"John Rateliff" <sacnoth@...> wrote:



>Thanks for the link, Dale. Having just read the post and skimmed the

>comments (what do those folks have against Spenser, anyway?), have to say

>I'm entirely unconvinced that the breakdown of a friendship of twenty-plus

>years' standing can be easily dated and traced to a single simple event.

>...

>

>In short, too pat. Friendships are complicated, and the ending of a

>long-time one is tragic but hardly unprecedented or strange.





I entirely agree, and I think that puts the problem very well.

�

Regarding the 'numinous�significance' of Tolkien's subcreation, which Toyin and others have drawn attention to, I was immediately reminded of several things Tolkien said of The Lord of the Rings in his letters.

First, there is Tolkien's response (confession?) to Father Robert Murray (Letter 142) on the religious significance of�LotR,�given the year before the publication of the first two volumes:

The Lord of the Rings�is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic�work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or�have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the�imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However�that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have�consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I�was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know.

As he admitted to Milton Waldman a few years prior (in the famous 10,000-word Letter 131), regarding the impoverished history of peculiarly English myth and fairy-story, he felt the 'Arthurian world', 'powerful as it is',

is imperfectly naturalized,�associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be�missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another�and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.�For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all�art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit,�not in the known form of the primary 'real' world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present�situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days. And I will not repeat what I tried to say in my�essay ['On Fairy-stories'], which you read.)

Thus, Tolkien's decision to absorb 'the [Catholic] religious element' 'into the story and the symbolism'. This makes Middle-earth�numinously�significant for many readers, as Toyin and others have expressed, but unlike certain forms of allegory, still leaves room for interpreting the exact nature and effect of the religious significance and symbolism. This differs from reader to reader (compare Toyin's and Sarah's reactions, for example), and this is a distinguishing characteristic of good myth as opposed to allegory. As C. S. Lewis memorably observed in his brilliant review of The Fellowship of the Ring, 'What shows that we are reading myth, not allegory, is that there are no pointers to a specifically theological, or political, or psychological application. A myth points, for each reader, to the realm he lives in most. It is a master key; use it on what door you like.'

Moreover, as its author, Tolkien likened himself to (imperfectly) fulfilling the role of a �chosen instrument� through which a light of sanctity shone out in and through the story:

I have never since been able to suppose so [that I wrote all of The Lord of the Rings unaided or by myself, without depending on inspiration from already existing materials]. An alarming conclusion for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusement. But not one that should puff anyone up who considers the imperfections of �chosen instruments�, and indeed what sometimes seems their lamentable unfitness for the purpose.

You speak of �a sanity and sanctity� in the L.R. �which is a power in itself�. I was deeply moved. Nothing of the kind had been said to me before. But by a strange chance, just as I was beginning this letter, I had one from a man, who classified himself as �an unbeliever, or at best a man of belatedly and dimly dawning religious feeling . . . but you�, he said, �create a world in which some sort of faith seems to be everywhere without a visible source, like light from an invisible lamp�. I can only answer: �Of his own sanity no man can securely judge. If sanctity inhabits his work or as a pervading light illumines it then it does not come from him but through him. And neither of you would perceive it in these terms unless it was with you also. Otherwise you would see and feel nothing, or (if some other spirit was present) you would be filled with contempt, nausea, hatred. �Leaves out of the elf-country, gah!� �Lembas�dust and ashes, we don�t eat that.��

Of course The L.R. does not belong to me. It has been brought forth and must now go its appointed way in the world, though naturally I take a deep interest in its fortunes, as a parent would of a child. I am comforted to know that it has good friends to defend it against�the malice of its enemies. (But all the fools are not in the other camp.) (Letter 328, pp. 413�14)

(This last paragraph is especially relevant to the ongoing debate of the value of Jackson's screen adaptations of Tolkien's books. Should Jackson be conceived of as a 'malicious�enemy' of LotR before whom 'good friends' of the work must 'defend it'? I have a feeling we all know what Bratman would say, but it is certainly debatable. Slot-machines aside, I remain unconvinced the movies have done more harm than good for the 'fortunes' of LotR, though based on his sole interview, Christopher Tolkien apparently would disagree.)

Tolkien's views as expressed in this letter recall some lines from his poem �Mythopoeia�--that through good myth or fairy-story there shines a semi-divine (because refracted) light. This is because

The heart of man is not compound of lies,

but draws some wisdom from the only Wise,

and still recalls him. Though now long estranged,

man is not wholly lost nor wholly changed.

Dis-graced he may be, yet is not dethroned,

and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned,

his world-dominion by creative act:

not his to worship the great Artefact,

man, sub-creator, the refracted light

through whom is splintered from a single White

to many hues, and endlessly combined

in living shapes that move from mind to mind.

(1988/2001, 87)

Hence Tolkien's loving correction of Lewis's misguided sentiment regarding 'myth and fairy-story' which Tolkien related�in his 1939 lecture on �Fairy-stories�, when he referred to �a letter [i.e., the posthumously published poem 'Mythopoeia'] I once wrote to a man who described myth and fairy-story as �lies�; though to do him justice he was kind enough and confused enough to call fairy-story making �Breathing a lie through Silver�� (1947/64, 49). By�28 September 1931, a mere nine days following a fateful late-night conversation between Lewis, Tolkien, and Hugo Dyson (regarding which Tolkien's poem was addressed to Lewis in response), is a conversion: Lewis will write that he has �just passed on from believing in God to definitely believing in Christ�in Christianity. . . . My long night talk with Dyson and Tolkien had a good deal to do with it� (CL I, 973).

Travis

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <tvade3@...> wrote:

�

Very important points being made.

I want to quickly respond to three of them.

The first is the idea of the real as�different�from the imaginary in literature and�religion.�

The second is the question of �explicitly stated �as�opposed�to�imaginatively evoked��authorial �vision.

The third �is the idea of seriousness or otherwise in adapting an imaginative world for a spiritual quest.�

Reality and Imaginative Worlds in�Literature�and Religion

Scribbler states that Tolkien's world is not the real world.�

Up to a point.

In its essentials,�however, it may be�described�as�emblematic�of reality.

�I refer here to the attitudes and�behaviour�of�characters�in his�stories�and even the general contexts of his�settings, �all of these being drawn from within the�range�of�human�experience and�transformed�by Tolkien.

His universe may �also be�described�as being evocative of aspirations that�human�beings share even when those aspirations have not�been�actualised to the�satisfaction�of�humans�across the centuries.

I refer here to�ideas about �forms of being that�encapsulate�a sense of enlargement of the �cosmos beyond the � readily perceptible. These conceptions range from the idea of�numinous�intensity in nature-such as the descriptions of Lothlorien- to the notion of forms of�agency�outside conventional�experience-Tolkien's elves and Valar, for example.�

In terms of these two parameters, one may argue that Tolkien's universe is correlative with reality as we know it.

This correlation does not assume that such conceptions of ontological�expansion�are�factual, whether in�Tolkien,�Christianity, Paganism or any religion. It only�asserts�that �that humans, for centuries, have �identified with�such�ideas.�

Along�those lines, therefore, one may argue that Christian, Buddhist or Orisa cosmologies are no more factual than a Tolkien cosmology. They deal largely with conceptions of being that are not known to be�factual�to most humans.

That being so, if the Dhyani Buddhas, for example, �can be described by�Buddhists�as existing centuries after the creation of Buddhism, why can't Elebereth and Galadriel likewise be�understood�as�existing?�

One may go�further to explore ideas about divine forms as being human creations ensouled by spirit,�therefore�the Tolkien creations may also be so employed, that line of thought�could�conclude.�

Authorial�Vision�and Audience Response

I now address � the issue of your point about Tolkien's desires about his work.

You mentioned certain�cultures insisting on the author as�largely�arbiter of the�possibilities�of meaning and use of�his�work.

How far can that argument�travel?�

To the best of my�knowledge, particularly in pre-literate�societies, stories�undergo�modification when retold by other storytellers.

�The point being made by David about�Australian�Aborigine narratives relates to a particular kind of narrative�among�them. Does it apply to all�their�narrative forms, of which I expect there are various kinds?�

I understand some of these stories of the kind David�mentions�are not understood to be fictive in the thoroughgoing �sense of being�completely� made up. I understand them to be � mythic�narratives�believed� to�enable�a re-enactment�of primal�history.�

The relationships of such stories to communal and general reality are�more�complex than that of a Tolkien story and both can't be�readily� conflated.�

Having made that point, I would argue that�adapting�Tolkien's work �to�religious�use against his will does not in any way�dishonour�his creation. The writer has expressed a will within the range of his human and�limited�understanding. Was he able to grasp the full�possibilities�of his�creation? Of course not. Such�expansive�art must�transcend��the scope of its author's expectations.�

Seriousness�of Purpose in Creating �Religious�and Magical Systems�

How does one measure seriousness in creating a�religious or magical system?�

All such�extant�systems are created by human�beings. �How does one assess the�seriousness�of one�creator in relation to �that of�another? �Must one begin with a�supposed inspirational experience�outside �the�boundaries�of the normal if one's aims are to be seen as serious?�

Tolkien has�certainly�enlarged �my�sensitivities�and�expanded �my appreciation of life's�possibilities.� His work has�numinous�significance for me. I see it as worthy�of�adoption�in the�spirit�of veneration as other mythologies that play a role in�established�religions.

In terms of�religions�emerging from unusual�experiences�that�expand�perception, on reading Lord of the Rings for the first time in Benin,Nigeria, �I had a�dream�of Gandalf outside my window. A friend of mine in Benin also described himself as having �a strange�experience�on�reading�the book, an�experience� �he refused to divulge, perhaps on�account�of its�intimacy, �that being a feature of some�experiences�of�the�sacred.�I expect many others have had some�stirring�of the numinous in connection with Tolkien.

I have also used the Silmarillion with a�most�memorable effect ��in a�ritual�based on the Catholic�rosary and�adapting�Jung's theory of archetypes and the collective�unconscious.�

Referring�to a�different�kind of writer, the first time I read Immanuel Kant-on the Sublime- �I went into a trance, so powerful were�his�words. I am developing a meditation based on his writing,�beginning��with his reflections �on�temporality�and infinity in the�concluding�section of �a�Critique�of�Practical�Reason. Kant as�evocative�of the sacred and contemplative is very different from the way I have seen him discussed, but to me, Kant exemplifies mot�powerfully�such�possibilities.�

There are more points made that I could address �but let me take a�break�for now.

toyin

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Alana Joli Abbott <alanajoli@...> wrote:

�

Most readers who like to "tinker" with an
author's creation, by writing fan fiction, applying the story to their own
invented ideas, and so on, claim to be devout fans of the original author.
It strikes me as a very strange form of disrespect to an author you profess
to admire, to scrawl figurative graffiti all over your copy of a work in a
way that you know the author detests. (If the author permits it, as some
do, that's another matter.)

I think this has to do with the impulse to be a participant in a story -- immersing one's self (as relevant to the other thread) -- and is indeed an expression of love, even when that love isn't in a form that the creator desires it. Out of respect, I do think that it's proper for people not to write fan fiction in worlds where the author has prohibited it, but I know not everyone feels that way.�

Yes. In Australian aboriginal culture it is strictly taboo to retell
another storyteller's stories.�

I would *love* to know more about this. Can you recommend any books (or even online articles) that discuss it further?

-Alana

--
Alana Joli Abbott, Freelance Writer and Editor (http://www.virgilandbeatrice.com)

Contributor to Haunted: 11 Tales of Ghostly Horror�http://tinyurl.com/haunted-aja

Author of Into the Reach�and Departure�http://tinyurl.com/aja-ebooks
Columnist, "The Town with Five Main Streets"�http://branford.patch.com/columns/the-town-with-five-main-streets

--
For updates on my writings, join my mailing list at http://groups.google.com/group/alanajoliabbottfans

--
Compcros

Comparative�Cognitive�Processes and Systems

"Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"

----- Original Message -----

From: OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU

To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 7:29 PM

Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Tolkien, magic and the spiritual dimension

 

Do you have in mind any atheist writer who evokes the divine or numinous, John?

i would want to check them up.

toyin

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:28 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <tvade3@...> wrote:

Thanks, John.

You sum up the issues in a most intriguing way.

I am working on a number of initiatives in this direction, from different cultures, and will keep the group posted.

thanks

toyin

On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, John Davis <john@...> wrote:

 

Fascinating post.

 

I have often wondered at how a fictional work can evoke very real feelings of, ah, awareness of the divine, for want of a better phrase. And the fact that Tolkien was Catholic, or Blackwood a member of the Golden Dawn, etc., has never really quite served as an answer, since their beliefs are not generally explicitly voiced, and the transendental within their books not limited to the tenets of their religions, whilst aetheist writers can sometimes achieve this same sense. Your post goes a long way to suggesting an answer.

 

John

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU

To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:25 PM

Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Tolkien, magic and the spiritual dimension

 

Very important points being made.

I want to quickly respond to three of them.

The first is the idea of the real as different from the imaginary in literature and religion. 

The second is the question of  explicitly stated  as opposed to imaginatively evoked  authorial  vision.

The third  is the idea of seriousness or otherwise in adapting an imaginative world for a spiritual quest. 

Reality and Imaginative Worlds in Literature and Religion

Scribbler states that Tolkien's world is not the real world. 

Up to a point.

In its essentials, however, it may be described as emblematic of reality.

 I refer here to the attitudes and behaviour of characters in his stories and even the general contexts of his settings,  all of these being drawn from within the range of human experience and transformed by Tolkien.

His universe may  also be described as being evocative of aspirations that human beings share even when those aspirations have not been actualised to the satisfaction of humans across the centuries.

I refer here to ideas about  forms of being that encapsulate a sense of enlargement of the  cosmos beyond the   readily perceptible. These conceptions range from the idea of numinous intensity in nature-such as the descriptions of Lothlorien- to the notion of forms of agency outside conventional experience-Tolkien's elves and Valar, for example. 

In terms of these two parameters, one may argue that Tolkien's universe is correlative with reality as we know it.

This correlation does not assume that such conceptions of ontological expansion are factual, whether in Tolkien, Christianity, Paganism or any religion. It only asserts that  that humans, for centuries, have  identified with such ideas. 

Along those lines, therefore, one may argue that Christian, Buddhist or Orisa cosmologies are no more factual than a Tolkien cosmology. They deal largely with conceptions of being that are not known to be factual to most humans.

That being so, if the Dhyani Buddhas, for example,  can be described by Buddhists as existing centuries after the creation of Buddhism, why can't Elebereth and Galadriel likewise be understood as existing? 

One may go further to explore ideas about divine forms as being human creations ensouled by spirit, therefore the Tolkien creations may also be so employed, that line of thought could conclude. 

Authorial Vision and Audience Response

I now address   the issue of your point about Tolkien's desires about his work.

You mentioned certain cultures insisting on the author as largely arbiter of the possibilities of meaning and use of his work.

How far can that argument travel? 

To the best of my knowledge, particularly in pre-literate societies, stories undergo modification when retold by other storytellers.

 The point being made by David about Australian Aborigine narratives relates to a particular kind of narrative among them. Does it apply to all their narrative forms, of which I expect there are various kinds? 

I understand some of these stories of the kind David mentions are not understood to be fictive in the thoroughgoing  sense of being completely  made up. I understand them to be   mythic narratives believed  to enable a re-enactment of primal history. 

The relationships of such stories to communal and general reality are more complex than that of a Tolkien story and both can't be readily  conflated. 

Having made that point, I would argue that adapting Tolkien's work  to religious use against his will does not in any way dishonour his creation. The writer has expressed a will within the range of his human and limited understanding. Was he able to grasp the full possibilities of his creation? Of course not. Such expansive art must transcend  the scope of its author's expectations. 

Seriousness of Purpose in Creating  Religious and Magical Systems 

How does one measure seriousness in creating a religious or magical system? 

All such extant systems are created by human beings.  How does one assess the seriousness of one creator in relation to  that of another?  Must one begin with a supposed inspirational experience outside  the boundaries of the normal if one's aims are to be seen as serious? 

Tolkien has certainly enlarged  my sensitivities and expanded  my appreciation of life's possibilities.  His work has numinous significance for me. I see it as worthy of adoption in the spirit of veneration as other mythologies that play a role in established religions.

In terms of religions emerging from unusual experiences that expand perception, on reading Lord of the Rings for the first time in Benin,Nigeria,  I had a dream of Gandalf outside my window. A friend of mine in Benin also described himself as having  a strange experience on reading the book, an experience   he refused to divulge, perhaps on account of its intimacy,  that being a feature of some experiences of the sacred. I expect many others have had some stirring of the numinous in connection with Tolkien.

I have also used the Silmarillion with a most memorable effect   in a ritual based on the Catholic rosary and adapting Jung's theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious. 

Referring to a different kind of writer, the first time I read Immanuel Kant-on the Sublime-  I went into a trance, so powerful were his words. I am developing a meditation based on his writing, beginning  with his reflections  on temporality and infinity in the concluding section of  a Critique of Practical Reason. Kant as evocative of the sacred and contemplative is very different from the way I have seen him discussed, but to me, Kant exemplifies mot powerfully such possibilities. 

There are more points made that I could address  but let me take a break for now.

toyin

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Alana Joli Abbott <alanajoli@...> wrote:

 

Most readers who like to "tinker" with an
author's creation, by writing fan fiction, applying the story to their own
invented ideas, and so on, claim to be devout fans of the original author.
It strikes me as a very strange form of disrespect to an author you profess
to admire, to scrawl figurative graffiti all over your copy of a work in a
way that you know the author detests. (If the author permits it, as some
do, that's another matter.)

I think this has to do with the impulse to be a participant in a story -- immersing one's self (as relevant to the other thread) -- and is indeed an expression of love, even when that love isn't in a form that the creator desires it. Out of respect, I do think that it's proper for people not to write fan fiction in worlds where the author has prohibited it, but I know not everyone feels that way. 

Yes. In Australian aboriginal culture it is strictly taboo to retell
another storyteller's stories. 

I would *love* to know more about this. Can you recommend any books (or even online articles) that discuss it further?

-Alana

--
Alana Joli Abbott, Freelance Writer and Editor (http://www.virgilandbeatrice.com)

Contributor to Haunted: 11 Tales of Ghostly Horror http://tinyurl.com/haunted-aja

Author of Into the Reach and Departure http://tinyurl.com/aja-ebooks
Columnist, "The Town with Five Main Streets" http://branford.patch.com/columns/the-town-with-five-main-streets

--
For updates on my writings, join my mailing list at http://groups.google.com/group/alanajoliabbottfans

--
Compcros

Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems

"Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"

--
Compcros

Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems

"Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"

--
Compcros

Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems

"Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"

Emily Dickinson is certainly sometimes numinous, and it has been argued that she

was an atheist.



-- Ernie



--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <tvade3@...> wrote:

>

> Do you have in mind any atheist writer who evokes the divine or numinous,

> John?

>

> i would want to check them up.

>

> toyin

>

> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 7:28 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <tvade3@...>wrote:

>

> > Thanks, John.

> > You sum up the issues in a most intriguing way.

> > I am working on a number of initiatives in this direction,

> > from different cultures, and will keep the group posted.

> >

> > thanks

> > toyin

> >

> >

> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:55 PM, John Davis <john@...> wrote:

> >

> >> **

> >>

> >>

> >> **

> >> Fascinating post.

> >>

> >> I have often wondered at how a fictional work can evoke very real

> >> feelings of, ah, awareness of the divine, for want of a better phrase. And

> >> the fact that Tolkien was Catholic, or Blackwood a member of the Golden

> >> Dawn, etc., has never really quite served as an answer, since their beliefs

> >> are not generally explicitly voiced, and the transendental within their

> >> books not limited to the tenets of their religions, whilst aetheist writers

> >> can sometimes achieve this same sense. Your post goes a long way to

> >> suggesting an answer.

> >>

> >> John

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> ----- Original Message -----

> >> *From:* OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <tvade3@...>

> >> *To:* mythsoc@yahoogroups.com

> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:25 PM

> >> *Subject:* Re: [mythsoc] Tolkien, magic and the spiritual dimension

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >> Very important points being made.

> >>

> >> I want to quickly respond to three of them.

> >>

> >> The first is the idea of the real as different from the imaginary in

> >> literature and religion.

> >>

> >> The second is the question of  explicitly stated

> >>  as opposed to imaginatively evoked  authorial  vision.

> >>

> >>  The third  is the idea of seriousness or otherwise in adapting an

> >> imaginative world for a spiritual quest.

> >>

> >>  *Reality and Imaginative Worlds in Literature and Religion*

> >>

> >> Scribbler states that Tolkien's world is not the real world.

> >>

> >> Up to a point.

> >>

> >> In its essentials, however, it may be described as emblematic of reality.

> >>

> >>  I refer here to the attitudes and behaviour of characters in

> >> his stories and even the general contexts of his settings,  all of these

> >> being drawn from within the range of human experience and transformed by

> >> Tolkien.

> >>

> >>  His universe may  also be described as being evocative of aspirations

> >> that human beings share even when those aspirations have

> >> not been actualised to the satisfaction of humans across the centuries.

> >>

> >> I refer here to ideas about  forms of being that encapsulate a sense of

> >> enlargement of the  cosmos beyond the   readily perceptible. These

> >> conceptions range from the idea of numinous intensity in nature-such as the

> >> descriptions of Lothlorien- to the notion of forms of agency outside

> >> conventional experience-Tolkien's elves and Valar, for example.

> >>

> >> In terms of these two parameters, one may argue that Tolkien's universe

> >> is correlative with reality as we know it.

> >>

> >> This correlation does not assume that such conceptions of

> >> ontological expansion are factual, whether in Tolkien, Christianity,

> >> Paganism or any religion. It only asserts that  that humans, for centuries,

> >> have  identified with such ideas.

> >>

> >> Along those lines, therefore, one may argue that Christian, Buddhist or

> >> Orisa cosmologies are no more factual than a Tolkien cosmology. They deal

> >> largely with conceptions of being that are not known to be factual to most

> >> humans.

> >>

> >> That being so, if the Dhyani Buddhas, for example,  can be described

> >> by Buddhists as existing centuries after the creation of Buddhism, why

> >> can't Elebereth and Galadriel likewise be understood as existing?

> >>

> >> One may go further to explore ideas about divine forms as being human

> >> creations ensouled by spirit, therefore the Tolkien creations may also be

> >> so employed, that line of thought could conclude.

> >>

> >> *Authorial Vision and Audience Response*

> >>

> >> I now address   the issue of your point about Tolkien's desires about his

> >> work.

> >>

> >> You mentioned certain cultures insisting on the author as largely arbiter

> >> of the possibilities of meaning and use of his work.

> >>

> >> How far can that argument travel?

> >>

> >> To the best of my knowledge, particularly in pre-literate societies,

> >> stories undergo modification when retold by other storytellers.

> >>

> >>  The point being made by David about Australian Aborigine narratives

> >> relates to a particular kind of narrative among them. Does it apply to

> >> all their narrative forms, of which I expect there are various kinds?

> >>

> >> I understand some of these stories of the kind David mentions are not

> >> understood to be fictive in the thoroughgoing  sense of being completely

> >> made up. I understand them to be   mythic narratives believed  to enable a

> >> re-enactment of primal history.

> >>

> >> The relationships of such stories to communal and general reality

> >> are more complex than that of a Tolkien story and both can't be readily

> >> conflated.

> >>

> >> Having made that point, I would argue that adapting Tolkien's work

> >>  to religious use against his will does not in any way dishonour his

> >> creation. The writer has expressed a will within the range of his human

> >> and limited understanding. Was he able to grasp the full possibilities of

> >> his creation? Of course not. Such expansive art must transcend  the scope

> >> of its author's expectations.

> >>

> >> *Seriousness of Purpose in Creating  Religious and Magical Systems *

> >>

> >> How does one measure seriousness in creating a religious or magical

> >> system?

> >>

> >> All such extant systems are created by human beings.  How does one assess

> >> the seriousness of one creator in relation to  that of another?  Must one

> >> begin with a supposed inspirational experience outside  the boundaries of

> >> the normal if one's aims are to be seen as serious?

> >>

> >> Tolkien has certainly enlarged  my sensitivities and expanded  my

> >> appreciation of life's possibilities.  His work has numinous significance

> >> for me. I see it as worthy of adoption in the spirit of veneration as other

> >> mythologies that play a role in established religions.

> >>

> >> In terms of religions emerging from

> >> unusual experiences that expand perception, on reading *Lord of the Rings

> >> * for the first time in Benin,Nigeria,  I had a dream of Gandalf outside

> >> my window. A friend of mine in Benin also described himself as having  a

> >> strange experience on reading the book, an experience   he refused to

> >> divulge, perhaps on account of its intimacy,  that being a feature of

> >> some experiences of the sacred. I expect many others have had

> >> some stirring of the numinous in connection with Tolkien.

> >>

> >> I have also used the *Silmarillion *with a most memorable effect   in

> >> a ritual based on the Catholic rosary and adapting Jung's theory of

> >> archetypes and the collective unconscious.

> >>

> >> Referring to a different kind of writer, the first time I read Immanuel

> >> Kant-on the Sublime-  I went into a trance, so powerful were his words. I

> >> am developing a meditation based on his writing, beginning  with his

> >> reflections  on temporality and infinity in the concluding section of  a

> >> *Critique of Practical Reason. *Kant as evocative of the sacred and

> >> contemplative is very different from the way I have seen him discussed, but

> >> to me, Kant exemplifies mot powerfully such possibilities.

> >>

> >> There are more points made that I could address  but let me take

> >> a break for now.

> >>

> >> toyin

> >>

> >>

> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Alana Joli Abbott <alanajoli@...>wrote:

> >>

> >>> **

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>

> >>>     Most readers who like to "tinker" with an

> >>>> author's creation, by writing fan fiction, applying the story to their

> >>>> own

> >>>> invented ideas, and so on, claim to be devout fans of the original

> >>>> author.

> >>>> It strikes me as a very strange form of disrespect to an author you

> >>>> profess

> >>>> to admire, to scrawl figurative graffiti all over your copy of a work

> >>>> in a

> >>>> way that you know the author detests. (If the author permits it, as

> >>>> some

> >>>> do, that's another matter.)

> >>>>

> >>> I think this has to do with the impulse to be a participant in a story

> >>> -- immersing one's self (as relevant to the other thread) -- and is indeed

> >>> an expression of love, even when that love isn't in a form that the

creator

> >>> desires it. Out of respect, I do think that it's proper for people not to

> >>> write fan fiction in worlds where the author has prohibited it, but I know

> >>> not everyone feels that way.

> >>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Yes. In Australian aboriginal culture it is strictly taboo to retell

> >>>> another storyteller's stories.

> >>>>

> >>> I would *love* to know more about this. Can you recommend any books (or

> >>> even online articles) that discuss it further?

> >>>

> >>> -Alana

> >>>

> >>> --

> >>> Alana Joli Abbott, Freelance Writer and Editor (

> >>> http://www.virgilandbeatrice.com)

> >>> Contributor to *Haunted: 11 Tales of Ghostly Horror*

> >>> http://tinyurl.com/haunted-aja

> >>> Author of *Into the Reach* and *Departure *http://tinyurl.com/aja-ebooks

> >>> Columnist, "The Town with Five Main Streets"

> >>> http://branford.patch.com/columns/the-town-with-five-main-streets

> >>>

> >>> --

> >>> For updates on my writings, join my mailing list at

> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/alanajoliabbottfans

> >>>

> >>>

> >>

> >>

> >> --

> >> Compcros <http://danteadinkra.wix.com/compcros>

> >> Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems

> >> "Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> > Compcros <http://danteadinkra.wix.com/compcros>

> > Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems

> > "Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

> --

> Compcros <http://danteadinkra.wix.com/compcros>

> Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems

> "Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"

>

----- Original Message -----

From: OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU

To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:25 PM

Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Tolkien, magic and the spiritual dimension

 

Very important points being made.

I want to quickly respond to three of them.

The first is the idea of the real as different from the imaginary in literature and religion. 

The second is the question of  explicitly stated  as opposed to imaginatively evoked  authorial  vision.

The third  is the idea of seriousness or otherwise in adapting an imaginative world for a spiritual quest. 

Reality and Imaginative Worlds in Literature and Religion

Scribbler states that Tolkien's world is not the real world. 

Up to a point.

In its essentials, however, it may be described as emblematic of reality.

 I refer here to the attitudes and behaviour of characters in his stories and even the general contexts of his settings,  all of these being drawn from within the range of human experience and transformed by Tolkien.

His universe may  also be described as being evocative of aspirations that human beings share even when those aspirations have not been actualised to the satisfaction of humans across the centuries.

I refer here to ideas about  forms of being that encapsulate a sense of enlargement of the  cosmos beyond the   readily perceptible. These conceptions range from the idea of numinous intensity in nature-such as the descriptions of Lothlorien- to the notion of forms of agency outside conventional experience-Tolkien's elves and Valar, for example. 

In terms of these two parameters, one may argue that Tolkien's universe is correlative with reality as we know it.

This correlation does not assume that such conceptions of ontological expansion are factual, whether in Tolkien, Christianity, Paganism or any religion. It only asserts that  that humans, for centuries, have  identified with such ideas. 

Along those lines, therefore, one may argue that Christian, Buddhist or Orisa cosmologies are no more factual than a Tolkien cosmology. They deal largely with conceptions of being that are not known to be factual to most humans.

That being so, if the Dhyani Buddhas, for example,  can be described by Buddhists as existing centuries after the creation of Buddhism, why can't Elebereth and Galadriel likewise be understood as existing? 

One may go further to explore ideas about divine forms as being human creations ensouled by spirit, therefore the Tolkien creations may also be so employed, that line of thought could conclude. 

Authorial Vision and Audience Response

I now address   the issue of your point about Tolkien's desires about his work.

You mentioned certain cultures insisting on the author as largely arbiter of the possibilities of meaning and use of his work.

How far can that argument travel? 

To the best of my knowledge, particularly in pre-literate societies, stories undergo modification when retold by other storytellers.

 The point being made by David about Australian Aborigine narratives relates to a particular kind of narrative among them. Does it apply to all their narrative forms, of which I expect there are various kinds? 

I understand some of these stories of the kind David mentions are not understood to be fictive in the thoroughgoing  sense of being completely  made up. I understand them to be   mythic narratives believed  to enable a re-enactment of primal history. 

The relationships of such stories to communal and general reality are more complex than that of a Tolkien story and both can't be readily  conflated. 

Having made that point, I would argue that adapting Tolkien's work  to religious use against his will does not in any way dishonour his creation. The writer has expressed a will within the range of his human and limited understanding. Was he able to grasp the full possibilities of his creation? Of course not. Such expansive art must transcend  the scope of its author's expectations. 

Seriousness of Purpose in Creating  Religious and Magical Systems 

How does one measure seriousness in creating a religious or magical system? 

All such extant systems are created by human beings.  How does one assess the seriousness of one creator in relation to  that of another?  Must one begin with a supposed inspirational experience outside  the boundaries of the normal if one's aims are to be seen as serious? 

Tolkien has certainly enlarged  my sensitivities and expanded  my appreciation of life's possibilities.  His work has numinous significance for me. I see it as worthy of adoption in the spirit of veneration as other mythologies that play a role in established religions.

In terms of religions emerging from unusual experiences that expand perception, on reading Lord of the Rings for the first time in Benin,Nigeria,  I had a dream of Gandalf outside my window. A friend of mine in Benin also described himself as having  a strange experience on reading the book, an experience   he refused to divulge, perhaps on account of its intimacy,  that being a feature of some experiences of the sacred. I expect many others have had some stirring of the numinous in connection with Tolkien.

I have also used the Silmarillion with a most memorable effect   in a ritual based on the Catholic rosary and adapting Jung's theory of archetypes and the collective unconscious. 

Referring to a different kind of writer, the first time I read Immanuel Kant-on the Sublime-  I went into a trance, so powerful were his words. I am developing a meditation based on his writing, beginning  with his reflections  on temporality and infinity in the concluding section of  a Critique of Practical Reason. Kant as evocative of the sacred and contemplative is very different from the way I have seen him discussed, but to me, Kant exemplifies mot powerfully such possibilities. 

There are more points made that I could address  but let me take a break for now.

toyin

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Alana Joli Abbott <alanajoli@...> wrote:

 

Most readers who like to "tinker" with an
author's creation, by writing fan fiction, applying the story to their own
invented ideas, and so on, claim to be devout fans of the original author.
It strikes me as a very strange form of disrespect to an author you profess
to admire, to scrawl figurative graffiti all over your copy of a work in a
way that you know the author detests. (If the author permits it, as some
do, that's another matter.)

I think this has to do with the impulse to be a participant in a story -- immersing one's self (as relevant to the other thread) -- and is indeed an expression of love, even when that love isn't in a form that the creator desires it. Out of respect, I do think that it's proper for people not to write fan fiction in worlds where the author has prohibited it, but I know not everyone feels that way. 

Yes. In Australian aboriginal culture it is strictly taboo to retell
another storyteller's stories. 

I would *love* to know more about this. Can you recommend any books (or even online articles) that discuss it further?

-Alana

--
Alana Joli Abbott, Freelance Writer and Editor (http://www.virgilandbeatrice.com)

Contributor to Haunted: 11 Tales of Ghostly Horror http://tinyurl.com/haunted-aja

Author of Into the Reach and Departure http://tinyurl.com/aja-ebooks
Columnist, "The Town with Five Main Streets" http://branford.patch.com/columns/the-town-with-five-main-streets

--
For updates on my writings, join my mailing list at http://groups.google.com/group/alanajoliabbottfans

--
Compcros

Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems

"Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"

>> Yes. In Australian aboriginal culture it is strictly taboo to retell

>> another storyteller's stories.

>>

> I would *love* to know more about this. Can you recommend any books (or

> even online articles) that discuss it further?

>

> -Alana



Most of what I know regarding is is second hand. But there is a specific

example...



In the early 1980s, Australian author Patricia Wrightson published a

fantasy trilogy (through Del Rey/Ballantine) that used the aboriginal

Dreamtime as an element in the storytelling. I personally enjoyed the

trilogy. A few years later, Australian Tolkien scholar Kath Filmer (now

Filmer-Davies) was visiting in Southern California and I had a

conversation with her, in which Wrightson's work was mentioned. Kath said

that the aboriginies had been very displeased by Wrightson's work.



As I understood it (and this is remembering a conversation at least twenty

years old), for the Aboriginies, the Dreamtime is very fluid and NOT as

"locked down" as western mythologies tend to be. It is therefore very

syncretic as well, wherein influences from the cultures around them

intrude into the Dreamtime and take on power and significance there. The

idea of "trapping" aspects of the Dreamtime into the permanence of prose

runs counter to their belief structure.



I found this glimpse into the Aboriginal culture interesting, but I never

pursued it. And given their distrust of locking things into prose, I would

guess that studies of their culture might not always be easy to find,

particularly studies of the nature of the Dreamtime.



That's the best I can offer you. Like I said, I didn't dig further myself.

On 12/18/2012 11:34 AM, davise@... wrote:

> If they're fans of the _work_ rather than fans of the _author_, then the

> author's preferences matter less. This is (sometimes) a mode of getting

> involved in the work, like illustrating the work, studying it, discussing it.



Quite.  The author is dead.



There are cases where one grants the author consideration due to personal

feeling.



There are cases where the law grants the author privilege for a limited time.



But in the abstract, retelling and reinterpreting stories is a critical form of

dialogue--even one dislikes the result.



> But a lot of great art is much more nearly a copy of a previous original than

> that e.g. much of Chaucer, almost all of Shakespeare.



All the reinterpretations of the Matter of Britain, too.  They vary a lot in

terms of how much individuality and reinterpretation they bring to the

story--but there's no hard and fast line between them beyond "this is good;

this is terrible."





--

       Joshua Kronengold (mneme@...) "Release the  |\      _,,,--,,_  ,)

--^-- ... patents...and drop everything into the public  /,`.-'`'   -,  ;-;;'

   /\\ domain.  OPEN SOURCE."  "It's so scary when you say |,4-  ) )-,_ ) /\

/-\\\it like that" -- Howard Taylor (Schlock Mercenary) '---''(_/--' (_/-'

--- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, "David Bratman"  wrote:





> Even when spiritual practices are not involved, there's an

> aesthetic response to this question.  Most readers who like to

> "tinker" with an  author's creation, by writing fan fiction,

> applying the story to their own invented ideas, and so on, claim

> to be devout fans of the original author. It strikes me as a very

> strange form of disrespect to an author you profess

> to admire, to scrawl figurative graffiti all over your copy of

> a work in a way that you know the author detests.  (If the author

> permits it, as some do, that's another matter.)



If they're fans of the _work_ rather than fans of the _author_, then the

author's preferences matter less. This is (sometimes) a mode of getting involved

in the work, like illustrating the work, studying it, discussing it.



> We properly use earlier templates to create our own art by usig it > as a

springboard for something original. Tolkien used Norse

> mythology, medieval quest tales, Edwardian adventure fiction,

> Catholic mythology, and other templates, stirred them together in

> his famous Cauldron of Story, and ladled out something new and

> original that's obviously inspired by, but different from, his

>  templates. Even the crudest of the Tolclones at least invented

> new names for their xeroxed characters.



But a lot of great art is much more nearly a copy of a previous original than

that e.g. much of Chaucer, almost all of Shakespeare.