The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 02-20-2002, 10:54 PM

Maril, what a stimulating reply, I really appreciate that.

I hadn't considered the rather archaic manservant aspect you rightly mentioned (perhaps I'm just rather archaic too), that's another excellent example of cultural assumptions that don't fit the Biblical artifice.

Anyway, if we are going to take it all a bit too seriously, I guess a Tolkien website forum is the place to do it ... likewise, as a general rule I would encourage trainspotting near a railway line ... so count me in (not for the trainspotting).

Your comments about what makes Great Literature illustrate the ongoing debate about whether the idea of objective aesthetic criteria is at all valid. But whilst I agree that novelty, ingenuity or fashionability are often hyped up as 'artistic triumph', I reckon that, as far as Tolkien's era goes, writers like Orwell, Steinbeck and Dylan Thomas will retain critical credibility - whilst being outsold many times by LoTR for many years to come - and that books like Wright's Invisible Man, Lolita, Catcher In The Rye etc., will continue to have seminal significance beyond LoTR. Shakespeare is a different kettle of fish, having had such a profound effect on the English language that his critical position is pretty unassailable (just as some of the plays are pretty unreadable).

Why were you 'trampled' before? I'm intrigued, do tell. You gotta watch out for extremists of any hue, and as I said before Tolkien's conservatism and essentially nostalgic, even chivalric moral code might be well be subject to misappropriation.

Thanks for the warning anyway, hopefully I'm battle-hardened by philosophy chatrooms and regular visits by Jehovah's Witnesses [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

02-20-2002, 10:54 PM	#99
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Maril, what a stimulating reply, I really appreciate that. I hadn't considered the rather archaic manservant aspect you rightly mentioned (perhaps I'm just rather archaic too), that's another excellent example of cultural assumptions that don't fit the Biblical artifice. Anyway, if we are going to take it all a bit too seriously, I guess a Tolkien website forum is the place to do it ... likewise, as a general rule I would encourage trainspotting near a railway line ... so count me in (not for the trainspotting). Your comments about what makes Great Literature illustrate the ongoing debate about whether the idea of objective aesthetic criteria is at all valid. But whilst I agree that novelty, ingenuity or fashionability are often hyped up as 'artistic triumph', I reckon that, as far as Tolkien's era goes, writers like Orwell, Steinbeck and Dylan Thomas will retain critical credibility - whilst being outsold many times by LoTR for many years to come - and that books like Wright's Invisible Man, Lolita, Catcher In The Rye etc., will continue to have seminal significance beyond LoTR. Shakespeare is a different kettle of fish, having had such a profound effect on the English language that his critical position is pretty unassailable (just as some of the plays are pretty unreadable). Why were you 'trampled' before? I'm intrigued, do tell. You gotta watch out for extremists of any hue, and as I said before Tolkien's conservatism and essentially nostalgic, even chivalric moral code might be well be subject to misappropriation. Thanks for the warning anyway, hopefully I'm battle-hardened by philosophy chatrooms and regular visits by Jehovah's Witnesses [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Peace [ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]