A Critique of the LotR BOOKS

[barsoomcore]

I did not think you were being strident. You are conflating two separate notions, however.

There's the question of who is more likely to have correct and/or useful opinions about any given topics.

Then there's the question of whether or not a particular opinion is correct and/or useful.

In the first case, an informed person, all other things being equal, is more likely to have correct and/or useful opinions. In the second case, the informed-ness of the opinion's origin has NO bearing on whether or not the opinion is correct and/or useful or not. Ideas that come from informed folks may have a higher PROBABILITY of being correct, but that does mean that any particular idea from an informed person will be correct.

 

[FraserRonald]

And on this, I would add that I personally don't believe an "opinion" as such can be correct or incorrect. That is why it is an opinion. The Oxford Dictionary defines opinion as "1. unproven belief. 2. view held as probable. 3. professional advice. 4. estimation." Now, in some cases, for example, the cost of getting one's car fixed, the opinion can be verifiably proven to be correct or incorrect (however, there's always the problem of not being able to poll every single garage on the planet to find if the opinion was correct somewhere). Of course, once the opinion is proven, it ceases to be an opinion and becomes either fact or fallacy.

And, more to the point for this thread, when we are talking about literary criticism, who judges what is correct or incorrect?

I don't think that Canis meant to say that all informed opinion is correct. I think, and I would agree, that someone with experience or education on a topic should be offered more credence than someone without the same. As an example, in a discussion of post-Roman British history on a newsgroup some years back, one poster continued to interrupt the scholarly discussion (and not all the participants were academics, just well-read on the subject) with posts regarding King Arthur's use of Dalmatian mercenaries and their historic ties to Troy. Whether one believes in King Arthur or not, our knowledge of the figure that has come to be known as Arthur is dubious at best and does not involve mercenary horsemen from the Balkans. However, if one were to lend as much credence to this individual as someone who had actually researched the period, one might become quite confused.

Everyone does have an opinion. In regards to personal matters--liking or disliking RotK, for example--all opinions are equal. Attempting to make wider inferences from these personal opinions--in my opinion--is a mistake. My opinions regarding romance fiction, for example, are fine for myself, but in a discussion regarding the uses, practices and techniques of the same, my opinion is not equal to the opinion of a writer, editor or publisher of romance fiction.

At least, that's my opinion.