|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Jan 13 2017, 8:08pm
Post #26 of 60
(2084 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I thought Tolkien's metaphor was meant to show how hard it is to do both detailed analysis and aesthetic appreciation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As I understand him, he feels that source-study, application of 'logic' (or whatever), etc. to fantasy or even art in general, tends to separate audiences into two somewhat estranged groups.
As much as I appreciate your observation, I'm not sure the story does 'survive such analysis intact', even here in the Reading Room. To the degree that it does for me, I find it's because I practice a mild form of doublethink, Orwell's famous 'Newspeak' word for holding two opposing opinions simultaneously, when I read Tolkien (occasionally, still) for pleasure after so many years of close analytical reading. But Orwell did not consider it a complimentary or healthy activity!
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
 = Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jan 13 2017, 9:47pm
Post #27 of 60
(2066 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Rules, questions, and perspective
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Your post reminded me of something a friend saw on a science show for little kids. When someone gets out of a bathtub, the kids asked, "Where does the hole go?" That took me quite awhile to decipher, when I finally realized they meant the "hole" in the water created by a human body being there, displacing the water.
C'mon, I'm supposed to believe that kids don't understand the phsyical displacement of water?! What else do they not comprehend?
We're probably lucky that most of LOTR is told from a hobbit's more childlike sense of innocence, so even when bad things happen, they don't overwhelm you. At the other end of the scale (see, I'm being binary) would be a First Age Elf's weary view of everything being sad and weary, and even happy moments would be framed in overall sorrow. We'd all be on Prozac by the time we reached page 250.
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Jan 14 2017, 1:30pm
Post #28 of 60
(2049 views)
Shortcut
|
I've always understood the tower metaphor to refer to the attitude to "primitive" literature of 19th/early 20th century critics in that they assumed the Beowulf story was garbled and of no real value in itself, and instead just wanted to quarry it for information, mostly about the development of the English language and for clues about early English history. They just assumed that anything with monsters in it must be hopelessly naive and not worth their attention. Tolkien's breakthrough was to show that the Anglo-Saxons had their own way of telling and understanding stories, and that approaching Beowulf thoughtfully and respectfully could allow a modern reader to glimpse the "view of the sea" that the Anglo-Saxons themselves had found there. So it's not fundamentally, as I see it anyway, a criticism of the kind of analysis that respects the story and tries to understand it more deeply, but rather a warning about the danger of failing to see the value of the story in the first place.
It's true that Tolkien does warn about analysing stories too deeply in On Fairy Stories:
The realm of fairy-story is wide and deep and high ... but its very richness and strangeness tie the tongue of a traveller who would report them. And while he is there it is dangerous for him to ask too many questions, lest the gates should be shut and the keys be lost.
But that's in only the second paragraph, and he soon goes on to ignore his own warning. It's true too that he had serious reservations about the "vast game" that his fans pulled him into with their questions seeking more and more detail about Middle-earth, detail he couldn't resist dreaming up on demand. But his reservations there too were about the extra "information" possibly detracting from the power of the story itself.
So I'm not sure that he is entirely against the idea of analysis, providing its aim is to enhance your understanding and appreciation of the story. It's perhaps when analysis becomes an end in itself, for example tracing Tolkien's various versions of his stories out of interest in, say, the creative method, or the history of Tolkien's own thinking, rather than to add meaning to the finished story, that it becomes a question of knocking down the tower and thus losing the view of the sea. It's a fine line I think - even if you know and love the sea-view, it's easy to spend so much time admiring the tower's architecture and composition that you forget to climb up to the top often enough!
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jan 14 2017, 5:07pm
Post #29 of 60
(2034 views)
Shortcut
|
it's not fundamentally, as I see it anyway, a criticism of the kind of analysis that respects the story and tries to understand it more deeply, but rather a warning about the danger of failing to see the value of the story in the first place.
FFH
That's what I think Tolkien meant too. And (in case I bungled my explanation) I was borrowing his analogy for a new circumstance - to suggest that someone who complains that Tolkien's story does not make sense (for their own values of 'sense') might be missing something. For example, people sometimes post enquiries hoping for a clear and authoritative explanation of how magic works in Middle-earth, or what would happen if one character fought another. Or, of course "Why don't the eagles....?" These questions aren't wrong or stupid or bad or boring, but for me the answers involve explaining that Middle-earth always doesn't work like that . So the asker is free to go away deciding that a story where all questions are not fully resolved 'must be hopelessly naive and not worth their attention' (lovely way of putting it), or they have to make their peace with some unanswered questions. I've been labouring to explain my sense that it's not necessarily a fault in the story. But FFH has been explaining that rather better!
I think that means that it's right that:
that source-study, application of 'logic' (or whatever), etc. to fantasy or even art in general, tends to separate audiences into two somewhat estranged groups.
squire
The groups being, I assume, those who favour analysis over other tools versus their opposites. Presumably, the groups overlap a lot, or could with a little patience see that they do?. Probably, people being people, there are individuals who go from favouring a certain set of critical or interpretive tools for their own use, to wanting to forbid the use of any other tools by anyone else. But I can't recall seeing much of that around the Reading Room.
There is really no reason to fight. Thinking about an allegorical tower as opposed to a masonry one I can ignore other people's analysis if I disagree with it, or if it spoils the story for me. So a critic who insists that LOTR must be analysed in a particular way has 'pulled their own LOTR tower down', but has not damaged 'my copy'.
Can you analyse a story you like so much that you don't enjoy it any more? I hope not. Certainly I've escaped that fate so far. I hope nobody else has spoiled it for themselves. That's what I meant about the story does 'survive such analysis intact'. Of course, there's the issue of where one is directing one's attention. If I'm thinking about the story critically, I might focus on one aspect of it and not simultaneously be able to see it in the round as an artwork. But it seems to me it's like the optical illusion of the Rubin vase:
[ Caption: picture of "The Rubin vase" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase ]
The Rubin vase is an optical illusion can be seen either as two faces in profile or as a vase. But not as both simultaneously. I find I can get 'stuck' with these things - see it as only two faces, say. No amount of willpower can force it to 'pop' to the other form. But seeing it as a vase doesn't destroy the fact it's also two faces, and similarly (for me at least) thinking about LOTR analytically doesn't permanently destroy everything else.
~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 14 2017, 9:20pm
Post #30 of 60
(2024 views)
Shortcut
|
The Rubin vase is an optical illusion can be seen either as two faces in profile or as a vase. But not as both simultaneously. I find I can get 'stuck' with these things - see it as only two faces, say. No amount of willpower can force it to 'pop' to the other form.
I wouldn't say that. With a conscious effort I can see both images simultaneously--and my spouse can do the same. The human mind is pretty amazing.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jan 15 2017, 10:03am
Post #31 of 60
(2006 views)
Shortcut
|
|
And that raises a whole new important issue - multiple valid interpretations
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
O-S's experience of looking at the optical illusion is different to mine: we're looking at the same work, but in some senses we might as well not be.
That (to me, anyway) is one of the joys of this forum: somebody posts something and I go "what? Really?" And try to see it their way. Often I can, occasionally I can't, perhaps I can if the poster is willing to explain further. I'm helped here by not thinking that there has to be only one true explanation (or, as I've sometimes put it 'One Reading to Rule Them All'). To me, that seems like insisting that the Rubin vase is exclusively a picture of a vase and in no way a picture of faces (or, of course, that it's the opposite).
~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
(This post was edited by noWizardme on Jan 15 2017, 10:05am)
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jan 16 2017, 11:00am
Post #32 of 60
(1980 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Another angle... 'merely gratuitous fantasy'...or ...'some rooting parallel of symbolism'
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We've been discussing how a fantasy story can not only contain explained variations upon how things are in real life - it can also contain some unexplained variations. But unexplained variations and mysteries are risky for the storyteller: the audience might just be puzzled or annoyed. So only some things work. I just read a book review which expresses this problem well:
Angela Carter avoids merely gratuitous fantasy. We can all - if we have little imagination - describe women changing colour (for some reason or other), growing green scales, bursting out in fangs or claws and then sucking the life-blood from their lovers. Such fantastical scenarios soon become not only repetitive but also trite and meaningless if divorced from some rooting parallel of symbolism. In Angela Carter's work that linkage to a form of reality and experience always seems to be present. Folk tales and fairy stories persisted perhaps because of these links. Perhaps people never believed their literal truth, but their imagery did relate to some, often hidden aspects of experience or inner fear.
From a review of The Bloody Chamber by Angela Carter. The review is on Amazon.co.uk, By Philip Spires on 25 April 2013 (my bolds)
~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
|
|
|
Meneldor
Valinor
Jan 16 2017, 1:14pm
Post #33 of 60
(1968 views)
Shortcut
|
That's only funny to me cuz this place has expanded my "vocabulary."
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these see the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. -Psalm 107
|
|
|
squire
Half-elven
Jan 16 2017, 2:24pm
Post #34 of 60
(1976 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That would explain the Balrog wings question
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien's description of the Balrog's wings, at first merely shadows but by the end of the passage referred to as if real, has tantalized fans forever, it seems. Certainly, since the film found itself forced to make a choice, and materialized the wings for sure.
But why would it matter? Why the debate? I suspect your book reviewer's angle helps us here: winged supernatural demons are explicitly a reference to the traditional symbolism for Satan and his corps of fallen angels. Without wings, the balrog is just a super-Orc, so to speak; with wings, she is surely heightened in power and status in our real-world Christian-based imaginations. This becomes even clearer when, later in the book, it becomes more and more apparent that Gandalf is an angel, as Tolkien intended.
Why the question of Gandalf's wings never comes up, remains baffling.
Oh, wait... the Eagles...
squire online:
RR Discussions: The Valaquenta, A Shortcut to Mushrooms, and Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit
Lights! Action! Discuss on the Movie board!: 'A Journey in the Dark'. and 'Designing The Two Towers'.
Archive: All the TORn Reading Room Book Discussions (including the 1st BotR Discussion!) and Footerama: "Tolkien would have LOVED it!"
Dr. Squire introduces the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: A Reader's Diary
= Forum has no new posts. Forum needs no new posts.
|
|
|
sador
Half-elven
Jan 16 2017, 4:19pm
Post #35 of 60
(1964 views)
Shortcut
|
|
As has been rehashed over and over again
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Tolkien's ideas about who and what are Balrogs have evolved in pretty much that way.
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jan 16 2017, 4:21pm
Post #36 of 60
(1957 views)
Shortcut
|
Rooting in parallel is probably better than rooting in series - or one blown bulb and they all go :)
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Jan 16 2017, 4:59pm
Post #37 of 60
(1955 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The mind is a terrible thing to contemplate
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I wouldn't say that. With a conscious effort I can see both images simultaneously--and my spouse can do the same. The human mind is pretty amazing.
I too appear to see both images simultaneously. But I believe this TOO is illusionary. Are we not nearly instantaneously (unconsciously) switching from one image to the other, getting the false impression that we see both at the exact same time? Can the mind/eye see the two images at the same time?
This brings to mind the meaning of “now”. We know that light travels at a finite speed (sound very much less). It takes millions of years for the light from certain stars to reach our eyes. It takes 8 minutes for the light of the sun to reach our eyes. Thus we are seeing these things as they were in the past. (Many of the stars may even be gone.) Because it takes a micro-mini-mini-mini second (a Planck length) for a person to see his partner across the dinner table we are seeing this person as he was in the past.
Ok, back to the vase/face. We view the vase with the eyes. This viewing travels through the lens, to the optic nerve, to the back of the brain where lies the cerebral cortex which interprets the input. This takes an insignificant amount of time, yet it DOES take an amount of time.
Point? Well, to see two things simultaneously taking into consideration the ‘time factor’ seems questionable.
‘. . . the rule of no realm is mine . . .
But all worthy things that are in peril . . . those are my care.
For I also am a steward. Did you not know?'
Gandalf to Denethor
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Jan 16 2017, 7:57pm
Post #38 of 60
(1959 views)
Shortcut
|
I wouldn't have said that wings are fundamental to Christian devils. Some do have wings, usually bat-like, but I've seen lots of medieval illustrations of devils without wings too. And when they do have wings, devils don't often have big ones that they spread - maybe that's because they are fallen angels, I don't know. I'd say horns and tail are more fundamental attributes for a devil, but Tolkien never mentions those. So I'm really not sure he was going for too close a parallel with devils, although that of course doesn't mean that readers who are so interested in the balrog's wings (or lack of them) aren't thinking about devils themselves.
When it comes to the movie-balrog, it definitely has the horns and tail, but if it has wings I've never seen them in all the times I've watched the movie. If they're there, they must be more like the shadow-wings of the book than anything else. But I think it would be fair to say that the filmmakers were going for some explicit devil-symbolism (and I think they go for angel-symbolism too in the way they depict the Eagles' wings, especially in the shot of Frodo being rescued from the fire).
As for Gandalf the "angel", I think Tolkien was thinking about Old Testament angels = (wingless) messengers when he wrote that, not the kind with the big feathery wings.
I think noWiz's quote is really about something more fundamental, anyway, than just symbolism that recalls other symbolism - surely it's about whether the fantasy story reflects and/or helps to understand real human experiences. It's probably true of all stories that are worth the telling - that aren't "mere thrillers". As the truism goes, Moby Dick isn't about the whale. And as my favourite movie reviewer, Mark Kermode, likes to point out, Jaws is not about a shark!
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 16 2017, 11:28pm
Post #39 of 60
(1939 views)
Shortcut
|
I can only speak to my own experience. I (and my wife) have seen this image dozens, if not hundreds, of times; that surely influences my perception of the illusion. Your points, Bracegirdle, do suggest that this and similar illusions could be the subject(s) of further experiments concerning perception and the subconscious.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jan 16 2017, 11:30pm)
|
|
|
FarFromHome
Valinor
Jan 17 2017, 9:48am
Post #40 of 60
(1915 views)
Shortcut
|
the Necker Cube? Is it possible to see both versions of the cube at the same time? I can't do it at all, and it seems a lot harder to me than the Rubin Vase illusion.
I was struck by the explanation in the Wikipedia page about the reason for it - the fact that the drawing is "ambiguous". Which reminds me of the "ambiguity" that Tolkien uses in his storytelling, and that leads us into so many unanswerable questions - you could say that, like with the Necker Cube, what you see in Tolkien all depends on the angle you're viewing it from. There is no single answer, and that, I suppose, is why we're all still here...
They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings
|
|
|
noWizardme
Half-elven
Jan 17 2017, 2:41pm
Post #41 of 60
(1924 views)
Shortcut
|
I think symbolism works on several levels.
Firstly it makes sense to me that we have dragons, or elves, vampires or other fantasy creatures because in some way they relate to human thoughts and experience. Perhaps they are what a certain metaphor looks like if it is made concrete. That making a metaphor concrete is something fantasy does well - for example Neil Gaiman's American Gods, with the idea that the TV or the Internet might be becoming modern gods. Or the eponymous Lie Tree in Frances Hardinge's excellent story of that name.
Then its also true that symbolism can remind readers of already-established symbolism. I likes squire's idea about balrogs and demons. My ambiguous crow in Snow Queen attracted readers thoughts of this kind too. One reader wondered whether the crow was an observer of some Higher Power (and recalled that the story has a roughly Norse story and that crows are traditionally associated with Odin). Another wondered whether the crow was a beast form of a wise woman character who turns up later, and who could perfectly feasibly be a shape-shifting shaman. So these are readers making sensible links with things from other similar stories they have experienced. I thought both were entirely good readings, and don't know which of them (if either) is the 'right answer. I was also greatly encouraged that the story worked well enough for them to want to think about it!
Finally, things like dragons and elves can be used in a story that Tolkien might or might not have called a 'mere thriller', though it might strike another reader as perfectly fine entertainment. In such a story they become kinds of people or things that exist as a given in a fantasy world, and the story is about how they have exciting battles with each other. Or there is some similar plot in which the dragons and elves are to be taken as they appear to be on their surfaces, with no symbolism or allegory intended.
Jaws is a great example to bring up here - as the review you cite explains, some people were interested in its symbolism in terms of psychology or archetypes or primal fears. Others were interested in it as allegory. (Or perhaps, we should use Tolkien's definition whereby 'allegory' is something the storyteller has done purposefully for the audience to notice, and we should say that Jaws sparked thoughts about 'applicability': how Jaws was 'applicable' to events such as Watergate.) Finally, a third group of cinema-goers wasn't interested in either kind of analysis, and thought the story was best understood simply, as "about being ****** terrified of being eaten by a ****** great shark." I think the film was probably so successful because it pleased all of these groups.
Interesting that (in the review) Spielberg is quoted on the similarity to his earlier film Duel. That is also an interesting example for our discussion. I think that Duel works because of it's ambiguity - a man is pursued by a truck that repeatedly harasses and tries to murder him by running him off the road. The truck driver is never seen in full, and his motives are never explored or explained. But the ambiguity of this and the randomness of his behaviour adds to the effect of the story rather than being a plot hole.
~~~~~~
Where's that old read-through discussion?
A wonderful list of links to previous chapters in the 2014-2016 LOTR read-through (and to previous read-throughs) is curated by our very own 'squire' here http://users.bestweb.net/...-SixthDiscussion.htm
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 17 2017, 3:10pm
Post #42 of 60
(1911 views)
Shortcut
|
Hmmm. I see what you mean about the Necker Cube.I see it most naturally from the perspective of looking down at it and have to make some effort to see it as elevated. The accompanying Impossible Cube might just be able to give a headache to someone seriously trying to make sense of it.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Jan 17 2017, 5:59pm
Post #43 of 60
(1901 views)
Shortcut
|
Or, does Escher drive anyone else nuts
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
How in the #@%$ ?? It almost seems reasonable until you actually LOOK at it.... 
There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge.
-Rod Serling
‘. . . the rule of no realm is mine . . .
But all worthy things that are in peril . . . those are my care.
For I also am a steward. Did you not know?'
Gandalf to Denethor
|
|
|
Bracegirdle
Valinor
Jan 17 2017, 6:48pm
Post #44 of 60
(1892 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It IS more difficult than the vase
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But as I was trying to remove some lines to make a 'true' box it was much more difficult to do than I thought, as my eye kept switching from the side to the top view. Some fun…
 
Even my top view can take on another dimension as an incompleted box.
‘. . . the rule of no realm is mine . . .
But all worthy things that are in peril . . . those are my care.
For I also am a steward. Did you not know?'
Gandalf to Denethor
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 17 2017, 8:53pm
Post #45 of 60
(1858 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, M.C. Escher was a master of this sort of form. J.K. Rowling would doubtless claim that he was actually a wizard and that we have only seen the two-dimensional models for his three-dimensional sculptures--pieces of art that would drive Muggles insane.
"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jan 17 2017, 8:56pm)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jan 17 2017, 9:22pm
Post #46 of 60
(1846 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But what if I see that Rubin vase as a re-enaction of the Battle of Trafalgar?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Faces, vases--what are the rest of you talking about?!?!?!??
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jan 17 2017, 9:47pm
Post #47 of 60
(1843 views)
Shortcut
|
Jaws is a shark movie to me, that's all. If other people can find symbolism in it, great, but for me it was a big, hungry, impersonal eating machine that wanted to eat people. And it was so scary! Especially when the shark wasn't seen--my most vivid frights were the detached end of pier chasing a swimmer, or the barrels attached to shark popping up out of the water.
Duel, on the other hand, pretty much screamed symbolism to me. It's been a LONG time since I saw that movie, but I think there was something so impractical about it--one man singled out repeatedly by one trucker for death, and so isolated and helpless in confronting it--that it seemed intended to be a psychological story. That, and the protagonist being so obviously a weakling who was being bullied for no reason.
|
|
|
Ettelewen
Rohan
Jan 18 2017, 2:47am
Post #49 of 60
(1831 views)
Shortcut
|
I can stare at those prints for hours. When I was taking "General Education" classes in college I took an Art course that introduced me to his work, and I was immediately hooked (which is why we have a requirement for "breadth" courses in addition to those directly applicable to our majors, of course). I'm not sure how or why this appealed to my Computer Science / Logic - oriented brain but I'm forever grateful.
Hmmm... They're in black-and-white, and I also love Ansel Adams' photography... There must be a reason for this.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 19 2017, 10:02am
Post #50 of 60
(1789 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm arriving very late to the party (as usual)...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
..and the discussion has shot off into all sorts of fascinating avenues, as they do, but your opening post tones so perfectly with something I've just been reading that I had to reply - even though the reply will probably have people thinking, 'what is she talking about?'
It was your crow that caught me, flying into the story without introduction and without your consciously knowing why it was there or where it was heading, and your subsequent question about the author's need to provide explanations for things that creep into stories like this, unbidden. The book I've been reading is Alan Garner's 'The Voice that Thunders' - a collection of his lectures and essays going back over a lifetime of writing (Garner is now in his 80s), which builds into a autobiography-cum-compendium of thoughts on the intangible ties between the writer, his ancestors and the landscape around him, the importance of language and its rhythms and meaning-cum exploration of the writer's mind. The answer he would give, I think, is that the author shouldn't be explaining everything because the reader needs to find his own meanings: this from the conclusion of 'The Voice that Thunders'
'For true reading is creativity: the willingness to look into the open hand of the writer and see what may, or may not, be there. A writer's job is to offer.'
Almost everything Alan Garner writes is rooted in the small area of Cheshire where he was born and where generations of his family lived and worked, in their language (which he tries to recapture in the rhthms of his writing - the original language of the poem 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight'), their customs, folklore - 'I am a member of a family of rural craftsmen, but I use my hands in a different way . . . trying to celebrate the land and tongue of a culture that has been marginalised by a metropolitan intellectualism...'
End of commercial - I could go on forever about Garner's writing but I won't. But I do like his answer to the question of meanings and it's one that has always worked for me, even before I read what he had to say about it. My training and background is history, so I'm very used to things in the real world not making immediate sense, and to people doing the unpredictable and the unexpected. We spend most of our working lives trying to fathom the meaning. Your crow came from 'the voice that thunders'...
And congratulations on the publication of your book!
For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .
|
|
|
|
|
