"J.K. Rowling among the Inklings"
Troels Forchhammer
Inklings", [1] commenting some parallels Jason has noticed between
passages in Rowling's works and couple of passages in Williams'
novel, _War in Heaven_.
I have no idea whether Rowling knows Williams, or if this particular
idea may exist elsewhere (with a possible source of inspiration
common to the two) -- if anyone knows, I'm sure Jason would be
delighted to learn more.
What attracted my attention, however, was the statement that
But Rowling, like Sayers, is frequently described as an
“honorary Inkling”, or said to be following in the
tradition of the Inklings. The latter is certainly true.
Is Rowling really 'following in the tradition of the Inklings'? Just
because people say it, that doesn't make it true, of course. I was an
avid Rowling enthusiast for some years, but my enthusiasm began to
cool after the fifth book (_Harry Potter and the Order of the
Phoenix_) and since the last of the Potter books (_Harry Potter and
the Deathly Hallows_) it has been more or less dead, though I still
consider the third book in particular to be a very good (children's)
book. When I was following the news about Rowling, I saw many
laudatory claims about Rowling's writings that I, even then, found
questionable, but I haven't been following things for the last 4 - 5
years, and much may have happened in the meantime.
In this particular blog entry, Jason is invoking Charles Williams,
and I have to admit that besides Tolkien's work, I have read next to
nothing of the Inklings (the Narnia books in a Danish translation
targeted at children is, IIRC, all), so I am _not_ going to judge
whether the above statement is actually true; hence my bringing it up
here.
With respect to Tolkien, I can see some parallels in Rowling's works,
but not enough that I would say that she is following in the
tradition of Tolkien -- for that to have been true, there would, in
my opinion, have had to be a greater parallel in the ways the two
authors use and relate to their source material, but what about the
other Inklings?
Are there any particular Inkling(s) in whose tradition Rowling can be
said to follow more closely?
Is there a common denominator for the Inklings in which tradition
Rowling follows? And just to whet the appetite for discussion, I
would say that I am highly sceptical of the claims of Rowling's
Christianity as an inspiration for the books: while I can see much in
both Tolkien's and Lewis' work that relies on their Christian
_faith_, I see nothing of that sort in Rowling's work. There is
Christian culture and Christian ethics, but not specifically
Christian faith or spirituality (here I am more inclined to agree
with the views ostensibly supported the then Cardinal Ratzinger [2]).
Is it correct that Rowling is 'following in the tradition Inklings'?
And if so, in what way(s) is this correct?
[1] Jason Fisher, _Lingwë - Musings of a Fish_, "J.K. Rowling among
the Inklings", Friday, October 8, 2010
<http://lingwe.blogspot.com/2010/10/jk-rowling-among-inklings.html>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ctb2sl>
[2] See e.g.
<http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05071301.html> or
<http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/rita-skeeter-covers-the-vatican/>
X-posted: rec.arts.books.tolkien;
alt.fan.tolkien
alt.books.inklings
alt.fan.harry-potter
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal
nothing.
- Frodo Baggins, /The Return of the King/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Steve Hayes
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>Jason Fisher has produced a blog entry titled "J.K. Rowling among the
>Inklings", [1] commenting some parallels Jason has noticed between
>passages in Rowling's works and couple of passages in Williams'
>novel, _War in Heaven_.
>
>I have no idea whether Rowling knows Williams, or if this particular
>idea may exist elsewhere (with a possible source of inspiration
>common to the two) -- if anyone knows, I'm sure Jason would be
>delighted to learn more.
>
>What attracted my attention, however, was the statement that
> But Rowling, like Sayers, is frequently described as an
> ?onorary Inkling? or said to be following in the
> tradition of the Inklings. The latter is certainly true.
One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary Inkling" is
that she was a fairly close friend of some of the Inklings, though she never
attended any of their gatherings. That would not, of course, apply to Rowling.
>
>Is Rowling really 'following in the tradition of the Inklings'? Just
>because people say it, that doesn't make it true, of course. I was an
>avid Rowling enthusiast for some years, but my enthusiasm began to
>cool after the fifth book (_Harry Potter and the Order of the
>Phoenix_) and since the last of the Potter books (_Harry Potter and
>the Deathly Hallows_) it has been more or less dead, though I still
>consider the third book in particular to be a very good (children's)
>book. When I was following the news about Rowling, I saw many
>laudatory claims about Rowling's writings that I, even then, found
>questionable, but I haven't been following things for the last 4 - 5
>years, and much may have happened in the meantime.
"Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is certainly the one I liked least
of the Harry Potter books, though I thought the series picked up a bit towards
the end. But I still liked the first three books best.
They have in common with the Narnia series and "The Hobbit" the genre of being
children's fantasy, but I don't think that is enough to make anyone an
honorary Inkling. The other Inklings didn't write children's fantasies, and
some of them didn't write anything at all.
The thing about the Harry Potter books is that they came after a dearth of
decent children's books. For a long time all you could get was R.L. Stein and
the "Goosebumps" series, which were mediocre, to say the least. And now you
have the "I'm a lovesick teenage vegeterian vampire" kind of thing which are
as bad as the "Goosebumps" lot, though my son, who works in a bookshop, says
they are now selling a lot less of those than of Harry Potter.
>In this particular blog entry, Jason is invoking Charles Williams,
>and I have to admit that besides Tolkien's work, I have read next to
>nothing of the Inklings (the Narnia books in a Danish translation
>targeted at children is, IIRC, all), so I am _not_ going to judge
>whether the above statement is actually true; hence my bringing it up
>here.
I've been meaning to read his blog post, but haven't yet. I see little
resemblance. Neil Gaiman's "American gods" and "Neverwhere" are a lot closer
to Charles Williams than the Harry Potter books are, but I'm not sure that
that would make him an honorary Inkling.
Over the past few years I've challenged Williams and other Inklings fans to
write books in the Charles Williams genre in NaNoWriMo (National Novel-Writing
Month), but there have been no takers.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Dirk Thierbach
> What attracted my attention, however, was the statement that
> But Rowling, like Sayers, is frequently described as an
>
> Is Rowling really 'following in the tradition of the Inklings'?
I guess to answer this question one would first have to agree what
this "tradition" is in the first place.
In a very loose sense, the appeal of Harry Potter is the same as
LotR or Narnia -- a subcreated world, where this subcreation is used
to say something fundamental about human nature. But that does apply
to lots of SF and F.
In a more strict sense, there are less similarities.
> In this particular blog entry, Jason is invoking Charles Williams,
> [1] Jason Fisher, _Lingwë - Musings of a Fish_, "J.K. Rowling among
> the Inklings", Friday, October 8, 2010
> <http://lingwe.blogspot.com/2010/10/jk-rowling-among-inklings.html>
What he gets hung up on (an "unplottable" house) looks like a common
"gimmick": I can think of several SF/F works with "invisible" houses;
the Wandering Magic Shop is proabably an instance, of this, too; and I
wouldn't be surprised if there are fairy tales with a similar idea.
- Dirk
Clams Canino
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
> They have in common with the Narnia series and "The Hobbit" the genre of
> being
> children's fantasy, but I don't think that is enough to make anyone an
> honorary Inkling. The other Inklings didn't write children's fantasies,
> and
> some of them didn't write anything at all.
I think that's the sticky point. This whole "tradition of the Inklings"
notion is quite vague and smells more of someone trying to sell an article
then anything else.
-W
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Sell an article?
To whom?
Hari Seldon
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:Xns9E0E45AD...@130.133.4.11...
> the Inklings", Friday, October 8, 2010
> <http://lingwe.blogspot.com/2010/10/jk-rowling-among-inklings.html>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ctb2sl>
>
> [2] See e.g.
> <http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jul/05071301.html> or
> <http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/rita-skeeter-covers-the-vatican/>
>
>
> X-posted: rec.arts.books.tolkien;
> alt.fan.tolkien
> alt.books.inklings
> alt.fan.harry-potter
>
> --
> Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
> Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
> Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
>
> It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal
> nothing.
> - Frodo Baggins, /The Return of the King/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
There is one aspect that certainly applies 1:1 to the books of Rowling and
one member of the Inkling-club.
"Oh my God! Please! No more Elves!!!"
That thought came up regular while reading on Doby and all.
That said. Book 4 of Rowling was indeed the weakest of all - should have
been 240 pages instead of 500. On the other hand, kudos for Rowling
finishing the tale after book 4 and 5 and keeping up a high level of
quality. Compared to works of Herbert or Zelazny she actually managed to
stand and deliver which the Dune- or Amber-tale missed, imho. Even the
before unpublished or unfinished tales of Tolkien do prove - again imho -
why they were not published before. They just lack quality. The one serie
that stays strong that I can come up with is Vance's Demon Princes (but
that's SF).
On the Inkling club, imho Rowling didn't have a (deeper) allegory of
christianity that Tolkien and Lewis for instance, framed in their works.
Lewis wrote brilliant fairytale, Tolkien wrote brilliant mythological.
Rowling did a fine job on combingin these two writing the HP's. Let's hope
more of that quality will come.
I guess like most of you all, I love the lore in Tolkiens world - and HP had
less lore... Narnia had less lore than HP.
Weland
to some extent, I don't see the connection. The post skirts by, barely,
the fallacy of saying "A looks like Z, therefore A is Z".
I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is Lewis and
Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no surprise: she's
educated in the British system, read Classics, and is heavily influenced
by the Arthurian tradition and Chaucer as well as classical texts like
the Aeneid and the Odyssey. There's no question she's influenced by the
same texts as Lewis and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as
well as by T. H. White among other things. So sure, following at least
in part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
Weland
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 05:38:26 -0400, "Clams Canino"<cc-m...@earthdink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steve Hayes"<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> They have in common with the Narnia series and "The Hobbit" the genre of
>>> being
>>> children's fantasy, but I don't think that is enough to make anyone an
>>> honorary Inkling. The other Inklings didn't write children's fantasies,
>>> and
>>> some of them didn't write anything at all.
>>
>> I think that's the sticky point. This whole "tradition of the Inklings"
>> notion is quite vague and smells more of someone trying to sell an article
>> then anything else.
>
> Sell an article?
>
> To whom?
>
>
Not "sell" perhaps, but get another published.
Steve Hayes
>I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is Lewis and
>Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no surprise: she's
>educated in the British system, read Classics, and is heavily influenced
>by the Arthurian tradition and Chaucer as well as classical texts like
>the Aeneid and the Odyssey. There's no question she's influenced by the
>same texts as Lewis and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as
>well as by T. H. White among other things. So sure, following at least
>in part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
After reading Jason's blog, I blogged about it here:
http://khanya.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/j-k-rowling-among-the-inklings/
and Jason commented on one aspect of it thus:
"As a matter of macroscopic comparison, I would probably agree with you,
Steve. (And remember, Gaiman was much influenced by the Inklings himself.) I
was really just drawing a comparison on this specific motif. However, there
are some other general similarities between Williams and Rowling, e.g., the
location of a supernatural world alongside (and usually invisible to) the
humdrum reality of the hoi polloi, the humorous and often parodic treatment of
class differences, vocations, etc. But I wasn’t trying to say Williams for a
major influence — or even any influence at all — on Rowling. It just struck me
as possible this motif in her novels came from Williams. There’s no evidence
of it, of course."
And if it comes down to the "hidden building motif" common to Williams and
Rowling, I remember a ghost story that was read to me by a teacher at school,
about a man who stayed in a hotel that had no room 13 - there was just a 12
and 14 - but during the night room 12 where he was staying suddenly altered
and a room 13 appeared. Perhaps both Williams and Rowling were influenced by
that story, or others like it. And Lewis used a similar one in gateways to
Narnia - now you see it, now you don't.
Another point of similarity, not specifically mentioned by Jason, but which
can be seen, is that both Williams (in "Many Dimensions") and Rowling satirise
British bureaucracy.
And when it comes to "the location of a supernatural world alongside (and
usually invisible to) the humdrum reality of the hoi polloi" Alan Garner's
children's books, especially "Elidor", do that too. That book would surely
make Garner an "honorary Inkling" too.
Clams Canino
"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
> Not "sell" perhaps, but get another published.
Yes... I used the term "sell" loosely. I trust my intent was clear.
-W
Paul S. Person
<Roel....@philips.nl> wrote:
<snippo>
>That said. Book 4 of Rowling was indeed the weakest of all - should have
>been 240 pages instead of 500. On the other hand, kudos for Rowling
>finishing the tale after book 4 and 5 and keeping up a high level of
>quality. Compared to works of Herbert or Zelazny she actually managed to
>stand and deliver which the Dune- or Amber-tale missed, imho. Even the
>before unpublished or unfinished tales of Tolkien do prove - again imho -
>why they were not published before. They just lack quality. The one serie
>that stays strong that I can come up with is Vance's Demon Princes (but
>that's SF).
Of course, she had two advantages:
1) She had a defined end-point, that is, she knew the entire story
(please note that I do not say in how much detail she knew it, as it
may have been just an outline) before she started writing.
2) She lived long enough to finish it.
In the first case, I doubt that Herbert had such an outline before he
wrote /Dune/, and Zelazny's first Amber series was completed, it is
the second series that just ends, and which may or may not have had an
overall plot before it was started.
In the second case, IIRC, both Herbert and Zelazny died before they
could get the next book out. Which might or might not have been the
book that wrapped up the series.
And, in the case of Herbert, Washington State had discovered that it
was home to a /very/ popular and successful author, who had not
bothered to pay his B&O tax for several years. This gave Herbert a
financial incentive to spin the tale out as long as possible. So he
may or may not have ever actually wrapped it up. Yes, I know, his
heirs have put out a pair of novels purportedly based on Herbert's
plot outline for the end of the series, but if the publicity value of
that assertion is considered, the possibility that it was no such
thing must also be considered. Especially if they still had back B&O
taxes to pay.
Note: B&O taxes are an amazing invention by which the State of
Washington extracts, from each business, a percentage of its income --
which, as I understand it, includes any monies provided for startup! A
business can be paying B&O taxes on the money it gets from investors
for years before actually starting business operations, if it happens
to be the sort of business that takes a few years to start up. To be
fair, there is a lower limit below which the tax need not be paid, so
very small and not particularly successful business just have to file
a return to show that they don't owe the tax.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Hari Seldon
Thanks for the reply! Apreciate it! Didn;t know about the tax-Herbert story.
But even in the first series of Zelazny I found book 5 kind of disappointed.
The story was so ultimate Epic that the solution to let Random be king was
ultimately disappointing. In series II Zelazny tried different writing
styles (James Joyce anyone?) and that didn;t work. I absolutely love Dune,
read Children of Dune and scanned the rest and threw it away. Same with the
Merlin-Zelazny story... Rowling on the other hand.. .I *read*, while she was
loaded, she continued...
richard e white
I will have to admit I've never heard of the defanistion before.
who came up with it?
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Try the Olympus DM-520 for digital music and Audio books!
Jeff Urs
> Thanks for the reply! Apreciate it! Didn;t know about the tax-Herbert story.
> But even in the first series of Zelazny I found book 5 kind of disappointed.
> The story was so ultimate Epic that the solution to let Random be king was
> ultimately disappointing. In series II Zelazny tried different writing
> styles (James Joyce anyone?) and that didn;t work. I absolutely love Dune,
> read Children of Dune and scanned the rest and threw it away. Same with the
> Merlin-Zelazny story... Rowling on the other hand.. .I *read*, while she was
> loaded, she continued...
IMO, _Dune_ by itself and Amber after _The Courts of Chaos_ are as
complete as Harry Potter after _The Deathly Hallows_. All the
important issues have been resolved, leaving nothing more that really
needs to be said. (And, really, who else but Random was there, except
for Corwin himself, who -- understandably -- no longer wanted it?)
--
Jeff
Weland
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:55:54 -0500, Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is Lewis and
>> Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no surprise: she's
>> educated in the British system, read Classics, and is heavily influenced
>> by the Arthurian tradition and Chaucer as well as classical texts like
>> the Aeneid and the Odyssey. There's no question she's influenced by the
>> same texts as Lewis and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as
>> well as by T. H. White among other things. So sure, following at least
>> in part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
>
> After reading Jason's blog, I blogged about it here:
>
> http://khanya.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/j-k-rowling-among-the-inklings/
>
> and Jason commented on one aspect of it thus:
>
> "As a matter of macroscopic comparison, I would probably agree with you,
> Steve. (And remember, Gaiman was much influenced by the Inklings himself.) I
> was really just drawing a comparison on this specific motif. However, there
> are some other general similarities between Williams and Rowling, e.g., the
> location of a supernatural world alongside (and usually invisible to) the
> humdrum reality of the hoi polloi, the humorous and often parodic treatment of
> major influence � or even any influence at all � on Rowling. It just struck me
> as possible this motif in her novels came from Williams. There�s no evidence
> of it, of course."
>
> And if it comes down to the "hidden building motif" common to Williams and
> Rowling, I remember a ghost story that was read to me by a teacher at school,
> about a man who stayed in a hotel that had no room 13 - there was just a 12
> and 14 - but during the night room 12 where he was staying suddenly altered
> and a room 13 appeared. Perhaps both Williams and Rowling were influenced by
> that story, or others like it. And Lewis used a similar one in gateways to
> Narnia - now you see it, now you don't.
House of Lost Play, Arthurian Romances, Christianity is built on the
assumption of an unseen world around us that we could see if only we had
spiritual vision...which saints do; Dickens even shows us a whole world
of spirits wandering around unseen....folktales have hidden buildings
and places.
> Another point of similarity, not specifically mentioned by Jason, but which
> can be seen, is that both Williams (in "Many Dimensions") and Rowling satirise
> British bureaucracy.
Not peculiar to these two authors either.
richard e white
> On 10/11/2010 8:41 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:55:54 -0500, Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is Lewis and
> >> Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no surprise: she's
> >> educated in the British system, read Classics, and is heavily influenced
> >> by the Arthurian tradition and Chaucer as well as classical texts like
> >> the Aeneid and the Odyssey. There's no question she's influenced by the
> >> same texts as Lewis and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as
> >> well as by T. H. White among other things. So sure, following at least
> >> in part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
> >
> > After reading Jason's blog, I blogged about it here:
> >
> > http://khanya.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/j-k-rowling-among-the-inklings/
> >
> > and Jason commented on one aspect of it thus:
> >
> > "As a matter of macroscopic comparison, I would probably agree with you,
> > Steve. (And remember, Gaiman was much influenced by the Inklings himself.) I
> > was really just drawing a comparison on this specific motif. However, there
> > are some other general similarities between Williams and Rowling, e.g., the
> > location of a supernatural world alongside (and usually invisible to) the
> > humdrum reality of the hoi polloi, the humorous and often parodic treatment of
> > class differences, vocations, etc. But I wasn’t trying to say Williams for a
> > major influence — or even any influence at all — on Rowling. It just struck me
> > as possible this motif in her novels came from Williams. There’s no evidence
> > of it, of course."
> >
> > And if it comes down to the "hidden building motif" common to Williams and
> > Rowling, I remember a ghost story that was read to me by a teacher at school,
> > about a man who stayed in a hotel that had no room 13 - there was just a 12
> > and 14 - but during the night room 12 where he was staying suddenly altered
> > and a room 13 appeared. Perhaps both Williams and Rowling were influenced by
> > that story, or others like it. And Lewis used a similar one in gateways to
> > Narnia - now you see it, now you don't.
>
> House of Lost Play, Arthurian Romances, Christianity is built on the
> assumption of an unseen world around us that we could see if only we had
> spiritual vision...which saints do; Dickens even shows us a whole world
> of spirits wandering around unseen....folktales have hidden buildings
> and places.
>
> > Another point of similarity, not specifically mentioned by Jason, but which
> > can be seen, is that both Williams (in "Many Dimensions") and Rowling satirise
> > British bureaucracy.
>
> Not peculiar to these two authors either.
>
> > And when it comes to "the location of a supernatural world alongside (and
> > usually invisible to) the humdrum reality of the hoi polloi" Alan Garner's
> > children's books, especially "Elidor", do that too. That book would surely
> > make Garner an "honorary Inkling" too.
> >
> >
> >
> >
If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books don't fit. "The
red pyramid" might fit if a Christian view isn't required.
So the question is it only a Christian unseen world which sets these writers aside,
or is it just an unseen world?
richard e white
The problem in potter is that it is hard to belive everything was instantly fine.
No clean up, no hunting for people who slipped out the back. In fact no one even
explained how the Minster job went to shakabolt. Its like saying everything is
done after the vase hits the ground. The clean up was important as well. But
like so many movies the crash was better then what went on next.the
Troels Forchhammer
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
> On 10/10/2010 9:49 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary
>> Inkling" is that she was a fairly close friend of some of the
>> Inklings, though she never attended any of their gatherings. That
>> would not, of course, apply to Rowling.
I think we should look at the 'in the tradition of the Inklings' part
rather than waste too much effort on the 'honourary Inkling'
statement -- the latter is, as you point out, attributed to Sayers
because of some very specific historical circumstances and it is
nonsensical to attribute it to Rowling or any other author who didn't
belong to these particular historical circumstances.
Dirk said that
||| I guess to answer this question one would first have to agree
||| what this "tradition" is in the first place.
which I think is a very relevant question -- what, if anything, is
the 'tradition of the Inklings'? As I said, I am (in the present
company) particularly unknowledgeable about other Inklings than
Tolkien, but as Steve has pointed out, the Inklings' literary
production spans very widely (with some of them, as I understand it,
publishing nothing and others only non-fiction).
<snip>
> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is
> Lewis and Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no
> surprise: she's educated in the British system,
[...]
> There's no question she's influenced by the same texts as Lewis
> and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as well as by T. H.
> White among other things. So sure, following at least in part
> the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
But, as you put it here, you seem to imply that this tradition is
merely the tradition of any reasonably well-educated British fantasy
author? I'm sure much of the same could be said, for instance, of
Philip Pullman . . .
Is there anything that distinguishes the Inklings from the broader
background of British twentieth-century (sub-creative?) literature?
I'm fishing here, I know, but though there has been a lot of writing
about the Inklings, I don't think I have seen it suggested that their
work belongs to a common 'tradition' -- if anything the 'tradition'
was one of communality, of testing ideas on each other and openly
discussing each others' work, but this would, as I understand it, be
particularly inappropriate for Rowling who appears to have worked
very much alone.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
- /Equal Rites/ (Terry Pratchett)
Troels Forchhammer
<chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
> Weland wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2010 8:41 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>
<snip and re-arranging>
>>> Another point of similarity, not specifically mentioned by
>>> Jason, but which can be seen, is that both Williams (in "Many
>>> Dimensions") and Rowling satirise British bureaucracy.
>>
>> Not peculiar to these two authors either.
No, hardly ;-)
Bureaucracy seems a common target of satire in any form of narrative
art -- whether film, comic-book (there's a delicious _Asterix_ that I
remember), poetry or prose (and possibly in other art-forms as well).
This seems more to be a tradition of artists ;-)
>>> And if it comes down to the "hidden building motif" common to
>>> Williams and Rowling, I remember a ghost story
<snip specifics>
>>> Perhaps both Williams and Rowling were influenced by that story,
>>> or others like it. And Lewis used a similar one in gateways to
>>> Narnia - now you see it, now you don't.
>>
>> House of Lost Play, Arthurian Romances, Christianity is built on
>> the assumption of an unseen world around us that we could see if
>> only we had spiritual vision...which saints do; Dickens even
>> shows us a whole world of spirits wandering around unseen....
I can see how the ieda of a spiritual world could translate into the
magical world both of Lewis and Rowling, but would you say that this
whole 'now you see it, now you don't' theme (at least as employed by,
say, Western fantasy authors) is derived from this Christian idea of
an unseen world?
>> folktales have hidden buildings and places.
aplenty . . . ;-)
>>> And when it comes to "the location of a supernatural world
>>> alongside (and usually invisible to) the humdrum reality of the
>>> hoi polloi" Alan Garner's children's books, especially
>>> "Elidor", do that too. That book would s urely make Garner an
>>> "honorary Inkling" too.
>
> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
> don't fit.
Right, I quite agree.
And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
and, far more subtly, in Tolkien's work. In both the Narnia books and
the Middle-earth books, the Christianity of the author is worked into
the causal basis of their sub-created world: trusting in providence,
for instance, actually does work in both worlds.
> "The red pyramid" might fit if a Christian view isn't required.
If we speak of the Inklings, then I do believe that the Christian
view would be required if any spirituality is a part of the
tradition. That is -- either the 'tradition of the Inklings' is
explicitly Christian, or there is no aspect of spirituality in it.
> So the question is it only a Christian unseen world which sets
> these writers aside, or is it just an unseen world?
And does even a 'Christian unseen world' set them apart? Or is this
such a common feature that it isn't defining of any particular group
of authors?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot ++
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
Steve Hayes
One of their traditions was reading their work to each other.
Did Rowling discuss her work with anyone while she was writing it?
><snip>
>
>> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is
>> Lewis and Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no
>> surprise: she's educated in the British system,
>[...]
>> There's no question she's influenced by the same texts as Lewis
>> and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as well as by T. H.
>> White among other things. So sure, following at least in part
>> the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
>
>But, as you put it here, you seem to imply that this tradition is
>merely the tradition of any reasonably well-educated British fantasy
>author? I'm sure much of the same could be said, for instance, of
>Philip Pullman . . .
>
>Is there anything that distinguishes the Inklings from the broader
>background of British twentieth-century (sub-creative?) literature?
>
>I'm fishing here, I know, but though there has been a lot of writing
>about the Inklings, I don't think I have seen it suggested that their
>work belongs to a common 'tradition' -- if anything the 'tradition'
>was one of communality, of testing ideas on each other and openly
>discussing each others' work, but this would, as I understand it, be
>particularly inappropriate for Rowling who appears to have worked
>very much alone.
Yes, and I think the same applies to Pullman.
Dirk Thierbach
> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>> don't fit.
> Right, I quite agree.
I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
mean that Rowling should, too.
> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
> and, far more subtly, in Tolkien's work. In both the Narnia books and
> the Middle-earth books, the Christianity of the author is worked into
> the causal basis of their sub-created world:
But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
make sacrifices to be able to save others.
I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:34:10 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>Dirk said that
>>||| I guess to answer this question one would first have to agree
>>||| what this "tradition" is in the first place.
>>which I think is a very relevant question -- what, if anything, is
>>the 'tradition of the Inklings'?
> One of their traditions was reading their work to each other.
Well, I hardly think that the original author even thought remotely
about this aspect when he stated that "Rowling writes in the tradition
of the inklings".
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>
>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>> don't fit.
>
>> Right, I quite agree.
>
>I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
Which critics would those be?
>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>
>Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
>mean that Rowling should, too.
No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her
books are therefore different in that respect.
>> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
>
>Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
>books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
Not really an allegory.
>
>> and, far more subtly, in Tolkien's work. In both the Narnia books and
>> the Middle-earth books, the Christianity of the author is worked into
>> the causal basis of their sub-created world:
>
>But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
>about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
>make sacrifices to be able to save others.
Yes indeed.
I'd say that Rowling's books are informed by Christian ethics, but they are
not, as in the work of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams, fitted into a Christian
mythological framework.
>
>I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
>parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
>closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
>
>Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
It's clear enough in some of the books. One can see there Christian ethics and
Christian values, but without the Christian mythological underpinning that one
finds in Lewis, Tolkien & Co.
Rowling manages to make her stories moral without being moralistic, and that
is one of the nice things about them.
Lewis occasionally lapses into moralism -- his advice about not locking
oneself in a wardrobe sounds a bit like something devised to promote the
health and safety regulations of a nanny state.
Julian Bradfield
> It's clear enough in some of the books. One can see there Christian ethics and
> Christian values, but without the Christian mythological underpinning that one
> finds in Lewis, Tolkien & Co.
Could you give an example of something that is specifically Christian
ethics and Christian values, rather than ethics and values shared by
many cultures?
Dirk Thierbach
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>>> don't fit.
>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>
>>I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>>the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
> Which critics would those be?
Whichever critics the person who stated this was referring to; he
didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember
where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider
it likely to be true.
>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>>Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
>>mean that Rowling should, too.
> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her
> books are therefore different in that respect.
Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that in order to "write in
the tradition of the Inlings" one should take that approach. Especially
since I'd say that this particular theme is especially emphasized by
Tolkien, and a lot less by the other Inklings, as far as I know them
(people who have read more from the other Inklings than I did please
correct me if I'm wrong).
>>> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
>>Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>>allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
>>books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
> Not really an allegory.
Well, I consider using a "lion" for "Christ" pretty much an allegory,
for example. Whatever you like to call it.
There's a very clear cut one-to-one correspondence between between
very particular characters or actions in Narnia and very particular,
easy to identify counterparts in Christian teachings.
Or, to use Tolkien's words, there's a quite limited "applicability".
>>But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
>>about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
>>make sacrifices to be able to save others.
> Yes indeed.
>
> I'd say that Rowling's books are informed by Christian ethics, but they are
> not, as in the work of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams, fitted into a Christian
> mythological framework.
What exactly do you mean by a "Christian mythological framework"?
>>I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
>>parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
>>closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
>>
>>Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
> It's clear enough in some of the books.
Can you give some concrete examples?
> One can see there Christian ethics and Christian values, but without
> the Christian mythological underpinning that one finds in Lewis,
> Tolkien & Co.
As I wrote, I don't think I understand what you mean here.
> Rowling manages to make her stories moral without being moralistic, and that
> is one of the nice things about them.
Yep. Though "morality" by itself doesn't mean "Christian". That's why
I'd prefer to have a closer look.
> Lewis occasionally lapses into moralism
For rather large values of "occasionally", bordering on "often".
- Dirk
Steve Morrison
> With respect to Tolkien, I can see some parallels in Rowling's works,
> but not enough that I would say that she is following in the
> tradition of Tolkien -- for that to have been true, there would, in
> my opinion, have had to be a greater parallel in the ways the two
> authors use and relate to their source material, but what about the
> other Inklings?
I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
influence on Rowling, e.g. "the Whomping Willow is just like Old
Man Willow!" or "Tolkien wrote a poem with the line /He battled
with the Dumbledors/!" They mostly seem explainable by common
sources, a common interest in obscure and archaic words, and sheer
coincidence (when you're looking for possible parallels in a long
and complicated source you'd expect a lot of false positives due
to coincidence, and the likelihood is more than squared when the
later work is even longer and more intricate!) The one such claim
that does look plausible is the number of hobbit names which
reappear in the Potter books: Proudfoot, Everard, Odo, Puddifoot,
etc.
> Is there a common denominator for the Inklings in which tradition
> Rowling follows? And just to whet the appetite for discussion, I
> would say that I am highly sceptical of the claims of Rowling's
> Christianity as an inspiration for the books: while I can see much in
> both Tolkien's and Lewis' work that relies on their Christian
> _faith_, I see nothing of that sort in Rowling's work. There is
> Christian culture and Christian ethics, but not specifically
> Christian faith or spirituality (here I am more inclined to agree
> with the views ostensibly supported the then Cardinal Ratzinger [2]).
I do take the "Christian symbolism" claims more seriously.
First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/! And that book also
has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from the New Testament,
etc. But long before it was published, some analysts did see
traditional Christian symbolism in the series: references to stags,
griffins, phoenixes, etc. The go-to man for this is John Granger,
who runs the "Hogwarts Professor" web site at
http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com (and I see that one of your links
goes to an article on that site). There is also Travis Prinzi's
site "The Hog's Head" at http://thehogshead.org/ where such things
are frequently discussed; the latter has a forum where you could
ask questions if anyone is interested. There is also at least one
book specifically on the subject, though I haven't read it:
http://outskirtspress.com/webpage.php?ISBN=9781432741129
Steve Hayes
Dirk Thierbach
> I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
> influence on Rowling, e.g. "the Whomping Willow is just like Old
> Man Willow!" or "Tolkien wrote a poem with the line /He battled
> with the Dumbledors/!" They mostly seem explainable by common
> sources, a common interest in obscure and archaic words, and sheer
> coincidence (when you're looking for possible parallels in a long
> and complicated source you'd expect a lot of false positives due
> to coincidence, and the likelihood is more than squared when the
> later work is even longer and more intricate!)
I completely agree.
> The one such claim that does look plausible is the number of hobbit
> names which reappear in the Potter books: Proudfoot, Everard, Odo,
> Puddifoot, etc.
I wouldn't count that one: Rowling uses names very differently from
Tolkien, though both have fun with names in their own. And AFAIK
(someone correct me if I'm wrong), these are all common English last
names.
> I do take the "Christian symbolism" claims more seriously.
> First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
> saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/!
As I said, I only read DH once, at that was some time ago, so I
don't really feel qualified for a discussion about details.
OTOH, form me the parallel "Harry = Christ" seems to be as silly as
the parallel "Gandalf = Christ", because Gandalf was "resurrected" as
well. If Rowling really did write this with the intention of a
parallel, then I am somewhat disappointed.
> And that book also has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from
> the New Testament, etc. But long before it was published, some
> analysts did see traditional Christian symbolism in the series:
> references to stags, griffins, phoenixes, etc. The go-to man for
> this is John Granger, who runs the "Hogwarts Professor" web site at
> http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com
I've read some of the articles there, and it's intersting stuff.
(Though either the site doesn't like my uncommon browser, or some
of the content is gone. I can't see the article in
http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/the-christian-content-of-deathly-hallows-a/
for example, only the comments).
OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
of what he writes.
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>of what he writes.
Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
derek
>
> I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
> influence on Rowling, e.g. "the Whomping Willow is just like Old
> Man Willow!" or "Tolkien wrote a poem with the line /He battled
> with the Dumbledors/!" They mostly seem explainable by common
> sources, a common interest in obscure and archaic words, and sheer
> coincidence
and borrowing! There's no reason that one can't borrow a good thing
without being "in the tradition of..."/
> I do take the "Christian symbolism" claims more seriously.
> First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
> saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/! And that book also
> has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from the New Testament,
> etc.
yes.
> But long before it was published, some analysts did see
> traditional Christian symbolism in the series: references to stags,
> griffins, phoenixes, etc.
Oh, please. Those are all pre-Christian. And if Christianity
borrowed them, does that make Christianity "in the tradition of
paganism"?
Dirk Thierbach
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>of what he writes.
> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
I think we use two different very definitions of "allegory". I suppose
mine is closer to the one Tolkien uses in his foreword. But as I said,
I don't mind what you call it. I'm happy to use a different term, if
you propose one.
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>of what he writes.
>
>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>
>I think we use two different very definitions of "allegory". I suppose
>mine is closer to the one Tolkien uses in his foreword. But as I said,
>I don't mind what you call it. I'm happy to use a different term, if
>you propose one.
Tolkien doesn't define it, but I suspect that he uses it with the standard
meaning.
Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
meaning: an extended metaphor. As C.S. Lewis argues in The Allegory of Love,
the medieval mind tended to think naturally in allegorical terms. Allegorical
works of great vitality continued to be produced, ranging from Spenser's
Faerie Queene and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, both of which use
personifications of abstract qualities, to Dryden's political allegory Absalom
and Achitophel, which conceals real identities.
(The concise Oxford companion to English literature, Margaret Drabble & Jenny
Stringer (eds), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1986).
And, of course, one of the great 20th-century allegories was George Orwell's
"Animal farm".
richard e white
It is a rather commen theam, and by itsself I don't think it is enugf to
define a group of writers. And when they add people who don't even write
into the group, it sounds more like a name for a book club with the same
vage idea.
richard e white
Its only there if you look to find it. It does back several values which
are Christian. However, the problem is they are found in other areas as
well. The good verses evil can't really be used to prove anything. It is
to commen in writing just to make things easyer.
The train sceen with a dead DD and a living harry is much closer, but it
on;ly points to an unknown after life. Still I will axcept it does lean
twords Christ, but not just his teachings. It could also point to Islam,
jewish and many other tradistional religions. The x-mass and easter
holidays are a better indeacation. The problem is that you don't have to
be Christian to observe them in todays culture.
Troels Forchhammer
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> spoke these staves:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>
>> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> In message <news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>>>>
>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's
>>>> books don't fit.
>>
>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>
>> I'm actually not so sure.
I took it to mean that the 'invisible' (or at least parallel) wizard
world in the Harry Potter books does not rely on some special spirit
vision to see: it is actually there, visibile to all; protected in a
few places (the unplottable houses, for instance), but mostly
protected by making those forget what they have seen who do see
without being intended to. In other words: in the Harry Potter
books, you do not have to have some special spiritual, or even
magical, quality in order to see the hidden world.
>> Critics thought for a long time that the
>> LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
> Which critics would those be?
The only one that I know of is Lin Carter, whose criticism David
Bratman has countered recently on the Mythsoc mailing list with
repost at his blog: <http://calimac.livejournal.com/474130.html>
Since I haven't actually read Carter's criticism myself, I have
nothing further to add to David's comments.
>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental
>>> Christian basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia
>>> books -- there is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence
>>> in Rowling's work,
>>
>> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't mean
>> that Rowling should, too.
>
> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and
> that her books are therefore different in that respect.
Exactly -- I only meant to point out a difference, not to imply any
value judgement.
It was intended as one example -- many other could be conceived -- of
why I don't consider Rowling to be a 'Christian author' in the same
way as e.g. Tolkien and Lewis. The Christianity present in Rowling's
books is, as I see it, equivalent to the that of a personal atheist
who has grown up in a Christian culture celebrating Christian
holidays such as Christmas and Easter etc. and whose personal ethics
are heavily influenced by Christian thought. Rowling describes
herself as Christian, and I have no quarrel with that, but looking
only at the Potter books, I could not have inferred more than the
above.
<snip>
> I'd say that Rowling's books are informed by Christian ethics, but
> they are not, as in the work of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams,
> fitted into a Christian mythological framework.
That, I think, is a very good way to put it. I don't know about
Williams, but I'd say that Tolkien and Lewis (at least in the Narnia
books) also fit their sub-creations into a Christian _theological_
framework -- but you may include this, when you speak of their
Christian mythological framework?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- Frodo and Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
derek
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:31:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>
> >Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> >> <dthierb...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
> >>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
> >>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
> >>>of what he writes.
>
> >> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>
> >I think we use two different very definitions of "allegory". I suppose
> >mine is closer to the one Tolkien uses in his foreword. But as I said,
> >I don't mind what you call it. I'm happy to use a different term, if
> >you propose one.
>
> Tolkien doesn't define it, but I suspect that he uses it with the standard
> meaning.
>
> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
> meaning: an extended metaphor
Funny. Tolkien always insisted LOTR was _not_ allegory, and yet it
certainly fits that description. So, no, Tolkien definitely did not
use that definition. His was much narrower.
>. As C.S. Lewis argues in The Allegory of Love,
> the medieval mind tended to think naturally in allegorical terms. Allegorical
> works of great vitality continued to be produced, ranging from Spenser's
> Faerie Queene and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, both of which use
> personifications of abstract qualities, to Dryden's political allegory Absalom
> and Achitophel, which conceals real identities.
And which the Narnia books very clearly also fit.
>
> And, of course, one of the great 20th-century allegories was George Orwell's
> "Animal farm".
No doubt about it. You can practically name all the animals for the
people they represent (of course, you _can_ name all of them, but
there are disagreements about who's who).
derek
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
> > But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
> > about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
> > make sacrifices to be able to save others.
>
> > I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
> > parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
> > closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
>
> > Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
>
> Its only there if you look to find it. It does back several values which
> are Christian. However, the problem is they are found in other areas as
> well. The good verses evil can't really be used to prove anything. It is
> to commen in writing just to make things easyer.
I completely agree - imo, it's an apologia (I _know_ I shouldn't be
using words like that in an argument involving Kennedy and Person, but
I _think_ I have it right) to justify Rowling's use of themes that
fundamentalist churches call witchcraft, and therefore ispo facto
(oops, I did again) evil.
> Richard The Blind Typer.
> Lets hear it for talking computers.
Are you using "listening computers", too? Your typos look like
something a computer heard, rather than artifacts of the qwerty
keyboard. In any case, lets hear it for assistive technologies of all
kinds!
derek
wrote:
>
> I took it to mean that the 'invisible' (or at least parallel) wizard
> world in the Harry Potter books does not rely on some special spirit
> vision to see: it is actually there, visibile to all;
Ohmigod! We're back to Ringwraiths :-)
> >> Critics thought for a long time that the
> >> LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
> > Which critics would those be?
>
> The only one that I know of is Lin Carter, whose criticism David
> Bratman has countered recently on the Mythsoc mailing list with
> repost at his blog: <http://calimac.livejournal.com/474130.html>
> Since I haven't actually read Carter's criticism myself, I have
> nothing further to add to David's comments.
Hmm. I'll have to look, but if it _is_ Carter, I would expect it to
be something more along the lines of "No Christianity to see here,
move along now", than an honest "I can't see any Christian themes
here". Admittedly, we're all seeing it with the hindsight of /The
Silmarillion/ - without knowing the roots of LOTR, you won't recognize
some of the themes - but at the very least you have to admit a
creator, and a Mary figure.
> It was intended as one example -- many other could be conceived -- of
> why I don't consider Rowling to be a 'Christian author' in the same
> way as e.g. Tolkien and Lewis. The Christianity present in Rowling's
> books is, as I see it, equivalent to the that of a personal atheist
> who has grown up in a Christian culture celebrating Christian
> holidays such as Christmas and Easter etc. and whose personal ethics
> are heavily influenced by Christian thought.
I like that description, and I think if she wasn't having to defend
herself from the Christian Right, Rowling might too...
Troels Forchhammer
<c5ac95e3-b01d-403b...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> On Oct 18, 3:46 pm, Steve Morrison <rima...@toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
>> influence on Rowling,
Me too.
As someone pointed out, Rowling did study languages at a British
university (I forget which languages and which university), and so
presumably knows a lot of the sources that Tolkien also knew. I
wonder where this whole Tolkien/Inklings-influencing-Rowling-idea
comes from?
>> They mostly seem explainable by common sources, a common interest
>> in obscure and archaic words, and sheer coincidence
>
> and borrowing! There's no reason that one can't borrow a good thing
> without being "in the tradition of..."/
Fishing for a particuly good morsel in the soup is not only allowed,
but also encouraged . . . ;-)
Still, I think that in most cases Steve is right that it might just
as well be a matter of Tolkien and Rowling fishing out the same
morsel for their own dishes more than Rowling fishing for a
Tolkien-morsel.
>> I do take the "Christian symbolism" claims more seriously.
Both yes and no. Symbolism isn't faith -- in fact Christian
symbolism is a cultural phenomenon rather than one of faith, and
thus it fits well with what I've said elsewhere that there is
nothing in the Harry Potter books that shows that Rowling is more
than a well-educated woman raised in a Christian culture and sharing
the ethics of the predominantly Christian society to which she
belongs.
>> First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
>> saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/! And that book also
>> has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from the New Testament,
>> etc.
None of this, however, suggests more than that she is a
well-educated member of a (mostly) Christian society. The question
of her personal faith came up as the series began to sell in huge
numbers in the US (which wasn't until after _Prisoner of Azkaban_
had been published in the UK) and some of the Christian groups there
began to ban it. Rowling's first statements were along the lines
that she believed in Christ, but disliked organised religion. I do
believe that some of the additional trappings of Christianity in the
latter half of the series are due more to the absurd claims of
supporting witch-craft (the situation was not made easier, I
suppose, by practicing Wiccans (sp?) calling in to radio shows
asking her if she was 'craft or muggle'[1]) than to any deep desire
on the part of Rowling to encumber her story with them.
[1]
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/library/ref/intvw/19991012_TheConnection.html#part21>
<http://tinyurl.com/bzl4n>
>> But long before it was published, some analysts did see
>> traditional Christian symbolism in the series: references to
>> stags, griffins, phoenixes, etc.
>
> Oh, please. Those are all pre-Christian.
It is, in my honest opinion, a matter of people seeing what they
want to see. The whole question of Christianity in the Harry Potter
books only arose because of the aforementioned absurd claims from
certain US-based Christian (and Wicca) groups who claimed that the
books supported and promoted witchcraft. I'd say that it is fairly
obvious that they do not, but it was apparently not enough that they
didn't promote witchcraft / Wicca: it had to be shown that they did
promote Christian faith, and so some defenders found what they
sought for. As I see it :-)
> And if Christianity borrowed them, does that make Christianity "in
> the tradition of paganism"?
Well, it _is_, I'd say ;-)
And not just because it borrowed heavily of pagan symbolism, but
also because it adapted and adopted pagan traditions, in many cases
giving them a Christian content but otherwise touching them only
very little: in other words, direct and explicit borrowing in order
to ease the transition for the pagans (I know this was done in what
appears to be a systematic manner in Scandinavia, but I cannot say
how wide-spread this practice has been elsewhere). I am sure that
other arguements could also be made to show how Christianity in many
other was are 'in the tradition of paganism'.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom
of thought which they avoid.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Troels Forchhammer
Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> spoke these staves:
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> I would say that I am highly sceptical of the claims of Rowling's
>> Christianity as an inspiration for the books: while I can see
>> much in both Tolkien's and Lewis' work that relies on their
>> Christian _faith_, I see nothing of that sort in Rowling's work.
>> There is Christian culture and Christian ethics, but not
>> specifically Christian faith or spirituality
>
> First, there is the obvious Crucifixion parallel in the way Harry
> saves the world at the end of /Deathly Hallows/! And that book
> also has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from the New
> Testament, etc.
If this is supposed to make Rowling's work 'Christian' in some way,
then, by that standard, Tolkien's work in its various parts can be
argued to be Finnish pagan, Old Norse Asatru, ancient Greek pagan and
possibly more besides . . .
Rowling places her work in a clearly Christian _cultural_ framework,
and all of the above are, in my view, cultural references, just as
the images of her characters celebrating both Christmas and Easter
(in both cases, by the way, emphasizing the old pagan elements of the
modern holidays while having nothing clearly Christian [with the
possible exception of the Christmas carols sung by the armor suits at
Hogwarts]). As pointed out elsewhere, some people believing in
witchcraft have seen the Potter books as showing their culture and
their traditions very, very well indeed.
Turning again Tolkien, Christian culture is clearly not the only
culture that influenced his work (or Rowling's, for that matter) and
there are many -- even some very clear -- references to pagan
cultures in Tolkien's writings, but we never stop to ask whether
Tolkien was pagan, because he went further than to include cultural
references.
As David Bratman says
The reason [Tolkien's] pagan warriors don't worship false
gods is that, through the Elves, and they through the
Valar, have unfiltered access to the truth about the
spiritual universe. (The truth as Tolkien sees it, of
course, but as an author he has the right to make his
Catholic theology the unfettered truth within his own
fiction.) They don't need false gods; they have the real
God.
<http://calimac.livejournal.com/474130.html>
I quite agree that there are _many_ references in Rowling's books to
Christian culture: symbolism, holidays, quotations and other direct
borrowings from the Biblical story (you mention the Crucifixion
parallel in _Deathly Hallows_), but I do not think that this is
enough to make it a Christian story.
It is the final step of making her Christian theology 'the unfettered
truth within [her] own fiction' that I do _not_ see in Rowling's work
-- actually I cannot see that her work offers _any_ theological
framework as an unfettered truth, which is, of course, _not_ the same
as saying that it makes an atheistic framework its unfettered truth
(there are some hints, at least, at a spiritual framework, but this
is not, in my opinion, particularly Christian).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
One who cannot cast away a treasure at need is in fetters.
- Aragorn "Strider", /Two Towers/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Steve Hayes
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:a59ob6ptqcq3isnea...@4ax.com>
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>> Critics thought for a long time that the
>>> LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>>
>> Which critics would those be?
>
>The only one that I know of is Lin Carter, whose criticism David
>Bratman has countered recently on the Mythsoc mailing list with
>repost at his blog: <http://calimac.livejournal.com/474130.html>
>Since I haven't actually read Carter's criticism myself, I have
>nothing further to add to David's comments.
I think there was some discussion on this point in one off the newsgroups, I
think rec.arts.books.tolkien, about 15 years ago. But I haven't read any
critics who say this either, so it's a bit too vague to discuss.
>It was intended as one example -- many other could be conceived -- of
>why I don't consider Rowling to be a 'Christian author' in the same
>way as e.g. Tolkien and Lewis. The Christianity present in Rowling's
>books is, as I see it, equivalent to the that of a personal atheist
>who has grown up in a Christian culture celebrating Christian
>holidays such as Christmas and Easter etc. and whose personal ethics
>are heavily influenced by Christian thought. Rowling describes
>herself as Christian, and I have no quarrel with that, but looking
>only at the Potter books, I could not have inferred more than the
>above.
Rowling touches on themes that are far more this-worldly than those of Tolkien
and Lewis -- teenage angst, for example.
>
><snip>
>
>> I'd say that Rowling's books are informed by Christian ethics, but
>> they are not, as in the work of Lewis, Tolkien and Williams,
>> fitted into a Christian mythological framework.
>
>That, I think, is a very good way to put it. I don't know about
>Williams, but I'd say that Tolkien and Lewis (at least in the Narnia
>books) also fit their sub-creations into a Christian _theological_
>framework -- but you may include this, when you speak of their
>Christian mythological framework?
Yes. But Lewis and Tolkien, in particular, were concerned to wrote myths. They
wrote at a time when some academic theologians, like Bultmann, were trying to
demythologise Christianity. Lewis and Tolkien were more concerned to
remythologise it. While I don't think it was a conscious goal that they
deliberately set out to achieve, it was one of their shared values, and alsdo
shared, to some extent, by Williams. I don't think Rowling had any such
concerns. The Harry Potter books cross several genres - school story,
Bildungsroman and others, but they are not copncerned to create a myth.
Lewis wrote to Tolkien on 7 December 1929, after reading Tolkien's poem on
Beren and Luthien, "The two things that come out clearly are the sense of
reality in the background and the mythical value: the essence of a myth being
that it should have no taint of allegory to the maker and yet should suggest
incipient allegories to the reader" (Carpenter 1978:30).
Note that this was long before Lewis wrote his Narnia or sf stories.
Barfield showed Lewis that Myth has a central place in language and
literature. "Barfield's arguments were printed in 'Poetic Diction', a short
book by him that appeared in 1928 -- though by that time Lewis knew its ideas
well. Barfield examined the history of words, and came to the conclusion that
mythology, far from being (as the philologist Max Mueller called it 'a disease
of language', is closely associated with the very origin of all speech and
literature. In the dawn of language, said Barfield, speakers did not make a
distinction between the 'literal' and the 'metaphorical', but used words in
what might be called a 'mythological' manner. For example, nowadays when we
translate the Latin spiritus we have to render it either as 'spirit' or as
'breath' or as 'wind' depending on the context. But early users of language
would not have made any such distinction between these meanings. To them a
word like 'spiritus' meant something like 'spirit-breath-wind'. When the wind
blew it was not merely 'like' someone breathing: it was the breath of a god.
And when an early speaker talked about his soul as 'spiritus' he did not
merely mean that it was 'like' a breath: it was to him just that: the breath
of life." (Captenter 1978:40).
And, finally though not from an Inkling: "Myth is a reality immeasurably
greater than concept. It is high time that we stopped identifying myth with
invention, with the illusions of primitive mentality, and with anything, in
fact, which is essentially opposed to reality... The creation of myths among
peoples denotes a real spiritual life, more real indeed than that of abstract
concepts and rational thought. Myth is always concrete and expresses life
better than abstract thought can do; its nature is bound up with that of
symbol. Myth is the concrete recital of events and original phenomena of the
spiritual life symbolized in the natural world, which has engraved itself on
the language memory and creative energy of the people... it brings two worlds
together symbolically" (Nicolas Berdyaev).
derek
wrote:
> In message
> <c5ac95e3-b01d-403b-b1a2-4ed96a3cf...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
> derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> spoke these staves:
>
> > On Oct 18, 3:46 pm, Steve Morrison <rima...@toast.net> wrote:
>
> >> I've always been underwhelmed by the supposed signs of Tolkienian
> >> influence on Rowling,
> >> in obscure and archaic words, and sheer coincidence
> > and borrowing! There's no reason that one can't borrow a good thing
> > without being "in the tradition of..."/
>
> Fishing for a particuly good morsel in the soup is not only allowed,
> but also encouraged . . . ;-)
>
> Still, I think that in most cases Steve is right that it might just
> as well be a matter of Tolkien and Rowling fishing out the same
> morsel for their own dishes more than Rowling fishing for a
> Tolkien-morsel.
I really feel it's practically impossible for a fantasy writer in the
English language - and probably most other European languages - to not
be influenced by Tolkien. Which is, of course, not a Bad Thing.
...
> None of this, however, suggests more than that she is a
> well-educated member of a (mostly) Christian society.
>
As usual, you've managed to say what I wanted to say, so much better.
Thank you.
> >> But long before it was published, some analysts did see
> >> traditional Christian symbolism in the series: references to
> >> stags, griffins, phoenixes, etc.
>
> > Oh, please. Those are all pre-Christian.
>
> It is, in my honest opinion, a matter of people seeing what they
> want to see. The whole question of Christianity in the Harry Potter
> books only arose because of the aforementioned absurd claims from
> certain US-based Christian (and Wicca) groups who claimed that the
> books supported and promoted witchcraft.
Exactly.
> > And if Christianity borrowed them, does that make Christianity "in
> > the tradition of paganism"?
>
> Well, it _is_, I'd say ;-)
:-)
You and I are clearly both damned heretics...
Steve Hayes
But I think you'd be hard put to do the same with the Narnia stories.
Yes, Maugrim might fit Beria or Himmler -- but might equally well fit a dozen
others in similar positions.
Who does Tumnus represent, or Mr and Mrs Beaver, or Reepicheep?
Dirk Thierbach
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:31:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>>of what he writes.
>>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
> meaning: an extended metaphor.
Ok. So what's the veiled moral meaning or metaphor in having an
invented character that shares some personality traits with a real
person (but has otherwise nothing to do with the real person)?
It's not like Lockhart is Christ. Or Truth.
OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists
to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:
That's the metaphorical moral meaning.
Do you agree?
- DIrk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:31:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 09:33:48 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>>>>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>>>of what he writes.
>
>>>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>
>> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
>> meaning: an extended metaphor.
>
>Ok. So what's the veiled moral meaning or metaphor in having an
>invented character that shares some personality traits with a real
>person (but has otherwise nothing to do with the real person)?
>
>It's not like Lockhart is Christ. Or Truth.
No, he isn't. And he's not Philip Pullman either.
The Harry Potter books are not allegory, though there may possibly be some
allegories within them, though I can't recall any.
Neither are the Narnia stories allegories, nor is Lewis's science fiction
allegory, nor are Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit allegories.
While allegories may have a veiled moral meaning, not everythin g that has a
veiled moral meaning is an allegory.
But "Animal Farm" is an allegory.
Some have taken LOTR as an allegory, with the Ring being nuclear weaponry, for
example. But Tolkien has explicitly said that that was not in his mind when he
wrote it.
>
>OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists
>to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:
>That's the metaphorical moral meaning.
>
>Do you agree?
But it's not allegory.
Dirk Thierbach
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:36:33 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>>>>OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
>>>>>>to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
>>>>>>of what he writes.
>>>>> Now THAT would be an allegory, however veiled.
>>> Allegory, a figurative narrative or description, conveying a veiled moral
>>> meaning: an extended metaphor.
>>
>>Ok. So what's the veiled moral meaning or metaphor in having an
>>invented character that shares some personality traits with a real
>>person (but has otherwise nothing to do with the real person)?
>>
>>It's not like Lockhart is Christ. Or Truth.
> No, he isn't. And he's not Philip Pullman either.
> The Harry Potter books are not allegory, though there may possibly be some
> allegories within them, though I can't recall any.
I'm confused now. I understood you were saying "if Lockhart is
modelled on Pullman, than that is an allegory". If that is not what you're
saying (because you don't see any allegories in Harry Potter), then
we're in agreement.
> Neither are the Narnia stories allegories,
Not as a whole, but (using your phrasing) they *contain* a lot of allegory.
> nor is Lewis's science fiction allegory,
I'm undecided on that.
> nor are Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit allegories.
Certainly not. But "Leaf by Niggle" is an allegory.
> While allegories may have a veiled moral meaning, not everythin g that has a
> veiled moral meaning is an allegory.
I never said so.
> But "Animal Farm" is an allegory.
Yes, certainly.
> Some have taken LOTR as an allegory, with the Ring being nuclear
> weaponry, for example. But Tolkien has explicitly said that that was
> not in his mind when he wrote it.
Yes, certainly.
>> OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists
>> to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:
>> That's the metaphorical moral meaning.
>> Do you agree?
> But it's not allegory.
So what does distinguish this extended metaphor which conveys a moral
meaning from the other allegories? That it doesn't extend to the book
as a whole?
- Dirk
derek
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:20:23 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> >On Oct 19, 12:10 pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> >> And, of course, one of the great 20th-century allegories was George Orwell's
> >> "Animal farm".
>
> >No doubt about it. You can practically name all the animals for the
> >people they represent (of course, you _can_ name all of them, but
> >there are disagreements about who's who).
>
> But I think you'd be hard put to do the same with the Narnia stories.
>
> Yes, Maugrim might fit Beria or Himmler -- but might equally well fit a dozen
> others in similar positions.
>
> Who does Tumnus represent, or Mr and Mrs Beaver, or Reepicheep?
Who does Aslan represent? Really, it's not so hard.
Steve Hayes
The Emperor over the Sea.
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> No, he isn't. And he's not Philip Pullman either.
>
>> The Harry Potter books are not allegory, though there may possibly be some
>> allegories within them, though I can't recall any.
>
>I'm confused now. I understood you were saying "if Lockhart is
>modelled on Pullman, than that is an allegory". If that is not what you're
>saying (because you don't see any allegories in Harry Potter), then
>we're in agreement.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
If Lockhart is meant to represent Pullman, that would be an allegory. But he's
not, so it isn't.
>
>> Neither are the Narnia stories allegories,
>
>Not as a whole, but (using your phrasing) they *contain* a lot of allegory.
>
>> nor is Lewis's science fiction allegory,
>
>I'm undecided on that.
>
>> nor are Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit allegories.
>
>Certainly not. But "Leaf by Niggle" is an allegory.
>
>> While allegories may have a veiled moral meaning, not everythin g that has a
>> veiled moral meaning is an allegory.
>
>I never said so.
>
>> But "Animal Farm" is an allegory.
>
>Yes, certainly.
>
>> Some have taken LOTR as an allegory, with the Ring being nuclear
>> weaponry, for example. But Tolkien has explicitly said that that was
>> not in his mind when he wrote it.
>
>Yes, certainly.
>
>>> OTOH, Aslan *is* Christ. And the relationship of the protagonists
>>> to Aslan mirrors the the relationship the reader should have to Christ:
>>> That's the metaphorical moral meaning.
>>> Do you agree?
>
>> But it's not allegory.
>
>So what does distinguish this extended metaphor which conveys a moral
>meaning from the other allegories? That it doesn't extend to the book
>as a whole?
Look at books that are indisputably allegories and you can see. "The Faerie
Queen", "Pilgrim's Progress" and "Animal Farm".
The characters either represent abstract qualities, or people and events that
have taken place in this world.
One of the Harry Potter books has a satire on a journalist, and another a
satire on a bureaucrat (or it could be the same one, I'd have to check, and my
copies are down the passage at the moment). But they are not allegories. They
may represent stereotpes, but they do not represent actual people and events,
nor do they represent abstract qualities.
Lewis's "That hideous strength" also satrises the behaviour of academics and
bureaucrats, but though he may have had actual events in mind, he is noy
suggesting them to the reader, but the reader's own experience may suggest
such things.
JimboCat
wrote:
> Jason Fisher has produced a blog entry titled "J.K. Rowling among the
> Inklings", [1] commenting some parallels Jason has noticed between
> passages in Rowling's works and couple of passages in Williams'
> novel, _War in Heaven_.
Because this group (RABT) has a concentration of scientifically- and
philosophically-minded people, and just because I want to, I am taking
this thread as an opportunity to promote an excellent Harry Potter fan
fiction. It is called "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality"
and includes a lot information on both subjects. Plus it's excellently
written and a great read. The only downside is: it's only up to fifty
chapters so far, and the wait between new chapters is hard on usss,
hard on ussss, preciousss, yesss it isssss.
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality
And I'm leaving in all the x-posted groups too, for the same reason
(just because).
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Retitling the Books:"
1. Harry Potter and the Promising Start
2. Harry Potter and the Good Follow-Up
3. Harry Potter and the Peak of the Series
4. Harry Potter and the Muddled Middle
5. Harry Potter and the Beginning of the End
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Hearted Effort
7. Harry Potter and the Disappointing Finish
[John VanSickle]
Weland
> Troels Forchhammer<Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>> In message<news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>
>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>> don't fit.
>
>> Right, I quite agree.
>
> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>
> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
> mean that Rowling should, too.
>
>
> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
> allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
> books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
>
>> and, far more subtly, in Tolkien's work. In both the Narnia books and
>> the Middle-earth books, the Christianity of the author is worked into
>> the causal basis of their sub-created world:
>
> about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
> make sacrifices to be able to save others.
>
> I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
> parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
> closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
>
> Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
>
The idea of Good vs. Evil is not peculiar to the Christian tradition.
Andrew James Clutterbuck
> "Retitling the Books:"
> 1. Harry Potter and the Promising Start
> 2. Harry Potter and the Good Follow-Up
> 3. Harry Potter and the Peak of the Series
> 4. Harry Potter and the Muddled Middle
> 5. Harry Potter and the Beginning of the End
> 6. Harry Potter and the Half-Hearted Effort
> 7. Harry Potter and the Disappointing Finish
lol
Weland
>
>>> Troels Forchhammer<Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In message<news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>
>>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>>>> don't fit.
>
>>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>>
>>> I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>>> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>
>
> didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember
> where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider
> it likely to be true.
Lin Carter's rather early book for one.
>
>>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>>>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>>>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>
>>> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
>>> mean that Rowling should, too.
>
>> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her
>> books are therefore different in that respect.
>
> Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that in order to "write in
> the tradition of the Inlings" one should take that approach. Especially
> since I'd say that this particular theme is especially emphasized by
> Tolkien, and a lot less by the other Inklings, as far as I know them
> (people who have read more from the other Inklings than I did please
> correct me if I'm wrong).
Just to clarify: part of the discussion hinges on the differentiation of
"writing in the tradition of the Inklings" and "an honorary Inkling". I
would agree with the former, disagree with the latter.
>>>> none of the 'trust in God' that I get both in Lewis' Narnia books
>
>>> Well, Narnia is in many places a very thinly veiled Christian
>>> allegory. If Lewis just built in the "trust of God" theme, the Narnia
>>> books would be a lot less annoying in this respect.
>
>> Not really an allegory.
>
> Well, I consider using a "lion" for "Christ" pretty much an allegory,
> for example. Whatever you like to call it.
Technically, the Narnia books aren't an allegory. They are heavily
allegorical. But Peter and Edmund and Beaver for example don't
represent anything other than themselves, which in a true allegory they
would.
>
> There's a very clear cut one-to-one correspondence between between
> very particular characters or actions in Narnia and very particular,
> easy to identify counterparts in Christian teachings.
>
> Or, to use Tolkien's words, there's a quite limited "applicability".
But only some particular characters or events, not to everything. In an
allegory like Spenser's Faerie Queene, or the Romance of the Rose, or
the play Everyman to name three, the one to one correspondance isn't to
some particulars and events but to the whole. Hence the need to
distinguish between an allegorical work and an allegory proper.
Steve Hayes
>On 10/18/2010 7:51 AM, Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Steve Hayes<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> Troels Forchhammer<Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In message<news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>>
>>>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>>>>> don't fit.
>>
>>>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>>>
>>>> I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>>>> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>>
>>> Which critics would those be?
>>
>> Whichever critics the person who stated this was referring to; he
>> didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember
>> where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider
>> it likely to be true.
>
>Lin Carter's rather early book for one.
I'm not familiar with it. But it would be interesting to know why they said
such things.
As they were walking, Lewis said to Tolkien that "myths are lies and therefore
worthless, even though breathed through silver". No said Tolkien, they are not
lies. Tolkien went on: "You look at trees, he said, and call them 'trees', and
probably you do not think twice about the word. You call a star a "star", and
think nothing more of it. But you must remember that these words 'tree, star'
were (in their original forms) names given to these objects by people with
very different views from yours. To you, a tree is simply a vegetable
organism, and a star simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a
mathematical course. But the first men to talk of 'trees' and 'stars' saw
things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological
beings. They saw the stars as living silver, bursting into flame in answer to
the eternal music. They saw the sky as a jewelled tent, and the earth as the
womb whence all living things have come. To them, the whole creation was
'myth-woven and elf-patterned'...." "Tolkien continued, not merely the
abstract thoughts of man, but also his imaginative inventions, must originate
with God and must in consequence reflect something of eternal truth"
(Carpenter 1978:43).
Lewis later incorporated those ideas into his Narnia stories, for example in
"The magicians nephew", with the singing stars (cf. Job 38:4-7), and the
"retired star" in "The voyage of the dawn treader".
Note too (for those inclined to confuse the two) that Tolkien said
"myth-woven" and not "allegory-woven", and Lewis also, in another passage I
quoted, distingishes between myth and allegory.
>>>>> And Rowling's books also doesn't have the same fundamental Christian
>>>>> basis to them that do Tolkien's books and the Narnia books -- there
>>>>> is, in my honest opinion, no sense of providence in Rowling's work,
>>
>>>> Just because Tolkien worked in the "providence" theme doesn't
>>>> mean that Rowling should, too.
>>
>>> No, it doesn't mean she should, it just means that she didn't, and that her
>>> books are therefore different in that respect.
>>
>> Of course they are, but that doesn't mean that in order to "write in
>> the tradition of the Inlings" one should take that approach. Especially
>> since I'd say that this particular theme is especially emphasized by
>> Tolkien, and a lot less by the other Inklings, as far as I know them
>> (people who have read more from the other Inklings than I did please
>> correct me if I'm wrong).
>
>Just to clarify: part of the discussion hinges on the differentiation of
>"writing in the tradition of the Inklings" and "an honorary Inkling". I
>would agree with the former, disagree with the latter.
If, by the tradition of the Inklings, you mean writing fantasy literature,
then yes, but in that case Rowling also stands in the tradition of "The wizard
of Oz", which is somewhat different from the writings of the Inklings.
Dirk Thierbach
> Technically, the Narnia books aren't an allegory. They are heavily
> allegorical.
That's what I meant. Sorry for being imprecise.
> But Peter and Edmund and Beaver for example don't represent anything
> other than themselves, which in a true allegory they would.
Yes. I didn't mean to say that "Narnia as a whole is an allegory".
> But only some particular characters or events, not to everything. In an
> allegory like Spenser's Faerie Queene, or the Romance of the Rose, or
> the play Everyman to name three, the one to one correspondance isn't to
> some particulars and events but to the whole.
Or rather to some abstract things. But it's still a one-to-one
correspondance, you can't read it differently (or most of the
metaphors break down). Hence I consider that an important part
of the definition of allegory, even though Steve didn't include it
in his.
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> If Lockhart is meant to represent Pullman, that would be an allegory.
>
>And this is what I don't understand. Assume for a moment that Lockhart
>was really meant to represent Pullman. Now, let's go over your definition:
>
>>> Allegory:
>>> a figurative narrative or description,
>Check.
>
>>> conveying a veiled moral meaning:
>I don't see any.
>
>>> an extended metaphor.
>I don't see any extension either.
>
>How is just basing a character on a real person an allegory? You're
>missing most parts that are important for an allegory, according to
>your own definition.
>
>So far, all you have done is insisted that this must be an allegory,
>without even trying to explain it. Sorry, I'm not just going to take
>your word for it.
Well you don't have to. You can think that Lockhard was an allegorical
representation of Pullman if you like -- after all he wrote books.
And the veiled moral meaning is that Pullman is a pompous ass.
>I'd be happy enough if we can either agree that Lockhart/Pulmann isn't
>an allegory and Aslan/Christ is one; or you can explain to me how I
>should read your definition so that it's the other way round, as you
>claim; or you can extend the definition to make it so.
If you think it's an allegory, so be it.
It's probably also rocket science.
Dirk Thierbach
>>So far, all you have done is insisted that this must be an allegory,
>>without even trying to explain it. Sorry, I'm not just going to take
>>your word for it.
> Well you don't have to. You can think that Lockhard was an allegorical
> representation of Pullman if you like
Just for the record: I *don't* think that Lockhard is an allegorical
representation of Pullman. As I've said multiple times.
But *you* said that if Lockhard would represent Pullman, then that
would be an allegory. Which started this whole discussion.
- Dirk
Steve Hayes
No, what started the whole discussion was that you said someone saw Lockhart
as representing Pullman, and I said that if he did (which he doesn't, that
would be an allegory).
Weland
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:45:50 -0500, Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2010 7:51 AM, Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>>> Steve Hayes<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:38:59 +0200, Dirk Thierbach
>>>> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Troels Forchhammer<Tro...@thisisfake.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> In message<news:4CB9CA48...@cox.net> richard e white
>>>>>> <chip...@cox.net> spoke these staves:
>>>
>>>>>>> If a spiritual vision is the center of the idea, then JKR's books
>>>>>>> don't fit.
>>>
>>>>>> Right, I quite agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm actually not so sure. Critics thought for a long time that
>>>>> the LotR was completely devoid of any reference to Christian themes.
>>>
>>>> Which critics would those be?
>>>
>>> Whichever critics the person who stated this was referring to; he
>>> didn't name any in particular. And no, at the moment can't remember
>>> where I read that. OTOH, I'm not at all surprised by it, so I consider
>>> it likely to be true.
>>
>> Lin Carter's rather early book for one.
>
> I'm not familiar with it. But it would be interesting to know why they said
> such things.
Well, for one, they hadn't the benefit of the Sil, the Letters, etc.
For two, there really aren't any temples, acts of worship, altars, etc.
You have to look a bit beyond the obvious and the surface to find the
religious acts/beliefs in Middle Earth.
>
> As they were walking, Lewis said to Tolkien that "myths are lies and therefore
> worthless, even though breathed through silver". No said Tolkien, they are not
> lies. Tolkien went on: "You look at trees, he said, and call them 'trees', and
> probably you do not think twice about the word. You call a star a "star", and
> think nothing more of it. But you must remember that these words 'tree, star'
> were (in their original forms) names given to these objects by people with
> very different views from yours. To you, a tree is simply a vegetable
> organism, and a star simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a
> mathematical course. But the first men to talk of 'trees' and 'stars' saw
> things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological
> beings. They saw the stars as living silver, bursting into flame in answer to
> the eternal music. They saw the sky as a jewelled tent, and the earth as the
> womb whence all living things have come. To them, the whole creation was
> 'myth-woven and elf-patterned'...." "Tolkien continued, not merely the
> abstract thoughts of man, but also his imaginative inventions, must originate
> with God and must in consequence reflect something of eternal truth"
> (Carpenter 1978:43).
Carter and others like him wrote before this was published.
By tradition of the Inklings I would mean writing a kind of literature
from a particular world view, inspired by a certain set of texts/ideas,
and using an understanding of myth and archetype. I would agree on
those terms that Rowling fits, perhaps loosely. I might be convinced
otherwise. But she is in no way in my view an "honorary Inkling".
Weland
> In message<news:i90863$cuu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Weland<gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> On 10/10/2010 9:49 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> One of the reasons Sayers is sometimes described as an "honorary
>>> Inkling" is that she was a fairly close friend of some of the
>>> Inklings, though she never attended any of their gatherings. That
>>> would not, of course, apply to Rowling.
>
> I think we should look at the 'in the tradition of the Inklings' part
> rather than waste too much effort on the 'honourary Inkling'
> statement -- the latter is, as you point out, attributed to Sayers
> because of some very specific historical circumstances and it is
> nonsensical to attribute it to Rowling or any other author who didn't
> belong to these particular historical circumstances.
>
> Dirk said that
> ||| I guess to answer this question one would first have to agree
> ||| what this "tradition" is in the first place.
> which I think is a very relevant question -- what, if anything, is
> the 'tradition of the Inklings'? As I said, I am (in the present
> company) particularly unknowledgeable about other Inklings than
> Tolkien, but as Steve has pointed out, the Inklings' literary
> production spans very widely (with some of them, as I understand it,
> publishing nothing and others only non-fiction).
>
> <snip>
>
>> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is
>> Lewis and Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no
>> surprise: she's educated in the British system,
> [...]
>> There's no question she's influenced by the same texts as Lewis
>> and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as well as by T. H.
>> White among other things. So sure, following at least in part
>> the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary Inkling.
>
> But, as you put it here, you seem to imply that this tradition is
> merely the tradition of any reasonably well-educated British fantasy
> author? I'm sure much of the same could be said, for instance, of
> Philip Pullman . . .
Finally getting to this, your estimable post, Troels. I haven't read
Pullman, so I can't judge. But no, I think the influence goes beyond
mere general, well-educated British authors and goes rather more
specifically to various types of Medieval literature, the Romance in
particular and the influences of that genre. Someone reading more
modern literature would not have those influences.
> Is there anything that distinguishes the Inklings from the broader
> background of British twentieth-century (sub-creative?) literature?
Well, to be honest, I'm thinking more of Lewis and Tolkien than the
Inklings in general. And in that sense, yes, both Lewis and Tolkien are
reinventing and drawing on medieval and Renaissance materials without
overly modernizing them as part of their subcreative process. Both are
also drawing on language in ways that Rowling at least tries to imitate
that other British fantasy writers don't. (Though Gaiman, at least in
what I've read of him, certainly does.)
> I'm fishing here, I know, but though there has been a lot of writing
> about the Inklings, I don't think I have seen it suggested that their
> work belongs to a common 'tradition' -- if anything the 'tradition'
> was one of communality, of testing ideas on each other and openly
> discussing each others' work, but this would, as I understand it, be
> particularly inappropriate for Rowling who appears to have worked
> very much alone.
>
Steve Hayes
>On 10/21/2010 2:02 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>> I'm not familiar with it. But it would be interesting to know why they said
>> such things.
>
>Well, for one, they hadn't the benefit of the Sil, the Letters, etc.
>For two, there really aren't any temples, acts of worship, altars, etc.
> You have to look a bit beyond the obvious and the surface to find the
>religious acts/beliefs in Middle Earth.
Yes, and there aren't any temples, acts of worship etc in C.S. Lewis's fiction
either, nor in Charles Williams for the most part, thoguh there is a Christmas
service in "The Greater Trumps". But in all three the writing is informed by a
Christian worldview, just as you could say that Arthur C. Clarke's
"Childhood's end" is informed by a Buddhist wordview, though there are no
temples, stupas etc.
>> As they were walking, Lewis said to Tolkien that "myths are lies and therefore
>> worthless, even though breathed through silver". No said Tolkien, they are not
>> lies. Tolkien went on: "You look at trees, he said, and call them 'trees', and
>> probably you do not think twice about the word. You call a star a "star", and
>> think nothing more of it. But you must remember that these words 'tree, star'
>> were (in their original forms) names given to these objects by people with
>> very different views from yours. To you, a tree is simply a vegetable
>> organism, and a star simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a
>> mathematical course. But the first men to talk of 'trees' and 'stars' saw
>> things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological
>> beings. They saw the stars as living silver, bursting into flame in answer to
>> the eternal music. They saw the sky as a jewelled tent, and the earth as the
>> womb whence all living things have come. To them, the whole creation was
>> 'myth-woven and elf-patterned'...." "Tolkien continued, not merely the
>> abstract thoughts of man, but also his imaginative inventions, must originate
>> with God and must in consequence reflect something of eternal truth"
>> (Carpenter 1978:43).
>
>Carter and others like him wrote before this was published.
>
>> Lewis later incorporated those ideas into his Narnia stories, for example in
>> "The magicians nephew", with the singing stars (cf. Job 38:4-7), and the
>> "retired star" in "The voyage of the dawn treader".
>>
>> Note too (for those inclined to confuse the two) that Tolkien said
>> "myth-woven" and not "allegory-woven", and Lewis also, in another passage I
>> quoted, distingishes between myth and allegory.
<snip>
>> If, by the tradition of the Inklings, you mean writing fantasy literature,
>> then yes, but in that case Rowling also stands in the tradition of "The wizard
>> of Oz", which is somewhat different from the writings of the Inklings.
>
>By tradition of the Inklings I would mean writing a kind of literature
>from a particular world view, inspired by a certain set of texts/ideas,
>and using an understanding of myth and archetype. I would agree on
>those terms that Rowling fits, perhaps loosely. I might be convinced
>otherwise. But she is in no way in my view an "honorary Inkling".
No, she isn't. And I don't think she's trying to write a myth either. I don't
think her writing could be described as "mythopoeic".
Steve Hayes
>On 10/17/2010 3:34 PM, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>> But, as you put it here, you seem to imply that this tradition is
>> merely the tradition of any reasonably well-educated British fantasy
>> author? I'm sure much of the same could be said, for instance, of
>> Philip Pullman . . .
>
>Finally getting to this, your estimable post, Troels. I haven't read
>Pullman, so I can't judge. But no, I think the influence goes beyond
>mere general, well-educated British authors and goes rather more
>specifically to various types of Medieval literature, the Romance in
>particular and the influences of that genre. Someone reading more
>modern literature would not have those influences.
>
>> Is there anything that distinguishes the Inklings from the broader
>> background of British twentieth-century (sub-creative?) literature?
>
>Well, to be honest, I'm thinking more of Lewis and Tolkien than the
>Inklings in general. And in that sense, yes, both Lewis and Tolkien are
>reinventing and drawing on medieval and Renaissance materials without
>overly modernizing them as part of their subcreative process. Both are
>also drawing on language in ways that Rowling at least tries to imitate
>that other British fantasy writers don't. (Though Gaiman, at least in
>what I've read of him, certainly does.)
I think Gaiman is closer to Charles Williams than he is to any of the other
Inklings, and closer than any of the Harry Potter books.
Jeff Urs
> Yes, and there aren't any temples, acts of worship etc in C.S. Lewis's fiction
> either, nor in Charles Williams for the most part, thoguh there is a Christmas
> service in "The Greater Trumps".
And the Mass (using the Holy Graal!) during which the Archdeacon
passes on to his reward in "War in Heaven".
--
Jeff
Troels Forchhammer
>
> On 10/17/2010 3:34 PM, Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>> In message<news:i90863$cuu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> Weland<gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>>>
>>> On 10/10/2010 9:49 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>>
<snip>
>>> I would say that one of the traditions Rowling is following is
>>> Lewis and Tolkien, rather than the Inklings. And it should be no
>>> surprise: she's educated in the British system,
>> [...]
>>> There's no question she's influenced by the same texts as Lewis
>>> and Tolkien, and in addition by those authors as well as by T.
>>> H. White among other things. So sure, following at least in
>>> part the tradition of the "Inklings", but hardly an honorary
>>> Inkling.
>>
>> But, as you put it here, you seem to imply that this tradition is
>> merely the tradition of any reasonably well-educated British
>> fantasy author? I'm sure much of the same could be said, for
>> instance, of Philip Pullman . . .
>
> Finally getting to this, your estimable post, Troels. I haven't
> read Pullman, so I can't judge. But no, I think the influence
> goes beyond mere general, well-educated British authors and goes
> rather more specifically to various types of Medieval literature,
> the Romance in particular and the influences of that genre.
> Someone reading more modern literature would not have those
> influences.
Right, thank you.
I guess that I have, for Rowling, been more aware of the later,
Romance, influences, and for Tolkien I have been more aware of the
earlier (before ca. 1000 AD) influences (plus the Kalevala).
Rowling appears to build her sub-creation mostly on various folk-lore
and folk-tale elements that belong to the last couple of centuries --
some of the folk-tales of course have longer traditions, but they have
been collected and written down in this period, and much of the present
day folk-lore concerning vampires, werewolves etc. etc. originate in
these old folk-tales and have been developed in various later fiction.
The classical influences seem to me to be limited mainly to languages
rather than stories: spells and names.
Tolkien, on the other hand, appears to build his sub-creation mostly on
elements from much earlier (by a millennium or so) sources such as
Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse and classical mythologies and legends.
Incidentally, when I say that they 'appear to build their sub-creations
mostly on' some element, my intention is that, when sub-creating, they
have borrowed mainly from certain parts of the soup when making their
own dish -- a dish to which both authors add a lot that is their own.
I am not so sure about Lewis, though certain classical elements are
clearly visible in his Narnia books (some of the creatures in Narnia
are, for instance, taken from classical mythologies).
But perhaps I am looking too much at the surface elements -- those
elements that can be readily identified because they walk about freely
in the author's Secondary Reality, rather than looking deeper into the
sources and influences that have shaped the stories themselves.
However, I am always wary of claims of classical influence, precisely
because the great classic Greek and Roman stories have been used for
inspirations in Western tradition ever since they were written, they
permeate all of Wester literature up to this very day, so that, even if
you know these tales, the influence may come from elsewhere and yet end
up looking as if it was from a Greek tragedy (or whatever). Of course,
_ultimately_ it is all the same because in just about every single
piece of Western literature there will be a chain of sources that go
back to Greek and / or Roman texts, whether the author is aware of
these texts or not.
>> Is there anything that distinguishes the Inklings from the
>> broader background of British twentieth-century (sub-creative?)
>> literature?
>
> Well, to be honest, I'm thinking more of Lewis and Tolkien than
> the Inklings in general. And in that sense, yes, both Lewis and
> Tolkien are reinventing and drawing on medieval and Renaissance
> materials without overly modernizing them as part of their
> subcreative process. Both are also drawing on language in ways
> that Rowling at least tries to imitate that other British fantasy
> writers don't. (Though Gaiman, at least in what I've read of him,
> certainly does.)
In another message, in response to Steve (Message-ID: <i9vvuu$1gp$1
@news.eternal-september.org>) you also write:
| By tradition of the Inklings I would mean writing a kind of
| literature from a particular world view, inspired by a certain set
| of texts/ideas, and using an understanding of myth and archetype.
| I would agree on those terms that Rowling fits, perhaps loosely.
| I might be convinced otherwise. But she is in no way in my view an
| "honorary Inkling".
I don't know whether this, too, applies more to Tolkien and Lewis, but
since I don't really know the writings of other Inklings, it doesn't
really matter to me ;-)
As said before, I seek to learn, here. I know both Tolkien and Rowling
fairly well, but I am more or less blank with regards to the other
Inklings (apart from the Narnia books -- and I've also read most of
Sayers' detection stories, but she counts only as an Inkling
associate). So, in an attempt to impose some order on this, and
combining what you've said, I've constructed the following list
1: Inspired (pre-dominantly) by a certain set of texts:
- Classical Greek and Roman texts
- Anglo-Saxon texts
- Old Norse texts
- Nineteenth century collections of folk-lore and legend
(L�nnrot, Grimm, Grundtvig, . . .)
- The Bible
Other common sources? (I suppose that saying Shakespeare is more
or less a tautology when noting that these are English authors)
2: Inspired by a certain set of ideas:
- Christian thought
- ??
(I know there are others, but which are they?)
3: 'Drawing on language' -- at a minimum there is a consciousness
and deliberateness about their use of languages, both the
vernacular of the characters and other languages.
4: Not trying to modernize the elements from the source material that
are re-used in the sub-created world (nor trying to mediate between
the reader and the source).
Is this a fair representation?
Is anything missing?
And what does other Inklings enthusiasts here say about this list?
- Is this a fair attempt to describe a literary 'tradition of the
Inklings' (acknowledging that this does not include their practice
of reading their work to each other and criticising each others'
works quite frankly)?
- Or does this really only apply to Tolkien and Lewis?
I am curious about your statement that they (Tolkien and Lewis) are
'reinventing and drawing on medieval and Renaissance materials without
overly modernizing them as part of their subcreative process'. I get
the impression that you are referring to a particular way of dealing
with, or using, one's influences / sources. For Tolkien, whom I know
best, I'd say that he not only respects the antiquity of his sources,
but he also does not try to hide it, instead he uses that very air of
antiquity to his own purposes in his work. Lewis also, in the Narnia
books, does not try to modernize the source (or perhaps mediate between
the source and the reader), but he doesn't (as I recall it) achieve the
same air of a vast distance (in time) to the events he is describing
(possibly because that is not his intention -- the events of these
books are roughly contemporary with the books themselves (at least the
events that, within the fiction, belong to the same dimension of time
as does the book itself). I am, however, not sure that this translates
all that well to Rowling, who often uses more modern sources that have
no need of mediation to the modern reader (to a very large extent, the
elements Rowling borrow into her sub-creation from external folk-lore
sources are still a part of the common tradit�on that is known to her
readers).
I am also curious about the list of sources. Which of the sources
listed are truly common to all of the Inklings, and which are common
only to a greater or smaller sub-set?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think,
also admit that some things are much more nearly certain
than others.
- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Troels Forchhammer
>>
Critics, and particular Lin Carter, thinking Tolkien's _The Lord of
the Rings_ to be devoid of any religion.
>> I'm not familiar with it. But it would be interesting to know why
>> they said such things.
>
> Well, for one, they hadn't the benefit of the Sil, the Letters,
> etc. For two, there really aren't any temples, acts of worship,
> altars, etc.
> You have to look a bit beyond the obvious and the surface to
> find the religious acts/beliefs in Middle Earth.
There was some discussion of this also on the Mythsoc mailing list
where Bratman first published his comments on Carter's work.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/message/21512>
As someone points out, Carter _did_ miss the, admittedly few,
instances that are in the book -- a Gondorian warrior crying to the
Valar to turn aside an Oliphaunt, the Standing Grace before the meal,
etc. Also there is some criticism of his view on organised religion
-- a canonized text, for instace, is not really a necessary
requirement for an organised religion.
Carter's claim, as Bratman summarizes it, is that the lack of
organised religious practice in Middle-earth is failing because it
takes away, to use Tolkien's worlds, some of the internal consistency
of reality. The intention, as far as I can make it from Bratman's
summary, is that organised religious practice is an inherent part of
human nature -- or at least it was an inherent part of any medieval
culture, and thus its absence is a consistency error.
Still, even ignoring such errors as Carter made, much of what people
would associate with religion _is_ missing from _The Lord of the
Rings_ -- Aragorn, for instace, is crowned with absolutely no mention
of the supernatural, neither for guidance ('may the Valar grant me to
rule my people wisely') or for authority (though Aragorn clearly
didn't need any further authority to back his claim). As you say, for
nearly all of the religion present in _The Lord of the Rings_ is
beyond the surface and the obvious. The ultimate argument is that the
Elves didn't need religion because they had _knowledge_ and that the
D�nedain (and through them such other inhabitants of their realms as
the Hobbits and the people of Bree-land) inherited this knowledge
from the Eldar, but I am not sure that this can be inferred only from
reading _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ (though one _can_
actually read in appendix A that 'against the will of the Valar
F�anor forsook the Blessed Realm and went in exile to Middle-earth'
taking a lot of the Noldor with him, so it _is_ possible to infer
that the Noldor had been living in the lands of the Valar, but early
guesses as to what the Valar were were numerous and often far off the
mark).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
People are self-centered
to a nauseous degree.
They will keep on about themselves
while I'm explaining me.
- Piet Hein, /The Egocentrics/
Steve Hayes
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>In message <news:i9vvuu$1gp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
>Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>>
>> On 10/21/2010 2:02 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>
>
>Critics, and particular Lin Carter, thinking Tolkien's _The Lord of
>the Rings_ to be devoid of any religion.
>
>>> I'm not familiar with it. But it would be interesting to know why
>>> they said such things.
>>
>> Well, for one, they hadn't the benefit of the Sil, the Letters,
>> etc. For two, there really aren't any temples, acts of worship,
>> altars, etc.
>> You have to look a bit beyond the obvious and the surface to
>> find the religious acts/beliefs in Middle Earth.
>
>There was some discussion of this also on the Mythsoc mailing list
>where Bratman first published his comments on Carter's work.
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/message/21512>
I think there was a discussion on the topic in rec.arts.books.tolkien some
years ago -- more than 10, I think, because I think it was when I was reading
it on Elm or Pine ot something on a Unix box at the university.
>As someone points out, Carter _did_ miss the, admittedly few,
>instances that are in the book -- a Gondorian warrior crying to the
>Valar to turn aside an Oliphaunt, the Standing Grace before the meal,
>etc. Also there is some criticism of his view on organised religion
>-- a canonized text, for instace, is not really a necessary
>requirement for an organised religion.
If you're talking about "organised religion", no there is none of that in
LOTR, and I suspect that Tolkien couldn't be bothered to invent one because it
would have interfered with the story. There isn't any of that in Narnia
either, nor in Lewis's space trilogy. There are a few instances in Williams,
but then they are set in this world.
>Carter's claim, as Bratman summarizes it, is that the lack of
>organised religious practice in Middle-earth is failing because it
>takes away, to use Tolkien's worlds, some of the internal consistency
>of reality. The intention, as far as I can make it from Bratman's
>summary, is that organised religious practice is an inherent part of
>human nature -- or at least it was an inherent part of any medieval
>culture, and thus its absence is a consistency error.
I suppose one could make a case for that, but perhaps it was so inherent that
people for whom it is not inherent would find it distracting or misinterpret
it. It is moderns who separate the sacred from the secular, and even the very
concept of "religion" is a modern one and reeks of modernity. For people in
premodern societies, however, separating them would make no sense. One of the
things that the Inklings, especially Tolkien and Lewis do, is try to interpret
a premodern worldview for people living in a modern society. And this is what
Rowling doesn't do. She does something quite different; she takes _modern_
misconceptions of magic and witchcraft, the comic book view of it, and
integrates that into a world. No one in the medieval world could have made any
sense of Casper the friendly ghost, but Rowling peoples Hogwarts castle with
such characters, and therein lies the fantasy.
>Still, even ignoring such errors as Carter made, much of what people
>would associate with religion _is_ missing from _The Lord of the
>Rings_ -- Aragorn, for instace, is crowned with absolutely no mention
>of the supernatural, neither for guidance ('may the Valar grant me to
>rule my people wisely') or for authority (though Aragorn clearly
>didn't need any further authority to back his claim). As you say, for
>nearly all of the religion present in _The Lord of the Rings_ is
>beyond the surface and the obvious. The ultimate argument is that the
>Elves didn't need religion because they had _knowledge_ and that the
>D?in (and through them such other inhabitants of their realms as
>the Hobbits and the people of Bree-land) inherited this knowledge
>from the Eldar, but I am not sure that this can be inferred only from
>reading _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_ (though one _can_
>actually read in appendix A that 'against the will of the Valar
>F?or forsook the Blessed Realm and went in exile to Middle-earth'
>taking a lot of the Noldor with him, so it _is_ possible to infer
>that the Noldor had been living in the lands of the Valar, but early
>guesses as to what the Valar were were numerous and often far off the
>mark).
Yes, I think that has to do with publication order. LOTR is full of hints of a
mythological world more familiar to the characters than to the readers. The
Silmarillion tells the stories behind some of the snatches of songs.
Steve Hayes
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>I am curious about your statement that they (Tolkien and Lewis) are
>'reinventing and drawing on medieval and Renaissance materials without
>overly modernizing them as part of their subcreative process'. I get
>the impression that you are referring to a particular way of dealing
>with, or using, one's influences / sources. For Tolkien, whom I know
>best, I'd say that he not only respects the antiquity of his sources,
>but he also does not try to hide it, instead he uses that very air of
>antiquity to his own purposes in his work. Lewis also, in the Narnia
>books, does not try to modernize the source (or perhaps mediate between
>the source and the reader), but he doesn't (as I recall it) achieve the
>same air of a vast distance (in time) to the events he is describing
>(possibly because that is not his intention -- the events of these
>books are roughly contemporary with the books themselves (at least the
>events that, within the fiction, belong to the same dimension of time
>as does the book itself). I am, however, not sure that this translates
>all that well to Rowling, who often uses more modern sources that have
>no need of mediation to the modern reader (to a very large extent, the
>elements Rowling borrow into her sub-creation from external folk-lore
>sources are still a part of the common tradit? that is known to her
>readers).
I've isolated this paragraph from the rest of what you said because I think
you are saying much the same thing as I said in another message in teply to
one of yours -- about Lewis and Tolkien (especially) using premodern sources,
and not trying to interpret them in a modern way, whereas Rowling takes modern
misconceptions of premodernity and builds her stories around those.
richard e white
> On Oct 19, 4:45 pm, richard e white <chiph...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>
> > > But Harry Potter is also about the fight of Good against Evil, and
> > > about the fact that power corrupts, and that sometimes people have to
> > > make sacrifices to be able to save others.
> >
> > > I have not read the HP books often enough to be able to draw a clear
> > > parallel to Christian ideas, but I wouldn't rule out that some
> > > closer inspection would find the one thing or the other.
> >
> > > Maybe I should do a re-reading :-)
> >
> > Its only there if you look to find it. It does back several values which
> > are Christian. However, the problem is they are found in other areas as
> > well. The good verses evil can't really be used to prove anything. It is
> > to commen in writing just to make things easyer.
>
> I completely agree - imo, it's an apologia (I _know_ I shouldn't be
> using words like that in an argument involving Kennedy and Person, but
> I _think_ I have it right) to justify Rowling's use of themes that
> fundamentalist churches call witchcraft, and therefore ispo facto
> (oops, I did again) evil.
>
> > Richard The Blind Typer.
> > Lets hear it for talking computers.
>
> Are you using "listening computers", too? Your typos look like
> something a computer heard, rather than artifacts of the qwerty
> keyboard. In any case, lets hear it for assistive technologies of all
> kinds!
No I am just typing blind. However, I had a learning disabilty before I went
blind. I don't hear all sounds and my mind doesn't always remember how words
are spelled. To me the englis lang is always changing.
bad speller and not the best typer. However, my e-mail program isn't good for
fixing my writing. In fact the way I was found to have a problem was when a
substitute teacher got ticked at me for asking how something was spelled. He
wouldn't let anyone anser my question. Instead he sent me to a dicunary. At
the end of the class he thought I had goofed off for the entire day. The next
day he told me to write down each way I thought the word might be spelled before
looking it up. At the end of the day I had a list which covered the paper. I
had spent the entire day looking up one word and I never found how it was
spelled in the dicunary. However, he wasn't mad. He just took the paper and
went to talk to people in the ofice. Later I was tested for learning
disabiltys. At first I was told I had dyslexia. However, as I went through
collige I found they had used that word because it was the one people could find
information on. Later I learned it was visuale prossessing disorder cuppled
with a missing sound range. I can't hear the diffrence between an E or B It is
called the soft explosive. Don't ask me to explain it as I have never heard
it. What you see now is how I do after many years of training. Most people
can't understand the untrained work. However, When I was helping some others
out who had simular problems My mom had the young man write down his question to
me. He was surprised anyone could understand his writing. However, Me and my
father both had this condistion. My mom was well trained in reading it.
By the way if you ever run across a child with a reading problem. The most
important thing to do is find something he wants to read. My dad learned from
comix books. Often while holding them upside down.. The reason for this is he
learned to read by watching words as his older brother and father read the
comix. However, repeated practis is needed. He read them upside down. He was
still able to do that years later. I learend by books, D and D. But I found
Pokemon was also good. So I gave a pokemon game to the younger boy who need to
find the disire to read. This game is good for this as it stops to let you read
the words. how long it takes doesn't matter. The game will wait until he makes
a dection. If they never find the desire to read, they will come up with ways
to avoid it. I have a relative who never learned to read, even though he was a
very high level exect. It was years before anyone in his office knew why he
dictated everything to his secrotary. Odd thing was when the companey found out
they tried to replace him. They nearly went bank rupt over night. When they
got him back, he saved the companey in only a few days. It was only then that
the companies owner realized IQ isn't based on reading but thinking. He could
think rings around the person they tried to replace him with. The owner just
made sure there was always someone who could read at hand.
I got through a few colege tests in the same way. I had someone read me the
test and then I told them what to write. No notes or books to help. And the
funny thing is I got a degree in creative writing. Guess I am a glutten for
punishment.
I think they wouldn't let me use a computer because it would be to easy to
cheat.
--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Try the Olympus DM-520 for digital music and Audio books!
richard e white
rue. It is world wide in all forms and stories.
However, it was hard to find in Kki's delivery serves.
Dirk Thierbach
> Weland wrote:
>> The idea of Good vs. Evil is not peculiar to the Christian tradition.
> True. It is world wide in all forms and stories.
> However, it was hard to find in Kiki's delivery service.
[I hope that's what you intended to write]
Though Miyazaki borrows heavily from Western culture.
And now I have to go and watch it again :-)
- Dirk
Weland
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 19:51:46 -0500, Weland<gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2010 2:02 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> I'm not familiar with it. But it would be interesting to know why they said
>>> such things.
>>
>> Well, for one, they hadn't the benefit of the Sil, the Letters, etc.
>> For two, there really aren't any temples, acts of worship, altars, etc.
>> You have to look a bit beyond the obvious and the surface to find the
>> religious acts/beliefs in Middle Earth.
>
> Yes, and there aren't any temples, acts of worship etc in C.S. Lewis's fiction
> either, nor in Charles Williams for the most part, thoguh there is a Christmas
> service in "The Greater Trumps".
Just trying to catch up here, forgive the delay. (Troels, got your
email, will post!) In Lewis, the religion is apparent. The veil is see
through, and meant to be. I mean, Aslan rises from the dead in the very
first book! Williams' books are all supernatural. "War in Heaven"
which if I remember correctly was published first, is a grail story,
that alone raises religion as a possible issue, and has not just a very
important and rather cool religious service, but we have devil
worshipers too! That's religion. That's apparently, and please note I
said apparently, absent from LoTR. I do not want to be in a position
defending those with whom I disagree, but I can see why some of those
early critics may have thought as they did.
Weland
> In message<news:ia01j6$6ev$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
I hope we're using Romance in the same way....just to clarify I'm
thinking of Matter of Britain, the Matter of Troy, and the Matter of France.
And of course the Kalevala fits your description below of a collection
of tales that may have a much longer, older tradition, but still is
quite new.
>
> Rowling appears to build her sub-creation mostly on various folk-lore
> and folk-tale elements that belong to the last couple of centuries --
> some of the folk-tales of course have longer traditions, but they have
> been collected and written down in this period, and much of the present
> day folk-lore concerning vampires, werewolves etc. etc. originate in
> these old folk-tales and have been developed in various later fiction.
Sure. But I'd say that those are externals, stage dressing. The
essentials of the narrative: orphaned boy is really something far
greater and "destined" to great things is far older: Scyld Scefing?
Beowulf? Arthur? The "twins" who battle against each other is pretty
old too. The last novel is based on a clever reinterpretation of
Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale. The idea of a series of "battles" or
"contests" that become successively more difficult until the hero
achieves success is also quite ancient. And so on....
> The classical influences seem to me to be limited mainly to languages
> rather than stories: spells and names.
They aren't as obvious, I'll grant, but many of the archetypes are there
as well....part of the cauldron from which she is taking.
>
> Tolkien, on the other hand, appears to build his sub-creation mostly on
> elements from much earlier (by a millennium or so) sources such as
> Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse and classical mythologies and legends.
See above, though I'd agree that her dependence is less on the OE and
ON...less "northerness" than Tolkien, but as much as Tolkien draws on
those traditions, he also draws on later materials such as Sir Orfeo,
Pearl, Chaucer, among others, heck even Shakespeare and Dante!
> Incidentally, when I say that they 'appear to build their sub-creations
> mostly on' some element, my intention is that, when sub-creating, they
> have borrowed mainly from certain parts of the soup when making their
> own dish -- a dish to which both authors add a lot that is their own.
>
> I am not so sure about Lewis, though certain classical elements are
> clearly visible in his Narnia books (some of the creatures in Narnia
> are, for instance, taken from classical mythologies).
Yes, hard to pick up the threads when so ubiquitous, though my own
feeling is that Lewis is more dependent on medieval and Renaissance
renderings of the classical myths....
>
> But perhaps I am looking too much at the surface elements -- those
> elements that can be readily identified because they walk about freely
> in the author's Secondary Reality, rather than looking deeper into the
> sources and influences that have shaped the stories themselves.
>
> However, I am always wary of claims of classical influence,
Me too! I don't recall making a specific claim about classical
influence (did I? I remember medieval and Renaissance, but not
classical...do correct me if I'm wrong), but I'd agree that one has to
be careful considering the ubiquity of certain "classical" stories.
Quite. And of the Inklings, there's Warnie who wrote some history, and
others who wrote scholarly stuff but not much in the creative vein, and
others who didn't really seem to write at all. In some ways it was a
disparate group hard to pin down if we were to be factual about it.
Usually when people talk about the Inklings they mean Tolkien, Lewis,
and Williams and some other chaps we might have heard of, perhaps.
It is, and I can try to flesh this out a bit, esp. #2, but it will have
to wait. I have exams to grade I'm avoiding, it's late here now, and in
a day or so I'm off to a conference. But you've given me some questions
to try and be more specific on, which is a good thing. I've said
general stuff like that, I should be able to back it up with specifics,
so I hope to do that.
>
> Is anything missing?
Likely, but can't think of anything now. If I do, I'll add to the list.
But take the archetype of the orphan with the great legacy and therefore
great destiny....old and ancient that one is and Rowling for all her
faults isn't an unread idiot. She knows her Arthurian tales. She
likely has read Beowulf and legends about Alexander etc. Oter than
setting the archetype in a contemporary setting, though, she didn't
modernize it any. If anything, in the descriptions of the wizarding
world that for all its power is rather old fashioned, she archaized it.
Or her use of Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale. She transformed it somewhat
to fit the template of her novel (one guy actually beats death, unlike
in Chaucer), but that transformation is in some ways more true to the
period from whence it came than to the modern period...and again, she
didn't modernize the tale into something that fit snugly in the present.
So while not a vast sense of time, as in Tolkien, but I'd say the same
spirit of respect for the antiquity of the sources and at least an
attempt (regardless of how successful) to breath that air.
>
> I am also curious about the list of sources. Which of the sources
> listed are truly common to all of the Inklings, and which are common
> only to a greater or smaller sub-set?
As a general rule of thumb, we really association Tolkien with
Northerness: Old English, Old Norse, etc. We tend to forget that
Tolkien worked on many later works as well, the Katherine Group for
example, and I've already mentioned Sir Orfeo, Pearl, and Sir Gawain and
the Green Knight to name a few of the later works. Not too long ago I
blogged about elements of MacBeth...Shakespeare's MacBeth, not the real
MacBeth and you helpfully provided a quite full bibliography of Tolkien
material on the relationship.
Likewise with Lewis better known for his interest in late medieval and
Renaissance texts, famously taught "Beer and Beowulf" sessions, and of
course there were the Coalbiters where Lewis read Germanic literature in
the original with Tolkien among others for pleasure. So while in their
individual works we might detect a heavier emphasis on earlier or later
bits, or on this or that source, we shouldn't overlook the very great
overlap.
Troels Forchhammer
<gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>
>>
<snip>
First, thank you for this post -- you have certainly given me a lot
to think about (some of which may invalidate my initial responses
below, but such is the nature of it . . .).
> I hope we're using Romance in the same way....just to clarify I'm
> thinking of Matter of Britain, the Matter of Troy, and the Matter
> of France.
Sorry, my fault -- I was thinking of romanticism (in particular the
national romanticism of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries -- Grundtvig was one of the prime exponents of this in
Denmark, and I believe that Lönnrot also worked under the influence
of this philosophical movement).
>> Rowling appears to build her sub-creation mostly on various
>> folk-lore and folk-tale elements that belong to the last couple
>> of centuries -- some of the folk-tales of course have longer
>> traditions, but they have been collected and written down in this
>> period, and much of the present day folk-lore concerning
>> vampires, werewolves etc. etc. originate in these old folk-tales
>> and have been developed in various later fiction.
>
> Sure. But I'd say that those are externals, stage dressing.
I know -- I just put more emphasis on this stage dressing due to the
pervasiveness of so many narrative elements in western culture (as I
argued earlier). The underlying narrative elements generally belong
to traditions that could come from anywhen -- traditions that are
known from the earliest stories and continuously used also in the
stories that are now mere synapses in the mind of their future
authors (and probably beyond that as well). We have, so to speak,
elements that are essentially undateable and then we have the stage
dressing which is more easily dated.
> The essentials of the narrative: orphaned boy is really something
> far greater and "destined" to great things is far older: Scyld
> Scefing? Beowulf? Arthur?
Yes, and we can continue the list including German folk-tales
collected by the Grimm brothers, all the way to -- and past -- Harry
Potter and Lyra. Or, if we wanted we could also find earlier tales in
the same tradition -- the tale about the orphan with the big destiny
seems to be as old as story.
But that is part of the problem :-)
> The "twins" who battle against each other is pretty old too.
I seem to remember it appearing in some Jewish text also . . . ;-)
> The last novel is based on a clever reinterpretation of Chaucer's
> Pardoner's Tale.
I'll take your word for it, but of course I also have to ask how many
times it reappear in works from the last couple of centuries? :)
>> The classical influences seem to me to be limited mainly to
>> languages rather than stories: spells and names.
>
> They aren't as obvious, I'll grant, but many of the archetypes are
> there as well....part of the cauldron from which she is taking.
Very good! I like the image of the cauldron -- they are now a part of
the basic stock in the cauldron, and have been boiling for so long
that their origin is not always the most relevant expression of them
for any given individual.
>> Tolkien, on the other hand, appears to build his sub-creation
>> mostly on elements from much earlier (by a millennium or so)
>> sources such as Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse and classical mythologies
>> and legends.
>
> See above, though I'd agree that her dependence is less on the OE
> and ON...less "northerness" than Tolkien, but as much as Tolkien
> draws on those traditions, he also draws on later materials such
> as Sir Orfeo, Pearl, Chaucer, among others, heck even Shakespeare
> and Dante!
You're right -- I was forgetting some of these (both for Tolkien and
Rowling).
<snip>
>> However, I am always wary of claims of classical influence,
>
> Me too! I don't recall making a specific claim about classical
> influence (did I? I remember medieval and Renaissance, but not
> classical...do correct me if I'm wrong), but I'd agree that one
> has to be careful considering the ubiquity of certain "classical"
> stories.
I don't really remember where I got the idea of 'classical
influence' from -- possibly just inspired by her use of Latin and
Greek for her spells.
However, the same arguments apply to many of the great narrative
essentials that have been used again and again in Western literature.
<big snip>
>> So, in an attempt to impose some order on this, and combining
>> what you've said, I've constructed the following list
[...]
>> 2: Inspired by a certain set of ideas:
>> - Christian thought
>> - ??
>> (I know there are others, but which are they?)
[...]
>> Is this a fair representation?
>
> It is, and I can try to flesh this out a bit, esp. #2, but it will
> have to wait.
I'd be grateful -- and I can wait :)
> I have exams to grade I'm avoiding,
Having no longer any papers to grade is probably the single best
thing about no longer teaching ;-) I can still miss (after ten
years) the interactions in class, but I'll never miss grading papers
. . .
<snip discussion about mediating between the reader and an ancient
source of some kind>
>> I am, however, not sure that this translates all that well to
>> Rowling, who often uses more modern sources that have no need of
>> mediation to the modern reader (to a very large extent, the
>> elements Rowling borrow into her sub-creation from external folk-
>> lore sources are still a part of the common traditîon that is
>> known to her readers).
>
> But take the archetype of the orphan with the great legacy and
> therefore great destiny....old and ancient that one is and Rowling
> for all her faults isn't an unread idiot.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that she is -- if nothing else that
BA in French and Classics would imply otherwise ;-)
My point is that insofar as I can date her sources (which is mainly
the ornamental devices -- the werewolves, the ghosts, etc.) these
are, except for some use of snippets of classical language, of the
sort that is immediately understandable by the modern reader. Rowling
_does_ use Harry to mediate between the reader and her Wizard World
(helped along with information provided by Ron and Hermione), but I
don't think the span that he mediates across is one of time (as is
often the case in Tolkien where the hobbits, and Merry in particular,
mediate between the reader and his past by building a bridge to the
Rohirrim).
As you say, the orphan is an archetype with as great a history in
real-world literature as it is in the world of literature, but though
I am fully aware that Rowling knows of much older expressions of this
story, her use of it has no trace of attempting to mediate between an
old tale and a modern reader, and I am sure that she also knows of
modern expressions of the story. In the end I would not be surprised
to learn that she has been picking selectively from a great number of
tales that use the orphan archetype, but I am not able to point at
any source as her major source for the expression of the orphan
archetype.
> If anything, in the descriptions of the wizarding world that for
> all its power is rather old fashioned, she archaized it.
I'd say that the Wizard World, for all its nineteenth century
trappings, is remarkably modern, but I do agree that it is also to
some extent archaized to belong to roughly the same period as the
other ornamental stage dressing.
> Or her use of Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale. She transformed it
> somewhat to fit the template of her novel (one guy actually beats
> death, unlike in Chaucer), but that transformation is in some ways
> more true to the period from whence it came than to the modern
> period...and again, she didn't modernize the tale into something
> that fit snugly in the present.
I've found Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale on-line in both middle and
modern English, so I'll refrain from further comment on this
particular point until I've read it. Unfortunately it is now getting
late in Denmark, so it will have to wait . . . :-) (as will, alas,
my response to the rest of this great post)
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
It is useless to meet revenge with revenge: it will heal
nothing.
- Frodo Baggins, /The Return of the King/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Steve Morrison
> Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> wrote:
(snip)
>> And that book also has a number of allusions to crosses, quotes from
>> the New Testament, etc. But long before it was published, some
>> analysts did see traditional Christian symbolism in the series:
>> references to stags, griffins, phoenixes, etc. The go-to man for
>> this is John Granger, who runs the "Hogwarts Professor" web site at
>> http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com
>
> I've read some of the articles there, and it's intersting stuff.
>
> (Though either the site doesn't like my uncommon browser, or some
> of the content is gone. I can't see the article in
>
> http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/the-christian-content-of-deathly-hallows-a/
>
> for example, only the comments).
>
> OTOH, Granger seriously proposes to see Gilderoy Lockhart as a parallel
> to Philip Pullman, which I think is totally nuts. So I'm a bit wary now
> of what he writes.
>
> - Dirk
Apologies for the extreme lateness of this reply. I asked Granger
a while ago about the disappearing article, and he said that it
had been taken down because it was published as a chapter in one
of his books. (I wasn't able to contact him back when this thread
was active because as it turned out his site was having technical
trouble with its contact form.)
VD
acknowledged his plagiarisms of me.
Respectfully,
Victor Dix
Chan Welbourne
work like a bad thief on a cold night.
John Granger is a fraud, you should have sued his Christian ass off
years ago, Victor.