Hi there Pitwife - it's an interesting and cerebral topic, which I'm not shy of and it's interesting, very.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitchwife
In Stephen Donaldson's essay Epic Fantasy in the Modern World, there's an interesting passage about LotR which I'd like to discuss.
Donaldson begins with giving his own definition of fantasy:
This is obviously a generalization of Donaldson's approach in his Covenant books, which his definition fits perfectly: a character from the 'real' world is transported into a secondary fantasy world, where he confronts his own self-despite in personified form. So far, so good. It gets debatable, in my opinion, when Mr. D. applies this theory to LotR: |
I've read that basic stance of him in a prior reading, some 20 years ago. It stayed with me. I recall pondering long, Donaldson's placement of the 'externalisation' of the inner realm, of those from the 'Earth' where 'we' (Thomas Covenant's world?) are from. So, Earthpower, Subane, The Insequent, The Gorgons, The Ravers, Lord Foul. Perhaps two more powers - Colossus of the Fall (Rock Sentinel of the Land - yet Elohim imbued). And - The Forestals, for their great protective might. Seven Wards of Lore. Earthblood. Staff of Law.
Expressions - of the inner world, so he does say. And so, manifest then his inversions of Frodo's realm.
I see what Donaldson meant. It was hard to bear with Frodo, at times, on my first read so long ago. Away I turned from him, for many years as well. So unwell after his travails, and it was confronting to read as a young teenager.
And so - the 'sauron-ising' that Donaldson is almost mechanical about in an analysis, was, I think, Tolkien's point about the Rings of Power, indeed. But, I do not see 'Frodo' as creating something that 'we' read. It must be Donaldson naming a process through a characterisation, musn't it? And therefore, responsibility for 'making Sauron', must of course, fall to how the author interacts with his readership. So - in my latter years - I am not so hard on 'Frodo' at all.
He bore too much responsibility for Arda, and that also was the point of Tolkien's allowance of Frodo's journey into Valinor's Realm. There - somebody would have been able to spare Frodo and Bilbo their dire inner calamity. No doubt, in a world where Wraiths did, indeed exist, and where such Spectres and Necromantics - not of 'Frodo' - it has to be reasonable for Frodo to have been left with terrible scars.
I'm not so harsh of Frodo anymore.
Donaldsonian 'lore' - I recall of his fantasy that there is a greater place for Despite and for the realm of Inner conflict - and the hidden lies told to the self, of its baser spectral lines. Pieten comes to mind. As does Lord Foul's emphases in how he - more than warps. The Illearth Stone, the Sunbane - they're really very perverse in effect. The three Giant triplets that were 'raver-ised' and got all really creepy and blew off the heads of the Giants at Coercri - man - that one!!! Ravers though imbued - still really very different to Tolkien.[/quote]
Yet - do any Donadsonian characters 'create' Foul?
No - I do not think so either. So, running the Donaldsonian analysis of Frodo upon it's author's works - seems to clarify why I resist speaking 'so' of Frodo - as a perpetual curse.
Perhaps