Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant) - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Nar · 04-12-2002, 08:33 PM

I'm beginning to think that whatever The Lord of the Rings is, it is something of great value of a type that overlaps with literary values, while being not quite the same thing. Those who respond so powerfully seem to be finding a catharsis which is directed by the themes of the book. They find wisdom in it, and help. The words 'popular,' 'entertaining'
or even 'enduringly popular' (though that comes closest as an indicator) don't really seem to cover this. Themes are discussed elsewhere, but here's my list:
Loss of a connection to the past;
Loss of a connection to the environment;
Pervasive spirituality which is neverthless fluid and non-controlling;
A narrative of depression, despair and endurance;
Friendship and companionship.
Littlemanpoet and Child of the 7th age have ably described the theme of losses. When I read the book as a child it helped my endure a depression: it put heart into me. No other book had such an effect. This is more than just entertainment or the pushing of pleasant emotional buttons, as an action movie might. Pleasurable stimuli does not change a person, or help them in any way.

Why does this book have such an influence over some readers? It is not simply because it has good or wise themes. My best intuition is this: This book is working the way a poem works. I don't know that I understand that statement well enough to defend it, but I'll try.

An effective poem, the kind that 'blows the top of your head off' (Dylan Thomas, I believe) depends on a disciplined negotiation between form and meaning. So when I say it's working like a poem, that must be what I mean. The only example I can think of is a sequence from Virginnia Woolf's book To the Lighthouse(sorry, it's not a poem, just the best example I can think of): husband and wife are sitting reading, and the narrator describes their relationship as an unfolding rose, and somehow the language unfolded in petals like a rose. I don't know quite how she did it, but it involved the repetition of short phrases that in that context were somehow like petals, and the velvety sounds of the language she used. Yes, it blew the top of my head off. I became a different person; my mind became different, faster. The effect lasted about an hour.

There are many ways of executing literature effectively, but I'll define as poetry that relentless conjunction between form (shape and sound and rhythm) and meaning. No doubt that was obvious, but I had to make the argument to load the idea into my conciousness.

The Lord of the Rings is not refined to the highest degree of literary polish: every word is good, but not, I think, perfect. Although I love every word as it is! Nor is it seeking a tough-minded moral inquiry that dances on the edge of amorality, which can be seen in the finest examples of modern literature. It just puts heart into you. Its effect is not on consciousness but on the character of its readers (responsive readers).

The intuition I'm attempting to work out is that this effect on the character of a reader, at quite a deep level when it works, is caused by this conjuction of form and meaning, negotiated to the nth degree with determination and integrity. However, this negotiation is not happening on the surface of the text, which would be recognizable as high literary polish. The Lord of the Rings would then be in the literary canon-- no controversy, no argument. No, catharsis is achieved below the style, sound, rhythm and polish of the text. Catharsis comes from a negotiation between the deeper form (the plot, characters and terms under which their world exists) and the deeper meaning (the themes) Ok, now have I solved it? Have I reached the definition of quality along the lines of catharsis? That's the best I can do, anyway.

This would imply that later books in the fantasy tradition that fail, may fail because they do not pursue this negotiation between the deep structure and themes of the story: they just import a worn copy of Tolkien's solution, and they do so without understanding it. This argument must be waged anew for each new book within its new world for the same effect on the readers to be achieved.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

04-12-2002, 08:33 PM	#11
Nar Wight Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 228	I'm beginning to think that whatever The Lord of the Rings is, it is something of great value of a type that overlaps with literary values, while being not quite the same thing. Those who respond so powerfully seem to be finding a catharsis which is directed by the themes of the book. They find wisdom in it, and help. The words 'popular,' 'entertaining' or even 'enduringly popular' (though that comes closest as an indicator) don't really seem to cover this. Themes are discussed elsewhere, but here's my list: Loss of a connection to the past; Loss of a connection to the environment; Pervasive spirituality which is neverthless fluid and non-controlling; A narrative of depression, despair and endurance; Friendship and companionship. Littlemanpoet and Child of the 7th age have ably described the theme of losses. When I read the book as a child it helped my endure a depression: it put heart into me. No other book had such an effect. This is more than just entertainment or the pushing of pleasant emotional buttons, as an action movie might. Pleasurable stimuli does not change a person, or help them in any way. Why does this book have such an influence over some readers? It is not simply because it has good or wise themes. My best intuition is this: This book is working the way a poem works. I don't know that I understand that statement well enough to defend it, but I'll try. An effective poem, the kind that 'blows the top of your head off' (Dylan Thomas, I believe) depends on a disciplined negotiation between form and meaning. So when I say it's working like a poem, that must be what I mean. The only example I can think of is a sequence from Virginnia Woolf's book To the Lighthouse(sorry, it's not a poem, just the best example I can think of): husband and wife are sitting reading, and the narrator describes their relationship as an unfolding rose, and somehow the language unfolded in petals like a rose. I don't know quite how she did it, but it involved the repetition of short phrases that in that context were somehow like petals, and the velvety sounds of the language she used. Yes, it blew the top of my head off. I became a different person; my mind became different, faster. The effect lasted about an hour. There are many ways of executing literature effectively, but I'll define as poetry that relentless conjunction between form (shape and sound and rhythm) and meaning. No doubt that was obvious, but I had to make the argument to load the idea into my conciousness. The Lord of the Rings is not refined to the highest degree of literary polish: every word is good, but not, I think, perfect. Although I love every word as it is! Nor is it seeking a tough-minded moral inquiry that dances on the edge of amorality, which can be seen in the finest examples of modern literature. It just puts heart into you. Its effect is not on consciousness but on the character of its readers (responsive readers). The intuition I'm attempting to work out is that this effect on the character of a reader, at quite a deep level when it works, is caused by this conjuction of form and meaning, negotiated to the nth degree with determination and integrity. However, this negotiation is not happening on the surface of the text, which would be recognizable as high literary polish. The Lord of the Rings would then be in the literary canon-- no controversy, no argument. No, catharsis is achieved below the style, sound, rhythm and polish of the text. Catharsis comes from a negotiation between the deeper form (the plot, characters and terms under which their world exists) and the deeper meaning (the themes) Ok, now have I solved it? Have I reached the definition of quality along the lines of catharsis? That's the best I can do, anyway. This would imply that later books in the fantasy tradition that fail, may fail because they do not pursue this negotiation between the deep structure and themes of the story: they just import a worn copy of Tolkien's solution, and they do so without understanding it. This argument must be waged anew for each new book within its new world for the same effect on the readers to be achieved. [ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]