Was it really wrong to go 'there'?

[Arvedui]

I started re-reading The Book of Lost Tales, and something in the foreword there got me thinking.

In one of his Letters, Prof J.R.R. Tolkien stated:

I am doubtful myself about the undertaking [to write the Silmarillion]. Part of the attraction of the L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background: an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist. To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed.

Letters #247

This view got support from Professor Shippey, who wrote:

to tell [the stories that are only alluded to in the Lord of the Rings] in their own right and expect them to retain the charm they got from their larger setting would be a terrible error.

In hindsight, was it really wrong to go there (Fäerie)? Or where both Tolkien and Shippey wrong?

Was perhaps this thought one of the reasons why Tolkien never finished The Silmarillion while he lived?

Discuss, please.

 

[Astaldo]

I don't think that this is the reason why Prof. Tolkien did not finish Slimarillion. I consider him to be a perfectionist so I suppose that he wanted everything to be absolutely perfect without any fault. This is my opinion why he did not finish it.

As for going "there" I do not know what to think. Maybe it was wrong to go ther and destroy the magic

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Yeees, Arv...

Those words of Tolkien had impressed me greatly once I read them!

And they also , IMO, express the same idea found in another of his comments :

"Beowulf and the critics":

I would express the whole industry in yet another allegory. A man inherited a field in which was an accumulation of old stone, part of an older hall. Of the old stone some had already been used in building the house in which he actually lived, not far from the old house of his fathers. Of the rest he took some and built a tower. But his friends coming perceived at once (without troubling to climb the steps) that these stones had formerly belonged to a more ancient building. So they pushed the tower over, with no little labour, in order to look for hidden carvings and inscriptions, or to discover whence the man's distant forefathers had obtained their building material. Some suspecting a deposit of coal under the soil began to dig for it, and forgot even the stones. They all said: 'This tower is most interesting.' But they also said (after pushing it over): 'What a muddle it is in!' And even the man's own descendants, who might have been expected to consider what he had been about, were heard to murmur: 'He is such an odd fellow! Imagine his using these old stones just to build a nonsensical tower! Why did not he restore the old house? He had no sense of proportion.' But from the top of that tower the man had been able to look out upon the sea.

If those 'towers' are the peaks wherefrom the human mind can "fly" freely into the unknown and unlimited space of fantasy, I think one should probably go to them but should not try to 'push them down' but "climb" them and from there ... see!

 

[Arvedui]

Not having read Monsters & Critics before, I am impressed at that allegory. Exactly how I have envisioned critics all my life: vultures.

But that is beside the point, isn't it?
Having read both the Sil and LOTR, do you deem it wrong to have written the Silmarillion, so that we could go where Tolkien doubted we should be allowed?

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Not having read Monsters & Critics before, I am impressed at that allegory. Exactly how I have envisioned critics all my life: vultures.

'xactly!
That's why I personally try to keep light-years away from their opinions!

But that is beside the point, isn't it?
Having read both the Sil and LOTR, do you deem it wrong to have written the Silmarillion, so that we could go where Tolkien doubted we should be allowed?

But is it 'beside the point'?!
Writing the Silmarillion, IMO, was not 'pushing over the 'towers' that held the "attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist.".

IMO, Tolkien had just led the readers to those 'towers' , and did not let them "destroy the magic", but in fact he revealed to them "new unattainable vistas".

Speaking not-alegorically, I mean that the LotR, and even the Hobbit, are far better understood on the background of the Silmarillion!

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

I started re-reading The Book of Lost Tales, and something in the foreword there got me thinking.

In one of his Letters, Prof J.R.R. Tolkien stated:
Letters #247

This view got support from Professor Shippey, who wrote: "In hindsight, was it really wrong to go there (Fäerie)? Or where both Tolkien and Shippey wrong?
Was perhaps this thought one of the reasons why Tolkien never finished The Silmarillion while he lived?"

Discuss, please.

The theme of the quality of "distant foliage in the dusk" so to speak, was brought up by Tolkien in "Leaf by Niggle." The thrust of what he said was, that there is a very desirable quality of mountains in the distance, or trees in the twilight that vanishes as you approach them. That quality of mystery and ineffability depends on its very distance and unapproachability. In "Leaf by Niggle" (if memory serves), one could actually come close to the mountains and the foliage and still preserve that quality that could only come from being far away.

I understand what Tolkien means by keeping the mystery of a distant past by not going into detail about it. Perhaps that's why the Silmarillion remained just "patches for an unfinished quilt." He may, in his heart of hearts not wanted to have finished it, but simply to have it be the mountains in the twilight, the distant foliage in the dusk that informs "Lord of the Rings" and to a much lesser degree "The Hobbit."

Barley

 

[Arvedui]

What I was thinking, Lhun, was not what the critics thought, but what Tolkien himself wrote. It seems to me that he was a bit reluctant to publish The Silmarillion, and maybe he thought that he would bring the readers much closer than your 'towers' (great allegory, my friend). Maybe he was afraid that when we got too close, we would see that the stones of Kortirion among the Trees were indeed cracked.
I believe that he really meant it this way, that as long that there is a deeper story to hunger for, the reader will always lust for more, to find out what those stories really are. But when you have gotten to the bottom of things, then there are no more and you are left still hungry but with nothing to eat.
It is like modern-day entertainment: you must always leave the audience wanting more.
Just look around here at TTF: what we are discussing most are those topics that are not fully explained, right?

Just on a side-note: I think that Tolkien was wrong. In my opinion, the magic is still present in The Silmarillion, as well as it is in Unfinished Tales and History of Middle-earth.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

Now ... two are the issues here, IMO.

One - Was T. really 'reluctant' to publish the Silmarillion?

and

Two - Was the 'magic' lost? or Would've it been lost, by publishing the Silm? (from the p.o.v. of those times)

For 'One' - I'd provide a quote (often being provided in these boards and elswhere ):

Letter # 19:year 1937

My chief joy comes from learning that the Silmarillion is not rejected with scorn. I have suffered a sense of fear and bereavement, quite ridiculous, since I let this private and beloved nonsense out; and I think if it had seemed to you to be nonsense I should have felt really crushed. I do not mind about the verse-form, which in spite of certain virtuous passages has grave defects, for it is only for me the rough material. But I shall certainly now hope one day to be able, or to be able to afford, to publish the Silmarillion!

This, and many others of his statements - here and there, on various occasions, have left me with the strong belief that the Silmarillion WAS his 'life - work' and he wanted to see it 'out'.
Meaning that, IMO, he wanted to publish it, though somehow "feared" the response from the readers, because he wanted it to be well understood (both - content as well as intentions and ideas behind the stories). This story was too 'close to his heart'!

As for 'Two' - I would like to offer another of the 'popular' quotes, where he clearly states that the mythological stories in the Silm still provoke the reader's fantasy for 'reaching those distant "towers" ("my" allegory, 'borrowed' by Tolkien! ) ... but ... where was that exact quote? /I'm still sure you all know which one I mean ... /.

All in all, we seem to have the same opinion - T. seems to have wanted the Silm to be published. Such a pity he could not finish it according to HIS criteria!
As I mentioned elsewhere (where was it? ) - I wish he could've finished the Silmarillion in the form of the UT and have it published!

And ... the 'magic' has not been lost, not even in Chr.T. compilation, known as "the Published Silmarillion"! On the contrary! Reading this Silmarillion makes one feel really "hungry" for more!

 

[Valandil]

:
:
:
Just on a side-note: I think that Tolkien was wrong...[/I]

'wrong' to "go there"... or 'wrong' to think it was "wrong to go there"?

Ha - I suspect you mean the latter.

I wouldn't so much say that he was wrong about it though. I don't think the self-doubt was persistent... otherwise he would have stopped working on the project. I imagine it was only a part of his nature to second-guess himself now and then... perhaps a mark of the perfectionist that he appears to have been.

 

[Lhunithiliel]

'wrong' to "go there"... or 'wrong' to think it was "wrong to go there"?

Ha - I suspect you mean the latter.

I wouldn't so much say that he was wrong about it though. I don't think the self-doubt was persistent... otherwise he would have stopped working on the project. I imagine it was only a part of his nature to second-guess himself now and then... perhaps a mark of the perfectionist that he appears to have been.

I would say always he questioned the quality of his own work!

 

[Arvedui]

Yes, I think it was right to publish The Silmarillion. I for one, have not lost the sense of depth that Tolkien and Shippey was 'afraid' of.
But one of the reasons for starting this thread is that I have for a long time been intrigued by how Tolkien spent almost 60 years from start to not-finished. And I wondered if this might give some of the explanation.

It is probably true that the perfectionist in him made for most of that delay. We have gotten a good view of how much of a perfectionist he was, when reading Carpenter's Letters and Biography.

And the more I read of UT and HoME, the more I understand that The Silmarillion could have been so much more than what was published.
This of course brings on another question: why haven't The Tolkien Estate published a new updated Silmarillion?

 

[Valandil]

And the more I read of UT and HoME, the more I understand that The Silmarillion could have been so much more than what was published.

Yes - I used to think maybe 12 volumes... but now I'm suspecting more like 40.

This of course brings on another question: why haven't The Tolkien Estate published a new updated Silmarillion?

Perhaps it would seem awkward to publish an updated account when the first edition was published after the death of its author?