[monks]

Originally Posted by Boromir88

The main umbrage, at least the one I have, with your arguments is the various logical fallacies you seem to enjoy engaging in. For instance, in the quote above your argument that if Person A doesn't care about the same things Tolkien cared about then Person A doesn't care about Tolkien. Or your appeals to authority, like name dropping Clive Kilby. I have no doubt there are many subjects involving Tolkien that Kilby would understand better than me, but Person A "talking to Tolkien" and Person B "not having talked to Tolkien" doesn't necessarily mean Person A's argument is more valid than Person B's.

On topics such as these, I generally defer to what the author said his motivations were...

You are accusing me of having an ego? heh. You need to go and read the responses I've had to my posts. There are a lot of very closed minds in the Tolkien Community. They automatically assume that they know way more than you. I will at least argue my case and show the con_ver_sa_tion and the people I'm talking to respect. That is most often not returned at all. And there are a lot of people who try to appropriate Tolkien. Here's a quote for you from On Fairy Stories.

"Recovery (which includes return and renewal of health) is a re-gaining—regaining of a clear view. I do not say “seeing things as they are” and involve myself with the philosophers, though I might venture to say “seeing things as we are (or were) meant to see them”—as things apart from ourselves. We need, in any case, to clean our windows; so that the things seen clearly may be freed from the drab blur of triteness or familiarity—from possessiveness. Of all faces those of our familiares are the ones both most difficult to play fantastic tricks with, and most difficult really to see with fresh attention, perceiving their likeness and unlikeness: that they are faces, and yet unique faces. This triteness is really the penalty of “appropriation”: the things that are trite, or (in a bad sense) familiar, are the things that we have appropriated, legally or mentally. We say we know them. They have become like the things which once attracted us by their glitter, or their colour, or their shape, and we laid hands on them, and then locked them in our hoard, acquired them, and acquiring ceased to look at them."

The Tolkien community needs a serious amount of Recovery. Especially the Gatekeepers. And guess what? Virtually not a single jack man one of them has ever looked up an etymological definition of a single word in all of his books in their whole life. His works were all philology from day one, hence Songs for the Philologists. That is virtually common knowledge in the Tolkien community. And what's more Tolkien even put critics of literature who had not studied philology into the oak camp (as opposed to the birch), the camp of the Enemy, trolls . How more obvious do you need things to be?

Here's one example off the top of my head of how the experts have not used the right approach to truly understanding Tolkien. Hammond and Scull. Loads and loads of great things done for Tolkien and the Community. Respect right? But when it comes to literary criticism of Tolkien they don't have a clue. In their book Artist & Illustrator they comment on an image in the Book of Ishness. A quote from my homepage.

Quote
And in finishing, here’s another classic illustration of how to understand Tolkien. In ‘J.R.R. Tolkien Artist & Illustrator’ Hammond and Scull describe The Book of Ishness:

“The first drawing in the book was Ei Uchnem, to illustrate the Russian boatmen’s song. But except that it includes a boat on a river – a boat with oars, not towed as on the Volga – it is a very free interpretation. It’s swirling clouds and vibrant shapes recall Van Gogh again, or Munch.”

If the esteemed Hammond and Scull had looked at the etymology of the relevant words they would have discovered why he chose to make the alteration.

Russia
1530s, from Medieval Latin Russi “the people of Russia,” from Rus, the native name of the people and the country (source of Arabic Rus, Medieval Greek Rhos), originally the name of a group of Swedish merchant/warriors who established themselves around Kiev 9c. and founded the original Russian principality; perhaps from Ruotsi, the Finnish name for “Sweden,” from Old Norse Roþrslandi, “the land of rowing,” old name of Roslagen, where the Finns first encountered the Swedes. This is from Old Norse roðr “steering oar,” from Proto-Germanic *rothra- “rudder,” from PIE *rot-ro-, from root *ere- “to row.”

Not only would have this revealed the underlying reason why he altered it, but it would have revealed Tolkien’s underlying working method, and a general approach to how to understand both his writing and his pictures and indeed the very close link between them. How surprising that the work of a world leading philologist who repeatedly stated his views on philology versus literature, could be understood through etymology! Furthermore, if they had looked at the words to the Boatmen’s Song they would have found a reference to ‘felling a birch’ and in another translation ‘untwisting the stout birch tree’. Given that the birch was a personal symbol of Philology for Tolkien throughout his life, they might have been able to make more comment on Tolkien’s ‘very free interpretation’.

Unquote.

They don't provide the image- I've not even seen it but I was still able to offer way more insight into that picture than them. Because? My Big boots? Repeat after me: PHILOLOGY. And every single thing I have ever said is backed up by forensic study of his books and letters. And that's how I was able to suss out his system and make 102 predictions. And H&S are considered to be at the apex of the understanding of Tolkien. There is virtually only one exception to that problem: Tom Shippey. But he never applied the time to critiquing beyond what he did. I have. The Recovery and the clear view Tolkien speaks of is provided by etymology as I just demonstrated. And I can go beyond that and explain why he chose the song.

Regards arrogance. What I'm saying is by all means enjoy Tolkien. Do whatevs you want- I did for years before I accidentally fell into this...but don't pretend that a) you have any knowledge pertaining to literary criticism of Tolkien beyond the superficial and b) that you know more than those people who have approached his works like a serious literary critic. Importantly, what distinguishes one from the other is the study of his etymologies of the words in his texts and how they relate to each other.

Name dropping. Nah...because I've read Kilby's book? That's twice I've been accused of name dropping. First Priya Seth's and now Clive Kilby's. What sort of a conversation is that? Ad hominem attacks basically. Dude...it's called supporting evidence. And there's me name dropping Hammond and Scull just then right?

And they doubly should have got Tolkien's reference...

scull (n.)
kind of short, light, spoon-bladed oar, mid-14c., of unknown origin. The verb is from 1620s, from the noun. Related: Sculled; sculling.



Huinesoron's response is sane. He has disagreed but not become abusive or dismissive. He will actually engage (as far as he feels he can or has time) and not just dismiss outright. There will be a lot of incredulity to something as radical as I'm proposing. It ain't radical if you just look at etymologies. I've only just got started. Stay tuned. :-)

monks