Here goes my third attempt at replying--and here's hoping that I won't be called away before I can finish.
Okay, in light of the many examples and comments here, let me suggest a way to develop this trope that
Helen has kindly handed us.
Let's assume that Tolkien was exploring his own upbringing through these myriad examples. I guess the first question I would ask is, "Does Tolkien use himself as a way of explaining of the world, or does he use the trope of fostering as a way to explain himself? We don't normally consider him one of the autobiographical poets, like
Lal's example of Plath, so how do we understand what these references are doing in the stories. Are they essential or are they plot fillers?
If is Tolkien exploring his own fostered childhood, does he come to any conclusions? What sort of self-understanding might be at work here? Is he suggestsing something about the human mind and its capacity to function? Does he suggest a long-suppressed longing for an absent mother? What, if any, emotional pain is there in these stories? Is there any angst in these examples which suggest Tolkien was writing out his pain or anger? Is there anything sublimated that the writing covers over, in denial?
Are we given enough details about these fosterings to see their various effects?
These might be, I hasten to add, the wrong kinds of questions to ask. They presuppose a kind of pyschological complexity derived from the modern novel, a genre Tolkien was not using. (Note, I do not say this as a complaint or criticism.)
I seem to recall something in either Carpenter's biography or in the
Letters that Tolkien did harbour regrets that a youthful infatuation was blown out of proportion into something more than it should have been by the guardian's instransience. I'll have to look for this passage, as clearly it will be important here to specify the exact context, but I'm running out of time.
One quick specific note, though.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Helen
The Silkie was probably omitted by basic catholic morality; I have no problem with that omission, really. Makes LOTR a nice, family friendly book.
|
One of the things which intrigues me about Tolkien's interest in early myth and heroic narrative is how he turned to Norse mythology for his mythology for the English nation. He 'sided' with what were the interlopers, the invaders, the Anglo Saxons and not with the native Celts and Britons and Welsh. Was this, as
Helen suggests, a moral decision? I don't quite understand the issue here, as I have seen many children's books about selkies which are fit reading for a family, as they lack explicit exploitation and graphic details. Possibly this is an aside, however, to the main topic here.