>"Dune is too dry! It should have corny humour and forceful happiness like Middle Earth!"
>"No! Fantasy should be happy and wholesome with silly little sing songs!"
I blame Tolkien for ruining the fantasy genre. He took mythology and turned it into saccharine songs and awful sentimentality because of how much of a christgay he was. It's weird how people see GRRM as the "Anti Tolkien" when in reality, he's just changing fantasy back to what it was in the first place.
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
I thought it was the other way around, he took his invented languages and songs and made a mythology out of them.
This. The Hobbit was fun, but LOTR was dry as well. It was written as if a historian was telling the tale.
>GRRM
Whenever someone brings up this name right after Tolkien, I know they haven't read anyone in Fantasy except these two. Michael Moorwiener, Robert E. Howard, Steven Erikson, David Eddings, Fritz Leiber, and normies want to talk about the guy with subpar prose who can't remember Renly's eye color. Hell, Kaoru Kurimoto has done more for fantasy than Martin.
>Steven Erikson
Is Gardens of the Moon any good?
It's post-structuralist, meaning it's bad on purpose. Some people dig it though.
It's not, it's post-modern and it's actually a great series.
Imagine considering Erikson a good author. I was reading moon garden or whatever it was called the other day and on like the third page it has this scene where one character talks about someone in their absence then go "he's behind me, isn't he?" Childish garbage for morons and bugmen.
>who can't remember Renly's eye color
An author shouldn't give a shit about this
Martin and his series' reputation has been almost irreparably damaged by his difficulties finishing the series and by the TV show's incredible success and downfall. The fact remains it takes a great big watery diarrhea shit on every other multi-volume epic fantasy. If you didn't read it in the early 2000s when it was hot then you don't get to have an opinion, stupid IQfy poster.
implying israelitene is any better
>Writers like Tolkien take you to the edge of the Abyss and point out the excellent tea-garden at the bottom, showing you the steps carved into the cliff and reminding you to be a bit careful because the hand-rails are a trifle shaky as you go down; they haven’t got the approval yet to put a new one in.
>The great epics dignified death, but they did not ignore it, and it is one of the reasons why they are superior to the artificial romances, of which Lord of the Rings is merely one of the most recent.
>The sort of prose most often identified with “high” fantasy is the prose of the nursery-room. It is a lullaby; it is meant to soothe and console. It is mouth-music. It is frequently enjoyed not for its tensions but for its lack of tensions. It coddles; it makes friends with you; it tells you comforting lies. It is soft
>Moderation was the rule and it is moderation which ruins Tolkien’s fantasy and causes it to fail as a genuine romance. The little hills and woods of that Surrey of the mind, the Shire, are “safe”, but the wild landscapes everywhere beyond the Shire are “dangerous”. Experience of life itself is dangerous. The Lord of the Rings is a pernicious con- firmation of the values of a morally bankrupt middle class. Their cowardly, Home Counties habits are primarily responsible for the problems England now faces. The Lord of the Rings is much more deep-rooted in its infantilism than a good many of the more obviously juvenile books it influenced. It is Winnie-the-Pooh posing as an epic. If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the Mob — mindless football supporters throwing their beer-bottles over the fence — the worst aspects of modern urban society represented as the whole by a fearful, backward-yearning class for whom “good taste” is synonymous with “re- straint” (pastel colours, murmured protest) and “civilized” behaviour means “conventional be- haviour in all circumstances”. This is not to deny that courageous characters are found in The Lord of the Rings, or a willingness to fight Evil — but somehow those courageous characters take on the aspect of retired colonels at last driven to write a letter to The Times and we are not sure — because Tolkien cannot really bring himself to get close to his proles and their satanic leaders — if Sauron and Co. are quite as evil as we’re told. After all, anyone who hates hobbits can’t be all bad.
Tolkienbros...not like this
This was written out of resentment that nobody knows who wrote it.
That last line about hobbit hating makes me feel that Yarvin’s analogy of hobbits and elves is not so misplaced after all.
Weak on some points but overall a good message. Tolkiens christcuckery infects the book, so it has a message of protect the weak, redeem the evil, want for little, accept your passing. A genuine ancient bard like Homer would never do this, it's shameful that people call Tolkien their successor.
> The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain. If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em. If it hurts, repeat it. But to praise despair is to condemn delight, to embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else. We have almost lost hold; we can no longer describe a happy man, nor make any celebration of joy.
Moorwiener is just a seething anarchist crying himself to sleep every night because no one cares about his dark and edgy fantasy.
Tolkien disliked Dune because it was extremely cynical and more or less the diametric opposite to his own work, thematically speaking
>He took mythology and turned it into saccharine songs and awful sentimentality because of how much of a christgay he was.
Literally just a rewrite of Wagner's Ring cycle.
perhaps the true redpill is realising that fantasy simply isn't a very good genre in the first place
Tolkien was a brainlet
Dune was fricking boring and undeveloped.
Is Dune considered fantasy now?
First book suffers form a case of setting being more interesting than the plot. Subsequent books strike this balance better.
whats with people hating on tolkien yet seeking his approval
maybe you should fix your relationship with your father
>>No! Fantasy should be happy and wholesome
" ‘Maybe not, Sam,’ said Frodo; ‘but it’s like things are in the world. Hopes fail. An end comes. We have only a little time to wait now. We are lost in ruin and downfall, and there is no escape.’ "
Tolkien should have write LotR in verse but he was a hack, the other fatty I'm not even counting him
>another thread expressing idiotic opinions on Tolkien
It's all so tiresome.
>Christ cuck
Ignored
> 26,000 years in the future, no sign of the Second Coming
> Christianity, Islam and Buddhism got blanda upped
> Eugenic shenanigans
I can't understand why JRRT disliked Dune. Baffling.
>he's just changing fantasy back to what it was in the first place.
When was fantasy ever about young girls having diarrhea?
Tolkien is great and his style of fantasy has its rightful place. I blame America for making him popular beyond all measure.
LotR thematically reminds me of Homer. It’s the “long defeat” as Tolkien put it. Even though they beat Sauron and win in the end, there’s still irreparable damage done; even the sanctuary of the Shire is affected by the war. Similarly to how even after Odysseus’ return and triumph over the suitors, there’s still a great sense of loss and decay in the world. Just because Hobbits enjoy food and singing doesn’t mean LotR is some sugar coated children’s story