|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tolkien Forever
Gondor
Feb 26 2009, 12:54am
Post #51 of 161
(2326 views)
Shortcut
|
have other reasons for my discomfort with the story of Aragorn and Arwen -- as Tolkien himself recognized, it doesn't really fit into the hobbit-centric story of LotR, and as Tolkien failed to recognize, to me it seems classist and borderline racist.
Borderline rascist?
Where do you get that from? Can you explain to me how you deduced that? It never crossed my mind......
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 1:56am
Post #53 of 161
(2314 views)
Shortcut
|
the tale of Aragorn and Arwen, for obvious reasons, is on the upper class, and their magnificent bloodlines. The emphasis of LotR is on the hobbits, even though they do interact with the upper class.
|
|
|
Tolkien Forever
Gondor
Feb 26 2009, 4:28am
Post #56 of 161
(2318 views)
Shortcut
|
I get the gist of it already....
To quote NEB:
Would it irk you.....
...if on the basis of his fiction an author were accused of tolerance?
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Feb 26 2009, 10:20am
Post #57 of 161
(2293 views)
Shortcut
|
I continue to see it as a mistake to take the historical pretense too seriously, unless we are more interested in playing Tolkien's game than in critical analysis of what he actually wrote.
I sense that you are confusing two different issues here. I agree that it's a very addictive "game" to treat the legendarium as if it's "real" history, with a potential answer to every question. That's rather like crossword puzzle-solving, or trainspotting. It's detailed, obsessive, and lots of fun, if that's to your taste. And it's obviously a game that Tolkien himself enjoyed playing, especially when he found out how many fans liked playing it too! Not that real history works that way, of course. There are always many prisms through which to view past events, so this puzzle-solving approach, fun though it may be, actually treats the legendarium not as "history" but more the way we might treat a modern children's story, or perhaps a modern thriller - the author has complete control of what he writes, so we assume everything he writes within the fiction is "true", and the fun lies in extrapolating from that, and/or finding potential plot holes and other inconsistencies.
But that is a quite different issue from the point that several of us have made in this thread and elsewhere, that Tolkien writes his stories as "history" in the real sense - that is, accounts written after the event by people trying to make sense of a mass of complex memories, and influenced by national, or generational, or other biases that naturally occur in all human history-making. This, I think, is very much an issue that is amenable to critical analysis, since it's a very subtle study of the unreliability of human memory, and of the way stories change and evolve over time. I think Tolkien was ahead of his time in addressing what has become something of a postmodern issue, but he did it by being so far behind his time (by being immersed in medieval texts that illustrate this effect so clearly), that he ended up, completely accidentally, ahead of the curve!
But most critics and commentators seem to be so focused on squeezing Tolkien into the mainstream of 20th century literature that they overlook the idea that he maybe might have been a visionary for the 21st!
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 11:24am
Post #58 of 161
(2307 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not that real history works that way
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Good point about Tolkien's different levels of simulated historical creation: he tried to create both a complete world and historical time line, and then to write about it from more than one point of view and with the sense that memory and bias has influenced the story the that the reader is given, compared to the "actual" historical events that took place.
Real history does not end with the accumulation of chronological facts, but it certainly begins with it. As in the World War II subthread that recently developed, we find ourselves trying to establish what facts we agree on, and all know, before arguing for a particular or contested interpretation of them. Not that people always agree on what a "fact" is, once it gets more complex than the simplest kind of action or event.
I think the "game" that Tolkien perceived was taking place among his fans was not the crossword puzzle-solving kind. That would be the equivalent of reading all of the books (or Appendices) thoroughly, so that one had a complete command of all of Middle-earth that had been published. What Tolkien was referring to was the compulsion to extend Middle-earth further, to create new bodies of fictional history and knowledge that are only implied by existing writings, but which presumably exist by analogy with the real world. As he said, fans had absorbed everything he had written about Gondor or Hobbits. Now they wanted to know more about Gondorian economics, or metalcrafts, or Hobbit customs! He understood this because he felt the same urge about his own creation. Can he make up more of it? Can he keep it both consistent with what's already established, and plausible within the set of rules that define Middle-earth's differences and similarities "of imagination" with the real world Earth?
At the time, whether they were making things up themselves, they were also writing the author, asking him for more information. After all, the way the Appendices are written, they imply that far more material about Middle-earth exists than could be fit into the end of the third volume. Surely J.R.R. Tolkien can satisfy my curiosity about the geological structure of the White Mountains compared to the Misty Mountains! Or can tell me how the royal council of Gondor adjusted to the change to the rule by the Stewards!
Now that Tolkien is dead, we no longer ask him for this stuff. We just make it up. As you say, we "extrapolate" from the crossword phase of reading everything that has been written. I would point out that "finding" plot holes and inconsistencies is quite different from trying to solve or reconcile them, by inventing additional history.
Now I would argue that your point about Tolkien's having another "game" - the device of creating multiple and uncertain narratives, so that Middle-earth "history" is seemingly just as indeterminate and subjective as real history - is making too fine a distinction. One of the things we have been arguing about is to what degree it is acceptable to play the game of extending and reconciling Middle-earth by invoking the various narrators. We soon begin to debate, was what Tolkien himself was doing on purpose? or are the various narrators just artefacts of his various modes of creative writing, although obviously influenced by his own high awareness of real-world histories and manuscript archives, which he then made use of for additional "flavor" rather than with intent to make his history indeterminate than it was in his head?
I guess my point is that we all agree (unless we are going to pretend Middle-earth is real beyond a reasonable point of discourse) that it's all J.R.R. Tolkien. Unlike real history, there is nowhere else to go, no more books to read, no other maps to consult. We can't bring in a new author we've read, who's opened a new archive or visited a new place, to add to our fellow fans' knowledge and so swing our argument our way. Once we've completed the crossword puzzle - that is, read everything Tolkien has written that's in print - we're all on absolutely equal ground on most of these issues. The puzzle is completed, but as Tolkien understood, the game is not over. We still want more. At that point using Tolkien's narrators, rather than his chronologies, simply to explain plot holes and inconsistencies or suggest plausible extensions, is still just playing the same game of mock-history, only with slightly different and more sophisticated mock-historical tools.
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Footeramas: The 3rd TORn Reading Room LotR Discussion; and "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
squiretalk introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Feb 26 2009, 12:00pm
Post #59 of 161
(2292 views)
Shortcut
|
At that point using Tolkien's narrators, rather than his chronologies, simply to explain plot holes and inconsistencies or suggest plausible extensions, is still just playing the same game of mock-history
If all we use the narrators for is to obsess over plot holes and so on, then you are certainly right that it's still all part of the game.
That's not the way I see the multiple-narrator effect at all though - I see it as pretty much making the plot-hole stuff, and even the extensions of the stories, essentially a non-issue. There might be some fun to be had in trying to extrapolate what might "really" have happened, in the same way that philologists like Tolkien tried to extrapolate the original "asterisk-words" that might lie behind the written forms of the language we have, and I can see why Tolkien was sometimes tempted to play that game with his legendarium. I can see why he might have wanted to deduce what Gondorian metal-craft was like, for example, based on the "evidence" that he'd already imagined in his stories, just as he tried to deduce links between the medieval tales he knew and obscure bits of English history.
But that's not the important issue at all, for me. What strikes me is how impossible it is ever to know the "truth" at all about Middle-earth (or about our own ancient history). Because for the time-periods that Tolkien studied, just as you say about his fantasy, "there is nowhere else to go, no more books to read, no other maps to consult." There are a few new techniques, like carbon-dating of artefacts, or x-raying manuscripts to look for emendations or earlier texts, but essentially, as movie-Galadriel says, "much that once was is lost." We can never "know" much more than we do about our own ancient history. That's what comes out of LotR, for me - the sense of uncertainty, and of a world that is irrecoverable, not just because we don't have the documentary evidence, but because it belongs to a way of seeing the living world that we can no longer recapture. (In fact I think this is also a comment on the fundamental unknowability even of modern history, despite the evidence we have, both because of the incredible complexity of events as seen from different viewpoints, and because of the difficulty we have of imagining ourselves into the mindset of another time.)
That's why I just can't play the "game" at all. I don't even care about balrogs' wings. Because for me, there's every possibility that the balrogs themselves are metaphorical, mythic creatures that can never be "known", having been born from a long-lost sense that things that we would call inanimate (like eruptions from the earth's core) are living, sentient beings that will help or harm us.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 12:23pm
Post #60 of 161
(2301 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And that's why I have bigger issues with you
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
than with those who acknowledge that they are playing Tolkien's game. You have decided that it isn't a game at all, that LotR should be interpreted as a history, and that it holds up as a history. I disagree strongly with that point of view. I find it frustrating to argue the issue, though, because every time I note how the history doesn't hold up, you can offer a rationalization of that inconsistency, and claim it was Tolkien's intent all along. Every flaw in Tolkien's narrative becomes evidence for your theory that the narrative was deliberately flawed. There's really no way, it appears, to disprove your theory, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Feb 26 2009, 1:05pm
Post #61 of 161
(2301 views)
Shortcut
|
You have decided that ... LotR should be interpreted as a history, and that it holds up as a history.
I just got through arguing that it shouldn't be interpreted as a history at all!
And anyway, it's not about should and shouldn't, because I certainly don't intend to suggest that the approach I prefer is the only one. Far from it, I think it's mostly in the subtext, but Tolkien's subtlety in presenting his world as contingent and subjective is something I've become more aware of over the years, and that has made the story richer in its implications for me.
I don't disagree with your approach at all - I just like to present my own approach to the questions being discussed from time to time. If you don't agree with it, that's fine with me. As you say, there's no way to disprove my theory. I just don't see why that bothers you!
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Tolkien Forever
Gondor
Feb 26 2009, 2:01pm
Post #62 of 161
(2288 views)
Shortcut
|
If one person reads the books & never looks at the appenices but just enjoys the story as a story, while the next (like me) tends to view it as a historical fact yet knows in his heart that it's not and you'll never have all the answers even though you try to get as many as you can?
It's all done to accomplish, as the author himself said "The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers (sucess!) amuse them,delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.'
So, if adding all these backgrounded layers of history helps hold my (our) attention, so what?
I really don't get the point any more than Aragorn & the Numenoreans being 'borderline rascists'.......
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 5:10pm
Post #63 of 161
(2298 views)
Shortcut
|
towards theories for which there is evidence, even if the evidence is not conclusive. That's why I have problems with Joseph Campbell archetypes or Freudian analysis; they seem to be articles of faith applicable to any text, rather than anything gleaned from this particular text.
I will grant you that Tolkien gives us every reason to treat LotR as a fictional history. That's the game which Tolkien clearly intended, and in which many readers delight. But when that conceit breaks down I don't see any evidence that Tolkien intends for us to treat the breakdown as the work of a fictional unreliable narrator, or series of unreliable narrators and translators. Instead, I think it breaks down because the fictional history is just a conceit, which Tolkien makes no effort to carry on throughout the text. I think I have evidence for that, based on the text.
But any evidence I cite you turn into intentional flaws, planted there by Tolkien. If I accuse Tolkien of classism, for example, you say no, it's the fictional unreliable narrator who was classist, not Tolkien. Apparently Tolkien was a perfect writer, or else gave himself a perfect cover, because none of what he wrote can be attributed to him. All the credit and the blame should be given to the fictional unreliable narrators. At which point, we are not engaging in critical literary analysis at all.
It's like trying to apply critical literary analysis to the Bible with someone who is convinced that the Bible was written by God, and therefore cannot be wrong or self-contradictory. I find such a discussion frustrating because there is no way to reason with someone who has begun with the premise that the Bible is perfect, and rationalizes everything that seems imperfect.
But what really bothers me is that you seem to insist you are engaging in critical literary analysis, and not a pleasant game or an article of faith. Rationalization is not critical analysis. Everything can be rationalized by a true believer, but I don't find such rationalizations persuasive.
And I hasten to add that I do enjoy discussing this topic. I find it frustrating that I can't seem to get my point across, and that I have no means of persuading you or reaching a middle ground, but I don't find you frustrating at all. On the contrary, I'm glad you are willing to discuss it calmly, and without rancor. If at any point I offend you, please let me know.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Feb 26 2009, 5:16pm
Post #64 of 161
(2293 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Enchantment and Disillusionment
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What about a middle ground approach? It seems to me that, being human, Tolkien made some mistakes here and there. Then, being brilliant, he deliberately set up a way of viewing the stories that would prevent such mistakes from destroying the enchantment--that is, he would cast it in the context of a history crafted by many viewpoints. Once resolved, he threw in some additional inconsistencies deliberately (such as the official Gondor version that says that Frodo destroyed the Ring himself) and then went through a great deal of trouble to set up and maintain a structure of multiple historical narrators throughout the books.
I am not saying that the manuscripts are devoid of flaw--Tolkien himself admitted that he caught many flaws, after it was too late to amend them. What I am saying is that his work enchants the reader, that the author intends this, that he has made every effort to patch the flaws credibly, and that he deserves credit for the effort. Part of the effort includes the device of history from multiple viewpoints, which he went through a great deal of trouble to construct and maintain. To discount that is like trying to remove the seasonings from soup, as not being intrinsic to the food.
There are different kinds of literary critique. The kind of critique that I prefer starts with the reality that "This work enchants!" then goes from there to explore what makes it so enchanting--how, precisely, did this writer cast this spell on me, and can I learn to do it, too? I also unabashedly enjoy the "Let's play the game that the author gave us with such joy!" approach to the books. I do not, on the other hand, like the approach of, "Let's prove that Tolkien was an idiot, and all of you folks who got sucked into the enchantment are idiots right along with him, and let's rip off every veil and every patch and while we're at it pull down the author's pants and show the holes in his underwear, *snicker*!"
Now, I can see the validity of sometimes negative criticism of the newspaper kind, when a reviewer reads a book on behalf of those who have not yet decided whether or not to read it, and tells them whether, in his opinion, it's worth spending money on or not. But we're past all that. We have already bought the books, and in fact most of us enjoyed them so much that we keep on wanting to discuss them, year after year. And we have a signing-on process to protect us from the drive-by shouters who periodically bombard Tolkien fandom's open boards with messages like, "Get a life, you brain-dead geeks! Hobbits don't exist!"
Yes, I know. It's fiction. Yes, I know. It's imperfect. I want to study why it works anyway. That's useful information, how to cast a spell on the imagination. I am not so much interested in the testimony of those who want to save me from enchantment through their own disillusionment.
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 5:24pm
Post #65 of 161
(2282 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't have any problem with your approach.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don't have any problem with readers who enjoy pretending LotR is historical fact. Tolkien clearly enjoyed that pretense himself.
I do have problems with the theory that Tolkien carried that pretense or conceit along with him throughout the text, with every word he wrote, so that what appears to be the voice of an objective narrator is in fact the voice of a series of fictional unreliable narrators, invented by Tolkien, and imagined by him as he wrote each word. Thus if we find any flaws in the text, they are intentionally planted there by Tolkien as part of the fictional history.
And for that matter, we really shouldn't trust a word Tolkien wrote, because it is all the work of unreliable narrators. Maybe another narrator somewhere would have revealed that the orcs are tragic heroes and the hobbits villains. It's all relative.
I don't think that's right, but I find it very hard to disprove, because every flaw or discrepancy can be rationalized as intentional. It's really an article of faith, and I find it hard to reason with anyone who holds that faith.
It's like arguing with a Creationist who believes that God planted the dinosaur bones during the seven days of creation, and planted the evidence that fools our carbon-dating methods, as well. There's no reasoning with someone who's willing to rationalize all of the evidence that contradicts his or her theory.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 5:37pm
Post #66 of 161
(2283 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I like finding a middle ground.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What about a middle ground approach?
Sounds good.
It seems to me that, being human, Tolkien made some mistakes here and there.
Agreed.
Then, being brilliant, he deliberately set up a way of viewing the stories that would prevent such mistakes from destroying the enchantment--that is, he would cast it in the context of a history crafted by many viewpoints.
Well, I'm not sure that's what he had in mind. I don't think he created his fictional history in order to cover his mistakes. I think he did his best (and very well indeed) to eliminate the mistakes he could eliminated, and to gloss over the inconsistencies or holes in the fabric of his Secondary World he couldn't eliminate. Nor do I think he cared whether the enchantment was maintained throughout the story -- on the contrary, I think the idea that LotR is fictional history is found mostly in the Prologue and Appendices, and only here and there in the text.
Once resolved, he threw in some additional inconsistencies deliberately (such as the official Gondor version that says that Frodo destroyed the Ring himself) and then went through a great deal of trouble to set up and maintain a structure of multiple historical narrators throughout the books.
And this is where we part company completely. I don't see any evidence that the summary of LotR in The Silmarillion which says that Frodo destroyed the Ring is in fact the work of an unreliable narrator Tolkien invented. Nor do I see any evidence that Tolkien went to a great deal of trouble to maintain a structure of multiple historical narrators throughout the text of LotR, as opposed to the Prologue or Appendices. He alluded to it from time to time, but then wrote the story mostly without any reference to unreliable narrators, and mostly from the perspective of an objective, omniscient narrator.
|
|
|
Dreamdeer
Valinor
Feb 26 2009, 5:56pm
Post #67 of 161
(2277 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thank you for a gentlemanly response...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...and I apologize for getting a little testy--I was really thinking more of other posters who take delight in finding fault.
Regarding the topic:
And this is where we part company completely. I don't see any evidence that the summary of LotR in The Silmarillion which says that Frodo destroyed the Ring is in fact the work of an unreliable narrator Tolkien invented.
The only alternative explanation that I can see is that Tolkien forgot that Frodo didn't throw the Ring into the volcano. Is that what you're saying?
Life is beautiful and dangerous! Beware! Enjoy!
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 6:18pm
Post #68 of 161
(2288 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What if your premise is wrong?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The kind of critique that I prefer starts with the reality that "This work enchants!" then goes from there to explore what makes it so enchanting--how, precisely, did this writer cast this spell on me, and can I learn to do it, too?... Yes, I know. It's fiction. Yes, I know. It's imperfect. I want to study why it works anyway. That's useful information, how to cast a spell on the imagination.
How do you critique works which don't enchant you? How should readers discuss Tolkien if they don't like certain aspects? Lots of people who post to these boards, for instance, prefer the film incarnations of Aragorn and Boromir to their book versions, while still admiring many other aspects of Tolkien's book. Wouldn't they want to know both why some parts work and why other parts don't work?
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 23- Mar. 1 for The Tale of Years.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Feb 26 2009, 6:18pm
Post #69 of 161
(2280 views)
Shortcut
|
that you enjoy discussing this topic, because I do too. I'm sorry if I frustrate you, but I do appreciate your willingness to push me to defend myself, because that helps me to judge whether my ideas have merit in my own eyes. I should say that I'm not at all sure that I'm on the right path at all, but I have noticed more and more evidence recently that Tolkien may be writing in the voices of narrators other than himself, and I have found it an interesting theory to pursue. If I sound as if I'm completely convinced of this idea, that's really an artefact of the rules of debate, I guess - I don't know how to make my points clear without taking the position completely. I'm assuming that you are debating in the same spirit, so there's no cause for rancour at all, I hope. I'm not wedded to my "theory" (if it justifies the term - maybe it's more of a "hypothesis"), just trying to test it to the best of my ability.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 6:21pm
Post #70 of 161
(2281 views)
Shortcut
|
It's also possible that this unpublished summary of LotR would have been revised if Tolkien had published it. It's also possible that Tolkien was giving Frodo credit for destroying the Ring because Gandalf gave him credit for destroying the Ring, even though the Grace of the Higher Powers and the intervention of Gollum also played their roles. It's also possible that this particular passage was written in the voice of a scribe from Gondor, as are passages in the Appendices, but that the text of LotR is not. There are lots of possibilities, and settling on one as the only correct answer seems to me highly speculative.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Feb 26 2009, 6:33pm
Post #71 of 161
(2288 views)
Shortcut
|
It's in the Silmarillion.
For Frodo the Halfling, it is said, at the bidding of Mithrandir took on himself the burden, and alone with his servant he passed through peril and darkness and came at last in Sauron's despite even to Mount Doom; and there into the Fire where it was wrought he cast the Great Ring of Power..."
It was published posthumously, of course. But according to Voronwe it was written quite late, so it presumably reflects Tolkien's mature thinking. The "it is said" suggests that this is a tradition or later legend. Not only is there the very obvious misrepresentation of the facts about how the Ring got into the Fire, but there's a rather bald statement about Frodo taking on the burden "at the bidding of Mithrandir". This idea is kept very much more ambiguous within LotR itself.
Farewell, friends! I hear the call.
The ship’s beside the stony wall.
Foam is white and waves are grey;
beyond the sunset leads my way.
Bilbo's Last Song
|
|
|
N.E. Brigand
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 6:45pm
Post #72 of 161
(2283 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Written before LOTR was published.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And published in The Silmarillion more or less unchanged from Tolkien's final draft, I think (as I recall, earlier drafts are lost, so Christopher Tolkien never traces the text's history) though wikipedia --whose Tolkien articles, by the way, do play the "game" more than they should-- says, "After Tolkien's death in 1973, Christopher Tolkien completed this part, assisted by Guy Gavriel Kay." Voronwë?
Tolkien would almost certainly have modified it had he seen The Silmarillion to publication --lots of small changes were made to LOTR after the story was completed-- but we have no idea how he would have amended it.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
We're discussing The Lord of the Rings in the Reading Room, Oct. 15, 2007 - Mar. 22, 2009!
Join us Feb. 23- Mar. 1 for The Tale of Years.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Feb 26 2009, 7:40pm
Post #73 of 161
(2290 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What, exactly, have you noticed?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have noticed more and more evidence recently that Tolkien may be writing in the voices of narrators other than himself ....
See, that sounds like you are basing this on evidence, rather than an article of faith. Pardon me if I have been obtuse about your past posts, but what is it you have noticed? Upon what textual evidence do you rely? Feel free to refer me to a past post if you like.
I do see Tolkien writing in the voices of narrators other than himself in the Prologue and Appendices, but where I notice it Tolkien actually tells us as much. What I'm looking for is evidence that he consistently writes in the voice of narrators other than himself throughout the text of LotR without telling us that is what he is doing, and that there is no such thing as an objective narrator in the tale. And by the way, I would just as soon stick with LotR, and not bring The Sil, UT, or HoME into it.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Feb 26 2009, 9:13pm
Post #74 of 161
(2268 views)
Shortcut
|
It was written before LOTR was published. From AR:
There is only a small amount that can be said about this text. We know that it was probably in existence by 1948, because in a letter to a Mrs. Katherine Farrer most likely dated June 15 of that year Tolkien says he was unable to find it (see Letters, 130; see also MR, 5–6, in which a draft of that letter is quoted).
Christopher tells us that portions of the essay were actually taken from drafts of "The Council of Elrond" chapter. But that is obviously not true of the passage in question, regarding the destruction of the Ring. In one of those weird coincidences that sometimes occur, I have just in the past week received some private correspondence about this very passage, but I can't quote from it until and unless I receive permission to do so. Suffice it to say that it more than suggests that Tolkien definitely meant to say what he said in this passage, and that it wasn't simply an oversight. I can quote myself without seeking further permission, and because what I said in that conversation is directly relevant to the discussion here, I will do so:
As you are no doubt aware, Tolkien consistently portrayed himself as simply passing on (and perhaps translating) texts written by others: LOTR and The Hobbit were portions of the Red Book written by Frodo and Bilbo, the Tale of Aragon and Arwen printed in the appendix was taken from a text written by Barahir grandson of Faramir, the Akallabeth was written by Elendil, the Ainulindale was written by Rumil, etc. I suspect that "Of the Rings of Power ..." was meant to be a text that either was written by someone who didn't know the true story of the Ring was destroyed, or (more likely) was written by someone who full well knew the real story, but didn't want to deny Frodo his due renown by focusing on his failure at Mt. Doom. In any event, any observant person is going to notice the contradiction, ...
Personally, I don't think that there is any chance that Tolkien wrote this forgetting that Frodo didn't actually cast the Ring in the Fire. Christopher notes in both Sauron Defeated and The Return of the Shadow that his father had known from back as far as 1939 that when Frodo came to the Crack of Doom he would be unable to cast the Ring into the Fire, and that Gollum would take it and fall in. So I don't agree that he would have emended this had he published it himself. He might, however, have made it more clear that this was in fact a text that was purported to have been written by a secondary author.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
|
|
|
|
|
