William Hope Hodgson and ‘The Last Redoubt’ spring to mind, as does the work of H.P. Lovecraft.
I never suggested that I won, GuanoLad. I have made my case to its completion and am letting others, posterity, whoever decide. That’s all.
And thanks again, Abe. It is clear N6 doesn’t detect the irony present in accusing me of logical fallacies.
MR
I detect none because there is none. I quoted the portion of the post to which I wanted to respond. The entire post is still there a few above mine for anyone to read. I recognize that Abe seems to believe that I am engaging in the logical fallacy of begging the question. Begging the question is assuming your conclusion to be true as one of your premises. I haven’t done that.
I’ll present my case as clearly as I can. DDG and Guanolad made it clear that they have read the books being discussed. They each explained their basis for making the judgements that they made–Guanolad comparing to other works of Fantasy, DDG to other works in which she sees genius. That makes their interpretations informed opinions. If they had not read the books whose value they were judging, or even if they had offered no basis of comparison for making the judgements that they made, this would be grounds for calling such opinions ignorant.
They offered their opinions and defended them. That their opinions differ from yours does not make them ignorant. The Defense rests.
**
Homer
Dante
Ovid
Shakespeare
I believe this is the crux of our disagreement. As Jamie Lee Curtis said in A Fish Called Wanda, “an ape can read Nietzsche.”
I can sit down and read the Feynman Lectures, compare it to my high school physics textbook, perhaps point out where I believe Feynman makes errors in his understanding of Newtonian classical mechanics, and come to the conclusion that Feynman is overrated, often incorrect, and generally unimpressive.
You would have every reason to call my opinion ignorant, whether it has a “basis for comparison” or not. I could demonstrate how the Principia Mathematica is inferior to Hiryuu’s brilliant discussions of contemporary quantum physics.
Reasons or no, it would be pure and total malarky.
Reasons, examples, and comparisons do not make an informed opinion. In this way GL and DDG fell quite short of the mark.
For example, in two posts GL complained that the plot of LOTR is “too linear.” I addressed this specifically in the above-linked thread. Amazingly enough, linearity fell out of GL’s litany of complaints against Tolkien. Dollars to doughnuts, if he were willing to engage in a serious discussion, the rest of his complaints would disappear as well. He still may not find LOTR to his taste, which would be perfectly fine, but he would no longer be ignorant.
The fact that LOTR bears up to virtually all rational criticism makes it a work of considerable quality. Those who wish to debate this are welcome to bring forward their considered criticisms, with sufficient cites from the work to support them.
To not care for a book and not want to engage in time-consuming discussion is fine. I don’t particularly like Stephen Crane, considered by many to be one of the finest authors America produced. I don’t want to spend lots of time discussing an author I would never miss if he never existed. So I don’t say things like, “he’s unoriginal, he writes badly, he tells a lousy story.” A Crane fan would have every right to call me out on these ignorant opinions. And yes, they really are ignorant, because Crane is both original and tells stories surpassingly well.
I just don’t care for them or find them interesting. And that’s where I am happy to leave the discussion, as no amount of rational rebuttals are going to change my mind.
In my world, there are good books and bad books. Good books are good not because they are popular, but because they have craft. Craft is not nearly so subjective as taste, for not all people like all good books, and lots of people like lots of really crappy ones. Frank Lloyd Wright built a lot of buildings with a staggering amount of craft, but I’ll be damned if I’d live in any of 'em.
The fact that an author I happen to admire is the subject of the discussion is irrelevant to me. I just find it extremely irritating when people believe they can make objective claims about the craft of an author and try to pass them off as opinions that require no justification. These opinions can, to a considerable extent, be proven right or wrong.
To be unwilling to engage in a discussion of this nature is ignorant. No fallacy of the dilemma. No begging the question.
As for Homer, Ovid, et al., I would be delighted to discuss their derivative natures (derivative in the same ways as Tolkien) and inconsistencies with you any time. Oh, not to mention the obvious fact that there is a considerable degree of difference between the creation of setting and sub-creation.
MR
Maeglin,
Have you tried Crane’s poetry…? Maybe a little heavy handed for the mature palate, but I loved it when I was an angst ridden teen.
But then again, I don’t like Tolkien 
(Isn’t there some variation of the beauty quote “genius is in the eye of the beholder”?)
I know I’m going to be sorry but I’ll bite.
First, let me make it clear that I think JRRT is a literary god come to earth, etc., etc. What’s really missing from this conversation is a definition of “genius.” Absent that, this is really an “Is so!, Isn’t” discussion.
Having said that, JRRT as I believe has been pointed out, was a very highly respected scholar as well as an author. The bizzare thing about LOTR (and the reason why it will probably never be equalled) is that the unpublished back story is a good deal longer and more detailed than the book itself. JRRT originally created his mythology/history for his own amusmement and worked on it for 40+ years before LOTR was published. After the advent of modern entertainment, it is hard to imagine someone with the same mental fire-power devoting as much time and energy to a similar project, especially one done primarily for his or her own amusement. So if genius is “an infinite capacity for taking pains” JRRT probably was one.
On a more (hopefully) light-hearted note, there are things that drive me nuts about LOTR.
In Bree, if you’ll recall, Strider/Aragorn, pulls out his sword and its broken! In other words, Strider is roaming around in the wild hunting evil creatures carrying a priceless, yet completely useless, heirloom. Is that stupid, or what? Wouldn’t he be better off leaving the thing in Rivendell and making do with a less-storied, yet actually functioning sword? Does he expect said evil creatures to be rendered helpless with laughter when he charges up waving his hilt?
BTW Maeglin, with your name, you’re hardly unbiased on the topic of LOTR, no? 
Can I plug Eric Rucker Eddison now?
And personally, I’m happy separating JRRT and his writing into various aspects.
He was a master of the English language. I will happily call anyone who disagrees with that a drooling idiot. He knew the language, he knew prose and poetry, and he knew how to use them. I’m not a big fan of Robert Frost or Hemingway, but by ghod they could use the language. So could JRRT.
He was a talented storyteller. Subjective. That’s my opinion, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to. (Although I would tend to look with a jaundiced eye upon anyone who disagrees solely on the basis of “I didn’t get it.”)
He built sound characters. Again, subjective. I’m content with any disagreement there as well, and I’m happy to discuss my personal problems with his characterizations.
He was a talented world builder. Cries of “the classics” notwithstanding, Tolkien built and maintained a world in a way that had never been done before. He built several languages, a huge geography, and thousands of years of consistent history. Ovid didn’t do that, Homer didn’t do that, Shakespeare didn’t do that. That took effort, that took craft, and that took skill.
-a-
Dammit.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Primaflora *
**
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul…can I name some more?
Dangerosa
I read it when I was an angst-ridden teen as well. Along with my class full of other angst-ridden teens. It just didn’t work for me.
To my mind, whether or not JRRT is a genius is of secondary importance to the general method which discussions of this nature employ. Namely, what in literary discussions are issues of fact and what are issues of opinion.
Middle Earth was born in a brief poem about goblins when Tolkien was 19 years old. He worked on it continuously until his death in 1975. I agree that this is quite astounding.
I agree, andros. Either you like the story or you don’t. But I believe that if you are going to level specific criticisms about it, you should be able to back them up.
Same here. And again, this demands a certain amount of specificity.
Damn right. As someone who has spent more time studying Homer, Vergil, Ovid, and Shakespeare, I would add my hearty amen.
People have been puzzling over their inconsistencies for the past two thousand years. Frankly, I don’t think they’re quite on the level.
And andros, thanks for the Eddison ref. He’s just jumped to the top of my list.
**
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.
**
Being entirely unfamiliar with the works to which you refer, I can make no meaningful comment.
**
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.
**
I disagree with pretty much all the criticisms GL leveled at LOTR. I would call them poorly reasoned. He seems to have read the story on which he is offering his opinion, and has in his own words, read a lot of fantasy, which gives him a knowledge base from which to draw his conclusions, ill-reasoned though they may be. Lack of reasoning skill is not lack of knowledge.
**
I agree here. Being irrational, however, does not make one ignorant.
**
If you had read and evaluated Crane and those
were things you genuinely believed, they would be informed, if irrational, opinions.
**
Craft may not be as subjective as taste, but it is subjective.
**
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.
Opinions, by definition, cannot be right or wrong. They just are.
**
Here’s the crux of our disagreement. Our definitions of ignorant are vastly different.
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. [does some checking]. Dictionary.com and the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed. seem to agree with my definition.
But, I grant you, that by your given definition of ignorance (being unwilling to engage in discussion on a given topic) DDG and Guanolad are ignorant.
**
I plead ignorance(your definition).
Oh, and add Lewis Carrol, Jules Verne, and H. G. Welles to my list.
Badtz, you score points for knowing that hallucination of a work, however I must chastise you on getting the title wrong: it’s actually called The Nightland. The Last Redoubt is simply the pyramid where the last survivors of humanity shelter, surrounded by the advancing Four Watchers, etc.
As impressive as that work is in terms of nightmarish vision and imagination, The Nightland is written in a very clumsy and unnecessary pseudo-victorian style, with a dragged out plot, a very weak love story, and next to no character development. The work is acknowledged to have very serious flaws, but at the same time it is refreshing to pick up a book and have such a vivid nightmare delivered to you. Vivid, imaginative, but lacking the scope and range of Tolkien’s creations, not to mention the skill.
HP Lovecraft, similarly, although a writer with a refreshingly twisted mind, simply lacked the scope, dedication, and consistency of Tolkien (indeed, Lovecraft for the most part wrote short stories set in a fictional Earth that was still heavy modelled on our own recent past). I also think Lovecraft tends to be classed under “Horror” rather than fantasy, as his writings posses more the qualities of the former than the latter.
I’d argue that both are much more imaginative than Tolkien in some ways. Tolkien’s mythology was clearly inspired by old legends and myths, were basically set in a medieval-type world with faery tale and myth elements added. Lovecraft’s world was based on ours, but had a truly alien mythology with only a few references to real-world myth, and his backstory went back hundreds of millions of years. I’ve only read parts of The Nightlands, but it’s amazingly imaginative and original for the era it was written in.
Number Six I disagree with your interpretation of this argument. I am not sure, but you seem to think that reading a work entitles one to make proclamations and assertions about it. It doesn’t. Reading a book (or watching a movie) is absolutely no guarantee of understanding, which is required when speaking authoritatively about anything, as GL and DDG did. But GL and DDG’s comments earlier clearly indicated a poor understanding of the work, a fact over which Maeglin made a comment that seemed very appropriate.
You then took Maeglin to task over that, on the particular issue that anyone who disagrees with Maeglin is ignorant. That is why I said that your statement (which I confused as a question but it makes little difference) was simplistic and reductionist. It is not what Maeglin actually expressed in full at all, but you stated that is what he said. You got in a huff over his reply, which you truncated to make it seem like Maeglin was being summarily dissmissive of those who disagree with him. This whole (lengthy) process is not good arguing.
Now, on my favourite subject of “it’s all relative”: nonsense! I agree that literature by definition has a subjective element, and what appeals to one may not appeal to the other. But to take it further than that is to regress to the stage of frustrated high school Literature students. Things are subjective only to a certain point. Even then, stating one’s opinion does not liberate one from the responsibility of backing up one’s opinion (ever tried to write an essay that consisted solely of opinion and no support? Mere empty words).
As far as opinions go, you seem to think that they are sacrosanct and untouchable: untrue! There are correct opinions and incorrect opinions, ignorant and informed, true and false. Opinions are indeed subjective, but reality isn’t (certainly not to the same degree). There is a spectrum of subjectivity in opinion, after all someone may be of the opinion that it is a cold day when I think it is a hot one; at that point we would have to reach an agreement of what constitutes cold and hot. However if someone tells me that I am short, or I am female, or I have blonde hair, their opinion is clearly as false as possible (I am tall, male, and dark-haired). When someone says that Tolkien is a crap writer, etc., that is 1) against all observable evidence, and 2) in contrast to the consensus of the literary community. The only way such a statement will be accepted is if it’s backed up. I can’t stand jane Austen, but I wouldn’t dream of just saying "she sucks’ without backing up my argument.
I think everyone on this board respects opinions, but those who do express opinions without support are merely blabbing and yapping (certainly not fighting ignorance, probably contributing to it since opinion does not equal knowledge). Said that, I want to apologize to GL and DDG for getting on their case; it is true that the pit does not adhere to the strict standards of Great Debates, but your case is strong only when you back it up. Said that, I still submit, pending evidence to the contrary, that you don’t have the understanding required to criticize Tolkien! 
Others have shown why the first part of your list is not relevant to this argument, and I think the same may be said of this one. Again, it helps if you at least sketch an outline of why you think these writers’ world compare with Tolkien.
Lewis Carroll – are you thinking of Wonderland? If so, Wonderland seems to me the equivalent of L. Frank Baum’s Oz, a disjointed land of deliberately inconsistent places and characters that exist as improbable conducts to the story. At no point do I see reason to believe that Carroll’s and Baum’s worlds are more than a mere fraction the detail of Tolkien’s. The Hobbit alone, since we are talking of children’s books, sets down a world in greater detail and with more consistency and less frivolity than these other two writers (which is not to say I do not like Carroll and Baum, on the contrary).
Jules Verne – which work? I happen to think Verne’s best-realized world is in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, being the sea itself, particularly when the crew of the Nautilus go for walks on the sea floor. Again, while Verne was a writer of great skill and imagination, I see nothing in his work to indicate that his worlds (however atmospheric) even approach Tolkien in detail, history, population, depth, realization, etc.
H.G. Welles – Like Verne, a very prolific writer. Off the top of my head I am guessing you are thinking of The First Men in the Moon, where Verne lays out in great detail the society, if it may be called that, of the Lunar “ants” (don’t remember what they are called right now) even after his narrative is essentially finished. That’s great but, again, the world Welles realized in this case is the smallest part of Tolkien’s in terms of definition, history, etc. It will help if you specify the work, in case you weren’t thinking of The First men in the Moon.
Nonetheless, it is a world spun of whole cloth and provided as is, indeed like a faery tale or legend. You can say that Tolkien had sources of inspiration (many) such as Volsunga Saga, the Poetic Edda, various elements from history etc., but I don’t see how this may be considered a point against his imagination? Tolkien created more myths than any other writer even alludes to, including the two you mention.
Certainly, there is a lot of interesting stuff in Lovecraft, I am always fascinated by The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath, but ALL of Lovecraft’s worlds are ethereal and many times experienced through dreams; as such they share the same dream-like qualities, which means that the worlds we are described are as solidly built as dreams. In addition to that, volume for volume, Lovecraft simply does not stand up to Tolkien in terms of world creation. His backstory of hundreds of millions of years is nothing more than an atmospheric effect, because he provides us with little of what happened in these millions of years. There simply isn’t the level of detail to be found n Tolkien, although Lovecraft is always an interesting read.
It certainly is (although it was published in 1912, not that long ago), but I suggest you read the entire book. It is clear that The Nightland consists of an amazingly large bestiary (stunning as it is), an adventure that consists of avoiding a whole bunch of weird creatures, and not a whole lot more. We are given precious little in terms of what the hell happened to turn the Earth into this gruesome Nightland, there are no characters of note who people this world (apart from the Watchers, who are ominous sentient mountains who never do anything but creep closer–great for atmosphere but that’s it). I happen to like The Nightland a lot precisely because it is a work of great imagination, but it simply lacks the scope of Middle Earth and its rich mythology and history. It is also a heavily flawed work, as mentioned earlier. Certainly nothing like it existed when it was published, and this particular novel taught HP Lovecraft everything he knew; nonetheless in terms of world-creation Nightland is absolutely stunning, but not as elaborate or detailed as Tolkien.
If you are interested in reading this very unusual book, it has been out of print for years, but I found an online version at http://eserver.org/fiction/nightland/
**
It does entitle one to express one’s opinion.
** They expressed their opinions, then gave the reasons for holding those opinions. DDG qualified her opinions using “I think” and IMO, clearly not using an authoritative tone.
**
I addressed this before. See my previous post.
**
DDG and Guanolad provided the reasoning behind their opinions. Reread DDG’s second post. It’s full of praise for LOTR, and cites specific examples from the text, referencing specific works of a similar nature. This is manifestly not an opinion with no support. GL supports his opinion with comparison to other fantasy writers. Not strong support, I grant you, but support nonetheless.
**
DDG said she thinks Tolkein is a superb storyteller, so she seems to be in agreement with the literary community. Hardly the same as calling him a crap writer. GL apparently observed what he believes is evidence of poor writing in LOTR.
** .
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.
Add L. Frank Baum to my list.
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:
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.
What’s the deal, N6? Let’s compare the following statements from your last post directed at me:
And:
So which one is it? Do reasons, examples, and comparisons necessarily make an informed argument or not?
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.
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.
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.