(Originally posted on LiveJournal)
I was roaming around a social website this last week, one that services writers, and was looking at one writer’s profile. Under the heading “Favorite Books” she began with “Tolkien’s Trilogy” — and then the rest were book titles without reference to author, at least not that way. I looked at that and snorted. Yea, verily, even in the confines of mine own castle, I snorted.
Boxed set of an early printing of the Ballantine edition of The Lord of the Rings
Then I immediately thought, in a flash of astonishment, “I am a Tolkien snob!” Because, of course, what flew behind the snort was “It’s not a trilogy! It’s one novel in three volumes!” And then “She can’t cite the title?”; followed by “Does she list it first because Tolkien is cool now?”
Those were all truly snobbish and cutting thoughts. Tsk. But there’s just something about being into a subject ahead of the wave of popular culture that affects one’s attitude. There’s a new watershed point for Tolkien readers now that will cause ripples for a time, pre-moive and post-movie readers. By that I mean there will be one set of readers who discovered The Lord of the Rings before Peter Jackson’s films were made, and then another set of readers who came to the work because they saw the films. (The Bakshi and Rankin & Bass works had nowhere near the same impact as Jackson’s.)
I suppose this mental snobbery is bound to appear when one sits on the border of Art and Popular Culture. I certainly reside on that border — a scholar of literature, raised on Classical music and art museums, yet also one interested in pop culture as both audience member and creator of same. But certain artistic works sit there as well: the “Mona Lisa,” for instance. The work’s “life” in pop culture in no way detracts from its existence in the realm of Art.
Okay, what is happening here is that I’m trying to talk myself out of snobbery. I guess it probably won’t be successful. I think the scholar side of my personality will remain a bit snobbish, while the Pop Culturist won’t be. Hopefully, the two parts will live on in harmony.
Comments
kalimac – Nov. 2nd, 2010
Don’t. “Snobbery” in such cases is only the word for knowledge and real appreciation used by people who have neither.
scribblerworks – Nov. 2nd, 2010
Well, I was using it rather tongue-in-cheek here, simply because I was amused by my immediate snorting. But objectively, yes, I agree: in more normal circumstances I’d probably call myself more of a “purist.”
kalimac – Nov. 2nd, 2010
I dislike the term “purist” for myself because I’m not a purist – I laughed at Bored of the Rings, for instance, which the real purists I know look down on with the same withering disdain they reserve for Rankin-Bass – and because, to fans of the Jackson movies, “purist” means “someone who would only be happy with a movie that’s 70 hours long with Bombadil in it,” which is not what I wanted and would not address my problems with Jackson at all.
kalimac – Nov. 2nd, 2010
Oh, and sometimes I refer to “Tolkien’s trilogy” just to startle people, and to their confused looks I reply, “The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion, of course.”
scribblerworks – Nov. 2nd, 2010
That also occurred to me, but it seemed more sophisticated than this particular writer’s list indicated. 😀
kalimac – Nov. 2nd, 2010
I only use lines like that with people who will get it.
sartorias – Nov. 2nd, 2010
I’ve heard some people refer to Tolkien’s trilogy because so many people think, when one says LORD OF THE RINGS, that the movie is meant.
scribblerworks – Nov. 2nd, 2010
Oh, dear! I don’t think I’ve run across that yet. Well, forewarned….
kalimac – Nov. 2nd, 2010
Worse yet are the people who think “Tolkien’s trilogy” is the movies.
margdean56 – Nov. 2nd, 2010
I prefer to say “purist” rather than “snob”. As in, “I’m too much of a purist to enjoy the movies.”
scribblerworks – Nov. 2nd, 2010
Yeah. I’d be inclined to do that usually too.
But I’ve discovered that even as a “purist”, I can be flexible. I have called myself something of a Sherlock purist (Jeremy Brett is the quintessential Sherlock!), but I actually liked the recent feature film and then the new BBC 21st century version. Does that enjoyment revoke my Sherlock Purist card? I’ve heard other purists speak very disapprovingly of Downey’s Sherlock.
kalimac – Nov. 2nd, 2010
I liked Downey’s acting, but then I usually do. The film was otherwise boring and negligible, though not as much so as his Iron Man, which was pretty grim.
The 21st century version I’m finding delightful, but partly because it is 21st century, I’m not parsing it as Sherlock Holmes at all, but a riff inspired by Holmes. The fact that nobody calls him “Holmes” but only by his first name – which they’d never do in the original, except perhaps for Mycroft – helps distinguish them.
corrinalaw – Nov. 3rd, 2010
I thought the movie with RDJ was entertaining. He’s not really playing Holmes, of course, but once you get past that, it’s not bad.
I am loving the 21st century version. One, because it’s what you said, a great riff inspired by the original stories and, two, the creator REALLY knows his Holmes stuff. I think I caught an easter egg not just from the stories in the first episode but in *notes* from the W. S. Baring-Gould two-volume set–particularly about Watson’s wandering wound. (And this Watson is our new Bilbo which is, I think, perfect.)
As for LotR, well, I don’t see it as snobbery, more passion for wanting accuracy about a favorite thing. I’m not a Tolkien purist in the least but I did twitch once or twice with the second & third movies. (Didn’t like the reworking of Helm’s Deep or Faramir being rewritten.)
kalimac – Nov. 3rd, 2010
That’s probably it: these creators know and love Holmes. Peter Jackson knows little of Tolkien and cares less, he just thinks he does.
