Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8347975" data-attributes="member: 5142">I like Tolkien's elves or at least the Noldor; however, (1) I think that a lot of his imitators failed to see that the elves of the 3rd Age were flawed elves who had been humbled by the repeated failures borne from their hubris. A large part of that admittedly comes from the Silmarillion. And (2) despite Tolkien's massive love for his elves, it's pretty clear that he had a higher opinion about humans in his work. So we mostly get the shallow imitations of Tolkien's elves that exist for the sake of having elves and only rarely do we get more interesting takes like Moorcock's Melniboneans or Eberron's death elves.I agree, but sometimes people don't realize how many fairly famous and now well-regarded novels actually came out of pulp or serialized publications rather than fully-hatched as a complete novel. I would almost compare it with the number of big name Hollywood directors that got their start working on B movies or with Roger Corman.One of the things that I love about S&amp;S - about Weird Tales and the like - is the weirdness of it. These are stories that often lack polish or some grand carefully-crafted world-building. A bunch of S&amp;S authors seemed to throw around a lot of weird stuff into their worlds. It didn't care about this imaginary divide between fantasy vs. science fiction. Here are robots and Cthulhoid monsters side-by-side in this fantasy story with wizards. I loved that weird '80s science fantasy as a kid (e.g., He-Man, Thundarr, Visionaries, Thundercats, Star Wars, Heavy Metal, etc.) and a lot of that was heavily S&amp;S and pulp inspired. I think that's the appeal of S&amp;S vs. the epic fantasy. It's the weird vs. the pristine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 8347975, member: 5142"] I like Tolkien's elves or at least the Noldor; however, (1) I think that a lot of his imitators failed to see that the elves of the 3rd Age were flawed elves who had been humbled by the repeated failures borne from their hubris. A large part of that admittedly comes from the Silmarillion. And (2) despite Tolkien's massive love for his elves, it's pretty clear that he had a higher opinion about humans in his work. So we mostly get the shallow imitations of Tolkien's elves that exist for the sake of having elves and only rarely do we get more interesting takes like Moorcock's Melniboneans or Eberron's death elves. I agree, but sometimes people don't realize how many fairly famous and now well-regarded novels actually came out of pulp or serialized publications rather than fully-hatched as a complete novel. I would almost compare it with the number of big name Hollywood directors that got their start working on B movies or with Roger Corman. One of the things that I love about S&S - about Weird Tales and the like - is the weirdness of it. These are stories that often lack polish or some grand carefully-crafted world-building. A bunch of S&S authors seemed to throw around a lot of weird stuff into their worlds. It didn't care about this imaginary divide between fantasy vs. science fiction. Here are robots and Cthulhoid monsters side-by-side in this fantasy story with wizards. I loved that weird '80s science fantasy as a kid (e.g., He-Man, Thundarr, Visionaries, Thundercats, Star Wars, Heavy Metal, etc.) and a lot of that was heavily S&S and pulp inspired. I think that's the appeal of S&S vs. the epic fantasy. It's the weird vs. the pristine. [/QUOTE]

Verification