View Single Post

Default 

November 7th, 2008, 16:55
Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
It is not universal. Unless the academia has changed significantly in the last few months, Tolkien's place in the western canon's not exactly a sure thing. There're still plenty of scholars who don't take him seriously, and even some of those who do don't consider him a great writer in terms of style and language (and rightly too, because his style is nonexistent).
.
His style is based on his research and studies, basically the structure of the myth and creation stories, the Kalevala, the Eddas, and the Volsunga Saga. Of course updated to fit modern language. Yet he created a full language, Elvish, and a partial second one, Dwarven. Not only were they derivative of real languages but technically astute as Tolkien was first a linguistic professor. Tolkien's place in Western canon is a sure thing. My proof is his writing on the reading lists of high schools and universities, the lists of the greatest classics in literature of all time (along with Conan Doyle's works), and the utterly numerous articles, reviews, and analysis of his works by reviewers and scholars.

Where is your proof that his works are not?
Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
And then you go right and mention Conan Doyle, who didn't even take a great fat lot of pride in his Sherlock Holmes stories. I quite like those books, but it's not the best example.
.
I never specifically mentioned Sherlock Holmes, just the author. However argue as you may, his works are recognized universally as classic literature. You may think they are not eloquent/snooty etc. enough, but they are what they are-classics. There is proof of that, where is your proof they are not?

Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
Anti-progress pastoral nostalgia with a not-so-subtle dash of Catholic complacency and self-righteousness, some ethnocentricism, and a good bit of classism. Yeah, you're right: timeless. If I want anything Norse, I'll go right to the source and read the Eddas or assorted materials. They take themselves so much less seriously, and are much more exciting to boot.
.
These quotes almost give you away as a closed minded post modernist only looking in one direction without thoroughly emcompassing the whole. Do you have the slightest clue of all the themes, motifs, symbolism and allegory contained in his works?
Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
Have to? Either you're terribly myopic or you're being condescending. Neither is particularly becoming. And yes, I'll take Mieville any day, who not only writes wonderfully weird stuff and cool monsters, but also doesn't try to get on fantasy readers' good side by repeatedly fellating Tolkien's corpse.

Thats the whole problem of your statements, you can only accept and analyze what fits your world view and not acquiesce to the genius of that which does not.
Last edited by buckaroobonzai; November 7th, 2008 at 18:18.
buckaroobonzai is offline

buckaroobonzai

buckaroobonzai's Avatar
VR nomad

#25

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hungary and USA
Posts: 224