Book Debates: Quoting from Other Sources

[Saurreg]

I was reading the posts in a thread when a line caught my attention. I will not disclose the user name nor extract the statement in its whole and word for word because I do not know how comfortable that user would be to have something s/he typed in perhaps, nonchalantly, being adopted as a discussion topic. But it in my opinion very interesting topic that can be discussed upon.

The usage of the Letters of Tolkien and the contents of HoME is essential for a good debate...

Without a doubt that notion holds true for many a user, whether bad or good and practiced in many of the best threads of this forum. A quick search would show that this is no idle exaggeration.

Any extra information by the Tolkiens that is not from LoTR, The Silmarillion or The Hobbit is always welcomed. For many of us who do not have the time nor the opportunity to access such information, their extractions are godsends in helping us delve into the mind of the creator and understand the works better.

However it is the usage of such information in debates do questions arise. How should such information be used in a debate and when? I pose this because I have read the many threads in which quotes from the letters and HoME have been use extensively but with different intentions, styles and ultimately outcomes of debates.

It is in my opinion that the usage of such information should be for the sake of generating interest and substance in debates. The quotes must be made timely and sensibly so that they act as catalysts to broaden and prolong a debate, help to better explain one's point of view, provide all debators some prerequiste knowledge or simply provide some filler so that a waning or perhaps orginally dry topic can be better appreciated by all.

That is what I call the positive usage of said quotes and excepts from the books. Many good users here practice this way of quoting and extracting. To give you all a clearer idea of what i have been ranting about, I give two very recent examples:

Aiwendil's opening posts in each chapter-by-chapter study of The Silmarillion is meant as an intoduction to the chapters and a catalyst to start meaning debates. He uses extracts from the letters and HoME extensively BUT in a masterful and subtle way. The usage of the quotes as I understand is to give the debators the extra background knowledge and also to stimulate interest in the thread by giving the debators alittle bit more meat to chew upon and talk about.

In Maédhros Melkor/Arda Marred or Remade, he starts off the thread with extensive quotes from HoME. Infact what he quoted was greater than his own words, but in that context it was a very good thing. Because debators of that thread would find alot of important background information in those extractions which would have been lacking the The Silmarillion proper. This satisfies both providing the prerequisite needed for debate and also providing a catalyst to start the debate since users can refer to the quotes themselves.

Sirs, if you read this then please stand up and take a bow, for your efforts have not gone unnoticed!

Unfortunately there is a flip side to the coin. Just as quotes from the letters and HoME can be used in a constructive way, they can in times disrupt or even derail a thread.

Most debators who use the letters and HoME in their debate would most probably use the two sources of information to substantiate their posts, make clearer their message or to validate their stances. It is this validation of one's point of view that is the main cause of concern.

Debates in the books forum can without doubt be very intense due to the nature of the topics and the fine calibre of the debators. At times debates almost resemble competitions in which one debator tries to out-debate the other. This is where things go wrong, as debators lose sight of why there is a debate in the first place (community camaradarie, light-hearted entertainment and interest) and instead make it a race for forum prestige, reputation and other less than desirable whatnots only the human pysche can percieve and yearn for at that time.

When a debator loses his perception and thinks of a debate as nothing more than a personal duel then he becomes highly arrogant, cantankerous and hostile. Every posts made is intended as the post to end all posts and win the final debate and every method short of downright calling names is used. For those who have the HoME, extractions to be used for the debate are not used as mere shields to defend one's self but as stabbing daggers to snuff out the opponent and have the final word.

The word of Tolkien is the word of law, that is the stance those who throw out the quotes extensively would abide by and expect the others to do so. They take it as literally the last word of the debate and any other post short of counterextracting other parts of HoME is irrelevant because the trump card has been played. I WIN, YOU LOSE! What if the other debators propose something else that does not tally with the HoME? Then the HoME extracting, aggressive user immediately tries to play the "moral police" and puts the other user in a difficult position by posing glaring questions such as,

"So you think the Professior is wrong?" Or "Are you questioning Tolkien's own words?"

The end outweighs the means indeed. But at what cost? By debating in such a manner, an air of hostility is formed and that post with those quotes stop the discussion dead in the tracks. Even if the thread is resurrected miraculously, the quality of the debate let alone its liveliness would certainly be curbed. More importantly this would have the effect of creating unfriendliness among the debators leading to grudges, vendettas and other petty feuds.

As such I submit that the usage of the letters and HoME is important. But it should be used only in constructive ways to add substance to a debate and not kill it simply for the sake of vanity.