/lit/ - Literature

The books are even better than the movies, if you's not a faeg.


P.S. zed i thought you said you quit /lit/

It's not so much derivative as......ponderous. Tolkien writes with sort of a rich prose that a lot of people call masturbatory, too slow, etc. Just depends on your taste.

But if you like rich prose and want some REAL fantasy of a qualitatively better degree, check out Gormenghast. Shit will knock you for a loop.

Give them a try. If Tolkien's writing is a little too much for you, give up, 'cause it's not gonna get any different.

I think The Hobbit is probably Tolkien's easier book to read, so I'd say go with that first.

>>1937161

>But if you like rich prose and want some REAL fantasy of a qualitatively better degree, check out Gormenghast. Shit will knock you for a loop.

Ah, I've been reading Gormenghast, and a thought occurred to me that may be relevant to this thread. I should note that I'm only about 200 pages into Titus Groan, though.

You see, structurally, Gormenghast (at least as far as my experience so far seems to say) and LOTR are not all that different. They're very slow, mostly exploratory texts. Gormenghast may even have less in way of a plot than LOTR.

However, where LOTR felt slow, dull, and rather tedious to me, Gormenghast is absolutely fascinating. And I think I figured out why. LOTR, through no fault of its own, has become tired. Imitated. Cliche, even. Whereas Gormenghast remains vibrantly original. I find myself excited simply to see what the book is going to show me next.

Pardon the kind of long, mostly irrelevant post.

>>1937161
>...ponderous... masturbatory, too slow, etc.

This is exactly the impression I get of the books: Tolkien the übergeek rolling D20 saving throws with every sentence, going ON AND ON about spell-sword-chainmail-magic-monster bullshit to the squealing delight of pimply-faced wizards across all of nerdia until they all explode in a dorkgasm of painted pewter figurines and leather hats.

The han-shot-first side of me just can't stand that kind of bullshit.

>>1937176

Actually, he mostly just goes on about the scenery.

>>1937163

Start with Hobbit.

If you like his style then progress.
The Hobbits an easier version and a great intro to his style.

>>1937176
>Tolkien the übergeek rolling D20 saving throws with every sentence
You're a fucking moron. But again, you're a tripfag, so... Yeah.

>but the books just look like endless pages of D&D fanfic

Why are we entertaining this again?

Someone obviously has not read DnD fanfic.

Pic related, it's OP.

>>1937184
>>1937185
Look, that's just the impression I get of his writing... and from what I've heard here so far, and elsewhere, it's not too far off the mark.

If you have something to contribute to the thread, I'd like to hear it. If you're just going to spew assmad that I slighted your favorite nerdbooks, then kindly go elsewhere.

FANTASY ISNT LITERATURE

huuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrr
dduuuuuuurrrrrrrppp

>>1937173

I think it's just that Peake's writing is much, much better. Even when he's just describing things, it's fucking thrilling. Compare Tolkien taking five pages to describe a tree, with Peake taking you on a whirlwind omniscient-perspective rollercoaster from the bottom of a tea-cup to the top of the castle, in half a page.

>>1937244
So, we're replacing one long-winded D&D nerd with another?

Is there something about the chemicals in mutisided die resins or pewter figurine paint that makes the brain disregard engaging storyline progression in favor of long-winded descriptives of castles and magical trees, with the occasional monster popping out?

What makes that any better than Stephen King?

>>1937274
I like that novel, the Tommyknockers. Favourite King by far.

Peake's pretty cool though, don't knock till you try it.

>>1937274

Well, fantasy IS about constructing elaborate fictional worlds, and describing them at length is one way to do that.

>>1937274

You could have at least googled Gormenghast before replying.

>going ON AND ON about spell-sword-chainmail-magic-monster bullshit to the squealing delight of pimply-faced wizards across all of nerdia until they all explode in a dorkgasm of painted pewter figurines and leather hats.

You see, the thing about LOTR is that there really isn't that much magic, or even violence, especially in the first book. Lots of description of the world, but that's kind of important to fantasy... if you don't like reading about alternate worlds, then you probably won't like fantasy in general.

There's also lots of walking.

>>1937274

> long-winded descriptives of castles and magical trees, with the occasional monster popping out

...but that's not what Gormenghast does....

Gormenghast jumps back and forth between the perspectives of a bunch of Dickens-like caricatures living in a ruined castle, whose adherence to centuries of rituals are turned completely on their heads by a conniving schemer.

Not to be that guy, but I think it might just be too deep for you.

Why don't you go read some Dan Brown?

>>1937284
Yet elaborate fictional worlds are created in Sci Fi all the time, and without all the droning on.

So I guess my original question is answered (with a resounding no), and the new question becomes: What is it about the mind of a Fantasy fan that is incapable of 'filling in the blanks' with his/her own mind, requiring interminable description of every stone and branch of every castle and tree, whereas the scifi fan is more capable of using his imagination to determine the character and characteristics of the space ship/laser gun/planet world, and is more interested in what one would think a reader would be interested in-- who the characters are, how they will resolve their conflicts, how they are going to change as a result, and so on.

I'm sticking with the pewter-paint-fumes theory until I hear compelling argument otherwise.

>the books just look like endless pages of D&D fanfic.

*facepalm*

>>1937322

You are just not a very pleasant person to talk to.

>>1937314
>fantasy
>too deep
MFW
6/10--- but graded on a summercurve.

>>1937325

Not only that, he's terrible wrong.

He doesn't even realize it, poor thing.

>>1937327

>>1937325
>>1937326
>>1937328

Look, I'm trying to have a discussion about fantasy books here.

Why don't you little summerlings take all your assmad and go butt cry your butttears in some other board. I hear /b/ is looking for fresh young talent. Go try this weaksauce there.

>>1937322

Stop talking as if all fantasy books are the same.

>>1937337
That's valid. Fantasy books are NOT all the same.
However, all fantasyfags simultaneously shit, cum, and snot themselves over Lord of the Rings. So my point stands.

>>1937336

But you're not trying to have a discussion. A discussion implies two sides attempting to obtain information or understanding from one another. You're not.

There is no end-game to this situation. No one's going to convince you to like something you don't like, and nothing of any semantic value is accomplished. You don't like Tolkien, a different author is suggested. You put that down without knowing anything about it -- purely on the basis that it IS another fantasy.

I could recommend you good fantasy with swift-moving prose. But I'm not going to, because I don't care, because you wouldn't.

So this is just a furious circlejerk.

God, now I remember why I hate /lit/.

>>1937343
nobody likes reading descriptions i agree. words that desccibe thins are retarded as fuck. things are stupid. books are gay stare at a blank wall for hours for the win!! nigger htieler

>>1937342

>>1937349
You fucking racist cunt ass mother fucker.

>>1937343

>However, all fantasyfags simultaneously shit, cum, and snot themselves over Lord of the Rings.

False. China Miéville, for an example, has called Tolkien "the wen on the arse of fantasy literature". I'm sure a good number of his fans, who are also fans of the fantasy genre, agree with him.

>>1937347
Utter rubbish.
I merely ventured my perception about Tolkien, and that perception was verified by the same people who profess to enjoy him. Then, when I suggested that the boring, interminable descriptions may not be my particular cup of tea, then ANOTHER long-winded masturbatory describer was suggested. Variations on a theme, clearly, but that point was obviously lost on the fantasyfags here.

It was only then that I opined that perhaps the mind of the fantasy-fan was the actual problem, rather than the books. Your post has done nothing to dissuade me from that option. Quite the contrary, in fact.

>>1937361
its funny when one fantasy writer calls another fantasy writer shit because its like watching the retards in grade school fight over a pinecone

>>1937367

Check out Felix Gilman. "Thunderer" is great, and "The Half-Made World" clips right the fuck along.

>>1937367

Yes. Fantasy fans are cave-men with ill-developed minds. They have a syndrome not unlike downs where their minds remain childlike and their features silly.

>>1937372

>>1937374
No thanks.

I don't really like fantasy.

>>1937367
trying to state there is an objective problem when the only thign wrong is you having the attention span of a 5 year old is pretty stupid just like this whole thread and your lame efforts of trolling. you fail. epic fail. fuckfag

>>1937372

Have you read Miéville?

>>1937380

>>1937378
You seem very upset.

Do you need a tissue?

God, why the fuck do you fuckers still answer to tripfags? There are more per capita than in any other boards and there isn't ONE who is worth the hassle.

>>1937388
no i just made u resort to the u mad argument so i win. suffocation. no breathing,. dont give a fuck something something

I don't know what people in this thread are on about. Saving the first couple chapters of LoTR and the first chapter of The Hobbit, Tolkien's writing is very quick. These are also very short books for fantasy novels. (And fuck, even The Silmarillion is a quick read, despite the multitudes of names that get dropped on the reader.)

>>1937394
>i got real mad at u and pooped in ur thrad so i win because u made fun of me for it.

o, summer!

Just in case:

senor op tripfag, you're aware that lotr came before dnd, right?

>>1937412
Oh, sure.
I was referring to the fans, not the author.

>>1937176
talking about the wrong books

>>1937227
here's a contribution: d&d did not exist in 1954, when lotr was first published.

next time, child, shut up and let the grown ups talk.

>>1937459
Hmm... maybe you should try, you know, reading the thread before you make a fool of yourself like this.

Here's a good place to start:
>>1937412
and the next one:
>>1937423

They're only two posts from your own. Shouldn't be too hard.

It was Gandalf's plan to ride the eagles to Mordor in the first place, but he had to get past the misty mountains first.

They were going to go over it but there was a blizzard so they had to go through the mines of moria where Gandalf was captured by the balrog, but he had just enough time to tell the fellowship of his plan to fly, you fools.

>>1937498
That all sounds fine, but I'm not about to wade through the rest of it just to clear up glaring plotholes left by the movie.

Not when there's zombie books that need reading.

>>1937527
>as if fucking zombie books are in the same league as LotR.

>>1938593

Maybe not books, but some of the short stories are pretty kick-ass.

>this entire thread

i fucking love you so much Zed

LOTR is the only fantasy I've ever read, and I really liked it, OP. I would highly recommend it.

>>1938601
But it's all just Mel Brooks' son masturbating over Cuba and complaining about corporations.

>>1938605
<<<<<33333

:3

>>1938605
Also: I made that OP pic in your honor. Just so you know.

OC, on /lit/, by you, for you. I am a river to my people!

>>1938632
>>1938632

ahhhhhhhhh i fucking though you mighta done!
so happy you did bro <3

God tripshits are terrible posters.

>>1938635
That pic... Jesus wept!

>>1938640
>doesn't post anything contributory.
>whines like a little bitch.
>tries to sage on one of the slowest boards.
>says WE are bad posters.

MVQ

Hey Brownbear are you an English major?

>>1938690
>>1938690

no although i passed my first year at Uni, i was going to move to London and take up a place there, now im just moving to London and getting a job!

wasn't really enjoying it anyway tbh, missed a lot of last year due to laziness, and although i think it is maybe me wasting my time/life a little by not going to Uni, i realise i still have a lot of options available without a degree

so no, i am no longer an english lit major

>>1938690
>>1938690

no although i passed my first year at Uni, i was going to move to London and take up a place there, now im just moving to London and getting a job!

wasn't really enjoying it anyway tbh, missed a lot of last year due to laziness, and although i think it is maybe me wasting my time/life a little by not going to Uni, i realise i still have a lot of options available without a degree

so no, i am no longer an english lit major

>mfw i get banned and a mod deletes that post

>>1938764
IS THAT SO?

WHAT ARE THESE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR YOU?

AND NO, I DIDN'T TURN OFF FILTER. I'M STILL AT THIS HALF FRENCH, HALF MADAGASCAN CHICK'S PLACE.

>>1938764
They REALLY need to come up with a method of banning that's harder to bypass than turning off your internet modem for 5 minutes.

>>1938782
>HALF FRENCH, HALF MADAGASCAN CHICK

OOOH! Pics?

they deleted my posts.
im going to be banned now.

>>1938792
SHE'S A FRIEND OF ONE OF MY JAPANESE FRIENDS, DON'T EVEN HAVE HER ON FACEBOOK OR ANYTHING, MET HER LAST NIGHT.

PROBABLY MOST EXOTIC GIRL I'VE EVER FUCKED, AND ZOLA'S HER FAVOURITE AUTHOR. SHE SAID IWAS THE FIRST AUSTRALIAN SHE'S MET THAT HAS AN ACTUAL KEEN INTEREST IN LITERATURE.

>>1938813
>WAS THE FIRST AUSTRALIAN SHE'S MET THAT HAS AN ACTUAL KEEN INTEREST IN LITERATURE.
So do a lot of the people you sleep with not know the difference between literature and reading or what

>>1938819
SEE IF YOU GO ON TOO MUCH, YOU COME OFF AS A COMPLETE DICK. IF YOU SAY YOU'RE INTERESTED IN 'X' AUTHOR OR WHATEVER AND ASK FOR THEIR THOUGHTS, THEN THEY FEEL SOME SELF-WORTH AT HELPING STEER YOU INTO THE 'RIGHT' DIRECTION.

>>1938819

serious question here: is lord of the rings anything besides entertaining?

>>1938858
No, it's just an imaginary story.
But then again, aren't they all?

>>1938871
that doesnt mean it can't be deep