Dating a Tolkien Tale (Mr. Bliss)

So, one of the benefits of living in this, the Golden Age of Tolkien Studies, is that we're getting very close to understanding the sequence between Tolkien's various works, thanks to tomes such as the Scull-Hammond Chronology (Vol. I of their COMPANION & GUIDE). There are still a few places where it's hazy just where a work fits in, such as FARMER GILES OF HAM (where an equally good case can be made out for its either immediately preceding or immediately following upon THE HOBBIT), but by and large the sequence is coming into focus.
Today in connection with something else I was working on I came across something that might lock down another piece of the chronological puzzle. There are two suggested dates for the little picture book Tolkien drew called MR. BLISS: 1932 or shortly thereafter, or the summer of 1928. The 1932 date was suggested by Humphrey Carpenter in TOLKIEN: A BIOGRAPHY (page 163, [1977]), on the basis that Tolkien bought his first car in 1932 and had several misadventures of his own in driving it (being apparently entirely self-taught as a driver) which in turn Carpenter felt inspired the story.
This date was challenged in 1982, just after the story's first publication, by a letter Joan Tolkien (JRRT's daughter-in-law) wrote to THE SUNDAY TIMES on 10 Oct. 1982, in which she stated that her husband Michael, the Tolkiens' middle son, 'clearly recalled the tale being told to them and it appears in a diary he kept as a Dragon school summer holiday task in 1928'. On the basis of this, Scull & Hammond include it in their Chronology under the entry for '?Summer 1928' (Vol. I, page 146). However, there are two indicators that shows Carpenter was probably right after all.
First of all, in the catalogue that accompanied the display of Tolkien manuscripts in conjunction with the 1987 Marquette Tolkien Conference, Jared Lobdell cites a letter from Christopher Tolkien stating the latter's belief that the handwriting was 'from the 1930s rather than the slightly more florid manner he employed in the mid-1920s (CT to JL, 11 Feb. 1987). Since no one is more familiar with his father's handwriting and manuscripts that Christopher Tolkien, his opinions carry considerable weight in such matters.
Second, in a 1964 letter to Christopher Bretherton (LETTERS pages 347-348), Tolkien notes that he made up the name 'Gaffer Gamgee' during a vacation to Lamorna Cove in Cornwall, near Land's End, and that 'the name became part of family lore'. Scull and Hammond (Chronology page 164) date this vacation specifically to August/September 1932, based no doubt on the account in THE TOLKIEN FAMILY ALBUM, which actually reproduces a photograph from this trip of Tolkien digging in the sand with his children (page 62). This dating becomes significant, because Gaffer Gamgee makes a cameo appearance in MR. BLISS: his name appears on page 37 ('old Gaffer Gamgee is trying hard to hear') and the old man himself, with long beard, wearing a bowler hat, and hobbling along on two canes, is shown in the illo on page 36. Therefore, if it's true that Gaffer Gamgee entered the family lore during the trip to Cornwall in 1932, MR. BLISS as we have it must postdate that vacation.
Given that Tolkien did not finish THE HOBBIT until January of 1933 (if my reconstruction of that work's composition is correct), then MR. BLISS must date from no earlier than the summer of 1933. In any case, it was certainly complete by the fall of 1936, when it was submitted to Allen & Unwin as a possible follow-up to THE HOBBIT (along with FARMER GILES, THE LOST ROAD, the QUENTA SILMARILLION, THE LAY OF LEITHIAN, and other works).


--JDR

Lovecraft plays

So, last night Janice and I and a bunch of friends from the reading group (Allan, Yvette & James, Lisa & Shaun) met up at Open Circle Theater and saw this year's cycle of Lovecraft plays. We'd been lucky enough to see these twice before, in 2004 ('Narlathotep', 'Dreams in the Witch House', and the puppet play 'The Doom That Came to Sarnath') and again last year ('The Colour Out of Space', 'The Thing at the Doorstep', and 'Strange Magics').* This time around they had a set of four plays: 'The Picture in the House' (one of HPL's weakest stories v. effectively used as a frame-story for the next two tales), 'Nyarlathotep', 'The Cats of Ulthar', and 'Dreams in the Witch House'. As usual it was great fun to see what they could do with the old Lovecraft stories, given the constraints of a small cast, small stage, and small budget. And once again they proved that enthusiastic acting, a good feel for the material, and a few creative special effects can go far. Seeing these makes me want to tackle an adaptation myself. Their new venue wasn't quite as good as their old one, but there's not much they could have done about that, since the little theatre they've used in years past was demolished over the course of the past year.
I'll definitely be going back again next year.
--JDR



*Having unfortunately missed the 2005 triptych of 'The Shunned House', 'Cool Air' and "Shadow Over Innsmouth'

I'm Back

Wow, November already. Where did October go? I suppose between the reading/book signing at the University Bookstore (and the preparation that went into that), the reading and signing in Milwaukee (ibid, since I prepared a different piece of text for that), the Blackwelder Lecture at Marquette, the visit to the Archives, the (too-brief) visit to the Wade Collection, some time with the in-laws, preparations for the trip to England, and then the two weeks in the Bodleian I let time get away from me; time now to get back to regular posting.
Many thanks to all who came to the two readings & book signings, and to those who co-ordinated the events and made them possible. I'm gratified the Blackwelder Lecture went as well as it did -- I'm told there were about ninety people in the audience, and I got to have some good discussions with people after the signings and lecture. Saw a lot of friends in Milwaukee whom I don't get to see nearly often enough. While at Marquette I spent my time in the Archives looking at the John Boorman movie script for his never-filmed LotR movie. It's full of fascinating ideas, but it's not Tolkien, not by a long shot. Those who whine about Peter Jackson's changes to the story, myself included, don't realize how lucky we were that Boorman didn't get to be the one who filmed his vision of Tolkien's world instead.
The long-planned, long-delayed trip to England was wonderful, and exhausting. The last time I was there was a very brief visit (arrive on a Friday, leave on Sunday) to be best man at two friends' wedding, and even that was almost fourteen years ago (Dec. 1994). The last time I was in the Bodleian was a single day during the Tolkien Centenary Conference in 1992, and then I was looking at C. S. Lewis's THE DARK TOWER (which some folks at the time were claiming wasn't genuine -- folks who never bothered to examine the Ms for themselves), not their JRRT materials. So this was really the first time since May 1987 -- twenty long years ago -- that I had time to delve into their Tolkien holdings. And what a collection it is! In addition to the many hours spent in the library, I also got to visit The Kilns (which I'd only seen once, from outside, twenty-six years ago), walked up to see Tolkien's house on Northmoor Road, got to meet my editor at HarperCollins, had lunch with one of the editors of the O.E.D., saw the bronzes of JRRT at Exeter College and the English Faculty Library (both times without knowing they were there until I glanced up and saw them), saw the First Emperor exhibit of terracotta warriors in the British Museum (amazing stuff), had tea with CSL's biographer, had tea with a member of the Tolkien family, toured a Welsh castle (the Temple of Nodens just down the road being closed), and got to see some old friends, some of them for the first time in years.
And now I'm back.
More later.


--JDR

In Praise of Sharp-Eyed Readers

So, I'd missed a comment by 'Johan' to a previous post in which he pointed out an omission I'd missed. On page 835, TN5 reads "Book I [of LotR] ends with his [=Frodo's] collapse at the Ford and Book II with him awaking already safe in Rivendell some days later". As Johan points out, there's a verb missing in the second clause: it should read "and Book II begins with him". While I'm at it, "awaking", which is technically a transitive verb, really shd be "awakening", which can be intransitive or transitive as the occasion demands.

It's too late now to get this fixed in the US edition, but I'll pass it along to the good folks at HarperCollins for the trade paperback set, for which I'm beginning to gather a list of errata.


The second proposed correction by Johan relates to an illegible word on page 833. The passage reads "4 mm = 4/10 [illegible] = 20 miles" (this being the eighth line on page Ad.Ms.H.16a). Johan proposes, very reasonably, that the missing word is "centimetre", since 4 mm does in fact equal 0.4 cm. Unfortunately, this is not possible, since the illegible word seems to begin with a descender (i.e., a letter with a down-stroke, such as p- or q- or g- or y-). In fact, it turns out to be -f; looking at this squiggle again with a fresh eye yesterday I was able to crack it this time. It's not a single word but three separate ones run together: "of 50 miles". Thus, the correct reading of this passage shd be

"in the LR map 1 centimetre = 50 miles [;] the distance from Ford to head of path down is 4 mm = 4/10 of 50 miles = 20 miles."

Many thanks to Johan for having sparked my re-examination.

And, while I'm at it, many thanks to Jeff, author of my favorite blog, for showing me how to turn web addresses (such as http://grubbstreet.blogspot.com/) into links (such as grubbstreet).

--John R.

current reading: THE INTELLECTUALS & THE MASSES, by John Carey (who currently has some harsh things to say about Mr. Nietzsche).
current audiobook: JOHN ADAMS, by David McCullough (having gotten to the part where Adams, as envoy to the Dutch, just opened the world's first American embassy)

Two Threads (THE HOBBIT: Is It Or Isn't It?)

So, thanks to Johan, I've now seen two more posts on the "LotR Fanatics" forum discussing my book; one back in May (LotRFanatics thread) that includes some first impressions and bitter cries about the lack of a separate index for that volume, and another more general one from July (second thread). While reading the book itself will resolve most of the questions and queries that arose there, it's interesting to see how many of them hover around the question of THE HOBBIT's status regarding the legendarium: whether it was originally "quite unconnected" and only later retrofitted as part of his larger mythology or whether it was part of that mythology from initial conception. One curious feature of the discussion was to see unnamed "leading Tolkien scholars" cited on occasion as purportedly disagreeing with me, but no citation or even identification is ever forthcoming of who these mysterious anonymous figures might be, nor why their identities must remain a deep dark secret. V. odd. Of course I'm well aware of the fact that the current consensus holds, following Christopher Tolkien's discussion in HME VI, that THE HOBBIT stands apart from the legendarium. Tolkien himself took both positions at different times, so a simple appeal to authority cannot resolve the matter; my goal was to present the argument for, since the argument against was so well known that the other alternative had been neglected. Largely of course it comes down a matter of definition: does the appearance of characters, names, places, creatures, and items from the QUENTA and Lays in the draft of THE HOBBIT show that Bilbo's world is the same as that of the older stories, as I argue, or are these all merely incidentals without significance outside themselves, as had previously been the consensus view?** Does Tolkien's statement that he "consciously based" THE HOBBIT on "the 'Silmarillion', a history of the Elvish, to which frequent allusion is made" (LETTERS p.31), made in a context where he was carefully explaining at length the sources and origin of the book, carry as much weight as I think it does, or can it be explained away? Since Tolkien is subtle, his statements on any given point often show complexities that are easy to miss at first glance (a point made very well in Marjorie Burns' PERILOUS REALMS): fairly laying out the evidence for both sides of a disputed point, whether the relationship of THE HOBBIT to the older works or the starting date for the composition of the book or some similar topic, is I think one of the most valuable things a scholar can do, not far behind presenting new (i.e., previously unpublished) texts or discovering some new (previously unknown) information about a book or author we didn't know before.

Which brings up another point made in passing: someone in one post on the second thread referred to Christopher Tolkien as "primus inter pares" ('first among equals') among Tolkien scholars. I don't think that begins to cover Christopher's importance: he stands in a category of his own, far above all the rest of us. Christopher Tolkien knows more about his father's works, and more about JRRT himself, than any other Tolkien scholar can ever hope to. He is, literally, irreplaceable. This does not mean he is infallible --in later volumes of HME he sometimes corrects statements made in earlier volumes in the later of more evidence or further consideration-- but it does mean that the first step in writing about any of JRRT's posthumously published works shd be to see what CT has to say about it. That's our starting point.


Changing the topic a bit, one of the other items that showed up in these discussions is much simpler to resolve: the rumored fairy wife of some Took ancestor (in the 3rd edition) and the rumor of elven blood (in the 1960 drafting) are one and the same, since Tolkien used 'fairy' as a synonym for 'elf' in his early writings (cf. BLT II.10, where Luthien Tinuviel is referred to as 'a fairy').

The ROVERANDOM point raised a time or two is easily resolved without proving the main case one way or the other, but full explication will take its own (eventual) post.

--John R.
current reading: THE INTELLECTUALS & THE MASSES by John Carey (who thinks intellectualism is a scam and seems to despise most twentieth century British writers)

-----------------------
**In my view, the most abrupt and dramatic departure from the older material of the legendarium in THE HOBBIT is the appearance in Bilbo's story of dwarves as non-evil characters, something completely unprecedented in his earlier Middle-earth writings.

Charlie Chaplin at the Paramount

So, every year about this time the Paramount Theater in downtown Seattle hosts a month of silent movie nights, accompanied by live virtuoso organ music, just as they were first presented the better part of a century ago. We've only been able to make it to two or three of these performances over the years, unfortunately, but for those who might be interested this year's line-up couldn't be bettered. They're showing three Charlie Chaplin shorts each night, and they've chosen them from the twelve he made just when he gained full creative control over every aspect of his filmmaking. Each is about twenty minutes long and features an ensemble cast, so that the same actors re-appear in different roles in each film. I've seen seven of these twelve, and the best of them rank right up there with CITY LIGHTS and THE GOLD RUSH: silent film comedy just doesn't get any better, and they can still give post-silent film competition a run for the money.

Here's the schedule; if someone does make it, drop me a line and let me know how you liked them.

Sept 10th (obviously, these are already past, but I include it for the sake of completeness)
THE FLOORWALKER
THE FIREMAN
THE VAGABOND

Sept 17th
ONE A.M.
THE COUNT
THE PAWNSHOP

Sept 24th
BEHIND THE SCREEN
THE RINK
EASY STREET

Oct. 1st
THE CURE
THE IMMIGRANT
THE ADVENTURER

--if you only get to one of these, I'd recommend the Oct. 1st showing.* THE CURE has Charlie as an inebriated dandy going to a health spa to dry out; hilarity ensue as his presence makes things spiral out of control. A short clip from this film made its way into Michael Moore SICKO. THE IMMIGRANT, the only one of these to fully feature 'the little tramp' character, mixes pathos with slapstick in CC's characteristic manner; still moving, AND funny, today. THE ADVENTURER features Charlie as an escaped con trying to blend into a party; it has the least plot but plenty of manic energy.
Enjoy!
--John R.


*although ONE A.M., which is entirely a solo performance after the opening sequence, is an almost plotless tour-de-force that has never really been equaled as an example of the intransigence of inanimate objects and the inexorable move from order to chaos.

In Praise of Neil Gaiman

So, a while back I wondered in a post if in his script for the forthcoming BEOWULF movie, which from preliminary accounts is grossly unfaithful to the original story yet pretends otherwise, Gaiman had 'jumped the shark'. While I still have very low expectations about the BEOWULF movie (other than a fervent hope that at least it's better than the last one, BEOWULF & GRENDEL --which shdn't be hard, but you never know), in the weeks since I've seen STARDUST and, just this past week, re-read the book (STARDUST, that is) as well as for the first time reading CORALINE (the only one of his novels I'd missed) and just last night finishing up ADVENTURES IN THE DREAM TRADE (a collection of nonfiction pieces).

First, STARDUST the movie. Great fun. Not really in the tradition of PRINCESS BRIDE, to which some had compared it, being far less snarky and self-conscious; more like the old Aladdin and Sinbad movies with better effects, better story, and better acting. While full of humor it succeeds by taking itself seriously, rather like the old DOCTOR WHO. They changed the story a great deal, but for the most past for the better (the final battle with the witches was too long and drawn out for my taste, and I wouldn't have minded the airship section, while charming, being shortened by about half). It's been a long time since Peter O'Toole has played an out and out villain (THE RULING CLASS, maybe?), and it was great to see he hasn't lost his touch. Both the leads were great, as was Michelle Pfeiffer as the villain and all the supporting cast. Plus, of course, a witty script, less gritty and more light-hearted than the novel. And here's one case where no one can blame the moviemakers for "ruining the author's book" since Gaiman himself is the film's producer. Highly recommended.

Second, STARDUST the novel. I'd read this with my local fantasy reading group (hey folks) a while back and been vaguely disappointed -- nothing to complain about, but I'd just read some of his excellent short stories and had much higher hopes. I'd found in the year and more since that the book's story and characters had almost entirely vanished from my memory, which is very unusual for me -- I remembered it much less than any of his other books I'd read. Re-reading it now after seeing the movie I think the film's better; the book reads like a novelization rather than a stand-alone fantasy novel or fairy tale. There are some Dunsanian echoes in the book that I'd be sorry to miss, the Stormhold bits are v. good, and his practical approach to Faerie works v. well, but overall I'd rank it at the bottom of his fiction, alongside AMERICAN GODS. Not bad, just not as good as I expect from Gaiman. As an added bonus, the edition I read this time has a bonus short story at the end: while I didn't particularly like its frame story, the story within that frame was superb.

Third, CORALINE. Not having read this one before, I was delighted to find it his best novel yet, fit to rank alongside the best of his short stories and his two pictures books (THE DAY I SWAPPED MY DAD FOR TWO GOLDFISH and THE WOLVES IN THE WALLS -- CORALINE has definite affinities to the latter). Don't want to give any of it away in case others haven't read it yet, so I'll stop at just saying it's distinctively Gaiman, yet Ray Bradbury would I think have been proud to write this one. It's that good.

Fourth, ADVENTURES IN THE DREAM TRADE is a NESFA collection of introductions, afterwords, and appreciations Gaiman wrote for books and authors such as Fritz Leiber, Lord Dunsany, Hope Mirrlees, and others. It also has several poems, three of them excellent ("A Writer's Prayer", "Neil's ThankYou Poem", and "How to Write Longfellow's Hiawatha"), several song lyrics ("A Girl Needs a Knife" seems to combine Dorothy Parker with "Sunny Came Home", v. effectively), a few short-shorts, and (providing more than half the book's bulk) a blog about AMERICAN GODS, covering the period between when the book was finished and when he finished the various book-signing tours, a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at all the seemingly endless things that have to be done once a book is "finished". Like CORALINE, I'll definitely have to track down and buy a copy of this; it's something I want on my shelves.

So: while I'll suspend judgment on Gaiman as a screenwriter until I see BEOWULF, this bout of reading has reaffirmed just how good a writer of fiction he is (if there's a better fantasy short story writer living, aside from Ray Bradbury, I'd like to know about him or her) and introduced me to extended amounts of his nonfiction for the first time. I'd say rather than jump the shark he made the old cartilage-fish sing, dance, and jump backflips. In short, an impressive performance.

--John R.