Review of the Scholarship in Honor of Richard Blackwelder
Troels Forchhammer
-- 2004: _Scholarship in the Honor of Richard Blackwelder' but before
moving on, back, to Rateliff's _History of the Hobbit_ (it was
Rateliff's reference here to his contribution to the Blackwelder
conference that first made me seek out that book), I wanted to post a
more thorough review -- if nothing else, then for my own sake in
order to go over the papers again and achieve some kind of overview
of them.
The book contains the twenty papers presented at a conference held at
the Marquette University, which is of course a well-known name among
Tolkien enthusiasts. The is published in the honour of Richard
Blackwelder, and with support from the endowment he set up for the
Tolkien Collection at the Marquette. The list of authors very much
reads as a 'who's who' of Tolkien scholarship and for that fact alone
it is certainly worth reading.
The first paper is by Charles B. Elston, the former Head of of the
Department of Special Collections and University Archives at the
Marquette. In the paper he recollects his co-operation and friendship
with Mr Blackwelder -- there is little to say or add to this paper,
except to express regret at never having had occasion to meet such a
pleasant person.
Arne Zettersten's paper is titled 'The AB Language Lives', and I must
admit that though a countryman, I was unable to read much of that
paper (it is one of three that I have nt read all the way through).
The topic is Tolkien's studies of old English dialects -- a topic
which I confess requires my full attention in order to grasp what
little I can, and I have not been able to find the amount of
undisturbed time it'd require to appreciate this paper.
Tom Shippey spoke, and has written, on 'History in Words: Tolkien's
Ruling Passion.' And not just Tolkien's 'ruling passion,' I suspect
;-) I hold Shippey's work on Tolkien in very high regard, and his
emphasis on the import of philology on Tolkien's work has been very
enlightening. This paper could easily be dismissed as 'more of the
same,' and indeed this paper does not present much in the way of new
ideas on Tolkien's work. Instead it reads more like a declaration of
love for the history of words as studied in the fields of etymology
and philology: a love Tolkien doubtlessly shared. The value of this
paper lies, in my opinion, precisely in this declaration of love --
by sharing his own love for words, Shippey manages to give a glimpse
of the emotions that may have been the route by which philology and
etymology inspired Tolkien; a glimpse that is accessible to people
who have not discovered the love for words or those who, like myself,
love words, but do not have the scholarly understanding of them that
enlightens Tolkien and Mr Shippey. Finally this paper has also
succeeded in making me put Blackwelder's _Tolkien Thesaurus_ on my
wish-list ;-)
In John Garth's paper we are back at the Great War -- with Tolkien in
the trenches at the Somme. The paper,
'Frodo and the Great War' explores possible inspirations on Frodo
from Tolkien's experiences during the First World War. In _Letters_
no. 109 Tolkien wrote to Unwin that
You can make the Ring into an allegory of our own time, if
you like: an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for
all attempts to defeat evil power by power. But that is
only because all power magical or mechanical does always so
work. You cannot write a story about an apparently simple
magic ring without that bursting in, if you really take the
ring seriously, and make things happen that would happen,
if such a thing existed.
(_The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien_ #109 p. 121)
I cannot help but speculate if this might not apply also in some of
the examples that Garth point out. I'm sure that he is right in a
number of cases, and I think it is justified in a scholarly paper to
take the basic idea of the paper a bit further than can, stricly
speaking, be formally supported (I also feel that Shippey, in _The
Road to Middle-earth', puts a bit too strong an emphasis on philology
as a motivation and source of inspiration for Tolkien), but I
nevertheless gets the feeling that Garth is stretching it a bit
further than that. Among other things, Garth makes a good case,
however, in suggesting a link between the main power of the
Ringwraiths, despair, and Tolkien's own experiences at the Somme
battlefield.
Paul Edmund Thomas tells a selective summary of the genesis of _The
Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ (mainly the early parts of the
composition of the latter). He focuses on the connection of these
books to the Elvish legendarium from the Silmarillion. The retelling
is OK, and he has a number of interesting points (e.g. the role of
the audience for Tolkien's early work -- in particular the role of
his children as audience for his children's stories including _The
Hobbit_), but here, more than in Shippey's paper, I lack a central
point -- I am not sure what it is Thomas is trying to convey to me
and that makes the paper feel oddly unfinished.
John Rateliff does not have that particular problem in his paper,
'"And all the Days of Her Life are Forgotten:" _The Lord of the
Rings_ as Mythic Prehistory,' as he starts by stating that it is his
aim: 'to argue that Tolkien's conception of his mythos as a legendary
reconstruction of the lost past of our world gave depth and resonance
to his tales, as well as great poignance.' And I'd say that he makes
good on this promise. The argument is far-reaching, but always
interesting, and, possibly because I am still not very well read in
Tolkien scholarship, he manages to convince me that the effect and
importance of Tolkien's choice of setting is important for his work,
but sadly overlooked in scholarly research on Tolkien.
Christina Scull deals with the history of the composition of _The
Lord of the Rings_ -- in particular with planning, false starts etc.
The paper, 'What Did He Know and When Did He Know It? - Planning,
Inspiration, and _The Lord of the Rings_' describes how Tolkien in
some placs wrote with great speed, how he 'reached almost the final
wording at a stroke,' but in other places had to struggle for
inspiration, rewriting, restructuring, recasting over and over again.
Scull compares, as others have done, Tolkien to his own character of
Niggle, but while that point may not seem particularly original, her
contrasting of different levels of planning, inspiration, and
reworking while writing _The Lord of the Rings_ adds something to my
understanding of the process of Tolkien's writing of this book.
David Bratman has aptly named his paper 'The Artistry of Omissions
and Revisions in _The Lord of the Rings_' and that is precisely what
he speaks of. He goes through a number of different kinds of errors,
omissions and revisisons -- both deliberate and accidental -- to the
text of _The Lord of the Rings_, and points out some of the more
interesting. In the end he states that he has 'hoped to show [...]
that _The Lord of the Rings_ was both a stable text and a mutable one
to its author: mutable as he developed it, and mutable still in small
detail, but remarkably stable in its general character and the vast
bulk of its words.' I have nothing with which to compare the amount
of deliberate post-publishing revisions to _The Lord of the Rings_,
so I cannot say whether it remained more or less stable than most
other books of that size, but I am not fully convinced that Bratman
is right -- the fact that Tolkien never found occasion to make any
major changes to _The Lord of the Rings_ is not evidence that he
would have refrained from making such changes e.g. if a forthcoming
publication of _The Silmarillion_ (within his lifetime) had made them
necessary, just as LotR necessitated changes to _The Hobbit_
(regardless of whether Tolkien was surprised that they had been
accepted and typeset without further comment or communication).
Marjorie Burns is the first of two to look into the aspect of social
classes in _The Lord of the Rings_ in her 'King and Hobbit: The
Exalted and Lowly in Tolkien's Created Worlds.' Burns takes her
outset in an accept of Tolkien's preference for inherited hierarchies
-- for an ancient and inherited right to rule. Tolkien was not a
democrat, he writes himself, and Burns does not try to make him into
one. On the other hand she points out that Tolkien did accept the
necessity of change, including social mobility and the ennoblement of
the lowly, and that this is incorporated into the story even if it
mainly seems to show upper-class characters going about upper-class
business, and show inherited rulers as the rightful rulers -- and the
more ancient their line the nobler. I think Burns makes a good case
-- and she deserves credit for not trying to push some political
agenda onto Tolkien.
In contrast to Ms Burns, the second paper dealing with social classes
in Tolkien's works, does not make as good a case. Jane Chance's paper
is titled 'Subversive Fantasist: Tolkien on Class Difference,' but in
the end I cannot escape the feeling that it is more Chance than
Tolkien on class difference. Why, for instance, should we 'expect
some form of subversion in _The Lord of the Rings_ just because John
Clute and David Langford have noted that fantasy 'is a subversive
mode?' Would it not be more appropriate to justify such a claim by
other than a reference to _The Encyclopedia of Fantasy_? On the other
hand Chance does have valid points -- she points out, for instance,
that class _prejudices_ in _The Lord of the Rings_ should be seen as
one with the general theme (represented in particular by the Shire
commoners) of myopic xenophobia -- a distrust of that which we do not
understand -- as a bad thing. I also believe that she is right that
Tolkien uses dialect to create class characterization for his
characters (again the hobbits in particular), but I'm not convinced
when she, after a description of Sam's reactions to being caught
eavesdropping by Gandalf, states that '[o]ther rustic Hobbits speak
equally ignorantly or childishly.' I am probably prejudiced also by
instances where I find her descriptions of matters and relations in
Middle-earth to be 'not quite right' -- rarely outright wrong, but
not really correct either, but when Chance in the end claims that she
has 'argued in this paper that Tolkien sets up a grid of interlocking
class and regional (place of origin) differences in the first book of
_The Lord of the Rings_ to show how sterotyping originates and why,'
I cannot quite escape the feeling that she has shown how it can be
argued rather than arguing that this is what Tolkien did. Again this
is not entirely wrong, but Chance suggest a level of deliberation by
Tolkien that I find inappropriate -- the above quotation could
probably be applied here again -- 'but that is only because all
differences class or regional do always so work.' But even then I
think she takes her premise too far, and her failure to acknowledge
that Tolkien did prefer the class-divided society feels particularly
odd immediately after Marjorie Burns' excellent description of his
political preferences in this regard.
The next paper jumps into a lively investigation of 'Naysayers in the
Works of Tolkien' by Sumner G. Hunnewell. This paper is one of the
true gems of this collection -- serious, yet told in a lively
language and with a twinkle in the eye. The subject are the naysayers
in Tolkien's books, who are, Hunnewell points out in the opening
paragraph, 'more than just the glass-half-empty crowd, but those
characters that we want to move next door; that is, next door to
people we do not particularly like.' The list includes Gl�in in _The
Hobbit_ ('. . . the little fellow bobbing and puffing on the mat . .
.'), Bard, the Blacksmith of Ham ('who would give Bard a run for his
money.'), the millers of both Ham and Hobbiton, Nokes, Parish,
'Tolkien's most important naysayer,' Boromir. and others beside. In
the final paragraph Hunnewell asks the question, 'would many of the
tales be the same without [the naysayers]?' and he answers it himself
with 'a qualified Yes,' saying that 'we would have a poorer tale.' In
the final sentence he sums up his position, namely that 'In many
cases Tolkien introduces depth to the story, humour, and the
strengthening of main and ancillary characters by placing many
unforgettable people in our path.' Well done and well told!
The second paper that I did not finish is Michael D.C. Drout's paper
on 'The Rhetorical Evolution of "_Beowulf_: The Monsters and the
Critics."' Starting out on this paper, I quickly realized that it
would require that I read Tolkien's essay thoroughly as I have only
ever got around to skimming it. Such statements as 'The Babel of
Voices makes its appearance, but the Fairy Godmothers are missing.'
do not make sense if one does not know what role the Babel of Voices
and the Fairy Godmothers have in Tolkien's essay. It took me sume
time to decide, but finally it was my desire to get back to _The
History of the Hobbit_ that won out, and I decided that the Beowulf
matter would have to wait.
Matthew A. Fisher's paper, 'Working at the Crossroads: Tolkien, St.
Augustine, and the _Beowulf_-poet' comes next. Fisher starts out by
critizising some Tolkien commentators whom he believes have gone too
far in attributing deliberate Catholicism Tolkien's writing, arguing
that they confuse the applicability to themselves with authorial
intent. Fisher then goes on to discuss how better to see the link to
Tolkien's Catholic faith and suggests that it is rather that, quoting
Tolkien in a letter, 'in such a process [writing] inevitably one's
own taste, ideas, and beliefs get taken up.' Faced with the enormity
of Catholic tradition from which to search for such 'taste, ideas,
and beliefs' Fisher suggests that 'we may benefit from using as a
starting point that giant of the early Church, Augustine of Hippo.
After discussing similarities between Tolkien and St. Augustine,
Fisher suggests 'that it may be helpful to describe Tolkien as an
"Augustinian Catholic,"' hurrying to add that he doesn't 'mean to
suggest that Tolkien _consciously_ intended to base his fictional
works on the teachings of St. Augustine. Rather, there is evidence
for a clear affinity between Tolkien's thought and the theological
tradition that originated with the Bishop of Hippo.' Fisher nexts
discusses, in a similar vein, the affinity between Tolkien and the
_Beowulf_ poet, ending this section by concluding that 'there is an
intersection here of two similar views of human conduct' (between St.
Augustine and the _Beowulf_ poet) that has given rise to the title of
his paper. Finally Fisher asks the rhetorical question: 'What does
Tolkien bring to this work at the crossroads?' looking for an answer
both in the role of mercy, pity and temptation in _The Lord of the
Rings_ and in the 'ennoblement of the ignoble'. I found Fishers
contribution both interesting, thought-provoking and highly
commendable.
Carl F. Hostetter gives an interesting perspective on Tolkien's
created (in particular the Elvish) languages in his paper, 'Elvish as
She Is Spoke.' Many people here will be aware of the differences that
can be found within the scholars and students of Tolkien's Elvish
languages -- one that has, as I see it, some clear parallels to the
'canon' discussions here. Carl Hostetter's contribution to the
conference and the book presents his position in this debate -- that
Tolkien's Elvish languages are not in a state where they can actually
be used for writing new texts (except, perhaps, in a _very_ limited
way), and that attempts to create a unified, homogenized version
based on Tolkien texts spanning a large period should be avoided
(that is my interpretation -- Carl Hostetter limits himself to point
out a number of the problems). Personally I found it very good to get
a chance to read Carl's position in a context where it could be
presented without any hint of the defensiveness or the hostility one
can often see when one is arguing with one's opponents. Personally I
would hope that it is possible to do both -- Carl is obviously right
when it comes to looking at Tolkien's intention, but there is merit
also in the urge to try to 'fill out the gaps' -- to combine elements
(even fragmentary and atomic elements) that, while they do not really
belong together, do nOt contradict each other either but can be used
to supplement each other. But I'd agree also that one should always
be aware that while the result might be useful for one's own purposes
and be fun to play with, it has little to do with what Tolkien
intended (and does probably in places contradict Tolkien's
intention).
'Teaching Tolkien' is the title and subject of Mike Foster's paper.
An interesting tale of how the teaching of courses with Tolkien-
content has developed at the Illinois Central College, and how the
current course is set up and taught -- how much time is spent at
which texts, what papers are required etc. I could not help
speculating if anything like that course would be available for an
on-line student from Denmark . . . ;-)
The third and last paper that I did nOt manage to finish was Arden R.
Smith's contribution, 'Tolkienian Gothic,' which explores from
various angles Tolkien's relation with the Gothic language. Reaching
from Tolkien's own studies (and inscriptions in books), to Gothic or
Gothic-inspired names in Tolkien's stories (mainly in Middle-earth),
I only lost the thread, when the paper became more technicality
philological / linguistic -- I have learned a _lot_ about language
from being a Tolkien enthusiast, but there is still a long way to go
before I can follow the technicalities in a paper like this.
Verlyn Flieger is one of my favourite Tolkien scholars, and her
paper, 'Tolkien and the Idea of the Book' did not disappoint. The
central topic is the idea of a physical book as the medium of
transferring the legendarium from the ancient, imaginary, time to the
present day; a book from which Tolkien ostensibly translated the
stories. Flieger easily convinces me that this concept was important
to Tolkien, but she doesn't stop there. Instead she moves on to touch
on the 1934 discovery of a manuscript of Malory's _Morte d'Arthur_
and how this may have influenced Tolkien. Interesting, well
presented, convincing . . . what more can I say? :-)
'The Mainstreaming of Fantasy and the Legacy of _The Lord of the
Rings_' is the title of Douglas A. Anderson's paper. The paper itself
is relatively short (9 pages), but with extensive notes some of which
run quite long (the longest is a full page), and it deals in part
with the reception of _The Lord of the Rings_ in the Science Fiction
community particularly, and in part with its legacy -- it's effect on
later fantasy. Anderson's historical overview is interesting and
enlightening and I can't find anything to disagree violently with in
his opinion on much contemporary 'genre fantasy:' that '"Genre
Fantasy," as it has come to be called, has become so omnipresent and
so formulaic that teenagers can write it, and worse, be very
successful at it.' (At this point Anderson gives Christopher
Paolini's _Eragon_ as an example), but also that 'there are more than
enough original, boundary-pushing, and well-written fantasy novels
out there.'
Richard C. West is the only one to present a paper with a longer
title than Rateliff's. His paper is called'"Her Choice Was Made and
Her Doom Appointed": Tragedy and Divine Comedy in the Tale of Aragorn
and Arwen,' and it deals, not surprisingly, with the love-story
between Aragorn and Arwen, it's development in the chronology of
reading _The Lord of the Rings_, in the internal chronology of the
tale itself and in the primary chronology of Tolkien's composition of
_The Lord of the Rings_. With a good eye to correlating facts from
all chronologies West contributes a well-told story that cannot help
but convince the reader of the importance of the tale of the love of
the last of the unions of the Edain and the Eldar to the final effect
of the story into which it was, nevertheless, inserted at a rather
late stage.
Wayne G. Hammond as the honour of finishing the series of
contributions with his paper on 'Special Collections in the Service
of Tolkien Studies.' This is a tribute to the special collections
that service literary studies in general and Tolkien studies in
paricular as well as a listing of a large number of collections of
various kinds and origins that may be helpful to a Tolkien scholar --
from the obvious (such as the collections at the Marquette and the
Bodleian) to others, both institutional and private, ranging from the
less obvious to the obscure. This tour left me breathless and aching
for a reasonable excuse for a fan-student who cannot lay claim even
to the title of 'independent scholar' to seek out some of these
collections. Please give me a hint if you come up with a good idea
;-)
This review has, I'm afraid, become overly long, but even if no-one
else has the patience to read it all, it has helped myself to fix the
book in my mind and to sort out the different contributions from each
other. And now for _The History of the Hobbit_ -- Mr Baggins is
waiting . . .
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the
world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Steve Morrison
(snip all)
I may get this; I'm especially intrigued by your description of the
"naysayers" paper.
Let me point out that Kate Nepveu's /LotR/ re-read at Tor.com has
just included a post looking at Garth's piece in this volume:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/y975fed
(Thanks to Taemon for posting a link to the re-read some months ago!)
Weland
very much, Troels. Thanks for doing this. I have some additional
comments that I'd like to add, and might even get to some day.
Steve Morrison
> Wayne G. Hammond as the honour of finishing the series of
> contributions with his paper on 'Special Collections in the Service
> of Tolkien Studies.' This is a tribute to the special collections
> that service literary studies in general and Tolkien studies in
> paricular as well as a listing of a large number of collections of
> various kinds and origins that may be helpful to a Tolkien scholar --
> from the obvious (such as the collections at the Marquette and the
> Bodleian) to others, both institutional and private, ranging from the
> less obvious to the obscure. This tour left me breathless and aching
> for a reasonable excuse for a fan-student who cannot lay claim even
> to the title of 'independent scholar' to seek out some of these
> collections. Please give me a hint if you come up with a good idea
> ;-)
Some of Tolkien's manuscripts at Marquette are going to be available
to the general public through November 19, according to this:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yzncgtl
Specifically, the papers in question are early notes for /The
Fellowship of the Ring/. (Hat tip to MM for posting this link on
one of his forums.)