Did Tolkien's work age well?
>>44017920
Well, it's not as if it references obvious pop culture of the time.
It might have made slightly more sense to veterans of the First World War, maybe
>Has Tolkien's work aged well?
>>44017920
People are still half assingly copying it so i'd say yes.
>>44017965
>/lit/ has entered the room
>>44017920
Better than this thread will.
>>44017920
Culturally, I think so. The fundamentals of Tolkien's work are distant enough that they're not really any more relatable to people of the 50s than people of today: the early Saxon era, Beowulf, old Norse and English myths. A big difference is probably that people today are less familiar with Tolkien's predecessors in the fantasy genre and on how they influenced him.
Socially, definitely not. While the horrors of war stuff remains current (if a bit less so today than to immediate survivors of WW2) the whole topic of a hierarchical society with specific places for its U and non-U peoples is a lot more controversial in modern times.
>>44017920
Better than your mom
>>44017979
/lit/ wouldn't even enter the building, it's got gross genre fiction in it.
>>44017948
>First World War
>>44017920
>No transgender black elves
>No entitled white male orcs
>No 99% main characters beign womyn
No, it aged poorly
I don't see how it would have ages poorly, it's still as good as when it was written.
>>44017979
>Riding the critical interpretation of justice, the postpostmodernist writer enters the fray!
>>44018001
Does /lit/ really believe all genre fiction is absent of literary value?
>>44018045
A bold claim!
>>44017920
It's 60 years later and we're still talking about it and making film adaptations. I'd say that qualifies.
>>44018001
>Implying mythology is genre fiction
>>44018093
The Hobbit movie trilogy has already aged worse than the book it's based on.
>>44018087
yes it does, go over there and just look through the catalog
/tg/ is just as bad as them too, you can statrt a fiction thread and if the book isn't over 30 years old or by any author that hasn't been writing since the 80's all you get is REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, THATS NOT GOOD FICTION
if anything /tg/ is worse because /lit/s attitude is somewhat justified
>>44018116
>implying Tolkien's work is mythology and not a badly written pastiche of the work of William Morris
>implying the actual British mythological fantasy book of the 50s, The Once and Future King, isn't unambiguously the superior work
>>44018128
The /lit/ attitude is definitely not justified. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that Lem, Asimov, PKD or Tiptree are absent of literary value. At the same time yeah /tg/ is really bad for recs.
>>44017920
Yes.
I have recently re-read the Hobbit and then the LotR trilogy and I enjoyed them a lot.
So for me they have aged well, but that might just be me.
>>44018136
in a way /lit/ is justified because they focus exclusively on biography's, self help books and pretty much anything nonfiction
while on /tg/ if you make a fiction thread and then REEEEEEEE about someone posting a fiction novel you are literally an autistic fuck.
>>44017920
Well not really, sure it survived but nowadays people want to change it up since it really has become nothing more than a canvas to work with.
So not really, it died but it's bones are still on display and people like to do the old dinosaur trick and imagine their own little flesh and blood on them.
>>44017920
I'm not sure about tLotR, but I think the Hobbit, especially as a book for children, hasn't really aged.
I don't think the work surrounding the "main" books (lotr+hobbit) has aged well.
>>44018128
>>44018087
You know even the full pretentious tripfags say that the wiki has good suggestions and the lit wiki does contain a fantasy section where Tolkien's works are on the recommended list.
>>44018666
That genre fiction page is in a sad state. The nonfiction one is excellent though.
>>44018087
Well, they like Gene Wolfe.
>>44018379
I feel it's the opposite. The Silmarillion hasn't influenced later fantasy as much, so it's a newer, fresher experience to people who've read other fantasy before reading Tolkien.
>>44018128
It's more that stuff from more than 30 years ago is generally good because only the good stuff gets remembered (generally speaking).
It's like with music. It's not that music from the 70s was objectively better than now, it's that the only music we know from back then is the good stuff, because the bad stuff hasn't lasted, while even stuff that wasn't that popular back then has managed to steadily chug along as more and more people realise and recognise it until it becomes "classic".
Arguing about what modern fantasy is good is how we decide what stuff coming out now will be seen as classic in 40 years.
For example, I hope that despite it's faults, A Stranger in Olondria will be well regarded in 30-40 years, despite it's low popularity now. I recommend it to quite a few people.
>>44018778
They'll hate it if it becomes too mainstream.
>>44018827
For a book to be mainstream it has to be in the league of Robinson Crusoe or Harry Potter.
>>44018827
There's fuck all chance of that. I can't think of a work less suited to being mainstream. It's bafflingly complex, uses hundreds of archaic or really weird words, the narrator lies to the reader constantly (or misremembers; it's unclear), it's scattered with weird philosophy or pretentious pseudo-philosophy, and the overarching plot occurs mostly behind the scenes and takes several reads to grasp, while the main events of the narrative are mostly unconnected.
Also, the main character is a rapist, so if it did become mainstream there'd be a massive uproar.
>>44017920
Short answer: no
Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooo
It's still required reading for those who enjoy high fantasy. Tolkien arguably (and I'm not actually looking to argue about this right now) set the standard for high fantasy and I would still recommend it to anyone who considers themselves serious about either fantasy or literature.
HOWEVER, holy fuck it gets boring in places. The man was very clearly a linguist and not a writer and was more concerned with worldbuilding than he was his story. The Hobbit is a much tighter and cohesive narrative than LoTR, however again, I fell like they're both more or less required reading if one wants to be taken seriously in fantasy or literary circles.
Also in my personal experience females of the species enjoy them and it is a wonderful way to relate with them/bring them over to the neckbeard side
>>44018131
Nice try troll. No one is terrible enough to think that.
>>44018871
So what you're saying is that because people have shorter attention spans nowadays, LotR hasn't aged well? I can buy that.
>>44018972
Yes and no. I mean yes b/c this is partially true, but also the book does genuinely have too much detail at points. When the three hunters (and the Dunedain fuck I wish they were in the movie) are moving through the canyon to call in the King of the Dead's debt Tolkien actually spends 3-4 pages describing the walls and terrain of the canyon to the most minutia. I would understand if this was significant but they literally just walk through the canyon into the cave and the setting is never revisited.
So yes short attention span is a large part of it but also LoTR really could have used an editor.
>>44019032
I think that if you look at it as a novel from this age, sure.
But LotR was written as a historical record first, a novel second. It was a product of it's age, as much as say, the writing style of Howard in his Conan stories.
>>44019032
I disagree, it gives the world a sense of history, and makes the scenery something more than a backdrop to the events.
I understand that may be personal preference, but I consider it fairly important to the book's appeal. I would disagree on your whole 'attention span' point as well, it's been selling consistently for years and has grown in popularity to the point there are college classes about it.
It's getting more and more popular, and almost anyone vaguely intellectual will have read it at some point.
>>44018905
Shame b cos it's true.
reminder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAvF9p8nmM
>>44019101
That's..... actually a pretty fair point, but that is the point of the thread, judging the book by modern standards, is it not?
>>44019122
I'm not saying I didn't enjoy it anon. I've read LoTR several times. However, I am currently a Uni student and I would heartily disagree. I've only even met 1 other person my age who actually read LoTR and that was in high school. Everyone else just watches the movies
>>44018009
what's wrong?
>>44019163
Just realized I put I didn't enjoy it. NOT what i meant to say shit. I loved the books and I've read them all multiple times
>>44018861
what book are you referring to, specifically
>>44018820
My problem with the silmarillion is that it's arguably the most interesting stories set in the LotR universe, but it's presented in the least accessible format, a format that's more boring to read than an encyclopedia entry.
The invention of wikis for any subject matter, and therefore LotR wikis, basically obsoleted the silmarillion.
>>44019225
The Book of the New Sun, generally considered Wolfe's masterwork (although he thinks Peace is his best work) and the main piece of science fiction/fantasy that he is known for.
>>44019163
And My uni has a club dedicated to it with 45+ members.
It is popular, otherwise it wouldn't be selling. which it is. Either that, or a bunch of goblins are buying all the books as a scheme.
>>44018871
I've always thought that Tolkien was at his best when he was writing for his children. He keeps the same mythical feel that shows up in all of his work, but the narrative is always tighter. The Hobbit is the best of them, but I'm also really fond of Father Giles of Ham. I reread both of them every couple of years, but I haven't managed to get through Lotr once; I made it three quarters of the way through Return and got sick of it.
I think when he was writing specifically for his own children, narrative had to be his primary concern because linguistics makes for a shitty bedtime story, and so all of the mythopoeia stuff takes on a secondary importance. Whereas when he writes for himself, the worldbuilding is more important to him, and the narrative - and ultimately the readability - suffers.
>>44018871
>HOWEVER, holy fuck it gets boring in places.
>wonderful way to relate with them/bring them over to the neckbeard side
I don't want to live in this world anymore.
>>44017920
Tolkien still writes my favorite dialogue to this day. That exchange between Grima/Theoden and Gandalf in Meduseld is still so amazing to read.
>>44019032
I don't think that's superfluous at all. It made the whole thing believable, into something that's been there for a long time and everyone's just forgotten about it. Otherwise it would have been akin to an asspull. It underlined Aragorn's power, the long history of the world, of the kingdom they're fighting for, and the uncertainty of the situation: was it worth the detour? Do these oath-breakers exist? Will they listen? What can they do? Can they get back in time?
>>44018009
Are you dumb
Yes, but it's rip offs never do.
>>44018119
I like to pretend the Hobbit movies never happened.
Yes it has aged well.
Wonderful world and story. If I have kids you can guarantee that I'll read LOTR to them.
Will it be a timeless hundreds of years old classic? Probably not.
The depth of the setting is still mostly unmatched, it holds up well int hat regard.
The writing has really not aged well though. Since Tolkien, fantasy writers started to realize that random poems and 100 page long descriptions of people walking are not interesting.
>>44020442
I think it will be a hundreds of years old classic. The medieval fantasy genre has been getting bigger and bigger since Tolkien. People in 2100+ will still be playing video games with elves, dwarves and orcs based on Tolkien's versions of those races.
>>44019101
I'd like for you to point out a historical record that spends two pages describing canyon walls in excruiciating detail.
>>44018010
>death of the author
>birth of the boipussy
Age shouldn't matter for it because it's not an allegorical piece based on the time period.
>>44017920
Like literally every work of entertainment ever made, the answer is exactly the same; it depends on individual tastes.
But if you mean "does it frequently reference elements of the time period it was written in that nobody gets anymore", then no, not really.
>>44024066
>lotr
>not allegorical
pick one
>>44024190
“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
>>44024573
Despite his occasional failings as a writer, Tolkien was a damn fine literary critic.
>>44024705
It helps that he genuinely considered writing just a hobby, and took his actual job as an English and literature professor far more seriously.
>>44017920
All the imitations has cheapened it a little.
I just rewatched the Rankin & Bass production of Return of the King, and I honestly enjoyed it more than Jackson's version even though it omits so much. And their one Hobbit movie outshines his three together. I'm sure nostalgia plays a part of it, but even rewatching them today you get the sense that they're real labours of love, and I think the shorter adaptation both plays a lot better on screen and holds truer to the source material, particularly in the case of the Hobbit. It's such a shame they never did Fellowship or Two Towers. As much as I like Ralph Bakshi, his Lord of the Rings is kind of fucked up.
>>44018009
You are a special little snowflake aren't you?
>>44024972
I watched the Rankin Bass adaptation of the Hobbit for the first time recently and I'd agree with your assessment. It captures the essence of the story much better than the Peter Jackson trilogy. I'd argue that nostalgia doesn't have much to do with it.
>all the evil-aligned races are dark-skinned
>the most goody good races are whiter than sour cream
Just like real life!Tolkien aged like fine milk.
>>44024573
>word of the author
>mattering
babby's first contact with literary criticism
