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

Lewis and The Hobbit

Expand Messages
  • William Cloud Hicklin
    I was thumbing through JDR s wonderful _Mr Baggins_, and was struck by two contrasting passages by Lewis. In the first, his 4 Feb 33 to AG, he says how he
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I was thumbing through JDR's wonderful _Mr Baggins_, and was struck by two contrasting passages by Lewis. In the first, his 4 Feb '33 to AG, he says how he think's JRRT's story is very good, "except for the ending."

      But then in his review of the published work, CSL singles out the end for especial praise, talking about how it "moves insensibly into epic."

      Why the change of heart? The saga-ishness of the story's end was already present in the manuscript, and changed little save in detail. Was it just type versus Tollers-scrawl improving the impression?

      Or (wild-hare theory here) is there any chance at all that the handwritten conclusion to the First Typescript was actually a replacement for a discarded and lost ending?????
    • David Bratman
      Not sure these are contradictory. The ending could refer to the last couple of chapters, while the moving insensibly into epic occurs gradually during the
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 8, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Not sure these are contradictory. "The ending" could refer to the last couple of chapters, while the "moving insensibly into epic" occurs gradually during the course of the work and refers to more than the final chapters.

        That's aside from any question of the state of the text.

        -----Original Message-----
        >From: William Cloud Hicklin <solicitr@...>
        >Sent: Apr 7, 2009 8:53 PM
        >To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        >Subject: [mythsoc] Lewis and The Hobbit
        >
        >I was thumbing through JDR's wonderful _Mr Baggins_, and was struck by two contrasting passages by Lewis. In the first, his 4 Feb '33 to AG, he says how he think's JRRT's story is very good, "except for the ending."
        >
        >But then in his review of the published work, CSL singles out the end for especial praise, talking about how it "moves insensibly into epic."
        >
        >Why the change of heart? The saga-ishness of the story's end was already present in the manuscript, and changed little save in detail. Was it just type versus Tollers-scrawl improving the impression?
        >
        >Or (wild-hare theory here) is there any chance at all that the handwritten conclusion to the First Typescript was actually a replacement for a discarded and lost ending?????
        >
        >
        >
        >------------------------------------
        >
        >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.orgYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.