Search Results
6/23/2025, 6:37:59 PM
>>24489500
Do you qualify LOTR as fit for the left field in your post's graphic? I'm not a bona fide enthusiast of Tolkien or anything, but if we're talking about "true works of art that transcend the medium...made out of passion and written by visionaries," then does it not abide by your post's definition of literature? Its influence on fiction in the Western world practically defined modern and postmodern interpretations of fantasy storytelling. Or, do you believe its relevance and influences must endure for a longer time before its inclusion as true literature?
>>24487829
And to you, OP, I ask over LOTR's inclusion in the right: Are you insinuating that, due to Tolkien having made a profit off of his work, it must hold "very little artistic value" that forbids its designation as true literature? I understood Tolkien was an avid folklorist, a zealot in his respect for fiction, folklore, linguistics, myths, and religion, going so far as to incorporate those passions into LOTR with meticulous care. I confess there was financial incentive throughout this process, although I disagree it was his prime motivation to make money and entertain people. William Faulkner certainly had financial incentives, and so too did Shakespeare. They did not let this compromise them too much, no? So too was Tolkien this way, notoriously obsessed over how his vision was depicted, this preventing frugal opportunities from actualizing. Does this not display an aversion to selling out? Does this not show a fear for how his work could be dumbed down "for the masses," dumbed down "for monetary purposes"? And does its reception from both low- and highbrow audiences detract from what it literarily offers?
>tl;dr for both my post
What I'm trying to ask is this: Would you deny LOTR the title of genuine literature? Just because its reception led to financial success and mass appeal, the original work itself was not compromised in its artistic integrity. It was transformative; it transcends the medium, made out of passion, and written by a visionary. Why the hate?
Do you qualify LOTR as fit for the left field in your post's graphic? I'm not a bona fide enthusiast of Tolkien or anything, but if we're talking about "true works of art that transcend the medium...made out of passion and written by visionaries," then does it not abide by your post's definition of literature? Its influence on fiction in the Western world practically defined modern and postmodern interpretations of fantasy storytelling. Or, do you believe its relevance and influences must endure for a longer time before its inclusion as true literature?
>>24487829
And to you, OP, I ask over LOTR's inclusion in the right: Are you insinuating that, due to Tolkien having made a profit off of his work, it must hold "very little artistic value" that forbids its designation as true literature? I understood Tolkien was an avid folklorist, a zealot in his respect for fiction, folklore, linguistics, myths, and religion, going so far as to incorporate those passions into LOTR with meticulous care. I confess there was financial incentive throughout this process, although I disagree it was his prime motivation to make money and entertain people. William Faulkner certainly had financial incentives, and so too did Shakespeare. They did not let this compromise them too much, no? So too was Tolkien this way, notoriously obsessed over how his vision was depicted, this preventing frugal opportunities from actualizing. Does this not display an aversion to selling out? Does this not show a fear for how his work could be dumbed down "for the masses," dumbed down "for monetary purposes"? And does its reception from both low- and highbrow audiences detract from what it literarily offers?
>tl;dr for both my post
What I'm trying to ask is this: Would you deny LOTR the title of genuine literature? Just because its reception led to financial success and mass appeal, the original work itself was not compromised in its artistic integrity. It was transformative; it transcends the medium, made out of passion, and written by a visionary. Why the hate?
Page 1