Tolkien's Fantasy and Literary Critics
Evelyn C. Leeper
view Tolkien's fantasy novels:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html
In particular, the author (Chris Mooney) discusses how Tolkien fits in--
or doesn't fit in--with the tenets of moderanism. This topic was covered
at a panel at Boskone last year:
http://fanac.org/Other_Cons/Boskone/b37-rpt.html#tolkien
--
Evelyn C. Leeper, http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
Just because the person who criticizes you is an idiot does not make him
wrong. -- Roger Rosenblatt
John DiFool
> THE AMERICAN PROSPECT ON-LINE has an article on how literary critics
> view Tolkien's fantasy novels:
> http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html
>
> In particular, the author (Chris Mooney) discusses how Tolkien fits in--
> or doesn't fit in--with the tenets of moderanism. This topic was covered
> at a panel at Boskone last year:
> http://fanac.org/Other_Cons/Boskone/b37-rpt.html#tolkien
The second link is broken. Nice article however re: the first one...
I have had a few dealings with literary snobs of this sort, tho I will
admit that JRR rarely got introspective with his characters (Frodo
being an exception?)...
John DiFool
Evelyn C. Leeper
Okay, use http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/bosk37.htm#tolkien
instead.
Matthew Austern
> THE AMERICAN PROSPECT ON-LINE has an article on how literary critics
> view Tolkien's fantasy novels:
> http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html
Perhaps someone needs to write "The Hobbits and the Critics"?
Robert Barrett
: THE AMERICAN PROSPECT ON-LINE has an article on how literary critics
: view Tolkien's fantasy novels:
: http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html
: In particular, the author (Chris Mooney) discusses how Tolkien fits in--
: or doesn't fit in--with the tenets of moderanism. This topic was covered
: at a panel at Boskone last year:
: http://fanac.org/Other_Cons/Boskone/b37-rpt.html#tolkien
It's a nice article, but, as an academic, I would like to register my
sense that the article overplays opposition within the academy to
Tolkien's works--or at least implies that the Tolkien-detractors are more
numerous than they actually are. My experience at the university level
(14 years and counting) suggests that the anti-Tolkien crowd at this
point is no larger than the pro-Tolkien crowd, with the majority of
scholars not particularly caring one way or the other. A Tolkien class is
regularly offered at my undergraduate alma mater (by a Victorianist);
fellow grad students here at Penn have taught Tolkien's works as part of
their Writing about Literature seminars; and my future employers at the
University of Illinois-Urbana were more than happy to offer me a fantasy
literature class (which I turned down for now--I was hired as a
medievalist, and I thought it was better to stick to teaching in my
designated field for the first few years). I actually discussed the
possibility down the road of team-teaching a seminar on Joyce's *Ulysses*
and *LotR* as epics, and no one sneered.
I'm sure that others will be able to present stories of academic
anti-Tolkien snobs--they do exist. But hopefully this post and others
like it will suggest that the snobs are less powerful than the media tends
to make them.
Best,
Rob
--
* Robert W. Barrett, Jr. * E-Mail: rbar...@dept.english.upenn.edu * WWW:
http://www.english.upenn.edu/~rbarrett/ * Snail-Mail: Dept. of English,
119 Bennett Hall, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Phila., PA 19104 * "If the bears
do not eat you, it is home," *The Dragonbone Chair*, Tad Williams (1988) *
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> Evelyn C. Leeper (ele...@jaguar.stc.lucent.com) wrote:
> : THE AMERICAN PROSPECT ON-LINE has an article on how literary critics
> : view Tolkien's fantasy novels:
> : http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html
> : In particular, the author (Chris Mooney) discusses how Tolkien fits in--
> : or doesn't fit in--with the tenets of moderanism. This topic was covered
> : at a panel at Boskone last year:
> : http://fanac.org/Other_Cons/Boskone/b37-rpt.html#tolkien
>
> It's a nice article, but, as an academic, I would like to register my
> sense that the article overplays opposition within the academy to
> Tolkien's works--or at least implies that the Tolkien-detractors are more
> numerous than they actually are. My experience at the university level
> (14 years and counting) suggests that the anti-Tolkien crowd at this
> point is no larger than the pro-Tolkien crowd, with the majority of
> scholars not particularly caring one way or the other.
The article seemed slanted to portray all literary critics as
(Post-)Modernists, and brushed by the Medievalist seminars on
Tolkien. In my experience, Medieval and Renaissance professors
tend to like LotR. I'm guessing that people who study (Post-)Modernist
literature will tend to dislike Tolkien more than other groups --
although I think you're right, a lot just don't care.
I am curious, though, what these anti-Tolkien critics would
think of Lovecraft? If some of them think Tolkien's archaic, then
Lovecraft must be far worse, yet at the same time, I think Lovecraft
would lend himself quite well to Deconstruction.
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You too can be an ordained minister: http://www.ulc.org/ulc
Staff Writer for EXPULSION: http://www.expulsion.org
"Just last week, Rummy sent me an e-mail over the Internet -
something that didn't exist just five years ago." - Sen. Armey
Robert Barrett
: The article seemed slanted to portray all literary critics as
: (Post-)Modernists, and brushed by the Medievalist seminars on
: Tolkien. In my experience, Medieval and Renaissance professors
: tend to like LotR. I'm guessing that people who study (Post-)Modernist
: literature will tend to dislike Tolkien more than other groups --
: although I think you're right, a lot just don't care.
There was a thread on medfem-l (the discussion list for feminist scholars
of the Middle Ages) which was essentially a poll asking "How did you
become a medievalist? What attracted you to the field?" IIRC, something
like 50% of the respondents answered, "Tolkien."
I would suspect that, while many post-modern and post-structuralist
critics may not personally care for Tolkien's attempt at writing a
medieval epic for a modern audience, just as many of them would have no
problem with its being taught and read by university professors and
students. These are people routinely castigated by the Harold Blooms of
the world for ignoring the canon of "Great Littrachure," after all.
: I am curious, though, what these anti-Tolkien critics would
: think of Lovecraft? If some of them think Tolkien's archaic, then
: Lovecraft must be far worse, yet at the same time, I think Lovecraft
: would lend himself quite well to Deconstruction.
I can't speak for them re Lovecraft, but I will note that there is now a
Penguin Classics edition of *Call of Cthulhu and Other Stories*--about the
best sign that you can get of scholarly interest in an author. :)
Eric Walker
>
> THE AMERICAN PROSPECT ON-LINE has an article on how literary critics
> view Tolkien's fantasy novels:
> http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html
>
> In particular, the author (Chris Mooney) discusses how Tolkien fits in--
> or doesn't fit in--with the tenets of moderanism. This topic was covered
> at a panel at Boskone last year:
> http://fanac.org/Other_Cons/Boskone/b37-rpt.html#tolkien
I tried the Mooney article and couldn't make it through the whole
thing. It is, in the main, a boring rehash of what has been said
and known for years.
The soi disant "literati" have an endemic dislike of anything
that is popular, using such endearing terms as "masscult" for
such work. Much modern "criticism" is really post-modern, and
post-modernism is at best an intellectual sham and at worst
enough to make any sane person incline to belief in a personal
Devil active in the world. (Check out this URL:
http://www.pathguy.com/postmod.htm
for more on "post-modernism.")
I quit reading when I came to the denigration of Tolkien's
prose as "archaic" and flat bad. Yup, kinda like the King
James Bible: boy, those old-timers didn't know jack about
the English language, did they? Especially compared to
the delightful elegance of modern fiction (as delivered by
the friendly folks who brought you "the novel is dead" as
a slogan, and have since written novels that try to make
their predictions come true.).
Admittedly, as the article points out, Tolkien was and is
superlatively a victim of the old proverb "I can defend
myself from my enemies but only God can save me from my
friends."
Shakespeare was just another cheap playsmith turning out
junk for the masses until he had been dead long enough.
Tolkien is not Shakespeare, but he is an author of great
ability and power--not unflawed, but in the whole great--
and eventually the post-modernists will disappear up
their own assholes and some sane longer-term evaluation
will be possible (probably not in our lifetimes though).
P.S.: I didn't realize there was a connection between
Moderan amd Tolkien.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, webmaster
Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
http://owlcroft.com/sfandf
JavaJosh
"Eric Walker" <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote in message
news:3B0AB3F0...@owlcroft.com...
> "Evelyn C. Leeper" wrote:
> >
> > THE AMERICAN PROSPECT ON-LINE has an article on how literary critics
> > view Tolkien's fantasy novels:
> > http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html
> >
> > In particular, the author (Chris Mooney) discusses how Tolkien fits in--
> > or doesn't fit in--with the tenets of moderanism. This topic was
covered
> > at a panel at Boskone last year:
> > http://fanac.org/Other_Cons/Boskone/b37-rpt.html#tolkien
>
> I tried the Mooney article and couldn't make it through the whole
> thing. It is, in the main, a boring rehash of what has been said
> and known for years
Such a bitter critter you are, Eric. I'm glad, though, to see that you're
like this with everybody, and not just with me.
Josh.
Kevin J. Maroney
>The soi disant "literati" have an endemic dislike of anything
>that is popular, using such endearing terms as "masscult" for
>such work.
As opposed to the soi disant "illiterati" who have an endemic dislike
of anything that is studies and thoughtful. Gotcha.
--
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@ungames.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Eric Walker
>
> Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >The soi disant "literati" have an endemic dislike of anything
> >that is popular, using such endearing terms as "masscult" for
> >such work.
>
> As opposed to the soi disant "illiterati" who have an endemic dislike
> of anything that is studies and thoughtful. Gotcha.
That there is such a class is indubitable, though whether they
really style themselves 'illiterati' I wonder.
There must, I suppose, be a sane mid-ground somewhere between
the literati and the illiterati; I suspect that the width of
that mid-ground strip, could it be made readily apparent,
would be a good measure of a society.
Christopher Pound
Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>The soi disant "literati" have an endemic dislike of anything
>that is popular, using such endearing terms as "masscult" for
>such work. Much modern "criticism" is really post-modern, and
>post-modernism is at best an intellectual sham and at worst
>enough to make any sane person incline to belief in a personal
>Devil active in the world. (Check out this URL:
>
> http://www.pathguy.com/postmod.htm
>
>for more on "post-modernism.")
I think you may not have actually followed all the links that
site introduces as representative of postmodernism. For
example, the link there to the Panic Encyclopedia, although it
actually links to CTheory and not the Panic Encyclopedia,
sets interviews with Greg Bear and Nancy Kress next to
translations of Jean Baudrillard, someone who probably
qualifies as a Devil to you but who also has a habit of using
Arthur C. Clarke to illustrate philosophical points.
And if it had linked to the Panic Encyclopedia, I don't think
you would have liked it, but the one thing you absolutely would
not have found in it is any strong distinction between high
culture and pop culture. I mean, we're talking about trends in
1960-80's art, lit, and criticism here, and the tendency at the
time was to question the "valorization" of high art and to
"celebrate" kitsch or mass culture (and in the 90s, "Outsider"
art). In English departments, this came under the heading of
Cultural Studies, which is better known for championing
minority literatures over the "Western Canon," but which was
founded partly as a rejection of "high culture" as the
only proper object of literary criticism
(cf. http://www.plastic.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/09/1738226).
That the perverse result was to more or less canonize
particular artists (e.g. Lichtenstein or Koons) and over-think
token sub-genres (e.g. Cyberpunk, Trek, feminist u-/dys-topian sf)
is beside the point, which is that any critic sneering at
"masscult" is really not representative of the broader
trends in criticism. Of course, there are plenty of
profs around who were educated in the 60s or earlier--and
old perspectives do die hard in the human sciences. And sure,
the ways specific popular trends become "hot" in academia
and the ways you might have to frame a study of Judge Dredd
in order to win favor may be something less than could
be hoped for ... But, you know, it was the popular
press that was outraged by the fellow in England who got
a grant to study audience reception of the movie Judge
Dredd. That turned out to be a very sober and moderately
useful study, but I suppose a lot of people simply expect
academics to either protect or manufacture cultural distinction,
leading on the one hand to inflammatory tabloid headlines about
the Judge Dredd study and on the other hand to mis-directed
attacks in this forum ... not to mention the widespread attention
that may be given to "academic" opinions such as ...
>the denigration of Tolkien's
>prose as "archaic" and flat bad.
Which reminds me: I impressionistically think of
Tolkien as having updated fantasy fiction, moving
it away from both the romance (in the 16th/17th C.
sense of the word, a tradition more or less continued
by Morris, Eddison, Mirlees, et al.) and the adventure novel
(meaning mostly single-threaded novels with either
little depth of character or depth limited to the main
character) toward the grand realist novel (meaning something
with multiple perspectives plus psychological depth, and
following late 18th or 19th C. narrative conventions to
describe both the everydayness and the multi-threaded
action of a plausibly consistent world). I have in mind the
somewhat arbitrary formal characteristics that pick out
_Clarissa_ as the first novel in English and relegate
_The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia_ or _The Blazing
World_ to the "archaic" category of the romance. The
analogy I'm making is that Tolkien is to Eddison and
Morris as Richardson is to Sidney and Cavendish. From
that odd viewpoint and despite being fully conscious
of its general irrelevance, Tolkien to me _feels like_
the first Dickens or Tolstoy of fantasy. But that's not
good literary criticism. When the article in the American
Prospect suggested Tolkien stands as the forgotten future
of 19th C. philological criticism and the sort of
literature it could have related to, *that* was a really
interesting point, at the same time conscious of literary
history, the history of language study and criticism,
and potential literatures.
--
Christopher Pound (po...@rice.edu)
Dept. of Anthropology, Rice University
Holly E. Ordway
>Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>>the denigration of Tolkien's
>>prose as "archaic" and flat bad.
>
>Which reminds me: I impressionistically think of
>Tolkien as having updated fantasy fiction, moving
>it away from both the romance (in the 16th/17th C.
>sense of the word, a tradition more or less continued
>by Morris, Eddison, Mirlees, et al.) and the adventure novel
>(meaning mostly single-threaded novels with either
>little depth of character or depth limited to the main
>character) toward the grand realist novel
I agree. In fact, I felt there was strong enough ground on this to
argue, in my dissertation, that Tolkien's prose was distinctive in its
*modernity* (compared to Morris, Dunsany, Eddison, Cabell,
Lovecraft...), and was and is distinctive in its *plainness*. Tolkien
has some incredibly lyrical descriptive passages, but for the most part
he achieves his effect by the combination of the *right* words, not by
using self-consciously archaic or obscure words. And in much of the
book, such as most of the sections with the hobbits, his prose is clear
and plain - elegant in its simplicity rather than its complexity.
Tolkien's prose is beautiful -- but not archaic. Some of Tolkien's
imitators (and I use that in the neutral sense, not perjorative) have
tried to capture the same moods that Tolkien evoked, by using
consciously archaic language; but that's not a reflection on Tolkien's
own style.
There's a critic I read who argued quite persuasively for Tolkien's
essential modernity. It might have been Brian Attebery; I don't recall
exactly.
--Holly
Avram Grumer
> I quit reading when I came to the denigration of Tolkien's
> prose as "archaic" and flat bad. Yup, kinda like the King
> James Bible: boy, those old-timers didn't know jack about
> the English language, did they? Especially compared to
> the delightful elegance of modern fiction (as delivered by
> the friendly folks who brought you "the novel is dead" as
> a slogan, and have since written novels that try to make
> their predictions come true.).
You mean the part where he says "Well, for one thing, his detractors
argue, his prose is unbearably archaic"? Do you recognize the
difference between saying "X is bad" and "detractors of X say X is bad"?
If you had read on, you might have run into Mooney saying "Readers
steeped in modernist literature simply don't know how to respond to
Tolkien's prose."
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
Eric Walker
[...]
> You mean the part where he says "Well, for one thing, his detractors
> argue, his prose is unbearably archaic"? Do you recognize the
> difference between saying "X is bad" and "detractors of X say X is bad"?
>
> If you had read on, you might have run into Mooney saying "Readers
> steeped in modernist literature simply don't know how to respond to
> Tolkien's prose."
Yes, I think I do. I was not intending a criticism of Mooney,
though I think his article uninspired and uninspiring, but of
the folk he discusses.
I don't know just how "steeped in modernist literature" one need
be to be unable to read, understand, and even enjoy clean, simple
English. Do these folk have similar problems with, for example,
Herbert Read's book _The Green Child_? Read authored a much-
respected book titled simply _English Prose Style_, and his famous
novel exhibits superb prose handling: it is clean, simple English.
But if Read (part of the "canon") was good, why then of course he
wasn't a fantasy author, he was just an author who wrote a fantasy.
Whatever kind of sane meaning are we to attach to cliches like "simply
don't know how to respond to Tolkien's prose"? How does one "respond
to" clean, simple English? By reading it--how else? Do modernists do
something different--perhaps rip out the pages and eat them with ketchup?
--
Eric Walker
> In article <3B0AB3F0...@owlcroft.com>,
> Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >The soi disant "literati" have an endemic dislike of anything
> >that is popular, using such endearing terms as "masscult" for
> >such work. Much modern "criticism" is really post-modern, and
> >post-modernism is at best an intellectual sham and at worst
> >enough to make any sane person incline to belief in a personal
> >Devil active in the world. (Check out this URL:
> >
> > http://www.pathguy.com/postmod.htm
> >
> >for more on "post-modernism.")
>
> I think you may not have actually followed all the links that
> site introduces as representative of postmodernism. For
> example, the link there to the Panic Encyclopedia, although it
> actually links to CTheory and not the Panic Encyclopedia,
(Apparently the page on that particular site that contained
the encyclopedia, or a mirror of it, is now gone.)
> sets interviews with Greg Bear and Nancy Kress next to
> translations of Jean Baudrillard, someone who probably
> qualifies as a Devil to you but who also has a habit of using
> Arthur C. Clarke to illustrate philosophical points.
Yes, and? Is that strongly relevant to what post-modernism is
and what its leading exponents have to say? To what one finds
on Dr. Friedlander's page? If so, I am even dimmer than
usual today.
> And if it had linked to the Panic Encyclopedia, I don't think
> you would have liked it, but the one thing you absolutely would
> not have found in it is any strong distinction between high
> culture and pop culture. I mean, we're talking about trends in
> 1960-80's art, lit, and criticism here, and the tendency at the
> time was to question the "valorization" of high art and to
> "celebrate" kitsch or mass culture (and in the 90s, "Outsider"
> art). In English departments, this came under the heading of
> Cultural Studies, which is better known for championing
> minority literatures over the "Western Canon," but which was
> founded partly as a rejection of "high culture" as the
> only proper object of literary criticism
> (cf. http://www.plastic.com/article.pl?sid=01/04/09/1738226).
Which phrasing suggests that rejecting "high culture" is a good
enough goal to be a saving grace to folly. Opinions vary, and
it would be a grave error to cast the argument in blacks and
whites, but while there is a lot of academic anointing of
mediocrities in the "high culture," there is also a famous
saying about babies and bathwater.
> That the perverse result was to more or less canonize
> particular artists (e.g. Lichtenstein or Koons) and over-think
> token sub-genres (e.g. Cyberpunk, Trek, feminist u-/dys-topian sf)
> is beside the point, which is that any critic sneering at
> "masscult" is really not representative of the broader
> trends in criticism.
Well no, now it's the other way round: Joe Sikspak reigns
supreme and such once-fashionable values as intelligence,
taste, morals, and the like stand revealed for cruel
shams perpetrated and perpetuated just to keep the
Almighty Dummy from rising to his or her rightful place
in the world. (Outfits like the Nazis and the KKK have
had a lot of success peddling that line; now it's become
academic/intellectual gospel.)
Let me not seem to be on a private rant. Let me select,
almost at random, some examples off Dr. Friedlander's
web page (if it is not clear from the context, the Doctor
despises this guff as much as I and, for example, R.A.
Lafferty do, and his page is a display of the excesses
deplored.)
The "Anything Goes" website: Paul Fayerabend and his friends
complain about scientific theories being counter-intuitive,
people who ask for "clarity, precision, objectivity, and truth"
are "impoverishing [history] in order to please their lower
instincts", "scientific theories are only justified by their
own standards and not by some objective criteria," etc.
The "Technoculture" website: "This is the first site I found
which mentioned Sandra Harding, whose book _The Science Question
in Feminism_ accused Einstein's relativity of being gender-biased,
and called Newton's _Principia_ a 'rape manual.'"
Postmodernism by Michael Fegan. "Postmodernism calls into question
enlightenment values such as rationality, truth, and progress,
arguing that these merely serve to secure the monolithic structure
of modern capitalistic society by concealing or excluding any forces
that might challenge its cultural dominance."
I could, as the saying runs, dance all night. Visit the Doctor's
site and form your own judgements.
> Of course, there are plenty of
> profs around who were educated in the 60s or earlier--and
> old perspectives do die hard in the human sciences. And sure,
> the ways specific popular trends become "hot" in academia
> and the ways you might have to frame a study of Judge Dredd
> in order to win favor may be something less than could
> be hoped for ... But, you know, it was the popular
> press that was outraged by the fellow in England who got
> a grant to study audience reception of the movie Judge
> Dredd. That turned out to be a very sober and moderately
> useful study, but I suppose a lot of people simply expect
> academics to either protect or manufacture cultural distinction,
> leading on the one hand to inflammatory tabloid headlines about
> the Judge Dredd study and on the other hand to mis-directed
> attacks in this forum ... not to mention the widespread attention
> that may be given to "academic" opinions such as ...
>
> >the denigration of Tolkien's prose as "archaic" and flat bad.
Sorry, I missed my afternoon coffee: when it's at home with
its shoes off, what does "to either protect or manufacture
cultural distinction" mean? I expect academics to seek truth
and beauty and to convey what they have found of those things
to others under their instruction. I am unsure how affecting
cultural distinction, whoever he is, relates to those goals.
> Which reminds me: I impressionistically think of
> Tolkien as having updated fantasy fiction, moving
> it away from both the romance (in the 16th/17th C.
> sense of the word, a tradition more or less continued
> by Morris, Eddison, Mirlees, et al.) and the adventure novel
> (meaning mostly single-threaded novels with either
> little depth of character or depth limited to the main
> character) toward the grand realist novel (meaning something
> with multiple perspectives plus psychological depth, and
> following late 18th or 19th C. narrative conventions to
> describe both the everydayness and the multi-threaded
> action of a plausibly consistent world). I have in mind the
> somewhat arbitrary formal characteristics that pick out
> _Clarissa_ as the first novel in English and relegate
> _The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia_ or _The Blazing
> World_ to the "archaic" category of the romance. The
> analogy I'm making is that Tolkien is to Eddison and
> Morris as Richardson is to Sidney and Cavendish. From
> that odd viewpoint and despite being fully conscious
> of its general irrelevance, Tolkien to me _feels like_
> the first Dickens or Tolstoy of fantasy.
There: that's excellent literary criticism. Intelligence
applied to experience and the result expressed articulately.
> But that's not
> good literary criticism.
Guess I was wrong.
> When the article in the American
> Prospect suggested Tolkien stands as the forgotten future
> of 19th C. philological criticism and the sort of
> literature it could have related to, *that* was a really
> interesting point, at the same time conscious of literary
> history, the history of language study and criticism,
> and potential literatures.
What, then, *is* literary criticism? What makes one flavor
of it good and another bad? At bottom, what is literature?
Why do we "criticize" it?
Well, why do we read books? Nero Wolfe, addressing an assembly
of authors, famously begins: "First, I remark that with your
books two of you have given me pleasure, three of you have
informed me, and one of you has stimulated my mental processes."
Anyone got a much better list?
Is not "literary criticism" a methodical application of
intelligence and experience to the task of attempting to judge
how likely a given book is to please, inform, or stimulate
the mental processes of a reader? Granted, some assumptions
need to be made about that reader's own intelligence and
experience; so? What am I missing here? (And I know how
wide that casting throws the door open.)
Christopher Pound
Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>Whatever kind of sane meaning are we to attach to cliches like "simply
>don't know how to respond to Tolkien's prose"? How does one "respond
>to" clean, simple English? By reading it--how else?
Consider for a moment this weird personification: "a text offers implicit
instruction on how it should be read, such that any reading of it also
involves a little bit of learning how to read it." For example, this
paragraph itself, which suggests that it should be read in such a way as to
learn how texts teach their own reading protocols and how texts try to
explain what is of interest in themselves [1].
You don't buy that? I'm not sure I do either, but as I understood the
argument, the point was that Tolkien's works suggest reading protocols
that are implicitly philological--an interpretive stance common in the
19th C. (the Brothers Grimm, Max Muller, etc.) that just isn't the
same as a search for symbols, for hidden puzzles, for social relevance, for
escapism, or whatever. The general idea is that a work embodies an
ownmost aesthetic theory, that almost any work could be magnified into
a unique critical perspective. The specific idea is that not many
literary critics really work that way, that they simply bring to bear
ways of reading that may find nothing of interest in a work, and
that's what's happened to Tolkien, mostly. The possibility that Tolkien
focuses on story/plot and uses clean, simple English to dissuade some
ways of reading can be taken either as confirmation of the notion that
a book contains its own reading protocols or as confirmation of the
corruption of that notion, depending on your point of view ... Like
I said, it's a weird and possibly over-complicating thought.
[1] Appendices and footnotes often make such things more explicit, and
simple repetition of a theme or hit-you-over-the-head diatribes likewise
tell you exactly what you're supposed to be looking for as you read further
and what sort of thing you might think about after you've finished, but the
straightforward address to the reader in the middle of the narrative
("Dear reader, consider our hero's plight ...") has gone out of fashion.
David Eppstein
po...@is.rice.edu (Christopher Pound) wrote:
> the
> straightforward address to the reader in the middle of the narrative
> ("Dear reader, consider our hero's plight ...") has gone out of fashion.
And a sad thing too, there were some good ones in Panshin's _Villiers_
series.
--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
epps...@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Eric Walker
> In article <3B0AFF0B...@owlcroft.com>,
> Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >Whatever kind of sane meaning are we to attach to cliches like "simply
> >don't know how to respond to Tolkien's prose"? How does one "respond
> >to" clean, simple English? By reading it--how else?
>
> Consider for a moment this weird personification: "a text offers implicit
> instruction on how it should be read, such that any reading of it also
> involves a little bit of learning how to read it." For example, this
> paragraph itself, which suggests that it should be read in such a way as to
> learn how texts teach their own reading protocols and how texts try to
> explain what is of interest in themselves [1].
>
> You don't buy that?
Not in the giant economy family size, no. If, when it lets down its
socks, it means that not all writers write in the same way and that
some texts are initially less than obvious as to authorial intent,
so you have to go along for the ride awhile to see where the wagon is
heading, sure, who could argue?
> I'm not sure I do either, but as I understood the
> argument, the point was that Tolkien's works suggest reading protocols
> that are implicitly philological--an interpretive stance common in the
> 19th C. (the Brothers Grimm, Max Muller, etc.) that just isn't the
> same as a search for symbols, for hidden puzzles, for social relevance, for
> escapism, or whatever.
I am embarrassed: ashamed. I have no clue what a "philological
reading protocol" is. I thought I knew each of those three words,
but their combination eludes me; nor is the OED much help. Of
philology, it gives "the study of literature, in a wide sense,
including grammar, literary criticism and interpretation," etc.
(the "etc." includes a lot more description, but what I give is
the essence). I will spare you all the assorted meanings given
for "protocol," none of which seem remotely applicable save
perhaps, just barely, "a preliminary." So far as I can see, the
term ought to mean that one studies, or is supposed to study, the
words or the style of language being used, but that can't be right
because there seems no other possible way whatsoever to read a tale
save by noticing the words and language the author uses.
Are we to take it that one unable to snappily define a "philological
reading protocol" is unable to properly savor Tolkien's work? Or
is this akin to M. Wossname's marvelous discovery that he had been
speaking prose naturally his whole life long?
> The general idea is that a work embodies an
> ownmost aesthetic theory, that almost any work could be magnified into
> a unique critical perspective. The specific idea is that not many
> literary critics really work that way, that they simply bring to bear
> ways of reading that may find nothing of interest in a work, and
> that's what's happened to Tolkien, mostly. The possibility that Tolkien
> focuses on story/plot and uses clean, simple English to dissuade some
> ways of reading can be taken either as confirmation of the notion that
> a book contains its own reading protocols or as confirmation of the
> corruption of that notion, depending on your point of view ... Like
> I said, it's a weird and possibly over-complicating thought.
I'm trying to translate to something I can understand. Is that the
same as saying different readers, and critics (if we can distinguish the
twain), have different intelligences, backgrounds, and tastes, such that
things one enjoys another does not? (Weird and overcomplicating, that I
stipulate.)
En passant, I disagree immensely with the proposition that Tolkien
focusses [see? even my spelling is old-fashioned] on story/plot; but
that's not for here and now.
It is my belief that facts must precede theories; science, I believe,
shares the same prejudice. When people read a given book, there
will be a spectrum of reactions. Over long centuries, we can assemble
enough data to have some idea of which kind of people will like which
kind of book and to what degree.
Those are the facts. We can then formulate hypotheses about what
in a book makes it likable to whom, and try, if only by historical
data-mining, to conduct "crucial experiments" to see if our hypotheses
can be promoted to theories, and possibly some day even to laws.
What we cannot do is to sit down at a desk and spin out theories not
grounded solidly in the observed facts about what people do and don't
like and, worse, about what they *ought* to like or not like--yet it
seems to me at least that that is just what a good deal of literary
criticism, modern and classical, does.
Such ungrounded criticism says that folk of sense and sensibility
*ought* not to like Tolkien; any who do, then, must lack sense or
sensibility or both. Pfui.
--
Cordially,
D. Gascoyne
I completely agree. I thought the article was on the whole reasonably
balanced, but did tend to overplay the anti-Tolkien bandwagon rather much. I
have to put in a good word for the Modernists and Post-modernists, being one of
their number (20th century lit. is my specialty). I love Tolkien, would teach
him, consider him canonical, but would never try to defend him as a Modernist,
bless his heart, nor feel the need to. Just because he's a throwback doesn't
make him "bad." His is a Romance, through and through, much closer to Tennyson
than Eliot or Joyce in spirit. So what? And so he was/is popular? Remember
Byronomania? Noone seems to want to chuck Byron out of the canon just because
he attracted the first bona fide groupies!
Debbie
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> "Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
> >
> > Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> > >The soi disant "literati" have an endemic dislike of anything
> > >that is popular, using such endearing terms as "masscult" for
> > >such work.
> >
> > As opposed to the soi disant "illiterati" who have an endemic dislike
> > of anything that is studies and thoughtful. Gotcha.
>
> That there is such a class is indubitable, though whether they
> really style themselves 'illiterati' I wonder.
>
> There must, I suppose, be a sane mid-ground somewhere between
> the literati and the illiterati; I suspect that the width of
> that mid-ground strip, could it be made readily apparent,
> would be a good measure of a society.
>
who realize that (A) Elistist Post-Modernist critics are only one
subset of Post-Modernist critics and (B) that Post-Modernist critics
are only one subset of literary critics at large.
People falling into the middle ground would also realize that
Post-Modern criticism is just one part of Post-Modernism, which
includes quite a few good books.
Robert Barrett
D. Gascoyne (gasc...@home.com) wrote:
: I completely agree. I thought the article was on the whole reasonably
: balanced, but did tend to overplay the anti-Tolkien bandwagon rather much. I
: have to put in a good word for the Modernists and Post-modernists, being one of
: their number (20th century lit. is my specialty). I love Tolkien, would teach
: him, consider him canonical, but would never try to defend him as a Modernist,
: bless his heart, nor feel the need to. Just because he's a throwback doesn't
: make him "bad." His is a Romance, through and through, much closer to Tennyson
: than Eliot or Joyce in spirit. So what? And so he was/is popular? Remember
: Byronomania? Noone seems to want to chuck Byron out of the canon just because
: he attracted the first bona fide groupies!
Just to clarify: I have nothing against Modernists/Postmodernists. I have
been partnered to one for 4 years and counting. :)
Re Tolkien and modernism: I would actualy like to see what defending
Tolkien as a modernist, if only b/c I would find it interesting to read
him in light of what Joyce, Eliot, Pound, et al. were doing, to see where
he intersects with their work and where he disagrees. As one of the
panelists said (in the URL provided to us by the original poster), it
would be nice to see Tolkien in a context other than mythopoeia for once.
Robert Barrett
last post's second paragraph:
: Re Tolkien and modernism: I would actually like to see what defending
: Tolkien as a modernist would accomplish, if only b/c I would find it
: interesting to read him in light of what Joyce, Eliot, Pound, et al.
: were doing or to see where he intersects with their work and where he
: disagrees. As one of the panelists said (in the URL provided to us by
: the original poster), it would be nice to see Tolkien in a context other
: than mythopoeia for once.
Better,
Christopher Pound
Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>I am embarrassed: ashamed. I have no clue what a "philological
>reading protocol" is. I thought I knew each of those three words,
>but their combination eludes me; nor is the OED much help.
Well, philology just isn't what it used to be. ;)
To answer your question, philology divided classically into
three parts: grammar, criticism (as in the phrase "critical edition"),
and hermeneutics. Its objects of study ranged across many things we
now think of as belonging to separate disciplines: myth, folklore,
historical and comparative linguistics, etymology, philosophy, literary
criticism, Orientalism, religious studies, etc. As I mentioned before,
some of its famous practitioners included the Brothers Grimm and
Max Muller, not to mention Tolkien.
The OED says a protocol is literally "An official form of procedure
and etiquette in affairs of state and diplomatic relations; the
observance of this." I meant it metaphorically, as in whatever proper
procedure is specified for the matter at hand. A reading protocol, then,
would be the manner in which something is to be read properly, and a
philological reading protocol would involve reading in a philological
manner, e.g. the way Max Muller delved into the etymology of names in
an attempt to unlock the meaning and origin of myths.
I also thought protocol might loosely indicate that interest in a
text is usually as much a practice as it is a feeling.
Abigail Ann Young
Robert Barrett wrote:
>
> : Re Tolkien and modernism: I would actually like to see what defending
> : Tolkien as a modernist would accomplish, if only b/c I would find it
> : interesting to read him in light of what Joyce, Eliot, Pound, et al.
> : were doing or to see where he intersects with their work and where he
> : disagrees. As one of the panelists said (in the URL provided to us by
> : the original poster), it would be nice to see Tolkien in a context other
> : than mythopoeia for once.
Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
(first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. I found it perhaps the
single most illuminating observation about Tolkien I'd ever encountered,
and my subsequent re-readings of _LOTR_ haev really benefitted from it.
Insofar as 'Modernity' is itself heavily influenced by the 1914-18 war and
the reaction of those who survived it, that could strengthen a desire to
read him as a 'modernist'....
A.
--
Abigail Ann Young (Dr), Associate Editor/Records of Early English Drama/
Victoria College/ 150 Charles Street W/ Toronto Ontario Canada M5S 1K9
Phone (416) 585-4504/ FAX (416) 813-4093/ abigai...@utoronto.ca
List-owner of REED-L <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed-l.html>
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html> REED's home page
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html> our theatre resource page
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~young> my home page
D. Gascoyne
> Robert Barrett wrote:
> >
> > : Re Tolkien and modernism: I would actually like to see what defending
> > : Tolkien as a modernist would accomplish, if only b/c I would find it
> > : interesting to read him in light of what Joyce, Eliot, Pound, et al.
> > : were doing or to see where he intersects with their work and where he
> > : disagrees. As one of the panelists said (in the URL provided to us by
> > : the original poster), it would be nice to see Tolkien in a context other
> > : than mythopoeia for once.
>
> Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
> me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
> (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
> Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. I found it perhaps the
> single most illuminating observation about Tolkien I'd ever encountered,
> and my subsequent re-readings of _LOTR_ haev really benefitted from it.
> Insofar as 'Modernity' is itself heavily influenced by the 1914-18 war and
> the reaction of those who survived it, that could strengthen a desire to
> read him as a 'modernist'....
Yes, that's an excellent point. I agree that _thematically_ Tolkien could be
positioned into the Modernist camp. Stylistically, no, at least not if you
think of the impressionism, abstraction, and other experimentation in prose
style of, say, Joyce or Woolf. Auden strikes me as being the most in common
with T., which is interesting as he was T's supporter. Again - stress stress -
I'm not knocking T. because I don't think his prose style is "modernist"; I
think he's a master stylist and his prose fits his purpose brilliantly.
Debbie
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> And so he was/is popular? Remember
> Byronomania? Noone seems to want to chuck Byron out of the canon just because
> he attracted the first bona fide groupies!
Yes, but can we get rid of Dickens?
Eric Walker
[...]
> Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
> me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
> (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
> Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. . . .
That despite Tolkien's many vigorous and explicit disavowals that the
book was any such thing?
Liz Broadwell
: Abigail Ann Young wrote:
: [...]
: > Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
: > me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
: > (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
: > Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. . . .
: That despite Tolkien's many vigorous and explicit disavowals that the
: book was any such thing?
Argh. Tolkien explicitly disavowed that LOTR was an *allegory* of any
sort, but I don't see that that excludes reading it in the context of the
literature that emerged from the Great War.
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "Who will read 423 pages about an unfin-
(ebro...@english.upenn.edu) | ished journey undertaken by mythical crea-
Department of English | tures with confusing names? Probably no
University of Pennsylvania | one, but I still say it is wonderful."
Philadelphia, PA | -- Anne Barrett
Robert Barrett
: > me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
: > (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
: > Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. . . .
: That despite Tolkien's many vigorous and explicit disavowals that the
: book was any such thing?
I believe that Fussell's point is that Tolkien's Great War experiences
were formative in an extreme sense and that *LotR* can be, and should be,
read as an attempt to work through those experiences, to translate them
into a narrative available to others. I.e., like Hemingway, Graves, and
others, Tolkien wrote in response to the material, political, and
epistemic crisis the Great War generated.
"A novel of the Great War" here does not mean allegory--it means that
something like the Dead Marshes turns out the way it does due to Tolkien's
experience of combat and trench warfare, i.e., a novel produced as a
result of personal and social pressures resulting from the War. Tolkien
was always careful to preserve his work's applicability, even when he
denied its status as a straightforward allegory of any given series of
historical events (a denial he often ignored in his letters to his son
Christopher, which often refer to the Nazis as Orcs).
Best,
Jim Mann
Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote in message <3B0C07FA...@rcn.com>...
>"D. Gascoyne" wrote:
>>
>> And so he was/is popular? Remember
>> Byronomania? Noone seems to want to chuck Byron out of the canon just
because
>> he attracted the first bona fide groupies!
>
>Yes, but can we get rid of Dickens?
Why would we want to?
---
Jim Mann
Matthew Austern
> Eric Walker (wal...@owlcroft.com) wrote:
> : Abigail Ann Young wrote:
>
> : [...]
>
> : > Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
> : > me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
> : > (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
> : > Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. . . .
>
> : That despite Tolkien's many vigorous and explicit disavowals that the
> : book was any such thing?
>
> Argh. Tolkien explicitly disavowed that LOTR was an *allegory* of any
> sort, but I don't see that that excludes reading it in the context of the
> literature that emerged from the Great War.
Indeed. I think a lot of people who quote Tolkien's disavowal of
allegory do not understand what a medievalist meant by that word.
Tolkien did also specifically say that The Lord of the Rings was not a
novel of WWII. And, again, this is not an argument against reading it
as a novel of WWI. In fact, Tolkien mentions WWI in the introduction
to the Ballentine edition, says that it was an important formative
experience, and talks about the extent to which personal experience
informed his writing "the scouring of the Shire".
Dorothy J Heydt
>> me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
>> (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
>> Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. . . .
>
>That despite Tolkien's many vigorous and explicit disavowals that the
>book was any such thing?
Well IIRC he was really vociferous about people who assumed that
_LotR_ was a novel of World War _II_, then not long over, and
pointed out that two people could live through the same event and
be affected by it much differently, and then he dropped a few
hints that WWI had been much more traumatic for him than WWII
("by 1916 all but one of my close friends were dead," etc.). He
also said, II still RC, that the suburbanization of the English
countryside was at least as strong an influence as either war.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Jordan S. Bassior
>That despite Tolkien's many vigorous and explicit disavowals that the
>book was any such thing?
I don't think it was _about_ the Great War, but I do think that Tolkien's
concept of war and his portrayal of it in the book was very much inspired _by_
the Great War. Note in particular his grim attitude towards violence, as
opposed to the florid good-natured baroque violence in Eddison.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Eric Walker
>
> Eric Walker (wal...@owlcroft.com) wrote:
> : Abigail Ann Young wrote:
>
> : [...]
>
> : > Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
> : > me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
> : > (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
> : > Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. . . .
>
> : That despite Tolkien's many vigorous and explicit disavowals that the
> : book was any such thing?
>
> Argh. Tolkien explicitly disavowed that LOTR was an *allegory* of any
> sort, but I don't see that that excludes reading it in the context of the
> literature that emerged from the Great War.
Well, first off the passage I was recalling--erroneously--referred
to WWII; but I have found, by rapid leafing, passages in commentaries
that refer to Tolkien stating emphatically that his own WWI experiences
were not translated into the book. But without spending more time, I
cannot at once discover the source of those references.
I suppose that whether or not he overtly intended to, he did put some
of at least the impressions of his own trench experience into the book;
but whether that makes the book "a novel of the Great War," as opposed
to a novel of lower-case-w war, I question. A more definite ascertaining
would require a more exact definition of what "a novel of the Great War"
is and of how it could be differentiated from a generic novel of war.
(Well, not "generic"; but a novel of some other large-scale war.)
I realize that WWI was the first war of universal mobilization (as
opposed to specialist militaries that often fought well away from
civilian centers). But whether description of a particular sort of
background setting suffices to qualify a book--or whether there is
more relevance to WWI in LotR than the atmosphere and mechanics of
a national war of survival--remain unclear but dubious to me.
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> Abigail Ann Young wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
> > me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
> > (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
> > Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. . . .
>
> That despite Tolkien's many vigorous and explicit disavowals that the
> book was any such thing?
>
Great War was the one before, which he fought in as a young man,
and which he states in the preface to LotR was where he first
started developing Middle Earth in detail.
(B) Several critical theories of literature suggest that the author
doesn't always know what (s)he wrote. Archetypal/Jungian/Myth critics
might say that a writer included an archetype from the collective
unconscious without knowing it. Others (psychoanalytical critics)
might say that part of the book reflects the author's own unconscious
mind. I remember this one great example with a poem, although I
can't remember the title or author. (It goes; "We real cool/We
skip school/.../We die soon.") One of the lines is "We jazz June."
A lot of people apparently see sexual connotations to the line
("jazz" was originally a slang term for sex, etc.), but when the
author was asked, she said, "Well, I actually meant, the kids
would play jazz in June. But I like the sexual interpretation just
as well."
Nancy Lebovitz
Evelyn C. Leeper <ele...@lucent.com> wrote:
>In article <3B0A77E9...@earthlink.net>,
>John DiFool <jdi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Evelyn C. Leeper" wrote:
>>
>> > THE AMERICAN PROSPECT ON-LINE has an article on how literary critics
>> > view Tolkien's fantasy novels:
>> > http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/10/mooney-c.html
>> >
>> > In particular, the author (Chris Mooney) discusses how Tolkien fits in--
>> > or doesn't fit in--with the tenets of moderanism. This topic was covered
>> > at a panel at Boskone last year:
>> > http://fanac.org/Other_Cons/Boskone/b37-rpt.html#tolkien
>>
>> I have had a few dealings with literary snobs of this sort, tho I will
>> admit that JRR rarely got introspective with his characters (Frodo
>> being an exception?)...
>
>Okay, use http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper/bosk37.htm#tolkien
>instead.
>
That was a spectacular panel--thanks for reporting on it.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
Andrew Wheeler
>
> Why would we want to?
He's a Dead White Male who left his wife (for an actress, if I remember
correctly) -- I'm sure he's been seriously attacked on both of those
fronts.
But you can find a reason to "get rid of" anyone, if you really want to
do it.
--
Andrew Wheeler
Editor, SFBC (USA) -- not speaking officially
Personal mail: andrew...@earthlink.com
Club related: andrew....@bookspan.com
Abigail Ann Young
younger readers and critics imagined him and his work to be formed by the
1939-45 war (which was 'the' war to them) and forgot the searing impact of
1914 on his generation. I know he was quite adamant that _LOTR_ was not an
allegory of the 1939-45 war...
--
Abigail Ann Young
Eric Walker wrote:
>
> I suppose that whether or not he overtly intended to, he did put some
> of at least the impressions of his own trench experience into the book;
> but whether that makes the book "a novel of the Great War," as opposed
> to a novel of lower-case-w war, I question. A more definite ascertaining
> would require a more exact definition of what "a novel of the Great War"
> is and of how it could be differentiated from a generic novel of war.
> (Well, not "generic"; but a novel of some other large-scale war.)
>
> I realize that WWI was the first war of universal mobilization (as
> opposed to specialist militaries that often fought well away from
> civilian centers). But whether description of a particular sort of
> background setting suffices to qualify a book--or whether there is
> more relevance to WWI in LotR than the atmosphere and mechanics of
> a national war of survival--remain unclear but dubious to me.
>
> --
> Cordially,
> Eric Walker, webmaster
> Great Science-Fiction & Fantasy Works
> http://owlcroft.com/sfandf
To me there are three things that show the influence of the 1914 war in
particular in _LOTR_. First is the pervasive theme of loss, which comes in
several forms: the passing away of the Third Age (with its echos of the
passing of previous ages); the saving of Middle Earth, or at least of the
Shire, by those who are destroyed by their very participation in the
struggle for its salvation. Second, the allied recognition of defeat as the
obverse of victory: when Galadriel speaks to Celeborn of fighting the long
defeat, that's something born of that war and its aftermath. And lastly,
the book is full of the reaction to mechanised war (and the Great War was
the most fully mechanised war to date) and the peculiar horrors of No-Mans
Land: think of his description of the Dead Marshes. No, I think the links
with the Great War are undeniable and peculiar....
AAY
Nancy Lebovitz
Abigail Ann Young <abigai...@utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
>To me there are three things that show the influence of the 1914 war in
>particular in _LOTR_. First is the pervasive theme of loss, which comes in
>several forms: the passing away of the Third Age (with its echos of the
>passing of previous ages); the saving of Middle Earth, or at least of the
>Shire, by those who are destroyed by their very participation in the
>struggle for its salvation. Second, the allied recognition of defeat as the
>obverse of victory: when Galadriel speaks to Celeborn of fighting the long
>defeat, that's something born of that war and its aftermath. And lastly,
>the book is full of the reaction to mechanised war (and the Great War was
>the most fully mechanised war to date) and the peculiar horrors of No-Mans
>Land: think of his description of the Dead Marshes. No, I think the links
>with the Great War are undeniable and peculiar....
Would you also include the idea that a victory is no permanent solution?
IIRC, the actual line was approximately "All we can do is give our
descendants clean land to plow."
Jerry Friedman
...
> doesn't always know what (s)he wrote. Archetypal/Jungian/Myth critics
> might say that a writer included an archetype from the collective
> unconscious without knowing it. Others (psychoanalytical critics)
> might say that part of the book reflects the author's own unconscious
> mind. I remember this one great example with a poem, although I
> can't remember the title or author. (It goes; "We real cool/We
> skip school/.../We die soon.") One of the lines is "We jazz June."
> A lot of people apparently see sexual connotations to the line
> ("jazz" was originally a slang term for sex, etc.), but when the
> author was asked, she said, "Well, I actually meant, the kids
> would play jazz in June. But I like the sexual interpretation just
> as well."
"We Real Cool", by Gwendolyn Brooks. You can read it, and hear it read by the
author (very wildly), at <http://www.poets.org/poems/poems.cfm?prmID=1233>.
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
>
> Eric Walker wrote:
> >
> > I suppose that whether or not he overtly intended to, he did put some
> > of at least the impressions of his own trench experience into the book;
> > but whether that makes the book "a novel of the Great War," as opposed
> > to a novel of lower-case-w war, I question. A more definite ascertaining
> > would require a more exact definition of what "a novel of the Great War"
> > is and of how it could be differentiated from a generic novel of war.
> > (Well, not "generic"; but a novel of some other large-scale war.)
> >
> > I realize that WWI was the first war of universal mobilization (as
> > opposed to specialist militaries that often fought well away from
> > civilian centers). But whether description of a particular sort of
> > background setting suffices to qualify a book--or whether there is
> > more relevance to WWI in LotR than the atmosphere and mechanics of
> > a national war of survival--remain unclear but dubious to me.
>
> particular in _LOTR_. First is the pervasive theme of loss, which comes in
> several forms: the passing away of the Third Age (with its echos of the
> passing of previous ages); the saving of Middle Earth, or at least of the
> Shire, by those who are destroyed by their very participation in the
> struggle for its salvation. Second, the allied recognition of defeat as the
> obverse of victory: when Galadriel speaks to Celeborn of fighting the long
> defeat, that's something born of that war and its aftermath. And lastly,
> the book is full of the reaction to mechanised war (and the Great War was
> the most fully mechanised war to date) and the peculiar horrors of No-Mans
> Land: think of his description of the Dead Marshes. No, I think the links
> with the Great War are undeniable and peculiar....
I agree with all of that--and you put it well indeed--but there is a
subtle yet important distinction between a novel "showing the influence
of" WWI, which LotR surely does as you well explain, and a novel being
"of" that war. That last usage implies that the book does more than
simply incorporate some of the flavor of the war proper and of the
era, that it distinctively about that war and that era in ways that
would not, save by long coincidence, really apply to any other war
and its era.
Some of the points you cite could be argued that way, and I don't
say that the issue is by any means clear-cut, but I incline to the
view that while Tolkien assuredly incorporated his experiences of
that war and that era in his tale, that it was meant, and is, a
more universal depiction of war.
To beat this to death: if a writer lives in the country by a lake
for some years and then writes a novel in which the patterns of
life in a remote area centered on a nearby lake are major elements,
and we then look into his biography and find out about his residence
and go and look over the territory and find some particular things
that seem to correspond to descriptions in his tale, are we justified
in saying that so-and-so has written a novel of Lake Whosis, or just
that so-and-so has written a novel of lakeside country life?
Randy Money
>
[...]
> I agree with all of that--and you put it well indeed--but there is a
> subtle yet important distinction between a novel "showing the influence
> of" WWI, which LotR surely does as you well explain, and a novel being
> "of" that war.
Uuuuuurrggggg ... you're right, sort of, but ... this kind of quibble
makes me want to -- well, quibble ...
It's unlikely that _LOTR_ would have taken the form it did without
JRRT's experience in WWI, so in that sense, it is "of" that war. Much
the same could be said for _The Sun Also Rises_ and _A Farewell to
Arms_, and like them _LOTR_ has bigger (or, at least, other) fish to fry
than being a book about WWI. It uses what Tolkien learned of war to
comment on all war, using the specific to comment on the general, and so
broadening its relevance. (And, of course, just focusing on "war" in
those works ignores some themes that may have been even more important
to the books.)
> Some of the points you cite could be argued that way, and I don't
> say that the issue is by any means clear-cut, but I incline to the
> view that while Tolkien assuredly incorporated his experiences of
> that war and that era in his tale, that it was meant, and is, a
> more universal depiction of war.
Could, actually, say the same about _The Red Badge of Courage_. Well,
except that Crane wasn't born until after the War between the States,
and never served in the military, but he used that specific war to
examine war, courage, loyalty, bravery, etc., etc., etc.
> To beat this to death: if a writer lives in the country by a lake
> for some years and then writes a novel in which the patterns of
> life in a remote area centered on a nearby lake are major elements,
> and we then look into his biography and find out about his residence
> and go and look over the territory and find some particular things
> that seem to correspond to descriptions in his tale, are we justified
> in saying that so-and-so has written a novel of Lake Whosis, or just
> that so-and-so has written a novel of lakeside country life?
>
> --
> Cordially,
> Eric Walker, webmaster
Yup, after all William Faulkner was only a Yoknapawtawpha novelist,
Joyce only a novelist about Dublin.
Seriously, probably yes to both. The only real problem I see with
answering yes to both questions stems from something that happened to
many U.S. writers in the early part of the 20th century -- they got
tagged as "regionalists" because critics/reviewers couldn't seem to see
the relevance of their work outside its region.
Randy Money
Jerry Friedman
> Ugh, me English teacher, me type good. Here's the correct version of my
> last post's second paragraph:
>
> : Re Tolkien and modernism: I would actually like to see what defending
> : Tolkien as a modernist would accomplish, if only b/c I would find it
> : interesting to read him in light of what Joyce, Eliot, Pound, et al.
> : were doing or to see where he intersects with their work and where he
> : disagrees. As one of the panelists said (in the URL provided to us by
> : the original poster), it would be nice to see Tolkien in a context other
> : than mythopoeia for once.
Sounds interesting, and to me the most interesting of the many obvious parallels
is the life outside the world of getting and spending, troop movements and
manifestoes, that most people consider the real world. That is, the life in
books of all the people you mentioned, and Tolkien's imaginary world as well.
But why would you accomplish this by "defending Tolkien as a modernist"? Why
not "compare and contrast"?
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> In article <3B0B23DA...@owlcroft.com>,
> Eric Walker <wal...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >I am embarrassed: ashamed. I have no clue what a "philological
> >reading protocol" is. I thought I knew each of those three words,
> >but their combination eludes me; nor is the OED much help.
> The OED says a protocol is literally "An official form of procedure
> and etiquette in affairs of state and diplomatic relations; the
> observance of this." I meant it metaphorically, as in whatever proper
> procedure is specified for the matter at hand. A reading protocol, then,
> would be the manner in which something is to be read properly, and a
> philological reading protocol would involve reading in a philological
> manner, e.g. the way Max Muller delved into the etymology of names in
> an attempt to unlock the meaning and origin of myths.
>
> I also thought protocol might loosely indicate that interest in a
> text is usually as much a practice as it is a feeling.
Protocol also means "a detailed plan of a scientific or medical experiment,
treatment, or procedure" (from <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary>), and
that's the meaning I thought you were extending. But I'm not sure what good a
philological reading protocol would be for Tolkien. You don't have to delve
into anything; he tells you all the etymologies that are important (to my
understanding and enjoyment, anyway). Or do you mean, for example, that the
reader is supposed to notice that the Black Speech has a /gh/ sound, which
harmonizes with its use by evil beings, and Dwarvish has a similar sound, which
harmonizes with the dwarves' not being as admirable or beautiful as the elves?
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> Robert Barrett wrote:
> >
...
> > : As one of the panelists said (in the URL provided to us by
> > : the original poster), it would be nice to see Tolkien in a context other
> > : than mythopoeia for once.
>
> Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
> me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
> (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
> Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. I found it perhaps the
> single most illuminating observation about Tolkien I'd ever encountered,
> and my subsequent re-readings of _LOTR_ haev really benefitted from it.
> Insofar as 'Modernity' is itself heavily influenced by the 1914-18 war and
> the reaction of those who survived it, that could strengthen a desire to
> read him as a 'modernist'....
Could you say something about how your readings have benefited? Somehow a
connection is missing for me; I can see how you could relate LotR to Tolkien's
war experiences (especially for Frodo and Sam in Mordor?), but it seems to
throw more light on Tolkien than on the book. In other words, I don't see this
observation helping me enjoy or understand the book.
And I take you you or Fussell mean "*is* a novel of the Great War" in a
non-exclusive sense of "is", i.e., LotR also *is* a Christian novel, a nostalgic
novel, an adventure novel, and a novel with roots in, yes, mythopoeia.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Barrett
: But why would you accomplish this by "defending Tolkien as a modernist"? Why
: not "compare and contrast"?
Consider it a thought experiment. Instead of defining Tolkien as outside
of modernism at the start of the project and then comparing him to
modernists, why not try reimagining what modernism might mean if we
considered Tolkien's project a part of it? Those who work on modernism
can correct me on this, but I'm fairly sure that most of the writers we
now identify as modernists did not think of themselves as such at the time
they were doing the work we call "modernist." Whew. :) If that's the
case, then how could the scholarly definitions and accounts of modernism
expand to include Tolkien? In the end, we might decided that they
couldn't, but it would be an interesting process en route to that point.
And there would be something else to talk about besides Tolkien's position
in the long tradition of nineteenth-century fantasy and, to get even
broader, Western myth and legend. Those are fine topics, but I'm
interesting in reading Tolkien as an author of his time as well.
Best,
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> Eric Walker wrote:
> > Some of the points you cite could be argued that way, and I don't
> > say that the issue is by any means clear-cut, but I incline to the
> > view that while Tolkien assuredly incorporated his experiences of
> > that war and that era in his tale, that it was meant, and is, a
> > more universal depiction of war.
>
> Could, actually, say the same about _The Red Badge of Courage_. Well,
> except that Crane wasn't born until after the War between the States,
> and never served in the military, but he used that specific war to
> examine war, courage, loyalty, bravery, etc., etc., etc.
>
example. Sure, "Chickamauga" is set in the Civil War, but it could
take place in Russia during the Napoleonic Wars, France in WWII,
Vietnam, Croatia, etc.
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> > >Yes, but can we get rid of Dickens?
> >
> > Why would we want to?
>
> He's a Dead White Male who left his wife (for an actress, if I remember
> correctly) -- I'm sure he's been seriously attacked on both of those
> fronts.
>
of his work.
Eden R.
From a survivor of Martin Chuzzlewit :)
--
Eden R.
Reverend Sean O'Hara <oha...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:3B0DE442...@rcn.com...
Chris Camfield
"Macdonald noted that Tolkien was very precise in his use of language:
some characters use words only of Germanic origin, others only of
French, others of both."
Which characters does this apply to? I started re-reading The Lord of
the Rings not too long ago, and it would be interesting to re-read it
with this in mind.
Chris
Jo Walton
rbar...@dept.english.upenn.edu "Robert Barrett" writes:
> Consider it a thought experiment. Instead of defining Tolkien as outside
> of modernism at the start of the project and then comparing him to
> modernists, why not try reimagining what modernism might mean if we
> considered Tolkien's project a part of it?
That's pretty much what we did on the Boskone panel -- well, those of us
who could bear to entertain the idea anyway. If you consider LotR as a
whole object, including introduction, appendices, poetry, changing
diction and so on, it works a lot better than if you think of it as
the story. And what he was doing, what he wanted to do, what he thought
he was doing, (as opposed to what he was actually doing in creating the
Tolkien fantasy genre) isn't a million miles from Eliot and Auden and
Pound.
I agree that it's an interesting angle to consider him from.
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
Locus Recommended First Novel: *THE KING'S PEACE* out now from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
Abigail Ann Young
Oh, definitely.... I think, by the way, that teh line about clean lands is
another conversation with the same (or a similar) theme, saying that we
can't dictate the weather that our descendants will have to cope with, only
the condition of the land (only saying it much better than that, of
course!)...
Abigail Ann Young
Well, I don't want to beat this to death either! I think we may have to
agree to disagree about this. To me _LOTR_ "does more than simply
incorporate some of the flavor of the war proper and of the era" and also
is "distinctively about that war". BUT (and this may be where we really
part company) by saying that I don't want to deny the book its
universality. By taking that experience and using to write a book which is
clearly of its era and no other while not being axplicitly 'about' that war
in the sense that Vera Brittain or Robert Graves wrote 'about' the Great
War, I think JRRT was able to give his experience of a specific war a
universal application. But moving from the specific and personal to the
universal is of course what literature, truly great literature, is about,
whether it's Homer or Austen or Joyce...
Abigail
Randy Money
>
> Randy Money wrote:
> >
> > Eric Walker wrote:
> > > Some of the points you cite could be argued that way, and I don't
> > > say that the issue is by any means clear-cut, but I incline to the
> > > view that while Tolkien assuredly incorporated his experiences of
> > > that war and that era in his tale, that it was meant, and is, a
> > > more universal depiction of war.
> >
> > Could, actually, say the same about _The Red Badge of Courage_. Well,
> > except that Crane wasn't born until after the War between the States,
> > and never served in the military, but he used that specific war to
> > examine war, courage, loyalty, bravery, etc., etc., etc.
> >
> Perhaps the Civil War stories of Ambrose Bierce would be a better
> example. Sure, "Chickamauga" is set in the Civil War, but it could
> take place in Russia during the Napoleonic Wars, France in WWII,
> Vietnam, Croatia, etc.
>
> --
> Reverend Sean O'Hara
Thank you. They are stronger examples.
Randy M.
Abigail Ann Young
To take the last part first, yes, indeed, I didn't mean anything exclusive.
Like many other novels, I think that _LOTR_ 'is' a lot of things....
To try to answer your first point, it's hard for me to express what I mean.
I am myself not a 'lit' but a 'lang' person: lit crit is not something in
which I was strictly trained. But let me try. I think that _LOTR_ derives a
lot of its power from the themes I listed upthread, in a post in which I
argued that those themes are connected with, and a reaction to, the
author's particular experience of war on teh Western Front: "To me there
are three things that show the influence of the 1914 war in particular in
_LOTR_. First is the pervasive theme of loss, which comes in several forms:
the passing away of the Third Age (with its echos of the passing of
previous ages); the saving of Middle Earth, or at least of the Shire, by
those who are destroyed by their very participation in the struggle for its
salvation. Second, the allied recognition of defeat as the obverse of
victory: when Galadriel speaks to Celeborn of fighting the long defeat,
that's something born of that war and its aftermath. And lastly, the book
is full of the reaction to mechanised war (and the Great War was the most
fully mechanised war to date) and the peculiar horrors of No-Mans Land:
think of his description of the Dead Marshes."
AAY
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >
> > Abigail Ann Young <abigai...@utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:<3B0BB9C1...@utoronto.ca>...
> > > Also on the whole question of Tolkien and 'Modernism', it's interesting to
> > > me at least to see that critics are starting to take seriously the claim
> > > (first put forward as far as I know by the Anglo-American writer Paul
> > > Fussell) that _LOTR_ is a novel of the Great War. I found it perhaps the
> > > single most illuminating observation about Tolkien I'd ever encountered,
> > > and my subsequent re-readings of _LOTR_ haev really benefitted from it.
> > > Insofar as 'Modernity' is itself heavily influenced by the 1914-18 war and
> > > the reaction of those who survived it, that could strengthen a desire to
> > > read him as a 'modernist'....
> >
> > Could you say something about how your readings have benefited? Somehow a
> > connection is missing for me; I can see how you could relate LotR to Tolkien's
> > war experiences (especially for Frodo and Sam in Mordor?), but it seems to
> > throw more light on Tolkien than on the book. In other words, I don't see this
> > observation helping me enjoy or understand the book.
> >
> > And I take you you or Fussell mean "*is* a novel of the Great War" in a
> > non-exclusive sense of "is", i.e., LotR also *is* a Christian novel, a nostalgic
> > novel, an adventure novel, and a novel with roots in, yes, mythopoeia.
> To take the last part first, yes, indeed, I didn't mean anything exclusive.
> Like many other novels, I think that _LOTR_ 'is' a lot of things....
Got it (and thanks for figuring out what I wrote despite the typo).
> To try to answer your first point, it's hard for me to express what I mean.
> I am myself not a 'lit' but a 'lang' person: lit crit is not something in
> which I was strictly trained. But let me try. I think that _LOTR_ derives a
> lot of its power from the themes I listed upthread, in a post in which I
> argued that those themes are connected with, and a reaction to, the
> author's particular experience of war on teh Western Front: "To me there
> are three things that show the influence of the 1914 war in particular in
> _LOTR_. First is the pervasive theme of loss, which comes in several forms:
> the passing away of the Third Age (with its echos of the passing of
> previous ages); the saving of Middle Earth, or at least of the Shire, by
> those who are destroyed by their very participation in the struggle for its
> salvation. Second, the allied recognition of defeat as the obverse of
> victory: when Galadriel speaks to Celeborn of fighting the long defeat,
> that's something born of that war and its aftermath. And lastly, the book
> is full of the reaction to mechanised war (and the Great War was the most
> fully mechanised war to date) and the peculiar horrors of No-Mans Land:
> think of his description of the Dead Marshes."
These points that you put so clearly are, unfortunately, what I already
understood (at least in part). I agree completely that LotR gets a lot of its
power from the themes you mention, especially that of loss. Also that those
themes may be connected with Tolkien's experiences in WW I (and childhood and so
forth). What I don't understand is: Does recognizing a connection between those
themes and Tolkien's experiences help give them their power for you, or help you
enjoy them, or anything like that? I don't think it does for me.
But if I'm beating a dead horse, we can stop any time. Even the horse won't
mind.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman (jerry_f...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> : But why would you accomplish this by "defending Tolkien as a modernist"? Why
> : not "compare and contrast"?
>
> Consider it a thought experiment. Instead of defining Tolkien as outside
> of modernism at the start of the project and then comparing him to
> modernists, why not try reimagining what modernism might mean if we
> considered Tolkien's project a part of it? Those who work on modernism
> can correct me on this, but I'm fairly sure that most of the writers we
> now identify as modernists did not think of themselves as such at the time
> they were doing the work we call "modernist." Whew. :) If that's the
> case, then how could the scholarly definitions and accounts of modernism
> expand to include Tolkien? In the end, we might decided that they
> couldn't, but it would be an interesting process en route to that point.
> And there would be something else to talk about besides Tolkien's position
> in the long tradition of nineteenth-century fantasy and, to get even
> broader, Western myth and legend. Those are fine topics, but I'm
> interesting in reading Tolkien as an author of his time as well.
Sorry, I see you meant "defending 'Tolkien as a modernist'", not "defending
Tolkien on the grounds that he was a modernist". I'm sure the method you
describe works well.
Next project: "_The Lord of the Rings_ is to _Pale Fire_ as Odon is to Nodo, or
Vice Versa". Not a suggestion for rasfw, just venting something that I never
posted when I was subscribed to Nabokov-L.
--
Jerry Friedman
Randy Money
>
[....]
> What I don't understand is: Does recognizing a connection between those
> themes and Tolkien's experiences help give them their power for you, or help you
> enjoy them, or anything like that? I don't think it does for me.
>
> But if I'm beating a dead horse, we can stop any time. Even the horse won't
> mind.
Hi, Jerry.
Just for myself, yes. And, in one sense, that's the way it is with any
hobbyist. Some people get a great deal of pleasure out of digging out
the details behind the production and distribution of stamps and coins,
some like finding pedigrees of furniture they've acquired, and some of
us who get passionately involved with reading find there are several
different levels that we can go to. Interest in an author and the
wellsprings of her/his creativity is one of those levels.
Randy Money
Wumpus
Friedman) wrote:
>These points that you put so clearly are, unfortunately, what I already
>understood (at least in part). I agree completely that LotR gets a lot of its
>power from the themes you mention, especially that of loss. Also that those
>themes may be connected with Tolkien's experiences in WW I (and childhood and so
>forth). What I don't understand is: Does recognizing a connection between those
>themes and Tolkien's experiences help give them their power for you, or help you
>enjoy them, or anything like that? I don't think it does for me.
>
>But if I'm beating a dead horse, we can stop any time. Even the horse won't
>mind.
To me, understanding JRRT's Great War experience is the key to
understanding his most famous creations: the hobbits.
You can imagine a pre-Great War medievalist coming up with a big
mythological epic like LOTR. However, it's impossible to imagine a
pre-war medievalist making hobbits into the heroes of his weighty
tale. Tolkien created a new type of hero for his book because the
world had changed.
In the Valhalla for literary heroes, Hector, Beowulf and Lancelot no
doubt refuse to be seated at the same table as Frodo and Sam. Hobbits,
after all, lack all the virtues praised in the heroic literature.
Hobbits are common, rustic, self-indulgent, and ignorant of both
warfare and the the affairs of state.They avoid battles rather than
seeking them out, and indeed their great achievement in LOTR is not
one of arms, but simply of endurance.
While Tolkien remembers the traditional heroic virtues with nostalgia,
he does not endorse them. In Middle Earth, the time for traditional
heroics has largely passed. In LOTR, those who behave in the usual
heroic manner are either doomed (Boromir or Denethor) or greatly
circumscribed in their actions by their own weaknesses (Gandalf,
Aragorn, Elrond, etc. all refuse the ring, because they know they
cannot resist its power.) In this new world, only the common hobbits
can do what wizards, kings, and princes cannot.
Tolkien had to create Middle Earth this way because of what he had
seen in the war. The war blasted the traditional heroic ethos to
smithereens. Beowulf and Hector would have been cut down by machine
gun fire the moment they went over the top, rendering their heroic
virtues utterly moot.
In this new kind of war, a new kind of heroism was needed. Edurance
was more important than aggression. Prudence was more valued than
swift action. The new heroes, ordinary infantry from all walks of
life, loathed the battlefield and longed for the comforts of home.
They were ordinary people who had made it through extraordinary
circumstances. There were no Hectors in the trenches, but there were
plenty of Frodos and Sams.
While Tolkien was not a modernist, LOTR is a quintessentially 20th
century book. The critics who panned it as a throwback when it was
initially released missed the point. Tolkien came to bury the old
heroic ethos, not to resurrect it (no matter how much he might have
*liked* to resurrect it). In its place, he created a new type of
antihero: the modest hobbit.
Jerry Friedman
Hi, Randy. I guess it's a case of "chacun a son gout", so have some Madeira--
and I'm not quite as much of a purist about this as I may have sounded like
(though close).
--
Jerry Friedman
Nancy Lebovitz
Wumpus <wumpu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Thanks for this essay--I hope you keep posting to rasfw.
>In the Valhalla for literary heroes, Hector, Beowulf and Lancelot no
>doubt refuse to be seated at the same table as Frodo and Sam. Hobbits,
>after all, lack all the virtues praised in the heroic literature.
>Hobbits are common, rustic, self-indulgent, and ignorant of both
>warfare and the the affairs of state.They avoid battles rather than
>seeking them out, and indeed their great achievement in LOTR is not
>one of arms, but simply of endurance.
Would older epics have simply used hobbits for comic relief?
>While Tolkien remembers the traditional heroic virtues with nostalgia,
>he does not endorse them. In Middle Earth, the time for traditional
>heroics has largely passed. In LOTR, those who behave in the usual
>heroic manner are either doomed (Boromir or Denethor) or greatly
>circumscribed in their actions by their own weaknesses (Gandalf,
>Aragorn, Elrond, etc. all refuse the ring, because they know they
>cannot resist its power.) In this new world, only the common hobbits
>can do what wizards, kings, and princes cannot.
Still, the Scouring of the Shire involves fairly traditional (if small-
scale) heroics. The one exception (and it may be important) is that
Saruman isn't killed by the hobbits.
What would you say is the relationship between the Scouring and the
view of heroism in LOTR?
>Tolkien had to create Middle Earth this way because of what he had
>seen in the war. The war blasted the traditional heroic ethos to
>smithereens. Beowulf and Hector would have been cut down by machine
>gun fire the moment they went over the top, rendering their heroic
>virtues utterly moot.
>
Hmm--and Aragorn, the nearest thing to a traditional hero in the book, is
much more valued for his rulership than his ability to fight. The theme
of valuing the arts of maintenance more than those of war is obvious
in the book, but it interacts with class in some way that I can't
quite put a finger on.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Sam founding a major Shire dynasty
fits in with this someplace.
Brenda W. Clough
Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
> >Tolkien had to create Middle Earth this way because of what he had
> >seen in the war. The war blasted the traditional heroic ethos to
> >smithereens. Beowulf and Hector would have been cut down by machine
> >gun fire the moment they went over the top, rendering their heroic
> >virtues utterly moot.
> >
> Hmm--and Aragorn, the nearest thing to a traditional hero in the book, is
> much more valued for his rulership than his ability to fight. The theme
> of valuing the arts of maintenance more than those of war is obvious
> in the book, but it interacts with class in some way that I can't
> quite put a finger on.
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion that Sam founding a major Shire dynasty
> fits in with this someplace.
>
Of course it does, because in Britain all the arts of maintenance are learned
and exercised by a landowning gentry. You only learn them by having been
born to the job, your ancestors having exercised them before you for the past
umpety-hundred years. Blood is assumed to convey competence.
Brenda
--
What do you do with a secret?
Whisper it in a desert at high noon.
Lock it up and bury the key.
Tell the nation on prime-time TV.
Choose a door . . .
Doors of Death and Life
by Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
Tor Books
ISBN 0-312-87064-7
Nancy Lebovitz
Brenda W. Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>
>> >Tolkien had to create Middle Earth this way because of what he had
>> >seen in the war. The war blasted the traditional heroic ethos to
>> >smithereens. Beowulf and Hector would have been cut down by machine
>> >gun fire the moment they went over the top, rendering their heroic
>> >virtues utterly moot.
>> >
>> Hmm--and Aragorn, the nearest thing to a traditional hero in the book, is
>> much more valued for his rulership than his ability to fight. The theme
>> of valuing the arts of maintenance more than those of war is obvious
>> in the book, but it interacts with class in some way that I can't
>> quite put a finger on.
>>
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that Sam founding a major Shire dynasty
>> fits in with this someplace.
>>
>Of course it does, because in Britain all the arts of maintenance are learned
>and exercised by a landowning gentry. You only learn them by having been
>born to the job, your ancestors having exercised them before you for the past
>umpety-hundred years. Blood is assumed to convey competence.
Then LOTR is promoting Revolution Lite, I think. Hobbits in general
(regardless of ancestry, and carefully ignoring Gollum and possibly
Lobelia) are all adept at maintenance. Hobbits are a new race, but
they're portrayed as the sanest and most valuable people in Middle
Earth.
On the other hand, Aragorn has the best ancestry (though, afaik, no
background in maintenance) and is a primary maintainer as soon as
he wins the chance. On yet another hand, his Numenorian blood is
no guarantee of reliability.
As for ancestry and competence, I think that's an accurate depiction--
the division in the book is between biophilia and biophobia, not between
those who know what they're doing and those who don't. Afaik, skill
acquisition is kept off-stage. Unlike modern sf, there's no learning-
a-martial-art sequence. Instead, the hobbit approach to fighting is
get blade and insert as necessary.
Mike Thoma
>
> Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote in message <3B0C07FA...@rcn.com>...
> >"D. Gascoyne" wrote:
> >>
> >> And so he was/is popular? Remember
> >> Byronomania? Noone seems to want to chuck Byron out of the canon just
> because
> >> he attracted the first bona fide groupies!
> >
> >Yes, but can we get rid of Dickens?
>
> Why would we want to?
>
Because he's a hack that's been annoying high school students
for over 100 years?
Liz Broadwell
: Jim Mann wrote:
: > >
: > >Yes, but can we get rid of Dickens?
: >
: > Why would we want to?
: Because he's a hack that's been annoying high school students
: for over 100 years?
Hey! I'll take _Great Expectations_ over _Madame Bovary_, _Lie Down in
Darkness_, and _Light in August_ (all part of my senior English
syllabus). Entertaining hackery beats dull artistry by a mile.
(Oh, dear. Do I forfeit my master's in English for saying that?)
ObSF: McKinley's reflections on Aerin's education in an early chapter of
_The Hero and the Crown_.
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "Who will read 423 pages about an unfin-
(ebro...@english.upenn.edu) | ished journey undertaken by mythical crea-
Department of English | tures with confusing names? Probably no
University of Pennsylvania | one, but I still say it is wonderful."
Philadelphia, PA | -- Anne Barrett
William Hyde
na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) writes:
> In article <3B166E90...@erols.com>,
> Brenda W. Clough <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>>Nancy Lebovitz wrote:
>>
>>> I have a sneaking suspicion that Sam founding a major Shire dynasty
>>> fits in with this someplace.
>>>
>>Of course it does, because in Britain all the arts of maintenance are learned
>>and exercised by a landowning gentry. You only learn them by having been
>>born to the job, your ancestors having exercised them before you for the past
>>umpety-hundred years. Blood is assumed to convey competence.
The old saying was actually, "it takes three generations
to make a gentleman". It was rare, but not unknown,
for a family to move from the peasantry to the gentry
in three generations. Of course, the older gentry probably
still harrumphed for another three generations.
> Then LOTR is promoting Revolution Lite, I think. Hobbits in general
> (regardless of ancestry, and carefully ignoring Gollum and possibly
> Lobelia) are all adept at maintenance. Hobbits are a new race, but
> they're portrayed as the sanest and most valuable people in Middle
> Earth.
>
> On the other hand, Aragorn has the best ancestry (though, afaik, no
> background in maintenance)
But shire was largely maintained by the Dunedain, who kept
the nastier elements out of its boundaries, barring
occasional exceptions like the fell winter. Only after
they left to fight Mordor did most hobbits discover
that they had been protected.
> As for ancestry and competence, I think that's an accurate depiction--
> the division in the book is between biophilia and biophobia, not between
> those who know what they're doing and those who don't. Afaik, skill
> acquisition is kept off-stage. Unlike modern sf, there's no learning-
> a-martial-art sequence. Instead, the hobbit approach to fighting is
> get blade and insert as necessary.
Perhaps in parallel with Tolkein's WWI experience.
Get gun and blaze away as necessary.
William Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
hy...@rossby.tamu.edu
Jo Walton
clo...@erols.com "Brenda W. Clough" writes:
> Of course it does, because in Britain all the arts of maintenance are learned
> and exercised by a landowning gentry. You only learn them by having been
> born to the job, your ancestors having exercised them before you for the past
> umpety-hundred years. Blood is assumed to convey competence.
Like the Sackville-Bagginses, and the Tooks, as opposed to Sam, and Farmer
Cotton?
I don't think this is a reasonable reading.
That the competent maintainers (Sam) rise to become gentry and the incompetent
fall from that station, yes, but that's different. The Bagginses die out,
too.
Nancy Lebovitz
Paul Ciszek <pci...@antiabuseworld.std.com> wrote:
>In article <9f5neh$k...@netaxs.com>,
>Nancy Lebovitz <na...@unix3.netaxs.com> wrote:
>>
>>>While Tolkien remembers the traditional heroic virtues with nostalgia,
>>>he does not endorse them. In Middle Earth, the time for traditional
>>>heroics has largely passed. In LOTR, those who behave in the usual
>>>heroic manner are either doomed (Boromir or Denethor) or greatly
>>>circumscribed in their actions by their own weaknesses (Gandalf,
>>>Aragorn, Elrond, etc. all refuse the ring, because they know they
>>>cannot resist its power.) In this new world, only the common hobbits
>>>can do what wizards, kings, and princes cannot.
>>
>>Still, the Scouring of the Shire involves fairly traditional (if small-
>>scale) heroics. The one exception (and it may be important) is that
>>Saruman isn't killed by the hobbits.
>
>overthrows an outisde ruler, with personal status playing very little
>role.
>
"Traditional" might have been putting it too strongly--still, there
are clearly superior leaders and the Horn-cry of Buckland shaking the
air. Victory goes to the side that's both more courageous and morally
better. There's no hint that fighting or power are ambiguous--it's
a lot less complex than what's going on in the main story.
Michael S. Schiffer
<GE7sL...@world.std.com>:
>...
>>Still, the Scouring of the Shire involves fairly traditional (if
>>small- scale) heroics. The one exception (and it may be important)
>>is that Saruman isn't killed by the hobbits.
>The Scouring does not involve "traditional" heroics-- an armed
>populace overthrows an outisde ruler, with personal status playing
>very little role.
Little role? The Shire was pretty complacent till the travelers
returned shouting the name of Frodo Baggins, and the prime organizers
of the revolt were the heirs to the Thainship and Brandy Hall, dressed
up like legendary knights to boot. Not exactly the return of the King,
but not the Gaffer and Farmer Maggot organizing a citizen's uprising,
either.
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS If reading in an archive, please do
ms...@mediaone.net not click on words highlighted as links
msch...@condor.depaul.edu by Deja or other archives. They violate
the author's copyright and his wishes.
Christian Gadeken
wrote:
>In article <e606htk9vnnnavh39...@4ax.com>,
>Wumpus <wumpu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>Thanks for this essay--I hope you keep posting to rasfw.
>
If he doesn't, we'll hunt him down.
--
"I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling
is really bad, it's depressing."
-Tara
Christian Gadeken
chr...@stic.net
D. Gascoyne
> Mike Thoma (mike....@moh.hnet.bc.ca) wrote:
> : Jim Mann wrote:
> : > >
> : > >Yes, but can we get rid of Dickens?
> : >
> : > Why would we want to?
>
> : Because he's a hack that's been annoying high school students
> : for over 100 years?
>
> Hey! I'll take _Great Expectations_ over _Madame Bovary_, _Lie Down in
> Darkness_, and _Light in August_ (all part of my senior English
> syllabus). Entertaining hackery beats dull artistry by a mile.
Hear hear!
D.
Michael Schilling
> Mike Thoma (mike....@moh.hnet.bc.ca) wrote:
> : Jim Mann wrote:
> : > >
> : > >Yes, but can we get rid of Dickens?
> : >
> : > Why would we want to?
>
> : Because he's a hack that's been annoying high school students
> : for over 100 years?
>
> Hey! I'll take _Great Expectations_ over _Madame Bovary_, _Lie Down in
> Darkness_, and _Light in August_ (all part of my senior English
> syllabus). Entertaining hackery beats dull artistry by a mile.
_Light in August_, maybe, but leave in _The Sound and the Fury_ (because
firelight was still the same bright shape of sleep).
Htn963
<snip>
>> Hey! I'll take _Great Expectations_ over _Madame Bovary_, _Lie Down in
>> Darkness_, and _Light in August_ (all part of my senior English
>> syllabus). Entertaining hackery beats dull artistry by a mile.
>
>_Light in August_, maybe, but leave in _The Sound and the Fury_ (because
>firelight was still the same bright shape of sleep).
The only Faulkner book I remotely enjoyed was _As I Lay Dying_, and that
was mainly due to the gimmick of the corpse taking turns narrating the story
with her family.
Segue to SF: Any other notable books in mainstream or sf with dead
men/women as narrators? (Please leave out the movie stuff like Rashomon,
Sunset Boulevard, etc.)
Jordan S. Bassior
> Segue to SF: Any other notable books in mainstream or sf with dead
>men/women as narrators? (Please leave out the movie stuff like Rashomon,
>Sunset Boulevard, etc.)
_Galapagos_, by Kurt Vonnegut.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Helgi Briem
<mike....@moh.hnet.bc.ca> wrote:
>Jim Mann wrote:
>>
>> Reverend Sean O'Hara wrote in message <3B0C07FA...@rcn.com>...
>> >Yes, but can we get rid of Dickens?
>>
>> Why would we want to?
>>
>
>Because he's a hack that's been annoying high school students
>for over 100 years?
Annoying?! Surely you jest. The man
was a genius.
Regards,
Helgi Briem
Richard Horton
> Segue to SF: Any other notable books in mainstream or sf with dead
>men/women as narrators? (Please leave out the movie stuff like Rashomon,
>Sunset Boulevard, etc.)
_Peace_, by Gene Wolfe (and a couple of shorts, particularly one with
a title which hints at that, after reading)
I've seen it argued that many of Nabokov's books are told by dead men
- _Transparent Things_ is a fairly clear case (for Nabokovian values
of clear - oh, and no pun intended), _Pale Fire_ a bit more ambiguous.
_The Third Policeman_, by Flann O'Brien
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
David Eppstein
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > Segue to SF: Any other notable books in mainstream or sf with dead
> >men/women as narrators? (Please leave out the movie stuff like Rashomon,
> >Sunset Boulevard, etc.)
>
> _Peace_, by Gene Wolfe (and a couple of shorts, particularly one with
> a title which hints at that, after reading)
_Ubik_ by P. K. Dick
maybe _Humpty Dumpty: An Oval_ by Damon Knight
--
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
epps...@ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
Eric Walker
> On 01 Jun 2001 06:19:22 GMT, htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote:
>
> > Segue to SF: Any other notable books in mainstream or sf with dead
> >men/women as narrators?
[...]
> _Peace_, by Gene Wolfe . . . .
As it happens, I agree about _Peace_, but wonder if the point is
unequivocal--that is, would any thoughtful reader *necessarily*
reach that conclusion?
Mike Thoma
Where genius means long winded, boring, and pointless. We had to
read a lot of books in high school, and I liked most of them.
One year we had "Pride and Prejudice", "The Pearl", "Julius
Caesar", a collection of Twain short stories, "The Moonstone",
some stuff I've forgotten, and "Great Expectations".
I really enjoyed all of these books, but Great Expectations was
the most tedious drivel I've ever read. I could have bought the
Coles Notes version, but in those days I thought books were
sacred and had to be finished. Also, I'd never read anything so
utterly dull and useless, and kept thinking it just has to get
better soon. Or at least start making sense. By the end of the
book I would have strangled Dickens if he had still been alive.
Nowadays of course I'd just throw the book away after two
chapters. Too many good books out there to waste my time with
junk.
Ide Cyan
> As for ancestry and competence, I think that's an accurate depiction--
> the division in the book is between biophilia and biophobia, not between
> those who know what they're doing and those who don't. Afaik, skill
> acquisition is kept off-stage. Unlike modern sf, there's no learning-
> a-martial-art sequence. Instead, the hobbit approach to fighting is
> get blade and insert as necessary.
Which I for one am thankful for. In parallel to that thread about books
that shouldn't be written...
Frodo: "I know Kung Fu!"
--
"I think you'll find that most educated people regard mythical
convictions as functionally animistic. Personally, I find
most experiences border on the existential."
Iceworld guard, 'Dragonfire'
Jordan S. Bassior
>Where genius means long winded, boring, and pointless.
Then why have people been reading Dickens for over a hundred years? He's never
been out of print, despite the fact that he _never_ matched the preferred
criteria of literary critics.
Reverend Sean O'Hara
and took full advantage of it," you're probably right.
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You too can be an ordained minister: http://www.ulc.org/ulc
Staff Writer for EXPULSION: http://www.expulsion.org
"Just last week, Rummy sent me an e-mail over the Internet -
something that didn't exist just five years ago." - Sen. Armey
Reverend Sean O'Hara
>
> Mike Thoma said:
>
> >Where genius means long winded, boring, and pointless.
>
> Then why have people been reading Dickens for over a hundred years?
Same reason they've been reading Stephen King for a quarter century.
He's never
> been out of print,
Never being out of print does not mean the man was a genius. "Tarzan,"
"Gone with the Wind," and "Peyton Place" would be works of geniuses
by this standard.
> despite the fact that he _never_ matched the preferred
> criteria of literary critics.
O, don't start with the literary criticism crap.
David Johnston
>
> "Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
> >
> > Mike Thoma said:
> >
> > >Where genius means long winded, boring, and pointless.
> >
> > Then why have people been reading Dickens for over a hundred years?
>
> Same reason they've been reading Stephen King for a quarter century.
Because they are both as popular as hell?
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<oha...@rcn.com> wrote:
>"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>>
>> Mike Thoma said:
>>
>> >Where genius means long winded, boring, and pointless.
>>
>> Then why have people been reading Dickens for over a hundred years?
>
>Same reason they've been reading Stephen King for a quarter century.
Because they're entertaining?
>He's never
>> been out of print,
>
>Never being out of print does not mean the man was a genius. "Tarzan,"
>"Gone with the Wind," and "Peyton Place" would be works of geniuses
>by this standard.
They obviously are, if there's constant demand for them. Now, it might
not be your definition of genius, though.
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/index.htm
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Ross TenEyck
>Mike Thoma said:
>>Where genius means long winded, boring, and pointless.
>Then why have people been reading Dickens for over a hundred years? He's never
>been out of print, despite the fact that he _never_ matched the preferred
>criteria of literary critics.
Dickens is one of those authors where I can only conclude that
it's just me. To borrow an analogy I read someone use about an
entirely different author, I find reading Dickens to be like
forcing my head through a vat of cold oatmeal. But, since so
many people do read and enjoy Dickens, he's obviously doing
something right.
Different strokes for people whose mileage varies, and all that.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Andrew Wheeler
>
<snip>
>
> Great Expectations was the most tedious drivel I've ever
> read. I could have bought the Coles Notes version, but in
> those days I thought books were sacred and had to be
> finished. Also, I'd never read anything so utterly dull and
> useless, and kept thinking it just has to get better soon. Or
> at least start making sense.
I'm not sure what "didn't make sense" in _Great
Expectations_, unless you found the "mysterious benefactor"
plot a problem. (Or maybe you just hated the book so much
that you didn't care about any of it -- I've certainly had
that happen.)
Don't listen to those who say otherwise: there's no law that
says you have to like Dickens. (Now, a man who hates the
novels of Anthony Trollope is an unredeemable cur, fit only
to be hunted down by trained assassins and used for medical
experiments...where was I?) _Great Expectations_ is
generally considered (by me as well as real experts) to be
one of his best books, so he just might not be for you.
But, if you ever do want to give Dickens a second chance,
I'd suggest picking up one of his longer books. (Dickens was
the anti-Heinlein in that respect; his longest books are his
best and his shortest, like _Hard Times_ and _Tale of Two
Cities_, are cramped and bland.) I'd specifically recommend
reading the first chapter or so of _Bleak House_ -- if you
don't like that, you'll probably never like Dickens. I think
it's a magnificent, powerful piece of writing; one of the
best descriptions of a city in the English language.
--
Andrew Wheeler
Editor, SF Book Club (USA) -- speaking only for myself
"A poem is a pheasant." -- Wallace Stevens
Mark Jason Dominus
That is tautological.
--
@P=split//,".URRUU\c8R";@d=split//,"\nrekcah xinU / lreP rehtona tsuJ";sub p{
@p{"r$p","u$p"}=(P,P);pipe"r$p","u$p";++$p;($q*=2)+=$f=!fork;map{$P=$P[$f^ord
($p{$_})&6];$p{$_}=/ ^$P/ix?$P:close$_}keys%p}p;p;p;p;p;map{$p{$_}=~/^[P.]/&&
close$_}%p;wait until$?;map{/^r/&&<$_>}%p;$_=$d[$q];sleep rand(2)if/\S/;print
Jordan S. Bassior
>"Jordan S. Bassior" wrote:
>>
>> Mike Thoma said:
>>
>> >Where genius means long winded, boring, and pointless.
>>
>> Then why have people been reading Dickens for over a hundred years?
>
>Same reason they've been reading Stephen King for a quarter century.
They're both _good_ authors, who tell fascinating tales in an artful manner?
>He's never
>> been out of print,
>
>Never being out of print does not mean the man was a genius. "Tarzan,"
>"Gone with the Wind," and "Peyton Place" would be works of geniuses
>by this standard.
_Tarzan_ is one of the classics of science fiction, which spawned numerous
imitators. I've never read either of the other two, but the movie version is a
much-beloved classic. BOTH _Gone With the Wind_ and _Peyton Place_ founded
literary subgenres.
>O, don't start with the literary criticism crap.
Why is it "crap" to point out that the opinions of literary critics generally
seem to have almost no connection to the quality, enjoyability, or longevity of
a work, and hence should be disregarded?
Jordan S. Bassior
>Because they are both as popular as hell?
... and one does not generally get "popular as hell" by writing _poorly_.
Jordan S. Bassior
>If by genius you mean, "He realized what being paid by the word means,
>and took full advantage of it," you're probably right.
Then why is his work still popular?
Mark Jason Dominus
Ross TenEyck <ten...@alumnae.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Dickens is one of those authors where I can only conclude that
>it's just me. To borrow an analogy I read someone use about an
>entirely different author, I find reading Dickens to be like
>forcing my head through a vat of cold oatmeal.
During the winter of 1992 I got a copy of _A Christmas Carol_
because I wanted to put the `Bah! Humbug!' line in my .signature, and
I wanted to get it right. I decided to re-read it, possibly with the
idea of writing a parody. At the time I hated Dickens, or thought I
did.
So I read it over---it's not very long---and I discovered what I
had least expected: It was very, very good. I enjoyed it very much.
It gave me a lot to think about, and it stuck in my memory. I expect
I'll read it and enjoy it again.
_A Christmas Carol_ has been adapted and modernized and redone and
updated and done and overdone so much that we've completely forgotten
the original.
The remakes are weak and sticky-sweet. The moral is crass and
commercial. The overwhelming sentimentality is vile. The only
reasonable reaction to the whole thing is to say `Bah, Humbug!' and
wish that, just once, Tiny Tim would be run down by a cab and drop
dead in the snow.
The original, on the other hand, is a ghost story. It's a very fine
ghost story, and it works because it's genuinely frightening.
The sentimentality and morality are rooted in everyday things, not
in some highfalutin do-gooder candy-coated ideals. The scene at the end,
for example, where Scrooge sees the scavengers squabbling over his
curtains, is right on the nose. We're not afraid of death itself, so
much as of being forgotten, of leaving the world without ever making a
mark. Dickens hits the nail on the head here. The remakes always omit
this scene; it's too subtle, too horrifying.
In the updated remakes, Scrooge's change of heart is deus ex machina
and is completely unbelievable, and in fact _Scrooge_ is unbelievable.
It's remarkable that the updaters manage to accomplish both of these at
once. The only thing more remarkable is that Dickens managed the
negation of both at once.
I had last read Dickens in high school and had the same reaction.
This was a mistake for several reasons: I was forced to read it, which
is never conducive to enjoyment. I wasn't old enough to read Dickens
at sixteen, because sixteen-year-olds weren't part of Dickens'
audience; a lot of what he wrote about is feelings and ideas that I
did not understand and that most people don't have until they're
older. And finally, I wonder if Dickens, who was originally published
in weekly serials, is well-suited to a modern style of reading that
gobbles up whole books as rapidly as possible.
William December Starr
jsba...@aol.com (Jordan S. Bassior) said:
>>> Then why have people been reading Dickens for over a hundred
>>> years?
>>
>> Same reason they've been reading Stephen King for a quarter century.
>
> They're both _good_ authors, who tell fascinating tales in an artful
> manner?
Yes, except for Dickens.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Coyu
>>O, don't start with the literary criticism crap.
>
>Why is it "crap" to point out that the opinions of literary critics generally
>seem to have almost no connection to the quality, enjoyability, or longevity
>of a work, and hence should be disregarded?
Because it is simply not true.
[looks at four shelves of literary criticism]
Hm. I have a pretty wide range of critics. John Ciardi, who used
to hang out with Fletcher Pratt. Hugh Kenner, who had that
column in BYTE magazine for years and years. Leslie Fielder,
who thinks Philip Jose Farmer is some sort of living god. Harold
Bloom, who did back-flips for John Crowley and even David Lindsay. [1]
Slavoj Zizek, who spends half his time discussing SF and
mystery stories (and did a full book on David Lynch). Samuel
Delany, Scott McCloud, A.S. Byatt, G.K. Chesterton, Tom Disch,
C.S. Lewis.
That's eleven top-flight critics who, not only have interesting things
to say about popular fiction, but about SF as well. Some of them
even have written the stuff.
So, whatever, Jordan. Obviously the opinions of well-read people
who enjoy stories within a genre, and even write in that genre, have
no bearing on what other people actually like in that genre, and
should be disregarded.
That's why *I* hang out on rasfw, anyway -- to ignore the opinions
of other people's informed reading taste.
[1] I even have a copy of Bloom's _Voyage to Lucifer_, which is dreadful.
Coyu
> And finally, I wonder if Dickens, who was originally published
>in weekly serials, is well-suited to a modern style of reading that
>gobbles up whole books as rapidly as possible.
Hm. I subscribe to a newsgroup that tends to have at least one serial
fiction installment a day, with maybe a dozen different on-going
serials at any time. Well-written, and not afraid to take stylistic risks.
They're addictive. You get used to the form very quickly. Sometimes
the installments end on a cliff-hanger; sometimes the power of
the story itself carries you from one installment to the next.
And sometimes, yes, they just peter out, c'est la vie.
But I don't think there's anything in the form alien to a modern
style of reading at all. It's on Usenet; so it *must* be modern! Or
something like that.
Eveleen McAuley
"Andrew Wheeler" <andrew...@earthlink.com>
>
> Don't listen to those who say otherwise: there's no law that
> says you have to like Dickens.
> _Great Expectations_ is generally considered (by me as well as
> real experts) to be one of his best books,
> so he just might not be for you.
>
idea that the hero was making a fool of himself, and I've never been able
to face reading it since then.
> I'd specifically recommend
> reading the first chapter or so of _Bleak House_ -- if you
> don't like that, you'll probably never like Dickens. I think
> it's a magnificent, powerful piece of writing; one of the
> best descriptions of a city in the English language.
>
The episode of spontaneous human combustion should even make 'Bleak
House' count as speculative fiction.
Eveleen McAuley
Wumpus
wrote:
>
>Would older epics have simply used hobbits for comic relief?
>
Yes, or put them into a comic mock-epic. For example, take the idiot
son heroes of various fairy tales. They may have adventures, and may
even marry princesses, but they're figures of fun, not real Heroes
with a capital H.
You can see Tolkien struggling with this in THE HOBBIT. Tolkien wanted
to treat the death of the dragon seriously, and at this point he
obviously didn't think hobbits or dwarves were suited to the task. So
he hastily invents a proper capital-H Hero, Brand, and has him do the
deed.
>
>Still, the Scouring of the Shire involves fairly traditional (if small-
>scale) heroics. The one exception (and it may be important) is that
>Saruman isn't killed by the hobbits.
>
>What would you say is the relationship between the Scouring and the
>view of heroism in LOTR?
Well, leaving the foe alive definitely wouldn't have set well with
Homer or the writers of Norse or even Arthurian legends. Part of being
a Hero is smiting your enemies, not letting them off the hook.
Still, the idea that the hero can't intentionally kill the villian
because it isn't merciful or sporting predates Tolkien--it goes back
at least to Victorian days--so I don't think that's unique to LOTR.
I guess what is unique to LOTR is the feeling I get (via Frodo's
reactions) that the Scouring of the Shire is a tragedy, not a triumph.
The unpleasantness of the outside world (including Heroism, with its
mail coats and swords and death) has infected the idyllic Shire. Even
the death of Saruman doesn't cleanse it. The final words of the
chapter aren't a description of happy dancing hobbits, but rather
this:
"I shan't call it the end till we've cleaned up the mess," said Sam
gloomily. "And that'll take a lot of time and work."
Again, that sounds very much like a post WW I reaction.
Jordan S. Bassior
> The original, on the other hand, is a ghost story. It's a very fine
>ghost story, and it works because it's genuinely frightening.
Absolutely. Scrooge is literally "scared straight."
> The sentimentality and morality are rooted in everyday things, not
>in some highfalutin do-gooder candy-coated ideals. The scene at the end,
>for example, where Scrooge sees the scavengers squabbling over his
>curtains, is right on the nose. We're not afraid of death itself, so
>much as of being forgotten, of leaving the world without ever making a
>mark. Dickens hits the nail on the head here. The remakes always omit
>this scene; it's too subtle, too horrifying.
Very true. Note that, in the original, Scrooge _does_ die (offstage at the
end), the only difference is that he has done good and become loved for it, so
that he is very much missed when he's gone. If he'd remained a nasty, stingy
man, he would have suffered the fate the Ghost of Christmas Future showed him,
after his death.
And of course, remember that Dickens was writing from a very Christian context,
and the strong implication was that Scrooge was going to Hell, if he didn't
mend his ways -- and that of course, since he did, he went to Heaven.
>I had last read Dickens in high school and had the same reaction.
>This was a mistake for several reasons: I was forced to read it, which
>is never conducive to enjoyment. I wasn't old enough to read Dickens
>at sixteen, because sixteen-year-olds weren't part of Dickens'
>audience; a lot of what he wrote about is feelings and ideas that I
>did not understand and that most people don't have until they're
>older.
High school English classes can kill enjoyment in reading in general!