was the spirits.

(As an aside, and related to this, I learned that the Celts considered the Alps to be the Great Divide between the land of the living and that of the dead, so when they invaded Rome and Greece in the 4th century BEC, they actually believed that they were boldly going where no living man had gone before, to borrow a rather apt phrase - which I'll come back to below.)

Somewhere along the line, I think it was the Greek philosophers, people started to think that "spirit" and "breath" were not the same thing; they came to think that those who believed that the wind or breath people breathed was spirit, were superstitious. So they had a change in consciousness brought about by a distinction.

Here's Barfield's main point as it obtains to fantasy and myth: whereas something is gained by evolution of consciousness, something is also lost. What is gained, of course, is the new distinction. What is lost is harder to explain or describe, but it is a wholeness, a completeness, that is in fact mythical. It is the attempt to regain the belief (secondary belief, I think he called it) that breath and spirit are indeed the same thing. I think archetypes have something to do with this, but exactly what I cannot say; perhaps they are the wholeness?

Barfield went on to say that poetry is usually an attempt to re-access the wholeness which has been lost through the evolution of consciousness.

Tolkien knew Barfield, and his Beowulf: the Monsters and the Critics and his On Faerie Stories are partially indebted to Barfield's Poetic Diction. If you ever have a chance to pick it up, do so. It was published in the second decade of the 20th century and was seminal and rovulutionary at that time. Heck, still is.

All that has to do with our discussion as follows:

Nar:

...details that destroy the wonder are the ones that arise from expanding the world around the protagonists according to general knowledge, rather than those that...grow and germinate—let a thousand flowers bloom—where the streams/ themes are flowing in and your archetypes welling up from that artesian spring deep below.

This speaks to Barfield, except that instead of saying 'general knowledge' I would say something like 'modern distinctions'.

Silvershod Muse: Your point is well taken, however I would point out that Jules Verne wrote in the late 19th century, when naturalists and civil engineers and sociologists were 'cutting edge', just as these days books and movies about settling Mars, or asteroids being diverted from Earth, and so forth, are 'cutting edge' now. In other words, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea has lost its wonder due to the passage of time. Asteroids being diverted (or not) from impact with Earth will lose their wonder, probably when we have developed the technology to divert them and doing so occurs routinely.

re Athens: Land owning men were the only citizens who could vote. This speaks to #1 the fact that agricultural technology was still the basis for society, and #2 good arable land was (and is) quite scarce in Greece; therefore to own it was a high status symbol. Trade at that time had yet to make headway as a viable and status-adhering occupation.

[Kuruharan]

How did the political center resist the temptation to loot the economic center and why didn't the economic center agitate for more rights? Was this strange truce because campaign finance 'reform' hadn't been invented yet, she asked facetiously? Never mind, off topic. (but I still want to know why it was stable-- or wasn't it stable?)

The Muse gave you part of the answer.

Because so much of the economic center was tied up in slaves who had absolutely no say in the political center

Another part is that, for whatever reason, the Athenians did not think well of artisans and craftsmen. The citizens had no desire to take what the metics had because they did not want to have to perform the (what they considered to be) menial tasks of potter, sandalmaker, etc. They left that to the metics who could become well off financially. Of course since these unsavory occupations were the foundation of much of the commerce the metics were very important economically speaking. This system also allowed the citizens greater time to play politics all day rather than work. The metics would have liked to become citizens, but you must understand that the Greek polis was very much a family affair. It was tied together by different kinships and it was almost unthinkable to the average Greek to allow a foreigner into that group. If the metics had caused any trouble they would have been expelled from the city.

This is not to say that there were not Athenians who were into "trade." However, they were usually involved in an ownership/management capacity. There was a lower class of citizens that had occupations of various sorts, but they were not the dominating economic force.

Land owning men were the only citizens who could vote.

Well, as I said above, that's not entirely true. Cleisthenes, Solon, and Themistocles expanded the citizen body to increase their power base and this eventually included people who did not own "land" per se. These were initially city men of a certain economic value but more metics kept coming into Athens who set up successful businesses numbers of these metics became far more economically prosperous than many citizens. Pericles also eventually restricted citizenship by passing a law that a citizen had to be the child of two citizen parents, or at least the mother's family had to have citizenship. (As an aside, Pericles had to have an exemption to this law passed for his illegitimate son because his legitimate sons died and he had to perpetuate the family name.) It eventually got to the point that it was more important who your parents were than what you owned. This is not to say that land ownership was not important, it was. Most of the leading men of Athens were from the aristocratic landowning class. Eventually the class of citizen business owners became politically important. These were the politicians that aristocratic writers mostly derided as demagogues. Cleon, Hyperbolus, and Cleophon are examples of these. Nicias was an interesting exception to this. His fortune came from "trade," but he was the leader of the "higher" party (economically speaking) for many years.

Hmm, let's see: The High and Mighty Order of the Yakkidy-Yak, the Last Unicorn, Napoleon III, C.S. Lewis, Disney movies, movie monster techniques, Beowulf, mountains and streams and sea-coasts (just love that analogy, as if you couldn't tell), Homer, Rocky and Bullwinkle, Robin Hood, Sir Lancelot, Poirot, the Norman Conquest, Robert L. Stevenson, Athenian economics and politics, with occasionally some guy named Tolkien thrown in for good measure. Yup, this thread sure covers a lot of territory.