Thinking back over bits of the "Unworthy" thread... I wonder how much of it has to do with the idea of "Creating a myth". When I first read the phrase I was skeptical; myths ARE, they're historical, you don't create them, I argued.
It's like trying to create a pyramid. You could, but it wouldn't be the real thing. The real thing already exists in Egypt; if you try to improve it, you will change what it is; it's just there; leave it alone.
So I was skeptical of the whole idea of mythmaking. And yet, now, I think I understand better, having been one of the beneficiaries of Tolkien's mythmaking, and having realized on a gut-level what I failed to grasp intellectually. Perhaps this ties into lindil's point about eucatastrophe: if you can't open yourself to the tale enough to experience any eucatastrophe at all, will the myth have any effect on you? Perhaps not. And if it has no effect on you, will you take it seriously? Perhaps not.
If one dismisses "new myths" as fakes, then one must dismiss Tolkien, because he indisputably wrote a new myth. However, those whose lives are changed by the myth cannot dismiss it. Whether we can argue the literary merits of Tolkien's myth is another question.
So: rather than being considered along with (for instance) James Joyce and Shakespeare and Dickens, should Tolkien be considered along with Kalevala and the Eddas and such? And if an academic refuses to treat him alongside the Genuine Ancients, should that surprise us?
I wonder whether this is also why George MacDonald, as a mythmaker, is relatively obscure as well.
[ April 02, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]
__________________
...down to the water to see the elves dance and sing upon the midsummer's eve.
|