Jump to content
Ser Scot A Ellison

Tolkien 4.0 (A dark and hungry sea lion arises)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

We’re ar 23 pages on the last Tolkien thread.

Asthetics are fundamentally subjective.  FYI.

:)

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For shits and giggles I actually went and read that inconsistency and errors link and not only is it really short for something as detailed and long as LotR, most of the errors have explanations and the article even opens praising Tolkien.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

For shits and giggles I actually went and read that inconsistency and errors link and not only is it really short for something as detailed and long as LotR, most of the errors have explanations and the article even opens praising Tolkien.

 

It is Tolkien fans desperately trying to refute the plot holes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I’m still waiting to hear about books you actually like.

I’m more of a sci-fi guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

I’m more of a sci-fi guy.

Then perhaps Tolkien simply isn't your cup of tea.  That doesn't make his work objectively "bad".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Mr. Moorcock’s opinions of Professor Tolkien are well known, but remain... opinions.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

 

Imagine thinkin that Epic Pooh means anything. It's not even that all of its criticism of the politics embedded in LotR at some level are unfair, but it's a cowardly piece of work that, rather than actually seeking to highlight and refute those politics in any real way (which would have required really reading the book) it just tries to pick out fragments to prove he was a bad writer. I strongly suspect he actually came up with it with the Hobbit in mind (given his accusations of constant tweeness could be better levelled there and it is an essay otherwise aimed entirely at children's books anyway) but decided LotR was more relevant and splashy to criticise, regardless of whether his points (Tolkien doesn't engage with death, ffs what is that for a take) made sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Since Moorcock hadn't actually read LOTR when he wrote that essay, it is of limited value.  And, who reads or criticises Moorcock today?

Academia.edu lists 22 papers that include or talk about Moorcock. For whatever that's worth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Moorcock quite a bit. He was an important figure for both the fantasy genre -- thanks to his own work, most notably the Eternal Champion stories -- and for the wider SF/F genre -- thanks to his editing of New Worlds and championing the New Wave. In fact, these two aspects of his work are inexorably linked because there was a point in time where he single-handedly was keeping New Worlds afloat by churning out stories and novels in alcohol-fuelled all-nighters that he could sell to then cover the cost of getting the next issue out (the quality of his output in this particular era is ... uneven, to say the least)

His Eternal Champion multivese is his most famous work, with characters like Elric of Melnibone, Prince Corum, Ulrich von Bek (Very fond of The War Hound and the World's Pain), Oswald Bastable (early examples of steampunk), Jerry Cornelius, and so on. He's also written some well-regarded mainstream fiction, particularly Mother London. If you've not read his work, much recommended.

All that said, he is a bit of a bomb-thrower and his "Epic Pooh" essay is a perspective, but hardly the only perspective one can or should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

Imagine thinkin that Epic Pooh means anything. It's not even that all of its criticism of the politics embedded in LotR at some level are unfair, but it's a cowardly piece of work that, rather than actually seeking to highlight and refute those politics in any real way (which would have required really reading the book) it just tries to pick out fragments to prove he was a bad writer. I strongly suspect he actually came up with it with the Hobbit in mind (given his accusations of constant tweeness could be better levelled there and it is an essay otherwise aimed entirely at children's books anyway) but decided LotR was more relevant and splashy to criticise, regardless of whether his points (Tolkien doesn't engage with death, ffs what is that for a take) made sense.

I honestly still don't think he's properly read it. Last time I saw him being interviewed, he was calling Tolkien "a crypto-fascist" and arguing "nothing changes" in LOTR and that we go on a huge adventure and simply come back to how things started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ser Drewy said:

I honestly still don't think he's properly read it. Last time I saw him being interviewed, he was calling Tolkien "a crypto-fascist" and arguing "nothing changes" in LOTR and that we go on a huge adventure and simply come back to how things started.

Most of the characters don’t change. Only Frodo changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Most of the characters don’t change. Only Frodo changes.

Wrong. Many characters change their garments several times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Ser Drewy said:

Wrong. Many characters change their garments several times. 

Psychologically the characters don’t change.

Edited by BloodyJollyRoger
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, BloodyJollyRoger said:

Psychologically the characters don’t change.

 

The most obvious change of all is in Frodo, who is permanently marked by his experience and can no longer find peace in Middle-earth due to the spiritual and psychological trauma he suffered.

The other Hobbits are changed as well by their experiences, to a lesser degree, uniformly becoming more mature and serious after having gained experience in the wider world that broadened their horizons.

Éowyn changes, reassessing her understanding of her future and desires in the course of the TTT and RotK. Théoden as well, for that matter, given the psychological poisoning that Wormtongue had wrought; his restoration to courage and hope is by any measure a psychological change.

And of course there is Boromir, his sense of order challenged by Aragorn's existence, his desire to be hero almost seduced by the call of the Ring, until he recognizes the error of his ways and sacrifices himself.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lobelia changes a bit too, I'd say, from the trauma of the Shire takeover. Perceptions of her from other hobbits change as well: she's respected as one of the few who really stood up to the invaders. And, of course, Bilbo and Thorin undergo changes in The Hobbit.

Denethor changes as well, going from a competent and strong-willed military leader to a man so shattered by despair he comes to suicide. 

Oh, and Gollum has a  tragic inner conflict with redemption and change, but ultimately falls back into his evil ways.

Edited by Ser Drewy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...