:O but... he has a space sword.BlindMessiah94 said:
And I thought I was going to get flamed, you're in for a shitstorm of anger.
Tolkien, Overrated?
- Thread starter GrimTuesday
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And I thought I was going to get flamed, you're in for a shitstorm of anger.
Tolkien has recieved my scorn because of his insistent misspellings have been borrowed by other fantasy authors.
The word I am talking about is of three letters. The word I am talking about is "Ork"
It annoys me that so many franchises and authors have borrowed his error, and slammed on a C in the word inplace of the proper K.
This problem is so prevailent that the few franchises that don't copy his error,(E.G: Warhammer, a franchise that I know nothing about) are mistaken as something written by some one trying to to be hip by using the letter K in the place of the proper C (It looks like the trope "Xtremely Kool Letterz"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XtremeKoolLetterz ).
So to phrase the 4th paragraph in simpler terms: in this case senario, spelling the word right makes you look like a try-hard.
The word I am talking about is of three letters. The word I am talking about is "Ork"
It annoys me that so many franchises and authors have borrowed his error, and slammed on a C in the word inplace of the proper K.
This problem is so prevailent that the few franchises that don't copy his error,(E.G: Warhammer, a franchise that I know nothing about) are mistaken as something written by some one trying to to be hip by using the letter K in the place of the proper C (It looks like the trope "Xtremely Kool Letterz"http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XtremeKoolLetterz ).
So to phrase the 4th paragraph in simpler terms: in this case senario, spelling the word right makes you look like a try-hard.
Yup.ThrobbingEgo said:
But what about how George RR Martin spells sir as ser. I personally like it and use it whenever I say sir.Anomynous 167 said:
A lot of Tolkien's "kudos" comes from the fact that "The Hobbit" pretty much established the Fantasy genre - prior to that it was pretty much short stories that were published in Sci-Fi magazines and the like so he is pretty much THE father of the fantasy genre.GrimTuesday said:
That being said it is very much an old style of writing, very similar to a lot of litrature of the time and I do at times find it a bit on the wordy side..... still, given most fantasy stories are just Tolkien clones, he's one of the best out there
I have mixed feelings regarding Tolkein. One one hand, he created the entire genre of fantasy fiction (elves use bows, dwarves drink.) On the other, LotR is dragged out way too long. By the time I got two and a half hours into the first movie, I honestly thought the movie had ended. Then it's still going, and I'm sitting there confused because it's so hard to remember anything when things like plot very slowly come up. Same problem with the second movie.
No, I don't think he is. It's just opinion really; I enjoy the long descriptions.
I can quite easily see why people don't like LoTR, but that doesn't stop me from liking it. I think the problem is that most people read The Hobbit first and then expect something similar to it.
I can quite easily see why people don't like LoTR, but that doesn't stop me from liking it. I think the problem is that most people read The Hobbit first and then expect something similar to it.
to me as a writer yes, I understand that he's the father of fantasy but I cannot stand his writing style there's just to much world building done through description and that draws me away from the story. I much prefer something like Dune thats builds a world while remaining connected to the actual story.
I think it was the poem Beowulf, actually. C.S. Lewis drew more from the Bible with his Jesus-allegory lion.Wakikifudge said:I think I heard that the bible was a big influence. I wouldn't be able to tell though because I've never read it.Fumbleumble said:+1 internets to the first person who says what his biggest literary influence was.
(..and no googling)
While not his most grand work, I loved The Hobbit more than the LotR trilogy purely because it had the right balance of rambling descriptiveness and narrative flow.
Admittedly, his writing style is by any sort of modern standard a horrid abomination, based on telling, telling, telling and more telling. But then again, many other great authors were similar, like Victor Hugo, for example.
But one thing that one can not deny is that Tolkien is the creator of what is essentially fantasy in popular culture today. Considering that he was more interested in worldbuilding than in telling a story, I would say he excelled at what he did. Sure, the novels are not the best read ever for the story (for that, read George R.R. Martin, Robert Jordan etc.), but as a travelogue, the description of an original fantasy world, they actually work.
Also that explains why Tolkien insists on telling us the entire background story of the vase in the third row of the cupboard that the Hobbits pass for half an instant on their way to the bathroom in a nameless tavern somewhere in the last swamp east of Bree. (Not an actual example, but you get what I mean.)
But one thing that one can not deny is that Tolkien is the creator of what is essentially fantasy in popular culture today. Considering that he was more interested in worldbuilding than in telling a story, I would say he excelled at what he did. Sure, the novels are not the best read ever for the story (for that, read George R.R. Martin, Robert Jordan etc.), but as a travelogue, the description of an original fantasy world, they actually work.
Also that explains why Tolkien insists on telling us the entire background story of the vase in the third row of the cupboard that the Hobbits pass for half an instant on their way to the bathroom in a nameless tavern somewhere in the last swamp east of Bree. (Not an actual example, but you get what I mean.)
I am still waiting for the first live interpretation of the Rains of Castamere.GrimTuesday said:You mean you don't want to know all the words to The Bear and the Maiden Fair or The Reynes of Castamere?Xrysthos said:I personally like all of his work, including the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, but my favourite fantasy series is probably a tie between The Malazan Book of the Fallen and A Song of Ice and Fire. The only aspect of Tolien's work I don't fully appreciate is the implementation of songs/lyrics. I don't mind a few lyrics in my books, but there is a limit to my interest
It's one thing to tell us about the vase if it's a brief description but when it goes on for more that three or four paragraphs I'm done with that vase and I want some damn story.Monsterfurby said:
So am I. The HBO series would be making a big mistake if they left the songs out. They're not a big deal but at the same time the fans love the little snippet that they know so why the fuck not?Monsterfurby said:I am still waiting for the first live interpretation of the Rains of Castamere.GrimTuesday said:You mean you don't want to know all the words to The Bear and the Maiden Fair or The Reynes of Castamere?Xrysthos said:I personally like all of his work, including the Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales, but my favourite fantasy series is probably a tie between The Malazan Book of the Fallen and A Song of Ice and Fire. The only aspect of Tolien's work I don't fully appreciate is the implementation of songs/lyrics. I don't mind a few lyrics in my books, but there is a limit to my interest
And who are you, the proud lord said,
that I must bow so low?
Only a cat of a different coat,
that's all the truth I know.
In a coat of gold or a coat of red,
a lion still has claws,
And mine are long and sharp, my lord,
as long and sharp as yours.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke,
that lord of Castamere,
But now the rains weep o'er his hall,
with no one there to hear.
Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall,
and not a soul to hear.
Who doesn't want to know the rest of this song?
To all those who mention the overdescriptiveness, remember that The Lord Of The Rings was written in the 1940s, an era in which there were no televisions (and no CGI), and that much of what he was writing about he was writing about for literally the first time ever. It was a different era, and readers would have had no reference point for many of the elements of his story...in 2010 if you say "elf" then everyone has an image in their mind, but pre-television-age literature relied solely on words to paint its pictures.
That said, he's not a brilliant writer...the entire chapter with the barrow wight was completely unnecessary, for example, and the appearance of the eagles at the end is pretty much the definition of deus ex machina.
That said, I still really enjoyed it.
That said, he's not a brilliant writer...the entire chapter with the barrow wight was completely unnecessary, for example, and the appearance of the eagles at the end is pretty much the definition of deus ex machina.
That said, I still really enjoyed it.
You got bored with LotR but made it through The Wheel of Time!?[Gavo said:
Sorry, Wheel of Time has an epic story but a part of me just finds that hilarious, I read Lord of the Rings at 8 and got totally engrossed but struggled through the Wheel of Time at various stages between the ages of 16-20, but hey books are subjective!
OT: I don't really think you can call the man who virtually single-handedly spawned the modern fantasy genre overrated. It's perfectly fine not to get on with his writing style however, it is pretty dated.
I'm biased though, I got introduced to Lord of the Rings young and grew up a total convert!
Carlston said:
But he really didn't need to describe as much as he does. One of the things I love most about reading is I can see the characters how I want to see them. With LotR He describes too much which kind of takes my imagination out of the story.
You definitely make a good point there. Descriptiveness by itself is not a bad thing, though I personally (matter of taste, I guess) felt that some of Tolkien's descriptions mainly served the purpose of letting him indulge in his world (any hey, that's his good right) but hindered the narrative flow a bit.BennoVonArchimboldi said:
Edit: Or, to put it into other words: Tolkien takes a very strong role in building every detail into his own world and retaining control over it. There are some readers who enjoy this because it moves the medium closer to an immediately visual/sensual medium. However, others prefer to let a novel tell them the story and only hint at the world for them to fill it with their own imagination. There is a sweet spot somewhere in the middle between these two ways that I would consider optimal.
I'll give it that, what is it? Fifteen pages of what his house looked like on the inside? Guess when I found out he was also a little messed up from WW1 you can almost see him using it to keep himself rooted...not sure where but these story did help keep his sanity, but that's more the Ring books, Hobbit was him revisiting it all.GrimTuesday said:
But I rather have to much thrown onto the page with a good story than far to little.
He created his own world. If you had to describe everything in your country, it would be a touch drawn out, wouldn't it?
If you think that it is too austere, go for The Hobbit. It is basically LotR lite.
If you think that it is too austere, go for The Hobbit. It is basically LotR lite.