[ SECRET POST #3993 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3993 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 57 secrets from Secret Submission Post #572.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's strange at all, seeing as the primary purpose of LOTR as a fictional work is to evoke and entertain. Which it has across the political spectrum for decades.

[(Anonymous)]

That's a really limited and limiting way to approach art, and I don't think it's correct.

[(Anonymous)]

There is no "correct" way to approach art, and it's condescending as hell to tell people off for the way they do it.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not wrong to approach art primarily as entertainment.

It is wrong to act like "evoking and entertaining" is the primary or only purpose of art. That's what I'm disagreeing with.

[(Anonymous)]

Original anon here.

1. I use 'evoke' in the widest possible sense.
2. I didn't say the primary purpose of art as a whole was to evoke and entertain. I said that of LOTR. I'm not arguing that there may be ancillary intents on the part of Tolkien or other effects on the reader. I am just saying that 'evoke and entertain an audience' can be described as in general the primary purpose of the creatio n of LOTR (excluding the personal satisfaction of the author). I argue that based on its format, structure and publication history i.e. that of a fictional novel intended for mass consumption.

If you want to argue that point with me, very happy to have the discussion.

[(Anonymous)]

Sa

*that there may not be

[(Anonymous)]

"Intent" is wooly and complex. I don't know what was in Tolkien's mind. I don't think that you do either.

But I do think that functionally, regardless of what was in Tolkien's mind, Lord of the Rings is a work of art. It functions as a work of art, it does the things that works of art do. "Entertaining" is one of those things but it's far from the only thing. And restricting an analysis of LotR to its value as a work of entertainment unnecessarily limits what is going on. It's a pointless restriction and it's one that almost forces you to ignore things that are in the book. Because I would argue that the things we're talking about here are actually in the book. The book has the kind of thematic complexity that allows us to talk about high-level aesthetic and moral worldviews, and it has the scope and aesthetic magnitude to appreciate it as a work of art.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's not entertaining. It's very entertaining, it just does a bunch of other stuff as well.

I also don't think that we can conclude very much from the fact that it's a fictional novel intended for mass consumption. There are plenty of novels published for mass consumption that we treat as literature, as art. There's no actual dichotomy there. I honestly am not sure why we would even think that there was in the first place.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see how anything I have said has implied that I think LOTR doesn't have thematic complexity. I'm also not trying to evoke (if I may use that word again) any type of low art vs high art bullshit because I don't believe in that. I agree wholeheatedly that we can't know an author's true intentions and also agree that they don't necessarily matter to interpretation. However I think the interpretation of the act of writing and publishing a fictional novel is more psychology than English lit.


My original comment was in response to the original secret, in which the poster was confused by the fact they like LOTR despite its supposed conservatism. My comment about LOTR's primary functions as a book were aimed at pointing out that it is not unusual to gain aesthetic and intellectual enjoyment and substance from a text that contains differing politics from your own because typically that isn't the point.

I feel like you might have picked up on my use of the word 'entertaining' and assumed I was dismissing LOTR as 'less-than'. I definitely don't think that. I made a distinction about art in general only because artists create for many different reasons, not all of them to entertain. I just think that one of Tolkien's intents was to entertain, and due to his skill as a storyteller he succeeded, meaning that LOTR as a book is entertaining to literally millions who must statistically hold a huge range of political (and other) beliefs. Considering that resounding validation, I think the secret poster is criminally overlooking and misundertanding LOTR by trying to reduce it to its fundamental 'politics', as if that necessarily effects its aesthetic and intellectual affect.

For an easy parallel I point to Lovecraft: he was notoriously racist and when you know that you can see the themes of xenophobia and fear of social disintegration through contact with the Other in his work. But his work is still enjoyed and strikes chords with many because of its imaginative power, i.e. its strength as a piece of fictional entertainment overpowers its political core.