Wot, no Tolkein?

[Ginthaeriel]

...And yet, with all the letters and words bouncing around in your skull, you continue to argue the point.  This is the point you find "impossible and fruitless to even try and predict."  The fact is, you've entered the fray, and so you can only expect that others will target your statements.

I know. I don't expect my statements won't be targeted by others, indeed, I am welcoming it. By all means, rip my posts apart: I have only much to learn from my mistakes. As I said:

I've opened up my line of reasoning to plenty of possible criticisms, and I've tried to counter every point. I'm only trying to engage intellectually at the topic. If you think I've said something wrong, then please, tell me where: I am constantly seeking to improve my knowledge and understanding of things.

But you've never actually targeted any of my statements. You quote me but don

[Ginthaeriel]

Um, yes, which was my point. You seem to be arguing both sides. If halflings, for example, are quintessentially Tolkien, and Tolkien never existed, then neither would halflings.

Again, I'm talking about High Fantasy, a genre which I think would have existed with or without Tolkien. Just not his particular brand of "Tolkienesque" high fantasy.

But everyone would interpret the myths in their own way. Without the weight of work done by Tolkien there aren't any halflings, specifically, for example, and no broad Tolkien flavour.

Exactly, but the nature of the literature: being an epic fairy tale-- would still exist in spirit. The flavour would be different, but I think the "flavour" is really inconsequential when compared to the literary merit of the meat and potatoes of the genre.

Take out all the Tolkienesque fantasy fiction, and assume it never existed. Would it somehow spontaneously appear, under the pen of someone else? Doubtful. Certainly not in it's present form, and probably even taking a lot more time it would never be so. We'd have more of the non-Tolkien-fantasy, definitely. Would this take some of Tolkien's popularity? Maybe, and maybe not.

I am in total agreement. But High Fantasy, the non-Tolkien fantasy, would definitely come out. What I

[Cantousent]

I don't respond to all of your arguments because most of them are irrelevant. I say what I have to say and, should you desire the sort of point by point, twenty page mental auto-eroticism you've come to enjoy foisting on the unsuspecting board, you must simply provide it yourself. Of course, you provide it. In spades. Gleefully, even.

 

Since you

[Lyric Suite]

My knowledge of new classical music is sketchy at best, but it seems to me that no living classical composer is as good as any of the greats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can find a lot of composers from the early 20th century that are comparable to older ones (Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg - to name a few).

 

Post 1950, it's hard to tell.

 

Ligeti is the only one that comes close among those i tried, but i think part of the problem is that classical music has a whole has completely shifted out of public view.

 

Granted, classical music has always been a genre for a selected few, and many past composers have never been 'popular' in their day. Bach for instance was relatively unknown in his time and after he died his music felt into oblivion until Mendlesshon jump started the Bach craze in the 1830s.

 

Who knows how many great composers are out there working in complete obscurity?

I'm guessing that if there are really any, we will know about them only after they have been long gone...

Edited March 8, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[Ginthaeriel]

I don't respond to all of your arguments because most of them are irrelevant.  I say what I have to say and, should you desire the sort of point by point, twenty page mental auto-eroticism you've come to enjoy foisting on the unsuspecting board, you must simply provide it yourself.  Of course, you provide it.  In spades.  Gleefully, even.

If you find some of my arguments irrelevant, then I'd like you to point them out to me, so that I can refine my ability. I definitely have problems with succinctness, and I would appreciate if you could help me in that regard. Even a single word response, and perhaps a sentence to back up why that particular argument is "irrelevant", is enough.

 

And besides, surely my particular brand of what you label as "mental auto-eroticism" is better than the one line smiley spamming glurges that are so rampant on the board?

You can seriously ask me to

[Weiser_Cain]

I for one don't really even like elves. I hate dwarves, so if he wants to take credit for that crap fine, he is the master of suck.

Maybe if tolk had got his during the war fantasy would be less euro-centric, maybe we'd all read more vampire stories (where I am now) or science fiction (my first love), or better yet maybe more original horror.

Maybe there'd be less cheesiness and more horror in the vaguely racist stories of conflict between human and demi (sub?) humans.

I imagine there'd be a lot more stories set on earth instead of some wholly made up world and maybe less focus on different languages and crappy poetry and songs. Characters might relate better to women and elves would be more like forest sprites and not effeminate men and ice queens.

There certainly would be more diversity in the field and by extension more creativity. Maybe we

[Spider]

Ginthaeriel, I'd just like to point out that not all dislike your way of handling yourself in this discussion.

 

I find your posts very interesting and your style of argumenting (with quotes and all) to be very helpful to the reader in order to keep things sorted.

 

Nor do I feel that you devaluate Tolkien, but I guess in this I could be a little biased since I am not a great fan of him myself, although that is because I don't like him as a writer. I do not deny his accomplishments when it came to defining the "High Fantasy" genre.

 

Anyway, I just wanted you to know that some people do appreciate your posts in this thread and find them entertaining and informative.

 

 

Edit: Also, props for quoting Michael Moorcok on occasion. Of him I am a fan.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Spider

[Lyric Suite]

One thing i don't understand. Why is it called 'high' fantasy? There's nothing really 'high' about it...

[astr0creep]

One thing i don't understand. Why is it called 'high' fantasy? There's nothing really 'high' about it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To properly enjoy it, you must be.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Low fantasy is more down to earth stuff.

 

Neq the Sword, Conan, Wolf in Shadow etc.

 

So I guess the high/low scale is how far removed from "reality" it is.

[Shadowstrider]

One thing i don't understand. Why is it called 'high' fantasy? There's nothing really 'high' about it...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, typically "high" fantasy means highly fantastic. Lots of magic and mythical creatures. The less outlandish/fantastic the story, the less likely it is to be "high" fantasy, and just fantasy.

[Cantousent]

I promised. :Eldar

[metadigital]

I for one don't really even like elves. I hate dwarves, so if he wants to take credit for that crap fine, he is the master of suck.

Maybe if tolk had got his during the war fantasy would be less euro-centric, maybe we'd all read more vampire stories (where I am now) or science fiction (my first love), or better yet maybe more original horror.

Maybe there'd be less cheesiness and more horror in the vaguely racist stories of conflict between human and demi (sub?) humans.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a valid point: it is impossible to ignore some of the darker allegorical patterns in his literature. The example of British class springs readily to mind: Sam is a perfect batman (as in an aide-de-camp), a working class member of Bilbo's staff.

 

If Tolkien were German, he might have had a race resembling the Khoikhoin, whom the Second Reich (under Kaiser Bill) tried to clense from Namibia in the first decade of the twentieth century.

I imagine there'd be a lot more stories set on earth instead of some wholly made up world and maybe less focus on different languages and crappy poetry and songs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Crappy poetry and songs? No accounting for taste. These songs are repleat with historical insight. Not something I listen to all day every day, but they are certainly technically compelling.

Characters might relate better to women and elves would be more like forest sprites and not effeminate men and ice queens.

There certainly would be more diversity in the field and by extension more creativity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tolkien, as they say, was a man of his time. Sexism was not his invention: he was merely reflecting the biases of the times. The obviousness of Universal Suffrage had only become apparent when the women of Europe were left to run the industries whilst the men were drowning in the mud of the trench that stretched from Swizerland to the coast of Belgium. Maybe without Tolkien the rigid gender delineations of the (Christian) Europeans might have made survived longer unchalleged.

 

We might also not have any rich tapestry at all: just little niches of special interest, like gothic or space opera. Tolkien gave a palette and easel for others to paint their masterpieces.

Maybe we

[Ginthaeriel]

And how exactly would it look? What's the source of your conviction other than doubting the other side? I believe that high fantasy would have undertaken the same motifs and world views with or without Tolkien because of its symbolic relationship with the zeitgeist of our time. The Western thirst for a "struggle" between Good vs. Evil dates all the way back to Christianity and was bound to manifest in a mythological "fantasy" during a time when religion was being phased out of society. It makes perfect sense that Tolkien, a British author, would be the one to write LOTR and not an American - because Britain's faith in Christianity was shaken deeper than the US's and had a much richer tradition of myths and legends. If not for Tolkien, another British author - perhaps Lewis - would have attempted the same and the product, though not exactly matching Tolkien's version, would have been similar enough to serve the same functions. Why? Because the underlying desire high fantasy attempts to assuage is fundamental to Western society.

 

Wow! That

[Cantousent]

It was worth reading, even if it was tough. The quotes got garbled.

 

I don't think Tolkien is a genius for his writing. I think he's a genius for his world building. Strange figure, our Tolkien. ...But I agree, he did not create the genre. That's not even counterfactual. The genre was being born. He managed to be in on the very beginning and left his imprint. That's why I've never really contended that we wouldn't have the genre without Tolkien.

 

Ah hell, like a lot of arguments between folks on the boards, we probably agree on the majority of the issue. It's those tiny details that get us in hot water.

[Azarkon]

Azarkon's comments create the question of whether Literary Merit even exists.

 

Far from it. That's the basis of meta's contention with me, but it's not what I implied. Rather, I insisted on a partial separation of genius and popularity - that Tolkien's legacy in the form of high fantasy was not particularly exceptional (therefore, any name would do), but that it is also independent of his literary merit. Legacy in the form of influence, it must be understood, depends on the reception of a work either during or after its publication and therefore necessarily depends on the intersection of the zeitgeist and the author's sensibilities. Many now-renowned works of art were "rediscovered" in the sense that their recognition came long after the initial reception or, in many cases, the author's lifetime.

 

This observation implies that the process of canonization and popularization depends on historical changes and reevaluations. Yet it does not mean that the work and the author have no merit on their own. Lord of the Rings was and is a great endeavor of world creation, and while this factor no doubt led to its popularity, its popularity alone does not guarantee its artistic merit, nor vice versa. Therefore it becomes possible to argue about Tolkien's expendable position in the rise of modern fantasy without implicating that he was a mediocre artist or that his "merits" rise only from fortunes of circumstance.

 

I am much more akin to think of Tolkien as a catalyst that both hastened and added to the modern fantasy movement than as the "father" of modern fantasy without whom we would be playing in a completely different fantasy landscape.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Azarkon

[Moose]

Maybe we

[metadigital]

Azarkon's comments create the question of whether Literary Merit even exists.

Far from it. That's the basis of meta's contention with me, but it's not what I implied. Rather, I insisted on a partial separation of genius and popularity - that Tolkien's legacy in the form of high fantasy was not particularly exceptional (therefore, any name would do), but that it is also independent of his literary merit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll put a break in here because I think you are jumping to a conclusion in the next sentence.

 

Partial seperation of genius and popularity? Okay: but the point of genius is that it may take some time to be recognised from the milieu. But if it is genius, then it will be recognised. Popularity is not taken as a snapshot.

Legacy in the form of influence, it must be understood, depends on the reception of a work either during or after its publication and therefore necessarily depends on the intersection of the zeitgeist and the author's sensibilities.  Many now-renowned works of art were "rediscovered" in the sense that their recognition came long after the initial reception or, in many cases, the author's lifetime. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure what point you are making here; that (immediate) popularity is no measure of merit?

This observation implies that the process of canonization and popularization depends on historical changes and reevaluations.  Yet it does not mean that the work and the author have no merit on their own.  Lord of the Rings was and is a great endeavor of world creation, and while this factor no doubt led to its popularity, its popularity alone does not guarantee its artistic merit, nor vice versa. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't particularly want to watch Wagner's Ring Cycle, but I can appreciate the artistic merit involved in having the fourth trumpet play a slightly higher note at the end of a quatrain to give an unheard of subtlety and profundity of nuance.

Therefore it becomes possible to argue about Tolkien's expendable position in the rise of modern fantasy without implicating that he was a mediocre artist or that his "merits" rise only from fortunes of circumstance.

 

I am much more akin to think of Tolkien as a catalyst that both hastened and added to the modern fantasy movement than as the "father" of modern fantasy without whom we would be playing in a completely different fantasy landscape.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep. I can't see how "anyone" could have reproduced the immediate impact and legacy of Tolkien. The landscape would be significantly different, without him. Maybe people like Robert Graves might have filled the vaccuum with their interpretation of the classic mythology.

[Spider]

I don't think Tolkien is a genius for his writing.  I think he's a genius for his world building.  Strange figure, our Tolkien.  ...But I agree, he did not create the genre.  That's not even counterfactual.  The genre was being born.  He managed to be in on the very beginning and left his imprint.  That's why I've never really contended that we wouldn't have the genre without Tolkien.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with this statement 100%. An interesting observation here is that while I totally agree with Eldar here, our appreciation of the actual work is totally different.

 

But see what can happen in a discusion when we actually try to get along.

[Walsingham]

I'm really chuffed that this has sparked such a good discussion. My only gripe is that so many posts are worth ploughing through for all their points! Curse you all and your reasoned debate!

 

I can't really add to the views already aired. I think I'd agree with Eldar in the main.

 

My own view of High versus low fantasy is really rated not by the amount of magic, or even other variations from physical reality as we epxerience it. But in terms of the moral dimension. High fantasy has pure good people and pure bad people. The lower you get the more 'dirty' and grey things become. This is why WHFRP is called 'low' fantasy. Because of all the darkness imbued by the Chaos powers.

[Azarkon]

Partial seperation of genius and popularity? Okay: but the point of genius is that it may take some time to be recognised from the milieu. But if it is genius, then it will be recognised. Popularity is not taken as a snapshot.

 

Recognized by academics, perhaps, but still not necessarily popular. High fantasy is more or less a popular culture movement.

 

Not sure what point you are making here; that (immediate) popularity is no measure of merit?

 

Yes, and also that popularity is determined by the zeitgeist. Artists do not create the cultural sensibilities of an age - we (the readers) discover, through their works, what was already there but never coherently presented. Just because the discovery itself is the act of genius as opposed to creation from a vacuum does not invalidate the merits of genius.

 

Note that I'm not arguing anything about the creative potentials of the imagination, only that you cannot create popular desire. There is a reason why fantasy and SF did not come into popularity until the 20th century, and it has both to do with the lack of incentive from the authors' point of view and the lack of interest from the readers'. It has little to do, by comparison, with whether Tolkien lived in the Middle Ages.

 

I can't see how "anyone" could have reproduced the immediate impact and legacy of Tolkien. The landscape would be significantly different, without him

 

But that's a kind of deadend argument, isn't it? We can't predict what would have happened without Tolkien... Thus, my argument has always been a philosophical one: if you assume that Tolkien created the landscape of modern fantasy, then you assume that a single person can have such influence that history bends according to his whims. Yet imagine that Tolkien, instead of writing LOTR, had written post-apocalyptic SF - would history, then, accord to post-apoc literature the same treatment as modern fantasy? I am most doubtful.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

My own view of High versus low fantasy is really rated not by the amount of magic, or even other variations from physical reality as we epxerience it. But in terms of the moral dimension. High fantasy has pure good people and pure bad people. The lower you get the more 'dirty' and grey things become. This is why WHFRP is called 'low' fantasy. Because of all the darkness imbued by the Chaos powers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's an interesting take on things.

 

Blood for the blood god

[Blarghagh]

I thought 'High Fantasy' was just fantasy that took place in an entirely fabricated world as opposed to a world grounded in ours.

 

Shows what I know about literature. It doesn't have explosions or neat-looking monsters. Music is more my thing of nerdery.

 

How about H.G. Wells? I think he was more influential than Tolkien. Most of the stories that are constantly copied/have inspiration drawn off them in the sci-fi world come from ideas that were first used in this way by H.G. Wells.

 

I think if you take him out of the equation, there'd be a lot less copycatting in the sci-fi scene.

Edited March 10, 2006 by TrueNeutral