Stan Brown <the_stan_brown.TakeThisOut@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> It seems "Jamie Andrews; real address @ bottom of message" wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>> I don't think Tolkien would have "denied any connection",
>>if by that you mean that he denied that "there is a great deal
>>that is in common between the two [works]".
> He _did_ deny it. "Both rings were round, and there the resemblance
> ceases."
> See cite in the FAQ of the Rings, at
> http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm#1-Wagner
I think your entry there does a great job of discussing the
issues, but you and I both seem to agree that his famous
statement was calculated hyperbole, and would have been
understood as such by his intended audience. The OP was
advertising a talk by stating that Tolkien "vehemently denied
any connection", taking as the contrary view that "there is a
great deal that is in common between the two [works]". Given
Tolkien's frequent statements about his inspirations in Northern
European legends, and the obvious fact that Wagner was inspired
by the same legends, Tolkien's statement can only be taken as a
denial that he was directly inspired by Wagner, not that there
was not "a great deal that is in common between the two
[works]", no matter what the literal meaning of the words is.
You and Tsar make a good case for the argument that Tolkien
_was_ directly inspired by Wagner, but it remains to be seen
whether the speaker in the talk is referring to that or to the
obvious mutual antecedents in Northern European legends.
--Jamie. (nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita)
andrews .uwo } Merge these two lines to obtain my e-mail address.
@csd .ca } (Unsolicited "bulk" e-mail costs everyone.)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: DC Wagner Society presents "The Two Rings" (Tolkien and Wa..