>Frick Disney, frick Shakespeare, and especially FRICK DUNE
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
>Frick Disney, frick Shakespeare, and especially FRICK DUNE
>Frick Disney, frick Shakespeare, and especially FRICK DUNE
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
is there a more overrated author?
Daily reminder that JK Rawling is still a billionaire.
>is there a more overrated author?
HP Lovecraft only has a few really good stories and the rest is just boring dreck.
Lovecraft is far from worshipped and adored. even the vast majority that still like him feel they have to explain their fandom by bringing up and condemning his personal beliefs.
I like Lovecraft BECAUSE of his personal beliefs
>88
he has a point
Personally, I heil Hitler.
Do you guys know what Lovecraft called his cat?
he writes poor prose, but makes up for it with interesting ideas of horror and mythology
Lovecraft's prose varies from story to story, there's a posthumous Lovecraft novel I read recently that had really beautiful language but then there's others that are kind of clunky
Bro, that's about autistic people in context, which I am guessing we are all. Tolkien's only black character will always be a bad guy
Rowling and Lovecraft are fun to read, Tolkien is a pain in the ass to read and people only like him for his worldbuilding.
skill issue
Tolkien is actually entertaining. Rowling is garbage.
Lovecraft is really good if you’re in for the ride.
A take completely bereft of any soul. Be better.
Lovecraft is NOT fun to read. It’s bizarre how he writes like an 1880’s author while his contemporaries like Robert E Howard wrote entertainingly and flow well even today.
Lovecrafts ideas and concepts for stories are cool as hell but by no means is his writing fun to read
The 1800s verbosity is fun, in a riding a pennyfarthing sort of way. It puts you in the era very well.
>Tolkien is a pain in the ass to read
Thanks for informing everyone you're a low IQ brown clown.
"In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face.
All save one. There waiting, silent and still in the space before the Gate, sat Gandalf upon Shadowfax: Shadowfax who alone among the free horses of the earth endured the terror, unmoving, steadfast as a graven image in Rath Dínen.
"You cannot enter here," said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. "Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and your Master. Go!"
The Black Rider flung back his hood, and behold! he had a kingly crown; and yet upon no head visible was it set. The red fires shone between it and the mantled shoulders vast and dark. From a mouth unseen there came a deadly laughter.
"Old fool!" he said. "Old fool! This is my hour. Do you not know Death when you see it? Die now and curse in vain!" And with that he lifted high his sword and flames ran down the blade.
Gandalf did not move. And in that very moment, away behind in some courtyard of the city, a wiener crowed."
Vs.
"It was Quirrell.
“You!” gasped Harry.
Quirrell smiled. His face wasn’t twitching at all.
“Me,” he said calmly. “I wondered whether I’d be meeting you here, Potter.”
“But I thought – Snape –”
“Severus?” Quirrell laughed, and it wasn’t his usual quivering treble, either, but cold and sharp. “Yes, Severus does seem the type, doesn’t he? So useful to have him swooping around like an overgrown bat. Next to him, who would suspect p-p-poor, st-stuttering Professor Quirrell?”
Harry couldn’t take it in. This couldn’t be true, it couldn’t."
the former is indeed a pain in the ass to read if you have a middle school reading level
and that JKR is not posting on Cinemaphile.
Who do you think it is that makes all the troll posts against transvestites?
ao.
my bad.
welcome, girl.
Well the gloves are high quality.
>is there a more overrated author?
Disney, Shakespeare and especially FRANK HERBERT.
Yes.
fat cliffhanger writing hack
Is there anything more brown than anti-Tolkien seething?
fpbp
Wait, people actually think Martin is deep?
>"Ten thousand of your children perished in my palm, Your Grace. Whilst you snored, I would lick your sons off my face and fingers one by one, all pale sticky princes. You claimed your rights, my lord, but in the darkness I would eat your heirs."
>"Her loins ached from the urgency of his love making. It was a good ache."
>"Was there ever a woman with nipples so large or so responsive? He could hardly look at them without wanting to grab them, to suckle them until they were hard and wet and shiny"
>"Ser Alliser Thorne walked from the room so stiffly it looked as though he had a dagger up his butt".
>"The ship groaned and growled beneath him like a constipated fat man straining to shit."
>"The three men were erect. The sight of their arousal was arousing."
>"She was sopping wet when he entered her. “Damn you,” she said. “Damn you damn you damn you.” He sucked her nipples till she cried out half in pain and half in pleasure. Her c**t became the world."
>"HER c**t BECAME THE WORLD."
>"And suddenly his wiener was out, jutting upward from his breeches like a fat pink mast."
>"Men call me Darkstar, and I am of the night."
>"Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up she was shitting brown water. The more she drank, the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew."
>Her c**t became the world. She forgot Moat Cailin and Ramsay Bolton and his little piece of skin, forgot the kingsmoot, forgot her failure, forgot her exile and her enemies and her husband. Only his hands mattered, only his mouth, only his arms around her, his wiener inside her. He fricked her till she screamed, and then again until she wept, before he finally spent his seed inside her womb."
martin's problem is that it has too much sex
tolkien's problem is that it lacks sex/romance
martin's problem is that he is
>a cumbrain
>an obese landwhale
>a sadist who gets off to the idea of cutting dicks off
>possibly a pedophile, based on the Arya chapters
>tolkien's problem is that it lacks sex/romance
>t. hasn't read Children of Hurin or Fall of Gondolin
>acktually!!!!!
lol
>revels in its own ignorance
lol
dude, you're the one being a fanboy about a series of books about walking talking trees
>makes dumb claim
>gets effortlessly refuted
>resorts to non sequitur
lol
>makes dumb claim
>gets effortlessly refuted
>resorts to non sequitur
>lol
seek help redditor
>resorting to soijaks
How brown are you?
>brown redditor keeps yapping
>n-no u!
No self-respecting white man hates Tolkien, Paco.
Some marxist gaygits do. I once read à reddit post by some british leftoid butthole who blasted Tolkien, his books and those who apprecaite it
>no SELF RESPECTING white man.
I stand corrected
Anyway the fedoraredditor I was speaking about was really an insufferable arsehole. He was absoutely disrepectful of Professor Tolkien and religious people in general in a way that I found odious. I had half a mind of tracking down his account and find his identity to doxx him on Facebook or something. A shame I suck at informatics (other than browsing the Internet) and I had no idea how to do it. I din't lack the will though.
Out of curiosity can you post the link to the reddit thread where you read these comments
or the butthole's handle ?
it's that one
https://www.reddit.com/r/brokehugs/comments/ofhzl0/righteous_catholics_declare_keep_nudity_and_the/
and the homosexual is
https://www.reddit.com/user/tokynambu/
>what is postmodernism.
moron. Evil is very on sided.It's biblical. Lucifer wanted to be God, thus became evil. Doesn't matter why.
If you scrutinize the root of evil enough, you'll get to MAP territory, "pedos are actually normal people", they are not inherently evil or perverse, they are just complex characters!"
You're supposed to think about things, anon. The inconvenient fact is that there is no canonical interpretation of reality. You have to make the case for your interpretation, and it has to withstand those of others.
And of the few people who can be killed without need for further justification, those who say "I don't care if your interpretation debunks mine, I'll use force to get my way regardless" top the list. Absolutely expendable, fair-game outlaws.
George "her c**t became the world" Martin.
Like it or not he's the final boss of fantasy literature and fantasy in general.
steven king and george martin off the top of my head
CS Lewis is an even edgier take. Hopefully Greta Gerwig's Narnia is good so people can say that and someone will understand.
interesting nose
Is he the first old person you've ever seen?
do you really enjoy being skinned alive shitskin?
after I am done skinning your prostitute mother I will come for you cuck
and now, a message from the National Apple Growers Institute -
Tolkien shitting on CS Lewis and Herbert really makes me like him less
when did he shit on lewis?
Wtf did everyone forget the Tolkien recommended authors? I have been reading Dunsany and am onto Will Morris next, these guys are good.
He mostly just bantered with CS Lewis by pointing out where his story had plotholes. The men had a deep respect for each other
His dislike of Shakespeare is also heavily exaggerated, he just felt that his portrayals of elves and mental illness were a bit saccharine as a folklorist with PTSD
Tolkien read Herbert completely wrong
>Tolkien read Herbert completely wrong
And how did he read him?
With his eyes closed, the old fart.
Even back then chuds lacked media literacy, sweeties
>Tolkien: muh childish goode vs ebil with zero complexity
>Herbert: highly nuanced and complex view of humans and their motivations
of course Tolkien didn't like Herbert, Tolkien was a 3-year-old who simply had good vocabulary and grammar
Ontological good and evil exist
sure it does, buddy
now go back to sucking on your pacifier
Go back to r/atheism
atheism is simply an objective fact of reality
imagine believing in moronic fairy tales for adults invented by desert people some thousands of years ago to enslave each other
you really need to go back troon subhuman
You have such brainlet takes on religion that I can practically smell the odor of that subreddit from where I am
psychos who act irrationally evil exist, but not to such an extent that it reflects the overall nature of mankind in any interesting way. good and evil is usually based on a conflict of interest. nowadays it's most apparent in how both leftists and right wingers call themselves good, while the opposite side is evil.
Tolkien wasn’t setting out to write a nuanced story, he wanted to write an epic in the vein of Beowulf or Sigfried and he succeeded handily. Tolkien only seems to have lost his luster in recent years because the cultural context of his stories are no longer assumed for the reading audience. Basically, we’ve got too brown and globalist for Tolkien.
Humans aren't nuanced though. They're stupid and simple
not even remotely true
humans are extremely complex
I've met a lot of them, and I'll tell you it's both
that's true
>pink fat mast is 2deep4u
>Daily reminder Martin self-inserted in Samwise and wanted a sex scene with him and Rosie
>Daily reminder he wanted it so bad he made an expy of Samwise in Samwell and described his dick
At least fap to the elves and not the hobbits
lmao at this fanboy seething
I like how he doesn't even realize the implications of his statement. If everything is driven by sex, then there really is no such thing as "noble deeds" that are done out of good will (for their own sake). There is always some ulterior motive. It's funny because people like him also get really angry at incels or "nice guys" because they are apperantly only being nice with the goal of having sex in mind.
see this and you'll understand, the last paragraph
I still don't understand it. I doubt GRRM does
>I still don't understand it
because you're a moron with double digits iq
ok? What is it that you want me to understand?
most of his characters are boys who larp as men, hence the lack of sex or relationships with women, in a supposedly "epic" story
ok. But I was talking about GRRM and his statement about sex as a determinant factor. Are you moronic?
We understand that your bait is 2/10 and you use reddit spacing
>you can’t imagine the hobbits having sex can you?
The absurd fixation anons have with whether Rosie was a virgin or not would seem a tad contradictory George.
We have no idea. All we know is that he disliked it. He doesn’t elaborate in his notes. Maybe he just thought the prose was bad.
To be fair the prose in Dune is pretty bad. He keeps alternating between first person and third person and he does this for multiple characters at a time. It's not that great to read. His ideas are fun though.
>NOT SO FAST
I never got why Miyazaki hated Tolkien, they more or less had the same problems with industrialization. Both have a love for the natural world.
And no, Tolkien never intended orcs to be black people. That's a mistake that both Miyazaki and moronic leftists got wrong.
>I never got why Miyazaki hated Tolkien
Miyazaki has issues with Tolkien's usage of violence, being a pacifist and all. While Tolkien is no warmonger, his characters see no problem in using violence even if in defensive manners, which for Miyazaki still results in the dehumanizing of the "other" side. Doubly so in the movies where the battles are spectacularized.
I'm not well versed in miyazaki's beliefs, but doesn't nausicaa kill a few soldiers in her father's bedroom? Do you have an interview or something where he talks about this I could check out?
https://kotaku.com/hayao-miyazaki-seems-to-hate-lord-of-the-rings-indiana-1833458496
I know, Kotaku, but they refer to nip websites. The interview where he comments on LotR and Indiana Jones was apparently on some paper nip magazine that the nip websites scanned.
Thanks
Yes, and the male kills several people as well. Miyazaki is just an old fricking fruit. It's fine when he does it. I love that people take him seriously.
>Miyazaki has issues with Tolkien's usage of violence, being a pacifist and all
It's more likely that he actually had an issue with the movie's use of violence. The violence in the books is not that pronounced as in the movies. I doubt Miyazaki has actually read the books. Hell, Studio Ghibli would probably make an excellent LOTR animated movie.
Just like Miyazaki characters or we have to forget about Nausica or Porco Rosso?
Tolkien blows the royalty and believes plebs should not be in equal grounds with royalty, which he sees superior, also, he obviously hates muslims. Miyazaki is just being a normal person while Tolkien has such an admiration for royalty that if he was still alive and writing his heroes would have hot dog fingers saying that's gift from Eru or whatever his fictional gods are. See this inbred? That's Aragorn for you.
pipe down achmed
he hated him because he's a moronic jap with oriental slave morality
Miyazaki sees fixation with honorable battle as a symptom of western imperial attitudes that he despises, despite the fact that Japan was a literal imperial warmongering nation that committed the most famous mass rape in history. But it’s the west that is obsessed with violence and putting others beneath them.
Miyazaki doesn't like imperial Japan either.
Because they frickin lost and he’s embarrassed. Look at his plain movie, he’s as bad as a “lost cause” southerner who’s just pretending he was always on the right side of history when he’s being interviewed.
Plane movie goddamnit this thread is making me even more moronic
The South were the good guys.
Losing WW2 really mindbroke a lot of japs. Can't really blame them.
because he is moronic pagancuck
>frick Shakespeare
Would if I could, anon. Would if I could ...
>Tolkien makes a benign criticism about satyrs being degenerate sex pests in greek mythology
>Lewis rapes Tolkien's eldest son in revenge
who was in the wrong here?
You have no proof of that
Never confirmed, but the lifelong bachelor that only got married in his '50s seems the most likely candidate 2bh
Lewis was in a long term relationship with an older woman when he was a young man.
>Victim
>recording him telling his story of his own abuse
I don't know the context but its so weird when the so-called rape victim feels comfortable sitting in a room with their rapist and talking to them
I wonder if its one of the fake accusations that people do to get money out of an older person they had a inappropriate relationship with
>a priest himsefl accused of abused
At what point does the catholic church start rethinking their whole celibacy policy. Because its obviously attracting a weird crowd. From what i read it was even started for political reasons more than anything smd it was hundreds of year after the church started.
Fun fact, he didn't named his cat that. He was given that cat with the name, he really loved the cat and was sad when he lost it, the cat left one day and never came back. Also he had it very early in his life, when he was 16 or so. Someone fact check me on this.
My only real engagement with his work is the movies, which i think are a little overrated. Especially the first one which has a kind of boring middle where they just walk and walk. Also yes the eagles are a plot hole, as much as people deny it. Its not about the eagles taking them to their destination, but more about the fact that the eagles never helped them at all, there are multiple times the eagles would have been usefull and safe to use.
Lewis was Protestant. Why do midwits never think before posting so confidently?
Im talking about the priest anon
>"how's this for sentementalizing and distorting"
So that's why he converted to popery, huh
>frick Shakespeare
did he really say that?
he said he didn't like Macbeth because the trees that move at the end aren't actually trees coming to life and moving like in the Two Towers
AND FRICK HITLER! (but also, non-white people are ugly and inferior)
Was there any contemporary literature he DID like or did he only like old myths?
He liked Conan the Barbarian.
>“[Tolkien] said he found [the anthology] interesting but did not much like the stories in it [...] We sat in the garage for a couple of hours, smoking pipes, drinking beer, and talking about a variety of things. Practically anything in English literature, from Beowulf down, Tolkien had read and could talk intelligently about. He indicated that he ‘rather liked’ Howard’s Conan stories.”
Source ?
Incredibly based if true, the Conan stories surpass all other pulp fiction to this day
That's extremely high praise coming from a British author to an American one.
Based, but also not that surprising. The stories of Conan have a way of scratching at those eternal truths from a blood and steel perspective.
He read and enjoyed ER Eddison's Zimiamvian Trilogy I believe
Why would he?
Tolkien literally invented good fiction.
He liked Asimov and E.R. Eddison though he thought that his philosophy was morally wrong.
Also Mary Renault we whom he exchanged letters.
https://dmrbooks.com/test-blog/2019/3/13/was-tolkien-a-robert-e-howard-fan
>we whom
meant with whom sorry
>E.R. Eddison though he thought that his philosophy was morally wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._R._Eddison
>His early works of high fantasy drew both praise and criticism from the Inkling J. R. R. Tolkien, who stated that he read Eddison "with great enjoyment for their sheer literary merit", but "disliked his characters" and found his "evil and indeed silly 'philosophy'" tending to "arrogance and cruelty".[5] He was praised, too, by C. S. Lewis
>Tolkien generally approved of Eddison's literary style, but found the underlying philosophy unpleasant and unattractive; while Eddison in turn thought Tolkien's views "soft".
>The books exhibit a thoroughly aristocratic sensibility; heroes and villains alike maintain an Olympian indifference to convention. Fellow fantasy author Michael Moorwiener wrote that Eddison's characters, particularly his villains, are more vivid than Tolkien's.[13] Others have observed that while it is historically accurate to depict the great of the world trampling on the lower classes, Eddison's characters often treat their subjects with arrogance and insolence, and this is depicted as part of their greatness.[14] Indeed, at the end of The Worm Ouroboros, the heroes, finding peace dull, pray for – and get – the revival of their enemies, so that they may go and fight them again.[15] The historian of fantasy Brian Attebery notes that "Eddison's fantasies uphold a code that is unabashedly Nietzschean; had he written after World War II, his enthusiasm for supermen and heroic conflict might perhaps have been tempered".
What the frick was this guy's problem ?
Juvenile view of “superior” beings as indifferent tyrants, the way a child views their parents during adolescence or very early youth.
Actual aristocratic warrior types like Beowulf, Siegfried, Clovis, Harald, Alaric, Jugurtha, Agesilaus II, and even some modern types like Florian Geyer and Jan Sziska all had a soft spot for the weak and downtrodden.
Often such men were mature and noble and thus were generous and kind and ruled with love and dignity like a paternalistic jovial larger than life Olympian king.
Of course that attention prostitute Moorwiener thought he was cool.
>though he thought that his philosophy was morally wrong.
whose? Eddison? What kind of "philosophy" did Eddison even have? The worm Ouroboros is literally just an amalgamation of a bunch of moments from Icelandic Sagas
He liked William Morris, Eddison and Dunsany, I think he also like Conan the Barbarian
Interesting. I think maybe if Miyazaki and Tolkien met and discussed philosophy they would actually like each other
he was a Black person enjoyer
That's a betrayal of Tolkien
They're so obsessed with diversity and inclusion they even added an orc
you know you will hang like a troon right?
what's a troon?
you and your cuck parents, who will hang very soon.
It's a slur for transgender people and particulary transwomen
the stairs in the background is the only thing in this still that is not awful.
did they really say that in the show? hard to believe. What fricking hacks.
>Ginger Black person hobbit with reverse-vitiligo
kek
he had not time for the modernists and they no time for him. that is to his credit imo
Frick all of these in particular.
What would have Tolkien thought about WHFB/AoS/40k novels ?
>Abnett
I've never seen someone crashing in literary quality as Dan; all gis books after Unremembered Empire were utter shit.
Why did he hate Black Knight so much?
Tolkien had such shit opinions sometimes
What did he think of Tolkien?
If Tolkien were alive today he would pan the Peter Jackson trilogy for being superficial and pedestrian. He would praise Rings of Power for its creativity and boldness.
Impossible, he was a conservative.
gr8 b8 M8
Your book is still with the biggest plotholes in entertainment history, John
Muh why no eagles
>muh plot holes
>He wants a feathery overlord, predatory and American
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:
>One day when the sun had come back over the forest, bringing with it the scent of May, and all the streams of the Forest were tinkling happily to find themselves their own pretty shape again, and the little pools lay dreaming of the life they had seen and the big things they had done, and in the warmth and quiet of the Forest the cuckoo was trying over his voice carefully and listening to see if he liked it, and wood-pigeons were complaining gently to themselves in their lazy comfortable way that it was the other fellow's fault, but it didn't matter very much; on such a day as this Christopher Robin whistled in a special way he had, and Owl came flying out of the Hundred Acre Wood to see what was wanted.
>Winnie-the-Pooh, 1926
It is the predominant tone of The Lord of the Rings and Watership Down and it is the main reason why these books, like many similar ones in the past, are successful. It is the tone of many forgotten British and American bestsellers, well-remembered children's books, like The Wind in the Willows, you often hear it in regional fiction addressed to a local audience, or, in a more sophisticated form, James Barrie (Dear Brutus, Mary Rose and, of course, Peter Pan). Unlike the tone of E.Nesbit (Five Children and It etc.), Richmal Crompton (the 'William' books) Terry Pratchett or the redoubtable J.K.Rowling, it is sentimental, slightly distanced, often wistful, a trifle retrospective; it contains little wit and much whimsy. The humour is often unconscious because, as with Tolkien, the authors take words seriously but without pleasure.
Tolkien does, admittedly, rise above this sort of thing on occasions, in some key scenes, but often such a scene will be ruined by ghastly verse and it is remarkable how frequently he will draw back from the implications of the subject matter. Like Chesterton, and other orthodox Christian writers who substituted faith for artistic rigour he sees the petit bourgeoisie, the honest artisans and peasants, as the bulwark against Chaos. These people are always sentimentalized in such fiction because traditionally, they are always the last to complain about any deficiencies in the social status quo. They are a type familiar to anyone who ever watched an English film of the thirties and forties, particularly a war-film, where they represented solid good sense opposed to a perverted intellectualism.
In many ways The Lord of the Rings is, if not exactly anti-romantic, an anti-romance. Tolkien, and his fellow "Inklings" (the dons who met in Lewis's Oxford rooms to read their work in progress to one another), had extraordinarily ambiguous attitudes towards Romance (and just about everything else), which is doubtless why his trilogy has so many confused moments when the tension flags completely. But he could, at his best, produce prose much better than that of his Oxford contemporaries who perhaps lacked his respect for middle-English poetry. He claimed that his work was primarily linguistic in its original conception, that there were no symbols or allegories to be found in it, but his beliefs permeate the book as thoroughly as they do the books of Charles Williams and C. S. Lewis, who, consciously or unconsciously, promoted their orthodox Toryism in everything they wrote. While there is an argument for the reactionary nature of the books, they are certainly deeply conservative and strongly anti-urban, which is what leads some to associate them with a kind of Wagnerish hitlerism. I don't think these books are 'fascist', but they certainly don't exactly argue with the 18th century enlightened Toryism with which the English comfort themselves so frequently in these upsetting times. They don't ask any questions of white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us.
I've read everything in this chain w/e wrote this seems schizophrenic to be fair.
>white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us.
White men do have a handle on what's best. That it's "somehow" to this writer only speaks to his ignorance, sheltered by the sweat and blood of the White men handling the real world for xer.
Frick you Tolkien's verse is extremely tight. Whenever one of his character's goes into exposition, especially in-world history, it reaches KJV craftsmanship. And then Frodo pens a song about the death of Gandalf that can move a man to tears.
>petit bourgeoisie
>peasants
huh?
He's terminally marxist. There's no hope for him but trepanation or euthanasia
You don't get fiction like this anymore because most people live in developed urban town/cities, the countryside has less biodiversity than 100 years ago, and every river in Britain is teeming with raw sewage.
These conditions, along with cultural imperialism from the world's hegemon, encourage writing that's more in line with modern American cynicism.
You copied that from Moorwiener or China Mieville ?
>muh middle-class are bad because they won't support our revolution
>that's why the christian writers praise them
How about he actually genuinely loved the people among whom he grew up and he wanted to pay them homage ?
I think you came to the wrong thread comrade
Also three cheers for Thatcher and her legacy
>watership down is comforting
What a truly gay sentiment. I’ll grant you that the Hundred Acre Wood stories, like The Sword in the Stone or many other books of its kind, were written for children so they have a childlike tone. But the rest of this was written by a prim little atheist who ends up meeting a woman and converting to Roman Catholicism if he’s lucky. He had no convictions to begin with, only the good or ill fortune to share in the convictions of those around him.
friends do not lie to you, sorry to break it to you buddy you've been abused
I suppose I respond so antipathetically to Lewis and Tolkien because I find this sort of consolatory orthodoxy as distasteful as any other self-serving misanthropic doctrine. One should perhaps feel some sympathy for the nervousness occasionally revealed beneath their thick layers of stuffy self-satisfaction, typical of the second-rate schoolmaster so cheerfully mocked by Peake and Rowling, but sympathy is hard to sustain in the teeth of their hidden aggression which is so often accompanied by a deep-rooted hypocrisy. Their theories dignify the mood of a disenchanted and thoroughly discredited section of the repressed English middle-class too afraid, even as it falls, to make any sort of direct complaint ("They kicked us out of Rhodesia, you know"), least of all to the Higher Authority, their Tory God who has evidently failed them.
It was best-selling novelists, like Warwick Deeping (Sorrell and Son), who, after the First World War, adapted the sentimental myths (particularly the myth of Sacrifice) which had made war bearable (and helped ensure that we should be able to bear further wars), providing us with the wretched ethic of passive "decency" and selfsacrifice, by means of which we British were able to console ourselves in our moral apathy (even Buchan paused in his anti-Semitic diatribes to provide a few of these).
Moderation was the rule and it is moderation which ruins Tolkien's fantasy and causes it to fail as a genuine romance, let alone an epic. 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 confirmation of the values of a declining nation with a morally bankrupt class whose cowardly self-protection is primarily responsible for the problems England answered with the ruthless logic of Thatcherism. Humanity was derided and marginalised. Sentimentality became the acceptable subsitute. So few people seem to be able to tell the difference.
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 "restraint" (pastel colours, murmured protest) and "civilized" behaviour means "conventional behaviour 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 (never really defined), 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.
>After all, anyone who hates hobbits can't be all bad.
God what a juvenile homosexual Moorwiener was. If I wanted to read the whiny self-loathing of the English middle-class I'd pick up the Guardian.
Does Moorwiener ever realise that the Iliad is actually not once villifying war and social classes but is at each and every page glorifying the deeds of the powerful as divinely sanctioned and therefore good?
>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.
Did More-wiener just skip the whole scouring of the Shire or something?
Moorwiener-sucker is as much a homosexual as his buddy Pullman
Evil smoker israelite worshipping piece of shit
streetshitteing troony worshipper like you will not see end times cuck
the sjw bible is tolkien's legendarium, tolkien's shitty fantasy goes hand in hand with sjw chaotic ideology, they're both of the same cloth
hence why current sjws don't have a problem integrating tolkien's fantasy into their own fantasy
>Edmund Wilson
notice how most of his critics are marxists/leftists
Today they try to appropriate his work since it proved to be so popular but at the time they had nothing but contempt for it
Frick this fat creepy midwit
Nothing wrong with liking women, homosexual.
GRRM is a pedo. His Sansa and Arya chapters, plus the early Dany chapters are extremely creepy to read when you know a 60-year old wrote them.
Depicting pedophilia, or the sexual aspects of minors, in a work of fiction, is not pedophilia.
It is when you can tell just by reading it the author had a boner writing it
You can never tell that.
>He hasn't spent years honing his autism into psychic powers that can detect the thoughts of people from the past
Ngmi
>It seemed as if hours passed before his hands finally went to her breasts. He stroked the soft skin underneath until it tingled. He circled her nipples with his thumbs, pinched them between thumb and forefinger, then began to pull at her, very lightly at first, then more insistently, until her nipples stiffened and began to ache.
>He stopped then, and drew her down onto his lap. Dany was flushed and breathless, her heart fluttering in her chest. He cupped her face in his huge hands and looked into his eyes. “No?” he said, and she knew it was a question.
>She took his hand and moved it down to the wetness between her thighs. “Yes,” she whispered as she put his finger inside her.
Neat.
You've clearly not read much older stories like the Sagas. In the Sagas, a character is not properly introduced unless you've traced his ancestry back to Sigurd Fafnir's Bane
It's really hard to figure out just what on earth "protofeminist" even means. I've heard people say that Tolkien was in fact anything but because all the women he wrote are too traditional and complicit in their oppression or whatever whereas E.R Eddison wrote women "well" because all the female characters in his books are manipulative witches who goad their men into killing themselves for ulterior motives.
He literally complained that women were coming to Mass in pants and without veils after Vatican II
lol there are more horses with names than women in LOTR
>anime avatar
Every time
you're not a cute little girl
>I KNEEL
damn
My homie knew about Stoya
tolkien was an old fart who likes to larp, he's a pleb compared to Richard Wagner
All I got from Wagner is that the old norse Gods were fricking moronic morons.
stick to capeshit
I won't. But the Nibelungen was pretty much the marvel of the late 1800s.
I'll pass on listening to the same two notes played over and over again
That was Jackson's shit though, not Tolkien's
Do people actually believe in "moral greyness"? Like, do they think a character can be "grey" if he kills and tortures old people while saying "black lives matter" or something?
It's just midway pretension. In any case, the Mountain or Ramsay Bolton are 10x more cartoonishly evil then any orc
*midwit
So according to the wojak posters any work of fiction that features moral conflict or opposing sides with opposing philosophies is inherently soi because the viewer will take a side and that side is soi and counter balances the other thing that isnt soi and you cant enjoy anything because youre... onions if you do? What point am I supposed to get out of this? All media is bad, because Marvel movies have humor and fiction includes humor... and marvel isnt cool so...?
>all media is bad
closer
But how can one have the opinion all media is bad on a gathering of discussion where the premise is that we enjoy watching television and film
I still can't believe McLuhan isn't on print in my country. I know the junta banned his books, but no one ever tried to publish this guy here.
What does he say that makes the establishment afraid?
he had the inner power, same as tolkien and many others. makes ppl seethe
>dude walking trees lmao
"high art" according to these stupid redditors
You could have at least used the correct font, lazy moron.
>dude walking trees lmao
The Ents were only shown twice in the Silmarillion. You should have used a better pic (like the lotr books, or just the Two Towers).
>frick Shakespeare
He loved Shakespeare, wdym? The Ents attacking Saruman are basically a Macbeth reference.
he would have changed his mind if he survived to read children and god-emperor
So like whats up with that weird part where Aragorn borderline cheats on his girlfriend? That shit was weird and the movie portrays as a cute little romance story. Its so bizarre.
Hackson exaggerated that shit to create romantic drama.
The original draft had Eowyn and Aragorn Marrying but he cut Glorfindel out of the fellowship for being too powerful and lowering tensions and added legolas and powered up Aragorn from a character named trotter. .
>Frick Shakespeare
FRICK YOU
Tolkien loved Shakespeare though. OP is a Black person and a moron.
You have a quote that proves his love for the Bard ? He disliked his interpretation of Elves and old british myths, that's for sure
>To be dissolved, or to be degraded, is the likely fate of Fantasy when a dramatist tries to use it, even such a dramatist as Shakespeare.
So at the very least he respected Shakespeare as a dramatist.
Thanks
Regular white people don't hate Tolkien, only deranged leftists do.
You're the one who hates Tolkien irrationally, Juan.
>You're the one who hates Tolkien irrationally, Juan.
You cannot possibly convince anyone that you hate Tolkien AND you're white. How does it even feel to degrade your own skin color with each reaction picture you post, Miguel?
>You cannot possibly convince anyone that you hate Tolkien AND you're white. How does it even feel to degrade your own skin color with each reaction picture you post, Miguel?
Degrade yourself even more, why don't you? Post another selfie while quoting me like a dumb Hispanic.
homosexual Black person latinx arab asiatic poster
Regular white people dont really have an opinion of Tolkien anon. Its 2024, most people probably dont even know the movies were books first, that's if they even seen the movies
>roman empire
> directed by a femoid
I'll pass on that.
>FRICK YOU, SIR!
uh oh brown meltdown
Trying to read Fellowship rn and it's such a fricking horrendous drag. Vastly inferior to the Silmarillion(which is great) and even the Hobbit(which is very mid), what happened? How does anyone actually sit down and sift through it when 80% of the book is moronic fluff about frodo walking in the woods?
The Old Forest and Barrow Downs are kino, get filtered. Tom Bombadil is gonna kick ur ass
Cope you could cut half the book and nothing would be lost of value. Jackson was right.
Peak midwit right here. The first half of the Lotr is the coming of age story necessary for the character development of the hobbits that allows them to do any of the great deeds they would later go on to do. In fact, the Witch King wouldn't be dead were it not for the Hobbits taking swords from the Barrow Wights
if you dont like all the songs ur a fake fan
All Muh Eagles posters btfo
Source ?
I thought the LOTR movies were fun but couldn't get into the books at all. Sane for Dune
Imagine if Tolkien wrote Dune
>HOUSE ATREIDES CALLS FOR AID!
>AND THE FREMEN.... WILL NOT ANSWER ;^)
He never said that.