XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message   
      
   Dirk Thierbach  spoke these staves:   
   >   
   > Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Dirk Thierbach  spoke these   
   >> staves:   
   >>>   
   >>> It's like he had all these little "emblematic" motifs somewhere   
   >>> in the back of his head, and then repeatedly tried to attach   
   >>> them to different texts until everything fits (or sometimes   
   >>> not).   
   >>   
   >> I'm not entirely sure if you mean to suggest that Tolkien was   
   >> doing this consciously and deliberately, or if you think it was   
   >> more a subconscious process?   
   >   
   > To some degree certainly deliberately. CT says for example in the   
   > appendix to CoH that Tolkien moved "plot elements" around, trying   
   > to find out where they "fit" best. I think the same is true for   
   > these motifs.   
      
   I agree that it was a mix of both conscious and subconscious   
   processess. On the whole I think the initial borrowing was mainly   
   subconscious -- Tolkien would, to use his own picture, merely draw a   
   bowl from the cauldron and put in what he could use. The rearrangement   
   of the motifs would, however, mainly be a conscious effort -- putting   
   the puzzle together in a new way that fitted better, re-using the   
   motifs he had drawn somewhere else and for better effect. This would   
   almost certainly (IMO) be the case when he was writing the initial   
   drafts at great speed -- we know that he would also, at such times,   
   invent new names in the Elvish languages with his pen, so to speak, and   
   only retroactively fit them to the etymology of these languages (often   
   making adjustments to the names in the process), and I think his use of   
   borrowed motifs (both from his own previous work and from older   
   sources) is similar.   
      
   However, just as there would be times when he would carefully construct   
   his way ahead within his invented languages, creating new elements from   
   which new names could be constructed, I'd also agree that there would   
   be times when he was far more conscious about selecting e.g. old   
   folklore motifs that he wanted to use -- the use of Kullervo for Túrin   
   is an example of that, I believe, where the motif was chosen before the   
   character was in place.   
      
      
      
   >> I do, however, think that the main PoV of the normal reader is   
   >> mainly story-internal: it is the view-point you have while under   
   >> the influence of secondary belief.   
   >   
   > Yes, I see what you mean. Google says I already quoted LeGuin two   
   > years ago on that, but here it is again:   
      
      
      
   Thank you.   
      
   > The objection I have is that you call this the *main* POV. For me,   
   > personally, it doesn't work this way. I'm not only bonkers, I'm   
   > really schizophrenic:   
      
   :-)   
      
   My calling it the main viewpoint of a normal reader is because that is   
   the viewpoint that I most often encounter when readers discuss a piece   
   of -- in particular sub-creative -- literature. Most such discussions   
   seem to focus on how things 'really' are within the sub-created   
   universe and such discussion seem to attract the wider participation.   
   As the Harry Potter series was evolving, the second-most popular theme   
   was to try to second-guess the author -- to guess what would happen   
   next. But this, too, is, IMO, primarily a story-internal theme of   
   discussion, although it would often bring in story-external arguments.   
      
   The other analytical themes that you mention, looking for failings in   
   the writing and for layers of meaning and discussing applicability of   
   the story take up a much smaller part of the attention in discussions,   
   and so appear, to me at least (I may well have visited the wrong   
   forums), to be of less concern for what I have called the 'normal   
   reader' (which is, of course, not necessarily that -- she is rather the   
   representative reader of the forums I have visited).   
      
   > Part of me is immersed in the story,   
   [...]   
   > Part of me is playing the "I'm smarter than the author" game   
   [...]   
   > Part of me is busy analyzing the layers of meaning,   
   [...]   
      
   I'm quite impressed ;)  For my own part, I can't mix the secondary   
   belief reading mode with the analytical reading mode, so I usually have   
   to make a conscious effort to force myself into the analytical mode   
   when I need to do that (provided, of course, that the text invites to   
   secondary belief). When I first read a new text that does invite to   
   secondary belief, I usually find myself completely immersed in that   
   belief -- I am truly and fully 'bonkers'; only later, if I need to   
   analyse the text, can I read it again while consciously enforcing the   
   analytical reading mode.   
      
   When I first read Tolkien's 'On Fairy-Stories', I was astonished to at   
   how well he described my own reading experience with his discussion of   
   secondary belief. I have since spoken with others, whose experience is   
   different, so I am quite aware that this differs from person to person,   
   and that Tolkien's description isn't a universal truth ;-)   
      
   I cannot say what is the more common reading experience -- I am   
   certainly not sure that the interest I have encountered in the story-   
   internal viewpoint can be taken to indicate that this is also the   
   primary focus of the reading experience.   
      
   > I couldn't say which of those is more important, or more enjoyable.   
      
   Neither can I, for my own sake, say which viewpoint is the more   
   enjoyable or important (and I'd include the 'predict what will happen   
   next' as a fourth viewpoint) -- it just seems that the story-internal   
   viewpoint is the one that creates the most interest in the various   
   discussion forums that I have come across.   
      
   And I also agree that applying multiple perspectives increases the   
   overall pleasure in and enjoyment of a story -- while reading I just   
   can't do more than one viewpoint at a time :-)   
      
   >>> These are stories. There are there to be enjoyed as stories.   
   >>   
   >> That rather begs the question, doesn't it ;-)   
   >>   
   >> How _are_ stories to be enjoyed?   
   >   
   > By telling them, and listening to them :-) With full knowledge   
   > that they are not real, even though we may pretend that, for some   
   > time. Otherwise, sanity doesn't return. :-)   
      
   I have to say that I, for my own sake, cannot agree fully. While   
   immersed in the story, I fully accept it -- there is no knowledge that   
   it is not real, nor is the secondary belief mere pretense. Once I turn   
   my attention from the story (secondary, sub-created, reality) to the   
   primary reality, the enchantment is broken and sanity returns -- with a   
   good story I can switch back and forth simply by paying attention to   
   the words on the page before me, with poorer stories, it may take a few   
   lines of reading before I am again fully submerged in secondary belief.   
   With a good story, I also have to consciously subdue secondary belief   
   in order to remain in the analytical reading mode (something that   
   occasionally became something of a problem when preparing for the CotW   
   project ;-) )   
      
   So, for me, personally, a story is to be enjoyed _as a story_ by   
   completely submerging myself in secondary belief -- the better the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)