Survivor Appendix N Authors- LEIBER WINS!

[Reynard]

just as I will ignore you if you tell me that any Jackson Pollock piece is anything but trash,

Everything I ever needed to know about your view of the arts. Thank you.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

JRRT had great stuff in his books, but then you would spend 9 pages on an elven song and 6 pages describing trees. Hyperbole I know.

 

[Sacrosanct]

We should be careful when it comes to stating things like someone else's opinions are "objectively" and "demonstrably" wrong, especially when it comes to literature.

But with video games, then it's perfectly OK!

 

[Prakriti]

Adding in OB1's votes and my own

Anderson, Poul 3
Bellairs, John 19
Brackett, Leigh 16
Brown, Frederic 18
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 26
Carter, Lin 18
de Camp, L. Sprague 15
de Camp & Pratt 20
Dunsany, Lord 19
Farmer, P. J. 19
Gardner, Fox 21
Howard, R.E. 16
Lanier, Sterling 18
Leiber, Fritz 22
Merritt, A. 20
Moorcock, Michael 25
Norton, Andre 23
Offutt, Andrew J. 20
Pratt, Fletcher 20
Saberhagen, Fred 12
St. Clair, Margaret 18
Tolkien, J. R. R. 25
Weinbaum, Stanley 16
Wellman, Manley Wade 18
Williamson, Jack 18
Zelazny, Roger 24

 

[Reynard]

We should be careful when it comes to stating things like someone else's opinions are "objectively" and "demonstrably" wrong, especially when it comes to literature.

For example, both Hemingway and Shakespeare are great writers; however, their style is not the same, and not for everyone. There is no single "objective" and "demonstrable" measure that determines that one style of writing is amazing, and one style of writing is terrible.

Moby Dick, famously, was a massive failure for Melville and not considered one of Melville's better books by reviewers at the time of publication. It was only in the 20th century that people began to proselytize for it as "The Great American Novel."

...and so on. I think that you might be a little ... mistaken ... regarding Tolkien's place. I certainly wouldn't put his works (nor would most "English PhDs") alongside, um, you know- writers that aren't in genre niches.

And that's okay! People like what they like, and Tolkien will always be remembered for his world building, and his linguistics, and many other things. But there are more than a few people who find his actual writing ... less than exciting. Again, that's okay- not something that is "objectively and demonstrably wrong."

Whether a work of literature is popular or is considered a "good read" is not the metric by which they are measured academically. Again this is the wrong place for this, but a cursory examination of the academic literature on Tolkien should suffice if you are interested in knowing why I say you are wrong in an academic and critical sense. Of course you can't be wrong about your preferences or your subjective opinion on LotR or his other works. But that isn't the same thing, and it is a failure of our culture that people equate the two so readily.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Dausuul]

Do not confuse your preferences with qualified criticism and expertise. Many an English Literature PhD has examined Tolkien's work and shown why it holds a place in the modern canon.

And many others have savaged it. Do not confuse the opinions of critics - however credentialed they may be - with objective fact.

When LotR was initially published, scholarly reaction was almost universally dismissive. It was only pressure from his fans--unqualified, un-expert, lacking degrees or credentials of any kind--that got anyone to take him seriously. And even today, the academy is hardly united in its admiration.

So, were the "qualified" people "objectively and demonstrably wrong" when they said Tolkien was trash? Or are they "objectively and demonstrably wrong" now?

 

[Gradine]

As someone who holds an advanced degree in Theatre, I find it hilarious that anyone could possibly assert that there is anything close to a unanimous, objective opinion on the quality of anyone's writings within the field of academia. Academics are, much like frequenters of online forums, massive nerds, and one thing the two groups have in common is how much they love to argue.

To say nothing of the fact that academic "canon" consistently shifts throughout time in all fields, let alone any as subjective as art or literature. Positions within the fields of cultural production shift as new generations gain power and their positions begin to take prominence.

PS: The modern high art scene, particularly the one that exists in New York, has always been and will likely remain for a very long time a complete and utter scam ran by con artists. Kudos to Pollock for making bank off it (decidedly less so for, you know, the domestic abuse, in spite of the obvious demons he carried with him to his grave), and I'm sure that his work does resonate with a certain population of people, but I don't know that anyone could his work (or any work) "objectively" great art. Hell, The Mona Lisa was considered one of Da Vinci's lesser works until somebody stole it (because it was so easy to steal, because it was considered on his lesser works).

 

[Reynard]

I retract the argument. I am either not communicating what I mean well enough, or I am not comprehending responses well enough. In either case, I apologize if anyone thought I was attacking them or their opinions. As one of those folks with a degree in literature, I was steeped in literary criticism and know there is a difference between how critics and academics view works, but without that context I probably should not have used "objectively". Mea culpa.

 

[rczarnec]

Anderson, Poul 3
Bellairs, John 19
Brackett, Leigh 16
Brown, Frederic 18
Burroughs, Edgar Rice 26
Carter, Lin 16
de Camp, L. Sprague 15
de Camp & Pratt 20
Dunsany, Lord 19
Farmer, P. J. 19
Gardner, Fox 21
Howard, R.E. 16
Lanier, Sterling 18
Leiber, Fritz 22
Merritt, A. 20
Moorcock, Michael 26
Norton, Andre 23
Offutt, Andrew J. 20
Pratt, Fletcher 20
Saberhagen, Fred 12
St. Clair, Margaret 18
Tolkien, J. R. R. 25
Weinbaum, Stanley 16
Wellman, Manley Wade 18
Williamson, Jack 18
Zelazny, Roger 24