Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
11-11-2002, 08:38 PM | #1 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 32
|
The Tolkien Template - Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore
I'm interested to hear people's comments and philosophies on the following...
Much of the fantasy written today is garbage. People churn out imitative junk without truly paying homage to their sources. Many might say that all modern fantasy is based on Tolkien, but Tolkien himself would probably disagree. Tolkien admittedly was fashioning a myth based quite heavily on many existing myths. What Tolkien accomplished was the very meaning of myth - the stories are created from various sources - real experience, imagination, exaggeration; and are then filtered through many minds and mouths as time rolls ever on. He took from many sources (the man was a veritable goldmine of medieval myth and language), and fashioned a brilliant epic in the literary style and feel of myth. What much of today's fantasy fails to embody is a style that is both captivating and interesting. Much description of environment is a run-on laundry list of flowery phraseology. Example (made up by myself): They awoke the following morning, sleep still heavy on their minds. The glowing embers from the fire the night before provided the illusion of warmth and comfort. The morning dew glistened on the blades of grass, and songbirds heralded the coming of the sun. Whereas in Tolkien (and in old myths and legends from long ago) things are, literally, more intense: Down in the lowest and most sheltered corner of the dell they lit a fire, and prepared a meal. The shades of evening began to fall, and it grew cold. They were suddenly aware of great hunger, for they had not eaten anything since breakfast; but they dared not make more than a frugal supper. The lands ahead were empty of all save birds and beasts, unfriendly places deserted by all the races of the world. (from FOTR p. 202, Houghton-Mifflin, second edition). JRRT keeps things simple, but strings things in a way that flows and sets the scene perfectly. In cases where things need to be more intense, he adopts the absolutely ridiculous nature of myth, where the impossible becomes possible, and if not handeled correctly, or given the proper context, could become downright silly: With that he seized a great horn from Guthláf his banner-bearer, and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder. And straightway all the horns in the host were lifted up in music, and the blowing of the horns of Rohan in that hour was like a storm upon the plain and a thunder in the mountains. (ROTK, p. 112, ibid) or And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City. (ROTK, p. 113, ibid) To compare, here is a brief bit from Lady Gregory's Cuchulainn of Muirthemne (Irish mythology) And he cut down a tree with his sword, and it having four branches, and he lopped them short, and cleared the tree; and he stood up in his chariot, and with one cast he drove the tree into the ground that it stood deep and firm, and he set the four heads he had struck off on the four lopped branches of it. (Cuchulainn of Muirthemne, Lady Gregory, p. 152, Colin Smythe Limited) It should not be suggested that modern writers of fantasy throw off their current techniques and begin writing in a style based on Early Modern English, or that such exaggerated feats of mythical proportions be blatantly incorporated into their novels, but it might behoove more writers to examine how their actual prose might enhance (or inhibit) their stories and how they are conveyed to the reader. There is power in some writing that has nothing to do with the plot or characters...JRRT is a writer who reflects this concept. It is good to look at a poem he was quite in love with during his life - Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The alliteration used in that poem often tonally reflects what is happening in the story...things become more difficult to say when difficult events are transpiring, the language flows when the story is relaxed, and the language becomes very rhythmic and quick when the story touches upon festivities...I will not quote here, many editions are available for study. Fantasy as a genre is in its infancy in our world...perhaps many problems arise from writers trying to create something wholly original, when no art is truly (at its very core) original. In acknowledging the various sources that are imitated and drawn from, one transcends the problem of trying to separate from the very traditions that imbue stories with vibrancy and life. As a disclaimer, much of what has been said above relates the very insecurities I have with my own writing, and I will always be struggling to overcome them. As such, this thread is not intended to aid me in my personal problems, it is in the very analysis of them that I become curious about other people's opinions regarding the observations I've made. Thanks for reading, RG [ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: ReededGoat ] |
11-11-2002, 09:35 PM | #2 |
Haunting Spirit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 53
|
In my opinion Tolkien wrote from some higher or deeper level of the heart/spirit and I imagine that sometimes like Tuor he "marvelled to hear himself speak so." The beauty and depth of some of his prose is unparalled. Born in Norse myths like that of Sigurd and Volsung and Fafnir the dragon, and in the woodlands he played in as a child, his work became more than mere myth; it became a spiritual excercise.
'Do you wonder at this?'he said.'Behold! thy creatures now live, free from thy will! For I have seen thy humility, and taken pity on your impatience. Thy making I have taken up into my design.' --quoted from letter 212
__________________
only that Part from which he came |
11-11-2002, 10:01 PM | #3 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 13
|
A lot of the fantasy books I have read (and I've read quite a few) seem to copy off Tolkien in more than one way. Most have something to the effect of "the little unimportant person goes off to kill big bad guy without knowing much about what they are doing to begin with and group of people that go with little unimportant person to help get lost somewhere along the way." And of course the good guys always win. It is my opinion that these have been copied off Tolkien because his books are the earliest ones in which I have seen that happen. That's just my opinion, though.
__________________
I'm not weird, I'm gifted. |
11-12-2002, 03:21 AM | #4 |
Essence of Darkness
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Evermore
Posts: 1,420
|
You have a point. The thing is though, fantasty, because of Tolkien, is a particular genre that contains a lot of spin-offy type novels. Rather like Star Wars, except these fantasy books have nothig to do with Tolkien but are inspired by it.
Anyone who is inspired by another author to go and write a book is bound to be somewhat trashy; their story is going to be too close to the inspiring author. You can be inspired by other authors to write, kind of write in general, but if you follow them too closely you're bound to look fake. You have to have your own unique world to set fantasy in. Having said this, the problem may be in your own mind. Perhaps you are sort of comparing fantasy you read with Tolkien? Well, since Tolkien himself is insurpassable, you get a bit of a problem there, you see? Personally I don't tend to read fantasy for that reason; I find it too generally be a poor imitation of Tolkien. Once you've read the works of the Prof, everything else is naturally going to seem rather inept. I make one exception. Philip Pullman and his 'His Dark Materials' trilogy. I spose you'd call that fantasy, although it isn't the usual, run of the mill crude imitation stuff. In fact he bears no resemblance to the Great Man at all. He's very good though. Incredible imagination. |
11-12-2002, 05:35 AM | #5 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 32
|
I disagree that a writer inspired by another writer will write something trashy...far from it. I think part of the problem is not truly acknowledging where you are getting your stuff from. Many people try to hard to be original, and many times they are working within a closely imitative context (much to their own obliviousness, sometimes). Better to know fully that you are imitating, because then you are free to just write. In music composition it has been said that the best composer is one who steals well...from other composers. There is an argument to be made that nothing is truly original - I think there are some that get close, like James Joyce, but even in his crazy novel Ulysses, he was using the template of the Odyssey - thereby imitating one of the oldest works of literature known to man! Tom Stoppard the playwright can be closely tied to Beckett, but he has a voice all his own at the same time. A lot of my problems with the fantasy I speak of is in the actual writing...many of the stories are great! I have read many novels and said to myself - the stories are good, the characters are good, but the writing is lacking. It's like the spit-shine to the whole thing, and Tolkien's still got the shiniest car on the block.
That said, I do find it difficult not to consider JRRT when reading other fantasy, but I am able to evaluate based on my own criteria, without holding it next to JRRT. Thanks for the responses - great to read them, RG |
11-12-2002, 10:59 AM | #6 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Greetings and well met, ReededGoat. Fascinating name - a reference to the deity Pan?
*bows and tips bard's cap* There is a lot of imitative junk out there. I personally think this has at least as much to do with the publishing industry as lazy authors. I also believe that there are some writers who so badly want to get published that they prostitute their craft to the whims of the publishers. Therefore, mostly imitative stuff gets published. I think you would be interested in these older threads that have to do with similar slants on this topic:Writing in the Spirit of Tolkien Quote:
Another thread that might interest you is: Are You Writing Serious Fantasy? The above mentioned thread was a spin-off of a discussion that dealt with the whole question of whether fantasy is even a valid genre, and why doesn't any of it measure up to Tolkien? The other thread (which I can't find!!!! arg!) was called, "Are there any valid criticisms? (aka Kalessin's rant)". I highly recommend it. You'll feel right at home - if you can find it. |
|
11-12-2002, 11:06 AM | #7 |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
|
I found the thread littlemanpoet was looking for; here is Kalessin's Rant. Enjoy!
__________________
'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...' |
11-12-2002, 12:01 PM | #8 |
Ghastly Neekerbreeker
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the banks of the mighty Scioto
Posts: 1,751
|
The one truly original element that the Prof created, that is now copied in most fantasy novels, is the Hero as a "small person". (Not small just in terms of height, but in being a commoner) Before that, the Commoner as Hero was relegated to the the Fairy Tale, which were directed to children, usually as a moral compass or a teaching aid. The Mythic Quest was usually considered a more "grown-up" tale, and the Hero was usually of the nobility; a knight, king or powerful warrior. (Or in the case of very early Science Fiction, a "Man of Science".)
In the Fairy Tale, the Commoner Hero would have an adventure, which would, in the end, lead to a growth in status and earthly rewards. ("The Hobbit", is a classic example of the Fairy Tale, in fact.) In the Mythic Quest, the Warrior Hero would endure much more hardship, and would also undergo a period of self-discovery, and in the end, may even suffer a fall from grace and status (usually due to the sin of Hubris.) Tolkien was the first to successfully combine the two genres: The Commoner as Mythic Hero. Frodo summed up the difference very succinctly: "This is no treasure-hunt, no there-and-back journey. I am flying from deadly peril into deadly peril." And in the end the most deadly peril was his loss of innocence. His fall from "Hobbit Grace", as it were. This seems to be the element that most other fantasy writers seem to overlook when trying to copy Tolkien. They use the Commoner Hero, but too often the character does not go through the changes that make him a truely Mythic Hero. There is no fall from grace for them. They go through all the trappings of a Mythic Quest, and yet do not change. All they are left with is some great stories to tell by the fireside, as they go back to their old life. Their ending is more like Samwise's, not Frodo's. |
11-12-2002, 01:22 PM | #9 |
Wight
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oklahoma State University
Posts: 102
|
Wow that's one long post, but a good one ReededGoat. Well here is my humble opinion on the subject. One of the reasons that Tolkiens fantasy is so ground breaking is he wrote it as a history of Middle-Earth not mearly a tale of it. Living in pre-WWII England as he did he was distrested by the increasing urbanization and lack of english mythology. This guy could speak and read ancient Anglo-Saxon! Thats a feat. He wanted to create some sort of mythology that England could have for it's own. A deep and rich mythic history full of tales of woe and heroics. That's what gives Tolkiens work such amazing depths. Now some could say that Tolkien himself copied many Norse legends and mythology, most notabley the Ring of the Nibelung. But I don't think this the case. Tolkien used many values and ideals that the norse used. Mainly becuase the history he was creating was for an Anglo-Saxon people, pretty close to the Norse.
I do heartily agree that many modern authors tend to copy some of Tollkiens theme's and many how do just churn out novels that are cheap imitations of the genuine article. Most notable in my opinion is Robert Jordan [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img] but that is my OPINION. There are some fantasy novels that don't follow Tolkien's path, The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle is one. So obviously just because you write fantasy you don't have to follow Tolkien. So why do we keep noticing similarities. Well for one reason Tolkien tales have some themes that resonante not just in all off Fantasy but in human nature, the theme of, "the little unimportant person goes off to kill big bad guy without knowing much about what they are doing to begin with and group of people that go with little unimportant person to help get lost somewhere along the way" has been used in many of the books as Kaleidoscope pointed out. This has a theme of Hope & of the weak fighting against the strong. One of Tolkien's more prevelant themes is that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Sam, who starts out as the lowest, a mere servant, becomes the saviour. Who is the hero in LOTR? I' d say it was Sam. After Frodo was captured he kept on, nad would not throw away his quest. If not for Sam the quest would have been a failure. My favorite them is of forgiveness and redemption. In LOTR redemption is the key. Pity stayed Bilbo's hand from killing Gollum, and Frodo did much the same. Frodo's decision to have pity on Gollum was a decieding factor in the story. If Frodo had not forgivin him then the qeust would not of Suceeded. There is also the example of Boromir's repemdption and Argorn forgiving his previous actions. I wont go into the other themes. Some of these themes are hard to escape from and so sometimes it is understandable to have a little of Tolkien in your work. Although only a little, and more in the themes and objectives then in outright stealing characters and landscapes. So not all modern fantasy is terrible just a large percent of it. You just have to find an author that above all is writing to tell a good story not make mega bucks by getting paid by the word and pushing out huge amounts of trash ......cough...Jordan...Cough. Tolkien's works are the works of a great historian and wonderful linguist who wanted most of all to tell a good story and he certinly did.
__________________
For the valour of the Edain the Elves shall ever remember as the ages lengthen, marvelling that they gave life so freely of which thay had on earth so little. But it is not for thy valour only that I send thee, but to bring into the world a hope beyond thy sight, and a light that shall pierce the darkness." Ulmo - Lord of waters |
11-12-2002, 01:45 PM | #10 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Gwaihir----
On a side issue....I also think Pullman stands far above most other fantasy writers. When you read Pullman, it's as if you've taken Tolkien's ideas and stood them on their head in a very imaginative way. Some find his themes upsetting. I do not always agree with him, but I found the books mesmerizing! Bird-- Yes, I agree with you. You have said it very gracefully. It is Frodo's loss of innocence which makes him so compelling to us. What makes him different than many contemporary fantasy figures is that he is hurt and suffering but there is no cynicism there, no rejection of the wider ideals that placed him in the situation he's in. He's still the same gentle Frodo, only very, very hurt. So much goes unsaid at the end of the book! ReededGoat Interesting topic! Quote:
We are a very practical age. We no longer even give lip service to the creedo that it's important to get a good liberal arts education. College students specialize in practical subjects at a very young age, gearing up to making a practical living. They gain something, but they lose something too. Have you seen the recent interview by T.A. Shippey, a philologist who has done some great stuff on JRRT and Middle-earth? Shippey fears that we will never again see the likes of fantasy authors J.R.R. Tolkien or T.H. White whose works stand far above the rest. The reason is that we no longer have the education to produce such quirky, eccentric and erudite minds. This is very sad, but I am afraid he is right. sharon, the 7th age hobbit
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
|
11-12-2002, 02:55 PM | #11 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Ursula K. LeGuin's EarthSea series is another very good set of fantasy books. There is a sense of Place in her works that sets it apart from anything having to do with Tolkien. Her works stand on their own merit. I personally don't see why she doesn't get more credit.
Quote:
|
|
11-12-2002, 03:52 PM | #12 |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Littlemanpoet,
I do indeed believe that there are young writers out there who are wonderfully gifted with words and who have a deep feeling for fantasy. And you are probably right in saying that adjectives like quirky, eccentric, and erudite can be applied to them. Yet I would still argue that Shippey has made a very valid point. The vast majority of young people no longer take classes in history, mythology, and classical/medieval texts. In the late 1970s, I was in college and, like many others, took a strong and rebellious stand hoping to abolish required humanities courses in the curriculum. Unfortunately, in school after school, we succeeded. I could cite statistics and polls that would make your hair stand on end as to our deficiencies in the humanities. The home schoolers are a tiny but vibrant group. Yet, for various reasons,--economic, social, intellectual--homeschooling will never be a mass movement. Most children have to rely on institutions for their education, and these institutions have been sorely lacking. The young people themselves are not at fault. They are not responsible for our system of education or our funding priorities. Perhaps, I'm going to come off sounding like an ancient grouch who runs around yelling "It was better in my day!" Yet there is some truth in that! In the days of yore when I went to college every student was required to take at least a basic course in Western Civilization and in World Literature. It is a very rare school that still has such requirements. The days of a liberal arts education are gone. You are indeed lucky to be working with young people who have some background in history and myth. But also believe me when I tell you, that this type of background is rare. Yes, there are a fortunate few who come to the humanities via home schooling or their own curiosity. Yet many institutions of education do so very little to help these students. Shame on them! So I think Shippey has some reason to say that the Tolkiens and Whites, with their amazing grounding in history and myth and ancient literature, are becoming harder to find. sharon [ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
11-12-2002, 05:08 PM | #13 | |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
The only way to be free of Tokien's influence is to never have read him, and to never have read anything by anyone who did read him. The only way to write original fiction is to never read anyone elses fiction. Maybe you couldn't read anything at all, or even talk to anyone depending on how extreme you want to get with the word "original". No one on earth is truly original. Tolkien's genius was in taking his influences and putting them together in a new way. Tolkien created a world from made up languages. The basic elements of each were not original. Tolkien was influenced by every language he knew and every word he ever read. But the idea of putting the two pieces together that way was original, as far as I know. Hmm..I didn't go to the other threads linked to this thread. I hope I'm not repeating anyone.
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
|
11-12-2002, 08:12 PM | #14 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
I just tried to wade through the Rant and the four gazillion pages of "Are you trying to write serious fantasy?" I have never read so much well meant literary snobbery in all my life, mixed in alongside a huge amount of hypocracy with good intentions. Right down the same alley as this thread: critisizing authors for emulating the pinnacle of their art form (JRRT) and then in the next breath complaining because fantasy movies aren't winning Oscars. *sigh* Sorry Estelyn. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Maybe this post shouldn't be in this thread.
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
11-13-2002, 02:13 AM | #15 | |
Ghastly Neekerbreeker
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the banks of the mighty Scioto
Posts: 1,751
|
Quote:
Secondly - And when I state this, I am in no way making any kind of judgement call on stories of the Old Testment, or seeking to get into a theological debate. But if you look at the first part of the story of King David, it follows many of the elements that I mentioned above of the classic "Fairy Tale", in that it is the story of a small boy of the common people, who is called on to defeat an opponent, and in doing so earns a higher status and earthly rewards. (He become the King). It is only later in the story of David that we see the High Hero of the Mythic Quest, who struggles against adversity and his own human faults. David faces no such doubts and trouble at the beginning of the tale. He retains his innocence and his faith. We don't have the young David questioning his destiny, or falling from favor of God, or commiting some grievous error or sin that will change him forever. He is in the beginning, just a plucky shepherd boy with a sling, who steps forward, triumphs, and earns his reward. "And he lived happily ever after" The End. Of course we know that is not the end, any more than it was "The End" for Bilbo after he returns to the Shire after his adventures. But the Fairy Tale seldom takes us beyond that point. I'm reminded of a bit of doggerel by one of my favorite "local" authors, James Thurber: The World is so full of wonderful things, I'm sure we could all be as happy as Kings. (...and we all know how happy Kings are.)" But as I said earlier, Tolkien was the first to blend these two elements, the common hero of the Fairy Tale who goes on the epic Mythical Quest, and suffers some very deep, fundamental changes from it. He also suffers loss, falls from grace, and, eventually, gains redemption. None of these things happen in the first part of the Story of David. It may happen to him later, but that is another story, about a King, not a shepherd boy. [ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ] |
|
11-13-2002, 02:48 AM | #16 |
Essence of Darkness
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Evermore
Posts: 1,420
|
I still hold to my original post. Just about all fantasy you read is set in a medieval world, with a hero who goes out to seek enlightenment and/or perform some great essential task. Whether this has got anything to do with Tolkien or not is debatable; but the fact is, it seems pretty damm close. It is impossible to read it without thinking about how much better Tolkien would be, I think anyway... someone mentioned that the only way to enjoy a fantasy novel, is if both you and the author have never read Tolkien. (or something like that.) Good call; very true.
This question is, however, entirely based on how each individual reacts. For instance, as I have already said, I cannot help classing the lesser fantasy work (i.e. all fantasy other than Pullman, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Alan Garner and Pratchett -- who isn't really fantasy anyway -- and a few others) as inferior to Tolkien in my mind, and fail to be interested in them because I also class them as rip-offs and, well, lesser. Which I think a lot of them are. Sort of try-hard. That's just how my mind works with this respect. Maybe I'll get over it some time and start reading more fantasy; maybe not. (I read a lot, but not generally fantasy.) Actually, I don't think I will get over it, because the fantasy I read is of a subtly different kind to the average fantasy books. (Check the authors listed.) Perhaps everyone else's mind workd differently? |
11-13-2002, 08:28 AM | #17 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
I confess. *Raises hand in mixture of shame and pride* I am a snob and a hypocrite. Who ain't in one field or another? Now that that's out of the way, I still agree with Gwaihir by and large.
Child: I still see at least one problem with your support of Shippey's position, which I admittedly am getting second-hand from you. Whereas home-schooling is a minority development amid the educational world, it only overlaps with the minority of youngsters, and oldsters, who aspire to write good fantasy. The latter are an even smaller eclectic bunch of quirky, eccentric and erudite folk. To denounce the entire educational system of our own time seems to overlook the reality that the kinds of people who aspire to write fantasy are precisely the kind who are going to go out of their way to become familiar with mythology, the subjects of the humanities, and much else that more practically leaning folks won't bother with. And the internet makes the old documents readily accessible to these aspiring writers of fantasy - and just happens to make it a lot easier to find each other and encourage each other in becoming better and the craft. So whereas I agree that the golden days of the liberal arts in formal education are behind us, I believe that the new modes of communication available to those who aspire, more than make up for the lack. Hmm - Dungeons and Dragons may have a good influence on this knowledge base, too, derived and second-hand as it is. I wouldn't mind having "snob" and "hypocrite" delineated or illustrated a little bit - it might help us to clarify our beliefs, thinking, and arguments. |
11-13-2002, 08:32 AM | #18 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Oh! I almost forgot. Nar one of our Downs friends, has posited two different types of fantasy: transition and immersion. Immersion is the kind where you are in a world other than ours from the get-go. Transition is the kind where you start in current Earth time and move into another world, be it Faerie, a different planet, place, time, what have you. It is NOT the case that ALL fantasy is immersion.
Stephen Lawhead's Albion series is transtional. Pullman uses both. Tolkien, of course, is immersion, but started writing the whole thing as a transitional time-travel story. |
11-13-2002, 11:18 AM | #19 | |||||||
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
I may have quoted you a bit out of context Birdland. I re-read your post with your subsequent amplification your idea. I think we are arguing the same point. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Gwaihir, you miss quoted me on this one: Quote:
I have read JRRT’s stuff more times than I can count starting back when I was in the 4th grade. I am a Tolkienite elitist, and proud of it. However, I still enjoy many different fantasy authors, including Robert Jordan (GASP). I know he is one of the favorite whipping boys in this forum and I risk any chance at credibility when I say I can sit down and enjoy his stuff. Do I think he is as good as Tolkien? NO. But do I think his stuff his useful only when you run out of toilet paper? NO. That (the Robert Jordan bias) is some of the snobbery I was referring to, Gwaihir. I ran across most of that when I was trying to inflict the “Are you writing serious fantasy?” and the “Kalessin’s Rant” threads on myself. What I saw was a lot of Tolkienites bashing most everything else in written form that makes an attempt at the fantasy genre. I’ll stand in the front row of the Tolkienite apologists, but I won’t say no one else can write something worthwhile. I don’t mind when today’s authors show the influence Tolkien has had on them. Poorly disguised plagiarism aside of course *cough cough Dennis L. McKiernan*. Isn’t imitation the most sincere form of flattery? When I see people saying they won’t read anything else but Tolkien and Tolkien’s buddy C.S. Lewis I think about how many good stories they are missing. How about all the incarnations the Arthurian Legends have gone through? Should T.H. White or Mary Stewart have thrown their ideas in the trash because they were, to a large extent, using someone else’s ideas? I read sci-fi/fantasy for the pure enjoyment of it, not to be elevated to a more lofty state of consciousness or to attain the next level of oneness with the cosmic unity. That’s not to say I don’t, on rare occasion, have my consciousness expanded by some fiction I have read. People were hacking (in the aforementioned threads) on author’s for not having something important to say (I am trying to refrain from direct quotes to avoid the semblance of my own rant here being aimed at particular people). Didn’t JRRT write his stuff to be read for enjoyment? He denies a message, he denies allegorical connection. Hell, he wrote the stuff for HIMSELF initially, to go along with his invented languages. What purpose do you need to write fiction other than having a story to tell? Leave it up to the individual reader to decide what is worth his/her time. Quote:
Quote:
The hypocrisy is in wanting fantasy to be mainstream, and then turning around and bashing author’s for using the ideas of the master of their art form. Tolkien’s tools for creating a fantasy story became mainstream. It is hypocritical to bash authors who become popular and make tons of money (read “Robert Jordan”) using Tolkien’s forms. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. But don’t try telling me it has no value. *wipes brow* That is a long post. Hopefully someone can find something worthwhile in all that verbiage. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
|||||||
11-15-2002, 05:17 AM | #20 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Keneldil: At least you have the courtesy of appropriate disdain for McKiernan. Yet while accusing some of us of snobbery and hypocracy, you adhere to yourself discourtesy and uncharitableness; perhaps you do not understand - I don't know. Having never read any Robert Jordan, I cannot speak intelligently on that. However, Tolkien's work awakened a deep thirst and quenched it; but once the book had been read, the reader casts about for more of the same mead and seeks that unique, bittersweet taste, and does not find it; except by turning back to Tolkien again and again. The thirst is a delight in itself, but only so long as it can be quenched again. Each time a rereading of Tolkien is accomplished, the thirst awakens all over again, and the reader tries different heady meads and wines and finds them lacking, in one way or another. If, Keneldil, your pallate is less discriminating than that of some of us, so much the better for you. Please do not let that less discriminating pallate lead you to cast aspersions on those of us who, having tasted such delight, cannot stomach imitations that, missing key ingredients, turns our readerly stomachs. Thank you.
|
11-15-2002, 09:29 AM | #21 | |||
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
littlemanpoet: I see the "Are you writing serious fantasy?" thread was started by you. Apparently you have personally taken offense. I meant no disrespect to you or the intent of your thread. Upon looking back, I should not have included that thread in the "snobbery and hypocracy" statement. I apologize for my mistake. I have not made it through all of the posts, but everyone seems to be talking about their own writing and not condemning published authors for showing their Tolkien influences. I got revved up over some things said in the "Kalessin's Rant" and in "The Tolkien Template" threads and failed to separate your thread from them.
You are mistaking my intent. I felt that some of the IDEAS I read were snobbish and hypocritical. An agressive choice of words, I will grant you that. If you will note I also said "well meant" and "with good intentions". I think people get so passionate and zealous for Tolkien that they allow their feelings to close their minds to other good writing Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ] [ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
|||
11-15-2002, 10:51 AM | #22 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Keneldil: You mis-take me, for which I hold you in no offense. I hold LeGuin in very high regard; also Guy Gavriel Kay; and Pullman; Lawhead has some great moments. McKiernan is unbearable; I attempted Katherine Kerr and found her frustrating. The little bit of McCaffery (sp?) I have read I found delightful. Meghan Whalen Turner is a wonderful read. I enjoy them on their own merits, because they stand on their own merits, making no claim to be "in the tradition of Tolkien" or as good as Tolkien, because they don't need to. The Mists of Avalon was breathtaking, though I had problems with the out-and-out paganism when I read it years ago (I probably wouldn't anymore).
I hope you see the distinction I am attempting: Tolkien-parrots versus fantasy genre artists whose writings stand on their own merits. Perhaps Kerr is no Tolkien parrot, yet her choices irked me; perhaps that has little to do with this thread. I'm not going to belabor the "who is guilty of what offense" thing. I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas and clarification of thoughts and opinions. Peace! [img]smilies/cool.gif[/img] |
11-15-2002, 12:14 PM | #23 | |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
I have read work by most of the authors you mentioned. While I agree that they stand on their own merits, I do not think they escape the influence of Tolkien. To read Tolkien is to be irrevocably affected by him in any attempt to write in the same genre as he. I think that should be seen as a tribute to Tolkien's literary greatness, not as a failure on the part of today's authors. I read McKiernan when he first came out in 1985. I was just a kid, even I could see what a "parrot" he was. The only good thing that can be said about that garbage going to print is that it's a perfect example of what not to do with your Tolkien influences. George R. R. Martin is writing a series called "A Song of Ice and Fire" that I would recommend. You can clearly see Tolkien's influence on him (even in the way he writes his name), but he is no parrot. [ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
|
11-16-2002, 09:53 PM | #24 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
I think we are in agreement. I don't scorn any authors for being influenced by Tolkien. Would that more were, as long as they don't succumb to the parrot thing.
Thanks for the recommendation. Raymond Feist was another enjoyable read, though I thought the final ending to his myth was so democratic that it ruined the ending. Eddings is okay, but I grew tired of him. Right now I'm reading a book called "The Mammoth Book of Fantasy", published in the late 90's. It has about two dozen short stories, and traces the influences of not only Tolkien, but of Robert E. Howard and Lord Dunsany, and H.P. Lovecraft. I had forgotten how wide the vistas are in fantasy. So your point is well taken that there's a lot of good stuff out there that isn't Tolkien. I do agree that if someone has read Tolkien and is going to write fantasy, JRRT's influence will be there. |
11-16-2002, 10:12 PM | #25 |
Ghost Eldaran Queen
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: A remote mountain in Valinor
Posts: 353
|
I would like to jump back to what Child & littlemanpoet (Been missing me, guys? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]) were discussing about colleges. Yes, kids are being directed towards very specific degress, and I fear with dire consequences. I noticed the trend 10 years ago (cough, cough [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] gasp!)as I was graduating from college. No one wanted to take any history, philosophy, or other liberal arts type classes. The content was extremely dry, and the professors, or in some cases poor, unmotivated graduate assistants, would exert no effort in convincing anyone to persue the study of mythology/folklore/history/etc.
There were a few of us, however, who had the privlege of being influenced by those who showed us how magical life was when we also knew of such subjects. But, the majority have chosen to persue their specialized degrees and professions and cast off any learning of the liberal arts. This casting off is more than likely responsible for the "trash" that some of you are encountering. And, as more college graduates are entering the workforce unable to write a basic sentence in English, then our literature will begin to reflect this sad trend. It is up to those of us, dare I say "old schoolers", to attempt to reverse this trend. So, in short, I am proud of littlemanpoet's and Child's efforts to encourage us youngsters to produce writing "worthy" of our biggest influences, no matter who they might be. Anyone is capable of writing an excellent story, and any aid we can provide to them in their endeavor is worth it. Did any of that make sense, or am I rambling nonsensically? Good thread, Reeded Goat! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] [ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Aralaithiel ] [ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Aralaithiel ]
__________________
A lelyat, wen! (Quenya Elvish for "You go, girl!" |
11-17-2002, 07:14 PM | #26 |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
|
Aralaithiel,
Thank you for your peceptive post. You have put my own position into words better than I myself could. And I thank you too for your kind words. Littlemanpoet, I know there are bright lights out there. I've taught some of them in college and dealt with others as a librarian. There are many I see on this board. But you really have to fight and chart your own course to cling to the liberal arts and especially the humanities these days. And colleges are making it very hard for students to get a general humanities background. They are pushed to specialize earlier and earlier in disciplines which have obvious practical applications, and the number of classes they're allowed to take outside their major gets ever smaller. Sadly, the smaller we make our pool of folk who have the historical and literary background, the less likely we are to come upon that rare genius who can be a JRRT. Shippey was not denying that there are many good writers of fantasy. He was questioning if there would be a towering genius of the ilk of Tolkien any time soon. He said our educational system makes this less likely. I strongly agree with that based on my own experiences as a teacher and librarian. The priorities of this society make it more difficult, particularly for many students trapped in educational institutions that reflect those same values. sharon [ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
11-17-2002, 09:51 PM | #27 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
However, I must also say this: the premise is correct. Robert Jordan is not as good as Tolkien. Terry Brooks is not as good as Tolkien. No modern fantasy author is as good as Tolkien. It's nearly impossible to prove that proposition, and I don't expect to have changed anyone's opinion with such a simple statement of fact. Nonetheless, it is fact (within the limits provided by both Descarte and Heisenberg, of course). It is completely valid for a group of people to start with this assumption and move on from there. I realize I have not really addressed any of the issues with which this thread is concerned with, and I apologize. Carry on. |
|
11-18-2002, 07:54 AM | #28 | |||
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
|||
11-18-2002, 01:02 PM | #29 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Second, even if you omit the above consideration, I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize a piece of art even if you personally could not have done better. If that were true, it would mean that no one could ever assert that Tolkien is better than Jordan; we would be prohibited from saying things like "the plot of this book is too slow" or "the prose in this section is clumsy", etc. Quote:
1. Art is entirely subjective. It is therefore impossible to say that a given piece of art is superior to another piece of art. It is therefore impossible to argue that one piece of art is superior to another - in which case, you have to acknowledge that, objectively, all art is equal, and you must simply accept whatever someone says as being true for them. Therefore, you must allow people to think that anything non-Tolkien is garbage (and also allow people to think that Tolkien is garbage) without argument. 2. Art is in some way objective. It is possible for work A to be better than work B. Therefore it is justified to say "Tolkien is better than any other author of fantasy", and to support the argument. The proposition may be true or it may be false, but it is not merely an opinion. [ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ] |
||||||
11-18-2002, 04:08 PM | #30 | |||
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
Quote:
My point about popularity being equated with garbage...now that may have been a poorly formed criticism. It seems popularity is often related to “selling out” and mediocrity just because everyone likes it. It isn’t different enough. I retract that statement as possibly inaccurate in this case. Quote:
I did not intend to imply that one needs to be a published author in order to make creditable evaluations on another author’s work. If that is what comes across in my statement I apologize. I simply thought it interesting that someone who has sold thousands of books, and apparently must have some kind of grasp on what it takes to write something other people will like to read, gets castigated by those who, in all likelihood, have far less a clue. A side note: some of the opinions I refer to may not have come from this thread. Within this thread there are a couple of links to other threads that I checked out. I see your point, Aiwendil, about the two views of art re: subjective or objective. I guess I just don’t see how criticisms of art can ever be objective (i.e. one being better than another). 2+2 = 4 is objective. “My painting of the Sistine Chapel is better than yours because I used cubism to emphasize the architecture” is not objective to my mind. Anything someone could say about one work of art over another may not apply for someone else. My whole aim was to refute the idea that there is not a lot of good fantasy fiction out there for people to dig into. Whether or not that was explicitly stated, that was the feeling I got. I saw what looked like a lot of close mindedness in the name of praising Tolkien and it seemed misguided to me. I think JRRT would be proud of the genre he helped to bring into the modern time. [ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
|||
11-18-2002, 06:27 PM | #31 | |||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think a lot of people would agree with you about art being subjective. Here's an extreme example that would convince some people that it is objective: suppose we compare The Iliad with The Cat in the Hat, or the Sistine Chapel with a stick figure I drew when I was five. If you really think that art is subjective, you are compelled to say that in neither case is the former work superior to the latter. If I claim that the stick figure is better than the Sistine Chapel, you can't argue; in fact, you must agree that the stick figure is better, for me. This seems somewhat absurd, though it is actually a workable position. I don't really care which view you subscribe to; the point is, people who think that art is objective do actually have a decent argument. Quote:
|
|||||||
11-18-2002, 08:52 PM | #32 |
Wight
|
There are many undeniably Tolkien-influenced fantasy novels out there. I've read some that are so close to Tolkien in facts that it is sickening. But then, there are the fantasy novels that are influenced by Tolkien, but not just Tolkien and don't copy Tolkien. For example (I'll use myself so I don't insult anyone) I have written the story of a battle in the universe I am creating. I read Tolkien, so obviously something in the battle is going to mirror something of Tolkien's many battles. But I have also read The Once and Future King, so something from that is going to mirrored. When everything is said and done, I am going to mirror every single battle scene I have ever read in one way or another. On another point, someone who writes a love story is going to, in some way, mirror every love story they have ever read. The same goes for writing style. I have read mostly older books and therefore, my writing style is an older style. Others have read mostly newer books and therefore their writing style is probably going to be more modern sounding. This, though, is just my opinion and I will argue it to the death of me! Why? Because I think it to be true. Look at Tolkien, he mirrored every single bit of mythology and folklore he ever read, heard, or vaguely knew about. Not all of it is obvious, but it is there. In this way, I believe that someone can make something seem entirely orginal. If one chooses to mirror elements from every story, every poem, every epic adventure novel, every play, every musical, every history lesson, every last memory that their grnadmother shared, I believe that they can write something imaginative and original--without being original at all.
__________________
"And if you listen very hard/ The tune will come to you at last/ When all are one and one is all/ To be a rock and not to roll." --Led Zeppelin "Stairway to Heaven" |
11-19-2002, 09:26 AM | #33 |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
I will leave the discussion of subjective versus objective standards of art criticism to the erudition of Aiwendil and Kenedil (very interesting reading, by the way), and address Araleithiel (Hi!) [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] and Child of the 7th Age aka Sharon regarding the rarity of rare genius. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] (I highly amused myself with that last phrase.)
Moving on, we have two issues between which you see a ready connection and I don't: the rare achievement and greatness of Tolkien AND the demise of the liberal arts and humanities as the bedrock of American undergraduate education. Whereas I acknowledge this demise, I have not yet been convinced that it is the reason for the likelihood that Tolkien's greatness will never be achieved again in fantasy. There are two sides to the issue. On one hand, there was Tolkien himself, as artist, scholar, and all the heart, mind, culture, experience and so on that made him who he was, able to produce the work of great stature that he did. On the other hand, there was the educational system that nurtured his intellectual development. Though the educational system may have been powerful in its influence, it was not alone in making Tolkien the kind of writer that he was. We will never see the like of Tolkien again, precisely because the milieu in which he became the kind of writer he was, no longer exists. The same could be said of any great achiever, be it Bach in music, Michelangelo in painting, Rodin in sculpture, and so forth. To continue the point, Bach was not the only towering genius in all of music, however. There came Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, and Stravinsky. They were giants according to their own times. Just so, whereas there will never be another Tolkien, there will be giants and fantasy, perhaps just as great as Tolkien, who pursue the art in similar veins but in a different enough milieu to stand as tall as him while influenced by him. Yes, we are witnessing the demise of liberal arts and humanities in the educational system. Truth be told (correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon), the late 19th century and most of the 20th century were unique in that ANY individual, regardless of economic and social background, had the opportunity to become so educated and not pay the price of being a poverty stricken educate. Before that era, one had to be wealthy or noble or it would have been foolish to pursue such endeavors. Now the realities of a highly competitive market of scarce jobs forces the educational system to jettison the temporary luxury of liberal arts for all (it had in large part to do with a glut of baby boomers who became professors, now tenured and likely to live a long time, leaving such opportunities rare for ensuing generations, and so we may see another liberal arts craze with the passing of that generation to retirement). Back to the point. Whereas there may never be another Tolkien, there will be other giants in fantasy (witness Rowling, no great philologist mind you) just because a different era will be a hot-house for a different kind of giant. It will not look like what Tolkien produced, because it can't - and therefore shouldn't. |
11-21-2002, 04:38 PM | #34 | ||
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
||
11-21-2002, 08:51 PM | #35 | |
Wight
|
Here's an idea that sprang into my head when I read this:
Quote:
Now, let's say that both opinions of the book were published in the front when it was sent to the press again. Now, say you have found this book in the bookstore or in your library. You read the summary provided, then the reviews. If you are a writer yourself (whether of fan fiction or original genre-of-choice), I would be inclined to say that you would hold the review of the acclaimed author is higher esteem. If you are not a writer, but an avid reader of fantasy, I would say that you are likely to read both and say, "I'll see for myself." If you are not a writer and not an avid reader, I would say that you would probably give more of your trust to the casual reader's review. So, whose review is more likely to be trusted by the majority of people? Whose review is more likely to be trusted by the people who are familiar with the work of the author? Whose review is more likely to be held as "more valid?" On another note, I firmly believe that we will see a writer who will be as good as, if not better than, Tolkien. Maybe it will be one of the 'Downers. (Then we will all be able to say, "Hey, I know him/her from a Tolkien forum! Imagine, now he/she will have forums dedicated to his/her work!") This writer, who will emerge, will have to live up to Tolkien--in the eyes of people who love Tolkien's work and in the eyes of people who have never, or have but once heard of Tolkien. This writer will have to be better than Tolkien, or else he (or she) will be "just another Tolkien influenced writer." This writer will have to acheive that perfect balance of being more complete than Tolkien in the background of his universe while leaving plenty open to speculation. It will not be an easy task for this writer, nor will it be an easy task for the die-hard Tolkien fans to accept him. Why? Because they (I should say "we") will have to accept him as a writer influenced by Tolkien who regarded Tolkien as a master, but who surpassed Tolkien. And on yet another topic, I will offer terrible proof that the arts are slowly being demolished in schools. In my high school this year, funds were cut for all "dead" or "becoming dead" languages. Greek, Gaelic, and ancient Arabic were wiped out of the curriculum completely. Latin was cut back to one year to be taken as an elective only. Tolkien, CS Lewis, TH White, Ray Bradbury, Marion Zimmer Bradley, etc. were all banned from school grounds. The funds for both the art program and drama club were cut back severely. The Writers' Clubs (for Sci-Fi and Fantasy only) were destroyed as they promoted "anti-scientific, witch-craft like, and anti-religious" ideas. The English curriculum had three wonderful books cut straight out of it. They are Romeo and Juliet, Lord of the Flies, and Beowulf. They were cut out because time did not allow for it. The creative writing courses were all but destroyed. All this because the math and science departments needed more money. Now, I have nothing against math and science (I am a future architect, both will be involved in my career), but I hate to see so many artistic programs destroyed or cut back. It cut especially deep when the fantasy writers' group I started was ended. I will not go on into detail about how this will hurt the future if things like this happen all over the world. I'm sure others can draw the conclusions for themselves.
__________________
"And if you listen very hard/ The tune will come to you at last/ When all are one and one is all/ To be a rock and not to roll." --Led Zeppelin "Stairway to Heaven" |
|
11-21-2002, 10:31 PM | #36 | ||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quoth Keneldil:
Quote:
Is it merely that Michelangelo/the published author knows what will sell well or be critically acclaimed and the truck driver/anyone else doesn't? If that's the case, then a "better" view is only a more popular one - but surely the only distinction between the published author and, say, me, is that the published author is (far) more popular. (Note: I would add that the published author also has superior writing skills, but if you insist that there is no objective measure of the quality of art, then "superior writing skills" is placed in the same situation as a "better" view). This is not a rhetorical question, and I am sincerely interested to hear your answer. It seems to me that you are trying to walk a very fine line between saying that art is subjective and that it is objective, and in my opinion, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny - but perhaps you have an argument that does. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Spake littlemanpoet: Quote:
Teithant Cúdae: Quote:
[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ] |
||||||
11-22-2002, 06:42 PM | #37 | |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 128
|
Quote:
__________________
"Trust in the ball Jake.....and throw yourself." |
|
11-24-2002, 11:40 AM | #38 |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Alas, your answer seems to have been cut off. I am upping the thread in the hope that you'll repost it.
Last edited by Aiwendil; 07-03-2021 at 03:33 PM. |
11-24-2002, 05:56 PM | #39 | ||||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The shoulder of a poet, TX
Posts: 388
|
Quote:
Most readers of Tolkien have felt that painfully gripping power of Middle Earth that compels us to love everything about it, artistically (one must admire the genius behind Ents and Trolls alike) and emotionally (the passing of the Elves, the self-sacrifice of the smallest for the greatest). By the time the story has been told, Middle Earth is ours too, and we can understand why the essential task is essential. It isn’t for the Hero to show what he can do, it’s for the world that the Hero loves. Quote:
“Just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth. We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour.” Quote:
There is no equaling Tolkien, we’ve seen that thus far in the list of modern fantasy authors, but there is, or will be, surpassing. Surpassing Tolkien's work would be greater flattery than imitation. Quote:
My God! Anti-religious? The fools! Obviously the school board has never read Tolkien. [ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]
__________________
"'You," he said, "tell her all. What good came to you? Do you rejoice that Maleldil became a man? Tell her of your joys, and of what profit you had when you made Maleldil and death acquainted.'" -Perelandra, by C.S. Lewis |
||||
11-24-2002, 11:10 PM | #40 |
Wight
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: austin
Posts: 169
|
littlemanpoet: "Yes, we are witnessing the demise of liberal arts and humanities in the educational system. Truth be told (correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon), the late 19th century and most of the 20th century were unique in that ANY individual, regardless of economic and social background, had the opportunity to become so educated and not pay the price of being a poverty stricken educate."
We have more access to free information today than at any time during history. If a person wants a liberal education he or she can attain one independent of formal college training. Perhaps an education so attained might produce an individual with sufficient motivation to become the next Tolkien or Bach. Tolkien tinkered with Middle Earth for about sixty years. After the Hobbit was published, it took him fourteen years (I think) to write the Lord of the Rings. And he didn't quit his day job to do it. I think it's a question of whether an individual in our "instant" society is motivated to invest the toil and effort to produce a work as brilliant as LOTR, not whether anyone alive not is capable of it. [ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]
__________________
Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|