/lit/ - Literature

>She thinks Twatlight and Harry Potter are better than Lord of the Rings!

Whelp, that's it, I'm out. This can't end well.

Video games taking themselves too seriously?

You don't say!

>>1705224
It's true, they're at least as bad

>>1705224

Not trolling, I think that (except for the last book which was awful) Harry Potter is better than LotR

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee doggies

250 posts of bickering here we come!

>>1705230
Seriously? And you people dare call yourselves the literature board?

>>1705230
Well it really depends whether you prefer diarrhea or those little ball-shaped turds

>>1705236
This is just like every board on 4chan, we have people who don't know shit about literature posting here.

Kind of like how /tg/ still has people who think 4e is better than 3.5

>written by an old white guy

I don't see what skin tone has to do with writing fantasy novels, but okay.

>>1705230
In terms of prose, execution, and personality of characters, Harry Potter is better than LOTR. Arguing on the basis of which is more imaginative is kind of unfair since the original was so vast and original for its time (and he never could have come up with something like Harry Potter.)

But yes, it is more entertaining and easy to digest than the textbook of the One Ring.

Source, please.

>>1705230
Obviously negating the fact that Tolkien had 0 reference material and only himself to fall back on. Rowling had ages of reading material for inspiration and ideas on how to write.
It's like saying Stephen King > Lovecraft. Sure, King's books are more engaging but Lovecraft set the stage.

>>1705230
According to what crieria are the Harry Potter books better than LotR? The skill of the author? The originality of the story/plot? Degree of accessability to the reader? Hnestly interested.

>>1705246
you are real wrong

>>1705251
They're better in the talkingoutofhisass department

>>1705251

I think they mean accessibility, and simplicity of the plot.

>>1705252
That's a very persuasive argument you have there. Would be a shame if I were to ignore it.

>>1705246
yes, and IT by King is better than Dagon by Lovecraft. Why? Years of refinement in the genre, possibility to study past authors for King.

'Standing on the shoulders of giants', it's called. If nobody would look back for support while writing, we'd be stuck with twilight-esque novels. Shit, shit and shit.

>>1705261
you can ignore it but you'll still be wrong

>>1705261
Oh that's great, picking the easy comment to respond to and then proclaiming his argument sucks.

>>1705241
>/tg/ thinks 4e is better than 3.5
Ah, I see now.

>>1705241

>implying /tg/ is one person

If /tg/ thought 4E was better as a one group, there would be no Edition Wars.

>>1705264
Something isn't merely great because it helped create something for others to refine later. LOTR is NOT a masterpiece because it is poorly written. It is imaginative, it is the reason we have such an extensive fantasy library in our literature, but it is only respected because of these facts.

If it's not entertaining (in the way that Harry Potter and Twilight fans like the books), it has to be well written. It is NOT well written.

>>1705270
Hey, it was the easiest one to respond to in the shortest time, I'm working on the other ones too.

>>1705276
It's not a masterpiece, in this day and age. Just as Seinfeld is not a masterpiece now.
Back when it was written, it was a masterpiece. Things can only be judged in their own context.

Look at the Illiad. It's fucking boring, has horrible pacing and is awful to read. Yet it's a masterpiece, because it was when it was written.

LOTR is the DBZ of fantasy

>>1705280
Well that's good. Just pisses me off when people do that.
Just ignore the faggot, he's probably just F5ing to see if he baited anyone before he goes back to troll on /v/.

>>1705276
you're pretty much still wrong here, dude

although tolkien tends towards verbosity and purple prose, his writing is still decent - he has an ear for rhythm and tone, his use of diction and voice is excellent, etc. tolkien's works aren't valuable only because of the rich imaginative nature and the influence they've had on fantasy as a genre; they are staggering works on a level beyond that which JKR is capable of accessing. and i don't mean to slight HP, because I love Harry Potter, but comparing the two is simply not on.

And the LotR books are entertaining. AND well written. so there.

>>1705286
>Look at the Illiad. It's fucking boring, has horrible pacing and is awful to read. Yet it's a masterpiece, because it was when it was written.

jesus fucking christ, look at this moron

why the fuck should we listen to anything you have to fucking say? jesus christ, by what standards are you able to claim that the iliad is bad? fucking shit, man.

>>1705251
Yes to all of the above. Harry Potter books are easy to pick up and are classically written to get the most emotional mile out of the reader, and hook you into the series.

It has a down on his luck hero who has to use his own innate abilities to survive. He eventually inherits a ton of money, which is every person in the world's dream, gets bullied, has a hard time with his studies, sometimes fails, and has fun with his friends.

Harry Potter is about personal life, and it was designed to fit kids interests. Those kids grew up with the book so now we have adults who like the series as well.

LOTR was written has a High Fantasy epic about heroes doing heroic actions. The problem is that heroes in this setting are defined by their actions, and not their personality. So he didn't give them any to speak of. Characters are flat and one dimensional and only serve the move the plot forward. Hope you don't mind not knowing what Legolas looks like, other than he's beautiful!

>>1705298
your only criteria for how good a book is seems to be how entertaining it is. for instance, you criticize lotr because its characters aren't as realistic or relatable - when indeed they aren't intended to be.

this is a dumb standard

>>1705296
By the standards we have today. It's a collaboration of cultural shift and improvement by authors on arts such as diction, style and tone.
Read a modern novel, then read Homer. Unless you picked a really shitty novel, it will be more fun to read. This does not fly if you have a revised version of the Illiad, which compensated for changed in culture and things which are lost in translation.

>>1705296
Whoah whoah. I disagree with claiming the Illiad is bad. There's almost nothing to compare it to in terms of writing back then, it's one of the first stories ever put down on paper.

Contrast LOTR with other modern writings, before and after, and you have a lot to choose from in the "good" writing department.

>>1705303
so what you're saying is that we should evaluate novels solely on the standard of how fun they are to read

AWESOME. this is totally valid and i will TOTALLY listen to your respectable and way cool opinion on literature.

"Don't destroy the shrines. It will frighten men. Enshrine the mediocre and you have destroyed the divine."

>>1705306
>There's almost nothing to compare it to in terms of writing back then, it's one of the first stories ever put down on paper.

That's exactly my point! Obviously I exaggerated a bit on the Illiad (I don't think it's really horrible, was just aiming to drive my point home). But yes, there's no material for comparison.
Things are similar with Tolkien, he pioneered a genre and therefore you can't compare him with much later authors as they will have an obvious advantage.

SERIOUSLY WHERE IS THE SOURCE FO THIS SHIT

>>1705307
What else would you live for? Even students read books to learn things which they find interesting and fun.
If you read, and you do not find it any fun, you really have no reason to. Why would you read for anything other than satisfaction? By the way, 'fun' can have many meanings and may in fact be 2deep4u.

>>1705300
But a good novel has to be entertaining to SOME degree, or else why bother to read it? I have tried to enjoy LOTR on numerous occasions at different levels, and every single time I despise it.

Different ways I've tried to enjoy it:
1. As a fantasy epic: But it lacks in characterization and enough description of people and events, which help to move you across the page and give you a deeper understanding of what's going on.
2. As an appreciation of what came before: Slightly more successful, but I'm still hampered by the better writing of other authors, such as Joseph Conrad, Austen, Harper Lee, Steinbeck, Alexander Dumas, etc.
3. Finally, as backstory (and a companion to) the movies of Lord of the Rings: This is where I could finally read and comprehend what was going on. I watched the movie side by side as I read the book. When I had a face to each character and an inkling of personality, I was able to slog through the books with a greater appreciation of what they had. But I had to get that from watching the movie alongside the original novels, which implies the novels ARE missing something.

Erm guys. The Iliad is the greatest work in its genre (epic poetry) and nothing has since surpassed it. I hope you all realize that

>>1705321
Ramayan/Jay are 5x better.

>>1705319
I have to go to work, which is too bad because I was enjoying the thread. Later guys.

>>1705321
I hope you realise that the Illiad does not fit in today's culture or will ever fit again. It's bad. It's not adapted. The literary world knows evolution just as the real world does. The Illiad is a fossil: while very impressive, it's dead. Deader than dead. It couldn't be deader, even if it died again which would require it to be alive again which will never happen.
D E A D.

>>1705313

Google "gigglesqee", click the 2nd link. You might have to look a few pages back for it though.

>>1705331
Allow me to explain my line of thought at this moment. It's dead, failure to adapt. Epic poetry is a genre that does not fit anymore. However, it was the best thing ever... when it was conceived and written. Not anymore, since the genre is no longer relevant. The only material for comparison we have is fantasy/high fantasy really, of which much is better (not inherently, but better adapted to today's society).

Basically, a story is an organism. Organisms are not inherently good or bad, and neither are mutations. However, some organisms may be better adapted to the environment than others. Those will thrive.
The Illiad is a dinosaur. While majestic, massive and memorable it is also no longer of relevance.

>>1705331
This is what fantasy nerds actually think.

>>1705342
see
>>1705343

>>1705343
I suppose clinging to a work that's of zero relevance and is frankly, bad by today's standards is something a normal, well-adjusted person would do.

>>1705334
Thank you.

>>1705321
How strange that nothing has surpassed it in over two thousand years. The Greeks must have been some kind of superhumans, the likes of which shall never walk the earth again.

I thought /v/ was bad for nostalgiafagging. You people go back millenia.

>>1705348
I'm sorry you are a child who will never be able to appreciate a work that many people love for its literary value

>>1705342
But that's wrong. The Iliad is STILL a great work, not just in historical terms.

>>1705357
I couldn't agree more, however why the Godwin invocation?

>>1705356
You can't judge a work outside of its own context. Besides that, you can't say whether I'm wrong or right, and neither can I. I merely proclaim that you should read that what brings you contentment, nothing more, nothing less. If you like the Illiad, read it! I won't think any less of you for reading something I personally don't like. Honestly, you probably have more people with you than I. I just stated my view and my opinion. Please don't think I was trying to enrage people by posting supposed 'facts'.

>>1705355
I read it, sort of liked it, however it just can't stand up to novels that came after it.
Mind you, I read a direct translation and sometimes the untranslated text (where I could, really) so that might have hindered it. I think the work would fare better with me if I were to read a version that has been adapted.

Okay, who just got duckrolled?

>>1705366
>You can't judge a work outside of its own context.
There is no reason you can't. People do it all the time

>>1705370
this board is too slow for that.
saw it, made a mental note of the post number.

>>1705370
It was me, I didn't actually get duckrolled, lol

>>1705373
People also state opinions as fact all the time. Sure you can, but it just doesn't work. Sorry for my usage of 'can't' but I meant that it just won't work.
It's like comparing Dagon with IT. Just doesn't work, unless you take the cultural context into account. And some weird word that's called Zeitgeist or whatever, I don't know much about this.

>>1705378
I didn't have /lit/ open, just this thread. I was curious as to who had invoked Godwin.

>>1705383
Listen, you should study some literary theory before saying things like that

>>1705397
I wish I could, I really did. but Medicine just doesn't leave me with much time. I really thought I could join in on the arguments, I'll leave you guys to it now.

Popularity = Better

Doesn't matter how much of an impact a book carries, all that matters is how many people will read it and how much money the publisher will make.

Deal with it.

>>1705406
>deluxe edition
>paperback
..

>>1705400
But apparently you have time to read gigantic books like IT and Lord of the Rings

>>1705409
Well yeah, it's a fun read while in public transit. There's a difference between a whole other study and some books (while they are fucking massive)

>>1705409
also I haven't read LotR, I don't know where you got that from.

I disagree that LotR characters have no personality. Their personalities aren't quite as nuanced as what we expected today, but Gandalf, Merry, Treebeard, Bilbo, Boromir - these characters have personality. They're a tad one-dimensional but again, it's there.

>>1705419
OH I assumed you were one of the people arguing about Lotr earlier, nm

>>1705416
Anyway I'd recommend looking at a good, readable introduction at least. YOu might try Terry Eagleton's book simply titled Literary Theory if you're ever interested

>>1705429
Okay, I'll make a note and buy it when I have money again I guess. I don't suppose a library in holland would carry such books.

>>1705331
>I rate literature based upon the relevance it has to my culture only

While analyzing and accepting literature from your own cultural perspective is fine, you can't claim that the cultures of the past are inherently worse than our current one. You also cannot claim a work is dead because currently we find little social relevance.

You know the Art of War? That thing has nor actual relevance to modern life, but capitalists read it as a metaphor for modern business practice.

If society were to change the Iliad may again become relevant (and to a great extent it still is since many things are already inspired by it). Your organism analogy is inept. A book is relevant in the time it is written, but it can have meaning in a different time. Unless you believe dinosaurs will again have relevance on earth, your comparison does not hold up.

>>1705353
You misunderstand. There hasn't been an epic poem written as well since, and the genre of epic poetry is effectively dead. Also, /v/ can at least point out newer works that can contend with older ones; I'd like to see you name an epic poem that has been written since which is superior.

>employ female fantasy writers
>don't see this shit coming

note both Meyer and Rowling are females.

awsweetatrollthread.jpg

>>1705491

>disregard sage
>support the thread you deride

>>1705502

>implying my post wasn't generally positive
>implying you're not a tripfag and I wanted you to reply to me

>>1705507

>implying there is anything commendable about directionless trolling
>implying this isn't typical anon behaviour

She didn't actually said that. DA2 is still shit though

>>1705520

>gives opinion as fact

/v/irgin here

We all thought Dragon Age 2 was shit as well, and would like to apologize for Bioware's faggotry.