Re: OT: [CONLANG] OT: Good Books?

And Rosta wrote:

> Andreas:
> > Quoting David Peterson <ThatBlueCat@...>:
> >
> > > Also, as opposed to Tolkien, it's actually good
> > > writing and literature, and worth reading.
As one who appreciates Tolkien-- but alas, not usually for his prose style--
let me rise to David's defense.  Nabokov's _Pale Fire_  is indeed well
written and worth reading. (I don't recall the Slavic conlang bit, but let
that pass...........).  I don't think David was saying that JRRT was _not_
worth reading, except in comparison with VN.
(OK, have I inserted my foot far enough??)

> >
> > I guess I should be impressed by the bravery of anyone who states as a
> fact
> > that Tolkien is not worth reading.
> >
> > Well, you know how the rest of this mail was going to go, so I thought
I'd
> > spare myself the trouble of actually writing it.
>
> Let us hope David will recant.
>
> 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.

Replies