Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
I think while we are reading the story we should try & leave behind primary world ideas & symbols - otherwise we risk having the spell broken. While reading the story Shelob should only be 'an evil thing in spider form' & Sam's method of dispatching her bring to mind things like the Turin/Glaurung & Earendel/Ungoliant battles.
Once we step outside the secondary world we can analyse it all as much as we want - though in that case we are doing what Tolkien condemned - breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, dismantling the tower to find out wherre the stones originally came from.
This is the real 'Freudian' approach which we're all (myself as much as, or even more than, others, I sometimes feel) in danger of falling into. The Freudian approach is essentially backward looking, asking 'what caused this, what is this made of?' The alternative, which I suppose we can call the 'Jungian' approach, is to ask 'What is this for? 'Where is this going?' rather than 'Where did this come from?'
. . .
Having said all that, its difficult to seperate the creator from his creation, & Lilith may have been in the back (or even the front) of his mind when he was writing this passage - we'll probably never know.
|
I am writing this in haste, but I do want to get something posted in reply as soon as possible.
First of all, what is this 'breaking the spell' and who says Shelob should only be a 'an evil thing in spider form'? And who says this approach is merely an archeology to determine original intent?
It seems to me impossible to dictate a right way and a wrong way of reading, first of all. Yes, some books do have ways to be read which are more rewarding than others, and some readings do become dead ends, but all in all reading is a creative process as well as writing, and why dictate that some things must be held off? Why must the right reading be a naive or virginal always 'first' reading that denies any other reading experience?
Possibly I put this entire discussion at odds with my joking reference to Fordim and his anti-Freudian take. (Hmm. Fordim, Freudim.
) And I subsequently framed my points poorly by suggesting Tolkien's own knowledge of mythology. However, I did say initially that I don't know if Tolkien was familiar with the Lilith legends. And knowing me, you all ought to know by now that I don't think it necessarily important whether we can objectively ascertain that he did or not.
What matters to me is the possibilities for plenitude which the text holds out. I cannot separate Tolkien's wonderful depiction of Shelob from my knowlege of other reading: too many points are similar for there not to be some fruitful going forth here. I have already hinted at where my reading goes. The text, for me, enacts a story as old as the earliest narratives. That story bears upon the roles of characters here, especially Galadriel, Eowyn, Arwen, but not them alone. I leave it now for others to read my text with plenitude.