The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Lalwendë]

Do I get you correct SoN in that you mean we cannot 'know' Tolkien as we are not Tolkien? Yes I can see that of course (I often say it myself), but to counter it, biographical detail is one of the few things we do have to go on for a solid grounding in understanding, which is why it remains so popular today in literary analysis, like it or not.

Couple of relevant quotes from anarticle in today's Guardian about an art show by the Chapman brothers:

I have to admit to a thought crime. I found my own response to the work - moved, shocked, impressed by its craft - far more appropriate. I'm aware that this is not the right attitude. Artists have more or less given up thinking about what response a work might get. We live in more democratic times, in which the artist just makes the work, and the public make whatever they want of it.

So I should learn to relax. When the Chapman brothers' work comes to London, I plan to see it again, and this time I'll try to follow the dictums of postmodern art appreciation. Art is what you make it. I shall have my response to the work. And other people - even little people aged about seven - will have their response. All of our responses will be equally valid. I just hope I don't get that nagging feeling that, when it comes to works of art, some responses are more equally valid than others.

Gets you thinking this. Is there really a democracy inherent in Reader Response or is it a fraud? Does it actually have any qualitative purpose? Or is it just hot air leading to the need to democratise and intellectualise the opinions of seven year olds? Will it lead ultimately to utterly meaningless and trivial Art? We've already seen that happen in television, will literature go that way?

Anyway....

Onwards and upwards...

An atheist reading of Lord of the Rings would not only be permissible but it also works and the text supports that view too. Without any forcing. I'll do something on it one day. I've been tempted to do a Marxist reading. I know someone who has and it also works.

Of course now I'm going to say that this is all grist to the mill that Tolkien's work is in fact Universal, but that is not a popular opinion with everyone. Whereas Universal is correct to me - even under SoN's triple analysis theory, including the effect that the text has on many and diverse peoples. Universal also supports both Reader Response and paying close attention to text only (now before someone jumps in, I'm talking Lord of the Rings here). Universal stops fights, stops claimings and also has everyone skipping about merrily and holding hands. What could be better?