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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: mythology for England

Expand Messages
  • Walter Padgett
    Well.... This is amusing, indeed. Thanks for so many compliments, Mr. Bratman. Our cursory discussions her have been more than funny. They have edified me
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Well.... This is amusing, indeed. Thanks for so many compliments, Mr.
      Bratman.

      Our cursory discussions her have been more than funny.

      They have edified me throughout my struggle.

      You 'da man.

      Walter.


      On 11/29/06, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
      >
      > At 11:15 PM 11/27/2006 -0500, Walter Padgett wrote:
      >
      > >Stenström ... is the hero, but you have to understand that
      > >Textual Criticism is an objective science, not theory or (as Bratman
      > >would say) "quibble" that can be argued back and forth.
      >
      > Sir, I do not know what has caused you to criticize me in this manner. I
      > have not dismissed the point as a quibble; rather, I was the first person
      > in this discussion to point out tht "mythology for England" is not a known
      > Tolkien quote. And I also said that while many - including myself, Jason
      > Fisher, and Jane Chance - hold that the phrase is, even if not a quote, a
      > fair summary of Tolkien's expressed intent, the position is not
      > uncontroversial. And it is in fact Strenström, whom you call "the hero,"
      > who is the primary advocate of the other point of view, as John Rateliff
      > has observed.
      >
      > By the way, you don't mean Textual Criticism, which is a not an exact
      > science at all, but one requiring vast amounts of deduction, inference,
      > and
      > even guesswork. What you mean are the rules of citation, which are indeed
      > exact. And while different systems of rules exist, they're all the same on
      > the point of quotation. However, there are still several points of
      > confusion, most specifically here:
      >
      > >It is
      > >something as simple as the _rule_ for when to use one quote ' instead
      > >of two quotes " when quoting someone who is quoting someone (and the
      > >confusion that can and does surround such instances in all of academic
      > >writing) which seeded and sprouted the vast and amazing world of
      > >criticism surrounding the phrase "_Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for
      > >England_ by Jane Chance Nitzsche."
      >
      > Both Carpenter's biography and the original edition of _Tolkien's Art_ use
      > single quote marks around the phrase not because they are
      > quoting-within-quotes (whch would require triple quote marks) but because
      > they're using British rather than American punctuation style, in which
      > primary quotes use single rather than double marks. But, as on a previous
      > occasion, I'm not quite sure what you mean here: your prose is not always
      > intelligible to a poor Earthling like myself.
      >
      > I am most amused by your pose as a knight errant defending the honor of
      > your liege lady, Prof. Chance. But the rest of us are going to go on
      > judging the quality of her work by the quality of her work, not by whether
      > you have her token pinned to your sleeve.
      >
      > David Bratman
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Walter Padgett
      ... science at all, but one requiring vast amounts of deduction, inference, and even guesswork. What you mean are the rules of citation, which are indeed
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 11/29/06, David Bratman <dbratman@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >By the way, you don't mean Textual Criticism, which is a not an exact
        science at all, but one requiring vast amounts of deduction, inference, and
        even guesswork. What you mean are the rules of citation, which are indeed
        exact. And while different systems of rules exist, they're all the same on
        the point of quotation. However, there are still several points of
        confusion, most specifically here:

        >It is something as simple as the _rule_ for when to use one quote ' instead
        >of two quotes " when quoting someone who is quoting someone (and the
        >confusion that can and does surround such instances in all of academic
        >writing) which seeded and sprouted the vast and amazing world of
        >criticism surrounding the phrase "_Tolkien's Art: A Mythology for
        >England_ by Jane Chance Nitzsche."

        Both Carpenter's biography and the original edition of _Tolkien's Art_ use
        single quote marks around the phrase not because they are
        quoting-within-quotes (whch would require triple quote marks) but because
        they're using British rather than American punctuation style, in which
        primary quotes use single rather than double marks. But, as on a previous
        occasion, I'm not quite sure what you mean here: your prose is not always
        intelligible to a poor Earthling like myself.
        ------------------

        Yes, David.

        Thanks. This is new to me. It will be helpful in the future. I
        recite your explanation not only for myself, but for its value in a
        continuing discussion of Anders Stenstrom's [sic] quest into the
        resolution of the question of the way "myth" can operate through texts
        to localize linguistically connected experiences, and provide ground
        upon which mere Earthlings can communicate meaningfully, within a
        context familiar to others.

        I really do think of Stenström as a hero, for his critical focus
        apprehended the most minute issue, the exact fulcrum, if you will,
        upon which my understanding of the larger discussions of "A Mythology
        for England" can be balanced, if only within the context of my own
        understanding.

        To be grounded in the rules with which Textual Criticism is concerned
        is, to me, a safe place from which to defend. A "Helm's Deep" that at
        once gives quarter to attackers while offering shelter and resistance
        within in its many coloured caves to the rear.

        A metaphor, if you like. Even if it is a little over the top.

        Thanks, Walter.
      • "Beregond. Anders Stenström"
        ... Right; and so in Tolkien s works. ... That is a point. The historical meaning of _legendarium_ is, I think, a collection of saints lives . But I suppose
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Larry Swain wrote:

          > Delighted that you've delurked! I think the problem lies in our
          > definitions and nomenclature. For example, do we call the Bible
          > "mythology" or legendarium? The sagas? Beowulf? The Eddas? The Aeneid or
          > Odyssey? All of these larger works include aspects that are "strictly"
          > mythological in a narrow, literary sense, and things that are legendary
          > in a narrow, literary sense, things that are historical, and the thing
          > is that all these mythological, legendary, historical, and narrative
          > elements not only simply exist side by side in a particular work or
          > collection of works, but at the same time flow in and out of one another
          > consistently.

          Right; and so in Tolkien's works.

          > As unsatisfactory in some ways as calling Tolkien's Middle
          > Earth works a "mythology" is, I'm not sure that calling it a
          > "legendarium" really works any better.

          That is a point. The historical meaning of _legendarium_ is,
          I think, 'a collection of saints' lives'. But I suppose the word
          is now so exotic that that sense does not interfere much, while
          it sounds fitting as a label for the kind of thing Tolkien
          produced. It works better than _mythology_ by being unfamiliar: it
          makes fewer false suggestions. If it overemphasizes the legendary
          element, well, that is a point against _legendarium_, but not a
          point in favour of _mythology_.
          Another of Tolkien's terms for what he did, that I also like
          to use, is _feigned history_; it is in fact on the whole more
          historical than legendary in kind.
          (There is also the word _matter_, as in the "Matters" of Rome,
          Britain, and Charlemagne; but it is perhaps a bit awkward.)

          I also repeat my question: if we use _mythology_ about the
          legendarium, what word do we use about the mythology? Tolkien's
          whatchamacallit contains a lot of mythology (both in chunks and
          blended into the rest), and I think we will want to talk about
          that and will need the word for that purpose.

          Chivalrously,

          Beregond
        • Wayne G. Hammond
          ... I m afraid that I have a problem accepting that the placing of a phrase in quotation marks in an index, indeed buried in an index as a
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Jason wrote:

            > But how did Carpenter’s term become the
            > Tolkien misquote that it is today? Anders Stenström lays
            > out a convincing reconstruction of how it may have hap-
            > pened, the key point being the misapplication of single
            > quotation marks to the term in the biography’s index
            > (whether Carpenter’s or the publisher’s doing, we do not
            > know). Because the term was shown in quotation marks,
            > like the one other (legitimate) Tolkien quote referenced
            > in the index, it was subsequently accepted by many as a
            > bona fide quotation and not an invention.
            > But while Tolkien may never have put down this exact
            > phrase, we can be relatively certain he would have accepted
            > it, just as we can be sure that the creation of a so-called
            > mythology for England was indeed one of his early goals ....

            I'm afraid that I have a problem accepting that the placing of a phrase in
            quotation marks in an index, indeed buried in an index as a
            sub-sub-sub-reference, could cause readers -- who as a rule don't take much
            notice of indexes except at need -- to take it as Tolkien's own words. I
            would say, rather, that Carpenter's coinage proved so apt that one can't
            help but repeat it.

            In regard to the certainty of "a mythology for England" as one of Tolkien's
            early goals -- "early" being a relative term -- Carpenter in the Biography
            (p. 59 of the first edition) at first cautiously suggests that "perhaps"
            Tolkien was already thinking of it while an Oxford undergraduate, and later
            writes of it more as a matter of fact. The basis of his first comment,
            however, is a paper on the Kalevala that Tolkien read to college societies
            at Oxford, in which he refers to the mythology found in the Finnish poems.
            Carpenter quoted: "'These mythological ballads,' he said, 'are full of that
            very primitive undergrowth that the literature of Europe has on the whole
            been steadily cutting and reducing for many centuries with different and
            earlier completeness among different people.' And he added: 'I would that
            we had more of it left -- something of the same sort that belonged to the
            English.'"

            "The implication", Christina has written, "is that these words come from
            the paper that Tolkien wrote and delivered at Oxford in 1914 and 1915 --
            words which have been frequently quoted in association with the earliest
            poems of his 'Silmarillion' mythology, and as written before he commenced
            The Book of Lost Tales in which the history of the Elves has close ties
            with England. Although a variant of his first sentence ('These mythological
            ballads . . .') is in the paper as first written, the second ['I would that
            we had more . . .']" appears only in a revised version of most of his
            Kalevala lecture which Tolkien made in the early 1920s and delivered
            probably to an audience at Leeds -- "after Tolkien had written and
            abandoned The Book of Lost Tales. He may, then, have thought about creating
            a 'mythology for England' in 1914, but he did not write 'I would that we
            had more of it left -- something of the same sort that belonged to the
            English' until nearly a decade later" (The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and
            Guide, vol. 2, p. 441, based on study of Tolkien's Kalevala papers at the
            Bodleian).

            Beregond wrote:

            >But _mythology_ in a central sense refers to what Tolkien here
            >calls "the large and cosmogonic" (and in 27 of the 54 instances in
            >_Letters_ he seems to be using the term with that reference).
            >Tolkien's mythology, in this sense, is an essential and highly
            >interesting element of his legendarium. If we use _mythology_ about
            >the legendarium, what word do we use about the mythology?

            "Mythology" will do for both, if understood in context.

            Wayne Hammond


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • auricdor
            Heh. Sir, you ve caught me out. The fact that the story is a fictionalization hasn t kept me from attempting to adhere to as many factual aspects of my chosen
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Heh. Sir, you've caught me out.

              The fact that the story is a fictionalization hasn't kept me from
              attempting to adhere to as many factual aspects of my chosen
              protagonists as I could manage - however, as you point out, my
              presentation of his abilities (at that point in his life) was clumsily
              worded.

              I'd compressed certain aspects of his academic attitudes and
              performance (as I'd interpreted them), and re-presented them in my
              fictional version - but I think you're dead on with your specific
              criticism. All I can guess (at this point, nearing completion of the
              second book), is that for that moment in the story, I was serving the
              immediate dramatic purpose more than thinking of the fidelity of a
              straight presentation of real facts.

              Certainly, I'd never intended to have the book taken as academic in
              any way - my H.G. Wells is ENTIRELY fictionalized, for example, at a
              time HE was still living as well - and to that end have gently pointed
              out that my story is more about John, Jack, and Charles, than it is
              Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams (if you see my distinction). And I did
              telegraph this in the first chapter, by having them retire to 221B
              Baker Street - which does not, in fact, exist.

              Still, I regret that you didn't enjoy my book, and I hope that you'll
              give the next one a look come October, to see if it might better suit
              your taste.

              Best regards,

              James A. Owen





              --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
              >
              > Earlier this week saw that a new book I'd been on the look-out for is
              > finally on the shelves: THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF BEOWULF, CHAMPION
              > OF MIDDLE EARTH, edited by Brian Thomsen, who is probably best-known
              > to folks here as compiler of HALFLINGS, HOBBITS, WARROWS & WEEFOLK.
              > This collection reprints an old 19th century translation of BEOWULF
              > along with four new stories of B's "futher adventures"--think of
              > these as "Beowulf: The Lost Episodes", two of which are by friends of
              > mine (Wolfgang Baur and Jeff Grubb; the other two are by Ed Greenwood
              > and Lynn Abbey). However, interspersed between each story is a
              > snippet from Thomsen's framing story, about a visit by Guy Burgess to
              > Tolkien in 1936, with the notorious spy attempting to recruit JRRT
              > for his network. From the quick glance I took at it it looks as if
              > there's a pretty significant historical glitch, in that Burgess seems
              > to be representing the Nazis here while in real life he was a
              > Communist mole within the British intelligentsia and intelligence
              > service. But even that pales for me against the magnitude of the
              > blunder in Owen's HERE, THERE BE DRAGONS where JRRT at one point has
              > to admit, shamefaced, that he can't actually read Old English or even
              > Latin because he cdn't see the point of learning dead languages when
              > there was a war going on. That pretty much sunk Owen to the bottom of
              > the barrel for me, along with the recent spate of books portraying
              > Conan Doyle as Holmes-like. I assume that at some point someone's
              > going to use JRRT as a character or supporting character and more or
              > less get it right, but looks like we'll have to wade through a lake
              > of dreck to get there.
              >
              > --JRRT
              >
            • John D Rateliff
              Hi James. Welcome to the list. Sorry for my earlier bluntness. Having now seen the interview on TheOneRing, I see that this isn t a story about Tolkien, Lewis,
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi James. Welcome to the list.
                Sorry for my earlier bluntness. Having now seen the interview on
                TheOneRing, I see that this isn't a story about Tolkien, Lewis, &
                Williams at all but fantasy-world analogues to them, which is quite a
                different thing, more like Kreeft's BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL. If I'd
                understood that up-front when reading the book, I think my reaction
                would have been different -- I know I wasn't put out by Orson Scott
                Card's fantastically unfaithful take on Wm Blake in RED PROPHET
                because it was clear from the start that this wasn't just alternate
                history but outright fantasy disguised as alternate history and thus
                the character wd probably not correspond to the real Blake in any
                significant way.
                I really wasn't able to read HERE, THERE BE DRAGONS as a fantasy
                novel because the real-world analogues got in my way and prevented me
                for achieving "secondary belief", and I'd love to hear from someone
                who was able to approach it without those preconceptions and just
                read and enjoyed it as fiction. I know I did think the Noah chapter
                was the best part, and think I'd have liked the book more if it'd
                dropped the bridge from our world and just done more of the
                SILVERLOCK thing of fictional characters from different works and
                genres interacting. But perhaps that would have strayed too far from
                yr initial intent.
                Anyway, congratulations on the movie deal and good luck on the
                remaining books in the series.
                --JDR


                On Dec 1, 2006, at 9:09 PM, auricdor wrote:
                > Heh. Sir, you've caught me out.
                >
                > The fact that the story is a fictionalization hasn't kept me from
                > attempting to adhere to as many factual aspects of my chosen
                > protagonists as I could manage - however, as you point out, my
                > presentation of his abilities (at that point in his life) was clumsily
                > worded.
                >
                > I'd compressed certain aspects of his academic attitudes and
                > performance (as I'd interpreted them), and re-presented them in my
                > fictional version - but I think you're dead on with your specific
                > criticism. All I can guess (at this point, nearing completion of the
                > second book), is that for that moment in the story, I was serving the
                > immediate dramatic purpose more than thinking of the fidelity of a
                > straight presentation of real facts.
                >
                > Certainly, I'd never intended to have the book taken as academic in
                > any way - my H.G. Wells is ENTIRELY fictionalized, for example, at a
                > time HE was still living as well - and to that end have gently pointed
                > out that my story is more about John, Jack, and Charles, than it is
                > Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams (if you see my distinction). And I did
                > telegraph this in the first chapter, by having them retire to 221B
                > Baker Street - which does not, in fact, exist.
                >
                > Still, I regret that you didn't enjoy my book, and I hope that you'll
                > give the next one a look come October, to see if it might better suit
                > your taste.
                >
                > Best regards,
                >
                > James A. Owen
              • auricdor
                Hi John - Thanks - and no worries. I like your analogies a lot, particularly mentioning Scott Card s take on Blake. (I actually illustrated a short story of
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi John -

                  Thanks - and no worries.

                  I like your analogies a lot, particularly mentioning Scott Card's take
                  on Blake. (I actually illustrated a short story of his set in that
                  same world, for his online magazine Intergalactic Medicine Show,
                  depicting Abraham Lincoln meeting Alvin Maker).

                  http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=issue&vol=i2

                  My editor wanted to name my protagonists on the front cover (Lord love
                  him), and I resisted mightily. (To be fair, the publicity about their
                  identities is selling a lot of books. And the fact that the film
                  producer made the Harry Potter films made for a press release 'perfect
                  storm' that has reulted in around eleven thousand emails in two months.)

                  I held out so that most readers COULD read it without the preconceived
                  notions of who they were. Someone (such as yourself, and actually,
                  quite a few readers) could discern it early in the text. But as MANY
                  people do not know Charles at all, and would not have caught 'Jack' as
                  Lewis, or even John (a deliberate choice on my part to call him that,
                  rather than his preference of Ronald), I've been able to serve the
                  original purpose of building the story and then giving readers a
                  surprise in the end.

                  (Another tipoff of intent was Wells being the Time Traveler from his
                  book, and Aven being Weena's daughter.)

                  The new challenge has been writing the next book, now that everyone
                  knows who my protagonists are. It takes place in 1926 (a date notable
                  to Inklings aficionados), and largely involves John's predecessor -
                  James Barrie. And if you enjoyed the Noah chapter, I think you'll like
                  the parts I've just written dealing with Dante.

                  Book Three takes place in 1931. And if you think the responses to my
                  'Charles' character were unique, wait until the readers meet Hugo
                  Dyson.(!)


                  James







                  --- In mythsoc@yahoogroups.com, John D Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi James. Welcome to the list.
                  > Sorry for my earlier bluntness. Having now seen the interview on
                  > TheOneRing, I see that this isn't a story about Tolkien, Lewis, &
                  > Williams at all but fantasy-world analogues to them, which is quite a
                  > different thing, more like Kreeft's BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL. If I'd
                  > understood that up-front when reading the book, I think my reaction
                  > would have been different -- I know I wasn't put out by Orson Scott
                  > Card's fantastically unfaithful take on Wm Blake in RED PROPHET
                  > because it was clear from the start that this wasn't just alternate
                  > history but outright fantasy disguised as alternate history and thus
                  > the character wd probably not correspond to the real Blake in any
                  > significant way.
                  > I really wasn't able to read HERE, THERE BE DRAGONS as a fantasy
                  > novel because the real-world analogues got in my way and prevented me
                  > for achieving "secondary belief", and I'd love to hear from someone
                  > who was able to approach it without those preconceptions and just
                  > read and enjoyed it as fiction. I know I did think the Noah chapter
                  > was the best part, and think I'd have liked the book more if it'd
                  > dropped the bridge from our world and just done more of the
                  > SILVERLOCK thing of fictional characters from different works and
                  > genres interacting. But perhaps that would have strayed too far from
                  > yr initial intent.
                  > Anyway, congratulations on the movie deal and good luck on the
                  > remaining books in the series.
                  > --JDR
                  >
                  >
                  > On Dec 1, 2006, at 9:09 PM, auricdor wrote:
                  > > Heh. Sir, you've caught me out.
                  > >
                  > > The fact that the story is a fictionalization hasn't kept me from
                  > > attempting to adhere to as many factual aspects of my chosen
                  > > protagonists as I could manage - however, as you point out, my
                  > > presentation of his abilities (at that point in his life) was clumsily
                  > > worded.
                  > >
                  > > I'd compressed certain aspects of his academic attitudes and
                  > > performance (as I'd interpreted them), and re-presented them in my
                  > > fictional version - but I think you're dead on with your specific
                  > > criticism. All I can guess (at this point, nearing completion of the
                  > > second book), is that for that moment in the story, I was serving the
                  > > immediate dramatic purpose more than thinking of the fidelity of a
                  > > straight presentation of real facts.
                  > >
                  > > Certainly, I'd never intended to have the book taken as academic in
                  > > any way - my H.G. Wells is ENTIRELY fictionalized, for example, at a
                  > > time HE was still living as well - and to that end have gently pointed
                  > > out that my story is more about John, Jack, and Charles, than it is
                  > > Tolkien, Lewis, and Williams (if you see my distinction). And I did
                  > > telegraph this in the first chapter, by having them retire to 221B
                  > > Baker Street - which does not, in fact, exist.
                  > >
                  > > Still, I regret that you didn't enjoy my book, and I hope that you'll
                  > > give the next one a look come October, to see if it might better suit
                  > > your taste.
                  > >
                  > > Best regards,
                  > >
                  > > James A. Owen
                  >
                • Walter Padgett
                  Hello: ... Yes. I agree, Mr. Hammond, But it is the context which is so complex. For anyone to use the term myth or any of it s related terms, ie. mythic,
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello:

                    On 12/1/06, Wayne G. Hammond <Wayne.G.Hammond@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > ...


                    ... He may, then, have thought about creating
                    > a 'mythology for England' in 1914, but he did not write 'I would that we
                    > had more of it left -- something of the same sort that belonged to the
                    > English' until nearly a decade later" (The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion and
                    > Guide, vol. 2, p. 441, based on study of Tolkien's Kalevala papers at the
                    > Bodleian).
                    >
                    >Beregond (Stenstrom [sic]) wrote:
                    >
                    > >But _mythology_ in a central sense refers to what Tolkien here
                    > >calls "the large and cosmogonic" (and in 27 of the 54 instances in
                    > >_Letters_ he seems to be using the term with that reference).
                    > >Tolkien's mythology, in this sense, is an essential and highly
                    > >interesting element of his legendarium. If we use _mythology_ about
                    > >the legendarium, what word do we use about the mythology?
                    >
                    > "Mythology" will do for both, if understood in context.
                    >
                    > Wayne Hammond
                    >


                    Yes. I agree, Mr. Hammond,

                    But it is the context which is so complex.

                    For anyone to use the term "myth" or any of it's related terms, ie.
                    mythic, mythological, mythopoeic, etc., in relation to Tolkien's
                    Silmarillion has become problematic.

                    It's like the tower of Babel story.

                    We all use the same words but mean different things, because of
                    contextual, or metacontextual (better), disjunctions.

                    There is no common ground for an understanding of this ancient term.

                    It should be relegated to the archaic.

                    Thanks, Walter.
                  • Wayne G. Hammond
                    ... Three brief responses to this come to mind. 1) A good writer will be able to convey clearly the meaning of myth, mythology etc. -- or of any other term --
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Walter wrote, in regard to mythology:

                      >There is no common ground for an understanding of this ancient term.
                      >
                      >It should be relegated to the archaic.

                      Three brief responses to this come to mind.

                      1) A good writer will be able to convey clearly the meaning of myth,
                      mythology etc. -- or of any other term -- as he or she wishes it to be
                      understood in a particular context.

                      2) If what you suggest for mythology were applied to all such "ancient
                      terms", our vocabulary would be much reduced.

                      3) If the word was good enough for Tolkien, it's good enough for me.

                      Wayne


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Larry Swain
                      ... Well, not exotic for some of us..... It works better than _mythology_ by being unfamiliar: it ... I m not convinced this is true though. If it
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 4, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Beregond wrote:

                        > That is a point. The historical meaning of _legendarium_ is,
                        > I think, 'a collection of saints' lives'. But I suppose the word
                        > is now so exotic that that sense does not interfere much, while
                        > it sounds fitting as a label for the kind of thing Tolkien
                        > produced.

                        Well, not exotic for some of us.....


                        It works better than _mythology_ by being unfamiliar: it
                        > makes fewer false suggestions.

                        I'm not convinced this is true though.

                        If it overemphasizes the legendary
                        > element, well, that is a point against _legendarium_, but not a
                        > point in favour of _mythology_.


                        Agreed, my point being that replacing one unsatisfactory and misleading term with another unsatisfactory and misleading one (even if misleading by some degrees less than the former) isn't really all that satisfactory.

                        > Another of Tolkien's terms for what he did, that I also like
                        > to use, is _feigned history_; it is in fact on the whole more
                        > historical than legendary in kind.
                        > (There is also the word _matter_, as in the "Matters" of Rome,
                        > Britain, and Charlemagne; but it is perhaps a bit awkward.)

                        I like "Matter" in fact, the Matter of Middle Earth has a nice alliterative quality, is descriptive, and I think gets at the various genres and kinds of things that are in Tolkien's writings than anything else--and can be stretched a little to include the modern elements as it has in the Matter of Britain too.

                        >
                        > I also repeat my question: if we use _mythology_ about the
                        > legendarium, what word do we use about the mythology? Tolkien's
                        > whatchamacallit contains a lot of mythology (both in chunks and
                        > blended into the rest), and I think we will want to talk about
                        > that and will need the word for that purpose.

                        Sure, but the same problem pertains to _legendarium_, Tolkien's whatchamacallit contains a lot of legendary material both in chunks and blended into the rest, and when we want to talk about that we need a word for that: does "legend" really have enough difference from "legendarium" to adequately do this and is legendarium sufficiently large to include all the various types of literature that need to come under that umbrella? I'm not necessarily arguing for a term I use, just pointing out the inadequacies we face regardless of what we end up calling it.

                        Perhaps Mytho-Legedendariumlike Matter of Middle Earth's Feigned History: Molmefh.

                        --
                        _______________________________________________
                        Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
                        Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

                        Powered by Outblaze
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.