![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 | ||
|
Riveting Ribbiter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Assigned to Mordor
Posts: 1,767
![]() |
A great topic.
Drat, I've been beaten to the point about telling/retelling being the mechanism whereby history is passed down (that's what happens when I leave to do my housecleaning ), but it's been put in far better words than I could find. One of the other ways that the conceit works is to allow the interjection of explanations into the text. The translator can tell us that Elves and Hobbits referred to the sun as "She" or direct us to information about Hobbit calendars when Frodo sings his song in the Prancing Pony. By appearing in the text, the translator merges with the narrator, which as davem has pointed out, makes Tolkien one of the characters/retellers of the history. This also gives "permission" for the explanations to appear in a more extensive manner than footnotes. For example, the explanatory role of the narrator appears in the beginning of The Hobbit when an illustration of what hobbits are (or were) appears. It can't come from the memoir itself since it is told from the same time frame as the reader, so it has to be a separate commentary from the modern translator. I think that there is an argument for something similar in the "Shelob's Lair" chapter of The Two Towers: Quote:
Then there are the anachronisms that sneak into the story. Sam's "Lor' help me" has been pointed out already, but there's another glaring example in "A Long Expected Party": Quote:
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff. |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
|
|