[Bêthberry]

In chat, PM, and on the Moderator's forum (Mod Gorthad), I have stated that jallanite misrepresents my position extensively. I have been asked to identify where I think this happens and so, on reflection, I think it is best that I do so. I will attempt to explain as plainly and directly as possible in order not to inflame the topic. This will likely, then, be a boring post.

But if Tolkien enjoyed archaic English and most of his readers enjoy what he has done with it then those who don't appreciate it have no just cause to blame Tolkien for using it because they are unable to see the attraction.

The "just cause" I would suggest is the wish to engage in civil and honest debate about an author we all enjoy. To deny anyone the right to express their legitimate and authentic response represents, I would argue, an inflexibility which discredits the Barrow Downs? traditional respect for discussion. Why should anyone's experience reading Tolkien count for less or not be allowed because it is different from other people's, even the majority's, reading experience?

I looked into Shakespeare's Hamlet and immediately came upon:
quote: That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once: how the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were Cain's jaw-bone, that did the first murder! What did the first murder? The jaw-bone, perhaps, or the ground?

Fie upon such rules of grammar as say that Hamlet speaks wongly!

I am sorry but I don't see where the rule which I offerred from A University Grammar of English says that Hamlet speaks wrongly. In fact, I don't see how the rule applies at all. The sentence I referred to from Tolkien has a completely different grammatical structure; Tolkien's sentence has all the adverbials before the Subject-verb; it is what is called a left-branching sentence and the rule I quoted refers to this kind of sentence only. Hamlet's sentence begins with the subject and verb and then deploys the adverbials; it is called a right-branching sentence and as such would be diagrammed for its structure quite differently. In fact, the grammar in Hamlet's sentence shows a very common device in prose from about 1600 to 1750, something that is referred to as 'end-linked discourse.' There is nothing grammatically wrong with it and it has nothing to do with my point about Tolkien's sentence.

Given this confusion over grammar, I would suggest that jallanite's definition of what a descriptive grammar ought to do?"The task of descriptive grammar is to show us by what rules the utterance is understood properly, not to claim it wrong because it might be misunderstood when in fact it is not"--is less reliable than Quirk and Greenbaum's. Grammarians make exceptions quite regularly but what they endeavour to do is provide an explanation for the most consistent habits of understanding.

I don't quite understand the point of the comparison to Twain's Huck Finn either (or Kipling for that matter) unless it is simply to point to other authors who have used similar devices. I have never said that colloquialisms, grammatical errors, and archaisms cannot be used meaningfully. My point is how they are used, how they are foregrounded in the text, and how they are naturalized in order to represent the author's own style. Very clearly with Twain's writing, those various elements of style are used just as I have characterised literary language, with an intensity of repetition and patterning which creates meaning. Furthermore, Huck's colloquialisms are meaningful and valid not because a legitimate dialect is imported into the novel, but because Twain's writing convinces readers that it is authentic.

(I was able to use Tolkien's sentence in jest to Squatter precisely because it does not represent a consistent pattern in Tolkien's writing. Had Tolkien consistently employed that kind of sentence structure, we could argue that he was, most likely, drawing upon his great knowledge as a philologist to say something about the grammarians. But that kind of sentence is an isolated feature of his writing. To take the jest so seriously as to want desperately to prove the grammarians wrong and Tolkien right is, I would argue, a tempest in a teacup.)

Bêthberry wrote:
quote: No form or style of language is regarded as innately holding worth or being more worthy in itself than any other form. The criteria for effectivenss is always the entire range of linguistic interaction between sender and receiver, speaker and audience and context.

Then how should Bêthberry say anything good or bad about Tolkien's language or anyone's language?

I really do not see how jallanite's question follows logically from my point, of how my point means that we cannot discuss the value of writing. Why can't I say anything about someone's use of language if I analyze the context? Certainly enough people here have used the word greatness to describe Tolkien's language and I can point easily to Squatter's argument about Tom Bombadil in his post of Nov 10/03 at 10 am. My point really is to suggest that writers cannot import meaning into their writing by taking a device or feature or style from outside his or her writing and automatically assume that the imported language will have the same valuation or meaning in its new context. Writers cannot assume that, if the words have a particular value elsewhere, they will automatically have the same value if used in the writer's own work. There is no prior value or meaning, no origin that will carry over into the new text. The value of the imported words will always depend upon the way they are used in the new text.

But if for some of these it is partly Tolkien's excellent mastery of the English language which draws them and this includes what they feel and perceive as a mastery of archaising English, Bêthberry must deal with it. To us Tolkien's archaic language is effective and one of the things for which we read him. It is a strawman to claim that Tolkien is iconic and therefore his readers must needs accept his language rather than that his readers are enthralled by his language and that is one of the reasons that Tolkien is to some iconic.

There are two things here I don't understand. What is meant by the phrase 'Bêthberry must deal with it'? I have not denied other people's reading of Tolkien. Does jallanite mean I must accept their reading as my reading? Nor do I understand how my point is a strawman (yes, I understand what that word means in forming an argument in debate.) I did not claim that Tolkien is iconic and therefore his readers must needs accept his language; nor does the converse really have anything to do with my point either. This is one place in particular that I think jallanite's post twists my meaning and intent. Perhaps it is because what I see him suggesting is that I must accept other people's refusal to listen to other points of view. That to me defeats the purpose of a message board like Barrow Downs, which is for discussion.

Perhaps I can, in conclusion, once more try to explain for me why the archaic language does not work It is because it says to me, "archaic language used here. Old style English". It does not say, to me, "Tolkien's creation of language to characterise heroic romance and the antiquity of characters." It is not naturalised into his style as his wonderful work on the hobbits is. Thus, it reads to me like an affectation, an old style imported into his work and expected to suggest his purpose. This has nothing to do with my appreciation of archaic language in old sources or in other writers. I would have preferred to read his version of a style that approximated or simulated an old style. To me, a writer cannot import a feature of language as used elsewhere and expect it to have the same meaning in his writing. He needs to create his own version of archaic language. Tolkien did not do this for me and I am more interested in trying to understand this than in, as Mr.Underhill suggests other fans may do, smoothing over problem areas. It does not mean I am right and they are wrong. It simply is a topic for discussion about how we understand creative writing.