Well, well, throw a Downer a bone in the shape of a suggestion that not all of Tolkien's writing was consciously so and they will worry it to death!
As I said in my previous post, I think this is getting off topic. That might be for the moderator to decide, but I will briefly suggest some thoughts here and then will retire to suggest that we hash out this particular aspect in PM.
As "we" have discussed elsewhere, Tolkien actually thought different things at different times about his Legendarium.
Aiwendil argued rather nicely (was it on
Canonicity or here in the Chapter by Chapter discussion of the Lothlorien chapters?) that there are three different stages to the characterisation of Galadriel, developed over a substantial period of time, with each stage suggesting rather different interpretations for LotR.
Then we have
littlemanpoet's
The Single Greatest (Publishing) Tragedy in Tolkien's Life thread where we are considering Tolkien's habit, later in his writing life, of revising in order to create an assumed consistency among all his vast works.
This is the difficult point about Tolkien and intention: he intended different things at different times in his writing, and each shift created little ripples in the fabric, sometimes requiring greater shifts and sometimes much dike-building.
Then there is his attitude towards applicability: Tolkien rejected allegory for the specific reason that it created a
purposed domination of the author; in his chosen
applicability lay
the freedom of the reader ("Foreward to the Second Edition", LotR). (my bolding in place of quotation marks)
What was it Tolkien wrote in Letter #213, where he mentions the reader who deduced the similarity of Sam and Gimli's words about Galadriel to Catholic devotion of Mary, or the similarity of lembas under fasting to the Eucharist?
Quote:
|
That is, far greater things may colour the mind in dealing with the lesser things of a fairy-story.
|
What would I give to be able to inquire of Tolkien his thoughts about Lilith and Shelob? About how the artistic structures of mythological narrative informed his imagination in fascinating and wonderful ways? Heck, even to be able to ask Christopher Tolkien these points. A very great deal. But alas I don't have that access.
So the issue is not that I would force my own idiosyncratic reading on a text that cannot bear it. The issue is a 'what if' and if so, how does this colour our understanding of this marvellous fantasy.
And, anyways, how sure are you, after all, that your denial of any applicability of the Lilith myth is in fact consistent with Tolkien, that he would have denied such applicability? How do we square "On Fairy Tales" with his later revisions? I don't think we can. Nor should we need to.
All I am saying is that my seeing 'applicability' of the Lilith legend to Shelob enhances my reading of Tolkien's myth-making. Just as the applicability of the hero's mystic marriage with the queen goddess brings richness to my reading of Aragorn and Arwen.
As an aside about the Steiner passage,
davem, Steiner does mention Renaissance meaning in his reference to Middleton, which can be found in the OED. Your search that yellow was traditionally associated with treachery is interesting, but that is a meaning not found in the OED. (Despite
Fordim's great admiration for that dictionary, and mine, I must point out that it is not infallible.) And, after all, Steiner was engaged in a large larger argument than that one passage can make clear. Perhaps your problems with the passage show something about interpretation: that context invariably impinges upon passages. This certainly is what happens when I read this chapter, I constantly cross reference it back to things I recall from previous chapters. And at this point, forward too, which takes me far out of bounds of that illusory, imaginary first reading.
But, shall we adjourn to PM so this thread can return to the chapter proper?