What we already have, I guess. Freedom to decide each for ourselves what we consider allowable, appropriate, good in matters of art and culture. Regardless of the present scholar and judicial positions, be they worldwide adopted or not.
Quote:
No, its absolutely relevant. The hardest thing about having a discussion is when your opponent takes statements used in support of your argument literally - for instance if an advert for a new Jaguar sports car stated 'The New electric Blue Jaguar - 0 to 250 mph in less than 5 seconds! *(also available in red)' & I offered this as evidence that I'd seen a Red Jaguar doing 250mph. You, seemingly would come back & state 'The advert only states the Blue Jaguar can do 250 mph!'
Now, on to the Homer/Malory point.
|
I fail to see the grounds for your generalisation, and presenting opinion as fact is not helpful. In that section, Tolkien talks about the fact that the "personality [of mythological heroes] can only be derrived from a person", that all the aspects, even those of gods, are created by humans.
Quote:
|
The gods may derive their colour and beauty from the high splendours of nature, but it was Man who obtained these for them, abstracted them from sun and moon and cloud; their personality they get direct from him; the shadow or flicker of divinity that is upon them they receive through him from the invisible world, the Supernatural.
|
This is clearly a case of [conscious] invention of myths. Furthermore, at the begining of this chapter on the Origins (of fairy stories), he mentions that all the three possible origins (original invention, inheritance or diffusion) 'ultimately lead back to an inventor'. Taken figuratively or directly, neither of this passages constitute evidences of your position.