A rising dislike of Tolkein?

[SilentRoamer]

JC Denton. Comparing the War of Middle Earth to a camping trip ridicules your own perspective and for me shows a lack of understanding of the context. Seriously you think Frodo had an easy time? Did we read the same books?

[Darth Richard II]

Damn, are you sure you actually read the BOOKS, and not just watched the films at your parents on USA during a BBQ?

[The Reckoner]

I read the books. There were some especially beautiful passages, like the Scourging of the Shire or the brief scene of the orcs from the end of The Two Towers. Otherwise I found it to be a bit dated for my tastes. I think this is why the OP thinks there is a rising dislike of Tolkien. It's like the Dragonlance Chronicles in that many new readers, myself included, came to the series too late.

[Zorral]

Uh, because PTSD.

This reply is actually to the comment Darth Richard II was replying to, but I screwed up with the quoting.

Because he was the Ringbearer, with the intelligence, soul and heart to almost be a Ring Wielder Power himself. It ate at him until he did succumb even, at the end. Thank goodness for the mercy that had spared Gollum, or we'd all be living under Sauron right this very minute! He could not find peace after that long burdon. Sheesh, even Bilbo, who got off very easily, kept the itch for the ring for the rest of his prolonged life.

How much more clearly could Tolkien have written this?

[Zorral]

yeah, writing "gritty" and brutal stuff comes fairly cheap.

It's got nothing to do with depth, realism or literary quality. This works both ways, of course (i.e. also gore comes cheap, it does not mean that a book is bad, just becauses it's gory). But I get the impression that nowadays many people really seem to believe that Tolkien is "unrealistic" whereas modern fantasy, informed by action thriller, splatter movies etc. is not while it may be the other way round in many aspects. But historical or psychological realism is not the main point. Rather, Tolkien was inspired by sagas and romances (and the very little of literary fantasy that was there before him, like Lord Dunsany etc.) whereas modern authors are inspired by other genres, mainly the huge corpus of 20th century SFF, including Tolkien, but also RPG, action and martial arts movies etc. I believe that the extensive fight scenes, the gore and torture of e.g. Abercrombie's books are clearly influenced by or even modelled after respective movie scenes.

My pet peeve is "Eaters" having superhero strength and speed or time-stopping abilities like catching arrows from the air. Also the radiation poisoning at the end of the first law trilogy (which felt very out of place for me)

There is nothing wrong with said, of course. But it is simply wrong to claim that these writers are "more advanced" or "more realistic" than Tolkien. They are different, and often they are, IMO, weaker in many respects (e.g. atmosphere and poetry), but of course they also contain aspects that Tolkien was not interested in at all.

There is something wrong with using such horrors as entertainment and then claiming it's all about historical reality, etc.

[Darth Richard II]

This is a bit off topic, but do people really refer to the The First Law as realistic? I mean I love those books to death but when I think of realistic SFF those aren't exactly the first things that come to mind. They remind me more of, say, an 80s Arnold movie or maybe something by Paul Verhoven.

[Jo498]

Maybe not explicitly. But I often see Abercrombie mentioned (together with GRRM etc.) as "gritty", realistic etc. compared to (especially) Tolkien, but maybe more to bad Tolkien clones. I often get the impression that "realistic" means: "characters behave like mafia etc. in modern action movies" as opposed to "characters behave like those in medieval romances and traditional swashbuckling tales" ;)

I think your associations with such movies are on spot. I enjoyed reading the books, but I do not think I will re-read them and I am not in a hurry to try Heroes and Red County.

[Veltigar]

Maybe not explicitly. But I often see Abercrombie mentioned (together with GRRM etc.) as "gritty", realistic etc. compared to (especially) Tolkien, but maybe more to bad Tolkien clones. I often get the impression that "realistic" means: "characters behave like mafia etc. in modern action movies" as opposed to "characters behave like those in medieval romances and traditional swashbuckling tales" ;)

I think your associations with such movies are on spot. I enjoyed reading the books, but I do not think I will re-read them and I am not in a hurry to try Heroes and Red County.

Heroes is by far Abercrombie's strongest book though ;) It's miles ahead of the very disappointing BSC.

And Abercrombie is certainly gritty, but he isn't realistic that's for sure.

[Brother Seamus]

The Tolkien hate could also be due to GOT show and GRRM's books. I can see a lot of people enjoying the show reading the books and thinking "it's still good". Whereas LOTR to the books is a bit more of a shock. So people dislike LOTR. That and characters aren't all uniformly shady in LOTR which some may equate as "too simplistic".

For me the LOTR films got me to try the books again and I was pleasantly surprised, Before that I always gave up shortly after Tom Bombadil and just before the dark riders show up.

I read LOTR, the Hobbit and the Silmarillion in my teens and really loved it, but tellingly it did not lead me to become a SFF reader. Even at 15-16 it felt a little simple-minded and childish to me.

I read ASOIAF in Oct 2012 on a lark, and loved it. Tolkien really suffers by comparison. not prose style, but the story.

I'd been thinking about the comparison between ASOIAF and LOTR and finally felt to do LOTR justice I should re-read it, so I did last year. Much as I remembered, compared to ASOIAF, it's a children's story. an extended fairy tale. maybe high marks for being the first, but compared to ASOIAF it's very poor.

The end of the story is telegraphed-laid out, really, from the beginning. you know from the beginning that Frodo is going to destroy the ring, and there's no reason to doubt it. no one you care about dies. the good guys are nearly always good guys and the bad guys completely evil. the good guys are fair-skinned and beautiful and the bad guys are dark and ugly. virtue is hereditary for god's sake.

there are no mysteries!! the only potential mystery-that Aragorn is the descendant of the true king, and has the true sword, and will use the sword to defend the realm and then become the great true king, is revealed in the first 1/4 of the book. after that it's just watching the story play out.

And it's so unrealistic. There are armies of thousands or tens of thousands of men, with hundreds or thousands of horses, and no one ever smells, much less steps in, human or horse shit. no one in the army gets dysentery or trench foot or infected boils on his ass from riding for three days or dies of thirst or hunger. no animals are slaughtered for food. there are no whores no STD's no rapists no thieves no traitors no cowards no sadistic bullies no war atrocities. no drunken brawls in the ranks.

no one is ever really mean or irritable or condescending or arrogant, unless they're obviously bad guys. no good guy ever has a bad day and says something cruel and hurts someone's feelings.

and no sex! no sexual relationships, no married couples to speak of, no families that come to mind. I'm not complaining about the lack of explicit sex, but about the lack of almost any mention of this very important aspect of being human. reading Tolkien you'd think babies were brought by storks.

and none of the main characters seem to have had childhoods, or a past, or anything. totally two-dimensional with few exceptions.

I don't think there's a single mention of the most important part of amassing, sustaining and moving an army: logistics. what do the soldiers eat and drink? who supplies them? who arms and clothes them? what happens when their boots wear out? who takes care of the horses?

there's hardly any mention of crops, farms, herds of livestock; no mills, blacksmiths, horse-trainers, stone-carvers, masons, carpenters, shipwrights, ship captains, sailors, carters, herders or huntsmen. there's no apparent trading or economic activity.

and the dialogue is terrible; virtually every character speaks in the same stilted pseudo-medieval grandiose voice. I'd challenge anyone who didn't already know the story to read 100 quotes from the main 9 characters out of context and tell me if he could distinguish any of them as belonging to different characters.

and the magic is just arbitrary deus ex machina stuff; there's no mystery to it. it doesn't seem to be the secret, dangerous, volatile knowledge you'd expect it to be. gandolf pulls whatever magic is needed at the moment out of his ass and no one blinks an eye.

and on and on.

I respect Tolkien and what he did when he did it, but it just doesn't compare to ASOIAF, not even close.

[The Reckoner]

The characters in the First Law trilogy behave realistically in the context of what they're experiencing. It is easy to throw around the world "realism" without having any idea of its proper usage. "Realism" is characters responding to their circumstances, mundane or fantastic, in a way that feels real of genuine. In that context, I see the First Law trilogy as being a realistic fantasy in the same way that I see A Song of Ice and Fire as realistic fantasy. I didn't get this out of Tolkien's work, and that might be why I didn't enjoy it by and large. Aside from the brief bits I mentioned previously.

Why do you suppose that utilizing horrors as entertainment and claiming "historical reality" is incorrect? I mean, I've read literature filled with rape, devolution of human beings into simple-minded beasts, infanticide and domestic abuse...this all in a single novel, Beloved, which drew from slavery in the American south. Since the authors are published, I assume that they have done their research and have a good basis for the graphic elements of their work. Thus I would leave it to you to disprove that the utilization of horrors for entertainment and claiming "historical reality" is incorrect.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

the ring itself causes injury, beyond regular war PTSD.

I...I think I just understood one of your posts. :eek:

I've also just noticed the typo in the title and it's bothering me.

[Darth Richard II]

The characters in the First Law trilogy behave realistically in the context of what they're experiencing. It is easy to throw around the world "realism" without having any idea of its proper usage. "Realism" is characters responding to their circumstances, mundane or fantastic, in a way that feels real of genuine. In that context, I see the First Law trilogy as being a realistic fantasy in the same way that I see A Song of Ice and Fire as realistic fantasy. I didn't get this out of Tolkien's work, and that might be why I didn't enjoy it by and large. Aside from the brief bits I mentioned previously.

Why do you suppose that utilizing horrors as entertainment and claiming "historical reality" is incorrect? I mean, I've read literature filled with rape, devolution of human beings into simple-minded beasts, infanticide and domestic abuse...this all in a single novel, Beloved, which drew from slavery in the American south. Since the authors are published, I assume that they have done their research and have a good basis for the graphic elements of their work. Thus I would leave it to you to disprove that the utilization of horrors for entertainment and claiming "historical reality" is incorrect.

That is such a ridiculously absurd statement I don't have the words.

Also, thinking about it, First Law reminds me more of a power metal music video. Maybe a little progressive/viking metal in there too.

Brother Semaus, ahem, DARTH RICHARD MODE ACTIVATE

Your post is so fucking stupid I cried a little bit. A fairy tale? The fuck? The entire thing is based around Norse mythology, what the fuck did you expect, war and peace? Not to mention that Frodo doesn't actually destroy the ring(Gollum does), and, wait, there's no whores and rapists? That;s...bad? Did you just complain that Lord of the Rings doesn't have STDs? For fucks sake, main NINE characters? Did you actually read the books or did you watch a trailer for the first film in between jacking it off to HBO?

Ahem, DARTH RICHARD MODE....DEACTIVATE

[The Reckoner]

Norse mythology has a big theme of sacrifice and the importance of a noble death, correct? I didn't get any of that in Rings, nor did Rings feel like a Ragnarok End-of-the-World sort of novel. It was a quaint travelogue that allowed Professor Tolkien to demonstrate his masterful skills as a linguist and world-builder. The characters felt a bit two-dimensional and I read on more from a sense of obligation--this is credited as the source of much fantasy lit--than anything else. War itself is full of horrors, so I don't see the absurdity in that statement. Certainly, it is no more absurd than throwing a tantrum instead of a thoughtful rebuttal to someone with whom you disagree.

[Darth Richard II]

:bang:

Are a lot of you new to the internet? If you think that was a tantrum I hate to think what will happen the first time you encounter good old peterbound. :eek:

[Larry.]

I'm puzzled as to why this thread hasn't been locked yet for 400+ replies. That being said, the redundancy of the arguments being made makes me wonder if some people even bother reading other posts, or if they just want to keep repeating points in order to "be heard" or something. There are flaws in Tolkien's work, yes. There are some beautifully-written moments to go with more turgid prose, yes. But I think the "realism" argument, weak as it is to me, perhaps should be ported over into another thread and let's see how many will weigh in if it is somewhat unmoored from Tolkien-centric discussion.

[NogrodtheGreat]

Norse mythology has a big theme of sacrifice and the importance of a noble death, correct? I didn't get any of that in Rings, nor did Rings feel like a Ragnarok End-of-the-World sort of novel.

Honestly, did you actually read the novel? Really? Everyone is entitled to subjective opinion venting within reason but statements like this border on the delusional.

If you didn't get a sense of "sacrifice can be an important moral virtue" from Rings then you simply did not understand the book. Furthermore, Norse mythology is not holy concerned with Ragnorok, so why would you expect it to make an appearance necessarily?

[Darth Richard II]

I can only assume the mods are all watching the world cup. And it pains me to say, but Larry is probably right, were all just shouting past each other at this point, although LotR isn't

Honestly, did you actually read the novel? Really? Everyone is entitled to subjective opinion venting within reason but statements like this border on the delusional.

If you didn't get a sense of "sacrifice can be an important moral virtue" from Rings then you simply did not understand the book. Furthermore, Norse mythology is not holy concerned with Ragnorok, so why would you expect it to make an appearance necessarily?

Right? I don't see what part about the soul crushing magic ring of despair being not a fun thing to have to carry across a volcanic wasteland seems to elude people. Some people may also want to give Wagner's Ring Cycle a listen.

realistic because it doesn't have STDs still slays me. I might use that as a sig.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Not sure if people are trolling at this point, to be honest. My desire to rip a couple of posts to pieces (how many times does it need to be pointed out that Frodo failed?) is mitigated by the fact that the thread will soon be closed due to length anyway.

Anyway, seeing as there is no sex in Beowulf, or STDs in Homer, I trust that certain people around here regard those works as fundamentally childish and simple-minded.

[Jo498]

FWIW, Tyrion should be probably disfigured by STDs by now as he has been screwing whores since the age of 14.

I agree that it's getting ridiculous. But what really bugs me is that people seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that the so-called "realistic" fantasy is at least as cavalier with respect to logistics of armies and similar things. Tolkien painstakingly checked phases of the moon, walking times and distances, so while there is of course artistic licence there may actually be less in LotR than in so-called "realistic" fantasy. And there is far less magic (and it's not ex machina either) in Tolkien than in e.g. GRRM or First Law.

[The Reckoner]

Using magic doesn't automatically propel your fantasy beyond the realm of "realism" so long as your characters' responses to the fantastic elements feel genuine and realistic. If you have some camp followers, or soldiers taking advantage of the local populace, or just flat out whoring, you would expect a mention here or there about something that could be described as an STD. No need to trumpet it like an edgelord or anything. Just a couple of words about how some of the troops hadn't been looking that hot since they bedded down. Along with questioning their commanders' orders, doing things in order to convince themselves that there's purpose in marching on Mordor, questioning if the orcs are unredeemable. Stuff like that.

Since Sauron was hyped as this ancient evil Dark Lord Supreme, I expected that Tolkien would tap into Norse end of the world myths in setting up The Two Towers and The Return of the King. Instead, we more or less get to the brink of the abyss only to be shown to a cozy tearoom on the side. Tolkien's writing keeps me from being able to really connect or sympathize with any of his character, except for perhaps Boromir who had very human motivations for his actions. Similarly, Tolkien was onto something great with Gorbag in TTT. Unfortunately he remembered that Gorbag is evil and needed to be dispatched by Good and Noble Sam.

So, I'm not calling Tolkien a Weis/Hickman, a Goodkind or a Brooks. It's just that he gets to the cusp of his full potential as a writer that experienced war firsthand and shies away from fully exploring how war affects the human, or orc, psyche.

Edit: I found Beowulf to be fairly simplistic. Homer's Odyssey was much better, though not exactly something I'm itching to reread.