XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien, alt.fan.harry-potter   
   From: giles@poetic.com   
      
   On 10/21/2010 2:02 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Well, for one, they hadn't the benefit of the Sil, the Letters, etc.   
   For two, there really aren't any temples, acts of worship, altars, etc.   
     You have to look a bit beyond the obvious and the surface to find the   
   religious acts/beliefs in Middle Earth.   
   >   
   > 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).   
      
   Carter and others like him wrote before this was published.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   By tradition of the Inklings I would mean writing a kind of literature   
   from a particular world view, inspired by a certain set of texts/ideas,   
   and using an understanding of myth and archetype.  I would agree on   
   those terms that Rowling fits, perhaps loosely.  I might be convinced   
   otherwise.  But she is in no way in my view an "honorary Inkling".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)