January 16, 2008
I have recently been reading The Letters of J R R Tolkien. I think the main reason for this is a desire for answers that I *know* I will not find. It's a peculiar feeling that I am missing something, a desire to find my story and world already mapped out, somewhere in a study of Tolkien in particular, other authors, and the process of writing in general. Over the last several months I have been reading over various critical books about the Fantastic, about Mimesis, about particular Authors, about Tolkien, in a vague, ill-defined search for a deeper meaning in my own work. Of course I *know* that I won't find a specific answer therein. I have to work at it. But I persist in this specific, yet haphazard, self-education.
I think what drew me back to The Letters is wondering what Tolkien himself (the avuncular ideal in fantasy) knew and thought about his own work during its composition and later. How much of the thought that plagues me ("what does this mean?" "why am I doing this?" "am I fooling myself?") plagued him? Of course, what I'm finding (to no real surprise) is that he and I are quite different. Though, I think, sometimes those very differences bring to light a better understanding of myself and my own work.
As an example, I'll point out Tolkien's Faith. He was a *devout* Roman Catholic. His work dripped with the influence of the Church. The very way he saw his creation was shaped and inspired by his Christian ideal. One of the curiosities about Tolkien was his claim that LOTR described an "historical" period of our very own earth. I have heard this interpreted many times to mean that Tolkien was claiming to have uncovered some true history in his story, and not to have invented it at all. Reading his letters, I would disagree with this assessment. I think what he meant by saying "historical" was that the world he had invented was not separately conceived from our own (or our own as he understood and saw it). It was a world created by God, where Satan rebelled, where Men "Fell" and were burdened with "Original Sin". So by these terms, Middle Earth was not separate or distinct from our own earth. The fundamental "myth" was not his own invention, merely its trappings.
I apply this consideration to my own work and immediately I'm confronted with the fact that I am not a Roman Catholic, and indeed not a Christian. My invented Mythology is non-Christian (despite being monotheistic), and my "Satan" figure did not rebel against God out of pride, but refused him out of Despair (Despair which arose from God's manner of creation).
Another misconception of Tolkien's work is its portrayal of Good and Evil. Many have claimed that Sauron represents archetypal "Evil" in its purest form. This (by the terms of Tolkien's invented mythology, grounded on Christianity) is not the case. Sauron is a pale reflection of Morgoth, whom Sauron worshiped, inspired by Morgoth's Strength. After Morgoth's defeat, Sauron did not repent his "evil" to God, but instead grew his own strength. He believed himself all-powerful, and he wanted men to worship him (instead of God). This may be a Christian "evil" in itself (worship of another besides God), but I think all can agree Sauron (through deeds and desires) was evil by any standard. But this is not "archetypal" evil, or "evil-for-evil's-sake". It is far more specific, nuanced, and ultimately, Christian.
In my own mythology, Dellithis (who approximates Satan and Morgoth), is of his own fashion "fallen". He should have been the greatest "Angel" of God (called Nevi, of the Light), but he denied God and became of the shadow ("shadow" in that God's Light is obstructed). As I already said, he did not deny God out of Pride or a belief in his own power, or a desire to dominate, but out of Despair. His evil arises from hate and spite which grew out of despair-wrought and mis-conceived envy (of the other Angels). His evil working is corruption, or wreaking his despair upon the creation of God (not domination, as in the case of Morgoth and Sauron). Thus he twists and distorts God's creations (e.g. turning Shayatsi to Ninji), but does not seek to supplant or overthrow God. Additionally (and possibly most importantly), God has not declared Dellithis to be an enemy. God wants him to overcome his despair, to emerge from the Shadow and return to the Light. Thus all of creation is not a War of Light against Dark (not entirely, anyway), but an attempt by Light to break through the obstruction and enlighten the shadow (if I may be allowed a crude metaphor).
So, where LOTR explores various characters resisting (and failing to resist) the power of the Ring (the desire for domination), and in effect, Middle-Earth's (topical) definition of evil, my story explores the turning of darkness into light, or evil into good. I realize that this suggests (within my invented mythology and world) an assumption that all men are innately good, that only circumstance makes them evil. I have not come to terms with this, and I am uncertain whether it is true. Yet, many of my characters' "good" or "reformed" choices (as will be revealed) will go unremarked: the final turn away from evil, the "redemption" will be uncelebrated (except that those choices will work toward a larger "good" beyond the ken of any one character: i.e. within God's plan.)
That is where I stand. As I read Tolkien's self-commentary, and other works of literature, and treatises on writing and the fantastic, I consider these implications, and gradually the meanings reveal themselves. I suppose it is strictly to my own edification, as I am not sure anyone else will ever care about these depths. I certainly cannot hope for a reception (and consideration) anywhere near the level Tolkien has received. But I would like to know that more than a simple story exists in my words. I want to be able to reward criticism and "looking deeper" within my work.
Of course I have to be sure the story is exciting in itself.