Is Tolkien's work the pinnacle of fantasy worldbuilding/fantasy in general? Nothing gives me the same kind of vibes as his legendarium.
>>46853274
I would say he's one of the best, and my personal favorite.
However, arguments could be made for Erikson as well.
>>46853274
He's a very comprehensive writer to be sure.
I dunno if that always works in his favor though.
>>46853274
>Nothing gives me the same kind of vibes as his legendarium.
Probably because you've never read anything worthwhile
>>46853274
His lore and worldbuilding are great. He unfortunately can't write an interesting narrative. I always feel like I'm reading a 10th grade history text book about the War of the Ring.
>>46853274
He was a very good worldbuilder, and had a great appreciation for mythological writing and how to word things so that they feel like a real world's mythology.
But, the best? I do not think so, though I am very fond of Tolkien. I can offer two other writers who I think created worlds as engaging or more than Tolkien's.
1: Robert E. Howard. Reading the Hyborean Age, even divorced from any of the Conan stories, is absolutely amazing. It really does give the impression of the rise and fall of civilizations and the tribal and transitory nature of human civilization.
2: William Hope Hodgson. Read The Night Land. This book was written in 1912, and is basically the most hardcore terrifying shit I have ever read in my life. H.P. Lovecraft mentioned it as one of the most disturbing things he had ever read in his life. He also made fun of Hodgson for being too verbose and using archaic language, something that I am certain he only got to do this once in his entire life.
>>46853274
>>46853407
What he said. It's a great, well thought out setting. But seriously dry reading. The characters are generally dull and one has to read between the lines to actually see their personalities.
Which ain't bad, just dull, I read books as entertainment.
>>46853274
He's amazing at world building but only okay at telling a story. The only setting that has come close to capturing the grandeur of Middle Earth for me has been Erebus of the Fall from Heaven game.
>>46853520
Fuck yeah, The Night Land is amazing. It's hard to read because of the language used but stick with it. Genuinely nightmarish.
>>46853274
Might sound stupid, but I think that the worldbuilding in Pratchett's work is the right amount of depth and expansion (you're always told what you need to know)
It just gives a "it's the right amount" vibe you know ?
>>46853274
It actually makes me sad, noone has topped that yet, everything I read seems to be copy paste of his works, same with HP Lovecraft, originality has died.
>>46853641
Pratchett is my favourite author of all time. His worldbuilding and characters just mesh together so well as products of their environment.
>>46853274
Yes, and anyone who says otherwise is an assblasted /lit/head or just likes being a contrarian.
>>46853628
It's sort of the antithesis of Lovecraft, because the protagonist is basically fucking Beowulf instead of some limp-wristed land surveyor, and it's still terrifying. The guy can kill mutants, giants and beast-men without breaking a sweat, but when he hears the Spinning, the only thing on his mind is whether he'll be able to kill his lover AND himself before it gets to them.
>>46853407
>>46853549
>>46853613
If you think Tolkien was a dull writer, then the problem is you.
>>46853641
Prattchett was a brilliant entertainer and his word building was excellent. I don't think it was world-class though. His characters, humour and the tones he set much more defined him as a writer for me.
>>46853688
Bro I like him, but his stories themselves are only good not greatest author ever level. Whereas his world-building and history telling are among the greatest ever put to paper, so there is a noticeable disconnect.
>>46853688
no anon, they are right. His writing isn't "dull", but it's far from perfect. On this side, Pratchett is definely superior, not because it's funny or entertaining, but because you feel invest in the story, with the characters. Tolkien was more distant with some of them, which in my opinion is a direct result from such a complex worldbuild
>>46853274
I didn't care for Tolkien. He clearly put a lot of thought into the setting and the history, and it shows (mainly thanks to the rambling off-topic writing style), but it isn't all that impressive otherwise. That said, I've only read Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books, so maybe I'm missing something great with Silmarillion.
>>46853274
I like R.E.Howard's Hyborean world very much as well.
>>46853628
This. But I would say that you can't really compare it to Tolkien because they are so very different in ever way.
Although truth be told I can picture Tom Bombodil in the Night Lands and it is surreal and terrifying as fuck.
>>46853274
I don't think his work was necessarily the pinnacle, but it certainly set the bar for everyone who followed.
>>46853653
>originality has died
That's not a very original complaint senpai
>>46853674
>Yes, and anyone who says otherwise is an assblasted /lit/head or just likes being a contrarian.
Ironically enough, you'll find far more vitriol, spite and angst thrown towards Tolkien from average /tg/ user than you'll ever find in /lit/. Most people around here aren't used to reading more slow-paced literature and have difficulty appreciating his style (hence people seriously claiming that Pratchett or fucking Howard are superior authors, which is really would would get /lit/ to start sharpening their pitchforks).
It's kinda of a shame, but it's very much like /v/ and it's common spite towards classics of the genre: most people around here like to consider themselves "connoisseurs" of the genre, but in reality they mistake holding minority opinions for having good and well funded opinions.
TLDR: the main problem with appreciation of Tolkien is not literally snobbism, but lack of patience and ability to read more rich and slow-paced literature.
>>46853736
>>46853747
His words sing, his phrases are deft, every word is just what it should be. Philistines.
Everyone who hates on Tolkien is just trying to be edgy.
>>46853823
Last time I was in /lit/ everyone was condescendingly telling someone off for liking Tolkien.
All these losers, despite being nerds, are probably maxing out at a high school reading level. Tolkien is for people who can read good.
>>46853823
People just aren't fond of that style anymore.
Shame really, but that's the way it is. What's irritating though is people thinking it's not good because of the style.
GRRM > Tolkien
Tolkien cant write PEOPLE
>>46853653
Ecclesiastes 1:9
There is nothing new under the sun
>>46853844
>People just aren't fond of that style anymore.
>Shame really, but that's the way it is. What's irritating though is people thinking it's not good because of the style.
Quoted for fucking truth. Just because you're used to Matt Ward and R.A. Salvatore doesn't mean they're good writers, or that Tolkien is bad because you're used to pulp (in the original sense) fantasy.
>>46853823
>you'll find far more vitriol, spite and angst thrown towards Tolkien from average /tg/ user than you'll ever find in /lit/
Going to call bullshit there.
>>46853857
>implying GRRM can
r u tryin 2 ruse me
>>46853840
/lit/ can and generally is a bunch of condescending cunts (which makes me feel like I'm being in like-minded company), but when it comes to Tolkien, I certainly seen much more appreciation there than here. It depends, I guess, on how much they can sniff out your uncertainity about the subject. I can assure you however, that you'll get a LOT more shit for claiming to enjoy any other fantasy author, including Pratchett and ESPECIALLY Howard, which is (and let's be honest, not entirely unfairly) deemed on level of an average 50's sci-fi paperback works.
Just because you invent something doesn't mean you are automatically the best at it ever.
Props to him for inventing the modern fantasy genre but if released i the last 30 years it would be just a fantasy novel amongst many others,
>>46853881
Eh, I believe it. There seems to be some sort of fantasy backlash towards Tolkien among people interested in that sort of thing. I honestly can't understand why.
On the other end of the spectrum, most stick up their ass literary professors won't have many nice things to say about fantasy as a genre, but many will carve out an exception for Tolkien.
>>46853857
Well trolled anon, well trolled.
>>46853908
>if this book that helped define the genre as we know it today came out today among the vast swathes of books it helped define it would be ignored
Que?
>>46853844
>People just aren't fond of that style anymore.
It's not so much that they aren't "fond of the style" as it is that they had lost the ability to read it properly. This is sadly not just a shift of taste, it's a shift of comprehension. Much like so many younger people have troubles reading classic fiction or works predating second half of 20th century.
>>46853881
Sure. Try it out yourself. Try claiming that you are a Howard fan on /lit/, then that you are a Tolkien fan and we'll see which will earn you more shit.
I've debated Tolkien on /lit/ countless times. I've definitely seen more people complaining about him here than I've had there.
The problem is: on /lit/, you are not going to earn anyone's respect by liking Tolkien. But nobody will go around claiming how he is a bad storyteller and how Howard is much better.
>>46853901
Well to be fair, /tg/ practically worships that overrated hack Pratchett. Simple books for small minds.
/tg/ just has shit taste in literature in general. I have seen people here honestly recommending Wheel of Time or Sword of Truth.
>>46853908
The thing you are missing here, bucko, is that unlike virtually all that followed, Tolkien's work was not a genre fiction. It did not even invent the genre of fantasy. Genre of fantasy emerged when others tried to (unsuccessfully, for the most part) emulate what Tolkien has done.
That is pretty much the difference. Tolkien was not trying to fit into a set of genre tropes and readers expectations. Virtually all fantasy after that had -and those expectations were coincidentally set by Tolkien, or at least they were formed by reduction of Tolkien's work to tropes.
>>46853936
I would never call Pratchett an overrated hack. He writes well, in a very engaging style, and his imagination and the way he uses his motives is very playful. I'll give him all the credit for being one of most entertaining authors within the genre.
I just think he is an entirely different league than Tolkien. Like: the comparison is pretty much pointless to begin with.
It's like comparing Sapkowski's Narrenturm to Eco's Name of The Rose.
>>46853823
/tg/, /tv/ and even fucking /v/ all have more civilized discussions about Tolkien than /lit/. /lit/ is /v/ for books.
Also, here's something that should be a staple in these threads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXAvF9p8nmM
>>46854038
I may be an overreactionary, but by damn I'll enjoy it. Burn Pratchett.
>>46854065
>/tg/, /tv/ and even fucking /v/ all have more civilized discussions about Tolkien than /lit/. /lit/ is /v/ for books.
/v/ had some of the most civilized debates about Tolkien I've ever seen, which made me suddenly realized JUST HOW MUCH SHIT the debates here on /tg/ are in comparison. Seriously, I have NEVER seen so much shit being thrown at Tolkien as I've seen here on /tg/, including /lit/ which I used to main for many years. The link that you had provided, by the way, I have first seen in debates on /lit/ to begin with.
Again, it's a matter of what is being actually debated. If you come and start boasting Tolkien and presenting him as equal to all the many snobbish works your average /lit/fags use as a staple of their self-esteem, you are going to burn.
If you actually divorce Tolkien from the debate about "maturity" of the medium, usually when he is brought up well into the debate, you'll find far more appreciation and good will towards him than here.
>>46853827
I will give Tolkien credit in that he's the only author who has ever really managed to make me hungry while reading his descriptions of food.
Apart from that, however, no. Tolkien is very dry reading. Less so in The Hobbit than in The Lord of the Rings, but still very dry.
Robert E. Howard, though. There was a guy who could weave an enticing yarn.
>His words sing
Well, his characters sing, in any event. Seriously The Hobbit movie and The Lord of the Rings movies could have both been straight-up musicals and still been incredibly loyal to the source material.
>>46853823
>Most people around here aren't used to reading more slow-paced literature
Bitch I read Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which on top of being slow-paced, is a friggin' history textbook, not a novel.
It's not a "lack of patience", its that Tolkien's characters just tend to be very dry and difficult to care about. Not to mention he makes some genuine writing and narrative mistakes here and there. Like Tom Bombadil.
Man, fuck Tom Bombadil.
>>46854231
>I will give Tolkien credit in that he's the only author who has ever really managed to make me hungry while reading his descriptions of food.
THIS. I regularly read the dinner scene in the Prancing Pony while eating.
>>46854231
>Well, his characters sing, in any event
Most of those are additions by later translators. Remeber that in-universe Tolkien was just the latest translator of the Red Book written by the Hobbits.
>>46854231
Tom Bombadil is (and this is something that anyone who fucking understood what the books are about) actually the most interesting part of the whole trilogy, and probably the most powerful in retrospect.
And being able to read through a text book is something very different from being able to understand and appreciate a story.
>>46854270
>Remeber that in-universe Tolkien was just the latest translator of the Red Book written by the Hobbits.
That's...nice? But no, he's the author of the books, and he included tons of songs.
>and probably the most powerful in retrospect.
I understand Tolkien's reasons for deciding to incude Tom Bombadil - that he wants to showcase that there is powerful Good in his world, or at least truly powerful beings who are not out to kill or enslave everyone. That's what he stated whenever asked about the subject, anyway. From a certain point of view I can get behind him.
However, if the plot of your book revolves around an innately evil Ring that can corrupt anything it comes across into servants the will of its Master until eventually its Master can get a hold of it again and become a true demigod, and you want to show even powerful demigods and immortal beings as fearful of the corrupting power of the One Ring, it *seriously* undercuts said narrative intent by having a person who can literally pick it up, shrug, and toss it away without a care in the world.
My issue with Tom Bombadil isn't that his entire chapter and mentions can be excised from the book without issue. It's that including them undercuts the tone and fear one is supposed to feel for the One Ring. While Tolkien argued that that was the point, I counter-argue that it's not a good point, for reasons stated above.
Tolkien was a great writer, but not a perfect one. He made mistakes.
>>46854345
Tom Bombadil's chapter gives some insight on the world without explaining too much. It creates a feel for the setting and a sense of history. The hobbits are living on an island surrounded by the wilderness and ruins of forgotten kingdoms.
>>46854270
>Remeber that in-universe Tolkien was just the latest translator of the Red Book written by the Hobbits.
Gonna need a citation. I'd like to know Bilbo knew about the machine guns and steam trains used in similes.
>>46853688
>prose is shit
>my problem
You hobbit fanboys are repulsive.
>>46854345
>he's the author of the books
And the books were meant to come off as believable historical documents. He uses archaic words and narrative tools and is inconsistent with his styles and character intentionally. He was trying to create an illusion of a translation of historical text patched together second hand from whatever sources some nameless scribe in 4th age Gondor had access to, mainly from the translation of the book written several generations earlier by Frodo and added to by the other three hobbits, which was based on the books written by Bilbo, who also was largely working off his own notes and translations from Elvish. LotR was meant to read like a medieval historical chronicle of a fantastical event, not like a modern fantasy novel. So even if you can't stomach that kind of literature you should at least be able to appreciate the quality of the forgery.
>>46853946
I haven't read those, so do you mind explaining why they're bad?
>>46854345
>I understand Tolkien's reasons for deciding to incude Tom Bombadil - that he wants to showcase that there is powerful Good in his world
It's far more complicated than that. Tom Bombadil isn't a figure of Good, Tom Bombadil is a character that shows that the world does not consist of good and evil. Which is easily the biggest complain many critics did actually raise towards Tolkien. He is a proof that binarity is not sufficient to describe the world: and that is also why he does not actually intervene when he has the option. It does not undercut it: it widens it by a MASSIVE margin. It just exists to confirm that no matter how much pathos the story contains, how schematic at core the characters and their motivations tend to be, how binary is the core conflict: that is NOT what the world is about. There are things above and beyond that. It does not undercut the fear of the ring, considering what you later on see the ring to do (Boromir, which is easily the best non-divine character in the books being the best example).
The ring being evil and the courage of the free folk to resist enslavement is in itself a simple, and in some way a trivial message. With Tom in the equation, it stops being trivial, it ironically becomes much more relatable, much more visceral and relevant. Because in real world, much like in the LOTR: the world is not ALL about Good and Evil. There are things above it. But at the same time, things being right and wrong will be what you'll be struggling with most of the time.
To tell that the world is about Good and Evil would be dishonest. To tell that Good and Evil is what you'll be facing the most, even if it's not all that the world is about, that is a wise and worthwhile message.
If we want to talk about formal faults in the books, we can bring up Aragorn's magical healing hands half way through the third book. Or how dragged out the ending is. But not Tom Bombadil. He is there purely to make the books much, much better.
>>46854432
Because Tolkien puts himself as the last in a line of unreliable traslators from old, incomplete sources. It's explained in the fucking book.
>>46854461
>He uses archaic words
He did? Huh. I always assumed that was just how things were written when and where he wrote them. Not even being sarcastic, I just never noticed this.
The...benefits?...of a large vocabulary, I guess.
>He was trying to create an illusion of a translation of historical text patched together second hand from whatever sources some nameless scribe in 4th age Gondor had access to
While very artistic of him, his choice to do so seriously impacts the narrative flow of his stories. He doesn't get a pass for that.
>>46853407
As far as I know his intention was more to be a chronicler of a fictional history rather than a vivid storyteller.
The Hobbit is very readable and an excellent children's story book so it's clear he lacked any talent in that area though
>>46854482
>Tom Bombadil is a character that shows that the world does not consist of good and evil
Yes, I said as much.
>To tell that Good and Evil is what you'll be facing the most, even if it's not all that the world is about, that is a wise and worthwhile message.
Sure, but not in a book centered on the threat of the One Ring and its ability to corrupt everything it touches. At best Tom Bombadil comes across as plot cancer. But far more often, he comes across as a complete asshole. With the fate of the entire world hanging in the balance, including his neighbors the Hobbits, he does not get up off his ass to help people. He is not even involved in the Scouring of the Shire.
Now perhaps Tolkien was writing from an older mentality, but kids these days and since World War II have generally been taught that "all that requires for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", or, in a different phrasing, "those with the power to do good have a moral obligation to do good."
Tom Bombadil has immense power to do good, but does not use it. He's an asshole.
>>46854231
>>46854345
>some genuine writing and narrative mistakes here and there. Like Tom Bombadil
Nigga, please kindly find your nearest bridge and take a leap off of it. For someone who acts like he knows how things are, you've literally got the weakest grasp of who Tom Bombadil is.
Tom Bombadil is not some fucking showcase. Tom is an ancient watcher who controls his little patch of land. What he adds to the book is a layer of depth to the world, as well as a way to give the reader a brief hint of how ancient the world actually is.
>>46854073
>Alright, anon, now point to the place on the doll where the English author touched you
>>46854586
>Tom Bombadil has immense power to do good
How, guy was powerless outside of his forest. He also had no fucking clue what the ring represented, or the struggle behind it. Unless you want him to sing a literal fallen angel to death.
>>46854516
>The Hobbit is very readable and an excellent children's story book so it's clear he lacked any talent in that area though
I assume you meant "didn't". I do much more more enjoy The Hobbit over The Lord of the Rings for being a far more vivid and narratively flowing story...but it does have its own set of problems. Namely, the dwarves.
There's too many of them, and it is a struggle to meaningfully distinguish them. Thorin is the leader and so is most developed. Bombur is the fattest and being so fat occasionally impacts the plot. But the remaining ten dwarves are essentially interchangeable as characters, and having so many of them simply serves no narrative purpose.
Similarly, Bard and the Arkhenstone are neither of them mentioned until nearly the end of the book, yet from their appearances become the most important person and the most important thing in the books. This is not a good narrative choice (particularly since Bard has no character beyond "guy who's in charge of humans now"), and whatever other flaws the movies of The Hobbit have, I will always love how much they expanded on Bard as a character. Giving him a family was the best decision Pete Jackson ever made.
>>46854586
Basically, what you are saying is that you want the book to be simpler, more shallow, more pandering to immediate expectations of the reader, rather than challenging him.
And no, he does not come across as an asshole if you ACTUALLY FUCKING UNDERSTAND HIS PURPOSE IN THE STORY.
>but kids these days and since World War II have generally been taught that "all that requires for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing", or, in a different phrasing, "those with the power to do good have a moral obligation to do good."
These kids are spoiled morons who were never faced with more complex perception of the world. The fact that Tolkien does not succumb to schematism is a GOOD FUCKING THING. Lord of the Rings is not fucking Transformers. It is not supposed to simply tell people what they want to hear. It's not a genre fiction. The aspect of good conquering evil is strong enough of the story, but the fact that the books goes beyond that is in her favor, it proves that the book was not written to only pat you on the back and tell you "you were right all along". It's not schlock.
Tom Bombadil has an immense power precisely because GOOD does not mean much to him. The fucking stupidity is that you can't fucking comprehend that things can be outside of "good" and "bad" dichotomy. That everyone is either a nice guy or an asshole.
I bet you are the kind of people who complains that Jahwe in the old testament is not a nice guy, right?
>>46854586
>Tom Bombadil has immense power to do good, but does not use it
He saved Frodo and the others twice by using his powers. To him the Ring is a minor thing because he is so incredibly ancient and has seen so much.
>>46854231
>Robert E. Howard, though. There was a guy who could weave an enticing yarn.
You just like pulp then. Which is fine, but you shouldn't call authors with different styles dry when they really aren't. I will accept slow and plodding, but not dry.
>>46853935
Rather than a shift of comprehension, it really is a shift of style, but on a much larger scale. It's the same when you read Moliere for example. The writing is somehow good now, but it was fresh then. Tolkien's "style" is not simply impopular: some people simply can't enjoy it, because either they never read something like this or because they aren't used to it. It's basically a form of progress that you cannot stop.
>>46854654
>How, guy was powerless outside of his forest.
I don't recall that being mentioned anywhere (he is described as "master of wood, water, and hill", but I don't recall it ever being added "specifically these woods, waters, and hills near the Shire"), and more to the point even if that were the case he is all-powerful within those bounds. If you can't think of a way for him to be useful to the cause of Good within those limits, then you probably don't belong on /tg/.
>What he adds to the book is a layer of depth to the world, as well as a way to give the reader a brief hint of how ancient the world actually is.
The thing is that Tolkien didn't need Bombadil to do this any other time that he does throughout the rest of the Lord of the Rings. So, again: unnecessary at best, most likely plot cancer, and probably an asshole to boot.
>>46853925
>>46854073
what happened anon ?
>>46854751
no, no, he was powerful only in his zone, around hiw woods, bound to the tree that he could not leave for fear of him destroying the world or something
>>46854667
>I bet you are the kind of people who complains that Jahwe in the old testament is not a nice guy, right?
I accept that it was written in a different time by different people with different moral codes and concerns. But Tolkien is not nearly so distant to me as the ancient Israelites are.
>Basically, what you are saying is that you want the book to be simpler, more shallow, more pandering to immediate expectations of the reader, rather than challenging him.
No. What I want is for there to be nothing in the story that does not relate to the plot of said story. If something can be excised without impacting the narrative then it probably doesn't belong there in the first place and you're only adding it in to show off rather than to advance the story. The narrative is the only thing that I hold sacred, and in Tolkien's own words, "Tom Bombadil is not an important person — to the narrative."
In the same letter Tolkien notes that the only world Tom Bombadil can be Tom Bombadil in is one where the West wins over Sauron - Bombadil cannot exist in a world controlled by Sauron. So Bombadil is very much dependent on the outcome of the One Ring's fate but is unwilling to do much to impact it.
That's what an asshole does.
>The fact that Tolkien does not succumb to schematism is a GOOD FUCKING THING
If Tolkien wanted to make the One Ring thing complex, then he would have shown orcs who acted heroically and nobly and were just fighting a war alongside their other orc comrades. He would have emphasized that the folk of Harad and Rhûn have their own, complex reasons for siding with Sauron and were not necessarily evil for doing so, though perhaps by doing so there were advancing evil's cause.
There are a million ways to add complexity and moral grayness to the situation that would actually add to the plot or could advance the narrative in some way. Bombadil doesn't. Ergo, pointless at best, actual plot cancer at worst.
>>46854751
>`Could we not still send messages to him and obtain his help?' asked Erestor. `It seems that he has a power even over the Ring.'
>`No, I should not put it so,' said Gandalf. `Say rather that the Ring has no power over him. He is his own master. But he cannot alter the Ring itself, nor break its power over others. And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.'
>>46854921
>And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.'
This passage does not indicate to me that Bombadil is powerless outside of his demesne, only that he chooses not to leave it.
>>46854751
>If you can't think of a way for him to be useful to the cause of Good within those limits, then you probably don't belong on /tg/.
You're just a right proper cunt mate.
Why would the guy who literally doesn't give a shit, give a shit? To him, Sauron is some ruler far away with a neat magical trinket. He doesn't understand the reasons for this ancient battle between the Maiar, or even what the Maiar are, and he certifiably don't give a fuck about most of the people in the world. If Tom was good, you might have a point, but Tom isn't good. Tom is just sort of a passive oddity left over from when Iluvatar first made the world.
>>46854911
>The narrative is the only thing that I hold sacred
>If something can be excised without impacting the narrative then it probably doesn't belong there in the first place and you're only adding it in to show off rather than to advance the story.
Your opinions are bad. The Narrative is important, but it can be allowed to be stalled for the purposes of creating a world and adding depth to it, especially in fantasy.
>all that about complexity
You know the folk of Harad where ruled by Black Numenoreans right, tyrants under the curse of the literal devil that ruled with an iron fist? Or that Rhûn was multiple different lands and people with an ancestral grudge against the men of the west for trying to conquer them twice in the Third Age?
The Orc problem is one familiar to us. Tolkien spent a lot of years worrying about the implications of an all evil race, as he didn't believe someone could be born evil. However, the eventual conclusion is that Orc society is so cruel and wrong that it just corrupts them.
You're also really fond of the term plot cancer, which is funny because it doesn't mean anything other than 'Things I don't like.' Really most of your argument is "I don't like it, so it's bad".
>>46855134
>Why would the guy who literally doesn't give a shit, give a shit?
You're looking at this from the entirely wrong angle.
The issue isn't in trying to figure out why Bombadil should give a shit. The issue is trying to figure out why a guy who doesn't give a shit is in the story at all, particularly when the author himself states that Bombadil not giving a shit will end poorly for Bombadil if Sauron wins - "Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron."
If Bombadil's purpose is to add to the "depth" of the world, then he could have done that by being an ancient entity without also being a powerful one, power here including the One Ring and his immunity to said Ring. His ability to talk about the first raindrop and the first acorn is not impacted by him still being susceptible to the Ring's corrupting influence.
On the other hand, if Bombadil is shown to be immensely powerful (as he was) and certainly will be affected by the fate of the Ring (as he will be), then we run into the situation that we meet a guy who could personally end the threat of the Ring or at least offer immense help towards such an effort (even if by nothing else but being immune to its influence) but chooses not to, simply because "he doesn't care".
To any modern way of thinking and even in Tolkien's time, such an attitude would be considered callous, apathetic, and morally indefensible.
Hang on, ran out of characters. To be continued...
It's been a while, but is Tom also supposed to draw a line between those with the power but not the will due to being so far removed from the evils of the world?
Treebeard similarly wants to wait out the war and insists that, though ancient, he can't change the direction of the world so he won't. Until his pacifism is met with the harsh reality of the destruction the one ring is causing and he finally takes a stand against it.
Tom comes across as the whistling hippy. Treebeard had his head shaved and sent to the front.
>>46853407
>I always feel like I'm reading a 10th grade history text book about the War of the Ring.
That's because you literally are.
When you read LOTR you are actually reading a part of the Red Book of Westmarch which contains that particular story. Just pay attention to the shift in language between the chapters that deal with Frodo and the chapters that deal with the war. The Frodo chapters sound like the writer has intimate knowledge about the people involved while the chapters that deal with war read like a semi-fictionalized historical account
It's basically Frodo writing down all the shit he's been through and inserting other writers for context. After all, he doesn't have clue about what happened in detail so he would have to consult someone.
Whether or not he's the pinnacle is purely subjective. I mean I love Tolkien's work to bits, but even I've got to admit his actual narrative is lacklustre at best compared to his scarily consistent and in-depth worldbuilding.
Certainly though, he was an extremely influential fantasy writer, creating and codifying countless tropes and cliches that influenced contemporary fantasy writers decades after its publication. No doubt fantasy would be quite the same if he never published his books.
>>46855502
>Bombadil is shown to be immensely powerful
Not really. He sang some people away, and the ring didn't work on him, and he is old. The ring didn't work on him because he isn't a person, and his 'soul' is alien.
> such an attitude would be considered callous, apathetic, and morally indefensible.
Yes. It is. He is a bit of an asshole. He is so ancient he stopped giving a shit. But then again, why should he give a shit? He doesn't know or care about any of the other bullshit. You keep ignoring the part where he has no fucking clue of the nature of the fight in question or what it means. He isn't fucking omniscient.
>>46855134
>'Things I don't like.'
Untrue, but if I'm unclear then I apologize and now define what I mean when I say it. "Plot cancer", in the sense when I use it, refers to something that not only detracts from the plot by its inclusion, but actually starts to call the entire narrative into question or otherwise lessens the narrative by its inclusion.
For example, if Tom Bombadil had simply been ancient but not powerful, had been tempted by the Ring but resisted it (as other characters like Galadriel did), and did not get involved in the Ring but was not in any way portrayed as Good or Right for such (since beyond any moral implications, as Tolkien himself stated, Bombadil won't survive if Sauron wins), then he would not be plot cancer. He'd be a little aside that builds the world and creates a deeper narrative experience. While excising him wouldn't hurt the narrative, his inclusion doesn't hurt it either. There's nothing really all that wrong with "padding"; I personally don't like it but sometimes it can be enjoyable.
However, by being an essentially omnipotent being who completely undercuts the power and narrative point of the One Ring and does not get involved the the One Ring's fate despite his personal stake in it (his own life) as well as the larger moral implications of not caring about letting the world go to shit, then he's plot cancer.
>However, the eventual conclusion is that Orc society is so cruel and wrong that it just corrupts them.
Again, you are approaching the problem from entirely the wrong angle. Orcs don't exist. They are entirely constructed by Tolkien, as is everything about them. Tolkien could have included brave or heroic orcs, or at least shown orcs as people rather than as simple minions of Sauron, and doing so would have added an element of complexity to the whole situation. He then shows that the world is more than just Evil and just Good.
And he does so without having the plot cancer that is Tom Bombadil
>>46855643
>You keep ignoring the part where he has no fucking clue of the nature of the fight in question or what it means
I'm not ignoring that part. Rather I am doing two things. First, I am focusing on another part during the Council of Elrond. I don't have my copy of Fellowship handy, so I'm paraphrasing, but basically it boils down to Gandalf saying something to the effect of:
>"Tom Bombadil won't help, even though if he was given the Ring then Sauron would never be able to get it unless he took all of Middle Earth first. But Bombadil doesn't care about the Ring. He might help us if we could get literally everyone in the world to ask him to, but since literally everyone includes Sauron and his orcs who obviously wouldn't ask that, Bombadil won't do it."
>But then again, why should he give a shit?
So that he isn't plot cancer, as defined here, >>46855645
Again, you are approaching this from entirely the wrong angle. You are treating Bombadil as though he is an actual person who existed and the Lord of the Rings as actual events that happened, rather than a novel written by a guy less than a hundred years ago, where every character's action and choice was made by that guy.
Bombadil acts the way he does because Tolkien chose to make him act that way. Tolkien decided that Bombadil was an asshole, and plot cancer, and then spent a not insignificant amount of time trying to defend that choice. But it was the wrong choice.
>>46855645
>However, by being an essentially omnipotent being
what
is this memes?
>>46855645
Tom Bombadil only has power inside his terrain in the woods you dumbass, he's not omnipotent. He's based on one of the toys of one of Tolkien's children.
Orcs are evil because they're the creation of Morgoth. They're not people, they're a twisted mockery of people the same way trolls are a twisted mockery of ents and the very concept of evil is a mockery of good because THAT'S MORGOTH'S FUCKING ROLE IN THE UNIVERSE
>>46855803
Also, Gandalf says that if they gave the ring to Bombadil, Sauron's forces would just destroy his forest and be done with it
>>46855730
Again, I don't have my copy of Fellowship handy, but during the Council of Elrond Gandalf makes it clear that if Bombadil wanted to keep the One Ring from Sauron, then Sauron would have to conquer literally the rest of Middle Earth first before he could even attempt to get the Ring from Bombadil.
So, omnipotence is perhaps a bit of hyperbole. But the point is that IF Bombadil had the One Ring then he would never be corrupted by it and never run into half the problems that Frodo did trying to destroy the thing.
>>46855839
You know, you pulled literally all of that out of your ass and I'm going to look for a quote to prove you wrong
>>46855803
>Tom Bombadil only has power inside his terrain in the woods you dumbass, he's not omnipotent
Not stated in the slightest. What IS stated is that if he had the One Ring then Sauron would never get it unless he got everything else first.
The idea that Bombadil is powerless outside of the woods stems wholly from this line:
>And now he is withdrawn into a little land, within bounds that he has set, though none can see them, waiting perhaps for a change of days, and he will not step beyond them.
But my read of that line coupled with my read of Tom Bombadil is that he has chosen to remain in his little demesne, not that he is restricted to it. "Will not", not cannot. "Withdrawn", not bound. Whatever else Tolkien's flaws were, he was a master of the English language and so I will assume that his every word choice is deliberate.
>>46853274
His world wasn't actually very big, so it didn't really take that much effort to flesh it out. On the other hand Grrm's world is twice as big and he's struggling to make it all relevant, sacrificing a coherent narrative to do so. Tolkien had the autism to create entire languages, though, so I guess he is untouchable in that respect.
>>46854231
>he thinks Gibbons is something to boast about
>>46854911
>I accept that it was written in a different time by different people with different moral codes and concerns.
No, it's not written with different moral code. It just speaks about things that are more complex than you realize. Gives a richer and more valuable image of world.
>What I want is for there to be nothing in the story that does not relate to the plot of said story.
EXCEPT THE POINT IS THAT THE STORY IS MORE THAN YOU WANT IT TO BE. You want the story to be simpler and dumber than it is.
>then he would have shown orcs who acted heroically and nobly and were just fighting a war alongside their other orc comrades
That would be fucking retarded. A contemporary 12 years old idea of "depth", when a scheme is simply negated. There is a difference between going against the moral scheme, and talking about things ABOVE the moral scheme. The lack of will of their own is actually a completely different thing, and another example that you understood NOTHING about the nature of Tolkien's world, where EVIL is, above all, identified with slavery and acts infringing on other people's free will. People of the Harad and Rhun are evil, exactly because they have been twisted by something that took their own agency and free will away. Like orcs they embody the Evil that Sauron and the Ring represents.
This is not about moral grayness. This is about ontological and metaphysical scope. Twelve years olds confuse the two. The book does not have moral grayness, deliberately. When it comes to morals, things are intentionally clear cut.
The POINT is to say that not everything is moral or immoral. Some things are older than that. And that is Tom Bombadil.
>>46855852
>>46855882
>And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no
hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough
>‘But in any case,’ said Glorfindel, ‘to send the Ring to him would only postpone the day of evil. He is far away. We could not now take it back to him, unguessed, unmarked by any spy. And even if we could, soon or late the Lord of the Rings would learn of its hiding place and would bend all his power towards it. Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come.’
>‘I know little of Iarwain save the name,’ said Galdor; ‘but Glorfindel, I think, is right. Power to defy our Enemy is not in him, unless such power is in the earth itself. And yet we see that Sauron can torture and destroy the very hills.
Those should be more than enough to prove you objectively wrong
Tolkien's a low-talent hack and his work reflects this. That it has been set up on such a high pinnacle and all but worshiped by so many people is sickening.
>>46855976
Tell me, what is low-talent about Tolkien?
I usually assume people who talk like that about Tolkien simply haven't read anything by him and are spouting memes from other illiterate fags, but let's hear you first
>>46855852
Ugh, fine, hang on, let me find my copy of Fellowship...
>'But within those bounds nothing seems to dismay him,' said Erestor. 'Would he not take the Ring and keep it there, for ever harmless?'
>'No,' said Gandalf, 'not willingly. He might do so, if all the free folk of the world begged him, but he would not understand the need. And if he were given the Ring, he would soon forget it, or most likely throw it away. Such things have no hold on his mind. He would be a most unsafe guardian; and that alone is answer enough.'
Then I'm going to skip ahead a bit to Glorfindel saying,
>'...Could that power be defied by Bombadil alone? I think not. I think that in the end, if all else is conquered, Bombadil will fall, Last as he was First; and then Night will come.'
So, nothing dismays Bombadil; and while if Sauron wanted Bombadil he *could* get the Ring, but Bombadil would be the last to fall just as he was the first to be.
>>46856001
Taking bait isn't healthy
>>46855919
>unironically liking GRRM
wew lad
Tolkien seems deep if you've never been exposed to mythology beyond the New Testament, i.e. it seems deep to /tg/
t. historian.
>>46856006
And you understand that if they simply wanted to keep the ring safe for a whiie more they wouldn't be sending a fucking hobbit into Mordor to throw it into a volcano, right? The whole point of the books is that the ONLY way to significantly improve the chances against Sauron and the Dark Powers in general is to destroy the ring as soon as possible.
Gandalf also says he most likely would forget about the ring or throw it away
>>46854751
>Tom Bombadil is most likes plot cancer
fucking hell
this is your thread >>46852454
>>46855645
Tom isn't omnipotent you daft fucking cunt. We've been over this, he isn't even that powerful. He literally exists to show a little more about the world.
>this whole orc bullshit
You're right. Authors should be arbitrary and inconsistent with their world building just so that there are good characters everywhere. Just as there are reasons for Sauron's human allies, the reasons the orcs are so vile is because their society is that vile. Any good is snuffed out long before maturity.
>>46855723
Of fucking course Tom Bombadil acted the way Tolkien made him act. His entire character was a fucking ancient being that may very well just be nature itself. He is arbitrary, and secluded, and a bit of a dick because that's his character.
Fucking hell. You are dipshit that uses plot cancer to just describe things you don't understand or like.
>but Bombadil would be the last to fall just as he was the first to be
If the ring wasn't brought to Mordor and destroyed they would never have been able to defeat Sauron, making that an inevitability.
>>46854782
/tg/ happened
>>46853274
If you define fantasy as "Tolkien-esque" like a normie, then absolutely yes.
If you're able to imagine fantasy as a genre beyond medieval elf-human-dwarf shit, then no.This question determines whether you're a plebe or not.
>>46856058
>Tolkien seems deep if you've never been exposed to mythology beyond the New Testament, i.e. it seems deep to /tg/
Spot the insecure faggot desperately trying to grab to any random opportunity to assert is alleged superiority to others. Also - historian? What does that have to do with actual religionists and anthropology, the actual fields that study complex mythologies.
>>46853520
I personally am a fan of Hodgon's Carnacki stories. The depth he put into his supernatural pantheon was very impressive for only a few short stories.
>>46856058
Tolkien was deliberately making a homage to other European mythologies, of which he most likely knew more than anyone in this board and which he all read about in their original languages
>>46855936
>No, it's not written with different moral code.
Dude, the Old Testament makes it unequivocally clear that slavery is fine and that a father is perfectly in the right for hitting or even killing his son if his son disrespects him. By any modern standard, that's horrifying.
But I don't complain about it, because, again, the Old Testament was written in a different time by different people with different concerns.
>You want the story to be simpler and dumber than it is.
No, I'm perfectly fine with complexity, I just want everything in the story to serve a purpose and move things forward in some meaningful way. Tom Bombadil doesn't do that. He does just the opposite.
>And that is Tom Bombadil.
And he is plot cancer for it, yes.
>This is about ontological and metaphysical scope
Fine, but Tolkien's desire to have ontological and metaphysical scope detracts from his narrative. Either he is telling a story about a One Ring that can corrupt anything into the eventual service of its dark Master and the efforts of heroes to destroy that Ring and its Master; or he is building a world that is bigger than that One Ring and its Master.
You can do one or the other, but you can't do both, not well, anyway.
>>46853274
How to know OP never read anything decent?
He considers Tolkien the absolute peak of literature
>>46856179
You still haven't responded to the post where you were BTFO a few minutes ago
You're wrong and that's okay, it happens to everyone
>>46856177
that's not what I was saying at all kid, nice reading comprehension. Tolkien seems deep because *you* don't know that shit, not because *he* didn't. his success literally comes from Western society forgetting its own stories.
>>46856172
worldbuilding doesn't stop at the halfbaked mythcrafting Tolkien did. he made no efforts to make the world believable, but of course because it's grandiose and obtuse to read, people think it's deep and meaningful.
>>46853653
>same with HP Lovecraft
More people did Lovecraftian than Lovecraft.
>>46856190
He said the "pinnacle of fantasy worldbuilding", not the absolute peak of literature. And there are convincing arguments to be made in favor of the former. Nice strawman though.
>>46856060
You are still approaching this entire thing from the wrong God-damned angle. Step outside the universe that Tolkien weaved and approach the book as what it is: a fucking WORK OF FICTION, where every single character's actions and choices were decided upon by the author.
In Bombadil we have a character who:
a) Has at least some magical powers;
b) Is utterly immune to the corruption of the Ring;
c) Will be personally affected by the fate of the Ring; but
d) Will do nothing about it because he does not care about other people.
You don't see how some people find it impossible to like the guy and confusing as to why Tolkien, a man who actually lived at a time when Nazis were gassing Jews, would decide to put in the embodiment of "not my problem" into his story about Good and Evil and then try and claim that Bombadil is "above" that?
ITT some fag who is way too wrapped up in meta-analysis and plot structure still gets everything wrong and btfo repeatedly
>>46856238
>reading comprehension
What do you think "homage" means? And do you really think real mythologies aren't grandiose and obtuse to read about?
>>46856230
*sigh* which one?
>>46856179
>Dude, the Old Testament makes it unequivocally clear that slavery is fine and that a father is perfectly in the right for hitting or even killing his son if his son disrespects him. By any modern standard, that's horrifying.
None of which has anything to do with moral status of Jahwe. Also, if you think that is "horrifying", you are a naive little kid who knows literally nothing about the world around him. Which would explain quite a lot, actually.
>I just want everything in the story to serve a purpose
No, you want everything in the story to serve a purpose that YOU DECIDED that is the only right purpose of the story. And that is extremely simple and schematic one. From the beginning to the end, we are still arguing about the fact that you don't like how the story makes the power of the ring, and the moral standing of Tom Bombadil MORE PROBLEMATIC AND COMPLEX than you would want it.
You want: Ring is super evil super power, everybody who is in the story is either evil or good, the end. Seriously you should read fucking Superman instead of Tolkien.
Yes, it detracts from a simple schematical story. Because it tells something MORE MEANINGFUL THAN THAT. And you don't like that added level of meaning. End of the fucking discussion.
>Fine, but Tolkien's desire to have ontological and metaphysical scope detracts from his narrative.
To YOU. To me, and pretty much everybody else in this thread, it clearly added to the story and improved it considerably. You are complaining that the story is more complex than you want it to be. We are saying that added complexity to the story is a good thing. See why we are getting kinda sick of this discussion?
It's like a fucking kid complaining about all the boring moral dillema in Crime and Punishment, and how much better it would be if Raskolnikov was just either evil or good, not this wishy-washy kinda neither.
Fuck sake.
>>46853274
>Tolkien
>not Miyazaki
What rings you got bro?
>>46856281
Man, you hop from quoting the Council of Elrond to prove a plot hole to literary analysis when you're proven wrong in either.
They didn't send the ring to Bombadil because eventually Sauron would take the ring and win either because Bombadil just didn't give a fuck and forgot it or because Sauron scorched the earth until Bombadil was too weak to protect himself, which is what they were trying to avoid. That's all you should need. Bombadil is never depicted as being "above" it.
>>46856238
>but of course because it's grandiose and obtuse to read
It's actually neither obtuse nor grandiose. The fact that absolute key quality of the LORT world is revealed by Tom Bombadil, which is what the majority of the argument going on here is about is rather telling.
You are a cunt, do you know that. Sad, insecure cunt. And this comes from somebody who dedicated half of his life to religionists, the other to study of classical literature: you have no clue about what makes a good story into a good story, or what makes a good mythology into good mythology. Go away and pester some other thread.
>118 posts in
>no one has mentioned Borges
Plebs. Lottery of Babylon and Library of Babel managed to convey their worlds excellently in only a few pages.
>>46853823
>pic related
Howard is infinitely better at building the world in the story, anon.
Face it. Tolkien was just a bad writer. Even the Hobbit wasn't that good, despite some retard's argument to the contrary.
And, anon, I could say you have difficulty appreciating King's style just because you don't like him. This fact, while true, doesn't mean King isn't a shit author.I'm assuming you do dislike King, seeing as you go on /lit/,
>>46853840
Nigger you read Tolkien when you're eight, it's not exactly high-brow stuff.
>>46856179
>
Fine, but Tolkien's desire to have ontological and metaphysical scope detracts from his narrative.
The funny thing about your post is that you don't even realize you just btfo yourself
>>46856190
nobody said that
>>46856410
Have you read Tolkien?
>>46856393
to be fair, I didn't even read your 50+ posts about shitty wood leprechaun fucker and replied to the OP, you two seemed content to be doing fine without outside help. but if I have to: Bombadil is shit, badly written, slows down the pace of a book that's supposedly a novel for no narrative reason at all and is genuinely out of place. fuck Bombadil.
discuss.
>>46856410
Setting literal pulp fiction against literal classic literature, claiming the pulp is better, and then calling others pleb. How curious.
As I've said, when it comes to literature, /tg/ are absolute shitheads. Actually even worse than /v/.
>>46856430
Yes. Have you?
>>46856410
>it's not exactly high-brow stuff.
How to spot a complete and utter plebe, a true literary pedestrian.
>>46856437
Already been discussed, already been disproven, and you are still an absolute cunt with no idea what he is talking about.
>>46856336
Look, let's go to Tolkien himself.
>I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless...
>It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war ... the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.
So, what I take from all of this is,
1) Tom Bombadil doesn't care
2) That's gonna get him killed
3) So he's probably pretty stupid for thinking that.
People who try to make Bombadil meaningful are probably not only going against the narrative of the Lord of the Rings, but against Tolkien himself.
>the view of Rivendell seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends.
>Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive.
Bombadil is essentially the 1960s hippies shouting "give peace a chance", but transplanted in 1940 France. And they're all Jews.
>>46856448
Okay. How much of it?
>>46856439
/tg/...is pretty bad with books, yeah. The focus is on adventure, that being what traditional games are (normally) about. And Howard isn't as good as Tolkien as a whole.
But, in terms of building the world within the story, he is infinitely superior to Tolkien.
>>46856458
It's literally the best selling book of all time.
>>46856414
Quoted for truth. This pretty much sums up the entire argument right here
>>46856482
Hobbit, LotR, Farmer Giles of Ham. Also a few of those poems. Not Silmarillion &c., which is why I'm not talking about them.
>>46856471
>1) Tom Bombadil doesn't care
Tom Bombadil CAN'T FUCKING CARE you absolute mongoloid. Stop fucking projecting your fucking insecurity into himself you god damn idiot.
He was the first, and he will be the last. Whenever Sauron wins or loses, that is how it will be. That is why he does not - can't - care.
>>46856439
Howard made me do something in one paragraph that Tolkien couldn't do in a 1200 page book, and that was care about his main character and the world he lived in.
>Know, O prince, that between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars - Nemedia, Ophir, Brythunia, Hyperborea, Zamora with its dark-haired women and towers of spider-haunted mystery, Zingara with its chivalry, Koth that bordered on the pastoral lands of Shem, Stygia with its shadow-guarded tombs, Hyrkania whose riders wore steel and silk and gold. But the proudest kingdom of the world was Aquilonia, reigning supreme in the dreaming west. Hither came Conan the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen-eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.
Heck, he then reinforced it in the last lines of his poem during Conan's first story.
>What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie?
>I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky.
>The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
>Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king!
I use Tolkien as a litmus test for people from time to time. If they don't like Tolkien, they're probably not worth my time. The reason why they don't like him is always a good indicator of their defect.
>>46856485
>It's literally the best selling book of all time.
Holy shit. Besides that having nothing to do with the quality of the book itself:
Do you want me to literally google that and give you a link to prove you wrong or will you do it yourself?
I hate obnoxious /lit/ hipsters like you who are more fixated on how "high-brow" or "patrician" reading books they barely understand makes them rather than having any appreciation for literature separate from their ego.
If anything Tolkien killed fantasy, or significantly lessened it.
>>46856513
Read the Silmarillion and have this dicussion again. LotR and The Hobbit are mere epilogues on the greater story that begins with the SIlmarillion.
>>46856544
In other words, you like the part of Howard most like Tolkien.
>>46856567
Hardly his fault though.
>>46856551
>Besides that having nothing to do with the quality of the book itself:
You're correct. High brow doesn't mean good, low brow doesn't mean bad. It means...uncommon, elite, read by a few discerning people. Which LotR plainly isn't.
>Do you want me to literally google that and give you a link to prove you wrong or will you do it yourself?
Go ahead, faggot.
I'll be waiting, when you realise I'm right.The Hobbit is the second most bestselling book of all time, incidentally.
>>46856571
But I'm not talking about the Silmarillion. I'm not talking about his world, either.
>>46856471
You're trying to not get it.
Tom Bombadil has nothing to do with The Nazis or the Holocaust. Tom Bombadil is simply a guy who doesn't care because he is ancient and arbitrary, and possibly the physical manifestation of the world itself. Even if he knew what the ring was, who it belonged to, who he once worked for, he still wouldn't fucking care.
It would take Ilúvatar himself to come down from heaven to tell Tom to care. And then, he still wouldn't care because he doesn't understand why he should care.
What you talk from this
>>46856517
>Tom Bombadil CAN'T FUCKING CARE
Yes, he totally can. Because he's a character in a book. He can do anything Tolkien wants him to do.
>And so it was by various contrivances that Frodo and his company found themselves within the home of Tom Bombadil
>Tom Bombadil was the oldest person in the world, you know.
>Lots of stories
>So many stories
>Also Frodo showed him the Ring because Frodo does that a lot even though he shouldn't.
>In fairness it's probably the Ring making him do it.
>Anyway Frodo showed Tom the Ring while Tom was in the middle of one of his stories
>And Tom nearly took the Ring
>But he didn't, because Tom had lived a long time and remembered Morgoth and the War of the Silmarils, and his long memory helped buoy Tom's will to resist the Ring, because Tom had seen what happened if you give in to your desires so many times.
>Did I mention he's very old?
>Also he advised that Frodo should put the Ring away and maybe not show it to everyone he meets
>Which Frodo tried to do, but, again, evil, corrupting ring.
>Afterwards Tom sent the Hobbits on their way and wished them luck and also gave them some barrow-blades
>Ta~da!
You know what? No matter how good or deep Tolkien's world building is, it doesn't matter at all. It's still only one immeasurably small part of Phantásia. Barely even worth mentioning._______________________:^))
>>46856631
>Yes, he totally can. Because he's a character in a book
Wow, you truly are a simpleton.
>>46856544
Is this a joke? Are you seriously presenting this verbal diarrhea as some kind of literal success? Yeah, "Dude has a sword and is badass and kind of a bad apple" is certainly going to draw in twelve years old. Especially if you steep it in pretentious language and literally flood it with meaningless made up words.
Where, of FUCKING WHERE do you little pathetic cunts get the arrogance that your taste in the most dumb literature in history has any weight or relevance at all. This is LITERAL FUCKING PULP. Have you ever fucking read something that DID NOT have naked ladies and aliens on the god damn cover?!
Did you not go to school, did you not have actual literature classes?
>>46856660
He's right, it's just irrelevant.
>>46856593
True, it's the dicksuckers who think his works are sacrosanct.
I'm making great efforts to not use any Tolkienisms for any games I run.
>>46856631
>Because he's a character in a book. He can do anything Tolkien wants him to do.
Oh god, I have no words to describe how dumb you are. Now I deeply regret every minute I wasted on you here: you are beyond retarded. I just pray that one day you will realize how FUCKING IDIOTIC thing you have just said and why we all repeatedly called you out on your stupidity. May god have mercy on your soul, and I'm out of this discussion.
Tolkein's world has a fatal flaw: no religion. There are no priests, no rituals, no temples. No one ever offers up a prayer or offering to one of the Maiar. This is such an important aspect of every human society that we know has ever existed, it destroys all of the other merits of his writing and worldbuilding for me.
>>46856631
Please stop replying to this person.
Just leave him to his genre fiction, he will never understand. Why would you ever argue with a person like this; someone who would go so far to prove themselves right that they end up unknowingly discrediting their argument with their own thesis.
>>46856712
Which is answered in a very simple way: where there are literal gods, there is no need for religion. It's actually pretty self explanatory.
>>46856662
>Yeah, "Dude has a sword and is badass and kind of a bad apple" is certainly going to draw in twelve years old. Especially if you steep it in pretentious language
>>46856580
>In other words, you like the part of Howard most like Tolkien.
I like that Howard can do what Tolkien can do with only a fraction of the word count. And also I like the rest of Howard, too.
>>46856598
>Go ahead, faggot.
Not that Anon, but he is *potentially* wrong. I say potentially because while we know that The Lord of the Rings has sold 150 million copies and is thereby the highest selling book of all time with which we have reliable sales figures, we lack said figures for books which have almost certainly outsold it, such as Don Quixote, Pride and Prejudice, A Tale of Two Cities, and The Odyssey.
>>46856662
It's entertaining, and that is the goal. It evokes wonder and a need to know more. It does more in that little paragraph than Tolkien ever has done. It fires my imagination.
That you masturbate to the corpse of Tolkien and his shit isn't my problem.
>>46856712
>no religion
The book is so deeply infused with Catholicism that adding a religion would be just redundant.
>>46856732
>Which is answered in a very simple way: where there are literal gods, there is no need for religion. It's actually pretty self explanatory.
It's a wrong assumption to make.
>>46856598
>Go ahead
I'm looking for one, but the main problem is that the only ones who are more popular either have no reliable figures or just aren't counted, like religious or ideological texts and some older classics
>>46856754
Howard is better at all that than Tolkien, making him a better writer of stories, but he still is a worse writer from an overall literary perspective. Tolkien's by no means the GOAT, but he's still pretty good.
>>46856738
Homer is worthless pulp compared to Tolkien though, what's your point? You're only digging yourself deeper.
>>46856631
>He can do anything Tolkien wants him to do.
You're right. The book would of been better if Frodo could fly and just dunked the ring into the volcano like Shaq.
>and his long memory helped buoy Tom's will to resist the Ring
Do you just ignore people who tell you things? I'm pretty sure some Anon mentioned a few times in reply to you that Tom can't be effected by the ring because he isn't a creature of the Ainur and thus has no soul to corrupt.
>>46856743
We didn't invent sales figures until the Lord of the Rings?It's the bible you absolute retard, it's always going to be the Bible.
>>46856738
Well-written purple prose is best prose. English is the largest language by vocabulary on the planet; it is a crime to not make use of it as an artist does his paint.
Though having said that, like a good artist, you need to choose the words carefully. There are times when "cerulean" is a better choice than "blue", and there are times when the reverse is true.
>>46856754
If Tolkien doesn't fire your imagination then your imagination is fucking crippled.
>>46856738
Yeah, that is exactly what pulp does: poorly tries to emulate feeling of grand literature without the actual talent, thought and logic of the original, instead regurgitates it in a fashion accessible and impressive to the dumbest people.
And for fuck sake, somebody who actually praises Howard has NO FUCKING RIGHT to even mention Iliad. You little piece of shit know about as much about that text as a dung beetle knows about rocket science.
>>46856791
By technical skill, sure. I don't read these stories for that though.
>>46853653
All fiction is inherently derivative.
The key when writing fiction therefore is to trick people into thinking otherwise.
>>46856732
In Greek myth the gods walk among the people and people still give offerings to them, have priests and temples. This ignores the fact that every religous person ever believes that their gods are real and still give offerings, pray for their intervention. I think Tolkein's own religion made him uncomfortable with depicting the practice of a different one in his fiction. I can't believe that he was unaware of the importance of religion in all past himan societies, so it must be a deliberate choice. Unfortunately it's a choice that renders his world a very pale imitation of what it should be.
>>46856788
So you understand, now, that Tolkien is under no circumstances elite, or high brow, or limited to a small crowd of people.
He's not difficult to read. This isn't a bad thing. I said I thought Borges was one of the best worldbuilders, and he is also very easy to read.
>>46856811
Explain how Tolkien fires the imagination if you don't want this to continue being a shit-flinging fest.
>>46856848
That's a different argument altogether.
>>46856796
>It's the bible you absolute retard, it's always going to be the Bible.
I was restricting myself to novels or other works of fiction. I know it's the Bible if we're just going by books. But again, we don't have reliable sales figures for it.
(not that I think the Bible contains things that actually happened, just that it is not usually classified as "fiction")
Publishing used to be a lot more...chaotic. And of course some books, like The Odyssey or Don Quixote, are old enough and have been printed and reprinted, licensed and unlicensed, so many times that it's just impossible to know.
>>46853274
Yes. No other fantasy writer has managed to create a world that feels alive.
>>46856754
>It's entertaining, and that is the goal.
To a twelve years old! If you are above that fucking age, then Tolkien becomes actually more entertaining and more interesting.
This is like the fucking argument that Dan Brown is better than Umberto Eco, because Eco's descriptions of the Monastery of the Pendulum drag out too much. For fuck sake - as you grow up and improve your taste, simple fucking things stop being entertaining, and things you thought dull before become enticing.
Just like with music, this is like arguing that Rhiana is better than fucking Janaček because her music is more catchy.
And if you have't reached that level, if Howards is the best that can entice your imagination: fine. That makes you immature and your taste in literature pretty bad though, and it sure as fuck does not give you any weight or authority to judge one better than the other.
>>46856911
>and it sure as fuck does not give you any weight or authority to judge one better than the other.
Pleb.
>>46856732
Religious people in the rel world believe their god is literally real and intercedes on earth with miracles etc. Not much is changed if they have a physically visible form or not.
>>46856820
So it evokes wonder and stirs the imagination in less wordcount, while still keeping the concepts the same if not similar?
Sounds like that's better to me. Nothing is good because it's complex or long.
>>46856911
>To a twelve years old! If you are above that fucking age, then Tolkien becomes actually more entertaining and more interesting.
This. I've read his works maybe a dozen times and I find new things to appreciate on every read. It's like how your wine palate matures over time
>>46856911
>To a twelve years old!
Oh, grow up, Anon.
>“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
Fun fact. C.S. Lewis was a good friend of Tolkien's.
>>46856874
Actually no. Religion does not work that way. Religion is a story that exists to fill certain void. They TELL STORIES ABOUT GODS WALKING WITH MORTALS PRECISELY BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE REAL WORLD.
That is why they create the fiction. The narrative fills the gap, the void. Gods live in stories BECAUSE they don't exist in real world.
You don't need stories about gods if Gods are present, and their presence is as familiar and common to you as air or the fact that heavy objects fall to the ground.
This is a mythological world, not a real world. Middle Earth IS the myth.
>>46856875
>So you understand, now, that Tolkien is under no circumstances elite, or high brow, or limited to a small crowd of people.
I swear to god, you're so fucking stupid I'm wondering how you manage to use a computer.
Where the fuck did you see anyone arguing otherwise? Does anyone care about any of that shit except you? We're not on /lit/.
He's pretty fucking boring and a lot of his characters suck. He often writes characters into situations they can't get out of only to have something incredibly fortunate happen to solve the problem rather than have the characters prove they have any personal competence.
There is inherit value in is works, but too many idiots fellate him like some kind of literary god. He was only a literary genius, not a fucking god.
His poetry is better than his novels, and his novels are better than his history textbooks.
>>46856943
God help you if you ever try reading the Book of the New Sun
I do enjoy every time this gets mentioned a bunchy of guys get unreasonably mad at Tolkien and instead points to Howard. Which is funny because comparing the two is pointless given how they both write completely differently, both wrote different genres, and shared nothing in common besides each being one half of the thing all later fantasy has decided to rip off. One was a fucking professor trying to write a book for his language he invented, and the other was a guy trying to make money off of pulp wish fulfillment.
>>46856968
Saying you appreciate different things as you mature is not the same as saying that one is trying to pretend to be an adult
>>46856820
>And for fuck sake, somebody who actually praises Howard has NO FUCKING RIGHT to even mention Iliad. You little piece of shit know about as much about that text as a dung beetle knows about rocket science.
This much butthurt is nearly unprecedented in a thread that doesn't mention politics.
>>46856981
>All these losers, despite being nerds, are probably maxing out at a high school reading level. Tolkien is for people who can read good.
>>46856986
What? Book of the New Sun exactly does that well.
>>46856977
*tips fedora*
>>46856911
>to a twelve years old
Nah, they're my go to fantasy works. I go to them and comic books for inspiration. Those do something for me Tolkien never will.
That you think something is good because it's long or complex makes you a fool with a serious case of elitism. A common thing I see in literary circles. It's hilarious that they think their taste is objective.
>>46856983
His characters are meant to mimic mythological archetypes
Tolkien is one example of a writer who can only be appreciated properly if you know his inspirations
>>46856977
Yeah, I'm completely certain the very Catholic Tolkien thought religion was used to fill in gaps and so deliberately didn't write religion into his world.
>>46856977
Again, in the ancient stories, the presence of gods does not make religion obsolete. Besides, the Maia intervene far less than the gods do in the Iliad or the Metamorphoses. What indication do Aragorn et al. have that Gandalf and Sauron are not just powerful humans? He has no idea that they existed with Illuvatar before the world existed.
>>46857015
>What? Book of the New Sun exactly does that well.
Now I know you're a troll
>>46857032
No, they aren't. Not in LotR, anyway. That's meant to be a straight up story, not least because that's what his publisher asked for.
>>46857015
>All these losers, despite being nerds, are probably maxing out at a high school reading level. Tolkien is for people who can read good.
Where did I say that? Where did I imply that? What in the name of fuck could lead you to think any of that was in any way in any post here except your own projection and fallacies?
>>46857013
But thinking of something as "lesser" simply because it is childish, is a sign of childishness.
>>46853653
There are plenty of original fantasy works out there. China Mieville's works spring to mind.
>>46856935
>Religious people in the rel world believe their god is literally real and intercedes on earth with miracles etc.
They actually don't. Religion is a lot more complex system than that.
>“When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”
This is literally the most pathetic excuse for most pathetic pieces of shit in the world. You have not understand ANYTHING about what Lewis said there, stop using those words as a shield against being judged.
People grow. People improve. And when people debate, they debate for more things than the sake of their ego. It would be childish and immature to be afraid to admit that you still enjoy Howard, if you do. But but the most FUCKING IMMATURE THING IN THE WORLD is the inability to differentiate between "this is good" and "I enjoy".
Because growing up means learning to appreciate better fucking things. And learning to face the notion of something being good and something bad. Even when it means you find yourself enjoying something bad.
I don't give a fuck that you enjoy Twilight or fucking Howard or fucking Dan Brown as long as you CUNTS can tell the difference between enjoying something, and that thing being good.
You are still claiming that Howard is better author because it's the most you've learned to enjoy. And that is not brave, or mature, that is pathetic. And Lewis would be the first one to tell you to go to fucking hell, because he did not make that statement to shield little pathetic cunts like you from having to challenge themselves.
>>46857055
>he disagrees with me, therefore he is a troll
Why do you think Wolfe doesn't capture the imagination, anon? I genuinely don't understand how he couldn't.
>>46857068
ctrl + f is your friend, friend.
>>46857032
You're going to need more than that.
What you just said puts him on the same level as Silver Age comic book writers.
>>46854065
/tv/'s Tolkien threads are usually pretty good.
Basically what >>46854116 described about /v/'s threads.
Every board is the worst place to discuss its own subject.
The problem I always have with Tolkien is that I can't see a reason to appreciate his setting over a mythologized Europe. A world based on Greek, Roman, Norse, Slavic, Finnish, etc. myths will be both more fantastical and not reflected through the lens of Tolkien's own morality.
>>46857106
>the most FUCKING IMMATURE THING IN THE WORLD is the inability to differentiate between "this is good" and "I enjoy".
Unless you think "I enjoy" = "this is good", although that doesn't really lend itself to literary criticism.
Do you agree that LotR could have been much better written, from a narrative point of view?
>>46857111
>What you just said puts him on the same level as Silver Age comic book writers.
And not even necessarily the good ones. Grant Morrison was essentially writing a silver-age story with All-Star Superman, but he managed to boil Superman's backstory down to just eight words.
>"Doomed planet."
>"Desperate scientists."
>"Last hope."
>"Kindly couple."
Tolkien couldn't write less than 1,000 words of backstory if you had a Mordor blade to his throat.
>>46857107
You say Howard is better than tolkien, and then praise wolfe, who is Tolkien^3 in terms of reading level and pointless longwindedness. Now I personally happen to enjoy it, but that's because I love the words themselves. Whereas I'm certain you just like coprophagia.
>>46857120
>and not reflected through the lens of Tolkien's own morality.
That's part of the point, though.
Any myths you read will be through the lens of both the faggots who created them, and the faggots who translated them.
>>46853274
In the sense that he put more work into creating a complete universe than anyone else yes. Though not necessarily in the sense of his is the best fictional world there is
>>46857106
Look man, I'm an atheist too. Don't pull that "people don't REALLy believe le reLIEgion" shit. I think it's delusional as much as you do, yes there're bigger components to religion than the belief of each individual, but typically on some level religious people DO believe that it's true. There are people who sincerely believe god did it when something good happens.
/tg/ you are such downers.
Every year or so I mean to reread these books since I haven't read them since I was a teen, then threads like this come up and ruin the mood.
>>46857106
Not that guy, but Robert Howard is a fantastic writer, and his writings aren't childish. I would say on the whole he's more skilled with prose than Tolkien, in that his prose is legitimately engaging. That's not to say he's a better writer than Tolkien. Howard's works are brainless escapism, but so are Tolkien's.
>>46857120
>not reflected through the lens of Tolkien's own morality
Oh no the catholicism it burnsss
Fuck off kid
Well I've successfully trolled this thread to hell, night gents.
>>46857179
>Any myths you read will be through the lens of both the faggots who created them, and the faggots who translated them.
That's true, but an attempt can be made to stay true to the source material. As for the morality of the people that made them, that's part of the point. Their morals are somewhat different than our own, compare the nature of the heroes in the Iliad and the Odyssey to our own, which I feel makes it more fantastical, whereas Tolkien's morals aren't that out there these days.
>>46857178
I say Howard is better than Tolkien in some respects. I'm not the other anon.
Shadow of the Torturer sure as hell isn't Tolkien^3. It's very attached, for one thing.
>>46857199
>but so are Tolkien's.
No.
You know, I'm tired of this thread
>Tolkien is a comic book writer!
>The legendarium is brainless escapism!
>Tolkien is bad because no religion!
>Tolkien is bad because religion!
>Conan is deeper than tolkien!
>Anyone who doesn't like Tolkien is underage and has a high school reading level!
>Anyone who likes Tolkien is underage and has a high school reading level!
When you're arguing against people who don't make the tiniest sliver of sense there's simply no ground to stand on.
>>46857247
>No.
Yes. Tolkien's works are nothing more than escapist pap. Where the good guys are good guys, the bad guys are bad guys, and the former trumps the latter. There are no deeper themes.
Tolkien did a good job at copying the depth of warhammer, but without the iconic factions his world just didn't feel that alive. It was just "good guys v bad guys" and I actually feel kind of bad for even attempting to write this shit-tier troll post.
>>46857247
Oh, I should probably say I've only read SotT so far. So if it suddenly changes, then fair enough.
>>46857264
You're not really doing this thread justice. I was saying that you can like Tolkien while being underage and having a high school reading level, not that you have one for liking him.
>>46857272
No.
>>46857236
>whereas Tolkien's morals aren't that out there these days.
Except with regards to Tom Bombadil, who is supposed to be this whimsical guy out in the woods who does no harm, when in fact he's just an asshole who cares only about himself and wouldn't lift a finger to help his neighbors.
Amusingly enough that is literally Evil as defined by Dungeons & Dragons, which breaks good and evil down into altruism verses selfishness, thereby allowing you to have Evil that is not necessarily trying to take over the world (as another example, Ebenezer Scrooge).
Bombadil is exceedingly selfish and self-centered. He's just not malignant the way Sauron and the One Ring are.
>>46857272
I can tell from here you haven't read anything by him or otherwise somehow missed the very obvious themes in his works.
>>46857287
I still never worked out where Stirner'd come into the alignment system.
>>46857287
Oh, so this fag hasn't left the thread yet
>>46857291
I can tell you have no argument, otherwise you'd have made it.
>>46857272
Stick to reading cereal boxes, kid
>>46857301
Dunno who Stirnir is, can't help you more than to post this.
>>46857264
Protip: You don't have to be here. Nobody is holding your hand and forcing you to engage with things you may or may not understand. Nobody will miss you if you go. Nobody will remember this thread in 2 days.
>>46855951
Actually it proves that you are wildly misinterpreting the book
>>46857301
Chaotic neutral. Altruism isn't an inherent good, but he's not opposed to it. However being bound by any form of tradition or external code would be utterly antithetical to his beliefs.
>all these people saying Tolkien is bad
>all these people saying Howard is bad
Okay you little shits. Two things. The first that Tolkien was a better author when speaking in technical terms itself given his education. The second was that both where pretty damn good and the fathers of pretty much all modern fantasy.
Your personal enjoyment of one or the other is not a mark of quality. Howard isn't shitty because he wrote pulp, and Tolkien isn't some sort of author only elitists like because his books are long. Tolkien is popular and well liked, even in literary circles, because his books manage to capture their imagination and paint a very good world, one that feels alive. Howard is as well, though less so because he killed himself before he could hone his craft, because his books where exciting and interesting to read.
Every time though it becomes a pissing contest between people making outrageous claims. Someone already said that Howard's prose was better than Tolkien's when Howard was literally noteworthy in his time for being a technically bad author who managed to make such gripping stories that it didn't matter.
>>46857287
That would make him neutral, actually. Evil requires a willingness to hurt others.
>>46857323
Read the Silmarillion. It's no use arguing with you unless you read it.
>>46857365
But Tolkien's prose is legitimately bad. It's dry, long-winded, and fails to effectively engage.
>>46857365
Yeah, and people pissed on Frankenstein for being morally unsuitable.Although it's kind of mediocre for other reasons.
>>46857391
Fuck off with that shit. It's like reading the bible without the historical significance. The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit, the only works of Tolkien that matter, are escapist pap.
>>46857323
Not him but Lord of the Rings does have some themes.
I suppose Loss, inevitable mortality, as well as the age old classic 'War is Bad...mmkay." Along with the importance of preserving nature, courage in the face of all odds, and then there is all the religious stuff.
>>46857431
Read the Silmarillion (x2)
This thread has left me too drained to discuss any longer. Do your own research, learn by your own if you really must know.
>>46856544
>Know, O prince, that between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas
Fuck yeah.
https://youtu.be/DKQ_fp2pLM0
>>46857368
>Evil requires a willingness to hurt others.
No, just selfishness and self-centeredness, or at least that's always been my read. You think only about yourself and how things benefit you.
Now, mind, alignment is the sum of actions rather than any one given action. He helped out the Hobbits, for example, without expecting compensation. But Gandalf and Glorfindel make it absolutely clear that Bombadil simply does not care about others. He does what he wants when he wants to do it regardles of its impact on other people.
But the real clincher is the fact that no only will he not help the Fellowship get the Ring to Mordor in order to stop Sauron - a Good act - but he won't even do it to help protect his Hobbit friends - a Neutral act. Indeed he doesn't even help out at all during the Scouring of the Shire.
That's just utter self-centerdness and selfishness. It is, in D&D terms, Evil.
Tolkien wrote a lot of shit about hairy gay midgets.
Dude fucking loved hairy gay midgets.
He loved them so much he wrote a few history textbooks about the adventures of hairy gay midgets, and their gay fairy friends, and questionably heterosexual bearded princes of fantasyland.
Fat bearded men and homely skinny twinks like to argue about the quality of his hairy gay midget textbooks. Sometimes my friend has to peer review essays about hairy gay midget textbooks, there are at least 4 per semester, they all say the same thing, they all get Cs.
>>46857401
> It's dry, long-winded, and fails to effectively engage
Maybe for you mate, which is fine. I tend to agree that he can sort of ramble. But loads of people really loved it and where engaged by it, including people who are probably better objective critics on the subject than we are.
>>46857423
I never really liked Frankenstein. Don't know why.
>>46857480
Aw yisss.
>>46857525
>I never really liked Frankenstein. Don't know why.
It's because it's pretty average. She was nineteen, I don't blame her.
>Objective critics
Anon...
>>46857502
No, it really isn't. Otherwise everyone that isn't out helping the starving is an evil person. Evil requires a willingness to actually do harm. If we were to go with your definition, most animals would be evil.
Most world builders aren't linguists, anthropologists, folklorists, or historians beyond "wow that Wikipedia article was cool"
>>46853653
>same with HP Lovecraft
Arthur Machen predates Lovecraft and you can tell the impact he had on him.
>>46857515
>I am literally in middle-school
>>46857571
He clearly influenced Lovecraft's racism. Have you ever noticed how he only ever wrote about white people?
>>46857365
More over there is evidence that Tolkien read Howard's work and admired it.
>Early appreciation for Howard's work came more from fellow writers than from critics. In his book Literary Swordsmen and Sorcerers, de Camp describes an interview with J. R. R. Tolkien in which he "indicated that he rather liked Howard's Conan stories."
I love them both, USA+British fantasy FTW.
I feel that everyone doing worldbuilding has ruined fantasy as a genre.
>>46857626
Explain.
>>46857626
Sort of. World should serve the story, yes.
>>46857540It was more to avoid an argument. I honestly think book critics are retards
>>46857452
It's not so much loss as learning to let go of the past mixed with the popular christian interpretation of evil as a intrinsically diminishing property
The first is best shown by Lothlorien, which only stays beautiful because of the magic in Galadriel's ring. It's a frail remnant of the First Age of Middle Earth, and everyone knows it's going to disappear as well once the One Ring is destroyed, ultimately a good thing. Another example is the rising of Men along with the sun signaling the beginning of the decay of Elven civilization, until on the Third Age they finally go back to the Undying Lands again.
Saruman falling from the greatest of the Istari to a petty powerless gangster who bullies hobbits failing everything else in his hunger for power is a clear example of the latter.
>>46857502
Is it selfish to stand in the way of Sauron, and the progress of his orcs, just to selfishly guard your quaint ways and because you don't like the idea of what the world would be like if they won?
>>46857636
Anon just summed it up for me >>46857644
>>46857565
The issue with "must be willing to actively hurt people" is that it leaves Neutrality in a conundrum, since the logical middle ground between "willing to help" and "willing to hurt" is "unwilling to do either."
So then logically a Neutral who sees his neighbor's house being broken into just shrugs and says "not my problem."
No, I find it works better if you define it as:
>Evil: willing to take risks for yourself, and you are concerned only about yourself.
>Neutral: willing to take risks for friends and family
>Good: willing to take risks for people you've never even heard of.
Or in real-world terms,
>Evil: Steals from charities; inflates medical costs that only the rich can afford.
>Neutral: Gives to charities; occasionally volunteers at the soup kitchen
>Good: In Africa, fighting Ebola and feeding the poor personally.
>>46857190
>Look man, I'm an atheist too. Don't pull that "people don't REALLy believe le reLIEgion" shit.
Again, the subject matter is just more complicated than that. I'm the last person to trivialize sincerity or importance and relevance of faith. I may be an atheist, but I hold very much of respect for the institution.
What I'm saying is that the nature of religious (or mythological) narrative is PROFOUNDLY DIFFERENT from virtually any other judgement about the real world. The role divine powers play in mythological stories are not simple models of being or no being. The concept of "being real" or "being true" needs to be completely redefined when you talk about religious narrative. We generally use epistemology and ontology rather profoundly different. And it's very difficult to explain and notice, because not even religious people reflect these differences very well, and because there are aspects of mythological thinking we (even "hard-boiled" atheists) practice without being even aware of it.
But Middle Earth was written as a incredibly accurate and insightful reflection of this MYTHOLOGICAL mindset itself. It's not reflective of our modern day epistemologies. Characters in myths don't need religion, and neither do characters in Middle Earth, as religion is a reflection of myth in reality.
