/lit/ - Literature

I like how you stick to your point and don't stray into criticising Tolkien's poorest imitators who have no relevance to the quality of Tolkien's wor... Oh wait.

And?

>Some of the writers who most slavishly imitate him seem to be using English as a rather inexpertly-learned second language. So many of them are unbelievably bad that they defy description and are scarcely worth listing individually.

is your problem with him or his immatators?

Tolkien helped write the OED and understood Beowulf in the original Anglo Saxon. His grasp of English was second to none. was he a better writer than Joyce? No, but you're not clear about who it is you think claims he was. there's a million cunts who will swear Danielle Steele is the greatest of all time. the proper response is to ignore them.

Tolkien wasn't even trying to write a 20th century novel. i think your butthurt is misplaced.

>disparaging tolkien on the basis of vaguely defined tolkien-imitators
>mfw

>>1150390

I've never heard anyone mention Tolkien as one of the greats, at least not placed on par with the likes of Joyce and Faulkner. I think what you are forgetting is, when it comes to literary merit, the only opinions that matter are those of literary critics, the vast majority of which being quite unlikely to call Tolkien the 'best' writer on the 20th century.
That being said, in a strictly linguistic sense, Tolkien wipes the floor with both Joyce and Faulkner - seriously, there is no comparison.
The fact that his most famous works are in a high fantasy vein is often held against him, making it easy for a reader to forget that Tolkien was an English language professor at Oxford.

I do agree with OP about the overall lack of quality from Tolkien's imitators though; there is very little in the fantasy genre that comes anywhere close to Tolkien's work, with the obvious exception of writers like Gene Wolfe.

As a final point...
>I grew up in a world where Joyce was considered to be the best Anglophone writer of the 20th century.

What world would that be? I've not met many critics who would place Joyce as their number one; top five is likely but never number one. The main problem with Joyce, as far as I can tell, is that half of his texts border on unreadable. Joyce's technical trickery was his saving grace but it can hardly make up for his hit-and-miss body of work. As it stands, Joyce's novels are of little value to anyone not interested in the Modernist movement; in my opinion, at least, he is more important as an influence on generations of other, better writers than as a writer himself. Taking into account entire bodies of work, I much personally prefer Beckett to Joyce.

>>1150439

As a final point I'd like to say, before blowhard trolls start foaming at the mouth and pretending they understand even 20% of Joyce's texts, I am merely expressing an OPINION. In my experience, the only people who name Joyce as their number one are Lit. students who wish to appear smarter and better read than they truly are.

>>1150441
Just a heads up friend, OP is actually posting snippets from Michael Moorcock's essay "Epic Pooh". I'm not yet sure if OP is a mere agitator or a poorly formatted discussion opener. I'm leaning toward the former.

>to introduce Tolkien's fantasy into such a debate is a sad comment on our standards and our ambitions

Indeed it would be if someone had actually done it. This is all theoretical circle-jerking until then.

I don't see why Joyce should be considered any greater than Tolkien. Joyce delighted in showing everyone how very clever he was with his brilliant word play and complex composition and hidden meaning which left a great body of his work bordering on unreadable. The problem with that is Tolkiens work in Linguistics shows he was undoubtably the better intellectual.

It's just that a very readable story in an unfashionable genre with very simple underlying themes and meaning gives little room for the literary world to make up their own bullshit interpretations, so of course they're not going to like it. In their view if a story is easily read and understood as intended then it's not worth reading.

I would be really interested in hearing Moorcock's opinion of his own work.

>>1150446

Ahh I guess that makes sense. I've not read this essay before but I'm familiar with a couple of others he wrote. As I remember, his critique is often more focused on subtext and narrative purpose than on the writing itself. If a text advocates a position or sentiment which he himself is inclined to oppose he is quite open to dismissing it outright.
That being said, he did write that quite some time ago. Culturally, we're living in a totally different world now; the Deconstructionists have made an approach to literary criticism such as Moorcocks all but moot in the 21st century.

>>1150439
>Joyce's novels are of little value to anyone not interested in the Modernist movement

Bull. All great literature transcends movements. Many people have read A Portrait, Dubliners or Ulysses without reading other modernist works.

>In my experience, the only people who name Joyce as their number one are Lit. students who wish to appear smarter and better read than they truly are.

This is just nonsense. Yes, plenty of people claim Joyce and other highly regarded writers as their favorite to appear smart. This doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who are genuinely interested in literature - people who do read Joyce and love him.

>>1150456
stop posting that picture

>>1150453
>I don't see why Joyce should be considered any greater than Tolkien.

Joyce is undoubtedly the better writer and intellectual. I'm not saying Tolkien was a poor intellectual, he was fine, but don't try to put him above James Joyce just because he invented some Elvish languages and understood Anglo Saxon.

>It's just that a very readable story in an unfashionable genre with very simple underlying themes and meaning

This is an obvious defense of poor writing.

>>1150458
>Many people have read A Portrait, Dubliners or Ulysses without reading other modernist works.

Many people also don't understand them in the slightest. The simple fact is that, if a reader does not have a firm grasp of what Modernism is about, they will understand very little of what Joyce was doing and why he was doing it.
As I said previously, I'm only expressing my opinion on the matter. Personally, I have very little faith in critique from the "It's great because I don't understand it" crowd, of whom I've met quite a few (just so you know, I'm not accusing you of being such a person but I'm sure you know the type I'm speaking of).

>>1150458

Many people are forced to read those works when they take higher level English classes. How many of those people would have read the works without being forced?

>>1150466

You don't like Afremov?
Ok, seeing as you're such a nice girl, I'll not post any more Afremov paintings.

>>1150470

No, Tolkien was the better intellectual. Putting Joyce above Tolkien simply because he spent more mastrubating his intellectual capicity is silly.

>>1150474
There are some people who study English because of an actual love of literature, and these people would've read the works on their own. There are also plenty of people who've read Joyce without doing an English degree. The "unreadability" of Joyce is highly overstated.

>>1150485

Whether they've read Joyce and whether they've actually understood him are completely different things. You're making the assumption that everyone who reads him understands him.

>>1150483
How about you explain why Tolkien was the better intellectual then? Tolkien spent plenty of time masturbating his intellectual capacity as well; inventing languages.

>>1150483

>>1150492
I didn't make that assumption. Sure, some people might read Ulysses and not understand it. But you seem to think Joyce is much more difficult than he actually is. Somewhat smart people with a love of literature can understand Dubliners, A Portrait and Ulysses just fine.

>>1150490

Ah, but he did not invent those merely with the intention of mastrubating to his own intellectual capcity. He used his intellectual capcity to invent them for own enjoyment. Joyce on the other hand wrote most of his works with the express intent of showing the rest of the lit community how amazing he was.

>>1150499

If you believe he's that easy you haven't understood him at all. Enjoy living in ignorance.

>>1150500
Ah, so the mark of a better intellectual is if he enjoys what hes doing? Thanks for this wisdom. I suppose my dick is a better intellectual than Aristotle then.

>>1150506

Aristotle didn't enjoy what he did?

>>1150505
Nice cop out. This really tells me that you're the one who hasn't understood him, but I'm not going to play that childish /lit/ game NO YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HIM, NO U. Come on. Maybe I'm overestimating peoples intelligence but I just don't think Joyce is as difficult as he's made out to be. I didn't say he was easy... anywhere. He just takes a lot of patience.

>>1150511

What cop out? I'm merely trying to help you pierce that bubble of ignorance you've put yourself in. Calling that a cop out is a cop out in itself.

look just because something is overexposed doesn't make it bad.
Tolkein was a very clever man, who wrote well, and wove stories.

>>1150514
What bubble of ignorance? You're the one that thinks you have to be a genius to understand Joyce. That is pure ignorance and arrogance.

>>1150519

I never claimed you had to be a geniuis. Tis a pity that you seem to believe that people can so easily be split into geniuses or morons.

ITT: people feeding trolls

No one seriously believes Tolkien is anywhere near Joyce's standard unless they are the type pictured.

>>1150524
What? Have you been reading my posts? I've never even hinted at such a false dichotomy. I said people who are somewhat smart can understand Joyce with patience.

you trollin me?

>>1150531

Have you suggested at such a false dichotomy outright? No. Yet it is clear from the tone of your posts that you believe such a false dichotomy exists.

>>1150533
Ridiculous. I haven't even suggested that false dichotomy in my tone. I mean, you'd have to be pretty stupid to believe that most people are either morons or geniuses. Why even make such a bullshit accusation unless you're trolling me?

>>1150537

So you admit that you were rather stupid to suggest at such a false dichotomy with your tone? Excellent, we've started to pierce that bubble of yours.

>>1150544
You were rather stupid to accuse someone of something so stupid, we're breaking your bubble of ignorance. Soon we will have popped your cherry.

Anyway I'm done with you. Got better shit to do then be trolled while trying to troll in a ridiculous roundabout argument with no point whatsoever.

>>1150483
>>1150485
>>1150490
>>1150492
>>1150499
>>1150500
>>1150505

These and everything that follows are exactly what I was talking about. Almost every casual discussion of Joyce boils down to "You don't get!"; "Yes I do!"; "No you don't!"; "Yes I do!".
The one thing you'll never see is anyone discussing what makes Joyce's texts so damn tricky.
It sometimes seems Joyce's literary weight is maintained more by his fearsome intellectual reputation than by his actual works themselves.

I don't doubt there are many people who read Joyce and actually understand, for the most part, what he was up to, but I wouldn't say these people were anywhere near the literary majority.

Friends, lets talk about what makes Ulysses so complex.