Some Tolkien thoughts.

Although this is not about anything I'm writing; I just wanted to talk about the concepts that Tolkien used in his story.

Tolkien made a link between magic and mechanism, being that it was a tool or "a short cut" to getting what you want. A blender is a short cut to stirring and chopping for hours.

It was pretty clear that Tolkien was against the industrial revolution, and although mechanism made tasks easier, he didn't feel that they made life better.

He said that he didn't like allegory, but also said it was impossible to write fantasy without elements of allegory. Yet, I find his works full of allegories, so I'm not particularly convinced that he didn't have his own definition of allegory that differs from what we think to be allegory.

If you look at LOTR, it is counter-intuitive to what most fantasy is about. Most fantasy begins with the concept that to compete in the world, one must learn and posses the ways of power. "Get the magic sword to slay the dragon"

Tolkien's entire fantasy was aimed at "undoing the ring of power". The goal was to resist the desire to overcome the enemy by power, but to overcome through weakness.

Question: Do you know any other stories that have a similar objective?

If so, explain how the are similar.

Also, what are your thoughts on Tolkiens philosophical perspectives of the world?

I can't off-hand think of any pre-Tolkien stories that have the specific theme of victory by giving up power, although there were plenty of stories warning of the dangers of progress (Brave New World, for instance). It seems to me that, whether or not Tolkien was conscious of it, it's more of an eastern mindset than a western one. Something akin to the concept in many martial arts of using your enemy's strength to defeat him.

Tolkien made the distinction, which I'd go along with, between allegory and applicability - he said that what he wrote was applicable, but not an actual allegory. I'd distinguish the two by saying that allegory is is a code where each thing has a specific meaning, whereas applicability is like a tinted mirror, which reflects whatever you hold up to it, but reflects it in a specific way. I agree with him in preferring applicability.

I don't share all his philosophy, and I don't really share his religious views at all, but I think he has important things to say. Jung once commented that the people who we see in retrospect as ahead of their times often seem old-fashioned to their contemporaries. I'm sure it seemed laughably archaic and romantic, in the 1940s, to represent a major threat to the world by people who indiscriminately cut down trees.

Good points!

He was rather set in his ways.

I'll quote him for the sake of those who aren't familiar:

"I dislike allegory-the conscious and intentional allegory-yet any attempt to explain the purpose of myth or fairytale must use allegorical language...

"Anyway all this stuff is mainly concerned with Fall, Mortality and the Machine"

Spoilers for Silmarillian readers:

"The main body of the tale, the Silmarillion...is about the fall of the most gifted kindred of the Elves...It receives its name because the events are all threaded upon the fate and the significance of the Silmarilli (radiance of pure light)...By the making of the gems...the Silmarilli were more than just a beautiful thing as such...There was the light of Valinor made visible by Two Trees of Silver and Gold. THese were slain by the Enemy out of malice, and Valinor was darkened, though from them, ere they died utterly, were derived the lights of the Sun and the Moon. (A marked difference here between these legends and most others is that the Sun is not a divine symbol, but a second-best thing, and the light of the Sun' (the world under become terms for a fallen world, and dislocated imperfect vision)

From Letter 131 "Tolkien Letters"

I love the way he thinks, and somewhat related to the way he thinks. I love the fact that he uses deep symbolism that is so vague that you really have to be looking for it to comprehend it.

The very thought of the "Sun" being a second best light in a fallen world is so poetic and profound.

But, if I may, he may not write a story of allegory, but he has micro allegorical stories within the story. And I'd say it is hard to differentiate an allegory from a story with such deep themes, especially when he is consciously aware of them when he writes.

Tolkien's story was not about giving up power. The power Frodo destroyed belonged to the enemy; he himself could not use it.

Here's my impression

Obviously, we may see it differently, but I'd like to give my interpretation:

Tolkien saw the "seizing of power" as a corrupting influence.

During the war, he wrote to his son Christopher, and in one letter, he spoke of Brits who wanted to vendictively go in and raze Germany after the war.

He used metaphors from his own story to show how that in trying to seize the Ring of Power, many of his own people had also become like Sauron. He referred to those types as "Orcs" as well.

He spoke of "magic" as a "machine", or tool to try to accelerate one's own desires. In the beginning, he spoke of Sauron having somewhat of a nobel desire, to restore order to Middle Earth after it had been destroyed in the wars for the Silmarilli. Yet, out of his desire grew his malice and desire to dominate completely.

It was this same desire for "dark magic", that led to the fall of Numinor, and a thirst to acquire secrets of eternal life. But in doing so, they gave themselves over to Morgoth worship, and because servants of Sauron.

The ring was symbolic of quests to seize power. And even when done for noble purpose, it always corrupted the possesor, as it did Boromir, and almost Galadrial, who resisted the temptation. (I have passed the test...I will diminish...)

Again, you have to remember that Tolkien, although not overtly pushing any moral bent, was deeply influenced by many things, including 1) He saw two world wars, and LOTR was written during the second world war. The symbolism of the "ring" was not a part of his theological framework until WW2.

2) His upbringing, becoming an orphan, and being moved around. Even his own caretaker, used his authority to put a wedge between him and the love of his life.

3) He was deeply spiritual, and to the point where he saw his mother as a "martyr" for her faith. And of course that framework being "emptying oneself and taking up the cross," as oppossed to lording one's authority over another; which although not regularly practiced, is the core of his belief.

All of that added up to his seeing that "quest for power corrupts." Remember, if you read his letters, he saw the Germans as a good hard working people, and he studied their history long, but saw Hitler as the "Twit" that corrupted them. Likewise, he felt that his own people, Europeans, and Americans, Russians, all were corrupted equally insofar as they had power to dominate others.

>>The goal was to resist the desire to overcome the enemy by power, but to overcome through weakness.<<

This idea and variations of it occurs frequently in legends and fairy tales--the fool who outwits the clever princes, the ordinary boy who accomplishes the extraordinary mission.

I read tons of sagas, odes, legends, fairy tales, etc. as a child and adolescent, and one reason I didn't particularly enjoy LOTR when I first read it was that it reminded me of a particularly long-drawn-out Norse epic. For many of my friends, it was revelatory, because they'd never read anything like it before, but to me it seemed overly familiar. I re-read it many years later, and liked it better--in part because I had a better appreciation of its place in the history of fiction--but it has never been on my list of favorites.

A lot of classic fiction is fantasy, but "fantasy" as a genre didn't exist when LOTR was published. It didn't really come into existence until Terry Brooks's Sword of Shannara came out, and proved that a Tolkien-like epic could be commercially successful.

- Victoria

I agree with you. I love much of Tolkien for other reasons. I don't particularly like his writing style though, and this may sound like Treason to a Tolkien lover, but I think his story could have been better had it been pruned back.

In fact, one time for the sake of argument, I explained to someone that P.Js version of the Prancing Poney was better, quicker, and more fulfulling to me than Tolkien's.

To prove the point, I wrote P.Js version out in story format, and it was eye opening how good it would have sounded in writing. They were impressed, and wanted more.

So, I love many of his concepts more than the telling of the story, and I prefer a quicker pace.

Are you suggesting that Peter Jackson tells Tolkien's story better than Tolkien does himself? Or that you write better than JRRT? Or both?

I'm sure I must have misunderstood.

Tolkien thoughts

thought you might be interested in this Tolkien in WWI site--(some of the images are a bit disturbing, but look eerily like I pictured parts of LOTR)

Re: Tolkien thoughts

Vomaxx

I'm suggesting neither that I'm a better writer than Tolkien, nor that Peter Jackson was better. Tolkien was a one of a kind. That doesn't mean that you can't prefer one interpretation of something he wrote.

I think Jackson's movies were in some ways a different story based upon LOTR, and an interpretive work, in that he added and removed things.

For instance, I didn't like his take on "The Voice of Sauron". Nor did I like his fanciful making the Witchking stronger than Gandalf in the EE of the ROTK video. He might have taken poetic license too far.

So, I'm not saying P.J improved on the books. However, I do believe that some changes he made were actually better than the book.

In the book, Frodo acts like a drunken buffoon and while dancing a jig on a table, trips, and the ring plops on his finger.

I much prefer the pacing, and the immediacy of the danger in the movie. And this will amount to a taste statement, but I'm very drawn to the dangerous pirate town atmosphere that P.J gives. This is not loyal to the book, but had that portion of the book been written by a writer who can interpret the movie, which I attempted, it writes very well.

Now, is this saying that I'm better than Tolkien? No, not at all. At best I'm saying that I'm good enough to show that Peter Jackson's scene translate very well into a story.

If I had kept a copy of what I wrote, I might show you, but I wrote it on a Tolkien Chat Board, and never copied it. I have no clue whether or not it still exists, because they purge those boards fairly regularly. But the feedback on what I wrote was very positive, simply because they could now see that it was an interesting story.

Again, back to Peter Jackson and his plot deviations. Some worked, some didn't work. And some are a matter of you might like them both. For instance, I loved the Elves at Helms Deep, which is not in the book. It was just a great dramatic moment. But I didn't like his interpretation of the Huorns (Sp?) at Helms Deep in the extended edition of TTT, it lacked a lot.

I also didn't like him giving TBs line to Treebeard, and stuffing Old Man Willow in where he did.

Re: Tolkien thoughts

I can think of one "story" where Someone gives up power to overcome evil with weakness... see the Christian Bible, Matthew 26:52-53, Luke 23:46, John 1:14 and John 3:16.

Weakness has its own strength, in a lot of ways. Sadly, it's often rewarded elsewhere than on earth.

Betty you might enjoy "Tolkien Letters"

Tolkien had strong views about not using religion of the "Primary World", in the secondary world. However, he clearly has strong Christian elements in his story.

I think you'd enjoy much of Tolkien Letters, although parts of them would likely be of no interest at all to a non-ringnut.

In my own mind, I see Tolkien carrying the "Ring" as a sort of Christ carrying the cross. It's his burden, and he alone can carry it.

I don't know if Tolkien means it like that, because the Ring lore itself was such that it's very purpose was to enslave mankind.

However, in the sense that he bore the fate of the world, and the hope of the world, and had to destroy evil, it is very similar to the Christian message.

But it also points out that much of modern fantasy has at its roots ancient stories that are the roots of culture.

Tolkien's works are rare, in that his very peculiar balance between his personal beliefs and his beliefs in mythologic principle seem oppossed, and yet, he blends them in a strange but endearing way. He is what I would call a deep well. And in fact, some of LOTR seems whimsical, such as dear old Tom singing away, and yet, at the root is almost always some deep thought. And I for one like treasure hunts.

Re: Betty you might enjoy "Tolkien Letters"

I'll look into them. You're right, Tolkien is a deep well. And although I'm a deep-dyed Christian who believes the Bible is the word of God, I also think that there's a lot about life and the universe that the human mind is too small and finite to understand, and that "primitive" stories often contain glimpses of some of that truth, in a form the human mind can assimilate.

A favorite quote of mine to that effect (don't know who wrote it) is: A god small enough to be understood is not big enough to be worshipped.

I like hidden things

I love allegory. But I prefer allegory that isn't spelled out, something that makes you think. I love metaphor as well.

For that reason, I was never much interested in Chronicles of Narnia, though my son loved it very much. It's not that I couldn't enjoy it, but simply the point of it seemed so obvious that it would be like watching a movie where you already knew the ending. And perhaps, much of fantasy is that predictable, relying on a formula.

What I liked about Tolkien was that he didn't spell everything out. You wouldn't know that Elrond is a symbol of ancient wisdom. You wouldn't know that the Silmarilli were somewhat of a divine light, and that the secondary light "The Sun" is actually a metaphor for a fallen light or a fallen world.

Most people are content in reading the story, but not in seeing what is under the story. In a sense, if you are going to make a comparison, it's like the Song of Solomon, in that you wonder what its meaning is. You get this feeling it means more than it says, that it is more than a simple love song, but something profoundly deeper written in a metaphoric tongue, whose meaning most will never know.

Strange, but I think something inside of fantasy lovers causes us to be drawn to a mystery, something where everything isn't always the way it appears. Where that which would seem to be logical wouldn't work. Or is that just me?

Re: I like hidden things

>>For that reason, I was never much interested in Chronicles of Narnia, though my son loved it very much. It's not that I couldn't enjoy it, but simply the point of it seemed so obvious that it would be like watching a movie where you already knew the ending.<<

That's interesting. I had much the same reaction to Narnia as a child, though I wasn't able to put my finger on why until I got older.

- Victoria

Re: I like hidden things

In college, everyone told me to read Screwtape Letters by Lewis. When they explained the concept, I liked the concept. However, when I actually tried to read it, I lost interest quickly. There was something about C.S Lewis writing style that never quite interested me. And yet, others loved Screwtape.

Narnai seemed too much like a young children's story, and I wasn't interested in a thinly veiled children's story.

The Goldilocks effect is very important to allegory. Too much or too little isn't worth it. Too little is trite. Too much is impossible to comprehend.

Tolkien didn't write an allegory. However, he has allegory imbedded throughout. What is the meaning of "Paths of the dead? Why does Aragorn have to go through the paths of the dead before he can march to victory?" Is there a metaphor there?

Most people could probably care less. It's just a story. But knowing how Tolkien thinks, especially from his letters, you know that many of the events in LOTR were symbolic.

Perhaps that's why you have ringnuts, because Tolkien is as deep as you want to go.

Re: I like hidden things

One thing people often don't realize about Tolkien and Lewis when they discuss the two authors' relationships with allegory. Both were trained as medievalists; allegory means something very special, and very formal to both authors. To them, particularly to Lewis who literally "wrote the book" about allegory, allegory was a formal technique for construction and interpretation, consisting of four levels of allegory, with specific assumptions about what each level did and how it worked, and it was specifically Christian in nature.

Tolkien was much much more interested in metaphor, particularly the idea of language as a system of embedded metaphors; for Tolkien <em>everything</em> was approached through language, or more specifically, through philology.

Nateskate mentioned Tom Shippey's two books about Tolkien; they are, to my mind, the finest commentaries on Tolkien's work next to Tolkien's' own.

Re: I like hidden things

Medievalist, it's good to see you here.

Tolkien's letter to Walden, is one of the most insightful letters into the depths of Tolkien's thinking. In it, he relates that Elrond is a metaphor for ancient Wisdom. He indicates that his term for "Wizards" does not mean "sorcerer", but actually are akin to Guardian angels...etc.

Some of Tolkien's Letters are difficult to read through because they don't relate to LOTR. However, you learn early on that he developed parts of the story in the Trenches during the war, which specifically allows the reader to see where he gets some of his metaphors from.

The term "Orc" was something he made up in childhood, a term he applied to nasty people.

I don't quite understand Tolkien's take on metaphors vs allegory, but many of us more simple minds have trouble distinguishing his definition.

I know he was a Philologist, and I'm quite certain that much of his definitions were his own. He thought cross-culturally, but also cross generationally; with much of his thinking influenced by ancient civilizations. So, his views were not particularly classical western.

At one time I read literature that was written at or before 1900. And I was amazed at the difference between their thinking and our thinking. Generally, despite the immense lack of technology that we have, they were far deeper thinkers.

Re: I like hidden things

As I said earlier, I see allegory as something that has set meanings, whereas a symbolic story can mean different things, depending on the way you look at it. The Ring, for example, has many different significances in LOTR, depending on what it's doing at the time.

Tolkien didn't exactly make up the word orc, it derives from the Old English word orcneas (plural form) which occurs once in Beowulf to describe some unspecified type of monster. That in its turn probably derives from the Latin Orcus, one of many names for the God of the Dead.

Re: I like hidden things

Tolkien didn't exactly make up the word orc, it derives from the Old English word orcneas (plural form) which occurs once in Beowulf to describe some unspecified type of monster. That in its turn probably derives from the Latin Orcus, one of many names for the God of the Dead.

I think that's profound, and I'm glad you explained that. I didn't know, and I'm always eager to learn something new.

Yes, it is a symbolic story. And instead of having one message, "Hitler is a little...Sauron...," it contains many lessons of value.

The core of the story was not allegory. He wrote the Hobbit as a children's story, and was asked to make a sequel. So, in its inception, the LOTR was not about WW2...etc.

He also decided to bring elements of his life's project, "The Silmarillion" into LOTR, which made it much deeper.

In a sense, it is serendipity that his story has so many profound lessons. But as his son Christopher said, many of his core beliefs began to find their way into his writings toward the later years.

Parts of LOTR were actually formed in the trenches of WW1, and since he wrote LOTR during WW2, it does contain some elements. I am sure the "Fell Beasts" could have been inspired by the new military flying gunships.