'Spun Candy' anyone?

[drigel]

hi bb

I didnt say they were hacks. I do stand corrected with regards to Pullman. I have read Moorecock. Not. a. big. fan. Profit in sales was the point being made as to motivation of craft. Everyone has an opinion, and if one gets their opinion published, then I certainly will have my opinion on it, and its subject. And having a good idea of craft, and a good idea of Moorecock's product, I think my point is valid especially in regards to the second quote of mine you put up. Not only is he not in the same ballpark, he isnt in the same country of the same ballpark. And so thus (like SPM I do appreciate all views positive and negative), I continue to wait. But I also consider the source - as in the craft, and the resulting work.

They are all credible writers.

I didnt say the werent.
LOTR isnt the greatest work ever written, nor is it the most important. It is important to me, and of course I have my opinion. In the field of fantasy, half of SF, and fiction overall - yes - top 5 in my opinion. But the guy who brought us Elric (and whose market for that was, and is, a direct result of JRRT *insert applause from accountants here*) is critical of LOTR.... I am sorry if I am coming across as snipy. But that is an opening (self inflicted at that) that is far, far to easy to walk into. cmon - Elric???

Reading is highly subjective. Without denigrating Tolkien, it surely must be possible to enjoy other writers.

I agree with the former, but as to the latter - (I wouldnt use the word denigrate - but the terms critical, or petulant, as M Underhill succinctly put works well for me) isnt exactly what this thread is about: A couple of authors publishing treatises or opinions that IMO go beyond the above approved terms into the realm of demeaning, trite and - worse of all - disregarded due to lack of depth. Spun Candy after all. humph

What causes this great divide?

you either get it or you dont, much like other works that offer insights into the human condition. This isnt about the red pill or the blue pill. Nor is it about the experience of society and science.

Umm, my understanding is that Tolkien wanted to depict a world prior to divine revelation. Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean?

Isnt that what I said? Umm well the point being that given that, one cannot exercise what I was refering to in Davem's quote:

However for all the 'freedom' inherent in the Mannish approach there is a downside which both Pullman & Moorcock in their idealism of it cannot see.

in regards to religion in LOTR. They are forcing a round peg into a square hole. And the bad result of that (according to them) is the author's fault.

Again sorry to come across as a grump. And apologies to all the Moorecock fans out there

[davem]

Been scouting around & found a reference to a conversation between Tolkien & one of his collaborators referenced in Splintered Light by Verlyn Flieger:

"Mlle. d'Ardenne recalled saying to him once, apropos his work: `You broke the veil, didn't you, and passed through?' and she adds that he `readily admitted' having done so."

Fliger comments:

For Tolkien to admit to such an experience implies that he felt his use of the word as well as his study of it had carried him beyond imagination into a real vision of that which he wrote, that the word itself was the light by which he saw."

Now, in relation to the the whole 'spun candy' thing, what could Tolkien have meant? If Tolkien could say at one point that LotR had no inner meaning or message (LotR Foreword) & at another 'admit' that he had 'broken the veil & passed through' what was he talking about. Is this about language itself - Tolkien felt he had passed through the veil of language as mere 'words' & achieved some deeper vision of the human psyche, the language making facility? He repeatedly said that in writing the Legendarium he was attempting to find out 'what really happened' & we also have the interesting incident reported in on e of the Letters where a visitor said to him ' Of course, you don't believe you made all that up, do you?' & Tolkien responded that he didn't anymore & hadn't been able to believe so since.

But what was it a 'real vision' of? & if it was a 'real vision' of something. how could Tolkien state the story had no inner meaning or message? If Tolkien's work reveals his vision of a 'reality' beyond the veil how could it have no meaning or message? One can only assume that he meant it had no meaning or message imposed by Tolkien himself & that he was communicating 'what really happpened' - ie the 'meaning or message' was not a personal one but rather an impersonal /universal one.

So, was Tolkien wrong? If he was right then is his work really just 'spun candy

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

Now, in relation to the the whole 'spun candy' thing, what could Tolkien have meant? If Tolkien could say at one point that LotR had no inner meaning or message (LotR Foreword) & at another 'admit' that he had 'broken the veil & passed through' what was he talking about. Is this about language itself - Tolkien felt he had passed through the veil of language as mere 'words' & achieved some deeper vision of the human psyche, the language making facility? He repeatedly said that in writing the Legendarium he was attempting to find out 'what really happened' & we also have the interesting incident reported in on e of the Letters where a visitor said to him ' Of course, you don't believe you made all that up, do you?' & Tolkien responded that he didn't anymore & hadn't been able to believe so since.

But what was it a 'real vision' of? & if it was a 'real vision' of something. how could Tolkien state the story had no inner meaning or message? If Tolkien's work reveals his vision of a 'reality' beyond the veil how could it have no meaning or message? One can only assume that he meant it had no meaning or message imposed by Tolkien himself & that he was communicating 'what really happpened' - ie the 'meaning or message' was not a personal one but rather an impersonal /universal one.

So, was Tolkien wrong? If he was right then is his work really just 'spun candy

And to me, there lies the central point of why Tolkien's work is so wonderful. Reading it, it feels as though this work was not carefully constructed over a whole lifetime, as though the author never had to sweat and make hard choices. It reads as though it is real, almost as though Tolkien was merely setting down on paper a story told to him or 'found'.

Despite knowing that each name, each new word was carefully constructed, it feels natural and unforced and most of all, not silly!

So much other fantasy seems forced and false. And I have to say I get that feeling from Moorcock. It reminds me of when you're mucking about and pretending to be a cliched fantasy character, striking a pose with the broom handle and a colander on your head and yelling in a deep voice: "Rarrr, I am Krell from the Doom-mountains of Tharg and I wield the mighty Wrathslayer of Slaywarg!" I think you know what I mean there.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

It reminds me of when you're mucking about and pretending to be a cliched fantasy character, striking a pose with the broom handle and a colander on your head and yelling in a deep voice: "Rarrr, I am Krell from the Doom-mountains of Tharg and I wield the mighty Wrathslayer of Slaywarg!"

She keeps doing this on the bus. Its very embarrassing (sigh)

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

She keeps doing this on the bus. Its very embarrassing (sigh)

Well, it ensures I get a seat when all the twirlies get on anyway.

[drigel]

Ive been looking for a good Wrathslayer. I wonder how much a slightly used one would be. The one I have is old and worn, so Ive renamed it Wrathhugger.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by davem

But what was it a 'real vision' of? & if it was a 'real vision' of something. how could Tolkien state the story had no inner meaning or message? If Tolkien's work reveals his vision of a 'reality' beyond the veil how could it have no meaning or message? One can only assume that he meant it had no meaning or message imposed by Tolkien himself & that he was communicating 'what really happpened' - ie the 'meaning or message' was not a personal one but rather an impersonal /universal one.

A "real vision" could also be be written as a "vision of reality." Not everything that is real has a meaning or purpose. Like Candy (and perhaps this is where Tolkien is very much like candy.) Candy has no meaning, no nutritional value, and no real reason behind it, but that doesn't make it less real. And if you have a sweet tooth as big as mine, it can make your whole day better. Tolkien's vision was "real" like that- it doesn't have to have a meaning to be; it just is. Maybe that's why we like Tolkien and Candy so much. It's a wonderfully freeing feeling to just let something be, especially if that something is yourself.