Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LMP
First, I hope we don't just blithely accept the notion that the conceit completely wipes out any consideration of style inconsistencies. Whereas style variation may be an interesting aspect of the conceit, by no means does it wipe the slate clean in terms of the author's responsibilities regarding anachronism and style. My opinion as to what style is too high flown or not, is not the issue here. Rather, the conceit is not some kind of stain remover, if you take my meaning.
|
That may be true (actually I think it is ) but it is valuable nonetheless, because it enables us to read the book without having the spell broken. In short, don't knock 'stain removers'!
Quote:
|
Second, I have my doubts that Tolkien pushed the conceit as far as some of us may be tempted to. Sure, it's there, but reading the Letters, I do not see Tolkien saying that it was a matter of translation from text G or E or whatever; rather, he defends his use of style, poetry, what have you, from an authorial ownership point of view.
|
In fact the Sil (especially the version edited by CT) is pretty much precisely that.
Quote:
|
Let's dig into the text, my friends.
|
What, & risk undermining the 'Tower'?
Shouldn't we rather put away our spades, climb up & look at the Sea?