NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 8799486" data-attributes="member: 59082">I had a feeling someone would cite "the artist is dead" (aka death of the author). But need I remind you, it is a literary concept, not fact. It might be accepted by a majority in the circles of literary criticism, but that doesn't make it something that is somehow sacrosanct and unquestionable.But I'm not sure what you are arguing here, other than to say that...Tolkien had influences? Again, I just disagree with this - that "all stories are equally true" when we have a clear and distinct author and work in mind. That would be like me writing Legolas as an MCU character and saying it s equally true as the Legolas of Tolkien's work. Now that doesn't mean that Marvel Legolas couldn't be valid (if a bit silly) in the context of the MCU. But it would always be an alternate.Also, I wouldn't call a story "inherently false." Sure, Middle-earth is not (afaik!) literally true, but that doesn't make it "false." That is a duality--true vs. false--that only applies to a literal interpretation, as if truth can be reduced to what is factual. Or as Ursula Le Guin said, "Fantasy isn't factual, but it is true." To understand what she meant, check out her seminal essay "Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?"This seems to be a bit of mental gymnastics. Again, it goes without saying that Tolkien had influences, that all artists have influences. But each artist work is unique and original. Again, I'm not sure what your point is here - I don't disagree, as I have stated several times that we all have our own versions of Middle-earth in our imaginations. I'm not sure why you resist any kind of differentiation, as if Rings of Power (or Peter Jackson, for that matter) is an equally true expression of Middle-earth as Tolkien's books are. So in that sense, it is relevant because Tolkien is the creator of Middle-earth. Why is that controversial? It doesn't mean we can't make new stories, just that they can never be as "true" as Tolkien's own works. They can be written better, be better stories, and great new ideas, but will never be the original. So yes, I am saying that--at least in this context--original = true. Everything else are just versions and variants.Or rather, why must we insist on killing Tolkien and taking his stuff? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification