lmp,
That's a very nice analogy, of CT as the reader who reflects back an enthusiasm for the author. It certainly is far more sympathetic and (more to my own inclinations) literary than the old psychoanalytic interpretation of daddy saying that son wasn't as gifted as the old man.
What I would like to bring to this discussion is a point which came out of another thread here, Child's on what we would like to see expanded in The Silm. I had asked the question of why the Tale of Tuor is so much more compressed than the Tale of Turin (to me, a far less satisfactory tale). Various answers were given, particularly Mithadan's that JRRT never finished Tuor's tale. Now, just this morning, I found Mhoram's link to Michael Martinez's article where Martinez claims that Tuor's tale was written solely by CT. If this is the case, it suggests to me that CT was either simply trying for a factual rendition of Tuor's story OR was unable to achieve the kind of narrative development and style which JRRT had in Turin's tale. Thus, evidence that, despite all his very faithful and legitimate and intimate involvement in his father's writing, CT did not have the gift of faerie which his father had.
For reference, here's the quote from Martinez:
Quote:
"The Fall of Gondolin" is important to The Silmarillion. There is no doubt about that. But "The Fall of Gondolin" is not a part of The Silmarillion . "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin" was literarlly written by Christopher Tolkien. Sure, he tried to follow his father's writings, but what he calls editorial compression is, in fact, writing. Christopher Tolkien had to sit down and compose his own version of the tale, which already existed in at least four different versions (as "The Fall of Gondolin" from The Book of Lost Tales , as sections in "Quenta Noldorinwa" and "Quenta Silmarillion" from the 1930s, and in the fragment "Of Tuor and his coming to Gondolin").
The Silmarillion is a book, composed or compiled by Christopher Tolkien. "The Silmarillion" is a story which J.R.R. Tolkien began working on about 1930. The story became the book, but the book is not the story.
|
And here is a link to the entire article:
http://www.suite11101.com/article.cfm/4786/63343
Would it be possible to suggest that JRRT saw that CT's work, however admirable and respectful, was not that of a sub-creator, but the other one of editor?
Bethberry