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

Re: [mythsoc] Re: CJRT interview/article in Le Monde

Expand Messages
  • Mich
    I agree I am not able to read french and would gladley welcom a accreate translation of what was said. from Mich. ... From: Alana Joli Abbott To:
    Message 1 of 142 , Dec 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree I am not able to read french and would gladley welcom a accreate translation of what was said. from Mich.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:48 AM
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Re: CJRT interview/article in Le Monde

       

      Marcel, given that there's an official translation available now, would there be any harm in publishing somewhere the more accurate version you mention? (I am sure I am not alone on this list in not being able to read French adequately.)


      -Alana

      On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:29 AM, lord_of_the_teleri <lordoftheteleri@...> wrote:
       

      I would like to mention that on the day the article was published in "Le Monde" a group of three translators worked together to do a translation of the article as we considered it vital to the ongoing discussion on the appreciation of Tolkien, especially when bound up with the films.

      We were well aware that there is a reason to the interview being given in French and when we approached the relevant parties (Le Monde, the writer in question, the Tolkien Estate) we received a flat out no. We tried all means possible, including approaching Christopher himself, but to no avail.

      Then a translator named Sedulia posted shortly after a translation on her blog. The quality of it was not, in our eyes, up to par and the one that is now coursing through the internet isn't either. In fact, it seems to be almost the same text.

      Particularly one of the last passages including the infamous "turning my head away" phrase does not come anywhere near the mark. In the original the article would leave almost all readers sympathetic to the cause of Christopher; with the translation this does not seem to be the case.

      I can only highly suggest to read the article in its original, if at all possible.

      Best wishes,

      Marcel Aubron-Bülles




      --
      Alana Joli Abbott, Freelance Writer and Editor (http://www.virgilandbeatrice.com)
      Contributor to Haunted: 11 Tales of Ghostly Horror http://tinyurl.com/haunted-aja
      Author of Into the Reach and Departure http://tinyurl.com/aja-ebooks
      Columnist, "The Town with Five Main Streets" http://branford.patch.com/columns/the-town-with-five-main-streets

      --
      For updates on my writings, join my mailing list at http://groups.google.com/group/alanajoliabbottfans

    • Travis Buchanan
      John Rateliff has given a more authoritative word, if coming from Roger Lancelyn Green, as well as a very sensible perspective. (He seems endowed with great
      Message 142 of 142 , Dec 23, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        John Rateliff has given a more authoritative word, if coming from Roger Lancelyn Green, as well as a very sensible perspective. (He seems endowed with great sense, judging from his postings.) I had felt because of Tolkien's later letters (e.g., no. 252 to his son Michael) and Carpenter's biography (and Colin Duriez and others who follow him) that the 'cooling' (word first used by Carpenter?) in Tolkien and Lewis's relationship began or was accelerated by the arrival of Charles Williams in Oxford during the war, and the immediacy with which he and Lewis became intimate friends. It is popular knowledge of course that Tolkien wasn't fond of the Narnia stories, but I had never encountered the opinion offered by Bruce Charlton on the blog (http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2012/08/timing-and-causes-of-breakdown-of.html) that Lewis's writing of The Chronicles was the breaking point in their relationship, or that Tolkien saw that as a violation of their original pact to both write some fiction where the chief characters discover or enact myth, which Lewis finished in good time (his Ransom trilogy under the theme of space-travel) and Tolkien--'that great but dilatory and unmethodical man', as Lewis commented in a letter on whether Tolkien's contribution to their agreement would ever be completed--never did (his The Notional Club Papers, under the theme of time-travel). Neither did Tolkien approve of several other of Lewis's works and certainly was bothered by Lewis's (mostly unsought) position as a popular articulater and defender of 'mere Christianity' to a generation (I think because he thought it improper for one without professional theological training to assume such a role (Austin Farrer would have been better suited, from the Anglican position, I assume Tolkien would say (indeed if he did not say so himself somewhere))--even if such a role was foisted upon Lewis--and he disagreed with many of Lewis's theological views due to their differing from traditional Catholic dogma--for example, in Letter 83 (1944) Tolkien commented that 'there is a good deal of Ulster still left in C.S.L. if hidden from himself'; and Tolkien was working on a commentary of objections to views presented Lewis's Letters to Malcolm which he never finished or shared with him, but which he was privately referring to as 'The Ulsterior Motive'). I would still guess (though Charlton has disagreed) that Tolkien was somewhat jealous over Lewis's quick and intimate friendship with Williams, which somewhat displaced him as an influence on Lewis, as well as Lewis's productivity and growing popularity beginning with his war broadcasts and the publication of The Screwtape Letters (1942), which incidentally was the only of his works ever dedicated to Tolkien. That, based on my limited exposure to the literature, is the explanation of the beginning of the 'cooling' with the most evidence, including Tolkien's own recollections about the arrival of Williams in Oxford and his (spoiling) influence over Lewis's writing (again see Letter 252). But Rateliff's common sense observation certainly also seems right, that 'friendships are complicated, and the ending of a long-time one is tragic but hardly unprecedented or strange', and so accumulative and thus difficult to trace to a specific event or point in time, as well as the apparent testimony of Roger Lancelyn Green Rateliff relayed by Rateliff that 'the cooling of the Lewis/Tolkien friendship was mutual, which seems to be far more likely than that Tolkien didn't like something Lewis had written and unfriended him on the spot'.

        Travis


        On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 7:27 AM, John Rateliff <sacnoth@...> wrote:
         


        On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:00 PM, dale nelson wrote:
        That may well be (sadly) true.  If it is true, a cause might be listfolk dwelling on the cooling of the Lewis-Tolkien friendship.  There was some discussion at this blog


        a few months ago on the topic.

        Dale


        Thanks for the link, Dale. Having just read the post and skimmed the comments (what do those folks have against Spenser, anyway?), have to say I'm entirely unconvinced that the breakdown of a friendship of twenty-plus years' standing can be easily dated and traced to a single simple event. In some cases, yes; in this particular one, no.  Roger Lancelyn Green told me the cooling of the Lewis/Tolkien friendship was mutual, which seems to be far more likely than that Tolkien didn't like something Lewis had written and unfriended him on the spot. Besides which the blogger's theory that CSL's starting Narnia violated the Lewis/Tolkien space-travel/time-travel pact doesn't take into account other works Lewis or Tolkien had worked on during that time that didn't fit into either category, like JRRT's FARMER GILES or CSL's THE GREAT DIVORCE, to name but two.

        In short, too pat. Friendships are complicated, and the ending of a long-time one is tragic but hardly unprecedented or strange.

        --John R.


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