Oh no you don't,
Mr. Hedgethistle 
Quote:
|
Bless you Bęthberry! You have asked the magic question that has finally unlocked for me the nagging thoughts that led to my initiating this thread in the first place. Yes, 999 times out of a thousand I would agree (and defend with great vitriol and vigour) the absolute ?divorce? of author from text necessitated by the centrality of the text (you note, I do not go so far as do Foucault and Barthes ? and, I rather suspect, yourself?). But Tolkien is that one in a thousand insofar as his texts exist in a context that is of the author?s (sub)creation, thus forcing me ?back? to the author, even as I wish to retain my absolute freedom as a reader.
|
Think you can integrate yourself into the mainstream of referentiality and leave me to be done in by the laundry truck, eh? (Everyone, sorry, that's an inside joke about the critics mentioned.)
Let me characterise my position, and not you, my good sir. For the time being, let me make two observations about your thoughts here.
First, it seems to me that you are suggesting a poetics for fantasy that differentiates it from realistic (for want of a better word) fiction. Do you intend this?
Second, are you making this claim for all writers of fantasy, or just Tolkien? On what basis do you or would you eliminate other writers?
Third, you will have to run by me again your point that since our reading of Middle-earth has no reference to our 'real' world, we are totally dependent upon the author for giving it credibility. This seems to me to overlook many other forms of narrative which aren't 'based' on our real world. How do we read ancient texts of early mythology? Or even translations from other cultures which would not, at least on first read, have this already-known distinction between Primary and Secondary worlds.
I tend to agree with
Mr. SaucepanMan that there is no distinction between "Eruism" and Waugh's Catholicism in terms of reading experience. In fact, I recall a very similar discussion years ago in class, on Graham Greens'
Brighton Rock, on where lay the "ideology" of Catholicism. Green's method--particularly in the use of colour symbolism among other aspects of the stories--is very close to Tolkien's method. Students who had no knowledge of Catholicism (whether by faith or by scholarly learning) could not 'see' the meaning until, in the process of discussion, they understood what others saw. This did not invalidate their reading per se; it was simply an aspect of the text which gave fuller meaning to some than to others. And, very interestingly, I remember one student pointing out that, even in the absence of this extra-textual knowledge of Catholicism, a reader could begin to see the various patterns shaping the novel.
Now, of course, we don't have this "extra-textual" (hee hee, not extraterrestial) referentiality for Middle-earth. We do have the books themselves. To me, Tolkien's Letters are merely glosses on what the stories provide. There cannot ever be, for me, a "definitive" Galadriel, because any authorising of one version of the character would cancel out the earlier (or later) versions of her character. The "truth" of Galadriel exists in this unfolding and extrapolating of ideas and to limit her to any one of the versions would, to me, violate (ironically here you might add), the story process.
Just as I have to wonder if the formal 'text' of LOTR or of TH supports the interpetation of dwarves which Tolkien puts forth in The Appendix, of their imperviousness to the desire for domination which the ring produces.
davem, I should clarify some points for you but must run. Later.