"Fugue" state

Timdalf

Active Member
I was reviewing some past sessions. And I happened upon the "Notes & Queries" for # 122 "Falling into Deep Water"and there I 4 Detail comments: "Was there any connection between all the water imagery for Frodo's fugue state..." Well, that term baffled me. It turns out it not a reference to J.S. Bach but is a term from psychiatry. "An amnesic dissociated state characterized by physical flight from an unbearable situation.A fugue is a more extreme form of escape than the more common types of amnesia, since the patient not only loses his identity but actually leaves his normal surroundings for days, weeks or even years. In fugues of short duration he is likely to wander aimlessly about in a highly emotional state, and to be confused and agitated when found...." https://psychologydictionary.org/fugue-state/

While I can see how such a term might occur to someone, I think perhaps the idea that our Frodo is in some psychopathic state of "escapism" or schizophrenia given Tolkien's comments in "On Fairy Stories" about escapism needs to be discussed along with the applicability of this term to Mr. Frodo.
 
I humbly suggest that this is a case of non-technical (mis)application of a technical term. This appears to be particularly common for terms used in psychology, perhaps as this is an area of human understanding that is still relatively new; further examples: cretin, idiot, moron, and imbecile.

I had previously encountered the term 'fugue state' used more than once, and each time it seemed to refer to someone becoming withdrawn and non-responsive to their surroundings while it lasted, apparently focussed on something occurring within themselves. This is the way I interpreted I4Detail's comment, as it seemed to fit, and it doesn't introduce ideas of flight or escape.

I'm not dismissing the value of a discussion such as you propose, I just don't think that was the direction I4Detail was headed with their comment.
 
I have no doubt you are 100% correct, Mr. Lawther. I just wanted to bring the term forward for attention. Casual (mis)use of technical terms is all too common these days... including in politics and economics. Not to mention improper pronoun cases, fuzzy preposition use, improper word usage, incorrect syntax and word order, etc., in English... Eternal vigilance must never slack! When using technical terms in some non-technical, metaphorical way, quotes are helpful to avoid any misunderstanding. I refer you to the Good Morning colloquy in The Hobbit.
Timdalf, charter member of The Perpetual Pedants Party
 
Casual (mis)use of technical terms is all too common these days
technical term: a seemingly ordinary word or phrase, the meaning of which in some contexts is distorted beyond mortal comprehension. (Note: "technical term" is a technical term.)
charter member of The Perpetual Pedants Party
The Association of Pedants (formerly The Pedants' Association, previously The Pedants Association, originally The Pedant's Association)

And I'll finish with this quote that is barely relevant, but introduces the wonderful phrase "ineluctable marginal inexactitude" and truly expresses my feelings about "perfection":

"Nothing endures, nothing is precise and certain (except the mind of a pedant), perfection is the mere repudiation of that ineluctable marginal inexactitude which is the mysterious inmost quality of Being." [H. G. Wells - A Modern Utopia]
 
Well, since H G Wells was a "progressive" leftist, his opinions he can keep to himself. (Progressives are really regressives who want to revive 19th c. conditions to suit their destructive communist insurrectionist agenda of a fake Utopia, the term is an example of insidiously clever "black is white, and white is black" orwellianism.) There is nothing "ordinary" about "fugue state" unless you are in class on Bach's counterpoint! You may be happy with imprecise English, but I think it out of place in a class on English Lit and Lang! It undermines the very raison d'etre of such a class. Especially one whose guidon is "close reading". I suspect JRRT would have agreed given the precision of his prose and poetry. "Be ye perfect as your Father which is in Heaven." Perfection may seem unattainable while in this life, but that never excuses us from striving for it, and it is never unattractive. The leftist slacker slovenliness and tribal identity politics that have taken over academia and its standards since the 60's is a vicious nihilistic disaster in which I do not care to participate.
 
Last edited:
H G Wells was a "progressive" leftist...
This forum is decidedly NOT the place for politics of any kind, so I'll merely comment that neither "leftist slacker slovenliness" nor "vicious nihilistic disaster" even distantly approaches the elegance of "ineluctable marginal inexactitude" and leave it at that.
--
"We must go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech" - David Brin
 
I, personally, am aware of many schools of political thought I heartily disagree with, but I would be very slow to cite a given commentator's belonging to one of those schools as a primary reason why I think their opinion should be disregarded on this or that specific subject. It strikes, me, ironically, as a touch Orwellian - doubly ironic in this case, as the group of thinkers whose opinions should be excluded on the basis of their politics includes Orwell himself. There's a notion which in my experience is shared by peoples of many different political opinion, on both sides of the crude left-right political spectrum, that the ability to recognize and appreciate wisdom and points of commonality and agreement in one's political opponents - even though one still disagrees with them overall - is an admirable quality; and for the most part, I concur with this notion.

In terms of the specific point under debate, I know myself to be a perfectionist, and I am highly aware of the many ways this undermines my ability to communicate effectively - often because I find myself spending inordinate amounts of time attempting to find just the right word or phrase to convey my intended meaning. In some cases, this is indeed important, even crucial: on matters of grave import, too much sloppiness in word selection can have terrible results. But not all word choice carries such dire consequences, and I for one (along with my interlocutors) could probably benefit from me loosening up my standards in such cases.
 
The man for whom you are named, might gently disagree... Better to be slow of speech than hasty of rejoinder! Treebeard would back me up on that. While I agree no one's opinions or observations are all entirely wrong, caveat citatidor... (that's my invented pseudo-Latin, apologia Cicero!). Anyway, genug der Wort'!
 
Back
Top