Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
But tumhalad, it is part of a greater story. You can't really ignore that, just because otherwise you feel it doesn't quite mean what you'd like it to. It takes place in an incredibly complex fictional world with a long past and future history. Doesn't dismissing all that cheapen it?
|
It certainly makes it easier for the reader - like with the little girl in the red coat in Schindler's list (etc...)
|
But that's not the question I asked,
Davem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Its also why a determination to see it as simply part of a greater tale where good wins out & everyone lives happily ever after is wrong
|
But I never said that; I don't think that is a fair characterisation of the "greater tale", anyway. I said it was part of that tale, and was intended as such by the author.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumhalad
And I was not, by the way, advocating that we should dismiss the rest of Tolkien's writings; I was agreeing with Davem that to only experience CoH through the prism of his other works not only cheapens the story as it is, but misunderstands its importance
|
If you'll review the thread,
tumhalad, you'll see
Davem's previously said rather a lot more than that– and I was actually referring back to some of these earlier claims as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumhalad
CoH is not set in this world at all; it is a world wherein hope itself is futile because there is no God; indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. indeed, one is almost tempted to agree with Morgoth and say that there is "Nothing" beyond the void. For all the characters in the story know, this is perfectly true. We think we know better because we have the Silmarillion, which says that Eru created the world, etc, but once again I'm not certain CoH should be read through that prism.
|
Which neatly settles the question of whether the author ever
meant it to be a stand-alone work, doesn't it? Obviously, he didn't.
My personal view is that Turin's story, though it may stand up by itself, also works perfectly fine in the general Middle-earth context. I'm not arguing that it's invalid to prefer the stand-alone version, but to claim that that's somehow the "true" way to read it seems to me to rest on some pretty shaky arguments.
One's reaction does depend on temperament, of course: I admit freely I am basically an optimist, and so stories of total, absolute despair don't give me the sense of "Ah, yes! The
truth!" that I suppose they do some people. Thus, for me, the story actually has more impact if taken as part of the greater Legendarium, because I'm not subconsciously
rejecting it on some level. Does that make sense? This is not a weak preference for "happy endings", in case you think it is. It's about what
feels truer to a particular person. Or, if you prefer the expression, it's about whether it "resonates" with me. Okay?
Finally, I don't see that the analogies people are giving to this story are the right ones. Turin isn't simply a passive, innocent victim of circumstance: he may have a malevolent power personally gunning for him, but nonetheless much of what befalls him can be also attributed to his own character flaws and lapses of judgement. (Unlike
lmp, this does not remove my sympathy from the character– rather, I think it makes him more of a classic tragic hero.)