WHy TOLKIEN and LOTR is overrated!!!

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Did I just stir a pot?

No, but you do appear to have belittled one of the greatest writers of Western Civilization for trying hard to give one of English literature's giants a chance.

Not to mention, your stance also suggest a quiet assumption that it is impossible to dislike/think poorly of Shakespeare for objective reasons.

Not having stated a personal opinion on the bard before, I shall not start now. Just making observations.

- Ahi

[Lady Blue]

Originally Posted by ahi

No, but you do appear to have belittled one of the greatest writers of Western Civilization for trying hard to give one of English literature's giants a chance.

Not to mention, your stance also suggest a quiet assumption that it is impossible to dislike/think poorly of Shakespeare for objective reasons.

Not having stated a personal opinion on the bard before, I shall not start now. Just making observations.

- Ahi

I wasn't belittling Tolstoy for trying to give Shakespeare a chance. I like Tolstoy. It just seemed that he spent too much time trying to give him a chance. According to your quote he spent an exhorbitant amount of time trying to get something worthwhile out of his writings. All I was saying was that if Shakespeare's works didn't appeal to him after several readings and translations, then why continue to beat the dead horse? . . . so that he could drive the point home even more pointedly?. . . so that he could be considered an autority on the worthlessness of Shakespeare's work?

I was just making observations as well.

There was just a lot that could be read into the statements that Tolstoy made there, and it made me wonder why he 'wasted' so much time on works that he found no enjoyment in.

As an example, the world in general says that a rose (flower) has a wonderful scent and is (in general) the most beautiful flower in the world, or so many would say. I may not think the rose deserves all the attention and praise that it gets. I don't care for the scent of a rose either. For that reason, I see no point in continuing to smell roses over and over and over again, with the hopes that I might begin to appreciate the scent as others do. If I don't like it, why waste my time? Why keep smelling them for years, every color and variety, if I don't like the way they smelled the first few times I experienced them? So that I can say I smelled them all and they stink and don't deserve the praise they've received? Silly.

Did I fail to mention that I'm not a big fan of Shakespeare's work myself? I'm sure he was a very gifted writer, maybe even a nice man, and the world thinks his work is fabulous. It may not be popular to dislike his work, and to some that may make me uncouth and lacking in the literary graces . . . but he's not my cup of tea.

So you see, I generally agree with Tolstoy's opinions of Shakespeare's work and his lack of appreciation for the genious the rest of the world sees.

My point was and is this . . . if you don't like the music the first time you hear it, why would you keep playing the same tune over and over again for years on end before realizing it will never sound any better to your ears?


Life is too short. Get over it and move on.

And that's exactly what I'll do here.

We both stirred that stupid pot. I'm sorry I fell for the bait, but now I'm moving on.

[pdurrant]

If Shakespeare had written novels, reading them would be the correct way to appreciate them. But he wrote plays. If you want to appreciate them, you should go and watch them performed.

I think this is where Tolstoy made his big mistake in trying to appreciate Shakespeare.

Now the sonnets are meant to be read - but one at a time, not in great blocks.

Paul

Originally Posted by ahi

I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium, and doubted as to whether I was senseless in feeling works regarded as the summit of perfection by the whole of the civilized world to be trivial and positively bad, or whether the significance which this civilized world attributes to the works of Shakespeare was itself senseless. [snip]
--- Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy on Shakespeare

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

If Shakespeare had written novels, reading them would be the correct way to appreciate them. But he wrote plays. If you want to appreciate them, you should go and watch them performed.

I think this is where Tolstoy made his big mistake in trying to appreciate Shakespeare.

Now the sonnets are meant to be read - but one at a time, not in great blocks.

Paul

So long as men can breathe, and eyes can see
So long lives this, and gives life to thee.

Man his sonnets rock. I agree on seeing the plays, not reading them.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

I wasn't belittling Tolstoy for trying to give Shakespeare a chance. I like Tolstoy. It just seemed that he spent too much time trying to give him a chance. According to your quote he spent an exhorbitant amount of time trying to get something worthwhile out of his writings. All I was saying was that if Shakespeare's works didn't appeal to him after several readings and translations, then why continue to beat the dead horse? . . .

The quote (or the full essay which is no more than a dozen or two pages: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726...-h/27726-h.htm) is not about Shakespeare "not appealing to him", but about his experiential (and, in the full essay, reasoned) conviction that Shakespeare was objectively a bad writer.

What I dubbed "belittling" is your dismissal of this conviction--without even reading his (not overly long, nor onerous) arguments--as "simply a matter of taste".

I am not suggesting you or anybody must, or even should, agree with him, but if an internationally acknowledged and celebrated Great Writer (who has read Shakespeare in more languages than you and I speak combined) passes a judgment supported by arguments, it seems a little presumptuous to sagely conclude that "it just mustn't have been his thing".

Unless of course you quite generally are of the conviction that literature (and presumably also art?) is without objectively discernible worth and its value is purely subjective (and, presumably, to allow for widely recognized "greatness" also influenced by peer pressure).

Only my first post on this topic was pot-stirring. In the above I am serious, though meaning (and hopefully succeeding) to remain respectful.

If you fundamentally disagree with my assessment of Tolstoy on this matter, obviously we come at the topic from irreconcilable positions, and I do not propose we get our feathers (wait a minute--I haven't got any feathers!) ruffled over it.

Either way, thank you for your posts thus far. I have found them interesting, despite my disagreement!

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

If Shakespeare had written novels, reading them would be the correct way to appreciate them. But he wrote plays. If you want to appreciate them, you should go and watch them performed.

I think this is where Tolstoy made his big mistake in trying to appreciate Shakespeare.

Now the sonnets are meant to be read - but one at a time, not in great blocks.

Paul

Did you read the full essay? Because I didn't get the impression that was the problem.

Not to mention that Shakespeare's original intention/medium aside, he is (as per wikipedia, and doubtless other sources too):

(Shakespeare is) widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language

Tolstoy didn't think he deserves such honour, and he gave a few dozen pages' worth of reasons why.

- Ahi

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ahi

Tolstoy didn't think he deserves such honour ["greatest writer in the English Language"], and he gave a few dozen pages' worth of reasons why.

I think the other problem comes in what we mean by "greatest writer".

If we mean "greatest storyteller", Shakespeare fails miserably. The plots are often poor, and quite often stolen.

If we mean "greatest natural dialogue writer", Shakespeare fails miserably. He wasn't even trying to write natural dialogue.

if we mean "greatest wordsmith", I think we're closer to the something that can be argued. His turn of phrase is simply stunning. As someone once said on first seeing Hamlet -- "...but it's so full of quotes."

So Tolstoy is right, in that the plays don't contain what he requires them to contain to be considered great, or even good. And wrong, in that they do contain what is needed for others to consider Shakespeare the greatest, without having been brainwashed.

[SpiderMatt]

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me for not following the full conversation, but it seems to me that the critics here are focusing on the wrong criteria for "great literature." Literature is remembered for its influence. Great literature survives the "test of time" because it brought something new and innovative to the table that has had a profound influence on other writers or society in general. I don't think anyone here is trying to say what Tolkien did was not impressive and influential to later writers (the effect was especially profound on the fantasy genre). In this sense, LotR is great literature. The same goes for Shakespeare. He influenced how the English language was used and written. Overrating Shakespeare's influence would be pretty hard. For those of you who do not like Shakespeare or Tolkien or any other writers considered to have written great literature, it doesn't mean the works are "overrated." Try to apply some objectivity and look at what's actually being "rated." Why, specifically, is Tolkien considered to be great? I imagine few literary critics are going to cite Tolkien for his greatness because of his "exciting" stories. So it would be unfair to say Tolkien isn't all that great because you personally find him boring. It's possible, and highly probable if you are a fantasy fan, that you have read and enjoyed an author who enjoyed and was influenced by Tolkien. And I would wager that it's impossible for you to have read nothing influenced by Shakespeare. There in lies their greatness.

You can apply the same standard to music. Even those today who don't care for The Beatles or Elvis would find it hard to escape the influence of that music.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ahi

Tolstoy didn't think he deserves such honour, and he gave a few dozen pages' worth of reasons why.

- Ahi

Have you read "Tolstoy on Shakespeare", which I've uploaded to MR as an e-Book?

[pdurrant]

I'm sure he has - he gave the link to it on project gutenberg.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Have you read "Tolstoy on Shakespeare", which I've uploaded to MR as an e-Book?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think the other problem comes in what we mean by "greatest writer".

If we mean "greatest storyteller", Shakespeare fails miserably. The plots are often poor, and quite often stolen.

If we mean "greatest natural dialogue writer", Shakespeare fails miserably. He wasn't even trying to write natural dialogue.

if we mean "greatest wordsmith", I think we're closer to the something that can be argued. His turn of phrase is simply stunning. As someone once said on first seeing Hamlet -- "...but it's so full of quotes."

So Tolstoy is right, in that the plays don't contain what he requires them to contain to be considered great, or even good. And wrong, in that they do contain what is needed for others to consider Shakespeare the greatest, without having been brainwashed.

A sensible enough line of thought.

And, Harry, yes I did read Tolstoy's essay on the subject. What did you think of it?

- Ahi

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by hidari

This is worth posting just to get people angry for no reason. I could go into my own reasons for the BORING parts of LOTR but I will let a few of the links below help people to guide their way out of Middleearth:


http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-revi...rBy=addOneStar


http://coup-de-plume.blogspot.com/20...overrated.html


Yes, It will be fun to see Fantasy Freaks have a heart attack at anyone who would actually post an anti-LOTR thread. Fact is, I read the LOTR several times as well as other of Tolkien's works. I think he was a very interesting person. And, I loved to read him in my youth. BUT:

HELLO Character DEVELOPMENT

HELLO PACE

HELLO PEOPLE: THERE ARE OTHER BOOKS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN.

I keep running into LOTR freaks that reming me of Deadheads, Ayn Rand Freaks or Harry Potterheads!!!! ( Still dont get that either. Another thread for that monstrosity!)

Enjoyed that tirade. Anyways. If anyone does NOT LIKE LOTR please post here. Hey It was a good series. BUT It aint Shakespeare!!!

Gosh, well, you just let us all know the second you write something better. Promise?? We won't hold our collective breath ....

[ahi]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me for not following the full conversation, but it seems to me that the critics here are focusing on the wrong criteria for "great literature." Literature is remembered for its influence. Great literature survives the "test of time" ...

That's certainly another perspective to approach the issue from. However, one ought note, it is a perspective that does not discount the possibility of Shakespeare having being a talentless hack of a writer, objectively speaking.

Because, of course, as easily as you brought up the Beatles or Elvis, you could have chosen Britney Spears or The Hanson Brothers instead. Which, based on his writing, Tolstoy might find a more apt comparison.

Essentially I think your line of thinking is sensible enough, but do not feel your conclusion naturally follows.

On a personal level though, I do think that if it weren't for the Britain's fortunes as a nation/country and the British Empire and its successor nations, Shakespeare today probably would not be greatly better known outside of the UK as the most brilliant writers of Kyrgyz, Chuvash, or Moldovan literature.

In other words, I think part of Shakespeare's greatness is due to the fact that his kinsmen's descendants spread across half the world.

- Ahi

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I rather like the fact that it ain't Shakespeare. Never really liked his stories.

+1

[PhishStyx]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Absolutely. "Thee" and "thou" are alive and well in the area in which I live.

Sorry for being late to this party, but I find that pretty cool.