Moorcock blasts Tolkien

[Elfdart]

Well, then, that makes it clear that it is not merely a popularity contest, for if it were, then King would be at the top and Tolkien would be a few places down.

Tom Shippey points out that in the British polls that ranked Tolkien and LOTR #1, that so rankled the "literati," most of the writings that were ranked after Tolkien's were books that were generally taught in school (I'm listing from memory so I could be mistaken): Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, Ulysses, etc. Where Lord of the Rings differs is that it is not frequently taught in school, and people are reading it by choice -- and it is the only book they are reading by choice that they are listing as great literature. Stephen King isn't listed, Tom Clancy isn't listed, etc.

I've always been of the opinion that the worst thing that can happen to a book and its author is to be included on a required reading list for school. Even the students who might otherwise like a book resent having it rammed down their throats. It's much better to discover a book on your own.

 

[Elfdart]

The "refutation" leaves much to be desired. It assumes things that don't appear to be true (i.e. only the Sith think the "special" should rule).

It doesn't assume anything. It backs up its claims with actual quotes from the films. Brin's hatchetjob is a pack of lies.

Sure, the jedi council "officially" only advises the democratically elected government, but who actually decides the policy? It sure doesn't seem to be the assembly.

Really? Who voted Valorum out of office? Who voted Palpatine as his successor? Who voted to give emergency powers to Palpatine? Who stood and applauded as Palpatine proclaimed himself Emperor? A hint: NOT THE JEDI!

Through the movies, the Jedi make all the decisions, and call all the shots.

An outright lie.

To the extent that the assembly does anything, it seems to just ratify the decisions the jedi have already made.

Another flat-out lie. You and David Brin must have watched a different version of Star Wars. Do you know where I can view it or could you at least quote the scenes in your Bizarro World version that back your false claims?

The "Republic" when you really look at it, seems to be a democracy in form, but not in practice.

Oh it's a democracy allright. But like most democracies it gives in to corruption and despotism sooner or later.

 

[Vigilance]

Really? Who voted Valorum out of office? Who voted Palpatine as his successor? Who voted to give emergency powers to Palpatine? Who stood and applauded as Palpatine proclaimed himself Emperor? A hint: NOT THE JEDI!

I don't think Brin's point is that the Jedi are a dictatorial power.

His point is that if the good guys need "supermen" (good ones to be sure) to save them from other "supermen" (evil ones) that the movie is elitist.

You see this trend in other works, THAT HE MENTIONS in the Salon article.

When a big-ass super-robot shows up in Metropolis, do the Metropolis PD and firefighters wage a desperate battle, showing their courage, grit and professionalism and save the day?

Nope, they hope Superman hurries up and gets there.

Similarly, is it the rank and file army soldiers who wrestle a victory out of defeat in the Trojan war? Or is it individual acts of heroism and folly, all perpetrated by supermen (literally backed by the gods no less) that carries the day?

I would argue the latter, and it's hard to say these things aren't elitist.

That doesn't mean the people who write them, read them or watch them are horrible people. I love comics. But they're elitist by definition. They're about groups of (wait for it) elites!

Brin isn't saying that the Jedi are dictators too or that they're as bad the evil Empire they're fighting. In fact he's not even saying he dislikes the story Lucas is telling, cause he only waited a week to see the dang movie.

What he is saying is that the Old Republic is helpless on its own, using the rule of law and parliamentary procedures to combat the Sith.

In other words, two groups of elites duking it out. Supervillain vs. superhero, man to man.

Elitist. And fun.

Chuck

 

[Elfdart]

I don't think Brin's point is that the Jedi are a dictatorial power.

Then why does Brin write this bit of nonsense:

By contrast, the oppressed "rebels" in "Star Wars" have no recourse in law or markets or science or democracy. They can only choose sides in a civil war between two wings of the same genetically superior royal family. They may not meddle or criticize. As Homeric spear-carriers, it's not their job.

The senior leaders of the Rebellion are all (with one exception) normal humans and aliens. The only one with any Jedi lineage is Leia, and she doesn't find until the night before the Empire gets overthrown. Luke commands a squadron of fighters. That's it. Of course, being dishonest as he is, Brin left out that the Rebellion is out to get rid of Palpatine and bring back the Republic. I defy anyone to cite a scene in the movies where Ben, Luke or Leia even hints about killing the Emperor and making themselves dictator. It's just another of Brin's lies.

His point is that if the good guys need "supermen" (good ones to be sure) to save them from other "supermen" (evil ones) that the movie is elitist.

Then he's being stupid, isn't he?

The Rebellion against Palpatine started before he proclaimed himself Emperor and no Jedi were involved (aside from a separate attempt by Mace Windu and three others to overthrow him) because they were killed before they had a chance to.

You see this trend in other works, THAT HE MENTIONS in the Salon article.

When a big-ass super-robot shows up in Metropolis, do the Metropolis PD and firefighters wage a desperate battle, showing their courage, grit and professionalism and save the day?

Because their "courage, grit and professionalism" add up to zilch when fighting something like a super-robot. Patton didn't show a bunch of Cub Scouts saving the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. Not only would doing so be an insult to the 3rd Army and its commander, it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who watches the movie since Cub Scouts couldn't have possibly defeated the SS while Allied armies could and did.

Nope, they hope Superman hurries up and gets there.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that it's a Superman comic and not a Metropolis PD/FD comic.

Similarly, is it the rank and file army soldiers who wrestle a victory out of defeat in the Trojan war? Or is it individual acts of heroism and folly, all perpetrated by supermen (literally backed by the gods no less) that carries the day?

Achilles is killed by Paris. No divine parentage there. The Trojans are defeated because a mere mortal named Odysseus came up with the plan to get inside the city walls. Funny how you and Brin missed those parts, but then maybe you have your own version of the Iliad just as Storm Raven and Brin have their own version of Star Wars which they and they alone have seen.

I would argue the latter, and it's hard to say these things aren't elitist.

That doesn't mean the people who write them, read them or watch them are horrible people. I love comics. But they're elitist by definition. They're about groups of (wait for it) elites!

So someone who watches Patton is an "elitist" since the movie portrays the Second World War from the point of view of the generals?

Brin isn't saying that the Jedi are dictators too or that they're as bad the evil Empire they're fighting. In fact he's not even saying he dislikes the story Lucas is telling, cause he only waited a week to see the dang movie.

That's exactly what he wrote.

What he is saying is that the Old Republic is helpless on its own, using the rule of law and parliamentary procedures to combat the Sith.

In the Star Wars movies shown in theatres, cable and DVD, it's shown that with a few exceptions, the Old Republic doesn't combat the Sith at all. In fact, they beg Palpatine to stay in office past the end of his term and cheer him on as he turns the Republic into the Empire. If the version you watched showed something different, maybe you can tell me where to find a copy.

In other words, two groups of elites duking it out. Supervillain vs. superhero, man to man.

Elitist. And fun.

Chuck

The Rebels are elites? Please cite the relevant scene in the movie that shows such a thing.

 

[Elfdart]

No, I didn't miss the link. I read it. And guess what, the link is to an unpersuasive "refutation" that gets its facts wrong, makes unwarrented assumptions, and is basically irrelevant because of this.

Examples please.

And the people who support the Republic are just as elitist and confident that their birthright is to rule over the lesser denizens of the galaxy.

An outright lie. Name the scene where those who support the Republic or Rebellion make such a claim.

They are just more subtle and clever about the way they go about it. The Jedi council was as much an undemocratically elected elite ruling the galaxy as the Sith who replaced them were.

Another lie. The Jedi don't rule the Galaxy.

They were simply "benevolent" rulers (seriously, name any single instance other than confirming Palpatine as chancellor, in which the "democratically elected assembly" took any significant action that was not simply a rubber stamp of the decision of the Jedi council).

Again, the Jedi don't rule the Galaxy. Give one example of the Senate rubber stamping a decision of the Jedi Council. There aren't any because the Jedi answer to the Republic and not the other way around. The only thing they control is internal Jedi matters and the rules of the order.

I can say "I think Tiger Woods is a better golfplayer than Andre Ware is a football player, and thus a better sportsman". The analogy is apt here. Brin is a better writer of written fiction than George Lucas is a producer of movie fiction.

And you base this on what, exactly?

If you have an argument that stands up to investigation, make it.

If you can make an honest argument, make it. You have made several claims that are demonstrably false and simply repeat David Brin's lies. You offer no evidence for your other claims. That's very dishonest, but typical for Brin and his apologists.

 

[Vigilance]

Because their "courage, grit and professionalism" add up to zilch when fighting something like a super-robot. Patton didn't show a bunch of Cub Scouts saving the 101st Airborne at Bastogne. Not only would doing so be an insult to the 3rd Army and its commander, it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who watches the movie since Cub Scouts couldn't have possibly defeated the SS while Allied armies could and did.

Right. Now if Patton had done all the fighting HIMSELF, blowing up German tanks with his heat vision, then we'd have a good analogy.

Being the hero of a story isn't the same as being the SUPERHERO of the story.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that it's a Superman comic and not a Metropolis PD/FD comic.

Right. Dude, there's nothing WRONG with this type of story. Jeebus dude. No one is saying superhero stories are bad, not even Brin.

He went. to see. the freaking. movie.

Achilles is killed by Paris. No divine parentage there.

Yeah, and the fact that Apollo guided his shot, that had nothing to do with it huh? The Iliad is a tale about super-heroes who's actions are guided by gods or blessed by gods. There's divine intervention everywhere in those tales, including efforts to keep Achilles alive (by Athena and Hephaestus) and ultimate to kill him (by Apollo).

The Trojans are defeated because a mere mortal named Odysseus came up with the plan to get inside the city walls. Funny how you and Brin missed those parts, but then maybe you have your own version of the Iliad just as Storm Raven and Brin have their own version of Star Wars which they and they alone have seen.

Uhhuh.

Let's do a little geneaological digging here shall we?

Odysseus' father was Laertes, one of the Argonauts, sort of the classical version of the Avengers. So his dad hung out with Hercules and Jason.

Now Laertes' father (Odysseus' grandfather) was a guy named Arceisus. Nothing special there right? Well it turns out he was the son of Cephalus, who was descended from Hermes.

Now Cephalus' father (Odysseus' great-great grandfather) is Aeolus who was either (according to who is being talked about and it isn't always clear) descended from either Hellen (who was descended from Zeus) or from Poseidon.

So, depending on how you want to parse the mythology, Odysseus either has the blood of Hermes and Zeus in his veins, or Hermes and Poseidon, or maybe just one of those three.

Either way, you're right, a toooooooooooooooootally normal guy Odysseus was.

Damn you really blew me up there. Good thing I don't know anything about the Iliad huh.

So someone who watches Patton is an "elitist" since the movie portrays the Second World War from the point of view of the generals?

No what I'm saying is if Patton didn't NEED his soldiers at all, in other words if he was a superhero who went out and felled tanks like wheat, if they had to convince him to fight to have ANY CHANCE of winning (like what happened in the Iliad, where Achilles deciding to fight turned the entire battle thanks to the participation one superhero who was choking rivers- literally according to Homer- with his kills).

In the Star Wars movies shown in theatres, cable and DVD, it's shown that with a few exceptions, the Old Republic doesn't combat the Sith at all. In fact, they beg Palpatine to stay in office past the end of his term and cheer him on as he turns the Republic into the Empire. If the version you watched showed something different, maybe you can tell me where to find a copy.

The Old Republic is helpless to the sith, which is the point. Only the Jedi stand a chance. And yes the Sith in question is really smooth (Palpatine) so he snows people into thinking he's not a bad guy. That doesn't change the fact that the movie clearly portrays the Jedi as the ones (the only ones) with the power to stop him.

The Rebels are elites? Please cite the relevant scene in the movie that shows such a thing.

How about when Luke refuses to use his technological aiming device, instead relying on his superpowers to blow up the Death Star in Star Wars?

He doesn't need his technology (you know, the stuff all the non-superheroes have to use) because he has something better none of them understand. And he gets the advice to use his magic from a disembodied voice too, always handy.

When his "superiors" in the rebel high command ask him what he's doing, he sort of tells them but basically brushes them off.

That's an elite.

Luke is a superhero. Without Luke, they don't win. The only other guy who even got a shot missed because he had some lame targeting scanner, not a superpower.

Oh and why did only one of the fighters get a shot? They were doing well against the Death Star's anti-spacecraft defenses.

Oh yeah, the supervillain took to space with his wingmen and felled them like wheat.

And yes, the supervillain is knocked out of the fight by a non-superhero. The normals do get lucky on occasion (though we see in the next movie how woefully inadequate Han is to face Vader when Vader knows he's there).

But there's a fight between five superpowered characters at the heart of all 6 Star Wars movies: Vader, Palpatine, Obi Wan, Yoda (and later) Luke. No other character in the movie could stand up to any one of those.

We are shown this many times throughout the movies. In SW Obi Wan goes after Vader and the others run away (except for Han's one lucky sneak attack).

In Empire, Han gets a clear shot at Vader, who casually holds up his hand and waves it away. That's how different he is to the mundane characters. Luke does ok against him though- because he's also on that different level.

In Jedi, Luke has surpassed Vader but Palpatine will kill him. Only Vader (and again by a little trickery) manages to off him.

And btw, Vader, the same guy who could have killed Palpatine before any of this started by saving Mace.

In other words, the actions of the superheroes (the Jedi) decide the outcome of the entire war.

Five guys. Five elite guys.

 

[Plane Sailing]

An outright lie.

Another flat-out lie. You and David Brin must have watched a different version of Star Wars. Do you know where I can view it or could you at least quote the scenes in your Bizarro World version that back your false claims?

A moderator has asked you to be civil and now you call someone on the board a liar?

You are banned for three days.

 

[Mark Hope]

I've always been of the opinion that the worst thing that can happen to a book and its author is to be included on a required reading list for school. Even the students who might otherwise like a book resent having it rammed down their throats. It's much better to discover a book on your own.

Ironically enough, I pretty much agree with what Elfdart is saying here. Studying literature used to largely ruin my appreciation of the book, poem or play concerned. It wasn't because I resented having the book rammed down my throat, it was because the level of academic analysis that came with literature studies frequently pulled the book to pieces, leaving the reader with nothing but a collection of broken bits of over analysed text. It was like the experience of taking a toy apart as a kid, only to find that the toy doesn't work any more once you put it back together.

(I experienced much the same thing with music. As I progressed as a mucisian, I learned to play more and more of my favourite songs. However, once I had dissected them and learned how they were put together, they weren't my favourites any more. Something of the magic had gone. So now I have a list of songs that I have promised myself that I will never learn to play. Some are wonderful songs and I would actually quite like to be able to play them, but I know that the process of learning them will "break" them for me.)

On top of that, I also feel that some works of literature aren't meant to be analysed. Just as we have seen in this thread with the comments on the Star Wars movies, if you look too deeply you can come up with something that was never intended to be there in the first place. I'm sure that Lucas doesn't intend for his movies to be a lesson in ubermensch elitism, but those elements can be found if you look deeply enough. Alternatively, so long as you are persuasive enough in your arguments, you can insert meaning where none exists. There was a poem that I had to analyse once (Usk, iirc), and I was able to present it as a dyed-in-the-wool Arthurian allegory, mainly because I had been reading lots of Mary Stewart at the same time. I have no idea if the poet intended for there to be any Arthurian elements in his poem at all, and I didn't really believe that there were. But I was able to convince teachers and examiners that they were there for no good reason at all. A bit daft, really.

I also had a teacher whose literature professor had been a student of T.S. Eliot. According to him, Eliot had become so fed up with overly analytical critics that he had started inserting red-herring references into his poetry, specifically designed to confound and embarrass critics who thought that they had plumbed the hidden depths of his writing. How many other authors thumb their noses at critics in the same way, I wonder?

Oh, and is no-one going to comment on my deeply insightful point about the Sith afterlife and glowy red spirits? I am deeply, deeply offended...

 

[dcas]

And you realize, for example, that both Pearce and Shippey are academics?

Of course, I've never said nor implied that all academics, or even a morally universal subset thereof, are Tolkien-haters. Nor do Pearce and Shippey.

There is no "critical outrage"--which implies something widespread--just the occasional overzealous wahoo. If you collect the wahoos in one place you can certainly make it seem like academics are all a bunch of stuffy Tolkien haters, which I'm sure feeds the egos of a lot of Tolkien's fans inasmuch as it lets them believe they're sticking it to the man, but the whole issue is really a non-issue.

"Critical outrage" does not imply something widespread. It implies that there is outrage from the critics (and there was and is). The overzealous wahoos, and not the ones who pay little or no mind to the debate over Tolkien's place in literature, are the ones who are being quoted in the press (for better or worse as YMMV). It is the Germaine Greers who are cited by the media, not those indifferent to Tolkien and certainly not the Pearces and the Shippeys.

 

[Storm Raven]

It doesn't assume anything. It backs up its claims with actual quotes from the films. Brin's hatchetjob is a pack of lies.

No, it doesn't. I assumes, for example (erroneously too), that "only the Sith believe that the special should rule". Viewing the movies cvlearly shows that the Jedi hold to this view too.

Really? Who voted Valorum out of office? Who voted Palpatine as his successor? Who voted to give emergency powers to Palpatine? Who stood and applauded as Palpatine proclaimed himself Emperor? A hint: NOT THE JEDI!

Because they were opposed by another "superman". Every action taken by the "democratic" senate is a rubber stamp of the decisions made by one of the many "supermen" who appear in the movies. As Brin says, the denizens of the galaxy appear to be limited to a choice of which set of elites will rule.

You still don't have an argument that makes sense.