/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18208157]

Is Tolkien underrated as a figure in literature because of the endless streams of bullshit genre fiction he spawned?
I was thinking about this last night from the standpoint of someone who really only reads literary fiction.
The world he created is unrivaled by any one man in the history of fiction. Nothing comes even close to what he managed to create in his lifetime.
In general, I think writing fantasy might be easier than writing realistic literary fiction, simply because the parameters in which you must operate are very strict. But Tolkien managed to build a mythology for a world in such depth that it feels real almost.
He also managed to do all this while being an above average writer, technically speaking.

[Anonymous No.18208171]

>>18208157
In what aspect is Tolkien underrated? He is one of the most well known and appreciated writers of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.18208183]

>>18208171
He's probably referring to his highschool friends who are too busy with tiktok to even bother watching the movies about some cringe boomer RPG LARP.

[Anonymous No.18208331]

>>18208171
He's probably referring to canon gatekeepers like Bloom not giving Tolkien the time of day.

[Anonymous No.18208360]

>>18208171
When most people think of the great writers of the 20th century (myself included) Tolkien doesn’t really come to mind. Joyce, Mann, Hemingway, Faulkner, Woolf, I could go on. There’s basically a club of people I would call “serious” writers, and Tolkien is not seen as part of that club.
Also this >>18208331

[Anonymous No.18208388]

>>18208157
He’s not considered great and no genre fiction author ever will be just cause the setting overshadows whatever truths and observations about life they have to offer.

And honestly, tolkien doesn’t have many of those.

>hurr durr honorable men going off to toss a ring in a volcano. Oh the struggle and lengthy descriptions of environments.

[Anonymous No.18208390]

>>18208388
>bwaaaa everything has to be a shitty character study

[Anonymous No.18208456]

>>18208390
I’m not saying i agree with it, i’m just pointing it out. Either a character study or innovative in regarding form or some shit. Tolkien had none of that. But who cares about what some snobbish elite of lit crits think?

[Anonymous No.18208467]

>>18208388
It wasn’t genre fiction when he wrote it though

[Anonymous No.18208493]

>>18208171
He is widely criticised for not divulging Aragorn's tax policy or detailing the outcome of the orc babies following the end of the war

[Anonymous No.18208566]

>>18208388
It really does though because it’s about the death of the old ways and simple life. It’s also playing with ancient poems and words only the super well read will catch.

[Anonymous No.18208624]

>>18208456
in what way was tolkien not innovative?

[Anonymous No.18208728]

>>18208566
Yes, but the setting and the invention of it overshadow whatever contribution he had to writing in general.

>>18208624
Form and style. There’s nothing really innovative about it, and whatever traces of innovation regarding these two most important factors to literary snobs were, like i mentioned, overshadowed by the fantasy stuff.

[Anonymous No.18208891]

>>18208624
Creates entire continent and about 6 females live in it
No LGBT people despite obvious homosexual overtones plethoric throughout
No people of colour despite it being apparently the equivalent of the entirety of Eurasia
Potatoes exist despite the potato not being native to Eurasia. Tell me, why not have llamas or capybaras?

[S10241875 No.18209148]

>>18208157
He was not a "professional writer", that is (for the 20th century) a person who earned money by writing. If it were not for a fluke, his compositions could have remained on the table.
Tolkien created a mythology that was so far beyond the literary mainstream of the 20th century that it was ignored by literary academics.

Tolkien was nominated for a Nobel in 1961. The academics decided that: "not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality" and gave the award to Ivo Andrić. I do not want to offend Andrić, I suppose that he is a wonderful writer. But seriously, has anyone here actually read it? Well, maybe if you are Yugoslav (I condole) or just read all the Nobel laureates in a row, otherwise it is Very-Very unlikely.
(I know now there will be a bunch of posts on the topic "not true, I'm reading right now Pod gradićem: Pripovetke o životu bosanskog sela. Seljačka knjiga").

[Anonymous No.18209157]

>>18208157
>he spawned
Del Rey spawned, you mean.

[Anonymous No.18209191]

>>18208360
>When most people think of the great writers of the 20th century (myself included) Tolkien doesn’t really come to mind.
Tolkien would be one of the first names to pop up in the minds of normies if you asked them who the great writers of the the 20th century were.

[Anonymous No.18209197]

>>18208493
>widely
lel

[Anonymous No.18210472]

>>18208388
the next question is obvious

what's so bad about genre fiction?

[Anonymous No.18210475]

>>18208388
there is more ro fiction than truths and observations about life

[Anonymous No.18210558]

>>18210472
I didn’t say it was bad, the literary mainstream establishment did.

>>18210475
Exactly. There’s also form and style. But according to the establishment that’s about it. Tolkien had basically none of those, and he also made up stuff so they went ”nope”.

[Anonymous No.18210575]

>>18208360
>When most people think of the great writers of the 20th century
>Joyce, Mann, Hemingway, Faulkner, Woolf
Is 'most people' a synonym for 'anglos' now?

[Anonymous No.18210581]

>>18208157
No he’s overrated because overrating his stuff functions as a swipe at Martin and Rowling
Nobody would read his stuff at this point if they hadn’t made those movies

[Anonymous No.18210613]

>>18208157
Yes. Even apart from the "secondary-creation" that he (and his son Christopher) constructed through a literal lifetime of labor, his brilliance is also in his careful transportation of the grand-mythic-ethos that is found in Nordic mythologies into the English language.

>Suddenly the king cried to Snowmane and the horse sprang away. Behind him his banner blew in the wind, white horse upon a field of green, but he outpaced it. After him thundered the knights of his house, but he was ever before them. Éomer rode there, the white horsetail on his helm floating in his speed, and the front of the first éored roared like a breaker foaming to the shore, but Théoden could not be overtaken. Fey he seemed, or the battle-fury of his fathers ran like new fire in his veins, and he was borne up on Snowmane like a god of old, even as Oromë the Great in the battle of the Valar when the world was young. His golden shield was uncovered, and lo! it shone like an image of the Sun, and the grass flamed into green about the white feet of his steed. For morning came, morning and a wind from the sea; and the darkness was removed, and the hosts of Mordor wailed, and terror took them, and they fled, and died, and the hoofs of wrath rode over them. And then all the host of Rohan burst into song, and they sang as they slew, for the joy of battle was on them, and the sound of their singing that was fair and terrible came even to the City.

He was a genius in capturing the cadence and intention of ancient diction and (re)presenting it for a contemporary audience. His tragedy lies in the fact that he did this at a point in time when academia and the literary world were only interested in wanking themselves into self-imposed experimental impotence and experiencing an absolute nadir point in regards to spiritual sensibility. In other words, Tolkien's work was reaching towards an expression the sacred at exactly the same point when the mainstream was withdrawing from it with cynical scorn.

[Anonymous No.18211111]

>>18208467
LOTR was absolutely intended to be genre literature (tolkien considered himself to be writing literature, but also wanted to follow in the tradition of adventure novels, which are undoubtedly genre fiction)
Silmarillion wasnt genre though

[Anonymous No.18211122]

>>18210575
Yes, that is why he said “people@

[Anonymous No.18211760]

>>18208157
>The world he created is unrivaled by any one man in the history of fiction. Nothing comes even close to what he managed to create in his lifetime.

[Anonymous No.18211765]

>>18208388
yes, they´re the same people who think Star Wars (original trilogy) is a hidden masterpiece

[Anonymous No.18211777]

>>18209191
Marvel movies would be one of the names pop up by normies if they ask them What are the best movies of the 21st Century, Tolkien is literary trash

[Anonymous No.18211790]

jfc these people are the same as those capeshit lovers who think cape movies are deep and profound, fuck off, tolkien is peak genre fiction but that means he´s bottom of the barrel when it comes to actual literary fiction

[Anonymous No.18211866]

>>18210613
Solid take, and thanks for the excerpt. The majesty of language is just staggering. It somehow reminds me of Faulkner’s description of Jewel with his horse in As I Lay Dying.

>>18211777
>>18211790
Can you articulate what exactly places Tolkien so much lower than someone like Joyce?

[Anonymous No.18211874]

>>18211790
>comparing Tolkien to s*yperheroes
Cringe

[Anonymous No.18211909]

>>18211866
they cant

[Anonymous No.18212048]

>>18211765
Well, to be fair, it is a pretty skillful and compelling adaptation of the monomyth/hero’s journey. Having popularity isn’t necessarily indicative of quality, but when a whole generation is obsessed with a movie, that says something about the movie’s ability to represent humanity.

That said, only a disingenuous or entirely ignorant person would equate Tolkien to Lucas.

[Anonymous No.18212063]

What would have to change in his works for it to be considered a literary piece?

[Anonymous No.18212081]

>>18212048
>and compelling adaptation of the monomyth/hero’s journey.

you know that this means jack shit if you know about the nuance and craft of the film medium right?

>but when a whole generation is obsessed with a movie, that says something about the movie’s ability to represent humanity.

only represents american culture, able to represent humanity my ass, the movie made millions because of the special effects at that time, people love adventure serials, there´s a reason pulp and adventure novels were popular back in the day

>That said, only a disingenuous or entirely ignorant person would equate Tolkien to Lucas.

they´re the same

[Anonymous No.18212089]

>>18211866
>Can you articulate what exactly places Tolkien so much lower than someone like Joyce?

your question doesn´t make sense, nobody overrates Lewis Carrol for writing books for children, well you should do the same with Tolkien, he belongs to the children literature section

[Anonymous No.18212207]

>>18212081
>you know that this means jack shit if you know about the nuance and craft of the film medium right?
Please, enlighten me.

>only represents american culture
What is American about Star Wars? The rebel vs. empire theme? That’s by no means exclusively American. A young man’s desire to leave behind a mundane existence and become part of something great? Not American. Confronting the darkness inside yourself and trusting in unseen but felt forces in order to defeat chaos/evil and restore order? Not American. Recovering your lost humanity in a final triumphant act? Not American. I’m not a huge Star Wars fan, but to claim that the story only represents American experiences/values is absurd or, as I said, disingenuous.

> they´re the same
Cool bald assertion, my guy. George Lucas was a somewhat passionate, arguably talented filmmaker looking to make a sci-fi fantasy movie that mirrored Joseph Campbell’s monomyth. Tolkien was a scholar of language and mythology writing an epic fantasy that incorporates various mythological, religious, and linguistic traditions and which fits into a meticulously conceptualized world of his own creation. What they were aiming at may have some basic similarities, but their approaches were far different, and Tolkien’s was palpably more complex and artistically executed.

>>18212089
How can you honestly say the Silmarillion is children’s literature? I don’t mean to say it is better than children’s literature (which is not a degrading category, as you point out), but it is completely lacking in the characteristics of children’s lit, and while the Hobbit and parts of the Lord of the Rings are child-friendly, LOTR and the posthumously published writings are certainly not written with a primarily youthful audience in mind.

[Anonymous No.18212240]

>>18208493
>Ork babies
Don't they just emerge from mud fully mature?

[Anonymous No.18212311]

>>18208891
>6 females
Women don't make history. There's a reason why most inmates & CEOs are men.
>No LGBT
Who's to say that if everyone's preferences weren't explicitly told?
>No people of Colo(((u)))r
There are the Orks and Swertings.

[Anonymous No.18212315]

>>18211760
Post your top fictional worlds.

[Anonymous No.18212319]

>>18212311
Nevermind I just got baited.

[Anonymous No.18212323]

>>18210575
This isn’t Twitter.

[Anonymous No.18212329]

>>18210558
Nothing is more mainstream than genre fiction.

[Anonymous No.18212338]

>I thought from another perspective
>OP proceeds to just lather Tolkien with compliments
Who are you fooling with such a conceited, clint eastwood vs obama approach to literary criticism?

[Anonymous No.18212357]

>>18212207
>Please, enlighten me.

watch more movies, if you think that´s high art, i pity you

>What is American about Star Wars?

Liberalism, Western (as in the old west) tropes, Good vs Evil with no nuance whatsoever, the only non-american thing is the force but that´s basically a fad most hippies and college kids had in the 60´s and 70´s with their flirtation with eastern religions

>Tolkien’s was palpably more complex and artistically executed.

ok that made me laugh, both created a story set in the past that mirrored present of their times, i get that Tolkien wanted to create actual mythology but man, i gotta be honest, he failed so miserably, if he had lived before the enlightenment, maybe he could actually succeed

[Anonymous No.18212365]

>>18212315
huh? go back to r/worldbuilding

[Anonymous No.18212374]

>>18212207
>Silmarillion

wasn´t this book incomplete because he died? i was talking about the books that he actually finished and released

[Anonymous No.18212431]

>>18212357
>watch more movies, if you think that´s high art, i pity you
I never said it was high art; I said it was an effective adaptation of the monomyth. I even stated that I'm not really a Star Wars fan.

>the only non-american thing is the force but that´s basically a fad most hippies and college kids had in the 60´s and 70´s with their flirtation with eastern religions
What about all the things I listed in the post you're responding to? The fact that the movie uses western tropes and simplistic good versus evil metaphysics doesn't make it American (how is simply good vs. evil even American? That makes no sense to me), nor are those the aspects of the film that make it a long-lasting cultural phenomenon.

>i get that Tolkien wanted to create actual mythology but man, i gotta be honest, he failed so miserably
Once again I am asking for reasons rather than assertions. Saying Tolkien failed at creating mythology is a useless statement. Explain why or how it fails, or I have to conclude that you don't actually have reasoning to back up your criticisms.

>>18212374
Yes, you're right. However, as I said, considering the tone, language, and themes of LOTR, calling it a children's book is not accurate. Moreover, works like the Silmarillion deserve to be considered when deciding how to classify Tolkien as an artist, just as The Trial deserves consideration as a work by Kafka despite being published incomplete and posthumously.

[Anonymous No.18212449]

>>18212431
Actually, I just realized I was thinking of The Castle, not The Trial.

[Anonymous No.18212489]

>>18212431
>What about all the things I listed in the post you're responding to? The fact that the movie uses western tropes and simplistic good versus evil metaphysics doesn't make it American (how is simply good vs. evil even American? That makes no sense to me), nor are those the aspects of the film that make it a long-lasting cultural phenomenon.

it´s a very simplistic movie, if you´re an adult and you take this shit seriously, you should grow up

>Once again I am asking for reasons rather than assertions. Saying Tolkien failed at creating mythology is a useless statement. Explain why or how it fails, or I have to conclude that you don't actually have reasoning to back up your criticisms.

he actually failed because nobody considers LOTR as "mythology", most people view these books are part of a multi-billion dollar franchise, like superhero movies and (of course) star wars, i mean, they´re alreading making a tv show in order to increase revenue for Amazon Prime Video, a man born in the wrong century this tolkien guy was

> Moreover, works like the Silmarillion deserve to be considered when deciding how to classify Tolkien as an artist

it´s just added lore for LOTR, like an expanded appendix, it doesn´t have literary merit, only if you´re into his universe, you will care reading it

[Anonymous No.18212510]

>>18212207
I agree with you about Tolkien, but this part:
>What is American about Star Wars?

Star Wars is VERY American. It's the cinematic equivalent to the Hudson Valley School of painting.

[Anonymous No.18212537]

>>18212489
Alright, it's clear you have no interest in actually discussing these topics, which makes me question why you're even in this thread. Unless you want to actually provide some explanations for your viewpoints instead of just insulting my intelligence and declaring your beliefs, this will be my last response.

>>18212489
>he actually failed because nobody considers LOTR as "mythology" . . . most people view these books . . .
So the consumer public is the arbiter of whether a work of art has succeeded in its aim? Tell that to Herman Melville, or the Impressionists, or any other artist unappreciated or even vilified by the public of his time. Nonetheless, for true Tolkien enthusiasts and--dare I say--scholars (Tom Shippey, John Rateliff, etc.), he DID create a mythology as varied and rich as any created by real societies.

>it´s just added lore for LOTR, like an expanded appendix, it doesn´t have literary merit, only if you´re into his universe, you will care reading it
There is a 0.0001% chance you have read the Silmarillion if this is your take on it. In the Silmarillion, Tolkien generates a mythical history spanning thousands of years that reads like true epic/folklore. It's anything but an appendix, and at its best, it passes for genuine legend.

>>18212510
Fair enough. I guess what I should have said that Star Wars isn't JUST American.

[Anonymous No.18212548]

>>18212537
The themes within Star Wars, aren't exclusively American, but it's not a coincidence it only has the popularity it does in the US (and I suspect Canada).

[Anonymous No.18212577]

>>18212537
>So the consumer public is the arbiter of whether a work of art has succeeded in its aim? Tell that to Herman Melville, or the Impressionists, or any other artist unappreciated or even vilified by the public of his time. Nonetheless, for true Tolkien enthusiasts and--dare I say--scholars (Tom Shippey, John Rateliff, etc.), he DID create a mythology as varied and rich as any created by real societies.

not just the consumer public, everyone is treating like that, even his nephew or whoever who sold the rights to Amazon for 400 millions dollars, peter jackson just treated them like blockbuster adaptations, i mean, you´re just deluded if you want to deny that fact

compare tolkien with someone like Shakespeare or Melville like you´ve said, everyone treats their works with respect and integrity, nobody goes whoring their stuff to the public

> In the Silmarillion, Tolkien generates a mythical history spanning thousands of years that reads like true epic/folklore. It's anything but an appendix, and at its best, it passes for genuine legend.

dude, you´re just saying PR stuff, everyone can do the whole "mythical history spanning a thousand of years" nowadays, that gimmick is overly done, there´s like a million of Warhammer40K expanded lore for example

[Anonymous No.18212596]

>>18212577
>not just the consumer public, everyone is treating like that
Not everyone. I agree that the adaptations have been mostly disappointing, though, and missed what is truly great about his work.


>compare tolkien with someone like Shakespeare or Melville like you´ve said, everyone treats their works with respect and integrity, nobody goes whoring their stuff to the public
You're seriously gonna claim that no one has ever made a schlocky film adaptation of a great work of literature? Have you not seen the newest Great Gatsby film, for example?

>everyone can do the whole "mythical history spanning a thousand of years" nowadays
Everyone can ATTEMPT it; few can DO it.

>that gimmick is overly done, there´s like a million of Warhammer40K expanded lore for example
And who do you think started the trend? Whose originality is being mined for inspiration when millions of expanded lore books are churned out every year? Pick a random Warhammer 40k book and compare it with the Silmarillion and tell me they're equivalent.

Also, you're using a diacritical mark instead of an apostrophe.

[Anonymous No.18212631]

>>18212596
>Not everyone.

like whom? (don´t just say some pretentious soulless anglo bugmen who works in the academia) like i said, even his nephew knows that the books are just money making products, it´s fitting since tolkien´s book were just genre fiction, not actual literary merit


>You're seriously gonna claim that no one has ever made a schlocky film adaptation of a great work of literature? Have you not seen the newest Great Gatsby film, for example?

you´re just moving the argument here, i said Shakespeare and Melville, great titans of literature, tolkien is no titan, he was good in writing genre fiction, hence his categoratization in the children section

>Everyone can ATTEMPT it; few can DO it.

as i stated earlier i can see someone before the enlightenment age succeeding but after WW1, European Culture was too demoralized to believe in nonsense like fairy tales, they had more serious issues to deal with

>And who do you think started the trend? Whose originality is being mined for inspiration when millions of expanded lore books are churned out every year?

yeah, i know Tolkien was a big influence in fantasy, who cares, fantasy is a trash genre, no literary merit

[Anonymous No.18212686]

>>18208388
That's like criticizing Greek mythology because its characters weren't complex for today standard; that's retarded. Tolkien wanted to emulate mythology, that's why he took heavy inspiration from Finnish mythology. You got literally filtered.

[Anonymous No.18212709]

>>18212631
>yeah, i know Tolkien was a big influence in fantasy, who cares, fantasy is a trash genre, no literary merit
I don't even read Tolkien as fantasy, I read it as mythological literature. Similar to how I might read the Ramayana or Beowulf, or VERY MUCH like I might read the Kalevala.

There's no such thing as an inherently trash genre, even if 99.99% of it IS trash. You're just making a pathetic attempt to elevate yourself.

>>18212686
This anon gets it.

[Anonymous No.18212719]

>>18211111
Shit get

[Anonymous No.18212738]

>>18212631
Tom Shippey
Michael Drout
John D. Rateliff
Humphrey Carpenter
John Garth
Corey Olsen
The Tolkien Studies Scholarly Journal
These aren’t “Anglo bugmen,” they are knowledgeable, passionate, and creative academics and writers who have lectured, written, and published extensively on Tolkien’s writings in the context of Anglo Saxon literature, 18th and 19th century fantasy authors, high romance, etc.

> you´re just moving the argument here
No, I’m responding to your attempt to use bad film adaptations as evidence for Tolkien being in a different league than greats like Melville and Shakespeare, both of whom have had their fair share of shit movies.

> as i stated earlier i can see someone before the enlightenment age succeeding but after WW1, European Culture was too demoralized to believe in nonsense like fairy tales, they had more serious issues to deal with
What does this even mean? So after WWI, all fairy tales and mythology is useless and rejected by everyone because we have “bigger problems”? That’s clearly not the case, so why would Tolkien’s work be discredited on the same merit? Further, you still seem to be implying that a work of art is only good or successful insofar as it is seen as good or successful by the culture it is created in, which is a bizarre position to hold.

> yeah, i know Tolkien was a big influence in fantasy, who cares, fantasy is a trash genre, no literary merit
Begging the question.

[Anonymous No.18212765]

>>18212738
>Tom Shippey
>Michael Drout
>John D. Rateliff
>Humphrey Carpenter
>John Garth
>Corey Olsen

literally WHO

>These aren’t “Anglo bugmen,” they are knowledgeable, passionate, and creative academics and writers who have lectured, written, and published extensively on Tolkien’s writings in the context of Anglo Saxon literature, 18th and 19th century fantasy authors, high romance, etc.

yawn

>No, I’m responding to your attempt to use bad film adaptations as evidence for Tolkien being in a different league than greats like Melville and Shakespeare, both of whom have had their fair share of shit movies.

i´m not saying just movies, but merchandise and treating the source material as disposable enterprise, something like pic related

>Further, you still seem to be implying that a work of art is only good or successful insofar as it is seen as good or successful by the culture it is created in, which is a bizarre position to hold.

yeah, Oswald Spengler talks about this

[Anonymous No.18212775]

>>18212765
People who engage with Tolkien as a literary figure know those names just like someone who studies Faulkner knows who Cleanth Brooks is even if the public doesn’t.

Alright, that’s enough trying to reason with lazy ad hominem half-baked bullshit. Good night.

[Anonymous No.18212780]

>>18212775

[Anonymous No.18212785]

>>18212765
>>18212780
>people make a mockery of a work of art
>work of art is therefore worth less
What kind of logic is this?

[Anonymous No.18212787]

>>18212374
it wasnt really incomplete, rather he became too autistic about his themes that after it was refused for publishing in the 40s, he felt it would never be complete. on all counts, he finished it as much as Kafka finished the trial

[Anonymous No.18212796]

>>18212785
it´s a mirror of tolkien´s merit as a writer

[Anonymous No.18212797]

>>18208171
^Gary Gygax

[Anonymous No.18212799]

>>18212489
t. confirmed retard who has never read the sil
its a collection of stories of the war of the noldor

[Anonymous No.18212803]

>>18208360
easy racism is a bit of a compromise

[Anonymous No.18212804]

>>18212799
>its a collection of stories of the war of the noldor

who the fuck cares about this kiddie garbage, GROW UP

[Anonymous No.18212805]

>>18212577
you have not read the sil

[Anonymous No.18212821]

>>18212719
what's wrong with my statement, bugman?

[Anonymous No.18212825]

>>18212796
No, it’s a testament to the greedy capitalist corruption of the superficial elements of a great storyteller.

[Anonymous No.18212838]

>>18212804
its not the greatest literature of all time but it is literature. you're too much of an npc to understand that. Comparing the Silmarillion to an appendix or a Warhammer book is incredibly disingenuous and proves you have not read the book, which makes your twenty past posts seem fairly suspect and like you don't know what you're talking about and you have only seen the LOTR films, in which case its understandable why you dislike them
/lit/ literally does not read and is proud of it

[Anonymous No.18212839]

>>18212804
Is the Kalevala kiddie garbage? The Mabinogion? The Mahabharata? The Metamorphoses? Theogony? What is the difference, other than one was created by a single man in single lifetime and the others were the collective efforts of generations?

[Anonymous No.18212846]

>>18212839
he hasn't read the Silmarillion and probably not LOTR either, no use arguing. nor has he read any of those

[Anonymous No.18212864]

tolkien is literature. if you disagree with this, you have been influenced too heavily by culture and the films that your usage of /lit/ should be discouraged

[Anonymous No.18212868]

>>18212839
read what you´re writing, it´s the same argument people use to justify marvel movies

>oh it´s like the illiad and superheroes movies are the modern greek mythology!!!!!

how embarrassing

[Anonymous No.18212874]

Nah it's because when he was alive this stuff wasn't trendy and people were into discrediting Anglosaxon/Norse literature.

[Anonymous No.18212884]

>>18212838
>you're too much of an npc to understand that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Anonymous No.18212889]

>>18212868
lol

[Anonymous No.18214153]

bimp

[Anonymous No.18214194]

>>18212796
>>18212785
>unpopular good popular bad
this is a dangerous dogmatism

[Anonymous No.18214893]

>>18208157
a lot of people in this thread are saying "tolkien" when what they really seem to mean is "the lord of the rings" only
the lord of the rings is only a tiny fraction of what he wrote and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise
is the silmarillion (the single book titled that) not worthy of consideration just because the lord of the rings is more famous?
what about the silmarillion (the sum of the material tolkien considered for inclusion)?
what about the book of lost tales?
what about the lost road?
what about the notion club papers?
what about leaf by niggle?
what about smith of wootton major?

[Anonymous No.18215025]

>>18208157
I don't think it's due Tolkien being seen as a "niche fiction" writer. Others who had explored this genre are somewhat praised nowadays
What I don't understand is why Tolkien keeps being ostracized by academics as, in the past few decades, Lovecraft started to earn some praise?

[Anonymous No.18215135]

>>18212868
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of why the marvel movies are seen as shallow.

[Anonymous No.18215259]

>>18211777
I know, retard, that's my point.

[Anonymous No.18215323]

>>18208388
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.18215331]

>>18211790
>he actually bought the "genre fiction" line

[Anonymous No.18215363]

>>18215259
u mad

[Anonymous No.18215548]

>>18208157
I think the intial wave of hippie fans and then the movies just distracted from the actual core focus of the work which was a linguistic look at the way myths are formed. Countless references to old Epic poems and stuff in the work and internal references to explain words and their origins. Then the next level is a critique and hatred of the death of the classic English traditions and simple living for an industrial modern life.

All this was totally lost on the hippies and the movie goers who only saw epic violence and weed smoking hobbits and psychedelia (it was just tobacco).

Basically it’s admirers from the 60s on were misadverising it.

[Anonymous No.18215549]

>>18210575
Anglos are the only people

[Anonymous No.18215958]

>>18208157
Tolkien is not even a proper writer.

[Anonymous No.18217350]

bump

[Anonymous No.18217465]

>>18215548
tolkien is objectively literary. Plebs will stay being filtered due to the works public perception plus the fact that they probably only saw the films anyways

[Anonymous No.18217468]

>>18217350
What's there to bump? I think every poster gave a piece of his mind in this topic and it's time to retire this thread.

[Anonymous No.18217521]

>>18217468
It's the thread last breath? You know, when the thread's at page 10 and suddenly it goes back to page 1 to get 15 replies and then die peacefully.

[Anonymous No.18217848]

>>18208157
He might be underrated because his other books are also great.
But if you ask me the other Inklings are also underrated.

[Anonymous No.18217967]

>>18208891
>No LGBT people despite obvious homosexual overtones plethoric throughout

blue wizards

[Anonymous No.18218094]

Tolkien is proof that the original work doesn't even matter anymore and your creative work's only value is that of a meta-product. I cannot express this clearly but I'm seeing this paradigm shift from the work (literary or other media) as a self-contained entity that people revolve around to the work as an environment for meta-discussion and appropriation. The fact that people perceive Tolkien as genre fiction because what is clearly a mythological epic that reads like a mythological epic has been adapted into pulp works is proof that the source material matters almost nothing compared to its quality as a container.

[Anonymous No.18218153]

>>18218094
I'm interested in your viewpoint but a bit confused about what you're claiming. Are you saying that a work's actual qualities are eclipsed by the audience's relationship (fandom, support, political interpretation, etc.) to the work?

[Anonymous No.18218158]

>>18218094
this is pretty similar to how I feel. it feels like art in general these days is rarely actually interacted with with its material, rather some sort of image or zeitgeist that you are either on the side of or against. its really odd the perception that tolkiens work has. its clearly literary

[Anonymous No.18218174]

>>18218094
also, tolkien suffers extra heavily due to a number of factors, mainly the Peter Jackson films. many people either see these first or only see them, and judge tolkien on the merits of the blockbuster adaptations. This is why when people read the LOTR books, the scouring of the shire, arguably the climax of the work, is considered to be filler, or a weird quirk of the book, since it wasnt in the films or goes against the perception of tolkien. The Bombadil chapters also suffer from this.
The Silmarillion suffers even worse from this, due to the trend of fantasy "lore books" and "backstory" and the Silmarillion is lumped in this category, when thats completely missing the point of the work, however people seem to have trouble approaching a work with such cultural baggage on any legitimate terms.

[Anonymous No.18218612]

>>18210575
Post anything from the 20th century written by a non-Anglo that you think is worth reading and I’ll tell you why you’re full of shit.

[Anonymous No.18218632]

>>18218094
>Tolkien is proof that the original work doesn't even matter anymore
He should have tried writing something original himself then. Fraud Kalevala copier.

[Anonymous No.18218648]

>>18218632
yeah man, Homer was a fucking hack

[Anonymous No.18218665]

>>18208157
Tolkiens main purpose was to create a brand new Nordic mythology and new forgotten languages for his home country. Everything else he made was in support of that dream.

[Anonymous No.18218719]

>>18218612
Why so much seething Nigel?

[Anonymous No.18220017]

>>18211111
I haven't read LOTR but I can't let fucking pents go by unchecked.

[Anonymous No.18220347]

>>18218153
>Are you saying that a work's actual qualities are eclipsed by the audience's relationship (fandom, support, political interpretation, etc.) to the work?
Sort of but the way you described it still implies that the audience refers to the original work in some way, as if the work were still central. What I feel is, thinking about it today, that the work has become pretty much a brand. The worse part about this ties into what >>18218158 says.
>it feels like art in general these days is rarely actually interacted with with its material, rather some sort of image or zeitgeist that you are either on the side of or against.
Because the product isn't something that you refer back to but something territorial, it's part of your identity so it invites people to polarize with or against it.
I mean some time ago you could say that you didn't like Tolkien and have some Tolkien nut disagree with you, but today there's this identity factor in people's relationship with products that makes them feel personally attacked. I think the act of reading the thing itself has become something like reading the instruction manual of the toy you bought. I know for a fact that many zoomers will learn about the trending object second-hand by watching summaries or commentaries because they don't care about the product itself, they just want to participate to the environment and understand the memes.

[Anonymous No.18220961]

>>18220347
>but today there's this identity factor in people's relationship with products that makes them feel personally attacked.

exactly, this thread is proof of it

[Anonymous No.18220980]

Tolkien is already overrated. He's just a good writer with non-brainlet imagination.
LotR is a mostly slow and boring work with above average prose. He should've never published his cringe trilogy and I'm sure if he were still around he would agree.

[Anonymous No.18221004]

>>18220980
> imagine being filtered by Lord of the Rings, of all things

[Anonymous No.18221010]

>>18220980
Why are these baits so bad? This sounded exactly like what you would hear from a 14yo feminist woman criticizing a Tolstoy book on goodreads.

[Anonymous No.18221037]

>>18221010
>Why are these baits so bad? This sounded exactly like what you would hear from a 14yo feminist woman criticizing a Tolstoy book on goodreads.

[Anonymous No.18221041]

>>18221004
there´s nothing to filter, they´re overrated books

[Anonymous No.18221050]

>>18221037
>If I post a wojak I'll win the argument!
Go back newfag.

[Anonymous No.18221073]

>>18220980
Are you retarded? The point of LotR is that the journey is long, there are going to be lengthy periods of travel. Are you simply that conditioned to having everything happen immediately that you can't handle length in a story?

[Anonymous No.18221094]

>>18208493
>the more she drank, the more she shat

[Anonymous No.18221130]

>>18211111
>but also wanted to follow in the tradition of adventure novels
I expect you to back this up with a quote. The traditions he drew from were epics like Beowulf and The Kalevala. The Hobbit was originally written for his children, but then he went off into his own interests for LotR and The Silmarillion.

[Anonymous No.18221183]

>>18210613
Best take in the thread. Tolkien's prose is beautiful, and captures the essence of the old and noble. He also deals in old-fashioned monarchy ideals of the Good King, which reeks to modern sensibilities.

[Anonymous No.18221215]

>>18221073
Not the anon you're replying to (as will become clear presently) but I actually found the lengthy travelling sections the comfiest parts of the books. Not the grandest, or the best prose, or thought-provoking, or any of the like, but comfy. Tolkien had a knack for describing landscapes, and through the characters' travels you really get to see and experience Middle-Earth, in a sense which no other work really has imparted on me. His love for nature comes through in such an amount that it made me a lover of nature too. I didn't care about trees and flowers and hills and all that, but know I've learned all the names of my native trees, and can identify them by leaves and flowers.

[Anonymous No.18221219]

>>18212374
As another anon mentioned, he fell deep into mythos-building autism and kept changing little things around, who was related to whom and who was named what. But he had written the beginning, the ending, and everything in between decades before he died, he just kept expanding and rearranging things obsessively. It's a shame he fell into such severe autism, because he was very productive earlier and would write amazing things like The Fall of Gondolin within short periods. But then the autism struck.

[Anonymous No.18221260]

>>18221219
>But then the autism struck.

like every fantasy author out there obsessing about "world-building", he reap what he sow

[Anonymous No.18221264]

>>18212489
>he actually failed because nobody considers LOTR as "mythology"

[Anonymous No.18221277]

>>18208157
Tolkien was an absolute one of a kind and his work will be read for as long as our civilization lasts.

[Anonymous No.18221284]

>>18221264
you prove my point, nobody thinks LoTR was actually real, he shoot himself in the foot by not making himself anonymous when publishing LoTR, this and being born in the wrong century when societal changes were making leaps because of technology among other things

[Anonymous No.18221306]

>>18221284
I don't even know how to parse this retarded of a take.

[Anonymous No.18221315]

>>18221306
do you know that calling your fantasy books as mythology doesn´t make it good....right?

[Anonymous No.18221343]

>>18221315
Yeah, but Tolkien did create a mythology, which you haven't bother to read yet feel invited to judge regardless. Because you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.18221375]

>>18221343
>Tolkien did create a mythology

how? and don´t say he invented a new language, because james cameron did the same thing with Avatar, gimmick garbage so low iq retards like yourself can feel smart about it

[Anonymous No.18221398]

>>18212765
Aw shit, gotta dump all our bibles since they've come out with Jesus action figures and other merchandise.

>>18221375
How about you read the Silmarillion before trying to claim it isn't mythology, you troglodyte?

[Anonymous No.18221408]

>>18221398
>How about you read the Silmarillion
Why would anyone do that when they can read sonic fanfiction for the same effect? It's nonsense pretending to be deep.

[Anonymous No.18221412]

Tolkiens Legendarium was real history, he learnt it by channelling the voice of transcended master on the Astral Plane (probably it was literally Gandalf and Bilbo who dictated the works to him, in fact Tolkien states that it was Bilbo who first wrote down the story of the Lord of the Rings in his "Red Book of Westmarch")

No I will not take my medications

Yes I will go back to /x/ eventually (I'm crossposting from there most of the time).

[Anonymous No.18221419]

>>18221398
I think you're being baited, dude. That, or the guy you're replying too is just dense. Either way, you're wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.18221461]

>>18208157
t. bugman

[Anonymous No.18221478]

>>18218612
proust
now, you have to go back

[Anonymous No.18221494]

>>18218094
I'm really glad I read his stuff before the peter jackson movies and all the secondary media like video games came out. I reread The Hobbit, LotR, and The Silmarillion every few years, but maybe if I hadn't read him before all that other crap existed, I wouldn't have ever given it a chance.

>>18218174
>the scouring of the shire, arguably the climax of the work, is considered to be filler, or a weird quirk of the book, since it wasnt in the films or goes against the perception of tolkien
Could also be immaturity. The parts of the LotR I found most or least interesting when I was in middle school have practically swapped places now that I'm older. Saruman's spirit trying to return to the west before a strong wind disintegrates it is definitely something that requires the mythos of The Sil to understand, which I read after The Hobbit and LotR. And the ending ending, in Samwise's garden, left much wanting on first read. Now I think it's perfect.

>>18221408
Is that supposed to be scathing criticism? Why would anyone care what an idiot thinks about a work he hasn't read?

[Anonymous No.18222434]

>>18221215
Exactly, I was just telling anon that he's complaining about nothing. The length is part of the appeal and makes it feel like a proper journey. Kind of reminds me of Journey to the West where years pass before the characters reach their destination.

[Anonymous No.18222590]

[Anonymous No.18222604]

>>18222590
what's the joke?

[Anonymous No.18222749]

>>18222604
Donald Trump dick sucking funny

[Anonymous No.18223640]

>>18221130
he was a fan of adventure books. they were some of the only modern stuff he enjoyed. The hobbit and lotr are equally adventure books and are equally influenced by beowulf. LOTR obviously includes adult themes but its structured as an adventure story in this epic style he had developed.

[Anonymous No.18223699]

>>18222590
based

[Anonymous No.18224206]

>>18212709
based

[Anonymous No.18225886]

>>18221478
AHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.18227796]

>>18209148
That just shows you the usual disconnect between the academics and the masses.

[Anonymous No.18227878]

>>18212839
You awnsered your question already. These works are products of a society not a single man. They are also about the societies that created them. You can learn from them, you can not learn from Tolkien, his world isnt real.

[Anonymous No.18228236]

>>18208891
Bait as fuck

[Anonymous No.18228319]

>>18227878
>>18227878
>These works are products of a society not a single man.
I know I'm contradicting myself by saying this, but Tolkien didn't really do it on his own either. He was adapting, synthesizing, and dramatizing a vast array of mythological archetypes and narratives to create what he did, so we're not just getting Tolkien when we read the legendarium; we're getting the wisdom of ages assimilated into the work of one man.

>They are also about the societies that created them. You can learn from them, you can not learn from Tolkien, his world isnt real.
The first part of this statement is true, but it's only a half-truth. We can learn about the Ancient Greeks by reading Homer, but to imply that is the ONLY value of reading this would be to reduce the act of reading to an anthropological exercise. We learn truths about humankind and the world by reading Homer, and you can do the same for Tolkien despite the world of his stories not being real in a literal sense

[Anonymous No.18228700]

>>18225886
ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.18228722]

People are too divorced from Catholicism to even come close to understanding him.

[Anonymous No.18229064]

he's underrated as non-fiction writer and poet, On Fairy-Stories changed my life

[Anonymous No.18229117]

>>18212089
>no, I can't

[Anonymous No.18229133]

>>18212796
You're giving the people trying to destroy his legacy exactly what they want. They'll come for your pseud favorite next, if they've heard of it.

[Anonymous No.18229554]

>>18212868
man, it just ain't the same my nigga.
silmarillion is some good shit, read it my man.

[Anonymous No.18229564]

>>18220980
man im so fucking confused

[Anonymous No.18229569]

>>18229064
how come?

[Anonymous No.18229605]

tolkien is as literary as any other lit core author. truth hurts I guess

[Anonymous No.18230427]

>>18228319
Homer is better than Tolkien, he´s the bard, tolkien is some z-list author in comparison

[Anonymous No.18230916]

>>18230427
Way to miss my point. I’m not saying that Tolkien is equivalent to Homer; I’m saying that the works of both authors contain human truth that is valuable whether or not the authors’ respective worlds “exist.”

[Anonymous No.18230976]

What would have to change in his works for it to be considered a literary piece?

[Anonymous No.18230988]

>>18208493
widely indeed

[Anonymous No.18231296]

>>18230988
lel

[Anonymous No.18231393]

>>18221306
he's saying tolkein could have buried lotr in a cave for someone to find, and the finder would conclude it had been lost for centuries or even millennia, somehow compiled neatly in one place and in 20th century english and presumably typewritten. then it would count as "real mythology".

[Anonymous No.18231488]

Depends what do you consider as underrated.

Literary scholars love authors that can be endlessly used for writing papers about. Cervantes with Don Quixote is an obvious example of that, a truly timeless novel from their perspective as it was reinterpreted with every single new framework that appeared in their little world. It's a good one on it's own merit, of course, but you wouldn't hear about nearly as often if it wasn't for that particularity about it. Another classic from 17th century - Gargantua and Pantagruel - is by comparison much less widely read exactly for that reason. From this perspective I guess Tolkien is interesting for as long as you can unwrap references to various classical and medieval texts, but that's a well that will be emptied eventually.

There is however the other side of recognition. Robinson Crusoe perhaps does have some elements appealing to scholars, as a character study etc. but it's relatively simplistic and so on so it's not really as popular. I think it is however second only to Bible in the amount of languages it was translated to and if you go to the nearest bookstore there's a huge chance that they have a few copies on the shelf right now as its popularity is eternal. I think that almost 70 years since LotR was published it seems to have shown some lasting appeal.

[Anonymous No.18231696]

>>18230976
they are literary pieces. its the plebs with shit taste who must change

[Anonymous No.18231836]

>>18231393
By that metric is very much is real mythology.

[Anonymous No.18232007]

>>18208388
>essentially created an entire genre
>still called genre fiction by brainlets
Tolkien was writing fiction in the genre as Wagner, and his originality and imagination birthed an entirely new genre. I know it is hard to read anything which does not exclusively mimic other contemporary 20th century authors, but try to understand that few other people in his time period were writing with the creativity and imagination that Tolkien was.

[Anonymous No.18232012]

>>18228700
Only Trannys love Tranny Proust, you tranny.

[Anonymous No.18232026]

>>18232012
This.

[Anonymous No.18232647]

>>18230916
Tolkien may one day become more influential than Homer, who knows. Who knows what future generations will read.

[Anonymous No.18233310]

>>18208891
Boring Bait, try harder.

[Anonymous No.18233568]

>>18232007
>Tolkien was writing fiction in the genre as Wagner,

Wagner´s Ring Cycle is God tier compared to the silly books tolkien wrote, it´s like comparing Walt Disney with Shakespeare

[Anonymous No.18233569]

>>18232012
basado

[Anonymous No.18233611]

>>18233568
You again!

Get lost!

[Anonymous No.18233620]

>>18233611
plebs seethe again

[Anonymous No.18233740]

>>18233568
>´
why do you do this

[Anonymous No.18234367]

>>18232012
cope.