Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bb
Really? Do readers of LotR know that Gandalf is an Ainur, and indeed what an Ainur is at this point of the story?
Was Gandalf called an 'incarnate angel' in the story or in the Letters?
In short, how do we know what his 'true nature' is at this point in the story?
|
We know he is more than he appears. We are on a learning curve at this point in the story. I've never argued that the first reading of LotR is 'superior' or better than subsequent readings. I've never argued that any number of readings of LotR alone can bring out all the depth & meaning of the story. Indeed, Tolkien himself believed that LotR could not be understood fully without a knowledge of the Legendarium as a whole. My point is simply that the
Legendarium should be experienced, as far as possible
on its own terms, Middle earth seen as a world in its own right, its inhabitants as beings in their own right, not as 'echoes' of other things, not as being 'in service' to other things, not as ways of understanding ourselves or our world. Middle earth is best seen as a thing in itself. We may learn about ourselves & our world as a by-product of our experience of it, but that is not its purpose, & the more we think of it in that kind of 'mercenary' way, the less we will gain from our experience of it. Isn't that the difference between 'applicability' & 'allegory'? If it shouldn't be seen as an 'allegory' of our world, neither should it be seen as an 'allegory' of ourselves - our own personal history & experiences. This would be to
use it for our own ends, place ourselves above it, looking down on it, seeing it as a 'quarry' for useful items.
The alternative to submitting ourselves to the Art is to submit the art to ourselves. Some things are greater than we little, temporary beings are & only pride prevents us from acknowledging this ('Though I say it as shouldn't, you might think.'
)