Flammifer
Well-Known Member
Sometimes authors make references to other works (consciously or unconsciously) when writing. Spotting References, and making assumptions that they are relevant can add understanding, or questions, or extra perspective to our reading.
It can be a tricky game, however, as the degree to which the Reference might be valid (either consciously or unconsciously) to the author is hard to determine.
However, I think that the ability to spot possible connections, and identify possible references, is one of the great benefits of education in the humanities. A benefit that is applicable across many occupations and careers. Making connections across diverse disciplines, functions, institutions, innovations, and thoughts is valuable, and usually gets more and more valuable the more senior one becomes in a career.
These thoughts on References were sparked by my post ‘On sheep and shepherds’ in the ‘Questions for Narnion’ forum, where there was considerable discussion on whether Lindir’s talk of ‘sheep and shepherds’ was a Biblical reference.
So, how can we have more or less confidence in our assumption of a Reference? We should try to look for evidence that the assumption might be ‘valid’.
Of course, the best evidence would be if we found some admission by the author, “Yes, of course that was a Reference. That is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote that passage.” But that is rare.
If we know something about the author, though, we can assume that references to works the author studied, to things the author loved, to things the author was obsessed about, are more likely to be ‘valid’, than possible ‘references’ to things outside the ambit of the author’s known interests, or experiences.
In the case of Tolkien, possible references or connections to things in ‘Beowulf’, in Medieval literature, in Catholicism, in Rural England, in WWI, in Linguistics and languages, are more likely to be ‘valid’ than other possible references.
When Tolkien names Earendil, ‘The Flammifer of Westernesse’, we can be fairly confident that the connection between ‘Flammifer’ and ‘Lucifer’ (morning star in Latin) did not escape him, because of his obsession with languages.
On the other hand, if we made a connection between Tolkien’s first draft metaphor of Elves comparing Men to Hobbits as ‘big peas and little peas’, with Gregor Mendel, who invented much of the science of genetics through experimenting by breeding pea plants, though it might be an interesting connection to us, we have far less evidence that it might have been ‘valid’ to Tolkien. As far as we know Tolkien had little interest in science or genetics, and we don’t know if he had ever heard of Gregor Mendel.
The more evidence we have, the more confidently we can assume that a ‘Reference’ might be ‘valid’ (or not). It is unlikely, however, that we can be ‘certain’.
That should not stop us though. Finding connections and assuming References is one of the joys of deep reading, and one of the glories and skills of an education in the Humanities.
What do the rest of you think about making connections between TLOTR and other works, and assuming references in TLOTR?
It can be a tricky game, however, as the degree to which the Reference might be valid (either consciously or unconsciously) to the author is hard to determine.
However, I think that the ability to spot possible connections, and identify possible references, is one of the great benefits of education in the humanities. A benefit that is applicable across many occupations and careers. Making connections across diverse disciplines, functions, institutions, innovations, and thoughts is valuable, and usually gets more and more valuable the more senior one becomes in a career.
These thoughts on References were sparked by my post ‘On sheep and shepherds’ in the ‘Questions for Narnion’ forum, where there was considerable discussion on whether Lindir’s talk of ‘sheep and shepherds’ was a Biblical reference.
- Assuming References, by making connections to other works can be valuable whether or not the reference is ‘valid’ (that is; regardless of whether the author consciously or unconsciously ‘meant’ the passage to be a Reference). Professor Olsen does this all the time. He did it last night, when a passage in ‘A Wizard of Earthsea’ reminded him of a quote from ‘The Magician’s Nephew’, and that quote was helpful in giving perspective on the nature of witches in LeGuin’s book. There was no assumption that the quote influenced LeGuin in any way, but it did not need to to be a useful connection.
- Spotting References that are ‘valid’ (‘meant’ by the author), however, can be even more illuminating. However, knowing whether a reference was ‘meant’ is tricky.
So, how can we have more or less confidence in our assumption of a Reference? We should try to look for evidence that the assumption might be ‘valid’.
Of course, the best evidence would be if we found some admission by the author, “Yes, of course that was a Reference. That is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote that passage.” But that is rare.
If we know something about the author, though, we can assume that references to works the author studied, to things the author loved, to things the author was obsessed about, are more likely to be ‘valid’, than possible ‘references’ to things outside the ambit of the author’s known interests, or experiences.
In the case of Tolkien, possible references or connections to things in ‘Beowulf’, in Medieval literature, in Catholicism, in Rural England, in WWI, in Linguistics and languages, are more likely to be ‘valid’ than other possible references.
When Tolkien names Earendil, ‘The Flammifer of Westernesse’, we can be fairly confident that the connection between ‘Flammifer’ and ‘Lucifer’ (morning star in Latin) did not escape him, because of his obsession with languages.
On the other hand, if we made a connection between Tolkien’s first draft metaphor of Elves comparing Men to Hobbits as ‘big peas and little peas’, with Gregor Mendel, who invented much of the science of genetics through experimenting by breeding pea plants, though it might be an interesting connection to us, we have far less evidence that it might have been ‘valid’ to Tolkien. As far as we know Tolkien had little interest in science or genetics, and we don’t know if he had ever heard of Gregor Mendel.
The more evidence we have, the more confidently we can assume that a ‘Reference’ might be ‘valid’ (or not). It is unlikely, however, that we can be ‘certain’.
That should not stop us though. Finding connections and assuming References is one of the joys of deep reading, and one of the glories and skills of an education in the Humanities.
What do the rest of you think about making connections between TLOTR and other works, and assuming references in TLOTR?
