|
Post by blake on Jun 4, 2007 22:41:36 GMT
Tolkien CANNOT be equated to Salinger. BLASPHEMY. Tolkien was a highly-educated man! He was a man of such intelligence and insight. He didn't just write a few books; he heavily researched everything he did and sculpted entire languages that you could go away and learn if you actually wanted to. He didn't do anything slapdash or half-heartedly certainly. He had passion. It wasn't all pretentious *social commentary* lacking substance, oh no! It was eloquent and joyous to read. It was a ripping good yarn as well as being beautifully written. Alright; he is occasionally a bit long-winded with his descriptions, but this is a lasting story, that will still be around long after The Catcher in the Rye is ripped up into shreds in a cat litter-tray. The descriptions only serve as proof of how extensive Tolkien's imagination was; of how vast his created universe was. Well to reply to what you said there again it's all a matter of taste maybe I lack imagination but I find the whole fantasy genre essentially pointless. I like books about more realist things, I like raw and untamed prose brilliance. I see indulgence and indiscipline as a good thing in books. As art is the closet we have as a species to being able to see inside of another humans head. So the more indulgent the more pure as I view it. So for that reason. I hear the pharses "highly educated" and "heavily researched" and I just snore at the thought of it. What on earth does being "educated" have to do with how valid and interesting a mind you have and gifted you might be when it comes to getting that down on paper? In my experience education often makes bores and pedants of people. I'd rather read the semi-coherent scrawlings of a drug addled hobo, then I would some upper class Tory boys "heavily researched" long winded wimsy about elves and pixies. It says nothing about my life. To take us back into subjective land I don't personally consider him a good writer either, having a good imagination is admirable but his prose style is really nothing to write home about. If I'm looking for escapism I'm more likely to watch a film or tv, when I'm reading a book I want it to use linguistics in a way thats pleasurable to me. But thats just my taste, there is no doubt that Lord Of The Rings is a highly influential book that has stood the test of time and will continue to. Because it obviously has something that appeals to a large number of people throughout the generations. But the same could be said for The Catcher In The Rye which is also been a peraanial classic and will continue to be. Why? Because everyones been a teenager or young adult confused and hostile to the adult world and unsure of there path in it. It's universal. Well getting back on topic I will close by saying that I will give Tolkien more credit than his mate and brother in twee C.S "Lets subliminally brainwash kids into Christianity" Lewis..
|
|
|
Post by 0-0 on Jun 4, 2007 22:43:15 GMT
I don't like you. Seriously. You've made me mad. I am smiting you.
|
|
|
Post by tesla on Jun 4, 2007 22:50:00 GMT
Well, at least Josh is passionate about not liking it...that was a big post.
|
|
Magus
Libertine
Posts: 112
|
Post by Magus on Jun 4, 2007 23:02:22 GMT
Each to their own, but seriously placetobe, after such a comment you have to expect backlash...
|
|
|
Post by stentorsrevenge on Jun 4, 2007 23:03:57 GMT
Tolkien CANNOT be equated to Salinger. BLASPHEMY. Tolkien was a highly-educated man! He was a man of such intelligence and insight. He didn't just write a few books; he heavily researched everything he did and sculpted entire languages that you could go away and learn if you actually wanted to. He didn't do anything slapdash or half-heartedly certainly. He had passion. It wasn't all pretentious *social commentary* lacking substance, oh no! It was eloquent and joyous to read. It was a ripping good yarn as well as being beautifully written. Alright; he is occasionally a bit long-winded with his descriptions, but this is a lasting story, that will still be around long after The Catcher in the Rye is ripped up into shreds in a cat litter-tray. The descriptions only serve as proof of how extensive Tolkien's imagination was; of how vast his created universe was. Well to reply to what you said there again it's all a matter of taste maybe I lack imagination but I find the whole fantasy genre essentially pointless. I like books about human things, I like raw and untamed prose brilliance. I see indulgence and indiscipline as a good thing in books. As art is the closet we have as a species to being able to see inside of another humans head. So the more indulgent the more pure as I view it. So for that reason. I hear the pharses "highly educated" and "heavily researched" and I just snore at the thought of it. What on earth does being "educated" have to do with how valid and interesting a mind you have and gifted you might be when it comes to getting that down on paper? In my experience education often makes bores and pedants of people. I'd rather read the semi-coherent scrawlings of a drug addled hobo, then I would some upper class Tory boys "heavily researched" long winded wimsy about elves and pixies. It says nothing about my life. To take us back into subjective land I don't personally consider him a good writer either, having a good imagination is admirable but his prose style is really nothing to write home about. If I'm looking for escapism I'm more likely to watch a film or tv, when I'm reading a book I want it to use linguistics in a way thats pleasurable to me. But thats just my taste, there is no doubt that Lord Of The Rings is a highly influential book that has stood the test of time and will continue to. Because it obviously has something that appeals to a large number of people throughout the generations. But the same could be said for The Catcher In The Rye which is also been a peraanial classic and will continue to be. Why? Because everyones been a teenager or young adult confused and hostile to the adult world and unsure of there path in it. It's universal. Well getting back on topic I will close by saying that I will give Tolkien more credit than his mate and brother in twee C.S "Lets subliminally brainwash kids into Christianity" Lewis.. While I do enjoy a good fantasy book every once in a while, I do like what you say. EXALT
|
|
|
Post by yojimbo on Jun 4, 2007 23:19:09 GMT
Tolkien CANNOT be equated to Salinger. BLASPHEMY. Tolkien was a highly-educated man! He was a man of such intelligence and insight. He didn't just write a few books; he heavily researched everything he did and sculpted entire languages that you could go away and learn if you actually wanted to. He didn't do anything slapdash or half-heartedly certainly. He had passion. It wasn't all pretentious *social commentary* lacking substance, oh no! It was eloquent and joyous to read. It was a ripping good yarn as well as being beautifully written. Alright; he is occasionally a bit long-winded with his descriptions, but this is a lasting story, that will still be around long after The Catcher in the Rye is ripped up into shreds in a cat litter-tray. The descriptions only serve as proof of how extensive Tolkien's imagination was; of how vast his created universe was. Well to reply to what you said there again it's all a matter of taste maybe I lack imagination but I find the whole fantasy genre essentially pointless. I like books about human things, I like raw and untamed prose brilliance. I see indulgence and indiscipline as a good thing in books. As art is the closet we have as a species to being able to see inside of another humans head. So the more indulgent the more pure as I view it. So for that reason. I hear the pharses "highly educated" and "heavily researched" and I just snore at the thought of it. What on earth does being "educated" have to do with how valid and interesting a mind you have and gifted you might be when it comes to getting that down on paper? In my experience education often makes bores and pedants of people. I'd rather read the semi-coherent scrawlings of a drug addled hobo, then I would some upper class Tory boys "heavily researched" long winded wimsy about elves and pixies. It says nothing about my life. To take us back into subjective land I don't personally consider him a good writer either, having a good imagination is admirable but his prose style is really nothing to write home about. If I'm looking for escapism I'm more likely to watch a film or tv, when I'm reading a book I want it to use linguistics in a way thats pleasurable to me. But thats just my taste, there is no doubt that Lord Of The Rings is a highly influential book that has stood the test of time and will continue to. Because it obviously has something that appeals to a large number of people throughout the generations. But the same could be said for The Catcher In The Rye which is also been a peraanial classic and will continue to be. Why? Because everyones been a teenager or young adult confused and hostile to the adult world and unsure of there path in it. It's universal. Well getting back on topic I will close by saying that I will give Tolkien more credit than his mate and brother in twee C.S "Lets subliminally brainwash kids into Christianity" Lewis.. I mostly agree. Especially about his writing style. However, I believe that in a historical context they were pretty ground breaking for their time. I don't think fantasy books that include entire worlds were common back then. Perhaps his were the first to be of that scale. Also about the whole fantasy genre being "essentially pointless". And that you "like books about human things". Well how is fantasy not about human things? I don't see anything inhuman about it. Fantasy is always going to reflect human things, even if it's about aliens. Do you think the same of Fiction? Fantasy is essentially big time fiction. Perhaps by human things you meant earthly things? Or the factual? I am interested why you find the genre pointless.
|
|
|
Post by stentorsrevenge on Jun 4, 2007 23:33:13 GMT
It is quite a shame, though, that C.S. Lewis decided to convert.
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 4, 2007 23:42:48 GMT
It is quite a shame, though, that C.S. Lewis decided to convert. I don't see anything wrong with him being a Christian, I see a lot of good in Christianity and I'm really interested in the Bible, theology and different schools of Christian thought (as anyone on the board would tell you) C.S Lewis had a lot of really interesting things to say about the subject and some lovely quotes. I just don't think CHILDREN'S books should have such an obvious covert religious agenda. Something doesn't seem right about it.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jun 5, 2007 0:13:22 GMT
It is quite a shame, though, that C.S. Lewis decided to convert. I don't see anything wrong with him being a Christian, I see a lot of good in Christianity and I'm really interested in the Bible, theology and different schools of Christian thought (as anyone on the board would tell you) C.S Lewis had a lot of really interesting things to say about the subject and some lovely quotes. I just don't think CHILDREN'S books should have such an obvious covert religious agenda. Something doesn't seem right about it. Agreed about children's books. One of the things I plan to focus on most diligently this coming semester in college is children's literature. I respect authors like Maurice Sendak and Shel Silverstein for the fact that they encourage broad, openminded imaginations concerning fantasy versus reality. C.S. Lewis seems to take that imagination (which in my opinion should be kept unharnessed and untamed at ALL ages) and shoves it into some morality topic, as if to prove by the end of his adventures that faith is the only protagonist of salvation. I mean yeah, maybe I'm a biased atheist, but certainly nobody can argue that kids shouldn't be forced to believe something, especially when they're still to young to notice that they're being manipulated!? Sadly, it's still the case with many adults (ahem Jerry Falwell followers), and I might even go on into a discussion of why the adult world seems to reject fantasy when the majority of children embrace it. Is it because, as we age, we are afraid of social ridicule; a fear of believing in supposed "nonsense?" And how do we know that nonsense doesn't exist? (That might sound hypocritical - I do not believe in God because I believe in science, but even some theories of science could be considered nonsensical because it's not like we've explored black holes or stabbed little country flags into space nebulas). Anyway. I loved Lewis as a kid for his storytelling and merely that. I'd be wrapped up in the characters as if they were the very living cotton of the stuffed animals at the foot of my bed. Only now do I realize the threat it proposed to my young theological interworkings. Then again, Kirk Cameron on Growing Pains could have had the same affect. Hm don't really know where I'm going with this; just sort of arguing with myself, but the whole subject of children's literature I find to be particularly fascinating so I'm glad this thread exists just for the sake of comparing fantasy with "reality." I am of the opinion that even biographies and non-fiction literatures are all fantastical in a way... in the sense that whoever writes whatever story it is always has a perspective on the characters, the setting, the plot, the morals, the values, etc etc etc, and in so doing their pre-formulated opinions will be shadows in their prose (whether intentional or not), and everyone reading is susceptible. Everyone reading is entitled to develop their own opinions of course, but can pure truth ever really be written about? That's what is so beautiful! - society is a seed of fantasy - generations of living things creating metaphors and models of what is considered ideal and what's not! We create because we have the imagination to create, and so all truth is spawn from the very catacombs of the mind's eye. And good god, don't we all invent our own sub-worlds? Wasn't Tolkien just penning his personal ideas, inspired by the ever-complex intricacies of his own timeline society? WOOOO I am SO procrastinating writing a paper on Oscar Wilde.
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 5, 2007 0:36:23 GMT
Also about the whole fantasy genre being "essentially pointless". And that you "like books about human things". Well how is fantasy not about human things? I don't see anything inhuman about it. Fantasy is always going to reflect human things, even if it's about aliens. Do you think the same of Fiction? Fantasy is essentially big time fiction. Perhaps by human things you meant earthly things? Or the factual? I am interested why you find the genre pointless. ] First of all I've changed the word "human" to the word "realist" in my original post. It was the wrong choice of word to be honest, of course fantasy literature has significant human elements, my bad. Also to clarify when I say it's "pointless" I just say pointless to me, not pointless in general. Like I said it's just not what I look for from reading. I'm more likely to go to TV or films for these things. But then if you could point me in the direction of a fantasy book with a really good writing style I may well get into it.
|
|
|
Post by josemutiny on Jun 5, 2007 2:29:02 GMT
I thought this thread was about getting high.
|
|
|
Post by christy on Jun 5, 2007 2:31:23 GMT
I thought this thread was about getting high. that is the funniest thing i've read on this board, ever! thank you jose for making me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Karanina on Jun 5, 2007 4:45:44 GMT
Tolkien CANNOT be equated to Salinger. BLASPHEMY. Tolkien was a highly-educated man! He was a man of such intelligence and insight. He didn't just write a few books; he heavily researched everything he did and sculpted entire languages that you could go away and learn if you actually wanted to. He didn't do anything slapdash or half-heartedly certainly. He had passion. It wasn't all pretentious *social commentary* lacking substance, oh no! It was eloquent and joyous to read. It was a ripping good yarn as well as being beautifully written. Alright; he is occasionally a bit long-winded with his descriptions, but this is a lasting story, that will still be around long after The Catcher in the Rye is ripped up into shreds in a cat litter-tray. The descriptions only serve as proof of how extensive Tolkien's imagination was; of how vast his created universe was. Well to reply to what you said there again it's all a matter of taste maybe I lack imagination but I find the whole fantasy genre essentially pointless. I like books about more realist things, I like raw and untamed prose brilliance. I see indulgence and indiscipline as a good thing in books. As art is the closet we have as a species to being able to see inside of another humans head. So the more indulgent the more pure as I view it. So for that reason. I hear the pharses "highly educated" and "heavily researched" and I just snore at the thought of it. What on earth does being "educated" have to do with how valid and interesting a mind you have and gifted you might be when it comes to getting that down on paper? In my experience education often makes bores and pedants of people. I'd rather read the semi-coherent scrawlings of a drug addled hobo, then I would some upper class Tory boys "heavily researched" long winded wimsy about elves and pixies. It says nothing about my life. To take us back into subjective land I don't personally consider him a good writer either, having a good imagination is admirable but his prose style is really nothing to write home about. If I'm looking for escapism I'm more likely to watch a film or tv, when I'm reading a book I want it to use linguistics in a way thats pleasurable to me. But thats just my taste, there is no doubt that Lord Of The Rings is a highly influential book that has stood the test of time and will continue to. Because it obviously has something that appeals to a large number of people throughout the generations. But the same could be said for The Catcher In The Rye which is also been a peraanial classic and will continue to be. Why? Because everyones been a teenager or young adult confused and hostile to the adult world and unsure of there path in it. It's universal. I don't know where this thread came from, but I'm going to jump in. This is really interesting. I've never encountered anyone with the balls to actually insult JRR Tolkien before. I agree with what you said, in its entirety, except that everything you described as being unpleasant about Tolkien's books is exciting to me. I happen to like both the sort of hasty scribblings of a genius (your example being JD Salinger, my own personal addition here would be Pete Doherty before the Libertines split--and yes, I'm willing to be hanged for that) AND the long, thought-out, overly-researched creations of massive proportions (like Tolkien. 'nuff said). I think they both have their merits. I tend to think of it as a sort of linguistics/poetry versus history sort of thing. Both are valid in a literary sense, but they appeal to different aspects of the intellect, no? And, as I tend to have issues picking any sort of favorite subject (with the exception of mathematics, bleh), I could never say that one type of writing is superior to another, but I definitely understand where you're coming from. If you don't like history, I can't imagine ever enjoying The Lord of the Rings. As for your claims that Tolkien has no commentary on Real Life, well, that's just silly. All literature is in some way connected, and can have influence on people's lives whether or not it's blatantly spelled out like The Catcher in the Rye or is heavy on metaphor and fantasy like Lord of the Rings. Nice post. Made me think. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jun 5, 2007 10:19:08 GMT
Too many tangents!
On fantasy: fantasy - good fantasy, at least - is essentially a study of the human condition through metaphor; I think it's extremely detrimental to some of the greatest works of literature of our time to dismiss a book because it's not about whinging junkie outcasts set in 'da real world'.
Tolkien: an academic trainspotter. I think he was obsessed with language and norse mythology to a fault, and as such the plot at the heart of his major works is flimsy at best, and extremely derivative. Which wouldn't usually bother me - there are only so many plots, it's what you do with them that counts - but I don't think he's done anything original with them other than slab a lot of nerd-pleasing wank on top of them and the duck and cover.
On C.S. Lewis: every author has their interests and opinions, and - whatever they say - they're bound to be reflected in what they write; Lewis's are just easier to interpret (and by God does it annoy me that people still bang on about the Christian allegory bit as if it's some unique interpretation). Yes, The Chronicles of Narnia has it's fault - the problem of Susan, the racist undertones, the often insufferably moral characters - but very little of them have less to do with religion and more to do with poor writing.
As for the books being 'dangerous'; I don't want to patronise the child reader, but Lewis's writing is clearly aimed at the very young; I doubt they'd interpret the religious aspect of Narnia as a text. As such, I don't think it's dangerous; they're nice little stories, and the overall moral seems to be 'fight for what you believe in, and don't be a wanker', which - however jarring to someone of a more cynical era - I can't see an awful lot wrong with.
If the Bible had a flying Lion in it, I'd be a hell of a lot more inclined to read it.
Cheerio, Michael. xxx
|
|
|
Post by blake on Jun 5, 2007 14:30:16 GMT
If the Bible had a flying Lion in it, I'd be a hell of a lot more inclined to read it. It has a talking snake and a talking donkey. See? less of this Jesus is lord, God is love bollocks, the slogan these evangelicals need to put into action is. "Christianity, our book has talking donkeys in it!" It would convert thousands..
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 5, 2007 14:34:10 GMT
If that happened maybe some good would come of it. Namely it being held in the same religious regard as the Shrek series...
|
|
|
Post by tesla on Jun 5, 2007 14:35:08 GMT
Everyone knows that Aslan is the real God.
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Jun 5, 2007 14:50:59 GMT
On fantasy: fantasy - good fantasy, at least - is essentially a study of the human condition through metaphor; I think it's extremely detrimental to some of the greatest works of literature of our time to dismiss a book because it's not about whinging junkie outcasts set in 'da real world'. I agree. You see, I like fantasy and science fiction. I happen to read quite a lot of it. I will willingly admit that there is a lot of bad writing in those genres, but I wouldn't say that there's more bad writing than in "regular" fiction. I think that the source of the bad writing in both stems from commercialism and lack of editing. I know that in fantasy, particularly, there is a lot of advertising geared towards the "typical fantasy reader" which advertisers seem to think is the sweaty male teenager or middle-aged man living in his parents' basement, which is how the barbarian babes in bikinis came about. Books that push these stereotypes are thought to sell better, and then they're rushed to the press and they drown out the actual good books. I'm looking at you, Piers Anthony.
|
|
|
Post by tombland on Jun 5, 2007 14:55:51 GMT
Fantasy can be fucking awesome
Anyone read Stephen Donaldson's "The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant - The Unbeliever" for example?
|
|