Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
I think that Lobdell is speaking not as an American but as a literary analyst. He is speaking particularly about style, not national origin. It is the 'preaching'; that is, the hoped for betterment of one's readers as opposed to telling a tale for sheer entertainment of the tale itself. I think you would agree that Tolkien had no intention of preaching to his audience, but telling a good story. This is what Lobdell meant by English versus non-English.
|
I'd need to read the book, I think. From what you've said I don't see how being didactic = being 'English'. Certainly Tolkien originally wanted to inspire a moral regeneration of the English (see Garth's Tolkien & the Great War). Was he an 'English' then, and subsequently stopped being so? When, exactly, did his 'nationality' change, what caused the change, & what nationality did he then become?
Certainly Tolkien's writings not are not blatantly or overtly didactic, but neither are they without meaning, pure 'entertainment'. Was PG Wodehouse an 'English' writer? I think most people would consider him incredibly English, even though his writings have no didactic purpose..
Frankly, I find it a bit silly to say that 'English' writers are didactic, & writers whose works aren't didactic aren't 'English'. What, exactly, does 'English' mean in this context? Why use the term? It seems a kind of reductio ad absurdam. Were the Pythons 'English'?
Sorry, but 'English' writers have produced works with a message, works that are simple entertainment, & works that are, well, silly. I accept that Tolkien didn't belong to a particular group of 'English' writers, but all that means is that he belonged to a different group of 'English' writers.
It still seems to me that Lobdell has a very narrow concept of 'Englishness'. We're not all toffs, cheery 'cockerneys' or football hooligans. 'English' writers are not all didacts. IF Lobdell is 'speaking particularly about
style, not national origin' why bring 'nationality' into it at all?