Wales has produced, also, many fine poets writing in the original. Unfortunately, Welsh doesn't translate well at all.
Wales has produced, also, many fine poets writing in the original. Unfortunately, Welsh doesn't translate well at all.
Oh how very Shakespearean! For one minute I thought you were talking about TS Eliot! Any way, I haven't got much love for Lewis although I respect his erudition and try to ignore his Christian bias because it tends to offend my atheistic bias. Such clashes scare critical judgment away. I have heard the movie was blatantly Christian. Apparently its sequence, Prince Caspian will be out later this week. My boy read the whole Narnia series when he was 7. It was strange seeing him sitting down reading the huge mammoth of a book.Originally Posted by JBI
"The farther he goes the more good it does me. I don’t want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the sh1t the more I am grateful to him..."
-- Harold Pinter on Samuel Beckett
Dylan Thomas was Welsh, though he wrote in English.
"The farther he goes the more good it does me. I don’t want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the sh1t the more I am grateful to him..."
-- Harold Pinter on Samuel Beckett
Actually no they are not. Your inept reading of the text is your problem, not a problem of the text itself. The four hobbits-Frodo, Merry, Pippin and Sam all change during the novel-they "grow up", so to speak, become wiser away from their 'ignorant' hobbit roots.Look. Each character in Lord of the Rings is no different than in the beginning of the novel
[QUOTE]Knows everything about everything, and yet does nothing. His flaws go as far as to forcing him to save the day. He is less round than even a Dumbledore. He is not a character, but simply a walking textbook, who happens to have useless magic to throw into the mix, which never seems to save the day.[QUOTE]
Again your reading is ignorant-Gandalf does not know everything about anything, he was essentially a Angelic spirit spent to Middle-Earth to help them battle against Sauron, in becoming 'humanized' he lost a great deal of his prior foresight and powers. As for him "doing nothing"-that is his role, to help and guide not to coerce, to understand minds and not to dominate them, that is his personality. He was sent to offer the inhabitants of Middle-Earth guidance, not to make their choices for them. As for him being 'useless' it is untrue-he kills the Balrog and drives away the Nazgul on several occasions.
I haven't read them. Or heard Wagner. Reducing authors to their 'primary sources' is a narrow-minded way of approaching literature.The whole "the similarities and differences end with both rings being round" argument was used by Tolkien to dissuade comparison between the two works. Everyone can see exactly where Tolkien grabbed from, if they have read the primary sources (I would love to know which ones you have read, in order to better understand what sort of argument you can possibly be creating). Having read the primary sources, you can easily nitpick exactly who and what everything in Tolkien is
Oh, ho, ho, such witty casuistry. Putting words that don't exist into my own mouth! Great work there. I said his style could be considered archaic and said that if you found his prose boring then that was your opinion.Give Tolkien to an adult who read him in his/her youth, and I would love to see the results. His prose, even you admit is terrible.
[QUOTE][stated there are no lessons in his books, and no form of allegorical connection with our world/QUOTE]
That is because essentially there are no lessons in books. What lessons do you seek exactly? Art is art and life is life, books with 'lessons'-existentialism blah blah etc. etc. are so tendentious that is an effort to get through them. Allegory is another banality in literature, another insidious form of propaganda used by myopic Naturalists, Realists and other such trash.
All great books, as Nabokov stated, are fairy tales, literature in essence is an 'escape from reality', to say that literature can only be what your parochially define it as being is just plain silly.) escape from reality, which is not the purpose of literature
Leopold Bloom is a far more developed character than Gandalf. There is no doubt in that, simply because we know his thoughts, we know he varys, we know he has inconsistent views, we know he likes certain things, and hypocritically doesn't like others. We even know his dietary desires. What we know about Gandalf, is that he occasionally scorns the boys, has an indefinite amount of knowledge, which never seems to do anything, and likes to smoke a pipe.I think that you have a problem with reading what other people write. I said he is no less 'believable' as a character. Yes we do get to hear the thoughts of Bloom and Flaubert, but that is a case of the specific writers style than anything. How is hearing about how Bloom likes liver any different from hearing that Gandalf likes a smoke, a 'dietary habit' of Gandalf. Yes, Joyce is essentially a better writer than Tolkien, his language and syntax is far beyond any other English language writer that is Joyce's main strength.Charles Bovary too is very developed in comparison. His character has roots, his actions always seem justified, and yet the justifications are just implied, and his character changes, and reacts. You don't get that in Gandalf
In relation to your point you claimed that Gandalf is less believable than the Wagnerian character because he was "good"-I point out that in all essence characters such as Bloom and Charles Bovary are also "good" characters who, by your definition are unrealistic, that by your logic we should have in the place of the incompetent Charles, a angry husband seeking vengeance, rather than telling Rodolpe that he forgives him. I am not saying that a jealous husband is any more 'realistic' than a non-jealous one, I am using your logic to show that it is flawed in terms of interpreting characters.
Gandalf's justification lies in his own personality and his own mission, he was a guide, he helped people make their decision-he certainly did not have an infinite supply of knowledge.
Wow-first I am somehow ignorant of Indian culture and now I am hack reader. Thanks. To me you are narrow-minded and arrogant, but that doesn't matter I forgive you.Did you even read the books? To me it seems like you are just a movie fan, who read a Wiki summary and thinks he knows the secrets.
I thought Tolkien doesn't go into any detail? What is wrong with going into detail? Wasn't it a good thing that we hear about Bloom's dietary habits?He provides family trees where names will do, and insists on describing every detail of something before moving on
Your reading problems are now reaching monumental levels. I already explained in a paragraph in my previous post why he deserves to be read. He writes beautifully, yes he writes 'archaically', but I do not find that as aesthetically displeasing as you do. That is life, opinions are like asses, everybody has one, though Tolkien does not have by any means an abysmal writing style. His descriptions of nature are beautiful, he has many 'profound' moments in his novel (in terms of philosophy), his characters are not as static as you would assume, especially in the 'Silmarillion', which contains, in my opinion, some of the most interesting characters in fiction and his creation of a whole new world is magnificent. The ending of LoTR was, for me, one of the most touching moments in literature. LoTR is by no means medicore in terms of language or theme, or those short passages with illimunate a book.Why should he be read? You tell me.
Tolkien deals with many important issues in relation to life, if that is what turns you on. His thoughts on power and on death, the main theme of the book, on the power of love, are profound.
[QUOTE][Anyone who has read the books, and other books by his contemporaries, can clearly see his prose is rubbish./QUOTE]
Clearly. And it keeps topping lists of 'Greatest Book of All Time' because....
Oh how very Shakespearean! For one minute I thought you were talking about TS Eliot!
Speaking of Shakespeare, did you hear about that the students from a Jewish school who refused to read him because they felt he was anti-semitic? Honestly, you couldn't make it up....
The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov
human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert
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.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
The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov
human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert
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.
"The farther he goes the more good it does me. I don’t want philosophies, tracts, dogmas, creeds, ways out, truths, answers, nothing from the bargain basement. He is the most courageous, remorseless writer going and the more he grinds my nose in the sh1t the more I am grateful to him..."
-- Harold Pinter on Samuel Beckett
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.
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...
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.
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'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
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.
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!Try reading Joyce without catching the allusions
You know what, JBI, you crack me up!
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.
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.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).
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.
Forgive me for what? Not reading the original sources? Er...thanks....Don't worry I forgive you.
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?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 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.
1. What the hell does "in depth about humanity" actually mean?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
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.
The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.-Vladimir Nabokov
human speech is like a cracked kettle on which we tap crude rhythms for bears to dance to, while we long to make music that will melt the stars-Flaubert
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.
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.
Last edited by JBI; 05-13-2008 at 02:10 PM.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote