On realism, grimdark and childishness

[C.T. Phipps]

I love how Tolkien points out, "You realize Romani are Aryan, right?"

Oh, eugenics.

Such a junk science.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Dwarves are definitely Tolkiens' conception of Jews. However, I also think this is a case of a "ehhh" because while Thorin Oakenshield is a fool, the other 11 dwarves are likable supporting characters. Thorin also gets a redemption at the end of the story with Bilbo's relationship with him growing over the story. He's meant to be a flawed character but not an evil or even irredeemably flawed one (and the elves and humans ALSO display gold fever).

Tolkien made his dwarves from a bunch of Jewish stereotypes as well as mythological Norse references fused together but these include positive ones as well as negative: a proud, honorable, hardworking warrior race.

I.e. Tolkien wasn't deliberately setting out to be negative.

The dwarves in the story also break the stereotypes of them in-universe as often as they are reinforced. So I think it perhaps falls under Fair for its Day.

Edit:

Bilbo is a landed gentleman on his mother's side so he's not much of a commoner, just a different sort of aristocrat than the actual feudal nobility. The Dwarves are an interesting mix of royals and commoners who are more or less equals.

Bilbo's family seemed more to me like the Bennet family in P&P, landed gentry, not aristocrats at all,  starting in that generation a gentle slide down the financial scale -- except he got a trunk of gold, as a gift from the grateful for services rendered. Like Bennet pere, the Hobbiton Bilbo is never seen working, before or after the Great Adventure,  beyond putting together meals.

[Darth Richard II]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

What do you call fairy tales with the cleaned up for modern, as opposed to the folk audience, that conclude with "They lived happily ever after?"  

Your view looks too narrow and flat for the way real and effective story telling works.  Which is why so many, including yourself it seems from other of your posts, dislike these arbitrary publishing industry marketing generic divisions. This is particularly so as genre, being generic, grabs from every other sort of story telling trope as from a rag bag to create it's own pop culture flavor.  The tropes of the Hero, the Aristocratic Hero, just beginning with the aristo baby that was lost, stolen or supposedly killed, has been the basis of myth and epic, biblical stories, folktale, fairy tale, the Romance (don't mean what publishing means by it, but works such as Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristram, courtly love Romance authors, and Mallory and  -- now there is found some gritty and dark -- genre fantasy forever.  As well as adventure - historical fiction too.  The Discovery of the Hero's True Identity being the restoration of order and a dawn of a new golden age.  Genre fiction didn't create that! Nor did it invent that, though certainly super hero genre has run with it forever, even before Tarzan (a British aristo sort) and John Carter (a confederate aristo)  and Look Up Into the Sky!  It's SUPERMAN!

What is really interesting about all this in terms of Fantasy is that the restoration of a golden age and order, or at least stability and a silver waning nostalgic sweetness of LoTR's conclusion with the crowning of Aragorn, is the perfect booked to ASOIAF, even as it stands w/o ever being finished.  Whoever take the Iron Throne -- or doesn't take the Iron Throne -- there will be no golden age restored, any more than when Henry Tudor took the throne in England, or when the second Valois followed the feckless King Jean.*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* As mentioned here before, when reading the history of the 14th and 15th century in France, ASOIAF seems to follow those events a whole lot more closely than anything to do with the English Wars of the Roses -- including wholesale pulls of proper names, events -- even a version of the Red Wedding, though that trope too is ancient and found in myth, the Old Testament, and historically, from Nordic to Italian city states' conflicts, to Native Americans enclosed and set on fire at a celebration. GRRM has talked frequently about the Maurice Druon historical series set in that era from which he drew a great deal of inspiration.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[C.T. Phipps]

When a story is unrealistic, we simply call it fiction. James Bond isn't fantasy no matter how many people he kills or women he beds.

When it's about impossible fantastical things, we call it fantasy.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

That letter is awesome.  Just dripping with justified sacasm.

I am as familiar with this letter as anybody else who love LOTR.

[C.T. Phipps]

42 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I am as familiar with this letter as anybody else who love LOTR.

Great movies. They should make a book.

[Zorral]

Another term, new to me, as antithesis of grimdark, and just as bad as noble bright: 'lawful good.'' But it's baked into the sf/f genre to quantify and qualify, so there ya go!

Well, entertaining as all this may be, the weather is dreadful and I leave very early for some really good and beautiful weather and -- even fun.  Supposedly work but this time around not so much, it looks like. May or may not be able to check in from down there, but in the meantime, this has been an interesting discussion, and will surely continue.

 

[Darth Richard II]

Lawful Good is from D&D. That term is older then I am.

[Green Gogol]

12 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

That's exactly why I (and other writers) chose it as a definition after studying the subject. People keep trying to assign these weird specific elements to it and philosophies.

But you can’t choose a definition that you like and try to impose it on others. That’s not how languages work. Language is an organic, living thing that refuse to be controlled. People don’t try to assign weird specific elements and philosophies to the word grimdark. It’s how it is understood by most people. 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

6 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Dwarves are definitely Tolkiens' conception of Jews. However, I also think this is a case of a "ehhh" because while Thorin Oakenshield is a fool, the other 11 dwarves are likable supporting characters. Thorin also gets a redemption at the end of the story with Bilbo's relationship with him growing over the story. He's meant to be a flawed character but not an evil or even irredeemably flawed one (and the elves and humans ALSO display gold fever).

Tolkien made his dwarves from a bunch of Jewish stereotypes as well as mythological Norse references fused together but these include positive ones as well as negative: a proud, honorable, hardworking warrior race.

I.e. Tolkien wasn't deliberately setting out to be negative.

The dwarves in the story also break the stereotypes of them in-universe as often as they are reinforced. So I think it perhaps falls under Fair for its Day.

Edit:

Bilbo is a landed gentleman on his mother's side so he's not much of a commoner, just a different sort of aristocrat than the actual feudal nobility. The Dwarves are an interesting mix of royals and commoners who are more or less equals.

I really wouldn't push the Dwarf-Jews thing too far. Bombur munches on a pork pie, for instance. Back in October 2016, I wrote a blog post addressing one academic paper on the subject - 

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2016/10/27/tolkiens-dwarves-and-alleged-anti-semitism/

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 hours ago, Zorral said:

Bilbo's family seemed more to me like the Bennet family in P&P, landed gentry, not aristocrats at all,  starting in that generation a gentle slide down the financial scale -- except he got a trunk of gold, as a gift from the grateful for services rendered. Like Bennet pere, the Hobbiton Bilbo is never seen working, before or after the Great Adventure,  beyond putting together meals.

Bilbo's mother was an aristocrat. His father's side is middle-class (Belladonna Took married down). The result is that he's comfortable upper-middle-class himself.

https://phuulishfellow.wordpress.com/2018/08/25/cracking-the-social-code-class-in-tolkiens-shire/

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

On 2/12/2019 at 2:40 AM, C.T. Phipps said:

My History degree was in Medieval History and one of the things I was fascinated about was the Crusades as well as how completely insane the whole of the Eastern Roman Empire and Arabic world was to the Franks. Everything from glass windows to plumbing. The wealth on display was beyond their comprehension and the trade routes that made it all possible were simply things no one had access to. Feudalism had made cultural development stagnate and even effectively stop while it had thrived beyond. There's a good arguement that the Crsuades also essentially re-established the routes and helped lead to the Renaissance.

That may be so, but it is also worth bearing in mind that even the richest pre-industrial societies were on the level of present day third world countries. Plumbing in some town houses and castles or not, the difference in levels of economic development between states were not all that great*, and could not be either. At the end of the day the large majority of the population in any agricultural civilization were farmers, and most of the rest craftsmen of some sort, all operating with little or no mechanical aid. There is only so much in terms of output per worker that you can achieve with that, even if you happen to be unusually well organized. 

*At least not anywhere near how great they are today. 

[Jo498]

On 2/12/2019 at 2:40 AM, C.T. Phipps said:

My History degree was in Medieval History and one of the things I was fascinated about was the Crusades as well as how completely insane the whole of the Eastern Roman Empire and Arabic world was to the Franks. Everything from glass windows to plumbing. The wealth on display was beyond their comprehension and the trade routes that made it all possible were simply things no one had access to. Feudalism had made cultural development stagnate and even effectively stop while it had thrived beyond. There's a good arguement that the Crsuades also essentially re-established the routes and helped lead to the Renaissance.

But this is obviously a completely lopsided view. As the Marquis pointed out, feudalism was a reaction to the collapse of the Western Empire. It was more efficient in a decentralized realm with little infrastructure left. In fact, I read that with a few innovations in agriculture (crops rotation, better ploughs), the feudal system of agriculture was or considerably more efficient than the slave labor of the Roman Empire, it certainly became very efficient leading to overpopulation problems in the 13th century. I also find it somewhat strange that you seem morally outraged by feudalism but apparently in awe of the thriving slavekeeping and -trading Maurs and Romans. If you got plumbing and stained glass, a bit of slavery is o.k., I guess.

Western Europe was under heavy pressure for several centuries: Maurs in Spain, constantly harrassing southern France and Italy, Norsemen harassing the British Isles and everywhere up the rivers, Slavic riders coming from the Balkans. Sure, Northwestern Europe was totally backwards compared to 6th century Constantinople or 9th century Bagdad. But with their "stagnating feudal system and repressive church hierarchies" they pulled through all this harrassment, either threw back (reconquista) or "civilized" (the Norse and some of the Slavs) the aggressors and by the end of the 11th century they had enough energy to spare to go on crusades and (at least in the first one) pretty much kicked the butts of the "superior civs". They did not have so many shiny things although by the 11th century they also started building cathedrals that were every bit as impressive as byzantine or muslim architecture and Western Europe also developed music as we know it today. The stylistic changes in architecture and arts also show that cultural development was certainly possible and took place.

And as we all know by the end of the 15th century Europe was good enough in all the tech that mattered (ships, navigation, gunpowder, steel, optics, maps, printing) to discover and eventually conquer the world. And still manage to keep the Ottoman Empire (well organized, nice and shiny stuff) at bay. And nobody in his right mind could claim that from the early 1300s on late medieval art, architecture and literature (Giotto, Dante etc.) was on par with other cultures or periods.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

But this is obviously a completely lopsided view. As the Marquis pointed out, feudalism was a reaction to the collapse of the Western Empire. It was more efficient in a decentralized realm with little infrastructure left. In fact, I read that with a few innovations in agriculture (crops rotation, better ploughs), the feudal system of agriculture was or considerably more efficient than the slave labor of the Roman Empire, it certainly became very efficient leading to overpopulation problems in the 13th century. I also find it somewhat strange that you seem morally outraged by feudalism but apparently in awe of the thriving slavekeeping and -trading Maurs and Romans. If you got plumbing and stained glass, a bit of slavery is o.k., I guess.

Western Europe was under heavy pressure for several centuries: Maurs in Spain, constantly harrassing southern France and Italy, Norsemen harassing the British Isles and everywhere up the rivers, Slavic riders coming from the Balkans. Sure, Northwestern Europe was totally backwards compared to 6th century Constantinople or 9th century Bagdad. But with their "stagnating feudal system and repressive church hierarchies" they pulled through all this harrassment, either threw back (reconquista) or "civilized" (the Norse and some of the Slavs) the aggressors and by the end of the 11th century they had enough energy to spare to go on crusades and (at least in the first one) pretty much kicked the butts of the "superior civs". They did not have so many shiny things although by the 11th century they also started building cathedrals that were every bit as impressive as byzantine or muslim architecture and Western Europe also developed music as we know it today. The stylistic changes in architecture and arts also show that cultural development was certainly possible and took place.

And as we all know by the end of the 15th century Europe was good enough in all the tech that mattered (ships, navigation, gunpowder, steel, optics, maps, printing) to discover and eventually conquer the world. And still manage to keep the Ottoman Empire (well organized, nice and shiny stuff) at bay. And nobody in his right mind could claim that from the early 1300s on late medieval art, architecture and literature (Giotto, Dante etc.) was on par with other cultures or periods.

Western Europe remained in awe of Rome, long after it's economic and cultural achievements surpassed those of Rome.  The West was certainly less advanced in 900 than in 400, but way ahead of the Roman Empire by 1400. Gibbon's view that the 2nd century AD was the best time to be alive was absurd by his time.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

But this is obviously a completely lopsided view. As the Marquis pointed out, feudalism was a reaction to the collapse of the Western Empire. It was more efficient in a decentralized realm with little infrastructure left. In fact, I read that with a few innovations in agriculture (crops rotation, better ploughs), the feudal system of agriculture was or considerably more efficient than the slave labor of the Roman Empire, it certainly became very efficient leading to overpopulation problems in the 13th century. I also find it somewhat strange that you seem morally outraged by feudalism but apparently in awe of the thriving slavekeeping and -trading Maurs and Romans. If you got plumbing and stained glass, a bit of slavery is o.k., I guess.

Western Europe was under heavy pressure for several centuries: Maurs in Spain, constantly harrassing southern France and Italy, Norsemen harassing the British Isles and everywhere up the rivers, Slavic riders coming from the Balkans. Sure, Northwestern Europe was totally backwards compared to 6th century Constantinople or 9th century Bagdad. But with their "stagnating feudal system and repressive church hierarchies" they pulled through all this harrassment, either threw back (reconquista) or "civilized" (the Norse and some of the Slavs) the aggressors and by the end of the 11th century they had enough energy to spare to go on crusades and (at least in the first one) pretty much kicked the butts of the "superior civs". They did not have so many shiny things although by the 11th century they also started building cathedrals that were every bit as impressive as byzantine or muslim architecture and Western Europe also developed music as we know it today. The stylistic changes in architecture and arts also show that cultural development was certainly possible and took place.

And as we all know by the end of the 15th century Europe was good enough in all the tech that mattered (ships, navigation, gunpowder, steel, optics, maps, printing) to discover and eventually conquer the world. And still manage to keep the Ottoman Empire (well organized, nice and shiny stuff) at bay. And nobody in his right mind could claim that from the early 1300s on late medieval art, architecture and literature (Giotto, Dante etc.) was on par with other cultures or periods.

...

Man what?

You're actually arguing feudalism was a BETTER system than the previous Empire? That's just silly. Why in the world would you believe that? I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying that it's coming off like answering, "What is the chemical composition of water?" and answering, "Potatoes." Feudalism is just the system that rose in the aftermath of the collapse. There's nothing about it that was better. One only needs to look at its surroundings to see that.

As for the rest of that, Feudalism started declining in the West as the beginning of its rise to power.

In large part because of trade and the rise of merchantalism brought about by *drumroll* The Crusades. If you study the law, there's massive numbers of ways people did their best to escape serfdom for freemanship and that was the basis for a functioning economy in Europe.

[Zorral]

Well, during the era of feudalsim, the Ottoman Empire progressively, massively penetrated the lands of the western Mediterranean.  From the conquest of Constantinople, the emperors were able to stage great campaigns that successively took Malta, Crete, Greece, southern Italy and Sicily.  In the 15th century they were so powerful that King Francois allowed the Turks to harbor at what is Marseille for a whole year, and that was the only coastal city of the kingdoms in France to host Turks.  They even laid siege to, and essentially sacked Avignon while the papacy was still located there.

Also, do not forget that even in the middle 1500s there were still serfs in England, 'owned' by their lord, and attached to the land as part of the real estate.

In the meantime, during all these years, including the great Mongol invasions of the 13th century, the trade routes east continued to carry merchandise north and south, east and west.  By the time t the Ottomans ruled Egypt, the great sea routes to the Southeast became important even for the Europeans via the Venetians.  Marco Polo and his father and uncles were Venetian.  They did it overland.   In the end it was both the Ottomans and the discovery of the New World -- the idiocy of Venice not sending aid in time to assist Constaninople, thus losing their Greek and Black Sea colonies, that took them out.  With the routes to Asia going west over the Atlantic and Pacific, and the massive supplies of gold, silver and gems out of South America -- that also took out some of the great banks and other mercantile institutions.  

In other words, starting early in the 16th century, the gravitational pull for trade and wealth and orientation shifted for the first time in Europe from the Mediterranean, the territories of the Holy Roman Empire, and the east, to the Atlantic and west.

But serfdom still continued in central Europe and Russia for a very long time afterwards -- in those place that didn't have an easy locational access to the Atlantic.

Posted from high above the Atlantic, at the moment -- how different things are now!

[SeanF]

The real idiocy was to sack Constantinople in 1204, which dealt a fatal blow to the only State that could stem the Turkish tide.

The Venetians gave considerable aid to Constantinople in 1453, but it was too little too late.

[C.T. Phipps]

The Ottomans also died a slow death of a thousand cuts but for almost a millennium, they were the Empire of the World.

[Zorral]

3 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The Ottomans also died a slow death of a thousand cuts but for almost a millennium, they were the Empire of the World.

Their organizational capacities and effective administration were remarkable -- sure as hell beat, say French royalty in the 14th century, for instance.

Yes -- the Venetians' determination to take out Constantinople via their European crusading surragates was the big nail in the coffin that Constantinople became. But that was almost 3 centuries prior to Mehmet II.  The Venetians basically then ruled Constantinople, until 1453. And after the city became Turkish, the Venetians still stayed.

Actually the Venetians did not provide significant help to Constantine in 1453 -- though the Genoese did quite a bit on the sea, which was when the Ottomans learned they needed to master sea power too.  But that was what was too late.

The bloody mess that was Lepanto was Venice's last gasp to save her empire -- and herself. And that is where the Ottomans were checked from further expansion out of the Western Med into Europe -- but their auxilaries  (which the Europeans naturally viewed as pirates) on the south coast kept the Med in constant terrified turmoil for more centuries after that.  That Isabella the Queen was terrified of Ottoman invasion wasn't a megrim, but very real -- the emperor said he was coming for her kingdom, and they were in Italy and many other places.  Thus the terror of third columns and the expulsions.

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Zorral said:

Their organizational capacities and effective administration were remarkable -- sure as hell beat, say French royalty in the 14th century, for instance.

Yes -- the Venetians' determination to take out Constantinople via their European crusading surragates was the big nail in the coffin that Constantinople became. But that was almost 3 centuries prior to Mehmet II.  The Venetians basically then ruled Constantinople, until 1453. And after the city became Turkish, the Venetians still stayed.

Actually the Venetians did not provide significant help to Constantine in 1453 -- though the Genoese did quite a bit on the sea, which was when the Ottomans learned they needed to master sea power too.  But that was what was too late.

The bloody mess that was Lepanto was Venice's last gasp to save her empire -- and herself. And that is where the Ottomans were checked from further expansion out of the Western Med into Europe -- but their auxilaries  (which the Europeans naturally viewed as pirates) on the south coast kept the Med in constant terrified turmoil for more centuries after that.  That Isabella the Queen was terrified of Ottoman invasion wasn't a megrim, but very real -- the emperor said he was coming for her kingdom, and they were in Italy and many other places.  Thus the terror of third columns and the expulsions.

The earlier Turks were the Seljuks.  The Byzantines had lost ground to them, but their Empire was still considerable in the Twelth Century.  After 1204, their Empire became a shadow of its past self.

Large numbers of Venetians and Cretans (subject to them) fought in 1453, despite Venice being technically neutral.

Europeans were right to fear Mehmet II and his successors.  After taking Constantinople, they proclaimed themselves Emperors of Rome, and intended to reconquer the Roman Empire (and by 1566, they had gone a long way towards doing so).   In the eyes of the Emperors, they were simply turning the Empire to Islam, in the way that Constantine had turned to Christianity.