Tolkien in General

chris63 wrote:Tolkien books

http://www.tolkienguide.com/modules/wordpress/archives/208?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TcgNews+%28Tolkien+Collector%27s+Guide+News%29

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2011/08/27/47681-new-release-%E2%80%9Ctolkien-and-the-study-of-his-sources%E2%80%9D/

Thanks Chris.

Petty, your never going to find the perfect LOTR movie. You might as well be happy with what you've got.

No I bloody well don't!

Yes you bloody well do!

Now your getting into the spirit of things! But no I don't have to like them, I don't have to enjoy them, I don't have to think PJ and the Coven can walk on water. I do dislike them, I don't enjoy them they make me too crabbit as I watch and the only good association with PJ the Coven and water involves a ducking stool and slow drowning.

And this, incidentally, is why Petty is the Crabbitmeister. I think.

Hey I just say what every crabbit drunken hobbit is thinking. Can I help it if I am the voice of crabbit folk everywhere? Well, I probably could help it but I'm not bloody going to.

Why would you help it, anyway?

Talks with Tolkien

http://westedmontonlocal.ca/2011/11/last-alliance-spends-night-in-rivendell-talk-with-tolkien-professor/

Conversation with Smaug

http://treasures.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/Conversation-with-Smaug

The Dragons egg

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2011/12/05/111205crat_atlarge_gopnik#ixzz1fPfLYeA2

I read that article earlier day (noticed the title in the New Yorker's sidebar). I thought it was interesting enough to go through all four pages, but I thought his rather smug attitude towards Tolkien got in the way of factual accuracy in places. For example, when he quotes students who were bored by Tolkien in the very first paragraph of the article, he completely ignores the students of Tolkien such as W. H. Auden who admired the man for their entire lives. The author's comments on Middle-earth's morality were also grating. While he is correct that it is mostly a black/white system and that there is little chance of anyone sympathizing with the villain's point of view, he flat-out lies about the "lack" of ambivalent characters. Denethor perfectly fits the idea of the "Agememnons, good guys we come to deplore". If he doesn't see Denethor as good at all, I have to wonder if this man's only exposure to Tolkien was through the considerably more simplistic and blunt movies.

Crabbitness aside though, it was an interesting article. I think he went too easy on Paolini (his storytelling really is quite awful, although I still have a soft spot for the series and particularly the first book as a guilty pleasure, since I ate that stuff up when I was nine). Still -- interesting article.

The Critic finds little depth because he is himself (1) shallow (and pretentious), and (2) an obvious "literature" fashionista.

The Critic: Modern - when modern means pseudo-intellectual "deep meaningnest" and so ultimately shallow.

Btw any Critic whose aim is to find negative facts about the life and works of any Man will find them, always.

My gawd! The Critic finds Tolkien and his works boring. I find the Critic boring. Where we differ is I know I'm indulging here in "taste" and definitely not in thoroughly researched "analysis". (I'd be too bored to make a study of the Critic and his history and motives - he seems, on brief acquaintance, to not be to my taste at all).

Orwell wrote:My gawd! The Critic finds Tolkien and his works boring. I find the Critic boring. Where we differ is I know I'm indulging here in "taste" and definitely not in thoroughly researched "analysis".

See, Orwell, that's why you're not a Critic. Real Critics are true professionals of art, culture, and entertainment. They know that their personal taste is all the analysis they need, because they're professionals who have studied the completely objective scientific principles behind what makes something good, interesting, and meaningful. If you disagree, you're just an uneducated boor who probably enjoys books and movies that are actually intended to be enjoyable.

Errr... sounding good, Eldo, but... err... were you suggesting at the end there that I'm an educated boor?

I disagree that there are completely objective scientific principles to taste, art etc, taste is subjective and changes with time. The critics may think that because they have studied art history, literature that what they say is objective truth. I will give an example. Today art critics, and obviously the general mass of people who visit galleries will agree that Manet the impressionist painter is a genius. His painting, Olympia, is one of the most celebrated. In the 19th century however Olympia was damned by the critics as being the most crass vulgar and ugly painting they had ever seen, it caused a scandal and Manet was vilified throughout France. this so called critic you mention I think you said, mentioned that there were little or no ambiguity to the characters, well he obviously has either not read the books or as you said has only seen the films.

Eldo I think you were being sarcastic before, so I apologize in advance if I mistook what you said.

Orwell wrote:Errr... sounding good, Eldo, but... err... were you suggesting at the end there that I'm an educated boor?

Er ... You must have me mistaken Orwell, I'm sure that I typed nothing of the sort.

Mrs Figg wrote:Eldo I think you were being sarcastic before, so I apologize in advance if I mistook what you said.

Yeah, I was mocking what I see from a lot of critics, and what I think this particular critic might have been buying into. I don't think there's anything objective or scientific about arts and entertainment, and people who claim to know for sure what is good (and, of course, feel the need to illuminate the unwashed masses) and what is not are more often than not just stroking their own ego.

phew! maybe you could put (note deep sarcasm) so I know you are joshing in future.

I'll do my best to keep that in mind.

Mrs Figg wrote:phew! maybe you could put (note deep sarcasm) so I know you are joshing in future.

I've wondered a few times what this post would mean if ever you finished it, Mrs Figg.

Oh I think I just got it! You tricked me with your use of brackets.

"phew! maybe you could put 'note deep sarcasm' so I know you are joshing in future."

Not saying your use of those brackets is incorrect, but I don't use them that way in the context you have. I need to look beyond my habits next time.

sorry how embarassing, am I wronging?

You know, I'm quite prepared to forgive a potential intern her "wronging." Though, as Mayor, I'd take a disciplinarian approach.