Conan vs Lord of the Rings

[barsoomcore]

What you say may be true, but it in no way indicates that ruleslawyer is wrong.

REH is a pulp writer. There's no derogatory meaning necessarily associated with -- many fine writers are pulp writers. But there cannot be any doubt that REH is one of them.

Tolkien is, whatever else you may think of him, most definitely NOT a pulp writer. Not sure he gets into lit classes (I want to do my Masters' at THAT university) but he's not a pulp writer.

Whatever the nature of horror, whatever wars and dangers Conan may be a part of, REH is still a pulp writer.

 

[Dark Jezter]

As barsoomcore suggested, there is a different definition of good art than mere straightforward enjoyment, by which one can admit to liking particular art and still admit to the fact that there are more and less intellectually, aesthetically, and metaphorically stimulating works of art out there, above and beyond the corpus of what one "enjoys."

Then I guess that's why professional book critics and literary scholars are always in complete agreement about which books are good.

 

[Storm Raven]

Conan is a part lof the war between humanity and the odl horror, the Horror between the stars.
Old foul magic not mean`t for humanity, weher the true danger is not for life, but for the very soul.

Umm, in LotR the war is over old foul magic not meant for humanity where the true danger is not for life, but for the very soul. Did you not notice the ringwraiths? The corrupting power of the ring? The fall of Saruman and Denethor? The demonic power of Sauron?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Then I guess that's why professional book critics and literary scholars are always in complete agreement about which books are good.

Did I say that?

No, but they are in general agreement about the difference between Harlequin novels and Jane Austen. The moment you allow pure relativism to swallow any discussion of artistic sophistication, you're dispensing with the critical aesthetic altogether.

Sorry, you are wrong.
Conan is in a sort, a part of the Cthulhuversum.
An old, grim and darker world than LoTR.

REH's universe is "dark" in a Cthulhu-esque pulp sense, but it's not tragic, which is where Tolkien's more sophisticated and literate style comes in. Tolkien deals with the passing of the world as we know it, which is a truly subtle and grand vision. Every horror writer talks about "darkness"; true tragedy is a different matter.

And if you want to talk about "darkness," keep in mind that Tolkien's evil is much more persistent; it can't be banished by strong thews and a big sword. Evil is a force that destroys even the mightiest of sword-wielders in Tolkien's universe; to combat it requires wisdom, hope, trust, friendship, and kindness, and that fight is never easy. It mirrors the struggle in our own hearts, shadows that simply can't be chased away by violence. In Tolkien's universe, one's very power and might of hand and mind can be one's worst enemies, yielding prudence to the Shadow. Think of the difference between 1930s costumed hero comics and Sandman.

 

[barsoomcore]

Energy of writing is definately an important thing for me. REH's writing style positively crackles with energy. I also enjoy good story, good characters, appropriate descriptions, etc.

That's more of something we can talk about. Energy of writing -- I won't argue that over the course of his works, REH moves his stories ahead with more urgency than Tolkien always does.

I will say, however, that the energy that Tolkien generates in scenes like the fall of Theoden and Eomer's subsequent wrath is something of a whole other category of power.

Tolkien really did an incredible job of world-building ... (snip) ... Unfortunately, he has a tendency to ramble and go off on tangents. While this might give his world more depth, it really screws with the pacing of his story.

Only if you consider tangents a bad thing. Try reading Byron's Don Juan for extreme tangential writing.

Tolkien isn't ripping us along from one event to the next. Now, if you happen to like being ripped along, that's a problem. But is it a literary virtue to move plots quickly? I don't think so. I think slow, thoughtful works can be just as powerful and effective (even more so, depending on the effect desired) as lean, speedy works. Milan Kundera's Immortality isn't much of a page-turner -- but it's definitely worth reading.

What I'm saying is that you may not like slow-moving stories, but I don't know that you can argue that only fast stories are good stories.

Tolkien's stories are about the world he created.

To suggest that LotR is "about" Middle-Earth is to ignore pretty much everything that's interesting about the books. LotR is about many, many things, but chief among those are the sacrifice required to fight evil, the need for grace (that is, the need to allow the divine into your life), the all-consuming nature of selfishness and fear, the futility of secular power and a whole host of other things -- but most definitely NOT elves, dwarves and an imaginary land. If it were, it would be... well, pulp writing.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Did I say that?

No, but they are in general agreement about the difference between Harlequin novels and Jane Austen. The moment you allow pure relativism to swallow any discussion of artistic sophistication, you're dispensing with the critical aesthetic altogether.

I've already explained in this thread why I think Howard's writing style is better than Tolkien's, and not just because "it's more enjoyable."

 

[Tonguez]

And if you want to talk about "darkness," keep in mind that Tolkien's evil is much more persistent; it can't be banished by strong thews and a big sword. Evil is a force that destroys even the mightiest of sword-wielders in Tolkien's universe; to combat it requires wisdom, hope, trust, friendship, and kindness, and that fight is never easy. It mirrors the struggle in our own hearts, shadows that simply can't be chased away by violence. In Tolkien's universe, one's very power and might of hand and mind can be one's worst enemies, yielding prudence to the Shadow. Think of the difference between 1930s costumed hero comics and Sandman.

Then you have not understood the Enigma of Steel.
Conan isn't just violence - its singled minded determination, strength of spirit and Trust in ones self

 

[Iron_Chef]

Did I say that?
Think of the difference between 1930s costumed hero comics and Sandman.

I am, and the 1930s comics and hero pulps are better, IMO.

 

[sword-dancer]

Umm, in LotR the war is over old foul magic not meant for humanity where the true danger is not for life, but for the very soul. Did you not notice the ringwraiths? The corrupting power of the ring? The fall of Saruman and Denethor? The demonic power of Sauron?

And?

Sauron/Melkor are not gods demons e´whatsoever not meant for man, they are part of this world, they come not from the abyss, or the space between the stars..
They are a kind of evil, we can understand.
Melkor engineered slave creatures, seth corrupts civilized Nations.

Did I say that?

REH's universe is "dark" in a Cthulhu-esque pulp sense, but it's not tragic, which is where Tolkien's more sophisticated and literate style comes in. Tolkien deals with the passing of the world as we know it, which is a truly subtle and grand vision. Every horror writer talks about "darkness"; true tragedy is a different matter.

And if you want to talk about "darkness," keep in mind that Tolkien's evil is much more persistent; it can't be banished by strong thews and a big sword. Evil is a force that destroys even the mightiest of sword-wielders in Tolkien's universe; to combat it requires wisdom, hope, trust, friendship, and kindness, and that fight is never easy. It mirrors the struggle in our own hearts, shadows that simply can't be chased away by violence. In Tolkien's universe, one's very power and might of hand and mind can be one's worst enemies, yielding prudence to the Shadow. Think of the difference between 1930s costumed hero comics and Sandman.

Conan and the other Novels Of REH i read evil, especially the cthulesque kind of evil could be banished with a sword and skill, if the character has the valour to fight it.

 

[Mog Elffoe]

"Tastes great!"

"Less filling!"

"Tastes great!"

"Less filling!"

Seriously, why are you guys arguing this?

Robert E. Howard and J. R. R. Tolkien had very different writing styles and wrote very different kinds of stories. Stories that happen to be fantasy. That's it. Why does one *have* to be better than the other?

Can't we all just get along?