[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

Actually Bb, I agree with most of what you say.

Now, a statement like that is just about designed to silence one's opponents! I certainly won't risk falling out yet again with Sauce by nit-picking his points.

What I will do is elaborate on my comment about education, for that is the point which has drawn comments about academics and Dickens from Sauce and Lalwendë's disparaging observations about formal education. You know, for people who claim to think so highly of Tolkien, himself an academic and whose work is so closely informed by his academic loves and knowledge, you sure do take a jaundiced view of higher education! (In fact, I would go so far as to say that Tolkien's work would not exist had he not had an academic's love of philology and mythology. Or they certainly would have existed in a highly different form.)

Let's take a closer look at what I said:

The other problem is that aesthetic appreciation is often a matter of education. Not in the sense that high brow art must be beat into us, but in the sense that very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Slowly, though, they come round. After all, Tolkien's work was first derided by fellow academics because it flew in the face of the ruling style of the moment, modernism. But times change and his work is now generally regarded and the subject of university courses. Does this mean that at first Tolkien was a bad author, using bad humour? Or does it mean that in fact the general understanding of his art has changed.

I could as well name other writers who at first were vastly popular and well regarded, who have now fallen into the dust bin of history, ready to be recycled some day perhaps by some intrepid interpreter. Popularity is as fickle as teen heart throbs.

I tried to suggest two things here, which probably were lost in my example of the reception history of Tolkien's work. So let me try again.

By 'education' (and in contrast to having 'highbrow art beaten into us'" I meant simply that we educate ourselves every time we read a new book or see a new movie (or reread, re-view). There is something about the experience of this activity which expands our appreciation of the work(s) in question. Stuff that at one time in our life we thought was great wears thin after we have read more. Stuff that we couldn't stomach sometimes becomes more palatable after we have read other works in the same vein. Our own tastes change, develope, elaborate (the possibility of becoming more stilted, grumpier, restricted exists also) over time. So that, people who have read widely in, say, fantasy, or watched many adventure flicks, tend to have a wider or more knowledgable frame of reference. They bring a greater experience of books or of movies to the table.

For instance, Sauce has argued on other threads that his first readings of Tolkien did not give him any sense of the religious elements in Tolkien's work, but that he has now come to understand, given the explanations of others, that such factors do exist 'in' the texts. (Relying on memory here, can't recall the thread). His posting here has educated him in aspects he did not initially see or appreciate. Does that invalidate his first readings? No! (In fact, it allows for some very interesting discussions about the particular nature of Tolkien's religious input.) But it does show how our appreciation of works change over time and through discussion. This is education. It might not be formal, but it is education.

I rather think that, as academics expanded their range of reading material to include popular works, they began to understand better what Tolkien was up to. The same thing can happen to someone who is well versed in popular culture and who then comes to more classic works: suddenly, they can see some very interesting links and similarities! Education in the sense of greater experience of art changes our appreciation, which isn't absolute or stable.

Now to my second point, which I will bold here from the quote above: very often it takes one courageous artistic vision to suggest an idea which others cannot yet grasp. Since artists--writers, musicians, film makers, painters--often have a deeper or greater or more intimate knowledge of art than we mortals, they are more educated or more experienced. Thus, they see farther--or at least, differently, and can lead us in the direction of their greater experience. This enlightenment does not invalidate anyone's experience, but it does expand the possibilities.

This is why I think Fea's example of Sinatra's cover of Simon and Garfunkel's song is so interesting. (I don't know Sinatra's.) Most often, covers of song are derided, mainly, I suspect, because of what Fea points out: things that run against our habitual way of hearing, seeing, understanding, often tend to run up against a sort of ingrained orthodoxy many of us have. It also seems to run into a human habit of making hierarchies. This is better than that. That sucks. This rocks. Fea is right to point out that differences are simply differences and can exist with equal validity. Nothing I have said contradicts this, and so, Fea, you can include me as well as Saucie in your "Right?"

At the same time, our habit for making comparisons cannot be completely ignored. For instance, why was it that so may people responded overwhelmingly with approval to Johnny Cash's cover of Hurt? I could be wrong, but my general sense is that people felt Cash created a better version, made better use of the lyrics and music, than the orignators of the song, Nine Inch Nails.

The point which interests me is not that one version is better than the other, but that people have this differing response. What was it in Cash's rendition which so appealed to people that they created a preferential treatment for it? This is what interests me in artistic appreciation. Cash had a vision of the song which he was able to impart to listeners, and his vision gave the song new meaning for many people.

Now, to get back to Eomer's point about giggles. For me, what is interesting is not that most people, SaucepanMan and critics and much of the movie going public enjoyed the humour and some of us did not. What interests me is why we have those different responses.

Some have attributed this difference to some fan's fanatical adherence to The Books. It could well be, but this is not the only possibility.

For me, it has to do with my expectation of how the humour fits into the movie. Yes, Sauce, I am aware that PJ tried to use humour to deflect from the tenseness of some of the action, a legitimate artistic move. Some people are happy just to get a laugh. But I want to see if that laugh really does more than just provide, well, a laugh. Does the humour work with the vision of LotR which Jackson presents in the movies?

I'm not sure. I think it was littlemanpoet who suggested that Jackson picked up on the adventure/quest aspects of Tolkien but not the moral/religious elements. Perhaps it is this difference which affects how we view the giggles.

For myself, I don't think Jackson, for whatever reason, was comfortable with certain aspects of Tolkien's work such as the religious or moral framework. Or maybe not even Tolkien's sense of high tragedy. Thus, the giggles are a way of deflating elements he didn't want to bring out. Comedy is often a rebellious mode, certainly more so than tragedy. Maybe the giggles are simply his way of achieving his vision of Tolkien, taking the adventure and leaving off other aspects. But for me, those other aspects are still lurking in the movies and the giggles, rather than providing some relief from the high drama, undermine it.

Now, those who don't care about this kind of artistic unity or who don't think this way about comedy will have a different reaction. That is all well and good. But neither response invalidates the other. An inclusive community should be able to recognise both.

Gosh, I've run on here! What has Eomer wrought!