LotR and the BBC "Big Read"
Matt Thrower
Many of you probaby don't know that UK TV recently held a poll to
discover the best 100 books ever, voted for by the public. They picked
the top 21 off the list and are currently have a "re-vote" on those
alone to discover the best book of all. LotR was, of course, in that
top 21.
My partner, not unreasonably given the volumes of HoME on my
bookshelf, presumed that I'd be voting for LotR. But I thought about
it and decided no, I couldn't really vote it as the greatest book
ever. I'm not sure what I would give that honour to but from the list
of 21, it'd have to be Ninteen Eighty Four or To Kill a Mockingbird.
If I had to pick a Tolkien book it'd probably be the Silmarillion
anyway. And then of course, I had to think why that'd be, hence this
post.
There's obviously a lot to admire in LotR otherwise I wouldn't bother
being here making this post. Tolkien achieved three things with LotR,
two of which are (I suspect) pretty unique in literature. First, he
set a pattern for a genera which defined fantasy literature for
several decades and which is still (to a lesser extent) being followed
today. Other authors have done this. Second he created something which
reads and feels like genuine mythology. This is because of his
unrivalled understanding of the mythic archetypes that he re-creates
so brilliantly in LotR. Thirdly he is the only fantasy/sci-fi author
I've ever come across to have an (almost) entirely consistant and
fulfilling universe in which to set his stories. This is something
which hasn't even been re-created by entire teams of designers working
on RPG products.
So then, why can't I recommend it for the "big read"? There are some
commonly pointed flaws of course: some people think parts of it are
boring, but I always find the themes of Frodo's struggle with the
ring, and Sam/Frodo/Gollums evolving relationship more than enough to
keep me going through these supposedly dull bits. Some people say all
his major female characters are too masculine, which is true but
hardly enough it itself to damn a book. So what is it? Well, simply
put, I believe that great literature should teach the reader something
about life, the human condition, themselves. And on this, LotR fails.
It's allegroical themes are thinly veiled, not deeply explored and
hardly original. For that alone, I'd have to give my vote to another
book.
Alison
Thrower) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Many of you probaby don't know that UK TV recently held a poll to
>discover the best 100 books ever, voted for by the public. They picked
>the top 21 off the list and are currently have a "re-vote" on those
>alone to discover the best book of all. LotR was, of course, in that
>top 21.
>
>My partner, not unreasonably given the volumes of HoME on my
>bookshelf, presumed that I'd be voting for LotR. But I thought about
>it and decided no, I couldn't really vote it as the greatest book
>ever.
The vote is not for "the greatest book ever". It's for the
"best-loved" book. Does that change your vote? 1984 is a great book,
but is it really the book you love the most?
My best-loved isn't LotR either, by the way, it's Pride and Prejudice.
--
Alison
AC
>
> So then, why can't I recommend it for the "big read"? There are some
> commonly pointed flaws of course: some people think parts of it are
> boring, but I always find the themes of Frodo's struggle with the
> ring, and Sam/Frodo/Gollums evolving relationship more than enough to
> keep me going through these supposedly dull bits. Some people say all
> his major female characters are too masculine, which is true but
> hardly enough it itself to damn a book. So what is it? Well, simply
> put, I believe that great literature should teach the reader something
> about life, the human condition, themselves. And on this, LotR fails.
> It's allegroical themes are thinly veiled, not deeply explored and
> hardly original. For that alone, I'd have to give my vote to another
> book.
Let's see. Friendship. Perserverence. Faith. All messages from LotR. As
to the "allegorical themes", have you ever pondered that perhaps it is what
you are reading into it, and not necessarily any content in the book.
But this sounds alot like trollbait I've read here before. Let me ask you.
Do you think Homer has any literary value?
--
Aaron Clausen
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Matt Thrower
>My partner, not unreasonably given the volumes of HoME on my
>bookshelf, presumed that I'd be voting for LotR. But I thought about
>it and decided no, I couldn't really vote it as the greatest book
>ever. I'm not sure what I would give that honour to but from the list
>of 21, it'd have to be Ninteen Eighty Four or To Kill a Mockingbird.
>If I had to pick a Tolkien book it'd probably be the Silmarillion
>anyway.
Good for you, Matt. You echo my sentiments.
LotR is very very good (for some of the reasons you cite), but "best
book ever"? I think not.
And if it were just on "best loved", I would vote (with you) for
/Silm/ before LotR. But much as I like it, I don't think even /Silm/
is my favorite book.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/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/tech/faqget.htm
Chelsea Christenson
> put, I believe that great literature should teach the reader something
> about life, the human condition, themselves. And on this, LotR fails.
> It's allegroical themes are thinly veiled, not deeply explored and
> hardly original.
The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't _demand_
analysis. Yes, you can analyze it if you want, and it stands the
exercise pretty well, but you can also just have a nice, satisfying read
and be done with it.
Bob F.
news:MPG.19fe03d46...@news.odyssey.net:
> In article <60e5979a.03102...@posting.google.com> in
>
> Good for you, Matt. You echo my sentiments.
>
> LotR is very very good (for some of the reasons you cite), but "best
> book ever"? I think not.
>
> And if it were just on "best loved", I would vote (with you) for
> /Silm/ before LotR. But much as I like it, I don't think even /Silm/
> is my favorite book.
>
Not that you care, but I find myself in the unusual position of actually
agreeing with you.
Bob
the softrat
You mean: Real Life is Hard and Ugly so Real Literature should be Hard
and Ugly too?
Pooey!
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Not the brightest crayon in the box, now, are we?
AC
the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:59:10 -0400, Chelsea Christenson
><Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Matt Thrower wrote:
>>
>>> put, I believe that great literature should teach the reader something
>>> about life, the human condition, themselves. And on this, LotR fails.
>>> It's allegroical themes are thinly veiled, not deeply explored and
>>> hardly original.
>>
>>The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't _demand_
>>analysis. Yes, you can analyze it if you want, and it stands the
>>exercise pretty well, but you can also just have a nice, satisfying read
>>and be done with it.
>
> You mean: Real Life is Hard and Ugly so Real Literature should be Hard
> and Ugly too?
>
> Pooey!
Indeed. If you aren't weeping or completely confused by the end of the
book, it can't be great literature. Come on, Softie, this is what
Literature with a capital "L" is. If it's the least bit enjoyable, or
doesn't beat you over the head with heady morals and deep themes, then it's
just mass-consumption tripe. That's why I advocate removing Homer's Illiad
and the Gilgamesh epic from school and university libraries. No more silly
stories about Greek and Sumerian gods. That drivel just doesn't make you
think the way some long-winded Margaret Atwood novel does.
--
Aaron Clausen
Bob F.
news:slrnbp8n9l...@clausen.alberni.net:
>
> Indeed. If you aren't weeping or completely confused by the end of
> the book, it can't be great literature. Come on, Softie, this is what
> Literature with a capital "L" is. If it's the least bit enjoyable, or
> doesn't beat you over the head with heady morals and deep themes, then
> it's just mass-consumption tripe. That's why I advocate removing
> Homer's Illiad and the Gilgamesh epic from school and university
> libraries. No more silly stories about Greek and Sumerian gods. That
> drivel just doesn't make you think the way some long-winded Margaret
> Atwood novel does.
>
Of course your blanket dismissal of capital "L" literature has about as
much merit as any blanket dismissal of Tolkien. This kind of us versus
them thing always baffles me. Why dismiss someone for attempting to tackle
"heady" moral themes? Is it because someone else slighted Tolkien as light
weight for what we consider tale well told? I applaud anyone who attempts
to take on big themes, or try stylistic acts of magic; but of course I
reserve the right to point out when they fail.
the softrat
Yeah! And pull Shakespeare too. After all he's DIRTY! And Goethe and
Dante and ...
(Are Russian novels as difficult in Russian as they are in
translation?)
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded.
Yuk Tang
news:Xns941AAF0DD57Dli...@130.133.1.4:
Reminds me of Flame's blanket dismissal of Japanese media, which
Steuard countered with the example of the Nausicaa manga. Which
incidentally was created with the expressed purpose of being difficult
to read.
For quite a lot of people, LotR's archaic style makes for difficult
reading. And then there's the fairly conservative worldview which even
I, an actual Tolkien fan, find hard to swallow.
And let's not forget that, without the stylistic experimentations of
earlier writers, LotR would not be written in the form that we see. I
wonder if AC advocates keeping the Iliad (itself a collection of
improvised verse), but rejecting the Aeneid (newfangled crap that
deliberately deviates from proper storytelling, not least by using a
different language).
--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com
Chelsea Christenson
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:59:10 -0400, Chelsea Christenson
> <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't _demand_
>>analysis. Yes, you can analyze it if you want, and it stands the
>>exercise pretty well, but you can also just have a nice, satisfying read
>>and be done with it.
>
>
> You mean: Real Life is Hard and Ugly so Real Literature should be Hard
> and Ugly too?
No. I mean "Real Literature" should make you think -- about what you
value, what you believe, what you hope for, what you fear. That is the
most that literature (or any art form) can aspire to.
> Pooey!
Got left with a bit of straw man in your mouth, I see.
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
depends what you mean by -literature-
alot of whats produced nowadays under that label
is incestuous work produced and critiqued by academics
for the benefit of academics to prove their needs for grants chairs
amd the adulation of the hoi polloi
if by literature you mean books that elict an emotional response
you would have to consider romance novels in that
as for art
there are two reasons to do art
one is to communicate some idea
in which case it the artist who is initiating the communication
and must take responsibility for the protocols
rather than sneering at people they cannot communicate with
second and far more prevalent reason
is the artist wants to make a concrete expression of something from within
for the artists own satisdfaction
regardless of what others think
(though a little lucre for the paint and canvas would be nice)
AC
Where did I dismiss other works? I am merely stating that it is a ludicrous
form of literary snobbery which will propel Dickens to the top, but consider
Tolkien second-rate escapist crap. I think both authors have their merits.
I also think that there are a lot of members of the literary criticism
community who have their knives out for anything they deem as too popular.
Frankly, I couldn't care less what they think. I think LotR, warts and all,
is great literature, and I will defend it thusly.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
> the softrat wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:59:10 -0400, Chelsea Christenson
>> <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't _demand_
>>>analysis. Yes, you can analyze it if you want, and it stands the
>>>exercise pretty well, but you can also just have a nice, satisfying read
>>>and be done with it.
>>
>>
>> You mean: Real Life is Hard and Ugly so Real Literature should be Hard
>> and Ugly too?
>
> No. I mean "Real Literature" should make you think -- about what you
> value, what you believe, what you hope for, what you fear. That is the
> most that literature (or any art form) can aspire to.
LotR did that for me. But perhaps I'm just a low class Joe with mongrel
tastes and too little wit to perceive that lofty pinnacle called "Real
Literature". I'll leave the great intellects like yourself to decide who
gets to wear the precious "Real Literature" badge.
>
>> Pooey!
>
> Got left with a bit of straw man in your mouth, I see.
I think he had an overdose of arrogance.
--
Aaron Clausen
ste...@nomail.com
: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:41:06 -0400,
: Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
:>
:> No. I mean "Real Literature" should make you think -- about what you
:> most that literature (or any art form) can aspire to.
: LotR did that for me. But perhaps I'm just a low class Joe with mongrel
: tastes and too little wit to perceive that lofty pinnacle called "Real
: Literature". I'll leave the great intellects like yourself to decide who
: gets to wear the precious "Real Literature" badge.
:>
:>> Pooey!
:>
:> Got left with a bit of straw man in your mouth, I see.
: I think he had an overdose of arrogance.
: --
: Aaron Clausen
What is arrogant about saying that LotR does not demand analysis?
Are others not entitled to an opinion? I have not seen anyone
other than yourself dismiss the opinions of others in this thread.
Lots of people do not think LotR is great literature, and many
of them have perfectly valid reasons for their opinion. You
do not have to agree, but your sarcastic dismissal of their
opinions is a poor response.
Stephen
David Joslin
"coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-20...@c120.ppp.tsoft.com...
<snip>
> as for art
> there are two reasons to do art
>
> one is to communicate some idea
> in which case it the artist who is initiating the communication
> and must take responsibility for the protocols
> rather than sneering at people they cannot communicate with
>
> second and far more prevalent reason
> is the artist wants to make a concrete expression of something from within
> for the artists own satisdfaction
> regardless of what others think
> (though a little lucre for the paint and canvas would be nice)
"Only a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
-Dr. Johnson
Bob F.
> On 21 Oct 2003 00:13:01 GMT,
> Bob F. <littlem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in
> > news:slrnbp8n9l...@clausen.alberni.net:
> >
> >>
> >> Indeed. If you aren't weeping or completely confused by the end of
> >> the book, it can't be great literature. Come on, Softie, this is what
> >> Literature with a capital "L" is. If it's the least bit enjoyable, or
> >> doesn't beat you over the head with heady morals and deep themes, then
> >> it's just mass-consumption tripe. That's why I advocate removing
> >> Homer's Illiad and the Gilgamesh epic from school and university
> >> libraries. No more silly stories about Greek and Sumerian gods. That
> >> drivel just doesn't make you think the way some long-winded Margaret
> >> Atwood novel does.
> >>
>
> form of literary snobbery which will propel Dickens to the top, but consider
> Tolkien second-rate escapist crap. I think both authors have their merits.
> I also think that there are a lot of members of the literary criticism
> community who have their knives out for anything they deem as too popular.
> Frankly, I couldn't care less what they think. I think LotR, warts and all,
> is great literature, and I will defend it thusly.
hmmmm, so when you write "Literature with a capital "L"" you are
embracing books that you can't appreciate? Sorry, I thought you were
dismissing a lot of books that some people consider worthy of their
time. I guess you were just focusing on Atwood.
Bob
Matt Thrower
> On 20 Oct 2003 01:16:58 -0700,
> Matt Thrower <matthew...@cramersystems.com> wrote:
> >
> > So then, why can't I recommend it for the "big read"? There are some
> > commonly pointed flaws of course: some people think parts of it are
> > boring, but I always find the themes of Frodo's struggle with the
> > ring, and Sam/Frodo/Gollums evolving relationship more than enough to
> > keep me going through these supposedly dull bits. Some people say all
> > his major female characters are too masculine, which is true but
> > hardly enough it itself to damn a book. So what is it? Well, simply
> > put, I believe that great literature should teach the reader something
> > about life, the human condition, themselves. And on this, LotR fails.
> > It's allegroical themes are thinly veiled, not deeply explored and
> > hardly original. For that alone, I'd have to give my vote to another
> > book.
>
> Let's see. Friendship. Perserverence. Faith. All messages from LotR. As
> to the "allegorical themes", have you ever pondered that perhaps it is what
> you are reading into it, and not necessarily any content in the book.
You're right about the "allegorical themes" especially since the
author denied there weren't any! I find it difficult to believe that
at the very least though, it subconciously reflects some of his
opinions and prejudices. However, that's my opinion. And while you're
right about there being messages in the book, they tend to be the
sorts of things that we take for granted in life, rather than the true
complexities that we encounter in the world.
> But this sounds alot like trollbait I've read here before. Let me ask you.
> Do you think Homer has any literary value?
It's not trollbait: I was slightly shocked to discover that when I
actually had to think about the question LotR didn't come out on top.
I wanted to know how other people felt. It doesn't detract from my
opinion of LotR as a great book, or as great literature. As I said
originally I think it (or at least, Tolkiens univese) is unique which
*isn't* something you could say about most "great" books. I've never
read Homer. I've read Chaucer, Beowulf and the Táin Bó Cúalnge though
and no, I'd not say any of that was great literature: it's interesting
primarily for it's historical and cultural value.
Stuart Chapman
> Where did I dismiss other works? I am merely stating that it is a
ludicrous
> form of literary snobbery which will propel Dickens to the top, but
consider
> Tolkien second-rate escapist crap. I think both authors have their
merits.
> I also think that there are a lot of members of the literary criticism
> community who have their knives out for anything they deem as too popular.
> Frankly, I couldn't care less what they think. I think LotR, warts and
all,
> is great literature, and I will defend it thusly.
>
> --
> Aaron Clausen
>
> tao...@alberni.net
My copy of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' which I studied at school, had emblazoned
across the top, "more than 10 000 000" copies sold......
BTW, I would have to agree with the original post. Tolkien's works are
probably my best _loved_ books, but by no means do I think they are the best
works of literature. I agree with Thrower in thinking that (among others)
Mockingbird & 1984 are better works of literature than Tolkiens.
Stupot
Georg Schönegger
>
> BTW, I would have to agree with the original post. Tolkien's works are
> probably my best _loved_ books, but by no means do I think they are the best
> works of literature. I agree with Thrower in thinking that (among others)
> Mockingbird & 1984 are better works of literature than Tolkiens.
>
> Stupot
same here. lotr is the book i've read most often - in my teens at least
once every year - but, considered as a work of literature: there are of
course deeper / funnier / more provoking / sadder / ... books.
the problem seems to be how we define a 'good' or a 'best' book. the
funniest? the one which teaches us most about humanity? the one that
provokes the most tears? obviously, such choices are deeply subjective.
if i define 'best' by 'most beloved', then lotr would make the top ten
of my list.
one point seems important, though: technique. a good writer, imho, is
also interested in the creative use of language itself, same as a
painter should be interested in colours / brushes etc.. while tolkien's
style serves its purpose, he is by no means a poet. in fact, the poems
... never mind ;)
to be fair, tolkien never intended to go for style, he rather tried to
imitate some older forms of prose at which he succeeded. to name a
completely different example: 'walden' is without doubt a great book,
deep and funny and whatever, but we can hardly call it great literature.
(ducks)
georg
Dirk Thierbach
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:41:06 -0400,
> Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> the softrat wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:59:10 -0400, Chelsea Christenson
>>> <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't
>>>> _demand_ analysis. Yes, you can analyze it if you want, and it
>>>> stands the exercise pretty well, but you can also just have a
>>>> nice, satisfying read and be done with it.
IMHO, I think it's much harder to write a book that can offer you
both a nice, satisfying read *and* stands up to analysis. It's a lot
easier to just get one of those two.
>> No. I mean "Real Literature" should make you think -- about what you
>> value, what you believe, what you hope for, what you fear. That is the
>> most that literature (or any art form) can aspire to.
> LotR did that for me.
For me, too. It took more than ten years, however, and the help of
some other books, before I really started to look "beneath the
surface" (but then, I read LotR first when I was a child). I have
learned a lot about phonetics, language, a somewhat archaic english
style (very interesting for a non-native speaker who is usually not
exposed to it), philology, anglo-saxon, and catholic theology and
ethics; and I cannot think of any other book that has had as much
influence on me in this respect.
I don't think the LotR is the "best book" there is, however. One the
one hand, there is probably no such thing as a "best book"; even a
"top 100 in chronological oder" is a very difficult thing (though the
BBC list contains many books where I'd agree that they belong
there). On the other hand, the LotR certainly has some flaws.
BTW, it might be interesting do actually *do* an analysis of LotR,
instead of just talking about it :-) There are a lot of things that
are easy to miss, and I am still not sure I have seen all there is to
see. The "Letters" and Shipey's "The Road to Middleearth" help a lot,
however, though I don't agree with everything they say.
>> Got left with a bit of straw man in your mouth, I see.
> I think he had an overdose of arrogance.
I'd humbly suggest to tone down the emotional part a bit :-) I know
that this is difficult for a topic such a the "merits of literature",
but it really helps to keep the discussion a discussion, and not a
flamewar.
- Dirk
Kristian Damm Jensen
news:60e5979a.03102...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> So then, why can't I recommend it for the "big read"? There are some
> commonly pointed flaws of course: some people think parts of it are
> boring,
... but they can't always agree on which parts this is.
<snip>
> Well, simply
> put, I believe that great literature should teach the reader something
> about life, the human condition, themselves. And on this, LotR fails.
> It's allegroical themes are thinly veiled,
He said the "A"-word ! Burn him. Poke him with soft cushions! Get ... the
comfy chair !!
> not deeply explored and
> hardly original. For that alone, I'd have to give my vote to another
> book.
Jokes apart, I agree with you. LOTR is not the best book ever written.
But I keep asking myself : What are the evaluation parameters?
Which book would I bring to an uninhabited island? LOTR, no doubt.
Which book would I give to someone interested in stories, but not very
widely read? LOTR, probably. So why do I still think that "A farewell to
Arms", e.g., is a better book?
If I like LOTR more, is it not the better book?
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
damm (at) ofir (dot) dk
DK
confuse "best" and "best-loved", the ensuing arguments whilst
entertaining, are utterly pointless. Tolkien is my best-loved author
and as such LOTR will be getting my vote. This doesn't mean I think
it's the best book ever written (how would I know ? I have only read
about 400 books in my life!). Another example - my Ford Focus is
obviously "better" then my first mini 850cc but the mini still stands
as the favourite.
ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<bn27vn$134c$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
Troels Forchhammer
Matt Thrower <matthew...@cramersystems.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> You're right about the "allegorical themes" especially since the
> author denied there weren't any! I find it difficult to believe that
> at the very least though, it subconciously reflects some of his
> opinions and prejudices. However, that's my opinion.
We should probably be cautious at how we apply that comment from Tolkien.
He meant something very specific when he said that LotR wasn't
allegorical, and it is possible to use the word differently in such a
way that LotR does become allegorical.
What Tolkien spoke about was conscious and intended allegory on the part
of the author,
"I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but
the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in
the purposed domination of the author."
I think this also applies to his disliking "allegory in all its
manifestations" - that it still refers to allegory being purposed by the
author.
He does in letter #213 acknowledge the connection between the author's
life and his works when he writes,
" I do not like giving 'facts' about myself other than 'dry'
ones (which anyway are quite as relevant to my books as any
other more Juicy details). Not simply for personal reasons;
but also because I object to the contemporary trend in
criticism, with its excessive interest in the details of the
lives of authors and artists. They only distract attention
from an author's works (if the works are in fact worthy of
attention), and end, as one now often sees, in becoming the
main interest. But only one's guardian Angel, or indeed God
Himself, could unravel the real relationship between personal
facts and an author's works. Not the author himself (though he
knows more than any investigator), and certainly not so-called
'psychologists'. "
And even then we also know that he knew that LotR reflected his Christian
views. "Or more important, I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my
stories)," he also writes in letter #213.
It is my belief that Tolkien's vehemence against allegory should be seen
as a rejection that his stories were allegories of any other story -
whether historical (as e.g. WWII), biblical (like Lewis' Narnia stories),
or fictional.
He is less clear about messages. He rejects that there should be any, but
recognises the Christian basis and also various themes (death and
immortality, ennoblement etc.), but I don't think that moral and
philosophical themes - even when conscious - should be called allegorical.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
ste...@nomail.com
: BTW, it might be interesting do actually *do* an analysis of LotR,
: instead of just talking about it :-) There are a lot of things that
: are easy to miss, and I am still not sure I have seen all there is to
: see. The "Letters" and Shipey's "The Road to Middleearth" help a lot,
: however, though I don't agree with everything they say.
By and large, this group does not seem to be interested in analysis.
People's interest in the book seems to be more "historical" than
literary. They want to know what happened, or more specifically,
what Tolkien thought happened.
Stephen
AC
Speaking Clock <ext...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Georg Schönegger wrote:
>> lotr is the book i've read most often - in my teens at
>> least
>> once every year
>
> it "once a year" or "n times a year", but LOADS of people say it about
> LOTR. Donald Swann was the first that I became aware of when he wrote
> in his foreword to "The Road Goes Ever On" that he and his wife read
> LOTR more or less every spring. (And why spring, as opposed to any
> other season?) I read it as a teen as well, and my friends would
> probably tell you that at least one volume was never out of my sight
> between the ages of 13 and 18, but I never put it away and thought to
> myself, "Right, I'll get that out again next year".
>
> So what is it about LOTR that causes people to profess to reading it on
> a seasonal or annual basis? And is there a best season in which to read
> it?
I hadn't really thought about it. I do read it once a year, though I don't
recall any specific season. Usually I just get this hankering to delve into
it again.
--
Aaron Clausen
The American
"Speaking Clock" <ext2350(cut-this-out-)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bn3mft$sq8hu$1...@ID-93488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Georg Schönegger wrote:
> > lotr is the book i've read most often - in my teens at
> > least
> > once every year
>
> it "once a year" or "n times a year", but LOADS of people say it about
> LOTR. Donald Swann was the first that I became aware of when he wrote
> in his foreword to "The Road Goes Ever On" that he and his wife read
> LOTR more or less every spring. (And why spring, as opposed to any
> other season?) I read it as a teen as well, and my friends would
> probably tell you that at least one volume was never out of my sight
> between the ages of 13 and 18, but I never put it away and thought to
> myself, "Right, I'll get that out again next year".
>
> So what is it about LOTR that causes people to profess to reading it on
> a seasonal or annual basis? And is there a best season in which to read
> it?
For me I've read it at *least* once a year for over 22 years now.
Usually in the Summer.
It's my traditional vacation reading.
Although now with two small kids my reading length has been shorted to 2-3
pages at a time!
I've been asked a few times why I would reread a book so many times and the
only thing I can think of is that no matter how many times I read it I
always find something new and interesting.
It's always fresh and so damn real.
And, ok, I'll say it: IT'S THE BEST BOOK EVER WRITTEN!!!!!
There.
'nuff said.
T.A.
Chelsea Christenson
Somebody needs a nap.
AC
Maybe. Maybe not. But my feelings still stand. Just because *you*
apparently came out of LotR with little other than a pleasant read doesn't
mean that others have not. But it does appear that the literary community
agrees with you, and have made a solid effort of ignoring Tolkien for
decades.
I find it a pity that a great book has been ignored by those who feel that
they have been empowered to declare what is and what is not Literature. It
makes me cranky, and I won't apologize for it.
--
Aaron Clausen
Chelsea Christenson
> Maybe. Maybe not. But my feelings still stand. Just because *you*
> apparently came out of LotR with little other than a pleasant read doesn't
> mean that others have not.
What I said:
"Yes, you can analyze it if you want, and it stands the exercise pretty
well, but you can also just have a nice, satisfying read and be done
with it."
So I have already explicitly acknowledged that there's more to the book
than just a pleasant read.
AC
zett
[snip]
> about life, the human condition, themselves. And on this, LotR fails.
> hardly original. For that alone, I'd have to give my vote to another
> book.
I am just replying here mostly because it is the first post, I am
really responding to points made throughout the thread so far. I am
not saying that you, Matt, are doing this, but it occurs to me to
wonder how many folks are afraid to say that LoTR or other Tolkien
writing is the best, for fear of being laughed out of town or because
it just "isn't done." I find myself afraid to say that LoTR is the
best for those reasons. It is a book that carries the danger of
getting one labeled 'crazy' or 'geeky' or some other 'you are not
normal' kind of thing. It is a book one must not love too well. Or at
least I perceive that sort of vibe out there...At the same time, for
many people, it is the book that they read over and over. It is their
'desert island' book. It is their 'grab it out of the burning house
first' book. It is mine. And I am not ashamed to admit it, at least
not here. For me personally it *is* the best book in the world. Is it
the best book in the world period? I can't know that because I haven't
read every book there is- and on some technical grounds _maybe_ there
are 'better' books. I think it is all subjective anyway and all these
poll things are good for are starting flamewars on NG's. ;)
But back to your point above: Does LoTR say anything about the human
condition? Well, it doesn't say anything clever or original, but I
don't think there is anything new under the sun anyway- but does it
say *nothing?* I think it says a few things: It says a person has to
do what is right even if they are afraid to do so. A person can only
do his or her best and then at some point it is in the hands of God.
Plain, humble beings have a role in even the great affairs of the
world, though the value of that role may never been seen or
appreciated. I could list others but I will stop here. I know the talk
of God offends some people, and I understand, really I do. I am not
especially religious myself. But I still think those things are
points of the book, whether I or anyone *likes* them or not. Some
people will then say, ok, those are some of the 'lessons' of the book,
but isn't it all rather trite? Hasn't it all been said before? Yes it
has been said before- but considering all the problems in the world,
don't these things bear repeating? And as for LoTR not speaking to the
human condition: I think it mirrors possibilities- does anyone really
think that the folks on that plane over Penn. sat down and thought
about literary analysis of Virginia Woolf or whoever before taking on
the hijackers and losing their own lives in the process? Of course
they probably didn't think about Tolkien either. If any of them
quoted/thought about any book, I _imagine_ it was the Bible... But my
point is they did act like characters in LoTR in summoning up their
courage and doing their duty for and showing love for their fellow
human beings. They showed enough love for their home to give their
lives for it. Characters in LoTR are like that too. So LoTR must say
or reflect something about humans and how they deep down basically
are, or can be- in the worst of circumstances. There has to be some
value in that. I am rambling and I am still not saying what I want to
say very well...I will give it up. If I ever figure out how to express
the importance of Tolkien's writings instead of just feeling it in my
heart and bones, I will let you know. :)
Membranous Gauss
Speaking Clock <ext2350(cut-this-out-)@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bn3mft$sq8hu$1...@ID-93488.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Georg Schönegger wrote:
> > least
> > once every year
>
> it "once a year" or "n times a year", but LOADS of people say it about
> LOTR. Donald Swann was the first that I became aware of when he wrote
> in his foreword to "The Road Goes Ever On" that he and his wife read
> LOTR more or less every spring. (And why spring, as opposed to any
> other season?) I read it as a teen as well, and my friends would
> probably tell you that at least one volume was never out of my sight
> between the ages of 13 and 18, but I never put it away and thought to
> myself, "Right, I'll get that out again next year".
>
> So what is it about LOTR that causes people to profess to reading it on
> a seasonal or annual basis? And is there a best season in which to read
> it?
It is worth rereading because you'll always pick out new details that
escaped you before, or tie two threads together and say HEY...In short, you
always get something new out of it.
As for season, well in spring, you can just lie around outside reading in
the garden. In summer you can climb a mountain and read at the top. In
autumn, you can read inside with a glass of wine. In winter you can read it
in bed or by the fire, while it pours with rain outside.
I think winter's my favourite time to read LOTR
Chelsea Christenson
It's literature. I don't know what the capital L signifies.
Georg Schönegger
>
> Georg Schönegger wrote:
> > lotr is the book i've read most often - in my teens at
> > least
> > once every year
>
> it "once a year" or "n times a year", but LOADS of people say it about
> LOTR. Donald Swann was the first that I became aware of when he wrote
> in his foreword to "The Road Goes Ever On" that he and his wife read
> LOTR more or less every spring. (And why spring, as opposed to any
> other season?) I read it as a teen as well, and my friends would
> probably tell you that at least one volume was never out of my sight
> between the ages of 13 and 18, but I never put it away and thought to
> myself, "Right, I'll get that out again next year".
>
> So what is it about LOTR that causes people to profess to reading it on
> a seasonal or annual basis? And is there a best season in which to read
> it?
> Speaking Clock
>
> "Inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also
> reflect a splintered fragment of the true light."
nowadays i'm down to let's say a complete reading maybe every five
years, but i open it now and again every few months and read certain
passages. the reason is, besides the depth of tolkien's world, the easy
flow of his narrative voice - the same item that keeps lotr from being
'high' literature.
there are other books as well worth rereading - indeed, loads of them,
but time is running short these days. i leaf through emily dickinson's
poems at least once a month, and i've read robinson's mars trilogy at
least twice completely, some passages five times ore more often, to give
some examples. so, there are other books as well, but lotr is without
doubt the one i've read most often.
concerning season: i think, every one will do, but, as with every other
book, sitting out in the not-too-hot spring or autumn sunshine,
preferably with a cup of tea or two, sure beats reading by artificial
light in a heated room. reading in bed is okay, too, but hard on the
books, espacially paperbacks.
georg
Stuart Chapman
"Georg Schönegger" <g.scho...@aon.at> wrote in message
news:3F950E74...@aon.at...
> the problem seems to be how we define a 'good' or a 'best' book. the
> funniest? the one which teaches us most about humanity? .......
That's it, I think you've got it!
I've been thinking about this a bit lately - what makes good <art> - and I
think it really boils down to what makes us reflect about our own condition
and existence....
Tolkiens works are generally a rollicking good yarn with unequalled scope
(maybe that's what I like), and while they do have have shades of
'reflectivity', I don't think its the main concern....
Stupot
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Chapman" <stuart....@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Georg Schönegger" <g.scho...@aon.at> wrote in message
> news:3F950E74...@aon.at...
>
>
> > the problem seems to be how we define a 'good' or a 'best' book. the
> > funniest? the one which teaches us most about humanity? .......
>
> That's it, I think you've got it!
>
> I've been thinking about this a bit lately - what makes good <art> - and I
the answer is simple
whatever satifies -you- is good art for -you-
you can share what satifies you with others
and perhaps let them see the world a little wider
and you might see the world a little wider in return
Dirk Thierbach
> "Yes, you can analyze it if you want, and it stands the exercise pretty
> well, but you can also just have a nice, satisfying read and be done
> with it."
>
> So I have already explicitly acknowledged that there's more to the book
> than just a pleasant read.
All true. What I don't understand is that you also said
> The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't
> *demand* analysis. [my emphasis]
I have heard the theory that "literature" *must* be provocative
before, but so far nobody could explain me why that is *necessary*.
Isn't it far more subtle and more "artistic" if you can achieve your
goal without stepping on everyone's toes, or without making the book
so difficult that it cannot be understood without analysis?
There are many books on the BBC list which are IMHO not provocative,
but I still think they are on this list for a reason.
(Also, being provocative is a function of time -- what is provocative
now, may not have been provacative in the past, or may become totally
pointless in the future.)
- Dirk
Stan Brown
rec.arts.books.tolkien, Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't
>> *demand* analysis. [my emphasis]
>
>I have heard the theory that "literature" *must* be provocative
>before, but so far nobody could explain me why that is *necessary*.
>Isn't it far more subtle and more "artistic" if you can achieve your
>goal without stepping on everyone's toes, or without making the book
>so difficult that it cannot be understood without analysis?
There's plenty of literature that doesn't step on anyone's toes:
Harlequin romances, the novels of John Grisham and Stephen King, and
so forth -- probably 90+% of the fiction section of the library. Is
all that worthy of the name "literature"? I think not. One big
reason is that you read it, it's over, and you move on to the next
thing. You may wonder about some plot points or be surprised at the
denouement, but basically a discussion can't go much beyond "did you
like that part? did you know it would turn out to be a virus?"
Now, there's nothing wrong with that as such. Light entertainment is
fine: nobody can eat a seven-course meal every night.
I think what makes literature is that it does stir you up, make you
think about ideas, make you feel emotions, get you involved, ideally
give you some new insights into people. (I hope it's obvious I'm
talking about a continuum here. I would not imply that one can draw
a line and say "everything on the left is literature; everything on
the right is light entertainment.") Literature too must be complex
and multi-leveled. If /Moby-Dick/ were just a story of a whale hunt,
it wouldn't be literature. But it's also a story of man's struggle
to find god.
By this criterion I think LotR _does_ qualify as literature. It
makes us think about pity and mercy, about duty versus one's
heartfelt desire, about the nature of friendship, about self
sacrifice, and so forth. Yes, all of those things are wrapped in an
adventure story; most literature needs a story. But if you compare
LotR to say Kiernan's work, set in a similar world, you see the
difference at once between adventure-story-carrying universal themes
and adventure-story-pure-and-simple.
Maybe you have a problem with the PP's use of the word
"provocative". It doesn't mean "offensive" or "shocking", it means
that it _provokes_ the readers -- to think, to feel, to make
judgments, to examine their own moral preconceptions and how they
live their lives. I think anything worthy of the name "literature"
must do this.
Again, I don't deny the value of pure popcorn fiction. G.K.
Chesterton wrote approvingly of "good bad books": books that are not
literature (as I think of it) but nonetheless are a good read. For
many, the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" or "Discworld" books
would fall in that category -- not bad books, just not great
literature.
One indicium of literature: it makes you want to keep discussing it,
arguing about what it's trying to say, teasing out hints about what
the author is trying to say, analyzing motives of characters, and so
on. By contrast, a good yarn can excite you and make you want to
live in its world, but there's really nothing much there to argue
about. By that token, it's pretty obvious that LotR and Tolkien's
legendarium in general are literature, and very good literature at
that.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/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/tech/faqget.htm
Troels Forchhammer
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> I think what makes literature is that it does stir you up, make you
> think about ideas, make you feel emotions, get you involved, ideally
> give you some new insights into people.
I'm all for that definition - it very nearly includes anything that is
printed ...
Different people get stirred etc. by different things; I've read 'books'
(about 90% pictures ;-) to my kids that have stirred them and forced
them to rethink their own situation and their relation to the world,
but which I, frankly, found a boring experience (at least until I saw
their reaction).
The point is that literature doesn't, IMO, need to provoke everyone
(that is probably impossible anyway) nor do they have to provoke /me/
in particular to be "literature" - they just have to stir someone.
The problem is of course if you have a book which provokes its author,
but the rest of humanity thinks it's trash ...
I am sure that some people will find Stephen King's works to be very
fine literature. They might tell them something new about human fear,
reactions or something else, I don't know (I haven't read any of his
books).
<snip>
> One indicium of literature: it makes you want to keep discussing it,
> arguing about what it's trying to say,
[...]
Another good definition - and very nearly as broad.
My general approach to art is that if someone is willing to call
something art, then fine - it's art. The same goes for literature -
who am I to say what can and what can't provoke new thoughts and
new insights for others.
ste...@nomail.com
: One indicium of literature: it makes you want to keep discussing it,
: the author is trying to say, analyzing motives of characters, and so
: on. By contrast, a good yarn can excite you and make you want to
: live in its world, but there's really nothing much there to argue
: about. By that token, it's pretty obvious that LotR and Tolkien's
: legendarium in general are literature, and very good literature at
: that.
Honestly, I do not see much discussion on these groups about
what Tolkien is trying to say in any sort of literary sense.
Most of the discussions about what Tolkien was trying to say
are more like was he trying to say that Balrogs had wings,
or that the Barrow blades had special anti Nazgul properties.
Likewise, I have not seen much analysis of character motivations.
There was a recent thread about Saruman's motivations that was
inspired by the movie, but the gist of that seemed to be that
Saruman's motivations were unclear.
On the other hand, lots more people seem to be excited about
Middle Earth and apparently want to live there.
If you have particular threads in mind to support your opinion
I would be interested in seeing them.
Stephen
Yuk Tang
>
> Honestly, I do not see much discussion on these groups about
> what Tolkien is trying to say in any sort of literary sense.
Try it, and you'll get shot down by those who think that lit-crit is
just a pinko liberal waste of time. Of course, these same people don't
bother to consider what lit-crit actually is.
Two Towers - Exact Phrase
http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&th=feb91019f871bf1d&rnum=1
'I would not include Tolkien as a literary critic.'
- softrat, rec.arts.books.tolkien
> Most of the discussions about what Tolkien was trying to say
> are more like was he trying to say that Balrogs had wings,
> or that the Barrow blades had special anti Nazgul properties.
> Likewise, I have not seen much analysis of character motivations.
> There was a recent thread about Saruman's motivations that was
> inspired by the movie, but the gist of that seemed to be that
> Saruman's motivations were unclear.
That's because these things are concrete, and can be 'proved' by the
Tolkien canon. However, look a little deeper into characters and their
creation and you'll be verging on orthodox lit-crit, which is anathema
to some people.
> On the other hand, lots more people seem to be excited about
> Middle Earth and apparently want to live there.
>
> If you have particular threads in mind to support your opinion
> I would be interested in seeing them.
If you're willing to overlook the snobbery that some people have re:
criticism, then you might get somewhere. After all, lit crit is, at
its base, the study of how people write books. And unless one is
treating the ME texts as history, any study will inevitably be lit-
crit.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Email to: jim dot laker one at btopenworld dot com
Dirk Thierbach
> In article <0tvh61-...@ID-7776.user.dfncis.de> in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien, Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't
>>> *demand* analysis. [my emphasis]
>> I have heard the theory that "literature" *must* be provocative
>> before, but so far nobody could explain me why that is *necessary*.
>> Isn't it far more subtle and more "artistic" if you can achieve your
>> goal without stepping on everyone's toes, or without making the book
>> so difficult that it cannot be understood without analysis?
> There's plenty of literature that doesn't step on anyone's toes:
> Harlequin romances, the novels of John Grisham and Stephen King, and
> so forth -- probably 90+% of the fiction section of the library. Is
> all that worthy of the name "literature"? I think not.
I am sorry, I wasn't very clear. By "achieving its goal" I meant
producing something that "stands up to analysis", makes you think
about ideas, etc., because that was the other condition we had been
talking about.
John Grisham, Stephen King and 90% of the SF section don't fall into
this category.
> I think what makes literature is that it does stir you up, make you
> think about ideas, make you feel emotions, get you involved, ideally
> give you some new insights into people.
I agree.
> By this criterion I think LotR _does_ qualify as literature.
> [Explanation deleted]
Yes.
> Maybe you have a problem with the PP's use of the word
> "provocative".
Hm. Maybe that's part of the problem.
> It doesn't mean "offensive" or "shocking", it means that it
> _provokes_ the readers -- to think, to feel, to make judgments, to
> examine their own moral preconceptions and how they live their
> lives.
Yes, but that's exactly Chelsea's point -- LotR does not *provoke*
the reader. It does not *force* them to think, to analyze, etc.
Still, you can do all those things.
And I think what matters is that you *can* do them, and not that
you're *forced* to do them. I usually prefer to decide on my own what I
want to do and what I don't want to do, and if someone tries to force
down some interpretation with a spoon deep into my throat, then I
don't really like that, thank you very much :-)
(It's maybe a bit similar to the distinction Tolkien makes between
"allegory" and "applicability": one is forced upon you, the other
is at the discreation of the reader. Though I don't have anything
particular against allegories, if they are good allegories :-)
If the reader doesn't see that one can have a deeper understanding of
a particular book than just being entertained by it, than this is a
failure of the reader, not of the book. And therefore I think it is a
bit silly to attach that failure to the book and value that book less
than another book where the reader has no such choice.
So I obviously seem to have a problem with the word "provocative", no
matter in what sense it is used.
> One indicium of literature: it makes you want to keep discussing it,
> [...] By contrast, a good yarn can excite you and make you want to
> live in its world, [...]
Yes, of course, but that is not the point I am talking about. I am not
comparing these two things.
- Dirk
Chelsea Christenson
> Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>"Yes, you can analyze it if you want, and it stands the exercise pretty
>>well, but you can also just have a nice, satisfying read and be done
>>with it."
>>
>>So I have already explicitly acknowledged that there's more to the book
>>than just a pleasant read.
>
>
> All true. What I don't understand is that you also said
>
>
>>The way I'd put it is, it isn't provocative enough. It doesn't
>>*demand* analysis. [my emphasis]
>
>
> I have heard the theory that "literature" *must* be provocative
> before, but so far nobody could explain me why that is *necessary*.
> Isn't it far more subtle and more "artistic" if you can achieve your
> goal without stepping on everyone's toes, or without making the book
> so difficult that it cannot be understood without analysis?
You're assuming that "provocative" means "offensive" or "troublesome."
Provocative can simply mean that it provokes thought. I suppose there
must be a degree of discomfort, in the sense that you have this nagging
need to think about something, but if you welcome such provocations,
that's not a problem.
So perhaps another way to put it is that literature is something you
can't just walk away from and ignore. It will just chase you down and
demand that you deal with it.
Dirk Thierbach
> So perhaps another way to put it is that literature is something you
> can't just walk away from and ignore. It will just chase you down and
> demand that you deal with it.
As I have tried to explain, I don't think this is a good criterion
for literature.
But maybe it is easier to discuss this by example: Can you think of
any book were the "chasing you down and demand that you deal with it"
is the really important part of the book that makes it good, and
becomes uninteresting if you take that away and reduce it to the
*possibility* that you can interpret it?
There should be at least one test case to verify that being
"provocative" is the important point, and ideally it should apply to
any test case you choose.
- Dirk
AC
I think a more important point is that the test Chelsea provides is
thoroughly subjective that I can't imagine it being of much use at all. I
bet there are books I've tossed over my shoulder and forgotten about that
others have found so compelling that it requires a great deal of reflection.
By the same token, I'm sure I've read books that demanded that I continue to
ponder, that others quickly forgot about.
--
Aaron Clausen
Jim Deutch
>So what is it about LOTR that causes people to profess to reading it on
>a seasonal or annual basis? And is there a best season in which to read
>it?
I like to read it in the fall, when yellow leaves are still on the
trees and yellow leaves are on the ground, and I can feel like it's
spring in Lorien...
Generally, I figure any book worth reading once is worth reading at
least a second time: you always get more out of it. Of course, since
becoming family-ated I have no time at all for reading anymore...
Since I reread a lot, I can gauge how often I've read a book better by
it's current condition than by trying to remember how many times I've
gone through it. Books of mine that are falling totally apart (or
been repurchased because they already did):
Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien
The Worm Ouroboros by ER Eddison
All my Pogo books (alas, many not replaceable) by Walt Kelly
A Winter's Tale by Mark Helprin
Grendel by John Gardner
The Past Through Tomorrow by RA Heinlein
more that I'll think of as soon as I hit send...
What do these have in common? I think it's partly social commentary,
philosophical depth, fantastic events, a good dose of humor, and
admirable role models (not all of them positive, but still admirable).
But there must be something else, to bring me back over and over
again. Maybe I just feel comfortable in those worlds...
Jim Deutch
--
"All my life I was a bell, and never knew it until the moment I was
lifted, and struck." - Annie Dillard
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> thoroughly subjective that I can't imagine it being of much use at all. I
> bet there are books I've tossed over my shoulder and forgotten about that
at the most fundamental level
everything is subjective
unfortunately realizing that negates many tons of philosophy tracts
zett
> ste...@nomail.com wrote in news:bn64ph$1ti2$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu:
> >
> > Honestly, I do not see much discussion on these groups about
> > what Tolkien is trying to say in any sort of literary sense.
>
> Try it, and you'll get shot down by those who think that lit-crit is
> just a pinko liberal waste of time. Of course, these same people don't
> bother to consider what lit-crit actually is.
Well, what *is* literary analysis, then? I honestly want to know. If
it is something besides some poof coming on this NG and going "I know
more about Tolkien's writing than he did. I know better than he did
about EVERYTHING because I'm a genius, look at me." basically, then
bring it on. I would be loving some Aragorn character analysis, for
instance. I'd have to just sit back and read it, because I don't even
have a Bachelor's so my book discussin' ability would probably not be
up to lit crit snuff. Still, I would read it with interest. Unless
somebody starts with the Freudian crap, then I am *so* gone. ;)
[snip]
If you're willing to overlook the snobbery that some people have re:
> criticism, then you might get somewhere. After all, lit crit is, at
> its base, the study of how people write books. And unless one is
> treating the ME texts as history, any study will inevitably be lit-
> crit.
I think Tolkien lovers will overlook their snobbery (more like fear
and loathing) re: criticism (or what has passed for it) when certain
cliques or whatever quit being such snobs towards Tolkien. And start
saying things that have at least a whiff of common sense. LOL And as
for studying how people write books, in JRRT's case, don't we all
ready have HoME for that?
Chelsea Christenson
> Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So perhaps another way to put it is that literature is something you
>>can't just walk away from and ignore. It will just chase you down and
>>demand that you deal with it.
>
>
> As I have tried to explain, I don't think this is a good criterion
> for literature.
>
> But maybe it is easier to discuss this by example: Can you think of
> any book were the "chasing you down and demand that you deal with it"
> is the really important part of the book that makes it good, and
> becomes uninteresting if you take that away and reduce it to the
> *possibility* that you can interpret it?
I'm not seeing how "makes you think" becomes "impossible to interpret."
Yuk Tang
[for an on-topic topic]
yze...@yahoo.com (zett) wrote in
news:4bb40450.03102...@posting.google.com:
>
> Well, what *is* literary analysis, then? I honestly want to know.
> If it is something besides some poof coming on this NG and going
> "I know more about Tolkien's writing than he did. I know better
> than he did about EVERYTHING because I'm a genius, look at me."
> basically, then bring it on.
Thus says he who has an open mind.
Olog-Hai Fidelity
http://www.barrowdowns.com/ArticlesHiFi.asp?Size=
This asks the question, "Were trolls prior to the TA resistant to the
sun?" In answering this question, the essayist looks at the history of
the texts that mention trolls, and those that relate to texts
mentioning trolls. What clinches it for him is the history of the
Hurin texts, the emergence of common themes in the latest texts, and
JRRT's MO.
> I would be loving some Aragorn
> character analysis, for instance. I'd have to just sit back and
> read it, because I don't even have a Bachelor's so my book
> discussin' ability would probably not be up to lit crit snuff.
> Still, I would read it with interest. Unless somebody starts with
> the Freudian crap, then I am *so* gone. ;)
Is Freud the only lit-crit you've heard of? How about the value
systems taught in schools? Light equals good, dark equals bad, red
equals carnality in its various forms, etc? Has it never occurred to
you why these values came into being? Has it never occurred to you to
question the validity of these value systems?
> I think Tolkien lovers will overlook their snobbery (more like
> fear and loathing) re: criticism (or what has passed for it) when
> certain cliques or whatever quit being such snobs towards Tolkien.
> And start saying things that have at least a whiff of common
> sense.
Define common sense. Common sense to the average reader is to accept
what is read as gospel (in all senses). Common sense is to say, "I
really like this author." Common sense is to say, "I don't like this
book - it's crap."
Anti-common sense is to ask, "Why did the author write the book this
way?" Anti-common sense is to ask, "I really didn't like this part of
the book - why did I not like it?"
> LOL And as for studying how people write books, in JRRT's
> case, don't we all ready have HoME for that?
I've linked an essay that uses common lit-crit methods to ask a
historical question of the book, using HoME and various other texts as
sources. Please tell me, if you didn't use these methods, how you'd
set about answering such a mundane question as "Were trolls sun-
resistant in the First Age?"
LOL indeed (the witless' way of trolling while avoiding the heat).
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> But maybe it is easier to discuss this by example: Can you think of
>> any book were the "chasing you down and demand that you deal with it"
>> is the really important part of the book that makes it good, and
>> becomes uninteresting if you take that away and reduce it to the
>> *possibility* that you can interpret it?
> I'm not seeing how "makes you think" becomes "impossible to interpret."
I don't understand this answer at all, so we're probably talking past
each other.
Let's try again. You are saying that literature *provokes* interpretation
and *demands* analysis. I say that literature *evokes* interpretation
and *allows* analysis.
So we have to find out which of both is the better definition. One
good way to find out is to look at examples. If your definition is the
better one, then a book would stop being literature as soon as you
move from "demanding analysis" to "allowing analysis". So I'd ask you
to enumerate some examples of literature that "demand analysis".
Then, we can try to modify those examples (as a thought-experiment) in
such a way they no longer demand analysis (which might not be so easy, but
we can try), and finally check if these changes affect the book so
much that it is no longer literature.
Clearer now? "impossible to interpet" doesn't play any role here.
- Dirk
Gorbag
"coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-23...@c110.ppp.tsoft.com...
Not at all. Look up "solipsism," and the arguments against it.
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<gorbag...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
typically philosophical bullshit
objectively prove your frame of reference used to argue against it
you can decide reality is objective
but that decision is subjective
this is something mathematicians discovered over a century ago
but philosophers are still too interested in grant money to realize
Chelsea Christenson
> Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>
>
>>>But maybe it is easier to discuss this by example: Can you think of
>>>any book were the "chasing you down and demand that you deal with it"
>>>is the really important part of the book that makes it good, and
>>>becomes uninteresting if you take that away and reduce it to the
>>>*possibility* that you can interpret it?
>>
>
>>I'm not seeing how "makes you think" becomes "impossible to interpret."
>
>
> I don't understand this answer at all, so we're probably talking past
> each other.
>
> Let's try again. You are saying that literature *provokes* interpretation
> and *demands* analysis.
I think that _great_ literature provokes and demands. Greatness is
troublesome, goodness is more well-behaved.
Dirk Thierbach
Then we agree that your definition is subjective and troublesome, and
that what is "great" literature for you won't necessarily be "great"
literature for somebody else? And that it doesn't make sense to
use your definition to put a value on a book? (Therefore, "great"
should probably be replaced by "great IMO" or something like this,
otherwise it looks too much like an objective value.)
BTW, for me it is not even a good criterion for "great" literature.
I value literature if it allows *interesting* interpretations (which
is also very subjective), not if it affects me emotionally.
- Dirk
zett
> [Cross-posting to get a wider audience]
> [for an on-topic topic]
>
> Olog-Hai Fidelity
> http://www.barrowdowns.com/ArticlesHiFi.asp?Size=
>
> This asks the question, "Were trolls prior to the TA resistant to the
> sun?" In answering this question, the essayist looks at the history of
> the texts that mention trolls, and those that relate to texts
> mentioning trolls. What clinches it for him is the history of the
> Hurin texts, the emergence of common themes in the latest texts, and
> JRRT's MO.
I read this article. It displays what I meant when I was talking about
wanting a display of common sense. Taking the texts and looking at
their history in an attempt to answer a question about the world
displayed is perfectly valid and an example of the sort of thing I
myself like to read. An example of not showing common sense: someone
continuing to insist that LoTR is an allegory of WWII even after
having it explained how the book would have had to be changed to force
it into a WWII allegory. I don't remember the name of the writer who
did that, and to tell the truth, I don't want to.
>
> Is Freud the only lit-crit you've heard of?
No. Just one of the more annoying kinds.
> How about the value systems taught in schools? Light equals good, dark >equals bad, red equals carnality in its various forms, etc? Has it never >occurred to you why these values came into being? Has it never occurred to >you to question the validity of these value systems?
These value systems are no doubt propagated through the schools, but
not just through there and I don't think that is where they started,
so I don't quite understand why schools were specifically brought up.
However, has it ever occurred to me to wonder why these kinds of
symbols seem to permeate at least my culture (Generic White American,
to give is a jokey moniker)? It has indeed occurred to me, but
unfortunately I have not had the time to do the study necessary to
even approach origins or reasons why they seem so durable. But about
questioning the assumptions: Tolkien himself questions the validity of
the "dark equals bad" one, by creating a time in his universe where
his noblest incarnate beings, the Elves, awaken not at the rising of
the Sun (which might be more expected) but at a time when all was
mostly dark, only lit with starlight. It is only the works of Morgoth
that makes the dark associated with fear. Tom Bombadil says "...he
knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless- before the Dark
Lord came from Outside." Not to discount all the very many times that
Tolkien uses dark/badness associations to get his readers more
emotionally involved or to create atmosphere, but at least he doesn't
hew to the imagery slavishly. It is also interesting (at least to me)
that even in the line above where Tolkien breaks with dark=bad, he
uses dark=bad by referring to the Chief Bad Guy (tm)as the _Dark_
Lord. Your mention of red=carnality reminds me of something else I
have wondered about. The Barrow Blades. These are works of the Men of
Westernesse, guys generally associated with goodness and purity, yet
the blades are red and gold- colors (especially when put together)
that are associated with lavishness and carnality. Then to top it off,
they are damasked with serpent images- associated with sensuality and
downright evil. Why red, gold and serpents for the knives of the good
guys? I don't know, and I am not claiming any meaning for them on
behalf of Tolkien. (I can think of story-internal reasons, but they
would just be my textual interpretations, and I have gone on long
enough)I just think it is interesting that he doesn't always surround
his Good Guys with white. It is these little ways that Tolkien 'breaks
the rules' and keeps things complicated that makes his books so
re-readable. IMO. And it is the failure to appreciate or even
acknowledge these complexities (amongst others)that raises my
irritation at the Edmund Wilson type critics. I am sorry that my
complaining about some of the lit crit I have encountered struck you
as trolling or offensive.
[snip]
Yuk Tang
news:4bb40450.0310...@posting.google.com:
> news:<Xns941E37D07E727...@130.133.1.4>...
>> [Cross-posting to get a wider audience]
>> [for an on-topic topic]
>>
> [snip]
>> Olog-Hai Fidelity
>> http://www.barrowdowns.com/ArticlesHiFi.asp?Size=
>>
>> This asks the question, "Were trolls prior to the TA resistant to
>> the sun?" In answering this question, the essayist looks at the
>> history of the texts that mention trolls, and those that relate
>> to texts mentioning trolls. What clinches it for him is the
>> history of the Hurin texts, the emergence of common themes in the
>> latest texts, and JRRT's MO.
>
> I read this article. It displays what I meant when I was talking
> about wanting a display of common sense. Taking the texts and
> looking at their history in an attempt to answer a question about
> the world displayed is perfectly valid and an example of the sort
> of thing I myself like to read.
And how about the question: "How did Tolkien set about creating Middle
Earth?" Answering the question would, naturally, involve using HoME.
It would also involve looking at the value systems Tolkien worked with,
to see why he stuck with them or worked against them. It would also
involve looking at his life to see how it shaped his way of thinking.
Would you call that common sense?
> An example of not showing common
> sense: someone continuing to insist that LoTR is an allegory of
> WWII even after having it explained how the book would have had to
> be changed to force it into a WWII allegory. I don't remember the
> name of the writer who did that, and to tell the truth, I don't
> want to.
Straw man. I don't know of any proper critic (one who reads the book)
who claims so. To answer a proper question, how about how LotR may
have been (critics deal in possibilities, not certainties) influenced
by WWII? Would this modified question be anti-common sense? Is it not
worth answering? If so, explain why.
>> Is Freud the only lit-crit you've heard of?
> No. Just one of the more annoying kinds.
What others have you heard of? Have you read any properly-referenced
examples of psycho-analytic crticism?
>> How about the value systems taught in schools? Light equals
>> good, dark >equals bad, red equals carnality in its various
>> forms, etc? Has it never >occurred to you why these values came
>> into being? Has it never occurred to >you to question the
>> validity of these value systems?
>
> These value systems are no doubt propagated through the schools,
> but not just through there and I don't think that is where they
> started, so I don't quite understand why schools were specifically
> brought up.
Because everyone here has been to school, and everyone here has been
taught concepts about 'literature' at school. It's the proverbial
common denominator, along with having read LotR.
> However, has it ever occurred to me to wonder why
> these kinds of symbols seem to permeate at least my culture
> (Generic White American, to give is a jokey moniker)? It has
> indeed occurred to me, but unfortunately I have not had the time
> to do the study necessary to even approach origins or reasons why
> they seem so durable.
Would you actively prevent others from investigating? After all,
questioning the whys of seemingly obvious foundation stones of culture
is the very definition of anti-common sense.
> But about questioning the assumptions:
> Tolkien himself questions the validity of the "dark equals bad"
> one, by creating a time in his universe where his noblest
> incarnate beings, the Elves, awaken not at the rising of the Sun
> (which might be more expected) but at a time when all was mostly
> dark, only lit with starlight. It is only the works of Morgoth
> that makes the dark associated with fear. Tom Bombadil says "...he
> knew the dark under the stars when it was fearless- before the
> Dark Lord came from Outside." Not to discount all the very many
> times that Tolkien uses dark/badness associations to get his
> readers more emotionally involved or to create atmosphere, but at
> least he doesn't hew to the imagery slavishly. It is also
> interesting (at least to me) that even in the line above where
> Tolkien breaks with dark=bad, he uses dark=bad by referring to the
> Chief Bad Guy (tm)as the _Dark_ Lord.
Very few writers use dark exclusively as a metaphor for bad and evil.
Most writers use dark predominantly as a metaphor for bad and evil,
including Tolkien. Is it worth asking why? And if it's worth asking,
what's the best way of answering it?
> Your mention of
> red=carnality reminds me of something else I have wondered about.
> The Barrow Blades. These are works of the Men of Westernesse, guys
> generally associated with goodness and purity, yet the blades are
> red and gold- colors (especially when put together) that are
> associated with lavishness and carnality. Then to top it off, they
> are damasked with serpent images- associated with sensuality and
> downright evil. Why red, gold and serpents for the knives of the
> good guys? I don't know, and I am not claiming any meaning for
> them on behalf of Tolkien. (I can think of story-internal reasons,
> but they would just be my textual interpretations, and I have gone
> on long enough)
Gold's association with lavishness is obvious enough, but what about
the other colours and images? Why do you think snakes are associated
with evil, rather than good (as in the classical period)? As is the
case with such questions, a question to ask would be, would you use
these associations if you're writing a book?
> I just think it is interesting that he doesn't
> always surround his Good Guys with white. It is these little ways
> that Tolkien 'breaks the rules' and keeps things complicated that
> makes his books so re-readable.
As I've said before, very few people use dark exclusively to represent
bad and evil. Very few people use light exclusively to represent good.
The huge majority of people use light predominantly to represent good.
The value system of ME is not complicated. Valar = light = good.
Melkor = dark = bad. Everything else varying degrees of grey. But the
values remain set, and run through the text.
> IMO. And it is the failure to
> appreciate or even acknowledge these complexities (amongst
> others)that raises my irritation at the Edmund Wilson type
> critics. I am sorry that my complaining about some of the lit crit
> I have encountered struck you as trolling or offensive.
Who's Edmund Wilson? Try FR Leavis.
As for the trolling; I dislike it when people post provocatively, then
try to defuse things with a smiley or lol. Reply in the same vein, and
they'll often say that you lack a sense of humour. Let it be, and
they'll often use the non-reply as passive affirmation of their
argument.
zett
> yze...@yahoo.com (zett) wrote in
> news:4bb40450.0310...@posting.google.com:
> > Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns941E37D07E727...@130.133.1.4>...
> >> [Cross-posting to get a wider audience]
> >> [for an on-topic topic]
> >>
[snip]>
> Earth?" Answering the question would, naturally, involve using HoME.
> It would also involve looking at the value systems Tolkien worked with,
> to see why he stuck with them or worked against them. It would also
> involve looking at his life to see how it shaped his way of thinking.
> Would you call that common sense?
Doing those activities? Not a problem. I just think that conclusions
drawn, especially in looking at the life of someone who is not a
contemporary, need to be stated with some "IMOs"- not unequivocally-
that's all.
>
>
> > An example of not showing common
> > sense: someone continuing to insist that LoTR is an allegory of
> > WWII even after having it explained how the book would have had to
> > be changed to force it into a WWII allegory. I don't remember the
> > name of the writer who did that, and to tell the truth, I don't
> > want to.
>
> Straw man. I don't know of any proper critic (one who reads the book)
> who claims so.
I also believe that no one who has actually read LoTR could make the
claim. The claim is out there nonetheless.
> To answer a proper question, how about how LotR may
> have been (critics deal in possibilities, not certainties) influenced
> by WWII? Would this modified question be anti-common sense?
No, it wouldn't be.
> Is it not worth answering? If so, explain why.
It is worth answering. I am not against people investigating things
and asking questions. I am not 'anti-knowledge' or something.
>
>
> >> Is Freud the only lit-crit you've heard of?
> > No. Just one of the more annoying kinds.
>
> What others have you heard of? Have you read any properly-referenced
> examples of psycho-analytic crticism?
Well apparently I haven't- I suppose if it were properly referenced, I
might not be so annoyed by it. Where can I find properly referenced
psycho-analytic criticism of Tolkien's writing?
>
>
> >> How about the value systems taught in schools? Light equals
> >> good, dark >equals bad, red equals carnality in its various
> >> forms, etc? Has it never >occurred to you why these values came
> >> into being? Has it never occurred to >you to question the
> >> validity of these value systems?
> >
> > These value systems are no doubt propagated through the schools,
> > but not just through there and I don't think that is where they
> > started, so I don't quite understand why schools were specifically
> > brought up.
>
> Because everyone here has been to school, and everyone here has been
> taught concepts about 'literature' at school. It's the proverbial
> common denominator, along with having read LotR.
Ok. I don't remember being taught specifically the above concepts
about literature in school, but it *was* a long, long time ago and it
was a piss poor school...
> Would you actively prevent others from investigating?
Good heavens no!
>After all questioning the whys of seemingly obvious foundation stones
of >culture is the very definition of anti-common sense.
Again, I am not against anyone asking questions. I reserve the right
to disagree with the conclusions drawn, however. I also reserve the
right to dislike the style of presentation.
(snip)
> Who's Edmund Wilson? Try FR Leavis.
I don't know anything about FR Leavis. If you don't mind, would you
tell me why you recommend this particular critic?
>
> As for the trolling; I dislike it when people post provocatively, then
> try to defuse things with a smiley or lol. Reply in the same vein, and
> they'll often say that you lack a sense of humour. Let it be, and
> they'll often use the non-reply as passive affirmation of their
> argument.
Well, what I should have said in the first place was that as a Tolkien
reader (I cordially dislike the term Tolkien *fan*)I share
(seemingly)many other Tolkien readers' feelings of
apprehension/distrust/dislike whenever the term literature criticism
is mentioned, because of some very harsh and dismissive criticism of
Tolkien's work in the past. I should have done that instead of trying
to be clever/snarky/funny or whatever. However, I was serious, not
kidding at all, when I said that I would be interested in reading some
things that use lit. crit. methods in order to broaden my
understanding of what Tolkien wrote.
Yuk Tang
news:4bb40450.03102...@posting.google.com:
>
> I don't know anything about FR Leavis. If you don't mind, would
> you tell me why you recommend this particular critic?
Matthew Arnold started the study of *English* literature, as an
alternative to the classics. FR Leavis made concrete the theory behind
such study, and called it practical criticism (the identification of
themes and words with set values). Prac crit is the method taught, as
far as I know, to all English students (ie. everyone who's been taught
English lit in school). Prac crit is also the only method that most
people know. As a result, they dismiss other theories as a violation
of 'common sense'.
>> As for the trolling; I dislike it when people post provocatively,
>> then try to defuse things with a smiley or lol. Reply in the
>> same vein, and they'll often say that you lack a sense of humour.
>> Let it be, and they'll often use the non-reply as passive
>> affirmation of their argument.
>
> Well, what I should have said in the first place was that as a
> Tolkien reader (I cordially dislike the term Tolkien *fan*)I share
> (seemingly)many other Tolkien readers' feelings of
> apprehension/distrust/dislike whenever the term literature
> criticism is mentioned, because of some very harsh and dismissive
> criticism of Tolkien's work in the past.
And so you dismiss the subject out of hand? Have you stopped to think
about how you feel about Tolkien's work, and why you feel that way?
Lit crit works on the basis that every critic is a writer; every
significant writer of the past century, from Eliot to Tolkien, has
practised lit crit in one way or another. Criticism is what happens
when one examines what one reads in the light of what one knows. The
ultimate form of criticism is to, from what one has learned, further
that knowledge by writing a book of one's own that demonstrates one's
theories. JRRT's pursuit of philology in his ME writings is probably
the grandest example of this in existence.
> I should have done that
> instead of trying to be clever/snarky/funny or whatever. However,
> I was serious, not kidding at all, when I said that I would be
> interested in reading some things that use lit. crit. methods in
> order to broaden my understanding of what Tolkien wrote.
The Olog-Hai essay treats the events and sentences in the main works as
fact, in order to ask a concrete question. To answer that question, it
examines the history of specific texts, and the emergence of certain
themes at certain points in their history.
And that's a limited example of how one applies critical (perhaps
you'll be more familiar with 'analytical'?) methods to examine a text.
The wider study of lit crit involves looking at the more general
relationship between a text (or any work of art) and its creation. In
this field, 'common sense' only allows one to see what one has been
taught to see. In questioning the statement in the Appendices, the
author of the Olog Hai essay had already stepped outside 'common
sense'.
Chelsea Christenson
> Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>
>
>>>Let's try again. You are saying that literature *provokes* interpretation
>>>and *demands* analysis.
>>
>
>>I think that _great_ literature provokes and demands. Greatness is
>>troublesome, goodness is more well-behaved.
>
>
> Then we agree that your definition is subjective and troublesome
Of course it's subjective. "Great" and "good" are subjective
distinctions. As for troublesome -- is that your way of saying it's a
great definition?
> that what is "great" literature for you won't necessarily be "great"
> literature for somebody else?
That would be the meaning of subjective, yes.
> And that it doesn't make sense to use your definition to put a value on
a book?
Since value is subjective, it makes as much sense to use my definition
as anyone else's. You just have to explain the definition you're using,
so people can decide how it fits with their own idea of greatness.
> BTW, for me it is not even a good criterion for "great" literature.
> I value literature if it allows *interesting* interpretations (which
> is also very subjective), not if it affects me emotionally.
I wasn't particularly describing an emotional effect -- I can swoon over
trashy novels perfectly well. Rather, the effect is to make demands
upon the intellect.
AC
Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I wasn't particularly describing an emotional effect -- I can swoon over
> trashy novels perfectly well. Rather, the effect is to make demands
> upon the intellect.
So, because it didn't make demands on *your* intellect, it can't be great
literature. Good to know.
--
Aaron Clausen
Chelsea Christenson
Did you happen to read the preceding paragraphs on subjectivity? If
not, do so. If so, stuff it.
AC
The point is that if the tests for literature with a capital "L" are so
subjective, then I'd say they're worthless.
--
Aaron Clausen
Jim Deutch
morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
>In article <9rbmb.79$K6...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>, "Gorbag"
><gorbag...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
>> Not at all. Look up "solipsism," and the arguments against it.
>
>typically philosophical bullshit
Other people sometimes go away, but I'm _always_ here.
Jim Deutch
--
"What is the superlative of so what?" --- R. A. Lafferty
Jim Deutch
>>> Is Freud the only lit-crit you've heard of?
>> No. Just one of the more annoying kinds.
>
>What others have you heard of? Have you read any properly-referenced
>examples of psycho-analytic crticism?
www.seuss.org/seuss/freud.seuss.html
Jim Deutch
--
I think it must be God's punishment for me not believing in him.
- Nick Connolly
Jim Deutch
morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
>
>everything is subjective
That's absolutely true. <g>
Jim Deutch
--
If God wanted us to believe we were related to chimpanzees,
he'd have given us DNA 95% identical to theirs.
Dirk Thierbach
> The point is that if the tests for literature with a capital "L" are so
> subjective, then I'd say they're worthless.
Yes. So I'd suggest to use more objective ones instead, and replace
statements like "This is not Great Literature" with "I didn't feel
the urge to do an analysis of this book". That's probably clearer
to understand and less likely to provoke disputes.
- Dirk
Yuk Tang
news:3f9e9f4c....@news.compuserve.com:
> wrote:
>>>> Is Freud the only lit-crit you've heard of?
>>> No. Just one of the more annoying kinds.
>>
>>What others have you heard of? Have you read any
>>properly-referenced examples of psycho-analytic crticism?
>
> www.seuss.org/seuss/freud.seuss.html
In an interview, Miyazaki briefly touches upon the subject and its
influence on Nausicaa. Kushana, too, but the essayist doesn't mention
her (IMO Nausicaa, although the younger, becomes the surrogate mother
to her).
In another example, the film 'My Neighbour Totoro' can be said to
revolve around a mother who only appears for two brief scenes.
http://www.gbs-np.co.jp/main/inter/mononoke_kaigai_17_e.htm
Nausicaa and Motherhood
Read all volumes of Nausicaa thoroughly, and you will find between
volume six and final volume the story's color has totally changed. Just
after finishing the final chapter of volume six in 1991, Miyazaki had
to suspend the serialization until 1992 because of the production of
Porco Rosso. He confessed in an interview that when directing Porco
Rosso how much he was affected by the change of the real world, such as
the end of the cold war, Soviet Union's disappearance and shifting
toward market economies, and the fall of socialism (Miyazaki used to be
a Marxist) .
It is easy to imagine how much his values shook before he re-started
Nausicaa in 1992. I think this also affected Nausicaa. Miyazaki's
annoyance and suffering also lead the underlying theme of Nausicaa to
emerge rather vividly in volume seven. In short, Nausicaa's final
volume is permeated with the shadow of the "mother." See the God Solder
who finally awoke. While he appeared and died as the evil in the
theater version, in the Nausicaa manga, he has intelligence and calls
Nausicaa "Mama." The difference between the two God Soldiers is
interesting. As the story proceeds, we encounter another "mother" in
final volume. On her way to Doruk Empire's capital city, where the
Grave is, she's welcomed to a strange manor house as a guest, where she
sees the illusion of her mother who has been dead. The owner of the
manor read her memory and made the illusion, which, to be exact, is the
idealized mother whom Nausicaa wished for.
The owner says, "I know you wanted healing of both your body and soul.
You wanted your mother in my arms. didn't you?" Nausicaa replies with
her saddened face: "My mother was kind to me, but I remember that she
was often in the clouds, sitting near the window. She looked sad, and
looked as if she were the totally strange person. It was unusual for me
just to keep waiting for her to realize and turn to me when I was by
her. I wondered if she would say she did not know me if I would speak
to her ." She continues: "She taught me that there's the sadness that
will never healed. But she did not love me."
After the Nausicaa manga concluded, in an interview Miyazaki talked
about Nausicaa's, and his own, mother complex: "I wondered how Nausicaa
became Nausicaa. I think she had bitter experiences. I think that's why
she got the ability to feel someone's heart-pain. A scene weighed upon
me, which I drew without much intention back then. You remember the
scene in volume one where Nausicaa covers a child Ohm with her own
body? When her father and his colleagues pull apart them, her mother
also was there, but she did nothing. (Author's note: This sequence
appears in the film version, too) I wondered why she did nothing, and
what that scene means. I think it is related to my own mother complex.
I think it is related to something unsettled on my heart as to the
relation between my mother and me." (*1)
I think it is much related to the fact that he rarely depicts
protagonists' families or parents happily in his works. I wonder if
what Miyazaki really drew in Nausicaa is the story of a protagonist who
was not loved by her mother and who decides to serve and encourage the
orphan people (the sacrificed humanity !) as their "mother." Is it just
my reckless reading of the true theme of Nausicaa that orphan people
called humanity trying to form a community where they can live together
as a family, not the "nature vs. humanity"?
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
10313...@compuserve.com (Jim Deutch) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:03:19 -0700, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes
> morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
>
> >In article <9rbmb.79$K6...@bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com>, "Gorbag"
> ><gorbag...@nospam.mac.com> wrote:
> >> Not at all. Look up "solipsism," and the arguments against it.
> >
> >typically philosophical bullshit
>
> Other people sometimes go away, but I'm _always_ here.
not really
sometimes youre paged out to secondary memory
the nice thing about simulated time is
that no matter how slow the computation is
every process in the simulation beleieves it is proceeding along in real time
coyotes morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
10313...@compuserve.com (Jim Deutch) wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:27:02 -0700, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes
> morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
> >
> >at the most fundamental level
> >everything is subjective
>
> That's absolutely true. <g>
there are no absolute truths
there is no only chocolate cream pie
zett
> > Well, what I should have said in the first place was that as a
> > Tolkien reader (I cordially dislike the term Tolkien *fan*)I share
> > (seemingly)many other Tolkien readers' feelings of
> > apprehension/distrust/dislike whenever the term literature
> > criticism is mentioned, because of some very harsh and dismissive
> > criticism of Tolkien's work in the past.
>
> And so you dismiss the subject out of hand? Have you stopped to think
> about how you feel about Tolkien's work, and why you feel that way?
>
don't agree with them. I don't demand that they stop reading or
writing about literature. Just on the principle that I don't have the
right to tell over people what to do with their lives. That is the
point *you* don't seem to get.
It doesn't mean I have never stopped to think (thanks for the
implication that I don't think btw)about Tolkien's work, in fact I
think about it every day. As for why I feel the way I do about
Tolkien's work? I know myself well enough to know why I love it so
much, but I wouldn't tell all the reasons because it would require me
to tell things that are way too personal to spit out on a ng.
This conversation is over so far as I am concerned.
Yuk Tang
news:4bb40450.0310...@posting.google.com:
> news:<Xns94211C95F89D1...@130.133.1.4>...
>> > Well, what I should have said in the first place was that as a
>> > Tolkien reader (I cordially dislike the term Tolkien *fan*)I
>> > share (seemingly)many other Tolkien readers' feelings of
>> > apprehension/distrust/dislike whenever the term literature
>> > criticism is mentioned, because of some very harsh and
>> > dismissive criticism of Tolkien's work in the past.
>>
>> And so you dismiss the subject out of hand? Have you stopped to
>> think about how you feel about Tolkien's work, and why you feel
>> that way?
>>
> I might dismiss some of the *conclusions* critics come to because
> I don't agree with them. I don't demand that they stop reading or
> writing about literature. Just on the principle that I don't have
> the right to tell over people what to do with their lives. That is
> the point *you* don't seem to get.
Well, in your OP you asked the question:
'Well, what *is* literary analysis, then? I honestly want to know.
If it is something besides some poof coming on this NG and going
"I know more about Tolkien's writing than he did. I know better
than he did about EVERYTHING because I'm a genius, look at me."
basically, then bring it on.'
And I gave you a summary of what literary analysis was. That lit
analysis was inseparable from reading and writing literature. If, as
implied in the OP, you felt that it was a waste of time, then you must
also disagree with this idea of lit analysis.
> It doesn't mean I have never stopped to think (thanks for the
> implication that I don't think btw)about Tolkien's work, in fact I
> think about it every day. As for why I feel the way I do about
> Tolkien's work? I know myself well enough to know why I love it so
> much, but I wouldn't tell all the reasons because it would require
> me to tell things that are way too personal to spit out on a ng.
Then don't. That you wish to keep your own reasons private shouldn't
be an excuse to mock others for writing down their own analyses.
> This conversation is over so far as I am concerned.
"I can't justify what I said three posts ago, but I don't want to back
down, so I'm not going to talk to you any more." If you're going to
make forthright statements like the above, you should have the guts to
defend them, or at least admit your doubts after hearing the other
side.
Chelsea Christenson
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:32:40 -0500,
> Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>AC wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:10:06 -0500,
>>>Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.C...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>I wasn't particularly describing an emotional effect -- I can swoon over
>>>>trashy novels perfectly well. Rather, the effect is to make demands
>>>>upon the intellect.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, because it didn't make demands on *your* intellect, it can't be great
>>>literature. Good to know.
>>
>>Did you happen to read the preceding paragraphs on subjectivity? If
>>not, do so. If so, stuff it.
>
>
> The point is that if the tests for literature with a capital "L" are so
> subjective, then I'd say they're worthless.
Interesting point, considering that's not what you said.
Nonetheless, I think it is worthwhile to think about what you value in
literature, which is what questions about "greatness" inspires.
Chelsea Christenson
> AC <tao...@alberni.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The point is that if the tests for literature with a capital "L" are so
>>subjective, then I'd say they're worthless.
>
>
> Yes. So I'd suggest to use more objective ones instead
Like what? Word count?
> statements like "This is not Great Literature" with "I didn't feel
> the urge to do an analysis of this book". That's probably clearer
> to understand and less likely to provoke disputes.
As I said, you can use whatever standard you like, but you have to
explain what that standard is.
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach wrote:
>> Yes. So I'd suggest to use more objective ones instead
> Like what? Word count?
Like the definition I gave, for example. It is close enough to yours
that it shouldn't be too unreasonable, and it is easy to check: You
just do the interpretation or the analysis to show that they exist.
The part that is hard to verify objectively is exactly the difference
between your definition and mine: That such an interpretation is being
"provoked" or the "demand" to to such an interpretation "haunts" the
(i.e., every possible) reader and won't leave him alone until he does it.
- Dirk
ste...@nomail.com
:>> Yes. So I'd suggest to use more objective ones instead
:> Like what? Word count?
: Like the definition I gave, for example. It is close enough to yours
: that it shouldn't be too unreasonable, and it is easy to check: You
: just do the interpretation or the analysis to show that they exist.
You can analyze or interpret anything. What is your objective
definition of interpretation or anaylsis that you plan on using
to determine the existence of an interpretation or analysis?
Stephen
th...@lucent.com
"The American" <a_real_...@hotspammail.com> writes:
> For me I've read it at *least* once a year for over 22 years now.
> Usually in the Summer.
> It's my traditional vacation reading.
> Although now with two small kids my reading length has been shorted to 2-3
> pages at a time!
Wait until THEY read it, and you get to talk to them about
it.... My 12-year-old has read them 5 times.
My 9-year-old is mid-ROTK. When he was reading about the
Ents he kept walking around going Hrummm Hrooommmm...
It is awesome being a dad.
> I've been asked a few times why I would reread a book so many times and the
> only thing I can think of is that no matter how many times I read it I
> always find something new and interesting.
> It's always fresh and so damn real.
> And, ok, I'll say it: IT'S THE BEST BOOK EVER WRITTEN!!!!!
> There.
> 'nuff said.
>
> T.A.
>
>
>
--
--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- http://ttsoft.com/thor
-- th...@lucent.com
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
> You can analyze or interpret anything. What is your objective
> definition of interpretation or anaylsis that you plan on using
> to determine the existence of an interpretation or analysis?
Common sense? While there will be certainly subjective variations
in the judgement of an interpretation or analysis, I think you can
get general agreement on a rough scale.
For example, I don't think anybody claims that you can do a serious
interpretation of a Stephen King novel that is not trivial ("trivial"
in the mathematical sense).
And you have to stop at some level. If you insist on "real objectivity",
probably the only thing you can still do is mathematics. Everything
else becomes subjective.
Anyway, since Chelsea's definition also contains the terms
"interpretation" and "analysis", both definition behave in the same way
with respect to that issue.
- Dirk
ste...@nomail.com
:> You can analyze or interpret anything. What is your objective
:> definition of interpretation or anaylsis that you plan on using
:> to determine the existence of an interpretation or analysis?
: Common sense? While there will be certainly subjective variations
: in the judgement of an interpretation or analysis, I think you can
: get general agreement on a rough scale.
: For example, I don't think anybody claims that you can do a serious
: interpretation of a Stephen King novel that is not trivial ("trivial"
: in the mathematical sense).
These people would seem to disagree with you:
http://www.pagedepot.com/thesicklytaper/KING.HTML
There is a whole collection of serious literay analysis and interpretation
of Stephen King novels. Or maybe in your opinion they do not count.
: And you have to stop at some level. If you insist on "real objectivity",
: probably the only thing you can still do is mathematics. Everything
: else becomes subjective.
Yes, that is obvious from the get go. You are the one demanding
some sort of objectivity. The simple fact is, many people do
not think Lord of the Rings is great literature. Why that
offends some people is baffling to me.
: Anyway, since Chelsea's definition also contains the terms
: "interpretation" and "analysis", both definition behave in the same way
: with respect to that issue.
: - Dirk
But she was never claiming her definition was objective. Why
others seemed so offended by her definition is quite puzzling to me.
Stephen
Troels Forchhammer
ste...@nomail.com <ste...@nomail.com> enriched us with:
>
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> ste...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>> For example, I don't think anybody claims that you can do a serious
>> interpretation of a Stephen King novel that is not trivial ("trivial"
>> in the mathematical sense).
>
> These people would seem to disagree with you:
> http://www.pagedepot.com/thesicklytaper/KING.HTML
Heh - I was sure that some existed ;-)
>> And you have to stop at some level. If you insist on "real
>> objectivity",
[...]
>
> Yes, that is obvious from the get go.
The only way, IMO, to construct an objective criterion is to
simply that some pre-ordained number of readers are willing to
make that claim (possibly in writing). That could be just one
reader - clearly a definition that doesn't exclude very much -
or it could be a very large number of readers - something which
would possibly exclude some of what is by the critics considered
the very best, since that kind of literature often appeals to
very few persons (what I once heard described as authors'
authors).
> You are the one demanding some sort of objectivity.
Let him not be alone ;-)
When telling others that 'I think this is good' there is no need
for any kind of objectivity - the statement is clearly personal,
but when making the claim that 'this /is/ (or is not) great
literature' then the statement transcends the self and makes an
assertation of the immanent nature of the book, and such a claim
should be verifiable which again requires a large degree of
objectivity.
> The simple fact is, many people do not think Lord of the Rings
> is great literature.
My suspicion is that 'great literature' can usually be replaced
with 'literature I like' or, from the more pompous among us
(myself among them), 'literature I find worthwhile'.
In this case there is nothing to say or do about it - what people
think of a book is entirely their own business. The problem
starts when they start expressing themselves in ways that purports
that this or that book is better than that other book in some
objective (or even quantifiable) way; that their subjective
assessment really is an expression of a higher objectivity.
> Why that offends some people is baffling to me.
It doesn't bother me, really. Many people find themselves unable
to finish FotR and so what? What offends me is when they imply
that my (obviously positive) opinion of the book is of less value
than theirs. You might say that I don't require objectivity, but
I do require honesty.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail address is t.forch(a)mail.dk
Kristian Damm Jensen
news:EZ3ob.1449$g4.3...@news2.nokia.com...
> in <bnpa19$2k9i$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
> ste...@nomail.com <ste...@nomail.com> enriched us with:
> > You are the one demanding some sort of objectivity.
>
> Let him not be alone ;-)
>
> When telling others that 'I think this is good' there is no need
> for any kind of objectivity - the statement is clearly personal,
> but when making the claim that 'this /is/ (or is not) great
> literature' then the statement transcends the self and makes an
> assertation of the immanent nature of the book, and such a claim
> should be verifiable which again requires a large degree of
> objectivity.
Very well put, Troels.
One might say, that the purpose of lit.crit. is to establish a framework for
analysis, that makes it possible to be more objective when describing the
qualities of a book than merely saying: I like this. But I doubt very much,
that total objectivity can be acheived. Too much evidence to the contrary.
<snip>
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
damm (at) ofir (dot) dk
Dirk Thierbach
> There is a whole collection of serious literay analysis and
> interpretation of Stephen King novels.
Fascinating :-). Any particular one you can recommend that really has
a point worth looking at?
> You are the one demanding some sort of objectivity.
I was trying to find out if there is something behind the theory that
"good literature provokes and demands" that I can understand or use in
any way. I have never been "provoked" or felt a "demand " interpret by
any book I have read so far, even by those books where there seems to
be some agreement that they are "great literature". However, all books
that fall into that category allow me to do something interesting with
them. They *allow* me to think about them, but usually, the less they
*demand* it (in the sense that they try to manipulate me into thinking
what *they* want, instead of letting me make my own decisions) and the
more open they are in this respect, the better they are (IMHO).
> The simple fact is, many people do not think Lord of the Rings is
> great literature. Why that offends some people is baffling to me.
It doesn't offend me. I don't care what people think about other
things, be it LotR or any other book. Everyone is entitled to hate the
LotR from the bottom of his soul, if that is what he feels.
But I was puzzled because I have heard this "provoking" theory (SCNR)
now a few times, and I just cannot make any sense out of it.
> But she was never claiming her definition was objective. Why
> others seemed so offended by her definition is quite puzzling to me.
It was my silent assumption that if she uses such a definition to make
a judgement that looks objective, then there might be something
objective behind it (and I don't want to do hair-splitting about
degrees of objectivity here).
- Dirk
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote:
:> There is a whole collection of serious literay analysis and
:> interpretation of Stephen King novels.
: Fascinating :-). Any particular one you can recommend that really has
: a point worth looking at?
According to who's definition of "worth"? Obviously
these people found it worth looking at. Why are you so
dismissive of Stephen King?
:> You are the one demanding some sort of objectivity.
: I was trying to find out if there is something behind the theory that
: "good literature provokes and demands" that I can understand or use in
: any way. I have never been "provoked" or felt a "demand " interpret by
: any book I have read so far, even by those books where there seems to
: be some agreement that they are "great literature". However, all books
: that fall into that category allow me to do something interesting with
: them. They *allow* me to think about them, but usually, the less they
: *demand* it (in the sense that they try to manipulate me into thinking
: what *they* want, instead of letting me make my own decisions) and the
: more open they are in this respect, the better they are (IMHO).
Different people react differently to different things. Some
people do find art much more demanding. Things truly move
them in a way that they cannot simply ignore, or at least
not without effort. And your sense of *demand* is not
the sense that any one else was using it. Noone is saying
that it makes them think about it in a certain way, they
are saying that it makes them think about it. Where did
this manipulation idea come from?
:> The simple fact is, many people do not think Lord of the Rings is
:> great literature. Why that offends some people is baffling to me.
: It doesn't offend me. I don't care what people think about other
: things, be it LotR or any other book. Everyone is entitled to hate the
: LotR from the bottom of his soul, if that is what he feels.
: But I was puzzled because I have heard this "provoking" theory (SCNR)
: now a few times, and I just cannot make any sense out of it.
You just might not think that way. Some people do think that
way, and many people who make literature a central part of their
lives do think that way.
I have a brother who is a professional jazz musician. The
way he appreciates music is very different than the way I do,
or the way most people do. Music has to do something much
more than just be pleasing to the ear. It has to really
explore something new, or say something to him. Otherwise,
why bother with it? A lot of music that I really like he
simply cannot stand. Now obviously, it is all still just
his opinion, but objectively he knows far more about music
than I do, and devotes most of his time and energy to music.
To him it is a real passion, and not something that he
can just take or leave.
I imagine the world of literary criticism is dominated by people
who feel the same way about the written word. It seems to
be a general temperament common to artists, whatever the medium.
Stephen
ste...@nomail.com
: in <bnpa19$2k9i$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>,
: ste...@nomail.com <ste...@nomail.com> enriched us with:
:>
:> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@gmx.de> wrote:
:>> ste...@nomail.com wrote:
:>>
:>> For example, I don't think anybody claims that you can do a serious
:>> interpretation of a Stephen King novel that is not trivial ("trivial"
:>> in the mathematical sense).
:>
:> These people would seem to disagree with you:
:> http://www.pagedepot.com/thesicklytaper/KING.HTML
: Heh - I was sure that some existed ;-)
Why wouldn't they?
<snip>
:> Why that offends some people is baffling to me.
: It doesn't bother me, really. Many people find themselves unable
: to finish FotR and so what? What offends me is when they imply
: that my (obviously positive) opinion of the book is of less value
: than theirs. You might say that I don't require objectivity, but
: I do require honesty.
But oddly enough, the only people who have been openly
dismissive of other works are the ones objecting to
the "provocative" definition of great literature. You are
not among this number, but it still is odd.
As to what you like, your opinion is as good as any, but do
you really think all opinions are equally valid? Do you
think a trained musicians opinion of what makes good music
should have more weight than what the average Joe thinks?
Or is it all the same to you? I think many musicians would
honestly believe their opinion is of more worth.
Stephen
Bob F.
>
> As to what you like, your opinion is as good as any, but do
> you really think all opinions are equally valid? Do you
> think a trained musicians opinion of what makes good music
> should have more weight than what the average Joe thinks?
> Or is it all the same to you? I think many musicians would
> honestly believe their opinion is of more worth.
>
> Stephen
>
But, alot of interesting criticism comes from people who are not masters of
the field they critique; they do not create great movies, great music or
great novels, but the insights they share are equally or more more
interesting than those of the people who do. The ability to critique is
limited by the critics intellect and ability to communicate, not whether
they are master of the profession they are writing about.
Bob
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote in news:bnrihs$1mod$3...@msunews.cl.msu.edu:
: Bob
True. But you are attributing to them some ability that
makes their opinion more worthwhile than others. Most people
really do not believe that all opinions are of equal worth.
Stephen
Bob F.
> True. But you are attributing to them some ability that
> makes their opinion more worthwhile than others. Most people
> really do not believe that all opinions are of equal worth.
>
> Stephen
I agree that all opinions are not equal, but I thought you putting too much
emphasis on the value of say a musician's opinions over a laymans. I have
read many an interview with a musician who can barely speak a coherent
sentence, but when it comes time to make music...they sure can sing.
Bob
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote in news:bnrk1l$1pm0$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu:
: Bob
One's opinion and one's ability to express one's opinion
are different things. A serious musician is likely to be much
more knowledgeable about music than a layman, but that does
not mean they can articulate that knowledge. One it comes
to things one is truly passionate about, it is often hard
to describe the passion in words.
There is a story of reporters asking the choreographer, Martha Graham,
"What does your dance mean?" She replied, "Darlings, if I could tell you,
I would not have danced it."
Stephen
Bob F.
> Bob F. <littlem...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: ste...@nomail.com wrote in news:bnrk1l$1pm0$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu:
>
>
> One's opinion and one's ability to express one's opinion
> are different things. A serious musician is likely to be much
> more knowledgeable about music than a layman, but that does
> not mean they can articulate that knowledge. One it comes
> to things one is truly passionate about, it is often hard
> to describe the passion in words.
>
I mistakenly used "layman" when I meant non-musician who is passionate
about music (perhaps affionado is closer). My opinion was that you place
too much value on the musician's opinion. Often it takes someone outside
the profession directly discuss that art in a greater context. The
musician often has too myopic a view to do that.
Bob
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote in news:bnrm4h$1r2d$2...@msunews.cl.msu.edu:
: Bob
I am not indending to place too much emphasis on the musician's
opinion. I am trying to emphasize the fact that opinions
have different worths. If someone is passionate about music,
their opinion about music is likely to be of more value
than someone who is not. I was just using a musician as
an example.
Stephen
Bob F.
>
> I am not indending to place too much emphasis on the musician's
> opinion. I am trying to emphasize the fact that opinions
> have different worths. If someone is passionate about music,
> their opinion about music is likely to be of more value
> than someone who is not. I was just using a musician as
> an example.
>
> Stephen
Then I misunderstood your intent.
Bob
Jim Deutch
morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
>In article <3f9e9f31....@news.compuserve.com>,
>10313...@compuserve.com (Jim Deutch) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:27:02 -0700, mair_...@yahoo.com (coyotes
>> morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges) wrote:
>> >
>> >at the most fundamental level
>> >everything is subjective
>>
>> That's absolutely true. <g>
>
>there are no absolute truths
>
>there is no only chocolate cream pie
Mmmm.... chocolate cream pie....
Jim Deutch
--
"If a tree falls in the forest...it'll land on me."
Yuk Tang
news:EZ3ob.1449$g4.3...@news2.nokia.com:
> The only way, IMO, to construct an objective criterion is to
> simply that some pre-ordained number of readers are willing to
> make that claim (possibly in writing). That could be just one
> reader - clearly a definition that doesn't exclude very much -
> or it could be a very large number of readers - something which
> would possibly exclude some of what is by the critics considered
> the very best, since that kind of literature often appeals to
> very few persons (what I once heard described as authors'
> authors).
The best definition I can think of is that any literature which can
convince one to write a book, or extended essay about it deserves the
Big L.
Douglas Bailey
> The best definition I can think of is that any literature which can
> convince one to write a book, or extended essay about it deserves the
> Big L.
This is a bit like Dr Dale Atrens' definition of a "drug": "Any
substance which, when injected into an albino rat, produces a
scientific paper."
:-)
doug
--
---------------Douglas Bailey (trys...@world.std.com)---------------
I can't see the lines I used to think I could read between...
--Eno
Yuk Tang
> makes their opinion more worthwhile than others. Most people
> really do not believe that all opinions are of equal worth.
If one can communicate one's thoughts on a subject clearly (to the
satisfaction of oneself), then one's opinion is worth considering. If
one can understand the thoughts of others on the subject, and revise
one's thoughts in the wake of this, then one's opinion is worthy of
respect.
Yuk Tang
news:MPG.1a0b5a8a...@news.cis.dfn.de:
>> The best definition I can think of is that any literature which
>> can convince one to write a book, or extended essay about it
>> deserves the Big L.
>
> This is a bit like Dr Dale Atrens' definition of a "drug": "Any
> substance which, when injected into an albino rat, produces a
> scientific paper."
So do you believe that Cake is a made-up drug?
Dirk Thierbach
> : Fascinating :-). Any particular one you can recommend that really has
> : a point worth looking at?
> According to who's definition of "worth"?
Just try yours for a start. I assume you have read some of them?
> Obviously these people found it worth looking at.
I want to find out which of these I should have a closer look at.
BTW, I went through the list very quickly, and noticed that by the
titles, most of them seem to be about Stephen King itself (like "Has
Success Spoiled Stephen King"), or about the "phenomenon" Stephen
King, and they don't seem to interpret or analyse some book in detail.
> Why are you so dismissive of Stephen King?
Because I have read some of his books, and I didn't think one
could do an interesting interpretation of this kind of books. Maybe
I am wrong, but to find out if I am wrong, I have to have a look
at such an interpretation.
I am certainly not going to read everything that is on this list.
> Some people do find art much more demanding.
Maybe it's a language problem. I would translate this sense of
"demanding" as "anspruchsvoll", while "this books demands an
interpretation" translates to "herausfordern" (which is also a
possible meaning of "provoking"). In my mind, these two are quite
different concepts.
> Things truly move them in a way that they cannot simply ignore, or
> at least not without effort. And your sense of *demand* is not the
> sense that any one else was using it.
It's the same in the sense that there is something else that has its
own will, and keeps trying to influence me in some way that I cannot
ignore.
> they are saying that it makes them think about it.
That's the same I feel about it. I have no objection to "Great
literature can make you think about it". But why then use "provoke"
and "demand", instead of "allow"?
> Where did this manipulation idea come from?
See above.
[...]
> It has to really explore something new, or say something to him.
That's again a very good definition. I'd certainly agree with
"literature has to explore something new, or say something to me".
But it doesn't "demand" or "provoke" it. For example, I can overlook
for along time that a book explores something new, because I just
haven't come across the right way to look at the book to understand
what it says, yet.
- Dirk
Yuk Tang
news:dh4871-...@ID-7776.user.dfncis.de:
>
>> Some people do find art much more demanding.
>
> Maybe it's a language problem. I would translate this sense of
> "demanding" as "anspruchsvoll", while "this books demands an
> interpretation" translates to "herausfordern" (which is also a
> possible meaning of "provoking"). In my mind, these two are quite
> different concepts.
I'd have thought that the systematic study of German lit was rather
older than the equivalent of English lit. IIRC the flowering of German
philosophy dates back to the early-C19, probably even earlier, while
English lit the subject didn't exists until early-C20.
AFAIK, the Russians first attempted to provide an objective description
of what 'art' is in the mid-C19. In doing so, they came up with the
requirement that art defamiliarised, and could not easily be accepted.
This was repudiated by the Marxists (Trotsky, Gorky et al) when they
came to power. So those who would enjoy art for its non-provocative
qualities actually have that much in common with the Communists.