Taking the Imagination Seriously

There was a period in my life when I regarded The Letters of JRR Tolkien as a bona fide epistle - a profoundly literary and imaginative expression of the good news. He took imagination so seriously that he said that he discovered Middle Earth - including its creation and ancient history. C.S. Lewis once commented that Tolkien `had been inside language'. Tolkien had been inside the word, and experienced its power and seen with its perception. Others who knew Tolkien came to much the same conclusion. Simonne d'Ardenne, one of Tolkien's Oxford students and herself a philologist, recalled saying to Tolkien once, apropos his work: `You broke the veil, didn't you, and passed through?' and she adds that he `readily admitted' having done so."

 In his letters - to editors, publishers, his children, friends, readers of The Lord of the Rings - he answered penetrating questions of origins and meaning. He spoke of Middle Earth and its people as if they really existed - because they did. Implicit in all this, and at many times stated explicitly, was the belief that the human imagination is an objective aspect of the world. Being a devout and thoughtful Catholic, that meant for him that the imagination is an objective aspect of the spiritual world - what's on the other side of the veil that he passed through. Imagination and the good news interpenetrate.

Comments

Mark Diebel said…
I didn't know that about Tolkein or about Lewis' comment to him. Perhaps this gets at why his work is still so very popular and evocative.

I'm not so sure about his thinking about "escape" into fantasy. I may have to take out Leaf By Niggle, if I can find it.
I didn't use the words 'escape' or 'fantasy', but there's no question that Tolkien was consciously involved in both. On Fairy Stories is his manifesto on the subject. His Letters reveal just how intimately were religion, language, and the spirit in his life and mind.
Mark Diebel said…
No you didn't use those words. They came to mind...and come to mind with Tolkien.
Rightly so, both in the positive sense - taking imagination seriously,and considering it an objective aspect of the world - and the negative - running away from the harshness of reality into self-serving daydreams. I just finished re-reading JRR Tolkien and the Silmarillion by Clyde Kilby. Kilby's account of Tolkien jives with others I've read - from CS Lewis, Humphrey Carpenter, Tolkien himself - that Tolkien let his imagination run away with him, to the shirking of at least some of his academic obligations at least on some occasions. To me that attests to the objectivity and power of the imagination, without necessarily being the only or best example of both. But he, like Barfield, drank from a well that was extremely deep and whose waters were intoxicating. More than once Barfield has one of his characters use the word 'giddy' when they are talking about Steiner, or coming to some new and sudden understanding of history in the light of the evolution of consciousness.
Another thing about imagination: when I conceptualize the activity of imagination, it's as a sense faculty - with it's corollary field of activity, which is the spiritual world.

Last: LOTR is the opposite of fantasy. Well, the opposite of what kind of books you'll read in the Fantasy section of most bookstores. Those are dreamed up out of thin air. Tolkien was always building something up from what he found in languages. Language forms the empirical record from which he was always working. There seems very little, actually, that Tolkien dreamed up from nothing.

Popular Posts