Re: Digest Number 35
- Nagy Gergely wrote:
>That would sure be true; I'd guess that most Christians would believe in
> From: Nagy Gergely <lamorak@....u-szeged.hu>
> > Nagy, thank you for your prompt return mail. It helped. Tolkien was a
> > quintessential essentialist, wasn't he -- as he believed in the Imago Dei?
> > Maria T.
the Imago Dei, making us "essentialists." We are merely saying that
humanity is not "plastic," and that change does not easily come from the
outside but from the inside. What these post-modern critics have
against this notion, I can't quite understand, unless they simply
question the whole notion of any essential truth or reality, and that
all is perception.
> Yes indeed he was, probably that's the thing because of which I like him most. I don't want to deny this or circumnavigate this theoretically, kind of 'apologising' for him in today's theoretical context; rather, to expand, modify or, if need be, subvert that context to include such textsTolkien himself spoke of his own work as a "sub-creation." As a
> and to be able to deal with them. It was even yesterday that we have been talking of Tolkien's work as a 'simulacrum', or as close to it as any author has ever come, and that's highly unpopular a conception nowadays.
brilliant literary critic (you may be familiar with his articles on
Beowulf, most esp. "The Monsters and the Critics"), he certainly could
look at his own work and discuss what went into its formation. His "On
Fairy Stories" gives a good beginning.
> Anyway, I'm glad we are getting on. [sorry, but Gergely is the first name, I forget to mention this every time I join a new list and consequently have everybody calling me Nagy...]I'm afraid I thought of you as Nagy rather than Gergely. How is it
pronounced? We're very wedded to word order for names. What do you
prefer to be called? We also do a lot of nicknames here; do you have
- In a message dated 3/4/99 6:11:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> es indeed he was, probably that's the thing because of which I like himNagy,
> most. I don't want to deny this or circumnavigate this theoretically, kind
> of 'apologising' for him in today's theoretical context; rather, to
> expand, modify or, if need be, subvert that context to include such texts
> and to be able to deal with them. It was even yesterday
can you possibly put this into Plain English? I am very educated, but you have
lost me entirely.