Tolkien and Romance

[tony]

In letter 160, “From a letter to Rayner Unwin 6 March 1955” Tolkien asserts:
“while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.”

Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy “Lord of the Rings”
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.
However, in letter 329, “From a letter to Peter Szabó Szentmihályi (draft)
[October 1971]” he declares “My work is not a 'novel', but an 'heroic
romance' a much older and quite different variety of literature.”

Did Tolkien change his opinion of his own work from 1955 to 1971? Or was he
talking about different works: “The Silmarillion” in 1955 and “The Lord of
the Rings” in 1971? And if “The Silmarillion” is not a romance, What is it?
A pseudo-mythology? And in what sense is “The Lord of the Rings” a romance?
Is it a romance in the sense that the “Alliterative Morte Arthure” is a
romance?

[Lewis]

Post by tony
“while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.”
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy “Lord of the Rings”
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.

That is not how I read that at all.

He is saying that the appendices are not part of the heroic romance.

[tony]

"Lewis" wrote in message news:

<snip>

That is not how I read that at all.

He is saying that the appendices are not part of the heroic romance.
--
Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the
usual number of suspects.

Tony replied:

Okay I understand your point. In other words, Tolkien was saying that the
appendices were not part of the main story and so readers primarily
interested in the main story were likely to neglect the appendices (and
"properly" so). I think I was confused by Tolkien's use of the term romance
to describe his own work, because his use of the term seems idiosyncratic.
For example, a search of Wikipedia for the term "heroic romance" uncovers
the following information:

"The [heroic romance] genre flourished throughout France until around 1660,
and was in vogue in England from about 1645 to 1660. M. Jusserand has
analyzed what may be considered the very latest of the race, Pandion and
Amphigenia, published in 1669 by the dramatist, John Crowne."

In other words, Tolkien described his story as a heroic romance even though,
according to at least one authoritative source, the heroic romance genre
died out in 1669. In fact, a review of the Tolkien’s Letters reveals that
Tolkien used the term "romance" to describe his work at least 24 times.
However, many modern authorities would not classify Tolkien's work as a
romance because the term is usually applied to works from a specific time
period in history, and also his work appears to lack certain ingredients
considered essential to a romance. Specifically, Tolkien's fictional work
is detached from any know historical context. In addition, his plot line
diverges from the prototypical romantic pattern: A knight rides off to seek
adventure. In Tolkien's story, a non-knight (Frodo) walks off to avoid
danger.

[Michael Cole]

tony used his keyboard to write :

[something in a signature block]

tony,

If possible, when you quote, could you remove the previous poster's
signature block (everything after the double-dash that sits on a line
by itself). Otherwise, everything you post after that point will be
considered by some newsreaders as part of the signature, not as part of
the message.

Thanks

[tony]

"Michael Cole" wrote in message news:

<snip>

tony,

If possible, when you quote, could you remove the previous poster's
signature block (everything after the double-dash that sits on a line
by itself). Otherwise, everything you post after that point will be
considered by some newsreaders as part of the signature, not as part of
the message.

Thanks

Tony replied:

Sure, no problem.

[Stan Brown]

Post by tony
<snip>
That is not how I read that at all.
He is saying that the appendices are not part of the heroic romance.
--
Realizing the importance of the case, my men are rounding up twice the
usual number of suspects.
Okay I understand your point. I

Your quoting style is badly broken.

As usual, Windows Live Mail is the culprit.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[tony]

"Stan Brown" wrote in message news:

<sip>

Your quoting style is badly broken.

As usual, Windows Live Mail is the culprit.

<snip>

Yes I have Windows Live Mail that lacks the standard newsgroup quoting
features. I understand that Agent avoids these problems.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Stan Brown
<sip>
Your quoting style is badly broken.
As usual, Windows Live Mail is the culprit.
<snip>
Yes I have Windows Live Mail that lacks the standard newsgroup quoting
features. I understand that Agent avoids these problems.

Any real newsreader avoids the problem. Please pick one, or else edit
every single one of your quotes to confirm.

Sorry to sound harsh, but this has been going on for years.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[Paul S. Person]

Post by Stan Brown
<sip>
Your quoting style is badly broken.
As usual, Windows Live Mail is the culprit.
<snip>
Yes I have Windows Live Mail that lacks the standard newsgroup quoting
features. I understand that Agent avoids these problems.

WRT picking a conforming newsreader ... it doesn't have to be Agent. I
suspect Stan is right: many others exist.

A bit over a year ago my XP computer died and I replaced it with a
faster, 64-bit machine running 8.1. Then the "GWX" malware nightmare
started, but that's another story.

The point here is that I had to replace several bits of software,
either because 8.1 had dropped them, or they were 16-bit programs I
had decided to drop, or, when I tried to install them, they wouldn't
because they had already been installed, or they were for a new
function never before needed.

Googling directly for the programs was a disaster: adware, malicious
installers, crippleware -- all the bad programs on the Internet.

The solution I found did, indeed, involve google -- but only to find
review sites. Calm, non-malware infested, reviews comparing several
possibilities with no apparent bias worked very well: not only did I
find a suitable (per the review) program, at little or no cost, but
the programs themselves did what I wanted and were not infested with
ads or with installers pushing 15 other software packages.

I would suggest setting a Restore Point before doing this, just in
case. And I cannot accept any responsiblity, never mind liability, for
any problems you encounter.

[Lewis]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Stan Brown]

?while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.?
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy ?Lord of the Rings?
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.

I read that letter differently. He's saying there are different ways
to read it. One way just for the story and the sense of wonder.
People who read for that will skip the appendices, and they are right
to do so. Another sort of reader likes what Tolkien calls "lore", and
that group will devour the appendices, and probably argue among
themselves about what various passages mean. :-)

I don't think it's fair to call LotR a "romance novel", though. That
connotes the billionairess and the stableboy, or the duke and the
cocktail waitress, with clothes ripped passionately off. "Heroic
romance" places it squarely in the tradition of an older type of
story, and I think that's right.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Stan Brown

?while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.?
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy ?Lord of the Rings?
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.

I read that letter differently. He's saying there are different ways
to read it. One way just for the story and the sense of wonder.
People who read for that will skip the appendices, and they are right
to do so. Another sort of reader likes what Tolkien calls "lore", and
that group will devour the appendices, and probably argue among
themselves about what various passages mean. :-)
I don't think it's fair to call LotR a "romance novel", though. That
connotes the billionairess and the stableboy, or the duke and the
cocktail waitress, with clothes ripped passionately off. "Heroic
romance" places it squarely in the tradition of an older type of
story, and I think that's right.

Read the preface (or afterword) to Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress" (3rd
edition or later), which includes an extended analysis of the word
"romance".

But I would add that, whether Tolkien wished it to be so or not, tLotR
truly is a novel. The narrator is constantly aware of the focal
characters' states of mind, in a way that the Gawayn poet or Malory
almost never is. For better or for worse, it's a child of "Pamela".
That's the reason that tLotR became a huge part of pop culture as soon
as the paperbacks came out, while the Silmarilion, which is not a
novel, remains an acquired and specialist taste.

[Stan Brown]

Post by John W Kennedy
But I would add that, whether Tolkien wished it to be so or not, tLotR
truly is a novel.

I don't question that it's a novel; I just don't like calling it a
"romance novel". Whatever that term may have meant in Tolkien's day,
now it means a bodice-ripper.

Calling it a "romance" (noun) doesn't seem so wrong to me, though it
wouldn't be my first choice.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

[Paul S. Person]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:11:36 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by John W Kennedy
But I would add that, whether Tolkien wished it to be so or not, tLotR
truly is a novel.

I don't question that it's a novel; I just don't like calling it a
"romance novel". Whatever that term may have meant in Tolkien's day,
now it means a bodice-ripper.
Calling it a "romance" (noun) doesn't seem so wrong to me, though it
wouldn't be my first choice.

Perhaps "chivalric romance"?

This lists various types of "romance" genres:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance#Genres

and this discusses "chivalric romance":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalric_romance

This may (or may not) be more the sort of thing JRRT had in mind: an
old-style romance such as might have been written based on his
mythology.

These romances are not "novels" because they use traditional themes,
not "novel" themes.

[tony]

"John W Kennedy" wrote in message news:

<snip>

Read the preface (or afterword) to Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress" (3rd
edition or later), which includes an extended analysis of the word
"romance".

But I would add that, whether Tolkien wished it to be so or not, tLotR
truly is a novel. The narrator is constantly aware of the focal
characters' states of mind, in a way that the Gawayn poet or Malory
almost never is. For better or for worse, it's a child of "Pamela".
That's the reason that tLotR became a huge part of pop culture as soon
as the paperbacks came out, while the Silmarilion, which is not a
novel, remains an acquired and specialist taste.

<snip>

Tony replied:

I just found a copy of "The Pilgrims's Regress" online and I've printed out
the preface and I will read that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Pamela." Are you referring to the novel
"Pamela," written in 1740?

I believe you are saying that Tolkien used the limited omniscient point of
view, a writing technique not used in Middle English Romances.

In terms of the definition of Romance, I’ve been reading “Middle English
Romance” selected and edited by Stephen Shepherd. There are two excellent
essays in the book that address the definitions of various types of Middle
English Romance works. The essays are “The Knight Sets Forth” by Erich
Auerbach, and “Definitions of Middle English Romance” by John Finlayson.
The book also includes some actual Middle English Romances written in Middle
English with translations of unfamiliar words such as “gome” (worthy/
[grown] man) and “misseyde” (insulted). The first romance story presented
in the collection is “Havelok.”

[John W Kennedy]

Post by tony
<snip>
Read the preface (or afterword) to Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress" (3rd
edition or later), which includes an extended analysis of the word
"romance".
But I would add that, whether Tolkien wished it to be so or not, tLotR
truly is a novel. The narrator is constantly aware of the focal
characters' states of mind, in a way that the Gawayn poet or Malory
almost never is. For better or for worse, it's a child of "Pamela".
That's the reason that tLotR became a huge part of pop culture as soon
as the paperbacks came out, while the Silmarilion, which is not a
novel, remains an acquired and specialist taste.
<snip>
I just found a copy of "The Pilgrims's Regress" online and I've printed
out the preface and I will read that.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Pamela." Are you referring to the novel
"Pamela," written in 1740?

Yes. It's not a terribly good book, because Samuel Richardson couldn't
edit himself, had trouble plotting, and insisted on pointing out the
moral. But he got under his characters' skins the way no one ever had
before in prose story-writing, and if you read "Pamela" after reading
other books that were popular in 1740, it's like Dorothy opening the
door into Technicolor. Novels were never the same again.

Post by tony
I believe you are saying that Tolkien used the limited omniscient point
of view, a writing technique not used in Middle English Romances.

Or Middle Persian, for that matter. But it's more than mere POV. It's
detailed and relatively subtle anatomization of the character's soul.
It's giving each character his own diction and idiom.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 02:39:26 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

?while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.?
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy ?Lord of the Rings?
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.

I read that letter differently. He's saying there are different ways
to read it. One way just for the story and the sense of wonder.
People who read for that will skip the appendices, and they are right
to do so. Another sort of reader likes what Tolkien calls "lore", and
that group will devour the appendices, and probably argue among
themselves about what various passages mean. :-)
I don't think it's fair to call LotR a "romance novel", though. That
connotes the billionairess and the stableboy, or the duke and the
cocktail waitress, with clothes ripped passionately off. "Heroic
romance" places it squarely in the tradition of an older type of
story, and I think that's right.

Yes, there is a difference between a "romance" and a "romance novel",
but though I would include Jane Austen's novels among the latter, they
are not bodice rippers.

Having said that, I'm not very clear on the distinction between a
"novel" and a "romance".

[Paul S. Person]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:22:52 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
Yes, there is a difference between a "romance" and a "romance novel",
but though I would include Jane Austen's novels among the latter, they
are not bodice rippers.

Exactly. The descriptions given earlier were actually of "bodice
rippers", a sub-genre (as I understand it) of romance novels.

Post by Steve Hayes
Having said that, I'm not very clear on the distinction between a
"novel" and a "romance".

IIRC, and I think the Wiki links I gave earlier say this also, "novel"
was used originally a a pejorative for stories that had not descended
from ancient times but rather told /new/ (that is, "novel") stories.
It was a pejorative because, of course, in Traditional Values,
anything "new" is also "bad". Only the past is "good".

"Romance" focuses more on male/female (more recently, male/male and
female/female) relationships than on knightly combat -- that is,
Action Sequences.

A "romance novel", then, would be a /new/ (nontraditional) story which
is a romance. What I think "romance" by itself is intended to mean is
something the Wiki calls "chivalric romance" -- a traditional story
that focuses (rather vaguely, I suspect) on male/female relationships
rather than Action Sequences. Apparently, they also involved multiple
interwoven plots.

As I have noted, JRRTs novels can probably be said to be /romances/ in
that they are telling "old" stories which belong to his legendarium
(which I also sometimes refer to as "mythology"). Sam's ruminitiions
on "great stories" suggests that /LOTR/ has this quality. Ironically,
it would mean that the Rankin-Bass /Return of the King/ (of evil
repute and worse memory) got one thing right: bards might well have
composed songs on "Frodo of the Nine Fingers and the Ring of Doom".

Since I am /not/ a scholar, this may not be quite correct. But the
correct answer is probably somewhat similar.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 02:39:26 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

?while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.?
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy ?Lord of the Rings?
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.

I read that letter differently. He's saying there are different ways
to read it. One way just for the story and the sense of wonder.
People who read for that will skip the appendices, and they are right
to do so. Another sort of reader likes what Tolkien calls "lore", and
that group will devour the appendices, and probably argue among
themselves about what various passages mean. :-)
I don't think it's fair to call LotR a "romance novel", though. That
connotes the billionairess and the stableboy, or the duke and the
cocktail waitress, with clothes ripped passionately off. "Heroic
romance" places it squarely in the tradition of an older type of
story, and I think that's right.

Yes, there is a difference between a "romance" and a "romance novel",
but though I would include Jane Austen's novels among the latter, they
are not bodice rippers.
Having said that, I'm not very clear on the distinction between a
"novel" and a "romance".

The two words have had a number of meanings, so it partly depends on
what century and language you're talking about. An English professor
will call Aphra Behn's "Oroonoko; or, The Royal Slave" a "novel" if
he's talking to another English professor, because that's what Aphra
Behn called it, but but he'll call it a "novella" if he's describing it
to a history professor who's interested in the content, because it's
much too short to call it a "novel", today. They both have one basic
meaning, which is "prose story".

But in usual technical use, "novel" has come to mean a long prose story
of the sort that has been popular in English (and many other languages)
since 1740, in which character-drawing is an important element.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:32:58 -0500, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 02:39:26 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

?while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.?
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy ?Lord of the Rings?
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.

I read that letter differently. He's saying there are different ways
to read it. One way just for the story and the sense of wonder.
People who read for that will skip the appendices, and they are right
to do so. Another sort of reader likes what Tolkien calls "lore", and
that group will devour the appendices, and probably argue among
themselves about what various passages mean. :-)
I don't think it's fair to call LotR a "romance novel", though. That
connotes the billionairess and the stableboy, or the duke and the
cocktail waitress, with clothes ripped passionately off. "Heroic
romance" places it squarely in the tradition of an older type of
story, and I think that's right.

Yes, there is a difference between a "romance" and a "romance novel",
but though I would include Jane Austen's novels among the latter, they
are not bodice rippers.
Having said that, I'm not very clear on the distinction between a
"novel" and a "romance".

The two words have had a number of meanings, so it partly depends on
what century and language you're talking about. An English professor
will call Aphra Behn's "Oroonoko; or, The Royal Slave" a "novel" if
he's talking to another English professor, because that's what Aphra
Behn called it, but but he'll call it a "novella" if he's describing it
to a history professor who's interested in the content, because it's
much too short to call it a "novel", today. They both have one basic
meaning, which is "prose story".
But in usual technical use, "novel" has come to mean a long prose story
of the sort that has been popular in English (and many other languages)
since 1740, in which character-drawing is an important element.

So the difference, then, is that in romances character-drawing is not
an important element?

Surely, never had a male
Under such like circumstances
So adventurous a tale,
Which may rank with most romances.

Or perhaps it was just that "novel" didn't rhyme? And Gilbert may have
had a low opinion of all novelists and not just lady ones.

I've always thought of LotR as a novel, and The Silmarillion as an
anthology of short stories.

[Paul S. Person]

On Sun, 29 Nov 2015 05:55:10 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:32:58 -0500, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
Having said that, I'm not very clear on the distinction between a
"novel" and a "romance".

The two words have had a number of meanings, so it partly depends on
what century and language you're talking about. An English professor
will call Aphra Behn's "Oroonoko; or, The Royal Slave" a "novel" if
he's talking to another English professor, because that's what Aphra
Behn called it, but but he'll call it a "novella" if he's describing it
to a history professor who's interested in the content, because it's
much too short to call it a "novel", today. They both have one basic
meaning, which is "prose story".
But in usual technical use, "novel" has come to mean a long prose story
of the sort that has been popular in English (and many other languages)
since 1740, in which character-drawing is an important element.

So the difference, then, is that in romances character-drawing is not
an important element?
Surely, never had a male
Under such like circumstances
So adventurous a tale,
Which may rank with most romances.
Or perhaps it was just that "novel" didn't rhyme? And Gilbert may have
had a low opinion of all novelists and not just lady ones.
I've always thought of LotR as a novel, and The Silmarillion as an
anthology of short stories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novel contains this interesting passage:

The romance is a closely related long prose narrative. Walter Scott
defined it as "a fictitious narrative in prose or verse; the interest
of which turns upon marvellous and uncommon incidents", whereas in the
novel "the events are accommodated to the ordinary train of human
events and the modern state of society".[3] However, many romances,
including the historical romances of Scott,[4] Emily Brontë's
Wuthering Heights[5] and Herman Melville's Moby-Dick,[6] are also
frequently called novels, and Scott describes romance as a "kindred
term". Romance, as defined here, should not be confused with the genre
fiction love romance or romance novel. Other European languages do not
distinguish between romance and novel: "a novel is le roman, der
Roman, il romanzo."[7]

By Walter Scott's definition, JRRT's "novels" are, indeed, Romances.

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novella has this tidbit:

The English word "novella" derives from the Italian "novella",
feminine of "novello", which means "new".

And this bit of history:

The novella as a literary genre began developing in the early
Renaissance by the Italian and French literatura, principally Giovanni
Boccaccio, author of The Decameron (1353).[2] The Decameron featured
one hundred tales (novellas) told by ten people (seven women and three
men) fleeing the Black Death by escaping from Florence to the Fiesole
hills in 1348. This structure would then be imitated by subsequent
authors, notably the French queen Marguerite de Navarre, who wrote a
Heptaméron (1559) that included seventy-two original French tales and
was modeled after the structure of The Decameron.

It then goes on to discuss the differences between short stories,
novellas, and novels, noting several novellas sometimes called novels,
And other issues you may find sufficiently confusing. I certainly did.

[John W Kennedy]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 18:32:58 -0500, John W Kennedy

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 02:39:26 -0500, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

?while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.?
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy ?Lord of the Rings?
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.

I read that letter differently. He's saying there are different ways
to read it. One way just for the story and the sense of wonder.
People who read for that will skip the appendices, and they are right
to do so. Another sort of reader likes what Tolkien calls "lore", and
that group will devour the appendices, and probably argue among
themselves about what various passages mean. :-)
I don't think it's fair to call LotR a "romance novel", though. That
connotes the billionairess and the stableboy, or the duke and the
cocktail waitress, with clothes ripped passionately off. "Heroic
romance" places it squarely in the tradition of an older type of
story, and I think that's right.

Yes, there is a difference between a "romance" and a "romance novel",
but though I would include Jane Austen's novels among the latter, they
are not bodice rippers.
Having said that, I'm not very clear on the distinction between a
"novel" and a "romance".

The two words have had a number of meanings, so it partly depends on
what century and language you're talking about. An English professor
will call Aphra Behn's "Oroonoko; or, The Royal Slave" a "novel" if
he's talking to another English professor, because that's what Aphra
Behn called it, but but he'll call it a "novella" if he's describing it
to a history professor who's interested in the content, because it's
much too short to call it a "novel", today. They both have one basic
meaning, which is "prose story".
But in usual technical use, "novel" has come to mean a long prose story
of the sort that has been popular in English (and many other languages)
since 1740, in which character-drawing is an important element.

So the difference, then, is that in romances character-drawing is not
an important element?
Surely, never had a male
Under such like circumstances
So adventurous a tale,
Which may rank with most romances.
Or perhaps it was just that "novel" didn't rhyme? And Gilbert may have
had a low opinion of all novelists and not just lady ones.

By "lady novelist", Gilbert did not mean "woman novelist". He was
alluding to the essay "Silly novels by Lady Novelists" by George Eliot.
She was talking about what we would today call "Mary Sues" (though
focusing on other badnesses than self-insertion).

But just because "romance" can be opposed to "novel", that doesn't mean
it always is. Again, check out Lewis's preface/afterword to "The
Pilgrim's Regress".

Post by Steve Hayes
I've always thought of LotR as a novel, and The Silmarillion as an
anthology of short stories.

It is episodic, but it's also made up entirely of formal speeches --
nothing like an attempt at realistic dialog. That is not necessarily
bad writing, but it is not the sort of writing that the modern world is
used to. And, of course, Tolkien was not intending to write a novel, in
the first place. He was building a mythology, even supposing that, one
day, other artists would use his creation; the Silmarillion is as much
a schema as anything else.

[Stan Brown]

Post by John W Kennedy

Post by Steve Hayes
I've always thought of LotR as a novel, and The Silmarillion as an
anthology of short stories.

It is episodic, but it's also made up entirely of formal speeches --
nothing like an attempt at realistic dialog. That is not necessarily
bad writing, but it is not the sort of writing that the modern world is
used to. And, of course, Tolkien was not intending to write a novel, in
the first place. He was building a mythology, even supposing that, one
day, other artists would use his creation; the Silmarillion is as much
a schema as anything else.

I think it's true that he was not intending to write a novel. Look at
the two Books of Lost Tales. That's clearly a bunch of separate
stories with a linking device in the shape of the traveler.

It's a while since I've read BoLT (not my favorite parts of HoME), so
I can't remember the dialog. But I agree that in the published
Silmarillion the dialog was not realistic. However, it always struck
me as the sort of thing in the Morte d'Arthur, or battlefield
speeches put into the mouths of commanders by historians who weren't
there.

The old-time literary convention was solemn, formal dialog on
important occasions or concerning important matters, and I think
Tolkien was consciously emulating that. (In /The Hobbit/, he had
Thorin speak that way a lot of the time, but the other characters
used more ordinary language.)

As to not being a novel, I think that the published Quenta
Silmarillion might claim to be a novel, though somewhat loosely
structured. Ainulindalë fits pretty well as its prologue; Akallabêth
is a short-story sequel. Valaquenta and Of the Rings of Power are
appendices, despite the placement of Valaquenta.

[Steve Hayes]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Gerry Snyder]

Post by tony
In letter 160, “From a letter to Rayner Unwin 6 March 1955” Tolkien
asserts: “while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.”
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy “Lord of the
Rings” as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he
intended. However, in letter 329, “From a letter to Peter Szabó
Szentmihályi (draft) [October 1971]” he declares “My work is not a
'novel', but an 'heroic romance' a much older and quite different
variety of literature.”
Did Tolkien change his opinion of his own work from 1955 to 1971? Or
was he talking about different works: “The Silmarillion” in 1955 and
“The Lord of the Rings” in 1971? And if “The Silmarillion” is not a
romance, What is it? A pseudo-mythology? And in what sense is “The Lord
of the Rings” a romance? Is it a romance in the sense that the
“Alliterative Morte Arthure” is a romance?

To me he was just saying that folks who like the romance of unexplained
vistas should not read the appendices, because some of the vistas will
be explained.

Gerry

[Paul S. Person]

“while those who enjoy
the book [The Lord of the Rings] as an 'heroic romance' only, and find
'unexplained vistas' part of the literary effect, will neglect the
appendices, very properly.”
Tolkien seems to be implying here that readers who enjoy “Lord of the Rings”
as a romance novel do not appreciate the novel in the way he intended.
However, in letter 329, “From a letter to Peter Szabó Szentmihályi (draft)
[October 1971]” he declares “My work is not a 'novel', but an 'heroic
romance' a much older and quite different variety of literature.”
Did Tolkien change his opinion of his own work from 1955 to 1971? Or was he
talking about different works: “The Silmarillion” in 1955 and “The Lord of
the Rings” in 1971? And if “The Silmarillion” is not a romance, What is it?
A pseudo-mythology? And in what sense is “The Lord of the Rings” a romance?
Is it a romance in the sense that the “Alliterative Morte Arthure” is a
romance?

The various links to Wikipedia I have posted were intended to bring
the conversation back to what /JRRT/ meant.

Still, I don't suppose there is any actual harm in discussing the
current (or at least recent, say, the 1950's) view of the difference
between "romance" and "novel".

But, strictly speaking, it is what JRRT thought the terms meant that
is on-topic in rabt. IMHO, of course.