Quote:
Originally Posted by Bęthberry
Oh, no, sorry Boro for being unclear but I was not in any way referring to Tolkien. I was referring to critics, fans, and readers of him and of the various media that derive from his work.
Talking about writers is far more complex than talking about critics. At heart I was taking issue with loremasters who believe they can unreservedly and transparently speak directly about what Tolkien thought and intended, to the detriment of any other possible interpretations by other fans, specifically about RoP.
You are of course correct that Tolkien was a 20th Century writer. There's lots of material about that I can add to your list but that's a topic for another thread. And sorry about the linguistic theory lingo. I was directing my thoughts towards loremasters here who I anticipated would be familiar with it and not general readers. I'll aim to be less opaque in future posts.  |
Thank you for the explanation,
Bethberry. And while you did not want to dive into what influences a writer, it did spark a few thoughts related to your questions.
I think as fans of Tolkien we all acknowledge he had a variety of influences. As all art reflects the experiences of its creator. I don't think adaptations should be an exception. What I mean is the people adapting Tolkien (Jackson, Bakshi, Payne/McKay...etc) were clearly influenced by him (hence creating an adaptation) but Tolkien isn't their
only influence. As fans of Tolkien, we all know he had many influences in his writing. As readers and critics of the people who adapt Tolkien, I don't know if I'd call it a trap, but I think we get into a single-track mind. We (or at least I do) go in thinking if it's not the way Tolkien described it/wrote it then obviously the adapter doesn't know what they're doing, doesn't understand Tolkien...etc, etc. I think it's important to acknowledge that adapters of Tolkien, will also have a variety of experiences and other influences, just as Tolkien had a multitude of them.