Sawfish,

I can't keep up with you. I am too slow and tired. I am not as sharp as I'd like to be.

You might also try the Jack Vance discussion board. It is more lighthearted, but they have some intelligent discussions.




Kyberean wrote: -"Tend your own garden, and please, no generalizations about "we" or "us"." OK, I will try.

When I say a thing the words only partly captures my idea. I don't simply believe in a "single unitary species". I am aware of the difficulties that cultural differences make for communication and relating, which is the issue I believe you are driving at when you so heatedly critisise me.

When I speak of "interconnection between people", I mostly mean meetings on the psyco-social level in close vicininty, both with people we know and with people we have just brushed by, and how it affects both giver and taker.
When I speak of "all functioning as one big organism", I mostly think of a biological physical interconnection (without mixing in moral), how all of us (sorry Kyberean) affect the environment with our doings, like CO2 coming out of the mouth, excrements feeding the soil, worms turning the soil so vegetation can grow, insects cleaning the ground from rotting things, the trees giving 'me' (that's better!) O2, etc... The closer in viscinity, the bigger and more direct affect, of course. The affect on me of the doings of one tiny organism at the other side of the Earth, is of course infinitely small, and not even worth mentioning. Still if a man dies in Kina it will affect the amount of CO2 in the air one tiny weenie bit, and it might also affect the Global weather situation from the lack of heat that earlier radiated from his body, warming up the air while he was still alive (analogous to the famous case of the butterfly beating its wings and stirring the air, starting a chain reaction eventually leading to a storm). Isn't my silly reasoning convincing? :) By the way, the human body is also like a group of separate organisms interconnected, namely the different cells, which millions of years ago did not hold together in that complex unit which the human body is, but swam separately in water, and gradually grouped together.

Ludde:

My apologies if you took my remarks as a heated personal criticism. That wasn't my intention at all.

My objection was not to the ecological aspects that you stress in your most recent post, but to the characterization of "man" as a "social animal", rather than as a "socialized", or "socially conditioned", animal. To me, the distinction is a crucial one.

Kyberian,

OK. Thanks. I tend to come into heated discussions myself sometimes, and often make the mistake of projecting my own behavior onto others. Sorry. :)

I just want to add one detail to my ecological comments above. It may be banal, but I still want to say it to further clearify my thoughts. I see the Earth, the planet, as a unified living organism consisting of smaller integrate parts (much like the human body in a smaller perspective is with its cells). A large living organism, with tissues like grass, wood, rock, soil; with the seas and winds functioning as bloodstream; and all the little animals on the planet's surface moving about like bloodcells through the tissues, carrying minerals, nutrition and slag back and forth, mixing and replenishing every area so that the different life components are continually fed with their individual needs.

As for "social animal" and "socialized animal", they are two differnt things. I agree that the political correctness of the journalists that dominate newspapers and TV news try to brainwash us into oversocialisation, where each and every one of us is supposed to carry all the world's problems on our shoulders. I think that unfortunately is a result of the not so enlightened priests in the Christian Church having dominated our minds over several hundred years, planting in guilt.

Man is a curious animal (but not much more curious than the other apes), and we can choose pretty much how we want to live. Still I believe that man is mainly a "social animal", like most warmblooded animals, especially those with similar body fat and female womb as we, the elephants, seals and whales. Man is not like an insect, living entirely alone, only feeding, mindlessly observing the stars through the night, meeting another insect only to copulate, leaving the kids on a branch without even seeing them, and going off on its own again. A man living like that would be in the abyss of madness.

(Well, Smith may have tasted some of that seclusion, but he was far from isolated. He had his parents, met people in town, had loves, and corresponded.)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12 Jan 05 | 03:20AM by Ludde.

Quote:

Man is not like an insect, living entirely alone, only feeding, mindlessly observing the stars through the night, meeting another insect only to copulate, leaving the kids on a branch without even seeing them, and going off on its own again. A man living like that would be in the abyss of madness.

One can live essentially alone, but not mindlessly, it is true. Hermits, anchorites and the like have lived alone, however, and are far from being all mad, in my view. Indeed, many of them may have risen to levels of consciousness and spirituality unattainable to those trapped in the "human aquarium". And, of course, let us also recall CAS's wise words on the subject of sanity: "Sanity is the madness of the greatest number".

My view--and extremely unpopular it is, to be sure--is that the alleged "social instincts" of what is rather simplistically called the "human species" are greatly over-stated. Humans are so conditioned by socialization into their particular culture, and taught to subordinate themselves to the collective under fear of punishment, that we have very little idea of what instincts and primal impulses truly lie at the heart of this animal.

That said, humans, to me, are more like wolves: They are equipped to function either as pack animals or as loners. The difference is that, for whatever reason, far fewer humans than wolves seem able to function essentially alone. It remains a viable possibility for the few, however, and part of my definition of the "higher man", in the Nietzschean sense of that term, would include choosing the essentially, although not entirely, solitary path, away from the human herd.

Gotta love this:

"But beside being Catholic and anti-rationalist, Tolkien was, more importantly, a bad writer. His most famous book, The Lord of the Rings, epitomizes what Europeans would see as the worst failings of American popular culture: it is sentimental, shallow, and two-dimensional.5 His attempt to flee the American present in some ways carries America with it, and that is one of the ironies of fantasy literature: its most popular, and least subtle, exponent is European, while one of its greatest and most subtle is not merely American but Californian, living and dying in the most "future-crazed"6 state of all: Clark Ashton Smith was born in 1893 in Long Valley, near Sacramento, and died in 1961 a few miles north in Auburn."

My only qualifications would be, "California" remains both primitive and futurist; and CAS is to be located not in the hip coastal region, but within the interior/anterior Central Valley.

It would be interesting to know the author of this strange quotation.
I had the very considerable good fortune to have taken a master class in philological studies with Dr. Toldien in 1963 (I missed Lewis by just a little because he died that year). Dr. Tolkien's work is only shallow to the shallow. It is, however, exactly what he set out to accomplish - an exploration of the inner functioning of language, including those characteristics that emerged in the beginning - such as
the onomotopoetic elements: the sound of the babe at the breast, and the nearly universal sound of the word for "mother" in all but 3 languages; and his other purpose: to provide an inward experience of the essence of the magisterium of the Roman Catholic church (side note: those who use the word "Catholic" without the adjective, betray a lack of understanding of the nature and intent of the word): For example: the elves "waybread" is, as Sam observes, not particularly tasty, but strangely satisfying and seems to provide greater strength the longer one depends upon it alone; that this is a clear reference to Eucharist is almost too obvious.
These are matters necessary to comprehend before entering into a critique of these writings. I recall a little line from Byron's "Thoughts on a College Examination" which speaks of student critics who "...prate 'gainst that which they ne'er could imitate".

I agree with a previous writer, however, that this strain is rather far afield, and likely to produce dissension, rather than enlightenment. One of Clark's sayings, well remembered, is that "we must deal gently with our illusions, in the hope that one day they will deal gently with us."

Quote:

It would be interesting to know the author of this strange quotation.

Simply click below.

[www.eldritchdark.com]

Another eccentric quotation:

"Dr. Tolkien's work is only shallow to the shallow."

...and, only profound to the profound, n'est-ce pas?

"It is, however, exactly what he set out to accomplish - an exploration of the inner functioning of language, including those characteristics that emerged in the beginning..."

So much for analysis of fiction qua fiction.

dr. mef

I suspect Dr. Tolkien's is profound because it is profound. I have found it an enriching experience to reread nearly every year(as I do a handful of other books - Kazantzakis, T.E. Lawrence for example) for
more than 40 years. Certain works are inexhaustible in their wisdom, simply because we our selves by the passage of time alone, and considerable study and thinking have occured, have changed. Who among thinking folk have not found the certainties of youth become shadowy, and the dimly perceived come into sharp relief by hammer blows of time and experience. However, I don't think treating Tolkien's work as fiction is terribly useful (or as fantasy) - it's intent is mythological, and, as such to express truths that are the province of mythology. I wish I could recall in detail, the rather involved discussion we once had in a class with Robert Graves, who surely understood the matter most profoundly - and he was a resource to whom I still turn in awe and amazement - his scholarship was stupendous. I might add incidentally that I have written elsewhere of Clark's appreciation of Graves' "The White Goddess", which I shared with him after meeting Dr. Graves in 1960 - He had read the work some years before, and the reminder caused him to exclaim that "at last I see, I have served the 'white goddess' my whole life without realizing it."
This was a moment of great delight in my memory for us both.
Thanks for helping bring it to mind.
drf

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > It would be interesting to know the author of
> this strange quotation.

The whole article is eccentric to the extreme, but enjoyably so, I must say. It makes a whole lot more sense if 'Disney' is read for 'Tolkien'. Overall one would have to remark that Tolkien vs CAS isn't exactly comparing like with like. Perhaps the use of language is the most useful comparison - JRRT self-consciously preferring Anglo-Saxon roots, whilst CAS opted for Latin. LOTR's language is indeed pedestrian compared to CAS's jewel-like prose. Personally I would be more interested see a comparison drawn with Robert E Howard; there was a man who had an epic in him - what a tragedy he didn't live to write it.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Quote:Forget not that there was the early
> influence of Poe, and that would have helped.
>
> It's also important to recall in this regard the
> influence of the work of Thomas Lovell Beddoes,
> although I have no idea at what age CAS first read
> Beddoes's poetry.

Smith had read Beddoes by a fairly early age, before the publication of THE STAR-TREADER.

Scott

I have to agree with Dr. F. I do believe most definitely that Tolkien should be read in a mythological light. If you do some research, many of his borrowings, or shall I say, additions to previous myths, are from Northern mythologies.

Many of his names for characters come directly from Nordic myth, especially dwarven names.


Snorri Sturluson lists dwarven names, among them are those you may recognize from Tolkien's works: Nyi, Nidi, Nordi, Sudri, Austri, Vestri, Althjof, Dvalin, Bifur, Bafur, Bombor, Nori, Oinn, Mjodvitnir, Vig, Gandalf, Vindalf, Thorin, Fili, Kili, Funden, Vali, Thror, etc. (The list goes on for several more lines). Besides dwarves, elves are also mythological beings who are characters in Nordic myths. They are, even, a bit more diverse than Tolkien's elves in that there is a distinction between them and their lands. Examples of this would be: Alfheim (the land of the light elves) and Svartalfheim (the land of the dark elves).
It is also helpful to rememeber that Nordic myth also contained Midgard or middle earth.

On a side note, it has also been argued that Leminkainen of the Kalevala is the inspiration for Gandalf. I currently read this series of runos and I must say that the similarlities are rather profound especially in regard to their age and use of magic.

What Dr. F mentioned about the elven bread can also be viewed, by those of us who are non-believers, as mythological substance in Tolkien's work. Even the whole theme of the return of the king is a strong tale type in fairy tales, mythology, and hero tales (such as in the Lai d'Havelock).

Personally, I do not think it is a matter of whether Tolkien is shallow or not, after all, his work is laden with many themes and truths which have enriched and inspired people for centuries. The real questions I have regarding Tolkien is his originality. He could have been more original on the one hand, yet it may have been his agenda to reinterpret myths in such way, so as to create a saga that everyone could enjoy and find depth in. I am ambivalent about this.

Forgive me for my ramblings,

Alycia

Edited for hasty spelling. ;)




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 15 Jan 05 | 09:40PM by NightHalo.

Your observations are quite correct, nighthalo - of course an "unbeliever" may read the works with pleasure and reward; nevertheless, in his correspondence and open conversation he unabashedly acknowledges the desire to create a mythology peculiarly
for the english speaking isles, and most specifically as an apologetic for R. Catholicism. That he was immersed in Nordic themes and languages, particularly Finnish is clearly in his notes. Readings in the Heimskringla, the Eddas, Burnt Njal and other nordic works ring familiar to any Tolkienite. Numerous works have explored his work without having studied T's own notes - in the 50's there were some who attempted to even found a new religion based on the work - Students on campuses around the country were deciding who were Hobbits and who were Elf-Lords etc. - missing the point entirely, but natheless, reading the books intently. It is interesting that only in the very recent past with a revival of a more general interest in Irish history in particular and Celtic history in general that folk who had been youthful fans of Conan, realized that RE Howard had "borrowed" wholesale from that mythology and "history", and that Conan is largely
Cucullain, just not dying at 17.
drf

"I suspect Dr. Tolkien's is profound because it is profound. "

And a tautology is a tautology, regardless of what is ignored (or, who states it).

"I have found it an enriching experience to reread nearly every year(as I do a handful of other books - Kazantzakis, T.E. Lawrence for example) for
more than 40 years. Certain works are inexhaustible in their wisdom, simply because we our selves by the passage of time alone, and considerable study and thinking have occured, have changed."

You strive for a redefiniton of the classic. Time, indeed, will be the arbiter: but the agency of judgment is collective, not personal.

"However, I don't think treating Tolkien's work as fiction is terribly useful (or as fantasy) - it's intent is mythological, and, as such to express truths that are the province of mythology."

The issue was treating "a work" as a fulfillment of language. Bring up "myth," then we must consider a whole new dimension of pretension...

dr. mef

Quote:

[Tolkien] unabashedly acknowledges the desire to create [...] an apologetic for R. Catholicism.

Exactly, and now we're reaching the heart of the matter! None of this "getting to the roots of language as the primary theme or purpose" business, please! Lol. I recall that, in one of my undergraduate English classes, the professor asked us for suggestions in choosing our final book to read for the semester. Someone proposed a work by Lewis or Tolkien, to which the professor replied, "Those Christian apologetics give me the creeps". Amen to that!