XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien
From: dthierbach@usenet.arcornews.de
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
> Dirk Thierbach spoke these staves:
>> It's like he had all these little "emblematic" motifs somewhere in
>> the back of his head, and then repeatedly tried to attach them to
>> different texts until everything fits (or sometimes not).
> I'm not entirely sure if you mean to suggest that Tolkien was doing
> this consciously and deliberately, or if you think it was more a
> subconscious process?
To some degree certainly deliberately. CT says for example in the
appendix to CoH that Tolkien moved "plot elements" around, trying to
find out where they "fit" best. I think the same is true for these
motifs.
> As I read Tolkien's descriptions in 'On Fairy-Stories' (OFS) about
> the Cauldron of Story the author cannot control what will come up
> when he draws from the cauldron (or at least only very imperfectly --
> he may go for a specific piece and be surprised at what comes out
> together with that piece).
Yes, certainly. The end result isn't deliberate, but the act of trying
it out is. One doesn't know if the "shining desirable jewel" will
become a Silmaril, an Arkenstone or the One Ring in the end. But one
has to try it out, in several ways, or it won't become anything at all.
>> Like leaves looking for a tree, if you want :-)
> I like that figure :-)
That was actually an allusion to "Leaf by Niggle". So it's Tolkien's
figure, not mine.
>>> but I don't think we should forget the readerly view-point, which
>>> deals largely with how things are intended to be perceived when
>>> reading the story.
>> I don't think one should call this the main POV of the reader, or
>> something.
> Indeed -- it was an unfortunate choice of words.
> I do, however, think that the main PoV of the normal reader is mainly
> story-internal: it is the view-point you have while under the
> influence of secondary belief.
Yes, I see what you mean. Google says I already quoted LeGuin two
years ago on that, but here it is again:
: This weight of verifiable place-event-phenomenon-behaviour makes the
: reader forget that he is reading a pure invention, a history that
: never took place anywhere but in that unlocalisable region, the
: author's mind. In fact, while we read a novel, we are insane --
: bonkers. We believe the existence of people who aren't there, we
: hear their voices, we watch the battle of Borodino with them, we may
: even become Napolean. Sanity returns (in most cases) when the book
: is closed.
The objection I have is that you call this the *main* POV. For me,
personally, it doesn't work this way. I'm not only bonkers, I'm
really schizophrenic: Part of me is immersed in the story, as
described above. Part of me is playing the "I'm smarter than the
author" game and looking for contradictions, bad writing, or obvious
constructions. Part of me is busy analyzing the layers of meaning, the
"applicability" beyond the mere plot. I couldn't say which of those is
more important, or more enjoyable.
>> These are stories. There are there to be enjoyed as stories.
>
> That rather begs the question, doesn't it ;-)
>
> How _are_ stories to be enjoyed?
By telling them, and listening to them :-) With full knowledge that
they are not real, even though we may pretend that, for some time.
Otherwise, sanity doesn't return. :-)
>> Sure, one can ask all kinds of questions. [...]
>> But this POV misses so much interesting stuff.
> I think that you miss a lot of interesting stuff if you restrict
> yourself to a single viewpoint regardless of what viewpoint that is.
Yes, certainly. So why not be immodest and do away with the
restriction(s)? :-) Look at it from all directions at once.
Become a schizophrenic, like me :-)
- Dirk
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
