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

[mythsoc] Leavening (was Re: hobbit dialogue)

Expand Messages
  • dianejoy@earthlink.net
    ... From: Stolzi@aol.com Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:28:30 EST To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [mythsoc] hobbit dialogue In a message dated 2/16/2003
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 17, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Original Message:
      From: Stolzi@...
      Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 17:28:30 EST
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] hobbit dialogue

      In a message dated 2/16/2003 12:29:53 PM Central Standard Time,

      > Writing this morning after a mighty hobbit-like breakfast
      > of eggs and cheese and bacon and coffee,

      What? no mushrooms? :)

      But Lewis liked this kind of thing himself and wrote quite a bit of it in
      the Narnia tales; is it true that he deplored all of it, or most of it, in

      I don't know that I wanted either more or less of it, but I do know that
      Elvishness w/o Hobbits is not my thing; I don't care much at all, for
      instance, for the SILMARILLION.

      Yet, if one considers carefully, the main artistic problem of LOTR (imo) is
      that the two don't =quite= fit together, the lofty and way prehistoric
      and the cozy whimsical pseudo-English one.

      Diamond Proudbrook

      The hobbits seem to bring the action down to our level; elves do seem
      remote and so ancient that it's hard to relate, though they fulfil their
      function, too---providing that sense of depth, of awe and mystery. As to
      the two sides "not fitting," I think that the contrast is what makes LOTR
      work (or "fit") so well; yet Hobbits are not the only "mediators" in LOTR.

      You get varying levels of dialogue: the middling levels are everywhere:
      Strider/Aragorn, who can fit anywhere (the man is a wandering Ranger, a
      King, and married to someone who gave up immortality for life with him---if
      *that's* not a "bridge, what else can there be?), Bombadil, who's something
      of a clown to start (then later we find he is much more than that),
      Gandalf, who can blow smoke-rings and provide fireworks on one hand, and
      yet battle Balrogs and be "the servant of the secret fire."

      Even so, they are not enough. We need the hobbits. I don't think there
      was too much or too little of them; JRRT seemed to strike the right
      amount: just enough humor to leaven things, and keep our human perspective
      in mind: of course he needs Merry and Pippin for other reasons, too. More
      so in *The Hobbit*, but even orcs provide some "leavening." ---djb

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

      mail2web - Check your email from the web at
      http://mail2web.com/ .
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.