Quote:
|
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Off hand quick comments:
If you think that I was referring to Chaucer with my quote of Tolkien regarding adolescence, then you are taking both Tolkien and me out of context. He made this comment in reference (rather specifically I think) to the modern, post WW One, type of novel.
The Canterbury Tales, on the other hand, reflect an earthiness typical of the peasantry of the time.
16th century beheading did occur to me, but I think that era was more, rather than less barbaric than, say, the 10th -12th centuries, and the Kings were to blame for the increasing ferocity of punishments.
|
My sincere apologies if I have taken anything out of context. Perhaps if you could give me the specific reference Tolkien's letter, I could better understand your point. As it is, I just don't see how it relates solely to modern literature. Perhaps you could PM me the info so we won't belabour the thread? Many thanks!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lmp
yes, I think there are "stereotypes", but I prefer to understand them as "universals" - the reason they seem like stereotypes are precisely because they are universal. Hence, any efforts to undo them will be to work against nature, and nature has a way of reasserting itself. As with flaura and fauna, so with humans and their stories.
|
There's probably no point in getting into a nurture versus nature kind of discussion, but on the other hand I am very skeptical of your characterisation that, to examine or question the kind of depictions Tolkien used is to go against nature. It is, once again, an opinion that these are based on 'universals' rather than culturally determined. To what extent, for instance, can this kind of idealisation be found in non-Western literatures? The epic of [i]Gilgamesh[/b]--called "The oldest story in the world" by its recent translator, for example, posits a very different relationship with the woman, for there intercourse is a civilising event, an initiation into full humanity, rather than a fall.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
If the men around them idealised them the was something that was going on inside them. Tolkien did not idealise his female characters, but merely had some of hiis male characters do so.
|
I find this observation fascinating, as I think this could be the first time that anyone here has put forth the idea of distance between Tolkien's view, as author or as narrator, and his characters' view. We have the external evidence that he did change or alter Galadriel's character so that she came more and more to represent his developing theological ideas and we also have Tolkien's letters which show that he did not idealise women in real life.
What can be gained in our understanding of LotR if we examine it to see if the story in fact does not support Gimli's adoration of Galadriel?