A conversation...

Dec 20, 2005 04:35

...and my thoughts concerning its implications. I had just come home from seeing that Narnia movie and the discussion turned from that to Tolkien and LotR. The name of the other participant has been changed mostly because I felt like it. I refer to the other person as, well, "Other" and use the masculine pronouns when needed to refer to him.

[02:00] DeMagus1: I prefer the subtlety of Tolkien to Lewis' sledge hammer approach
[02:00] Other: ha, tolkein
[02:01] Other: well, the first one is definitely not the best
[02:02] DeMagus1: Hmm
[02:02] DeMagus1: Yeah I like Tolkien. A lot. Very subtle.
[02:07] DeMagus1: I can enjoy his work without feeling like I'm having Jesus stuffed down my throat
[02:08] Other: hahahahahahahahaha man i like HEMMINGWAY better than TOLKEIN!!! granted ive only read LOTR and the hobbit, ....but wooooooo weeeee!! I find the man's writing absolutely reeeeeee-pulsive!
[02:08] DeMagus1: haha really?
[02:09] Other: oh my holy god,
[02:09] Other: you have no idea
[02:09] DeMagus1: Well I find it appeals most to those with a scholarly bent
[02:09] Other: the HOURS I have spent enjoying my delicious disenjoyment of his so-called-art.
[02:09] Other: yeah,
[02:09] DeMagus1: haha
[02:09] Other: and people who havent really branched very far out of the "fantasy genre"
[02:09] DeMagus1: Different strokes I guess
[02:09] Other: and not much sci fi either
[02:09] Other: is really what ive found...
[02:10] DeMagus1: What I hate most about the fantasy genre
[02:10] Other: or, let's get real here
[02:10] DeMagus1: Is that it basically plunders Tolkien for the most part
[02:10] Other: haha i used to read SO MUCH fantasy/sci fi...
[02:10] Other: what i hate about tolkien fans (love to hate, this isnt hate-hate here)
[02:10] DeMagus1: The only fantasy I can tolerate is Tolkien and Pratchett
[02:10] Other: is they they think that tolkien started it all!
[02:11] Other: and i mean, holy fucking shit, that fairytale mythology crap is the FOUNDATION of literature!!!
[02:11] Other: TOLKIEN was just one of the first modern english writes
[02:11] Other: *writers
[02:11] DeMagus1: No he didn't start it all. But his work was so profoundly influential to fantasy that the bulk of the modern fantasy genre is influenced by it in one way or another
[02:11] Other: to codify an entire universe,
[02:12] Other: ....i dunno, because i find personally that happens in any genre
[02:12] Other: and actually, art for that matter
[02:12] DeMagus1: It's funny though, because despite the fact that myths are the foundation of modern literature, the particular ones Tolkien based his work on were largely forgotten, ignored, or despised in his time
[02:12] Other: any master-craftsmen inspire a "genre" of copy-cat work
[02:12] Other: it becomes stylistic,
[02:12] Other: *in his time*.....sort of,....
[02:12] DeMagus1: I mean the man had to argue to these people that Beowulf was poetry
[02:12] DeMagus1: I shall repeat that
[02:13] DeMagus1: He had to convince learned people that Beowulf was an epic poem.
[02:13] Other: man, the guy is good at ALOT of things related to writing. He tells good stories and his understandings of linguistic patterns are fantastic bututuututututututut
[02:13] Other: you cant elevate him based on popular idiocy because in that case we should all be bonkin' heads up there
[02:14] DeMagus1: Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by that
[02:14] Other: oh
[02:14] Other: up there being the firmament of greatness.
[02:14] DeMagus1: The only fantasy I've read all the way through is his and Pratchett, who says he doesn't particularly like Tolkien's work
[02:15] Other: yeah,....seeeeeeee....i guess if you only want to read about elves and fairies it limits your fantasy genre but...
[02:15] DeMagus1: I also find his contrasting of a barbarian culture vs. a more civilized culture pretty fascinating.
[02:15] Other: i dunno
[02:15] Other: anyway
[02:15] DeMagus1: And his use of interlace is brilliant
[02:15] DeMagus1: I've yet to read another work that uses interlace like he does
[02:15] DeMagus1: I've never read anythinga about fairies though =/
[02:15] Other: i have a rediculous dis-enjoyment of him as a writer, but the upmost respect for him as a scholar, linguist, and all around good chap.
[02:15] Other: hahaha
[02:16] Other: sorry
[02:16] DeMagus1: But what exactly was it about his writing you didn't like?
[02:16] Other: i am enjoying too many things at once here
[02:16] Other: ok, mind reducing this to a simple matter of aesthetics?
[02:16] DeMagus1: I mean maybe you just didn't enjoy it which is fine. It's subjective and can't really be debated. But if there's a solid reason for I'd like to know. I've read plenty of legitimate criticism about his work and just want to see where your opinion falls
[02:17] Other: well...im gonna say first of all, there's no accounting for individual taste.
[02:17] DeMagus1: Alright
[02:17] Other: but one thing
[02:17] Other: that always drove me absolutely fucking horribly, insanely frantically nuts, and i always ended up skipping
[02:18] DeMagus1: Hmm?
[02:18] Other: those god-damned elf songs!
[02:18] DeMagus1: haha ok
[02:18] Other: pages and pages of "and the hunter frolicked through thge bunnies and old man said save the bunnies so the mirror of the magic lake reflected the happiness of the bunnies and the hunter went home to his wife a hero!"
[02:19] DeMagus1: Er
[02:19] DeMagus1: I don't quite remember that one
[02:19] Other: i mean jesus fucking christ,
[02:19] DeMagus1: Do you have a specific song or poem you're refering to?
[02:19] Other: lol
[02:19] Other: no i hate them all :)
[02:19] DeMagus1: Most of the elf songs refer to the stars, the trees, and Elbereth.. I don't know much about bunnies or hunters or anythign
[02:20] DeMagus1: There's a poem written by Bilbo (really Tolkien obviously) about one of Aragorn's ancestors if that's what you mean
[02:20] Other: ok, well like i said, i SKIPPED them after 5 or 10 lines of rubish, usually recycled rubbish from 3 pages before
[02:20] DeMagus1: Hmm... cite?
[02:20] Other: because the strength of LOTR is the canvas of the story
[02:20] Other: holy shit bubba
[02:20] DeMagus1: The only recycled thing I can think of is the hobbits' walking song, and that was done on purpose
[02:20] Other: you think im gonna go pull a copy out to support my dislike? i dont OWN any, i sell it back when im done, or i give it away!!! or i return it!!!
[02:21] Other: rycycle is not meant to mean "copy"
[02:21] Other: yeah
[02:21] Other: so i dont have any around here
[02:21] DeMagus1: Well it sounds to me like you didn't enjoy the book and that's fine... but you seem to be inventing reasons to justify your dislike of it. I mean nobody says you have to like it but don't you think what you're doing is intellectually dishonest?
[02:21] Other: i dont keep books i wont read again.
[02:21] Other: look sweety, why the hell would i need to event reasons to dislike it? i think thats a very insulting thing o say.
[02:22] DeMagus1: No, you're inventing reasons to justify your dislike. It sounds like it anyway.
[02:22] Other: i intended, originally, to go to bed after i checked my mail, and didnt really want to get into anything this in-depth.
[02:22] DeMagus1: I'm saying you're inventing them... because you don't seem to know exactly what they are
[02:22] Other: ok,
[02:22] DeMagus1: Or maybe you don't remember very clearly? I dunno.
[02:22] Other: im going to leave in a huff now,
[02:22] Other: because its 2am
[02:22] DeMagus1: If you must

[snip! left out some items of a personal nature that don't need to be repeated here]

[02:23] Other: being told i dont even have a grasp of why i dislike a book.
[02:24] DeMagus1: If I had said that I'd feel ashamed

[snip! same reason as above]

[02:24] DeMagus1: Good thing I didn't!

[snip! just this last time]

[02:24] Other: so. ahora, yo voy.
[02:24] DeMagus1: Later then
[02:24] Other: ciaooo

Now I have nothing against this individual, quite the contrary. But this is part of a larger pattern I've noticed amongst people who say they don't like LotR, whether they be well known literary critics or just your average Joe Schmoe. And that is that they affect to dislike it on intellectual grounds but when pressed to back this up with anything resembling "reason" they fall apart. I wish to make my stance on this clear and up front. There is nothing wrong with disliking a work just because you don't like it. Nothing. Don't be ashamed of it. Everyone has different likes and dislikes. But when a person claims to not like something on intellectual grounds, well, they sure as hell better be ready to cite.

There are plenty of legitimate (literary) reasons not to like LotR. I've read all sorts of them and can see the different points of view. But the people who can put their money where their mouth is are few and far between. Why is this? I'd hate to say it's the result of some sort of intellectual snobbery, where people feel they don't have to explain why a work is obviously bad because anybody who agrees will just simply know why, while those that don't are just fools who just can't see. But it's a very tempting conclusion.

The contradictions in this conversation alone intrigue me. First off, Other refers to Tolkien's writing as repulsive. Then when talking about the idea that Tolkien's work so vastly inspired most of the fantasy works that followed it, Other went on to say that this is completely normal and happens in any genre (this is a typical tactic: discrediting an achievement by making it seem commonplace). Other states that only a few "master-craftsmen" make any original work and the rest tend to just be an imitation of the style. Does Other then mean to imply that Tolkien is a master-craftsmen? And if so, why the disrespect for the work of a master-craftsmen? Surely such a position should have some sort of reason behind it. Or perhaps LotR just failed to please Other which as I stated before is a perfectly acceptable position... just not one based on reason, on logic, on intellect.

But then another sudden reversal! Other goes on to compliment Tolkien, saying he is good at writing and at telling stories. Then Other suggests that I am only elevating him based on "popular idiocy". When I question the meaning of this, Other goes on to say that I am elevating him to the "firmament of greatness" where I can only assume the other "master-craftsmen" are. So now Other suddenly implies that Tolkien is not in fact a master-craftsmen because only idiots elevate him to that level. So what did Other mean by comparing the genre-defining effects of LotR to other genre-setting works of other master-craftsmen? Alas, this was a question I was not able to ask.

I had another task before me. I had been accused of elevating Tolkien due to "popular idiocy" (by which he meant the fantasy genre as a whole), despite the fact that I do not read fantasy works in general. The arrogance in assuming that there is no reason to like Tolkien's work in and of itself (unless of course you're an idiot!) is striking to me, and certainly seems to the stance of someone who's perceiving things emotionally.

Rather than answering this as I would an insult, which would have led to a juvenile side argument, I instead attempted to counter it with facts whose very existence render the notion untenable. I mentioned interlace, his comparing/contrasting of Gondor and Rohan, and if I had been allowed to continue I would have talked about his Theory of Courage and the themes of the material world vs. spiritual freedom that abound in the poetry. Not surprisingly, this line of discussion was not pursued.

Well ok, we did touch briefly on the poetry. But not before I was accused of reading about nothing but elves and fairies, as if that's some sort of thing to be looked down upon. Anyway it's an ignorant claim and one already contradicted by a previous statement of mine. I could only flatly state that I have never read any books about fairies and leave it at that. In any event, Other went on to state his distaste for the elvish poetry. This is also a fine position: not everyone is going to like that poetry. But I couldn't make heads or tails of the mocking (naturally!) example of the poetry given. They were just nonsensical ramblings that didn't resemble any of the poetry I had read in the least. I tried to bring some sense to the discussion, remarking that most of the elvish songs (in LotR) are about the trees, the stars, and Elbereth and that these elements often do show up and for a directed and specific purpose. In literature this is often known as a theme, but I didn't have time to point that out before I was told that "recycle" didn't mean the same thing as "copy". What Other did mean by the term I will probably never know.

And this is the thing that really killed me. Other says all the poetry is recycled and can state for sure that they're about bunnies and such... but then fully admits he skipped all the poems after the fifth line or so. How can one make such a judgment under these circumstances? It's intellectually dishonest. As a result, and not surprisingly, everything he stated on the matter was objectively incorrect.

I couldn't take it anymore. I had to call him on this. If you're going to pretend that you dislike Tolkien's work on an intellectual level (as you must do if it's being discussed in literary terms) then make sure your reaction is not a purely emotional one as I can only conclude it was in this case... and most others I've encountered. Because I will call you on it. Hell, in this case I gave Other every chance to either come clean or come up with a worthwhile argument and I got neither. So I'm not sorry that he was "insulted" by what I said. I somehow managed not to be insulted when I was told my love for LotR was nothing more than the result of "popular idiocy" so it can't be that hard.

I have no respect for a subjective opinion dressed up to look like an objective logical fact. Speak your feelings, argue a stance (with reason!), or just shut the fuck up.
Previous post Next post
Up