I like people who can speak passionately about things they love, like books, movies, music, whatever. It always makes me want to be a part of it. I haven't really formed any long unhealthy relationships to any "fandom" for quite some time, but I do try occasionally to become a fan of something new ,it just kinda doesn't happen that often!
My friends are all obsessed with ridiculous vampire stories - Twilight, The Vampire Diaries, True Blood, Supernatural... Each of them follows about ten different TV series and they talk about that 90% of the time. I can't imagine anything more boring that that.
Yeah, that - and Harry Potter - is the girl's version of Tolkien, in my experience. And again, I always thought that was stuff for teenagers. I guess I should have studied Philosophy or political sciences, maybe then I would have met people who talk about stuff that interests me. Then again, one of the biggest nerd I've ever met in my life - the sort of person you'd not even dare to put in The Big Bang Theory - was a philosophy student, so maybe it's just the sort of people I attract.
I like people who can speak passionately about things they love, like books, movies, music, whatever. It always makes me want to be a part of it. I haven't really formed any long unhealthy relationships to any "fandom" for quite some time, but I do try occasionally to become a fan of something new ,it just kinda doesn't happen that often!
Well, I rather wanted to find out why someone likes Tolkien and why someone else does not. People are different, but I am interested in which different aspects of individals could be dominant in this topic. Maybe I am over analyzing way too much, and perhaps I am presumptious once in a while. I still hope it won't be taken too seriously to get angry about, especially Perun.
If you don't mind, I'll throw things around a bit and start with this:
and that's what I always say when I argue that I don't like Tolkien. But the response to that criticism is always, always, always "How can't you like it! Don't you see what he did there? He created an entire language and an entire mythology! A complete world!"
As you can see I am doing my best to be not one of the others. I am trying to understand why you don't like Tolkien, instead of saying "that's ridiculous, you're nuts, you have to like him". Furthermore, if you are interested why others are into it, or let me just say why I like it, I ask you: bear with me. I am adding my personal ideas and experiences, sometimes holding a mirror to your person, wondering what you think about it. That can't be too bad, I hope. And hey, you know me! ;-)
But those "learning" aspects are what I've always reckoned Tolkien to be about. I had a friend once who was a complete Tolkien nut. He read everything. He wanted to name his children after Tolkien characters, and we had a conversation once about mythology and myths of creation, and he proceeded to tell me one in great detail, and unsurprisingly to me, he later said it was that of Tolkien's world.
I guess he was very much into it. I wouldn't do that (and I haven't read everything), although I admit that when I was young I was busy with making lists with lots of made up names, and drawing maps and such. I also did roleplaying games at high school with class mates, after our biology(!) teacher introduced a game he devised himself. I thought it was cool to play someone else, and get into a story without exactly knowing what is going to happen. Tolkien started all this. A great way of spending time, in between the "pressure" of school and other normal going ons of life.
Nowadays, I don't play roleplay, or make up names and maps. But, I still enjoy reading the books. The point I am trying to make is that it is not necessary to be ultimately busy with another world anymore (or at all), in order to read and enjoy the book at later age. Just as a 50 year old Star Trek fan would not play anymore with his Enterprise model (although he still may display it proudly on a desk ;-). But that fan is still dying to see the new film. Just as I was looking forward to The Hobbit film, since it was announced aeons ago. The nostalgia aspect could certainly play a part as well. I am a nostalgic type.
I mentioned the impressive academic side of Tolkien, because I tried to find something appealing to you (next to a respond to the children book statement). Actually, both Tolkien's academic career and his literary works are inseparable from his love of language and philology. Now I thought you might have found this a great combination, since you're busy with these matters.
If I'm supposed to view it as entertainment, then I have to say it's even less for me. I read The Lord of the Rings. I thought the style was dull, the story was boring and it had nothing to keep me interested.
That's a personal thing. But I wonder what you find boring about what happens in LOTR (without giving away too many spoilers, since I believe there's a certain member called Sixes who still might read it). Now I will just mention some things, somewhat provocative, to see what comes out of it:
Is it the good vs evil thing? Because a fictional story about that should not be written because of the terrible things that happened in our real world? Or because the subject is too simple?
Then again, Tolkien's world is rich, there's lots of detail and variation in races, landscapes and well: exciting happenings.
I guess one needs a certain amount of imagination and empathy to really connect with a fantasy world. Before you think WTF, I'll stress again: to connect with a fantasy world. Because I know you can imagine very well what goes on in other people's lifes (I mean that and say that as a friend). Maybe you did not connect with the characters.
Actually, there's a point in that, because the characters were not drawn that big; is more about the world, the adventures in it, and going from A to B to C etc.
I assume I connected with the personalities of the main characters because they were lawful, and I guess I too wanted to explore new lands. I still do! I'd still like to visit some before I'll reach the final frontier. ;-)
So when I read LOTR, I wasn't reading about some nobodies doing stuff in an imaginary world. I had to finish it as soon as I could, because I was incredibly curious about what would happen next. Who and what would be encountered next? Actually, that isn't that different from Star Trek, is it? ;-)
Also, I guess one must be a bit of an optimist to appreciate unreal things in a book. Just like pessimists often say "this can't be solved", I believe they mostly say the same of a fantasy book: "this cannot be for real, because it doesn't exist.". Such negative approach is often in the way of enjoyment while reading.
Back to dwarves and elves and fairytales. The funny thing is, I don't know or remember a single fairytale with a dwarf or an elf in it. Would you or someone else give me one? It could be that I never read such fairytales, but it's also possible that I forgot about them after I've read Tolkien. Tolkien made dwarves and elves his own, for his own world. Literally these races are created in The Silmarillion but of course already described in earlier published work. So after reading some Tolkien books, I think it's going to be pretty hard to have another association anymore. Or at least a more dominant other association.
True, most authors have also written children's books, and there's nothing wrong with that. I like Kipling because I loved his children's books as a child and later found him to have written other stuff that holds up for me as an adult.
No surprise: that goes for many people (I included) as well when it is about Tolkien. The good vs evil subject comes back in the real world, and I am still impressed by it, hoping the good will win. Naturally, I must admit something.
In LOTR and The Hobbit, the good vs evil was very black and white, apart from a some characters who changed from one to the other, partly because of the corrupting impact of the ring! In the real world, it's much more difficult to say who is right and who is wrong, but that also depends on what morals (ideas of human rights) people have
Dio.
Dio? Yes. Dio. This awesome singer, this fantastic (co-)writer of songs, this charming person, he wrote lyrics which seem to me as little fantasy tales. Fairytales. Perhaps even shallower, simpler, emptier than the average fairytale. Though I didn't give his lyrics enough thought to see what he meant. Of course we're talking music here, a different form of art. Still, it intruiges me that you do not like Tolkien, compare it with fairytales, while you're favourite singer sings fairytales. (Naturally I am open for other interpretations of his words!)
How come I always spot my typos after someone's quoted my post?
Well, people say that you can choose your friends but that's not as easy as it sounds, especially if we're talking about long-term friendships. It's not that easy to change your circle of friends without dramatically changing you life in general and that takes time and effort. Even if I get bored by my friends' stupid craze for vampire TV series, I've been best friends with some of them for 13 years and this fact can't be changed or ignored. The only thing I can do (and which I do) is to add new people to my circle of friends, without really replacing the rest.
Back to dwarves and elves and fairytales. The funny thing is, I don't know or remember a single fairytale with a dwarf or an elf in it. Would you or someone else give me one?
Snow White has dwarves, Peter Pan has fairies, even though it's not a classic fairy tale.
Characters are black and white in every story that is intended for children. They have to be simple not just because children like to know who the hero and the villain are but because they represent virtues or vices. Childrens' stories are supposed to teach them something and to have a moral. Complex, multi-layered characters do not serve this purpose. Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here but fairy tales follow very strict narrative rules. I strongly recommend Vladimir Propp's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Propp) analysis on folk stories and fairy tales.
Well, I rather wanted to find out why someone likes Tolkien and why someone else does not. People are different, but I am interested in which different aspects of individals could be dominant in this topic. Maybe I am over analyzing way too much, and perhaps I am presumptious once in a while. I still hope it won't be taken too seriously to get angry about, especially Perun.
This is the first problem I have. When I say I don't like Günther Grass or C.F. Meyer, nobody gives a shit. When I say I don't like Tolkien, everybody starts analysing as if there's something wrong with me.
As you can see I am doing my best to be not one of the others. I am trying to understand why you don't like Tolkien, instead of saying "that's ridiculous, you're nuts, you have to like him". Furthermore, if you are interested why others are into it, or let me just say why I like it, I ask you: bear with me. I am adding my personal ideas and experiences, sometimes holding a mirror to your person, wondering what you think about it. That can't be too bad, I hope. And hey, you know me! ;-)
I see that you're trying hard, but in effect, it's still the same. To be honest, it feels like Jehova's Witnesses trying to get me into the Bible. It's as if this author is something like a saint or ground stone to our civilisation. I just don't get why it is such a huge problem for people that I don't like it. Again, it's not just you. It's everybody I talked to about it.
I guess he was very much into it. I wouldn't do that (and I haven't read everything), although I admit that when I was young I was busy with making lists with lots of made up names, and drawing maps and such. I also did roleplaying games at high school with class mates, after our biology(!) teacher introduced a game he devised himself. I thought it was cool to play someone else, and get into a story without exactly knowing what is going to happen. Tolkien started all this. A great way of spending time, in between the "pressure" of school and other normal going ons of life.
When you're young, it's fine. Young people need to be passionated for something. When I was a kid, I was into dinosaurs and baseball. I don't really care for those subjects very much anymore however, because I grew out of it. The appeal it had to me as a child was gone. That's my second problem: You're mentioning nostalgia later on in your post. I have a feeling that nostalgia is taking overhand. Nostalgia is supposed to be about reminiscing selected aspects of your own memory. I have nostalgic moments, too. About once a year I go to a nineties party with some mates. Star Wars is nostalgia for me, so I pop in a movie occasionally. But I don't have my flat covered with Star Wars posters or collect He-Man action figures. I threw away the last of my action figures when my parents forced me to clear my old room. I know there are people who would say, "Oh my god why did you do that? They were rare! They were valuable! And why did you put them out of their packaging in the first place?" To me, they were always toys. I played with the things. Yes, what a terrible thing: To do what they were made for. They were toys. For children. To play with them. Not to collect and keep in a display when you're 30. Again: I have no problem with a bit of nostalgia in itself, but I do have a problem when it is the centre of your life.
I mentioned the impressive academic side of Tolkien, because I tried to find something appealing to you (next to a respond to the children book statement). Actually, both Tolkien's academic career and his literary works are inseparable from his love of language and philology. Now I thought you might have found this a great combination, since you're busy with these matters.
Believe it or not, but I do know my share of things about Tolkien's life. You're not the first person to tell me about it, and many people have tried to appeal to me by telling me he was an academic. But that makes the whole thing even more pointless to me: They're talking to me about it as if it was academically valuable. As if there really was some sort of value in studying a language constructed by someone but that is not actually real. Again, I don't get this appeal. People learn Elvish, Klingon and whatnot, some even want to raise their children with it. Why? What's the real-world value of that? Why not take that effort and learn a real language? You have an entire history of things that really happened to that language, you have actual monuments lying around that tell you of the people. The people who spoke Greek built the acropolis, were the first philosophers and invented the academy. We still use many of their words 2500 years later, and their deeds inspire the whole world to this day. The people who spoke Elvish did nothing, because they were not real. There is no Colosseum, no Cathedral of Chartres and no Taj Mahal that came out of the mythology of a Hobbit or an Orc. There is no Shakespeare, Hafez or Tagore in Middle Earth. I just think that it is much more worthwhile to occupy yourself with what real people did and believed, to find out why someone would build a pyramid, and to learn languages like French, Persian or Russian, because not only can you properly appreciate the vast and beautiful literature of those languages, but you an actually go there and talk to the people and see what they do and did. I can't travel to the Hobbitshire. I can't see the buildings of Minas Mogul. But I can travel to Aquitaine, and I can marvel at the monuments of Esfahan.
I know that this is not the focus to you, but it is the focus to many people I've talked about. They told me to "delve into" this world because it's so incredibly detailed and has a rich history and mythology. Tell you what: I know of another world which is even more detailed and has an even richer history and mythology.
That's a personal thing. But I wonder what you find boring about what happens in LOTR (without giving away too many spoilers, since I believe there's a certain member called Sixes who still might read it). Now I will just mention some things, somewhat provocative, to see what comes out of it:
Is it the good vs evil thing? Because a fictional story about that should not be written because of the terrible things that happened in our real world? Or because the subject is too simple?
I don't know, I really don't know. I haven't cared enough to look back on it. I can only tell you that I got sleepy eyes whenever I read it and just fucking hated to read it. It was boring and dull in style, and I just never understood what was supposed to be so engaging about it. I also can't relate to "magic artifact" plots. I don't believe in magic, and I have no idea how it is supposed to work. The idea of a ring being able to possess you just sounds preposterous to me. It's a fucking ring. It can't do anything. I understand it's supposed to be a metaphor for possession and addiction, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. If you want cool stories about that, why not read the biographies of the Roman emperors by Sueton? It's all about that, naturally gentle people being possessed by power. Much more interesting and relevant, and at least half of what he wrote actually happened.
I guess one needs a certain amount of imagination and empathy to really connect with a fantasy world. Before you think WTF, I'll stress again: to connect with a fantasy world. Because I know you can imagine very well what goes on in other people's lifes (I mean that and say that as a friend). Maybe you did not connect with the characters.[/quote]
You're right, I have a healthy imagination. I connect with the characters of a book. But none of the characters in Lord of the Rings, neither the book nor the movie, have any traits I remember. If I was asked what they are like, the only thing that I can think of is, "they are good, and they suffer a lot."
Actually, there's a point in that, because the characters were not drawn that big; is more about the world, the adventures in it, and going from A to B to C etc.
So when I read LOTR, I wasn't reading about some nobodies doing stuff in an imaginary world. I had to finish it as soon as I could, because I was incredibly curious about what would happen next. Who and what would be encountered next? Actually, that isn't that different from Star Trek, is it? ;-)
We've had this discussion before, but I think I have to tell you again. I like Star Trek because I like the stories. They are usually engaging plots that are veiled comments to the society we live in. I know that some people delve into the Klingon, Romulan or Vulcan backgrounds, but to me, it's not about that. It's not about the world. It's about the stories. Again, because you seem to miss this every time I say it: It's not about the world. It's about the stories.
Back to dwarves and elves and fairytales. The funny thing is, I don't know or remember a single fairytale with a dwarf or an elf in it. Would you or someone else give me one? It could be that I never read such fairytales, but it's also possible that I forgot about them after I've read Tolkien. Tolkien made dwarves and elves his own. These elves and dwarves made and described in his world. Literally these races are created in The Silmarillion but of course already described in earlier published work. So after reading some Tolkien books, I think it's going to be pretty hard to have another association anymore. Or at least a more dominant other association.
To me, Elves have always been Santa's helpers. Dwarvescan for example be found in Snow White. Snow White is one of the most famous and most-cited fairytales in Western culture. It is about an evil queen who wants to be the most beautiful person in the world and therefore tries to kill Snow White, a princess who is even more beautiful than her. Snow White manages to escape though, and finds refuge in a land beyond the "seven mountains", where seven dwarves live, who take care of her. I'll not tell you the rest because I don't want to spoil it for you. You can find the tale in Grimm's collection, but there are also several movie versions of it, the most famous probably being the Disney one from 1937.
In LOTR and The Hobbit, the good vs evil was very black and white, apart from a some characters who changed from one to the other, partly because of the corrupting impact of the ring! In the real world, it's much more difficult to say who is right and who is wrong, but that also depends on what morals (ideas of human rights) people have
Yeah, that's a minor aspect I don't like about it.
Dio? Yes. Dio. This awesome singer, this fantastic (co-)writer of songs, this charming person, he wrote lyrics which seem to me as little fantasy tales. Fairytales. Perhaps even shallower, simpler, emptier than the average fairtale. Though I didn't give his lyrics enough thought to see what he meant. Of course we're talking music here, a different form of art. Still, it intruiges me that you do not like Tolkien, compare it with fairytales, while you're favourite singer sings fairytales. (Naturally I am open for other interpretations of his words!)
Yes, Dio uses a lot of fairytale metaphors, but they usually have a deeper meaning. He uses the image of fighting a dragon to symbolise your own struggle against the forces that stand against you. It's pretty obvious when you read the lyrics closer. In that sense, Dio's lyrics are like fables and fairytales to me, because that's what they are all about: Using rich imagery to give you ideas of how to deal with your own life.
Thanks for taking the time. Looks like we both explained well enough what we (dis)like about it, though I don't like it that you think I make a problem of it. I was just interested.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I distinguished clear enough between what I think you think, and what I think others think. And shrugging off a post that took me 45 minutes to write like that is extremely rude as well.
It is fairy simple to me, a book, piece of music, painting, movie, TV show, sculpture, really any form of art either makes and emotional connection to the person or it does not. I can admit that LOTR (books and movies) made that connection to a large number of people and should be a respected piece of work, but still not like it myself.
I'm not sure what you mean here. I distinguished clear enough between what I think you think, and what I think others think. And shrugging off a post that took me 45 minutes to write like that is extremely rude as well.
I had especially hoped I had made a different approach and since it wasn't I am disappointed about that, just as much as you. That was probably why my reply was so short (and because I have been busy for a long while as well, since this computer crashed).
When you're young, it's fine. Young people need to be passionated for something. When I was a kid, I was into dinosaurs and baseball. I don't really care for those subjects very much anymore however, because I grew out of it. The appeal it had to me as a child was gone.
That's my second problem: You're mentioning nostalgia later on in your post. I have a feeling that nostalgia is taking overhand. Nostalgia is supposed to be about reminiscing selected aspects of your own memory. I have nostalgic moments, too. About once a year I go to a nineties party with some mates. Star Wars is nostalgia for me, so I pop in a movie occasionally. But I don't have my flat covered with Star Wars posters or collect He-Man action figures.
I threw away the last of my action figures when my parents forced me to clear my old room. I know there are people who would say, "Oh my god why did you do that? They were rare! They were valuable! And why did you put them out of their packaging in the first place?" To me, they were always toys. I played with the things. Yes, what a terrible thing: To do what they were made for. They were toys. For children. To play with them. Not to collect and keep in a display when you're 30. Again: I have no problem with a bit of nostalgia in itself, but I do have a problem when it is the centre of your life.
And I think there's a certain middle ground in between these extremes. I'd never throw them away either (and as a parent, I'd never force my kid to do that; they can always be given away, or even sold), but these things are also not the center of my life.
Why not take that effort and learn a real language? You have an entire history of things that really happened to that language, you have actual monuments lying around that tell you of the people.
The people who spoke Greek built the acropolis, were the first philosophers and invented the academy. We still use many of their words 2500 years later, and their deeds inspire the whole world to this day. The people who spoke Elvish did nothing, because they were not real. There is no Colosseum, no Cathedral of Chartres and no Taj Mahal that came out of the mythology of a Hobbit or an Orc. There is no Shakespeare, Hafez or Tagore in Middle Earth. I just think that it is much more worthwhile to occupy yourself with what real people did and believed, to find out why someone would build a pyramid, and to learn languages like French, Persian or Russian, because not only can you properly appreciate the vast and beautiful literature of those languages, but you an actually go there and talk to the people and see what they do and did. I can't travel to the Hobbitshire. I can't see the buildings of Minas Mogul. But I can travel to Aquitaine, and I can marvel at the monuments of Esfahan. I know that this is not the focus to you, but it is the focus to many people I've talked about. They told me to "delve into" this world because it's so incredibly detailed and has a rich history and mythology. Tell you what: I know of another world which is even more detailed and has an even richer history and mythology.
It is, but not everyone is as fascinated by the real history as you, and even as me. But one thing does not need to exclude the other. I bet lots of historians have enjoyed Tolkien as well. I also guess that some people are attracted to fantasy as a form of escapism. It's relaxing to get away from the real things in life. Some fantasy works have stronger power to do that than other real history.
I don't know, I really don't know. I haven't cared enough to look back on it. I can only tell you that I got sleepy eyes whenever I read it and just fucking hated to read it. It was boring and dull in style, and I just never understood what was supposed to be so engaging about it. I also can't relate to "magic artifact" plots. I don't believe in magic, and I have no idea how it is supposed to work. The idea of a ring being able to possess you just sounds preposterous to me. It's a fucking ring. It can't do anything. I understand it's supposed to be a metaphor for possession and addiction, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.
If you want cool stories about that, why not read the biographies of the Roman emperors by Sueton? It's all about that, naturally gentle people being possessed by power. Much more interesting and relevant, and at least half of what he wrote actually happened.
We've had this discussion before, but I think I have to tell you again. I like Star Trek because I like the stories. They are usually engaging plots that are veiled comments to the society we live in. I know that some people delve into the Klingon, Romulan or Vulcan backgrounds, but to me, it's not about that. It's not about the world. It's about the stories. Again, because you seem to miss this every time I say it: It's not about the world. It's about the stories.
To me, Elves have always been Santa's helpers. Dwarvescan for example be found in Snow White. Snow White is one of the most famous and most-cited fairytales in Western culture. It is about an evil queen who wants to be the most beautiful person in the world and therefore tries to kill Snow White, a princess who is even more beautiful than her. Snow White manages to escape though, and finds refuge in a land beyond the "seven mountains", where seven dwarves live, who take care of her. I'll not tell you the rest because I don't want to spoil it for you. You can find the tale in Grimm's collection, but there are also several movie versions of it, the most famous probably being the Disney one from 1937.
Yes, Dio uses a lot of fairytale metaphors, but they usually have a deeper meaning. He uses the image of fighting a dragon to symbolise your own struggle against the forces that stand against you. It's pretty obvious when you read the lyrics closer. In that sense, Dio's lyrics are like fables and fairytales to me, because that's what they are all about: Using rich imagery to give you ideas of how to deal with your own life.
To many people Tolkien's works also embodied metaphors. Not necessarily to me, though I can imagine what inspired him. In the beginning he corresponded even with his readers, up to a point when it became too much. I might be mistaken, but I think that he denied most things, or didn't want to say what he portrayed, if he even did. People should have their own imagination. Some people went quite far. The original translator of the Swedish version of Lord of the Rings accused Tolkien of nazism among other things.
Snow White has dwarves, Peter Pan has fairies, even though it's not a classic fairy tale.
Characters are black and white in every story that is intended for children. They have to be simple not just because children like to know who the hero and the villain are but because they represent virtues or vices. Childrens' stories are supposed to teach them something and to have a moral. Complex, multi-layered characters do not serve this purpose. Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here but fairy tales follow very strict narrative rules. I strongly recommend Vladimir Propp's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Propp) analysis on folk stories and fairy tales.
Interesting. I wonder what he would have thought of Tolkien's ideas and vice versa. I just discovered this via wiki: "On Fairy-Stories" is an essay by J. R. R. Tolkien which discusses the fairy-story as a literary form. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Fairy-Stories
......
The essay "On Fairy-Stories" is an attempt to explain and defend the genre of fairy tales or Märchen. It distinguishes Märchen from "traveller's tales" (such as Gulliver's Travels), science fiction (such as H.G. Wells' The Time Machine), beast tales (such as Aesop's Fables and Peter Rabbit), and dream stories (such as Alice in Wonderland). One touchstone of the authentic fairy tale is that it is presented as wholly credible. "It is at any rate essential to a genuine fairy-story, as distinct from the employment of this form for lesser or debased purposes, that it should be presented as 'true.' ...But since the fairy-story deals with 'marvels,' it cannot tolerate any frame or machinery suggesting that the whole framework in which they occur is a figment or illusion."
Tolkien emphasizes that through the use of fantasy, which he equates with fancy and imagination, the author can bring the reader to experience a world which is consistent and rational, under rules other than those of the normal world. He calls this "a rare achievement of Art," and notes that it was important to him as a reader: "It was in fairy-stories that I first divined the potency of the words, and the wonder of things, such as stone, and wood, and iron; tree and grass; house and fire; bread and wine."
Tolkien suggests that fairy stories allow the reader to review his own world from the "perspective" of a different world. This concept, which shares much in common with phenomenology, Tolkien calls "recovery," in the sense that one's unquestioned assumptions might be recovered and changed by an outside perspective. Second, he defends fairy stories as offering escapist pleasure to the reader, justifying this analogy: a prisoner is not obliged to think of nothing but cells and wardens. And third, Tolkien suggests that fairy stories (can) provide moral or emotional consolation, through their happy ending, which he terms a "eucatastrophe".
In conclusion and as expanded upon in an epilogue, Tolkien asserts that a truly good and representative fairy story is marked by joy: "Far more powerful and poignant is the effect [of joy] in a serious tale of Faerie. In such stories, when the sudden turn comes, we get a piercing glimpse of joy, and heart's desire, that for a moment passes outside the frame, rends indeed the very web of story, and lets a gleam come through." Tolkien sees Christianity as partaking in and fulfilling the overarching mythological nature of the cosmos: "I would venture to say that approaching the Christian story from this perspective, it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairy-story, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. ...and among its marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation."
As far as I understand it, Tolkien sees fairy tales as a parallel universe. Propp, on the other hand, sees them just as a manifestation of own own world, slightly adapted to fit the narrative. Almost diametrical views.
What about Iron Maiden and metal in general. How much of that is actually childhood nostalgia? I take it that most of us grew up listening to metal or rock of some kind...it is rare to find people in their 30s who suddenly, without any previous exposure, turns on a plate and starts listening to Mercyful Fate, Sabbath and Metallica.
I'm sure many people would state that heavy metal is something that you "outgrow" when you reach a certain age....Just as people think about fantasy books. Are we just geeks for not having done so?
@Per, I know where you are going with what you are saying. Passions have a tendency to evolve and hone in over the years. But, also, passions seem to get 'shaped' by those we hang out with.
I'm not saying to stop hanging out with people that think you are odd for not liking Tolkein, but I'm saying, if you have a passion or desire to explore one, find like minded people to have discussions with.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious here but fairy tales follow very strict narrative rules. I strongly recommend Vladimir Propp's (
