Tolkien On Imagination

From the Notion Club Papers, which is included in Sauron Defeated. I thought it rather interesting.

‘When you are writing a story, for instance, you can (if you’re a vivid visualizer, as I am, and are clearly visualizing the scene) see two places at once. You can see (say) a field with a tree and sheep sheltering from the sun under it, and be looking round your room. You are really seeing both scenes, because you can recollect details later. … As far as my own visualizing goes, I’ve always been impressed by how often it seems independent of my own will or planning mind (at the moment). Often there is no trace of composing a scene or building it up. It comes before the mind’s eye, as we say, in a way that is very similar to opening closed eyes on a complete waking view. I found it difficult, usually quite impossible, to alter these pictures myself, that is my purpose. As a rule I find it better, and in the end more right, to alter the story I’m trying to tell to suit the pictures. If the two really belong together – they don’t always, of course. But in any case, on such occasions you are really seeing double, or simultaneously.’

C. S. Lewis mentioned something like this, too, I think, when talking about how he came to write Narnia. He had ‘pictures’ of such things such as a faun standing in the snow with an umbrella. I wonder if the pictures they talk about predate the stories they wrote, or as they wrote the stories or thought them out, the pictures cropped up. Hm.
If these pictures are such as I suppose them to be, then I know of one instance where I had to alter my story to fit the ‘picture’ that I have of a scene. Not very interesting to others, perhaps, but my hero was meant to be walking through a valley that came out onto a plain, but instead I saw him standing on top of a cliff looking out over that same plain. And the mountains that I’d put in my map were in different places in the picture. Darn.
But they do seem to come prefabricated, to a certain degree, which helps in describing detail. Anyhow, I, as I said, thought it was an interesting quote.

Vampires? Oh Yes.

I feel I owe some of you an explanation on vampires, vis. why I read and enjoy Dracula, if not positively rave about it, while I decidedly turn up my nose at the very idea of Twilight. There is, of course, more to it than the latter’s being a “girl’s book.” I read Jane Austen. Hopefully I can gather up my very scattered thoughts and make them intelligible, and perhaps even convincing.

Stories, essentially, tell us how to live. They also entertain us. These are the two greatest points of a story. For a long while I have been part of the school that can’t see why we have to analyze a story so deeply that we take it beyond what the author meant. Can’t we just enjoy it at face value? Enjoy it for the story’s sake? Never mind if it has a moral or a meaning, if it is not an obvious allegory, leave it alone. Don’t dissect it. Then I began to realize that this doesn’t quite hold water. Not all the time. Every story has underlying prepositions imputed consciously or unconsciously by the author, and we need to have some idea of what those are, because, whatever we say, every story we read or watch does affect us in some way or other. I certainly do not mean we must destroy the story to examine its cogs and wheels and veins and atoms. That would rob it of the entertainment. With some stories, such as George MacDonald’s Golden Key, that is impossible. What I mean is we should be aware of what is being subtly suggested to us. We should choose entertainment that influences us for the good.
What does this have to do with Vampires? Some would say to steer clear of them at all costs. They are evil. Read about real stories. Read a biography. Or at least an historical fiction. True. Vampires are evil. Fantasy isn’t real. But they are true. Or, at least, they communicate truths about reality.
In Dracula the Count is portrayed as evil through and through. His victims, once they too become vampires, are damned. Without the choice of whether they want to be evil or not. The book says they cannot enter heaven, that their souls are lost. (It does hint that there might be some sort of redemption at the Judgement, on account of the state of their hearts before they were turned into vampires.) But what is important is that he represents an evil that, like Sauron, needs to be fought against. Because he is evil by his nature. The same is true with dragons, goblins, werewolves, ogres and all those “conveniently ugly creatures.” They may not be allegorical, but they do represent a truth. That truth is that there is real evil in the real world, maybe not so obvious or initially so ugly, but it needs to be fought against all the same. This is where the Devil comes into it. Aren’t we meant to fight him? To fight our own temptations? That is a war. Isn’t it?
Now, Twilight. I confess I have not read the books, nor seen the film. But I have tried to find out about it a little. It seems there are two groups of vampires. One who are traditionally evil, and another who take a more modern, enlightened approach. They are “vegetarian.” That is, they only prey on animals. Not only that, but they are model citizens, protecting humans from the first group, and more importantly, falling in love with them (with the humans, that is.) Hmmm…. that doesn’t sound so awful. Sounds almost noble. Very noble. But remember what vampires traditionally represent? Evil. The Devil. Yet here we have a good vampire. A family of them. I don’t mean to mock this story. It is serious.
Maybe this inversion is put down to originality. But I can’t help but regard it more like to heresy. It seems to hint at dangerous ideas. Something that has always been thought of as evil is being portrayed as good, even desirable. Once again, the line between good and evil is being blurred. How bad can bad be before it is evil? Maybe evil can be tamed, loved and just plain gorgeous. Is that a truth? Can the Devil be tamed? Will he fight against his own kind?
When evil is presented as attractive, don’t we often desire it? What then if the idea of living eternally with the person we love (Apart from God. We make the rules.) is presented to us? In Dracula it is shown to be a terrible alternative. In Twilight it is, I believe, shown in quite a different light, if not at all explicitly. It is a falsehood. But if we instead desire to stand along side the aged Dr. Van Helsing, Frodo, King Peter, Desperaux and all the others and fight evil – both in the world and in our own lives – is that not a truth?

G. K. Chesterton said: “Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” But who would want to slay the dragon or the vampire if he/ she is a cute, noble heart throb?

New Header

Livi asked me to make a new header as she was renovating her blog tonight, so here is the header I spend the evening making ... um ... it's for my blog. Whoops. How did that happen? I found some very neat images here. Knights and weapons and things.

Cleese on Beekeeping

Both Rowan Atkinson and John Cleese. A rich mix. Do enjoy.