|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Sep 13 2014, 4:07pm
Post #101 of 107
(1933 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with DoA's role in your example. My point is that writing doesn't include intent, according to DoA. The work stands on it's own. It doesn't matter what the author intended when writing it.
Then interpret RGEO as it stands, on its own, about Galadriel and the ban 
You say it stands on its own, so interpret just what it says. Tolkien has not explained his intent here, he has written a description about Galadriel. But can you interpret that Galadriel was not actually banned according to RGEO?
Then the 'no contradicting' rule comes in. Everything in the original is set in stone. The two rules complement each other: it doesn't matter what the author intended or says after the original work is published, and the original is not allowed to be contradicted.
What 'no contradicting' rule? You have to establish this as some sort of accepted rule in the first place.
That's not part of DOA. Moreover, here you are once again seemingly using 'intent' in the sense that Tolkien has explained what he intended outside of the context of RGEO itself (as you say '... intended or says after the original work is published')...
... but Tolkien has not done this. He has not explained his intent with RGEO, he rather wrote and published it. We interpret it.
This is why I am making this distinction with intent, as you seem to mix the ideas of 'intent' when writing something, that is, the very act of writing (since there is intent within the very act of creating something and putting it to paper) -- mixing this with an author externally explaining his intent -- telling you what he meant or intended with respect to something published.
The latter is what DOA is about. And Tolkien has not done this with RGEO. And so in my opinion the rest of your conclusion does not follow.
With JKR, she never tried to write a mythos like Tolkien. With him there may be two contradicting stories, but one will be framed as an inner-myth or opinion (as far as I am aware, I have not read everything yet). With regards to Numenor, Tolkien never published any of them himself, so I don't see how the example helps here.
Well Rowling still can include purposed contradictions in her total work. Of course she can. And so can Tolkien. And with respect to Numenor, the point of this example is simply that authors can publish stuff that purposely contradicts something else they have written.
Tolkien has been praised for this very thing in the context of realistic mythmaking. He writes with perspective in mind, so for instance, that a mannish version of something can be different at points from an Elvish version of something, or even contradict it at points (the shape of the world, the making of the sun).
And for the record, my response to the Rowling point with this example is when I thought we had finally agreed about DOA, that it is not really in play here exactly because RGEO is not authorial explanation of 'intent'.
Again RGEO is not the 'author' (as author) interpreting The Lord of the Rings for the reader, which was essentially your original argument about this text. Now the focus has changed, but at least with your original argument I could see the connection to DOA.
And you are obviously free to have your personal opinions, but if you call a given personal opinion a 'rule' that doesn't mean it has anything to do with the concept of DOA.
And if you think something complements DOA that is one thing, but that too does not mean it is included in DOA in the first place.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Sep 13 2014, 4:22pm)
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Sep 20 2014, 3:37pm
Post #102 of 107
(1918 views)
Shortcut
|
If we make a distinction that since it's author-published the author intends for it to be true, we've contradicted DoA. We're saying that the author's intention for this outweighs what was actually written in the original.
But you have yet to quote anything from a DOA article about the distinction you are making here, that is, that DOA is also about an 'original' something versus something later, with regards to 'intent'. I'm responding to this section of your post as this seems to be the heart of the matter with respect to our difference about DOA here.
So, until you can support this idea as part of DOA....
... we have not contradicted DOA if we make such a distinction, no more so than if we say -- by virtue of his publishing it -- that Tolkien 'intended' that it be true that Hobbits have hairy feet.
There is no author, only the story. For a Potter example: did you interpret that Dumbledore was gay based on the story? Or on the fact that Rowling revealed that she imagined or interpreted him as gay? And yet, in theory, if the next story comes out and Dumbledore himself (in flashback) reveals he is gay... what is your interpretation of the character going to be based on now?
Now it's the story -- which still has no author according to DOA, just like the earlier books, and thus there is essentially no J. K. Rowling to have ever said that she imagined Dumbledore is gay -- but now the story itself has more to it upon which to base an interpretation of Dumbledore.
If in fact Rowling makes this certainly part of the Potter story, the internal world, just like she could have published and thus 'intended' in book one if she wanted to, or in any other later book, then an interpretation that Dumbledore is not gay is arguably flawed.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Sep 20 2014, 3:51pm)
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Oct 7 2014, 2:57am
Post #103 of 107
(1884 views)
Shortcut
|
Right, I never meant to imply that DoA says no contradicting. They're two different 'rules' - and like I said, all rules are subjective. According to RGEO Galadriel is banned. That cannot be denied.
What I was objecting to earlier was the part that RGEO outweighs the other texts because Tolkien published it with the intent of it being part of the 'canon'.
We've already come to the conclusion that the ban is not part of LotR. It is part of RGEO. It's up to us to decide personally what to do with them. With DoA, neither has more weight.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Oct 7 2014, 1:23pm
Post #104 of 107
(1897 views)
Shortcut
|
Right, I never meant to imply that DoA says no contradicting. They're two different 'rules' - and like I said, all rules are subjective. According to RGEO Galadriel is banned. That cannot be denied.
In any case you seem to now agree (again) that DOA has nothing to do with stating that Tolkien 'cannot' describe (in RGEO or in any subsequent publication in theory) that Galadriel had been banned.
What I was objecting to earlier was the part that RGEO outweighs the other texts because Tolkien published it with the intent of it being part of the 'canon'.
As I say, you can object to this as you like, you just can't assert that DOA is supporting your opinion. And of course Tolkien knowingly published RGEO, just like he knowingly published his other 'canonical' books.
We've already come to the conclusion that the ban is not part of LotR.
I wouldn't put it so directly. Some people do think Galadriel's song speaks to a ban, despite her earlier statement. What I would agree with is that it is not 'certain' that Tolkien had surely decided, at the time of writing this lament and publishing it, that Galadriel was banned here. In The Lord of the Rings alone we have arguable evidence for either idea...
... external evidence then seems to suggest that by the time Tolkien wrote Concerning Galadriel and Celeborn, that there was no ban. That said, perhaps he wasn't truly considering Galadriel's lament when he wote this text, which itself is hardly in a finished state. And again, seemingly in the first draft of the Elessar text too.
In other words these things might seem to weight the notion that no ban had yet been devised, but one wonders if, when writing these texts, Tolkien had actually recalled what he had had Galadriel lament about. So maybe, maybe not. We cannot get into Tolkien's head at both periods, but these texts were possibly written years later than the writing of The Lord of the Rings.
What we know however is that when writing RGEO Tolkien is certainly considering Galadriel's lament... it's just that here, we don't really know if he was considering her earlier statement! But now JRRT isn't just writing for himself, some draft text to be 'finalized' later perhaps, now he chooses to actually publish the idea.
It is part of RGEO. It's up to us to decide personally what to do with them. With DoA, neither has more weight.
Well it has never been my argument that DOA means that RGEO has more weight than The Shibboleth of Feanor.
Of course I think RGEO -- a text that Tolkien himself wrote, finished, and published -- as in: knowingly putting this information on bookshelves for his readership at large, including a future readership -- carries more weight than a draft text Tolkien himself never finished, nor himself never published.
The Problem of Ros clearly illustrates that even Tolkien saw publication as a different animal, and naturally so, as one can revise an idea all day long -- an idea which your readership is never going to even know about -- and what you might be doing is trying to find out the 'truth' of the matter that you will then publish. But if you revise something already in print then this impacts the subcreated world.
What's interesting about the two texts in question is, when you do apply DOA it is The Shibboleth of Feanor that at least begins (arguably) in the 'voice of the author', not the internal voice of the translator. But that doesn't really matter much...
... if you personally want to accept The Shibboleth of Feanor idea because it agrees with your interpretation of something in The Lord of the Rings -- over an author-published text that certainly states that Galadriel was banned, that is your decision of course... my argument has always been that DOA does not support your opinion.
What has been the point of this continuing discussion otherwise
As otherwise it would be you stating your personal opinion about weighting a draft text (or texts) over author-published material and me disagreeing with it --- and that would be that. I assume we are there finally, and DOA is dead here.
But you brought up DOA originally... not me 
(This post was edited by Elthir on Oct 7 2014, 1:38pm)
|
|
|
Laineth
Lorien
Oct 20 2014, 1:40am
Post #105 of 107
(1880 views)
Shortcut
|
I was referring to LotR - Galadriel's statement is explicit. SoF merely provides background info that complements it.
You say: "a text that Tolkien himself wrote, finished, and published -- as in: knowingly putting this information on bookshelves for his readership at large, including a future readership"
The whole point is that DoA does invalidate this. You are referring to his personal intent - an intent that does not matter. What matters is what is written in the books we have. The moment anything is published, Tolkien the person disappears. He doesn't matter. According to DoA, he doesn't exist:
As soon as a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting directly on reality but intransitively, that is to say, finally outside of any function other than that of the very practice of the symbol itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Oct 20 2014, 2:42pm
Post #106 of 107
(1859 views)
Shortcut
|
You say: "a text that Tolkien himself wrote, finished, and published -- as in: knowingly putting this information on bookshelves for his readership at large, including a future readership"
The whole point is that DoA does invalidate this. You are referring to his personal intent - an intent that does not matter. What matters is what is written in the books we have. The moment anything is published, Tolkien the person disappears. He doesn't matter. According to DoA, he doesn't exist:
Yes I'm referring to personal intent with respect to publishing material versus never publishing draft material (draft material that yet still exists)...
... but not referring to (what DOA is actually about) an author explaining his 'intent' (explaining the meaning) with respect to what he or she has published.
Plug in an example for what, in my opinion, you're saying here...
... since one can say Tolkien 'intended' to publish the fact that Aragorn is a man -- yet as soon as The Lord of the Rings is published according to DOA Tolkien (in theory) doesn't exist, and this intent is thus 'invalidated'... so according to DOA (as you see it) you can thus argue if you want to, that there is no Strider but rather Trotter, a Hobbit with wooden feet (and idea Tolkien wrote but never published).
?
Rather the articles you present do not even delve into all the scenarios that we have with Tolkien because it has something fairly specific to say about the 'inent' of the author with respect to published material versus an external explanation of that same author-published material.
DOA is about reader interpretation of the published word not about weighting draft texts versus author-published texts. Yes Tolkien disappears in that he cannot tell you what he 'intended' when Aragorn says something to Frodo in the book. He does not disappear so that what he intended to publish doesn't even count!
DOA doesn't even go there because such a scenario has nothing to say in illustration of its major principle. Again look at the Tolkien example your own article chooses as an illustration...
... it's about reader interpretation of a published work versus intent of the author with respect to that same published work.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Oct 20 2014, 2:55pm)
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Oct 23 2014, 1:29pm
Post #107 of 107
(1850 views)
Shortcut
|
By the way I don't mean to sound 'rude' and using italics might make it sound that way. You italicized 'does' but I went a bit wild there, reading it again.
I mean I still disagree, but it reads more agressive than I intended it
|
|
|
|
|
