I am slow responding here due to events in RL, but let me now reply to at least a few points. And as I take Rimbaud's comment that "All tone is commentary," let me say that I hope my tone is civil, conciliatory, and expansive.
Quote:
|
Many appreciators shy unnecessarily from criticism of the text.
|
This was also my point in first raising the issue of quality of writing, and, in fact, I have been pondering Rimbaud's distinction between objective and subjective texts, which I find wonderfully intriguing--it leads me out into a new way of thinking about the writing. I would prefer to see a discussion of what tone and voice and consistency are, what I meant by purple prose. I would rather have said to Rimbaud, let us examine what you perceive are inconsistencies, and what I call purple prose, to try to understand the legitimacy of our responses. When the response is, 'but it's all great to me', real discussion stops.
And, yes, Lush, there is a difference between insisting that a text be taken seriously and insisting that the text is flawless. Yet I think a balanced assessment of Tolkien's work--or at least a fair and impartial airing of the difficulties of the text--will ultimately do him more credit. I made my comment about purple prose initially because so many of the points raised by your mystery scholar at Duke rose from issues outside Tolkien's texts. (Most of mine were similar, let me hasten to add.) To me, there are issues inside the texts which also bear on the fact that he is not taken seriously. But if the discussion devolves always to one of love, or faith in readers, then almost axiomatically, it seems, discussion stops.
Lindil, I do know Martinez' essay on Goldberry and Tom; unfortunately, perhaps, it does nothing to address my concerns about Goldberry. And I am glad at a youngster enjoys the Old Forest chapters, but that does not negate, I humbly suggest, my response.
Bill Ferny, what would be the difficulty with Linda Hutcheon considering Tolkien? Why must there be areas off limits to discussion?
And since I was the one who first used the term 'gated community', perhaps it would be best if I was allowed to define my use of it. I will be doing that on the thread which Child of the Seventh Age has started, "Gated Communities."
I am sure that I have missed something. I apologize in advance for my poor articulation of my ideas.
Bethberry