Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
(...) So isn't Tolkien just going for the "real thing" here? Some legends are more connected, wealthier in detail and in variance, while some are more scetchy, more scattered, more unfathomable? Like with real history from where we have to draw from - and of which he was himself so fascinated about?
The real history has gaps and discontinuities as well as overlapping and different versions of things.
|
True, and not that you were referring to this, but I am also seeing (what I perceive) as a tendency in some to treat all of Tolkien's variations, or at least many of them, as 'internal' instead of what they actually are in many cases -- external drafts working toward
the author's intended measure of consistency (and purposed inconsistency). The Drowning of Anadune, for example, is a perfect example of intended confusion and inconsistency...
... but fans and readers re-characterizing rejected drafts as 'internal variations' is arguably undermining Tolkien's art of subcreation in my opinion.