Reading through The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien has been more fascinating than I expected. Even though I am a Tolkien fan, I had not gone through this because for a long time I was much more interested in the fantasy world of Middle-Earth, and I’d never seen the appeal of reading letters of deceased (famous) people. But since I enjoyed Kreeft’s book, and noticed his many quotations from Letters, I finally borrowed Letters from the library.
I’m about a third of the way through, approaching the year 1950. The bulk of the letters I’ve read so far come from the 1940s during WWII. Tolkien’s son Christopher is serving in the military and stationed in South Africa (the country of J.R.R.’s birth). Christopher, as enthusiastic reader and provider of critical feedback, is one of the motivating factors that J.R.R. is writing the behemoth Lord of the Rings, the sequel to the well-loved Hobbit published back in the 1930s. There are many interesting tidbits about both books. One that jumped out at me is that Sam Gamgee could well have become Sam Goodchild, if not for Christopher’s insistence that Gamgee be kept. Of the four hobbits, I’ve always found Sam the most interesting of the four – and there are hints that J.R.R. may have thought so too.
As an academic, it was interesting to read Tolkien’s application for a faculty position, specifically a Professorship at the University of Oxford, in 1925. It is a single letter of five main paragraphs, where Tolkien describes his potential suitability for the position, very briefly mentioning his qualifications, his experience, and what he could bring if selected. That’s it. Unlike the massive packets of materials requested of today’s candidates for faculty positions, Tolkien’s letter was polite, to the point, and whimsical. (He got the job.)
The biggest surprise to me was reading Tolkien’s letters to Stanley Unwin, publisher and owner of the company that published The Hobbit. Readers were interested in the sequel, and although Tolkien had been “working” on it for over a decade and was “making progress”, he still hadn’t finished. His letters are full of “excuses” as to why he has not made as much progress as he would like. He continues to hope they would be interested in the book nevertheless, and it certainly helped that Unwin’s son, Rayner, loved the world that Tolkien had created. Tolkien’s excuses included his teaching, his university duties, falling ill, having to tend to the house and domestic things, a friend dying, getting stuck in part of the story, writer’s block, financial constraints, not enough paper (wartime shortage), his typewriter giving problems, and not being able to hire an assistant to help because of money shortages. Maybe that worked in the 1940s where the pace of things was much slower, but it would never fly today.
Was Tolkien a procrastinator? I don’t know. He certainly had other things going on, and he was writing lots of letters (primarily to family members and friends) which must have taken a long time because some of those published in the book were drafts. I’m not sure I have ever written a draft letter – I write it in one sitting and then I send it (before e-mail and the Internet). Yes, he had teaching and other university duties. Yes, he was working on writing other things (including some poems, stories, and things of a more academic nature). Was Lord of the Rings the side-hobby? I’m certainly glad that Unwin had the patience to wait for Tolkien.
Was Tolkien a perfectionist? I don’t know. But I do get the impression that he worked and re-worked drafts until he really felt he got things “right”. The level of detail and the care in which he took to devise entire languages (he was a philologist after all!), cultures, and the richest world in fantasy I have ever encountered, might suggest that he was something of a perfectionist. He certainly took into account comments from his test readers, not just Christopher or Rayner, but also his drinking buddies and fellow academics – the group known as the Inklings. I suspect that my enjoyment of Tolkien’s world stems from him sweating the details to get things right. The depth of his world is astonishing, and now that I’ve read more fantasy and sci-fi, I still think his Middle Earth is the most immersive.
Perfectionism and Procrastination: do the two go hand-in-hand? Are the perfectionists always delaying things because they’re constantly thinking and tweaking and unsatisfied until a hard deadline forces the output to be finally revealed? It seems plausible. I’ve been thinking about this connection because of a talk I was giving to graduate students at the neighboring research university. During the Q&A, I was asked about time-management and how I got things done efficiently without being a workaholic. I’m not a procrastinator (most of the time). I don’t like waiting until close to a deadline, I like to be ahead of the game. I’m very efficient – which isn’t always a good thing. I’m also not a perfectionist. Good enough is good enough. This makes me very different from the typical academic since we are trained to be careful and critical, and pushed to produce work of the “highest standard of excellence”. Instead, I’m quick at getting stuff done and my work passes muster. It’s good enough. But perhaps it will never be great, and I’m not in line to win any academic prizes anytime soon. The thought doesn’t bother me in the least.
Should I be taking more time to do better work? Possibly. And that’s what reading Letters has made me ponder. Should I be less quick about finishing my work? Should I strive for excellence? Are my expectations for my students the same as for myself? It took me just under an hour to hammer out this blog post. And I’m not going over it again carefully. It will take time if I want to change my speedy habits. Maybe I’m procrastinating about it because I’m not interested in perfection.
No comments:
Post a Comment