bibliophilia

[ciroccoj]

Just finished The Fiery Cross, by Diana Gabaldon, two days after finishing The Fellowship of the Ring. I suppose I should revel in the accomplishment of both, since I doubt I'll get much pleasure reading after school starts.

Both good books, although I was reminded several times of some comments made by people who'd read the Tolkien books after seeing the movie trilogy, to the effect that the books... um... lack a certain something? Like, emotion?

Not that they're emotionless, but they are very much written by a man in a time and place where real men did not write about feelings unless said feelings were manly. Excitement. Dismay. Surprise. You know, Tally-ho, yonder lies in ambush a passel of goblins - let's make short work of them, men!!

The scene where Gandalf dies, for example. They all stumble out of the Mines of Moria, dismayed, and then "all wept" is pretty much the extent of the mourning given to Gandalf before they all manfully carry on.

::shrug:: Damn good book, anyway. I look forward to reading the next two next summer.

And there's no such problem with Diana Gabaldon's work. One of the things I really liked in this one was how well she captured the essence of babyhood. There's a very small boy (Jemmy) in the story, and although he's not a main character, every scene with him in it sounds like a transcript of a real session with a 6 month-1 year-old. Eg:

"Wat's tes-tees?" inquired a small voice (testes, BTW)
"That's Latin for your balls, lad," Roger replied gravely, supressing a grin.
Jemmy looked quite interested at that.
"I gots balls? W'ere I gots balls?" (he's shown where)
Jemmy kneaded his crotch briefly, then looked at Roger, small strawberry brows knitted into a puzzled frown.
"Nots' a ball. 'Sa willy!"

Comments

[gypsum.livejournal.com]

A comment about LOTR from me? Naaaaah..... Anyway, the lack of affect in LOTR is in part very intentional from Tolkien. He was writing in the 1940s and 1950s, which wasn't that long ago and most people in the 40s and 50s didn't write like that. People in the 19th Century didn't always write like that (Victor Hugo beats you over the head with emotion). But Tolkien was a medieval studies professor and a philologist and he was attempting to tell a story in the style of medieval writings and ancient Celtic and Icelandic sagas. Evidently he is -- or was -- THE guy on "Beowulf," so he knew what he was doing. And if you read Celtic or Icelandic sagas, you find even less emotion than you find in LOTR. I think somewhere I read a definition of a Celtic saga and one of the prongs of that definition included a lack of affect or very little affect. Writing emotion is very much a modern phenomenon. Tolkien wasn't a modernist writer and he was shying away from that. I think emotionality is something modern readers are so used to seeing that we read Tolkien and think, "Huh?" But if you accept it for what it is meant to be, you realized it's awesome and you can fill in the emotional blanks yourself.

[snarkhunter.livejournal.com]

More than just Beowulf. He was *the* guy on a lot of Old English texts. When I took OE a few years ago, I was astonished to realize how very Tolkienian my translations sounded. The rhythm of his prose is eerily reminiscent of the epics to which he owed his inspiration.

Like gypsum said, he was trying to tell a specific kind of story. LotR was, for Tolkien, an attempt to (re)create an *English* epic.

But I do agree that they seem...emotionless in their intense subtlety. Just look at the scene between Faramir and Eowyn near the end of RotK. There's passion there, but you have to really look to find it.

Um. yeah.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

t look at the scene between Faramir and Eowyn near the end of RotK. There's passion there, but you have to really look to find it.

Not there yet - I'll look for it, since it wasn't in the movie (I think). One of the movie summaries I read had a comment about the first onscreen kiss between Arwen and Aragorn, to the effect of, "And there you have it, folks: more nookie in that scene than in all</> of Tolkien's work."

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

A comment about LOTR from me? Naaaaah.....

I thought that was you! Yay! So glad I was right.

Anyway, the lack of affect in LOTR is in part very intentional from Tolkien. He was writing in the 1940s and 1950s, which wasn't that long ago and most people in the 40s and 50s didn't write like that.

Well, I believe you overall because my knowledge of general 1940's-50s literature is next to nil, but I have read a lot of 40-50s sci-fi and it's all pretty damn dry, emotion-wise. Masterpieces of understatement unless they're talking about powerful rockets and fantasmagorical celestial events. And even then, the characters themselves observe, make a pithy comment, and move on.

But if you accept it for what it is meant to be, you realized it's awesome and you can fill in the emotional blanks yourself.

Yeah, very well put.

It helps to be able to visualize Viggo Mortenson, Orlando Bloom, and Sean Bean too ;)

[gypsum.livejournal.com]

All the beatnik sort of F. Scott Fitzgeraldy people were writing during that time. They had lots of emotion, but English majors would know more. I've never read old fantasy/sci fi, but from what I know about Tolkien, he would have shot himself in the foot before classifying himself in that genre.

I think us late 20th Century and early 21st Century readers are used to a fantasy genre filled with the sort of archetypes that we see in LoTR. But Tolkien was one of the first writers to create that sort of novel, and the man would probably be turning in his grave if he saw the drek that evolved from his work. I think if you asked him, he would analogise LOTR to ancient mythology like Beowulf or the Ulster Cycle, not the stuff lining fantasy shelves today.

Ooh, one of my favorite subjects!

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

LotR was, for Tolkien, an attempt to (re)create an *English* epic.

It was also, and perhaps most importantly, a world for him to put his languages in. Tolkien loved languages, and made up many over his lifetime. The entire saga of LotR was, at its most basic, an excuse for Quenya and Sindar and Noldor and the others. Gods, what an imagination that man had....

Re: Ooh, one of my favorite subjects!

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

an excuse for Quenya and Sindar and Noldor and the others.

I'm woefully Tolkien-ignorant - I think Sindar is Elvish, but what are the others?

A member of my choir was part of another Ottawa choir who performed a concert of songs inspired by LOTR. He said it was quite lovely, but rather hellish learning an entire concert's worth of lyrics written almost exclusively in Dwarvish, Elvish, and Orcish.

Re: Ooh, one of my favorite subjects!

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

Wow, singing in Orc? THAT must have been interesting. Quenya is the High Elven speech, used by those who journeyed into the West. Sindarian is the speech of the Grey Elves, those who stayed in Middle Earth. The Noldor were one of the 'families' of the Eldar, or High Elves. There is actually a marvelous little book out which explains all the relationships, "The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-Earth" by Ruth Noel, if you are interested. ::grin::