Shedding Light on Mysterious Wordplay : The Pros and Cons

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Hear ye, hear ye.

The God of Mischief and Trickery is here with a question for all you well read people out there. As we all know, words can be the most powerful force in this world if used right. Twisting and turning those same words, as well as clever phrasing can make words pack a punch greater then a 50 kiloton nuclear bomb, with twice the fallout.

For example, the person considered the most powerful person on Earth, the President of the USA, can spark a nuclear war with but a single slur against a rival nation. (With the current President, it is more than likely of that occuring)

So, the question is this. What is your opinion on the power of wordplay? You can be cynical and vocal, but just remember that all this is done in the spirit of fun and celebrating human being's greatest contribution to nature.

WORDS

[fable]

I think the evidence of the value people place on words can be seen in the way the powerful and rich spend so much time, energy and money to twist language or smother it. Consider the way the Republicans in Congress and the White House use catchwords and phrases to reverse the meanings of things--such as, pulling out of Iraq means leaving the US armies without weapons and any way to leave. This is amazing stuff. It just shows the power of language in misuse, when meaning is deliberately inverted. Words can grant clarity and purpose, or they can deceive and invoke hatred, or fear. The hate radio stations of Rwanda, shortly before and after the genocide there in 1994, provides another example.

But words can also have a very positive impact. They can provide information, dispel lies, offer hope and comfort to the weary, give entertainment to billions. The can shrink the great and self-important to the size of peas, which is why the vested interests--be they Faux News, or the Kremlin--display a genuine fear of verbal taunting and laughter.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Another fine instance of twisted words and funny phrases can be seen in the Constitution. Not only of the US but of plenty of other countries as well, I'm sure. Why must politicians play about with what they are trying to say and not just write everthing out plainly?

In a document as important as a Constitution, meaning is key and misintepreted words can be very dangerous. So, this more or less brings us to another topic.

Twisted words lead to a twisted understanding of the meaning. How can we truly know what dead people are trying to say when we can't ask their opinions?

Politicians and those who deal with words and phrases that may contain multiple meanings will use this to thier advantage and exploit us little people.

Because its stated in the law.....

[fable]

Originally Posted by Loki[D.d.G]

Twisted words lead to a twisted understanding of the meaning. How can we truly know what dead people are trying to say when we can't ask their opinions?

I'm actually not too worried about that. Words (in living languages, at least) carry their own very traceable heritage: what each one means, what meanings it had at some previous time, and in specific places. Cultural context can usually be established with the aid of research. A friend of mine, a scholar involved in Restoration poetry, only half-jokingly pointed out to me once that we probably know exactly what was meant and what was implied in every published line by Edmund Spenser and Alexander Pope than we do that of any highly successful modern author.

Of course, that's different from the political theater, where meaning is deliberately buried in what is written, or actually says the opposite of what one does.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Of course, that's different from the political theater, where meaning is deliberately buried in what is written, or actually says the opposite of what one does.

And isn't that the point of all politicians? To twist the words and its meanings to suit their own selfish purposes.

A friend of mine, a scholar involved in Restoration poetry, only half-jokingly pointed out to me once that we probably know exactly what was meant and what was implied in every published line by Edmund Spenser and Alexander Pope than we do that of any highly successful modern author.

Thats a very good point. We can look at the thread which spawned this one. Rowling has used simple English to beguile and bewitch her fans. For one, I surely didn't guess that Dumbledore was gay from reading any of her books.

Maybe its better that an author is dead. At least a dead person cannot shed a new and mysterious light on his work which would perhaps end up creating more questions than answered questions.

Dead authors have no more drive to stow conspiracy and raise the popularity of their works of art. In other words, they have lost the very human need to make more money.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Since we are discussing about authors and creative works, I think we should also consider the fact that good storytellers are getting very rare lately. Hollywood has played a big part in this by marring decent works with excessive violence and too much sex content.

Take for instance the Tolkein triology. I've read his work three times before watching it in the cinema. The movie industry has destroyed his beautifully worded book with too much CGI. So, I say this : Nothing, nothing, can compare to a good book from a fantastic author.

The wealth of knowledge contained in such works can transcend time. Crafty words make for a crafty read

[fable]

You're throwing out too many ideas to focus your thread. Why not create another thread, here, about whether the LotR movies are as good as the books? I think you'll get a few fanbois who will be horrified with your viewpoint, but it may launch some serious discussion of your idea.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

You're throwing out too many ideas to focus your thread.

I don't think that a thread should be so limited. I started this so we could discuss about words and aren't words the ingredients which make up a book?

I also won't want to risk the wrath of many Tolkien fans, though the true ones would have probably enjoyed his book more.

Just my opinion

[fable]

Oh, I liked his books well enough, though I think they have severe problems, as well. Haven't seen the movies, and probably never will. Most of Tolkien's magic, for my tastes, lies in his musical use of language, which he got straight from Lord Dunsany. It's just very pretty stuff. Though I admit I prefer the language in Eddison's The Worm Ouroboros (which Tolkien praised highly in print). But then, Eddison was a translator of Norse sagas and a great fan of Renaissance poetry. His own prose is among the finest I've ever read of its type--what we might call Pseudo-Archaic High English.

I've quoted Eddison before. Here's a tiny sampling of his style:

Now they rose up and took their weapons and muffled themselves in their great campaigning-cloaks and went forth with torch-bearers to walk through the lines, as every night ere he went to rest it was Spitfire's wont to do, visiting his captains and setting the guard. The night was without a star. The wet sands gleamed with the lights of Owlswick Castle, and from the castle came by fits the sound of feasting heard above the wash and moan of the sullen sleepless sea.

Bear in mind, this was a generation before Tolkien. For sheer music, this stuff compares to Shakespeare.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Oh, I liked his books well enough, though I think they have severe problems, as well.

What problems?

I'm speaking strictly in the sense of storytelling here, not flowery language, when I say that his story can be faulted for being pretty drab and longwinded at times. But when one can create his own lore and legend, I guess that is what makes him a good writer. Reminds me, pleasantly, of Rowling.

Bear in mind, this was a generation before Tolkien. For sheer music, this stuff compares to Shakespeare.

A genius then?

I'll admit it invokes a couple of feelings...

Speaking of LotR, you into the MMO game? Just noticed some news about it.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Loki[D.d.G]

What problems?

I'm speaking strictly in the sense of storytelling here, not flowery language, when I say that his story can be faulted for being pretty drab and longwinded at times. But when one can create his own lore and legend, I guess that is what makes him a good writer. Reminds me, pleasantly, or Rowling.

First, there's the matter of plotting. When Tolkien creates a grand situation of drama and doom but wants his characters to survive it, he doesn't find a logical way out; he uses a deux es machina. The rescue of Frodo and Sam by the giant eagles is one example of this.

Second, there's the English Public School Philosophy that really rubs me the wrong way. The most obvious (but by no means the only) example is when Saruman attacks Frodo, and fails. I don't have my copy handy, but as I recall, Frodo's response is to call that none of the hobbits attack Saruman--because he wass of a noble sort, above them, and that should be remembered. Similarly, there's there are the references to protecting the hobbits and others like them from having to know about Great Evil--which apparently is only fit for the knowledge of the High and Powerful.

And this is exactly the same attitude that rules in the UK, the US, and many other so-called "democratic" nations today, where politicians want to be elected but don't want interference in policy making from the "little people" who, poor dears, are to be preserved from thinking about such heavy matters. It makes me sick.

Third, Tolkien's universe has some very oddball aspects to its races. Just hinted at in LotR is the fact that according to the author's mythos, some human ancestral idiot, obviously missing most of its brain cells, actually chose to be mortal when asked about it by some generic creator being, rather than choosing to be immortal like his elves. The only advantage this gives humans is that they don't come off sounding like some bizarre parody of Wise Beings as Tolkien's elves do, the kind that wander about thinking Stately Things in and considering Profound Truths. But that's really my stealth third objection: Tolkien's annoyingly pompous and all-wise High Elves.

(Parenthetically, I'm really curious where Tolkien got his models for the High Elves. Probably pulled them out of his...head, since the only High Types I know of are quite ordinary in most respects, which explains why they should never, under any circumstances, be made vehicles for great power over others.)

I've got a few objections, but they'll have to wait. I'm too busy at the moment.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

First, there's the matter of plotting. When Tolkien creates a grand situation of drama and doom but wants his characters to survive it, he doesn't find a logical way out; he uses a deux es machina. The rescue of Frodo and Sam by the giant eagles is one example of this.

Good point. He probably played his hand too much with the superhuman protagonist. Mind you he had plenty of protagonists, so it does indeed make the story somewhat drab at times. As for giant eagles flying through spurts of magma and other volcanic elements, thats quite funny once you sit down to think of it.

Isn't it auguable that Tolkien was the one that popularised the Orc, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and other races which plenty of modern games and books have adopted today?

Third, Tolkien's universe has some very oddball aspects to its races. Just hinted at in LotR is the fact that according to the author's mythos, some human ancestral idiot, obviously missing most of its brain cells, actually chose to be mortal when asked about it by some generic creator being, rather than choosing to be immortal like his elves.

Maybe he was trying to imply that when it comes to the choices we make, most humans are to be found lacking in the proper wisdom it takes to make such a choice?

And this is exactly the same attitude that rules in the UK, the US, and many other so-called "democratic" nations today, where politicians want to be elected but don't want interference in policy making from the "little people" who, poor dears, are to be preserved from thinking about such heavy matters. It makes me sick.

Tell me about it. The matter is strife in my country. Hell, they don't even reveal when the general elections will be until the last possible minute to keep rivals of guard. We are steering too close to politics here, so I'll digress.

One can't argue that Tolkien's works are good, musical English and all. Though he may have owed it by large to Lord Dunsany, he still managed to popularise it in a way the good old Lord never did. So, he should be given some credit there.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Loki[D.d.G]

Good point. He probably played his hand too much with the superhuman protagonist. Mind you he had plenty of protagonists, so it does indeed make the story somewhat drab at times. As for giant eagles flying through spurts of magma and other volcanic elements, thats quite funny once you sit down to think of it.

Isn't it auguable that Tolkien was the one that popularised the Orc, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and other races which plenty of modern games and books have adopted today?

I may have my objections to Tolkien, but I don't think he deserves that. Elves, dwarves, etc, were very popular in fantasy fiction long before Tolkien caught on in the US, and they weren't Tolkien's elves and dwarves, either. They were also being written about differently after he became a favorite of the US college crowd in the mid-60s. The cliches about elves and dwarves that are so pronounced today date from the success of AD&D, and its move into the mass pulp fiction market with third rate hack authors who would churn out whatever they were told.

Maybe he was trying to imply that when it comes to the choices we make, most humans are to be found lacking in the proper wisdom it takes to make such a choice?

Except that there is no written evidence Tolkien regards choosing mortality as an error. He presents it simply as a fact.

One can't argue that Tolkien's works are good, musical English and all. Though he may have owed it by large to Lord Dunsany, he still managed to popularise it in a way the good old Lord never did. So, he should be given some credit there.

IMO, popularizing anything isn't a positive or negative thing. It simply happens, for one reason or another--usually for multiple reasons. Tolkien just hit it lucky in a way that Eddison didn't, just as Cabell's Jurgen hit it lucky, for a variety of reasons never under his control, that the rest of his works didn't.

Okay, on with another objection!

The class system. Basically, there's the nobility, and then there's the rest, with a few people like Merry and Pippin who are blatantly promoted into the nobility. Until then, "the rest," the lower and middle class people who come under Tolkien's magnifying glass, are essentially clowns. They're like that innkeeper, whom we are told by Gandalf can see through any incredibly difficult matter in time, but who always to us appears to be a goofball with the attention span and memory of a puffball. His halfling society is his view of middleclass culture in excelsis: a bunch of clownish little people who raise endless children, sit and smotke, and take care of gardens. The only time they rise up is when, significantly, they're led by the nobility (an ennobled Pippin and Merry). Otherwise, and away from Frodo and Sam, they don't even know what happens in he world--they don't even know of the horrible war at hand. And that's just the way Tolkien likes it, because it was an upperclass snob who saw the middleclass as cute and silly and in need of protection.

More to come.

[Loki[D.d.G]]

Tolkien just hit it lucky in a way that Eddison didn't, just as Cabell's Jurgen hit it lucky, for a variety of reasons never under his control, that the rest of his works didn't.

Very much like Rowling hit it lucky?

And that's just the way Tolkien likes it, because it was an upperclass snob who saw the middleclass as cute and silly and in need of protection.

That makes him sound real bad. Surely he must have had alternate reasons for writing as such. It is undeniable, however, that most people would need a leader to rally them into action. That leader may or may not be nobility, but he is still needed nonetheless to set aflame a fire from the masses and push them to act.

IMO, popularizing anything isn't a positive or negative thing.

On the contrary, Tolkien may just have brought culture to places which lack it with his cultured works. So, I see that as a positive thing.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Loki[D.d.G]

Very much like Rowling hit it lucky?

Rowling only hit it lucky at first, when she was a single parent in need of government funds, and got them. Later on, she merchandized. She played all the angles.

That makes him sound real bad. Surely he must have had alternate reasons for writing as such. It is undeniable, however, that most people would need a leader to rally them into action. That leader may or may not be nobility, but he is still needed nonetheless to set aflame a fire from the masses and push them to act.

But wouldn't you agree that Tolkien's leaders are blatantly nobility? Is there a "commonfolk" leader among them? Always allowing for Sam, who's nobility, we are reminded ad nauseum, is of the heart, and consequently only requires the purely ornamental task of mayor. Everybody else who leads is of a separate, higher class. This is the way Tolkien thought: membership in the upper class didn't automatically make you a good leader, but it was a start. And membership in a lower class, well, it didn't automatically rule you out from leading, but only after you automatically got membership in the upper class. Just like Merry and Pippin.

Another negative: Tolkien does have an interest in battle, but only in so far as it allows his protagonists to strut their personal stuff. He can't, or won't, consider tactics or strategy. At such times, his books read like the battle scenes not in novels, but in plays.