Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Now, there are two ways of looking at most things - 'Where did it come from?' & 'What is it for?' Source analysis tells us a great deal in answer to the former question, but almost nothing in answer to the latter. Just because the former question is the easier to answer does not make it the more important, or more interesting, question.
|
I still find it difficult how you can make any attempt to answer the question "What is it for?" without considering "Where did it come from?"
To take your analogy of the house builder, there are a number of levels at which one can answer the questions: "What is the house for? Why did Tolkien the Master Builder build it?". One can look at it and make a general assessment, namely that he built it as a house for people to live in. This would be analagous to saying that Tolkien wrote LotR as a book for people to read and enjoy. One might look further and notice various features and themes: windows, doors, partition walls, a roof. Just as one may consider LotR and notice particular features and themes: fantasy, friendship, the enoblement of the humble, good and evil etc. But this isn't really telling us anything we didn't know already or couldn't work out for ourselves with a litle thought.
So we have to look more closely if we are to try to understand why Tolkien built
this particular house. We need to consider his purpose in selecting that particular style of window, or that precise archway, or those particular tiles for the roof. Perhaps we need to consider his influences - what training he had as a builder, what particular styles caught his eye at builder college, what materials he assessed might be best for his intended construction. And, ultimately, to gain the best understanding possible of Tolkien's purposes with regard to the house, we have to consider just what kind of an environment he intended to provide for those who would occupy it. What kind of protection against the weather, the climate, subsidence etc did he intend it to provide? And so, as I see it, we end up knocking it down to examine its inner workings and its foundations.
Without being there as it was built, I really don't see how you can hope to answer the question "What is it for?" in anything other than the most cursory of ways without at some point asking "What materials did he use to build it and how did he put those materials together?"
That said, like Aiwendil, I am one of those who would rather sit and admire the building for what it is and take what pleasure I find in my own reactions to it, rather than considering what the builder's purpose was in building it, much less what he used to build it. So I really don't see the point of these questions in the first place.
Of course, if you and others are interested in considering and discussing the question, and feel that you may have something to gain in doing so, there's no harm in that at all. You don't need me continually sticking my oar in and telling you how pointless it all is. So, good luck to you. I hope it goes well.
