Kevin's Watch

Why have genres? So we can find the book on the shelves at Borders, why else?

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that Sauron is an aspect of Frodo which would explain why Frodo was turning toward evil. The reason is that Frodo was being seduced by the Ring which desired to return to its Master, there is no deeper reason.

Just as Sauron was originally seduced by Morgoth. Perhaps Frodo's weakness to seduction was (in SRDs point of view) the aspect of him that Sauron represented. The same might also be said of Boromir, and Denethor, and Isildur, and Saruman, and Wormtongue.

Or maybe not. I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings, but not enough to send me on a search for any deeper meaning within it (although I will admit I found The Ainulindale fascinating). That doesn't mean that deeper meaning can't exist however, nor does it mean that Sauron can't be seen as an aspect of Frodo. It's just not a conclusion that I personally came to.

variol son wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that Sauron is an aspect of Frodo which would explain why Frodo was turning toward evil. The reason is that Frodo was being seduced by the Ring which desired to return to its Master, there is no deeper reason.

Just as Sauron was originally seduced by Morgoth. Perhaps Frodo's weakness to seduction was (in SRDs point of view) the aspect of him that Sauron represented. The same might also be said of Boromir, and Denethor, and Isildur, and Saruman, and Wormtongue.

Or maybe not. I enjoyed The Lord of the Rings, but not enough to send me on a search for any deeper meaning within it (although I will admit I found The Ainulindale fascinating). That doesn't mean that deeper meaning can't exist however, nor does it mean that Sauron can't be seen as an aspect of Frodo. It's just not a conclusion that I personally came to.

JRR himself said there was no deeper meaning to LOTR. However, some have found an element of environmentalism, for what it's worth. Saruman and Isengard represent the growth of industry in England, and the loss of the idyllic and natural peasant lifestyle represented by the Shire. But that's not actually what I would call 'deep,' only allegorical. JRR also happened to hate spiders so they played a role in the books too.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:
And so we come to SRD's denial, throughout the GI, that the Chrons were polemical in any fashion, and his futile efforts to claim that they are intended purely for entertainment value. But this claim is belied by his own efforts from the very beginning, by his own admission that TC's unbelief was designed to reflect the "unbelief" of critics who dislike fantasy and paint it all with the same broad strokes. Therefore, the very existence of TC as a fantasy character was aimed directly at making a very definite polemical statement.

There is a difference between the intentions one has in writing a book, and the intentions which drive characters' actions. TC's journey isn't an allegory of the SRD's attitudes and feelings towards the fantasy genre. Lord Foul isn't an art critic. So even if SRD had ulterior motives in writing his book, it doesn't mean that the story itself is an example or illustration of those motives. In this sense, his story isn't polemical, even if his work argues implicitly for its own value and significance in the literary world, by its mere existence. You could say the same of any book.

Malik23 wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:
And so we come to SRD's denial, throughout the GI, that the Chrons were polemical in any fashion, and his futile efforts to claim that they are intended purely for entertainment value. But this claim is belied by his own efforts from the very beginning, by his own admission that TC's unbelief was designed to reflect the "unbelief" of critics who dislike fantasy and paint it all with the same broad strokes. Therefore, the very existence of TC as a fantasy character was aimed directly at making a very definite polemical statement.

There is a difference between the intentions one has in writing a book, and the intentions which drive characters' actions. TC's journey isn't an allegory of the SRD's attitudes and feelings towards the fantasy genre. Lord Foul isn't an art critic. So even if SRD had ulterior motives in writing his book, it doesn't mean that the story itself is an example or illustration of those motives. In this sense, his story isn't polemical, even if his work argues implicitly for its own value and significance in the literary world, by its mere existence. You could say the same of any book.

SRD stated the TC was fashioned after "unbelieving" art critics who do not care for the fantasy genre. The books were written on the scale of literature in order to raise the bar to a level acceptable to critics in the literary world.

It's very much like LotR, no matter how many times Tolkien denied that there was any extra meaning or symbolism, there is still obviously:
1)Industrialism vs. romantacism
2)Gandalf is a Christ figure
3)Representations of WW I like scenarios. (C.S. Lewis commented once that the feeling conveyed in the battles of LotR were exactly those that he and (presumably) Tolkien felt during WW I)
4)Art vs. control (though this may apply only to the Silmarillion, I think it also applies to LotR)

All these meanings are completly acceptable, despite what the author may have said. The author's intent may be just to create a story for entertainment value, but once he starts drawing from himself or examples in the real world, that story begins to take on meaning.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: SRD stated the TC was fashioned after "unbelieving" art critics who do not care for the fantasy genre. The books were written on the scale of literature in order to raise the bar to a level acceptable to critics in the literary world.

Was that stated in his essay on epic fantasy? It sounds familiar, but it's been a while since I've read it.

Without the context, I'm not sure what SRD meant by that. But even if the attitudes of art critics inspired him to create a character (if that's really the case), this doesn't mean that the character's journey in any way reflects or elucidates this inspiration. Can you point out any part of the plot which depicts this "battle" between author and critic? If it's not part of the plot or character development, then in no sense is the story a polemical story. However, this doesn't contradict the fact that the book's existence provides an example that can be used to argue the position, "fantasy can be literature." This is a level confusion you are making, I believe.

Orlion wrote:2)Gandalf is a Christ figure

Actually Gandalf, Frodo and Arragorn are all Christ figures - or resemble the different roles of Christ.

Gandalf as the divine Christ with supernatural powers, yet the capability to die for others and be resurrected.

Frodo as the suffering Christ on his way to the cross (including the maimed hand, spear/dagger wound and the final - almost - failure, respectively self doubt . Cff Christ: "Father, let this cup pass from me" and "Father, why did you leave me?")

Aragorn as Christ the mighty king of man (including healing hands).

All in all LoTR is far more Cathilic than anything else.

The two points I made came from two different sources. It would be difficult to confuse them anyway as they express two different ideas. SRD stated in his Epic Fantasy his goal was to internalize Lord Foul, he no longer comes across as a fantasy creation but a metaphor for that part of TC which hates lepers.

It just seems apropros that SRD would relate TC's unbelief to that of critics by placing them, through the TC character, in the midst of a classic fantasy realm. I don't know why, however; perhaps it was done so that critics could relate better to TC through his unbelief.

Malik23 wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: SRD stated the TC was fashioned after "unbelieving" art critics who do not care for the fantasy genre. The books were written on the scale of literature in order to raise the bar to a level acceptable to critics in the literary world.

Was that stated in his essay on epic fantasy? It sounds familiar, but it's been a while since I've read it.

Without the context, I'm not sure what SRD meant by that. But even if the attitudes of art critics inspired him to create a character (if that's really the case), this doesn't mean that the character's journey in any way reflects or elucidates this inspiration. Can you point out any part of the plot which depicts this "battle" between author and critic? If it's not part of the plot or character development, then in no sense is the story a polemical story. However, this doesn't contradict the fact that the book's existence provides an example that can be used to argue the position, "fantasy can be literature." This is a level confusion you are making, I believe.

Vader wrote:

Orlion wrote:2)Gandalf is a Christ figure

Actually Gandalf, Frodo and Arragorn are all Christ figures - or resemble the different roles of Christ.

Gandalf as the divine Christ with supernatural powers, yet the capability to die for others and be resurrected.

Frodo as the suffering Christ on his way to the cross (including the maimed hand, spear/dagger wound and the final - almost - failure, respectively self doubt . Cff Christ: "Father, let this cup pass from me" and "Father, why did you leave me?")

Aragorn as Christ the mighty king of man (including healing hands).

All in all LoTR is far more Cathilic than anything else.

I can't believe I missed the analogy with Frodo and Aragorn! Good catch, Vader.

I still agree with Tolkien - he wrote what he wrote. If people find it applicable, then they have done that, not Tolkien. But Tolkien didn't set out to make it so.

Take healing hands. This was a common myth in the middle ages, ascribed to kings, and sometimes tied with divine rule. You don't have to be thinking of Christ to use this concept, you just have to borrow from mythology. And that's what Tolkien does.

Any person in a story who suffers can be compared to Christ.

Any person who becomes a king can be compared to Christ.

Etc. etc.

There are plenty of other mythical traditions about resurrection to borrow from without borrowing from Christianity, too. Heck, even Christianity borrowed it.

wayfriend wrote:I still agree with Tolkien - he wrote what he wrote. If people find it applicable, then they have done that, not Tolkien. But Tolkien didn't set out to make it so.

Take healing hands. This was a common myth in the middle ages, ascribed to kings, and sometimes tied with divine rule. You don't have to be thinking of Christ to use this concept, you just have to borrow from mythology. And that's what Tolkien does.

Any person in a story who suffers can be compared to Christ.

Any person who becomes a king can be compared to Christ.

Etc. etc.

There are plenty of other mythical traditions about resurrection to borrow from without borrowing from Christianity, too. Heck, even Christianity borrowed it.

Agreed.

Tolkien himself wrote in his letters that LoTR was a Catholic book.

I kinda think the point is is that you cannot disassociate yourself to the degree that how you've been brought up doesn't influence what you write. I'm talking specifically religion here (but it doesn't necessarily have to be religion). It influences who you are no matter whether you actually practice the doctrine you were brought up with or not. I do believe there's a degree of religious influence in SRD's work (as there is in Tolkiens). Do I believe that it's been deliberately implanted in there (ie: the author has said "Hey, I want to write a book with religious undercurrents")? No, I don't. But that doesn't mean that those undercurrents aren't there.

Simply put: C L Lewis wrote Narnia specifically with his religion in mind. I don't believe Tolkien or SRD did that.

Seareach wrote:Simply put: C S Lewis wrote Narnia specifically with his religion in mind. I don't believe Tolkien or SRD did that.

Isn't that the reason why Tolkien wrote Leaf by Niggle? Because he knew Lewis was writing allegory with Narnia, and he knew LotR was not allegory. So he wrote Leaf by Niggle to demonstrate what he felt allegory should be...

...and yes, for anyone who followed Purgatory, this little story influenced my character generation very much, as it is about the only reference I have to the concept of purgatory...

I'm not sure I've heard that (Tolkien writing it because of what Lewis was doing). I have read that it was his intention (through allegory) to explore certain religious themes (life, death, purgatory etc). But then I've also read (in Tolkien's letters) that he hated allegory. I've also heard it described as being an allegorical story (ie: of Tolkien's life).

What I think one has to keep in mind is people change their minds. Writing being such a conscious yet subconscious process, I believe it's possible to write something and then later realize you were subconsciously writing about something else (or exploring totally different themes to what you thought you were). And I think over time your opinion can change, even about your own work.

Didn't SRD say somewhere (was it the last Elohimfest?) that if you asked him the same question a couple of days later he might have a totally different answer.

That works for me. I change my mind all the time.

Seareach wrote:Didn't SRD say somewhere (was it the last Elohimfest?) that if you asked him the same question a couple of days later he might have a totally different answer.

uh...yes.
that he did.

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the reader. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

This is what I was referring to above when I mentioned applicability.

wayfriend wrote:

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote:"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of the reader. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

This is what I was referring to above when I mentioned applicability.

Huh...well, I've at least been throughly gained-sayed...

Orlion wrote:Huh...well, I've at least been throughly gained-sayed...

A gay saint? My puns are hunting you ...