Original Sin in Arda

[Kalessin]

Lindil [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I disagree completly with the characterization of LotR as 'the height of his powers, or the zenith of his writings.

I think his writing on the Silmarillion after the LotR. far surpasses the LotR just as much as the LotR was better than BoLT or HoME4 and the Hobbit.

...

However the more I read the later writings, fragmentary and disjointed though they can be, the more I am aware of the fact that his powers as a storyteller continued to grow long after the LotR, indeed till around say the end of the 60's, when if I not mistaken he no longer wrote anything of length, but short works and notes on linguistic matters or individuals.

Also I would point out that he, himself considered the Silmarillion to be his magnum opus, and the LotR to be an 'intrusion'.

I am interested in this. At least this brings us back to a matter of opinion on which we can argue our different positions. I should say that my feeling about The Silmarillion, whilst nodoubt partly antithetical to yours, is tempered by the awareness that it is unfinished.

It's a relatively common situation that the lesser-known or incomplete works of a greatly revered artist are often held in the greatest esteem by his most devoted admirers. As a phenomenon this can be a reflection of the depth of knowledge and critical appreciation of such devotees. However, it is not always so. But I can think of similar examples in relation to artists whom I am passionate about, and indeed share the sentiments in some cases.

However, in this instance if I take the liberty of making a critical judgement I would fall on the side of LotR ... or perhaps even Leaf by Niggle, as Tolkien's most perfect work. But having established simply a difference of critical opinion, which is generally to be expected, that is by the by.

At the heart of the qualitative analysis that I was taking from your earlier post was that the increasing Christianisation of his works, in revision or addition - the maturing of his personal spiritual foundation and its reflection in the legendarium - was perhaps an integral part of the greater power and quality that you posit. Do correct me if have misunderstood this point, as illustrated by -

(the author and works) ... had come indeed full circle as a stand in mythology for England to become a pure work of co-creation, pointing back to the Creator himself [Christ] in a beautiful and subtle conversation coming from one of the most noble of his characters, Finrod.

I would suggest that the 'linkage', if correctly understood, is not a priori. In a hypothetical analysis, one could see the rooting of his cosmogony within a traditional theology as something different from the development of narrative craft or thematic depth. Of course in a real person, and artist, these elements are holistic, or interwoven perhaps, and the hypothetical analysis is therefore quite subtle - especially given the eclecticism and ambiguities (or depth) that are a part of Tolkien's work.

It might be that to some both the depth of author's spiritual foundation and the literary excellence of his work advanced in symbiosis, but it is not necessarily the case that one reflects the other (or vice versa). This is the key point, and might account for our (or any) differences in critical analysis, and indeed some aspects of the perception of his works generally, along with all the other accepted variables.

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Kalessin ]