|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Ugh (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch,  in Books
This is a battle many authors fight. Sometimes I think it a noble and necessary crusade, other times I think it's a waste of time--let the fools perish and fade away like all critics before them have.
The death knell for all their arguments is their selective acceptance of certain specimens of speculative fiction (which they avoid classing as SF or F or any such at all costs). 1984 and Brave New World are certainly part of the canon, to say nothing of Frankenstein. But those aren't SF, they're literature, right?
Ah, nothing quite so reassuring as self-delusion.
-andy
|
Oct 30 '06
2:31 pm PST
|
|
Ugh (Reply to this comment)
by adriennefoster
Now you've got me started on academia vs. pop culture. From what I hear, Gregory Benford (Ph.D.) has had a running feud with the English department at Irvine because the staff there does not consider science fiction real literature. David Brin (also Ph.D.) has past the last several years trying to convince the academic world that the speculative fiction genre is worthy in the literary world. Either author has made several times the money off his writing than any of the academic snobs he's been in contention with. English Professors must be published to maintain their status in the community, but they usually sell to limited press literary publications that probably circulate 300 copies to fellow snobs. What they fail to understand is that writers like Shakespeare, Dickens, Mark Twain, and other classic authors appealed to masses long before they were studied (and all three of them wrote some spec-fi themselves). If they had not sold well to begin with, it is doubtful they would be remembered today.
LotR obviously made the sales and is withstanding the test of time. Fantasy has been around for centuries, but it still has to work harder than the mystery or romance genres to earn any sort of respect in the academic community. A hundred years from now, readers are going to think of Tolkein a lot quicker than Preust.
Adrienne
|
Oct 24 '06
4:24 pm PDT
|
|
Re: But I'm ever so smart! (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
It's not just reading Finnegan's Wake, it's inflicting it on a class full of innocent students. Only that will earn you an afterlife in an ivory tower filled with 2,000 co-eds.
-Andy
|
Apr 25 '06
11:24 am PDT
|
|
But I'm ever so smart! (Reply to this comment)
by joyfulgirl91
An anxiety of identity is suggested by their earnest attempts to disintegrate themselves from the tastes of the general population. They wear Ulysses on their sleeve like a circled A
Are you making fun of me? How else am I supposed to find others to revel with in Joyce fandom? Don't tell me you are going to argue that reading Ulysses doesn't make you better than those who haven't. Reading Finnegan's Wake, by the way, grants one an afterlife in a celestial Westminster Abbey, with a never empty decanter of Lagavulin, and at least two thousand virgins.
Jessica
|
Apr 24 '06
9:48 am PDT
|
|
Re: I was going to say... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
Thank you.
Of course, it's a pleasure to draw from even a shallow well if the water is sweet.
-Andy
|
Apr 18 '06
1:04 pm PDT
|
|
Re: "Disintegrate" (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
I suppose I could have hyphenated the word for clarity. And I must confess I chose it precisely for its oddness. A quirk of whimsy.
50 years is more than my age. However, exhibit one (LotR) of the (admitted) generalization is about that age, and its original reception certainly bears out the idea of the negative correlation I speak of.
But I will humbly confess to hyperbole in painting academia. As I said, it's not a monolithic institution. (It can't be all that bad, or I wouldn't have announced to my MBA professors that no, I wouldn't be going out into the 'world' but would stay at the university, living the life of a hopeless academic ("why hopeless, why not hopeful?" a colleague has asked me).)
While it is true that pop culture has come under the microscope (is the world a better place with Harry Potter and Philosophy?), it remains mostly an oddity in the English Department, an uncanonized alien specimen. The stink of New Criticism still wafts occassionally from the tomb.
Again, I will humbly concede the point. Many English Departments will occasionally offer a course on LotR, or on SF/F generally. And several SF novels are actually required reading in high schools (e.g. BNW, 1984, F451--though most teachers balk at admitting they're SF). We have indeed come a long way, and that's, in a sense, precisely the point Z&I make here. Still, there's a way to go yet before I can write my dissertation on SF and not be subject to raised eyebrows from several corners.
I'm not suggesting any sort of affirmative action, but marginalization remains a fact. The chains may have been broken, but the ghetto remains.
Thanks for keeping me honest.
-Andy, who hopes that the image of a punk rock professor might hint at the tongue-in-cheek tone with which further discussions of crackpot Tolkienites should be salted
|
Apr 18 '06
1:00 pm PDT
|
|
I was going to say... (Reply to this comment)
by befus,  in Books
this was brilliant, but I see several people beat me to it. :-) I will say, however, how refreshing this was to read. You share clearly from the depth of your knowledge about Tolkien and his readers/critics, and you do it with such care and pleasure.
Just lovely to read a review like this.
Beth
|
Apr 18 '06
10:05 am PDT
|
|
"Disintegrate" (Reply to this comment)
by Stephen_Murray
in your opening sentence is a very odd word choice. Moreover, the generalization about "academia" seems close to 50 years out of date (which, I think is more years than your age). Academics have been "deconstructing" and otherwise mauling pop culture for decades. The "New Criticism" had been abandoned by the time I was in college (and my age is greater than 50!) though conservatives have been decrying the abandonment of standards and the high-art western canon for a long time (at least a quarter of a century).
|
Apr 18 '06
9:59 am PDT
|
|
Re: Ah (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
Very often the approach of literary critics is to dismantle stories. They break open the clock to see the gears and springs, without giving thought to putting it back together again. I intensely dislike this. Literature is not cryptography, and your super-duper decoder ring cannot "solve" it.
Thankfully, most of these essays do not fall into that trap.
Of course, as I tried to emphasize, there's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the book to yourself as a wonderful story. A book's success in that arena is more important ultimately than its success in critical eyes.
-Andy
|
Apr 18 '06
9:12 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Brilliant (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
I think the root of Tolkien's lack of enthusiasm for Narnia was the difference between Lewis's approach to world-creation and Tolkien's. Narnia lacks the internal coherence of Middle-earth. It's more a thing of whimsy, whereas Tolkien was ever so serious about Middle-earth. He couldn't, for example, accept the notion of Santa Claus appearing in Narnia. (Some have less charitably suggested that Tolkien resented the ease with which Lewis wrote, published, and found success with Narnia.)
I would have loved to see those original manuscripts. Tolkien's art warms me, but it's his scripts that amaze.
-Andy
|
Apr 18 '06
9:07 am PDT
|
|
Ah (Reply to this comment)
by ssjakira1
You are braver than myself. I've read some things about Tolkien and whatnot, but I can't handle a bunch of critisicm and insights on his work...I just prefer to leave the book all to myself and keep it as a wonderful story. *hugs book*
NT
|
Apr 18 '06
7:50 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Brilliant (Reply to this comment)
by WulfsDen
LOL. If I had spent as much time reading about Tolkien as I have reading Tolkien, I might be a bit better informed. I did not know JRR was critical of Narnia. With him being such a perfectionist, I can see why he might be, but I can't agree with him. Narnia was as important to me in late childhood/ early adolescence as LotR was a few years later. I mean that, of course, in the fantasy sense and not as any sort of religious reference.
As an aside, about 30 years ago, I was spending a few days in London, shaking off jet lag. I decided at one point, to walk between two tube stations to change lines. Quite by chance, I walked past an exhibition of Tolkien's work. I had no prior knowledge that the exhibition was there and it was only on for a week. Inside, I saw the originals of many of his manuscripts, plus the original Christmas letters, just as he drew and illustrated them. Page after page of India ink penwork and drawings without an obvious mistake of any sort. Amazing.
I also got to a see pre-release copy of the Silmarilion, which was published a few months later. The copy of LOTR I bought there is still my favorite, despite water damage to the third volume.
Ed
|
Apr 17 '06
9:41 pm PDT
|
|
Re: I second that sentiment... (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
Thanks for the kindness.
I suspect the aim of the site is more to encourage buying than learning.
As to how well it accomplishes that, well, let's say I've probably learned more here than I've spent.
-Andy
|
Apr 17 '06
12:23 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Brilliant (Reply to this comment)
by panguitch, in Books
Lewis most certainly had prior knowledge of LotR, and Tolkien let him read the manuscript before trying to publish it. Tolkien also had read parts of it during meetings of the Inklings while he wrote it. The group always offered suggestions on each other's work, but though Tolkien would listen appreciatively to criticisms, he made few corresponding changes. Lewis said of Tolkien "No one ever influenced Tolkien--you might as well try to influence a bandersnatch." (For his part, Tolkien was much less favorably disposed to Narnia than Lewis was to LotR.)
In a collection of the "best" Tolkien criticism, I'd be surprised if Lewis review wasn't included. It was on of the few early reactions to the books that were both laudatory and erudite, and therefore holds an important place in Tolkien studies.
For the reasons you state many discounted Lewis's review. Of course, many people would enjoy reading a book on the Bush Presidency written by Laura--especially if she made as insightful an analysis as Lewis did of LotR.
-Andy
|
Apr 17 '06
12:19 pm PDT
|
|
I second that sentiment... (Reply to this comment)
by vemartin
This indeed a brilliant and insightful review, one from which I learned a lot, which regrettably is not the norm on this site of late. Bravo!
Vincent
|
Apr 17 '06
10:00 am PDT
|
|
Brilliant (Reply to this comment)
by WulfsDen
This is a brilliant review of a complex and interesting book. I must dig out a copy.
I was surprised to see the inclusion of the Lewis review. On the one hand, he is a brilliant writer and luminary, but on the other, he is a close friend of Tolkein, and was probably in some sense a collaborator, since it is hard to believe the two never discussed LotR. Since Lewis was a man of considerable integrity, I must suppose his comments to be objective. But is does seem a little like reading a book on the Bush Presidency written by Laura.
Ed
|
Apr 17 '06
9:49 am PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.