Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with...

Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template. I’m not sure that it’s a good template, though. The Tolkien model led generations of fantasy writers to produce these endless series of dark lords and their evil minions who are all very ugly and wear black clothes. But the vast majority of wars throughout history are not like that.

Dude this guy didn't give a fuck about Tolkien nor did he in any way try to emulate him.

...

Compare to...

GRRM thinks of himself as so insightful; its frustrating

Does he really believe he's the first author to realize that politics might be complicated and morality might not be black and white?

>. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question:
What were the banquets like, in exquisite vomit inducing detail?

Just let him have it. He'll be dead soon enough anyway.

He's totally right about this

Only he's not as most of grrm grievances are explained in the books (except the tax shit)

Wtf I hate Tolkien now

He's basically the only fantasy writer to do it, yes.

No he isn't, you ignorant lout.

>But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine?

GRRM doesn't do all this either, though. He tells stories like their real history, but he's oddly very quiet about a lot of political angles that aren't to do with military matters specifically. As a reader, I have no idea about what Robert's reign was like for example, other than what can be assumed obvious.

>The war that Tolkien wrote about was a war for the fate of civilization and the future of humanity, and that’s become the template.

Is this why he's writing so slowly? Because he knows he's gone and done the same thing with the white walkers, and he doesn't know how to get out of it?

Should I keep waiting for the rest of your post or are you just throwing a tantrum?

Tolkien cucks o suicide watch!

Dogshit quality of writing vs dogshit overwrought romantic sentimentality.
WOW
You don't have to approve of grrm to realise he has a point in the OP post:
Tolkien (and fantasy in general) is sappy fairy-tale moralist garbage with no bearing on reality.
With no bearing on real HUMAN EXISTENCE.

Tolkein goes into a lot of detail when it's relevant. Aragorn's reign is not relevant because that's after the end of the story. We know more about the organisation of the Shire from one chapter than we do about any of the Seven Kingdoms.

REAL HUMUS BEAN

Read more.

It's almost cute how he fails to grasp the psychological / spiritual impact of LotR and like a full blown autistic chooses to focus on the details. He might have a few insights in the details that Tolkien lacks, but why imply that Tolkien even attempted or cared about those details.

You're an idiot.

The problem is not Tolkien, who is great, but all his followers who went for the good vs evil route without ever bothering of getting good.

Howard, Lewis, Lieber are responsible for modern fantasy. Tolkien only inspired video games.

>With no bearing on real HUMAN EXISTENCE.
>art must emulate reality
xD

How can you actually find this evil vs good trite interesting?

Lewis was a hack.

A hack isn't just someone who writes things you don't like. Hackwork is commercial-oriented and Lewis doesn't fit the criteria. You don't know what words mean. Please fuck off and die.

unfortunately....

Can I ask you one question, not him but.

Have you read Tolkien? I mean on the surface it's good vs evil, that's how the powers that be are able to mobilize the masses.

Read a little deeper. But that would actually mean picking up a book, right?

The movies for the last fucking time, are nothing like the books. You cannot talk about Tolkien when the only thing you have ever SEEN which is Tolkien related is a fucking movie.

The good vs evil side of the story is secondary to the journey. The main conflict isn't interesting because it's not what's meant to interest you.

In fact, adding unnecessary details to the light/dark element of the story draws more focus there than what's needed. It obfuscates the narrative which is what GRRM loves doing.

SHITTING

Yeah, great post. Good contribution.

Fuck, what happened to Sup Forums?

BROWN

I've read it and it's a book for children, there is nothing deep in it.

that quote is why I am 100% danny is the bad guy

>baby orcs in little orc cradles
Don't think that's how orcs work in Tolkien. They're birthed fully grown.

You haven't read it, I can tell.

I doubt you can even read.

>Tolkein goes into a lot of detail when it's relevant.

Not to mention he goes obnoxiously into details sometimes, particularly when describing landscapes. You don't have to dedicate an entire page to describing a goddamn hill and road.

>Books for children can't be deep.
Kek. You literally have no idea what you are saying.

I didn't ask if you've read 'it', I asked if you've read Tolkien, which now it is evident you have not, past an attempt of The Hobbit.

No you.

>writes an unfinished TL;DR pulp series that has a TV show popular with plebs
>Thinks he is better than Tolkien who wrote the most sold book of the 20th century after the bible

>being this assblasted by the simple fact that your favorite book isn't deep
I've never implied that books for children can't be deep, it's just that particular one isn't. And quit samefaging.

As opposed to ASOIAF, which is literally edgy kid shit.
>le backstabbing political intrigue!!1! 3deep5u, much adult themes

Fantasy is a worthless genre fit only for children and imbeciles.

So again, you haven't read Tolkien past trying to read The Hobbit. Why are you trying to argue Tolkien, something which you are ignorant of?

>le samfefag when 2 randoms anons are calling you out on your bullshit

Grow a pair.

Sometimes a guy just wants to split some skulls and get a wench or two. All that is needed.

I don't think ASOIAF is deep either, i was just arguing about this statement
>Have you read Tolkien? I mean on the surface it's good vs evil, that's how the powers that be are able to mobilize the masses.
>Read a little deeper.

Art is always contained within reality, as in we experience art within the literal confines of reality, it doesn't have to imitate shit though.
It's potential is your creativity vs the confines of reality.
That being considered why make your art this simplistic moral shit when reality itself is far more grey, more interesting?
What is actually the point?
Gratification?
When you get past all the world-building specifics are fantasy writers really that unimaginative?

But you haven't read Tolkien.

I can tell you are the same person by your stupid tolkienfag argument "you don't think it's deep you must have never read it REEE!".

I sometimes wonder if old pulp writers had the right idea, before these notions of overarching stories and setting building took over.

Tolkien wasn't even close to attempting to make a "realistic" setting. Tolkien is closer to fairy tales, the message behind the Dwarves and Thorin is that the quest for material wealth can distract in the true quest for happiness and self worth. It's not an attempt to relate fantasy to actual historical squabbles.

Song of Ice and Fire is fun but in terms of philosophy and greater meaning it's a mile wide and an inch deep. Tolkien created a lore so complex and so insanely intricate that people will continue to discuss it long after we're gone.

What's this obsession with being "deep". Does reddit really believe books with grey morality are deep?
Do they believe ASOIAF is deep?

>This art is shit.
That's all you are saying, you're an idiot.

>your art this simplistic moral shit
Again, as I've asked another user, have you read Tolkien? The movies give this black and white view, if you actually read his works, you get a completely different picture.

If you can answer me why ME exists and the struggle of the third agers, put it into an actual moral perspective you will find there is nothing good or evil at all, but a clash of ideals.

It's very 'grey' (fuck I hate that word). But you would have to read to find out xD. Again, why must 'art' imitate real life, you're a literal retard. What is objectively wrong with 'ar' which portrays pure good v evil? There is nothing wrong with it past your own subjective ideology which you are trying to pass off as anything but your own subjective ideas.

tl;dr - you don't understand art.

Who cares its fantasy
If I wantes realism I would read something else

I'm sorry I triggered your autism by criticizing your not-favorite author but Hackwork/=hack. If you think Lewis was original (instead of merely put his own personal spin on familiar ideas), you need to seriously expand your readings past mere fantasy.

Honestly thought I was in pol for a moment as I read this. Not joking. Not a bad thing either.

Literally not the same person xD.

Again, why are you trying to argue Tolkien when you are completely ignorant of his writings and haven't even finished a single book? Why are you trying to posture like you know anything? Why are you focusing on the projection that I am same fag, think about it for a second, if I am not samefag, wtf are you doing. You have literally nothing.

Claim same fag all you want, you're a literal child. You are saying you can argue TOlkien, without having read Tolkien, you're an idiot.

Tolkien knew what was relevant to the story and what was not.

Does the reader needs to have 5 pages explaining Aragorn's tax policy to understand the story? No he doesn't.

That's why Tolkien managed to finish his books and GRRM will die without finishing his series.

See >reality itself is far more grey, more interesting?
Plenty of fantasy does this, though. ASOIAF being the main example given the thread.

Here, not the same poster as
But I actually haven't read it because the standards I set myself for experiencing art are higher than navigating thousands of pages of fantasy trash to obtain some "subtext" or "real meaning".

So your only argument consists of speculation that i haven't read the book and you can't actually point out what's deep in it. Have a good day redditor xD

Stop bullying the autist. He knows he's back himself into a corner

>But I actually haven't read it because the standards I set myself for experiencing art are higher than navigating thousands of pages of fantasy trash to obtain some "subtext" or "real meaning".

Kek. Best thing I've read all day.

>I don't read fantasy
>I have standards
>Sure as shit I will shit post online about it though

>back

This thread is /lit/ cancer. Mods should circumcise all posters immediately.

Kek. YOu are the one who is trying to argue a point which doesn't even appear in the books. You have literally no argument as you haven't read the books.

I mean call it speculation all you want. You would see why it's 'deep' or at least not black and white like you say it is, have you actually read it.

There is a reason why his son uses such harsh words when referring to the movies.

>you can't actually point out what's deep in it
Why does their need to be some great depth to it? Art shouldn't be a contest about who can be the most obscure and deep.

If grrm had said that after asos it might carry some weight. But after the last 2 books it carries no more weight than if some faggot user like you posted it on Sup Forums

>shut up normalfag just let me read my fantasy novels
>REEEEEE

It's mostly Sup Forums, actually. There's almost zero /lit/ input. It's just Sup Forums.

He read it in a pizza crust.

Your salt is delicious, aren't your standards too high to be shit posting online?

Didn't even think I put that much effort into triggering you.

So you can't say what's deep in it, i guess you just making shit up. I could as well tell you that GRMM books are deep and when you try to prove me wrong just accuse you for not reading it, very convenient tactic,

Not even the fag you were conversing with. I just love throwing peanuts at two monkeys fighting each other.
>REEEEEE

>i guess you just making shit up
Well you would have to. Since you haven't read it, right?

You are literally asking me to tl;dr you a high-fantasy tale which defined the whole genre for many years to come. Only so you can just run away and not reply because you are a literal moron arguing out of ignorance.

I mean, The Silmarillion is only 300 pages, you could read it in an a couple of hours. It's really not as hard as you are making it out to be.

>I'm just being retarded on purpose.
wew, they actually exist

Shut the fuck up, dummy.

>my main criteria for whether something is good or not is how deep it is
Are you actually retarded?

Wait, we were talking about LOTR not silmalirion. So, if i haven't read silmallirion i can't understand the depth of lotr? It literally means that lotrl have no depths in it, only Tolkien latest works. It's like saying that's hobbit is deep because of lotr, while it's only a fairy tale for children.

Not that guy but why did you make that post? The post you made is really fucking dumb

I rather have Tolkien describing landscapes in detail than GURM describing food in detail.

Are you fucking retarded? I only pointed out that lotr isn't deep, i didn't say that if something is not deep it's bad, read the whole fucking dialog you autist.

no he is not you are

>What is Discworld?
>What is the Witcher?
>What are a countless other fantasy series that didn't get a Hollywood movie nor an HBO series and therefore you've never heard of them but somehow you're implying you have read all of fantasy anyways?

Again, I asked if you have read Tolkien, not 'it'. Tolkien is not a single book, or 10, it's all his work, I clarified this as literally my second post with you. Go now, run away, you've been defeated, little troll.

Well at least you agree that Lotrl itself isn't deep.

Lucky there is more to tolkien than just lotr, right?

Note the autist ladies and gentlemen. Where you and me would understand simple play behavior, the autist does not. To him, everyone who is not deadly serious on this hentai heavy image board is retarded. I don't know whether to pity or hate him, but I will continue to throw peanuts at him that is for sure.
>my favorite fantasy author is better than yours
>REEEEEEE

"The Silmarillion, along with J. R. R. Tolkien's other works, forms an extensive, though incomplete, narrative that describes the universe of Eä in which are found the lands of Valinor, Beleriand, Númenor, and Middle-earth within which The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings take place."
Gee sounds fucking riveting and not at all like irrelevant self-contained world-building wank user!

Holy shit. Was not expecting that.

Have any of you guys ascended a character in NetHack without using spoilers?

>what did the humans do

Who cares. Probably something like what was actually done in the medieval times. I'm more interested in how the fuck did the orcs live. A billion orcs living in a molten rocky swamp under a volcano. What kind of infrastructure did they have in Mordor? What did they eat? I didn't see any swamp maggot farms or whatever. Where did all their war gear come from? Sure they can have a metal industry near the volcano, but I didn't any signs of it. I don't see how Mordor is economically viable.

>Gee sounds fucking riveting and not at all like irrelevant self-contained world-building wank user!

Kek, are you actually trying to justify the fact that you are trying to argue Tolkien, when you have never actually read Tolkien? You actually just quoted google, this whole argument started because you said, or someone else did, that they have read Tolkien.

Are you actually trying? Like, I don't even need to dive into Tolkien's specific works to refute you, your argument is so weak it's actually not even funny.

The entire dialogue is you requesting someone to point out the depth of LOTR, and half the thread telling you it's irrelevant. This is only an argument in the first place because you haven't read the books and you're analyzing them as though they're a text solely on good vs bad.

Did I miss anything about your autistic spasms so far?

ITT: Tolkien haters who never finished a single LOTR book vs. ASOIAF haters who never read ASOIAF and only watched some tv show episodes at best.

reading is for fags

>The entire dialogue is you requesting someone to point out the depth of LOTR, and half the thread telling you it's irrelevant.
Now you're just making shit up. Go kill yourself nigger.

Just fuck already.

homosexual intercourse is for fags