The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

davem · 05-04-2004, 02:35 AM

Aiwendil

Perhaps I should have been more careful with my wording. When I said:

I think a very great deal 'happens' in Smith

I meant a very great deal happens to Smith, (ie a great deal happens in(side) 'Smith' the person), spiritually, internally, as a result of his experiences, but that's from his own conclusions about his experiences. Smith (ie a kind of 'everyman' figure, the 'wanderer in Faerie') is changed - the question though is whether he is changed by what he experiences, or by what he learns from his experiences - because he could have had all those experiences & been left unchanged; he could have been so caught up in himself that he didn't even realise he had passed into Faerie. So, just being in Faerie won't necessarily teach us anything. We have to take the 'ore' we find there & turn it into 'gold (or 'Iron', if we're a 'Smith'

)

When you ask: 'Do you deny that it is, at least in large part, literary theory? If so, then why do you then inquire into Tolkien's role as a literary theorist? If not, then why am I missing the point?'

I only deny that it is solely, or even 'mainly' literary theory. I think we can read it on that level, & will find a good deal about literary theory. My point though, is that its a lot more than that, & the most important simension of the story is not the literary theory it expounds. It is not an allegory of a particular literary theory, becuase too much of it, especially the episodes in Faerie, cannot be 'translated into anything else. They simply 'are'. They don't 'mean' anything in relation to the human world. The battle from which the Elven mariners return has nothing to do with Smith's world. Smith is told by the Birch to leave Faery & never return. So Faery & its inhabitants clearly see themselves as part of a self contained reality, & they are not doing anything 'for' the human world.

Helen

I think you're probably closer to expressing what I meant with my analogy. I have to say it came to me as I was writing it, so I wasn't able to 'step back' from it & analyse it. Thanks.

05-04-2004, 02:35 AM	#222
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	Aiwendil Perhaps I should have been more careful with my wording. When I said: I think a very great deal 'happens' in Smith I meant a very great deal happens to Smith, (ie a great deal happens in(side) 'Smith' the person), spiritually, internally, as a result of his experiences, but that's from his own conclusions about his experiences. Smith (ie a kind of 'everyman' figure, the 'wanderer in Faerie') is changed - the question though is whether he is changed by what he experiences, or by what he learns from his experiences - because he could have had all those experiences & been left unchanged; he could have been so caught up in himself that he didn't even realise he had passed into Faerie. So, just being in Faerie won't necessarily teach us anything. We have to take the 'ore' we find there & turn it into 'gold (or 'Iron', if we're a 'Smith' ) When you ask: 'Do you deny that it is, at least in large part, literary theory? If so, then why do you then inquire into Tolkien's role as a literary theorist? If not, then why am I missing the point?' I only deny that it is solely, or even 'mainly' literary theory. I think we can read it on that level, & will find a good deal about literary theory. My point though, is that its a lot more than that, & the most important simension of the story is not the literary theory it expounds. It is not an allegory of a particular literary theory, becuase too much of it, especially the episodes in Faerie, cannot be 'translated into anything else. They simply 'are'. They don't 'mean' anything in relation to the human world. The battle from which the Elven mariners return has nothing to do with Smith's world. Smith is told by the Birch to leave Faery & never return. So Faery & its inhabitants clearly see themselves as part of a self contained reality, & they are not doing anything 'for' the human world. Helen I think you're probably closer to expressing what I meant with my analogy. I have to say it came to me as I was writing it, so I wasn't able to 'step back' from it & analyse it. Thanks. __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."