The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

Kalessin · 04-10-2002, 08:42 PM

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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] 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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

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

04-10-2002, 08:42 PM	#38
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] 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 [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] [ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]