Quote:
|
The problem is that modern critics do not read literature as literature, but always treat it as if it is merely code for some other, deeper meaning. When they find either that that deeper meaning displeases them, or that the work is not fundamentally concerned with 'saying something' about the real world, they take issue with it.
|
True.. this is what sparks literary debate... the fact that you disagree with what the author is saying about a certain theme. And the way I've been taught English during my High School career is that literature has a conflict. Other books and writings have problems. A conflict being defined as having your cake and eating it too, whereas a problem is how to run a marthon faster than everyone else to win the New York Marathon (yes, I'm simplifying a bit).
Are there conflicts in LOTR? yes certainly. Everyone who gets close to the ring, except for some reason most of the fellowship, is tempted by the power of it. But ulitmatley, the conflict boils down to good versus evil. There is a right and a wrong, and the author tells you which is which, by saying that no-one can use the ring for good.
In literature, such as my English teacher defines it, conflicts and themes are not merely good vs. evil, they are more of the sylla and charibdis (hope the spelling is right) type, where there isn't any one right answer, but two alluring (or anything but alluring) choices, both with their pitfalls and upsides. There is no right or wrong, but a whole bunch of grey, which inspires a lot of discussion as to what the "right choice is." You don't hear many people arguing that Frodo should have overthrown Sauron using the power of the ring, because (as I wrote earlier) Tolkien says it can't be done. End of discussion, Tolkien is the absolute authority on Middle Earth.
Some people say there is an absolute right or wrong in the world. The vast majority of these people have a monotheistic religion they adhere to. Monotheistic religions all have guidelines as to what is right and wrong. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a religion that doesn't have guidelines. But it seems to me, that in this world, there is no absolute authority to tell you what is right or wrong, assuming religion is a choice for each person, that each person can chose to not believe in any religion.
The point I'm trying to make (in a very roundabout fashion) is that literature is a way (mainly for intellectuals, I'll admit) for people to wrangle these thoughts out in their head or with someone else. You can argue about Holden Caulfield (protagonist from Catcher in the Rye, by J. D: Salinger) until your face turns blue, because Salinger presents a possible solution. But you as the reader you get to decide whether the answer is right or wrong. You can do that because the story is based in this world. How many Frodos do you know, who can set out with a group of comrades and save the world? How many Holdens do you know, young people trying to figure out what they're doing in school, weighed down by the expectations of family and others (I've been there, and I'll bet a fair amount of anything that most people have)? You can't argue choices of the same magnitude with Tolkien as a frame of reference because the 'rules' i Middle Earth are different than the ones 'here.' Ultimately, it is much more foreign to us than the world we inhabit. Literature, as I see it, is a way for people to see the different ways of living their lives, and possilby to help them decide how to live it, not by giving them the answer, but by asking questions, posing problems and sparking debates about the way we live our lives.
Alas, I have now opened up the great can of worms known as religion, which gives me plenty of attempts at stepping on peoples toes. If I do, I apologize.
Here's the editied bit: As to seeing the "classics" merely as interesting anecdotes from old times, I disagree. They still have relevance to us, or we wouldn't read Sophocles and Homer. Point is, they raise timelss issues. Oedipus talks about pride, destiny (does it exist, and if it does, can it be overcome). Those two issues are still very relevant to us all.
Quote:
|
Self-sacrifice, fidelity, perseverance, and loyalty
|
I'm going to stick my neck out once more and say that at least fidelity, perseverance and loyalty don't strike me as themes.
And then I'm going to hide behind the escuse that I've spent over an hour on this reply and my brain is on the fritz, so I can't find the energy (or spare time at work [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] ) to argue that
[ April 10, 2003: Message edited by: tifo_gcs ]