Arwen?

The BBQ Pit
61

I don’t think we are going to get much farther with this.

Number Six, if I simply wanted to express disagreement, I would say “we disagree.” When I believe that someone is wrong, I will say so.

And I am mischaracterizing DDG’s typically parochial arguments in no way whatsoever.

Of course the sciences and the arts should be judged by different criteria. Reception is crucial to the survival and the popularity of a work of art. Nevertheless, I do believe that there are intrinsic attributes in a work of art that lend it value regardless of its reception.

If you disagree, then either we should take this discussion to GD or we should just leave off.

GuanoLad, I don’t believe you at all. You do not need to quote long passages or compare LOTR to any of your fantasy favorites. You can go down your list, which you repeated in unsubstantiated form yet again, and back your claims up with direct references to the books. You can tell me what is inconsistent with a cite. You can show me what a weak description is with one cite. I have asked you to put up. Hell, I put up.

And you are balking.

Look, like I said, it doesn’t matter who does and who doesn’t like LOTR. A simple “it doesn’t interest me” or “I didn’t find it entertaining” or “it made me so mad I wanted to throw it across the room” would suffice. These are not points which any sane or respectful person would wish to argue against.

However, direct claims regarding the craft of writing can be refuted. You can’t hide behind relativism. Since you are not interested in putting up, I don’t think we need to continue the discussion.

:shrugs:

62

I’m not saying he’s a bad writer. Anything I quote as being bad pacing you can argue it’s atmospheric, or minimalist, or some such. It all comes down to opinion.

I do not class him as genius. I believe he is no better than many other writers (none of whom are considered ‘genius’ by anybody).

The end. I’ll shut up now.

63

Good, because I am sick of reading bland assertions repeated ad nauseam while we call for direct references, reasoning, any kind of evidence beyond your say-so!

Again, I invite any example of what you refer to. So far there’s a lot of sound but very little literary criticism, from Number 6, GL, and DDG. If we had the supported criticism we could get down to something, but this is just frustrating.

I agree that Tolkien had his flaws. However, the world he set up is unmatched by any other series of books except Dune–and even then the sequels and prequels to Dune are pretty damn bad.

Tolkien is a master storyteller, having created worlds, peoples, languages, cultures, and myths on a scope that no single author has matched yet (and it’s not for lack of trying).

And it’s very important to remember that when characters do not conform to your idea of what they should be or what they should be doing (as in Saruman and Sauron), that is not necessarily a literary miss. Most authors tend to trot out their characters and describe them to death at the inappropriate times, or fail to provide adequate description when it is required. No such thing with Tolkien, for if you read the books with a modicum of awareness, you know what the characters look like, what they are thinking, what their motivations are, etc., all with a distinct economy of running description.

Descriptions, and especially running descriptions, tend to be where most writers fall flat on their face. It’s a useful indicator to tell how comfortable in and how adroit at the task the author is.

Again, I would love to know what authors are “thousands of times” better than Tolkien in the field of Fantasy, and this is out of sheer curiosity.

64

Abe: You haven’t heard any literary criticism from me because a: I enjoyed LOTR very much when I read it and b: my problem was not with M’s claim that LOTR is a work of genius, but with his debating tactics.

Maeglin: I agree that art can have intrinsic worth that is independent of its popular or critical reception (not that all art does, but that it can). See my post responding to EvilGhandi. I don’t believe that popularity or lack thereof is necessarily indicative of level of quality. It can be, but the correlation is not high. However, whether a work of art posesses such intrinsic merit, and the degree of such intrinsic merit that the work of art posesses is a judgement that must be made by human beings.

I have no problem with your belief that LOTR is a work of genius. I happen to like the novel myself. My problem was with your criticising the people who disagreed with you saying, “they evidently lack both the knowledge and the sensitivity to appreciate his works.” You then went on to say that once they had read your remarks, “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.” You seem to be splitting people into two groups, those who agree with you, and those who are ignorant.

There are two logical fallacies in this. First, Attacking the Person: You counter DDG and Guanolad’s reasoning by calling them ignorant, and in an insulting tone. Several times. Second, False Dilemma: you present only two possible options: People either have the knowledge and sensitivity to fully appreciate Tolkein and acknowledge his greatness or they are ignorant and insensitive. There is at least one more possibile group: those who have both the knowledge and sensitivity to appreciate Tolkein, but who judge him to be less than a literary genius, or a talented, but overrated writer, or even a competent but unremarkable storyteller. Make that three more possibilities.

I read your other thread. You obviously have a passion for this novel, and I am always pleased to find such dedication energy, and coherent thought devoted to the field I chose for my life’s work.

65

Number Six I stand corrected. I would not say, however, that Maeglin intended to insult GL and DDG–but they did crank out some pretty obtuse absolutes, which is probably why Maeglin came out and said what you found offensive. I did not think it was offensive–I found it right on target.

When someone claims, for example, that the authors in fantasy–a field known for its poor level of writing and story-telling-- tend to be a thousand times better than Tolkien, that Tolkien is a bad writer, that LOTR is a poor narrative, I too reach the conclusion that the person in question doesn’t really understand very much about Tolkien or LOTR or the fantasy novel, and I have no problem telling them so. I support Maeglin in this, at least until DDG and GL provide valid evidence to back up their claims.

Whether LOTR is actually work of genius or not, I think it is safe to say that it is certainly up high on the list. You may think it falls short of a work of genius although you seem to appreciate its values, others may think it is a work of genius (as you point out). The two positions are not very different after all.

66

This is the Pit, this is not GD, we can say shit if we wanna say shit. I choose to say shit without backup.

:slight_smile:

You rate my words as ignorance, an opinion you are free to have.

However, just because I don’t class your favourite author as a genius does not make me ignorant. I merely have a different opinion.

You are taking this way too personally I think. It’s clouding your better senses.

67

GuanoLad,

Sure, and doing calculus is cake! Any reasonably competant person can do calculus. So what’s the big deal with Newton and Leibinez anyways. They’re not so smart. Calculus is easy!

After the fact new things can often seem simplistic and underwhelming. It doesn’t detract from the “genius” (for lack of a better word) required to have been the first.

68

Yeah, basically.

Either you understand contemporary quantum physics or you are ignorant.

Either you understand, or try to understand JRRT or you are ignorant. Pig-headed opinion without consideration of the overwhelming evidence against you and the unwillingness to support your own claims is just plain ignorance.

So what? They offered their, IMHO, brick-ignorant opinions and I responded in a manner that I saw fit. If they had actually wished to debate the matter in an appropriate place, I would have been more than willing to do so in a manner more conducive to real debate.

But no. DDG disappeared after dropping her little opinion, and GL has decided that he simply cannot justify a single claim he has made.

And I believe that some ignorance deserves some strong language.

That’s not entirely true. I have repeated that even with sensitivity and understanding one does not have to like LOTR. But sensitivity and understanding will impart to readers the quality of his craftsmanship and the depth of the achievement, even if they dislike it or, god forbid, don’t think it’s a work of genius.

Yeah, pretty much. Which is why I am free to call you a meatheaded ignoramus without backup.

My favorite author has nothing to do with this, GL. Oh, and it’s not Tolkien. My better senses and the board’s motto impel me to fight ignorance where I see it. And it’s here.

69

I’m still waiting for an example fantasy novel that is “a thousand percent better written than Tolkien”.

70

That was an exaggeration, obviously.

But I consider Terry Pratchett to be heaps more entertaining and be better at characterisation, George RR Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire series to be much better constructed and have incredible sense of depth and epicness(?), and one of my favourite authors: Dave Duncan, to have a better grasp of story than Tolkien.

Really they just suit my sensibilities better, but in any case, none of those authors would be classed as Genius, so why should Tolkien?

Why are you upset so much by my assertion that Tolkien isn’t a genius? That term gets bandied about too much, very few people ever really earn it, and I’m sure it’s a topic of huge debate in all relevant areas. He’s a popular writer, he’s clearly talented, and he established a very elaborate and involved history to back his tales with - but Genius? He’s not even innovative.

71

What’s to understand? He failed to entertain me on a satisfying level. Therefore he is not a genius, is he?

72

The prosecution rests.

73

Holy shit. Thus GuanoLad demonstrates his utter lack of understanding of where Tolkien falls in the history of fantasy writing.

Here’s another challenge – find another writer who published before Tolkien who created a world as thoroughly and consistently as Tolkien did.

74

I withdraw the ‘innovative’ remark, actually. I am wrong about that. I got carried away with my rhetoric.

I don’t see why Maeglin thinks he has won, though.

75

Note: I rearranged the post so I could respond to the first part second.

Read that section of my post again, and you will see nothing about liking or disliking LOTR. I posited that there are people with the requisite knowledge and sensitivity to fully appreciate LOTR who judge it to be less than great, or even mediocre.

**

**

When you define ignorance as disagreeing with you, you have very effectively ended any possibility of meaningful debate, so I will no longer make the attempt.

76

that is rather bad form, Number Six, considering that Maeglin explained his point further than your simplistic question begged. I fail to see where the issue is. Maeglin is saying that it takes effort to understand any work. It is obvious that GuanoLad has made little effort (or had little success when making an effort) to understand LOTR, therefore he is hardly qualified to pass judgement on the work as he has been doing. In fact, and this is still based on his posts in this thread, I would say that Guanolad is speaking from a position of ignorance, precisely as Maeglin suggested.

Were GuanoLad to have tempered his comments with “IMHO” or such when he originally made them instead of making such bold assertions, you would certainly have a point. As it is, I do not think you can win this argument using indignation in response to Maeglin’s fully justified assessment of GL and DDG’s unequivocal and unsupported comments.

GuanoLad, do you have a fever?! If you can’t understand why your comment is an asinine piece of literary criticism I will explain it for you, although I hope/suspect you are joking.

If a work merely fails to entertain you that does not detract from its value at all–particularly if it is a work that has stood the Test Of Time, like LOTR. if you are not entertained it simply means that you didn’t enjoy it. Heck, I didn’t enjoy a few of Shakespeare’s plays and found them boring, but I have no doubt the man was a genius, and I invested a lot of time and effort in making sure I could say that I had some understanding of the works I didn’t enjoy. There are members of the liteary community who think Shakespeare is “detestable” (Tolstoy used that word for the Bard), but their approach tends to be a little more valid than yours so far.

If you study a work and learn enough about it to make a coherent case that previous assessments of the work are in error, and that the work actually sucks, you have a stronger case and may even get someone to listen to you. “LOTR sucks” or “it’s overrated” or “it’s boring” etc., are NOT literary criticisms, they are simply your shallow, unresearched opinion and do not entitle you to make any assertions regarding the skill of a writer, particularly a writer as well established as Tolkien.

Now, if you could demonstrate that you actually know LOTR and presented your case in such a way that others, who have studied LOTR/Tolkien. are able to take your words seriously, we would have avoided this messing around.

Or you could have said, “I found LOTR boring so it’s not my cup of tea” (or something along those lines) when you made your original comments.

As for your examples of writers substantially better at the Fantasy field than Tolkien, all I can say is that you could at least have pulled out someone like Ursula LeGuin or even Robert Holdstock, people with acknowledged originality and/or skill, not just entertaining value. Entertaining value is pleasant, but nothing more than a single small component of literary value. To take a cinematic example, The Seventh Seal is a work of skill; Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure is a work of entertainment. Would you really care to compare the two?

77

There is no question in my post, simplistic or otherwise.

78

You are correct, I meant to say “simplistic interpretation” (reductionist really).

79

I’ve already said about four times that it’s just my opinion.

When I roginally made my first post here, I thought this was the Pit, the place where people make loud proclamations with no need for backup. It’s just the ‘stand up and shout a lot’ forum.

Somehow people got instantly affronted by my puny little assertion and turned it into a great debate.

Like I said, you guys are behaving way too sensitively for a topic of such little importance.

Here’s what I’m saying once more, so you can understand my take on it - the term ‘genius’ is applied all too readily to all too many people. Very very few people live up to this title. Tolkien is one of these, he is not a genius. Talented, maybe. Unfeasibly popular, yes. (So far Britney Spears falls into those categories too.) Innovative, I concede. But genius? No. In the same way Elvis was not a genius, Tolkien is not one either.

Yes, it’s an opinion. I have never denied it. Just because I sounded like I was making a proclamation of complete truth doesn’t mean it was one - I have no authority to say such things, who do you think I am? I’m nobody geek boy, for pete’s sake.

Crikey.

80

Waddya mean, Elvis wasn’t a genius?

Man, you’re for it now…

pan