The question of allegory: what Tolkien thinks about it, what it means, and how it is portrayed in literature is something we have been continually pondering throughout class. As we talked about allegory, we mentioned several aspects of what allegory means (and means to Tolkien). We talked about allegory as being the connection between elements of a story not being exactly one to one (Sam), but instead that elements are linked to some more universal idea or capital T Truth and the shared connection makes the elements themselves seem linked when they are only directly tied with the more universal idea. Andrew mentioned how Tolkien stated in his letter to Auden that: “In a larger sense, it is I suppose impossible to write any ‘story’ that is not allegorical in proportion as it ‘comes to life’; since each of us is an allegory, embodying in a particular tale and clothed in the garments of time and place, universal truth and everlasting life” (Letter 163). This quote I think really shows Tolkien’s thoughts about allegory, as he does not like the idea of conscious allegory, that is, allegory that is intentional. He however does believe in a broader sense of allegory as it pertains to “universal truth” and human experience.
This brings up an interesting question of originality and where ideas (especially ones for storytelling) come from. Tolkien himself talks says in the same letter to Auden: “On a blank leaf I scrawled: ‘In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.’ I did not and do not know why.” (Letter 163). He notes that some (if not all) of his story almost wrote itself; that it flowed from him. But where did this come from? What sources did Tolkien draw upon consciously or unconsciously (most likely unconsciously) that brought about his story? Tolkien says that he knew some things in his story, some elements of his story would be present, but he did not know about the details or what would occur at some points in the story. “Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the corner at the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who he was than had Frodo. The Mines of Moria had been a mere name; and of Lothlórien no word had reached my mortal ears till I came there” (Letter 163) For example, Tolkien said that “I did know more or less all about Gollum and his part, and Sam, and I knew that the way was guarded by a Spider” (Letter 163). He mentions that the possible explanation for Shelob is childhood experience (though he says it is unlikely): “And if that has anything to do with my being stung by a tarantula when a small child, people are welcome to the notion (supposing the improbable, that any one is interested)” (Letter 163). This is a possible explanation for the unconscious source of an element of the story.
This brings up an interesting question of originality and where ideas (especially ones for storytelling) come from. Tolkien himself talks says in the same letter to Auden: “On a blank leaf I scrawled: ‘In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.’ I did not and do not know why.” (Letter 163). He notes that some (if not all) of his story almost wrote itself; that it flowed from him. But where did this come from? What sources did Tolkien draw upon consciously or unconsciously (most likely unconsciously) that brought about his story? Tolkien says that he knew some things in his story, some elements of his story would be present, but he did not know about the details or what would occur at some points in the story. “Tom Bombadil I knew already; but I had never been to Bree. Strider sitting in the corner at the inn was a shock, and I had no more idea who he was than had Frodo. The Mines of Moria had been a mere name; and of Lothlórien no word had reached my mortal ears till I came there” (Letter 163) For example, Tolkien said that “I did know more or less all about Gollum and his part, and Sam, and I knew that the way was guarded by a Spider” (Letter 163). He mentions that the possible explanation for Shelob is childhood experience (though he says it is unlikely): “And if that has anything to do with my being stung by a tarantula when a small child, people are welcome to the notion (supposing the improbable, that any one is interested)” (Letter 163). This is a possible explanation for the unconscious source of an element of the story.
(A similar question can be asked about where dreams come from and what they represent (aside from the dream itself being the source material for writing as in the case of the Great Wave and Faramir: “I mean the terrible recurrent dream (beginning with memory) of the Great Wave, towering up, and coming in ineluctably over the trees and green fields. (I bequeathed it to Faramir.)” (Letter 163)). This dream is something that one of his children also had which brings up the question of how that is possible and how that came to be the case.)
In the development of story no element seems to be more important to Tolkien than language. As he says: “I discovered in it not only modern historical philology, which appealed to the historical and scientific side, but for the first time the study of a language out of mere love: I mean for the acute aesthetic pleasure derived from a language for its own sake, not only free from being useful but free even from being the ‘vehicle of a literature’)” (Letter 163). Language itself might very well be the link between his unconscious ideas of the story and the conscious writing process. Tolkien would have made the story more lanugae heavy if he had “considered [his] own pleasure pleasure more than the stomachs of a possible audience, there would have been a great deal more Elvish in the book. But even the snatches that there are required, if they were to have a meaning, two organized phonologies and grammars and a large number of words.” He himself states that language, or “the sensibility to linguistic pattern which affects me emotionally like colour or music; and the passionate love of growing things; and the deep response to legends (for lack of a better word) that have what I would call the North-western temper and temperature” (Letter 163). This ties in with the idea Omar talked about when he linked the ideas of language being core to mythology and myth only being impactful because of its language. I also believe this connection between language and myth is core to Tolkien’s philosophy of writing, as he seems to write with language always in mind and base the mythos of the story around language. This is exemplified in his quote about Finnish language and myth in the Kalevala in the letter to Auden “I mentioned Finnish, because that set the rocket off in story. I was immensely attracted by something in the air of the Kalevala, even in Kirby’s poor translation” (Letter 163).
-Jared
3 comments:
Tolkien definitely considers that the language is the foundation of his stories and world building. However, I am curious about what you would think of the foundation of his originality? Would you consider that an author has to invent a language in order to develop the truly original stories? If there exist certain ties between the language used by an author and his or her stories, does that suggest that authors who use existing languages are somewhat constrained by the languages where serve as the foundation of their stories? If this is true, a new foundation would be necessary for creating a truly original story.
You also mention that Tolkien personally feels emotionally influenced by languages which function like colors and sound. This leads to another interesting discussion about whether people’s emotional reactions to languages are purely cultural or a priori. While I personally believe that different languages can cause people to acquire certain feelings, because languages are always tightly associated with a particular culture. However, do you think Tolkien would agree with this, or do you think that he would instead argue that a people’s language would in turn shape their civilization and mores?
-R C
I would build on RC's questions to add, what is the relationship between the "taste" of a language that Tolkien talked about and stories, which typically are expected to have a plot? One might say that Smith of Wootton Major is a good example of trying to describe a flavor without plot, but even Smith gets caught up in the story (plot) for a moment when he stumbles onto the lake. How can languages generate stories if they are primarily (as Tolkien seems to suggest) about tastes? RLFB
I like the link here between allegory and originality. Many if not most ideas or images have a kind of meaning irrespective of what we try to give them, and Tolkien’s own process of discovery as the story continues is fascinating in that way. You are right to suggest that it is similar with dreams, and also language.
To build off previous comments, do dreams or words or images somehow contain stories within them? Or potential stories? Would Tolkien and his son interpret or respond to the Great Wave the same way? -LB
Post a Comment