[jallanite]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Critical theory is still attempting to do what those critics tried, however, in that it attempts to explain how literature works on us. I think, in fairness to the medieval and classical critics, it can said they were trying to understand how literary works affect us rather than solely defining quality.

My understanding is that it classical works were mainly preserved through Arab versions and Arab commentators and it was they who began to take essays concerned only with drama to apply to all literature. The early medieval European commentators followed on from that.

Bluntly, I indeed don’t see that modern commentators do much better, which you seem to agree on. Note the academic critical response to Tolkien which is notoriously negative. In a previous era it was Dickens who was outside the pale to academics. And Shakespeare was much denigrated until the academicians recognized comic relief.

First people just liked certain works, and then the academicians invented their theories about why they worked. First comes the popularity contest, then critics who attempt to explain why the work are popular.

Academic discussion about particular works or classes of work are often fine, but academic rules are not general enough to cover works that are just a little outside the norm. Works of art can be as individual as people.

The basic problem seems to me to be that different people have different tastes and no critical theory had yet, so far as I am aware, gotten around that. The rules invented by critics only work for some people some of the time, at best.

In looking at the progress of The Silm, we can find far more whimsey and humour in the early versions, particularly in BoLT, than in the edition which Christopher Tolkien produced. Tinfang Warbel comes to mind most immediately, as well as the strong element of mirth and joy in the Cottage of Lost Play. yes, the stories are separate stories, but I find it intriguing to see the variations in tone.

Yes. Tolkien seems to be originally mostly attempting to imitate William Morris’ fantasies which also have lighter moments. But then, in his heroic verse, he throws out all the whimsey. Then in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring he puts it back.

I think one major idea current today about comedy is its subversiveness, starting with Aristophanes' Lysistrata. Parody for example can be pleasant and respectful or undercutting. Is there anything similarly sardonic or subversive in the Silm?

Well almost everything said about the sons of Fëanor could be presented as undercutting, as an indication that rule by heredity mostly doesn’t work, except in the sense that any lord is better than a war between potential lords, or no lord. But I don’t think that that was a message intended by Tolkien. On the contrary, that is one of the messages of Famer Giles of Ham, which is very comic.