Quote:
posted by Mithalwen:
If anyone else has read "Gaudy Night" (Dorothy L. Sayers), which various threads here often make me think of, there is a similar question of integrity here. I accept that there may be more personal material extant that has not yet been made available because it is regarded as private to the family - and I think that is fair enough at least while first generation descendants are still living - ( a sin of ommission!) but I do not think that a scholar with a modicum of self respect or integrity would commit a "sin of commission" and deliberately distort the work. Today 02:59 PM
|
My issues and concerns do not question Christopher Tolkien's integrity. I've never accused CT of deliberate misrepresentation or distortion and my points have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. The kinds of things I am referring to are the kinds of unconscious choices and decisions which come into play in any literary context. CT is an extremely privileged reader, but still a reader of his father. Who he is as a person and as a son goes into how he reads Middle-earth. We are in many ways very fortunate to have such a reader bring Middle earth to us. At the same time, I very much doubt if he can be the entirely objective scholar about his father's work. Indeed, is there any where an entirely objective scholar?
To show another context: Charlotte Bronte was exceptionally careful of her beloved sister Emily's reputation when she wrote the foreward to Wuthering Heights. In it, she naturally did everything she could to dispel the horrid Victorian suggestions about Emily. Yet in many ways the concept of authorship which Charlotte put forth about Emily has in itself created situations where some at least of the aesthetic questions about the novel are overlooked or elided. Do I blame Charlotte for this? Not in the least. But I am careful when reading her foreward to consider her words in the light of what else I know about Emily's work. Emily, I think, was a far shrewder and more honest writer than the times allowed Charlotte to admit.
In a similar way, I can point to how Elizabeth Gaskell's biography of Charlotte set a certain tone and path to Bronte studie-- a path which readers as diverse as Viriginia Woolf and Harold Bloom have been unable not to follow.
Similar 'directions' in sustaining the critical history of an author can be seen in Jane Austen's critical history, but she at least had the benefit of a scholar like Trilling to champion her. (In fact, England is fertile ground for "Author's Socieities" with quite intense divisions over rival interpreations of authors.)
There's a similar story too, to T.S Eliot's championing of John Donne over John Milton.
I could go on, but I think my picture is likely more focussed now (even if still dark). I am not in any way disparaging the work of Christopher Tolkien. I am simply saying that in any powerful voice which speaks for an author, there will be questions of direction, choice, interpretation, context. Look at the differences in the four gospels about Christ's life. Personal witness is powerful, but it remains personal witness. I am uncomfortable with a situation in which we are allowed only one form of personal witness. I am sure there will be others, some not radically different, others perhaps showing variation. To me, the life and work of Cristopher Tolkien will need to be studied as well as that of his father before we can begin to understand what was the full and rich nature of their collaboration.
EDIT: Having just seen
SpM's point about English copyright law, I should of course quickly hammer up my own disclaimer *WITHOUT PREJUDICE*
There could well be differences in copyright law. I remember being told that, in American universities, the law gave complete copyright and ownership to any works of art which students produced while they were students at the university
to the university. It made no difference if the work of art was produced 'on campus' or 'off campus', in the student's own private life and without any recourse to any university facilties and advice. Lo and behold, medievalism endures.