Tolkien infantilized world myths and added infantile elements such as goblins, dwarves, hobbits, bobbits and whatnot. He could not accept or understand pagan religion and folklore as it is. He disregarded actual myth and timeless wisdom in exchange for infantile elements (dwarves, goblins, tam bambadillo etc.).
In the European pagan system any natural object possessed not only its material characteristics, but was a manifestation of a more or less tangible idea on which it depended. The Pool was a pool, true; but also there was a nymph or water elemental whose home it was. In her turn, the pool's inhabitant was dependent on a superior kind of nymph, who was much less closely attached to any given pool, but more to pools in general.
Tolkien infantilized all of this and made them seem like some merry little creatures having teatime and biscuits and whose sole existence was dependent on being merry little woodland critters.
And thus the whole work of Tolkien is filled with miscalculations and Christian superstitious dogmatism when trying to "unlock" and "understand" folklore of ancient Europe. Then you end up with Tolkien self-inserting characteristics to elementals and inhabitants of the earth element (gnomes), who in the folklore were laborious and patient, and they become the hideous infantile dwarves of Tolkien, who are now chiefly concerned with grossness and avarice.
>Ui! Let me sing the song of my race! And then we have jolly tea and biscuits with my Bobbity-Hobbity Fellows! Bim Bom Jolly Tom! Tam Bambadello!
That's why I say that The Hobbit, which was written as children's literature, a fairy tale, is superior to LOTR, which attempted to transform those same elements, because a sequel, into myth. All of the things you mentioned works perfectly in a fairy tale, it's in myth that they become inappropriate.
I think you have completely the wrong idea about what Tolkien wanted to achieve with his writing. To me Tolkien seems like a christian, whimsical, idyllic countryside romanticism anglo. What he set out to do was to conserve that english, christian, whimsical romanticism and I think he succeeded.
> Tolkien infantilized all of this and made them seem like some merry little creatures having teatime and biscuits and whose sole existence was dependent on being merry little woodland critters.
He essentially anglicized foreign folklore
>anglo folklore is innocent and whimsical >despite anglo folklore being full of redcaps, goblins, evil creatures, etc
Typical illiterate tolkiendrone
> Tolkien infantilized all of this and made them seem like some merry little creatures having teatime and biscuits and whose sole existence was dependent on being merry little woodland critters.
He essentially anglicized foreign folklore
>he doesn't realize IQfy is one person on 500 unique IPs talking to himself
I love him.
I love him too.
Smokers deserve to die of lung cancer then smoke the devil’s wiener in hell for all eternity
wtf I love smoking now
Cigarettes are cancer. Pipes are sovl.
>Smoking is evil
>Silence on fastfood
You're not human in my eyes.
Is there fastfood in the photo?
Fatty detected
I don't care for him. Why should I?
He's your biological grandfather. Your parents have been lying to you.
Tolkien infantilized world myths and added infantile elements such as goblins, dwarves, hobbits, bobbits and whatnot. He could not accept or understand pagan religion and folklore as it is. He disregarded actual myth and timeless wisdom in exchange for infantile elements (dwarves, goblins, tam bambadillo etc.).
In the European pagan system any natural object possessed not only its material characteristics, but was a manifestation of a more or less tangible idea on which it depended. The Pool was a pool, true; but also there was a nymph or water elemental whose home it was. In her turn, the pool's inhabitant was dependent on a superior kind of nymph, who was much less closely attached to any given pool, but more to pools in general.
Tolkien infantilized all of this and made them seem like some merry little creatures having teatime and biscuits and whose sole existence was dependent on being merry little woodland critters.
And thus the whole work of Tolkien is filled with miscalculations and Christian superstitious dogmatism when trying to "unlock" and "understand" folklore of ancient Europe. Then you end up with Tolkien self-inserting characteristics to elementals and inhabitants of the earth element (gnomes), who in the folklore were laborious and patient, and they become the hideous infantile dwarves of Tolkien, who are now chiefly concerned with grossness and avarice.
>Ui! Let me sing the song of my race! And then we have jolly tea and biscuits with my Bobbity-Hobbity Fellows! Bim Bom Jolly Tom! Tam Bambadello!
That's why I say that The Hobbit, which was written as children's literature, a fairy tale, is superior to LOTR, which attempted to transform those same elements, because a sequel, into myth. All of the things you mentioned works perfectly in a fairy tale, it's in myth that they become inappropriate.
I think you have completely the wrong idea about what Tolkien wanted to achieve with his writing. To me Tolkien seems like a christian, whimsical, idyllic countryside romanticism anglo. What he set out to do was to conserve that english, christian, whimsical romanticism and I think he succeeded.
>anglo folklore is innocent and whimsical
>despite anglo folklore being full of redcaps, goblins, evil creatures, etc
Typical illiterate tolkiendrone
Disney evil
> Tolkien infantilized all of this and made them seem like some merry little creatures having teatime and biscuits and whose sole existence was dependent on being merry little woodland critters.
He essentially anglicized foreign folklore
I don't think you've actually read Tolkien.
>Tolkien infantilized all of this and made them seem like some merry little creatures having teatime and biscuits
READ
I respect him
israelites, indians and blacks have a vested interest in destroying Western authors. None occupy a higher place than Tolkien in the public eye.
Slide thread
TKD RWN