It seemed to me that the part of your post to which I responded was directed at me. My mistake.
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.
**
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.
(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.
**
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.
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.
:shrug:
I guess I’m just chopped liver or something. I’m over it. Buh-bye now, Sparky.
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.
Nah, no worries. You’re the man, Abe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Around here, we call that the asshole game “trolling.”
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.
Accepted, with thanks.