In Olmer's Honor: Take Tolkien at Face Value - or is there 'Something Else'

[Valandil]

Olmer, a new member here at Entmoot, has a different slant on Tolkien's work than most of us seem to. This has become apparent in his posts in the first two threads of the LOTR book discussion, and in the 'Why Merry and Pippin' thread. In the latter, we had the following dialogue:

First... when I figured out where he was coming from:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Valandil
Olmer, it's become quite apparent (from this thread and the chapter discussion threads underway) that you either have a different take on the story than most of us, or that you have a twisted sense of humor - and just enjoy stringing us along. Either one of those is OK... though you'll certainly find that many will disagree with you. I hope that will never make you feel unwelcome or that any will get overtly hostile in their frustration as they respond to you.

As I see it (assuming the former is true - a 'different take') - correct me if I'm wrong - your 'interpretation' or 'application' of the story is to not take what Tolkien writes at face value. Is that so? So that, for instance - even when he depicts Gandalf and the Elves as benevolent to all... you see them as more self-serving... and just making use of the other 'free peoples' to help them achieve their own ends? That the perceived benevolence was just because the source writings were of hobbit origin and that they 'bought into' what Gandalf and the Elves were selling?

I guess it can come off as a rather 'cynical' view, but it may indeed be an acceptable way to interpret the story. I rather doubt it was what Tolkien had in mind... but hey, to each his own, right? And - I guess the cynicism fits right into our world as it is today. Also - it helps fill in certain parts of the story - to see Gandalf and the Elves as a bit less noble than they might want to appear. Still, as I say, I disagree... but still welcome your opinions and insights - and look forward to further discussion on the various matters that will arise from our differing viewpoints.

So... welcome still, you-with-whom-many-of-us-disagree (there must be an Entish word for that)!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then... his response:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Olmer
No, I'm quite serious.
Of course many will disagree with me and probably will label as "cynic", but I don't care as long as my opponents could express their point of view logically and with quotes to back up. I think this way allowed us to learn more about Tolkien work( not mention to make you read each sentence in the book more carefully and not just once. )
I began just like an ordinary Tolkien's fan (and I still am) till on one forum I read posting which was implying that, as you say, "Gandalf and the Elves as a bit less noble than they might want to appear". It was very logical and seemed to me undermined all my believes. It was so contradictory , so questionable that I wanted to find inconsistency in his postulates... I felt like an advocate who is trying to prove that his client was falsely accused.
Instead I found a new dimension of the book, a new meanings in the very sentences of Professor's work. A whole new world... in which previous J.R.R.T.contradictions seems not so adverse and loose pieces were falling in place.
And this is when I really got hooked on Tolkien .

You got me right to the tee. My point of view is as the whole story seen by dwarf or Gondorian.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So - I thought it would be nice to have this thread to discuss the whole THEORY involved, while we discuss the application, as appropriate to different parts of the story, in the various threads. This thread is intended to give us a basis of understanding of where Olmer - and others who may agree with him - are coming from when they make the statements they make.

Olmer... like to take it away and expound further?

OR

Anyone else... reactions to this way of viewing Tolkien?

[brownjenkins]

while it sounds a bit like a "conspiracy theory"... i enjoy new points of view... especially ones that tend to throw what people call common knowledge out the window

i also think that a great book, much like life, is in many ways what it appears to be... if a conceptualization is valid enough for you (and you're not just plain nuts ), it is "true" for you for all practical intents and purposes... irregardless of what the author or others think

that said, i'd need a pretty good argument to change my mind

[The Gaffer]

I welcome this. It's exactly what's needed to inject another dimension into what could otherwise be a "wasn't it cool when they did X?" type discussion. Pity I haven't been on much to follow it.

As for the specifics of the theory, there are a few clues throughout the corpus that, even though hobbits are in the foreground, the back-story is very much elf-centric.

JRRT even puts it into words for himself, for example using Denethor to vocalise these sorts of views. Only the most blinkered reader (or simple-minded screenplay adaptor ;-)) could fail to see the sense of Denethor's point of view from his own standpoint.

What sets the likes of Gandalf and Elrond aside from major players like Saruman and Denethor is their true lack of pride. In ME, this is the real sin, the one for which, for example, Galadriel was being punished.

[hectorberlioz]

This could be a great discussion.
I can definitely see Olmer's way of thinking o this subject, and I wont deny that I agree with soem aspects of it.
Unforunately, I dont haev much time for the moot at this particular moment, but I will try to get back to this thread when I can.

[Olmer]

It was a good idea, Valandil , to get me out of my woods into limelight and ask me to speak out. Kind of challenging move...
But you are right. All my future posts, probably, would be taken, say, with great resistance, unless at least basic informations coud be given for better understanding of my point of view.

The theory, which I stand for, originally not mine (I just broadened it out with quotes and further researches) and it's quite mind-boggling .
There I'll layout the basic of the THEORY.
Later we coud discuss and argue on each point. Feel free to point on its weak sides and inconcistencies. But, please, don't make your argument "...because Tolkien wrote so..." Explain why you came to such conclusion and give some quotes to back up.


The whole story about the danger of the Ring to Middle- earth is based on Gandalf's heresay, backed up by elves (Denethor seems does not think so, neither does Sauron). Seem the Ring had quite different and not so earth-shattering abilities.
Then, as Dances with the Eagles smartly pointed out in "Merry and Pippin" topic, what if the destruction of the Ring was not a main goal, but just a consequence of other plan?

Let take a boarder look on whole political picture of Middle-earth. It's rather peaceful: military conflict with Sauron just smoldering, from time to time giving a small flares. This calm suits both sides: Sauron could pretend that he is searching for the Ring, elves could unhurriedly continue their departing trying to stretch or slow down the time till the ultimate need to flee.
But how they could stop the time and keep all things unchanged? By wielding the Three Rings, the existence of which is very much depends on the existence of The Ring. So, a whole political play of the Elves got directed just to STALL Sauron long enough for a peacefull and unhurried emigration.
They have two plans for the Ring. Plan A - preservance: it was working for quite while, till Sauron found out that the Ring is not in Elves posession and boldly went on forcing them to use it. And here came plan B - the destruction of the Ring and the loss of its protection, and therefore, instead , making a powerful protector for remaining elves by putting on the throne of the neighborhood kingdom the king, which would be loyal to the Elves.

But who will risk their lifes for the sake of elves well-being?
Nobody.
Unless the Quest will bring them to complete realization of its greatness.
And here comes the story of The Ring of Power and destruction of all Free People on Middle earth.

Any Questions?

[brownjenkins]

i don't know where to begin

[The Gaffer]

I take it all back.

Wasn't it cool when the entire evil and ugly conspiracy exploded with a big noise?

[Valandil]

Oi vey... Who started this thread anyway?!?? *looks* Oh! Have I created a monster?

Heehee... well, at least we'll have an idea where Olmer is coming from with his posts.

Olmer, you haven't won me over yet! Not ready to make specific quotes, but I'll start with the following comments: I don't know anything about JRRT saying anything in line with what you suggest EVER... which seems to me something he would do, if he had this as a 'hidden meaning'... oh, with his view of 'applicability' - he might well support your right to find these wild ideas IN his work, but he might just as well discount it as 'rubbish' too! He strikes me consistently as one who would seek to glorify the good, true and noble.

One wonders if searches for such 'ulterior motives' come from a jaded background - like might come from surviving the gloom and shadow of communist Eastern Europe.

Now - please don't take even THAT wrong - and I hesitate to write what I have because I want you to feel free to fully express yourself - but it seems SO off-base. Surely, you can relate if you once felt as most of the rest of us do?

Frankly though, I don't see quotes from the books that reinforce what you're saying. For one - I don't see why the Elves would have bothered with this scheme at all... why not just go quietly off to the West and leave Middle-earth to suffer under Sauron's yoke?

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by Valandil
Oi vey...

What's 'oi vey'?

I agree with Valandil.

The elves were, perhaps, as noble as it seems. They, after all, a race that didn't like pain and suffering, no matter to whom. I don't think they would 'trick' the men of Middle Earth, only because they wanted to stay some more time in their precious lands.

[Count Comfect]

One problem I see with this idea is that if

Denethor seems does not think so, neither does Sauron

about the Ring being so dangerous, why is it that all who have it (Frodo, Gollum, Isildur) have huge negative reactions to it? And that it betrays them? Also, neither Denethor, who shows other madnesses, nor Sauron seems to me quite a reliable source.
In addition, the statement that

It's rather peaceful: military conflict with Sauron just smoldering, from time to time giving a small flares

is not quite accurate. Sauron is preparing a huge assault against Gondor before he knows that the Ring has been found: think about the timeline here, the huge armies he has at his disposal don't get organized in the amount of time available. Clearly, the peace isn't lasting anyway. The only reason Gondor has been at peace is that Sauron was busy.
Still, regardless of whether I agree with you, interesting to have a totally new opinion (to me at least) represented.

[hectorberlioz]

hmmm...very interesting view you have there Olmer...but Tolkien, as educated as he was, surely wasnt after creating a huge 'behind it all' meaning to the story.
Overall, I think he meant the story to be about the weak rising to greatness, despite some inabilities. And it was also about friendship, and not giving up hope through despairing times.
Tolkien was in WWI, and I'm sure he put alot of his thoughts and so on into LotR.

[Bombadillo]

I'm very glad you are so understanding and expectant of people's disagreements, Olmer. I want to preface anyway by saying that I respect your theory, am really intrigued by its depth, and am impressed that you are so devoted to the story's interperetation.

However, Tolkien hated the allegory, so I don't believe this "adverse" meaning was intentional.
I'm trying to look for a backup statement or something, but I really think it's as simple as that.

Also, a certain quote from Tolkien is coming to mind, but I forget the exact words. He says that he is essentially a hobbit, partially because he loves fancy waistcoats, and even dares to wear them. To me, this is an example of how 'face-value' Tolkien is.

Of course, if you understand that your idea wasn't his, I have no problem with your interperetation, as no individual's interperation can be right or wrong. (Do you admit it!? )Yours is just all the more interesting for its wierdness. Plus, it's new to me, so I'm really impressed that you've looked so far into it.

I'd say "welcome to the moot, BTW, Olmer" but I think this thread is the biggest welcome a newbie has ever gotten.

Originally posted by Valandil
Oi vey- he might well support your right to find these wild ideas IN his work, but he might just as well discount it as 'rubbish' too! He strikes me consistently as one who would seek to glorify the good, true and noble.

Yes, that is how he strikes me also. I think that if he thought of someone (Gandalf & the Elves) as noble, he'd dwell on that nobility with a certain admiration of his own that is consequently shared with his readers. Again, this is very 'face-value' of him.

Originally posted by Valandil
Also - it helps fill in certain parts of the story - to see Gandalf and the Elves as a bit less noble than they might want to appear.

Are you implying that Gandalf was seeking glory? If so, I strongly disagree. But won't go into details now because I don't feel like it, and I'll wait for you to confirm this first too.

[GrayMouser]

I have to go with the consensus here- but you could probably get some cool fan-fiction out of it

It's similar to what Ursula K. LeGuin did in going back to Earthsea in her later books and taking another look at it from a much darker point of view.

[Anglorfin]

About the whole Elves looking down on other peoples of Middle Earth, that is easy to see. A good and simple case would be Thingol. It's also not hard to imagine why the Elves wouldn't want the Ring destroyed. It is a great irony that the only thing preserving their last remaining strongholds in Middle Earth is the one thing linked to the greatest evil of that time.

And so, upon the realization that the Ring was being actively hunted by Sauron, Elrond foresaw that there was no alternative to finally destroying it. The only discrepancy here would be the fact that Cirdan and Elrond had urged Isildur to destroy it years earlier after the Last Alliance. But Elrond and Cirdan are only two Elves. many others could have thought differently and would have liked the Ring to remain intact.

But in this case it was really a lose-lose situation for the Elves. So in the end they had to cut their losses and move out of ME anyway. Which they would have done if Sauron ever did get the Ring.

[azalea]

Well, unless I'm totally wrong, just because their rings were rendered useless didn't mean they had to leave -- it just meant that things wouldn't remain unchanged, right? So although it wouldn't necessarily be cause for celebration, I think the elves of course would have wanted Sauron and the Ring destroyed. They knew it had to be done. That's not to say they wouldn't have acted in their own best interest, but also I think they were honest in their dealings (I mean those in the Third Age ). I think Elrond and Galadriel were better than your average elf, and would help to do the right thing anyway.

PS: On the original topic -- plan A assumes that the elves knew where the Ring was -- and they didn't until Gandalf figured it out. (I mean if you're saying they were "using" the Hobbits to keep the Ring at their peril, so that the elves could continue as they had been -- which is what I'm hearing you say. Before that, it wouldn't have mattered. It was only when Sauron was known to be active again and seeking it that it became a crucial issue again).

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by azalea
Well, unless I'm totally wrong, just because their rings were rendered useless didn't mean they had to leave -- it just meant that things wouldn't remain unchanged, right?

The way I read it is that only when the Ring had been destroyed (and they had lost all that they had created, or preserved, with the Three) could they return to Valinor.

[brownjenkins]

i always got the feeling that many of the elves wanted to leave after the death and destruction resulting from the last alliance... but the rings allowed them to build havens in middle earth that resembled valinor enough to prolong their desire to remain

i think that after earendil's voyage any elf could choose to go west if they so wished... even galadriel... she had just not lost that feeling of independence yet, and wished to rule her own land as long as she could

[Olmer]

Thanks for the welcoming words , everyone!

I was hesitant to reply on this subject because I was not sure if I can handle this can of worms, which I was about to open.. A squall of inquiries combined with shortage of free time could be very taxing and my responses could be quite delayed.
Nevertheless, you would say, I asked for it! Oi vay!..but where to go now poor...me?

I don't expect to win anybody, nor to believe in my postulates, at least not that fast. I, myself, didn't change my perception on Tolkien work overnight and I'm still " digging in"...

Just keep in mind, that "One who examines his beliefs, not an unbeliever."

Valandil I don't know anything about JRRT saying anything in line with what you suggest EVER....
hectorberlioz ...but Tolkien, as educated as he was, surely wasn’t after creating a huge 'behind it all' meaning to the story.
Bombadillo However, Tolkien hated the allegory, so I don't believe this "adverse" meaning was intentional

Seems to me that in all replies I see one major point: is it possible that Tolkien, as genius as he was , could write the book with deeper, inner meaning with " huge 'behind it all' meaning" ?
I would say, why not?
What makes his book to accept as more than just a fantasy is how absolutely, undeniably true it feels, like we had a glimpse of the long forgotten time, the time so distant that its history became a myth.
But could we with absolute certainty say that this is the history , which Tolkien acquired in unexplained way?
No. But also we can’t say with absolute certainty that the book is not based on historical facts derived from old manuscripts and ancient myths.

So, why everybody rushing forward to say that the book does not have a historical basis, repeating one after another with solid assurance: He did not mean THAT!
Why ?
Because EVERYBODY is saying so.
If, sometimes, we have difficulties to clarify our own true intentions, how can we be sure about somebody's real meanings?
Where such assurance came from?
It came from the surface impression of his work and the reason that Tolkien didn't broadcast it publicly.
But who would take him seriously after such announcement, "as educated as he was " he knew that it spells "death" of his impeccable reputation and respectable professorship?
He had a hard time from the publisher on acceptance of his books, who refused even to endorse the author . On "The Hobbit" dust-jacket the publisher made himself clear that he had nothing to do with strange professor and even more strange stories of his, writing this :"Professor Tolkien - BUT NOT HIS PUBLISHERS - still remain to be convinced that anybody will want to read his most delightful history..." About his book "The Lord of the Rings" Rayner Unwin (whose words on acceptance Tolkien's books for publication was crucial) doubtfully said :"Quite honestly I don't know who is expected to read this..."
His opinion put the most cherished by Tolkien work "The Silmarillion" into the Great Limbo and away from readers on many years, sorry to say.

Who would want to be ostracized even more?
But you can't make the great writer to be completely silent about it , and he makes a tentative suggestions that he had the “ SOURCES long before in mind “; that his books don't have ALLEGORY (why not? a Christian novel depicting victory of Good over Evil in such unrestless time would be more readily accepted.); that he prefers HISTORY (who wants to read such unpopular subject?), which he "recorded", specifically highlighting that fact; that the book, like any history work, does not have INNER MORAL (another downgrading of the book), but the history and ITS APPLICABILITY could be VARIED and "though the dates given are often conjectural,... they DESERVE ATTENTION" . All this, among other tidbits scattered through all professor's writing, is unpersuasively giving an implication that behind the whole story is something bigger than just an author's fantasy.

OK, just for the sake of argument let's agree on the real history base .
Then the next question will be: the source.

Could it be that at some period of time he met a mysterious stranger who told him the real story of which came to us in pieces and bits , bearing striking resemblance, in myth and legends of different cultures?
Could it be somebody like that mystifying "tramp" in rags, which he met at the church, who was not begging? "He had a brown beard , and a curiously 'clean' face, with blue eyes." When Tolkien offered him some change, "he took it with grave kindness and thanked courteously"(Let.#89).
Is it too wild to assume that it could be the one of still remaining on Earth Firstborn? Exiting and... preposterous.
Agree, absurd, but it's some beauty in such insinuation...

Then comes another suggestion, which seems quite reliable: the manuscripts and old books.
As a linguistic specialist of more than 18 modern and ancient languages Tolkien had free access to the library of the oldest college in Europe, where on the endless shelves was tucked in a lot of books from previous centuries, some of them had not been touched since its arrival. This kind of books had a pulling attraction for Tolkien and he was spending hours “ getting filthy amongst dusty books”.
What if amongst this books he discovered a few stacks of old papers written on unknown before language and he started to work on translation just to find out that it‘s some kind of joke: the whole cryptic text , that is not so recent, but not exactly anciently old for a public announcement, suggests that it is a copy of some kind lost red book, written by some unknown to scientists race, which Tolkien named as “hobbits”.
He couldn’t use it as scientific discovery, but he could incorporate some acquired in translation knowledge as a canvas for his stories.
This way you can easily explain all inconsistencies, mixed up names and events, because they are nothing else but a logical conclusions made by him from this or that interpretations of translated facts.

[Olmer]

But Talkien himself has another version of the source of acquired information, of which he could tell only to very close people.
In his letters to his son he tells that he has kind like divine inspiration, like “sudden vision or perhaps apperception which at once turned itself into pictorial form in my mind” and “all of the sudden I realized what it was: the very thing that I have been trying to write about and explain”.
Quite often he had the sudden clarities or brainstorms:" I remember saying aloud with absolute conviction :"But of course!...that's how things really do work!" But I could not reproduce any arguments that had led to this, though the sensation was the same as having been convinced by REASON (if without reasoning)
Or he was getting a premonition feeling on the stories he was writing. While finishing "The Hobbit" he "had suddenly in a fairly strong measure the "eucatastrophic" emotion at Bilbo's exclamation:" The Eagles!The Eagles are coming!", which is later brought him to the last "LOTR" chapters about Frodo and Sam.
On his writing of the book he comments that it "seems to write itself once I get going, as if the truth comes out of them, only imperfectly glimpsed in preliminary sketch" and in the process it sometimes " getting quite out of hand... and progress towards quite unforeseen goals" and the appearance of new unplanned characters, such like Faramir.:"A new character has come on the scene (I am sure I didn't invent him) but there he came walking into the woods.. and he is holding up the 'catastrophe' by a lot of stuff about history of Gondor..."
Or "take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The chapter called "Treebeard" was written of more or less as it stands, with an effect on myself almost like reading someone else's work".
And, as he admitted himself, his progress on the stories depended a lot on such inspirations and when "foresight had failed" he could seat "absolutely dry" waiting for ideas to come, sometimes as long as 3 years.
Does all of this suggest that in some way he had a sudden divine revelations of the things of which he was not aware before?
Yes, it does! At least from my point of view.

And he is not the only one who had such unique abilities.
Mozart was writing down the draft of his musical inspirations without any corrections, describing that they are rising in his mind like a dreams, quite independent of his will.
Russian chemist D. Mendeleyev saw his famous Periodic Table of chemical elements in his dream.
Coleridge said that he composed "Kubla Khan" while sleeping.
Goethe wrote many of his best poems in condition close to somnambulism.
Einstein disclosed in his letters that , while conceiving his theory of relativity, his thoughts was coming to him as an undefined images, not as the formulas.
And the list could go on...

Seems many of people, whom we call genius, have had some help from 'beyond'.
Are we talking about ESP, some paranormal things , which quite often brings a smirk and doubtful look on people faces?
Not exactly, but we shouldn't discard this idea either. If German, Russian and American governments was (and still probably do) shelling out millions to support the studies of such phenomena, than it IS something in it.

Just a point to ponder: We know that DNA is a complete "blueprint" of organism's construction and function.But in early 1980's biologists came to astounding discovery that in the human cells is being used only 3% of the whole DNA information. If we are using only 3% of our genotype , then imagine how vast our genetic pool and how unlimited our potentials!

But we are talking here about an inspiration, a sudden clarity, the visions. What it has to do with DNA?
Let's see...

While being in college Tolkien became aware of the feeling of predestination, that by fate he preordained to achieve or to begin something great," to kindle a new light, or rekindle an old light in the world", and his friends encouraged him to devote his time to writing.
But his career as writer actually began due to recurrent through his adulthood nightmares (a huge wave comes on the land). In spite of his countless attempts to understand and overcome that dream by making rhymes and funny stories about it, he continued to wake up gasping , as if he had drowning.
The dreams subsided only after he wrote the long Great flood story, which became a background for LOTR .
Later on, when he found out that one of his sons also had the same nightmares, he came to believe that this is a real memory of a real flood transferred to him from ancestors who lived a few millenniums earlier and he somehow getting an access to this glimpses of the Old World. This is how he describes his writing: "I daresay something had been going on in the 'unconscious' for some time, and that accounts for my feeling throughout, especially when stuck, that I was not inventing but reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till 'what really happens' came through."
So, through his subconscious mind he was tapping in some kind of storage of information.
But where is a perfect place for accumulation and storage of unlimited data?
Right! In DNA, and this, my friends, already is a scientific fact.

Now we came to logical conclusion, which is based on all given information, that any great writer, composer or artist, even sometime an ordinary person, under certain tune in of their brainwaves enters an immaterial world of collected ideas and information , as genuine as they were really exist.
And then the author might find in his creations more, than he could or wanted to tell.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Olmer
Now we came to logical conclusion, which is based on all given information, that any great writer, composer or artist, even sometime an ordinary person, under certain tune in of their brainwaves enters an immaterial world of collected ideas and information , as genuine as they were really exist.
And then the author might find in his creations more, than he could or wanted to tell.

interesting... i enjoy existentialist thinking from time to time, and would be a hypocite to just come out and say "you're out of your mind" (though you very well may be )

the only thing i would add is that this "mystical inspiration" does not have to come from an external force... or even be transmitted from one being to another, as one envisions esp... or encapsulated in DNA... there may be a basic chaotic foundation within our neurosystem which allows for pure imagining that doesn't necessarily depend upon an actual or mythical past (even though tolkien admittedly called upon many of these things when he wrote his stories)

i prefer not to automatically attribute intelligence to the miraculous, if you know what i mean

i would like to hear more about the specific LoTR theory though, which seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle