![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
#1 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
And you didn't raise the matter or present it, Doug Kane did of course; you simply referred to it briefly, and I invited readers here to see, at least in more detail, how Mr. Kane presented the issue, and his responses to Mr. Hostetter's points and opinions particularly (and others in the thread too of course). If you're not interested in the linked thread, or don't think it helps at all then that's fine. I assume other people might read this thread however, and maybe they might be interested. Quote:
Quote:
Ok, that's your opinion and characterization. No problem of course. And I'll let other readers here decide for themselves as well; again if they are interested in this particular matter. Last edited by Galin; 04-19-2012 at 12:22 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||||||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 479
![]() |
Quote:
One might also claim that Christopher Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny or that J. R. R. Tolkien should have avoided the implication of misogyny by including more women. Something called an implication may be in fact be only a reader’s inference, and even an unfounded inference. Yes, one should be careful in writing to avoid providing unintended ideas to the reader. Similarly one should avoid making unfounded inferences from what another debater claims. If I have done so, I apologize. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
I didn't say he did, I noted he raised the matter or 'reducing the roles of women', which he did.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not withdrawing that, as all I'm saying there, or attempting to say, is that the linked thread is not really about anyone reacting to an explicit accusation -- the linked thread is rather generally about the presentation (of this idea that the roles of women have been reduced), and obviously includes specific citations from that presentation. And incidentally, the exchange was: Quote:
Last edited by Galin; 04-20-2012 at 10:00 AM. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |||||
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 479
![]() |
Quote:
You said (emphasis mine): I don't believe that anyone in any way decided to reduce female roles specifically, and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue. Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.You also said: Even possibly raising the question of misogyny is serious stuff in my opinion, so how one presents the matter, specifically, is important.I do not believe that writers should be held to account for every possible interpretation or misinterpretation of their work. I find that idea absurd. Quote:
Quote:
Of course you don’t believe that. Yes, if Kane had written to Hofstetter’s ex eventu specs, then Kane’s book would be arguably improved, but not by much. Hofstetter ended up by agreeing that Kane did not intend any explicit crticism of Christopher Tolkien and that the change of a few phrases would satisfy him. Those changes to me really don’t amount to much. It looks to me like an attempt by Hofstetter to save face after his attack crumbled. Quote:
... and the point in the thread is not whether or not Doug Kane explicitly claims so, but his choice of presentation in raising this issue.I understood “the thread” to be this thread in which we are posting, not the thread you referenced. A bad inference. One of the continued points of disagreement between Kane and Hofstetter was that Kane insisted in arguing on what he actually wrote while Hofstetter insisted on arguing on Hofstetter’s inferences from what Kane wrote. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | ||||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,036
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
And why is Mr. Kane sure that Carl won't be the only person upset about this criticism? If he is being very careful as you say, and doesn't believe Christopher Tolkien deliberately reduced the role of women, why should he expect anyone to be upset here, or that the criticism should prove to be the most controversial of his book? Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Galin; 04-21-2012 at 07:30 AM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 479
![]() |
I don’t see any point in continuing this
You are not going to change your opinion so far as I can tell. And I am not going to change my opinion from anything said here. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Pile O'Bones
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 20
![]() |
It's nice to see that people are still talking about my book! jallanite, I'm very pleased that you found the book to be helpful. That is most gratifying.
Regarding the issue of the reduction of female characters, I continue to believe that the evidence shows that there is a clear pattern of this being a result of the edits done. I obviously have no way of knowing whether this was done intentionally, or not, and I did not mean to imply in any way that I believed that it was (I honestly doubt very much that it was). There are, as I have mentioned before, a couple of phrases that I would write differently if I had the opportunity to do so to make that more clear, although I agree with jallanite that ultimately those changes would not have made much difference to people's reactions. I think that people like Carl, Galin, and others would still have been just as upset about me raising the issue at all. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |