Heh…isn’t that the truth? It took me six tries to even get started on Les Miserables because the very first section is something like 300 years of the history of the bishopric of ____-sur-Mer, the importance of which is nil because the bishop of said diocese only appears for one chapter.
I think Liv Tyler’s quite a good actress
This thread has seriously lost it’s way and should be shuffled off to IMHO.
One person’s genius is another person’s twit. It’s all a matter of opinion. 
**
Whether he was appreciated during his life is irrelevant to the quality of his work. I don’t deny that his stories enchant many, but that doesn’t make them genius. Popularity does not equal quality.
**
I did no such thing.
**
As do I. I just don’t happen to beileive that a literal reproduction of the books is necessarily the best way to do that.
Excellent example! There are two theatrical versions and two tv movie versions. The 1992 theatrical version with Gary Sinise and John Malkovich is marginally better than the 1939 version with Burgess Merideth and Lon Chaney. The earlier version takes great liberties with Steinbeck, the latter is quite faithful, yet they both work very well. The 1981 (Robert Blake and Randy Quaid) tv movie is mediocre, despite replicating the book scene for scene. The quality of each film is determined not by how well it reproduces the page, but how well it works as a movie.
Sorry, Prima, but I’m really not interested in getting involved in an “is not/is TOO” slugfest over Tolkien. 
Literary criticism is too gray an area, anyway, and life’s too short. You asked “why” and I told you.
Opinions aside, both GuanoLad and Duck Duck Goose do not think Tolkien is a genius because they evidently lack both the knowledge and the sensitivity to appreciate his works.
It is impossible to dispute that Albert Einstein was a genius, a fact I am certain that DDG would gladly asseverate.
But can she explain general relativity and its, say, ethical implications?
It sure is possible, but frankly, I doubt it. Yet she will nevertheless maintain that Einstein is a genius.
And GuanoLad, who prefaces his own steaming heap of ignorance with “I read a lot of fantasy…,” is just as lost and confused. The following is obscene in its ignorance:
This kind of relentless ignorance deserves its own thread. As does this:
One person’s banality is another person’s insight. The ability to give Duck Duck Goose chills, a genius does not one make.
But I can’t fault either of the above offenders right now for being ignorant. I simply cannot change the fact that there really are people out there who cannot tell the difference in prose between JK Rowling and JRR Tolkien, or who honestly believe that the garbage that is modern “epic” fantasy is well-written. To each his own.
But whether you love someone’s work or despise it has no bearing on the author’s genius.
They will have an opportunity to transcend their limited experiences and learn something about, yes, a great literary genius.
You don’t have to hold your breath. I will have my manifesto completed tomorrow.
It’s been a while since I heard the “If you don’t think X is great, you must be too stupid to understand it” argument.
This one, though, is a masterwork. You don’t just insult those whose opinions differ from yours in general, you single out two people, and repeat your assertion several times, as if to say, “You’re so dumb, I’ll repeat if for you.” Then you promise to come back later to do it great detail.
Truly, I am in awe.
I’m going with Maeglin on this one. Number Six, it is a common failure of many of us that we are not fully able to appreciate or understand a work or areas of work without a lot of effort, and many are simply not willing or able to invest that kind of energy. It is unfair to belittle this sad but true problem, from which all of us suffer to a degree. In this case Maeglin seemed on the ball. So far all I have heard from GuanoLad and Duck Duck Goose are vaguely referenced dismissals without support. And P.G. Wodehouse a genius before Tolkien? How?
And, frankly, anyone who says that modern fantasy is well written, or written better than Tolkien, has got to be insane. The crushingly overwhelming majority of this field is utterly insignificant and poorly crafted beach trash capitalizing on the hunger for the “fantasy” novel that Tolkien and a very few others created. There are no more than a couple (if that) writers with the tenth part of Tolkien’s skill in Fantasy literature. To make GL’s assertion to the contrary is indeed a steaming pile of ignorance and fully deserving of scorn.
I find The Lord of the Rings to be beautiful, gentle novels evocative of several archetypes and spinning a story that is unmatched in modern literature. As a work of imagination, it is absolutely incredible. I find no significant flaws with the characterization, and I like the pacing of the series. Some complain it is too slow at times, but that is because we are looking at a writer able to employ a style that is both dignified and versatile (witness how the narrative skips back and forth between the heroic and the rustic, for example).
Tolien’s writing is certainly very good. Consider the example of the Nazgul, beings of death and darkness who aren’t fully in this world. Tolkien brings them out a number of times, and each time they are accompanied by dread, but always with just the right level of description and involvement, keeping them mysterious yet increasingly fearsome. We know surprisingly little about them or their appearance, but we certainly feel them; Tolkien is weaving these creatures with shadows for our pleasure, and all he’s using is comparatively few words.
The supreme touch in the series (SPOILER–if that’s possible–AHEAD) is that we never see a showdown between the good guys and the evil incarnate. That is brilliant, particularly considering the thousands and thousands of narratives (films and books) where the showdown with the bad guy is considered the most important thing, the climax towards which all efforts lead. Brilliant and, after half a century, still original.
That’s genius.
And, to keep on topic, I have to agree that Liv Tyler is hot. I don’t think it’s just her tits that sell, but also her ass and legs. And her mouth, frankly, for obvious reasons. She’s not a good actress (yet?), but you never know–look at Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah’s performances in Blade Runner, or Tom Cruise’s performance in Eyes Wide Shut.
The most entertaining flame war I ever saw was several years ago on one of the Tolkien newsgroups and concerned the subject of whether or not The Lord Of The Rings was better than the Dune books. You would have thought that Frank Herbert was somebody’s mother. People were actually threatening to find and hurt each other IRL and expecting to be taken seriously (tee hee). I thought it was too bad that the participants were scattered all over the world because I would have really liked to have seen a rumble between the two groups of pimply-faced computer science majors.
(By the way, the Tolkien fans would have definitely KICKED ASS!)
I don’t need support to say someone ISN’T something. You need support to say something IS.
Isn’t that how it’s meant to work? Or am I talking crap again?
Anyway, Maeglin, if you’re going to take it so sensitively, perhaps you shouldn’t be here.
Face it, people, he REALLY IS NOT THAT GOOD! My arguments, that I have already stated, are my own personal opinion, but surely you can see some truth in it!
He’s far from faultless, indeed he rambles, he is UNBELIEVABLY inconsistent and meandering, his characterisation is simplistic, and the plot is linear.
These aren’t necessarily bad things if done right, but hardly the skills of a genius!
I liked the Hobbit scenes. Especially all those in Hobbiton itself, beginning and end. Not much else, but they were quite fun.
How he handles the whole Saruman thing is really strange. Most of the story he’s in a tower hiding from talking trees. He shows no power or menace, he’s just this twisted spiteful old man with a magic crystal ball thingy.
Sauron himself also lacks any sense of real power. He’s this mysterious figure stuck in some dry wasteland commanding armys of ugly brainless brutes. Ooohhh, aaahhh. Not.
Though the Dark Riders are pretty cool.
Bollocks.
That’s my cutting wit and thoroughly backed up, cited, and fully endorsed by the majority of the world opinion.
heehee!
Thank you for your spirited defense, Abe, I think we agree 100%.
It’s been awhile since I heard that argument, too. Where did you hear it just now? It manifestly is not my argument.
I am certainly not suggesting that anyone has to read what I read or like what I like. No one is stupid for not particularly enjoying LOTR. While I may bitterly disagree with someone’s estimation of good or poor prose, having at least an opinion precludes a certain amount of stupidity.
I am contending that neither DDG nor GL get it, as it were. I am taking the time to do a little explaining in the Cafe Society, where such a discussion belongs. I am not going to try to convince them to like LOTR, rather to appreciate JRRT with a little more knowledge. They will be free to say afterwards that while LOTR does little or nothing for them personally, it is nevertheless quite staggering in is scope, complex in its execution…and perhaps even a work of a genius. Even if they don’t like it.
I do hope you will read my remarks in the Cafe Society, voluminous as they will be. I would like to hear your thoughts on them, Number Six.
And Liv Tyler is scorching hot. There will be no further discussion. 
GuanoLad, I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it, too, as it were. You say the following:
I take your point and I take your challenge. I am working on it.
But then you go on to say:
These are propositions that I would characterize as base and ignorant. Now the onus is on you to provide examples.
In this I do give you a little credit. Considering that Tolkien was voted by several different polls to be the author of the century, there is something to be said for going against the grain, even if one’s reasons are purely ignorant.
So, GuanoLad, I would love to see your thoughts as to Tolkien’s linearity, inconsistency, and mischaracterization. If you start your own thread, I would be thrilled to consider all of your arguments.
MR
Thanks. Now I will forevermore think of JRR as the master of his domain!
Casting Liv Tyler as Arwen troubled me far less than hearing about Bette Midler, Kathy Bates, and Julia Roberts in extended roles as Entwives in the 2d and 3d flicks.
Point taken, M. I was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. Let me rephrase: “If you don’t think X is a work of genius, you must be an insensitive ignoramus.” I have heard this argument from staunch defenders of various works of art who apparently beleive that if they only explain it carefully enough, their uninformed audience will come to the correct conclusion. It’s intellectual snobbery.
Guanolad and DDG explained exactly why they beleive that Tolkein was not a genius. That your opinion, and that is what we’re discussing here, opinions, differs from theirs (and mine) does not mean that either of you is right or wrong. Unless you have some reason to beleive that they have not read the books in question, you have no grounds for claiming that their opinions are based on ignorance.
To drag back to the original topic: I present for you the following pair…
[li]Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?[/li]A stirringly brilliant book with flair and imagination exploring what it really means to be human.
[li]Bladerunner[/li]An incredible Sci-Fi film that invented a future city look that has become de rigour. Evocative, exciting and ultimately melancholic.
And if you didn’t know better, you might not even guess that the latter is based on the former.
Staying faithful to the book is not the be all and end all. In fact quite the reverse - the pacing and techniques that lead to good literature and very different to those that lead to good filmmaking. I demand that there be adaptations.
But now I have learned that they are cutting Bombadil!?! I therefore hereby decree that the film sucks.
pan
Number Six, I also take your point. I am just trying to draw a certain distinction here. I believe that geniuses exist whether people like their products or not. DDG and GL explained why Tolkien isn’t their deal. That’s fine.
But it is snobbery of the same sort to say, “well, I don’t like it, so it can’t be genius.” That kind of thing doesn’t fly for scientific or mathematical knowledge, and to be honest, I don’t think it flies for literary creation either. Hell, I’m not a big Faulker fan, but I’ll admit he’s definitely a genius with the English language. Doesn’t mean I’d waste more than a half an hour on “As I Lay Dying.”
In case you are interested, the thread in Cafe Society is here. Given its lengthy nature, you can perhaps see why I didn’t want to post my proof at midnight last night.
And it’s not even done.
MR
I didn’t care for what little I read of these books. You true believers will likely pounce on me and call me a phillistine, etc. etc., but as this is the Pit and not Cafe, I’m free to ignore whatever you say as incoherent, rabid ramblings of the dissafected.
Because that’s what you are.
As I was saying, I read The Hobbit - barely. It was like Dr. Seus played a D&D campaign and decided to write a book about it. It was tiresome in its explanations of places and events, and pretty childish and simplistic in plot and characterization.
I started the first book of the trilogy, and at about page 8 billion and 44 I realized the characters hadn’t done much more than had two thousand feasts and walked down a road where they ran away from these scary guys and then had another feast.
That was it. I put the book down and got on with my life.
Now that these films are coming out - and look quite good (the scene with the grody evil guy looking for his “precious” was exactly as creepy as I pictured when I read the book) - I can actually enjoy the subject without having to survive the tedium of trying to read the books… which reminded me of the Book of Genesis.
I like the genra and appreciate these books for what they did for it, and I plan to enjoy the movies.
Expressing an opinion about a piece of art is different from making judgements about a person’s intellectual ability based on their opinions. The fomer is what DDG and Guanolad did, the latter is what you did.
It’s the difference between saying, “I disagree, and here’s why” and saying, “You’re wrong, and here’s why.” Only the second is a direct criticism of the person.
Sciences and arts are by their very nature different things, and should be judged by different criteria. You cannot entirely separate audience reaction from the criteria for judging art because producing a desired reaction in the audience is one of the purposes of art, if not the main purpose.
And you are mischaracterizing DDG’s posts. Her reasoning was a lot more than “I don’t like it.”
I like you , Number Six
The problem with this is that my view is based on comparison with other books I have read in the Fantasy genre. I’m not going to quote entire scenes of Tolkien and other writers when all it’ll do is show that my likes and dislikes differ so much from yours. My point will be invisible.
This is all just opinion, really, just like Number Six says. My opinion is the word Genius does not apply to Tolkien.
Please note I am not saying Tolkien is a bad writer, or that LotR is a badly written book. I am just saying being first at writing epic Fantasy does not a genius make.
You claim that most modern Fantasy is rubbish - well I don’t read most modern Fantasy, I selectively choose authors I have enjoyed in the past. They write involving original tales (set, as I readily acknowledge, in a Tolkien influenced, derivatively inspired world) with deeply layered characters realistically portrayed. They fulfill my expectations of enjoyable adventure tales set in a supernaturally inflicted universe.
Tolkien did not. His tale was messy, badly paced, and inconsistent. His descriptions of locations evoked very little atmosphere beyond getting a vague physical idea of the place someone is at.
He is overhyped. People class him as something he doesn’t deserve just because the world he created is so geekily detailed and researched, back stories based on familiarity and fairy-tale that influence subtle aspects of the story and character. Hints of pasts, teases if you will.
Well big fucking deal, how difficult is that to do? Not at all - any half-decent author can do that. Only one can be the ‘grandfather’ of it, though, I guess.
It’s not enough to be classed a genius, though.
It was a children’s book. ::shrug::
Jeez, you make him look like George Lucas!