Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
A personal note on 'thanks' and 'mysteries' at the end of the 6th LOTR Read-through
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 8 2017, 12:36pm

Post #1 of 60 (3023 views)
Shortcut
A personal note on 'thanks' and 'mysteries' at the end of the 6th LOTR Read-through Can't Post

I wasn't expecting to add a third 'summing up' post, but I do have some personal thanks to offer, which leads into some thoughts about 'mysteries' in LOTR, and seems relevant to a few currently-active posts. It seems better to put it all in one new post, rather than scatter bits through several current discussions.

One of the there things going on in the 'writing and reading' part of my life during the read-through was that I wrote a 'retelling' of the Hans Christian-Andersen story 'The Snow Queen'. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given how much I have been engaged with the Reading Room, things I've learned here about Tolkien's works were very helpful. 'The Snow Queen' is, after all, also a story about a hero forced into a cross-country journey to deal with an evil that shouldn't be attacked by its own methods. I think it's very clear that Tolkien is an influence for the book, but the helpful influence of the Reading Room will probably be something that most readers of the book don't realise, or can't be particularly expected to care about. So I did want to thank everyone for their help, and posting here seems the best way to do so. (BTW, the published book is The Snow Queen by Chris Baker, Oxford University Press 2016.)

These comments would naturally go in the 'thanks' post I put up earlier, if it were not that writing it gave me what I think is an interesting insight into 'mysteries' in fantasy fiction. I'll give an example whilst trying to be briefer than a dwarf discussing his handiwork, or Merry discussing pipe weed! The original story has a pair of talking crows, which guide the hero into one (particularly surreal and dreamlike) episode. But I found a crow turning up elsewhere in my retelling - it no longer speaks, but it watches the action and its own actions occasionally hint at what the hero ought to do. I found it interesting that I didn't have much clear idea of who/what the crow was - it just seemed clear to me that it belonged in the story in these ways. When I showed drafts to test readers, I half expected them to be puzzled by the crow and to ask me for an explanation. Instead they liked the crow and were eager to offer explanations: three equally good but completely incompatible readings. At that point, I realised that including an 'official' authorial explanation would not improve the story at all - quite the opposite in fact. Of course, ambiguity runs a risk that some readers are irritated or confused or think the story incomplete or badly written. I suspect that some readers like mysteries, and others see them as puzzles, where there should be a clear and unambiguous answer provided in due course, or at least sufficient clues to allow a reader to come to the one correct conclusion. Perhaps you just can't please everyone. Anyway, my editors also liked the crow and agreed with me that a definitive explanation wasn't needed, so it remains an enigma. It remains an enigma to me too by the way- I genuinely don't know and I think I don't want to know.

The relevance to Tolkien discussions about 'unsolved' items is perhaps already clear - because of my own experience, I am aware that an author might not know answers to mysteries in their book. Moreover, they might not feel it's helpful to provide answers: not because of being deliberately difficult or un-cooperative, but because the mystery seems meant to remain unsolved by the author. Perhaps that seems very odd, but all I can say is that it's what I find to be true. That's what I think of these days if someone is expressing frustration that Tolkien wouldn't (or couldn't?) solve some of the mysteries in his story. The favourite "Who (as is 'what') is Tom Bombadil?" is an obvious example where my experience might explain Tolkien's reluctance or inability to provide a clear answer..

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 8 2017, 10:59pm

Post #2 of 60 (2830 views)
Shortcut
Congratulations on the publication of your book. [In reply to] Can't Post

And an admittedly smart-alecky PS that I somehow can't resist: why didn't the crow drop the Snow Queen in Mt Doom? Evil


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 9 2017, 10:22am

Post #3 of 60 (2819 views)
Shortcut
Avoiding 'eagle problems' - machina ex deus? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
And an admittedly smart-alecky PS that I somehow can't resist: why didn't the crow drop the Snow Queen in Mt Doom? Evil


Ha! (Oh and thanks for the congratulations!)
Answer 1 (which has a bearing on out Tolkien discussions - . Answer 2, below, is more in the spirit of the question!)

The 'problem' Tolkien causes himself is that Eagles intervene to allow someone to do something they couldn't do for themselves (e.g. escape when seemingly hopelessly surrounded by enemies). Once it has happened once, readers are likely to wonder why the eagles can't intervene at any convenient point - do they merely get the author out of an otherwise impossible plot-hole (which seems quite close to cheating, unless it can be excused under the Rule of Awesome)? Or, do Eagles work to 'rules', and if so, then what rules?.As Tolkien said himself, they are a 'dangerous machine'. [Come to think of it, if they are a dangerous machine sent by Manwe or Eru, would that make them a machina ex deus? Wink )

Unlike me and my enigmatic crow, Tolkien came to know exactly what the Eagles were - I think it's pretty clear that for him they were manifestations of divine grace (or at least had become this by the time LOTR was completed, even if they were no more than giant talking animals in The Hobbit). But it seems Tolkien didn't want to discuss this specifically in the LOTR text. And if he had done so the argument would merely mutate into 'why is this particular situation deserving of divine grace whereas that one isn't?' I believe that kind of thing is a long-standing can of theological worms: one that Tolkien was perhaps wise to avoid opening.

(Anyone joining the conversation now might like to know we've just been discussing the perennial topic of 'why don't the eagles...?' over here, and several good answers have already been posted : http://newboards.theonering.net/...i?post=922249#922249 )

For me, the crow at best suggests a course of action that the heroes would be able to take anyway. I remember feeling strongly that it ought to be that way, with strict limits on the crow intervening more directly, but I can't remember whether I was consciously avoiding 'eagle problems'. It would be nice to think that was because I was clever, but there's considerable evidence to the contrary. Wink

Answer 2
..because a raven is like a writing-desk, of course. Wink

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm

(This post was edited by noWizardme on Jan 9 2017, 10:24am)


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 9 2017, 11:00am

Post #4 of 60 (2821 views)
Shortcut
Logic vs intuition, or reason vs feeling [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm not sure those two couplets are the same, and both seem a partial fit for what you're describing.

I will first back up a bit, and observe that I think you're onto something in that the Eagles are a direct divine intervention, and religious believers in miracles are the first ones to admit that miracles don't happen all the time and every time you want them to happen. But they will insist that they do happen, and the explanation for when & why is that "God works in mysterious ways."

Meanwhile we logical readers steeped in the scientific method want reproducible, reliable results before we believe in a scientific outcome, so we want either 1) miracles to occur when needed, or 2) a reliable set of rules to explain when they will and won't occur. That's the "reason vs feeling" conflict I see.

The "logic vs intuition" conflict is what I derived from your creative writing enterprise, where your intuition said it felt right for the crow to appear when it did, so you put it in. So the crow works and belongs in the story for intuitive reasons and doesn't necessarily yield to logical ones. And I'm not so sure that logic should always be the Final Master of the Explanation. It denies a whole other side to human thinking, and even seems to invalidate any human experience that can't stand up to the rigors of logic, which gives logic more power than it's due.

I had a friend once who taught physics and had a highly trained scientific mind, full of logical analyses for many situations, but he was sensitive to the context of where it applied. Rain didn't fall because of the Rain God's whims, but because of the laws and dynamics of atmospheric science. So that explains one natural phenomenon, but another natural phenomenon, such as him being in love with his wife, was off-limits to reason, and he said if he ever analyzed why he loved his wife, he knew he'd destroy the emotion itself, and it would be no consolation to have a cold set of reasons in place of the emotion.

Similarly, I think we might be analogous to kids wanting candy (logic)--we always want more, candy (logic) always tastes and feels good, but if we were allowed to indulge our candy craze, sooner or later we'd wind up sick from an excess of it, so that's why adults set limits on our candy demands. Not every demand should be satisfied, no matter how solid its merits seem, be it candy or logic. It will hit up against the law of diminishing returns and satisfy us less and less the more we receive.

And I'll conclude on the note that I have read books where the authors assiduously explained everything in great detail, clearly feeling they owed it to their readers, which is commendable, but the pleasure-seeking part of my mind found all that explanation dull as a reader. The reader in me wants some mystery to tantalize me, and satisfying my logical demands can leave me unsatisfied as a reader wanting to appreciate the wonder of an author's world.


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 9 2017, 3:58pm

Post #5 of 60 (2800 views)
Shortcut
I think that's exactly right - it explains things like Shelob and the Black Riders, I think [In reply to] Can't Post

The intuition and feeling side of things might have something to do with how the unconscious mind works - but its hard to be sure. Certainly you can't just write any old stuff (Have you ever tried to tell anyone some compelling and evocative dream you had, only to see their eyes glaze over because what you're saying makes no sense at all in the daylight world of logic?)

For example, the Black Riders - they work brilliantly as creepy antagonists, but their behaviour doesn't seem fully logical (e.g. as if they were a human commando unit). Logically, I think I'd nab the Ring at the first opportunity, accepting heavy casualties if needed, rather than risk it getting any further. I'd have the BRs storm Bree and kill everyone, or not let Frodo go at Weathertop, even if only 1 of the 5 Riders makes it out of the dell alive (or un-dead). Instead the BRs behave in line with being ghosts, vampires or other horrors - they appear and disappear unpredictably, they work best in darkness and loneliness, and they have unexpected strengths and weaknesses. I think that's why Tolkien's Hunt For The Ring UT is not a complete success in my opinion - he considers the Riders' movements and motives logically, and it doesn't (to me at any rate) provide a satisfying explanation of how they let Frodo slip through their ghostly fingers. In particular, his logical approach to the problem seems to require the Riders to be afraid of the barrow sword and want to preserve themselves, so that they back off after Weathertop. But elsewhere they are the only possible hunters to send after the Ring because of their utterly selfless devotion to Sauron's intense need to get it at any cost. Of course you can argue (and Tolkien argues) that the BRs think they have only to trail Frodo for a while before he's theirs, but that doesn't satisfy me because I think a Ring in the hand is worth two in the bush, and still don't see why the Riders don't finish it there, suicidally if it must be. Their tactic - cruelly wound your enemy then vanish and wait for him to suffer his way into your clutches again feels intuitively right for evil things, but falls a bit foul of military logic, I think.

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 9 2017, 4:17pm

Post #6 of 60 (2805 views)
Shortcut
Stories that explain everything (starring Adam West as Batman) [In reply to] Can't Post

You're reminding me of the 1960's Batman TV series, starring Adam West. As what I now see as an amusing running gag, just about every gadget, map, or other thing was clearly labelled - e.g. if there's a secret exit from the hideout it would have a sign BUBBLEGUM ACTIVATED SECRET EXIT FROM CANDY STORE. (I'm not kidding - see https://batlabels.tumblr.com/...xit-from-candy-store, part of a lovely collection of these gags here https://batlabels.tumblr.com/ ).

But as a small child, watching the show wide-eyed and without any sense of any humour being intended, I used to love the captions. And trying to read BUBBLEGUM ACTIVATED SECRET EXIT FROM CANDY STORE while the sign was still in shot did my reading speed no end of good.

I suppose that's a point about telling your story in a way that suits your audience....

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm

(This post was edited by noWizardme on Jan 9 2017, 4:25pm)


squire
Half-elven


Jan 9 2017, 5:54pm

Post #7 of 60 (2808 views)
Shortcut
It's a clever metaphor, but isn't it backwards? [In reply to] Can't Post

It seems to me that fantasy and wondrous but unexplained magic is the candy of our reading dreams, and logic is the nasty vegetables that adults (critics) force us to eat because it's good for us.

And as you say, too much magic is bad for us - but then too, a diet of nothing but healthy vegetables isn't much fun!



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'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 9 2017, 7:03pm

Post #8 of 60 (2785 views)
Shortcut
"Spoiling nice fantasy fish! Give it to us raw — and wriggling! You keep nasty logic chips!" [In reply to] Can't Post

OK this metaphor has now definitely 'jumped the shark'....

[...aaaargh! that just made it worse.]

Probably every one of us fantasy readers has encountered someone who is disapproving of our favourite kinds of reading. Reading about made up magical worlds is childish or dangerous, they say: sure to addle your brain in some way. Both the hyper-rationalists (for whom magic = nonsense) and the religious fundamentalists (for whom magic = satan) agree.

...which I think is a shame - fantasy is the most wonderfully flexible tool to mess around with imaginative metaphors, whilst understanding that they are just metaphors. And imagination is surely no less valuable a human achievement than logic (and still one at which our computers can't better us).

Sam: "What we need is a few good imaginative metaphors."

Sméagol: "What's metaphors? Precious, what's metaphors? Huh?"

Sam: "Metaphors! Boil them, mash them, stick them in a stew. ..."

Hang on, now I've got my metaphor backwards. But at least it wasn't clever, so it hasn't been spoiled....Wink

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm

(This post was edited by noWizardme on Jan 9 2017, 7:07pm)


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 10 2017, 12:50am

Post #9 of 60 (2759 views)
Shortcut
Metaphors and shark-jumping [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't quantify it, and I wouldn't bother to take the time to, but in my years in the RR, there seem to be more questions along logical lines than any other. Not the only questions, mind you, but their popularity is quite high. "Why didn't Gildor help Frodo get to Rivendell when he knew the Black Riders were after him?" "Why didn't Gandalf ride straight to Rivendell and come back with help for Frodo rather than get lost on foot in the troll fells?" "Why doesn't Sting work all the time in signaling Orcs are near?" "Why can Nazgul physically break down doors but not seize a hobbit?"

Even the recent list on another thread simultaneous with this one is prominent with logical questions. Which is all fine. I think it's our love of fantasy that brings us here, and our logical minds that want to figure it out because we love it so much, satisfying both halves.

It might be a little humorous that we hold fantasy to a higher standard of logic than history. I recently read a book about the Venetians in the 1200s to 1400s, and at one point a Venetian fort was surrounded by a huge Turkish army headed by the sultan, who was known to get angry easily and slaughter people. So when he sent in a messenger with terms for surrender, did the Italian commander do the logical thing and be polite? Heavens no! He sent back plenty of insults, and the sultan decided to slaughter everyone and take no prisoners. Dumb move.

We know stuff like that happens all the time in history (people doing stupid things), but when we read fiction, for some reason, we often conclude that not-the-best decisions "aren't realistic." And I'm in the front row in that crowd. It really bugs me that Gandalf so obviously makes mistakes while bearing the label "Wise," but it's more realistic that he makes mistakes than not.


FarFromHome
Valinor


Jan 10 2017, 10:14am

Post #10 of 60 (2757 views)
Shortcut
Okay the metaphor's a bit ripe... [In reply to] Can't Post

... but your point is nice and fresh I think!

I guess all of us post-Enlightenment, post-scientific-revolution readers can't help wanting to everything to conform to reason and logic. It's the way we have been taught to think. But the whole point of Tolkien's approach, it seems to me, is to try to take us modern readers back to an earlier time when metaphors and magical thinking were mainstream and a normal way of experiencing the world around us. Thinking logically has been so advantageous for us (assuming you like the way the industrial revolution and its aftermath have played out!) that we have pretty much forgotten that earlier way of thinking, and most of the time we never even realize what we have lost. Fantasy can give us a taste of it though - assuming we're willing to leave it in its "secondary world" where human imagination and what you could call "emotional truth" take precedence over measurable, scientific-style "logic".

Tolkien had a tricky path to tread though - if you read pre-modern stories (Celtic or Anglo-Saxon myths and legends for example) they are so strange to us in their way of seeing the world that they are not really accessible to anyone who doesn't make a study of them. He had to somehow get across some of this unfamiliar way of seeing the world while making the story feel real to his modern readers. So he adds a layer of apparent reality in the way the characters are drawn, and the overall "historical" context. Maybe that's why we sometimes feel uncomfortable with the apparent mismatches - the behaviour of the Nazgul and so on. Are they modern-style stormtroopers, driven by logic, or ghostly figments of the fearful human imagination? I think Tolkien mostly treads the line successfully, but you do have to back off from the need for logical, measurable answers to things, I think, and go with the imaginative flow whenever the two ways of seeing the world collide.

They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings



CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 10 2017, 12:37pm

Post #11 of 60 (2742 views)
Shortcut
Past ways of thinking [In reply to] Can't Post

"Tolkien had a tricky path to tread though - if you read pre-modern stories (Celtic or Anglo-Saxon myths and legends for example) they are so strange to us in their way of seeing the world that they are not really accessible to anyone who doesn't make a study of them."

Amen to that! Years ago I found an anthology of ancient Celtic myths of Ireland, expecting an enjoyable read about a new source of mythology, but I was in for a struggle. For one thing, I think Greek myths have been codified and cleaned up for the modern reader to make more sense, but not so with other stories. There were so many non-sequiturs and contradictions that I found everything quite strange, and not enjoyable, so I gave it up.

I suppose it was a good exposure to an alternative viewpoint and broadened my horizons, but I was happy to come back to 20th century literature. And I imagine literate people in a time machine from the past would find our writing equally obtuse.


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 10 2017, 2:09pm

Post #12 of 60 (2737 views)
Shortcut
Definitely an issue! [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember the read-through's Council Of Elrond, discussion included why Boromir is at pains to tell everyone about his lineage, his great journey, and his bravery defending the bridge at Osgiliath. To modern ears it sounds like boasting. But someone (Darkstone, I think) pointed out that Boromir is operating to Dark Ages (or Medieval) codes of behaviour - how can anyone be expected to judge his words and worth until they know about his lineage and deeds? So of course it is essential he tells them these things.

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm


enanito
Rohan

Jan 10 2017, 2:21pm

Post #13 of 60 (2741 views)
Shortcut
Trying to understand Tolkien [In reply to] Can't Post

In some ways, the times I've led a Read-Thru Chapter Discussion, I've posted a series of 'logical' questions trying to straddle two sides of these "mysteries":

1) Trying to understand Tolkien's intent in the writing. That is, Something Happens in a chapter that might not immediately click for me. So I ask Why, hoping that others can enlighten with either published or unpublished writings that bring depth, context, or possibly a direct answer.

2) Trying to broaden my own interpretations of areas where Tolkien either purposefully or not, left things somewhat ambiguous. Heaven knows how many times I've believed my own interpretation as being pretty iron-clad, only to see a whole new series of vistas open up regarding how others see the same thing in different light.

Coming from a non-liberal arts background as I do, I assuredly tend more towards the logical approach in my RR interactions (because that's what happens in my mind when reading LOTR or the like). I do try and use my 'logical approach' as my entry into understanding this world, but it's always good to have reminders that while logic and reason are useful, there's other approaches that might do me just as good!


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 11 2017, 12:00pm

Post #14 of 60 (2696 views)
Shortcut
...and also, of course, exaggerated for humour: really of course, logic is essential in stories. But as you say - which logic? [In reply to] Can't Post

Naturally, all stories (or writing of any kind) need some logic, or they will become too incoherent or inconsistent for readers to bother with. Logic suggests rigour. We know that Tolkien was extremely careful with timelines, geography and family trees, for example. And there are very many 'world-building' details, which give Middle-earth a solid and realistic feel.

Logic also suggests inference, and Tolkien plays his readers inferences skillfully - when we discussed Mount Doom, we 'talked' about Tolkien's plot twist: against convention, the hero does not fulfil his quest as expected. Why this is, and how the quest is fulfilled is a very carefully prepared surprise. But once you've been surprised and then given it further thought, it all makes sense. There are lots of hints that Frodo isn't going to be able to destroy the Ring voluntarily, and that this isn't just a failing in Frodo: no Ringbearer could.

But I think you're dead right that the logic that Tolkien uses isn't always the logic of (say) 'hard' science fiction, or 'whodunnit' detective novels (kinds of fiction that extensively use rational reasoning). I do like that idea that Middle-earth also uses different logic: the logic of older cultures and literary forms derived from them (folk tale, myth and horror story). Maybe (a point that several writers including Ursula Le Guin have made) this other logic is like the logic of the unconscious mind, which works in emotion, metaphor and symbol. Perhaps this is particularly effective at creeping modern readers out - just as it's creepy to be attacked in the dark (where you can't see your opponent coming) it's creepy to be attacked in ways that don't 'compute' according to your usual logic?

It's not just cultures as old as Celtic Myths that use a 'logic' that modern readers might not feel completely comfortable with. When the Reading Room was crossing the Old Forest, we had a really good conversation about how Tolkien could be thought to be using Nineteenth-century, Romantic movement 'logic (e.g. being lost in the forest as a metaphor for being lost in some psychological or spiritual way, or of being asleep). I found that very interesting, would never have thought of it for myself, but could see how it stemmed from what came out of Tolkien's favourite sources (e.g. in Wagnerian retellings of the old Germanic myths)..

[warning - I'm about to bring up the Snow Queen as an example again]

Puzzling over Hans Christian-Andersen's Snow Queen (also nineteenth century - 1844), I realised that a lot of what was now working 'logically' for me was that the story's hero, Gerda is a Romantic Movement Heroine. Again it was the read-through here that indirectly tipped me off, so thanks again Fellowship of the Room! What I mean is that Gerda comes from a period where children were seen more as innocent angels (at least by polite educated society who had nannies and governesses and boarding schools to deal with all the non-angelic stuff that children do, in my experience). It's a point of view that it's difficult to get to work now (particularly in a book for older children): loyally following that approach risks seeming incomprehensible, patronising, or at worst downright creepy. Since Christian-Andersen's time, we've come to expect more active protagonists: which is itself of course a very old form - that of the Questing Hero, as opposed to the Angelic Innocent Child who (if she's a girl) is supposed to grow up into the Eternal Feminine.

[OK, I'm done :) - back to Tolkien!]

' It's striking me now that in a way Frodo does become quite like the original Gerda, and edges towards the role of the Eternal Feminine ('angelic, responsible for drawing men upward on a moral and spiritual path' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_feminine) - I mean he's an increasingly passive, and indeed angelic character, relying increasingly on Gollum and of course on Sam to do the gritty practical stuff. But we understand that Frodo is struggling internally with the Ring in an epic fashion, and so probably don't wonder for long why he's not taking the initiative more.

One of the things I like about Fantasy as a genre is that it is so flexible - it's possible to write quite science-fictiony, logical story, which will probably lead one into what Brandon Sanderson calls 'hard magic'. (In a 'hard magic' story we readers are told magic's rules so that we can enjoy inferring how the characters can and can't use it as a tool). Or, like Tolkien, one can take a more 'soft magic' approach, where it's less clear how magic works (if at all). It limits how magic can be used as a plot device, but allows for effects that Tolkien uses so very well - we only know what the Hobbits know, and so the adventure has elements of perplexing and alarming mystery. It's that neck of the fantasy woods that interests me more, personally.

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm

(This post was edited by noWizardme on Jan 11 2017, 12:13pm)


squire
Half-elven


Jan 11 2017, 1:17pm

Post #15 of 60 (2693 views)
Shortcut
Very good, but go easy on the term 'logic' [In reply to] Can't Post

When we begin to use the word as a synonym for 'making sense' or 'feeling organized', it becomes more and more meaningless. Logic's virtue and flaw is that it is unbreakable and universal. If A, then B. A is true. Therefore, B is always true, too. Always, not just sometimes when the sun is warm and B feels like cooperating.

Logic's inexorability is, of course, not entirely compatible with the emotional aspects of the human mind and language (I think emotion is roughly 90% of what goes on in our heads), and so can never be the sole basis for evaluating art (fiction, fantasy, visual, musical, etc.). The essence of art, to me, is that it is unique and thus sees rules as guidelines, not iron laws. Logic is an iron law and only an iron law - incredibly useful in its way, but not universally useful in so many other ways.

Logic has so much prestige as a term, because science and technology pretend they are the products of logical thinking (more of a myth than we like think), that the term gets extended to things like "fuzzy logic" where statistical patterns are said to have virtually predictable results, just like logic does. But I wish we'd think of other ways to talk about important things like "the logic of older cultures" and "the logic of the unconscious mind". I think it will make for a clearer distinction and in this case, a clearer understanding of Tolkien's art.



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'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary


= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jan 11 2017, 2:32pm

Post #16 of 60 (2688 views)
Shortcut
Internal Logic? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
...and also, of course, exaggerated for humour: really of course, logic is essential in stories. But as you say - which logic?


If we are spending any significant time in the world of the story then internal logic becomes important. In a fantasy world, magic must have some rules that are followed consistently; if magic can literally do anything then it becomes little more than a deus ex machina and it becomes harder for us to invest ourselves in the story. And even in a non-magical setting the author needs to be paying attention to the details and the story-logic. If the writer doesn't care enough to pay attention and make an effort then why should we?

A writer can break the rules, but he needs a good understanding of them first!

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jan 11 2017, 2:34pm)


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 11 2017, 3:03pm

Post #17 of 60 (2672 views)
Shortcut
Fair enough - better terminology requested [In reply to] Can't Post

I suppose what we are talking about here is 'any system of reasoning or reference to personal experience or cultural norms by which a reader understands the story and its characters, and manufactures expectations about further events'.

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 11 2017, 3:23pm

Post #18 of 60 (2678 views)
Shortcut
“Well,” I said. “Obviously magic has to have rules.” [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
“Well,” I said. “Obviously magic has to have rules.”

And every other person on the panel disagreed with me violently. “If you have lots of rules and boundaries for your magic,” they explained, “then you lose your sense of wonder! Fantasy is all about wonder! You can’t restrict yourself, or your imagination, by making your magic have rules!”

I was dumbfounded. Suddenly, I realized that most of the reading I’d done on the subject had been produced by a segment of the population who liked a particular kind of magic. However, there appeared to be another complete school of thought on the matter. I struggled to defend myself for the rest of the panel, and left thinking that everyone else there must have really weak magic systems in their books.

Then, I thought about it for a while. Can’t someone have a good story that does things differently from the way I do it? Can’t you have magic without explaining lots of rules and laws for their magic? Tolkien didn’t really explain his magic.

Brandon Sanderson (Science fiction and fantasy author) - part of an article on magic systems which I highly recommend. http://brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/


Perhaps the thing is that readers are likely to abandon a story that doesn't make any sense to them (avoiding the L-word now after squire's perfectly reasonable objection to itSmile ), but what makes sense may vary. Also it's hard to enjoy a story if one's investment in it feels betrayed by the story-teller's over-bathetic use of magic (or some other plot device) to cheat their way out of a tight corner. But I agree with the conclusion that Sanderson eventually came to - it's not essential to have a specified set of rules, but if you don't have them there will be some other issues to respect. (For example: "An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.")

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 13 2017, 3:41am

Post #19 of 60 (2581 views)
Shortcut
So does Harry Potter count as hard magic? [In reply to] Can't Post

It's been years since I've read them, but magic in that world seemed very rules-based, and JK was always spelling them out. Which was fine. But I think I had a more science-fictiony reaction to the Potter world, such as, "Quidditch--how cool!" like I would to light sabers in Star Wars. Neat gadgets and devices and inspirations of the mind. Whereas Middle-earth has a bit more awe and mystery to it.


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 13 2017, 12:41pm

Post #20 of 60 (2559 views)
Shortcut
Harry Potter is an interesting example [In reply to] Can't Post

Certainly (once we arrive at Hogwarts) magic is used to create and solve conflict - but then it is routinely used by everyone, for every purpose from household chores upwards. So it's a tool by which characters can do things, according to the amount of magic they know, and how skillful they are at thinking of ways of using what they know. So yes, I suppose Potter looks 'hard' in those respects.(I think Sandersen's ideas about hard and soft magic are helpful, but I think it would be to put too much weight on them to think of it as a binary choice, or even as a slider control where it might make sense to say that one story is '10% hard' and another is '90% hard' or similar.)

I think Rowling doesn't have to spend a lot of pages establishing 'rules of magic' because she skillfully and extensively used the tropes of magic that already exist in popular culture. For example, wizards and witches use wands, potions, spell books and other kind of traditional magical apparatus etc. That of course gives her some in-built limitations - maybe there is some spell that would solve our heroes' current problems at a stroke of the wand, but that's moot if they don't know the spell or don't have the necessary equipment.

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 13 2017, 1:45pm

Post #21 of 60 (2560 views)
Shortcut
Oh, dang, we're back to having complexity in the world. [In reply to] Can't Post

The cultural zeitgeist is to reduce everything to a binary choice, but even then it's less than binary because there are 2 sides to every issue, and mine is the only right one, so it's more about being 1-dimensional. I was just getting used to this Neo-Stone Age mentality, and you have to stir the pot up by introducing other factors.

*sigh* Life was so much easier when we lived in caves and swung from trees. (Or as Doug Adams would note, some say even the trees were a mistake, and we never should have left the oceans.)


CuriousG
Half-elven


Jan 13 2017, 2:11pm

Post #22 of 60 (2558 views)
Shortcut
So, back to logic [In reply to] Can't Post

It seems to me that, without quibbling endlessly over the semantics, Tolkien infused Middle-earth with a sort of hybrid logic, and most of the time the world worked by those rules. Logic takes different meanings in dfiferent time periods anyway. Ancient Greek logic wasn't precisely the same as Medieval or Romantic or our prized 'modern logic," which is doomed to be redefined by future generations anyway. (And don't get me started on truth tables in mathematical logic, because they're kind of fun, but you can spot the algorithm and speed through them without being logical at all.)

To reference my joke about the world being 1-dimensional in this retro-Modern Age, I wouldn't say Middle-earth is wholly logical, nor was it meant to be. Its workings are complex (there's that humbug word again) and motivated by more than one influence.

Now on to Snow Queen and Frodo: interesting idea about children being de facto innocent, and that innocence having a kind of power. Gildor tells Frodo "there's power of a different kind" in the Shire, and he doesn't mean magic or force of arms. I think its the childlike innocence of the adult hobbit population that wards off harm to some degree. I think it even reined in the depradations of Saruman, who caused damage but not devastation, and everything was cleaned up in a year anyway. Ask the ghosts of Minas Ithil if it was so easily cleansed.

I realize that popular conceptions of childrens' morality go back and forth over the centuries. At one time they were inherently evil and needed to be beaten by their parents for the slightest mishap, because you were beating the devil out of them. In other epochs they are saintly. I'm not sure why people don't spend time with kids and see that they're capable of both good and bad like any human, and leave it at that.

In the particular case of Frodo, I think it was his hobbity/child-like innocence that made him the best candidate for Ring-bearer since he was the least corruptible. Though I'm not sure he became more docile and child-like toward the end.To me he seems more like a principled intellectcual or philosopher, the way he became a pacifist not out of fear of war but newly developed internal beliefs about what the world is and how it should be. Those new insights gave him insight into Saruman at Bag End, and just as Gandalf said about his Saruman encounter at Isengard, he needed to be given a chance to seek redemption, however unlikely that might seem.

So we're back to complexity (*heavy sigh*) where Frodo is a mix of childlike innocence and adult insight.


FarFromHome
Valinor


Jan 13 2017, 3:18pm

Post #23 of 60 (2552 views)
Shortcut
Hey, don't knock the Stone Age! ;) [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
...it's more about being 1-dimensional. I was just getting used to this Neo-Stone Age mentality...

You're reminding me of Owen Barfield's theory of ancient people's ability to see everything in a kind of blended way so that everything can be both natural and magical at the same time - as Tolkien's example in On Fairy Stories goes, the thunder and the smith-god are all part of the same thought, not analysed as we tend to do into two binary things that we might name fact and myth, or reality and metaphor. I think the magic in LotR works along these lines a lot of the time, with no clear line between natural and magical - for example the Lothlorien elves are puzzled that the hobbits think their handiwork is "magic", because it's not magic to them, just a result of their deep understanding of the natural world. So in a fundamental sense the worldview that Tolkien is trying to evoke really isn't binary - it isn't about magic on the one hand and the ordinary, non-magical world on the other. Magic lies deep inside ordinary things - rivers, mountains, forests - and when we see the magic we are seeing deeply into the true nature of the ordinary things themselves. Frodo and Sam get a sense of it Lothlorien:
"'If there’s any magic about, it’s right down deep, where I can’t lay my hands on it, in a manner of speaking.’

‘You can see and feel it everywhere,’ said Frodo."
I think the magic of Middle-earth works this way, out of reach of ordinary logic and subject only to what feels naturally or emotionally right. In that way it's probably as "soft" as magic can get. The effect is helped too, I think, by seeing everything through the eyes of hobbits who never really know what might lie behind the apparent magic they see. That effect is a bit like JK Rowling's storytelling from the perspective of children who also don't always understand what they are seeing - but there is a difference in that as Harry and his friends gain more experience they start to understand the magic better and it becomes more hard-edged and subject to analysis (the amazing feasts where food just appears magically on the tables, for example, turning out to actually be the work of house-elves toiling unrecognised in the kitchens below).


They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings



Darkstone
Immortal


Jan 13 2017, 5:21pm

Post #24 of 60 (2543 views)
Shortcut
Rules [In reply to] Can't Post

I've often observed that children want to know the rules, how things work, "Why?", "Why?", and "Why?"

Adults usually are just concerned with peace and quiet and tend to answer "That's the way it is", "Because I said so", "Because", "Because", and "Because".

It's interesting that like a lot of writers of The Lost Generation Tolkien seemed to use writing to attempt to come to terms with the "Why?" of the chaos and horror of WWI.

Using a viewpoint of childlike innocence Tolkien does seem to find not only meaning, but beauty and truth in his experiences.

Which is why I love him.

Of course others' mileage may vary.

******************************************
“Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"
"Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."
"Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."
"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"
"But no living man am I! I am Eowyn, daughter of Theodwyn!”
"Er, really? My mother's name was Theodwyn, too!"
"No way!"
"Way!"
"Wow! Let's stop fighting and be best friends!"
"Cool!!"

-Zack Snyder's The Return of the King


noWizardme
Half-elven


Jan 13 2017, 6:08pm

Post #25 of 60 (2544 views)
Shortcut
Pulling down the tower, but still being able to see the Sea [In reply to] Can't Post

You've reminded me about Tolkien's famous response to scholarly work on Beowulf. Recall that he argued scholars had been too busy on using the text for analytical questions to appreciate the work as a story.


Quote
I would express the whole industry in yet another allegory. A man inherited a field in which was an accumulation of old stone, part of an older hall. Of the old stone some had already been used in building the house in which he actually lived, not far from the old house of his fathers. Of the rest he took some and built a tower. But his friends coming perceived at once (without troubling to climb the steps) that these stones had formerly belonged to a more ancient building. So they pushed the tower over, with no little labour, in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions, or to discover whence the man’s distant forefathers had obtained their building material. Some suspecting a deposit of coal under the soil began to dig for it, and forgot even the stones. They all said: ‘This tower is most interesting.’ But they also said (after pushing it over): ‘What a muddle it is in!’ And even the man’s own descendants, who might have been expected to consider what he had been about, were heard to murmur: ‘He is such an odd fellow! Imagine his using these old stones just to build a nonsensical tower! Why did he not restore the old house? He had no sense of proportion.’ But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea.

Tolkien - in Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics, 1936


Maybe Tolkien's analogy can be repurposed a bit for our discussion here. It's fine fun to pull the text apart, look for what things mean, study how it was done, and speculate about what other wonders might be found if we dug further into Middle-earth. Stuff we do all the time in the Reading Room. Luckily, in this case we don't 'break a thing to find out what it is'. Unlike a physical tower, a story survives such analysis intact: you can still go into it afterwards, if you care to do so. And you might find something that you might not be able to put into words, or which is not improved by analysis. Furthermore - what one reader 'sees' looking out to sea might be different to what another sees, or what Tolkien saw and tried to capture.

~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm

(This post was edited by noWizardme on Jan 13 2017, 6:10pm)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.