Which COUNTRY has produced the greatest literature?

Quote:

---

What I like in Joyce is his command of language. It melts in his hands, he is a wordsmith, so is Beckett. They can make simple words do wonders and be creative and inventive if simple language fails. This is taking language beyond itself, putting it under so much creative pressure that it transforms. These writers are for listening to, get a good audio book version, something from Nestor Audio Books. BBC serialised an excellent reading of Ulysses as well. I have these gems in my huge collection

---

Well said. Ulysses is an absolutely brilliant book, far better than anthing Faulkner ever wrote. I don't have much time for Faulkner, I have never been able to read any of his novels, he may very well be a great writer, though he is not for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inderjit Sanghe

Well said. Ulysses is an absolutely brilliant book, far better than anthing Faulkner ever wrote. I don't have much time for Faulkner, I have never been able to read any of his novels, he may very well be a great writer, though he is not for me.

---

I was forced to read As I Lay Dying as a part of coursework at the uni and to be honest, I am yet to read a more repulsive book. I have The Light of August and Absolom Absolom but after reading the first book, I have absolutely no desire to read anything else by Faulkner. There are better Southern writers, though not as prolific but, most of the other Southern greats are better than Faulkner. I found even Walker Percy more interesting and dedicated a good few months of my life to his writings.

I'm sorry, there is no use arguing with fixed minded philistines who have not even read the primary sources, which essentially means they are not authorities on anything Tolkien related. Try reading Joyce without catching the allusions, it's the same thing, only Joyce's allusions act as deliberate allusions, whereas Tolkien's are masked in new names, and propagated as originals by his fans.

Your "so what" argument doesn't phase anything. You have offered no contrary statements, and alluded the strongest points I have made, as a way of wiggling out of admitting Tolkien is a) a mediocre author, in terms of style and mechanics, b) he wasn't original at all, and c) he wasn't as influential as many of his contemporaries.

If you say something is "as developed" and I say something is more developed, I am not saying you are saying they are less developed, I am yelling at you for putting them on par. If I say Salman Rushdie is as good as Nora Roberts, I am putting them on par, which is greatly lowering Rushdie, or greatly raising Roberts. The result, the response I gave you.

Read what I write before hastily commenting please, and next time provide evidence from the text. The whole Gandalf being sent back is further explained in the Salimarillion (sp?) so I hear, and therefore does not count as being part of The Lord of the Rings. References to further books do not count is arguing over the merits of one books (I refer to the rings as one, because they seem to be written as one).

I have read The Rings, and many of the sources that inspired the rings (albeit, not in the original, but still) and have drawn the comparisons. I have also read Tolkinian contemporary authors, and studied them in depth. IF you have done the same, you would know how silly your argument sounds. If you haven't, then I guess you have no right to comment. Don't worry I forgive you.

And P.S., calling on Nabokov as a critic for anything is a dangerous move. He may have been a good writer, but his criticisms don't measure up, especially when you look at which authors have been accepted into the canon that he greatly criticized, such as Dostoevsky. And another note on that comment, Fairy Tales have morals a), and b) are potentially more in depth about humanity than any other text if they stem from an oral tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

IF you knew anything about epics, as a genre, you would not have posted that. The Lord of The Rings is not an epic. It doesn't even come close to being an epic.

---

Bah! An Epic was a narrative and deeds of Hero or significant events for the formation of a nation. Tolkien had this exactly intention to create his stories and while you may argue he wasn't a good writer, but dismissing his knowledge of epic poetry to pretend he didn't know what he was talking about is another thing.
As I said, there is everything needed for epic in the Silmarilion and lord of the rings (Dom Quixote however is not an epic, it is a mockery of heroism) and was build like one, except using prose as source.

Your comentary about Nabakov - a very good critic by the way - makes no sense. Just because he had a rabid hatred against Dostoievisky ? Tolstoi also had. Borges disliked Sammuel Becket. Ezra Pound dismissed Finengan's Wake, Virgil and little more. Virginia Woolf dismissed Joyce and Robert Louis Stevenson. Voltaire dimissed Shakespeare. Harold Bloom had no idea who Guimaraes Rosa is. T.S.Eliot dispesed Poe (who is usually dispaised by most of north-american critics). Oh, well, humanity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kafka's Crow

I was forced to read As I Lay Dying as a part of coursework at the uni and to be honest, I am yet to read a more repulsive book. I have The Light of August and Absolom Absolom but after reading the first book, I have absolutely no desire to read anything else by Faulkner. There are better Southern writers, though not as prolific but, most of the other Southern greats are better than Faulkner. I found even Walker Percy more interesting and dedicated a good few months of my life to his writings.

---

I'd give Faulkner another go - Sanctuary is so incredibly unlike As I Lay Dying...and much more like reading Jim Thopson or Raymond Chandler or Dashiell Hammett. LOL!

The book I have most hated reading was Love in The Ruins I kept wanting to throw it against the wall each time I picked itup and read for any amount of time....

I do not like Jane Austen--technically she is brilliant and one of the best of the best--however I don't care one iota about any of her characters or plots (more like non-plots to me)...however, I keep slowly plunging my way though her books...just because I feel like I ought to keep trying to "get" her. I figure there is some reason everyone thinks she is so amazing and that I wanted to have read more of her, so that I could make better assesment.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, there is no use arguing with fixed minded philistines who have not even read the primary sources, which essentially means they are not authorities on anything Tolkien related

---

Har! There you have it, philistine, eh? Do you know why I have not read the primary sources? Because I have other things to do in my life than read. Really. Honestly. I am not joking! I guess this shows my inherent lack of culture, but there you go, I am just a vulgar little so-and-so, a jejunish reader who is nothing compared to you, Leviathian scholar, whoever-you-are, I have not actually met you, apart from some tentative discussions on books, but you sure as hell have shown me up for the sententious vulgarian that I am. I thank you!

I have read LoTR quite a few times, I think I know the books a lot better than yourself, I did not know reading original sources is the primary qualification for a Tolkien scholar. I will keep that in mind.

I am also close-minded because I have an opinion which differs from yours, heaven forbid, though I understand minds such as yours have little patience for minds such as mine, or minds different from yours etc etc.

Quote:

---

Try reading Joyce without catching the allusions

---

I tried my friend, I tried, alas, I do not know what you mean about 'without catching the allusions', I do now know how you know so much about what I think about Joyce. I love him for his language in the main as well as for his rather wondrous collection of dirty jokes and scenes , ponderous philistine that I am!
You know what, JBI, you crack me up!

Quote:

---

a) a mediocre author, in terms of style and mechanics, b) he wasn't original at all, and c) he wasn't as influential as many of his contemporaries.

---

It is a bit hard to argue against your original point-I think that Tolkien is a great writer, his prose is fine, his story exciting, irreverent and beautiful in turns, his plot is interesting and original and I like his characters. I think he has many beautiful passages and 'ideas' in his books: that sometimes love and bravery are all that is needed to conquer evil, that sometimes you don't need to achieve any kind of solid victory to fight evil and that the act of defiance itself is enough, Faramir's statement about loving the freedoms that are defended by violence and not the violence itself, that utterly beautiful description of Sam's realisation upon seeing the stars that evil is ephemeral and limited and that there is a high beauty forever beyond it's reach, the final passage of LoTR in which Frodo and co. drift away from Middle-Earth forever. I admire his ability to create new languages and histories, a new world even. I love his detailed descriptions of nature.

The second statement-by your logic, few authors are truly original.

The final one-perhaps you are right in relation to influence in 'intellectual' circles.

Quote:

---

The whole Gandalf being sent back is further explained in the Salimarillion (sp?) so I hear, and therefore does not count as being part of The Lord of the Rings. References to further books do not count is arguing over the merits of one books (I refer to the rings as one, because they seem to be written as one).

---

Actually, if you read LoTR close enough you will realise that it is hinted at there. It may have been commented upon in the appendix briefly, I don't have to books in front of me so I cannot say. It is referred to explicity in 'Unfinished Tales', much of which couldn't be put in the appendix because it would have been far too much info. to publish.

Just because it is outside of LoTR doesn't make it irrelevant-it is a piece of secondary material which allows you to pick up more information on the characters.

Quote:

---

Don't worry I forgive you.

---

Forgive me for what? Not reading the original sources? Er...thanks....

Quote:

---

And P.S., calling on Nabokov as a critic for anything is a dangerous move. He may have been a good writer, but his criticisms don't measure up, especially when you look at which authors have been accepted into the canon that he greatly criticized, such as Dostoevsky

---

Nabokov is, and always will be, my main guide for reading books. Dostoevskii is over-rated. He wrote a lot of completely banal stories-C&P, The Idiot and The Devils are stand outs. So what it he didn't like him? Most writers didn't like some other great writers, what is your point? So what if an author is 'accepted into the canon' (whatever that means)-does that automatically make him a great writer and immune from criticism?

Nabokov is a brilliant critic, he reads books for what they are rather than making them into something they are not. Kind of like Robbe-Grillet's comments about critics reading Kafka for rather simplistic allegorical purposes, rather than appreciate Kafka for the brilliance of his images, stories and characters.

Quote:

---

And another note on that comment, Fairy Tales have morals a), and b) are potentially more in depth about humanity than any other text if they stem from an oral tradition

---

1. What the hell does "in depth about humanity" actually mean?
2. He didn't mean fairy tales in that way, he merely used it as an analogy i.e. all great novels are fictional works, pieces of make believe.

As I said before, JBI, you really do crack me up. Maybe you think you are some kind of mind-reader to have come up with such arbitrary assumptions about individuals who you have never met, with the exception of a few tentative literary discussions.

I think reading Tolkien primary sources (which include Lewis Carroll, the One Ring was born meaningless and as a child's story) is good but does not stop you from the appreciation of the story. It will show that Tolkien and Wagner had similar influences and place then in the history of literature. It won't say much about the quality of the work however.

JBI have some reason about Tolkien originality if we read originality as creating something totally anew (instead of the correct re-creating something as new). Tolkien, and Tolkien reckons it, is using a lot of material to create a mythological past for "His" own England. He borrows from a lot of sources and hardly anything he uses cann't be found in other stories, at least the prototypes. Discussing it is silly, because the same can be said about Joyce, it is in the form of narration that Joyce is something new. Tolkien is not. His linguistic work helped him to use the modern (at his time) visions about language to build up his world and some may claim that was something new, but that would be all.
I would like to point that his narrative is not that wonderfull, but his description is - caused by Tolkien care to build up a background for his characters rather than developing them and setting them aloof in his world. Tolkien is in my opinion limited as writer but far from being just one of those guys from the best-seller crop just following a given formula. His books are not inside the formula for best-seller and their popularity can not be linked for the same reason Dan Brown is popular. But trying to measure him with Joyce will do not good for Tolkien's image.
As fantasy go, the two greatest writers of Fantasy of our century are Borges and Kafka. The formula of magical reality in our reality is considerable more powerful and meaningful that the building of paralel realities, however this is not that important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Bah! An Epic was a narrative and deeds of Hero or significant events for the formation of a nation. Tolkien had this exactly intention to create his stories and while you may argue he wasn't a good writer, but dismissing his knowledge of epic poetry to pretend he didn't know what he was talking about is another thing.
As I said, there is everything needed for epic in the Silmarilion and lord of the rings (Dom Quixote however is not an epic, it is a mockery of heroism) and was build like one, except using prose as source.

Your comentary about Nabakov - a very good critic by the way - makes no sense. Just because he had a rabid hatred against Dostoievisky ? Tolstoi also had. Borges disliked Sammuel Becket. Ezra Pound dismissed Finengan's Wake, Virgil and little more. Virginia Woolf dismissed Joyce and Robert Louis Stevenson. Voltaire dimissed Shakespeare. Harold Bloom had no idea who Guimaraes Rosa is. T.S.Eliot dispesed Poe (who is usually dispaised by most of north-american critics). Oh, well, humanity...

---

It is not an epic because it does not concern his contemporary societies desires and ideals. That is the key ingredient of epics, not length, or adventure, but rather that they contain the image of what was idealized, and thought excellent by the population of its region in its time period. No, Tolkien's elves don't do that.


To Inderjit Sanghe


Your comments of "I think he is original even though I have not read the sources he drew upon" essentially negate your entire argument. I won't even go into finer detail nitpicking, because as you admitted before, you are no authority. If you have not read the originals, how can you dare even begin to talk about originality.

I brought Joyce up there to explain, essentially, that without knowing about the Hamlet he was discussing, or the Bible he comments upon, many parts are unintelligible.

And, if they didn't make the book, they are not part of the book. Appendixes thrown together after Tolkien's death, or at the ebb of his life, don't count as part of the book. If the book is written in appendixes written after the fact, it does not count. Alluded to helps no one.

Either way, you are adamant in believing Tolkien to be a prose genius, which even his fans can't seem to support. I am certain his boring details, which are frivolous, and unimportant to the story, greatly make his style sub-par. I can back that up with quotes if you really want, I have an text in front of me which I am ready to cut at.

No sense. Tolkien had to fought to not allow people to interpretate his books as an alegory of Second War and he was as basis of the Hippie Movement as Doors of Perception. He did concerned his contemporary society and ideals. Even if that was beyond Tolkien intention.

The Hippie movement came after him, and only semi-hit. Compare that to Virgil's status amongst the romans, or the Homeric conception of Arete, or the religious nature of the Comedia, or even the pagan idealism of Beowulf. All those books capture their time periods beliefs and desires. Tolkien was semi-misinterpreted by a small number, and accepted (not nearly as well as many of his contemporaries keep in mind). The fact that the hippie movement that took him on was in the US and not England essentially proves this. It was coincidental that his ludditism corresponded with anti-war Marxist beliefs. If you examine other angles, he clearly is quite conservative, and even goes against many ideals of the Hippies who accepted him, especially in regard to his pro-aristocratic nature.

The latin culture is very rich in traditional forms of poems (lyric and epic) and dramatic texts (tragedie, comedy, parody) as well.
The spanish, italian and portuguese literatures are rich in greek-latin inheritance.
That is intrinsic in the language and inside the cultures of Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile...
Francesco Petrarca (who developped the sonnet form) is just one example.

For the complete version of the text:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...t=34862&page=3

For everyone in São Paulo or who goes to São Paulo:
Visit the Portuguese Language Museum, at the Luz Station.
Know more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_...guese_Language
(in english)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The Hippie movement came after him, and only semi-hit. Compare that to Virgil's status amongst the romans, or the Homeric conception of Arete, or the religious nature of the Comedia, or even the pagan idealism of Beowulf. All those books capture their time periods beliefs and desires. Tolkien was semi-misinterpreted by a small number, and accepted (not nearly as well as many of his contemporaries keep in mind). The fact that the hippie movement that took him on was in the US and not England essentially proves this. It was coincidental that his ludditism corresponded with anti-war Marxist beliefs. If you examine other angles, he clearly is quite conservative, and even goes against many ideals of the Hippies who accepted him, especially in regard to his pro-aristocratic nature.

---

The hippie movement came one decade after him, they are exactly the generation that read the LoTR. The Homeric texts are mostly than likely "writen" with decades of difference and same the books of the Comedia, you can not safely argue that any effect of the book was in less than 10 years.
Plus, comparing the influece or status is silly - All those guys were more important than Tolkien and Eneid, Iliad, Odissey are all superior to anything Tolkien wrote. But that is a matter of quality and not style.
The hippie movement in america took him? Great, because the hippie movement is American. Meanwhile, Tolkien was just the most popular author of his homeland? Mis-interpreted is a bit of a joke - That is like saying everyone interpreted Dante correctly. I doubt so.

Quote:

---

It was coincidental that his ludditism corresponded with anti-war Marxist beliefs.

---

So, are you saying that aspects of Lord of the Rings represented vallues of his period. Good.
Anyways, Goethe was accepted as part of the german nationalistic movement although he was not exactly that, Voltaire was wrongly taken as democratic by the revolutionary. Tolkien was conservative (I would say most of the Epics and myths are) in England? When the world was a rather conservative ? Churchill and all?
The basic thing is your deffinition of Epic is not usefull at all. Kafka never wrote an epic, neither Jorge Luis Borges, neither Shakespeare and they "or adventure, but rather that they contain the image of what was idealized, and thought excellent by the population of its region in its time period." (In Kafka case the anti-epic, because The "Ire" of Achilles was not what was considered excellent by the greek mindset) but imagine Kipling. Or Anatole France. And there goes, several styles of literature do such thing and you need to add the narrative about an hero or occurance that deals with what you said.
Anyways, I think you are being slighty exagerated about Tolkien (tolkien fanboyism may be annoying, as it is trying to bring Joyce Down to defend him) because Tolkien themes are kind of universal (friendship, companionship, pacifism during the world wars) and he was of course creating a epic story for his fictional world (which was a mirror of what he saw the past of england), which could be the solution for epic when the genre was basically dead except in exagerated hollywood productions.

Tolkien didn't invented the genre fantasy, the fictional fantasy universe, the heroes basic story, the german/celtic re-telling of myths nothing of that is often labeled to him but then most of the "creators of moderm genres" (Poe, Verne, etc) didn't created them at all.