I find it fascinating that different areas of literature (and their relevant enthusiasts) constantly feel the need to defend and express their own validity. However it's possible that I'm spoiled: all of my essays over the past two years have been craft-oriented.
Instead of reading it as Tolkien-validation, I took this surprisingly readable piece more as a how-to guide of identifying the ingredients JRR used to bake his story. A kilo of Lear, a liter and a half of Old English, and a splash and a pinch of anachronisms for added taste...
The use of uncommonly employed words draws subconscious - if not directly conscious - parallels between works. I doubt this is to say, "Look, LotR is just like Lear! Art!" but more to say, "Remember the themes in Lear of power, insanity, betrayal, redemption? You just keep that in the back of your mind, dear reader." One might say the parallels being drawn are being stretched a bit past plausibility, but think on it this way: if you see an author finish a thought with, "So it goes..." and you don't think of Vonnegut, it means you never read Vonnegut. To me, the use of intertextual lit references isn't swiping, and it neither confirms nor denies a text's cultural significance. It's laying a librarian-friendly scavenger hunt for your bibliophile audience, and it's playing psych games.
Still, I was most interested in this paragraph about the use of sentence clarity and structure to convey power dynamics between characters:
Quote:
|
Éowyn's final statement in the scene "I will smite you, if you touch him" is structurally parallel with her previous threat "I will hinder it, if I may," but this time the warning is made more pointed, directly at the Nazgûl. "I will smite you" is nearly as simple a sentence as can be formed in modern English (only the modal "will" makes the sentence even slightly complex) and her change from the subjunctive "if I may" to "if you touch him" gives Éowyn complete command of the situation even though both statements are if-clauses. Just as the sound of her ringing sword begins to cut through the haze of fear generated by the Lord of the Nazgûl, so too does the parallel "steel" of her voice shatter the supernatural malice of the monster as effectively as her eventual sword stroke.
|
'I will hinder it,' is indistinct. 'I will smite you,' is strong, active, decisive. 'If I may,' suggests vulnerability, uncertainty. 'If you touch him,' is a threat, a moment of absolute resolve. The pattern of language is clear. The transition from hidden identity and uncertainty of place to confident warrior is so simply managed through economy of language.
Oh man, JRR, I sometimes forget why you're my literary homeboy...