There have been some fascinating postings in this thread, but have we reached
the point where this list is still the appropriate venue? The controversy over
Tolkien is old and fraught, but this is a Sidney-Spenser Discussion list, after
all. Should we let this be -- and perhaps e-mail each other privately on this
topic?
Michael
Quoting [log in to unmask]:
> Beth, David, all ---
>
> Is this thread leading into, or out of, the wandering wood? It's not
> pre-Raphaelite, but as an aid to the imagination of a post-Morris Arcadia, I
> would suggest Virginia Woolf's 'Orlando.' If anyone's working on a syllabus
> testing the proposition that 'endurable' language must be artificial, and as
> far as possible from 'our slack and often frivolous idiom,' 'Orlando' is a
> candidate. I confess, though, that only the movie version got me to the end
> of the story.
>
> Cheers, Jon Quitslund
> > Despite David's compelling and thoughtful reflections on handling irate
> > undergraduates, what really grabbed my attention in his post was the
> following:
> >
> > >In all seriousness, though, I don't think Tolkien has anything to
> apologize
> > >for in the way of style. It is, admittedly, an artificial style. But this
> > >is not, ipso facto, a demerit. Cf. what C. S. Lewis said about William
> > >Morris: "It is, of course, perfectly true that Morris invented for his
> > >poems and perfected in his prose-romances a language which has never at
> any
> > >period been spoken in England...The question about Morris's style is not
> > >whether it is an artificial language--all endurable language in longer
> > >works must be that--but whether it is a good one...I cannot help
> suspecting
> > >that most of the detractors when they talk of Morris's style are really
> > >thinking of his printing: they expect the florid and the crowded, and
> > >imagine something like Sidney's Arcadia
> >
> > I am now trying in vain to imagine a pre-Raphaelite *Arcadia*, and I tip
> my
> > hat to any of Morris's detractors who apparently could. Nor am I having
> > much success with the necessary corollary, a Gilbert and Sullivan parody
> of
> > a pre-Raphaelite Arcadia--although at least there the complications both
> > possible and impossible in the plot wouldn't pose any unusual difficulty.
> >
> >
> > BQ
>
|