BASIC CONCEPTS

— When novelists claim they do not invent it, but hear voices and find stories in their head, they are neither joking nor crazy.

— When characters, narrators, or muses have minds of their own and occasionally take over, they are alternate personalities.

— Alternate personalities and memory gaps, but no significant distress or dysfunction, is a normal version of multiple personality.

— normal Multiple Personality Trait (MPT) (core of Multiple Identity Literary Theory), not clinical Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)

— The normal version of multiple personality is an asset in fiction writing when some alternate personalities are storytellers.

— Multiple personality originates when imaginative children with normal brains have unassuaged trauma as victim or witness.

— Psychiatrists, whose standard mental status exam fails to ask about memory gaps, think they never see multiple personality.

— They need the clue of memory gaps, because alternate personalities don’t acknowledge their presence until their cover is blown.

— In novels, most multiple personality, per se, is unnoticed, unintentional, and reflects the author’s view of ordinary psychology.

— Multiple personality means one person who has more than one identity and memory bank, not psychosis or possession.

— Euphemisms for alternate personalities include parts, pseudonyms, alter egos, doubles, double consciousness, voice or voices.

— Multiple personality trait: 90% of fiction writers; possibly 30% of public.

— Each time you visit, search "name index" or "subject index," choose another name or subject, and search it.

— If you read only recent posts, you miss most of what this site has to offer.

— Share site with friends.

Sunday, November 5, 2017

J. R. R. Tolkien (post 5) on Writing: “I had the sense of recording what was already ‘there’, not of ‘inventing’…I had very little conscious, intellectual, intention”

Writers have often said such things about their writing process, but literary criticism mostly remains at the stage that I was before starting this blog: it thinks writers are joking. For if literary criticism thought that writers were not joking, it would be looking for a theory that explains what writers say. That is, if writers’ regular selves are not conscious of inventing it, who or what within the writers is conscious of inventing it?

In letters, J. R. R. Tolkien said the following:

1951
    “You asked for a brief sketch of my stuff that is connected with my imaginary world…
     I do not remember a time when I was not building it. Many children make up, or begin to make up, imaginary languages. I have been at it since I could write. But I have never stopped…
     But an equally basic passion of mine ab initio was for myth (not allegory!) and for fairy-story, and above all heroic legend…
     [Stories] arose in my mind as ‘given’ things…always I had the sense of recording what was already ‘there’, somewhere: not of ‘inventing’ ” (1, pp. 143-145).

18 April 1955
     The Lord of the Rings [published 1954-55] as a story was finished so long ago now that I can take a largely impersonal view of it, and find ‘interpretations’ quite amusing; even those that I might make myself, which are mostly post scriptum: I had very little particular, conscious, intellectual, intention in mind at any point.*

*Take the Ents, for instance. I did not consciously invent them at all. The chapter called ‘Treebeard’, from Treebeard’s first remark on p. 66, was written off more or less as it stands, with an effect on my self (except for labour pains) almost like reading some one else’s work. And I like Ents now because they do not seem to have anything to do with me…I was not inventing but reporting (imperfectly) and had at times to wait till ‘what really happened’ came through…” (1, pp. 211-212).

1. Humphrey Carpenter (Editor), Christopher Tolkien (Assistant). The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien. New York, Houghton Mifflin, 2000.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to comment (whether you agree or disagree) and ask questions (simple or expert). I appreciate your contribution.