The Translator Conceit

[littlemanpoet]

It seems that my use of the latinate has resulted in tangentially inferred connotations. In other words, my "venerable recorders" wording got you thinking about monks. What if I had said "renowned loremasters" instead?

But as to the tangent. It should be noted that novices were never allowed into the Scriptoriums of the monasteries to do copying. That was a high craft that was reserved for those who had proved themselves for their eye for detail and/or their "craftiness" with illuminations. No doubt there were errors, as they are inevitable; however, they were fewer than most of us have been led to believe, having been inured in the prejudices of moderns against medievals. Enough about the tangent.

Originally Posted by davem

...if we think in terms of FA's we can accept all the writings as part of a vast mythology, constructed by various hands, with different agendas, different kinds of information & differing levels of talent, but if we choose to go down the VR road, we have to reject, say, the Quenta in favour of the 77 Sil, or both of them in favour of the BoLT.

Originally Posted by davem

Surely one can view the texts in any way one chooses.

You cannot have it both ways, my dear fellow.

I appreciate the clear logic provided by Aiwendil: another useful distinction.

Finally, as pertains to renowned loremasters: it must be remembered that the myth with which we are concerned, contained individuals who were thousands of years old and had memories that stretched back for eons. Galadriel is the best example. Cirdan and Elrond also come to mind. Any loremasters who copied from originals were most likely Elves themselves, and had at least one of these persons with whom they could check their facts. So the Translator Conceit as it applies to "fallible scribes" must be considered with these realities of Middle Earth taken into account.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

You cannot have it both ways, my dear fellow.

I think if you read my responses in context you'll see I'm not trying to. Of course, as we all know, the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes...

Finally, as pertains to renowned loremasters: it must be remembered that the myth with which we are concerned, contained individuals who were thousands of years old and had memories that stretched back for eons. Galadriel is the best example. Cirdan and Elrond also come to mind. Any loremasters who copied from originals were most likely Elves themselves, and had at least one of these persons with whom they could check their facts. So the Translator Conceit as it applies to "fallible scribes" must be considered with these realities of Middle Earth taken into account.

Which was always Tolkien's problem - specifically, but not solely, as regards the Flat earth/Round earth situation. Therefore he has to move more & more to the concept of the texts not being produced by the Elves at all, but by Men sundered from the Elves, in Numenor & Gondor. The Elves, naturally, knew the real story, but Men only had mangled traditions, etc..

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

[Tolkien] has to move more & more to the concept of the texts not being produced by the Elves at all, but by Men sundered from the Elves, in Numenor & Gondor. The Elves, naturally, knew the real story, but Men only had mangled traditions, etc..

So you're saying that Tolkien created the Translator Conceit - as something among Men - as a direct result of what he saw as contradictions within his mythology?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So you're saying that Tolkien created the Translator Conceit - as something among Men - as a direct result of what he saw as contradictions within his mythology?

I do not intend to answer for davem, but I'm more than willing to share my own opinion. I do believe that may have been one of the reasons, but probably, one of the later reasons (when major contradictions of round/flat earth, solar system/tree-centered system etc started to surface) at that. As it was originally applied (and maybe intended too), 'TC' just served as one of the means of 'credibility' (or, to use more 'clever' word much loved around these here 'high-brow' discussions - 'verisimilitude' ), i.e., to assist same old 'suspension of disbelief'. I very much share Tolkien's dissapointment with authors weaving really good fantasies only to
flick the reader on the nose in the end telling him that all of the story was 'only a dream'. 'Documentariness', declared in the very beginning of the book, is intended to help reader 'trust' the author (I, at least, felt something along the following lines: good, this is translation, that is, all of these really happened, this guy won't take me in and than tell me it was just a little girl's dream in the end)

[davem]

Interesting new angle on the subject - Adam Thorpe's new novel 'Hodd', which I'm currently halfway through.

Hodd is certainly an ambitious piece of work: it purports to be the English translation of copy of a Latin manuscript, discovered by a British army officer in a bombed out church during the Great War. Said officer, also a scholar, takes it upon himself to translate and annotate the manuscript, and we also have occassional interjections by Thorpe himself and several other ‘unknown hands’. It’s so utterly consistent and compelling that you feel if Adam Thorpe had teamed up with a master forger instead of a literary agent, quite a few people might have been convinced to rewrite history for real!http://www.bookgeeks.co.uk/2009/05/2...y-adam-thorpe/

Adam Thorpe has defined writing as a way of surviving the solitary confinement of the writer's situation, by "dreaming up a different existence (fiction) or shaping memory into significance (poetry)". Hodd - a story, we must presume, already only a version of itself - allows us to watch both processes as they remake a reality that, in a sense, never existed. But it's also a novel of sly and powerful ironies in which, at every turn, a kind of visionary fundamentalism trumps the humanity of its narrator. All Matthew ever wants is a father, and all he ever gets offered is ideas. We don't know whether to laugh or cry at this lifelong vulnerability.http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009...-thorpe-review

Many echoes of Tolkien's creation & the idea of the Translator conceit as he used it - the WWI officer who discovers, & subsequently translates into modern English, an ancient manuscript, & the emphasis on the father/son relationship, where the son is constantly seeking the lost father.. Of course, if you read the reviews, let alone the book itself (well worth it, too) you'll realise that Thorpe is doing a very different thing to Tolkien - Tolkien is offering an 'ideal' past, of heroes & magic, wonder & beauty, whereas Thorpe (via his narrator) demolishing the heroic ideal of Robin Hood. A very interesting counterpoint to Tolkien......