Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
03-03-2003, 11:38 AM | #41 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 182
|
What Tolkien has created has never been reproduced. It is in a class by itself. No single author has created a world of such magnitude to rival Tolkien. And, Tolkien's world is precisely why it appeals to so many people. Sure, Lord of the Rings has fantastical elements to it, but it is in no way similar to most of the fantasies out there. One must decide then, how exactly fantasy is defined. Tolkien is so different from the rest that it seems to me that one of the groups isn't fantasy.
On a side note, the reason why Tolkien stands alone - apart from any other story - is because, well, what he did is very hard to duplicate. First, Tolkien created languages, histories, cultures, lands, and scads of characters. That can be reproduced. It just takes talent and time. Second, he did it well. Heh heh, that's harder to do. Third, he used up many of the resources out there. Sure there were elves and dwarves and dragons in literature before Tolkien, but Tolkien took them and defined them (dare I say) permanently. If someone were to try to write an epic, like Tolkien did, he would have a very hard time making his world. He could use men and spiritual beings for those are universal. But, from now and forever on, the identity of elves, dwarves, dragons, and all other ME creatures are Tolkien. It would end up being cheap and insincere to borrow them or try to change them. So, writers have a difficult task in front of them. They can try to copy Tolkien and fail miserably or they can write those smaller fantasies which I will not comment on for I have not read them. Or, they can make their own original epic if they are so inclined. [ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]
__________________
At the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. - Phil. 2:10-11 |
03-03-2003, 05:10 PM | #42 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
Great posts, Lyta_Underhill, and Aragornreborn. Both of you bring up good points. Tolkien is different, but other fantasy is also different.
Lush, thanks for posting, it gave me a good chuckle. It's true, I know, that many of my arguments are very much emotionally based, but you knew that before, and I don't see anything all that passionate in this thread. Its nice to know that someone is set against me completely in this matter. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] But, the last part of your post was bordering on futility. If there is an error in a system, isn't it worth fixing? Doesn't that poor shmuck from academia count for anything? Shouldn't they know that there is a difference? This is a slightly concieted manner of thinking, my friend. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Chuckling, Iarwain
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-03-2003, 06:05 PM | #43 | |||||
Fair and Cold
|
Quote:
You are going to run into a whole lot of problems justifying the displacement of Tolkien's work, because no scholar is going to buy the argument that (I am condensing here, please tell me if I am leaving a crucial point out) "Tolkien's work should not be described as fantasy because his books deserve better than being associated with the likes of [insert name of any inept fantasy writer here]." The one factor that you do have working for you is time. Like I said before: literary genres evolve. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ March 03, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
|||||
03-03-2003, 06:45 PM | #44 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Iarwain, your original post was:
Quote:
I think that we can all agree that there are some dire examples of fantasy writing. Equally, there are very good examples. And, yes, the works of JRRT to my mind (and presumably most if not all here would agree with me on this) stand head and shoulders above other fantasy works. But they still fall within the fantasy genre. The problem, I think, is the general disdain with which the literary world views fantasy. It seems to be a generally held view amongst academics that works of the fantasy genre cannot have literary value in the same way as, for example, the works of Dickens. But I see no reason why this should not change over time. For example, although Bram Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelly's Frankenstein are of the horror genre, they are generally regarded as great literary works, certainly moreso than, for example, the novels of Stephen King. But they still fit into the horror genre. So, I do not see why books such as LotR and the Silmarillion should not in time come to be generally accepted as the literary masterpieces that they are, while still remaining within the fantasy genre. Indeed, given the amount of literary analysis devoted to JRRT's works, compared to those of other fanatsy writers, it seems to me that this process is happily well underway. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
03-03-2003, 07:05 PM | #45 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
Bam. I'm crushed. You've killed me, Lush. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Thanks for informing me about the weak founded nature of my hopless argument. I'm thinking that I ought to feel awfully crushed right now, but I don't. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] You should watch your wording, at times I think you are purposely trying to put me down [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] I don't feel like any further comments right now.
Chuckling but slightly Annoyed, Iarwain
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-03-2003, 07:06 PM | #46 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
By the way, Saucepan, wonderful argument. No further comment.
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-03-2003, 07:43 PM | #47 |
Fair and Cold
|
Yes, Iarwain, of course I am going to reserve my animosity not for the snobs that put down one of my favourite writers because his work included Elves and dragons, but for fellow Tolkien enthusiasts such as yourself. Riiight.
I just want you to be able to win your argument someday, and hold to the belief that if you want change to occur, you must work with the system, as opposed to against it. Giggling but slightly Exhausted, Lush.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
03-03-2003, 09:24 PM | #48 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 182
|
I understand the sentiment behind your posts, Iarwain, and I share it, but Lush and Sauecpan Man have a good point. Just to humor us sentimentalists, though, (you people who prefer to use logic you [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) could we refer to Tolkien's work as Fantasy/Epic? *pleading* Please!!! Because it is not completely fantasy (weak argument) and is an epic of sorts.
On his knees begging, aragornreborn
__________________
At the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. - Phil. 2:10-11 |
03-03-2003, 11:23 PM | #49 |
Fair and Cold
|
aragorn, of course we can call Tolkien's books whatever we want, what we can't do at this point is change their official designation.
Since I am on Iarwain's ignore list, I'm going to post a quick response here in hopes that he may read it: Of course, I would never consciously take away anyone's right to argue about anythig they wish. Here is what I am trying to say: we are never going to win the argument over Tolkien's present categorization with our present tactics, because the majority of the academia is against us, or simply doesn't care. This is not meant as a personal critique of the topic starter, or anyone else who posts on this thread, this is meant as an observation regarding the general question of what can conceivably be done regarding the fantasy genre in relation to Tolkien. Basically, we can exercise our right to whine all we want (once again, this is not meant as an insult: I whine all the time, and find that it's a great way to relieve general or specific frustration), but if we want actual change to take place (Iarwain apparently does, as do I), we're going to have to carefully assess the options laid out before us. I am researching the topic as I type this message: e-mailing professors, calling up old teachers and even harassing people at certain other institutions of higher learning (I seem to have a lot of time on my hands; This is what happens to you when you give up on the boys [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ), not because I think Iarwain is some sort of dweeb who doesn't know what he's talking about, but because I see that there is enough possibility in what he is trying to say to eventually implement change, though it's going to take a whole lot of time, maybe a few centuries, even. But everyone has to start somewhere, right? [ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: Lush ]
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
03-03-2003, 11:24 PM | #50 |
Haunted Halfling
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: an uncounted length of steps--floating between air molecules
Posts: 841
|
I think you hit one thing on the head, Saucepan Man! If we wait long enough, the best fantasy will eventually be sorted into "classics." I have seen H.P. Lovecraft in the Classics section in bookstores recently, where, only 10 years ago, he was classified as a hack. Even Edgar Allan Poe was called a hack in his day. Now he's a classic! Perhaps all we need is patience and a Numenorian lifespan! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
Cheers, Lyta
__________________
“…she laid herself to rest upon Cerin Amroth; and there is her green grave, until the world is changed, and all the days of her life are utterly forgotten by men that come after, and elanor and niphredil bloom no more east of the Sea.” |
03-04-2003, 05:43 PM | #51 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 182
|
Lush, you are way too convincing for your own good, jk. lol. Remind me never to get into a serious argument with you.
Lyta_underhill and Saucepan man: Good point. I hadn't thought of it being made a classic. That's a very distinct possibility. Unfortunately, we have to wait... [ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ] [ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]
__________________
At the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. - Phil. 2:10-11 |
03-04-2003, 06:18 PM | #52 | |||
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Lush:
Quote:
And mind you, Quote:
The Saucepan Man: Quote:
BTW: I'm glad all of you agree that Tolkien's books are under the genre of fantasy-I think it is too, but I need help understanding why it is also considered to by under sci-fi. I haven't asked this question on any part of the forum, but now it has surfaced after so long... I talked about it with my 6th grade teacher once and he didn't know either. What kind of science would agree with Tolkien, I wonder. [ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: InklingElf ] |
|||
03-04-2003, 07:13 PM | #53 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
I understand now, Lush. Sorry for that outburst, and you will momentarily be removed from my block list (don't quite remember when that happened). It just set me off: the suttle mockery in what you were saying, especially that of my signature. I suppose I'm done arguing against you now that I understand what you mean. I agree. The discussion does not, ultimately belong here, nor have I provided any solid evidence for Tolkien's removal from the genre. Would you, perhaps, grace us with more of your opinoins? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Iarwain
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-04-2003, 08:26 PM | #54 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: napa valley, ca
Posts: 496
|
Ok, 2 cents coming from the peanut gallery,
Classification as classic, or mythology, or mythopoetic, or whatever is naught but a feel good justification to the fans and (in the case of 'classics') a hats off to the author. I am not of the ilk that might have perused the classics section of the bookstore or library as a youngster seeking reading material. Who is most interested in LotR? Generally younger audience who justifiably view it as fantasy reading. I am a case in point that adults too can enjoy wrapping themselves in the breadth and depth of the writing. Still in all, in past, present and future, like me, most others will begin the journey young. A stand-out does not mean a stand-alone, so why make it such? Why seek to to frame it as a golden light of essential literature? Not that it is not worth attempting if you feel to do so. You are only seeking to give it greater literary recognition, no? Nobly seeking to right an old wrong? Pulling it from the dirty claws of the 'fantasy' genre perhaps? Personally, I don't see the need. There is a sublime humility present in the LotR, standing there amidst it's lessers. I think that this should be relished, we that have been indoctrinated know what is buried in there. Treasure yet still buried is all the sweeter in the finding. Another consideration is the remainder of Tolkien's work. The Sil and LotR may stand out, but I believe the entire body of work falls short of their status and will never be categorized under any heading but fantasy. Should they be seperated? Would that serve a purpose? What greater good am I missing? carry on. [ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]
__________________
History shows again and again How nature points up the folly of men Go, go, Godzilla! |
03-04-2003, 08:48 PM | #55 | |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
Quote:
For what it's worth, the libraries I go to shelve the prof in general fiction (right alongside Tolstoy) rather than in the sci-fi/fantasy section. |
|
03-04-2003, 09:17 PM | #56 |
Fair and Cold
|
Thank you, Iarwain. I am sorry that you thought I was mocking you, I was just being a bit cheeky (as usual).
Great post, Tar, and with supreme logic behind it. As for me, I will be arranging a meeting with Duke's resident expert on Tolkien after I get back from spring break, and will let everyone know how that goes. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
03-04-2003, 09:21 PM | #57 |
Dread Horseman
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 2,743
|
You mean you're not Duke's resident Tolkien expert? Unheard of! Absurd!
[ March 04, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ] |
03-04-2003, 09:50 PM | #58 |
Fair and Cold
|
At Duke, my primary expertease concerns other, slightly unorthodox fields of study.
On a more serious note, I am very excited for an opportunity to meet this woman. The English Department raves about her, and frankly, I am interested in what she would say to Iarwain's proposition, as well as to my own hammer-headed ideas, as well as what everyone else has mentioned so far.
__________________
~The beginning is the word and the end is silence. And in between are all the stories. This is one of mine~ |
03-04-2003, 09:53 PM | #59 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Quote:
The books have many 'supernaturel elements' such as elves and the one ring. But even with all these, Tolkien can make them seem real, not a fantasy. I think it is mainly because there is a whole history to Middle-earth, I think that is what makes it different than other fantasy novels. Most others, you just read it and are left to guess, how all the beings there came to be, why this is called such and such, etc. This is just my point of view, but everyone else's opinions are interesting, and have gotten me thinking about it even more!
__________________
七転八起... |
|
03-04-2003, 10:29 PM | #60 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
Carlas, your argument is completely logical. I can understand how you can think that. However, perhaps the general idea of "Fantasy", and novels classified as fantastical, have changed over the years, since Tolkien first distinguished the idea? I think so. If you follow that definition, several genre's could easily be combined to form the Fantasy genre, which today contains very specific material. Horror, Science Fiction, many instances of Children's Fiction, and even such classics as "A Midsummer Night's Dream" and "Utopia" could be considered "Fantasy". The genre is clearly more specified than its definition makes it out to be. And, over the years, as that genre has been narrowed down and focused, Tolkien has been cut out of the range of sight, remaining but a blur on the periphery. It belongs somewhere else, even though it was the beginning of the genre. Just as Frodo suffered to save the Shire and was forced to give it up, Tolkien, founder of Fantasy, should leave it behind for those to whom it now belongs.
Iarwain P.S. Lush, I hope that provides the start of a better argument! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-04-2003, 11:06 PM | #61 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: napa valley, ca
Posts: 496
|
Did a little research...
Webster's New World Dictionary, vol. II: Fantasy - n, 1. Giant talking eagles 2. Hey dol, merry dol! Ring-a-dong dillo! 3. Any world bereft of lust and churches [ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Tar-Palantir ]
__________________
History shows again and again How nature points up the folly of men Go, go, Godzilla! |
03-05-2003, 09:44 AM | #62 | ||
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Tar: [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] interesting definition.
Quote:
Yes I get it with fantasy and all, but my question is still not answered: Quote:
|
||
03-05-2003, 10:52 AM | #63 |
Wight
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 182
|
It's not under science-fiction at my library. Is this a common thing to put Tolkien in sci-fiction? If it is, the government must be behind it because there is no logical explanation whatsoever (IMO).
Ahh, a theory! Since it's not in sci-fiction at my library I went back to the previous posts on this thread to see about other people's libraries, and I noticed that it appeared that many libraries group Fantasy and Science Fiction together which makes sense a little bit. Science-fiction in general can have elements of Fantasy in it and vice versa. Tolkien's work does not have a shred of Sci-fi in it, but, as it has been noted [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img], Tolkien is still in the Fantasy genre. So, guilty by association. [ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ] [ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: aragornreborn ]
__________________
At the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. - Phil. 2:10-11 |
03-05-2003, 01:04 PM | #64 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Check this out: <A HREF="http://"http://"http://www.sfbc.com/doc/content/sitelets/FSE_Sitelet_Theme_2.jhtml?SID=nmsfctop50&_requesti d=52875" TARGET=_blank>http://www.sfbc.com/doc/content/sitelets/FSE_Sitelet_Theme_2.jhtml? SID=nmsf c top50&_requestid=52875"]Top 100 Sci-Fi Fantasy Books of the Past 50 Years</A> (apologies if this was already posted). Note #41, in addition to #1.
[ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: Turambar ] [ March 06, 2003: Message edited by: Turambar ]
__________________
In the upper air the fireflies move more slowly. |
03-05-2003, 02:29 PM | #65 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Quote:
|
|
03-05-2003, 05:34 PM | #66 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
Nice link, Turambar. Apparently I've read more fantasy than I thought. I've read five books on the list, and six more related to those. (1,3,10,26,41)
That's nice that your teacher was familiar with Tolkien, Inkling. I've never had that experience. My current English teacher is a tad on the annoying side and is completely uninterested. Very few of the people I know have read Tolkien. Others claim to know the story through the films (which they do not). They use their former knowledge to cancel out and verify whatever I say on the topic, so its sort of hard to educate them. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] The only reason Tolkien could possibly be considered Sci-Fi is if Fantasy and Sci-Fi were merged. Iarwain
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-05-2003, 06:10 PM | #67 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Quote:
Turumbar: Did you get my PM? I was confused about how to do that too before-so I hope it helps. BTW: I'm re-reading the article right now |
|
03-05-2003, 07:12 PM | #68 |
Eidolon of a Took
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: my own private fantasy world
Posts: 3,460
|
Iarwain (and anyone else, for that matter), you really ought to read #5, A Wizard of Earthsea and its ensuing novels, The Tombs of Atuan, The Farthest Shore, Tehanu, Tales from Earthsea, and The Other Wind. (Six, eh eh eh)*
They're excellent original Fantasy, in a highly developed world. Of course, it's hardly "modern fantasy" as the first was written in the 60's. But anyway, I think those are deserving to hold shelf space along with Tolkien. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] *(I shamelessly flaunt my Seasame Street history.)
__________________
All shall be rather fond of me and suffer from mild depression. |
03-05-2003, 07:19 PM | #69 |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
That was an interesting link, Turambar. It's a Sci-Fi site, and yet it lists both Sci-Fi and Fantasy literature in its "most influential" list. Also, very interesting that LotR comes out top.
Clearly, there is a point at which Sci-Fi and Fantasy (and also Horror) merge. For example, the Dune series (of which I have only read one) are very much Sci-Fi books, and yet the societies which they portray are often very similar to the kinds of societies which we might find in a Fantasy book. Similarly, Anne McCaffrey's Pern books (which I remember with great affection) were definately set in a Fantasy world, but had a Sci-Fi origin (in that the people of the world had arrived there by means of space travel). So, I don't see any problem with the close association of these genres. They both rely, as a premise, on a fantastical world very diffferent from our own. Some (like LotR) fall squarely on the Fantasy side, while others (Asimov, Arthur C Clarke) are clearly at the Sci-Fi end of the literature spectrum. Both (all three, including Horror) genres have their prizes and their boobies. I would be hard pushed not to rate Asimov's books as classics. So, it's not really the genre that counts, but the quality of the book. For example, Wuthering Heights is probably best defined as a work of romantic fiction. And so are the works of Barbara Cartland. I know which I would rather read ... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
03-05-2003, 07:31 PM | #70 | |||
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Diamond18:
Quote:
The Saucepan Pan: I've also read Dune aswell [I've heard tell that Dune Messiah is good too]. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
03-05-2003, 08:14 PM | #71 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
Very good, Saucepan, I've always thought of Asimov's books as classics in the Sci-Fi genre (my English teacher apparently thinks so too, as she makes constant refrences on my papers). The genre does have its different branches, just like fiction in general.
Diamonds, I'll have to look at those... Thanks for the suggestion! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Iarwain P.S. The Dune books are most captivating, but once you get past the third or fourth book, it gets a bit tedious. I found Children of Dune to be the most interesting book that I read. [ March 05, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-06-2003, 03:05 PM | #72 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Really? Oh great-and I thought all of them were good. Will be looking forward to it Iarwain.
BTW: What comes before Dune Children? BBTW: Let's not get off the topic... On the back of the Dune book I read-it said that it was equaled to Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings. Comments anyone? |
03-06-2003, 04:36 PM | #73 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
Funny, on the back of my copy it said it was rivaled only by Tolkien. Dune Messiah comes before Children of Dune which comes before God Emperor of Dune, the Fourth Book.
Iarwain
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-07-2003, 06:56 AM | #74 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
For some reason, Ursula Le Guin has more 'credibility' among the literary establishment than Tolkien, who is, unfortunately, still stuck the 'genre' category by many who don't enjoy him.
This is a good way of dismissing him, as "genre" works of any kind - history, sci-fi, whatever - are simply not seen as literary by academia. If Tolkien is to be given the literary credibility he, IMO, heartily deserves, it would be more straightforward to have him taken out of the genre, rather than to attempt to persuade the establishment to accept genre literature as 'proper' literature. Sorry, I'm not sure I've put that as clearly as I could have done, hope I haven't confused the issue further.
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling |
03-07-2003, 05:21 PM | #75 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
Not confusing at all, Lalaith. I fail to understand you only on one point. If the people of the academic world judge works to be or not to be of a specific genre, then how should we plan to get around their generally accepted judgement in changing the genre of Tolkien literature?
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-07-2003, 05:28 PM | #76 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
Ha, that's a poser!
Well, one thing that springs to mind is this: Tolkien is highly respected as a translator and academic of early and middle English literature, even by those who are snooty about LotR. Pointing out the strong links between Tolkien's creative work and the traditions of the old literature that he specialised in, might possibly help.
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling |
03-07-2003, 05:41 PM | #77 |
Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Birnham Wood
Posts: 800
|
Even then, though, you would be relating back to the academic world. This is the same problem that our good friend Lush caught me on, when I was arguing for the same thing as you. Who would care about Tolkien's knowledge as a philologist but someone in the academic world? Most people find it irrelavent that Isaac Asimov was a professor of Biochemestry at Boston University. Unless you make your argument to the leaders of academia (a good argument I might add) you're going to achieve virtually nothing.
Iarwain
__________________
"And what are oaths but words we say to God?" |
03-07-2003, 05:53 PM | #78 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
Except that literary academics often write book reviews and have strong links with the literary sections of magazines and newspapers. On a personal level I have found that stressing the Professor's impressive academic and linguistic credentials does help silence those of my literary friends who are prone to fashionable anti-Tolkien sneering...
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling |
03-12-2003, 04:48 PM | #79 | |
Shade of Carn Dûm
|
Quote:
|
|
03-14-2003, 04:31 PM | #80 |
Shade of Carn Dûm
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Gardens of Lórien, Valinor.
Posts: 420
|
Hello, Id just thought I'd make my own little comment on here. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] (I had an old accoutn with about 11 posts, but soon after, to cut a long story short, I got a new PC, and never got round to importing my Favourties list of bookmarks [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img])
Anyway, I'd have to partially agree with Nimrodel's statement of "Tolkien CREATED the genre, so of course, everything else is just an imitation. Even if their ideas are the OPPOSITE of Tolkien's, his is still the template (good choice of words Iarwain) from which their comparison is drawn." While I don't think that many people would copy Tolkien, he is the Creator of the genre as it were, and you can't escape. Perosnal example: I like to write, and in ym sotries there are diffrent gruops of Elves; some that live in cities, others split off from these who live in woodlands, and others split off from these who lvie in the desert. Anyway, the easy thing to do would be to name the first two "High Elves" and "Wood Elves." But I thought, no, that would be too similar, best change "High Elves" to...hmm, "Goldne Elves." All well and good. Until the time where they're driven into the Wood Elves' lands, forming...the Goldne Wood. At that poitn I laughed and gave up trying to avoid it, it's just one of those things in oife. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Pratchett in fact said that TOlkien is like Mt. Fuji in traditional Japanses art: in all fantasy he's either in the mid-ground, in the distant, or in the forground, and if you can't see him it's because you're standing ontop of the mountain.
__________________
"For I am Olórin! And Olórin means me!" ELENDIL! - Join "Forth Tolkiengas!" |
|
|