>Almost every single character is a dry, two-dimensional, cardboard cut-out with nothing but a long family tree mapped out as their characters (very characteristically british in its subservience to heirs and noble lineage)
>The plotting is extremely simplistic and straight forward with the primary motivations being "because evil!"
>The story itself is very derivative of, and a pastiche of, many previous mythological stories simply compiled into a large volume and recontextualized
Just about the only impressive things of note in these books are the fact he spent the time to create a large background history, individual languages, and the fact that every single named item, person, or place has a history, which appeals more directly to autism than it does efficient story-telling. The books come off more as someone trying to create a mythological fan-fiction than a compelling story. Also, it can't be said enough, Tolkien's writing is DRYYYYYYY...Dry, dry, dry. Good lord someone teach this man the fundamentals of poetry, because in order to be a good writer, you basically have to understand the driving focus behind poetry in order to create immersive sensations and atmosphere.
Don't give me any of that bullshit about it being written "in a different style, in a different era", because Fritz Leiber, Robert Howard, Clark Ashton Smith, and C.S. Lewis didn't have any of the problems that Tolkien had in his writings, and I'm tired of pretending they aren't there.
Why do ameriBlack folk ignore the existence of the verb "to be"?
>teach this man poetry
>every single fricking book is laddled with complex poetry
moronic non-reader. But I do agree on his characters being drywalls. The first part of TT especially illuminates this when he stops focusing on his forte of describing nature and tries his hand at political intrigue and expository dialogue.
single fricking book is laddled with complex poetry
You're making me cringe anon. None of the poems in any of his books are complex, at least not to the degree anyone who's read poetry would call "complex". Maybe to someone who's usually familiar with reading the funnies in Sunday papers, but they feature simple rhyme schemes and don't feature large or terribly intricate syllabic structures.
In fact, you're emphasizing OP's point by bringing this to attention, because Tolkien's poetry is decidedly less impressive than anything included in Where the Sidewalk Ends.
Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo!
By water, wood and hill, by the reed and willow,
By fire, sun and moon, harken now and hear us!
Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!
>rhymes Bombadillo with willow
>rhymes "near us" with " hear us"
>no double meanings
>syllabic structure is nowhere to be seen
Truly the mind of a genius.
T. Knows nothing of anglo Saxon poetry
>he wrote a mythology
>i don't understand
>why wasnt he trying to write children's books?
He was more successful than his contemporaries. Also his descriptions of the world were great. That's what people read it for anyway. The Ring was really a vehicle to move a narrative through his wonderful world.
>he wrote a mythology
>i don't understand
>why wasnt he trying to write children's books?
Your argument would be more convincing if you didn't resort to hyperbolizing a strawman.
I literally explained that he was creating a mythology. That doesn't mean the story telling it is going to be good you dumb frick.
>>why wasnt he trying to write children's books?
Ironically, Tolkien's writing appeals far more to children than it does adults, and Lord of the Rings itself was born out of a child's book, The Hobbit. Kinda shooting yourself in the foot there, aren't ya?
>more successful than his contemporaries
Debatable. Edgar Rice Burroughs was arguably more successful. Princess of Mars has been more influential in the writing of Fantasy and Sci-Fi than anything Tolkien has written.
>The Ring was really a vehicle to move a narrative through his wonderful world
the world sucks though. It feels like a fast travel map in a jrpg
>The books come off more as someone trying to create a mythological fan-fiction than a compelling story.
That basically was the point
Go to bed, Michael.
Who?
>Who?
the morewiener
>Almost every single character is a dry, two-dimensional, cardboard cut-out
This is such a modern critique of storytelling. Almost no ancient stories, especially those Tolkien was primarily influenced by, were complex and dynamic characters. Read Le Morte d'Arthur. Every character, including and perhaps especially Arthur himself, is painted in the flattest, least interesting way possible. That's because these stories weren't meant to be complex commentaries on psychological and sociological minutiae. They are about the "big picture" narrative, the actions of the characters, the struggle of good and evil, and the archetypal resonance of stories across the ages.
Are you fricking moronic? The Iliad features very interesting and depthful characters.
True, but Homer is the exception and not the rule. I think you missed my sentence:
>Almost no ancient stories, especially those Tolkien was primarily influenced by...
Tolkien was more influenced by medieval romance and Norse mythology, both of which are dominated by flat characters.
>Norse mythology
Yes. Typically very flat and dry.
>Medieval romance
>in general
No. The mythology of King Arthur stands as a pillar of character depth as each of the knights themselves have fully explored themes of testing their resolve, ambition, and loyalty.
I'm not talking about "psychological" or "sociological" implications here either, I'm talking about portraying the characters in Tolkien's books as "people". Their motivations, their desires, their conflicts. They are all really one-note and not explored in depth, with the exception being Aragorn, who is probably the most fully developed character in the entire trilogy. This could be due to the fact that Aragorn almost felt like a stand-in at times, where Tolkien was wishing he was Aragorn.
If only Tolkiens characters actually had adult sexuality he might have managed a Lancelot
>each of the knights themselves have fully explored themes of testing their resolve, ambition, and loyalty.
Wait, but isn't this exactly what we get in LOTR? Frodo's temptation and loyalty is continually tested, ultimately overcoming him in the end. Boromir succumbs to his lust for power and recognition but is ultimately redeemed by his self-sacrifice. Merry and Pippin evolve from kooky, lovable scamps to respected war veterans, and they must take on new responsibility in the shire following this transformation. Legolas and Gimli aren't super complex, but they also undergo growth and change. If the knights of the Round Table are complex, then Tolkien's characters are as well.
>Frodo's temptation and loyalty is continually tested, ultimately overcoming him in the end.
He's tempted by the ring, but only because of vague notions of power and the "will of the ring". We know virtually nothing about what drives Frodo to join the quest, and Gandalf actually has far more characterization in the films about his conflict with the ring than in any of the books or histories. Same can be said for all the other characters who are "tempted" by the ring. They're all virtuous and good, then the ring tempts them, they turn evil or resist its evil, and then turn good again.
Gollum is a perfect example. Jackson worked over-time turning him into a sympathetic character in the films, while in the books we're meant to see him as tragic but without any of the associated reasoning behind why he is tragic. He's tragic because he succumbed to the corrupting influence...That's it!
>If the knights of the Round Table are complex, then Tolkien's characters are as well.
Hasty generalization fallacy. A book containing characterization does not make it equivalent to all other books with characterization. Nobody said Tolkien's characters don't have characterization. They're saying his characterization is shallow and not very interesting. Which is true, especially for the female characters.
Even if you disagree with me, this is definitely not a hasty generalization. The poster I was responding to claimed that the Knights of the Round Table are complex characters with fleshed out stories, etc. My point was that Tolkien's characters are equally complex to those characters (which I would still say is not very complex), meaning that if that poster thinks the Knights of the Round Table are complex, he must admit that Tolkien's characters are too.
> My point was that Tolkien's characters are equally complex to those characters
>Frodo is as deep as Sir Gawain
Be honest anon, were you thinking critically when you typed this?
>This could be due to the fact that Aragorn almost felt like a stand-in at times, where Tolkien was wishing he was Aragorn.
This is a bit silly. How is he a stand-in? Just because Tolkien writes a virtuous character means he's a stand-in?
>Read Le Morte d'Arthur
Not a good example. That has the opposite problem of Tolkien. It relies too much on the characters without including enough of the setting to juxtapose everything.
I wouldn't call either styles of writing "a problem." They simple show the different priorities and purposes of each author.
>We know virtually nothing about what drives Frodo to join the quest
That's not entirely true. He accepts the responsibility given to him by Bilbo and Gandalf in "Shadows of the Past," despite wishing that the ring had never come to him. In the Council of Elrond, he volunteers the mission as a personal sacrifice, and in the final chapter of the book (I think), he says that sometimes someone must give something up so that others can keep it, referring to the Shire.
>They're all virtuous and good, then the ring tempts them, they turn evil or resist its evil, and then turn good again.
How else could you do it? What would be the alternative?
>He's tragic because he succumbed to the corrupting influence...That's it!
I don't really see why that is insufficient? He's a vile creature but is pitiable because he has been so fully devoured by his selfish desires.
>That's not entirely true. He accepts the responsibility given to him by Bilbo and Gandalf in "Shadows of the Past," despite wishing that the ring had never come to him.
There's a lot you could say and argue about sacrifice and responsibility, but the fact of the matter is that Frodo is very much a blank slate. The responsibility isn't earned, it is given. The ring didn't "come to him", it given. His "sacrifice" of "joining" the fellowship is not out of the gravity of the situation but is merely given out of Frodo's sense of belonging. Something that is given has no value, since there was no risk to the character other-wise.
>How else could you do it? What would be the alternative?
It should be alarming to you that rather than make an argument, you agree that the characters are two-dimensional.
>I don't really see why that is insufficient? He's a vile creature but is pitiable because he has been so fully devoured by his selfish desires.
He's a central character to the story. One would expect to see more of him past his creature-like nature. Again, you are agreeing that he is two-dimensional.
I’m not arguing Tolkien’s characters are complex. I’m arguing that they aren’t very complex because they are modeled after and intended to evoke genres of storytelling (mythic and chivalric) that typically do not feature complex characters.
Which ones exactly? Because I gaurantee any examples you give will have more human and compelling characters than vritually any encountered in Tolkien's writing. My point is that his source material is better than his material, and not due to any inherent advantages of being monumentally influential to the cultures at large, but right when you get into the mechanics and structure and plotting, the characters are simply better and more developed through-and-through.
Well, all the characters in Malory are pretty flat. Sir Beaumains/Gareth would be one example. Even Sir Gawain, for all the beauty of his story, is not an especially dynamic or “human” character. Another example would be Beowulf. I love the epic, but what can we really say about the character of Beowulf? He’s strong and cunning and eager for fame?
>efficient story telling
It's not a technical manual
>genreshit bad
>but not this one because i grew up with it aieeeeee!!!
frick off
pap trash
That's very true, which is why you only read Robert E. Howard (or CAS) if you're going to ESPECIALLY be reading genre fiction fantasy. Gene Wolfe is also okay to read.
Everything else, fantasy or genre fiction in that specific area wise, can be safely discarded into the garbage waste. No exceptions.
I think REH and JRRT compliment each other very well, and JRRT even commented on Howard once, saying he enjoyed his stories very much.
Howard captures the living imagination like no other fantasy author out there, able to paint a picture with words as well a photograph, making each scene feel as alive as if you were witnessing it yourself. JRRT on the other hand is able to make you "believe" the world you're reading about through the humble-ness of his style and the matter-of-factly way in which he portrays it, as if it's some long-forgotten place you could go visit.
>JRRT even commented on Howard once, saying he enjoyed his stories very much.
I have heard this for decades but never a source,
It's a quote from L Sprague De Camp, who said he had read a fantasy compilation called "Sword & Sorcerery" with a collection of various different authors. He commented that he found it interesting, but did not really like any of the stories in it. But he singled out Howard, saying he "rather liked his stories".
https://dmrbooks.com/test-blog/2019/3/13/was-tolkien-a-robert-e-howard-fan
I mean, ultimately, Howard has been shat on by a ton of pretentious writers. Tolkien saying he liked him even in passing is more of a middle finger to the snobs that shit on him than some grand vindication of him. Howard's writing speaks for itself, and it's out-lasted many of his most prominent critics.
I don't care if it's over-rated or not. It is a comfort book for me. I read it several times. I plan to start re-reading it again. It just warms me when I need it.
to minor authors is left the ornamentation of the commonplace. there is not reinvention of anything. minor readers like to see their own ideas in a pleasing disguise. - nabokov
That's just a really long way of repeating the old addage, "All the stories have already been told".
It is both a disingenuous hand-waving of one's own imaginary limits, and a forgiving of their own inadequacies of originality.
i`m reading the whole trilogy. I`m on Return to the King.
Cope and seethe Black person,it had been a very comfy read
LOTR living rent-free in OP's head romalfo
It's an admirable autistic experiment but Hobbit is better as a book.
When I see this picture, all I can think of is that /misc/ pasta about having a daughter being the highest form of cuckoldry.
You’re kidding right? Brown people love it to death.
If you hate LOTR there's legit no hope for you. Just off yourself, brownie.
>two-dimensional
kino and yes i do not need more