![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
#10 | |
|
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
Think of a scholarly mind enthusiastic with medieval history, a time in many senses different but yet similar to ours. We don't have any accounts of the history written from an all-knowing "God's eye perspective", the "full account" or the "definitive version", but a concentration of stories about the Scandinavians (vikings) written up by the monks coming in there, another with the British Isles (some older accounts, some more concentration later on figures like Arthur or even later, Robin Hood), the myths of Perceval from France later incorporated into the Arthurian legends, the Niebelungenlied bringing in many of the features of some older scattered notes (and the things shared with the Edda) and after that followed by scores of accounts... while some other thoughts, ideas, narratives are mentioned just here and there, some probably nowhere. So isn't Tolkien just going for the "real thing" here? Some legends are more connected, wealthier in detail and in variance, while some are more scetchy, more scattered, more unfathomable? Like with real history from where we have to draw from - and of which he was himself so fascinated about? The real history has gaps and discontinuities as well as overlapping and different versions of things. So as an author, leaving the gaps was also intentional, as a call to incite the imagination of the reader? And if so, then isn't that exactly that which made him (and us reading his stories) curious and enthusiastic, which made him (and thence us) fall in love with the thing as it can never exhaust itself? Just because there is no "definitive version".
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|