Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
One can give absolute priority to the former, & note, en passent, that the latter is also the case.
|
But we are not talking about what would be true in a particular subjective perception and what would be true in a general objective judgement. Accidentally, this two may coincide in some cases, but it is reasonable to believe that, given a large enough sample, objective judgement will be at odds with some subjective perceptions. What is at stake is which position is acceptable: the objective one - or the subjective one (in which case, this discussion is superfluous, since anyone can chose what works to accept or not, and if others, including scholars, have an issue with that, no biggie).
Quote:
And yet, I don't see that this is anything other than a side issue, a crazy tangential foray down a dead end road n'stuff.
We're supposed to be discussing whether JRRT encouraged new M-e stories, not psycho-analysing each other, or indulging in a philosophical debate on subjectivity vs objectivity.
|
As noted above, I believe this is the core of the problem, whether we take an objective or a subjective stance. Since this is an issue of art, perception, taste, I believe the answer is obvious.
You previously phrased the subject in the subjective terms of whether someone can "create convincing stories set in his world"
"The point is whether anyone else can do what Tolkien did, have Tolkien's insight in to his own creation sufficient to enable them to create convincing stories set in his world."
We need to define a common point of reference, that is, are we talking objectivity or subjectivity, and not attempt to simultaneously play two irrenciliable positions.
And, frankly, I expect even the "objective" position to be variable in time or geographically - just as morality is, as you and Lalwendė argued in other threads.