![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
![]() |
#81 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
A starting point for discussion. ![]() I really like Doug Potter's illustrations. They're a hoot!
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#82 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
More from Mr M. http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/Moorcock1.htm
As far as I'm aware neither Pullman nor Moorcock have been through the kind of experience Tolkien had on the Somme. Don't know if this is at all relevant, but it occurs to me that they would both be freer in their analysis of evil, not having seen it face to face – both Pullman & Moorcock have the luxury of playing with evil, with the idea of the devil as Byronic rebel against authority. Tolkien simply couldn't do that, due both to his wartime experiences & his religious background. His wartime experiences & the loss of his mother & his childhood idyll in Sarehole were obviously behind the 'idealisation' of the countryside, while his years in industrialised Birmingham were the cause of his hatred of industrialisation. Of course his personal experiences & beliefs would have shaped his fiction. Moorcock & Pullman miss the essential point that Tolkien could not have written in any other style or about any other subject in any other way. Their comments not only attempt to invalidate his work, but to invalidate his life & experiences as well. In short, what both are saying is that he should have shut the hell up, that if his life & his experiences meant he could only write what he did, he shouldn't have written anything at all.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-15-2006 at 04:56 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#83 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
I am not surprised that these fantasy authors have expressed their opinion on Tolkien, given his standing within the genre. Particularly so in Pullman's case, given that it seems to be the frst question that journalists ask him (and as Bb, I think, points out, journalistic reporting of his response may not be the most reliable source of his views). They are entitled to express their opinion and to provide justification for that opinion, particularly when asked, and they are fully entitled to dislike Tolkien's works. Surprisingly ( ![]() While I admire the works of both Pullman and (particularly) Moorcock myself, I do nevertheless find myself slightly at odds with their arguments, as expressed here. They both appear to take the approach that there is a particular way to write a fantasy/SF novel, namely the approach that each of them adopts. That assumes that all readers are looking (or should be looking) for the same thing in a novel, a stance with which I fundamentally disagree. It would be a dull world indeed if we were all to share the same tastes. It is difficult, I think, to make a qualitative assessment of differing authorial styles in a world where even the poorest writers (poorest, that is, in my opinion) can garner mass appeal. Moorcock's arguments are to my mind the most compelling, being the more developed. I partly agree with him with regard to Tolkien's literary style, from a "technical literary" perspective. But, then again, technical expertise in the literary field is not always sufficent (or even necessary) to win the hearts and minds of readers, or indeed (as I have said) to garner mass appeal. I also partly agree with Moorcock's view on why tales such as LotR are so popular, but perhaps that is because I lean rather towards some of the characteritics that he defines in a Tolkien (and Pooh) reader, and unashamedly so. ![]() Pullman's argument, in my view, is less convincing, although that is perhaps because we only have it secondhand. On that basis, what he fails to appreciate, I think, is that readers can enjoy his works purely as entertaining reads without feeling the need to identify, much less identify with, his "message", while other readers can find much meaning in Tolkien's works. On that level, his works are no different from those produced by Tolkien. It all comes down, again, to what appeals to the individual reader. (Do I hear echoes of the dreaded C-thread ![]() My enjoyment of Pullman's trilogy primarily derives from my reaction to them as entertaining reads, and for many years I approached LotR on the same basis. I can discuss messages, authorial intent and the like. I think that both can provoke serious thought on the human condition. But I prefer to read them as enjoyable tales. As it happens, on an intellectual level, I find Pullman's view of human nature and good/evil the more acceptable, far morseo than Tolkien, whereas it is Tolkien who touches me at a deeper, more instinctive, level. I have no issue with the basic premise behind the struggle depicted in Pullman's trilogy. Where, however, I do find him open to criticism, is in his attempt to portray this struggle as an all-encompassing one spanning the entire universe across multiple dimensions. It seems to me that he over-reaches himself and so loses credibility. My complaint about the latter parts of his trilogy, therefore, is more a technical one than a philosophical one. Tolkien, on the other hand, developed only one world, and concentrated in detail only on certain parts of it, both temporally and geographically. His works, therefore, come across to me as far more convincing (and thus engaging). Overall, however, I find it refreshing occasionally to hear the views of those who do not regard Tolkien as the best thing since sliced bread, and I think it entirely proper (and indeed healthy) that those views be expressed, particularly when they are expressed intelligently and coherently (whether we agree with them or not), and especially on a Tolkien board such as this one.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 08-15-2006 at 07:06 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#84 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#85 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#86 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
What I think Moorcock is reacting to--and I agree with Sauce here that they have a right to express their opinion--is the depiction of fantasy as an escapist form of literature that glories a past. There are others who, when faced with the kind of experiences Tolkien's generation faced, did not look back but envisioned a different future. I don't think Moorcock is invalidating Tolkien's experiences so much as saying something about England. I note that Moorcock no longer lives in England. He moved to Texas and apparently is thinking of dividing his time in France as well. He clearly has a frustration with what he perceives as the direction of English culture and society and I suspect that he feels Tolkien et al part of this. I really want to read Mervyn Peake now and compare him to Tolkien, to see if there is this juxtapostion which Moorcock suggests. Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#87 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
While there are some very well-expressed arguments made here against Pullman’s position, and I have no problem with that, there is also a slight undertone of “how dare he criticise Tolkien?”, an approach which automatically reacts against him simply because he does so. Fact is that there are an awful lot of people who do not respond to Tolkien’s works in the way that we do, and there is nothing wrong with that. To react against Pullman simply on the basis that he dislikes Tolkien, or dares to criticise him, or holds a different philosophical position from him (or you) is to make the same mistake that both Pullman and Moorcock make in assuming that their way is the “best”.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#88 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#89 | ||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Actually, I will pick out one name ... Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#90 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
If you click the link in my sig you'll be able to read a lecture by Pullman, not simply quotes taken out of context.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#91 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
I know of Moorcock mainly for his work in the New Wave SF but these links from davem are really inspiring me to read his most popular work, Elrick of Melniborné . From the Wiki article, it seems clear that an ideological bent causes Moorcock to favour Pullman. What I want to know is if Elric is as good a story as LotR.
Re: "seeing the world through enchanted eyes" Six of one, half a dozen of the other. If the enchantment causes men to forsake life and limb for an historical social order that is not only wiped away, but hypocritical, self-serving, and brutally abusive to the lower orders while demanding the sacrifice of the lower orders to keep the upper ones in power, then the fantasy offers a false sacrifice. Perhaps it all hinges on whether one bemoans the passing of the old European order? Or is something else involved?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#92 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
I see nothing there to suggest that Pullman is ignorant. Indeed, I found that lecture and the interviews posted by Tevildo and Squatter earlier to be to be highly absorbing and I found myself agreeing with him on many points. I actually get the impression of a highly intelligent, thoughtful and reflective man, albeit one who is forthright in his views and who can clearly be provocative at times (reminds me of a certain Barrow-Downer ... ![]() The article linked to in Tevildo's post is actually vaguley complimentary of LotR, since he refers to the numerous Tolkien imitators as "sub-Tolkiens" (suggesting that he rates Tolkien more highly than those who have attempted to repeat his style) and to LotR as the "Everest" of the fantasy genre. Not only because it is unavoidable (being a bloomin' great mountain) but also because (as this suggests he recognises) it towers above much of the rest of the genre. And it is in this analogy, and upon re-reading the thread, where I see why I am uncomfortable with some of what has been said here. There seems to be a general assumption that Pullman delights in criticising Tolkien, that he goes out of his way to do so, and that he actively seeks to discourage people from reading Tolkien's works. I don't see that to be the case at all. Inevitably, Tolkien's works come up in most interviews that he gives (courtesy of the journalists concerned). He cannot avoid addressing this Everest of the fantasy landscape. LotR did not appeal to him, and so he would be dishonest were he to pretend otherwise and neglectful were he not to seek to explain why it did not appeal to him. Moreover, in the lecture referenced in davem's signature (which concerns fantasy literature and so inevitably raises the spectre of Everest once more), he uses LotR to explain why he wanted to approach his own fantasy writing (to which he was compelled by his imagination) differently. I don't agree with his categorisation of LotR as "thin" and "trivial" (as my own opinion of it differs from his), but I can understand the point that he is making, given his own reaction to the book. Is he insulting because he expresses his opinion of LotR when the circumstances require it? No, I don't think so. Is he ignorant because he found little in LotR that appealed to him? Categorically not.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#93 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
If you weren't referring to WW1 please ignore the above. As to Moorcock's 'opinions': Quote:
The comment that he feels 'contempt & disgust' for those who voted for Tolkien as author of the century is hardly 'reasoned argument' or even 'opinion' - it is a nasty, petty insult. Finally, its 'proto-Nazi'. Again, this is a man who either knows nothing about 'Nazism' or is just hurling an insult in order to be nasty.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-15-2006 at 01:25 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#94 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
![]() |
Short rant.....
Quote:
Seriously, some very legitimate criticisms of Tolkien can be made. But isn't it interesting how many of the more extreme opinions require the reader to subscribe to a particular set of values, one that essentially limits the set of possibilities open to consideration in a particular world. It would be so much more honest to say this: "I personally don't like X, and since Tolkien shows X in his writings, I simply don't like his approach." I could accept that statement of personal preference. Instead we are all asked to subscribe to a particular philosophy or point of view as if that was the only legitimate one in the entire universe.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#95 | |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
![]() |
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#96 | |||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]()
Didn't get a chance to read the interview with Moorcock earlier, as it was blocked by office system (Adult/Sexually Explicit!
![]() Quote:
To be honest, I highly doubt that Moorcock has read much more of Tolkien than LotR and, perhaps The Hobbit, and so probably has little understanding of the depth of history behind those two works. And, if he dislikes Tolkien's style, why should he read any more? It is perfectly acceptable to critique one particular work produced by an author, provided that it is taken as just that - a critique of that work, rather than the author's entire body of work. I am not sure what he means when he says that LotR lacks tragedy. Again, this probably reflects his lack of knowledge of the entire "Legendarium", and also his approach that fantasy works should embrace "real life" issues rather than fantasy ones. When Moorcock describes LotR as "lacking weight" and Pullman describes it as "thin" and trivial, they do not mean that the characters and events described are under-developed within the context of the story. They mean that such characters and events do not reflect "real life", but are restricted in what they say about the human condition to the fantasy world which Tolkien created. In their view, therefore, characters such as Gandalf and Frodo, their reactions, motives and ambitions, lack real world applicabilty. I disagree with them on this, for I regard matters such as the friendship and loyalty between the Hobbits as perfectly relevant and applicable to real world relationships. Similarly, Tolkien's characters face temptations similar to Lyra's "seduction" by Mrs Coulter and the bright lights of London society life, even though the latter is perhaps more directly applicable to our daily lives. We may not struggle with a One Ring ourselves, but we can find the character's struggle with its seductive nature applicable to other things in our lives. Nevertheless, while I do not subscribe to these opinions expressed by Pullman and Moorcock, I can understand where they are coming from. Quote:
Elsewhere in the interview, though, he expresses a rather more positive on Tolkien (the man). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#97 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#98 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
It seems to me that what Pullman & Moorcock are complaining about is that Tolkien didn't tell them what to think. He refused to write 'allegory' - what he did set down was his own vision of 'life, the universe & everything', 'seen through enchanted eyes' which is not to say that he wrote 'fairy stories' or produced 'spun candy' in any way. Horror, pain, loss, sacrifice, are all there, along with love, friendship, honour & beauty, but they are mythologised in order to bring out their timeless & universal aspect so that they become applicable to us & our everyday lives (to the extent that we want them to be). Its as if Pullman & Moorcock are listenening to Tolkien read LotR. At the end they ask Tolkien what the message was. He says, 'No message. Its a story, what did you think?' They respond 'But what were you trying to say to us? We have to know what the 'message' is before we can know whether we can allow ourselves to like the story. If the message is a bad one we will have to dislike the story'. And Tolkien replies, 'No, its a story set a long time ago, full of heroism & sacrifice, loss & love, beauty & ugliness - a great tale. Did you like it, did it move you, has it affected you in any way?' Moorcock & Pullman look at each other in exasperation & speak to Tolkien as if to a child 'But how are we supposed to know whether we were moved by it, or if so, how we were moved, whether it was good or bad, until you tell us what it means?' Finally they decide that if there is a message it must be a bad one or Tolkien would be open about it, or that if there isn't a 'message' which they can either agree, or argue with, the story is worthless.
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 08-16-2006 at 12:16 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#99 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
And really, I don't think the point is the message or ideology per se. Or that there even has to be a message. Again, I go back to the idea that Moorcock is putting epic romance in a historical or cultural context and asking if that is the only form possible for fantasy. Tolkien operated within his own philosophical or theological beliefs--all writers do. Some simply foreground them while others prefer to let them colour the background, so to speak. I go back to a question I asked earlier. Why was Tolkien unable to write stories for the fourth age and later? What inhibited his imagination? Was he merely tired, was it old age? I don't ask this as a criticism, but as a way to understand his writing better. I know people who say they would attend church if their church was a beautiful old gothic style. But what does it say if belief is so completely carved in stone? Is this feeling applicable to Tolkien?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#100 |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
It makes me laugh when people who aim to be anti-establishment claim that all those who are against change are automatically 'reactionaries' or even 'proto-Nazis'. Why? Because in the modern world we are all constantly bombarded with 'change' and we are constantly reminded that we are not 'cool' if we do not embrace it, even that we are unemployable if we do not accept it. But all this embracing of 'change' is just being done to encourage us to be forever unhappy and hence to work even harder and buy even more stuff, buy a bigger house in a better area, get a better holiday next year, go somewhere different (even if it destroys the environment), accept a bigger workload when staff are cut, be bored and restless all the time until we die.
Any prospective anti-establishment writer would do well to think about why change is a big con. The other little rant that's been provoked by this thread is that yet again another writer has seized on this quasi-medieval 'thing' about Tolkien. Well, I always read LotR as an incredibly modern book with quite stark and bleak themes. If people are associating it with the medieval period then it's that they have this in their own heads. Certainly The Shire is more like early 20th century England, and Rohan isn't Medieval. It's just readers' romantic notions of a colourful period in history imprinting themselves on their ideas of what Tolkien was writing. Here's another rant. ![]() There will always be a market for 'stuff' produced for people who quite pointedly do not like 'other stuff', that need has created a hundred and one different youth movements (punk as reaction to prog rock, grunge as reaction to yuppies etc). Well it seems there are people who love the rollicking good narrative provided by a fantasy novel but who pointedly do not want to be seen reading Tolkien, who want to be different, alternative. Writers who fulfill that need will no doubt sell more books by being vocal, vituperative, and perhaps we should read their criticism as marketing blurb rather than valid analysis?
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 | |||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Unlike Pullman and Moorcock, however, whatever disagreements I may have with Tolkien on these issues, as reflected in the society which he created, I do not find that these impair my enjoyment of his tales. Partly because I do not expect them to speak directly to my “real life” experiences. And partly because I do not subscribe greatly to Moorcock’s (and, I suspect, Pullman’s) political leanings. Which makes me wonder. Is LotR a fundamentally right wing work (and I am not talking about the extreme right here)? Is it more likely to be appreciated by those with conservative, traditionalist political leanings? Spiritually and socially, Tolkien does come across as rather orthodox but, from his Letters, he seems to be rather politically radical (although his politics seem closer to anti-big state “enlightened Toryism” than anything else). Quote:
Quote:
I nevertheless do think that it is rather unfair to categorise Pullman and Moorcock as rejecting stories for their own sake. What Pullman says in one of those interviews about the importance of the story and his own trilogy almost writing itself sounds very similar to statements made by Tolkien in this regard. I am not sure that they expect a “message” in the sense of an allegory. They are perfectly happy to accept a story for its own sake, provided that they can find applicability in it. And they do not find that applicability in LotR. Fair enough. Not everyone does.
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 08-16-2006 at 07:09 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#102 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
It seems to me that both Pullman & Moorcock are criticising LotR for an absence of any 'message'. Pullman's comment that it is 'spun candy' that it is trivial, that it has nothing to say to us implies that he feels it should be saying something. Moorcock seems to feel that what it has to say is either trivial or reactionary. Moorcock seems so desperate for it to say anything that he will impose a meaning on it & then criticise that meaning.
Pullman stated in an interview on BBC radio (hosted by Germaine Greer) that he was 'using fantasy to undermine fantasy'. Greer, with her well known dislike of fantasy was having none of it & adopted a sneering tone all the way through & Pullman went off with his tail between his legs. Whatever. Pullman has also stated that he wishes he could write 'serious' novels but hasn't the ability (interview with Brian Sibley on Radio 4). Pullman clearly feels that fantasy as a genre is for children & inadequate adults & needs a damn good thrashing & putting in its place. Moorcock seems to feel that fantasy is all well & good as a vehicle for his politics & must subvert the status quo if it is to be acceptable. Both want to be accepted by the literati (Moorcock has even gone so far as to re-write the ending of one of his novels - Gloriana - to make it more 'PC' in response to a criticism by Andrea Dworkin: http://www.infinityplus.co.uk/fantas...n/gloriana.htm ) Quote:
Of course, one could argue that Smith is also set in a later age of M-e... |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]()
Perhaps we should invite Pullman and/or Moorcock to contribute to this discussion so that they can explain their respective positions, rather than continuing to speculate on the motives and intentions behind the points they make in connection with Tolkien's works and fantasy in general.
![]() ![]()
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#104 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]()
Given that the King of Fairie in Smith is a prentice chef who excels at baking fancy cakes, and that the original name of the story was The Great Cake, the eating of which provides an opportunity for a chosen one to enter the realm of fairie unscathed, I suspect that Tolkien would not have looked askance at the 'spun candy' attribution.
![]() ![]()
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 | |
Spirit of the Lonely Star
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 5,133
![]() |
Just a minute here, SpM . If we ask Moorcock and Pullman, surely we must invite Tolkien as well! I enjoy the writings of all three authors, but my personal sympathies are closer to Davem's on this issue.
Quote:
Still, we have to be careful with this labelling. The odd thing is that, a work labelled reactionary in one era can be viewed as liberal in another. Even in the same time period, one critic can have a different take than another. Tolkien's "pro-rural, anti-technology" message can be regarded as reactionary. Yet, another critic might argue that Tolkien was one of the earliest authors who challenged readers to consider the implications of man's indifference and/or manipulation of the environment.
__________________
Multitasking women are never too busy to vote. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#106 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
![]() |
goldilocks
The only reason we are hearing from anyone (including those who are critical) with an opinion on the works is because of the massive end result (impact) to the reader. And not just one particular reader. Massive, meaning the incredible size of the swath that it cut through society. The beauty of it was that it wasnt written with this, or any other high-falutin literary end in mind. Yet, such an incredible result.
Now, long after the fact (of creation) comes supporters and detractors, certain that they know how\why, or how not \ why isnt. Would anyone care to opine if the end result didnt exist? Or, perhaps denying it existed in the first place works better for some..? Much like those who would tear down a thing to not only see how the thing works, or others who would tear down a thing to build their own shabby facsimile in defiance or jealousy, or spite. I would daresay there are few out there like me who have spent a lifetime enjoying the works, and the reason I (we) do isnt the underlying thesis, or the political social message. An ingredient, which, taken out of its context, reveals many defects and flaws. The writing style is stilted and out of date. The narrative of the action is curt. Character development could have been better. Yea ok - but I would submit that any deviations from what we have would lessen the impact of the work for me. Perhaps it was that JRRT was merely the first to take Faerie seriously. All I know is that what my mind's eye sees is what the author intended, and it's a good thing that he took me seriously. I begin to know Faerie, thanks to JRRT. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#107 | |
Princess of Skwerlz
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles)
Posts: 7,500
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
__________________
'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...' |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#108 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Smith had lived two lives since he came of age, & intgrated them well enough, though his family & fellow villagers have had to share him with the OtherWorld. In the end, when he is an old man, he is cast out, his passport taken away from him & he is left to share his final years with his family. How much did they miss of his life? What did his wife & children have to sacrifice, knowing that they were excluded from so much that was of central importance to him? How much did he miss of their lives while travelling in Faery, knowing they could never share that aspect of his life? And all the time he knew that he did not belong there, was only a visiting wanderer beneath the trees. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#109 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]() Tolkien is not politically unaware, but I firmly believe he is politically ambiguous. It would be wrong to confuse his status as middle class white Catholic male with what he wrote, as the text does not bear out the kind of writing we might expect from that stereotype. The main thing to remember is the incredible subtlety of Tolkien's writing. This is why I react when people claim it for their own 'agenda' - whether political or religious, as his work is far too subtle and ambiguous to shore up any creed, apart perhaps from environmentalism. Just from reading about the Hobbits, their characteristics, society and the different personalities a lot is revealed. Tolkien is a little Englander - concerned with what surrounds him, with the small but nevertheless important things in life (the welfare of a neighbour - e.g. the Gaffer getting his new smial, young people being led astray e.g. the young Hobbit shirriffs who Sam brings down a peg or two). But like any little Englander he is not ignorant of the Big Issues, war, power, destruction. Little Englander is no insult, far from it! It's an apolitical term, and refers to someone not interested in right or left dogma, but in the issues and what matters. Maybe this is why people like Pullman and Moorcock don't like Tolkien. He isn't taking a party line of any kind, just going with what is important regardless of any agenda. And like Child has said, the fact that Tolkien's work appeals to so many diverse people and can be read in so many different ways suggests that there is indeed no agenda there.
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#110 | |||||||
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! Last edited by The Saucepan Man; 08-16-2006 at 07:06 PM. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#111 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
However, you have read that intriguing essay in the new edition, Esty, so you will have a more expansive understanding of the story. I am really intrigued by the original idea that the baker/cake was a metaphor for writer/story but grew into a metaphor for the passing of generations, with the ritual celebration. I wonder, could you verify my source, which suggested that the title was changed (when the story was published in Redbook) to imply a PG. Wodehouse story or a Boy's Own story. Does Flieger mention this at all?
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 08-16-2006 at 07:33 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#112 |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
![]() |
I think one reason that the criticisms of Pullman and Moorcock come across as petulant (at least to me) is that it's the work that is the ultimate argument. The way to really "defeat" Tolkien and win your argument over him is to write a book that is so much better (imaginatively, technically, ideologically, or whatever) that it transcends LotR so completely as to reduce it to irrelevance or at least quaintness (in the most dismissive sense of that word). For those guys -- who are at least moderately successful in their own right, but who still live in the shadow of Tolkien -- to write essays bashing him is like Charles Barkley writing essays on why Michael Jordan is overrated. No. If you want to prove that Jordan is overrated, you've got to prove it on the court where it counts. Talk is cheap.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#113 | |||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Yet, SF is one of the most gabbling of genres, perhaps because its status was once so often dismissed. And with the advent of the fan convention, authors can hardly be blamed for becoming engaged in the discussion of the beast. The talk is simply a symptom of the popularity of the genre and the access which fans have to writers. To say nothing of internet discussion forums. ![]() Quote:
Quote:
I wonder if it is only the SF authors who use the archetypes of science and technology as the basis of their fantasy who have such difficulties with Tolkien? I've been looking at Le Guin's attitude towards Tolkien, which is not only different from those of Pullman and Moorcock, but more subtle as well. Here are a couple of links with Le Guin's comments on Tolkien. NPR discussion of Tolkien, with Le Guin, Shippey et al Tributes from Le Guin at Green Books This second one is an amalgamation of her comments in The Language of the Night, which I have at hand and will skim to see what else one can provide.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 08-16-2006 at 09:17 PM. Reason: fog on the Downs |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#114 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
It seems to me that both Moorcock & Pullman do see the past in that light & their message is that the future can be made better than the past, that, in fact there is an 'evolutionary trend' towards things improving – if we can just break free of the past. In this sense, their perspective is 'Mannish' & Tolkien's Elvishness is holding fantasy (& humanity perhaps) back. I think a conflict is inevitable but I'm not sure Moorcock & Pullman actually understand the true nature of the conflict, that both sides reflect aspects of human state or, most importantly, that Tolkien's work is actually an analysis/exploration of that very conflict within the human psyche. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#115 | |
Deadnight Chanter
|
Quote:
So it seems to me that conflict here lies in a bit different plane - as both P and M believe (mark wording) that the ‘paradise’ is achievable on earth/within solar system/galaxy/whatever trough our own efforts, and even more so - that such a paradise is not only achievable, but inevitable (unless we fail ultimately through folly such as religion in Pullman’s case) as the general trend of the world is evolution from simpler to more complex and from worse to better, and Tolkien believes just the opposite (at least about own efforts. Of course own efforst are of vast importance with Tolkien, but something extra is to be there always - it is joint effort, to put it crudely, that counts). Hence conflict inevitably shifts to become issue of religion (not necessarily organized religion, but in the sense of faith for sure). Edit: davem, I'm just halfway through the lecture you link to in your signature: (http://www.sofn.org.uk/Conferences/pullman2002.htm). Interesting key-phrase, said in unobtrusive way, almost like a slip of the tongue: Like God, they [characters in any story] are nonreal. Thanks for interesting read, too. But deary me, why can't these people just live and let others live, I can't help thinking - why pull out some kind of yardstick and aggressively compare things at all? 'This is better than that, and that is worse than this' seems to be the motto, but most annoying is an addedum running like '...and therefore you too should like this more than that...'
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! Last edited by HerenIstarion; 08-17-2006 at 05:46 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#116 | ||||
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]()
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#117 |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Pullman & Moorcock are clearly 'mannish' in their approach both to fantasy & 'real life'. This leads them, I think, to be blind to the faults inherent in an overly Mannish approach to life. Tolkien can see the faults & the virtues of both approaches. He can see the good in Elvishness – its preservation of what was valuable in the past, but he can also see that that desire to preserve things at all costs effectively puts a halt to change & development & ultimately leads to embalming & stagnation. However for all the 'freedom' inherent in the Mannish approach there is a downside which both Pullman & Moorcock in their idealism of it cannot see. They, rather than Tolkien, take a black & white approach. They fail to see that in breaking away completely from the past we become rootless & have inevitably to view the past in a negative, light, the past is ignorant, savage & superstitious. It becomes for them associated with 'evil' & everything evil is associated with the past. To preserve anything is dangerous, & ultimately restrictive of humanity.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#118 | ||
Deadnight Chanter
|
Quote:
Quote:
It seems to me that Messers M. and P. do not like wood. They think it's too crude, greatly inferior to, say, plastic or something even more complex like kevlar... ![]()
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#119 | ||||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by drigel; 08-17-2006 at 07:33 AM. |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#120 | |||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,992
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
But aside from this, what I find fascinating is how Tolkien seems to produce this kind of split in readers: deeply passionate, committed fans and readers who cannot stand him. Is this a trait of Tolkien readers only or does it happen with other readers? What causes this great divide? Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |