tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post7139823464880369624..comments2023-11-07T06:20:12.181-08:00Comments on Tolkien: Medieval and Modern: Translation, Style, and Historical Narrative"Tolkien: Medieval and Modern"http://www.blogger.com/profile/04348913969813157482noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-54362630605049774602014-04-20T22:57:58.550-07:002014-04-20T22:57:58.550-07:00LDD,
I found your points about translation all ve...LDD,<br /><br />I found your points about translation all very interesting. But one thing that I thought was a stimulating tangent in your post was that you highlighted the shifts in tone and style in Tolkien’s narrative. I think this recalls another very prominent word in this course—fragmentary. Aside from Tolkien’s method, his narrative is also very fragmented in a way, often appearing as if written by completely different people. But in thinking about this, it makes a good deal of sense, since Tolkien’s aim was not only to spin a narrative thread, but also to weave a history and a mythos. This is a very compelling point you capture in your post when you say, “For me, this creates the aura or illusion of vast expanses of time and the growth of culture rather than any sort of internal inconsistency – inconsistency is a part of history.” It also calls to mind another influential series of woven stories that compose a history—the bible. The bible is also a chorus of voices contributing to a massive, orchestral whole. Packaged in with this is the whole idea of oral history. I doubt that this point was very far from Tolkien’s mind when he was consigning Middle-Earth to paper. <br /><br />Steven Vincent<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541332761482399729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-42088771211563951712014-04-19T21:12:54.848-07:002014-04-19T21:12:54.848-07:00Dear LDD,
Thanks for your focused approach toward...Dear LDD,<br /><br />Thanks for your focused approach toward the significance of Tolkien as a ‘translator’ of the Red Book and the reading of LoTR as ‘primary historical narrative rather than a novel.’ <br /><br />About the latter, I am quite intrigued about this question: What would it mean to read these as ‘histories’ rather than as a ‘novel?’ You argue that the style mimics that of ‘historical narratives’ but this raises questions for me.What kind of historical narrative? A first hand narrative, like a memoir or travel account? Or do you mean a later, compiled, scholarly account?<br /><br />I think you are quite right to raise the point of the ‘two-step’ process of translation. I think much more could be said on this. Here though, you might read the Prologue and Ap. F differently than I. In the framing device, is simply translating straight out the the Red Book OR is he compiling, re-constructing from the various pieces within the Red Book, and translating names? I take the latter view (which would put heavier emphasis on the second step of translation), but since more than one blogger seems to think the former, I could definitely be wrong. Which do you think?<br />I would love to read more on this.<br /><br />~RobertUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16340002157728895236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746173806126403959.post-44872953930647315092014-04-19T19:52:55.890-07:002014-04-19T19:52:55.890-07:00 While I agree that the translation conceit does a... While I agree that the translation conceit does affect the style of The Lord of the Rings, I feel it has more to do with Tolkien’s desire to make his world fit into the history of our world. In his letters, he talks a lot about a certain Northern European air that influenced his languages and the world they inhabit, and about his desire to create an English mythology, but saying that he has merely translated the works of Frodo and Bilbo is the most direct way of saying that his world was real.<br /> For me at least, this frame works as well as Ramer’s time-machine in the Notion Club Papers; it distracts from the content of the story itself. For if Middle Earth is to considered Faery, then Tolkien is claiming we live there, which seems to conflict with what he says about the separation between the worlds. If the idea from the beginning is that LotR is just a translation of a historical text, then Tolkien is claiming to have discovered a lost part of our history that should then be buried beneath our feet. In either case, I feel the conceit of translation hurts the believability of Tolkien’s work, even if it explains the style.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08785268335534601524noreply@blogger.com