The Translator Conceit

[HerenIstarion]

I'm going to indulge in self-plagiarism, but can not stand the temptation of directing you to this piece of fun (Canonicity 79)

[littlemanpoet]

Good thoughts, Lalwendë. Quite the redaction, H-I!

I'd like to consider an alternate question: what things may not be reasons for the conceit?

I'd like to suggest a few answers.

First, I hope we don't just blithely accept the notion that the conceit completely wipes out any consideration of style inconsistencies. Whereas style variation may be an interesting aspect of the conceit, by no means does it wipe the slate clean in terms of the author's responsibilities regarding anachronism and style. My opinion as to what style is too high flown or not, is not the issue here. Rather, the conceit is not some kind of stain remover, if you take my meaning.

Second, I have my doubts that Tolkien pushed the conceit as far as some of us may be tempted to. Sure, it's there, but reading the Letters, I do not see Tolkien saying that it was a matter of translation from text G or E or whatever; rather, he defends his use of style, poetry, what have you, from an authorial ownership point of view.

So though the conceit may be there, I'd like to see us look at particular texts or contexts and evaluate the conceit's viability in terms of them. Otherewise, we're just thinking about angels and pinpoints in our ivory tower. Let's dig into the text, my friends.

Lalwendë's point is well to remember: one need not bother with the conceit at all to enjoy the book, or even become enchanted by it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

First, I hope we don't just blithely accept the notion that the conceit completely wipes out any consideration of style inconsistencies. Whereas style variation may be an interesting aspect of the conceit, by no means does it wipe the slate clean in terms of the author's responsibilities regarding anachronism and style. My opinion as to what style is too high flown or not, is not the issue here. Rather, the conceit is not some kind of stain remover, if you take my meaning.

That may be true (actually I think it is ) but it is valuable nonetheless, because it enables us to read the book without having the spell broken. In short, don't knock 'stain removers'!

Second, I have my doubts that Tolkien pushed the conceit as far as some of us may be tempted to. Sure, it's there, but reading the Letters, I do not see Tolkien saying that it was a matter of translation from text G or E or whatever; rather, he defends his use of style, poetry, what have you, from an authorial ownership point of view.

In fact the Sil (especially the version edited by CT) is pretty much precisely that.

Let's dig into the text, my friends.

What, & risk undermining the 'Tower'? Shouldn't we rather put away our spades, climb up & look at the Sea?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

What, & risk undermining the 'Tower'? Shouldn't we rather put away our spades, climb up & look at the Sea?

Me "hoist with my own petard" and all that, eh? Perhaps.

But what I'm asking for is evaluation (to the best of our abilities) whether the Translator Conceit functions at all in a given text or context; and if so, how; and what does it achieve; and what does it not achieve?

If that's tearing apart the tower to see its stones, I'm guilty, but I don't think it's the same thing (since you're only half kidding).