Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

Jerry Friedman · 16 Dec 2011, 16:34 · from 2011-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: jerry_friedman at yahoo.com (Jerry Friedman)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 08:34:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-W45C045D189B23106D2A590CFA00 at phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-W45C045D189B23106D2A590CFA00 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <1324053247.9611.YahooMailNeo at web114710.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

>From: Lee Berman severiansola at hotmail.com
?
>>Dan'l Danehy-oakes: tBotNS is indeed a fairy story, a once-upon-a-time whisking away of
>>the reader to a land where miracles happen, giants..battle heroes, the dead walk, and 
>>monarchs live in invisible palaces. (Even the invisible palace hides an invisible
>>palace!) 

One of those instances of "is".? If your definition of "fairy story" is that it has elements such as those, then yes.? If it's that the story has no scientific explanations of the strange events, then no, Wolfe said there's no magic in BotNS.? One might say instead that there are resemblances to fairy stories, including the sort of thing you say below.
?
>>If it questions the assumptions of the fairy story, and especially the happy ending, well 
>>so too does it question the assumptions of classic science fantasy: and we cannot 
>>understand that questioning unless we understand "what we have learned of these things
>>from fairy-tales."
>
>Wow, Dan'l. Outstanding post, both for content and eloquence.
>
>Also, I agree with all you say about Tolkien and Lewis and Wolfe in your earlier post. I
>might only debate one issue, that being the implication that Tolkein's moral lessons are
>not explicit. I would agree with you in regard to religious morality. 
>
>But there is a social-cultural morality Tolkien displays which I find not so very hard to
>catch, including the intrinsic value of hearth and home and the unquestioned assumption
>that blood (genetics) runs true and determines the worth of a man.
?
I agree, and might mention the nostalgic?conservatism that Wolfe praised in "The Best Introduction to the Mountains"--praised so strangely, if anyone wants to know my opinon.
?
> Not a shocking moral 
>stance for an Englishman of the early 20th century but still, it is there.
>
>I think, by todays standards, Tolkien's geo-social biases might not be considered so
>policially correct.
?
They're not, by some.
?
>I mostly mean his implication that those dark-skinned types from the 
>south and east are evil and not to be trusted. Conversely that north and west are the "good" 
>directions,
?
A great deal has been said on both sides about?this, of course.? If you don't know about it and you're interested, the Wikipedia article on Tolkien will get you started.
?
> not to mention those wonderful (american) eagles who always fly in at the last 
>crucial moment to save the day. If he'd used falcons it just wouldn't have worked the same, 
>I think.

I've seen the suggestion that the eagles are American, and feel fairly sure without evidence that it would have horrified Tolkien.? It strikes me as far too much like the allegory he detested.? With less probability, I wonder whether one of the sources of his fantasy was the image of being able to sail west to a land that wasn't the United States.
?
> (not that I'm being really critical of Tolkien; I"m sure he was a good and honorable
>man but also a product of his times. And aren't we all?)???????????????????????? 

Jerry Friedman

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net