# Arwen? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 24, 2001, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989 "2001-11-24T04:02:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/101 "2001-11-29T16:23:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Abe \* > \*\*I consider that latest attempt at mitigation a complete waste of bandwidth if I ever saw one, Numero Six. Perhaps you ought to let GL and DDG speak for themselves. Regarding this: > > > [@](#): > > > > This is interesting. The only comments I’ve made about LOTR are that I think it’s quite good and that I don’t consider it a work of genius. Based on those two pieces of information, you feel qualified to assess my understanding and declare it inadequate. You’re making judjements about me with a lot less information than DDG and GL had about LOTR when they posted their opinions. > > I was addressing GL and DDG. When people take the time to post something, please read it closely and with an open mind, don’t skim it with preconceptions and a desire for confrontation. You might have avoided much of the superfluous discussion with Maeglin that way. > > Regarding your “list”, that is a very feeble excuse for a position, not to mention an argument. \*\* It seemed to me that the part of your post to which I responded was directed at me. My mistake. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2001, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/102 "2001-11-29T17:05:00Z")
Errr . . . **Number 6** , you missed the part where you accept that your “list” of superior writers has in no way been shown to be superior. Oh, I get it. It’s a list of writers you _like_ more then Tolkien. Gotcha. Jeezus, why didn’t you just _say_ so? Hell, I have a list like that, too. But I, at least, don’t claim that my favorite writers are better writers than anyone else based solely on the fact that I _like_ them. Please reread my first post, on the previous page, and let me know what you think. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/103 "2001-11-30T01:29:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > \*\*What’s the deal, **N6**? Let’s compare the following statements from your last post directed at me: > > > [@](#): > > > > And if said ape were to also have read other philosophical greats, and discussed Nietxsche’s worth relative to them, using specific examples to illustrate it’s points, it would be rendering an informed opinion. > > And: > > > [@](#): > > > > ## Reasons, examples, and comparisons do not make an informed opinion. In this way GL and DDG fell quite short of the mark. > > > > I agree, these things do not make an informed opinion. They are evidence that the person has read the material and formed a basis for evaluation. > > So which one is it? Do reasons, examples, and comparisons necessarily make an informed argument or not? \*\* Having read the material being discussed and other materials of a comperable nature (as in the first example) gives one a knowledge base from which to draw when forming an opinion. Citing reasons, examples, and making comparisons (as in the second) are forms of support for the opinion rendered. Place these things together–knowledge base, opinion, support–and you have an informed opinion. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Lack of reasoning skill is not lack of knowledge. > > They are inextricably linked, especially in this case. \*With superior knowledge, individuals would reach superior conclusions. One’s initial propositions are grounded in knowledge. Widen the knowledge base and you shore up the propositions. * * * (italics mine) I absolutely agree with the part I italicized. Assuming that DDG and GL were profferring opinions based on a single reading, these would be “initial propositions grounded in knowledge.” As in, not grounded in ignorance. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*I agree that presenting an opinion as if it were a fact is irritating. As in “The fact that LOTR bears up to virtually all rational criticism makes it a work of considerable quality.” Though I agree with this opinion, it’s still an opinion. > > It isn’t, though. Even the briefest examination of the history of Tolkien criticism, including works by such as Edwin Muir, Tom Shippey, and W.H. Auden, reveal quite poignantly that despite a near universal class antagonism against LOTR, critics sensitive to Tolkien’s writing, even if they didn’t actually _like_ it, have dispensed relatively easily with some of his harshest critics. This is about as close to a _fact_ as I suspect one can get. \*\* Here you pit one set of critics against another. Each set of critics has made value judgements (criticisms) about Tolkein’s work. You side with Tolkein’s defenders (as do I). By choosing one set of critics, you have made a value judgement, one I happen to agree with. Value judgements are opinions. This is not to imply that all opinions are of equal value, far from it. Tolkein isn’t the first artist to suffer from criticism of his work due to predjudice, and when someone bases a critical evaluation on feelings about the artist, for good or for bad, rather than the skill displayed in the art itself, such an evaluation is of little value. But such an evaluation is disingenuous, not ignorant. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\*Ignorant is lack of knowldedge, information, or education. A person can be informed and educated on a topic, and still not be inclined to discuss it. Being unwilling to discuss something is vastly different from being unable to discuss it. > > I think our definitions are different, but not so different as you say. Ignorance is not the unwillingness to engage in a discussion, but a lack of _sufficient_ information to come to a correct conclusion. In these matters, there is something of a continuum of correctness, not one dogmatic correctness. But if you’re off the continuum, even if you _do_ know something, you’re ignorant. \*\* Thank you for providing a more clear definition of what you consider ignorance. We both are using a input method of defining ignorance: The size of the knowledge base. You’re adding an output definition–the “correctness” of the conclusion reached. It’s here that we differ. I believe that degree of knowledge should be the sole determiner. I would continue, but I have class in 30 minutes. We’ll be discussing several Chris Van Allsburg books and _The Great Gilly Hopkins_ by Katherine Patersen (BTW, I would consider one of these writers a genius in the field of Children’s lit). I doubt the discussion will be quite as contentious as the one we’ve been having here. Oh and add Edgar Allen Poe to my list. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/104 "2001-11-30T04:09:30Z")
:shrug: I guess I’m just chopped liver or something. I’m over it. Buh-bye now, Sparky. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/105 "2001-11-30T04:54:13Z")
I think we’re all a little bit confused and bewildered here to say the least, **Andros**. I did agree with your post on the claims that Tolkien was X and Y, etc., but I would add that the matter is not as subjective as you suggest. I addressed this point in an earlier message. If we left it all up to subjectivity, there would be no study of literature–or any other art–at all. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/106 "2001-11-30T04:58:08Z")
Nah, no worries. You’re the man, **Abe**. But I’m increasingly convinced that **#6** is just being an asshole because he enjoys it. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/107 "2001-11-30T04:59:59Z")
> [@](#): > > But I’m increasingly convinced that #6 is just being an asshole because he enjoys it. And here I thought it was just me. Glad I’m not the only one getting that impression. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/108 "2001-11-30T08:47:43Z")
Are you farmiliar with the psychological game “tennis”? The idea is that a person makes a challenging proposition of some sort with the intention of rejecting every response. Primaflora’s post seemed like such a challenge. Yes, I was amusing myself by posting facetious responses to the challenge to find an author who created a world as consistent as Tolkein before he did. I know of none, so I thought I’d have some fun by making ludicrous proposals. Andros and Maeglin quite ably shot them down, but you have to admit, I did provide remarkably easy targets, especially when I added Baum to my list _after_ he had already been discredited. Sorta like shootin’ fish in a barrel, so to speak. Next up would have been the Grimms, Anderson, Perrault, and J. M. Barre. I was saving Mother Goose for the ultimate item on my list, but you guys stopped playing when you realized I wasn’t serious and wasn’t going to defend my proposals, which were, after all, virtually indefensible. If you want to characterize that as being an asshole, so be it. This is the Pit, where such language is expected, and you are certainly entitled to express your opinion. * * * The arguments I made regarding the nature of ignorance and genius are my sincere beliefs. I thought we might have reached the is so/is not stage of the discussion a little while back, but now that things have reached the name calling stage, I see no further opportunity for meaningful discussion. * * * P.S. Add Edgar Rice Burroughs to my list. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/109 "2001-11-30T09:57:47Z")
You’re still not winning any points, **Number Six** , even though you’re playing a lot of games. A number of us have shown you repeatedly why you might as well have dropped your initial objections, and we’ve tried hard to be polite with your senseless, pompous, and fastidious sophistry. Let me also add that game-playing, including psychological tennis and other such feeble ideas, is characteristically employed by assholes. Is it coincidence that you already managed to collect that particular epithet? And your posts continue to show that you aren’t really reading the responses to your nonsense. People exercised patience in dealing with you, they took the time to argue your nonsensically contrarian points, and you “amuse” yourself by playing inane games when you can’t even conduct a discussion… idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/110 "2001-11-30T10:50:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Number Six \* > \*\*Are you farmiliar with the psychological game “tennis”? The idea is that a person makes a challenging proposition of some sort with the intention of rejecting every response. Primaflora’s post seemed like such a challenge. > > \*\* Goodness. Did it? Why? People were asserting that Tolkien was not innovative and that he did nothing to transform the domain in which he worked. I asked them for the names of writers who had done similar work previous to Tolkien. I have no idea why you would assume I asked that in bad faith because I didn’t. I’ve had one previous encounter with you, Number Six, and in that thread you struck me as being a weaselling arsehole. I’m sorry to have that impression confirmed. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/111 "2001-11-30T16:45:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Are you familiar with the psychological game “tennis”? Around here, we call that the asshole game “trolling.” ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2001, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/112 "2001-11-30T23:17:47Z")
Upon further reflection, I realize I was over the line. I hijacked Primaflora’s sincere attempt at debate for my own amusement. I later implied that Primaflora was playing games. For that I apologize to Primaflora. I ignored reasonable attempts to address my suggested authors, and attempted no response. For that I apologize to Maeglin, andros and Abe. I continued to post additions to my list without the belief that they were actually relevant. For that I apologize to all involved. I posted an explanation in which I admitted to what I was doing, but tried to justify behavoir that was unjustified. I then continued the same behavior in that same post. For that I apologize to all involved. I said some harsh things about Guanolad in some of my serious arguments. Though I disagree with your opinion of Tolkein, I believe you have every right to hold and express that opinion. I apologize for the unwarranted criticism. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989/113 "2001-12-01T03:21:25Z")
Accepted, with thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arwen/94989.md?page=5)