|
To what extent is the story seperate from the storyteller? I think this is the question. If the mythology stands alone, as if it were history, then we would have no real requirement to know about the historian - though that might help us to understand if the historian was biased in any way, & whether he was being selective in the facts he gave us.
But if the mythology is the man in some sense, then an understanding of the man will give an insight into the mythology.
It brings us back to the question of whether the mythology was intended to impact on the primary world in any way. If it was, then Tolkien the man was attempting, through his mythology, to affect us & our world. So, we're back to the question of what Tolkien's intention was, whether it changed, & if it did, why?
Suppose he'd succeeded in his original intent, & our world had been impacted to some extent, wouldn't we have the right to know about the man who had done that?
Yet, if he did change in his intentions, a more interesting question - in the context of this thread - arises - how can it be that a mythology which began with that intent of 'moral regeneration' of the English, produced as its greatest manifestation a work (LotR) which had no purpose behind it than simple entertainment?
|