The Power of Tolkien's Prose - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

tumhalad2 · 06-20-2010, 05:45 PM

Over at my blog, A Clearer Thinking Oasis, I've just discussed a newly released work of Tolkien criticism called The Power of Tolkien's Prose: Middle-earth's Magical Style, by Professor Steve Walker. Walker has been teaching Tolkien courses at Brigham Young University in the United States for 14 years, but this appears to be is first foray into publishing anything on Tolkien for consumption by the public, or at least those sections of the public that are interested.

I don't want to use this as an advertisement for my blog; sure, you can read and comment on other sections if you'd like; but I'm particularly interested in discussing some of my thoughts relating to this book. In particular, I'd like to ask some general and specific questions related to my post, and see if we might not be able to discuss some of them at length.

Of a more general nature, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the current state of Tolkien scholarship. Is it headed in the right direction? is it a little too clannish at times, and does new blood like Walker have difficulty penetrating the aura surrounding the "high priests" of criticism like Shippey and Flieger. (Personally I think Shippey, while valuable, is accorded far too much credit sometimes). Should other interesting thinkers on the subject, like Brian Rosebury and Walker himself, be given more space in our considerations of all things Middle-earth?

More specifically, and relating to Walker's ideas themselves: Do you relate to, agree with or feel you disagree with his idea of "possible meaning"; the notion that Tolkien's fiction is crafted on the premise of "negative spaces", wherein the reader is not merely encouraged, but actively positioned, to utilise their imaginative potential and become a "sub-creator" along with the author himself.

If this is the case, what do you think Tolkien was trying to achieve? To you agree with the contention that Tolkien's "mode" is "inherent ambiguity", wherebye he invites readers to multiple interpretations.

Walker focuses on the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, and to a lesser extent Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wooton Major. Can Walker's ideas be extended to Tolkien's other works, like the Silmarillion and the Children of Hurin? If so, where can we find evidence in the text of this playing out?

These are just some of the questions that could be looked into, and I'm sure others will come up with more. Now, I realise that many of you will not have read this book, but my post contains quite a few quotations from it and otherwise I have tried to explicate in some detail Walker's ideas. But I urge any of you with access to a good university library to go see if you can't find it. It's well worth it: a new and fresh approach to Tolkien that I hope opens the floodgates to a new, less partisan criticism.

06-20-2010, 05:45 PM	#1
tumhalad2 Haunting Spirit Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 95	The Power of Tolkien's Prose Over at my blog, A Clearer Thinking Oasis, I've just discussed a newly released work of Tolkien criticism called The Power of Tolkien's Prose: Middle-earth's Magical Style, by Professor Steve Walker. Walker has been teaching Tolkien courses at Brigham Young University in the United States for 14 years, but this appears to be is first foray into publishing anything on Tolkien for consumption by the public, or at least those sections of the public that are interested. I don't want to use this as an advertisement for my blog; sure, you can read and comment on other sections if you'd like; but I'm particularly interested in discussing some of my thoughts relating to this book. In particular, I'd like to ask some general and specific questions related to my post, and see if we might not be able to discuss some of them at length. Of a more general nature, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the current state of Tolkien scholarship. Is it headed in the right direction? is it a little too clannish at times, and does new blood like Walker have difficulty penetrating the aura surrounding the "high priests" of criticism like Shippey and Flieger. (Personally I think Shippey, while valuable, is accorded far too much credit sometimes). Should other interesting thinkers on the subject, like Brian Rosebury and Walker himself, be given more space in our considerations of all things Middle-earth? More specifically, and relating to Walker's ideas themselves: Do you relate to, agree with or feel you disagree with his idea of "possible meaning"; the notion that Tolkien's fiction is crafted on the premise of "negative spaces", wherein the reader is not merely encouraged, but actively positioned, to utilise their imaginative potential and become a "sub-creator" along with the author himself. If this is the case, what do you think Tolkien was trying to achieve? To you agree with the contention that Tolkien's "mode" is "inherent ambiguity", wherebye he invites readers to multiple interpretations. Walker focuses on the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings, and to a lesser extent Farmer Giles of Ham and Smith of Wooton Major. Can Walker's ideas be extended to Tolkien's other works, like the Silmarillion and the Children of Hurin? If so, where can we find evidence in the text of this playing out? These are just some of the questions that could be looked into, and I'm sure others will come up with more. Now, I realise that many of you will not have read this book, but my post contains quite a few quotations from it and otherwise I have tried to explicate in some detail Walker's ideas. But I urge any of you with access to a good university library to go see if you can't find it. It's well worth it: a new and fresh approach to Tolkien that I hope opens the floodgates to a new, less partisan criticism.