Quote:
|
If the author is no longer allowed to choose his own voice, what future is there for writing? More importantly, what is the future of a language that insists on forgetting half of its vocabulary every five-hundred years? George Orwell's little foray into linguistic invention can provide an answer, although it is hardly a satisfactory one.
|
Hmm. I thought it was clear, Squatter, that the point was not dissing archaic language and demanding that we ditch old styles in favour of today's flavour. And it is more than a little repugnant to insinuate an Orwellian form of doublespeak here.
No one is saying an author cannot pick his own style. What I at least am saying is that we have a right to discuss that style and consider how well it conveys what the author purportedly wanted it to convey.
Really, the issue is whether we think Tolkien's use of archaism is successful as writing or not.
Some of us think he dipped too deeply into purple ink and, instead of helping to convey heroic characters or elevated thought and feeling, rather wrote embarassingly overwrought passages which detract from the story and the characters. There, I've said it. It is bad archaic language. Horrors. Tolkien is not untouchable.
Some people prefer the style of the King James Bible for its rhythm, its metaphors, its cadences. Some people want God to sound old fashioned, but this old fashionedness was not a feature of the style of the orginal texts. And other people prefer the modern translation because the content is no longer lost through words which have changed meaning over time.
Frankly, I would need alot more evidence to convince me that Tolkien was extensively using his role as translator when he varied the style. There needs to be internal references to the translation, not simply a few points made in letters and appendices.
Quote:
|
but I do not believe that his use of the language that he taught merits such vehement criticism. Nor do I believe that he deserves veiled implications that he was not a good enough writer to use a modern idiom, as though a modern idiom were the only voice that English can afford. I doubt that anyone would get very far these days suggesting that dialect and patois are not valid forms of communication, and yet it is considered that an academic or an archaic style, both of which can be almost painful in their adherence to the rules of English grammar, is no longer acceptable.
|
And, again, I don't see why a sincere and honest attempt to articulate a reading of Tolkien's texts has to run up against this idea that we are throwing mud. There is no vehemence in my comments about him. No author is beyond criticism or analysis or discussion or debate. I didn't say he was not a good enough writer to use a modern idiom; he clearly did with the hobbits. I said that his imagination could not conceive of a modern heroic idiom. There is a difference.
But then, you didn't quote me in your post but someone else so perhaps I should not have replied.
[ November 05, 2003: Message edited by: Bęthberry ]