View Single Post

Default 

November 7th, 2008, 20:54
Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
Yes? And? Linguistics are great. Tolkien was a brilliant linguist. Neither makes a good story.
.
As usual you missed the point about structure based on myth creation stories upon which the Eddas, Kalevala, Beowulf, Greek epics, Arthurian legends etc. all were born from through thousands of years of history and developed upon. Pretty solid foundations don'tcha think, or do ya?
"Neither makes a good story" What a pointless statement. Said in response to what? And how does LoTR not make a good story, huh……huh?

Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
That's, uh, not a proof. But if you want anecdotes (which is all what you've listed are), then have some: most universities with reputable lit courses I've looked at do not include Tolkien anywhere in their syllabuses. Whereas just about every single one will have Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton.
.
Please divulge the percentage with proof of reputable university lit courses that do not include Tolkien in their syllabi. Otherwise your opinionated hearsay is meaningless. And my proof stands since my points can be seen EVERYWHERE on the planet, while yours may or may not have even a smidgn of fact.

Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
Did anyone teach you that straw man arguments make you sound silly?
.
You would know all about that wouldn't you, starwmen that is. Speaking of teaching, I think you need to approach that from the other side and learn more about the medium from upon which you so narrowly slice your monoscopic viewpoints from.

Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
You know Tolkien insisted that his work contained no allegory? Ooh, close-minded post-modernist? Hahaha. So much for debate ability.
.
Didn't you just say straw man arguments make you sound silly…Oh yeah! Here ya go:
http://users.ipfw.edu/carr/writing/lordrings.htm
"For example, in a preface to the book, Tolkien refuted reading Lord of the Rings as an anti-nuclear statement, yet noted how World War I had served as the initial inspiration for the work. Tolkien scholar Jane Chance observes how Tolkien wrote the second volume of Lord of the Rings during World War II when he served as an RAF pilot over Africa (Chance 1992). According to National Public Radio, Tolkien considered Lord of the Rings “an allegory of the inevitable fate that waits for all attempts to defeat evil power by power,” – in other words, a kind of master allegory (Dowell 2001). A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article quotes from a 1953 letter in which Tolkien argues that Lord of the Rings is “a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision.” Having studiously avoided either putting in or cutting out any reference to religion, Tolkien concludes that the book’s religious aspects are thoroughly “absorbed into the story and the symbolism” ("Tolkien's Rings" 2001)."

Originally Posted by Essaliad View Post
Oh. I see, you're angry that someone doesn't agree Tolkien is the epitome of literature which all must worship or else. Sorry, I was mistaken for a moment that you were capable of holding a rational discussion, apologies.

There is no anger at all. I did not state he is the epitome of literature, again quit making up statements that fit your worldview. I said his works are classic literature, and they are, that is not opinion, deal with it,
You however have backed up your statements with implied university curriculi that you haven't proven. My proof is as plain as day, and you fail to see even the simplest sledgehammers of evidence of it that even a college student would easily comprehend. If you need proof that LoTR is considered classic literature, you need to stop reading "Waiting for Godot" in your hemp chair in your forest commune.
Last edited by buckaroobonzai; November 7th, 2008 at 21:02.
buckaroobonzai is offline

buckaroobonzai

buckaroobonzai's Avatar
VR nomad

#27

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