Re: Time travel
Raven
news:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-GeCvIZtZBdLc@localhost...
> Let's pretend for a moment that time travel was possible, but with
> limits that you could go back once, then return to the present. And
> you were limited to a maximum time in the back of no more than a
> month. And limited to Middle Earth. But you CAN read/speak the
> language.
> Where and when would you go?
I would do some preparations first, including reading up on my old math
skills. Then I would go back to a center of lore and skill. Perhaps
Lórien. Swap knowledge. If the people of Middle-earth, Elves included,
were well aquainted with the language of numbers and shapes, Tolkien didn't
mention it. I could teach them algebra with complex numbers, set theory
etc., and in return perhaps learn how they made those ropes and those
garments.
Rabe.
Kevin K
<jon.lennart.be...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> "Kevin K" <kev...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-GeCvIZtZBdLc@localhost...
>
> > Let's pretend for a moment that time travel was possible, but with
> > limits that you could go back once, then return to the present. And
> > you were limited to a maximum time in the back of no more than a
> > month. And limited to Middle Earth. But you CAN read/speak the
> > language.
>
> > Where and when would you go?
>
> I would do some preparations first, including reading up on my old math
> skills. Then I would go back to a center of lore and skill. Perhaps
> Lien. Swap knowledge. If the people of Middle-earth, Elves included,
> were well aquainted with the language of numbers and shapes, Tolkien didn't
> mention it. I could teach them algebra with complex numbers, set theory
> etc., and in return perhaps learn how they made those ropes and those
> garments.
>
> Rabe.
I hadn't thought of what I could provide other than knowledge of
future (through the end of the trilogy) knowlege of future events.
Geography definately wouldn't apply. Astronomy wouldn't have been
usable in earlier ages.
This is probably appropriate for a different topic, but I don't think
that new knowledge like math would be welcome to 3rd age elves. Back
in the days of Feonor, yes. The elves were more adventuresome back
then. By the time of the rings in the 2nd and 3rd ages, the elves
were more backward thinking, preserving what they had, not looking at
what new they could have in the future.
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
<jon.lennart.beck.its.my.n...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> "Kevin K" <kevi...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-GeCvIZtZBdLc@localhost...
First of all, I would be very careful! Nobody doubts that Middle-earth
is our real past. So if I change history, accidentally or voluntarily,
I might end up never being born. The loss to the world would be
unacceptable.
If I had to choose, I would go to 172 Fourth Age, when Findegil copied
the Thain's Book, the blueprint for LotR, thus preserving the tale for
Tolkien to translate. I think this was the most noble and crucial deed
in the entire course of history. Without it, everything would have
been forgotten, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would
probably spend the entire month kissing Findegil's feet. If I may be
so bold, I might even be able to correct one or two very minor and
unimportant errors in the book.
Noel
Derek Broughton
> If I had to choose, I would go to 172 Fourth Age, when Findegil copied
> the Thain's Book, the blueprint for LotR, thus preserving the tale for
> Tolkien to translate. I think this was the most noble and crucial deed
> in the entire course of history. Without it, everything would have
> been forgotten, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would
> probably spend the entire month kissing Findegil's feet. If I may be
> so bold, I might even be able to correct one or two very minor and
> unimportant errors in the book.
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Herr von Schneiffel?
If (inconceivable as it is) there were any errors in the copy, they could
hardly be unimportant! The real Noel Q. von Schneiffel would have invented
a time machine already, so as to be able to fix them.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
You think? It would probably take the invention of the computer to be able
to correlate the astronomy of the time with ours, but the principles still
stand.
> This is probably appropriate for a different topic, but I don't think
> that new knowledge like math would be welcome to 3rd age elves. Back
> in the days of Feonor, yes. The elves were more adventuresome back
> then. By the time of the rings in the 2nd and 3rd ages, the elves
> were more backward thinking, preserving what they had, not looking at
> what new they could have in the future.
I suspect that if you introduced (dare I say it) Ring theory (mathematics,
not magic), you would immediately have Elves devoting themselves to it.
Something new after millenia of the same-old/same-old?
--
derek
Kevin K
<de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Kevin K wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:07:21 UTC, "Raven"
> > <jon.lennart.be...@mail.its.in.danmark> wrote:
> >
> >> "Kevin K" <kev...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >> news:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-GeCvIZtZBdLc@localhost...
> >>
> >> > Let's pretend for a moment that time travel was possible, but with
> >> > limits that you could go back once, then return to the present. And
> >> > you were limited to a maximum time in the back of no more than a
> >> > month. And limited to Middle Earth. But you CAN read/speak the
> >> > language.
> >>
> >> > Where and when would you go?
> >>
> >> I would do some preparations first, including reading up on my old
> >> math
> >> skills. Then I would go back to a center of lore and skill. Perhaps
> >> L›rien. Swap knowledge. If the people of Middle-earth, Elves included,
> >> were well aquainted with the language of numbers and shapes, Tolkien
> >> didn't
> >> mention it. I could teach them algebra with complex numbers, set theory
> >> etc., and in return perhaps learn how they made those ropes and those
> >> garments.
> >>
> >> Rabe.
> >
> > I hadn't thought of what I could provide other than knowledge of
> > future (through the end of the trilogy) knowlege of future events.
> >
> > Geography definately wouldn't apply. Astronomy wouldn't have been
> > usable in earlier ages.
>
> You think? It would probably take the invention of the computer to be able
> to correlate the astronomy of the time with ours, but the principles still
> stand.
>
The world had become round by the time of the 3rd age, but look at the
older explanations for the moon, the sun, and for that matter Venus.
Though I recall that Tolkien's research into the old myths may have
been incomplete, and the elves may have been open to our current
understanding of the origin of the moon, sun, and the remaining
planets.
Kevin K
<noel.von....@fats.teunc.org> wrote:
> So if I change history, accidentally or voluntarily,
> I might end up never being born. T
The always open question about time travel. Just how fragile is the
past?
Would you be prohibited from changing anything?
Could the change of ANYTHING lead to big differences by now? Kill a
bug, the lack of which causes a larger animal to go hungry, maybe
starve, thereby, through a chain of events, cause you to have never
been born, or for our current civilizations to be completely
different?
Or will history heal itself? We know that, in the end, Sauron is
defeated. If he had been defeated 60 years earlier how much
difference would it have made. I don't recall when Aragon was born.
But his history would have been different without the maturing process
of his long struggle and growth into an earned kingdom. That might
have been the big difference. Hobbits and elves faded, so a small
advance in their exodus probably makes little difference to us. Many
people died in the following wars, so there would have been more men
survive. But they may have died in wars between men back then, rather
than in wars against orcs.
Öjevind Lång
"Kevin K" <kev...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> Let's pretend for a moment that time travel was possible, but with
> limits that you could go back once, then return to the present. And
> you were limited to a maximum time in the back of no more than a
> month. And limited to Middle Earth. But you CAN read/speak the
> language.
>
> Where and when would you go?
I wuld like to be in Minas Tirith in the reign of king Elessar. Everybody
went there, including Elves and Dwarves. I could spend all day listening to
tales. No doubt there were also some good inns in Minas Tirith, though
Tolkien forgot to mention it.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-BCvPZuIixcdr@localhost...
[snip]
> The always open question about time travel. Just how fragile is the
> past?
>
> Would you be prohibited from changing anything?
>
> Could the change of ANYTHING lead to big differences by now? Kill a
> bug, the lack of which causes a larger animal to go hungry, maybe
> starve, thereby, through a chain of events, cause you to have never
> been born, or for our current civilizations to be completely
> different?
Ah, I love that story by Ray Bradbury!
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:slrngv7ejd....@cardinal2.stanford.edu...
[snip]
> I would consider Doriath at its height with Melian and Thingol ruling and
> Luthien dancing.
I can well understand your desire, but don't forget that there were some
very arrogant and snooty Elves in Doriath, people who despised humans and
made no secret of it.
�jevind
Öjevind Lång
news:1349968.o...@cedar.serverforest.com...
> Kevin K wrote:
>
>> Let's pretend for a moment that time travel was possible, but with
>> limits that you could go back once, then return to the present. And
>> you were limited to a maximum time in the back of no more than a
>> month. And limited to Middle Earth. But you CAN read/speak the
>> language.
>>
>> Where and when would you go?
>
> I'd get to see most of the great events of the age - except that I'd be
> considered of fighting age, and of absolutely no use but orc fodder, so it
> would be rather hazardous.
A noble ambition! But if you spoke the languages, you would speak to
Treebeard in Entish, and that whole month would be needed for you to
introduce yourself to him and explain what you were doing there and what
your plans were.
Crosspost to alt.fan.tolkien, I pray thee!
�jevind
Emma Pease
During this time there were no humans so no prejudices yet against them.
The traveler would be unique though he or she might be classified as a
dwarf (who did visit the thousand caves). Prejudice might depend on how
well the traveler spoke Sindarin.
Emma
ps. I forgot that Doriath didn't get its name until Morgoth returned and
Melian protected the land. I am talking about the time before this.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Raven
news:s8aJl.810$fy....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> It may sound crazy, but I would want to be with the Nine Walkers in Moria.
> Assuming I survived, I would report back to this NG with the definitive
> word on Balrog wings.
Whatever your report, only about half the denizens of the Tolkien NGs
would take your word for it ---
Corbeau.
Derek Broughton
> In article <KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-BCvPZuIixcdr@localhost>,
> "Kevin K" <kev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > So if I change history, accidentally or voluntarily,
>> > I might end up never being born. T
>>
>>
>> The always open question about time travel. Just how fragile is the
>> past?
>
> It's only an issue if you confuse causality with time. What actually
> happens is a state collapse where different events of different states
> remain, random events with no discernible cause or effect.
Perhaps - I don't think there's any great consensus amongst physicists.
Others would suggest that there's no "state collapse" at all - that all
possibilities remain; that the cat is both alive and dead.
--
derek
Taemon
I think that's exactly what happened. This is the *other* Noel Q. van
Schneiffel - the one from the original timeline, now altered. As soon as he
realises that he will sprout wings and fall, you'll see.
T.
Troels Forchhammer
Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
> China Blue Syndrome wrote:
>>
>> In article <KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-BCvPZuIixcdr@localhost>,
>> "Kevin K" <kev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The always open question about time travel. Just how fragile is
>>> the past?
>>
>> It's only an issue if you confuse causality with time. What
>> actually happens is a state collapse where different events of
>> different states remain, random events with no discernible cause
>> or effect.
>
> Perhaps - I don't think there's any great consensus amongst
> physicists.
The vast majority of opinions that I have seen on the matter fall
into just to groups: either a) time-travel is not physically possible
(the closed time-like loops of relativity describe non-physical
systems -- Stephen Hawking advocates this position) or b) you cannot
change the past (this is the basic tenet of Igor Novikov's 'self-
consistent histories'). Of course there are also some that claim that
you can both travel to the past and that you can change the past if
you don't watch out, but these are, in my experience, far fewer than
any of the two former groups.
In any case the net effect is, as far as I know, that a large
majority of physicists believe that one cannot, for one reason or
another, change the past.
> Others would suggest that there's no "state collapse" at all
The specific interpretation applied (Copenhagen interpretation, many-
worlds interpretation etc.) doesn't change the math or the basic
physics of the situation, which is that once state A has been
observed at time t it is a universal 'truth' that the system is in
state A at time t.
> that all possibilities remain; that the cat is both alive and dead.
I haven't encountered that idea before -- do you remember where
you've seen it?
It goes, as can doubtlessly be seen from the above, against anything
I've ever learned about quantum theory (obviously I have been
educated in the Copenhagen school of collapsing wave-functions since
my degree is from Copenhagen, but we were, after all, also introduced
to other interpretations, and in particular the limitations on the
differences between the interpretations were discussed).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>>> I would consider Doriath at its height with Melian and Thingol ruling
>>> and
>>> Luthien dancing.
>>
>> I can well understand your desire, but don't forget that there were some
>> very arrogant and snooty Elves in Doriath, people who despised humans and
>> made no secret of it.
>
> During this time there were no humans so no prejudices yet against them.
> The traveler would be unique though he or she might be classified as a
> dwarf (who did visit the thousand caves). Prejudice might depend on how
> well the traveler spoke Sindarin.
>
> Emma
>
> ps. I forgot that Doriath didn't get its name until Morgoth returned and
> Melian protected the land. I am talking about the time before this.
You make a valid point, but I suspect superciliousness and resentment would
soon have made their presence known. Here's a quote from early in Chapter 12
of "The Silmarillion":
"The Atani they were named by the Eldar, the Second People; but they called
them also Hildor, the Followers, and many other names: Apan�nar, the
After-born, Engwar, the Sickly, and F�rimar, the Mortals; and they named
them the Usurpers, the Strangers, and the Inscrutable, the Self-cursed, the
Heavy-handed, the Night-fearers, the Children of the Sun." Some of those
names are definitely not given with love.
�jevind
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
LOL! I should have foreseen that Mister Broughton, without doubt the
most astute of my students these days, would reprimand me for this.
You are right, of course, such errors would not be unimportant. I was
just trying to downplay my own meagre role in this scenario.
The sad truth is, I once tried to invent a time machine for exactly
this purpose. But before I could finish, another I from the future
appeared in the room and beat me up. It was, of course, me from just
after I had finished the time machine. I told me that I would indeed
travel back, but my interaction with Findegil would lead to several
subtle timeline changes, so that Tolkien actually had never been born.
Of course, after this revelation, I had no choice but to destroy the
time machine. Unfortunately, without a time machine, I was unable in
the future to travel back and warn myself against building a time
machine, so that by not building a time machine, I actually built a
time machine. At this time the space-time continuum in my laboratory
began to collapse, a wormhole formed in my left nostril and gave me a
most annoying nosebleed, so that I decided to go to bed early this
day. And so the world was saved.
Since this day, I only use drugs to time-travel. This is safer,
because then I am so drugged up in the past that I can't possibly do
much harm.
Noel
calvin
calvin
<noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> wrote:
> ...
> Since this day, I only use drugs to time-travel. This is safer,
> because then I am so drugged up in the past that I can't possibly do
> much harm.
One of two things is true. Either
1) the world we live in now is the result in part of all alterations
caused by time travellers to previous times, including ours, or
2) time travel does not alter the time line from which the
traveler came, but creates new and different parallel timelines
Therefore, no need to worry about the effects of time travel.
Derek Broughton
> I'd like to spend my time hearing the Music of the Ainur.
It's still all around us - can't you hear it?
Derek Broughton
or (3) time travel doesn't work...
but I wonder if one can - morally - say that there's no need to worry about
(2). What if - to turn the common time-travel-repair story upside-down -
one were to go back in time and prevent the death of a child who would turn
out to be worse than Hitler? Even if it could have no possible effect on
your own timeline, you have a moral obligation not to enable evil in
somebody else's line. Plus, you might find yourself, from the other
timeline, already present to try to prevent you from saving this child...
--
derek
JimboCat
Let me quote an expert on the subject:
<quote>
Time travel to the past that is not bounded either by a fixed maximum
temporal distance or by the time of the invention and manufacture of
some apparatus leads to a paradox.
The arrival of the First (by date of arrival) traveller would be a
Newsworthy Event; the ordinary locals would not know of it in advance,
but those of some later times would know of it. Being Newsworthy, it
would be necessary to record it for publication, which would require
sending a News team back to a slightly earlier time so as to be
prepared
for the Event. The Event would no longer be the First Event, so
others
would be sent earlier to record the arrival of those recorders -
recursively without bound.
In fact, perhaps there's a natural limit of about 12 billion years
before present, and the Big Bang was caused merely by a near-infinite
number of newsmen all trying to Get There First.
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK.
</quote>
So you see, the so-called "music" that started the universe was really
just the cacaphony of a near-infinite number of newsmen trying to
phone in their stories. Simple, really.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"If we can't be free, at least we can be cheap" - Frank Zappa
calvin
should have been made that it wouldn't be about
the effects of time travel, time lines, etc., but simply
where and when we would like to visit, and perhaps
why.
Öjevind Lång
> calvin wrote:
>
>> I'd like to spend my time hearing the Music of the Ainur.
>
> It's still all around us - can't you hear it?
It's like the harmony of the spheres - we can't hear it simply because it
goes on all the time.
�jevind
Troels Forchhammer
<e153f11c-d83d-4a70...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> spoke these staves:
What? Thought-control?
Any attempt at policing thread subjects must be resisted at once ;-)
The major problem [encountered in time travel] is quite
simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this
matter is Dr Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveller's
Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations.
- Douglas Adams, /The Restaurant at the End of the Universe/
You can't expect any reasonably intelligent assembly of people (some
of which even have more than a passing knowledge of physics) to just
play along with an idea with that without questioning the premises
;-)
For my own part I'd settle for something a bit less (or perhaps more)
ambitious: a day of quiet tea and discussions with the Professor
about 1964 or 1968 :) Since such an incident is unreported, all I
would have to do is to ensure that it stays that way and Novikov
shall find no faults with my plan -- he is sure, anyway, that we'll
have a working time-machine this century (though I'm not sure if he
meant one that could transport a human being -- to the physicist it's
enough to do it to a neutrino: the rest is mere technology :-D )
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People are self-centered
to a nauseous degree.
They will keep on about themselves
while I'm explaining me.
- Piet Hein, /The Egocentrics/
calvin
wrote:
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> spoke these staves:
> > This was a good thread idea, but some stipulation
> > should have been made that it wouldn't be about
> > the effects of time travel, time lines, etc., but simply
> > where and when we would like to visit, and perhaps
> > why.
>
> What? Thought-control?
> Any attempt at policing thread subjects must be resisted at once ;-)
I don't see preliminary stipulation as either thought control
or policing. Setting boundaries can be profitable, it seems
to me. However, if I'm in a minority with these thoughts,
concerning this thread, they may be happily withdrawn.
Kevin K
Well, it was limited to Middle Earth, so no participation in the
music. No time in the Blessed Realms either.
Some cowardice too. I wouldn't have wanted to be with the 9 when they
met the Balrog. No story internal reason that you couldn't have been
killed by any of the Orcs or the Balrog. We could have just been left
out of the later stories, in fear of changing history. Or at the
ambush on the 9 when Borimer died. Easily one of the arrows could
have taken care of you, or if not then what happens when you can't
keep up with the Orcs?
if you had told Gandalf 60 years earlier about the ring, would things
have been better or worse? Aragorn, even if alive back then, wouldn't
have been the seasoned leader then that he was later.
Reminds me of the discussions about going back to 1914 or earlier and
killing Hitler. He was hardly unique in his evil. So what would have
prevented the bad events of the time leading to another dictator? It
may have just been a matter of degree, with maybe a different set of
people killled. At the individual level, different people and
families dead.
calvin
> Well, it was limited to Middle Earth, so no participation in the
> music. No time in the Blessed Realms either.
I took 'Middle Earth' to refer to the whole 'legendarium'. It
never occurred to me that you were ruling out parts of it.
In that case I don't want to play. But for the record I wanted
to -hear- the Music of the Ainur, not participate in it.
(I'm aware of the strict meaning of Middle-earth, though.)
calvin
If you can hear it, please put some of it on YouTube.
Hum it or whistle it if necessary, but let the rest of
us hear it too.
Derek Broughton
Well, at this time of year I literally hear it - the Spring Peepers are out,
and what a glorious music it is! But on a more metaphorical level, I
consider my home to be front-row, centre for a large scale production of the
Music of the Ainur.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
We naturally follow all debates down every possible path and argue them to
absolute completion. rabt and aft are the final fonts of all wisdom!
Seriously, it doesn't matter one iota if somebody had made such a
stipulation - it would have been ignored (and I freely admit to being likely
to have been one of the first to ignore it). This is Usenet, where anything
goes.
--
derek
calvin
> calvin wrote:
> > This was a good thread idea, but some stipulation
> > should have been made that it wouldn't be about
> > the effects of time travel, time lines, etc., but simply
> > where and when we would like to visit, and perhaps
> > why.
>
> We naturally follow all debates down every possible path and argue them to
> absolute completion. rabt and aft are the final fonts of all wisdom!
Then I hope you don't mind me violating the O.P.s stipulation that
only the strict definition of Middle-earth applies here.
> Seriously, it doesn't matter one iota if somebody had made such a
> stipulation - it would have been ignored (and I freely admit to being likely
> to have been one of the first to ignore it). This is Usenet, where anything
> goes.
Ok, but if you're going to be serious about that, why not
also drop the frivolity concerning the Music of the Ainur?
The point of the Music, for Tolkien, was not (to my knowledge)
that it is something that we can claim to be hearing now, as
the harmony of the spheres, or the harmony of nature,
or even the universal background radiation. I've read it
many times, and I get a specific meaning of it, related to
existence, in its beginnings, within Iluvatar. That's what I
would like to hear, within the fictional framework of this
thread. If I want the music of nature, I'll listen to Beethoven's
6th Symphony.
Derek Broughton
> On May 6, 8:41 am, Derek Broughton <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> We naturally follow all debates down every possible path and argue them
>> to absolute completion. rabt and aft are the final fonts of all wisdom!
>
> Then I hope you don't mind me violating the O.P.s stipulation that
> only the strict definition of Middle-earth applies here.
Not in the slightest.
>
>> Seriously, it doesn't matter one iota if somebody had made such a
>> stipulation - it would have been ignored (and I freely admit to being
>> likely to have been one of the first to ignore it). This is Usenet,
>> where anything goes.
>
> Ok, but if you're going to be serious about that, why not
> also drop the frivolity concerning the Music of the Ainur?
Actually _that_ was the point I didn't consider remotely frivolous!
> The point of the Music, for Tolkien, was not (to my knowledge)
> that it is something that we can claim to be hearing now, as
> the harmony of the spheres, or the harmony of nature,
> or even the universal background radiation.
I completely disagree with that interpretation (not, of course, that you
don't have every right to believe it). I believe that the "Music" was
nothing less than the plan of the Universe, and as such, I believe that I do
"hear" the music on a daily basis. I no more consider the Music to be the
literal work of an orchestra of Ainur than I consider Genesis to be a
literal description of the creation of the universe - and I would be
surprised if Tolkien did either.
> I've read it
> many times, and I get a specific meaning of it, related to
> existence, in its beginnings, within Iluvatar. That's what I
> would like to hear, within the fictional framework of this
> thread. If I want the music of nature, I'll listen to Beethoven's
> 6th Symphony.
Beethoven's 6th, is of course, one echo of the Music, but so is everything
else. "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear".
--
derek
calvin
I take Tolkien totally literally. Thanks for clarifying that you
don't.
Derek Broughton
> I take Tolkien totally literally. Thanks for clarifying that you
> don't.
I can't imagine why one would need to. The _history_ should be, but the
mythology was written _as_ mythology.
--
derek
calvin
I take every word literally: the Music, the Lamps, the Trees,
the flat earth, the Silmaril on Earendel's brow (that I can
see clearly on evenings and mornings), the earth made round at
the end of the second age, the ship on the straight way back to
Valinor at the end of the third age, and the current 4th age.
I am one of the Faithful. You are welcome to be whatever
you want to be.
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
This, of course, is the only valid approach. Tolkien must be taken
literally because his words are Truth, and his words are Truth because
the books say so.
The simple reason why we cannot "hear" the music of the Ainur is that
it was sung in the Void, and therefore, in a vacuum. Sound does not
travel there. It is a shame - it must have been quite beautiful. Maybe
we could time-travel back there with a tape recorder and a bottle of
oxygen. Simply open the bottle and then quickly record before the air
dissipates.
I have personal interest in this because it would prove (or, but
hopefully not, disprove) a theory of mine. Through painful and
exhaustive research - which included recording example songs from
several lesser gods and demi-gods of today - I have come to conclude
that the music was sung in D-flat major.
Noel
Troels Forchhammer
<2ba86f1e-d354-4311...@o27g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
>
> On May 5, 4:01�pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> spoke these staves:
>>>
>>> about
>>
>> What? Thought-control?
>> Any attempt at policing thread subjects must be resisted at once
>> ;-)
>
> I don't see preliminary stipulation as either thought control or
> policing.
I didn't intend to seriously suggest that you did -- it was meant in
jest and I'm sorry if I didn't make that sufficiently clear. Mea
culpa!
On one of the Danish newsgroups that I follow, there is a guy who
gets gets very upset about the idea of topic-drift: for some reason
he cannot cope with the thought that even though he posts the first
post, he cannot control or order what the follow-ups are to be
about. His arguments are always quite poor -- a combination of
stating outrageous claims as if they were factual, sheer prejudice
and just about all the false appeals you can dish out, and I'll
admit that I have teased him a few times by discussing his inability
to make a coherent and valid argument: a topic-change that seems to
upset him particularly (my only defence is that my critique is
always sober and I restrict my ad Hominems to saying that I find his
sexism and prejudice to be distasteful).
All of this, however, probably makes me a bit over-sensitive to
attempts to control the topic drift -- sorry :)
> Setting boundaries can be profitable, it seems to me.
I agree -- in some situations it is profitable (though I don't think
this was one).
My main point, however, is rather that it is pointless to even try
in an unmoderated newsgroup. I think it was implicitly stipulated --
at least I had no problems understanding that it wasn't what the
post was about, but this being usenet, people will follow-up with
anything that they want to say in response to or inspired by the
previous post -- well, sometimes it even seems that the reply could
not possibly have been inspired by the previous message, but people
do make associations that seems to others impossibly wierd :-)
In my experience you will usually get at least one sub-thread that
'gets the point,' so to speak. A sub-thread of messages that attempt
to stay within the intended limits of the debate. However, in many
situations the more interesting discussion arise out of a loosely
connected thought; a side-comment that was just meant to illustrate
a context.
It's one of the huge benefits of usenet that you often get both
things, and that the threading allows you to distinguish sub-threads
so that you can follow the sub-threads that interest you.
--
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
calvin
I don't think we would need to bother about sound waves.
Any minds present should be able to hear the Music.
What we would breathe is another matter, but let's just
assume that our time machine provides all such necessities.
Harold Marx Brzeznski
> I have come to conclude that the music was sung in D-flat major.
In the flat major? Who is this officer and how and why did the Ainur
flatten him?
(This also raises the important question of how many Ainur could fit in a
flattened major)
Troels Forchhammer
<ec45dc6f-a2c2-4d57...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
>>
<snip>
> Then I hope you don't mind me violating the O.P.s stipulation that
> only the strict definition of Middle-earth applies here.
As I see it the point is that our minding or not is irrelevant --
completely so. But just as you have the right to decide how you wish
to deal with that stipulation, others have the right to decide for
themselves how to react to that.
In some ways the unmoderated usenet is the ultimate free speech
platform -- the only agent that can restrict your ability to say what
you want is your service provider (my usenet service provider may
also choose to filter some statements so that I won't see what you
write, but that's another story).
If one wishes also to be heard, however, there is some advice on how
best to achieve that -- this is generally described as netiquette
(which includes the rather vague advice of reading up on a given
group to learn the tone and style of the group).
>> This is Usenet, where any thing goes.
Yes -- or at least as close as to make no difference ;-)
[Getting more serious]
> The point of the Music, for Tolkien, was not (to my knowledge)
> that it is something that we can claim to be hearing now, as
> the harmony of the spheres, or the harmony of nature,
> or even the universal background radiation.
I believe that you are not entirely correct about that.
And it is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet
the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any
substance else that is in this Earth; and many of the
Children of Il�vatar hearken still unsated to the voices
of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen.
[The Ainulindal�]
Not only is there an echo of the Music in water, but the same is true
for 'any substance else that is in this Earth,' only less so. So even
by taking Tolkien's words literally (which is not, IMO, always the
right approach -- neither in the early myths nor even in LotR), there
is definitely an echo of the Music to be heard still as some harmony
of nature or music of the spheres (or whereever one might look for it
-- even in the ebb and flow of the cosmic microwave background
radiation).
At another level, Tolkien is clearly inspired by medieval ideas about
the music of the spheres etc. -- Flieger and Shippey have both
commented on this, and there's an upcoming book from Walking Tree,
IIRC, that will contain essays about the role of music in Tolkien's
works, and this is bound to come up there as well (it's a book I'm
looking much forward to).
John Gardner, in his 1977 review of _The Silmarillion_ for _New York
Times_ wrote:
What is medieval in Tolkien's vision is his set of
organizing principles, his symbolism and his pattern if
legends and events. In the work of Boethius and the
scholastic philosophers, as in Dante and Chaucer, musical
harmony is the first principle of cosmic balance, and the
melody of individuals -- the expression of individual will
-- is the standard figure for the play of free will within
the overall design of Providence. This concord of will and
overall design was simultaneously expressed, in medieval
thought, in terms of light: the foundation of "music" was
the orderly tuning of the spheres.
All in all I think you're quite wrong in assuming that the Music of
the Ainur, for Tolkien particularly, was not something of which
echoes can be heard even today in the matter that makes up the
Universe and in the various harmonies we find in this Universe. The
Music of the Ainur is in the Hamiltonian ;-)
But if you want to hear the clearest echo of it, then go listen to
the ocean, to falling water or a babbling stream.
> That's what I would like to hear, within the fictional framework of
> this thread. If I want the music of nature, I'll listen to
> Beethoven's 6th Symphony.
Of course, if you wish to hear the real thing, the Music itself and
not an echo thereof, then there's no way around a trip to the
Timeless Halls of Eru (a time-machine won't help you there, I'm
afraid, so you'd also need to stretch that particular stipulation
quite a bit) -- listening to the echo of the Music in water is rather
like listening to me whistling Beethoven's Sixth rather than
listening to a performance by a full philarmonic orchestra (not a
substitution I'd recommend <GG>).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
- Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)
calvin
wrote:
> > that it is something that we can claim to be hearing now, as
> > the harmony of the spheres, or the harmony of nature,
> > or even the universal background radiation.
>
> I believe that you are not entirely correct about that.
>
> And it is said by the Eldar that in water there lives yet
> the echo of the Music of the Ainur more than in any
> substance else that is in this Earth; and many of the
> of the Sea, and yet know not for what they listen.
being heard in some ways today and for all time. If that
ever seemed to be my problem, then it must have been
some misstatement on my part. The problem I have
is with people telling me that I should not take the Music
seriously and literally as it was presented by Tolkien.
Fie on that! My enjoyment of Tolkien is in a very large
and important way based on a literal interpretation of
what he wrote. I don't have any problem with others
taking it all to be mythology. They are welcome to it.
Just please stop telling me (not you necessarily) that
I am wrong. I don't care if I'm thouight to be wrong. As
I said, I consider myself to be one of the Faithful, and
no one is likely to shake my faith. I'm not here to
argue about it.
About the time machine in the Halls of Ea, of course
that is absurd, in a multitude of ways. I was merely
trying to dismiss questions of how one would breath
or exist there. I thought the point of this damn thread
was to express where we would like to visit in Tolkien's
world, not to savage each other for our choices. I
would like to be present at the Creation. Please
do me the courtesy of accepting that in the same
spirit that one might wish to be present with the
hobbits in Bree during the revelry at the Prancing Pony.
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
>
> In the flat major? Who is this officer and how and why did the Ainur
> flatten him?
>
> (This also raises the important question of how many Ainur could fit in a
> flattened major)
My old colleague Brzzy! Long time no see. How are you these days?
Noel
Derek Broughton
> I don't think we would need to bother about sound waves.
> Any minds present should be able to hear the Music.
Hang on, I thought you were taking this literally? If _that's_ the way
you're going to play, I still don't understand why you can't hear the Music
now - I can.
--
derek
Derek Broughton
> Just please stop telling me (not you necessarily) that
> I am wrong.
...
> I thought the point of this damn thread
> was to express where we would like to visit in Tolkien's
> world, not to savage each other for our choices.
Whoa now! Any savagery began when you said "...drop the frivolity
concerning the Music...". I agreed you had a right to your opinion, but you
seem unwilling to let me have mine.
--
derek
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
>
> About the time machine in the Halls of Ea, of course
> that is absurd, in a multitude of ways. I was merely
> trying to dismiss questions of how one would breath
> or exist there.
Well, this is hardly an unimportant matter! Depending on where you
travel, it can be a life-or-death question. Fortunately, the solution
is at hand. Would you care to buy my old space suit? I haven't used it
since I discovered the moon. I'd make you a very good price.
Since the Halls are timeless, you must also take care of your
metabolism, or your genes and enzymes will get all confused and you'll
grow a third leg or something like that. I'm not a physicist, but to
be on the safe side, you should swallow a clock or two before
starting, so that your genes can alwas look up the time.
> I thought the point of this damn thread
> was to express where we would like to visit in Tolkien's
> world, not to savage each other for our choices. I
> would like to be present at the Creation. Please
> do me the courtesy of accepting that in the same
> spirit that one might wish to be present with the
> hobbits in Bree during the revelry at the Prancing Pony.
Absolutely. I'm just trying to be helpful!
Noel
calvin
Merry Christmas to you too.
To all who have responded to me: Have you ever seen
the movie, 'The Bible - In the Beginning'? In it we see
images on the screen, and at the same time we hear
John Huston's voice speaking, "Let there be Light", and
other words from the Old Testament; accompanied by
the music of Toshiro Mayuzumi.
It is in that sense that I would like to be present in the
Halls of Ea, with Tolkien's words in mind, and hearing
the Music of the Ainur.
Thank you for your attention, and have a nice day.
calvin
It was not my intention to disparage your views. I just
wanted tolerance for mine. If my words have implied
otherwise, then please accept my retraction and apology.
calvin
I'm happy for you, and I would be even happier if
you would post some of the Music on YouTube.
Derek Broughton
It's the use of phrases like "savage each other", when most of us are purely
trying to discuss an interesting subject...
--
derek
Derek Broughton
You Tube is, in so many ways, full of it...
--
derek
Troels Forchhammer
<636c96b4-8993-4743...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>
>
<snip>
> The problem I have is with people telling me that I should not
> take the Music seriously and literally as it was presented by
> Tolkien. Fie on that!
If you wish to take it literally, I have to ask which version?
Tolkien wrote several versions, some of which contradict each other,
so it is important to know which version you base your literal
interpretation upon.
> My enjoyment of Tolkien is in a very large and important way
> based on a literal interpretation of what he wrote.
Tolkien did make far fewer consistency mistakes than any other author
of mythopoeic or sub-creative fiction I know of, but even he did make
contradictory statements and he had no qualms about changing his
published texts if it suited him. These are the primary reason why I
prefer to apply a literary interpretation rather than a literal one.
To each his own -- I shall try to keep your outlook in mind.
> I thought the point of this damn thread was to express where we
> would like to visit in Tolkien's world,
I'm sure it was _a_ point -- one of _my_ points has been that usenet
threads live their own life and quickly deviate from the intentions
of the initial poster.
> not to savage each other for our choices.
There's been no savagery, I assure you.
There has, I know, been some frivolity and some topic drift, but
these are natural and not inflammatory.
But there's a culture of debate here, and any statement is up for
debate -- expect to have your premises, your assumptions, your logic
and any other aspect of your statement questioned -- not out of
disrespect (rather the opposite -- the willingness to discuss your
statements is rather a sign of respect), but because that is what we
do.
--
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
calvin
wrote:
> > take the Music seriously and literally as it was presented by
> > Tolkien. Fie on that!
>
> If you wish to take it literally, I have to ask which version?
> Tolkien wrote several versions, some of which contradict each other,
> so it is important to know which version you base your literal
> interpretation upon.
The 1977 text. However, I enjoy reading all versions.
Öjevind Lång
news:76ehf7F...@mid.individual.net...
> On Wed, 06 May 2009 12:49:37 -0700, Noel Q. von Schneiffel wrote:
>
>> I have come to conclude that the music was sung in D-flat major.
>
> In the flat major? Who is this officer and how and why did the Ainur
> flatten him?
He was the majordomo of the Ainur. He wasn't flat at the time. He became
flat on a later occasion, when all the Ainur decided to travel on the sun
wagon across the sky to learn what it felt like. Unfortunately, the sun
wagon couldn't take the weight of the collected Ainur and fell down, right
on the poor major.
Öjevind
calvin
wrote:
> Tolkien did make far fewer consistency mistakes than any other author
> of mythopoeic or sub-creative fiction I know of, but even he did make
> contradictory statements and he had no qualms about changing his
> published texts if it suited him. These are the primary reason why I
> prefer to apply a literary interpretation rather than a literal one.
One can have Tolkien in different ways at the same time.
Just because I prefer to read fiction as if it is true while
I'm reading it, does not mean that I can't appreciate the
facts surrounding the composition of that fiction. I read
the variations in the texts in HoMe as much as everyone
else, I'm sure.
One thing does not have to exclude another. I think others
have been more narrow minded about the Music than
I have been, by their insistence that hearing it now is
the only valid way to hear it, and posing as having superior
sensitivity. While it is true that I momentarily forgot that
Tolkien said the Music could be heard in water, that had
not been the issue of contention. The issue had been
whether or not the music is heard now in the makeup
of the universe, since the music had, after all, been a
blueprint for the universe. Or some such. One may find
many more poetic ways of expressing it, no doubt, but
those who are given to expressing it that way seem
quite intolerant of the act of taking The Ainulindale
as the literal making of music by Iluvatar and by the
Ainur. To me the creation of the world in music has
always been a supremely beautiful concept, ever since
I first read the 1977 text.
Though I have been thoroughly humiliated by this
thread, principally by having temporarily forgotten about
the Music in water (though instantly remembering it when
reminded of it), I don't believe my understanding of Tolkien's
meaning of the Music is deficient. My *expression* of
understanding is what has been savaged here, due to
my hasty and inadequate words, for which the fault is only
mine. But there is fault in others too, especially in the
haughty Mr. Broughton.
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> In article <76h6ktF1c48s...@mid.individual.net>,
> Öjevind Lång <bredband....@ojevind.lang> wrote:
>
> > He was the majordomo of the Ainur. He wasn't flat at the time. He became
> > flat on a later occasion, when all the Ainur decided to travel on the sun
> > wagon across the sky to learn what it felt like. Unfortunately, the sun
> > wagon couldn't take the weight of the collected Ainur and fell down, right
> > on the poor major.
>
> Rich Major made a career as stand up jester doing impressions of the Valar. That
> is until he angered Elbereth who cut him down to size. Major Major went on to
> become the staple of Catch-22 humor.
However, the one to sink lowest in his career was the youngest
brother, John Major.
Noel
Troels Forchhammer
<df43f97d-ec65-459a...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
> Just because I prefer to read fiction as if it is true while
> I'm reading it, does not mean that I can't appreciate the
> facts surrounding the composition of that fiction. I read
> the variations in the texts in HoMe as much as everyone
> else, I'm sure.
Ah, I'm sorry -- I have misunderstood what you meant by 'literal' (I
use the word differently and simply assumed you meant the same as I
would, sorry). What you describe here seems to me akin to what Tolkien
described as 'secondary belief' or 'literary belief' in _On Fairy-
Stories_, and I believe that a lot of the posters here have the same
experience when reading Tolkien's works. I think that some would rather
describe their experience as 'willing suspension of disbelief' while
others might read his works as literature (i.e. without finding
themselves drawn into the sub-created world), but that is not the
point.
When I don't associate this with a 'literal interpretation,' it is
because I don't think it is necessary for the secondary belief to
believe that the description of, for instance, the Ainulindal� is
literally true. In other words, I don't think that Frodo or even
Fingolfin believed that the words in the Ainulindal� were literally
true (no more than you need to believe that the Genesis is literally
true to be Christian -- the Catholic Church accept the Big Bang
theory): they were a metaphorical representation of the truth -- a
retelling of the creation in words that the Elves were able to
understand. If you stop to think of it, the whole concept of 'music' or
'singing' is impossible from the outset since there can be no music
without air and time. Music, however, is the best metaphor that is
understandable to the Elves -- the activity within their experience
that is the closest to the incomprehensible reality of the Timeless
Halls.
I very much doubt that Tolkien ever intended his text of 'The
Ainulindal�' to be other than a metaphorical tale within his sub-
creation -- a story at the same level as he would consider the biblical
Genesis.
<snip>
> those who are given to expressing it that way seem
> quite intolerant of the act of taking The Ainulindale
> as the literal making of music by Iluvatar and by the
> Ainur.
I'd say that even story-internally it seems to me rather far-fetched to
claim that the Ainulindal� text is literally true. I think the parallel
to the biblical story of Genesis is not only obvious, but also very apt
-- I have no interest in discussing religion with anyone who insists
that the Genesis is literally true.
> To me the creation of the world in music has always been a
> supremely beautiful concept, ever since I first read the 1977
> text.
It is. Personally I prefer the full text as given in _Morgoth's Ring_
(I allow myself to presume to disagree with Christopher Tolkien about
his decision to cut up his father's text), but it is definitely a
concept of exquisite beauty.
But that beauty is not dependent upon a a literal reading -- it is in
no way diminished by a metaphorical reading.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
calvin
wrote:
> When I don't associate this with a 'literal interpretation,' it is
> because I don't think it is necessary for the secondary belief to
> literally true. In other words, I don't think that Frodo or even
> true
I have always assumed that the Faithful believed every word
of it, and that those who taught it to them believed it. Maybe
it is not necessary to believe, but I see no harm in it.
It mystifies me that people who have no trouble believing
in Balrogs and Dragons as literally described, find it so
foreign to themselves to believe in the literal Music. At
any rate, Tolkien wrote:
"... Then the voices of the Ainur, like unto harps and lutes,
and pipes and trumpets, and viols and organs, and like
unto countless choirs singing with words, began to
fashion the theme of Iluvatar to a great music;..."
> (no more than you need to believe that the Genesis is literally
> true to be Christian -- the Catholic Church accept the Big Bang
> theory): they were a metaphorical representation of the truth -- a
> retelling of the creation in words that the Elves were able to
> understand.
In our world we have a competing Big Bang theory
set in conflict with a literal Genesis, but in Tolkien's
world there was no competing scientific theory.
> If you stop to think of it, the whole concept of 'music' or
> 'singing' is impossible from the outset since there can be no music
> without air and time.
I see no need for those constraints. How Iluvatar and the Ainur
communicated need not be explained. One could use that to poo-
poo my desire to personally be present and hear the music, and
quite rightly so, but to deny the possibility of musical communication
between Eru and Ainur is not something I would want to do.
> Music, however, is the best metaphor that is
> understandable to the Elves -- the activity within their experience
> that is the closest to the incomprehensible reality of the Timeless
> Halls.
In our experience also.
> I very much doubt that Tolkien ever intended his text of 'The
> Ainulindalë' to be other than a metaphorical tale within his sub-
> creation -- a story at the same level as he would consider the biblical
> Genesis.
I would want to hear that from Tolkien himself.
> I'd say that even story-internally it seems to me rather far-fetched to
> claim that the Ainulindalë text is literally true. I think the parallel
> to the biblical story of Genesis is not only obvious, but also very apt
> -- I have no interest in discussing religion with anyone who insists
> that the Genesis is literally true.
That is understandable, but when I read Genesis it is with a
willing suspension of disbelief. I don't know if it was Alice or the
Queen, or some other character who said, "I can believe six
impossible things before breakfast", but that has always
appealed to me.
> ... Personally I prefer the full text as given in _Morgoth's Ring_
> (I allow myself to presume to disagree with Christopher Tolkien about
> his decision to cut up his father's text), but it is definitely a
> concept of exquisite beauty.
I may switch to the version in Morgoth's Ring, it
is not important to adhere to the 1977 text as
anything but a personal and familiar starting point.
I had read that version many times before Morgoth's
Ring was published, nearly 20 years later.
> But that beauty is not dependent upon a a literal reading -- it is in
> no way diminished by a metaphorical reading.
And I don't see that it is diminished by a literal reading either.
Troels Forchhammer
<53be0edd-2bd4-49b3...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>>
<snip>
> It mystifies me that people who have no trouble believing
> in Balrogs and Dragons as literally described, find it so
> foreign to themselves to believe in the literal Music.
It is quite simple -- within the sub-creation containing Balrogs,
Dragons, the Valar, etc. the Ainulindal� doesn't make sense as a
literal event -- it is an impossibility, it doesn't �accord with the
laws of that world.�
> At any rate, Tolkien wrote:
>
> "... Then the voices of the Ainur, like unto harps and lutes,
> and pipes and trumpets, and viols and organs, and like
> unto countless choirs singing with words, began to
> fashion the theme of Iluvatar to a great music;..."
Precisely -- and that cannot have been in the literal sense.
Interpreting this description literally requires that the Ainur at
this point had physical bodies and that matter in general existed,
and we know from the further development of the story that none of
this was true. Therefore the Ainulindal� as a literal description is
impossible by the internal �rules� of Tolkien's sub-creation -- it
would violate �the inner consistency of reality� to use Tolkien's
words.
My reason for rejecting the literal interpretation of the Ainulindal�
is precisely Tolkien's own descriptions in _On Fairy-Stories_ when he
speak about �the inner consistency of reality� as that �which
commands or induces Secondary Belief.� He expends on this when he
describes the difference between �Secondary Belief� and �willing
suspension of disbelief:�
That state of mind has been called �willing suspension of
disbelief.� But this does not seem to me a good
description of what happens. What really happens is that
the story-maker proves a successful �sub-creator.� He makes
a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it,
what he relates is �true�: it accords with the laws of that
world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were,
inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken;
the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in
the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive
Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by
kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be
suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking
would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief
is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use
when condescending to games or make-believe, or when
trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can
in the work of an art that has for us failed.
[�On Fairy-Stories,� _Children (_Tree and Leaf_ p. 37)]
As a violation of the �inner consistency of reality� a literal
reading of the Ainulindal� would be exactly the cause of the kind of
disbelief Tolkien speaks of.
>> (no more than you need to believe that the Genesis is literally
>> true to be Christian -- the Catholic Church accept the Big Bang
>> theory): they were a metaphorical representation of the truth --
>> a retelling of the creation in words that the Elves were able to
>> understand.
>
> In our world we have a competing Big Bang theory set in conflict
> with a literal Genesis, but in Tolkien's world there was no
> competing scientific theory.
That is not, IMO, relevant. What we are talking about here is the
_inner_ consistency of the world in question -- in both cases the
cosmogonic myth is inconsistent with what we _know_ about the world
and their literal interpretation must be rejected on that basis
alone.
>> If you stop to think of it, the whole concept of 'music' or
>> 'singing' is impossible from the outset since there can be no
>> music without air and time.
>
> I see no need for those constraints.
I shan't turn this into a lecture on physics, but if you wish to
interpret the Ainulindal� literally, these constraints apply (the
laws of physics aren't fundamentally changed in Tolkien's world --
they're augmented by the forces of magic, but not changed).
> How Iluvatar and the Ainur communicated need not be explained.
Most likely through some kind of advanced �sanwe-kenta, I'd say.
But this manner of communication, even with the Incarnates, did not
convey 'sound' -- you didn't hear the sender's voice in your head,
but rather you understood their thoughts in some other way.
<snip>
> but to deny the possibility of musical communication between Eru
> and Ainur is not something I would want to do.
�Music� in the sense that we can experience is indeed impossible --
that is a matter of physics rather than literary technicalities.
>> Music, however, is the best metaphor that is understandable to
>> the Elves -- the activity within their experience that is the
>> closest to the incomprehensible reality of the Timeless Halls.
>
> In our experience also.
Naturally.
I'd even go so far as to say that if you were to somehow reduce the
reality of the Ainulindal� to something that could be perceived by
the Incarnates -- to create, as it were, a projection onto our
senses, this reduced representation would almost certainly be
perceivable as some kind of music.
It is, perhaps, a matter of words? The Ainur, when describing the
event to the Elves, would use words that made sense to the Elves, and
so chose to call their actions �music.� We can also call it music,
but we do, IMO, need to understand that the word means something
fundamentally different from our conception of music (which is
inextricably tied to the phenomenon of sound, which is what the Ainur
certainly did not produce). The point is that there is nothing in
Incarnate experience that would allow us to understand the reality
and so it matters not much if we call it music or Xcerkhl�.
>> I very much doubt that Tolkien ever intended his text of 'The
>> Ainulindal�' to be other than a metaphorical tale within his sub-
>> creation -- a story at the same level as he would consider the
>> biblical Genesis.
>
> I would want to hear that from Tolkien himself.
He describes it as a �myth� with all that that implies and he also
often puts quotation marks around �Music� when speaking of it. I
can't remember anything more definite, but I'll try to hunt down the
hints that convinced me.
>> I'd say that even story-internally it seems to me rather
>> far-fetched to claim that the Ainulindal� text is literally true.
>> I think the parallel to the biblical story of Genesis is not only
>> obvious, but also very apt -- I have no interest in discussing
>> religion with anyone who insists that the Genesis is literally
>> true.
>
> That is understandable, but when I read Genesis it is with a
> willing suspension of disbelief. I don't know if it was Alice or
> the Queen, or some other character who said, "I can believe six
> impossible things before breakfast", but that has always
> appealed to me.
:-)
I don't believe in the impossible.
I do, however, judge between the possible and the impossible by the
rules that apply to the context. Thus I judge the possibility of the
literal truth of the biblical account of Genesis by the rules that
apply our world -- and find it wanting. In the same way I judge the
possibility of the literal truth of the account of the Music of the
Ainur by the rules that apply to Tolkien's sub-creation -- and I find
it is impossible.
>> But that beauty is not dependent upon a a literal reading -- it
>> is in no way diminished by a metaphorical reading.
>
> And I don't see that it is diminished by a literal reading either.
Except as a source of disbelief; a cause for the failure of Art.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or �Tolkien� in subject.
The errors hardest
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/
calvin
wrote:
> [calvin wrote:]
> > And I don't see that it is diminished by a literal reading either.
>
> Except as a source of disbelief; a cause for the failure of Art.
Your response is learned, and be assured that I have
read it carefully, even though I seem to be rejecting
your points that you believe are too compelling to
be rejected.
My primary rejection is of your insistence in saying
that Iluvatar and the Ainur could not have created
music within whatever might correspond to 'mind'
in our experience, and that it would have been
impossible because it would have violated the
laws of physics. I'm not ignorant of the laws of
physics, which was my minor in college, and is one
of my primary interests, in the form of Astronomy
(though it ignorantly gives a description of a planet to
the Silmaril on Earendel's brow).
But I'm not going to apply the laws of physics as we
know them to Tolkien's world. The Ambarkanta
violates our current laws of physics profoundly; and the
changing of the world, as described in the Ambarkanta,
to the round world that we know violates everything
that we have ever 'learned'. But I eagerly accept all
that, and give our laws of physics only secondary
status. Iluvatar changed the laws of physics,
apparently.
The way I see it is that all but one of the Ainur
were available to personally instruct the Elves, and
the Elves taught what they learned to the Faithful of
Numenore. You may not believe it literally, but I
do. You said you don't want to discuss religion with
anyone who believes creation stories literally, and
maybe that is the best stopping point for us.
The failure of Art indeed.
calvin
> ... and the
> changing of the world, as described in the Ambarkanta,
I meant as described in the Akallabeth.
calvin
can hear within my own mind, as I write this,
pieces of Bruckner's 4th and 7th Symphonies,
music that I like to associate with Tolkien's
world. I don't hear them as simple tunes,
but as the full orchestral presentations that
are familiar to me. I'm sure you can do the
same. We don't depend on sound waves
in air to do this. Music obviously exists
within our mind, and we bestow time on it when
we recall it.
[If you choose to respond to this, please leave
'brain' out of it. 'Brain' is only an interface
between our mind and the world of our senses.
In my view it is not the mind, either whole or
in part.]
Öjevind Lång
news:chine.bleu-DD101...@mara100-84.onlink.net...
[snip]
>> > On the other hand, Rich Major and his brother Major Major survived the
>> > debacle.
>> > Rich Major made a career as stand up jester doing impressions of the
>> > Valar.
>> > That
>> > is until he angered Elbereth who cut him down to size. Major Major went
>> > on
>> > to
>> > become the staple of Catch-22 humor.
>>
>> However, the one to sink lowest in his career was the youngest
>> brother, John Major.
>
> I never heard of him. Was he somebody disappeared by history?
He and his son, John Minor, disappeared during a performance of music by
Philip Glass.
�jevind
Clams Canino
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> You can't expect any reasonably intelligent assembly of people (some
> of which even have more than a passing knowledge of physics) to just
> play along with an idea with that without questioning the premises
> ;-)
Or.. You can feel like an extra on "The Big Bang Theory" TV show (US).
:))
-W
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> In article <82ec0e85-1c78-4f66-b1a1-d6d67ca27...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> > brother, John Major.
>
No, by Tony Blair. Oh wait, Tony Blair *is* history. Yes.
Noel
Troels Forchhammer
<3ec62c1c-189b-4b9f...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
>
<snip>
> Your response is learned, and be assured that I have
> read it carefully, even though I seem to be rejecting
> your points that you believe are too compelling to
> be rejected.
Ah -- I am not arguing do convince you that I am right or you wrong:
I have long abandoned that particular vanity on usenet ;-)
We can both disagree and yet still be right (except where we disagree
about Tolkien's intention, but without explicit proof we can surely
agree to disagree amiably). The discussion, nevertheless, still has
several purposes for me:
- to teach me to articulate my views and opinions better and clearer
(brevity is not one of my stronger points, as you may have
discovered by yourself at this point :-) )
- to allow me to learn and understand something new
(new knowledge and understanding will only rarely have any
immediate effect on my views, but if we get back to the same topic
in a year, you may find that my views have changed)
- to investigate the extent of our agreeement and disagreement
(in particular because I think that the more people that agree on
some point, the more likely it is that this point is something that
comes from Tolkien rather than from ourselves)
> My primary rejection is of your insistence in saying
> that Iluvatar and the Ainur could not have created
> music within whatever might correspond to 'mind'
> in our experience, and that it would have been
> impossible because it would have violated the
> laws of physics.
When you experience a great piece of music in your mind, what you
really do is to recall the _sound_ -- the particular physical
phenomenon. It doesn't matter if there is, at the time when you
recall it, any actual sound, because the experience still cannot be
without that sound -- whether in the present or the past.
I believe, however, that my literal interpretation of 'music' may
have been a bit more literal than your literal interpretation ;-)
I suppose that we may re-define music as a more abstract concept
dealing with abstract waves rather than just with sound. I suppose we
could even envision a definition of music that require only some
timelike dimension (as must surely be even in the timeless halls,
since events there are clearly sequential).
You know of the electro-magnetic field -- imagine we could 'play
music' with the electric and the magnetic fields independently -- and
try to envision a lot more such 'dimensions' for such music rather
than just the one we're used to (pressure-waves in air). We could
still have harmonies, and a given 'voice' (though 'transmitter' would
be more general, it would also seem to me a bit too impersonal) would
still be characterizable by modulation, harmonics etc. just like our
instruments (a 'voice' could be like to a 'flute' because of the way
it modulated the wave, the harmonics it produces etc. etc.).
The Ainur are, by nature, disembodied spirits, and their natural
means of communication is not with language and certainly not with
sound. It would appear likely to me that their minds work on any
number of mysterious 'fields' that could be set up for harmonies,
ressonanses etc.
I'd happily acknowledge that music in this sense, was quite possible
-- it is the specific understanding of music as _sound_ (whether
actual or remembered) that I insist was completely impossible.
> I'm not ignorant of the laws of physics, which was my minor
> in college, and is one of my primary interests, in the form
> of Astronomy
[...]
Well, I've a master in physics, but that's rather irrelevant, IMO.
> But I'm not going to apply the laws of physics as we
> know them to Tolkien's world.
It is a side-track, and I'm not sure if I should be sorry that I
mentioned it, but I disagree.
> The Ambarkanta violates our current laws of physics
> profoundly;
Having already questioned you about versions, I should of course have
been careful also to set my own statements in context. I am speaking
of the LotR and post-LotR work -- there are clearly things in the
earlier stuff that doesn't work (the flat-world is, however, not one
of them -- such a world would not appear by natural processes, but
that is not how it is described anyway)
> and the changing of the world, as described in the Ambarkanta,
> to the round world that we know violates everything that we
> have ever 'learned'.
Nonsense!
You need to throw in magic as a very special source of energy, but
once you augment our physics with that (accepting that Eru can
unleash unlimited energy), there is very little that is actually
impossible. Imagine what you can do in physics if you have unlimited
energy that you can control completely (don't bother about energy
conservation either, since E� obviously isn't a closed system). With
that kind of energy you might even be able to change history ;-)
One of the more tricky parts is the setting up of Tolkien's
multiverse (including the removal of Valinor, the Straight Path, the
Unseen, the Wraith-world and whatever else he speaks of), but that
can be done with some creative math without fundamentally changing or
violating the laws of physics that we know (obviously we have to
apply them in different ways from what we do now).
If you stop to think of it, however, once you include magic as
suggested above there is very, very little about Tolkien's sub-
creation that is in direct and explicit contradiction with what we
know about our world.
I don't say that there is nothing that violates the laws of nature as
we know them -- nor even that some things (such as the multiverse
thing) don't require that we stretch and bend the laws quite a bit,
but in the vast majority of the cases people come up with, a natural
explanation can actually be found.
It is also clear that Tolkien intended that Middle-earth *is* this
world, our world. He added magic, but the further we get in the
history of the world, the less the influence of magic, and now all(?)
of the magic has disappeared and we are left with the rest of the
physics (magic, in the early ages, was a completely natural part of
this world).
But all of this, while potentially interesting, has very little to do
with our interpretation of the Ainulindal�.
<snip>
> The way I see it is that all but one of the Ainur were available
> to personally instruct the Elves, and the Elves taught what they
> learned to the Faithful of Numenore.
The story-internal transmission history of the whole mythology is
another issue that is nearly as complex as the origin of Orcs --
let's not go there now ;)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science
is blind.
- Albert Einstein
calvin
wrote:
> In message
> <3ec62c1c-189b-4b9f-83e2-03f8ea020...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
I'm not sure what you getting at here, but we do have,
using electronic equipment, completed 'music' on the
wires between amplifer and speakers, though it is soundless.
>
> The Ainur are, by nature, disembodied spirits, and their natural
> means of communication is not with language and certainly not with
> sound. It would appear likely to me that their minds work on any
> number of mysterious 'fields' that could be set up for harmonies,
> ressonanses etc.
>
> I'd happily acknowledge that music in this sense, was quite possible
> -- it is the specific understanding of music as _sound_ (whether
> actual or remembered) that I insist was completely impossible.
>
> > I'm not ignorant of the laws of physics, which was my minor
> > in college, and is one of my primary interests, in the form
> > of Astronomy
>
> [...]
>
> Well, I've a master in physics, but that's rather irrelevant, IMO.
I'm sure I could learn much more from you than I have
retained since my 1961 graduation (B.S. in Applied Math).
I only brought it up to say that the language of physics
is not totally foreign to me.
>
> > But I'm not going to apply the laws of physics as we
> > know them to Tolkien's world.
>
> It is a side-track, and I'm not sure if I should be sorry that I
> mentioned it, but I disagree.
>
> > The Ambarkanta violates our current laws of physics
> > profoundly;
>
> Having already questioned you about versions, I should of course have
> been careful also to set my own statements in context. I am speaking
> of the LotR and post-LotR work -- there are clearly things in the
> earlier stuff that doesn't work (the flat-world is, however, not one
> of them -- such a world would not appear by natural processes, but
> that is not how it is described anyway)
>
> > and the changing of the world, as described in the Ambarkanta,
> > to the round world that we know violates everything that we
> > have ever 'learned'.
>
> Nonsense!
Okay, maybe not everything.
> You need to throw in magic as a very special source of energy, but
> once you augment our physics with that (accepting that Eru can
> unleash unlimited energy), there is very little that is actually
> impossible. Imagine what you can do in physics if you have unlimited
> energy that you can control completely (don't bother about energy
> conservation either, since Eä obviously isn't a closed system). With
> that kind of energy you might even be able to change history ;-)
>
> One of the more tricky parts is the setting up of Tolkien's
> multiverse (including the removal of Valinor, the Straight Path, the
> Unseen, the Wraith-world and whatever else he speaks of), but that
> can be done with some creative math without fundamentally changing or
> violating the laws of physics that we know (obviously we have to
> apply them in different ways from what we do now).
>
> If you stop to think of it, however, once you include magic as
> suggested above there is very, very little about Tolkien's sub-
> creation that is in direct and explicit contradiction with what we
> know about our world.
>
> I don't say that there is nothing that violates the laws of nature as
> we know them -- nor even that some things (such as the multiverse
> thing) don't require that we stretch and bend the laws quite a bit,
> but in the vast majority of the cases people come up with, a natural
> explanation can actually be found.
>
> It is also clear that Tolkien intended that Middle-earth *is* this
> world, our world. He added magic, but the further we get in the
> history of the world, the less the influence of magic, and now all(?)
> of the magic has disappeared and we are left with the rest of the
> physics (magic, in the early ages, was a completely natural part of
> this world).
>
> But all of this, while potentially interesting, has very little to do
> with our interpretation of the Ainulindalë.
>
> <snip>
>
> > The way I see it is that all but one of the Ainur were available
> > to personally instruct the Elves, and the Elves taught what they
> > learned to the Faithful of Numenore.
>
> The story-internal transmission history of the whole mythology is
> another issue that is nearly as complex as the origin of Orcs --
> let's not go there now ;)
Okay, but I still want to identify with the Faithful of Numenor.
Just a few near-disconnected thoughts:
(1)
I don't see that Tolkien's world being intended to be our world
now in the 4th Age requires that our current laws of physics
existed in the previous ages, with or without magic or great
energy at the disposal of Iluvatar. The freedom of Iluvatar is
absolute, it seems to me, and he could, and did, make up
the laws of physics as he went along. Among many examples,
I don't think we need consider Varda's creation of the stars
to have had anything to do with the manner of star formation
that we know about in current astronomy.
(2)
We have only one thing, as near as I recall, that lingers into the
4th Age, and that is the Silmaril on Earendel's brow. Are
you willing to throw that away? I'm not. Never. And it's
not pre-LotR either, as can be proven within the text of LotR.
(3)
I suppose one can make a literary case for imposing the
timeline of composition on the timeline of the created world;
but I'm afraid of the needless destruction that might result.
The Ambarkanta is a great explanation of the flat world, it
seems to me, whether or not Tolkien had it in mind when
the Alallabeth was written.
(4)
Christopher's 12-volume History of Middle-earth was above
and beyond the call of duty, and though it is a vast treasure,
the important truth is that the father wanted to publish The
Silmarillion, and the son achieved it. Though the son finds
flaws in his own work, the historical achievement is the
important thing, and the 1977 text deserves to be considered
canon. HoMe will exist as archived scrolls, but the published
Silmarillion will be known by the people of the 4th Age as
a great work of literature, the creation of father and son. And
so too will Unfinished Tales and The Children of Hurin.
(5)
Creation without need for the laws of physics is not
a foreign idea. We do it every night in dreams.
Dreams are not merely thoughts while sleeping.
We conjure and experience them, sometimes as
vividly as waking consciousness, in our mind's
theater, and probably with less energy drain than
goes into snoring.
(6)
It is within this same mental theater that we experience
the entire waking world. A simple thought experiment
tells us that we use impulses that come into our minds
through our optic nerves, and auditory nerves, and
through all the other sensors of our bodies, to create
within this mental theater a virtual copy of that part
of the outside world that is experienced by us at any
moment. We don't see the outside world directly;
we see this incredible virtual copy created by our minds.
Those who think we use the mind only for thinking,
are missing the most obvious, glaring, high powered
continual function of our minds, this virtual creation, based
on incoming data. This is not true creation out of nothing,
like dreams, but it's close in many essential ways, and
when sometimes shaped by psychology, it becomes
true creation. I bring this up just to point out that
creation is not just something that God does. We all
do it, routinely.
This response has become unwieldy. I may add something
in a follow-up post.
calvin
> I'm not sure what you getting at here, but we do have,
> using electronic equipment, completed 'music' on the
> wires between amplifer and speakers, though it is soundless.
And radio waves also contain complete soundless music.
I'm not sure that digital transmission in any medium could
be called music, however.
Derek Broughton
> In message
> <53be0edd-2bd4-49b3...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>> On May 8, 2:01�pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>> It mystifies me that people who have no trouble believing
>> in Balrogs and Dragons as literally described, find it so
>> foreign to themselves to believe in the literal Music.
>
> It is quite simple -- within the sub-creation containing Balrogs,
> Dragons, the Valar, etc. the Ainulindal� doesn't make sense as a
> literal event -- it is an impossibility, it doesn't �accord with the
> laws of that world.�
Conversely, I have no trouble believing in a literal music - except that if
you insist on taking it literally, then you have to have a medium conducive
to the transmission of sound, which can't have existed until the music
created it. However, that's a minor stumbling point, and calvin seems to
have trouble believing that _I_ believe, even though I confess to hearing
that music on a daily basis.
--
derek
calvin
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> > In message
> > calvin <cri...@windstream.net> spoke these staves:
>
> >> On May 8, 2:01 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> >> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> It mystifies me that people who have no trouble believing
> >> in Balrogs and Dragons as literally described, find it so
> >> foreign to themselves to believe in the literal Music.
>
> > It is quite simple -- within the sub-creation containing Balrogs,
> > Dragons, the Valar, etc. the Ainulindal doesn't make sense as a
> > literal event -- it is an impossibility, it doesn't accord with the
> > laws of that world.
>
> Conversely, I have no trouble believing in a literal music - except that if
> you insist on taking it literally, then you have to have a medium conducive
> to the transmission of sound, which can't have existed until the music
> created it.
No, in the fantasy of this thread, it would be impossible,
for many reasons, including lack of a transmission medium
suitable for humans, for *me* to hear the Music of the Ainur;
but to claim that Iluvatar and the Ainur had no means, mental
or otherwise, to convey music to each other, is to assert a
negative that is not only impossible to prove, but also
impertinent to Tolkien, it seems to me.
> However, that's a minor stumbling point, and calvin seems to
> have trouble believing that _I_ believe, even though I confess to hearing
> that music on a daily basis.
I don't know what you believe, but if you hear the Music daily,
and I have no reason to doubt you, then I would appreciate
some advice on how to do the same. Sit by waterfalls?
Watch the turning of the celestial sphere at night?
Contemplate the rhythms and cycles of history? Observe
the balance of nature through the procession of the seasons?
A clue, please.
Troels Forchhammer
<12044bca-dd02-42c7...@z7g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> and try to envision a lot more such 'dimensions' for such music
>> rather than just the one we're used to (pressure-waves in air).
>> We could still have harmonies, and a given 'voice' (though
>> 'transmitter' would be more general, it would also seem to me a
>> bit too impersonal) would still be characterizable by modulation,
>> harmonics etc. just like our instruments
[...]
>
> I'm not sure what you getting at here, but we do have,
> using electronic equipment, completed 'music' on the
> wires between amplifer and speakers, though it is soundless.
It appears that you are still speaking of music as something that is
deeply rooted in the concept of sound. It doesn't matter whether the
representation is as pressure-waves, electrical currents or
modulations of an electromagnetic wave -- all these still represent
the same basic thing, which we call sound: something that covers a
narrow band of frequencies of one-dimensional oscillations.
I'm asking you to imagine 'music' as something that is liberated of
these limitations -- multidimensional oscillations without
limitations on frequencies.
My claim is that insofar as the 'Music of the Ainur' is actual music,
it is through that analogy: it could be a music liberated of the need
for a physical medium, liberated from the constraint of a single
'dimension' of oscillation and liberated from constraints on
frequency.
Surely this could be reduced to something that could be heard by
human ears, but I imagine that this would be equivalent (in terms of
how the reduced representation relates to the original) to trying to
hear Beethoven's sixth played on a cymbal . . .
<snip>
> Okay, but I still want to identify with the Faithful of Numenor.
I have no problem with that.
What I said about the purposes of discussions such as this was
completely honest, and this discussion has already helped me become
much clearer about how I understand the use of the musical metaphor
in the Ainulindal� -- and I hope that some of this clarity also comes
through in my descriptions :-)
> Just a few near-disconnected thoughts:
> (1)
> I don't see that Tolkien's world being intended to be our world
> now in the 4th Age requires that our current laws of physics
> existed in the previous ages, with or without magic or great
> energy at the disposal of Iluvatar.
I'll try to respond to this in more length in a follow-up message,
but ultimately the necessity arise because that is the only way that
Tolkien could have written it convincingly -- where exceptions are
few and far between, but usually quite spectacular.
> The freedom of Iluvatar is absolute, it seems to me, and he could,
> and did, make up the laws of physics as he went along.
The freedom of Il�vatar may have been absolute ('the one wholly free
Will and Agent' as Tolkien said in letter #156), but that freedom did
not include Tolkien, and ultimately that is what counts. Whatever Eru
Il�vatar may have been, story-internally, story-externally his
freedom was limited by what Tolkien could write.
> Among many examples, I don't think we need consider Varda's
> creation of the stars to have had anything to do with the manner
> of star formation that we know about in current astronomy.
That is, IMO, a non-sequitur. You are talking about how stars form as
the result of a natural process, but that is not what is described in
the texts -- there it is a deliberate effort by Varda, which cannot
be expected to follow the same process.
The question you, as I see it, should be asking is what, in our
present knowledge of physics, would prevent Varda from creating the
stars in the way described? (Provided what I said earlier about
magic).
> (2)
> We have only one thing, as near as I recall, that lingers into the
> 4th Age, and that is the Silmaril on Earendel's brow. Are
> you willing to throw that away? I'm not. Never. And it's
> not pre-LotR either, as can be proven within the text of LotR.
That's another question that requires a separate follow-up post to
answer in full, but the short version is that I imagine a dual-world
conception..
Part of what happened during the Akkalab�th was, IMO, that the
physical history of the earth was actually changed: suddenly we had
always circled a sun that had been created through the accepted
processes of star-formation. In this universe the light of the Sun is
reflected from the surface of the planet Venus.
At the same time, the old world still does exist -- there is a place
where Valinor exists and where the vessels of the Sun and the Moon
circle the Earth . . . and where E�rendil sails the skies in
Vingilot with a Silmaril bound on his brow. Part of the magic of
Lothl�rien was that Galadriel was somehow able to 'tap into' this
older world, and thus she could also capture the light of the
Silmaril for Frodo.
I don't think there's any evidence either way (ultimately I don't
think Tolkien ever thought of it in this kind of detail), but this is
what works for me . . .. If you're interested, I'd be happy to make
an attempt at a more detailed description.
This also touches on another of the more problematic areas for a
physical description of Middle-earth: Tolkien often (though less so
in the later versions and much in BoLT) describes light as kind of
matter -- a kind of fluid (one is reminded of the element lumi�re of
physical theory two centuries ago), which is, of course, rather
difficult to justify in physical theory (though not, of course,
impossible when you have enough energy).
> (3)
> I suppose one can make a literary case for imposing the
> timeline of composition on the timeline of the created world;
> but I'm afraid of the needless destruction that might result.
> The Ambarkanta is a great explanation of the flat world, it
> seems to me, whether or not Tolkien had it in mind when
> the Alallabeth was written.
I rather think that one must _always_ have the timeline of the
evolution of the mythology in mind when discussing it. While many
things remained constant, there are also some great leaps in the
conception of various aspects. So while the Ambarkanta is a great
description, one must take care when trying to apply it to the later
conception -- far from all of it was still valid at the later time.
'Time' in Tolkien's mythology is two-dimensional: internal time and
external time, and it is, IMHO, necesary to always keep that in mind
when _discussing_ Tolkien's work (and, preferably, to forget
everything about it when enjoying his work).
> (4)
> Christopher's 12-volume History of Middle-earth was above
> and beyond the call of duty, and though it is a vast treasure,
It is definitely a vast treasure, I agree ;)
> the important truth is that the father wanted to publish The
> Silmarillion, and the son achieved it.
That is _one_ important truth, but, IMO, less important than the
truth that is revealed through HoMe.
> Though the son finds flaws in his own work, the historical
> achievement is the important thing, and the 1977 text deserves
> to be considered canon.
There is, IMO, only one sense of 'canon' that makes any sense at all:
writings that are authentic writings by J.R.R. Tolkien.
So, no, I think the published Silmarillion is of dubious canon status
(it is authentic Tolkien -- the problem is that it is a mix of two
Tolkiens).
But I'll borrow Verlyn Flieger's words, as she phrases it much better
than I could ever hope to achieve:
So powerful a body of work as Tolkien's mythology has
inevitably the effect of inviting his readers to want to
find -- or at least to look for -- the kind of coherence
and consistency we are used to finding in novels and to
show understandable signs of distress when such
consistency is not present, when various early and late
versions seem to contradict one another. At the same time,
the presence of so much material from so many stages of
development leaves readers confused about the status of
the "canon," or even whether there is one. Such concern is
a natural concomitant of the persuasive reality that
Tolkien's imagination has given the world, but is finally
irrelevant to the power of his work.
[Verlyn Flieger, _A Question of Time_, Epilogue p.256]
<snip>
> (5)
> Creation without need for the laws of physics is not a foreign
> idea. We do it every night in dreams.
And Tolkien rightly rejected the dream-story from being fairy
stories. One aspect of that rejection is that a true dream lack 'the
inner consistency of reality,' 'which commands or induces Secondary
Belief.' Dreams simply aren't sub-creation.
> (6)
> It is within this same mental theater that we experience the
> entire waking world.
[...]
> I bring this up just to point out that creation is not just
> something that God does. We all do it, routinely.
I'm afraid that I seem to have lost the thread here -- I'm not sure
what your intention is with this?
Our mental model of the world is just that: a model. It is based on
sensory perceptions, but with some quite advanced model-improving
algorithms helping us with the interpretation (in general they help
us make sense of what we perceive -- not necessarily the same as
helping us realize exactly what we actually perceive). For most
people (those that don't suffer from mental disorders) there is a
vast difference between what we might term the 'dream world' and the
'waking world' that is largely to do with these advance enhancing
algorithms and filters.
But I'm not sure if this has much, if anything, to do with what you
wanted to say?
Another aspect of this is that our mental modelling has some severe
shortcomings -- this is seen more clearly in the very counter-
intuitive results of both relativity and quantum physics. Thus we
have a scientific model of the world which in some ways seems to
contradict our mental model.
I'm not sure, however, whether any of this pertains to the topics of
our discussions?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/
calvin
wrote:> > ...
> I'm asking you to imagine 'music' as something that is liberated of
> these limitations -- multidimensional oscillations without
> limitations on frequencies.
I don't think I can do it, but I have no trouble believing
that you can do it.
> My claim is that insofar as the 'Music of the Ainur' is actual music,
> it is through that analogy: it could be a music liberated of the need
> for a physical medium, liberated from the constraint of a single
> 'dimension' of oscillation and liberated from constraints on
> frequency.
I don't see the need for that, but if it works for you,
I'm not trying to oppose it for you. However, it is
not a place where we can meet, apparently. If you
prefer to approach the Music metaphorically, then I can
at least grasp that approach.
> Surely this could be reduced to something that could be heard by
> human ears, but I imagine that this would be equivalent (in terms of
> how the reduced representation relates to the original) to trying to
> hear Beethoven's sixth played on a cymbal . . .
I don't think, as you seem to, that music by means of
a sound medium, is limited by that medium. Who knows
what the mind of Iluvatar can conceive, though, and it certainly
is not limited to what the mind of man can conceive. Nor,
I believe, was Iluvatar's sharing of music with the Ainur
necessarily soundless. He could have either created a
sound medium for the purpose or, as I prefer to think, he
communicated sound mentally, no matter that sound had
never been heard, nor would be heard for a long time.
I think it is clear that *if* Tolkien wished us to take the Music
literally, that he expected us to think that Iluvatar and the Ainur
'heard' each other. But this train of though still leaves us
as divided as at the beginning, because a metaphorical
interpretation just doesn't appeal to me. I know I'm in a
minority in taking the whole 'mythology' literally. That fact
saddens me but it doesn't discourage me.
> > Just a few near-disconnected thoughts:
> > (1)
> > I don't see that Tolkien's world being intended to be our world
> > now in the 4th Age requires that our current laws of physics
> > existed in the previous ages, with or without magic or great
> > energy at the disposal of Iluvatar.
>
> I'll try to respond to this in more length in a follow-up message,
> but ultimately the necessity arise because that is the only way that
> Tolkien could have written it convincingly -- where exceptions are
> few and far between, but usually quite spectacular.
There are a great number of exceptions at the beginning,
following the Music. Your statement, "the only way that
Tolkien could have written it convincingly", seems to me
utterly unjustified.
> > The freedom of Iluvatar is absolute, it seems to me, and he could,
> > and did, make up the laws of physics as he went along.
>
> The freedom of Ilúvatar may have been absolute ('the one wholly free
> Will and Agent' as Tolkien said in letter #156), but that freedom did
> not include Tolkien, and ultimately that is what counts. Whatever Eru
> Ilúvatar may have been, story-internally, story-externally his
> freedom was limited by what Tolkien could write.
Tolkien can assert the freedom of Iluvatar without having
to illustrate its infinity, it seems to me.
> > Among many examples, I don't think we need consider Varda's
> > creation of the stars to have had anything to do with the manner
> > of star formation that we know about in current astronomy.
>
> That is, IMO, a non-sequitur. You are talking about how stars form as
> the result of a natural process,
No I'm not. I don't think of the stars as created by Varda
as the stars described by astronomy. That was my point.
> but that is not what is described in
> the texts -- there it is a deliberate effort by Varda, which cannot
> be expected to follow the same process.
I thought that was what I was saying.
> The question you, as I see it, should be asking is what, in our
> present knowledge of physics, would prevent Varda from creating the
> stars in the way described? (Provided what I said earlier about
> magic).
Varda's stars need have been no more than lights, it
seems to me, though I think they probably were more
than lights, but I know not what.
> > (2)
> > We have only one thing, as near as I recall, that lingers into the
> > 4th Age, and that is the Silmaril on Earendel's brow. Are
> > you willing to throw that away? I'm not. Never. And it's
> > not pre-LotR either, as can be proven within the text of LotR.
>
> That's another question that requires a separate follow-up post to
> answer in full, but the short version is that I imagine a dual-world
> conception..
I think the dual world is our world and the Blessed Realm,
at the other end of the Straight Way. But the Silmaril on
Earendel's brow existed through the entire Third Age,
as is proven in the text of LotR, and I've seen nothing
to indicate that the bright light that I see alternately on
evenings for a while and mornings for a while is not the Silmaril.
I can't tell you how much I hate having to torture our world
into the 4th Age. As far as I'm concerned we still see
Varda's stars, and there is still an entrance onto the
Straight Way, though it may never be found again, and
the ruins of Atalante still exist on the floors and in the
chasms at the bottom of the sea.
> Part of what happened during the Akallabêth was, IMO, that the
> physical history of the earth was actually changed: suddenly we had
> always circled a sun that had been created through the accepted
> processes of star-formation. In this universe the light of the Sun is
> reflected from the surface of the planet Venus.
Never, never, never (for me). Think of it as you like.
As I've said a couple of times, the Silmaril was not
taken away when the Blessed Realm was. That is provable.
> At the same time, the old world still does exist -- there is a place
> where Valinor exists and where the vessels of the Sun and the Moon
> circle the Earth . . . and where Eärendil sails the skies in
> Vingilot with a Silmaril bound on his brow. Part of the magic of
> Lothlórien was that Galadriel was somehow able to 'tap into' this
> older world, and thus she could also capture the light of the
> Silmaril for Frodo.
>
> I don't think there's any evidence either way (ultimately I don't
> think Tolkien ever thought of it in this kind of detail), but this is
> what works for me . . .. If you're interested, I'd be happy to make
> an attempt at a more detailed description.
No, please, this is not my conception, and yours depresses me.
As I said, above, there are two worlds only because the
Blessed Realm was removed, and nothing else that I'm aware of
Tolkien mentioning, and he never took away the Silmaril.
> > (3)
> > I suppose one can make a literary case for imposing the
> > timeline of composition on the timeline of the created world;
> > but I'm afraid of the needless destruction that might result.
> > The Ambarkanta is a great explanation of the flat world, it
> > seems to me, whether or not Tolkien had it in mind when
> > the Alallabeth was written.
>
> I rather think that one must _always_ have the timeline of the
> evolution of the mythology in mind when discussing it. While many
> things remained constant, there are also some great leaps in the
> conception of various aspects. So while the Ambarkanta is a great
> description, one must take care when trying to apply it to the later
> conception -- far from all of it was still valid at the later time.
>
> 'Time' in Tolkien's mythology is two-dimensional: internal time and
> external time, and it is, IMHO, necesary to always keep that in mind
> when _discussing_ Tolkien's work (and, preferably, to forget
> everything about it when enjoying his work).
I like your distinction between discussing and
reading, but I'm not necessarily going to go along to
wherever you might want to take that concession.
> > Though the son finds flaws in his own work, the historical
> > achievement is the important thing, and the 1977 text deserves
> > to be considered canon.
>
> There is, IMO, only one sense of 'canon' that makes any sense at all:
> writings that are authentic writings by J.R.R. Tolkien.
I have to agree, reluctantly. Canon must take everything that
Tolkien wrote into account. Though I can't give an example,
I think I have heard of old literature that was created by
father and son, and I think that in other cases than his own
Tolkien might have approved and honored such literary events
of the past.
> > (6)
> > It is within this same mental theater that we experience the
> > entire waking world.
> [...]
> > I bring this up just to point out that creation is not just
> > something that God does. We all do it, routinely.
>
> I'm afraid that I seem to have lost the thread here -- I'm not sure
> what your intention is with this?
To show that creation need not require large amounts of
energy. But it depends on whether 'matter' exists outside
of mind, and I don't know the answer to that. I think it
also shows that we never hear music as literal sound. We
experience only the virtual copy of the 'real' world that
our mind constructs, and that applies to sounds as well
as sights. You will point out that music still requires
a medium to reach our external ears, and I admit that.
> Our mental model of the world is just that: a model. It is based on
> sensory perceptions, but with some quite advanced model-improving
> algorithms helping us with the interpretation (in general they help
> us make sense of what we perceive -- not necessarily the same as
> helping us realize exactly what we actually perceive). For most
> people (those that don't suffer from mental disorders) there is a
> vast difference between what we might term the 'dream world' and the
> 'waking world' that is largely to do with these advance enhancing
> algorithms and filters.
You're talking at the level of higher education,
but I think my 'mental theater', as opposed to your
'mental model' with its algoriths and filters, can be
the rightly understood at the elementary school
level. I don't necessarily accept your claim about
the vast difference between the dream world and the
waking world. Of course there is difference, but
it seems clear to me that the same mental theater
is employed by both.
> Another aspect of this is that our mental modelling has some severe
> shortcomings -- this is seen more clearly in the very counter-
> intuitive results of both relativity and quantum physics. Thus we
> have a scientific model of the world which in some ways seems to
> contradict our mental model.
I've made an attempt to read the book, 'Quantum Enigma',
but (at least temporarily) have given up on it.
Your mental model takes you in more highly educated
directions than my mental theater, but the latter
is still valid, it seems obvious to me. Limited of
course. We can't reproduce high and low sound
frequencies or much of the infra-red and ultraviolet
ends of the electromagnetic spectrum in our mental
theaters, for example, due to the limitations of our
bodies in gathering the data, but the enigma that fascinates
me more than the quantum one is "who is this observer
in my mental theater?" When we erroneously think that
we experience the outside world directly, then the
observers are our bodies, with eyes and ears and such.
But when we correctly think that we experience only
this inner theater's virtual reality, then the observer
is not the body, and it sees without eyes and hears
without ears.
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
> In article <983a3fc8-ac52-4753-a184-7e107a8de...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>,
> "Noel Q. von Schneiffel" <noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Mai, 19:01, China Blue Syndrome <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <82ec0e85-1c78-4f66-b1a1-d6d67ca27...@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Noel Q. von Schneiffel" <noel.von.schneif...@fats.teunc.org> wrote:
>
> > > > However, the one to sink lowest in his career was the youngest
> > > > brother, John Major.
>
> > > I never heard of him. Was he somebody disappeared by history?
>
> > No, by Tony Blair. Oh wait, Tony Blair *is* history. Yes.
>
Yes, and above all, a very unclean one. When they finish frolicking
around, they leave something Brown in the playground.
Noel
Troels Forchhammer
<acc70cd5-f9d1-4adc...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>
> On May 11, 4:07 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
>> My claim is that insofar as the 'Music of the Ainur' is actual
>> music, it is through that analogy: it could be a music liberated
>> of the need for a physical medium, liberated from the constraint
>> of a single 'dimension' of oscillation and liberated from
>> constraints on frequency.
>
> I don't see the need for that, but if it works for you, I'm not
> trying to oppose it for you. However, it is not a place where we
> can meet, apparently.
There is no need to agree as such -- the discussion (as I believe
I've said before) is as much a process for oneself -- not for
convincing the other,[#] but rather for obtaining greater clarity for
oneself and for practicing difficult task of phrasing one's ideas so
that others can comprehend them ;)
[#] The idea underlying the assumption that one must convince the
other is, I believe, related to the thought that one must win the
discussion and the other part lose. I rather hold that a good
discussion is one from which both parts learn something, and I have
already learned much from this.
> If you prefer to approach the Music metaphorically, then I can
> at least grasp that approach.
I wouldn't say �metaphorically� as much as �analogically�. I have
heard the phrase (in Danish at least) of a �symphony of flowers� and
that is, IMO, a metaphorical use, and I (now) agree that this is not
appropriate. What I am suggesting is something that is more closely
analogous to our experience of music, but liberated from the
constraints that are imposed on our concept of music through the
physical constraints of the origin of the idea (both in terms of the
medium and the receptors).
>> Surely this could be reduced to something that could be heard by
>> human ears, but I imagine that this would be equivalent (in terms
>> of how the reduced representation relates to the original) to
>> trying to hear Beethoven's sixth played on a cymbal . . .
>
> I don't think, as you seem to, that music by means of a sound
> medium, is limited by that medium.
I must differ on that. �Sound� by definition is what can be carried
by pressure waves in air and be perceived by the human body (to allow
a slightly greater span of frequencies than only those that can be
perceived by our ears). The human perception of music is limited by
this definition and includes only sound -- not to say that all sound
is music, but I'm not prepared to discuss what constitutes music ;-)
> Who knows what the mind of Iluvatar can conceive, though, and it
> certainly is not limited to what the mind of man can conceive.
Precisely!
> Nor, I believe, was Iluvatar's sharing of music with the Ainur
> necessarily soundless.
I, on the other hand, am quite convinced that it was indeed
soundless.
First of all we know that the Ainur were pure spirit, they did not,
by nature, have a body. They only created and wore bodies after they
settled in Arda.
Secondly we have the detailed essay ��sanwe-kenta� (published in
_Vinyar Tengwar_) that describes the �communication of thought� --
here it is, for instance, explicitly stated that the use of signs and
language is an impediment to osanwe, and it is strongly implied that
the Ainur, before entering E�, could directly perceive Eru's mind.
Thirdly there is the physical absurdity of the idea of sound without
matter.
<snip>
> I think it is clear that *if* Tolkien wished us to take the Music
> literally, that he expected us to think that Iluvatar and the
> Ainur 'heard' each other.
Not entirely sure what you mean by �heard� (surely not in the usual
way of the Incarnates?), I am not sure what to say. It is, IMO, very
clear that Tolkien meant that Eru and the Ainur were able to perceive
each others' minds directly without relying on a medium. Since these
minds, and Eru's in particular from whom the Ainur learned �music�,
are all incomprehensibly more complex and powerful than our own, it
would be rather strange for me to confine the concept of �music� as
developed in this context to the narrow limits of �sound� in terms of
oscillation state, frequency range etc.
> I know I'm in a minority in taking the whole 'mythology'
> literally. That fact saddens me but it doesn't discourage
> me.
I'm not sure it's as bad as all that :)
Story-internally I think the stories about the First Age are intended
to convey the literal truth. The stories are focused on the
experiences of the Elves, and though they may, as Tolkien would
write, �actually be a "Mannish" affair,� their viewpoint is
nonetheless Elvish in origin.
It is now clear to me that in any case the Mythology must
actually be a �Mannish� affair. (Men are really only inte-
rested in Men and in Men's ideas and visions.) The High
Eldar living and being tutored by the demiurgic beings must
have known, or at least their writers and loremasters must
have known, the �truth� (according to their measure of
understanding). What we have in the _Silmarillion_ etc. are
traditions (especially personalized, and centred upon
_actors_, such as F�anor) handed on by _Men_ in N�menor and
later in Middle-earth (Arnor and Gondor); but already far
back - from the first association of the D�nedain and Elf-
friends with the Eldar in Beleriand - blended and confused
with their own Mannish myths and cosmic ideas.
(�Myths Transformed,� text I, _Morgoth's Ring_ p.370)
The central point here, IMO, is that even for the Elves -- until this
the traditional conveyers of the Mythology -- though they knew the
�truth�, it was nonetheless explicitly �according to their measure of
understanding.� This is not just some new idea of Tolkien's at this
point -- this idea underlies the whole evolution of Tolkien's
mythology from the Book of Lost Tales (BoLT) onwards: it is always
the intention that the original stories told by the Elvish
loremasters is the literal truth _according_ _to_ _their_ _measure_
_of_ _understanding_.
In the First Age and later, this poses only very little problems as
the elven loremasters merely relate what they have experienced, but
before that the problems begin to increase as the drama increase in
complexity beyond their ability to comprehend. The Ainulindal�, the
whole setting of Eru's Timeless Halls, is clearly the setting in
which this qualification is the most justified: simply because it is
so far beyond anything in the experience of the Elves. It is still
the truth, even the �literal truth�, but it is the truth in such a
way that the Elves (and, by extension, us) were able to understand
it.
>> I'll try to respond to this in more length in a follow-up
>> message, but ultimately the necessity arise because that is the
>> only way that Tolkien could have written it convincingly -- where
>> exceptions are few and far between, but usually quite
>> spectacular.
>
> There are a great number of exceptions at the beginning,
> following the Music. Your statement, "the only way that
> Tolkien could have written it convincingly", seems to me
> utterly unjustified.
Obviously I disagree ;-)
The setting of the Ainulindal� is special -- it is in the Timeless
Halls which are outside E�. Nothing physical applies there making the
idea of �sound� (in the human sense) nonsensical.
After the Valar enter into E�, the finishing of E� is sufficiently
vague not to violate the laws of physics. The manner of the
�achievement� of E� is, of course, different from the description in
a modern physics textbook (no big bang etc.), but that is not the
same as violating the laws of physics.
Tolkien would not be able to write a story convincingly that truly
violated the basics of nature. For the same reason as the application
of an analogue for the Elves, you cannot convincingly write a story
that you cannot fully imagine -- you cannot command Secondary Belief.
In his essay, _On Fairy-Stories_, (OFS) Tolkien wrote:
Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language
can say _the green sun_. Many can then imagine or picture
it. But that is not enough �- though it may already be a
more potent thing than many a �thumbnail sketch� or
�transcript of life� that receives literary praise.
To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will
be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably
require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a
special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such
difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any
degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art:
indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most
potent mode.
(�On Fairy-Stories�, �Fantasy� -- _Tree and Leaf_ p.49)
You can create a world in which you assert that the basic behaviour
of nature is different, but I have _never_ seen a convincing story in
which that is actually the rule (and I don't even recall any
unconvincing ones, but I can't rule out that I've forgotten one):
actual deviations from the well-known behaviour of nature are always
kept to a few spectacular exceptions simply because no author is
capable of achieving the �inner consistency of reality� in a sub-
creation where the behaviour of nature is alien all the time. That is
-- I ought, perhaps, to allow for the possibility (it is, after all,
so very difficult to prove a negative), but Tolkien not only could
not, he _knew_ he couldn't and he didn't attempt it. It is curious
that his sub-creation in many ways grew closer to the ordinary world
as he abandoned the very specific ties that bound his original
mythology to England in particular -- in the 1940s Ainulindal�
(version C*) and in �Myths Transformed� in _Morgoth's Ring_ we see
Tolkien struggling to bring his mythology even more in accordance
with a modern scientific view of not only the basic laws of nature,
but also of the history of the world.
This, of course, does not prevent the augmenting of nature -- we can
imagine that other powers exist, but not that these fundamentally
contradict what we know, and so we can augment our world with magic.
To put it in another way, twisting Clarke's third law about, there is
very little in E� (barring the Ainur and their descendants) that I
can't imagine being duplicated in the real world by a sufficiently
advanced technology with an unlimited supply of energy -- the
Akkalab�th with its the establishment of the multiverse setup with
the Blessed Lands still in existence and reachable by some wierd
trick of dimensions is a good candidate, but even there I cannot
completely dismiss the idea that it could be duplicated.
In order to write something so that it is convincing, so that it
�commands Secondary Belief,� the author needs to be able to do more
than just imagine it -- he needs to be able to construct his sub-
creation in such a way that it _is_ natural; that this is the only
way that things could naturally be within his sub-creation. That is
why it is impossible to convincingly write something that actually
violates the basic laws that govern nature in our primary reality --
while a good author might imagine it, he cannot make it feel natural
simply because he, like the rest of us, is inextricably founded in
our everyday experience (people such as Einstein or Bohr who were
able to imagine that the world was fundamentally different from what
they believed it was show what level of imagining we're talking about
-- and they even had the advantage of letting experiment and
mathematics guide their imagination, though they, too, found their
own results unbelievable at first).
<snip>
> No I'm not. I don't think of the stars as created by Varda
> as the stars described by astronomy. That was my point.
As far as I recall, Tolkien only detailed the creation of the stars
in BoLT, and I explicitly except the earliest versions -- Tolkien
wasn't as skilled as sub-creator at that point (personally I
_believe_ that his outlook changed somewhere in the late thirties.
OFS is a part of this, but though I think the lecture is an important
milestone in the process, I don't think one can just point to it and
claim that �there is the turning-point�).
In BoLT, as I recall it, the concept of light as a substance is
clearly present in the creation of the stars, and that is another
concept that it will take more than ordinary ingenuity to concile
with our knowledge about nature, but is there anything about the
stars, _after_ the description in BoLT, that is in actual
contradiction with what we know about the _possible_ behaviour of
nature?
<snip>
> I can't tell you how much I hate having to torture our world
> into the 4th Age.
Or sixth or seventh or whatever age we're currently in ;-)
Tolkien, of course, made it very clear that Middle-earth truly is
this world that we live in, with all that that means. The magic has
since gone (or there might be a small part left, I don't know), but
apart from that, this world, your world and my world, is, story-
internally, in every way the world of Frodo and of Gondolin.
<snip>
>> There is, IMO, only one sense of 'canon' that makes any sense at
>> all: writings that are authentic writings by J.R.R. Tolkien.
>
> I have to agree, reluctantly. Canon must take everything that
> Tolkien wrote into account. Though I can't give an example,
> I think I have heard of old literature that was created by
> father and son, and I think that in other cases than his own
> Tolkien might have approved and honored such literary events
> of the past.
The question of canon is, to me, 100 % story-external and exclusivly
a question of authenticity. The status of _The Silmarillion_ is, IMO,
dubious mainly because there is no easy way to distinguish between
the ninety-nine-point-something per cent that are by John Ronald from
the small fraction that is Christopher, but also, in the second
degree, because the whole thing is a patchwork of texts from a
multitude of sources -- sometimes a single paragraph can be pieced
together from three or more different source texts that need not, if
read in the original context, agree with each other.
This does not mean that I appreciate Christopher's work any less -- I
am deeply grateful and I very much enjoy reading the fruits of his
efforts. It is just that you have to make the distinction when you
discuss the works as literature -- the only way that you can be sure
of J.R.R. Tolkien's intention is to read the source texts. _The
Silmarillion_, and _The Children of H�rin_ for that matter, are for
enjoying the vision -- for hearing the music ;-) if you will allow me
that metaphor, for when you wish to immerse youself in secondary
belief, but when you wish to discuss J.R.R. Tolkien's intention and
his vision, you must turn to reading the score with his original
dynamical notations (to expand -- and possibly stretch -- the
metaphor), which is to say that you need to study the _History of
Middle-earth_ (HoMe) and _Unfinished Tales_.
And with the enjoyment of the stories -- with immersing oneself in
Tolkien's wonderful sub-creation -- I come back to Tolkien's own, IMO
extremely perceptive, descriptions of the enchantment of sub-creation
in �On Fairy-Stories.�
--
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)
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
wrote:
>
> I, on the other hand, am quite convinced that it was indeed
> soundless.
>
> First of all we know that the Ainur were pure spirit, they did not,
> by nature, have a body. They only created and wore bodies after they
> settled in Arda.
>
> _Vinyar Tengwar_) that describes the ‘communication of thought’ --
> here it is, for instance, explicitly stated that the use of signs and
> language is an impediment to osanwe, and it is strongly implied that
>
> Thirdly there is the physical absurdity of the idea of sound without
> matter.
In the other thread, I have proven that black holes were ubiquitously
used by powers such as Gandalf and the Witch King. Would it really be
that much a stretch if we explained the music with black holes too?
Maybe every Ainu had a little black hole inside his head, and they
communicated through a network of "wormholes" between those
singularities. Because such a communication would not go through the
normal space between them, there is no need to worry about things like
sound without air.
One additional benefit would be that the singularities would create
significant gravitational fields, so the Ainur were all constantly
drawn to another. This prevented them from scattering and floating
away into the Void. I suppose they were rotating in stable orbits
inside the Timeless Halls just like today's planets.
The theory of gods circling in Newtonian orbits in space is not as
alien as it first sounds. Remember that most Roman gods do the same
even today. I'm thinking of Venus, Mars, Jupiter and the others.
Apparently over the millennia the black hole in their heads has
aggregated so much mass around them that they now look like rotund
planets.
Noel
Troels Forchhammer
<acc70cd5-f9d1-4adc...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>
<snip>
> But this train of though still leaves us as divided as at the
> beginning, because a metaphorical interpretation just doesn't
> appeal to me. I know I'm in a minority in taking the whole
> 'mythology' literally. That fact saddens me but it doesn't
> discourage me.
<snip>
> I have to agree, reluctantly. Canon must take everything that
> Tolkien wrote into account.
I have no desire to ressurect this discussion as such, but we have
discussed in part whether the _Ainulindal�_ is written using some
degree of symbolic / figurative language or if it is an historical
account at the surface, and we have discussed reading Tolkien's
mythology literally in connection with the also the differences found
between versions from different stages in the evolution of the
mythology.
I had occasion to take out _Tolkien the Medievalist_ edited by Jane
Chance from the library (we have an excellent system of inter-library
loans in Denmark so that I can borrow from any university library
from my local municipal library branch -- this usually ensures that I
can have almost any Tolkien related book in my hands within a couple
of weeks), and I found some of the papers so interesting that I had
to buy it for myself.
There were in particular two papers that struck me as very
interesting in the context of our discussion here, and I wanted to
share some information on these. It was the paper �Augustine in the
Cottage of Lost Play� by John William Houghton (from part III called
�J.R.R. Tolkien: The texts/contexts of medieval patristics, theology,
and iconography') and �The Great Chain of Reading� by Gergely Nagy
(found in part IV titled �J.R.R. Tolkien's _Silmarillion_ mythology:
medievalized retextualization and theory').
The premise for the first of the two essays is essentially that the
_Ainulindal�_, or, perhaps more appropriately, the �Music of the
Ainur� from the _Book of Lost Tales_ (Music), would fit very well
with the Genesis to a medieval thinker.
The modern reader, finding the _Ainulindal�_ very
different from Genesis, might reasonably expect that if
Eriol/�lfwine had passed the Elvish story on to medieval
thinkers, they would have found it equally strange, if not
completely irreconcilable with their Christian faith. In
fact, however, the commentary tradition �- and particularly
the work of Saint Augustine of Hippo � allows Tolkien's
myth to consort with Genesis at least as easily as the
_Timaeus_ does. [...] Had medieval theologians encountered
the _Ainulindal�_, they would have found its picture of a
double creation � creation as music in the song of the
Ainur and then as fact in the word of Il�vatar -�
reassuringly easy to fit into the schema of Augustine's
Christian-Neoplatonist synthesis.
(�Augustine in the cottage of lost play� John William Houghton,
_Tolkien the Medievalist_, Jane Chance (Ed.), p.171f)
In order to argue that position, John Houghton takes us through,
among other things, the comments on the Genesis by Saint Augustine of
Hippy (primarily in his _Twelve books on the literal sense of
Genesis_), where it is of key importance to understand what Augustine
meant by �literal�:
For the typical modern reader, the most striking feature
of Augustine's various commentaries on Genesis is what he
means by �literal.� When people today talk of taking
Genesis literally, we usually understand them to mean that
the surface sense of Genesis, with God creating the world
over the course of six days and resting on the seventh, is
a historical account as it stands. Augustine has in mind a
more complex sense of �literality": in this literal
reading, he understands key words of Genesis such as �day,�
�heaven,� and �earth� in a symbolic sense, rather than in
their ordinary meanings. [...] Augustine wants to rule out
figurative, allegorical meaning from the beginning
precisely because the literal sense he finds in the opening
of Genesis is itself expressed figuratively. [...]
For Augustine, then, the creation story in Genesis is a
historical record that the author has chosen to express,
not simply through a single figure of speech such as �right
arm,� but through a whole symbolic narrative.
(�Augustine in the cottage of lost play� John William Houghton,
_Tolkien the Medievalist_, Jane Chance (Ed.), p.172f)
John Houghton then shows how well many concepts and ideas proposed in
the Music fits with the Augustinian �literal interpretation,� but
also where the two deviate. He sums up his position thus:
Given Augustine's reading of Genesis, then, the asterisk-
cosmogony of the _Ainulindal�_ would fit alongside the
other cosmogonies known to the early medieval West �- an
asterisk Bede og �lfric, stumbling across Eriol/�lfwine's
report, would have been able to assimilate it to the
scriptural account. [...].
It may be that Tolkien knew of _De Genesi_ before he
began his own work; I have not been able to find any
evidence that Tolkien had studied the commentary, but the
text is not particularly obscure, and Tolkien may have
seen it.
(�Augustine in the cottage of lost play� John William Houghton,
_Tolkien the Medievalist_, Jane Chance (Ed.), p.180)
Larry, you know much more about Augustine than I -- would you say
that this is a fair representation of Augustine's position (as far as
this goes)?
Our discussions above have touched on a number of the issues John
Houghton takes up in his paper, and I'm sure you'll find his reading
of Augustine interesting (unless you are already familiar with it, of
course ;-)
The other paper was the original reason why I took the book out from
the library, and deals with the interplay between textual relations,
myth & mythology and mythopoesis. The discussion is general in
applicability, but it takes its outset in the many versions of the
T�rin story. It provides a completely different perspective on some
questions related to the ideas of versions and literality that we've
spoken about.
The discussion is rather complex and, taking outset in the idea of
depth in Tolkien's work, it goes through the many versions of the
T�rin story, discussing the relations between the versions in detail
both in story-external terms (the �primary world� -- the perspective
relating to their relation in Tolkien's work on his mythology) and in
story-internal terms (the �textual world� -- the perspective relating
to their relations within the mythology itself).
In the concluding pages Gergely Nagy sets up a definition of myth and
mythology related to his ideas about depth in mythopoesis. As I
understand his paper, he treats all the versions of the T�rin story
as different versions of the same basic myth -- akin to the many
versions existing of the Electra myth in Greek mythology, and so Nagy
appears to me to argue that we should, _even story-internally_,
embrace the differences and inconsistencies of warring versions in
the evolution of Tolkien's mythology and see this as precisely the
feature that does make it a mythology -- if you take his conclusions
to the extreme, you might even claim that if Tolkien had never moved
beyond the _Book of Lost Tales_, he would not have achieved a
mythology (or, at least, certainly not a mythology with anything
approaching the same level of depth).
The T�rin story evolved through its retexts, in both
primary and textual worlds (see _BLT2_, xvii, xviii);[...].
On the other hand, as can be seen from a collation of the
T�rin texts, a significant number of _textual_ details
(phrases, epithets, especially speeches and central scenes)
can be traced at least as far back as the poem, so the
textual affinity (even derivation) between the versions is
unquestionable. By parallel, real mythological texts also
show a great variation of detail but still remain the �same
story�: [...]. There is, however, no ultimate �Electra
text�: all versions are legitimate and authentic
retextualizations of the Greek myth.
By combining the two main factors that keep the system
together, that of _texts/versions_ and the textual
relations between them, and the centrality of _story_ as a
basis for comparison, we arrive at a multilayer definition
of depth, which is a key to the technique of mythopoesis.
[...]. The result is not only a corpus of texts
representing the stages of composition but also an
interconnected system that has its counterpart in the
textual world as well: [...]. The technique of mythopoesis,
I would suggest, is for a large measure dependent on this
textual tangle, responsible for the creation of the textual
world in the same way as mythological texts in the primary
world are responsible for the invocation of their
background mythological systems.
All historical recession must arrive finally at a
starting point, an �Ur-Text,� the earliest form and base to
all retexts, where retextualization ends and the
_textualization_ of _event_ is supposed to have taken place.
In the textual world where all the T�rin texts are used as
history, it is not difficult to see the _Lost Tales_ as the
earliest _textualized_ form of those historical events. In
the primary world, the Lost Tales are the philological Ur-
Text anyway, [...]. Thus, through the analogy of author and
persona and the duplication of texts into the textual world,
the corpus not only simulates the evolution of stories and
texts within the textual world (presenting what is treated
as history _within that world_ as the history _of that_
_world_) but does it in just the same terms that we can use
to describe the actual evolution in real-world text corpora.
(�The Great Chain of Reading,� Gergely Nagy, _Tolkien the
Medievalist_, Jane Chance (ed), p. 250)
And a couple of pages further on, he concludes
Mythology traverses the definitions of textuality in the
overlay of textual on oral and makes it clear that _no_
_text_ is _myth by genre_. The texts are _mythological_,
and together they form a _mythology_, the �_telling_ of
myths� contained in the background mythological system.
They are assigned this status by the user community's
relation to them, their cultural (/religious/political)
use as such, and the relation they are supposed to have to
their base-text: myth is always in the base-text, [...].
The texts are just the _telling_ of the myth -� they are
not the _myth itself_. We do not seem to be able to grasp
_myth_ as _text_. All its retextualizations are made on the
content/form axes, with not much restriction on either:
competing versions of the same story can stand alongside
each other without being �inauthentic,� �uncanonical,� or
�false,� demonstrating the nonconstraining nature that
enables this variety. Apart from very general narrative
lines and characterizations, we cannot reconstruct the
implied version of which all mythological stories claim to
be retexts. What I propose is the handling of _myth as a
pseudo-text_, with an indefinite number of retexts, which
is a way to account for both the differing story versions
and the complex textual tangle.
(�The Great Chain of Reading,� Gergely Nagy, _Tolkien the
Medievalist_, Jane Chance (ed), p. 252)
I'm sorry about the rather extensive quoting -- I wanted to give an
impression of the main thrust of these papers in the words of the
authors.
Regulars to these newsgroups will of course also recognize the
implications of Nagy's position with respect to the stages in the
evolution of Tolkien's mythology -- he sees everything from _The Book
of Lost Tales_ onwards as retextualizations of the same collection of
myths.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or �Tolkien� in subject.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom
of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Steve Morrison
> In order to argue that position, John Houghton takes us through,
> among other things, the comments on the Genesis by Saint Augustine of
> Hippy (primarily in his _Twelve books on the literal sense of
> Genesis_), where it is of key importance to understand what Augustine
> meant by �literal�:
I'm trying to visualize "St. Augustine of Hippy", and I have to admit
I'm having a bit of trouble! Perhaps someone a bit like Tim Benzedrine?
Troels Forchhammer
Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> spoke these staves:
> Tolkien the MedievalistTroels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>
> I'm trying to visualize "St. Augustine of Hippy", and I have to
> admit I'm having a bit of trouble! Perhaps someone a bit like Tim
> Benzedrine?
LOL!
Given some of the popular representations of Christ, I figure it
shouldn't be too strange (although Augustine did reach a rather
venerable age).
Slightly more serious, the �Y� isn't even anywhere close to the �O�, so
I can't imagine how I managed to do that without noticing :)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does
knowledge.
- Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882)
Dirk Thierbach
> ‘Augustine in the Cottage of Lost Play’ by John William Houghton:
> For the typical modern reader, the most striking feature
> of Augustine's various commentaries on Genesis is what he
> means by “literal.” When people today talk of taking
> Genesis literally, we usually understand them to mean that
> the surface sense of Genesis, with God creating the world
> over the course of six days and resting on the seventh, is
> a historical account as it stands. Augustine has in mind a
> more complex sense of “literality": in this literal
> reading, he understands key words of Genesis such as “day,”
> “heaven,” and “earth” in a symbolic sense, rather than in
> their ordinary meanings. [...] Augustine wants to rule out
> figurative, allegorical meaning from the beginning
> precisely because the literal sense he finds in the opening
> of Genesis is itself expressed figuratively. [...]
Ok, I can accept a redefinition of "literally" to include symbolic
meaning. But I have trouble distinguishing between "symbolic" and
"figurative, allegorical". Is there any example of something that
could make the difference clear? Say, some short text where it's
obvious that it's meant "allegorically" and not "symbolically"?
> In the concluding pages Gergely Nagy sets up a definition of myth and
> mythology related to his ideas about depth in mythopoesis. As I
> understand his paper, he treats all the versions of the Túrin story
> as different versions of the same basic myth -- akin to the many
> versions existing of the Electra myth in Greek mythology, and so Nagy
> appears to me to argue that we should, _even story-internally_,
> embrace the differences and inconsistencies of warring versions in
> the evolution of Tolkien's mythology and see this as precisely the
> feature that does make it a mythology
I can agree with that if you leave out the "story-internally" part.
I assume that is your choice of words and not the authors? How
exactly can one accept various versions that contradict each other
as part of the *same* story? Where story means "this particular
narrative", not the whole complex of versions of the story.
> The Túrin story evolved through its retexts, in both
> primary and textual worlds (see _BLT2_, xvii, xviii);[...].
> On the other hand, as can be seen from a collation of the
> Túrin texts, a significant number of _textual_ details
> (phrases, epithets, especially speeches and central scenes)
> can be traced at least as far back as the poem, so the
> textual affinity (even derivation) between the versions is
> unquestionable. By parallel, real mythological texts also
> show a great variation of detail but still remain the “same
> story”:
Or rather, there are all variants of some central identical idea.
But I don't see how it follows from that that the inconsistencies
should be acceptable story-internally.
> By combining the two main factors that keep the system
> together, that of _texts/versions_ and the textual relations
> between them, and the centrality of _story_ as a basis for
> comparison, we arrive at a multilayer definition of depth, which
> is a key to the technique of mythopoesis. [...].
Hm. Maybe the author uses the word "story" for what I described
as "central identical idea". So the expression "story-internally"
as used in this NG and Nagy's use of "story" don't match.
> All historical recession must arrive finally at a
> starting point, an “Ur-Text,”
I strongly disagree.
> Regulars to these newsgroups will of course also recognize the
> implications of Nagy's position with respect to the stages in the
> evolution of Tolkien's mythology -- he sees everything from _The Book
> of Lost Tales_ onwards as retextualizations of the same collection of
> myths.
I think one should rather see it as *evolution* (through
"retextualizations") of the same myth. It's not as everything was
already present in some Urtext. It's the whole collection of evolving
texts that define the myth. IMHO :-)
- Dirk
(Troels, BTW, you're newsreader doesn't declare that it uses windows-1250
as encoding. I had to convert it to utf-8 manually, let's see if that
works...)
Troels Forchhammer
<news:20090623101502...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de> Dirk
Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>> 'Augustine in the Cottage of Lost Play' by John William
>> Houghton:
<snip quotation>
> Ok, I can accept a redefinition of "literally" to include symbolic
> meaning. But I have trouble distinguishing between "symbolic" and
> "figurative, allegorical". Is there any example of something that
> could make the difference clear? Say, some short text where it's
> obvious that it's meant "allegorically" and not "symbolically"?
The full paragraph runs as this:
For the typical modern reader, the most striking feature
of Augustine's various commentaries on Genesis is what he
means by "literal." When people today talk of taking
Genesis literally, we usually understand them to mean that
the surface sense of Genesis, with God creating the world
over the course of six days and resting on the seventh, is
a historical account as it stands. Augustine has in mind a
more complex sense of "literality": in this literal
reading, he understands key words of Genesis such as "day,"
"heaven," and "earth" in a symbolic sense, rather than in
their ordinary meanings. Citing the example of Saint Paul's
applications of the stories of Hagar and Sarah (1 Cor.
10:11) and Adam and Eve (Eph. 5:32) � both of which he
takes to be literal, historical accounts �- Augustine
argues that, whether or not a particular biblical narrative
is a historical record, it can be allegorical, that is, it
can refer to something else in sacred history. What he
proposes to discuss in Genesis is the nonallegorical sense,
and he sees that sense in this case as historical (_De_
_Genesi_, 1.1.1-2). This seems like backing into the topic,
treating the derivative -� allegorical -� sense before the
primary -� literal -� meaning; but Augustine wants to rule
out figurative, allegorical meaning from the beginning
precisely because the literal sense he finds in the opening
of Genesis is itself expressed figuratively. That is to
say, when Moses (whom Augustine accepts as the author of
Genesis) tells the story of Sarah and Hagar, he does so in
reasonably matter of fact prose; it is Paul who sees the
story as an allegory prefiguring two covenants. But when
Exodus says that God led the people of Israel through the
Red Sea with a strong "right hand" (Ex. 15:6), Moses is
using poetic imagery, without expecting anyone to think
that God actually has a physical body. The _literal_,
historical sense of the text is that the author is using a
figure of speech to refer to God's divine power, whereas
one common allegorical reading is that crossing the Red Sea
prefigures baptism. Thus Augustine calls his symbolic
interpretation the _literal_ sense of Genesis because he is
convinced that Moses deliberately used symbols in writing
about real historical events of the Creation.
For Augustine, then, the creation story in Genesis is a
historical record that the author has chosen to express,
not simply through a single figure of speech such as "right
arm," but through a whole symbolic narrative.
('Augustine in the cottage of lost play' John William Houghton,
_Tolkien the Medievalist_, Jane Chance (Ed.), p.172f)
I hope this helps?
So, as I read it, Augustine makes a distinction between various kinds
of figurative / symbolic language. Used _allegorically_ it refers to
something outside the primary event it describes -- in our case
something that is outside the account of Genesis, but used _literally_
it still refers to the surface event, the Creation, but does so in
figurative or symbolic language.
>> In the concluding pages Gergely Nagy sets up a definition of myth
>> and mythology related to his ideas about depth in mythopoesis. As
>> I understand his paper, he treats all the versions of the T�rin
>> story as different versions of the same basic myth -- akin to the
>> many versions existing of the Electra myth in Greek mythology,
>> and so Nagy appears to me to argue that we should, _even
>> story-internally_, embrace the differences and inconsistencies of
>> warring versions in the evolution of Tolkien's mythology and see
>> this as precisely the feature that does make it a mythology
>
> I can agree with that if you leave out the "story-internally"
> part. I assume that is your choice of words and not the authors?
Gergely Nagy uses the term 'textual world' to refer to what we would
call the story-internal world or view.
> How exactly can one accept various versions that contradict each
> other as part of the *same* story? Where story means "this
> particular narrative", not the whole complex of versions of the
> story.
The point, as far as I understand it, is that even story-internally (or
in the 'textual world') the texts are _mythological_. We readily accept
contradictions at least as large as the ones in Tolkien to exist in
e.g. the Greek mythology and we don't discount them from being an
actual mythology in the primary world, describing a certain world-view
that was 'true' to the minds of the Greeks to whom this mythology
belonged.
If you look at the texts as being a Fourth Age collection of
mythological texts, then there will be no difference between their
status in Fourth Age Gondor and the texts of the Greek mythology in
modern Europe, and the contradictions will not only be acceptable, but
expectable -- their all being retextualizations of some basic myths. I
believe that this is Nagy's point: that we should (or, perhaps rather,
_can_) see the texts as belonging to a connected mythology within the
story-internal world rather than seeing them as primary, and 100%
literally true, textualizations of historical events.
Personally I think it is a matter of purpose and perspective, and I
think that in some cases Nagy's approach might very well be more
fruitful than the view that the texts must describe a literal, non-
symbolic truth at the surface level. Saying so, I also imply that there
are cases in which the latter approach will give the better answer. I
would rather try to avoid the situation where a given perspective is
canonized -- these various perspectives (including the story-external
perspectives) are, IMO, all parts of a tool-box, and when we wish to
answer a given question, I'd rather have as many tools at my disposal
as possible, to try and see which one gives the best answer. I do
believe that there are questions that are better answered using Nagy's
approach, which would have us look at the central _story_ -- or _myth_
-- that is at the heart of all the (re-)textualizations.
<snip>
>> By combining the two main factors that keep the system
>> together, that of _texts/versions_ and the textual relations
>> between them, and the centrality of _story_ as a basis for
>> comparison, we arrive at a multilayer definition of depth,
>> which is a key to the technique of mythopoesis. [...].
>
> Hm. Maybe the author uses the word "story" for what I described
> as "central identical idea". So the expression "story-internally"
> as used in this NG and Nagy's use of "story" don't match.
Yes, the 'story,' or 'myth,' in Nagy's text refers to the central
kernel of the myth: that central idea that is being retold in so many
different texts in different styles and with different perspectives --
variations along what Nagy calls the axes of content and form.
Summarizing things, the last paragraph in Nagy's paper runs:
The effect of depth that I have examined in Tolkien's
works proves to be analogous to the effect found in
primary-world textual corpora in the connectedness of
stories (readerly) and texts (philological) that together
form a _critical_ definition. Interpreting the corpus as a
system of interconnected texts with specific textual
relations that are relevant to the interpretation of the
particular texts and the evaluation and appreciation of the
whole, we can say that Tolkien's works are essentially
similar to primary-world mythological corpora. The methods
he uses have been noted by historians and literary
historians alike in texts and corpora such as Beowulf and
the Arthurian legend, and the application of two models,
here called after _Beowulf_ and Malory, to Tolkien's texts
have proved usable and efficient in clarifying both the
concept of depth and the techniques of mythopoesis. The
fact that illusory depth also appears should not detract
from the feeling of completeness: the ultimate base-text,
as we have seen, is _always_ a pseudo-text. This
understanding of mythology as continual retextualization on
the content/form axes means that depth is always where
textual relations are produced, to be exploited in various
ways. The duplication of texts in(to) the textual world
means that it can also be exploited there to indicate (in
fact, to _create_) not only a textual but also a broader
historical-cultural context purely by the philological-
historical implications of the effect of depth as applying
in the textual world. To say that this gives Tolkien's
texts their "mythological quality" is to realize that
mythopoesis happens in the process and is for a large part
in the system; to call Tolkien's texts "mythopoeic" is to
assign equal importance to all texts in the corpus and
their interrelations � because it is precisely their
interrelatedness and their claims to textual relations that
make them mythological. Our recognition of this is the way
to appreciate both his understanding of mythology, and his
artistic method and technique used to create this
extraordinarily complex effect: to construct, in the
process to uncover, and in that process to use the Great
Chain of Reading.
('The Great Chain of Reading,' Gergely Nagy, _Tolkien the Medievalist_,
Jane Chance (ed), p. 252f)
>> All historical recession must arrive finally at a starting
>> point, an "Ur-Text,"
>
> I strongly disagree.
The point here is that if you trace the story backwards, you must
sometime reach the point where there are no ancestor-texts (neither
oral or written) and where the event has been put into language -- this
is the starting point Nagy speaks of. He doesn't necessarily mean that
such a text must exist in actual fact -- it may be conjectured or
pretended.
>> Regulars to these newsgroups will of course also recognize the
>> implications of Nagy's position with respect to the stages in the
>> evolution of Tolkien's mythology -- he sees everything from _The
>> Book of Lost Tales_ onwards as retextualizations of the same
>> collection of myths.
>
> I think one should rather see it as *evolution* (through
> "retextualizations") of the same myth. It's not as everything was
> already present in some Urtext. It's the whole collection of
> evolving texts that define the myth. IMHO :-)
Nagy would add that the relations between the retextualizations are
also essential to their being mythological (and of course he claims
that the myth as such is never an actual text -- that the 'Ur-Text' can
never actually exist and that it is therefore what he calls a 'pseudo-
text' -- a text that you pretend is there). So I think that you are not
as far apart as it might seem ;-) (I'd extend, if I could, my
apologies to Nagy for describing his position so poorly, but his paper
is, to me at least, quite complex, and you really must watch your step
to when trying to decipher when his descriptions apply where).
> (Troels, BTW, you're newsreader doesn't declare that it uses
> windows-1250 as encoding. I had to convert it to utf-8 manually,
> let's see if that works...)
Unfortunately XNews doesn't handle UTF-8 -- this is one of the very few
things that I'd like to have fixed (OK, so I'd also like to have the
opportunity to do some more fancy visuals -- colouring the text by
quote-level, for instance). I'd like to find a news-reader that could
do basically anything that XNews can, and then handle UTF-8 and the
other stuff ;-)
I'll try to see what I can do about signalling my encoding, though.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement.
But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another
profound truth.
- Niels Bohr
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> spoke these staves:
> The full paragraph runs as this:
[...]
> But when Exodus says that God led the people of Israel through
> the Red Sea with a strong "right hand" (Ex. 15:6), Moses is using
> poetic imagery, without expecting anyone to think that God
> actually has a physical body.
Ok. I wouldn't even call that symbolic, but just figure of speech.
> The _literal_, historical sense of the text is that the author is
> using a figure of speech to refer to God's divine power, whereas
> one common allegorical reading is that crossing the Red Sea
> prefigures baptism.
Ok. That's again an extreme example, certainly interpreting this
crossing as baptism isn't symbolic.
> Thus Augustine calls his symbolic interpretation the _literal_
> sense of Genesis because he is convinced that Moses deliberately
> used symbols in writing about real historical events of the
> Creation.
I can agree with that.
> So, as I read it, Augustine makes a distinction between various kinds
> of figurative / symbolic language. Used _allegorically_ it refers to
> something outside the primary event it describes -- in our case
> something that is outside the account of Genesis, but used _literally_
> it still refers to the surface event, the Creation, but does so in
> figurative or symbolic language.
The problem I have here is that it's not a binary distinction, but
there's a broad range between "strong right hand" and "crossing a sea
is baptism". If a day isn't a day, is it still historic? If Adam
isn't a real person, but a symbol for Man, is it still historic?
If Kain and Abel personify the nomadic vs. the settled way of living,
is it still historic? And all of that is still far way from the
allegoric example above.
> I hope this helps?
Ok, I get the idea, but I think either Houghton, or Augustine, or
both are guilty of oversimplification. :-)
>> I can agree with that if you leave out the "story-internally"
>> part. I assume that is your choice of words and not the authors?
> Gergely Nagy uses the term 'textual world' to refer to what we would
> call the story-internal world or view.
>> How exactly can one accept various versions that contradict each
>> other as part of the *same* story? Where story means "this
>> particular narrative", not the whole complex of versions of the
>> story.
>
> The point, as far as I understand it, is that even story-internally (or
> in the 'textual world') the texts are _mythological_. We readily accept
> contradictions at least as large as the ones in Tolkien
But they don't exist in a single text that Tolkien wrote. Or at
least, he did his best to remove any inconstencies.
> to exist in e.g. the Greek mythology
But that's exactly the difference between your run-of-the-mill
fairy tales or mythologies and Tolkien. They don't care about
inconsistencies, even within a single story. Tolkien does.
> If you look at the texts as being a Fourth Age collection of
> mythological texts, then there will be no difference between their
> status in Fourth Age Gondor and the texts of the Greek mythology in
> modern Europe,
But I don't look at them as a Fourth Age collection of mythological
texts :-)
> and the contradictions will not only be acceptable, but expectable
And even if I would, they shouldn't contain any story-internally
contradictions. Between different texts, yes. But not in one text,
unless Tolkien overlooked it.
> I believe that this is Nagy's point: that we should (or, perhaps
> rather, _can_) see the texts as belonging to a connected mythology
> within the story-internal world rather than seeing them as primary,
> and 100% literally true, textualizations of historical events.
It's quite obvious that we cannot see texts that contradict each other as
100% literally true textualizations of historical events. Nevertheless
one can see them as an evolving attempt towards such a single
subcreation. But I think we're getting now away from the question :-)
>> Hm. Maybe the author uses the word "story" for what I described
>> as "central identical idea". So the expression "story-internally"
>> as used in this NG and Nagy's use of "story" don't match.
> Yes, the 'story,' or 'myth,' in Nagy's text refers to the central
> kernel of the myth: that central idea that is being retold in so many
> different texts in different styles and with different perspectives
Ok.
>>> All historical recession must arrive finally at a starting
>>> point, an "Ur-Text,"
>> I strongly disagree.
> The point here is that if you trace the story backwards, you must
> sometime reach the point where there are no ancestor-texts (neither
> oral or written) and where the event has been put into language -- this
> is the starting point Nagy speaks of.
But that's simply false in the general case. There *are* situations
when there is some primary source or Urtext, and then people start
copying this text and introduce errors and variations. In this case,
it makes a lot of sense to trace the story backwards and try to
reconstruct the Urtext.
But there are also situations where it's not like that, where the
story "grew in the telling", and where there is no Urtext. And I'd
say much of Tolkien's work is like that.
> He doesn't necessarily mean that such a text must exist in actual
> fact -- it may be conjectured or pretended.
But in the second situation, that will be misleading, because there's
just no way one can fit in such a text and make sense of the whole
data at the same time. So even trying to imagine such a text is a
bad idea. One doesn't understand anything better this way.
IMHO, instead of trying to look for an Urtext, it makes much more
sense to look at the "ingredients" (they ideas, or motifs) and
trace how they developed. That actually tells you something.
- Dirk
Clams Canino
"Dirk Thierbach" <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote in message
>
> Or rather, there are all variants of some central identical idea.
> But I don't see how it follows from that that the inconsistencies
> should be acceptable story-internally.
I kinda dissagree. I tend to see them (story internally) as four different
tellings of the same tale.
Same with Beren and Luthian.
As stories get passed down and retold they change a bit. While I know that
in *our* reality it was "evolution" of Tolkien - I prefer to think of them
story internally as different hand-me-downs of the same tale. The result is
that I'm not sure *what* exactly happened way back then..... But I do know
that Beren and Luthian wrested a Silmaril from Morgoth. And I do know that
on the last day - Turin will smite Morgoth with his Black Sword. (And I'm
willing to bet Feanor will be the one who reforges it for him personally.)
-W
John W Kennedy
> Ok, I can accept a redefinition of "literally" to include symbolic
> meaning.
Do you also accept a redefinition of "black" to include "white"?
> But I have trouble distinguishing between "symbolic" and
> "figurative, allegorical". Is there any example of something that
> could make the difference clear? Say, some short text where it's
> obvious that it's meant "allegorically" and not "symbolically"?
To be "allegorical", the symbolism has to be systematic and pervasive,
and has to work on both levels.
Derek Broughton
And it has to involve nude women (_I_ don't know why that is, but look up
"allegory" in any art history text), and I'm not sure Tolkien ever saw a
nude woman.
--
derek
Troels Forchhammer
<jwk...@attglobal.net> spoke these staves:
> On 6/23/09 6:15 AM, Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Ok, I can accept a redefinition of "literally" to include
>> symbolic meaning.
>
> Do you also accept a redefinition of "black" to include "white"?
Does it matter?
Taking Houghton's summary of Augustine's position at face value, surely
the important thing is what Augustine meant by the word, not how we
might understand it today?
In modern colloquial language Augustine's interpretation of Genesis
certainly wouldn't be called 'literal' (that word being reserved to a
reading that would indeed insist that God did have a physical 'strong
right hand' with which he led the people of Israel through the Red
Sea), but if Augustine uses the word differently, we need to understand
what he means by it.
>> But I have trouble distinguishing between "symbolic" and
>> "figurative, allegorical". Is there any example of something that
>> could make the difference clear? Say, some short text where it's
>> obvious that it's meant "allegorically" and not "symbolically"?
It seems to me that Augustine's usage of 'allegory' is quite close to
what Tom Shippey describes as Tolkien's intention in _Author of the
Century_ -- though not necessarily as systematic (I don't think there
is much system to claiming that the passage of the Red Sea prefigures
babtism). The allegorical reading, in Augustine's usage (at least as
Houghton describes it), appears to me to be to read something in the
Bible as referring to an event ocurring somewhere else in holy history.
> To be "allegorical", the symbolism has to be systematic and
> pervasive, and has to work on both levels.
Houghton describes 'allegorical' in Augustine's usage as being 'a
particular biblical narrative' that 'refers to something else in sacred
history.' I'm not entirely sure if this includes what we might
otherwise call 'veiled pre-saging' of future events (i.e. not the overt
pre-saging involved, for instance, when Tolkien, in the narrative of
LotR, tells us what happen later, implying the defeat of Sauron) -- it
does seem to fit the description here, though I would certainly not
normally call such pre-saging 'allegorical.'
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The "paradox" is only a conflict between reality and your
feeling of what reality "ought to be".
- Richard Feynman
Zorag
> It seems to me that Augustine's usage of 'allegory' is quite close to
> what Tom Shippey describes as Tolkien's intention in _Author of the
> Century_ -- though not necessarily as systematic (I don't think there
> is much system to claiming that the passage of the Red Sea prefigures
> babtism). The allegorical reading, in Augustine's usage (at least as
> Houghton describes it), appears to me to be to read something in the
> Bible as referring to an event ocurring somewhere else in holy history.
Would this understanding be considered typological, where an event
that literally happened in history is considered to prefigure another
event in the life of Christ or of the church? Where, by the
providence of God, specific historical events had meaning in
themselves, but had a fuller meaning in light of later events.
I'd probably say that the figurative/symbolic understanding comes from
the text itself, while the allegorical understanding is not clear
unless you have additional information from outside the text. So the
crossing of the Red Sea to be a type of baptism: The literal sense of
the story is that the Red Sea parts for the escaping Israelites and
drowns their Egyptian pursuers. The figurative/symbolic sense is that
this is a great salvific event, showing that God is with Israel and
has led them from their oppressors by his strong right hand, etc,
while the allegorical view is that on a deeper, more fundamental level
that did not become clear until the days of Christianity, the story is
about baptism. Where each level of understanding adds to the full
picture.
Zorag
John W Kennedy
> In modern colloquial language
Or modern technical language
> Augustine's interpretation of Genesis
> certainly wouldn't be called 'literal' (that word being reserved to a
> reading that would indeed insist that God did have a physical 'strong
> right hand' with which he led the people of Israel through the Red
> Sea), but if Augustine uses the word differently, we need to understand
> what he means by it.
At any rate, I am quite certain that he would not accept his use of the
word, with regard to Genesis, as meaning "symbolic", at least as we use
the word "symbolic". Rather, he means something like "The true meaning
of 'Genesis', given that the fundamentalist interpretation [He didn't
have the word 'fundametalist', of course, but it is convenient here] is
often scandalously silly."
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>> Augustine's interpretation of Genesis certainly wouldn't be
>> called 'literal'
>> but if Augustine uses the word differently, we need to understand
>> what he means by it.
>
> At any rate, I am quite certain that he would not accept his use
> of the word, with regard to Genesis, as meaning "symbolic", at
> least as we use the word "symbolic". Rather, he means something
> like "The true meaning of 'Genesis'
Yes, I agree.
I think also that there is a difference between speaking of 'symbolic
language' and a 'symbolic interpretation' -- or is that just me?
My impression is that Augustine would have insisted that his was, as
you say, the 'true meaning of Genesis,' and that Genesis was narrated
with heavy use of figurative / symbolic language. The 'true meaning'
is the the one about the historical events that are described in the
use of figurative / symbolic language, but still the events that the
text deals with at the surface (i.e. the process of the actual
creation -- not some other event, moral point or similar).
The primary difference between what Augustine called his 'literal
interpretation' and what he saw as an 'allegorical interpretation'
seems to me to be that the former still deals with the events of the
surface level of the text, whereas the latter interpretation would
insist that the 'true' (or at least the allegorical) meaning of the
text lies outside the text itself -- in some other events of sacred
history, some moral point (such as the parables told by Christ), or
something else. In the latter case it is the event itself that is
seen as symbolic rather than the language in which it is described.
I'm sorry if I'm stating the obvious (and even more if it doesn't
make sense at all), but I need to try to put it in words in order to
make it clear for myself ;)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Original thought
is a straightforward process.
It's easy enough
when you know what to do.
You simply combine
in appropriate doses
the blatantly false
and the patently true.
- Piet Hein, /Originality/
Paul S. Person
I think you put it quite well. Here are a couple of points that might
be worth exploring:
1. IIRC, by the time of Augustine and for some time thereafter, there
were four or five recognized methods of interpreting Scripture. These
all had definitions, but not necessarily the definitions the same
terms have today. It is likely that "literal" and "allegorical" were
two of them, and even that the definition of "literal" being
struggled with was the definition of the term at the time, just not
its definition today. An important verse might be interpreted in four
(or five) different ways. (Considering the vivid imagination required
to interpret "passing through the Red Sea" as "baptism", it seems
possible that some verses might have multiple interpretations of the
same type, in particular, multiple "allegorical" interpretations.)
2. A recent article in /Christianity Today/ confirms the information
in Aquinas: Augustine believed that all the "days" in Genesis 1 were,
in fact, one day and that the various creational acts depicted were
potential rather than actual. Sort of like Yavanna (I hope I got the
right Valarin here) and the flower-seeds (and hibernating critters).
This would suggest that, for Augustine, the literal sense of Genesis 1
was "God created everything" and not much more. (OK, that is probably
an exaggeration, but Augustine clearly did not feel that Genesis 1
portrayed a time-table of the actual events.)
While the article's author did his very best to reassure the reader
that Augustine was completely incompatible with evolution, it really
wouldn't be that hard to take the idea that God created everything
potentially and then it developed later into something completely
compatible not only with evolution but with all of science.
--
Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, "I never knew him."
Troels Forchhammer
<news:20090623155957...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de>
Zorag has suggested that he'd
|||| probably say that the figurative/symbolic understanding comes
|||| from the text itself, while the allegorical understanding is
|||| not clear unless you have additional information from outside
|||| the text.
I think this is as good a distinction as any I have tried to make :-)
The allegorical reading, then, require that you have prior knowledge of
events outside the text itself to which the text, or elements in the
text, may allegorically refer. The non-allegorical symbolism relies
only on the text itself -- on the assumption that the language used may
be figurative and symbolic, the focus here is on the actual historical
event that gave rise to this particular (symbolic & figurative)
textualization of the event.
> If a day isn't a day, is it still historic?
I'm not sure if that is what you mean by your question, but I think
that we should at least ignore the question of whether 'historical'
makes sense for a tale that takes place before time :)
But if 'day' is used as a convenient way of describing and separating
'layers' of action (a bit clumsy, I know, but it's the best I can do to
find a phrase that may make sense for both sequential and simultaneous
actions), then I'd still say that yes, that interpretation is still
historical.
> If Adam isn't a real person, but a symbol for Man, is it still
> historic?
That'd depend, I think, on what you wish to do with it.
> If Kain and Abel personify the nomadic vs. the settled way of
> living, is it still historic?
No, that would be allegorical because it refers to events that lie
outside the events described in the text itself -- you need to know
something about history outside your primary knowledge of the text
itself.
> And all of that is still far way from the allegoric example
> above.
In the end I can, of course, only refer you to read Augustine for
yourself -- I haven't found a translation of Augustine's Genesis books
on the internet yet (and not for lack of trying) or I would have linked
to it.
>> I hope this helps?
>
> Ok, I get the idea, but I think either Houghton, or Augustine, or
> both are guilty of oversimplification. :-)
Well -- Houghton obviously simplifies Augustine to discuss only
ressonances with Tolkien's Ainulindal� and I simplify it further when I
report here, so between these, it seems likely that an
oversimplification has occured. Houghton does make a point in saying
that Augustine's 'is, certainly, a highly rhetorical distinction,' and
goes on to point out that Augustine was well-educated in rhetoric. With
that in mind it is, I suppose, possible that Augustine never does go
into much detail about the distinctions, that only being the
preliminaries to what he wants to say.
<snip>
>> If you look at the texts as being a Fourth Age collection of
>> mythological texts, then there will be no difference between
>> their status in Fourth Age Gondor and the texts of the Greek
>> mythology in modern Europe,
>
> But I don't look at them as a Fourth Age collection of
> mythological texts :-)
Neither do I, normally. But I can play with the thought, and I can
appreciate that there are questions that can be better discussed
looking at things this way. It is, for instance, a useful way to deal
with the centrality of story -- letting the story take center stage. We
do ourselves a disservice, in my opinion, if we preclude ourselves from
using a particular way of looking at Tolkien's texts just because it
doesn't come naturally.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
The errors hardest
to condone
in other people
are one's own.
- Piet Hein, /Our Own Motes/
Weland
posting from my Usenet provider so I'll take my chances:
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> In message
> <acc70cd5-f9d1-4adc...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> spoke these staves:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But this train of though still leaves us as divided as at the
beginning, because a metaphorical interpretation just doesn't appeal to
me. I know I'm in a minority in taking the whole 'mythology' literally.
That fact saddens me but it doesn't discourage me.
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> I have to agree, reluctantly. Canon must take everything that
>> Tolkien wrote into account.
>
>
>
> I have no desire to ressurect this discussion as such, but we have
discussed in part whether the _Ainulindal�_ is written using some degree
of symbolic / figurative language or if it is an historical account at
the surface, and we have discussed reading Tolkien's mythology literally
in connection with the also the differences found between versions from
different stages in the evolution of the mythology.
> I had occasion to take out _Tolkien the Medievalist_ edited by Jane
Chance from the library (we have an excellent system of inter-library
loans in Denmark so that I can borrow from any university library from
my local municipal library branch -- this usually ensures that I can
have almost any Tolkien related book in my hands within a couple of
weeks), and I found some of the papers so interesting that I had to buy
it for myself.
<snip>
> The premise for the first of the two essays is essentially that the
_Ainulindal�_, or, perhaps more appropriately, the �Music of the Ainur�
from the _Book of Lost Tales_ (Music), would fit very well with the
Genesis to a medieval thinker.
<snip>
>
> Larry, you know much more about Augustine than I -- would you say
that this is a fair representation of Augustine's position (as far as
this goes)?
Yikes.....I've een invoked. But essentially, yes, Houghton has it quite
right. For classical and medieval literary critics there are generally
three levels of meaning in any text, not just the Bible: the literal,
surface meaning, the allegorical, and symbolic. Christianity adjusted
these and added another: literal, allegorical, analogical, and what I
will call the "salvific". The allegorical is easiest to explain from
Tolkien I think: Sauron is Satan or Hitler, Gandalf is Eisenhower or
Christ, the West="the church" or the Allies etc....where something in
the story stands for an entity in the real world. As we've discussed
often, this was not Tolkien's favorite way of reading a text. The
analogical is more symbolic, but not allegory, more of a way of deriving
wisdom from a story, that story is like this in the real world, but
notice it is "like", not "represents". The last dealt with specifically
Christian concerns about salvation, the final judgement etc. For much
of the Late Antique period and medieval authors and even into the modern
period, some combination of these levels operated simultaneously.
Augustine in his discussion of Genesis takes the unusual step of setting
aside the analogical and allegorical while at the same time seeking to
avoid a mere literal reading. Part of the motivation for that, in my
view anyway, is that in the face of pagan criticism of Christianity,
Augustine wanted to avoid the tale of Genesis being seen as merely
another cosmogenic myth. So he wants to avoid a mere literal, surface
reading by imbuing the "symbolic" into the language of the text. Its
something of a high wire act intellectually. How well he does is a
different story.
<snip>
> In the concluding pages Gergely Nagy sets up a definition of myth and
mythology related to his ideas about depth in mythopoesis. As I
understand his paper, he treats all the versions of the T�rin story as
different versions of the same basic myth -- akin to the many versions
existing of the Electra myth in Greek mythology, and so Nagy appears to
me to argue that we should, _even story-internally_, embrace the
differences and inconsistencies of warring versions in the evolution of
Tolkien's mythology and see this as precisely the feature that does make
it a mythology -- if you take his conclusions to the extreme, you might
even claim that if Tolkien had never moved beyond the _Book of Lost
Tales_, he would not have achieved a mythology (or, at least, certainly
not a mythology with anything approaching the same level of depth).
<snip>
It might be a problem of translation, though Nagy's English has improved
over the years so I doubt that that's it, but I disagree with his
reading of myth and mythology. I've been addressing some of this myself
in a different context, and actually in the original paper I read
invoked Tolkien, esp. the cauldron of story. Anyway, I think he ignores
the practice of reincarnating old myths in new forms. The many versions
of the Elektra myth are on the one hand the same myth, but it is the
same myth retold in different forms with different emphases, different
levels of artistry etc...the same, yet not the same. The Cauldron
again....so large, so complex that each dip into the cauldron will bring
out familiar elements in a new way every time.
There is a great continuity over the course of Tolkien's life. But
there are differences too, not just mere evolution of the tales, though
that is important, but also new influences of many different kinds
(linguistic, personal, literary, increasingly conservative Catholicism).
Its the tension in modern mythological studies between "hero with a
1000 faces" in which hero tales really reflect the same sort of thing
over and over and over again in human cultures, and at the same time
recognizing that each of those 1000 heros is not merely a carbon copy or
photocopy of the other, but that each exists in a particular time and
culture that is unique. I would say that that tension exists in Tolkien
too: he's recasting previous myths in many ways, so on one level
retelling those tales, but he himself recasts his own creationed myths
time and time again making each a new tale each time while remaining in
some sense true to the previous incarnations of the tale...the same, yet
unique. I don't think Nagy quite gets there in that article, though I
don't think he'd disagree with me.
Troels Forchhammer
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
> This isn't really where this belongs, but I've been having trouble
> posting from my Usenet provider so I'll take my chances:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> I had occasion to take out _Tolkien the Medievalist_ edited by
>> Jane Chance from the library
[...]
>> The premise for the first of the two essays is essentially that
>> the _Ainulindal�_, or, perhaps more appropriately, the �Music of
>> the Ainur� from the _Book of Lost Tales_ (Music), would fit very
>> well with the Genesis to a medieval thinker.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Larry, you know much more about Augustine than I -- would you
>> say that this is a fair representation of Augustine's position
>> (as far as this goes)?
>
> Yikes.....I've een invoked.
A sign, of course, of my respect for your knowledge ;)
> But essentially, yes, Houghton has it quite right.
> For classical and medieval literary critics there are generally
> three levels of meaning in any text, not just the Bible: the
> literal, surface meaning, the allegorical, and symbolic.
Do you know if they thought that any (fictional) text would, by
necessity, have all three levels of meaning?
> Christianity adjusted these and added another: literal,
> allegorical, analogical, and what I will call the "salvific".
I think I can still keep that straight :) But then Augustine
apparently adds a fifth (or rather -- he changes the meaning of
'literal' so that we now have an extra level of meaning).
> The allegorical is easiest to explain from Tolkien I think:
> Sauron is Satan or Hitler, Gandalf is Eisenhower or Christ, the
> West = "the church" or the Allies etc....where something in the
> story stands for an entity in the real world. As we've discussed
> often, this was not Tolkien's favorite way of reading a text.
:-)
Right. We've also discussed that we should understand Tolkien's
rejection of 'allegory' in this (narrow?) sense of allegory (not that
he is entirely against allegory -- as Shippey points out, his little
story in the Beowulf essay is clearly an allegory in this sense).
If I recall correctly, some people have insisted that this sense of
allegory is more narrow than how the word is used in modern literary
critique -- is this correct? And if so, was it also true in Tolkien's
time, so that his usage might, even in his own day, have been
outdated, oldfashioned?
> The analogical is more symbolic, but not allegory, more of a way
> of deriving wisdom from a story, that story is like this in the
> real world, but notice it is "like", not "represents".
Would this apply to Shippey's analysis of Tolkien's 'images of
evil,' and his explanation involving two models of evil (which he
calls 'Boethian' and 'Manichaean')?
> The last dealt with specifically Christian concerns about
> salvation, the final judgement etc.
Could we categorize things here that have to do with the 'value in
itself' of mercy and pity and with the role of providence in
Tolkien's works?
> For much of the Late Antique period and medieval authors and even
> into the modern period, some combination of these levels operated
> simultaneously.
Well, if my tentative suggestions regarding Tolkienian interpretation
are at least moderately justified, then I can easily see how such
different levels can become easily mixed up -- we certainly tend to
apply multiple levels of analysis here: even if the question at hand
is related to the literal surface meaning of the text (the story-
internal meaning), we often employ arguments invoking other levels of
meaning.
> Augustine in his discussion of Genesis takes the unusual step of
> setting aside the analogical and allegorical while at the same
> time seeking to avoid a mere literal reading.
I'll admit to being particularly impressed with Augustine's approach
at this level (not with the details, since I don't know them -- I'm
still hoping to find a good translation on the net). It may be my
scientific learning that influences me -- Augustine didn't have the
scientific knowledge necessary to see the Genesis as scientifically
impossible, so clearly that was not his intention (and is not the one
you mention below), but his work nevertheless paved the way, enabling
later scholars to attempt a synthesis of science and theology (I am
not Catholic, but I cannot help but approve of the Catholic Church's
work on science and their acceptance of scientific theories even if
they clearly refute the literal surface meaning of the Bible).
> Part of the motivation for that, in my view anyway, is that in the
> face of pagan criticism of Christianity, Augustine wanted to avoid
> the tale of Genesis being seen as merely another cosmogenic myth.
Could you expand a bit on that? How does a figurative reading set it
apart from contemporary competing cosmogonic myths?
> So he wants to avoid a mere literal, surface reading by imbuing
> the "symbolic" into the language of the text. Its something of a
> high wire act intellectually.
Weren't the gnostics into intellectual high wire acts generally, or
is that too much of a misrepresentation of simplified
popularizations? What I am aiming at is whether Augustine could have
been trying to counter some gnostic Christians by stealing one of
their tricks.
> How well he does is a different story.
I get the impression of a story that is longer and more complex than
you wish to embark upon here, so despite my curiosity I'll leave it
at that ;-)
(Will reply regarding Nagy and myth separately)
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
- Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.
Paul S. Person
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:h2704o$be$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>> So he wants to avoid a mere literal, surface reading by imbuing
>> the "symbolic" into the language of the text. Its something of a
>> high wire act intellectually.
>
>Weren't the gnostics into intellectual high wire acts generally, or
>is that too much of a misrepresentation of simplified
>popularizations? What I am aiming at is whether Augustine could have
>been trying to counter some gnostic Christians by stealing one of
>their tricks.
When I was in seminary (I eventually dropped out of the program), I
was told an interesting story:
At one time, one of the explanations of why the Gospel of John is so
different from the other three was that it was "Gnostic". It should be
kept in mind that this possibility was held /before/ much was known
about the Gnostics, whose works were destroyed by the Christians.
Then a Gnostic Gospel, Thomas, was discovered and it became clear that
a Gnostic Gospel had no narrative structure at all. It consisted
entirely of isolated sayings, some of which had a small bit of
narrative attached, but no overall narrative structure. So, a
different explanation for John was needed.
I re-read /The Nag Hammadi Library In English/ a few years back. It
had almost nothing to do with interpreting the Bible. Oh, yes, there
are hints and references, but the Bible as a source document was
unnecessary. The structures used, in the more mythological writings,
resembled those in Plotinus (that is, neo-Platonism) rather than
anything in the Bible -- but a jazzed-up version of Plotinus. Where
Plotinus would speak of emanations, the Gnostics would give lists of
the names and ranks of the emanations. Where Christians would speak of
Jesus the Son of God, who saves by dying (the Resurrection being the
proof that it worked), Gnostics would speak of Jesus, the 10th Archon
of the First Level (or whatever), who saves by teaching. Of course,
the sources are so few that it is very hard even to identify which
writing belongs to which of the different types of Gnosticism known to
have existed. And then there is the selection from Plato's Republic.
And the document which appears to be a Jewish form of Gnosticism,
unlikely as that might appear.
This is not to say that Augustine didn't write against the Gnostics;
Plotinus certainly did. So did earlier Fathers, in particular Irenaeus
(although that "in particular" may just be a function of whose
writings have survived and whose have not).