Nar, I think your reasoning in relation to the nature of form and content was both succinct and compelling. However, I disagree strongly with your 'jazz' reference. Jazz was (and is) a musical expression of 'rebellion', and as performance it is explicitly improvisational. Historically jazz was a music associated with vibrant sexuality, resistance to authority and the establishment, and a specifically urban and modern (black) aesthetic. To my mind neither these concepts nor the idea of thematic improvisations are at work in the phrases of Tolkien. His 'style', so to speak, seems to me to be of a different lineage. I also have a gut feeling he would have seen true jazz (not the bleached anaesthetic of Glenn Miller or Paul Whiteman) as something both decadent and threatening, and might have preferred the particular authenticity of Paul Robeson ... but I could be totally wrong. The stylistic point, at least, is important.
Stephanos, Child of the 7th Age, Mithadan, Estel, Belin and too many others to mention have also made eloquent and worthwhile contributions to the more general issues raised by my initial questions. The posts in this thread have pretty much all been stimulating, thoughtful and interesting, and serve to confirm my high opinion of my fellow Barrowdowners [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I feel as though I have answers to my general query about valid criticisms within the fantasy genre - from Lush's "steroid-man on horse" covers to Aiwendil's key insight into the imitation of LotR. Mithadan has placed the imitative process in context by showing the distinctive circumstances of LotR's inception, while others have accurately addressed the subsequent publishing and marketing factors. And between us we appear to have hammered a way through the relationship between an author's role, intention, and the function and effect of a work ... without necessarily agreeing on every point, the collective arguments provide us with a critical framework in which both unjust and 'valid criticisms' of the genre, and the distinct nature of LotR, can be understood.
I'm going to come back to Nar's essay on meaning and catharsis, and link it to Littleman's insight about the loss of 'myth-making'. These two excellent and effective lines of reasoning can be pulled together into an interpretation that seems to have some merit. Perhaps, as some well-known writers have said, there are only a few real stories. And all good books are re-creations of these eternal and archetypal narratives, invigorated by craft and imagination (er, please let's leave the Bible out of this argument for a moment).
Could it be that LotR is a re-telling of one or more of these eternal stories - and specificially a narrative of sacrifice and redemption? Is this what makes it seminal, whilst appealing to a modernised and culturally fragmented audience? Perhaps the old myths that we no longer hear were, in their way, also re-tellings of those eternal stories, and LotR (in a new and inventive way) like them, taps into our deepest empathies and identifications, and fulfils our cathartic need (back to Nar).
Now, being an 'eternal' story, or one of only a few, does not mean those stories have to be simple or childish. In fact it's probably the opposite - in order for them to remain 'true' and archetypal the eternal stories must acknowledge and include many of our human subtleties.
This reading of the nature of LotR allows us to see it's ongoing popularity as more than just a reaction to today's world (which makes it seem like a historical accident), and ties in with Tolkien's own background in mythos. It also further develops the theme of subsequent imitators failing because they absorbed and retold the superficial elements - instead of the 'real' stories.
Just a thought [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace
[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]
|