The Tolkien Template - Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore

[ReededGoat]

I'm interested to hear people's comments and philosophies on the following...
Much of the fantasy written today is garbage. People churn out imitative junk without truly paying homage to their sources. Many might say that all modern fantasy is based on Tolkien, but Tolkien himself would probably disagree. Tolkien admittedly was fashioning a myth based quite heavily on many existing myths. What Tolkien accomplished was the very meaning of myth - the stories are created from various sources - real experience, imagination, exaggeration; and are then filtered through many minds and mouths as time rolls ever on. He took from many sources (the man was a veritable goldmine of medieval myth and language), and fashioned a brilliant epic in the literary style and feel of myth.
What much of today's fantasy fails to embody is a style that is both captivating and interesting. Much description of environment is a run-on laundry list of flowery phraseology. Example (made up by myself): They awoke the following morning, sleep still heavy on their minds. The glowing embers from the fire the night before provided the illusion of warmth and comfort. The morning dew glistened on the blades of grass, and songbirds heralded the coming of the sun.
Whereas in Tolkien (and in old myths and legends from long ago) things are, literally, more intense:
Down in the lowest and most sheltered corner of the dell they lit a fire, and prepared a meal. The shades of evening began to fall, and it grew cold. They were suddenly aware of great hunger, for they had not eaten anything since breakfast; but they dared not make more than a frugal supper. The lands ahead were empty of all save birds and beasts, unfriendly places deserted by all the races of the world. (from FOTR p. 202, Houghton-Mifflin, second edition).
JRRT keeps things simple, but strings things in a way that flows and sets the scene perfectly. In cases where things need to be more intense, he adopts the absolutely ridiculous nature of myth, where the impossible becomes possible, and if not handeled correctly, or given the proper context, could become downright silly:
With that he seized a great horn from Guthláf his banner-bearer, and he blew such a blast upon it that it burst asunder. And straightway all the horns in the host were lifted up in music, and the blowing of the horns of Rohan in that hour was like a storm upon the plain and a thunder in the mountains. (ROTK, p. 112, ibid)
or
And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City. (ROTK, p. 113, ibid)
To compare, here is a brief bit from Lady Gregory's Cuchulainn of Muirthemne (Irish mythology)
And he cut down a tree with his sword, and it having four branches, and he lopped them short, and cleared the tree; and he stood up in his chariot, and with one cast he drove the tree into the ground that it stood deep and firm, and he set the four heads he had struck off on the four lopped branches of it. (Cuchulainn of Muirthemne, Lady Gregory, p. 152, Colin Smythe Limited)
It should not be suggested that modern writers of fantasy throw off their current techniques and begin writing in a style based on Early Modern English, or that such exaggerated feats of mythical proportions be blatantly incorporated into their novels, but it might behoove more writers to examine how their actual prose might enhance (or inhibit) their stories and how they are conveyed to the reader. There is power in some writing that has nothing to do with the plot or characters...JRRT is a writer who reflects this concept. It is good to look at a poem he was quite in love with during his life - Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The alliteration used in that poem often tonally reflects what is happening in the story...things become more difficult to say when difficult events are transpiring, the language flows when the story is relaxed, and the language becomes very rhythmic and quick when the story touches upon festivities...I will not quote here, many editions are available for study.
Fantasy as a genre is in its infancy in our world...perhaps many problems arise from writers trying to create something wholly original, when no art is truly (at its very core) original. In acknowledging the various sources that are imitated and drawn from, one transcends the problem of trying to separate from the very traditions that imbue stories with vibrancy and life.
As a disclaimer, much of what has been said above relates the very insecurities I have with my own writing, and I will always be struggling to overcome them. As such, this thread is not intended to aid me in my personal problems, it is in the very analysis of them that I become curious about other people's opinions regarding the observations I've made.

Thanks for reading,
RG

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: ReededGoat ]

[thorondil]

In my opinion Tolkien wrote from some higher or deeper level of the heart/spirit and I imagine that sometimes like Tuor he "marvelled to hear himself speak so." The beauty and depth of some of his prose is unparalled. Born in Norse myths like that of Sigurd and Volsung and Fafnir the dragon, and in the woodlands he played in as a child, his work became more than mere myth; it became a spiritual excercise.

'Do you wonder at this?'he said.'Behold! thy creatures now live, free from thy will! For I have seen thy humility, and taken pity on your impatience. Thy making I have taken up into my design.'
--quoted from letter 212

[kaleidoscope]

A lot of the fantasy books I have read (and I've read quite a few) seem to copy off Tolkien in more than one way. Most have something to the effect of "the little unimportant person goes off to kill big bad guy without knowing much about what they are doing to begin with and group of people that go with little unimportant person to help get lost somewhere along the way." And of course the good guys always win. It is my opinion that these have been copied off Tolkien because his books are the earliest ones in which I have seen that happen. That's just my opinion, though.

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

You have a point. The thing is though, fantasty, because of Tolkien, is a particular genre that contains a lot of spin-offy type novels. Rather like Star Wars, except these fantasy books have nothig to do with Tolkien but are inspired by it.

Anyone who is inspired by another author to go and write a book is bound to be somewhat trashy; their story is going to be too close to the inspiring author. You can be inspired by other authors to write, kind of write in general, but if you follow them too closely you're bound to look fake. You have to have your own unique world to set fantasy in.

Having said this, the problem may be in your own mind. Perhaps you are sort of comparing fantasy you read with Tolkien? Well, since Tolkien himself is insurpassable, you get a bit of a problem there, you see? Personally I don't tend to read fantasy for that reason; I find it too generally be a poor imitation of Tolkien. Once you've read the works of the Prof, everything else is naturally going to seem rather inept.

I make one exception. Philip Pullman and his 'His Dark Materials' trilogy. I spose you'd call that fantasy, although it isn't the usual, run of the mill crude imitation stuff. In fact he bears no resemblance to the Great Man at all. He's very good though. Incredible imagination.

[ReededGoat]

I disagree that a writer inspired by another writer will write something trashy...far from it. I think part of the problem is not truly acknowledging where you are getting your stuff from. Many people try to hard to be original, and many times they are working within a closely imitative context (much to their own obliviousness, sometimes). Better to know fully that you are imitating, because then you are free to just write. In music composition it has been said that the best composer is one who steals well...from other composers. There is an argument to be made that nothing is truly original - I think there are some that get close, like James Joyce, but even in his crazy novel Ulysses, he was using the template of the Odyssey - thereby imitating one of the oldest works of literature known to man! Tom Stoppard the playwright can be closely tied to Beckett, but he has a voice all his own at the same time. A lot of my problems with the fantasy I speak of is in the actual writing...many of the stories are great! I have read many novels and said to myself - the stories are good, the characters are good, but the writing is lacking. It's like the spit-shine to the whole thing, and Tolkien's still got the shiniest car on the block.
That said, I do find it difficult not to consider JRRT when reading other fantasy, but I am able to evaluate based on my own criteria, without holding it next to JRRT.

Thanks for the responses - great to read them,
RG

[littlemanpoet]

Greetings and well met, ReededGoat. Fascinating name - a reference to the deity Pan?

*bows and tips bard's cap*

There is a lot of imitative junk out there. I personally think this has at least as much to do with the publishing industry as lazy authors. I also believe that there are some writers who so badly want to get published that they prostitute their craft to the whims of the publishers. Therefore, mostly imitative stuff gets published.

I think you would be interested in these older threads that have to do with similar slants on this topic:Writing in the Spirit of Tolkien (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002375)

Many might say that all modern fantasy is based on Tolkien, but Tolkien himself would probably disagree.
With good reason. Other equally powerful influences on modern fantasy are the Arthurian legends; Robert E. Howard's sword & sorcery tradition; and science fantasy (which I distinguish both from science fiction & fantasy in that sci-fan concerns itself with aliens and starships, but rather than mechanics, it deals with Light and Dark, and all the archetypical stuff.

Another thread that might interest you is: Are You Writing Serious Fantasy? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001162&p=1)

The above mentioned thread was a spin-off of a discussion that dealt with the whole question of whether fantasy is even a valid genre, and why doesn't any of it measure up to Tolkien?

The other thread (which I can't find!!!! arg!) was called, "Are there any valid criticisms? (aka Kalessin's rant)". I highly recommend it. You'll feel right at home - if you can find it.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I found the thread littlemanpoet was looking for; here is Kalessin's Rant (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001564). Enjoy!

[Birdland]

The one truly original element that the Prof created, that is now copied in most fantasy novels, is the Hero as a "small person". (Not small just in terms of height, but in being a commoner) Before that, the Commoner as Hero was relegated to the the Fairy Tale, which were directed to children, usually as a moral compass or a teaching aid. The Mythic Quest was usually considered a more "grown-up" tale, and the Hero was usually of the nobility; a knight, king or powerful warrior. (Or in the case of very early Science Fiction, a "Man of Science".)

In the Fairy Tale, the Commoner Hero would have an adventure, which would, in the end, lead to a growth in status and earthly rewards. ("The Hobbit", is a classic example of the Fairy Tale, in fact.)

In the Mythic Quest, the Warrior Hero would endure much more hardship, and would also undergo a period of self-discovery, and in the end, may even suffer a fall from grace and status (usually due to the sin of Hubris.)

Tolkien was the first to successfully combine the two genres: The Commoner as Mythic Hero. Frodo summed up the difference very succinctly: "This is no treasure-hunt, no there-and-back journey. I am flying from deadly peril into deadly peril." And in the end the most deadly peril was his loss of innocence. His fall from "Hobbit Grace", as it were.

This seems to be the element that most other fantasy writers seem to overlook when trying to copy Tolkien. They use the Commoner Hero, but too often the character does not go through the changes that make him a truely Mythic Hero. There is no fall from grace for them. They go through all the trappings of a Mythic Quest, and yet do not change. All they are left with is some great stories to tell by the fireside, as they go back to their old life. Their ending is more like Samwise's, not Frodo's.

[Túroch]

Wow that's one long post, but a good one ReededGoat. Well here is my humble opinion on the subject. One of the reasons that Tolkiens fantasy is so ground breaking is he wrote it as a history of Middle-Earth not mearly a tale of it. Living in pre-WWII England as he did he was distrested by the increasing urbanization and lack of english mythology. This guy could speak and read ancient Anglo-Saxon! Thats a feat. He wanted to create some sort of mythology that England could have for it's own. A deep and rich mythic history full of tales of woe and heroics. That's what gives Tolkiens work such amazing depths. Now some could say that Tolkien himself copied many Norse legends and mythology, most notabley the Ring of the Nibelung. But I don't think this the case. Tolkien used many values and ideals that the norse used. Mainly becuase the history he was creating was for an Anglo-Saxon people, pretty close to the Norse.

I do heartily agree that many modern authors tend to copy some of Tollkiens theme's and many how do just churn out novels that are cheap imitations of the genuine article. Most notable in my opinion is Robert Jordan smilies/mad.gif but that is my OPINION.

There are some fantasy novels that don't follow Tolkien's path, The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle is one. So obviously just because you write fantasy you don't have to follow Tolkien. So why do we keep noticing similarities. Well for one reason Tolkien tales have some themes that resonante not just in all off Fantasy but in human nature, the theme of, "the little unimportant person goes off to kill big bad guy without knowing much about what they are doing to begin with and group of people that go with little unimportant person to help get lost somewhere along the way" has been used in many of the books as Kaleidoscope pointed out. This has a theme of Hope & of the weak fighting against the strong. One of Tolkien's more prevelant themes is that the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Sam, who starts out as the lowest, a mere servant, becomes the saviour. Who is the hero in LOTR? I'
d say it was Sam. After Frodo was captured he kept on, nad would not throw away his quest. If not for Sam the quest would have been a failure. My favorite them is of forgiveness and redemption. In LOTR redemption is the key. Pity stayed Bilbo's hand from killing Gollum, and Frodo did much the same. Frodo's decision to have pity on Gollum was a decieding factor in the story. If Frodo had not forgivin him then the qeust would not of Suceeded. There is also the example of Boromir's repemdption and Argorn forgiving his previous actions. I wont go into the other themes. Some of these themes are hard to escape from and so sometimes it is understandable to have a little of Tolkien in your work. Although only a little, and more in the themes and objectives then in outright stealing characters and landscapes.

So not all modern fantasy is terrible just a large percent of it. You just have to find an author that above all is writing to tell a good story not make mega bucks by getting paid by the word and pushing out huge amounts of trash
......cough...Jordan...Cough. Tolkien's works are the works of a great historian and wonderful linguist who wanted most of all to tell a good story and he certinly did.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Gwaihir----

On a side issue....I also think Pullman stands far above most other fantasy writers. When you read Pullman, it's as if you've taken Tolkien's ideas and stood them on their head in a very imaginative way. Some find his themes upsetting. I do not always agree with him, but I found the books mesmerizing!

Bird--

Yes, I agree with you. You have said it very gracefully. It is Frodo's loss of innocence which makes him so compelling to us. What makes him different than many contemporary fantasy figures is that he is hurt and suffering but there is no cynicism there, no rejection of the wider ideals that placed him in the situation he's in. He's still the same gentle Frodo, only very, very hurt. So much goes unsaid at the end of the book!

ReededGoat

Interesting topic!

People churn out imitative junk without truly paying homage to their sources.

I'm afraid the problem is even broader than this. The sad thing is that education has changed since the days of Tolkien. It's not just that fantasy authors don't pay homage to their sources. Many are totally ignorant of them! History and mythology have slipped from our common understanding. We can no longer assume if a person is 'educated', he or she will be acquainted with certain basic works.

We are a very practical age. We no longer even give lip service to the creedo that it's important to get a good liberal arts education. College students specialize in practical subjects at a very young age, gearing up to making a practical living. They gain something, but they lose something too.

Have you seen the recent interview by T.A. Shippey, a philologist who has done some great stuff on JRRT and Middle-earth? Shippey fears that we will never again see the likes of fantasy authors J.R.R. Tolkien or T.H. White whose works stand far above the rest. The reason is that we no longer have the education to produce such quirky, eccentric and erudite minds. This is very sad, but I am afraid he is right.

sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[littlemanpoet]

Ursula K. LeGuin's EarthSea series is another very good set of fantasy books. There is a sense of Place in her works that sets it apart from anything having to do with Tolkien. Her works stand on their own merit. I personally don't see why she doesn't get more credit.

we no longer have the education to produce such quirky, eccentric and erudite minds. This is very sad, but I am afraid he is right.
I cannot, will not, do not, agree. I most strongly and courteously disagree, Child. In a certain website that shall go unnamed except in my signature, smilies/tongue.gif I have made the acquaintance of writers young and old who have plenty of the quirk, eccentricity, and erudition to which you refer. Maybe home schooling has something to do with that, I don't know, but that is not the only thing. I will say it again, I think the greatest heap of blame may be laid at the feet of overly conservative publishing houses. "Go with a winner" is the creed, which means stuff that's proven to make money and lots of it. Remember, it was through a series of quirks of fate (some may call it) that Tolkien's works ever saw the published page.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet,

I do indeed believe that there are young writers out there who are wonderfully gifted with words and who have a deep feeling for fantasy. And you are probably right in saying that adjectives like quirky, eccentric, and erudite can be applied to them.

Yet I would still argue that Shippey has made a very valid point. The vast majority of young people no longer take classes in history, mythology, and classical/medieval texts. In the late 1970s, I was in college and, like many others, took a strong and rebellious stand hoping to abolish required humanities courses in the curriculum. Unfortunately, in school after school, we succeeded.

I could cite statistics and polls that would make your hair stand on end as to our deficiencies in the humanities. The home schoolers are a tiny but vibrant group. Yet, for various reasons,--economic, social, intellectual--homeschooling will never be a mass movement. Most children have to rely on institutions for their education, and these institutions have been sorely lacking. The young people themselves are not at fault. They are not responsible for our system of education or our funding priorities.

Perhaps, I'm going to come off sounding like an ancient grouch who runs around yelling "It was better in my day!" Yet there is some truth in that! In the days of yore when I went to college every student was required to take at least a basic course in Western Civilization and in World Literature. It is a very rare school that still has such requirements. The days of a liberal arts education are gone.

You are indeed lucky to be working with young people who have some background in history and myth. But also believe me when I tell you, that this type of background is rare. Yes, there are a fortunate few who come to the humanities via home schooling or their own curiosity. Yet many institutions of education do so very little to help these students. Shame on them!

So I think Shippey has some reason to say that the Tolkiens and Whites, with their amazing grounding in history and myth and ancient literature, are becoming harder to find.

sharon

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

The one truly original element that the Prof created, that is now copied in most fantasy novels, is the Hero as a "small person".

There's a little story about David and Goliath that was written way before Tolkien was born.

The only way to be free of Tokien's influence is to never have read him, and to never have read anything by anyone who did read him. The only way to write original fiction is to never read anyone elses fiction. Maybe you couldn't read anything at all, or even talk to anyone depending on how extreme you want to get with the word "original". No one on earth is truly original. Tolkien's genius was in taking his influences and putting them together in a new way.

Tolkien created a world from made up languages. The basic elements of each were not original. Tolkien was influenced by every language he knew and every word he ever read. But the idea of putting the two pieces together that way was original, as far as I know.

Hmm..I didn't go to the other threads linked to this thread. I hope I'm not repeating anyone.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I just tried to wade through the Rant and the four gazillion pages of "Are you trying to write serious fantasy?" I have never read so much well meant literary snobbery in all my life, mixed in alongside a huge amount of hypocracy with good intentions. Right down the same alley as this thread: critisizing authors for emulating the pinnacle of their art form (JRRT) and then in the next breath complaining because fantasy movies aren't winning Oscars. *sigh* Sorry Estelyn. smilies/smile.gif Maybe this post shouldn't be in this thread.

[Birdland]

There's a little story about David and Goliath that was written way before Tolkien was born.
Keneldil - First off, Welcome to the Downs!

Secondly - And when I state this, I am in no way making any kind of judgement call on stories of the Old Testment, or seeking to get into a theological debate. But if you look at the first part of the story of King David, it follows many of the elements that I mentioned above of the classic "Fairy Tale", in that it is the story of a small boy of the common people, who is called on to defeat an opponent, and in doing so earns a higher status and earthly rewards. (He become the King). It is only later in the story of David that we see the High Hero of the Mythic Quest, who struggles against adversity and his own human faults.

David faces no such doubts and trouble at the beginning of the tale. He retains his innocence and his faith. We don't have the young David questioning his destiny, or falling from favor of God, or commiting some grievous error or sin that will change him forever. He is in the beginning, just a plucky shepherd boy with a sling, who steps forward, triumphs, and earns his reward. "And he lived happily ever after" The End.

Of course we know that is not the end, any more than it was "The End" for Bilbo after he returns to the Shire after his adventures. But the Fairy Tale seldom takes us beyond that point.

I'm reminded of a bit of doggerel by one of my favorite "local" authors, James Thurber:

The World is so full of wonderful things,
I'm sure we could all be as happy as Kings.
(...and we all know how happy Kings are.)"

But as I said earlier, Tolkien was the first to blend these two elements, the common hero of the Fairy Tale who goes on the epic Mythical Quest, and suffers some very deep, fundamental changes from it. He also suffers loss, falls from grace, and, eventually, gains redemption.

None of these things happen in the first part of the Story of David. It may happen to him later, but that is another story, about a King, not a shepherd boy.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Birdland ]

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

I still hold to my original post. Just about all fantasy you read is set in a medieval world, with a hero who goes out to seek enlightenment and/or perform some great essential task. Whether this has got anything to do with Tolkien or not is debatable; but the fact is, it seems pretty damm close. It is impossible to read it without thinking about how much better Tolkien would be, I think anyway... someone mentioned that the only way to enjoy a fantasy novel, is if both you and the author have never read Tolkien. (or something like that.) Good call; very true.

This question is, however, entirely based on how each individual reacts. For instance, as I have already said, I cannot help classing the lesser fantasy work (i.e. all fantasy other than Pullman, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Alan Garner and Pratchett -- who isn't really fantasy anyway -- and a few others) as inferior to Tolkien in my mind, and fail to be interested in them because I also class them as rip-offs and, well, lesser. Which I think a lot of them are. Sort of try-hard.

That's just how my mind works with this respect. Maybe I'll get over it some time and start reading more fantasy; maybe not. (I read a lot, but not generally fantasy.) Actually, I don't think I will get over it, because the fantasy I read is of a subtly different kind to the average fantasy books. (Check the authors listed.)

Perhaps everyone else's mind workd differently?

[littlemanpoet]

I confess. *Raises hand in mixture of shame and pride* I am a snob and a hypocrite. Who ain't in one field or another? Now that that's out of the way, I still agree with Gwaihir by and large.

Child: I still see at least one problem with your support of Shippey's position, which I admittedly am getting second-hand from you. Whereas home-schooling is a minority development amid the educational world, it only overlaps with the minority of youngsters, and oldsters, who aspire to write good fantasy. The latter are an even smaller eclectic bunch of quirky, eccentric and erudite folk. To denounce the entire educational system of our own time seems to overlook the reality that the kinds of people who aspire to write fantasy are precisely the kind who are going to go out of their way to become familiar with mythology, the subjects of the humanities, and much else that more practically leaning folks won't bother with. And the internet makes the old documents readily accessible to these aspiring writers of fantasy - and just happens to make it a lot easier to find each other and encourage each other in becoming better and the craft. So whereas I agree that the golden days of the liberal arts in formal education are behind us, I believe that the new modes of communication available to those who aspire, more than make up for the lack. Hmm - Dungeons and Dragons may have a good influence on this knowledge base, too, derived and second-hand as it is.

I wouldn't mind having "snob" and "hypocrite" delineated or illustrated a little bit - it might help us to clarify our beliefs, thinking, and arguments.

[littlemanpoet]

Oh! I almost forgot. Nar one of our Downs friends, has posited two different types of fantasy: transition and immersion. Immersion is the kind where you are in a world other than ours from the get-go. Transition is the kind where you start in current Earth time and move into another world, be it Faerie, a different planet, place, time, what have you. It is NOT the case that ALL fantasy is immersion.

Stephen Lawhead's Albion series is transtional. Pullman uses both. Tolkien, of course, is immersion, but started writing the whole thing as a transitional time-travel story.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Secondly - And when I state this, I am in no way making any kind of judgment call on stories of the Old Testament, or seeking to get into a theological debate.

Thanks for the welcome Birdland. I also am not trying to start any sort of theological debate. I cited David and Goliath purely from the viewpoint of it as a story, apart from any religious beliefs. I apologize if I was unclear with my intent.

I may have quoted you a bit out of context Birdland. I re-read your post with your subsequent amplification your idea. I think we are arguing the same point.

But as I said earlier, Tolkien was the first to blend these two elements

And if I may be allowed the arrogance of quoting myself smilies/smile.gif :

But the idea of putting the two pieces together that way was original, as far as I know.

It looks to me like we are agreeing on the issue of Tolkien’s true genius being in the way he combined his influences. I have to disagree with your points regarding the story of David.

None of these things happen in the first part of the Story of David. It may happen to him later, but that is another story, about a King, not a shepherd boy.

Your argument holds up only because of the way you divide the story of David. If I were to call David’s life from beginning to end one story (which I think it is) then your elements are there.

Gwaihir, you miss quoted me on this one:

someone mentioned that the only way to enjoy a fantasy novel, is if both you and the author have never read Tolkien.

What I did say was that the only way to WRITE truly original fantasy is to not read Tolkien, or anyone else for that matter. I think it is impossible to avoid being influenced in writing by the things you have read.

I have read JRRT’s stuff more times than I can count starting back when I was in the 4th grade. I am a Tolkienite elitist, and proud of it. However, I still enjoy many different fantasy authors, including Robert Jordan (GASP). I know he is one of the favorite whipping boys in this forum and I risk any chance at credibility when I say I can sit down and enjoy his stuff. Do I think he is as good as Tolkien? NO. But do I think his stuff his useful only when you run out of toilet paper? NO.

That (the Robert Jordan bias) is some of the snobbery I was referring to, Gwaihir. I ran across most of that when I was trying to inflict the “Are you writing serious fantasy?” and the “Kalessin’s Rant” threads on myself. What I saw was a lot of Tolkienites bashing most everything else in written form that makes an attempt at the fantasy genre. I’ll stand in the front row of the Tolkienite apologists, but I won’t say no one else can write something worthwhile. I don’t mind when today’s authors show the influence Tolkien has had on them. Poorly disguised plagiarism aside of course *cough cough Dennis L. McKiernan*. Isn’t imitation the most sincere form of flattery? When I see people saying they won’t read anything else but Tolkien and Tolkien’s buddy C.S. Lewis I think about how many good stories they are missing. How about all the incarnations the Arthurian Legends have gone through? Should T.H. White or Mary Stewart have thrown their ideas in the trash because they were, to a large extent, using someone else’s ideas?

I read sci-fi/fantasy for the pure enjoyment of it, not to be elevated to a more lofty state of consciousness or to attain the next level of oneness with the cosmic unity. That’s not to say I don’t, on rare occasion, have my consciousness expanded by some fiction I have read. People were hacking (in the aforementioned threads) on author’s for not having something important to say (I am trying to refrain from direct quotes to avoid the semblance of my own rant here being aimed at particular people). Didn’t JRRT write his stuff to be read for enjoyment? He denies a message, he denies allegorical connection. Hell, he wrote the stuff for HIMSELF initially, to go along with his invented languages. What purpose do you need to write fiction other than having a story to tell? Leave it up to the individual reader to decide what is worth his/her time.

Or, in the end, is it us - the readers - that make it what it is? After all, we're the ones who keep publishers in business.

This is the truest statement I found in all of the Kalessin’s Rant thread. Well, in all of the portion I made myself read. He asked the question and gave the answer right in the initial post. It answers why JRRT is emulated in “formulaic fiction”, it answer’s why Robert Jordan has sold enough books to blanket the earth even though his content (in later work) is sometimes lacking. By extension it answers why The Lord of the Rings (movie) didn’t take home as many Oscars as some people thought it should.

Did the success of LotR give rise to some of the lamest excuses for epic fantasy? What do we have to do to complete the integration of fantasy into the mainstream?

To me those questions could be rephrased into a statement like this: “Please be accepted into the mainstream, but don’t be mainstream.”

The hypocrisy is in wanting fantasy to be mainstream, and then turning around and bashing author’s for using the ideas of the master of their art form. Tolkien’s tools for creating a fantasy story became mainstream. It is hypocritical to bash authors who become popular and make tons of money (read “Robert Jordan”) using Tolkien’s forms. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. But don’t try telling me it has no value.

*wipes brow* That is a long post. Hopefully someone can find something worthwhile in all that verbiage. smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Keneldil: At least you have the courtesy of appropriate disdain for McKiernan. Yet while accusing some of us of snobbery and hypocracy, you adhere to yourself discourtesy and uncharitableness; perhaps you do not understand - I don't know. Having never read any Robert Jordan, I cannot speak intelligently on that. However, Tolkien's work awakened a deep thirst and quenched it; but once the book had been read, the reader casts about for more of the same mead and seeks that unique, bittersweet taste, and does not find it; except by turning back to Tolkien again and again. The thirst is a delight in itself, but only so long as it can be quenched again. Each time a rereading of Tolkien is accomplished, the thirst awakens all over again, and the reader tries different heady meads and wines and finds them lacking, in one way or another. If, Keneldil, your pallate is less discriminating than that of some of us, so much the better for you. Please do not let that less discriminating pallate lead you to cast aspersions on those of us who, having tasted such delight, cannot stomach imitations that, missing key ingredients, turns our readerly stomachs. Thank you.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

littlemanpoet: I see the "Are you writing serious fantasy?" thread was started by you. Apparently you have personally taken offense. I meant no disrespect to you or the intent of your thread. Upon looking back, I should not have included that thread in the "snobbery and hypocracy" statement. I apologize for my mistake. I have not made it through all of the posts, but everyone seems to be talking about their own writing and not condemning published authors for showing their Tolkien influences. I got revved up over some things said in the "Kalessin's Rant" and in "The Tolkien Template" threads and failed to separate your thread from them.

You are mistaking my intent. I felt that some of the IDEAS I read were snobbish and hypocritical. An agressive choice of words, I will grant you that. If you will note I also said "well meant" and "with good intentions". I think people get so passionate and zealous for Tolkien that they allow their feelings to close their minds to other good writing

you adhere to yourself discourtesy and uncharitableness;

You cannot cite anything in my post that was discourteous. Uncharitable perhaps, to the extent that I disagree with some of the things that were said. At most I am guilty of challenging an opinion that is popular in the Barrow-Downs.

If, Keneldil, your pallate is less discriminating than that of some of us, so much the better for you.

I daresay my "pallate" is at least as disciminatory as anyone elses. However, it does appear that my mind is more open than some, and yes that is to my advantage. At the bottom line openmindedness is the point of my argument. There is worthwhile material in the fantasy genre that does not have Tolkien's name on it. Today's authors do not deserve to be so harshly critisized for being influenced by the father of the modern incarnation of their art form.

Please do not let that less discriminating pallate lead you to cast aspersions on those of us who, having tasted such delight, cannot stomach imitations that, missing key ingredients, turns our readerly stomachs.

I cast no aspersions on any person. I cast aspersions on the idea of accepting only one or two writers. Those who express such a narrow view do themselves a disservice, and they do this forum a disservice by perhaps influencing other members to ignore worthwhile works of fantasy fiction by authors other than Tolkien.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[littlemanpoet]

Keneldil: You mis-take me, for which I hold you in no offense. I hold LeGuin in very high regard; also Guy Gavriel Kay; and Pullman; Lawhead has some great moments. McKiernan is unbearable; I attempted Katherine Kerr and found her frustrating. The little bit of McCaffery (sp?) I have read I found delightful. Meghan Whalen Turner is a wonderful read. I enjoy them on their own merits, because they stand on their own merits, making no claim to be "in the tradition of Tolkien" or as good as Tolkien, because they don't need to. The Mists of Avalon was breathtaking, though I had problems with the out-and-out paganism when I read it years ago (I probably wouldn't anymore).

I hope you see the distinction I am attempting: Tolkien-parrots versus fantasy genre artists whose writings stand on their own merits. Perhaps Kerr is no Tolkien parrot, yet her choices irked me; perhaps that has little to do with this thread.

I'm not going to belabor the "who is guilty of what offense" thing. I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas and clarification of thoughts and opinions.

Peace! smilies/cool.gif

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I'm more interested in the exchange of ideas and clarification of thoughts and opinions.

Well said, littlemanpoet. I agree. By using the words "you" and "your" toward the end of my last post I gave the incorrect impression I was speaking only to you. After I post this I will edit and correct that. I was trying to address what seems to be a view held by many people.

I have read work by most of the authors you mentioned. While I agree that they stand on their own merits, I do not think they escape the influence of Tolkien. To read Tolkien is to be irrevocably affected by him in any attempt to write in the same genre as he. I think that should be seen as a tribute to Tolkien's literary greatness, not as a failure on the part of today's authors.

I read McKiernan when he first came out in 1985. I was just a kid, even I could see what a "parrot" he was. The only good thing that can be said about that garbage going to print is that it's a perfect example of what not to do with your Tolkien influences.

George R. R. Martin is writing a series called "A Song of Ice and Fire" that I would recommend. You can clearly see Tolkien's influence on him (even in the way he writes his name), but he is no parrot.

[ November 15, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[littlemanpoet]

I think we are in agreement. I don't scorn any authors for being influenced by Tolkien. Would that more were, as long as they don't succumb to the parrot thing.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Raymond Feist was another enjoyable read, though I thought the final ending to his myth was so democratic that it ruined the ending.

Eddings is okay, but I grew tired of him. Right now I'm reading a book called "The Mammoth Book of Fantasy", published in the late 90's. It has about two dozen short stories, and traces the influences of not only Tolkien, but of Robert E. Howard and Lord Dunsany, and H.P. Lovecraft. I had forgotten how wide the vistas are in fantasy. So your point is well taken that there's a lot of good stuff out there that isn't Tolkien. I do agree that if someone has read Tolkien and is going to write fantasy, JRRT's influence will be there.

[Aralaithiel]

I would like to jump back to what Child & littlemanpoet (Been missing me, guys? smilies/biggrin.gif) were discussing about colleges. Yes, kids are being directed towards very specific degress, and I fear with dire consequences. I noticed the trend 10 years ago (cough, cough smilies/eek.gif gasp!)as I was graduating from college. No one wanted to take any history, philosophy, or other liberal arts type classes. The content was extremely dry, and the professors, or in some cases poor, unmotivated graduate assistants, would exert no effort in convincing anyone to persue the study of mythology/folklore/history/etc.
There were a few of us, however, who had the privlege of being influenced by those who showed us how magical life was when we also knew of such subjects. But, the majority have chosen to persue their specialized degrees and professions and cast off any learning of the liberal arts.
This casting off is more than likely responsible for the "trash" that some of you are encountering. And, as more college graduates are entering the workforce unable to write a basic sentence in English, then our literature will begin to reflect this sad trend.
It is up to those of us, dare I say "old schoolers", to attempt to reverse this trend.
So, in short, I am proud of littlemanpoet's and Child's efforts to encourage us youngsters to produce writing "worthy" of our biggest influences, no matter who they might be. Anyone is capable of writing an excellent story, and any aid we can provide to them in their endeavor is worth it.

Did any of that make sense, or am I rambling nonsensically? Good thread, Reeded Goat! smilies/smile.gif

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Aralaithiel ]

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Aralaithiel ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

Aralaithiel,

Thank you for your peceptive post. You have put my own position into words better than I myself could. And I thank you too for your kind words.

Littlemanpoet, I know there are bright lights out there. I've taught some of them in college and dealt with others as a librarian. There are many I see on this board. But you really have to fight and chart your own course to cling to the liberal arts and especially the humanities these days. And colleges are making it very hard for students to get a general humanities background. They are pushed to specialize earlier and earlier in disciplines which have obvious practical applications, and the number of classes they're allowed to take outside their major gets ever smaller. Sadly, the smaller we make our pool of folk who have the historical and literary background, the less likely we are to come upon that rare genius who can be a JRRT.

Shippey was not denying that there are many good writers of fantasy. He was questioning if there would be a towering genius of the ilk of Tolkien any time soon. He said our educational system makes this less likely. I strongly agree with that based on my own experiences as a teacher and librarian. The priorities of this society make it more difficult, particularly for many students trapped in educational institutions that reflect those same values.

sharon

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Child of the 7th Age ]

[Aiwendil]

I ran across most of that when I was trying to inflict the “Are you writing serious fantasy?” and the “Kalessin’s Rant” threads on myself.

As a participant in it, I feel I must defend the "Kalessin's Rant" thread (even though the reference occurred several days ago). The issue there was this: "Suppose we agree that pretty much the whole fantasy genre is far inferior to Tolkien. Why is this?" Of course, if you don't accept the premise (and it seems that Keneldil does not), the whole question ceases to exist. Naturally, you will find the inquiry pointless and boring if you don't think that the underlying question even exists.

However, I must also say this: the premise is correct. Robert Jordan is not as good as Tolkien. Terry Brooks is not as good as Tolkien. No modern fantasy author is as good as Tolkien. It's nearly impossible to prove that proposition, and I don't expect to have changed anyone's opinion with such a simple statement of fact. Nonetheless, it is fact (within the limits provided by both Descarte and Heisenberg, of course). It is completely valid for a group of people to start with this assumption and move on from there.

I realize I have not really addressed any of the issues with which this thread is concerned with, and I apologize. Carry on.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Suppose we agree that pretty much the whole fantasy genre is far inferior to Tolkien. Why is this?" Of course, if you don't accept the premise (and it seems that Keneldil does not)

You are correct. I do not agree that it is all FAR inferior. Mostly of it far inferior? Yes. Some authors come close? Yes. Trying to write fantasy today after JRRT is like trying to paint churches after Michelangelo. There are plenty of good painters, but a masterpiece is damn difficult, in some ways impossible, to follow.

Naturally, you will find the inquiry pointless and boring

I didn't find the discussion pointless or boring. More like self-righteous and misguided. People blasting published authors who have sold a lot of books. People saying they won't read anything that doesn't have JRRT on the spine or other more obscure authors. Popularity seemed to be equated with garbage. I say self-righteous because I'd venture to guess that most of the people in the Rant haven't published word one, let alone a book that sells, and misguided for reasons I have already posted in this thread.

Robert Jordan is not as good as Tolkien. Terry Brooks is not as good as Tolkien. No modern fantasy author is as good as Tolkien.

However much I may agree with this statement, it is nonetheless an opinion. Not fact.

[Aiwendil]

I didn't find the discussion pointless or boring.

I wasn't really talking directly to you (though of course I was responding to your post). If you had quoted me in full:

Naturally, you will find the inquiry pointless and boring if you don't think that the underlying question even exists.

. . . you would see that I was using "you" in the sense of "one". I wasn't sure at the time whether you thought the question was valid or not; I was merely making the point that the entire discussion is irrelevant if one does not agree with the premise.

People blasting published authors who have sold a lot of books. People saying they won't read anything that doesn't have JRRT on the spine or other more obscure authors.

I don't see anything wrong with this. As for the first, certainly it's acceptable to "blast" an author that one doesn't like. As for the second, I don't recall anyone actually saying that, but it would certainly be a person's right to do so.

Popularity seemed to be equated with garbage.

I don't think so. Tolkien has sold far more copies than any other fantasy author. It's actually the less popular ones that are being equated with garbage. And that relation holds true, for me at least, even within the subset of modern, fully commercial authors. I think Robert Jordan is a lot better than, I don't know, the Hildebrandt brothers (yes, they actually wrote a novel - at least the illustrations were good).

I say self-righteous because I'd venture to guess that most of the people in the Rant haven't published word one, let alone a book that sells,

This should definitely not be the criterion by which we judge a person's right to criticize. First of all, there are of course intermediate variables between the ability to write well and the publication of a "book that sells". The Silmarillion never would have sold if it had been published in 1937 as Tolkien wanted. That's not because it was no good, rather because it was not the sort of thing that sells. For that matter, if Tolkien hadn't published The Hobbit (and that happened merely by chance), would we then judge him ill-qualified to criticize published authors? I think not. And he not only had not published any fiction (excluding The Hobbit); he had, in fact, had a good bit rejected.

Second, even if you omit the above consideration, I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize a piece of art even if you personally could not have done better. If that were true, it would mean that no one could ever assert that Tolkien is better than Jordan; we would be prohibited from saying things like "the plot of this book is too slow" or "the prose in this section is clumsy", etc.

However much I may agree with this statement, it is nonetheless an opinion. Not fact.

A person can take either of two arguments:

1. Art is entirely subjective. It is therefore impossible to say that a given piece of art is superior to another piece of art. It is therefore impossible to argue that one piece of art is superior to another - in which case, you have to acknowledge that, objectively, all art is equal, and you must simply accept whatever someone says as being true for them. Therefore, you must allow people to think that anything non-Tolkien is garbage (and also allow people to think that Tolkien is garbage) without argument.

2. Art is in some way objective. It is possible for work A to be better than work B. Therefore it is justified to say "Tolkien is better than any other author of fantasy", and to support the argument. The proposition may be true or it may be false, but it is not merely an opinion.

[ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

The issue there was this: "Suppose we agree that pretty much the whole fantasy genre is far inferior to Tolkien. Why is this?" Of course, if you don't accept the premise (and it seems that Keneldil does not), the whole question ceases to exist. Naturally, you will find the inquiry pointless and boring if you don't think that the underlying question even exists.

I wasn’t misunderstanding your use of the word “you”, I was responding as one of those individuals who does not agree with the premise.

As for the first, certainly it's acceptable to "blast" an author that one doesn't like.

I completely agree. Blast away. The First Amendment blah blah blah…….I was not questioning whether it was acceptable. I was questioning the quality of the criticism.

My point about popularity being equated with garbage...now that may have been a poorly formed criticism. It seems popularity is often related to “selling out” and mediocrity just because everyone likes it. It isn’t different enough. I retract that statement as possibly inaccurate in this case.

This should definitely not be the criterion by which we judge a person's right to criticize.

There is no criterion to judge the right to criticize. Everyone has that right. Whether or not the aforementioned criticism will have any credibility depends on how it is constructed. I was not questioning the RIGHT to criticize. I was questioning the QUALITY of the criticism. Anyone on earth can have an opinion, just some are better formed opinions than others. I felt it was self-righteous “Tolkienism” if you will to be hard on authors for being supposed “parrots” of Tolkien.

I did not intend to imply that one needs to be a published author in order to make creditable evaluations on another author’s work. If that is what comes across in my statement I apologize. I simply thought it interesting that someone who has sold thousands of books, and apparently must have some kind of grasp on what it takes to write something other people will like to read, gets castigated by those who, in all likelihood, have far less a clue.

A side note: some of the opinions I refer to may not have come from this thread. Within this thread there are a couple of links to other threads that I checked out.

I see your point, Aiwendil, about the two views of art re: subjective or objective. I guess I just don’t see how criticisms of art can ever be objective (i.e. one being better than another). 2+2 = 4 is objective. “My painting of the Sistine Chapel is better than yours because I used cubism to emphasize the architecture” is not objective to my mind. Anything someone could say about one work of art over another may not apply for someone else.

My whole aim was to refute the idea that there is not a lot of good fantasy fiction out there for people to dig into. Whether or not that was explicitly stated, that was the feeling I got. I saw what looked like a lot of close mindedness in the name of praising Tolkien and it seemed misguided to me. I think JRRT would be proud of the genre he helped to bring into the modern time.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Aiwendil]

I wasn’t misunderstanding your use of the word “you”, I was responding as one of those individuals who does not agree with the premise.

Very well.

I was not questioning the RIGHT to criticize. I was questioning the QUALITY of the criticism.

I see. Still, I don't think the quality of the criticism of a published author is necessarily superior to that of anyone else. In fact, in the case where an author is criticizing his or her own work, it is probably less valid.

Anyone on earth can have an opinion, just some are better formed opinions than others. I felt it was self-righteous “Tolkienism” if you will to be hard on authors for being supposed “parrots” of Tolkien.

I have (I think) a well formed opinion that certain authors are, in many ways, "parrots" of Tolkien. I don't see anything self-righteous about that, despite the fact that I have never published a word. I would not suppose that Robert Jordan's appraisal of his own work is superior to mine; it is actually probably inferior, because it is more subjective. And I am sure that there are other published authors who would agree with me - Tom Shippey, for instance.

If that is what comes across in my statement I apologize.

I apologize for misconstruing your argument.

I simply thought it interesting that someone who has sold thousands of books, and apparently must have some kind of grasp on what it takes to write something other people will like to read, gets castigated by those who, in all likelihood, have far less a clue.

But certainly each individual who appraises his work has a better idea than Jordan does of what that individual finds appealing. Suppose person A reads book X by author Z. We can evaluate the situation from two perspectives: 1. The quality of art is entirely subjective. In this case, it is meaningless to say that person A's judgement of book X is either inferior or superior to anyone else's, including author Z's. A knows better than anyone how good book X is to A. Z may have produced X in such a way that it appeals to a great number of people, but this has no bearing on how good it is to A. 2. There is something objective about art. Nonetheless, there is obviously disagreement concerning exactly what makes good art. Thus, each person has his or her own model of "good art" (whether well formulated or not). A reads X. Now, regardless of popular opinion or of the opinion of Z, A must evaluate X according to his or her own theory of art. This theory may be incorrect, but the fact remains that it is A's best estimation of the truth. Therefore, A's opinion concerning X will, and should, be based on A's theory of good art - that is, A's best understanding of what good art is.

guess I just don’t see how criticisms of art can ever be objective (i.e. one being better than another). 2+2 = 4 is objective. “My painting of the Sistine Chapel is better than yours because I used cubism to emphasize the architecture” is not objective to my mind. Anything someone could say about one work of art over another may not apply for someone else.

It's interesting that you take this subjective view. It seems to me that this view contradicts your assertion that one person's criticism can be objectively better than someone else's.

I think a lot of people would agree with you about art being subjective. Here's an extreme example that would convince some people that it is objective: suppose we compare The Iliad with The Cat in the Hat, or the Sistine Chapel with a stick figure I drew when I was five. If you really think that art is subjective, you are compelled to say that in neither case is the former work superior to the latter. If I claim that the stick figure is better than the Sistine Chapel, you can't argue; in fact, you must agree that the stick figure is better, for me. This seems somewhat absurd, though it is actually a workable position. I don't really care which view you subscribe to; the point is, people who think that art is objective do actually have a decent argument.

I think JRRT would be proud of the genre he helped to bring into the modern time.

I think he would be gratified that his work was so influential. I also think, however, that he would have disliked a good deal of it, if not most of it. Nonetheless, I agree that there is some decent modern fantasy.

[Cúdae]

There are many undeniably Tolkien-influenced fantasy novels out there. I've read some that are so close to Tolkien in facts that it is sickening. But then, there are the fantasy novels that are influenced by Tolkien, but not just Tolkien and don't copy Tolkien. For example (I'll use myself so I don't insult anyone) I have written the story of a battle in the universe I am creating. I read Tolkien, so obviously something in the battle is going to mirror something of Tolkien's many battles. But I have also read The Once and Future King, so something from that is going to mirrored. When everything is said and done, I am going to mirror every single battle scene I have ever read in one way or another. On another point, someone who writes a love story is going to, in some way, mirror every love story they have ever read. The same goes for writing style. I have read mostly older books and therefore, my writing style is an older style. Others have read mostly newer books and therefore their writing style is probably going to be more modern sounding. This, though, is just my opinion and I will argue it to the death of me! Why? Because I think it to be true. Look at Tolkien, he mirrored every single bit of mythology and folklore he ever read, heard, or vaguely knew about. Not all of it is obvious, but it is there. In this way, I believe that someone can make something seem entirely orginal. If one chooses to mirror elements from every story, every poem, every epic adventure novel, every play, every musical, every history lesson, every last memory that their grnadmother shared, I believe that they can write something imaginative and original--without being original at all.

[littlemanpoet]

I will leave the discussion of subjective versus objective standards of art criticism to the erudition of Aiwendil and Kenedil (very interesting reading, by the way), and address Araleithiel (Hi!) smilies/smile.gif and Child of the 7th Age aka Sharon regarding the rarity of rare genius. smilies/biggrin.gif (I highly amused myself with that last phrase.)

Moving on, we have two issues between which you see a ready connection and I don't: the rare achievement and greatness of Tolkien AND the demise of the liberal arts and humanities as the bedrock of American undergraduate education.

Whereas I acknowledge this demise, I have not yet been convinced that it is the reason for the likelihood that Tolkien's greatness will never be achieved again in fantasy.

There are two sides to the issue. On one hand, there was Tolkien himself, as artist, scholar, and all the heart, mind, culture, experience and so on that made him who he was, able to produce the work of great stature that he did. On the other hand, there was the educational system that nurtured his intellectual development. Though the educational system may have been powerful in its influence, it was not alone in making Tolkien the kind of writer that he was.

We will never see the like of Tolkien again, precisely because the milieu in which he became the kind of writer he was, no longer exists. The same could be said of any great achiever, be it Bach in music, Michelangelo in painting, Rodin in sculpture, and so forth.

To continue the point, Bach was not the only towering genius in all of music, however. There came Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, and Stravinsky. They were giants according to their own times. Just so, whereas there will never be another Tolkien, there will be giants and fantasy, perhaps just as great as Tolkien, who pursue the art in similar veins but in a different enough milieu to stand as tall as him while influenced by him.

Yes, we are witnessing the demise of liberal arts and humanities in the educational system. Truth be told (correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon), the late 19th century and most of the 20th century were unique in that ANY individual, regardless of economic and social background, had the opportunity to become so educated and not pay the price of being a poverty stricken educate. Before that era, one had to be wealthy or noble or it would have been foolish to pursue such endeavors. Now the realities of a highly competitive market of scarce jobs forces the educational system to jettison the temporary luxury of liberal arts for all (it had in large part to do with a glut of baby boomers who became professors, now tenured and likely to live a long time, leaving such opportunities rare for ensuing generations, and so we may see another liberal arts craze with the passing of that generation to retirement).

Back to the point. Whereas there may never be another Tolkien, there will be other giants in fantasy (witness Rowling, no great philologist mind you) just because a different era will be a hot-house for a different kind of giant. It will not look like what Tolkien produced, because it can't - and therefore shouldn't.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

It's interesting that you take this subjective view. It seems to me that this view contradicts your assertion that one person's criticism can be objectively better than someone else's.

You take me somewhat out of context. If Michelangelo and a truck driver are looking at a painting, and Mike says "Wow, that is an excellent work of art," but the truck driver just spits and says "Don't look like nuthin' good to me," I would say that each opinion is valid for that person. But I would also say that the quality of Michelangelo’s perspective is probably better than the truck driver's due to his experience with artwork.

I don't think the quality of the criticism of a published author is necessarily superior to that of anyone else. In fact, in the case where an author is criticizing his or her own work, it is probably less valid.

I would agree with you there about the subjectivity of an author regarding his own work. But when an author sells thousands of books, isn’t that the masses telling him he is a good author? I’m saying guys like Jordan know what it takes. If it were complete junk no one would buy it. Tolkien knew what it took. Their books provide tens of thousands of people with entertainment, and that is what they wanted to accomplish when they sent their manuscripts to print. I’m not saying that is ALL they wanted to accomplish. No doubt there are as many reasons as there are authors. Fiction’s main purpose is entertainment, otherwise why read it? Note I did not say “only purpose”.

[Cúdae]

Here's an idea that sprang into my head when I read this:
But I would also say that the quality of Michelangelo’s perspective is probably better than the truck driver's due to his experience with artwork.

Say a fantasy author reads a fantasy novel by a different author. At the same time, a casual reader is reading the same book. This casual reader likes fantasy, but prefers historical fiction. The author says about the book: "It presents an excellent tale of knights in armour, damsels in distress, evil versus good, and it truly shows that love conquers all." The casual reader says about the same book: "It was not interesting. Knights, women, good against evil, it's all been done before."
Now, let's say that both opinions of the book were published in the front when it was sent to the press again. Now, say you have found this book in the bookstore or in your library. You read the summary provided, then the reviews. If you are a writer yourself (whether of fan fiction or original genre-of-choice), I would be inclined to say that you would hold the review of the acclaimed author is higher esteem. If you are not a writer, but an avid reader of fantasy, I would say that you are likely to read both and say, "I'll see for myself." If you are not a writer and not an avid reader, I would say that you would probably give more of your trust to the casual reader's review. So, whose review is more likely to be trusted by the majority of people? Whose review is more likely to be trusted by the people who are familiar with the work of the author? Whose review is more likely to be held as "more valid?"

On another note, I firmly believe that we will see a writer who will be as good as, if not better than, Tolkien. Maybe it will be one of the 'Downers. (Then we will all be able to say, "Hey, I know him/her from a Tolkien forum! Imagine, now he/she will have forums dedicated to his/her work!") This writer, who will emerge, will have to live up to Tolkien--in the eyes of people who love Tolkien's work and in the eyes of people who have never, or have but once heard of Tolkien. This writer will have to be better than Tolkien, or else he (or she) will be "just another Tolkien influenced writer." This writer will have to acheive that perfect balance of being more complete than Tolkien in the background of his universe while leaving plenty open to speculation. It will not be an easy task for this writer, nor will it be an easy task for the die-hard Tolkien fans to accept him. Why? Because they (I should say "we") will have to accept him as a writer influenced by Tolkien who regarded Tolkien as a master, but who surpassed Tolkien.

And on yet another topic, I will offer terrible proof that the arts are slowly being demolished in schools. In my high school this year, funds were cut for all "dead" or "becoming dead" languages. Greek, Gaelic, and ancient Arabic were wiped out of the curriculum completely. Latin was cut back to one year to be taken as an elective only. Tolkien, CS Lewis, TH White, Ray Bradbury, Marion Zimmer Bradley, etc. were all banned from school grounds. The funds for both the art program and drama club were cut back severely. The Writers' Clubs (for Sci-Fi and Fantasy only) were destroyed as they promoted "anti-scientific, witch-craft like, and anti-religious" ideas. The English curriculum had three wonderful books cut straight out of it. They are Romeo and Juliet, Lord of the Flies, and Beowulf. They were cut out because time did not allow for it. The creative writing courses were all but destroyed. All this because the math and science departments needed more money. Now, I have nothing against math and science (I am a future architect, both will be involved in my career), but I hate to see so many artistic programs destroyed or cut back. It cut especially deep when the fantasy writers' group I started was ended. I will not go on into detail about how this will hurt the future if things like this happen all over the world. I'm sure others can draw the conclusions for themselves.

[Aiwendil]

Quoth Keneldil:

You take me somewhat out of context. If Michelangelo and a truck driver are looking at a painting, and Mike says "Wow, that is an excellent work of art," but the truck driver just spits and says "Don't look like nuthin' good to me," I would say that each opinion is valid for that person. But I would also say that the quality of Michelangelo’s perspective is probably better than the truck driver's due to his experience with artwork.

My question, then, is this: what do you mean when you say that "the quality of Michelangelo's perspective is probably better"? Clearly, you do not mean that Michelangelo's answer is closer to the truth, because you claim there is not objective truth. So in the absence of an objective truth, how do you define the "quality" of one's perspective? In what way can one view be better than another?

Is it merely that Michelangelo/the published author knows what will sell well or be critically acclaimed and the truck driver/anyone else doesn't? If that's the case, then a "better" view is only a more popular one - but surely the only distinction between the published author and, say, me, is that the published author is (far) more popular. (Note: I would add that the published author also has superior writing skills, but if you insist that there is no objective measure of the quality of art, then "superior writing skills" is placed in the same situation as a "better" view).

This is not a rhetorical question, and I am sincerely interested to hear your answer. It seems to me that you are trying to walk a very fine line between saying that art is subjective and that it is objective, and in my opinion, that doesn't hold up under scrutiny - but perhaps you have an argument that does.

But when an author sells thousands of books, isn’t that the masses telling him he is a good author?

It's at least a decent number of people telling him or her that, yes. But if you assign any value to this, then you are essentially saying that popularity is what determines how good a work of art is.

If it were complete junk no one would buy it.

Again, though you claim that art is entirely subjective, your language implies an objective value. If art is subjective, there is no such thing as "complete junk". There is also no such thing as "not complete junk" - which means that, regardless of other people's views, I am entirely justified and entirely correct in saying "this is complete junk to me".

Fiction’s main purpose is entertainment, otherwise why read it?

I agree with you entirely on this point.

Spake littlemanpoet:

Yes, we are witnessing the demise of liberal arts and humanities in the educational system.

I'm not sure whether to doubt this or be saddened by it. The fact is, my personal experience has been very different. At my college, every student reads Homer, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Plato, Aristotle, Vergil, Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, Descarte, Luther, Hobbes . . . the list goes on and on. I guess I'm lucky in that regard. I frankly find it hard to believe that most colleges and high schools have no core curriculum at all.

Teithant Cúdae:

The Writers' Clubs (for Sci-Fi and Fantasy only) were destroyed as they promoted "anti-scientific, witch-craft like, and anti-religious" ideas.

Is this true? If so, it's appalling. The fact that they try to sound reasonable by throwing "anti-scientific" in with "witch-craft like" and "anti-religious" is disgusting. Someone wake me up when the dark ages are over.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

My question, then, is this: what do you mean when you say that "the quality of Michelangelo's perspective is probably better"? Clearly, you do not mean that Michelangelo's answer is closer to the truth, because you claim there is not objective truth. So in the absence of an objective truth, how do you define the "quality" of one's perspective? In what way can one view be better than another?

You are right. I do not mean Michelangelo's answer is closer to the

[Aiwendil]

Alas, your answer seems to have been cut off. I am upping the thread in the hope that you'll repost it.

[The Silver-shod Muse]

Just about all fantasy you read is set in a medieval world, with a hero who goes out to seek enlightenment and/or perform some great essential task. -Gwaihir the Windlord

I won’t even try to date it, but the “great essential task” element is hugely overused among writers of all genres. The book cover summaries are usually terribly pathetic: “Can the Uncommon Hero save the world as he knows it, or will the entire universe fall to Evil Dude?” Oh my, the suspense is terrible. Often what makes this usage so cheap and unfulfilling is that the world itself isn’t one the reader feels particularly necessary for the Hero to save. The Hero’s world never quite becomes our world.

Most readers of Tolkien have felt that painfully gripping power of Middle Earth that compels us to love everything about it, artistically (one must admire the genius behind Ents and Trolls alike) and emotionally (the passing of the Elves, the self-sacrifice of the smallest for the greatest). By the time the story has been told, Middle Earth is ours too, and we can understand why the essential task is essential. It isn’t for the Hero to show what he can do, it’s for the world that the Hero loves.

Perhaps many problems arise from writers trying to create something wholly original, when no art is truly (at its very core) -ReededGoat

Tolkien's genius was in taking his influences and putting them together in a new way. -Keneldil the Polka-dot

The thing to do when you’re filled to the brim with the Tolkien Influence is to go to his sources and generate your own creations. Norse mythology isn’t a bad place to start at all. Really, any mythology is great. It is in mythology that one finds the beginnings of the Truth that makes brilliant fantasy. If I may quote Tolkien:

“Just as speech is invention about objects and ideas, so myth is invention about truth. We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of the true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a ‘sub-creator’ and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall. Our myths may be misguided, but they steer however shakily towards the true harbour.”

“This writer will have to be better than Tolkien, or else he (or she) will be "just another Tolkien influenced writer." It will not be an easy task for this writer, nor will it be an easy task for the die-hard Tolkien fans to accept him. Why? Because they (I should say "we") will have to accept him as a writer influenced by Tolkien who regarded Tolkien as a master, but who surpassed Tolkien.”

That a very commendable sentiment, Cúdae. I’ve seen far too many people here (especially writers, and that’s very disturbing) who say, “Tolkien is the master. No one will ever be as good as him. I’ve read him, so I’m stuck now. I’ll can try to be original, but Tolkien’s genius will always overshadow any work I’ll ever produce.” That’s like telling yourself to not think of elephants. Obviously, by trying so hard to not think of elephants (in this case the elephant is avoiding imitating Tolkien in your writing) you are. Take the benefit, take what you’ve learned and felt from reading Tolkien, and surpass it. Today we have the advantage of seeing all that has come since Tolkien's age. With the proper care and attention, every age should be greater in its perspective than the last. It's our turn now, and it will become whatever we make it.

There is no equaling Tolkien, we’ve seen that thus far in the list of modern fantasy authors, but there is, or will be, surpassing. Surpassing Tolkien's work would be greater flattery than imitation.

“The English curriculum had three wonderful books cut straight out of it. They are Romeo and Juliet, Lord of the Flies, and Beowulf. The Writers' Clubs (for Sci-Fi and Fantasy only) were destroyed as they promoted "anti-scientific, witch-craft like, and anti-religious" ideas.” –Cudae

Beowulf?
My God!
Anti-religious? The fools! Obviously the school board has never read Tolkien.

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: The Silver-shod Muse ]

[greyhavener]

littlemanpoet: "Yes, we are witnessing the demise of liberal arts and humanities in the educational system. Truth be told (correct me if I'm wrong, Sharon), the late 19th century and most of the 20th century were unique in that ANY individual, regardless of economic and social background, had the opportunity to become so educated and not pay the price of being a poverty stricken educate."

We have more access to free information today than at any time during history. If a person wants a liberal education he or she can attain one independent of formal college training. Perhaps an education so attained might produce an individual with sufficient motivation to become the next Tolkien or Bach.

Tolkien tinkered with Middle Earth for about sixty years. After the Hobbit was published, it took him fourteen years (I think) to write the Lord of the Rings. And he didn't quit his day job to do it. I think it's a question of whether an individual in our "instant" society is motivated to invest the toil and effort to produce a work as brilliant as LOTR, not whether anyone alive not is capable of it.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: greyhavener ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Ai! Ai! Cut off....I was censored by Morgoth no doubt. *sigh* I will attempt what Feanor could not and remake my argument. smilies/tongue.gif

My question, then, is this: what do you mean when you say that "the quality of Michelangelo's perspective is probably better"? Clearly, you do not mean that Michelangelo's answer is closer to the truth, because you claim there is not objective truth. So in the absence of an objective truth, how do you define the "quality" of one's perspective? In what way can one view be better than another?

You are confusing two different things here. While there is no objective truth about art, there can be, in my most humble opinion, a somewhat objective truth about opinions on art. Michelangelo's opinion would carry more weight because of his awareness in the art form. He achieved this awareness by his experiance, etc etc. My truck driver's highest achievement in art is a sign he made for the Redskins game that said "THE HOGS RULE". No doubt there are truck drivers that are well versed in art, but for argument's sake mine isn't. Surely you can see the point I am trying to make. Each person's opinion is sovreign for themselves as to what they think is good or bad in art, literature, etc. But when comparing one opinion to another, there are things a person could look at to see which they might lend more weight to. Mike's arguments may sway me more than the truck driver's.

Note: I would add that the published author also has superior writing skills, but if you insist that there is no objective measure of the quality of art, then "superior writing skills" is placed in the same situation as a "better" view).

There are obective portions to writing: grammer, spelling, and punctuation. For non-fiction I would add content. For fiction content = the story, the part that is the artwork of the author. We are, of course, talking about the story portion right now, the part that we have agreed is for the purpose of entertainment. (I don't really like where this is taking me but I press on.) Using Jordan as example -again only because I have seen him vilified in the Downs- he has entertained tens of thousands of people. I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses. I do not advocate that anyone abandon thinking for themselves, but it does make some sense.

But if you assign any value to this, then you are essentially saying that popularity is what determines how good a work of art is.

It sounds crazy to me too. More precisely I am saying given the absence of objective truth about a given work of fantasy fiction, the closest thing may be the aggregate subjective view of those who have read it.

Still, this is a whole lot of nothing. The "aggregate view" is meaningless next to your own educated opinion. To be educated in a work of fantasy fiction you must, at the least, read it. So my argument comes full circle: keep an open mind and go read stuff even if you think Tolkien right now sits at the right hand of God as the Muse of Fantasy and no one will ever measure up to him. To quote my earlier post:

At the bottom line openmindedness is the point of my argument. There is worthwhile material in the fantasy genre that does not have Tolkien's name on it. Today's authors do not deserve to be so harshly critisized for being influenced by the father of the modern incarnation of their art form.

From the Silver-Shod Muse:

The thing to do when you’re filled to the brim with the Tolkien Influence is to go to his sources and generate your own creations. Norse mythology isn’t a bad place to start at all. Really, any mythology is great. It is in mythology that one finds the beginnings of the Truth that makes brilliant fantasy.

I completely agree with this. Add to that going to the Tokien mythology, for isn't that what he was trying to make, a mythology belonging to Britain? For us today, Tolkien is part of the mythology we would use as source material.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Aiwendil]

You are confusing two different things here. While there is no objective truth about art, there can be, in my most humble opinion, a somewhat objective truth about opinions on art.

I see. Your claim, then, is that I have confounded the quality of art with the quality of one's opinion regarding art. The former, you say, is entirely subjective, the latter "somewhat objective". "Somewhat objective" is, however, a very vague and slippery term. I will not say that it has no meaning (I think it has), but I don't think it can be applied very well to a person's opinions about art. You are willing to say that Michelangelo's opinions are objectively better than the truck driver's (without the qualifier of "somewhat"). It therefore seems to me that your position is that opinions about art can be objective. I don't see where the "somewhat" comes in, or even what "somewhat objective" might mean in this case.

I'm also still not satisfied with your definition of "better" when it comes to people's opinions. You say that:

Michelangelo's opinion would carry more weight because of his awareness in the art form. He achieved this awareness by his experiance, etc etc.

By what standard is Michelangelo's opinion better (or does it "carry more weight") than the truck driver's? It is clearly not that Michelangelo knows what good art is any better than the truck driver (because in your formulation, there is no such thing, objectively). If I am interpreting you correctly, your answer is along these lines: that Michelangelo's view is superior because he has given more thought to art, or has had more experience with it, etc. However, without an objective standard, what use are thought or experience? If the truck driver can produce a work of art that is objectively equal to Michelangelo's (because there is no objective value at all), why does it matter that Michelangelo has given it more thought or had more experience? How can objective value derive from consideration of, or experience with, purely subjective things? We can take this one step further: suppose the truck driver has produced dozens, even hundreds of these signs for Redskins games. Suppose they are typical of such things. Suppose they are not the sort of pieces that might end up in a museum. Suppose, even, that they are crude and vulgar (note: I have nothing against truck drivers, and am merely taking this example to an extreme). Suppose that this truck driver has spent as much time on these signs as Michelangelo did on his works. The truck driver's opinion is that is that his signs are better than, say, "David". Michelangelo disagrees. Now, if awareness, experience, and the like are what determines the quality of an opinion, we must consider the two evenly matched. The (I admit, increasingly hypothetical) truck driver is supremely aware of his own art form. He has had an immense amount of experience with it. He has thought about it constantly, on his long cross-country trips. His opinion must be as good as Michelangelo's, following your criteria. Or: suppose we compare this fellow to Leonardo da Vinci. Now, Leonardo spent a great deal of time on artistic endeavours, but he also devoted much of his attention to other things - science, invention, etc. It is reasonable to stipulate that the truck driver has devoted more time to his "art" than Leonardo has to his. In this case, the truck driver's opinion must be better than Leonardo's.

There are obective portions to writing: grammer, spelling, and punctuation. For non-fiction I would add content. For fiction content = the story, the part that is the artwork of the author.

Unless, however, you are willing to say that the quality of a piece of writing is a function primarily of grammar and the like, the point is moot. The art, as you say, lies not mainly in these, but in the story (and I would add style, characterization, etc.).

I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses.

I don't like this conclusion very much either, but I think it is whither your line of reasoning leads, unless you abolish objectivity altogether (which I don't think you really have).

To be educated in a work of fantasy fiction you must, at the least, read it. So my argument comes full circle: keep an open mind and go read stuff even if you think Tolkien right now sits at the right hand of God as the Muse of Fantasy and no one will ever measure up to him.

There is a big difference between reading something and liking it. I think that the majority of people who speak ill of Robert Jordan have read him, with, I hope, an open mind; indeed it seems likely that this experience is the foundation of their dislike for him.

I do agree that an open mind should be maintained. If, however, you have experienced a work of art and hold a negative view of it, there is nothing wrong in saying so. Note that I have nothing particularly against modern fantasy authors; while I think that none of them comes close to Tolkien, I have actually enjoyed Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan.

[Cúdae]

I think it's a question of whether an individual in our "instant" society is motivated to invest the toil and effort to produce a work as brilliant as LOTR, not whether anyone alive not is capable of it.

Very, very good point Greyhavener! Unfortunately, you are all too correct. Many people do not want to put the time and the blood, sweat, and tears into something to make it worthwhile and amazing. Even in simple things, like homework for instance, some people do not want to put effort into it because "it takes too long." Personally, when people say something like that to me, I get very agitated with them. I have little patience for people who think that everything must be done quickly. I will admit that I like things to go quickly, but I do not like it at all when people will not put time and effort into things that require time and effort.

In the world today, there is a huge number of people who are wonderful writers. They could be the next Poe, the next Shakepeare, or the next Tolkien. But a vast majority of them want to get "out there" and "make a name" for themselves. They have the abilities to create something wonderful, but they do not have the patience to work at it for umpteen years. So maybe all this "instant" stuff is a good thing, but if it is affecting us-- all of us-- to the point where we cannot even think about working at something for sixty years, then maybe it isn't so great as it is made out to be. Just a thought.

On the discussion of whose opinion is better: Michelanglo's (sp?) or the truck driver's, I would say neither. A person must, as a person, decide upon what they think themselves. They might be influenced by the opinion of Michelanglo--but what if they have never heard of Michelanglo? Then how would one's opinion be influenced? If someone knows little about art, he may be inclined to agree with Michelanglo out of trust in a famed artist's ideas. Or he may go with the truck driver's ideas because he can relate to a common man better.

And for those people appalled by my school board: They have read Tolkien, which prompted them to ban all his works from school grounds. I have recently found out that they plan to cut Latin next year. Wonderful, is it not, that so many of the programs that promote knowledge of kinds other than computers, math, and science are demolished today because of our technological society?

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I knew I was going to get in trouble by saying “somewhat”. Cudae deftly stated what I had in mind when I made that qualifier:

If someone knows little about art, he may be inclined to agree with Michelanglo out of trust in a famed artist's ideas. Or he may go with the truck driver's ideas because he can relate to a common man better.

The call on which opinion weighs more lies with the individual. I said “somewhat” because different people will value different things. It may not matter to someone that Michelangelo was steeped in art for his lifetime. I am not saying Mike’s opinion is better in the sense that it is closer to an objective truth. I am saying better in the sense that it was created from better origins. The construction of Mike’s opinion came out of his awareness, which in the subject of art, is greater than the truck driver’s. Who would honestly say they would ever weigh the truck drivers opinion on art above Michelangelo's?

However, without an objective standard, what use are thought or experience?

Thought and experience are what an opinion is made of. In this instance I take experience to mean “to interact with”. A person experiences a work of art by seeing it or reading it or whatever, thinks about it, and forms an opinion. Maybe that person turns to sources with opinions he/she considers to have authority on the subject in order to help form an opinion, or maybe they don’t. Opinions are formed without objective standards all the time.

“What’s your favorite color?”
“Blue.”
“Why?”
“Uh…….”

How about we turn this around? You demostrate to me how art is objective.

Cudae, that all sounds pretty horrible. Am I right in guessing you go to a private school? I think it is important to experience works of art and literature that a person doesn’t like or disagrees with just as much as ones they do like. The more exposure a person gets the more aware they become, and the better (I use that words just to twit Aiwendil smilies/smile.gif ) formed their opinions are.

There is a big difference between reading something and liking it. I think that the majority of people who speak ill of Robert Jordan have read him, with, I hope, an open mind; indeed it seems likely that this experience is the foundation of their dislike for him.

Of course, I agree with the difference and I also think you are probably right about the Barrow-Downers who do not like Jordan. There are a lot of well formed opinions in here. But I think saying "I don't like Jordan's work" and saying "Jordan is a bad writer" are two different things.

I like Terry Brooks too, obvious Tolkien influence and all. His earlier work though, not so much what he is turning out lately.

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Aiwendil]

I know that I may seem to be picking at insignificant points and generally being quarrelsome. I can't help it; it's my nature. I think I understand what you're saying, and I am actually in agreement with your main original point: open-mindedness. Nonetheless, I still disagree with most of your general discussion of art. Forgive me if I seem over-contentious.

The call on which opinion weighs more lies with the individual. I said “somewhat” because different people will value different things.

Very well. However, I don't think that what you've just described is really objective at all. It seems to me to be entirely subjective, based on which "different things" the "different people" value. One's opinion is then only "better" with regard to another individual; it is not universally better. If you want to elevate that diverse subjectivity of opinion into an objectivity (which I'm not sure whether you want to do), the only way to do it is to say that the popularity of an opinion makes it better.

I am saying better in the sense that it was created from better origins.

Now you revert to the objective language. As you may have guessed, I take issue with your term "better origins". Better how? This language seems to be inconsistent with what you said before, that "different people will value different things" - unless you ammend it to ". . . it was created from origins that the individual in question values more" (because the same opinion can be valued differently by different people).

Of course, the upshot of this is that if I don't value Robert Jordan's opinion, then, to me, my opinion is superior to his.

Who would honestly say they would ever weigh the truck drivers opinion on art above Michelangelo's?

Well, you get this extreme result only because you've taken an extreme example. It's not inconceivable that a person could value the truck driver's opinion more. Certainly if we take a less extreme example, like Robert Jordan vs. an average nerd, there are people who would value the latter's opinion more.

Thought and experience are what an opinion is made of.

Yes, but if there is no objective value to art, why are thought and experience objectively valuable in judging art?

And you still haven't responded to my hypothetical scenario - the truck driver who spends all his time on crude and vulgar signs. What would your analysis of his opinion be?

How about we turn this around? You demostrate to me how art is objective.

I don't know that I can. I don't have a proof of art's objectivity from first principles. What I do have is a consistent theory of objective art. I think a consistent theory of subjective art is also possible, but I think that your formulation is inconsistent in that it mixes contradictory subjective and objective traits.

Actually, my belief about art is a little more complicated than simply saying that "art is objective". Obviously, art is not an inherent quality of the universe; it is on some level invented by humans. I would define art as aesthetic beauty, and beauty is (according to Aquinas) "that which pleases the senses" ("senses" here meaning "apprehension", not just the five physical senses). So on some very deep level, art is subjective. However, I think that there is a nearly objective implicit consensus on what is aesthetically pleasing. "Good" art is that which is the most aesthetically pleasing. However, there are other factors that interfere with a person's ability to assess the aesthetic beauty of a work of art. These are things like accessibility, reputation, and familiarity. These contribute likings or dislikings for works of art that are not based on aestheticism, and since these factors vary significantly from person to person, while aestheticism is nearly objective, they introduce an apparent subjectivity into considerations of the quality of art.

Just so that I don't appear hypocritical: by "nearly objective" I mean that the range of subjective aesthetic standards is extremely small. This is a postulate, and I of course cannot prove it.

But I think saying "I don't like Jordan's work" and saying "Jordan is a bad writer" are two different things.


According to your opinion, you would be compelled to say that the statement "Jordan is a bad writer" is meaningless. There's no such thing as one, in your view. Just as an exercise: would you accept the statement "I think that Jordan is a bad writer?" If so, I don't see how you can object to the voicing of that thought: "Jordan is a bad writer." The "I think" is necessarily implied, since I am the one that's speaking.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I think part of the problem here is my inability to adequately express my meaning, not an inordinately contentious attitude on your part.

You are right. What I say in describing a better opinion isn’t objective. But it does tie in to what I suggested may be the closest we can get to an objective truth about art. To quote myself:

I hate to say popular = good, but given the fact that there is no objective truth, perhaps the closest we can get to objective truth about art is the collective, subjective opinion of the masses.

What the consensus view names a better opinion is perhaps as close as we can get to an objective view. You said something similar:

If you want to elevate that diverse subjectivity of opinion into an objectivity (which I'm not sure whether you want to do), the only way to do it is to say that the popularity of an opinion makes it better.

In the aggregate opinion, the individual personality disappears, eliminating subjective bias.

the truck driver who spends all his time on crude and vulgar signs. What would your analysis of his opinion be?

Now, if awareness, experience, and the like are what determines the quality of an opinion, we must consider the two evenly matched.

In your example I would not consider Michelangelo and the profane sign constructing truck driver evenly matched. In my subjective judgement of their opinions Michelangelo’s diversity of experience, as well as his universal acclaim would make me lend more credence to his thoughts on art. Let’s say you polled 100,000 people and the majority thought the same thing regarding Mike’s superiority in art matters. Within that subset of 100,000 people, the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view. Popularity rules. Makes me sick somehow. smilies/mad.gif For art, I can deal with that though. If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art. If no one “votes” for it, it has failed to move anyone. Art that does not produce a reaction of some kind is pointless, yes? Well, no the art could still serve a purpose for the artist alone. Hmm……I can just see the whole can of worms opening up here.

. However, I think that there is a nearly objective implicit consensus on what is aesthetically pleasing.

Unless I misunderstand you, I am saying the same thing. I accept the word “nearly” because unless someone took the consensus of every human being on the earth whatever subset was sampled could have a described bias (cultural, regional, etc.).

According to your opinion, you would be compelled to say that the statement "Jordan is a bad writer" is meaningless.

Again, with the disclaimer that Jordan is our stand-in: “Jordan” = any one of many authors. The statement is not meaningless, but it is false. Jordan has entertained tens of thousands of people. If we used the group of people who read fantasy fiction in the United States to form a consensus, a lot of them are voting Jordan to be a good writer as reflected in how many books he sells. I hesitate to say the majority because I can’t back that up but I would guess it is true. In the search for an objective opinion on whether Jordan is a good writer, and accepting my idea that the consensus subjective view forms the nearest thing to an objective opinion, the result is that he is a good writer, regardless of whether I personally like his stuff or not (fact is, I don’t like some of his latest stuff much at all).

There is a subtle difference between stating the fact “Jordan is a bad writer”, and stating the opinion “ I think Jordan is a bad writer.” In reality, the second statement is saying, “Jordan’s work does not entertain me,” while the first is saying “Jordan’s fiction does not have the ability to entertain anyone”.

I challenged you to convince me that art is objective because I think it is an impossible task……and I would like to find out if it really is impossible. This just came to mind…..the only way I can see art being objective is if it is inherent to the universe. The way it could be inherent is if the Universe has a Creator and that Creator imbued the creation with His/Her own sensibilities in the realm of art. I do personally believe in God, so I guess from that standpoint I’d be willing to accept that an objective truth for art does exist.

While it may exist, what does that mean in practical terms for us? If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist. Perhaps the way in which the objective standard is revealed is in the collective consensus view.

[Kalessin]

An interesting exchange smilies/smile.gif ... on a subject which has inescapably philosophical resonance - regarding the attempt to quantify external or objective truth, from Platonic essences to Cartesian dualism, and so on.

Keneldil, you said -

In my subjective judgement of their opinions Michelangelo’s diversity of experience, as well as his universal acclaim would make me lend more credence to his thoughts on art.

Let’s say you polled 100,000 people and the majority thought the same thing regarding Mike’s superiority in art matters. Within that subset of 100,000 people, the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view.

Popularity rules. Makes me sick somehow. For art, I can deal with that though. If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art. If no one “votes” for it, it has failed to move anyone. Art that does not produce a reaction of some kind is pointless, yes? Well, no the art could still serve a purpose for the artist alone. Hmm……

Your first point is accepted. We are always entitled to choose who and what to believe (or not), simply because we are always in a position to do so.

But I can't help feeling that "the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view" is neither an a priori, inherently self-evident statement OR an a posteriori statement that can be verified by experience, observation or reference to the outside world.

Why does the collective subjective view necessarily become an objective consensus? If 10,000 people say that day is night and 10,000 people say that night is day, does that mean there are two equally valid objective "consensuses" (or consensii, or consensae etc. smilies/smile.gif)?. Or if 10,000 say that God is female and 3 say that God is male, is the female assertion automatically an objective consensus?

"Popularity = Good"? Well, good is, in a precise sense a 'moral' term, and subject to relativism wherever it is used. An efficient machine-gun might be described as 'good' ... it's normally only the judgement as to why something is or is not good that allows one to agree or otherwise. If quality is simply a synonym for popularity, then 'good' is actually an unnecessary term.

Surely the real point is that, whether by way of human psychology, or some other factor/s, we are at least predisposed to attempt to rationalise our own intuitions or sympathies into something that we feel has external validity, hence the irreconcilable polarities of critical opinion. Why does this happen? Hume, for one, postulated that we can't empirically prove that the moon will still be up there tomorrow, but we inevitably turn observed conjunction into expectation, assumption, and a collective acceptance of the uniformity of nature.

The attempt to assert objectivity in art criticism is as much part of human nature, and yet the notion that popularity is an indication of quality is not meaningful. To measure aesthetic quality requires aesthetics. To assert beauty requires a conception of beauty. There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

I'm probably being pompous and pedantic (hmm, I think so), but as an old-school romantic idealist I am determined to confront the utilitarian principle as an affront to the incalculably diverse and meaningful expression of humanity that we call art! Nothing pompous (or even grammatical) about that, huh smilies/wink.gif

You also said ...

If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist

This is perhaps a kind of existentialist viewpoint, but the argument itself doesn't really follow - just because it's impossible for us to discern an objective truth, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or should be discounted. Mediaeval surgeons may have been unable to discern genes, but we would not say genes did not exist, nor that (in hindsight) genes did not have practical significance or effect despite the absence of knowledge.

Where I agree with you wholeheartedly is that it is probably impossible for two views passionately held in opposition to each other to be reconciled by reference to qualitative terms that can be applied equally by both arguments! I could say that John Coltrane's melodies were subtle, polyrhythmic and suffused with spiritual intent, and that this is why his works are masterpieces, and you could say that Mozart's compositions were the same, only more so smilies/smile.gif and so on.

But ... we can change our minds!!! Finally, a Tolkien reference smilies/wink.gif - I waded through about half of Lord of the Rings when I was in my teens, and found it tiresome, dreary and uninspiring. At that time I was a passionate lover of fantasy and science fiction, and a voracious reader of a range of literature. Yet I re-discovered Tolkien a few years ago and found the work gripping and powerful. Did objective truth change? By definition, not at all. Was Tolkien more popular, and therefore better, when I picked him up recently? Probably not. But I had changed, and have and do accept that such changes are always possible and indeed inevitable.

Thanks again, Keneldil, for such thought-provoking and articulate posts on this topic. And apologies to Aiwendil for succumbing to temptation, I fear we will soon be knee deep in irreconcilable argument again smilies/rolleyes.gif.

Peace.

Kalessin

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I appreciate your kind words. I will try to clarify my point, if I can.

Why does the collective subjective view necessarily become an objective consensus? If 10,000 people say that day is night and 10,000 people say that night is day, does that mean there are two equally valid objective "consensuses" (or consensii, or consensae etc. )?. Or if 10,000 say that God is female and 3 say that God is male, is the female assertion automatically an objective consensus?

My ideas have been oriented toward art throughout this discussion. I did not give any thought to how they might apply outside that territory. Tunnel vision perhaps, but not necessarily damaging to my argument.

While I appreciate the examples, I question their relevance. Day and night are definitive (simplifying it to light=day, dark=night, ignoring dawn and dusk). They are objectively described. It is not a matter of opinion. As to the question of God’s gender, some would argue that is also not a matter of opinion. Those who accept the Bible as definitive have their proof. Those who do not accept the Bible as proof could be said to have a different God, and therefore comparison is apples and oranges. Still, I see the point you are trying to make. Problem is, I don’t think you can make it using issues that are subjective, as art is.

In art (setting aside for now my “standards imbued by a Creator” idea) we have something that I argue is subjective. My statement about the collective subjective view was perhaps it is the closest we can get to an objective standard for art, not that it formed a purely objective truth. I do not know how to more clearly state this point:

In the aggregate opinion, the individual personality disappears, eliminating subjective bias.

The attempt to assert objectivity in art criticism is as much part of human nature, and yet the notion that popularity is an indication of quality is not meaningful. To measure aesthetic quality requires aesthetics. To assert beauty requires a conception of beauty. There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

I wish this were true. I fear you give human beings more credit for being free thinkers than we deserve. Advertising works precisely because what you are saying is false. What is popularly seen as beautiful does indeed come to define beauty. Popularity provides the concept of beauty that gets asserted (to pirate your sentence). This is somewhat of a tangent however. I think the word “beauty” inadvertently crept into this discussion. “Beauty” is an even more subjective term than “good”. A work of art may not be seen as beautiful, and yet still be considered a good, perhaps for it’s ability to evoke emotion, etc.

You say the attempt to place objectivity (truth) in art is human nature (I agree- emphasizing “attempt" ). To place an idea as objective truth is to say it works for everyone, just like 2+2 is 4 for everyone. If it is works for everyone, is it not popular? Popularity is the only indication of quality in art that can exist outside the individual in some semblance of objective form.

Looks like I talked myself out of thinking art is purely subjective. The subjective turned objective view, or whatever you want to call it, operates at the group level. I could make this post even longer talking about how the group in turn affects the individual, but I’ve wasted enough of your time already. I don’t usually engage in this sort of hair splitting, even though it is fun. smilies/smile.gif

This might be the worst kind of hair splitting because I don't know that I am trying to prove anything worthwhile. People should try to resist the influence of the group opinion and truly decide for themselves, impossible though that may be.

EDIT: Seems like I can never make a post without having to edit it at least one time.
smilies/rolleyes.gif

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Child of the 7th Age]

We seem to have two discussions running here. Please excuse me for coming into the middle of this and referring back to Littlemanpoet, Greyhavener and Cudae's posts.

I agree with Greyhavener and Cudae. It is as much a matter of will and perspective as access to knowledge. Yes, education is certainly more widespread than ever. My father was a factory worker in Detroit, and I went on to scramble my way through to a doctorate in history. But I still have reservations about the kind of education that is accessible to us today. Cudae has made this point better than I ever could:

Wonderful, is it not, that so many of the programs that promote knowledge of kinds other than computers, math, and science are demolished today because of our technological society?

Littlemanpoet, I think I have strong personal feelings about this because I was on the losing end of battles in both history departments and library book funding committees when I tried to protect the scanty funds earmarked for humanities and the classics, only to see them siphoned off into projects of dubious benefit whose only advantage was that of being glitzy and 'modern."

[Cúdae]

I believe I have found one truth of all art of all kinds: Art must cause the an opinion in the onlooker, reader, etc.

I would like to see if anyone thinks this entirely true or entirely wrong or somewhere in between. I was reading someone's post up there (I think it was Kalessin's) and it just seemed to suddenly make sense. What do you think of it?

[littlemanpoet]

Sharon, I understand and sympathize with you. If only there was a way to curb the power of the market forces at work in all this, but we live in the country we live in, and the student-product is the all-important commodity in today's people-market. Talk about an impersonal machine! As true as this is, I still think that someone may come who can surpass Tolkien while being indebted to him.

Cudae: I suggest replacing the word "opinion" with "reaction" - that reaction may be reflection, it may be purchase, it may be the forming of an opinion, or it may be an attempt at art. I suppose I can't deny that everyone will probably have an opinion about a given work of art, and to that extent I suppose you're right, but I think there's more to it than that, I guess.

[Aiwendil]

Keneldil:

What the consensus view names a better opinion is perhaps as close as we can get to an objective view.

Okay. That I can accept as a self-consistent and workable view of things, even if I disagree with it.

In the aggregate opinion, the individual personality disappears, eliminating subjective bias.

Does it? I think there is an important but subtle distinction to be made here. You can on the one hand say that the aggregate opinion constitutes a nearly objective standard of art, and then impose that standard on individual subjectivity. In that case your original individual subjectivity more or less disappears, surviving only insofar as it affects the aggregate opinion. Or you can merely say that the aggregate opinion is simply a matter of the popularity of certain subjective opinions. In the first case, you essentially have an objective standard of art, and it makes sense to say that Michelangelo's opinion is better than the truck driver's (because it is closer to the aggregate opinion); but you must also acknowledge that one work can be better than another. In the second, you would have to admit that Michelangelo's opinion is no better - simply more popular; but you would also get the result that it is meaningless to say that one work is better than another.

I agree with neither of these views, but either one constitutes, I think, a cohesive theory. An amalgamation of them in which you can call one person's opinion 'better' but you cannot call any work of art better than any other is, I think, not a cohesive theory.

In my subjective judgement of their opinions Michelangelo’s diversity of experience, as well as his universal acclaim would make me lend more credence to his thoughts on art.

Now we're talking about meta-subjectivity! It's interesting (and correct) that you call your judgement of the two opinions subjective. So you might value Michelangelo's opinion more, but does that make it better or only better to you? Of course, on the meta-level, we have all the same questions we have on the base level: is there an aggregate opinion regarding Michelangelo's opinion? If so, does the popularity of his opinion make it better (in a manner analogous to the popularity of a work of art making it better)? Etc.

If a particular piece of art moves more people to “vote” for it, then it is a “good” piece of art.

Your realize, I hope, that this criterion necessarily leads to the conclusion that, say, Britney Spears is better than Mozart. I personally find that conclusion to be quite unacceptable.

Unless I misunderstand you, I am saying the same thing.

I think our difference lies here: I called the concensus "implicit". You, I think, would call it "explicit". That is, if I understand you correctly, you would say that the quality of a work of art translates directly or nearly directly into how many people favor or would "vote" for it. The near concensus lies here (though I would point out that there seems to be anything but a near concensus in terms of what is good). In my view, there are factors that interfere with a person's opinion between the state of inherent concensus on what is aesthetically pleasing and the actual expression of the person's views. For example, there are many who like various modern pop singers due to the image associated with those people rather than due to a pure aesthetic appreciation of the music. My contention is that if all such factors - a work's or artist's image, reputation, accessibility, etc. - were stripped away, then there would be something close to a concensus. Of course, this cannot actually be done, which makes the near-objective standard of art very difficult to actually articulate.

The statement ["Jordan is a bad writer"] is not meaningless, but it is false.

First, note that the statement you just made is equivelant to saying "Jordan is not a bad writer". So the nature of the statement "X is a bad A" is such that the negation of the statement is equivelant to "X is a good [= not bad] A"; merely the opposite opinion. So literally, the content of your above statement is that Robert Jordan is a good writer. Second, you're statement forces you into the position that popularity is what determines an objective standard of art. If you really believed that the quality of art is subjective, you would not be able to say that such a statement, a mere statement of an individual's opinion, is false.

Things make a bit less sense when we substitute "any writer" for Robert Jordan (though indeed that was the initial meaning). Would you say that any statement "X is a bad writer" is false? If so, you are merely saying either that all writers are good or that "good" and "bad" cannot be used to describe writers at all. Perhaps that last is what you mean; I suppose that would be workable. But I don't think that's what you mean, because later you indeed say that Jordan is a good writer.

There is a subtle difference between stating the fact “Jordan is a bad writer”, and stating the opinion “ I think Jordan is a bad writer.”

I simply don't see how this could be. If I make any statement of fact, it seems to me that that is equivelant to my stating that I think that fact is true. If I say "Jordan is a good writer" that must mean that I think Jordan is a good writer, unless I am lying.

Perhaps you mean to make this distinction: on the one hand one can say "X is a good writer"; on the other hand you can say "the writing of X pleases me". I don't think this distinction is valid either, to tell you the truth, but I can see how you could arrive at it if you believe that the objective standard of art is popularity.

This just came to mind…..the only way I can see art being objective is if it is inherent to the universe.

Well, I don't think that art is inherent in the universe. I think it is a concept invented by humans. But, then, as I said before, I don't think that art is literally objective - I think that there is a nearly objective implicit concensus on what is aesthetically pleasing. That shifts the question from a physical one to a psychological/neurological one. I think that humans are similar enough that what is aesthetically pleasing to one, once all interfering factors are removed, will be aesthetically pleasing to another.

Kalessin:
So, we meet again. Actually, though, I think I agree with you on several points in this discussion. Anyway:

But I can't help feeling that "the collective subjective opinion eliminates individual subjectivity and forms an objective consensus view" is neither an a priori, inherently self-evident statement OR an a posteriori statement that can be verified by experience, observation or reference to the outside world.

I sort of agree. "Sort of" in that I think the collective subjective opinion does constitute an objective standard - but it's an arbitrary objective standard. We could create an objective standard in which the quality of a work of art is proportional to the number of letters in its title. This would be a completely workable standard, but it would of course be absurd.

If 10,000 people say that day is night and 10,000 people say that night is day, does that mean there are two equally valid objective "consensuses"

In such a case, no one would suggest that the concensus view is the objective truth - the objective truth is that which is obtained through observation, clarity of syntax, etc.; when it comes to art, such tools do not avail us. Nevertheless, your example points to an important fact: in any evaluation, there is the possibility of error. So if we say that quality is indicated by popularity, we must mean that it is not the actual attributes of the work of art that determine the quality - otherwise, we would need to take some account of the error that people can make in assessing that quality.

Well, good is, in a precise sense a 'moral' term

I disagree. Surely there are two definitions of good - there is the moral good and there is the functional good. A machine gun that fails to work is functionally bad - but it may be morally good.

Surely the real point is that, whether by way of human psychology, or some other factor/s, we are at least predisposed to attempt to rationalise our own intuitions or sympathies into something that we feel has external validity

Is it? I think Keneldil and I would agree that there is no external objective standard for art - I acknowledge that art is a human invention. My contention is, rather, that as an invention it has a precise enough implicit definition that there is an objective standard.

There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

I agree.

I'm probably being pompous and pedantic

No need to apologize. I've been known to be pompous on occasion, and I actually take an almost perverse pleasure in pedantry.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is impossible for us to discern that objective standard for art, then for all intents and purposes it doesn’t exist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is perhaps a kind of existentialist viewpoint, but the argument itself doesn't really follow

What you quoted from, I believe, Keneldil, is reminiscent of the uncertainty principle, and so it's a bit surprising that I disagree with it. But the fact that we do not know something does not mean that it does not exist. So I agree with Kalessin here.

But I had changed, and have and do accept that such changes are always possible and indeed inevitable.


In my language, the interfering factors surrounding your appreciation of Tolkien had altered (decreased, I should say!) and as a result your assessment of LotR's objective quality had changed. I know that this is not how you would put it.

Again Keneldil:
While I appreciate the examples, I question their relevance. Day and night are definitive

I agree. But, as I said above, I think that Kalessin's example does expose the possibility of error, which it seems needs addressing in your theory.

Those who do not accept the Bible as proof could be said to have a different God, and therefore comparison is apples and oranges

I don't think so. If they really had "a different God" that would mean that two Gods exist. What they have is a different opinion about God.

What is popularly seen as beautiful does indeed come to define beauty.

Does it? Can popularity really change the nature of beauty, or does it merely change what people believe beauty to be? Still, I take your point that popularity can be taken to constitute a conception of aesthetics.

A work of art may not be seen as beautiful, and yet still be considered a good, perhaps for it’s ability to evoke emotion, etc.

I disagree. Isn't the ability to evoke emotion part of beauty? I think perhaps that we have syntactical differences here in our definitions of beauty.

[ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I think there is an important but subtle distinction to be made here. You can on the one hand say that the aggregate opinion constitutes a nearly objective standard of art, and then impose that standard on individual subjectivity. In that case your original individual subjectivity more or less disappears, surviving only insofar as it affects the aggregate opinion.

That is a very good point. I was struggling with that idea while writing my last post and couldn’t come up with a succinct way to say it. Thanks. Is it the death of subjectivity then? Hmm...perhaps so, but only a death so far as a “nearly” objective standard can kill it. Kind of a vicious circle: aggregate subjective opinion = quasi-objective opinion which in turn affects the individual subjective opinions, thereby abolishing pure subjectivity. My theory is starting to sound like sophistry, not sound reasoning.

The aggregate opinion is constantly changing. That doesn’t seem to lend itself to objectivity. In the Victorian era, portly women were considered the standard of beautiful for women. Obviously that is no longer the standard for beauty today.

So what do you get when you add a bunch of subjective opinions together then? Just an aggregate subjective opinion? Now we are back to no objectivity in art. Too bad you don’t want to argue for objectivity, might help clear this up some. I stated the individual personality disappears in the aggregate opinion. I can’t come up with anything wrong with that. If the individual personality disappears, doesn’t subjectivity disappear also, and leave objectivity of a sort?

Anyway, to other issues:

In the first case, you essentially have an objective standard of art, and it makes sense to say that Michelangelo's opinion is better than the truck driver's (because it is closer to the aggregate opinion); but you must also acknowledge that one work can be better than another

Better in terms of the group. As I have said, I think this semi objective thing operates only on the group level (which in turn operates on the individual...aaahh my head smilies/mad.gif ). At the individual level you are always going to find those who do not conform, and you cannot tell them that their opinion is not just as valid as anyone else’s, or any group’s for that matter. Kinda seems to make the whole thing moot doesn't it?

Now we're talking about meta-subjectivity! It's interesting (and correct) that you call your judgement of the two opinions subjective. So you might value Michelangelo's opinion more, but does that make it better or only better to you? Of course, on the meta-level, we have all the same questions we have on the base level: is there an aggregate opinion regarding Michelangelo's opinion? If so, does the popularity of his opinion make it better (in a manner analogous to the popularity of a work of art making it better)? Etc.

Meta-subjectivity...fabulous. The problems are consistent at each level. So to simplify perhaps we can do away with opinions, opinions on opinions, and go back to considering only art itself? As if that makes it any easier. The solution (if there is one) should lend itself to all levels.

Your realize, I hope, that this criterion necessarily leads to the conclusion that, say, Britney Spears is better than Mozart. I personally find that conclusion to be quite unacceptable.

That made me laugh out loud. Right there is enough to throw this whole thing in the trash. Way back when I fomented this mass of verbiage I said I didn’t like where it was going. There is something wrong with my premise.

There is an assumption made by the statement “individual personality disappears becoming an objective consensus.” It assumes that there will in fact be some kind of consensus. That must be false. If it were possible to poll all of humanity no doubt opinions would be scattered, presenting no majority. You could probably identify trends based on social, cultural, regional, etc. factors. Perhaps within those subsets some kind of group objectivity exists.

. If I make any statement of fact, it seems to me that that is equivelant to my stating that I think that fact is true

Thinking something is true and having it actually be true are two different things. Stating an opinion that is thought to be true is not the same as stating a fact. I guess my point in that section of my last post boiled down to this : how can someone say that a writer who has entertained (entertainment being the purpose of fiction) thousands of people is bad? A person could say “I don’t like his stuff,” and be fine. I’m saying a person cannot say “He is a bad writer,” and be making a legitimate, factual statement. There is proof to the contrary. There truly is a difference between saying “I THINK Author X is a bad writer,” and “Author X is a bad writer.” The difference is in putting forth the one as an opinion, and attempting to put forth the other as fact. When you say “2+2 = 4” you don’t say “I think 2+2=4.” Maybe I need to be slapped with the semantics stick here.

Well, I don't think that art is inherent in the universe.

This is a whole different can of worms. In order to accept my rudimentary idea (I haven’t thought much about it in order to flesh it out) you’d need to accept that the universe has a Creator. Without having that much common ground it would be impossible to convince each other of anything.

I think that humans are similar enough that what is aesthetically pleasing to one, once all interfering factors are removed, will be aesthetically pleasing to another.

Maybe that is what I have been trying to say all along. That idea would fit with my “inherent in the universe/ imbued by a Creator” idea.

There is no reason why popularity in and of itself confers any of these mistifying epithets upon a work of art.

How does it not? I am forced to quote myself again:

I wish this were true. I fear you give human beings more credit for being free thinkers than we deserve. Advertising works precisely because what you are saying is false. What is popularly seen as beautiful does indeed come to define beauty. Popularity provides the concept of beauty that gets asserted

But the fact that we do not know something does not mean that it does not exist.

I went beyond simply not knowing. I said if the standard was impossible for us to discern then for all practical intents and purposes it does not exist. When I said “impossible to discern” I meant literally impossible. Not merely beyond our reach at the present time, as in Kalessin’s examples to the contrary.

I don't think so. If they really had "a different God" that would mean that two Gods exist. What they have is a different opinion about God.

Who’s to say two God’s don’t exist? No…I’m kidding, I’m not trying to start that argument up here. Within the framework of two people discussing that issue, there would need to be common ground to start from. If the Bible is accepted as that common ground, then the issue is concluded and is not a subjective point. If the Bible is not accepted, then basically the two people are talking about two separate concepts of God and are therefore arguing apples and oranges. My point in that part of my post was that Kalessin’s examples to the contrary were not truly subjective ones and therefore could not be used in comparison with the issue of art.

Can popularity really change the nature of beauty, or does it merely change what people believe beauty to be? Still, I take your point that popularity can be taken to constitute a conception of aesthetics.

What is beauty if not the conception of aesthetics? I reiterate my example way back at the beginning of this post of the Victorian standard for a beautiful woman.

[Cúdae]

littlemanpoet: I could replace "opinion" with "reaction" if that was what I wanted to say. But since that would form a different idea, I cannot.
I suppose I can't deny that everyone will probably have an opinion about a given work of art...
You can't deny it and that is exactly my point. An opinion could be so small, so slight, that it could easily be overlooked or mistaken as a reaction to something. In this case art is the "something." An opinion is what inspires the reaction to purchase, say, a print of a painting. An opinion is what causes the reflection. An ordinary person could read the Hobbit and hate it. But then he has reasons for hating it, whether he knows it or not. If he knows it, he has reflected on it. Maybe not reflected in the sense that he sat down and said to himself, "I hated this book because it did not capture my imagination, it bored me, it was too this, not too much that, etc..." But perhaps he quickly "reflected" on it and came up with, "This book was boring." Or, his subconscious reflected on it and backed up the opinion formed. He knows he doesn't like the book, he just cannot bring the reasons to mind.

You could argue that reflection is needed before opinion because one would need some type of basis for that opinion. But look at it this way, someone goes to an art museum and looks at a painting by van Gogh. Immediately, he dislikes it. He has not reflected on it yet, but his opinion is there. Again, you could argue this by throwing my own words back at me with the idea of "subconscious reflection." So, let's take another example. Someone looks at the same painting by van Gogh from down the hall and also dislikes it immediately. This person has not taken the time to walk up to the painting, as the other person obviously had. Therefore, the opinion probably came faster to this person than the other. I understand that you could argue this too, but I will present another idea.

Another idea is that opinion and "reflection" cannot exist without one another. In this idea, very fast subconscious "reflection" is needed. It presents the idea that reflection can come first or opinion can first. Or they can occur simultaneously.

Hopefully this has explained why I did not use "reaction" but chose "opinion" in my last post.

[Aiwendil]

The aggregate opinion is constantly changing. That doesn’t seem to lend itself to objectivity.

It could still constitute a time-dependent but otherwise objective opinion; but then you'd have to accept that it's possible for a good work of art to become bad. If you think, as I do, that the quality of a work of art is a characteristic of that work, then you cannot accept that a work could be good at one time and bad at another, without the work itself having changed at all. So popularity cannot then be the objective standard for the quality of art.

Too bad you don’t want to argue for objectivity, might help clear this up some.

Well, I've already sort of outlined my ideas. I have no hard proof that art is objective, but I could make an argument of sorts. First of all, I find a few things unacceptable:

1. That there is no such thing as a bad or good work of art.

2. That someone's professed liking of, for example, a modern pop singer over Mozart can make that pop singer's music better than Mozart's, even for that person.

3. That the quality of a work of art can depend on anything other than the characteristics of that work of art.

I cannot prove that these three things are not true; but I accept as axiomatic that they are false. This leads in a fairly straightforward manner to objectivity.

Another argument: it is possible to construct sophisticated models that describe art and then predict what will be pleasing and what will not. For example, traditional music theory predicts that, in general, ending a piece with a perfect cadence will be pleasing and ending with an imperfect cadence will not be - and it is correct. There are situations where ending with an imperfect cadence may be pleasing, but such instances are exceptions within the theory and predictable by the theory. The theory is not complete, of course, but it is succesful. The fact that objective theories can be set up to judge works of art I take as evidence that there is an objective standard of art (though a full description of it would be extremely complex).

I stated the individual personality disappears in the aggregate opinion.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that in formulating a popular standard, individual opinions tend to be negligible? If so, I don't see how that implies that the popular standard must be at all right.

Better in terms of the group. As I have said, I think this semi objective thing operates only on the group level

Okay. But the point is that you must accept the same level of objectivity for the quality of an individual's opinion as for the quality of a work of art. If A's opinion is better than B's and A favors work X while B favors work Y, it follows that work X is better than work Y. This is assuming for a moment that X and Y are the only works of art that exist; otherwise it gets a bit more complicated - but the point remains the same. Which is: you cannot say that there is objectivity of opinion but not of works of art, or vice versa.

At the individual level you are always going to find those who do not conform, and you cannot tell them that their opinion is not just as valid as anyone else’s, or any group’s for that matter. Kinda seems to make the whole thing moot doesn't it?


It makes the whole thing subjective, if you say that everyone's opinion is just as true.

The problems are consistent at each level. So to simplify perhaps we can do away with opinions, opinions on opinions, and go back to considering only art itself?

Agreed.

That made me laugh out loud. Right there is enough to throw this whole thing in the trash. Way back when I fomented this mass of verbiage I said I didn’t like where it was going. There is something wrong with my premise.

In my humble opinion, yes. I hope we can all accept the following axiom: Mozart is better than Britney Spears.

It assumes that there will in fact be some kind of consensus. That must be false. If it were possible to poll all of humanity no doubt opinions would be scattered, presenting no majority.

Well, you could still simply (in theory) integrate the subjective opinion of every human being concerning the quality of each work of art and get some answer. Then we'd have to invent popular aesthetic calculus as a branch of socio-mathematics (I guess we'd have to invent socio-mathematics too). But it could be done in theory. I think the problem with the theory is not merely one of measurement; I think it is deeper than that. Simply: I don't think that there is a direct relation between popularity and quality.

Thinking something is true and having it actually be true are two different things.

Yes, but we're not talking about things actually being true. If I say statement X, that doesn't necessarily mean that X is true. Anything that I say is only my best understanding of truth. If I say X, that is equivelant to my saying "I think X". It is not equivelant to X actually being true.

Stating an opinion that is thought to be true is not the same as stating a fact.

Isn't it? I don't see a distinction. If I say "Tolkien is a better writer than Jordan" I am stating an opinion, one that I believe to be true. If I say "The sun is yellow" I am also stating an opinion that I believe to be true. I am only quite a bit more sure about the latter (though I can never be absolutely sure about anything other than that I exist). Anything I say can automatically be prefaced by "I think that . . . " simply because I am the one that is saying it.

how can someone say that a writer who has entertained (entertainment being the purpose of fiction) thousands of people is bad?

Easily, unless that person believes that popularity constitutes an objective standard that then enforces itself upon individual opinions.

A person could say “I don’t like his stuff,” and be fine. I’m saying a person cannot say “He is a bad writer,” and be making a legitimate, factual statement.

The only difference between saying "I don't like his stuff" and saying "He is a bad writer" is that a person can be a good deal more sure about the former. Either one can be prefaced "I think that . . ."

When you say “2+2 = 4” you don’t say “I think 2+2=4.”

Essentially, you do. This is a simple example, so it's of course very, very unlikely that you are wrong. But the possibility exists. All you are really saying is that you think 2+2=4. That this is the case can be seen by considering that there is a near-continuum of complexity from such simple operations to things like surface integrals and differential equations. Clearly, when I give the solution to a complicated differential equation, I may be quite insecure about it being right. The insecurity is simply far less for simple arithmetic.

Note that none of this has much to do with actual fact. We have touched little or not at all upon the question of whether, for example, Robert Jordan is a bad writer. The question is whether it is valid to make such an evaluation.

This is a whole different can of worms. In order to accept my rudimentary idea (I haven’t thought much about it in order to flesh it out) you’d need to accept that the universe has a Creator. Without having that much common ground it would be impossible to convince each other of anything.

Agreed.

Maybe that is what I have been trying to say all along. That idea would fit with my “inherent in the universe/ imbued by a Creator” idea.

Hmm. Then has this whole discussion been pointless (it's been fun, at least)?

How does it not?

I think the burden of proof lies with you on this one. How does popularity automatically translate to quality?

I said if the standard was impossible for us to discern then for all practical intents and purposes it does not exist. When I said “impossible to discern” I meant literally impossible.

Something can be literally impossible to discern and still exist. For example, it is literally impossible for me to know the exact number of humans alive at any moment; first, there are huge numbers of people dying and being born all the time; second, I do not have the means to travel across the world counting people within a time frame that would provide anything like accuracy, nor the resources to persuade a sufficient number of other people to aid me. But at any given instant, there is a precise integral number of human beings alive; there is no quantum effect on such a scale (and even if there were, it is not the cause of my inability to know).

[littlemanpoet]

Cudae: You state your case well. Makes sense to me. I'm just as interested in the mind-grid a person brings to a work of art that leads to whatever opinion he/she makes of it. I know that I have given inadequate attention to some brilliant works of art because they didn't appeal to me personally, while other works, not brilliant, but not bad either, spoke to me; captured my imagination - they were able to link onto something already present in my mind-grid. So why am I interested in this? Perhaps it has something to do with why people can't get past Tolkien imitation?

[Cúdae]

littlemanpoet: I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by mind-gird, but I am guessing it is similiar to a frame of mind.

So why am I interested in this? Perhaps it has something to do with why people can't get past Tolkien imitation?
Maybe people cannot get past Tolkien imitation because they are expecting Tolkien imitation and therefore find or make the Tolkien imitation for themselves whether it exists of not. By find I mean that a reader could find clear Tolkien influence because he was looking for it or even if he was not looking for it and it suddenly occured to him. By make I mean that a reader who is expecting or looking for Tolkien imitation would be able to take a simple thing, a gold wedding ring for instance, and see it as an imitation. Whether the wedding ring was meant to be an imitation or was simply just background in a story doesn't matter. The reader who is expecting and/or looking for imitation will see it as just that.

An examply of this would be the first time I read the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander (for those who haven't read those books, there are Tolkien influences right down to the very ending, but with many original ideas of the author's own) I was not expecting any Tolkien imitation at all. And I didn't find any. Later, I reread the books expecting to find some Tolkien influenced elements. I found more than a few. When I didn't expect any, I didn't see any. When I did, I saw most of them.

[Kalessin]

Littlemanpoet - your insightful posts here lead me to wonder if we are trying to have it both ways when review the genre post-Tolkien? If a work is derivative or referential, we rightly criticise it as a pale imitation of the 'real thing' ... yet if a work does not follow the 'Tolkien template', we say it fails equally by not meeting the criteria of the master's work. Perhaps we are being a little possessive, or protective, or elitist ... bear in mind I speak as one who does NOT think LotR is the best book of the 20th century, for what it's worth, but I've been crucified elsewhere for that particular heresy smilies/smile.gif. I know that you are passionate about writing, and a great encourager of aspiring writers ... but do you think we are making the mountain higher than it actually is?

Aiwendil, bearing in mind my inability to conclusively prove the existence of anyone else, I think that I can have a personal objective standard of art, and that any agreement (or convergence) with another is more a matter of luck than any insight into Platonic forms smilies/wink.gif. Ok, I'm joking.

In your excellent post, you said -

Another argument: it is possible to construct sophisticated models that describe art and then predict what will be pleasing and what will not. For example, traditional music theory predicts that, in general, ending a piece with a perfect cadence will be pleasing and ending with an imperfect cadence will not be - and it is correct. There are situations where ending with an imperfect cadence may be pleasing, but such instances are exceptions within the theory and predictable by the theory. The theory is not complete, of course, but it is succesful. The fact that objective theories can be set up to judge works of art I take as evidence that there is an objective standard of art (though a full description of it would be extremely complex).


I am not so sure that a sophisticated model that predicts what will be pleasing or not is a good thing. It sounds to me as though the record company releasing music by Britney Spears is obviously in possession of such a thing. And I still haven't quite reconciled the semantics behind "I like something therefore it is good".

Your example of perfect cadence illustrates my point. Traditional music theory perhaps, but only in relation to the diatonic tradition. If you factor in musical theory appropriate to classical Indian raga, or African pentatonic composition, or Balinese gamelan, and so on ... which is more valid? I agree that the presence of form in all musics can be cited as evidence of at least a predisposition to the concept of aesthetic objectivity - but the diversity of those forms, and their equal theoretical depth and worth do not give us the security of a commonsense objectivity.

My feeling is more that we are in the grip of an exquisite contradiction. That music, and indeed all art, is recognisable and knowable through understanding or invocation of a universally comprehensible terminology (composition, counterpoint, harmony, rhythm and so on), yet our emotional experience is subject to a level of cultural, social and psychological variables that make it intensely personal (and thus unique). The terms in which we can describe and understand are indeed universal ... but our experience is not.

This may sound like a reduction to subjectivity, but that is not my intention. I believe that aesthetic theory is worthwhile, but that the worth of art is a reflection of the intent, content AND the experience of the audience. If I prefer Steve Reich to Mozart, it need not mean that I necessarily think Mozart is a worse composer, nor equally that my understanding of aesthetics is flawed. The line of absolute external objectivity in art is one where you end up painting yourself into a corner, and saying "well, because this (let's say Britney) meets the precise set of laws required to be good, I am compelled to like it. If I do not like it then it does not meet those laws. If you prefer something else (say, Wagner) you are wrong, because only I truly understand the laws and the proof of that is that I do not prefer Wagner to Britney".

The lack of such external validation, in the presence of universal contingents, as always presents a certain irreconcilable tension. I contend as ever that such dichotomies are inherent in the human condition, of which art is such a fluent manifestation.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

[Aiwendil]

Looks like it's going to be "The Nature of Art: Aiwendil vs. Kalessin, part III".

Anyway:
I am not so sure that a sophisticated model that predicts what will be pleasing or not is a good thing.

Surely the question is not whether it is a good thing; it is whether it can exist.

It sounds to me as though the record company releasing music by Britney Spears is obviously in possession of such a thing.

This is completely different. The model of "art" that they possess does not predict what will be good art; it predicts what will be popular. There is no reason to assume that what is popular is good, and I have never done so.

And I still haven't quite reconciled the semantics behind "I like something therefore it is good".

I've never said "I like something therefore it is good"; in fact, I've said rather the opposite. To make an analogy: suppose I measure the mass of an object on a balance. If I said "The balance reads 5 grams, therefore this thing has a rest mass of 5 grams," I would be reversing the causality. Properly, I should say "The object has a rest mass of 5 grams, therefore the balance reads 5 grams." In this simple case, there is really no distinction between "reading, therefore mass" and "mass, therefore reading". But suppose the balance were incorrectly calibrated, or suppose it was made in an environment with a different gravitational acceleration. Then the five gram object might produce a reading of, say ten grams. The object has not changed; whether we think its mass is 5 or 10 grams does not affect its actual nature. Suppose two people perform the measurement, one with a correctly calibrated balance and one with an incorrectly calibrated one. They get results of 5 grams and 10 grams, respectively. It is to be expected that a contention arises between them, and each argues his or her position. They might invoke other, cruder methods of measurement, real or fictitious: "Look, it sinks in water, so it must be heavy"; "It looks just like another 5 gram object"; "It's square, and square things are always 10 grams." They might eventually agree that they simply have different subjective opinions about mass, or that a real determination is impossible. However, nothing changes the fact that the object is 5 grams; certainly the fact that one person (honestly) believes it to be 10 grams does not change its mass.

Now (obviously), the object = art; the mass = the quality of the art; the observers = us; the scales = our innate evaluation of what makes good art; the appeal to cruder measurements = hypotheses about popularity, comparison with other works of art, etc.; the poor calibration of the scale = factors such as reputation, accessibility, and familiarity that interfere with our ability to assess the aesthetic value of art.

That's a lengthy analogy, but I think it demonstrates pretty well my views on art. So, just because a person thinks a work of art is good (or weighs ten grams), that doesn't mean that it must be good. That person's assessment may be inaccurate for any of various reasons (i.e., the person's scale is poorly calibrated).

Sorry for the length of that analogy. And so far, I've only tackled your first three sentences!

Your example of perfect cadence illustrates my point. Traditional music theory perhaps, but only in relation to the diatonic tradition. If you factor in musical theory appropriate to classical Indian raga, or African pentatonic composition, or Balinese gamelan, and so on ... which is more valid?

This is what I was getting at when I said that, for example, an imperfect cadence is justified in certain circumstances. A complete theory of art would be able to explain under what circumstances an imperfect cadence will sound good. Similarly, a complete theory of art would take into account Indian ragas, African pentatonic scales, and so forth. Diatonic theory is certainly not a complete theory of music. But it is a succesful theory, within limits. To make another (briefer) analogy, Newtonian mechanics is not a complete theory; in very high-velocity cases it is wrong. A more generalized theory, though (like general relativity) encompasses both the low-velocity and high-velocity scenarios. Thus, a complete theory of music would encompass all music that is aesthetically pleasing. Note that I do not think a complete theory could ever be formulated; music (or any art) is far too complex and the theory would be impossibly complicated.

The terms in which we can describe and understand are indeed universal ... but our experience is not.

This actually makes some sense to me. However: don't the terms in which we describe art arise from our experience? If our diverse experiences are not at least very similar, how could a common understanding of form, and specifically, of good form arise?

This may sound like a reduction to subjectivity, but that is not my intention.

Yet it certainly does in some sense lead to subjectivity. This only works if you accept (which I think you do) the disconnection of quality from experience. But this inevitably leads to the conclusion that the quality of art has nothing to do with how deeply it moves a person, or what that person's subjective reaction to it is; it depends only on some objective standard that cannot relate to experience (because experience is subjective).

The line of absolute external objectivity in art is one where you end up painting yourself into a corner, and saying "well, because this (let's say Britney) meets the precise set of laws required to be good, I am compelled to like it.

No. If you don't think something is good, but a certain formulation of the "laws of art" say that it is good, then either: 1. the formulation of the laws is incorrect or incomplete, or 2. there are interfering factors that prevent you from liking the work. Just to show how 2 might work: suppose I'm miserably ill the first time I hear the album Kind of Blue. My subsequent dislike for the album may have little or nothing to do with my liking/appreciation of its aesthetic qualities; I may dislike it for non-artistic reasons. (Note: I don't really dislike that album, in fact it's among my favorites).

If you prefer something else (say, Wagner) you are wrong, because only I truly understand the laws and the proof of that is that I do not prefer Wagner to Britney".

Your example seems to be aimed less at the idea of "laws of music" than at the irrational behavior of a hypothetical person. First of all, the laws of music would never say that Britney is superior to Wagner. Second, your hypothetical person is using circular logic: A is true because A predicts B and B is true because B predicts A. That person's formulation of the laws seems to be arbitrary. Third, the person assumes that the laws are fully known, which they can never be.

[Cúdae]

Since we are getting into the ideas of music, I am going to add my own little piece of knowledge.

A few years ago when my youngest cousin was diagnosed as autistic, I learned a lot about why music appealed to her. Music one of the most mathematically dependant forms of art on earth. One can argue that drawings need to be mathematical as well, but that is not so obvious. In any case, music needs algebra to some extent. x+y must equal x+y. In music, equality in notes and measures is what helps to make it more pleasing to the ear. For instance, in most compositions, every measure of music has the same time (such as 4/4 or 6/8, etc.) and this results in a balance that is distintly heard. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but when the balance is not there, you know it. Have you ever been listening to a song on the radio and suddenly it slows down or speeds up without warning? That is clear imbalance. Usually, I find the imbalances to be far more subtle.

Would this provide ground for an arguement saying that because something as dependant on mathmatics as music might be imbalanced in the math field of itself that it is generally regarded as "bad?"

But where does Tolkien fit into this?

Do readers regard Tolkien as a master, if not the master, of fantasy writing because his stories balance out? Do they balance out in the sense that they have a beginning that begins in the past of his created world and because they have an ending which ends in the future of his created world? Are they balanced because the beginning (speaking of the creation story in the Silm) was not measured in time as we know it and because the future extends indefinitely? Does this make what Tolkien wrote balanced and therefore has set a standard for all other writers to achieve the balance in their own work? Can this balance be what makes something seem "good" to the general population of readers, onlookers, etc.?

[Kalessin]

Aiwendil, your reply illustrates perfectly the dichotomy I attempted to explain earlier, and my particular way out of it (or through it, or behind it etc. smilies/smile.gif). In Tolkien's works we have something that is arguably either popular or good, and naturally wish to settle the question.

It seems to me as though this debate engenders two antithetical arguments - one, that there is an absolute objective truth of art (even if it is so complex and multi-faceted that we cannot fully conceive it) in which aesthetic qualities can, in theory, be empirically measured as accurately and reliably as various physical properties (as in your analogy). In this way it is possible, if difficult, to say with certainty that something is 'good', on the basis of measurable factors that it possesses. We can of course choose to like it or not, but it's quality is objective and unarguable. This, I think, I something close to your position.

The second argument is that we cannot possibly come to an objective statement about a work of art, because our individual experience of it is a completely integral part of its properties. In this way, art that is popular can to some degree at least be deemed 'good' because of the pleasure it brings to a larger number of individuals than other art. But equally, as far as the individual is concerned, they need not necessarily accept a collective consensus and can simply maintain their own valid, subjective experience of any particular work.

My position is that both of these arguments co-exist and are meaningful - not because the world of logic has gone mad, but because we are human beings and what we are talking about is art (in other words the world of logic has gone mad smilies/smile.gif).

It is as inappropriate to apply the theories of physical science to art, and all the terminology that surrounds art, as it is to simply say that that if a thousand people like Britney and one likes Mozart, then Britney must have more merit. As I said, the expression of art, and our experience of it, is one of contradiction, duality, of inarticulacy, of emotion codified in abstract language. Cudae's point about the (often over-emphasized) mathematical aspect of music illustrates my point. Music could equally be seen as languistic, a form of abstraction - but one that remains rooted in the physical, in the senses we use to perceive it. You could say that if art is a language, some speak it more eloquently than others, and you could cite the rules of grammar ... but as we all know there is more to good language than grammar. It is not correct grammar that gives language conviction, passion or even imagination. What linguistic rules can be applied to decide whether something is imaginative? Or, more pertinently, that something will excite the imaginations of the audience?

I see it as a contradiction - that, clearly, works of art have qualities, that we can all recognise as inherent to art (even if we disagree about which art most exemplifies them), and which to some degree we can quantify in terms of aesthetic theory. Yet that at the same time, intangible or variable factors ARE part of the meaning of art as well, which make the subjective experience valid - remember, your relationship with a work of art can almost be like a private conversation ... the amazing thing is the artist made up his/her contribution without knowing what you were going to say! And I accept this contradiction as a means by which I can exercise both critical judgement and maintain a personal experience. As a musician, I would be gratified if my audience received my work in the same way (as long as they like it smilies/smile.gif).

As far as the passionate debate about Britney vs Mozart goes, I can only say that I am reminded of famous conductor Thomas Beecham's quip when asked "Have you heard any Stockhausen?", to which he replied "No, but I believe I may have trodden in some."

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

[Cúdae]

The balance I spoke of in my last post needs something to illustrate it better than music and Tolkien. Maybe some van Gogh and a book regarded as not as great as Tolkien's? And perhaps I could throw in some grammar?

Let's take balance in a book first. I am going to use the example of the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander (with all due respect to Mr. Alexander and his writing). Generally, these books are not regarded as great as those by Tolkien. There are many reasons for this, not the least of which being the clear Tolkien influences, but I am only going to deal with the balance. In these books, the past (the history of Prydain, of Taran, of Dallban, etc) is indefinite while the future (Taran lives happily ever after basically and the impression that Prydain has few troubles afterward) is definite. This creates an affect something like x=y in mathematics. While in Tolkien's books, both the past and the future are indefinite- x=x.

Now I'm going to use the paintings of Vincent van Gogh as an example. He is an artist much loved, studied, and looked up to in many countries. His paintings are balanced. What is on one side is balanced by something on the other. Or, what is presented is balanced by something (opinion, reaction, etc.) in the viewer's mind. An example would be his painting Starry Night. The stars in the sky balance on another out. The deep colors are balanced by the opinion (be it good, bad, or indifferent) or reaction in the viewer's mind to those colors. The swirly, dark, castle-like thing on the left hand side is balanced by the sky opposite it. This all creates a balanced effect of something like x+y+z=x+y+z.

Now let's go to grammar! Correct sentence structure with a subject and a verb is balanced. Example: He ran. He is the subject which is balanced by the verb ran. The sentence is correct grammar. Take this sentence for a more complicated example: The rabbit scampered across the road. The subject rabbit is balanced by the verb scampered. The two words the are balanced by each other and across and road balance each other.

If that made any sense whatsoever, it will be a miracle.


...remember, your relationship with a work of art can almost be like a private conversation ...

Alright, so again I can put into action my balance idea. You can see a painting and dislike it because it does not balance in your mind and/or on the canvas. You can walk away from a private conversation feeling as though something is missing because the conversation took an unbalanced turn or maybe because the conversation ended without definition. This means that you relationship with art that does not please you can be very like to that of a conversation that ends without definition. Or it can be very like to seeing a painting which does please you and walking away from a conversation feeling very satisfied.

Logic hasn't gone anywhere, it is merely a different branch of logic that is used in art forms.

[Aiwendil]

Kalessin:
In this way it is possible, if difficult, to say with certainty that something is 'good', on the basis of measurable factors that it possesses. We can of course choose to like it or not, but it's quality is objective and unarguable. This, I think, I something close to your position.


It is indeed my position if one alteration is made: I would not say that we can "choose to like it or not"; our liking of something is a function of the things inherent quality as well as interfering, non-aesthetic factors.

The second argument is that we cannot possibly come to an objective statement about a work of art, because our individual experience of it is a completely integral part of its properties.

It seems to me that for this argument to be true, one would have to accept either of the following axioms: 1. that individual human beings are so dissimilar in their basic nature that there is no common standard of aesthetic beauty that can be appreciated by all or 2. that non-aesthetic factors should be taken into consideration when we evaluate the quality of art.

I refuse to accept axiom 2. If it were true, then, for example, Britney's "image" would have to be considered to increase the quality of her "art". Axiom 1 I can accept; I do not personally believe it, but I admit that it is a realistic possibility. In any case, this view amounts to saying that art is subjective.

It is as inappropriate to apply the theories of physical science to art, and all the terminology that surrounds art, as it is to simply say that that if a thousand people like Britney and one likes Mozart, then Britney must have more merit.

I disagree. While of course we cannot apply specific physical theories to art ("if this book moves close to the speed of light, it will have better characterization!"), we can treat art in a precise and rational fashion. The fact is that experiencing a work of art amounts to making an observation or measurement of it. If art is objective, then there is room for error in this assessment.

but as we all know there is more to good language than grammar.

That there is more to good language than grammar certainly does not necessitate that good writing is not objective. If there is an objective "theory of writing" it is certainly far more complex than simple grammatical rules.

Yet that at the same time, intangible or variable factors ARE part of the meaning of art as well, which make the subjective experience valid

There are two things here that I fail to understand. First, what are "intangible or variable factors"? If they are the aesthetic factors that vary from person to person, then it seems art is ultimately subjective. If they are merely factors that we do not understand, that means that art is still objective, but we do not fully understand the objective standard. Second, what do you mean when you say "make the subjective experience valid"? Do you mean that there are two standards by which art can be judged - objective (by inherent qualities) and subjective (by individual reaction)? If so, then a great deal of confusion has arisen from the conflation of the two meanings of "quality" - objective and subjective. Or do you mean that there is a sort of subjective fuzziness or uncertainty around the quantitative, objective value of a work of art?

Cudae:
I certainly agree that balance is an important component of aesthetics. Your example concerning the mathematical nature of music is, I think, very pertinent. It is also an excellent example in that it demonstrates the way in which complexity operates in seemingly dry, mechanistic systems. Beauty in music is a perfect example of an emergent property in a complex system. Many no doubt are dismayed by attempts at the "reduction" of creativity into mathematical concepts. I, on the contrary, find the emergence of beauty, emotion, and intelligence from purely mathematical or quantitative systems to be inspiring.

However, I don't think that balance is the only, or even necessarily the primary, criterion for aesthetic beauty. There is something to be said for imbalance as well - the unexpected accelerando toward the end of Beethoven's 5th symphony, the startling plot twists of Hitchock's Vertigo, the disparity between the in-depth and the summary chapters of The Grapes of Wrath.

This creates an affect something like x=y in mathematics. While in Tolkien's books, both the past and the future are indefinite- x=x.


I'm not sure I understand you here. What do x and y represent?

[Kalessin]

Cudae

Sorry to be so argumentative, I really do appreciate your posts and your thoughtful exploring of these fascinating issues - but the attempt to reduce (or reappraise) music as a mathematical form is one I would take issue with (surprise smilies/smile.gif). Again, this process is applied almost exclusively to western classical music (which indeed was initially based on a series of theoretical strictures - just as with painting), and it presupposes that music is - like mathematics - a cerebral and linear activity.

Now, music is indeed cerebral at times, and often linear, but it is far more than that. A true, holistic view of music is one that accepts its physicality - it is produced physically, by action, and the action and physicality is a reflection of the artist. For example - two scientists can formulate a logical theory, and might each begin with a series of the same simple equations (rather like a chess game, perhaps). But the equations will always look, and mean, the same thing. On the other hand, two singers may sing the same piece, but the difference is obvious. Music is personal, physical AND cerebral - it is communal and individual. It predates logic and western mathematical systems by thousands of years. It is universal to humanity. The attempt to reduce the greater to the lesser is only meaningful in relation to specific periods, or compositions, which in themselves represent a small fraction of music.

You could perhaps argue that aspects of music can infer certain mathematical properties, I could go with that, but I think anything more definitive is necessarily a reduction that is rooted in mind-body dualism.

Aiwendil

... the fact is that experiencing a work of art amounts to making an observation or measurement of it.

I think this is perhaps the nub of our debate. Basically, I don't think this is the primary case - in effect the element of measurement or 'neutral' observation is not necessarily as important or meaningful as all the aspects of experiencing a work of art. You could argue that everything we do is simply an act of perception, and define that perception as 'measuring or observation', but you are still arriving at a particular notion of empiricism by inductive reasoning. It's like saying 'receiving' is the same as 'counting'.

Anyway, I enjoy the fact that we disagree on such fundamental principles and I am always agreeably challenged and stimulated by your articulacy, knowledge and robust references. My position, of rationalising a co-existent contradiction, is precisely that - a contradiction, and such I can only justify it by refuting the axioms on either side and if necessary, resorting to wordy mysticism smilies/smile.gif. Since we both unquestionably have staying power in these kind of debates, let's temporarily get back to Tolkien and the origin of our particular debate - that in order to make judgements about the succesors to Tolkien, a conception of why Tolkien is good - or those successors inferior by comparison (or inherently so).

If, without getting too technical, it's possible say that Tolkien is both popular and good (whether or not the two are related), the question is how a writer can succeed in his footsteps without either being derivative or imitating, or on the other hand self-consciously avoiding anything that could be seen as Tolkeinesque influence or resonance.

My personal feeling is that perhaps we can or should look outside the accepted genre for examples of literature that carry the torch of mythology and folklore, yet does not simply become a dry academic exercise in philology. And perhaps that we think even more laterally ... for example, some modernity is essential and inevitable, just as in its way LotR is also clearly a 'modern' work. Is it absolutely essential that a worthy successor to Tolkien must refer to specific mythic archetypes - or perhaps attempt an equally eclectic mix of references? Or has it been possible to create a mythology for the 20th (and/or 21st) century?

Peace smilies/smile.gif

Kalessin

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Cúdae]

Aiwendil:
You are correct about something to be said for the use of imbalance as well. But the imbalance is not exactly an imbalance if it was intentional. The imbalance is balanced by the reaction of the listener, the reader, etc. to the imbalance or the imbalance balances itself out with a beginning and an end to or in the imbalance. (I truly hope that made sense...I am confusing myself.)

To answer what x and y stand for, I merely meant that they were different from each other, as in something like 12 is not equal to 15.

Kalessin:
You are correct that the process of breaking down music to mathematics is almost exclusively applied to western classical music. But, you used the word almost. Western classical music is most often the music broken down because it is the music that the balance can most easily be seen in. But, I firmly believe that it is possible to find a balance in any music from any time period. Now, I know you are going to argue with me about what I am about to say: Everything and anything can be broken down into balanced mathematics and everything and this goes for all art forms. Whether I, or anyone else, has the mathematical knowledge to do this is an entirely different story. smilies/smile.gif

Music is personal, physical AND cerebral - it is communal and individual.
Alright, I won't argue with that, but if my theory of math being the basis for everything works then that means that the deepest emotional feeling has some mathematical root. This root may prompt the person to compose some music that is based on the math that they subconsciously know. Don't ask me how, it merely seems to fit. I'm not that great of a math student to figure it all out. smilies/smile.gif
It predates logic and western mathematical systems by thousands of years.
Maybe. Maybe not. Did ancient peoples refer to adding something to another thing as addition? Even though they did not, it does not mean that it did not exist. Also, one of the earliest forms of counting was the beat of a drum- music. Also, I don't think I understand you in one aspect: Western mathematical systems would be what? Is subtraction any different in Europe than in China? Am I going to find that in Saudi Arabia, 5-3 does not equal 2, but 4?

I can easily agree with you on the fact that music is universal to humanity- it is one of the few. But, then I can go right ahead and add: Mathematics is universal to humanity. As I said before: Subtraction in Asia isn't going to be any different than subtraction in Europe. It may have a different name, a different number system, whatever. But when you take 2 sticks away from a pile of five sticks, you are going to have 3 left.

I recognize the need to make something very clear very quickly. Balance is <u>not</u> sound in music. It can be, and very often it is, but is not always. What sounds balanced to one person may not for another.


...the question is how a writer can succeed in his footsteps without either being derivative or imitating, or on the other hand self-consciously avoiding anything that could be seen as Tolkeinesque influence or resonance.

Perhaps the secret to a writer succeeding in Tolkien's footsteps is the idea that to avoid anything Tolkienesque the writer must stop trying to avoid being Tolkienesque. In other words: Maybe for a writer to succeed and to be seen as original he needs to leave the idea of self-consciously avoiding Tolkien influences. He needs to stop thinking of Tolkien and think of his own knowledge and draw conclusions from that rather than another writer. If you tell yourself not to think of Tolkien's works, you are thinking of Tolkien's works in the process.

Is it absolutely essential for a worthy successor to Tolkien to refer to mythic archetypes? Of course not, that is a sure way to get this author rstuck in the mud of Tolkien-influence. A better way to go about the idea might be to appeal to the reader's sense of judgement, of fairness, of unfairness, and of heroism. To take the reader's mind and appeal to the judgement of good vs. evil or of fair vs. unfair is to use mythical motifs in a way that is not clearly mythical. To create a mythology for the 20th and/or 21st centuries would be a feat indeed since what is usually thought of in mythology has virtually disappeared. But it would not be impossible to take modern events and make them mythical. To exalt heroes of wars and to condemn enemies who are thought of in a certain world culture to be "evil" is not as hard as it seems.

[Aragorn Husband of Arwen]

As I don't have time to read everyone's post, I'll just write what I thought after reading the first couple.

First off, mythology and folklore in my opinion is based off of history, just twisted around. We take something that has happened, and are inspired by it. Our society as a majority, by not reading and learning from history, are repeating it. Those who do not read and learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we don't read history we cannot be inspired by it. Many mythology stories written now are just stupid or poorly written.

Because of our society trying to remove itself from religion, many of the mythology books I've flipped through are almost santist in proporation.

But, there is always hope, as there are many not well known books out there, not as well written as JRR Tolkien's LOTR, not even close, but still good. smilies/smile.gif

This is all just my opinion, not to offend.

[Aiwendil]

Kalessin:
but the attempt to reduce (or reappraise) music as a mathematical form is one I would take issue with

First of all, as I said before, I diasagree that treating music mathematically is a reduction. Second: at some basic level, music must be mathematical. The universe is mathematical; at some very fundamental level, music can be described through wave mechanics.

For example - two scientists can formulate a logical theory, and might each begin with a series of the same simple equations (rather like a chess game, perhaps). But the equations will always look, and mean, the same thing. On the other hand, two singers may sing the same piece, but the difference is obvious. Music is personal, physical AND cerebral - it is communal and individual.

But the differences between two performances of the same piece are surely quantifiable. One performer crescendos more quickly than the other; one tongues the triplets and the other slurs them; etc. These are mathematical, measurable qualities.

However, a performance of a piece of music certainly exemplifies certain emergent properties - properties of a complex system that are inherent in the fundamental mathematics, but not of the same kind as the fundamental mathematics. For example, the rules of chess form a complex mathematical system. Chess strategy is an emergent property of that system; it is derived from the mathematical fundamentals, but it more than the mathematical fundamentals. I would say that emotion, personality, and so forth are emergent properties of music - contained in the quantities but greater than mere quantities.

Basically, I don't think this is the primary case - in effect the element of measurement or 'neutral' observation is not necessarily as important or meaningful as all the aspects of experiencing a work of art.

I did not say that the observation must be neutral. Even if the observation is tinged with subjectivity, it is still at some phase a measurement. The act of experiencing a painting necessarily involves measuring the wavelengths of the various colors and the sizes of the various shapes. But, taking what you said more broadly, I think you do have a point. I still insist that all experience of art involves measurement, but I concede that one's experience cannot be treated simply as the measurement of a single quantity.

Since we both unquestionably have staying power in these kind of debates, let's temporarily get back to Tolkien and the origin of our particular debate

Agreed. By the way, I have also thoroughly enjoyed this and other debates we have had, however unwilling we each seem to be won over by the other's arguments.

the question is how a writer can succeed in his footsteps without either being derivative or imitating, or on the other hand self-consciously avoiding anything that could be seen as Tolkeinesque influence or resonance.


I don't think that it is impossible for a writer to achieve a great work by imitating Tolkien; but it is very unlikely. I believe the main problem is this: Tolkien's work was great because he to some extent believed what he wrote. He did not, of course, believe that the events in his works literally took place; but he believed that his mythology was consistent (physically, psychologically, and theologically), and that it in some way reflected truths about our world. The problem, then, is that the imitators attempt to write the same sort of stuff, but without that belief. I do not say this to disparage the imitators. The fact is that the fantasy genre is defined by Tolkien's beliefs - beliefs with which not a great many people are in complete agreement. Also, most writers today are not inclined to invest this kind of belief in their works, even if it were possible. Tolkien was one of few authors who felt that the story he was telling was important in itself. He wrote neither to convey some message beyond his story (as "literary" writers do) nor to appeal to lots of people and sell millions of books (as mass-market authors do). Yet he was successful in creating a work with both literary significance and mass appeal.

I'm rambling, and without any clear purpose. I suppose my main point an author is more likely to create a great work if he or she is interested in the story as a story (rather than as an allegory or as a step toward profit), and if he or she believes that the story is on some level "true" (or at least consistent with the author's beliefs and way of thinking).

Cudae:
But the imbalance is not exactly an imbalance if it was intentional.

This entails a very broad definition of "balance" - but I understand your point.

but if my theory of math being the basis for everything works then that means that the deepest emotional feeling has some mathematical root.

With this statement I am in perfect agreement.

[doug*platypus]

I think that Fantasy as a genre has bred a lot of terrible writers. It seems that in order to write Fantasy you don't need to be able to write at all, just have an imagination. For anyone who has read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the situation seems like it was in the Orwellian future, where books are churned out of a machine, all vastly similar but with just a couple of minor differences between each one. A lot of Fantasy (and Science Fiction) is almost Mills and Boon level. I'd tend to agree that this flooding of the market with garbage is supported by publishing houses with low standards. Also by readers of Fantasy themselves. They are usually great readers, and always on the lookout for good new books and stories. Placing quantity before quality is apparently the world of Fantasy books does business. It's all about the bottom line.

[littlemanpoet]

Kalessin the Eldest:

smilies/smile.gif Greetings again. Forgive my dilatory response. I have been reading LeGuin again lately, and so have finally rediscovered the source of your moniker. Excellent choice!

(I) wonder if we are trying to have it both ways when review the genre post-Tolkien? If a work is derivative or referential, we rightly criticise it as a pale imitation of the 'real thing' ... yet if a work does not follow the 'Tolkien template', we say it fails equally by not meeting the criteria of the master's work. Perhaps we are being a little possessive, or protective, or elitist ...

To answer your query, I had not felt that I had raised the mountain too high. Thank you for pointing out the distinction. I have been uneasy with the idea of a Tolkien template having a tyrannous effect on the writing of fantasy, and had been considering saying so earlier. If a Tolkien template was considered essential to writing fantasy, we would have no EarthSea series by LeGuin.

I grant you that LeGuin may be a better writer than Tolkien, as writers go. The breadth of her imagination rivals his, as well, it seems to me. His linguistic abilities far surpass hers, and the richness he is able to bring to Middle Earth, through this, seems to go beyond LeGuin's, just because he had more of the best kinds of tools at his disposal. She is not done writing yet, so we shall see.

I love EarthSea. I love Middle Earth more. Perhaps it IS because I came to it so young. Perhaps it's because of its consonances with my faith, compared with that of EarthSea. There is something gritty about EarthSea, an earth-boundness, that I really enjoy about it. And yet... I do not call it inferior, just not quite as pleasant to my taste as Tolkien.

I've spent a good 8 months reading unpublished original fantasy now, some of it incredibly good, some of it incredibly rookie, and I have great hopes for the future of fantasy. I think the key lies in the writer of fantasy being true to her/his own vision, and true to the craft of writing. Nevermind a template, be it from Tolkien or LeGuin or Asimov, or R.E. Howard. Write what's in you to write, and learn to do it as well as you can.

[ January 01, 2003: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Cúdae]

Hmm... I have not read 1984 or anything written by LeGuin and probably will not be able to for a while judging by the pile books beside me. I cannot comment on those, but I can comment on some other things.

This thread is called, "The Tolkien Template- Carrying on the torch of mythology and folklore" and I am unsure of how to go about the idea presented there alone. But, in my opinion, Tolkien has carried on the torch and passed it on to the fantasy writers of today. But the vast majority of them have taken the torch and promptly dropped it and watched its flame die out in the sands of Time.

There are some who have taken the torch and nutured its flame and fed it with more and their are some who have done their absolute best to feed the flame and there are undoubtedly some who are waiting eagerly for the day when the torch will be in their hands and they too can keep the flame alive.

But all that is dampened when you look at the fantasy authors who have disgraced the name of the fantasy genre and ruined mythology and folklore and who have tried to blend Tolkien's style of writing with Ray Bradbury's use of figurative language and wrapped it all up in some stinking tortilla of something kind of like mystery. In other words, taking some good stuff, putting it all in one place and stirring up the wrong way. In my opinion, people see this as what fantasy is now. I see this as what fantasy has become.

So, how will the torch of mythology and folklore be passed on? How will its flame even be kept alive? A few authors can hold back the flood for a little while, but even they will fall to a strong tide of unoriginal, poorly written, and generally boring fantasy if it keeps coming. Good luck to us all, the authors who want to nuture the torch's flame and feed it with their own writings.

[littlemanpoet]

A very well stated post, Cudae. In another thread, I can't remember which one (valid criticisms?) I presented an analogy of high mountains each of which represented a source of story; from them spout springs, pure and either hot or cold, and the streams of pure story pour down the mountains. One such mountain is "Norse mythos & Germanic languages"; another is "Celtic mythos"; another is "Hebrew mythos"; and so on. Some writers draw the water for their "soup of story" from streams high up in the mountains. Further downstream, the streams mix in confluences, where the water drawn is not quite as "pure". From such lower foothills one might say that Robert E. Howard drew his fascinating mix of sword and sorcery genre; from higher in the mountains, Tolkien drew Middle Earth. Many of our modern writers seem to be drawing their water from rather close to the mouth of the Hudson, so to speak. Each writer is free to draw her/his water from whatever point she/he wishes; let the reader beware of the landscape from which the particular book's soup of story was concocted. It would help if the publishing industry had a better understanding of these distinctions, but they apparently don't - so the reader must beware. Please do realize that reader tastes do run the gamut, and there are a lot of readers who actually like New York Harbor water for their soup. Believe it or not. You, Cudae, might dislike it, and I bet I probably do, too, but that's because we have climbed to the heights whereas some readers have never been there, or, perhaps, have become so used to the briny, polluted waters down on the seaboard, that they actually cannot stomach the pure, refreshing waters near the springs.