Catalog of Beowulf
Weland
of influences on Tolkien by Beowulf. Some are obvious, such as the
stealing of the cup scene in The Hobbit and the approach to Meduseld in
LoTR. Others less so...I thought I'd toss the topic out here and see
what came up.
Bill O'Meally
I see some similarity in how Beowulf, like Bilbo, is left to encounter
the Dragon alone. At least originally it was Beowulf's choice, but
when he called for help, all his thanes but one abandoned him. This is
perhaps analogous to Balin's accompanying Bilbo part-way into the
passage.
--
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
JJ
Or when only one man would help Turin attack Glaurung?
Steve Morrison
Do you have Rateliff's /The History of The Hobbit/? I found several
such influences by consulting the index for "Beowulf":
* �omer's name may occur in line 1960 of /Beowulf/, unless the word is
really "g�omor". However, tuckborough.net says the name also occurs
in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle: http://www.tuckborough.net/eomer.html
* Beorn's hall is modeled pretty directly on Heorot, and in fact a
sketch of it which Tolkien once drew was very similar to a drawing
of Heorot from a book by E.V. Gordon.
* Bilbo's fear that Beorn might lead bears into the hall to eat them
is reminiscent of what Grendel actually does to the men in Heorot.
* There are some possible parallels between Wiglaf and Bard the Bowman.
* "Arkenstone" derives from the Old English "eorcanstan", which occurs
in /Beowulf/ but also in other places.
Weland
Thanks Steve, some of those I thought of, others not. But I don't yet
have Rateliff's History, sad to say...
Dirk Thierbach
> * "Arkenstone" derives from the Old English "eorcanstan", which occurs
> in /Beowulf/ but also in other places.
Interesting. Is there anything known about what "eorcan" could mean?
- Dirk
Steve Morrison
From what Rateliff says, it meant "precious", or sometimes "holy".
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Interesting. Is there anything known about what "eorcan" could mean?
> From what Rateliff says, it meant "precious", or sometimes "holy".
Did it mention any reasons for this interpretation? From "Arkenstone",
one could imagine that Tolkien might have had in mind a connection to
"arcane" or "ark" (via lat. arcere, I suppose). Possible? Or nonsense?
- Dirk
Taemon
Well... like some Lord of the Rings-"fans", I only know the story because of
the movie.
Although I did read the wikipedia entry on it later.
T.
Paul S. Person
I'm not looking at the book, but I am reasonably sure that /HoTH/ also
points out that "eorcanstan" was used for "Silmaril" in the Old
English versions of the Silmarillion in /HOME/.
In fact, /HoTH/ suggests that the Arkenstone, in JRRT's original
conception, /was/ a Silmaril [1], and lists several similarities
between how the Arkenstone is described and how the Silmarils are
described.
[1] I presume that it would be the one lost in the fiery crack,
recovered by those deep-delving Dwarves, and not recognized because,
well, who was there that /could/ have recognized it? Elrond, perhaps;
Galadriel, quite likely; Gandalf, almost certainly; Sauron, definitely
-- but I don't recall any of them seeing the Arkenstone.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Matthew Woodcraft
> [1] I presume that it would be the one lost in the fiery crack,
> recovered by those deep-delving Dwarves, and not recognized because,
> well, who was there that /could/ have recognized it? Elrond, perhaps;
> Galadriel, quite likely; Gandalf, almost certainly; Sauron, definitely
> -- but I don't recall any of them seeing the Arkenstone.
Gandalf certainly sees it. He waves it about when they're bargaining
with Thorin.
-M-
Paul S. Person
Since I don't recall the incident, I am forced to ask: where, exactly?
(Which chapter of /TH/, and roughly where inside it?)
Dirk Thierbach
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:00:27 GMT, Matthew Woodcraft
> <mat...@woodcraft.me.uk> wrote:
>>Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> writes:
>>> [1] I presume that it would be the one lost in the fiery crack,
>>> recovered by those deep-delving Dwarves, and not recognized because,
>>> well, who was there that /could/ have recognized it? Elrond, perhaps;
>>> Galadriel, quite likely; Gandalf, almost certainly; Sauron, definitely
>>> -- but I don't recall any of them seeing the Arkenstone.
>> Gandalf certainly sees it. He waves it about when they're bargaining
>> with Thorin.
> Since I don't recall the incident, I am forced to ask: where, exactly?
> (Which chapter of /TH/, and roughly where inside it?)
Chapter 17, at the beginning:
"What of the Arkenstone of Thrain?" said he, and at the same moment
the old man opened the casket and held aloft the jewel. The light
leapt from his hand, bright and white in the morning. [...]
The old man with the casket threw aside his hood and cloak. "Here
is Gandalf! [...]"
- Dirk
Jeff Urs
wrote:
> Since I don't recall the incident, I am forced to ask: where, exactly?
> (Which chapter of /TH/, and roughly where inside it?)
"The Clouds Burst". It occurs at the beginning of the chapter.
"...at the same moment the old man opened the casket and held aloft
the jewel."
A page or so later:
"The old man with the casket threw off his hood and cloak. 'Here is
Gandalf!'"
--
Jeff
Troels Forchhammer
Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> spoke these staves:
[Arkenstone]
>> Gandalf certainly sees it. He waves it about when they're
>> bargaining with Thorin.
>
> Since I don't recall the incident, I am forced to ask: where,
> exactly? (Which chapter of /TH/, and roughly where inside it?)
It's in chapter 17 'The Clouds Burst,' pretty early in the chapter:
�What of the Arkenstone of Thrain?� said he, and at the
same moment the old man opened the casket and held aloft
the jewel. The light leapt from his hand, bright and white
in the morning.
[...]
�Stay! Your wish is granted!� said a voice. The old man
with the casket threw aside his hood and cloak. �Here is
Gandalf! And none too soon it seems.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Thus, the future of the universe is not completely
determined by the laws of science, and its present state,
as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his
sleeve.
- Stephen Hawking
Troels Forchhammer
Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> spoke these staves:
>
As the third within six minutes :-)
> It's in chapter 17 'The Clouds Burst,' pretty early in the
> chapter:
Now you get the evidence in triplicate on RABT . . . LOL!
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not
imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They
laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed
at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the
Clown.
- Carl Sagan
Öjevind Lång
news:hICdnRT5lq5BjKbX...@posted.toastnet...
[snip]
> * "Arkenstone" derives from the Old English "eorcanstan", which occurs
> in /Beowulf/ but also in other places.
What does "eorcanstan" mean? I assume it doesn't mean "orcenstone".
�jevind
Steve Morrison
According to
http://www.tuckborough.net/objects.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkenstone#Arkenstone
it means "precious stone" or in some contexts "holy stone".
Also, it has several variant forms such as eorcnan-st�n
or eorclanstan.
Jeff Urs
> What does "eorcanstan" mean? I assume it doesn't mean "orcenstone".
Well, an "eorcan" is clearly a primitive telephone, so an "eorcan
stone" must be a sort of second rate palantir, through which you only
get sounds.
--
Jeff
Weland
It should be eorcnanstan; meaning a precious stone, a gem, and is
applied to pearl or topaz we think...admittedly there are other
spellings, but the root (based on comparison with Old Norse and Old High
German) seems to be this. Some of the other spellings include
eorcanstan and eorclanstan.
Öjevind Lång
news:a8f7ec06-737c-4bb7...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>On Jun 20, 6:32 pm, �jevind L�ng <bredband....@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>> What does "eorcanstan" mean? I assume it doesn't mean "orcenstone".
>
>Well, an "eorcan" is clearly a primitive telephone, so an "eorcan
stone" must be a sort of second rate palantir, through which you only
get sounds.
Does it accept collect calls?
�jevind
--
Jeff
Tamf Moo
> Well, an "eorcan" is clearly a primitive telephone, so an "eorcan
> stone" must be a sort of second rate palantir, through which you only
> get sounds.
mostly canned music, natch.
--
tamf
see ei ole minu kohuke.
Paul S. Person
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:Xns9C30DA42...@130.133.1.4> Troels
>Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> spoke these staves:
>>
>
>As the third within six minutes :-)
>
>> It's in chapter 17 'The Clouds Burst,' pretty early in the
>> chapter:
>
>Now you get the evidence in triplicate on RABT . . . LOL!
I stand corrected.
We can take, then, that in /TH/ as published, the Arkenstone is
definitely /not/ supposed to be a Silmaril, whatever JRRT may have
intended when he named it.
Dirk Thierbach
> definitely /not/ supposed to be a Silmaril, whatever JRRT may have
> intended when he named it.
I wouldn't put it this way. Tolkien frequently took ideas or motifs
and played around with them, often in several of his stories. Here the
idea of a shining jewel that inflicts desire and can corrupt the
character looks suspicously similar (for the Silmarilli and the
Arkenstone, and it's also present in the One Ring, though modified).
There's a second idea that applies to both, namely that the Arkenstone
is "the Heart of the Mountain" and the Silmarilli are tied to the
elements (air, fire, earth). Though for the latter it looks like he
couldn't find a good place to develop this idea into a story (I always
found the return of the last two Silmarilli to their final resting
place very weak).
Oh, and now that I write that, I notice that the three jewels of the
eleven rings are also supposed to correspond to three elements (water,
air, fire).
Anyway, I think one could really say that the Arkenstone was *supposed*
to be something like a Silmaril. Then the stories got written, and
rewritten, and changed, and in the end I think Tolkien would have
*concluded* (especially if someone pointed out to him that Gandalf would
have recognized a Silmaril) that the Arkenstone was a different thing.
But maybe that's just my way of looking at Tolkiens work -- I like to
imagine it more as a flow of ideas than a fixed imagined world where
there's only hard facts. And sometimes Tolkien is more like a researcher
who must now make sense of the material he has in front of him than
an author who decides by whim what his world should look like.
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
news:20090621212745...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
but neglected to crosspost to alt.fan.tolkien
[snip]
> I wouldn't put it this way. Tolkien frequently took ideas or motifs
> and played around with them, often in several of his stories. Here the
> idea of a shining jewel that inflicts desire and can corrupt the
> character looks suspicously similar (for the Silmarilli and the
> Arkenstone, and it's also present in the One Ring, though modified).
> There's a second idea that applies to both, namely that the Arkenstone
> is "the Heart of the Mountain" and the Silmarilli are tied to the
> elements (air, fire, earth). Though for the latter it looks like he
> couldn't find a good place to develop this idea into a story (I always
> found the return of the last two Silmarilli to their final resting
> place very weak).
[snip]
> But maybe that's just my way of looking at Tolkiens work -- I like to
> imagine it more as a flow of ideas than a fixed imagined world where
> there's only hard facts. And sometimes Tolkien is more like a researcher
> who must now make sense of the material he has in front of him than
> an author who decides by whim what his world should look like.
I think it quite clear that when Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" he didn't intend
for it to be part of a "canon", he simply wrote a story for children, and
some features and motifs from his secondary creation of Middle-earth crept
into it.
�jevind
Dirk Thierbach
> I think it quite clear that when Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" he
> didn't intend for it to be part of a "canon", he simply wrote a
> story for children, and some features and motifs from his secondary
> creation of Middle-earth crept into it.
Sure. But then later on tried to make it consistent with the rest
(otherwise, for example, he wouldn't have changed the details of how
Bilbo found the ring. See letter #128). So now he had to deal with
thise features and motifs he used elsewhere.
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
<news:20090623102549...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
>
> �jevind L�ng <bredba...@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>>
>> "Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> skrev i
>> meddelandet
>> news:20090621212745...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
>>>
>>>>
<reinstating earlier posts>
>>>> We can take, then, that in /TH/ as published, the Arkenstone
>>>> is definitely /not/ supposed to be a Silmaril, whatever JRRT
>>>> may have intended when he named it.
I'd say that this is correct -- in particular with _The Hobbit_ *as
published* in the current version.
>>> I wouldn't put it this way. Tolkien frequently took ideas or
>>> motifs and played around with them, often in several of his
>>> stories.
Yes, certainly, but I don't think that this is the same as saying
that the two, within the story, are 'supposed' to be the same. This
concept of motifs and ideas is, IMO, a story-external concept
relating to the manner of Tolkien's writing whereas the other,
regardless of how you define the story-internal universe, is a story-
internal fact.
The point, as I understand it, was, however, that Rateliff, in _The
History of the Hobbit_ (HotH), 'suggests that the Arkenstone, in
JRRT's original
conception, /was/ a Silmaril' (Paul in
<news:0vin35ttfvklu4ptj...@4ax.com>), and whether this
view could still apply _story-internally_.
Your list of similiarities makes it even more likely that Rateliff is
right.
>>> Anyway, I think one could really say that the Arkenstone was
>>> *supposed* to be something like a Silmaril. Then the stories
>>> got written, and rewritten, and changed, and in the end I think
>>> Tolkien would have *concluded* (especially if someone pointed
>>> out to him that Gandalf would have recognized a Silmaril) that
>>> the Arkenstone was a different thing.
>>>
>>> But maybe that's just my way of looking at Tolkiens work -- I
>>> like to imagine it more as a flow of ideas than a fixed
>>> imagined world where there's only hard facts.
Yes, I agree. What we can do is to attempt to pin down some points --
such as the starting point of the Arkenstone -- knowing full well
that all we will achieve by it is to get a single fix-point, and that
we'll have to do this again to see into what direction(s) he later
took the concept.
Tolkien's ideas were fluid and I believe that we need to apply more
than one view when we wish to understand his work.
>>> And sometimes Tolkien is more like a researcher who must now
>>> make sense of the material he has in front of him than an author
>>> who decides by whim what his world should look like.
And sometimes, I think, he felt more like an explorer discovering
what was there with no conscious feeling of actually guiding the
process (at least that is my interpretation of some of his
descriptions).
There are a lot of descriptions (and probably some myths) about how
Tolkien worked, but none of them seem to be able to cover everything
he did. Doubtlessly his way of working changed over time, but I also
think that his approach would vary on a shorter time-scale depending
on whatever influences the way we approach a task. I have seen people
at times hang an argument on how they believed Tolkien worked, and
that, I think, is dangerous precisely because he didn't, IMO, always
work in the same way, sometimes probably changing from night to
night.
>> I think it quite clear that when Tolkien wrote "The Hobbit" he
>> didn't intend for it to be part of a "canon", he simply wrote a
>> story for children, and some features and motifs from his
>> secondary creation of Middle-earth crept into it.
The impression has been growing on me that this is actually a more
complex matter. I have still only got around to leaf through
Rateliff's work, but I believe one of his points is that the story,
in its original conception, did actually take place in Beleriand. It
seems to me that Tolkien adopted his Silmarillion setting for the
story of _The Hobbit_ (tH) without intending anything to go the other
way -- though tH was actually, in the original conception, _set_ in
the Silmarillion world, things introduced in tH were not meant to
influence back into the Silmarillion world. In SW development
language, I'd say that tH was branched off from the Silmarillion main
branch, and that the intention was that he was never to be merged
back into the main branch.
Later in the first writing, the story was brought further and further
away from the Silmarillion, so that, in the end, the two could only
be merged back by a major adaptation effort. When Tolkien found that
his sequel to tH did merge back with the Silmarillion, things just
got even more complex.
> Sure. But then later on tried to make it consistent with the rest
> (otherwise, for example, he wouldn't have changed the details of
> how Bilbo found the ring. See letter #128). So now he had to deal
> with thise features and motifs he used elsewhere.
Yes, and unfortunately he never did finish merging _The Hobbit_ back
into the Silmarillion world. The _story_ of LotR follows on from the
_story_ of tH, but while LotR is firmly rooted in the world of
Tolkien's broader mythology, tH doesn't really fit in with the rest
-- there are too many odd edges, corners and bulges in tH that can't
be nicely fitted with the mythology (there's a frivolity to tH, a
kind of adult childishness, that also affects the setting of the
story and which doesn't fit with neither LotR nor _The
Silmarillion_).
One of the things I look forward to studying in detail in the HotH is
the unfinished revision from the sixties -- I expect that it
represents a more sincere attempt at merging tH back into the
mythology (only small changes were done initially -- a few glaring
inconsistencies were fixed, but many others weren't touched).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded
gold, it would be a merrier world.
- Thorin Oakenshield, /The Hobbit/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
>>>> I wouldn't put it this way. Tolkien frequently took ideas or
>>>> motifs and played around with them, often in several of his
>>>> stories.
> Yes, certainly, but I don't think that this is the same as saying
> that the two, within the story, are 'supposed' to be the same.
Of course it's not the same. My point was that the question
"what is it supposed to be" is trying to look at the whole thing
from the wrong angle. Hence, I would phrase it differently.
> This concept of motifs and ideas is, IMO, a story-external concept
> relating to the manner of Tolkien's writing whereas the other,
> regardless of how you define the story-internal universe, is a
> story-internal fact.
Yes. But here, the interplay between those two is very important.
Because what is or is not story-internal fact is strongly influenced
by the story-external development. Story-internal facts are not
set in stone. There is no Urtext where there are all nicely listed :-)
> The point, as I understand it, was, however, that Rateliff, in _The
> History of the Hobbit_ (HotH), 'suggests that the Arkenstone, in
> JRRT's original conception, /was/ a Silmaril'
Well, if it /was/ a Silmaril, he could just have called it "Silmaril" :-)
Again, I think this is the wrong question.
> Your list of similiarities makes it even more likely that Rateliff is
> right.
He's certainly onto something :-)
>>>> Anyway, I think one could really say that the Arkenstone was
>>>> *supposed* to be something like a Silmaril.
Just let me add that another problem here is that the phrase
"supposed to be" isn't very precise. What I meant here is that
one can interpret the phrase in a way where one could actually say
"it was supposed to be a Silmaril".
>> Sure. But then later on tried to make it consistent with the rest
>> (otherwise, for example, he wouldn't have changed the details of
>> how Bilbo found the ring. See letter #128). So now he had to deal
>> with thise features and motifs he used elsewhere.
> Yes, and unfortunately he never did finish merging _The Hobbit_ back
> into the Silmarillion world. The _story_ of LotR follows on from the
> _story_ of tH, but while LotR is firmly rooted in the world of
> Tolkien's broader mythology, tH doesn't really fit in with the rest
> -- there are too many odd edges, corners and bulges in tH that can't
> be nicely fitted with the mythology (there's a frivolity to tH, a
> kind of adult childishness, that also affects the setting of the
> story and which doesn't fit with neither LotR nor _The
> Silmarillion_).
Yes. Of course there was the little problem of changing a work that
was already in print :-) Even the change that actually happened
to fix a rather glaring inconsistency wasn't so easy.
- Dirk
Paul S. Person
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>
>The point, as I understand it, was, however, that Rateliff, in _The
>History of the Hobbit_ (HotH), 'suggests that the Arkenstone, in
>JRRT's original
>conception, /was/ a Silmaril' (Paul in
><news:0vin35ttfvklu4ptj...@4ax.com>), and whether this
>view could still apply _story-internally_.
>
>Your list of similiarities makes it even more likely that Rateliff is
>right.
You really should read Rateliff. It is quite interesting from
beginning to end and my attempts to summarize it are not as clear as
the original. Especially since I am looking at the book.
Rateliff also points out that the original text speaks as if Beren &
Luthien had driven Sauron out of Tol Gaurhoth, at most, a few
centuries before /TH/ takes place (or perhaps more recently than
that). He also points out similarities between the map of the Hobbit
and that of Beleriand, in particular, to the Necromancer's tower in
Mirkwood to the place (in Tuar-na-Fuin or its vicinity, IIRC) Sauron
went when defeated by Luthien, various mountain chains and rivers,
where the dragons are, and so on. This seems at first a bit over the
top, although it makes some sense given when /TH/ was written (JRRT
had just been/was then working on the mid-30's Silmarillion, after
all). But when Thorin's chief treasure is called "Arkenstone" and JRRT
had used "eorcanstan" (or some variant thereof) recently in the Old
English Silmarillion for "Silmaril", and the comparisons are made
(yes, Rateliff compares the descriptions of Arkenstone and Silmaril)
-- well, the overall theory that /TH/ originally was set in an area
very like Beleriand in a time very like the First Age in terms of
geography and recent history takes on more weight.
Of course, none of this is true of the published version and is really
more a matter of intellectual interest that anything of importance in
understanding or enjoying /TH/. Still, it is interesting that the
illustration labled "Mirkwood" is an earlier illustration of "Taur na
Fuin" with Beren and the Elf with the lantern (yes, I forgot the name)
removed, something I have seen noted in other places than /HoTH/. This
might be taken as a memory, as it were, of the original significance
of the geography: that Mirkwood was, originally, in some sense,
Taur-na-Fuin.
Bill O'Meally
> Still, it is interesting that the
> illustration labled "Mirkwood" is an earlier illustration of "Taur
> na
> Fuin"
According to /Artist & Illustrator/, "Mirkwood" was a later
reinterpretation of the earlier work, "Taur-na-Fuin" (printed in /The
Book of Ishness/ in 1928). This makes sense in Tolkien created
"Mirkwood" later as an illustration for TH.
>with Beren and the Elf with the lantern (yes, I forgot the name)
Beleg has the lantern. Gwindor lays prostrate.
> removed, something I have seen noted in other places than /HoTH/.
> This
> might be taken as a memory, as it were, of the original significance
> of the geography: that Mirkwood was, originally, in some sense,
> Taur-na-Fuin.
"Taur-na-Fuin" has a second reincarnation as "Fangorn", appearing on
the cover of the Ballantine paperback of TT -- elves *included*. I
suspect it was thought that they either wouldn't be noticed, or we are
supposed to assume that these elongated figures, and the *bearded*
Beleg are Merry and Pippin. ;-)
--
Bill
"Wise fool."
Gandalf _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not!)
Bill O'Meally
>
> Beleg has the lantern. Gwindor lays prostrate.
Correction: The lantern sits besides Gwindor.
Troels Forchhammer
>
> beginning to end
You have convinced me -- I have moved it up to the top of the list, to
start right after I finish the last couple of chapters of BoLT2 (I had
thought I was due for a re-reading of LotR, but apparently not . . .
<GG>)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human
stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Troels Forchhammer
<news:20090623161351...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these
>> staves:
>>>
Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't put it this way. Tolkien frequently took ideas or
>>>>> motifs and played around with them, often in several of his
>>>>> stories.
>>
>> Yes, certainly, but I don't think that this is the same as saying
>> that the two, within the story, are 'supposed' to be the same.
>
> Of course it's not the same. My point was that the question
> "what is it supposed to be" is trying to look at the whole thing
> from the wrong angle. Hence, I would phrase it differently.
Ah, sorry :)
Your re-phrasing seems to deal with Tolkien's reuse of motifs between
different stories (something he was, I think, particularly prone to
do with _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ where he freely used
motifs, narrative elements and other features from the Silmarillion
texts by re-locating them in time and place and fitting them to the
new story). I agree that this is probably the better question to ask
from the critical point-of-view, but I don't think we should forget
the readerly view-point, which deals largely with how things are
intended to be perceived when reading the story.
Recognizing that Tolkien's intentions could change, I still think it
is a valid question to ask whether Tolkien at any point during
composition/revision intended for a reader who knew the Silmarillion
to recognize the Arkenstone as one of the Silmarils?
Despite the complication that the Silmarillion was never published in
Tolkien's life-time, I do think that such a question makes sense
(unpublished doesn't mean unread, and one might also answer for a
hypothetical future reader). It is my belief that the answer is
fairly trivial _after_ the first publication (Tolkien didn't intend
the reader to believe that the Arkenstone was one of the Silmarils),
but it might be interesting to discuss his intentions when he first
made the reuse.
With respect to the initial thought -- the very moment when Tolkien
'borrowed' the Silmaril motif for the Arkenstone, it could be
interesting to know what Tolkien was thinking there and then; and of
course it could also illuminate the process of Tolkien's reuse of
motifs.
Coming to think of it, this is probably what you had in mind anyway
;-)
<snip>
> Yes. Of course there was the little problem of changing a work
> that was already in print :-)
That didn't stop Tolkien before. You have a rather fundamental change
done to _The Hobbit_ to fit the new story in 'Riddles in the Dark'
(there were also other changes, but lesser), and you also have
several changes to LotR -- the change of Galaldriel's lineage, for
instance. Tolkien clearly felt more bound by already published
material than he did by material that had not been published, but the
evidence clearly (IMO) shows that he was perfectly willing to change
a published book to fit a conception that developed later (even at
the smaller scale of changing Galadriel's lineage in LotR or the
accompaniment to the cold chicken in tH).
I don't think that Tolkien would have had any compunction over the
drastic changes he was planning for the narrative voice of tH (along
with minor changes to the setting) -- if he had completed the new
version, it would have been published (possibly with some excuse that
the former version was retold for children or something like that --
not unlike what he did with the known changes).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Truth in science can be defined as the working hypothesis
best suited to open the way to the next better one.
- Konrad Lorenz
Weland
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
>> In message
>> <news:20090623102549...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de> Dirk
>>>
>>>> "Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> skrev i
>>>> meddelandet
>>>> news:20090621212745...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de...
>>>>
>>>>> Paul S. Person <pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <reinstating earlier posts>
>>
>>>>>> We can take, then, that in /TH/ as published, the Arkenstone is
>>>>>> definitely /not/ supposed to be a Silmaril, whatever JRRT may have
>>>>>> intended when he named it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd say that this is correct -- in particular with _The Hobbit_ *as
>> published* in the current version.
>>
>>
>>>>> and played around with them, often in several of his stories.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, certainly, but I don't think that this is the same as saying that
>> of motifs and ideas is, IMO, a story-external concept relating to the
>> manner of Tolkien's writing whereas the other, regardless of how you
>> define the story-internal universe, is a story-
>> internal fact.
>> History of the Hobbit_ (HotH), 'suggests that the Arkenstone, in
>> JRRT's original
>> conception, /was/ a Silmaril' (Paul in
>> <news:0vin35ttfvklu4ptj...@4ax.com>), and whether this
>> view could still apply _story-internally_.
>> Your list of similiarities makes it even more likely that Rateliff is
>> right.
I'm not sure about that. There are similarities too between the
Arkenstone and The Ring: the capitivating beauty, the desire to keep
possession secret, the alienation of friends and comrades, perhaps even
willing to kill, over it. The Arkenstone is called "the heart of the
mountain" indicating whence it came.....so there are similarities I
think, but I don't think they can be pressed so far as to say that the
Arkenstone was one of the lost Silmarils.
Clams Canino
"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message news:h270l4$3ck$1...@news.eternal-
> I'm not sure about that. There are similarities too between the
> Arkenstone and The Ring: the capitivating beauty, the desire to keep
> possession secret, the alienation of friends and comrades, perhaps even
> willing to kill, over it. The Arkenstone is called "the heart of the
> mountain" indicating whence it came.....so there are similarities I
> think, but I don't think they can be pressed so far as to say that the
> Arkenstone was one of the lost Silmarils.
It most certainly was not a Silmaril.
Though I'm sure that it was "inspired" by the Silmarils, I don't believe it
even had it's own light source. (my memory is fuzzy here though)
-W
Raven
news:HZqdnWZbT8nncNrX...@earthlink.com...
The Arkenstone had its own light source, in that Bilbo saw its faint
glint as he approached it on the mound of treasure that Smaug had left
behind. I do not get the impression that this glint was just reflected and
refracted torchlight. But a Silmaril would have illuminated the whole
cavern, most likely, and Thorin would have rushed to it before Bilbo could
have said "oh". The Silmaril in the sky was bright enough to be seen from
the ground, and at times even enough to cast shadows.
Also the Silmarils had a far greater fate than that woven about the
Arkenstone. Discovering one of the two lost ones would have been of
monumental importance, and not lost on Gandalf who saw the Arkenstone.
Thirdly, and less importantly, the two Silmarils were apparently lost
near the western edge of what was left of Middle-earth after the War of
Wrath. The encampment where they were taken by Maglor and Maedhros can
hardly have been far inland of Lindon, and while it is not said how far
Maedhros fled before flinging himself and his Silmaril into a chasm filled
with fire, I somehow doubt that he fled as far as what was to become Erebor.
This third point is rather speculative, of course, and cannot alone refute
the Arkenstone being a Silmaril.
Karasu.
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
>
> The Arkenstone had its own light source, in that Bilbo saw its faint
> glint as he approached it on the mound of treasure that Smaug had left
> behind. I do not get the impression that this glint was just reflected and
> refracted torchlight. But a Silmaril would have illuminated the whole
> cavern, most likely, and Thorin would have rushed to it before Bilbo could
> have said "oh". The Silmaril in the sky was bright enough to be seen from
> the ground, and at times even enough to cast shadows.
> Also the Silmarils had a far greater fate than that woven about the
> Arkenstone. Discovering one of the two lost ones would have been of
> monumental importance, and not lost on Gandalf who saw the Arkenstone.
> Thirdly, and less importantly, the two Silmarils were apparently lost
> near the western edge of what was left of Middle-earth after the War of
> Wrath. The encampment where they were taken by Maglor and Maedhros can
> hardly have been far inland of Lindon, and while it is not said how far
> Maedhros fled before flinging himself and his Silmaril into a chasm filled
> with fire, I somehow doubt that he fled as far as what was to become Erebor.
> This third point is rather speculative, of course, and cannot alone refute
> the Arkenstone being a Silmaril.
It is really clear that the Arkenstone was meant to be a palantir. The
way Bilbo feels "drawn" to it reflects Pippin's feelings when he
catches the palantir at Orthanc. The light indicates that the Palantir
was active and displaying Denethor's bedroom, where the Steward was
sitting amidst many chandeliers and bedlamps and watching the scene.
Clearly, the reason why Denethor accepted Pippin in his service was
because he had already seen, through the Arkenstone, how valiant
hobbits could be.
Noel
Öjevind Lång
meddelandet
news:7badc49a-5c83-45e7...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> It is really clear that the Arkenstone was meant to be a palantir. The
way Bilbo feels "drawn" to it reflects Pippin's feelings when he
catches the palantir at Orthanc. The light indicates that the Palantir
was active and displaying Denethor's bedroom, where the Steward was
sitting amidst many chandeliers and bedlamps and watching the scene.
Clearly, the reason why Denethor accepted Pippin in his service was
because he had already seen, through the Arkenstone, how valiant
hobbits could be.
You make it sound as if the Palant�r was some kind of disco ball, and as if
Denethor sat there watching nude females dancing and prancing to the loud
sound of pop music from Mordor. Now we know why he seems so tired and
listless in the films. He was worn out by his nightly orgies.
�jevind
Dirk Thierbach
> Your re-phrasing seems to deal with Tolkien's reuse of motifs between
> different stories (something he was, I think, particularly prone to
> do with _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ where he freely used
> motifs, narrative elements and other features from the Silmarillion
> texts by re-locating them in time and place and fitting them to the
> new story).
Yes, but not exclusively. I think Tolkien used this method all over
the place. It's like he had all these little "emblematic" motifs
somewhere in the back of his head, and then repeatedly tried to attach
them to different texts until everything fits (or sometimes not). Like
leaves looking for a tree, if you want :-) I can't remember too many
examples off the top of my head now, but besides those used both in TH
and SIL he re-uses them from fairy-tales (like Rapunzel's hair, which
we talked in CotW) or from other places like Beowulf (to come back
to the beginning of the thread).
> I agree that this is probably the better question to ask
> from the critical point-of-view,
It's not only the critical POV. I think it provides another level
of understanding Tolkien's stories. In this respect they are like
real-world myths -- people just steal ideas, modify them to some degree
and weave them into stories. Tolkien did the same, with his own ideas
and with those from other sources.
> but I don't think we should forget the readerly view-point, which
> deals largely with how things are intended to be perceived when
> reading the story.
I don't think one should call this the main POV of the reader, or
something. These are stories. There are there to be enjoyed as
stories. And it's important to recogize how everything hangs together.
The "Zusammenhang", as Shippey calls it (I wonder where he got that
word from :-)
The "yes, but what is the subcreated world *really* like?" game that
especially SF&F readers like to play with the authors is, at least IMHO,
an *additional* aspect, and not the main one (or the only one).
> Recognizing that Tolkien's intentions could change, I still think it
> is a valid question to ask whether Tolkien at any point during
> composition/revision intended for a reader who knew the Silmarillion
> to recognize the Arkenstone as one of the Silmarils?
Sure, one can ask all kinds of questions. And wrt. to the "can we construct
a consistent subcreated world" there's a clear answer (in retrospect).
But this POV misses so much interesting stuff.
> With respect to the initial thought -- the very moment when Tolkien
> 'borrowed' the Silmaril motif for the Arkenstone, it could be
> interesting to know what Tolkien was thinking there and then; and of
> course it could also illuminate the process of Tolkien's reuse of
> motifs.
>
> Coming to think of it, this is probably what you had in mind anyway
> ;-)
Yes. See above. I think Tolkien did this quite often.
>> Yes. Of course there was the little problem of changing a work
>> that was already in print :-)
> That didn't stop Tolkien before.
Of course. But it's a real PITA selling the larger changes to the
publisher :-) Smaller ones are so much easier.
And of course the fact that Tolkien wanted to make all this changes
is an indication that he took the "yes, but what is really like?"
game very seriously. Though by taking it seriously he turned it
into a moving target for the reader...
- Dirk
Raven
news:7badc49a-5c83-45e7...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> It is really clear that the Arkenstone was meant to be a palantir.
It must have been a laptop version then. The Arkenstone fit in Bilbo's
pocket. I get the impression that the Palant�r that Pippin handled was too
large to be gripped around with both hands; as large as a bowling ball, or
almost as large.
Hr�fn.
Paul S. Person
/HoTH/, IIRC and am not overstating the situation, also makes a case
for the idea that /TH/ was originally, in point of fact, set in
Beleriand, with Mirkwood /being/ Taur-na-Fuin. This is all of a piece
with the case that the Arkenstone was, originally, a Silmaril.
Steve Morrison
But /can/ we assume that Gandalf would have recognized a
Silmaril? Remember that all this was written years before JRRT
had decided the Wizards were really Maiar in disguise; at the
time he wrote /TH/, Gandalf might have merely been a wandering
conjurer who had never seen a Silmaril.
Bill O'Meally
At least as large. According to 'The Palantiri' in /UT/, the smallest
was a foot in diameter. The largest, such as those at Osgiliath and
Amon Sul, were so large that they could not be lifted by one man.
Dirk Thierbach
> for the idea that /TH/ was originally, in point of fact, set in
> Beleriand, with Mirkwood /being/ Taur-na-Fuin.
IIRC we discussed this similarity in one of the CotW threads.
> This is all of a piece with the case that the Arkenstone was,
> originally, a Silmaril.
Well, the distinction whether it "really" was the same or if it merely
was the same "motif" is of course the same in both cases. But as I have
argued, I think that this distinction is pretty meaningless.
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
Forgot to mention: And of course "Mirkwood" is another idea Tolkien
stole, this time from the sagas. So is Tolkien's Mirkwood "supposed"
to be the same as, say, King Heidrek's?
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
<news:20090629110038...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
This is, I am afraid, going to be mostly of the 'yes, and . . .' kind
of agreeing with the former poster. Hopefully the 'and . . .'
additions will at least justify posting ;-)
> It's like he had all these little "emblematic" motifs somewhere in
> the back of his head, and then repeatedly tried to attach them to
> different texts until everything fits (or sometimes not).
I'm not entirely sure if you mean to suggest that Tolkien was doing
this consciously and deliberately, or if you think it was more a
subconscious process?
As I read Tolkien's descriptions in 'On Fairy-Stories' (OFS) about
the Cauldron of Story the author cannot control what will come up
when he draws from the cauldron (or at least only very imperfectly --
he may go for a specific piece and be surprised at what comes out
together with that piece).
> Like leaves looking for a tree, if you want :-)
I like that figure :-)
It suggests to me some bits of the Soup of Story that has, for some
reason or other, attracted the author and floats around in his sub-
conscious mind waiting for an outlet.
<snipping simple agreement>
>> but I don't think we should forget the readerly view-point, which
>> deals largely with how things are intended to be perceived when
>> reading the story.
>
> I don't think one should call this the main POV of the reader, or
> something.
Indeed -- it was an unfortunate choice of words.
I do, however, think that the main PoV of the normal reader is mainly
story-internal: it is the view-point you have while under the
influence of secondary belief. That is, both according to Tolkien in
OFS and to my personal experience, the state in which the reader will
be put by successful sub-creation -- at least while reading.
> These are stories. There are there to be enjoyed as stories.
That rather begs the question, doesn't it ;-)
How _are_ stories to be enjoyed?
Personally I distinguish between the 'while reading' enjoyment (where
I find that my own experience is so close to Tolkien's description of
secondary belief in OFS that I can't help but agree wholeheartedly
with his claim that this is the way successful sub-creative Art is to
be enjoyed), and then there's the enjoyment I can get from analysis,
which is far more complex with respect to viewpoints.
> And it's important to recogize how everything hangs together. The
> "Zusammenhang", as Shippey calls it (I wonder where he got that
> word from :-)
I agree that it's important, and I also think that it is a phase
three (or whatever) interest -- something that comes after the
interests spurred by the secondary belief (first the story itself and
then the wider context of the story). Unfortunately it seems that
many readers never get beyond the secondary belief viewpoint.
> The "yes, but what is the subcreated world *really* like?" game
> that especially SF&F readers like to play with the authors is, at
> least IMHO, an *additional* aspect, and not the main one (or the
> only one).
For myself, I agree wholeheartedly -- I even think that this is true
for most or all the regular posters here, but when I see the comments
and discussions elsewhere (other fora, other authors), I believe that
it is, sadly, the main aspect for the majority of readers.
[...]
> Sure, one can ask all kinds of questions. [...]
> But this POV misses so much interesting stuff.
I think that you miss a lot of interesting stuff if you restrict
yourself to a single viewpoint regardless of what viewpoint that is.
On the other hand you probably miss out different amounts of
interesting stuff depending on the viewpoint ;-)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are
subtle and quick to anger.
- Gildor Inglorion, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>Paul S. Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:31:40 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
>> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <news:Xns9C30DA42...@130.133.1.4> Troels
>>> Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> spoke these staves:
>>> As the third within six minutes :-)
>>>
>>>> It's in chapter 17 'The Clouds Burst,' pretty early in the
>>>> chapter:
>>> Now you get the evidence in triplicate on RABT . . . LOL!
>>
>> I stand corrected.
>>
>> We can take, then, that in /TH/ as published, the Arkenstone is
>> definitely /not/ supposed to be a Silmaril, whatever JRRT may have
>> intended when he named it.
>
>But /can/ we assume that Gandalf would have recognized a
>Silmaril? Remember that all this was written years before JRRT
>had decided the Wizards were really Maiar in disguise; at the
>time he wrote /TH/, Gandalf might have merely been a wandering
>conjurer who had never seen a Silmaril.
(It took a day for me to realize I had something to say in response.)
Up through the first edition of /TH/, you are correct. However, when
JRRT revised /TH/ into the second edition, after writing /LoTR/ and
specifically to make it more consistent with /LoTR/, he left that
scene alone. Since, at that time, Gandalf was an Istar, by leaving it
alone JRRT showed that, at that time if not before, the Arkenstone was
definitely not a Silmaril.
It also occurred to me that it was Legolas who recognized the Balrog
in the book. Legolas, of course, had almost certainly never actually
seen a Balrog, so he must have been applying Elvish lore. If Legolas
was familiar enough with Elvish lore to recognize a Balrog when he saw
one, then his father, Thranduil (I /hope/ that was the name), might
have been familiar enough with Elvish lore to recognize a Silmaril
when he saw one. So, in the 2nd edition of /TH/, there were two
characters who would have recognized the Arkenstone as a Silmaril, if
JRRT still considered it to be one. Since neither did, it is clear
that, by that time, JRRT did not.
It should be kept in mind that not even Rateliff believes that the
Arkenstone was a Silmaril in even the first edition of the published
Hobbit. This is all about what JRRT may, or may not, have been
thinking when he first wrote /TH/, not about any published edition.
But it is an intriguing idea, nonetheless.
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
>> It's like he had all these little "emblematic" motifs somewhere in
>> the back of his head, and then repeatedly tried to attach them to
>> different texts until everything fits (or sometimes not).
> I'm not entirely sure if you mean to suggest that Tolkien was doing
> this consciously and deliberately, or if you think it was more a
> subconscious process?
To some degree certainly deliberately. CT says for example in the
appendix to CoH that Tolkien moved "plot elements" around, trying to
find out where they "fit" best. I think the same is true for these
motifs.
> As I read Tolkien's descriptions in 'On Fairy-Stories' (OFS) about
> the Cauldron of Story the author cannot control what will come up
> when he draws from the cauldron (or at least only very imperfectly --
> he may go for a specific piece and be surprised at what comes out
> together with that piece).
Yes, certainly. The end result isn't deliberate, but the act of trying
it out is. One doesn't know if the "shining desirable jewel" will
become a Silmaril, an Arkenstone or the One Ring in the end. But one
has to try it out, in several ways, or it won't become anything at all.
>> Like leaves looking for a tree, if you want :-)
> I like that figure :-)
That was actually an allusion to "Leaf by Niggle". So it's Tolkien's
figure, not mine.
>>> but I don't think we should forget the readerly view-point, which
>>> deals largely with how things are intended to be perceived when
>>> reading the story.
>> I don't think one should call this the main POV of the reader, or
>> something.
> Indeed -- it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> I do, however, think that the main PoV of the normal reader is mainly
> story-internal: it is the view-point you have while under the
> influence of secondary belief.
Yes, I see what you mean. Google says I already quoted LeGuin two
years ago on that, but here it is again:
: This weight of verifiable place-event-phenomenon-behaviour makes the
: reader forget that he is reading a pure invention, a history that
: never took place anywhere but in that unlocalisable region, the
: author's mind. In fact, while we read a novel, we are insane --
: bonkers. We believe the existence of people who aren't there, we
: hear their voices, we watch the battle of Borodino with them, we may
: even become Napolean. Sanity returns (in most cases) when the book
: is closed.
The objection I have is that you call this the *main* POV. For me,
personally, it doesn't work this way. I'm not only bonkers, I'm
really schizophrenic: Part of me is immersed in the story, as
described above. Part of me is playing the "I'm smarter than the
author" game and looking for contradictions, bad writing, or obvious
constructions. Part of me is busy analyzing the layers of meaning, the
"applicability" beyond the mere plot. I couldn't say which of those is
more important, or more enjoyable.
>> These are stories. There are there to be enjoyed as stories.
>
> That rather begs the question, doesn't it ;-)
>
> How _are_ stories to be enjoyed?
By telling them, and listening to them :-) With full knowledge that
they are not real, even though we may pretend that, for some time.
Otherwise, sanity doesn't return. :-)
>> Sure, one can ask all kinds of questions. [...]
>> But this POV misses so much interesting stuff.
> I think that you miss a lot of interesting stuff if you restrict
> yourself to a single viewpoint regardless of what viewpoint that is.
Yes, certainly. So why not be immodest and do away with the
restriction(s)? :-) Look at it from all directions at once.
Become a schizophrenic, like me :-)
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
<news:20090713164718...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
>
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these
>> staves:
>>>
>>> It's like he had all these little "emblematic" motifs somewhere
>>> in the back of his head, and then repeatedly tried to attach
>>> them to different texts until everything fits (or sometimes
>>> not).
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure if you mean to suggest that Tolkien was
>> doing this consciously and deliberately, or if you think it was
>> more a subconscious process?
>
> To some degree certainly deliberately. CT says for example in the
> appendix to CoH that Tolkien moved "plot elements" around, trying
> to find out where they "fit" best. I think the same is true for
> these motifs.
I agree that it was a mix of both conscious and subconscious
processess. On the whole I think the initial borrowing was mainly
subconscious -- Tolkien would, to use his own picture, merely draw a
bowl from the cauldron and put in what he could use. The rearrangement
of the motifs would, however, mainly be a conscious effort -- putting
the puzzle together in a new way that fitted better, re-using the
motifs he had drawn somewhere else and for better effect. This would
almost certainly (IMO) be the case when he was writing the initial
drafts at great speed -- we know that he would also, at such times,
invent new names in the Elvish languages with his pen, so to speak, and
only retroactively fit them to the etymology of these languages (often
making adjustments to the names in the process), and I think his use of
borrowed motifs (both from his own previous work and from older
sources) is similar.
However, just as there would be times when he would carefully construct
his way ahead within his invented languages, creating new elements from
which new names could be constructed, I'd also agree that there would
be times when he was far more conscious about selecting e.g. old
folklore motifs that he wanted to use -- the use of Kullervo for T�rin
is an example of that, I believe, where the motif was chosen before the
character was in place.
<snip>
>> I do, however, think that the main PoV of the normal reader is
>> mainly story-internal: it is the view-point you have while under
>> the influence of secondary belief.
>
> Yes, I see what you mean. Google says I already quoted LeGuin two
> years ago on that, but here it is again:
<snip quotation>
Thank you.
> The objection I have is that you call this the *main* POV. For me,
> personally, it doesn't work this way. I'm not only bonkers, I'm
> really schizophrenic:
:-)
My calling it the main viewpoint of a normal reader is because that is
the viewpoint that I most often encounter when readers discuss a piece
of -- in particular sub-creative -- literature. Most such discussions
seem to focus on how things 'really' are within the sub-created
universe and such discussion seem to attract the wider participation.
As the Harry Potter series was evolving, the second-most popular theme
was to try to second-guess the author -- to guess what would happen
next. But this, too, is, IMO, primarily a story-internal theme of
discussion, although it would often bring in story-external arguments.
The other analytical themes that you mention, looking for failings in
the writing and for layers of meaning and discussing applicability of
the story take up a much smaller part of the attention in discussions,
and so appear, to me at least (I may well have visited the wrong
forums), to be of less concern for what I have called the 'normal
reader' (which is, of course, not necessarily that -- she is rather the
representative reader of the forums I have visited).
> Part of me is immersed in the story,
[...]
> Part of me is playing the "I'm smarter than the author" game
[...]
> Part of me is busy analyzing the layers of meaning,
[...]
I'm quite impressed ;) For my own part, I can't mix the secondary
belief reading mode with the analytical reading mode, so I usually have
to make a conscious effort to force myself into the analytical mode
when I need to do that (provided, of course, that the text invites to
secondary belief). When I first read a new text that does invite to
secondary belief, I usually find myself completely immersed in that
belief -- I am truly and fully 'bonkers'; only later, if I need to
analyse the text, can I read it again while consciously enforcing the
analytical reading mode.
When I first read Tolkien's 'On Fairy-Stories', I was astonished to at
how well he described my own reading experience with his discussion of
secondary belief. I have since spoken with others, whose experience is
different, so I am quite aware that this differs from person to person,
and that Tolkien's description isn't a universal truth ;-)
I cannot say what is the more common reading experience -- I am
certainly not sure that the interest I have encountered in the story-
internal viewpoint can be taken to indicate that this is also the
primary focus of the reading experience.
> I couldn't say which of those is more important, or more enjoyable.
Neither can I, for my own sake, say which viewpoint is the more
enjoyable or important (and I'd include the 'predict what will happen
next' as a fourth viewpoint) -- it just seems that the story-internal
viewpoint is the one that creates the most interest in the various
discussion forums that I have come across.
And I also agree that applying multiple perspectives increases the
overall pleasure in and enjoyment of a story -- while reading I just
can't do more than one viewpoint at a time :-)
>>> These are stories. There are there to be enjoyed as stories.
>>
>> That rather begs the question, doesn't it ;-)
>>
>> How _are_ stories to be enjoyed?
>
> By telling them, and listening to them :-) With full knowledge
> that they are not real, even though we may pretend that, for some
> time. Otherwise, sanity doesn't return. :-)
I have to say that I, for my own sake, cannot agree fully. While
immersed in the story, I fully accept it -- there is no knowledge that
it is not real, nor is the secondary belief mere pretense. Once I turn
my attention from the story (secondary, sub-created, reality) to the
primary reality, the enchantment is broken and sanity returns -- with a
good story I can switch back and forth simply by paying attention to
the words on the page before me, with poorer stories, it may take a few
lines of reading before I am again fully submerged in secondary belief.
With a good story, I also have to consciously subdue secondary belief
in order to remain in the analytical reading mode (something that
occasionally became something of a problem when preparing for the CotW
project ;-) )
So, for me, personally, a story is to be enjoyed _as a story_ by
completely submerging myself in secondary belief -- the better the
story and the more enjoyable, the further away the thought that it
isn't, in primary reality, 'true'.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think,
also admit that some things are much more nearly certain
than others.
- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)