Quote:
Originally Posted by arathorn
HAHAHAHA!!!! that was good but is still hard to understand why do you prefer to create divergences.
|
I thought you might enjoy that
Anyway I wouldn't say I prefer to create divergences, but rather if I read two draft texts which even seemingly [or arguably] conflict, while I might be able to imagine a way in which they can be read as consistent, I feel I am also bound to at least consider that Tolkien might have been revising, changing his mind and creating a variant idea... or simply writing something new, perhaps having forgotten what he wrote possibly years before.
But for another example: when I have two descriptions published by the author that seem to be problematic, unless I have reason to think an arguable internal conflict is purposeful, then I am often the first to try to imagine how they can be said to be consistent, or consistent enough, or find some sort of 'internal-ish' explanation.
Quote:
|
Divergent versions need not indeed always be treated solely as a question of settling the priority of composition; and my father as "author" or "inventor" cannot always in these matters be distinguished from the "recorder" of ancient traditions handed down in diverse forms among different peoples through long ages (when Frodo met Galadriel in Lorien, more than sixty centuries had passed since she went east over the Blue Mountains from the ruin of Beleriand). "Of this two things are said, though which is true only those Wise could say who now are gone."
|
A nice enough way to look at things, but I also think some might take this 'too far' [subjective as that is], or employ it too loosely perhaps, essentially creating internal inconsistencies out of external revisions, and thus essentially 'undermining' the art of subcreation.
But that's a matter for another thread perhaps
