Quote:
|
(Aside, IMO: Generally speaking, the shorter a species' lifespan, the higher the reproductive drive; it stands to reason therefore that elves would not have a major issue with it.)
|
Hmm, interesting,
Helen. In the last five hundred years, the average lifespan of our species has increased roughly 50%. Men now live an average 75 years (in North America) compared with something like 40 to 50 years in medieval times. Does that mean mankind's reproductive drive is decreasing or is this too short a span for evolutionary developments to occur? (I believe one of the main reasons for that statistical increase is the great achievements in wiping out high infant mortality rates.)
Thank you both
Helen and davem for those links. When I first arrived at the Downs,
Mithadan warned me about Martinez's--how shall I say this--lack of reliability. I never got him to elaborate though--mea culpa. However, I don't think even the entire passage obviates my point. It simply suggests how Tolkien worked to increase the level of idealisation in his portrayal of the elves.
I enjoyed that other link very much. What is does well is point out the inconsistencies within Tolkien's statements as he worked through his ideas. I think
Aiwendil has earlier on this thread pointed out the problems with automatically assuming that the best strategy is to accept the last known statement of an author as canonical. And certainly we are still left with hints and instances of violence and agression.
However, and this is a very big however, I used
davem's quotation as a rhetorical device to enter into discussion of how to account for change in interpretations, how to account for creativity, originality, new vision. How did Tolkien see in those texts what others before and around him had not? How did Child see those historical links? How are we all coming to see how the creation of Aragorn helped create LotR and not simply a sequel to TH?
In any discussion of Canonicity, I think it is imperative to account for the psychological processes of reading newly. To say categorically either Authorial Intent, or Text, or Reader is to overlook the imaginative act of negotiating our interaction with language which we call reading. Is reading merely archival or creative?