The Tolkien Template - Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Ai! Ai! Cut off....I was censored by Morgoth no doubt. *sigh* I will attempt what Feanor could not and remake my argument. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

My question, then, is this: what do you mean when you say that "the quality of Michelangelo's perspective is probably better"? Clearly, you do not mean that Michelangelo's answer is closer to the truth, because you claim there is not objective truth. So in the absence of an objective truth, how do you define the "quality" of one's perspective? In what way can one view be better than another?

You are confusing two different things here. While there is no objective truth about art, there can be, in my most humble opinion, a somewhat objective truth about opinions on art. Michelangelo's opinion would carry more weight because of his awareness in the art form. He achieved this awareness by his experiance, etc etc. My truck driver's highest achievement in art is a sign he made for the Redskins game that said "THE HOGS RULE". No doubt there are truck drivers that are well versed in art, but for argument's sake mine isn't. Surely you can see the point I am trying to make. Each person's opinion is sovreign for themselves as to what they think is good or bad in art, literature, etc. But when comparing one opinion to another, there are things a person could look at to see which they might lend more weight to. Mike's arguments may sway me more than the truck driver's.

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).

There are obective portions to writing: grammer, spelling, and punctuation. For non-fiction I would add content. For fiction content = the story, the part that is the artwork of the author. We are, of course, talking about the story portion right now, the part that we have agreed is for the purpose of entertainment. (I don't really like where this is taking me but I press on.) Using Jordan as example -again only because I have seen him vilified in the Downs- he has entertained tens of thousands of people. I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses. I do not advocate that anyone abandon thinking for themselves, but it does make some sense.

But if you assign any value to this, then you are essentially saying that popularity is what determines how good a work of art is.

It sounds crazy to me too. More precisely I am saying given the absence of objective truth about a given work of fantasy fiction, the closest thing may be the aggregate subjective view of those who have read it.

Still, this is a whole lot of nothing. The "aggregate view" is meaningless next to your own educated opinion. To be educated in a work of fantasy fiction you must, at the least, read it. So my argument comes full circle: keep an open mind and go read stuff even if you think Tolkien right now sits at the right hand of God as the Muse of Fantasy and no one will ever measure up to him. To quote my earlier post:

At the bottom line openmindedness is the point of my argument. There is worthwhile material in the fantasy genre that does not have Tolkien's name on it. Today's authors do not deserve to be so harshly critisized for being influenced by the father of the modern incarnation of their art form.

From the Silver-Shod Muse:

The thing to do when you’re filled to the brim with the Tolkien Influence is to go to his sources and generate your own creations. Norse mythology isn’t a bad place to start at all. Really, any mythology is great. It is in mythology that one finds the beginnings of the Truth that makes brilliant fantasy.

I completely agree with this. Add to that going to the Tokien mythology, for isn't that what he was trying to make, a mythology belonging to Britain? For us today, Tolkien is part of the mythology we would use as source material.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]