Tolkien the Metafictionist

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Alice has a huge fandom, engaged with many, many understandings and re-interpretations. For those readers, it strikes chords deeply relevant to their lives today. It "works" in a different direction than Tolkien's influence in that it does not have a reminiscence of a primal past, but for her readers her adventures have a profound sense of significance that involves the contemplation of their lives today.

My apologies! I was using that as a personal example of a work that, as far as I was aware, did not have as devoted a following as apparently it does. No offense intended.

Do admirers of Alice debate the merits of its film adaptations? Is that any sort of barometer of how deeply a book moves its audience?

[littlemanpoet]

Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between LotR and AiW. The term "snarky" rather well encapsulates the spirit of AiW. "Reminiscence of a primal past" rather well encapsulates the spirit of LotR. Well done, Bethberry!

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Inziladun

Do admirers of Alice debate the merits of its film adaptations? Is that any sort of barometer of how deeply a book moves its audience?

I do know that my daughter was extremely disappointed with Tim Burton's 2010 Alice film. It's not a topic I raise often in our house. Some members of the fandom condone very arch and post modern interpretations, I think in part because the adapters make clear these are their own personal interpretations and not a "faithful depiction" as PJ had once claimed for the first trilogy, and also in part because they move the Alice character into contemporary but similarly bizarre or nonsense contexts.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Nevertheless, there is a qualitative difference between LotR and AiW The term "snarky" rather well encapsulates the spirit of AiW. "Reminiscence of a primal past" rather well encapsulates the spirit of LotR. Well done, Bethberry!

Thank you, but that difference does not mean that the effect for readers is any less profound or meaningful. Maybe you and others here don't read AiW that way, but then, there are many people who do not appreciate or accept the concept of 'reality' which you propose for your experience of LotR.

My interjection has taken the thread off the topic of metafiction. Sorry.

[jallanite]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Yes, it's real. Deeply real. Not literal, but real.

That sounds like what a religious nut might say, and perhaps refer to Truth with a capital T.

I say it is fantasy fiction.

Originally Posted by Inziladun

If we didn't see Tolkien's works in particular as "real", would they be worthy of the time and effort spent on discussion, here and elsewhere? Would they have caused such polarization among readers regarding adaptations, if the individual's sense of the books' "reality" was not so deep?

Who do you mean by we? One find just as much debate over Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories or the Doctor Who stories, or James Branch Cabell’s fantasy, or Star Trek, or Star Wars, and various other works and series.

I am quite ready to discuss any of these, but I and many others do not consider these works real.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Thank you, but that difference does not mean that the effect for readers is any less profound or meaningful. Maybe you and others here don't read AiW that way, but then, there are many people who do not appreciate or accept the concept of 'reality' which you propose for your experience of LotR.

I quite agree. I also found the recent Alice in Wonderland film quite silly, as did many others. Although many did not.

I do not understand the concept that any book is only appreciated because it is real. Not literal but real is a statement that doesn’t compute as far as my mind works. Part of the joy of reading a fantasy work for me is that it is not real.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by jallanite

That sounds like what a religious nut might say, and perhaps refer to Truth with a capital T.

I find your choice of words here objectionable: needlessly inflammatory.

Originally Posted by jallanite

Who do you mean by we? One find just as much debate over Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories or the Doctor Who stories, or James Branch Cabell’s fantasy, or Star Trek, or Star Wars, and various other works and series.

"We", as in the readers. That's all.