[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 496 KB, 1440x2048, 34343543234324324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17273448 No.17273448 [Reply] [Original]

Why hasn't anyone surpassed Tolkein? What does he have that fantasy writers since then don't?

>> No.17273454

>>17273448
Original ideas.
Where the genre goes is only so large and it's been covered quite considerably already

>> No.17273458

>>17273454
Didn't he lift basically everything from existing Germanic mythology?

>> No.17273475

>>17273448
Autism

>> No.17273483

>>17273458

Lotr is based on actual history

>> No.17273485

He wrote a good story about good and evil in a moderately subtle way
Amoralism and modernism-envy have absolutely destroyed fantasy

>> No.17273486

>>17273448
basically, mythology as fantasy became self-conscious with him.

>> No.17273495

>>17273458
I think he might be the only person to actually take from a culture's mythology meaningfully. I can't think of any other author who took inspiration from real world cultures in a way that both examined and cared for the culture it was taking from, rather than just using it as window dressing.

Most fantasy authors are just immature is another issue.

>> No.17273560

>>17273448
>What does he have that fantast writers since then don't?
Discernable talent?

Jokes aside, I think the biggest issue is that LoTR is such a massive achievement that it more or less started and ended it's genre. I'd say that Mervyn Peake was more or less equal with Tolkien, but their writing was at complete opposite ends of the fantasy spectrum

>> No.17273566

>>17273448
Frank Herbert already did that.

>> No.17273567

>>17273448
Breadth of knowledge and enough xenolinguistic clout to make languages and flesh them out

>> No.17273571
File: 494 KB, 709x1012, 13782-n-a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17273571

>Tolkien
>good
Just when you thought this board couldn't get worse.

>> No.17273606

>>17273483
Poor bait

>> No.17273631

>>17273571
Poor bait

>> No.17273648

>>17273631
t. hasn't read Gormenghast
Lotr is reddit's favourite book. Perhaps you would enjoy it there more than here.

>> No.17273652

>>17273475
He had Da Vinci/Mozart/Newton tier autism, a kind of autism rarely seen today outside of STEM (and hardly even there nowadays)
Most fantasy "writers" nowadays are geekfags who LARPed and played DnD and other RPGs. They are naturally of a lower form of autism, not as crippling as sub-CWC tier autism, but intellectually devoid in terms of creativity (i.e. perpetual midwits).

>> No.17273659

>>17273448
Knowledge of history and ancient languages. You can't create an authentic-feeling fictional world if you can't construct its parts.

>> No.17273663

>>17273448
He actually read primary source mythology and Lord Dunsany.

>> No.17273664

>>17273648
>dislikes something because r*ddit likes it
Are you 14 years old?

>> No.17273679

>>17273648
>Shills book he likes.
>Uses l*ddit-4channel dichotomy as a replacement for a substantive literary critique of the Author he just criticized.
stfu you pseud.
You still haven't explained how J.R.R. Tolkien could reasonably be considered a bad writer (tip: you can't nigger, he was a genius).

>> No.17273714

>17273571
>17273648
>t. smoothbrainer hands wrote this
>>17273663
>Lord Dunsany.
the best mention in this thread

>> No.17273750

>>17273659
this plus deep understanding of the mythological importance of middle english poetry

>> No.17273754

>>17273664
No.

>>17273679
Because his writing is bad once you have read actually good books for comparison. The only thing people like about Tolkien is his language spasticism and lore building. The narrative and prose are extremely bad and the symbolism is on the level of a toddler.
>his ancestor was le bad mad king man
>now he has to be good boy king man

>> No.17273782

>>17273714
>doesn't know how to quote
>doesn't know how to greentext
>doesn't know how t. works
We take you very seriously big boy.

>> No.17273785

>17273782
seriously enough to reply smoothbrain-kun

>> No.17273790

>>17273785
He's right about you not knowing how to use "t." though.

>> No.17273798

>>17273785
based npc.
>Stupid anon doesn't even know liking Tolkien is the right-think opinion.
Okay. I recommended a better alternative. Take it or leave it makes no difference to me.

>> No.17273811

>17273798
>17273790
you all know there's a simple script for checking samefaggotry right?

>> No.17273812

>>17273798
Also for what it's worth there is a LOTR appreciation thread active right now.
THIS was a thread for people who surpassed Tolkien. I provided my opinion on one such writer. Why you right-think betas seethe at that is beyond me but whatever.

>> No.17273817

>>17273811
meds and bbc

>> No.17273870

>>17273448
ok, ok, if LOTR so great, how come there is no LOTR 2?

>> No.17273888

>>17273754
If you didn't read the books, how can you even criticize them?

>> No.17273903

>>17273888
I have. Why do you use childish deflections to not engage with the fact that people may come to different conclusions than what is popular to think?
You don't need to answer this.

>> No.17273940

>>17273903
>Why do you use childish deflections to not engage with the fact that people may come to different conclusions than what is popular to think?
ask yourself the same and you'll have your answer

>> No.17273973

>>17273448
In its own very different medium, I think The Elder Scrolls briefly breathed the same rarefied air. They're video games in which you can literally read novellas, including bawdlerized histories and contradictory mythologies. Morrowind in particular took a team of talented people locked in a basement with cutting edge technology to make, and they've vowed to never attempt such a project again.

>> No.17273983

>>17273448
Originality. He's the OG of what we consider the fantasy genre today.

>> No.17274048

>>17273648
Gormenghast is good, but you really don't need to denigrate LOTR to praise it.

>> No.17274064

>>17274048
I read and enjoyed the first book but heard the last in the trilogy is disappointing which put me of continuing the series

is it worth it?

>> No.17274095

Nice

>> No.17274098

cool

>> No.17274100

>>17273870
kek

>> No.17274106
File: 448 KB, 1121x2464, Screenshot_20210113-065337.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17274106

>>17274064
It is depressing. All of Gormenghast is depressing but the first two in a different way that is frankly amazing. The prose, the prose! The sinister and twisted characters! The castle! The art!
The third book is a might-have-been and cannot be compared in a very satisfying way because Peake was already on his way to degrading into a literal demented fool, and was aware of it, his life's last drawings a collection of haunting figures in dunce caps.

>> No.17274154

>>17274048
very much agreed
too many people feel this inclanation to elevate something by attacking the other
not needed imo
i love dunsany's work but i can clearly see how for example time and the gods might be to weird for different folk

>> No.17274266

He was a massive brained English intellectual. Ofcourse you're not going to get this again, especially when most fantasy authors are American.

>> No.17274269

>>17273903
>his ancestor was le bad mad king man
>now he has to be good boy king man

Is what you said, and is not portrayed in any of the books as a primary plot point. Either you weren't able to comprehend the text, or you haven't read the books.

Whatever you're seeing is all in your head man, sorry.

>> No.17274383

>>17273495
Lauren Faust - My little Pony

>> No.17274398

>>17274269
You're missing the point. He's criticizing Tolkien's authenticity. Tolkien paints characters who are actual people, with internal desires, personality's, thoughts, feelings, etc. Tolkien's characters are not hyper-rational puppets being strung along in some grand ideological crusade of the author's, they're just people. Tolkien doesn't use irony, he doesn't deconstruct, in fact precisely the opposite he constructs.

Tolkien has the gall to actually believe things.

>> No.17274521

>>17274398
>Tolkien has the gall to actually believe things.
especially this pissed and pisses so many people off
>https://youtu.be/Ca5TUYB1nlw?t=64

>> No.17274570

>>17273448
Talent

>> No.17274677

>>17274398
Just as a stylistic question:

How does a writer believe things and not write stories simply to justify that belief?

>> No.17274725

>>17274677
as literrary exercise for example?

>> No.17274768

>>17274725
Tolkien was a Catholic, and his story generally reflects a Catholic world view with some personal caveats. Wouldn't that be him just arranging rational puppets? Or do you mean to say that a Catholic worldview is the correct worldview?

>> No.17274863

>>17274768
well it was correct from Tokien's viewpoint and correct enough that he convinced Lewis to it, is what i meant
authors may enjoy exploration of already well establishrd within themself ideas
what value such process has, that's another question

>> No.17274986

>>17273648
Why are you idiots so obsessed with Reddit? I don’t know what they like and I don’t care.

>> No.17275241
File: 409 KB, 1435x1269, 1606235520809.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17275241

>>17273448
He was writing mythology, not fantasy. Tolkien was an extremely sensitive, religious, and creative man who was sent to the trenches and had a series of painful experiences that affected him for the rest of his life. He then becomes a professor at Oxford where he became even more deeply acquainted with European myths, the stars aligned in his own life and he ends up writing a unique and very unusual book, accidentally creating the genre of 'modern fantasy' in the process. The man was a complete one-of-a-kind and any attempt to either somehow replicate or even to transcend his work by modern writers always come out as utter shit. His books are a mythology for the English which look like a basic fantasy series on the surface. They also function as a meditation on the overwhelming force of evil and how the good has to align itself with hope as a necessary condition for victory. It is Tolkien's own interrogation of mythology to understand the nature of his own faith in the face of the 'animal horror' of reality. IMO Tolkien will be read for centuries to come and perhaps be considered a kind of 20th-century Milton at some point in the future. Modern fantasy writers genuinely don't deserve to be on the same shelf in the bookshop as Tolkien.

>> No.17275271

>>17275241
>Up to 11 million death of military personnel in WW1
>Up to 40 millions if you include civilians
Tolkien could have died easily. Imagine all the geniuses-to-be that we've lost, all fields considered.

>> No.17275453

>>17275271
that's a war for you

>> No.17275476

>>17273652
Very much this. I'd also claim he could be compared even to the likes of Homer in his mastery of myth.

>> No.17275514

>>17275241
You're absolutely right, but what went wrong with genre fantasy? It's a serious misunderstanding of what Tolkien was doing nonetheless.

>> No.17275536

>>17273448
Tolkien saw the forest for the trees, contemporary fantasy authors are completely paralyzed by caring about minuscule shit like muh worldbuilding that doesn't add to the whole.

>> No.17275570

>>17275514
that's a case with most old classic
>tolkien
was writing mythology for english language/england
>dunsany
early on was enspired by old bible texts
>lovecraft
entire dream quest related stuff creates private mythscape
modern stories/fantasy forgot all about myth in mythological understanding - it's very down to earth fantasy if that makes sense

>> No.17276767

The thing is that what Tolkien was writing about was true. The medium was fantasy, but he wrote existential truths and ideals which resonate with people.

>> No.17276772

>>17273448
What are you Tolkien about?

>> No.17276784

>>17273571
>Gormenghast
That name alone makes me discard it.

>> No.17276792

>>17273648
>being spooked by Reddit
>>>/b/

>> No.17276794

>>17273571
gormenghast is boring shit with inconsistent characters

>> No.17276931

>>17275241
Good post.

>> No.17277100

OP assumes popularity = greatness. Which is not to disparage Tolkein but his prose is stodgy at best. He's like a more digestible and coherent Lovecraft in creating a mythos that has staying power (the endless knockoffs of his material bearing witness to that).

>> No.17277433

>>17275271
It's almost like someone engineered a war in order to cull the best sons of the huwyte race

>> No.17277497

He's a simplistic children's writer with no moral or philosophical or aesthetic complexity. In Shakespeare, for instance, we have moral complexity. Henry V has to decide whether to kill the French prisoners-of-war so that they cannot rise up and assist their main army from the rear, or to risk it and let them live. He makes the morally ambiguous decision of killing them, but he is still represented as a great king. These types of decisions, weighing the practical against the moral, are what makes being a ruler so hard, and that is why kings especially are morally complex, sometimes tragic characters in art. Tolkien completely ignores all of this. He doesn’t care about creating something ambiguous that the reader has to think about and question; he wants to lead the reader by the hand and show them “baddies vs goodies”. This is a major flaw in his work, nobody can deny that.

>> No.17277657

>>17277497
Nigger

>> No.17277704

>>17275241
>>17275570
I must be really uninformed

What is the difference between mythology and fantasy?

>> No.17277722

>>17277497
Mythology isn't known for its subtlety, its symbolism maybe but not subtlety

>> No.17277755

>>17273448
> What does he have that fantasy writers since then don't?
A vast knowledge of world philosophy, mythology, and history, mystical and spiritual symbolism, first hand experience with life outside of the institutions (his participation in the war), not to mention his admiration for the simplicity of nature and rural life (a rare trait amongst stuffy scholars), and his extremely gifted abilities in regards to linguistics. Along with all this, he had a simply brilliant imagination in which to combine all of these traits. This is why I don't even categorize LotR or the Silmarillion as fantasy.

>> No.17277807

>>17273571
based

>> No.17277813

>>17277433
AHHHHHHH JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWS

>> No.17277825

>What does he have that fantasy writers since then don't?

he had a classical education, was a keen medievalist and was an expert in medieval literature. Not really that surprising that an oxford don who spent his career studying early germanic literature and could speak multiple ancient and medieval languages can write better fantasy than some random YA hack

>> No.17277837
File: 55 KB, 577x382, 50E39F37-0514-4AD0-9BE4-339E92DA4553.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17277837

From the wilds of the ancient north, an heir to the vacant Throne has returned at last.

>> No.17277887
File: 109 KB, 976x549, _96288728_tolk1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17277887

>>17277497
>what makes being a ruler so hard

You almost had me

>> No.17278327

>>17277497
>unless aragorn massacres orc women its not GRITTY enough or REALISTIC enough

>> No.17278833

>>17275241
Imagine how much better this board would be if we had posts like this.

>> No.17279043

>>17273448
For me it's Kipling

>> No.17279048

>>17279043
Tfw as an Anglo we learnt next to nothing about decent English literature, apart from Shakespeare. The British literature curriculum needs thorough shakedown

>> No.17279081

>>17277497
You're a mongoloid in the same vein as people complaining all orcs are ugly and all elves are beautiful.

Middle-Earth humans were basically sure they were in a losing war, but they still fought. Fighting despite being against devils and witches and monsters, despite not being a fancy immortal elf, despite being a corruptible human or an innocent hobbit. Tolkien wasn't the first to do this but he certainly did it well.

>> No.17279144

>>17273448
He was a shut-in Autist with tenure, writing kid's books
Most writers need to make a living
I love Tolkien, but talk about surpassing is bullshit, Tolkien never surpassed Dunsany

>> No.17279160

>>17277497
it's been a while since I've read a lot of it, but there's a lot of stuff outside of LotR that Tolkien wrote like in the Silmarillion that's more morally complex

>> No.17279238
File: 2.81 MB, 300x240, 1598377904790.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17279238

>>17279144
>He was a shut-in Autist

He was a university professor with a large family and a wide circle of friends and literary/academic acquaintances who was known to love to drink with his friends and share prose and poetry together in the pub or in his study at Oxford. So not exactly hikkikomori!

>> No.17279282

>>17279144
Nice try. He was an Oxford Don and a churchgoing a family man, beloved by those around him.

>> No.17279289

>>17279282
Also, his work in philology and linguistics is quite remarkable and was the basis for his academic success; writing Middle-Earth was a side hobby for him.

>> No.17279966

>>17273458
No, the silmarillion is literally "Finnish mythology the book", although I don't know if Finnish mythology is considered Germanic mythology because I'm fucking ignorant.

>> No.17280005

>>17273458
Lift is the wrong word. One principle behind his work is the creation of an authentic mythology for the British/Celtic/Gaelic/??? people (this is just an idea/principle he stated, I'm not saying it's the entire point or whatever). He naturally incorporated Nordic, Christian and other mythological elements. I think this is part of what makes his work good.

>> No.17280046

>>17273790
this
I'm so sick of newfags

>> No.17280076

>>17273448
He understands the soul of the myths he used.

>> No.17280096

>>17280005
Tolkien certainly borrows heavily from Germanic and Finnish (Finns are not Germanics, they're completely unrelated; in fact, they aren't Indo-European at all), but he definitely makes up enough of his own stuff where it counts. He's not rehashing anything, he's using it as a veneer. The entirety of Tolkien could be reskinned in Sino-Arabic garb and it wouldn't fundamentally change the important stuff that Tolkien is getting at.

>> No.17280685

>>17273448
Catholicism.

>> No.17280726

>>17273448
>Who is RA Salvatore
Idiot.

>> No.17280748

>>17280726
Are you trying to bait?

>> No.17281127

>>17273648
go back

>> No.17281445

>>17273483
>Lotr is based on actual history
>>17273606
>Poor bait
it is tho.
tolkein said so himself.

>> No.17282108

>>17273448
An understanding of the actual culture of the West.

>> No.17282118

>>17273571
Peake, Tolkien and Moorcock are all good. If you disagree you are academe-poisoned.

>> No.17282132

>>17273448
In short, the spirtual and religious nature of the work.

The world building is cool but honestly this straight out killed the genre going forward. Now its dominated by I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE cynical atheists who spend way more time coming up with lore and shit than writing a good story. Or in Martin's case, writing a story that can either only win with a gay cop out ending where the good guys win despite the tone of the rest of the series or the ice king wins because fuck you everyone dies, neither of which his audience will be happy with and he knows it.

Basically, DnD took all the wrong parts of LotR and made them the standard tropes of the genre

>> No.17282147

>>17282132
>Now its dominated by I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE cynical atheists
This.
>isn't it cool how this incredibly important character dies from a wound infection? It's so realistic!11 Have I subverted your expectations yet?

>> No.17282204

>>17274398
>Tolkien has the gall to actually believe things.
Well said.

>> No.17282434

>>17280046
They're from Reddit and discord. Hence all the decent discussion being ruined

>> No.17282548

>>17279966
Its not Germanic anon, Fins are Finno-ugric people

>> No.17282559

>>17273754

You didn't actually read Tolkien, did you?

>> No.17282663

>>17277497
>the oath of Feänor is not morally complex
Okay brainlet

>> No.17282752

>>17277497
Hello Mr. Martin

>> No.17282780

>>17273448
>What does he have that fantasy writers since then don't?
He's not a ""fantasy writer"", that's why.

>> No.17282784

>>17279966
I guarantee you that you have never read the Kalevala. I'll bet you an easy $10000.

>> No.17282811

>>17277497
This is probably bait, but I'm still going to say that you are wrong, and even The Hobbit has "morally complex" characters.

>> No.17282847

>>17282118
I could never get along with Moorcock. He couldn't write a plot to save his life.

>> No.17282871

>>17273983
He really isn't. ER Eddision and TH White came before him, among others. Plus all the pulp writers of the early 20th century such as Robert E Howard.

>> No.17283184

>>17275241
Top post, thanks for improving /lit/'s knower:pseud ratio

>> No.17283250

The sort of people who write fantasy today have abandoned God. They have no coherent worldview to ground their narrative with so everything comes off as contrived and mechanical.

>> No.17283263

>>17277497
>In Shakespeare, for instance, we have moral complexity
Hello, person who clearly hasn't read Shakespeare.

>> No.17283288
File: 25 KB, 336x261, i_kekd_5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17283288

>>17283250
I love it when Americans think they have something to contribute.

>> No.17283330

>>17283288
The burgerclap is right, though.

>> No.17283371

>>17283250
Based

>> No.17283379

>>17278327
KEK

>> No.17283410

>>17277497
>the virgin morally gray area vs the CHAD black & white good vs evil

>> No.17283428

>>17283288
The worst part about guys like you is you just can't see how lame you are.

>> No.17283488

>>17283428
Well I can see how lame you are, so that's something.

>> No.17283547

>>17273448
>Judith Shulevitz, writing in The New York Times, criticized the "pedantry" of Tolkien's literary style, saying that he "formulated a high-minded belief in the importance of his mission as a literary preservationist, which turns out to be death to literature itself".

Was Tolkinen a literary preservationist? How is that a death to literature itself?