Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalwendë
It could possibly have had something to do with the growing interest in Medieval artistry? The Medieval/Elizabethan period seems to have produced a lot of fantastical art and literature in itself, so maybe this was another aspect of this interest?
|
It is also good to recall that "Old English" and "Old English literature", even the concept of an "Anglo-Saxon People and country", are terms created by modern scholarship. For a wee bit of history in how the Old English texts were discovered and when they came into public knowledge as precursors of our English, see these links:
The Norton Anthology of English Literature online--Beowulf
One contemporary view of how to teach Old English literature
Lets I be called an old serious fussbudget for promoting scholarship, let me say that Tolkien was part of the initial excitement of the first stages of rediscovery of Old English. The philology which to our contemporary times is now old and superceded by linquistics was in Tolkien's time cutting edge--or as cutting edge as Oxford could be in those days.
So, part of this development of fantasy was concurrent with the rediscovery--perhaps it can even be said, discovery--of pre-Christian culture on the British Isles--the recognition of so very many regional dialects, the recovery--yes, that is the better word, recovery--of pagan legends, stories, myths. Perhaps this is why Tolkien so strongly wished to present his Legendarium as a history--part of the zeitgeist of his times, at least pre-WWI.
drigel: About our biographical sources: Carpenter's book is a marvellous read, but as readers of biographies know, there can be many versions of biographies. The Letters we have are selected letters, not collected, and it is very highly possible that letters remain in the hands of heirs of recipients, or trapped in pages of books sold second hand, stashed away in back files of libraries in England, that kind of thing. I also read somewhere--and can't recall now where--that Tolkien left a diary, which is unpublished by will of the Tolkien Estate. I could be wrong about both these facts, of course. Sussing out a writer's character is about as definitive a project as determining canonicity.
We've had bits and bites of discussion over what kind of fantasy Tolkien was writing. As
davem said on another thread, Tolkien's fantasy is quite different, from, say, Gaiman's. Gaiman attempts to recoup elements of archetype and chaos and disorder into the 'modern' sensibility. Tolkien--his is historically based I suppose one could say. Lewis was a religious apologist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LMP
But there also could be something in LotR and the rest of the Legendarium that we can't see because of our place in history. The passing of time and its contexts will make it possible for those who follow us to see what we cannot, and that might also be true in terms of Tolkien.
|
They will see what their time helps them see which is not to say they won't also have their blindness along with insight.
All of which is to say that I find it rather funny, these comments which tend to look down on Books--which isn't to say that all BD should be about is Books.
I'm still waiting for a good thread which discusses Tolkien's sense of humour.
On the other hand, I can see the possiblity of a werewolf game where the characters are the LotR characters. Now, if that were moderated by
pio or Child, boy the cannonical possibilities of the rpg aspects there would be incredible.
