XPost: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis   
   From: dthierbach@usenet.arcornews.de   
      
   Troels Forchhammer  wrote:   
   > Dirk Thierbach  spoke these staves:   
      
   >> And even "hard science" isn't restricted to SF, Tolkien e.g. used   
   >> a lot of his knowledge of philology and history (which is also   
   >> science, just not physics   
      
   > Let's take the discussion of whether 'science' should be restricted to   
   > the natural sciences some other time, shall we ;-)   
      
   The point of contention wasn't "science", but "hard" :-)   
      
   > (And, ignoring my own request ,) I am, of course, not particularly   
   > willing to allow anything but 'naturvidenskab' ('naturwissenschaft') as   
   > science -- I much prefer 'wissenschaft' (Danish 'videnskab') as the   
   > generic term (the term means 'an activity that generates knowledge' --   
   > how )   
      
   And /scientia/, /wissenschaft/, /videnskab/ are all based on words that   
   mean "to know", so I agree "science" should be "any activity that   
   generates knowledge". Which is of course not restricted to natural   
   science. :-)   
      
   >>> I think it would be interesting to ask to, and investigate, the   
   >>> reasons for the huge success of sub-creative fiction in the   
   >>> twentieth century -- especially as it has generally happened in   
   >>> spite of a clear antipathy from the majority of the literary   
   >>> elite.   
      
   >> I guess Tolkien would have some answers to that :-)   
      
   > He might, and then again, perhaps not. Both in _On Fairy-Stories_ and   
   > in his letters Tolkien speaks, as I recall it, more about what he likes   
   > (and he is quite precise about that) than about why he likes it.   
      
   It's been some time since I read OFS, but isn't Tolkien basically   
   saying (there, or in Letters, or elsewhere) that people have enjoyed   
   story-telling in the sub-creative way in all times? So it's no   
   surprise they still enjoy it. No matter what "ingredients" the   
   author takes, magic, technology, or both.   
      
   > There is certainly something in what he says about escapism as a   
   > legitimate pursuit:   
      
   Which, I guess, is mainly there to address this argument of literary   
   critics.   
      
   > 'the escape of the prisoner' rather than 'the flight of the   
   > deserter' -- but is that sufficient?   
      
   IIRC I found Tolkien's arguments here rather weak. And, if   
   well-written, SF&F isn't merely escapism IMHO.   
      
   - Dirk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)