| # |
Message |
Posted By |
| 39292 |
Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
I am an avid older female American fan of Tolstoy and Tolkien and would like to open discussions on their books. I have read most all of Tolkien's and am now reading 'War and Peace' by Tolstoy...I would especially like to hear from Russians about the works of Tolstoy. I only speak (read)English. Will also become penpal to anyone in St. Petersburg if they care to exchange cultural information,etc. as I would like to visit that city one day. Thanks.
|
Language pair: English; All
|
|
|
| 39743 |
Re:Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
I read in an article about Tolkein that the symbolism in LotR relates to Christianity, i.e. the ring denoting the idea of 'original sin', the travails of the hobbits on their way to Mount Doom to destroy the ring being reminicent of the path that Christ plodded during the crucifixion. JR was apparently an avid Christian, but his belief was hopeful, very much Catholic in doctrine, unlike Golding's Lord of the Flies, which again is purported to deal with the idea of 'original sin', but WG is basically of the view that man is unredeemable. I think I could concur with these readings.
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 39292
|
|
|
| 39767 |
Re:Re:Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
That's a very intersting point there. I've also read that Smeagol and Deagol (the two hobbit-like creatures that fought over the ring) correspond to Christian Cain and Abel. I believe the book even said that their names are the norse equivalents of cain and abel (anyone who knows better, feel free to correct me!) The very distinct separation between good and evil fits in extremely well in a religious context, and so does frodo's suffering. tolkien's optimism is still fairly bleak, yet it's optimism nonetheless! but i'm pretty sure the lord of the rings is also meant to be read on a more terrestrial level, pertaining to war and such-- he and his circle of friends were very affected by the world war; i'm definite that much of his experience is reflected in the novel.
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 39743
|
|
|
| 39935 |
Re:Re:Re:Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
Agreed. Another interesting similarity with the Christian story must be the archtypal set of 'apostles', including the betrayal of Frodo by at least one along the way. Tolkein was, it is reported, partly responsible for bringing CS Lewis back into the fold. One can only believe his beliefs were a singular driving force in his life. He fought in the first war (including the particularly brutal Somme [in fact it was all rather brutal !!]) and two of his sons also fought in the 2nd WW, although he led a rather quite life in Oxford during the 1940s. He led quite an amazing life. It is funny to think that it was a pirated copy of LotR that was the key fact in making it a popular success. One wonders ! C'est incroyable, n'est pas ?
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 39767
|
|
|
| 39981 |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
Oui, vraiment incroyable. Yet, I don't know... the more I think about it, the less the religious correspondences fit. Frodo is most definitely not a Jesus figure: Jesus had a plan and knew exactly what was going to happen, yet Frodo seems fairly clueless for a large part of the journey; Jesus spreads his own wisdom and message of good, but Frodo, as a mere hobbit, must rely on the expert knowledge and guidance of others. The novel's 'apostles' are princes, steward's sons, wizards, and kings, while the Biblical apostles are deliberately not. What would Gollum's (not Smeagol's) role be?
Now I feel I'm being too petty. The idea of faith is still a central part of the novel-- the faith that all will turn out well, that after fighting our butts off, and against all odds, Frodo will still manage to destroy the ring; the faith that Rohan will come with reinforcements; the faith that merry and pippin haven't died yet; the faith that aragorn will live to be the king of gondor. And that is more important than all the little discrepancies of specifics that don't exactly correspond.
I just can't see Frodo as Jesus.
--------------------
I'm also curious about the role of women in LotR: Many women (Arwen, Rosie/Sam's wife) are given a periferal role; they are damsels, wives, and mothers. (although the movie tries to fit Arwen in somehow). The figures of Eowyn and Galadriel, however, are magical, alluring, brave, and powerful-- more so than some of the men. So I'm not exactly sure what to think about Tolkien's handling of women. None of his main characters (fellowship adventurers) are women, yet all are affected and helped greatly by at least two minor female characters.
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 39935
|
|
|
| 40049 |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
Agreed. The inevitable limitation of any book is the fact that it is often a child of it's generation. That is sometimes the most interesting aspect of a book, especially for thiose literary historians among us, but books fall short too. In the case of JRT, it is true that he inhabited a cosy world of men, whether through the war or quietly in Oxford. I think he may not have been challanged at any great level over the years by questions of the role and position of women in society. It's unfortunate, but I think he can be forgiven. I would be unable with any real depth be able to compare the women in LotR with those that appear in the gospels, but it is an interesting one. The Smeagol character and the temptation/s are very much in the world of the gospels, if you think of the Garden of Gethsemane for example. Whilst no Jesus, I do not think JRT was reaching for any significant superlayering of the stories, but aimed more for allegorical significane. He has done it masterfully. The heavy anglo-saxon bent of the book inevitably raises questions also of race, culture and colonialism, all of which would require time to go into. Did you (are you)study (studting) literature ? You have a good critical nose for LotR !
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 39981
|
|
|
| 40078 |
Re 5: Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
Aha. Allegorical significance. That works. I think Tolkien made a good choice to not make direct, purely symbolic parallels between his characters and the Biblical characters. Yes, the parallels fall apart sometimes; that's good! (haha that seems weird to say...)It lets the interpretations and correspondences become more fluid, complex, even hypocritical at some times, and thus REAL. It's much more real to have characters that relate to several Biblical personalities, stories, and ideas than forcing one allusion to stick for the entire novel. The characters are allowed to be themselves, not shadows burdened by a heavy allusion; their complexities could even be argued to add another level to the established allusion. Yes, I think it's much more interesting to have a Frodo that could be related to Jesus as some points, but at other points, is completely the opposite!
And I'll probably study literature once I get to college. For now it's high school English and creative writing ; ) I bet you're studying literature now, though!
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 40049
|
|
|
| 40232 |
Re:Re 5: Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
Yes, it's true, I've had a brush with literature. I hear Columbia is a good university over there ?? Have you made any decision where you want to go ? Maybe you will pursue this arguement a littler further in one of the academic departments which specialise in JRT ? I'd advise taking Old English, it's a little tedious but well worth the slog. I hear JRT's translations is due out sometime soon. I have to admit, my JRT experience is limited to a year I spent studying physics. Science students seem to know more about LotR and the H than any other bunch of students on campus, minus those in Eng. Lit. Returning to Old English, JRT was a well known Beowulf scholar. My old tutor was tutored by JRT in fact, on Beowulf. This was my second introduction to the world of LotR. There are many cadences in JRT's works with those of the Old English. Whatever you decide to do, I think you would make a fine English scholar. You have a knack for criticism. Peut etre, vous voulez suivre la lituratur Francais ? Can that be right ? My French is rusty. You can 'follow' French ? But you need to 'sit' English !! Most certainly better to relax and put your feet up, n'est pas ?
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 40078
|
|
|
| 40330 |
Re 6: Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
Oui, c'est possible que j'etudierai la litterature francaise... en fait, je prends une classe de la litterature francaise maintenant, au lycee! Yes, I might study French literature. actually, I'm taking a French literature class right now, in high school! But I really don't know what I'll end up majoring in once I get to college... English, Literature, French, Modern Languages and Literatures... I study Creative Writing for half of my school day (in a special school for the arts) so that's probably where I've sharpened my critical skills and honed my eye for literature. I'm applying to 7 (!) schools, but my top three are Swarthmore, Goucher, and Emory University. Frankly, I don't know how many JRT scholars teach there (hee hee)but I'm sure that all of them have good English departments. I was shocked, actually, to find out that one of my teachers despises science fiction/fantasy, including LotR! I suppose everyone can't like everything.
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 40232
|
|
|
| 40695 |
Re:Re 6: Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
It seems my last post did not make it onto the board. Maybe a technical glitch. Apologies for late reply. I forget what I had said but as you can imagine it was full of wonderful elucidation. I think if I remember well that I had moved on to discussing Ulysses. Another long book. Have you read it ?
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 40330
|
|
|
| 40794 |
Re:Re:Re 6: Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
Wow. What a strange coincidence. For the past quarter of my creative writing class, we've been reading nothing but Ulysses, and we just finished reading the very last page yesterday! So I can say, Yes! I have read Ulysses!
But I'm not going to lie about it; Joyce made me pretty frustrated and angry at several parts, so I'm quite biased against it. I can see the literary value of the novel, although I think many people exaggerate it, but too many things about it bother me to allow me to enjoy it fully. The opaque style tends to take away from the content rather than add to it, in my opinion. I was appalled to find that, after reading pages of annotations and explained allusions, there was a very limited palette of subjects for class discussion, and we kept repeating ourselves every five minutes. There seem to be pages of unsaid information packed into every paragraph, but do those pages mean anything? Are they really saying anything at all? What is their purpose? One of our class guests who inquired about what we were reading remarked that one of the highest forms of understanding possible with Ulysses is just understanding what physically happens. Frankly, that outrages me. Literature can do so much more (and I know Ulysses does do more than that) but Ulysses seems to pretend to do more than it actually does. That makes me mad, too. My teacher mentioned Joyce's purpose of creating a work that scholars will ponder over for centuries... and he sure got his wish! Well, I've never been able to let go of that (which has indeed colored my view of the novel) Art should not exist for the sake of the continued rememberance of the artist, for the sake of immortality. I have nothing against art for the sake of art or words for the sake of their meanings and sounds, but, art for the sake of art does not pretend to be more than it is. That is the point that really irritates me-- that we're purposefully being led through this maze of obscure language we can't even understand the half of without an annotation, for no reason except the artist wants us to remember him--- so he plays tricks on us. That's very cruel of him. How can it be one of the "best books" in the English language if hardly anyone takes the time to read it?
Well, look at that. That's my Ulysses rant. I know there are plenty of great things to say about the novel, but I'm too tired to write them down right now. I'll add some in later.
and don't worry about the delay in message posting... technology plays tricks more often than joyce.
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 40695
|
|
|
| 41235 |
Re:Re:Re:Re 6: Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
I hit another glitch it seems in the posting of my last message. Ulysses, I find, is one of the greats, and highly popular for a book that is (as you say) hardly read. Even if I enjoy it, I find parts too tedious to read or incomprehensible. Finnegan's Wake should be avoided at all costs, it is very much for appreciating at a distance, or else digging and delving in words up to the elbows. There is no middle ground with Finnegan's Wake. Joyce of course was tied into the modernistic trends of his time in the area of literature. Similiar experimental, reflective veins can be seen in the likes of Pound and Eliot. The great thing about Ulysses is the extensive characterisation of plot, with the internal monologues whispering away. The universality of it all is a treat. What Joyce esentially does is mirrior the reality of one man's life thorugh a single day, refreacting it through a myriad of imitated and invented styles, confining it to a parochial setting, and yet despite these apparent obstacles he achieves in making an everyman character that is recognisable everywhere. I have few quoibles about Joyce as a self-promoter, he excelled at it, and perhaps in some small way that was even necessary. Bloom of course is the archtypal newsman and advertiser ! The content of the book, particularly the sexual explictity, for the time it was written in was very audacious. Self-publicity was perhaps necessary, I think, to fight the Ulysses onslaught. What he Ulysses is a massive thing, we could discuss it for hours and still return to opinions that differ madly, but sometimes when I think about it I find that I can have two or even three different feeligns about the same issue. The ability of the book to leave you entirely on uncertain ground, as to purpose, plot, conclusions, significane, readability and many other questions, is staggering. The achievement is in the book I feel, unquestionably a great, but not sure if I would bring it on a train journey. It's the type of thing you really need to be stationary to read.
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 40794
|
|
|
| 41763 |
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re 6: Discussion of Tolstoy and Tolkien books
The New Year is approaching fast. I have been reading The CHimes by Dickens. Its a relatively forgotten short piece of writing by the great storyteller, but truly marvellous too. I always associated Dickens with ghosts at Christmas, his work is crammed with ghosts and spirits and goblins. Its seasonal to read these stories and Dickens' true humanism is never old or wanting for wear. Have you read any John Stuart 'Mills' ? His work on Logic was my first taste. I was facinated by concomitant variations. His work on Liberty also. Mills was a Londoner as Dickens, they were moralists on their own terms. The thing about Dickens, is the warmth which he is able to communicate. There is so much that can be truly learned in Dickens. It beats the dry scientific empiric lot everytime. On page '984' of a popular edition of Mills a connection can be made with him. Before I wander off agian on a tangent, the purpose of writing a quick message was basically to say the New Year is here and greetings. Hot, hot puddings and joyous mails for the new year.
|
Language pair: English; All
This is a reply to message # 41235
|
|
|
