A rising dislike of Tolkein?

[Jo498]

Is it also wrong that Boromir wants to take this artifact and use it for the good of Gondor? Its a very good point

I think Tolkien is very clear that it would be wrong to use the Ring for the Good of Gondor, mainly because it would not work. The ringbearer would sooner or later turn into something like a "dark lord". Galadriel pretty much says something like that when speaking with Frodo. Saruman is the main example in the book. As a powerful wizard/maia he doesn't even need the Ring to become corrupted by his lust for power.

[HexMachina]

I think Tolkien is very clear that it would be wrong to use the Ring for the Good of Gondor, mainly because it would not work. The ringbearer would sooner or later turn into something like a "dark lord". Galadriel pretty much says something like that when speaking with Frodo. Saruman is the main example in the book. As a powerful wizard/maia he doesn't even need the Ring to become corrupted by his lust for power.

I still think its a little less clear cut. Boromir's intentions would be well meant, as he is driven by desire to restore Gondor and protect the Gondorians. Yes we know (or are told by other characters) that the Ring will corrupt, but Boromir has only the word of others, and if it offers the chance of restoring your home and people to greatness and ending their sufferring, wouldn't you think to take the risk?

ETA: This only goes to show that things arent as clear cut as people say :p

[Jo498]

I agree that one would think it would be worth the risk. The resulting scenario might have been a defeat of Saruman (and at least contemporary) of Sauron as well. But as Tolkien set the whole thing up, some time later Boromir would either have tried to control/conquer the bearers of the elvish rings or conquered east and south to become ever more powerful and in the end either perished against Elrond and Galadriel or destroyed Lorien in the process or turned into another witchking or whatever.

We may find Tolkien's "message" of the corruptive aspect of the power of the ring naive, but I think his message is quite clear (and rooted in his (spiritual) worldview). In any case I find the idea that the connection of power, corruption and evil is so tight that some measures (like the ring or the atomic bomb or whatever) cannot be taken, even for furthering a noble cause, interesting enough that I would never condemn the book as simplistic in the morality department.

[Jo498]

Oh please. Misogynism doesn't make good Fantasy.

Whining about Dany and Arya being plot armoured is also totally and utterly ridiculous when characters like Jon Snow and Tyrion are so much more in the land of plot armour.

Besides, most of GRRM's female characters are transgressive when it comes to smashing fantasy tropes. The fact that you missed that Cersei, Sansa, Cat and Dany are brilliant feminist characters is just fail @ reading, as it were.

Oh, please, I never claimed that. Of course it doesn't. But neither does importing 21st century ideas about gender etc. make plausible fantasy, if the rest of the fantasy world doesn't square well with these ideas.

Note that my post was not about a comparison between the plot armor of Jon and Dany. I did not say anything about whether Cersei, Sansa, Cat are feminist characters as I do not care about this stuff at all. Actually, Arya as tomboy turning badass assassin may confirm quite well to fantasy tropes, I still like the character very much. I think confirmation or smashing of tropes per se doesn't mean much. It's far more important how a character is developed in particular.

My point is that lack of interesting females doesn't make a story bad, as in LotR. (Whereas I have to admit that a cliche-charakter like Leesha in "Painted Man" does make the story worse than it would have been otherwise). I think GRRM does a good job in exploring women's power in a mostly medieval society where there roles in politics are quite limited.

[Richard]

What category does Richard Morgan fall in?

I'd assume #2.

You'd assume wrong. For one thing, I've read the Silmarillion cover to cover two or three times at least.

There again, the categories themselves are the crudest of dismissive stereotyping and so fairly useless as a descriptive tool; imagine for a moment trying to write a similar counter list for those who love Tolkien.

[Lyanna Stark]

Oh, please, I never claimed that. Of course it doesn't. But neither does importing 21st century ideas about gender etc. make plausible fantasy, if the rest of the fantasy world doesn't square well with these ideas.

If you equate "tomboy" with "21st century gender ideas" then you are sadly wrong. You are looking at second wave feminist, which took place in the 20th century. If you are looking at 21st century gender ideas, then what you should really be concerned about is a lack of female agency, i.e. female characters who get fridged, or damselled, for instance. I posit that you have not the faintest idea what you are talking about when you state you don't like 21st century gender roles since by that you mean you like women to be flat, uninteresting, 2-dimensional characters that are at best the "spunky sidekick" and at worst the damselled and/or fridged girlfriend.

Note that my post was not about a comparison between the plot armor of Jon and Dany. I did not say anything about whether Cersei, Sansa, Cat are feminist characters as I do not care about this stuff at all. Actually, Arya as tomboy turning badass assassin may confirm quite well to fantasy tropes, I still like the character very much. I think confirmation or smashing of tropes per se doesn't mean much. It's far more important how a character is developed in particular.

So which way is it? Are Arya and Dany plot armoured or aren't they? Or they are only plot armoured if you completely ignore Jon Snow and Tyrion, is that so?

My point is that lack of interesting females doesn't make a story bad, as in LotR.

Eowyn is an extremely interesting character and has a pretty pivotal role so I am not sure what you are driving at? Although by your grammar I cannot make out whether you think LOTR is bad because of a lack of female characters or that stories aren't necessarily bad when they completely lack female characters. Neither of which is a fair representation of LOTR.

I think GRRM does a good job in exploring women's power in a mostly medieval society where there roles in politics are quite limited.

OK, this is wrong for more than one reason.

1. Did you even read the last two novels? Arianne, Cersei, Dany, Asha, Melisandre are all women with significant amount of power. Sansa and Arya are "up and coming" to be sure. The QoT is the current brains of the Tyrell family and somehow you get it in your head that women are so limited in their power? Especially Dany who sits on the equivalent of the Westerosi world's atomic bomb x 3?

2. ASOIAF is not the middle ages. This is not historical fiction. It's not. So any "but women were oppressed during the middle ages" is in for a hot cup of ASOIAF is not historical fiction, which is a completely different genre. It is not set on earth. There is no need to adhere to a certain geographic area's oppression or lack thereof of women. Apart from the fact that a lot of dude bros get upset when the standard misogynist fare isn't served up. Women's oppression - an integral part of Proper Fantasy.

3. Further, people who automatically claim women had no power in the middle ages have often little to no clue about the actual middle ages. Most people who put forward that women need to be sidelined because the MIDDLE AGES are actually basing their view of the middle ages from Fantasy and not from the actual middle ages.

[Richard]

I can't really understand the whining about the lack of complex female characters. Or is almost everything written pre 20th century bullshit? Because you would have trouble finding complex female characters in those stories...

Ehm - Jane Austen anybody? Dickens? Emily Bronte? Flaubert? Tolstoy? Guy by the name of Shakespeare. Thomas Middleton, John Webster, Cyril Tourneur..........

If you really think complex female characters weren't invented until the twentieth century, your reading has been singularly narrow in scope.

[Night's_King]

Ehm - Jane Austen anybody? Dickens? Emily Bronte? Flaubert? Tolstoy? Guy by the name of Shakespeare. Thomas Middleton, John Webster, Cyril Tourneur..........

If you really think complex female characters weren't invented until the twentieth century, your reading has been singularly narrow in scope.

No, but I do think, that they are in the vast minority.

[Night's_King]

If you equate "tomboy" with "21st century gender ideas" then you are sadly wrong. You are looking at second wave feminist, which took place in the 20th century. If you are looking at 21st century gender ideas, then what you should really be concerned about is a lack of female agency, i.e. female characters who get fridged, or damselled, for instance. I posit that you have not the faintest idea what you are talking about when you state you don't like 21st century gender roles since by that you mean you like women to be flat, uninteresting, 2-dimensional characters that are at best the "spunky sidekick" and at worst the damselled and/or fridged girlfriend.

Where exactly does he say, that he doesn't like 21st century gender roles?

So which way is it? Are Arya and Dany plot armoured or aren't they? Or they are only plot armoured if you completely ignore Jon Snow and Tyrion, is that so?

All four are plot armoured, of course. That doesn't change the fact, that Arya and Dany are unrealistic characters (and no, I don't say that Jon and Tyrion are more realistic).

3. Further, people who automatically claim women had no power in the middle ages have often little to no clue about the actual middle ages. Most people who put forward that women need to be sidelined because the MIDDLE AGES are actually basing their view of the middle ages from Fantasy and not from the actual middle ages.

But women had almost no power. Sure, there were a few. But for every woman you name, I could name 10 men, which had more power.

ETA: Oh, and for complaining about grammar, you do a lot of mistakes when it comes to commas...

[Lyanna Stark]

Where exactly does he say, that he doesn't like 21st century gender roles?

In his previous post?

All four are plot armoured, of course. That doesn't change the fact, that Arya and Dany are unrealistic characters (and no, I don't say that Jon and Tyrion are more realistic).

Then what's the point of singling out Arya and Dany as specifically plot armoured?

But women had almost no power. Sure, there were a few. But for every woman you name, I could name 10 men, which had more power.

When? During medieval times or during the ASOIAF period of our history? Because again, if you think ASOIAF is historical fiction, you've got it wrong. It is not. There is no need to adhere to an exact ratio of misogynism or lack there of during the middle ages. Which also doesn't answer which time within the middle ages we are looking at, or what geographical area.

ETA: Oh, and for complaining about grammar, you do a lot of mistakes when it comes to commas...

And so do you. Plus it's "make" a lot of mistakes, not "do". :lol:

My complaint is not about poor grammar as such, it's that his grammar makes the sentence ambiguous. It can have different meanings.

EDIT: Just had my British husband check your grammar and his words were "self owned". Sorry.

[Ninefingers]

I think the Tolkien-bashers fall into a number of different flavours, most of which have already been mentioned:

(1) The Moviegoers. Such people might find the prose and pacing off-putting, though this isn't necessarily confined to post-film age: Martin has written that when he read LOTR for the first time as a young guy, he started off disappointed at how twee it was (a birthday party? Tom Bombadil? Where's the battle and carnage?).

(2) The Grimdarkers. Tolkien isn't "realistic" or "complex" enough for their tastes. Such people often base their judgements off the films only, or off derivative works, and have certainly never read The Silmarillion.

(3) The Political. Moorcock and Mieville fall into this category: they bash Tolkien because his political viewpoint is different from their own.

(4) The Academics. Tolkien doesn't conform to the standard novel format (especially with characterisation), so he (and fantasy in general) is a lesser genre.

(5) The Jaded. If you have consumed poor quality derivative works, it might be hard to get excited about the original.

(6) The Attention-seekers. Tolkien is the basis of the genre in its current form. What better way to demonstrate your iconoclastic credentials by going after the great Sacred Cow of fantasy literature?

How about (5a)?: The Jaded. If you have consumed high quality derivative works, it might be hard to get excited about the original.

Tolkien was groundbreaking, and receives no small amount of credit for reinventing the genre. Is it really so hard to imagine that people may have improved on it over the years, and there's a preference for the newer, shinier versions of a similar thing?

Clumsy analogy: Henry Ford did an incredible thing with the model T. It revolutionized the automotive industry. He should rightly be held in high regard for his accomplishments and contributions. Does it mean that the Model T compares well with current offerings though?

[Myshkin]

There again, the categories themselves are the crudest of dismissive stereotyping and so fairly useless as a descriptive tool; imagine for a moment trying to write a similar counter list for those who love Tolkien.

Finally someone says it. The priase in this thread for that utterly simplistic and entirely useless list is disturbing. The gist of this thread seems to suggest that if you don't like Tolkien you're either stupid or lazy. The willingness of most people in this thread to accept that idea is also disturbing. Some people just don't like Tolkien. Maybe they don't like his prose, maybe they don't like his characters, maybe they just don't like Romanticism. Not liking Tolkien doesn't make a person stupid or lazy (or a hipster contrarian), and it certainly doesn't indicate a large scale dumbing down of society.

[Gigei]

Actually, most people I talk to irl who have tried Tolkien never liked it. That was true in the 1990s and its still true now. The Nobel Prize committee wasn't impressed in 1961 when LotR was nominated.Apparently, even Tolkien's own writing group, The Inklings, weren't all fans. I even know people who passionately hate Tolkien (before the films) because of the elves - the whole idea of a the Tolkien elf seems to piss some people off.

[Night's_King]

In his previous post?

You are right, of course. Haven't read that, sorry.

Then what's the point of singling out Arya and Dany as specifically plot armoured?

He said, that the "non-traditional" female characters are unrealistic (I guess because many people call Ice and Fire realistic) and that they have plot-armor. That was the point.

When? During medieval times or during the ASOIAF period of our history? Because again, if you think ASOIAF is historical fiction, you've got it wrong. It is not. There is no need to adhere to an exact ratio of misogynism or lack there of during the middle ages. Which also doesn't answer which time within the middle ages we are looking at, or what geographical area.

The medieval times, of course. And I'm talking about the area (Central Europe) and the timespan (High Middle Ages) which are somewhat similar to the story.

And so do you. Plus it's "make" a lot of mistakes, not "do". :lol:

My complaint is not about poor grammar as such, it's that his grammar makes the sentence ambiguous. It can have different meanings.

EDIT: Just had my British husband check your grammar and his words were "self owned". Sorry.

I did never claim that my grammar is any better. English is my third language after all. I just said that you were making some mistakes for correcting others.

[ultimo12]

Is it also wrong that Boromir wants to take this artifact and use it for the good of Gondor? Its a very good point

Many characters in LotR are tempted by their wish to do good. Some succumb, and some have enough wisdom (and fear) to refuse.

[ultimo12]

Even though Snape is working with the world's best interests at heart but he was still a bitter man who bullied children.

Not really IMO. He is not really evil, but he is no altruistic hero either.

[protar]

Not really IMO. He is not really evil, but he is no altruistic hero either.

Well on the one hand he's working to defeat Voldemort - that's good. On the other hand it's purely out of his selfish love for Lily - that's bad. On the third hand his love for Lily was arguable the most positive thing in his life - that's good. But then again he also spent his adult life bullying kids - That's bad. Snape is really just a great literary character.

[ultimo12]

Snape is really just a great literary character.

Agreed.

[Jo498]

If you equate "tomboy" with "21st century gender ideas" then you are sadly wrong. You are looking at second wave feminist, which took place in the 20th century. If you are looking at 21st century gender ideas, then what you should really be concerned about is a lack of female agency, i.e. female characters who get fridged, or damselled, for instance. I posit that you have not the faintest idea what you are talking about when you state you don't like 21st century gender roles since by that you mean you like women to be flat, uninteresting, 2-dimensional characters that are at best the "spunky sidekick" and at worst the damselled and/or fridged girlfriend.

1. Did you even read the last two novels? Arianne, Cersei, Dany, Asha, Melisandre are all women with significant amount of power. Sansa and Arya are "up and coming" to be sure. The QoT is the current brains of the Tyrell family and somehow you get it in your head that women are so limited in their power? Especially Dany who sits on the equivalent of the Westerosi world's atomic bomb x 3?

3. Further, people who automatically claim women had no power in the middle ages have often little to no clue about the actual middle ages. Most people who put forward that women need to be sidelined because the MIDDLE AGES are actually basing their view of the middle ages from Fantasy and not from the actual middle ages.

Apparently you are unwilling to read what I wrote and respond to buzzwords and presume lots of things I neither wrote nor expect from literature. I will not continue such a "discussion", but at least try to clarify what I meant.

1. With "21th century gender roles" I most certainly do not mean academic theorizing or sociological categories, but rather tropes in popular literature and entertainment. I have no idea how you come to suppose that I want women to be uninteresting.

And I never wrote that Arya-Tomboy was anything of that kind, rather I meant that it is a fairly standard trope in fantasy/youth literature (without the asassin part), probably starting with Swallows& Amazons in the 1930ties. My position wrt 21st cent. gender roles is neither here nor there. My main points were that I find Anti-Tolkien-arguments pointing to the lack of female characters uninteresting and that I dislike fantasy where a modern conception of gender equality (in a very broad sense, I don't care which wave of feminism) is grafted on top of a world where it doesn't fit. If someone wanted to explore matrilinear systems in a fantasy setting or whatever, he is welcome to do so. Just spare me lusty female warriors in brass brassieres, because girls can be warriors, too. (Prominent examples for what I rather dislike are Miriamele? in Memory, Sorrow and Thorn (but it's been ~15 years that I read this stuff) and most of the females in Abercrombie's books.)

2. Further above, I wrote explicitly that I like Eowyn's character and scenes very much. (If you had read any of my longer posts above you could have known that I was "defending" LotR.) So what I meant to say in the mangled sentence were two things: i) LoTR does have interesting female characters (at least Eowyn and probably also Galadriel) ii) It doesn't matter that they are relatively minor characters, because the quality of this story does not depend on stuff like that. Better no female characters than some from the shelf of cheap tropes.

3.This is getting seriously OT, but briefly to some of the females in ASoIaF. Of course I am well aware that this is not historical fiction. But obviously many restrictions from historical epochs do apply in a similar fashion. As in the real MA in Westeros women may be rulers, but cannot be warriors. We have Cersei bitterly complaining about these restrictions because she believes herself to be a better politician and strategist than Jaime. So I take it from the personal view of a powerful female that there are severe restrictions.

What about tropes in ASoIaF? The closest to "damsel in distress" may be Sansa (twisted, because the Hound or Littlefinger are hardly the heroes a damsel would expect). Then, with a double twist, we have Brienne in the bear's den. This shows that, regardless of fighting prowess or gender you can get into distress when enough evil people overwhelm you. Melisandre is the seductive, mysterious and powerful enchantress, pretty close to a standard trope (Kirke, Morgaine etc.). Arianne as a scheming seductress may be a more modern trope (I admit that I do not like the Dorne arc very much, partially it is so clichéed).

[Darth Richard II]

Lyanna, you need your own website or talk show or something were you, forgive my lingo, "pwn noobs" all day. It would be awesome. You could debate Bakker!

Sorry, off topic.

So uh, I've kind of lost the track of the argument here. Some people like Tolkien, some people don't like Tolkien, something something gender roles?