Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 1216860" data-attributes="member: 5834">You missed my point by not looking at the reason this debate started in the first place. China Mieville derided Tolkien's work in a manner that attributed to the author certain moral ideas and fantasy standards that he used within Lord of the Rings. I shot back that Tolkien was a storyteller, and because he uses certain elements within his book the author himself is not necessarily in agreement or disagreement with said elements.Tolkien told a tale. Within that tale there are a variety of elements that we as human beings can identify with morally or historically. That is the sign of a good tale one that can intertwine the real and unreal to make a compelling whole, not a personal statement by the author.Not my thinking at all. I believe a work can be completely separate, wholly or partially, from the author itself. On the other hand, I also believe an author can convey a very pointed and direct message to a reader which does convey his opinion or stance on a particual topic.That an author can't write a tale for the sheer joy of storytelling without an intended message while using moral and historical elements that we as human beings can identify with. For example, just because Tolkien writes about war in a manner that makes it seem high and glorious in certain passages in the book, doesn't mean he himself thinks war is high and glorious.Never said otherwise. Just don't agree with you that it necessarily reflects Tolkien's views on such complex matters. The characters served the story. Tolkien let the story take him where it would.Not arguing against this. Once again, look at the comments by China that started the debate.Looks like we're debating nothing. I don't particularly disagree with your stance unless you insist that an "an author cannot write for the sheer joy of storytelling with no message or meaning intended." That's not the same as saying there is no message or meaning present. I  feel every author tries to structure a tale in such a way as to make it compelling to a human reader by using literal constructs that move us and make us think. I just don't think every author is making some kind of inalterable personal statement about life that we should take to heart. Certain authors do, I used an example of a few. Twain and Orwell crafted messages into their work about people and life that were unmistakable. They supported their position personally, and did not really intend the work purely for entertainment. Orwell's 1984 was made as a warning and Twain's The Man who Corrupted Hadleyburg was an insult. To my knowledge, both author's made it quite clear what the story was trying to convey. Authorial intent is relevant when analyzing a story to define the story's message and to judge whether or not the author did a competent job of conveying that intended message.</blockquote>

Verification