Google| Subject | Re: Reading LotR and the newsgroups |
| From | John Swanson |
| Date | 08/15/2004 13:27 (08/15/2004 13:27) |
| Message-ID | <Xns954688E986BCA392orpww00@195.67.237.53> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien,rec.arts.books.tolkien |
| Follows | Christopher Kreuzer |
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote in news:QWwTc.377$R22.5597372@news-text.cableinet.net:
Christopher KreuzerI once thought so, probably partly influenced by reading TW and being afraid of exposing my darling books, and my own "realistic reading" to a more critical gaze (my own). I chose not to study literature at university, and I think the need to privatize literature was an important part of that decision.
John Swanson <nospam@nospam.com>wrote:John SwansonChristopher Kreuzer
It is of course impossible to leave the realistic reading out completely, since it is a part of the agreement between Tolkien and his reader. And I can see the connection between nitpicking about details, and the fascination of the magnificent perspectives in time and space that these details build. But the realistic reading _as a starting point_ brings about a discussion that is trivial and tends to deprive the work of some of the shimmer and power that originally propelled the discussion.
A bit like: "he that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom"? :-)
A decision I sometimes regret, because since then I have learnt how an analysis also can be a creative process that while transforming also strengthens a literary work and the experience of reading, through dis-covering/un-veiling unnoticed important aspects. If it's good.
And there are other possibilities too: TW can be a tool or mirror to investigate our views on larger issues in the history of ideas, as in the current or recent threads on morality and religion in TW. Then it may be as important how we interpret or misinterpret TW and why, as what Tolkien actually had in mind.
[snip]
John
08/15/2004
