Tolkien's Emotional Universe

[solicitr]

Well, for a given value of "quite a bit." CT injected a few lines from the Grey Annals. (Technically, CT did not use the draft A, but Text I derived and somewhat abridged from it)

Again, I really think it's rather PoMo to try to attribute some sort of editorial misogyny to CT. It is (to me at least) clear that CT decided early on to use the Annals backed by LQ1 as the principal framework of the story, considering the (very patchy) work of 1958 suitable for cannibalisation, but not for upsetting the 1951 structure. And it's almost certain that (agree or disagree as you will) CT believed that the unabridged Finwë and Míriel (a) was way to philosophy-laden, and (b) slowed the narrative pace to a crawl just where it needed to ramp up towards the death of the Trees and all that ensued.

I suppose I'd better work up the nerve to ask him about it while he's still around!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You are right, of course. It is QS I and QS II that I was referring to, not A and B. Serves me right for not referring back to either The Lost Road or my own manuscript.

I wonder how many times we will have this same discussion, in different forms. I would certainly be interested in what CT had to say, if you did ask him and he did give you an answer. I would not necessarily take it as absolute, however.

By the way, what does "PoMO" mean? Post-modern?

[Primula Baggins]

A completely unscholarly outside view here, but I'm astonished at the thought that Christopher gave any thought whatever to narrative pacing in the Sil.

I'm not saying he didn't; I'm just saying it surprises me, given how often the published narrative stops dead or even seems to crawl backwards. But of course that's not why we read it or, in my case, try to read it.

I do find the sections where more detail is included by far the most engaging and have read most of them several times. Sometimes more is less: more story, with richer detail, moves faster than a dry truncation a fraction the length.

[axordil]

By the way, what does "PoMO" mean? Post-modern?

Depends on how you look it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Just a wee bit scattered and it's taken a long time but for what it's worth, here's part two:

And then there are the Elves.......

Yes, there are. To me the Elves are Tolkien's most important creation. I know for many it is the Hobbits, and that the Hobbit-centric LOTR is his masterpiece, but for me it is Tolkien's Elves that say more about the limits of human nature than any other characters in literature.

As it happens, I have recently read the passage in The Road to Middle-earth where Shippey describes what he considers to be the literary inspiration for Tolkien's Elves.

As for the elves, their fusion of kindling-point would seem to be some twenty or thirty lines from the centre of the medieval poem of Sir Orfeo, itself a striking example of the alchemies of art. in origin this is only the classical story of Orpheus and Eurydice, but the fourteenth-century poet (or maybe some forgotten predecessor) has made two radical changes to it: one, the land of the dead has become elf-land, from which the elf-king comes to seize Dame Heurodis; two, Sir Orfeo, unlike his classical model, is successful in his quest and bears his wife away, overcoming the elf-king by the mingled powers of music and honour.

Shippey goes on to describe some of the elements from this poem that influenced Tolkien's creation, and they certainly are striking. The Elves in Sir Orfeo certainly are not the "tiny, twee, winged-sprite sort of elves who danced in fairy circles and lived under mushrooms and even were sometimes malicious or at least mischievous and stole babies replacing them with changelings" that we have met in the pages of storybooks, Sass. There is definitely an element of the grandeur that you describe so eloquently (yes, eloquently) in those precursors that Tolkien knew and loved so well.

And yet, it was Tolkien's genius that he was able fuse those ancient influences into something new and relevant. Tolkien's Elves are not on the other side of some transparent barrier that we can not break through; they are real - vividly real. As you indicate, they "represent the 'aesthetic and creative aspects of mankind'." But as you point out so insightfully, "had that been the sum total we would have had cardboard paragons and thus there is also duality." This is one of the great things that Tolkien was able to take from the ancient portrayals of the Elves. As Shippey says:

Considering concept rather than word, Tolkien must soon have come to the conclusion that all linguistically authentic accounts of the elves, from whichever country they came, agreed on one thing: that the elves were in several ways paradoxical. For one thing, people did not know where to place them between the polarities of good and evil. ... Simultaneous with that, though, is allure. ... The allure and the danger are mixed. ... Now one can see very easily how such an apparent discrepancy of fear and attraction might in sober reality arise. Beauty is itself dangerous: this is what Sam Gamgee tries to explain to Faramir in The Two Towers, when interrogated on the nature of Galadriel, the elf-queen herself.

I don't think the importance of this idea can be over-emphasized. It is suggested in the passage that you quote from CoH, Sass. But I think it also seen from a different angle in Fëanor's fall, which you allude to.

Then again perhaps it was more that the purity of art in harmony with nature was not in him when he thought to capture (imprison?) the divine Light of Teleperion and Laurelin.

That is such an interest concept that you suggest of Fëanor attempting to imprison the divine Light, and I think it is close to the mark. I think that Fëanor was seduced by beauty and tried to capture to keep it for himself in a way that was wholly untenable. We see the same thing in his desire to own a lock of Galadriel's hair (and what does that say of her willingness to grant Gimli the same request ages later?) I don't see Fëanor as a fallen "angel" as you put it; I see him as the ultimate example of someone caught in the aesthetic stage of existence. His fall was ultimately the result of failure to acknowledge that there was a force in the universe greater than his own considerable powers.

Ultimately, the story of the Quendi is one of love and loss and the fall from grace.

Yes, you are absolutely right, my friend. And this is where Tolkien takes the ancient influences and fuses them into his own unique story.

I think it begins with Míriel.......

Indeed it does. As I mentioned earlier, it is with Míriel's story that the reality of Melkor's Marring of Arda starts to come into focus. It is there that the "long defeat" that Galadriel mentioned began.

(As Sassy says, "To Be Continued")

[axordil]

There is something to the notion of Promethean pride in Fëanor. The place of the bringer of light and fire is nearly always a problematic one in all great myths. It's not so much the misappropriation that I think ends up being the problem as the commodification--when the Light of the Trees is everywhere, it's everyone's. When even a bit of it is locked in the Silmarils, suddenly it becomes a resource that people can compete for, fight over, kill for. There are things it's OK to own, for JRRT, I think, but the Light of the Trees is not one of them.

[Rowanberry]

I think that Fëanor was seduced by beauty and tried to capture to keep it for himself in a way that was wholly untenable. We see the same thing in his desire to own a lock of Galadriel's hair (and what does that say of her willingness to grant Gimli the same request ages later?) I don't see Fëanor as a fallen "angel" as you put it; I see him as the ultimate example of someone caught in the aesthetic stage of existence. His fall was ultimately the result of failure to acknowledge that there was a force in the universe greater than his own considerable powers.

That's an excellent characterization, V.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'd forgotten all about this thread.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

But it is worth remembering (particularly in light of the comments about emotional depth in Tolkien's work in the film discussions).

[Passdagas the Brown]

As the question posed by this thread is not "what do you like about Tolkien's work? but rather, "How does it make you feel?" I will try to answer that as best I can.

For me, reading Tolkien feels like drinking a cold drink of clear water after days in a parched desert. No matter how many times I read his stories (including his early forays, such as Roverandom) I feel refreshed, clear-headed and invigorated.

His language use, the way he describes things and structures his narratives, gives me the distinct sense that I am seeing through the noise and catching a glimpse of something eternal and sublime. In that sense, his artistic parallel, for me, might be a Rothko.

Here's this wonderful picture, and look - there's the truth peeking out from that corner there!

That's how Tolkien makes me feel.

Unfortunately, apart from a few moments here and there, Peter Jackson's films make me feel almost the opposite. Exhausted, tired, irritable, nerve-wracked, cloudy-headed and almost certainly not refreshed. If reading Tolkien is like drinking cold, clear water, watching Jackson is like drinking barium in preparation for a colonoscopy.

[yovargas]

LOL, oh PtB, you almost managed to go one full post without insulting PJ...so close!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Well, I did open the door by mentioning the film discussion, but still, it was pretty unnecessary, and wildly out of place in this wonderful thread.

[Passdagas the Brown]

I think you could only find it out of place if you misunderstand what an emotional response is. It is not logical or rational, and it can therefore seem hyperbolic to someone who disagrees with what precipitates it. I mean, isn't my positive reaction to Tolkien just as potentially hyperbolic as my negative one? If so, why did only my negative comment elicit a response?

I have tried to say this before, but it's very difficult to explain to those who enjoy PJ's "version of events." I have a deeply emotional response to Tolkien. The feelings his works invoke in me go light years beyond the intellectual. It's really that important to me.

That is the fundamental reason why, even when PJ seems to follow the books on a basic literal level, he leaves me feeling very irritable. There's something about the loudness of his style that strips the picture of that "sublime truth" that lurks behind Tolkien's words. Some filmmakers have been able to replicate that feeling for me, but PJ quite simply violates it. In just the way I described! (though under certain circumstances, barium can taste okay - especially with broccoli).

Since this thread is about emotions, I felt it appropriate to express both the incredibly positive emotions Tolkien has elicited in me, and the sometimes deeply negative emotions (pun intended) I get while watching PJ's adaptations.

In short, Tolkien makes me feel like a whole, healthy person that has captured the cosmic wave, and is no longer fighting against the grain. Peter Jackson, aside from some rare moments, makes me feel the opposite.

But if our negative emotions are not welcome, I am happy to keep this thread clean.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is a whole forum for discussing reactions to the films. This is not that forum.

ETA: There is a reason why we decided to keep discussion of Tolkien's writings separate from discussion of the adaptations of his writing. You have eloquently demonstrated why that was.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Yes, but my emotional reaction to the films helps illustrate my emotional reaction to Tolkien's books. They are polar opposites, and for me, that has explanatory power. But that was just a small line in my post, and I didn't intend for it to overwhelm the remainder of my statement.

To add to the bulk of my previous post, which was largely positive (and unfortunately ignored) I will say that solicitr captured my sentiments exactly in page one of this thread, with what is one of my favorite lines of description in all of Tolkien's works.

Eastward the Barrow-downs rose, ridge behind ridge into the morning, and vanished out of eyesight into a guess: it was no more than a guess of blue and a remote white glimmer blending with the hem of the sky, but it spoke to them, out of memory and old tales, of the high and distant mountains.

In the broad world of literature, is there anything more evocative, that tugs at the spirit so strongly and yet so lightly, that elicits equal parts yearning, wonder and excited fear, than language like that?

If there is, I haven't found it yet.

[Morwenna]

It took me several days to read this thread because there were so many very meaty posts in here, many of which I fully agreed with, many which were so beautiful that anything I could say would pale by comparison. And so many forays into philosophy!

But to go right into the emotional impressions that hit me when I first read Hobbit and LOTR back in 1967 when I was a college sophomore:

Hobbits all the way!

And mythology! Living mythology!! I tried to explain it that way to some friends of mine, but I'm sure I didn't get across one tenth of what I felt. A part of me was living in Middle-earth ever afterward, and my imagination tried to fill out the gaps, and I devoured the appendices several times and wanted more and yet more; but it was pre-Sil and the only thing left to read back then was The Tolkien Reader (containing Tree and Leaf, Farmer Giles, Tom Bombadil, Beohrtnoth), which I also devoured.

It did have one practical effect on me: I rediscovered my childhood love of nature and powers of observation thereof, which had lain dormant through my adolescence.

It wasn't till much later that I tried to analyze all those feelings. I didn't come to the conclusions voiced here, necessarily, though I can see how valid they are. I've read similar things by authors and critics over the years. And I confess I didn't come away with a conscious awareness of the theme of death all on my own; the Letters did that for me. But what was not necessarily conscious was indeed subconscious; the theme of loss was definitely there, and I wept at the end of LOTR, wondering why Frodo could not have been healed. But then I was still very young, only 20, and of an optimistic disposition. (Is it any wonder that I identified so strongly with the hobbits?)

But it was the sense of place and of history, and of mythology which was its history, which captured me so strongly; and my feelings after reading Sil that made me realize that only as a hobbit seeing the wonders of Middle-earth would that all have come alive for me. The sense of a people living lives that were relatively familiar, thrust into the outside world which was all around them but mostly unknown till then, was incomparable enchantment for me. To this day I remember the prevailing weather in my area while I was reading it, and to this day when I find myself in the same kind of weather, my mind goes back to that first reading and all my wonder comes flooding back, even more so than when I re-read the books, and I have re-read them several times over the years. Early on I made a vow to myself to refrain from complete re-readings more often than once every two years. Of course, I haven't re-read them nearly so often as that; time does rather quell the urge. But I am due for a re-reading any day now; I picked up one of the volumes a few days ago to look up something, and found I had gobbled down three chapters in the process!

I'm sure I'll have more to say. I may discuss my feelings about elves and about some of the scenes and the language and so on. But it's a start.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And now there is another beautiful post in this thread!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Agreed! Though I thought that my post was beautiful too - until the bottom.

[Smaug's voice]

How do Tolkien's books make me feel?

I don't know. When I read them I think every emotion there can ever be, passes through me like waves.
I have Tolkien-fever.

[Morwenna]

I think there's a lot of that going around.