/lit/ - Literature

Ha I've heard this criticism before of C.S. Lewis, where it spoke about how absurb it is for an upperclass homebody like Lewis to talk about fighting the good fight against Satan's evil.

absolutely.
Hobbits = petit bourgeoisie is gold.
And his beliefs really do permeate the book.
as if the dwarves aren't the jews. please.

CS Lewis' best book is Boxen

>>9627376
Hairy, violent men (and women who look like men) who like to drink and live in mountains, och aye definitely the Jews.

"Since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution, at least, people have been yearning for an ideal rural world they believe to have vanished - yearning for a mythical state of innocence (as Morris did) as heartily as the Israelites yearned for the Garden of Eden. This refusal to face or derive any pleasure from the realities of urban industrial life, this longing to possess, again, the infant's eye view of the countryside, is a fundamental theme in popular English literature. Novels set in the countryside probably always outsell novels set in the city, perhaps because most people now live in cities.
If I find this nostalgia for a "vanished" landscape a bit strange it is probably because as I write I can look from my window over twenty miles of superb countryside to the sea and a sparsely populated coast. This county, like many others, has seemingly limitless landscapes of great beauty and variety, unspoiled by excessive tourism or the uglier forms of industry. Elsewhere big cities have certainly destroyed the surrounding countryside but rapid transport now makes it possible for a Londoner to spend the time they would have needed to get to Box Hill forty years ago in getting to Northumberland. I think it is simple neophobia which makes people hate the modern world and its changing society; it is xenophobia which makes them unable to imagine what rural beauty might lie beyond the boundaries of their particular Shire. They would rather read Miss Read and The Horse Whisperer and share a miserable complaint or two on the commuter train while planning to take their holidays in Bournemouth, as usual, because they can't afford to go to Spain this year. They don't want rural beauty anyway; they want a sunny day, a pretty view."

>>9627366
Also, hobbits are hobbits holy fuck dude must we shoehorn Marxism into everything this is why people hate us.

>>9627393
Tolkien deserves some bashing after all this time 2bh

>>9627393
Because Moorcuck cannot bare the fact that guys who 'substitute artistic rigour for faith' were better artists than his sorry ass, who spent his life writing stories about an edgy magic casting king who goes around and fucks women.

>>9627366
Morecuck

>>9627390
Screwtape letters are his best.

>>9627400
go back to r/books

>>9627400
Write something equivalent.
If you can't, I'll be round to bash ya

>>9627488
you don't need that at all to criticize someone, dismissing criticism because of someone's lack of credentials in your eyes is an ad hominem. Everybody's game for scrutiny.

>>9627500
Give valid criticism of Tolkien, and for the love of literature do something beyond Overrated.
Critics who use that word should be shot.

>>9627510
His proze is meh
t. Nobel prize committee

>>9627366
Well yes, obviously.

The books revolves around Hobbits, who are almost a parody of the rural English middle classes. Bilbo is a rebel who ends up turning into exactly what he rebelled against, with no real sense of contradiction.

Frodo is a younger and less comical version of Bilbo who represents the rural middle classes when they actually feel threatened instead of self-satisfied, so he's very much a post WW1 character type, while Bilbo is purely Edwardian whimsy.

Ultimately, Tolkien only wants to leave the Shire on brief holidays. That's unromantic, where romance is a straining for the holy grail, not a desire to take a selfie next to the holy grail and promptly go home.

>>9627511
The Nobel prize committee have made a lot of really retarded choices and omissions.
But Tolkien isn't really famed for his prose, his world-building, deep mythological knowledge and linguistic appreciation is where the LOTR riches lie.

>>9627518
It is valid criticism though
also I think Moorcock is on point in calling him a tory, but frankly not sure if that is a negative in and of itself, outside of debunking that the book is detached from allegories or real world commentary, it's there, intentional or not. It is also revealing of Tolkien's personal beliefs.

>>9627523
>books reveal the beliefs of their authors
Incredible insight.

>>9627531
And tolkien insisted that his books were detached from those

>>9627523
Fuck hell, is that retard really trying to apply modern day politics and pin them on past authors?
For starters, Tolkien explicitly stated that his book is not allegories for anything like his present time, you can deny it and read into it anyway if you wish, but it is not the authors intention. The orcs are neither Nazi's nor Communists, Sauron is not Hitler nor Stalin. You can read Lewis if you want allegories.

Secondly, and this is most important, you cannot look at modern politics and then say "Oh Tolkien would be a Tory!" Or "Orwell would be Labour!" It's retarded. Politics has shifted and changed so much that their positions that were considered well within the overton window would have shifted.

Tolkien and Lewis would look at the abortion and divorce rate and assume these must be the end times. Orwell would look at government overreach and the Labour love of the EU and assume the worst. Huxley would take one look at a television and take two steps off a cliff.

We've disappointed them all.

>>9627535
He insisted it wasn't an allegory. Which it really wasn't.

>>9627550
>For starters, Tolkien explicitly stated that his book is not allegories for anything like his present time
that's the point
>>9627568
that's the point
at least, it's moorcock's point, whether tolkien bases the themes more on the sagas and general epics than his own beliefs and life is moot, but tolkien himself would have been highly opinionated on it.

>>9627550
Good post.

>>9627550
Brainlet detected

He doesn't mean a modern day Conservative when he says "Tory" he's talking - strangely - about Toryism you retard. The traditional "High Tory" view which praises rural life, the Anglo-Catholic High Church and wanted, to an extent, a revolt against modernity. What the poster you're replying to is saying isn't that Tolkien supportsTheresa May, but is rather placing Tolkien in an artistic, aesthetic, and political continuity to which he very likely belonged.

I would say that Tolkien is very rmeiniscent of the "Young England" movement in the 19th century, and would agree with some of Moorcock's conclusions about him (though not in so disparaging a manner).

None of this has anything to do with placing Tolkien on the modern political spectrum.

>>9627580
What's the point of his point? It's a banal tautology. No author can somehow cleanse himself of his views, especially not when writing fiction.

>>9627601
See >>9627605

>>9627605
Tolkien tries to distance himself from it, and insists otherwise, but it is too suspect, especially if you know his background.
That's all it is, nothing more. What you can deduce from his themes is sympathy for the old Tory cause from way back, who espoused protectionist agrarianism.

>>9627613
Is that a good or bad thing in your view?
What would Moorcock prefer?

>>9627612
I don't honestly see how that's relevant to my point. The Anon I replied to was belittling someone for saying Tolkien was a "Tory" because they clearly had no idea what they were talking about. I was simply refuting that.

>>9627616
All it does is point at one thing: tolkien is stubborn and didn't like people intruding into his work to look for personal views so he insisted that there's nothing there.

>>9627622
Good. It's cringeworthy when people make Harry Potter into politics. Leave LOTR out of it.

>>9627550
>if the author says his stories are politically neutral, it's true
Lol, how naive can you get.

>>9627366
>it's bad because it reminds me of imaginary people whose politics I don't like
>I don't like their politics because I am a very smart free-thinking rebel who wholeheartedly supports the dominant social ideology of my time
>now it's time for me to share some unfalsifiable psychological judgements. Hope I don't shatter your world with my irrefutable insights into what you REALLY meant, kid

>>9627667
>anarchist
>supports the dominant social ideology
Go back to your containment board

>>9627680
He's an egalitarian progressive, meaning he wants to destroy or deny biological and cultural distinctions between different groups. His worldview is identical to that of a CNN talking head or the Pope or the CEO of McDonald's. There's nothing unique or individual about his beliefs in any respect whatsoever; he is mentally incapable of questioning or even acknowledging the dominant political narrative of the Western World

>>9627366
Nope.
Moorcock's problem, like all commie retards, is he tries to cram all of art, literature, history, etc. into the narrow confines of dialectic materialism. Or - he has one hammer so everything in the world must not just be a nail, but a particular type of nail.
Further, his complaints about JRRT, Lewis, etc. always sound like the man with a poor education who hate anyone who is erudite.
Lastly, he is that sort of anarchist/socialist/communist - you know, the one that flies in first class from one of this three home to meet with his agent and a documentarian over wine at a michelin-starred lunch then goes to his old neighborhood where he complains bitterly that it used to be filled with "authentic people" (i.e., the poor) but it is now gotten gentrified. After expressing his horror at a poor neighborhood not being poor any longer he writes a quick dismissal of someone else as a 'crypto-fascist', sends it to his press agent, then gets back into a first class seat for another of his homes.
If the "anarchist" Moorcock had the education and patience he would see that the theme of LotR is that the Common Man is the bedrock of all societies: kings may be good or bad; clerics may be holy or venal; war may threaten; but the Common Man decides the wealth and health of any nation. Moorcock rants about JRRT being a 'crypto-fascist' forgetting that the climax of the books is not Aragorn becoming king of all men but rather the King of All Men announcing that Hobbits (the Common Man) are beyond his rule and are in charge of themselves.
tl;dr: Moorcock is a bitter man fueled by jealousy and Marxism (but I repeat myself)

>>9627523
>I think Moorcock is on point in calling him a tory, but frankly not sure if that is a negative in and of itself
Are you retarded?

There's something wholesome and beautiful about JRRT. Why do the intellectuals hate him? I feel that within the academy there's a hatred of the beautiful and also an urge to destroy it, but after they destroy it, they can never offer up a worthy replacement. I don't know how to explain it. They want to make the world as worthless as themselves. They remind me of Bradbury's autumn people.
Beware the autumn people.

>>9627732
>>9627732
If I didn't know that Moorcock had written before the films were made (decades before in fact) I might suspect he had only watched them. What little "message" they may have does seem to glorify war, and certainly misses out the important aspects which showcase the virtue of the common man - I was going to say "civic virtue", but it occurs to one that the world Tolkien presents is far too agrarian and feudal for that term.

>>9627511
dats p. insightful n deep comentary.

>>9627732
I'm a socialist myself but I have to agree with a lot of this desu.

>>9627975
I disagree - the horrors of war (destruction, death, madness) are pretty stark and he even works to show that the effects can destroy places far from the war (the Scouring of the Shire).
And an agrarian, feudal life is where the term 'civic virtue' was spawned. JRRT is pretty blunt about how the virtues of the Hobbits is what are important.

>>9628007
That's just not true - civic virtue stems from the republican City States in Antiquity. Jeffersonian Civic Virtue may be agararian, but it's origins are not.

>>9628030
Why in the world would a Catholic like Tolkien have anything to do with Jefferson?

>>9628030
Don't confuse 'the writers lived in a polis' with ;the common man they were writing about lived in rural areas'. The Spartans had their ideals of civic virtue as much as did Athenians and the writings of the great Romans idealized the bucolic living of the shepherds as a nursery for virtue.
More to the point, JRRT was well versed in the Middle English which also pointed to the rural man as a place where virtue flourishes or dies and the Catholic Church, which emphasizes the edifying nature of honest work would have had a tremendous influence.
>>9628203
Indeed

>>9628203

Clearly he was using that as an example of agrarian civic virtue, which no one else has supplied. Beggars cannot be choosers. Jefferson's Virginia gentry prided themselves on the traditional English gentry. Tolkein seems to be talking more of Yeomanry, but it's an inarguably small leap between the two.

>>9627366
literally who?

>>9627366
Literally who? And what does "substituting faith for artistic rigor" even mean? Shoehorning a class reading into a book about elves and hobbits makes me think this guy is a Marxist who is attempting to paint his ideological critique of Tolkien as an artistic critique.

>>9627366

>that there were no symbols or allegories to be found in it

I hate when people say this because almost always fail to differentiate the sort of author enforced allegory and symbolism which is what Tolkien was talking about the allegory and symbolism that the reader finds on his own. The freedom of the reader is what Tolkien is advocating for and he was speaking in response to guys like CS Lewis who would put direct allegories like Aslan being Jesus with no other possible way for the reader to interpret the work. Merely quoting "I hate allegory in all its form" is a form of proof-texting because you're removing the context of what Tolkien is talking about.

>>9628335
>le literally who xD

That you haven't heard of one of the most prominent scifi writers isn't an argument, just shows your ignorance.

>>9628429
He's not. He's a pulp writer who influenced Warhammer and rpgs. Not exactly the best representative of the genre.

Moorcock is so underrated tho. The soul-stealing Black Sword is just as interesting a concept as the One Ring. If Moorcock had been able to tell the story of it in a single unified tale instead of a time-altering multiverse he might be more popular here.

Tolkien was a Catholic and Moorcock wasn't. Everything else follows from that.

>>9627486
no u, Reddit is a Tolkien sanctuary.

>>9628508
>believing a sword is as interesting as a ring

>>9627518
I unironically love Tolkien's prose.

Fite me irl

>>9627393
you must be a tard if you don't see them as the epitome of english country folk

>>9628517
>believing that if you put the eye of sauron into a sword and making an intelligent cursed weapon in the process isn't going to be interesting af

>>9627732
he has his own prejudices, yes we get it. now are you willing to accept that Tolkien has ones of his own? or would applying the same critical eye to him be "marxism" and therefore invalid?

>>9628545
>believing that i can into grammar
>w/ev

seriously tho. if you combine gollum with aragorn you get elric, halfway between the gutter and the stars. he just doesn't have the same epic flair as tolkien but elric is slept on. a world of cursed artifacts and people struggling with them - that's technology today

>>9628545
Magic swords are overdone and a ring has richer symbolism.

>>9628572
>he prefers symbol of being to symbol of becoming

>>9628591
>he prefers benis to bagina

>>9628299
>Clearly he was using that as an example of agrarian civic virtue, which no one else has supplied.
Well, except for, oh, Virgil. And about 200 others ince him.

>>9628429
>That you haven't heard of one of the most prominent scifi writers
The only works of his that sold were are the Melnibone one - and they're fantasy, not SF. As far as 'prominent'? I wouldn't say so, not as a writer. He won a Nebula for a novella, the rest tend to be those 'lifetime achievement' awards that mean 'none of your stuff was particularly good, but you stuck around for 30 years'.The only book he wrote that approached decent was written 50 years ago

>>9628610
>bagina

>>9628643

>>9628545
Too bad Moorcock never really wrote much about Elric v. Stormbringer. It killed the woman he loved and otherwise was Deus Ex Machina, the cutlery.
Here's what really happened
1) Moorcock is a barely-educated kid who loves the pulps but is edgy and reads Marx, so he wants to be an anarchist
2) LotR is popular and growing in popularity but he hates everything the book is about (family, honor, duty, loyalty, tradition, physical courage)
3) He decides to do a reverse LotR: the leader isn't a farmer, he;s an emperor! he doesn't have high moral fibre, he's heartless! he doesn't try to avoid the evil artifact, he chases after it! He doesn't quest for the land of the evil emperor, he lives there! He doesn't save his own homeland, he destroys it! He isn't surrounded by brave, virtuous companions, he has a thief that hangs around! etc.
4) It sells fairly well in that New Wave 'it mentions drugs so I'll buy it' kinda' way and people want more, but he's only got One Simple Trick, so he keep using it over and over and over....
there you have it

>>9628554
OP asked if Moorcock's criticisms are valid.
I don't think they are.
Start your own thread

>>9628655
>(me)

>>9628690

>>9628670
Moorcuck did a great job at writing pulp about a tragic antihero, but if you expect anything more than high tier schlock, you will be disappointed.

>>9628708

>>9628708
sorry, forgot pic

>>9627736
old tory*

>>9628735
>>9628610

more cuck amirite fellas

>>9628775
hahaha

>>9627550
I think the point of the OP is that while Tolkein and others may not have INTENDED to represent those beliefs/backgrounds, it implicitly becomes the backdrop for the narrative because the author has only his own background to draw from.

>>9627518
>But Tolkien isn't really famed for his prose(((;))) his world-building, deep mythological knowledge and linguistic appreciation is where the LOTR riches lie.
I would put a semicolon here.

>>9628786
Couldn't you make the move, though, that while Moorcock's identification of LOTR's underlying themes are valid, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're bad?

I mean, that's just, like, your opinion, Michael. Some of us might just have a fondness for "Orthodox Toryism."

>>9628761
>tfw laughed at by dirty old stoner
>tfw be chronically addicted to drugs in order to live

the feels

>>9628725
...I thought that is what *I* said...

>>9628738
the 'not sure if that is a negative' is the prompt

>>9628786
I would counter that the only reason Moorcock and such perceive this background as negative is because of their own explicit, overt biases.

>>9628674
you didn't actually engage with the criticisms though, you just explained why moorcock might feel the way he does and you didn't touch the argument.

>>9628817
agrarianism could be viewed as dumb

>>9628804
>>9628708

>>9628822
read to the end, kid. I presented a counter

>>9628829
...if you're retarded. Thus, the post

>>9628861
yeah you actually proved his point under the pretense of arguing against him

>>9628862
Go take a train ride and die of pneumonia Tolstoy

>>9628876
Which is it, kid?
Either
>[I] didn;t engage the criticisms
or
>my argument against him proved his point
It is one or the other.
Once we clear that up, we can actually address my points.
If I made any

>>9628885
Moorcock
>>9627366
>substitut[ing] faith for artistic rigour he sees the petit bourgeoisie, the honest artisans and peasants, as the bulwark against Chaos. These people are always sentimentalized in such fiction because traditionally, they are always the last to complain about any deficiencies in the social status quo.
and then
>>9627732
>the theme of LotR is that the Common Man is the bedrock of all societies
>the climax of the books is not Aragorn becoming king of all men but rather the King of All Men announcing that Hobbits (the Common Man) are beyond his rule and are in charge of themselves
You say that if Moorcock had education and patience, he would see the book for... exactly what he quoted it as?

>kid
>>>/reddit/

>>9628799
>>9628820
Moorcock seems like one of those Marxists who think that if you're NOT a Marxist you're either ignorant or stupid. Like Sartre.

>>9628905
Oooooh! I see!
You haven't read the rest of what Moorcock wrote!
That excerpt is from a longer work that goes on to argue that JRRT is wrong, that the petit bourgeoisie are just the most compliant and easily controlled. He views LotR as inherently misanthropic because JRRT's ultimate answer was to have distant aristocratic rulers just control everything.
In replying to the *entire essay* I counter that JRRT's view of the Common Man was much more nuanced than Moorcock's 'petit bourgeoisie' slur and that rather than a "hitlerian" ending where "...White men in grey clothing have a handle on what is best for us..." and are 'beyond question' that JRRT's *actual* ending was much more egalitarian and was about the Common Man ruling *himself*.
I was responding to the whole thing, not just this excerpt

>>9628972
other guy but well I'll just say that agrarianism is dumb

>>9629090
Why?
The core concept of agrarianism is very simple - a land-owning farmer is more independent than a paid worker and is thus more free to follow their conscience. What is dumb about that?

>>9628620
>Well, except for, oh, Virgil. And about 200 others incest him.

No one else in the thread. Read please.

>be commie
>named moorcock

P O T T E R Y

>>9629297
I'm the original Civic Virtue mentioner - I think that the guy you're replying to may be a summer poster. Their level of reading comprehension seems rather weak indeed.

I couldn't be farther politically from Tolkien's opinions, but I think his traditionalism is what makes him a great fantasy writer. You can't properly depict an imaginary society that hasn't gone through a liberal revolution without being an edgy reactionary yourself. Tolkien certainly comes off as more authentic than most other writers of high fantasy, because to him it was far more than escapism.

>>9627366
Conservative writers>Liberal writers

>>9627732
>Lastly, he is that sort of anarchist/socialist/communist - you know, the one that flies in first class from one of this three home to meet with his agent and a documentarian over wine at a michelin-starred lunch then goes to his old neighborhood where he complains bitterly that it used to be filled with "authentic people" (i.e., the poor) but it is now gotten gentrified. After expressing his horror at a poor neighborhood not being poor any longer he writes a quick dismissal of someone else as a 'crypto-fascist', sends it to his press agent, then gets back into a first class seat for another of his homes.

This unironically happened btw senpai

>>9629571
Moorcock is an anarchist though

>>9629601
>Moorcock's works are noted for their political nature and content. In one interview, Moorcock states, "I am an anarchist and a pragmatist. My moral/philosophical position is that of an anarchist."[12] Further, in describing how his writing relates to his political philosophy, Moorcock says, "My books frequently deal with aristocratic heroes, gods and so forth. All of them end on a note which often states quite boldly that one should serve neither gods nor masters but become one's own master."[12]

>Besides using fiction to explore his politics,[9] Moorcock also engages in political activism. Specifically, in order to "marginalize stuff that works to objectify women and suggests women enjoy being beaten", Moorcock has encouraged W H Smiths to move John Norman's Gor series novels to the top shelf.[12]
Why is everyone so mad about Gor?

>>9629609
>Michael Moorcock has suggested that the Gor novels should be placed on the top shelves of bookstores, saying, "I’m not for censorship but I am for strategies which marginalize stuff that works to objectify women and suggests women enjoy being beaten."
Moorcock is pathetic

>>9629609
Isn't it ironic considering he's had to rewrite several passages in his earlier books because they were full to the brim with Gor-like rape.

>>9629609
>My books frequently deal with aristocratic heroes, gods and so forth. All of them end on a note which often states quite boldly that one should serve neither gods nor masters but become one's own master
But Elric gets killed by his sentient edgy sword at the end

>>9629609
This sounds like Robert E. Howard. I know people like to talk about the fascistic underpinnings of Conan but there's a lot of anarchism in Howard's stories, too, what with the idea that man is freer and better outside of civilization.

>>9627392
There is nothing more depressing than a British city/town. Horrible fucking things.

Moorcock considers Tolkien shit but J.K. Rowling, Terry Pratchett, China Mieville and Philip Pullman, who are leftists, great.

It's very obvious his criteria is strictly political. I think it's a very sad existence of someone who can't enjoy things because of politics.

>>9629908
>there's a lot of anarchism in Howard's stories, too, what with the idea that man is freer and better outside of civilization.
Conan becomes a king and assimilated rather well into the society he became a ruler of

>>9629984
The King Conan stories always involve him being deposed, defeated, or exiled, and having to go full barbarian of the wilderness again to reclaim his power. It's clear that the kingship of Aquilonia is purely meant to be a feather in Conan's cap rather than any deeper representation of him being "civilized."

>>9629908
That doesn't sound anarchist at all, most anarchist strands actually depict a well-organized society (anarcho-syndicalism), it's just the cliche of anarchy meaning chaos and lawlessness. But that's why libertarian socialism is a better name anyway.

What's the shittier criticism of Tolkien: Moorcock's leftist rambling or Martin's realist approach?

>>9627392
Garden of Eden is never mentioned after the beginning of Genesis. Does he mean Canaan? Shit reference Morecuck

>>9629571
meaningless dichotomy outside of the US

>>9631193
Martin's crit is stupid because that sort of thing was literally the first thing LotR addresses, the very first chapter. Moorcock's is stupid because he's angry he didn't get it so he acts like Tolkien's talking down to him and is also a Nazi. So it's different varieties of stupid, one's a speedreader and the other one can only see himself in what he reads.

>>9631263
I would argue Moorcock's critique is simultaneously better and dumber. Moorcock correctly analyzes a number of LOTR's core ideas. He fails, though, in instantly assuming that these themes make the book bad.

It's like the whole idea that socialists always fail because the common people are inherently conservative, but applied to literature. The things Moorcock criticizes in Tolkien are the things the average reader likes about him, albeit often unwittingly.

Anonymouse bitcoin debitcard!

I found it !

btc-debitcard.com

>>9627366
>Tolkien
>deficient in romantic sentiment
This is such a staggering insane/wrong thing to suggest that I am honestly fucking baffled this man is a professional writer.

>>9631299
We're talking Epic Pooh, right? I mean, Moorcock does bring up that the shire is shown as comfy and everywhere else as dangerous, but he fails to notice that this is because the Rangers are guarding the last few patches of peace in post-apocalyptic Arnor. This isn't even appendix material, this is right in the beginning of Fellowship. In pic related he implies Tolkien's playing into war apologia when just reading the prologue shows how fragile the Shire's peace is.

Tolkien's not saying experience of life is dangerous, that's the opposite of what he's saying. Outside the Shire isn't experience of life, inside the Shire is, with Rose putting their daughter on Sam's lap. Moorcock acts like that's a given, just like a few paragraphs later he acts like a nice oceanside view is a given, and why don't proles just take a train to see nature.

Oh, and this:
>The great epics dignified death, but they did not ignore it, and it is one of the reasons why they are superior to the artificial romances of which Lord of the Rings is merely one of the most recent.
He missed the entire point.

>>9631318
Read the whole thing, it's hilarious.
http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.php?id=953
It's a way better read than his prose though.

>>9631193
They are basically identical though. Both are literary nobodies trying to siphon relevance from Tolkien's name by assailing the very man who created 'their' genre. It's simple contrarian self promotion and nothing more.

>The sort of prose most often identified with "high" fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies. It is soft...

>It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings and Watership Down and it is the main reason why these books, like many similar ones in the past, are successful.

>Watership Down
>Soft

Did he just see rabbits on the cover and extrapolate from that?
>His claws found Woundwort's leg, ripping sideways; but before he could draw back, Woundwort's whole weight came down on him and the next moment his teeth had met in his right ear. Bigwig squealed, pressed down and thrashing from side to side. Woundwort, feeling his enemy's fear and helplessness, loosed his hold of the ear and rose above him, ready to bite and tear him across the back of the neck. For an instant he stood above the helpless Bigwig, his shoulders filling the run. Then his injured foreleg gave way and he lurched sideways against the wall. Bigwig cuffed him twice across the face and felt the third blow pass through his whiskers as he sprang back. The sound of his heavy breathing came plainly from the top of the earth pile, Bigwig, the blood oozing from his back and ear, stood his ground and waited. Suddenly he realized that he could see the dark shape of General Woundwort faintly outlined where he crouched above him. The first traces of daylight were glimmering through the broken roof of the Honeycomb behind.

>>9628610
Vaginas tend to be ugly. They feel good and they are carried by good looking beings, but they are ugly. Penises are like swords, cool, beautiful and strong.

>>9627409
This. Moorcock is an embittered kikeblood who got rekt before he was born by some Catholic conservative dude, and it's got his asshole smoldering like a red hot coal because the only thing a Marxist faggot can't twist out of is hard book sales.

Tolkien won. Decisively and one-sidedly. He will never be defeated, certainly not by some low-content loser like Michael Moorcock, and I LIKE some of his work, but it just ain't happening.

>mfw Zelazny died before he was 60
>mfw Moorcock's still alive
>mfw PKD died at 53
>mfw Le Guin's still alive

>>9629147
You trade in independence from the whims of nature, starvation and no modern amenities is worse than any bourgeoisie

>>9627568
He also defined allegory as something done intentionally by the author.

>>9627366
Anyone who has read about the Hobbits and thinks they're supposed to be a representation of sympathetic, simple, "little England" values is a total idiot who's projecting their own political shortcomings onto something they're too stupid to understand. Because Tolkien is pretty damn clear in his passages about the Hobbits that they're backwards, willfully ignorant peasants.

Honestly, it's pretty rich that a devoted anarchist like Morecocks is lambasting Tolkien for being Catholic. Yes, Catholic values pervade the work. But Morecocks can't utter a word without leaving politics at the door. So is this man honest in his critique, or is he simply lashing out at something for not conforming to his views?

I'd wager the latter. Message fic is the lowest of the low, and Morecocks is one of its sleaziest purveyors. The sheer fact that this man thinks he has any right to slap down the work of others for having any real or perceived ideological underpinnings is laughable.

>>9631356
Well, look at how old Mugabe is. That's like three African lifetimes the man has lived. Clearly, you need to do something very, very wrong in order to grow old.

>>9631525
>lambasting
you're the one projecting

>>9631554
This is not an argument, merely an accusation. You are only proving my point. And frankly, I think this is a real problem with these ideologically motivated critics, whether they're shitting on Tolkien or anyone else. People make one, simplistic statement, often while going out of their way to be insulting and to show their politics colours. Then someone else explains why their judgement is faulty, and then their ideological allies start shitting seven colours in anger.

Frankly, I don't hate Morecocks for his beliefs. I hate him because he, and his fans, seem to think anyone who doesn't share them is evil incarnate.

>>9631569
>This is not an argument
Can't wait to learn from you what an argument looks like.
>You are only proving my point.
Ah!
>they're shitting
You're doing it again.

>>9631619
Go be a mental midget somewhere else.

>>9631630
no u

>>9631327

Stay mad holmes

>>9631998
He's not wrong, though. And he does not sound mad. You do.

Seems utterly retarded to call LOTR anti-romantic. It's literally pure Romanticism, as is a lot of fiction by definition.

I don't get how people think Marxist deconstruction is interesting at all when it comes to art. Yes yes, we get it, you can deconstruct a piece of art and reduce it to the author's class prejudices, you must now be an intellectual, how swell.

Meanwhile, at least the authors create something of value and the postmodern "intellectual" is just projecting his resentment upon the social world.

Moorcock isn't even a Marxist; he's an anarchist. He just apparently accepts some of Marx's critiques of capitalism.

>>9627409
>about an edgy magic casting king who goes around and fucks women.

if you'd rather he goes around fucking men, there's always Jherek Carnelian. pretty sure he fucked Lord Jagged at least once.

>>9631348
>This. Moorcock is an embittered kikeblood

haha, i see you've read the Pyat novels!

Pyat was weird. a jewish life-long fervent anti-semite. also he fucked Jerry Cornelius' mum in the few brief moments when she wasn't vomiting.

>>9632033

From my three typed words you managed to unearth my disposition? If you weren't wrong Id say you were a genius.

>>9632056
Yeah, but that's just technically being right. Marxists and Anarchists are so friendly that they share space on the same flag, for fuck's sake. They say the same things, support the same goals, etc. etc. For all intents and purposes, Anarchists are essentially Marxists. Maybe they'd come to blows after they killed or imprisoned the rest of us, but that's not much of a distinction in practical terms.

>>9631323
>Epic Pooh

Thanks for that link. If anyone needs me, I'll be in the angry dome

>>9631525
Not only does Tolkien think the hobbits are backward, willfully ignorant peasants, he's in love with how they can always come through in a pinch. He based Sam off the servants he had as an officer in WWI who went from being backwards peasants to Hell to their families again, while so many officers came back from the Somme with a wound in their heart. It's incredibly insulting for Moorcock to just assume he knew more about war than Tolkien because he'd read some economics books.

>>9632563
Make sure you read Starship Stormtroopers next.
https://everything2.com/title/Starship+Stormtroopers

>>9631525
There's a letter where Tolkien literally states the Hobbits are rural England. Kys, fag.

>>9632656
Presumptiveness is the major flaw in Morecocks' "critique". As someone else said, it's the whole "when you have a hammer" idea. His thing is anarchism, so anything that's not anarchism is shit in his mind.

A lot of people seem to think it's black and white: Either you speak well of them, and think they're awesome, or you take a huge dump on them and hate them. But no, Tolkien puts their flaws in there, without condemning them for it. Because he's a good fucking Catholic, and the entire central premise is based around his Catholic values.

>>9632686
No shit, you mouthbreather. How fucking retarded are you to think I was saying they're not?

>>9632749
>Moorcock is praised for "morally gray" characters that are just evil
>actually cannot comprehend moral nuance
>Tolkien castigated for "black and white" morality, especially by people like Moorcock
>work is extremely nuanced if you are not a mouth-breathing chromosome thief

I love Moorcocks ideas but now I'm no longer ten, his writing is unreadable.

>>9632683
Holy hypertext Batman!

>>9632785
The other source 404'd. Are you not familiar with everything2? It's been around for a really long time and has many strange things.

>>9631333
>>>/lgbt/

>>9632813
I was just referring to the fact that every other word was hypertext to related things. I've seen it around but I'm not familiar with it beyond the idea that it seems to be a sort of proto-wiktionary for modern cultural things.

>>9631327
But what about Aragorn's tax policy?

>>9632887
it's funny because the Shire is a libertarian paradise.
>mfw Farmer Maggot literally has private roads

>There are still a few things which bring a naive sense of shocked astonishment to me whenever I experience them -- a church service in which the rituals of Dark Age superstition are performed without any apparent sense of incongruity in the participants

>>9632916
And this is the root of why Moorcock doesn't GET Tolkien. He's an aggressively atheistic materialist and Tolkien is not.

>>9631327
>treating based Seneca like a piece of trash

>>9632916
>Rituals of Dark Age
He also has no idea what he's talking about- during his time they were freshly created (the New Mass) and the one Tolkien heard has been virtually unchanged since the end of the 6th century, but is probably older, it started forming into what it became then during the Roman times.

>>9632916
the fedora is off the charts

>>9627366
>Moorcock
literally who

>Tolkien
literal god

>>9631193
I think Martin's criticism is worse because he doesn't even get what Tolkien is doing. Tolkien is writing mythology on the model of ancient epics, not a "modern novel".

It would be like asking what is Beowulf's tax policy.

>>9633990
>what is Beowulf's tax policy.
Well? What is it?

In all seriousness, though, I think Martin understands that's not what Tolkien was going for, he's just making a point that he's going for something different.

Not sure what Westeros' tax policy is though.

I somewhat liked the Elric books in high school, so I thought Moorcock was alright. But then I read Moorcock's Behold the Man, because the premise seemed interesting. I really learned how bitter Moorcock was.

>>9632816
He's completely right. And if he's a bisexual that makes him more objective than a silly straightfag.