Has it all been said?

[davem]

It seems that most of the new Tolkien related books coming out are mainly about Tolkien himself, rather than about the stories & the world he created. The focus now seems to be on his life & infuences, rather than on the creation.

Is Tolkien himself as, or perhaps more, important than the stories he told - or is it simply that there is only so much one can say about stories which we love without pulling them to pieces & just being left with vaguely interesting 'shreds'? Certainly the next two major works - Hammond & Scull's Tolkien Companion & Guide & Routledge's Tolkien Encyclopedia seem to be more about the creator than the creation.

A 'good thing'? Well, Tolkien himself was not a fan of 'biography' - as he stated on numerous occasions. He felt that his stories were what mattered & saw a real danger in looking too deeply into his own life & influences. Even in-depth analysis of the stories & their 'meaning' wasn't something he seemed very keen on - despite his own tendency to over analyse his work (cf the Letters).

For most of us it is the actual experience of being 'in' Middle-earth that matters. My own forays into 'analysis' with the recent LotR CbC read through was an odd one. I learned a lot, but I'm not sure it was all worth learning. Usually when I read the book I just let the experience 'wash' over me & let myself just be swept along without analysing what's going on - & to be honest that's what I enjoy about it. Its why I avoided the Hobbit CbC in the main. The more the author & his 'sources' intrude on my consciousness the more of a 'false' construction it all seems to become.

The recent 50th Anniversary edition of LotR had 300-400 changes made to produce the text 'Tolkien really intended' to give his readers, & I wondered why they bothered. Subtle changes of a word here or there, the capitalisation of a previously un-capitalised word, etc, seems obsessive (not that Tolkien himself wasn't obsessive - but shouldn't an artist be obsessive over his creation? That doesn't require us to be equally obsessive, does it?). This, it seems to me, is due to an obsession with placing the creator above the creation, placing him in the dominant position, when he himself wanted the opposite to be the case.

So, are we destined to see the creation become increasingly placed in the service of finding out more & more detail about the creator? And, if so, will we actually gain all that much from doing so? I just found myself in the position of buying either the latest volume of Tolkien Studies, which includes lots of analysis & investigation of the man & his background sources, or the Houghton Mifflin 50th Anniversary edition of LotR. I bought the latter, 'cos its LotR, it looks nice (production values nowhere near as high as the superior Harper Collins 50th Anniversary edition btw - if you're stuck choosing between them). Now, I'll probably get around to buying TS3 eventually, along with the Companion & Guide. I may even save up for the Encyclopedia. But I'm not sure whether I'll get too much out of them that will stay with me.

Of course, after exploring Middle-earth we all want more, but is the latest tendency - to give us more of Tolkien himself - really satisfying that need, or is it leading us down a blind alley to a dead end? I'm starting to wonder whether what we're all looking for isn't more likely to be found in (good) fan-fic than in 'Tolkien Studies'.

[HerenIstarion]

It seems to me that in the very asking of the question you partially answer it in favour of the latter option. Indeed, sub-creation is finite - you can't get more out than there was put in. But why 'dead end'? Creator is no less interesting, and even more interesting, since his [sub]creation was only part of him, and there must be 'layers' upon 'layers' of things other.

Though, learning 'about' the man always seemed to me an approach losing as compared to 'knowing the man'. Unfortunately, we can no more get to 'know the man', but we may, at least, get to know each other (feat we already are on the way of accomplishing, however imperfect the medium may be) on the way, which would be quite signigicant gain.

To add to the saying, 'those to seek shall find', but who ever said they'll find exactly the thing they were looking for?

Evasive mood on me, but maybe I'll get back to this later...

[Child of the 7th Age]

I'm starting to wonder whether what we're all looking for isn't more likely to be found in (good) fan-fic than in 'Tolkien Studies'.

Yes. Hopefully I will not be tossed out of the Books forum for saying this, but I agree.

I will not get into the discussion of the scholarly literature coming out this year, at least not in this particular post, since I am keeling over and about to fall asleep. And I will certainly concede that much of what passes as fanfiction is not well done. I've said this before on other threads, but I think it bears repeating. I feel that in the long run--the very long run after copyright expires--that, if Middle-earth survives as "true myth", it will eventually go the same path as the Arthurian legend, albeit in a modern mode and with modern means of transmission.

The heart of the thing lies in the stories, and there will be---dare I say must be--other storytellers to carry on the world. Otherwise, it becomes a dead place that only scholars mull over. A dead place will lose its vitality and wither, and I don't want that to happen to Middle-earth. When Tolkien rhapsodized in his Letters about the need for other hands to fill in the empty spaces, I don't think he was kidding. Maybe he was thinking more of music and art, but I believe he would eventually have extended that to written and spoken words. That is the nature of myth. To survive in a meaningful form, myth must be constantly reinterpreted. The best way to do that is not by scholarly essays but by stories.

Some of my fondest depictions of the Arthurian world are through "secondary" authors like T. H. White, who essentially gave us a reinterpretation of Mallory. His story did not take away anything from Mallory but merely added something new. Someday, perhaps, eons in the future, if the Middle-earth writings survive Tolkien will have a T.H. White as Mallory had one (and Mallory himself, of course, is a gloss on even earlier chroniclers of the Arthurian tale). As a man who loved and believed in myth, Tolkien, I think, would not have disapproved.

I love to read some of the threads in the Books forum but this is why I put most of my personal energy into the RPG forums and private short fanfics. I truly believe that, if all I had focused on was the scholarly end of things, I might have left the Downs some time ago. As it is, I feel I have a great deal more that needs to be said, but largely in story format. It's the pull of the story that draws me back.

This is probably way off topic from what you wanted and, if so, I apologize.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Child

This is probably way off topic from what you wanted and, if so, I apologize.

Its not.

I find myself wondering what would happen if CT was to be a little bit more 'lax' in his approach to copyright over the stories. His approach seems to be that he puts up with what he can't do anything about. CT is, I suppose, in the main responsible for the 'scholarly', creator rather than creation approach. No-one can legally write & publish Middle-earth fiction, so writing about M-e & its creator is the only option. Not that I'm entirely decrying the 'scholarly' stuff. Shippey & Flieger among others have shed important new light on M-e. But is that what we really want? Don't we actually want more tales of Elves & Hobbits (& Dragons!), rather than more analysis of Tolkien's use of the Legends of the Liosalfar, or the way the Kalevala inspired the Legendarium?

Of course, one cannot expect CT to allow a free for all - as we've seen most fan-fic is not simply poor, its embarrassingly bad! Also, one could argue that writers should come up with their own stuff & not 'leech' off others - to put it at its most extreme. But there may well be a 'White' out there who could do more with the material, but is not allowed to. And fantasy as a genre uses 'Tolkienian' themes already. Yet CT seems desirous that his father's creation be seen, & treated, not as a mythology, but as a literary work.

All the scholarly analysis will not make M-e any more accessible, or really, any more interesting. In fact, its quite likely to make it less so, a it will likely put off readers who just want to wander the forests of M-e & visit the Elves. There's a lot more of Sam in most of us than of Pengolodh. I think Tolkien knew this. I find myself wishing that Priscilla, Michael or John had been able to be that 'Sam' as Christopher is that 'Pengolodh'.

But there's the rub. One could argue that PJ is a kind of 'Sam', giving us another account of M-e - & I'm not a fan of what he did! So I can't say I'd be pleased with what the 'Sams' produced. However, that's my opinion. Some good things would undoubtedly come of allowing others to use the materials Tolkien gifted us with.

But this is not really about arguing for more fan-fic. I suppose its a bit of a rant against a 'scholarly' approach which inevitably moves towards a deeper & deeper analysis of aspects of Tolkien's creation which have at best a curiosity value for a certain type of 'intellectual' fan.

We seem to be on the verge of a two-tier fandom - the ones who want to, if not demolish the Tower, at least want to perform analyses on its stones, & the ones who simply want to climb it & look out on the Sea. After all, there are very few other things one can do with such a Tower.

[Holbytlass]

And when one loves, one wants to know...more.
Yes, there is that danger of strapping the beloved on the surgical table and dissecting. But where is that fine line? I find that most of the works people write in trying to carry on the mythology is poor because they didn't seem to do research (or not enough).

It's what I try to tell my sister who wants to write a published fantasy story and she thinks it's good because she named her characters odd names.

[davem]

Well, I didn't set out in this thread to advocate the writing of fan fic, so I can't really argue in favour of it.

My point was about the increasing amount of secondary literature. I can only imagine the effect on a potential reader of Tolkien's works wandering into a largish bookstore & seeing all those books there 'explaining' the meaning of Tolkien's work. They're likely to think 'Whoa! the book itself is over a 1000 pages, if I have to read a whole lot of other books to explain it to me as well, I'll just go for something simpler!'.

The whole point of LotR is that it is a beautiful, moving story, with characters & places we love, not some complex text which has to be translated, de-constructed & explained to the uninitiated .

And there's another thing - some 'fans' actually seem to get off on knowing more than others & being able to 'deliver the LAW about Tolkien' from their own self built pulpit, crushing any 'heresies' with a blistering quote from p.379 of HoM-e 4 like a thunderbolt from on high.

What all the secondary stuff, the scholarly analysis, does is take away the fun, the sheer pleasure of the stories.

So, I'm not criticising someone who wants to go in for all that kind of thing. It just seems to me that the interesting stuff has mostly been said by the serious scholars & that what's coming out now is so obscure as to be irrelevant to most of us, & that even the interesting stuff can actually get in the way.

[Lalwendë]

I think that the profusion of books on Tolkien are a sign of the times.

I was thinking the other day about how 15 years ago our newspapers had news in them, and how celebrity stories were only found in the Sunday tabloids, but today all the papers are stuffed full of celebrity stories - even the broadsheets had front pages about Macca's divorce. It's because we've slipped deep into celebrity culture. This has had a big effect on the publishing houses as they seek t fill Waterstones with ever more biography and autobiography. Geri Halliwell has written two already and we are facing the prospect of one from Chantelle, the noby made famous by going on Celeb Big Brother a few months ago!

Tolkien is not exempt from this. We are fans, and what's more, we are pretty rabid, obsessed fans. So the publishing houses know that a new book on Tolkien will sell. So they publish them.

I can't help thinking that anyone wanting an academic career would do well to get into Tolkien as they will soon become a mini-celebrity themselves, attracting large queues for book signings at Tolkien conferences, and supplementing a meagre academic salary in the process. Much better to get into being a Tolkien scholar than becoming an expert on obscure 19th century chapbooks or somesuch.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

Has it all been said?

I seriously doubt that davem would ever reach a limit on what he can say. About Tolkien or about any topic I suspect.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Yet CT seems desirous that his father's creation be seen, & treated, not as a mythology, but as a literary work.

This is hardly surprising given that CT is an academic, a literary academic and more than anyone must have been aware of the amusement bordering on scorn with which his father's work was treated by colleagues in his lifetime and the literati since.


While I desperately wanted Middle Earth to be real when I was 12, now I can't help thinking that to treat it as a mythology primarily is to demean Tolkien's achievement in creating what seems plausible as a mythology, what seems plausible as a world.

For myself, I don't have a problem with the scholarly works - and in most bookshops you are unlikely to find many on the shelf so I don't think they are going to daunt that many people.

I own all of HoME and have gained great pleasure from some of it ( I like knowing what Elf marriage rites were and the names of Imrahil's children ) other parts I haven't even looked at yet. People will find their own level.

I enjoy some fanfic and RPG but I wouldn't want any "authorised". And HoME is a great resource for those of us who want to RPG with respect to the integrity of Tolkien's creation. Personally I am very glad that CT inclination or duty turned him to editing his fathers notes rather than using them to create "new" stories. THe only caveat is that there must be so much he "knows" through conversations etc but hasn't included in HoME due to lack of documentation. I just hope that he has recorded it somewhere....

I do find it a little ironic that having been embarrassed by my love of Tolkien during my degree that it is cause for compalint that JRRT is being taken TOO seriously by the scholars.

The companion is wonderful by the way...

[Lalwendë]

No, I don't want any 'authorised' fan-fic either. Not because I think it is bad (much of it is very good), but because I don't want the waters to be muddied. I want to read what Tolkien wrote, and to know that any other 'spin-offs' are just that, spin-offs. I want clear lines where possible.

Aside from anything else, this helps keep it clear what Tolkien wrote and what he did not. I've read a fair few posts/articles where people have named all the Nazgul and claimed their information was correct because 'it's in the books'. But it isn't. That info came from a computer game as far as I know. Imagine how much misinformation there would be if we had authorised fan fiction?

The other thing is that Tolkien's work is not a natural mythology, it is a created one. I wonder how much it really has to say about the history of our real world? Do 'natural' mythologies have more to say about the 'truth'? I'd hate to think that people ditched what was left of England's actual folklore and myth in favour of what Tolkien had written down. That would be very sad indeed.

[davem]

Mith. I understand what you mean. I also own (& have read!) HoM-e (in paperback & the three volume hardback set in the slipcase. I'm not saying it shouldn't have been produced - we all owe CT a debt of thanks.

I also own a good 50-60 volumes of secondary literature on Tolkien, so I'm not opposed to such things. My point was that the important things on Tolkien seem to have been said & what we're getting now is really not all that important - essays in the last two volumes of Tolkien Studies have speculated on the possible influence on Tolkien of King Solomon's Mines & The Old Curiosity Shop. We've had a slew of books showing how LotR is a 'fundamentally Christian work', or 'revealing' the Norse & Celtic influences on Tolkien's writings. The point is - we know all that - whether we agree with it or not is another matter.

now I can't help thinking that to treat it as a mythology primarily is to demean Tolkien's achievement in creating what seems plausible as a mythology, what seems plausible as a world.

I don't see that it is - that was Tolkien's desire - to create a mythology he could dedicate to his country. Neither am I arguing for an 'authorised' sequel(s). I'm making the point that all we are getting now is a scholarly dissection (with an increasing obsession with the obscure & unnecessary) & that that is not what attracted us to Tolkien's creation in the first place, or what draws us back to it.

[Mithalwen]

I mean that if people think of it as a "true" mythology as opposed to a synthetic one it means that Tolkien's role is forgotten... so successful he disappears.

While there may be a good deal of dross to gold, if it means that Tolkien takes his proper place in the literary world rather than being regarded as "unplaceable".

Actually, having read Haggard and seen paralels drawn elsewhere ..I think that sounds interesting. I haven't read The Old Curiosity Shop (can't get beyond Wilde's comment about the death of Little Nell) so that would be less so.... interesting is very subjective...... Tolkien recognised this....... I guess even the most hardened fan has to admit that there is a point where interest flags (mine did in the early volumes of HoME but I read the History of LoTR ones from cover to cover) and accept that there are people more obsessed than you. In some ways that is comforting......

[davem]

I mean that if people think of it as a "true" mythology as opposed to a synthetic one it means that Tolkien's role is forgotten... so successful he disappears.

I suspect he may have wanted that.The art transcends the artist. I'm not sure what we gain by knowing so much about Tolkien's personal history. Doesn't it get in the way? If we read The Passage of the Marshes with thoughts of Tolkien's Somme experiences in our minds we are not fully 'there' with Frodo & Sam & the power of the moment will be lost on us. Same with the 'fact' that there are 'similarities' between the descriptions of Mordor & Dickens description of factory polluted northern towns.

While there may be a good deal of dross to gold, if it means that Tolkien takes his proper place in the literary world rather than being regarded as "unplaceable".

Is that really important? I'm less & less interested in whether Tolkien is accepted into the Literature Hall of Fame. I just want to wander in Middle-earth. That's why I came to love Tolkien's work in the first place. I didn't read LotR or TH for the first time thinking 'Well, I'm shocked that this wasn't in the classics section along with Cervantes & Austen! I must campaign to get this book accepted by the literati!' I just fell in love with world Tolkien had created.

As I say, my complaint is that the scholars don't seem to be saying anything of any great importance anymore. Shippey's Author of the Century is an important work, so is Fliger's Splintered Light, & A Question of Time. But those books are years old. What we are getting now is just more & more about less & less. And none of it has any of the 'magic' that I find in an actual reading of the stories.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Is that really important? I'm less & less interested in whether Tolkien is accepted into the Literature Hall of Fame. I just want to wander in Middle-earth. That's why I came to love Tolkien's work in the first place. I didn't read LotR or TH for the first time thinking 'Well, I'm shocked that this wasn't in the classics section along with Cervantes & Austen! I must campaign to get this book accepted by the literati!' I just fell in love with world Tolkien had created.

I fell in love with the world and then had to spend 4 years more or less in the closet during my literature degree. Tolkien fandom was a love that dare not speak it's name outside linguistics class. So I am glad that he is being taken seriously. As someone who prefers the world to the stories, the idea that it was influenced by the Somme, which had never occured to me, may actually get me to reread what I found one of the most tedious parts of the book.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

I fell in love with the world and then had to spend 4 years more or less in the closet during my literature degree. Tolkien fandom was a love that dare not speak it's name outside linguistics class. So I am glad that he is being taken seriously. As someone who prefers the world to the stories, the idea that it was influenced by the Somme, which had never occured to me, may actually get me to reread what I found one of the most tedious parts of the book.

Having missed out on 'Higher' education this is a trauma I have managed to avoid. I'm not sure I would have cared all that much about the reaction of others even so. As to Tolkien being 'taken seriously' I think those who love the stories have always taken him seriously & as far as the others are concerned I simply couldn't care less about them or their opinions - on Tolkien or probably anything else.

the idea that it was influenced by the Somme, which had never occured to me

John Garth's book, Tolkien & the Great War, will tell you everything you want to know. And that one is another of the very few recent books on Tolkien that is worth reading. Also full of interesting stuff on the early phases of the Legendarium.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by davem

Having missed out on 'Higher' education this is a trauma I have managed to avoid. I'm not sure I would have cared all that much about the reaction of others even so. As to Tolkien being 'taken seriously' I think those who love the stories have always taken him seriously & as far as the others are concerned I simply couldn't care less about them or their opinions - on Tolkien or probably anything else.
.

Well since they marked my essays I had to care to a point . As for my peers, I wasn't particularly confident at 19 and the flaky - barking mad thing isn't an entirely recent development. Fortunately by the time I left, I had learnt to discern between sophistication and pretentiousness...... which is why I am still in touch with only a couple of people on my course....

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Well since they marked my essays I had to care to a point . As for my peers, I wasn't particularly confident at 19 and the flaky - barking mad thing isn't an entirely recent development. Fortunately by the time I left, I had learnt to discern between sophistication and pretentiousness...... which is why I am still in touch with only a couple of people on my course....

What - they'd have marked you down for liking Tolkien?? Who was the tutor - a certain Ms Greer?

I suppose the danger soon will be getting marked down for not liking Tolkien.

[Mithalwen]

Well my course was dominated by extremely pretentious people who had chosen it because it had a practical drama and they wanted to go to RADA but couldn't. But the lecturers seemed to love them and they talked about people I had never heard of and made me feel like a peasant. It was fairly clear that my tastes were desperately unfashionable and talking about them was not going to do me any favours... so I rather like the idea that they will have to read Tolkien as well as Bourroughs

The female lecturers were better ... in one seminar a tutor put to rest one childhood anxiety by explaining how to escape Daleks she and Sue Harper were fabulous. Greer was lecturing at Oxford when I did my PGCE but unfortunately the pesky teaching prac got in the way. In time I am sure she will produce "The Elven Eunuch" or some such..... given time...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

so I rather like the idea that they will have to read Tolkien as well as Bourroughs

Yes, but they'll make it serious. It will be a subject for study, a chore, something to get 'points' for doing, in order to get a career. Which is the way it all seems to be going. At least when Tolkien's work was looked down on it was read purely for pleasure - no reader was in it for the money. No-one was out to become an 'expert'. I read so many articles on 'Tolkien' now & just think 'Yeah, very clever, but why have you done this? What is the point in showing that? As an example, the other day I posted something on the CbC thread about a possible inspiration for Galadriel's temptation scene in Kipling's Rewards & Fairies. We can speculate Tolkien would have read that book (as Hammond & Scull pointed out Hobbits were probably inspired in part by the character Puck in that book & Puck of Pook's Hill. It was possibly worth mentioning in passing, having some curiosity value. It was not deserving of a long scholarly essay on Kipling's influence on Tolkien, but I've no doubt someone has done that - or will do. I could also mention that in the same book one of the characters mentions 'talking trees', & another one repeatedly says 'Yes, yess!, but its hardly worth it. It doesn't matter that Tolkien read the book & was unconsciously (or even consciously) inspired by it. Who really cares? But so much of what is being written by Tolkien scholars now is on the same level.

There are elements in the Legendarium which can perhaps be traced back to Tolkien's reading of Dusany or Morris, Wyke-Smith's Snergs, Wind in the Willows & numerous other works of contemporary fiction as well as to the Eddas, the Kalevala & the Mabinogion. But there doesn't seem to be any real insights coming out now & in most of the stuff that's being produced the connection to Tolkien is highly tenuous, & in many cases Tolkien's work is used merely as a jumping off point for unconnected waffling by individuals who seem only to be using Tolkien's name to get their work published.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I don't have a problem with all the Tolkien-centered analyses being published...but they're really not my thing.

To a point, it is interesting to read peoples' opinions on where or what his inspiration for various things came from...But much of that is just theorizing, and nothing will ever be known for certain. And after a while it begins to feel like "who cares?"

I own and have read a few volumes of HOME, and mean to check the others that I haven't out from the library this summer (since buying the whole thing would be rather expensive, even in paperback). I find it fascinating and occasionally funny (Strider as a hobbit who wore shoes?!), because I enjoy watching LOTR evolve on the page, and because it fills in some blanks. I also mean to find a copy of Letters somewhere (I can't find it through the library, so I'll probably wind up buying it). I have read a few biographies of Tolkien, but that list there is about as far as I'll probably ever go into the field of Tolkien scholarism.

Originally Posted by davem

Yes, but they'll make it serious. It will be a subject for study, a chore, something to get 'points' for doing, in order to get a career.

I almost can't find the words to express how terrible I think that would be.

I honestly hope that LOTR never becomes one of those books that is required to be read and analyzed in classrooms. The reason for this is that through middle school and the four years of high school, I have had to read and then write on many so-called classics that I just plain didn't like. I am an avid reader (which is how I came upon Tolkien), and something about having someone else's opinion of Literature being forced upon me just rubbed me the wrong way.

I understand that some kids may never read unless required to for class (and some not even then), but I have always hated the way that books were taught--tests, pop quizzes, and essays that if not done properly would cause you to fail. Through school, I was force-fed and consequently hated many books that, if left to my own devices, I may eventually have discovered for myself and loved.

I don't want Tolkien to be forced on kids. Writing about his books here and elsewhere is something I do out of love for the story, out of trying to fill some gap inside myself, rather than trying to earn a grade and get out of school. I don't want people to lose that. I don't want to be required to compare and contrast Tolkien and other authors of his time. I don't want to be required to write an essay on the "theme" of LOTR, because it would turn out to be mostly fabricated into what I think will get me a good grade based on the teacher's preferences, rather than what I truly believe. The only reason I'd like to be given a test that contains identifying which quote was said by whom, and difficult-to-find facts is because I'd get an easy A. I don't want any of that...unless I choose to do it myself, from my heart, just for fun.

And I did just that... When I was in 10th grade (I was 15-16 years old, for international 'Downers), my main subject of dread on a state-issued standardized test was the essay section. To my absolute joy and triumph, the question that year was about heroism in literature. It was an immediate adrenaline shot. I wrote about Sam. It's a pity I couldn't keep my essay because it was definitely the best thing I have ever written, especially under pressure with little planning. The graders thought so too--I got the highest grade possible. And my parents took me out for ice cream for supper. Prior to turning to LOTR, I had swiftly gone through, in my mind, a list of possible books, all of which I'd read for school, on the premise that perhaps writing about a so-called "classic" would get me a higher grade. I ruled every single one of them out, in one fell swoop: who wants to write even more about a book that they'd already been forced to analyze? Had I been required to read LOTR, I may have rejected that one, too, on the basis that I'd had waaaaaaay more than enough of that book.

I read LOTR with joy in my heart and pure excitement at having discovered for myself a new world, a truly beautiful book. I don't want anyone to lose that wonder. I do not want students to grumble about having to read some dumb book for homework, when they could be watching TV or playing video games. I don't want them to skim and skip in order to get it over with. I don't want them to leave their essays to the last minute because they have to write *gasp!* three whole pages on the theme of some 1,000 page book that they didn't want to read in the first place. I want them to cheer for Eowyn, cry with Sam, celebrate simple joys in life alongside Bilbo, watch the stars with the Elves, and ride with the Rohirrim. I want them to fall head-over-heels into Middle-earth. I want them to enjoy the journey.

I'm sure some of these hypothetical students would come out of reading LOTR with a new love for Middle-earth, but that would be a very small percentage. But for the majority, it would be relegated to that space in the back of the mind also used for the storage of outlandish chemistry formulas, confusing math equations...or whatever other schoolish things that each student found particularly frustrating and inapplicable to later life and/or was particularly reluctant to learn.

I come to the 'Downs because I want to talk about LOTR, because I feel the need to discuss the more obscure things to be found within Middle-earth. I read and write long, drawn-out posts like this one because I want to. Not because I have to. Discovery of LOTR should be for everyone what it was for most of us: a breath of fresh air, something to be read and enjoyed and loved. Not something that is to be suffered through for a grade.

Ok, that may not have been particularly on-topic. Sorry about that, but that particular rant has been lurking darkly inside me for a long time.

[HerenIstarion]

Yes, but they'll make it serious. It will be a subject for study, a chore, something to get 'points' for doing, in order to get a career.

That being the fate of many things else. Take Formula 1 racing, per instance.

But everyone would be still free to assume their own approach, won't they? Besides, approaches can be combined.

I almost can't find the words to express how terrible I think that would be.

Do not panic yet (at all?), Big Brother haven't come upon us to force us into reading essays on Kipling's influence on Tolkien. Let them who will be. Most modern readings of Plato are for 'serious' reasons, but I do personally know a chap who reads Plato for fan as a bedtime reading. (And his 'fan' fascination with Plato did not hinder his 'expert' dissertation on Plato, I believe it rather helped him to get his PhD)

[Lalwendë]

The whole business of doing a degree in English is designed to make you almost hate literature. I wouldn't recommend the subject to someone who finds a lot of 'magic' in their leisure reading, as you will be required to pull apart and analyse everything you read, and you will also have to read a lot - not just the primary texts (AKA the novel, story, or poem, in human language) but also many critical works and articles. You will be required not just to analyse but to apply types of critical analysis, maybe doing a feminist criticism or a marxist one or a post structuralist one.

An English degree can be very nice and relaxing and enjoyable with its lack of classes, but to do well, you may risk learning to hate reading.

I once worked in a school in Barnsley and asked another English teacher what she made of the books up for the Booker prize. She asked me what the Booker prize was, and being shocked I asked if she didn't read much these days. "Oh," she told me, "I've never read a book since University. I don't like reading." That kind of attitude was, I'm afraid, very common among the people studying English with me.

davem knows I don't bother reading all these critical books from cover to cover. I will pick one up and skim through to see if there is anything of interest, and if there isn't, then I won't waste my time. I also skim read articles. If any points come up that are of interest then I'll go back and read more deeply. I do this as this is what I learned to do at University. It would have been impossible to get any work at all done otherwise!

What I think the profusion of articles and scholarly works tells us is that there are a large number of fans who read everything. They must know every last fact and opinion and they measure themselves against the Tolkien yardstick of perfection. I wonder if scholars of Jane Austen or Shakespeare do this?

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

It just seems to me that the interesting stuff has mostly been said by the serious scholars & that what's coming out now is so obscure as to be irrelevant to most of us, & that even the interesting stuff can actually get in the way.

I rather suspect that scholarship is much like fandom in that it has trends and styles and special interests. Once a topic has been explored to the extent that either scholars or fans wish, it quietly is relegated to the back of the library shelves or discussion forum backpages and a new topic arises.

What is fascinating about scholarship (as about pop culture or fandom) is that all the interesting stuff is never done and said. The boredom lies only in the minds of those who cannot see beyond the current fad. One particular approach will hold sway for awhile but it will pass and someone else, with a different approach, will suddenly bring to light an entirely new idea or avenue of thought. The current fad for sources which bores davem (and in some of its applications, me) will wear itself out eventually OR will be overwhelmed by some scholars' new approach. That new approach will be something inspired by an entirely new imaginative appreciation of Tolkien and his stories and will lead to a swarm of papers in its fashion, eventually to fade out and be replaced by a new 'paradigm shift'. We need only consider the changes in, say, the appreciation of Kipling, to understand that scholarship as with fandom has its ebb and flow.

It is true that students moan about how everything has already been said about Shakespeare, or about Milton, or, now perhaps about Tolkien, but what is interesting is how new approaches arise which provide new ways of thinking about a story or an author. Literature, after all, isn't an archeology of digging up what is significant, but a vital process of the human mind, of making connections. Each new reading or new generation of readers will find its own unique approach, taste, preferences. Maybe the current trend is one which some fans don't appreciate, but they don't need to read it. And it won't necessarily remain the favoured way of reading. Some new writer will come along and make us see story in a new way--the way Tolkien made students see Beowulf or fairey in a new way--and bam! people will wonder, hey, didn't Tolkien do that too? And they'll go back and read LotR in light of what that other writer taught them about story, or about character, and suddenly, there will be new interesting stuff to see in Tolkien.

In short, there is no limit to readers' or scholars' or fans' imaginations. Sometimes they just have to work a vein to death before finding new gems down another shaft.

Oh, and has Christopher Tolkien ever made any public comments on the scholarly stuff? As a scholar himself, has he expressed any opinion about that heavy lable "Tolkien Studies"?

You know, early BD topics of 'merit' were quite different from what they were when I joined, and again different now from the popular threads. Some people care that the Legendarium has to be consistent, and suss out every potential inconsistency. Others just enjoy the stories. And still others are intrigued by how comparing events and characters sheds new ways of thinking about them. And still others find their way back to earlier mythologies and legends through Tolkien. Chaqu' un a sa gout.

[davem]

Well, we've had the 'sources' approach, the 'biographical' approach', the 'religio-philosophical' approach & the 'socio-cultural-historical' approach. We've had the 'applicability' approach ('ie 'This is what it means to me'). I'm sure there will be new angles/insights from the 'scholars', but the 'creative' side seems to be very much a poor second, apart from fan-fic. In other words the division seems to be 'scholarly=Proffessional' & 'creative=Amateur'.

It could be argued, I suppose, that the 'creative' side could include those professional writers of fantasy who were inspired by Tolkien to create their own secondary worlds (Patricia McKillip & Gene Wolf spring to mind), or the movie makers & the people behind the musical.

As an aside I do find myself wondering how much 'analysis' a work of literature can survive? Does a novel only get accepted as 'literature' once it can be dissected for analysis & taught in class?

[davem]

The Book that Inspired Tolkien (yes, another one)

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1150764276 http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...=UTF8&v=glance

Clearly a bit of a cash-in on Tolkien's name, but more confirmation that Tolkien was inspired as much by contemporary literature as by ancient myths. That said, its probably only the Tolkien connection that has seen this work published. I also notice that recent re-prints of some of Morris's romances are sold as 'books that inspired Tolkien'. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...books&v=glance

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...books&v=glance

(Note in both cases how Tolkien's name is more prominent on the cover than Morris's)
This is obviously another attempt to use Tolkien. Having said that, the book does look interesting....

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Surely there can't be more than one book that inspired Tolkien? Nobody reads that much.

Actually, quite a few of the elements of Tolkien's fiction are present in Morris, but the earlier writer tends to base his fantasy more firmly on actual history and legend. Whereas Tolkien would adopt a story, add elements of another and then give the whole a personal twist, Morris would re-tell one story in his own style. Both were drawing inspiration from the medieval world, but they did so in different ways. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Tolkien had read and enjoyed medieval historical fiction (perhaps we'll see Conan Doyle's The White Company and Sir Nigel released with a similar puff soon), but all this publisher's blurb is just that: marketing spiel with no real meaning. William Morris at least deserves better of posterity than to sit in Tolkien's shadow.

[davem]

I've found myself wondering whether the series of collected Myths & Legends published by Gresham in the first two decades of the 20th century, by writers like Donald Mackenzie & Lewis Spence were read by Tolkien. Don't know if anyone knows? Many of them were reprinted in p/b about 10 years ago (I have about 20 volumes - plus one original - Mackenzies Teutonic Myth & Legend - from around 1910). There was a massive surge of interest in myth & legend around the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

Its easy to get the idea that Tolkien had wandered into some old library & pulled down original medieval texts of the shelves which no-one had looked at for centuries. Not the case at all. Fantastic literature drawing on ancient myths was a well established genre pre-Tolkien. Morris, MacDonald, Eddison, Dunsany, Howard, Lovecraft & Mirlees (along with Haggard & Buchan), among others, were/had been producing 'fantasy' for a good while & reviewers were able to place Mr Baggins comfortably into the genre of 'children's fantasy along with Alice, Wind in the Willows, the Snergs, etc.

In other words, we should not be surprised at discovering books which 'inspired' Tolkien. Effectively, we've been mislead by the emphasis placed on early sources.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

I also own a good 50-60 volumes of secondary literature on Tolkien

Gah! I knew that Tolkien-related books have been steadily proliferating since the movies, but I had no idea there was this much.

Originally Posted by Lal

The whole business of doing a degree in English is designed to make you almost hate literature. I wouldn't recommend the subject to someone who finds a lot of 'magic' in their leisure reading, as you will be required to pull apart and analyse everything you read, and you will also have to read a lot - not just the primary texts (AKA the novel, story, or poem, in human language) but also many critical works and articles. You will be required not just to analyse but to apply types of critical analysis, maybe doing a feminist criticism or a marxist one or a post structuralist one.

Or you may become an ironic trickster, the type who can magically conjure themes, symbols, allusions, and whatnot out of the most innocuous details of a story, all the while laughing up your sleeve while your professor eats it up with a spoon.

Analyses in Books in the far distant past used to treat the texts on their own terms, almost as history rather than literature. Though this still occurs from time to time, nowadays literary-criticism type analysis is the order of the day in the deeper threads. It's interesting how this shift has mirrored the evolution of the secondary literature in a way -- remember back when secondary Tolkien literature meant Foster's Middle-earth companion, Fonstad's Atlas, I.C.E.'s Middle-earth Roleplaying game (MERP), the odd book on learning Elvish? These were all creative responses to Tolkien, however flawed.

Now -- literally dozens of texts analyzing Middle-earth, its meaning, its symbols, its influences and history. Even Christopher went through this arc -- Silmarillion to History of Middle-earth. For my tastes, the analyses are a lesser response. In fact I'm hardly interested in them at all, and don't own a single "analysis of Tolkien" type text.

Learning about sources and inspirations of a favorite author can lead you to many interesting works. But in my opinion, if you read Tolkien's inspirations (or supposed inspirations) primarily with an eye out for how they influenced the professor, you're doing both Tolkien and the original work a disservice.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lal

The whole business of doing a degree in English is designed to make you almost hate literature. I wouldn't recommend the subject to someone who finds a lot of 'magic' in their leisure reading, as you will be required to pull apart and analyse everything you read, and you will also have to read a lot - not just the primary texts (AKA the novel, story, or poem, in human language) but also many critical works and articles. You will be required not just to analyse but to apply types of critical analysis, maybe doing a feminist criticism or a marxist one or a post structuralist one.

Originally Posted by davem

Well, we've had the 'sources' approach, the 'biographical' approach', the 'religio-philosophical' approach & the 'socio-cultural-historical' approach. We've had the 'applicability' approach ('ie 'This is what it means to me'). I'm sure there will be new angles/insights from the 'scholars', but the 'creative' side seems to be very much a poor second, apart from fan-fic. In other words the division seems to be 'scholarly=Proffessional' & 'creative=Amateur'.

It could be argued, I suppose, that the 'creative' side could include those professional writers of fantasy who were inspired by Tolkien to create their own secondary worlds (Patricia McKillip & Gene Wolf spring to mind), or the movie makers & the people behind the musical.

As an aside I do find myself wondering how much 'analysis' a work of literature can survive? Does a novel only get accepted as 'literature' once it can be dissected for analysis & taught in class?

On the one hand, I think both Lal and davem rightly identify an overwhelming aspect of formal English studies, its tendency towards autopsy. Traditional university curricula gave prominence to abstract thought and philosophical debate and looked it long nose down at many things which didn't fit this ancient model of study. The themes and topics and approaches at universities have shifted slightly in the last few years and performing arts as well as creative studies can be found at least in the newer unis--dare I say redbrick?

On the other hand, I am often amused by those who have such a negative response to traditional literary studies, because Tolkien himself was part of that entire enterprise. While his best work opened up literature to appreciation as literature (my own POV here), he also produced, as an academic, lots of textual analysis of language that ignored the creative aspects of the books--or manuscripts as the case was. (For a very tiny look at that aspect, see this post about Tolkien on medieval dialect )

At its best, discussion of literature ought to be a process of learning how to read with greater awareness, which to my mind means learning how to appreciate/enjoy story and book and verse in as wide a range as possible. Like all learning, sometimes this requires analysis. It also requires self-reflection and awareness of all the 'tricks' of language available to writers. Too often academics don't approach stories as creative writers would, but that in itself does not mean their approach can't produce minds in greater awareness of themselves and of story. My favourite teachers were always those who insisted upon a reading of the text and not the outside apparatus of scholarship, except where that scholarship actually illuminated something. One sad result of all the emphasis on 'critical theory' it seems to me is this emphasis on the theorists first and the creative texts second. Backwards!

Originally Posted by Mister U

Learning about sources and inspirations of a favorite author can lead you to many interesting works. But in my opinion, if you read Tolkien's inspirations (or supposed inspirations) primarily with an eye out for how they influenced the professor, you're doing both Tolkien and the original work a disservice.

I think this is the wrong way 'round--or maybe we are agreeing. I don't think people necessarily read "the sources" to understand how they influenced Tolkien--this was always one of the reasons why I downplay 'author' as opposed to 'text'--but because they are interested in fantasy, in all its forms and permutations. It is a shame that De La Motte Fouqué is being marketed as Tolkien's 'source', but that marketing ploy should not itself detract from what might be a fascinating read. I would really like to see how Moorish Spain is handled! Also fascinating is the question why fantasy developed at this cusp of the twentieth century. Maybe that doesn't lend itself to enjoying the fantasy on its own--a biggish maybe--but it is nonetheless a legitimate reading response.

Why should any one way of reading literature be the only way? After all, Tolkien himself likely had many different reading strategies behind his eyes.

Oh, and Azaelia--it isn't only literature and essays than can ruin kids' reading. Nowadays teachers force kids to keep journals, even if the kids don't wish to put their private feelings on the page for a teacher to read. There's always something out of whack when learning is structured.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

Also fascinating is the question why fantasy developed at this cusp of the twentieth century. Maybe that doesn't lend itself to enjoying the fantasy on its own--a biggish maybe--but it is nonetheless a legitimate reading response.

I've always found it interesting that there was an upsurge in interest in the Occult at exactly that time too. Not just the fascination with spiritualism, but also Aleister Crowley, AE Waite & the Golden Dawn. Perhaps it was in reaction to the extreme materialism of the Victorian/Edwardian Age, industrialism & the appearance of of Darwin's evolutionary theories. Its as if the one produced the other.

Certainly there was a near obsession with fairy stories & the fantastic among soldiers in the trenches, & both Tolkien & Lewis were WWI veterans who went on to write fantasy. We could also bring in Mervyn Peake, who served as a war artist & who was a witness of the opening of the death camps.

[Lalwendë]

It could possibly have had something to do with the growing interest in Medieval artistry? The Medieval/Elizabethan period seems to have produced a lot of fantastical art and literature in itself, so maybe this was another aspect of this interest?

Of course the move to a greater interest in esoteric/occult subjects could also have been a reaction to incredibly rapid social change and experiencing horror, and hence questioning established religion? There was also the reaction in the late 60s of American youth to Vietnam and the move to New Age philosophies (and of course, Tolkien fandom), so perhaps people do seek out fantasy as a reaction to horror?

[davem]

It is interesting that Both Lewis & Williams were deeply into the 'occult' before becoming Christians & their felllow Inkling, Owen Barfield was a follower of Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy. We don't know that Tolkien ever shared that interest, but we do know that he was very interested in metaphysical subjects (as Flieger has demonstrated, Tolkien was greatly influenced by the ideas of JW Dunne on the nature of time & re-incarnation).

[littlemanpoet]

I hope I'm alive long enough to see the development of a historical perspective on Tolkien and his Legendarium. Perhaps fifty years from now, events will have occurred that will make Tolkien appear (1) dated {I doubt it}, (2) prophetic {I expect it}, (3) the most important modernist of the last four centuries {wouldn't that be fun?}; (4,5,6,7.....) and all kinds of other possibilities. A third world war (War of the Ring)? The passing of democratic forms of government (Scouring of the Shire, Return of a King, Lord over all Mordor)? The eclipse of Western culture (Eriador a wasteland)? So perhaps all that can be said has been said .... for now .... but let some great new cataclysmic (or not so) event shake the current paradigm to its roots, and see what there is then to say about the man.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

but let some great new cataclysmic (or not so) event shake the current paradigm to its roots, and see what there is then to say about the man.

Oh, I don't deny that readers will always find Tolkien's works to be 'applicable', but that's not the same as us finding something new to say about the works themselves, or about Tolkien himself, in terms of origins, sources, what he was really doing (or attempting to do).

BTW, you seem to have a very 'apocalyptic' vision of the future there, LMP.

[drigel]

So, are we destined to see the creation become increasingly placed in the service of finding out more & more detail about the creator? And, if so, will we actually gain all that much from doing so?

Barring a discovery of personal notes or transcripts, I would say the biographical subject had been covered years ago. We even have an entire book of personal correspondance to fans and loved ones, published decades ago for goodness sake... Most of the recent publications look to me like nothing more than money making ventures that are capitalizing on a recent upswing in popularity.

Unfortunately, we can no more get to 'know the man', but we may, at least, get to know each other (feat we already are on the way of accomplishing, however imperfect the medium may be) on the way, which would be quite signigicant gain.

great point. This site has caused me to think about Tolkien in so many different ways. Much like a good analysis from a Shippey or a Fliger, but exponential. The multitude of thoughts create a nice stream of consciousness, as it were.

I love to read some of the threads in the Books forum but this is why I put most of my personal energy into the RPG forums and private short fanfics. I truly believe that, if all I had focused on was the scholarly end of things, I might have left the Downs some time ago.

Im the opposite. Not that I dont appreciate the inspiration, though. And it's not the scholarly end as much either. I find myself most active on threads when the works are treated as a living thing. Their own life has enough power for me.

I honestly hope that LOTR never becomes one of those books that is required to be read and analyzed in classrooms.

please Eru make it so! I have said before that a LOTR analysis would produce more impact in a linguistics or humanties course, rather than an english class. Dickens yes, Faulkner yes, Hemingway yes, but Tolkien... no please.

At its best, discussion of literature ought to be a process of learning how to read with greater awareness, which to my mind means learning how to appreciate/enjoy story and book and verse in as wide a range as possible. Like all learning, sometimes this requires analysis. It also requires self-reflection and awareness of all the 'tricks' of language available to writers. Too often academics don't approach stories as creative writers would, but that in itself does not mean their approach can't produce minds in greater awareness of themselves and of story

Nicely put. It also depends on how the author constructs the work. IMO Tolkien used many scholarly layers in the construction, but it was for the intended affect of nuance, and the true (and scholarly) love of the essense of those layers. No secret high ended easter eggs (or, "look how clever and smart I am") in his works.

So perhaps all that can be said has been said .... for now .... but let some great new cataclysmic (or not so) event shake the current paradigm to its roots, and see what there is then to say about the man.

Perhaps - but ill pass on a return of a King! But, IMO, there will always be a yearning (at times more or less) for a time (or an imagination) that is beyond record (and scholars), where the land, and our souls were younger. Struggles there were then, but the air seemed clearer.

[davem]

Originally Posted by drigel

Most of the recent publications look to me like nothing more than money making ventures that are capitalizing on a recent upswing in popularity.

I think that's always been the case. There have always been attempts to cash in on Tolkien's name, but what we seem to be getting now is even the attempts at 'serious' investigation/analysis are obscure or simply irrelevant. I'm not saying that's the case with everything that's published. The recent book 'Ring of Words' analysing Tolkien's use of particular words & his time working on the OED was interesting. The forthcoming 'Companion & Guide' by Hammond & Scull & the 'Tolkien Encyclopedia' will, I'm sure, be as interesting as they are expensive. But I suspect that 95% of what they contain will be stuff that is already known, & simply gathered together in one place (a very Hobbitish thing to do, admittedly).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

...you seem to have a very 'apocalyptic' vision of the future there, LMP.

The story writer in me, I s'pose. Except that the signs are already there in terms of the waning of Western culture as opposed to African or Asian ones.

But there also could be something in LotR and the rest of the Legendarium that we can't see because of our place in history. The passing of time and its contexts will make it possible for those who follow us to see what we cannot, and that might also be true in terms of Tolkien.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It could possibly have had something to do with the growing interest in Medieval artistry? The Medieval/Elizabethan period seems to have produced a lot of fantastical art and literature in itself, so maybe this was another aspect of this interest?

It is also good to recall that "Old English" and "Old English literature", even the concept of an "Anglo-Saxon People and country", are terms created by modern scholarship. For a wee bit of history in how the Old English texts were discovered and when they came into public knowledge as precursors of our English, see these links:

The Norton Anthology of English Literature online--Beowulf

One contemporary view of how to teach Old English literature

Lets I be called an old serious fussbudget for promoting scholarship, let me say that Tolkien was part of the initial excitement of the first stages of rediscovery of Old English. The philology which to our contemporary times is now old and superceded by linquistics was in Tolkien's time cutting edge--or as cutting edge as Oxford could be in those days.

So, part of this development of fantasy was concurrent with the rediscovery--perhaps it can even be said, discovery--of pre-Christian culture on the British Isles--the recognition of so very many regional dialects, the recovery--yes, that is the better word, recovery--of pagan legends, stories, myths. Perhaps this is why Tolkien so strongly wished to present his Legendarium as a history--part of the zeitgeist of his times, at least pre-WWI.


drigel: About our biographical sources: Carpenter's book is a marvellous read, but as readers of biographies know, there can be many versions of biographies. The Letters we have are selected letters, not collected, and it is very highly possible that letters remain in the hands of heirs of recipients, or trapped in pages of books sold second hand, stashed away in back files of libraries in England, that kind of thing. I also read somewhere--and can't recall now where--that Tolkien left a diary, which is unpublished by will of the Tolkien Estate. I could be wrong about both these facts, of course. Sussing out a writer's character is about as definitive a project as determining canonicity.

We've had bits and bites of discussion over what kind of fantasy Tolkien was writing. As davem said on another thread, Tolkien's fantasy is quite different, from, say, Gaiman's. Gaiman attempts to recoup elements of archetype and chaos and disorder into the 'modern' sensibility. Tolkien--his is historically based I suppose one could say. Lewis was a religious apologist.

Originally Posted by LMP

But there also could be something in LotR and the rest of the Legendarium that we can't see because of our place in history. The passing of time and its contexts will make it possible for those who follow us to see what we cannot, and that might also be true in terms of Tolkien.

They will see what their time helps them see which is not to say they won't also have their blindness along with insight.

All of which is to say that I find it rather funny, these comments which tend to look down on Books--which isn't to say that all BD should be about is Books.

I'm still waiting for a good thread which discusses Tolkien's sense of humour. On the other hand, I can see the possiblity of a werewolf game where the characters are the LotR characters. Now, if that were moderated by pio or Child, boy the cannonical possibilities of the rpg aspects there would be incredible.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

The story writer in me, I s'pose. Except that the signs are already there in terms of the waning of Western culture as opposed to African or Asian ones.

I'm not sure its possible to define 'western culture' precisely enough to be able to say its waning. Certainly its changing, but its as likely as not to be changing in a 'western' way into another phase of 'western' culture. Change is inevitable in any case, & to be welcomed if only because the alternative is stagnation. Besides, if 'Western Culture' does disappear it will be because it wasn't going anywhere, & couldn't adapt.

Originally Posted by Bb

So, part of this development of fantasy was concurrent with the rediscovery--perhaps it can even be said, discovery--of pre-Christian culture on the British Isles--the recognition of so very many regional dialects, the recovery--yes, that is the better word, recovery--of pagan legends, stories, myths. Perhaps this is why Tolkien so strongly wished to present his Legendarium as a history--part of the zeitgeist of his times, at least pre-WWI.

I still think its significant that at the same time as we see this rise in the popularity of fantasy as a genre we see the rise in interest in 'practical' occultism, with its focus on the 'Hidden Masters' in the Himalayas (via Madame Blavatsky & the Theosophists) & Ancient Egypt (The Golden Dawn/Aleister Crowley). We saw the same thing in the Renaissance, with the romances (so effectively attacked by Cervantes) of Ariosto, Boiardo, Spenser, et al, appearing at the same time as the rise of Hermeticism & Alchemy. As Lalwende mentioned the sixties also saw a resurgence in interest in both fantasy literature (principally Tolkien) & in both Western (Tarot, Crowley, Witchcraft) & Eastern (who remembers the Beatle's & the Maharishi?) 'occultism'. And currently we have both a fascination with fantastical fiction & movies alongside the rise of 'New Age' movements - Wicca, Druidism, meditation.

In short, this connection between interest in fantastical fiction seems to go hand in hand with an interest in the 'occult'. I suppose it could be argued that they arise from the same place in the human psyche, the former attempting to create secondary worlds, the latter attempting to change the primary world into something more 'magical'. Both seem to be inspired by a reaction to an overly materialistic weltanschaaung. Back to Nietzsche, with his Dionysian/Apollonian dichotomy, perhaps...

[drigel]

drigel: About our biographical sources: Carpenter's book is a marvellous read, but as readers of biographies know, there can be many versions of biographies...... Sussing out a writer's character is about as definitive a project as determining canonicity.

, and it is very highly possible that letters remain in the hands of heirs of recipients, or trapped in pages of books sold second hand, stashed away in back files of libraries in England, that kind of thing. I also read somewhere--and can't recall now where--that Tolkien left a diary, which is unpublished by will of the Tolkien Estate.

I agree on points, but - again barring something extraordinary coming to the surface (and I did enjoy Carter's biography), additional biographies, especially lately are only putting a different spin to already known information. Interesting for some I suppose, but IMO the impact in terms of my own opinion about the character of Tolkien as a writer are ... eh, negligible. Bringing up the Letters was my attempt to show the comprehensive evidence a reader has had for decades in forming their own ideas. I suppose, other than what I referenced in my 1st post and what you had alluded to - additional material, letters or diary - (and what a gem that would be!! talk about the Tolkien Rosetta stone wowsa) thats all I need as an informed reader. Anything else for me tends to devolve into minutia or bald profiteering. And, as for a peice of work that does have a unique point that gets across cogently, well, it seems to me that they are few and far between these days.

Except that the signs are already there in terms of the waning of Western culture as opposed to African or Asian ones.

I'm not sure its possible to define 'western culture' precisely enough to be able to say its waning.

ebbs and tides. It sure looked a lot more bleak when Rome fell, but we did OK, didnt we? I dont see any mass migrations to Africa or Asia by Europeans. Rather the opposite...