Scan barcode
A review by gittav
The Fall of Arthur by J.R.R. Tolkien
3.0
I
Where I discuss the poem
Verse that is alliterative // aloud is best read.
Thus the rhymes // are rendered superior
to when invoked // by our inward voice.
Imagery and metaphors // inspire dreams and
imagination. Pictures vivid // the prose conjures.
Turneresque stormy seas // travellers they threaten
and wicked Mordred // makes lustful advances
to the "cold" Guinever. // Crept me out.
However, in this poem // Happens little.
Naturally this is because // abandoned it was
by Tolkien in favour of // other texts and works.
Difficult it therefore is // to determine a rating
because the poem does not // provide an ending,
let alone, perhaps, // a lengthy and satisfactory
middle. Christopher thus tried // to cramp in more
information to provide // a purchase decent enough
to proudly be // a book, not a fragment.
II
Where I discuss the paratexts
About alliterative verse // the appendix consulted
I first to find // forgotten knowledge
and forlorn. // Two typos found
at twho-hundred thirty-one. // Though surely
becone meant 'become', // 'with' became wth.
Spell-check would solve // this sloppy editing.
Confused: Christopher's editing // where ends it?
Tolkien's lecture // when launched is it?
Father's words and son's // wrought into one.
The appendix's aim // ambiguous remains.
Explaining it tries not, // for time and space lack,
exposition fractional // no further contributes
to Old English verse's valuation // its virtue is thus
by laity overlooked.
// Less concerned
with what it is // than what not.
English not Anglo-Saxon, // nor alliteration,
but head-rhyme. // Hearing sounds repeated,
same letters, symbols // insignificant is.
Changing spelling causes // confusion certainly.
But search in dictionary // to discovery it leads.
Alliteration is repetition // assonance of sounds
but not limited to // the letter that comes first.
As such certain and uncertain // surely do alliterate,
yet latter is undesirable diction // in drafting Old English metre.
Old English alliterative verse // accurately is head-rhyme.
Should change: 'same letters, symbols // insignificant are'
to: 'same letters, symbols // are significant not'.
Christopher tells when // written the poem was
and says The Fall // never finished was.
A friend of Tolkien wished // and wrote that:
'You simply must finish it.' // But no more did
Tolkien add // to Arthur's song.
III
Where the rating is explained
I have this book // bestowed three stars.
The language and rhyme // rewarded were four,
but Christopher's input // to the imagination
left something. Typos // truly unnecessary are.
Endnotes, I found, // should footnotes have been.
The paratext explaining // the poem's context
was written not for the lay // let alone scholars
or students of Old English poetry // and offered none
of the critical analyses // any reader would want
to find when bothering // to bring oneself
to read them. Christopher's // critical approach,
or rather the lack thereof, // reflected should not
be in the rating. // But reading a poem
that is unfinished requires // regular footnotes.
No reader wants to read // a rant of all Arthurian
Legends after finishing // the fleeting rhymes.
Only four lines are needed // to love Tolkien's poetry
and to recognise the potential // of the poetry's grandeur.
Nonetheless, it is uneventful // and unexplained, at times, by
both father and son, equally. // Even though plenty
information is given afterwards.
Where I discuss the poem
Verse that is alliterative // aloud is best read.
Thus the rhymes // are rendered superior
to when invoked // by our inward voice.
Imagery and metaphors // inspire dreams and
imagination. Pictures vivid // the prose conjures.
Turneresque stormy seas // travellers they threaten
and wicked Mordred // makes lustful advances
to the "cold" Guinever. // Crept me out.
However, in this poem // Happens little.
Naturally this is because // abandoned it was
by Tolkien in favour of // other texts and works.
Difficult it therefore is // to determine a rating
because the poem does not // provide an ending,
let alone, perhaps, // a lengthy and satisfactory
middle. Christopher thus tried // to cramp in more
information to provide // a purchase decent enough
to proudly be // a book, not a fragment.
II
Where I discuss the paratexts
About alliterative verse // the appendix consulted
I first to find // forgotten knowledge
and forlorn. // Two typos found
at twho-hundred thirty-one. // Though surely
becone meant 'become', // 'with' became wth.
Spell-check would solve // this sloppy editing.
Confused: Christopher's editing // where ends it?
Tolkien's lecture // when launched is it?
Father's words and son's // wrought into one.
The appendix's aim // ambiguous remains.
Explaining it tries not, // for time and space lack,
exposition fractional // no further contributes
to Old English verse's valuation // its virtue is thus
by laity overlooked.
// Less concerned
with what it is // than what not.
English not Anglo-Saxon, // nor alliteration,
but head-rhyme. // Hearing sounds repeated,
same letters, symbols // insignificant is.
Changing spelling causes // confusion certainly.
But search in dictionary // to discovery it leads.
Alliteration is repetition // assonance of sounds
but not limited to // the letter that comes first.
As such certain and uncertain // surely do alliterate,
yet latter is undesirable diction // in drafting Old English metre.
Old English alliterative verse // accurately is head-rhyme.
Should change: 'same letters, symbols // insignificant are'
to: 'same letters, symbols // are significant not'.
Christopher tells when // written the poem was
and says The Fall // never finished was.
A friend of Tolkien wished // and wrote that:
'You simply must finish it.' // But no more did
Tolkien add // to Arthur's song.
III
Where the rating is explained
I have this book // bestowed three stars.
The language and rhyme // rewarded were four,
but Christopher's input // to the imagination
left something. Typos // truly unnecessary are.
Endnotes, I found, // should footnotes have been.
The paratext explaining // the poem's context
was written not for the lay // let alone scholars
or students of Old English poetry // and offered none
of the critical analyses // any reader would want
to find when bothering // to bring oneself
to read them. Christopher's // critical approach,
or rather the lack thereof, // reflected should not
be in the rating. // But reading a poem
that is unfinished requires // regular footnotes.
No reader wants to read // a rant of all Arthurian
Legends after finishing // the fleeting rhymes.
Only four lines are needed // to love Tolkien's poetry
and to recognise the potential // of the poetry's grandeur.
Nonetheless, it is uneventful // and unexplained, at times, by
both father and son, equally. // Even though plenty
information is given afterwards.