Listening to The Gabbler 17/11/2005 Some interest has been expressed in the reasons for my posting the second chapter of The Gabbler's Testament rather than the first. I was being honest when I mentioned that I prefer Chapter Two and feel that it is more representative of the book, if any single chapter can do such a thing. Chapter One establishes the basic premise for all that follows and it is written in a straightforward narrative style, very different from the dreamlike, heroic style of Chapter Two.To understand why the book is written in three different styles, it is necessary to know how it was written and why. Like all books in the fantasy genre, it begins with Mr Tolkien.The Lord of the Rings is unquestionably the origin and giant of the explosion of fantasy novels over the last fifty years. Without this one book, it is extremely doubtful that fantasy would be a genre at all. Tolkien establishes the ground rules and dictates that every subsequent fantasy writer will be measured against him. The problem is that no-one has even approached his mastery as yet; fantasy has one towering genius and the rest is rendered inconsequential in comparison.I first read The Lord of the Rings in the early sixties. It was not a major influence on my own fantasy world; that had been building in my head for at least ten years beforehand. But it did introduce me to the idea of writing the stories contained within my world. Over the next thirty years I made several starts on the major opus, Yffi's Saga, but was never happy with the results. I am ever mindful that it is Tolkien that I have to beat.That may seem a high ambition indeed but, for a fantasy writer, there can be no other goal. Who writes to be second class in any genre? This is reinforced in fantasy by the execrable nonsense that has been churned out in the name of the genre since the sixties. It really is time that we had some fantasy literature written rather than the puerile rubbish that lines the bookshelves at the moment.This was the driving force behind the writing of The Gabbler. I wanted to read good fantasy but it seemed that only garbage was available. In the end, I realized that, if the kind of books I wanted to read were ever to be written, I would have to do it myself. I sat down once more, determined to write.A strange thing happened then. You will think I am crazy but I must say it because it is true: a voice began to speak in my head. And I wrote down what it was saying. I understood the background but did not write it; only what the voice was saying went down.It was the Gabbler who was speaking, I knew that. And he dictated what became the original document, also known as The Gabbler's Testament, that became the basis for the book. My problem was that the Gabbler was uneducated and spoke in simple and rough words. He was interesting for short periods but became mind-crushingly boring after a while. Essentially, he was an old man recounting his life story and we all know how tedious that can get. It became clear that I was going to have to alleviate the Gabbler's incessant droning by telling the story that occasioned the document. And it was the scribe, Dorvett, who was the obvious vehicle for this. He was the one who transcribed the Gabbler's words so meticulously; he was the faceless one who provided the silent half of this conversation. His story needed telling too.So now I had two styles: the raw and coarse style of the Gabbler and my own narrative style for the telling of Dorvett's story. That was fine until I ran into Chapter Sixteen. It opened up a whole new ball game.Chapter Sixteen tells of the Gabbler's woman. It is derived from the Gabbler's account but had to be much more if the full effect were to be communicated. The Gabbler was unable to put into words the enormous emotions inherent in his tale and his speech becomes halting and almost incoherent at this point. This had a powerful effect upon Dorvett, who had the man's presence to add to the words, but to a reader it would seem garbled. I had to step in to give the full impact of the story.Here was born the third style: a mythic, heightened form of reality, filtered through the memory of an old man and the sensitivity of a young scribe. It is a romantic view of the past containing truth but exaggerated in color by the emotions of the narrators.This third style became my solution to several long and interminable sections of the Gabbler's account. I went back and replaced his worst pieces with this more colorful style. And Chapter Two is one of these. Now, perhaps, it becomes clearer why I prefer this chapter over Chapter One.This whole business of three totally different styles must surely be a recipe for the death of a novel; it is hard enough to write a decent novel in one style without setting oneself so impossible a task. But, as I have explained, it became necessary. That is how the book had to be written or it would never have been a book at all. Editors can like it or lump it for all I care.And now to the matter of beginnings. Janus has mentioned the opening lines of The Hobbit, the famous "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." That's a snappy entrance, I must admit; it raises questions immediately, such as "what is a hobbit?" and "why did he live in a hole?" The Gabbler begins with: "It was dark in the cell when Dorvett first entered and it took a while for his eyes to become accustomed to the gloom." Not as snappy perhaps but containing as many questions, I think.I would agree with Janus that The Hobbit was intended to be a kids' book, but feel that this gets lost along the way. Tolkien couldn't help it; he became involved in telling the story and forgot who he was writing for. By the mid point of the book, he is writing well above most kids' level. I think this was accidental but it actually reflects the opening of Bilbo's eyes to the greater world beyond the Shire. As his innocence is destroyed by knowledge, so the writing becomes more sophisticated. This also allows it to blend into the far more complex writing of The Lord of the Rings.As for Tolkien's writing itself, I think that it is not unassailable. It is quite stilted in parts and often needlessly detailed (the poetry is atrocious, of course). Where he scores is in his specialty: linguistics. His construction of several languages for the various races within his books gives his writing a feel of authenticity, something that any fantasy writer should strive for. He also has a mastery of time and seasons that again adds to the reality of events. But his geography is awful; there is no reason for his placement of mountain ranges and rivers, vegetation or climates, beyond convenience for the story. And this erodes the authenticity that he has created in other ways.So Tolkien can be beaten and one day he will be. I do not think that The Gabbler's Testament will be the one to do it; but the intention is that Yffi just might...For those who are interested, there is an account of Yffi's finding of The Gabbler's Testament here.Tags: Fantasy; Writing; Tolkien; LOTR.
Clive
Broken Messenger I am crazy but I must say it because it is true: a voice began to speak in my head. Clive, as long as you and the voice aren't carrying on conversations, I suppose I can reserve judgment on this one.... Brad Date Added: 18/11/2005
Gone Away He just ignored me, Brad - he dictated and I wrote it all down. Don't think I ever said a word to him. :D Date Added: 18/11/2005
Mad Very interesting to see how the book developed Dad, I enjoyed that. I am however a little concerned that the Gabbler's been talking to you...
As for The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings you can watch Tolkein’s progression right through them all, as you say. Lord of the Rings picks up in style where The Hobbit leaves off and the writing style continues to mature right through all three books. I think the return to the shire is his best writing by a long way.
One of your commenters made a comment about his later work being readable only by his fan base and I can only assume they are talking about the Silmarillion. I feel I have to point out that the Silmarillion was not Tolkein telling a story set in Middle Earth but is actually a history of the earlier ages of fantasy world. They were written for himself not any audience, hence their dry almost unreadable quality. Date Added: 18/11/2005
Gone Away Ah, well, you know the Gabbler, Mad; always yak, yak, yak... It took Tolkien fourteen years to write LOTR. I suppose it would be strange if we didn't notice an improvement in writing style over such a period; practice does indeed make better (if not perfect). The Silmarillion is a collection of pieces written at various times and was never finished in the way that Tolkien wanted to (he was going to go through it all and make some sense of it). It contains repetition, notes, stories, history, all jumbled up together with only a vague attempt at chronological order imposed upon it. I waded through it, bored stiff but determined to finish, and remember very little of it. Definitely something for the fanbase only... Date Added: 18/11/2005
Mad It took me several attempts to read it, it was so dull. Date Added: 18/11/2005
Gone Away Actually, it's a perfect example of a book that would never have been published had not its author already achieved fame. ;) Date Added: 18/11/2005
Janus I should make an apology right here and now. I am that fan and poster, and I should point out that the books that Tolkien finished are delightful reads (except the poetry which makes me want to stay clear from Rivendell- one word explanation "Elfwine") I believe his son is the one that published most of the rest of his work, and you can always tell when the original author is not weaving the tale. For example I am not a V C Andrews fan, but for years her family published the book in her name and if you didn't know that-you would wonder what happened. My (unasked for admittedly) advice for you my friend is to write every book like it's your first, love it, refine it, and have no one ever say that only your fanbase could ever appreciate it. I feel that if anyone can challenge Mr Tolkien's mountain of success that it may be you. Others have not even got to the roots of the mountain, I hope you reach the peak. If you do, I expect to be able to purchase an autographed copy. Date Added: 18/11/2005
Gone Away Thank you indeed, Janus. As I understand it, the author gets twenty-five copies of his book when first published to distribute amongst friends and colleagues; you shall have one, duly autographed, the moment that glad event occurs! I'm glad to see that we agree on Tolkien's poetry, however... ;) Date Added: 18/11/2005
Scot Clive: Really enjoyed your insights here in regard to how we as writers find our inspiration, and in the process, literally become connected to something larger other than ourselves. From my study of literature, and my dabbling in writing, my reflections convince me that the experience of a life lived is our purpose, and that we tell our stories for the purpose of sharing that experience with others. Such as it is with what for us has always been a grand enigma, that simple question, "Who am I?," that's always asked, but never fully answered. That is until we finally sit still and listen for that faint voice whispering from the farthest corner of our mind. "The Gabbler" could not be more apropos, the incoherent jibberish of an old man made meaningful by the careful interpretation of the scribe. I shall like to see how this finishes. Date Added: 19/11/2005
Gone Away Scot: I always enjoy your insightful comments. You have seen beyond my deliberately amusing caricature of a voice speaking in my head to the moment of creation itself. To some extent, we are in the grip of our unconscious minds; shadowy beings rise up from the depths and whisper words that we hardly understand in our ears. We write and hope to see at a later date. I have always regarded a book as an opportunity to stand up and speak our piece without fear of interruption; sometimes it flows forth as a mystery in fiction, sometimes in a political or religious treatise. But ultimately, you are right - we write ourselves on to the page and can do no more and no less. As I mentioned before, I am persuaded not to post any more of The Gabbler in the blog for publishing reasons. So any further revelation must wait for publication, if that ever happens. In the meantime, however, I can state that the book became Dorvett's in the end rather than the Gabbler's. It is most essentially about coming of age. Date Added: 19/11/2005
Larissa You certainly made want to read some Tolkien. Should I be embarrassed to admit I've never read The Hobbit or Lord of the Rings? oh, well. The Gabbler sounds quite interesting, too... Date Added: 19/11/2005
Gone Away What's to be embarrassed about, Larissa? We all have books that we "ought" to have read and haven't. But I hope you enjoy Tolkien when you do read him; he seems to be one of those authors that people either love or hate. I think it depends on how much of the romantic resides within your soul... Date Added: 19/11/2005
Ken Scot's comment about the value of stories strikes me as being absolutely correct and in Tolkien's case, when he wrote LOTR, I think it's fair to say that he was not only making sense of his own horrific World War One experience, but also creating a mythic and epic treatment of the perennial human struggle between Good and Evil/ Light and Dark/Freedom and Slavery. Like you, I read it in the Sixties when, for me, it became a very powerful commentary on the Cold War and Vietnam. Others saw it in this way, too, I know. There might well be related parallels in the minds of younger readers today, which perhaps goes some way to explaining its greatness and uniqueness, despite, as you say, its limits in other areas. As to the songs of Middle Earth, I take your point, although I've always had a soft spot for Tom Bombadil. Am I alone? Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow; Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow. None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the master: His songs are stronger songs, and his feet are faster. Memories, memories... Date Added: 19/11/2005
Gone Away All good stuff about the meaning of LOTR, Ken; 'tis indeed the classic battle between good and evil. For me, however, Tom Bombadil is out of place in the book. Here's this jolly fellow, seemingly invincible and tremendously powerful, yet he won't lift a finger to help the cause. It just feels like Tolkien had him on a shelf somewhere and wanted him in, so in he went. I think Tolkien published a book of verse in which Tom Bombadil was involved. That seems to me a far better place for him... ;) Date Added: 20/11/2005
Ken Fair point, although if Tom has to do with the spirit of nature, then he has to be indifferent to the plight of men, as nature continues to be. Date Added: 20/11/2005
Gone Away And good point in return, Ken! Date Added: 20/11/2005
Back to the main blog
You may use HTML in comments. A carriage return is <br />, use two for a new paragraph. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags or JavaScript.
Name * Comment * Email * URL Commenting has closed for this post
