This discussion is hilarious!
One side insists on yoking Tolkien's language with the social, cultural and historical aspects of language in the Primary World.
Previously, I do believe that the argument was strenuously insisted upon that for Tolkien's work to succeed, it cannot break the illusion of the sub-created world by referencing the Primary World. Thus, any explanation of the terminology which relies upon language use in that class-ridden little septic isle (
) means that Tolkien failed to maintain the illusion of his sub-created world -- or that the reader breaks the veil.
Really, I hardly think that a reader needs to know the petty little nuances of English social class distinctions (hah--now there's a double word if ever one existed) at the end of the nineteenth century/early twentieth to enjoy the books or appreciate the fact that food was an important aspect for hobbits. Perhaps these comments highlight just how onerous is Sam's and Frodo's struggle to survive and destroy the Ring when even lembas runs out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aurel
. . . I find it interesting that as in LOTR, Bilbo began writing the Red Book, then he gave it to Frodo to continue, and Frodo gave it Sam and so on... that it reflected how Tollien himself began writing the mythology for ME and he passed it on to Christopher to continue. So who does it go to next? Is it not within us all to continue on in our own way? We won't all have the same story to tell, but does that mean that we should't tell it? That's just my thought on the subject.
|
This is a particularly appropriate and fascinating analogy; since I repped positively the post, I thought I might as well bring attention to the idea here on the thread, as it had not received any comment. Of course, Tolkien knew a thing or two about how language and stories change. He built that into his own writing, layering the stories through translators and successive writers. Perhaps he simply used this as a literary technique but one wonders if, by giving CT literary stewardship, so to speak, of Middle-earth, Tolkien was attempting to control that kind of literary dispersion? Welcome to the Downs,
Aurel.
EDIT: I've editted this last paragraph to make it reflect my sincere thoughts about
Aurel's comments, in case the original comment could be misconstrued and I wrote in haste. I received an unsigned negative rep for this post, stating it was "offensive and patronizing," but I had previously positively repped and commented on Aurel's post. I have no idea how many "points" I lost, since I don't particularly keep track of my rep count, so I can't guess if it was a "rep heavy" Downer or not who objected to my comments. I wonder if the anonymity was accidental--we call can accidentally forget to sign a rep comment--or deliberate. If deliberate, why lack the courage to stand by your comment?