distortions in relationships in LOTR

[Encaitare]

Indeed they are, Evisse! It's tons of fun to expand on a story while staying within the lines on canon and it's great practice for a writer -- but you can only do that for so long.

And I have decided if we made our own characters and "slashed" them... then it wouldn't be slash, it would be canon.

[Morsul the Dark]

I dont think these distortions come from the book they coome from the baski cartoon if you watch that movie It comes out very badly and sounds far worse than it is

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

And I have decided if we made our own characters and "slashed" them... then it wouldn't be slash, it would be canon.

- Encaitare

Good point! You are quite correct.

I have yet to see how this argument can be used to dismiss fanfic that's within cannon limits, e.g. missing scene fics, vignettes, character musings, etc.

- Evisse

Fairly simply actually. They say "why not write your own original stories?" The implication being that the author should have written something else.

There was a famous story that was called "puerile," and endlessly picked apart by critics who felt the writer ought to have written something, anything else. Yes, it had a high tone; yes, it had some writerly merit. But the subject matter itself was unworthy of such elegant treatment.

It was defended by another author, who felt that these critics should not apply their own agendas and opinons of the subject, but instead consider the work as an artistic whole. He completely changed the attitude towards the "puerile" work in question.

The "puerile" subject that so offended critics: Dragons

The work in question: Beowulf

The defender: J. R. R. Tolkien

We study it today because of his understanding of what it is to be writer (not to mention his understanding of dragons ).

If Tolkien made the point that to be a truly relevant criticism, stories should be considered in reference to themselves, shouldn't we respect that? Isn't that, in itself, canon? If we are building on the intentions of the author?

We have a conundrum. We want to use established canon as a yardstick for fanfiction. Yet the 'canon' of Tolkien's own writings on literary criticism void the entire canon debate. Beowulf cannot be properly appreciated in reference to the 'canon' of established Greek epic tradition. Fanfiction, slash or otherwise, cannot be properly appreciated in reference to the 'canon' of the Lord of the Rings. According to Tolkien, you cannot say "it has no value" because it doesn't fit this or that slot of canon (Greek or LotR).

I must note that I have never heard such a sentiment "why didn't you write something different?" from an author. An author may like or dislike a particular work, but they never seem to say it should not have been written. I suspect Tolkien, too, valued the right to write what he will.

- Maril

[Evisse the Blue]

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand:

Beowulf cannot be properly appreciated in reference to the 'canon' of established Greek epic tradition.

Beowulf is not to Greek mythology what LOTR fanfic is to LOTR. The characters in Beowulf are original characters, from an Anglo-saxon background, totally different from the gods and heroes of Ancient Greece.

Fanfiction, slash or otherwise, cannot be properly appreciated in reference to the 'canon' of the Lord of the Rings.

Yet you see how I might have a certain difficulty in judging it as an artistic whole in itself, and not think along the lines of 'Aragorn would never do that. It's part of the essence of the character." There's that little problem of the characters already being very familiar to me and the fact that I know them to act in a certain way, which gets in the way of the story being appreciated for what it is, with no reference to canon.

[Encaitare]

Evisse said...

Yet you see how I might have a certain difficulty in judging it as an artistic whole in itself, and not think along the lines of 'Aragorn would never do that. It's part of the essence of the character." There's that little problem of the characters already being very familiar to me and the fact that I know them to act in a certain way, which gets in the way of the story being appreciated for what it is, with no reference to canon.

Yup, and that's part of the challenge of writing AU or slash fiction. You want to try and keep everyone as in character as possible while still making a bit of a stretch. If the character is not acting like himself/herself at all, then it's usually a poorly written story and just a sloppy job on the author's part. I personally don't mind a little out-of-character-ness from time to time as long as the story is done well. But for example, a slashfic with Aragorn after he has sworn himself to Arwen is not exactly my cup of tea... however IMHO a "pre-Arwen" fic would be acceptable. See what I mean?

[Evisse the Blue]

See what I mean?

Yeah, I understand your point. Not sure I'm able to see things your way though, but it's alright, we can't all share the same opinions, it would be boring if we did...

[Sapphire_Flame]

Homosexual relationships have no place in LotR. Period. I can understand how people would still write them for the "what-if" aspect, but that doesn't keep me from feeling that those types of stories are extremely inappropriate. Go slash another fandom. Or keep those stories on a slash-only site, where the more canonical fans don't have to look at them.

I think that slashing a story is, to a degree, like 'Sueing it. You make the characters act completely OOC to conform to your little idea or "storyline". Some people do this worse than others. Considering how swiftly people are ready to absolutely crucify a 'Sue story really makes you wonder why some of these same people turn right around and support slash fics, as they're written with something of the same principle. Just the slash aspect makes it 'Sue a bit, but, as with any writing, a lot of it hangs on the author's skill. You have well-written slash, and poorly written, grammatical-and-spelling-nightmare slash. But, of course, you also have well-written canon following stories and poorly written ones. Some people, sadly, have a hard time with writing mechanics and basic story formatting.

I don't believe homosexual relationships to be appropriate in any way. I'm not a homophobe; and I believe that people are free to make their own choices. But homosexuality contradicts nature. Why? Because what is the purpose of it? To get off, to avoid discomfort caused by consorting with the opposite sex, to be "different"; take your pick. The reason people have sexual feelings is to, basically, continue the human race. Yes, it feels good; no one would do it if it didn't. Homosexuality removes those feelings onto something else, making them become useless and unnatural.

The morality of same-sex relationships is not the point of this post; there are as many opinions on the matter as there are humans to voice them.

My point is this: Tolkien's work is set on a higher intellectual plane than most things. Some people, failing to grasp the subtle messages about these higher matters, subconsciously feel the need to add in their own interpretation of events and emotions to simplify the text and bring the work down to their level. Thus come the slash fics. Those canon-minded of us can ascend to the plane and see what Tolkien really meant, instead of imposing warped ethics onto his work, dragging it down into the gutters where so many people's minds reside. I'm not presuming to be better than anyone. It just seems to me that dragging down what you don't understand to a baser level is a sign of immaturity; it means you cannot push your own intellectual limits to achieve access to a higher level. You may just be happy where you are, and that's fine. But is it really so much trouble to try to enlighten yourself just a little, to realize that just because a small group does somthing it must be "normal" and unwaveringly accepted. As Tolkien fans, I thought you would have more sense than that.

It takes more effort to climb out of a hole than to drag someone down with you. Frankly, I'm sure none of us want to be stuck at the bottom of a hole, no matter how much company we have.

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[Encaitare]

Evisse-- Well, at least we've reached an understanding!

Sapphire_Flame-- That's fine if you feel homosexual relationships are inappropriate in LotR; everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. I must disagree, though, that as you say, slashing a story is like 'Sueing it. They're entirely different genres save that they involve romance.

I don't believe homosexual relationships to be appropriate in any way. I'm not a homophobe; and I believe that people are free to make their own choices. But homosexuality contradicts nature.

You're right, the point of the thread is not to debate the morality of homosexuality, but there are homosexual animals as well as people, so I don't believe it's a contradiction of nature. It's a matter of love, simply put. I have gay friends and I hardly think they contradict nature. They're not going to be fathering children anytime soon, but it's not any sort of perversion.

I have to say, though, that I resent being called "immature" for the types of fanfiction I choose to read. I don't claim to be a Tolkien genius or anything, and in reading/writing slash it doesn't necessarily mean I deny or denounce canon. As I said before, it's just an expansion of possible undertones. I'm not into obscene/explicit fiction, slash or no, so it's not necessarily of a 'dirty' nature.

But is it really so much trouble to try to enlighten yourself just a little, to realize that just because a small group does somthing it must be "normal" and unwaveringly accepted.

Are you talking about homosexuality or slash here? Basically with slash we follow a "don't like, then don't read" policy to avoid flamers. But if you're talking about homosexual relationships, yes, it should be accepted because the only way to have a peaceful world is through tolerance.

Out of curiosity, what are your opinions on AU fiction?

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Beowulf is not to Greek mythology what LOTR fanfic is to LOTR.

Actually, it's widely misunderstood what mythology is. In fact, mythology is fanfiction. There were popular mythological characters about whom people wrote various stories, retelling well-known myths, or hypothesizing different angles. This, by the way, is why we have three different myths about Tiresias being transformed into a woman for one year.

Tolkien sought to create a "modern English myth" -- and based on the fanfiction we can see he suceeded. The characters have entered the popular consciousness and been mythologized.

Yet you see how I might have a certain difficulty in judging it as an artistic whole in itself, and not think along the lines of 'Aragorn would never do that. It's part of the essence of the character.'

Certainly. There were always those who walked out of Sophecles Oedipus Rex shaking their heads, thinking "Oedipus was a proven warrior. He would never have been so emotional...." etc., etc. There is room to disagree with interpretation of the myth. But regardless of your feelings about Oedipus, (or dragons), the artistic merit of the work should stand on its own, according to Tolkien.

The "it is not canon" argument is spurious and contrary to Tolkien's views.

- Maril