XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien, alt.fan.harry-potter   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:45:50 -0500, Weland  wrote:   
      
   >On 10/18/2010 7:51 AM, Dirk Thierbach wrote:   
   >> Steve Hayes  wrote:   
   >>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach   
   >>>   wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
   >>>>> In message  richard e white   
   >>>>>   spoke these staves:   
   >>   
   >>>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books   
   >>>>>> don't fit.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Right, I quite agree.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that   
   >>>> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.   
   >>   
   >>> Which critics would those be?   
   >>   
   >> Whichever critics the person who stated this was referring to; he   
   >> didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember   
   >> where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider   
   >> it likely to be true.   
   >   
   >Lin Carter's rather early book for one.   
      
   I'm not familiar with it. But it would be interesting to know why they said   
   such things.   
      
   As they were walking, Lewis said to Tolkien that "myths are lies and therefore   
   worthless, even though breathed through silver". No said Tolkien, they are not   
   lies. Tolkien went on: "You look at trees, he said, and call them 'trees', and   
   probably you do not think twice about the word. You call a star a "star", and   
   think nothing more of it. But you must remember that these words 'tree, star'   
   were (in their original forms) names given to these objects by people with   
   very different views from yours. To you, a tree is simply a vegetable   
   organism, and a star simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a   
   mathematical course. But the first men to talk of 'trees' and 'stars' saw   
   things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological   
   beings. They saw the stars as living silver, bursting into flame in answer to   
   the eternal music. They saw the sky as a jewelled tent, and the earth as the   
   womb whence all living things have come. To them, the whole creation was   
   'myth-woven and elf-patterned'...." "Tolkien continued, not merely the   
   abstract thoughts of man, but also his imaginative inventions, must originate   
   with God and must in consequence reflect something of eternal truth"   
   (Carpenter 1978:43).   
      
   Lewis later incorporated those ideas into his Narnia stories, for example in   
   "The magicians nephew", with the singing stars (cf. Job 38:4-7), and the   
   "retired star" in "The voyage of the dawn treader".   
      
   Note too (for those inclined to confuse the two) that Tolkien said   
   "myth-woven" and not "allegory-woven", and Lewis also, in another passage I   
   quoted, distingishes between myth and allegory.   
      
   >>>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian   
   >>>>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there   
   >>>>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,   
   >>   
   >>>> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't   
   >>>> mean that Rowling should, too.   
   >>   
   >>> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her   
   >>> books are therefore different in that respect.   
   >>   
   >> Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that in order to "write in   
   >> the tradition of the Inlings" one should take that approach. Especially   
   >> since I'd say that this particular theme is especially emphasized by   
   >> Tolkien, and a lot less by the other Inklings, as far as I know them   
   >> (people who have read more from the other Inklings than I did please   
   >> correct me if I'm wrong).   
   >   
   >Just to clarify: part of the discussion hinges on the differentiation of   
   >"writing in the tradition of the Inklings" and "an honorary Inkling".  I   
   >would agree with the former, disagree with the latter.   
      
   If, by the tradition of the Inklings, you mean writing fantasy literature,   
   then yes, but in that case Rowling also stands in the tradition of "The wizard   
   of Oz", which is somewhat different from the writings of the Inklings.   
      
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm   
        http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw   
        http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)