Encaitare and
davem, thanks for the references to those particular texts, but if I might be allowed to nitpick somewhat. . .they are not really on point, I'm afraid.
In that extract from FT, for example, Tolkien is talking about making the world seem "true" -- that is, believeable and consistent with itself. This is, I would posit, somewhat different from being
real. Something can be, to quote the professor, "presented as 'true'" (and the quotation marks he puts around "true" are telling aren' they?) but still be "unreal". Take trolls, for example. . .
davem, those papers you cite are fascinating, in particular the Nagy, which I've not read but suddenly I want to. But I think that perhaps you are moving into the same territory of the text as being "presented as true" rather than the trickier idea of its reality. You say intriguing that Trotter is a "real character for you" -- I would love to know
what is so real about him? He is a hobbit and a character that Tolkien decided not to use. He is the perfect example of the difference I see between the idea of the text being "presented as true" and the reality of it for us. A ranger hobbit is something that Tolkien realised would never be "true" in his world, and so he removed him. It would not have been internally consistent, and would have jarred the reader so that the appearance of the tale's reality would have been undone. And yet he "is a 'real' character" for you (and your use of those quotation marks is interesting).
Imladris -- thank you for tackling the truth/real conundrum head on when you write that
Quote:
|
What makes a book real, I believe, is if it speaks truth
|
Sounds good, until I get to the example you cite. I do not share your reservations with
The Sting, since I have no problem whatsoever with accepting the 'bad guy' as the 'good guy' in the context of the story. So here we get into the messy part -- is this movie real for me (because it and I share a truth: bad guys can be good guys) and not real for you (because you and it do not share that truth with us)? In this case, aren't we moving into some kind of acknowledgement that the reality of the art (in this case LotR) is entirely dependent upon the reader?
If I am willing to accept the art as true, then I make it real. And then this, ironically, leads us right back to the Wilde quote you dispute, insofar as the only way for the book to get me to accept it as true, is by being well-written!?!?