Re: A Tolkien criticism (LONG)

"George Peatty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote

I expect you're just trolling this newsgroup, but in the faint hope
you're actually interested in intelligent discussion...

> Tolkien's childishness and personal immaturity fit in very well at
Oxford - that's why his
> friend C.S. Lewis was also writing kiddie stories at the same time.

I believe they call this "circular reasoning" - you appear to be
claiming Tolkien's literature is childish because it was produced by a
childish and immature person, and the evidence that he and Lewis were
childish and immature is that they produced childish and immature
literature.

Tell me, who decides what books or literary genres are "childish"? May
I, please? I decree that starting tomorrow, all literature dealing with
gender issues is childish "kiddie" literature! And you see, I can prove
that it is, because the sorts of people who write it are childish people
obsessed with childish things. We know this because they spend all their
time obsessing over those kiddie books instead of "grown-up" books like
the ones I prefer.

Interestingly enough, I was once taught that the attitude you hold
towards stories in this genre was at one time the attitude of many
academics toward Beowulf: that it was a silly little fairy-tale, not to
be taken seriously and not worthy of serious study by real academics.
The scholar who did the most to rescue it from this academic dungeon and
place it in the position of honor it now holds as the seminal work of
English literature was, of course, Professor Tolkien.

> There's no such thing as literary myth. What we call myths, were
regarded as
> historical accounts of what people took to be actual events. Even more
than that,
> these stories were regarded as underpining their both politics and
their gods.
(snip)
> Calling the ancient epic poems "myths" (essentially, lies) would have
been
> anathema to the people who wrote and listened to them.

You're showing only your own profound ignorance both of the process of
myth and of modern literary theory on how the ancients viewed these
stories. "Myth" is not and has never been a synonym for "lie".

It is true that the overt expression of the concept that the literal
truth or falsehood of the events portrayed in the myth is not of central
importance is essentially a modern one, but that does not change the
function of the myth within the culture. The function of Homer in
ancient Greece was not the function a dry book of history has for us
today - it filled a *cultural* function, and for it to do that it was
not necessary for people to find a factual connection to the events
depicted. The point was that anyone who was Greek could find in the
story the embodiment of certain shared truths and shared viewpoints
about the world, set in a story (true or otherwise - and trust me, if
you think by Virgil's day most literate people believed in the literal
truth of every event depicted in the Aeneid, you're mistaken) about
ancient and magical times. That is what Tolkien was trying to capture in
his work.

Of course, you must think that Pericles and Socrates and company were a
bunch of "mentally feeble nerdboys" to be so entertained by silly
stories full of  gods and cyclopes and sirens and other fantastic
creatures instead of paying more attention to "real literary masters who
actually tried to wrestle with the very real issues of their time."

> And, yes, I do think Tolkien is partially responsible for the behavior
of his fans. He
> knew his books were going to be consumed by mentally feeble nerdboys

Since the phenomenon you speak of - "mentally feeble nerdboys" or
"fanboys" who dress as characters from favorite fantasy or SF books and
movies to attend cons or movie premiers - was about 40-50 years in the
future when Tolkien wrote his novels, I very much doubt he predicted it,
or could reasonably have been expected to do so. In fact, he wrote _Lord
of the Rings_ partly in response to requests from peers and his
publisher for "more stories about hobbits," and partly for his adult son
who, far from being a "mentally feeble nerdboy," was an officer serving
with the RAF during the war.

Now, I think the main point I'd raise has been raised already, but I'll
restate it: almost every argument you've brought up boils down to the
same false syllogism:

1) Some fans of fantasy literature appear to be idiots
2) Tolkien wrote fantasy literature
3) Therefore Tolkien aimed his work at idiots

I forget the name of this fallacy (undistributed middle?), nonetheless,
it is not a valid syllogism. Even assuming Tolkien cared about an
audience that developed years after his books were published, you cannot
attribute the characteristics of the most, as you put it, mentally
feeble and nerdy members of the group to all members of the group -
unless you can claim to have seen every fan of Tolkien dressing up in a
costume or otherwise exhibiting behavior you find immature.

You then state the following:

> No, I believe my argument is more subtle than that. I'm arguing that
there is a class of
> literature that is particularly susceptible to unwarrented and
immature worship. This
> literature tends to pander, usually overtly but also sometimes
covertly, to questionable
> traits within many readers. I think Tolkien, insofar as his some of
his writings are in
> that class, consciously participated in the flaws of this type of
literature.

With no further support or discussion, other than further invective
insulting those who like such literature as "immature,", "kiddies,"
"fanboys," "nerds," etc., and again referring to the behavior of a few
fans who choose to dress in a somewhat silly manner at film premieres. I
find this reasoning less than persuading.

You prattle a lot about the "flaws of this type of literature" but fail
to indicate what, exactly, those flaws are except that, well, you find
it offensive, and it doesn't deal with subjects you'd rather read about,
or use symbolism you find it easy to work with.

> While I agree that, to really criticize a book, the citic should read
the book, there's
> also something to be said for noting the immature behavior of large
numbers of people.

Large numbers? How many specifically Tolkien-inspired people have you
observed behaving in this manner? How many people do you think dressed
up as characters from Tolkien's books and went out in public before the
recent movies were released?

Are you willing to consider the possibility that the people you're
seeing were inspired in this behavior not by Tolkien as much as by a
separate phenomenon in pop culture, and that they're the same type of
people who dress up for Star Wars movies, Star Trek conventions, Xena
conventions, Buffy The Vampire Slayer conventions, gaming conventions,
etc., and will dress up for any like occasion? That Tolkien's works
existed long before and separate from this phenomenon, and only happened
to come into contact with it because the Hollywood machine that produced
it finally seized upon them as grist for their pop entertainment mill?

> (I would submit that, in Tolkien's case, it IS in
> fact partially the intentional fault of the author).

Based on what?

> To register disgust at the behavior
> partially inspired by Tolkien is not unhealthy, in my opinion.

I think obsessing over people whose tastes offend you to the point of
trolling their newsgroups is considerably less healthy and less mature
behavior than obsessing over books one enjoys, even though you yourself
find them childish. I think it makes you look like a sad, pimply little
boy, something like C.S. Lewis' Eustace at the beginning of _Dawn
Treader_ (now *there's* a book I haven't read in some time), who can
only boost his own fragile and negative self-image by putting down
others and ruining their fun.

-- 
Bruce Tucker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]