Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Does this only apply to fiction, or to 'non-fiction' as well - say, for example, the posts on this particular thread?  Is it not possible to read other's posts without imposing our own individual - even idiosyncratic - 'reading' on them?
I mean, should we even bother trying to understand what the poster intended or should we simply take whatever 'meaning' we as individual readers happen to find in it... 
Having said that, I do begin to wonder if Tolkien was able to foresee the way certain words would develop new or even alternate meanings - he did make a lot of use of the words 'gay' & 'queer' after all..... |
davem, you are being particularly naughty here. Steiner's observation was,
Quote:
|
these two nuances are beautifully apposite to Iachimo
|
Are you saying the same about 'gay' and 'queer'? (Rhetorical question--you needn't answer obviously.
)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lalwendë
This is a fanciful. It does not seek to understand what the author intended, it simply notes odd word usage and makes links to today's language. It is about curiosities of linguistics, about changes in language, not about what the author intended. We can go looking through older texts for odd turns of phrase which have different meanings today and we could find them by the score, and that's interesting. But it tells us nothing about what the author meant when he or she used that word or phrase. It satisifes our own interpretations, but that's as far as it goes.
This is why I do not like much literary criticism or analysis, as it seems to me that the critic is simply pulling apart a text to find what they want to find. I want to know what the author intended, I don't want to reconstruct a text for myself, for my own meaning.
|
This is your preference and of course you are entitled to it. It does not really well describe what Steiner is getting at here, as he is not one of these wild post modernists, but if you wish to characterise literary scholars--and remember that Tolkien was one--this way, that is your right here.
But this is bringing us back to the topic of the Canonicity thread and far away from the Chapter by Chapter reading thread, and so I would like to return to some specific comments about this chapter.
I would like to consider
lmp's question about Gollem.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littlmanpoet
But where is Gollum? Hiding? Fallen? Why is he not anywhere to be found at this point, considering that he shows up again later?
|
It seems to me that Gollem's hand is played out in the preceeding chapter, having led Frodo to Shelob in the great betrayal and then having failed to get the best of Sam. Gollem slinks off, essentially demonstrating his coward-like characteristics.
In terms of plot, though, Gollem cannot stay around, for he could have turned matters against Sam. The battle must, in dramatic terms, be between Sam and Shelob alone. Nor would it suit Gollem's plans to call the Orcs in, for he has no say with them. He wants the Ring. I don't want to look ahead too far, but don't we need him offstage so we don't dwell on his betrayal? This makes his final appearance at Mount Doom all that much more powerful I think as unexpected drama.
Better for Gollem to withdraw and regroup methinks and better for the very dramatic eucatastrophe at the end. Any other thoughts?