Quoting a college professor's attitude? Those who can't, teach.

Quote:

Quoting a college professor's attitude? Those who can't, teach.

As I've observed elsewhere, you rather like ad hominem arguments, don't you? Would your statement apply to you, too, then, or to Tolkien? Lol. It's rather amusing to see a person who takes such obvious pride in his doctorate sneering at one of his fellows.

You've chosen a bad example, in this case, regardless, as the professor I mentioned has published at least one novel of which I'm aware. Even if he hadn't, one needn't be a carpenter to recognize a three-legged chair. Neither he or I is criticizing Tolkien on the grounds of objective quality, anyway. We are both simply agreeing with you that The Lord of the Rings is a Roman Catholic apologetic. Where we differ is that you seem to find it worthwhile as literature, whereas he and I (and many others) do not.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 17 Jan 05 | 04:56PM by Kyberean.

Hi Kyberean,

"As I've observed elsewhere, you rather like ad hominem arguments, don't you?"

One of the oldest tricks in the books, especially on the political right. Racism, classism, oppression are indefensible intellectually and morally, so resisters are to be caricatured as inferior and feeble.

"Would your statement apply to you, too, then, or to Tolkien?"
Lol, indeed. But, surely, some animals are more equal than others...

"It's rather amusing to see a person who takes such obvious pride in his doctorate sneering at one of his fellows." Alas, busy hypocrites thrive in even the most sacred groves.

dr. mef

calonlan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Quoting a college professor's attitude? Those
> who can't, teach.
>



I do not mean any harm. However, I simply must say that I do not agree with this. Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with Kyberean's professor, I have to say that most professors I know, in at least the literature departments, are all very well versed and some are even very accomplished and recognized poets and writers.


I just think that it might be worth either clarifying or reconsidering this statement. Thank you.

~Alycia

PS: Wasn't Tolkien a professor at Oxford?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17 Jan 05 | 11:42PM by NightHalo.

Tolkien was the quintessential eccentric Oxbridge don: scholar of the abstruse, fictioneer in popular genre.

Like Christ, Confucius, Marx, he is less compromised than his avowed disciples.

I don't like the attitude shown to Dr Farmer above. You can disagree with him (I do myself on some of the things he's said), but childish responses like "Lol" are ad hominem in a way he has never been. NightHalo disagrees like an adult. And what on earth does this mean? "Racism, classism, oppression are indefensible intellectually and morally..." The first two terms are so vague that they're practically useless, and saying oppression is indefensible is a bit like saying crime is illegal. True, but tautological.

Btw, Dr F: I thought your biography of CAS in The Sword Of Zagan was excellent: I've never read anything that made me feel quite as much that I'd met him myself. Thank you.

"like an adult" etc. is not, to coin a phrase, ad hominem???

racism and classism are vague? how convenient for you

Ideology begets ideology.

If anyone would like to entertain a return to substantive argument, the issue would appear to be: how to critique LOTR as a work of fiction.

As the latter, some of us consider it just too "precious."

dr. mef

Ghoti23:

Quote:

but childish responses like "Lol" are ad hominem in a way he has never been.

With all due respect, you really have no idea what you're talking about. Re-read his snide comment about professors, to start. Many other examples of this sort of thing from him abound, if you bother to research them in this forum. One of the most memorably risible is the comparison of Bill Clinton to CAS's Black Abbot. I leave you to find others, if you're so inclined, which I doubt, as your emotions seem already to have made up your mind for you.

mef:

Quote:

As the latter, some of us consider it just too "precious."

Indeed, it is, as well as being ideologically driven. I suppose that that's fine, if one happens to agree with the ideology in question, but fiction as an apology for any sort of rigid belief-system, although it can be good propaganda, is usually poor fiction. Those strictures certainly apply to The Lord of the Rings, so far as I am concerned. I dislike arguing matters of taste, though, as I find it to be pointless. Those who take pleasure in the work are welcome to do so.

This, in a nutshell, is why I bailed out of English post-grad in the late '60's and went into SW engineering.

Good luck to you all, and god bless you...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

mef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "like an adult" etc. is not, to coin a phrase, ad
> hominem???

If you understood what the term meant, you wouldn't have asked the question. I am not criticizing your arguments by criticizing you personally, I am criticizing your behaviour. To do that, I have to criticize you personally, ad hominem. There's no logical fallacy involved.

> racism and classism are vague? how convenient for
> you

Racism is like heresy: unless you know what particular sect the inquisitor belongs to, you don't know what he means by it, except that he means something bad.

mef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If anyone would like to entertain a return to
> substantive argument, the issue would appear to
> be: how to critique LOTR as a work of fiction.

Why bother? Tolkien is lead to CAS's silver and gold, and like C.S. Lewis he's an example of how professional scholars of literature have rarely contributed anything of value to their subject. You could lose everything they've ever done and literature would barely notice. That isn't true in serious subjects like history or philosophy.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> With all due respect, you really have no idea what
> you're talking about. Re-read his snide comment
> about professors, to start. Many other examples of
> this sort of thing from him abound, if you bother
> to research them in this forum.

With all due respect, whatever Dr Farmer has done, "Lol" is a childish response.

> One of the most
> memorably risible is the comparison of Bill
> Clinton to CAS's Black Abbot.

A good comparison, IMHO. I wonder who Dubya can be compared to? Perhaps King Zotulla.

> I leave you to find
> others, if you're so inclined, which I doubt, as
> your emotions seem already to have made up your
> mind for you.

See my first response above.

Quote:

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> With all due respect, you really have no idea what
> you're talking about. Re-read his snide comment
> about professors, to start. Many other examples of
> this sort of thing from him abound, if you bother
> to research them in this forum.

Ghoti23 wrote: With all due respect, whatever Dr Farmer has done, "Lol" is a childish response.

"Lol" merely expressed my amusement at reading a rather silly reply--silly, in particular, because the professor in question was, in fact, agreeing with calonlan's statement that The Lord of the Rings is a Christian apologetic. Assuming, however, for the sake of argument that I agree with you (which I do not), why single me or mef out for criticism in this regard? Tolkien's work "is shallow to the shallow"; "those who can't, teach": Are you implying that those statements of calonlan's are not childish, disrespectful and ad hominem, far more so than "lol"? I can see why you're trying to shift the debate to what mef and I have written, but let's not forget the manifestly untrue statement that you wrote, above: "lol is more ad hominem than he[canlonan] has ever been". Why don't calonlan's statements raise your ire? Perhaps one standard of comportment and expression applies to calonlan, and another to the rest of us? Calonlan set the tone of the debate, and you're taking others to task for responding to him in the tone that he set? Curious.

Also, to read your post, one would think that "lol" was my only response. It was not. It was a minor element of the matter; the rest was substantive and serious.

Quote:

This, in a nutshell, is why I bailed out of English post-grad in the late '60's and went into SW engineering.

I have a Master's degree in English, but, largely because of disgust with the field at that level, I decided not to on to a Ph.D in the subject, either. Old habits die hard, though, I suppose. ;-)