|
Interesting thread!
So I have this theory that names and words in fiction -- especially fantasy and sci-fi -- are far more important to the overall effect of the fiction than is generally recognized. Take J.K. Rowling. My theory is that her most prodigious gift, and her most important talent in terms of accounting for her outrageous success, is her Dickensian flair for names. Muggle. Hogwarts. Dumbledore. Severus Snape. The list goes on and on (and on). Names have power. There is nothing quite like the perfect name for a thing. A Christmas Carol is a great story, but I wonder if it would be as enduring without those names. Ebenezer Scrooge. Likewise Sherlock Holmes.
I think the most important word in Tolkien is probably hobbit. In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Great word. It's most readers' introduction to the professor and Middle-earth. If it were The Gnome ("In a hole in the ground there lived a gnome."), I don't know, man. There is strong magic in the exact right word.
"Gnome" to me conjures a much different set of associations than "elf". Garden gnomes have been with us for quite some time apparently, per Wikipedia. That's probably the primary association there. "Elf" on the other hand has a more variable feel. Of course I grew up in the 70s so it's hard to say how much the Professor's elves had already impacted the associations connected with that word. Nowadays it's inextricably bound up with Tolkien-influence.
But for me, aesthetically, even "elf" I'm not wild about. I've always had a bit of a standoffish relationship with elves, but it never occurred to me to wonder if maybe it was simply because they were called elves.
|