XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien, alt.fan.harry-potter
From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net
On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:51:46 -0500, Weland wrote:
>On 10/21/2010 2:02 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> 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.
Yes, and there aren't any temples, acts of worship etc in C.S. Lewis's fiction
either, nor in Charles Williams for the most part, thoguh there is a Christmas
service in "The Greater Trumps". But in all three the writing is informed by a
Christian worldview, just as you could say that Arthur C. Clarke's
"Childhood's end" is informed by a Buddhist wordview, though there are no
temples, stupas etc.
>> 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.
>> 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".
No, she isn't. And I don't think she's trying to write a myth either. I don't
think her writing could be described as "mythopoeic".
--
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)
|
