Arwen / Aniron

stephen.DeleteThis@nomail.com wrote:

> The claim however was that changing any aspect of a character
> in Tolkien would require changing other characters to maintain
> "the weave".

I don't think that Christopher wanted to make such a broad claim.

> I say that the history of the writing of LotR demonstrates that this
> was not so.

Don't forget that the changes (or at least many of them) during the
history of writing *improve* the story, and create more layers of
"meaning". Undoing them would definitely change the story for
worse.

So I don't think the observation "Tolkien improved his story by
changing things" leads to the conclusion "you can now change anything
easily in the final version of the story without destroying anything".

> It is quite fascinating how Tolkien 'discovered' his story,
> but it was also quite haphazard.

Chance, as we call it in Middleearth

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach RemoveThis @gmx.de> wrote:
> stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:
>
>> The claim however was that changing any aspect of a character
>> in Tolkien would require changing other characters to maintain
>> "the weave".
>
> I don't think that Christopher wanted to make such a broad claim.

I did make that original claim, and probably did mean it to be quite
broad. But I do now see Stephen's point that Tolkien did make changes
without altering the whole weave of the story. However, I would say that
he was uniquely qualified to do this.

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach DeleteThis @gmx.de> wrote:
> Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard DeleteThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

[how much the story can be and was changed during writing]

>> Hmm. I am sure something deep and meaningful is being touched upon
>> here, revealing something about JRRT's writing style and its
>> flexibility or otherwise, but I can't quite put my finger on it just
>> now. I definitely want to think about this some more...
>
> Christopher Tolkien comments on this somewhere in HoME. He
> observes that Tolkien seemed to "discover" the events that "should
> have" taken place, by rewriting and rewriting again, until parts of
> the old story that had no meaning in the old context suddenly take
> a very strong meaning in the new context.

Thanks for this. JRRT himself also said this. He felt that he was
discovering stories and histories, rather than inventing them. He also
observed (looking back at the writing of LotR some 10 years later) that
he was very impressed with what "that fellow" had written, even
commenting specifically on the quality of the prose. It seemed that he
really was at a creative pinnacle at that point, and the older Tolkien
stood in awe of what his younger self had done.

I also wonder if this "flexibility" in writing style is similar to the
way that myths are constructed. Universal human archetypes that can fit
into any tale with just a bit of rewriting? Tolkien may have got a feel
for 'writing in this way' from his studies?

<snip>

> I wouldn't call the result "tightly-woven", however. It's the result
> of an approximation, until everything finally "falls into place"
> (which doesn't mean that more approximation cannot improve it, and
> hence Tolkien never stopped tinkering I don't know if there is any
> word that describes such a result.

Niggling?

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> creatively typed:
> Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach.DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [how much the story can be and was changed during writing]
>
> > > Hmm. I am sure something deep and meaningful is being
> > > touched upon here, revealing something about JRRT's writing
> > > style and its flexibility or otherwise, but I can't quite
<snip>
> > Christopher Tolkien comments on this somewhere in HoME. He
> > observes that Tolkien seemed to "discover" the events that
> > "should have" taken place, by rewriting and rewriting again,
<snip>
> Thanks for this. JRRT himself also said this. He felt that he was
> discovering stories and histories, rather than inventing them.
<snip>
> I also wonder if this "flexibility" in writing style is similar
> to the way that myths are constructed. Universal human
> archetypes that can fit into any tale with just a bit of
> rewriting? Tolkien may have got a feel for 'writing in this way'
> from his studies?

I think that's it. That's the magic, in a nutshell.

Ciaran S.
--
If I can't dance, it's not my revolution.
- e.goldman
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

Christopher Kreuzer <spamgard.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
: Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach.TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote:
:> stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:
:>
:>> The claim however was that changing any aspect of a character
:>> in Tolkien would require changing other characters to maintain
:>> "the weave".
:>
:> I don't think that Christopher wanted to make such a broad claim.

: I did make that original claim, and probably did mean it to be quite
: broad. But I do now see Stephen's point that Tolkien did make changes
: without altering the whole weave of the story. However, I would say that
: he was uniquely qualified to do this.

Well, it was his story. There was no 'correct' version of the
story other than what he wrote. The question is, in what
other directions could the story have gone, and would it still
have been as good? I think this is an impossible question to
answer because we just do not know.

The Epilogue is a good example. Do you honestly think that
you would have liked LotR less if it had been published with
the Epilogue? Or would you have liked it better? Or what
if Aragorn had married Eowyn and Arwen did not exist at all?
If that was the only story you had read, would you think
something was wrong with it, that it was missing something?
And if you honestly think you would have thought it was missing
something if Arwen was not there, what do you think it is missing
now?

Stephen
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com <stephen RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote:

[about changing LotR]

> Well, it was his story. There was no 'correct' version of the
> story other than what he wrote. The question is, in what
> other directions could the story have gone, and would it still
> have been as good? I think this is an impossible question to
> answer because we just do not know.

Agreed.

> The Epilogue is a good example. Do you honestly think that
> you would have liked LotR less if it had been published with
> the Epilogue?

Do you mean the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen? I thought LotR WAS published
with that Epilogue?!

> Or would you have liked it better? Or what
> if Aragorn had married Eowyn and Arwen did not exist at all?

It might be more interesting to ask why Tolkien made that change.
Various reasons I would put forward are: Three unions of the Eldar and
the Edain; an echo of the Luthien/Beren story; realising that Faramir
and Eowyn being together in the Houses of Healing was a good story
opportunity.

> If that was the only story you had read, would you think
> something was wrong with it, that it was missing something?

Can't really say.

> And if you honestly think you would have thought it was missing
> something if Arwen was not there, what do you think it is missing
> now?

"The names of all the stars, and of all living things, and the whole
history of Middle-earth and Over-heaven and of the Sundering Seas."

Of course! What less?

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

stephen.RemoveThis@nomail.com wrote:
> The Epilogue is a good example. Do you honestly think that you
> would have liked LotR less if it had been published with the
> Epilogue?

Yes. It's a good thing Tolkien took it out again. The ending in the
book is definitely better.

> Or what if Aragorn had married Eowyn and Arwen did not exist at all?

Then the "tale of Aragorn and Arwen", even if it is only in the
appendix, would not exist, which would make the book poorer. After
all, one important topic in Tolkien is mortality, and this is an
intersting variation on it. And as Tolkien says:

That is why I regard the tale of Arwen and Aragorn
as the most important of the Appendices; it is pan of the essential
story, and is only placed so, because it could not be worked into
the main narrative without destroying its structure[...]

> If that was the only story you had read, would you think
> something was wrong with it, that it was missing something?

Of course we cannot compare with something we don't know.
But we *do* know both versions, so we *can* compare that quality --
and it has improved with the changes.

And the epilogue is definitely not very good as an ending. Yes,
there is something wrong with it, even if I couldn't compare it to
the version that was actually printed.

I am sorry, but arguing with "might-have-beens" still doesn't show
that you can change any story (after all, your argument is not
restricted to Tolkien -- you could ask the same about any story) as
you like with no effects at all.

- Dirk
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach.TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote:
> stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:
>> The Epilogue is a good example. Do you honestly think that you
>> would have liked LotR less if it had been published with the
>> Epilogue?
>
> Yes. It's a good thing Tolkien took it out again. The ending in the
> book is definitely better.

Hmm. So this Epilogue _is_ something I haven't read?
Where can I find it?
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

Alison <news.poster.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:55:22 GMT, "Christopher Kreuzer"
> <spamgard.DeleteThis@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach.DeleteThis@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> stephen.DeleteThis@nomail.com wrote:
>>>> The Epilogue is a good example. Do you honestly think that you
>>>> would have liked LotR less if it had been published with the
>>>> Epilogue?
>>>
>>> Yes. It's a good thing Tolkien took it out again. The ending in the
>>> book is definitely better.
>>
>> Hmm. So this Epilogue _is_ something I haven't read?
>> Where can I find it?
>
> HoME, Sauron Defeated, I believe.

Thanks. <reads>

Hmm. That was... interesting!

I can see why it was "universally condemned" by Tolkien's test readers.
But I can also understand why he wanted to end with that alternative
last line that repeats the bit about the Sea. Regardless, that line is
still memorable, even if it is not the last line of the book.

The only other bit I liked was the bit where Sam talks about his
reaction to Frodo's departure (2nd version of the Epilogue, I think).

Christopher

--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron 

Dirk Thierbach <dthierbach.TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote:
: stephen.TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:
:> The Epilogue is a good example. Do you honestly think that you
:> would have liked LotR less if it had been published with the
:> Epilogue?

: Yes. It's a good thing Tolkien took it out again. The ending in the
: book is definitely better.

:> Or what if Aragorn had married Eowyn and Arwen did not exist at all?

: Then the "tale of Aragorn and Arwen", even if it is only in the
: appendix, would not exist, which would make the book poorer. After
: all, one important topic in Tolkien is mortality, and this is an
: intersting variation on it. And as Tolkien says:

Maybe it would have been replaced by the "Tale of Aragorn and Eowyn".
Obviously changing a story changes a story. But the discussion was
not about that.

<snip>

:> If that was the only story you had read, would you think
:> something was wrong with it, that it was missing something?

: Of course we cannot compare with something we don't know.
: But we *do* know both versions, so we *can* compare that quality --
: and it has improved with the changes.

: And the epilogue is definitely not very good as an ending. Yes,
: there is something wrong with it, even if I couldn't compare it to
: the version that was actually printed.

: I am sorry, but arguing with "might-have-beens" still doesn't show
: that you can change any story (after all, your argument is not
: restricted to Tolkien -- you could ask the same about any story) as
: you like with no effects at all.

: - Dirk

I think you misunderstand my argument. Obviously you can change
any story, given the flexible nature of stories. My argument
is that characters could be changed in Tolkien without changing
other characters and situations. A change in Aragorn does not
require a change in Faramir. A change in Frodo does not require
a change in Sam. The drafts are evidence of this. Sam is
pretty constant throughout. Frodo originally was going to take
the lead in the Scouring of the Shire, but instead ended up
as sort of a peace negoatiator.

What in your mind can be improved about the current story? Given
that you claim you would have known the Epilogue was a bad ending
even with nothing to compare it to, there must be things in the
current story you know are bad even with nothing else to compare
it to.

Stephen
 >> Stay informed about: Arwen / Aniron