Re: Digest Number 36
- Dear everybody,
I am absolutely glad to read your replies; I'm not sure but I may have
detected a bit of inconfidence or even enmity before those. Thank you for
telling me that was not so. I reallyy want to cooperate and discuss, but I
have distinct theories and views that may not please some people.
So, thank you; now for your questions or whatevers.
> outside but from the inside. What these post-modern critics haveYes indeed, postmodernism is built on the conception that there is no
> 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.
essence, no inherent meaning, no ultimate truth. I hate this and go raving
mad every time it is elaborated to me by some miscreant. Just think of the
concept of the 'endless chain of signification', declaring that no
'signified' is authentic in the signification process but all are only
further 'signifiers' - no 'meaning', really, at either end. Again, think
of the deconstructionist ideas of our 'unjustifiable cultural/ideological
preferences' that should be set apart, making a text and absolutely amorf
and non-meaningful mass of concepts... that's like working a sledge hammer
on Michelangelo's David and calling it interpretaton, really. Do we
understand each other?
> Tolkien himself spoke of his own work as a "sub-creation." As aYes again, I do think 'Fairy Stories' is a good starting point. Beliiev or
> 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.
not, I am unable to find 'The Monsters and the Critics' anywhere in
Hungary. Only last year I needed it desperately for a paper, and I had to
contend wiith other secondary bits. We could indeed start from that point.
[My name Gergely is equivalent in meaning with 'Gregory', and Nagy means
'Big' or 'Great': so the Hungarian name of pope Gregory the Great is
exactly my name. 'Gergely' is pronounced as if it was written 'Gergey'. I
don't have any particular nickname, only one that I cannot explain how to
pronounce, since there is a sound in it that is absolutely missing from
the English sound system.]
Now Leslie's question: I meant that we have a theoretical context based on
Gadamer (for a little extent, and even this is dwindling now) but mostly
on psychoanalytic theories, Barthes and Derrida; more currently it was
infused by a drop of Foucault and possibly even Dollimore's Cultural
Materialism. I feel that this context or theoretical framework, as it is
now, cannot tolerate Tolkien's texts and consequently cannot even take
them seriously. So the context should be changed by the working out of new
ways to deal with these texts, which would of course involve new terms and
new interpretations of certain theoretical concepts. If this examination
and the attempt at such modifications of context fails, it will be
apparent that these texts require an absolutely new theoretical framework,
the working out of which, in its turn, would naturally involve the
subversion of previiously well-recieved concepts or even whole theories.
I don't know whether this was what you asked after; I hope I am beginning
to clear up. I am not as much over-educated, it is only an academic style
that they require here and the one I got used to. So sorry for