/lit/ - Literature

>i wish i were as cool and evil as daddy melkor uooooh

>>18252837
Absolute power and control over the world and to twist it into his image in defiance of God.

>>18252837
Tolkien was a bad writer. Sauron is a plot device.

>>18252957
And also initially (beginning of 2nd age) fear of punishment by the Valar for getting caught up in Melkor's fuckery, and that fear turning into pride and arrogance and deceit once again. Basically he doesn't want to integrate with the natural order but to absolutely dominate it and impose his will on the world and larp as the ultimate power (but there are hints at the very start of the silmarillion that even this impulse towards power and evil is all part of the natural order anyway).

>>18252837
>What was the end game of Sauron

Elvish rape dungeons is my guess.

>takes a big fat dump on lotr

>>18252965
Retard

>>18252837
A fair tax policy
That was really all he was after

>>18253105
A tolkienigger shouldn't use that word, retard.

>>18253050
>modern critical
I can only imagine how horrible this is

>>18253439
Why is that?

>>18252837
>>18252965

You have to be 18 to post here. Try starting out with the hobbit and learning about the ring. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Learn about religions and jungian archetypes, then reread lotr.

>>18252983
>(but there are hints at the very start of the silmarillion that even this impulse towards power and evil is all part of the natural order anyway).
LOL poor babby Sauron.

>>18255284
The ring was originally just some run-of-the-mill magic ring that could make you invisible, having no other features. Gollum used to be just a slimey creature who willingly let Frodo have the ring after he lost the riddle game. Him being a hobbit was invented in The Fellowship of the Ring.

Get the original version. The Hobbit wasn't even supposed to be canon. He had been working on the legendarium for twenty years at that point and he made a little silly book.

The Hobbit was eventually modified in the second edition to be more in line with the following book.

>>18252957
I take small issue with your wording. It seems like you’re implying he is twisting the world into his image in order to defy God, but it’s the other way around; he defies God for the sake of twisting the world into his own image.

>>18253154
Based. The more he fought the more he shit, and the more he shit the more orcs he made.

>>18252837
Reminder that Lotr is shit and films were exponentially better

>>18252983
It's the line that Illuvatar says that all that you are lies within me, you cannot play any tune I do not already know?
Basically Melkor was arrogant enough to think he could rival god or he was more powerful than the other Maiar due to his crafting prowess so he felt he should have a leading role.
God basically says you can either throw your tantrum of discord which wont work or you can tow the line with your brothers and sisters it doesnt matter what you do because the end result will be the same.

>>18252837
lotr books are basicaly literary capeshit

>>18252965
Kys

>>18252837
Industrial society.

>>18257419
I think Toilken might have done a bad job getting the idea across that LOTR is mythology.

>>18255284
>putting in work for shitty genre fiction
Do you also take WWE seriously?

>>18257443
Mad monkey.

Isn't there a containment thread already for this fantasy shit

>>18255819
>what is the ring of gyges

>>18256048
Which LOTR girl takes the biggest shits?

>>18256129
What do you mean by exponential in this context?

>>18255284
>Try starting out with the hobbit and learning about the ring
The Hobbit was not written with the idea that the ring was Sauron's

>>18259092
Do you like mythology?

>>18259092
>noo you can't discuss books we need the space for another twitter screencap thread
>what about my "books about subject unrelated to literature" thread!

Given the fact that Sauron is a fantastical allegory for Nazi Germany, use your imagination OP.

>>18259314
Your post is surely genuine

>>18259319
While I'm not wrong. Everything about LotR is European fantasy allegories for either WW1 or WW2, down to the fucking ethnic groups fighting each other lol.

>>18259331
Of course, that's why Tolkien said he fucking hated allegories.

>>18259339
Well I don't give a shit what Tolkien himself said, these things have a way of presenting themselves in a work of literature without the author even being conscious of doing it, no man is an island, least of all in their imagination.

>>18259331
Can you elaborate on the specifics of the allegories?

>>18259385
Well it's not that hard to figure out. Hobbits are Southern Brits who live a comfy, quiet life, Isengard and Mordor are industrial capitalists and Germany respectively who destroy tradition and the countryside and want to conquer the world through war, the Elves are the dumb neutralist Swiss and so on. It's pretty obvious that Tolkien was a very traditionalist Catholic who really disliked modernity, because everything that is depicted as the effects of modernity in the books are depicted as a moral evil.

>>18252957
So, leftism in a nutshell?

>>18259351
Seems like you don't give a shit what he wrote either, you just want to project your politics on to his work.

>>18259490
>So, leftism in a nutshell?

keyed dabbing on the libtards

>>18259331
>lol
it was written before WW2. also that lol at the end makes you look like a soi boi faggo

>>18259314
it was written before WW2 so i guess you will need to take your obsession with a WW2 faction back to pol

>>18259196
Lmao. Such cope

>>18259555
How so?

>>18259801
Shitty genre fiction isn't mythology. If you like mythology, read mythology and not this fanfiction.

>>18260392
Mythology is fantasy shit

>>18260398
Them people believed in that shit irrespective, no one believes in this shit. This is fantasy and stops there

>>18260415
Belief has nothing to do with it. It's fantasy

>>18260416
>belief has nothing to do with it.
Airport novels are equivalent to Ulysses then. They are all words on a page after all.

>>18260424
>Isn't there a containment thread already for this fantasy shit
I'm pretty sure you're talking about the fantasy genre here, yeah? Well, mythology is fantasy, so you can only make that blanket statement if you also qualify mythology as "fantasy shit"

>>18260438
Then Mythology is worthwhile fantasy shit. This is fraudulent amalgamation of various European mythologies that just serves as escapism.

>>18260446
>amalgamation of various European mythologies
hmm, where has that been done before. Oh yes, in fucking mythology

>>18253050

>>18252837
He takes after his master Melkor, who symbolizes egoism and the envious desire for Godhood. Melkor rebelled against Erü during the creation of the world, envying god's capacity to create. Because he lacked that potency, but had unbridled powers for destruction, he sought to dominate Arda. He undid the perfect works of beauty of the Valar, and brought darkness into the world. He abducted elves and warped them into orcs, in a sick perversion of creation, which is corruption. Sauron was even more jealous of his finite but considerable power, destined never to eclipse his demigod master, but his motives are the same. To dominate and rule the world and make it in his image and become worshiped as a god.

>>18260416
it´s fantasy=genre fiction, stop worshipping tolkien and get a life

>>18260636
I don't worship anything, and I certainly don't go into threads about a certain subject, complain about said subject, and then tell someone else to get a life. Besides which, I suppose LotR would have value in your mind if people a hundred years from now believe in Tolkien's creations the same way ancient Greeks believed in their pantheon. There is absolutely nothing intelligent about disregarding literature because it's fiction. That's beyond retarded. I doubt very much you have any greater understanding or appreciation of language and literature than Tolkien himself. Stop buying into memes, you silly rascal

>>18259351
The cope to end all copes, imagine actually believing this

>>18259351
The cope to end all copes

>>18260573
>

>>18252965
Tolkien was a good writer but Sauron is indeed a plot device
>>18255284
Shut up faggot

>>18260707
>I suppose LotR would have value in your mind if people a hundred years from now believe in Tolkien's creations
Never happening. Mythology was built off of collective experiences of ancient civilizations and their need to explain away their lives and suffering. LOTR has zero value to 20th century and forward living.

>>18261342
>Mythology was built off of collective experiences of ancient civilizations and their need to explain away their lives and suffering
So why does that make the literature itself better in quality? Tolkien's work is concerned with much the same thing, only the mythology was his own and it wasn't created to explain reality. I fail to see how it being tied to past people needing to define nature somehow makes the stories themselves inherently better, or any less "fantasy shit". It sounds like you've been told to have these opinions, because they are incredibly surface level and hyperbolic. Have you ever read the Odyssey, anon? Because that sure as shit is a fantasy story
>LOTR has zero value to 20th century and forward living.
Demonstrably false, and it boggles my little brain that you actually typed that out

>>18261574
What value is there then? This isn't a debate on mythology being fantasy shit. It is fantasy but it grew beyond it, becoming part of or defining a culture. What does LOTR do? You think people are gonna read this shit for insight into their lives? Bullshit. Only modern fantasy worth reading is Borges post ficciones.

>>18261602
Tolkien tells archetypal stories, and tales with lessons in a similar way to mythology (Which makes sense, given his love of it). Nobility, corruption, war, peace, the flaws of men but also their qualities. The value of wanting nothing to do with warfare but the fact that it will come to you regardless. Love, hate. The pitfalls of hubris, the value of friendship and courage among even seemingly insignificant people. His stories are full of little lessons or insights, and filled with absolute BEAUTY, anon. It is basically the human experience that he is exploring in a world that is, at its core, benevolent but marred by evil. Have you read his work, anon?
Is The Odyssey worth reading? What insights does it give?

>>18261665
There are better written and short works that do all of it better. I can spam blanket statements about Asioaf too and make it look literary. Tolkien is hardly high literature and comparing him older mythology is blasphemy. Does reading his work transform how we read older myths from which he so generously borrows? Absolutely not imo, it's redundant work for escapism (probably coping on his part). If it does...then do share please.
>The Odyssey worth reading? What insights does it give?
Odyssey barely qualifies as "mythology" so I don't see how it figures here. Odysseus, penelope, his quest etc. are valuable both as historical documents and their idealogies from the time. The entire concept of quest in literature is literally named after the work.

Sauron is Zionism. He is represented as an eye. The 'all seeing' eye of the Masonic temple. The ring that Frodo carries is the 'one ring to rule them all. ' It turns the wearer invisible, as the highest order member in masonry is indeed the ruler of all, his identity hidden to even other members they allow him to act as if invisible by carrying out his will. Unbeknownst even to them, his true motives.

>>18261750
>Odyssey barely qualifies as "mythology"
not the poster you responded to but major retard comment, embarrassed for you

>>18261750
>There are better written and short works that do all of it better.
Maybe. Which?
>I can spam blanket statements about Asioaf too and make it look literary.
Except you can't make the statements I made about Tolkien, because GRRM's world is nothing like Tolkien's, and does not offer the same lessons. GRRM is concerned with making fictional history, where Tolkien is more concerned with mythology and concepts integral to existence and humans
>Tolkien is hardly high literature and comparing him older mythology is blasphemy.
What is high literature, and what mythology have you read?
>Does reading his work transform how we read older myths from which he so generously borrows?
So it can only be valuable if it transforms how we read myths? What? His mythology teaches lessons the same way actual myths do, and are obviously concerned with the same types of stories and lessons, since those are inherent to the human condition. And do you ask newer mythologies the same? You do realize why there are so many similarities between certain mythologies, yeah?
>it's redundant work for escapism (probably coping on his part). If it does...then do share please.
Stories are not and never will be redundant. Calling it escapism does not degrade the value of his stories.
>Odyssey barely qualifies as "mythology" so I don't see how it figures here
Have you read it?
>Odysseus, penelope, his quest etc. are valuable both as historical documents and their idealogies from the time
All fiction is valuable in this regard. Though you are absolutely right that the work itself incorporates actual history for its setting, and so can help in giving a bigger picture of the period by comparing with historical documents.

So as I understand it, you're saying that only fictional stories set in our world are worthwhile, or if the stories were told because to explain the natural world. I honestly do not understand why you would judge the quality of literature by this standard. You also failed to mention if you've actually read Tolkien's work, because you sure don't talk about his stories

>>18261854
Then learn the definition of mythology, retard. It's never written by a single writer. Odyssey uses greek myths and at best adds to it likr Milton did.

Nigga hates show tunes, that's basically the whole thing

>>18261574
>only the mythology was his own and it wasn't created to explain reality.

his fault because most mythos are interpretation of some culture to explain reality

>>18261876
>way actual myths do, and are obviously concerned with the same types of stories and lessons
Hence the word redundant. It's long and touches up on subjects lightly, but you will have to read really hard into the book to make out more than banal truths. You keep talking about lessons but all those lessons are known to people already. A work that is distilling so many different mythologies needs to differentiate itself, it stands nowhere against them unless it can speak for itself. Do tell what it says that nobody else has said?
>You also failed to mention if you've actually read Tolkien's work
I have read LOTR.

when people want to defend Tolkien´s literary merit, they always use PR words like:

>it´s inspiring
>it teaches a lot about being human
>it´s mythology because he made a book explaining the setting of his books

only bugman defends this nonsense, might as well hype Walt Disney too

Tolkien just basically did a throwback towards the old myths found in english and norse mythology, that doesn´t mean his works are mythology, he has more in common with fantasy authors from the 20th century than poets and bards from the 11th century

>>18261945
>but you will have to read really hard into the book to make out more than banal truths
Have you done that, anon. It sure doesn't seem like it
You keep talking about lessons but all those lessons are known to people already
So what? You asked me what insights Tolkien gives. It is IMPOSSIBLE to teach new lessons, because all lessons concerning humans have already been taught. And why does that degrade the quality of his work, anon? Why must it be some
A work that is distilling so many different mythologies needs to differentiate itself
The Silmarillion sure as shit does. It blends pagan mythologies with Christian ideas incredibly well.
>Do tell what it says that nobody else has said?
Do tell what Nordic mythology says that nobody else has said, or any mythology for that matter when compared to older counterparts?
>I have read LOTR.
You read the entirety of LotR, and what you took away from the three books is that they're fantasy shit that has no real value. I really, really doubt that. Good on you for reading a work you think has zero value, though.

If you only read LotR, then I understand better why you don't see it like I do, considering that the Silmarillion is really where the mythology is to be found

>>18261992
And every time someone wants to criticize Tolkien, they do it in the most surface level way possible.
>It's just fantasy and I say fantasy isn't real literature
>Tolkien's work is actually shit and everyone has been fooled into thinking it's good
Why are you people so obsessed with his work having to have some greater historical influence or some erudite quality for it to be good? It's pseudointellectualism to the highest degree, especially considering how incredibly smart Tolkien was with languages, and his understanding of literature and mythology. What could you possibly discuss about literature that Tolkien would not handily outclass you in? fookin' hell /lit/

>>18262031
>I really, really doubt that.
Surely you can discern the exaggeration. I read all of them because they were mildly amusing, just like some Stephen king is. I just take offense at LOTR audience nuthugging him to echelons of high literature where he doesn't belong.
>because all lessons concerning humans have already been taught.
Exactly. However, not insight. This is why nobody rates an author on his moral views or ethics or originality of his philosophy, they are rated on their vision into the world. There is no idea in Borges that can't be found in odd sentences tucked away into his favoured books (Arabian nights especially), but he had a unique way of looking at and presenting them. Ideas are multifaceted and the way they are communicated charge them with insight. Tolkien doesn't have it, absolutely not. His work is escapist fiction inspired by older myths, I don't see how can you not see the rote out, banal truths you get many times already in older religious books. It's good but far from high literature. The only genre writer with that sort of unorthodox interesting vision I encountered is Gene Wolfe and even he isn't exactly very philosophical or insightful, but he is weird in a good way.

>>18261936
what?

>>18262093
i don´t debate his literary merits but i don´t overrate him like others do, yes, he´s the king of contemporary fantasy but that´s not saying much and the attempt of bugmen like you of comparing him to a grandeur level is delusional

>>18252837
Mainly control. Destroy as many of the free peoples as he could. Enslave men, kill the dwarves, corrupt more elves? Maybe free Morgoth ( he’s too weak to even oppose the Valar) or annoy the Valar and upset the great plan.

He’s more like a mortal than Morgoth with his master plans.

>>18256129
Explain

>>18260950
>Look at him, he knows the subject OP is posting about, so I'm going to uselessly just post a soijack like a piece of shit and contribute nothing to the discussion!

>>18262093
>considering how incredibly smart Tolkien was with languages, and his understanding of literature and mythology
Nobody will contest that, just like nobody will contest that Asimov was incredibly smart. Neither had literary talent though, which is what it's about.

>>18262129
>he´s the king of contemporary fantasy but that´s not saying much
Not saying much? Are you serious? You think Tolkien's work is of a quality that falls into a category where that isn't saying much, by implication it's shit outside of its category when compared to anything that isn't fantasy?
>and the attempt of bugmen like you
What does chinks have to do with liking LotR? viper your brain is crack

>>18262151
>Neither had literary talent though, which is what it's about.
How do you define literary talent in a way that excludes Tolkien? He created a damned language for his fictional world. How os that not literary talent?

>>18262197
>Not saying much? Are you serious?

yes, even science fiction has more merit than fantasy

>>18262117
>but he had a unique way of looking at and presenting them
How so?
>I don't see how can you not see the rote out, banal truths you get many times already in older religious books
I don't see how you can not see the rote out, banal truths you get many times already in older mythology
>It's good but far from high literature
Fair, but it certainly doesn't come off as you thinking it's good.
>The only genre writer with that sort of unorthodox interesting vision I encountered is Gene Wolfe and even he isn't exactly very philosophical or insightful, but he is weird in a good way.
Who else does fantasy like Tolkien did? There's a reason his work had the impact it did. Tolkien is unorthodox today because everyone looked to his work as the new gold standard. This wasn't some fluke or mistake that slipped by the literary community

>>18262261
You're a damned fool if you estimate quality based on genre. Did /lit/ smuggle that sort of thinking into your brain while you weren't looking?

>>18262213
>He created a damned language for his fictional world
That's linguistic knowledge not literary talent. If some linguist puts enough work, he can probably craft a competent language of his own. Literary talent is writing ability, ability to present ideas, express emotions etc. You can train your entire life yet not be able to write a passage in your own style as good as, say, James Joyce or Cormac McCarthy does; certainly not like friggin Shakespeare does. It cannot be taught, you either have it or you don't. Tolkien's prose is impressive only to those that haven't read olden books; his diction is one to one copy almost.

>>18262273
the genre limits the author range, i might ask why Tolkien never wrote an epic poem? most mythos are written that way

>Did /lit/ smuggle that sort of thinking into your brain while you weren't looking?

not really, it´s common sense, also being well read helps too

>>18262290
>That's linguistic knowledge not literary talent.
Incorporating it into a story would count as literay talent, I'd claim
>Literary talent is writing ability, ability to present ideas, express emotions etc
And Tolkien does those things well
>Tolkien's prose is impressive only to those that haven't read olden books; his diction is one to one copy almost
Copy?

>>18259145
I would say that dark haired elf bitch, but im going with the horse rohirrim princes. Her shits must be enormously vile.

>>18262262
>you can not see the rote out, banal truths you get many times already in older mythology
Older mythology is not one work. It is an assortment of works spanning millenia with no concrete authorship. Their truths are banal because they are literally our civilization's reference to those truths. It's like slandering Citizen Kane for being cliched when it created those cliches.
>Tolkien is unorthodox
He is not. He made a style of fantasy lit popular. He is very much just an amalgamation of his favourite mythologies. To prove it, find me another writer or mythology that resembles Gene Wolfe heavily.
>How so?
I will need to write an essay for that. Read his short story 'secret miracle' or 'funes, his memory'.

>>18262299
>not really, it´s common sense
Nothing common about it except on /lit/, where Tolkien's work has been memed into being defined as bad or mediocre, and otherwise not the great piece of work that it is. One must be delusional to think that what he created isn't impressive and quality work

>>18252837
None, like Aragon didn't have any either. Literally both sides were devoted to destroying each others but one is good and wholesome and the other one is ugly and bad very bad!!!! Hack.

>>18262335
it´s quality but in the fantasy genre, outside from that....i don´t know, i would even argue that Lewis Carrol is better author than him

>>18262305
>Incorporating it into a story would count as literay talent
Oh yes, cuz those sections were the most well written parts of the legendarium.... oh wait!
>Tolkien does those things well
Arguable. I don't feel anything reading Tolkien. His high fantasy diction is an emotion killer imo.
>copy?
Trying to sound like his heroes. Original prose is not exactly a strong claim for Tolkien probably. Absolutely nothing wrong with it in itself, but you need to be fucking phenomenal at it for it count as a strong draw.

>>18262329
>Older mythology is not one work. It is an assortment of works spanning millenia with no concrete authorship
So?
>Their truths are banal because they are literally our civilization's reference to those truths. It's like slandering Citizen Kane for being cliched when it created those cliches.
Except mythology and the ideas expressed in them are incredibly ancient. Greek mythology told banal truths in its own time, because those "banal" truths had already been told. They are universally present in humans and the stories they tell Only difference is how they're explored. Mythologies also borrow from each other, knowingly or not

>>18262361
Lewis the pedo is 100% better.

what´s the deal with americans and their obsession towards "mythology"?, is it because they don´t have one of their own? this nonsense, the monomyth, hero´s journey and whichever media that takes "influence" from mythos, in order to hype the work to being better than they actually are

>>18262401
>Greek mythology told banal truths in its own time
Proof? Greek mythology created the reference for people between mythic truths and falsehoods. You are seriously underestimating the religious history of the world. What's banal for us wasn't for them, especially considering the literate history of common people in ancient civilisations.
Mythology is not literature. Nobody knows who created them, they were part of the culture and sure as heck a lot of people believed them to be real in their time.

>>18262367
>Oh yes, cuz those sections were the most well written parts of the legendarium.... oh wait!
It isn't literay talent to create a language and then incorporate it into a world, not only directly through speech, but also on the fringes through places, items and characters? Elvish wasn't just used when elves were speaking, and Elvish wasn't the only language with some pull in Tolkien's world, just the most complete of the bunch
>I don't feel anything reading Tolkien. His high fantasy diction is an emotion killer imo.
Fair enough. I'm not claiming that all his prose is fantastic, but he shows great emotion when he talks about war and morality, I think
>Trying to sound like his heroes
Who?
>Original prose is not exactly a strong claim for Tolkien probably
I don't know about how he wrote compared to his contemporaries, so you could be right

>>18261342
> Mythology was built off of collective experiences of ancient civilizations and their need to explain away their lives and suffering.
You have just described the whole field of literature.

>>18260573
Right answer

>>18262447
>Proof? Greek mythology created the reference for people between mythic truths and falsehoods
You honestly believe that the ideas and lessons present in Greek mythology came about such a short time ago? There have been untold civilizations before the Greek. Civilizations that were ancient even by the Greek's time. And what of later mythologies that blend mythic truths and falsehoods? Were they copies, or were they developed separately and ended up exploring the same ideas?
>Mythology is not literature
I can get behind that

>>18262547
>the ideas and lessons present in Greek mythology came about such a short time ago?
No. But as I said it's all collectively referred to as Greek mythology. We have no real separators.

>>18262556
My point is that those lessons or ideas would be banal by the standards of former civilizations or people. So the Greek weren't saying anything new, even if they didn't know it. But that doesn't change the value of the lessons and the particular way in which they told them. The way in which the human condition is experienced is universal, but will be expressed in different ways. Being original is not possible when it comes to fundamental ideas

>>18262590
>Being original is not possible when it comes to fundamental ideas
Yeah, I already agreed with this. Originality is not the standard.

>>18262608
oh