Nar, your latest piece is beautifully weighted, and I am very much in sympathy with the subtlety of your analysis. The truth, if such a thing can inferred, is to my mind generally a collage of light and shade ... only from the distance does it appear black or white. In this way I concur that there is a feeling of conviction and assurance (perhaps reassurance) in LotR that results from his comprehensive and - importantly - successful drawing together of influences and themes. I also agree that it is not a 'mannered' book, there is less of a surface manifestation of literary method.
Underhill, I agree that to utterly disassociate from moral absolutes can leave us like a postmodern Uroboros, locked in a self-devouring circularity without meaning. Yet to argue against appropriation or a particular evangelical interpretation of the work does not push us into such a corner. There is a middle ground, one that empowers us as readers yet at the same time allows the author to be resolute and visionary. At least I hope so ...
Nar, your reference to the development of a new (and yet old) identity in Indian literature is well chosen. The reawakening of ethnic sensibility whilst remaining culturally informed by the present and all its self-conscious eclecticism is a phenomenon that has arisen repeatedly in recent times. A significant proportion of the Jewish diaspora found success or renown as artists - in Russia, South Africa, and elsewhere. And certainly in eastern Europe and in Cape Town (this century) there was a definite attempt to revitalise a 'collective Jewish identity' amidst the most challenging and cerebral non-figurative movements. In jazz too, the attempt to reinvigorate the genre with elements of African motif and culture became apparent from the 60's onwards.
Perhaps the difficulty with the 'fantasy' genre as a whole is not that there is no room for a new (or new/old) aesthetic. And whilst Tolkien may have produced a seminal work, that alone would not inhibit the development of the genre - especially after all these years. The "last book ever written" has been applied to hundreds of earth-shaking books over the last century ... yet there is always a way forward. Perhaps Underhill is right, that the mythic core of fantasy is definitively limited (unlike the more fluid boundaries of sci-fi) - or perhaps, as others have pointed out, the marketplace and our shallow modern culture have combined to strangle any nascent evolution. Perhaps - you might find this contentious - the essence of nostalgia apparent in Tolkien is itself something that encourages stasis and formulaic restatement.
I have lots of possible answers to my initial question, and I'm looking forward to getting stuck into Estelyn's new thread. I'm also feeling the need to avoid hagiography - you know "Tolkien was just so brilliant that everyone else is ...". Suffice it to say that I continue to find what we share (in terms of attempting to address complex issues with eloquent reasoning and open-mindedness) stimulating and heartening.
Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]
|