Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce on Tolkien
- "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:
> (BTW, did Pearce point out that the Fellowship leave RivendellI don't believe he did. Since there's nothing Nativity-related about the
> on Dec. 25, which Tolkien says was chosen deliberately? I don't recall.)
Rivendell departure, if he had noted it, it would have undercut his
certainty that the Destruction of the Ring was an allegory for the
Crucifixion because of the date.
>> Insofar as there is a difference, Pearce's argumentWhat I recall that Pearce said was that it's a more significant day on the
>> about the Annunciation was a liturgical rather than a theological one.
> I don't remember the presentation well enough to know that, will have to
> review when I get a chance.
church calendar than Christmas. That would be a liturgical argument.
> But again, the status as a Holy Day of Obligation is of liturgical, notAnd, again, I meant liturgical rather than theological insofar as there's a
> theological, significance.
"Jason Fisher" <visualweasel@...> wrote:
>It's a shame Pearce didn't remember Tolkien's own explicit disavowal ofAll the more amusing, as earlier Pearce seizes with great determination on
>"To take a frequent case: there is no linguistic connexion, and therefore
>connexion in significance, between Sauron a contemporary form of an older
>*thaurond- derivative of an adjectival *thaura (from a base THAW)
>and the Greek saura 'a lizard'." (Draft to Mr. Rang, Letters, #297)
Letter #142 to Fr. Murray ("[it] is of course a fundamentally religious and
Catholic work") with an air of, "Tolkien said it, I believe it, that settles
it," even though some of the more perceptive scholars have suggested it's a
little more complicated than that. I entirely agree that an author's stated
intentions should be the starting point for scholarly study, but even I
blanch at the idea that that should be the final word on critical
As on previous occasions, Larry Swain has so completely misunderstood what I
said and been so unnecessarily belligerent about it, that there's no point
in trying to clarify matters any further. I'm sorry I attempted to clarify
his thinking in the first place; it's obviously impossible.
I think your objection to Pearce, in that he did not mention Tolkien's
disavowal of something he (Pearce) stated as a fact, is on target. My
own focus -- which is why I early on changed the Subject line to remove
Pearce -- was on whether or not Tolkien's disavowal was definitive.