Favorite author

[Master Xaio]

Ok, well one thing that always annoys me when ppl start talking about Tolkien not being scholarly; he was a PROFESSOR!  He was not just some story-writer, he was a professor of language.  And look at his world-building and tell me thats not scholarly.

Pffft.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Now your putting words in my mouth.
Stop it.

I never said he wasnt scholarly but however like old Anglo Saxon Epics LOTR and the Hobbit are, they are not in fact scholarly works (even with all the history Tolkien did in them) because they are fiction. These books and the Simarillian are literature.

His world building, professor of language or not is not in fact scholarly. Masterful maybe, but Tolkein isnt writing a history or an analysis of a real place, the story and back story come from his own mind even if the forms he follows are related to the the Elder Edda, Song of Roland and Norse and Anglo Saxon Sagas. I may give you some points on the linguistics but since they are a small portion of the books and used mainly for flavor I dont think they count either. If the LOTR was a translation then it would be a scholarly work, but in this case its a work of literature.

Tolkiens esseys and translations (Orfeo and the Pearl, Gawain and the Green knight and so on) are scholarly work, and while they are very good, I dont enjoy them as much as other books.

[Master Xaio]

I didn't put any words into your mouth.

When is "scholarly" confined only to refer to non-fiction?  But each to his own i spose.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

one thing that always annoys me when ppl start talking about Tolkien not being scholarly

Which infers that I said he wasn't scholarly.
In my experience, and im sure someone like Saint could prove me wrong if I am, scholarly applies only to non-fiction because the focus of the work and not the credentials of the writer are important.

Stephen Hawking could write a childrens book, but that would not make it a scholarly work by its association with him.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Jeffe, i think you're using a sense of "scholarly" that no one else would agree with completely. You seem to mean "historical research" which not only excludes ficiton work (debateable) but excludes the sciences and lit criticism and a host of other fields.

I also wonder what criteria you're using to say something "doesn't count." he wrote it, it's work he did. Why shouldn't it count? Posthumously or not, it's still something he wrote that people read.

No one disagrees that you can think something else  is more worth your time, but most of your reasons for it seem specious at best.

[Spriggan]

Also that he, Tolkin, wrote the book as a pratice in developing other languages and cultures just reinforces SE's points.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I never said the criteria excluded lit criticism or science or a host of other fields, just fiction. In fact I claim that Tolkeins translations of anglo saxon poetry are scholarly so Im afraid your wrong in your assesment of me applying the term scholarly to purely historical works. (It just happens that as an ex-history major I used them a lot as examples, I could have equally used Platos Republic, or Das Capital, or even Math and the Mona Lisa: The Art and Science of Leonardo da Vinci
by Bulent Atalay ) criticisms are most definately scholarly as are esseys, and thesises (sp), hard science, lit criticism and a "host of other fields" a lot of stuff can certainly  be considered Scholarly.
I do not feel however that fiction is scholarly.

As for Tolkeins notes I dont give Tolkein credit for the work because they were was compiled and re-written by Tolkeins son Christopher (whos name is on the book jacket as the author mind you) from his fathers notes in his posession. A huge amount of work and analysis were put into the books, but not JRR Tolkeins work (at least for the Analysis sections of the work. Therefore Tolkiens work in the book for the most part is not Scholarly, while his sons is because he interprits the information.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Yes and no Spriggan, Tolkeins letters clearly indicate that the Simarillion (officially begun when Tolkein was a Tommy in WW I is the book Tolkein wanted to write as a scholarly exercise (and also the book that the language he wrote was created for) ; large swathes of it were ready before the publication of LOTR. Houton Milflin wanted a more pedestrian work of fiction to capitalize on the Hobbit (considered a childrens storybook at the time) which had been cobbled together by Tolkein as a collection of stories he told his childern. Tolkeins notes show his struggle in writing what was origianlly started as a sequal to the hobbit that got completely out of control. He himself has been quoted reguarding the work as one of fiction, while he considers the Simarillion to be the scholorly work.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I guess what I meant by scholorly at the time was non-fiction history.

That is actually the sentence I was referring too. I think you underrate his scholarly achievements in writing - imo, the notes are still HIS, becuase they're his ideas, not anyone else's-- , but i guess that hardly matters.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

So where was the problem, I qualified what I had meant in the first statement in better term, ie take out scholorly and put in Non-fiction history.


And imo I dont feel like im underrating his scholarly works at all. I like them, and think that there very good. I never meant to imply even in the first statement that they werent. That being said, they arent my favorite.


I see your point with the notes, but disagree, because the notes were not published in an undedited or unrewritten form. I think there is room to disagree here. Using a recent movie as an example AI was directed by two different authors using the same script with entirely different results in each half of the movie. The work that exists cant be solely attributed to one person (Kubrick) because the process of having someone else work on it and finish it compromises the vision. Large sections of Tolkeins notes were reinterperited putting the material in an ambiguous area that I am inclined to think belongs to Chris Tolkien more than his father. Sections that werent altered obviously belong to JRR Tolkien, unless commentary added to the text suggests interpertation other than his own ie.. if Chris uses that text to explain what he thinks his father meant or wanted to do. Its complicated by the fact that they are family and knew each other well.

[Gemm: Rock & Roll Star; Born to Rock]

SO what, no one else has read Gaiman?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

So where was the problem, I qualified what I had meant in the first statement in better term, ie take out scholorly and put in Non-fiction history.

Just that you apparently weren't clear enough. That's what people were taking exception to.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Ok.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Gaiman is best with Pratchett.....

[stacer]

The only Gaiman I've read is Coraline, and as I've mentioned in other places, it's not my favorite. Well written, certainly, but I didn't like the story. Maybe it was reading it at 2 am that did that, though. I should read other books of his and see what I think.