Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
02-06-2014, 04:34 AM | #1 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 785
|
Interestingly, the article author made a comment of his own (which can currently be found by loading the first lot of additional comments below the ones showing up immediately beneath the article at present).
Quote:
Then again adopting an 'us and them' philosophy is a deeply ingrained human trait, and I despair of any way of our society as a whole escaping it. Yet it seems so utterly absurd when applied to enthusiasts of Professor Tolkien's work. What would he think of the desire for us to all walk in step? EDIT: (Addendum) I think even a change of vocabulary would help. Instead of people saying something was "good" or "bad", saying that one "enjoyed" or "didn't enjoy" something would probably be helpful. Everyone knows opinions are subjective, but they still don't like opinions being phrased as objective truth (even though the assumption, generally, is that it's just the opinion of the person making the judgement).
__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir." "On foot?" cried omer. Last edited by Zigr; 02-06-2014 at 04:55 AM. |
|
02-06-2014, 01:31 PM | #2 |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,979
|
An interesting comment, Ziggy; thanks for posting it. He does seem to have used a ruse to stimulate debate.
I don't think that discussion boards are immune to some of what he says. I remember at one point being subjected to a barage of complaints from fellow Downers when I dared to suggest that certain aspects of Tolkien's writing style were questionable. No one actually tried to refute my claim (I have later found some good points which do) so much as to descry how I could have the temerity to attack The Professor. There is a wee bit of hagiography involved in Tolkien fandom *ducks*
__________________
Ill sing his roots off. Ill sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
02-06-2014, 07:43 PM | #3 | |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Quote:
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." Elmo. |
|
02-06-2014, 07:34 PM | #4 | |
Wisest of the Noldor
|
Quote:
Besides, it wouldn't make any difference to your real fanboy types, like the TORNites- they have a whole arsenal of "arguments" they can use in place of that one.
__________________
"Even Nerwen wasn't evil in the beginning." Elmo. |
|
02-07-2014, 11:08 AM | #5 | |
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,500
|
Quote:
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. |
|
02-07-2014, 09:13 PM | #6 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 785
|
Heh.
I suppose having to couch all of your opinions in clarifying language is potentially stifling. Probably what we really need is for people to stop over-identifying with their hobbies so that they don't feel personally threatened when something they like is criticised. My distinction between comments sections and discussion boards is that I feel like boards more let everyone have their say whereas in comments sections someone can blurt out a statement and disappear, then get bumped up to the top due to having the most "likes" or what have you, which makes it seem like there's some kind of "party line" to be towed. I like to think that on the Downs at least, while the majority of people probably have varying degrees of objection to the films, there is room to manoeuvre. From what I've seen trawling through old posts from before my time the majority of exasperation with pro-film arguments is when they are arguments like: "I'd like to see you do better." "Peter Jackson tried really hard and deserves our respect." "They did the best they could." "Tolkien wasn't perfect either." "At least try to see the positives." Which are all pointless and lead discussion nowhere. In terms of actual discussion of the films though I think we're quite open to different opinions though, and lack the worst thing of all, which is probably snarky and thinly-veiled personal attacks on people with different points of view in lieu of discussion, something I think pervades other forums quite a bit.
__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir." "On foot?" cried omer. |
02-13-2014, 09:10 PM | #7 |
Shade of Carn Dm
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 479
|
Personally I tend to pick up on posts where I think the poster has said something incorrect, and point it out. Not a good trait, perhaps. Yet I honestly feel gratitude when someone has convinced me that I am wrong. Ive learned something, and owe that person.
What many posters dont realize is that often, when an argument is serious, the winner may only emerge months later when the quarrel has been forgotten and the apparent winner may have had more time to think about the matter and then change his or her mind. Also, if I am totally right in my argument, then I may be convincing many others who are not taking part in it openly. Again, as I have mentioned, I dont see a great deal of difference between academia and fandom. Academics also include a large percentage of people who most consider to be nuts. And that includes some that I mostly respect. Often they may, like many non-academics, be perfectly sane in most matters but have particular areas where they are irrational. The critic Harold Bloom some years back created a list of 1,524 books which he believed everyone should read and this list is now often known as Blooms Canon. It contains a lot of books which have Stories or Poems or Plays in their titles so this covers many more works than its numbers show. For example, Shakespeare is represented by one book only: Plays and Poems. For the complete Bloom Canon list see http://home.comcast.net/~dwtaylor1/theocraticcanon.html . J. R. R. Tolkien is not included because Harold Bloom hates Tolkien, as did such a significant number of other academics that he didnt feel compelled to include him. He, nevertheless, was pressed into producing a book of Tolkien criticism which most think laughable. See the reviews at http://www.amazon.com/J-R-R-Tolkien-...owViewpoints=1 . Bloom also wrote a fantasy novel, A Flight to Lucifier: A Gnostic Fantasy which was a sequel to David Lindsays A Voyage to Arcturus which Bloom puts in his canon. Fair enough. Tolkien (and C. S. Lewis) also thought highly of A Voyage to Arcturus though they very much disliked the writers philosophy, in which Pain is the sole ultimate truth, and so the ultimate good. But though A Flight to Lucifier: A Gnostic Fantasy got mostly good first reviews, Bloom decided to disown it as garbage and it seems to have also sold poorly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flight_to_Lucifer . Possibly those reviews were by the kinds of fans you mention who are over-identifying with what they think is their side. For a freewheeling and mostly polite discussion of Bloom and Tolkien see http://sacnoths.blogspot.ca/2011/03/...ien-again.html . But is an academic like Michael D. C. Drout any better? Drout is an English professor who specializes in Old English, loves Tolkien, is co-editor of Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholarly Review and is editor of the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. Yet a recent talk which was recommended to me by another Downer I think also to be utter nonsense. Supposedly Drout is attempting to explain why some readers cant enjoy Tolkien. But he doesnt. He shows quite well one feature of Tolkiens writing and says, without any presented evidence, that this is the reason. I dont think it is, though I dont know what is, or if any one thing is. Drout says a few other things about Tolkien and about stories related to Beowulf and gets his facts wrong, more than I showed in my answer to Drout which I posted at http://wormtalk.blogspot.com.au/2013...ture-from.html and at http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpos...6&postcount=52 because the answer box limited the number of words I could use. That no-one here has commented on my post suggests that you may be right, that no-one feels they are allowed to join in to criticize a famous Tolkien scholar like Drout or perhaps they dont want to criticize me. |
02-13-2014, 10:24 PM | #8 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 785
|
Quote:
Regarding Bloom, I'm aware that he's voiced similar objections regarding the Harry Potter books. Now regardless of whether or not one likes Harry Potter, what baffles me is why on earth serious academics waste their time writing and publishing on why books are "good" or "bad" or "should" or "should not" be read. These are pointless subjective criteria which can't be proved. It's the same case with Drout trying to explain why some readers don't "like" Tolkien. Who cares? Or if people do, surely it's a matter for psychology and cultural studies, not English scholars. I feel like academics (myself included) should be exploring new ways of thinking about texts, ways of reading them and so on, a myriad of scholarly activities other than going on about subjective appreciation. But I suppose that's the kind of sensationalism that gets articles written about it (and irritated forum posts like this) and sells books. On my blog I review TV shows, books, films and so on, but in an informal way, because I don't think matters of taste are a really a very scholarly issue. I didn't really enjoy Ulysses when I read it and I find the works of Henry James rather tedious. It doesn't mean I'm going to write a thesis on "why What Maisie Knew" is boring or how "people who like Ulysses are wrong." It'd be absurd.
__________________
"Since the evening of that day we have journeyed from the shadow of Tol Brandir." "On foot?" cried omer. |
|
02-14-2014, 06:34 PM | #9 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
02-14-2014, 11:07 PM | #10 | |
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,979
|
Quote:
How's life and the young ones? I still have not seen DoS yet. It's still showing at one cinema here, so I suppose there's still a chance.
__________________
Ill sing his roots off. Ill sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|
02-14-2014, 06:46 PM | #11 |
Shade of Carn Dm
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 479
|
Still, the fact remains that academics often do try to show that a particular work is better or worse objectively than another work. Whether they should do this is another matter. Fans, who are not very academic, often do the same.
Tolkien seems to try to avoid it, but at least comes close. In the introduction to his translations in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl, and Sir Orfeo Tolkien says on page 13: But he was a major poet of his day; ..., this of a poem known only from a single manuscript. He appears to agree with the general opinion that Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the best surviving Middle English poem, or at least one of the best. On page 21 Tolkien writes of the poem Pearl: The reality of the bereavement will not save the poetry if it is bad, save to those who are in fact interested, not in poetry, but in documents, whose hunger is for history or biography or even for mere names. In short, a critic who does not care whether a work of literary art is good or bad is very rare, or is looking at the work in some nonliterary way. If it were not so, should not one just as well teach one of Terry Brooks novels or one of E. R. Eddisons books? The situation is that those who loathe Tolkien mostly dislike these others far more. People, whether fans or academics or those who claim to be both do have differences of opinion about what they read. They do disagree in public. They sometimes do this politely, and sometime do this with great anger. And they have always done so as far as I can see. And they sometimes misunderstand the work that they claim to explain. Bloom obviously thinks he understands Tolkien, and Tolkien is not worth bothering about. Drout thinks he understands Tolkien but his talk to me shows someone ignorant both about Tolkien and about Beowulf because he makes gross factual errors. Or maybe I dont understand Drout and am being the fool, but no-one shows me where my understanding that Drout is the fool is wrong. I see no difference between a fan who follows a particular line and an academic who follows some particular line, save, as you point out, literary academia is an area where one cant prove anything, unlike pure mathematics. But I see an academic named Drout who it seems to me doesnt know the basic facts of his own discipline, like discovering a modern physician is completely unaware of penicillin. |
|
|