/lit/ - Literature

>>12568268
welcome to the first day of the rest of your life

>>11473703
>appreciates homer
>doesn't appreciate tolkien

Tolkien is the Homer of the modern world. He was working with themes of media ecology concurrent with Marshall McLuhan, though his approach was more openly moralistic as opposed to McLuhan's assumed air of a dispassionate diagnostician. I suspect this is the source of many of the accusations of Tolkien's naivete - what seems on the surface to be an overly simplistic dualism. I would argue that Tolkien's ideas of good and evil are actually sophisticated, and their clear and obvious delineation does not strike me as intellectual laziness, but rather a bold assertion that is actually very hard to pull off in a way that doesn't bore intelligent readers. The whole story of LotR has at it's core the very Spenglerian idea that technics and magic arise from the same impulse. For Tolkien, being a Catholic, this impulse towards power, the "magical" mode of thought, is the same impulse that led to the fall of man in Genesis, and he places in opposition to this what he calls "enchantment" which is essentially the Christian idea of theosis. Above all else, he intended the story to be a joy to read, to be "enchanting" in accordance with the theme of the book itself, and not a work of "magic". He succeeded in this goal spectacularly, and because of this LotR is often written off as a "good story" and nothing more, like a Dumas novel. If Homer wrote The Odyssey today I'm sure it would receive the same treatment.

Tolkien is the Homer of the modern age. It's ridiculous that LotR is often written off as a "good story" and nothing more, like a Dumas novel. If Homer wrote The Odyssey today I'm sure it would receive the same treatment. Prove me wrong.

>>10433968
This has always bothered me about primitivism. I like reading books and would rather not give that up.

Am I just supposed to tale tales around the fire or something?

>>10375359

That quote is fascinating, and leads back to one of the more interesting aspects Tolkien's legendarium, namely the lack of "magic" as it exists in most of the fantasy that came after, and based itself on, Tolkien's model. Tolkien himself stated that the "power" he writes about is not magic. Rather it is art, or skill; the ability to control and manipulate the physical world. Gandalf at no point blasts spells at cunts or teleports or flies or anything we might consider magic. Every seemingly super-natural thing he does is described in such a subtle manner as we are never fully sure about the nature of his skills. Saruman's power is his unique talent for manipulation using his voice and cunning. The "power" encapsulated in Sauron's ring is never explained except by vague allusions to malice and will. There is no wand-waving shit going on; what seems like magic is only so because we aren't told how it is working (that clichèd Asimov quote comes to mind). The Elves' power, think of Feanor for example, is in harnessing the world around them using their skill and artistry. The idea that they are technologically advanced, albeit in a different manner to how we understand technology, makes more sense than any invocation of magic to explain the fantastical aspects of Tolkien's world. The Eldar are literally so enlightened by having lived with the Valar that their technology surpasses description. The seeping away of wonder and beauty that occurs in the Third Age and onwards is the decaying of the influence and artistry of the greatest race among the Children of Illùvatar, and men descend into a savagery in their wake, presumably thousands of years after Aragorn and his kingdom have disappeared. Imagine how the tribes of the Dark Ages viewed the great aqueducts and villas of the broken Roman empire; they believed giants or gods built them. Technology is magic to an uneducated savage. Arda is our world, as is pretty well known, and we are living in the first enlightened era that has been built up after the fall of the Elves and the Edain, living in a world that is becoming rapidly as "magic" as the Elves, due to our technological advances, but without the beauty or artistry.

bump

>appreciates homer
>doesn't appreciate tolkien

Tolkien is the Homer of the modern world. He was working with themes of media ecology concurrent with Marshall McLuhan, though his approach was more openly moralistic as opposed to McLuhan's assumed air of a dispassionate diagnostician. I suspect this is the source of many of the accusations of Tolkien's naivete - what seems on the surface to be an overly simplistic dualism. I would argue that Tolkien's ideas of good and evil are actually sophisticated, and their clear and obvious delineation does not strike me as intellectual laziness, but rather a bold assertion that is actually very hard to pull off in a way that doesn't bore intelligent readers. The whole story of LotR has at it's core the very Spenglerian idea that technics and magic arise from the same impulse. For Tolkien, being a Catholic, this impulse towards power, the "magical" mode of thought, is the same impulse that led to the fall of man in Genesis, and he places in opposition to this what he calls "enchantment" which is essentially the Christian idea of theosis. Above all else, he intended the story to be a joy to read, to be "enchanting" in accordance with the theme of the book itself, and not a work of "magic". He succeeded in this goal spectacularly, and because of this LotR is often written off as a "good story" and nothing more, like a Dumas novel. If Homer wrote The Odyssey today I'm sure it would receive the same treatment.

I love that book cover. Great wallpaper material.