Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Digest Number 29

Expand Messages
  • Nagy Gergely
    Hello everybody, I m kind of brand new on this list and it is not very customary with me to react to the first mails I get; but anyway, I guess I should do
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 26, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello everybody,
      I'm kind of brand new on this list and it is not very customary with me to
      react to the first mails I get; but anyway, I guess I should do something
      of an introduction, at least that's what I did on other lists.
      I'm Nagy Gergely (Gergely is the first name), a university student from
      Szeged, Hungary, heading for my MA next year and planning to do a PhD
      after that on Tolkien. I have, of course, already spent years studying his
      texts and have already done a smaller project, a kind of 'BA Thesis' we
      got to do here, it dealt with Old English literary motifs in the
      Silmarillion.
      I'm 22 and I also occupy with Shakespeare studies, some literary theory
      and am also an Ancient Greek major, also MAing there next year.

      Now for something of a reaction to the first digest I recieved. Maybe
      there's something like this later on, I didn't read it through, but I have
      always though, and still think, that Tolkien's work quite defies being
      stuck into categories of genre. LOTR or The Hobbit might still be called
      'novels', but somehow I don't feel comfortable with that, and I think The
      Silmarillion totally displaces those categories from reckoning. TRolkien's
      work, as I think of it, includes all the History of Middle-earth texts
      too, meaning it absolutely eludes the genre of a novel. This is the place
      where myhtopoiesis, I guess, really comes into the picture; I don't think
      either that there is a 'Tolkien tradition', not even with publishers
      trying to push things on you. I always think of Tolkien as 'high fantasy',
      a totally distinct category than all other fantasies, thinking that you
      have to have elves, dwarves, dragons, and yyou gotta put many y's and x's
      and apostrophes in the names, and you got a fantasy novel. Sometimes I
      don't even think the texts themselves are important; they're beautiful,
      there's no doubt about that, but the real important thing is myth behind
      the text. Myth is, in my view, not 'history in color' but fiction tuned
      into, or adapted as, history. Any comments on this?

      *******************************************************************************
      NAGY GERGELY
      a/k/a Sir Lamorak de Galis Szeged, Hungary
      Attila Jozsef University, Institute of English and American Studies
      and Department of Classical Philology
      lamorak@....u-szeged.hu or h534394@....u-szeged.hu
      'Pantes anthropoi tou edenai oregontai physei.'
      *******************************************************************************
    • Nagy Gergely
      (Especially for LeslieJ55) Ever occurred to you that what you say about humanity and human essence is theoretically (as far as current literarry theory is
      Message 2 of 2 , Feb 26, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        (Especially for LeslieJ55)
        Ever occurred to you that what you say about 'humanity' and 'human
        essence' is theoretically (as far as current literarry theory is
        concerned) idiculous? I don't intend to 'flame' since I basically agree
        with you that there *are* such things, but still, we should turn ourselves
        and our field into an 'esoteric whatever', inside whichwe can safely
        ignore crucial theretical problems. That would only mean we'rre not
        aspiring to be taken seriously in scholarship intertwined with those very
        theoretical questions. Your views are wonderful and deep, but Tolkien
        scholarship should have a theoretically legitim terminology for that,
        because anybody could dismiss your views with an 'oh another essentialist,
        I thought they stopped making them'. Also there is some problems with
        Classics, although it would be worth discussing, in the knowledge of the
        recieved Classic-definition of Barthes, or even opposed to that, since I
        myself would very much like to subvert that definition. Any reactions to
        all this? I know I'm quite very new here and that I should pobably keep my
        mouth shut until I get into it, but this is my own field, for some extent,
        and we seem to have problems; problems I have been trying to work on for
        years but have only got some kind of 'institiutional support' now. I say
        again, no 'flame' is meant and I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings,
        especially not Leslie's but I think these are real problems we have to
        deal with. Leslie, do you happen to have an affinity towards Greek (or
        simply Classical) myhtology and literature? Some quite interesting
        parallels, worthy to be noted, I think.
        Cordially,
        *******************************************************************************
        NAGY GERGELY
        a/k/a Sir Lamorak de Galis Szeged, Hungary
        Attila Jozsef University, Institute of English and American Studies
        and Department of Classical Philology
        lamorak@....u-szeged.hu or h534394@....u-szeged.hu
        'Pantes anthropoi tou edenai oregontai physei.'
        *******************************************************************************
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.