Sauron and Letter 183
Stan Brown
domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*
"*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher
order."
Was this a slip by Tolkien, or were there actually "orders" within
the Maiar?
I can see that Sauron was (originally) greater than Gandalf (Olórin),
but what if anything does Tolkien mean by "a FAR higher order"?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
JJ
> "But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for
> domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*
>
> "*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher
> order."
>
> Was this a slip by Tolkien, or were there actually "orders" within
> the Maiar?
>
> I can see that Sauron was (originally) greater than Gandalf (Olórin),
> but what if anything does Tolkien mean by "a FAR higher order"?
>
> --
> Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
I would suggest that by 'order' he meant 'type' or 'kind' rather than
'formal rank'.
Steve Morrison
> "But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for
> domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*
>
> "*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher
> order."
>
> Was this a slip by Tolkien, or were there actually "orders" within
> the Maiar?
>
> I can see that Sauron was (originally) greater than Gandalf (Olórin),
> but what if anything does Tolkien mean by "a FAR higher order"?
This seems to contradict a passage from the essay on the Istari:
Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but
must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat
on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men.
Although that was from some sort of outline and not the main text
of the essay.
Paul S. Person
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>"But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for
>domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*
>
>"*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher
>order."
>
>Was this a slip by Tolkien, or were there actually "orders" within
>the Maiar?
>
>I can see that Sauron was (originally) greater than Gandalf (Ol�rin),
>but what if anything does Tolkien mean by "a FAR higher order"?
When was that letter published? Was it after Tokien became concerned
with making his mythology more consistent with his religion?
In Aquinas, each Angel has its own "order". The traditional "orders"
are actually ranges of the actual "orders". The reason for this is
simple: since Angels have no bodies, if two were of the same "order",
they would be identical (that is, there would be one angel, not two
angels): difference in "order" is the only way they can have a
separate existence.
So, it would not be entirely surprising is this sort of thing applied
to all of the Ainur, of which the Valar and the Maiar are specific
subsets, as it were.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Troels Forchhammer
Steve Morrison <rim...@toast.net> spoke these staves:
> Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> "But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for
>> domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*
>>
>> "*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher
>> order."
>>
>> Was this a slip by Tolkien, or were there actually "orders"
>> within the Maiar?
>
> This seems to contradict a passage from the essay on the Istari:
>
> Who would go? For they must be mighty, peers of Sauron, but
> must forgo might, and clothe themselves in flesh so as to treat
> on equality and win the trust of Elves and Men.
>
> Although that was from some sort of outline and not the main text
> of the essay.
I don't think that there is necessarily any contradiction. Olórin and
Curumo would be peers (i.e. of roughly the same 'Valinorean stature'
as he) of Sauron, but Gandalf and Saruman were of a far lower order
_because_ of their being incarnated in flesh and forgoing might. I
have long argued that the process of becoming incarnate, the
'Istarization', lessened the Wizards [*] very considerably in all
respects, and that it is quite reasonable that they would, in their
origins, have been (roughly) peers of Sauron in 'Valinorean stature'.
The idea of 'Valinorean stature' is also introduced in the UT essay
on the Istari to explain Saruman's seniority, but it is never
explained in detail. It is, however, clearly meant as an indication
of detailed ranking.
I think there are also other evidence scattered about in the
legendarium to show that Tolkien did think of 'orders' among the
Maiar -- and I also think that this evidence can be found throughout
the evolution of the legendarium, but it's far too late now for me to
go dig it out -- perhaps tomorrow if I remember :-)
[*] Though I'm not sure that Tolkien had worked out their nature in
this level of detail while he was actually writing LotR -- it may
be primarily a post-hoc explanation.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve
death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to
them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
- Frodo and Gandalf, /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Steve Hayes
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>In a desperate attempt to move this closer to something like being
>on-topic, I must ask: does Charles William's order, by any chance,
>match that of Gregory rather than that of Dionysius?
Oh, I think it's close enough to being on topic, though I doubt that we shall
determine exactly which order the Maiar correspond to, since, as you point
out, the Church Fathers themselves differ over the precise order.
>
>Not that I would be surprised to learn of other orders being promoted
>by other Church Fathers. No, I would not be surprised at all.
For what it's worth, here's the passage from Williams's "The place of the
lion":
=== begin quote ===
Richardson leaned forward and picked up from the table a very old bound
book and a very fat exercise book. He again settled himself in his
chair, and said, looking firmly at Anthony--"This is the _De Angelis_ of
Marcellus Victorinus of Bologna, published in the year 1514. at Paris,
and dedicated to Leo X."
"Is it?" Anthony said uncertainly.
"Berringer picked it up in Berlin--it's not complete, unfortunately--and
lent it to me when he found I was interested to have a shot at
translating. There's nothing to show who our Marcellus was, and the book
itself, from what he says in the dedication, isn't so much his own as a
version of a work by a Greek--Alexander someone--written centuries
before 'in the time of Your Holiness's august predecessor, Innocent the
Second.' In the eleven hundreds about the time of Abelard. However, that
doesn't matter. What is interesting is that it seems to confirm the idea
that there was another view of angels from that ordinarily accepted. Not
very orthodox perhaps, but I suppose orthodoxy wasn't the first
requisite at the Court of Leo."
He paused and turned the pages. "I think I'll read you a few extracts,"
he said. "Most of the dedication is missing; the rest is the usual
magniloquence.
"'For it may rightly be said that Your Holiness both roars as a lion
and rides as an eagle, burdens as an ox, and governs as a man, all in
defence of the Apostolic and Roman Church: in this singularly uniting
the qualities of those great angels, so that Your Holiness is
justly'--his adverbs are all over the place--'to be called the Angel of
the Church.' Well, we can miss that; probably Leo did. The beginning of
the text is missing, but on page 17 we get down to it. You'll have to
excuse the English; it amused me to do it in a kind of rhetoric--the
Latin suggests it.
"'These orders then we have received from antiquity, and according to
the vision of seers, who nevertheless reserved something from us, that
by the devotion of our hearts and the study of the Sacred Word we might
ourselves follow in their footsteps and enlarge the knowledge of those
secret things which are laid up in heaven. For by such means the Master
in Byzantion'--that's the Greek, of course--'expounded to us certain of
the symbols and shapes whereby the Divine Celestials are expressed, but
partly in riddles lest evil men work sorcery, not certainly upon those
Celestials themselves--for how should the propinquity of the Serene
Majesty be subject to such hellish markings and invocations?--but upon
that appearance of them which, being separated from the Beatific Vision,
is dragon-like flung forth into the void. As it is written: _Michael and
his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was
cast out_. Which is falsely apprehended by many of the profane vulgar,
or indeed not at all, for they...'"
"Half a second," said Anthony. "I've a feeling for the profane vulgar.
What _is_ he talking about?"
"'They'," Richardson read rapidly, "'suppose that the said dragon is
himself a creation and manifest existence, and not rather the power of
the Divine Ones arrogated to themselves for sinful purpose by violent
men. Now this dragon which is the power of the lion is accompanied also
by a ninefold order of spectres, according to the hierarchy of the
composed wonders of heaven.'"
"The what?" Anthony exclaimed.
"'The composed wonders of heaven,'" Richardson repeated; "'and these
spectres being invoked have power upon those who adore them and
transform them into their very terrible likeness, destroying them with
great moanings; as they do also such as inadvisedly set themselves in
the way of such powers, wandering without guide or intelligential
knowledge, and being made the prey of the uncontrolled emanations.'"
"Do stop a moment," Anthony said. "Who _are_ the uncontrolled
emanations?"
Richardson looked up. "The idea seems to be that the energies of these
orders can exist in separation from the intelligence which is in them in
heaven; and that if deliberately or accidentally you invoke the energy
without the intelligence, you're likely eventually to be pretty
considerably done for."
"O!" said Anthony. "And the orders are the original Dionysian nine?"
"Right," Richardson agreed. "Well, the next few pages are mostly
cursing, and the next few are about the devotion of the Eastern doctor
who found it all out. Then we get a little aesthetic theory. 'For albeit
those who paint upon parchment or in churches or make mosaic work of
precious metals have designed these holy Universals in human shape,
presenting them as youths of beautiful appearance, clothed in candid
vestures, and this for the indoctrination of the vulgar, who are thereby
more easily brought to a humble admiration of such essence and dare to
invoke them worthily under the protection of the Blessed Triune, yet it
is not to be held by the wise that such human masculinities are in any
way even a convenient signification of their true nature; nay, these
presentations do in some sense darken the true seeker and communicate
confusion, and were it not written that we should have respect to the
eyes of children and cast no stone of offence in the way of little ones,
it would have been better that such errors should have been forbidden by
the wisdom of the Church. For what can the painting of a youth show of
those Celestial Benedictions, of which the first circle is that of a
lion, and the second circle is that of a serpent, and the third circle
is--'
"The next eight pages are missing."
"Damn!" Anthony said heartily. "Doesn't he tell you anywhere else?"
"He doesn't," Richardson said. "When we pick him up he has got right on
to the ninth circle which is that of goodness only knows what and is
attributed to the seraphim, and he dithyrambs on about the seraphim
without giving any clear view of what they are or what they do or how
one knows them. Then he quotes many texts about angels in general and
becomes almost pious: the sort of thing that Erasmus might have thrown
in to placate his enemies the monks. But there's a bit soon after which
may interest you--here we are--'written in the Apocalypse. For though
these nine zones are divided into a trinity of trinities, yet after
another fashion there are four without and four within, and between them
is the Glory of the Eagle. For this is he who knows both himself and the
others, and is their own knowledge: as it is written _We shall know as
are known_--this is the knowledge of the Heavenly Ones in the place of
the Heavenly Ones, and it is called the Virtue of the Celestials.'"
He stopped and looked at Anthony. "Tell me again," he said, "how did you
seem to escape from the shape this afternoon?"
"As if I were in an aeroplane--O but..." Anthony stopped. Richardson
went on reading.
"'As it is written _The Lord brought you out of Egypt on the back of a
strong eagle_. And _To the woman were given two wings of a great
eagle_.' That", he added, "is what Marcellus Victorinus of Bologna
thought was the key to the situation." He shut the books and put them
down. After a moment he added: "Not that that's really all," and picked
them up again.
"No," said Anthony, "don't. Tell me yourself--it'll be simpler for me,
and I want to understand."
"I can't possibly tell you," Richardson said, "because I don't
understand it myself. Here we are--'But also the Master hid from his
pupils certain things concerning the shapes and manifestations of the
Celsitudes, and spoke secretly of them. For it is said that he
instructed his children in the Lord how that the knowledge of them was
of different kinds, and that the days of their creation within this
earth were three--that is to say, the fifth, the sixth and the seventh.
And the times in which we now live are the sixth, when man has dominion
over the apparitions of the Divine Universals, but there was a time
before that when man was but dust in their path, so awful and so fierce
were they. As it is written: _let him have dominion_ but not _he has
it_, and if any have no such dominion and yet seek them out he shall
behold them unsubdued, aboriginal, very terrible. But the third day is
the Sabbath of the Lord God, and all things have rest."' Finally,
Richardson went on, "this is his colophon-'All these thing here have I,
Marcellus Victorinus, clerk, of the University of Bologna, gathered out
of the writings which remain of all that was taught by Alexander of
Byzantion, concerning the Holy Angels, their qualities and appearances.
And I invoke the power and authority of the Sacred Eagle, beseeching him
to cover me with his wings in the time of danger and to bear me upon his
wings with joy in the place of the Heavenly Ones, and to show me the
balance of all things within the gates of Justice; and I offer prayer to
him for all who shall read this book, beseeching them in their turn also
to offer prayer for me.'"
"And how", said Anthony after a long pause, "does one set about finding
the Sacred Eagle?"
Richardson said nothing, and after another pause Anthony went on:
"Besides, if this fellow were right, what harm would the Divine
Universals do us? I mean, aren't the angels supposed to be rather gentle
and helpful and all that?"
"You're doing what Marcellus warned you against," Richardson said,
"judging them by English pictures. All nightgowns and body and a kind of
flacculent sweetness. As in cemeteries, with broken bits of marble.
These are Angels--not a bit the same thing. These are the principles of
the tiger and the volcano and the flaming suns of space."
"Yes," Anthony said, "I see. Yes. Well, to go back, what does one do
about it?"
Richardson shrugged his shoulders. "I've done all I can," he uttered, in
a more remote voice. "I've told you what Marcellus said, what he thought
was the only safe method of dealing with them. Myself, I think he was
right."'
=== end quote ==
I _think_ Marcellus Victorinus was a fictitious creation of Williams, and that
he jumbled the order of the Dionysian nine "partly in riddles lest evil men
work sorcery", for it seems to me that the Seraphim would more closely
resemble serpents, and the cherubim lions, but I could be wrong.
In _The Greater Trumps_ Williams switches the order of some of the Tarots, I
suspect also "partly in riddles lest evil men work sorcery".
So I wonder how much of this the Inklings discussed among themselves, and
whether such discussions might have influenced Tolkien's writing of the
Ainulindale, for example.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Paul S. Person
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:43:36 -0700, Paul S. Person
><pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>In a desperate attempt to move this closer to something like being
>>on-topic, I must ask: does Charles William's order, by any chance,
>>match that of Gregory rather than that of Dionysius?
>
>Oh, I think it's close enough to being on topic, though I doubt that we shall
>determine exactly which order the Maiar correspond to, since, as you point
>out, the Church Fathers themselves differ over the precise order.
No, I wouldn't expect to be able to do anything like that. Had JRRT
continued work on revising the Mythos, he might have reached that
point.
>>Not that I would be surprised to learn of other orders being promoted
>>by other Church Fathers. No, I would not be surprised at all.
>
>For what it's worth, here's the passage from Williams's "The place of the
>lion":
<snippo>
>I _think_ Marcellus Victorinus was a fictitious creation of Williams, and that
>he jumbled the order of the Dionysian nine "partly in riddles lest evil men
>work sorcery", for it seems to me that the Seraphim would more closely
>resemble serpents, and the cherubim lions, but I could be wrong.
>
>In _The Greater Trumps_ Williams switches the order of some of the Tarots, I
>suspect also "partly in riddles lest evil men work sorcery".
Robert Graves /The White Goddess/ is, essentially, a tour-de-force
attempt to unscramble such lists/alphabets -- to show that they all
reflect worship of the same deity, throughout the Mediteranean
littoral, the Black Sea littoral, and whether a group of such
worshippers can be traced from Spain up the Atlantic coast to Ireland.
Central to this endeavor is the theory that the ancients deliberately
scrambled such lists/alphabets to conceal the truth.
Of course, what the book mostly shows is how, if you are allowed to
freely reorder a set, you can make it mean pretty much whatever you
want. But it is a fascinating read, reflecting an amazing amount of
knowledge feeding an imaginative mind engaged in much speculation.
I have read that Graves eventually regretted writing it, since it /is/
speculative and not to be taken as a serious discussion.
John W Kennedy
On 2010-03-29 13:43:36 -0400, Paul S. Person said:
So the order per Dionysius, per Aquinas, is:
A1. Seraphim
A2. Cherubim
A3. Thrones
B1. Dominations
B2. Virtues
B3. Powers
C1. Principalities
C2. Archangels
C3. Angels
...which is the order in Dante.
and the order per Gregory, per Aquinas, is:
A1. Seraphim
A2. Cherubim
A3. Thrones
B1. Dominations
C1. Principalities
B3. Powers
B2. Virtues
C2. Archangels
C3. Angels
...which is the order of the old hymn, "Ye watchers and ye holy ones" -- for whatever that's worth.
--
John W Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
So you start another company to-morrow!"
-- Sir William S. Gilbert. "Utopia Limited"
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:
> "But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for
> domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*
>
> "*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher
> order."
>
> Was this a slip by Tolkien, or were there actually "orders" within
> the Maiar?
This has already been discussed at length, and I am not sure that
there is much, if anything, to add to that discussion. In the
published _Silmarillion_ there is the statement in the end of the
section on the Valar in the Valaquenta about the nine valar that were
of special magnificence:
Though Manwë is their King and holds their allegiance under
Eru, in majesty they are peers, surpassing beyond compare
all others, whether of the Valar and the Maiar, or of any
other order that Ilúvatar has sent into Eä.
This, too, suggests that there are orders, not only among the Maiar,
but also more orders among the Ainur in Arda than just Valar and
Maiar.
Also the comments in the UT section on the Istari about 'Valinórean
stature' clearly point at, if not 'orders', then certainly
'ordering'.
> I can see that Sauron was (originally) greater than Gandalf
> (Olórin),
> but what if anything does Tolkien mean by "a FAR higher order"?
I've already said something about this in another message in this
thread, but I think that the 'far higher order' can refer only to the
Istari as incarnate Maiar, not to their original Valinórean statures.
I do think, however, that Tolkien's views on this shifted over time
-- and so, while 'far higher order' is not consistent with what is
elsewhere written about Gandalf (in particular) and his stature as
Olórin, I cannot rule out the possibility that Tolkien, when he wrote
that, did actually think that the Maiar who became Istari were all of
some rather low rank, or stature, in Valinor.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was
standing on the shoulders of giants.
- Sir Isaac Newton
Stan Brown
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>:
> In message <news:MPG.26180299f...@news.individual.net>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> spoke these staves:
> >
> > "But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for
> > domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit.*
> >
> > "*Of the same kind as Gandalf and Saruman, but of a far higher
> > order."
> >
> > Was this a slip by Tolkien, or were there actually "orders" within
> > the Maiar?
>
> This has already been discussed at length, and I am not sure that
> there is much, if anything, to add to that discussion.
Just this: in a later letter, he said that Sauron, Gandalf, and
Saruman were of the same order.
Morgoth's Curse
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>For what it's worth, here's the passage from Williams's "The place of the
>lion":
[snip long rambling quote]
Thank you, Steve. That quote permanently cured me of any urge I
had to read the works of Charles Williams.
>So I wonder how much of this the Inklings discussed among themselves, and
>whether such discussions might have influenced Tolkien's writing of the
>Ainulindale, for example.
I have always wondered about Tolkien's relationship with Charles
William. I have read that Tolkien disliked William's work, but I do
not know whether the two men were friends otherwise. (I presume that
the relationship was at least cordial.)
I always felt that the Ainulindale owed more to Greek myths than
any other source, but my knowledge of Christian theology is too
limited for such a conclusion to be anything more than speculation.
Morgoth's Curse
Öjevind Lång
news:0lfh36drpb2jdi276...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:29:00 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
>>For what it's worth, here's the passage from Williams's "The place of the
>>lion":
>
> [snip long rambling quote]
>
> Thank you, Steve. That quote permanently cured me of any urge I
> had to read the works of Charles Williams.
>
>>So I wonder how much of this the Inklings discussed among themselves, and
>>whether such discussions might have influenced Tolkien's writing of the
>>Ainulindale, for example.
>
> I have always wondered about Tolkien's relationship with Charles
> William. I have read that Tolkien disliked William's work, but I do
> not know whether the two men were friends otherwise. (I presume that
> the relationship was at least cordial.)
It was, but not much more than that.
Öjevind
John W Kennedy
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:29:00 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>> For what it's worth, here's the passage from Williams's "The place of the
>> lion":
>
> [snip long rambling quote]
>
> Thank you, Steve. That quote permanently cured me of any urge I
> had to read the works of Charles Williams.
A mistake. You might as well take a couple of paragraphs from the
middle of the Calendars appendix in tLotR and say you don't want to
read Tolkien based on /that/.
--
John W Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
Christopher Henrich
Morgoth's Curse <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:29:00 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>
> >For what it's worth, here's the passage from Williams's "The place of the
> >lion":
>
> [snip long rambling quote]
>
> Thank you, Steve. That quote permanently cured me of any urge I
> had to read the works of Charles Williams.
>
> >So I wonder how much of this the Inklings discussed among themselves, and
> >whether such discussions might have influenced Tolkien's writing of the
> >Ainulindale, for example.
>
> I have always wondered about Tolkien's relationship with Charles
> William. I have read that Tolkien disliked William's work, but I do
> not know whether the two men were friends otherwise. (I presume that
> the relationship was at least cordial.)
Williams and Tolkien were friends, and belonged to the circle of writers
known as the Inklings. A good new study of this circle is /The Company
They Keep/, by Diana Pavlac Glyer:
<http://www.amazon.com/Company-They-Keep-Tolkien-Community/dp/0873389913/
>
The Inklings would read each other's works-in-progress with close
attention, or listen to them read aloud. They would give hearty praise
to good stuff, and incisive criticism to anything that needed it. Their
styles, choices of subjects, and tastes were diverse. So there were
disagreements, vigorously expressed. (One man is reported to have said,
"Oh fuck! Not another elf!" during a reading by Tolkien.)
I think that they were members of a subculture that accepted very
plainspoken argument and criticism. Observers who were accustomed to a
different style could misinterpret a friendly debate as a quarrel.
>
> I always felt that the Ainulindale owed more to Greek myths than
> any other source, but my knowledge of Christian theology is too
> limited for such a conclusion to be anything more than speculation.
>
> Morgoth's Curse
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Troels Forchhammer
Morgoth's Curse <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com> spoke these
staves:
>
<snip>
> I have always wondered about Tolkien's relationship with
> Charles William. I have read that Tolkien disliked William's work,
> but I do not know whether the two men were friends otherwise. (I
> presume that the relationship was at least cordial.)
The implication in _Letters_ is that Tolkien enjoyed Williams'
company even though he rather strongly disliked his work (and
resented Williams' influence on Lewis). He may have exaggerated when
he wrote to Williams' widow that 'in the (far too brief) years since
I first met him I had grown to admire and love your husband deeply'
(_Letters_ #99). Elsewhere Tolkien describes the relationship of the
two men to a reader of _LotR_:
But I think we both found the other's mind (or rather mode
of expression, and climate) as impenetrable when cast into
'literature', as we found the other's presence and
conversation delightful.
_Letters_ #159
Without going into any discussion of what constitutes 'friendship' I
think the above at least suggests something that goes beyond
'cordial' ;-)
It would be interesting to know how Williams thought of his
relationship with Tolkien. Does anyone know about that? Has
Williams' letters been published or something?
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Ash nazg durbatuluk,
ash nazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatuluk
agh burzum ishi krimpatul.
- /The Fellowship of the Ring/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9DB6E08B...@130.133.4.11...
[snip]
> It would be interesting to know how Williams thought of his
> relationship with Tolkien. Does anyone know about that? Has
> Williams' letters been published or something?
I found the following:
http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Lalage-Charles-Williams-Lang-Sims/dp/0873383982
http://www.yorku.ca/scottm/cw.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-107896949.html
And here is a link to a review by Rowan Williams of a biography of Charles
Williams from 2008. The article is interesting in itself (apparently,
Charles Williams never belonged to the Godlen Dawn but to a less sinister
breakaway group), and the reviewed book (Gavin Ashenden: "Charles Williams.
Alchemy and integration".
276pp. Kent State University Press. $55) seems very interesting too.
Öjevind
Steve Hayes
I asked in the Charles Williams mailing list, and here are some replies:
'CW is known to have been around for an Inklings reading of
"the new hobbit" (LOTR) but I don't know, offhand, if his reaction was
recorded.'
'Tolkien contributed an essay to a collection tribute to Williams that
included such other writers as Lewis and Barfield, I believe. ("Essays to
Charles Williams, edited by Lewis.)
My understanding is that Tolkien and Williams as part of the Inklings were
initially good friends. Williams and his writings were enthusiastically
embraced by Lewis. Tolkien later soured to him and had some not so good
things to say about his writings.'
'Williams was enthusiastic about the "new hobbit". I can't give a reference
off hand, but could probably find it. Tolkien didn't "sour" to Williams
till well after the latter's death (when T was ouring to a lot of
things...)' Richard Sturch.
From Jon Isaac:
'Now that I am home: The essay contributed to the Williams tribute by
Tolkie was called "On Fairy Stories". Other essayists were Dorothy Sayers,
Owen Barfield and the Lewises Clive and Warren.
In his introduction to the book Lewis narrates a funny story about
Williams: "Thus on the one hand there lived in Williams a sceptic and even
a pessimist. ...He toyed with the idea that he and I should collaborate in
a book of animal stories from the bible, told by the animals
concerned--the story of Jonah told by the whale or that of Elisha told by
the two she-bears. The bears were to be convinced that God exists and is
good by their sudden meal of children." (Elisha, on being called baldy by
two children, called to God who made bears eat them.)'
Troels Forchhammer
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> spoke these staves:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:04:25 +0200, Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> It would be interesting to know how Williams thought of his
>> relationship with Tolkien. Does anyone know about that? Has
>> Williams' letters been published or something?
>
> I asked in the Charles Williams mailing list, and here are some
> replies:
Thanks, Steve! This is more or less what I was hoping for (I hoped,
of course, that Williams had been a bit more direct, but then again,
Tolkien didn't speak specifically of his views on Williams until
after the latter's death).
<snip>
> 'Williams was enthusiastic about the "new hobbit". I can't give a
> reference off hand, but could probably find it.
That's interesting: in particular given Tolkien's opinion about
Williams' writing and his statement that he believed it was
reciprocated by Williams.
> Tolkien didn't "sour" to Williams till well after the latter's
> death (when T was ouring to a lot of things...)' Richard Sturch.
My impression, when reading _Letters_ is that Tolkien had never liked
Williams' writings, but that he enjoyed the man's company. Some time
after Williams' death, there is indeed a 'souring' (I didn't quote
from these passages previously). My impression, when I read Tolkien's
letters, is that Tolkien came to resent more and more the influence
of Williams upon Lewis' writings, 'a very impressionable, too
impressionable, man' according to Tolkien. Tolkien also writes that
'Williams' influence [upon Lewis' writings] actually only appeared
with his death'.
Tolkien's souring is, I believe, nowhere in the published letters
more visible than when he wrote that
We liked one another and enjoyed talking (mostly in jest)
but we had nothing to say to one another at deeper (or
higher) levels. I doubt if he had read anything of mine
then available; I had read or heard a good deal of his
work, but found it wholly alien, and sometimes very
distasteful, occasionally ridiculous.
_Letters_ #276 to Dick Plotz, September 1965
even when tempered by the following qualification
(This is perfectly true as a general statement, but is not
intended as a criticism of Williams; rather it is an
exhibition of my own limits of sympathy.
(ibid)
The above is, in my opinion, a fairly strong statement that is, again
IMO, not wholly consistent with the earlier descriptions in which
Tolkien implies that they had more to say to each other than mere
jest, even if he had ever disliked Williams' _writing_.
> From Jon Isaac:
>
> 'Now that I am home: The essay contributed to the Williams tribute
> by Tolkie was called "On Fairy Stories". Other essayists were
> Dorothy Sayers, Owen Barfield and the Lewises Clive and Warren.
Yes -- a reworking of his Andrew Lang lecture from 1939 was Tolkien's
contributions. I don't know if it was lack of time or because he felt
it appropriate, but some of the argument would seem to criticize, to
some extent at at least when seen as fairy-stories, parts of
Williams' writings. That is, when I go by the descriptions of
Williams' writings in Hammond and Scull's _Reader's Guide_ it appears
to be in large parts opposed to Tolkien's arguments about sub-
creation.
> In his introduction to the book Lewis narrates a funny story about
> Williams:
Carpenter, in his Tolkien biography, suggests that Tolkien was a
little jealous of Lewis' friendship with Williams which he, according
Carpenter, felt took something away from himself in his own
relationship with Lewis. This is probably linked with Tolkien's
(later) resentment of Williams' influence on Lewis.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Thus, the future of the universe is not completely
determined by the laws of science, and its present state,
as Laplace thought. God still has a few tricks up his
sleeve.
- Stephen Hawking
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Carpenter, in his Tolkien biography, suggests that Tolkien was a
> little jealous of Lewis' friendship with Williams which he, according
> Carpenter, felt took something away from himself in his own
> relationship with Lewis. This is probably linked with Tolkien's
> (later) resentment of Williams' influence on Lewis.
Ah, yes, it is not pleasing to an idol to find that the incense that was
burned for him is now burned for another idol.
Öjevind
Morgoth's Curse
I suspect that it is impossible, but it would be interesting to
quantify exactly how many of the works of Charles Williams that
Tolkien actually read. Did he read all (or most) of novels, poetry
and essays or just a small selection? Which did he prefer (or at
least considered better than anything else Williams wrote?) Given all
of his obligations at the time, it is difficult to believe that
Tolkien found the time to read all of Williams' novels.
As I said earlier, I expect that their relationship would be
cordial in any case. Tolkien and Williams were both members of the
last generation for whom civility was the norm rather than the
exception. From World War II to the present day each generation has
competed to be nastier than its predecessor.
To slightly paraphrase the immortal words of Edward Grey: The
lamps of civilization are going out all over the world. We shall not
see them lit again within our lifetimes.
Morgoth's Curse
Paul S. Person
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
<snippo>
>Yes -- a reworking of his Andrew Lang lecture from 1939 was Tolkien's
>contributions. I don't know if it was lack of time or because he felt
>it appropriate, but some of the argument would seem to criticize, to
>some extent at at least when seen as fairy-stories, parts of
>Williams' writings. That is, when I go by the descriptions of
>Williams' writings in Hammond and Scull's _Reader's Guide_ it appears
>to be in large parts opposed to Tolkien's arguments about sub-
>creation.
It;s been several years (decades?) since I last read William's novels.
That was a second reading, so the impression left is, perhaps, a
little more balanced than one from a first reading would be. The
impression I recall getting is that they are /nothing like/ the works
of JRRT or Lewis -- that is, that they just aren't fantasy or science
fiction in the same sense as the works of JRRT (fantasy) or Lewis
(fantasy or science fiction).
Steve Hayes
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>It;s been several years (decades?) since I last read William's novels.
>That was a second reading, so the impression left is, perhaps, a
>little more balanced than one from a first reading would be. The
>impression I recall getting is that they are /nothing like/ the works
>of JRRT or Lewis -- that is, that they just aren't fantasy or science
>fiction in the same sense as the works of JRRT (fantasy) or Lewis
>(fantasy or science fiction).
With the possible exception of "That hideous strength", which has been said to
be Lewis's attempt at a Williams-type novel.
Williams's novels can be described as "fairy tales" in Chesterton's sense of
"extraordinary things happening to ordinary people" (as opposed to "superhero"
comics, for example).
Paul S. Person
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:15:23 -0700, Paul S. Person
><pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>It;s been several years (decades?) since I last read William's novels.
>>That was a second reading, so the impression left is, perhaps, a
>>little more balanced than one from a first reading would be. The
>>impression I recall getting is that they are /nothing like/ the works
>>of JRRT or Lewis -- that is, that they just aren't fantasy or science
>>fiction in the same sense as the works of JRRT (fantasy) or Lewis
>>(fantasy or science fiction).
>
>With the possible exception of "That hideous strength", which has been said to
>be Lewis's attempt at a Williams-type novel.
It is hard for me to be sure one way or another. I do recall that
/That Hideous Strength/ was a bit different in style from /Out of the
Silent Planet/ and /Perelandra/ but then, I seem to recall that those
were not exactly in the same style either, making them a trilogy of
three novels each, to some extent at least, in its own style.
>Williams's novels can be described as "fairy tales" in Chesterton's sense of
>"extraordinary things happening to ordinary people" (as opposed to "superhero"
>comics, for example).
If I understood Chesterton's sense better, I might agree; IIRC, the
impression I got with Williams is that they were perfectly ordinary
novels, except, of course, for the extraordinary elements found in
them, which the reader was expected to just accept, no attempt being
made by the author to assist in suspending disbelief. With Lewis, the
reader is clearly in a different reality; with JRRT, the reader is
clearly in either a different reality or this world so far in the past
that it might as well be a different reality.
I tend to think of "fairy tales" as characterized by an ending in
which everything works out nicely very quickly at the very end. Thus,
the Ron Howard film /Gung Ho/, which for most of its length appears to
be a very funny film about culture clash, with a few serious
sub-themes involving honesty, turns out, at the end, to actually be a
fairy tale. IMHO, of course.
John W Kennedy
> If I understood Chesterton's sense better, I might agree; IIRC, the
> impression I got with Williams is that they were perfectly ordinary
> novels, except, of course, for the extraordinary elements found in
> them, which the reader was expected to just accept, no attempt being
> made by the author to assist in suspending disbelief. With Lewis, the
> reader is clearly in a different reality; with JRRT, the reader is
> clearly in either a different reality or this world so far in the past
> that it might as well be a different reality.
Williams' novels are set in the here-and-now, of course. But then, so
is "Harry Potter". But Lewis has something to say about that in the
preface to "Tht Hideous Strength"
> I tend to think of "fairy tales" as characterized by an ending in
> which everything works out nicely very quickly at the very end.
There is a reason that the German word for "happy ending" is "das
Happyend" and the Japanese, "hapiendu".
--
John W Kennedy
"How do you say it over here? -- Wir brauchen das Happyend!"
-- "The Duchess of Chicago"
Steve Hayes
<pspe...@ix.netscom.com.invalid> wrote:
In "Out of the silent planet" and "Perelandra" the action takes place in other
worlds, whereas in "That hideous strength" the action takes place in our
world, with powers from beyond our world breaking in to it, and that is what
happens in Williams's novels.
>I tend to think of "fairy tales" as characterized by an ending in
>which everything works out nicely very quickly at the very end. Thus,
>the Ron Howard film /Gung Ho/, which for most of its length appears to
>be a very funny film about culture clash, with a few serious
>sub-themes involving honesty, turns out, at the end, to actually be a
>fairy tale. IMHO, of course.
As for Chesterton, he says:
My first and last philosophy, that which I believe in with unbroken certainty,
I learnt in the nursery. I generally learnt it from a nurse; that is, from the
solemn and star-appointed priestess at once of democracy and tradition. The
things I believed most then, the things I believe most now, are the things
called fairy tales. They seem to me to be the entirely reasonable things. They
are not fantasies: compared with them other things are fantastic. Compared
with them religion and rationalism are both abnormal, though religion is
abnormally right and rationalism abnormally wrong. Fairyland is nothing but
the sunny country of common sense. It is not earth that judges heaven, but
heaven that judges earth; so for me at least it was not earth that criticised
elfland, but elfland that criticised the earth. I knew the magic beanstalk
before I had tasted beans; I was sure of the Man in the Moon before I was
certain of the moon. This was at one with all popular tradition. Modern minor
poets are naturalists, and talk about the bush or the brook; but the singers
of the old epics and fables were supernaturalists, and talked about the gods
of brook and bush. That is what the moderns mean when they say that the
ancients did not "appreciate Nature," because they said that Nature was
divine. Old nurses do not tell children about the grass, but about the fairies
that dance on the grass; and the old Greeks could not see the trees for the
dryads
But I deal here with what ethic and philosophy come from being fed on fairy
tales. If I were describing them in detail I could note many noble and healthy
principles that arise from them. There is the chivalrous lesson of "Jack the
Giant Killer"; that giants should be killed because they are gigantic. It is a
manly mutiny against pride as such. For the rebel is older than all the
kingdoms, and the Jacobin has more tradition than the Jacobite. There is the
lesson of "Cinderella," which is the same as that of the Magnificat--EXALTAVIT
HUMILES. There is the great lesson of "Beauty and the Beast"; that a thing
must be loved BEFORE it is loveable. There is the terrible allegory of the
"Sleeping Beauty," which tells how the human creature was blessed with all
birthday gifts, yet cursed with death; and how death also may perhaps be
softened to a sleep. But I am not concerned with any of the separate statutes
of elfand, but with the whole spirit of its law, which I learnt before I could
speak, and shall retain when I cannot write. I am concerned with a certain way
of looking at life, which was created in me by the fairy tales, but has since
been meekly ratified by the mere facts.
Dirk Thierbach
That's because it mainly applies to Hollywood movies :-)
In fairy tales, "and they lived happily ever after" is an euphemism for
"I'm not going to tell you about the boring stuff".
ObTolkienQuote:
But that's not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or
the ones that stay in the mind. [...] We hear about those as just
went on -- and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what
folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end.
- Dirk
Troels Forchhammer
> <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> My impression, when reading _Letters_ is that Tolkien had never
>> liked Williams' writings, but that he enjoyed the man's company.
> I suspect that it is impossible, but it would be interesting
> to quantify exactly how many of the works of Charles Williams that
> Tolkien actually read.
I agree, it would be interesting.
Tolkien does mention a number of Williams' works in his letters, but
I'm not sure that he read them all from cover to cover. He did, in
any case, hear much of what Williams wrote during the war since that
was read out at various points (as was LotR). There is mention of
some plays, and of _All Hallows Eve_ and _The Figure of Arthur_ in
the _Chronology_, while the _Reader's Guide_ mentions that Lewis had
written to Williams that he, 'his brother, Nevill Coghill and Tolkien
had all enjoyed Williams' book _The Place of the Lion_' but I don't
know how much to attribute this to Lewis' own enthusiasm for
Williams' work.
> Did he read all (or most) of novels, poetry and essays or just a
> small selection?
Ultimately I think it is impossible to say with any degree of
certainty. He appears to have been introduced to Williams through
Lewis (_The Place of the Lion_), and I think it is quite likely that
he would have read more than the titles mentioned here -- out of
friendship, if nothing else.
> Which did he prefer (or at least considered better than anything
> else Williams wrote?)
He does say at one point that he disliked Williams' characters except
one 'Lord Gro', and of course we have Lewis' word that Tolkien liked
_The Place of the Lion_ . . .
> Given all of his obligations at the time, it is difficult to
> believe that Tolkien found the time to read all of Williams'
> novels.
Well, all of his novels wouldn't be so very difficult
(<http://www.yorku.ca/scottm/cw.html> only lists 7 novels published
in Williams' lifetime), but if you add his poetry, his plays etc.
etc. then mounts up ;-)
Tolkien, on the other hand, appears to have been a voracious reader,
and a very fast reader as well, and, IIRC, as a rule he didn't read
books more than once, so I think it is quite likely that he read at
least a significant sampling of Williams' titles.
> As I said earlier, I expect that their relationship would be
> cordial in any case.
Humphrey Carpenter writes in the biography about Williams' death:
Even if Williams and Tolkien had not inhabited the same
plane of thought, the two men had been good friends, and
the loss of Williams was a bitter thing, a symbol that
peace would not bring an end to all troubles - something
that Tolkien knew only too well.
(_J.R.R. Tolkien: a Biography_ part 5 ch. 2)
and there are accounts of their having conversations that go beyond
mere jest (at least in my understanding). E.g.
I did not start home till midnight, and walked with C.W.
part of the way, when our converse turned on the
difficulties of discovering what common factors if any
existed in the notions associated with _freedom_, as used
at present. I don't believe there are any, for the word has
been so abused by propaganda that it has ceased to have any
value for reason and become a mere emotional dose for
generating heat.
(_Letters_ #81)
> Tolkien and Williams were both members of the last generation for
> whom civility was the norm rather than the exception. From World
> War II to the present day each generation has competed to be
> nastier than its predecessor.
You know the Socratian complaint, I'm sure ;-)
It is the duty of any generation to do and say things that are
appalling to their parents and grand-parents, but they are then
themselves horrified by things that were, to their great- or great-
great-grand-parents quite ordinary behaviour. The internet
exacerbates some things (it is so incredibly easy to find examples of
truly appalling behaviour by any standard -- including the standards
of my teenage sons or our teenage scouts), but when I look at the
internet, I see far more that is polite, well-thought-out and
reasoned (even if I disagree) than I see examples of rudeness.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Then suddenly the foresight of his kindred came to him, and
he said: "But lo! Master Elrond, the years of your abiding
run short at last, and the choice must soon be laid on your
children, to part either with you or with Middle-earth.
- Aragorn, /The Lord of the Rings/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
John W Kennedy
> He does say at one point that he disliked Williams' characters except
> one 'Lord Gro', and of course we have Lewis' word that Tolkien liked
> _The Place of the Lion_ . . .
Tolkien or you err. Lord Gro is a character in Eddison's "The Worm
Ouroboros". I can easily believe that he might be the only one of
Eddison's characters that he liked.
--
John W Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it
to Windows?
Nicholas Young
"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9DBBDB3F...@130.133.4.11...
> In message <news:2j7646l85jc2su8vp...@4ax.com>
> Morgoth's Curse <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com> spoke these
> staves:
>
>> Which did he prefer (or at least considered better than anything
>> else Williams wrote?)
>
> He does say at one point that he disliked Williams' characters except
> one 'Lord Gro'
Quick correction: Lord Gro is a character in E.R.Eddison's _The Worm
Ouroborous_, not in anything by Williams. Your quotation rings a bell,
though: I believe that Tolkien did say precisely that when talking about
Eddison.
Tolkien was by his own admission, as I think someone else quoted: "a man of
limited sympathies (though well aware of them)." He would probably have
disliked most of the genre in which his work is placed, including that small
number of works that Tolkien-lovers consider close in stature to the
master - not always the same set, of course ;-)
--
Nicholas Young.
To email me:
Replace "n" and "y" with the elements of my name
Interchange the components after the "@".
Steve Morrison
> On 2010-07-20 15:33:10 -0400, Troels Forchhammer said:
>> He does say at one point that he disliked Williams' characters except
>> one 'Lord Gro', and of course we have Lewis' word that Tolkien liked
>> _The Place of the Lion_ . . .
>
> Tolkien or you err. Lord Gro is a character in Eddison's "The Worm
> Ouroboros". I can easily believe that he might be the only one of
> Eddison's characters that he liked.
>
Tolkien was speaking of Eddison. The quote is from Letter #199:
I read the works of [E.R.] Eddison, long after they appeared;
and I once met him. I heard him in Mr. Lewis's room in Magdalen
College read aloud some parts of his own works - from the
Mistress of Mistresses, as far as I remember. He did it
extremely well. I read his works with great enjoyment for their
sheer literary merit. My opinion of them is almost the same as
that expressed by Mr. Lewis on p. 104 of the Essays presented
to Charles Williams. Except that I disliked his characters
(always excepting the Lord Gro) and despised what he appeared
to admire more intensely than Mr. Lewis at any rate saw fit to
say of himself. Eddison thought what I admire 'soft' (his word:
one of complete condemnation, I gathered); I thought that,
corrupted by an evil and indeed silly 'philosophy', he was
coming to admire, more and more, arrogance and cruelty.
Incidentally, I thought his nomenclature slipshod and often
inept. In spite of all of which, I still think of him as the
greatest and most convincing writer of 'invented worlds' that
I have read. But he was certainly not an 'influence'.
Weland
> <delurk>
>
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DBBDB3F...@130.133.4.11...
>> In message <news:2j7646l85jc2su8vp...@4ax.com>
>> Morgoth's Curse <morgoths...@nospam.yahoo.com> spoke these
>> staves:
>>
>>> Which did he prefer (or at least considered better than anything
>>> else Williams wrote?)
>>
>> He does say at one point that he disliked Williams' characters except
>> one 'Lord Gro'
>
> Quick correction: Lord Gro is a character in E.R.Eddison's _The Worm
> Ouroborous_, not in anything by Williams. Your quotation rings a bell,
> though: I believe that Tolkien did say precisely that when talking about
> Eddison.
>
> Tolkien was by his own admission, as I think someone else quoted: "a man
> of limited sympathies (though well aware of them)." He would probably
> have disliked most of the genre in which his work is placed, including
> that small number of works that Tolkien-lovers consider close in stature
> to the master - not always the same set, of course ;-)
>
Yes, I have to say that most Tolkien imitators fail utterly.....the
closest in feel is Kay in my view, though Kay is also using his own
voice to tell his tales....but I think he gets closer to the real spirit
of Tolkien than most others. It might be interesting to compile a list
of authors others think capture "tolkienian spirit" in their
novels....not your favorites per se, but those authors you think get
Tolkien.
Öjevind Lång
news:tMydna575cYLp9vR...@posted.toastnet...
[snip]
> Tolkien was speaking of Eddison. The quote is from Letter #199:
>
> I read the works of [E.R.] Eddison, long after they appeared;
> and I once met him. I heard him in Mr. Lewis's room in Magdalen
> College read aloud some parts of his own works - from the
> Mistress of Mistresses, as far as I remember. He did it
> extremely well. I read his works with great enjoyment for their
> sheer literary merit. My opinion of them is almost the same as
> that expressed by Mr. Lewis on p. 104 of the Essays presented
> to Charles Williams. Except that I disliked his characters
> (always excepting the Lord Gro) and despised what he appeared
> to admire more intensely than Mr. Lewis at any rate saw fit to
> say of himself. Eddison thought what I admire 'soft' (his word:
> one of complete condemnation, I gathered); I thought that,
> corrupted by an evil and indeed silly 'philosophy', he was
> coming to admire, more and more, arrogance and cruelty.
> Incidentally, I thought his nomenclature slipshod and often
> inept. In spite of all of which, I still think of him as the
> greatest and most convincing writer of 'invented worlds' that
> I have read. But he was certainly not an 'influence'.
The only one of Eddison's books I have read is "The Worm Ouroboros". Like
Tolkien, I disapproved of the nomenclature and the ideals in it, but I
enjoyed the vitality of the writing, and also the weird, archaizing English
the characters spoke in. But the ending annoyed me. After the evil side has
been vanquished the good guys feel bored because they have no one to fight
with, so they ensure (in some way I have forgotten) that all the bad guys
come back to life so they can all continue to fight. I thought it was silly.
Worse than silly, in fact.
One name I did like was Brandoch Daha. It was so insane it was funny.
Öjevind
Troels Forchhammer
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
> Nicholas Young wrote:
>>
>> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9DBBDB3F...@130.133.4.11...
>>>
>>> does say at one point that he disliked Williams' characters
>>> except one 'Lord Gro'
>>
>> Quick correction: Lord Gro is a character in E.R.Eddison's _The
>> Worm Ouroborous_, not in anything by Williams. Your quotation
>> rings a bell, though: I believe that Tolkien did say precisely
>> that when talking about Eddison.
Ooops! ;) Sorry about that error and thank you for correcting me. I
was (as you've probably already guessed) rather blindly looking for
references to Williams and failed to read the whole passage, so I
didn't catch the context.
>> Tolkien was by his own admission, as I think someone else quoted:
>> "a man of limited sympathies (though well aware of them)." He
>> would probably have disliked most of the genre in which his work
>> is placed,
On the other hand he appears to have liked some of the science
fiction that was published including Asimov.
How much, I wonder, can be derived from what (quite possible very
little) we know about his sym- and antipathies? Can we begin to get
some idea of what it was that he liked in a book and what he actively
disliked? Hmmm -- perhaps a new thread devoted to Tolkien's literary
tastes?
>> including that small number of works that Tolkien-lovers consider
>> close in stature to the master
I wonder which authors might fall in this group at all?
>> not always the same set, of course ;-)
Of course ;)
> Yes, I have to say that most Tolkien imitators fail utterly.....
I'm not as widely read as some in these groups, but I can't think of
any Tolkien _imitator_ that does not fail utterly: possibly because
there is something in the very attempt to imitate _Tolkien_ that
makes it impossible?
> the closest in feel is Kay in my view, though Kay is also using
> his own voice to tell his tales....but I think he gets closer to
> the real spirit of Tolkien than most others.
Christopher Tolkien seeking Kay's advice when compiling and editing
_The Silmarillion_ certainly implies a recognition of certain common
traits.
> It might be interesting to compile a list of authors others think
> capture "tolkienian spirit" in their novels....not your favorites
> per se, but those authors you think get Tolkien.
I presume we're talking about reasonably modern authors (twentieth
and twentyfirst centuries)? One of the best places, in my opinion, to
go for stories that contain much of the same 'air' as Tolkien's work
is to read the old myths and legends: sagas, eddas, Kalevala, etc.
etc.
Asimov, in my opinion, is one of the authors (of those that I know)
that come closest in terms of the sub-creation's power to command
Secondary Belief.
Eddings is a bit comical: for all his denunciations of Tolkien, he
obviously couldn't really manage to tear himself free from the
Tolkienian tradition, though he, IMO, failed to capture any part of
the 'Tolkienian spirit' as you call it. I'm not sure that it's quite
a fair way to put it, but from his own statements one can get the
impression that he tried to avoid attempting to imitate Tolkien --
and failed. And failing he tried -- and failed :-/ (there is, again
IMO, some enjoyable humour in his books that one doesn't really find
in Tolkien's works, though for humorous fantasy I'd recommend
Pratchett long before Eddings).
Much can be said in favour of Selma Lagerlöf's _Nils Holgerssons
underbara resa genom Sverige_ (Eng: _The Wonderful Adventures of
Nils_), though from 1906-7 it predates anything Tolkien published :)
I would also emphasize Astrid Lindgren's _Ronja Rövardotter_ (Eng:
_Ronia, the Robber's Daughter_) and __ (Eng: _The Brothers
Lionheart_). Though both are addressed to children which does make
for differences to LotR, they also contain some of the qualities that
are found in Tolkien's work.
This said, very many gifted authors share something -- both with
Tolkien as well as each other. Gifted authors of the kind that take
us out of the mundane world (whether by travelling in time, by
travelling in space, by the medium fantastic science or fantastic
fantasy, or in some other way that I haven't thought of) will
naturally share more with each other than they do with authors whose
works do not leave the mundane world.
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
"It would seem that you have no useful skill or talent
whatsoever," he said. "Have you thought of going into
teaching?"
- /Mort/ (Terry Pratchett)
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> Eddings is a bit comical: for all his denunciations of Tolkien, he
> obviously couldn't really manage to tear himself free from the
> Tolkienian tradition, though he, IMO, failed to capture any part of
> the 'Tolkienian spirit' as you call it. I'm not sure that it's quite
> a fair way to put it, but from his own statements one can get the
> impression that he tried to avoid attempting to imitate Tolkien --
> and failed. And failing he tried -- and failed :-/ (there is, again
> IMO, some enjoyable humour in his books that one doesn't really find
> in Tolkien's works, though for humorous fantasy I'd recommend
> Pratchett long before Eddings).
Eddings' attacks on Tolkien for creating "onedimensional characters" are
particularly bizarre since Tolkien in fact created some extremely vivid
characters (Galadriel, Frodo, Merry, Faramir, Denethor, Éowyn, Saruman and
others) whereas all Eddings' characters are dreadful stereotypes.
Öjevind
Dirk Thierbach
> The only one of Eddison's books I have read is "The Worm Ouroboros". [...]
> After the evil side has been vanquished the good guys feel bored because
> they have no one to fight with, so they ensure (in some way I have
> forgotten) that all the bad guys come back to life so they can all
> continue to fight. I thought it was silly. Worse than silly, in fact.
A case where the intented interpretation of the author clashes with
suspension of disbelief, I think. OTOH, without that plot element, he
probably couldn't have called it "The Worm Ouroboros" ...
- Dirk
Nicholas Young
> In message <news:i26086$3nc$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> spoke these staves:
>> Nicholas Young wrote:
>>> Tolkien was by his own admission, as I think someone else quoted:
>>> "a man of limited sympathies (though well aware of them)." He
>>> would probably have disliked most of the genre in which his work
>>> is placed,
>
> On the other hand he appears to have liked some of the science
> fiction that was published including Asimov.
>
> How much, I wonder, can be derived from what (quite possible very
> little) we know about his sym- and antipathies? Can we begin to get
> some idea of what it was that he liked in a book and what he actively
> disliked? Hmmm -- perhaps a new thread devoted to Tolkien's literary
> tastes?
I'm up for it - though my participation is and will remain erratic.
>>> including that small number of works that Tolkien-lovers consider
>>> close in stature to the master
>
> I wonder which authors might fall in this group at all?
I have two or three ... well, maybe one - see below.
>> Yes, I have to say that most Tolkien imitators fail utterly.....
>
> I'm not as widely read as some in these groups, but I can't think of
> any Tolkien _imitator_ that does not fail utterly: possibly because
> there is something in the very attempt to imitate _Tolkien_ that
> makes it impossible?
Of course, I carefully didn't say "imitators" ... I agree with you, Troels,
that imitators will always pretty much fail, though not so much because
there's anything unique about Tolkien _in this respect_; merely because
imitation implies a lack of original thought. (Tributes of course are
another matter; there authors may acknowledge their debt to a master and yet
have something of their own to say.)
>> the closest in feel is Kay in my view, though Kay is also using
>> his own voice to tell his tales....but I think he gets closer to
>> the real spirit of Tolkien than most others.
>
> Christopher Tolkien seeking Kay's advice when compiling and editing
> _The Silmarillion_ certainly implies a recognition of certain common
> traits.
Out of Kay's work I have only read _Fionavar_. I enjoyed it and agree there
was something Tolkien-esque about it, but didn't think it was a patch on
Tolkien himself. The secondary world was not ultimately convincing and I
particularly remember thinking that the talisman (I think a dagger?) was not
at all up to the significant job that it was given. However, it was a long
while ago: perhaps I should re-read it.
>> It might be interesting to compile a list of authors others think
>> capture "tolkienian spirit" in their novels....not your favorites
>> per se, but those authors you think get Tolkien.
>
> I presume we're talking about reasonably modern authors (twentieth
> and twentyfirst centuries)? One of the best places, in my opinion, to
> go for stories that contain much of the same 'air' as Tolkien's work
> is to read the old myths and legends: sagas, eddas, Kalevala, etc.
> etc.
>
> Asimov, in my opinion, is one of the authors (of those that I know)
> that come closest in terms of the sub-creation's power to command
> Secondary Belief.
I'm very fond of Asimov, but (as with Agatha Christie whom I also enjoy)
it's rather difficult to explain why. The characters are, with a very few
exceptions, one-dimensional and unconvincing; the writing is good but far
from excellent; the societies are not usually plausible and the science is
good but again not wonderful, especially when he gets away from physics. I
think it's simply the extent of his imagination that compels one, but of
course more is needed than just that. _Foundation_ is arguably his greatest
work, but once outside the gripping narrative it's clear what a load of
nonsense the foundational principle of psycho-history really is, and the
inconsistencies that abound in the descriptions of the power of the mind.
That doesn't stop me re-reading it with great enjoyment, but I would need
something more to call it really great.
Probably the real issue with Asimov is that his work doesn't engage the deep
emotions; one doesn't actually learn anything important from him <dons hard
hat, just in case>. And this is true of a large number of writers of both
hard SF and fantasy.
So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share something of the
Tolkien spirit, while not necessarily achieving the same level of mastery,
are:
C.S.Lewis
Charles Williams (possibly)
E.R.Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_ and _Prince in
Waiting_ trilogies)
Lord Dunsany
Terry Brooks
Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
Garth Nix (again a children's writer, _The Old Kingdom_ series)
J.K.Rowling (in my view outstanding; time will tell)
And then there is the only person who to my mind approaches the stature of
the master: Stephen Donaldson. He is one of the very few writers who has
the power to cause one to utterly suspend disbelief. His debt to Tolkien is
unfortunately rather obvious in the first book, not so much in the ring he
uses as in some of the names: Berek Halfhand, for instance. (He
acknowledges that debt, not so much as direct influence but in the fact that
Tolkien created almost singlehandedly the environment in which his work is
possible, and he has written tributes of his own.) But as the influence
fades and his own writing grows stronger, reading his work gives one the
impression of being not only gripped but taken by the throat and rattled ;-)
One does not emerge unchanged from it.
His largest body of work is _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the
Unbeliever_, but there are also other series and some absolutely wonderful
short stories, of which _Reave the Just_ is perhaps the most remarkable
while being very accessible. (If you don't know his writing, begin with
Covenant; *do not* start with the _Gap_ series.)
> Eddings is a bit comical: for all his denunciations of Tolkien, he
> obviously couldn't really manage to tear himself free from the
> Tolkienian tradition, though he, IMO, failed to capture any part of
> the 'Tolkienian spirit' as you call it. I'm not sure that it's quite
> a fair way to put it, but from his own statements one can get the
> impression that he tried to avoid attempting to imitate Tolkien --
> and failed. And failing he tried -- and failed :-/ (there is, again
> IMO, some enjoyable humour in his books that one doesn't really find
> in Tolkien's works, though for humorous fantasy I'd recommend
> Pratchett long before Eddings).
I quite liked the first Eddings book when I picked it up, mostly for the
prologue; after that everything degenerated and the second series which I
didn't finish looked like a repetition of the first. I wouldn't read one of
his books now unless I was desperate ;-)
Terry Brooks is often spoken of in the same breath as Eddings. His debt to
Tolkien is more obvious than most, but after the first Shannara book I do
think that he finds is own voice and writes well though not at the highest
level. He is good at battles, but more importantly he is pretty good at
character. His secondary world does however suffer in comparison with
Tolkien's.
> Much can be said in favour of Selma Lagerlöf's _Nils Holgerssons
> underbara resa genom Sverige_ (Eng: _The Wonderful Adventures of
> Nils_), though from 1906-7 it predates anything Tolkien published :)
>
> I would also emphasize Astrid Lindgren's _Ronja Rövardotter_ (Eng:
> _Ronia, the Robber's Daughter_) and __ (Eng: _The Brothers
> Lionheart_). Though both are addressed to children which does make
> for differences to LotR, they also contain some of the qualities that
> are found in Tolkien's work.
I don't know these; better add them to my list ...
> This said, very many gifted authors share something -- both with
> Tolkien as well as each other. Gifted authors of the kind that take
> us out of the mundane world (whether by travelling in time, by
> travelling in space, by the medium fantastic science or fantastic
> fantasy, or in some other way that I haven't thought of) will
> naturally share more with each other than they do with authors whose
> works do not leave the mundane world.
Agreed. The person whom Donaldson brings to mind for me is Susan Howatch -
does anyone else read both, and if so do you agree? The genres are
completely different but there is something fundamentally similar; I think
it is the fact that they both write essentially and compellingly about
redemption, though Donaldson might not use that word as a general descriptor
given its specifically Christian connotations (Howatch of course *would*).
Öjevind Lång
news:i2fpk5$4rt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
[snip]
>>>> Tolkien was by his own admission, as I think someone else quoted:
>>>> "a man of limited sympathies (though well aware of them)." He
>>>> would probably have disliked most of the genre in which his work
>>>> is placed,
>>
>> On the other hand he appears to have liked some of the science
>> fiction that was published including Asimov.
He specifically mentions Asimov's stories in a list of things he enjoyed
reading. (Letter 294.) The appreciation was mutual, by the way. Asimov wrote
a Black Widower tale specifically as an homage to Tolkien, on hearing of his
death.
>> How much, I wonder, can be derived from what (quite possible very
>> little) we know about his sym- and antipathies? Can we begin to get
>> some idea of what it was that he liked in a book and what he actively
>> disliked? Hmmm -- perhaps a new thread devoted to Tolkien's literary
>> tastes?
>
> I'm up for it - though my participation is and will remain erratic.
Sounds like an excellent idea.
>>>> including that small number of works that Tolkien-lovers consider
>>>> close in stature to the master
>>
>> I wonder which authors might fall in this group at all?
>
> I have two or three ... well, maybe one - see below.
>
>>> Yes, I have to say that most Tolkien imitators fail utterly.....
>>
>> I'm not as widely read as some in these groups, but I can't think of
>> any Tolkien _imitator_ that does not fail utterly: possibly because
>> there is something in the very attempt to imitate _Tolkien_ that
>> makes it impossible?
Imitations remain just that - imitations, with no independent life. The only
exception I can think of is Edward Eager, who back in the '50s and '60s
wrote books that were very obviously imitations of E. Nesbit's stories, and
yet quite good. His story about a toy city come to life is actually better
than Nesbit's. (I suspect Nesbit was writing the instalments of her story
with the boy from the newspaper waiting at the door for them, as was often
the case with her.) Eager's "Half Magic" is particularly good.
> Of course, I carefully didn't say "imitators" ... I agree with you,
> Troels, that imitators will always pretty much fail, though not so much
> because there's anything unique about Tolkien _in this respect_; merely
> because imitation implies a lack of original thought. (Tributes of course
> are another matter; there authors may acknowledge their debt to a master
> and yet have something of their own to say.)
An excellent point. Writers of cheap fantasy are a dime a dozen now, and I
have become very leery of new fantasy writers. I circle around them like a
cat in the book shops, sniffing at them and mostly deciding to skip them.
They are almost always presented like this on the backside:
"The evil Trasks are once more amassing to assail the Empire of Quorn. The
empire, torn by a power struggle between the wise but feeble Smo'oks and the
ingenious but ruthless Clo'oks, can only be saved by apprentice magician
Kruddyan. But will Kruddyan reach the sacred temple of Gruwel in time to
salvage the sacred sword which he needs to vanquish his enemies? His only
allies are the mutated, talking cat Tabbi and the half-crazed crone
Hagalyn."
And then a quotation from some reviewer, going something like this:
"In the same class as Tolkien and Eddings at their best."
[snip]
>>> It might be interesting to compile a list of authors others think
>>> capture "tolkienian spirit" in their novels....not your favorites
>>> per se, but those authors you think get Tolkien.
>>
>> I presume we're talking about reasonably modern authors (twentieth
>> and twentyfirst centuries)? One of the best places, in my opinion, to
>> go for stories that contain much of the same 'air' as Tolkien's work
>> is to read the old myths and legends: sagas, eddas, Kalevala, etc.
>> etc.
I must respectfully disagree here. Tolkien used many narrative devices that
simply had not been invented back in the times of the great myths and
legends. They were of course an inspiration to him, but his writing is
actually very different from them.
>> Asimov, in my opinion, is one of the authors (of those that I know)
>> that come closest in terms of the sub-creation's power to command
>> Secondary Belief.
>
> I'm very fond of Asimov, but (as with Agatha Christie whom I also enjoy)
> it's rather difficult to explain why. The characters are, with a very few
> exceptions, one-dimensional and unconvincing; the writing is good but far
> from excellent; the societies are not usually plausible and the science is
> good but again not wonderful, especially when he gets away from physics.
> I think it's simply the extent of his imagination that compels one, but of
> course more is needed than just that. _Foundation_ is arguably his
> greatest work, but once outside the gripping narrative it's clear what a
> load of nonsense the foundational principle of psycho-history really is,
> and the inconsistencies that abound in the descriptions of the power of
> the mind. That doesn't stop me re-reading it with great enjoyment, but I
> would need something more to call it really great.
>
> Probably the real issue with Asimov is that his work doesn't engage the
> deep emotions; one doesn't actually learn anything important from him
> <dons hard hat, just in case>. And this is true of a large number of
> writers of both hard SF and fantasy.
I agree, and as for the Foundation books, I only like the original trilogy;
the later books are all part of his rather horrible attempt to shoehorn all
his writings into a single unified future history; he tired to place "The
Currents of Space" and other two "Galactic Empire" novels, the Galactic
Empire Series, the robot books, the stories about Elijah Baley and the
Foundation trilogy i the same universe - and that stufff simply does not fit
comfortably together. (Also, his vitality as a writer was in decline when he
started writing the later Foundation stories.)
However, Asimov did write one short story which I think is truly moving
and engaging on the human plane, and that is "The Ugly Little Boy".
> So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share something of the
> Tolkien spirit, while not necessarily achieving the same level of mastery,
> are:
> C .S. Lewis
> Charles Williams (possibly)
> E. R. Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
> John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_ and _Prince in
> Waiting_ trilogies)
> Lord Dunsany
> Terry Brooks
> Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
> Garth Nix (again a children's writer, _The Old Kingdom_ series)
> J.K.Rowling (in my view outstanding; time will tell)
I'd omit Rowling, whom I don't care for, and I'm not too fond of Terry
Brooks either. On the other hand, I love Urusula K. Le Guin's Earthsea
trilogy - though not the later Earthsea books. In my opinion, Le Guin
sacrificed her great talent on the altar of politics. The last book of hers
I liked was "The Beginning Place" (also published as "Threshold"). After
that - ugh! (I particularly dislike "Always Coming Home".)
I've not read Gary Nix, John Christopher or Charles Williams. I agree
about Eddision, Lewis, Dunsany, and Poul Anderson. Poul Anderson has written
so many good things, both sf and fantasy.
Clifford D. Simak (an old favourite of mine) once tried his hand at
fantasy and produced an extremely good book called "Where the Evil Dwells."
I recommend it highly. He seems to have taken some elements from Rosemary
Sutcliff's novels about Roman Britain and transplanted them to the realm of
fantasy, adding... I won't say anything more. I love it. (Must reread that
book soon.)
I'm moving away from Tolkien's spirit here but I do want to put in a good
word for Terry Pratchett, Michael Scott Rohan's novels about the Ice and Tom
Holt's glorious "Expecting Someone Taller." And Robert Rankin's Brentford
Trilogy, which consists of considerably more than three volumes and seems to
be sadly unknown in America.
> And then there is the only person who to my mind approaches the stature of
> the master: Stephen Donaldson. He is one of the very few writers who has
> the power to cause one to utterly suspend disbelief. His debt to Tolkien
> is unfortunately rather obvious in the first book, not so much in the ring
> he uses as in some of the names: Berek Halfhand, for instance. (He
> acknowledges that debt, not so much as direct influence but in the fact
> that Tolkien created almost singlehandedly the environment in which his
> work is possible, and he has written tributes of his own.) But as the
> influence fades and his own writing grows stronger, reading his work gives
> one the impression of being not only gripped but taken by the throat and
> rattled ;-) One does not emerge unchanged from it.
>
> His largest body of work is _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the
> Unbeliever_, but there are also other series and some absolutely wonderful
> short stories, of which _Reave the Just_ is perhaps the most remarkable
> while being very accessible. (If you don't know his writing, begin with
> Covenant; *do not* start with the _Gap_ series.)
I can't say I care for Donaldson and his Sad Sam of a hero.
[snip]
>> This said, very many gifted authors share something -- both with
>> Tolkien as well as each other. Gifted authors of the kind that take
>> us out of the mundane world (whether by travelling in time, by
>> travelling in space, by the medium fantastic science or fantastic
>> fantasy, or in some other way that I haven't thought of) will
>> naturally share more with each other than they do with authors whose
>> works do not leave the mundane world.
>
> Agreed. The person whom Donaldson brings to mind for me is Susan
> Howatch - does anyone else read both, and if so do you agree? The genres
> are completely different but there is something fundamentally similar; I
> think it is the fact that they both write essentially and compellingly
> about redemption, though Donaldson might not use that word as a general
> descriptor given its specifically Christian connotations (Howatch of
> course *would*).
I haven't heard of Howatch - must try her.
Öjevind Lång
Nicholas Young
news:8b2m1v...@mid.individual.net...
> "Nicholas Young" <n....@com.btinternet> skrev i meddelandet
> news:i2fpk5$4rt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
[much unmarked snippage]
>>> How much, I wonder, can be derived from what (quite possible very
>>> little) we know about his sym- and antipathies? Can we begin to get
>>> some idea of what it was that he liked in a book and what he actively
>>> disliked? Hmmm -- perhaps a new thread devoted to Tolkien's literary
>>> tastes?
>>
>> I'm up for it - though my participation is and will remain erratic.
>
> Sounds like an excellent idea.
We seem to have started ;-) Though I note, that as Troels warned, this
could become simply a list of our favourite authors rather than those who
display "Tolkien-esque" characteristics.
> Imitations remain just that - imitations, with no independent life. The
> only exception I can think of is Edward Eager, who back in the '50s and
> '60s wrote books that were very obviously imitations of E. Nesbit's
> stories, and yet quite good. His story about a toy city come to life is
> actually better than Nesbit's. (I suspect Nesbit was writing the
> instalments of her story with the boy from the newspaper waiting at the
> door for them, as was often the case with her.) Eager's "Half Magic" is
> particularly good.
I like Eager and agree that he has a merit of his own; but actually I think
he's distinctly inferior to Nesbit.
>> Of course, I carefully didn't say "imitators" ... I agree with you,
>> Troels, that imitators will always pretty much fail, though not so much
>> because there's anything unique about Tolkien _in this respect_; merely
>> because imitation implies a lack of original thought. (Tributes of
>> course are another matter; there authors may acknowledge their debt to a
>> master and yet have something of their own to say.)
>
> An excellent point. Writers of cheap fantasy are a dime a dozen now, and I
> have become very leery of new fantasy writers. I circle around them like a
> cat in the book shops, sniffing at them and mostly deciding to skip them.
> [...]
;-)
> I must respectfully disagree here. Tolkien used many narrative devices
> that simply had not been invented back in the times of the great myths and
> legends. They were of course an inspiration to him, but his writing is
> actually very different from them.
Yes. Tolkien singlehandedly created a complete mythology comparable to any
other such body of work, all other examples of which have emerged over
centuries if not millennia. This is a quite fantastic achievement: no one
else that I can think of has come even remotely close. To do this he drew
on narrative devices both past and present. His writing style is sometimes
derided as no more than adequate; but the point is that it *is* adequate to
portray his imagination, and that's all that needed.
>> Probably the real issue with Asimov is that his work doesn't engage the
>> deep emotions; one doesn't actually learn anything important from him
>> <dons hard hat, just in case>. And this is true of a large number of
>> writers of both hard SF and fantasy.
>
> I agree, and as for the Foundation books, I only like the original
> trilogy; the later books are all part of his rather horrible attempt to
> shoehorn all his writings into a single unified future history;
Agreed. I was thinking only of the originals. The later ones, while
sometimes good in their own right, completely spoil the logic of the earlier
novels.
> However, Asimov did write one short story which I think is truly moving
> and engaging on the human plane, and that is "The Ugly Little Boy".
Again agreed, though actually it's not very much about the characters as
such, which are not very well developed, more the situation. (I do quite
like Susan Calvin as a character.)
>> So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share something of the
>> Tolkien spirit, while not necessarily achieving the same level of
>> mastery, are:
>> C .S. Lewis
>> Charles Williams (possibly)
>> E. R. Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
>> John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_ and _Prince in
>> Waiting_ trilogies)
>> Lord Dunsany
>> Terry Brooks
>> Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
>> Garth Nix (again a children's writer, _The Old Kingdom_ series)
>> J.K.Rowling (in my view outstanding; time will tell)
>
> I'd omit Rowling, whom I don't care for,
... but see above: this is not just about personal preference; do you think
she is in the Tolkien mould or somewhere completely different? ...
> and I'm not too fond of Terry Brooks either.
Again agreed; again see above and also my previous point about Brooks
finding his own (limited) voice.
> On the other hand, I love Urusula K. Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy - though
> not the later Earthsea books. In my opinion, Le Guin sacrificed her great
> talent on the altar of politics.
Yes - I totally forgot her and should have included her in exactly the same
way as you have. Though in fact I think her very latest work is better than
what precedes it: for instance, I enjoyed _The Other Wind_ (the fifth book
of Earthsea) *very* much more than _Tehanu_.
> Clifford D. Simak (an old favourite of mine) once tried his hand at
> fantasy and produced an extremely good book called "Where the Evil
> Dwells." I recommend it highly. He seems to have taken some elements from
> Rosemary Sutcliff's novels about Roman Britain and transplanted them to
> the realm of fantasy, adding... I won't say anything more. I love it.
> (Must reread that book soon.)
Never enjoyed Simak much except on a superficial level; and again, is this
just a recommendation or do you think he writes in the same spirit as
Tolkien?
>> [Stephen Donaldson's] largest body of work is _The Chronicles of Thomas
>> Covenant the Unbeliever_, but there are also other series and some
>> absolutely wonderful short stories, of which _Reave the Just_ is perhaps
>> the most remarkable while being very accessible. (If you don't know his
>> writing, begin with Covenant; *do not* start with the _Gap_ series.)
>
> I can't say I care for Donaldson and his Sad Sam of a hero.
OK. Do me a favour: read any of _Reave the Just_ in the collection of that
name, or _Daughter of Regals_ or _Unworthy of the Angel_ in the collection
_Daughter of Regals_. Then let me know what you think ;-)
>> Agreed. The person whom Donaldson brings to mind for me is Susan
>> Howatch - does anyone else read both, and if so do you agree? The genres
>> are completely different but there is something fundamentally similar; I
>> think it is the fact that they both write essentially and compellingly
>> about redemption, though Donaldson might not use that word as a general
>> descriptor given its specifically Christian connotations (Howatch of
>> course *would*).
>
> I haven't heard of Howatch - must try her.
The cycle of novels set in the Church of England are the best: start with
_Glittering Images_.
John W Kennedy
were both English, they were both Christians, and they were more or
less contemporaries, but Williams, as a novelist, is a sort of cross
between Stephen King and G. K. Chesterton. As poets, they are even more
unlike, for Tolkien was an archaizer, whereas Williams started as a
Victorian and ended as a Modernist. (He had a genius for pastiche; his
mock-Kipling and mock-Chesterton are extraordinary.) This does not mean
that one person cannot like both; Lewis did, and so do I. But they
simply aren't alike at all.
The closest approach between the two is probably Williams' "Mount
Badon", which has a certain resemblance to the Pellenor Fields -- but
the focus of Williams' poem is on Taliessin, in the command of the
cavalry reserve, sitting and waiting for the right moment to strike,
while he has a vision of Vergil, composing the Aeneid, sitting and
waiting for the right word to come.
"Civilized centuries away, the Roman moved.
Taliessin saw the flash of his style
dash at the wax; he saw the hexameter spring
and the king's sword swing; he saw, in the long field,
the point where the pirate chaos might suddenly yield,
the place for the law of grace to strike.
He stood in his stirrups; he stretched his hand;
he fetched the pen of his spear from its bearer;
his staff behind signed to their men."
Williams is not for everybody. But for a few, he is irreplaceable.
--
John W Kennedy
"The grand art mastered the thudding hammer of Thor
And the heart of our lord Taliessin determined the war."
-- Charles Williams. "Mount Badon"
Öjevind Lång
[much unmarked snippage]
>>>> How much, I wonder, can be derived from what (quite possible very
>>>> little) we know about his sym- and antipathies? Can we begin to get
>>>> some idea of what it was that he liked in a book and what he actively
>>>> disliked? Hmmm -- perhaps a new thread devoted to Tolkien's literary
>>>> tastes?
>>>
>>> I'm up for it - though my participation is and will remain erratic.
>>
>> Sounds like an excellent idea.
>
> We seem to have started ;-) Though I note, that as Troels warned, this
> could become simply a list of our favourite authors rather than those who
> display "Tolkien-esque" characteristics.
And I can't promise to stay completely away from such behaviour in the
future either. :-)
>> Imitations remain just that - imitations, with no independent life. The
>> only exception I can think of is Edward Eager, who back in the '50s and
>> '60s wrote books that were very obviously imitations of E. Nesbit's
>> stories, and yet quite good. His story about a toy city come to life is
>> actually better than Nesbit's. (I suspect Nesbit was writing the
>> instalments of her story with the boy from the newspaper waiting at the
>> door for them, as was often the case with her.) Eager's "Half Magic" is
>> particularly good.
>
> I like Eager and agree that he has a merit of his own; but actually I
> think
> he's distinctly inferior to Nesbit.
Oh, I agree, with the single exception of his book about a toy city come to
life. I thought Nesbit's version was very feeble, clearly written in great
haste. Pity, because it's such a good idea for a story.
[snip]
>> However, Asimov did write one short story which I think is truly moving
>> and engaging on the human plane, and that is "The Ugly Little Boy".
>
> Again agreed, though actually it's not very much about the characters as
> such, which are not very well developed, more the situation. (I do quite
> like Susan Calvin as a character.)
I can't think of a single character of Asimov's that can be called a fully
developed personality. His strength lay elsewhere.
>>> So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share something of
>>> the
>>> Tolkien spirit, while not necessarily achieving the same level of
>>> mastery, are:
>>> C .S. Lewis
>>> Charles Williams (possibly)
>>> E. R. Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
>>> John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_ and _Prince
>>> in
>>> Waiting_ trilogies)
>>> Lord Dunsany
>>> Terry Brooks
>>> Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
>>> Garth Nix (again a children's writer, _The Old Kingdom_ series)
>>> J.K.Rowling (in my view outstanding; time will tell)
>>
>> I'd omit Rowling, whom I don't care for,
>
> ... but see above: this is not just about personal preference; do you
> think
> she is in the Tolkien mould or somewhere completely different? ...
I'd say that she could never have written her books without the vogue for
fantasy, which was triggered by Tolkien and, to some extent, Robert E.
Howard. Her idea of "a chosen one" is pure Tolkien. (As is the case with
Eddings' Garion and a host of others.) In an interview in "Time", Rowling
claimed that she did not realize she was writing fantasy when she first
started to write about Harry Potter. I don't take that claim seriously. It
was simply an attempt to distance ehrself from he fantasy category, which
some literary snobs still put up their noses at.
>> and I'm not too fond of Terry Brooks either.
>
> Again agreed; again see above and also my previous point about Brooks
> finding his own (limited) voice.
Oh, I agree that his books are a knockoff of Tolkien, to the extent that
they aren't knockoffs of other knockoffs of Tolkien, so to speak.
>> On the other hand, I love Urusula K. Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy - though
>> not the later Earthsea books. In my opinion, Le Guin sacrificed her great
>> talent on the altar of politics.
>
> Yes - I totally forgot her and should have included her in exactly the
> same
> way as you have. Though in fact I think her very latest work is better
> than
> what precedes it: for instance, I enjoyed _The Other Wind_ (the fifth book
> of Earthsea) *very* much more than _Tehanu_.
I can't posibly dislike it more than "Tehanu". Perhaps I'll give it a try.
It's just that after having enjoyed so many of her books, I was then
subjected to one rude disappointment after another beginning with "The Eye
of the Heron".
>> Clifford D. Simak (an old favourite of mine) once tried his hand at
>> fantasy and produced an extremely good book called "Where the Evil
>> Dwells." I recommend it highly. He seems to have taken some elements from
>> Rosemary Sutcliff's novels about Roman Britain and transplanted them to
>> the realm of fantasy, adding... I won't say anything more. I love it.
>> (Must reread that book soon.)
>
> Never enjoyed Simak much except on a superficial level; and again, is this
> just a recommendation or do you think he writes in the same spirit as
> Tolkien?
There are definite elements of high fantasy in the book. I don't think it
could have beenw ritten if LotR had never been written. But there is also a
lot of other stuff. For example... I'll put this at the end, after a spoiler
space.*
>>> [Stephen Donaldson's] largest body of work is _The Chronicles of Thomas
>>> Covenant the Unbeliever_, but there are also other series and some
>>> absolutely wonderful short stories, of which _Reave the Just_ is perhaps
>>> the most remarkable while being very accessible. (If you don't know his
>>> writing, begin with Covenant; *do not* start with the _Gap_ series.)
>>
>> I can't say I care for Donaldson and his Sad Sam of a hero.
>
> OK. Do me a favour: read any of _Reave the Just_ in the collection of
> that
> name, or _Daughter of Regals_ or _Unworthy of the Angel_ in the collection
> _Daughter of Regals_. Then let me know what you think ;-)
OK! Actually, I have now remembered that I read and enjoyed his two Mordaunt
books. I was just overhelmed by my dislike of Thomas Covenant, the
Unbeliever.
>>> Agreed. The person whom Donaldson brings to mind for me is Susan
>>> Howatch - does anyone else read both, and if so do you agree? The
>>> genres
>>> are completely different but there is something fundamentally similar; I
>>> think it is the fact that they both write essentially and compellingly
>>> about redemption, though Donaldson might not use that word as a general
>>> descriptor given its specifically Christian connotations (Howatch of
>>> course *would*).
>>
>> I haven't heard of Howatch - must try her.
>
> The cycle of novels set in the Church of England are the best: start with
> _Glittering Images_.
OK! :-)
Öjevind
*
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
...for example, a participant in the quest that the book describes, an
abbot, adopts a parrot, or rather, is adopted by it; he is a very reluctant
associate of the bird. The parrot has previously belonged to a mad
missionary who taught it to say: "God bless my soul!" At an otherwise deeply
touching moment in the story, the soul of a great saint is released from
captivity, and the parrot somewhat breaks the atmosphere by shouting: "God
bless my soul!" A ghostly voice then says: "So be it", and a ghostly hand
reaches out before the soul of the great saint departs from its captivity.
During the rest of the voyage, the abbot anguishes over the question whether
the parrot now actually has a soul, and a blessed soul at that; his
companions tell him probably not, and that anwyay, he should stop going on
about it.
JimboCat
> And then there is the only person who to my mind approaches the stature of
> the master: Stephen Donaldson. He is one of the very few writers who has
> the power to cause one to utterly suspend disbelief. His debt to Tolkien is
> unfortunately rather obvious in the first book, not so much in the ring he
> uses as in some of the names: Berek Halfhand, for instance. (He
> acknowledges that debt, not so much as direct influence but in the fact that
> Tolkien created almost singlehandedly the environment in which his work is
> possible, and he has written tributes of his own.) But as the influence
> fades and his own writing grows stronger, reading his work gives one the
> impression of being not only gripped but taken by the throat and rattled ;-)
> One does not emerge unchanged from it.
>
> His largest body of work is _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the
> Unbeliever_, but there are also other series and some absolutely wonderful
> short stories, of which _Reave the Just_ is perhaps the most remarkable
> while being very accessible. (If you don't know his writing, begin with
> Covenant; *do not* start with the _Gap_ series.)
I've read none of Donaldson, and have heard things about Thomas
Covenant that don't sound like my cuppa tea at all, but while googling
more info I stumbled upon this:
After the King: Stories in Honor of J.R.R. Tolkien
Martin Harry Greenberg, Jane Yolen - 2001 - 448 pages
Anybody read this anthology? I think I've encountered one or two of
the stories elsewhere, and I'm wondering whether I should get hold of
the book myself.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"What in the other world is the powers of the Valar or Eru acting
against Sauron, in Middle Earth appear as small coincidences, blunders
and mistakes, shifts in a persons mood, small things that gather and
change the world. A theology of errors." [John Swanson]
JimboCat
> "Nicholas Young" <n....@com.btinternet> skrev i
> > Yes - I totally forgot her and should have included her in exactly the
> > same
> > way as you have. Though in fact I think her very latest work is better
> > than
> > what precedes it: for instance, I enjoyed _The Other Wind_ (the fifth book
> > of Earthsea) *very* much more than _Tehanu_.
>
> I can't posibly dislike it more than "Tehanu". Perhaps I'll give it a try.
> It's just that after having enjoyed so many of her books, I was then
> subjected to one rude disappointment after another beginning with "The Eye
> of the Heron".
I was very disturbed by "Tehanu". I think that was the author's
intention! I avoided reading more LeGuin for many years. I bounced off
"The Telling" hard at first reading.
A few years later I tried "The Telling" again, and I liked it a lot.
Recently I read or re-read ALL of Earthsea. The first three are still
very much the best, but the most recent stuff is not bad at all. I was
really struck by the similarities to Pullman's trilogy: in both, the
world is "broken" by attempts to cheat death, and "repaired" by
releasing and recycling the shades of the dead people. Must be
something in the air, I guess...
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"The nature of evil may be epitomized, therefore, in two simple but
horrible and holy propositions: 'Things fade' and 'Alternatives
exclude.'" [John Gardner, _Grendel_]
Steve Morrison
> Recently I read or re-read ALL of Earthsea. The first three are still
> very much the best, but the most recent stuff is not bad at all. I was
> really struck by the similarities to Pullman's trilogy: in both, the
> world is "broken" by attempts to cheat death, and "repaired" by
> releasing and recycling the shades of the dead people. Must be
> something in the air, I guess...
Did you also read the two early short stories which are collected in
/The Wind's Twelve Quarters/? i.e. "The Word of Unbinding" and "The
Rule of Names"
Öjevind Lång
I did. They are excellent, as are most of the storiues in that collection.
My favourite is "Winter's King", which of coruse is a spinoff from "The Left
Hand of Darkness."
Öjevind
derek
> On Jul 24, 6:31 pm, "Nicholas Young" <n....@com.btinternet> wrote:
>
> > And then there is the only person who to my mind approaches the stature of
> > the master: Stephen Donaldson. He is one of the very few writers who has
> > the power to cause one to utterly suspend disbelief.
I wouldn't go anywhere near that far ... but he is a powerful writer.
> > His debt to Tolkien is
> > unfortunately rather obvious in the first book, not so much in the ring he
> > uses as in some of the names: Berek Halfhand, for instance.
Geez - in _everything_. He's got Elves, Rohirrim, Rangers, Orcs &
Trolls, Dwarves (albeit human sized), Orodruin, and probably all sorts
of things I that don't spring immediately to mind. I think his Giants
are the most original creatures he has. However ...
> I've read none of Donaldson, and have heard things about Thomas
> Covenant that don't sound like my cuppa tea at all,
Nor mine - I hate antiheros, and Covenant is even less likeable than
that depressing twit in /Catcher in the Rye/. But somehow, I keep
working through all 6 books hoping - nay praying - for redemption. I
hate Thomas Covenant, but Donaldson can make me wish I didn't.
Count Menelvagor
> "Nicholas Young" <n....@com.btinternet> skrev i meddelandetnews:i2fpk5$4rt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> [snip]
> >>>> including that small number of works that Tolkien-lovers consider
> >>>> close in stature to the master
>
> >> I wonder which authors might fall in this group at all?
>
> > I have two or three ... well, maybe one - see below.
>
> >>> Yes, I have to say that most Tolkien imitators fail utterly.....
>
> >> I'm not as widely read as some in these groups, but I can't think of
> >> any Tolkien _imitator_ that does not fail utterly: possibly because
> >> there is something in the very attempt to imitate _Tolkien_ that
> >> makes it impossible?
>
> Imitations remain just that - imitations, with no independent life. The only
> exception I can think of is Edward Eager, who back in the '50s and '60s
> wrote books that were very obviously imitations of E. Nesbit's stories, and
> yet quite good. His story about a toy city come to life is actually better
> than Nesbit's. (I suspect Nesbit was writing the instalments of her story
> with the boy from the newspaper waiting at the door for them, as was often
> the case with her.) Eager's "Half Magic" is particularly good.
oh, yes! HALF MAGIC is an excellent read. did nesbit come up with
anything like the magic working by halves? (i haven't read her.)
would THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH fit in this category? it has a rather
strong allegorical content. anyway, i think it's brilliant.
> > Of course, I carefully didn't say "imitators" ... I agree with you,
> > Troels, that imitators will always pretty much fail, though not so much
> > because there's anything unique about Tolkien _in this respect_; merely
> > because imitation implies a lack of original thought. (Tributes of course
> > are another matter; there authors may acknowledge their debt to a master
> > and yet have something of their own to say.)
>
> An excellent point. Writers of cheap fantasy are a dime a dozen now, and I
> have become very leery of new fantasy writers. I circle around them like a
> cat in the book shops, sniffing at them and mostly deciding to skip them.
> They are almost always presented like this on the backside:
>
> "The evil Trasks are once more amassing to assail the Empire of Quorn. The
> empire, torn by a power struggle between the wise but feeble Smo'oks and the
> ingenious but ruthless Clo'oks, can only be saved by apprentice magician
> Kruddyan. But will Kruddyan reach the sacred temple of Gruwel in time to
> salvage the sacred sword which he needs to vanquish his enemies? His only
> allies are the mutated, talking cat Tabbi and the half-crazed crone
> Hagalyn."
>
> And then a quotation from some reviewer, going something like this:
>
> "In the same class as Tolkien and Eddings at their best."
someone should make a novel about this.
i once did a sort of generic fantasy parody (with a heavy dash of
terry brooks; but see below); it's at:
http://count.teunc.org/quest/quest.html
> >>> It might be interesting to compile a list of authors others think
> >>> capture "tolkienian spirit" in their novels....not your favorites
> >>> per se, but those authors you think get Tolkien.
>
> >> I presume we're talking about reasonably modern authors (twentieth
> >> and twentyfirst centuries)? One of the best places, in my opinion, to
> >> go for stories that contain much of the same 'air' as Tolkien's work
> >> is to read the old myths and legends: sagas, eddas, Kalevala, etc.
> >> etc.
>
> I must respectfully disagree here. Tolkien used many narrative devices that
> simply had not been invented back in the times of the great myths and
> legends. They were of course an inspiration to him, but his writing is
> actually very different from them.
yes. indeed, the whole project of creating a secondary world is a
relatively modern one, i think. and tolkien has an interesting
narrative approach highlighting the inconclusiveness and
contradictoriness of the reception of tradition from the "elder days."
that said, there are elements of direct imitation of myths and legends
in tolkien, which can be redolent of sagas, etc. perhaps that's what
the writer had in mind.
> > So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share something of the
> > Tolkien spirit, while not necessarily achieving the same level of mastery,
> > are:
> > C .S. Lewis
> > Charles Williams (possibly)
> > E. R. Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
> > John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_ and _Prince in
> > Waiting_ trilogies)
> > Lord Dunsany
> > Terry Brooks
> > Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
> > Garth Nix (again a children's writer, _The Old Kingdom_ series)
> > J.K.Rowling (in my view outstanding; time will tell)
>
> I'd omit Rowling, whom I don't care for, and I'm not too fond of Terry
> Brooks either. On the other hand, I love Urusula K. Le Guin's Earthsea
> trilogy
i'd add le guin, too. i like rowling, but wish she had edited better.
she is a pretty good storyteller, though. but fervently. and
fervently. and book 7 was badly flawed, i fear.
brooks has interesting characters and ideas. the subcreation i find OK
at best, and the style and diction are a bit off.
> I've not read Gary Nix, John Christopher or Charles Williams. I agree
> about Eddision, Lewis, Dunsany, and Poul Anderson. Poul Anderson has written
> so many good things, both sf and fantasy.
williams and lewis are the only of those i've read. the idea in
williams' novels is to write a novel in roughly the traditional sort,
but treating the supernatural as an integral part of daily life.
interesting if weird. the chief defect is that the style is not always
up to the ideas.
the best book is perhaps MANY DIMENSIONS, which explores the effects
of prime matter erupting into the world and making possible time
travel instant healings, passing exams, etc.
> > His largest body of work is _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the
> > Unbeliever_, but there are also other series and some absolutely wonderful
> > short stories, of which _Reave the Just_ is perhaps the most remarkable
> > while being very accessible. (If you don't know his writing, begin with
> > Covenant; *do not* start with the _Gap_ series.)
>
> I can't say I care for Donaldson and his Sad Sam of a hero.
i only read a bit, but i didn't care for it much, either. still, who
knows.
Troels Forchhammer
<ee6dc327-203a-4941...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Count Menelvagor <Menel...@mailandnews.com> spoke these staves:
> On Jul 25, 7:38 am, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> "Nicholas Young" <n....@com.btinternet> skrev i
>> meddelandetnews:i2fpk5$4r t$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>
>>> message news:Xns9DBCC9A2...@130.133.4.11...
>>>>
<snip>
>>>> One of the best places, in my opinion, to go for stories that
>>>> contain much of the same 'air' as Tolkien's work is to read the
>>>> old myths and legends: sagas, eddas, Kalevala, etc. etc.
>>
>> I must respectfully disagree here. Tolkien used many narrative
>> devices th at simply had not been invented back in the times of
>> the great myths and legends. They were of course an inspiration
>> to him, but his writing is actually very different from them.
You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I don't think that the
objection you raise, with which I fully agree, serves as an argument
against my opinion here.
Possibly it depends on which elements of the 'air' of Tolkien's
writing (a phrase that is more a vague hand-waving than a useful
help in a discussion, I'm afraid) that you focus upon, but Tolkien
often deliberately imitated the narrative style of the old myths and
legends -- and, IMO, quite ably so (this is, I would say, the most
obvious in the lost tales, and growing less prononced later on, but
it is, again IMO, still very much in evidence in LotR where you have
passages that read as recontextualizations of passages from old
tales). This does not mean that he didn't bring anything new to the
table, but it does mean that his writing shares many traits with the
ancient mythologies and legends. Possibly these very elements tend
to loom larger in my perception, so that, in the end, these old
myths, tales, legends, lays etc. is where I find tales that seem, to
me, the closest to Tolkien.
This element is probably the thing that I most lack in the other
authors of fantastic fiction that I have read. E.g. Rowling, though
she relies heavily on elements of folk-lore to assist her
sub-creation, fails to draw upon the narrative style of the old
tales from which she draws the elements of her Wizarding World.
Again, it depends obviously on what you mean by 'narrative style'
and similar phrases, but I would say that Tolkien's narrative style
draws rather heavily on the old myths and legends, but that his
narrative is nevertheless solidly anchored in the twentieth century.
So much so that while I am sure that any of my ancestors of a
thousand years ago would understand the Tolkien's way of telling his
stories better than almost any other author from the twentieth
century, he would understand little or nothing of the story as a
whole or its thematic contents (there are other modern authors whose
narrative style may be more innovative, but which has nothing to say
that hasn't been said better more than a thousand years ago . . .).
> yes. indeed, the whole project of creating a secondary world is a
> relatively modern one, i think.
Well, both yes and no ;-)
As a deliberate effort by a single man it is certainly a new thing,
but Tolkien was consciously imitating the sub-creations of old myths
and legends (though these were collaborative efforts -- systems of
non-conscious sub-creation that evolved slowly over centuries rather
than years or decades).
> and tolkien has an interesting narrative approach highlighting the
> inconclusiveness and contradictoriness of the reception of
> tradition from the "elder days."
Are you thinking of his 'it is said that', 'the Elves tell that',
and other devices? Or are you thinking of something else?
> that said, there are elements of direct imitation of myths and
> legends in tolkien, which can be redolent of sagas, etc. perhaps
> that's what the writer had in mind.
Yes, it was, thank you :)
To me, this is such a strong element of Tolkien's writings (I am
here thinking mostly of LotR) that, because of this, I find that the
old myths, legends etc. from which he drew are still that which
comes closest in 'air' (another vague and indefinable word, I'm
afraid) to Tolkien.
I am sorry that I don't have a better vocabulary for discussing this
kind of literary criticism -- I think it would be preferable to be
able to distinguish better between different aspects and elements of
Tolkien's writing.
>>> So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share
>>> something of the Tolkien spirit,
Given the above, I can't help wondering what is meant here by the
'Tolkien spirit'? (Possibly the same kind of vague hand-waving for
which I use 'Tolkien air')
>>> while not necessarily achieving the same level of mastery, are:
>>> C .S. Lewis
>>> Charles Williams (possibly)
>>> E. R. Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
>>> John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_
>>> and _Prince in Waiting_ trilogies)
>>> Lord Dunsany
>>> Terry Brooks
>>> Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
>>> Garth Nix (again a children's writer, _The Old Kingdom_ series)
>>> J.K.Rowling (in my view outstanding; time will tell)
>>
>> I'd omit Rowling, whom I don't care for,
Personally I am rather ambiguous towards Rowling -- I am rather
enthusiastic about in particular books three and four of the Potter
series, but I can't bear the thought of re-reading the last book.
However, even at her best I can't see Rowling as having any of the
'spirit' or 'air' of Tolkien's writing: hers are, in my opinion, a
very different kind of stories from Tolkien's
>> and I'm not too fond of Terry Brooks either. On the other hand, I
>> love Urusula K. Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy
>
> i'd add le guin, too.
I've only read the four Earthsea books (and though I recognize that
_Tehanu_ is a quite different kind of story from the first books, I
don't understand the denouncements for political [presumably
feminist] correctness that have been levied against it: I quite
enjoyed it, though in a different way than the preceding books).
However, despite her rather successful sub-creation and though I am
aware that le Guin is very fond of Tolkien, I am not sure that I
would include her in a list of authors that remind me of Tolkien. I
am also very fond (to say the least) of Pratchett, but again I
wouldn't mention him as someone whose writing reminds me of Tolkien.
> i like rowling, but wish she had edited better. she is a pretty
> good storyteller, though.
More than anything I think that she needs to constrain herself. I
don't think she handles long stories very well -- neither in terms
of individual books, nor in terms of the series' story-arch. But
this, I think, is not the place to discuss Rowling's faults and
virtues ;-)
<snip>
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
- Lord Acton,
in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.
Öjevind Lång
news:ee6dc327-203a-4941...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 7:38 am, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> Imitations remain just that - imitations, with no independent life. The
>> only
>> exception I can think of is Edward Eager, who back in the '50s and '60s
>> wrote books that were very obviously imitations of E. Nesbit's stories,
>> and
>> yet quite good. His story about a toy city come to life is actually
>> better
>> than Nesbit's. (I suspect Nesbit was writing the instalments of her story
>> with the boy from the newspaper waiting at the door for them, as was
>> often
>> the case with her.) Eager's "Half Magic" is particularly good.
>
> oh, yes! HALF MAGIC is an excellent read. did nesbit come up with
> anything like the magic working by halves? (i haven't read her.)
No, she did not use that particular idea. She is a good writer, though. I
partcularly recommend "Five Children and It", "The Amulet" and "The Phoenicx
and the Carpet", which are about the magic adventures of five children
(siblings). But just about everything Nesbit wrote was good, or at elast
worthwhile.
For some reason, Humphrey Carpenter is condescending to her in his book
about fairy-stories, "Secret Gardens", but he makes a lot of strange
assessments in it. For example, he also dismisses Kenneth Grahame's "The
Wind in the Willows" in it, and seems to have started to despise Tolkien. At
least, his tone about him is quite different from the one he used in his
biography of Tolkien, and in "The Inklings". (He also gets onto the subject
of the goodness of atheism, which I frankly don't think is a subject one
should spend time on in a book about literature for chidlren.)
> would THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH fit in this category? it has a rather
> strong allegorical content. anyway, i think it's brilliant.
I don't think I have read that one.
Heh. Perhaps a project for FATS?
> i once did a sort of generic fantasy parody (with a heavy dash of
> terry brooks; but see below); it's at:
>
> http://count.teunc.org/quest/quest.html
Bravo! Terry Brooks can't hold a candle to you.
[snip]
>> > So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share something of
>> > the
>> > Tolkien spirit, while not necessarily achieving the same level of
>> > mastery,
>> > are:
>> > C .S. Lewis
>> > Charles Williams (possibly)
>> > E. R. Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
>> > John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_ and _Prince
>> > in
>> > Waiting_ trilogies)
>> > Lord Dunsany
>> > Terry Brooks
>> > Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
>> > Garth Nix (again a children's writer, _The Old Kingdom_ series)
>> > J.K.Rowling (in my view outstanding; time will tell)
>>
>> I'd omit Rowling, whom I don't care for, and I'm not too fond of Terry
>> Brooks either. On the other hand, I love Urusula K. Le Guin's Earthsea
>> trilogy
>
> i'd add le guin, too. i like rowling, but wish she had edited better.
> she is a pretty good storyteller, though. but fervently. and
> fervently. and book 7 was badly flawed, i fear.
I'd like to add Neil Gaiman - his "Stardust" is one of the most wonderful
fantasystories to have emerged the past few years. Does it carry the same
tone as Tolkien? Well... yes, and no. It's very different, but there is the
same sense of wonder, to coin a phrase.
"Omens", written with Terry Pratchett, is quite good too, but it does not
have the genuine fairy-story feeling that "Stardust" has.
> brooks has interesting characters and ideas. the subcreation i find OK
> at best, and the style and diction are a bit off.
I find him rather run-of-the-mill, but I know many enjoy him.
>> I've not read Gary Nix, John Christopher or Charles Williams. I agree
>> about Eddision, Lewis, Dunsany, and Poul Anderson. Poul Anderson has
>> written
>> so many good things, both sf and fantasy.
>
> williams and lewis are the only of those i've read. the idea in
> williams' novels is to write a novel in roughly the traditional sort,
> but treating the supernatural as an integral part of daily life.
> interesting if weird. the chief defect is that the style is not always
> up to the ideas.
Randall Garrett wrote a series of detective stories taking place in an
alternative universe where magic was real. He had fun apostrophizing various
mystery writers. "Too Many Wizards", for example, was a nod towards Rex
Stout's "Too Many Cooks". (But Garrett is very unlike Tolkien in style and
manner.)
> the best book is perhaps MANY DIMENSIONS, which explores the effects
> of prime matter erupting into the world and making possible time
> travel instant healings, passing exams, etc.
I must make a point of actually reading Charles Williams one of these days.
I'm afraid the information supplied about him in "J. R. R. Tolkien. A
Biography" and "The Inklings" rather put me off him.
>> > His largest body of work is _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the
>> > Unbeliever_, but there are also other series and some absolutely
>> > wonderful
>> > short stories, of which _Reave the Just_ is perhaps the most remarkable
>> > while being very accessible. (If you don't know his writing, begin
>> > with
>> > Covenant; *do not* start with the _Gap_ series.)
>>
>> I can't say I care for Donaldson and his Sad Sam of a hero.
>
> i only read a bit, but i didn't care for it much, either. still, who
> knows.
As I said in another post, Donaldson then went on two write two sequential
novels (called "The Mordaunt Series" or something like that) which were
excellent. No Thomas Covenant as far as the eye could see.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
>[snip]
> However, even at her best I can't see Rowling as having any of the
> 'spirit' or 'air' of Tolkien's writing: hers are, in my opinion, a
> very different kind of stories from Tolkien's
Yes. Her HP books are a mixture of fantasy, schhol novels and teenage love
interest stories. In a way, she portends phenomena such as "Twilight".
[snip]
> More than anything I think that she needs to constrain herself. I
> don't think she handles long stories very well -- neither in terms
> of individual books, nor in terms of the series' story-arch. But
> this, I think, is not the place to discuss Rowling's faults and
> virtues ;-)
Oops! I read this too late. Of course, I could choose not to send off this
post, but "What I have written I have written". You can always ignore it.
Öjevind
Weland
> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
> news:Xns9DC5F3C9...@130.133.4.11...
>
>> [snip]
>
>> However, even at her best I can't see Rowling as having any of the
>> 'spirit' or 'air' of Tolkien's writing: hers are, in my opinion, a
>> very different kind of stories from Tolkien's
>
> Yes. Her HP books are a mixture of fantasy, schhol novels and teenage
> love interest stories. In a way, she portends phenomena such as "Twilight".
Without getting into HP too much, the only real portents to the Twilight
nonsense is teenage romance novels. HP doesn't touch any of those
nerves that a romance novel does.
Troels Forchhammer
>>
>> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i
>> meddelandet news:Xns9DC5F3C9...@130.133.4.11...
>>>
>>> the 'spirit' or 'air' of Tolkien's writing: hers are, in my
>>> opinion, a very different kind of stories from Tolkien's
>>
>> Yes. Her HP books are a mixture of fantasy, schhol novels and
>> teenage love interest stories.
At her best, I think Rowling adds something to that mix. I think her
books also employ a rough mystery outline -- there is an element of
detection to all the books (I also think there's some superhero stuff
thrown in for good measure). But when she is at her best she manages
to mix it all together in an effective cocktail, but when she's at
her worst, the individual elements grate against each other like a
fork against a plate . . .
>> In a way, she portends phenomena such as "Twilight".
>
> Without getting into HP too much, the only real portents to the
> Twilight nonsense is teenage romance novels.
My oldest, now a young mad at 19, came home from school one day
nearly doubled with laughter. It turned out that one of his class-
mates had given a book report on some book in the _Twilight_ series
and all he had come away from it with was something about a
vegetarian vampire ;-)
That is about all I know about the _Twilight_ books -- except that
'teenage romance' seems almost too mature a term to use for it.
> HP doesn't touch any of those nerves that a romance novel does.
No, not really. I mean, there's teenage love and all that, but it's
of another kind (more realistic as teenage love, you might say) than
the stuff you find in the typical romances (the nauseating stuff that
I understand makes up the _Twilight_ books).
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot ++
- /Hogfather/ (Terry Pratchett)
Michael Ikeda
> That is about all I know about the _Twilight_ books -- except
> that 'teenage romance' seems almost too mature a term to use for
> it.
>
Although I understand some of the conversation really sparkles...
:-)
Steve Hayes
<10313...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>On Jul 27, 2:45 pm, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
>> "Nicholas Young" <n....@com.btinternet> skrev i
>
>> > Yes - I totally forgot her and should have included her in exactly the
>> > same
>> > way as you have. Though in fact I think her very latest work is better
>> > than
>> > what precedes it: for instance, I enjoyed _The Other Wind_ (the fifth book
>> > of Earthsea) *very* much more than _Tehanu_.
>>
>> I can't posibly dislike it more than "Tehanu". Perhaps I'll give it a try.
>> It's just that after having enjoyed so many of her books, I was then
>> subjected to one rude disappointment after another beginning with "The Eye
>> of the Heron".
>
>I was very disturbed by "Tehanu". I think that was the author's
>intention! I avoided reading more LeGuin for many years. I bounced off
>"The Telling" hard at first reading.
>
>A few years later I tried "The Telling" again, and I liked it a lot.
>
>Recently I read or re-read ALL of Earthsea. The first three are still
>very much the best, but the most recent stuff is not bad at all. I was
>really struck by the similarities to Pullman's trilogy: in both, the
>world is "broken" by attempts to cheat death, and "repaired" by
>releasing and recycling the shades of the dead people. Must be
>something in the air, I guess...
I first read the Earthsea trilogy in 1973, and enjoyed it. I wouldn't compare
it with Tolkien, though.
I reread it in 1980, and didn't enjoy it as much.
I read the Quartet (including Tehanu) in 1994/5, and enjoyed it even less, and
"Tehanu" was just plain boring.
I didn't realise that others had been added, but I don't think I'll bother
with them.
Tolkien I enjoy more on re-reading, but le Guin I enjoyed less.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/litmain.htm
http://www.goodreads.com/hayesstw
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Steve Hayes
>Nor mine - I hate antiheros, and Covenant is even less likeable than
>that depressing twit in /Catcher in the Rye/. But somehow, I keep
>working through all 6 books hoping - nay praying - for redemption. I
>hate Thomas Covenant, but Donaldson can make me wish I didn't.
Donaldson's writing "Covenant" sexology is more comparable with Lewis than
Tolkien, in that it involves comings and goings between this world and another
world.
I found them enjoyable in parts, with some memorable bits. But his writing
style is annoying, with repetitive cliches (Covenant clenching himself and
chewing ground glass) and strange malapropisms that should have been caught by
an editor (he uses "sojourning" in contexts where it is clear that the word he
was looking for was "journeying", for example).
The thing I enjoyed most about them was the bit in the fourth book (or the
first in the second trilogy) where there are different kinds of suns, and one
wonders what kind of sun will come next, but once one has been through all the
permutations even that palls. And the explanation for the phenomenon, when it
comes, is pretty banal, and doesn't really explain.
Öjevind Lång
news:bde956pef075u7tn8...@4ax.com...
>[snip]
> I first read the Earthsea trilogy in 1973, and enjoyed it. I wouldn't
> compare
> it with Tolkien, though.
>
> I reread it in 1980, and didn't enjoy it as much.
>
> I read the Quartet (including Tehanu) in 1994/5, and enjoyed it even less,
> and
> "Tehanu" was just plain boring.
>
> I didn't realise that others had been added, but I don't think I'll bother
> with them.
>
> Tolkien I enjoy more on re-reading, but le Guin I enjoyed less.
I still enjoy her older production, but I do think her books have aged a
bit. There's a pretentious tone, somehow.
Öjevind
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
>> HP doesn't touch any of those nerves that a romance novel does.
>
> No, not really. I mean, there's teenage love and all that, but it's
> of another kind (more realistic as teenage love, you might say) than
> the stuff you find in the typical romances (the nauseating stuff that
> I understand makes up the _Twilight_ books).
Still, the teenage love in the books (and more prominently in the films) may
have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
(Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.) Made her see a rich ldoe
that could be mined.
A vegetarian vampire? How about a vampire who is afraid of the dark? Or a
werewolf who is afraid of dogs?
Öjevind
Paul S. Person
<ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
>news:Xns9DC6E436...@130.133.4.11...
>
>[snip]
>
>>> HP doesn't touch any of those nerves that a romance novel does.
>>
>> No, not really. I mean, there's teenage love and all that, but it's
>> of another kind (more realistic as teenage love, you might say) than
>> the stuff you find in the typical romances (the nauseating stuff that
>> I understand makes up the _Twilight_ books).
>
>Still, the teenage love in the books (and more prominently in the films) may
>have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
>(Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.) Made her see a rich ldoe
>that could be mined.
In this country, the USA, people have the right to spell their names
however they wish. Making fun of them is considered childish. (It
would be considered boorish instead, but that concept has pretty much
died out.)
In Sweden, of course, or in Europe generally, things may be different.
And I hardly think she needed the Harry Potter books to introduce her
to romance novels, which existed long before Harry was even an idea in
his (sub-)creator's mind. Connecting romance to vampirism is also a
solid tradition, at least in the movies, including movies long
predating those involving Harry Potter.
> A vegetarian vampire? How about a vampire who is afraid of the dark? Or a
>werewolf who is afraid of dogs?
Since most people do not equate "blood" with "meat", vampires can be
regarded as vegetarian in the sense of not eating meat. And nothing
prevents a vampire from adopting vegetarianism as a philosophical
position.
A vampire who is afraid of the dark is an idea I do not recall running
into before. You are correct that it would be a very strange idea.
Since dogs typically bark and cats typically hiss at all of the
Undead, a werewolf might be afraid they would give his secret away
when he was not changed, and, even when changed, he might be afraid of
really large dogs, particularly if there were more than four of them
attacking at one time. Just because he can't be killed by them when in
wolf-like form doesn't mean they can't rip his limbs off and his guts
out, after all, and leave him to die when he changes back.
--
"Nature must be explained in
her own terms through
the experience of our senses."
Steve Morrison
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:39:54 +0200, Öjevind Lång
> <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>> A vegetarian vampire? How about a vampire who is afraid of the dark? Or a
>> werewolf who is afraid of dogs?
>
> Since most people do not equate "blood" with "meat", vampires can be
> regarded as vegetarian in the sense of not eating meat. And nothing
> prevents a vampire from adopting vegetarianism as a philosophical
> position.
AIUI (I haven't read any of the books), "vegetarian" is a colloquial
term for vampires who prey on animals rather than humans! Edward
Cullen's favorite is supposed to be mountain lions.
Taemon
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:39:54 +0200, Öjevind Lång
> <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>> A vegetarian vampire? How about a vampire who is afraid of the
>> dark? Or a werewolf who is afraid of dogs?
> Since most people do not equate "blood" with "meat", vampires can be
> regarded as vegetarian in the sense of not eating meat.
Blood may not be meat, it's still an animal product. You can't drink it and
still be vegetarian.
T.
derek
> have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
> (Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.)
Looks multi-literate to me. "Stephenie" is French (or maybe
Quebecois). I don't plan to read the novels to find out if she's
remotely literate otherwise.
derek
I disagree - how is being a blood-drinker (AND eating vegetables) any
different from being an ovo-/lacto- vegetarian? I still don't accept
even the concept of a vegetarian vampire because by all accounts they
_can't_ eat vegetables, but I would certainly say that a creature
living only on blood is certainly not a carnivore.
Steve Morrison
> A vegetarian vampire? How about a vampire who is afraid of the dark? Or
> a werewolf who is afraid of dogs?
Come to think of it, there /is/ a classic children's
book about a herbivorous vampire:
Öjevind Lång
Bunnicula, a vampire bunny that sucks the juice out of vegetables! That's
hilarious!
Öjevind
Michael Ikeda
There's also the cartoon "Count Duckula". Tomato ketchup was
accidentally substituted for blood in the mystic reincarnation
ritual. Thus the latest incarnation of the Count likes vegetables
rather than blood.
derek
> Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote innews:8bm153...@mid.individual.net:
>
> > "Steve Morrison" <rima...@toast.net> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:doadnYtYb6XeVMjR...@posted.toastnet...
> >> Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
> >>> A vegetarian vampire? How about a vampire who is afraid of
> >>> the dark? Or
> >>> a werewolf who is afraid of dogs?
>
> >> Come to think of it, there /is/ a classic children's
> >> book about a herbivorous vampire:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnicula
>
> > Bunnicula, a vampire bunny that sucks the juice out of
> > vegetables! That's hilarious!
>
> There's also the cartoon "Count Duckula". Tomato ketchup was
> accidentally substituted for blood in the mystic reincarnation
> ritual. Thus the latest incarnation of the Count likes vegetables
> rather than blood.
Duckula? Or perhaps "Quailula"?
Öjevind Lång
news:Xns9DC7A1ABA50F1...@216.151.153.163...
[snip]
>>>> A vegetarian vampire? How about a vampire who is afraid of
>>>> the dark? Or
>>>> a werewolf who is afraid of dogs?
>>>
>>> Come to think of it, there /is/ a classic children's
>>> book about a herbivorous vampire:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnicula
>>
>> Bunnicula, a vampire bunny that sucks the juice out of
>> vegetables! That's hilarious!
>
> There's also the cartoon "Count Duckula". Tomato ketchup was
> accidentally substituted for blood in the mystic reincarnation
> ritual. Thus the latest incarnation of the Count likes vegetables
> rather than blood.
I wonder how *our* Count feels about that.
Öjevind
Count Menelvagor
> "Michael Ikeda" <mmik...@erols.com> skrev i meddelandetnews:Xns9DC7A1ABA50F1...@216.151.153.163...
>
> > Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote in
> >news:8bm153...@mid.individual.net:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >>>> A vegetarian vampire? How about a vampire who is afraid of
> >>>> the dark? Or
> >>>> a werewolf who is afraid of dogs?
>
> >>> Come to think of it, there /is/ a classic children's
> >>> book about a herbivorous vampire:
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnicula
>
> >> Bunnicula, a vampire bunny that sucks the juice out of
> >> vegetables! That's hilarious!
>
> > There's also the cartoon "Count Duckula". Tomato ketchup was
> > accidentally substituted for blood in the mystic reincarnation
> > ritual. Thus the latest incarnation of the Count likes vegetables
> > rather than blood.
>
> I wonder how *our* Count feels about that.
in an RPG i briefly helped moderate, there was talk of having a
rogduck character, who was the result of some abominable experiment
involving balrogs and ducks. we never really developed it, though.
i don't know if he drank blood or not.
BUNNICULA sounds quite entertaining.
Count Menelvagor
wrote:
> In message
> <ee6dc327-203a-4941-b465-d47f78a50...@d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
> Count Menelvagor <Menelva...@mailandnews.com> spoke these staves:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 25, 7:38 am, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> "Nicholas Young" <n....@com.btinternet> skrev i
>
> >>> "Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> wrote in
>
> <snip>
>
> >>>> One of the best places, in my opinion, to go for stories that
> >>>> contain much of the same 'air' as Tolkien's work is to read the
> >>>> old myths and legends: sagas, eddas, Kalevala, etc. etc.
>
> >> I must respectfully disagree here. Tolkien used many narrative
> >> devices th at simply had not been invented back in the times of
> >> the great myths and legends. They were of course an inspiration
> >> to him, but his writing is actually very different from them.
>
> You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I don't think that the
> objection you raise, with which I fully agree, serves as an argument
> against my opinion here.
i didn't actually say that; the attributions are easy to confuse, and
i've no very clear idea who, before ojevind (sorry to leve out the
accent) said what. but i daresay you're right, as saying "tolkien was
a modern writer" doesn't imply "tolkien isn't redolent of sagas."
> Possibly it depends on which elements of the 'air' of Tolkien's
> writing (a phrase that is more a vague hand-waving than a useful
> help in a discussion, I'm afraid) that you focus upon, but Tolkien
> often deliberately imitated the narrative style of the old myths and
> legends -- and, IMO, quite ably so (this is, I would say, the most
> obvious in the lost tales, and growing less prononced later on, but
> it is, again IMO, still very much in evidence in LotR where you have
> passages that read as recontextualizations of passages from old
> tales). This does not mean that he didn't bring anything new to the
yes. i believe a lot of this is style, esp. tolkien's gift for
concision. now that i mention it (i'm thinking aloud; bear with me),
this mix of ancient and modern (in terms of narrative techniques,
characterization, even content in some ways) is perhaps one of
tolkien's more interesting tendencies. (the example that leaps to mind
is erendis; change the names and setting, and it could almost be a
"problem play.")
> Again, it depends obviously on what you mean by 'narrative style'
> and similar phrases, but I would say that Tolkien's narrative style
> draws rather heavily on the old myths and legends, but that his
> narrative is nevertheless solidly anchored in the twentieth century.
> So much so that while I am sure that any of my ancestors of a
> thousand years ago would understand the Tolkien's way of telling his
> stories better than almost any other author from the twentieth
> century, he would understand little or nothing of the story as a
> whole or its thematic contents (there are other modern authors whose
> narrative style may be more innovative, but which has nothing to say
> that hasn't been said better more than a thousand years ago . . .).
i like this, so i'm leaving it unsnipped.i think the ancient stuff is
mostly style and motifs, while themes (in the sense of ideas) are
modern. of course, even in moifs and style there's a heavy dose of the
nineteenth-century (this allows us to include the hobbits as well as
the ancient things). (and: i'm still thinkibg out loud.)
> > yes. indeed, the whole project of creating a secondary world is a
> > relatively modern one, i think.
>
> Well, both yes and no ;-)
>
> As a deliberate effort by a single man it is certainly a new thing,
> but Tolkien was consciously imitating the sub-creations of old myths
> and legends (though these were collaborative efforts -- systems of
> non-conscious sub-creation that evolved slowly over centuries rather
> than years or decades).
i wonder if that was subcreation in the same sense. i'm only raising a
query, though, because i don't really know much about how the myths
and legends arose, or how they were perceived by pre-modern
audiences.
> > and tolkien has an interesting narrative approach highlighting the
> > inconclusiveness and contradictoriness of the reception of
> > tradition from the "elder days."
>
> Are you thinking of his 'it is said that', 'the Elves tell that',
> and other devices? Or are you thinking of something else?
that's oart of it. he likes to present two or more different stories,
without telling us which is the true version. there's aso the notion
that the entire middle-earth corpus from the first three ages is what
survived a shipwreck (almost literally in the case of numenor), and
has to be pieced together. and his moving between omniscient and non-
omniscient (ugly word, sorry) narrator in LOTR and elsewhere, as when
he suggests two possible explanations for sam's being able to carry
frodo up mt. doom.
> > that said, there are elements of direct imitation of myths and
> > legends in tolkien, which can be redolent of sagas, etc. perhaps
> > that's what the writer had in mind.
>
> Yes, it was, thank you :)
*bows*
> > i'd add le guin, too.
>
> I've only read the four Earthsea books (and though I recognize that
> _Tehanu_ is a quite different kind of story from the first books, I
> don't understand the denouncements for political [presumably
> feminist] correctness that have been levied against it: I quite
> enjoyed it, though in a different way than the preceding books).
i've only read the 1st three. its it true that in TEHANU, ogion
(writing from memory; the old wizard who first tutors ged) is a
rapist? that sounds terribly out of character.
Christopher Henrich
<72e67729-63a3-4867...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Count Menelvagor <Menel...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
It is. You have to reset your mind to about age 10, but where's the harm
in that?
That Wikipedia should have a substantial article on Bunnicula (the
series) is also entertaining.
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Steve Hayes
For all it's faults, I think "Dracula" is still probably the only vampire book
worth reading, through I don't have a wide experience, since the only others I
have read are Stephen King's "'Salem's lot" (which was predictable and
derivative), and Ann Rice's "Interview with the vampire", which bored me out
of my skull, but I forced myself to read just so that I could say that I had
read one of her books.
Of course writers can make vampires to be anything they want to be, just as
Tolkien's elves are different from those of other authors. But I can accept
Tolkien's elves on his own terms as what they happen to be in his world, but
Rice's vampires just seemed "wrong" to me, and to all accounts the "Twilight"
ones are worse.
Julian Bradfield
...
> I found them enjoyable in parts, with some memorable bits. But his writing
> style is annoying, with repetitive cliches (Covenant clenching himself and
> chewing ground glass) and strange malapropisms that should have been caught by
> an editor (he uses "sojourning" in contexts where it is clear that the word he
> was looking for was "journeying", for example).
The trouble with Donaldson is that one never knows whether he's simply
misusing words out of ignorance, or deliberately digging out an obscure
usage. "Sojourning" did sometimes mean "journeying", about four centuries
ago.
Öjevind Lång
> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 1, 10:39 am, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
>>
>>> have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
>>> (Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.)
>>
>>Looks multi-literate to me. "Stephenie" is French (or maybe
>>Quebecois). I don't plan to read the novels to find out if she's
>>remotely literate otherwise.
French it isn't. The French version is Stéphanie. Morgan herself seems to be
a Mormon born in Connecticut to Anglo parents, for what it's worth.
> For all it's faults, I think "Dracula" is still probably the only vampire
> book
> worth reading, through I don't have a wide experience, since the only
> others I
> have read are Stephen King's "'Salem's lot" (which was predictable and
> derivative), and Ann Rice's "Interview with the vampire", which bored me
> out
> of my skull, but I forced myself to read just so that I could say that I
> had
> read one of her books.
I agree. "Dracula" is still genuinely frightening in places, especially the
moment when the madman invites the vampire into the asylum. I did enjoy the
TV series "Buffy and the Vampires" up to and including the episode where
Buffy and her friends had survived high school. The series should have
stopped there, because afterwards it went downhill rather swiftly. Seth
Green must have felt the same way, since he left the series pretty soon
afterwards.
I agree that one can do what one wishes with creatures of the imagination,
as long as what one does is good. "Twilight", from what little I know about
it, doesn't really fulfill the criteria.
Öjevind
JimboCat
> JimboCat wrote:
> > Recently I read or re-read ALL of Earthsea. The first three are still
> > very much the best, but the most recent stuff is not bad at all. I was
> > really struck by the similarities to Pullman's trilogy: in both, the
> > world is "broken" by attempts to cheat death, and "repaired" by
> > releasing and recycling the shades of the dead people. Must be
> > something in the air, I guess...
>
> /The Wind's Twelve Quarters/? i.e. "The Word of Unbinding" and "The
> Rule of Names"
Many times. My favorite short-story of all time is in that collection:
"The Stars Below". Awesome story.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"PEOPLE have rights. The moment that you decide some people are
exempt
from rights, then those aren't rights anymore." [Greg Goss]
Paul S. Person
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 1, 10:39 am, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
>>
>>> have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
>>> (Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.)
>>
>>Looks multi-literate to me. "Stephenie" is French (or maybe
>>Quebecois). I don't plan to read the novels to find out if she's
>>remotely literate otherwise.
>
>For all it's faults, I think "Dracula" is still probably the only vampire book
>worth reading, through I don't have a wide experience, since the only others I
>have read are Stephen King's "'Salem's lot" (which was predictable and
>derivative), and Ann Rice's "Interview with the vampire", which bored me out
>of my skull, but I forced myself to read just so that I could say that I had
>read one of her books.
Well, precisely: I started the execrable "Interview with the Vampire"
to see what it was like and finished it only so I could say that I did
and that it did /not/ get any better as it went along. Fortunately it
was a loan from someone else, so it didn't cost me anything but the
time required to read it and the time required to recover from it
after I had read it.
You might (or might not) enjoy "Fevre Dream" (George R.R. Martin) or
"Anno Dracula" (Kim Newman). The former takes an unorthodox view of
vampires and the latter is an exploration of what might have happened
had Stoker's novel ended in Dracula's triumph. (There are two sequels;
one I couldn't find when I looked for and so have never read; the
other, "The Bloody Red Baron" moves the action ahead into WWI and
might be worth a read if you really like "Anno Dracula", although I
found it less interesting, possibly because the ending did not suprise
me. The ending to "Anno Dracula" was completely unexpected by me, and
had nearly the same impact as Frodo's putting on the Ring at the
Cracks of Doom.) Others that I have read are the "international
sensation" "The Historian", which was a major disappointment, and "The
Society of S", which is all right, but really more a coming-of-age
story than a vampire novel.
Paul S. Person
<ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> skrev i meddelandet
>news:sbac56t6jrg9787rl...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 1, 10:39 am, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
>>>> (Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.)
>>>
>>>Looks multi-literate to me. "Stephenie" is French (or maybe
>>>Quebecois). I don't plan to read the novels to find out if she's
>>>remotely literate otherwise.
>
>French it isn't. The French version is Stéphanie. Morgan herself seems to be
>a Mormon born in Connecticut to Anglo parents, for what it's worth.
Which does not make making smart remarks based on how it is spelled
any less childish, or boorish, at least in this country.
In Sweden or Europe more generally, of course, such behavior may be
completely acceptable. It may well be that, in Sweden or Europe more
generally, people do not have the right to spell their own names as
they wish.
And, anyway, for all /we/ know, this could be a traditional spelling
unique to this family since 1066.
Troels Forchhammer
<994f32e1-609e-4953...@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Count Menelvagor <Menel...@mailandnews.com> spoke these staves:
> On Jul 30, 5:57 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I don't think that the
>> objection you raise, with which I fully agree, serves as an
>> argument against my opinion here.
>
> i didn't actually say that; the attributions are easy to confuse,
> and i've no very clear idea who, before ojevind (sorry to leve out
> the accent) said what.
Sorry -- my fault. I was addressing Öje and knew it, but it was
obviously not very smart to use 'you' in at least three different
senses in one message referring to Öje (to whom you, Count
Menelvagor, had responded), to the generic reader and to yourself,
Monsieur le Comte. (Now I'm wondering how it could have been handled
better . . ..)
I do agree that attributions can be confusing -- one problem, I
believe, is that it was actually you, Count Menelvagor, who put in
the attribution to myself. Therefore the attribution has one level of
quote indentation, while the text that I actually wrote has two
levels -- this is one reason why I always try to add a line beneath
each attribution with the level appropriate to the attribution just
above (somehow I feel that this only made matters worse -- I hope
it's clear enough what I mean when one looks at the attributions in
my posts ;-)
> but i daresay you're right, as saying "tolkien was a modern writer"
> doesn't imply "tolkien isn't redolent of sagas."
Precisely.
<it's getting late, so answering the remainder will be for another
day . . .>
--
Troels Forchhammer <troelsfo(a)googlewave.com>
Valid e-mail is <troelsfo(a)gmail.com>
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
Taking fun
as simply fun
and earnestness
in earnest
shows how thouroughly
thou none
of the two
discernest.
- Piet Hein, /The Eternal Twins/
derek
Why would you even assume ignorance? When someone uses words that
_don't_ mean what they say, assume ignorance. This is perhaps
pretentious, but there's no sign of ignorance of language in any of
his books.
derek
> "Steve Hayes" <hayes...@telkomsa.net> skrev i meddelandetnews:sbac56t6jrg9787rl...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca>
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Aug 1, 10:39 am, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
>
> >>> have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
> >>> (Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.)
>
> >>Looks multi-literate to me. "Stephenie" is French (or maybe
> >>Quebecois). I don't plan to read the novels to find out if she's
> >>remotely literate otherwise.
>
> French it isn't. The French version is Stéphanie.
Says you. French it clearly is. Not everybody has to spell their
names the same way, you know. Lots of English people don't know how
to spell my name correctly either. I try not to hold it against them.
It seems surprisingly common in New England, which suggests to me that
it probably is principally a Quebecois variant (and if that makes no
sense to you, you have no idea of the ethnic makeup of New England).
> Morgan herself seems to be
> a Mormon born in Connecticut to Anglo parents, for what it's worth.
>
Who's Morgan?
Baron M. Bogusz
wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:34:09 +0200, Öjevind Lång
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Steve Hayes" <hayes...@telkomsa.net> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:sbac56t6jrg9787rl...@4ax.com...
>
> >> On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Aug 1, 10:39 am, Öjevind Lång <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
> >>>> (Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.)
>
> >>>Looks multi-literate to me. "Stephenie" is French (or maybe
> >>>Quebecois). I don't plan to read the novels to find out if she's
> >>>remotely literate otherwise.
>
> >French it isn't. The French version is Stéphanie. Morgan herself seems to be
> >a Mormon born in Connecticut to Anglo parents, for what it's worth.
>
> Which does not make making smart remarks based on how it is spelled
> any less childish, or boorish, at least in this country.
>
> In Sweden or Europe more generally, of course, such behavior may be
> completely acceptable. It may well be that, in Sweden or Europe more
> generally, people do not have the right to spell their own names as
> they wish.
Őne of my misztresszes is named Stephenie, and she isz very űpset when
she readsz this thread. She veeps, she faintsz, she tears her hair,
she aszksz vhy thesze Vikingsz are making fűn őf her name.
If Mr. Láng isz a gentlemán, he vill give me szatiszfaktiőn!
Paul S. Person
wrote:
>On Aug 2, 8:34 am, Öjevind Lĺng <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
>> "Steve Hayes" <hayes...@telkomsa.net> skrev i meddelandetnews:sbac56t6jrg9787rl...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 11:56:25 -0700 (PDT), derek <de...@pointerstop.ca>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>On Aug 1, 10:39 am, Öjevind Lĺng <ojevind.l...@bredband.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>> have been an inspiration to the woman who wrote the Twilight books.
>> >>> (Stephenie Meyer - even her name is illiterate.)
>>
>> >>Looks multi-literate to me. "Stephenie" is French (or maybe
>> >>Quebecois). I don't plan to read the novels to find out if she's
>> >>remotely literate otherwise.
>>
>> French it isn't. The French version is Stéphanie.
>
>Says you. French it clearly is. Not everybody has to spell their
>names the same way, you know. Lots of English people don't know how
>to spell my name correctly either. I try not to hold it against them.
It would appear that Ojevind does /not/ know that. Perhaps people
aren't free to spell their names however they wish in Sweden.
One pictures a massive "Book of Allowed Names in Their One and Only
Proper Spelling" from which each child's names must be chosen when the
birth certificate is filled out and/or at the child's christening or
any other time a name is given, using the spelling given, no
exceptions or variations allowed, then or at any other time in that
person's life.
Öjevind Lång
news:ae0c0fc2-fd2b-4286...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 1:33 pm, Paul S. Person <psper...@ix.netscom.com.invalid>
> wrote:
[snip]
>> >French it isn't. The French version is Stéphanie. Morgan herself seems
>> >to be
>> >a Mormon born in Connecticut to Anglo parents, for what it's worth.
>>
>> Which does not make making smart remarks based on how it is spelled
>> any less childish, or boorish, at least in this country.
>>
>> In Sweden or Europe more generally, of course, such behavior may be
>> completely acceptable. It may well be that, in Sweden or Europe more
>> generally, people do not have the right to spell their own names as
>> they wish.
>
> Őne of my misztresszes is named Stephenie, and she isz very űpset when
> she readsz this thread. She veeps, she faintsz, she tears her hair,
> she aszksz vhy thesze Vikingsz are making fűn őf her name.
>
> If Mr. Láng isz a gentlemán, he vill give me szatiszfaktiőn!
I will give you satixfaction, if you, like Mr Prorson, are an admirrer of
the "Twilight" bookesz and have been arnoyed by my coments on her parents'
illiteraracy. Far be it from me to incentivize opponents to file false
ethics charges and expensive, wasteful, frivolous lawsuits against me; I
firmly refudiate such claims.
Öjevind
Tamf Moo
> French it isn't. The French version is Stéphanie. Morgan herself seems
> to be a Mormon born in Connecticut to Anglo parents, for what it's worth.
in case you're all really curious, she's named after her father,
Stephen.[1] now i'm wondering how her name is pronounced -- Steevenee?
in general, i find (some) americans are very creative with names,
tweaking and twisting them to their own nefarious needs. a bit like
Tolkien. in the Morgans' case, perhaps not so much.
tamf
[1] the amount of time i spent tracking down a source for that!
http://www.vogue.com/feature/2009_March_Stephenie_Meyer/
Kristian Damm Jensen
> Perhaps people
> aren't free to spell their names however they wish in Sweden.
Can't speak for Sweden, bu in Denmark you can't. When naming a child you
have to adhere to an official list of approved names. If you want a name
not on the list, you can seek for it to be added to the list. Usually that
is no big deal - the purpose is mainly to protect the child from the
foolishness of it's parents.
Both Bilbo, Pip and Frodo are on the list, so are Rose and Elanor, as are
Stefani, Stefania, Stefanie, Steffani, Steffanie, Steffannie, Steffenie,
Stephani, Stephania, Stephanie and Stephenie.
But a couple of years ago we had a row, when someone wanted to name their
child Christophpher. Not Chriistofer, Christof, Christoff, Christoffer,
Christofher, Christoph, Christophe, Christopher, Kristof, Kristófer,
Kristofer, Kristoffer, Kristoffur, Kristoofer, or Kristopher, but
Christophpher.
> One pictures a massive "Book of Allowed Names in Their One and Only
> Proper Spelling" from which each child's names must be chosen when the
> birth certificate is filled out and/or at the child's christening or
> any other time a name is given, using the spelling given, no
> exceptions or variations allowed, then or at any other time in that
> person's life.
Yup. Except that it is not engraved in stone, but added to frequently. I
expect the influx of refugee gives a lot of new names to the list. And in
the 70'ties there was a fad of naming girls after spice: Chili, Paprika,
Merian and Timian are approved. (And I just noticed: Merry is approved as a
girls name, but not for boys.)
--
Venlig hilsen/Best regards
Kristian Damm Jensen
Some value certainty above truth. -- Terry Pratchett: "Small Gods",
Vorbis speaking
Steve Morrison
It is rather odd that the masculine form of the name changed long
ago from "Stephan" to "Stephen" while the feminine form is nearly
always still spelled with an "a". I spell my name S-t-e-p-h-e-n,
and the only example of a "Stephan" I can think of offhand is the
fantasy author Stephan Grundy. The name BTW comes from the Greek
for "crown".
Count Menelvagor
wrote:
> In message
> <994f32e1-609e-4953-82d6-2fc053719...@q16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> Count Menelvagor <Menelva...@mailandnews.com> spoke these staves:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 5:57 pm, Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I don't think that the
> >> objection you raise, with which I fully agree, serves as an
> >> argument against my opinion here.
>
> > i didn't actually say that; the attributions are easy to confuse,
> > and i've no very clear idea who, before ojevind (sorry to leve out
> > the accent) said what.
>
> Sorry -- my fault. I was addressing Öje and knew it, but it was
> obviously not very smart to use 'you' in at least three different
> senses in one message referring to Öje (to whom you, Count
> Menelvagor, had responded), to the generic reader and to yourself,
> Monsieur le Comte. (Now I'm wondering how it could have been handled
> better . . ..)
no problem; just clarifying.
> I do agree that attributions can be confusing -- one problem, I
> believe, is that it was actually you, Count Menelvagor, who put in
> the attribution to myself. Therefore the attribution has one level of
> quote indentation, while the text that I actually wrote has two
> levels -- this is one reason why I always try to add a line beneath
> each attribution with the level appropriate to the attribution just
> above (somehow I feel that this only made matters worse -- I hope
> it's clear enough what I mean when one looks at the attributions in
> my posts ;-)
did i? i remember accidentally deleting one and then putting it back,
but didn't think it was in this group. what planet am i on?
> > but i daresay you're right, as saying "tolkien was a modern writer"
> > doesn't imply "tolkien isn't redolent of sagas."
>
> Precisely.
>
> <it's getting late, so answering the remainder will be for another
> day . . .>
no rush; i'm not fussy.
Öjevind Lång
[snip]
> It is rather odd that the masculine form of the name changed long
> ago from "Stephan" to "Stephen" while the feminine form is nearly
> always still spelled with an "a". I spell my name S-t-e-p-h-e-n,
> and the only example of a "Stephan" I can think of offhand is the
> fantasy author Stephan Grundy. The name BTW comes from the Greek
> for "crown".
However, in Sweden and denmark, Stefan is the normal spelkling of the name.
One also finds Staffan and, very occasionally, Steffen, which I thnk is
originally Low German.
In Sweden, you can name your child just about anything, even with the
silliest spelling. The people who register names *can* object if they find
the name positively hurtful to the child - like Stupid or Mussolina, for
example. (Both examples are genuine.)
Öjevind
Raven
meddelelsen news:4c597e37$0$56770$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> Some value certainty above truth. -- Terry Pratchett: "Small Gods",
> Vorbis speaking
Actually Vorbis didn't say that. I didn't say he did. He behaved that
way, so far as I can judge.
Cuervo.
Steve Morrison
(snip)
> In Sweden, you can name your child just about anything, even with the
> silliest spelling. The people who register names *can* object if they
> find the name positively hurtful to the child - like Stupid or
> Mussolina, for example. (Both examples are genuine.)
Just take a look at what happened here--
Paul S. Person
So, apparently, it is considered proper behavior, in Sweden, to
ridicule people because of how they choose to spell their own name --
calling someone "illiterate" because they spell it "Stephenie", for
example.
I don't have to be a fan of Twilight (which I am not), or even to have
read the books or seen the film (which I have not done) to recognize
bad manners when I see them. Nor do I have to be a fan to point out
bad manners when I see them. It is amazing how often people afflicted
with bad manners assume that only fans of whatever they are ridiculing
will respond. It is as if they believed that only their victims had
the /right/ to respond. In point of fact, everyone has not only the
right but the duty respond to bad behavior whether they are personally
involved or not.
But what else can be expected from someone who, on r.a.b.t., within
the last few months, has both equated "black skin" with "ape"
(something usually seen only in a racist context) and bemoaned the
failure of Wikipedia to support one of the "proofs" of that Israel is
a Crusader state (a "proof" normally seen on in an anti-Semitic
context)? How can someone who plays so close to the fire expect to
forever avoid the consequnces?
Morgoth's Curse
I am reminded of one of Turin's rare demonstrations of wisdom:
"Silence, if fair words stick in your throat, would serve all our ends
better."
It may seem strange in consideration of my own history of
resurrecting threads, but I deem it unnecessary to resurrect that
specific argument. No one benefits and it can only inspire more
animosity. Surely you do not believe that your fellow residents are
too dumb to draw their own conclusions about the behavior of any
specific individual? I suggest that you take the high road, Mr.
Person, and ultimately save yourself and others some trouble.
Morgoth's Curse
Dirk Thierbach
> <ojevin...@bredband.net> wrote:
> I don't have to be a fan of Twilight (which I am not), or even to have
> read the books or seen the film (which I have not done) to recognize
> bad manners when I see them.
I can also recognize bad manners when I see them, and ...
> But what else can be expected from someone who, on r.a.b.t., within
> the last few months, has both equated "black skin" with "ape"
> (something usually seen only in a racist context) and bemoaned the
> failure of Wikipedia to support one of the "proofs" of that Israel is
> a Crusader state (a "proof" normally seen on in an anti-Semitic
> context)? How can someone who plays so close to the fire expect to
> forever avoid the consequnces?
... these are extremely bad manners. Öjevind may have gone to far
occasionally, and I ignore all this politics-stuff anyway because it's
extremely off-topic. Nevertheless, he's entitled to his opinion, and hasn't
expressed any of it in such a rude way.
Personal attacks like these, OTOH, are totally uncalled for. If you
don't like his opinion, either ignore it, or argue against it in a
courteous way.
Welcome to my killfile for one month. EOT on this subject.
- Dirk
Öjevind Lång
So young Adolf Hitler Campbell has been taken away from his parents,
together with his sisters Joycelynn Aryan Nation and Honszlynn Hinler
Jeannie? I don't suppose it was for political reasons; a couple who give
their children names like that would probably have really serious problems.
However, I completely sympathize with the supermarket which refused to make
a birthday cake with "Adolf Hitler" on it.
Öjevind
Baron M. Bogusz
> "Baron M. Bogusz" <bog...@fats.teunc.org> skrev i meddelandetnews:ae0c0fc2-fd2b-4286...@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Yőu alsző szaid something szarkastic aboűt szomeone with 1/17th
Hunarian deszcent őn 12 Jűne, 1995.
(And they szay you are tó be műrdering Tőlkien, but I think they
exaggyerating.)