Quote:
Originally Posted by Zigûr
I suppose because Professor Tolkien termed it a "sub-creation" and he was the "sub-creator". As such while there are numerous undisclosed elements upon which we can only speculate, there are certain aspects made explicit in notes, letters and such about things which, were they referent to parts of the primary world we would consider subjective but which the "sub-creator" can describe objectively in regards to his "sub-creation". That's at least how I look at it. I know some people hold that only what we read in The Lord of the Rings can be taken at face value (and that not even The Hobbit and certainly not The Silmarillion, let alone other material, can be read as a completely accurate portrayal of the Professor's vision) but I find that to be a limiting notion. As far as I'm concerned if Professor Tolkien wrote it and it's not later contradicted anywhere by something he wrote then within the "sub-creation" of Middle-earth it's objectively true - unless he himself left it open for speculation, of course!
|
and your speculative suppositions are, well, truthful
but i suppose this is like saying that all Signs can have only one meaning, now isn't it? but i will opine that, all Signs, all codes are infinitely fertile, and fecund, yes?
inter-subjectively, naturally.
since when was creativity a one-way street? what would Belegûr have to say on that?