[ SECRET POST #4273 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4273 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #612.
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)]

And yet, Tolkien’s world is the gold standard of world-building, so what does that say, OP?

[(Anonymous)]

That people hold popular concepts over actual literary value.

[(Anonymous)]

So your thesis here is that Tolkien's work does not have literary value? Fascinating.

[(Anonymous)]

It's possible that Tolkien's work does have literary value, but that some people like it for reasons besides its literary value.

[(Anonymous)]

So are you saying that it has literary value, but the value is in something other than the setting/world he created, and yet a lot of people like it for the setting/world?

Also, how is it determined whether something has literary value or not? Can a work of fiction have value that isn't literary value, if people like it for reasons other than the literary value?

[(Anonymous)]

Also, how is it determined whether something has literary value or not?

It's complicated and there's no objective definition or test. Ultimately, it's my opinion that I'm arguing, it's not like it's a cold hard fact. In general, to me, you look at its aesthetic quality, you look at its thematic depth and resonance, those are the things you look at.

Can a work of fiction have value that isn't literary value, if people like it for reasons other than the literary value?

Sure! Absolutely! And there's nothing wrong with it, it's just frustrating with fantasy because a lot of the time people seem to focus on the worldbuiling to the exclusion of any literary analysis. It gets crowded out and ignored.

[(Anonymous)]

That people have low standards for worldbuilding if the work is

A: Old
B: Influential due to lack of decent contemporaries

Tolkien's work isn't that great. It's flat, exceptionally derivative of less famous mythology, his characters are dull and his world is really rather boring.

Other writers have done fantasy better since.

I know such a viewpoint is heretical and like saying 'there have been better guitarists since Jimmy Hendrix' but there we are. Sure, so the later writers (or musicians, for the comparison) may well have been influenced by Tolkien (or Hendrix) but that doesn't mean that the older will always be better.

Sorry not everybody is a massive fan. I appreciate what he has done for the fantasy genre, but I don't like (or rate) his work.

[(Anonymous)]

I get that people don't like it, but I really don't agree with the idea that it's been clearly surpassed by later fantasy or that it doesn't have literary merit. Not because it's heretical; I just think it's not true. He's not a great prose stylist, but he does a really good job of invoking powerful thematic, aesthetic, mythological elements in a meaningful, artistically interesting way. Even if you prefer later writers, I strongly believe that you can very satisfactorily treat LOTR as literature.

(But to reiterate, none of that is a reason that you personally have to like it)

[(Anonymous)]

NA

Here's the thing, though, you can personally *not like* Shakespeare, but to sit around and say "objectively, Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' is not nearly as good or as 'realistic' or whatever as Orwell's 'Citizen Kane' .... is just not true. They are both widely recognized to be excellent works with the large majority of people.

If you don't like it, fine, but don't be all "NEWSFLASH! Actually Tolkien sucks!"

And in my opinion, a lot of Tolk-lite fantasy, even GRRM, is like comparing "Hamlet" to "Harry and Meghan: their untold story."