# Tolkien in Faërie



## Lhunithiliel (Oct 31, 2004)

I might be letting my fantasy loose too much, but from many things I've read (and still studying and thinking of) I somehow get this funny impression that Tolkien as if 'believed' in the real existance of the Elves - as really existing creatures in a really existing land.

One (but from many others!) quote from a source I've been reading and pondering on lately:



> Naturally so; for if elves are true, and really exist independently of our tales about them, then this also is certainly true: elves are not primarily concerned with us, nor we with them. Our fates are sundered, and our paths seldom meet. Even upon the borders of Faërie we encounter them only at some chance crossing of the ways.


or this one:


> It is now beyond all skill but that of the elves to unravel it.


_From the essay "On fairy stories"_
And not only this source, but other ones, too, make me think ... 

What was Faërie and its inhabitants to Tolkien - really existing or just a "mirror-reflection' of certain features of Men?

I do admit that I am still studying this issue (which means I have not yet developed a clear understanding) and I would be very much interested to read other people's opinions on this matter.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Oct 31, 2004)

> I somehow get this funny impression that Tolkien as if 'believed' in the real existance of the Elves - as really existing creatures in a really existing land.



I don't know about Tolkien, but I don't find the idea that Elves (and the whole world JRRT created) could well be real, too far-fetched.



> What was Faërie and its inhabitants to Tolkien - really existing or just a "mirror-reflection' of certain features of Men?



Letter #181 may be of some interest here:



> The Elves represent, as it were, the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men. That is: they have a devoted love of the physical world, and a desire to observe and understand it for its own sake and as 'other' – sc. as a reality derived from God in the same degree as themselves – not as a material for use or as a power-platform. They also possess a 'subcreational' or artistic faculty of great excellence. They are therefore 'immortal'. Not 'eternally', but to endure with and within the created world, while its story lasts. When 'killed', by the injury or destruction of their incarnate form, they do not escape from time, but remain in the world, either discarnate, or being re-born. This becomes a great burden as the ages lengthen, especially in a world in which there is malice and destruction (I have left out the mythological form which Malice or the Fall of the Angels takes in this fable). Mere change as such is not represented as 'evil': it is the unfolding of the story and to refuse this is of course against the design of God. But the Elvish weakness is in these terms naturally to regret the past, and to become unwilling to face change: as if a man were to hate a very long book still going on, and wished to settle down in a favourite chapter.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 1, 2004)

Tolkien did not invent the concept of Elves (though he refined it); but he did invent Hobbits, so anything he says about Hobbits must surely be fiction too.

But when letters were sent to him asking questions about the little folk that he has no answer to, he says he will go and find out. In particular, letter 214 about Hobbit Birthdays, has Tolkien saying "I am not a model of scholarship, but in the matter of the Third Age I regard myself as a 'recorder' only."

Letter 413 also gives insights into the way Tolkien came to accept that he wrote as a 'chosen instrument' rather than as an author, but this realisation seems to have crept on him slowly, while all the time he was using the language of a historian, not a fantasist.


----------



## baragund (Nov 5, 2004)

Ithy, you don't find the notion of the real-life existence of Elves and Arda too far fetched? Hmmm... I think you have had your nose in Tolkien books too long.  

I can't remember where I read this. It may have been on a TV special about Tolkien's life. But one of the main reasons why he created his mythology in the first place was that he was dissapointed there was no mythology centered around English culture, like there was for the Greeks, the Norse, and other cultures. At the time, there were "fairy tales" but nothing knitted into a cohesive, overarching story of the world. 

JRRT gives his mythology a perception that it is real by casting himself as "recorder" and the translator of ancient texts (i.e. The Book of Lost Tales, the Red Book of Westmarch). That's part of his genius was he did this with enough subtlety to make the reader able to go with the premise.

If JRRT himself started to believe he was really a translator of actual events, well I'm afraid he got some Longbottom Leaf in his pipe.


----------



## Astaldo (Nov 5, 2004)

baragund said:


> I can't remember where I read this. It may have been on a TV special about Tolkien's life. But one of the main reasons why he created his mythology in the first place was that he was dissapointed there was no mythology centered around English culture, like there was for the Greeks, the Norse, and other cultures.


Well actually all the Greek stories are not myths = fantasies. Some of them really happened as thehistory of Troy. Maybe many (including a lot of Greeks) believe that was not real but there are several clues that confirm it.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 5, 2004)

baragund said:


> Ithy, you don't find the notion of the real-life existence of Elves and Arda too far fetched? Hmmm... I think you have had your nose in Tolkien books too long.



That I have. But why should I find that notion too far fetched? Is there something fundamentally absurd about it? Any proof of its _non-existence_?


----------



## baragund (Nov 5, 2004)

Hee, hee... Well you _know_ how difficult it is to prove a negative. I have a feeling you guys are goofing on me but what the heck, I'll bite. One can explain how well nigh impossible it is for Elves (at least as Tolkien envisioned them) to exist in Real Life. A few tidbits to start:

Let's start with the basic laws of biology and physiology. Elves' immortality just doesn't square biologically. No living thing endures forever. It's been about 25 years since I had high school biology but it's pretty elementary stuff that all living things eventually die.

Regarding the creation of the world, if you are suggesting Tolkien's vision of Arda, with its' Encircling Seas, the 'straight' path to Valinor and the 'curved' path to the rest of the world, the Outer Void, etc. etc. are real, then you throw out pretty much all of the laws of Physics, Geology, Chemistry and Mathematics. I guess the same goes for some Christians who believe that God created the world in seven 24 hour periods about 14,000 years ago but that's a topic for another day (excuse me while I duck under my desk to weather the storm of controversy and outrage I surely created with my last remark  ).

Last but not least, where's the evidence? Show me the Red Book of Westmarch, carbon dated to be about 12,000 years old. Show me the Book of Lost Tales, written by Aelfwine some 1000 -1300 years ago. Show me the slightest artifact of any of the societies Tolkien described.

Finally, to address Astaldo's comment of mythology being intertwined with actual events, sure that _can_ be the case, like with certain elements of Greek mythology or if one consideres Christianity to be a mythology (D'Oh! Dive under the desk again before I get burned at the stake for being a heretic!). But I don't know if that necessarily _has_ to be the case. Are Norse, Aborigine, Asian or Native American mythologies intertwined with actual events? 

Ahhh, I think you guys are pulling my leg.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 5, 2004)

I ain't pullin' yer leg, my good baragund...(I suppose now you're _scared_ since I'm not joking? )



> Let's start with the basic laws of biology and physiology. Elves' immortality just doesn't square biologically. No living thing endures forever. It's been about 25 years since I had high school biology but it's pretty elementary stuff that all living things eventually die.



Well, _technically_, Elves do not endure forever either. So actually I don't see much of a problem there. 

But you have pretty much observed the breaking point in whether one allows for Middle-earth's existence or not -- and that's the existence of a god. Eru made some things that pretty much defy ordinary human 'logic' and perception - drowning Numenor, changing people's fates, producing spirits from his mind...

So an almighty god can effect processes instantly and without having to go through the trouble that an incarnate would.

Like you said, there is no proof either way, and I don't see the absurdity in either allowing for or denying the existence of Middle-earth.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 6, 2004)

What evidence is there for the incredible?

How did a Swedish snowmobile, whose owner says it has never left his garage 200 miles north of Stockholm, get a parking ticket in Warwick, England? Off the subject, but highly incredible, and true!

Cynics will say "Oh, yes, it must have been... " and follow with a credible, everyday reason for an incredible event. However, there are those among us who are prepared to be convinced that events don't always have an everyday explanation; and that an elusive people, skilled beyond our wildest dreams in remaining unseen, could exist alongside blindly arrogant mankind who, it has been said, cannot see the wood for the trees.

ps: Warwick is Tolkien's Kortirion


----------



## baragund (Nov 12, 2004)

OK, now you guys _are_ starting to frighten me...

Ithy, you have a valid point when you discuss allowing the existence of God, whether you call him Eru or Yahweh or any other name from any other religion that represents an all-powerful creator of the universe. At the point where physical evidence fails, one resorts to faith in order to support one's belief that something is "true". However, I don't think that applies in the case of Tolkien's mythology. There is a very well documented record of how JRRT created his mythology out of nothing, how he played around with it, making revisions large and small, throughout his life such that the shape of his mythology at the time of his death was VERY different from what he started out with back during WWI. Don't you think the narratives and relationships and the players would have remained constant over JRRT's life if they were indeed ancient texts that were discovered?

If one were to review Tolkien's biography, his letters and the HOME series, a pretty clear picture emerges of how he started making up these stories as a hobby and they evolved over the years as he figured out how to make all of the pieces fit together. Now if somebody chooses to believe that Tolkien's mythology was true, I would have to ask that person 'What version of the mythology do you consider to be "gospel". The Book of Lost Tales? The 1930 Silmarillion? The published Silmarillion? Something else or some amalgamation of all of the above?


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 12, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> I might be letting my fantasy loose too much, but from many things I've read (and still studying and thinking of) I somehow get this funny impression that Tolkien as if 'believed' in the real existance of the Elves - as really existing creatures in a really existing land.



You're saying that our dear Professor had (gulp) gone dotty in his dotage?

Seriously though, I can understand how someone who had come through such horrible reality (WW I combat, the loss of his beloved irreplacable wife, the industrialization of his home neighborhood) would come to prefer living in a much more pleasant fantasy (I know _I_ would!), and there's no doubt that he spent many years deeply immersed in his "subcreation" — a singular and unique term — which may have meant something much deeper to him than just "playing at creation" (in the sense of building a model railroad for instance) by writing a saga.



Ithrynluin said:


> That I have. But why should I find that notion too far fetched? Is there something fundamentally absurd about it? Any proof of its non-existence?



Ah, now Ith — you're about to drop into a fallacy. Just because something cannot be proven to exist doesn't indeed mean that it doesn't, but on the other hand, neither should it therefore be assumed that it does!



Baragund said:


> ...where's the evidence? Show me the Red Book of Westmarch, carbon dated to be about 12,000 years old. Show me the Book of Lost Tales, written by Aelfwine some 1000 -1300 years ago. Show me the slightest artifact of any of the societies Tolkien described.



You mean ... that all those rings and swords and stuff they're sellin' on the Web weren't made in *Dale — real Dwarf-make???!!* ::: _sits in stunned disbelief, eyes glazed, arms hanging limp_ :::

Barley


----------



## baragund (Nov 13, 2004)

But Lhun, my question still stands. What version of Tolkien's parallel universe exists at the end of The Lost Road? So far I've only read the first four volumes of the HOME series and I have found three so far, each with significant structural differences. 

To address your perception that Tolkien seemed to come across as if he actually believed in the world he was creating, I would chalk that up to the common phenomenom where somebody gets caught up in whatever it is he is doing. There's an expression that is used with athletes a lot when they are 100% focused on what they are trying to do. It's called being "in the zone". I think Tolkien was simply "in the zone" a lot throughout his life because his mind was completely focused on working out all of the thousands of details of his make-believe world.

His genius is the extent to which he made all of the parts of his world fit together.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 13, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> Now, now... Master Innkeeper...
> I am not saying that he _lived_ there. If so, he'd be called an escapist and I don't think he is a one!...
> 
> The whole concept of him not being the actual creator of the tales - often stated - but just the one re-telling what had been sung in times long past... there comes this very strange feeling that after all he as if really did make that journey in time and probably to another world, which he once started to write about in the "Lost Road".



Hey, *here's to escapism IF* it doesn't interfere with functioning in reality! There was a time when I was so immersed in Tolkien (back in the 60s), along with my (then) wife and kids that I sometimes _resented_ such mundanities as _having to go to work_ — it interfered with my reading!

This reminds me of what the world of psychotherapy calls "schizoidal tendencies." Examples of schizoidal personalities include highly functional men and women very skilled and effective in their jobs and in their social relations — who at the same time maintain magical beliefs such as contacting the dead, involvement in Jungian psychiatry, practicing witchcraft or voodoo, or operating out of the belief systems of "fringe" religions (or even the more extreme — or normal, for that matter — variations of mainline religions). Their lives are compartmentalized into efficiently dealing with reality while simultaneously operating from magical belief systems. Human beings have always done this with great ease; growing up in a culture involves soaking up its beliefs _as normal reality_ no matter how "far out" from objective reality they are, or a an adult _adopting_ belief systems that matches one's temperament and desires, no matter how "far out." We have a great tendency to jump on belief systems that match what we would _like_ to believe, and feel very much redeemed and corroborated when we find them — no matter how strange they may seem to others.

This term "schizoidal personality" is of course, a western value judgment. It implies that one shouldn't entertain beliefs that the general culture holds as "over the top." On the other hand for instance, the Hopi Indians believe strongly that _corn_ and the specific colors of nature have all sorts of powers, and these beliefs get them through their lives in a very spiritual way. And if you ever got into the esoterica of Hinduism, you would encounter a set of beliefs that would put you into severe culture shock (I know it did me when I first encountered them)! Yet millions upon millions of Hindus go about their daily lives seeing no division between their inner spiritual lives (which can be pretty wild indeed!) and their outer mundane lives whatever. _They experience the inner and the outer as one seamless whole._ 

(As a matter of fact, many times, if not most or all of the time, the inner reality — in Hinduism — is considered to be the "real" Reality, and the outer life the illusion — the _maya._ This concept is not just indigenous to Eastern religions. Mark Twain once wrote a story about a man who fell into a dream so intense, so real and detailed and so prolonged, that when he finally woke up he was convinced that he was dreaming, and wanted to go back to his dream, absolutely convinced that it was his waking life.)

I don't think Tolkien was that far into his own creation, but it wouldn't surprise me if he liked to _think_ of himself — in a kind of private fun pretending — as a recorder, rather than the author of, what he was writing about. Perhaps he wanted his readers to pretend thus also.

As has been said by other authorities,his great saga was probably written in great measure as his way of dealing with the horrors of World War I, and of the evil Man causes.

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 13, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> ...
> The fact that Tolkien used various means of philology - the one in _his_ understanding, to "hint" that behind the stories told there are others, that the even earlier stories-sources themselves come from remote times when there must've been events that generated these stories, is a fascinating one and it "puts out" the "fire" such burning questions "torture" my mind with.



I am, along with the rest of your TTF friends, _very_ greatly relieved to hear it!

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 14, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> ..."Is the human mind's ability to remember and to fantacise about the future, a peculiar way of "hopping" into parallel time-worlds?"



The short answer: I very seriously doubt it! 

Keep a grip on your waking life, old girl! Consider it as home base, and everything else as mentation, smoke, castles in the air, imagination.

Remembering the past and imagining the future are all explained quite nicely as brain function: synaptic connections and clusters doing their thing.



> ...I believe that there must've been sth. at some point, somewhere, in "the depths of time" that gave birth to it all!



Remember this and remember it well: Belief, no matter how intense, is one thing, truth another. (And what the hell is "sth."?) 

The human mind (the thought-products of the brain, and limited by the very nature of its construction) only produces limited human thoughts that bear the stamp of the mind no matter the content of the thoughts, just as a waffle bears the stamp of the iron, no matter what the ingredients of the batter. So when you come up with wild notions, remember that! Keep your wheels on the rails, kid!

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 14, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> Ah, Barley, but it is only Sunday! Why not rest a bit in the world of fantasies, crazy as they might be?
> Monday will bring me back "on the rails" ruthlessly enough!



_Rest a bit_ is indeed the operative phrase! 

I remember on Fridays I how used to drive the rest of the faculty crazy as they were signing out in the Main Office: They'd say with fervent and weary relief, "Thank God it's Friday!" And I would get this look of mad anticipatory glee on my face as I'd shout, "YEAH! ONLY *TWO MORE DAYS UNTIL MONDAY!*"

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 15, 2004)

baragund said:


> I can't remember where I read this. It may have been on a TV special about Tolkien's life. But one of the main reasons why he created his mythology in the first place was that he was dissapointed there was no mythology centered around English culture, like there was for the Greeks, the Norse, and other cultures. At the time, there were "fairy tales" but nothing knitted into a cohesive, overarching story of the world.


Tolkien's main complaint was that the mythology of Britain had been corrupted by the overlaying of Christianity on the stories of characters such as Arthur. Tolkien regarded religion as fatal to myth, as the truths woven into myth should be gleaned from the stories themselves, not from any didactic preaching on the part of the author or editor.

Britain actually has a rich mythology, but it is scattered and fragmented and hardly anyone knows it (how like the Hobbits we are!). Stories pertinent to the whole of the British isles are preserved in Ireland, though most have been Christianised with the mythical, magical characters being transformed into saints. Welsh is the nearest thing we have to the language of the ancient Britons, and the Welsh word for Britain is Prydain. This is from Pryderi, son of Pwyll and Rhiannon; his name means 'trouble'. Anyone who reads the stories surrounding Pryderi will spot similarities with the stories of the knights of Arthur's round table, whose tales were direct steals from more ancient legends. On reading the original stories, one discovers that there is more Faërie in England than most of its subjects realise. Tolkien enriched himself with all the European mythologies he could lay his hands on and, concentrating on those that appealed to him, stepped into the perilous realm to discover Middle-earth (and Ham, Wootton Major and Niggle Parish).


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 15, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> ...Tolkien regarded religion as fatal to myth, as the truths woven into myth should be gleaned from the stories themselves, not from any didactic preaching on the part of the author or editor.



Amen and amen! Which is a great part of the reason why the saga has such universal appeal: everyone can enjoy it as the great adventure that it is, without being put off by any kind of religious indoctrination being whispered in the reader's ear.

Barley


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 15, 2004)

baragund said:


> There is a very well documented record of how JRRT created his mythology out of nothing



Is there not a well-documented record of how various men were inspired by some thing called the 'Holy Spirit' in writing up huge stacks of text? Ain't that whack?  It just so happens, however, that I don't accept everything they put down as 'truth', or 'the word of God', since I believe those who wrote the holy texts coloured them with much of their own misconception and prejudice, consciously or not, and attempted (succeeded?) to pass it off as the authentic be-all end-all view of God...

Could not Tolkien also have been thus inspired, whether he would admit to it or not, whether he was aware of it or not? I'm not claiming he was, but is that notion so difficult to fathom?

Or is belief in something, or _allowing_ the *possibility* that something may be real or may have existed, rendered credible only after it is accepted by the masses and flung into the mainstream? I refuse to accept such a philosophy, and frankly, find it ridiculous. Not that I think you've embraced it...



Barliman Butterbur said:


> Ah, now Ith — you're about to drop into a fallacy. Just because something cannot be proven to exist doesn't indeed mean that it doesn't, but on the other hand, neither should it therefore be assumed that it does!



Ahem...



Ithrynluin said:


> Like you said, there is no proof either way, and I don't see the absurdity in either allowing for or denying the existence of Middle-earth.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 16, 2004)

'Truth' is not synonymous with 'Fact', and a knowledge of facts is an aid to wisdom, not wisdom itself. Mythology has a way of planting truths in us as seeds that can grow. Tolkien's mythology is particularly rich in truth, though to discover it, one must first have the desire, or thirst for truth. That is why many can encounter Tolkien and not 'get it', whilst others are changed forever.

You will have to ask God which bits of the Bible are supposed to be taken as historical fact and which are mythological truths. With Tolkien's writings it's a bit easier. Anyone who chooses to believe in T-mythology is, I think, believing the truths, not the facts.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 16, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> 'Truth' is not synonymous with 'Fact', and a knowledge of facts is an aid to wisdom, not wisdom itself. Mythology has a way of planting truths in us as seeds that can grow. Tolkien's mythology is particularly rich in truth, though to discover it, one must first have the desire, or thirst for truth. That is why many can encounter Tolkien and not 'get it', whilst others are changed forever.
> 
> You will have to ask God which bits of the Bible are supposed to be taken as historical fact and which are mythological truths. With Tolkien's writings it's a bit easier. Anyone who chooses to believe in T-mythology is, I think, believing the truths, not the facts.



Wow! It is evident that you are involved in some deeeeeeeeep deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep thinking here! But if you would briefly cater to a mind as dense as mine: I can see how truth can be different than fact (sort of), but how can a fact not be true? Isn't this a little on the order of a square being a variant of a rectangle, but a rectangle can never be a square...?

Barley


----------



## baragund (Nov 17, 2004)

Whoo-eee! All kinds of deeeeep thinking going on here. Sorry I haven’t been keeping up with the discussion; there are many points that need responses.

First of all, let’s review Lhun’s original question. Is Faerie and its inhabitants real or a “mirror-reflection” of certain features of Men. Ithy gives the best answer by referencing Tolkien’s letter #181, especially the sentence “The Elves represent, as it were, the artistic, aesthetic, and purely scientific aspects of the Humane nature raised to a higher level than is actually seen in Men.” There you go. They represent a lot of what Tolkien considered to be ideal qualities in Men and are, therefore, the “mirror-reflection” that Lhun was asking about. I’d like to review letters #214 and 413 that Eledhwen referenced in order to understand the full context when he described himself as a “recorder” or a “chosen instrument”, but I suspect that this was intentional on Tolkien’s part in order to give a better illusion of realism.

Next, let’s give some additional response to Ithy’s challenge to prove the non-existence of Elves and Arda as Tolkien imagined it. As I said earlier, it is logically difficult to prove a negative but how can one rationalize the existence of Tolkien’s world given the enormous body of physical evidence of the origin of our species, the planet and the cosmos? Somebody would need to reconcile the universe as Tolkien imagined it with the combined findings of all of the physical and natural sciences.

At various times, Lhun, Eledhwen and Ithy resort to a faith-based position, saying that is one chooses to believe that the world exists as Tolkien imagined it, then others are in no more position to say it is not so than saying the believers in any religion were wrong in their beliefs. Earlier, I stated that Tolkien formed his world “out of nothing” which drew a strong disagreement from Lhun. Of course his creation out of nothing is well documented! Simply look at the introductions, notes and commentaries by Christopher Tolkien that accompany each of JRRT’s writings throughout the HOME series as well as Unfinished Tales. All of the versions, emendations, revisions, strikeouts and additions show us first-hand Tolkien’s creative process. Sure, the creative process is a continuous thing where we build on what was done before but Arda and all of its’ components and inhabitants are miles beyond what was there before. He took the fragmented fairy tales and myths that Eledhwen mentioned to a significantly higher level. He knitted them together into an entire imaginary universe in a way that had never been done before. 

Also, if Tolkien actually believed in the world he created, how did he reconcile that with his devout Catholicism? If he did, he would be guilty of the occultism that he held in such disdain.

Finally, I have to ask Eledhwen to elaborate a little more on her statement that ‘truth’ is not synonymous with ‘fact’. In my book, you need facts to determine the truth. Facts, and their proper application, leads one to the truth and, ultimately, to wisdom. Tolkien’s mythology is rich in truth because he describes the human condition so well in his writings. The effects of loyalty, deceit, love, hate, humility, pride, generosity, greed etc. etc. on individuals and on societies. Those truths he obtained by observing the world around him and by understanding the messages of the myths and legends he was studying.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 17, 2004)

*What is truth?*



baragund said:


> I’d like to review letters #214 and 413 that Eledhwen referenced in order to understand the full context when he described himself as a “recorder” or a “chosen instrument”, but I suspect that this was intentional on Tolkien’s part in order to give a better illusion of realism.


See also the 'Gandalf' in letter 328.



> Finally, I have to ask Eledhwen to elaborate a little more on her statement that ‘truth’ is not synonymous with ‘fact’. In my book, you need facts to determine the truth. *Facts, and their proper application, leads one to the truth and, ultimately, to wisdom*. Tolkien’s mythology is rich in truth because he describes the human condition so well in his writings. The effects of loyalty, deceit, love, hate, humility, pride, generosity, greed etc. etc. on individuals and on societies. Those truths he obtained by observing the world around him and by understanding the messages of the myths and legends he was studying.


You have answered your own question (see highlight) - the road cannot be the destination, and fact is only one road to truth. The opposite of fact is fiction; but though LotR is a work of fiction, it is full of truth. 

Greg Wright* says: _The design of (Tolkien's) fiction has been proven to be mightily effective and far more important and potent in both scope and impact than any mere adventure story. Tolkien's Hobbits serve as a cultural bridge from Middle-earth into the modern era. His myth simultaneously accounts for what our culture has lost, and what it still may regain._ *Tolkien in Perspective, Sifting the Gold from the Glitter. Greg Wright 2003

Wright is explaining one of the truths to be gleaned from LotR; there are others. A saying that is growing in popularity is "true for you, but not for me" - used in ethical and religious argument for instance.

Truth is a philosophical concept; fact is what is generally accepted as that which is not fiction (note that libraries do not use the word 'truth' to label non-fiction, as its opposite 'falsehood' would seem strangely inappropriate for the rest of their collection).


----------



## Walter (Nov 18, 2004)

Underestimating someone elses knowledge is as dangerous as overestimating ones own. It takes quite some knowledge and a grain of wisdom to be aware of the limitations of our knowledge - Thus I'd rather stick to "Scio me nihil scire"...

But I too disagree that Tolkien _'Tolkien formed his world “out of nothing”'_ and even more that this could possibly be _'well documented'_. His world was formed from the "leaf-mould" of his memories (as he called it), history, mythology and philology were the basic ingredients, and Tolkien more than once admitted that he had "borrowed" from many sources.

If we take Tolkien's Turin as but one example: Anyone who has read the tale of Kullervo in the _Kalevala_ will not fail to notice quite a few parallels in the story, other parallels will be found in Oedibus and Sigurd/Siegfried of the Northern tales. 

Shippey - above all Tolkien scholars - provides us with hundreds of examples where Tolkien had not _'formed his world “out of nothing”'_, but rather borrowed from many sources.

I very much agree with Eledhwen's point of view about truth, facts and wisdom, I think this comes closest to what Tolkien tried to express in his tales and - more than anywhere else - in his poem Mythopoeia, with which he tried to convince Lewis that myths are not "lies breathed through silver", but rather that they contain more than just a grain of truth (for those who were able to perceive it within them). 

Few things are absolute in this world, and this goes for "facts" as well (except for many of those facts which can be considered trivial). What may have been considered facts centuries ago, may not be regarded as facts in the lights of today's science, and what may seem a fact now, may no longer be considered one centuries from now. 

And since truth indeed appears as a philosophical concept rather than anything else, I do not see truth as something "relative", except maybe for the "perceiver" and thus I'd call it "subjective". 

And that symbols (letters, signs, words, runes) have different meanings in different cultures is not much more than such a "trivial fact" mentioned above. 

But does this playing with symbols bring us closer to an answer of the original question of this thread? I doubt it...

I think that even the quotes in the introductory post misrepresent Tolkiens take on the issue, and moreover I think it takes a somewhat more diligent reading of "On Fairy-stories" to realize what Tolkien really wanted to express with this essay/lecture. And even the first quote in the first post 



> Stories that are actually concerned primarily with 'fairies', that is with creatures that might also in modern English be called 'elves', are relatively rare, and as a rule not very interesting. Most good 'fairy-stories' are about the aventures of men in the Perilous Realm or upon its shadowy marches. Naturally so; for if elves are true, and really exist independently of our tales about them, then this also is certainly true: elves are not primarily concerned with us, nor we with them. Our fates are sundered, and our paths seldom meet. Even upon the borders of Faërie we encounter them only at some chance crossing of the ways.6



omits Tolkien's note 6 which says



> This is true also, even if they are only creations of Man's mind, 'true' only as reflecting in a particular way one of Man's visions of Truth



In his essay Tolkien put quite some emphasis on a clear distinction between reality and fantasy when he said:



> Fantasy is a natural human activity. It certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make. If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they ever get into that state (it would not seem at all impossible), Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion.
> For creative Fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as it appears under the sun; on a recognition of fact, but not a slavery to it. So upon logic was founded the nonsense that displays itself in the tales and rhymes of Lewis Carroll. If men really could not distinguish between frogs and men, fairy-stories about frog-kings would not have arisen.
> Fantasy can, of course, be carried to excess. It can be ill done.
> It can be put to evil uses. It may even delude the minds out of which it came. But of what human thing in this fallen world is that not true? Men have conceived not only of elves, but they have imagined gods, and worshipped them, even worshipped those most deformed by their authors' own evil. But they have made false gods out of other materials: their notions, their banners, their monies; even their sciences and their social and economic theories have demanded human sacrifice. _Abusus non tollit usum_.



Now, whether or not Tolkien believed his elves to be "real" is - to me - pretty much answered in the essay: they were "real" and "true" in his mind, but I didn't find anything in his entire legendarium or other writings that goes beyond that...


----------



## Walter (Nov 19, 2004)

Lhunithiliel said:


> "But it is not *you*, but *Tolkien* we are discussing here!" - one would say, and very rightfully.


Well, *I* was discussing Tolkien in my previous post, wasn't I? 

My major points were:

1) That Tolkien was not creating his legendarium _out of nothing_, and

2) that you were - purposely or not - omitting very important parts of Tolkien's essay - which are, IMO, pertinent to the discussion of the question you raise in your introductory post, namely note 6 and the part where he discussed the importance of the distinction between "fantasy" and and "reality" in our primary world, and 

3) that I have found no evidence whatsoever, that Tolkien believed his elves to exist as independent creatures in our primary world, but that he granted them "truth" as creatures of man's mind...

I had hoped that especially 2) and 3) would represent an answer to the question you raise in your first post, one that would - hopefully - not seem to _underestimate your knowledge_ - like the answers provided by others which you dismissed so easily. I could not possibly underestimate your knowledge, after all, I know _how well read in all matters Tolkien you are_....


----------



## Walter (Nov 19, 2004)

My previous post, even if interpreted by you as mere sarcasm, was in fact just another attempt to bring the thread back to its original topic and - once again - offering an answer to your original question...


----------



## Ithrynluin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: What is truth?*



Lhunithiliel said:


> To start with, I’d say that the assumption of Lhun not knowing of what was said about Elves in the particular _*Letter #181*_, as well as in various other sources, means (to me, at least) two things:
> 1/ Ithy has underestimated my knowledge on the issue, which, even if far from being complete, is still not null.
> And
> 2/ To assume that those quoted lines are the answer to my question is wrong, because :
> ...



I did not underestimate anyone's knowledge by posting a simple quote. I was posting it for all eyes to see and consider, and whether they had seen it before or not is irrelevant. It was quite obvious that the quote was not meant to provide any 'answer', but only to _touch upon the surface_ of *one facet* of your question(s). That being said, rolling eyes at one another and digging up perceived insults is something this thread, and the forum at large, can do without.


----------



## Walter (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: What is truth?*



Ithrynluin said:


> That being said, rolling eyes at one another and digging up perceived insults is something this thread, and the forum at large, can do without.


It is quite interesting to learn that a small emoticon can draw so much attention. But sometimes I wish the main content of my posts - and the information provided therein - could get as much... 

I guess I should restrict myself to pot-luck comments here...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: What is truth?*



Ithrynluin said:


> ...rolling eyes at one another ... is something this thread, and the forum at large, can do without.



OH COME NOW!    

Barley


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Nov 20, 2004)

baragund said:


> I can't remember where I read this. It may have been on a TV special about Tolkien's life. But one of the main reasons why he created his mythology in the first place was that he was dissapointed there was no mythology centered around English culture, like there was for the Greeks, the Norse, and other cultures. At the time, there were "fairy tales" but nothing knitted into a cohesive, overarching story of the world.


Middle-earth (the setting for _The Hobbit_, _The Lord of the Rings_, and related books) is not based on Tolkien's mythology for England.

The mythology for England was _The Book of Lost Tales_. It was set IN England, not an imaginary prehistoric Europe. It involved imaginary early English people and was suposed to explain how England became settled by the Anglo-Saxons.

The Middle-earth mythology is a distant descendant of that early project, and not exactly an intentional descendant. That is, Tolkien wrote _The Book of Lost Tales_ without any forethought of Hobbits, the Eldar of Middle-earth, Rohan, Gondor, Numenor, etc. He only wrote _The Lord of the Rings_ because his publisher, George Allen & Unwin, asked him to provide a sequel for _The Hobbit_.

Somewhere in the 1930s, probably as a result of his correspondence and discussions with friends and acquaintances regarding the languages of his mythologies, Tolkien began utilizing the motif of documenting long-forgotten languages in natural language. The original mythology, _The Book of Lost Tales_, had a couple of "forgotten" languages (the most well-known being Qenya, an ancestor of Quenya in terms of Tolkien's actual development of Elvish) but Tolkien did not write extensive philological essays about that language (at least, not any which have been published in the major works).

His philological approach to documenting the languages required a historical narrative for each word (philology is the study of the evolution of language). The invented philology therefore spilled over into everything he wrote about Middle-earth. For example, virtually all the place-names in the Shire were chosen to imply something about their locations and/or the people who lived in those places, as well as the history behind the settlements.

The nomenclature of the Shire, therefore, is tied to the Shire's invented history, even though it uses real English words. Many people mistakenly assume that the Shire place-names are intended to reflect England itself, but the Shire is only a philological echo of the English toponymy. That is, it is not derived from English toponymy, but rather is only modelled on it and uses English as the language of nomenclature so that it will seem familiar to a native English reader (Tolkien had actually provided his publisher with detailed notes on how the place-names should be translated into other languages when foreign rights for his books were sold).


----------



## Walter (Nov 21, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> The mythology for England was _The Book of Lost Tales_. It was set IN England, not an imaginary prehistoric Europe. It involved imaginary early English people and was suposed to explain how England became settled by the Anglo-Saxons.


I am not sure about this "mythology for England". Nor am I sure when Tolkien abandoned the idea, or if he ever had completely abandoned it. And consequently, I am not sure the "mythology for England" is restricted to _The Book of Lost Tales_. Unfortunately Tolkien - in his letters - isn't very specific about the "project".

The _Lays_, for example, could probably qualify for something in the vein of the heroic lays (like e.g. the fragments of the "Nibelungenlied" or "Völsunga-saga") as extant in the _Poetic Edda_ or other Germanic or Nordic sources. Or in both his time-travel episodes Tolkien took another attempt of linking his invented mythology (or parts thereof) - to existing history and myths. From the outline for the _The Lost Road_ we see how Tolkien again played with the idea of direct references to existing history and myths. The "Sceaf-Episode", for example, is tossed up once again in _The Notion Club Papers_.

Thus, I wouldn't say, that the mythology he could _dedicate to his country_ did not evolve and was restricted to a certain book or time-period. The only thing that - IMO - didn't quite evolve was that his mythology would somehow "justify" the "Anglo-Saxon claim" for England, as it seems Tolkien would have preferred at times...

But isn't it curious that eventually Tolkien's "invented mythology" found a broader interest, than each of the mythologies he seemed to have had in mind when he was scetching this idea...?


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Nov 21, 2004)

Walter said:


> I am not sure about this "mythology for England". Nor am I sure when Tolkien abandoned the idea, or if he ever had completely abandoned it. And consequently, I am not sure the "mythology for England" is restricted to _The Book of Lost Tales_. Unfortunately Tolkien - in his letters - isn't very specific about the "project".


Christopher Tolkien documented his father's work on the mythology for England in _The Book of Lost Tales, Part One_ and _The Book of Lost Tales, Part Two_. JRRT stopped working on the texts sometime between 1921 and 1925. At that time, he began working on the two poems, "Lay of the Children of Hurin" and "Lay of Leithian", in which the whole setting for the original mythology (England) was abandoned, and the natures of the Elves and Dwarves underwent initial significant transformations. Beren also became a Man, and and an early literary incarnation of Sauron (Thu) was introduced.

But the lays were not part of _The Book of Lost Tales_ nor intended to continue it. They diverged from the characters, plots, and settings of BOLT because Tolkien had abandoned the concept of creating a mythology for England. They would more appropriately be described as English fairy tales, without any particular reference to England (English in that they were written in a mode familiar to students of English literature and poetry).

_The Lost Road_ was not part of the mythology for England, either. It bore no resemblance to _The Book of Lost Tales_ and really had no connection to it.

Just because Tolkien *borrowed* names and plots from _The Book of Lost Tales_ for later mythology doesn't mean those later mythologies were intended or perceived by Tolkien to be part of _The Book of Lost Tales_. He never made any such identification, and the fact that the worlds and histories of these various mythologies differ so considerably makes it impossible to credibly impute or infer any deliberate connections beyond the intended borrowings.

Tolkien spent most of his life reshaping ideas, expressing them in the forms of new stories and new mythologies.


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 22, 2004)

Well, this is the first time I have heard that _The Silmarillion _ is not supposed to be a mythology for England. I have never before heard the theory that he abandoned that idea when _The Book of Lost Tales _ were abandoned and reshaped into _The Silmarillion._ 

The way I see it (and I am not as well versed in this as the honourable members above me), the main difference between _The Book of Lost Tales _ and _The Silmarillion_, is the absence of Eriol (or Ælfwine of England) and his stay at the _Cottage of Lost Play_. The stories that he is told there remain mostly the same, at least as far as I have read. Maybe it is significant that Beren becomes a Man instead of an Elf. And it is IMO much better that we encounter Sauron the Maia instead of Tevildo, Prince of Cats. But is the element of Eriol's coming and to and remaining in Tol Eressëa so important that his absence disqualifies The Silmarillion as an attempt at writing a mythology? I have a hard time understanding that.


----------



## Walter (Nov 22, 2004)

Thank you for your reply, Michael, but unfortunately re-iteration of your point doesn't really help my dilemma. Your line of reasoning seems to be: _The Book of Lost Tales_ is the "mythology for England", everything that comes later is not really part of _The Book of Lost Tales_ and hence it cannot be the "mythology for England"...

I agree with you, that _The Book of Lost Tales_ would appear at first sight to represent most fittingly such a "mythology for England" since there we have many drafts with references to names and places of English legend/history – even some direct references to Germanic/Northern mythology can be found - whereas in almost all later writings those direct references are gone.

But that doesn't make it any clearer for me. For one, I have not yet read a clear statement of JRRT where he is a little more specific about this curious project "A Mythology for England". What - for me - comes closest to such a specific claim is the oft quoted passage of Letter #131, but there Tolkien doesn't say "A Mythology for England", (neither does he say "Anglo-Saxon"). Rather, he says he had _"... a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ...– which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country."_The next passage gives us but a rough idea what he seemed to have had in mind for his mythology, but then he immediately qualifies it as "absurd".

I think that writing such a "mythology for England" – not Britain - would represent quite a difficult task, and I think that Tolkien soon realized the problems. If this mythology were to acquire some credibility it would necessarily have to maintain some of the parallels we find in most European mythologies and which are – most probably – due to some very old roots these mythologies have in common: A pantheon with remnants of Old-European culture, overlaid by the culture and tradition of the Indo-European immigrants, and heroic lays with roots that go back to the threshold of the change from the divine to the human hero. 

Furthermore this mythology needed to set some claim of originality and here the problems for Tolkien began. On the one hand he disliked the originally Celtic traditions since they had become monotheistic and Christened before or during the migration from oral to written tradition. Thus at one point he came to the conclusion that the '_Íras and Wealas tell only garbled things of the true tradition of fairies_'. On the other hand the Anglo-Saxon invasion was far too late to connect the old - mostly Germanic/Northern - legends with the new country – England/Luthany/Albion - and that was IMO the cause for Tolkien's "struggles" (cf. Ing/Ingwe, Angol/Eriol) concerning dating and chronology or geography, which finally seemed to have resulted in abandoning the idea of direct references of his invented mythology to names/characters and places of England and/or of the old Germanic/Northern legends.

So, to me, it is still not clear whether or not Tolkien ever ventured into an explicit "mythology for England" (as opposed to one he could simply "dedicate" to England) and from other – later – writings I gather that he did not completely abandon the idea of "linking" his mythology to traditional legends/history. And this was, what led me to state



> I am not sure about this "mythology for England". Nor am I sure when Tolkien abandoned the idea, or if he ever had completely abandoned it. And consequently, I am not sure the "mythology for England" is restricted to The Book of Lost Tales.





MichaelMartinez said:


> But the lays were not part of The Book of Lost Tales nor intended to continue it. They diverged from the characters, plots, and settings of BOLT because Tolkien had abandoned the concept of creating a mythology for England. They would more appropriately be described as English fairy tales, without any particular reference to England (English in that they were written in a mode familiar to students of English literature and poetry).



I'm not sure, Tolkien would have been happy with the term "fairy tales", he probably would have preferred "heroic legends" or "-myths" in the sense as described in his essay "On Fairy-stories". And his lays – to me – resemble the tales of Beowulf, Gawain or of Sigurd/Siegfried which Tolkien had studied and adored, and possessed _the tone and quality that_ he _desired_. And as such Tolkien's lays would IMO qualify as much to be part of an invented "mythology for England" (except maybe for the explicitly Christian touch of _Sir Gawain..._) as the aforementioned traditional tales, if we do not – per definition – restrict it to _The Book of Lost Tales_...




MichaelMartinez said:


> _The Lost Road_ was not part of the mythology for England, either. It bore no resemblance to _The Book of Lost Tales_ and really had no connection to it.



But there we encounter a similar attempt to link (or "associate" – as Christopher calls it) Tolkien's tales to existing history, legends and myths as we find in _The Book of Lost Tales_, and especially in "The unwritten chapters" we find very similar approaches to English history as in BoLT2...

Maybe I've missed something, but to the best of my knowledge Tolkien never explicitly claimed wanting to write – or having written – a "mythology of (or for) England", though we can gather enough hints that could suggest such an attempt at certain points while writing his legendarium. But it would seem awkward to me to say that _"The mythology for England was 'The Book of Lost Tales'."_. To see such a claim warranted I needed more explicit statements by Tolkien and a good definition of a " mythology for England", so far I have found neither one...


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Nov 22, 2004)

Walter said:


> Thank you for your reply, Michael, but unfortunately re-iteration of your point doesn't really help my dilemma. Your line of reasoning seems to be: _The Book of Lost Tales_ is the "mythology for England", everything that comes later is not really part of _The Book of Lost Tales_ and hence it cannot be the "mythology for England"...


This is not a line of reasoning. This is what *Christopher Tolkien went to great pains to make clear to his readers*. i.e., it's not a subject for interpretation, guessing, reasoning, arguing, or whatever.

So many people have wrongly stated that _The Lord of the Rings_ is Tolkien's mythology for England that it is simply accepted as a fact, but it's not a fact. It's wrong.

There is nothing anyone can do in response to such an erroneous assertion except to point to the truth: that the mythology for England was _The Book of Lost Tales_ (nothing else).

That is all there is to it.

Regrettably, repeating the truth has less effect than repeating a mistaken notion.

All the elements of _The Lord of the Rings_ which are so identifiable with the story -- Hobbits, Dunedain, Eldar, Ents, the geography of Middle-earth, the history of Arnor, Gondor, Numenor, and Beleriand -- were created by Tolkien *AFTER* he abandoned work on the mythology for England.

Hence, it should be self-evident that _The Lord of the Rings_, which was written for one reason and one reason only (to provide his publisher with a sequel to _The Hobbit_), has nothing to do with the mythology for England. It is not a part of that mythology, it is not the mythology itself -- it only benefits from having inherited some ideas which were originally assembled by Tolkien in that original, unrelated mythology.

_The Lord of the Rings_ is no more a mythology for England than the _King James Bible_ is a rendering of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic documents of Biblical literature.


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Nov 22, 2004)

Walter said:


> I'm not sure, Tolkien would have been happy with the term "fairy tales", he probably would have preferred "heroic legends" or "-myths" in the sense as described in his essay "On Fairy-stories".


He would have agreed that the stories which the lays presented were indeed fairy-tales. The mode of story-telling was faux legend -- that is, the lays pretended that the stories were true, as if the author believed them whole-heartedly.

But the lays had nothing to do whatsoever with the mythology for England. England was gone.

You don't seem to understand that the mythology for England was *about* England. Any other story, set in some imaginary land rather than England, was not *about England*, and therefore was not a mythology for England.

The purpose of the mythology for England was to create a mythology which explained how England came to be English (rather than the abode of fairies it had once been -- according to the mythology). "The Lay of the Children of Hurin" and "Lay of Leithian" contribute absolutely nothing to such an explanation.



> But there we encounter a similar attempt to link (or "associate" – as Christopher calls it) Tolkien's tales to existing history, legends and myths as we find in _The Book of Lost Tales_, and especially in "The unwritten chapters" we find very similar approaches to English history as in BoLT2...


_The Lost Road_ was conceived for an entirely different purpose, with an entirely different objective. You cannot just lump all these different mythologies together and say they are part of the same set of myths. Their only unifying factor is that fact that they were written by J.R.R. Tolkien. But he distinguished between them as separate mythologies. He used them to create a wholly new mythology which embodied all the ideas he had come to cherish through his years of writing.

The fusion of ideas into the new (Middle-earth) mythology did not in any way alter the previous mythologies. Nor did the obvious connection of the borrowings induct those mythologies into the new mythology. After all, their characters, their special races, their histories, their geographies, and their plots remained fixed in the abandoned works Tolkien simply perused for ideas.



> Maybe I've missed something, but to the best of my knowledge Tolkien never explicitly claimed wanting to write – or having written – a "mythology of (or for) England",...


He spoke of it in several of his letters. That is, I think, primarily why so many people assume he was talking about _The Lord of the Rings_. In Tolkien's expressed point of view, _The Lord of the Rings_ was the culmination of a long process which began with his attempt to create a mythology for England. But that process was by no means confined to creating the mythology for England with which it began.

The *process* outlasted the original goal.

If Tolkien had set out to create a new mythology for Greece, or a new mythology for Egypt, and still ended up with _The Lord of the Rings_ (and he incorporated elements of Greek and Egyptian history and mythology into his various works), who would believe he had written a mythology for Greece (or Egypt) with _The Lord of the Rings_?



> ...though we can gather enough hints that could suggest such an attempt at certain points while writing his legendarium. But it would seem awkward to me to say that _"The mythology for England was 'The Book of Lost Tales'."_. To see such a claim warranted I needed more explicit statements by Tolkien and a good definition of a " mythology for England", so far I have found neither one...


Tolkien never anticipated that so many people would confuse the phrase "mythology for England" with the purpose and function of _The Lord of the Rings_. He had no way of knowing that people today would be used to writers who produce 20 books in the same world and keep going. He had no way of knowing that National Geographic and New Line Cinema would pluck a few concepts from his writings and distort them into legendary facts which are now almost unassailable in the popular mind.

There will never be a definitive statement by Tolkien regarding any question asked after his death.


----------



## Walter (Nov 22, 2004)

I can only guess, but it seems that I have been unable to express my point of view in that previous post of mine....


----------



## baragund (Nov 22, 2004)

Soooooo....

This is a great discussion on Tolkien's mythology, and I have a question or two about that later, but let's get back to Lhun's question. Are Tolkien’s Elves real? And as I read her first post, I take her question to mean actual living beings living out in the woods somewhere, somehow evading any ability of us clumsy humans to perceive them. 

We talked a lot about the meaning of truth, about logic, about the use of faith to believe that which cannot be proven, and about myths and legends. To me, Walter gives the best-written answer where he described Elves as real in Tolkien’s mind to the extent that they are instruments to express certain truths that had been taken from more ancient myths and developed further in his own mythology, but not living and breathing beings. What does the rest of the gang think now that we have had all of this discussion? My position has not changed: Tolkien’s Elves and the other occupants and features of Arda are solely the products of Tolkien’s imagination. 

(Btw, apologies for my clumsy “out of nothing” remark. I was only trying to describe how the stories were Tolkien’s creations as opposed to him being some kind of translator of texts that were written by others.)

Regarding the somewhat tangential discussion on Tolkien’s mythology being “of” or “for” England, I’m wondering if Michael M. could give a little more explanation for his position that the only mythology was The Book of Lost Tales. I understand the part about only BOLT has direct references to England but is that necessarily a prerequisite? Also, could you throw some more light on how Tolkien would set up a basic story-arc for BOLT with the idea of being an English mythology, and then no longer consider it an English mythology after making updates and revisions per the Lays and the various iterations of the Silmarillion while keeping the same basic arc of the story and the same basic geography of the world?

Also, Michael M. discussed why The Lord of the Rings should not be considered Tolkien’s English mythology. I think I understand this if one were to look at LOTR in isolation. But why can’t LOTR be considered an extension of, or an elaboration on, a piece of Tolkien’s greater mythology?


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Nov 22, 2004)

baragund said:


> Regarding the somewhat tangential discussion on Tolkien’s mythology being “of” or “for” England, I’m wondering if Michael M. could give a little more explanation for his position that the only mythology was The Book of Lost Tales.


I never said any such thing.

_The Book of Lost Tales_ is a mythology Tolkien created which was based in England, about England.

The pre-LoTR Silmarillion texts are about another mythology Tolkien created which was NOT based in England, or about England.

The LoTR-era texts (including a new set of Silmarillion texts) are about another mythology Tolkien created which was also NOT based in England, or about England.

And the projected mythology which can be glimpsed in the texts Christopher published in _Morgoth's Ring_ would have been radically different from the LoTR-era mythology.

I usually refer to the LoTR-era mythology as "the Middle-earth mythology".



> Also, Michael M. discussed why The Lord of the Rings should not be considered Tolkien’s English mythology. I think I understand this if one were to look at LOTR in isolation. But why can’t LOTR be considered an extension of, or an elaboration on, a piece of Tolkien’s greater mythology?


The earlier works did not include anything related to _The Lord of the Rings_. Hence, _The Lord of the Rings_ must be viewed "in isolation" (as you put it -- more correctly, it must be viewed in the proper context -- that is, together with the texts which Tolkien wrote specifically in relation to the book).

One simply cannot REASONABLY intermingle the texts or the mythologies (many people UNreasonably insist on doing it anyway, and they write a great deal of nonsense based on that intermingling).

These texts were created independently of each other with no forward-projecting inclusions for future works. That is, _The Book of Lost Tales_ (the mythology for England) doesn't anticipate the two lays, "Lay of the Children of Hurin" and "Lay of Leithian", which in turn don't anticipate the first Silmarillion (the "Sketch of the Mythology" published in _The Shaping of Middle-earth_) even though it was directly based on those two lays, and the first Silmarillion doesn't anticipate the subsequent Silmarillion texts, or the Numenor stories, or _The Hobbit_, or _The Lord of the Rings_.

The early stories simply do not make any provision for the later stories in their content or purpose. Nor do the later stories look back to the early stories.

What Tolkien did was bring forward _ideas_, and some of those ideas anticipated new works which would have resembled older works, but which would have been compatible with _The Lord of the Rings_ (and its mythology) while retaining something of the old relationships between the earlier stories.

There is no "Fall of Gondolin" story which is compatible with the mythology of _The Lord of the Rings_. JRRT never wrote it, although he almost wrote a similar story, a fragment of which was published in _Unfinished Tales_ ("Of Tuor and his Coming to Gondolin"). There is, technically, no _Silmarillion_ which is compatible with the mythology of _The Lord of the Rings_. Christopher published an approximation of what his father might have contrived, had many things not happened to prevent JRRT from completing the project.

Just because Christopher published fourteen books based on his father's unpublished writings doesn't mean all those writings are compatible with one another. They are not. In some cases, there is a clear historical progression of ideas from one mythology to the next; but the various mythologies remain separate and distinct. Some of them are contemporary with each other (as the Numenor and Silmarillion mythologies of the 1930s are) but though those stories are distinct from each other, the _ideas_ which Tolkien developed in them were carried forward into a new mythology (as expressed in _The Lord of the Rings_).

It is really not a complicated process. I feel people insist on overcomplicating the matter by trying to throw everything into the same bucket. It won't all fit. It wasn't all intended to go together. There is no need to try to make it all fit together.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Nov 22, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> ...the first Silmarillion doesn't anticipate the subsequent Silmarillion texts, or the Numenor stories, or The Hobbit, or The Lord of the Rings... The early stories simply do not make any provision for the later stories in their content or purpose. Nor do the later stories look back to the early stories...



Pardon me for butting into this erudite conversation as the ignoramus that I am — but to say that a first draft doesn't "anticipate" the second and subsequent drafts is to state the obvious, why even bring it up? How could it? Creative activity is a forward-moving process: it evolves, not devolves! And to say that "later stories" (by this I assume you're speaking of LOTR and TH) do not "look back to the early stories" is — in the case of LOTR & TH at any rate — simply dead wrong. 

To actually seriously hold that _The Lord of the Rings_ and _the Hobbit_ (if I understand this aright) have no connection with _The Silmarillion_ is, in my opinion, a notion that is appallingly off the rails. Both books allude to the Silmarillion time and time again. The Silmarillion provides their _quite-obvious_ basis and background.

The good Professor, in Letter #124, has himself said:

"Unfortunately I am not an Anglo-Saxon and though shelved (until a year ago), the Silmarillion and all that has refused to be suppressed. It has bubbled up, infiltrated, and probably spoiled everything (that even remotely approached 'Faery') which I have tried to write since. It was kept out of Farmer Giles with an effort, but stopped the continuation. *Its shadow was deep on the later pans of The Hobbit. It has captured The Lord of the Rings, so that that has become simply its continuation and completion, requiring the Silmarillion to be fully intelligible* – without a lot of references and explanations that clutter it in one or two places. 

"Ridiculous and tiresome as you may think me, I want to publish them both – The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings – *in conjunction or in connexion."*_[Emphasis mine]_

The _drafts_ of the saga which precede the final form are just that. They are the _castoffs,_ and as such are of historical interest (admittedly providing intense satisfaction to historians and fans of Tolkien interested in his creative process), but don't count for much more than that, as far as the finished product is concerned, _which is what any author or artist is concerned with presenting to the public._ (In fact, many artists — especially composers — habitually _destroyed_ their drafts so that the public would focus on the finished product, not its history or its development. This of course dismays historians no end, but one one understands the motivation.)

We do have the final form of _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ as Tolkien intended them to be. The same cannot be said of _The Silmarillion,_ which is a patchwork quilt, the pieces of which were sewn together by his son Christopher as best he could. 

So, Michael, your rather tortuously constructed theory is contradicted by Tolkien very directly and very bluntly. You are of course absolutely within your rights to have it, hold it and defend it — but don't expect many here to agree with it.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 22, 2004)

I'm with Barliman here. Tolkien never realised, as he wrote 'The Hobbit' that it fitted into his mythology, but discovered it did. It even alludes to Gondolin in Elrond's history of the swords: The Hobbit is "The lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths" of the tales Tolkien "_could_ dedicate to England ; to my country. It should possess the tone and quality ... somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East)." The letter to Milton Waldman at the Beginning of the Silmarillion clearly links the Lord of the Rings to the First and Second ages. Also, in the Tale of Years appendix to The Lord of the Rings, the tale begins with a link to the First Age; and the maps of The Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings all fit together. You don't need to be a scholar to work out that the works are all part of the same mythology.

I do love the Book of Lost Tales. It appeals to me that Warwick was 'fair Kortirion' city of the Elves; it brings Faërie to my doorstep; but closer still is Oxford, alias Hobbiton, according to letter 294 to Charlotte and Denis Plimmer:


> (Middle-earth) is an old word, not invented by me, ... It meant the habitable lands of our world, set amid the surrounding Ocean. The action of the story takes place in the North-west of 'Middle-earth', equivalent in latitude to the coastlands of Europe and the north shores of the Mediterranean. ... If Hobbiton and Rivendell are taken (as intended) to be at about the latitude of Oxford, then Minas Tirith, 600 miles south, is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy.


The letter is a long list of comments on the draft of an interview to be published in The Daily Telegraph Magazine, so the comments are carefully put and factually reliable. Tolkien also mentions in this letter that when he got chance to read, he went for Science Fiction and Fantasy (see also footnote), but qualified this with 'I am looking for something I can't find.... something like what I wrote myself ...'

It would be wonderful to think that Tolkien got to see his fantasy in real life - like in Leaf by Niggle.


----------



## Walter (Nov 23, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> He would have agreed that the stories which the lays presented were indeed fairy-tales. The mode of story-telling was faux legend -- that is, the lays pretended that the stories were true, as if the author believed them whole-heartedly


Tolkien was sort of taking issue with the term fairy-tales in his essay, and what you say about "faux legend" qualifies for the lays just like for _Beowulf_, _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_ or the _Völsunga-saga_.



> But the lays had nothing to do whatsoever with the mythology for England. England was gone.
> 
> You don't seem to understand that the mythology for England was about England. Any other story, set in some imaginary land rather than England, was not about England, and therefore was not a mythology for England.
> 
> The purpose of the mythology for England was to create a mythology which explained how England came to be English (rather than the abode of fairies it had once been -- according to the mythology). "The Lay of the Children of Hurin" and "Lay of Leithian" contribute absolutely nothing to such an explanation.


_Die Botschaft hör ich wohl, allein mir fehlt der Glaube_ (Faust I, Faust) 

I hear you! But what I really don't seem to understand is where you take the authority, certainty or – "cock-sureness" of your claim from. I didn't get that from J.R.R. nor from Christopher and – to be honest – I do not consider what you claim to be the _purpose of the mythology for England.._ to be the central theme of _The Book of Lost Tales_, or at any rate undispensable, either.

And trying to explain _how England came to be English (rather than the abode of fairies it had once been -- according to the mythology)_ can as well be seen as an attempt to reconcile Tolkien's ideas with other, preexisting Celtic - namely the Tuatha-de-Danaan - myths...

But your opinion may still be correct, I really can't judge that, since I cannot read Tolkien's mind, but – personally – I think you couldn't be any farther from the truth. Do you really think Greek mythology does explain why Greece came to be Greek and Germanic mythology does explain why Germany came to be Germanic and so on? The first people who were afterwards called Greek or German didn't have the slightest idea they would ever be called so and their legends and myths pay little heed about how a certain territory came to be Greece or Germany. 

Now thanks to Geoffrey of Monmouth and others we know about such myths which tell how Britain came to be settled, first by Albion's giants, then by Brutus' Trojans or by an offshoot of an Hebrew tribe. But why would Tolkien worry that his beloved country, England, didn't have this certain sort of myths which most other mythologies didn't have either?

Sorry, but no, I think it is as Tolkien stated it in his Letter #131


> [England ...] had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing.



And what Tolkien was looking for was the tone and air of those mythologies he mentioned in this letter and his main goal was indeed to create



> a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story-the larger founded on the lesser in contact with the earth, the lesser drawing splendour from the vast backcloths – which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country. It should possess the tone and quality that I desired, somewhat cool and clear, be redolent of our 'air' (the clime and soil of the North West, meaning Britain and the hither parts of Europe: not Italy or the Aegean, still less the East), and, while possessing (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things), it should be 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry. I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme, and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.


Now, I can see that Tolkien at certain occasions during this venture was playing with the idea to explain _how England came to be English_, but all his attempts in that direction seem quite a stretch, since England was English only for a relatively brief period and the claim for the Anglo-Saxons to be the rightful rulers of England (via Ing) seems rather far-fetched. And in fact, the descriptions Tolkien gives in his letters – like the one above - go far beyond your claim of Tolkien's goal. And I guess Tolkien was very well aware of that, since he had probably a deeper and broader understanding of myths – and thus a mythology - than we both do.

Middle-earth (Old Norse _mið-garðr_, and Old English _middan-geard_) is of course as much an _imaginary land_ as it is not one. It is a central part of Tolkien's mythology as it is a central part of Germanic/Northern mythology and it represents the worldview of the pre-historic European "barbarians" (quite congruent with that of early Greece, btw. and even similar to that of Mesopotamia). There Midgard is the - fenced or protected - region inhabited by man, where mankind could live protected by the gods (the Aesir; mostly representing the gods of the Indo-European immigrants) from the "evil" giants or fertility deities (the Vanir, just like the Titanes in Greek mythology, representing the deities of the older inhabitants) living in the East.

To me, Tolkien had in _The Book of Lost Tales_, as his earliest attempt to create a mythology, not yet freed himself from his many sources, we get many clear and unveiled parallels to other mythologies, the Valar, for example, resemble most clearly the Aesir of Germanic/Northern tradition and the references to English history and placenames are not really central to the book and seem not much more than experiment. 

Just like the - similar - experiment in _The Lost Road_, where he btw. tried to explain how England came to be English through Sceaf. The Sceaf episode, btw. is IMO - though still a little far fetched - a much better attempt of an Anglo-Saxon claim for England since it is by and large congruent with other sources and Viktor Rydberg, for example, in his _Teutonic Mythology_ is convinced that Yngvi (Ing), Scef (Sceaf) and Heimdall-Rig are indeed identical figures...

I do not think _The Lord of the Rings_ to be a mythology for England - though of course he could've dedicated it to England - because it doesn't quite fit as what is usually considered a mythology, but it can very well be a significant part of it. 

And until you can produce something by Tolkien, where he makes a claim similar to the one you make in his stead, I will interpret this as your – maybe founded, but maybe not - opinion on the matter and it would be nice if you would not try to sell your interpretations as some sort of higher truth regarding Tolkien... 

Cheers


----------



## Arvedui (Nov 23, 2004)

Just to fill in Barliman Butterbur's post: Humphrey Carpenter states explicitly in _Biography _ that _The Lord of the Rings _ is a sequel to _The Silmarillion_ more than it is a sequel to _The Hobbit_.

Yes, it is perhaps not a part of the original legendarium/mythology/whatever, but I don't think that one needs to be a world-wide acknowledged Tolkien-scholar to see that Carpenter is right. So in my opinion, it can't be too wrong to count it as a part of the legendarium/mythology/whatever.


----------



## Eledhwen (Nov 23, 2004)

Arvedui said:


> Just to fill in Barliman Butterbur's post: Humphrey Carpenter states explicitly in _Biography _ that _The Lord of the Rings _ is a sequel to _The Silmarillion_ more than it is a sequel to _The Hobbit_.


The Lord of the Rings does not make sense unless The Hobbit is interposed between it and the Silmarillion.


> _Tolkien:_ It should possess ... (if I could achieve it) the fair elusive beauty that some call Celtic (though it is rarely found in genuine ancient Celtic things), it should be 'high', purged of the gross, and fit for the more adult mind of a land long now steeped in poetry.


I believe the Mabinogion was far richer before it was adulterated through the retellings of the Christian evangelists. Like when you add meat to a vegetarian stew, you cannot then pick out the bits and serve it as clean vegetarian food again. Christianising the tales had the same effect, robbing them the 'fair elusive beauty' that Tolkien sought but did not find, even when the deliberate changes are removed or side-stepped. But the beauty Tolkien spoke of is called 'Celtic' because we have a heart memory for it, even though it is gone; and we know that such beauty belongs to the Celtic tales. Did not Ælfwine and his comrades weep softly for 'memory of fair things long lost, and each for the thirst that is in every child of Men for the flawless loveliness they seek and do not find.'? Tolkien may have wanted to write a mythology _for_ England, but he could not write one _of_ England because that is the product of millennia. Also, his work was largely self-indulgent, and when the story was more pleasing without Ælfwine/Eriol etc, they were discarded. Tolkien's heart was for England (Mercia in particular), but he was happy to go wherever the Perilous Realm took him.

Disclaimer: If this post does not make sense to you; it's your fault, not mine!


----------



## Walter (Nov 23, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> _The Book of Lost Tales_ is a mythology Tolkien created which was based in England, about England.
> 
> The pre-LoTR Silmarillion texts are about another mythology Tolkien created which was NOT based in England, or about England.
> 
> ...


You are - evidently - more free with the term "mythology" than I am. I never would call the different stages of Tolkien's mythology "another mythology". Actually I'm with Wayne Hammond here who - in _Tolkien's Legendarium_ - call's it "A Continuing and Evolving Creation". IMO the only radical "disruption" would have been, if Tolkien had indeed left the "flat earth version" and with that also would have left the "common ground" of nearly all known mythologies...



MichaelMartinez said:


> The earlier works did not include anything related to _The Lord of the Rings_. Hence, _The Lord of the Rings_ must be viewed "in isolation" (as you put it -- more correctly, it must be viewed in the proper context -- that is, together with the texts which Tolkien wrote specifically in relation to the book).
> 
> One simply cannot REASONABLY intermingle the texts or the mythologies (many people UNreasonably insist on doing it anyway, and they write a great deal of nonsense based on that intermingling).
> 
> ...


Here you are - again - using a very strange reasoning: The prior works are not "anticipating" the later and thus the later can't be relying on the prior works...


----------



## Walter (Nov 23, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> The Lord of the Rings does not make sense unless The Hobbit is interposed between it and the Silmarillion.I believe the Mabinogion was far richer before it was adulterated through the retellings of the Christian evangelists. Like when you add meat to a vegetarian stew, you cannot then pick out the bits and serve it as clean vegetarian food again. Christianising the tales had the same effect, robbing them the 'fair elusive beauty' that Tolkien sought but did not find, even when the deliberate changes are removed or side-stepped. But the beauty Tolkien spoke of is called 'Celtic' because we have a heart memory for it, even though it is gone; and we know that such beauty belongs to the Celtic tales.


Well, luckily, your post makes sense to me... 

I've often been wondering about that beauty of some Celtic tales, and I somehow miss this sense of beauty in the Germanic/Northern tales where almost everything seems about _'Lof'_ and _'Dom'_ or _'Hell'_ and _'Heofon'_ and it strikes me as sad, when I read _"He is a man, and that for him and many is sufficient tragedy."_ 

I think this 'fair elusive beauty' is more at home in Celtic tales, perhaps because they are still a little more closely connected to the Old-European farmers than the Germanic tales with their close connection to the Indo-European semi-nomadic herdsmen. 

I've often marvelled at the exceptional beauty of some neolithic artifacts, whereas in the artifacts of the later Bronze-, but especially of the Iron-age, not much of this beauty can be found anymore...


----------



## MichaelMartinez (Nov 23, 2004)

Walter said:


> You are - evidently - more free with the term "mythology" than I am. I never would call the different stages of Tolkien's mythology "another mythology". Actually I'm with Wayne Hammond here who - in _Tolkien's Legendarium_ - call's it "A Continuing and Evolving Creation"...


I can easily call it a continuing and evolving creation which manifested itself in numerous mythologies. I have no problem with that.



> ...IMO the only radical "disruption" would have been, if Tolkien had indeed left the "flat earth version" and with that also would have left the "common ground" of nearly all known mythologies...


Then you have missed a great deal of detail provided by Christopher Tolkien throughout the various early volumes of _The History of Middle-earth_. He sums it up by listing the numerous significant features of the mythology for England which are present in _The Book of Lost Tales_ and concludes, "all of this falls away".

It is left behind. Abandoned. Never returned to. Not used again.



> Here you are - again - using a very strange reasoning: The prior works are not "anticipating" the later and thus the later can't be relying on the prior works...


Wrong. The later works DO rely upon the prior works (and I have said as much repeatedly through the years). But the later works are not simply new versions of the prior works. They are not continuations of the earlier works. They are wholly separate and distinct works. Different worlds, different characters, different histories, different mythologies.

The only strange reasoning we have seen here is the insistence (or implied insistence) that the distinctly separate mythologies are somehow one and the same.

That's like saying Disney's "Lion King" is the same work as Shakespeare's "Macbeth".

The bottom line is that _The Lord of the Rings_ is not Tolkien's mythology for England. England doesn't even exist in _The Lord of the Rings_.

Of course, if you want to prove Christopher Tolkien wrong on the point, I think it should be easy enough to do so. Either

A) show us where England occurs in _The Lord of the Rings_ or

B) show us where Tolkien himself says EXPLICITLY "_The Lord of the Rings_ is my mythology for England"

No one has ever been able to do either. The reason, of course, is that the notion that _The Lord of the Rings_ is the mythology is wrong.

Q.E.D.


----------



## Walter (Nov 23, 2004)

MichaelMartinez said:


> I can easily call it a continuing and evolving creation which manifested itself in numerous mythologies. I have no problem with that.
> 
> Then you have missed a great deal of detail provided by Christopher Tolkien throughout the various early volumes of _The History of Middle-earth_. He sums it up by listing the numerous significant features of the mythology for England which are present in _The Book of Lost Tales_ and concludes, "all of this falls away".
> 
> ...



Habeas! 

You may have the last word in this issue between us, Michael.

I do not see any sense in continuing this discussion - especially not at the level and tone of your last post - because I did not get the impression you have read and understood, let alone contemplated my point of view. Instead you are putting claims into my mouth, which I never made, and go on refuting those, while you keep ignoring those points, which are questioning or refuting your point of view. Thus, any continuation on this level seems just a waste of time for the both of us.

Tolkien - evidently - had dedicated quite some time to the study of language, history, legends and myths and the interdependencies between those. His own invented mythology is - at least in part - a product of these studies. Thus, for me, it would seem necessary (or at least helpful), in order to comment and judge Tolkien's invented mythology, to be able to see Tolkien's legendarium in the light of his own knowledge as well as in the context of other mythologies. To possess a certain level of understanding of the connex between language and myths, various mythologies of the world and their possible relations and dependencies seems a prerequisite for this task, at least when someone feels knowledgeable enough to write a book about Tolkien and/or his legendarium and that is why I adore the works of serious Tolkien scholars like Shippey, Flieger, Drout, Anderson, Allen, Hammond, Scull and a few others. 

It may very well be, that you too possess such a deeper knowledge and understanding of history, legends and myths and language, and of various mythologies, which would enable you to seriously judge Tolkien's mythology in context, but – unfortunately - in this discussion you have not posted anything that would suggest such knowledge and understanding.

Thank you, for your time anyway...


----------



## baragund (Dec 13, 2004)

So what's the final thinking of our discussion group regarding Lhun's original question? Do you guys believe that Tolkien's faeries are real or products of his imagination?








btw: I can't buy the multiple mythologies thing, either. To me, Tolkien's creation is one mythology that had evolved over the years of his life. The Turambar of the BOLT, for instance, is the same guy as the Turin of the 1930 Silmarillion, the published Silmarillion and the _Narn_ in Unfinished Tales. I think I'll just "agree to disagree" with anybody who believes that each iteration was somehow a separate and distinct mythology.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 13, 2004)

baragund said:


> So what's the final thinking of our discussion group regarding Lhun's original question? Do you guys believe that Tolkien's faeries are real or products of his imagination?



They're as real as hobbits.

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 14, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> They're as real as hobbits.
> 
> Barley


... and we now have archaeological evidence for them!


----------



## baragund (Dec 14, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> ... and we now have archaeological evidence for them!




Of course!! I'll have to rummage around and find one of my "Frodo Lives!" or "Come to Middle-earth" buttons that were all the rage back in the '60s and '70s!


----------



## Walter (Dec 14, 2004)

Is the issue settled whether those bones belong to Hobbits or Dwarves? Any indications of hairy feet or hairy teeth? 

And regarding your question, Baragund, my attempt of an answer - as you noticed - in this previous post still stands, but it would indeed be nice to read further comments on the question...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 14, 2004)

Walter said:


> Is the issue settled whether those bones belong to Hobbits or Dwarves? Any indications of hairy feet or hairy teeth?



I believe they're doing DNA testing to resolve this very issue.

Barley


----------



## baragund (Dec 14, 2004)

Walter, I _think _ I understand where you are coming from in your post of Nov. 18. Elves are real in that they are creations in one's mind and reflections of one's vision of truth. The quote from Tolkien's essay where he discusses, among other things, that fantasy is complementary to, but separate from Reason and the perception of things as they appear 'under the sun' was helpful and makes sense to me. I found it interesting where Tolkien drew a parallel between imagining Elves and imagining gods. That passage made me think that there is a continuum (spelling?) of sorts where on one end there is 'fantasy', somewhere in the middle is 'mythology' and on the other end is 'religion'. 

Would I be going too far to suggest that belief in Elves to be 'real' is not too different from some Christian denominations believing that angels or saints are real, or perhaps other faiths who worship their ancestors?

Oh, if I could make one more feeble attempt to explain my earlier remark about Tolkien's creative process being 'well documented': I read Christopher Tolkien's commentaries throughout each volume in the HOME series (I'm now starting The Lost Road  ) and everywhere I see CT's descriptions of where and how passages were written, rewritten, struck out, added to, names changed, chronologies played with, and on and on. Isn't that documentation of Tolkien's creative process? Isn't that evidence that he used themes from older myths and legends but he built on them to create something brand new?


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 14, 2004)

*Tolkien in Faërie - the 40+ thread?*

Has anyone else noticed the average age of posters in this thread?

Is there any significance in this?



> Would I be going too far to suggest that believing Elves to be 'real' is not too different from believing that angels or saints are real?


Definitions of what an angel or a saint is depends on your religion (or lack of it) and even your denomination. Elves too suffer from this, since Faërie was deemed a childrens thing and elves, gnomes and fairies were turned into sort of humanoid insects (as wryly portrayed in the film Labyrinth). Fortunately, Tolkien Elves are well described, and the perilous realm was real and defined.

The fact that Tolkien described his work as a mythology and not a fantasy is telling. Greg Wright, in _Tolkien in Perspective_ says


> Tolkien's "basic passion" was for "myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all for heroic legend on the brink of history." (letter 131 to Milton Waldman). This passion was dramatically expressed in a body of work unique in the history of English-language literature. So unique, in fact, as to lead us to consider with incredulity the reader who treats _The Lord of the Rings_ as nothing more than a ripping good yarn.


I have not joined a forum to discuss any of the other books I have read , which include Stephen Donaldson, JK Rowling, Phillip Pullman and other fantasy authors. There is something unique about Tolkien's world; it is as if I personally have strayed into the Perilous Realm and come out again, dazed and changed. Tolkien and Lewis were right to complain that the sorts of books they liked did not exist; the tales of Middle-earth still have no equal.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 14, 2004)

*Re: Tolkien in Faërie - the 40+ thread?*



Eledhwen said:


> Has anyone else noticed the average age of posters in this thread?



I have noticed in general that in threads where the spelling and punctuation are correct and the text is appropriate and well-composed, there one tends to find older folk — and the younger folk there are very bright. My kinda place!

Barley


----------



## Arvedui (Dec 15, 2004)

I notice that I am dragging the average down, while Barliman is.... well


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 15, 2004)

*Re: Tolkien in Faërie - the 40+ thread?*



Barliman Butterbur said:


> I have noticed in general that in threads where the spelling and punctuation are correct and the text is appropriate and well-composed, there one tends to find older folk — and the younger folk there are very bright. My kinda place!
> 
> Barley


Yo bruv! we rocks, dont we?

Would a poll have helped in this thread? Maybe not, as most posters have qualified their comments.

Again from Wright's book: _The foundation of modernism is the Cartesian proposition that knowledge, not truth, will set us free: "I think, therefore I am." For Tolkien, this was not enough. "I believe that legends and myths are largely made of 'truth'," he asserted. "and indeed present aspects of it that can only be received in this manner."_ Letter 131 to Milton Waldman

Some people can see the truth in Tolkien's work, others see only fiction. Tolkien himself wanted his mythology to impart truth, and to the extent that it does this, it is 'true'. You may never find the remains of Minas Tirith or Rivendell in an archaeological dig, but in a strange way they have a reality in my mind that is greater than some near intact archaeological sites I have visited. Some of these I don't know their story well (eg: Mexican); but others I do (Greek); and still they don't seem so real to me as Tolkien's tales.

Also, we are fools if we believe everything that is written in history books. History is written by the victors, and where rationalism is the victor, mystery and magic is censored, outlawed or consigned to fiction. I have a book called British Dragons by Jaqueline Simpson, which records over 40 literary mentions of dragons from around the UK, beginning in 1120, and 72 places where dragon legends persist; and that's just the stories that have survived. If these records were of, say, armadillos; historians would say that armadillos once roamed these parts.

I quote the Professor in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe:_ "Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. YOu know she doesn't tell lies and it is obvious that she is not mad. For the moment then and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth."_

Peter argues back: _"Well, sir, if things are real, they're there all the time."
"Are they?" said the Professor._


----------



## Arvedui (Dec 15, 2004)

What is the decisive factor to me, is if it is real "in my head."
And in the case of the universe of Tolkien, it is real. As far as I see it, what he describes can very well be the truth. 
And as *baragund* said it so precisely, I see no need to repeat his words.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 15, 2004)

Arvedui said:


> I notice that I am dragging the average down, while Barliman is.... well



Oh come now, Arv! I was talking in generalities, not specifics! English is not your chief persuasion, and your rendering of it bears a Nordic charm which we all love!

Barley


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 15, 2004)

*Re: Tolkien in Faërie - the 40+ thread?*



Eledhwen said:


> ...Some people can see the truth in Tolkien's work, others see only fiction. Tolkien himself wanted his mythology to impart truth, and to the extent that it does this, it is 'true'. You may never find the remains of Minas Tirith or Rivendell in an archaeological dig, but in a strange way they have a reality in my mind that is greater than some near intact archaeological sites I have visited...



Uh-oh. Methinks we are poised upon the embarkation of a heavy discussion of "what makes truth," a discussion of which may spread outward to include the fields of philosophy, religion, the biological senses and the interpretation of the data coming in from same — which is all right with me! For myself:

Truth is not one thing, but many. There is one kind of truth that most people can agree on: the kind which is based on shared experience, such as a list of things that can cause pain or pleasure. Then there's another kind of "truth" that is false, based on insufficient knowledge, i.e. we once thought the earth was flat; we once thought that going to the moon was an impossibility. We still think that walking under a ladder spells trouble. We still think that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise. We still think that turning around three times and spitting into a hat puts off the evil eye. And then of course we have that "truth" which is in reality nothing more than someone's opinion or personal belief.

Religious tenets make up yet another "truth," which can at times lead to great peace, and at other times calamity on a worldwide scale. So when we talk about Tolkien's works as if elves and Minas Tirith seem more real to us than other things we know actually exist, what are we saying? 

As far as I'm concerned, if a person believes that the world of Tolkien actually does exist or did exist (or _anything_ the existence of which cannot be conclusively proven), then I say that person may have a problem. 

So now we come to "faith," which is defined by many as belief in the reality of that which cannot be proven to exist. We have the "truth" that (as in Eastern religions) the visions that come to one during deep meditation are the True Reality and our waking life is the Grand Illusion. So what is "truth?" (And please don't tell me that Truth resides in the pages of somebody's holy book.)

And then we have the "truth" that, in William James' trenchant phrase (which I love to contemplate no end), is _that which is independent of and beyond the capabilities of human thought._ By this I mean all the facts of existence which are beyond our ability to perceive. Now think of this: If there are aspects to Reality which are beyond our ability to perceive or even understand due to the inadequacy of our human brain/mind, then all of what we call "truth" — including the filtered data coming in to our limited brain — is nothing but a _rendition_ of "truth," and a rendition that most assuredly lacks many things that are essential to our understanding of Reality As It Is.



> ...we are fools if we believe everything that is written in history books. History is written by the victors...



Amen! There's nothing more "spun" than someone's version of history who has an axe to grind, and who more than the victors? If one wants an objective history, one needs to examine many histories of the same subject.



> ..."Logic! Why don't they teach logic at these schools?



There are many on these boards (and one or two conspicuous cases ) who believe that logic alone solves all problems and on its own leads to "truth," to which I say "tush" and "pfft!" Logic is simply a thought process based on the construction of the human mind, only as good as the truth (there's that word again) of its premises. Logic alone or logic based on a false or a deliberately biased set of premises is nothing but sophistry or propaganda — or both.

So — now what? 

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 15, 2004)

Err... I think you've just about covered it, Barley.  However:


Barley said:


> We still think that walking under a ladder spells trouble. We still think that the crowing of the rooster causes the sun to rise. We still think that turning around three times and spitting into a hat destroys the evil eye.


I believe none of these things (and think of the mess with the hat! Yeurgh!)

If this thread becomes too philosophical, I'll bow out and go contemplate a leaf; because after a while the heavy stuff makes my head hurt. You're right about logic. It has its place and should be used early, but sticking to it would stuff the conversation into a very small box indeed.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 15, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> ...If this thread becomes too philosophical, I'll bow out and go contemplate a leaf...



Good morning, m'dear! And how is your lovely garden this morning? 

Barley


----------



## Walter (Dec 15, 2004)

Morning???

It's about teatime - well almost - in our neck of the woods, Barley... 

... and im still contemplating what to respond to the many issues that have been raised since my last post...


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 15, 2004)

Walter said:


> Morning???
> 
> It's about teatime - well almost - in our neck of the woods, Barley...



I keep forgetting that eight-hour difference!

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 15, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I keep forgetting that eight-hour difference!
> 
> Barley


Makes no difference - the leaves were all on the grass this morning, and they're still all on the grass now. The starlings are eating all the grapes I didn't bother to harvest (no winemaking kit - meant to buy some but...). Thanks to global warming, I can still pick sage, and even some chives if I'm desparate. Faërie, it is not; but I've planted some trees to attract the Elves ... er, I mean birds.


----------



## baragund (Dec 17, 2004)

Well, it seems we examined this question pretty thoroughly. I can't imagine any other angle that hasn't already been discussed.

Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed this discussion. I particularly appreciated (and learned from) the input from Walter, Eledwhen and Barley.  As a civil engineer, I tend to look at things in physical terms: If you can see it, touch it, reproduce it in the field or in a lab then it exists. You helped me appreciate there are other ways of considering what is 'real'.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 17, 2004)

baragund said:


> Well, it seems we examined this question pretty thoroughly. I can't imagine any other angle that hasn't already been discussed.



Somehow I doubt that! All it takes is another viewpoint, another take, and we're off again!



> Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed this discussion. I particularly appreciated (and learned from) the input from Walter, Eledwhen and Barley.



Thanks for the compliment!



> As a civil engineer, I tend to look at things in physical terms: If you can see it, touch it, reproduce it in the field or in a lab then it exists. You helped me appreciate there are other ways of considering what is 'real'.



There's no doubt that what we can apprehend with our senses does indeed exist. And although we apprehend things that exist, _are we apprehending them in their entirety,_ or just those aspects that come through the limited filters of our limited senses and are perceivable and "interpretable" by our limited minds? (What about the things that exist that do not register on our senses, that we'll never ever know about?) 

I am positive that (1) our body/minds are as they are because that's what was necessary to physically survive on the planet, and (2) there are vital aspects to existence that lie forever beyond our ability to perceive and know because of our body/mind's limitations, aspects that probably make up more than 99% of what there is to know, and (3) if we could know them, then I daresay that our whole view of What Is would be so drastically shaken that it might be too much for Man's psyche, leading to a collective psychospiritual meltdown...

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 17, 2004)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> If we could know them [(1) and (2) above,] then I daresay that our whole view of What Is would be so drastically shaken that it might be too much for Man's psyche, leading to a collective psychospiritual meltdown...
> 
> Barley


i.e. it would blow our minds  

Thanks for the encouragement, baragund. I hope we do get some fresh thoughts on this subject. I doubt they will come from me though.


----------



## treebeardgarden (Dec 27, 2004)

As you can see from my deep thought above I am an escapist at heart. In my escapist world Elves are real and I would not have it any other way. After a realy difficult dealing with some un-ruly teenagers, at work. The thought of escaping into a world of Hobbits, Elves and yes even Orcs does wondorous things for the body physically, mentally and even phycologically. So they are real and if that means I am slightly strange then I will strive to become stranger.

This reality might only ever exist in my mind but it is a wondrous place to be!!!!!


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 27, 2004)

treebeardgarden said:


> As you can see from my deep thought above I am an escapist at heart. In my escapist world Elves are real and I would not have it any other way. After a realy difficult dealing with some un-ruly teenagers, at work. The thought of escaping into a world of Hobbits, Elves and yes even Orcs does wondorous things...



You have my sympathy and understanding. Time was when I made my living attempting to teach middle-school pupils whose only real passion was classroom disruption... Middle-earth answers many needs!

If you are indeed an American teacher, I recommend the "Assertive Discipline" series by Lee and Marlene Canter. It sure turned things around for me! You can get it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0939007452/102-4649201-2796940?v=glance/.

Barley


----------



## treebeardgarden (Dec 27, 2004)

Sorry Barliman I teach horticulture to all ages in a UK college. Most of the teens don't want to be there. the LOTR is the best escape with the acception of a large malt perhaps.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 28, 2004)

treebeardgarden said:


> Sorry Barliman I teach horticulture to all ages in a UK college. Most of the teens don't want to be there. the LOTR is the best escape with the acception of a large malt perhaps.



I would (impishly) suggest adopting a few of the ways of the Horticulture Witch (forget her name) at the Hogwarts School...

You're lucky that a large malt suffices you — on paydays, half of our faculty would repair to our favorite neighborhood Mexican restaurant for an afternoon (and early evening) of giant Margaritas...

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 29, 2004)

treebeardgarden said:


> Sorry Barliman I teach horticulture to all ages in a UK college. Most of the teens don't want to be there. the LOTR is the best escape with the acception of a large malt perhaps.


It is sad that, because you don't need A level maths and sciences to do basic horticulture, they bung all the _couldn't care less but don't want to work either_ cases your way. It's very hard on the genuine students too. Just think how life would be if Tolkien's faerie world had never been invented  I can't think of any other literature I would care to dwell in, escape-wise.

... and it was Professor Sprout, Barley; also head of Hufflepuff house (thanks to my 10-year-old for reminding me of that)


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 29, 2004)

Eledhwen said:


> ... it was Professor Sprout, Barley; also head of Hufflepuff house (thanks to my 10-year-old for reminding me of that)



Your son is a True Scholar in the Grand Manner! I looked through the first three Potter books and _still_ couldn't find the answer! (It was about 2 AM though...)

Barley


----------



## Eledhwen (Dec 29, 2004)

It was my _daughter_, Barley; sorry I didn't make that clear in the first place. I think JKR's publishers should get her to write an index - maybe to tag onto the end of book seven (and a set of Appendices?). I'll ask her where the information is; she's read all the available five books.

In case anyone's browsing New Posts - we want some fresh input on the subject of Tolkien in Faërie please! Of course the Prof. had one foot in the perilous realm all his life. The epitaph 'Beren' and 'Luthien' on his and Ediths' graves give testimony to that.


----------



## treebeardgarden (Jan 5, 2005)

Eledhwen said:


> It is sad that, because you don't need A level maths and sciences to do basic horticulture, they bung all the _couldn't care less but don't want to work either_ cases your way. It's very hard on the genuine students too. Just think how life would be if Tolkien's faerie world had never been invented  I can't think of any other literature I would care to dwell in, escape-wise.
> 
> ... and it was Professor Sprout, Barley; also head of Hufflepuff house (thanks to my 10-year-old for reminding me of that)


 
I quite agree, most people forget about all the botany, botanical names etc. Some of these kids are petrified by them.
However I actually quote the LOTR at them, trying to say look this is a piece of fiction with some strange names in, treat all this botanical stuff the same. Some of them then start thinking of films with similar names and titles. I find this helps them how much i'm not sure but most end up coping reasonably well. Not sure I could without LOTR and all JRR's work. I am coninually gratefull to the man.


----------

