Flammifer
Well-Known Member
Hi Professor Olsen,
Earlier in this class, you wanted to keep the perspective from which we studied the text through close reading to be that of the ‘first-time reader’. It is my impression that we have left this perspective far behind for many classes now, and I wonder why?
There are many possible perspectives from which we could study TLOTR. I suggest this classification (though others are possible):
1. The perspective of the first-time reader. I like this perspective, as I think it contains an element of ‘recovery’ in the ‘On Fairy Stories’ sense, and JRRT might well approve. But, we have not paid much attention to it in recent episodes. An example from the last class, is the reading that Saruman (quoted by Gandalf), saying “Long ago…it (the Ring) was rolled down the River to the Sea”, lulled the Wise because they interpreted this as Saruman saying that the Valar had taken the Ring into the Deep to accompany one of the Silmaril until the the End. I do not think that this reading could have been made by a first-time reader. At this stage little is known about the Valar, and almost nothing about Saruman.
2. The perspective of the reader who has finished TLOTR and probably re-read it many times but has read nothing else besides The Hobbit. I like this perspective too. This reader could certainly have come up with this reading of Saruman’s reported words. I know, because this is the reading I came to long before the Silmarillion was published (I went further, and wondered whether Saruman was also insinuating both that he had played a role in the ‘rolling’ of the Ring, and that he was too humble to brag about it). Although the nature of the Valar is still vague, the clues (primarily in the Appendices), such as; “The Valar, the Guardians of the World, granted to the Edain a land to dwell in.” and, “When maybe a thousand years had passed (of the Third Age) the Istari or Wizards appeared in Middle-earth…they came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron…the two highest of this order …were called… Saruman and Gandalf”, combined with considerably more knowledge of Saruman, are enough to cause a reader to consider this reading.
3. The perspective of a reader who has read TLOTR, the Silmarillion, the History of TLOTR, and the rest of CT’s stuff. The last class got well into this perspective. An example is all the discussion about Ulmo, and his possible role in rolling the Ring. As far as I am aware (perhaps someone with an e-text and word search could check this), Ulmo does not exist in TLOTR. My own preference would be that this perspective should be greatly minimized. TLOTR and the CT material are related, but they are not really set in the same Universe or World. JRRT tried to combine them into the same world, first by trying to set TLOTR into the Silmarillion world, and then by trying to retcon the Silmarillion into TLOTR world. But he failed! JRRT could never forge (cast?) the combination of the two into a form that he was happy with, or ready to publish. When doing a close reading of TLOTR, and considering it as its own story, and its own work of art, I think it best to ignore all the CT material.
4. The perspective of a reader who has read all of the above, and all the commentary by critics and fans about TLOTR. The class has never strayed into this area (other than if we categorized JRRT in letters, and CT, as editor into either critics or fans), which I think is a good thing. But, if we are going to dwell on JRRT’s own later glosses or readings of TLOTR, or CT’s, why not chew over Dr. Tom Shippey’s readings, or those of other commentators?
I am well aware that most of the participants in this class (and certainly the Professor) are category 4 readers. As such, it is quite difficult to keep all that knowledge of CT stuff, and other commentators out of both the close reading, and the discussions about that reading. However, I think that earlier in the history of these classes considerable effort was exerted to try to keep the perspective to category 1, with diversions into category 2. My impression is, that for some time now, the perspective has been shifting more and more into category 3. Also, the category 1 perspective is becoming dimmer and dwindling.
Is this shift in perspective deliberate or a drift?
If deliberate, why?
If a drift, should we get back on course?
Earlier in this class, you wanted to keep the perspective from which we studied the text through close reading to be that of the ‘first-time reader’. It is my impression that we have left this perspective far behind for many classes now, and I wonder why?
There are many possible perspectives from which we could study TLOTR. I suggest this classification (though others are possible):
1. The perspective of the first-time reader. I like this perspective, as I think it contains an element of ‘recovery’ in the ‘On Fairy Stories’ sense, and JRRT might well approve. But, we have not paid much attention to it in recent episodes. An example from the last class, is the reading that Saruman (quoted by Gandalf), saying “Long ago…it (the Ring) was rolled down the River to the Sea”, lulled the Wise because they interpreted this as Saruman saying that the Valar had taken the Ring into the Deep to accompany one of the Silmaril until the the End. I do not think that this reading could have been made by a first-time reader. At this stage little is known about the Valar, and almost nothing about Saruman.
2. The perspective of the reader who has finished TLOTR and probably re-read it many times but has read nothing else besides The Hobbit. I like this perspective too. This reader could certainly have come up with this reading of Saruman’s reported words. I know, because this is the reading I came to long before the Silmarillion was published (I went further, and wondered whether Saruman was also insinuating both that he had played a role in the ‘rolling’ of the Ring, and that he was too humble to brag about it). Although the nature of the Valar is still vague, the clues (primarily in the Appendices), such as; “The Valar, the Guardians of the World, granted to the Edain a land to dwell in.” and, “When maybe a thousand years had passed (of the Third Age) the Istari or Wizards appeared in Middle-earth…they came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron…the two highest of this order …were called… Saruman and Gandalf”, combined with considerably more knowledge of Saruman, are enough to cause a reader to consider this reading.
3. The perspective of a reader who has read TLOTR, the Silmarillion, the History of TLOTR, and the rest of CT’s stuff. The last class got well into this perspective. An example is all the discussion about Ulmo, and his possible role in rolling the Ring. As far as I am aware (perhaps someone with an e-text and word search could check this), Ulmo does not exist in TLOTR. My own preference would be that this perspective should be greatly minimized. TLOTR and the CT material are related, but they are not really set in the same Universe or World. JRRT tried to combine them into the same world, first by trying to set TLOTR into the Silmarillion world, and then by trying to retcon the Silmarillion into TLOTR world. But he failed! JRRT could never forge (cast?) the combination of the two into a form that he was happy with, or ready to publish. When doing a close reading of TLOTR, and considering it as its own story, and its own work of art, I think it best to ignore all the CT material.
4. The perspective of a reader who has read all of the above, and all the commentary by critics and fans about TLOTR. The class has never strayed into this area (other than if we categorized JRRT in letters, and CT, as editor into either critics or fans), which I think is a good thing. But, if we are going to dwell on JRRT’s own later glosses or readings of TLOTR, or CT’s, why not chew over Dr. Tom Shippey’s readings, or those of other commentators?
I am well aware that most of the participants in this class (and certainly the Professor) are category 4 readers. As such, it is quite difficult to keep all that knowledge of CT stuff, and other commentators out of both the close reading, and the discussions about that reading. However, I think that earlier in the history of these classes considerable effort was exerted to try to keep the perspective to category 1, with diversions into category 2. My impression is, that for some time now, the perspective has been shifting more and more into category 3. Also, the category 1 perspective is becoming dimmer and dwindling.
Is this shift in perspective deliberate or a drift?
If deliberate, why?
If a drift, should we get back on course?