Quote:
Just because something is good does not mean that its style should be used.
Is A Clockwork Orange good. Clearly. Should you write a book in the same style? Probably not, it would clearly be a pastiche of the former.
Is Beowulf (the original poem) a great work of fiction, again clearly. Should it's style be used now? Again no, it would come across as blatantly false.
|
This is a view that I think is surprisingly common and with which I must say I disagree fairly strongly.
First of all, I still don't understand why you equate imitation with pastiche. It seems to me that a work is pastiche only if it
poorly applies the techniques of earlier works. Again - is the
Aeneid pastiche because it's similar to the
Odyssey? If an author were to employ the style of
A Clockwork Orange well, surely it wouldn't be mere pastiche.
Second, I think this view is mistaken in attaching critical importance to the circumstances under which a work is written. If it were discovered that
Beowulf was in fact written in the early 20th century and that claims of its antiquity were part of some massive conspiracy, would that make it a lesser work? Clearly not, it seems to me.
It seems that this view values works of literature only for their historical value rather than
as works of literature in themselves.
I hope I haven't mischaracterized your view.
Quote:
|
But the LOTR was not. It was written primarily as a modern book, a sequel to the Hobbit which was likewise, a modern book.
|
Where was this ever declared? I don't claim that LotR is not modern; but on the other hand I don't think it's quite right to call it a modern book and then judge it by standards peculiar to "modern books".
The Lord of the Rings simply is what it is. It should be judged simply as a work of literature, not as a modern book, not as an ancient epic.
Quote:
|
Compare FOTR to ROTK and you can see how Tolkien totally changes the style and it jars.
|
Ah! This is a complaint of a completely different kind. This kind of criticism seems perfectly valid to me. I personally disagree that the stylistic change is jarring, but I do take your meaning.