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

Re: [mythsoc] Joseph Pearce on Tolkien

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... I don t believe he did. Since there s nothing Nativity-related about the Rivendell departure, if he had noted it, it would have undercut his certainty
    Message 1 of 53 , Apr 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      "Carl F. Hostetter" <Aelfwine@...> wrote:

      > (BTW, did Pearce point out that the Fellowship leave Rivendell
      > on Dec. 25, which Tolkien says was chosen deliberately? I don't recall.)

      I don't believe he did. Since there's nothing Nativity-related about the
      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 argument
      >> 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.

      What I recall that Pearce said was that it's a more significant day on the
      church calendar than Christmas. That would be a liturgical argument.


      > But again, the status as a Holy Day of Obligation is of liturgical, not
      > theological, significance.

      And, again, I meant liturgical rather than theological insofar as there's a
      difference.




      "Jason Fisher" <visualweasel@...> wrote:

      >It's a shame Pearce didn't remember Tolkien's own explicit disavowal of
      >that
      >very etymology:
      >
      >"To take a frequent case: there is no linguistic connexion, and therefore
      >no
      >connexion in significance, between Sauron a contemporary form of an older
      >*thaurond- derivative of an adjectival *thaura (from a base THAW)
      >'detestable',
      >and the Greek saura 'a lizard'." (Draft to Mr. Rang, Letters, #297)

      All the more amusing, as earlier Pearce seizes with great determination on
      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
      interpretation.


      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.
    • Darrell A. Martin
      Jason: 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
      Message 53 of 53 , Apr 12, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Jason:

        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.

        Darrell
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.