Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[Kalessin]

I'm writing this after reflecting on this year's Oscars, where the LotR movie sadly failed to pick up the most prestigious awards. I don't want to debate the merits of individual films or performances, but to suggest that perhaps the 'fantasy' genre (as opposed to Disney or Pixar) is still not taken as seriously as 'proper' movies or literature.

Now we all know that fantasy books sell really well (and LotR was a huge book and movie hit). And I also know that we here are all converts, and don't need to be persuaded how wonderful Tolkien is, and probably many of us also enjoy fantasy works created by others - for example, I would cite Ursula Le Guin's 'The Earthsea Quartet' in literature, or John Boorman's movie 'Excalibur' as personal favourites - but I wonder whether there are any "good" reasons why the genre is still not acknowledged or accepted as at least the equal of Crime or Horror, and certainly seen as less meaningful than the traditional novel.

Maybe you could argue that it is accepted, except by a cultural establishment that is still snobbish or elitist. Or that there is still an association in some people's minds between fantasy and fairy tales ie. being childish and escapist (I'm not sure I believe this). Or that stereotypes of fantasy aficionados - as beardy fashion disasters, maladjusted gothic teens, or anal-retentive sociopathic gamers - are still prevalent. Or maybe you would argue that I'm wrong, that the genre only suffers the same slings and arrows as any other, and that "WE HAVE ARRIVED".

But I'm going to be a devil's advocate and ask whether there are any VALID criticisms of the genre - or of its icons. No, I'm not rehashing the "Book of the century" thread (I already have enough enemies). But when I browse through the Fantasy sections in local bookshops, having waded past the huge Star Trek section, I do find myself being put off by the following ...

1. Endless volumes of the same story or series - ie. "Dragonmaster's Destiny : Number 37 in the Chronicles of The Dark Raven Storm Warrior ; Volume III of The Ancient Scrolls of Atlantis ; featuring Tarnak, Prince of The Bejewelled Crested Eagle Wings (as featured in 500 other titles) ; Book 15 - Secrets of The Necromancer (Part II) ..." OK, I'm exaggerating smilies/smile.gif But do you get my point?

2. The formulaic and superficial narrative which seems utterly dependent on tired genre cliches - ie. "Deprived of his kingdom by the dark sorcerer Voldorn, Saraan and his band of followers must embark on a perilous quest to recover the magical Baubles of Aldoren, and unlock the Ancient Fire of Stormwrath. In so doing he will learn his true identity, and face an inner demon that will lead him to a final cataclysmic destiny, at the edge of the abyss between destruction and redemption ..." (me again smilies/smile.gif )

3. Feeble attempts at Tolkienesque cosmology - ie. "Gnaar Hrothragha! cried the Arnak. He had dwelt but a few Kaeaons upon the Omulagh (see Appendix 290), and was considered a mere Jyfdwq by the Elders. Upon his mailed swordarm lay the the engraved symbol of Yangfrey (see Book 9, Trilogy 4, Volume 6, Part IX).

4. The dire attempts at epic language and form ... I'm not going to skit this too much, except to say the words "Lo!" and "Destiny".

5. The cultural homogeneity at work - aren't most heroes pretty much heroic, generally white, male and handsome (or female and pneumatic). Our beloved Hobbits, and the anti-heroes of Philip K D1ck are exceptions that prove the rule here. I'm not aware of many overtly gay or black leading roles (not in the endless series' anyway, or only as minor lackeys) ... I'm still looking out for my copy of "Captain Camp and the Disco Invaders". My point is that stereotypes still abound.

smilies/smile.gif

Now there is a serious point here. Tolkien, Moorcock at his best, and others, are obviously masterful writers and able to rise above what appear to be the pitfalls of this genre. But their craft and imagination only makes the rest (ie. the majority) look and seem all the more feeble and banal. More generally, for every LotR or Philip K D1ck masterpiece there are 10,000 Star Wars/Trek/other dire spinoffs ... or am I just imagining it?

And yes, there are equally formulaic and unremarkable works in other genres - the endless Crime outpourings featuring one pet detective or another, or the romantic literature phenomenon that is Danielle Steele.

But I'm not talking about other genres. I'm talking about the area that WE love. That particular combination of archetypes and references that WE find most appealing. And what I'm asking is this ... are there valid criticisms of the genre and its protagonists?

These boards are full of open-minded, articulate and intelligent types. I'm wondering whether we can look in our own house and find the skeletons in the cupboard ( smilies/smile.gif). 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?

Hopefully you can tell me how wrong I am, and list the authors or works that defy the above conventions. But this is my question - are there any valid criticisms? Of Tolkien, or other leaders of the genre - or of the genre itself, is it by definition limiting and lowbrow (I don't believe that). 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.

Peace

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I believe that one of the main offsets of people to Fantasy & Science Fiction is, sadly enough, religion. There are a lot of people out there who believe that anything that involves magic is evil. I mean, they tried to boycott Harry Potter for crying out loud. Also, it has to do with stereotypes. There are a lot of BAD fantasy novels out there. The same old story. And, unfortunately, you have to go through that section to get to the Tolkien ones. A lot of people just see the surface of fantasy and science fiction and they don't realize that it can have a much deeper meaning. LOTR is one of the most emotionally driven books I have read, but too many people are stuck on books by John Grisham (and many others) and movies such as "A Beautiful Mind" and they are unwilling to open themselves up to a whole new realm of storytelling. I, of course, criticize the human population for many reasons, there close-mindedness is one of the biggest though. Too many people delve into their everyday work & they loose the imaginations they once had as children.
Now, I, being an actor myself look at life from all perspectives. Even ones that may not exist. In acting fantasy plays a big part. One of the books I am reading right now has lots of exercise involving fairytales and fantasy. It says that they have the most wide range of emotions from anything. So we use fantasy to explore this. It is quite releasing.
I wish that people could open themselves up and that Science Fiction and Fantasy can be more important. If the fantasy movies that come out follow in LOTR footsteps then I believe that it is going in the right direction. LOTR is one of the first book to movie jobs that worked and worked well (not including Star Wars).
Well, I think I have written enough. Whew!

[Rosa Underhill]

Did the success of LotR give rise to some of the lamest excuses for epic fantasy?

*cough*Dragonlance*cough**hack, hack*Ann McCaffrey*harf* (Please don't hurt me anyone.)

Honestly, Kalessin, I can't think of any valid criticism for fantasy (which is a bit of a problem since I'm trying to defend the genre in a paper I'm writing and, thus far, have found no critics). My beef with the genre at present is that it's become, mostly, stagnant and mouldering. It's so dratted predictable!

That's why I love Tolkien (who has apparently turned me into an even bigger book snob than I already was); in the end, what happens to his characters is not expected. But that's not what this thread is about....

Um, give my brain some time to switch on and I'm sure I'll come up with something truely intelligent to say (or a cheap immitation). smilies/smile.gif Recovering from a vacation spent doing nothing is very difficult.

[Birdland]

Hopefully you can tell me how wrong I am, and list the authors or works that defy the above conventions.
Great rant, Kalessin!

Personally I could give you a number of authors that defy the above conventions, and it would not be just my opinion, but the opinion of critics and the literati as well.

There is nothing wrong, per se, with following a formula. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did with his tales of Sherlock Holmes, (which, by the way, he considered to be “hack” writing which denigrated his more serious efforts.) The followers of the Great Detective of Baker Street are every bit as fanatical in their devotion to these stories as we Tolkienistas are (Love that ! “Tolkienistas“, Aii-Yii-Yii!). Yet generally are considered to be serious scholars with an interest in a worthy body of literature.

You don’t see to many people rolling their eyes if someone tells them they study the fictional characters of A.C. Doyle.

The thing I can’t point out is why! I’ve been looking at my own collection of books, old and new. Why do I love the talking animals of Felix Saltin and Rudyard Kipling, yet turn my nose up at the “Redwall” series? (Sorry Redwall fans). What touched me so deeply when I read the “Earthsea” books and Tolkien, and why have so few authors exploring these same themes been able to inspire those same feelings in me?

I’m grappling with the idea that, unfortunately, most critics and literary scholars tend to draw a rather arbitrary line when it comes to works of fantastical fiction. If it’s good, then it no longer can be classified as “merely” fantasy. If it’s bad, then it’s “typical” of the genre. A good example was the furor that arose when some people tried to classify Kurt Vonnegut as a science fiction writer. Critics, scholars, and even the author himself, vehemently denied that he belong in the sci-fi category. Which was absurd, of course. Vonnegut was a science fiction writer by any definition of the genre. He was also an incredibly, gifted, talented science fiction writer!

You do not see these same lines being drawn with other genre authors. There are great, classic Mystery writers, and there are hacks. Same with Crime Fiction, Horror, and even the Western genre.

Sorry I haven‘t been able to answer any of your questions, but just brought up more questions. I’m looking forward to hearing some other opinions on this.

[Oliphaunt]

"Gnaar Hrothragha! cried the Arnak. He had dwelt but a few Kaeaons upon the Omulagh (see Appendix 290), and was considered a mere Jyfdwq by the Elders. Upon his mailed swordarm lay the the engraved symbol of Yangfrey (see Book 9, Trilogy 4, Volume 6, Part IX).
that was really funny!
I think that maybe Kalessin you're focusing too much on the respect that Fantasy gets or doesn't get, and maybe it's dirsrespect for literature in general. Someone who only picks up a book when he or she has to isn't going to understand fantasy and less or more than say mystery novels. And as for the Oscar, A Beautiful Mind was a better film than the Fellowship. I don't think thats a knock against fantasy literature though.

[Estel the Descender]

Before I continue, I have to ask this question: please bear with me. Did any of you or do any of you play the Final Fantasy series? You know, FFVI-FFIX?

As I have posted elsewhere, the thing that makes Tolkien special is that he deliberately tries to make his stories 'believable' and not 'fantastic', even though his work is categorised as 'fantasy'. That is where the other books fail, they are not 'real' enough. Of course, Tolkien did not expect people to believe there were real dragons in our world but he wanted dragons to be believeable in the world he made. That is, the dwarves for instance regarded Smaug as real as we would regard a lion. In the other books, dragons even in the created world are considered quasi-mystical at best, legendary at worst.

Let me use Harry Potter as an example: where in the real world would you find children treating their chemistry lessons or algebra class as something 'special' unless they were real egg-heads? Most real real children I know would would regard their schoolwork, no matter how much they were good at it or how much they like it, as just normal something that has-to-be-done. I would have expected magical people to treat their magic the same way. But in Rowling's world, it seems that even magical people are surprised at their own abilities: they act like muggles who suddenly have power.

Back to the Final Fantasy series: say, FFVIII. We have people trained in magic and fighting skills. They have their pride in their abilities, but during the entire game you do not find the sense of being 'all-new-to-this' even in the cadets. The only guy who seemed obsessed with his abilities was a semi-villain. None of the quasi-mystical nonsense (stone of Alcala, philospher's stone, screaming mandrakes, etc.). in Rowling, you have a dual world, muggles and magical people, and everything is unbelievable but true. In Tolkien and the FF series, there is the sense of believability, like in the better fairy tales where witches were a given and predatory wolves were taken for granted. Magic is not arcane even if it is hidden: magic is just a form of technology in the great 'fantasy' works.

A comedian who is too busy laughing at his own jokes rarely can make his audience laugh. A magician who is awed by his own magic is simply unbelievable.

Check it out: Tolkien, Lewis, Malory, the FF series. . . the plot is just as important as the magic if not more so. Magic, in my opinion, should just provide an aspect of the setting of the story; magic should not be THE story for its own sake.

For those who like Harry Potter, well, Rowling is getting better at telling stories. I just miss the 'Power corrupts. . .' thing. For me, an abused child who suddenly finds out that he is a powerful wizard and remains naively pure is unrealistic. Even Luke Skywalker had to deal with the Dark Side. I don't know, I did enjoy reading the Rowling books. I just cannot imagine a school that allows a house like Slytherin to continue to exist. (Like, even Gandalf had to cast Saruman out of the order for good).

Well, just bleating. . . I liked The Star Wars Trilogy because of its contextual believability in spite of its 'fantastic elements'. Tolkien, did create a believable world. Just imagine. . . what if Tolkien emphasised the mystical element like Dungeons & Dragons or Lucas emphasising the cool special effects and spaceship designs? Or the original Starship Troopers ( not the movie or TV version) which emphasised philosophy and not the fancy sci-fi? The LotR, Star Wars, and good Science Fiction (Star Trek, Battlestar Gallactica, etc.) will not be the classics they are if they focused on 'fantasy'.

[Rimbaud]

I think the enduring magic of well-written (and I emphasize) fantasy and science-fiction generally has little to do with the fantastical or scientific elements. Certainly they generally drive the plot, and few books of these genres are without some great malevolent force to rail against, yet it is the characters that we identify with, that we follow, that some of us wish to be, that some of us are glad we are not.

The better writers, Tolkien, Herbert, Clarke know this. Their books centre around the people for that is what we are interested in. This also is an unfortunate reason for the formulaic 'normal-boy-living-in-village-finds-out-he-is-magical-and-has-to-save-the-world' plot lines of many of these novels. Yet looking beyond this (there is a reason why crime books are called who-dunnits and the same things are used to make you jump in every horror story) fantasy and sci-fi create some memorable obstacles for love and understanding to overcome.

If I can wax poetic and idealistic for one second; in all of these books there is a striving for peace, love and harmony, through pain, deception and warfare. That is not a bad thing by any means. If only some of the passion for truth and justice on the written page could be translated into action out there in the sunlight of the real world. smilies/smile.gif

[Lush]

I wouldn't touch most fantasy. I am prejudiced against it, and frankly, the books I have had the misfortune to pick up over the years gave me nausea. For me, only Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and Robin McKinley became not only bearable, but treasured and beloved. Good yarns they are, but more than that as well, and they touched me on a level that the authors of fluff like: "Andromesion, the High King of Urghuryhan, mounted his noble steed, Tzchöshatchtar, and with a fierce cry galloped toward the enemy-leader Ghardyukhrym, his sword, Dahkfatjj-the Chopper glittering in the sun..." could not reach in their wildest dreams. (P.S., Kalessin, thanks for the laugh! I had to copycat you here!)
And while I'm on my soapbox-what is the deal with the cheap, ugly covers that these books have? It's always some well-endowed Medieval bombshell a là Pamela Anderson with flowing hair and a magical prop (the usuals are cat, wand, sword, crystall ball, precious jewel, magic ring/necklace/crown), or some steroid-junkie on a rearing horse. Ugh! Imagination itself has become underrated.

[Jessica Jade]

Thanks for the parody on those gross sci-fi-fantasy wannabes, Kalessin! Lol, i really had a good laugh reading that.

More generally, for every LotR or Philip K D1ck masterpiece there are 10,000 Star Wars/Trek/other dire spinoffs ... or am I just imagining it?
I think that books like those--the cheap, trite, banal attempts at being like Tolkien--those are what gives the whole scifi/fantasy genre a bad name. Those are the books that cause people not to take the genre seriously. It IS hard to get people to understand that Tolkien books are NOT like that at all, that they are "emotionally driven" (as someone said already) profounnd and meaningful and full of wisdom. People think that just because it's fantasy, it isn't relevent to life and is all superficial. That's not true at all, and i believe that the LOTR books contain an incredible amount of wisdom, as much, if not more than other classics. But how we can get the general public to see that, I don't know. Also, like someone already said, the fantasy genre isn't the only one being discriminated against, and it's not only fantasy that produces those predictable, trite dime novels...the same goes for crime, mystery, suspense, romance, etc. The truth is...it's hard to get anyone to like a book or a genre if they haven't read the book themselves. I know that we shouldn't let the "mindless masses" bother us and affect us, but i do admit its hard not to be frustrated and annoyed when people revere books like "A Beautiful Mind" just because it seems like it's the "right" thing to do in order to seem mature. These narrowminded people, who just want to LoOK good, just want to LOOK mature and profound, these people reject fantasy/scifi/etc because to them it seems "childish" and juvenile and superficial...they discard the genre because books like "A Beautiful Mind" are JUST sOO much more meaningful.[sarcastically] In their race to look wise and mature, they don't even give anything else a chance.

[Lomelinde]

[Birdland]

And while I'm on my soapbox-what is the deal with the cheap, ugly covers that these books have?
Good point Lush. A book store employee recommended a "good read" to me, and immediately said "...but don't judge it by the cover!" (Steroid-Boy on horse)

Unfortunately, most of the authors would agree with your statement, but have little say in the choice of cover art, unless they are a firmly established, "name" author.

I suppose publishers could say "We're giving the public what they want", but I would assume that most of us out there sit down and read a few pages of a book before we buy it, and usually will decide to purchase it despite the cheesy cover!

[Lomelinde]

Oops, sorry about that... smilies/smile.gif Anyway, I don't think much more can be said on this matter, but I believe the main reason people read great authors like Tolkien, H.G. Wells,or Theodore Sturgeon just to name a few is the sheer depth and profoundness of the story and characters not found in most other works of science fiction or fantasy. These authors, Tolkien in particular, take a plot, make up some characters and weave a beautiful and original piece of art that makes the readers actually care about the trials and tribulations presented to the characters, as well as the characters themselves. What causes people to gravitate toward Tolkien is the immense intelligence and layered nature inherent in his works from the beginning. Just read some of the threads in this forum which analyze symbolism and hidden meanings in the sagas of Middle-Earth and you will see what I mean. On the other hand, when was the last time you read a Star Trek novel (if ever) and exclaimed,"Oh, I see! The planet Dorkus represents the angst and pain of the universe and reveals it's evil side."?(Sorry, that was lame. smilies/wink.gif) My point is, there is no symbolism or depth in many of the pathetic excuses for fantasy/science fiction that show up today. This may be the biggest reason that "mainstream" audiences shun the fantasy genre in favor of more "mature" reading. Unfortunately, they don't know what they're missing.

[littlemanpoet]

Wow! What a thread! Great discussion!

Another author worthy of note is Meghan Whelan Turner. She has written two and a third is on its way. What's good about it? 1. It's literate. 2. It conveys wonder. 3. It is believable - the characters are real and where they are is real. 4. The action is not the only thing driving the tale - it's balanced by character development. 5. The action is governed by the logic of the story being told rather than stock in trade.

I realize a lot of this has been said already. But that sense of wonder is really key. Most junk novels don't do it.

[Birdland]

I wouldn't touch most fantasy. I am prejudiced against it...
Lush: suggest you look at your bookshelf. Got any Dickens? Mark Halprin? Vonnegut? Joyce Carol Oates? early Anne Rice? (I won't mention later Anne Rice. That woman has broke my heart!)

There are many talented, "respected" authors who have chosen to explore fantastical or alternative worlds as a setting for their characters. The literary world may choose to elevate them above the "fantasy" genre, but I know better. They represent to me the best examples of what can be done with fantasy literature.

Why not say you do read fantasy books, but only the "really good stuff"? smilies/smile.gif

[Lush]

*slaps herself on forehead*
And how could I ever forget J.K. Rowling, another one of my fantasy favorites?! Heh, I could count them all on one hand, so far. But there is still hope out there.

[Birdland]

Oh, well, yeah...her too... smilies/rolleyes.gif

Whatever floats your boat... smilies/smile.gif

[Child of the 7th Age]

For me, the diffence between very good and mediocre fantasy is whether it touches the heart. Ursula K. LeGuin, some of Marian Zimmer Bradley come to mind. But my favorite next to Tolkien is one book that's not read much any more--the Once and Future King by T.H. White. I feel for the aging King Arthur who faces the destruction of what he fought for and who sits in sadness before his last battle trying to figure out why mankind alone, unlike other animals, fights his own kind. I can sense some of Frodo's grief as he shoulders his way across the ashen slopes of Mount Doom, seeing only failure and Shadow before his eyes.

Now, if I can see and feel this, why can't many others sense it too? I'm sure there are many reasons, but I will only mention one that seems critical to me. I am an historian by training and profession. In fact, my degree focused on the late medieval period. And the one thing that struck me during years of study is how very much man of the 20th/21st century regards himself/herself as so superior to any other time and age. Never mind that the 20th century saw bloodshed on an unprecedented scale! We believe in our machines, our planes, our computers, our rockets, even our weapons. We can not believe, in our hearts, that those who live in a preindustrial world have much to say or teach us. And much of fantasy is set in such a world, or at least in a world which admits the possibility of going above and beyond science as we know it today. We have lost touch with our myths, with our legends, and even with our own documented history. How can we possibly respond to fantasy when we deny the beauty and relevence of our own past, something that already exists in our folklore and imagination? Sometimes I am amazed that as many people read and write fantasy as they do. Certainly, it is not the mainstream but there is a core group which seems to have been growing steadily since the 1960s. But why can't it get beyond this? At heart, I think it does have to do with our values and perception of ourselves. Modern man thinks he/she is the center of all human existence and the stick against which everything must be measured by. By this measure, fantasy is a very strange beast. So pity the poor, short sighted modern man who has lost so much of his imagination and heart in his inability to consider himself as just one among many possible ways of approaching the mystery of life.

I'm afraid I'm coming off very close to how Lewis and Tolkien viewed themselves as the last of the "true" western men (since this is the heritage they knew and loved). I am Jewish, not a Christian, but there is, I believe,real truth in their alientation from the modern world as having lost its way. Perhaps our inability to sense and love fantasy is just one more symptom of this sad state of affairs. But everyone who reads Tolkien, or who loves Beowulf, or who writes a poem about Middle-Earth strikes a small blow in this battle to comprehend that many important truths can not be conveyed by intellect alone and modern man is not the be-all and end-all of existence. sharon

[Aiwendil]

I'm writing this after reflecting on this year's Oscars, where the LotR movie sadly failed to pick up the most prestigious awards. I don't want to debate the merits of individual films or performances, but to suggest that perhaps the 'fantasy' genre (as opposed to Disney or Pixar) is still not taken as seriously as 'proper' movies or literature.

This is definitely the case. Modern critics still tend to consider Tolkien juvenile garbage. This is because modern critics are biased toward character-based, ironic works in a modern style. LotR is a plot-based, heroic work in the style of an ancient epic -and its imitators tend to have the same style, if not the quality.

Maybe you could argue that it is accepted, except by a cultural establishment that is still snobbish or elitist. Or that there is still an association in some people's minds between fantasy and fairy tales ie. being childish and escapist (I'm not sure I believe this). Or that stereotypes of fantasy aficionados - as beardy fashion disasters, maladjusted gothic teens, or anal-retentive sociopathic gamers - are still prevalent.

All these things are undoubtedly true, at least to some extent.

No, I'm not rehashing the "Book of the century" thread (I already have enough enemies).

I wouldn't call you an enemy! Let's say "adversary" . . .

And what I'm asking is this ... are there valid criticisms of the genre and its protagonists?

Well, I think we're actually in agreement here. Most post-Tolkien fantasy is simply terrible. Few of Tolkien's imitators seem to understand what it was that made Tolkien's work great. They imitate only the superficial elements (which happen to be the elements most hated by the literary establishment). Perhaps this is because it is difficult to define exactly what made Tolkien great. Was it the fantasy setting? No, this has been tried by every one of his imitators with little success. Was it his attention to detail? No, many of his imitators have carefully constructed worlds of their own just as Tolkien did. Was it the phililogical element of his world? No, many authors have invented languages, or pieces of languages, for their worlds.

I am convinced that the difference is simply this: Tolkien took his mythology seriously. Creating a world was not something Tolkien forced himself to do; it was not something he did for money; it was not something he did to entertain others (though this was an important byproduct.) It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

Robert Jordan has churned out some eight or nine (last time I checked) Wheel of Time novels. I read the first one, and I admit that I enjoyed it somewhat. It was well-written; the characters were decently portrayed; it had an interesting plot. But it lacked a heart. I felt like I was reading a novel - a book that someone had written to be sold. The action in the book didn't feel important. When Robert Jordan writes (and the same is true of other Tolkien-imitators), he is writing pure fiction. He is creating a charade, a pleasant falsehood. This is the way most authors write; they think that their works have no inherent truth or meaning, unless it be conscious allegory.

Tolkien, of course, knew that Middle-earth was not physically real. But he felt that it was, on some level, real enough to be important. One gets the sense that JRRT himself was proud, for instance, of the deeds of Beren. I never got the sense that Robert Jordan felt particularly strongly about Rand.

Of course, the problem with modern fantasy is different from the problem seen by critics in Tolkien. They dislike the genre of fantasy in general. It is therefore a mistake to confuse criticism of LotR with criticism of Tolkien-imitators.

It is also, I think, a mistake to confuse fantasy and science fiction. The former was, if not invented, certainly redefined by Tolkien; subsequent fantasy has consisted almost entirely of Tolkien imitators. Science fiction, on the other hand, is not dominated by any single figure.

[Birdland]

We believe in our machines, our planes, our computers, our rockets, even our weapons. We can not believe, in our hearts, that those who live in a preindustrial world have much to say or teach us.
C. of the 7th A. - Totally off topic:
Have you read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael? smilies/smile.gif

[ElanorGamgee]

I must admit that I was, and, to a great degree, still am prejudiced against the fantasy genre. The only fantasy books that I read are by either J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. I don't read their books because they are fantasy; rather, I read them because they are amazing and thought-provoking works of literature. It is difficult to find fantasy worth reading because the good books are buried under stacks of cheap novels.

[Birdland]

It is also, I think, a mistake to confuse fantasy and science fiction. The former was, if not invented, certainly redefined by Tolkien; subsequent fantasy has consisted almost entirely of Tolkien imitators. Science fiction, on the other hand, is not dominated by any single figure.
Awindil - For my own part, I only use examples of fantasy AND Science Fiction because "they are tarred with the same brush" in the literary community. "Good" Sci-Fi and Fantasy are elevated to the realm of literature. They are both guilty of denying their roots. You do not see this (as much) in other forms of Genre Fiction.

[Birdland]

I must admit that I was, and, to a great degree, still am prejudiced against the fantasy genre. The only fantasy books that I read are by either J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. I don't read their books because they are fantasy; rather, I read them because they are amazing and thought-provoking works of literature. It is difficult to find fantasy worth reading because the good books are buried under stacks of cheap novels.
ElanorGamgee - Dang It! That's what I'm talking about! (Birdie's fuming now!) You're not going to find the "good" fantasy books in the the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section of your local bookstore. You're going to find them in the "Literature/Fiction" section!

So go and seek them out, and declare them for what they are. Really great Fantasy Literature. That's where you are going to find the works of T.H. White. That's where you SHOULD find the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

We need to stop letting critics declare that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are the Red-Headed Step Child of the literary world, and make great authors stop denying that their works are NOT "just" Fantasy novels!

(OK, Birdie's done fuming. Think I'll crack another beer.)

[Kalessin]

Unbelievably great replies, Aiwendil and everybody smilies/smile.gif I was expecting more of a "fantasy is cool, elves rule, you wordy wierdo" response, so I was really blown away by these posts! I especially like the "planet Dorkus" reference smilies/biggrin.gif

Maybe there is one possible aspect of the debate that we haven't touched on yet. And that is postmodernism. So here is Kalessin's rant Part II (of 94).

There is no doubt that postmodernism dominates the western cultural agenda. This is why William Gibson and Iain M Banks are (or perhaps were) considered "hip", and why Phil D1ck's stories of the 60s and 70s are prime Hollywood fodder. As Estel has said, Tolkien crafted an essentially romantic fiction intended to be taken literally by the reader - not as 'true', but as consistent within itself and NOT referential. There is no irony, or quality of 'knowing', within LotR ... no sly conspiracy between author and reader - it is, in effect, traditional storytelling.

Perhaps this bears a more disciplined analysis. The dictionary definition of pomo as a reaction against modern artistic movements only tells half the story. As the reaction and counter-reactions continue in ever-decreasing circles (ie. speeded up by advances in communication technology and the increasing sophistication of the audience) the reference points necessarily become more and more incestuous and instantly iconic (a la Warhol). You only need to watch half an hour of commercials to realise that we can apparently condense all the atmospheres and associations of different kinds of music and a thousand years of artistic images into a few seconds of cultural references that we, the audience, understand completely. This is the quality of "knowing". Inevitably the iconic cliches lose any resonance, and become self-parody. Hence the quality of 'archness'.

In this context it is ingenuity (or cleverness) and fluidity (or up-to-date relativism, if you prefer) that become cardinal virtues. A stolidly traditional narrative like LotR stands out like a smoker in California in this context (or me in California).

The consistently excellent JG Ballard intentionally explored these concepts in the novel Crash (not the ambitious but flawed film version). We goes past existentialism, nihilism and hedonism and end up numbed and vacant in a sterile world of habitual instant gratification. A doomsday scenario that is at least (thankfully) still a little way off.

So how does all of this relate to my original post and all the excellent replies, about the real or imagined failings of the fantasy genre?

Because, in a fairly big way, fantasy is generally anything but postmodern. Even Moorcock's ornate comedies have a sort of pompous glam-rock feel to them smilies/smile.gif. In a way, the overall 'sincerity' of the genre makes it seem somewhat childish in our postmodern world (that could be the ultimate compliment).

But is the lack of sophistication and awareness a valid criticism? You can't have your cake and eat it, ie. it's hard to go back to Charles Perrault when you've dined on Angela Carter.

Well, the ubiquitous Harry Potter is an excellent focal point for this issue. HP is certainly postmodern by comparison to Tolkien and others. And it's interesting to note the wide spectrum of views on HP expressed here. Personally I think the "Harry promotes witchcraft" argument is utterly spurious and smacks of insecurity and repression, but Estel's point about Harry's lack of a Vader-esque 'dark side' illustrates how the genre typically leans towards literalism and archetype. Which is why HP, with its opportunist eclecticism and political correctness, does grate against the Tolkienesque method.

I'm not answering my own question, basically because I don't know the answer. I don't like the idea of pomo, but can live with The Simpsons. And whilst I am in sympathy with the sincerity and romanticism of much of the fantasy genre, the tired formulae and lack of sophistication do test my patience.

What do you think? Let me know ... I'm just going to self-indulgently bask for a moment in getting such high-quality replies to my first topic smilies/wink.gif. My compliments, people of the Downs.

Peace

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Kuruharan]

Modern man thinks he/she is the center of all human existence and the stick against which everything must be measured by.

Alas! This is more of a human problem rather than just a modern man problem.

Back on topic: Tolkien took his mythology seriously. Creating a world was not something Tolkien forced himself to do; it was not something he did for money; it was not something he did to entertain others (though this was an important byproduct.) It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

I would take it a step beyond and say that he made it almost a way of life. He was a part of his world, and perhaps affected by what happened in it, in a way that other writers are not.

[littlemanpoet]

I haven't had time to read your second rant or Kuruharan's post, but I did note your mention of postmodernism. To that end I bring up a movie: "AI". Have you seen it? It strikes me as a modern fairy tale that is precisely postmodern. One of the points of fascination for me is that it actually does combine fantasy and science fiction, and I would say successfully. I found the movie to be profound, disturbing, and though provoking.

[Jessica Jade]

It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

Most post-Tolkien fantasy is simply terrible. Few of Tolkien's imitators seem to understand what it was that made Tolkien's work great. They imitate only the superficial elements.

I agree with what you guys said about Tolkien-imitators. They write not because they feel like they have something to say, like Tolkien did, but rather because they feel like they have to say something. They simply don't possess the passion that TOlkien did for his world, nor do their tales have the emotional richness, wisdom and true heart. Since they themselves wrote their stories for superficial reasons, how can they expect any reader to really care about their characters? Tolkien had the talent for making you believe in a world that may or may not have existed-but you wish with all your heart that it had. He makes you wish you could do for others what he has done for you, wish that you could use words so eloquently to tear one's soul to pieces in grief, yet make their heart soar with joy at the same time. So actually, maybe the fact that their are so many Tolkien-imitatators out there prove how great Tolkien himself is. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," right?

Unfortunately, most people, including critics, don't see things the way you and I see them. They associate the fantasy genre with those generic, banal, mass-produced Tolkien-imitated novels. They don't realize that books like Tolkiens on the pedestal of Fantasy, that they are definitely above the rest and NOT your typical tale. Sadly, Tolkien's works sometimes get pigeon-holed in with the rest of those terrible junk novels. I honestly cannot see any valid reason for criticizing Tolkien in particular -but i do understand how critics can shun the fantasy genre in general.

So pity the poor, short sighted modern man who has lost so much of his imagination and heart in his inability to consider himself as just one among many possible ways of approaching the mystery of life.

Excellent point. About a month ago, one of my classmates, (who by the way is extremely smart and gets disgustingly good grades), said to me, "I don't read for fun. It's a waste of time." That statement made me feel so righteous, angry, and overwhelmed at the same time. It's a perfect example of where our society today is. There are also too many people i know who hate reading itself...But how does one go about trying to convince another about the importance of imagination and creativity? how does one convince someone that there are other ways to learn, besides in school? Maybe so many people underestimate and under-value imagination/creativity because they think that its for "sentimental fools and dreamers" and they feel that they don't need it in their life, since they are able to get away with achieving high and making a lot of money without having to know about art and creativity. According to them, you don't need this kind of fluff to be happy or sucessful in life. How can anyone make these people see what they're missing in life? How can I HELP these people get in touch with their imaginative side that's so deeply buried its nearly lost? That's why i was so overwhelmed-because i know that i cannot really make these peoples see what I see, nor make them understand the importance of imagination. So, i DO indeed, because it seems the only thing i can do-- pity the Common Man...the "mindless masses," so to speak, because it's their own loss in the end. Ever seen the movie Dead Poets Society? Robin Williams said something to the effect of: "Technology, etc is what keeps us alive...but art and poetry and music is what we stay alive for." AMEN to that, i say.

By the way, littlemanpoet-i've seen A.I.!! I thought it was disturbing and thought provoking too. It reflects the dark side of human nature and how we create things merely to serve ourselves. A frightening prospect, because that movie shows what the future may turn out to be if mankind continues to live his selfish ways and let greed and pride blind his reason.

[Rimbaud]

It is a pity that so many authors writing today, particularly in this field, seem to see their writing purely in economic terms. Rather than having a passion and absolutely HAVING to write it down, it seems there are men and women ou there who have decided, "I can avoid the 9-5 by inventing 1700 place names, having elves and dwarves and heroes, and running to the highest bidder." Which is why it is heartening to see so much fan-fiction on the Web at the moment. The passion is still there, at least amongst a few!

The mistake I have noticed has been the direction of the defense taken by many of the posters on this thread. Rather than trying to defend an entire genre, which is really quite a narrow-minded literary elitism, defend the books that deserve praise (and do not get it purely because they are part of a that genre). Lord of the Rings is the finest example of a superb novel, which although widely read, will be avoided by many because "I don't dig stuff with wizards and trolls" (we all know the eye-rolling that comes with that declaration).

The better works of any genre have superceded classification. Tell your average Star Wars watcher that they are watching sci-fi/fantasy and they will shift uncomfortably in their chair. Lumping in The Iliad with "all those old Greek-type tragedies" is doing a massive disservice to the best three days of your life. Dune, another favourite - in the minds of its avid readers, is not merely another sci-fi book.

The majority of books printed that line the shelves of bookstores under Sci-Fi/Fantasy headings are dross. Untrammelled dross, at that. The covers are tedious, the writing child-like and the characters so shallow you cannot remember them once the book is closed. Learning to distinguish good from bad is the inevitable and unfortunate result of growing older; the classification of books into genres and then the creation of assumptions about that genre prohibit the growth of minds. The better writers are above having their books delineated into some sort of literal conformity.

smilies/smile.gif

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

[Aiwendil]

For my own part, I only use examples of fantasy AND Science Fiction because "they are tarred with the same brush" in the literary community.

Agreed.

In this context it is ingenuity (or cleverness) and fluidity (or up-to-date relativism, if you prefer) that become cardinal virtues. A stolidly traditional narrative like LotR stands out like a smoker in California in this context (or me in California).

This is true. This is also one of the reasons I hate both modern and postmodern critics - they arrogantly assume that the style favored by them (which is to say, modernism or postmodernism) is the only truly valid style. They also have a strange way of treating art not as art, but as a byproduct of the artist's existence and his culture. I recently purchased a book called Perspectives on Musical Aesthetics, basically a collection of essays by modern critics and composers. What struck me about the essays (and I think is valid for literature as well) is that they focus intensely on the artist and the audience but say almost nothing of art.

This combination of stylistic arrogance and disinterest in works of art as such is characteristic of both modernism and postmodernism. The result: ancient epics and such are tolerated only insofar as they are seen as cultural artifacts. There is, alas, a very great number of literary scholars that do not like the Illiad for itself. This is what Tolkien fought against with regard to Beowulf. Beowulf, he said, is a great poem; it need not be set in any historical context to be appreciated as such. Unfortunately, this view remains rare.

So if, in the eyes of the (post)-modern critic, the only real merit of such epics is their age, then similar works produced today have no merit at all. Hence the hatred of LotR. I don't doubt that if Beowulf had been written in the twentieth century, it would have met with much the same reaction as did (and does) LotR. This is, of course, an absurd point of view; modern critics are deluding themselves by failing to critisize art as art.

. In a way, the overall 'sincerity' of the genre makes it seem somewhat childish in our postmodern world (that could be the ultimate compliment).

At least, in good fantasy this is true. A bit ironically, it is the very lack of sincerity in such things as Robert Jordan that causes them to fall short of Tolkien.

Which is why HP, with its opportunist eclecticism and political correctness, does grate against the Tolkienesque method.

I don't think it's really necessary to bring political correctness into the argument. I agree that HP is basically a postmodern novel; its similarity to Tolkien is actually rather superficial. It is ironic rather than heroic.

I don't like the idea of pomo, but can live with The Simpsons.

As much as I dislike modern and postmodern literary criticism, I feel I must point out that this does not necessarily correspond to a dislike of modern and postmodern literature. I dislike the modern critics' assertion that their way is the only way; I do, however acknowledge that it can be a valid way. But the Simpsons is comedy, which certainly did not arise with postmodernism! I would say that postmodernism is rather the application of irony (which has long existed in the form of comedy) to serious literature (or literature that is, at any rate, intended to be serious).

I would take it a step beyond and say that he made it almost a way of life. He was a part of his world, and perhaps affected by what happened in it, in a way that other writers are not.

Very true.

I agree with what you guys said about Tolkien-imitators. They write not because they feel like they have something to say, like Tolkien did, but rather because they feel like they have to say something.

I think it's somewhat misleading to say that Tolkien wrote because he had something he wanted to say. That's what modern authors of "serious" literature do. Tolkien certainly had no explicit "message" in his writing. He was, in a way, even more serious than those authors.

So actually, maybe the fact that their are so many Tolkien-imitatators out there prove how great Tolkien himself is. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," right?

Very true. The problem is that they fail to imitate him very well. They imitate the superficial elements but not the deeper heroism of his world.

Tell your average Star Wars watcher that they are watching sci-fi/fantasy and they will shift uncomfortably in their chair. Lumping in The Iliad with "all those old Greek-type tragedies" is doing a massive disservice to the best three days of your life. Dune, another favourite - in the minds of its avid readers, is not merely another sci-fi book.

I'm not convinced this is so true. I think the problem is precisely the opposite: literary critics are unwilling to elevate Tolkien to the ranks of literature; film critics are unwilling to do the same with Star Wars, etc. But many of the Star Wars fans that I know (including me) are quite comfortable with the fact that it's science fiction.

A last note: earlier I argued for a distinction between science fiction and fantasy. Now I think I've figured out why. It's simply this: we all agree that fantasy these days is mostly just a bunch of hacks with almost no talent copying Tolkien. In this case, we seem to agree with the modern critics who write it off as juvenile trash (though for different reasons). Science fiction, however, is a different story. There are plenty of talented science fiction writers around today, and they're not merely copying Wells or Asimov or Clarke. Science fiction is also detested by modern critics, but in this case I, at the least, disagree with them (as I do about Tolkien). The problem of modern fantasy is one of talent. The problem of science fiction is, like that of Tolkien, one of style.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Rimbaud]

Aiwendil, you are correct, but I must confess on reading the quote you picked from me that I miswrote what I intended to say. When I talked of the 'average Star Wars watcher', that sounds as if I were describing a fan. I meant the average person with no prediliction for science-fiction/fantasy who happened to be watching Star Wars from a neutral, non-genre-specific viewpoint. The fans of course, as you say, are only too aware of the film's greater merits. It stands out for me as being one of the view from this genre to have aroused 'outside' praise. The literary world's recent distate of The Iliad is, again as you say, unfortunate. As for Dune, the other I mentioned. It seems to have been lumped in with the idealistic sci-fis of the 1970s when it is anything but. I wish the books in that series had a wider readership.

Thank you for correcting me. My words did not accurately represent me in what I had intended to say. I am clearly no author! smilies/frown.gif

[dragongirlG]

Oh, my! Quite some good rants!

When you finish reading this, tell me if it makes sense.

I agree that there are too many imitations out there of Tolkien. Kids today (youngesters like me who make up the Joystick Generation) read too many of the imitations first and dislike them, therefore thinking of the whole fantasy genre as bad, trite, boring, and all the same. This may be what puts off a lot of people, because they do not know the original fantasy, the starting point; they only know the cheap spinoffs. What I'm trying to say is, since there are so many banal books out there in the fantasy genre, and since they are more recent and people read them first, before Tolkien, and dislike them, they don't even give Tolkien and the other good fantasy, the original fantasy, a chance.

Did the success of LotR give rise to some of the lamest excuses for epic fantasy?

Yes, I believe LotR's success inspired many mediocre fantasy books. The authors may have believed that because LOTR was doing so well, and it was fantasy, then they would do well too if they wrote fantasy.

What do we have to do to complete the integration of fantasy into the mainstream?
Get people to read Tolkien first, not the lame excuses of fantasy. Unfortunately, people don't read Tolkien first. They read the newest releases, the lame excuses, instead of the old, classic, original work, of LOTR and Earthsea.

And as for the Oscar, A Beautiful Mind was a better film than the Fellowship.

Controversial, Oliphaunt! A Beautiful Mind was not the sort of movie that makes me, personally, want to see it again. Fellowship, on the other hand, did, and not just because I liked the book (I wasn't even a fan back then, not yet.) A Beautiful Mind was well done. Fellowship was awesome. But that's just my opinion.

I think the enduring magic of well-written (and I emphasize) fantasy and science-fiction generally has little to do with the fantastical or scientific elements.

I agree. I believe that the authors simply wanted to teach wisdom in a way that wouldn't offend people (a real-life setting.)


It IS hard to get people to understand that Tolkien books are NOT like that at all, that they are "emotionally driven" (as someone said already) profounnd and meaningful and full of wisdom.

Yes, it's very hard, because people generally read the "newest releases"--the banal attempts at fantasy, rather than Tolkien's works, the origination of much of the other fantasy. I've sort of mentioned this before.

I know that we shouldn't let the "mindless masses" bother us and affect us, but i do admit its hard not to be frustrated and annoyed when people revere books like "A Beautiful Mind" just because it seems like it's the "right" thing to do in order to seem mature. These narrowminded people, who just want to LoOK good, just want to LOOK mature and profound, these people reject fantasy/scifi/etc because to them it seems "childish" and juvenile and superficial...they discard the genre because books like "A Beautiful Mind" are JUST sOO much more meaningful.[sarcastically] In their race to look wise and mature, they don't even give anything else a chance.

Very good, Jessica Jade! I agree. I have to be around the "mindless masses" at school and I hate it. A Beautiful Mind didn't touch me at all. LOTR did.

And the one thing that struck me during years of study is how very much man of the 20th/21st century regards himself/herself as so superior to any other time and age. Never mind that the 20th century saw bloodshed on an unprecedented scale!

I agree! I'm still amazed at how others in the past had such ingenuity without electricity, and other 20th/21st century devices. I believe that they were actually a lot smarter than us! Just look at the Pyramids of Giza. They didn't have construction cranes to build that!

And what I'm asking is this ... are there valid criticisms of the genre and its protagonists?

Hmm...I'll get back to you on that.

I am convinced that the difference is simply this: Tolkien took his mythology seriously. Creating a world was not something Tolkien forced himself to do; it was not something he did for money; it was not something he did to entertain others (though this was an important byproduct.) It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

That's so accurate. I feel like other authors do it because of money, it's their job, etc...they might enjoy writing fantasy or made-up mythology, but it's just for fun. Not something incredibly important to them. Tolkien's belief was correct. There IS power in such myths that have such incredible ingenuity, time, and effort, put into them.

This is the way most authors write; they think that their works have no inherent truth or meaning, unless it be conscious allegory.

Agreed. Aiwendil, I agree with your whole post. It's true. You hit the nail on the head.

I might write more, but that's all I can think of for now. Hope you enjoyed reading.

[Aiwendil]

When I talked of the 'average Star Wars watcher', that sounds as if I were describing a fan. I meant the average person with no prediliction for science-fiction/fantasy who happened to be watching Star Wars from a neutral, non-genre-specific viewpoint.

Ah, looking back I see that that's what you meant, and I agree. Sorry I misunderstood you.

[Birdland]

It is a pity that so many authors writing today, particularly in this field, seem to see their writing purely in economic terms. Rather than having a passion and absolutely HAVING to write it down, it seems there are men and women ou there who have decided, "I can avoid the 9-5 by inventing 1700 place names, having elves and dwarves and heroes, and running to the highest bidder."
I'll be a little more charitable to most of the modern fantasy authors out there. They probably started out with as deep a love of the subject matter as any of us have. Obviously Tolkien's work was a great inspiration for them.

But the writers of today grew up in an entirely different culture than the great fantasy writers of the 19th and early 20th century. Tolkien took seventeen (17!!) years to create The Lord of the Rings If you read HoME Part 6, The Return of the Shadow, you'll see what exhaustive process it was. It's almost as if he wrote three or four different novels, each time taking certain aspects of characters and descriptions, blending, discarding, building up and tearing away, until each person and place gradually evolved into the beloved tale we know today. And during all this time he was continuing his teaching duties and research, and dealing with a World War, to boot. I've never read any other books describing the process of creating a famous novel, but have a feeling that this approach was more common back then then we know.

I've only seen one book being created in my life. It was a good book, and the writer was passionate about his craft. But Honey, there was no way he would have waited 17 years for his baby to see the light of day! He had too many other stories floating around inside him, waiting to get out!

I suppose there is the business end to consider, also. I'm not sure how flexible publishers were with deadlines back then. Today it is a more serious matter, especially if an advance has been paid. And few first time writers have the luxury of days of quiet contemplation to just observe and ponder their characters, as Tolkien did.

[Aiwendil]

The reason Tolkien wasn't under the kind of time pressure that professional writers are under today is that he wasn't a professional writer. He was a professor and a philologist; writing was a (very important) hobby.

[Lush]

*slaps herself on the head HARDER*

How could I forget T.H. White's The Once and Future King? Bad Lush!

This thread has been a satisfying read. In light of the previous comments regarding postmodernism and the 20th Century, let me say this: The Western world has become too disillusioned to appreciate fantasy. War, commercialism, terrorism, techonology, radicalism, systematic destruction of the environment, over-population, and the over-saturation with advertising have given rise to rampant cynicism; and not only that, they have made it cool to be a cynic. It is a badge of honor in artistic circles, and a darling of critics. As it has been mentioned before, fantasy is "too sincere" to be taken seriously.
To take it further, most of the people I know that do not like Tolkien, aside from the ones who simply gag at the mention of Elves and Dragons, criticise the fact that J.R.R. drew a very distnict line between the good and the evil, as in, "here are the pretty good people on this side, and here are the ugly villains on that side."
Beauty is a quality inherent in fairy-tales and mythology, and I will leave that alone entirely. As for the clear distinction between good and evil, I think it is something that the modern sensibility lacks, and thus rejects.
Of course, if the recent success of the FotR film is any indication, we may be in for some change.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Kalessin]

Thank you Lush smilies/smile.gif, Birdland and everyone for your thought-provoking contributions. I want to go back to Aiwendil's memorable soundbyte -

"The problem of modern fantasy is one of talent. The problem of science fiction is, like that of Tolkien, one of style."

This is excellent, and has a certain implacable conviction. But I am minded to be devil's advocate again ... smilies/evil.gif

Having addressed postmodernism, the nature of marketing, the issue of writers' motives, the bad covers and all the other aspects discussed with great eloquence above, perhaps we come to the real crunch, highlighted by Aiwendil's quote.

You see, it MUST be wrong to imagine that modern participants in the fantasy genre generally lack talent on a scale that competing genre protagonists do not. Given the number of authors, this would either be a mind-boggling coincidence (ie. no), or an indication that (to mis-paraphrase) "fantasy is the last refuge of the scoundrel" in literary terms, ie. that bad authors who know they are bad authors tend to congregate within that genre.

No. Logic in fact, takes us to the opposite conclusion. That there is something inherent in the genre (insofar as it can be defined) that gives rise to banality. It's the only way to explain why so many authors have created so much unnecessary deforestation, whilst outselling "highbrow" literature many times over.

This also explains why people think Tolkien 'transcends' the genre - and is therefore not part of it.

So what is this quality, this fatal flaw? Well, I think the answer is - it's us. We get the fantasy we deserve. This is where we want to go when we want to escape from gritty reality. From grittyland to fluffyland. Because we're scared. Scared of sci-fi with its technological conviction, scared of crime and romance with those recognisable agonies, scared of horror with its primeval resonance, and scared of 'high' literature with its promise of too-piercing understanding. We want something where the unreality of it makes it less scary. A little corner we know is protected by the thistled hedges of fairy-tale, where we can escape and not be scared. Because it's fantasy. And that's what fantasy is, ultimately - all the thrills and adventures you want, all the empathy and wisdom you need, yet incontrovertibly and definitively UNreal.

And if that's the case, I guess it has to be that way.

(Remember I'm being devils advocate here ... smilies/tongue.gif)

PS. One other little Tolkien point from Aiwendil that caught my eye - "I think it's somewhat misleading to say that Tolkien wrote because he had something he wanted to say. That's what modern authors of "serious" literature do. Tolkien certainly had no explicit "message" in his writing. He was, in a way, even more serious than those authors." I like that, please post in the Trilogy and Bible thread!

Peace

[Kuruharan]

Tolkien took seventeen (17!!) years to create The Lord of the Rings If you read HoME Part 6, The Return of the Shadow, you'll see what exhaustive process it was. It's almost as if he wrote three or four different novels, each time taking certain aspects of characters and descriptions, blending, discarding, building up and tearing away, until each person and place gradually evolved into the beloved tale we know today. And during all this time he was continuing his teaching duties and research, and dealing with a World War, to boot.

I think that's what made all the difference, that he took his time on it. He didn't crank it out so that he would be able to crank out another in a few years to make the magabucks.

The reason Tolkien wasn't under the kind of time pressure that professional writers are under today is that he wasn't a professional writer. He was a professor and a philologist; writing was a (very important) hobby.
Very well said.

As for the clear distinction between good and evil, I think it is something that the modern sensibility lacks, and thus rejects.

This is a concept that causes certain people to get very NASTY if you point it out to them in writing analysis. *shudder*

The Western world has become too disillusioned
What?! You mean there is such a thing as being too disillusioned?!!! I know a certain American Literature professor who you would probably not get along with. smilies/wink.gif

And what's wrong with Elves and Dragons?

[Kuruharan]

scared of crime and romance with those recognisable agonies, scared of horror with its primeval resonance, and scared of 'high' literature with its promise of too-piercing understanding.

*Ouch!* smilies/wink.gif

You may be on to something with that, but I think that the charge of fluffyness could be extended to some of those genres as well.

[goldwine]

Great posts guys! I think that the acceptance of fantasy genre and FOTR's lack of OSCAR success are unrelated. Without detracting from all the valuable comments above... I dont think that PJ came close to capturing the essence of Tolkien's classic. The storyline and character developments were obviously far too complex to fit into even a 3 hour movie. Many I know who saw the movie were unbiased about fantasy movies as a whole and enjoyed it as a soley cinematic experience, inspiring some to read the books (although from my library experience, few actually finish!). The other point, is of course, that commercial success does not equate to critical acclaim! I think there is good reason for that (treat me gently!) the ommissions were generally too large to provide fluidity and many of the scenes (Galadriel as an example) didn't come off.
This did not overall destroy the enjoyment of the movie for a vast majority of movie goers, but they were flaws.
I guess that I love Star Trek (treat me gently again!) because the stories are totally visual creations - designed for visual appeal. Even so, I have no desire to read any Sci-Fi!
The hobbit and LOTR are unusual fantasy creations in that they receive literary accolades. The beauty of the works as a whole is in their descriptive nature, truths revealed and the sheer enjoyment of the epic tale!

[Birdland]

"The banality of evil" - phrase coined by 60's philosopher Hannah Arendt

If nothing else, Post Modern liturature has made us all understand all too well Ms. Arendt's naming of evil as "banal". Modern authors address this theme constantly in their books. The nameless buraucrats that stamp the papers sending innocents to the gas chamber or kicking them out of their homes. The smiling corporate executive who firmly believes that what's good for (fill in the blanks) is good for America!". The 20th century rationalzation of "I was only doing my job", or "following orders". We all know that evil still exists in this world, though we may break it down in to small bites of "greed" or "pettyness", or "racism", or "unfairness". It's all pervasive, and very hard to pin down. Especially since many times "the solution" to evil in one situation leads to new "evils"!

In fantasy lit, (which by the way, is built around a base of all our ancient legends) Evil is big, bold, chest-thumping, "Evil Here!" Evil!! It has a name and location. It can be pointed out and found, attacked and rooted out. It may arise again, but in the same form.

And Evil DECLARES itself. And all the forces that assist it declare themselves as well. Orcs didn't go around saying "I was only doing my job. They new they were evil and loved it!

Now maybe the consequences were just as bad living with "proactive" smilies/smile.gif Evil, but at least you felt you could conquer it, if you only had hope, faith, courage and a strong sword arm.

Strong sword arms don't work as well against a clerk.

[Aiwendil]

The Western world has become too disillusioned to appreciate fantasy.

Agreed. I would, however, draw a distinction between being cynical in life and being cynical in art. The problem is that modern critics have forgotten that the purpose of art is to entertain. When you start thinking that art must 'say something' about the real world, then the distinction between philosophy of art and philosophy of life breaks down.

No. Logic in fact, takes us to the opposite conclusion. That there is something inherent in the genre (insofar as it can be defined) that gives rise to banality.

Okay, I'll accept that, as far as it goes.

So what is this quality, this fatal flaw? Well, I think the answer is - it's us.

Just to be very picky: what do you mean by "us"? Do you mean we who condemn modern fantasy for the reasons listed above? Or do you mean those people that don't condemn it? I suppose you must mean the latter, but certainly neither I, nor you, nor anyone else on this board is then included in "us".

We get the fantasy we deserve. This is where we want to go when we want to escape from gritty reality. From grittyland to fluffyland. Because we're scared.

I respectfully disagree - well, mostly. (By the way, aren't you getting a little modern here? I thought you were a romantic idealist.)

I think this is a fairly simplistic view, and it seems (to me) that the modern condemnation of "escapist art" is lurking just beneath the surface. The implication there and here is that art is a tool for dealing with the real world, and therefore those artists that address the real world are to be commended and those that don't are derided because they obviously can't deal with the real world. Underlying this view is the same philosophy that makes critics hate Tolkien: the idea that art should not be judged as art, but as social commentary.

I realize I'm probably arguing against views that you didn't express and don't hold, but this is where your line of thinking ultimately leads.

Is fantasy really "fluffy"? I don't think it particularly is. Granted, most Tolkien imitators have simple, happy endings rather than the complex, multi-layered mood of the end of LotR. But so do most mysteries, true crimes, romances (I assume; I can't say I've ever read one of those last). And there is grit in fantasy, as well - a good deal more grit in some than there ever was in Tolkien.


Scared of sci-fi with its technological conviction, scared of crime and romance with those recognisable agonies, scared of horror with its primeval resonance, and scared of 'high' literature with its promise of too-piercing understanding.

How many people are really scared of science fiction? Although its difficult to make generalizations about that genre (and certainly not all of it depends primarily on technology), I don't think there's anything really psychologically troubling in most of it. And why should people fear "technological conviction"? The same goes for crime and romance. Are people really deeply troubled by such things? I think not.

To come back to your question: what is the flaw in fantasy? Simple: imitation. In no other genre is almost every work so imitative of a single author. I'm certainly not suggesting anything so modern as that there should be progress in art. It is, however, undoubtedly true that those who merely imitate a great artist will fail to create great art. The fantasy genre is a genre of imitation.

I guess that I love Star Trek (treat me gently again!) because the stories are totally visual creations - designed for visual appeal. Even so, I have no desire to read any Sci-Fi!

Really? This is an unusual point of view, in my experience. Most Star Trek fans that I know (including me) like it more for its high-concept science fiction aspect than the visual appeal. I only point this out because, if we are to make generalizations about the genre, we should not make them based on unusual cases.

If nothing else, Post Modern liturature has made us all understand all too well Ms. Arendt's naming of evil as "banal". Modern authors address this theme constantly in their books.

Agreed. Though it is fashionable to criticize Tolkien's clear distinction between good and evil, that is a valid way of looking at the world (not that art must address the world).

Orcs didn't go around saying "I was only doing my job. They new they were evil and loved it!

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't think Tolkien's view of evil was nearly as unrealistic as is often claimed. Just look at Shagrat and Gorbag in book IV. "Regular Elvish trick" they say, thinking that the "great Elvish warrior" (Sam) left his companion (Frodo) behind. They seem to view Elves as immoral. Isn't that exactly the way the Nazis or al-Qaeda operate?

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Kalessin]

Aiwendil

"To come back to your question: what is the flaw in fantasy? Simple: imitation. In no other genre is almost every work so imitative of a single author. I'm certainly not suggesting anything so modern as that there should be progress in art. It is, however, undoubtedly true that those who merely imitate a great artist will fail to create great art. The fantasy genre is a genre of imitation"

You've done it again, another compelling argument! Thanks also for chiding me, but remember I was acting as devil's advocate smilies/wink.gif If I really knew the answer I probably wouldn't ask the question. And that doesn't stop me trying to argue positions with as much conviction as possible ... it's all part of the learning process.

Now, your imitation theory is probably the most effective argument I've heard yet. And I think that, as an answer to my original question, it's unarguable. But by the same token it's not therefore an "inherent" or "inevitable" flaw. It's just a reflection of how things have turned out. So maybe there are other, deeper, answers. Leaving aside the 'scared' bit, maybe the de facto UNreality argument does have some merit. Back to you ...

[Jessica Jade]

I think it's somewhat misleading to say that Tolkien wrote because he had something he wanted to say. That's what modern authors of "serious" literature do. Tolkien certainly had no explicit "message" in his writing. He was, in a way, even more serious than those authors.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say--when I said "say something" i didn't mean that he had an explicit message he wanted to get across (seeing that Tolkien disliked allegory), he "had something to say" in that he had a story he really wanted to tell. (hence LOTR, The Sil, etc.). He valued good stories for their own sake, not the hidden meanings and symbolism and so forth.

Orcs didn't go around saying "I was only doing my job. They new they were evil and loved it!
I don't exactly agree that they knew they were evil and loved it. In The Silmarillion, chaper 3, it says:

"And deep in their dark hearts the Orcs loathes the Master (Melkor) whom they served in fear, the maker only of their misery."

"Regular Elvish trick" they say, thinking that the "great Elvish warrior" (Sam) left his companion (Frodo) behind. They seem to view Elves as immoral. Isn't that exactly the way the Nazis or al-Qaeda operate?
Agreed. Oftentimes Evil doesn't really think it is evil, right? They think they're doing the right thing and that the ones who oppose them are the evil ones. They believe that their evil has a just cause, as do the Nazis and al-Qaeda.

We all know that evil still exists in this world, though we may break it down in to small bites of "greed" or "pettyness", or "racism", or "unfairness". It's all pervasive, and very hard to pin down.
very well said. Maybe that's why many modern critics consider fantasy impossibly unrealistic? Because in today's world evil is more subtle and doesn't declare itself openly the way it does in fairy tales.

(Galadriel as an example) didn't come off.
This did not overall destroy the enjoyment of the movie for a vast majority of movie goers, but they were flaws. True, yet I still admire PJ for making the movie so that it could appeal to everyone, even those who knew nothing about Tolkien.
Very good point, also, Goldwine, about how commercial sucess does not equal true greatness. Just look at the music industry today! From Britney Spears, to Nsync to all those other imitators--they're making millions, sure, but who can say that they are truly artists?

They have made it cool to be a cynic. It is a badge of honor in artistic circles, and a darling of critics.
Agreed! Have you ever noticed that most people think that misery and suffering is what makes literature and art "deep"? As if unhappiness and despair is where all the deep stuff is! *snorts with contempt* It disgusts me and proves how superficial they are, as well as how little they really know.

I agree with you also, Aiwendil, that too many people have forgotten the real purpose of art (which includes music, lit, film, etc.) is to entertain. Too many "artists" do what they do for all the wrong, insincere reasons. They don't do it because they want to communicate what's in their heart, they do it for approval from others, fame, or money. And if their motives are insincere, how do they expect the audience to connect and to be moved by it? It's like someone saying that he/she wants to be an actor because he/she wants to be famous, not because he/she loves acting. It makes one wonder what the world is coming to. So many have strayed so far from the true purpose of doing things that the real purpose is almost wholly lost.

The better works of any genre have superceded classification.
This is similar to something that Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins said:
"Great music completely obliterates any conceptions of genre."
I generally agree. I love LOTR, and to me it's definitely not just "another fantasy novel." Neither is The Matrix (one of my favorite films) merely a sci-fi flick. As for Matrix, many don't consider it scifi because they say it's just altogether an awesome movie and exceeds classification. However, the fact that it's considered sci-fi doesn't make anyone think less of it. The fact that LOTR is fantasy doesn't bother me at all, because to me, it's just a fantastic masterpiece.

Learning to distinguish good from bad is the inevitable and unfortunate result of growing older; the classification of books into genres and then the creation of assumptions about that genre prohibit the growth of minds. The better writers are above having their books delineated into some sort of literal conformity.
Good point. That's a big problem in the world today. People feel that they must classify things, that everything must fit in somewhere in the grand scheme. A lot of critics definitely need to realize that, before they pigeon-hole Tolkien books so thoughtlessly. People should look at things individually and not see everything as part of a group.

[Vinyaampawen]

When this thread first started I read about the laments that LOTR/FOTR did not get more of the Oscars they were nominated for. Having lived in California all my life and being quite familiar with the Hollywood scene and the Oscars game I have a few comments. First, in Hollywood the Oscars are VERY POLITICAL. It is all who you know, who likes you, and if you are politically correct with the powers that be. For example, Sean Penn did not have a chance for an Oscar as Best Actor because he has made it quite clear over the years that he hates Hollywood and all the games they play. So guess what? The members of the Academy are NOT going to vote to give him the Oscar for anything.
The same holds true for Viggo Mortensen. Viggo has also been quite vocal and public about his criticism of "Hollywood" so he is just lucky that he is still working as an actor and the only reason that is happening is because he was case as Aragorn and the LOTR is such a big hit (i.e. money wise and all). So....from a producer or director's point of view Viggo is a great actor who is very enjoyable to work with. He works very hard at his craft. However, as far the members of the academy are concerned, because Viggo has been so publicly critical of the Hollywood scene, they would never nominate for dog catcher of LA much less give him an Oscar for best actor.
Also....look how many fine actors, musicians and producers have been ignored by the Academy for an Oscar even though at their craft they are great...George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Barbara Streisand, Randy Newman, Ian McKellan....all of these people are and have been excellent at what they do but it took decades for them to ever get an Oscar and a few probably never will.
In addition...in Hollywood this was the year to politically with it and recognize the African-American/Blacks in cinema (this comment is not meant to be racist so don't anyone take it that way..) Given the fact that Sidney Poitier was slated to get an honorary Oscar and this year the Academy had nominated three other Black actors for it's highest honors, (i.e. Holly Berry, Denzell Washington and Will Smith), the academy was not going to go overboard from their point of view and give Ian McKellan or Peter Jackson Oscars for best supporting actor and/or Best Director.
But look at it this way....I don't believe that the Oscars have anything to do with the difference between fantasy vs. amything else....There are two more LOTR pictures coming out in the next two years and the Academy will have two more opportunities to recognize the magnificence of the LOTR and make this right.
Vinyaampawen smilies/smile.gif

[Lush]

Agreed. I would, however, draw a distinction between being cynical in life and being cynical in art. The problem is that modern critics have forgotten that the purpose of art is to entertain. When you start thinking that art must 'say something' about the real world, then the distinction between philosophy of art and philosophy of life breaks down.

Aiwendil, this is a well-made point, but there are certain weirdos out there (like me), to whom, the philosophies of art and life are forever interwoven. It's like this: I breathe, I eat, I sleep, I think, I art...That was trite of me. But I'm sure you get the point.

Have you ever noticed that most people think that misery and suffering is what makes literature and art "deep"? As if unhappiness and despair is where all the deep stuff is! *snorts with contempt* It disgusts me and proves how superficial they are, as well as how little they really know.

Yes. I do however believe that it is misery and suffering that, by the peculiarities of human nature, allow us to appreciate beauty and joy, as well as make us grow as human beings.
What I truly hate is the fact that our culture seems to have turned sadness into a fashion accessory. I am tired of "the tortured artist, black beret in his untidy hair, paintbrush dripping black paint onto the canvas, cigarette in the corner of the twisted mouth, cocain dusting his little sister's powder-compact mirror..." Ugh. They have turned human emotion into a bleak, unpretty Gucci ad.

...Once again, excuse my trite language. I'll be better next time. smilies/wink.gif

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Kalessin]

Lush, I really appreciate the points you have made.

I do not agree that "the purpose of art is to entertain". Firstly, without getting too much into definitions, surely it's enough to point out that many great artists neither considered nor cared what the response was to their work - whether it was successful, whether people liked it, whether it 'entertained'.

Secondly - surely art is art whatever its purpose ... in the end, the purpose of art is the same as the purpose of the artists, as contradictory, wide-ranging, obscure, instinctive and/or multi-layered as you can get. If it is the purpose of art (or awareness/primacy of purpose) that determines its quality, why would 'entertainment' be the best or most valid purpose?

Thirdly - there is a great deal of art whose express or primary purpose was not 'to entertain'. Yet it is still great art. The first examples that comes to mind are the best of the Russian post-revolutionary artists, Malevich, Kandinsky, Shostakovitch ... Another example would be religious art and artefact. And in many cases there is at the very least a clear duality of purpose behind much great art.

I also find myself in agreement with Lush again about the nature and importance of 'misery and suffering'. The 'snorting in disgust' is an unworthy reaction, and implies the supposed superiority of an anaesthetised Walt Disney aesthetic. The experience of sorrow and adversity through art are keys to empathy, self-knowledge and tolerance (among other things). The combination of "happy is better than sad" and "the purpose of art is to entertain" sounds like a sinister political manifesto.

Another more general point is to caution people against the knee jerk cliches ie. "the problem with the modern world is ...", or "people today are ..." - as if there is something definitively worse about today that only we the elite can perceive. Throughout history (right back to Socrates) people have bemoaned the falling standards of art and morality. Let's keep things in perspective. In my earlier reflections on postmodernism I tried to identify some pitfalls, and some of the implications of postmodern culture that I have problems with. But pomo has its good side too smilies/smile.gif

Lush, I always imagined myself as, someday, a tortured and decadent Parisian garrett artist (minus the cocaine, it plays havoc with your critical judgement as an artist), paying for meals by scrawling works of genius on napkins. How could you deconstruct my dreams with such surgical cruelty? smilies/tongue.gif

Peace

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Nar]

Two points that Tolkein deals with well, and many imitators do not: Character Complications and Language

Character:
I think the original Fantasy/Fairy Tale impulse (way back when stories were memorized and chanted around a fire) was to expand a complicated human personality into a number of simple characters-- one becomes many-- and have them work the conflicts out in a large, mythic landscape with big gestures --like falling into the Cracks of Doom, for example. I think in a work of stereotypicly 'high' literature, Gollum, Sam and Frodo would all be aspects of Frodo, and we would be hearing about an internal struggle-- it would all happen in Frodo's study at Bag End --and it would not be nearly as much fun! Still. A big part of what drives devotees of 'high literature' away from fantasy is this transformation of an internal struggle between different impulses in an individual into an external struggle between characters who are emblems. This simplifying of character seems to happen in any genre-- and it is at its worst when an author wants to reliably punch those same old emotional buttons, and so falls into a formula that guarantees the reader reaction. Tolkein ingeniously manages to have it both ways. He has the accessible, ordinary hobbits, and the grand, remote warriors reciting anglo-saxon verse. And the transition figures, like Gandalf, who function in both modes. Every imitator has tried to follow this formula, so why hasn't it worked for all the others? Perhaps part of it is the author himself. Tolkein was a grown man who'd lost friends and been in a war. For many of his imitators, I think, death and war are symbols of psychic angst. For him, they were real and literal as well as symbolic and psychological, and that may have enriched his characters.

Ok, Language
Part of what makes the books work so well is his marvelous feel for the music of the words. In the movie, or any other fantasy imitation, new-minted nonsense words are hurled at our heads-- as featured in all the parodies in this stream-- Or in the movie-- 'We must cross the pass of $$%^%$& --No! To the bridge of &^*(&)(*(^! You fool! Have you forgotten? The gates of *&%^&^$%$ have been closed against us ever since *^*&^ was slain on the steps of ^&*$%!' It doesn't really matter what the words are. It's like being repeatedly slapped in the face with a dictonary. Ok, a paperback thesaurus, then. Each time Tolkein coins a word, we are treated to a little prose-poem on the word-- 'Lothlorien--oh, the golden woods of laurelindorian in the spring..' --you get the idea-- forgive me if I misquote. That extra paragraph as our author hypnotically murmurs in our ear his jazz variations on the sounds and meaning of the new word is what makes all the difference. These words are coined by a jazz master who loves their music.

[Thinhyandoiel]

...the plot is just as important as the magic if not more so. Magic, in my opinion, should just provide an aspect of the setting of the story; magic should not be THE story for its own sake.

This was written on the first page of this marvelous thread! Haven't had a chance to read through all of it, but I do agree with the above.

The Final Fantasy series along with Tolkien does incorporate magic, and I think that's what turns people off. Many of my friends won't pick up that game simply because of the word 'fantasy'. They immediately think "Dragons, magic, save the princess, valiant hero, the end" But this isn't the case at all. They ignore that there IS a plot and there IS a theme to it all. The misunderstanding of fantasy being strictly escape fiction is what I think gives it the bad rap that some say it has.

But seriously, who said fantasy must be escape? Perhaps, I think, it originated as escape, in the fairy tales and children stories we all listened to. What Tolkien and the FF series, and various other authors did, (in my own opinion) was make it deeper. They gave it that deeper meaning, but obviously you can't just chuck old beliefs out the window overnight, so the fantasy genre retained that escapist stereotype.

I say this is wrong, and that you are right. Fantasy and sci-fi, every genre is so much more because of the greatness of the authors who commit themselves to it. Romance, too, has a bad rap of 'lovey dovey' feel, and you mentioned Danielle Steel, I mention Nora Roberts.

Also, there's the actual bad fantasy author who dwells on these stereotypes, in fact, keeping with the old beliefs that isn't helping the genre at all. But, then again, neither is it opressing it. Fantasy, I think, comes in two forms. There's the Fairy Tale, typical, story of prince saves princess. It's a feel good story, and who says that's wrong? But to mix this form with the serious form. Of course, the serious form that I believe Tolkien reigns King in (hehe smilies/tongue.gif) is escape as well, though it has that 'something' that makes it more. There is theme, a definate plot, developed and round characters who are not static, nor flat. Even Gimli, hardly THE main character, went through a big change in LOTR.

*sighs* I think I lost my train of thought. I need to read through this whole thread before I come with anything concrete.

[Thinhyandoiel]

Ah! I haven't gotten my train of thought back, but I've been reading more of the thread and something else jumped out at me while reading some one elses post on the first page. I'd quote it...if I could find it... smilies/biggrin.gif But it reminded me of something a friend said to me when I asked her if she wanted to go and see FOTR with me. Her response? She said "no" because "It's just a big money-making induced movie that has no relevance at all to the real world". Now, she is my best friend...and I have never wanted to just SMACK her more than when she said those words. I asked her if she had ever read the book, to see that there is MORE to Tolkien, that his world is marvelous, believable and wonderful, and that his characters are memoriable and have flaws like we do, and still they make you love them all the more (I'm referring to Boromir here smilies/tongue.gif ) She said no, and why again? Elves, Dwarves, and "Hobbits" (she emphasized Hobbits to show her disgust might I add) aren't real, and therefore can not be taken seriously. Again, visual-friend-smacking in my head.

These Elves, Dwarves and "Hobbits" are characters, regardless of race. And while my friend is a realist by all extremes, it astounds me that she can't see this simple concept that she is...yes...Elfist & Dwarfist, which is quite ironic considering her attitude rowards racism...but anyways. What is the difference, then, of loving Elves and loving Vampires? She is a huge fan of Buffy (or more appropriately...Spike smilies/rolleyes.gif ) and I asked her, once more, This Vampire story you love so much is no different than My Hobbit story that I love so much, why then, do you verbally abuse LOTR? "But Vampires are believable" OHHHH. I get it, right. I mean, what's more believable than blood-sucking humans that turn into dust at sunrise?! *notice sarcasm* (And don't get me wrong, I love Buffy, I was just using it to tick her off)

I think this prejudice against the fantasy genre is ridiculous, esp. when those that give it flack have not exposed themselves, or allowed themselves to be exposed to it fully and with enough sincerity that they give everything else. Critics lean towards the realistic literature, and by realistic I mean modern. Every day, 'in-the-now', disregarding older, much more developed genres such as fantasy and romance (which I pretty much group together considering the type of romance I read) as 'fluff' (as was mentioned before) and trivial escapist literature. I am NOT liking this trend, I think it's wrong, biased and just plain idiotic. That's why I love the 'Downs. I see everyone here as so open-minded that I wish the whole world was consisted of you peeps. Alas, reality sinks in. smilies/frown.gif

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Nar, interesting points, both of them! What a fascinating first post! smilies/smile.gif
Seeing the various characters of the story as aspects of one personality is something I've been thinking about since reading an essay some time ago. It spoke of LotR as a description of the process of individualization. I will have to hunt through my old threads to find that link and will post it here when I do.
Then your interpretation of Tolkien's poetic descriptions as jazz variations on a theme - how lovely! Not limited to jazz, though - Bach did it too! Wouldn't want to miss either!

[Rimbaud]

I also very much appreciated the jazz reference. It got me onto a train of thought; I am aware of a slight straying from the original subject matter. If anyone thinks this should be a different thread just nudge me...

Language, in books of the nature we are discussing and I presume many of us are reading, is all important and all pervasive. Nar's point about being clubbed over the head with foreign words in fantastical films rings true for me, and even with regard to books I have read. Many of today's 'fantasy' authors use made-up place names and first names for their characters; their motives are obvious and understandable. When we hear that 'Jeff' from 'Croydon' has to battle with an evil 'more immense than the planet had ever known', we tend to giggle or assume it's a satirical take... Yet as you say, the creative buck should not stop there. Call your city Squendiblebubnimanbullity if you wish, but more understandable for the audience I am thinking of (well, me...(!)) would be the historical and linguistical context of that name.

This of course is where my argument falls a little flat because, as mentioned above somewhere, modern authors work under tighter deadlines and more pressing demands than did JRRT. I find the language and tone of much of the genre almost child-like. Full also of horrendous grammar and even editing mistakes. This for me dramatically lessens the impact of the story on me. Essentially, and you'll appreciate I'm trying to antagonise for response, I would rather read a bad story well told than a good story badly told.

So is the weakness of the whole genre that most modern authors do not have the time to spend creating a truly original or indeed complete world for their fictions to take place in?

That sounds a little too trite for me. Some modern fantasy series are massively wordy and the gaps between books inordinate (Robert Jordan) so, (for the better selling proponents anyway), time is not really the issue. The problem with Jordan's work I would argue is in both tone and soul. It lacks both IMHO, in any discernible quality. So then is it true that the ONLY author in the field with the time and the passion to create really great fiction fantasy was JRRT? Can that really be true? I have read many many books in this area and I can only think of perhaps four writers who come close. And we all know how many books with those horrible covers there are in the bookshop...

So then are we at a dead end? Is the genre exhausted? I would hate to think so. Yet, other than Tolkien and perhaps two or three others (all of whom have likewise stopped writing, due to age or having passed away) I do not read fantasy books. I started reading them two decades ago and stopped a couple of years back. I would love for a writer to prove me wrong. All my reading list comes from other places now (and I read a couple of books a week).

I will confess that to a large degree I am playing devil's advocate and hoping for some spirited responses... smilies/wink.gif

smilies/smile.gif

[Jessica Jade]

Okay okay… after more thinking and considering, I’ve come to the conclusion that entertainment is not the ONLY purpose of art. I think that art is about communication and expression as well as enjoyment. You’re right, Kalessin, in saying that the purpose of art is the purpose of the artist. It’s about whatever the artist wanted to say or about communicating what he felt, whether it was an expression of love or hate, social commentary, both, or something else altogether.

I agree, Lush and Kalessin, that trials and suffering allow people to grow and appreciate beauty more. However, it really annoys me when people think that being miserable is the KEY to being deep. To me, being “deep” means moving me, touching me, opening doors for me, perhaps showing me new ways of thinking and of looking at life that I had never thought of before. It is using your life to touch mine in a way that would not have been possible otherwise. I have a problem with people who do things just for show. People put on a “miserable” demeanor just so others will think they are the “deep, wise, tortured artist who has suffered the cruelities of the world.” As if misery and pain define Wise and Deep! That’s not true at all. And THAT’s what I have a problem with. Expressing pain and suffering does not bother me at all as long as it “comes from the heart” (excuse me for being trite) and is sincere.

As for the “Problem with the world today” cliché, I did not mean that there is something specifically and definitively wrong with our whole culture today. I don’t think that society is getting progressively worse and worse. It’s just that there are some groups/types of people out there that exist today that I don’t agree with and that really DO have falling standards of art and morality. It doesn’t mean everyone, of course. I’m sure that there were problems like that all throughout history, no matter what the time period. Cultures and societies all have their flaws, and it’s not only “we the elite” who can perceive it. Sorry if I came across that way and sounded extremely arrogant and stuck up. Maybe I should have said something like, “The problem with certain/some people today….” to allow less room for misinterpretation and generalization.

I think this prejudice against the fantasy genre is ridiculous, esp. when those that give it flack have not exposed themselves, or allowed themselves to be exposed to it fully and with enough sincerity that they give everything else.
Agreed! The most frustrating thing is when people so blatantly insult something when they haven’t even given it a fair chance. Take classical music, for example. I, being a pianist and violinist, am a lover of classical music. It really bothers me when people make comments such as “I hate that drippy classical stuff , it’s so dull and boring and lame, etc etc…”. I hate when people say that NOT because I don’t agree with them, but because they obviously haven’t given themselves a chance to appreiciate it. When someone so carelessly insults an esteemed piece of art/literature/music, etc, they are merely proving how little they know about it. They are making themselves look ignorant and narrow-minded. Don’t misunderstand me here…I don’t have a problem at all with people disagreeing with me…I mean, I wouldn’t get annoyed if people said “I don’t’ like it, it doesn’t’ suit my taste, etc.” But one who says something like “That’s gay and stupid” without having given it a chance is only going to make himself look really dumb.

As for the issue of fantasy being escapist, to that I say, What’s wrong with being escapist? smilies/smile.gif

[Nar]

Jessica, people with artistic ambition address sadness and misery because they're trying to work out the problems of existence, and where's the problem with happiness? 'Happy families are all the same, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way' (Tolstoy-- it's either from Anna Karenina or the short story Family Happiness) This is wrong! wrong! wrong! But its certainly easier to find the complications that make good stories and subtle art where there is unhappiness.

Whenever you see an unambiguously happy family that loves each other in current literature or movies, you can be sure it's a horror story and the monster's about to leap out, or a war movie and they're all to be divided into refugee camps, or a legal thriller, and someone's going to jail wrongly accused. On the other hand, an unhappy family can just sit there being dysfunctional when it's Thanksgiving, and that's a story.

If the family's functional you need an external threat to drive the story. It's a shame, because exploring happiness is one of the great uncharted frontiers in literature. Where can the story go? What plot beyond 'slice of life, pleasant time, nothing happens' can we find?

It's worth exploring, because in real life, a happy family, like a good group of friends or a couple in love, is electric. When it surrounds you, it's intoxicating. Maybe we need installation plots to depict this --there's something about being within a network of human connections that make you more yourself that is very difficult to capture in literature.

When I go home to see my family, and we welcome each other and begin to pass a joke from one to another, each of us giving it our own spin, it's as if we've all taken on an electric charge-- everyone's on, everyone sparkles, sparks fly from our fingers, our hair stands on end and ball lightnening rolls around the room. At least, that's how it feels. (As a child I went to the Franklin Museum for a show on electricity, and it made a big impression on me.)

It's something I like very much about Tolkien, how well and lovingly he captures frienship and fellowship, though his plots, of course, are almost always driven by an external threat. (Leaf by Niggle would be an exception, --the threat to Niggle is his time running out before he can complete his great portrait of a huge and lovely tree-- but the friendship there is dysfunctional, which unfortunately supports my point. It's in the Tolkien Reader, but I don't know whether it's in print now.) Can there be a happy family or a loving fellowship of friends that confronts a challenge or otherwise needs to change, but for reasons within them?

[Aiwendil]

But by the same token it's not therefore an "inherent" or "inevitable" flaw. It's just a reflection of how things have turned out.

Well, the way things turned out is the way things are - that is, what we have is what we have to deal with. What is "fantasy" really, but a collection of individual works that share certain characteristics? I guess what I'm saying is that if the problem is imitation is one shared by almost all poor quality fantasy novels, then it is by definition a problem with the genre.

If what you're asking is whether it's possible to write a fantasy novel without this problem, then the answer is yes. It's certainly possible if you don't imitate Tolkien. The problem is that mainstream fantasy basically is the imitation of Tolkien, so once you're no longer imitating, you're pretty far along the road to no longer writing "fantasy".

maybe the de facto UNreality argument does have some merit.

Perhaps it does explain why there's so much bad fantasy. But I wouldn't call it a defect of the genre. It's precisely here that the imitators fail to imitate; LotR stands out from the rest of the genre largely because of its similarity to reality. Unlike many modern fantasy authors, Tolkien did not invent a new world; he invented a mythic prehistory for our own.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say--when I said "say something" i didn't mean that he had an explicit message he wanted to get across (seeing that Tolkien disliked allegory), he "had something to say" in that he had a story he really wanted to tell.

I apologize for misunderstanding you. It's just that many who subscribe to the modern school use the phrase "something to say" to mean "social commentary". You used it in the more precise but less common way.

Maybe that's why many modern critics consider fantasy impossibly unrealistic? Because in today's world evil is more subtle and doesn't declare itself openly the way it does in fairy tales.

I think modern critics misunderstand evil both as it is portrayed by Tolkien and as it is in the real world. For Tolkien, evil is real. It is, if not literally a tangible thing, at least a strong force. But evil is also subtle in Middle-earth. Certainly there is nothing subtle about Sauron, but there undoubtedly is about the Sackville-Bagginses, or Saruman, or Eol. The subtleties are ignored by critics. And for all their protestations that evil is not as blatant in real life as it is in LotR, what about Hitler? What about Osama bin Laden? Tolkien's opinions on evil may not be universally accepted, but they are a valid way of trying to understand the world. There is nothing simplistic about them.

They don't do it because they want to communicate what's in their heart, they do it for approval from others, fame, or money.

Good point, though this was actually not what I originally meant. Certainly what you say is true about so-called "popular" art. The problem in "high culture" is rather different: these people assume that art must necessarily say something about the world; they think that the value of art is not in art itself, but in its interpretation. They are wrong.

First, in Hollywood the Oscars are VERY POLITICAL.

I agree with this and the rest of your post.

Aiwendil, this is a well-made point, but there are certain weirdos out there (like me), to whom, the philosophies of art and life are forever interwoven.

Fair enough. What I meant was that it is possible to be cynical about life and still to enjoy (and even create) works of art that are not fundamentally cynical.

I do not agree that "the purpose of art is to entertain".

And we're back to the "Book of the Century?" argument. But I phrased my point badly. Using the word "entertain" implies that popularity is the measure of success, and that's not what I meant. I should have said: "The purpose of art is to be aesthetically beautiful" - which is basically saying that the point of art is to be art, not to be social commentary, not to be allegory, not to be popular.

Secondly - surely art is art whatever its purpose ... in the end, the purpose of art is the same as the purpose of the artists, as contradictory, wide-ranging, obscure, instinctive and/or multi-layered as you can get.

But if this is true, then it's impossible to judge the merit of a work of art at all, save perhaps against its intended purpose. We'd have to judge C.S. Lewis by how well he constructs his allegory, Stephen King by how much terror he's able to create, cheap romance novels by how well they sell (Edward Albee by how bizarre his plays are . . .). And if, say, The Shining fulfills all the goals Stephen King had for it, who would we be to say that someone else who wrote with a different purpose is better?

The first examples that comes to mind are the best of the Russian post-revolutionary artists, Malevich, Kandinsky, Shostakovitch ...

Here's where my poor choice of words comes back at me. I can't really speak for Malevich or Kandinsky, but surely Shostakovitch's purpose was to produce works of aesthetic beauty. Or are you talking about the pro-Soviet aspect? If so, then I would say that it was not the presence of political propaganda that made his art great. If politics plays any part in the greatness of a work of art, it is rather because it contributes to the aesthetic value. For instance, the end of Shostakovitch's 5th symphony (which, we know now, is really profoundly anti-Soviet). Shostakovitch described it as representing forced happiness. The fact that it does resonate with the real world increases its beauty. But art need not have that resonance to be beautiful.

The combination of "happy is better than sad" and "the purpose of art is to entertain" sounds like a sinister political manifesto

I don't think anyone has suggested that "happy is better than sad". It's merely been pointed out that sad is not necessarily better than happy.

A big part of what drives devotees of 'high literature' away from fantasy is this transformation of an internal struggle between different impulses in an individual into an external struggle between characters who are emblems.

Agreed. I'd add, however, that fantasy does not always have that transformation as its goal. For Tolkien, the story was what was important; 'applicability' was a byproduct.

She said "no" because "It's just a big money-making induced movie that has no relevance at all to the real world".

Unfortunate. Particularly because LotR is among the books written with the least intent of achieving commercial success (even more so the Silmarillion).

So is the weakness of the whole genre that most modern authors do not have the time to spend creating a truly original or indeed complete world for their fictions to take place in?

This certainly is an important weakness. Perhaps Tolkien was so great precisely because he was an amateur.

Some modern fantasy series are massively wordy and the gaps between books inordinate (Robert Jordan)

Compared to Tolkien, the gaps between Jordan's books are miniscule. He's produced what - eight or nine volumes at about six hundred pages each? In the past ten years or so? Tolkien took ten years just to write LotR, and a whole lifetime on the Silmarillion.

The problem with Jordan's work I would argue is in both tone and soul. It lacks both IMHO, in any discernible quality

Agreed. But part of this may be due to the time pressure mentioned above. Part of it, on the other hand, is simply that he is Tolkien's inferior.

I will confess that to a large degree I am playing devil's advocate and hoping for some spirited responses...

I'm afraid this thread is just too cynical to defend pop fantasy.

[Kalessin]

More interesting posts - I don't think this thread is overly cynical (yet). I'm enjoying it smilies/smile.gif

Aiwendil -

"I should have said: "The purpose of art is to be aesthetically beautiful" - which is basically saying that the point of art is to be art, not to be social commentary, not to be allegory, not to be popular"

I agree that your re-phrasing above is more precise and therefore redresses the populist connotations to which I reacted earlier. However, I do not see an inherent contradiction between 'aesthetically beautiful' and 'aesthetically beautiful social commentary'. If an artist has talent, craft AND insight then there does not need to be a primacy of purpose.

Aiwendil, You also addressed my 'purpose of art' comments thus -

"then it's impossible to judge the merit of a work of art at all, save perhaps against its intended purpose ... The fact that it (Shostakovitch's 5th, as an exemplar of art with a dual purpose) does resonate with the real world increases its beauty. But art need not have that resonance to be beautiful."

Please excuse my merging of quotes from different paragraphs by you - this is simply to allow me to address the key elements together smilies/smile.gif

The 'aesthetic standards by consensus' vs. 'timeless absolutes' etc. is one that we hammered to oblivion in other threads! Suffice it to say that in my view the purpose of the artist can be a part of one's reading of the art itself - and that clearly includes evaluating its aesthetic merit. Without this, you emasculate the artist, and allow for the 'ten thousand monkeys writing Shakespeare' scenario. This is so beloved of empirical rationalists, yet so antithetical to the the individuality and humanity of art. If a musician creates a piece intended as a lament, yet people think it's a fabulous feelgood party song, whilst he/she may have achieved some aesthetic beauty one would HAVE to include the failure of purpose when judging the work's merit. If it helps to illustrate the point, I find Britney's happy little songs utterly lamentable smilies/wink.gif

I agree art does not NEED other purposes to be beautiful or valid. "Art for art's sake" and all that. But that exists alongside all the wonderful art that DOES have other purposes. And, to draw the issues back to the topic, it should not devalue (or imply inherent failure in) works of fantasy simply that there are a range of driving forces at work.

Some of these vexing questions arise with the study of postmodernism and it's successors in the 'cultural studies' approach to art and artefact. It is a challenging subject area and there is arguably no prospect of resolving divergent views within even a broad consensus - except to say that, as people, you and I have a respect and appreciation for Tolkien, and perhaps share an idealistic and optimistic approach to art. That's more than enough!

Can I inject a personal note and say that my late father was a painter, yet also a political radical, and in his life he struggled intensely with the 'role of art'. As a devotee of European aesthetics he found it impossible to reconcile the theoretical and economic aspects with the struggle against oppression and the deeper contradictions of 'human nature', at great personal cost. I have perhaps a gentler approach, but I am gratified by the passionate convictions and idealism so articulately expressed in this thread (I'm also rather proud of having started it smilies/tongue.gif). These are actually the best message boards I have found for stimulating and rigorous intellectual debate. And that is perhaps indirectly a fitting tribute of some worth to Tolkien himself.

By the way Jessica, your posts are very interesting and I was not chastising you at all smilies/smile.gif. I agree with about 98% of what you wrote - and if someone criticises something by saying (your words) "that's gay and stupid", I think they have more problems than simply lack of artistic insight!

Peace

[littlemanpoet]

I'm still trying to catch up to the current end of this dynamic thread, so bear with me, please, if this has already been covered.

Some of you have hinted at the problems with the publishing industry, but have not addressed it as it affects Kalessin's original question. The only reason LOTR got published at all was because Tolkien had already been successful with The Hobbit, which itself was published on a fluke of chance (See Humphrey Carpenter's biography to learn more.) and by then a relationship of mutual respect between publisher and author warranted the publishing of what was believed to be a sure loser in terms of marketability.

I said all that to say this: the publishing industry is by nature a conservative animal. It only works on the basis of sure bets. It was true in Tolkien's time, and is more true now because of the multiplied competing genres and technological forms. LOTR could not be published now, at all, unless by sheer fluke.

This points back to the "we're to blame" argument Kalessin put forth, which as he already admitted under the excellent reparte of Aiwendil, was simplistic. That which sells gets published. It sells because the buyers accept it and they accept the substandard rubbish because of other influences. The other influences are (this is not an exhaustive list):

1) Robert E Howard's Conan series (which in itself was quite good but not as good as Tolkien) as passed on to the modern fantasy lover's mind through the media of pulp novels, comic books and movies;

2) AD&D with its encyclopedic mish mash of monsters, spells, hero classes and what not, which has the mass market appeal of making everything accessible for one's own picking and choosing and thus reducing ALL fantasy to the lowest common denominator for those who don't know better;

3) the modern extra-terrestrial fantasy which may be arguably considered sci-fi but has essentially replaced trolls, goblins, elves, gods and goddesses as that which 'fires the imagination' - thus we have fantasies like ET and Star Wars and and Star Trek and X Files and Spielberg's latest, "AI";

4) the failure of modern education - yes, this one is huge and may be the biggest culprit - which has cut modern learners off from the western past in the name of being successful in today's modern world. History, so beloved by Tolkien, has become for the average person, akin to poison - to be avoided at all costs as at least unimportant and at worst useless. Most moderns have LOST dragons and trolls and elves and all those things that make up myth, and have no clue - CANNOT have a clue because they have not been taught how to have a clue as to the richness of what has been lost to them.

If, Lush, and dragongirlG, I am speaking of something that is particularly American or non-Eastern, I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

To summarize, though, imitation is what we have in fantasy because of a conservative publishing industry which is in turn captive to modern marketing necessities based on a shrunken imagination and knowledge base derived from a failure of education, confounded by other influences that tend to reduce the imitations to the lowest common denominator.

Now I'll get back to catching up on this thread....

[Kalessin]

Littlemanpoet, a well-cosidered post. One particular aspect caught my eye ...

"AD&D with its encyclopedic mish mash of monsters, spells, hero classes and what not, which has the mass market appeal of making everything accessible for one's own picking and choosing and thus reducing ALL fantasy to the lowest common denominator for those who don't know better"

Although I enjoyed playing as a teenager, and still believe it is a pastime that allows for a certain creativity, I tend to agree with your critique - and agree that it has played a part in the evolution of the genre (and with an unfortunate 'dumbing-down' effect). But I would widen your analysis to include Final Fantasy and other variations of computer and RPG games. These products are now part of the cultural landscape and extremely influential.

More later ... smilies/smile.gif

[Amarinth]

hi kalessin! i've been following this excellent thread and am so impressed by the highly intellectual posts here -- i'm utterly intimidated to add mine! but please bear with mine, as i only hope to share a human "face" to some of what's been discussed here.

the arguments above can generally be classified into two areas: (1) the nature of the epic-fantasy genre as art and (2) the appreciation of the genre as art. the first is a matter for the proficient and artistic, as many of the folks above evidently are smilies/tongue.gif, but for many, individual appreciation is their teacher, their gauge for what makes art great.

as the discussion verged into "standards" of postmodernism (child of the 7a, kalessin, aiwendil, etc.), i recalled a very spirited conversation i had with friends involved in the artistic pursuits, and who like many others of my acquaintance have agreed (or succumbed, more likely) to read but resisted "falling in love" with the sublime works of tolkien. in essence and in their words, their reservations are rooted in a feeling that there is a huge "pre-requisite" of socio-cultural knowledge needed to "suspend their disbelief" and effectively "feel and visualize" the novels. the standards for appreciating an epic-fantasy novel like tolkien's, they elaborate, are "too lofty and esoteric", in contrast to other "realistic" fiction like popular human interest documentary et al where the indvidual reader relies largely on his/her own internal set of standards wrought from "social pre-conditioning, experience, introspection". this was surreal coming from artists.

i've previously thought that my friends were just being contrary, or that i'm a bad endorsement for tolkien *sniff*, but lately i've noticed too with the added publicity from the film and common knowledge of my personal passion among peers that i get accused, more often than being a fanatic, of being a nerd. and that gets me into thinking, is there really some form of "pre-requisite" to appreciating tolkien? and if so, is the preference for other human conditon genres over epic-fantasy a form of self-identification RATHER than of recognition of great art?

if so, then this may explain some of prejudice or reservation against the epic-fantsy genre. previous arguments raised about many of the post-tolkien novels being corrupted orcs of the original elf are so true, and all these bear on the very nature of art. but of its appreciation, there is a possibility of another mode of self-identification, self-validation if you will, that operates along with the perception of the merit of art. perhaps for many people, finding some tangible truth and personal enlightenment is their probe, and epic-fantasy having so many imagined elements just defies a lot of "truth" by default.

or maybe i'm just a really bad endorsement, waaaaahhhhhh!

[Aiwendil]

However, I do not see an inherent contradiction between 'aesthetically beautiful' and 'aesthetically beautiful social commentary'.

No, these things are certainly not mutually exclusive. But given the choice between art that is aesthetically beautiful but lacks social commentary and art that makes a social point but lacks beauty, I'll take the former any day.

But, as Tolkien realized, the better a social commentary (or allegory) is, the more likely it will have aesthetic merit. And, at least for literature, the more aesthetically pleasing it is, the more likely it will be to have applicability.

Without this, you emasculate the artist, and allow for the 'ten thousand monkeys writing Shakespeare' scenario.

I think this is the core of our disagreement. I say that if one of those monkeys types Hamlet, it's just as good as Shakespeare's Hamlet. Oscar Wilde said that the purpose of art is to reveal art and conceal the artist. I agree with him.

If it helps to illustrate the point, I find Britney's happy little songs utterly lamentable

But that's because her music is of poor quality. It has nothing to do with her motives in producing it - all that matters is the end result.

But that exists alongside all the wonderful art that DOES have other purposes.

Agreed. But such works, if they are great, also have aesthetic beauty, whether independent of or due to their other purposes.

Can I inject a personal note and say that my late father was a painter, yet also a political radical, and in his life he struggled intensely with the 'role of art'.

I have no problem with art fulfilling a social role - as long as it is beautiful.

That which sells gets published.

Agreed. The real question, then, is: why do such horrid things sell?

2) AD&D with its encyclopedic mish mash of monsters, spells, hero classes and what not, which has the mass market appeal of making everything accessible for one's own picking and choosing and thus reducing ALL fantasy to the lowest common denominator for those who don't know better;

As a devoted gamer, I feel I must defend AD&D, though those who remember the 'Book of the century?' thread will no doubt roll their eyes. First of all, yes, there is something of an 'encyclopedic mish mash' of monsters and such. It is up to the DM to select from this mish mash what he or she wishes to use. A well constructed AD&D world gives no sense of there being a 'mish mash' at all. I don't see how this reduces fantasy to the lowest common denominator. Certainly there are a lot of bad DMs out there, but does not imply a flaw in the system any more than trashy novels imply a flaw in literature.

Also, I must point out that the relative merits and disadvantages of any particular gaming system do not have anything to do with the value of the medium of role-playing itself.

the modern extra-terrestrial fantasy which may be arguably considered sci-fi but has essentially replaced trolls, goblins, elves, gods and goddesses as that which 'fires the imagination' - thus we have fantasies like ET and Star Wars and and Star Trek and X Files and Spielberg's latest, "AI"

I've not seen AI, nor very much of the X files, so I can't speak for them. Star Wars is, as you suggest, basically fantasy in a science fiction setting. But it is good fantasy. ET is a fairly mainstream movie that is based around a simple science fiction premise. It is not really fantasy in any sense. And Star Trek is certainly not. Star Trek is pure science fiction, with high-concept plots and such. It is certainly not fantasy, and has really had no impact on the genre.

the failure of modern education

I think it's a bit melodramatic to declare modern education an outright failure, though it certainly has its flaws.

But I would widen your analysis to include Final Fantasy and other variations of computer and RPG games. These products are now part of the cultural landscape and extremely influential.

You can hardly blame things that are not designed to be art for the decline of an artistic genre. Final Fantasy is a good game, and that's all. It's not art. If it's had a negative effect on art, that is the fault of artists who have taken it as an influence, not of the game itself.

I'll bite my tongue and not reopen the role-playing argument.

[littlemanpoet]

I will be more precise in my critique of AD&D, Aiwendil. By the way, I was a DM many years ago. I quit in order to clear my mind of the foundationless categories I realized were taking over my mind, and also to give my time to writing and reading stories.

The encyclopedic mish mash to which I referred above reduces all the elements to their lowest common denominator because, as published, the 'tomes' have divorced these elements from their original contexts. Yes, the gods & demi-gods tome categorizes according to origin, but the entites are extracted from their stories. The stories were not merely the vehicles of, but the worlds in which the various monsters, etc. existed. By removing them from their contexts the publishers leave the gamer 'at sea' (at least for those who want the context) or worse, the gamer is left with stock figurines to handle as mere marionettes when from their contexts they are so much more.

Sorry for the melodrama regarding modern education. I think the whole system is flawed, but that, as you say, does not necessarily bear on the discussion at hand.

Star Wars is, as you suggest, basically fantasy in a science fiction setting. But it is good fantasy. ET is a fairly mainstream movie that is based around a simple science fiction premise. It is not really fantasy in any sense. And Star Trek is certainly not. Star Trek is pure science fiction, with high-concept plots and such. It is certainly not fantasy, and has really had no impact on the genre.


I don't consider Star Wars or Star Trek to be bad, but I to consider them to be heavily influential in terms of modern fantasy. I think it is an error to distinguish too strongly between fantasy and science fiction. I agree with C.S. Lewis on this point, who wrote that once we had the whole world discovered, that's when fantasy stopped being written about exotic places on earth and started being written about places not on earth. It's part of why Tolkien and Lewis made their agreement that Lewis would write a space travel story and Tolkien would write a time travel story. They both understood that science fiction, no matter how technologically accurate the modi operandi might be, is the next realm of fantasy.

You can hardly blame things that are not designed to be art for the decline of an artistic genre. As to blame, I don't know that I'd go that far. What I am saying is that these things which are not necessarily art nevertheless make up the working categories with which the people who buy and sell and write and publish the banal fantasy happen to work. In other words, by and large, these categories as influences, whether art, or intellectual resource, or philosophical paradigm, are precisely that to which their imaginations are limited.

But I would widen your analysis to include Final Fantasy and other variations of computer and RPG games. These products are now part of the cultural landscape and extremely influential. Thanks, Kalessin, for widening my original categories. As I implied, there are more than I delineated. And you have struck the nail on the head as to what I've been getting at as to cultural landscape.

Back to failure of education. Melodramatic, maybe, but there was a shift in emphasis in roughly the middle of the 20th century away from 'essentials', toward 'self-realization'. This was nationwide in America. It resulted in an entire generation being educated in how to express themselves based on nothing but themselves and whatever happened to be in their environment; this as compared to an education based in the 'essentials', consisting of the best art, literature, language and knowledge base that western civilization had produced. The result is that an entire generation has been cut off from the past. This was a grave cultural tragedy. The results we are discussing in terms of banal fantasy are but one arena of the disaster. If I'm being melodramatic, please show me how.

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Lush]

What a great, great thread! *kisses Kalessin*

I fear I have partied too much this weekend to make for an insightful, not to mention coherent, post, so let me be brief:

Nar-Let's not go knocking Tolstoy just yet! smilies/biggrin.gif

Aiwendil-Don't know about you, but I am personally disgusted with Britney's motives, or lack thereof.

littlemanpoet-I have a basis of comparison, and therefore I must agree, education in the West, in America in particular, is definitely lacking. I was more challenged as a third-grader in the Ukraine than I was as a tenth-grader in the United States (and this wasn't even public school-this was a snotty, top-whack Southeastern private school, possibly the best in this part of the country...). I was eventually saved by AP classes, but the time wasted is a pity nonetheless.

[Vinyaampawen]

By golly...this thread has gotten so long and deep...who can catch up without spending hours reading what has become a book? Anyway I have been cast in my own roles as Joan of Aragona, a Venetian noblewoman of Queen Elizabeth I and Lady Anne Knolllys, second cousin of Elizabeth, for the Southern California Renaissance Faire. I will be doing Faire for the next 2 1/2 months.
After that I am going to Europe for the next 2 months traveling and getting together with many of my European friends...so I shall not have the time to read all the posts on these dynamic, thought-provoking thread(s).
Take care....I will try to catch up in between and when I get back...
smilies/smile.gif

[Aiwendil]

the 'tomes' have divorced these elements from their original contexts. Yes, the gods & demi-gods tome categorizes according to origin, but the entites are extracted from their stories.

That's very true. It's only the 'lowest common denominator', however, when the DM is unwilling to be careful and meticulous in constructing his or her world.

I think it is an error to distinguish too strongly between fantasy and science fiction.

I disagree. Though certainly some science fiction (including C.S. Lewis's trilogy, as well as Star Wars) is basically fantasy in space, there is much of it that is fundamentally different. Most of Arthur C. Clarke's books, or Isaac Asimovs, are not in any way like the fantasy genre. Many of them revolve around scientific premises - that is, premises that are actually true. Many pieces of science fiction are, in fact, completely physically possible. Hard science fiction is supremely rational. Fantasy is not.

What I am saying is that these things which are not necessarily art nevertheless make up the working categories with which the people who buy and sell and write and publish the banal fantasy happen to work.

Agreed.

but there was a shift in emphasis in roughly the middle of the 20th century away from 'essentials', toward 'self-realization'.

If this was true at one time, I don't think it really applies any more. At least it hasn't been my experience. I had a very strong history curriculum in high school, as well as an English curriculum that covered masterpieces of both modern and ancient western culture. I am currently a freshman at Columbia and have studied Homer, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, the Bible, St. Augustine, Dante, Boccaccio, and others, as well as analyzing the moral and philosophical systems embodied in their works. Maybe what you're saying is true for some, but from what I've been exposed to of it, modern education is not an utter failure.

Don't know about you, but I am personally disgusted with Britney's motives, or lack thereof.

So am I. But I am more disgusted with her "music".

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil, I'm glad to learn that education is apparently improving in America again - although neither yours nor Lush's experiences can be construed to define the whole - still one may hope.

Your considered responses reveal that you are meticulous in intellect and must be a meticulous DM. We cannot be confident that this is true of most DMs.

I'm aware of the distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' science fiction. I accept your distinction as far as it goes. I have read Clarke's 'Rendesvous with Rama' and 'Childhood's End', as well as a piece by an author, whose name nor title of book I can recall, about how life evolved on a neutron star. I've also read a fair amount of (his name escapes me!) the author of Dune. So excluding these obviously scientifically based 'hard' science fiction works, my statement still holds.

But can anything be done to improve the situation Kalessin bemoans in his rants 1 & 2?

[Rimbaud]

Littlemanpoet - can anything be done about this situation?

That depends on what you consider the situation to be. A mere glance at the scene will show you: Fantasy books are big sellers. Kalessin mentioned this in the original post. Clearly, from this thread, and indeed from the remainder of the site, a large number of people who read fantasy, or at least the better examples within the genre, are highly intelligent and articulate. This does not seem like a terrible situation.

Yet look a little deeper and you will see that those same intelligent and articulate individuals bemoan the lack of quality within the genre. It has been mentioned several times here that there are only a few authors in the field worth the time of day (White, Lewis, Tolkien and a few more). In the original post Kalessin compared fantasy/sci-fi with Crime and Horror. I would argue that both those genres suffer from the same basic formulaic weaknesses. Romance, Tragedy, Theatre - when you get past the best proponents of the field, there is normally dross. As has been said a few times also - the better works supercede such classification and exist outside of 'genre'. In fact, I said this myself in an earlier post but I am considering revising my position. Well, with regard to LoTR, anyway.

IMHO, LoTR is the finest book to exist within the fantasy genre. If you like to judge books by sales then it hasn't done to badly there either smilies/smile.gif . The film that many of us have seen was a huge box-office hit and was nominated for a joint record number of Oscars. As has been mentioned previously (I can't remember who), the film's lack of success in the 'important' awards has more to do with Hollywood politics than the quality of the film or even the perceived quality of the film. Yet I, and I am sure others here, know people and of people who didn not and will not see the film because of the attached notions of fantasy. In their mouths the words 'wizard' and 'hobbit' are derisive. Again IMHO, Littlemanpoet - this is the situation. Not the inherent problems of the genre's quality control; all modern mediums have this problem. Not even the health of the literary establishment generally (althoigh I could write on that all day). Rather the opinion of a large number of people who cannot see past superficial elements to see the character and struggle portrayed in the work beneath.

Again this argument is not restricted to the fanatsy genre. There are whole rafts of Television, film and prose that people avoid or 'switch over' from simply because of 'superficial elements'. People might avoid 'anything with guns', or 'anything that's misogynist' (which has already ruled out Hollywood films...). Some people avoid older books because they cannot see past a more archaic form of the language.

The problem is not with the genre or even with art itself. The 'situation' is a situation of poorly educated individuals with short-attention spans and a need for instant gratification making up the majority of the population, both in my home country England and my current abode, the US. The people I see writing here on thr Barrow Downs are a minority and that is a sadness.

I cannot see this changing soon but until that time, revel in the underground nature of good art! Yes, you have to go out and find it, it's not going to be thrown at you but in examplem, half the joy of buying an obscure but great record is browsing through the shelves of dusty second-hand record stores...

[littlemanpoet]

Stephanos, your post was very astute and a good summary. Thanks. I agree with you. It draws me back to Kalessin's original question.

But this is my question - are there any valid criticisms? Of Tolkien, or other leaders of the genre - or of the genre itself, is it by definition limiting and lowbrow (I don't believe that). 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.

Tolkien had a unique gift. He was the closest thing to a bard I can think of. Here's what he had going for him IMHO: excellent sense of story; a poet's gift for the music of words; a keen imagination; a love for things Northern; the philologist's craft for knowing the bones, tendons, ligaments, and muscles of words; Catholicism (I am not one but do follow Christ but have little patience with or use for the formal religion called Christianity); personal experience of life not yet overwhelmed by The Machine; integrity; a sorrowful awareness of the end of the pre-modern era and a deep desire to preserve it in some way.

It seems to me that if you take away any one of these elements, Tolkien could not have written LOTR. LOTR (to paraphrase Birdland), transcends the genre of fantasy - it is literature. Tolkien evoked the premodern world which he loved, wrote that love right into LOTR, and equated evil with its end.

The Scouring of the Shire puts this in bold relief. Saruman has turned the Shire from preindustrial beauty to industrial (and fascist) ugliness, and Tolkien makes sure we see this as evil; and the Four Travelers who return things to the way they had always been are the good guys.

Tolkien was, after a fashion, a very, very good taxidermist (I think I can hear some growlings out there smilies/eek.gif ). It's not the best analogy but I really believe that this is a large part of what Tolkien was doing and why he was so successful with the 60s cultural revolution generation and continues to be into the postmodern era.

Postmodernism's reaction against modernism is in part disillusionment that modernism failed to deliver the goods it claimed it could by means of its science and its machines. Therefore one of the escapes from empty modernism that postmodernists are finding is Tolkien and Middle Earth.

Nothing in the fantasy genre is doing any of this. By and large it is entertainment which has compromised with, or accepted the modern era whereas Tolkien was trying to do precisely what his elves in Lorien were doing all through the 3rd age, preserving the life and beauty of the past. LOTR is art, fraught with the sadness of something lost that can never be regained, whereas most of the fantasy genre is entertainment.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Kalessin]

Littleman, thanks for another well-reasoned and eloquent post. Having noticed the references in Tolkien's contextual writings and (more indirectly) in his works to 'reformers' and 'modernisers', I think you are right in identifying the intensely nostalgic sensibility at work. I am reminded a little of the conscious attempt by the Brothers Grimm to re-infuse Germanic folklore with resonance in their interpretation of old fairy tales, or of the Pre-Raphaelite attempts to rekindle English mysticism and a nostalgic vision of man in harmony with nature, and so on.

Aiwendil, there is a more to the art and politics issue than you seem to acknowledge. The issue of motive and function in art is quite naturally an important issue for anyone with a conscience - the "as long as it's beautiful" argument is arguably both naive and dangerous. Do you feel able to accept unconditionally (or indeed preferentially) art which either deliberately, or by omission, serves to perpetuate oppression or legitimise injustice, on the basis that it has aesthetic merit? An example might be the output by some of the talented artists who provided propaganda for the Nazi regime. There are many examples of this, as well as cultural appropriation ... and whilst one can abstractly appreciate the craft involved, the role of the art is crucial, and an important issue for the artist themselves to deal with.

Even more straightforward is the issue of how to spend your time - to fiddle while Rome burns, as it were, in a timeless bubble of artistic purity, while there are battles to be fought with words and deeds, or to act. These certainly were live issues (note the 'Artists Rifles' in the Spanish Civil War, Orwell etc.), and perhaps still are, certainly in Europe, South Africa and so on. This is the kind of thing I was referring to in my biographical aside, not some cerebral afterthought whilst strolling amidst the Old Masters in their g(u)ilt-edged frames smilies/wink.gif

As to the value of the "10,000 monkeys writing Shakespeare" ... it seems to me that the fact that another human being uses craft and conscience to create a work of art is absolutely central to art itself. If it is just "the end result" that matters, then you might as well say that a mountain is art, or a cloud. And indeed, this is sometimes posited by those arguing for God as the ultimate designer. But in effect this takes you to the very postmodern view that 'everything is art', and renders any concept of aesthetics meaningless.

Stephanos, the 'instant-gratification' culture was part of what I was referring to when I said we're to blame. But I don't go quite as far as Littlemanpoet in blaming the child-centred educational theory that became de riguer from the 60s onwards. As I said before, the complaint of falling standards and despair at 'how bad things have got' is a pretty consistent feature of cultural commentary since civilisation began!

In relation to gaming and its influence I think Littleman has a fairly robust point. No matter how thoughtful and talented the DM is, taking what are culturally significant archetypes of myth and narrative out of their original setting and mixing them up according to one's personal taste in the context of a points-scoring game - with none of the original (and important) moral aspect or any real spirituality - is in the end a superficial exercise. But that doesn't make it a waste of time, it is an opportunity for ingenuity and enjoyment, and life can be miserable enough, so I have no problem with doing it myself - whilst keeping things in perspective. I've been there in a BIG way, so I am not speaking as an outsider!

So many excellent and thought-provoking points have come up in this thread that I feel as though my original question has been answered many times over. I'm continually amazed and impressed by the depth and quality of argument here. Despite my earlier rants, the content of this thread has made me more optimistic that there is a large body of discerning and thoughtful readers out there for whom good authors will want to write good fantasy ... smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[littlemanpoet]

At the risk of making my posts obnoxiously frequent on this thread....

It occurred to me that Tolkien's Hobbit sections in LOTR (that is, those chapters that occur in the Shire and reflect its society) function by themselves as a kind of Goldingesque "Animal Farm" type of parable. By no means do I mean to imply that Tolkien was writing allegory or merely socio-political commentary - I'm just struck all over again by this example of the applicability of his work - something severely lacking in most fantasy.

But I don't go quite as far as Littlemanpoet in blaming the child-centred educational theory that became de riguer from the 60s onwards. As I said before, the complaint of falling standards and despair at 'how bad things have got' is a pretty consistent feature of cultural commentary since civilisation began! Your point is well taken, Kalessin, regarding the 'consistent feature'. However, the child-centered part of the educational theory was not the only aspect of the shifted standards that were historical in scope. Education moved away from the classics as it embraced modernism. We stopped learning Latin and replaced it with 'modern short story' and the like. We stopped reading the classics of literature and started reading - ahem - William Golding's Lord of the Flies. These were choices, and they looked good at the time, and to a certain extent they look pretty good to me now, but the crux of the issue for me with the educational reform was its resulting disconnection from the past.

[goldwine]

Great posts guys! I some think Sci-Fi stands alone because it is merely the extension of reality..eg. if they are predictions of future technology etc. I think the line between fantasy and sci-fi blur when the work goes beyond that to created worlds, peoples etc. far beyond reasonable and factual forecasting. I think that this is why some sci-fi appeals those who would normally prefer works of fantasy. Tolkien's works take this to the next level again (as said above) to a completely created world, creatures, languages, mythology, history etc. etc. It is a further stretch of the imagination, one which some more fact oriented people, are unable to brigde.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet--First of all, let me say that I am in sympathy with your statement that we have lost our sense of the past, and that this has contributed to our alienation from many of the paradigms which Tolkien loved and represented. As I said in an earlier post, I went on to get a doctorate in medieval history, a very impractical thing to do, way back in the 70s, because I felt the same stirrings in my heart studying this subject as when I read the writings of Tolkien and White. Just a small illustration but no person who lives in the West and has a connection with their heritage can pooh-pooh elves and dwarves if they understand anything about ancient literature.

I used to feel that, at least people from non-western areas, still had the connection and ties with their own cultures and mythic truths. Now I am afraid that there is so much cultural imperialism (I don't know what else to call it.) that people all over the world are losing this sense of connectedness.

I don't want to live in a world where everything is judged solely by the standards of 21st century business, science, etc. (not that there isn't goodness and truth in these fields too, but there has to be something more) I certainly don't want to live in a society whose main symbol worldwide may be the coca cola can. Give me elves and those pesky little hobbits any day!

The more I read your post and my own ranting as well, I realize that very similar words could have come out of Tolkien's own mouth and pen. Patrick Curry has some very strong and interesting things to say about Tolkien's rejection of "modernity." Many critics do not disparage Tolkien on the basis of literary or philosophical grounds, but rather because they "subscribe to the very same values of modernity--statism, scientism, economism, and secularism--which are implicated in the pathological dynamic that so alarmed Tolkien." Part of this underlying rejection is what, I believes, draws me to Tolkien and I don't see it in many other fantasy writers. (I do see it in White, especially in his views on the role of war.) Tolkien wanted a society that was different in many ways, at least in terms of values, and I feel and respond to this same yearning. As a Catholic, he had little hope that this would ever come about before the end of time, but he said, or his stories said, we had to keep trying. Today, unfortunately, so many people are cut off from their past, both in terms of concrete history and more distant mythic roots, that these individuals just don't feel or get it! I am not sure how we get past or around this, but there must be a way. smilies/mad.gif

[Aiwendil]

We cannot be confident that this is true of most DMs.

True. Nor can we be confident that all authors are meticulous.

So excluding these obviously scientifically based 'hard' science fiction works, my statement still holds.

All right, I will agree that the same impulse that drives fantasy is present in many works of science fiction. The line between hard and soft science fiction is not, however, completely distinct, and I think that, as well as the fantastic element, much 'softer' sci-fi also has something of the 'hard' sci-fi element. But I guess that's really beside the point.

Postmodernism's reaction against modernism is in part disillusionment that modernism failed to deliver the goods it claimed it could by means of its science and its machines.

I think it's a mistake to make too much of postmodernism's reaction against modernism. For all the reaction there's been, the great works of the 'modern' period are pretty much still considered great by postmodernists. And I wonder in what way modernism promised to deliver goods by means of science and machines. Science and machines were never supposed to improve art. As for the real world: there have been both positive and negative effects of technology. But I don't really see a huge change in attitude toward technology between modernism and postmodernism.

The issue of motive and function in art is quite naturally an important issue for anyone with a conscience - the "as long as it's beautiful" argument is arguably both naive and dangerous.

But I don't equate art with morality, in any way (unless a specific work of art deals with morality). You seem to presuppose that I think that it's all right to produce art that causes evil, as long as it's beautiful. This is not my position. Such a work would be good art but it would not be morally good, and it therefore should not be produced.

An example might be the output by some of the talented artists who provided propaganda for the Nazi regime.

There are two very different cases I can think of, as well as two different questions. The first question is: is the artist right to produce this work? The second is: is this good art?

First case: a work is produced that propounds, say, Naziism. The answer to the first question here is clearly 'no', the artist is not right to produce it, because it supports evil. The answer to the second question is also probably 'no', because the political element makes the work non-beautiful.

Second case: a work is produced by a Nazi for the Nazi movement, but the work itself does not propound Naziism. The answer to the first question is still 'no', because the work is being used to support evil. The answer to the second question, however, could very well be 'yes', because the work taken alone is not in any way evil. Now, many people (including me probably) would not be able to appreciate its aesthetic beauty, because we are ill predisposed to it due to non-artistic factors. But it could still be good art.

So I agree that the role of art (if it has a political role at all) is important for the artist to deal with. But art is art.

Even more straightforward is the issue of how to spend your time - to fiddle while Rome burns, as it were, in a timeless bubble of artistic purity, while there are battles to be fought with words and deeds, or to act.

You're assuming a very powerful role for art in terms of politics, and I think you overestimate its capabilities. Very, very few works of art have actually changed the way the world works. Art alone cannot end wars; it cannot heal feuds; it cannot effect political change. It may indeed have a role in doing these things, and if an artist works for a cause, that may be morally good. But it does not necessarily make good art.

But there is nothing wrong with art that is not political, and you cannot condemn a non-political artist for producing non-political art. Many people consider Beethoven's 5th symphony the best or second best piece of music ever written. Yet it has no extramusical meaning; it is merely beautiful.

it seems to me that the fact that another human being uses craft and conscience to create a work of art is absolutely central to art itself.

Suppose (to take an absurd but informative example) it were discovered that Hamlet had been accidentally typed by a monkey. Would you then deem it 'not art'?

. If it is just "the end result" that matters, then you might as well say that a mountain is art, or a cloud.

You might. But personally I think that human artistic achievements tend to surpass natural ones. I find The Lord of the Rings more beautiful than a cloud, for example.

But in effect this takes you to the very postmodern view that 'everything is art', and renders any concept of aesthetics meaningless.

No. There is a huge jump between 'a cloud is art' and 'a can of pepsi is art'. It has to do with aesthetic beauty, the thing that makes art art.

As I said before, the complaint of falling standards and despair at 'how bad things have got' is a pretty consistent feature of cultural commentary since civilisation began!

Very true. But there certainly is force in nostalgia - as seen in Tolkien.

No matter how thoughtful and talented the DM is, taking what are culturally significant archetypes of myth and narrative out of their original setting and mixing them up according to one's personal taste in the context of a points-scoring game - with none of the original (and important) moral aspect or any real spirituality - is in the end a superficial exercise.

Yes, mixing various myths and narratives points toward the 'lowest common denominator'. But this is not necessarily what AD&D (or plain old D&D) is. It is perfectly possible, for example, to take have a campaign set in ancient Greece, and completely consistent with Homeric mythology. It is also completely possible to create one's own world populated with one's own deities that has its own archetypes and spirituality. This is (minus the role-playing) what Tolkien did. Or should we condemn him for mixing up dragons and Dwarves and Elves and pagan deities and Catholic theology?

We stopped reading the classics of literature and started reading - ahem - William Golding's Lord of the Flies.

I see no reason not to study modern literature, nor why such study cannot exist alongside study of the classics. What's wrong with Lord of the Flies? I thought it was actually one of the better pieces of modern literature.

[Kalessin]

Thanks as ever for your considered writing, Aiwendil smilies/smile.gif

In answer to your comments (in no particular order) ... my 'fiddling while Rome burns' point was not that artists might try and produce politically influential art as a reaction to injustice - but that they might (and did) STOP "doing" art and actually take an active role in civil resistance. My example, the 'Artists' Rifles', were a volunteer regiment the anti-fascist forces during the Spanish Civil War. But that point is only one aspect to this.

IF I found out that 'Hamlet' was produced by chance by 10,000 monkeys it WOULD change how I felt about it. It would then be a work without any authenticity or act of insight, there would be no sense in which I could relate to the vision of its creator(s), it would not be part of any tradition or movement, and so on. It would be 'art' by coincidence alone - and if art can be manifested in that way, then a cloud, or mountain, is art - whether or not you consider it attractive.

Other than our little subtext on aesthetics, I think your point about Tolkien imitators and the provenance of the genre itself is one of the key insights in this thread, and certainly one I had not considered in such depth until you raised it. My compliments smilies/smile.gif

Peace

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

[Rimbaud]

This has been one of the most interesting threads on the Barrow-Downs. Although I think we've exhausted the topic of the fantsy genre in general, it's pleasing to see intelligent discourse on a plethora of related mediums. I particularly enjoyed the aesthetics discussion, congratulations Aiwendil and Kalessin. Although I think you both restrict the idea of art into a confine in which it does not belong, I see merit in both your standpoints and I think you have done the site a service by outlining those ideals here.

One final point.

LOTR is art, fraught with the sadness of something lost that can never be regained, whereas most of the fantasy genre is entertainment.


I loved that.

[Mithadan]

Indeed, a fine thread. Kudos to all!

I have come upon this thread rather late, and, as many good threads do, it has evolved beyond the original topic. At the risk of both repeating pieces of what others have said as well as departing from the direction which this thread has taken, I'd like to address some of the earlier issues which were raised.

We're all familiar with the current "genre" of Science Fiction/Fantasy as it presently exists as seen in bookstores and libraries. However, the current genre is not the proper lens with which to examine LoTR; the context is incorrect.

LoTR was begun in the late 1930s and completed in general form just prior to 1950. During this period science fiction barely existed as a genre and fantasy had no existence separate from science fiction at least in the view of the public. Both were lumped together in a general category known widely as "pulps" and existed primarily in the form of short stories published in magazines (I'm ignoring early movie "serials" here). Science fiction novels were rare before the late 1950s and the fantasy novel was almost non-existent before the 1960s. The exceptions were A.C. Doyle's Tarzan and Mars series and Howard's Conan from which the origin of present day garish covers is found.

Prior to this, with the exception of the Oz books which were considered children's stories, anything remotely resembling fantasy can only be found in a resurgence of fairy stories during the late 1800s and very early 1900s. Tolkien discusses these in Tree and Leaf.

While The Hobbit fit relatively comfortably within the category of children's stories, LoTR was unlike any non-classic fiction which had been published before. It was a long, deep, thoughful and ADULT-ORIENTED myth. As I have argued or observed before, Tolkien wrote what he liked to read and he loved mythology, particularly northern mythology, and he wrote it because no similar "modern" works existed. Lost Tales was a mythology for England. The early Silmarillion and LoTR left England behind, save only in the descriptions of the Shire, and presented a wider scope with nearly unprecedented detail.

LoTR was not a "fantasy" novel because no such genre existed when it was written other than the very different category of pulps. Tolkien posits a need in man for mythology or fairy stories in Tree and Leaf and LoTR became immensely popular because it filled that need. Certainly Tolkien did not place LoTR in the same literary category as Conan the Barbarian.

Of course, it generated imitators; the concept of the heroic quest had been reawakened both within the public as well as the publishing companies. Writers who enjoyed LoTR engaged in the highest form of flattery and copied its basic ideas. But by the time Tolkien published LoTR, he had been working on his "Legendarium" for over 35 years. No other fantasy writer could boast of such an effort or provide such detail or sense of "history". Thus the best modern fantasies are those which break from Tolkien and seek their own course. Much of the balance is mere (and generally poor) imitation whether for reasons of flattery or profit.

Thus LoTR was not a fantasy when it was published; it was a modern myth or fairy tale. It did, however, morph the genre or category of (non-science fiction) pulps to adapt to and encompass it. The pulps were not well-regarded as literature and the pulps' progeny, science fiction and fantasy were similarly disdained by critics, often deservedly so. The lack of respect LoTR receives as literature (and now as a motion picture) results not from its own nature and genre but rather from the reputation of the genre which adopted it as its flagbearer.

[littlemanpoet]

Thanks for your words, Child of the 7th Age. That was a powerful quote from Patrick Curry, with whom I am not familiar. Can you tell me more about him? Also, I'm aware of what your name refers to - can you tell me when the 7th age is supposed to have begun?
Today, unfortunately, so many people are cut off from their past, both in terms of concrete history and more distant mythic roots, that these individuals just don't feel or get it! I am not sure how we get past or around this, but there must be a way. I doubt there is much that can be done in a big way. Every one of us must do his small part, as Gandalf said to Frodo at the Council of Elrond (I think that's where it was).

I am pressed for time (I could not stay away) and must answer and 'rebut' later regarding Golding, for example.

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil

I think it's a mistake to make too much of postmodernism's reaction against modernism. For all the reaction there's been, the great works of the 'modern' period are pretty much still considered great by postmodernists. And I wonder in what way modernism promised to deliver goods by means of science and machines. Science and machines were never supposed to improve art. As for the real world: there have been both positive and negative effects of technology. But I don't really see a huge change in attitude toward technology between modernism and postmodernism.

Postmodernism is admittedly a conundrum. I don't profess to know the ins and outs of it, which is why I qualified my statement with "in part". The goods modernism promised to deliver through science was Progress such that human life would constantly get better; wars were supposed to cease - note President Woodrow Wilson's famous name for World War One - 'The War to End All Wars'. By the middle of the 20th century the horrors of Nazism and Bolshevism and WWII itself, not to mention the horror of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, forced this rosy view to be at least qualified. Progress for the sake of progress no longer looked so possible; this is, in fact, an aspect of the mindset into which LoTR was published. People were ready for something better than what Progress had turned out to be. I've only hinted at the various aspects of this Progress-ism. It was also supposed to make religion obsolete.

Suppose (to take an absurd but informative example) it were discovered that Hamlet had been accidentally typed by a monkey. Would you then deem it 'not art'?


G.K. Chesterton has said something to the effect that the very absurdity of the supposition is its own explosion. Simply, there is no way a monkey, let alone ten thousand monkeys, would ever accidentaly type Hamlet or anything else of artistic merit. Subcreation - art - is the provenence of humanity.

It is also completely possible to create one's own world populated with one's own deities that has its own archetypes and spirituality. This is (minus the role-playing) what Tolkien did. Or should we condemn him for mixing up dragons and Dwarves and Elves and pagan deities and Catholic theology?

I don't know that anyone is talking about condemning dungeon masters or the dungeons and dragons systems. Rather, I was pointing out the flaw of a disconnection with the past of which AD&D is just one example.

I see no reason not to study modern literature, nor why such study cannot exist alongside study of the classics. What's wrong with Lord of the Flies? I thought it was actually one of the better pieces of modern literature.

I should clarify. The reason, Aiwendil, for my 'ahem' was because I think Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm are excellent works. I was watching my own argument seem to unravel before my eyes - until I recalled for myself that even GOOD choices (or at least SEEMINGLY good choices) necessitate the choice AGAINST something else, and the choice in favor of Golding and other modern writers, valuable in themselves, became a choice AGAINST the classics. I wish that the choice had been against something less valuable - but I admittedly can't think of what that something might be...

Must run again.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Littlemanpoet--This is Child of the 7th Age. A fast referral to my name. I am only aware of one reference so it is probably the same one you were thinking of. Letter 211 written in 1958 has a footnote where Tolkien says we are probably at the end of the Sixth Age or in the Seventh because it is likely that the Ages have quickened since the Second and Third Age. Now that we have spilled over into the 21st century and the electronic world, I feel justified to think of ourselves as inhabitants of the seventh age. I'm not aware of any other specific references to the seventh age, although there are certainly references to the very end of time, both in Tolkien's writings and by someone like Clyde Kilby who spent an extended period with Tolkien towards the end of the writer's life. If you know any other references to the 7th age, please let me know.

About Patrick Curry...he wrote a book in 1997 called Defending Middle-earth: Tolkien, Myth, and Modernity. I do not have access to this, but I do have an article Curry wrote which summarizes some of his main ideas. It appears in a recent work that Joseph Pearce edited which is called Tolkien: A Celebration. The article itself is "Modernity in Middle-earth". The author lives in Canada and is an "independent scholar and writer" who previously earned a Ph.d. from the University of London. Curry says Tolkien's work is, at least in part, "a resistence to the contemporary threat to three great goods, nested one inside each oher. He outlines these three goods as Community, exemplified by "the hobbits, social to the ends of their well-brushed toes and firmly rooted in their place, the Shire"; Nature, as seen in the wonders of Middle-earth itself; and Spiritual Values, as refleced in the Sea and the lands beyond the sea. Curry argues that the overwhelming worldwide reception of Tolkien's book--50 million copies sold in 30 languages--shows that Tolien's insights, fears, and hopes in relation to modernity strike a profound cord in all countries and cultures, precisely because of "the global extent of the crisis it addresses." Needless to say, Curry places a lot of emphasis on the Scouring of the Shire and the figure of Sarumen and his discendents and how these mirror our own problems of modernity: development, ecological distruction, the drive for short-term profits, and the fragmentation of society. This sounds quite interesting, but, as I say, I don't have his full book. sharon, the 7th age hobbit

[littlemanpoet]

One final point.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOTR is art, fraught with the sadness of something lost that can never be regained, whereas most of the fantasy genre is entertainment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I loved that.

Thanks, Stephanos. Have you ever had it that words seem to come from someplace other than your own mind? Writing those words felt like that.

Thanks, Mithadan, for reconnecting us to the past in terms of LoTR's place in 20th century literature. Very enlightening.

The lack of respect LoTR receives as literature (and now as a motion picture) results not from its own nature and genre but rather from the reputation of the genre which adopted it as its flagbearer.

I agree with this as far as it goes, Mithadan, but there is also a modernist prejudice against LoTR that rejects straightforward story telling in favor of referential and ironic writing, as Kalessin has pointed out.

Thanks, Child-7th Age, for the reference. There is a web site I've visited. The best of Reunion magazine (http://www.seventhage.freeserve.co.uk/reuindex.html) It bases its subcreativity on our time being the Seventh Age, and I believe the webmaster considers the advent of The Machine as its beginning.

Thanks also for the summary of Curry. It sounds like the kind of book I'd like to read mainly because I already agree with it.

smilies/biggrin.gif

[Kalessin]

It seems as though recent posts are approaching a 'ballpark' consensus on the context of modernism, post-modernism and the current socio-cultural ambience in which LotR retains mass appeal (and a certain level of critical acclaim), whilst the standards of the (highly popular) fantasy genre as a whole are disappointing for a range of reasons.

In addition, the distinction between LotR and the genre - by virtue of the time and the nature of its inception, the subsequent cycle(s) of imitation and the genre market that has evolved, and its particular qualities - has been clearly highlighted and rationalised in the above cultural context.

The posts have been detailed and thoughtful, and I think that much of this critique is persuasive - and I am generally sympathetic to the sentiments expressed.

However, I do NOT agree that the mass appeal for Tolkien is necessarily a reflection of a peculiarly modern 'disconnection' or alienation, nor that it demonstrates a dovetailing between a work that is redolent of timeless values and an audience that, having lost faith in progress, longs to be 'grounded', as it were, in a collectively-mourned and idealistic sensibility.

Nostalgic evocations, attempts to 'return to core values', and so on, are not peculiar to our times (or recent times) and can be seen as a continuum in the production of art or artefact through the ages. In addition, indirectly (and sometimes explicitly) recidivist artistic movements do traditionally achieve popular success. The collective audience has always been, and remains, on the whole conservative and habitual. Against this, innovation and revolution co-exist - flaring up and infiltrating mainstream consciousness until they, too, become assimilated into the sense of what is reassuring, expected and understood.

With this in mind, the enduring appeal of Tolkien could be seen as simply a synergy between a stolid and nostalgic audience and a work that harks back to an imagined "comfort zone" of secure morality and stable social/natural boundaries. In the same way, the (to my mind awful) 'safari' paintings of David Shepherd (sub-19th century photographic-style renditions of tigers, elephants etc.) are tremendously popular ... in this case the method (and the perceived role) of Shepherd's art are the instantly accessible beacons of conservatism. You could use countless examples to illustrate this point - from the dominant musical genres that have reached a stylistic plateau (jazz, romanticism) and are utterly "establishment", to Walt Disney, and so on.

My personal feeling is that, along with the ideas raised in previous posts that I summarised above, this interpretation is ALSO true ... or, a part of the truth, if you prefer.

This means that, at the risk of appearing iconoclastic, it doesn't absolutely follow that LotR is unchallengably profound, or the benchmark of spiritual values, or the 'voice' of our time. Obviously, it's a book smilies/smile.gif and a darn good one, in my view. But there is a danger, in the current consensus I referred to, of appropriating it (see Trilogy and Bible thread for a similar development of this theme) to legitimise our particular worldview.

Nostalgia is, literally, a psychological sickness. And I think that is in a way how Tolkien himself (in his stories) described the attempts by the Elves to simply consolidate and maintain a snapshot version of their artistic culture ... always looking back - this was the Doom of the Elves. Naturally, change and progress meant destruction, chaos and the loss of beauty. Yet to defy or try and avert/ignore change leads ultimately to sterility, introspection and stasis. This subtle insight by Tolkien is in effect the point I am making. And it also places his work and its popularity in a longer cycle of humanity than merely our modern (and unarguably chaotic and insecure) age.

As I said, this is to my mind a part of the whole, much of which has been expressed with great eloquence by others above.

Littleman, I like your phrase "subcreation - art - is the provenance of humanity". This is why, the human (ie. artists) cannot be divorced from the art. Our aesthetics are a construct that centre upon the object rather than the creator - but our relationship is with the artist, however distant. And therefore the purpose of the artist is part of the 'true' aesthetic.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Estel the Descender]

I remember a time when works made by Tolkien and others were read only by 'nerds' or people obsessed with Dungeons and Dragons. But even then they do not really read them in the sense intentended by the author/s.

The modern Fantasy genre was pioneered by JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis with their LotR and Chronicles respectively. Both liked fairy tales but did not like Walt Disney. Anybody who has read the original 'Little Mermaid' by Hans Christian Andersen and liked it find it very hard to accept the Disney version (yes, I know Walt Disney was already dead by then, but ol' Disney changed Pinoccio, too, and it was not like the original). Lewis thought that Disney made the dwarves (of Snow White) 'vulgar' or silly. That Tolkien made the dwarves in his mythology a noble race shows that he probably had the same opinion as Lewis.

There is another trend today, however. For those who watched the movie 'Grimm's Snow White' and read the original Grimm Brothers' 'Snowdrop' will see that the movie and the original are completely different. Unlike Disney, the movie-makers decided to make the story as gritty as possible, plus a little social commentary. If Disnay made the dwarves silly, the movie made them non-existent. It seems that for the fantasy genre to be respectable, it has to be 'logical' from the modern point of view, i.e., there are no 'real' dwarves and yada-yada.

I hope nobody even THINKS of doing that to Tolkien or Lewis. Well, there is that silly Rankin-Bass version of The Hobbit and Return of the King. But should the modification happen (forbid it!) why would anyone modify the stories? The same reason they modified Snow White and the Little Mermaid: to 'Disneyfy' it would make 'kids' like it better, while to 'de-mythologize' it would make it more acceptable to 'adults'.

That is why I asked if anyone ever played the Final Fantasy series. Here are games which departed from the usual save-the-princess and kid-becomes-special formulae. All that magic, all that fantasy was intended as a setting for the character development of the 'heroes'. The same goes for the Tolkien books. We do not find long explanations on 'dragons are an ancient and mysterious race' or 'the spell for casting is "laiant, corvee, lammao!' Tolkien actually in a sense 'belittled' magic. Like in The Hobbit where Gandalf tried to open the Troll cave with magic but was unable to until Bilbo produced the troll key. And the famous Door of Durin scene where Gandalf's fancy Sindarin is unable to open the passage until a simple word ('Friend') does the trick. Compare THAT with, 'Windgardium leviosa!' and screaming mandrakes and all that D&D preoccupation with magic weapons and armor and tools and. . . well Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf did have magic weapons but their value was primarily 'historical' in the narratives. People think that in the fantasy genre its the magical element that is the most important. The reason why Star Trek lasted so long was that in their episodes they concentrated more on storytelling than on sci-fi technology.

I have always associated the modernist and postmodernist attitudes as either 'Disneyfying' or 'de-mythologizing'. Given Tolkien's stance towards literature being more or less historico-grammatical (or in his case, historico-philological) as well as his Romish dislike for 'allegory' I am fairly sure that he would have rejected such attitudes. To quote Kalessin, "human (ie. artists) cannot be divorced from the art. . . therefore the purpose of the artist is part of the 'true' aesthetic". Tolkien made his stories so that the languages he composed can have a setting for their development as well as to provide 'entertainment' (yeah, I know some of you guys out there hate this word, but entertainment need not be connected with capital gain; I mean entertainment to mean 'providing enjoyment' to whatever target audience). To interpret his work contrary to his intention is indeed to divorce the art from the artist. No hidden meanings, no moral lessons, no socio-political commentary, no nothing!

Meneg Suilaid,
Estel Ohtarion

P.S.
I admit it. . . I AM A HISTORICO-GRAMMATIST!!! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA!!! smilies/biggrin.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Kalessin, thank you for hosting this thread with admirable courtesy.

I restate your disagreement in the following question: "Is mass appeal of Tolkien necessarily a reflection of a peculiarly modern 'disconnection' or alienation?" I grant that there may be Tolkien aficianados for whom disconnection from the past, or alienation, is not the driving force of their love of Middle Earth; yet I would wager that it plays a role in the majority. There are different aspects to the desire to escape alienation, such as environmentalist
sensitivity, yearning for community, urge to escape industrial dehumanization (The Machine), a need to be freed from the bland
(brand) homogenization of popular culture, a longing for a sense of purpose and a meant-to-be-ness in life, a craving for Faerie, or a hunger for feeling alive instead of half alive, for light instead of shadows and darkness; I do not doubt that there are other modes (note the root word for modernism there).

All of these modes (and more I'm sure), can be found in LotR. Thus LotR is a modern work of literature. It could not have been written in any century but the 20th, because as much as it evoked all these modes of escape from humdrum modern life, those very modes are themselves accessible to a particularly modern mind. Consider how Tolkien evokes the Shire through dialogue and detailed description of character,
setting, and societal attributes; or how the Ring as a nexus of evil seizes upon the imagination of a particularly modern mind with a whole variety of applications - the drive for power; addiction; the complexity of human (read also elvish and dwarvish) motivation regarding desire for the Ring. I could go on and on but I think my point is established.

Related question: "Does the mass appeal for Tolkien demonstrate a dovetailing between a work redolent of timeless values and an audience that, having lost faith in progress, longs to be 'grounded' in a
collectively-mourned and idealistic sensibility?"

I'll need to be persuaded that there is a lack of dovetailing with collectively mourned sensibility. I'm not convinced that nostalgia is the correct word in speaking of the sense of a lost reality. There is a nostalgic piece in Tolkien, granted. And I take exception to a broad-brush naming of all nostalgia as psychological sickness - after all, is not the lost beauty of the old English and old American countrysides something worth mourning? Of course one must go beyond mourning or fall prey to psychological sicknes. But there is more that is yearned for in Tolkien than a past reality, it is Faerie, a reality that is more
real than the reality we live in. More alive. More full of light and color. This is best evoked by Tolkien in Smith of Wootton Major, my favorite of all of Tolkien's works.

I am not convinced that timeless values and an idealistic sensibility is the sum of that which is mourned. What was lost was myth making. Myth may have been lost, rejected by modernist scientific rationalism (which is not bad in itself, just poverty stricken wihtout myth making), but it is something we cannot do without. The modernist attempt to do so was a historical aberration and the postmodernist embrace of myth is a return to this natural human means of subcreation. The hobbits did reassert their way of life in the Shire after they defeated Saruman, and this way of life was ensured by a benevolent monarchy. Could Tolkien have been prophetic, and we hobbits may yet throw off the oppressive ugliness of modernism and kick Sharky out?

Estel Descending (I like the name): I saw Final Fantasy on the big screen but have never played the game. I enjoyed the story and do recognize that it was not disneyfied nor demythologized. Of course it's no LotR, but that's asking for too much. Another example of demythologizing is "Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister", a retelling of the Cinderella story without the magic and the myth. It was enjoyable, but it was a different story.

[Nar]

I'm beginning to think that whatever The Lord of the Rings is, it is something of great value of a type that overlaps with literary values, while being not quite the same thing. Those who respond so powerfully seem to be finding a catharsis which is directed by the themes of the book. They find wisdom in it, and help. The words 'popular,' 'entertaining'
or even 'enduringly popular' (though that comes closest as an indicator) don't really seem to cover this. Themes are discussed elsewhere, but here's my list:
Loss of a connection to the past;
Loss of a connection to the environment;
Pervasive spirituality which is neverthless fluid and non-controlling;
A narrative of depression, despair and endurance;
Friendship and companionship.
Littlemanpoet and Child of the 7th age have ably described the theme of losses. When I read the book as a child it helped my endure a depression: it put heart into me. No other book had such an effect. This is more than just entertainment or the pushing of pleasant emotional buttons, as an action movie might. Pleasurable stimuli does not change a person, or help them in any way.

Why does this book have such an influence over some readers? It is not simply because it has good or wise themes. My best intuition is this: This book is working the way a poem works. I don't know that I understand that statement well enough to defend it, but I'll try.

An effective poem, the kind that 'blows the top of your head off' (Dylan Thomas, I believe) depends on a disciplined negotiation between form and meaning. So when I say it's working like a poem, that must be what I mean. The only example I can think of is a sequence from Virginnia Woolf's book To the Lighthouse(sorry, it's not a poem, just the best example I can think of): husband and wife are sitting reading, and the narrator describes their relationship as an unfolding rose, and somehow the language unfolded in petals like a rose. I don't know quite how she did it, but it involved the repetition of short phrases that in that context were somehow like petals, and the velvety sounds of the language she used. Yes, it blew the top of my head off. I became a different person; my mind became different, faster. The effect lasted about an hour.

There are many ways of executing literature effectively, but I'll define as poetry that relentless conjunction between form (shape and sound and rhythm) and meaning. No doubt that was obvious, but I had to make the argument to load the idea into my conciousness.

The Lord of the Rings is not refined to the highest degree of literary polish: every word is good, but not, I think, perfect. Although I love every word as it is! Nor is it seeking a tough-minded moral inquiry that dances on the edge of amorality, which can be seen in the finest examples of modern literature. It just puts heart into you. Its effect is not on consciousness but on the character of its readers (responsive readers).

The intuition I'm attempting to work out is that this effect on the character of a reader, at quite a deep level when it works, is caused by this conjuction of form and meaning, negotiated to the nth degree with determination and integrity. However, this negotiation is not happening on the surface of the text, which would be recognizable as high literary polish. The Lord of the Rings would then be in the literary canon-- no controversy, no argument. No, catharsis is achieved below the style, sound, rhythm and polish of the text. Catharsis comes from a negotiation between the deeper form (the plot, characters and terms under which their world exists) and the deeper meaning (the themes) Ok, now have I solved it? Have I reached the definition of quality along the lines of catharsis? That's the best I can do, anyway.

This would imply that later books in the fantasy tradition that fail, may fail because they do not pursue this negotiation between the deep structure and themes of the story: they just import a worn copy of Tolkien's solution, and they do so without understanding it. This argument must be waged anew for each new book within its new world for the same effect on the readers to be achieved.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Belin]

That's beautiful, Nar! I've been following this thread for some time with the intention of finding a way to express something like that, but I don't think I could ever have come quite that close. You've expressed JUST what I think art is about; it does That Thing to an onlooker that's so difficult to describe, and which is necessary, not an escape at all but necessary. And fantasy, used properly, is a good way to go about it, because all the literalisms and all the mundanity doesn't have to get in the way. It can go straight into you without having to pass through the stupid details of your life and yet does not in the slightest eschew detail. But fantasy is difficult, any way of doing this is difficult, so people try to use the people that went before them and they very often fail. Or,as you put it: This would imply that later books in the fantasy tradition that fail, may fail because they do not pursue this negotiation between the deep structure and themes of the story: they just import a worn copy of Tolkien's solution, and they do so without understanding it. This argument must be waged anew for each new book within its new world for the same effect on the readers to be achieved.

And it happens very, very seldom. Tolkien, yes, and Goya, and especially Rilke (who you might want to read if you haven't; anyway he does precisely that to me) and maybe one or two others are all that I've found for it, but it does happen and it encourages me so much about what the world is about.
....and I don't have that much more to say, after all... I'm very sorry to intrude myself upon this thread without something brilliant to add myself but I was so impressed by this that I just had to respond.
And, Kalessin & Co... This is indeed a great inquiry. Thanks so very much.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[littlemanpoet]

An effective poem, the kind that 'blows the top of your head off' ... depends on a disciplined negotiation between form and meaning.

Nar, this is excellent.

... catharsis is achieved below the style, sound, rhythm and polish of the text. Catharsis comes from a negotiation between the deeper form (the plot, characters and terms under which their world exists) and the deeper meaning (the themes). Ok, now have I solved it? Have I reached the definition of quality along the lines of catharsis?

Maybe. I need this expanded upon. I don't know if this is the right question, but what is the content of the deeper form and deeper meaning that sets LotR apart? Or am I asking for specifics where you were trying to generalize?

Guy Gavriel Kay comes to mind as a fresh approach which almost (in my mind) succeeded where most efforts in fantasy failed, in his Fionavar Tapestry series. His evocation is well done and his content is more adapted to a non-theist mentality, I'm thinking. Maybe that's what causes the 'almost' for me, which may say more about me than Kay. Any thoughts on this?

Belin, welcome to the thread. You need not apologize for intruding.

...fantasy, used properly, is a good way to go about [That Thing so difficult to describe and so necessary] because all the literalisms and all the mundanity doesn't have to get in the way. It can go straight into you without having to pass through the stupid details of your life and yet does not in the slightest eschew detail.

I think this is a useful insight, and if it was said already by someone else on the thread I'm glad you brought it out again. That Thing is necessary.

I have never been exposed to Goya or Rilke. Please inform Belin.

[Belin]

Thanks, littleman.... Of course, I ought to have known that diffidence was unwarranted on such a friendly forum! It's just that I was in such awe of this thread.....
Anyway, I won't comment on my own comments just yet. smilies/smile.gif

Goya: An extremely intense Spanish painter, to whom everyone may not respond in the same way I did (he's strange). You might already know "The Third of May" and "The Naked Maja" and "The Clothed Maja". Rilke: An AMAZING Austrian (I think) poet... I'll send you some quotes if you like. But this is enough OT rambling for now.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[Kalessin]

Nar, I think your reasoning in relation to the nature of form and content was both succinct and compelling. However, I disagree strongly with your 'jazz' reference. Jazz was (and is) a musical expression of 'rebellion', and as performance it is explicitly improvisational. Historically jazz was a music associated with vibrant sexuality, resistance to authority and the establishment, and a specifically urban and modern (black) aesthetic. To my mind neither these concepts nor the idea of thematic improvisations are at work in the phrases of Tolkien. His 'style', so to speak, seems to me to be of a different lineage. I also have a gut feeling he would have seen true jazz (not the bleached anaesthetic of Glenn Miller or Paul Whiteman) as something both decadent and threatening, and might have preferred the particular authenticity of Paul Robeson ... but I could be totally wrong. The stylistic point, at least, is important.

Stephanos, Child of the 7th Age, Mithadan, Estel, Belin and too many others to mention have also made eloquent and worthwhile contributions to the more general issues raised by my initial questions. The posts in this thread have pretty much all been stimulating, thoughtful and interesting, and serve to confirm my high opinion of my fellow Barrowdowners smilies/smile.gif

I feel as though I have answers to my general query about valid criticisms within the fantasy genre - from Lush's "steroid-man on horse" covers to Aiwendil's key insight into the imitation of LotR. Mithadan has placed the imitative process in context by showing the distinctive circumstances of LotR's inception, while others have accurately addressed the subsequent publishing and marketing factors. And between us we appear to have hammered a way through the relationship between an author's role, intention, and the function and effect of a work ... without necessarily agreeing on every point, the collective arguments provide us with a critical framework in which both unjust and 'valid criticisms' of the genre, and the distinct nature of LotR, can be understood.

I'm going to come back to Nar's essay on meaning and catharsis, and link it to Littleman's insight about the loss of 'myth-making'. These two excellent and effective lines of reasoning can be pulled together into an interpretation that seems to have some merit. Perhaps, as some well-known writers have said, there are only a few real stories. And all good books are re-creations of these eternal and archetypal narratives, invigorated by craft and imagination (er, please let's leave the Bible out of this argument for a moment).

Could it be that LotR is a re-telling of one or more of these eternal stories - and specificially a narrative of sacrifice and redemption? Is this what makes it seminal, whilst appealing to a modernised and culturally fragmented audience? Perhaps the old myths that we no longer hear were, in their way, also re-tellings of those eternal stories, and LotR (in a new and inventive way) like them, taps into our deepest empathies and identifications, and fulfils our cathartic need (back to Nar).

Now, being an 'eternal' story, or one of only a few, does not mean those stories have to be simple or childish. In fact it's probably the opposite - in order for them to remain 'true' and archetypal the eternal stories must acknowledge and include many of our human subtleties.

This reading of the nature of LotR allows us to see it's ongoing popularity as more than just a reaction to today's world (which makes it seem like a historical accident), and ties in with Tolkien's own background in mythos. It also further develops the theme of subsequent imitators failing because they absorbed and retold the superficial elements - instead of the 'real' stories.

Just a thought smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Estel the Descender]

Quote from Tolkien: 'Fantasy. . . certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make. . . If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they ever get into that state. . . Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion. . . For creative Fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as it appears under the sun; on a recognition of fact, but not a slavery to it'.

[Mister Underhill]

Well, quite an interesting (not to mention exhaustive) discussion! Congratulations to Kalessin for a provocative topic and to all for the articulate examination thereof. As usual these days, I’m late to the party, but I’ll try to see if I can find a fresh contribution or two that I can slide in edgewise. Forgive me if a few of these thoughts are dated in terms of the discussion. Seems I’ve been in the midst of composing a reply for over a week, but each day brings fresh new posts and a rapid advance of the conversation.

Form and Meaning – a fundamental problem?
I’ll join the general chorus in commending your work in the post at the top of this page, Nar. In this day and age, fantasy faces a double-whammy – a market that wishes to dumb-down the form in order to reach the broadest possible audience and to sanitize the meaning into trite, easily digestible (and above all, inoffensive) aphorisms.

I still feel the original question (or one of them, in any case) remains unanswered, though. Why is modern fantasy literature still a world with legions of Salieris and only one Mozart? Are we to believe that somewhere out there, gathering dust in a desk drawer (or several), is a magnum opus of power and skill commensurate with (but not imitative of) LotR whose publishing and discovery has been blocked by mere market forces? Are we so cynical that we believe that such a work wouldn’t be discovered by someone if it passed across a few dozen editors’ desks today? Any lover of science-fiction can name a score of masters of the art without hesitation. Lovers of fantasy fiction might struggle to name half a dozen, and always Tolkien towers above other aspirants to the throne. Science-fiction is periodically revolutionized and reinvigorated by new authors and varied new movements; fantasy fiction (i.e., swords-and-sorcery fiction in this context) remains depressingly static and repetitive.

Does the fantasy genre have some inherent flaw which dictates that we’ll only receive one great masterpiece in our time? Or, conversely, is the form so inherently difficult and challenging (compared to other genres) that only a precious, gifted few are capable of mounting to its summit?

Post-modernism
I’ll admit it. I’ve seen this phrase bandied about for nigh onto a couple of decades now, but I’ve never had more than a tenuous grasp on what it really means. It’s a slippery term and seems to mean different things to different people. I went and found a definition on a university website: Postmodernism: Main features include (1)Pastiche: a putting together of elements of style from radically different contexts and historical epochs. (2) Reflexivity: the capacity to be self aware, often accompanied by a sense of irony. (3) Relativism: the absence of objective standards of truth. (4) An opposition to certain classical artistic techniques such as narrative -- telling a story in an ordered sequence closed off at the end -- and representation -- attempting to depict reality. (5) a disrespect for, and a wish to cross, traditional artistic boundaries such as those between popular and high culture and between different artistic forms. (6) A lessened belief in the importance of the author as the creator of the text. Now, I’m certainly not saying this is the last word on post-modernism, I just want to provide a basis for discussion.

So the one that really caught my eye was number 3 – “the absence of objective standards of truth”. Now it’s my turn to see your devil’s advocacy and raise you, Kalessin. You’ve argued passionately and skillfully against reading too much of Tolkien’s spiritual belief system into his work, preferring instead to view LotR as a broadly accessible piece that defies “ownership” by any particular religion or group. Is it possible that we’ve gotten what we wished for when we vehemently deny the Christian underpinnings to Tolkien’s work – fantasy that has no spiritual weight behind it, no conviction, no sense of high moral truths, but that instead substitutes a cheap, banal, sanitized, Cracker Jack morality where the bad guys are mustachio-twirling villains and the good guys are square-jawed Dudley Do-Right types (or, alternatively, rogues-with-hearts-of-gold) and no one ever really has to make any hard choices. Incidentally, I’m not saying that Christianity has a corner on the market, but since the conventions of the swords and sorcery genre are inextricably linked with the history of Europe, I’d say that Christianity at least sits at the head of the table (if you’ll pardon my mixed metaphor).

Art, Aesthetics, and Meaning
Aiwendil, though you’ve explained your position re: the requirements and definitions of Art with great articulation and persuasiveness, I must say I find a curious disconnect between your assertion that "The purpose of art is to be aesthetically beautiful (or ‘entertaining’)" and your slamming of the likes of Britney Spears. Spears and her ilk seem to be the ultimate expression of your assertion – they produce “art” which has been engineered to be nothing more than aesthetically (i.e., sensually) pleasing. But perhaps here I’m doing a disservice by lumping all mediums under the general umbrella “art”. What I’m taking away from your arguments is this: that the purest, most legitimate form of art is that which is all form and no content. In some mediums, this may be a tenable argument, but I think that in literature, it cannot hold. All literature expresses some form of morality, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

Art As An Instrument of Change
Aiwendil, your argument here is again well-taken – though I think that in today’s world, where we live and die in an environment steeped in media that has a global reach, I think that the ability of art to effect change in the world has grown considerably. Maybe not individual works of art, but artistic trends, and the ethics transmitted (again, wittingly or unwittingly – or maybe half-wittedly) thereby.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thank you, Kalessin, for starting a fascinating discussion and thanks to all who've written so eloquently and intelligently - it's been great reading! The archetypal aspects of the mythology of fantasy have been mentioned. I would like to pick that up on a new thread, since it would take this one a different direction, unnecessarily so. Look for "Tolkien and Psychology" on this forum if you're interested; I hope it will become a worthwhile discussion as well!

[Nar]

Kalessin-- You're right. Jazz was the wrong comparison. I meant 'variations on a theme.' I agree, Tolkien's variations are more conservative/ classical. I was trying to contrast the alienating effect of coining a word with a bald introduction, as in the movie, or in other works of fantasy.
Compare 'We must reach the woods of Lothlorien!' to the variations on a theme by definition, elaboration, naming and renaming:
There lie the woods of Lothlorien! ... then the boughs are laden with yellow flowers; and the floor of the wood is golden, and golden is the roof, and its pillars are of silver ... the woods of Laurelindorian! That is what the elves used to call it, ... Lothlorian ... Land of the Valley of Singing Gold, that was it, once upon a time. Now it is the Dreamflower. ... Laurelindorinan lindelorendor ...'

Belin--Thank you for the kind words. I liked your description of 'that thing.'
art ... does That Thing to an onlooker that's so difficult to describe, and which is necessary, not an escape at all but necessary. And fantasy, used properly, is a good way to go about it, because all the literalisms and all the mundanity doesn't have to get in the way. It can go straight into you without having to pass through the stupid details of your life and yet does not in the slightest eschew detail.
I recall the strange parallel Madjas. What I most remember of Goya's is his dark narrative drawings, though I don't think I responded the way you did. Don't know any other pictures of his. I don't know Rilke.

littlemanpoet-- thank you for your response, and for the insightful questions. I don't know the works of Kay. I'll try to clarify my ideas for you.

By meaning, I mean themes: Loss, Spirituality, Friendship, Depression, etc.

By structure, I mean plot and character, mainly. Also, the terms by which the world functions: magic, peoples and languages, geography, prehistory, etc. I like Kalessin's term archetype. I would say the structure of the Lord of the Rings is built out of several archetypes, each of which serves a theme.

These archetypes derive from a common heritage of myth, stories, and Tolkien's Catholic faith. I'll check out your thread, Estelyn. Right now, I'm concerned with Tolkien's methods as applied to archetypes. Some examples:

Archetype: Kalessin's 'narrative of sacrifice and redemption,' Theme: Spirituality
Archetype: a narrative of loss and nostalgia, Theme: loss of a connection to the past and the environment
Archetype: a narrative of the heroic quest, Theme: surmounting depression and despair, I think. It depends on the applicability of the dark lord.
Archetype: a narrative pulse in which a miserable, difficult trek in the wild repeatedly culminates in shelter! fire! food! friends! Yes, I think entering the pub or the friend's house after a long day of walking is a powerful archetype for Tolkien. Theme: friendship and companionship, romantically heightened by these reverses.

The negotiation I spoke of --between theme and structure-- is made necessary by competing themes and their conflicting archetypes. In some cases the archetypes also enhance and intensify each other's effects. This is what makes the structure, together with the themes of the story, feel composed to me, rather than just borrowed from powerful sources. It renews and refreshs the archetypes.

Kalessin, I am not simply saying this book is as effective as it is because it taps a powerful archetype. The reconciliation between competing themes and conflicting (or cooperating) archtypes makes the depths of the story seem composed. Below the surface it feels to me like a poem.

Mr Underhill, let's say for the sake of argument that Tokien's composition of a great, powerful, emotioanlly rewarding --mmm-- Hyper-Archetype is so comprehensive it gives later writers no motivation to perform their own negotiation of theme and structure-- all the relevant archetypes have been put together for them. Avoiding this necessary stage in the creation of a new story in a new world fatally impoverishes their creative process. I doubt this is the case, but if so, then the fantasy genre would then be in a plight similar to that of Ungolient the devourer -- she could only consume herself until there was nothing left. I don't think things are quite that hopeless-- I hope not! I haven't performed a comprehensive review of current fantasy writing, so I have hope that the good new books are out there, and I'm just not detecting them through the noise. Suppose this is a factor, though, what should a writer do to induce a fresh act of sub-creation? Read Tolkien's sources but try to forget Tolkien and everything after? Avoid the medieval era? Learn fresh narrative techniques by reading books outside of the fantasy genre that also describe a world as well as tell a story? I was reading a book review of David Davidar's The House of Blue Mangoes written by Akash Kapur, when I came across this, which I thought was applicable to fantasy writing also. (NY Times Book Review, 3-31-2002)

Some of the obstacles he faces are particular to Indian (or, at any rate, non-Western) writers. ... for Indian authors, the difficulty involves writing for a Western audience that knows little about the society in question. V.S. Naipaul, lamenting the difficulties he faced, pointed out that 'fiction works best in a confined moral and cultural area, where the rules are generally known.' ... Writers like Rushdie and Seth – and now Davidar – have responded to this challenge by attempting to reconstruct in their fiction the edifice of subcontinental culture. Their novels are not only narratives .. but ... ethnographies, explorations and lessons in cultural difference that provide context even as they tell a story

This applies to writing fantasy novels also. I think we need a new definition of the fantasy novel. How about, the fantasy novel creates a world and tells a story of elemental power. Is that enough? If India didn't exist except in dreams, would these books qualify as fantasy? Someone else had better answer this last question, as I've just started reading my first novel in this genre. (A House for Mr Biswas, by V.S. Naipaul) Also, we could try reading anthropology. Perhaps as readers, we should establish an 'alternative fantasy' category. What books would you put into it?

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Mister Underhill]

Ah! Quite an excellent and succinct articulation of the challenges of writing fiction which takes place in a setting for which a writer must provide context. Although I don’t think I’ve ever read a novel by an Indian author, I often wish when reading Kipling that I had an Appendix or two to flip to to get a bit more context. Kipling provides a good bridge – he has to work to orient the reader vis-á-vis culture, language, and geography, but also assumes much which, a century later and an ocean away, is confusing, if not downright incomprehensible without outside investigation.

I like your idea that Tolkien has created a “Devourer of Archetypes”. This, to me, is a more satisfying explanation than the problem of mere imitation. Perhaps we have also identified an inherent challenge to creating fresh, powerful work in the genre – in sci-fi, advances in science and technology, as well as an openness to new narrative techniques and styles, help feed innovation within the genre, whereas in fantasy, the pool of archetypes and historical/mythological influences remains a static constant and there is less receptivity to new styles and modes of storytelling.

[Aiwendil]

I must say I find a curious disconnect between your assertion that "The purpose of art is to be aesthetically beautiful (or ‘entertaining’ smilies/wink.gif" and your slamming of the likes of Britney Spears. Spears and her ilk seem to be the ultimate expression of your assertion – they produce “art” which has been engineered to be nothing more than aesthetically (i.e., sensually) pleasing.

I don't think I've really made my position clear. I realize that now this is rather beside the point of the argument, but allow me to clarify my point of view.

I make a distinction between art that is aesthetically pleasing and art that is popular, based on the supposition that people can be more or less fooled into thinking that a thing is good. There are people who like Britney Spears because it is the popular thing to like; there are people who dislike Mozart because they have never given him a chance. Popularity isn't an accurate measurement of the quality of a work of art because it is in part governed by factors such as these, rather than by aesthetic merit alone.

Spears and her ilk seem to be the ultimate expression of your assertion – they produce “art” which has been engineered to be nothing more than aesthetically (i.e., sensually) pleasing

I don't think the music of these people is aesthetically pleasing. It is engineered to be popular, not to be beautiful. Surely Beethoven's 9th symphony is more aesthetically/sensually pleasing than a Britney Spears song.

But I also do not equate 'aesthetic' with 'sensual'.

What I’m taking away from your arguments is this: that the purest, most legitimate form of art is that which is all form and no content.

This was not my intended meaning. The purest and most legitimate form of art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing. But aesthetic pleasure is a result of both form and content. When I read, say, King Lear, I enjoy the form: the language, the plot (which is really part form, part content), etc. But my pleasure is enhanced by an understanding of the content: the importance of royalty, the naturalistic evil of Edmund, the conflict between false eloquence and ineloquent truth, etc. I do think that form is important, but I don't think that content is worthless. Aesthetic beauty is not just sensual beauty; in fact, I think it is almost the antithesis of sensual beauty. It is beauty that appeals to mind (rather than to the senses), on all its levels - from emotion to intellect.

Aiwendil, your argument here is again well-taken – though I think that in today’s world, where we live and die in an environment steeped in media that has a global reach, I think that the ability of art to effect change in the world has grown considerably.

Excellent point. Certainly the ability of art to effect change has grown. But it tends to be popular art that effects change; or at least it is popular art that effects change the most quickly.

let's say for the sake of argument that Tokien's composition of a great, powerful, emotioanlly rewarding --mmm-- Hyper-Archetype is so comprehensive it gives later writers no motivation to perform their own negotiation of theme and structure-- all the relevant archetypes have been put together for them.

This is very true, Nar. The problem is that the modern fantasy genre is more or less defined by this hyper-archetype. It's difficult to create a fantasy world that is not an imitation of Tolkien without it crossing over the boundaries of the genre.

[Kalessin]

Nar, your latest piece is beautifully weighted, and I am very much in sympathy with the subtlety of your analysis. The truth, if such a thing can inferred, is to my mind generally a collage of light and shade ... only from the distance does it appear black or white. In this way I concur that there is a feeling of conviction and assurance (perhaps reassurance) in LotR that results from his comprehensive and - importantly - successful drawing together of influences and themes. I also agree that it is not a 'mannered' book, there is less of a surface manifestation of literary method.

Underhill, I agree that to utterly disassociate from moral absolutes can leave us like a postmodern Uroboros, locked in a self-devouring circularity without meaning. Yet to argue against appropriation or a particular evangelical interpretation of the work does not push us into such a corner. There is a middle ground, one that empowers us as readers yet at the same time allows the author to be resolute and visionary. At least I hope so ...

Nar, your reference to the development of a new (and yet old) identity in Indian literature is well chosen. The reawakening of ethnic sensibility whilst remaining culturally informed by the present and all its self-conscious eclecticism is a phenomenon that has arisen repeatedly in recent times. A significant proportion of the Jewish diaspora found success or renown as artists - in Russia, South Africa, and elsewhere. And certainly in eastern Europe and in Cape Town (this century) there was a definite attempt to revitalise a 'collective Jewish identity' amidst the most challenging and cerebral non-figurative movements. In jazz too, the attempt to reinvigorate the genre with elements of African motif and culture became apparent from the 60's onwards.

Perhaps the difficulty with the 'fantasy' genre as a whole is not that there is no room for a new (or new/old) aesthetic. And whilst Tolkien may have produced a seminal work, that alone would not inhibit the development of the genre - especially after all these years. The "last book ever written" has been applied to hundreds of earth-shaking books over the last century ... yet there is always a way forward. Perhaps Underhill is right, that the mythic core of fantasy is definitively limited (unlike the more fluid boundaries of sci-fi) - or perhaps, as others have pointed out, the marketplace and our shallow modern culture have combined to strangle any nascent evolution. Perhaps - you might find this contentious - the essence of nostalgia apparent in Tolkien is itself something that encourages stasis and formulaic restatement.

I have lots of possible answers to my initial question, and I'm looking forward to getting stuck into Estelyn's new thread. I'm also feeling the need to avoid hagiography - you know "Tolkien was just so brilliant that everyone else is ...". Suffice it to say that I continue to find what we share (in terms of attempting to address complex issues with eloquent reasoning and open-mindedness) stimulating and heartening.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and once I saw Mr. U.'s name on it *bows politely* I knew we would be touching on subjects of mutual interest. (Mr. U, whilst occasionally we wind up on opposite sides of the table, what concerns us seems to fall into the same categories).

This has brought up more questions than answers for me.

..whereas in fantasy, the pool of archetypes and historical/mythological influences remains a static constant..

Doesn't this theory of an "Archetypal Devourer" imply that once, say, Beowulf was written, there was no need or room for the LotR, as those Archetypes were fully explored?
Or would that mean that there can only be one seminal work to dominate Fantasy until it loses its potency once sheer age, shifts in language and culture makes it unreadable to its intended audience?
Is that dominance simply because one work came first? And due to the fact it explores the same Archetypes, a second work on this naturally limited genre can only be inevitably compared to it?
Or is it due to the quality of the work itself?
If this dominance is due to the quality of the work, then the Archetypal Devourer theory is disproved, because the it is the individual work that is important, not the nature of the genre.

..and there is less receptivity to new styles and modes of storytelling.

This sounds more like an addiction on the part of the audience, to tell you the truth. An addiction to a particular feeling, or catharsis. If receptivity is the issue, and the "Archetypal Devourer" is not, than the audience for the genre is the real limitation if Fantasy.

Yet to argue against appropriation or a particular evangelical interpretation of the work does not push us into such a corner. There is a middle ground, one that empowers us as readers yet at the same time allows the author to be resolute and visionary.

I concur, but there is more than a middle ground, which is negotiation between convictions, rather, I'm minded of an image of water welling up from underground. On the surface, it would appear the water belongs to this or that piece of geography. In reality, the water is deeper and more profound than the geographical limitations we give it. That is not to say the geographical limitations are not important, they are necessary, in their context. But the truth we try quantify, if it is really profound, is going to supercede and over run the contexts we try place on it. I think this, rather than mere frustration with allegory, was what Tolkien as an artist was driving at when he refused to go along with the casual categorization of his writing. This begs the question if simple use of Archetypes is the only factor that sets the LotR apart in the Fantasy genre?

I think Tolkien had a sense for this kind of subtlety, as seen in his letters quoted recently in the Bible and Trilogy thread: It was written slowly and with great care for detail, & finally emerged as ... a searchlight ... on a small part of our Middle-earth, surrounded by the glimmer of limitless extensions in time and space. Very well: that may explain to some extent why it 'feels' like history; why it was accepted for publication; and why it has proved readable for a large number of very different kinds of people. But it does not fully explain what has actually happened. Looking back ... I feel as if an ever darkening sky over our present world had been suddenly pierced, the clouds rolled back, and an almost forgotten sunlight had poured down again. As if indeed the horns of Hope had been hear again, as Pippin heard them suddenly at the absolute nadir of the fortunes of the west. but How? and Why?
I think I can now guess what Gandalf would reply. A few years ago I was visited in Oxford by a man whose name I have forgotten ... He had been much struck by the curious way in which many old pictures seemed to him to have been designed to illustrate The Lord of the Rings long before its time. ... I think he wanted at first simply to discover whether my imagination had fed on pictures, as it clearly had been by certain kinds of literature and languages. When it became obvious that, unless I was a liar, I had never seen the pictures before ... he fell silent. I became aware that he was looking fixedly at me. Suddenly he said: 'Of course you don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?'
Pure Gandalf! I was too well acquainted with G. to expose myself rashly, or to ask what he meant. I think I said: 'No, I don't suppose so any longer.' I have never since been able to suppose so. An alarming conclusion for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusement. But not one that should puff any one up who considers the imperfections of 'chosen instruments', and indeed what sometimes seems their lamentable unfitness for the purpose.


[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Mister Underhill]

Maril! I was wondering when you would show up.

First: Aiwendil, thank you for the further clarification. I admit to playing the devil’s advocate somewhat to illustrate a few points. I think a large part of the confusion comes from lumping differing mediums under the general banner of “Art” and then making generalizations. Leaving other forms aside and concentrating on literature, I guess the question then becomes, what sort of content is aesthetically pleasing, and what sort is problematic? Can content be separated from morality? We’re diving back into issues here that have already been thoroughly explored and which are rather abstract, so don’t feel compelled to respond if you’re weary of this line. The thing that fascinates me is that I agree with quite a bit of what you say, yet occasionally take something else you write to stand in opposition to other of your arguments, making me question whether I really read you right on the things I agree with. If that makes sense.

Kalessin: I don’t mean to argue for an evangelical interpretation of Tolkien’s works. I’ve noticed this is a sore spot for you, and it fascinates me somewhat. Consequently, I’ve somehow got into the position of defending what seems at times like an LotR-as-Biblical-allegory argument. I don’t think that acknowledging Tolkien’s Catholicism and its effects on his work poses any more danger of “appropriation” than acknowledging Tolkien’s Englishness and its effects on his work. I can acknowledge the work’s essential Englishness without feeling excluded from it because I’m an American. Take away the Englishness, and can you have LotR? If you take away the Catholicism, can you have it? Argh! – now I feel I’m stumbling off track. We need a grand Unified Tolkien Theory thread to integrate all these issues. The point I’m feeling my way around here is that fantasy these days subtracts the Catholicism (and all other kinds of –isms). *Sigh* Did I just go oh for two?

Maril. Or would that mean that there can only be one seminal work to dominate Fantasy until it loses its potency once sheer age, shifts in language and culture makes it unreadable to its intended audience? Is that dominance simply because one work came first? And due to the fact it explores the same Archetypes, a second work on this naturally limited genre can only be inevitably compared to it?
Or is it due to the quality of the work itself? If this dominance is due to the quality of the work, then the Archetypal Devourer theory is disproved, because the it is the individual work that is important, not the nature of the genre.Perhaps it’s the power of the Archetypal Devourer to swallow a might-have-been work before it can even be born. It leaves you wondering, what else is there to say? A person reads Tolkien and is inspired with love for the genre; grows up and aspires to follow in the footsteps of their hero. The lesser talents are content to imitate their icon; the truly great talents who might have been able to accomplish something of comparable quality are stunned into silence by Tolkien’s comprehensive treatment of the archetypes and icons of the genre, and go sell insurance or become telemarketers instead. Heh. I don’t want to get into hagiography either. The fact remains that no work of equivalent quality exists.

This sounds more like an addiction on the part of the audience, to tell you the truth. An addiction to a particular feeling, or catharsis. If receptivity is the issue, and the "Archetypal Devourer" is not, than the audience for the genre is the real limitation if Fantasy. I think you’re at least partly right here. I was astonished to learn that the Star Wars novel “I, Jedi” was considered a risky venture because it was written in (*gasp!*) the First Person (hence the title). However, I think that the conventions of the fantasy (i.e., swords-and-sorcery) genre play a large part here. Since tales of this sort employ ancient weaponry, ancient modes of travel, ancient technology, and other ancient iconography, a traditional, even antiquated mode of storytelling is the preferred style. Perhaps it’s the definition of the genre itself which has become such a straitjacket.

[Aiwendil]

I also agree that it is not a 'mannered' book, there is less of a surface manifestation of literary method.

This bit raised an interesting question in my mind. No, LotR is not a 'mannered' book; it is heroic rather than ironic. But what about The Hobbit? Here there is a surface manifestation of literary method. Here we have a truly ironic device, the fiction that the book is being told orally; this is especially true of the first few chapters.

This actually rekindled some hope in me for modern fantasy. Almost the entire modern genre is based on LotR. But Tolkien produced not one but three great works. The Hobbit and The Silmarillion go largely ignored, and unimitated. Perhaps because LotR was so succesful, modern authors have constricted the genre in an attempt to produce another LotR. But what the genre needs to remain innovative and productive is all three - anachronistic children's tales filled with wonder, heroic fantasy epics like we have now, and vast semi-tragic mythological cycles.

That's just a random idea I thought I'd share - to be honest, I'm not sure whether I believe it myself. But do with it what you will.

the essence of nostalgia apparent in Tolkien is itself something that encourages stasis and formulaic restatement.


This is an interesting idea, and I am tempted to agree with it for what it is. But I'm not sure it can help to explain the current state of the genre, since this nostalgia is one of the aspects of Tolkien which his imitators have failed to imitate.

I think a large part of the confusion comes from lumping differing mediums under the general banner of "Art" and then making generalizations.

But surely the term "art" has meaning. My supposition is this: there is a Platonic essence called "art"; this essence must exist in all media that we call the "arts". Because there is a single, common essence of art, there must be a single, common purpose for art that makes it art(regardless of whatever secondary purposes various media might have).

Leaving other forms aside and concentrating on literature, I guess the question then becomes, what sort of content is aesthetically pleasing, and what sort is problematic?

I don't pretend to have an answer to this; this is the question that the various theories of art (music theory, literary criticism, etc.) should address.

I think you're at least partly right here. I was astonished to learn that the Star Wars novel "I, Jedi" was considered a risky venture because it was written in (*gasp!*) the First Person (hence the title).

Sometimes (I would say frequently) the conventions of a genre or sub-genre are beneficial, however. I actually think I, Jedi suffered from being in the first person. That's because the first person simply doesn't work as well as the third person for that type of novel. It's like genetic mutations. Each human has on average two mutated genes. Very few of these are in genes that actually matter (many are in sections of useless DNA). Of those that do matter, almost all are harmful. Only a very small fraction are beneficial. It is through these few beneficial mutations that evolution occurs. Within a genre, each writer makes slight changes to the formula. The vast majority of these neither greatly improve nor greatly detract from the work. Of those that do matter, a great number detract from the work. Only a few of these innovations or new ideas are actually beneficial - but it is through these that literary evolution occurs. The only difference is that in literature, the chances for a good change are somewhat higher, since this is presumably what everyone is seeking. Thus it's hard to know which aspects of the fantasy genre need change and which don't. I hope that made some kind of sense

[greyhavener]

Are the immoral qualified to evaluate another's morality? Perhaps that is why Tolkein, Lewis, etc. believed morality is defined by a higher power.

Back to the original question about valid criticisms. Valid is a relative term, but there are criticisms of Tolkein, Lewis, L'Engle, LeGuin, to name a few that are part of the same Twayne series that does criticisms of Shakespeare, Milton, Hemingway, etc. Many fantasy authors are included in many standard literary reference tools used by students, and there are also specific critical works taht address only fantasy writing. Check out a large public or university library if you want to read more.

[littlemanpoet]

Kalessin:
Could it be that LotR is a re-telling of one or more of these eternal stories - and specificially a narrative of sacrifice and redemption?
I agree with Nar's assessment that Tolkien drew together whole sets of myths into one comprehensive whole - 'hyper-archetype'. Whereas sacrifice and redemption are there, I am not sure they are the central theme of LotR.
Perhaps the old myths that we no longer hear were, in their way, also re-tellings of those eternal stories, and LotR (in a new and inventive way) like them, taps into our deepest empathies and identifications, and fulfils our cathartic need (back to Nar).
Yes. I agree with this.

Mister Underhill:
Are we to believe that somewhere out there, gathering dust in a desk drawer (or several), is a magnum opus of power and skill commensurate with (but not imitative of) LotR whose publishing and discovery has been blocked by mere market forces?
I wonder how familiar you are with the publishing industry. Indeed, I would not be in the least surprised that - somewhere out there - there are perhaps a dozen or more magnum opuses whose publishing have been blocked by market forces. Your own words make my point succinctly: In this day and age, fantasy faces a double-whammy – a market that wishes to dumb-down the form in order to reach the broadest possible audience and to sanitize the meaning into trite, easily digestible (and above all, inoffensive) aphorisms.
It is not we readers or aspiring authors who are cynical, but the publishing market; after all, it is a market, and markets are by nature cynical: they seek profit at the expense of those things they think will hurt profit, even if it is better art. That is cynical. I'd be interested to learn if you do have first hand knowledge of the publishing industry that leads you to have greater hope than my experience has turned up.
Does the fantasy genre have some inherent flaw which dictates that we’ll only receive one great masterpiece in our time? Or, conversely, is the form so inherently difficult and challenging (compared to other genres) that only a precious, gifted few are capable of mounting to its summit?
I think neither the former or latter posits warrant an affirmative. The fantasy genre bears no flaw, nor is the form so difficult. We have witnessed the Harry Potter phenomenon - like the book or dislike it, Rowling tapped a motherlode in many readers, young and old.
postmodernism: The definition you provided included things that I had not understood to be specifically postmodern. On the other hand, there is much that the definition leaves out; which is inevitable for such a robust category-word still trying to find itself. Therefore I wouldn't put too much faith in the definitions. I was surprised not to find any reference to a counter or corrective to modernism, and think it should be there.

Nar: thank you for the clarifications. The negotiation I spoke of --between theme and structure-- is made necessary by competing themes and their conflicting archetypes. In some cases the archetypes also enhance and intensify each other's effects. This is what makes the structure, together with the themes of the story, feel composed to me, rather than just borrowed from powerful sources. It renews and refreshs the archetypes. I see what you are saying, and think you are correct. Excellent insight, Nar.
what should a writer do to induce a fresh act of sub-creation? Read Tolkien's sources but try to forget Tolkien and everything after? Avoid the medieval era? Learn fresh narrative techniques by reading books outside of the fantasy genre that also describe a world as well as tell a story?
This is an interesting problem. I have been working on my own fantasy story for fifteen years, and have had to face the questions you delineate. I have avoided nothing that is part of the fantasy archetype set; I think - hope - that my story is worthy to stand on its own merits for a number of different reasons. However, this diverges from the theme of this thread, so I too will start a new one: "Writing Serious Fantasy". Hope to see you there.
I think we need a new definition of the fantasy novel. How about, the fantasy novel creates a world and tells a story of elemental power. Is that enough?
I think 'reality' would be a better word than 'world' - semantics, perhaps. Perhaps it was Tolkien who spoke of an 'inner consistency of reality', maybe others, but I think that phrase needs to be part of the definition. It also needs to bear Tolkien's ideas of escape, recovery, and consolation, and probably needs to contain eucatastrophe as well. All in all, too large a definition to hold together.
Mister Underhill:
...in fantasy, the pool of archetypes and historical/mythological influences remains a static constant and there is less receptivity to new styles and modes of storytelling.
Nevertheless the constant is so wideranging that the lack of new seminal works is deplorable. I'm amazed by how much there is in Norse myth alone that Tolkien used (and didn't) in his own way that would bear a fresh rendering.
Aiwendil:
It's difficult to create a fantasy world that is not an imitation of Tolkien without it crossing over the boundaries of the genre. Maybe difficult, but far from impossible.

[Rimbaud]

In my time as both student and lecturer I have been involved with the publishing industry several times. I have even had the privilege of reading some scripts that were never eventually released and asked my opinion thereof. Many of the proof-readers, talent-scouts and copy-editors I have encountered are true enthusiasts about books and about the aesthetic joy that a well written piece of literature can produce. Unfortunately, you're are right, these people and those arguments have no effect on the wallet holders.

Even further up; I have friends even in the 'wallet-opening' areas of the industry and moreoften than not their hands are tied. They often have a quota of books that they are allowed to release each year that aren't expected to reach the higher echelons of sales figures, ie the ones where they are allowed a judgement call. After that they simply have to churn out proven money spinners.

The smaller publishing houses are inevitably swallowed by the larger. It will take quite a book/author/entrepeneur to change the situation as I view it.

[Mister Underhill]

Aiwendil: What an interesting analogy between genetic mutation and the evolution of innovative narrative techniques! I won’t defend the artistic merits of “I, Jedi”; my point was simply that mainstream fantasy – and what is Star Wars but science-fantasy? – is so conservative that the simple technique of writing from the first person, hardly revolutionary, is seen as a huge creative risk. Compare the innovation in related genres: Wiliam Gibson took sci-fi by storm and more or less pioneered a whole subgenre, cyberpunk, through sheer style. You seem to have at least passing familiarity with the oeuvre of Stephen King. He has taken horror to new levels by pushing the envelope of narrative technique. Examples include the long, unbroken, monologue style of Dolores Claiborne; structuring the novel It like an opera; alternating first person and third person points-of-view in Christine; genre-busting in his Dark Tower series; and his exercise in the endless renewability of story: using the same basic premise and characters to produce two different novels, The Regulators and Desperation. Where is this sort of innovation and energy in modern fantasy? My supposition is this: there is a Platonic essence called "art"; this essence must exist in all media that we call the "arts". I’m not formally acquainted with Plato’s theories of art. Any chance you could summarize what that “essence” is? I seem to recall that Plato posited a strong moral component to ideal Art, but perhaps I’m completely wrong about that. littlemanpoet: It is not we readers or aspiring authors who are cynical, but the publishing market; after all, it is a market, and markets are by nature cynical: they seek profit at the expense of those things they think will hurt profit, even if it is better art. That is cynical. I'd be interested to learn if you do have first hand knowledge of the publishing industry that leads you to have greater hope than my experience has turned up.I think there’s a presupposition here and in Stephanos’s most recent reply that a work that is as good as Tolkien’s would be perceived to be unmarketable or unprofitable. I disagree. Tolkien is, after all, a billion dollar industry.

I have first hand experience with the film industry and some experience with the publishing industry. I agree that both are largely cynical, profit-driven establishments. But my experience has shown me this: quality always rises. Quality always finds a home. Believe me, publishing is a creative nirvana compared to the film industry. You won’t find any seminal works being published by TSR, sure – but I firmly believe that if there was a work equivalent to LotR in quality and power making the rounds, it would find a home, it would win contests, it would break through somewhere, somehow. Quality always rises, eventually.

I think neither the former or latter posits warrant an affirmative. The fantasy genre bears no flaw, nor is the form so difficult. We have witnessed the Harry Potter phenomenon - like the book or dislike it, Rowling tapped a motherlode in many readers, young and old.Quite right – though I would counter with the old popularity vs. quality argument. Will Potter stand the test of time? Does Rowling’s work sate the hunger felt by Tolkien fans for new epic fantasy? I personally have found the Potter books that I’ve read to be enjoyable, but hardly seminal or equivalent to Tolkien. I think 'reality' would be a better word than 'world' - semantics, perhaps. Perhaps it was Tolkien who spoke of an 'inner consistency of reality', maybe others, but I think that phrase needs to be part of the definition.I agree with this revision, since it opens the door to fantasy work that is set in our world but in an alternate or modified reality. Nevertheless the constant is so wideranging that the lack of new seminal works is deplorable.Agreed!

[littlemanpoet]

MisterUnderhill:

I hope you are right regarding quality rising in the publishing industry. I covet that hope.

Harry Potter: There's one aspect of the Harry Potter phenomenon that I have not seen touched on that deserves mention. As with Tolkien, Rowling's work is not allegory but has applicabilities. One of the primary aspects of the Potter series is boarding schools and English class structure. The two are intertwined. Harry Potter is upperclass (wizardly), has grown up lowerclass (muggle), and discovered his higher class at age 12. Then to boarding school where he has the sensibilities of the lower classes (which is portrayed as good) and the abilities of the upper class. Those of us who are Americans tend to miss these elements. I don't know that this makes the story any more timeless, but by partaking of the Dickensian themes, it gains a chance at it.

[Aiwendil]

I’m not formally acquainted with Plato’s theories of art. Any chance you could summarize what that “essence” is?

I wasn't actually referring to Plato's ideas on art - to be honest, I'm not acquainted with them either. But Plato said that for any quality that a thing might possess, there is a certain abstract thing that defines that quality. For example, we say that x,y, and z and beautiful. There must then be an abstract concept called 'beauty', and these things are beautiful because they have beauty. So if we talk about literature, music, sculpture, etc. all being art, there must be an abstract concept called 'art'. So it does then make sense to talk about 'the nature of art' or 'the purpose of art' without respect to medium, and then to require that specific types of art retain that nature and that purpose. So we can't say that the purpose of music is one thing and that the purpose of literature is something else.

my point was simply that mainstream fantasy – and what is Star Wars but science-fantasy? – is so conservative that the simple technique of writing from the first person, hardly revolutionary, is seen as a huge creative risk.

I agree. I think this is largely because it's hard for fantasy authors to break away from the structure that resulted in LotR.

[Estel the Descender]

Quote from Master Underhill: 'I don’t think that acknowledging Tolkien’s Catholicism and its effects on his work poses any more danger of “appropriation” than acknowledging Tolkien’s Englishness and its effects on his work. I can acknowledge the work’s essential Englishness without feeling excluded from it because I’m an American. Take away the Englishness, and can you have LotR? If you take away the Catholicism, can you have it?' Bravo! I like this argument.

In the discussion, 'Trilogy and Bible' Kalessin wrote on page 3, argument 2,' The 'essential Christianity' of Tolkien argument is no different to the 'essential Blackness' of any Black writer, or the 'essential Feminism' of any Female writer. Anything by Maya Angelou therefore becomes a piece of Black Women's writing first - and poetry second. This is a spurious, postmodern, cultural studies-style approach that deconstructs every artistic object into political and cultural reference points. And as far as Tolkien's Christianity itself goes, Anglican sensibility in pre- and post-war England was very - I mean VERY - different from any current American church movement. You can't have the Christian overlay on LoTR (intentional or otherwise) without all the other cultural aspects. In the end you may as well not bother reading the book.' In this sense I agree with him.
So many people have belittled great literature because they were written by Christians, so why can't Christians write something that isn't specifically targeted to a Christian audience? Just as the concept 'fairy tales' in Victorian England was supposed to be for children and not for 'mature' readers did not appeal to Tolkien himself, neither should the label 'Christian' limit the works to Christian readers. Just as a good fairy tale will be good reading for adults as well as for children, a work by a Christian author should be good reading for Christian and non-Christian alike.

However, I agree with you when you wrote what I just quoted above. Can one separate the Englishness of Shakespheare from him or make Tolsoy less Russian. I think that is why a lot of Christians are very selective of their reading: they know that each book may, intentionally or unintentionally, promote the philosophy of the author. I think that this is in some ways true. C.S. Lewis was after all converted first to Theism and then to Christianity through the fairy tale 'Phantastes' by George Macdonald (even though that fairy tale was not intended as a tool for convertion but as a story first).

And please let us not lump all 'Christians' into one bundle. Lewis was an evengelical, Tolkien was a Catholic (Roman). Evangelicals are basically Protestant. It seems strange to me that a 'true' evangelical would try to 'appropriate' the LotR mythos: they would do better by using 'The Chronicles of Narnia'. The differences in worldview between these two forms of Christianity are far reaching and can be seen in the books of both Lewis and Tolkien (whether you like it or not Kalessin smilies/tongue.gif ). The prayer to Varda, for instance, is too much like (not equivalent!) to the 'Hail Mary'. 'A tiro nin. . .' to 'Pray for us. . .'

Suppose the LotR was written by a non-Christian, say, a Taoist or a believer in Asgard. In the former a complete victory over 'evil' will not be there: instead, the morality will be about the balance of good and evil, Yin/Yang. (By this definition even Star Wars is Judeo-Christian in its fight against the 'Dark Side'). An Asgardian will preach a pessimism where evil triumphs over good in the great twighlight of the gods.

Tolkien wrote something about morality in 'fairy tales' in his now famous essay On Fairy Stories, 'The stories of Beatrix Potter lie near the borders of Faerie, but outside it, I [Tolkien] think, for the most part. Their nearness is due largely to their strong moral element: by which I mean their inherent morality, not any allegorical significatio'. So, according to Tolkien himself, it is possible to have a certain morality in a story without moralising (which is the purpose of allegory anyway).

Now, as for postmodernism's characteristic #3, 'Relativism: the absence of objective standards of truth'. Tolkien was definitely not a postmodernist in this sense. Like Lewis, they upheld reason. THIS OF COURSE MEANS THAT FOR THEM OBJECTIVE TRUTH WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF ULTIMATE TRUTH. The dislike of relativism probably fueled his aversion to allegory. Note my previous quote of Tolkien in a previous entry above. #3, 'An opposition to certain classical artistic techniques such as narrative -- telling a story in an ordered sequence closed off at the end -- and representation -- attempting to depict reality.' Tolkien wanted to depict reality, even if it is (in his words) a 'secondary reality'. Kalessin's words against 'deconstruction' says about the same.

. . . Okay, that's enough for now smilies/smile.gif .

[Kalessin]

Estel smilies/mad.gif

You have quoted me at length from a relatively early part of the 'Trilogy and Bible' thread. The argument moved on from there and, indeed, without the context of that thread, you are inferring or implying a pejorative undertone which was NOT there. Given that I, and many others, feel strongly about matters of faith, morality and spirituality - both personally and generally, I feel this is doing me a disservice, both unfair and misleading.

As you will see from later entries in that thread and others - at NO TIME have I made any comment that implies any inbuilt criticism or disrespect of Christian writing, overt or otherwise. And I am perfectly happy to acknowledge fully Tolkien's devout Catholicism and the essential Christian sensibility evident in his work.

My argument is, and has always been, that (a) Tolkien did not write LotR as Biblical allegory, and that (b) he did not intend the work to be 'owned' or 'understood' only by one type of reader ie. one that shared his particular faith. I think these are reasonable positions and in no way suggest a negative view of Christianity or Christian artists.

You will also see from that and other threads that I have described the Bible in very powerful terms, and ascribed to it a level of spiritual resonance and profundity - both for me personally and in general - that should make it clear that I have the utmost respect for Christian faith. In addition, in the Trilogy and Bible thread I made a clear distinction between traditional English Catholicism and modern evangelism, and certainly do NOT lump all faiths together. I am disappointed and surprised to have to repeat this in another thread.

The differences between Tolkien and Lewis are key to the "LotR as (not) allegory" argument and I don't understand either why you suggest I think otherwise. You and others have made the point that Lewis' work WAS allegorical while Tolkien, in all his writings, made it clear his work was not intended to be. In fact, in that thread it was suggested (not by me) that the two fell out about this. I am bemused by your references to me here.

Your citing of the differences between Norse or Eastern mythos and the 'triumph' of good in Christianity is fair enough. However, I argued (in the other thread) that there were many similarities and influences in LotR which could be seen in terms of epic narratives or episodes from world mythos, as well as the Bible - this was simply to make the point that 'similarities' (ie. a hero with who saves the day with an act of sacrifice etc.) were not proof of intended allegory.

I am not quite sure what point you are making in the context of the discussion here, but as you have quoted me at length and made an aside to me I feel entitled to respond to those specific comments. The fact that at various points you say you agree with me (out of context) doesn't really help.

Let's come to Mr Underhill's point that you repeated, and also to the central theme of THIS thread. I also don't think that acknowledging Tolkien's Catholicism is an act of appropriation. It's an act of contextual research that may or may not add to one's reading of the book. Tolkien made it explicitly clear he he was happy for people to read LotR as a story, and that it should not be necessary even for them to read the appendices etc. to fully and deeply appreciate and enjoy the book. And in this I concur, although personally I find the contextual discussions interesting. The "appropriation" to which I occasionally refer is nothing to do with academic or contextual understanding. It is to do with association and ownership. If you believe that only Christians (of all denominations) can truly appreciate LotR, or - inversely - that if you appreciate LotR, that somehow proves or validates the ultimate truth of specific Christian tenets ... this is appropriation. Whether applied to Christian art, or by the same principle to Black writing, or whatever, this position is to my mind elitist and in the end 'anti-art'.

I started this thread by offering a critique of the fantasy genre and asking us to reflect on failings in the genre and in comparison to Tolkien. Having scanned back, I can't see any criticisms of either the genre, a particular author, or Tolkien and his works, in this thread that imply a negative connotation to Christian authors or writing. Especially not by me. I don't think anyone thinks that.

OK. I didn't think I'd end up offering another rant in this thread, but there you go smilies/wink.gif

Peace

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Yes, yes, too true. If you wish to open another vein in the Bible and Trilogy thread, please do so.

Unless perhaps the assumed innate Catholicism of Fantasy is a valid criticism of the genre, its Achilles heel, and reason for the 'Hunk on a Horse' and imitative pandering. Perhaps not. Or is the reason it is above such criticism? Most fantasy cannot be assumed to be Catholic or even Christian in nature, despite the prevailing theme of good against evil. I think of a few stories of "shieldmates" and others with heros that flame in every sense of the word, which, despite the good vs. evil theme, are unlikely to be appropriated by Catholics. In fact, certain books can be rightly appropriated by the Christians, Chamber of Culdi, Narnia are examples, based on the wishes of their authors (the LotR cannot) while other themes of good vs. evil simply reflect our society & culture.

And they sell, as something completely foreign does not.

Back to the discussion at hand. Is it possible that the perjorative "Hunk on a Horse" image of fantasy is actually causing a number of excellent fantasy authors to classify themselves as literature? I think of Kurt Vonnegut and Mark Halperin, though there are probably others. It could be that "Fantasy" is a category is simply a dustbin for those with lesser influence with their publishers.

[Nar]

Maril, I think you're right (but not about the hunk on the horse being a catholic (arche-) type! As you say, 'Perhaps not.') It seems many authors feel they will have no chance of a close reading of their work if they call it fantasy, so they do not-- even if their work is not only speculative, not only contains fantastic or surreal elements, but is actually set in an altered reality. I think much of literature aims at that hypnotic shift into a strange place that I associate with fantasy-- but this takes place far away from the fantasy genre, and the cross-fertilization of new techniques and themes I'd like to see, mainly for the sake of the fantasy genre, does not occur. Considering the three roles we may engage in, as writers, readers and middlemen (publishers, critics, elements in a word-of-mouth network), what can be done? Or should anything be done?

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Kalessin]

Being not so well-adjusted in my dotage, I am disproportionately concerned that my response to Estel does not get drowned out just yet (grrr ... smilies/rolleyes.gif ).

However, Nar and Maril, the issue of 'genre' itself is interesting, and has been explored a little in this thread. Who decides which genre a work belongs to - and therefore where it appears in bookshops and libraries? Ursula Le Guin's website has a polemical piece by her on genre, with which I tend to agree, in which she excoriates the pervasive acceptance of "realism" as the only genre that has 'literary' quality. Rather like teetotal bartenders or clean-living drug dealers, it seems as though we are subject to the whim of publishers who do everything but READ the darn books smilies/frown.gif

Strangely, the fantastical (fantasy) stories of Borges end up as 'realism' too. I am conscious of certain subtle similarities between Borges and Tolkien, although JRRT does not share JLBs playfulness - nor his occasional (philosophically informed) studious amorality.

I think that, unfortunately, classifying something as fantasy means that "non-aficionados" are immediately expecting at worst a graphic novel aimed at misanthropic teenagers who cannot face more than 50 words a page, and at best an irrelevant romp (rather like an extravagant costume drama) with unpronounceable names at a premium.

As a children's book, Harry Potter can sidestep this genre imprisonment. As an old book that has outsold everything else, so can LotR. The rest are not so lucky.

Peace

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Estel the Descender]

Kalessin smilies/frown.gif

Profound apologies for having offended you thus: 'I feel this is doing me a disservice, both unfair and misleading.' Although I have never intended to imply that you have lack of respect for Christianity, it seems that I have done just that. I also ended up misrepresenting you: 'I am not quite sure what point you are making in the context of the discussion here, but as you have quoted me at length and made an aside to me I feel entitled to respond to those specific comments. The fact that at various points you say you agree with me (out of context) doesn't really help.'nullout of contextout of context There are times when I have to be straightened out, and it seems that this is one of those times and I thank you for pointing my folly out. (Those who know me know that I do these kind of things occasionally, but that's no excuse).

Again, I am most sorry for not being as attentive or sensitive as I should be. . . Oh well, it seems I have the unenviable honor of being the first person in this site to be chewed out by you smilies/rolleyes.gif .

Sîdh

P.S. 'Dotage'? smilies/confused.gif

[Kalessin]

Hi Estel smilies/smile.gif

Thanks for a typically gracious reply. Whilst perhaps coming from different positions, hopefully you will agree that the tone of this thread, at least, has been inclusive and respectful. Certainly I continue to learn from, and be stimulated by, the intelligent and challenging contributions from you and others. I declare the chewing out hereby ended smilies/wink.gif

Any 'sincere' form of spirituality expressed through art faces a kind of double-whammy - on the one hand, the pressure to be inclusive and non-confrontational ; on the other, to avoid ridicule or deconstruction by postmodern cultural critique. The kind of attentive 'literalness' (in relation to mythos and its moral framework) you have previously (and correctly, in my view) ascribed to Tolkien can be taken as read given his formative era - but for authors steeped in more recent cultural developments it is not so straightforward. It can all too easily be seen as recidivist naivete, a statement in itself. And this may be particularly true in the fantasy genre, hamstrung by cliches, with the millstone of LotR's universal appeal round its neck, and its ancestral link to fairy tales and other supposed 'childish' things.

While Tolkien's moral idealism did not need to be justified or contextualised in his day, a writer today (unless aiming for a particular 'in-the-know' niche) may well need to acknowledge pluralism and/or offer up a rationalisation for any spiritual tenets (note the plethora of "Aliens started it all" frameworks). Remember, the global market for fantasy literature is (I reckon) in the main secular, or at least 'uncommitted'. Even on these boards, the argument that anything with 'magic' etc. is promoting occultism and is anti-religious has been aired, so I think we can assume the general fantasy readership to be more of a mixed bunch.

Perhaps this is another of the challenges that face fantasy authors today. If so, it seems to me that it will be incredibly difficult to achieve the kind of universal acceptance and affection that is given to LotR. Difficult ... but not impossible, I hope.

Thanks again to everyone for such interesting and well-written contributions to this thread. Can I say "I don't know half of you as well as I should like ... " (that'll do) smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Rosa Underhill]

There are a lot of BAD fantasy novels out there. The same old story. And, unfortunately, you have to go through that section to get to the Tolkien ones.

Tigerlily, may I have your permission to use this quote in my research paper? It expresses perfectly one of the issues I'm addressing in it.

[Mister Underhill]

Kalessin: I take my share of the blame for cross-wiring this thread and the Tril & Bible thread – but I’m glad I did, since this little spur of side conversation turned out to be quite interesting (at least to me). Thanks also for your clarification of what you mean by “appropriation”.

Genre Constrictions and Definitions
I think (as I have implied in a few posts) that the fantasy genre these days has come to be defined mostly as “swords-and-sorcery”. Sure, you’ll find the odd Neil Gaiman who isn’t writing swords-and-sorcery but whose work can only be classified as “fantasy”, but by and large, fantasy consists of multi-volume sagas in the Tolkien/Dungeons and Dragons tradition. Speaking of Gaiman, it’s interesting to note that the so-called graphic novel is actually a format that accommodates a broader definition of fantasy and in which a much greater degree of innovation, both in narrative style and in themes and subject matter, is taking place.

But we really are talking about swords-and-sorcery fantasy, aren’t we? That’s what we’d like to see a new, seminal example of, right? Something that’s like Tolkien, and yet not like him. Something that’s as good and as satisfying and as pleasurable, yet different. Outside of a few Arthurian cycles, I can’t think of anyone who’s writing epic fantasy cycles that are being shelved with “Literature” because the author has a great rep or good pull with their publishers.

Side note: I’ve been waiting to see if anyone would mention Borges. I’m not terribly familiar with his work – I’ve found what I’ve read to be interesting in principle but frustratingly aimless in execution. Do you have further thoughts or recommendations on him, Kalessin?

The Harry Potter Phenomenon
I was reading an article on screenwriting recently, and happened across an interesting theory which is tangentially related to littlemanpoet’s Potter observations: Here's the idea [of something the author calls “Mental Real Estate”]: I name something, and you either recognize it, or you don't. Could be a person, place, or thing, like the classic twenty questions game. If you recognize the thing I tell you, that means it's taking up space in your head – tangling up a few billion neurons – residing on a chunk of mental real estate. That makes it valuable, because if the thing is taking up space in your head, chances are, it's taking up space in a good percentage of other heads across the country. And Hollywood can use that. It's the main commodity of the town – Hollywood buys, sells, and trades in mental real estate.

[...]

The Potter books have something that most other fantasies don't have, even ones that are just as inventive, well-crafted, and charming. Yes, that's right, I know the secret of the popularity of the "Harry Potter" books. There's a big chunk of mental real estate at their core. The brilliant thing that J.K. Rowling did, that no one -- amazingly -- had done before, was this: she wrote about going to school. What's the biggest part of a kid's life from about age six on?
Going to school.
How many kids go to school?
All of them.
So simple, and just sitting there, right in front of everyone.
Rowling took the single most dominant aspect of a child's life -- the most common experience we all lived through, and share -- and made it really cool.
What kid wouldn't rather ride the train to Hogwart's and study magic, than trudge off to the local elementary school for some boring lecture on grammar?
Going to school... such a simple, common, everyday activity -- and that's what they mean when they say, 'accessible' and 'something readers can relate to.' Now, I’m not saying (and really the author isn’t asserting) that this idea of “Mental Real Estate” is the sole reason for the success of Potter, but I think he’s onto something. Tolkien traded on the same “Mental Real Estate” in his day, starting with The Hobbit, which offers familiar and accessible elements (Dragons, Wizards, Elves, Dwarves, magic rings, etc.; also classic mythic motifs) reworked in a new and innovative (at the time, anyway) form. I would add to the article author’s theory that not only do you need a points of accessibility like that, you also need to offer some fresh spin on them. Wizards, Elves, Dwarves, and so on take up mental real estate in all of our heads – but no one has since been able to bring a fresh treatment of them before the public.

Redefining our “Devourer of Archetypes” according to a new metaphor, maybe Tolkien has such a huge plot of Mental Real Estate staked out that there’s scarcely a scrap of unclaimed land for some ambitious, homesteading young writer to farm. Fantasy writers need to set sail for the New World and till some fresh, unclaimed earth.

Plato and Artistic Essence
Aiwendil – now I see what you’re driving at. Plato’s Ideal Forms and whatnot. Still being somewhat Plato-illiterate (I confess with shame), I thought that the Ideal Forms usually represented the essence of concrete things – i.e., an ideal cat, or an ideal table, or an ideal Pez dispenser. Leaving that aside, though, I’m tempted to muse that since the forms of various artistic mediums vary, the Platonic essence common to them all must have something to do with content. I’m going to do another cross-wiring and steal a quotation cited by littlemanpoet in the “The Effects of Fantasy” (http://www.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=10&t=000606) thread: I can do you no better service than quoting from Tolkien's Tree and Leaf: 'This "joy" which I have selected as the mark of the true fairy-story (or romance), or as the seal upon it, merits more consideration.... The peculiar quality of "joy" in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth.' Is this “sudden glimpse” some component, not only of successful Fantasy, but of all “Art”? Is it also something that’s missing from the bulk of modern fantasy?

Since I’m on a quoting spree, I’ll add one more, this from sci-fi (sort of) author Neal Stephenson: The lesson most people are taking home from the Twentieth Century is that, in order for a large number of different cultures to coexist peacefully on the globe (or even in a neighborhood) it is necessary for people to suspend judgment in this way. Hence (I would argue) our suspicion of, and hostility towards, all authority figures in modern culture. As David Foster Wallace has explained in his essay "E Unibus Pluram," this is the fundamental message of television; it is the message that people take home, anyway, after they have steeped in our media long enough. It's not expressed in these highfalutin terms, of course. It comes through as the presumption that all authority figures--teachers, generals, cops, ministers, politicians--are hypocritical buffoons, and that hip jaded coolness is the only way to be.

The problem is that once you have done away with the ability to make judgments as to right and wrong, true and false, etc., there's no real culture left. All that remains is clog dancing and macrame. The ability to make judgments, to believe things, is the entire point of having a culture. Has modern fantasy been reduced to the significance of “clog dancing and macramé” by what Stephenson refers to as “this global monoculture” which Kalessin’s double-whammy implies? I think it has, and I think this is one of the big problems faced by modern fantasy writers, whose stock in trade is (or should be) underlying truths.

(BTW, this Stephenson extract is from a much longer – some seventy pages or so – essay on computer operating systems (!) which is available for download here (http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html).)

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Aiwendil]

Any 'sincere' form of spirituality expressed through art faces a kind of double-whammy - on the one hand, the pressure to be inclusive and non-confrontational; on the other, to avoid ridicule or deconstruction by postmodern cultural critique.

That such art will inevitably experience both of these criticisms does not mean that the artist need anticipate them and take them into account. Tolkien was certainly not worried about either of these, and his work reflects neither pressure.

You do have a point though - perhaps one reason no modern fantasy is imbued with the same heroic spirituality as Tolkien's is that modern authors do give in to one or both of those pressures. The safest course seems to be to avoid any spirituality at all, and that is what most modern hacks do.

But we really are talking about swords-and-sorcery fantasy, aren’t we? That’s what we’d like to see a new, seminal example of, right?

I think so, and that's exactly why I think the genre is constricted. In practice, the fantasy genre consists (with a few exceptions) of Tolkien imitation. How far away from the "sword and sorcery" style can one get before it's not fantasy any longer?

Tolkien traded on the same “Mental Real Estate” in his day, starting with The Hobbit, which offers familiar and accessible elements (Dragons, Wizards, Elves, Dwarves, magic rings, etc.; also classic mythic motifs) reworked in a new and innovative (at the time, anyway) form. I would add to the article author’s theory that not only do you need a points of accessibility like that, you also need to offer some fresh spin on them.

I'm not sure whether this kind of "mental real estate" is the same as that in Harry Potter. Wizards and dragons are fundamentally unlike school - the latter draws on actual experience, the former do not. Still, I think you have a point about Tolkien. I'm just not sure whether the analogy to Harry Potter is precise.

I thought that the Ideal Forms usually represented the essence of concrete things

I thought it could apply to qualities - beauty, for instance. I certainly could be wrong however. Regardless of how Plato used the concept, I'm using it to refer to art - and I think it's a valid application.

I’m tempted to muse that since the forms of various artistic mediums vary, the Platonic essence common to them all must have something to do with content.

But what about, for example, Beethoven's 5th symphony? There's no real content, if by content we mean allegory/applicability. Whatever the purpose of art is, it must be the same for both music and literature. Unless you want to consider one of those media not to be art, you must define the purpose of art as something common to both of them.

[Mister Underhill]

You do have a point though - perhaps one reason no modern fantasy is imbued with the same heroic spirituality as Tolkien's is that modern authors do give in to one or both of those pressures. The safest course seems to be to avoid any spirituality at all, and that is what most modern hacks do. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. How far away from the "sword and sorcery" style can one get before it's not fantasy any longer?I think there are some exciting things happening in other mediums that can only be labeled “fantasy”. For instance, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spinoff, Angel, in TV. They’re doing fresh, innovative stuff with old motifs and icons, yet there are epic storylines, good vs. evil themes as well as ones that are more complex, and even some swordplay. There are several interesting writers working in the graphic novel format, too, as I mentioned – Gaiman, Miller, McFarlane, and Moore, to name a few. All this just to say that I think you can get pretty far from the traditional quasi-Medieval setting and trappings and still have a product that can accurately be called fantasy. But what about, for example, Beethoven's 5th symphony? There's no real content, if by content we mean allegory/applicability. Whatever the purpose of art is, it must be the same for both music and literature. Unless you want to consider one of those media not to be art, you must define the purpose of art as something common to both of them.Well, I have two responses: (1) I think that allegory/applicability is too narrow and restrictive a definition for ‘content’. A haiku poem, for instance, cannot be said to be without content, yet most are neither allegorical nor applicable (I’m not even really sure what you mean by the latter, I confess – I think you mean something along the lines of “provides some lesson or insight which is applicable to life”. Am I right? In the ballpark?). Come to think of it, I would contend that Beethoven is not without content as well. His music certainly creates a mood or triggers emotional responses. (2) I'm not convinced that there is some abstract essence of Art which is universal to all mediums, especially since no one seems to be able to give a satisfactory definition of what that essence might be. Beethoven's Fifth is Musical Art and Citizen Kane is Film Art, but I'm not sure I can draw any meaningful universality between what makes each of them Art.

[Aiwendil]

(1) I think that allegory/applicability is too narrow and restrictive a definition for ‘content’. A haiku poem, for instance, cannot be said to be without content, yet most are neither allegorical nor applicable

Good point. It makes me think that what we often have in literature is really more of a three-tiered structure, rather than just form vs. content. There's form - the actual words used, overt meaning - the plot of a book, or the content of a haiku, and deeper meaning - the allegory in a lot of modern works, or the themes that can be found in LotR.

I’m not even really sure what you mean by the latter, I confess – I think you mean something along the lines of “provides some lesson or insight which is applicable to life”. Am I right? In the ballpark?

Exactly right; sorry I wasn't clearer about that. I use the word the Tolkien did, to mean the inevitable 'meaning' in a story, even when it is written without irony or allegory. 'Applicability' is what we can find in Tolkien when we talk about themes like the corruption of power, the nature of evil, etc - as opposed to the allegorical interpretations that he detested.

Come to think of it, I would contend that Beethoven is not without content as well. His music certainly creates a mood or triggers emotional responses.

All right, then change my example to a Haydn or Mozart piece, almost completely without emotion. The only mood that, say, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik really creates is aesthetic
pleasure. If you want to call that content (which you are free to do), then you have to accept art with the sole purpose of being pleasurable, as per my original definition.

Or, if you don't want to go that far, you have to deal with this problem: if content is what makes art good, and genuine emotion qualifies as content while being aesthetically pleasing does not, then you'd have to say that all Romantic music - Wagner, Mahler, etc. - is superior to all Classical music - Mozart and Haydn. Not because Wagner and Mahler were better at what they did, but because theirs was really art, while Mozart and Haydn just wrote pop tunes.

I'm not convinced that there is some abstract essence of Art which is universal to all mediums, especially since no one seems to be able to give a satisfactory definition of what that essence might be. Beethoven's Fifth is Musical Art and Citizen Kane is Film Art, but I'm not sure I can draw any meaningful universality between what makes each of them Art.

Fair enough. But then you're basicly saying: there are two (or more) fundamentally different things that just so happen both to be called art. This raises other interesting problems; one can no longer talk about 'the artist' and intend for it to apply to both music and literature; one can no longer talk about 'artistic freedom' and intend for it to apply to both. If you want to say that, I can't argue with it, but it raises a whole host of new issues.

[Mister Underhill]

Thanks for the clarification on “applicability”. Also, good point with regards to the three-tiered structure of literature... but your insight only reinforces my instinct that you can’t lump all creative mediums together and come up with any meaningful universal qualities about what makes art Art. But then you're basicly saying: there are two (or more) fundamentally different things that just so happen both to be called art. This raises other interesting problems; one can no longer talk about 'the artist' and intend for it to apply to both music and literature; one can no longer talk about 'artistic freedom' and intend for it to apply to both. If you want to say that, I can't argue with it, but it raises a whole host of new issues. I think I disagree here. In my opinion, “the arts” can be used as a catch-all phrase to mean all the different mediums that share the same fundamental feature of being a means for expressing creativity; “art” can be generalized to mean any creative work at all (the Kindergarten class’s art) or a work of surpassing achievement in any given medium. However, I think the things which distinguish Art from mere entertainment or outright drivel in any particular medium are fundamentally different. Any generalization that is universally applicable is necessarily so vague as to be essentially meaningless – for instance, to say that all Art (i.e., the highest achievements in any given medium) is “aesthetically pleasing” doesn’t tell us much. By whose aesthetic standard? What does the word “aesthetic” encompass? Does “aesthetic” even have any meaning outside of reference to a particular medium? “The artist” really only does apply to a practitioner if he’s talented in a particular medium. Naturally, you could say that anyone who picks up a paintbrush or sets pen to paper is an “artist”, or at least is engaging in an artistic activity; but I think we mean “artist” here as “one who is particularly skilled in the practice of a particular art”. When I call Tolkien an artist, I mean he’s a literary artist. As far as I know, he knew doodley-squat about, say, composing music. His paintings have a certain charm, but, unlike his prose, I wouldn’t consider them to be high art.

[littlemanpoet]

Mozart and Haydn were most certainly great artists. Beethoven was arguably at the pinnacle, but there's plenty of emotional power in Haydn's late symphonies and Mozart's Requiem. Nor is emotional power the only requisite.

[Nar]

When I look at the definition of art I use, 'that which is both necessary and sufficient,' I find that it is a distillation of the act of writing: expand from the originating idea to all that is sufficient, then cut back to only what is necessary. It is indeed specific to writing, and, I now realize, has no content other than the method of create/edit I place my faith in. Why does it satisfy me as a definition? I feel a gestalt in the relation between necessary and sufficient that goes beyond the meaning of the words taken individually and that I am at a loss to explain. It's the negotiation between form and content, between necessary and sufficient, between paring back and growing outward until the cuts amplify the natural pattern of growth. As you see, I can't do any better than synonyms.

[Estel the Descender]

'If fairy-story [sic] as a kind is worth reading at all it is worthy to be written for and read by adults. . . Then, as a branch of a genuine art, children amy hope to get fairy-stories fit for them to read and yet within their measure. . . [t]hough it may be better for them to read some things, especially fairy stories, that are beyond their measure than short of it. Their books like their clothes should allow for growth, and their at any rate should encourage it.
. . . if written with art, the prime value of fairy-stories will simply be that value which, as literature, they share with other literary forms.' -JRR Tolkien


[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

[littlemanpoet]

This is a little touchy because everybody who posted on the "Are You Writing Serious Fantasy" (aywsf) thread is a subject of this post. I have no intention of offending any of you. The one benefit is that you have the opportunity to respond to this analysis.

The "Valid Criticisms" discussion spurred me to start the aywsf thread. I was astounded that the topic garnered so many fervent responses. My original reason for starting the thread was to see if other serious fantasy writers (in this case all unpublished in book form) were running into the difficulties of Tolkien imitation and the pitfalls that go along with that, and how they were trying to overcome it, and how successful they thought they had been. I guess you could call it a more or less unscientific case study. The thread became a bit of a support group for fantasy writers' frustrations, which helped crystallize for me "six levels of seriousness" in writing fantasy.

Let me reiterate that I consider each level of seriousness to be, indeed, serious, and not at all worthy of contempt. I myself have passed from level one to the succeeding ones as I have gotten more serious about my own writing.

To recap:
1. personal satisfaction (ex.: emotional wellbeing) - akin to Tolkien's 'escape' from "On Faerie Stories"
2. self expression (personal aesthetic pleasure)
3. communication (an audience is part of the consideration)
4. good plot and character development
5. the inner consistency of reality
6. evolution of consciousness (this is a concept from Owen Barfield, a better description than what I gave on the other thread).

At the risk of oversimplifying, there are two types of evolution of consciousness. First, there is new awareness of distinctions where none were before comprehended (like someone indigenous to an equatorial region aware afar of snow, who then visits my home state of Michigan in February and becomes aware of snow, sleet, slush, and so on). Second, there is increased awareness of the "isness" of something that has been part of one's life for some time (one of the best examples for our purposes is how Tolkien's Ents have changed our awareness of Trees). This second type of evolution of consciousness is akin to Tolkien's 'recovery' from "On Faerie Stories". I think that Tolkien's 'consolation' and 'eucatastrophe' can span the levels.

I noticed in hindsight that these levels corresponded somewhat to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When I brought up the six levels, interest in the thread moderated from its initial heated pace. I can think of two explanations for that: one, the newness of the thread was gone; two, the introduction of the six levels raised the discussion above the need-level of a support group; analysis was not their interest.

Some responses to the six levels were offered, and must be taken at face value. For the rest, reading through the posts allows for general categorization of various writers' efforts.

I have been writing long enough such that despite my meagre talents I have been able to hone my craft enough to even consider approaching level 6. Others have been writing for a few years, and have attained to higher levels due to their high level of talent. I am consistently impressed, for example, with Nar's perspicacity.

Conclusions:
1. Granted, I am discussing unpublished works that cannot be read in order to determine their artistic value or level of seriousness (which I'm hoping are synonymous terms).
2. Some writers, such as StarCupCake, show an aptitude toward beauty of expression that rivals and perhaps surpasses published works in certain ways, having to do with a Sense of Place. Her 'in the Blue' captures an essence of between-dream that is haunting in its beauty.

Her example brings up a tension that seems to me to be central to the issue of the genre: the publishing industry is looking for good plot and character development because the reader is understood to want to connect to a character and care about what happens to her/him. On the other hand, fantasy lovers are aware of a Sense Of Place that is equally important for good fantasy. Tolkien's Middle Earth is for me the primary example of this. This is part of the success of C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles, despite their failure in other ways vis-a-vie Tolkien's ouvre. The problem is that many fiction lovers, such as at least two in my own writer's group, have little sympathy for this 'sense of place'. One of my sympathetic readers sees this sense of place as little more than the paraphernalia of run-of-the-mill fantasy that must be put up with. But to me it seems to be at the core of escape, recovery, and consolation.

3. There are other writers posting in the aywsf thread who revel in precisely the sword-and-sorcery fantasy that is bemoaned in the Valid Criticisms thread.

This points to the fact that there are at least two fantasy mountains, shall we say, down whose streams flow, feeding the main courses of the river of fantasy, and the mixture of the two seems to be inevitable, except that all artist-writers are free to dip their buckets into whatever part of the river and streams, at any place in the geography of story they please. So one may dip in a purely Nordic stream, or further down one may dip into a confluence of Celtic and Nordic myths. My own story shows a choice to dip into a variety of streams relatively high in the mountains and create my own confluence for my particular 'soup of story'. I think Kalessin's rant bemoans the tendency of most published works to dip their buckets down in the valley where the river is wide and the confluence is thoroughly mixed and the Sense of Place is more or lessed washed out by all the other elements of story.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Aiwendil]

Mr. Underhill:
In my opinion, “the arts” can be used as a catch-all phrase to mean all the different mediums that share the same fundamental feature of being a means for expressing creativity; “art” can be generalized to mean any creative work at all (the Kindergarten class’s art) or a work of surpassing achievement in any given medium. However, I think the things which distinguish Art from mere entertainment or outright drivel in any particular medium are fundamentally different.

I can see we're not going to agree on this in the near future, and I suppose we'll have to leave it at that. It just seems to me that the nature of art is not one thing for literature and another for music. Nature dictates purpose, and against purpose we measure the relative success of any piece of art. So if we define art as 'creative work' as you do, we must (in my opinion) say that the purpose of art is to be creative. Then in whatever medium we're in, we must devise ways of judging creativity. These could be different in different media - the manifestations of the purpose of art can be different, and will be different because the media are different. But the purpose remains the same. It's like science - there are many different branches, and each has its own system of operating, its own tools, its own jargon - but they all serve the same purpose, the pursuit of knowledge, because they're all science.

I don't expect you to agree with me on this, and if you'd like to drop this slightly off-topic argument, that's fine.

Any generalization that is universally applicable is necessarily so vague as to be essentially meaningless – for instance, to say that all Art (i.e., the highest achievements in any given medium) is “aesthetically pleasing” doesn’t tell us much.

I don't think it's essentially meaningless. It certainly does leave a lot of unanswered questions, as you rightly point out, but the fact that there are details to be worked out doesn't invalidate the original supposition. This is where (according to my theory) different media would differ - in what constitutes 'aesthetically pleasing'. But I maintain that there is such a thing as 'aesthetic pleasure'.

I don't expect you to agree with me on any of this, and if you'd like to drop this slightly off-topic argument, that's fine. Or if you're up for more debate, I'm okay with that as well.

Littlemanpoet:
Nor is emotional power the only requisite.

That's exactly my point.

When I look at the definition of art I use, 'that which is both necessary and sufficient,' I find that it is a distillation of the act of writing

This is an interesting definition, though I'm not sure that I understand it fully.

The thread became a bit of a support group for fantasy writers' frustrations, which helped crystallize for me "six levels of seriousness" in writing fantasy.

I must say (with all due respect to one who has probably had a lot more experience with writing that I've had) I disagree in general with your classifications. Firstly because, as I've indicated before on this thread, I think that art should be independent of the artist. I'd therefore say that it's not the intention with which art is produced that matters; it's the quality of the resulting art. I will grant that quality frequently proceeds from intention. But not always.

I may be misinterpreting your theory; I see you call these 'levels of seriousness' rather than levels of art or artistic quality. At the risk of putting words in your mouth then, I argue that 'personal satisfaction' is a reason for writing in no way inferior to 'evolution of consciousness'. Tolkien wrote the Silmarillion primarily out of a desire for 'personal satisfaction'.

self expression (personal aesthetic pleasure)

I don't think I agree that these two are synonymous. Producing a work for personal aesthetic pleasure seems to me to be synonymous with 'personal satisfaction'. Self-expression, on the other hand, instantly involves other people, since one must express oneself to someone.

good plot and character development

I don't see how this differs from previous levels; it seems rather to be a component of writing, regardless of purpose. Does a person who writes for personal satisfaction not strive for good plot and character development?

Despite my somewhat vituperous disagreement with you above, I thoroughly agree with your concluding analogy between fantasy and streams flowing together from two mountains. And I think you've perfectly defined this thread's initial criticism of modern fantasy.

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

How can so many people all be talking on the same thread, and all sound so right?
I love fantasy. If you give it to me, I'll gobble it up. If its boring, I'll discard it. If its interesting, I'll read it a couple of times. If I love it, I'll memorize it.
But there are so many spin-offs and such! I used to stare across the classroom in wonder at a Gollum-look-alike who was obsessed with a certain awful book series, supposedly some sort of spin-off from Star Wars, and just wonder how he could read it with out falling asleep or throwing it out!
quote:
"What do we have to do to complete the integration of fantasy into the mainstream?"
unquote.
I don't think fantasy should be integrated into the maintream, for me that would make it obsolete.I just want it to be accepted and respected as a genre, and not belittled as childish and juvenile. My friend, though only a year younger than me, has given up on the "Redwall" series while I still continue to like it. It makes me uncomfortable when she mentions her dislike of it, because i don't see what she sees. I know its the same plotline every time, but I read it for the characters (very believable) and the songs.
I hate stereotypes too, having had them directed at me once too many! I cringe to see "just another fairy tale", and unfortuantely my library is full of them. Its sad, really.
I like Tolkien (and Lewis and L'Engle and Jacqes and so few others), because, like so many others have stated, they makes me feel. Do you know anything else that does that? If you do, recommend it to me. I don't have much to read these days.
And what's all this about people disliking and boycotting fantasy because it doesn't "mean anything"?!? Of course it means something! We have these intense threads all devoted to the deeper inner meanings of Tolkien's works. How can those critics, and the general, TV-obsessed public sit there and tell us our beloved Tolkien doesn't mean anything? I recommend to anyone who says this to one of you: Go and actually*read* a fantasy or sci-fi novel. I dare them.

And a note to Kalessin: you should have rants more often! They're so hilarious, and inspire others to be hilarious too! I think I'll need stiches smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

It is true, Aiwendil, that art will always have some independence from the artist because every observer of a work of art will bring to it a unique perspective and background; thus the interaction between the observer and the work of art is necessarily independent of the artist. Nevertheless, the artist as originator of the work will supply parameters of possible modes of interaction simply by virtue of what is put into a work of art. For example, Dr. Seuss books and Tolkien's poetry are appreciated in different ways; both are art, both are within the same genre called poetry; but the mountain streams into which they dipped their buckets were quite different and no matter how independent a given reader might be from Tolkien's or Seuss's original intent, some responses will simply fall outside possibility. I would venture to say the Seuss strove for seriousness level 4 whereas Tolkien achieved level 6. To sum up, I think both the intention and the result play a part.

I did try to emphasize that I consider one level of seriousness in no way inferior to any other, except in precisely the seriousness of intent of the artist. Perhaps I'm boiling a pot that doesn't hold water, but I don't think so. I would say that in each higher level the lower are incorporated, such that of course Tolkien wrote for personal satisfaction and self-expression, but went beyond that to evolution of consciousness. In the same way I am trying like the dickens to get better at levels 4 and 5 and still write for self-expression and personal satisfaction - though sometimes the discipline required to write at levels 4 & 5 require a delay in the gratification in levels 1 & 2.

I think the distinction between personal satisfaction and self-expression is valid. Again, level 2 subsumes level 1. It is possible to write for personal satisfaction without attempting something that is aesthetically pleasing, even to oneself. Think of a prepubescent girl's diary entries, for example, which may sometimes be inadvertently loaded smilies/wink.gif with fantasy. Strictly level 1. My own first drafts often are in this vein when I am digging something that seems powerful out of my subconsciousness; it is still guilelessly bad as art, but is essential in the process of subcreation for me.

Nor does self-expression instantly involve other people. I may write something that no-one else ever sees.

As to good plot and character development, the operative word is "good". There may be plot and character development at lower levels, but it may lack consistency, it may be lacking at all, there may be too much character development at the expense of plot or vice versa. As to a person strivingfor good plot and character development, this is precisely why I call these levels of seriousness. At levels 1 - 3 the writer is serious about certain things, but does not yet care so much about good plot and character development so as to focus her or his energies on that aspect of writing.

Please do not think that I'm in love with my own categorizations. If they don't hold water, I would love to be shown how. If they can be improved upon, that would be great, too.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the kudos on the analogy - it felt right.

[Mister Underhill]

Aiwendil, we are starting to go in circles regarding the definition of Art. Thanks or indulging my inquiries with thoughtful replies, though. It’s been an interesting line of discussion.

Without getting too in-depth about littlemanpoet’s Six Levels construct, I’ll simply note that I think Aiwendil has raised an interesting point: “I will grant that quality frequently proceeds from intention. But not always.”

Is it possible that thinking too much about things like “evolution of consistency” and “eucatastrophe” actually creates an atmosphere which tends to stymie the very transcendence which is sought after? Or perhaps put a little more succinctly, does the very act of trying too hard to be Art kill Art?

Roger Ebert recently made this interesting observation during a discussion of the film Amadeus: True geniuses rarely take their own work seriously, because it comes so easily for them. Great writers (Nabokov, Dickens, Wodehouse) make it look like play. Almost-great writers (Mann, Galsworthy, Wolfe) make it look like Herculean triumph. It is as true in every field; compare Shakespeare to Shaw, Jordan to Barkley, Picasso to Rothko, Kennedy to Nixon. Salieri could strain and moan and bring forth tinkling jingles; Mozart could compose so joyously that he seemed, Salieri complained, to be "taking dictation from God." This last idea, of “taking dictation from God”, is a phenomenon that is widely reported by great artists. Indeed, Tolkien frequently reports throughout letters that episodes and characters from LotR seemed to come to him without conscience invention, and that he had “very little particular, conscious, intellectual intention in mind at any point” while writing it. “The general idea of the Lord of the Rings was certainly in my mind from an early stage: that is from the first draft of Book I Chapter 2, written in the 1930s. From time to time I made rough sketches or synopses of what was to follow, immediately or far ahead; but these were seldom of much use: the story unfolded itself as it were.”

“The last volume was naturally the most difficult, since by that time I had accumulated a large number of narrative debts, and set some awkward problems of presentation in drawing together the separated threads. But the problem was not so much 'what happened?', about which I was only occasionally in doubt – though praised for 'invention' I have not in fact any conscious memory of sitting down and deliberately thinking out any episode – as how to order the account of it.”

Kipling gave this advice: “When your Daemon [i.e., Muse] is in charge, do not try to think consciously. Drift, wait, and obey.”

I’m not presenting this as a position which I am solidly prepared to defend and debate – I’m only posing the question: at what point does consciously thinking about what makes great art (or, in the case of this thread, great fantasy) create an atmosphere which is counterproductive to the creation of art? In the words of the great Yogi Berra, “Think! How are you gonna think and hit at the same time?”

[littlemanpoet]

It's almost too much of a cliche to repeat here, but it's to the point: "Good art is 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration." Some artists would make the gap even wider.

Mozart's style of composition was not very difficult, and most of his compositions display a simplicity of form and content that his genius made easy for him. When it came to his "Haydn String Quartets", however, he had to stretch himself. So also with the Requiem.

Beethoven, who is well known for having sweated through every composition he ever created, is considered the greatest composer who ever lived. Yes, we call him a genius, but his genius required much perspiration.

I have written one poem, ONE, mind you, that felt like it just fell from heaven. It still required revision, though only twice. So I know of what you speak first hand, Mister Underhill. Some say it's my best poem. Some say others are better.

Tolkien worked and reworked his story.

I think a distinction is in order. A story can 'write itself', as you have said. But after the initial creative process has drawn to a conclusion, the hard work of giving it a logic and an inner consistency of reality still needs to be accomplished.

Plot is one of the easiest things to write. What happens next comes to be dictated more and more by the rules a writer has written into her/his mythos, as well as by the nature and traits of the characters themselves.

So whereas I agree with you that there is that "spark" of creativity, even the greatest geniuses, I wager, would be forced to admit that they had to sweat a little to bring their wonderful piece of genius to its finished form.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Kuruharan]

I'll gingerly insert myself here, just to make sure that the thread is wrenched throughly off course. smilies/wink.gif

Beethoven, who is well known for having sweated through every composition he ever created, is considered the greatest composer who ever lived.
But it's so hard to make statements like this. It is such a matter of personal opinion. (My personal opinion is that it's hard not to believe that Beethoven was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, composer in Western musical tradition. But still that's personal opinion.)
Since Mozart was mentioned, who knows what else he could have accomplished if he had lived. Although I grant that Beethoven spanned two musical eras (Classical and Romantic) and thus displayed greater versatility in his work. But, then again I prefer Classical music so I'm biased. smilies/wink.gif

I don't know if the number of revisions of a work is necessarily an indicator of greatness either. I do agree with you that things are better for more work after the main writing, composing, whatever is done. But that may be my personal experience talking. There are no doubt people out there somewhere who could crank out great works of art with little "effort."

Is there a distinction between the physical work that an artist puts into their art (i.e. revising drafts, or making changes to a painting), and the mental work that is perhaps done beforehand that nobody but the artist would know about? An artist could have done a great deal of work in his/her head before they produce anything that one could read or see.

[Halfir]

Birdland: What a great post, in a brilliant thread. I laughed out loud at your:"Strong sword arms don't work as well against a clerk." The image that conjured up was hysterical!

I also concur with your banlity of evil point, and your comment of the virtual beacon-light nature of evil in the fantasy genre. There, you know what is wrong, and you'd do you darndest to fight it, whereas today we have difficulty in identifying what is wrong, and even more difficulty in trying to fight it because of its banality - a la Arendt.

Moreover, critics ancient and modern of Tolkien and of the better and best fanatsy genre are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of faerie, and concepts such as 'eucatastrophe'as Tolkien called it.

I find this difficult to understand, but then I am a totally unreformed Jungian, a lover of Snorri Sturluson and the Eddas, and actually believe The Iliad and The Odyssey to be major literary achievements.(I also enjoy reading Harry Potter!) Clearly a no-hoper!

[Aiwendil]

littlemanpoet:

Nevertheless, the artist as originator of the work will supply parameters of possible modes of interaction simply by virtue of what is put into a work of art.

Quite true.

To sum up, I think both the intention and the result play a part.

I think intention only plays a part so far as it affects the result. It is easy to intend to create a very serious work of literature; it is easy to strive for a seriousness level of 6 - what's difficult is achieving the desired result (I should know!)
But I do agree that authors who do not take their own work very seriously will probably not be able to produce any very serious work.

I did try to emphasize that I consider one level of seriousness in no way inferior to any other, except in precisely the seriousness of intent of the artist.

This is what I don't think I understand. If level 1 is in no way inferior to level 6, why divide them up into levels? Are we talking about levels, then, or just different types of seriousness?

Nor does self-expression instantly involve other people. I may write something that no-one else ever sees.

I suppose this is a matter of syntax and nomenclature. To me, it seems that any form of expression requires both a subject (the author) and an object (the audience).

Mister Underhill:

Aiwendil, we are starting to go in circles regarding the definition of Art. Thanks or indulging my inquiries with thoughtful replies, though. It’s been an interesting line of discussion.

Agreed.

Indeed, Tolkien frequently reports throughout letters that episodes and characters from LotR seemed to come to him without conscience invention, and that he had “very little particular, conscious, intellectual intention in mind at any point” while writing it.

This is true, but certainly Tolkien didn't write with the same ease as, say, Mozart. He certainly considered writing LotR to be a tremendous task. And he worked his entire life on the Silmarillion without producing a final version.

[KayQy]

On inspiration and perspiration:

Both are necessary for something truly great. Many people work their fingers to the bone and come up with something that is very skillfully made, and even beautiful, but lacks that --soul for lack of a better word at the moment-- that something that will blow everything else out of the water, that makes it look so "easy". On the other hand, I have turned in essays or stories that were hastily written the night before, and not only gotten an A, but had the prof specifically commend it (and often read more into it than I put in smilies/rolleyes.gif ). When this happens, I always wonder, "What would happen if I actually tried?"

Tolkien, and a few others, take the raw materials that come to them from heaven or their duende or Muse or whatever you want to call it, and work it carefully, meticulously, and dedicatedly until it is a multifaceted gem set in an intricate crown.

Regarding the original topic, I can't think of anything to say that hasn't been said already. But this has been a great discussion, well worth the two days it took me to read it. It was remarkably intelligent, detailed, and insightful (well, not so remarkable for the Downs, but for what I've been spending time on lately...), and sent me back to read "On Fairy Stories" again. I have definitely been away from this board for too long, and I shall have to rectify that. smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Call them levels, types, modes, or what have you of seriousness, Aiwendil, it's the differences in seriousness between which I was trying to distinguish.

Good to hear from you again, Kuruharan. I must insist, though, that the classical/roccocco style of composition used by Haydn and Mozart was quite strictly formalized, largely based in dance. The singularity of the music of these two composers was in the refinement Mozart brought to the style, and the profundity Haydn did. Too bad this whole composer thing is just for illustrating a point. Anybody know a good site to discuss it?

Halfir, I heartily concur with each of the assertions you made. Including Jung.

[Aiwendil]

Call them levels, types, modes, or what have you of seriousness, Aiwendil, it's the differences in seriousness between which I was trying to distinguish.

Okay. To me, 'levels' implies some sort of progression, which means that one end of the spectrum must be somehow better than the other. Just a syntactical misunderstanding.

I must insist, though, that the classical/roccocco style of composition used by Haydn and Mozart was quite strictly formalized, largely based in dance. The singularity of the music of these two composers was in the refinement Mozart brought to the style, and the profundity Haydn did.

I know we're veering off topic here, but I simply cannot resist a music discussion. I don't see how it matters that Classical music was formalized, or that its ultimate origin was in dances - at least not when we're discussing the quality of the music. What matters is how it sounds, not why it sounds that way. This is something that bothers me about artistic theory in general. Music theory, literary criticism, and such should not, in my view, tell us what things are good; it should tell us why they are good.

I happen to agree that Beethoven surpassed Mozart, but I do not think this had to do with the fact that his music was less formal structurally, nor with the fact that he exerted greater effort in producing it. Mozart, if not the greatest composer of all time, has a pretty decent claim as the second greatest. I tend to think that the two methods of writing do not reflect a difference in greatness, merely a difference in approach.

[Kuruharan]

On the other hand, I have turned in essays or stories that were hastily written the night before, and not only gotten an A, but had the prof specifically commend it (and often read more into it than I put in ). When this happens, I always wonder, "What would happen if I actually tried?"

I've often found that the grade you receive is inversely related to the amount of effort you put into something. The less the effort the better the grade. I'm testing that theory now. I'm supposed to be preparing for finals next week. Alas, by this point in the semester I am rather demoralized and am showing a decided lack of enthusiasm. In other words, there is not much in the way of study time.

Too bad this whole composer thing is just for illustrating a point. Anybody know a good site to discuss it?

Alas, no. smilies/frown.gif

Music theory, literary criticism, and such should not, in my view, tell us what things are good; it should tell us why they are good.

I agree with that. I have had some classes that were more geared in that direction, but I think that had more to do with the direction the professor wanted to go. I believe that the general trend is to explain what rather than why.

It is a pity that Tolkien did not put more information about the music of Middle earth in his works. There may be some information in some of the books, I'll have to look. But that was not where his primary interest lay, with him it was the languages. (Not that I'm finding fault for that.)

[Kalessin]

I've been reading with interest and enjoyment the recent evolution of this thread into a more general discussion, both of what the essence of art is, and the creative act itself and the variations and contrasts in both. Many compliments to all for addressing complex areas with such articulacy and insight smilies/smile.gif

Any conception of aesthetics (as a way of describing why something is 'good') is ultimately, of course, a cultural construct. The most general tools of aesthetic evaluation - concepts such as 'form', 'style', and so on - are not empirical, and can be applied by different cultures (or traditions) to assert the superiority (or competing worth) of many different works of art. One could easily argue the general aesthetic merits of, say, Indian raga, jazz, Japanese haiku and so on - all of which are NOT any longer "folk" (or organic) forms, against the claims for Beethoven or Mozart. This can be deconstructed further, to the level of each individual that experiences and reflects on a work of art (or art in general), to each of whom these concepts of aesthetic appreciation may mean something slightly or subtly different.

All we can have, in the end, is (at best) a certain consensus through which we can share insight and appreciation of works of art. And yet the reference points will always be fluid, the ground continually shifting under our feet. And the extent to which we can collectively reach this consensus is, in a way, indicative of the state of our collective culture. As this thread illustrates, today this reflects an increasingly fragmented and also inclusive set of perceptions - which makes assertions based on some abstract, monolithic set of 'aesthetic criteria' almost impossible.

The key point is that "we" in the end define aesthetics - individually, collectively and culturally. It is the judgemental application of human perception to human creation. A platonic conception of "the essence of art" as something quantifiable, something in itself that actually exists outside or beyond our perception, yet is present in all (or only some) works, is in effect inapplicable. It has no use.

Now, the role - and purpose - of the artist IS also central here. The bottom line of art is that it is created by humans - and therefore subject to human aesthetics. It is possible to say that a cloud, or mountain, is not art. It is possible to say that a chair, or a car, is not art - although as a human creation there may be some artistry at work. Ultimately the creation of art MUST always be intentional. By this I mean that the creator is conscious of the nature of his/her work. This doesn't mean we all become pompous and self-important, but it means something cannot accidentally be art. Just because a poem seemed to come 'from nowhere', or with little effort - it is still a poem, and the poet knowingly records it.

In the end, our modern sensibility (and the finely-honed tools of philosophical reasoning that have developed over thousands of years) mean that we do automatically deconstruct to some degree, and at the same time attempt to rationalise (or legitimise) our subjective perceptions. We do this in different ways, of course, and with different language.

How do we resolve the essential contradictions that this leads us to -

"I like Mozart ; therefore to me Mozart is good ; other people don't like Mozart ; to them Mozart is not good ; why is Mozart good? ; if Mozart is good, why do some people not like Mozart? ; can you think Mozart is good if you don't like it?"

- and so on smilies/wink.gif

I do not believe there is a 'right' answer, one particular mechanical system of perceptive evaluation that will enable us to resolve the issues of aesthetic criteria vs. enjoyment, and so on. There are lots of right answers. Which is part of what being human is all about - the ability to accommodate irreconcilable contradictions, and still get on with life. I could mention religion in this context, but recent experience suggests I will get in trouble smilies/tongue.gif , so let's leave it there!

Keep up the good work, guys, it's really stimulating. And it does, tenuously, still relate to my original question. I'm in awe of (and full of admiration for) the intelligence and eloquence of the above contributors, too numerous to name, and truly appreciate your insightful participation in this debate.

Peace smilies/smile.gif

[littlemanpoet]

Methinks, Kalessin, your essay is thoroughly postmodern; by this I intend no derogation, just a generaly accurate tag. A modern essay would have set up one straw man, calling it the objective standard, that another would knock down, then another that, until all would finally conclude that there can be no objective standard. Rather, you acknowledge the integrality of the subject as necessarily considered in an essay on art and aesthetics. The bottom line of art is that it is created by humans - and therefore subject to human aesthetics. This particular acknowledgment is one of the key correctives postmodern thought propounds over modernist.

Just nit-picking, but I think it would be more consistent to say that a chair or car has at least an artistic component; what is known in both industries as 'design'. That it is usually accomplished by a team does not lessen its standing as art. Or do you make an aesthetic distinction between art and craft?

I appreciate your apt wording that 'the poet records' the poem that seemed to come from nowhere.

"I like Mozart ; therefore to me Mozart is good ; other people don't like Mozart ; to them Mozart is not good ; why is Mozart good? ; if Mozart is good, why do some people not like Mozart? ; can you think Mozart is good if you don't like it?" - and so on. I do not believe there is a 'right' answer...

At this point I must take some exception. I agree that no mechanical system of perceptive evaluation will provide sufficient tools. However, "we" perceive aesthetics in remarkable accord, to some degree collectively, to a greater culturally, and most, cross-culturally. Whereas individual evaluation may be limited by experience, taste, knowledge, etc., and some collectives may be limited also by religious intolerance, and some cultures may be limited by taboo or what-have-you, nevertheless, cross-cultural aesthetics acknowledge quality of craft, depth of insight, thematic scope, and breadth of applicability that separate genius from giftedness, both from pedestrian, and all three from the mundane. Thus Beethoven and Mozart are both considered geniuses, as are Japanese Haikuists I cannot name but have heard of.

[Kalessin]

Thanks Littleman, articulate and thought-provoking as always smilies/smile.gif

I'm happy for the nits to be picked, as the small components making up a line of reasoning should be rigorously tested in themselves (as well as the collective conclusion) to ensure their validity smilies/wink.gif

The argument that there can be no 'objective' may be considered a recent aspect (of postmodernism) in art theory, but in Western philosophy the limits of empiricism (and the mediation of "reality" by perception) were being examined hundreds of years ago - hence the reduction and subsequent dismissal of just about all axioms. Acknowledging humanity - and the perceptive subjectivity that comes with it - is not in itself postmodern, nor was my argument an attempt to invalidate aesthetic evaluation per se. Quite the opposite! My argument was simply that there are contradictions and 'shifting ground' within which we collectively and individually apply these criteria. But let's continue to apply them by all means, simply taking that into account in order to stay open-minded and retain a certain humility in our assertions.

I think it would be more consistent to say that a chair or car has at least an artistic component

Well, I did say that these objects had some artistry in them. However, all artefact is designed to some degree, so if having design qualifies something as art - we arrive again at reductio ad absurdam and would of necessity have to incorporate 'efficiency' or 'efficacy' as criteria of value smilies/smile.gif

cross-cultural aesthetics acknowledge quality of craft, depth of insight, thematic scope, and breadth of applicability that separate genius from giftedness, both from pedestrian, and all three from the mundane

Indeed. But the words are used to arrive at different conclusions. I do not accept that every single culture or individual will place Mozart and Beethoven at the top of the tree. And, if aesthetic merit has no relation to 'popularity' or enjoyment, then who are the arbiters? Perhaps only we, the priveliged elite smilies/tongue.gif

This was the essence of my first point -that 'craft', 'insight', 'scope' and so on do not logically in themselves lead us to the conclusion either that (a) the art we like is the best, or that (b) the best will always be the most liked.

If we accept the nature of the consensus, we can still make and share our insights and evaluations into art, and apply criteria with conviction and sincerity. We don't have to be postmodern or publicly deconstruct at any opportunity smilies/smile.gif

Lots of right answers ... take your pick smilies/biggrin.gif

Peace

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aiwendil]

Any conception of aesthetics (as a way of describing why something is 'good') is ultimately, of course, a cultural construct.

I'm actually tempted to question this. It is true, of course, that the concept of aesthetics (and 'art', for anyone who draws a distinction between the two) is a human invention. It therefore does seem reasonable to say that different cultures will have invented it differently. But there are human-invented concepts that have a single, culturally-invariant form. Mathematics is mathematics, for example. I think it's possible that aesthetic theory is the same.

Note that the fact that different cultures in practice have different ideas of aesthetics does not prove that aesthetics depends entirely on culture. Different cultures have different scientific and religious beliefs, but clearly no two contradictory scientific or religious beliefs can be true.

One could easily argue the general aesthetic merits of, say, Indian raga, jazz, Japanese haiku and so on - all of which are NOT any longer "folk" (or organic) forms, against the claims for Beethoven or Mozart.

But isn't it possible that this disagreement exists not because there are two completely different concepts of aesthetic beauty, but because neither culture fully understands the art forms of the other culture? I think that Mozart is better than, say Indian raga. But perhaps this is because I don't have the necessary knowledge to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of raga. If I did, then I would be able to compare them. On the other hand, I do understand both Mozart and Beethoven, so I am capable of comparing them.

And by 'understanding' I don't mean the formal music theory of the culture in question. I think it is entirely possible to understand a form of art without knowing anything about the way in which the art is produced.

A platonic conception of "the essence of art" as something quantifiable, something in itself that actually exists outside or beyond our perception, yet is present in all (or only some) works, is in effect inapplicable. It has no use.

Not entirely so. It may be of little use in the actual evaluation of a given work; but if we acknowledge that it exists, then we are led to certain other conclusions - like that the purpose of art cannot be something like the expansion of human understanding, or social commentary.

Further, I think we have to be clear about what 'quantifiable' means. It's true that in practice we can't assign numerical values to art; we can't say 'this painting has X form and Y content'. But if you are willing to say that any work is better than any other work, then you must also admit that the quality of art is quantifiable. If X can have more of quality A than Y has, then quality A must be quantitative.

Ultimately the creation of art MUST always be intentional. By this I mean that the creator is conscious of the nature of his/her work.

I disagree. First of all, it is this kind of thinking (not my 'art is beauty') that leads to such postmodernisms as 'this soda can is art because I say it is art'.

Secondly, if we measure art by intention, we are left with several illogical results. For one thing, we can never truly know how good a work of art is because we can never truly know exactly what the artist was thinking when he or she created it. An objective quality (how good the art is) depends on a subjective, and ultimately inaccessible quality (what the artist was thinking). Further, form becomes almost irrelevant. If two artists mean the same thing, we cannot be concerned with how they say it. Finally, in our evaluations of art, we must dismiss from our consideration those qualities which, to our best knowledge, the artist did not intend. In C.S. Lewis's commentary on sections of Tolkien's Lay of Leithian, he notes in one passage the double meaning of the word 'within'. He mentions that it was probably not intentional, but that nonetheless we can appreciate it. But if intention matters, then we cannot appreciate it.

To take another example: The Phantom Menace ends with celebration music that sounds like a major, pentatonic version of the Emperor's theme. Upon noticing this, I instantly deemed it a stroke of genius - the celebration celebrates, among other things, the rise of senator Palpatine to power, who, unbeknownst to the main characters, is the evil Sith lord who eventually becomes the Emperor. This is one of the things that, in my opinion, makes the soundtrack great. Rumours have suggested, however, that the connection is unintentional. If these rumours are true, must I alter my evaluation of the soundtrack? Must I refrain from making any evaluation until the issue is cleared up (it may never be)?

My fundamental problem with this idea is that it reduces art to mere communication between the artist and the audience. Why not merely say what you mean, rather than write an allegory, if the meaning is all that matters?

"I like Mozart ; therefore to me Mozart is good ; other people don't like Mozart ; to them Mozart is not good ; why is Mozart good? ; if Mozart is good, why do some people not like Mozart? ; can you think Mozart is good if you don't like it?"

Insofar as this is a parody of my 'art is beauty and beauty is that which pleases' argument, I offer the following as an alternative:

"I like Mozart; therefore I suspect that Mozart is good; other people don't like Mozart; therefore either I am wrong or they are wrong; because I don't believe that I am wrong, I must conclude that they fail to appreciate Mozart for non-artistic reasons."

littlemanpoet:

I think it would be more consistent to say that a chair or car has at least an artistic component; what is known in both industries as 'design'.

Good point. Of course, the intention of 'design' is not to be artistic; it is to sell the product. So I think that if you say that art is aesthetic beauty, you have to acknowledge that these things have an artistic element; if you say it is intention, you don't have to say that.

Again Kalessin:

My argument was simply that there are contradictions and 'shifting ground' within which we collectively and individually apply these criteria.

And it is a good point, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions.

Well, I did say that these objects had some artistry in them. However, all artefact is designed to some degree, so if having design qualifies something as art - well, I leave you to consider the possibilities

So by your definition, to be art, a thing must be intended to be art? If so, I think, you must dismiss such things as chairs and cars. Actually, taken to its logical conclusion, this would disqualify commercial music and novels as well; many of those artists do not care about the artistic merit of their creations, as long as they sell.

[Kalessin]

Hi Aiwendil - we meet again in that torchlit arena - "What is Art II" smilies/smile.gif

You make some excellent points, and this is issue does relate in a roundabout way to the continuing evaluation of Tolkien and the writers who have followed in his footsteps. I think (or perhaps hope) that some of our differences are more a question of degree or language - but (inevitably) ...

It therefore does seem reasonable to say that different cultures will have invented it differently. But there are human-invented concepts that have a single, culturally-invariant form. Mathematics is mathematics, for example. I think it's possible that aesthetic theory is the same

Well, I'm not sure that mathematics has in all cultures invariably followed the Western model; my understanding is that traditional Arabic was different, and Chinese also (I may be corrected). And aesthetic theory, such as it was, outside of the ancient Greeks was for many years inextricably linked to religious content and applicability. The 'Golden Mean', and other such visual conceptions, are relatively recent (by comparison to the history of art).

What your point seems to be about is the idea that there is something explicitly measurable about art that allows us to say without hesitation that it is good. I'll return to that in a moment ...

I think that Mozart is better than, say Indian raga. But perhaps this is because I don't have the necessary knowledge to appreciate the aesthetic beauty of raga ... I think it is entirely possible to understand a form of art without knowing anything about the way in which the art is produced

This seems a little contradictory. If aesthetic values are universal, AND the knowledge of different artistic cultures or methods is not a key factor in appreciating (or understanding) a form of art, then somone who can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of Mozart should certainly be able to also appreciate the aesthetic qualities of other art forms.

if we acknowledge that it (a platonic "art-in-itself") exists, then we are led to certain other conclusions - like that the purpose of art cannot be something like the expansion of human understanding, or social commentary

As I pointed out, philosophically we are not bound to acknowledge that anything-in-itself exists independent of our perceptions. The refutation of empericism as an absolute reflection of reality (by Hume and others) has never in itself been overturned.

The "other conclusions" you infer to are also not necessarily the case. Just because a separate and absolute essence of something exists, it does not follow from there that its purpose or nature is one thing or another - to entertain, or not to fulfil any other function. There is no evidence of that, since we can never perceive that absolute essence in itself in order to analyse and infer its meaning.

if you are willing to say that any work is better than any other work, then you must also admit that the quality of art is quantifiable. If X can have more of quality A than Y has, then quality A must be quantitative

I agree. I just think the basis of the value judgements must be seen in the context of cultural and historical consensus, and subject to a whole range of factors - both individual and collective.

it is this kind of thinking (not my 'art is beauty') that leads to such postmodernisms as 'this soda can is art because I say it is art' ... if we measure art by intention, we are left with several illogical results

Well, I sympathise, but again this line seems a little contradictory. If art is art regardless of the creators' intention, then it's quite possible - and likely - that it will appear accidentally, a 'by-product' of some design or artefact. We are back to the 10,000 monkeys writing Shakespeare here. If this is the case, you could just as well argue that no one should bother with art - it will occur 'naturally', and indeed the hills and mountains and seas themselves all meet to an unsurpassable degree such purposeless aesthetic ideals.

An objective quality (how good the art is) depends on a subjective, and ultimately inaccessible quality (what the artist was thinking)

This may seem wrong to you, but it seems right to me. Except I would remove "thinking". Who and what an artist is or does is what determines the qualities of their art. But one does not need to analyse the artist to appreciate their art (although it can help). One DOES have to acknowledge that the art was an act of human creativity.

... mentions that it was probably not intentional, but that nonetheless we can appreciate it. But if intention matters, then we cannot appreciate it

You can appreciate unintentional resonances by all means. But can you seriously say that it is not subjective to do so? The implication is that there is never any disagreement in aesthetic evaluations - 'those who know' immediately perceive what is good based on these abstract quantifiable criteria. This doesn't happen, and without the presence and creativity of the artist the work would not exist or appeal at all. By-products or unintentional resonances lead us to a highly problematic possibility - that an artist can compose a tragic requiem in memory of a dear friend which is then lauded as a wonderful celebratory and romantic dance, because of its accidental or unintentional merits. This is comic, and has probably happened smilies/smile.gif. There is a sinister side to this too - what about the appropriation of art by totalitarianism, relating aesthetic criteria to a validation of its oppressive worldview?

Intention matters, but we do not need to "know" it academically. To read or hear the work is to experience the intention of the author, both consciously and 'unintentionally'.

My fundamental problem with this idea is that it reduces art to mere communication between the artist and the audience. Why not merely say what you mean, rather than write an allegory, if the meaning is all that matters?

I don't see communication as a reduction, but I suspect we are using the word differently. It is communication that can be transcendent, that can in turn generate communicative effect (like ripplies in a pond), that can change lives, entertain, amuse, soften hearts or strengthen will, and so on. I have never said that meaning is all that matters. Allegory is one of the tools of this particular kind of communication - the relationship between creator and audience.

So by your definition, to be art, a thing must be intended to be art? If so, I think, you must dismiss such things as chairs and cars. Actually, taken to its logical conclusion, this would disqualify commercial music and novels as well; many of those artists do not care about the artistic merit of their creations, as long as they sell

"Intention" as I used it means the knowledge that this act of creation is art, not that it has to be good. This point is really a re-working of the earlier issue, your problem with "if I say it is art, then it is art" ... and, I guess, the 'installations' and 'happenings' that are now a feature of modern art.

This is a tough issue. I agree with you in terms of the dangers and problems arising, but the argument is hard to refute. If someone says their soda bottle is art, how can you really say it is not without talking about that person's intentions? By your argument, there is nothing wrong with someone saying their soda bottle is art if (unintentionally) it happens to meet certain abstract aesthetic criteria. So in the end the platonic worldview gives this even more legitimacy - an "absolute" legitimacy, rather than being about the person and politics etc. This is what I have a problem with!

So, finally ...

"I like Mozart; therefore I suspect that Mozart is good; other people don't like Mozart; therefore either I am wrong or they are wrong; because I don't believe that I am wrong, I must conclude that they fail to appreciate Mozart for non-artistic reasons."

Where I challenge you is this. What you are in fact saying is that if people don't happen to like what you like, and when you really do like it a lot (ie. are not 'wrong') you immediately conclude that they are "failing for non-artistic reasons". This is extremely judgemental, and is riddled with assumptions. And ultimately, unprovable. It could easily be used by religious fundamentalists (of any denomination) as a justification for action. I will raise your Mozart with my John Coltrane ... to therefore assume my preference is because of non-artistic reasons is very presumptious, and rather insulting (don't worry, I can cope smilies/wink.gif ).

Suppose we all like different things (as we do)? Only one of us can therefore be right, which means everyobody else is 'failing for non-artistic reasons'. Are we really prepared to be 'wrong', or 'failing' like the rest of those feeble mortals? smilies/tongue.gif

To reassure you, can I say that whoever the One True Arbiter of taste is, I know it isn't me smilies/biggrin.gif

As you can see from my reply to Littleman - I do NOT dismiss aesthetics ; I do NOT dismiss evaluation ... I am simply accepting the subtleties with a certain humility ... or trying to smilies/wink.gif

Compliments on your keen mind and ability to reason, qualities I very much aspire to smilies/smile.gif

Peace

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aiwendil]

Hi Aiwendil - we meet again in that torchlit arena - "What is Art II"

Well, I've been trying to restrain myself from going into all-out rant mode, but how can I resist when you've thrown down the gauntlet like that?

I think (or perhaps hope) that some of our differences are more a question of degree or language

I think some are. But I believe our primary difference lies in our approach to the whole question. More on this shortly.

Well, I'm not sure that mathematics has in all cultures invariably followed the Western model; my understanding is that traditional Arabic was different, and Chinese also (I may be corrected).

Certainly the evolution of mathematics has been different in different cultures. But the laws of mathematics are the laws of mathematics. The square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle equals the sum of the squares of the legs, regardless of what culture you're in (well, as long as you're in non-curved space). I agree that it seems unlikely that the same is true of aesthetics.

This seems a little contradictory. If aesthetic values are universal, AND the knowledge of different artistic cultures or methods is not a key factor in appreciating (or understanding) a form of art, then somone who can appreciate the aesthetic qualities of Mozart should certainly be able to also appreciate the aesthetic qualities of other art forms.

This is why it's not contradictory: I can't appreciate the aesthetics of a Russian novel because I don't understand Russian. It's not that Russian literature is held to a different standard; it's simply that the means by which that standard is approached (the language) is incomprehensible to me. Someone might not understand Eliot's [u]The Wasteland[/i] because he or she does not understand the various literary allusions. The allusions, in this case, contribute to the aesthetic appeal. The devices used to achieve beauty may vary from culture to culture, but beauty is beauty.

The refutation of empericism as an absolute reflection of reality (by Hume and others) has never in itself been overturned.
. . . Just because a separate and absolute essence of something exists, it does not follow from there that its purpose or nature is one thing or another

I perhaps complicated the matter by introducing Plato. I did not mean that I think a thing called Art exists physically on some other plane of being. My point can be taken merely syntactically; what I mean is that if you say the purpose of music is one thing and the purpose of literature is another (for example), you are essentially saying that there are two fundamentally different things, both of which happen to be called "art".

We are back to the 10,000 monkeys writing Shakespeare here.

Herein seems to lie the heart of our disagreement. If a monkey handed me King Lear (supposing he had just written it) I would consider it a great work of art. I gather that you would not.

If this is the case, you could just as well argue that no one should bother with art - it will occur 'naturally', and indeed the hills and mountains and seas themselves all meet to an unsurpassable degree such purposeless aesthetic ideals.


If nature produced symphonies and novels randomly, then yes - there would be little need for art. But in practice it doesn't. I don't think that a hill is as aesthetically pleasing as The Lord of the Rings. Why do humans build houses when nature has provided us with caves? Because humans are better at building shelter than nature is. There is aesthetic beauty in nature, but because nature has no sense of aesthetics, this beauty is random. Humans do have a sense of aesthetics, so they are able to produce aesthetically beautiful things more often and more succesfully.

The implication is that there is never any disagreement in aesthetic evaluations - 'those who know' immediately perceive what is good based on these abstract quantifiable criteria.

This was not an intended implication. There is disagreement about the laws of physics, but that doesn't mean that a single set of universally true laws does not exist.

and without the presence and creativity of the artist the work would not exist or appeal at all.

Probably not. Without the intention of a car manufacturer, a car would probably not be created. But if it were created by chance, would it not be just as useful for getting from one place to another?

There is a sinister side to this too - what about the appropriation of art by totalitarianism, relating aesthetic criteria to a validation of its oppressive worldview?


A terrible thing, I agree. However: 1. If art is aesthetic beauty, it does not follow that aesthetic beauty is whatever the state says it is. 2. I am not saying anything about morality. I think that whether a piece of art is good or bad artistically is a completely different question from whether it is good or bad morally.

To read or hear the work is to experience the intention of the author, both consciously and 'unintentionally'.

Being a student of quantum physics, I must disagree. We can never know the intention of the author with certainty. For any given present state, there are an infinite number of past states which may have led to it.

I don't see communication as a reduction, but I suspect we are using the word differently.

We probably are. I have a feeling I don't believe in the existence of the kind of communication that you are talking about. I see it as a reduction for this reason: if the only purpose of art is communication, why not just communicate? Why not just write a philosophical treatise? It is sure to be a lot more clear, a lot more comprehensible, than if the author encodes his or her message in a work of literature.

By your argument, there is nothing wrong with someone saying their soda bottle is art if (unintentionally) it happens to meet certain abstract aesthetic criteria.

It would appear that by either of our definitions, a soda bottle can be art. By my definition it can be art because it may have certain aesthetic properties. By your definition it can be art because its creator may have intended it to be art. I think the more relevant question is: is this good art? By my definition, it is probably not. The aesthetic qualities of a soda bottle are minimal compared to most novels or paintings or symphonies. I think you would also say that it is not good art; but I fail to see how you can say this, by your argument, without knowing the intention of its creator.

you immediately conclude that they are "failing for non-artistic reasons".

Well, I conclude that either they are failing or I am failing.

It could easily be used by religious fundamentalists (of any denomination) as a justification for action.

First of all, I don't think that the quality of art should be used as a justification for action at all. Secondly, I have not made any value judgements regarding who is right. I have merely proposed that if two people believe contradictory things, one or both must be wrong.

I will raise your Mozart with my John Coltrane ... to therefore assume my preference is because of non-artistic reasons is very presumptious, and rather insulting

I see it like this: you say that Coltrane is better; I say that Mozart is better. We cannot both be right. Of course I think that I'm right - if I thought that you were right, then I wouldn't think that Mozart is better. I acknowledge, of course, that I may be wrong. But only one of us can be right - unless you want to say that the quality of art is entirely subjective, in which case you have "Britney Speares is better than Mozart" being true for all those misguided pre-teens. (By the way, I do like Coltrane, though not as much as Mozart).

I mentioned that I think our primary difference is in approach. I think that I am approaching the question from a purely abstract position, whereas you are thinking about the way art works in practice. I would say that I am taking the viewpoint of a scientist and you that of an artist, but I think that's a very oversimplified evaluation.

I've wracked my brain for some way to tie this all back in with the original question. I've failed. Though I very much enjoy this debate, I think the thread has been pretty much derailed.

[Kalessin]

Aiwendil smilies/smile.gif

I would say that I am taking the viewpoint of a scientist and you that of an artist, but I think that's a very oversimplified evaluation.

A very elegant phrase which instantly wins me over, although "artist and amatuer philosopher" would be even more flattering smilies/wink.gif

With my amateur philosophy hat on, I will continue to challenge 'universal' laws or axioms, and the "new evangelism" of science (don't start me on evolution or quantum mechanics) ...

With my artist hat on (paint-flecked beret, no doubt) I will continue to assert the essential humanity of the creative act ...

With my 'personal resonances' hat on (hmm ... ), I will continue to be an unreconstructed romantic idealist - it's those soaring strings, that sunset-framed pathos, the hackneyed melodrama, and any number of heroic narratives of redemption for me smilies/tongue.gif

Other than that, anyone for Tolkien?

Peace smilies/smile.gif

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[littlemanpoet]

I have been reading the discussion with interest over the last few days, and definitely am "in one corner". I commend you both for the courtesy of your dual. smilies/wink.gif

With full respect for Aiwendil's erudition and rational incisiveness, I believe that the derailment referred to above is due not in small degree to the very abstract turn of this debate. One cannot talk about art purely in the abstract, for there is necessarily an artist. Ah, but I beat a dead horse, no? Nevertheless, we are talking about a specific artist, Tolkien. One may hypothesize all one likes about a thousand monkeys, or art appearing without any artist behind it, but the fact remains that Tolkien and all those mentioned above for illustrative purposes, were indeed artists, who did indeed create a work of art, with intentions for their works of art. And back to the main point of this thread: the artists are themselves responsible for the state of the genre. In as much as they give into the realities of the publishing world and the market it dictates to - ah, ahem - I mean, serves, smilies/wink.gif the artists are responsible for the pablum readers are stuck with.

Rise up! Revolt, oh artists! Raise your firebrands and attack the - smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/rolleyes.gif smilies/eek.gif smilies/biggrin.gif
well, excuse me, I seem to have gotten a little - ahem - excited there.

In any case, Tolkien set a high standard and artists would do well to go back to the high mountain streams, and also deep under the tunneled heaps, to reinvigorate the genre.

[littlemanpoet]

As I proposed in the Middle Earth Come to Life thread, Tolkien as a 20th century great:
... an appreciation of this particular aspect of Tolkien's skill as a writer (who should be hailed as that, and should be considered to stand shoulder to shoulder - perhaps head and shoulders above - Steinbeck, Golding, and any other major 20th century author you can think of).
Kalessin:
Now, I've already had this argument with just about everyone on these boards, and there you go throwing salt on a livid festering wound

The dense and painterly (or photographic) style of description used by Tolkien, with it's narrative undertone (foreboding obviously, or hope - the landscape where Frodo and Sam meet Faramir, for example), seems to me more redolent of 19th century writing than the 20th. Parts of Poe's Masque Of The Red Death, or anything by Joseph Conrad, are in a similar vein. Of modern authors, perhaps JG Ballard has the same visual attentiveness, wrapped around dialogue that is by contrast starkly laconic. The modern trends have been away from grand metaphor and simile, and the opening of literature to a wider cross-cultural audience and authorship has led to a range of equally valid forms, from the colloquial to patois and so on. And a simple economy of narrative certainly has its place (not in my posts here, obviously )

A great book? LotR, certainly. Tolkien the best writer of the 20th century? Based on LotR alone, I would say not. Based on his canon, certainly not.

But we've already had that discussion, which was eventually adjudged a somewhat of a "no result" as the protagonists (including yours truly) ground themselves into inextricable entrenchment, like the last great barques of an ancient armada, angular sculptures of black-brown driftwood that seemed to groan silently under the weight of their own failed expectations, and in that melancholy rootless, yet somehow fixed forever in golden sand that bore their wheeling and spiked shadows without complaint, and still glistened at sunrise, like a half-forgotten dream, with the memory of spray and wash, the salmon leap and the dark, burrowing mollusc, preserving a timeless hope in its yielding texture, like the .... erm ... etc. etc.

Apologies for the mischief I think the living dead marshes were more of an atmospheric device than a specific kind of natural phenomenon that can be rationalised within Tolkien's cosmogony. Whilst some precursive elements of Gaia theory may arguably be superimposed on Tolkien's intuitive and poetic sense of the land, the recent philosophical notion of "living earth", with its comprehensive ecological paradigm, is not really inferred. The Tolkienesque kind of allusion can also be found in the work of the poets of the First World War in their reflections of battlefields and the pretty fields of France that became the great graveyards of that war.

Peace

Yes, I am aware that Tolkien's style is, as you say, not modern as in Steinbeck and the others. In theme, however, I think he is forgotten in error. He is thoroughly modern in what the story is all about. I will not go into a laundry list of themes and expose myself to either extreme of (1) "you forgot the theme of -fill in the blank-", or (2) "the story is simply about itself". As you pointed out, he shares World War One experience with others - I would go so far as to say "modern war" experience. As I have said before, this book could not have been written in any century other than when it was, and of course, Tolkien being a lover of language among other things, HIS story is unlike Steinbeck and most of the other 20th century greats in that it is (out on a limb here) not self-consciously written in order to be published for the writer to be recognized as a relevant author. Rather, it is written foremost because Tolkien loved telling stories. I may have garbled that badly. It would seem I need to try again, and for a bit more clarity this time.
I hope, Kalessin, to mark off, with your cooperation (and others who care to join this little dicussion):

1) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged inferior, as a writer, to the 20th century greats;
2) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged superior, as a writer, to the 20th century greats; and
3) aspects in which Tolkien may be adjudged to be marking out new territory and therefore not comparable to the 20th century greats, while still worth considering among the 20th century greats.
This will require outlining a basically agreeable list of 20th century greats, writing in English.

I'll consider the proverbial ball to be in your court, unless after about two days it seems I need to "serve" again.

[Bêthberry]

Gollies, and some people think the posts on the Chapter by Chapter or Canonicity threads are long. :p I'm sure there are thoughts here some new members would enjoy reading.

aka bump

[Kuruharan]

And back to the main point of this thread: the artists are themselves responsible for the state of the genre. In as much as they give into the realities of the publishing world and the market it dictates to - ah, ahem - I mean, serves, the artists are responsible for the pablum readers are stuck with.

Yes, but it is the publishing world and the market that puts food on the table. If an artist finds a formula that works, the pressure will be to exploit it for all it’s worth. Even when the artist becomes bored and disconnected from the art. If a writer is unable to find a publisher for some cherished work, then what? Much bitterness ensues I imagine.

Of course, there always looms the possibility of self-publication. Perhaps this dream keeps some working into the small hours of the night on something they no longer “feel” with the hope that they may accumulate enough money and fame to enable them to publish for themselves?

Of course, I say all this now. I have not had the luxury of reading an excruciatingly bad work in recent months, and that may mellow me somewhat.

[Rimbaud]

I mean this sincerely: authors have almost nothing to do with what is on display in Waterstones. Or Barnes and Noble for our cousins.

The uncomfortable equation is thus: books = units.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I couldn't agree more Rim, although the situation might even be worse than you are allowing it to be:

books = Movie units

There isn't an author writing today who doesn't have, at least somewhere at the back of his/her mind, the idea of movie rights to the book, and thus creates accordingly. If there are authors who avoid this, I would suggest that they instead follow one of the following two other equations:

books = Oprah units

or

books = Man Booker Prize units

I wonder though if there really is no room for an effective presence of the author in this however. If books-as-units were widgets, then anyone could be trained to write the kinds of books that different people want to read. But we can all agree that there is still some kind of speical non-quantifiable talent behind good writing, such that the people who produce book-units in response to a market demand, still do so from within a 'talent' or skill-set that is uniquely their own.

It's like any profession -- every computer programmer is still an individual using his or her creativity. While the lines of code written by that programmer might not have an overt or visible effect upon the whole, there is an effect which, when combined with the other creative/individual effects of other programmers, results in large-scale change.

So art is independent of the artist, and perhaps controlled by the publishing houses, but the culumative effect of creative artists moves the people (since publishers are people too! ;) ) in certain directions?

Grasping for hope here. . .which is hard for a dyed in the wool Althusserian such as myself (free biscuits for anyone who knows what that means).

[Kuruharan]

Althusserian-pertaining to the ideas of Louis Althusser who said that ideology is the way we live our reality through representation. Social identification is a question of what we consume rather than what we produce, which I believe is what specifically relates to the point you are making.

So, are you implying that readers get junk because they deserve it, or maybe ask for it?

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Following Louis Althusser strictly -- we are junk since in a consumerist culture you are, well, what you eat. . .or what is fed to you. ;)

[Mithalwen]

But if we stopped eating it they would try to feed us something else maybe... ;)

[Kuruharan]

Ah-ha!! So in offering me biscuits you were merely trying to perpetuate an unfair social system!! I shall begin concocting plans for your violent overthrow at once!!!

If only you had offered me waffles or caviar…


Is there any hope for this poor thread? :D ;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Ah, but you see, that's just the thing with Althusser -- we can't choose to stop eating what "they" give us, because "they" do not exist: we're all part of a self-constituting "us." We all of us order our lives within ideologies that find concrete expression in what LA calls Ideological State Apparatus (and, yes, he goes on to call them ISAs). With this view, the cultural productions -- pieces of 'art' -- that we consume appeal to us because they reflect the significations that we have all developed to explain and order our world. They are not imposed on us from without, but spring up from within ourselves, all of us, trapping us all in the same prisonhouse of consumerist, ideological representation.

We are all of us the "them" that imprison each of us individually. As such we cannot produce any kind of art that is not an expression of what we have made ourselves to be in order to find existence within the ISAs that we've built to order our existence. Freedom from these is a dream.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course, in a perfect free market, producers will simply produce what the consumers desire. That is not to say that producers (and governments) do not have ways and means to influence consumers' desires, but then there is no such thing as the perfect free market.

On the whole, however, I would say that, just as we get the press that we deserve, we get the books that we deserve. :p :smokin:

[Kuruharan]

They are not imposed on us from without, but spring up from within ourselves, all of us, trapping us all in the same prisonhouse of consumerist, ideological representation.

We are all of us the "them" that imprison each of us individually.

But if this is the case is it really a prison or is it just the world? And if it is just the world, why choose to view it so negatively? There are obviously limitations to everything, but that does not make everything a prison.

Anyway, Saucepan to the rescue...

we get the books that we deserve.

I was never convicted of the deeds I done did to deserve Dennis L. McKiernan (my apologies to those who like him). ;) :p

[tar-ancalime]

Following Louis Althusser strictly -- we are junk since in a consumerist culture you are, well, what you eat. . .or what is fed to you.

We are all of us the "them" that imprison each of us individually. As such we cannot produce any kind of art that is not an expression of what we have made ourselves to be in order to find existence within the ISAs that we've built to order our existence. Freedom from these is a dream.

But I think we've got a skewed perspective on the "junk" that sometimes passes for art. There is this idea that our current society, our market, or some other modern institution targeted for finger-wagging is somehow responsible for what seems like a glut of appalling art. But while self-flagellation and finger-pointing can be fun, when we go in for this sort of thing we're forgetting something important: there has always been bad art. Picasso wasn't the only painter in Paris; but today we value his art over many of those who were around him because time has shown it to be superior (note that I'm postulating its superiority and neatly evading the question of what makes it so). The art that has come down to us from past eras (not that Picasso's era was all that long ago) has been distilled through time, with only that art judged valuable being preserved. Thus, almost all of the works of art (whether paintings, novels, symphonies, etc.) we know from past eras are, if not great, at least well-made in one or more aspects. The bad art simply hasn't survived--we don't know the works of the worst Renaissance writers because no one bothered to copy their manuscripts. The parchment they were written on was reused or destroyed. Simply put, no one cared enough to preserve them.

So in our present era, we're still surrounded by all of the bad art of our own time. The good art has not yet risen above it. The difference, of course, is the variety of media and the vast dissemination in comparison with earlier eras. A bad book, in times past, would have reached a relatively small audience compared with a bad blockbuster movie today. However, in the long view, I'm sure that the good art of our own era will be remembered and treasured by past generations in much the same way that we remember and treasure the very best art of the eras that preceded us.

[Lalwendë]

*Spots nice deep thread and rubs hands with glee as the old brain-cogs squeakily start accelerating*

The art that has come down to us from past eras (not that Picasso's era was all that long ago) has been distilled through time, with only that art judged valuable being preserved. Thus, almost all of the works of art (whether paintings, novels, symphonies, etc.) we know from past eras are, if not great, at least well-made in one or more aspects. The bad art simply hasn't survived

Ah, but....There are many mitigating factors to consider in this, such as oppression of the one who produced that piece of art, or repression of the ideas contained therein. For example, consider when art by women was not generally accepted by the cultural establishment and was quite frequently judged to be worthless. We do not know just how much that was produced was eventually lost to us.

I once studied literature of the 1930's, and when researching a paper, I discovered that there were many novels written by working class people, with stories centred on their experiences of poverty and unemployment, only a handful of which are now available in print. Tracking some down, I found they were fantastic novels, speaking of an experience which is not often spoken of today. Many more, however, remained out of print, simply as they were being published by small independent houses, and not everything could be profitably reprinted. I wished I could read some of these lost novels, as they sounded good.

Fordim, I am now thoroughly depressed. I always rant at people that there is no real 'alternative', that anything we do is ultimately driven by business and media and general 'powers that be', even that really obscure shouty CD we buy would never have been available if someone didn't think we would 'buy in' to it, and that if I went off to live in a cave and live off nuts and berries it would be part of the whole machine in that I was just reacting to it..... I thought it was just me being curmudgeonly and old, but it appears my negative grumbling has a real name. :eek: ;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The bad art simply hasn't survived

Sadly, I must take issue with this. From Victorian pornography to Renaissance nationalist doggerrel (the Pope is a horse's a**, Spaniards are all b*****s, etc) there is lots of bad art that has come to us 'through the ages'. The old "test of time" theory does not quite hold up, I'm afraid, given these and a whole host of other examples. . .

The only difference between bad art and good art that has survived is in the interested powers/people who want to preserve it. Publishing houses want to keep Dickens around because his stuff still sells (relatively) well and you don't have to cut out a slice of the profits to any pesky estate. Academics want to keep anti-Papal doggerrel around to study it, people of dubious taste and morality want to keep the Victorian porn about in order to. . .well. . .you get the picture (actually, I hope you do not).

There is no "gold standard" of historical transmission that can guarantee quality and worth in art -- it's all still just the market place. Gone With the Wind continues to outsell the roughly contemporaneous Ulysses, and while I enjoyed Margaret Mitchell's buccolic romp through the Old South (passing quickly over the text's racism and classism) I would not in a million years make any claim that it is a better book than anything produced by James Joyce!

[tar-ancalime]

Lalwende, you're absolutely right. What I should have said:

The art that hasn't made it to our time has been lost for any number of reasons: fire, water, and carelessness are three that spring to mind. And there is certainly a lot of very good art that hasn't survived, whether for the above reasons or because of the low status and/or oppression of the artists (or for some other reason). In effect, we've often thrown out the baby with the bath water. But I think my main point still stands: even though we've lost so much art, good and bad, what remains tends to be good art.

EDIT: Having just read Fordim's post, I stand corrected. It's a shame--it was a nice crackpot theory. :D

[Mithalwen]

I believe my choices as a consumer give me more power than my vote. I remember when recycled paper and other ecologically kinder products were fringe tastes and now they and organic food are in every supermarket ( I know this somewhat defeats the object but I will save my standard tree hugging rant about food miles for another occasion) but the supermarkets are clearly responding to demand. The reason we don't have GMO here is not down to the government (who would like to yield to US pressure to relax the definitions) but due to consumers not wanting it.

So I for one, am not going to give in... and passively accept my fate...

[mark12_30]

I think that I'm quite glad that I never knew that there was such a thing lurking about in the world as ...... Victorian pornography.

[Mithalwen]

Have a look at some pre-raph painting for a start ... not :rolleyes: that I suggest you go further.....

[Aiwendil]

Well, I never dreamed I'd see this thread come back to life.

Fordim has correctly and eloquently noted that it is greed that drives the markets, not art. While I agree with his cynicism, I feel a distinction ought to be made. It is one thing to talk about what the market for literature is like, and why it's that way. It's quite another to talk about what the literature on the market is like, and why it's that way. And lurking somewhere in the latter question is the issue of what constitutes good art.

A (perhaps oversimplistic) way of putting it is: bookstores sell that which sells; but why does that which sells sell?

There was a general concensus back in the early days of this thread that the post-Tolkien fantasy of Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, and the like is significantly inferior to Tolkien's work. Why then does the market demand that kind of book? Why doesn't it demand works like Tolkien's, which are widely considered better (and indeed sell better)? Is there some strange force of capitalism at work that keeps the demand for this more popular, better liked type of book low and the demand for the less liked type of book high? Or is it not a market issue at all, but an artistic one - most writers are simply incapable of producing works like Tolkien's?

Fordim wrote:
If books-as-units were widgets, then anyone could be trained to write the kinds of books that different people want to read. But we can all agree that there is still some kind of speical non-quantifiable talent behind good writing, such that the people who produce book-units in response to a market demand, still do so from within a 'talent' or skill-set that is uniquely their own.


I'm not sure about the non-quantifiable bit. The specifications for a succesful book could be completely quantifiable and still the book could be difficult to produce. The specifications for an efficient heat engine are quantifiable, but I certainly couldn't build one. Of course, I must admit I'm the sort of reductionist who insists that everything is ultimately quantifiable.

Nonetheless, I think you make the right point - writing books that sell is a talent.

So art is independent of the artist, and perhaps controlled by the publishing houses

Of course, it's not literally true that the publishers and booksellers control what art is produced. The artists control that. The publishers and booksellers control what art is published and sold; and of course this exerts a strong influence on the artists. But Tolkien, for example, wrote without much thought of the demands of the market.

With this view, the cultural productions -- pieces of 'art' -- that we consume appeal to us because they reflect the significations that we have all developed to explain and order our world.

This view significantly fails to distinguish between art that sells and art that is considered good, though I suppose it could be applied coherently to each. Nonetheless, it looks to me like it leads to a condemnation of all art, from Mozart to Tolkien to the junk in the romance section.

Tar-Ancalime wrote:
there has always been bad art.

This is a very good point. There is, I think, a natural human tendency to be very melodramatic about one's present situation.

Fordim again:
Sadly, I must take issue with this. From Victorian pornography to Renaissance nationalist doggerrel (the Pope is a horse's a**, Spaniards are all b*****s, etc) there is lots of bad art that has come to us 'through the ages'. The old "test of time" theory does not quite hold up, I'm afraid, given these and a whole host of other examples. . .


Yes and no. A lot of bad art is preserved, but it's usually not well known - and I still think that good art is preserved more consistently than bad. Salieri, for example, is often brought up as the quintessential mediocre artist as opposed to Mozart the great; but Salieri was undoubtedly a far better artist than many of his contemporaries, whose names nor works are often heard.

Further, I think that even if all bad art was preserved and widely known, it would not be enough to dismiss the "test of time" theory, the idea of which is not that only good art survives but that only good art retains popularity or critical approval (there's a big difference between those two, of course, but that's a separate issue). Nobody seriously thinks that Victorian pornography is better art than Shakespeare, and its certainly not as popular.

There is no "gold standard" of historical transmission that can guarantee quality and worth in art -- it's all still just the market place. Gone With the Wind continues to outsell the roughly contemporaneous Ulysses, and while I enjoyed Margaret Mitchell's buccolic romp through the Old South (passing quickly over the text's racism and classism) I would not in a million years make any claim that it is a better book than anything produced by James Joyce!

I agree that historical transmission is not a "gold standard". It is not true that the quality of a work of art is directly proportional to the success with which it retains popularity over time. But I do think that such success is often diagnostic of quality. But Ulysses and Gone with the Wind are really fairly recent works in the grand scheme of things.

By the way, doesn't your placing of Joyce over Mitchell require that you have a notion of "good art", and doesn't that contradict the claim that:

the cultural productions -- pieces of 'art' -- that we consume appeal to us because they reflect the significations that we have all developed to explain and order our world. They are not imposed on us from without, but spring up from within ourselves, all of us, trapping us all in the same prisonhouse of consumerist, ideological representation.


. . . or am I reading a value judgement into Althusser's view that isn't really there? Or do you perhaps not really share his view?

Lalwende wrote:
I always rant at people that there is no real 'alternative', that anything we do is ultimately driven by business and media and general 'powers that be', even that really obscure shouty CD we buy would never have been available if someone didn't think we would 'buy in' to it

This seems to approach things with the assumption that people buy music with the goal of escaping consumerism. I don't know about anyone else, but I buy music because I think it sounds good, and as long as it does I don't really care what sinister forces made it available to me.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I actually do subscribe to Althusser's views on art and production, it's just that I've not (been able) to give them full expression here. Althusser does hold to the idea that there is such a thing as human imagination, and that this is able to contest the boundaries that we put around ourselves. In effect, he argues that we can 'break free' and that creative art 'adds' to human experience.

The limitation he sees on this is that the only thing art can clearly 'show' us is the fact or manner of our 'imprisonment' (he actually calls it "interpellation": being singled out, made and individual, by our culture). That is, the creative artist is able to view the world in such a way as to show us with 'new eyes' the real contours of the structures that surround us. . .and this is the first step toward changing those structures. Of course, being a committed Marxist he insists that this change cannot come from a single person, but from mass movement. So, in the end, his argument becomes quite interesting:

the artist is a special individual (not a privileged one) who is able to see and thus express the world in a new way; this new way shows how the world is to other people, and if the expression is compelling enough and reaches enough people, then a community can develop around the work of art (but not the artist) in which this new awareness becomes part of the human/social fabric, thus altering it and changing it. Of course, over time, this change becomes part of the fabric and thus once more invisible (that is: so normal that we no longer notice it) until it is seen anew by another artist or creative thinker.

His view is not really despairing at all -- not at least of the human condition or of societies. Althusser merely takes issue with the idea that a single person can act as an orginary genius and single-handedly 'change the world'. All the individual can do is reflect through her- or himself something that is already in society in such a way that it gains larger purchase until there is sufficient mass movement to have that minority view effect the way we live.

I've always though how elegantly this goes together with Tolkien's own view of fantasy as being motivated by recovery and 'seeing the world anew'. Of course, the one HUGE difference between Tolkien and Althusser, is that the reality Althusser sees reflected in art are the material conditions of human existence in society, whereas the reality that Tolkien sees reflected in art is a divine and spiritual reality. What is compelling for me is that neither man had great faith in the ability of the individual to really have an impact on the world -- and that goes right to the heart of most of the ideologies of western democracies, in which everyone "makes a difference" and all it takes to change the world is "one good idea" or "one remarkable person."

I still don't go with the "test of time" theory either, insofar as the 'bad' art might not be as widely known, but that is simply to appeal to the other spurious argument of popularity: I just can't see an equation like. . .

been around a long time + popular = good

having much use, insofar as the two terms upon which it depends are both highly questionable -- maybe it's been around a long time because it suits the political purposes of a powerful group, and maybe it's popular because it's got lots of prurient sex and violence.

What I can say is this: I prefer Mozart to Salieri, and Tolkien to Brooks.

[The Saucepan Man]

... what is "good art"? :rolleyes: ;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

. . .what is "good art"? :rolleyes: ;)

Not bad art. :p

[Bêthberry]

My dear Fordim,


They are not imposed on us from without, but spring up from within ourselves, all of us, trapping us all in the same prisonhouse of consumerist, ideological representation.

Aren't you getting your Althusser mixed up with your Fredric Jameson, (The Prison-House of Language ?

These Marxists do tend to cross-pollinate. :)

It is not only women artists whose work has been neglected by time and history. Throughout the ninetheenth century, Milton was regarded as the quintessential seventeenth century poet--the protestant rebel finding a chord of sympathy with the romantics and eclipsing more traditional poets such as Marvell, Herbert and Donne. It took the voice of a T. S. Eliot to bring back to the forefront of critical acclaim John Donne.

Strangely now--or perhaps not--the memorials for both Blake and Donne lie in St. Paul's.

[mark12_30]

... what is "good art"? :rolleyes: ;)


...good art reveals Truth.

;)

[The Saucepan Man]

...good art reveals Truth.Indeed. I have often looked upon Tracy Emin's tent (alas no longer with us) and the works of Jake and Dinos Chapman and reflected on the nature of Truth. :p

[Kuruharan]

You want good art?

Just take a look at those saucepans! :D

Very nice!

[Aiwendil]

Fordim:

Thanks for the explanation of Althusser's views. A question, though: you said:

In effect, he argues that we can 'break free' and that creative art 'adds' to human experience.

The limitation he sees on this is that the only thing art can clearly 'show' us is the fact or manner of our 'imprisonment' (he actually calls it "interpellation": being singled out, made and individual, by our culture). That is, the creative artist is able to view the world in such a way as to show us with 'new eyes' the real contours of the structures that surround us

Does he then draw a fundamental distinction between "true" artists, those who can add to the human experience by revealing our interpellation, and the popular artists, whose work meets the demands of the market? Or does the stuff that fills the bookshelves reveal truths about our experience as well?

I must say that in any event I think I disagree with his view. I don't really hold with any philosophy of art that ascribes an integral role to the function of art in society. But I said enough about that in the ancient history of this thread.

I still don't go with the "test of time" theory either, insofar as the 'bad' art might not be as widely known, but that is simply to appeal to the other spurious argument of popularity: I just can't see an equation like. . .

been around a long time + popular = good

having much use, insofar as the two terms upon which it depends are both highly questionable -- maybe it's been around a long time because it suits the political purposes of a powerful group, and maybe it's popular because it's got lots of prurient sex and violence.


I should emphasize that I don't believe in any such equation. I never said either that being around for a long time and being popular makes a work of art good or that such a criterion is a perfect indicator of the quality of a work of art. All I claim is that over long periods of time good art tends to maintain popularity and bad art tends not to.

The Saucepan Man wrote:
... what is "good art"?

Who cares?

What I mean is: is a working definition of "good art" really necessary for the discussion in this thread to make sense? Of course it's an interesting question in its own right . . .

Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether there is such a thing as "good art". I recall having a long debate about that in another old thread - perhaps I'll go and see if I can unearth it.

Edit: The thread I'm thinking of was The Tolkien Template (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=1362), one that bears quite a resemblance (and even a link) to this one.

[tar-ancalime]

Or does the stuff that fills the bookshelves reveal truths about our experience as well?

Of course it does!

Perhaps a formulaic, poorly crafted work doesn't reveal truth as skillfully as the masterpiece of a greater writer, and perhaps a potboiler doesn't reveal a unique truth, but the fact that something could be said more eloquently, or has been said again and again, doesn't make it any less true.

(Personal disclaimer: I am a professional in the performing arts, and I really take issue with the whole idea that there is some discernable boundary between what is art and what is "just" entertainment. I expect the same respect for my craft regardless of the nature of the work I'm performing. I think that when we begin to talk about the "real art" vs. "the stuff that fills the bookshelves," we're setting up a false dichotomy.)

[Lalwendë]

What makes a work of art good? When someone says it is good.

And to explain further: More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded.

This seems to approach things with the assumption that people buy music with the goal of escaping consumerism. I don't know about anyone else, but I buy music because I think it sounds good, and as long as it does I don't really care what sinister forces made it available to me.

I too buy music because I think it sounds good. Unfortunately, the opportunities to buy the music I think sounds good are diminishing because of sinister forces like Simon 'smarmy big pants' Cowell. I was talking about this the other day, and I believe that there is too much 'perspiration' in music these days and not enough 'inspiration'; I do not want to hear someone singing, with a 'perfect voice' the same song I have heard so many others sing. I want to hear a new song altogether. Yes, I'm clearly putting the boot into all these TV talent shows! ;) Obviously, all artists must 'sell out' to a certain extent - I read the other day of a band who were so 'punk' they refused to release records and eventually refused to play live apart from in their own garage. That's plainly going too far, but market forces these days all too often prevent the kind of experimentation which in the past has resulted in so much fantastic music!

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Regarding the test of time and art - often, there are fashions in art, which means that some old works of art no longer fit into later ideals. They therefore sink into oblivion for a time - or forever, if no one rediscovers them - and are lost, despite their intrinsic worth. There is one very notable example in music history; J. S. Bach* was considered old-fashioned by his own sons and their generation. Had not Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy rediscovered him many years later and brought his Matthew's Passion to public performance, who knows if we would be familiar with him today?

To connect this to Tolkien, Peter Jackson seems to have played a Mendelssohn's role in the revival of Tolkien's LotR; though it was never completely gone from bookshelves, it certainly was not at the forefront of attention for a long time...

(*I know I'm not the only person who considers JSB the greatest genius in musical history - and that under most difficult circumstances. The fact that his sons were able musicians and composers, yet without his genius, shows that great art is not reproducable at will nor learnable as a trade, though both will and training are certainly necessary for the creation (sub-creation, if you will) of art.)

PS - Cross-posted with Lalwendë, who also brings up the point of "perspiration" vs. "inspiration"

[Rimbaud]

(Digressing a little, as I found saved the basis of an old post I had for this thread (2002!), added a little at the end and am posting it now.)


I imagine a pyramid representing the number of different book titles sold, with the base set in the past and the needle stretching past us into the future. The pyramid is also slanted as you look at it so that it comes from the past upwards into the future. This slant is to indicate an increased number of sales of books in total.

More books are sold today than ever – yet fewer titles year on year. Naturally this decrease cannot have been going on forever, perhaps you can conclude that there is a cyclical pattern of increasing and decreasing numbers of titles sold. (On a side note, the UK has the most different titles published per head in the world. Can’t see it lasting long, though).

The centre of gravity for this pyramid, that which keeps it narrowing into the point, is the market force, as determined by the best selling books. This process is augmented by the currently observed trend of consolidation among book chains, reducing choice for the consumer. The market looks to release books similar to those that do well – and why not? It’s only curmudgeons like myself who want a vast choice of titles…right? (It’s difficult to evade accusations of elitism on and from either side of the debate.) This trend of bookshop consolidation is likely to be turned on its head, beginning a new cycle.

Why? The joy of the internet! The mighty web has injected a heady dose of choice back into the market. Obscure books are now readily available, and smaller independents have been thrown a lifeline, transforming themselves into online dealers of that which is tricky to find on Amazon. As mentioned above, it is easy to fall into melodrama. The world of books is a fairly ruddy one, just try and avoid those odious big shops with small ranges.

Indeed, perhaps that’s the point; that it’s choice rather than a form of objective qualitative analysis for which we should be striving. I rather agree with Aiwendil above with a distaste for classifying ‘good art’; it is moreover in my opinion a phrase to be avoided,

If, however, you take the possibly more accurate view – that there is no ‘art’, only the perception thereof, the argument glides into a smooth downward spiral that comes to rest on Descartes. Not of much benefit to a discussion, but the point being that it is impossible and perhaps unwanted to create hard and fast rules for perception for any more than one person.

Choice, then. Let’s not dictate what should and should not be read, rather let’s question the uneven playing field for a wide range of books. I think this is what I was driving at in my last post on this thread, made with customary glibness, that it is the practical side of the argument that merits discussion. With this, I refer to the original discussion on fantasy books.

To the wider discussion that has been happening on and off between some bright minds on this thread for a while, I will for now restrain myself to a rather facetious quotation from Auden: “Some books are undeservedly forgotten, none are undeservedly remembered.” Looks like we’re back to longevity equations.

[Lalwendë]

Interesting post about book selling, Rimbaud!

I have to say, thank goodness for t'Internet when it comes to finding books. Several years ago, book prices were effectively 'fixed' in the UK. Then the government, in it's infinite wisdom ;) , suddenly released retailers from the requirement to sell books at their Recommended Retail price (RRP). At the time, commentators said that market forces would inevitably mean that the big selling titles would get much cheaper, and the more obscure titles would see price rises. This has indeed proved to be the case.

And in addition, chain bookshops do not seem to carry the range of titles that they used to. These chains have also proliferated, which is good if you are after something readily available, but if not, you are put in a bind. There are less independent booksellers these days, thus book buying online has become the only option for less profitable titles. I lke the fact I can get the latest Harry Potter in the supermarket for a knockdown price, but it's a bit annoying that in my whole city (a 500,000 poulation, including 50k students!) I have as yet been unable to find a shop to spend time in browsing Tolkien critical works.

Let me drop in some praise here for two independent shops - The Whitby Bookshop and Broadhurst's of Southport. I've got no commercial interest, just they are fantastic shops. ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Quote:
... what is "good art"?

Who cares?

What I mean is: is a working definition of "good art" really necessary for the discussion in this thread to make sense? Of course it's an interesting question in its own right . . .And I thought that you were the master of quantification. ;)

The reason that I asked is that assumptions are being made on this thread as to what is "good art" or "bad art". Who decides what is "good" and what is "bad" at any given time? Is it some cultural elite? Is it the majority of consumers (the popularity argument)? Or is it simply down to personal taste? I have a lot of time for the works mentioned in my previous post, and yet they certainly don't have mass appeal and there are many (probably the majority) who find them pointless and entirely devoid of merit.

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' ;))? And, if so, who is to say what those truths are? In any event, surely the individual can simply enjoy art without having to feel that they have learned some basic truth. Or can simple enjoyment be classified as a basic truth of human experience?


More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded. But who are these "right kind of critics", and why should they determine what is good and bad for the rest of us?


Perhaps a more pertinent question is whether there is such a thing as "good art". I recall having a long debate about that in another old thread - perhaps I'll go and see if I can unearth it.Precisely the point that I was driving at. Isn't it all, ultimately, subjective? Of course, in communities such as this forum, where one's very presence is driven by a particular interest (the works of Tolkien in our case), there will be a broad (though not exclusive) consensus on many areas of artistic endeavour. But there will always be disagreement on the fringes (if not the central ground).


Indeed, perhaps that’s the point; that it’s choice rather than a form of objective qualitative analysis for which we should be striving. I rather agree with Aiwendil above with a distaste for classifying ‘good art’; it is moreover in my opinion a phrase to be avoided.Since the merits of an individual work of art are entirely subjective, I would agree that there can be no such thing as “good art”. A piece of art cannot, objectively, be classified as “good” simply because a certain group of academics regard it as having academic merit, although it is certainly “good” to them. Neither can it be classified as “bad” because others regard it as having little merit (by reference to their own criteria). Similarly, with the works of authors such as Danielle Steele, or Jeffrey Archer, or Terry Brooks. Like tar-ancalime, I would not exclude works such as these from the general definition of "art" simply because they are regarded as “mere entertainment” for the masses. They are popular with, and therefore regarded as “good”, by a large section of society, while others regard them as drivel and therefore “bad”. Objectively, they are neither.

Of course, works of art can come to be regarded as good by a sufficiently large or influential section of society, such as they become generally regarded within that society as “good” (and this will change over time). That is not to say that only art which is popular is to regarded as “good”, but it is surely one determinant of quality. If the works of a particular author or artist or director are popular, then they must be doing something right.

I would agree with Rimbaud concerning the desirability of choice. And I would say that there is a sufficiently wide range of shared tastes within our society to prompt the "producers" and those who market their "products" to give us a sufficiently tolerable choice. There may be those within society whose particular tastes are not catered for, but such tastes would surely be very eclectic indeed. Otherwise, while those who have less “popularist” tastes may need to search a little harder (whether that be by surfing the net, tuning into the right radio station, going to the right bookshop and so forth), that which they find to be “good” will generally still be there somewhere.

[mark12_30]

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )? And, if so, who is to say what those truths are? In any event, surely the individual can simply enjoy art without having to feel that they have learned some basic truth. Or can simple enjoyment be classified as a basic truth of human experience?

Those who believe in transcendant Truth would say yes, that enjoyment of something Good leads to a deeper (not necessarily intellectual) understanding of that Good; that enjoyment of Truth leads to deeper understanding (again, not necessarily intellectual) of that Truth. Further, the reason that such enjoyment is subjective is due to the variety and subtlety inherent in the individual's perception of Truth, not because the Truth itself is inconsistent.

Those who neither believe in, nor pursue, Good or Truth, would say there are no such effects.

[The Saucepan Man]

Those who believe in transcendant Truth would say yes, that enjoyment of something Good leads to a deeper (not necessarily intellectual) understanding of that Good; that enjoyment of Truth leads to deeper understanding (again, not necessarily intellectual) of that Truth. Further, the reason that such enjoyment is subjective is due to the variety and subtlety inherent in the individual's perception of Truth, not because the Truth itself is inconsistent.But is this true of every work of art that one who believes thusly perceives? And surely much the same might be said of art which such an individual considers to be "bad" - that the negative reaction enhances understanding.


Those who neither believe in, nor pursue, Good or Truth, would say there are no such effects.And does that render valueless to the believer the enjoyment of art by the non-believer that he or she finds to be "good"?

[littlemanpoet]

I dare say "good art" is not nearly as subjective as has been asserted; certainly not completely subjective. Standards have always applied throughout the history of art. Cultures that have done art (which is probably all of them) have conformed to styles and standards. What kinds of standards? At least those of skill and beauty; or, when beauty was precisely that which was being rebelled against (such as early 20th century), then a vigor in ugliness was a kind of standard - because of the skill with which it was achieved.

The word "good" implies standards. If there is "good", there has to be "better" and "best". It's only in our own culturally and philosophically relativist era that standards of "good art" have become subjective. Tolkien found the relativistic tendencies in modern art and literature to be quite repulsive. He, being perhaps an extreme example, considered any literature in the English language that had been produced after 1800 (I think), not to be worthy of the term.

Back to my main point. There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.

If one really believe that art is subjective, one cannot refer to any art as "good", etc. - it just is. .... which is untenable.

[Aiwendil]

Tar-Ancalime wrote:
I am a professional in the performing arts, and I really take issue with the whole idea that there is some discernable boundary between what is art and what is "just" entertainment. I expect the same respect for my craft regardless of the nature of the work I'm performing. I think that when we begin to talk about the "real art" vs. "the stuff that fills the bookshelves," we're setting up a false dichotomy.

I agree wholeheartedly. I asked about such a distinction only because I wondered whether it is part of Althusser's/Fordim's view. I still think we can make a qualitative distinction between what some would call "high" and "low" art (whether that is a good/bad distinction or merely a stylistic, thematic, cultural distinction). But I don't think we ought to make a fundamental distinction or judge them by different standards (as I said in the popularist vs. literati thread).

Lalwende wrote:
That's plainly going too far, but market forces these days all too often prevent the kind of experimentation which in the past has resulted in so much fantastic music!

I think I agree - though it's hard for me to say, since I dislike pretty much all music from after about 1973. Maybe this is why.

Estelyn wrote:
There is one very notable example in music history; J. S. Bach* was considered old-fashioned by his own sons and their generation. Had not Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy rediscovered him many years later and brought his Matthew's Passion to public performance, who knows if we would be familiar with him today?

Ah, but Mendelssohn did rediscover him. Bach is the perfect example, in fact, of the "test of time" theory working - he was vastly underappreciated in his own time but now he has the recognition he deserves. Further, it's quite unlikely that any future change in musical fashion will drive him back into oblivion (though of course there may be smaller scale fluctuations in his popularity).

Insofar as you're saying that without the happy accident of Mendelssohn championing Bach, Bach would be unknown today - I must say that I doubt it. It need not have been Mendelssohn. Given time, I think it was very probable that someone would have rediscovered him. As a matter of fact, he wasn't ever wholly forgotten. Mozart, for example, knew and thought very highly of his work in the 1780s. I would say that it was almost inevitable that, given time, he would achieve the popularity he now enjoys.

The Saucepan Man wrote:
And I thought that you were the master of quantification.

A time to quantify, a time to refrain from quantifying (even though you can).

And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )?

My answer is a resounding "NO" - and not just because I fear another "canonicity" argument. There are any number of criteria that might define "good art". Personally, I still say that good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing.

Precisely the point that I was driving at. Isn't it all, ultimately, subjective?

This is exactly the question that I argued in that "Tolkien Template" thread I linked to. And I still think that either the quality of art is not in fact subjective or you get fairly strange results. I don't claim to know, with certainty, which of those options obtains - but I do think that a kind of objectivity can be derived from the relative invariance of the human mind, given a definition like "good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing". A whole debate could be had of course concerning just how invariant aesthetic pleasure is from mind to mind - but I think that would be beside the point.

On the other hand, if you really want to say that art is subjective you cannot even claim that a Mozart symphony is superior to the noise I banged out of a piano when I was three. Now that's a coherent position, but I suspect that few people really agree with it deep down.

Like tar-ancalime, I would not exclude works such as these from the general definition of "art" simply because they are regarded as “mere entertainment” for the masses.

Another distinction ought to be made (I wish I could have a nickel for every time I've said that). One could (and I would) say that such works (those of Danielle Steele and the like) are in fact "true art", just the same as Tolkien or Joyce or Homer, and yet say that they are "bad art".

[mark12_30]

But is this true of every work of art that one who believes thusly perceives? And surely much the same might be said of art which such an individual considers to be "bad" - that the negative reaction enhances understanding.

To that I would echo Elrond: it is dangerous to study too closely the arts of the darkness. I refer you back to the Victorian pornography; studying it would enhance understanding of what? And is it worth it? If there is ultimate Truth and Goodness, then the answer to "Is it worth it" is most likely No-- with the narrow exception that someone might be trying to reach out to victims of the not-good, and thereby be pursuing enough understanding of what is not-good to be able to counter it. Yet I still call that risky.


And does that render valueless to the believer the enjoyment of art by the non-believer that he or she finds to be "good"?

I think rather than using the terms "believer" and "Non-believer" (really, ARE you trying to get me excommunicated from the Downs??)... Personally for the sake of this argument I would prefer something more along the lines of Truth-seeker and Indifferent.

But to answer your question: not at all. In fact, the 'believer'(Truth-seeker) should expect that in enjoying 'Good/True art', something is happening deep within the the 'non-believer' (Indifferent) that has, or might have, or hopefully will have, the effect of drawing him towards Good and/ or Truth (same thing, in the end)-- and in that the Truth-seeker would rejoice. In fact, the Truth-seeker may actually place a higher value on the Indifferent one's enjoyment, since the Truth seeker has hopes that the enjoyment may, in the end, have an eternal effect.

Is a eucatastrophe-- a glimpse of Truth-- any less of a eucatastrophe if the person who gets the glimpse doesn't fully realise what he is seeing? I think it depends on the heart; and who can judge that? The glimpse of Truth may sow something transcendant in the soul that that does not come to fruition for many years.

(Frodo's dreams of the sea come to mind.)

On to Aiwendil's post:

Quote: And must "good art" necessarily reveal some truth as to the human condition (customarily, I avoid the dreaded capital 'T' )?

My answer is a resounding "NO" - and not just because I fear
another "canonicity" argument.
(poor Aiwendil!)
There are any number of criteria that might define "good art". Personally, I still say that good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing.

Aiwendil, I would point to "most aesthetically pleasing" and say that beauty, goodness, truth, and Aesthetically pleasing all derive from (capital 'T') Truth, which is (capital-G) Goodness, and (capital-B) Beauty. I will go further, and call that Tolkien's Evangelium; and I will go yet further, and state that everything "beautiful" in all of Tolkien's works is his sub-creative reflection of Truth. Other sub-creators form other reflections. But having said all that, and recognizing that there are many on this forum and on this thread that do not consider Truth to exist in it's "capital-T" state, that if one finds something aesthetically pleasing, and it is indeed something which (for example) Tolkien sub-created in a reflection of Truth, then that aesthetic enjoyment (in my opinion) works because the Truth was there to be reflected in the first place.

[The Saucepan Man]

There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.

I do think that a kind of objectivity can be derived from the relative invariance of the human mind, given a definition like "good art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing". Indeed. Hence my point:


Of course, works of art can come to be regarded as good by a sufficiently large or influential section of society, such as they become generally regarded within that society as “good” (and this will change over time). The merits are still subjectively assessed. It's just that a significant section of society (whether in terms of numbers, influence, authority or whatever) reaches broadly the same conclusion. I accept that that this equates to what Aiwendil describes as a "kind of objectivity". But, ultimately, it boils down to the subjective assessment of the individual. The proof being in the fact that there will always be works of art that some consider to be "good" and others consider to be "not good".


On the other hand, if you really want to say that art is subjective you cannot even claim that a Mozart symphony is superior to the noise I banged out of a piano when I was three. Now that's a coherent position, but I suspect that few people really agree with it deep down.I entirely accept that certain "producers" are more able to satisfy a greater number of individual tastes than others. Does that make them "good" artists? Well, yes in terms of those (the majority, the culturally influential etc) who assess it positively and therefore yes in terms of that society's assessment, but not to those who do not find such art to their tastes.


To that I would echo Elrond: it is dangerous to study too closely the arts of the darkness.Well, I wasn't necessarily thinking of art that the believer might consider to be evil. Or does the believer consider all "bad" art to be contrary to his or her Truth? But, with regard to the point that you make, Sun Tzu would disagree with you, counselling rather that it is better to know your enemy. ;)


In fact, the 'believer'(Truth-seeker) should expect that in enjoying 'Good/True art', something is happening deep within the the 'non-believer' (Indifferent) that has, or might have, or hopefully will have, the effect of drawing him towards Good and/ or Truth (same thing, in the end)-- and in that the Truth-seeker would rejoice. In fact, the Truth-seeker may actually place a higher value on the Indifferent one's enjoyment, since the Truth seeker has hopes that the enjoyment may, in the end, have an eternal effect.So the non-believer's enjoyment of the art would be valueless to the believer if it did not in fact lead the non-believer to his or her Truth.

[Aiwendil]

Mark12_30 wrote:
I think rather than using the terms "believer" and "Non-believer" (really, ARE you trying to get me excommunicated from the Downs??)... Personally for the sake of this argument I would prefer something more along the lines of Truth-seeker and Indifferent.

Wait a minute - there's a big difference between a "non-believer" and one who is "indifferent". I don't believe in your transcendent Truth (though perhaps only because I still don't really understand what it's supposed to mean). But I'm most certainly not indifferent toward the matter. The question of whether there is such a thing interests me greatly, even if my answer is "no". I seek truth but I don't think I'm a "Truth-seeker" in your sense.

Aiwendil, I would point to "most aesthetically pleasing" and say that beauty, goodness, truth, and Aesthetically pleasing all derive from (capital 'T') Truth, which is (capital-G) Goodness, and (capital-B) Beauty.

Then perhaps (surprisingly enough) we agree on the criterion for good art, but disagree on the reason the causes of aesthetic beauty.

I must say, though, that I can't see how certain areas of aesthetics could be derived from "Truth", unless my understanding of the term is even less than I thought. In tonal harmony, for example, voices are not supposed to move in parallel fourths. Of course, sometimes this rule is broken, often succesfully, but in general it really does hold value - there is something displeasing about about parallel fourths, and they are often detrimental to the aesthetic value of a composition. Now if aesthetic pleasure really does derive entirely from Truth, there must be something "unTrue" about such a composition. So I ask: how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth?

The Saucepan Man wrote:
The merits are still subjectively assessed. It's just that a significant section of society (whether in terms of numbers, influence, authority or whatever) reaches broadly the same conclusion. I accept that that this equates to what Aiwendil describes as a "kind of objectivity".

Then perhaps our difference is one of definition rather than of substance. However, I should emphasize that it is not in my view popularity, with any segment of the population, that makes art good. A work could be aesthetically beautiful and yet, for one reason or another, not liked by anyone.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'd like to toss a single crouton into this very mixed salad, one cut from a slice of Tolkien's own bread; this statement:
Is a eucatastrophe-- a glimpse of Truth-- any less of a eucatastrophe if the person who gets the glimpse doesn't fully realise what he is seeing? I think it depends on the heart; and who can judge that? The glimpse of Truth may sow something transcendant in the soul that that does not come to fruition for many years. reminds me of the Queen of Faery's comment on the diminutive fairy decorating the cake in Smith of Wootton Major: Do not be grieved for me, Starbrow. Nor too much ashamed of your own folk. Better a little doll, maybe, than no memory of Faery at all. For some the only glimpse. For some the awaking. Various "levels" of art perhaps have the merit of offering various people different "levels" of Faery, so that each one can find that with which s/he feels comfortable. Some may go on, some may stay there...

[Rimbaud]

If one really believe that art is subjective, one cannot refer to any art as "good", etc. - it just is. .... which is untenable.

LMP, I do not actually agree that this is an untenable position. However, I would posit that the stronger position, were one to hold it, would be that ‘Art is not’. Does one judge the artistic merit of a sunrise against a painting of that sunrise?* If one does, then both are art, as would be my bathroom floor. Cleaner then to hold that neither is ‘art’, and the ‘art’ is oneself and (my favourite word again) one’s perception. Which, neatly, puts one in the uncomfortable position of making commentary not upon the object, but upon oneself. Thus, there can be no rational or widely applicable standard, and one is left alone. This, quite naturally, is unpopular to a social animal and so, even in these flights of intellectual whimsy, we depend on each other for the reassurance of agreement, to aid with basic self-recognition.

This position then followed, all that which one considers their own ‘taste’ is a process of individual and then collective aggrandisement. However; this argument falls down for me when we come to what I consider to be the crux: synaesthesia.

We are all synaesthetes, to varying degree, and to my mind, it is this mingling of the senses, of which we understand very little, that shapes our initial response to everything. Our primitive receptors are fired off in unexpected, different and unique sequences by any number of ‘events’: a piano key, a leaf, my bathroom floor, the sound of the wind, your loved ones talking. As our synaesthesias are unique, so thusly are our responses. These miniature arts form our daily sensory symphony, and it is these hardwired responses to the individual stimuli of a whole work that are similar enough to create what has been termed above the 'relative invariance of the human mind' with regard to aesthetics, and separate enough for 'each wo/man to be an island'. It is for this reason that ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ can be misleading in this context, as subjectivity suggests an amount of conscious analysis non-commensurate with the truth of initial reaction. This gives us roughly 6,470,523,588 objective opinions, which I rather like.

~~~

* Not in agreement with Renaissance delineations in this quarter...

[The Saucepan Man]

A work could be aesthetically beautiful and yet, for one reason or another, not liked by anyone.Aesthetically beautiful by whose standards? I don't understand how a work can be described as aesthetically beautiful if no one perceives it as such.


Cleaner then to hold that neither is ‘art’, and the ‘art’ is oneself and (my favourite word again) one’s perception. Which, neatly, puts one in the uncomfortable position of making commentary not upon the object, but upon oneself.But surely this is another way of saying that the value in art is subjective? It lies in the response of the subject viewing it, rather than the object itself. I agree one's reaction to a work is subconscious to a significant degree, but I don't see "subjectivity" as necessarily implying conscious assessment.

[Rimbaud]

Yes, exactly, that initial argument leads to subjectivity. I went on to say that we have an individual objective standard manifested as 'initial reaction' that is superseded only by deliberate thought - and that assessment itself is necessarily 'corrupted' by one's objective initial reaction. I suppose what I'm saying is that we all have a hard-wired reaction to things which tempers the way we consider them: to develop and/or counter these feelings does indeed require an element of conscious assessment. I deliberately circled around where this leads, as my feelings on it are ambivalent: but the view results in questioning the veracity of any reaction other than the primitive response.

[The Saucepan Man]

I suppose what I'm saying is that we all have a hard-wired reaction to things which tempers the way we consider them: to develop and/or counter these feelings does indeed require an element of conscious assessment. I deliberately circled around where this leads, as my feelings on it are ambivalent: but the view results in questioning the veracity of any reaction other than the primitive response.Agreed. Although I would say that environmental factors will also determine our initial (subconscious) response, in addition to biological factors. Upbringing, life experience, social and cultural values etc will all play a role.

[Rimbaud]

Good point. And this was partly why I mention the synaesthete, although I did not explain myself fully. This intermingling of sensory data is accumulated through the years, different smells, sounds, textures. The links thus formed give us a detailed response pattern to any 'art' as all these little neurons fire off in response to this sensory memory and confusion of sight, smell, sound and touch. Obviously, this accumulated data is (wince) 'as unique' (stop wincing) as the form and level of synaesthesia and hard-wired reaction of each individual.

[mark12_30]

Aiwendil, I certainly meant no offense, and I apologize if any was taken. My point in using the term "Indifferent" was geared strictly towards the pursuit of Truth within the work of art. One viewer (Saucy's "believer") is actively seeking Truth as the art is considered. The other (Saucy's 'non-believer') is, as the art is perused, consciously indifferent to the impacts and effects of Truth on his enjoyment of the art. He ony cares whether he enjoys it or not. Hence, for that moment, regarding the connection between Truth and the art, he is Indifferent.

I prefer these words because there are plenty of 'believers in Truth' who don't expect it to shine through a painting at them. Nor do they expect to pick up a faery tale and experience a glimpse of evangelium. THey stand before a painting Indifferent to Truth, for **that** moment. Are their lives less rich for their lack of expectations? I cannot say, for the art may be working its transcendance on them unbeknownst to them.... like Frodo's dreams of the sea. That inner working is, I think, what Tolkien desired and expected.

Difficult topic to discuss on the Downs. There is plenty of vocabulary that I have set aside.

Saucie

So the non-believer's enjoyment of the art would be valueless to the believer if it did not in fact lead the non-believer to his or her Truth.

No, that's not what I said.

Rimbaud:

Does one judge the artistic merit of a sunrise against a painting of that sunrise?* If one does, then both are art, as would be my bathroom floor.

Since the sunrise is Creation and the painting of the sunrise is sub-creation, to do so would be to compare the Creator to the sub-creator. If one is seeking to understand the Creator as an artist, then one may well ponder the sunrise in such terms. Many do.

I have never seen your bathroom floor. But if it is a thing of beauty-- perhaps on the level of showing the sheen on a single leaf-- why should it not be a work of art? There are many glorious mosaic floors in the world, and even some commercially available linoleum for which the original design work was very creative and tastefully done. Just because we find it mass-produced and available at Home Depot, does that mean we cannot allow it to affect our soul?

And that comes back around to the consumerism thing, and popularity. If a thing sells well, is it therefore not art? Hardly a fair stance.

Back to Aiwendil:

I don't believe in your transcendent Truth (though perhaps only because I still don't really understand what it's supposed to mean).

...how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth?

In that last sentence, do you imply that Truth transcends abstract objects (like parallel fourths?) I would say, there are truths that are transcended (one might say 'trumped') by higher truths; justice can be trumped by mercy, without truth being violated. There are many times when the parallel fourth law is a good one (as is the law of justice, a good law); but there are also times when a different, higher harmony (like mercy) will prevail. As in Frodo's protection of Gollum, it may not seem to make sense; but in the end, the Truth will shine through.

[mark12_30]

Back to my main point. There are necessarily objective standards for art, precisely because humans cannot avoid thinking and behaving in terms of standards of good, better, and best.


lmp, I'm still pondering the ramifications of this-- especially in light of some of Aiwendil's points. I think I agree with you; but I'm wrestling with those standards.

At the risk of creating a maelstrom, I will say.... ---- nah. Maybe I'll PM you instead.

No, doggone it, I can do this.

It all goes back to Tolkien's concept of "sub-creation"-- which is done, according to Tolkien, in *honor* of the Creator because we are made in His image.

(And to that I hold... )

That in my opinion is the final standard, and will be the standard to which the Truth-seeker will adhere **to the degree which he understands it himself**, which comes back around to both a cultural and a heart issue. To the degree that the artist is capable (here we have a heart-judgement which only the Creator is capable of)-- is this sub-creative work in **honor** of the Creator? If it is, it will ultimately be judged as Good. It will to some degree draw those who enjoy it to the Truth, because, being made in honor of the Creator, it will reflect Truth to some degree.

Back to your point about cultures: each culture reflects what revelation of beauty they have. Rohan reflects horses, elves reflect trees and stars. So cultural standards differ. And when cultures merge, some understand the other's sense of beauty and some do not. I'm not quite sure where this goes yet. But in the end, it's a heart issue, of that I am certain; and a work made as a sub-creation to reflect the Creator, which causes in the enjoyer the faintest glimmer of transcendance-- Tolkien's evangelium-- will meet that standard.

[tar-ancalime]

In tonal harmony, for example, voices are not supposed to move in parallel fourths. Of course, sometimes this rule is broken, often succesfully, but in general it really does hold value - there is something displeasing about about parallel fourths, and they are often detrimental to the aesthetic value of a composition. Now if aesthetic pleasure really does derive entirely from Truth, there must be something "unTrue" about such a composition. So I ask: how do parallel fourths violate Truth? How can an abstract object like that violate Truth?

The only compositions in which parallel fourths sounds "displeasing" are those written in the functional harmonic style of the 17th through 19th centuries. In fact, while these works were being written there was no such "rule." There was a style of composition, just as there are always fashions in art. At the time a composition using parallel fourths would probably have been judged "bad," but so would a composition that broke from the prevailing style in any other significant way. (Which is why we are able to look at the style now and pick out its characteristics--if anything and everything could be good art in a particular time and place, it would be very difficult for a prevailing style to develop.) What such a composition would not have been is "unTrue--" it's always just as possible to reveal something badly as it is to do it well.

What I'm trying to say, in my long-winded way, is that this "rule" about avoiding parallel intervals is a modern construct, placed on a particular style of art from the past. It's a style characteristic, not a decree from on high. The only way to violate it is to write a composition that adheres to the style in every other way, and also uses parallel fourths, which would stick out like a sore thumb in that context. The "rule" would be violated, but the work wouldn't somehow lose its relatipnship with the truth. Not even the historical truth of the style would be violated--the context of the rest of the composition would speak loudly enough, and the parallel fourths would sound out of place, just as they should in such a work.

Which, I suppose, boils down to a restatement of what I was trying to say before--the craftsmanship (or, if you like, the degree of its adherence to a particular style) of a work has nothing to do with its ability to show us something about our experience.

Reading this, it occurs to me--am I sidling up to a position that what makes good art is the degree to which it fits into a prevailing style? I certainly hope not! I'll have to think about that.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Aesthetically beautiful by whose standards? I don't understand how a work can be described as aesthetically beautiful if no one perceives it as such.


Well, as I said earlier:
A whole debate could be had of course concerning just how invariant aesthetic pleasure is from mind to mind - but I think that would be beside the point.


If there is sufficient invariance among human minds that "aesthetic beauty" simpliciter could be defined, then aesthetic beauty would be a simple property of objects. So, though aesthetic beauty is defined in relation to the human mind, it would be perfectly sensible to talk about the aesthetic beauty of a work of art without reference to any human.

A work, then, could be aesthetically beautiful but, for one reason or another, not liked. Maybe there are non-artistic prevailing attitudes that disincline people toward the work (this I think is the case with many "serious" composers for a big part of the population). Maybe the work is not accessible for some reason (a novel written in Tocharian A could in principle be great, but only a few philologists would be able to read it). And I think there are a great many popular works of art that are not good, but are liked for non-aesthetic reasons - for a surprisingly large segment of the population, I think, musical taste is dictated by "image" rather than by the aesthetics of the music itself.

Mark12_30 wrote:
Aiwendil, I certainly meant no offense, and I apologize if any was taken.

None at all. You'll have to try much harder if you want to offend me.

My point in using the term "Indifferent" was geared strictly towards the pursuit of Truth within the work of art. One viewer (Saucy's "believer") is actively seeking Truth as the art is considered. The other (Saucy's 'non-believer') is, as the art is perused, consciously indifferent to the impacts and effects of Truth on his enjoyment of the art. He ony cares whether he enjoys it or not. Hence, for that moment, regarding the connection between Truth and the art, he is Indifferent.


So essentially the distinction is between those that share your theory of art and those that do not. I only harp on this because, as you know, all these capitalized terms give me a headache; I would prefer to state things clearly and plainly.

In that last sentence, do you imply that Truth transcends abstract objects (like parallel fourths?) I would say, there are truths that are transcended (one might say 'trumped') by higher truths; justice can be trumped by mercy, without truth being violated. There are many times when the parallel fourth law is a good one (as is the law of justice, a good law); but there are also times when a different, higher harmony (like mercy) will prevail. As in Frodo's protection of Gollum, it may not seem to make sense; but in the end, the Truth will shine through.

An interesting analogy. But I'm afraid my question was intended in the most crassly literal way. If aesthetic beauty derives from "Truth", then the details of what is beautiful must derive from Truth. My concern is that I don't see how this is possible in some cases. What is it about Truth that makes parallel thirds aesthetically pleasing and parallel fourths not so?

Tar-Ancalime wrote:
The only compositions in which parallel fourths sounds "displeasing" are those written in the functional harmonic style of the 17th through 19th centuries. In fact, while these works were being written there was no such "rule."

As I said, in traditional tonal harmony. But traditional tonal harmony is still quite prevalent outside avant-garde circles. Even a lot of the important modern composers (like Copland, Holst, Shostakovitch) used tonal harmony (of course, there have been major stylistic changes in the past 400 years, but with the exception of serialism and the like, they've been changes within the context of tonal harmony). As far as the avoidance of parallel fourths not being a "rule" in the 17th through 19th centuries - I must disagree. True, no one at the time said "parallel fourths are to be avoided", but that does not make it any less true that such avoidance was an implicit or emergent rule of the style. Nor do I think that it was merely a convention followed because of style. I know that I have heard pieces where something struck me as unpleasant, and only later discovered that the reason for the this was motion in parallel fourths, or some other violation of a "rule" of harmony.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë More specifically, I mean that a work of art becomes 'good' when sufficient of the right kind of critics have judged it to be so. It does not become 'good' when mere mortals say so, otherwise the overwhelming popularity of Tolkien would mean that he was judged 'good' by even more people. Until the right kind of critics judge Tolkien to be 'good', his work will remain excluded. SpM asked: But who are these "right kind of critics", and why should they determine what is good and bad for the rest of us?

I should have answered this sooner which was rude of me. By these comments I was referring to the fact that judgements on whether art is good or bad are made by those 'professionally qualified' to do so, not by the consumers. I was being a bit sarcastic, as I see that this is indeed the case, but I do not want it to be like that! And when I say 'professionally qualified' I am again being a little sarcastic, as it is clear to me that there is a certain amount of elitism involved in judgements about 'art' and culture.

A work, then, could be aesthetically beautiful but, for one reason or another, not liked.

I think this is entirely possible. I understand that the artist Raphael, who produced perfectly rendered paintings, fell out of favour with the contemporary cultural elite (Rossetti, Burne-Jones et al) some time in the 1800s. It is only now that his art is in favour once again. The reaction against his style of art gave rise to the term pre-raphaelite. Nobody could deny that Raphael's art is aesthetically beautiful, but it certainly was not liked for some time.

To take a contemporary example, (so I can't be accused of being elitist ;) ) let's look at music, and just because it was the first thing to come to mind, look at Gareth Gates. He has the right looks and image for a pop star, he sings beautifully, and he has been supplied with well crafted songs. All very aesthetically pleasing. Yet I would not say he is liked by music fans. What are they buying instead? A good comparison is the success of The Darkness, four fairly ugly blokes dressed like something from the early 70s and churning out old fashioned rock music. Not aesthetically pleasing at all, but a wider range of people like them.

for a surprisingly large segment of the population, I think, musical taste is dictated by "image" rather than by the aesthetics of the music itself.

Definitely true. And at both ends of the spectrum from pop to alternative. I happen to like quite a lot of 'alternative' music (amongst other things), and I have no doubts that this grew from my teens when I shuddered at the very thought of being seen dead buying anything by Wham. So when I saw characters like Morrissey or Bob Smith in my copy of Smash Hits I went and bought their records.

I think there are a great many popular works of art that are not good, but are liked for non-aesthetic reasons

I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

Before I start on a long essay about why some of my favourite bands are so ace, I'll round off by saying that what we like is strongly related to the shifts in our personal truth, and that our taste is not always, in my opinion, related to any concrete definition of good or bad art, but to what the influences of the world around us (media, friends, even people we want to irritate) thinks is good or bad. This is a good thing, as those who only consume the things in culture which they have been told are 'good' are rapidly going to become insular, locked in their high or low brow mindsets. Those who are willing to explore are going to find more enrichment. I hope this makes sense! :)

[littlemanpoet]

I'd like to start with a distinction regarding the word "good" in terms of "good art". There is moral good and aesthetic good. One can write a book that is morally bad but aesthetically good; or one that is aesthetically awful while morally good. A book could be both kinds of bad, or both kinds of good. I think the kind of "good" that is most germaine to this discussion is aesthetic good. Moral good in art is an additional issue that has so far, in my estimation, clouded the discussion.

Good art is art that is aesthetically pleasing. The viewer or reader may take pleasure in the beauty of the artwork itself, or may take pleasure in the skill of the artist having made such a pleasing work of art. Are there other aspects to aesthetic pleasure? I don't think so, and desire correction if I'm wrong.

So good art is that which is aesthetically pleasing, whether due to skill in making, or in the beauty of the artwork itself. Does aesthetic pleasure vary by culture? Of course. So to that extent, good art is culturally relative. But that does not mean that there is not absolute standard. What it means instead, is that human perceptions and ability to reason, and cultural development, are finite and fallable, and will necessarily fall short of any ideal standard, be it a standard for beauty, or skill in realization.

Not long ago, I asked myself just why it was that the form of a woman is so aesthetically pleasing to me. I was not satisfied with strictly gender related reasons. Indeed, gender relatedness begged the question! Why is it that most human males are absolutely convinced that they know a beautiful woman when they see one? How do they know? What is the standard? Is there a standard? Why, in short, do I say that the form of a woman is beautiful?

I developed a personal aphorism. It goes like this: Beauty is being that which a thing was meant to be. This aphorism assumes a maker who designs, which is true of any art form. It also includes a standard for beauty, and thereby a standard for good art.

It allows for negative expressions, such as a rebellion against beauty as a standard for good art, in that an artwork in rebellion of beauty can, in all its purposive ugliness, be in its realization of its goal, a thing of beauty.

It also allows for a primary creator.

So what?

Assertions have been made that there is no absolute standard for good art, and mark12_30 and I have disagreed with that. The two of us are convinced that there is an absolute standard for good art. I say that that standard is beauty. Where does beauty come from? Did it just grow out of our evolutionary development? Or was it designed into us? Maybe the reality is that it was a combination of both design by the Maker, and evolution as the Maker's method. Or not. That's of relative unimportance in regard to "good art".

Mark12_30 and I have stated the bases for our points of view. I would appreciate it if someone who holds to the "good art is a subjective, relative thing", would kindly provide a reasoned basis for such a position. Thanks! :)

Finally, I do believe that there are valid criticisms of the genre, and that they have everything to do with the writer's efforts to bring beauty to his or her work of fantasy.

Oh! And if I have missed someone's efforts to provide what I have here asked for, please accept my humble apologies and point me to the appropriate post. Thanks!

[The Saucepan Man]

If there is sufficient invariance among human minds that "aesthetic beauty" simpliciter could be defined, then aesthetic beauty would be a simple property of objects. No. Aesthetic beauty must always rely on subjective assessment. The fact remains that there will be works that some people find aesthetically beautiful and others don't. How can aesthetic beauty be objective when this is the case? And, in any event, aesthetic beauty, to my mind, doesn't (for the individual) necessarily have to be the defining characteristic of "good" art. I can think of works of art which I don't find aesthetically pleasing, but which nevertheless stir such a reaction within me that I would (subjectively) class them as "good". Many of the works of artists such as Jake and Dinos Chapman, Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin, would fall within this category for me.


I should have answered this sooner which was rude of me. By these comments I was referring to the fact that judgements on whether art is good or bad are made by those 'professionally qualified' to do so, not by the consumers.But that's precisely my point. Why should any individual be told by some cultural elite what is "good" art and what is "bad" art? Surely we Tolkien fans should understand this only too well. We get irked when Tolkien's works are not accorded the academic respect that we think that they deserve, and yet it has been suggested here that certain other artists are not "good", even though they might stir a positive reaction within others. I simply cannot see how the two views can match up.


Nobody could deny that Raphael's art is aesthetically beautiful, but it certainly was not liked for some time.Conceivably, there might be individuals who could honestly say that his art was not aesthetically pleasing to them. Unlikely, maybe, given the mental invariance that Aiwendil talks of (which leads to that "kind of objectivity"). But possible nevertheless. And, in any event, aesthetic beauty is not the only determinant of "good" art for the individual, in my view, as I said earlier.


... for a surprisingly large segment of the population, I think, musical taste is dictated by "image" rather than by the aesthetics of the music itself.What is wrong with "image" as one determinant of "good" art for the individual? The example of The Darkness that Lalwendë gives is a telling one for me. When I first heard their music, I considered it to be terribly derivative and I reacted negatively to it. Then it occured to me that they had their tongues halfway (at least) in their cheeks. They were poking fun at the whole 70s glam rock thing. Once I realised that, I approached their music with an entirely different mindset. It isn't necessarily aesthetically beautiful to me, but I enjoy the joke and now consider their art, taken as a whole package, to be "good".


I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams. So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.


This is a good thing, as those who only consume the things in culture which they have been told are 'good' are rapidly going to become insular, locked in their high or low brow mindsets.There is not necessarily anything wrong with liking something because others have told you that it is "good". It depends whether, deep down, you actually believe it to be "good". If you do, fine. If not, then you are simply deceiving (and short-changing) yourself. Personally, I have never been one for "trends", so I can't undersatnd the mentality which persuades one to like something because one is told one ought to. As they say, I like what I like. Perhaps there is value in going along with one's "peers" because it accords one with some kind of security within society. But that has little to do with the subjective assessment of the art itself.

Edit, having cross-posted with lmp:


Not long ago, I asked myself just why it was that the form of a woman is so aesthetically pleasing to me. I was not satisfied with strictly gender related reasons. Indeed, gender relatedness begged the question! Why is it that most human males are absolutely convinced that they know a beautiful woman when they see one? How do they know? What is the standard? Is there a standard? Why, in short, do I say that the form of a woman is beautiful?Two words. Biological imperative. But even that doesn't provide the complete answer, as there are males who do not find the form of a woman to be beautiful. And, once again, I would not insist upon aesthetic beauty as the only determinant of "good" art.


Mark12_30 and I have stated the bases for our points of view. I would appreciate it if someone who holds to the "good art is a subjective, relative thing", would kindly provide a reasoned basis for such a position. Thanks! Well, I've given it my best shot, so I'm not sure what more I can add without repeating myself. ;)

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:
I'd like to start with a distinction regarding the word "good" in terms of "good art". There is moral good and aesthetic good. One can write a book that is morally bad but aesthetically good; or one that is aesthetically awful while morally good.

A very good point, one which I think I failed to articulate properly to Kalessin in the old days of this thread.

Not long ago, I asked myself just why it was that the form of a woman is so aesthetically pleasing to me. I was not satisfied with strictly gender related reasons.

Here I must disagree. I'm afraid the truth is that there's no more than a genetic program at work there. Aesthetic beauty, I think, is quite different from this (or - a useful definition of "aesthetic beauty" would be quite different from this). Aesthetic beauty appeals to the rational mind; beauty of that sort appeals fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

The Saucepan Man wrote:
No. Aesthetic beauty must always rely on subjective assessment.

I don't think I understand your "no". I said that if there is sufficient invariance among human minds then aesthetic beauty can be treated as a mere property of objects. You can certainly disagree about whether there is such invariance. But given sufficient invariance (whatever that may amount to) aesthetic beauty would have to be definable in such a way. To take the limiting case, if all human minds were exactly identical, then obviously it would be definable.

Yes, people like different things. I offered some possible explanations that could account for these differences that are unrelated to aesthetic beauty (popularity, accessibility, etc.). Now, maybe these are enough to account for the variety of tastes and maybe they're not. But they do show that it is not simply differing standards of aesthetic beauty that result in different likes and dislikes.

I can think of works of art which I don't find aesthetically pleasing, but which nevertheless stir such a reaction within me that I would (subjectively) class them as "good".

I think perhaps that you may be taking my use of "aesthetic beauty" too strictly. It is certainly not a perfect term for what I mean, though I can think of none better. Many things can contribute to aesthetic beauty in my view. Comedic value may contribute; allegory may contribute; dissonance and even ugliness may contribute. I've never heard of The Darkness before. But I am a fan of "P.D.Q. Bach". Schikele's music is not good in the same way that J.S. Bach's music is, and if I didn't get the humor I wouldn't like it. But I do get the humor, and I think that this does give it value. Similarly, I would say that The Darkness could be aesthetically good for precisely the reason you like it. This is not at all what I meant by "image". I meant the tendency for certain people to "like", for example, a certain form of music only because it is the popular thing to do - or to like another kind for precisely the opposite reason. In other words, to like a work of art for essentially non-artistic reasons.

You address this yourself at the end of your post:
It depends whether, deep down, you actually believe it to be "good". If you do, fine. If not, then you are simply deceiving (and short-changing) yourself. Personally, I have never been one for "trends", so I can't undersatnd the mentality which persuades one to like something because one is told one ought to. As they say, I like what I like. Perhaps there is value in going along with one's "peers" because it accords one with some kind of security within society. But that has little to do with the subjective assessment of the art itself.

I have certainly never been one for trends either, so I can't understand the mentality any better than you. Maybe, as you suggest, there is indeed a kind of social value in such things. But as you correctly point out, that has little to do with the assessment of the art itself. That is what I meant.

[mark12_30]

Not long ago, I asked myself just why it was that the form of a woman is so aesthetically pleasing to me. I was not satisfied with strictly gender related reasons.

Here I must disagree. I'm afraid the truth is that there's no more than a genetic program at work there. Aesthetic beauty, I think, is quite different from this (or - a useful definition of "aesthetic beauty" would be quite different from this). Aesthetic beauty appeals to the rational mind; beauty of that sort appeals fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

lmp is *specifically* separating the two.

A man may paint the form of a woman, and achieve something merely impulse-driven; or, he may paint the form of a woman and achieve something transcendant. Luthien was a transcendant beauty. It doesn't make sense to me that her beauty appealed fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

[The Saucepan Man]

Aiwendil, I can only conclude that you and I differ only in our definitions. Yet again. ;)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Aiwendil's mention of the music of P.D.Q.Bach (pseudonym of Peter Schickele), in contrast with the music of J.S.Bach, makes me want to clarify the difference between enjoyment and aesthetic beauty. I definitely enjoy the former's parodic music, but a good deal of the humour involved is based on the fact that it is not aesthetically pleasing, though it is composed with skill and for the purpose of producing the effect which it does, successfully so! Mostly, it plays with the standards of beauty of that musical age, interspersing jarring elements that emphasize the difference. I chuckle over those pieces, but I am not deeply moved by them in the way that I am moved when I hear and play J.S. Bach's music.

To bring that point back to Tolkien, the same thing applies to parodies of his work; I can enjoy them tremendously, when they are well-done, and there is certainly an element of skillful use of language in those that are well-written, but beautiful? I don't know...

[mark12_30]

As an aside somewhat unrelated to the current flow of discussion:

I think the desire to share beauty and to share art is pretty normal and natural. To share a joy with a friend is a big deal. There are few near me who love Tolkien as I do. When I do have a moment of 'Tolkien-sharing' with someone local, it's a high point of my day, often remembered with pleasure afterward. There is a bonding involved in being able to say to a friend, "Doesn't this ROCK?" and have the friend reply, "Yeah, it really does."

It's also part of the learning process to have one's eyes opened to beauty by someone else. "Uh, it rocks? Really? Why?" "Because....." "OOOOOH!" Another bonding moment, recalled fondly thereafter.

However, at some point, the desire to belong seems to trump the desire to share real beauty, and that's where trendsetting seems to come in, and elitism, and all the rest.

In modern day, it gets more complicated than that. Many folks on this board are on the younger, newer end of Snowdog's Scale of Tolkien Fandom. For them, the PJ-driven trend introduced them to what the geezers have loved for so long. So to call something 'trendy' as a form of insult doesn't hold water either. Some trends are good (or have good aspects) even if they're a bit stormy at their peak.

It just bothers me to hear something ridiculed for the sole reason that it's a trend; something is cheesy and lame just because it can be purchased at Wal-Mart or Home Depot. "It's a trend-- good!" turns to "It's a trend-- Bad!" without any examination of the inherent virtues or flaws of the thing.

[Firefoot]

*Firefoot sticks her nose into this fascinating discussion, hoping that her thoughts are relevant.*

To quote my old sig:"The best and most beautiful things in life cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt in the heart." It think this pretty well sums up why things like good art, beauty, and the like are hard to define: they are intangible feelings, individual to each person. Because people have different opinions on what is good, or true, or beautiful, their definitions of these things will also be different.

If there is something that one person thinks to be beautiful, but everyone else in the world thinks it is not, does it make the thing any less beautiful to that one person? If that is what the one person truly thinks, then no, it doesn't. So is it beautiful or not? Most people would say no, but as long as the one person thinks so, that thing must hold some element of beauty.

Can goodness, beauty, and truth be defined, then? Individually, I would say yes. I can take my set of morals, values, and opinions and put them together to get my opinion of these things. But universally? Except in the most general sense, I don't think so. The human race is too vast and different for that. I think that most people would agree with Mark12_30's statement that good art reveals truth. But I don't think that the statement can be taken any futher than that, because each person's perception of truth is different.

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: I'm afraid the truth is that there's no more than a genetic program at work there. Aesthetic beauty, I think, is quite different from this (or - a useful definition of "aesthetic beauty" would be quite different from this). Aesthetic beauty appeals to the rational mind; beauty of that sort appeals fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

I disagree with your "no more than a genetic program" point. Such an assertion necessarily begs the question, "where did the genetic programming come from"? Which is answered (at least for me) in my little aphorism, beauty is being what a thing was meant to be: there is a maker/designer behind the genetics.

I think that any human's first response to art is not rational. ("Irrational" has connotations I'd rather avoid.) The individual's need to make sense of her world brings about the rational attempt to explain the first response .... within the work of art ... which is projection, isn't it? (uh oh) Thus aesthetics could be construed as the rational attempt of the appreciator to explain something within the self that connected to the work of art. Jungian. Tripe? No. It simply explains (to me) the subjective part of aesthetics, since in our modern age, aesthetics is done by individuals more so than ever.

The Saucepan Man:The fact remains that there will be works that some people find aesthetically beautiful and others don't.

Well, of course. Which has as much to do with exposure and education as personal taste. Just as striking as the wide variety of individual points of view on beauty, is the universal agreement among all humans as to what constitutes beauty.

The Saucepan Man:I can think of works of art which I don't find aesthetically pleasing, but which nevertheless stir such a reaction within me that I would (subjectively) class them as "good".

I attempted to account for your objection by including the rendering as well as the art itself. As Estelwyn aptly illustrates in her distinction between J.S. Bach and "P.D.Q. Bach".

LalwendëLalwendë ... judgements on whether art is good or bad are made by those 'professionally qualified' to do so, not by the consumers.

It has been my experience that market forces typically trump professional judgments. This is best seen in the movie industry. I've watched some movies that were classed as real stinkers by the elite, and they were really quite good, as well as popular (since they did well in the market). And I've watched movies that were proclaimed brilliant, and found myself faced with postmodern tripe that was so disgusting and/or absurd that it could have been grist for C.S. Lewis's mill in his writing of The Abolition of Man. Market forces do more to decide what's good or bad art than any other force in our day.... sad to say? At times, yes.

Sometimes too much exposure breeds contempt, which is the problem with critics. They're so deep into their art form that the tried and true is for them merely boring. I wonder how much this affects our discussion of the fantasy genre?

Lalwendë:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.
The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.

No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendë is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.

Firefoot:If there is something that one person thinks to be beautiful, but everyone else in the world thinks it is not, does it make the thing any less beautiful to that one person? If that is what the one person truly thinks, then no, it doesn't. So is it beautiful or not? Most people would say no, but as long as the one person thinks so, that thing must hold some element of beauty.

With your "no, it doesn't", you suggest that the one person is right just because the one person holds an opinion of any kind, as to beauty. It could just as easiliy be because of individual human fallibility, failure of education, and/or misperception.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I'd like to add another point to the discussion of recognition and appreciation of beauty - that of acquired taste. Whether it be a fine wine, a new style of music, or a type of literature previously unfamiliar, each of us has to learn to enjoy some things that would generally (by experts in their fields) be considered aesthetically pleasing. We do not start out with the same level of enjoyment that we develop through experience and training. I know that I learned to appreciate the beauty of Medieval madrigals and (some ;) ) early 20th century symphonic music through my college education in music. We develop and refine our tastes during the course of our lives, by exposure to new forms of art or variations of old ones.

For this reason it is good to share opinions with others, to test our own opinions for their worth and to be willing to give something new a chance before judging it to be the 'good', the 'bad', or the 'ugly'!

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
Aiwendil, I can only conclude that you and I differ only in our definitions. Yet again.

If there's one thing that generates more needless debate than any other, it surely is differing definitions. Glad we straightened it out, though.

Mark12_30 wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me that her beauty appealed fundamentally to irrational impulses and drives.

Well, it does make sense to me. I fear that if we go down that road we'll drive the thread completely off topic, though.

Estelyn wrote:
Aiwendil's mention of the music of P.D.Q.Bach (pseudonym of Peter Schickele), in contrast with the music of J.S.Bach, makes me want to clarify the difference between enjoyment and aesthetic beauty. I definitely enjoy the former's parodic music, but a good deal of the humour involved is based on the fact that it is not aesthetically pleasing, though it is composed with skill and for the purpose of producing the effect which it does, successfully so!

Apparently, I am using "aesthetic beauty" more broadly than you. In my view, humor is aesthetically pleasing in its own way. But this is a mere matter of definition or convention. If I had a better term, I'd use it. The only trouble with "enjoyment" is that it refers specifically to the reaction of the audience, whereas beauty refers to the object itself.

Mark12_30 again:
It just bothers me to hear something ridiculed for the sole reason that it's a trend; something is cheesy and lame just because it can be purchased at Wal-Mart or Home Depot. "It's a trend-- good!" turns to "It's a trend-- Bad!" without any examination of the inherent virtues or flaws of the thing.

A good point. There's certainly nothing wrong with popularity - in fact, in my view, good art will most likely become popular sooner or later. The only point of my trend-bashing is the fact that a lot of bad art becomes popular too.

Littlemanpoet:
I disagree with your "no more than a genetic program" point. Such an assertion necessarily begs the question, "where did the genetic programming come from"? Which is answered (at least for me) in my little aphorism, beauty is being what a thing was meant to be: there is a maker/designer behind the genetics.

Going down this road will definitely drive the thread way off topic.

[The Saucepan Man]

The Saucepan Man:The fact remains that there will be works that some people find aesthetically beautiful and others don't.

Well, of course. Which has as much to do with exposure and education as personal taste. Just as striking as the wide variety of individual points of view on beauty, is the universal agreement among all humans as to what constitutes beauty.Well, I would say that exposure and education goes towards making up personal taste. Otherwise I would agree with what you say, with the substitution for "significant degree of" for "universal". But the impression as to what is "good" or "beautiful" is still a subjective one, even it is one on which the majority agree. Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder.


Lalwendë:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

Quote:
The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.

No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendë is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.Surely if someone finds something "enjoyable", it is "good" in their mind? I define "aesthetic beauty" more narrowly than Aiwendil, but I agree that the physical composition of a work of art is not necessarily the only element which influences the individual's assessment of its quality.


The only trouble with "enjoyment" is that it refers specifically to the reaction of the audience, whereas beauty refers to the object itself.But one could use the word "enjoyable" instead, which would refer to the object. So, a person could say "I found that piece of music enjoyable" just as one could say "I found that piece of music beautiful". They might mean the same thing with both sentences or they might mean something different. Both would indicate to me, however, that they found it to be "good". And, while they are undoubtedly referring to the object (the piece of music), the reaction is a subjective one on their part.

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: Apparently, I am using "aesthetic beauty" more broadly than you. In my view, humor is aesthetically pleasing in its own way.

I was recently listening to a tape on Tolkien, from Mars Hill, and an incidental remark came up that the words "amuse" and "muse" are related as opposites. "Muse" is a source of inspiration. "Amuse" is, literally, "no muse"; that is, not inspiration, but the displacement of inspiration. Thus, amusement was originally understood to be the opposite of creativity, hence, of the process of art. Of course, time has worn its typical ravages upon language, and now we talk about the art of amusement. This is just one more instance that bears out Tolkien's view that language has become less able to do its job as it has developed, contrary to what is generally believed to be true about language.

The Saucepan Man: Beauty remains in the eye of the beholder.

I love it when someone uses this aphorism, because it is assumed to be an obvious truth whereas it is no such thing. Rather, it belies the whole philosophy of the human subject as the arbiter of truth (and beauty). This aphorism grew out of humanistic renaissance philosophy, not out of some inherent understanding of reality. Obviously, the aphorism suggests that beauty is relative, whereas no such opinion can claim to be fact. By contrast I would suggest that "Beauty is in the eye of the Designer", who designed both human ability to perceive beauty, and beauty itself.

The Saucepan Man: Surely if someone finds something "enjoyable", it is "good" in their mind?

"In their mind" is an important qualifier in your question. You are implying the subjective, with which I disagree. But yet another distinction is necessary regarding the term "good". This time, it's not moral versus artistic, but good as pleasure-providing versus good as of high quality. So I would say "yes", anyone will find a work of art that is enjoyable to them, as "good as pleasure-providing". But that does not necessarily carry over to "good as of quality". I relate instance after instance, from parents' enjoyment of children's simple performances, to Monty Python's tongue-in-cheek Arthurian tale (which is a-musement, by the way) to a third rate love song or poem that, though awful, a given person finds enjoyable at a certain time in his or her life. Good? No, not as art. Enjoyable? Certainly.

Which brings me to a recent abortive attempt at fantasy reading, which happens to bring this thread right back to its auspicious origins: I recently attempted to start reading the novel, "Kingdoms of Light" by Alan Dean Foster. I should have been suspicious when the jacket revealed that a wizard's pets were going to be the protagonists of the story. I tried the first chapter anyway, and was disgusted by the sheer awfulness of the writing. Everything was in cartoonish overload, outlandish and full of stock nonsense. I felt insulted. It was as if this writer, who has written over 70 novels, decided that he "knew what that kind of reader liked", and threw together this mishmash that fairly insults the reader. I can't say any more good or bad about it, as I stopped reading in disgust. So, not enjoyable. Maybe he was trying to be a-musing. I could believe that.

[Aiwendil]

The Saucepan Man wrote:
But one could use the word "enjoyable" instead, which would refer to the object.

The only problem with "enjoyable" is that I still think I want to refer to a specific category of enjoyment - not sensual pleasure; I would not call eating candy the enjoyment of art. "Aesthetic" seemed to be a reasonable counterpart to "sensual" to me. At any rate, it seems pointless to go on about a definition that apparently only I am interested in.

Littlemanpoet wrote:
I was recently listening to a tape on Tolkien, from Mars Hill, and an incidental remark came up that the words "amuse" and "muse" are related as opposites. "Muse" is a source of inspiration. "Amuse" is, literally, "no muse"; that is, not inspiration, but the displacement of inspiration.

One cannot transmute a linguistic argument into a broad sociological one, much less a metaphysical one. The derivation of the word "amuse" simply cannot prove anything about the relation of humor to art in a broader sense.

Edit: Also, that derivation of "amuse" is simply not correct, according to the OED.

[The Saucepan Man]

Thus, amusement was originally understood to be the opposite of creativity, hence, of the process of art. Of course, time has worn its typical ravages upon language, and now we talk about the art of amusement.I can see no difficulty with regarding "the art of amusement" as an art form in itself. Of course, one cannot really compare different forms of art, save in very limited respects. So, one can little more compare a Monty Python film to a Fellini film than one can compare it to a painting by Renoir (I would say "no more" rather than "little more", but they are rendered in the same medium, which allows for some limited comparison).


Obviously, the aphorism suggests that beauty is relative, whereas no such opinion can claim to be fact. By contrast I would suggest that "Beauty is in the eye of the Designer", who designed both human ability to perceive beauty, and beauty itself.Well, then we are left with two different opinions, neither of which can, ultimately, claim to be fact. Your argument assumes the existence of a Designer, which cannot be proved as a matter of fact (but is rather a matter of faith).

But, even assuming the existence of a Designer, then surely there is still scope for subjectivity in assessing the quality of art. I accept, in this scenario, that art which goes against the will of the Designer will, objectively, be "bad art". But, excluding such material, that still leaves a wide range of art on which different people can have widely differing opinions. Is it not therefore the case that this Designer intentionally invested us with sufficient free will to allow us to be able to determine for ourselves, on a subjective basis, which is "good" and which is "bad"?


This time, it's not moral versus artistic, but good as pleasure-providing versus good as of high quality. And "high quality" is judged by what standard? I do accept that the individual may make a distinction personally between art which is merely "enjoyable" and art which they consider to be "high quality". In both cases, they consider the art to be "good", but they may well accord more value to that which they perceive as "high quality". The assessment is still, however, a subjective one in my view.


Everything was in cartoonish overload, outlandish and full of stock nonsense. I felt insulted. It was as if this writer, who has written over 70 novels, decided that he "knew what that kind of reader liked", and threw together this mishmash that fairly insults the reader. I can't say any more good or bad about it, as I stopped reading in disgust. So, not enjoyable. Maybe he was trying to be a-musing. I could believe that.So, to your mind, it was "bad art" (and, from your description, I would probably agree with you). But there will be others who consider it to be "good art". They might even consider it to be "better art" than the works of Tolkien. You and I may disagree with them, but we cannot deny their honest and genuine reaction.


The only problem with "enjoyable" is that I still think I want to refer to a specific category of enjoyment - not sensual pleasure; I would not call eating candy the enjoyment of art.There are no doubt many top chefs who would disagree with you that the inspiration of sensual pleasure cannot be considered an art form. ;)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Lalwendë:I like a lot of music that really winds other people up, and it's definitely not aesthetically pleasing, but it's me-pleasing, and I would say that this is a non-aesthetic reason by choice. I like to hear cathartic or discordant music as much as I like to hear Vaughan Williams.

Quote:
The Saucepan Man So, although you may not consider it to be aesthetically pleasing, and others may consider it to be "bad", you nevertheless consider it to be "good". That illustrates precisely the point that I am trying to make.

No, I don't think it does, SPM. I think that Lalwendë is saying that to her it's "enjoyable" even if it's not "good". There is a difference. It's the same thing Estelyn pointed out regarding the two Bachs.

As something I have said is being used in a debate, I thought I ought to clarify some points I have made.

Some things which I enjoy others may find aesthetically displeasing and 'bad', and I myself would agree that these things are definitely not aesthetically pleasing, as most would define that quality. But I do not find these things to be 'bad' in any way. In fact I would not like them if I did not see some 'good' in them. One of those 'good' things being that they stimulate my mind, or enable me to feel some kind of visceral pleasure. I consider to be 'good' (in fact marvellous) some bands/artists who, among other things, variously play down- tuned guitars, shout through megaphones, have narrators instead of singers, write songs about anti-depressants, etc., just about anything which by any definition could be called non-aesthetically pleasing. I enjoy these things with the same level of pleasure which I get from 'things' (for want of a better word) more widely accepted as 'pleasing'.

By the same token, I can find pleasure in driving along a perfectly smooth, wide and empty road through a beautiful landscape. Yet the paradox is that this very road has spoiled that beautiful landscape. This hypothetical road is not aesthetically pleasing, but it is also 'good' to me. I could sit and look at one of Damien Hirst's installation artworks and while I would say, yes, it is not aesthetically pleasing, it gives me the pleasure of mental stimulation and so is 'good' to me.

Enjoyment is vital, I find, to us considering any work to be good. If we do not get any enjoyment out of it, then it is bad. This enjoyment might include laughter, a sense of recognition, learning, catharsis, adventure, understanding, the sensation of freedom, or simple joy. If we do not find enjoyment in one of its many forms, then what do we find? Boredom. Books are a particularly good example of this - they take a lot of investment from us in terms of time, and if we are gaining nothing from that book then we are not enjoying it, in other words, it is boring, and we consider it 'bad'. Yes, it's annoying when we hear people dismiss books we hold dear as 'boring'. A young person might openly say something is boring, while a critic will express the concept of their finding something 'boring' in a rather long-winded way! I do get the feeling I might have to explain some of this further... ;)

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil: One cannot transmute a linguistic argument into a broad sociological one, much less a metaphysical one.

Regarding a metaphysical, in his Poetic Diction, Owen Barfield, close friend of both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, does precisely that. He shows how the process of distinction that has been going on for years in language (whether Greek, Latin, English or other) has had both the salutary effect of development of knowledge, and the unhappy effect of divorcing our understanding of concepts from their concrete origins. In other words, we think about metaphysics in certain ways because of what has happened to our speech patterns. The same is true of sociological, or any field of knowledge, precisely because it must make use of the language. Tolkien is known to believe that our language is less good than it used to be precisely because of this development of language. I do not do justice to Tolkien's nor Barfield's thoughts on this. I recommend a reading of Poetic Diction.

Aiwendil: The derivation of the word "amuse" simply cannot prove anything about the relation of humor to art in a broader sense.

Whereas it cannot "prove anything", the derivation is still there, and therefore that derivation is part of the history of that word. That most people are unaware of that, is precisely the disease that Tolkien saw with the language as it is now. People have forgotten where the words they use come from. It is always this way. Whereas it has been said that "myth is a disease of language", Barfield and Tolkien would more likely say that "language is a disease of myth".

The Saucepan Man: Of course, one cannot really compare different forms of art, save in very limited respects.

Quite. The very limited respect was what I had in mind.

The Saucepan Man: ...we are left with two different opinions, neither of which can, ultimately, claim to be fact.

I have been attempting to show just how much of that which is simply assumed to be fact, is no more than opinion; such as the popular understanding that opinions in themselves, by virtue of the fact that they are held and aired by someone, are valid for that person just because she or he has them. Nonsense. Opinions can be uninformed (in which case they're ignorant), unexamined (in which case they are mere prejudice), examined and still wrong (in which case they are the result of imperfect reasoning), or true as far as they go but missing useful information, or just maybe, accurate.

But that's just about opinion. Subjective versus Objective is a distinction which, like all distinctions, does just as much harm as good. Whereas the distinction has value, there is just as much value (ane maybe more) in transcending the duality. Can you look past the distinction to the unity that used to be what was known?

The Saucepan Man: ..."high quality" is judged by what standard?

By the standard of that which endures. Such as Tolkien's LotR. It is standing the test of time. So did Dickens. And Sir Walter Scott. And Shakespeare, etc.

The Saucepan Man: But there will be others who consider it to be "good art". They might even consider it to be "better art" than the works of Tolkien. You and I may disagree with them, but we cannot deny their honest and genuine reaction.

But we can understand that however honestly they hold their opinion, it could still be wrong.

[The Saucepan Man]

But we can understand that however honestly they hold their opinion, it could still be wrong.And so the discussion becomes cyclical. Wrong by what or whose standard? By insisting that there are works of art which are, from an objective standpoint, "good" and those which are "bad", you allow no possibility for individual (and valid) variations in taste. Taken to its extreme, this would suggest that, ideally, we should all assess the merit of art in an identical manner. Which would surely produce a very dull society.

All that the "endurability" test really indicates is that a large section of society values a particular work of art over an extended (possibly limitless) period. It does not say anything about the objective quality of the art because (in my opinion) there is no such thing. Different societies, and different sections within an individual society, may favour different (and possibly diametrically opposed) styles of a particular art form over an extended period. Which is right and which is wrong? And there will be individuals within society who do not regard a work of art which has stood the test of time as being particularly good. Are they wrong? For example, the works of Dickens have stood the test of time, but I do not like them. They do not appeal to me. Am I wrong? I do not happen to think that I am. I cannot (and do not) accept that my opinion in this matter is uninformed, unexamined or the result of imperfect reasoning. But neither do I accuse those to whom Dickens' works appeal of being guilty of such things. I simply put it down to personal taste.

[littlemanpoet]

The Saucepan ManTaken to its extreme, this would suggest that, ideally, we should all assess the merit of art in an identical manner.

Of course there are real variations in taste. I acknowledge that personal tastes vary from person to person. Such extreme identicality can only exist in theory, that is, in one's personal fancy; not in reality.

The Saucepan Man Different societies, and different sections within an individual society, may favour different (and possibly diametrically opposed) styles of a particular art form over an extended period.

Yes, true, but favour and acknowledgement as something as good art are two different things. There is, and has been for millenia, consistent and wide agreement as to what constitutes good art. If you consider the millenia of those in the past who have agreed that a work of art is in fact not good, then you are either better at judging such things than millions of people in the past, or you are guilty of chronological snobbery, to use a term from C.S. Lewis. That is, "if". :)

Dickens as good art and Dickens appealing to your tastes, are two separate issues. Surely you can acknowledge something as good art while not liking it particularly well. For example, I know that Mahler's music is good, but I don't particularly like it.

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:
Regarding a metaphysical, in his Poetic Diction, Owen Barfield, close friend of both Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, does precisely that. He shows how the process of distinction that has been going on for years in language (whether Greek, Latin, English or other) has had both the salutary effect of development of knowledge, and the unhappy effect of divorcing our understanding of concepts from their concrete origins.

One can certainly make a linguistic argument to establish a psychological point about human views of metaphysics (which is what, in my understanding, Barfield's argument is). One could even, in principle, start with linguistic premises and arrive at a metaphysical conclusion (though I cannot think of an example and I don't know whether any exist). What I said (or meant to say) is that one cannot make a purely linguistic argument with a linguistic conclusion and then simply transfer that conclusion onto another plane. The derivation of the word "amuse" may say interesting things about human views of humor - and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I find the information contemptible or uninteresting - but it does not by itself establish any broader point about the nature of humor or art, or of their relation. As I think you agree:

Whereas it cannot "prove anything", the derivation is still there, and therefore that derivation is part of the history of that word.

I certainly did not mean to question (and don't see that I did in any way question) the argument of Tolkien and Barfield that, as you say:

Whereas it has been said that "myth is a disease of language", Barfield and Tolkien would more likely say that "language is a disease of myth".


Littlemanpoet also wrote:
If you consider the millenia of those in the past who have agreed that a work of art is in fact not good, then you are either better at judging such things than millions of people in the past, or you are guilty of chronological snobbery, to use a term from C.S. Lewis.

I do not mean to speak for The Saucepan Man, and I hope he'll forgive me for jumping in here. But I think that the view of art which is in question here, one which I almost agree with, could be clarified succinctly with regard to this point: it is not a matter of saying "this is bad art; those people in the past who liked it were wrong". It is rather saying "it is meaningless to say simply that a work of art is good or bad; we can only say 'I like it' or 'I dislike it'".

Again, I'm sorry if I've misrepresented The Saucepan Man's view - but in any case, the sentiment thus expressed does defend relativism against the kind of argument made by littlemanpoet.

[The Saucepan Man]

Of course there are real variations in taste. I acknowledge that personal tastes vary from person to person. Such extreme identicality can only exist in theory, that is, in one's personal fancy; not in reality.But you are saying that some tastes are "wrong" whereas others are "right". This necessarily implies an ideal (albeit a theoretical one) in which all tastes are identical. For me, the theoretical conclusion belies the unsatisfactory nature of the reasoning that leads to it.


Surely you can acknowledge something as good art while not liking it particularly well. I would put it rather that I can acknowledge that many others consider it to be "good art" without regarding it as such myself.


I do not mean to speak for The Saucepan Man, and I hope he'll forgive me for jumping in here. But I think that the view of art which is in question here, one which I almost agree with, could be clarified succinctly with regard to this point: it is not a matter of saying "this is bad art; those people in the past who liked it were wrong". It is rather saying "it is meaningless to say simply that a work of art is good or bad; we can only say 'I like it' or 'I dislike it'".Yes. That's more or less it in a nutshell. Although one cannot ignore the fact of a work of art having an enduring and widespread appeal. As I said above, I may not like the works of Dickens myself, but I have to acknowledge the fact that they are generally viewed within society as being "good art". But that is not the same as saying that they have an inherent and objective "goodness".

[littlemanpoet]

Aiwendil and SPM, your logical abilities surpass mine; I fear that I have lost the thread of the argument somewhere between linguistic premises and broader points. Suffice it to say that amusement and wonder appear to be mutually exclusive. If someone finds something amusing, that someone will not view that something with a sense of wonder. I'm thinking that wonder and inspiration seem to be linked. Terry Pratchett's and Piers Anthony's fantasies (I have only read the latter's Xanth, of the two), are amusing (from what I've been told regarding T.P.), but do not evoke a sense of wonder. The ability to be amused by something that evokes a sense of wonder in others, seems to indicate a, perhaps, condescending view of the something. Such as Lord of the Rings.

Suffice it also to say that it is clear that neither the two of you nor I are going to modify the stance of the other(s) in regard to that which constitutes good art. I do notice, however, that our friendly debate has begun to remind me of that classic philosophical battle between nominalists and universalists. I am a universalist, and you two seem nominalist in your arguments. Feel fere to take a look at this: http://www.comm.uiuc.edu/icr/about/news and click on the "Dr. Clifford Christians receives award" item, if you care to.

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:
I am a universalist, and you two seem nominalist in your arguments.

Well, I'm certainly a nominalist when it comes to philosophy of lanugage and metaphysics, at the least. I think you may be right that there is a universalist/nominalist division here. Unfortunately, the link you provided doesn't seem to work.

About amusement vs. wonder: I agree that we're probably at an impasse, but I think it might be worth saying a little more here. You argue that amusement and wonder are "mutually exclusive". Now I disagree with this, but I do agree with the weaker statement that amusement and wonder are distinct. They are certainly different entities, and no one can doubt that there are amusing things that are not wonderful and wonderful things that are not amusing. They are, I think, distinct types of enjoyment. Thus, I enjoy Duck Soup and I enjoy The Silmarillion, but I find the former amusing and not wonderful and the latter wonderful and not amusing.

But it is another thing entirely to say that amusement and wonder are mutually exclusive or antithetical. In some contexts, they are. In a work like The Silmarillion just about any real humor would feel out of place. But there is humor in, for example, The Lord of the Rings. Does that detract from its wonder? When I read:
"Eavesdropping Sir? I don't follow you, begging your pardon. There ain't no eaves at Bag End, and that's a fact."

. . . I am amused. When I read:
Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.

. . . I'm filled with wonder. The two can coexist within the same work without working against one another. There are, in fact, certain works of art where, I think, amusement and wonder coincide or become one. The example that comes immediately to my mind: Dr. Strangelove, a movie that is simultaneously very funny and frighteningly serious.

[littlemanpoet]

My opinion is that Tolkien designed the hobbits as figures to amuse the reader. Amusement involves belittlement; hobbits are diminutive. The only times we read of hobbits with wonder are when Bilbo is first introduced in The Hobbit, in which case he newness outshines his silliness, or when one of the hobbits surpasses his hobbitness.

I think that this tendency in the fantasy genre to shoot for amusement instead of wonder, is a criticism worth leveling at both writers and their publishers. The publishers can hardly be blamed if they're getting nothing better. The writers who are getting published may not dare to attempt wonder, since it is very difficult to achieve consistently; or perhaps they don't really understand what wonder is about. All guesses, of course, but isn't that what this thread is all about?