via
http://ift.tt/2lYSEAG:
jedda-martele:
bramble-star:
jedda-martele:
tuulikki:
worldflower:
with-all-my-woes:
zarekthelordofthefries:
It sure is convenient that all these songs that ostensibly weren’t written in English all rhyme when translated into English, isn’t it, Mr. Tolkien?
yknow what really bothered me for some reason??
he used ‘loud as a train’ or smth similar to describe the balrog’s roar. like, no ok so y'know if this is supposed to have been ‘translated’ like you tell us, then wouldn’t it have been smth other than a train, like a waterfall?
idk it just really bothers me
Clearly he was talking about the train of Glorfindel’s robes which as everyone knows are covered in bells and jingle
1. I mean, he invented the languages he was going to translate, so if a rhyme didn’t work he could change the whole language if he wanted to. But actually, it’s not uncommon for translations (particularly older translations) to try to preserve or at least recreate rhyme schemes. For example, Tolkien translated “Pearl” into rhyming Modern English.
2. The train thing! It’s actually related to how Tolkien presents the hobbits as essentially “modern” characters who then go out and have adventures in the old heroic culture of myth and legend. As Tolkien says, “[The Shire] is in fact more or less a Warwickshire village of about the period of the Diamond Jubilee…” (Letters, 230, #178). It’s very deliberately a part of the language. Think of all the modern, non-medieval things the hobbits have. It’s always a contrast between Modern English (Shire) and Old English (rest of Middle Earth). Even though Tolkien changed some foreign names to make them seem English, the hobbits still have
tobacco (pipeweed), a New World crop
drink tea in the modern English way
potatoes, another New World crop, made more English-sounding as “taters”
rabbits/coneys, which were imported to England in the 13th century
a regular postal service
mantelpiece clocks!
It was a deliberate choice that gave readers us a group of characters who can serve as tour guides to a mythical medieval adventure. Tom Shippey explains it better than I ever could:
…There is one very evident obstacle to recreating the ancient world of heroic legend for modern readers, and that lies in the nature of heroes. These are not acceptable any more, and tend very strongly to be treated with irony: the modern view of Beowulf is John Gardner’s novel Grendel (1971). Tolkien did not want to be ironic about heroes, and yet he could not eliminate modern reactions. His response to the difficulty is Bilbo Baggins, the hobbit, the anachronism, a character whose initial role at least is very strongly that of mediator. He represents and often voices modern opinions, modern incapacities: he has no impulses towards revenge or self-conscious heroism, cannot ‘hoot twice like a barn-owl and once like a screech-owl’ as the dwarves suggest, knows almost nothing about Wilderland and cannot even skin a rabbit, being used to having his meat ‘delivered by the butcher ready to cook’. Yet he has a place in the ancient world too, and there is a hint that (just like us) all his efforts cannot keep him entirely separate from the past.
…
Bilbo’s behaviour is solidly anachronistic, for he is wearing a jacket, relying on a written contract, drawing a careful distinction between gain and profit, and proposing a compromise which would see Bard’s claim as running expenses (almost tax deductible). Where Bard and Thorin used archaic words (‘Hail!’, ‘foes’, ‘hoard’, ‘kindred’, ‘slain’), he uses modern ones: ‘profit’, never used in English until 1604, and then only in Aberdeen; ‘deduct’, recorded in 1524 but then indistinguishable from ‘subtract’ and not given its commercial sense till much later; ‘total’, not used as here till 1557; ‘claim’, ‘interest’, ‘affair’, ‘matter’, all French or Latin imports not adopted fully into English till well after the Norman Conquest. It is fair to say that no character from epic or saga could even begin to think or talk like Bilbo.
Basically, if Tolkien does a thing with words, there’s always a very good chance that the professor was having fun with language, and doing it very consciously (see: Mount Doom, name of).
This might be my favorite Tolkien thing right after how he worked his hatred of Shakespeare into The Lord of the Rings.
Wait, wait. That’s a thing too?
Oh yeah. The reason we have Ents and the reason Eowyn kills the head Nazgul is because Tolkien felt Shakespeare cheated in Macbeth. (Tolkien also thought Shakespeare was generally over studied and represented in literature classes but that’s because Tolkien thought literature classes shouldn’t focus on much past The Canterbury Tales). Anyway Tolkien felt cheated that the whole forest marching thing from the witches prophecy ended up just being dudes with branches glued to their arms so he created actual trees that would march on and destroy a stronghold. Also he felt the obvious solution to the ‘no man born of woman can kill Macbeth’ deal was to have a woman do it, not split hairs over whether a female corpse is still a woman or if a c-section counts as being born. So he has an unkillable foe who “no man” can kill and has a woman (and a hobbit) be the one to face it.
(Your picture was not posted)