[Kalessin]

... two very thoughtful replies to my interminable post about aesthetics, literary criticism, and the placement of Tolkien in the literary canon. Thank you!

Aiwendil - you posit that, rather than literary, the influence of LotR has been formative in the 'fantasy' genre, and therefore by extension into RPGs and the current cultural hegemony of gaming.

Now I agree that Tolkien's works were influential in the development of the fantasy genre, not least because publishers realised LONG books of this type could sell. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that influence was seminal. You could make the same argument for Robert E Howard (creator of Conan the Barbarian), amongst others.

Tolkien certainly didn't create the genre, and well before LotR appeared in the states science fiction was well established, with some writers already pushing the breadth and depth of their stories, creating alternate universes and expansive cosmologies (which would today have been classified as fantasy). So the analysis of influence is one of degree, and there is room for argument.

You could also say that Tolkien was merely one in a long tradition of epic storytellers stretching back hundreds of years, but that changes in society and economics meant that his work was disseminated across a far wider audience than previous exponents, and that the mechanisms for unprecedented marketing and distribution were in place - ie. a "right place right time" scenario.

The point here is that there is plenty of room for argument, and valid objections to some of the claims being made. My own view is somewhere in the middle [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Now I'm sorry about this, but you then go on to say RPG games are as valid an art form as literature, at which point we completely part company. If you take this line, then pretty much anything is an art form, and therefore of course everything is equally valid. This view of yours is in tune with a certain postmodernism (certainly in aesthetic theory), and in effect reduces everything human to a performance, with the inevitable referentialism and inherent (whether intended or not) 'archness' or irony.

If RPG games are an art form then Chess is an artform. If Chess is an art form then football is an art form. If football is an art form then everything is an art form, as far as I'm concerned. Art only exists if it is, by definition, different from sport, or game, or other archetypal human expression. There may be points at which they intersect, but ... this isn't one of them! I just don't agree with you on that one. Oh well [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

In terms of your points about literary criticism, I tend to agree that there is a fairly unthinking adherence to particular fashionable literary virtues amongst the chattering classes ... 'twas ever thus! Yet you're criticising the very same postmodernism that elevates RPGs to artforms, so step carefully.

Now onto your key point about criticism -

You say "This is one of the fallacies of modern literary criticism (or at least of many modern critics): the assumption that literature must accomplish something beyond entertainment".

Sorry, but there's nothing 'modern' about that, and its not peculiar to critics. Readers of all kinds, and many, many WRITERS through the ages - ie. since before the Bible - have attempted, or argued for, the accomplishment of something beyond entertainment.

In respect of your point - that 'message' or meaning doesn't make something better than art without 'message' or meaning - I absolutely agree. But it works the other way too. Just being 'entertaining' doesn't make something better than art which is not 'entertaining'. There are many factors which can be used to assess the merits of a work of art. Comparative value-judgement (ie. A is better than B) is probably the least edifying use of these factors. The whole reason I came onto this thread was because of the dismissive and spurious value-judgements being made, and my aim was simply to put LotR in perspective - an important book, a piece-de-resistance, a good read ... but not the book of the century.

So at last we come to Britney Spears [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] You seem to be saying the SHE is popular (rather than her music having any merit), as a result of good marketing, or as an object of male fantasy etc., and that people are 'easy to fool'. Well, probably, but all that leaves you with is the 'staying power' argument as a way of distinguishing popular from good.

What about Elvis (he's been popular as long as Tolkien)? One realises on closer inspection that Elvis' success was built on appropriation (ie. stealing), that this was a convergence of opportunities (post war teenage empowerment, the sexual revolution, mass marketing and television) ... but he's been popular for a long time. Maybe we'll have to wait a couple of hundred years to see if Tolkien passes your test (rather than diminishing and going into the west [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ).

Finally finally finally - at the end of your excellent post you argue it is the intrinsic aesthetic qualities in a work that cause it to be liked or disliked. So, the more you like something, the more intrinsic aesthetic qualities it has, right? Back to Britney and Final Fantasy! I'll just leave that hanging ...

Thanks for that excellent quote by Oscar Wilde - diversity IS welcome, and there is much intelligence and respectful argument here. And Tolkien's work very much merits review and analysis. I very much enjoyed your post.

Glenethor, as you can see self-censorship is not my strong point, so I will address your interesting post another time!!!

Peace