Okay, I admire your restraint [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I didn't and don't equate 'form and style' with cultural and linguistic impact. I was addressing the argument that (apparently) LotR was supremely influential in terms of form and style - ie. that it had a level of cultural and linguistic impact, and was therefore Great Literature. My point is that any influence of form and style is reflected in culture and language (film-making is an explicit example of this process), and on that basis many other works have equal or greater claims to significance than LotR.
As far as "modern critics" go ... well, my post is about my opinions - I don't know whether modern critics would agree or disagree. I would suggest that some of the books I put up against LotR might well also be disdained by modern critics for any number of reasons.
You raise an interesting point. Is LotR hated by the 'literary establishment'? And is LotR hated because it is popular? Perhaps, yes - much of what is popular (or populist) is sneered at by the chattering classes. But ... there are plenty on these boards who will sneer at Britney Spears, and I was questioning whether people really accept (or want) 'popularity' (ie. sales) to be the sole criteria for greatness. If not, then you have to explore other criteria, such as cultural and linguistic impact.
If you ignore 'impact' as a criteria, and as you say "judge the work for itself", I would still cite all the books I have mentioned. But there's no escape from subjectivity (by me, or anyone) if you have nothing measurable. Judging it by itself, LotR has been one of my best reads, but I don't consider it great literature. The fact that I've enjoyed it more than, say, Sophie's Choice, doesn't automatically make it 'better'. I do believe there are aesthetic tools with which one can, if necessary, compare and contrast different works.
In an ideal world, this would just be celebration of the diversity of creativity. But this thread is putting LotR up as The Book Of The Century, whereas I believe there are other more worthy contenders, based on those aesthetic tools.
Nothing in life is entirely objective, yet some essence of aesthetic analysis, the intrinsic 'qualities' of a work (as opposed to how much you or I liked it), can be understood and argued. That's what we're doing.
Please have a rant anyway. I'm interested, tell me what you think ... and it can be therapuetic [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]
|