A Defense of 'Lord of the Rings' against Modernist criticism

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

It could probably be fairly argued that Dickens was the Rowling of his day.

Truth. The first chapter of Hard Times is hilarious.

There are many women writers and working class writers whose work fell by the wayside of critical taste who are now 'rediscovered'.

Ditto on visual artists. My brother just bought an art history textbook, but prior to purchasing it, he asked his professor what the difference was between the new and indecently expensive edition, and the few-years-old and cheap on ebay edition. Only difference? Female artists.

By "those confronted with it" do you mean the writers or do you mean readers?

On this note, I believe there is a fascinating difference between writers who read, and readers who read. There are also readers who write, but we typically just call them 'writers.' As anyone in the upper echelon of literary academia knows, there are writer's writers, and reader's writers. There is an entire slew of contemporary writers widely understood right now to be the best we have. But who understands it? Not the market, it seems, because if you start listing author names, you'll be met with blank glances, unless you happen to be speaking with a creative writing professor.

The dynamics between big city publishing and artist-endorsed literary experiments are... fluctuating. And odd. And full of blame casting.

However, in my statement about the effect on 'the readers' I meant, specifically, readers who are neither writers nor academics. Your casual bookstore browsers, your train commuters, your vast numbers of people that want a book to read but have no interest in discussing whether or not it's appropriate to ascribe contemporary ideals of beauty and importance to works of a different era.

there's the problem with accounting for minority responses and accounting for the tastes of readers and writers who are formed by a wider range or differing range of reading than others. (Note that I wouldn't claim Eliot had a wider range of reading. Once I was soundly lambasted for discussing Charlotte Bronte in the same sentence as St. Augustine.)

I don't see it as a problem.

But I'm the same chick that finds half the pleasure she takes in Buffy marathons is due to having seen American Pie first. Hey Buffy, Xander, Giles: this one time? At band camp? Also, this is a similar discussion as whether your opinions about the LotR books are as astute if you saw the movies first.

And it's a discussion we had a month ago at school, sitting around our workshop table with tea and coffee and fancy chocolates. That makes it sound more highbrow than it was: the chocolates were a present, not the norm, and the tea and coffee were dining hall fare, which means they were awful. In any case, one novelist drafted a short story that drew from several literary sources, most specifically My Fair Lady.

It should probably be noted that I was the only one in the room that was unfamiliar with My Fair Lady (I've seen parts, and I know a few quotes, but that's about it). I felt equally left out when I was the only one that had seen Harry Potter 7 Part 1 in theaters, granted, but the point remained that this discussion about interliterary acquisitions centered on what experiences (literary or life) you can justifiably expect your readers to have, and if it's fair to blame the reader if they don't get your brilliant references.

Say we're reading Eliot's The Waste Land and get as far as:

Originally Posted by TS

London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina Quando fiam ceu chelidon—O swallow swallow Le Prince d'Aquitaine à la tour abolie These fragments I have shored against my ruins 430 Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo's mad againe. Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata. Shantih shantih shantih

Should I call it a day and assume I'm just too dumb to get it? Is it respectful to a general readership to muck about with language and to alter signifiers? And do authors hold a responsibility to their readership to make a story accessible?

I hold to the philosophy that if nobody understands it, I've done something wrong, and if I'm writing for myself and not for readers, I should go write in a diary instead of somewhere public. But obviously not all writers follow that.

I suppose the question here is what responsibilities, if any, do the writers have in the creation of their work, and what responsibilities, if any, do the readers have?

I like to think we meet half way. Most of my undergrad lit profs took the established critical route of, "The text is holy. All the information is there. If you don't get it, it's your own failings. You probably lack strong moral fiber. You will never hold an advanced degree." Most of my graduate writing professors think we are contractually obligated to our readers from the first page: as long as you set up the parameters of the world and the story, you're free to do what you want as long as you follow the laws of your own creation.

The other question, then, would be: why do we write? And who do we write for? And does it matter.

I shall not cease from reminding you of your ideas and the end of all the prodding will be to arrive at a place where you do find the time and inclination to post them here.

Heh. That or all my ideas will emerge through the essays I don't intend to write as you instigate the dispersal of my opinions!