Book of the Century?

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shadow of Malice
Posts: 854</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Purple Prose

I should have checked in the Books before posting something related to this in the Barrowdowns forum. Can anyone help me with finding more articles about this? Oh, and do any of you mind if I used some of your statements in a paper I am writing?


Another thing. Gil, have you actually read Frankenstien?

Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil be good to have been.</p>

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 6</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/nenya.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Book of the Century?

To me it was worth winning the book of the century. I cried laughed and held my breath at the end of each chapter. I subsiquently got into trouble for appearing to lessons late, no homework or being half asleep all because i couldn't put it down. No other book has had me sobbing my eyes out because it had finnished and all that was of middle earth was gone with Frodo Bilbo and Galadriel across the seas to the undieing lands and the book was over. I so much wanted the book not to end.

</p>

[Gilthalion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hobbitus Emeritus
Posts: 434</TD><TD><img src=http://home.att.net/~robertwgardner/lotrmap.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Durelen

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Another thing. Gil, have you actually read Frankenstien? <hr></blockquote>
Yes.

Do you have a point? Do you prefer Mary Shelley's writing to Tolkien's? You could say as much. I don't think anyone around here is offended by differences in personal tastes.

Or are you insinuating that I was pulling my commentary from thin air, pretending to know more than I did, or to have read things that I hadn't? I thought I was clear about what I had NOT read among the above suggestions and freely admitted my ignorance of them. I suppose I could help dig out some other commentaries on LOTR for you, but for some reason, I don't feel much inclined to at the moment!


<center><font face=verdana size=1> http://www.barrowdowns.comBarrow-Downs</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000Bare Bones</a>~http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgard...ilthalion.htmlGrand Adventures</a>~http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.aspThe Hobbits</a>~http://www.tolkientrail.comTolkien Trail</a> </center></p>

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shadow of Malice
Posts: 858</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Durelen

No, I am simply suggesting that Mary Shelley's writing skills are lacking. It is a good story. But you could have written a better book yourself.

Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil be good to have been.</p>

[Gilthalion]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hobbitus Emeritus
Posts: 435</TD><TD><img src=http://home.att.net/~robertwgardner/lotrmap.gif WIDTH=60 HEIGHT=60></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Durelen

Regarding Frankenstein I said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> I find Tolkien's prose superior, myself. <hr></blockquote>
So, your rudeness is not justified by your excuse. Not that any excuse would justify it. Debates can be spirited, but need not be insulting.

Forget it. But next time you need help, try asking politely.

<center><font face=verdana size=1> http://www.barrowdowns.comBarrow-Downs</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgardner2000Bare Bones</a>~http://pub41.ezboard.com/btarostineruhirTar Ost-in-Eruhir</a>~http://www.geocities.com/robertwgard...ilthalion.htmlGrand Adventures</a>~http://www.barrowdowns.com/fanfichobbits.aspThe Hobbits</a>~http://www.tolkientrail.comTolkien Trail</a> </center></p>

[Theodred21]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 55</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Durelen

I definitely think that LotR is the book of the century. Just like Veasorel, I cried when it was over. I wanted it to go on and on forever. Definitely the best books of all time.

</p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 415</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Durelen

As a matter of academic interest let me just ask you, have you read every other book written in this century?

"But why?" he asked in bewilderment, looking upon Death. "Why?" he asked again. </p>

[The Watcher in the Water]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 75</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
<img src="http://www.barrowdowns.com/images/posticons/bluepal.jpg" align=absmiddle> Re: Durelen

My guess would be no... no-one has that much time... <img src=wink.gif ALT="">

The road goes ever on...</p>

[the_master_of_puppets]

i have no doubt in my mind that this is book of the centuary. i dunno about the person a few above talking about the other books; if we all wanted to read them we could agreed? clearly not so many people have wanted to, great books or no, therefor without a shadow of a doubt & no hesitation i give jrr tolkien (if he were alive) my full support and say that this trilogy is undoubtedly the Book of its Centuary. thank you and goodnight...

[Kalessin]

I've just discovered this thread, and cut myself on several sharp edges within it.

A number of people seem to suggest that LoTR should be the book of the century because it's the best book they have ever read. Others have suggested that LoTR exceeds all other 20th-century works in its impact (I guess this means sales, or a more vague kind of 'popularity'). And there are others who appear to suggest it is the best because it contains eternal and Biblical truths. And some who believe that it is a seminal work in terms of form and genre influence.

In addition, there is a subtext that 'modern' writers or critics (or society in general) are corrupted by moral relativism, and/or mired in Political Correctness. Related to this was the dismissing of the points about race, gender and politics raised in the Salon article.

In amongst this were a few suggestions for authors and works that might be considered The Book of the 20th Century, which seemed to then be passed over, either through not having been read, not being popular, or other reasons. In the end it appears that sales (as an indicator to popularity or accessibility) are the key.

I've summarised my reading of the thread in order to make a coherent response, and I do feel bound to respond (although I agree with Zoe and Mr Underhill on several points) ...

To the simple point - LoTR as the Book of the 20th Century - NO

Don't shoot me yet - look, I love Tolkien's work, I'm a fan - in the last 3 months I've read LoTR cover to cover 3 times (and watched the movie about 4 times) and I have enjoyed it more than most things I've read in years.

But I can't find any even vaguely objective criteria - apart from sales - that would make it the book of the century.

If you are talking about form or style, there are many books that have gone on to affect our language and culture beyond LoTR. Ulysses, The Naked Lunch, anything by Runyon, Crash, The Grapes of Wrath, The Old Man and The Sea, to name but a few ... you can see the echoes and effects of these books all around you in our culture.

If you are talking about being a catalyst for cultural change, or starting new genres - Eva Luna, or anything by Gabriel Garcia Marques, that started the whole magic realism and re-birth of South American literature ; Brave New World, or 1984 ; Ways of Seeing by John Berger, that brought postmodernism into our awareness of Art, or The Female Eunuch for obvious reasons ; On The Road, which spawned 2-3 generations
of American voices, or Puzo's Godfather, which among others initiated such a consciousness, familiarity and fascination with organised crime ...

If you want social impact, try Cry, The Beloved Country, or Roots, Revolutionary Suicide (Huey P Newton) or The Diary of Anne Frank ; or Ellison's Invisible Man, or Haley's Autobiography of Malcolm X, which is a stunning book. And negatively, you would have to say Mein Kampf or The Books of Chairman Mao have had more direct influence on people's lives. I don't think anyone's suggesting LoTR as the agenda-setting manifesto for our age.

There are so many other books I want to mention, from Sartre to Camus, from Lawrence to Fitzgerald, from Borges to Salinger ... too many. I just can't see, despite wanting to in many ways, how LoTR can be considered a more important member of the literary canon of the 20th Century.

But I still love it!

Peace

[Aiwendil]

If you are talking about form or style, there are many books that have gone on to affect our language and culture beyond LoTR.

You equate form and style with cultural and linguistic impact? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Quite frankly, I don't see why cultural impact should have any bearing on the greatness of a work of art. Judge the work for itself, not for what other people do with it or how they respond to it.

The Lord of the Rings is, quite simply, hated by modern critics because it isn't the kind of book they like. It is also dangerously popular. These critics have forgotten the concept of art for art's sake, and insist on judging literature not as literature but as allegory and social commentary. But I don't feel particularly inclined to enter into yet another literary criticism debate, so I'll cut off my rant at that.

[Kalessin]

Okay, I admire your restraint [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I didn't and don't equate 'form and style' with cultural and linguistic impact. I was addressing the argument that (apparently) LotR was supremely influential in terms of form and style - ie. that it had a level of cultural and linguistic impact, and was therefore Great Literature. My point is that any influence of form and style is reflected in culture and language (film-making is an explicit example of this process), and on that basis many other works have equal or greater claims to significance than LotR.

As far as "modern critics" go ... well, my post is about my opinions - I don't know whether modern critics would agree or disagree. I would suggest that some of the books I put up against LotR might well also be disdained by modern critics for any number of reasons.

You raise an interesting point. Is LotR hated by the 'literary establishment'? And is LotR hated because it is popular? Perhaps, yes - much of what is popular (or populist) is sneered at by the chattering classes. But ... there are plenty on these boards who will sneer at Britney Spears, and I was questioning whether people really accept (or want) 'popularity' (ie. sales) to be the sole criteria for greatness. If not, then you have to explore other criteria, such as cultural and linguistic impact.

If you ignore 'impact' as a criteria, and as you say "judge the work for itself", I would still cite all the books I have mentioned. But there's no escape from subjectivity (by me, or anyone) if you have nothing measurable. Judging it by itself, LotR has been one of my best reads, but I don't consider it great literature. The fact that I've enjoyed it more than, say, Sophie's Choice, doesn't automatically make it 'better'. I do believe there are aesthetic tools with which one can, if necessary, compare and contrast different works.

In an ideal world, this would just be celebration of the diversity of creativity. But this thread is putting LotR up as The Book Of The Century, whereas I believe there are other more worthy contenders, based on those aesthetic tools.

Nothing in life is entirely objective, yet some essence of aesthetic analysis, the intrinsic 'qualities' of a work (as opposed to how much you or I liked it), can be understood and argued. That's what we're doing.

Please have a rant anyway. I'm interested, tell me what you think ... and it can be therapuetic [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Thingol]

I utterly reject the notion that a novel does not have to have an excellent plot in order to be considered a “great” work of literature. I am currently reading The Iliad and The Odyssey and I am enjoying them because they are interesting. Several months ago I picked up Ulysses and like Gilthalion, it was one of the few books that I could not finish. You want to know why? It was because it was BORING. Maybe I found Ulysses boring because I have only reached the paltry age of 17 and can not appreciate the book, or maybe it is because I understood about one of the allusions to Greek Mythology in it, but regardless I doubt Ulysses will ever be able make a chill run down my spine the same way The Lord of the Rings does. Works of literature are usually judged on two criteria; the themes which they present and the manner in which they present them. There are quite a number of themes in Tolkien’s works, (see Whats your favorite theme?) I believe the most important ones are change that comes with time and the defeat of evil and the corrupting influence of power versus friendship and loyalty. As I’ve said in other posts one can not really judge whether or not one theme is better or more important than another, it is a matter of personal preference. You might prefer themes that relate to sexuality or spirituality, while I might prefer themes that relate to change and the corrupting influence of power. Who is to say which theme is better? As any high school student will tell you, the principal means of judging how themes are presented are language, imagery, characterization, metaphor, and yes you guessed it, plot (I’m sure I have missed a few). Some have referred to Tolkien’s language as mere “purple prose.” Maybe they are right, but then I’d have to say the same is true of Shakespeare’s plays, Milton’s religious poetry, Melville’s epic novels, and countless other writers that employ overly descriptive language. As Mister Underhill so eloquently put it, if that is purple prose than give me more. Perhaps a few of Tolkein’s characters are weak, (Merry, Pippin, and Aragorn are fairly static) but in a literary work which has almost as many characters in it as the bible can’t we allow for a few characters that aren’t perfect. I believe Frodo’s character is the ultimate model of a hero who is willing to sacrifice everything in order to save his home. Sam is the perfect model of a dedicated and loyal friend. As has been said before in this post, just because The Lord of the Rings does not accurately depict our world does not mean it is any less great of a novel. Milton’s Paradise Lost does not even attempt to create an accurate depiction of the real world, but I don’t see any critics going around bashing Milton. Maybe Tolkien fans are a little biased and defensive, but I bet if I went to some holier-than-thou intelligentsia website and posted Othello’s character is weak because he gives into Iago in like 10 minutes then I’d get quite a number violent, derogatory, and biased replies. I don’t know if The Lord of the Rings is the best novel of the 20th century, I have not read nearly enough 20th century literature to make that judgement. So far I have not read any other book that has been able to move me the way that The Lord of the Rings has. If stranded on a dessert island I would defiantly want to have The Lord of the Rings with me above any other book. Personally I have little use for most literary criticism.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

Literary criticism is really only good to help you pick out a book, although I like W.H. Auden’s criticisms. In the end I don’t really think such distinctions as best book of the century really mean much, it is all a matter of personal preference.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Aiwendil]

Hey Thingol, you stole most of my rant!

Just to raise a few more points:

I was addressing the argument that (apparently) LotR was supremely influential in terms of form and style - ie. that it had a level of cultural and linguistic impact, and was therefore Great Literature.

Well, then I can't really disagree with you here, never having made that particular argument. Or can I? LotR certainly has been influential; it's merely been influential in genres and media that the literary establishment writes off as pop-culture and trash. LotR spawned the entire modern fantasy genre; granted, no work in this genre has ever approached the level of LotR, but it is a large genre nonetheless. The book is also largely responsible for the birth of the role-playing game (which, I insist, is as valid an art form as literature), and this influence has crossed over into video games, miniatures games, and collectible card games. So while there's certainly no deep political/philosophical influence, there is influence of another sort.

You raise an interesting point. Is LotR hated by the 'literary establishment'?

Yes.

And is LotR hated because it is popular?

Well, yes and no. I think literary critics (who naturally tend to consider themselves superior to the masses) tend to view popular acclaim as the mark of low-brow, unsophisticated art. If it's simple enough for us to understand, then it must be too simple to be good. Perhaps a larger component of their dislike for LotR, however, is not that it's popular, but that it's the kind of book that can be popular. That is, if the book has property x, and property x causes it to be popular, the critics hate not the popularity but property x itself.

I think there are several things about LotR that cause it to be both popular and hated: it is essentially plot-based rather than character-based, it is heroic rather than ironic, its prose is somewhat archaic. As for plot/character, this is an argument I've recently had in great depth on another forum. There I argued:

This pretty clearly sums up the viewpoint of the modern literary critic. Which is basicly that character is what is important in a novel, rather than plot. This is taken even to the point where novels that are mostly plot-driven are not 'serious'; they are criticized for the lack of character development. I've yet to hear a critic criticize a novel for being too character-driven and neglecting plot. For some reason a detailed character-study in which very little happens is good literature, but an intricate plot with very little character development is juvenile trash.

No, I'm not suggesting that modern literature is in error. I'm merely saying that a plot-driven approach, generally discouraged in modern literature, is just as valid as a character-driven approach.

Dickens is a perfect example of the plot-driven type of novel I'm talking about. His characters are, as you say, two dimensional; but they serve their purpose in terms of the plot. These are not detailed character studies, and, as with Tolkien, there is no need for him to delve into the sexuality of most of his characters. And, like Tolkien, Dickens was initially (and still is sometimes) bashed by critics because he did not conform to their view of great literature.

To which I can think of nothing further to add at the moment. As for heroic/ironic: modern literature and literary criticism are essentially based on the idea that the author wrote X,Y,and Z, but what he or she really meant was A,B,and C. It is the function of the modern literary critic (in their own view, of course) to translate what the author wrote into what the author (supposedly) meant, to translate story into interpretation. This is ironic literature. Tolkien wrote heroic literature (like Homer, for instance); that is, he wrote what he meant. No hidden meanings, no allegory.

Then there's Tolkien's prose. I think this is hated so much because the modern literary world (probably the modern artistic world in general) has the erroneous notion that there is progress in art. There is a supposition underlying modern criticism that modern literature is inevitably better than what has come before. This is false.

But ... there are plenty on these boards who will sneer at Britney Spears

Including me. Well, there's the real flaw in the populist argument. But fortunately for me, the populist argument is not my argument. I'll get back to this in a moment.

But there's no escape from subjectivity (by me, or anyone) if you have nothing measurable.

Certainly not. Art is not science, and cannot be treated as such.

The fact that I've enjoyed it more than, say, Sophie's Choice, doesn't automatically make it 'better'.

Why not? This is one of the fallacies of modern literary criticism (or at least of many modern critics): the assumption that literature must accomplish something beyond entertainment. This is an unfortunate view that seems to exist only in literature among all the arts. The modern critic assumes that because it is possible for a work of literature to communicate a message or insight that relates to the normal (non-literary) world, it must have such a message to be considered good literature. There is something of a double standard here: literature is subjected to this criterion but no other art is. A painting can still be a 'great' painting, even if it exists only for enjoyment. A symphony can be 'great' without having any extramusical meaning. Yet both of these art forms are capable of sending political messages or making philosophical statements. So why is literature treated differently?

Of course, this was not always the predominant view. Homer's epics were meant mainly to entertain, and if they have any 'applicability' (as Tolkien put it), it is, as with LotR, because they are such good stories. The same is true for most epics (well, not the Aeneid, but certainly many others). Dickens's novels (thousands of years later) were designed to entertain, at least to the extent that their entertainment value could be converted into monetary value.

Now I don't deny that there is something to be said for meaning in literature. But as I see it, the value of this meaning comes from the fact that it makes the work more enjoyable. I can't speak for anyone else, but I enjoy The Lord of the Flies, for example, largely because of its meaning. Nonetheless, I enjoy LotR better, making it in my opinion a better work of art.

Coming back to the Britney Spears argument (ugh . . . that's the first time I've had to utter her name in print) - I don't think it's popularity that makes a work of art good. Remember, (according to my criteria) we have to judge work of art for itself. It's therefore not whether this "singer" is popular; it's whether her music is enjoyable. Maybe some people actually think it is. But people are easy to fool, and popularity is not a good indicator of merit until well after the work has been produced. Many listen to her because it is the popular thing to do. There's also her "image" which, of course, should have nothing whatsoever to do with music, but nonetheless attracts a large male audience. A hundred years from now, no one will think that she is superior to say, Mozart or Haydn.

I do believe there are aesthetic tools with which one can, if necessary, compare and contrast different works.

Yes. And I don't mean that literary criticism is worthless. I mean only that it is gone about in entirely the wrong way. The purpose of literary theory should be (like music theory) to tell us what makes a work of art enjoyable.

Nothing in life is entirely objective, yet some essence of aesthetic analysis, the intrinsic 'qualities' of a work (as opposed to how much you or I liked it), can be understood and argued.

I completely agree about using the intrinsic qualities of the work. But certainly these are the reasons that you or I liked it as much as we did. There is an inherent aesthetic value in a work of art that causes it to be liked or disliked; these are not things that happen randomly.

As a last note, I'll quote Oscar Wilde from the preface to The Portrait of Dorian Gray:

Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.

Well, I had a pretty good rant after all. My apologies if I've put anyone to sleep.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Glenethor]

There are a lot of threads in this thread, and I am just going to give my surface impressions about the question(s).

LoTR is my favourite book. It is the book that, if I was to have to choose one on a desert isle, I would want with me. Yes, Tolkien detested allegory, that much is clear. We can't fit everything into some contemporary slot. It doesn't work. However, he also says that he was influenced by WW I and II in a very personal way. I think that the creative process is often mysterious, and is a form of projection of the inner life of the creator. That is pop psych 101, and the themes, and the descriptions thereof, are not necessarily a function of conscious design.

Anyways, trying to figure out how to measure 'best' will drive you nuts. What is the best music of the 20th century? Britney or the Beatles? Gershwin? Marilyn Manson? I have seen sooooo many arguments over what is the best recorded album ever, and there is never any resolution to those arguments (it's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, btw); So too, one cannot really argue on anything other than on the basis of consensus and since many people have sold zillions of books (Stephen King comes to mind) or zillions of albums (MJ, Britney, NSYNC, Backstreet Boys) I am suspicious of this as the only logical means of measuring 'best' as being 'most popular.' I think Tolkien's work stands alone, it resonates across generations, therefore the messages inherent in the work are universal messages. I have a real problem with moral relativism in certain respects, and I do not now file 'Evil' under 'psychopathology.' WW II had no moral ambiguity, and that is one of the contexts in which LoTR was written.

So, that is one of my criteria of a work of transcendent art: It has to be attractive to a wide range of cultures independent of the generation in which it was created. LoTR has captured the imaginations and hearts of people of all ages (except my father) and is it because it is merely a 'ripping good yarn?' I'd say no.

As for other books this century:

Yeah, Animal Farm, 1984, Lord of the Flies, Brave New World...all books they tried to shove down my throat in high school. It was only after I left high school would I read them, and they altered my perception of the world....and not for the better, either.

I'd also argue that Dune meets my criterion for transcendency, but it too has a very pessimistic view of human nature.

Sorry, that was probably only distantly related to coherent, but the Simpsons is coming on the telly...

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

... two very thoughtful replies to my interminable post about aesthetics, literary criticism, and the placement of Tolkien in the literary canon. Thank you!

Aiwendil - you posit that, rather than literary, the influence of LotR has been formative in the 'fantasy' genre, and therefore by extension into RPGs and the current cultural hegemony of gaming.

Now I agree that Tolkien's works were influential in the development of the fantasy genre, not least because publishers realised LONG books of this type could sell. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that influence was seminal. You could make the same argument for Robert E Howard (creator of Conan the Barbarian), amongst others.

Tolkien certainly didn't create the genre, and well before LotR appeared in the states science fiction was well established, with some writers already pushing the breadth and depth of their stories, creating alternate universes and expansive cosmologies (which would today have been classified as fantasy). So the analysis of influence is one of degree, and there is room for argument.

You could also say that Tolkien was merely one in a long tradition of epic storytellers stretching back hundreds of years, but that changes in society and economics meant that his work was disseminated across a far wider audience than previous exponents, and that the mechanisms for unprecedented marketing and distribution were in place - ie. a "right place right time" scenario.

The point here is that there is plenty of room for argument, and valid objections to some of the claims being made. My own view is somewhere in the middle [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Now I'm sorry about this, but you then go on to say RPG games are as valid an art form as literature, at which point we completely part company. If you take this line, then pretty much anything is an art form, and therefore of course everything is equally valid. This view of yours is in tune with a certain postmodernism (certainly in aesthetic theory), and in effect reduces everything human to a performance, with the inevitable referentialism and inherent (whether intended or not) 'archness' or irony.

If RPG games are an art form then Chess is an artform. If Chess is an art form then football is an art form. If football is an art form then everything is an art form, as far as I'm concerned. Art only exists if it is, by definition, different from sport, or game, or other archetypal human expression. There may be points at which they intersect, but ... this isn't one of them! I just don't agree with you on that one. Oh well [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

In terms of your points about literary criticism, I tend to agree that there is a fairly unthinking adherence to particular fashionable literary virtues amongst the chattering classes ... 'twas ever thus! Yet you're criticising the very same postmodernism that elevates RPGs to artforms, so step carefully.

Now onto your key point about criticism -

You say "This is one of the fallacies of modern literary criticism (or at least of many modern critics): the assumption that literature must accomplish something beyond entertainment".

Sorry, but there's nothing 'modern' about that, and its not peculiar to critics. Readers of all kinds, and many, many WRITERS through the ages - ie. since before the Bible - have attempted, or argued for, the accomplishment of something beyond entertainment.

In respect of your point - that 'message' or meaning doesn't make something better than art without 'message' or meaning - I absolutely agree. But it works the other way too. Just being 'entertaining' doesn't make something better than art which is not 'entertaining'. There are many factors which can be used to assess the merits of a work of art. Comparative value-judgement (ie. A is better than B) is probably the least edifying use of these factors. The whole reason I came onto this thread was because of the dismissive and spurious value-judgements being made, and my aim was simply to put LotR in perspective - an important book, a piece-de-resistance, a good read ... but not the book of the century.

So at last we come to Britney Spears [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] You seem to be saying the SHE is popular (rather than her music having any merit), as a result of good marketing, or as an object of male fantasy etc., and that people are 'easy to fool'. Well, probably, but all that leaves you with is the 'staying power' argument as a way of distinguishing popular from good.

What about Elvis (he's been popular as long as Tolkien)? One realises on closer inspection that Elvis' success was built on appropriation (ie. stealing), that this was a convergence of opportunities (post war teenage empowerment, the sexual revolution, mass marketing and television) ... but he's been popular for a long time. Maybe we'll have to wait a couple of hundred years to see if Tolkien passes your test (rather than diminishing and going into the west [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ).

Finally finally finally - at the end of your excellent post you argue it is the intrinsic aesthetic qualities in a work that cause it to be liked or disliked. So, the more you like something, the more intrinsic aesthetic qualities it has, right? Back to Britney and Final Fantasy! I'll just leave that hanging ...

Thanks for that excellent quote by Oscar Wilde - diversity IS welcome, and there is much intelligence and respectful argument here. And Tolkien's work very much merits review and analysis. I very much enjoyed your post.

Glenethor, as you can see self-censorship is not my strong point, so I will address your interesting post another time!!!

Peace

[Glenethor]

Um...I'd just like to add that another of my criteria is that a transcendent work of art be spiritually uplifting. It must nourish the soul, not merely reflect a part of our nature in a mirror. I think, of this century's authors, Tolkien's works will still be read by our children's children's children. So too, will people listen to The Beatles (amongst others) in 200 years. My only real concern about these works of art surviving the millenia is that they (the books and music) are the property of commercial organizations and access to them will be determined on the basis of whether or not those organizations can derive a profit from them. Then there are political considerations, but all things being equal, LoTR will follow our genes through time. So, really, objectively, time will tell.
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Thingol]

What no comments for me? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I agree that in addition to being aesthetically pleasing good literature should try to convey some meaning or theme in it. Are you trying to say that you do not think that The Lord of the Rings is merely an enjoyable read, but without any real meaning to it? I hope that is not what you are getting at when you compare Tolkien's staying power with Elvis'. See my previous thread for some of the themes that The Lord of the Rings deals with. Personally I think The Lord of the Rings does a better job of dealing with its themes than Ulysses (which is on the top of many best novel of the 20th century lists), Moby **** , Slaughterhouse 5, and any other book that I've read so far. Just because The Lord of the Rings doesn't deal with the search for spirituality or some other modern theme does not make it any less of a book. The Lord of the Rings is the greatest story ever told. I don't see how you can not enjoy a book and consider it better than a book that you enjoy. Reading should be enjoyable, it should not be a job. One of the reasons I love Tolkien, the man, so much is because of his humility. Tolkien wrote his book for himself, he was not trying to send any message or show that he was smarter than anyone. I just love Tolkien and all that he stands for. Just because he isn't cynical or jaded doesn't mean he is any less of an author. Tolkien longed for a better world and he created in what my opinion was a perfect one. Tolkien was not the first author to do so, but he bears the most criticism for doing it. Just because Middle Earth is not our world does not mean that we can not take away any lessons from it. It is utter foolishness to dismiss Tolkien as a middle of the road artist just because you can not see the beauty of Middle Earth, or take away the valuable lessons that its characters learn.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Thingol ]

[Aiwendil]

Glenethor:

what is the best recorded album ever, and there is never any resolution to those arguments (it's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, btw)

Come, now. We all know it's Abbey Road.

Kalessin:

Now I agree that Tolkien's works were influential in the development of the fantasy genre, not least because publishers realised LONG books of this type could sell. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that influence was seminal. You could make the same argument for Robert E Howard (creator of Conan the Barbarian), amongst others.

I think that LotR was unquestionably more influential in the genre than Conan. Such things are hard to judge, however.

Tolkien certainly didn't create the genre, and well before LotR appeared in the states science fiction was well established, with some writers already pushing the breadth and depth of their stories, creating alternate universes and expansive cosmologies (which would today have been classified as fantasy).

There were certainly some examples of science fiction that approached fantasy prior to Tolkien. But these were weird science fiction stories, not mainstream fantasy. Tolkien effectively (re-)invented the pure fantasy epic.

You could also say that Tolkien was merely one in a long tradition of epic storytellers stretching back hundreds of years, but that changes in society and economics meant that his work was disseminated across a far wider audience than previous exponents, and that the mechanisms for unprecedented marketing and distribution were in place - ie. a "right place right time" scenario.

There really hadn't been an epic like LotR since the middle ages. Not that I can think of, anyway.

Now I'm sorry about this, but you then go on to say RPG games are as valid an art form as literature, at which point we completely part company.

This is, I suppose, a rather uncoventional view, and I'm not shocked to see that you disagree. Of course, it really only peripherally relates to Tolkien.

If you take this line, then pretty much anything is an art form, and therefore of course everything is equally valid.

Well, I simply can't pass up an opportunity to defend RPGs as an art, so I'll argue it, even though it really doesn't matter to my main argument.

No, I do not consider everything an art form. Nor do I rely on some postmodern argument for universal aestheticism. Role-playing can be shown to be an art using quite conventional definitions. There is really nothing that literature can do that RPGs cannot. All the necessary elements are there: plot, character, form, idea. Role-playing is nearly as closely related to literature as are film and theater. Granted, its nature permits only a very small audience for each work, but certainly audience size is not a factor in determining whether or not something is art - if a book were written and distributed only to three people, who read it and then burned it, it would nonetheless have been art while it existed.

Role-playing is essentially literature in which the main characters have wills independent of the author's. This of course makes it more difficult to control the plot, but not impossible. It also infuses it with a certain vitality and sense of immediacy that is difficult to create in literature. I do not claim that role-playing is in any way superior to literature, merely that it is just as valid as an art form.

If RPG games are an art form then Chess is an artform. If Chess is an art form then football is an art form.

Come, now. Role-playing is very, very different from chess (and football). The former is limited only by the creativity of the gamemaster, the latter operates in an entirly prescribed way. The former has character and plot, the latter does not. The former is a cooperative endeavour in which there is no winning or losing (though there may be for individual characters, just as there may be for characters in a novel); the latter is a competitive game in which one person wins and the other loses (or they draw).

The above comparison between RPGs and chess could just as well pertain to literature and chess. Do not be fooled by the G in RPG. It is considered a game only by convention, and out of a historical accident. I will grant that few of even its most avid supporters treat it as an art; there is a good deal of bad role-playing out there. There is also trashy literature.

Yet you're criticising the very same postmodernism that elevates RPGs to artforms, so step carefully.

Well, as I hope I've just shown, I don't rely on postmodernsim for that.

Sorry, but there's nothing 'modern' about that, and its not peculiar to critics. Readers of all kinds, and many, many WRITERS through the ages - ie. since before the Bible - have attempted, or argued for, the accomplishment of something beyond entertainment.

Perhaps I should rephrase that: it's a modern fallacy to think that the primary purpose of literature is to accomplish something non-literary. Sure, literature that deals with non-literary issues has existed for a very long time; but the only purpose that all literature shares is entertainment. Homer was meant mainly to be enjoyed. So were Beowulf and other northern heroic poems. You might argue that these latter also deal with themes such as Christian piety, but not any more so or any more directly than LotR deals with corruption, immortality, and similar things.

Just being 'entertaining' doesn't make something better than art which is not 'entertaining'.

It does if the entire purpose of art is to be pleasing. But don't you find that when a work has a message or meaning, those things can make it more enjoyable?

Well, probably, but all that leaves you with is the 'staying power' argument as a way of distinguishing popular from good.

I never said that popularity could be used to judge a work of art at all. Not now, not a hundred years from now. It's probably a better indicator a hundred years later, but still not perfect. There are still problems of accessibility (the fact that many people haven't ever heard of Palestrina doesn't mean that they wouldn't like his music if they did hear it), reputation (Elvis developed a huge following during the 1950s that raised him to near-legendary status and makes him more popular today than he would have been if we'd just discovered a stash of his music somewhere without knowing who he was), and familiarity (some people don't give Mozart a chance because all they've really been exposed to is rock and roll).

Maybe popularity would be a decent standard if he we could somehow get a large sampling of people that had never heard any music before, and knew nothing about Mozart, Elvis, or that so-called "singer" we were discussing. Of course, even this improbable scenario breaks down for literature, since one would first have to know how to read, and what books one had learned on would form a small bias.

you argue it is the intrinsic aesthetic qualities in a work that cause it to be liked or disliked.

I don't mean anything profound here. A novel by a professional author is probably aesthetically superior to one by a first-grader, and it therefore will be liked better. A novel by a good author is better than one by a bad author, and will be better liked (never mind that 'good' and 'bad' are so difficult to define).

Thingol: I agree with pretty much all that you say. Despite my above tirade against the necessity for meaning in art, I do think the LotR involves some very important themes.

Sorry for another rambling post.

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Kalessin]

Okay, thanks to everyone for responding and making this thread into an interesting and lively debate. I'm going to try and do justice to the various points raised ...

*

Glenethor - "another of my criteria is that a transcendent work of art be spiritually uplifting. It must nourish the soul"

Aiwendil - "the only purpose that all literature shares is entertainment ... don't you find that when a work has a message or meaning, those things can make it more enjoyable?"

Thingol - "in addition to being aesthetically pleasing good literature should try to convey some meaning or theme in it"

Right. There seems a broad consensus there - message and meaning enhances good literature. Aiwendul argues that these are not (or should not be) the primary purpose of literature, but the basic premise seems to be that the message and meaning in Tolkien are part of its quality. I don't argue with any of that! But my point is, there is plenty of message and meaning in lots of literature, popular or not. It's not somehow unique to Tolkien. And once you see that, you can start to accept the validity and merit of other works in other styles. That's all I am asking.

*

Thingol - "Just because The Lord of the Rings doesn't deal with the search for spirituality or some other modern theme does not make it any less of a book"

Slightly contradictory there. But I agree. And just because a book doesn't deal with the same themes as LotR, doesn't make it any less of a book.

*

Thingol - "The Lord of the Rings is the greatest story ever told"

Ouch! Please don't post that in the Trilogy and Bible thread [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

*

Glenethor - "all things being equal, LoTR will follow our genes through time. So, really, objectively, time will tell"

Thingol - "I hope that is not what you are getting at when you compare Tolkien's staying power with Elvis'"

Aiwendil - "I never said that popularity could be used to judge a work of art at all. Not now, not a hundred years from now. It's probably a better indicator a hundred years later, but still not perfect"

and again - "A novel by a professional author is probably aesthetically superior to one by a first-grader, and it therefore will be liked better. A novel by a good author is better than one by a bad author, and will be better liked"*

(*if something is better liked, that must means it will be more popular. Or do you mean that if just one person is so overwhelmed with pleasure at reading "Star Trek #259 " that they spontaneously combust, that makes it better than all other books? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

Okay. IF 'popularity', now or in the future, cannot be cited as proof of literary worth, then it doesn't matter how many people have or will read LotR. If popularity IS NOT the measure, then you have to consider other literature without reference to popularity or "accessibility" - which includes popularity/accessibility of theme, form and so on. Now, IF popularity is a factor, then unfortunately you can't dismiss Elvis or Britney. Or 'I Love Lucy'. You can argue all you want about other aspects of these artifices, but they do share the popularity factor along with LotR. So they must be good in some way, right?

You can't have it both ways [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

The only conceivable way through this is Thingol's argument - "Tolkien wrote his book for himself, he was not trying to send any message or show that he was smarter than anyone". So, perhaps, unlike opportunist, manipulative and commercial products that are popular for all the wrong reasons, LotR's popularity can be distinct because of the express intent of the artist. Hm. Well, don't all artists at least start out the same as Tolkien? Maybe not Britney. But certainly in literature. I'd guess Sidney Sheldon (popular) or Danielle Steel (popular) started with a genuine creative spark. Oh well. Like I said ... you can't have it both ways [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

*

Thingol - "Just because Middle Earth is not our world does not mean that we can not take away any lessons from it. It is utter foolishness to dismiss Tolkien as a middle of the road artist just because you can not see the beauty of Middle Earth, or take away the valuable lessons that its characters learn"

Read my lips. I like Tolkien. I do not dismiss Tolkien. I see the beauty of Middle Earth. I also like other writers. I like some other writers as much as Tolkien. And some more so. But I do not dismiss Tolkien because of this. And even if I don't like some writers, I don't dismiss them just because of that. Phew ...

Thingol - "I don't see how you can not enjoy a book and consider it better than a book that you enjoy".

Here's how. I like ice cream. I prefer ice cream to spinach. But I know spinach is better for me. I don't enjoy spinach but consider it better for me than ice cream. This is an allegory. If you want it artistically - I'd guess you like some modern American music more than classical Indian ragas. But you could accept that the classical Indian ragas might have more musical virtue, even though you don't like listening to them as much. Or maybe not. But that takes you back to "how much you like something being an indicator of how aesthetically good it is". Which I dealt with earlier (see: spontaneous combustion).

*

So finally we come to the central and most fascinating point.

Aiwendil - "Role-playing can be shown to be an art using quite conventional definitions. There is really nothing that literature can do that RPGs cannot. All the necessary elements are there: plot, character, form, idea. Role-playing is nearly as closely related to literature as are film and theater"

By the way, I think I'm in the minority in disagreeing with you. And it depresses me. I'm an anachronism [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

But, wait a minute ... do you mean text-based RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons-style) with the little metal figures, or do you mean computer of PSX-style gaming?

Oh, maybe it doesn't matter. Let's just say that by your definitions, working at McDonalds is art. PLOT (moving through the different stages - cooking the burgers, speaking to the public, cleaning the fridge, getting promoted, spilling ketchup on the boss) ; CHARACTER (are you the surly one with pimples, the girl who could have been a cheerleader, a misunderstood inventor saving money for parts, the secret communist etc.) ; FORM (breakfast cannot be served after 11am, you must enter the kitchen from the side door only, all communications must contain the words "nice", "have", "a" and "day", certain colours are deemed more socially acceptable, the words "Burger King" and "Wendy's" result in punishment) ; IDEA (revenge of the great clown-god, the painted smile, imperialism by mass poisoning, the need to earn money, sad moments of pathos amidst the gherkins etc. etc.).

As you say - "a cooperative endeavour in which there is no winning or losing (though there may be for individual characters)". Just what working at McDonalds is all about. Thus it, too, is art. And why not?

I enjoyed that [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] And I've enjoyed reading your posts, and compliment you all on your ingenuity and passion. All I am saying is that I believe LotR to be one of the important books of the 20th Century. But not the book of the century. Is that so unacceptable?

Peace

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Glenethor]

Greets,

This is gonna be a bit long and rambling. Hopefully something relevant will pop outa my head...
[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I haven't read a lot of critiques of Tolkien's work. Only one negative sticks in my mind, the famous 'children's book that got out of hand' comment made by a reviewer when it was released. I am also not a Tolkien scholar. So, I come to this discussion without many external references to this work.

We could get into a detailed philosophical discussion on the nature of knowledge, or epistomology, and try to objectively determine what elements of a work of art are inherent in 'great' art, but first we would all have to agree on the precise meaning of the word 'great' (and 'art') and how it is differentiated from 'not so great' or 'sucks.' In other words, for a scientifically valid premise to be made, those variables deemed to be relevant must be measurable. I don't even try to go there, because, as I said, it will drive me nuts, especially if I try to work out all of the operational definitions with other people.

See, I am not arguing in favour of LoTR being 'The Book of the Century,' I am only pointing out some of the pitfalls (as have others here) in trying to attach such an exclusive label to someone's work. LoTR meets two of my criteria for a great work of art: Cross-cultural/non-cohort popularity; and it is, while not a religious book, spiritually nourishing. I am also not arguing in favour of it not being the 'Book of the Century.' What I am saying is that it will outlive us all.

I agree in principle that you cannot, with any significant validity, argue for one piece of work over another on the basis of 'popularity.' HOWEVER: I think that popularity becomes a significantly valid criterion if it has remained popular for generations. Ideas, art, and other forms of human activity are subject to the same kinds of pressures as organisms are in terms of natural selection. Great works will strike chords across cultures and generations. Those that don't, get pushed to some obscure corner of whatever specialization we are talking about, the subject of arcane archivist discussions of little interest to the vast majority of people. Britney's CDs will be recycled into garbage pails in 40 years, as will most of this century's popular music. What is that spark which gives a work of art and its author immortality? It is an elusive quality that if the beezenus people could formulate, they''d bottle it, patent it, and make a killing. Unfortunately, or fortunately, they haven't a clue about how to do it. That is what I was saying in terms of the creative process: It is often mysterious. If we use Mozart as an example, we are to believe that he pulled the music out of the air and wrote it down without any corrections. As a musician, I fear I have more in common with Salieri than I do with that kind of virtuousity. Yet, what qualities of his music, and that of others, still moves people 230 years later? Every artist who I've ever known has said that they do it primarily for themselves because they have to. It is a compulsion. So, JRR's statements about that are valid, but I think like every artist I have ever known, they want others to enjoy or appreciate their creations. Any artist who says that they don't care what others think of their work is either not terribly self-aware, or lying. That being said, for sure Tolkien didn't pander to a public when he wrote. So, is creating for the sake of creation a relevant variable in defining the relative quality of a work of art? Yes and no. I'd say there was a relationship, but not necessarily a causal one. The greats listen only to themselves when they create, but then, so too do the 'not so greats.'

Another way to define 'Book of the Century' is in terms of cultural impact. How did it affect our inner lives? Our outer lives? How did it affect who we are as human beings in relation to each other and the 'real world?' As the 20th century has just been left behind, it is impossible to definitively argue in favour of one side or another because we are too close to it. That reflects back to my statement about needing some time to settle before we can assess this variable.

Anyways, as I said, I tend not to worry about such things. My brain is starting to hurt...
[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Aiwendil]

But my point is, there is plenty of message and meaning in lots of literature, popular or not. It's not somehow unique to Tolkien.

I don't think anyone has implied otherwise; I certainly have not. It's just that Tolkien frequently gets attacked as having no 'message or meaning'. My point is: 1. Irrelevant; art is about aesthetics, not usefulness, and 2. There is a significant 'applicability' (Tolkien's word) in LotR. I certainly don't consider it the only work that has any meaning; on the contrary, I can think of plenty of allegories and such with more non-literary meaning.

if something is better liked, that must means it will be more popular. Or do you mean that if just one person is so overwhelmed with pleasure at reading "Star Trek #259 " that they spontaneously combust, that makes it better than all other books?

You're taking my remark rather out of context. All I'm saying is that when a person likes a book, he or she likes it for a reason. Let's say that the book has property Y that person A enjoys. Property Y is an intrinsic property of the book. So in other words the process goes: Author -> book with property Y -> popularity because of Y. Of course, some other variable might be introduced between steps 2 and 3 (the accesibility, reputation, and familiarity that I discussed earlier enter in here). But the point is that a person's like or dislike for a book has its roots in the book itself.

If popularity IS NOT the measure, then you have to consider other literature without reference to popularity or "accessibility" - which includes popularity/accessibility of theme, form and so on.

I agree completely. I never refused to consider other literature without reference to popularity/accessibility.

I like ice cream. I prefer ice cream to spinach. But I know spinach is better for me.

Do you propose that literature must be good for society to be good? This is a strange criterion. Does that mean that if you have a piece of literature written from a communist viewpoint and one written from a capitalist viewpoint, one is inevitably bad literature, because one of the two systems must be better than the other? How can we know what is best for society? And how often does a work of literature (literature, not philosophy or science) actually have a measurable impact on society? I would think it is extremely infrequent. Do you think any politicians in the U.S.S.R. read Animal Farm and were convinced to abandon communism? Literature simply doesn't have a significant impact on the way the world works.

Of course, even if you could show that it did, I'd still say the purpose of art is to entertain.

I'd guess you like some modern American music more than classical Indian ragas. But you could accept that the classical Indian ragas might have more musical virtue, even though you don't like listening to them as much.

Er. . . I don't think so. First of all, "musical virtue" is almost as amorphous as "literary virtue". Second, music theory (well, excluding serialism for the moment) is designed the way (I think) artistic theory should be. That is, it tells us why things sound good, not that what we think sounds good isn't really good. If I agreed that a certain Indian piece had more musical virtue than something else, I would like it better than that thing.

But, wait a minute ... do you mean text-based RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons-style) with the little metal figures, or do you mean computer of PSX-style gaming?

Well, neither. I mean text-based RPGs without little metal figures (actually it's into this category that Dungeons and Dragons falls; the 'little metal figures' are not a necessary part of it.) I mean a gamemaster (author) sitting down with a group of players (characters) and creating for them a carefully devised world, an intriguing plot, complex characters with which they can interact, and even MEANING and MESSAGE.

Let's just say that by your definitions, working at McDonalds is art.

Have you ever played a real RPG? (I don't mean to sound offensive; I just get the feeling you either haven't played them, or you've had a really bad gamemaster.) Your examples of plot, character, etc. at McDonald's are obviously sarcastic; but in RPGs these things exist on quite the same level as for the novel. To compare the plot of a well done RPG to working at McDonald's is absurd, and no better than comparing the plot of a novel to the same. Name any aspect of the novel that you think distinguishes it as a medium for art, and I'll show that role-playing is capable of the same thing.

I don't mean to sound hostile - I'm just a bit defensive about this. I also have enjoyed this thread, being something of a compulsive arguer.

[Glenethor]

Are you here for a 5 minute argument, or did you want the whole 1/2 hour?
[img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

Glenethor, heh, I really appreciated your (earlier) post, and agree with more than a little of what you say (don't worry, I'm not going into Bilbo's ambiguous party speech here).

Hi Aiwendul - ex-Dungeonmaster here, I have been there bigtime, and enjoyed it too [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

You said "If I agreed that a certain Indian piece had more musical virtue than something else, I would like it better than that thing"

Basically that means, whatever you like best, is the best. Or, if something is better than something else, you will like it more. I guess that hinges on the individual and subjective relationship between the reader and the book. Which means the same as "I like Star Trek more than Lolita, therefore Star Trek is better". So you can't challenge Britney being better than LotR to those that enjoy her more [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I have no problem with that. In effect that's the primacy of personal subjectivity. Which means that for you, the aesthetically best piece of art is that which you like best (because it has more aesthetic virtues, or whichever way round you want it). Cool. All it means is that we can't have a discussion.

You misunderstood the icecream thing. Usefulness to society etc. wasn't part of the agenda. I was just showing the logical possibility of making qualititave distinctions in art that were at odds with personal preference. You don't agree with that whole premise, so see above.

No hostility at all here, certainly not from me. I relish discussion, and as I said my purpose was to inject a sense of perspective here. If we can rib each other in a stimulating and good-humoured way while exploring some of these weighty concepts, all the better!

Re. RPGs etc. "in RPGs these things exist on quite the same level as for the novel" ... well we might have to get into definition of terms to take this further. Actually I do think the development of RPG worlds IS an act of creativity. But there is a jump from creativity, as it manifests in many areas of life, and literature, as one of the fundamental mediums of communication. But we are back into definitions here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Finally, your start points - that to entertain is the essential nature of art ; and that the measure of aesthetic quality is how much art is liked - are pretty postmodern. As a romantic idealist myself, we are therefore forever in polar opposition [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] My McDonalds skit is a kind of postmodern 'life-as-performance' concept ... or 'life-as-RPG'.

By the way, my D&D realm was influenced by Tolkien to some degree, also by my love of ancient myths. I spent hours on maps and contextual notes, I constructed certain laws of magic that were structured and constrained in the same way physical laws were, and I tried to provide as many choices and scenarios as possible to minimise the number and importance of dice rolls. As I said, I accept it was a creative act, and I don't look down my nose on it. I also consider it as part of my personal development as a storyteller (along with other creative non-literary activities). So please don't be offended by the fact we disagree about RPGs (and probably everything else) ... put it down to my cantankerous age [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. BTW, my early gamesmasters included Steve Jackson (before he created Eidos) and the other founders of White Dwarf, so I think I have reasonable credentials to at least talk about RPGs. And I always liked the little metal models!

Maximum peace

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aiwendil]

ex-Dungeonmaster here, I have been there bigtime, and enjoyed it too

Okay, I guess my character reading skills aren't my strong point. Moving on . . .

Basically that means, whatever you like best, is the best. Or, if something is better than something else, you will like it more.

What I think it really means is that in music what sounds best is best. I do think that if something is better than something else, it will be better liked (assuming that factors such as reputation, etc. are not present.) Of course, since we can like different things and also disagree on which is better, this argument remains subjective. But I do think that if I consider one book or piece of music better than another, that is equivelant to saying that I like it more. If my favorite composer is Mozart and somebody else's is Bach, then we not only have different likes; we disagree on which music is superior.

So you can't challenge Britney being better than LotR to those that enjoy her more

Yes I can. I'm not saying that someone's liking of something makes them right about it being good (not even right to them). I'm just saying that someone's liking for something implies that they think it is good. Thus, if someone likes Britney Spears, all I'm forced to say is that that person believes her to be a good musician. I could still disagree with that belief.

Actually I do think the development of RPG worlds IS an act of creativity. But there is a jump from creativity, as it manifests in many areas of life, and literature, as one of the fundamental mediums of communication. But we are back into definitions here

Well it seems we differ not so much in how we treat RPGs as in our definition of art. According to mine, RPGs are clearly art. I'm not sure exactly what your definition of art is, so I can't really argue that.

Finally, your start points - that to entertain is the essential nature of art ; and that the measure of aesthetic quality is how much art is liked - are pretty postmodern.

But isn't the postmodern view on these points really just a revival of a far more ancient view? Certainly Homer thought he was writing to entertain.

I spent hours on maps and contextual notes, I constructed certain laws of magic that were structured and constrained in the same way physical laws were, and I tried to provide as many choices and scenarios as possible to minimise the number and importance of dice rolls.

Sounds like you're describing my process of creating a world as well. Except that when I began to fashion my main AD&D cosmos, I was too young to appreciate the need for well-planned, consistent mythology and metaphysics, and I've spent a lot of time working these deeper consistencies backward into a pre-existing world.

BTW, my early gamesmasters included Steve Jackson (before he created Eidos) and the other founders of White Dwarf

Wow. Okay, I'm suitably impressed.

[Kalessin]

Nice reply. In the end, it's your point that "in music what sounds best is best". ie. whatever I/ we/ you/ like best is therefore the best for each of us. The primacy of subjectivity. While I disagree, I understand and respect your worldview.

... "if I consider one book or piece of music better than another, that is equivelant to saying that I like it more". OK, that's for you. But NOT for me. I don't accept the primacy of subjective evaluation. So you can't assume MY value judgements are an indication of what I like best. We're different - and life's more interesting that way!

Other than that, your passion for RPGs has reminded of many happy days. I also remember arguing passionately with my elders that American comics (we're talking early 70s onwards here) were a valid art form, and I remember vividly how frustrating and oppressive the counter-arguments seemed to me. No-one changed my mind then, and I don't expect to change yours. I certainly have no wish to be more insufferable and patronising than I have been already! So thanks for reminding me ... I agree without reservation that human (ie. not video game) RPGs can be a wonderful and stimulating pastime - I'm almost tempted to get back into it - and I commend the conscientious approach at worldbuilding that you are undertaking.

I've really enjoyed this discussion, my compliments to you [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Peace

[Mister Underhill]

Fascinating discussion! Compliments to all. Is there a more sublime art form than the transcendental forum post?

I thought I’d jump in here since it looks like everyone’s ready to scrawl their names on a peace settlement and quit the field, even though we still haven’t got to Kalessin’s alternative to the “primacy of subjective evaluation”. I’m curious to know whether you think there is a set of objective criteria against which all art (or at least, all literature) may be measured and ranked. And since folks like Aiwendil (and myself, I might add) seem likely to disagree with your criteria and your rankings, aren’t your “objective” standards really just your version of subjective evaluation? In which case you’ve put yourself in the curiously postmodern position of admiring work based on its reference to external values, even though you dislike the intrinsic merits of the work itself.

That is to say, even the judgment of “what is good for me” is just as subjective as any other. Your spinach and ice cream analogy, though vivid, breaks down. The relative dietary values of spinach and ice cream are quantifiable and provable, whereas one man’s literary spinach is another man’s literary ice cream is another man’s literary dog food.

Incidentally, I disagree with the assertion that sports, and even chess, do not occasionally rise to the level of art. Anyone who witnessed some of Michael Jordan’s more memorable games (for instance, his Game 5 performance against Utah in the finals) or watched this year’s women’s figure skating finals knows what I mean. I might also add that McDonald’s has definitely raised the “French fry” to the level of high art.

[Aiwendil]

Okay, I guess we're unlikely to agree about this barring some kind of total personality conversion by one of us. But I can't refrain from a few more comments.

In the end, it's your point that "in music what sounds best is best". ie. whatever I/ we/ you/ like best is therefore the best for each of us. The primacy of subjectivity.

Well, this is almost what I mean, except that I still maintain that someone can be wrong about what is the best. Even to someone who likes Britney Spears, she is not 'good'. The person merely thinks that she is good. So there is still an objectivity here.

However, I'd also say that art is nonetheless subjective on the deepest level. That is, art and aesthetics are a human invention; they are not physical properties of the universe. So essentially I think that there are three levels in the quality of art: the deepest level, the definition of art (subjective); the level of aestheticism (an objective analysis of our subjective definition); and the level of understanding (the subjective beliefs of someone who does not fully understand the objective conventions).

But that's getting a good deal more complex than is necessary.

Our real disagreement seems to be on the purpose of art. I say that art is beauty, and beauty is that which pleases. You seem to be saying that pleasure is a biproduct of art, not the intended product. And I don't think either of us is going to convince the other.

I've really enjoyed this discussion

I as well. It's good to see someone else who has put some careful and considered work into RPGs, even if you don't extend your definition of art to cover them.

Mister Underhill: You make some excellent points, but I'm forced to disagree about games such as chess and basketball being valid forms of art; I will, however, make a small concession to postmodernism (what an unfortunate term, etymologically - how can something be more modern than modern?) and say that there may on occasion be aestheticism in such things. But not enough to elevate them to the status of literature (or RPGs!)

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Glenethor]

Or gone over some of Bobby Fischer's chessgames.

[Kalessin]

Respect to Aiwendul (and Bobby Fischer, although the Karpov and Korchnoi mind wars were utterly gripping, Glen).

Underhill ... you've tempted me out of voluntary retirement [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

You said - "aren’t your “objective” standards really just your version of subjective evaluation?"

Well, I haven't really gone into the nature of 'my' criteria, as such. All along I have just tried to gently probe the justification for the 'book of the century' tag, and see whether the same arguments used by various posters weren't in fact just smokescreens for Aiwendul's (and I guess your) honest subjectivity. I did this because, although this is a Tolkien forum, literature in all its variations is a precious expression of our humanity and spirit, and I didn't want love of Tolkien's works to become a self-serving vehicle for elitism and clique.

There is an essential element of philosophical reasoning behind any attempt to supply objective evaluative criteria. Ultimately I accept it is logically impossible, because in fact it's impossible to perceive or analyse anything without using individual perceptive tools which are, inherently, both subjective and relative. In this context comes Hume's refutation of empiricism ... and the progression of western philosophy through to existentialism, postmodernism and so on.

So what we are left with, in the end, is an attempt at evaluation by consensus. A set of ground rules, or assumptions, that have subtly evolved throughout history. And these too are suffused with cultural differentiation, fashionability and a multitude of variables, and inevitably reflective of our modern times ... global yet fragmented, challenging, commercialised and self-aware.

Is there still a respectable consensus on aesthetics? Not really. Neither can we share or assume criteria without carefully defining terms, and even then allowing plenty of room for manoeuvre. I'm aware of all this, and am just one voice in the crowd.

But I'm still a romantic idealist. I'm seeking, and seeking to preserve, a consensus that allows artists and their audience to interact with universal and aspirational concepts that we all instinctively understand the nature of, even if the rest of the logic falls down.

After all, most of us have a concept of beauty, for example. If we deconstruct everything in the cold light of our individual subjectivity, then beauty and its bedfellows (including entertainment for its own sake) are simply irrelevant. It just becomes a narcissistic justification - "I like this so it is good. Why is it good? Because I like it". Once the deconstruction takes place, you can't put beauty back into the equation - "I like this better than that, because it's more beautiful. Why is it more beautiful? Because I like it more".

The only way is to find, and be willing to accept, aesthetic conceptions that (by consensus, and knowing they may change) are not completely subservient to the individual. That somehow reflect a collective act of definition and aspiration. Once you have those, then you can fight against them, you can be snobbish or elitist, you can abuse or misuse them, you can do all the things that we do, but you DO become a stakeholder in the experience of art that goes beyond self-gratification.

But the sting in the tail is this. If you have or accept that consensus, it means that, sometimes, you can't use hype or grand words to justify what you like. You can't always be right. It means the loudest voice doesn't always win. It allows you - no, it forces you - to differentiate between self-indulgence and integrity.

Look. There are no rights or wrongs in this argument (please let's avoid the religious dimension just for the moment). And there's no pompous morality. It's just being human. Of course everything is ultimately subjective. Even within a consensus there will be a wide range of standpoints. And no one person's view has any more worth than another - just as no one person is worth more than another.

So there is no threat in what I'm saying. It's what we all pretend. I doubt anyone aside from a few ascetic philosophers and perhaps an atheist monk (if there is one) actually live their life with the intense rationalised subjectivity, avoidance of universality, and immediacy of experience posited by Heidegger. Likewise we can't live life with the stark self-knowledge and star-bright transformatives of Neitzche. Not for more than a few seconds at a time, anyway.

Anyway, I'm exhausted now, so I propose one final consensus. Let's agree to differ. Please refer to Trilogy and Bible thread for all ultimate truths.

No more truce-breaking, Mister Underhill! Aiwendul and I were almost on speaking terms [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

These boards are brilliant. Please note I'm fresh from AOL chatrooms with themes such as "Liberals are cowards", "God is a product of evolution", and "Free readings for LA policemen by psychic transsexuals". It's an absolute pleasure being here with all you erudite, entertaining and positive people [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Aiwendil]

Okay, if Kalessin gets a decent reply, I think I'm entitled to one more comment before accepting disarmament.

Respect to Aiwendul (and Bobby Fischer, although the Karpov and Korchnoi mind wars were utterly gripping, Glen).

The best to play through are Tal's games though - those ones where he reverses the entire game with a single brilliant combination.

The only way is to find, and be willing to accept, aesthetic conceptions that (by consensus, and knowing they may change) are not completely subservient to the individual. That somehow reflect a collective act of definition and aspiration. Once you have those, then you can fight against them, you can be snobbish or elitist, you can abuse or misuse them, you can do all the things that we do, but you DO become a stakeholder in the experience of art that goes beyond self-gratification.

I actually essentially agree with you here. I think that there is (or should be) an objective theory of aesthetics that is able to predict what art is good and what is bad - a theory which is of course a human invention, and therefore on the most basic level subjective. Where we differ is that I think the purpose of art is pleasure; thus, whatever one believes the objective theory to be, it should explain why the things he or she likes are good.

Anyway, I'm exhausted now, so I propose one final consensus. Let's agree to differ.

Okay, truce accepted.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Glenethor]

Well, we seem to have a consensus on chess, anyways.

I too am 'fresh' (although raw might be a better word) from BBSs filled with a lot of rancor ad hominum attacks and just general ignorance and immaturity. And then there was the negative stuff. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] It is very cool to see the level of intellect and reasonably good manners I see here.

Follow the dancing ball...

EEEEEmanual Kant was a real ****ant who was very rarely stable!
[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[Mister Underhill]

I was fortunate enough to find the Downs very early in my internet experience, and I’ve been hunkered here inside the barrow ever since.

Look. There are no rights or wrongs in this argument (please let's avoid the religious dimension just for the moment). And there's no pompous morality.

Quite, quite. I hope I don’t come off as aggressive in probing your system here (I don’t quite know what to call it; “the primacy of collective subjective evaluation”?). You just seem like quite an articulate fellow and I’m interested in finding out what you think. Therefore, even though folks are throwing down their weapons and surrendering left and right, I’ll press on with a few more questions.

The only way is to find, and be willing to accept, aesthetic conceptions that (by consensus, and knowing they may change) are not completely subservient to the individual. That somehow reflect a collective act of definition and aspiration. Once you have those, then you can fight against them, you can be snobbish or elitist, you can abuse or misuse them, you can do all the things that we do, but you DO become a stakeholder in the experience of art that goes beyond self-gratification.

In real life, don’t we have many, many different sets of consensus aesthetic conceptions, whether we like it or not? For anyone who takes up pen or paint brush or movie camera today, there are artistic establishments with which they must contend if there work is to be widely disseminated. And any student growing up in the world will receive indoctrination in some set of “what’s good for you” aesthetics, as well as “what’s popular” aesthetics. I’m a bit of a pragmatist myself, especially when things start getting really abstract. I don’t see why aligning yourself with the collective opinions of one (or several) schools of thought is more valuable than following your instincts on what you, individually and subjectively, like and admire.

After all, most of us have a concept of beauty, for example. If we deconstruct everything in the cold light of our individual subjectivity, then beauty and its bedfellows (including entertainment for its own sake) are simply irrelevant. It just becomes a narcissistic justification - "I like this so it is good. Why is it good? Because I like it". Once the deconstruction takes place, you can't put beauty back into the equation - "I like this better than that, because it's more beautiful. Why is it more beautiful? Because I like it more".

In practical application, my experience has been that people only need to engage in this sort of justification if the consensus evaluation of the group to which they subscribe conflicts with their own personal evaluation. “The group likes this so it is good. Why do I like this? Because the group likes this.” There’s no need to justify yourself if you’re guided by your own subjective evaluation. Who do you need to justify yourself to? You like what you like, with or without the seal of group approval.

I don’t mean to be flip – investigating the tastes of various schools of aesthetic thought can lead you to the Great Works of human achievement and many a fine artistic experience. And there certainly are fundamental, universal principles in any art form that tend to be required to make a work of art in that form at least satisfying. But attempting to codify a set of aesthetics for any given form is practically worthless, and at worst results in “formula”. Aristotle’s Poetics is a useful example. Aristotle correctly identifies certain essential elements of a drama – beginning, middle, and end – but his rules on what meter “must” be employed in a particular genre seem charmingly quaint today. Ray Bradbury keeps coming around lately for some reason, so I’ll open the door for him (here paraphrasing Oscar Wilde):

Art will fly if held too lightly,
Art will die if held too tightly,
Lightly, tightly, how do I know
Whether I’m holding or letting Art go?

I would submit that the best artists, and certainly the great innovators, do their work without reference to the collective aesthetic consensus of whatever time period, culture, social stratum, and art form in which they work. They listen to their own “voice”; they follow their own “heart”; they give primacy to their own subjective evaluation of what is good. Ray again:

I learned that I was right and everyone else wrong when I was nine.

I think a key here is that though art may be appreciated at a group level, it is created by individuals. Film is, of course, a special exception – which is probably why most films don’t rise to the level of high art. But even in film, the endeavor is usually guided by the aesthetic values of one predominant individual.

P.S. – Respect to all. Fischer, Karpov, Korchnoi, Tal – all worthy practitioners of the art. Aiwendil – sports cannot be compared to literature in the same way that a painting cannot meaningfully be compared to a great role-playing game experience. I would submit, however, that a great football game, for instance, far transcends the mere rules that govern play, just as a great RPG experience transcends its rules. The rules are simply form. Also, your prime requirement of a pleasurable experience is met. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[the_master_of_puppets]

i have no doubt in my mind that tolkiens work is the best i have ever read: and completely deserves book of the 20th centuary award.

i also have never read a book thats kept me so engrothed in its plot, made me cry when its characters do/happy when they are/worried when they are- and iv never cried because a book ended b4!! well, it wasnt just that i also felt really sorry 4 frodo having to leave everyone behind, and 4 bilbo because he couldnt live much longer and finally for the likes of aragorn without gandalf 2 turn 2 anymore!!

sorry if im repeating other people but i have to let people know what i thinl!

[Kalessin]

Underhill ... yes. It's all a big mess. Everything you say about artists is right, but they are exempt from any rules. And each person's reading of the consensus is different (as well as the factions and fashions within any group). Of course I accept the ultimate subjectivity (or unprovability) of perception.

I'm going to do the unthinkable and (probably) misquote Gandalf, from memory.

"We cannot choose the times in which we live. We can only choose what to do with the time we are given".

So it's Romantic Idealism and High Art for me! Yes, I'm backing musicians that can play
their instruments, painters who study how to work oil on canvas, the reverential hush, the self-indulgence and pomposity, long words and out of date clothes [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] It's Oscar Wilde, Charlie Parker, Nietzche, Dante Alighieri, poverty in a Parisian attic, the absence of irony, and restoration of the Golden Mean [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

But seriously, I think this is one of those occasion where we can all hold different opinions and still be right. Which, I have found, is one the few perks of studying philosophy - an occasional opportunity to synthesize irreconcilable contradictions. Strategically placed smileys are also a useful mechanism for this [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

Sport as art? The triumph of the spirit, the rising above physical limitations, the absolute harmony between intention and execution? Perhaps, perhaps ... the 1970 Brazil team passing their way to the World Cup ... Viv Richards combining irrepressible masculinity and flair in his 275 ... Muhammed Ali somehow turning audacity, suppleness and showmanship into victories that raised everyone's self-esteem ... Jesse Owens' transcendent symbolic achievement ... Serge Blanco ... etc. etc.

Yes, it would be easy to agree with you completely. But I'd have to go and delete all my earlier posts [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Peace

[Kalessin]

Hey, I just became an Animated Skeleton. Maybe now I can fit into those old trousers again ...

[Glenethor]

That's it! I'm not getting into any debates with Philosophy Major(s)!

It's been too long since I cracked textbooks, and given all of the partying I've done, I only have one neuron left. It is a good one, but still...

It is a pain when all we are left with as 'proof' is tautology. However, I would suggest that defining what is an artist by way of credentialism is invalid.
[img]smilies/cool.gif[/img]

[HerenIstarion]

For the immense joy the reading through this thread brought me (especially, page 2, which I haven't read in its time after making silly joke on the page 1 I'm still tempted to delete but probably will let stand), it goes up. Lure Fordim and davem into it, bring back Aiwendil and Mr. U (and Kalessin, Glenethor and Thingol if they reappear), spice it up with Bb, mark 12_30 and Child, stir the soup with the spoon of innumerable number of other thinkers these fora may be proud of and let's strike just another Canonicity party!

[Lalwendë]

That's a nice artefact you've dug up, H-I! I'm sure davem can be lured into this, as this is something we were talking about the other day after watching a documentary looking at the early twentieth century through the lives of Churchill and Orwell.

What initially struck me was the contrast between Orwell and Tolkien. The former's writing was allegorical, while the latter took great pains to say that his work was not allegorical. Both were working in the same period, and both men were products of the British establishment, even to the extent that both had experienced life in the 'empire'. In both 1984 and in LotR we see new worlds created, one a dystopia set some time in the future and the other an entirely different world, seemingly in our past. And at this point their paths diverge, or do they?

1984 and Animal Farm are often mistakenly said to be anti-communism, but the former is anti-totalitarianism, and the latter specifically anti-Stalinism. Orwell hated the machine of state and chose to express this in the form of allegory. One of Tolkien's most important themes is also the machine and how it crushes not only nature but people. Yet he expressed this by creating Middle Earth, which he stated was not allegorical.

Even though we must take what Tolkien says as a 'given', it is extremely easy to read all kinds of parallels between his work and the world/time he lived in. If LotR is not allegory, and I do not think it is (though I'm without the time to give a lengthy explanation why I think that), then there must be something else about the work that enables us to read so much into it. Many different ideologies, philosophies and notions can be backed up by reference to Tolkien's work, and we can bring all these to our own reading, as seen in discussions right here. What I see in the nature of LotR is that it is representative of the 20th century in some way so the title of Shippey's book, Author of the Century, is an appropriate one.

What are the parallels between Tolkien and the 20th century? There are examples all over the 'Downs so I'm not going to start a list. But you only have to look at the range of clever, intriguing and sometimes downright mad parallels posted on here to get a rock solid argument for why Tolkien's work was so good and why he is the 'author of the century'. I don't know if this is relevant to all the "what is art?" discussions though.