The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Bêthberry · 10-02-2002, 09:18 PM

Child,

Well, the root and tree metaphor might suit 'Bethberry' LOL but I do think Richard Jeffrey chose it because of its central importance to Tolkien and not to me/her. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

This discussion is interesting to me because it demonstrates how you and I go about things differently. I understand your desire to dig for roots and 'ground' your observations in your personal experience. My interests are developed in quite an opposite manner. They derive from alternative ways of reading literature, ways dependent to some extent on the rapid changes in our understanding of texts over the last twenty or thirty years. (Not that I've been around personally to observe them for that long!) These new ways often challenge the old ideas about reading texts.

One of these changes in our understanding has made claims about origins (causation) very suspect, for many reasons, some valid, some spurious. What is no longer contested is the idea that there are simple, direct, straight forward answers to questions about sources, origins, and intention.(Shippey is twenty years old by now.) Human creativity, particularly that of a writer such as Tolkien, is far more complex, various, multiple. And as my paraphrase of Eliot was meant to suggest, often we construct our origins by looking back rather than by looking ahead.

Thus, I would say that Shippey is too reductive. The letter you quote is just one letter. What about Tolkien's lecture "A Secret Vice," on his childhood delight in creating languages? I can find several letters which state Tolkien's languages were formative on the development of the Legendarium--that the languages came before the stories and the characters and the desire to recreate lost legends. That's why the Eärendil poem is so perfect for my argument--it speaks to two avenues of thought or meaning at once and we cannot at this time identify which had priority--if, indeed, one ever did. We can only hold them in simultaneous plenitude.

So, this is my own ground, that the motivation of a writer like Tolkien cannot be reduced to just one level. I think it was your use of the word "basics" in the thread title which really drew me on to point out this differing basis for our claims.

We should probably just share the life jacket. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Bethberry

[ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ]

10-02-2002, 09:18 PM	#40
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 6,003	Child, Well, the root and tree metaphor might suit 'Bethberry' LOL but I do think Richard Jeffrey chose it because of its central importance to Tolkien and not to me/her. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] This discussion is interesting to me because it demonstrates how you and I go about things differently. I understand your desire to dig for roots and 'ground' your observations in your personal experience. My interests are developed in quite an opposite manner. They derive from alternative ways of reading literature, ways dependent to some extent on the rapid changes in our understanding of texts over the last twenty or thirty years. (Not that I've been around personally to observe them for that long!) These new ways often challenge the old ideas about reading texts. One of these changes in our understanding has made claims about origins (causation) very suspect, for many reasons, some valid, some spurious. What is no longer contested is the idea that there are simple, direct, straight forward answers to questions about sources, origins, and intention.(Shippey is twenty years old by now.) Human creativity, particularly that of a writer such as Tolkien, is far more complex, various, multiple. And as my paraphrase of Eliot was meant to suggest, often we construct our origins by looking back rather than by looking ahead. Thus, I would say that Shippey is too reductive. The letter you quote is just one letter. What about Tolkien's lecture "A Secret Vice," on his childhood delight in creating languages? I can find several letters which state Tolkien's languages were formative on the development of the Legendarium--that the languages came before the stories and the characters and the desire to recreate lost legends. That's why the Eärendil poem is so perfect for my argument--it speaks to two avenues of thought or meaning at once and we cannot at this time identify which had priority--if, indeed, one ever did. We can only hold them in simultaneous plenitude. So, this is my own ground, that the motivation of a writer like Tolkien cannot be reduced to just one level. I think it was your use of the word "basics" in the thread title which really drew me on to point out this differing basis for our claims. We should probably just share the life jacket. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Bethberry [ October 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bethberry ] __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.