How is The Lord of the Rings Perceived Amongst Lit. Experts?

[MorpheusSandman]

By experts I'm primarily speaking of professors and bibliophiles. I ask because the subject came up in a thread on another forum about something different but similar (anime being appreciated amongst academics in the West) and there was a disagreement over whether or not Tolkien's work is appreciated on that academic level. While I am aware of a lot of scholarly study devoted to the series (as the tremendous books about on Amazon will attest to) it seems to me that most everyone who's into what is more traditionally perceived as "great literature" is either skeptical or dismissive of it even if some praise Tolkien's achievement on a mythological level. I've heard too many complaints about his prose, for example.

But I was wondering if there's any kind of consensus on this point and what those around here think.

[Mathor]

There is a huge split among literature experts about the value of The Lord of The Rings in literature. Anyone who appreciates the works of C.S. Lewis probably also appreciates the works of J.R.R Tolkien. I would say it's about 50/50 as far as literature experts go. Some revere Tolkien as one of the greatest writers of all time, and the rest see him as merely a step above writers like Dan Brown.

As a lover of great classic literature, my personal opinion is that, yes, Tolkien is a wonderful author and deserves to be compared to such authors as Austen and Dostoevsky, but that's just my personal opinion.

[JBI]

Doubtfully 50/50 - it's only some fantasy specialists that write about it, and perhaps some linguists, or people dealing with reader response. In all honesty, most academics read within their period, and Tolkien isn't particularly relevant to any specialty besides fantasy literature.

Even then though there is a split, and, for instance, he isn't taught in the only fantasy literature course at the University of Toronto because the Prof supposedly doesn't like him.

In all honesty, the only people who really "value" literature are third rate morons writing for popular presses where they are almost told how much to praise a work, and which works to promote by the publishers, and the newspaper. Academics don't particularly "value" literature, they most likely would just write an article based on a work that is already accepted or is intended for acceptance.

Tolkien is written about, which means he is somewhere extent in academic thought, but still, one must wonder whether people actually care for his literature or not. I don't think he is particularly "loved" or "cherished" the way Wordsworth or Shakespeare are, but I guess he has attracted some attention from a variety of niche critics.

In concept thought, I doubt he is a Dickens, or Dostoevsky, so in that sense, his acceptance is essentially limited geographically to major departments of English in English speaking countries that have the expendable capital to actually fund scholarship and coursework on the text.

[Red-Headed]

You may be interested in Paul Kocher's Master of Middle Earth, The Achievement of J.R.R. Tolkien (ISBN 0 14 00.3877 9).

I would also recommend reading C.S. Lewis: Essay Collection & Other Short Pieces (ISBN 0 00 628157 5).

[mal4mac]

Which literature experts "revere Tolkien as one of the greatest writers of all time"? The views I've encountered range from outright dismissal to lukewarm acceptance.

[Kutta]

Tolkien is an interesting case because he's got a debated literary prowess and an unquestionably huge cultural influence.

I'm not sure it's possible in the long run that a bad work turns out to be influential; prior to the 20th century I can't recall an example. At least, more than 50 years have passed since LotR and it's still a household name.

[Red-Headed]

Which literature experts "revere Tolkien as one of the greatest writers of all time"? The views I've encountered range from outright dismissal to lukewarm acceptance.

Reputedly Auden loved it when it was first published but I think he was a minority in the UK. It seemed to become popular with the hippy generation of the sixties.

[JBI]

Reputedly Auden loved it when it was first published but I think he was a minority in the UK. It seemed to become popular with the hippy generation of the sixties.

To an extent - the real fame comes from the movies, and a sort of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome where people are either afraid to criticize it, or praise it without reading it.

[kelby_lake]

The fantasy genre as a whole is quite niche; a sort of love it or hate it. If a literary critic was at all interested in that genre, I would think that he would promote Tolkein as being skilled at the genre. Outside of those people, I doubt it much enters their minds.

[stlukesguild]

Tolkien is an interesting case because he's got a debated literary prowess and an unquestionably huge cultural influence.

I'm not sure it's possible in the long run that a bad work turns out to be influential; prior to the 20th century I can't recall an example.

Of course one might consider that the audience... those who can actually read... has changed vastly from the past... and the mass public is now the most important audience base for most art forms... at least in terms of financial success, sales, etc... I believe that anyone specializing in literature of a given era can cite examples of mediocre or even bad works of literature that were a huge success... but in most cases this is but for a limited period of time. A work of literature becomes "canonized"... it would seem... through the support of the literary "experts" (academics, critics, etc...), the educated reader, or subsequent generations of writers. The literary merit of some works in acknowledged primarily upon the basis of the opinions of the "experts" and the later writers. Finnegan's Wake would be such an example. In spite of its high acclaim, doubt it will ever be a book simply enjoyed by the common educated reader. A book like The Three Musketeers would seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum. For all its flaws... and it certainly is not held in high esteem among critics, academics, or most writers... it still maintains a great degree of admiration among the common reader so that one must nearly afford it (albeit grudgingly) the rank of a minor classic. It The Lord of the Rings survives, it will be in a similar manner... with a fan base largely among younger readers and lovers of science fiction/fantasy. Such, at least, are my thoughts.

At least, more than 50 years have passed since LotR and it's still a household name.

Of course... within our culture of mass media support for what sells, 50 years is a short period of time. But in the end, the only real question of any merit is "do YOU like it?" regardless of what others may think.

To an extent - the real fame comes from the movies...

Perhaps the movies had an impact upon the resurgent interest in the books... but seriously, The Lord of the Rings were quite popular reading when I was in high-school (well before the films) and well before that. Undoubtedly, Hollywood turned to the books because they recognized a large guaranteed audience base.

[JBI]

The fantasy genre as a whole is quite niche; a sort of love it or hate it. If a literary critic was at all interested in that genre, I would think that he would promote Tolkein as being skilled at the genre. Outside of those people, I doubt it much enters their minds.

The problem with fantasy though is not genre, it's the writers - it's hard to name five phenomenal ones who consider themselves "fantasy authors" and who are writing for adults.

[JCamilo]

Yeah, that ellection of LoTR as the main english novel of XX was prior to the movies. Which were a huge best-seller, which is a form to say that once upon a time, a best-seller was not simplistic or dumb hollywoodian realism (as we can discuss if Tolkien failed or not, but no that he wrote a book meant to be easily read with all geography, the Tom Bombadil non-sense, the elf songs, etc).

I like to think there is a room for Dracula, Lord of the Ring, Dumas, Kings Solomon Mines, Agatha Christies, some obvious minor writers, even cliche writers or something similar that, we can at least, see they do communicate with other better works as much as the plain dumb copies.

[JBI]

Yeah, that ellection of LoTR as the main english novel of XX was prior to the movies. Which were a huge best-seller, which is a form to say that once upon a time, a best-seller was not simplistic or dumb hollywoodian realism (as we can discuss if Tolkien failed or not, but no that he wrote a book meant to be easily read with all geography, the Tom Bombadil non-sense, the elf songs, etc).

I like to think there is a room for Dracula, Lord of the Ring, Dumas, Kings Solomon Mines, Agatha Christies, some obvious minor writers, even cliche writers or something similar that, we can at least, see they do communicate with other better works as much as the plain dumb copies.

You telling me you got through Lord of the Rings without problems? The guy is more boring than Edward Said.

[Dinkleberry2010]

I was an English major in college, and in all the English courses I took, Tolkien was not even mentioned, much less discussed. As far as academia goes, I think Tolkien is on the same level as Ray Bradbury. One can take a so-called pop course and study any number of science fiction and fantasy writers ranging from Asimov to Tolkien.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes The Lord of the Rings is one of those cult favourites, usually with a fan big base amongst teenage boys. It is a popular fantasy adventure story, but from my point of view can’t be taken seriously as substantial literature. For me the quality of writing is just not really good enough and structurally it contains too many flaws. It has more merit than other some other fantasy novels due to it being influential in the field, but that is about it.

Personally, as an inexperience teenage reader I enjoyed it, and on some level it properly fuelled me onto reading more things, for that I am grateful, but it is not something that I would at all touch today. Neither do I think that it will ever be regarded as a classic text on merit, other than a popularist classic. However passionately people might feel about this book, and it is a book that seems to fuel real passion, the quality of the work is just not really that good enough if you examine it dispassionately and honestly.

[Red-Headed]

To an extent - the real fame comes from the movies, and a sort of Emperor's New Clothes syndrome where people are either afraid to criticize it, or praise it without reading it.

They've made a movie? :eek:

[JCamilo]

You telling me you got through Lord of the Rings without problems? The guy is more boring than Edward Said.

No, no problem at all, specially if you consider that I have read 3 times (2 in portuguese, then I read in the english version and it was a PDF). I did not found boring, well maybe today I would, but today I am in a anti-100 pages mode. Problems? Yes, I could see all the breakdown with traditional narrative, the pace, the songs... Well, If I could point a book that I consider a bit good from Tolkien is Silmarilion, not the LoTR books. But I can see those problems with Dumas also and I can see Tolkien is not a typical best-seller product from the industry of fantasy such as those AD&D novels.
Something is obviously there, maybe when the fan cult ends, something good will survive. I think for example, his geography is better than Lewis allegory.

[MorpheusSandman]

It's odd but it seems to me, in my experience, that LotR, despite being a work of literature, is much more a masterpiece of the powers of a focused imagination rather than of the expressive power of language. Much of the scholarly attention LotR receives are by those interested in, for example, mythology. But what does that say about it as a work of art? If it's not a masterpiece on the standards of its medium (literature) but is a masterpiece on other levels that aren't inherent in that medium but which it can be judged on, where does it actually stand?

I think this is relevant because the thread that inspired this one is about a highly acclaimed, influential, (in)famous and notoriously sophisticated (or pretentious depending on who you ask) anime series called Neon Genesis Evangelion. The series consists of 26, 1/2 hour long TV format episodes and a concluding feature film. The hybrid nature of it combined with the extreme bias against "serious" animation in the West makes it a tough fit in academic circles because it lacks a niche the way that Shakespeare has with English lit or Citizen Kane does with film. LotR, similarly, would fit into lit but it seems its achievements are on a level that makes that fit awkward.

Any thoughts?

[JCamilo]

I know Evangelion, it is a great movie (being in 26 episodes and animated as it was), with interesting allegories. Not the best out, but very good.

Now I thought literature was the power of imagination expressed by language. And I think most scholars are not going to seek mythology on Lord of the Rings, even Tolkien would find it funny, because he knew he was writing a modern day romance, and not something mythological, which demands a form of thinking from an entire society to exists...

[Night_Lamp]

The fantasy course here at UWO includes Tolkien, but usually only one volume of the series. This is more for length's sake than to devalue the work. He was an amazingly creative writer, but some times four pages to describe a tree can get to be a little much.

[Lokasenna]

Right, firstly let me emphasise the fact that I am NOT some raving fanboy. I am half-way through an MA in Medieval and Renaissance Literature at one of the UK's best universities, and I specialise in Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon literature.

Firstly, I would disagree with labelling Tolkein as a 'fantasy' author - I would argue that he came at the tail-end of the Victorian period's Medieval renaissance, when the texts of northern antiquity became rather popular, and plenty of attempts were made to adapt/re-imagine them. Tolkein, as a formidable Medieval scholar, fits into this, both in terms of his critical literature and his own writings.

Every single medievalist I've studied under, and I'll name drop in case anyone wants to look up their credentials (Rory McTurk, Andrew Wawn, Catherine Batt, Martin Arnold, David Ashurst and John McKinnell, and others), consider Tolkein a) a great writer, and b) worth studying. Indeed, Rory and Andrew have both written academically on Tolkein, and so have others such as Tom Shippey and Ármann Jakobsson who I have yet to have the pleasure of studying with.

I cannot speak for other departments within the scope of English literary studies, but amongst medievalists it is very, very unusual to find a dissenting voice. Tolkein casts a very long shadow over our area! In that respect, he may not be to everyone's taste, but he is absolutely worth studying!

[Red-Headed]

In a lecture at the University of St Andrews at about the time he was starting to write LOTR Tolkien discussed the varying views & types of 'fantasy' writing. He described his own method as sub-creating. Unlike our primary world of daily empirical fact; fantasy world's of the imagination should be internally consistent as well as full of 'strangeness & wonder'. Tolkien intended to recreate a mythology that he believed had disappeared in the Western world. Borrowing from many mythologies & particularly Snorri Sturluson & the Prose Edda he created an epic that was true to his own principles. Although a great scholar & a very learned man anyway, this was no mean achievement. It has never been equalled. Unfortunately the genre suffers from a similar syndrome to much science fiction. It just isn't taken seriously by many because they don't consider it to be sophisticated enough to be taken seriously.

I read LOTR when I was about twenty & in many ways I suppose it did transport me back to my childhood in some fashion & allow me a little bit of that 'strangeness & wonder'. & to be totally honest I was quite grateful to the bloke for being able to do that to a cynical Dostoyevsky & Nietzsche reading malcontent that I was then (& now). There are more philosophical & psychological themes in LOTR than at first meets the eye & Tolkien knew that an audience will quickly tire of something that they cannot relate to or recognise a good deal of themselves in. I think that Tolkien did in fact achieve this in LOTR in a way Joseph Campbell often lectured & wrote about. George Lucas did a similar thing cinematically with his Star Wars space opera saga.

At the end of the day, many academics just can't take anything seriously that has elves or little green men in! Which I think is a bit of a shame.

[MorpheusSandman]

I know Evangelion, it is a great movie (being in 26 episodes and animated as it was), with interesting allegories. Not the best out, but very good.I'm curious as to what you consider better. I've been watching anime for more than a decade and I haven't seen anything that achieves its level of brilliance.


George Lucas did a similar thing cinematically with his Star Wars space opera saga.
The interesting thing about SW within film is that even though many dislike how it revolutionized marketing and the ideas of creating cinematic franchise phenomenons it's also highly praised in terms of its technical achievements. The visual effects are infamous, but its sound design and use of music has perhaps been even more important to film.

[The Comedian]

I liked it, from a literary and an entertainment standpoint. Of course, I love romances (classically defined), so I was sort of sold from the get-go.

[Red-Headed]

but its sound design and use of music has perhaps been even more important to film.

Yes, with more than a nod to a certain Herr Wilhelm Richard Wagner.

[LitNetIsGreat]

It's odd but it seems to me, in my experience, that LotR, despite being a work of literature, is much more a masterpiece of the powers of a focused imagination rather than of the expressive power of language. Much of the scholarly attention LotR receives are by those interested in, for example, mythology. But what does that say about it as a work of art? If it's not a masterpiece on the standards of its medium (literature) but is a masterpiece on other levels that aren't inherent in that medium but which it can be judged on, where does it actually stand?

I think this is relevant because the thread that inspired this one is about a highly acclaimed, influential, (in)famous and notoriously sophisticated (or pretentious depending on who you ask) anime series called Neon Genesis Evangelion. The series consists of 26, 1/2 hour long TV format episodes and a concluding feature film. The hybrid nature of it combined with the extreme bias against "serious" animation in the West makes it a tough fit in academic circles because it lacks a niche the way that Shakespeare has with English lit or Citizen Kane does with film. LotR, similarly, would fit into lit but it seems its achievements are on a level that makes that fit awkward.

Any thoughts?


Right, firstly let me emphasise the fact that I am NOT some raving fanboy. I am half-way through an MA in Medieval and Renaissance Literature at one of the UK's best universities, and I specialise in Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon literature.

Firstly, I would disagree with labelling Tolkein as a 'fantasy' author - I would argue that he came at the tail-end of the Victorian period's Medieval renaissance, when the texts of northern antiquity became rather popular, and plenty of attempts were made to adapt/re-imagine them. Tolkein, as a formidable Medieval scholar, fits into this, both in terms of his critical literature and his own writings.

Every single medievalist I've studied under, and I'll name drop in case anyone wants to look up their credentials (Rory McTurk, Andrew Wawn, Catherine Batt, Martin Arnold, David Ashurst and John McKinnell, and others), consider Tolkein a) a great writer, and b) worth studying. Indeed, Rory and Andrew have both written academically on Tolkein, and so have others such as Tom Shippey and Ármann Jakobsson who I have yet to have the pleasure of studying with.

I cannot speak for other departments within the scope of English literary studies, but amongst medievalists it is very, very unusual to find a dissenting voice. Tolkein casts a very long shadow over our area! In that respect, he may not be to everyone's taste, but he is absolutely worth studying!

I'm very interested in these two posts, but I'm running a little short of time at the present. However I would just like to Lokasenna about the actual quality of the text, the writing style, the structure, the characterisation which for me just doesn't go passed the moderate. For example the novel clearly starts as something along the lines of The Hobbit, more of a children's work, but then suddenly becomes darker and the language a little different, to suit a slightly older age if you like, you could argue that this was intentional, but to me it entirely feels as if Tolkien started a children's story and then after about a third of the way through the first book suddenly decided to change his mind and write something different. The whole feel of this is just not very convincing to give the work a feeling of "completeness".

Structurally, throughout, he seems to switch to and from light and dark sequences, which feels far too contrived and a little sort of tedious after a while - it just feels a little obvious, a little textbook and not particularly well crafted. I would also argue that his prose and characterisation is patchy at best, certainly not something I would call great writing, or post as an example of fine style.

So I am interested in the positions of your tutors and your thoughts on these sorts of criticisms to the work as a whole. Perhaps they praise the text along the lines as Morpheus suggests, classifying its value via different categories which we would normally ascribe to a work of literature - for example in understanding something in relation to medieval literature, but not necessarily how we would assess the value of a work normally (however subject those criteria’s are)?

[Jozanny]

Morpheus,

Most of the other posters who responded are more current than I can pretend to be, and I read the series a very long time ago, before cinema abused the text, but I have read studies on LOTR and the problem of evil, and some writing teachers consider it exceptional as a genre.

I personally think Tolkein touches upon the evocative pull of a psychic mythos--or that his franchise has much to do about the constructs of mythology in the Western psyche, but none of my professors ever mentioned him.

[JCamilo]

I'm very interested in these two posts, but I'm running a little short of time at the present. However I would just like to Lokasenna about the actual quality of the text, the writing style, the structure, the characterisation which for me just doesn't go passed the moderate. For example the novel clearly starts as something along the lines of The Hobbit, more of a children's work, but then suddenly becomes darker and the language a little different, to suit a slightly older age if you like, you could argue that this was intentional, but to me it entirely feels as if Tolkien started a children's story and then after about a third of the way through the first book suddenly decided to change his mind and write something different. The whole feel of this is just not very convincing to give the work a feeling of "completeness".


You just need to read Tolkien letters to answer any doubt you had. LoTR started as a sequel of Hobbit for children. Alongside the project, Tolkien was fascinated with the world creation and wanted to convice the editors to publish what would be Simarillion. However, the editors found that idea not good for market but gave him hope in case it was somehow supporting the other project. At that point, Tolkien got motivate to write an entire story to wrap up his project and publish both, so the theme change and also the target, but he ended keeping the material because he considered that would suit the transformation of the hobbits and the descend in the darkness of the story. The editors never published Simarillion, Tolkien never finished it, and there goes story...

MorpheusSadman:

Do you count the time you had contact with a medium? I would think my memory would organize it better without a calendar...
Cowboy Beebop is superior in pure cinematographic terms, RG Utena in alegorical storytelling, Lain is as good in philosophical terms, and this is without bringing Miasaki on the discussion.

[Red-Headed]

The editors never published Simarillion, Tolkien never finished it, and there goes story...

It was eventually published (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silmarillion) in 1977 however. It is hard work to read though in my opinion!

[LitNetIsGreat]

You just need to read Tolkien letters to answer any doubt you had. LoTR started as a sequel of Hobbit for children. Alongside the project, Tolkien was fascinated with the world creation and wanted to convice the editors to publish what would be Simarillion. However, the editors found that idea not good for market but gave him hope in case it was somehow supporting the other project. At that point, Tolkien got motivate to write an entire story to wrap up his project and publish both, so the theme change and also the target, but he ended keeping the material because he considered that would suit the transformation of the hobbits and the descend in the darkness of the story. The editors never published Simarillion, Tolkien never finished it, and there goes story...


Oh yes is that right, I didn't know the history, but it certainly shows in the text and adds to weaken the work as a whole a little. There are other flaws and problems that I have with it (besides what I posted about, the whole thing about the structure, the writing style and characterisation) and one of them is the whole Tom Bombadil episode? I think that at this stage it is still intended for children though, so I suppose you could counter criticisms of this episode a little due to that, but on the whole, not with much conviction I feel - it's still weak.

You see, I just can't rate this work beyond average, maybe our friend Loka can throw a little light on it from his perspective later, I'm certainly open to new angles, but for me it is just not a good or great work and that is all there is to it.

Edit to that: I'm not saying that it is awful, sure he paints nature in a good light and it is enjoyable in its own way for some, but as the thread is about its merits as a great work of literature then I would surely say no.

[JBI]

Morpheus,

Most of the other posters who responded are more current than I can pretend to be, and I read the series a very long time ago, before cinema abused the text, but I have read studies on LOTR and the problem of evil, and some writing teachers consider it exceptional as a genre.

I personally think Tolkein touches upon the evocative pull of a psychic mythos--or that his franchise has much to do about the constructs of mythology in the Western psyche, but none of my professors ever mentioned him.

I think you have a problem with confusing mythology with classical detached notions. Henry James is just as big a mythologist as Tolkien, the only difference is he isn't using obscure layering.

The way I understand mythology, in the classical sense, is that it uses metaphor as an interpretation of the surrounding world - in that sense, Tolkien's mythology is really using dated metaphors, and relocating them in an unnatural setting.

In the Turn of the Screw for instance, James is playing just as much with cultural mythology as Homer was for the Greeks - the only difference is the understanding of the world in Homer's time was different than in James'.

Tolkien, for me, seems not to do that - his borrowing of Norse and other traditions seems to me a little too removed, and lacking in metaphorical capacity - the environmental movement seems to have redefined his mythology within their terms, but even that seems like an unnatural removal - Dr. Seus' The Lorax would seem to touch far more deeply on that movement.

If I were to root the text as a sort of cultural mythology, my obvious link would be toward Merry old England, etc. But even then - well, we could for instance link the text to the pastoral English model that is exemplified in Beatrix Potter and others, and that was promoted by George MacDonald (an author who was a direct influence on Tolkien) and ironized yet expanded upon by Lord Dunsany (another influence on Tolkien), and combined with both Medieval chivalric traditions - notably Arthurian-genred literature, and also older source work (Northern European mythology) to create a sort of lopsided hybrid.

For the post-wars period, how can that be interpreted - Larkin for instance marks the First World War as the death of what came before it in terms of English history - he seemed to believe that England had lost its meaning after that point, and the whole country and culture were in decay. Eliot writing between the wars seemed preoccupied with the impotence and meaninglessness of the new culture.

Across the board you get other interesting things - the world pushes toward a new understanding of itself, even in places as different as India, Japan, England and Brazil. In what vein then is Tolkien writing in? What cultural mythology is he really building upon - in what sense does the myth reflect the consciousness of the public.

The book to me feels like it was written as an archaism, if such a silly archaism could exist. The language is rooted in dead source, the concept, metaphor, plot, theme - it all seems to be rotten and decaying the Middle Earth throughout the novel. The departure of the Elves and Frodo at the end (sorry for ruining the ending, haha) would seem to reflect the whole idea of these concepts being rooted in an earlier consciousness.


That's the problem I find with the fantasy genre as a whole - metaphorically it doesn't work within a particularly wide cultural frame very often. Le Guin makes it work, and a few other works make it work, but on the whole, the genre seems to be the preoccupation of unhappy adolescent males who fringe within the world's cultural understanding of them into a mythology where, I would argue, they feel empowered over those who reject them - namely women and more capable people than themselves.

The whole concept of the genre after Tolkien seems to have taken that route - from Terry Brooks who is nearly plagiarizing in his first books, to Feist who in his major work Magician seems to be playing on the concept I outlined above - the lowborn talentless (lame?) bastard (I use this in the contexted denotative sense as the book has a "medieval" design in setting) ends up becoming the most powerful magician, vanquishing those who stood in the way, and saving the beautiful, pure, talented, smart slave girl from the clutches of evil, to become the savior of the world, with the saved damsel in distress under his perfectly competent protective ward.

Brooks' later work also would seem to head in that direction - his second major novel, The Elfstones of Shannara seems to construct a similar line of hero rising to savior getting the girl, returning back. The misogyny is less thick in this, but the Tolkien influence by this point is starting to ebb.


It would seem that from Tolkien, only the cliché background setting really seems to have stuck in the end - the reintroduction of the damsel in distress seems to have become more forfronted and the actual detail of setting seems to have begun to ebb, in favor of convention.

This is perhaps best illustrated in the works of the late Robert Jordan, who started off in his first book nearly plagiarizing Tolkien, as many do, but then slowly heading toward a text rooted in what could only be called an understanding of the world as seen through Americanism as a universal school of thought (this isn't my idea, it actually was used to praise the book by a review in I believe the New York Times several years ago). The focus on relationships, amongst youths - fitting again the cultural preoccupations of the reading demographic, is mixed with a focus on different cultural traditions colliding (essentially a variant of travel literature caught up within a rather obscured yet fast moving perspective, where "real-life" traditions are sort of meshed to create new "writable" hybrids) and then finally a global war on what can be described as "terror" or the enemy - essentially a cold-war mentality of anybody and everybody possibly being untrustworthy and working for the enemy - where random people pop out of nowhere and try to execute you, and even your best friend can stab you in the dark - it seems a very exaggerated mentality, but I see the point of it, and I wouldn't doubt its "real-life" connections in mythologized form.


What Tolkien then represents is a sort of pre-modern nostalgia mythology anachronistic in composition, and dated in delivery - whereas Hardy took things back a few generations and commented on things - his mythology was still Victorian and post-Victorian in opinion - Tolkien's doesn't fit, as it is both 300 years dated (the Hobbit living would seem to reflect Goldsmith's village before desertion) and 800 years dated in the main plotline, which is very out of place, yet doesn't try to yield toward place the way other books do (rarely in fantasy). Nobility in Tolkien I would argue is not noble in terms of character, but sees nobility as it perhaps was seen then - as hereditary. the way of thought is kind of backward, and the way things are presented is kind of unnatural in our setting.

In terms of mythology, what does that mean though, it being a work of post-war fiction? Many have taken it as an allegory of World War 2, but even that to me sounds suspicious - to me, it seems the work of a bored, kind of wacko professor, whose quirky obsessions with the past seem to have solidified into a mesh of almost laughable narrative, where all the stale qualities are exemplified for the sake of trying to be like some long dead saga-master. The only difference is, the sagas then were fluid - they were written and passed naturally, whereas Tolkien's was anachronistically contrived, and done with far too much detail to make the reading consistently interesting.

[Red-Headed]

& of course, there is always parody. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_of_the_Rings)

[Jozanny]

Well, I guess I stepped in it, which goes to show I might not have posted at all when I had so little to add to Tolkein's currency (sigh) :)

JBI, my dear young friend, I seem to recall that I read everything I cannot remember, including my mega-doses of then contemporary sci-fi, when I was 14, which cannot be right, but I read LOTR before my college years. I have no desire to read all five novels again, not out of dislike, but because I'm not interested.

I got it the first time--that said, I treat Tolkein more seriously than Rowling, whatever his flaws, and I think his narrative voice touches upon the dynamic interplay between legend and how legend is recognized by a society with its necessary triggers needed to understand the narrative. He might have written the Book of Daniel, or Revelations--the intonations are similar.

I have actually studied James for a long time, and have better tools at my disposal to support what I think. I will now step out of the way and allow you to toss the entire series into the fiery volcano through which it was formed so that Upper Earth can resume its idyllic balance.

[Scheherazade]

I read Tolkien in my 30s and cannot see its charm for the life of me. I quite enjoyed Hobit but LOTR is really doin' me 'ead in. I cannot get into the story, cannot remember all the characters and all the fantastic places created. Every now and then, I pick up a copy and give it another try but each time I toss it aside thinking I can read couple of "worthier" books in the time it would take me to read those Yellow Pages sized volumes.

PS1:I ain't no Litrachure expert.

PS2: No Literature experts have been harmed in the making of this post.

[JCamilo]

Oh yes is that right, I didn't know the history, but it certainly shows in the text and adds to weaken the work as a whole a little. There are other flaws and problems that I have with it (besides what I posted about, the whole thing about the structure, the writing style and characterisation) and one of them is the whole Tom Bombadil episode? I think that at this stage it is still intended for children though, so I suppose you could counter criticisms of this episode a little due to that, but on the whole, not with much conviction I feel - it's still weak.

Bombadil, eehh. It is indeed easy to find the flaws. Bombadil is obviously one of those, it is awkward his part in the book. He was one of the earlier creations of Tolkien, he wrote a poem or a short story mocking a teacher, among his friends it was as sucess, so he decided to revive the character. Obviously, Bombadil is all strange, unlike almost everything, Tolkien never explains it and actually jokes saying that all stories have something misterious unexplained (he is not exactly wrong here, but since he was writing a modern romance, it sounded very odd).

The flaws of LoTR are obvious. It is strange the duality between an old thinking in his attempt to write what should be an epic and the romance format. Tolkien poetry had no flow, probally sounded better in elfic, since he invented it.
One of the flaws however I think should not be counted. The slow and dense narrative. It is actually the only possible solution. One of the differences of a myth and a romance is exactly what Tolkien faced: mythology is not the stories only, but a form of belief and relation with the universe. You had believe in those symbols (I would not say metaphors) even before they are turned in language or stories. They belong to a culture. The best that stories do is using the symbols, the so called archetypes or the themes. Tolkien is unable to to do, as much as any other modern writer. He had to explain, otherwise his world would not sense as something real, with a background and logic behind it. Since his work is a justification for this creation, rather than the story itself, asking him for a simple narrative was asking for something obvious. No wonder it is so easy to use Tolkien to all those Dungeon and Dragons and fantasy pastiche.
If we compare with Robert E.Howard we have a work where the world and history is meaningless but the character, Conan, survive in any encarnation. Frodo, Aragorn, Gandalf, Sauron can only exist in tolkien, since they are just basic characters, without the LoTR they misses individuality. Unlike Conan, who you can throw in any place and sustain his individuality (nothing special about it, but both have somehow links).
I do not care about Fantasy, I am not enemy of genres, neither of Ants. If I think of Tolkien I think Finnegans Wake and how they both used similar notions, the particular mythology, the language, except to make it real, Joyce took it back to a level maybe previously of language, hence it is superior.
I do not think any kind of light, or even the importance given by a group of medievalists - Tolkien being one of them - will make LoTR look much better or much worse. I recall someone, who, Emerson? I dunno, who said a book should be read only 100 years after his publishing, oh well. Something good is with Tolkien, better than most,because he is a best-seller that should not be. Cannt say everything, maybe Tolkien effort, obvious erudition, the risk he took, are resposable for the book continual reading. Even if most of the fans do not perceive it.
And we had Conan Doyle, Stoker, Dumas, etc who had similar effects.

[MorpheusSandman]

@Neely:


However I would just like to Lokasenna about the actual quality of the text, the writing style, the structure, the characterisation which for me just doesn't go passed the moderate.If you want to break it down it could be said what we're talking about is the quality of Tolkien's prose and narrative composition. It's in these two essential elements that I think LotR is, at best, a mediocre work of literature and fiction and perhaps the reason it is often dismissed as literature.


Structurally, throughout, he seems to switch to and from light and dark sequences, which feels far too contrived and a little sort of tedious after a while -For me it's not the light/dark but the repetitive and monotony of the narrative; long descriptions of the environment the characters are walking through, talking sequence, action sequence, lather, rinse, repeat. Tolkien also runs into the problem of having to find new ways to say the same damn thing (how many words are there for "mountain" and "valley"?). I also think LotR is too strained in reaching for epic status. The Hobbit had a wit and ease to it that was sorely lacking in LotR, IMO.

@Jozanny


before cinema abused the text,.FWIW I vastly prefer Jackson's cinematic adaptation to Tolkien's books. For someone like myself who values cinema and literature equally as arts I think I can say without much bias that (I fell, at least) the LotR films work better as cinema than the LotR books work as literature. Jackson's production is on a similarly phenomenal achievement level as Tolkien's mythology. And I actually found that so many of the problems I had with the novel (Tolkien's attempt to be vivid in prose) actually "popped" when it actually became visual.

@JCamilo


Do you count the time you had contact with a medium?Not sure what you mean here... I simply know many say "X is the best Y ever" when they've had very little experience with Y. I'm certainly not an Otaku by any means, but I've seen my fair share of anime.


Cowboy Beebop is superior in pure cinematographic terms,The Bebop VS Evangelion comparisons come up often and I always say the same thing; Bebop is well-crafted but ultimately vacuous entertainment - the anime equivalent of a Tarantino film. Even if we compare the cinematic style and lexicon this becomes obvious; Bebop is really slick, featuring a lot of "ooh cool" moments (such as its shaky cam) that tends to stand out and call attention to itself as being cool. Yet, much like the rest of the series, it's all surface. After multiple viewings it comes across is rather ostentatious and shallow.

NGE, by comparison, is incredibly sophisticated in its cinematic language. Instead of resorting to superficial style Anno uses subtle but subtextually loaded compositions and frames and an adeptness at montage and editing that recalls Eisenstein's theories. This is something I didn't even really notice until around my third viewing, and it's a testament to how subtly brilliant but pervasive Anno's auteurism is.

Simply put: I utterly disagree with that assertion.


RG Utena in alegorical storytelling, Lain is as good in philosophical terms, and this is without bringing Miasaki on the discussion.I've yet to see Utena since it's almost impossible to find on DVD now, but I've heard that it's almost a Shojo version of NGE. Lain I love as a representation of surrealism in anime, and yet its philosophy turns out to be rather shallow within the context of the anime itself; NGE has much greater volume (breadth and depth). I assume you mean Miyazaki, in which case it's a bit unfair to compare an entire filmography to one work; but Miyazaki is often deep but fairly limited in breadth. That's natural given the scope of a series compared to feature film, but you certainly won't find me saying anything bad about perhaps the finest anime director ever.

@JBI


I think you have a problem with confusing mythology with classical detached notions. Henry James is just as big a mythologist as Tolkien, the only difference is he isn't using obscure layering. The way I understand mythology, in the classical sense, is that it uses metaphor as an interpretation of the surrounding world - in that sense, Tolkien's mythology is really using dated metaphors, and relocating them in an unnatural setting.What a superb post, JBI! I read it all but only feel confident enough to discuss a small part of it.

When I think of "mythology" I think of it under this definition:

"A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes."

I know many use the term liberally and talk about how, say, Dickens "mythologizes" the England of his time, but for me it's too liberal a use of the term. When I think of LotR and its mythology I think of how Tolkien single-handedly crafted not just the 'origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes' of the mythology (which is typical) but he created the 'people' it was relevant to as well. Plus, the breadth and depth of that mythology is staggering, and to think it all came from the imagination of one person is almost unfathomable to me.

FWIW I know Tolkien openly stated LotR was not meant to be symbolic or an allegory of any kind as he despised such things. He primarily intended to just be a pure fantasy adventure. It makes me wonder what inspired him to take it from just being an insulated fantasy adventure into an enormous world full of a fleshed-out history of its inhabitants and of the places/creatures in it.

[JBI]

For the above post - my definition from the OED doesn't give even close to as limited a scope (I am using the second edition, not sure where you got that definition from) and seems to stress more that myth is a cultural understanding of itself:

Myth for instance is defined as such:



A purely fictitious narrative usually involving supernatural persons, actions, or events, and embodying some popular idea concerning natural or historical phenomena.
Properly distinguished from allegory and from legend (which implies a nucleus of fact) but often used vaguely to include any narrative having fictitious elements.


Whereas mythology, in the closest sense to our conversation, is defined as such:



A body of myths, esp. that relating to a particular person, or belonging to the religious literature or tradition of a country or people.


In terms of my definition, I seem to take it from a reading of Northrop Frye, who seems to view literature as a form of mythology, with, in the West, a biblical mythology hovering over the whole thing.

I think James as a mythologist and Dickens as a mythologist are far more apt than Tolkien as one - the whole "mythopoeic" genre that Tolkien coined (the word is his original coinage) would seem to be a rather anachronistic construction - it functions neither as allegory, mythology, or cultural metaphor - it is detached, dated and dry.

Dickens in Bleak House to me creates the opposite - the sensibility of the novel seems to work as a long winded metaphor for the whole Victorian age that spawns it - the Spontaneous Combustion of Krook, and with it, the secret to the answer of the case, a metaphor for the whole era in itself.

Of course, Dickens would be less of a mythologist, and more of a Satirist to my eyes - Tennyson would seem the closest to a Mythologist - everybody knows his mythological poems stand for the time they are written in. As for Tolkien, I doubt he is particularly apt at mythologizing in the sense that Pynchon seems to have formed a mythology for the 1980s in literature.


Perhaps the so called environmental movement is looking for a mythology, and will turn to Tolkien - I doubt it somehow, given that it is a very violent narrative, and very problematic in other regards. Perhaps Eco-criticism will revive it, if it takes off as a major branch of literary criticism, but even so, there are far stronger texts even in that vein.

[MorpheusSandman]

I really don't want this to turn into a debate over semantics. I took my definition from the American Heritage dictionary that you can read HERE. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mythology?o=100084&qsrc=2871&l=dir)

While I can understand what you're saying I think there is a distinct difference in what Tolkien did with regard to creating a fictional world with its own set of mythologies rather than creating mythology as a perspective on things already in existence. While it's true he drew the bulk of his inspiration from mythology that already existed he assimilated it into an entirely different world.

[JCamilo]

Those definitions are flawed. Mythology is not literature (it is anterior to literature, so however define it as such is just unable to understand that writing is too young and that Homer sung not wrote) and neither just a particular set of histories, as much as of attitude, explanations of the universe, social organization and costumes. It is like reducing Religion to just the books or Science to the theories.

Tolkien didnt created mythology, he create a fictional universe where people are suppossed to have a particular mythology. He gave some details of it, but no different from Lovecraft or Robert E.Howard. If someone searches Tolkien after mythology they will be doing a mistake, if they search for a modern manifestation of certain mythology, they are aiming correctly.

A side note, Utena have nothing to do with Evangelion. It is about faery tales, not religion. The story is about an individual, not the human species. Only if people consider the difficulty of interpretation. Which should be said about Lain as well.

Calling Bebop something swallow is forgetting that cinema as medium is not just a narrative experience, but a art-visual one. Bebop in this term is unlike anyone, the combination of music and narrative -as simple it is, but simplicity is a key in narratives. It is not always the alegory the best text - and bebop narrative is unmatched, even if we consider it is well done in Eva.
It is not that deep the religious allegory for Eva as you suggest. Neither the secret organization theme that manipulate earth. In fact, one of the strength of the anime is the humor reggarding the use of steryotipes to get otakus when they are not expecting. But that is not saying that for several reasons, Eva final is confusing because the problem with money and with this way the series loses a bit of breath at the end.
Miyazaki should be in the question, does not matter how much good animes he produced, it is like you saying that we can not talk about Rimbaud in the same topic that we talk about Wordsworth, because one produced for a few years and other a lifetime.
Anyways, there is no need of deeper message, philosophical games, etc. It is a matter of aesthetic combination, and while Eva is good, Bebop is just superior, as still superior to almost anything done since then.

[MorpheusSandman]

Those definitions are flawed. Mythology is not literature it is anterior to literature... Tolkien didnt created mythology, he create a fictional universe where people are suppossed to have a particular mythology.Again, we're back to semantics; whether it is an actual mythology or not doesn't negate the fact that Tolkien a representation of a mythology for the context of his fictional universe. I'm not extremely familiar with Lovecraft or Howard but I find it hard to imagine they crafted anything as detailed as Tolkien's Middle Earth.


A side note, Utena have nothing to do with Evangelion. It is about faery tales, not religion. The story is about an individual, not the human species.I know Utena has nothing to do with NGE, the comparison is does things with Shojo standards similarly to how NGE did with Shounen standards. NGE isn't about religion either, and it's very much about its individuals (even if they are relatable to humanity as a whole).


Calling Bebop something swallow is forgetting that cinema as medium is not just a narrative experience, but a art-visual one.I'm a cinephile; this is something I don't forget. While moving images can be used to do things besides narrate and tell stories (it's also about the aesthetics), both NGE and Bebop are clearly in the narrative vein and in discussing how they use their respective visual language to narrate their respective stories it becomes clear that NGE is much more sophisticated than Bebop. Bebop has a ton of style; it draws inspiration from noirs, Westerns, and cinematic/anime past with a "hip" jazz soundtrack to make it all very cool (daddy-o). With NGE everything is used much more substantial.

I mean, if we're just going to talk about the surface art and visuals then any modern series will best both, or even big-budget anime films. Even something like Akira (which preceded both) with its intricately detailed animation and kinetic sense of moment probably bests them on a pure animation level.


simplicity is a key in narratives.I don't see why it has to be. Both simplicity and complexity can be virtues. I would call Bebop more traditional than I would call it simple. It doesn't have the understated grace and simplicity of more minimalist anime efforts like Grave of the Fireflies (for comparison).


It is not that deep the religious allegory for Eva as you suggest.NGE isn't a religious allegory at all. It's religious allusions are allusions in the literary sense of the term where the original context is used to comment on the new context. Often times Anno is using corrective allusion where the meaning in the religious context is the complete opposite of that in NGE's context (Shinji's crucifixion, eg.) and he makes the impact through that contrast. These various allusions are quite deep because what they're saying/suggestion is almost never as obvious as one would initially think.


one of the strength of the anime is the humor reggarding the use of steryotipes to get otakus when they are not expecting.I don't know why you call it "humor". While Anno's subversion of Otakus and the anime culture is important it's also linked to a deeper theme about using fantasy to escape reality. Shinji masturbating over a comatose Asuka in the hospital is not the least bit humorous (though it is provocative satire and, like most things in NGE, subtly relevant to Anno's themes and elaborately developed motifs).


Eva final is confusing because the problem with money and with this way the series loses a bit of breath at the end.That's not quite right. While the series had budget problems the series ending was as much a product of time restraints and censorship as it was budget. The studio wouldn't approve Anno's original ending (which became the film End of Evangelion) and after they produced the series' ending they went back to make the film which was what they originally intended. With the film they didn't have any concerns with budget, time, or content so it's really not fair to say it's confusing because of their budget problems.

I should mention that the film is the zenith of a series that's already had so many incredible moments and is absolutely a physically and mentally exhausting experience so I obviously disagree it loses any breath.


Miyazaki should be in the question, does not matter how much good animes he produced, it is like you saying that we can not talk about Rimbaud in the same topic that we talk about Wordsworth, because one produced for a few years and other a lifetime. My point is you can't compare the entire works of one artist to just one work of another artist. If we're going to compare Miyazaki to anyone we have to compare him to Anno because Anno has made plenty of stuff besides NGE (including Gunbuster, Kare Kano, and the live action films Love & Pop and Shiki Jitsu).


Anyways, there is no need of deeper message, philosophical games, etc. It is a matter of aesthetic combination, and while Eva is good, Bebop is just superior, as still superior to almost anything done since then.LOL, I can't imagine someone saying "there is no need for deeper messages or philosophy" in art. Hell, art has always been about exploring the aspects of existence we don't understand which naturally lends itself to philosophy and self-expression; NGE is the epitome of that concept. It's the work of a man who said his goal was to "burn his feelings into film", and given the profound effect it's had on so many I'd say he remarkably achieved that goal.

Bebop is one amongst millions of finely crafted entertainment that offers nothing beyond that escapist entertainment level. It's fine to say you prefer Bebop on an aesthetic level - hell, I prefer RahXephon on a surface aesthetic level to NGE - but NGE is clearly the more influential, important, profound and sophisticated work.

It's interesting to note that Bebop isn't nearly as revered in Japan as it is in the US; probably because almost all of its primary influences are American in origin, while NGE is a Star Wars-like phenomenon in Japan.

[JBI]

Honestly, Tolstoy's Napoleonic Russia was just as carefully planned as Tolkien's world - the only difference is one is the workings of a senile anachronism while the other a very radical realist working with history and philosophy.

Dostoevsky himself had nothing but praise for Tolkien's efforts in formulating his setting - keep that in mind, just because something is terribly detached and boring doesn't mean it is more creative than anything else.

What removal does, in the sense the above poster tends to see it is display a sort of "imaginative quality" if you will - I beg to differ. There is nothing more imaginative in Tolkien than in Zola.


For the post as started as perhaps a sub-vehicle with the second intention of promoting some extremely popular Japanese anime - have you asked yourself why the anime is popular in Japan, and not here? the concept of popularity derives itself from cultural expectation and desire, so naturally, that which was conceived with the intent of appealing to Japanese aesthetic sensibilities would, most likely find appeal there (this is the rule, but exceptions have been known to appear throughout history).

The concept of it being a best-seller and therefore worthy of attention in other markets would appear flawed, in that it doesn't necessarily justify itself as being good because it is popular.

If you look at the exchange of culture back and forth, you'll notice strange patterns of what is popular, and what is moved - what Chinese people I meet who just arrive to study abroad in Toronto from China think I listen to, in terms of music, is laughable - namely popular music from 7-10 years ago. In terms of aesthetic styles, the popular music scene in Korea can, arguably, be described as a Korean version, crossed with Japanese aesthetics, of late 90s, early 00s music - they have now the boybands and the equivalent of the Spice Girls that dominated music at the turn of the millennium - only, they dominate now, with a Korean and Japanese twist.

Similarly, if one was to translate Japanese or Taiwanese, or Korean dramas (Taiwanese and Korean ones being heavily rooted in the Japanese tradition of popular television themselves) one probably couldn't sell them here - the aesthetics are very different - I'll use a popular Taiwanese Drama as an example - this came out in 2005:

Name: It All Started With a Kiss

Main Actors' ages at time of filming - around 24 and 27, playing characters that moved from 18-20, the female actress looking as if she was 10 years old (google image Ariel Lin or Lin Yi-Chen if you don't believe me).

The plot - essentially this poor, single-parent family girl who is also incredibly stupid, incredibly immature, and incredibly impulsive has a crush on this rich, incredibly rich, incredibly competent super genius, who also happens to be good at sports, cooking, and anything else they make him do on screen, including fighting. The girl's house in a freak earthquake collapses at the beginning of the story, and she and her dad move in with her father's old friend (who he hasn't seen in a few decades), ironically the male protagonist's parents, who are just as ridiculous as the other characters, with a husband who is kind of ridiculous and calls his wife mama (mom in Chinese) and a wife who is obsessive compulsive in her attempt to couple her older son with this ridiculous girl.

The plot revolves around the romance, where despite numerous rejections, the dumb girl ultimately, for some reason, after undergoing all sorts of abuse, ends up marrying in the last episode the male protagonist, who essentially showed no interest in her for 30 episodes, and treated her rather like a rabid dog.

Of course, there is all the Japanese-influenced sub-plot to go around (the plot itself is a reworking of a manga) with even the characteristic English words (in thick accent mind you) thrown in for flavor in place of Chinese equivalents, and an elaborate Christmas special.



This is an almost archetypal example of drama from Taiwan, and from the three previously mentioned countries in general (though Korean drama seems to have accepted a few more innovations from American plots mixing in crime-drama and other genres to a larger extent). I don't think that would really make it in Canada, for instance, where such television would be viewed skeptically, and as juvenile.


In essence, culturally the conventions of popular entertainment work differently - what is shown on TV in Japan for instance, often wouldn't make it into American markets, simply because Americans are more interested in other stuff.

Another good example is in how the series Sailor Moon was translated - it came as a girl's anime from Japan, then became a shortened feminist narrative in Toronto, and didn't gain as much popularity in The US as in Canada, because the market couldn't accept it as well. One questions then, why is that, and what makes the Canadian audience more accepting of this narrative than the American, and what makes the producers dub it as an edited feminist narrative instead of what it originally was?


When pairing this with Lord of the Rings, it is important to understand how the book is approached as genre and a product of a special intention, as well as a marketing intention. The book came into existence out of the workings of a senile Professor who wanted to give his weird mongoloid made up languages a world to exist in. As mentioned earlier, the Salmarillion (sp?) was rejected, but this narrative was published, albeit, to limited reception.

During the so called hippie movement though, something happened - the book was reinterpreted under an American counter-culture understanding, and its presence asserted as something completely different than its original purpose - the mythology began to be seen as embodying a sort of pastoral ideal as under attack from industrial forces - too easy to see it as an allegory, especially when you are stoned when reading it, right?

Then it goes under new definition - the medium is the message as they say, so what does Tolkien on the big screen mean - for one thing, visual splendor (thank you beautiful New Zealand) as well as a removal of all the tedious parts. the thing becomes an action adventure rather than essentially a drawn out "historical narrative" in the most dreary of senses, and sort of becomes a visual masterpiece - it goes from genealogies and bad poems, to giant war where the ugly black monsters fall in mass (and surprisingly the good, white guys always win, and seem to lose far less people).

It would seem 90% of the second movie was contained within one paragraph - that which said the war was fought, the dwarf and the elf competed, and the good guys one - the rest, merely summarized in panoramic side-shots of people walking, or cut.

The fact that the popularity exists without the mass readership says something then - our opinions of the book are not as informed as we would like - Harry Potter at least has "informed" opinion, in the sense that it actually has the sales - but for Tolkien, despite being a widely read book, from what I understand, is more of a "seen" narrative than a textual one - what does that mean when it is understood?

I have argued that it is for the most part an ignored text. That although some critics discuss it, none of them, or at least very few of them in critical work are discussing its merit, but merely its context, reception, or certain aspects of it, the most focused upon seemingly being linguistic. There is also a lot of criticism dealing with race and political issues, much of which criticizing it as racist, and other such things (the bad guys seem to all be black, and the mercenaries that come to aid the bad guys are "black humans" whereas all the good guys are described in favorable qualities highlighted with "light" and white imagery). Even that is a very minimal presence in criticism though.


Like the Taiwanese drama I mentioned earlier, Lord of the Rings has its place, but isn't necessarily "quality" writing, or even worth while. It may be touched by academies (as Taiwanese popular drama is by the way) but it isn't regarded as good or bad, mainly as a cultural phenomenon. To think that its lack of acceptance is on par with an anime's is a little bit silly.

The anime has its niche, and right now, that would seem to not be America - will it - perhaps. I suspect a reintroduction of certain themes from Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese dramas may resurface in the States and Canada, but that is just me - cultural trends aren't universal, and aught not to be. There is no special formula or special attribute Tolkien would appear to be using - his books merely filled a void, and had a presence based on when they were written, and mostly luck. Everything else is for fate to decide.

If the market feels that it will accept the aforementioned Anime, then it will - right now, it has decided no. Likewise, you may see more trends of "reality television" which is essentially for the most part trash television, making it to Japan soon (though culturally it probably will be reinterpreted, as all things are).

In another vein, perhaps Tolkien will be accepted into academia as more of an essential text - I doubt it, but it is possible - that is for chance to decide (the American academies are failing to cling onto what they have already been preaching, and are about to swallow themselves again, so when they recast themselves, who knows what will be promoted and what will be ignored). The actual text itself is evolving too, in terms of meaning - it is only a matter of time before it itself decides whether it wants to go on, or be forgotten.

[MorpheusSandman]

keep that in mind, just because something is terribly detached and boring doesn't mean it is more creative than anything else. What removal does, in the sense the above poster tends to see it is display a sort of "imaginative quality" if you will - I beg to differ. There is nothing more imaginative in Tolkien than in Zola.It's odd to call LotR "boring" since its long been one of the most popular titles in literature (it obviously isn't boring to its legion of fans and scholars) and amongst the masses it's usually the classics that are considered boring. Interesting you should mention Tolstoy since I reread LotR at the same time I was reading War & Peace and I was terrible bored with the former but thrilled with the latter.

As far as imagination goes, I think there's a distinct difference in the depiction or fictional recreation of reality or history or even pure fiction that exists in a depiction of a realistic context. With Tolkien and Middle Earth we're dealing with a complete fantasy creation and any similarities to reality are only archetypal. Of course W&P is just as well planned, and yet Tolstoy didn't have to invent the history and setting. Even if we say that Tolkien didn't have to "invent" everything (so much of his creation is a collection of fantasy/mythology standards) he obviously did a great deal.


For the post as started as perhaps a sub-vehicle with the second intention of promoting some extremely popular Japanese animeI didn't really mean to promote it; it was actually a parallel I drew between it and LotR that I mentioned earlier that originally inspired this thread.


have you asked yourself why the anime is popular in Japan, and not here? the concept of popularity derives itself from cultural expectation and desire, so naturally, that which was conceived with the intent of appealing to Japanese aesthetic sensibilities would, most likely find appeal thereNot only have I 'asked myself' and considered it but it's been a frequent topic of discussion both over that series and other anime boards in general. It's not as simple as citing cultural differences even though that is a huge a part of it.

There is a massive bias in the West against animation as a legitimate medium for serious/dramatic art. Even animation (not just Japanese) that is critically acclaimed such as the works of Miyazaki and films like Grave of the Fireflies, Waltz With Bashir, Persepolis, etc. are usually little more than a blip in the West. Anime is, at best, a cult phenomenon; but definitely far outside the mainstream. But while it's easy to assume there is no such bias in Japan or the East that's not entirely true because the majority of anime IS aimed at children and teens and is treated skeptically by adults; the huge adult cross-over hits there are almost the equivalent of the huge adult/child cross-over animation hits here, but in a different vein (there they can be serious and sophisticated while here they usually need to be family oriented).

Yet I think there is a slowly growing "openness" to serious animation in the West; much more so than could be seen 20+ years ago. Those that were growing up when serious anime first emerged in the West are those that have really cultivated the sub-culture that exists now. Most of the people that I talk to that flat-out claim to dislike anime usually tend to be from older generations. Perhaps it takes the young to embrace what is new and alien.

There's also a problem with the format since the concept of the limited TV series isn't nearly as popular in the West.


The concept of it being a best-seller and therefore worthy of attention in other markets would appear flawed, in that it doesn't necessarily justify itself as being good because it is popular.I think you misunderstand me; I never suggested its worthy of attention in other markets because it's popular, I've clearly argued it's worthy of attention because it's good. It's so good that despite my life-long love for literature, film, and music it still remains the single most powerful, profound, and transformative artistic experience I've had; and I'm far from the only one who's had that reaction. The series' deeper qualities like its themes undoubtedly transcend any cultural barriers. But it's really the brilliant way in which they are expressed that deserves the attention.

FWIW, the series has found its way into certain Western academic film courses, and I think it's slowly gaining a reputation amongst cinephiles and critics.


Similarly, if one was to translate Japanese or Taiwanese, or Korean dramas (Taiwanese and Korean ones being heavily rooted in the Japanese tradition of popular television themselves) one probably couldn't sell them here - the aesthetics are very different... In essence, culturally the conventions of popular entertainment work differently.If we're talking about promoting it as popular entertainment then you certainly have a point, but this isn't always necessary. If you turn to film then we see a strong wave from all of the above countries that have been successful (in terms of the standards of "film festivals", art-films, and sells of distributors like Criterion); The Taiwanese New Wave directors and films have been lauded for years (namely: Hou Hsiao-hsien, Tsai Ming-liang, and Edward Yang), and Korea has an up-and-coming group of young, acclaimed directors like Chan-Wook Park and Bong Joon-ho. Japanese is perhaps the country that does best in America in terms of cinematic success on the tradition of Kurosawa and Ozu (the latter of which was considered for years to be "too Japanese" to appeal to Western audiences).

These aren't necessarily popular, and yet they do well in the West in their niches. Similarly, Evangelion has been one of the best selling anime DVDs since its original release even in the West. As far as anime series go there is probably no series that's more popular. And yet I think it deserves attention outside that niche. Asian cinema is fine because it can find a niche inside film courses and cultural studies that deal with it, but anime (or, more specifically, AN anime) has no such niche. It was that similarity that struck me between it and LotR.

Put simply: I think there is probably a rather large but untapped part of the West that would accept it (and other animes) as legitimate art but are either ignorant or unaware of its existence (or its perceived quality), and there is a much larger audience that if it weren't for some absurd biases that have been cultivated primarily through years of a certain exposure to the medium (animation as a children's medium) would probably accept it as well.


When pairing this with Lord of the Rings, it is important to understand how the book is approached as genre and a product of a special intention, as well as a marketing intention. You certainly make your point cogently but are you saying that LotR films are more seen than the books have been read? I think that would be difficult to quantify, especially given the age of the books. I mean surely when the films were made the series was already cemented as the most popular piece of fantasy literature.


I have argued that it is for the most part an ignored text.But then what are we to make of the in-depth scholarship that surrounds it? I'm thinking especially of those books about LotR such as "The History of Middle Earth" and the various reader companions. It's hard to say a text is ignored when there's a market for a companion that's twice as long as the books themselves.


To think that its lack of acceptance is on par with an anime's is a little bit silly.I don't know about "on par" (on par in what respect?) but I have often wondered if the oft-dismissal of both isn't rooted in a prior biases rather than any analytical criticism: "It's only fantasy/anime" attitude, etc.

[JBI]

You consider it a Western bias that we don't like Anime - perhaps that is true, but as you said before, Japanese markets aren't as accepting of Bop, does that make them culturally biased? Japan has a notorious reputation of cultural bias, in that they do not accept any immigrants, and virtually no refugees, and even if one has lived there their whole life, depending on their racial identity, they will essentially never be considered Japanese, even if they have married a Japanese person, and have children there.


As for the in depth scholarship of Tolkien - even if that was true (somebody like Joyce has far fewer sales, but a great deal more scholarship written on him), one must also realize that there has probably been a far great deal more scholarship put on texts like Mien Kamph, or any other number of anti-semitic, racist, sexist, or whatever works, with no real "literary merit." Are we to say that everything studied is art, or justified as good, and that everything popular is good?

People I don't think will admit to listening to the Backstreet Boys, yet their sales back in the day were unheard of - they were the biggest act. How is that seen today though?

This whole question of cultural bias is really a single sided often clouded argument. One could easily take more extreme versions of Japanese animation, notably the series' featuring extreme forms of sexual violence, bestiality, and misogyny, and ask why they haven't found markets in the US, and then decry that as a cultural bias too - Anime is somehow viewed as too immature...

Likewise, the prevalence of Japanese pornography in Japan (and Taiwan, and Korea, and in a sort of illegal sense in China proper) over American pornography can be viewed as a cultural bias - why aren't they letting in the white and black women into the picture, are they racist or something?

Why does the world need to accept foreign things just because they are popular in their home countries - if they are good, perhaps people may enjoy them, but clearly they aren't seen as good in the countries of which you describe they were rejected, so where is the argument?


As to the argument of imagination, that is a tedious notion, that is nothing but true. To think that a removal needs to occur for something to be imaginative is a very limited perspective - there is no difference in creativity or imagination between a fantastical setting, and a naturalist, or realist one - the only difference is approach.


Honestly, you'd be far better questioning other things - Japanese anime has been more successful in the West than, for instance, Chinese popular novels, or Japanese music - I think anime is something like Japan's second biggest export behind electronics - it is more accepted than, for instance, Korean television, or Vietnamese food - if anything, Japan seems to get preferential treatment as a sort of "newcomer Western culture" within cultural exchange whereas countries like China, Vietnam, Russia, and Eastern Europe seem to get secondary treatment, that is, until recently with China beginning to dominate, and Japan beginning to sink (but let us not get into contemporary politics).


Honestly, I don't even see what the big deal is with this anime anyway - some of it is interesting in concept, but for the most part, domestic and fantastic (often perverted) fantasies with girls with giant eyes, four year old features, and intensely exaggerated busts in school uniforms is of no appeal - perhaps there is a wider range, and my perspective is limited, but even in Japan, so I am told by many Japanese people, anime is taken with a grain of salt in many instances, and often, especially in some genres, regarded like fantasy here as the preoccupation of perverted loserish adolescent geeks, as similar to the way comic books are regarded for the most part in the States.

[Quark]

I also think LotR is too strained in reaching for epic status. The Hobbit had a wit and ease to it that was sorely lacking in LotR, IMO.

Oh, so true.


I vastly prefer Jackson's cinematic adaptation to Tolkien's books. For someone like myself who values cinema and literature equally as arts I think I can say without much bias that (I fell, at least) the LotR films work better as cinema than the LotR books work as literature.

Maybe, but it's hard to compare the two since they're after such different things. The books were trying to imagine a fantastic, new universe complete with peoples, cultures, and languages. Much of the joy of the books is just losing oneself in Middle Earth. The movies, however, struggle to achieve the fantasy of the books, and instead rely on the main characters, the epic storyline, and the stunning visual to entertain. There's nothing wrong with that. I just don't remember the battle of Helm's Deep taking up a third of the original The Two Towers. The movie chose to focus on the battles because they're the focus of the epic plot--and they're amazing to see, as well--but in the process Peter Jackson loses the intricacies of Middle Earth that readers found so engrossing. In the films you see a mountain whiz by, and it looks very picturesque, but it's never given enough detail to become anything new and fantastic. It's just a pretty peak. That's the limitation of the movies. I think you've already hit on the shortcomings of the books: weak presentation, slow plot, etc. I don't know which I like better. They're just too different to compare.


I really don't want this to turn into a debate over semantics.

Don't backtrack too much. Tolkien believed that he was creating a new mythology, and much of the reception history of his books is linked to how readers interpreted and valued that mythology.


Tolkien didnt created mythology, he create a fictional universe

For Tolkien, those two are largely synonymous. We can argue about what the word "mythology" means, but I think what Tolkien was aiming for was something more akin to fantasy or speculative fiction than anything else. He wrote letters and delivered lectures on the subject--some of which have been saved--and you can download two of them here:

"On Fairy Stories"
http://community.livejournal.com/told_tales/142160.html

"Beowulf, The Monster and the Critics"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6003440/Beowulf-The-Monsters-and-the-Critics

In the second one he defines the key element in the creation of a mythology:

"The human mind, endowed with the powers of generalization and abstraction, sees not only green-grass, discriminating it from other things (and finding it fair to look upon), but sees that it is green as well as being grass. But how powerful, how stimulating to the very faculty that produced it, was the invention of the adjective: no spell or incantation in Faerie is more potent. And that is not surprising: such incantations might indeed be said to be only another view of adjectives, a part of speech in a mythical grammar. The mind that thought of light, heavy, grey, yellow, still, swift, also conceived of magic that would make heavy things light and able to fly, turn grey lead into yellow gold, and the still rock into a swift water. If it could do the one, it could do the other; it inevitably did both. When we can take green from grass, blue from heaven, and red from blood, we have already an enchanter's power—upon one plane; and the desire to wield that power in the world external to our minds awakes. It does not follow that we shall use that power well upon any plane. We may put a deadly green upon a man's face and produce a horror; we may make the rare and terrible blue moon to shine; or we may cause woods to spring with silver leaves and rams to wear fleeces of gold, and put hot fire into the belly of the cold worm. But in such 'fantasy,' as it is called, new form is made; Faerie begins; Man becomes a sub-creator.

An essential power of Faerie is thus the power of making immediately effective by the will the visions of 'fantasy.' Not all are beautiful or even wholesome, not at any rate the fantasies of fallen Man. And he has stained the elves who have this power (in verity or fable) with his own stain. This aspect of 'mythology' —sub-creation, rather than either representation or symbolic interpretation of the beauties and terrors of the world—is, I think, too little considered" (Some bold added).

Fantasy takes on more importance than representation and symbolism in this definition. Of course, Tolkien argued that there's more to mythology than imaginatively reordering reality, but this was this was a main idea that he came back to again and again in his writing. When you say he created a fictional universe, I think Tolkien would answer that that's the first step to creating a mythology.


Tolkien, for me, seems not to do that - his borrowing of Norse and other traditions seems to me a little too removed, and lacking in metaphorical capacity

The "remove" is supposed to mythology's strength rather than its weakness. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of "metaphorical capacity" from--it's certainly not a classical notion. I think you may be drawing it from the Structuralist definition of myth. Levi-Strauss's Structural Anthropology (1958) lays out the scientific basis for the theories of people like Northrop Frye and Roland Barthes who make similar claims about the metaphorical and cultural weight of myth. Yet, I don't think Tolkien's books have much to do with these ideas. If you're looking for The Lord of the Rings trilogy to solve some cultural issue or have some deep analogy to everyday life, then you're probably going to be disappointed. Tolkien did argue that a good myth has a relationship to reality, but not a metaphorical one. If we want to keep using rhetorical terms to talk about this relationship, I think we would say that Tolkien imagined an anagogic relationship between myth and reality. By that I mean myth relates some kind of higher, spiritual truth--rather than an immediate cultural one. Whenever Tolkien approached the subject, his language usually slipped into a vague, grasping sort of speech. I don't get the sense that he's talking about some kind of metaphorical yield. Rather, it's more about something ineffable. For example, in "Beowulf, The Monster and the Critics" Tolkien explains that the dragon represents a string of abstract qualities rather a specific cultural function. It's the "malice" and "greed" of the dragon that myth portrays. Tolkien resisted readings that pointed to specific, concrete relationships. He goes on to say that "The significance of a myth is not easily to be pinned on paper by analytical reasoning. It is at its best when it is presented by a poet who feels rather than makes explicit what his theme portends; who presents it incarnate in the world ... It is possible, I think, to be moved by the power of myth and yet to misunderstand the sensation, to ascribe it wholly to something else." Structuralist critics believed that analytical reasoning was the only way to get to the meaning of a myth, and when they got to that meaning it was usually some cultural quandary that the myth was being used to solve. This seems at odds with what Tolkien's describing, so I wouldn't use it as an evaluator of his books.


What Tolkien then represents is a sort of pre-modern nostalgia mythology anachronistic in composition, and dated in delivery - whereas Hardy took things back a few generations and commented on things - his mythology was still Victorian and post-Victorian in opinion

That's a good point. I'm not sure how Hardy fits into the discussion--unless you're just trying to say that Hardy was more self-conscious about his place in history--but Tolkien was retrospective. He certainly had a troubled relationship with modernity. I don't know if that's a criticism of the books, though.

[JBI]

Fine Quark, yes I am getting my idea of myth from a sort of Frye reading, but even so - what is the functional purpose of Tolkien's book being removed from reality, and on what level does that a) justify it as worth reading, and b) make it more interesting, more imaginative, more "mythological" or more relevant? As I see it, the detachment is a strike against him, rather than a plus for him - the justification of the fictitious world as anything other than the makings of a senile old professor are questionable at best. Somebody please answer the question of why the hell should we care about a made up world, and regard it as anything but a waste of time, when it is not really reflecting, it can be argued, a cultural frame metaphorically, or used as an allegorical, or cultural metaphor - the world is marveled at but why? To me it seems like a giant waste of time by a rather meh professor.

[wlz]

It has as much cultural value, social importance and aesthetical weight as 'Thomas the Tank Engine'!

[Quark]

what is the functional purpose of Tolkien's book being removed from reality

I think the idea is that when one is too immersed in reality--too worried about everything's function (or "functional purpose")--you lose perspective. The point of life isn't just to learn about society and the natural world, and adapt to it. The idea is that people have some kind of humanity. You brought up Thomas Hardy earlier, and his novels approach exactly this topic. In Jude the Obscure, the young Jude realizes how the logic of the world is ultimately at odds with human feeling:

"Growing up brought responsibilities, he found. Events did not rhyme quite as he had thought. Nature's logic was too horrid for him to care for ... As you got older and felt yourself to be at the center of your time, and not at a point on its circumference, as you had when you were little, you were seized with a sort of shuddering, he thought."

Tolkien's myth is about putting people back on the circumference of the world--as Hardy would put it. When you're not in the middle of everything you can believe in concepts like good and evil. Myth is about restoring people's connection with these human concepts that have no reality in the larger social and natural context.

[JBI]

To me that sounds like a load - I don't see how Hardy himself couldn't do that - why do we need a removal into a nonsensical world of violence and boredom (not to mention genealogies). I really see no justification there - the actual removal of fantasy being removed doesn't justify itself. I am afraid I will have to disagree that this has anything to do with putting anything into any circumference. If anything it just distorts things.

[Red-Headed]

It has as much cultural value, social importance and aesthetical weight as 'Thomas the Tank Engine'!

I can see that. That 'Diesel' is just a twentieth century Sauron! It is interesting that the discussion of LOTR produces as much controversy (& hot air) now as it did when first published. It's essentially just a form of Volksmarchen. I quite enjoyed it when I read it when I was about twenty, I just had to accept it for what it was. I honestly don't see what all of the vehemence is about. Its mythological content was mined from other sources by its author & I don't think there is much more to it than that. I know myths can be viewed as extended metaphors & semiotically can organise shared ways of conceptualising ideas & concepts within cultural frameworks, which Tolkien was probably more or less aware of when he wrote LOTR. But, at the end of the day, I think he just wrote a story for children of all ages in a volksmarchen style. What I admire about it is its sheer scale. No wonder it took decades to write!

[Quark]

I really see no justification there

Nor do you need to. I'm not saying that you have to love The Lord of the Rings. I'm just saying that you should give the books a chance on their own terms, rather than dismissing them because they don't fit with whoever your pet theorist happens to be.

[JBI]

Nor do you need to. I'm not saying that you have to love The Lord of the Rings. I'm just saying that you should give the books a chance on their own terms, rather than dismissing them because they don't fit with whoever your pet theorist happens to be.

It has nothing to do with theory, I only brought up mythology in response - I won't read them because the prose is bad - I am just saying that believing them somewhat special because of their setting is a flawed notion, and the standards that judge literature are not to be made exception of in light of the fact that some senile prof decided to write in an imaginary world.

[WoodsOfJordan]

I would like LOTR more if it had more minority exploitation as well as a strong christian, anti-gay theme.

[MorpheusSandman]

@JBI


You consider it a Western bias that we don't like Anime - perhaps that is true, but as you said before, Japanese markets aren't as accepting of Bop, does that make them culturally biased?To be fair I said we have a bias against all serious animation; not just of the Japanese variety. Japan in terms of cultural bias is a fascinating study because they were much more insular pre-WW2 then they were after when they almost had a cultural explosion. In fact, a majority of post-WW2 Japanese art deals with a culture in the midst of an identity crisis; one could almost call it an existential "growing up" period, and Western - especially American - culture really became insanely popular. Bebop's relative lack of popularity there I think is only a contrast next to its enormous popularity here; It was a 'success' there, but it practically invented the Adult Swim programming block in America.


As for the in depth scholarship of Tolkien - even if that was true (somebody like Joyce has far fewer sales, but a great deal more scholarship written on him), one must also realize that there has probably been a far great deal more scholarship put on texts like Mien Kamph, or any other number of anti-semitic, racist, sexist, or whatever works, with no real "literary merit." Are we to say that everything studied is art, or justified as good, and that everything popular is good?True, but if you're going to use that argument then you could use it against Joyce as well: "Is Finnegans Wake really good art or is it just a mental masturbatory playground for academics?" Clearly there are people out there saying "LotR is good, it's relevant to us, it speaks to us, we care enough to write massive books about it." I'm not saying this is synonymous with quality but when we really start to talk about standards of "good/bad" and "quality" we're really talking about the legitimacy of one standard VS another that inevitably comes down to a massive group of subjective opinions essentially saying "we like this; it matters to us".


People I don't think will admit to listening to the Backstreet Boys, yet their sales back in the day were unheard of - they were the biggest act. How is that seen today though?Pop phenomenons often draw on a herd mentality; I don't think there's as much of that with something like LotR since, AFAIK, it's never really been considered "cool" outside of the films.


One could easily take more extreme versions of Japanese animation, notably the series' featuring extreme forms of sexual violence, bestiality, and misogyny, and ask why they haven't found markets in the US, and then decry that as a cultural bias too - Anime is somehow viewed as too immature...Actually, hentai has found markets in the US and is just slightly more underground than anime. It's often hentai that too many think of when they think of anime (that or children programs like Pokemon); it's a shame. It would be like saying all film was immature when the only films you were ever exposed to were those of Jess Franco (let's ignore how such a thing could happen).


Why does the world need to accept foreign things just because they are popular in their home countries - if they are good, perhaps people may enjoy them, but clearly they aren't seen as good in the countries of which you describe they were rejected, so where is the argument?Are these things rejected or are they ever even given a fair chance? Bias, while something that's necessary (to a point) to human existence is also a core cause of most of the evil that's done in the world. So breaking down biases or, at least, forcing people to confront that bias is rarely a bad thing. In America what you have is too many people who are exposed to animation as a form of children's entertainment from the time they're young and many never even realize that animation can be a mature artistic medium and oftentimes by the time they ARE exposed to it they are already so conditioned that they react negatively to any serious animation. This IS negative because biases that dismiss anything so large as an entire medium (or an entire medium in a certain mode) is the same kind of bias that allows people to dislike or hate entire races or cultures. It's a kind of predisposed closed-mindedness that feeds right into manipulative marketing but is horrible when it comes to appreciating (and finding) art of real quality.


To think that a removal needs to occur for something to be imaginative is a very limited perspectiveI didn't say that had to occur to be imaginative, I said they're very different kinds of creation. In one you're describing what exists; yes, there's creativity in that description and how much you reveal and what you reveal and how you reveal it, etc. but that is still inherently different in beginning by describing something that is or was and describing something that doesn't exist anywhere but in your head.


Honestly, you'd be far better questioning other thingsIf I knew of any other things of equal quality I'd be doing that very thing. I'm sure they exist, I just haven't found them. And in a small way that's what I why I think this kind of promoting awareness IS important for cultures and art. There are certainly other people out there like myself who could be profoundly effected by something they aren't even aware of. I would think that especially amongst aesthetes there would be a great desire to find those new things, from whatever period or culture, that's going make them gasp in admiration and that will effect them as profound art.


I don't even see what the big deal is with this anime anyway - some of it is interesting in concept, but for the most part, domestic and fantastic (often perverted) fantasies with girls with giant eyes, four year old features, and intensely exaggerated busts in school uniforms is of no appeal - perhaps there is a wider range, and my perspective is limited,Yes, your perspective is extremely limited. As I said earlier, I am not some Otaku. I look at anime similarly as I look at comics or metal music; as mediums/genre that are maturing far beyond their humble and juvenile roots and, unfortunately, far away from the eyes of people who already have that bias of what constitutes that genre/medium and very wrongly thinks that's all it is. I also think they are mediums/genres with a lot of untapped potential for artistic expression; animation especially since its abstract nature gives it such a natural and enormous range.

Anime isn't even a genre, anime is Japanese for animation, and animation is a medium. Within that medium there is a wealth of genres and styles. For instance, if you think it's all about "fantasies with girls with giant eyes, [juvenile] features, and exaggerated busts" I'd suggest the films of Miyazaki, Oshii, Kon, and Studio Ghibli for a start and the series by Ueda/ABe (Lain, Haibane Renmei, and Texhnolyze). It would at least burst the bubble of that particular perception. Evangelion particularly is a metafictional series that actually comments on the tropes of anime and escapist tendency of those who watch it for the fantasy element.


but even in Japan, so I am told by many Japanese people, anime is taken with a grain of salt in many instances, and often, especially in some genres, regarded like fantasy here as the preoccupation of perverted loserish adolescent geeks, as similar to the way comic books are regarded for the most part in the States.It very much is, and yet there are two Miyazaki films in the top 10 grossing films in Japan and the best of anime and its creators are highly respected. The biggest majority of anime IS aimed at children and young teenagers (mostly adolescent geeks, as you mentioned) but, as Anno himself said, Japan is a nation of children and they probably have a much higher ratio of adults who simply don't "grow out of" animation and therefor it opens the best works up to be respected and brought to broader attention; hence, Miyazaki's immense popularity and appreciation. In Japan there is simply a much higher possibility that the best of the medium can gain a level of respect amongst, say, academics or, as one famous quote said, "even businessmen were talking about (the Evangelion ending)."


what is the functional purpose of Tolkien's book being removed from reality, and on what level does that a) justify it as worth reading, and b) make it more interesting, more imaginative, more "mythological" or more relevant? ... Somebody please answer the question of why the hell should we care about a made up world, and regard it as anything but a waste of time, when it is not really reflecting, it can be argued, a cultural frame metaphorically, or used as an allegorical, or cultural metaphor - the world is marveled at but why?Why are we talking about functionality in the context of art? So much of art has been defined by aesthetics rather than its utilitarian value, and it could be said than aesthete is someone who is largely indifferent to practical matters. Since when did art's value come from its functionality?

What justifies the reading of most any literature? Does reading literature really make us better people or help others or do anything that's a great benefit to the world at large? Sure, maybe it can make us realize or think about things we didn't, but more often than not we finish a book, think about it, talk about it, and resume our everyday life completely unchanged. So I don't think there's a need to justify reading anything, but in the case of LotR I think it would simply be that people enjoy indulging in the abstractness of fantasy. Fantasy by design taps into natural human archetypes that especially appeal to people who don't get that from the real world. Some people more strongly relate to the more abstract and "removed" expressions of the human mind than any depictions of reality.

As far as the "somebody tell me" part, FWIW I am not of the mind that no matter how "removed" art is that it can ever fail to have a humanistic frame of reference. A human can't think like a bird, and we can't make art from a bird's POV. If we could, it might be meaningless to us as humans. But even when artists attempt to remove meaning, context, and representation from their art they are still inevitably expressing something that comes from inside them. Whether we can find the logic or purpose is beside the point that behind every illogical act or reaction is a logical "why" governing it. And LotR is far from the most "removed" artistic expressions out there and there are definitely relevant (even if unintentional) themes running throughout it by the very nature of the archetypes it contains.

This would probably be a better question posed by those who have been affected by it. There are surely those that have given this very question a thought. If someone asks me why I watch/love anime I can tell them, and I'm sure that if you asked someone who loved LotR these questions you'd eventually find someone who could elucidate this more tangibly than myself.


I won't read them because the prose is bad - I am just saying that believing them somewhat special because of their setting is a flawed notionIn a way this cuts to the crux of the impetus for this thread; you say you won't read them because of "bad prose" and that if others choose to read them because of their setting then they have a "flawed notion". Why are prose inherently more important than setting? What if you don't care about prose but care about setting? Why is caring about setting more a "flawed notion"? It's that kind of bias that I discuss at length above that I generally find is unhealthy.

@Quark


Maybe, but it's hard to compare the two since they're after such different things.It's true that you can't directly compare them, but you can compare them in the context of their own mediums; which is why I said I think the films work better as film than the novels work as literature. Which you prefer will often depend on which medium you prefer; I don't inherently prefer either, but Jackson's LotR are in my top 50 films while Tolkien's LotR wouldn't be in my top 100 favorite novels.


This aspect of 'mythology' —sub-creation, rather than either representation or symbolic interpretation of the beauties and terrors of the world—is, I think, too little considered"Very well said; nice quotes and links, Quark.

[JCamilo]

JBI:

Honestly, Tolstoy's Napoleonic Russia was just as carefully planned as Tolkien's world - the only difference is one is the workings of a senile anachronism while the other a very radical realist working with history and philosophy.
Well, JBI, there is a considerable effort on imagination if you have to do something that compare to Russia, which existed for centuries. Hence the prose problem of LoTR, he must be a geography/history teacher, something not necessary for Tolstoy who could only suggest the Russia because his readers would understand. Obviously, it leads to a flaw in the narrative, but some should read LoTR like it is done with encyclopedias.
JBI, the anime industry in japan is akin to Hollywood, you have Pokemon but you have My Neighbor Totoro. The amount of money, productions is much superior to all that we see here, which basically reflects our prejudice towards japan: we expect to find young girls raped by 22393 tentacles monsters while using college uniforms but having breasts bigger than Pamela Anderson. The same goes for the manga production. Since they have no prejudice between animated and live-version movies, a considerable amount of good writers, directors work with anime.

Quark:

For Tolkien, those two are largely synonymous. We can argue about what the word "mythology" means, but I think what Tolkien was aiming for was something more akin to fantasy or speculative fiction than anything else. He wrote letters and delivered lectures on the subject--some of which have been saved--and you can download two of them here:
While I do not disagree with the notion of fantasy, it is not related to what is mythology and there is no place that suggests that Tolkien considered mythology is fictional, in fact he is adept to the notion that myth became faery-tales –folklore – modern fantasy lineage. And to him mythology was something alive and real that could be found everywhere, hence his disliking of allegory, which in ultimate analyze kill the myths to offer a logical explanation.

Morpheus:


I know Utena has nothing to do with NGE, the comparison is does things with Shojo standards similarly to how NGE did with Shounen standards. NGE isn't about religion either, and it's very much about its individuals (even if they are relatable to humanity as a whole).

What I mean, is that albeit Shinji is the main character, his personal destiny is less relevant that the destiny of humankind that he represents. In Utena, the main character, Utena, is all that matters, her options affects only her own universe. It is about her, she is indeed a heroine of the show, while Shinji is a negation of self, thus almost everyone. Differences between the series, which obviously explain why Utena is not popular (except for the suggestions about lesbians or something sexual) as Eva. Yet (talking about the series) a great anime.


I'm a cinephile; this is something I don't forget. While moving images can be used to do things besides narrate and tell stories (it's also about the aesthetics), both NGE and Bebop are clearly in the narrative vein and in discussing how they use their respective visual language to narrate their respective stories it becomes clear that NGE is much more sophisticated than Bebop. Bebop has a ton of style; it draws inspiration from noirs, Westerns, and cinematic/anime past with a "hip" jazz soundtrack to make it all very cool (daddy-o). With NGE everything is used much more substantial.

I am not sure again, why personal information like being a cinephile or when you started to watch anime are that important. One of my functions at work is writing movie reviews, I am invited here in Brazil to watch the movies by the distributors. Does it matters. No. Anyways, Cinema is basically a audio-visual art. The story being narrated is secondary (which does not means we cannt have one), like a play, the acting, character dialogues are more relevant than the plot. And first the visual part, which is the photography, the directing, the editing, who are all done to produce a new experience. Since sounds, the interaction with sound became more important. That is one of the tricks of movies adaptations. Both Eva and Bebop do not have a great plot; one is about bounty hunters and several minors’ crimes and other about little kids fighting monsters inside big robots. What you identify as the metaphysical part of Eva is not narrative, but part of the dialogue and character concept, two different things (tied together of course, otherwise it would fail). Reducing Bebop to a movie with style because it lacks metaphysical contempt is like reducing any movie from Singing on the Rain, La Doce Vitta, Blade Runner, The Great Dictador or City of God because they are not Ingmar Bergman movies, which are not their proposal and calling them all superficial because the main characters do not express themselves by riddles or enigmas.


I don't see why it has to be. Both simplicity and complexity can be virtues. I would call Bebop more traditional than I would call it simple. It doesn't have the understated grace and simplicity of more minimalist anime efforts like Grave of the Fireflies (for comparison).
Because you just need to study the great narrators, be it from literature or oral storytelling, to see that they seek out precision and not complexity of the narrative. A simple story can tell much. The complexity came from the use of language, context…


NGE isn't a religious allegory at all. It's religious allusions are allusions in the literary sense of the term where the original context is used to comment on the new context. Often times Anno is using corrective allusion where the meaning in the religious context is the complete opposite of that in NGE's context (Shinji's crucifixion, eg.) and he makes the impact through that contrast. These various allusions are quite deep because what they're saying/suggestion is almost never as obvious as one would initially think.
I am very sure that calling a movie that uses adam, eve, Lilith longinius, talk about our soul and human creation, etc qualify as religious. And those are religious allegories. Of course, I did not said that Eva is a religious allegory, but that used it.


I don't know why you call it "humor". While Anno's subversion of Otakus and the anime culture is important it's also linked to a deeper theme about using fantasy to escape reality. Shinji masturbating over a comatose Asuka in the hospital is not the least bit humorous (though it is provocative satire and, like most things in NGE, subtly relevant to Anno's themes and elaborately developed motifs).

Anno and Gainax are famous for being Otakus writing to otakus at the beginning and they always said that liked to pull a trick or two on Otakus. It is rather obvious in Eva they did it very well. The amount of anime stereotypes used in the first chapters is vast; a quiet shy blue haired premium girl on Rei, the over-the top red haired one, young teenagers, mechas, mysterious organizations, “evil” father, the shy would be hero, the sexy-police woman, fan-service, monsters from other space, a humorous pet, etc,etc,etc. Obviously, the idea was to sweep the carpet of the fans when the series have the dark twist (I would say after the angel that attacks Magi) and everything goes to the surface in a crescendo that kind of ends more or less when we discover who Rei truly was. Those are the series best moments, when everything is in the place, also before Anno had the budget problems who got in the way of the ending.
And yes, I like to see how you complicated the budget problems to a level that ended that he had no budget to finish it. In the end, if he lost money because censorship cut or because he went to La Vegas, still the same: he had no money to finish it, compromising the final ¼ of the series, even the final movie.

My point is you can't compare the entire works of one artist to just one work of another artist. If we're going to compare Miyazaki to anyone we have to compare him to Anno because Anno has made plenty of stuff besides NGE (including Gunbuster, Kare Kano, and the live action films Love & Pop and Shiki Jitsu).
You can compare anything you want. You know Miayzaki works, you just have to image each of them and you will know that he put 2,3 movies that simple superior. That is why I said I would just not bring him on in first place.

LOL, I can't imagine someone saying "there is no need for deeper messages or philosophy" in art. Hell, art has always been about exploring the aspects of existence we don't understand which naturally lends itself to philosophy and self-expression; NGE is the epitome of that concept. It's the work of a man who said his goal was to "burn his feelings into film", and given the profound effect it's had on so many I'd say he remarkably achieved that goal.
That is good. You should start to imagine because several authors or artists have attacked others because to some it is not necessary a deep metaphysical meaning behind any work. And those include Guys like Voltaire or Jorge Luis Borges, which in a interview I read a few days just said “A poem does not need explanation, does not need any meaning behind it. It is like asking why the sun, why the sea.” So, perhaps in 10 years you will say: “There is 10 years that I discovered a great artwork does not need to convey the deep philosophical meanings. A story can be just a story.”
I will avoid commenting that Evangelion in the epitome of art as you suggest.

Bebop is one amongst millions of finely crafted entertainment that offers nothing beyond that escapist entertainment level. It's fine to say you prefer Bebop on an aesthetic level - hell, I prefer RahXephon on a surface aesthetic level to NGE - but NGE is clearly the more influential, important, profound and sophisticated work.

It's interesting to note that Bebop isn't nearly as revered in Japan as it is in the US; probably because almost all of its primary influences are American in origin, while NGE is a Star Wars-like phenomenon in Japan.
Yeah, I am sure that millions of people who buy Rei miniatures with little clothes and her breast enhanced are living a mature contemplative experience that will drive their souls to Nirvana and not just enjoying it. Now, I am rather dubious of how something with less than 20 years is clearly more influential than anything.
And yes, Bebop is much popular outside Japan, where it is also popular. And EVA was not even close to be Star Wars phenomenon. It was never as popular as series like Sailor Moon or other videogames based series, Macross series, Rumiko Takahashi works, DBZs or the real star wars, which is Yamato. Do not exaggerate.
Plus this argument is irrelevant, it is like trying to argue the aesthetics merits of Rambo and Citzen Kane by saying Citzen Kane is more popular in France.

[Quark]

Clearly there are people out there saying "LotR is good, it's relevant to us, it speaks to us, we care enough to write massive books about it." I'm not saying this is synonymous with quality but when we really start to talk about standards of "good/bad" and "quality" we're really talking about the legitimacy of one standard VS another that inevitably comes down to a massive group of subjective opinions essentially saying "we like this; it matters to us".

Yeah, I don't think the thread needs to prove that Tolkien's books are relevant. As you point out, the plentiful scholarship on them and their continuing popularity are evidence enough. Clearly, some people find the books appealing. The question is: what specifically is the appeal of the books? How do we account for the popularity and scholarship of the books? It isn't about whether the attention they've received is warranted. The thread has talked a little about how Tolkien uses fantasy and myth--which is key to understanding the books and their reception. JBI brought up Tolkien's representation of nature--something that's worth pursuing--a while back. I think someone also touched on the depiction of good and evil in LotR. All of these are good approaches to understanding the books' appeal. I don't know if I agree that the books are pop fiction like JBI would have it, though:


As for the in depth scholarship of Tolkien - even if that was true (somebody like Joyce has far fewer sales, but a great deal more scholarship written on him), one must also realize that there has probably been a far great deal more scholarship put on texts like Mien Kamph, or any other number of anti-semitic, racist, sexist, or whatever works, with no real "literary merit." Are we to say that everything studied is art, or justified as good, and that everything popular is good?

People I don't think will admit to listening to the Backstreet Boys, yet their sales back in the day were unheard of - they were the biggest act. How is that seen today though?

I don't think a comparison between the LotR and the Backstreet Boys really holds much water. Nor do I think we can really compare the scholarly attention they receive to that given to Mien Kamph. Usually, people compare Tolkien's reception to other fantasy writers like C.S. Lewis and Charles Williams who were all part of "The Inklings," an Oxford literary group of the early to mid twentieth-century. I tend to think that this grouping indicates how much critics value these writers by their views of the genre they wrote in. When fantasy literature is more accepted, Tolkien rises in critical estimation. When fantasy is disparaged, Tolkien isn't considered particularly important. We hear more complaints about the Tolkien's prose and his long-winded expositions when fantasy is in low repute. But we hear more raptures about his imagination, his view of nature, and his depiction of good and evil when fantasy is taken more seriously.


It's true that you can't directly compare them, but you can compare them in the context of their own mediums; which is why I said I think the films work better as film than the novels work as literature.

I see what you mean. Yet I don't know if I entirely agree. It's hard to judge the movies right now because so much of what was interesting about them was their novelty. They were first epic movies anyone has seen in a long while. In the fifties and sixties, there was a long line of films like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur that had huge casts, a wide scope, and grand actions, but those went away for decades. The Lord of the Rings brought that back to viewers who probably didn't know movies could be so large as The Lord of the Rings was. The visuals of the movies were also quite new. The mix of CGI and miniatures was stunning. Once the shock of these novelties wears off, though, I don't know where the movies will be. Is The Lord of the Rings really going to stack up with Lawrence of Arabia? Probably not. Yet I think the books are probably some of the finest work in fantasy literature. They may even be the best. They're the best I've read, but I haven't read much fantasy.



Quark

While I do not disagree with the notion of fantasy, it is not related to what is mythology and there is no place that suggests that Tolkien considered mythology is fictional, in fact he is adept to the notion that myth became faery-tales –folklore – modern fantasy lineage. And to him mythology was something alive and real that could be found everywhere, hence his disliking of fantasy, which in ultimate analyze kill the myths to offer a logical explanation.

I largely agree with that. I would just say that his notion of "sub-creation" is very similar to what we call fantasy.

[JCamilo]

I am sorry, I commited a mistake in the last line, should be "Hence his disliking of allegory," ... he obviously had nothing against fantasy.

[Red-Headed]

I think what a lot of people are missing about Tolkien is that it is a little unfair to compare him to Dickens, Balzac, Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky inter alia. I found that when I read LOTR it allowed me to enter a world which as a cynical adult I had essentially forgotten about. By using a little cognitive dissonance I just went with the flow & accepted his odd creation. I soon realised it was never going to be as fulfilling as reading The Brothers Karamazov but I think I understand what the appeal to the hippies, flower children & others of that generation actually was. Without wanting to sound glib I think that the use of certain mild hallucinogenics can create (or re-create) an almost childlike perception of reality. This artificially induced sense of wonder & unreality can be quite creative & many almost certainly found the experience enriching in some spiritual sense. I have a feeling this & its surrounding subcultural milieu was important to the wider acceptance & reading of the novel. Obviously you don't have to be a ‘stoner’ or an ‘acid head’ to enjoy the novel on some level but I think the whole subculture & pseudo-spiritual movement that started in the sixties has some bearing on the way the novel is perceived & even read now. Just a thought anyway, I’ll STFU now.

[JCamilo]

LoTR started to be created between wars, the hippy generation adopted it but it is only a partial sample of the fans of LoTR. it is not related.
And why is unfair? Because we will say Tolkien was not as good? Unfair with Tolstoy, Dickens, etc is that they can be analyzed by higher standards and while others are somehow protected.

[Red-Headed]

LoTR started to be created between wars, the hippy generation adopted it but it is only a partial sample of the fans of LoTR. it is not related.

In England its original publication was essentially a non-event. The real interest started with the hippy subculture. I think bootleg copies of LOTR became available in the USA & this combined with what was happening in the sixties has a lot to do with the way the novel is perceived now.


And why is unfair? Because we will say Tolkien was not as good? Unfair with Tolstoy, Dickens, etc is that they can be analyzed by higher standards and while others are somehow protected.

Although I quite enjoyed LOTR (I was born in the English Midlands & am familiar with the area where Tolkien grew up & have even seen the surface coal in the 'Black Country' purportedly the inspiration for Mordor) it would be fair to say that Tolkien did not have the mellifluous prose style of Dickens, the psychological penetration of Dostoyevsky or the intricate writing craft of Tolstoy. In my opinion Tolkien, or, more appropriately, LOTR is sui generis & should be viewed in that respect.

[MorpheusSandman]

@JCamilo


What I mean, is that albeit Shinji is the main character, his personal destiny is less relevant that the destiny of humankind that he represents. In Utena, the main character, Utena, is all that matters, her options affects only her own universe.I really don't agree that Shinji's primarily relevance lies in his representation of humanity. Shinji was supposed to be a character designed with Anno's long battle with depression in mind; he was supposed to not represent humanity, per say, but be a representation of all the negative aspects of ourselves that we try to forget, to overcome. He's a classic example of an anti-hero who is, ironically, cast in the most traditional of hero roles. Part of NGE's impact comes from those who empathetically identify with Shinji. Plus, the entire series ending is about how his view of reality effects that reality which sounds like how you describe Utena. It could be said that the entire NGE universe is a representation of reality and how that's relevant to Shinji as an individual rather than that Shinji is a representation of all mankind within a reality analogous to our own.


I am not sure again, why personal information like being a cinephile or when you started to watch anime are that important.It's relevant because when you say things like film is an "art-visual" medium it implies that I don't realize this. I very much realize this. There are a great many directors and films I appreciate solely because of their visual aesthetic such as Days of Heaven. Watching anime is important because, as I said, many anime neophytes are often fond of saying their favorite anime is the best anime ever despite not having seen that many animes to compare it to.


Cinema is basically a audio-visual art. The story being narrated is secondary,Film at its purest is just the art of moving pictures. That core concept of moving pictures makes it a perfect medium for visual narration. I mean, even if we go back to Griffith and Eisenstein we're dealing with film theory that was utilized in a way to enhance the stories being told. Eisenstein showed how editing could enhance the emotion or intellectual understanding of successive images, for example. Sure, you don't always have to put these theories in the context of a narrative to be effective; The Man With the Movie Camera or any number of experimental/avant-garde films (like my recent viewing of Kiarostami's Five) are proof, but they make up a relatively small number of films.


like a play, the acting, character dialogues are more relevant than the plot.I don't agree with this; it seems to me you're making this distinction arbitrarily. Acting and characters need a plot to function in even if that plot is extremely minimal. But plot can just as easily overshadow characters and acting; that's why we have the terms "plot driven" or "character driven". I don't see how one is more inherently important or valid than the other. Only the artist should get to dictate which they want to focus on.


And first the visual part, which is the photography, the directing, the editing, who are all done to produce a new experience. Since sounds, the interaction with sound became more important.Usually these elements are utilized as a way to narrate the story being told. Citizen Kane's great contribution is Welles' revolutionary ways of narrating his story.


Both Eva and Bebop do not have a great plot;Errr, what do you classify as a great plot? Giving a reductionist plot outline doesn't follow that they have bad plots.


What you identify as the metaphysical part of Eva is not narrative, but part of the dialogue and character concept, two different things (tied together of course, otherwise it would fail).The characters and themes require the train-tracks of the plot to drive themselves on. If NGE was all character all we'd be left with would be the series ending, if all we had were themes then all we'd be left with would be a philosophy/psychology textbook. These things are galvanized by the plot so I don't see the point in reducing the importance of the plot. Without the premise and the drama and mysteries produced by the plot nobody would've started watching it in the first place. For better or worse people primarily watch films and anime for interesting narratives and plots.


Reducing Bebop to a movie with style because it lacks metaphysical contempt is like reducing any movie from Singing on the Rain, La Doce Vitta, Blade Runner, The Great Dictador or City of God because they are not Ingmar Bergman movies,Errr, do you seriously think La Dolce Vita and Blade Runner don't have metaphysical themes? As for the rest I've never suggested that a film must be thematically deep or metaphysical to be great or even a masterpiece. But if we compare NGE and Bebop side-by-side what you find are two series that do most every aspect extremely well but NGE simply goes deeper, is more sophisticated and complex in its execution, and its inclusion of those very relevant themes pushes it beyond Bebop's stylish and well-executed story-telling and characters. Bebop is not really relevant on any level besides surface aesthetics and entertainment; this isn't a criticism but a simple observation. NGE works just as well aesthetically and as entertainment but the fact that it goes beyond that simply makes it better.


Because you just need to study the great narrators, be it from literature or oral storytelling, to see that they seek out precision and not complexity of the narrative.So you're saying there are no great narrators who told complex narratives? And, keeping this in the relevant medium, we should keep this to film and animation.


I am very sure that calling a movie that uses adam, eve, Lilith longinius, talk about our soul and human creation, etc qualify as religious. And those are religious allegories. Of course, I did not said that Eva is a religious allegory, but that used it.You're really confusing me here; An allegory is a symbolic narrative, a religious allegory would be a symbolic narrative about religion. NGE is an allegory but it's not an allegory about religion. Its use of religious symbols is a classic example of ALLUSION. The relevance within NGE being the relationship between the original context and how that comments on the new context; not the other way around.


Anno and Gainax are famous for being Otakus writing to otakus at the beginning and they always said that liked to pull a trick or two on Otakus.It goes beyond "playing a trick on Otakus". Anno equated Otakus with, as one article stated it, a "self imposed autism", and in the series itself he equates it with "running away" because of their eschewed view of reality (this is precisely what Shinji suffers from).


I like to see how you complicated the budget problems to a level that ended that he had no budget to finish it. In the end, if he lost money because censorship cut or because he went to La Vegas, still the same: he had no money to finish it, compromising the final ¼ of the series, even the final movie.The budget wasn't even cut until after the censorship problem of ep. 19 and even then there is no noticeable suffering of animation quality. Look at the action scenes of ep. 22-24 which have some of the most luxurious animation in the series. What Anno did (which was extremely smart) was begin moderating how and when he spent the budget on animation, essentially using a method of contrasting quiet scenes of stillness and little animation with the action scenes which were incredibly expensive for the time. Some point to the famous minute-long static shot in ep. 24 with Ode to Joy playing and yet this is a device Anno had already used twice in the series when there were no budget problems so it's difficult to say if that was because of budget or because of an artistic choice (or even a little of both).

The film didn't have any budget problems whatsoever. After the success of NGE and without having to worry about censorship or time Anno made the exact film and ending he wanted to make from the beginning. In the end, the "budget problems" were a blessing in disguise because End of Eva, how it exists, positively couldn't have existed as two TV episodes without severe cuts. And the fact that the series' ending provides a much needed elaboration on the process of Instrumentality (and actually acts like a completed subversion of the surface/subtext relationship) and how that ending contrasts with that of EoE actually gives us a much more "complete" perspective on the end of the series, albeit a radical and completely original perspective, but one that's necessary for fully understanding NGE as Anno intended it.


You can compare anything you want.Yes, let's compare the entire filmography of John Ford with Citizen Kane. Which is better? :rolleyes:


You should start to imagine because several authors or artists have attacked others because to some it is not necessary a deep metaphysical meaning behind any work.I never said that art must have strong themes or metaphysics to be great art. But the entire idea of art is of an artist expressing something (whether representational or abstractly; it doesn't matter) and, usually, an audience relating to that expression. Art is pointless if it isn't relative to us as humans; that doesn't mean the relevancy has to come from any themes or metaphysics, but it very often does and so much of art is the discussion of what the artist MEANT and what the work MEANS to individuals of the artist. Humans are hard-wired for meaning; to find meaning in life which is relevant to us. So to suggest that meaning (which are very often associated with themes) are "not needed" seems silly to me. They may not be a necessity or be all that art can or should do, but they are still an important aspect of a lot of art.


I am sure that millions of people who buy Rei miniatures with little clothes and her breast enhanced are living a mature contemplative experience that will drive their souls to Nirvana and not just enjoying it.One aspect of a fandom is not representative of the whole of that fandom. I don't own a single piece of NGE merchandising, eg.


I am rather dubious of how something with less than 20 years is clearly more influential than anything.Well, let's see, Anno and NGE pretty much single-handedly influenced the Superflat art movement. There are infinitely more animes that have been influenced by NGE and Anno's innovations than have taken a cue from Bebop's stylings. Oshii himself said that NGE was a watershed in anime that pretty much marked the beginning of anime's postmodern era. How much more clear evidence do you need that NGE is more influential than Bebop?


And EVA was not even close to be Star Wars phenomenon. It was never as popular as series like Sailor Moon or other videogames based series, Macross series, Rumiko Takahashi works, DBZs or the real star wars, which is Yamato. Do not exaggerate.I've talked to many people who have lived in Japan and they've basically said that NGE merchandising and promotion was everywhere. When the new film premiered it actually beat out Transformers 2 for the box-office when they opened in Japan (it was the only listed country where Transformers 2 wasn't #1). Most of the other "more popular" series are those pop-phenomenons that happen amongst children. Name an anime even remotely as mature as NGE that's as popular or more revered.


Plus this argument is irrelevant, it is like trying to argue the aesthetics merits of Rambo and Citzen Kane by saying Citzen Kane is more popular in France.I was arguing the popularity in their country of origin; that's hardly irrelevant. If you've actually looked at any "best anime" lists from America and Japan you'll find that NGE is one of the few that is almost invariably at or near the top of both. Besides it they tend to differ radically. I would say that's relevant because it means that of all the animes that are produced it's one of the rare ones which is equally relevant in both countries.

@Quark


Yeah, I don't think the thread needs to prove that Tolkien's books are relevant.... The question is: what specifically is the appeal of the books? How do we account for the popularity and scholarship of the books? I guess the crux would be what I mentioned above; it seems that LotR is relevant on levels that usually aren't considered important in (English) literature, so how do we approach it as literature when its appeal and/or greatness lies elsewhere? What does that say about how we approach other works that similarly don't have a niche in art or academia?


It's hard to judge the movies right now because so much of what was interesting about them was their novelty. They were first epic movies anyone has seen in a long while. In the fifties and sixties, there was a long line of films like Lawrence of Arabia and Ben-Hur that had huge casts, a wide scope, and grand actions, but those went away for decades.But the ambition of the LotR production positively eclipses even similarly epic films like that of Lawrence or Ben-Hur. Of course the idea of epic films with a massive budget and a lot of time to produce was nothing new even if it had been missing in cinema for a while, but there isn't any film ever that even approaches the scope and scale of LotR: not in (relative) budget or in its 8 year production or in the concept of releasing 3 already epic-length films in back-to-back-to-back years. To put it in perspective there is only one film that has a larger budget than LotR despite the fact that they were filmed almost 10 years ago. If we go by inflation then LotR still remains the most expensive film ever by a good 60-70 million.


Once the shock of these novelties wears off, though, I don't know where the movies will be. Is The Lord of the Rings really going to stack up with Lawrence of Arabia? Probably not.For me there never was the "novelty shock" as I'm someone who's pretty disillusioned by CGI and monstrous Hollywood productions. But LotR is on an entirely different level. As far as the comparison with Lawrence of Arabia it's a bit difficult seeing as Lawrence is undoubtedly one of the greatest films ever (even being in the top 20 of Theyshootpictures 1000 greatest films list) and it's hard to compare a single film to a trilogy that essentially works as one monstrous film split into three parts. If we compare the trilogy to Lawrence it's still difficult because we're talking about a near 700 minute production VS a 225 minute film; both long, certainly, but still very different formats.

If I look at my own list of 150 favorite films I have LotR at #46 and Lawrence at #58; so it's close even in my mind, but I think I slightly prefer LotR. Perhaps because they managed to capture a piece of my childhood imagination in a way that I thought could never be done in film again.

[Whifflingpin]

"In England its original publication was essentially a non-event. The real interest started with the hippy subculture."
I got my copy (in England) in 1962, well before the hippy sub-culture reached these shores. The publication details in the Fellowship of the Ring volume show that is the ninth impression. Nine impressions in seven years indicate the book's popularity from the outset.
I have read and re-read the story many times in the half-century. Whether it is respected or not by academics I neither know nor care. It is just a phenomenon, like a sunset or the smell of new-mown hay, that has its own appeal which needs no analysis (except, maybe to would-be copyists.)

[wlz]

Well, Red-Headed, I absolutely agree with you. (On all your posts for this thread!) I am actually quite a fan of Tolkien's work though not so much of the genre. I was introduced to The Hobbit at a very early age by my father who is enthusiast of such works. However, on a lighter note again, wouldn't your thinking immediately result in making the 'Fat Conductor' Gandalf? Thomas and Percy would naturally become Frodo and Sam. But who in the hell could we cast as Aragon?

[Red-Headed]

"In England its original publication was essentially a non-event. The real interest started with the hippy subculture."
I got my copy (in England) in 1962, well before the hippy sub-culture reached these shores. The publication details in the Fellowship of the Ring volume show that is the ninth impression. Nine impressions in seven years indicate the book's popularity from the outset.
I have read and re-read the story many times in the half-century. Whether it is respected or not by academics I neither know nor care. It is just a phenomenon, like a sunset or the smell of new-mown hay, that has its own appeal which needs no analysis (except, maybe to would-be copyists.)

My bad...I wasn't born then so I can't really comment. I'll take your word for it. It always had its admirers. I enjoyed it anyway, I doubt I'll ever read it again though. I had a really good LOTR poster many years ago, by John Howe I believe.


Well, Red-Headed, I absolutely agree with you. (On all your posts for this thread!) I am actually quite a fan of Tolkien's work though not so much of the genre. I was introduced to The Hobbit at a very early age by my father who is enthusiast of such works. However, on a lighter note again, wouldn't your thinking immediately result in making the 'Fat Conductor' Gandalf? Thomas and Percy would naturally become Frodo and Sam. But who in the hell could we cast as Aragon?

I actually read The Hobbit after I read LOTR, I was curious about Tolkien's work after reading LOTR. I do know that 'Gandalf' is from the Icelandic 'Ganda Elf' (Sorcerer Elf) taken from the Prose Edda via Snorri Sturluson by Tolkien. I don't think he'd like to be called 'The Fat Controller' though! :lol:

[Red-Headed]

It's Tolkien's birthday today. He'd be 118!

[Scrooge Mc Duck]

its music, listen to it

[Red-Headed]

its music, listen to it

Music? Howard Shore or Enya (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJRejqlpzC0)?

[prendrelemick]

- I won't read them because the prose is bad -


No it isn't!

If you won't read them, how... Oh never mind.

[JBI]

No it isn't!

If you won't read them, how... Oh never mind.

I've read them before, I meant reread them. And the prose is bad, I have given my proofs on other Tolkien threads, use the search option for my longer response as I am not about to pick up the texts and do it again.

[prendrelemick]

I apologise for that, I have read your opinions on those other threads.

It isn't bad prose. Tolkien uses, probably through choice, prose that is exactly right for the story he tells. Writing simply and appropriately is a skill seen far too rarely.

[JBI]

I apologise for that, I have read your opinions on those other threads.

It isn't bad prose. Tolkien uses, probably through choice, prose that is exactly right for the story he tells. Writing simply and appropriately is a skill seen far too rarely.

Appropriate for what? In the sense that one writes scholarship, there is a scholarly mode, but in the sense that one writes fiction, there isn't as rigid a "suitable" or "appropriate" as there is an interesting, good, or fluid, or beautiful.

I remember reading in some guide to literature several years ago of style divided, for prose, into for categories:

Didactic - with the example of Tom Jones
Low Mimetic - with the example of Jane Austen, sort of a comedic sense generated from the scholarship of Frye which means the everyday is sort of showcased in a comedic frame.
High Mimetic - with the example of Bleak House by Dickens, where elements of tragedy and classical writing seem to invade to give a more grandiose and heightened sense of events. (the excerpt examined was the spontaneous combustion sequence)
and Impressionist, with the example of To The Lighthouse, where the view of the world is modified through an impression as done by a severe focalization, so that the setting, and interpretation of events is made most subjective, and the feelings and stream of consciousness are brought forward.

That seems like a pretty good, though simplistic diagram.

Tolkien though, is using language never really seen in English - he is borrowing older forms from other, dead mostly, languages, and planting them into English prose to get something that is neither fluid, beautiful, or pretty - it is simply archaic, long winded, and silly.

For experts on style, such as Faulkner, James, Joyce, Woolf, Hemmingway, Fitzgerald, and others, the prose is both beautiful and artistic - you can take a paragraph, as you can with poets like Wordsworth and Milton, and see how the language functions to create the effect, and how it is expressing things in a style that both fits with context, and is both individualistic and beautiful in its delivery - so the style of Hills Like White Elephants, for instance, using Hemmingway's Iceberg Theory seems to work fittingly, and wittingly, to create the desired effect of the dialogue, and the way it develops the characters through suggestion.

In the same sense, one can take most chapters of Joyce, and understand exactly how the style is reflective of the message - so for instance the 10th episode of Ulysses is playing with different news paper idioms, contrasting American, and English, and other headlines to make a sort of coherent metaphor for print media, and language. Or The final scene, where the style removes punctuation and utilizes the word "yes" as a means of creating the illusion that the words and ideas are coming from a state between sleep and consciousness, of pure thought.

That is style - what Tolkien is doing is using his style as a vehicle to support an already mediocre and dated story. Style is a vehicle, but the purpose of being archaic is more idiosyncratic and personal, rather than outwardly beautiful or readable - it is no surprise then, that the bulk of detractors here jump upon the style first of all, as it seems to be the one defect that no amount of arguing seems to get beyond - it seems that the prose doesn't justify itself as archaic, or as necessary - there is no purpose to it, other than to adhere to a vision - but this is fiction, in a public media - the readership arguably isn't as devoted to the clarity of vision as Tolkien seemed to be, and as such, is perhaps better treated with prose that reads well, even if it is Hemmingway simple, or Dickens complex.

[Whifflingpin]

"Tolkien though, is using language never really seen in English - he is borrowing older forms from other, dead mostly, languages, and planting them into English prose to get something that is neither fluid, beautiful, or pretty - it is simply archaic, long winded, and silly. "

Well, I'm glad I don't have your insight - if I had, I'd have missed the pleasure of reading the Lord of the Rings again and again over many years.

[Drkshadow03]

As for the in depth scholarship of Tolkien - even if that was true (somebody like Joyce has far fewer sales, but a great deal more scholarship written on him), one must also realize that there has probably been a far great deal more scholarship put on texts like Mien Kamph, or any other number of anti-semitic, racist, sexist, or whatever works, with no real "literary merit." Are we to say that everything studied is art, or justified as good, and that everything popular is good?

I'm not interested in getting in this argument, but I will offer some numbers for those who may be curious and want to get a picture of how much scholarship is produced on Tolkien with comparison to Joyce and Mein Kampf.

MLA International Bibliography:

1704 Total Publications for "Tolkien, J. R. R."
of which
1145 are articles from general journals
348 are Peer-reviewed articles
101 are books
419 are chapters/essays.

9450 Total Publications for "Joyce, James"
5933 articles from general journals
3794 from peer-reviewed journals
686 books
2137 chapters/essays.

34 total for "Mein Kampf"
17 General journals
9 Peer-reviewed
2 Books
15 Chapters/Essays

Historical Abstracts:

15 Results for Tolkien, J. R. R. Subject Heading

111 "Joyce, James" Subject Heading

22 Results for "Mein Kampf (book)" Subject Heading

JSTOR:

2476 for Tolkien

48846 James Joyce

5704 Mein Kampf