Disdain for new fantasy

[Geron Raveneye]

I love how people defend the LOTR in this issue when Tolkien himself is quoted as acknowledging that this was a plot hole.

That's because authorial intent is meaningless. Authors can be wrong about the meaning of their text. Authors can lie. Authors can be misrepresented. And they can misrepresent themselves. They can even change their minds over time about the meaning of a work. Appeals to authorial intent have been discredited for a very long time.

Sorry...couldn't resist ...hope you'll forgive me for this one.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. However, that's not quite fair.

Pointing out a plot hole isn't quite the same as authorial intent. Tolkien isn't saying, "I think that LOTR means X", he's simply, and quite rightly, pointing to a problem in the text. As an English professor, I would expect no less.

An arguement about authorial intent would lead us to the fact that Tolkien denied any allegorical meaning of the LOTR in reference to World War Two. Denied it vehemently. Despite that, there's a rather large amount of critical work that claims the exact opposite, that LOTR is allegory for WW2.

If we accept authorial intent, then all that work is meaningless. The meaning that those critics are taking from the text is wrong. Since that's a bit hard to defend, after all, they are flatly stating that that is exactly the meaning they are taking and are supporting their interpretations with textual examples, I'm not so sure that we can really rely on authorial intent.

So, really, it's not a contradiction since we're not really discussing intended meaning, but, actually fairly cut and dried plot elements.

For example, even if they couldn't fly straight into Mordor, howzabout instead of taking all that time hiking through Moria, they just fly to Lothlorian? If nothing else, they gain a whole whack of time.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh. However, that's not quite fair.

Nope, it's not. But it was funny...I hope you got a grin out of it as well, at least.

Pointing out a plot hole isn't quite the same as authorial intent. Tolkien isn't saying, "I think that LOTR means X", he's simply, and quite rightly, pointing to a problem in the text. As an English professor, I would expect no less.

An arguement about authorial intent would lead us to the fact that Tolkien denied any allegorical meaning of the LOTR in reference to World War Two. Denied it vehemently. Despite that, there's a rather large amount of critical work that claims the exact opposite, that LOTR is allegory for WW2.

If we accept authorial intent, then all that work is meaningless. The meaning that those critics are taking from the text is wrong. Since that's a bit hard to defend, after all, they are flatly stating that that is exactly the meaning they are taking and are supporting their interpretations with textual examples, I'm not so sure that we can really rely on authorial intent.

So, really, it's not a contradiction since we're not really discussing intended meaning, but, actually fairly cut and dried plot elements.

For example, even if they couldn't fly straight into Mordor, howzabout instead of taking all that time hiking through Moria, they just fly to Lothlorian? If nothing else, they gain a whole whack of time.

I agree, to most all you said...just would like to add that plot elements, and how they are used, also depend on authorial intend in most places. So it's not intended meaning, but intended usage (or lack thereof) that Tolkien commented on, and the effect said lack has on the plot.

When contrasting word of the author with word of critics, I personally prefer the author's word about his piece of work over that of critics. But that's me, and I think I made it clear 4 pages ago that I'm lazy that way.

And one good question was raised a few posts above...what the heck constitutes "new fantasy" anyway? I admit to not having read most fantasy novels that came out in the last 10-15 years, but from what I've seen on back covers and short review blurbs, it's not THAT different than that from 30 or 40 years ago, except it has grown a few more genre conventions. We got a whole new cultural addition with the far east stuff, be it manga, anime, or fantasy novels, and that of course brings along a lot of new ideas...but honestly, that stuff is on the mass market for the last 15 years as well already, at least here in Europe. And if you look beyond the trappings of cultural symbols and references, the stories told in asian fantasy, myth and legend are not that different from the stories we got told here for decades and centuries.

By the way, thanks to those who pointed out Twelve Kingdoms and Scrapped Princess...great stories, nice anime.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I really wish WotC would have made the anime stuff a separate supplement instead of core for 4th edition. Fighters shooting lightning lightning bolts out of their swords, etc. is just not for me.

Do you have paypal? I will pay you $20.00 if fighters can do that without magic items.

 

[Nifft]

Do you have paypal? I will pay you $20.00 if fighters can do that without magic items.

Magic items are too anime.

Cheers, -- N

 

[WayneLigon]

Do you have paypal? I will pay you $20.00 if fighters can do that without magic items.

Book of Nine Swords lets fighters do stuff like that without magic items. Call fire, teleport, cut through steel, walk through shadows, walk on water, all sorts of things, all without magic items of any kind.

 

[Arkhandus]

Yet 4E is not going to be a Bo9S reprint. It is only taking limited aspects of the per-encounter maneuver/stance system from that book as inspiration.

That's no indication that they actually mean to give bog-standard fighters the class feature of being able to breathe fire or teleport through shadows, for instance.

And those things were, after all, only available to Swordsages in the Bo9S itself; the more Western-like Warblade and Crusader could do no such thing (barring a feat to gain one of those tricks; but then, a Fighter can also gain some magical ability by taking a feat, to represent some dabbling, such as that one regional feat in the Forgotten Realms, or the Dragonmark feats in Eberron).

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Ok, what really happened is Sauron discovered how the eagles rescued Gandalf and the dwarves in The Hobbit (which lead ultimately to the death of Smaug, his greatest possible ally and resource) so he killed them all. A few escaped to later save Frodo. The rest were trashed by a vengeful Sauron and his nazgul.

Or, Gandalf wisely realized that the Ring would corrupt the eagles, and they would take the ring and the Lord of Eagles would make himself the new Lord of the Rings.

No?

Alright, then Sauron would fix his Gaze upon the Company as they flew into Mordor. Obviously, nobody in the Company except Gandalf could have endured that for long. Then Sauron would have commanded the eagles (beat down under his gaze) to bring the Ring to him, and they would have.

Still no?

Ok, the eagles take off with the Company. They attempt to fly over the Misty Mountains. But they all start to freeze to death as they ascend up over 10,000 feet in attitude in winter (nobody thought to bring heavy winter gear, remember? Without Boromir's wisdom, they wouldn't have even brought wood.)
As they descend in disappointment back down, the crebain of Dunland attack, knock everyone all their mounts, and Frodo is splattered across half of Eregion. Then the orcs of Isengard seize the Ring, Ugluk declares it his, and Ugluk becomes the new Lord of the Rings (at least, he does briefly.)

Still no?

Let's go with the version from Bored of the Rings instead, then. (Someone did mention Pepsi, above, anyways ...)

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Book of Nine Swords lets fighters do stuff like that without magic items. Call fire, teleport, cut through steel, walk through shadows, walk on water, all sorts of things, all without magic items of any kind.

A swordsage is not a fighter.

 

[Nifft]

A swordsage is not a fighter.

Right. A Swordsage is awesome.

Cheers, -- N