Re: Good Books

I'm experiencing this falling feeling making me think of a Schwartzschildian
gravity well ... but bear with me because I do have hopes this discussion
could turn into something productive.

Quoting David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...>:

> 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).
I guess our disagreement begins about here. I remain unconvinced that there is
something like objectively good or bad prose, unless the definition is purely
utilitarian, which I strongly suspect isn't what this McWhorter is complaining
about.

> 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.
The phrases "genre fiction" and "genre writing" are used as pejoratives in
English language literary criticism. It can hardly include the concept
of "genre" in the sense I was taught back in literature class - a body of
writings held together by a common style, purpose and/or subject matter -
because then practically all writings would be "genre writing" (incl every
posting to CONLANG by David!). So, I'd like to have the concept of "genre
writing" explained, and why it is seen as inherently bad. I'd also like to
know what separates "true" writing from "false", and what the heck are
the "Cold Mountain phenomenon" and "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.
What defines a good language creator? I'm sufficiently infected by relativism
that my answer would be that he/she is one who achieves the goals he/she set
for his/her language creation, which the Professor to a high degree appears to
have done.

> 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.
When it comes to discussing the literary merits of Tolkien, I identify as a
Tolkien fan (except I hate the word "fan"), not a conlanger.

> Why?   Simply because, as a community, we need diversity.
I must confess my identification with the conlanging community is very weak.

>   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.
If that was a goal of mine, yes.

>   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.
If your anti-Tolkien attitude makes
someone less hostile to conlanging, jolly good for them, but the sort of
person who'd dismiss conlanging because all conlangers he/she knew liked
Tolkien is not the kind of person I want aboard, nor the one whose opinion of
the hobby I'm interested in.

                                                         Andreas