Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
Oh I had actually thought she was some kind of halfling priestess - since there are no female dwarfs and all, I suppose I should read the cptiins and not just look at random pics …
The 3 Trailers of Awesome
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Long winded droning on and on world building at the expense of any decent characterization. It's very popular, and revered by D&Ders, but nobody is mistaking it for Monet lol.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
As a trained literary critic, Tolkien is on that level of artistic achievement. I would dispute the "expense of any decent characterization" but even granting that: so what? Characterization is not an absolute value in literature, even though it has been very in vogue recently.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You are mistaking preference for something more significant.
And if you don’t think there is “any decent characterization” then I have to be skeptical that you even read it.
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Oh boy, I should of known better. My point to the topic of the thread is that the LotR series is based on Tolkien stuff, but wasn't written by Tolkien. I dont expect it to automatically be good because its Tolkien world. I dont expect House of Dragon to be good either just because its Martin world. (even though Martin is still alive and able to comment on it.)
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
I’m not a fan of the Tolkien book (its a long hard read) but I do like the Silmalarion (sp?) and am excited about the show because it looks like an Epic high fantasy of elves and dwarfs and nomadic halflings with some great visuals and NOT because its Tolkien
Last edited:
ART!
Deluxe Unhuman
Many literary critics disagree.
Tastes vary, of course, and that's totally cool.
But art criticism isn't about what you or I or anyone else like or don't like. It's not about opinions, but rather about education. Art criticism is about understanding the art form, the artist's approach and techniques, their goals, maybe their life and background, how and if those goals were achieved, in the context of related works, and where the work stands culturally.
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
You are correct, literary criticism hits many dimensions, and Tolkien misses all the ones I care about.Many literary critics disagree.
Tastes vary, of course, and that's totally cool.
But art criticism isn't about what you or I or anyone else like or don't like. It's not about opinions, but rather about education. Art criticism is about understanding the art form, the artist's approach and techniques, their goals, maybe their life and background, how and if those goals were achieved, in the context of related works, and where the work stands culturally.
GreyLord
Legend
Well, the view on Tolkien has changed over the years.
When I was young, he was incredibly popular. He was also considered a junk author with junk books that were not worth reading by all the "literature professors" of the time.
I'd say the closest would probably be like Harry Potter was 25 years ago. It was an incredibly popular book series that was coming out, but people weren't calling it a classic at that point (if they even do today).
I'd say scorn is putting it lightly on how some professors of literature saw it compared to the "Classics."
AS those kids who grew up with it got older, the views slowly changed. Today, I'd say the view has gone a complete 180 degrees and there are many professors of literature who consider it a classic.
There are still some holdouts though, that still do not consider it noteworthy.
I always loved it and consider that the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books singlehandedly started the Fantasy genre as a genre to be sold in bookstores and classified by Libraries (Prior to that point these types of books would have been placed under children's fairy tales, fantastical reads, or something similar...at best perhaps under occult readings...etc).
When I was young, he was incredibly popular. He was also considered a junk author with junk books that were not worth reading by all the "literature professors" of the time.
I'd say the closest would probably be like Harry Potter was 25 years ago. It was an incredibly popular book series that was coming out, but people weren't calling it a classic at that point (if they even do today).
I'd say scorn is putting it lightly on how some professors of literature saw it compared to the "Classics."
AS those kids who grew up with it got older, the views slowly changed. Today, I'd say the view has gone a complete 180 degrees and there are many professors of literature who consider it a classic.
There are still some holdouts though, that still do not consider it noteworthy.
I always loved it and consider that the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books singlehandedly started the Fantasy genre as a genre to be sold in bookstores and classified by Libraries (Prior to that point these types of books would have been placed under children's fairy tales, fantastical reads, or something similar...at best perhaps under occult readings...etc).
