The Lord of the Rings was merely a story developed to house Tolkiens invented Languages and so Middle-earth was invented solely for that purpose.

This remark is based on a letter in response to inquiries from the New York Times (June 30, 1955).  This remark is as follows:  "[T]he remark about ''philology' was intended to allude to what I think is a primary 'fact' about my work [The Lord of the Rings], that it is all of a piece, and fundamentally linguistic in inspiration . . . The invention of languages is the foundation.  The 'stories' were made rather to provide a world for the languages than the reverse.  To me a name comes first and the story follows" (Letters, 219).  In a later letter, Tolkien wrote the follow in direct answer the the statement of "Middle-earth grew out of Tolkien's predilection for creating languages . . .   This reference to 'invention of Language' has become, I think, confused.  My fault, in introducing too casually complex matters and personal theories, better not touched on unless at greater length than would be suitable (or interesting)  in such an article. For the matter is not really pertinent:   the amusement of making up languages is very common among children . . . so that I am not peculiar in that respect . . . [T]here is a missing link, more important (I think) for the purpose than what I said, or should have said, about 'invention'.  Namely:   how did linguistic invention lea to imaginary history? So that It think the passage would be more intelligible if it ran more of less so:  'The imaginary histories grew out of Tolkien's predilection for inventing languages.  He discovered, as other have who carry out such inventions to any degree of completion, that a language requires a suitable habitation, and a history in which is can develop' (Letters, 374-4).

Reilly, himself a critic, writes in his essay, "Tolkien and the Fairy Story", "For my purpose it does not matter much whether Tolkien was being ironic when interviewed, or whether writers' remarks on their own work are to be taken as final evidence as to the nature and meaning of their work . . . The trilogy may have begun as a philological game easily enough, but other things have grown beneath their makers' hands . . . I could cite innumerable passages in the trilogy which are clearly not part of any game, philological or otherwise -- passages in which the heart of the author is laid bare for all to see who read them.  No one ever exposed the nerves and fibers of his being in order to make up a language;  it is not only insane but unnecessary" (Reilly 137).  Of course, one must then assume that Tolkien did consider his work as a spiritual part of himself, a psychological limb or organ as it were.  I dare say that most authors, if not all, consider their works as they might consider a child.  A critic's tossed barbed pejorative comments and essays at an authors work -- and all to frequently the author him or herself -- will likely strike the heart of the author.  One cannot be wounded by such a comment if your work is a game.  One's heart is not in danger from a game of tic-tac-toe or checkers.   Therefore, a powerful proof that Tolkien's novel is no game, one need only point to a letter dated 1953 in which Tolkien writes "I am dreading the publication, for it will be impossible not to mind what is said.  I have exposed my heart to be shot at" (Letters, 172)

To Tolkien Index