Quote:
|
Tolkien points out quite rightly that there are simply some things that are better expressed with archaic language. Archaic English really does have a terser, nobler quality to it than modern English, quite in keeping with the heroic spirit of heroes from northern mythology.
|
I utterly disagree with the opinion that archaic English can somehow express things of a nobler quality than modern English. Modern English can express anything its author puts their mind to, if the author is good enough. There is no inherent superiority in archaic English for this purpose.
For example Atticus Finch is one of the noblest characters in fiction. Was he required to say things like “Thus” and “Nay” and other Faux-Old English terminology?
Quote:
|
no one is insisting that an archaic style is the only way to write about archaic things. It is simply the way that best preserves unity of prose and content.
|
A unity of prose that was shot to bits by the divergence between books 1 and 3 of course. I say again, Aragorn did not seem to find the need for endless “Lo’s” before he got the ROTK and Tolkien decided that it needed to be more epic and to convert the book into a sequel to the Silmarillion.
The reason I will always like LOTR and especially the Silmarillion is because of the one talent that I think Tolkien had spades of. The wealth of invention he displays, particularly in the Silmarillion which is my favourite book of his. But without that invention would I read Tolkien? Very doubtful.
His books set outside Middle Earth show no particular merit and even his attempt at a sequel to LOTR shows that once the inspiration of invention wears off, his writing talent is not enough on its own. The remnant we have of A New Shadow is of a quality that would fall below pretty much any book in the fantasy shelves of your local book store.
With Tolkien, the invention, the construct is all.