Re: Good Books

Yahman...

I wrote:

<<Also, as opposed to Tolkien, it's actually good writing and   literature, 
and worth reading.>>

There are two basic things to notice about this sentence:

(1) It's poorly written.

(2) It's syntactically ambiguous.

Now, that the first is true is beyond questioning: It's just not good prose 
(it would make John McWhorter go on one of his tirades about how 
"wine-drinking, liberal, hippy kids" have no place in society).   The second could be 
disambiguated (on the net only) by putting asterisks around the "and".   This would 
warrant Butsuri's (?   I don't know your name; I'm sorry!) reading:

<<Isn't it possible to interpret David's sentence such that "as opposed
to Tolkien" only applies to "it's actually good writing and literature"
and not "worth reading"?  That seems like a much more reasonable
position for a conlanger.>>

Those that know me, though, should know that this was *not*, indeed, the 
reading I intended.   Rather, I intended the reading that prompted this response 
(by And):

<<This is one of the main two shibboleths that guide me in life. One
is that while not every wise person writes well, nobody that is
not wise writes well. The other is that while not everyone who
appreciates Tolkien is wise [to say the least!], nobody that
does not appreciate Tolkien is wise. (Note that I say *appreciate*,
rather than 'enjoy', let alone 'adore'.) Anybody (such as Germaine
sodding Greer) that disses Tolkien without having read him is
utterly beyond the pale.>>

And:

<<Let us hope David will recant.>>

I will none!   I shall stick to my guns, and confront all genre fiction in 
the spirit of hostility, for it truly has been the death of true writing (as 
evidenced by what I'm now calling the Cold Mountain phenomenon [though it was 
certainly not the first]), and I claim that Tolkien was one of the main causes of 
the what I call genrefication of society.   Further, I remain to be convinced 
that Tolkien was actually a *good* language creator, rather than just a 
prolific, or highly public, one.

Yet, despite all this, and how hateful such words are to fans of fantasy and 
Tolkien (which includes a good many conlangers, I know), I claim that, as a 
conlanger, you should be glad of them.   Why?   Simply because, as a community, 
we need diversity.   If every conlanger was a Tolkienite, without exception, 
then it would be easy for someone like me (who dislikes Tolkien and fantasy) to 
dismiss the whole art (or craft or hobby) of conlanging, based on the logic, 
"Conlangers like X.   I hate X.   Therefore, I hate that which conlangers do." 
  This logic is anything but logical, but who says that any opinion will be 
logical?   If it's a goal of ours to at least be accepted or acknowledged for 
what we do (and I do know that there are some who wish for exactly the 
opposite), then at very least we can try to dismiss the stereotypes outright.   This 
way, there'll be less for those who don't understand us to attack us with, and 
hopefully once they run out of weapons, they'll start listening.

So, that's kind of a vague way of defending my ill-worded cheap shot.   Are 
we cool?

-David

Replies