|
Tolkien is Not Yeats
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ghost-Prince of Cardolan
Posts: 594</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Today's (July 25) Slate magazine (www.slate.com) has a short article that disses Tolkien's poetry and Tom Bombadil's in particular. Any comment? I know some of you are big TB fans. <font size = "-2"> [i] Listen! the mighty Being is awake / And doth with his eternal motion make / A sound like thunder--everlastingly.</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Phantom Rider
Posts: 903</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats I'M OUTRAGED! How dare they insult Tom Bombadil! <img src=mad.gif ALT=">:"> And Tolkien as well, I enjoy poetry, and especially the poems in LOTR! Let me lie here--to keep the Fords till Eomer comes! </p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile&u=00000011>Theodred 21</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC=http://www.ezboard.com/ezgfx/gicons/white_fire.gif BORDER=0> at: 7/25/01 2:35:52 pm |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hobbitus Emeritus
Posts: 501</TD><TD><img src=http://home.att.net/~robertwgardner/lotrmap.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE> Yeats is not Tolkien! Found it: http://slate.msn.com/culturebox/entr...-24_112347.aspslate.msn.com/culturebox/entries/01-07-24_112347.asp</a> The guy is entitled to his lowbrow opinion. I personally find the poetry (songs for the most part) to be quite good. If the author of this piece really wanted to see Tolkien have a go at epic poetry, he should read the Lay of Leithian. Ladies and Entlemen, expect a lot more of this kind of review in the coming weeks! PREDICTION: Based upon the previous criticism from (what I call) the Literary Left, I expect many more derogatory articles and essays and critiques of Tolkien's works to be featured in publications like Salon. <center><font face=verdana size=1> http://www.barrowdowns.comBarrow-Downs</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000Bare Bones</a>~http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgard...ilthalion.htmlGrand Adventures</a>~http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.aspThe Hobbits</a>~http://www.tolkientrail.comTolkien Trail</a> </center></p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 13</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats Notice how he only quotes the mediocre little kid poems, and Tom B. singing jiberish! He is just trying to create an opinion that will start a stir. More power to him. I sent in the article to theonering.net. they will bombard him with complaint emails! he gets what he deserves. Bwa hahahahahha!!!!!! -Gwindor </p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ghost-Prince of Cardolan
Posts: 601</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats Yes, quoting Pippin's bath song, as support for the argument that Tolkien's poetry is bad, is pretty lame -- like quoting one of the fool's songs from "As You Like It" as "proof" that Shakespeare was a bad poet. I certainly don't think that the songs and poems are the best part of LotR, but they're mostly well done. In terms of the critic's point about the plot being often interrupted for a song, the only instance I can think of is Aragorn's and Legolas' funeral song for Boromir, which I always thought a bit strange but still touching. P.s. LOL at "Entlemen" !! <font size = "-2"> [i] Listen! the mighty Being is awake / And doth with his eternal motion make / A sound like thunder--everlastingly.</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ghost-Prince of Cardolan
Posts: 602</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats Feste's song from "Twelfth Night": "When that I was and a little tiny boy, With hey, ho, the wind and the rain, A foolish thing was but a toy, For the rain it raineth every day. But when I came to man's estate, With hey, ho, & c. 'Gainst knaves and thieves men shut their gate, For the rain, & c. But when I came, alas! to wive, With hey, ho, & c. By swaggering could I never thrive, For the rain, & c. But when I came unto my beds, With hey, ho, & c. With toss-pots still had drunken heads, For the rain, & c. A great while ago the world begun, With hey, ho, & c. But that's all one, our play is done, And we'll strive to please you every day." Boy Shakespeare is bad poet isn't he? <font size = "-2"> [i] Listen! the mighty Being is awake / And doth with his eternal motion make / A sound like thunder--everlastingly.</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 446</TD><TD><img src=http://66.37.237.17/images/characters/vanityfair-astin_sm.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Tolkien is Not Yeats *gag* <img src=laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> "I will, Lord." said Tuor.</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wraith of Angmar
Posts: 2464</TD><TD><img src=http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/theeye2.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE> I had to make a short reply I posted a short reply to this article: Your criticism of Tolkien's poetry was the saddest thing I've read in years. Not because the poems in question were wonderful and I felt that that you had maligned them, but rather because you took the intentionally humorous verses and purposely misrepresented their context so that you could rile Tolkien fans. What a media-hungry troll you are. You even sucked me in. But at least I got to call a troll a troll and didn't have to resort to shouting things at the world so someone would pay attention to me for 15 minutes. not much, but it made me feel better <img src=smile.gif ALT=":)"> The Barrow-Wight (RKittle) <font size="2">I usually haunt http://www.barrowdowns.comThe Barrow-Downs</a> and The Barrow-Downs http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgiMiddle-Earth Discussion Board</a>.</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hobbitus Emeritus
Posts: 511</TD><TD><img src=http://home.att.net/~robertwgardner/lotrmap.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: I had to make a short reply heh! <center><font face=verdana size=1> http://www.barrowdowns.comBarrow-Downs</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000Bare Bones</a>~http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgard...ilthalion.htmlGrand Adventures</a>~http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.aspThe Hobbits</a>~http://www.tolkientrail.comTolkien Trail</a> </center></p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 448</TD><TD><img src=http://66.37.237.17/images/characters/vanityfair-astin_sm.jpg WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: I had to make a short reply We Tolkien Fans get made fun of all the time and it is not fair! You were perfectly right to defy the illiterate dweebs who malign us. "I will, Lord." said Tuor.</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 313</TD><TD><img src=http://www.herr-der-ringe-film.de/HdR/crewmckel.JPG WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: I had to make a short reply I dont care what other people think about Tolkiens work.. I know I like it. Some people at my highschool say the books are boring, etc.. and view me as a nerd because I like to read them. Just ignore these narrow-minded remarks. If that guy had half a brain he would realize Tolkien for the genuis he is, and even if he didnt like him it doesn't mean he has to criticize his work to gain attention. "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pile o' Bones
Posts: 23</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Beowulf On the topic of epic poetry, Tolkien was one of few scholars who defended the epic OE poem Beowulf as having merit. This ties in with his epic style of writing in the lay of Liethan (Luthien?). Just an obscure fact (which is a specialty of mine) :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "A little people, but of great worth are the Shire-folk. Little do they know of our long labour for the safekeeping of their borders, and yet I grudge it not."</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ghost-Prince of Cardolan
Posts: 620</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Beowulf Halbarad -- I wd have thought that many scholars ascribed great worth to Beowulf. In any case there's a semi-new (couple years old maybe) translation of Beowulf by Seamus Heaney that's really good. <font size = "-2"> [i] Listen! the mighty Being is awake / And doth with his eternal motion make / A sound like thunder--everlastingly.</p> |
<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hobbitus Emeritus
Posts: 528</TD><TD><img src=http://home.att.net/~robertwgardner/lotrmap.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE> Re: Beowulf I just read another translation of it, finishing the other night. Really grand stuff, especially when one remembers when and by who it was conceived and then written. <center><font face=verdana size=1> http://www.barrowdowns.comBarrow-Downs</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000Bare Bones</a>~http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgard...ilthalion.htmlGrand Adventures</a>~http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.aspThe Hobbits</a>~http://www.tolkientrail.comTolkien Trail</a> </center></p> |
OK, I'm insulted!!! Pipin's bath song is the best part of the whole book! How dare they try and diss it! [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]
|
Of course Tolkien was no match for Yeats, but I think his poetry was more than adequate, and sometimes very beautiful. He did write some awkward or even self-indulgent pieces, but focusing on these while forgetting the rest is pretty idiotic if you ask me.
|
Hmmm, sounds like a bad case of "Publish or Perish" to me.
No, Tolkien ain't Yeats. Neither was Kipling, T.H. White, A.A. Milne, Lewis Carroll...just what was his point? "Come away, O human child! To the waters and the wild With a fairy, hand in hand, For the world's more full of weeping Than you can understand." The Stolen Child W.B. Yeats |
Whether or not poetry is "good" is a difficult decision to make, and not one that I should like to have thrust upon me, since art is such a thoroughly subjective subject. If you happened to be asked to compare, for example, John Keats and Sylvia Plath it might prove difficult enough to decide which of their very different styles made for better poetry and there'd be a lot of disagreement whichever you backed. To choose between accomplished and famous poets is to face the choice of Paris.
If, however, on the one hand we have a man famous for being a brilliant poet, such as W.B. Yeats, and on the other we have a man associated in the popular mind (if the term isn't overly oxymoronic) with real-ale bibbing Dungeons and Dragons players (I can be counted in both groups, feeling neither pride nor shame in the fact although both are considered laughable in a "real" world dominated by boy-bands, McDonald's and soap operas) and in the academic world for his scholarship, then one may claim that the poetry of the one is better than that of the other with relative impunity, provided that one has sufficient store of comic verse by one's literary victim from which to draw examples of his "serious" work (I notice that no poetry by Yeats was offered for comparison: I'm given to wonder whether the author had actually read any). The sort of person who would put forward such an argument, "proving" his great erudition and literary discernment in the most crassly facile manner possible, is also the sort of person I should expect to want to denigrate a highly-cultivated, polyglot Oxford professor, who could support his own rather eccentric views with reference to a gigantic body of knowledge in at least eight languages, one of whose works is also an acknowledged twentieth-century classic. Tolkien's shoes are too big for such a one not to try and shrink them, and how better to do so than to call a famous philologist a bad poet? I might as well call Pepys a bad novelist, or Shakespeare a bad historian. I doubt whether anyone would have dared to publish such egregious drivel if Tolkien were alive, although the man himself (if he bothered to reply at all) would probably have said in his usual self-deprecating and ironic style that he never claimed to be a great poet, only a humble student of the art fortunate enough to have achieved the publication of some of his work. Perhaps he would even assume satirically that the critic possessed more experience of polishing verse for publication than his poor self. This is not to say that the argument presented in the article is invalid, only that the mode of presentation is clumsy and academically unsound: the sort of thing that a professor will tear to shreds in a couple of sentences before saying "I agree with your conclusion", as those graduates among us will no doubt remember. As for the other intentions of the piece, I think the Barrow Wight's letter covers it. The poor recipient of that letter, with his petty-minded desire to attack anything greater than himself (he's more material for this than most people) is clearly well suited to writing short reviews of reprinted books, which are ignored unless he courts attention by hurling insults at household names. Books worth reading will have been reviewed properly by several people with opinions that matter by the time the second edition emerges, let alone by the time they've been in print for nearly fifty years. I say pity the popinjay and put him out of memory: it's been long enough, considering the dates of these posts. [ February 19, 2003: Message edited by: Squatter of Amon Rudh ] |
For my money, Tolkien is a BETTER poet than Yeats! In particular, I point to "Errantry" from The Adventures of Tom Bombadil, and the Finrod-vs.-Sauron passage of the Lay of Leithian. I have a bias toward narrative poetry, true, but nobody other than Poe can do with words what Tolkien can...
-Tevildo, Prince of Cats. [ March 25, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Tildrum ] |
As a footnote to this discussion, in my description of my visit to Tolkien's grave I quote one of his poems that it would be much fairer to compare with Yeats' work than Tom Bombadil's comic madrigals. I still wouldn't want to choose between these two great men of letters, though: what an act of presumption that would be.
|
Gee, for a moment I thought this thread suffered from a typo, and that "Tolkien is not yeast" belonged down in the BarrowDowns forum on the recipe threads.
|
You are SUCH a riot Bethberry!
Let's ask out popinjay critic to translate Beowulf from Anglo-Saxon into modern English shall we? I betcha he can't do it! Tolkien did. Heh, If he were still alive to day I'd write him a sweet little letter saying that it's because of him that I am now learning Anglo-Saxon very well (Even though I get wierd looks when I read Anglo-Saxon dictionaries and Primers). As for Epic Poetry: THe lay of Lethien (oh yeah) Bilbo's song of Earendil (That's a phenomenon in itself) Legolas' Lay of Niphredil. ohh! Don't forget Galadreil's Quenya song as the fellowship leaves Lorien, ask anoyone else to write something like that. The Lament of Gil-Galad, I'll ad mit that one makes me cry every time. Rotten orc minded fools! |
Cup o' mead for now, set the pipe down....
Yes, this will get around to the topic in a bit, bear with me my friends.... I've been reading a "Lives of the Great Composers" book written in 1970. I have found point after point that makes me think of all the jibes against Tolkien. You see, it runs like this. One of the underlying themes of this Composers book is that there were good, minor composers who were quite good at composing music that is quite enjoyable, but not first rate. It's the geniuses that compose first rate music, and the DIFFERENCE is that they have a hand in the development of music. That's another way of saying progress. What I find so funny is that the composers who were NOT geniuses are still being played today, and they made the music that everybody likes listening to. Not to say that a few of the geniuses' music isn't listened to, but Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Vivaldi, Mendellsohn, Elgar, Ralph V. Williams, are still being enjoyed while you have to go to some conservatory to take in the music of Webern, Berg, Schoenberg, etc. Here's the point: you have the progressives, and you have the traditionalists. Progressives tend to be liked be fellow progressives while traditionalists have this nasty habit of being liked by a huge number of intelligent people because their art has meaning for them. Thus you have Tolkien's poetry trashed by those who care about (sniff) "the progress of poetry" (sniff sniff). Fact is, Tolkien's poetry is VERY good. He was a master with words. He had fun with it in such great, fun stuff as 'nuncle Tim' and 'the man in the moon' (one of my favorites), and he was a powerful enough poet to produce such moving works as "The Seabell" and "The Road Goes Ever On" (another one of my favorites. Tolkien was a genius. He'll never be accepted by the progressives. |
Wait, so Tchaikovsky wasn't a genius?
Did I just make myself look really uneducated here? Well, anyway, point taken, littleman. At the same time, I have to admit, while I enjoy JRR's poetry, he is definitely not Yeats. Or Pasternak. Or Keats. Or Eliot. And I don't think he ever strove to be compared to the likes of them either. And anyway, the hack from Slate was trying to be clever a lá Wolcott, and, in my opinion, failed miserably in that regard. Frankly, I think the most appropriate take on this whole thing was by one of our usual suspects, Squatter, who said: Quote:
|
Funny. Tolkien's poetry makes up a great deal of my favorite poems. Reading his work gave me the image of a man who had such a complete handle on language that he could do whatever he wanted with it. Whether it be a rolicking good ditty that you can get up on the table and sing, or a hauntingly beautiful song such as Galadriel's Lament. "I sang of leaves, of leaves of gold, and leaves of gold there grew..." I do not care one iota about anything but the fact that that line (and the whole rest of the poem) gives me chills and strikes me with its bittersweet beauty.
To me art should cause pleasure on some level; beauty, joy, or sadness. If it does, it's a good poem. If it doesn't, it isn't. I recall picking up a volume of Percy Bysshe Shelley's poem and disliking it immensly. So I would not care if ten professors told me I have a small mind because I can't fathom the depths of a good poet. I like Tolkien's poetry because it is beautiful and makes sense. It's coherent. Does that mean it's simplistic and childish? What, is poetry only good if you can't understand it? But it occurs to me now that me lending my support for Tolkien's verse in this way is rather more of an undermining process, due to my lack of poetic credentials. I can't say I've even read Yeats. So I'll just leave it at this: Some people just can't stand to see other people have fun. |
Quote:
Quote:
Now compare if you can, folks. |
Well, well, what do you know. I heard that poem recited in a movie just a few days ago, but they did not attribute it to Yeats, the devils. To put it very simplistically, I like it; it falls under my definition of a good poem.
Tolkien isn't Yeats, and Yeats isn't Tolkien. Tolkien is Tolkien and Yeats is Yeats. I believe that is a good comparison. Brought to you by Captain Obvious. |
Had I the heaven's embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with gold and silver light, The blue and dim and the dark cloths, Of night and light and the half-light, Had I the heaven's embroidered cloths, I'd lay them at your feet, But I, being poor, have only my dreams, I have laid my dreams at your feet. Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. Irish poets, in my opinion, are the best in the world. Who can forget dear Padraig Pearce? (The beauty of the world hath made me sad...) That was really nasty, that article. Perhaps that man should read the book. Purple "Arise, and go to Inisfree" Monkey |
Quote:
Welcome to the Downs, Purple Monkey. As you can tell by my posts above, I have little time for the author of this cheap dig at Tolkien. His inclusion of these two great literary figures with his own insubstantial rubbish drags them both in the mire of his incompetence; but that beautiful quotation is going to make it well worth keeping this thread going. Thanks. |
Lots of the "poems" in Tolkien, especially the sillier, funnier ones, are actually songs sung to be funny. Those are the ones this idiot quotes, as if they were supposed to be serious poetry! It's like criticising nursury rhymes or the collected works of Edward Bear for not being Wordsworth. Idiots...the world is full of them...
And I think that Shakespeare bit is lovely. [ February 20, 2003: Message edited by: Dain ] |
Personally, I think that Yeats is a wonderful poet. He is one of the few poets that I studied at school that I enjoyed. I recall that Sailing to Byzantium left a particular impression on me. Edward Thomas, whose poetry celebrates the English countryside, was another, and it seems to me that there is some analogy here with Tolkien and his love of rural England.
But unfortunately, Tolkien's poetry always kind of got in the way of the story for me. I have always rushed through it so as to to get to the next part of the book. So, I do not have any real impression of it. (This is something that I probably ought to remedy, and it is threads like this that will help provoke me into doing so.) But that's bye the bye, except to point out that I am talking (and can only talk) of my personal opinion. As Diamond said: Quote:
The objective merit of a piece of poetry is for poetry professors. It is the subjective merit that is important. After all, poetry is not generally written for poetry professors. It is written for people. So, if people like Tolkien's poetry, he is (to them) a good poet, whatever the academics may say. |
Quote:
I believe it was based on this 1944 documentary by William Wyler. Bah, there I go, veering off topic. That's why I just said "a movie" initially. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I think I shall check out a volume of Yeats' poetry when I shuffle off to work tomorrow. |
Squatter wanders blithely off-topic because now aeroplanes have been mentioned. [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]
Diamond, in a happier and more civilised age before television, men as young as eighteen were copying poems into notebooks and diaries for future reference. I read that scene as being the young aircrewman finding solace in the fellow-feeling of a poet from an earlier and infinitely more tragic conflict. Of course I may be wrong. The film was made in Hollywood after all, but I seem to remember that it was fairly accurate. Mainly I watched it for those beautiful B-17Gs: they had to fly them in from all over the world to get enough for a squadron. |
Yes Yeats is a great poet but this guy is missing the point. LoTR is not a book of poetry. The poetry and song contained in the books is meant to be common poetry and song which the characters might use or songs in the vain of minstrels recording history.
They don't get in the way of the story, they help advance the story or give you some background on a given topic. Anyway since the review was published in 2001 and I haven't seen book sales of LoTR declining, I don't think anyone listened to this horrible rant. |
Verb sap It is always a good idea to read these threads to the end before posting. Then you know when we've gone off on a tangent and forgotten all about the original subject.
|
Squatter... all threads start off as tangents [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Quote:
But, does Tolkien objectively compare with Yeats? Of course not! In Tolkien’s defense, the vast majority of his poetry is in character, especially the drinking songs, the bath song, the ent’s marching song, and so forth. Rarely are such things originally written by “the masters”, but they spontaneously emerge from the experiences of common people, for common purposes, or for common fun. Attempting to compare this with Yeats is simply missing the point. Its like criticizing Blues Clues as trivial drivel in comparison to Law and Order. I suspect Tolkien wouldn’t consider himself one of “the masters” anyway, nor do I think he would claim such personal prestige for himself or his work, be it poetry or prose. I would go even further, and say Tolkien would be too humble to even disagree with the author of the above article. However, this does bring up one of my pet peeves with Tolkien fans. The first instinct is too attack the author of the above article, even though some of his points are valid. From a purely objective standpoint, leaving out our subjective feelings for these poems, and placing them in isolation from the prose, Tolkien’s poetry in general, especially his “serious” poetry, such as the Lay of Lúthien, doesn’t hold a candle to poetry by writers such as Tennyson or Hopkins or even (dare I say it) Frost. Tennyson far surpasses Tolkien in capturing the human condition and emotive force; Hopkins far surpasses Tolkien in his artistic rendering of the English language; and Frost far surpasses Tolkien in his command of meaningful meter and rhyme. However, this really means nothing. First of all, Tolkien’s poetry was never intended to be read in isolation from his prose, and even the Lay of Lúthien is part of a greater epic history. That really is the error of the above author; attempting to read Tolkien’s poetry out of context is grossly unfair. However, aside from this, how can one seriously contend, Tolkien fan or not, that Tolkien’s poetry is as good as Yeats, Tennyson or Hopkins? Intelligent discussion about Tolkien’s work demands that we see his work and accept it for what it is. Just because I happen to think that Chesterton and Newman wrote better prose than Tolkien, doesn’t mean that I think Tolkien was a hack! Such a judgement doesn’t mean that I would prefer to read Chesterton or Newman instead of Tolkien; in fact, the exact opposite is the case. If Tolkien, himself, didn’t attempt to usurp such prestige, why should we Tolkien fans attempt to force such lauds on his work? This, I think, may have been the point that the above author was attempting to make, albeit in a somewhat crass manner. Is Tolkien's corpus the greatest work of fiction of the century? Looking at what he accomplished, taking all the material in context, and just considering the immensity of the work and its appeal… Yip. And this is guaranteed to gull literary critics for generations to come. Does this mean that Tolkien is the best poet and author to ever live? Oh, heck no!… and that for some reason seems to gull many Tolkien fans. Edit: changed "Is Tolkien the greatest author of the century?" to "Is Tolkien's corpus the greatest work of fiction of the century?" [ February 21, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ] |
Quote:
I think that the critic should have probably taken into account that, in the timeframe that LotR was set in, Pip's song would have been considered very fashionable indeed! In fact, probably as fashionable as us belting out Christina Aguilera in the shower. I'm sure no-one here does that though, what with all the dignity. Purple "Gonna get dirrty - someday" Monkey |
Quote:
|
Hello. I thought I would take a break from corruption (another thread [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) and see what else was in the cupboard to nibble on. That was somewhat over an hour ago and, after following links and assorted asides, I am still chewing on what I found.
I am a late bloomer regarding Tolkien scholarship (aka, "Tolkien geek" here in the ever verbally economic U.S.) even though I've been a reader and re-reader since I was in kick pleats. This is a way of saying that I'm not as learn-ed as many of you in this thread, but I sure do like to learn. When I first read The Hobbit and LotR, I was alternately amused and annoyed with the poetry for the same reasons previously posted. The next few times I read Hobbit & LotR, adding The Silmarillion, I just skipped or skimmed the poetry. Here's a notion that approached as I travelled through everyone's posts ... I think that appreciation of Tolkien's poetry is something akin to appreciating fine wine. It gets better with age. At first, you're guzzling and gulping because it's there. Then someone says you're supposed to stop and smell the bouquet and swirl it about a bit in a lovely glass. You do some research and learn a few phrases. The next stage comes along; time and experience have accomplished some of their work, if you've allowed it. Many veils have been lifted, several scales have fallen from your eyes and you find that, without trying, you have truly learned to savor and swirl that which you used to guzzle and gulp. In other words, I now am floored by what and how much I overlooked making dismissive, fatuous assumptions about Tolkien's poetry. As I started last year's re-reading, I was stunned by the very first poem in LotR--the one before the table of contents. No longer was it a rather quaint, obligatory and prefatory mood-setter. It gave me actual goosebumps because by then I understood more about evil and its operational aspects. And, I instantly recognized that Tolkien's profound grasp of evil was matched by the ability to install very basic truths deeply into our mental hard drives. Now I have an inkling of why I have gravitated most of my life to his work (didn't mean to make a pun, and don't want to go through the self-conscious flutters over finding an alternative word so I'm going to leave it stet). I had much the same forehead-slapping gestalt experience about his prose, too. I'm just an envious wannabe at literary criticism (oh, how I'd love to wax on and not off at pubs and parties holding forth with insights and pithy proferrings, --you can see why I don't... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ) but I'd like to offer an excerpt from Ursula Le Guin on the subject. If anyone can remain among the ranks of the fashionably existential or the Tolkien's-too-trite-for-me camp after reading her piece, well ... some people are just too cool for us, aren't they? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] This is just a little tad out of her piece in Meditations on Middle Earth called "Rhythmic Patterns." (I'm sure some of you have read the book.) I selected a section that's relevant to the more recent topics of discussion; however, it is an education unto prose and poetry in itself. All punctuation is hers or the eds. Quote:
I'm going to start to wind this up. Here's some flotsam and jetsam ... Question: What is the background on Frodo's performance of the Man in the Moon ditty at The Prancing Pony? Did Tolkien fiddle a bit with Mother Goose or is this an Old Norse drinking song? [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] I feel I have been transported there and back again reading Squatter's own prose. Thank you, sir. Indeed, I have mightily enjoyed reading many posts in this thread, so I thank you all. I love having reasons to love the minds of Men. [ February 22, 2003: Message edited by: dininziliel ] |
I would quote, but my computer is being recalcitrantly SLOW in producing the archive of this thread. Anyway, I think it's Bill Ferny who came up with the following distinction: "edit: changed 'Tolkien's book as the greatest of the century' to 'Tolkien's corpus as the greatest of the century'."
Bill, this is a valuable distinction. It clarifies the debate in a way I have not seen until now. Is it original with you? |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.