5097Re: [mythsoc] Re: Big research projects (was: Lawsuit about Tolkien)
- Feb 12, 2002At 12:06 AM 2/12/2002 , Michael Martinez wrote:
>--- In mythsoc@y..., "David S. Bratman" <dbratman@s...> wrote:Haste is not needed as an explanation: I was not sufficiently clear, and
>> Clarification (the misapprehension is understandable): my
>> chronology is not of the Inklings' works, but of their lives.
>> Specifically, of their mutual interactions (not the entirety of
>> their lives). My scholarly interest here is in the Inklings as a
>Sorry. My mistake. I was stealing time from work.
the context of the discussion was subcreations, not biography.
>Anyway, that project is one where I've been asked not to disclose theReference works for the pseudo-history have been published before: Foster's
>details or even the general concept, beyond the fact that it is
>a "history" book and it will be quite unlike anything previously
>published in the Tolkien field. It is a reference work for the
>pseudo-history, not a literary analysis of the mythology.
Guide, Tyler's guide, Day's guides (pfooey), Fonstad and Strachey's
atlases, An Introduction to Elvish, etc.
So I await with eagerness the opportunity to learn what makes this one
quite unlike those that have come before. It looks like I may have to wait
I recommend for your perusal, if you haven't already looked at it, Michael
Stanton's _Hobbits, Elves, and Wizards_. It has its factual flubs, but it
also has what seems to me a pretty good accounting of the subcreational
"rough spots" in LOTR, odd things that lack explanation or need pondering.
Including the "walking-tree" bit that was giving us such trouble a while ago.
For others reading this, though, I must emphasize that I do NOT recommend
Stanton's book to anyone who doesn't already know LOTR backwards and
forwards. He is so efficient at nailing Tolkien's subtle points and
numinous atmosphere to the page that he'll spoil LOTR readers' appreciation
of anything they haven't discovered for themselves. Normally I don't say
things like that - for instance, I do not think seeing the film first will
spoil your appreciation of the book, though it may give you a false
impression of what the book is like - but this time it's true. IMO, of
course: caveat emptor.
>That's a reasonable summary for what Christopher devoted MORGOTH'SDid he? I must have missed that. Do you have any references for this
>RING and THE WAR OF THE JEWELS to explaining, but he had to draw
>upon "The Fall of Gondolin" directly for some parts in "Of Maeglin"
>and "Of Tuor and the Fall of Gondolin".
handy? If not, I'll put it on my mental "check up on this" list.
>Although you're just offering an example, I would not, in fact,OK, I must have misunderstood you. The origin of Celeborn is the most
>attempt to rationalize the differences between the Celeborn
>histories. He started out (in Christopher's estimation) as a
>Nandorin Elf, but in the 2nd Edition he was made into a Sinda. In
>the last year of Tolkien's life, Celeborn became an inexplicable
>grandson of Olwe of Alqualonde, thus implying that Tolkien had
>forgotten about or set aside the taboo among the Eldar against
>marrying first cousins.
>I accept Celeborn simply as one of the Sindar. Nothing else works
>within the framework of the other texts I rely upon.
prominent example of contradictory texts of the sort that I thought you
were including in your canon, as opposed to ones like BLT that you're
leaving out. Can you give a better example of the sort of contradictory
(not just vague) texts you are including as canonical?
But my major point is that for me to find a reference work for the
subcreation useful, I need to know what the compiler is considering
canonical and what reliable (not always the same thing with Tolkien!), and
to have a rational and logical distinction made. (Foster gets a pass for
his limited canon because that's all he had back in 1978.) In your case,
>But let me stress again that I change canons on an almost hourlyUnderstood; but for me to find this very practical (as opposed to
>basis, depending upon who I am discussing something with or writing
>for, and what the topic is. I can't stay within the confines of a
>single canon, and yet I cannot work with the gelatinous complexity of
>all the Tolkien works.
theoretical) approach useful for detailed subcreational study, I hope you
will supply commentary and justification of what you consider canonical and
what reliable on various topics, even at the risk of popping out of the
subcreational stance and into the "literary work" stance to do it. My
instincts on what should be worked with on a given point may be different
from yours, and others' instincts different from either of ours, so I want
to know what sources such a work is using or not using.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>