Well, okay... Maybe that title was a bit harsh. I'm not anti-Harry Potter as such, I just don't get what all the fuss is about.

I'll freely admit that JK Rowling is a very talented children's writer and has a fantastic imagination... But it's beyond me why so many adults like it.

I'm an avid reader, usually of adult fiction, but I've tried HP several times and they just don't inspire me.

Not a patch on the great Roald Dahl I'm afriad. Now he was one writer who you really could enjoy at any age.

Does anyone else agree, or am I the only person on Earth who doesn't really appreciate Harry Potter and co.?

I have never read a HP book but I did see the first film and wasn't impressed, I keep thinking I will try a book just to see what all the fuss is about but never get round to it, must do it soon.

But I agree with you about Roald Dahl he wrote some wonderful books and I don't think you can beat Enid Blyton (perhaps I am showing my age now).

Famous Five
Secret Seven
Mallory Towers

And all the rest

I'll be honest - I'm a jealous writer so I don't like the HP phenonena... :)

As was pointed out in one of the weekend papers she has managed to pull together quite a lot of things from different places, thrown in some originality, but then let the whole darn thing get bloated.

I tried with the first one, failed miserably, and adopted the dictum of Homer Simpson - if at first you don't succeed, forget it. :)

That'll do for a start. I'm sure I'll get wound up later. :D

Joe

oh thank for the lord for this thread. It's been annoying me for ages. I haven't readany HP books, mainly because I am an adult. I just find the whole thing very very tedious indeed.

Praise be! There are indeed some like-minded souls in this world!

I thought the first film was utterly dire too, and I was forced to sit through it twice.

Needless to say it didn't improve through familiarity!

I think the HP books are:

Badly written

Patronising

Guff.

When I was a kid the Worst Witch books were better than that and covered a pretty similar subjects.

I'm fed up with listening to kids prattling on about how good they are. Its even worse with adults (who wouldn't have been seen dead near a fantasy book until it became trendy to read HP) If they are so good these books how come kids are reading them in less than a day?

I wouldn't mind if it lead them on to reading proper fantasy books aimed at children.

Ie The Belgariad/Malorian books David Eddings
Raymond Fesit books

etc etc.

but it doesn';t seem to.

It is a relief! I'm a 26 year old woman, why would I be reading kiddy books about boy wizards? It's just weird to me. Each to their own and all that, though I am sure many must be "into" it because it's the popular thing to do right now.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
I'll be honest - I'm a jealous writer so I don't like the HP phenonena... :)

As was pointed out in one of the weekend papers she has managed to pull together quite a lot of things from different places, thrown in some originality, but then let the whole darn thing get bloated.

Joe
I'm in the same boat as you here, Joe!

I've had people come out with the line: "Why don't you write something like that Harry Potter, that's popular."

The problem is that there are already more than a dozen other writers who have written similar titles to Harry Potter and been published either because they're a good enough bet on their own merit or their publisher is trying to get a bit of the action.

Would any writer sit down and actually force themselves to ape J K Rowling?

Do any non-writers realise the creative effort that goes into comming up with the treatment of a novel, let alone the finished article?:)

Originally posted by robbie
[B If they are so good these books how come kids are reading them in less than a day?
[/B]

Good point Robbie. When I were a lass (so to speak) it took me weeks to get through Watership Down. I re-read it again recently for nostalgia value and it's still as good.

If you don't have to work on a book a bit then what can you learn from it? I'm not being a snob, there's nothing wrong with the odd trashy page-turner, but a lot of these kids think that HP is the be-all and end-all of literature.

Which it's not.

I'm not a literary critic, and haven't read any of the Harry Potter books. But if the Harry Potter stories get kids reading books - instead of spending endless time with their pc, ipod, plus txting on mobiles - then JK Rowling is indeed a wizard!

Even funnier than the adults who read these books and pay two or three quid more for the s****ier "adult" versions with more impressive artwork are the christians who think the books are corrupting the young and leading them into a world of balck magic and devil worship!:loopy: :hihi: :help:

That's also a good point redrobbo.

I went to a museum of childhood this weekend and realised how unimaginative kids are today compared to when I was growing up - and I'm only in my early 20s.

In my day, we made things. We read things. We wrote our own stores. We climbed trees and play out 'till late and got dirty. None of this sitting around staring at the TV for hours on end.

But I really don't seen what educated adults can get out of HP. And I think the kids would be equally, if not more, spellbound by Roald Dahl if they'd only give it a chance.

Maybe the remake of Charlie and the Chocolete factory will encourage them to give it a go. Roald Dahl really was a genius and also 10 times more imaginative than JK Rowling.

Must confess JBee - I am a fan of Roald Dahl! Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is being remade! Great news! :thumbsup:

This nation has produced some of the finest literature the world has ever seen, yet it seems that there are many adults who prefer to read hackneyed tales about public school wizardry that are written for people without fully developed brains.

Another example of dumbing down? Maybe adults who read HP should wear a special hat or something, so that if we need to speak to them we'll make sure to do so r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y and only using little words that they are sure to understand.

Or maybe I should stop being such a pathetic snob?

It's a conundrum alright. ;)

Originally posted by Greenback
...Or maybe I should stop being such a pathetic snob?...
Now now, don't put yourself down...

...nobody thinks of you as a snob.

;)

Originally posted by Greenback
This nation has produced some of the finest literature the world has ever seen, yet it seems that there are many adults who prefer to read hackneyed tales about public school wizardry that are written for people without fully developed brains.

Another example of dumbing down? Maybe adults who read HP should wear a special hat or something, so that if we need to speak to them we'll make sure to do so r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y and only using little words that they are sure to understand.


Get your claws out Greenback! I'd didn't like to spell it out, but that was pretty much what I was hinting at with this thread! Perhaps we should post our top 10 recommended reads in case any of the brave souls out there want to branch out from Harry Potter and try something a little more challanging...

They could find it rewarding too!

Originally posted by Greenback
This nation has produced some of the finest literature the world has ever seen, yet it seems that there are many adults who prefer to read hackneyed tales about public school wizardry that are written for people without fully developed brains.



Gosh - you're right Greenback! I'd forgotten all about the finest literature the world has ever seen........Enid Blyton and the Famous Five! :surprised

Edit: And I also forgot about Noddy & Big Ears!:hihi:

The merit of HP is that all of the better authors you guys have mentioned are ancient by comparison. and we've already read those

The abysmal education system has been churning out 'educated' graduates who can't spell or construct a sentence for years, so JKR is doing quite well in these circumstances (re-reading her paragraphs is something I tolerate for the sake of the plot).

The making of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is unlikely to invoke any reading from it's audience as they will regard it as any other film.

I was disappointed with the first HP film because they cut out many of the important subtleties required to follow the plot, resulting in a dumbing-down version. And it doesn't compare to the imagination required to read the book.

Can anybody think of an author who compares to Dahl in the last 10 or 20 years?

Sadly, no I can't Strix. Think he was one of a kind.

I read many of his books as an adult.

His humour is great for 'stepping off', but I like Milligan for that too - both his kids' poetry and his 'adult' material :thumbsup:

Originally posted by redrobbo
Gosh - you're right Greenback! I'd forgotten all about the finest literature the world has ever seen........Enid Blyton and the Famous Five! :surprised

Edit: And I also forgot about Noddy & Big Ears!:hihi:

Pah, these outmoded tales are mere dross when compared to such luminous, multifaceted recent works as Puddle Lane and Woof. :P

Ah, the late Spike Milligan.....sadly missed. Such zany humour. He was on a wavelength with kids, though on a different level to JK Rowling. His Silly Verse for Kids was fantastic! I memorised so many of these poems over thirty years ago, and can still recite them to this day. Kids still love 'em! :thumbsup:

We had 'Twice Times' by AA Milne as a reading at our wedding :D

George Orwell wrote an article years ago (1940s or even 1930s) about Boys Comics and had some particularly good analysis about Billy Bunter and other Public School stories.

What's amazing is that the basic ideas in Orwell's essay are applicable today to HP.

There are some obvious differences but it's an interesting read.

Joe

I remember reading childrens books:

secret 7
Hardy Boys
Worst Witch

etc etc

and I don't remember them being patronising. HP and most of the other clones are. I threw Shadowmancer somewhere when it went over and over again trying to doctrinate kids into Christianity.

the only recent childrens author still writing I can think of is Diane Wynn Jones.

Wow, and some of you think JK is patronising! I'm an adult (if being nearly 50 counts!), reasonably intelligent, and read loads of different books - modern literature, classics, fantasy, crime, science fiction- you name it, if I like it, I'll read it. A lot of books I don't like, but I don't label the people who do like them as slow, or unintelligent. They just have different tastes to me.
I queued up at midnight to buy the latest Harry Potter, finished it by Sunday morning and really enjoyed it, just as I did the previous ones.
I have no problem at all with you having an anti-HP thread - it would be a very boring world if we all had the same tastes, but there's no need to resort to insults.

her style of writing is patronising imo not the woman herself.

Can you give examples of JK's patronising style, Robbie? I've read all the books, and though flawed in some ways, I've never sensed a patronising tone at all. The opening two chapters of the first book are clumsily written (as is the plot line of the first book, and to a lesser extent the second), but that's a fault often seen in first-time children's authors. But I wouldn't call it patronising, just too blatantly "children's booky".

Just take some old Mr Men books with you on the tram, and when you see an adult reading Harry Potter ask them if they would like to try the next step up and place "Mr Greedy" in their lap.

Honestly - get a Stephen King you people!

I've read most Stephen King books - you can like both you know!

Originally posted by Ant
Can you give examples of JK's patronising style, Robbie? I've read all the books, and though flawed in some ways, I've never sensed a patronising tone at all. The opening two chapters of the first book are clumsily written (as is the plot line of the first book, and to a lesser extent the second), but that's a fault often seen in first-time children's authors. But I wouldn't call it patronising, just too blatantly "children's booky".

not specificly as only read 1 1/2 of the book and a couple of other chapters.

just seems to talk down. Ie, this is a X. X are this. This is a Y. Y are this instead of people forming their own images from suggestion or finding out through conversation.

I can't agree, I love Harry Potter and to those of you who have said 'I saw the film and it was rubbish so won't bother to read the book...' I'd have to say that I think the films are mostly dire too (the most recent one was better, mostly due to the new director and the child actors having matured a bit i think).

I love the books but you have to take them as they are - they're kids/young adult books and there's nothing wrong with adults reading them but they can't expect something as intellectually on par with Austen or Dickens.

And I don't like all this stuff about 'dumbing down'. It's fantastic that for once, literature, and not technology, can be the latest craze for kids. And as for myself, I spend any reading time catching up on the classics and reading non-fiction sociological and political stuff, so it takes all sorts really.

You should just take it without expectations and you'll be pleasantly surprised - things rarely live up to the hype (see The Da Vinci Code), although most people agree that the third HP is a lot better than the first two - from then on it gets a lot darker and more readable for adults (t's also on that one's publication that the hype started - so the hype doesn't really surround the first two, therefore they are understandably poorer.).

I very nearly gave up on The Philosopher's Stone after chapter one, but I'm glad I didn't. There are some pretty heavy themes that are developed in the later books that are very skillfully handled, though she does seem to bugger things up every now and then (Dobby for example). Can't wait for pay day to pick up the newest book, though the reviews aren't that hot.

Comparing the Potter books to the Mr Men is pretty dumb. I don't make a habit of reading children's books, and only decided to give Rowling a go after a friend's recommendation.

It'll be interesting to see whether she writes for the adult market after she's penned the final book.

Without reading all the books you will be unaware of the subtle intertwining of different aspects as the novels unfold. The first couple of books are the weakest in the series so it can't be fairly judged on those.

A lot of the popularity will be a result of the escapism provided by the novels which we all need at some time or other. It's not a bad thing to lose yourself in a book and the mere fact that so many adults are losing themselves in children's books could be seen as evidence of the strength of Rowling's writing.

When I first started this thread I did say that I admire JK's imagination. I think it's the hype that bothers me more than anything else - it seems to me like a huge ammount of fuss over a few fairy stories.

As an adult I have re-read a few of the books I loved as a kid (Dahl and Watership Down), but when I tackled the first few chapters of the very first HP I found it too dull and simplistic.

I find it interesting that a few people on this thread and said the more recent HPs are deeper and darker. Perhaps JK is blurring the lines between children's fiction and adult fiction because she knows she's got so many adult readers?

And I'll definitely be interested to see whether she writes anything else after the final book.

But I'm afriad that this is one bandwagon I'm not jumping on. There are way too many good books out there without getting obsessed with kiddie fiction.
:loopy: :loopy:

It's not about jumping on a bandwagon. I'd imagine that a large percentage of fans would prefer that the hype and films etc had not happened and it has probably put off a lot of adult readers, but we can't control the media.

Well, I work in the media but I'm self-censoring when it comes to Potter...

I turned down an invite to Edinburgh castle for the big midnight launch last Friday, because frankly, I'd rather have my eyelashes plucked! :mad:

I am with JBee 100% on this one.

Yawn.

I'm with JBee on this one.

I have read all the HP books to date, because I read them aloud to my daughter. The first one I rather enjoyed, partly because it was a pretty good read but also because it was the first "chapter book" I'd read to my daughter, and it made a nice change from Mr Men and the like.

Subsequent books seemed more and more like carbon copies of the first, until Order of the Phoenix which was at least a little darker and more varied in its structure.

But I still find myself asking "why"? The books are fine for children, but I can see very few redeeming qualities for adults. There are so many better things out there you could be reading.

But at least, as Redrobbo said, if the books are getting kids to read they are doing some good.

Which leads us on to Dan Brown.... why??? No redeeming qualities whatsoever, as far as I can discern. I'd much rather read his research material.

I'd already read all the research stuff before I read this. Its slightly interesting (in the same way Tomb Raider was as a film). I go in for all that mumbo jumbo. Always had.

However, De Vinci is just a pretty average book with an interesting pretense and nothing new to add.

I started a 'films I hate' thread on the forum I run - link is in my signature below.

The forum is for The South Yorkshire Filmmakers Network (SYFN)

Harry Pooter films were in my five.

Anyone else wants to back me up, get over there and post!

Ed

I wondered if some adults think that them reading kids books is somehow cute? :|






It isn't.

No, I don't think it's cute, I don't think its anything! I read them because I enjoy them. Get over it.

Well this IS the ANTI Harry Potter thread!

I am very anti harry at the moment... mr honeyplanet spent the entire of last weekend with his head burried in the latest soddin book, leaving me to.. cook clean entertain kids grrr :rant:

What a nightmare. Were you the invisible tidy-up-sort-everything-out fairy? I feel like that a lot. At least mine is as against wizard boy as much as I am.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
What a nightmare. Were you the invisible tidy-up-sort-everything-out fairy? I feel like that a lot. At least mine is as against wizard boy as much as I am.
God yes, I am the only one with arms and legs in our house.. and just to add to the matter (going to have a lil moan now)
I am waiting for surgery on my lower spine and am supposed to be resting, You'd have to be dead to get any sympathy in this house..... just wait untill the next bout of man flu lol

Reading HP AND having man flu would have to be divorce.

:hihi:

Too right, Maybe the book should have a health warning..
Excesive reading may result in divorce for adult readers :hihi:

:clap: Tee hee. It's all just beyond me. I know I keep going on and on about it and I keep reading the repliesin defence but it's still about a boy who is a wizard, am I right?

:rolleyes:

Maybe its all about the 'inner child'. Having two outer children I think mines turned into a grumpy old harry hater

Know what you mean honeyplanet, maybe we should start a moaning mum thread? :)

Has anyone ever read Lord of the Rings? Do we disaprove of that in the same way as HP or are Frodo and company allowed to entertain adults?

:suspect:

I've read and re-read Lord of the Rings, as child and adult. I think it's a rung or two above Harry Potter, in that it's at least well-written for the most part and addresses some adult themes, but I think it's just as culpable with its clear-cut dichotomy of good & evil and its not even thinly-disguised racism.

Don't get me started on how LotR is not racist! Must. Avoid. Arguing. And you only have to look at the character of Gollum to see how good/evil is not clearly delineated. Least you've read it though - I can respect the opinion of a reader more than someone who hasn't even read them!

I enjoy the Harry Potter books, and one of the arguments against them is that they are porrly written. While the prose is not on a par with that of Tolkien, it must be remembered that they are simple children's books. But one aspect of them is superb and that is the plot. I'm quite envious of the way Rowling manages to keep the story moving along at a fair old pace and hide hints and clues along the way. I've finished the latest one, and without revealing anything, it got me looking back at some of the older volumes searching for answers to some of the hints she had dropped. I'm looking forward to how she will eventually tie everything together in the final volume.

I don't mind in the slightest if people think it is childish to read Harry Potter as an adult. I know what else I read, and I am quite comfortable in the fact that I do not seek out 'easy reading' or just 'escapism'. People can think what they want - they're just denying themselves some great entertainment. :)

I like the Harry Potter books. I grew up reading Enid Blython and Dahl and I find these books in the same vein. The first one i read a couple of years ago was given to me by an English teacher who worked at one of Sheffield so called better schools and they couldn't recommend it enough. I thought they were taking the urine at the time
I read it and got into it and surprised myself by enjoying it. It actually got me to dig out books like the story of Henry Sugar and Danny champion of the world
There is a dark under current to the books and they have got darker with the last 3. Anybody want to tell me that Dahl isn't dark.
Anything that gets millions of kids around the world reading and looking forward to reading gets my full support.

What genuinely puzzles me about the Harry Potter-type of book is this :-
We have a massive complex world , filled with people who are constantly interacting with each other and we have 2 or 3 thousand years of written history . It's a fantastic place , this world of ours , with enough stories and situations to fill millions of books every year , if someone had time to write them.
Then , along come authors who base their books on the , 'Fantastic" ; people travelling through time , imaginary monsters .......etc.......
Now , I would have thought that the real world and its possibilities had quite enough going for it , without moving , "outside " , the real world , as it were.
The thing that bores me about the Harry Potter-type book and anything like it , is that the author can always put any old thing in they like to move the story along. You have , as the reader , to be prepared for anything that's thrown at you -------magic boxes , secret passages that lead to another planet , people flying around and so on. However the writer who sticks to our known world has to maintain a certain discipline , even when writing for children. In books like the Billy Bunter series or Enid Blyton , the various adventures are embedded in reality , even though the author can still be imaginative. So, although the Famous Five and Billy Bunter have some odd moments and adventures , it could all literally happen .
As an adult , I find all Science Fiction and its ilk , undisciplined , "lazy" and ultimately boring because of that.
Children often find fantasy [e.g. Grimm's Fairy Tales ] exciting and interesting , because they don't know enough about the comedies and complexities of the real world , so fiction , fantasy or real life stories are just about equal in their eyes ........but adults........ ?

I wonder if half the criticism in this thread comes from the fact that JK Rawling is now a billionaire after being destitute and you're not! Bunch of losers!

Well , Buck , a lot of us don't like K.F.C. but I don't think it's because the chain made Colonel Whatsisname a rich man. It's because not everyone likes K.F.C. food.
I suppose , for example , Ian Rankin is quite rich , by now , but I like his books . I'm not really bothered if someone is super-rich , quite rich , poor or otherwise and I would guess most people are the same.
The thing that is laughable is the idea of the billionaires laughing all the way to the bank , whilst the masses munch their way through , identical , mass-produced , "meals" or read any old tripe that's written for them.

Fareast - the way you describe fantasy and sci-fi is certainly true of bad writing in those genres, but it is quite wrong of the good writing. The writer is effectively creating a secondary world, which must be utterly believable as a whole, coherent entity. So they cannot just chuck in 'any old thing' to make the story move, the reader would notice that this 'any old thing' was not coherent with that world and the whole enchantment would be broken.

To take an example from a non-fantasy novel, in Hanif Kureishi's The Black Album he makes errors in mentioning certain albums which were supposed to be on release in the timeframe the novel was set in. Instantly I knew he was wrong, and instantly any idea that his world was coherent was broken.

We deride fantasy and sci-fi for not reflecting the 'real world', but how much does contemporary fiction reflect the real world? If I read Trainspotting then to me it's just as much a fantasy to me as Harry Potter; I know nothing of the world Irvine Welsh is writing about, and as long as he writes of it convincingly enough, I would be prepared to accept anything he says of that world.

And why must all fiction reflect the 'real world'? If I wish to know more about the 'real world' I can watch the news or read the paper. Sometimes (and I say sometimes, as there is very little fantasy or sci-fi which I can actually stomach, much of it doesn't appeal to me) I want my imagination to be set free, to be exercised to its full.

The other thing is that fantasy/sci-fi at its best reflects and mirrors human experience and can teach us something. Lord of the Rings is not an allegory, but it does show us many lessons, including why it is important not to give up, the value of friendship, the dangers of seeking power. The best sci-fi such as Brave New World shows us the possibilities of where we are going as a species. It opens up our minds.

Originally posted by Mathom
Don't get me started on how LotR is not racist! Must. Avoid. Arguing.
So we have a bunch of basically home-counties midgets aligned with all the Norse races of the world against Sauron, the dark evil one. And who are Sauron's allies... why the slanty-eyed Easterlings and the dark skinned Southrons. How do we know they're evil? Well, they have slanty eyes and dark skins, of course! Just to drive home their nefariousness, they wear turbans and cover their faces. Scary!

It took me until my third read (first adult read) of the book to spot the racism, but it really is quite blatant, it's almost as if Tolkien learned everything he knew off George Lucas (erm). If you read the passages where those races are introduced, it is clear from the writing that we are supposed to distrust them just because they look so different from us.

I'm not saying that Tolkien was overtly racist, and I'm sure a lot of this is "of its time", but it doesn't make for pleasant reading.

As for good and evil - yes, with Gollum this becomes more complex, but on the whole the world is made up of good races and evil races, and the job of the good races is to wipe out the evil races. Not just George Lucas, more George Bush. Even Gollum has been driven towards evil by forces greater than him and ultimately unstoppable. It's this absolution of responsibility for one's own deeds in fiction that I think is sneaky and counter-productive.

I agree, Mathom, it is quite possible to have good fantasy & sci-fi (and also good but not entirely real-world "literary" books, i.e. Magical Realism). Unfortunately the genre ghetto feeds on itself and increasingly most fantasy/sci-fi books these days are parodies set within fairly narrow sets of rules - if you're writing fantasy it must have pointy-eared elves and evil goblins, etc. Which is a real shame because it makes people sneery about these genres as a whole (I admit to having been just such a sneerer on occasion) whereas they actually have a lot to offer.

Originally posted by DanSumption
It took me until my third read (first adult read) of the book to spot the racism, but it really is quite blatant, it's almost as if Tolkien learned everything he knew off George Lucas (erm). If you read the passages where those races are introduced, it is clear from the writing that we are supposed to distrust them just because they look so different from us.

I'm not saying that Tolkien was overtly racist, and I'm sure a lot of this is "of its time", but it doesn't make for pleasant reading.

Agreed, but balance this with the fact that Tolkien has one of the more enlightened character (i.e. Faramir) force Frodo and Sam look at the face of an Easterling and note that he might have been no more willing to go to war than they.

Also Tolkien shows the white-skinned and blessed men of Numenor falling foul of decadence and complacency.

I'm not trying to start an argument, but LOTR is like most things in that you can find evidence for and against many things within its pages.

You can find racism in LotR, but you can also find it in many other works, if you wish to find it. In reality Tolkien makes the point that it is not race which determines whether someone is good or bad, but how they act. There is indeed the incident with the Easterling where we are asked to consider whether this 'enemy' was truly willing to go to war. There is also the considerable lesson taught us by the friendship between Gimli and Legolas; here we have two representatives of races which have despised one another. They end up as friends. Tolkien also shows us how the Elves, by separating themselves from the other races and being isolationist, are wrong to do so.

I can't think of any instances where enemies are described as 'slanty-eyed'! 'Swarthy', yes - but in 1955 this did not have the connotations that it does nowadays. He also uses the word 'queer' in its older sense to merely mean 'odd' but we wouldn't say he was homophobic because of that as we know the change in meaning is relatively recent. This is the danger with language, it changes.

But not all the enemies are from the East or the South. There are also: the Dunlendings - 'white' men; the Orcs, some of whom are described likewise as white; Saruman is 'white', and many other Men are also enemies. Hobbits and Dwarves are hardly Nordic, being generally hairy and dark; in many cases they are laughed at by Elves and Men but Tolkien always shows them to be equals in every sense, and shows those who laugh at them to be wrong. Even the Elves are shown to fight amongst themselves resulting in senseless slaughter.

It is a difficulty when a writer wishes to write of epic war and battle. He/she must create an enemy, and that enemy must demonstrate a credible threat, and we must be able to see which side needs to win. There must also inevitably be death. Quite rightly we ask ourselves whether such slaughter is correct, but Tolkien does not glorify death and battle, he shows it to be harsh for all concerned, and to be a thing to be avoided at all costs - he reflected his own experience of war. He also does not let us forget that the 'enemy' are people too, having his characters reflect on the senselessnes of it all and showing how even the Orcs also have thoughts and personalities.

Sorry, this has got me onto my geek hobby-horse. ;)

I think that genre ghettos are a problem with all genres these days. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find any fantasy which remotely approaches Tolkien's standards - many try to copy him and fail. I would recommend Gormenghast, the Earthsea books and His Dark Materials as the very best, but much of it is unfortunately rubbish. :(

The same can be said of almost any fiction though. I am sure I can't stomach to read yet another work of literary fiction where the heroine ends up leaving everything behind and going off to travel the world or being a single parent - do all literary novels end up in the denial and rejection of love? Why are they all essentially negative?

I think the trick is not to be swayed by the critics (many of whom are writers with a lot of self-interest), and likewise, not to stick exclusively to one genre.

Originally posted by Mathom
It is a difficulty when a writer wishes to write of epic war and battle. He/she must create an enemy, and that enemy must demonstrate a credible threat, and we must be able to see which side needs to win.
I think you've put your finger on exactly what is wrong with the majority of fantasy fiction (including Tolkien), and indeed a lot of other books, including most religious texts. It's that whole George Bush "you're either with us, or against us".

I personally don't believe the world is black & white, I believe that even people who do things which seem inherently "evil" to us, can usually articulate why what they have done is "good" within their own belief system, and I think we can learn a lot (and hopefully improve the world) by trying to get to the bottom of this rather than blindly labelling everything "good" and "evil".

And so, coming back to the original point, the reason I'm unhappy that so many adults like to escape using this sort of fiction is because it encourages them to think in a way which I think is very unhelpful.

That is only one way of reading the text - at the surface level LotR is a simple adventure with a clear cut balance of good/evil. However it is set in a much more complex world. Originally created to be 'perfect' it was instantly marred and from there on, all those who live there must decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Tolkien writes: "do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." This is a warning that even in this secondary world he has created, the concept of right and wrong, of good/evil is not clear.

Interestingly, at the end of the novel, 'evil' is not completely destroyed, because it cannot be. And during the course of the story, we also meet Orcs who discuss how their way is the right way, how the side we instinctively support are 'wrong'. Even the supposed hero of the tale ultimately goes wrong at the end.

For myself, reading the text taught me that I must stop to consider all the possibilities, that 'absolutes' in moral terms are to be avoided.

What I find arrogant, Fareast, is your not so humble opinion that anything you don't like is tripe. I am not here to defend Harry Potter, KFC, or American football, because I'm not a big fan of any of them (except the New England Patriots). I like modern jazz, bike racing, canoeing, Arthur Sillitoe, Charles Dickens, and Jane Austen, but I'm not particularly bothered if you don't. I like to see my grandkids reading HP or anything rather than constantly clicking playstation handsets or gabbing constantly on cell phones.

Buck ----what a strange turn of phrase you use , "arrogant " , after dismissing those of us who don't like 'Harry Potter "as "losers! " [Shurely shome mishtake ?]
What I was suggestig is that generally people in Britain will buy and DO buy millions of pounds worth of all kinds of stuff , British and American and they don't seem to give a toss whether the ones who scoop in
the money are rich or not.
Your suggestion was that the people who did not like Harry Potter were somehow jealous of J. Rowling getting rich via Harry Potter.I find that idea totally bizarre.
In other words , if that's how they thought the same people would not buy anything that enriched an already rich person . Are you for real or just joking ?

Mathom

I see your point that even writers of fiction must stay within certain boundaries to give their books authenticity.
However , I always have the uneasy feeling that at any given point , the writer could introduce a , "new " concept , just to make the story more exciting or because the writer had run out of ideas .
How could the reader of science fiction , "object " to a completely new twist in the novel. ? It's the writer who is controlling the , 'rules " , ultimately . Whereas in the , "real world " story it's the real world which imposes the limits. The author can build on the real world and twist and turn it but [s]he can't dispose of it altogether.
As I said , for children , it doesn't matter so much as their experience of the real world is only hazy , at best , but I would have thought adults would soon get bored with space ships , people flying around , wizards , monsters , "goodies , " , 'baddies " , magic wands and so on and want to go back to Ian Rankin , Inspector Morse or anyone with their , "feet on the ground. "

Originally posted by Fareast
Mathom

I see your point that even writers of fiction must stay within certain boundaries to give their books authenticity.
However , I always have the uneasy feeling that at any given point , the writer could introduce a , "new " concept , just to make the story more exciting or because the writer had run out of ideas .
How could the reader of science fiction , "object " to a completely new twist in the novel. ? It's the writer who is controlling the , 'rules " , ultimately . Whereas in the , "real world " story it's the real world which imposes the limits. The author can build on the real world and twist and turn it but [s]he can't dispose of it altogether.
As I said , for children , it doesn't matter so much as their experience of the real world is only hazy , at best , but I would have thought adults would soon get bored with space ships , people flying around , wizards , monsters , "goodies , " , 'baddies " , magic wands and so on and want to go back to Ian Rankin , Inspector Morse or anyone with their , "feet on the ground. "

First of all, few adult readers do stick exclusively to one 'genre'; I know I certainly don't, as I would find that utterly boring. Although I would question whether crime fiction in itself is not more fantasy than reality. The reality of being a detective is probably a lot of boring paperwork and meetings and they are as likely to be involved in a deadly dull fraud case as a murder.

Any fiction is in itself an 'escape from reality'. Fiction can hope to portray no more that is 'real' than reflect the writer's view of the world.

Only a bad writer would throw in a new and random concept. Now I know a lot of fantasy fans enjoy Robert Jordan's novels but I personally find them interminable as the series has no obvious conclusion and no shape; they are carried on by stretching a concept to its very limits. And although it is not literature, the X Files was stretched by introducing new elements which did not fit and so the later series were unsatisfying. You simply do not find this in high quality fantasy and sci-fi. Tolkien attempted to write a sequel to LotR set after the War of the Ring, but he gave it up as he found it depressing and pointless. LotR was the 'end' of his story and he simply went back to refining his older tales.

I am now getting a sense from the series of Harry Potter books that JK Rowling indeed has a 'shape' to her saga; there have been rocky moments, but she is beginning to tie these together. What would really be a disappointment is if she decided not to have the chief baddie killed off at the end of Book 7. That will be the correct time to end the series and I think she will do that.

I do think that the best fantasy books match and often outdo modern fiction. A lot of the Booker nominees are not up to much.

A good fantasy should be based on realistic situations that are transplanted into a fantasy world. The best fantasies I find have a lot of political and strategic elements in them, realistic interaction and reactions and good character development.

Part one

Originally posted by DanSumption
I've read and re-read Lord of the Rings, as child and adult. I think it's a rung or two above Harry Potter, in that it's at least well-written for the most part and addresses some adult themes, but I think it's just as culpable with its clear-cut dichotomy of good & evil and its not even thinly-disguised racism.

I have to say that on reading your post my first inclination was to quote Gimli's words to Eomer:
'You speak evil of that which is fair beyond the reach of your thought, & only little wit can excuse you!'

LotR is far from being a 'racist' work. We have letters from Tolkien in which he condemns the ;azi race doctrine as 'pernicious & wholy unscientific'.

I think the problem arises from reading only LotR. If you read the other works - principally the Silmarillion - you will see that there are no wholly 'good' races in his mythology. all his races are fallen. In another letter he condemns his Elves for their tendency to be 'embalmers' of the world, seeking to control its every aspect & effectively turn living nature into 'Art'.He even states clearly that in the making of the Rings of Power they 'flirted with Sauron'.His main characters among the race of Men are descended from the Numenoreans who assaulted the Holy 'Undying Lands' in the West at the end of the Second Age. Frodo fails at the end & gives into what the Ring offers him. We also have to keep in mind that within the mythology Orcs were originally Elves, broken & corrupted by the first Dark Lord, Morgoth. If anything he is showing the 'dark', or 'Shadow' side of his 'perfect' elves. They are not a seperate race.

The story is one of fallen good versus evil. Quotes from the books - like Elrond's statement that he has 'lived through Three Ages of the world & seen many defeats & many fruitless victories' or Galadriel's statement about 'fighting the Long Defeat' with little or no hope of victory show that Tolkien's view of human life is essentially pessimistic. He stated that ultimately LotR is about 'Death, the inevitability of Death.'

I'd like to see specific examples (rather thatn the vague, general, ones you offer) of 'racism' in Tolkien's works.
As to the accusation of 'escapism', Tolkien dealt with this very question in his essay 'On Fairy Stories'. He draws a distinction between the 'escape of the prisoner' & the 'flight of the deserter'. The former is right, only the latter is wrong.

Why this 'problem' exists for some readers is beyond me. The human mind is capable of infinite creativity. As he aske in the Essay, why would a writer prefer to write about a steam train when he can write about a dragon?

In his long poem, Mythopeia, he addresses this question of human creativity:

Though all the crannies of the world we filled
with elves and goblins, though we dared to build
gods and their houses out of dark and light
,and sow the seeds of dragons,
'twas our right (used or misused).
The right has not decayed.
We make still by the law in which we're made.
Yes! 'wish-fulfilment dreams' we spin to cheat
our timid hearts and ugly Fact defeat!
Whence came the wish, and whence the power to dream,
or some things fair and others ugly deem?
All wishes are not idle, nor in vain
fulfilment we devise -- for pain is pain
not for itself to be desired, but ill;
or else to strive or to subdue the will
alike were graceless;

The human mind, for Tolkien, was endlessly creative, because we are made in the image of a creative God.

Finally, I'd ask, what's so great about 'reality' - & how do you know what its 'limits are? there was a time when scientists refused to believe in meteorites, on the basis that 'there are no rocks in the sky, therefore rocks cannot fall out of the sky.' Their vision was too limited, & in their desire to stick to what they considered to be 'reality' they overly limited what 'reality' was.

Too long...

From one fantasy writer to another: China Mieville on JRR Tolkien...

Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious - you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés - elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.

:)

Hmmm, all familiar criticisms and all easily debunked. ;)

Firstly, you can't blame him for creating all the writers who followed him/copied him. Out of interest, many of these writers were specifically asked to be 'more like Tolkien' by publishing houses.

His work doesn't glorify war but does quite the opposite. It clearly abhors war, as seen in the tragedies which beset so many of the major characters, and as seen in the fates of some of the most beautiful places he creates. Neither is it a 'boys own' adventure, as it works on a far deeper level; if you want it to be just an adventure then it can be that too, but you miss out on most of the meaning. Yes it has more male characters than female but those female characters are strong and powerful (yes, even Arwen has this characteristic - consider what she gives up) without him ever having to go down the slightly dubious Xena route. It does not have absolute moralities, and as for politics the dynamic between Gandalf/Aragorn/Denethor is fascinating.

But yes, I do agree that anyone who follows Tolkien ought not even to try and copy him, but because they'll fail, not because he's not worth copying. If I want elves 'n' dwarves 'n' magic rings then there's only one book I'm going to pick up. I expect modern fantasy to do something new.

Originally posted by DanSumption
From one fantasy writer to another: China Mieville on JRR Tolkien...

:)

A well reasoned argument! I've never heard of this 'China Melville' person, but he/she has either never read or never understood LotR. He/she misunderstands, misapplies & misconstues Tolkien's work.

Tolkien's concept of 'consolation' has nothing to do with 'mollycoddling' the reader.

Perhaps you should try reading the essay for yourself rather than simply picking out quotes which suit your argument.

I notice you fail to provide any evidence for your claim of 'racism' in LotR. You also seem to have completely avoided any of the points I made in my post.

Its easy to sound clever by throwing out uninformed criticisms - big fish in a small pond syndrome I suppose. But it doesn't impress anyone with an informed knowledge of the subject at hand.

Google-ing quotes by non-entities to support your position is, in the end, a bit sad.

Go on, give me specific instances of racism in Tolkien's works. I guarantee you none of them will hold up. This is a subject that has been done to death on numerous fora & the accusations have always crumbled & the accusers slunk away to spout their nastiness to the ignorant.

Originally posted by DanSumption
From one fantasy writer to another: China Mieville on JRR Tolkien...

:)

from the author who bored me to tears.

Originally posted by davem
I notice you fail to provide any evidence for your claim of 'racism' in LotR. You also seem to have completely avoided any of the points I made in my post.

Its easy to sound clever by throwing out uninformed criticisms - big fish in a small pond syndrome I suppose. But it doesn't impress anyone with an informed knowledge of the subject at hand.
I humbly beg forgiveness from the great fish - I was not ignoring you, honest, I just wasn't sure where my copy of LotR was - a copy which, I might add, I won because of my informed knowledge: I was the only person in London who knew what Saruman became once he was no longer Saruman the White (well, at least I was the only person in London who could be bothered to telephone GLR and tell them at 8am - I was told that everyone else who rang in assumed that Saruman turned black). Bloody good thing too, as my previous copy (which I bought at the same time I saw the Ralph Bakshi film) had fallen in two. So please don't preach to me about your "informed knowledge". I'd happily go one-to-one with you in a LotR quoting contest.

That said, I can't find any particularly relevant quotes to support my claims of racism. Not necessarily because there aren't any, but mainly because I've better things to do at this time of night than trawl 1000 pages looking for them. All I can offer you is my heartfelt impressions, when reading the book for the umpteenth time (plus factor in a couple of viewings of the Bakshi film, several more of the Jackson films, and a few hundred listenings to the Radio 4 serial) that Tolkien's description of the swarthy enemy, vs. the pure Norse and middle-English heroes, was a bit suspect.

For the record I don't agree with all that China Mieville says (I don't have any problem with Tolkien's Wagnerisms), nor am I a massive fan of China's writing (although I think it is better than 99% of modern fantasy), I really just threw out that quote because, as I said, I couldn't be bothered to dig out my copy of LotR, I remembered that China had said something vaguely derogatory about Tolkien in the past, and I wondered what sort of reaction it would prompt. An interesting one.

I'd also like to point out that "Leaf by Niggle" by Tolkien is one of my favourite short stories of all time. But LotR... too much good vs. evil, real life isn't like that, and although fantasy should be different from real life I think that adult fantasy has a responsibility to comment upon and inform real life.

Originally posted by DanSumption That said, I can't find any particularly relevant quotes to support my claims of racism. Not necessarily because there aren't any, but mainly because I've better things to do at this time of night than trawl 1000 pages looking for them. All I can offer you is my heartfelt impressions, when reading the book for the umpteenth time (plus factor in a couple of viewings of the Bakshi film, several more of the Jackson films, and a few hundred listenings to the Radio 4 serial) that Tolkien's description of the swarthy enemy, vs. the pure Norse and middle-English heroes, was a bit suspect.

I'm not sure 'heartfelt impressions' are worth very much in this instance. If you want quotes I'd refer you to Aragorn's statement about the 'peril' of Lorien - a man finds it there because he brings it with him. I've read LotR many times & never found the slightest trace of racism in it - where are you finding it? The Bakshi & Jackson films bear little or no resemblance to the books & I fail to see your point in brining them up. The 'pure Norse & Middle-English heroes' are all fallen beings in Tolkien's cosmology. The Elves are far from being 'heroic' & Tolkien was, in his letters, often intensely critical of them. You seem to miss the point that often Tolkien is condemning the very attitude you ascribe to him. He was equally condemnatory of the parochial attitude of the Hobbits.

I sense you changing position - you began with a definite statement that LotR is racist, now you're saying that you can't come up with any - not necessarily because there aren't any - well, are there any, or aren't there? I challenge you to find one that will stand up & that isn't intended ironically by Tolkien or used in a condemnatory way by him.

I'd also like to point out that "Leaf by Niggle" by Tolkien is one of my favourite short stories of all time. But LotR... too much good vs. evil, real life isn't like that, and although fantasy should be different from real life I think that adult fantasy has a responsibility to comment upon and inform real life. [/B]

I think an intelligent reader would find a great deal of informed comment on 'real life' in LotR. On the other hand a paranoid reader, or one with an agenda, would find only what they wanted to find.

In short, I see you're backing away from your dogmatic accusation of racism & justifying it by the flimsy excuse that 'the book's too long.' Sorry, but if LotR is as blatantly & obviously racist aas you claim I think you'd be able to come up with something more specific than vague, out of context references to 'swarthiness'. As i said, the Orcs are deformed creatures. As to the Southrons & Easterlings, a reading of The Silmarillion, of which LotR is the culmination, should make it eminently clear that their position on the 'wrong' side of the war of the Ring is due to an accident of geography (both literal & moral) & Tolkien makes it clear on numerous occasions in his writings that they are not at fault as whole races. As I've said, all his races are at fault to some degree, & the ones you hold up - Elves & Men - are far from perfect, & in the Silmarillion they are shown to be at least as morally culpable as the Southrons & Easterlings - with far less excuse, because the wrongs they commit are done in full knowledge of the Right. If there is 'good' vs 'evil' in LotR it is not in the external battle but within each individual - if you've read it as many times as you claim, could you explain Frodo's struggle & ultimate moral failure to me as anything else?

Originally posted by davem
In short, I see you're backing away from your dogmatic accusation of racism & justifying it by the flimsy excuse that 'the book's too long.
No, I was being honest. The book is too long.

Mathom

I know that writers of , for example ,detective fiction , make their characters lead more exciting lives than is probably [or almost certainly ! ] the case. But the characters are still bound by certain , "rules ". Inspector Morse ,to use one example , can't do anything that a real detective can't do , physically------he just does , "it" in a more interesting , more exciting way. The skill of the writer is to use real life as a base and then to make it interesting.
This is not just about detective novels but other genres too. Comic writing----P.G.Wodehouse, romantic novels , war novels...........etc......they all have real life in the background.No-one is flying through the air or meeting funny little people from The Middle Kingdom or people recently arrived on spaceships---------or whatever.
The world is so full of interest and variety which can be permutated in so many different ways , that Science Fiction [or non-reality fiction ] seems completely unnecessary to me ----and hence , ultimately boring.

Fareast, I was just joking. You have to get used to my tongue in cheek methods. To be honest though, and I don't include you in this number, I don't care for the pompous. All I will say is that millions of kids are enjoying Potter, and some adults too, so where's the harm? Do you honestly think the 13 year olds give a monkey's about what some are saying in this thread.
There are higher places in literature, an art form at which we English excel, and there is the penny dreadful form which seems to emanate from here.
Anyway, go out and enjoy a big Mac, I bet you have a secret addiction to them

Buck ,


I'm sorry that I didn't spot the joke. Sometimes it's not easy , using e-mail ; one can't see the laugh or smile that goes with the words.
Yes , I can understand kids loving Harry Potter and various forms of fantasy.
Before I started school , we had an Aunty live with us who used to spend half her free time reading , "Grimms Fairy Tales " to me. I think from that age I've always had an admiration for the bizarre or grotesque. In humour , for example , I loved the Goon Show as well as nearly all other mainstream humour . I do think children's stories help tremendously in developing a child's imagination.
I don't know what eventually put me off , "non-reality" fiction ? Maybe it IS just a matter of personal taste. Maybe I read some bad science fiction and if I'd read some better stuff , I may have become a fan , too !

Originally posted by Greenback
This nation has produced some of the finest literature the world has ever seen, yet it seems that there are many adults who prefer to read hackneyed tales about public school wizardry that are written for people without fully developed brains.

Another example of dumbing down? Maybe adults who read HP should wear a special hat or something, so that if we need to speak to them we'll make sure to do so r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y and only using little words that they are sure to understand.

Or maybe I should stop being such a pathetic snob?

It's a conundrum alright. ;)

You are not a snob. its your opinon only :P

Originally posted by DanSumption
No, I was being honest. The book is too long.

Actually, in the Foreword Tolkien states that the general opinion of readers is that it is too short.

Can we take your lack of response to indicate that you now accept that LotR is not racist,or do you want to swap quotes?

Could you manage one quote from the book that you consider to be evidence of 'racism'? Or did you not expect anyone to challenge you?

Originally posted by davem
Can we take your lack of response to indicate that you now accept that LotR is not racist,or do you want to swap quotes?
You can take it to mean that if you like, I'd rather take it to mean I've got better things to do on a Friday night than leaf through 1000 pages looking for a juicy quote.

But if you're not doing anything special, would you mind digging out a quote that demonstrates how Sauron is good at heart but just a bit misunderstood?

Originally posted by DanSumption
You can take it to mean that if you like, I'd rather take it to mean I've got better things to do on a Friday night than leaf through 1000 pages looking for a juicy quote.

But if you're not doing anything special, would you mind digging out a quote that demonstrates how Sauron is good at heart but just a bit misunderstood?

Sauron was originally one of the Maiar of Aule, so he was originally good, before his corruption by Morgoth. After the fall of Morgoth in the War of Wrath that ended the First Age he remained in Middle-earth, claiming (& Tolkien suggests possibly believing) that he wanted to help heal the damage he had done.Up to the Fall of Numenor he was able to assume his original angelic form - which aided in his seduction of the Elves of Eregion when he inspired them to create the Rings.

Sauron is a character with a complex history, but I never suggested that he was 'good at heart' - I don't actually understand your point with this question. He was originally a good, 'angelic' being who was corrupted. This is a central idea in Tolkien's philosophy - his is not a dualistic universe of absolute good vs absolute evil. Originally all things were good, but some beings, through the use of their free will, choose to rebel. So, what we actually have is good vs fallen or corrupted good.

Have you actually read any Tolkien, or are you just making this up as you go?

Originally posted by davem
Have you actually read any Tolkien, or are you just making this up as you go?
I'm making it up as I go. Bye.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I'm making it up as I go. Bye.

Collapse of stout party:clap:

OK, that was a lie, I can only again blame the fact that it's Friday night and I'm a couple of bottles of wine down.

I have read most Tolkien. But I've never read the Silmarillion - tried to three times, always fell asleep during the first few pages. Obviously all the spoilers are in the Silmarillion. I apologise for missing them.

But the Lord of the Rings, taken on its own, still reads to me (at least after five readings) like an "epic battle of good vs. evil", I still don't believe in epic battles of good vs. evil, and I don't believe that characterising the world (any world) that way is useful.

But I also still say it was a cracking good read when I was younger, and my life would be different had I not read it.

You younguns got nothing! We had Biggles, and Just William. We had the Wizard, which, of course you might still have as far as I know. Didn't cotton on to Superman, thought it was too far fetched like "horsemuck from China"

I tried reading some Biggles when I was a kid, but it just bored me. I did read a few "Just William" books though. But Tolkien and other fantasy/sci-fi stuff (Alan Garner, Ray Bradbury, ...) was my favourite.

Originally posted by DanSumption

But the Lord of the Rings, taken on its own, still reads to me (at least after five readings) like an "epic battle of good vs. evil", I still don't believe in epic battles of good vs. evil, and I don't believe that characterising the world (any world) that way is useful.

The 'epic battle of good vs evil' in LotR is an internal one within each of the characters.

If you expect to understand LotR after only 5 readings you're not as smart as you think you are. I'm only just beginning to get a handle on it after more than 15 readings. And that's only because I've also read The Sil, Hobbit, the 12 volumes of the History of Middle-Earth (early & alternate drafts of Tolkien's Middle-earth writings) & the Letters, along with numerous volumes of essays & secondary literature on the subject.

You seem to be reading it as a sword & sorcery novel - which it isn't. Its part of a 'secondary world', created in incredible depth, with histories, races & languages, on which Tolkien spent a good part of his adult life. His mythology (or 'Legendarium' as he called it) is a work of art without comparison in modern literature. Note, I'm not saying its better than all other novels, merely that what Tolkien did was unique, & deserving of the kind of study its finally getting in books & university courses around the world.

Er....in-depth discussion of tolkien aside (loved the books when i was a young man, and highly enjoyed the recent movies, which actually improved on them from a pure narrative point of view)...Ive read 2 books of the boy potter and can't remember a single thing about them, but I finished them, so they did their job ie kept me interested.

Davem

If it has taken you 15 readings to just , "begin to understand " Lord of the Rings and there are lots of other books , too , that go to make up Tolkein's mythical world , it's no wonder that it's only just beginning to get onto University courses !
It sounds as if Wittgenstein , Freud and Einstein , with their heads together , would have trouble trying to suss out what Tolkein meant by this and that !
If it does become common practice to have Tolkein on university courses , there won't be much time left over to study Shakespeare , Dickens , Tolstoy .............well , or anyone else really.[ or for eating , drinking and sleeping , for that matter ] Remember , Davem , not all university students are bright ; by the law of averages , some are bound to be a bit slower at understanding than others --------maybe they'd have to read it 20 or 30 times to even get a glimmer of understanding.
Tolkein , indeed , must have been a very , very deep man . Most people can understand Shakespeare and Chaucer , with a few notes to help them and a teacher to advise them.
I wonder who'd mark the work on a Tolkein university course ? That would be one hell of a job ,for sure !
It sounds as if the only practical solution is to completely immerse oneself in the Tolkein world of epic battles , symbolism , things not of this earth and whatever , to the exclusion of all other human activity. It seems the only way to tackle such an enormous literary task.
I'm not sure that today's students are really up to all this ;
" a brief outline of the plot of Macbeth [for revision ] " seems more today's style.

Originally posted by Fareast
Davem

Tolkein , indeed , must have been a very , very deep man . Most people can understand Shakespeare and Chaucer , with a few notes to help them and a teacher to advise them.

No they can't - they just think they can. Shakespeare is a lifetime's study.

Tolkien was indeed a very very deep man, an Oxford professor who was reputed to be a 'ferocious intellect'.
;
" a brief outline of the plot of Macbeth [for revision ] " seems more today's style.

Indeed - which is why so many people think they're much smarter than they actually are, & believe that they can pick up the meaning of any work of art by a quick skim. Some things require, & are worth, study.[/B][/QUOTE]

Davem

Well , I agree that one could spend a lifetime studying Shakespeare or Tolkein or various other literary figures who've written a fair body of work.
On a university course ,though , one only has 3 or 4 years.
I can envisage someone going "into " a given author in so much detail , that it takes them a lifetime. The problem then arises that you would have little or no experience of any other author-------certainly , you would have no time for a wide range of medium -depth experience.You would be reading Tolkein , for example , in a sort of vacuum , as you would not have the time to compare and contrast him with writers of a similar genre.
You could well become an "expert " , in one writer but even then , surely only an , "expert " from one's own point of view. What I mean is that , "experts " who study Shakespeare , for example . can't agree on what Shakespeare meant when he wrote on this and that theme.
This is purely a personal opinion , but , to me , it seems a pretty depressing prospect to only have time , in one's life to , " really know " one author , when we have such a rich variety of writers in our culture . and that's not to mention non-English language writers. Certainly almost everyone who goes to university will only have time to skim over the world's greatest writers and would have to ignore other subjects altogether , presumably !

Originally posted by Fareast
I can envisage someone going "into " a given author in so much detail , that it takes them a lifetime.
I understand the length of time you are referring to, Fareast, but I think to be honest that the word "life" in that context is a bit misleading. It would hardly be a life if you spent it all reading Tolkien.

Davem: yes, I've no doubt I could get more from the Lord of the Rings on subsequent readings, the same could be said of most books, but diminishing returns and all that... The books are certainly very complex: the myths, languages, geography and history of Middle Earth were a life's work for Tolkien, but that doesn't mean I'd recommend anybody spend a life deciphering them: it's better to get a sense of perspective.

Anyway, back to Harry Potter. A great quote from Jonathan Coe in this morning's Observer:

Harry Potter never appealed. After all, I wouldn't sit on the tube reading Enid Blyton. I'd be worried about people laughing at me.
The Enid Blyton reference is very appropriate: Harry Potter has a lot more in common stylistically and in terms of its depth with Mallory Towers than with Lord of the Rings.

DanSumption

Well , some people , apparently , DO , spend a , "lifetime " ,studying one author and I agree it reaches the point of diminishing returns. It might be very interesting to know that Dickens got bitten by a dog or scraped his knee when he was 10 years old ......but whether it adds much to our understanding of Dickens' work or our enjoyment , is quite another matter.
What astonished me was Deavon's remark about reading Lord of the Rings 15 times and was even then , "only beginning to get the gist " , to paraphrase. It struck me that people in general have to spend a lot less time on understanding Shakespeare .....et al.... if they study literature at university......and the discussion took off from there.
I suppose if an intelligent man like Tolkein chooses to spend HIS life creating another world , complete with its own language .....etc......then I suppose another person COULD spend their lifetime trying to suss out what it was all about.
It just semed rather sad and boring to me that someone should put all their eggs in one basket , as it were.

Sorry , I meant , "Davom" , not " Deavon", in last posting. Sorry Deavon !

Originally posted by Fareast
What astonished me was Deavon's remark about reading Lord of the Rings 15 times and was even then , "only beginning to get the gist "
Yes, likewise, although I take it there was a large amount of rather unfortunate hyperbole in that statement. I would say I "begun to get the gist" on my 3rd reading (the first time I read it as an adult), and gleaned a little more on two subsequent readings but, by then, had quite enough of the gist to serve me for a lifetime.

And it was "davem" not "Deavon" or even "Davom" ;)

Yeah , I seem to have a mental block in getting Davem's name correct.
I wonder whether that's worth a chapter of someone's biography ?
I really do hesitate to make any useful remarks about 'Lord of the Rings ' or any 'Harry Potter ' books as I haven't read any of them , although I have read bits about them and seen one Harry Potter film.
What I can't understand is the enjoyment people get out of any of it. One reason is , is that in stuff of this kind , there appear to be no " rules "-----rather like in children's fairy stories where Red Riding Hood's father cuts open the wolf and rescues granny.To me , reading fiction like that , as an adult , is like playing a game with someone who makes up the rules as they go along.
It mayseem quite a feat to create ones own language but I don't see the point in that -----we seem to have quite enough languages for our needs as it is. In fact a lot of people struggle with their first language [some of 'em can't spell Davem , for a start !].
Tolkein , according to Davem , if I'm reading this correctly , uses , "outside " symbols to represent the inner struggle that goes on within each of us.Well , that's hardly original , is it ? Surely , novelists , plus psychologists and psychiatrists have covered all this endlessly.?
As I said , I do hesitate to criticise Tolkein , as a writer , for the aforementioned reason. However , from what I can gather he has just expanded on techniques , at great length , that have been around for ages.All very interesting , as no doubt some of the old Viking sagas must have been , but hardly worth a lifetime of study , I would have thought ?

Tolkien was a philologist by profession. He began inventing languages as a child & continued to do so throughout his life. There are about half a dozen developed languages in the Legendarium. They aren't 'fixed' but go through stages of development. The languages were the inspiration for the stories & came first.

One of the things Tolkien was doing was attempting to understand the nature of language & how it develops & changes over time. The easiest way to do this effectively was to create a secondary world where various invented languages would be spoken & changes could be explored. On that level Tolkien's Legendarium could be seen as a very complex philological thought experiment.

Another thing that motivated him was what he percieved to be the absence of a specifically English mythology. In order to make up for this he decided to create one - but not simply by inventing the whole thing. What he did was to take the fragments that have survived of Anglo-Saxon beliefs (from references in Beowulf, etc & draw on the Eddas, Norse, Finnish, Celtic traditions & attempt to recreate what had been, based on his knowledge of language, myth & fairy story.

The language 'thing' is interesting, because this ties in with his pholosophical approach to myth. Basically, after the creation of the world the Valar ('gods') enter into the world, fight a series of battles with the Dark Lord Morgoth & establish a realm in the West where they create Two Trees which give out Light (before the creation of the sun & moon).

Morgoth is defeated in battle & the Elves are summoned to the West to live. Some go, some stay in Middle earth. The ones who go West develop their own language, under divine inspiration, called Quenya. They are named the Calaquendi or 'speakers of the (language of) Light.

Soon after Morgoth is released (after serving his sentence). He kills the Trees & steals the three holy jewels, the Silmarils, which contain the last light of the Trees. The Elves return into Middle earth in pursuit of Morgoth. There they encounter the Elves who remained, the Moriquendi - speakers of (the language of) darkness - they never saw the Light. Because of the killing of other Elves in their desire to return to Middle earth the returning Calaquendi are forbidden to use theirnative tongue. Notice the movement away from light towards darkness in terms of both language & morality/spirituality. There follows a series of such 'breakings' & 'splinterings' of light, spirit & language, accompanied by a series of moral 'falls'. Hence you end up, by the time of the ending of the mythology (as set out in LotR) with this apparently 'simple' conflict of 'good' vs 'evil', but which in actuality is much more complex.

Don't know how much sense that makes....

Christopher Tolkien (his son & literary executor) has stated that the Legendarium became the means by which Tolkien was able to explore some of his most profound ideas & speculations. Unfortunately, because of the success of LotR a whole new genre was 'inspired' & Tolkien gets bundled in with the rest of what is mostly trash. His work has a profound underlying philosophy & the insights into language, theology & the human psyche are well worth spending time & thought on. Recent books by Professors Flieger & Shippey (try 'Splintered Light' & 'A Question of Time by Flieger or Shippey's 'Author of the Century) are worth checking out.

Originally posted by Fareast
What I can't understand is the enjoyment people get out of any of it. One reason is , is that in stuff of this kind , there appear to be no " rules "-----rather like in children's fairy stories where Red Riding Hood's father cuts open the wolf and rescues granny.To me , reading fiction like that , as an adult , is like playing a game with someone who makes up the rules as they go along.
I have to disagree with you on that point. There are plenty of good reasons for creatively abandoning rules, inventing ones own, or extrapolating from current ones. Reading a child's version of Red Riding Hood might not be much fun for an adult, but Angela Carter's "The Company of Wolves" (later adapted into a film) explores the symbolic and sexual content of that story in a way that's both interesting and worthwhile.

I don't read a lot of sci-fi or fantasy nowadays, because all genre writing seems to be drowning in a sea of pulp, but the odd exception shines. Margaret Atwood's sci-fi books (she calls them "speculative fiction", but I believe the distinction is phony and mainly down to Atwood's fear of being labelled a genre writer) explore future possibilities of current technologies, such as genetic engineering, by speculating about the nature of future "rules" governing such technologies. Even M John Harrison, who I consider to be perhaps the best sci-fi writer alive when he turns his pen in that direction, has fun with "rules": his latest book Light speculates a universe where, counter-intitively, it turns out you can use any system of physics you care to invent in order to make space travel a possibility. But both writers (all good writers) bend, break and make rules for good reasons which they can articulate clearly.

Rule-breaking can provide interest, fun and, most importantly, can throw light and shade onto our current "rule-following" existence. It's a very powerful tool when used properly, but a pretty crude one when used just for cheap kicks.

Davem and DanSumption

Well , a genuine thanks to you both for the trouble you've both taken to explain a lot of it to me.
I really WILL make an attempt to appreciate the books you've mentioned .
At the moment I'm in a smallish city in China and I'm reading the short stories of Father Brown ! Now , they ARE almost Sci-fi , but very enjoyable , once you get used to Chesterton's eccentric style and vocabulary !

JBee,

I love Roald Dahls writing dearly. But I also enjoy J.K. Rowling. Harry Potter is fun and entertaining and I guess the child in me finds it exciting. In addition to this it's great to be able to share and discuss books with my child.

Children are getting excited about English in general and expressing themselves in writing more imaginatively and creatively. Children ARE reading other books too.

Harry Potter is not just a fairy tale. Rowling writes of REAL friendship and the qualities that go hand in hand with friendship; loyalty, courage, bravery, trust, trustworthiness, consideration for others, and much moresuch as intrigue and caution, as well as good and evil. How life is difficult sometimes, but when people work together they can change things. Bearing this in mind, maybe we will have a generation of more adults who will join action groups in order to stand up and fight for what they believe in.

It's also exciting because it's new and current. I expect the same enthusiasm existed for authors like Roald Dahl and Enid Blyton in the form of simple fan letters. It's just that the media have got involved and exploited it. I'm sure you'll agree there is no comparison between Dahl and Rowlings writing styles and content. For one thing Dahl didn't write a series of books about one character ("Charlie and the glass elevator" was a sequel not a series.)

Perhaps you can't enjoy Harry Potter because you don't appreciate or beleive in the qualities I mentioned above or maybe you have disconnected with the child in you. Although, that's hard to believe reading your quote which sounds rather like a hyperactive, overweight, and precocious child; "......You should skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, vodka in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming." I reckon that you're forgetting that someone else has got to clear up after you.

Even so, I DO like the bit that goes "WOO-HOO what a ride!" because that's how I feel when I've read a new Harry Potter book.


Scrolling