New blog on the kid: Tolkien's Politics · I Thought That Decree Was by Franco · Why I am Not Capitalist or for Unrestricted Free Market · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tolkien Supported Franco's Side in the 36—39 War · Prince Caspian · Lord of the Rings: Motivations for Fandom · Tolkienophobes, Buzz Off! · Tolkienophobe Identified? · J D Vance-Phobes? · Crooks' (or Yearick's?) Body Gone · Sharing On The Shooting
Question: Are there any critics who believe that Tolkien's books were not well-written as fantasy, but still considered great literature?
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-critics-who-believe-that-Tolkiens-books-were-not-well-written-as-fantasy-but-still-considered-great-literature/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
They aren’t fantasy, you see, and as such cannot be well-written (nor ill-written) fantasy.
I don’t know how many Tolkien fans if any totally skip his fantasy and stick only to non-fiction prose plus the allegory. I would rather class the non-fiction as great thought than as great literature.
But a person who dislikes Tolkien’s fantasy as fantasy is not likely to consider them as great in other respects. A person who considers “fantasy is not literature” is abusing a classification system[7] which was never very meaningful. A good book, unless the theme is dreadfully serious and makes complications inevitable, or unless it’s old, with time distance adding complications, is among other things one that is easy to read. Speaking of which, Tolkien and C. S. Lewis as fantasy writers are part of a good intro to literature that’s really somewhat challenging due to precisely time distance. They are not hard books, they are easy to grasp the content of at a first reading. But they yield a lot for rereaders. Not what was originally meant by the term paralitterature, even if some nincompoop classed fantasy as belonging there. It is stupid to imagine a specific genre automatically produces quality literature (unless the genre goals are failed), like psychological novels, and that another specific genre automatically produces things easy to read and as easy to forget.[8]
A person who likes other fantasy but hates Tolkien’s … probably either isn’t Christian at all (if he prefers Elric of Melninboné or Conan the Barbarian) or a very Puritan Christian (if he prefers The Tower of Geburah[9]). Unlike The Tower of Geburah, The Lord of the Rings is not primarily targetted at children or teens, and immediately had adult readers, including W. H. Auden and C. S. Lewis.
There are other things than items unsuitable for children or too young teens that could put Puritan Christians off who prefer Tower of Geburah.
- Tolkien is explicitly an Old-Earther. The Lord of the Rings doesn’t fit into Biblical chronology. It’s obviously after the fall of Adam, nevertheless, Tolkien once joked about the Ussher chronology by saying The Lord of the Rings’ has a peak event set on 25 March 4004 BC. He was seriously a Christian, but one who took liberties with Biblical chronology.
- Tolkien explicitly cherishes alcohol and tobacco.
- Tolkien explicitly says it’s OK to kill in just defense or in just war. Or in just executions.
I disagree with point 1, but definitely not with points 2 and 3. For the first, he had Cardinal Wiseman and some more. For the other, he has basically all of the Church (yes, I just said that the typical reader of The Tower of Geburah is outside the Church and needs to convert).
Footnotes
[1] ILAS 2350 - University of Houston
[2] English and Welsh
[3] Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics - Wikipedia
[4] Tolkien, j.r.r. - On Translating Beowulf
[5] The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien: Revised and Expanded Edition:
J.R.R. Tolkien, Humphrey Carpenter:
9780008628765: Amazon.com: Books
https://www.amazon.com/Letters-J-R-Tolkien-Expanded/dp/0008628769
[6] Leaf by Niggle - Wikipedia
[7] Paraliterature - Wikipedia
[8] A DEFENCE OF PENNY DREADFULS
[9] The Archives of Anthropos - Wikipedia
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-reasons-why-elves-are-disliked-in-fantasy-settings-such-as-in-the-works-of-J-R-R-Tolkien/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
I think this is a perfectly valid comment to whoever keep sending ME this kind of inane questions.
But I’ll give you one lesson from my Latin Professor, a man who Marxists like you have more in common with than I have.
The passive voice is usually used because one wants to avoid naming the active subject.
Elves are disliked = so and so dislikes elves. The problem is instead of telling precisely WHO is disliking elves, you are just saying elves are disliked. Not by Tolkien, obviously. Not by C. S. Lewis. Not by me. Not by thousands or even millions of others.
How about naming the actual active subject for the dislike which has elves for object, instead of hiding behind a passive voice? But whether you answer or not, I prefer that you and the likes of you get out of my internet use and get out of my life! However, it might help to clear some things up with the police if you honestly answer.
Footnotes
[1] Tolkienophobes, Buzz Off!
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/08/tolkienophobes-buzz-off.html
No comments:
Post a Comment