Can we all agree that Tolkien is a shit writer?

File: 9 KB, 247x350, jrrtolkien.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:16:23 2011 No.1679252 [Reply] [Original]

Can we all agree that Tolkien is a shit writer?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:17:23 2011 No.1679253 You mean >Can we all agree that Tolkein WAS a shit writer?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:18:23 2011 No.1679254 completely amazing world builder though also he wasnt THAT bad

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:19:23 2011 No.1679256 >>1679253 Aspie detected. Even dead, he's still a writer and known as such.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:21:23 2011 No.1679260

>>1679254

But was he? I never see anything new in his world: it's all taken from folklore without much addition or change. His Middlearth is basically Europe with Turkey as Mordor and England as the Shire. It's thinly veiled.

As to inventing languages, Elfic is JUST LIKE Old English, I swear to God. I had a teacher who could speak Old English, it sounded exactly alike.

As far as I'm concerned, in terms of worldbuilding, he's on par with Rowling. If he's good at it, then so is she.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:22:23 2011 No.1679262 No, he isn't a shit writer. He isn't a great writer either, he's a good writer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:23:23 2011 No.1679263 File: 79 KB, 490x351, 1301845060374.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679262 But is he?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:25:23 2011 No.1679266 The Hobbit was a snoozefest. To think this was intended for CHILDREN makes me think Tolkien had to be an imbecile.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:26:23 2011 No.1679268 he excels at the put-you-to-sleep genre

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:28:23 2011 No.1679269
File: 10 KB, 300x300, 1301660648434.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Tolkien is the kind of writer who enjoyed writing more than you enjoy reading what he wrote.

"OMFG I'M WRITING SOME EPIC SHIT RIGHT HERE, IT'S FUCKING EPIC, I USE WORDY WORDS TO DESCRIBE PURE EPICNESS, AND NOW, A FUCKING SONG, SING MOTHERFUCKERS! SING! SING IN A MADE-UP LANGUAGE! FUCK YES, I'M SO FUCKING AWESOME, I JUST CAME IN MY EPIC PANTS!"

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:33:54 2011 No.1679275

LOOK AT THAT MOTHERFUCKER, IT'S A GOLLUM, IT'S GOTS HAIR LOSS AND SHIT, NIGGER, IT'S GOTS THIS WEIRD WAY TO TALK AND SINCE I'M A DUMBASS, INSTEAD OF MAKING HIM TALK IN "WE" AFTER HE GETS THE RING, WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THE PRESENCE OF THE EVIL ONE, I'LL HAVE HIM SPEAK IN "WE" EVEN BEFORE HE GETS THE RING! SO THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE AND RUINS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE MUCH BETTER! I CAME IN MY PANTS, I'M SO EPICALLY FAPPABLE, ALSO THIS IS NOT A PIPE. IT'S A COCK, FUCKING SMOKE IT.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:34:23 2011 No.1679276 >>1679275 >>1679269 Shhhhht.... Calm down, it's over.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:37:23 2011 No.1679280

SO I GOT THIS IDEA, IT'S ABOUT SOME MIDDLE-AGE CRISIS WORLD WHERE SATAN CREATES A RING TO HARNESS HIS OWN POWER INTO IT. WHY? I DON'T FUCKING KNOW, SHIT SOUNDS COOL YO. THEN HE GIVES IT TO HIMSELF, BUT NOT BEFORE HE MADE OTHER RINGS, USELESS ONES, TO ALL SPECIES OF THE MIDDLE-AGE- CRISIS WORLD. THEN HE ATTACKS THEM WITH HIS OWN RING BECAUSE, FUCK YOU! THEN HE LOSES THE RING TO A WHITE NIGLET WITH HAIR LOSS. AND THE RING MUST BE DESTROYED, BUT ONLY MIDGETS WITH HAIRY FEET CAN DO IT, BECAUSE, FUCK YOU! WHO NEEDS REASONS? I KNOW IT'S KIND OF STUPID BUT IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR KIDS, RIGHT?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:38:23 2011 No.1679282 >>1679280 Come on, don't force me to make you swallow this pill.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:39:23 2011 No.1679283 Why the fuck would Sauran place his power in a ring when he could just keep it in himself? Also, how do you put anything in a ring that small? This shit makes no fucking sense! Also, who the fuck is Morgoth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:39:23 2011 No.1679284 >don't like Tolkien >SHIT WRITER >RAAAAAAAAAAGE

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:39:23 2011 No.1679285 >>1679269 >>1679275 >>1679280 Dude, calm down. Asperger Syndrome can be dealt with.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:41:23 2011 No.1679286

>>1679282

THE RED PILL, THE BLUE PILL, I FORGET WHICH MAKES YOU COME OUT THE MATRIX! HOW THE FUCK CAN A VIRTUAL PILL DO ANYTHING THOUGH, JUST KIDDING, MAKES PERFECT SENSE, UNLIKE SAURON.

SO SAURON IS NOW REDUCED TO A FUCKING FLAMING VAGINA ON TOP OF A TOWER AND HE CAN SEE VERY FAR BUT NOT EVERYTHING AT ONCE. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:41:23 2011 No.1679288 Yeah, I didn't like the movies either. The Hobbit was a children's book. Tolkien sure is a shit writer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:41:23 2011 No.1679289 I just finished reading The Fellowship of the Ring for the first time, and I liked it a lot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:43:23 2011 No.1679292 >>1679285 ASPIES DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO RAGE THIS MUCH. ASPIES CAN'T TROLL, I CAN. SO EXPLAIN WHY HOBBITS HAVE HAIRS ON THEIR FEET. captcha: peterjackson fatass

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:44:23 2011 No.1679296 >>1679289 This is not possible, because when I don't like something it automatically becomes in shit. My taste is UNIVERSALLY valid, so it's impossible for you to enjoy Tolkien now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:45:23 2011 No.1679297 >>1679292 >aspies can't rage this much Oh really?

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:45:23 2011 No.1679298

I saw the movies first, and liked them. Then I read the books... What I liked about the movies were not even in the books, like this epic scene between Sam, Gollum, and Frodo, where Gollum tricks Frodo into dumping Sam. That makes me cry every time. IT'S NOT IN THE BOOK.

Also, I don't remember ANYTHING from the book except this super bad fake ass love scene between that dude and this bitch, at the end. They just fall in love and marry in 4 pages. Shit wasn't cash.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:45:23 2011 No.1679299 >>1679296 Fuck

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:46:23 2011 No.1679300 File: 13 KB, 215x226, 1301651588480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Ok.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:47:23 2011 No.1679303 Should I even attempt the S.... Silmarillion? My bro read it, so I asked him lots of questions, and he gave me convoluted answers about everything. Sauron, sent by Morgoth, real villain. Iono.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:49:23 2011 No.1679304 >>1679303 don't ask here.... Tolkien is not indie enough for this hipster shithole called /lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:51:23 2011 No.1679308 >>1679304 I'll give you that. I don't hate Tolkien this much, I just remember his prose being somewhat boring. Not as boring as PYNCHON, THOUGH. U mad hispta bro?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 10:56:23 2011 No.1679317 >>1679303 the Silmarillion can be difficult, it reads like mythology, or perhaps like one of the Epics... but its definitely worthwhile, if you like Tolkien.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:03:23 2011 No.1679328 >>1679317 I've read myself hundreds of pages from the Old Testament, I guess I shall be fine.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:04:23 2011 No.1679331 >>1679308 enjoying pynchon doesn't make you a hipster... In facting enjoying something does not make you ANYTHING aspie detected I liked V, the Crying of lot 49 but I found everything else unreadable.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:08:23 2011 No.1679337

>>1679331

Then perhaps you are the anon I was waiting for. My experience of Pynchon is a short story whose title I can't remember now, though I remember what the word means, and 250 pages of Gravity's Rainbow.

Should I give Pynchon another try? Suggestion?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:10:23 2011 No.1679341 >>1679298 You have to read the appendix, it tells the entire Aragorn/Arwen story.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:13:23 2011 No.1679347 Anyone who can't enjoy Tolkien is probably the kind of person who has a hard time doing their own thinking and who'd be a moron if it weren't for things like Wikipedia. inb4 mad

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:14:23 2011 No.1679350 >>1679347 i didnt know reading tolkien was such an intellectual undertaking now im scared

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:16:23 2011 No.1679354

>>1679347
Some people don't care for his style, which is fine; but to say that is prose is "shit" is obviously just an aspie knee-jerk, or a troll.

Personally, I like his prose. I find, that with LOTR, the lengthy prose is something which really helps me to immerse myself in the setting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:17:23 2011 No.1679355 >>sure are a lot of people ITT criticizing LOTR who fail basic reading comprehension

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:18:23 2011 No.1679357

>>1679350
It's not, or at least it doesn't have to be.

Start with the Hobbit, follow with the LOTR, and finish with the Silmarillion.

There is a clear progression in the elevation of his prose, as was mentioned, the Hobbit is a childrens story. (albeit a somewhat gruesome one.).

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:23:23 2011 No.1679362 >>1679350 It's not really. There's various themes throughout even in the perceived "boring parts" that most who criticize fail to take into consideration for a fraction of a second.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:24:23 2011 No.1679364 >>1679362 Addendum: The point I'm making is that anyone who says Tolkien is shit isn't taking the bulk of his works into consideration.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:28:23 2011 No.1679369 >>1679364 Pretty much, I have a hard time believing that anybody can read all of The Hobbit, LOTR, and the Silmarillion; and then say "Well, that was complete shit, obviously this man is terrible at his craft."

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:31:23 2011 No.1679370 >>1679341 I was refering to Boromir's brother and whatsherface from Rohan.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:33:23 2011 No.1679375 >>1679260 >Turkey as Mordor lol fuck is this shit

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:35:20 2011 No.1679377

Tolkien produces a tight interweaving of literary references—specifically, links to Shakespeare's King Lear in both style and thematic substance—with grammatical, syntactic, lexical, and even aural effects. His writing thus achieves a stylistic consistency and communicative economy that rivals his Modernist contemporaries. At the same time his treatment of Lear shows his engagement with ideas (in this case, the problem of pride and despair among the powerful) that have long been considered among the great themes of English literature.

>>	None !WvWWh.l.CE Mon Apr 4 11:35:23 2011 No.1679376 LOTR threads are always hilarious. remember that 'fool of a took' shit?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:35:23 2011 No.1679378 Sure is epic hipster mode in here. SOMETHING'S POPULAR LET'S HATE IT RAWWWWWRRRR.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:36:23 2011 No.1679379 File: 13 KB, 363x364, 1299171195248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] There's a valid reason why Tolkien was a shit tier writer: He was a die hard Christfag who was indirectly responsible for the Chronicles Narnia.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:38:23 2011 No.1679382 >>1679379 Tolkien opposed allegory in fantasy, so no he didn't. C.S. Lewis was a far bigger Christfag than him anyway.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:40:23 2011 No.1679387 >>1679286 The rage and the CAPS LOCK made me laugh out loud, even though I'm a fan of Tolkien.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:41:23 2011 No.1679389 >>1679382 >implying Lewis wasn't converted by Tolkien

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:44:20 2011 No.1679392

Much of the great beauty and power of The Lord of the Rings comes in part from Tolkien's ability to produce aesthetic effects simultaneously on multiple levels, so that the effects created by, say, the use of Anglo-Saxon syntax and lexicon are connected with the themes of cultural interaction and individual morality that are integral to Tolkien's vision. The craftsmanship of The Lord of the Rings is consistent at all levels of construction, from the individual sentence to the macro structure of the journey, a repeated stress and release pattern. This tightly inter-connected series of aesthetic effects (one might even call the multi-level repetition a "fractal" structure) is one of the aspects of Tolkien's fiction that separates his from other fantasies, and other forms of literature, that are far less meticulously crafted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:44:20 2011 No.1679396 >>1679393 Sometimes, a hill is not just a hill.

>>	MagicMo !rbCi1TmBDE Mon Apr 4 11:44:23 2011 No.1679393 My only problem with him is his descriptions. He describes this one hill for about 5 pages which Frodo and the lads merely sleep on then leave. That shit is dull.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:44:23 2011 No.1679395 >>1679377 Nice trolling brah.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:46:23 2011 No.1679398 >>1679379 >implying one's beliefs directly influence one's verbal ability Antichristian, never change.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:46:23 2011 No.1679399

>>1679304
>>1679354
>>1679355
>>1679375
>>1679378
I love you guys.

Rest of the Tolkien-hating posters - what was shit about his writing? I'm not saying that his characters did not lack depth, but bring forth examples of his "shit" writing.

>>1679260
In before "the Uruk Hai were the Nazis, hurr durr"

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:47:23 2011 No.1679401 >>1679396 But for Tolkien, sometimes there are 100ish pages of distracting exposition.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:47:23 2011 No.1679402

Me talking to a friend about LOTR years ago
> I loved those books! Some of my favorites!

His response
>Those books were terrible. They just droned on and on and on about useless crap.

My response
>Oh? So what books do you like?

>His response
>R.A. Salvatore's Dark Elf Trilogy was the best. The world and his writing is so rich. I've read those a hundred times

My response
>.......

Basically if you don't like LOTR you're either a pretentious hipster or a 14-year-old obsessed with Drizzt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:48:23 2011 No.1679406 >>1679379 I laughed so hard that I nearly vomited.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:48:23 2011 No.1679408 >>1679396 But in this case, it was just a hill. Tolkien describes whenever he doesn't have anything worthy to say. Thus, the first part of LOTR is mostly characters walking. It's fucking epic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:50:23 2011 No.1679412 >>1679387 I is glad. :D

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:52:23 2011 No.1679414 >>1679389 It's not that simple, though. In his autobriography, Lewis doesn't even mention Tolkien as why he became Christian.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:52:23 2011 No.1679417

I always love reading *about* Tolkien's work, just never actually reading the work itself.

The world he builds is pretty cool, and the mythology and history of the world fascinates me, with all the hidden stuff in it that just gets touched on but has a whole back story etc.

Read LOTR a few years back but just didn't enjoy it. Maybe I was too young (17) because I was glad to finish it.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:53:20 2011 No.1679421

To be fair, characters walking is fitting with Tolkien's idea of "The Road" taking a hold of a character.

Its been a while, but I believe "The Hobbit" outlines his this idea more explicitly.

Creating his universe was more important than the stories that occurred in it, so exposition is just part of the program.

>>	Sunhawk !nZQ2xl.g.6 Mon Apr 4 11:53:23 2011 No.1679420 Mid Tier IMO. Lord of the Rings is overrated, but good. The movies are excellent.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:55:23 2011 No.1679424

>>1679417

Kinda like me. I'm like Tolkien: more interested in world stuff than his actual writings. Tolkien himself wrote as if it pained him to write. Whenever I read Tolkien, I can hear him whisper, "God, I wish I was in my garage making up new languages and inventing new races, why the fuck do I have to fucking WRITE this shit?"

Were he alive today, Tolkien would work at Blizzard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:56:23 2011 No.1679427 >>1679421 The Hobbit: characters walking LOTR: characters walking much more

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:58:23 2011 No.1679431 >>1679427 yeah, nothing happens in those books at all. its just 900+ pages of walking. coolface.jpg

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:58:23 2011 No.1679432

LOTR is such a Christfag preaching. The ring is a pussy and you're not supposed to fingerfuck it, otherwise it makes you feel powerful, but really it makes you its bitch, just like a woman.

Wait a minute... Tolkien was right. LOTR is about how women are cunts and we should not fingerfuck them anymore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:59:23 2011 No.1679437 >>1679431 >yeah, nothing happens in those books at all. its just 900+ pages of walking. Absolute truth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 11:59:23 2011 No.1679438 >>1679398 >implying if he wasn't christian he would have written books imbued with christfag symbolism

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:01:23 2011 No.1679441 >>1679438 Oh yeah? Please point out ANYTHING Christian in LOTR. I dare you, I double dare you motherfucka.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:03:23 2011 No.1679444 >>1679441 Gandalf = jesus. He shows the fellowship the right way, sacrifices himself to stop the balrog, rises from the dead to save the day.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:04:23 2011 No.1679446

Yes, Tolkien was a christfag.
No, his work is not christian allegory.

His creation mythology is more pantheistic, or polytheistic, than anything. There is no relation between it, and christianity.

I guess Morgoth, and Sauron, can be interpreted as kind of Satanic figures... but that's about as far as you can stretch it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:05:23 2011 No.1679448 >>1679444 -_- Who said what about Tolkien disliking allegories in fantasy? Also no, otherwise Robocop is jesus too. Gandalf is a faggoty New Age cocksucking hippie. Anything else?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:06:23 2011 No.1679449 >>1679441 >>1679446 talking about Lewis and Narnia you dumbfucks

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:07:23 2011 No.1679451 I swear he revolutionized an entire new genre in fantasy fiction? The other day I walked into my bookstore and saw a book written entirely on Orcs, showing another side to them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:08:23 2011 No.1679454 >>1679446 My thoughts exactly, and as to Satan and God, you could say the exact same about most religion: there's always a good guy and a bad guy. Those who think LOTR is a Catholic's wet dream, please continue providing arguments.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:10:23 2011 No.1679458 >>1679449 No, Tolkien. Just reread the posts, you'll realise it was about Tolkien. I just reread them, I realised it was about Tolkien. Now tell us what is Christian about LOTR.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:11:23 2011 No.1679459 >>1679454 might as well imply that LOTR is filled with Zoroastrian allegory.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:12:23 2011 No.1679461

Both Tolkien and Lewis were fascinated by this absolutely shitty book by McDonald, called, I forget. Not even worth remembering. I read it because Lewis was twisting his panties over it, so I thought it had to be good. It was shit.

But that's where you find the elements that later made LOTR and Narnia. Maybe why they all suck cocks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:13:23 2011 No.1679466 >>1679458 >tolkien was christfag >tolkien converted lewis >lewis wrote christfag allegory >tolkien indirectly responsible now go learn to read.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:14:23 2011 No.1679471

I think LOTR is an ode to misoginy. It's about hating women and sucking cocks for the glory of manliness.

I mean, come on: Sauron is a fiery cunt. The Ring is a fiery cunt too. Gandalf is homosex. There are NO women in the fellowship. Arwen is a dumbass woman who trades immortality for a wannabe king.

LOTR = fuck women

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:15:23 2011 No.1679473
File: 38 KB, 527x354, Cave_troll1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I smell a cave troll (pic related).
Oldfag here... back in the day, the criticism I heard most often of LOTR was (a) that it was escapist fantasy for little boys. Nowadays, the criticisms are (b) that he was a bad prose stylist and (c) it's boring.
I think (a) has been destroyed because of the later published writings (from The Silmarillion on) and because of the movies, which were massively enjoyed by people of both sexes and all ages.
(b) started to come on in the 90s as a response to its continued great popularity. "Sure it's popular, but the writing is crap" -- amusingly the reverse of what the publishers thought the reception would be to it in 1954.
As for (c), LOTR spawned a huge genre of fiction that has continued to be popular up to the present, even making their way into tabletop and video games. The tropes that Tolkien used are so well-known now that a lot of modern fantasy just skips a lot of details and cuts straight to the swords and sorcery. Thus modern readers reading LOTR after years of other stuff tend to think it's boring.
Maybe in 100 years or so people will be able to make a more even-handed assessment of it. Right now it's all basically "I hate it because my little brother / that annoying twerp from my English class / my hippie aunt love it".
Peace out

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:16:23 2011 No.1679476 >>1679466 >>1679466 >>1679398 Oh yeah? Learn to read this: >There's a valid reason why Tolkien was a shit tier writer: He was a die hard Christfag who was indirectly responsible for the Chronicles Narnia. Okay? Okay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:17:23 2011 No.1679478 >>1679461 "Phantastes", by George MacDonald? Yeah, LOTR is a lot better than that. I guess what Tolkien and Lewis liked about it was that it combined adult themes with fairy-tale themes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:18:23 2011 No.1679483 >>1679476 >mfw he makes my point for me

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:19:23 2011 No.1679484

No matter how hard I tried, Tolkien's writing is dull and boring; that man just can't put any life in his stories. They never take off the ground. The style is absent. There is no life. It's descriptive at best.

Does anyone remember any great quote from those 900 plus pages?

"You shall not pass."

Epic.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Apr 4 12:19:23 2011 No.1679486

>>1679473
(a) is not a valid criticism
(b) is a valid criticism
(c) is not a valid criticism

and you spend no more than two sentences on addressing the only valid point, your rebuttal being: People liked it better 70 years ago, which is not a valid criticism

christ

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:20:23 2011 No.1679487 File: 25 KB, 343x420, salinger64363.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679483 mfw you posted no face.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:21:23 2011 No.1679490 >>1679473 A sign of the times. I mean, the majority of negative reviews (on goodreads, or amazon) for ANY book, are usually "it was boring" or "I stopped reading after x pages". Neither one of those are valid criticisms. Especially the latter.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:22:23 2011 No.1679493 >>1679478 That's exactly it. I couldn't even summarise what happens in that shit of an ass novel. It's like a drug trip without rhyme or reason.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:22:23 2011 No.1679495 >>1679490 The only valid criticism: Frodo doesn't get laid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:24:23 2011 No.1679499 >>1679495 i thought the ring represented his virginity

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:25:20 2011 No.1679504 >>1679493 >implying other drug trips have rhyme and reason

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:27:23 2011 No.1679508 this thread is so lulz troll everywhere

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:27:54 2011 No.1679507

Hi, I'm Tolkien.

Originally, I wanted to kill my own children by writing a coma-inducing story. How they survived, I do not know. But it worked, and soon enough, an evil mastermind paid me to do the same to the world, so I wrote LOTR.

Again, it failed. People started liking it. I did my best to make it boring - I even wrote over 300 pages of nothing but characters walking, complete with lengthy descriptions of everything in sight as the characters walked. Still to no avail: success was inevitable.

That's when I decided to sound legit. So I pretended it wasn't children's literature, and wrote a book that gave LOTR and the Hobbit some viking-like background, in which I plunder and rape every celtic myth and northern culture, like a boss. Then my auntie got scared and I was on my way to Bel-air and mfw uncle Phil is a fucking nigger.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:28:23 2011 No.1679509 >>1679504 >implying if you say something about something that is typical of the something, you're assuming it's different

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:29:23 2011 No.1679512

hahaowow, postan in a D&E thread
>>1679486
My apologies for not writing a treatise on your pet peeve.
I will say what I said here a few weeks ago when the same point came up. Tolkien was trying to combine elements of modern novels with high fantasy from medieval epics and fairy tales. As a result, the style varies widely from chapter to chapter and even within the same conversation (the first conversation between Theoden and Merry and Pippin at Isengard is a classic example). Most people criticizing "Tolkien's style" point to passages in the epic style. To me this misses the point.
Shippey has some good discussion of this basic point in "JRRT: Author of the Century".

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:31:23 2011 No.1679518 >>1679260 still waiting to hear why mordor is turkey

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:32:23 2011 No.1679523

>>1679512

I disagree; to me, it's the same style the whole time, and, kind sir, I have read ACTUAL MEDIEVAL EPICS, and they're absolutely unrelated. Medieval epics contain more gore than any modern writer even dares to write: bodies cloven from head to navel, brains splattered, etc. You'll find none of that manliness in Tolkien's battles.

Medieval literature ISN'T boring. It's awesome shit, but Tolkien is just shit.

Sorry that all your fake ass connections to better books fail to elevate Tolkien beyond a literary cocksucker.

ElegentiaeArbiter !bHPPL//q.s Mon Apr 4 12:32:23 2011 No.1679524

>>1679473
LotR is OK for a quick buzz, but it is not remotely literary. It does not have style, it does not have psychological depth, and it does not focus on character. People need to distinguish between entertaining confections like Tolkien and actual meals like, I don't know, Virginia Woolf.

Sÿllable's Canticle !.M17dCV/UE Mon Apr 4 12:32:23 2011 No.1679525

>>1679484
His narrative is full of life. Tolkien wrote an anglo-saxon mythology. That was his goal. He wrote it in the style of old epics and myths. It is a slow read to be sure, but he was writing a world that is very unlike out own and he went out of his way to cram it full of detail. Try reading other fantasy or SF of the time. Most of it was pulp, and the majority of that was hack. Now people read Tolkien and complain about how slow his narrative is and how you do not like long flowing sentences. He is doing it for a reason, that is his style. All these /lit/sters thinking just because Tolkien is popular he suddenly becomes a sellout. He cannot sellout, he is dead.
>>There were fountains of butterflies that flew glittering into the trees; there were pillars of coloured fires that rose and turned into eagles, or sailing ships, or a phalanx of flying swans; there was a red thunderstorm and a shower of yellow rain; there was a forest of silver spears that sprang suddenly into the air with a yell like an embattled army, and came down again into the Water with a hiss like a hundred hot snakes. And there was also one last surprise, in honour of Bilbo, and it startled the hobbits exceedingly, as Gandalf intended. The lights went out. A great smoke went up. It shaped itself like a mountain seen in the distance, and began to glow at the summit. It spouted green and scarlet flames. Out flew a red-golden dragon – not life-size, but terribly life-like: fire came from his jaws, his eyes glared down; there was a roar, and he whizzed three times over the heads of the crowd. They all ducked, and many fell flat on their faces. The dragon passed like an express train, turned a somersault, and burst over Bywater with a deafening explosion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:34:23 2011 No.1679527 >>1679525 wait if they had express trains why the fuck did they have to do all that walking?!

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:40:23 2011 No.1679534 File: 6 KB, 267x189, nou.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679523

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:44:12 2011 No.1679538 dead white men write classics

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Mon Apr 4 12:46:23 2011 No.1679540 Actually guys the only valid criticism of LOTR is why Gandalf didn't just dust off and nuke the ring from orbit i mean lol wtf was Tolkien thinking???

>>	☿ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Apr 4 12:52:23 2011 No.1679549 File: 48 KB, 300x311, i am multitude.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] itt people confuse monotheism with reductive monism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:53:23 2011 No.1679550 >>1679518 Juxtapose a map of Europe with a map of Middle-Earth. Mordor falls right on Turkey, and both continents have similar general outlines.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:55:23 2011 No.1679555 >>1679540 Further more, why couldn't the eagles that rescue Frodo and Sam and take them back to the shire take them (or anyone really) to Mt. Doom in the first place?

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:56:23 2011 No.1679556

>>1679525

> He wrote it in the style of old epics and myths.

Stopped reading there. Tolkien has none of the style of old epics and myths, nonewhatsofuckingever, none. Those were awesome, his is just lame. Just because he tried to copy something that had been done before doesn't mean he did it better or as good: he did way worse.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:57:23 2011 No.1679560 >>1679525 >The dragon passed like an express train There we are; this is why I can't say Tolkien is any good.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:59:23 2011 No.1679563 >>1679555 Because the Nazi-ghouls would have found them easily that way. They can fly too, and anything flying would be dead obvious. You can't simply fly into Mordor.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 12:59:23 2011 No.1679564 >>1679556 Because it's conspicuous ?

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:00:23 2011 No.1679567

>>1679560

Agreed, never use a simile that involves things that don't exist in the universe you describe... That's stupid. The dragon is seen by the characters, THEY are the ones who might compare it to something else, and that's why you can't write LIKE A FUCKING EXPRESS TRAIN, because nobody knows what a fucking train is in this universe.

Writing 101, Tolkien fails at it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:01:23 2011 No.1679571 >>1679564 I don't dislike long sentences and wordy words, I dislike shit prose. Excuse me while... I kiss the sky like an express train.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:03:23 2011 No.1679576 >>1679567 Tolkien knows how to speak to his audience, which most certainly would have known what an express train is, so therefore he is a shit writer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:03:23 2011 No.1679579 >>1679571 I meant to quote the post about eagles flying into mordor, sorry.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:06:23 2011 No.1679580 >>1679571 >I kiss the sky like an express train. Troll

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:08:23 2011 No.1679584

>>1679576

Sure, his audience would have known what a Balrog is too. Fail argument is fail.

I repeat: do not use similes that use things like EXPRESS TRAINS in a fucking LOTR book! Whether the audience knows what a goddam train is is beside the point, it's not the audience that witnesses the dragon, it's the characters, and THEY wouldn't know anything about express trains. Remember, the narrator, unless omniscient and incarnate, is only there to expose thoughts of the characters and things IN the story. A fucking express train doesn't belong. This is epic shit writing in all its glory.

ElegentiaeArbiter !bHPPL//q.s Mon Apr 4 13:08:23 2011 No.1679585

>>1679567
Without wanting to defend Tolkien, what you've asserted about an author's narration is by no means anything like an established fact. It's an issue that has always provoked debate and is certainly not something that is obviously wrong. There are very few, if any, hard-and-fast rules about writing like that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:09:23 2011 No.1679586 >>1679580 I fucked your mother.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:11:23 2011 No.1679590

>>1679585

Sure seems pretty damn logical to me: express train, dragon, medieval fantasy, modern day simile. It just doesn't mix. It made me go WTF when I read it.

If you think dragons and express trains have everything in common and make for a perfect medieval fantasy union, then sure, but I doubt it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:12:23 2011 No.1679591 "And then Robert stabbed her in the back, like an express train."

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:13:23 2011 No.1679593

>>1679584
>Sure, his audience would have known what a Balrog is too.

No, they wouldn't. Which is why he describes it.

>it's not the audience that witnesses the dragon,

That's where you're completely fucking wrong. Tolkien is describing the scene people living in a time and place where trains exist and are very common. He is not describing it to the characters in the scene.

The audience has to envision the scene as well. The characters are actually there, they actually see the dragon. Tolkien is not describing it to people who are actually there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:13:23 2011 No.1679594 "I think Master Chief is a pretty cool guy, eh passes like an express train and doesn't afraid of anything.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:13:23 2011 No.1679597

>>1679567

But the whole pretense of The Lord of The Rings is that it's translated from some ancient tome Tolkien found, and that Tolkien is not a writer but a translator.

That's why all the months of the year there are the same as used in the English language, or why so many place-names sound like mashed up words ("brandywine bridge")

>>	ElegentiaeArbiter !bHPPL//q.s Mon Apr 4 13:14:23 2011 No.1679600 >>1679590 I wouldn't expect cattle to understand.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:14:54 2011 No.1679601

Joyce:: god tier: Dubliners; good tier: first half of Ulysses; bad tier: second half of Ulysses and Portrait.
Conrad:: god tier: Narcissus; good tier: Secret Agent; meh tier: Nostromo and Lord Jim.
Nabokov:: god tier: Lolita; good tier: Pnin; meh tier: Beheading; bad tier: Ada and Speak, Memory.
Tolkien:: god tier: LOTR, Silmarillion, Farmer Giles; good tier: Hobbit and Niggle; meh tier: Smith; bad tier: Adventures of Tom Bombadil

Some of us appreciate great prose/literature and still think Tolkien is great. Sorry haterfags.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:16:23 2011 No.1679602

>>1679597
>But the whole pretense of The Lord of The Rings is that it's translated from some ancient tome Tolkien found, and that Tolkien is not a writer but a translator.

Where the fuck did you hear that? Making stuff up now? Even if that were true, translators make mistakes and add their own take all the time.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:16:23 2011 No.1679603
File: 186 KB, 640x477, 1299420203144.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1679593

Wrong, trains do not exist in Middle-Earth. You're such an idiot, have you even READ the fucking books? Or seen the movies? God you're intolerable.

Dragons and express trains don't belong together. Would it come to ANYONE'S mind to describe King Arthur's sword as looking like a plasma scepter of power from the 25th century? No, for the exact same fucking reasons.

It's like describing this dragon's speed using retarded things that are fast too, like a fucking bat, which would be FAIL because of the size difference. Train is the same fail, because of time-period, universe gap.

The point remains. You are a faggot.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:17:23 2011 No.1679607 >>1679597 This is correct, Frodo writes the book, remember?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:18:23 2011 No.1679611 >>1679600 Then how come you can't understand that dragons and fucking trains don't belong in the same universe? You must be Meyer. Most people on /lit/ have enough literary understanding to know that trains and dragons don't mix.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:19:23 2011 No.1679612 >>1679601 >Joyce:: god tier: Dubliners; Troll detected.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:20:23 2011 No.1679614

So, wait. I haven't read this thread, but it appears to me that people found ONE SIMILE in Tolkien that they didn't like, and now are angrily posting about how this proves Tolkien is a shit writer? How many posts are there now about this express-train-dragon simile?

Keep it real, /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:21:23 2011 No.1679615 >>1679593 I think that's not really the problem. If it's doesn't belong to the universe, it can take the reader out of it. Even if the world of the LOTR is supposed to be our world. Anyway, that's an insignificant point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:21:23 2011 No.1679617 I guess Tolkien isn't perfect. Oh well.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:21:23 2011 No.1679618

>>1679603
>Wrong, trains do not exist in Middle-Earth.

I believe we've covered this.

>Dragons and express trains don't belong together. Would it come to ANYONE'S mind to describe King Arthur's sword as looking like a plasma scepter of power from the 25th century? No, for the exact same fucking reasons.

Here is where you fail. Tolkien was comparing the dragon's speed to that of a train's speed. He wasn't comparing the dragon itself to a train, which would make no sense. Which is why your little example with King Author's sword also makes no sense and has absolutely nothing to do with Tolkien's simile.

God you're a retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:22:23 2011 No.1679620 >>1679614 It makes me rage, like an express train.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:24:23 2011 No.1679625

>>1679618

Thick as a brick eh? It doesn't MATTER which seme is compared, dumbass, speed, size, etc. DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that the two things being compared DO NOT BELONG together.

You do not use elements from a different universe in another universe; you do not mix guns with Middle-Earth, for instance, and that's why you DON'T FUCKING MENTION EXPRESS TRAINS. it's not even "trains", it's motherfucking EXPRESS TRAINS. Oh the fail.

Look, if you don't know smart writing from the shit between your toes, that's fine, but don't debate the adults ok?

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:25:23 2011 No.1679628

>>1679614

That's exactly what's happening here. People have taken a completely reasonable simile and said it makes Tolkien a shit writer simply because they don't like it.

I believe it's the only instance in all his works in which he references the industrial modern world. Even if it was a goof, it's not a very big one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:25:23 2011 No.1679629 >>1679620 RAGE CANNOT BE LIKE AN EXPRESS TRAIN BECAUSE EXPRESS TRAIN IS REAL AND RAGE IS A CONCEPT OWNED, YOU ARE TERRIBLE WRITER, QQ NOOB, SIGNED REGINALD H FANCYDICK

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:26:23 2011 No.1679634

>>1679625
>You do not use elements from a different universe in another universe; you do not mix guns with Middle-Earth, for instance, and that's why you DON'T FUCKING MENTION EXPRESS TRAINS.

He wasn't mixing anything. He was using a simile to describe a scene to an audience living in an industrial modern world. I'm sure you're just a troll, but it's much more amusing to assume that you're just a retard.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:27:23 2011 No.1679635

>>1679629

>EXPRESS TRAIN IS REAL AND RAGE IS A CONCEPT

...

"Train" is a concept too. Rage, the feeling, is as real as a real train.

>nooblet doesn't know there's a difference between a word and the thing the word stands for

I can rage like an express train dude, I'm a dragon.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:27:23 2011 No.1679637 >>1679628 >I believe it's the only instance in all his works Related to LotR that is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:27:23 2011 No.1679639 >>1679484 "Dwarf coat, elf cloak, blade of the downfallen West, and spy from the little rat-land of the Shire: these are the hallmarks of a conspiracy." - The Mouth of Sauron

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:28:23 2011 No.1679641 >>1679634 He was mixing things in his style, no question about that: express dragons and trains, they don't go together. Why is that so hard to understand? Dragon = epic mythic creature train = dumbass transport modern day Wake the fuck up!

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:29:23 2011 No.1679643 >>1679628 Only instance? I hope you're fucking kidding, he compares EVERYTHING to express trains! Dude's fucking obsessed with it.

>>	ElegentiaeArbiter !bHPPL//q.s Mon Apr 4 13:30:23 2011 No.1679644 >>1679641 You're an unrepentant moron.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:30:23 2011 No.1679646 >>1679635 IN FACT IT IS YOU WHO ARE THE NOOB, LIKE TOLKIEN YOUR OBSESSION WITH EXPRESS TRAINS HAS DEFEATED YOU. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT TALKING ABOUT EXPRESS TRAINS IS THE MARK OF A TERRIBLE WRITER. SINCERELY YOURS REGINALD H FANCYDICK

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:31:23 2011 No.1679648 "And then Sauron discharged his hatred of the Hobbits as if he were an express train from the modern world." /thread

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:31:23 2011 No.1679650

>>1679641
>they don't go together.

You keep saying this, but you haven't actually said why. Sure a dragon is a fantasy creature, but fantasy can be set in an industrial world.

But that's beside the point I guess. The point is that Tolkien was probably being deliberate when he decided to be briefly anachronistic. He probably couldn't think of anything that would have existed in a pre-industrial setting that would be as fast or powerful as a moving train.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:35:23 2011 No.1679659

>>1679650

Middle-Earth isn't set in an industrial world. There were a million other things he could have compared the dragon's speed to. Or he could just have said it was "FAST LIKE LIGHTNING" or some retarded cliché like that, but please, like an express train.

LIKE
AN
EXPRESS
TRAIN

"And then Saruman pulled out his wand with thw swiftness of an express train! And lo, Gandalf was homosex."

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:36:23 2011 No.1679662 >>1679650 ...right, the guy who invented motherfucking languages for his books couldn't think of anything non-industrial that goes as fast as a train it was a bad simile even if you love the author can't you acknowledge a bad simile when you see it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:36:23 2011 No.1679663 But why didn't Frodo (or anybody) bring the ring into Mordor with an express train ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:38:23 2011 No.1679664 >>1679663 Cuz dragons.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:39:23 2011 No.1679668 AND THE GOLLUM STARTED FUCKING THE RING WITH HIS WRINKLED HOBBIT COCK, AND LO AND BEHOLD, HE THRUSTED AT IT LIKE AN EXPRESS TRAIN!

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:39:23 2011 No.1679669

>>1679659
>Or he could just have said it was "FAST LIKE LIGHTNING" or some retarded cliché like that, but please, like an express train.

The dragon wasn't moving that fast. I really do think it's completely reasonable to compare the speed and power of two similar things even if they don't exist at the same time. Especially if you take the audience into consideration. You forget that to most authors they are not just concerned with the world they have created but the world they are trying to appeal to. The reader knows what a train is, so it's fine to use a train to describe something, even if that thing existed before trains.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:39:23 2011 No.1679671 "man dis pipe-weed hit like an express train" - gandalf

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:41:23 2011 No.1679675

>>1679662
>...right, the guy who invented motherfucking languages for his books couldn't think of anything non-industrial that goes as fast as a train

Because if Tolkien was trying to be precise, then there really wasn't anything pre-industrial that had the speed and power of a moving train.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:43:23 2011 No.1679678 i never cared about tolkein but this simile made me laugh. he is now closer to harry potter on my tier of things i don't care about list.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:45:23 2011 No.1679682

>>1679675

there weren't dragons before industry either; my point is that a dude with such a rich ass imagination should have been able to conjure up something fast and powerful as a train at will, without shoehorning in something completely outside the book's purview

or w/e

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:50:23 2011 No.1679697

>>1679634

Then he may as well have said "Gandalf stood before the balrog, and mandem he represent - that muthafuckking sword of his hit home like a muthafuckin mac-10, blood. Fo' Sheezy.

Actually, I wish he had - it would have made his tedious bourgeois picaresques more readable.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:50:23 2011 No.1679698

>>1679682
>there weren't dragons before industry either;

I'm tired of discussing this with people who are going to continually miss the point just so they can come up with some unrelated argument.

The fact is, if he had just imagined a new creature or contraption that exists in Middle-earth, then that would be cumbersome because then he'd have to describe THAT to the audience as well. Comparing it to a train is just simpler. The audience already knows what a train is.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:50:23 2011 No.1679701 >ITT: Inaccuracies. Inaccuracies everywhere

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:51:23 2011 No.1679705

>>1679675
>>1679675

A swift or a falcon is about as fast as an express train from Tolkein's period, and that's just the first thing I can think of - this isn't my fucking magnum opus, and even I can think of better than a fucking train.

Waterfalls, lightning, "faster than the summer storm", these all come immediately to mind.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:51:23 2011 No.1679706 File: 49 KB, 300x366, 1298246450142.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >like an express train is now a new meme

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:53:23 2011 No.1679711 >>1679705 "The peregrine falcon is perhaps the fastest animal on earth. In a stoop, or dive, the peregrine has been clocked at speeds of over 180 miles per hour." http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/ChrisSantoro.shtml

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:54:23 2011 No.1679715 >>1679711 >>1679705 Except falcon's aren't as strong as a train. Why can't you people just accept that there is nothing pre-industrial that has the precise speed and power of a train that Tolkien was attempting to convey?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:56:23 2011 No.1679719 >>1679715 or we can accept that its a flaw, albeit a minor one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:56:23 2011 No.1679720 >>1679715 >Why can't you people just accept that there is nothing pre-industrial that has the precise speed and power of a train that Tolkien was attempting to convey? >except the dragon he was conveying

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:58:23 2011 No.1679724
File: 36 KB, 254x663, herp_derp_humperdido.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>"Motherfuckers ate all my motherfucking dinner, and I'm a host, so I gots to go without, I is hungry," thought Bilbo, who was as hungry as a hobo in MacDonalds.

Since we're being fucking stupid.

"Sauron was as mad as a shithouse rat in a coffee can"

And if we're going to be insane

"Smaug was as big as a passenger jet, and stank like a gasworks. The gold he sat on glinted in the half light, like the sheen of an Oscar, and the dwarves' eyes lit up like christmas fairy lights as they say the precious doubloons. Then the dragon woke, coming down upon them as fast as an express train, or a monorail or maybe one of them space-rocket doodads people are always talking about these days."

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:59:23 2011 No.1679725 >>1679719 Because it's not a flaw. It's a precise simile that Tolkien used to describe something to an audience that knows what a train is. >>1679720 Which is exactly why he used it to describe the dragon. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:59:23 2011 No.1679726 >>1679260 ...and that would make Saruman, Rohan and Gondor...what?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 13:59:23 2011 No.1679728 >>1679715 Lightning is though. Why do you keep defending this hackwork?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:01:23 2011 No.1679730 >>1679728 Lighting is too fast to describe a dragon. Why are you using fucking stupid examples that would have been much worse than a train?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:01:23 2011 No.1679731 >>1679724 I lol'd >>1679725 dude, just admit it. I like Tolkien too, but that simile...wtf. ruins the entire passage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:02:23 2011 No.1679732 >>1679724 hahahaohwow.jpg I nearly fucking shat myself laughing at this.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:02:23 2011 No.1679733 >>1679725 anon the point is soaring over your head like an express train suppose we inverted this and, in a strictly realist novel, someone compared an express train to a dragon, apropos of nothing... mightn't it seem a little out of place, dude?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:03:23 2011 No.1679734 >>1679731 It's not even remotely as bad as everyone here is making it sound.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:03:23 2011 No.1679736

Fuck Tolkein, just read the norse sagas he ripped off, or any of the other mythologies he raped. Only the uneducated think Tolkein was original or interesting, because they don't have the breadth and depth of knowledge to see the joints and seams in the feeble construction that is Middle Earth. And Tolkein was relying on that - the fact that he knows more than you. Bitch is fucking laughin at you while you lap up his pension-fund books.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:04:23 2011 No.1679738 I HATE TRAINS AND DRAGONS

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:04:23 2011 No.1679739 Why the hell would you compare something that flies with something that runs on wheels? Ignoring the anachronism, it just doesn't work anyway. As soon as I read that all I could picture was a dragon puffing along in some black & white grainy footage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:05:23 2011 No.1679740 >>1679736 Tolkien was my entry point to the Kalevala, and the Eddas. Yes he borrowed from them extensively, and the Nibelungenlied, but its not as if he was ripping them off. I guess James Joyce was ripping off the Oddyssey

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:06:23 2011 No.1679742

>>1679733

This would make sense if LotR was strictly fantasy, so to speak. nb4 people take that literally. Tolkien wrote realistically about a fantasy world in order to make it seem more real. It fits with his style. Even if it were a flaw, and I'm not saying it is because I find nothing wrong with it, it's not a very big one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:06:23 2011 No.1679743 >>1679734 Yeah, it is. I teach English in a school, and if any of my students turned in that simile in that context, I'd mark them down severely. It reeks. can't believe his editor didn't stop him.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:08:23 2011 No.1679745

>>1679740

>Yes he borrowed from them extensively

Stole from them, raped the corpse and then rewrote the best bits with a load of cunty elves with stupid fucking names.

If that's borrowing, then yeah, he borrowed from them. Just like OJ borrowed that Bronco - it's not bad to borrow a car, is it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:08:23 2011 No.1679746 >>1679743 >I teach English in a school I suppose that makes you an authority. Fine then. I retract my argument completely. The school teacher here says I'm wrong so it must be so.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:10:23 2011 No.1679755 >>1679743 It's funny because that particular context was like the frigging Bible. >And he came into the land, and behold! there, were many. And he came down unto them as an express train for hath he known their benediction.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:11:23 2011 No.1679758 >>1679746 >I suppose that makes you an authority. Nope - it means that the 13 and 14 year old kids I teach know better than to write shit like that - which means they're cleverer than Tolkein. And you as well, you thick cunt

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:12:23 2011 No.1679759 >>1679746 compared to a4chan fantasy fanatic i think he has authority

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:12:23 2011 No.1679762 >>1679743 I think it's a stupid metaphor, but srsly, no one cares what would get graded what in an English paper.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:13:23 2011 No.1679764 >>1679473 >LOTR spawned a huge genre of fiction >Lord Dunsany spawned LOTR, and a huge genre of fiction. FTFY

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:13:23 2011 No.1679765 >>1679758 Hey, bro. I retracted my argument. Your status as a school teacher who teaches 13 and 14 year old children has convinced me of how wrong I was. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:14:23 2011 No.1679769 >>1679759 I know. I'm completely serious, you know. He's a school teacher so he's absolutely right. There's absolutely no way around it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:15:23 2011 No.1679770 >a line or procession of persons, vehicles, animals, etc., traveling together. Trains need not be mechanical

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:16:23 2011 No.1679773 >>1679770 your mom took a few last nite lolololol faster than twenty dragons

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:17:23 2011 No.1679775 >>1679770 >express train

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:18:23 2011 No.1679777

>>1679770

I was defending the simile earlier. I think he was referring to the mechanical variation of trains. Which is why he used the phrase express trains.

And according to the school teacher you absolutely cannot use express trains in similes. It completely invalidates you as a writer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:18:23 2011 No.1679778 >>1679773 spat my food everywhere.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:20:23 2011 No.1679786 >>1679777 In a universe where they don't exist. The fact that the words "express train" are in LOTR is just phenomenal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:22:23 2011 No.1679788 If he was going to break into our universe why not use a better simile like a plane or some shit. Fucking express train?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:22:23 2011 No.1679790 >>1679424 >Were he alive today, Tolkien would work at Blizzard. They'd fire his ass for coming up with an Epic Ring of Express Train Pwnage.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:25:23 2011 No.1679794 >>1679786 >The fact that the words "express train" are in LOTR is just phenomenal. I don't understand. Because here we are mocking Tolkien's use of a perfectly reasonable simile, and here you are calling it phenomenal. You should definitely get out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:29:23 2011 No.1679799 >>1679794 not sure if srs

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:31:23 2011 No.1679808 This troll thread is as long as an express train.

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:33:23 2011 No.1679812

>>1679799
>too retarded to look up phenomenal

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenomenal

1. highly extraordinary or prodigious; exceptional:

Phenomenal is regarded as a good thing. The school teacher has spoken. Express trains are definitely not good things.

If you can't tell if I'm serious, then you really are a retard. Take that how you will.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:33:23 2011 No.1679813 >>1679808 My cock is as long as a dragon

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:35:23 2011 No.1679823 File: 33 KB, 500x333, dumbass.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679812 http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ObfuscatingStupidity pic related

ElegentiaeArbiter !bHPPL//q.s Mon Apr 4 14:36:23 2011 No.1679825

Look, I'm going to settle this fucking 'Express Train Debate' once and for all for you peasants.

First I shall tackle the question of whether or not the simile works.

It does. Trains have an articulated power and urgent speed. These are precisely the qualities, I suspect, that Tolkien was ascribing to the dragons. The simile is pleasant and successful because it compares two things that, although not normally associated with one another, share these certain characteristics.

Secondly, the question of whether or not it is a fitting one to use in a medieval fantasy world.

This question is one where I can appreciate the arguments of both sides. On the one hand, the book is written for an audience that knows what trains are, not for the people of Middle Earth. On the other, the book is meant to be considered as an artifact of that world and not of this world, so perhaps it is not so appropriate.

The third question is whether or not the train simile has an impact on our view of Tolkien as a bad or good writer.

It doesn't. I don't think this argument is really relevant to a discussion of whether or not he is a good writer because, whether the simile is suitable to the book or otherwise, it's the only time he does it and is colossally insignificant when compared with the rest of his non-anachronistic work.

>>	☿ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Apr 4 14:37:23 2011 No.1679828 File: 65 KB, 468x344, 1294307861677.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679813 pose this 'proposition' to russell and see what he would say.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:39:23 2011 No.1679832 File: 73 KB, 600x800, wut_dog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679828 wut?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:39:23 2011 No.1679833 >>1679825 Thank you.

>>	☿ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Apr 4 14:40:23 2011 No.1679836 >express train being a controversy writers are not held accountable for the utter retardation of the readers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:42:23 2011 No.1679842 Tolkienfags so mad up in here because of a silly passage.

>>	☿ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Apr 4 14:42:23 2011 No.1679843 File: 24 KB, 350x472, child-luna-with-glasses.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679832 if you do not find it funny then it does not concern you

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:44:23 2011 No.1679846
File: 208 KB, 420x420, fuck this thread i'm out of here.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I'd like to thank the Tolkien detractors on this thread for alerting me to why more people hate /lit/ than like it - it's filled with illiterate rugmunching trolls. Thank you for alerting me to your basement-dwelling, corpulent ways.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:44:23 2011 No.1679847 >>1679843 Or it's just not funny.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:46:23 2011 No.1679849 >>1679825 read this >The third question is whether or not the train simile has an impact on our view of Tolkien as a bad or good writer. then read the thread. seems there's been an impact.

>>	☿ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Apr 4 14:46:23 2011 No.1679851 File: 84 KB, 679x569, pfft.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679847 it is too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:47:23 2011 No.1679855 File: 131 KB, 500x333, laughing_girls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679846 >tolkein detractor >illiterate bfffffffffffffffffffffwahahahahahahahahaha

Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:48:23 2011 No.1679859

>>1679851

Oh for fuck's sake, is this onionring's new jacket?

If not, then onionring, congratulations, you've finally got someone who doesn't hate you enough to want to actually pretend to be you.

Shitfucktoss.

Tolkein's longevity is a testament to commercialism and hype, not to any talent of his as an author.

>>	ElegentiaeArbiter !bHPPL//q.s Mon Apr 4 14:50:20 2011 No.1679862 >>1679849 I should have said 'should have an impact'. Congratulations. You have scored one point.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 14:51:23 2011 No.1679864 File: 26 KB, 707x403, you are this mad text.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679855 >trolled successfully

>>	ElegentiaeArbiter !bHPPL//q.s Mon Apr 4 14:51:27 2011 No.1679865 File: 8 KB, 300x300, 1NumberOneInCircle-300x300.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679849 I should have said 'should have an impact'. Congratulations. You have scored one point.

>>	ElegentiaeArbiter !bHPPL//q.s Mon Apr 4 14:52:23 2011 No.1679870 File: 125 KB, 480x384, number-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679849 I should have said 'should have an impact'. Congratulations. You have scored one point.

>>	☿ !Rrxa7zePwI Mon Apr 4 14:56:23 2011 No.1679875 File: 115 KB, 490x694, me creating the world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679859 calm down. then you can worship me in peace and bliss.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 15:00:23 2011 No.1679884 File: 8 KB, 216x234, u_mad_mel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1679875 oh do fuck off, won't you? >>1679864 It took you longer to post that than the "U MAD" guy you responded to. I think U the one who is MAD.

>>	Scarsdale !!0WEZwDAT1uU Mon Apr 4 16:18:23 2011 No.1680081 for the most part, yes we can.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 16:29:23 2011 No.1680125 >just taking a stroll through these ruins of butthurt

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 4 20:23:23 2011 No.1680840 He's better than a lot of other writers people consider not to be shit, so depends on what a shit level writer is.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature