Anghraine

I managed to integrate a lot of tangents into last night's infodump on Númenórean pregnancy because it turned up so many interesting sort-of related things, but there were STILL MORE details that I couldn't work in but was delighted in various ways by. A list:

1. Tolkien struggled to make the Maeglin story work with the developmental scheme he was trying to mathematically pin down for Elves, given that Maeglin's history requires him to be born much later than most of the other Elves of his generation. Tolkien concluded that Maeglin had to be an adult, but that he would have been very young in Elvish terms, and this is part of the reason Idril was so unsettled by his interest in her. He wasn't a literal child but he was kind of a kid from Idril's POV.

2. SPEAKING of Maeglin's history, another idea Tolkien came up with to deal with the Maeglin problem was the idea that Maeglin actually isn't that much younger, but instead, Aredhel was either persuaded or trapped by Eöl before ever reaching Aman! In this case, the "Dark Elf" descriptor for Eöl would have no racial subtext whatsoever—Eöl would not be Avari or Sindarin at all, but another Noldo who refused to finish the journey to Valinor and thus never saw the light of the Two Trees. The implication of Noldorin Exiles calling him "Dark Elf" is less "Sinda" and more "loser."

3. Tolkien makes a couple of errors in trying to figure out the math. Some of those mistakes are the math, or at least numerical (Arwen's birth year gave him a lot of trouble, more on this further down), but he also does things like mixing up Elenwë and Anairë at one point. IDK, there's so much hagiography in Tolkien discourse that it's kind of endearing to see him making ordinary writerly mistakes.

( Read more... )

My best friend and I had an interesting, fairly wide-ranging conversation about the distinctions between adaptation, retellings, fanfiction, other forms of directly intertextual storytelling (à la Wide Sargasso Sea, Lavinia etc), covers (as in music), heavily illustrated editions of texts, collage, sampling, novelizations, ekphrasis generally, translation, and inspiration.

The distinctions here are mainly ones that he makes and I do not. For me, all of these things are on a spectrum or scatterplot of something like intertextuality. As I was saying on Tumblr the other day (re: fanfiction), I don’t actually think that most of these kinds of terminology reflect coherently defined art forms at all. They reflect norms, values, and conventions shaped by laws and corporations and other economic/cultural concerns, not any consistent system of understanding intertextuality more broadly.

This is a frequent point of disagreement between him and me, because he prefers to refine terms like these into … philosophical coherence, I guess? So he’ll say, well, I think of the term as more specifically meaning X, not Y, and that lets us examine the different approaches that X and Y take in a more systematic, artistically formal way. (As in the linked post, this is formal in the sense of form not as in propriety.)

And I’m like … it does, yes, but I don’t think that kind of re-definition corresponds to the meanings of those terms in actual usage. Narrowing the definitions imposes a coherence and logic to these distinctions that I don’t think actually exists. It’s more like a grab bag of imprecise, overlapping categories defined by values and customs and legal practice than anything they’re doing artistically.

Him: inconsistent laws and customs are kind of arbitrary and uninteresting in terms of theorizing categories of art, though.

Me: not to me, but anyway, I think the way we theorize art is very profoundly shaped by modern customs and laws to a degree we often can't even see, and words are defined by usage, not philosophical convenience.

(Yeah, we’re super fun at parties. But seriously, this is how we’ve talked since high school.)

Regardless, his theory is that adaptation is actually a narrower category of intertextual art than in casual (or academic) usage. His view is that an adaptation is an attempt to represent the actual source; there may be new material added, and some of the original material may be removed, but there is an effort to preserve not just character outlines or plot structure or elements of setting, but considerable amounts of the original source, usually in a different medium than the original. A re-telling, on the other hand, is a work that re-casts the source material into new language and sometimes generic (as in genre) form.

This is all according to him, not me. I think all storytelling of this kind = re-telling and that there is no hard line separating these approaches, just gradations of variance.

( Read more... )

It's always kind of morbidly fascinating how much online Tolkien fandom is so powerfully shaped by the Jackson LOTR films, widespread Silm fanon based on brief and usually ambiguous scraps (if based on anything other than "stuff fandom BNFs came up with"), and bits and pieces from random documents Tolkien actually wrote (including things he explicitly discarded). And it's like—there's nothing wrong with liking the films, for all my gripes with them. I disagree w/ a lot of particular takes on them and resent their stranglehold on the fandom and the incessant glorification of that stranglehold, but they're powerful movies and I myself likely would have taken much longer to get into the book if not for the atmosphere created by the films.

But the posts about how wonderful it is that Tolkien fandom has moved past those silly days of yore when fanon spliced with the films spliced with decontextualized scraps wasn't the main mode of Tolkien fandom engagement, and how the Peter Jackson filter on everything Tolkien is right and good and maybe even a matter of social justice (?????) and so on are definitely frustrating. Without even getting into specific discourses, Tolkien fandom can be profoundly alienating if you're not into 1) the Jackson films or 2) popular fanon. And yeah, ultimately that's just a fandom misalignment between my personal interests and that of much of the larger fandom, and obviously they can and will do fandom in whatever way makes them happy. That's fine. But the active celebration of fandom pressure to conform to the interpretations of people who had no more impact on Tolkien's work than me is pretty deeply grating, ngl.

And the idea that incorporating popular bits and pieces of Tolkien material to augment the fanon+PJ!LOTR version of Middle-earth just proves that Tolkien fandom has left their movieverse days behind and is really about love for the books these days is like ... what. How does that even make sense? Fandom does not have to be about love for a specific source material and there is plenty to criticize and correct in Tolkien, yes. But there's a way in which I can respect people who say "I'm here more because I love the LOTR movies and the material created by the Tolkien fandom community than for most of what Tolkien actually wrote" (something I have seen people say!) far more than these saccharine celebratory posts about how Tolkien fandom has come so far by driving out book fans and, idk, desperately searching for a woman to blame for everything that goes wrong in the First Age.

(I recently encountered the theory that Celegorm's actions towards Lúthien are not driven by anything stated but by a desire to avenge Aredhel's rape/imprisonment by Eöl. Silm fandom quickly seemed like the Mirror Universe version of the Silmarillion when I got into it years ago, but at that point, I was just like "okay, Celegorm trying to rape Lúthien is actually Aredhel's fault? Sounds like a perfectly typical Silm fandom take.")

Anyway. There are definitely corners of Tolkien fandom that aren't like this and mutual disaffection is how I met most of my friends in the fandom, etc. But BNFs patting themselves on the back over how fantastic the current atmosphere is for everyone who matters :)))) does absolutely set my teeth on edge.

jubaah responded to this post:

That has been my hc for so long i forgot it wasn’t actual canon tbh… I tend to imagine Númenoreans looking like whatever in general, but the people who go on to become Gondor to have the same Beorianelvish look…

I replied:

Yeah! I mean, I do think that the line about how Númenóreans gradually became near-indistinguishable from Elves refers to all Númenóreans, but that the specifically Bëorian, startling-to-other-Númenóreans variant is what’s going to lead to the Dúnedain of Arnor and Gondor.

(& I also think this is a great excuse to headcanon random Peredhil just being born and mingling with the locals in Andunie ;P)

Under a cut for being a petulant joykill: