The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 03-04-2002, 06:56 PM

Okay, thanks to everyone for responding and making this thread into an interesting and lively debate. I'm going to try and do justice to the various points raised ...

*

Glenethor - "another of my criteria is that a transcendent work of art be spiritually uplifting. It must nourish the soul"

Aiwendil - "the only purpose that all literature shares is entertainment ... don't you find that when a work has a message or meaning, those things can make it more enjoyable?"

Thingol - "in addition to being aesthetically pleasing good literature should try to convey some meaning or theme in it"

Right. There seems a broad consensus there - message and meaning enhances good literature. Aiwendul argues that these are not (or should not be) the primary purpose of literature, but the basic premise seems to be that the message and meaning in Tolkien are part of its quality. I don't argue with any of that! But my point is, there is plenty of message and meaning in lots of literature, popular or not. It's not somehow unique to Tolkien. And once you see that, you can start to accept the validity and merit of other works in other styles. That's all I am asking.

*

Thingol - "Just because The Lord of the Rings doesn't deal with the search for spirituality or some other modern theme does not make it any less of a book"

Slightly contradictory there. But I agree. And just because a book doesn't deal with the same themes as LotR, doesn't make it any less of a book.

*

Thingol - "The Lord of the Rings is the greatest story ever told"

Ouch! Please don't post that in the Trilogy and Bible thread [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

*

Glenethor - "all things being equal, LoTR will follow our genes through time. So, really, objectively, time will tell"

Thingol - "I hope that is not what you are getting at when you compare Tolkien's staying power with Elvis'"

Aiwendil - "I never said that popularity could be used to judge a work of art at all. Not now, not a hundred years from now. It's probably a better indicator a hundred years later, but still not perfect"

and again - "A novel by a professional author is probably aesthetically superior to one by a first-grader, and it therefore will be liked better. A novel by a good author is better than one by a bad author, and will be better liked"*

(*if something is better liked, that must means it will be more popular. Or do you mean that if just one person is so overwhelmed with pleasure at reading "Star Trek #259 " that they spontaneously combust, that makes it better than all other books? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

Okay. IF 'popularity', now or in the future, cannot be cited as proof of literary worth, then it doesn't matter how many people have or will read LotR. If popularity IS NOT the measure, then you have to consider other literature without reference to popularity or "accessibility" - which includes popularity/accessibility of theme, form and so on. Now, IF popularity is a factor, then unfortunately you can't dismiss Elvis or Britney. Or 'I Love Lucy'. You can argue all you want about other aspects of these artifices, but they do share the popularity factor along with LotR. So they must be good in some way, right?

You can't have it both ways [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The only conceivable way through this is Thingol's argument - "Tolkien wrote his book for himself, he was not trying to send any message or show that he was smarter than anyone". So, perhaps, unlike opportunist, manipulative and commercial products that are popular for all the wrong reasons, LotR's popularity can be distinct because of the express intent of the artist. Hm. Well, don't all artists at least start out the same as Tolkien? Maybe not Britney. But certainly in literature. I'd guess Sidney Sheldon (popular) or Danielle Steel (popular) started with a genuine creative spark. Oh well. Like I said ... you can't have it both ways [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

*

Thingol - "Just because Middle Earth is not our world does not mean that we can not take away any lessons from it. It is utter foolishness to dismiss Tolkien as a middle of the road artist just because you can not see the beauty of Middle Earth, or take away the valuable lessons that its characters learn"

Read my lips. I like Tolkien. I do not dismiss Tolkien. I see the beauty of Middle Earth. I also like other writers. I like some other writers as much as Tolkien. And some more so. But I do not dismiss Tolkien because of this. And even if I don't like some writers, I don't dismiss them just because of that. Phew ...

Thingol - "I don't see how you can not enjoy a book and consider it better than a book that you enjoy".

Here's how. I like ice cream. I prefer ice cream to spinach. But I know spinach is better for me. I don't enjoy spinach but consider it better for me than ice cream. This is an allegory. If you want it artistically - I'd guess you like some modern American music more than classical Indian ragas. But you could accept that the classical Indian ragas might have more musical virtue, even though you don't like listening to them as much. Or maybe not. But that takes you back to "how much you like something being an indicator of how aesthetically good it is". Which I dealt with earlier (see: spontaneous combustion).

*

So finally we come to the central and most fascinating point.

Aiwendil - "Role-playing can be shown to be an art using quite conventional definitions. There is really nothing that literature can do that RPGs cannot. All the necessary elements are there: plot, character, form, idea. Role-playing is nearly as closely related to literature as are film and theater"

By the way, I think I'm in the minority in disagreeing with you. And it depresses me. I'm an anachronism [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

But, wait a minute ... do you mean text-based RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons-style) with the little metal figures, or do you mean computer of PSX-style gaming?

Oh, maybe it doesn't matter. Let's just say that by your definitions, working at McDonalds is art. PLOT (moving through the different stages - cooking the burgers, speaking to the public, cleaning the fridge, getting promoted, spilling ketchup on the boss) ; CHARACTER (are you the surly one with pimples, the girl who could have been a cheerleader, a misunderstood inventor saving money for parts, the secret communist etc.) ; FORM (breakfast cannot be served after 11am, you must enter the kitchen from the side door only, all communications must contain the words "nice", "have", "a" and "day", certain colours are deemed more socially acceptable, the words "Burger King" and "Wendy's" result in punishment) ; IDEA (revenge of the great clown-god, the painted smile, imperialism by mass poisoning, the need to earn money, sad moments of pathos amidst the gherkins etc. etc.).

As you say - "a cooperative endeavour in which there is no winning or losing (though there may be for individual characters)". Just what working at McDonalds is all about. Thus it, too, is art. And why not?

I enjoyed that [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] And I've enjoyed reading your posts, and compliment you all on your ingenuity and passion. All I am saying is that I believe LotR to be one of the important books of the 20th Century. But not the book of the century. Is that so unacceptable?

Peace

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

03-04-2002, 06:56 PM	#60
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Okay, thanks to everyone for responding and making this thread into an interesting and lively debate. I'm going to try and do justice to the various points raised ... * Glenethor - "another of my criteria is that a transcendent work of art be spiritually uplifting. It must nourish the soul" Aiwendil - "the only purpose that all literature shares is entertainment ... don't you find that when a work has a message or meaning, those things can make it more enjoyable?" Thingol - "in addition to being aesthetically pleasing good literature should try to convey some meaning or theme in it" Right. There seems a broad consensus there - message and meaning enhances good literature. Aiwendul argues that these are not (or should not be) the primary purpose of literature, but the basic premise seems to be that the message and meaning in Tolkien are part of its quality. I don't argue with any of that! But my point is, there is plenty of message and meaning in lots of literature, popular or not. It's not somehow unique to Tolkien. And once you see that, you can start to accept the validity and merit of other works in other styles. That's all I am asking. * Thingol - "Just because The Lord of the Rings doesn't deal with the search for spirituality or some other modern theme does not make it any less of a book" Slightly contradictory there. But I agree. And just because a book doesn't deal with the same themes as LotR, doesn't make it any less of a book. * Thingol - "The Lord of the Rings is the greatest story ever told" Ouch! Please don't post that in the Trilogy and Bible thread [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] * Glenethor - "all things being equal, LoTR will follow our genes through time. So, really, objectively, time will tell" Thingol - "I hope that is not what you are getting at when you compare Tolkien's staying power with Elvis'" Aiwendil - "I never said that popularity could be used to judge a work of art at all. Not now, not a hundred years from now. It's probably a better indicator a hundred years later, but still not perfect" and again - "A novel by a professional author is probably aesthetically superior to one by a first-grader, and it therefore will be liked better. A novel by a good author is better than one by a bad author, and will be better liked"* (if something is better liked, that must means it will be more popular. Or do you mean that if just one person is so overwhelmed with pleasure at reading "Star Trek #259 " that they spontaneously combust, that makes it better than all other books? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ) Okay. IF 'popularity', now or in the future, cannot be cited as proof of literary worth, then it doesn't matter how many people have or will read LotR. If popularity IS NOT the measure, then you have to consider other literature without reference to popularity or "accessibility" - which includes popularity/accessibility of theme, form and so on. Now, IF popularity is a factor, then unfortunately you can't dismiss Elvis or Britney. Or 'I Love Lucy'. You can argue all you want about other aspects of these artifices, but they do share the popularity factor along with LotR. So they must be good in some way, right? You can't have it both ways [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] The only conceivable way through this is Thingol's argument - "Tolkien wrote his book for himself, he was not trying to send any message or show that he was smarter than anyone". So, perhaps, unlike opportunist, manipulative and commercial products that are popular for all the wrong reasons, LotR's popularity can be distinct because of the express intent of the artist. Hm. Well, don't all artists at least start out the same as Tolkien? Maybe not Britney. But certainly in literature. I'd guess Sidney Sheldon (popular) or Danielle Steel (popular) started with a genuine creative spark. Oh well. Like I said ... you can't have it both ways [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Thingol - "Just because Middle Earth is not our world does not mean that we can not take away any lessons from it. It is utter foolishness to dismiss Tolkien as a middle of the road artist just because you can not see the beauty of Middle Earth, or take away the valuable lessons that its characters learn" Read my lips. I like Tolkien. I do not dismiss Tolkien. I see the beauty of Middle Earth. I also like other writers. I like some other writers as much as Tolkien. And some more so. But I do not dismiss Tolkien because of this. And even if I don't like some writers, I don't dismiss them just because of that. Phew ... Thingol - "I don't see how you can not enjoy a book and consider it better than a book that you enjoy". Here's how. I like ice cream. I prefer ice cream to spinach. But I know spinach is better for me. I don't enjoy spinach but consider it better for me than ice cream. This is an allegory. If you want it artistically - I'd guess you like some modern American music more than classical Indian ragas. But you could accept that the classical Indian ragas might have more musical virtue, even though you don't like listening to them as much. Or maybe not. But that takes you back to "how much you like something being an indicator of how aesthetically good it is". Which I dealt with earlier (see: spontaneous combustion). * So finally we come to the central and most fascinating point. Aiwendil - "Role-playing can be shown to be an art using quite conventional definitions. There is really nothing that literature can do that RPGs cannot. All the necessary elements are there: plot, character, form, idea. Role-playing is nearly as closely related to literature as are film and theater" By the way, I think I'm in the minority in disagreeing with you. And it depresses me. I'm an anachronism [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] But, wait a minute ... do you mean text-based RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons-style) with the little metal figures, or do you mean computer of PSX-style gaming? Oh, maybe it doesn't matter. Let's just say that by your definitions, working at McDonalds is art. PLOT (moving through the different stages - cooking the burgers, speaking to the public, cleaning the fridge, getting promoted, spilling ketchup on the boss) ; CHARACTER (are you the surly one with pimples, the girl who could have been a cheerleader, a misunderstood inventor saving money for parts, the secret communist etc.) ; FORM (breakfast cannot be served after 11am, you must enter the kitchen from the side door only, all communications must contain the words "nice", "have", "a" and "day", certain colours are deemed more socially acceptable, the words "Burger King" and "Wendy's" result in punishment) ; IDEA (revenge of the great clown-god, the painted smile, imperialism by mass poisoning, the need to earn money, sad moments of pathos amidst the gherkins etc. etc.). As you say - "a cooperative endeavour in which there is no winning or losing (though there may be for individual characters)". Just what working at McDonalds is all about. Thus it, too, is art. And why not? I enjoyed that [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] And I've enjoyed reading your posts, and compliment you all on your ingenuity and passion. All I am saying is that I believe LotR to be one of the important books of the 20th Century. But not the book of the century. Is that so unacceptable? Peace [ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]