Well, I'm going to wade in here and see if I drown. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Child, I am interested in taking this point about historical references to a question of "metaperspective", if I can use that term, because I see a particular bias or approach to reading here. Please, everyone, note, I am (over)generalizing philosophical positions here, not characterizing nations or people or readers.
Once upon a time, there was a particular approach to literature taught (out of several)which argued that reading literature meant recognizing historical difference. Part of its goal was to help readers know what texts and contexts the author knew, in order for the reader to recreate as closely as possible the historical conditions of the author and so to aim to understand the author's intention. It recognized reading literature from past ages as a kind of time travel or multi-cultural experience. (There were problems with this approach, but now is not the time to go into them here.)
Enter the French philosophes with structuralism, post-structuralism, post-modernism, deconstructionism (well, I guess that's largely American), euro-feminism, and this approach was swamped. Authors are dead and so are their intentions. Texts are AWOL also. (I exaggerate to make a point.)
Current practice is to ground our reading in 'our body', our personal experience. In my experience, quite often, one unfortunate consequence, particularly in the hands of less experienced readers, is to wipe out cultural and historical difference by homogenizing it into contemporary references. It is well and good to focus upon similarities, but a mistake, I would argue, to forego differences. Thus, whatever speaks of "regional" or "local" difference or whatever cannot be assimilated into an amorphous global (or, conversely, personal) perspective, falls by the wayside.
This, it seems to me, is
one reason why the particular "English" references are skipped over. It is kind of a chicken or egg problem. What comes first, the text or the reader? Except in this case we cannot agree on what the chicken is. Or the egg. All we have is the gourmand. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
(I have other concerns about Tolien's desire to create an English mythology for his Legendarium--for the "Englishness" of the LOTR I do not see in The Silm--but this is not the place to present them.)
And speaking of mad Frenchmen, [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Rimbaud, I am interested in your point:
Quote:
|
...much of the perceived Englishness of the books is only slightly removed from parody--and does reinforce a certain unfortunate stereotype.
|
Do you mean to imply that Tolkien intended an 'almost parody'? Why would he come close but stop? Is this a failure of his writing that it comes so close to parody (part of his weakness as a writer) or is there meaning in it? ie, Did he want us to see 'almost parody' and why?
Child, I also want to discuss letter 19, but I have gone on long enough here. Perhaps I should reply on the other thread.
Life jacket anyone?
Bethberry