Quote:
|
Originally Posted by obloquy
You have completely ignored my argument about the letter, and have yet to provide any support for your opinion from the text.
|
I would have two things to mention regarding your request.
First, there is the problem of
burden of proof. If I understand you correctly, you argue that Zimmerman made, concerning that specific subject, errors of 'theatrical' presentation, of
how he related the story, shifting emphasis where it shouldn't, while still being true to the original meaning - as opposed to The 1,000 Reader's interpretation of the text as reffering to errors of
what was being reported (therefore, a problem of accuracy primarily, not one of literary impact on the reader). While, in theory, both views are consistent with Tolkien's resentment, it should be noted that the bulk of Z's errors mentioned in the letter are of accuracy:
- inclusion of flags, Gandalf spluttering, contraction of time, Tom as owner of the woods and as 'old scamp', the landlord asking Frodo to register, Aragorn leaving the inn at night, Rivendell similar to Lorien, Aragorn singing the song of Gil-Galad, orcs with beaks and feathers, Galadriel as Elvenqueen, the presence of private 'chambers', hobbits eating 'ridiculously long sandwiches', the spiral staircase of Orthanc, etc.
Most, if not all, of Tolkien's criticism regards problems of accuracy, not merely of 'how' things are related. Tolkien doesn't explicitly say if a specific criticism regards the problem of "how" or the problem of "what" is being told; so both sides share the burden of proof, of presenting evidence outside of the letter that could verify their interpretation. However,
if the sheer number of accuracy errors in an indicator, then this was foremost a problem of accuracy, of what was being told, not a problem of literary effect, that is, of how the story was told.
The second aspect is that of
false dilemma: even if Tolkien was reffering first and foremost to a literary effect on the reader in that paragraph, that still doesn't exclude the witch-king actually receiving the greater power mentioned in the text. In fact, if he indeed became more powerful, the literary impact on the reader would be more natural and more easy to come by - actual increase would be a means to literary impact (an end).