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.
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 valutaion its virtue is thus
by laity overlooked.
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.
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.
|Original title:||The Fall of Arthur|
J. R. R. Tolkien
|Edition:||Hardcover (HarperCollins, 2013)|
|Read:||31 May - 10 July 2013|
|Amazon USA||Amazon UK|
|Book Depository USA||Book Depository UK|
|Abebooks USA||Abebooks UK|