A mere 3% difference, geeze that makes all the difference in the world! He's still part Bagel Dweller and espouses the same bullshit that they all do.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>A mere 3% difference, geeze that makes all the difference in the world!
It means you were incorrect lol nice damage control.
Learn basic math before jerking off to nazi pseudoscience, moron.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You seem rustled, Moshe, you okay? Sure, I was off by 3% which really makes no major difference. Once a coin clipper always a coin clipper, now go back and flatten some more Palestinian kids in tanks as you and your IDF pals tell yourselves you're all heroes.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You were off and yet you still posted your little picture thinking you were correct, that's what's funny. I don't like Israel btw nor am I a israelite.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Because a pissy little 3% makes absolutely no major difference lmao. In fact, not even 3% but 2.6%. A bee's pube of a difference.
1 month ago
Anonymous
And still not even a quarter, just like I had said lol
Take the L with grace and go pray to daddy Hitler now.
I'm confused, is he wrong? Just taking LOTR as an example, the orcs/forces of sauron are completely evil. Even if a country is evil (like Japan in WW2) there are plenty of innocent victims or decent people on that side. The books don't cover the social/economic consequences of gondor losing a generation of young men, or the trauma of the survivors, or all the random merchants/tradespeople whose lives were destroyed by the war.
I genuinely don't get why IQfy deepthroats Tolkien or a lot of this fantasy stuff so much
Tolkien didn't give a shit about accurately portraying war since that wasn't his objective in any sense. His objectives were to create a mythos for England and to create a world for his invented languages to exist in. Why would Tolkien want to write about post war trauma? He lived through it twice and most who were alive were all too aware of it. It's silly to criticize someone for not writing about something they clearly had no interest in writing about.
>Tolkien didn't give a shit about accurately portraying war
Sure, but that's precisely George RR Martin's point. And honestly, seeing how far removed we (first world english speakers) are from war, maybe we need more realistic depictions of war. I see liberals calling russians invading ukraine "orcs", and some people genuinely hoping for civil war in the us. Escapism like Tolkien might be okay if you're a disillusioned WW1/2 veteran, but now it might be genuinely harmful >It's silly to criticize someone for not writing about something they clearly had no interest in writing about.
So if I wanted to write some mediocre power fantasy novel I'm above critique since I'm not interested in writing 3-dimensional characters
>I genuinely don't get why IQfy deepthroats Tolkien or a lot of this fantasy stuff so much
Half of them are nostalgiagays, the other half are /misc/ types.
>Even if a country is evil (like Japan in WW2) there are plenty of innocent victims or decent people on that side.
If that were true they wouldn't have nuked Japan(thrown the ring into the fire)
None of you know ANYTHING about War. You want to know what war is? DO YOU?!?! War is an erection with no vegana to put it in. THAT'S WAR!!!! Bombs? Guns? Deadly Gasses? Pfffft... Try a persistent resistance of breasts and asses.
Why is he presupposing that a book that includes war must *deal honestly* with the consequences of war? Maybe the war is incidental to the overarching themes. Maybe the author is seeking to use war as little more than a framing device. The idea that trauma and post traumatic stress, which is what he's referring to, *must* be dealt with in every book about war is weirdly constraining. He seems to really want to say: "every book must take a social and/or political stance on matters I consider important. War for me is very, very important so if your book is about it, you must talk about its consequences." This kind of incessant politicisation, in which everything is necessarily rendered oily and ambiguous through excessive analysis and the expression of every negative outcome, has made for poor writing and even poorer television.
Did he imply a "must"? I think it's just a simple statement of fact, most fantasy doesn't honestly talk about the consequences of violence. And after reading "the noble heros defeated the bad guy and they all loved happily ever after" 100 times I think most people would find that kind of boring
>Did he imply a "must"?
Yes. Absolutely. The tenor of the quote is very much "this is what ought to be done." Granted, he's added in redundant phrases like "to my mind" but that's George being passive aggressive.
>after reading "the noble heros defeated the bad guy and they all loved happily ever after" 100 times I think
Replacing this with "the noble heroes aren't so noble and got PTSD and did a bit of rape as well" is likewise getting quite boring. George is obsessed with framing because he's one of these writers that thinks everything has to have a social message. The problem isn't the way war is or isn't being dealt with. Either scenario can be good. The problem is the quality of the storytelling. And part of the reason this has taken such a dive is because people like George, implicitly or otherwise, continue to insist that a story must take a social stance.
>continue to insist that a story must take a social stance
Are there any great works that didn't take a social stance to some extent? CS Lewis's stuff was le Jesus allegory, LOTR was about a peaceful agrarian utopia resisting an industrial superpower, etc. I think your story needs to take a social/philosophical stance to avoid being mindless escapism
1 month ago
Anonymous
Tolkien despised allegory. Certain themes are going to be applicable in multiple cases, but overt allegory is didactic and makes for bad writing. Half of the shit on streaming services these days is banal propaganda thanks to the fact that writers have been conditioned into using their work as an explicit vehicle for their social agenda.
ROMANCE. IT'S ROMANCE. From LoTR onwards? More like from the medieval ages onwards (maybe some earlier but I didn't read them). (And the people writing these actually fought in real wars, strong men, unlike Martin, so how does he know?)
Why do 80% of you Tolkien dick suckers think that being a soldier in a war or even fighting in one means SHIT when it comes to understanding the before and after?
Where the frick does any grunt get magically imbued with the knowledge of a wars sociological, econonmical and political reasons, consequences and implications?
God you dicksuckers are 200% reddits, its fricking cringe inducing. You're like fangirls but take the high road because instead of fantasizing about Taylor Swift and hanging her posters above your bed, you do it with Tolkien.
If I want to learn about the intricacies of the automotive industry and gain a deep understanding of metallurgy or whatever, I'm not gonna consult my fricking car mechanic even though he's working on cars 99% of the time.
Even more ridiculous are people who think that Tolkien did anything to portait war even as he understood it in LotR, thats even more fricking projection.
While I don't believe that Tolkien is some political expert on WW1, I am absolutely willing to believe that he knows what death, misery, shellshock, starvation and all the other horrors of war look like - NONE of them are detailed in LotR, most of them not even present. You brainlets can't just stop socking the dead man's wiener, and to make it worse, you cant even stop jerking him off about thinkgs he DIDNT write.
Sometimes I think Eminem didnt write "Stan" about his own stalkers, but about thirsty IQfygays sending cum stained letters to Tolkien.
Guess after all we're actually lucky hat DFW killed himself when he did because he certainly wouldve done so after seeing how unreflected shitters on this circlejerk gurgle his balls.
you don't understand... GRRM is evil and he subverts all things that are good and beautiful. tolkien is good and based and trad and christian and uuuoohh I'm gonna cum now
>Why do 80% of you Tolkien dick suckers think that being a soldier in a war or even fighting in one means SHIT when it comes to understanding the before and after?
Because they think going to war is going to give you the intelligence and writing ability of Ernst Jünger. That's it.
Debunk what? He worded an accusation as a question, and didn't provide any evidence, just the blithe assertion that a guy fighting in a war would not necessarily understand war as a whole.
And that might be true, but do you know who definitely doesn't understand war, or government, or taxes, or finance, or anything? Anyone who would tolerate being described as a leftist. So whatever critique you could offer of Tolkien applies 10,000 times as well to Martin. What WOULD that fat homosexual know about monarchy? You know this is the game who basically chose to rewrite the War of the Roses with 1/10th of the nuance and with the principle characters all replaced by cartoon villains or noble heroes. Did nobody notice thaat the "
The absurd claim that seems to go around is that Martin's just telling it as it is, but that's not even fricking true, he took a historical event and made it into an Stars drama, and then HBO took his Stars drama and turned it into an HBO Drama and it fricking sucked, but the original was unbelievable trash too.
>What WOULD that fat homosexual know about monarchy?
He read books. That's how most books get written. For example you could say what does Tolkien know about mythology. Well, he read books about it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Well, he read books about it.
No, he was actually raped by Odin himself and killed monsters! He knows his stuff!
The criticism against Tolkien makes no sense. The Lord of the Rings is not a book about the consequences of war. He literally calls it a "heroic romance." Romances romanticize. It's like criticizing a piano concerto for not including the violin.
anon didnt criticize tolkien, he specifically criticized posters in this thread, you have not refuted him
1 month ago
Anonymous
What poster? He didn't quote anyone. I don't know who he's talking to.
1 month ago
Anonymous
he's literally referring to tolkiengays in general that means all the people who started seething over the quote posted in the OP for the nth time since the same shit gets posted all the time
1 month ago
Anonymous
He didn't criticize any of the posters either, he just STATED that people are mindlessly deferential to Tolkien when nobody is fricking doing that. It is not unreasonable at ALL for us to assume that Tolkien's credentials are better than Martin's, Martin himself wouldn't dare to contradict that.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Tolkien also wasn't just a soldier. He was an Anglo-Saxon scholar, that includes books on the actual wars and politics of the time. Also he read stuff like Caesar's commentaries in their original Latin because he had a classical education.
The criticism against Tolkien makes no sense. The Lord of the Rings is not a book about the consequences of war. He literally calls it a "heroic romance." Romances romanticize. It's like criticizing a piano concerto for not including the violin.
No-one is claiming Tolkien is an expert on war. They're saying that he's more equipped to write about it as it formed a part of his lived experience. Please try a little harder at reading comprehension before flying off the handle like that again.
How have you not gotten the memo that these people are progressive moralizers almost without exception? The way you even get to be a published author let alone a published author that gets signal boosted by PR, HBO and media generally in the post-war era is by virtue signaling? How is this not so painfully obvious to you at this point?
What do you mean? He’s been at war with his own health for years
Holy frick he's so disgusting. His israeli ancestry really comes through in this picture.
>A cowardly, childless, obese israelite male tries to instruct a brave, family-oriented, healthy Germanic male on war.
Every. Fricking. Time.
>jew
He's not even a quarter israeli.
Excuse me Ser Anon, but you are mistaken.
22.4<25
A mere 3% difference, geeze that makes all the difference in the world! He's still part Bagel Dweller and espouses the same bullshit that they all do.
>A mere 3% difference, geeze that makes all the difference in the world!
It means you were incorrect lol nice damage control.
Learn basic math before jerking off to nazi pseudoscience, moron.
You seem rustled, Moshe, you okay? Sure, I was off by 3% which really makes no major difference. Once a coin clipper always a coin clipper, now go back and flatten some more Palestinian kids in tanks as you and your IDF pals tell yourselves you're all heroes.
You were off and yet you still posted your little picture thinking you were correct, that's what's funny. I don't like Israel btw nor am I a israelite.
Because a pissy little 3% makes absolutely no major difference lmao. In fact, not even 3% but 2.6%. A bee's pube of a difference.
And still not even a quarter, just like I had said lol
Take the L with grace and go pray to daddy Hitler now.
Did you fail 1st grade math? What is a quarter out of 100?
53.6+22.4 = 76% israeli
that is very israeli
Yet he is still able to embody every single disgusting trait and vice of the loathsome israelite.
So if I find degenerate art produced by "racially pure" people, does that mean that entire idea is debunked?
You seem unclear on the word could, it is even highlighted for you. You fricking moron.
The whole idea is moronic, highlight or not.
Rabbi, it's late. Shouldn't you be digging your extension or something?
rosenberg was a lolcow even within the third reich, swarthoid. you will never be white.
Every. Single. Time.
>posting that loser as some bastion of wisdom
There are going to be people quoting Zelensky the same way in 50 years, get over it man.
He saved himself by including "epic fantasies after LOTR". Still moronic since George is a fat frick with not combat experience himself.
Combat experience is irrelevant in what he's saying here.
Being a veteran doesn't mean shit, everyone did it and a lot of them didn't fight.
>from The LOTR onward
>a lot of it
It doesn't guarantee that Martin includes LOTR in his list.
I'm confused, is he wrong? Just taking LOTR as an example, the orcs/forces of sauron are completely evil. Even if a country is evil (like Japan in WW2) there are plenty of innocent victims or decent people on that side. The books don't cover the social/economic consequences of gondor losing a generation of young men, or the trauma of the survivors, or all the random merchants/tradespeople whose lives were destroyed by the war.
I genuinely don't get why IQfy deepthroats Tolkien or a lot of this fantasy stuff so much
>a country is evil (like Japan in WW2)
Lmao wat
Tolkien didn't give a shit about accurately portraying war since that wasn't his objective in any sense. His objectives were to create a mythos for England and to create a world for his invented languages to exist in. Why would Tolkien want to write about post war trauma? He lived through it twice and most who were alive were all too aware of it. It's silly to criticize someone for not writing about something they clearly had no interest in writing about.
>Tolkien didn't give a shit about accurately portraying war
Sure, but that's precisely George RR Martin's point. And honestly, seeing how far removed we (first world english speakers) are from war, maybe we need more realistic depictions of war. I see liberals calling russians invading ukraine "orcs", and some people genuinely hoping for civil war in the us. Escapism like Tolkien might be okay if you're a disillusioned WW1/2 veteran, but now it might be genuinely harmful
>It's silly to criticize someone for not writing about something they clearly had no interest in writing about.
So if I wanted to write some mediocre power fantasy novel I'm above critique since I'm not interested in writing 3-dimensional characters
>I genuinely don't get why IQfy deepthroats Tolkien or a lot of this fantasy stuff so much
Half of them are nostalgiagays, the other half are /misc/ types.
Your answer really hinges on the Silmarillion being non canon.
>Even if a country is evil (like Japan in WW2) there are plenty of innocent victims or decent people on that side.
If that were true they wouldn't have nuked Japan(thrown the ring into the fire)
None of you know ANYTHING about War. You want to know what war is? DO YOU?!?! War is an erection with no vegana to put it in. THAT'S WAR!!!! Bombs? Guns? Deadly Gasses? Pfffft... Try a persistent resistance of breasts and asses.
plap...plap...plap?
Yes, anon. Plap, plap, plap. The only machine gun fire that really matters.
Why is he presupposing that a book that includes war must *deal honestly* with the consequences of war? Maybe the war is incidental to the overarching themes. Maybe the author is seeking to use war as little more than a framing device. The idea that trauma and post traumatic stress, which is what he's referring to, *must* be dealt with in every book about war is weirdly constraining. He seems to really want to say: "every book must take a social and/or political stance on matters I consider important. War for me is very, very important so if your book is about it, you must talk about its consequences." This kind of incessant politicisation, in which everything is necessarily rendered oily and ambiguous through excessive analysis and the expression of every negative outcome, has made for poor writing and even poorer television.
Did he imply a "must"? I think it's just a simple statement of fact, most fantasy doesn't honestly talk about the consequences of violence. And after reading "the noble heros defeated the bad guy and they all loved happily ever after" 100 times I think most people would find that kind of boring
>Did he imply a "must"?
Yes. Absolutely. The tenor of the quote is very much "this is what ought to be done." Granted, he's added in redundant phrases like "to my mind" but that's George being passive aggressive.
>The tenor of the quote
new gay phrase just appeared
Sorry you have a low verbal IQ. I'll be sure to add gyatt and skull emojis to all my posts from now on so as not to scare you.
I'm just teasing you. You're a very angry gay man.
>big words gay
Maybe be less of a moron?
He indeed hails one form of storytelling as more intriguing than the other. It's not as if he is some impartial opinion giver.
>after reading "the noble heros defeated the bad guy and they all loved happily ever after" 100 times I think
Replacing this with "the noble heroes aren't so noble and got PTSD and did a bit of rape as well" is likewise getting quite boring. George is obsessed with framing because he's one of these writers that thinks everything has to have a social message. The problem isn't the way war is or isn't being dealt with. Either scenario can be good. The problem is the quality of the storytelling. And part of the reason this has taken such a dive is because people like George, implicitly or otherwise, continue to insist that a story must take a social stance.
>continue to insist that a story must take a social stance
Are there any great works that didn't take a social stance to some extent? CS Lewis's stuff was le Jesus allegory, LOTR was about a peaceful agrarian utopia resisting an industrial superpower, etc. I think your story needs to take a social/philosophical stance to avoid being mindless escapism
Tolkien despised allegory. Certain themes are going to be applicable in multiple cases, but overt allegory is didactic and makes for bad writing. Half of the shit on streaming services these days is banal propaganda thanks to the fact that writers have been conditioned into using their work as an explicit vehicle for their social agenda.
ROMANCE. IT'S ROMANCE. From LoTR onwards? More like from the medieval ages onwards (maybe some earlier but I didn't read them). (And the people writing these actually fought in real wars, strong men, unlike Martin, so how does he know?)
holy shit another seethe thread over a decade old grrm quote, all of you kys immediately
He's not wrong thoughever
this exact thread was made in both IQfy and /misc/ this week. actually this same thread gets made at least once a week in one of those boards.
>she browses /misc/
Don't reply to me again, ma'am.
half of the posts in this very thread are made by /misc/gays
Why do 80% of you Tolkien dick suckers think that being a soldier in a war or even fighting in one means SHIT when it comes to understanding the before and after?
Where the frick does any grunt get magically imbued with the knowledge of a wars sociological, econonmical and political reasons, consequences and implications?
God you dicksuckers are 200% reddits, its fricking cringe inducing. You're like fangirls but take the high road because instead of fantasizing about Taylor Swift and hanging her posters above your bed, you do it with Tolkien.
If I want to learn about the intricacies of the automotive industry and gain a deep understanding of metallurgy or whatever, I'm not gonna consult my fricking car mechanic even though he's working on cars 99% of the time.
Even more ridiculous are people who think that Tolkien did anything to portait war even as he understood it in LotR, thats even more fricking projection.
While I don't believe that Tolkien is some political expert on WW1, I am absolutely willing to believe that he knows what death, misery, shellshock, starvation and all the other horrors of war look like - NONE of them are detailed in LotR, most of them not even present. You brainlets can't just stop socking the dead man's wiener, and to make it worse, you cant even stop jerking him off about thinkgs he DIDNT write.
Sometimes I think Eminem didnt write "Stan" about his own stalkers, but about thirsty IQfygays sending cum stained letters to Tolkien.
Guess after all we're actually lucky hat DFW killed himself when he did because he certainly wouldve done so after seeing how unreflected shitters on this circlejerk gurgle his balls.
you don't understand... GRRM is evil and he subverts all things that are good and beautiful. tolkien is good and based and trad and christian and uuuoohh I'm gonna cum now
>Why do 80% of you Tolkien dick suckers think that being a soldier in a war or even fighting in one means SHIT when it comes to understanding the before and after?
Because they think going to war is going to give you the intelligence and writing ability of Ernst Jünger. That's it.
GRRM is better than Jungër
moron
waiting for someone to debunk everything this anon said
moron
Debunk what? He worded an accusation as a question, and didn't provide any evidence, just the blithe assertion that a guy fighting in a war would not necessarily understand war as a whole.
And that might be true, but do you know who definitely doesn't understand war, or government, or taxes, or finance, or anything? Anyone who would tolerate being described as a leftist. So whatever critique you could offer of Tolkien applies 10,000 times as well to Martin. What WOULD that fat homosexual know about monarchy? You know this is the game who basically chose to rewrite the War of the Roses with 1/10th of the nuance and with the principle characters all replaced by cartoon villains or noble heroes. Did nobody notice thaat the "
The absurd claim that seems to go around is that Martin's just telling it as it is, but that's not even fricking true, he took a historical event and made it into an Stars drama, and then HBO took his Stars drama and turned it into an HBO Drama and it fricking sucked, but the original was unbelievable trash too.
Based
George is a fat greedy homosexual who sold his story to two moronic cokeheads so his opinion on war, taxes or politics mean less than shit.
>What WOULD that fat homosexual know about monarchy?
He read books. That's how most books get written. For example you could say what does Tolkien know about mythology. Well, he read books about it.
>Well, he read books about it.
No, he was actually raped by Odin himself and killed monsters! He knows his stuff!
anon didnt criticize tolkien, he specifically criticized posters in this thread, you have not refuted him
What poster? He didn't quote anyone. I don't know who he's talking to.
he's literally referring to tolkiengays in general that means all the people who started seething over the quote posted in the OP for the nth time since the same shit gets posted all the time
He didn't criticize any of the posters either, he just STATED that people are mindlessly deferential to Tolkien when nobody is fricking doing that. It is not unreasonable at ALL for us to assume that Tolkien's credentials are better than Martin's, Martin himself wouldn't dare to contradict that.
Tolkien also wasn't just a soldier. He was an Anglo-Saxon scholar, that includes books on the actual wars and politics of the time. Also he read stuff like Caesar's commentaries in their original Latin because he had a classical education.
The criticism against Tolkien makes no sense. The Lord of the Rings is not a book about the consequences of war. He literally calls it a "heroic romance." Romances romanticize. It's like criticizing a piano concerto for not including the violin.
Romance in that time basically means a fantasy or adventure novel
>Romances romanticize.
???
No-one is claiming Tolkien is an expert on war. They're saying that he's more equipped to write about it as it formed a part of his lived experience. Please try a little harder at reading comprehension before flying off the handle like that again.
How have you not gotten the memo that these people are progressive moralizers almost without exception? The way you even get to be a published author let alone a published author that gets signal boosted by PR, HBO and media generally in the post-war era is by virtue signaling? How is this not so painfully obvious to you at this point?
https://youtube.com/shorts/XH_Q1OKwATc?si=ODQnBnmZx5z21yqb
he is a liberal with a shit fetish. he understands the horrors of war
you're not mad at all lmao
your*