The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Fordim Hedgethistle · 05-17-2005, 12:27 PM

(I think we may need to rename this the Canonicity Thread part 2 -- where's H-I???)

I have to say that I tend to approach this topic in pretty much exactly the manner described by Bethberry. There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing.

But there are other things that shake the enchantment even more, and these are really the kinds of things that I think davem and Bb are crossing swords about (both here and in the CbC): there are times in the story when the Professor's rather old world, nineteenth century view of society is one that is so wildly out of whack with my own that I shift and shy away from the tale. I do not begrudge him his views, nor do I take issue with them directly -- he is free to write from one point of view, while I am free to read and interpret from another. But there at moments when he presents his own perspective as a universal.

For example, the fate of Eowyn. Now, don't get me wrong, I adore Faramir and think that he's a wonderful fellow to marry -- but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility... Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit. Like I said above, the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption: it's not really presented as a choice for Eowyn to continue on as do Merry and Pippin (as people who are not 'really' or 'properly' soldiers, but who continue to act as soldiers and warriors, as martial leaders: they take something away from the War and from their battles). In this case, the Prof's point of view (women aren't naturally or properly warriors) becomes the only point of view.

So it's not that I am disenchanting myself -- quite the reverse, I think. Instead, it is a moment in which the author has attempted to cast a rather possessive spell upon me; he has tried to rope me in to his view of the world. Fortunately, Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation. So taking my cue from figures like Frodo and Aragorn, I turn away from that seductive appeal and hold to my own view of the way things are. In this way, I may move away from the text, but the story is able to draw me back in with the broader appeal of its applicability.

05-17-2005, 12:27 PM	#17
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,851	(I think we may need to rename this the Canonicity Thread part 2 -- where's H-I???) I have to say that I tend to approach this topic in pretty much exactly the manner described by Bethberry. There are parts of the story in which I find the writing itself to be somewhat stilted (the Professor can get carried away with his high-style at time, particularly in RotK: all those "and lo!" and hyperbolic similes) and these moments tend to shake my immersion in the world, simply because I shift away from the story itself to the manner of its writing. But there are other things that shake the enchantment even more, and these are really the kinds of things that I think davem and Bb are crossing swords about (both here and in the CbC): there are times in the story when the Professor's rather old world, nineteenth century view of society is one that is so wildly out of whack with my own that I shift and shy away from the tale. I do not begrudge him his views, nor do I take issue with them directly -- he is free to write from one point of view, while I am free to read and interpret from another. But there at moments when he presents his own perspective as a universal. For example, the fate of Eowyn. Now, don't get me wrong, I adore Faramir and think that he's a wonderful fellow to marry -- but the idea that Eowyn's best (and indeed only) fate is to forsake the martial heroism that has been her watchword throughout the story and to lay it all down so that she can become rather a cliched figure of healing and fertility... Well, let's just say that I tend to skim over that part a bit. Like I said above, the aspect of this that I find disenchanting is that the author seems to assume that there can be no other alternative or route for Eowyn to follow to redemption: it's not really presented as a choice for Eowyn to continue on as do Merry and Pippin (as people who are not 'really' or 'properly' soldiers, but who continue to act as soldiers and warriors, as martial leaders: they take something away from the War and from their battles). In this case, the Prof's point of view (women aren't naturally or properly warriors) becomes the only point of view. So it's not that I am disenchanting myself -- quite the reverse, I think. Instead, it is a moment in which the author has attempted to cast a rather possessive spell upon me; he has tried to rope me in to his view of the world. Fortunately, Tolkien is not able -- and he does not want -- to force me to see anything his way, he merely offers a very seductive and appealing invitation. So taking my cue from figures like Frodo and Aragorn, I turn away from that seductive appeal and hold to my own view of the way things are. In this way, I may move away from the text, but the story is able to draw me back in with the broader appeal of its applicability. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.