Daaaaaarples.
Originally Posted by ZidanReign Why must you ruin everything you touch. Some people just naturally have that ability.
Originally Posted by Lycodrake Zidan, not troll enough. You will never surpass food or eddyak at this rate. I have no strong feelings one way or the other
Zidan, not troll enough. You will never surpass food or eddyak at this rate.
You've ruined this gif for me. Why must you ruin everything you touch.
Maybe you're the one who's disappointing.
...I haven't spammed it in a full year, though. I've used it maybe 3-4 times since then and to my knowledge never in the same month.
Hell no. It was funny when you used it the first few times, but then it became spam and I now hated that gif ever since.
Long is the way. And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light.
Originally Posted by Seika Eh, I just wrote that up here as I was thinking about it. Was just for fun, not something I'd really be doing during a read. (That said, even without doing a detailed commentary, there's still enough straight-up textual stuff to make Tolkein a classist and a reactionary, it's just that he probably didn't actually write all of LotR and The Hobbit as a disguised criticism of innovation and progress. Probably. ) (Yeah, given the huge amount I've read of him, since I am a massive Tolkien nerd and got that 12 massive books collection about the Arda mythology and universe, I am making an huge bet dude did not even notice how classist or reactionary his writing was. Still, loleasterlings and lolorcs.)
Originally Posted by RacingeR Eh, I guess so. It is pretty interesting, but at the same time can detract a bit to the enjoyability of the text themselves. Then again, I always disliked overanalyzing a book by trying to grab these kind of subtexts, since sometimes it tends to end in silliness xP. Eh, I just wrote that up here as I was thinking about it. Was just for fun, not something I'd really be doing during a read. (That said, even without doing a detailed commentary, there's still enough straight-up textual stuff to make Tolkein a classist and a reactionary, it's just that he probably didn't actually write all of LotR and The Hobbit as a disguised criticism of innovation and progress. Probably. )
Originally Posted by Kotonoha >"Team Therians" Lyco... are you a therian? Nope. And oh dear I didn't mean to invoke Seika textwalls. I'm doomed. ;~: Originally Posted by LeopardBear I recall taking a shower one night and deciding that Hf was a response to the Star Wars prequels. Yeah I've forgotten how that was arrived at. You dropped the soap? You started singing? You were reminded that Anakin was devoid of character in Episodes 2 and 3 - or likened HF Shirou to a really bad actor?
I recall taking a shower one night and deciding that Hf was a response to the Star Wars prequels. Yeah I've forgotten how that was arrived at.
Eh, I guess so. It is pretty interesting, but at the same time can detract a bit to the enjoyability of the text themselves. Then again, I always disliked overanalyzing a book by trying to grab these kind of subtexts, since sometimes it tends to end in silliness xP.
Originally Posted by RacingeR You know, no offense, but this all does sound like reading too much out of it. Tolkien had very old and conservative leanings, which is not surprising given the time he lived at, etc. I am very sure these leanings were the cause of the social structure of his races and the fantasy world in general. That said, I doubt very much he was aiming for so many metaphors or for so much hidden social commentary. Subtext is not always intentional. It is not an invalid use of literary commentary to suggest that an author's outlook influenced their writing whether they wanted it to or not, and I did say that it was Tolkein's fear which might have caused him to write in this way, rather than suggesting he was just making a disguised polemic. That said, I did preface lots of that with 'arguably' and 'I agree ... still, I'm going to continue' and 'because I can' for a reason. The ground beneath them could be shaky, but I find them an interesting way to look at these specific points in Tolkein's work.
Originally Posted by Seika In The Hobbit, it comes off much less as greed/the dwarves' fault and much more as Smaug being jealous because they've got gold and he doesn't. (Smaug in terms of the social commentary is arguably the nouveau riche - not the one just fabulously supplied with gold that can spend it as they please and not give a damn because their family is so wealthy, but the one who, on getting his riches, is as careful as possible with his money because he knows what it's like to be poor. Possibly with a side commentary of 'the jumped-up, undeserving lower classes are going to steal all our rightful money!!!!'). You can certainly put more nuance into LotR's idea of 'they delved too deep', though, I agree. Still, I'm going to continue this super-reactionary reading and suggest something else because it's fun and I actually find it vaguely plausible. I will attribute that particular fall and ruin to Tolkein's continued fear of non-trivial industrial labour and industry - since the emphasis is not on the having and the spending, but the making of money, he felt more comfortable bringing the new Dwarven kingdom down (note again - it's a new thing, which is automatically grounds for suspicion). Being in the upper class is about having had some Dark Age ancestors who kicked people's teeth in, stole all their cash, then sucked up to the monarch and got a load of land with peasants to wring more money out of. The 'real' work was done centuries ago, and your job is simply to uphold the dignity of your title, dabble in amusements, and provide leadership to the hopeless underclass in war and politics. People actively trying to get more money is evidence of being too poor in the first place or not understanding the low-effort peacetime ideal of the upper class. They are the Establishment, they do not change. I'm going to draw parallels to Rome here, mostly because I can. The senatorial class was forbidden by law to take place in mercantile or business activities. It is below their noble dignity, beneath the politicians of the Republic and the Empire. In peacetime, they govern, and in wartime, they lead. There's a vast gulf of time and culture between the two (and a billion caveats I could add to this Roman picture of things but let's keep it simple), yet the fundamental similarities to you might see Tolkein longing for, that crumbling English edifice of rigid class and bloodline, are very interesting. You know, no offense, but this all does sound like reading too much out of it. Tolkien had very old and conservative leanings, which is not surprising given the time he lived at, etc. I am very sure these leanings were the cause of the social structure of his races and the fantasy world in general. That said, I doubt very much he was aiming for so many metaphors or for so much hidden social commentary.
There's also the impossibly blatant example of Saruman/Isengard and his relation not only to Fangorn but to Sauron/Mordor as well. Isengard maybe could be the classic early 20th century/late 19th century example of a rising industrial power with infinite disregard for what it's pushing out of the way - be that the environment or the established social order.
Originally Posted by Seika Still, I'm going to continue this super-reactionary reading and suggest something else because it's fun and I actually find it vaguely plausible. That certainly is an interesting take on it, and like you say, it does seem plausible. Now I'll be looking suspiciously at his stories for subtext whenever I see them
In The Hobbit, it comes off much less as greed/the dwarves' fault and much more as Smaug being jealous because they've got gold and he doesn't. (Smaug in terms of the social commentary is arguably the nouveau riche - not the one just fabulously supplied with gold that can spend it as they please and not give a damn because their family is so wealthy, but the one who, on getting his riches, is as careful as possible with his money because he knows what it's like to be poor. Possibly with a side commentary of 'the jumped-up, undeserving lower classes are going to steal all our rightful money!!!!'). You can certainly put more nuance into LotR's idea of 'they delved too deep', though, I agree. Still, I'm going to continue this super-reactionary reading and suggest something else because it's fun and I actually find it vaguely plausible. I will attribute that particular fall and ruin to Tolkein's continued fear of non-trivial industrial labour and industry - since the emphasis is not on the having and the spending, but the making of money, he felt more comfortable bringing the new Dwarven kingdom down (note again - it's a new thing, which is automatically grounds for suspicion). Being in the upper class is about having had some Dark Age ancestors who kicked people's teeth in, stole all their cash, then sucked up to the monarch and got a load of land with peasants to wring more money out of. The 'real' work was done centuries ago, and your job is simply to uphold the dignity of your title, dabble in amusements, and provide leadership to the hopeless underclass in war and politics. People actively trying to get more money is evidence of being too poor in the first place or not understanding the low-effort peacetime ideal of the upper class. They are the Establishment, they do not change. I'm going to draw parallels to Rome here, mostly because I can. The senatorial class was forbidden by law to take place in mercantile or business activities. It is below their noble dignity, beneath the politicians of the Republic and the Empire. In peacetime, they govern, and in wartime, they lead. There's a vast gulf of time and culture between the two (and a billion caveats I could add to this Roman picture of things but let's keep it simple), yet the fundamental similarities to you might see Tolkein longing for, that crumbling English edifice of rigid class and bloodline, are very interesting.
Ah, I forgot about that. I haven't read either for many years either! The dwarves greed does destroy them in both books though (Causing Smaug to destroy the kingdom in Hobbit and rousing the Balrog in LotR.) Sorry for totally derailing your blog Lyco
Blog Categories
Archive
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
