Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    • CommentAuthorDeborah
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2010
     
    Darn it, now I'm picturing a band of heavy-metal elves who sell shampoo! :P
  1.  

    BAHAHAHA! That made my night :)

  2.  
    I think I could make such a (day)dream come true... as soon as I get miniature instruments for my Elves LOTR figures. XP
  3.  

    I would watch that video.

    •  
      CommentAuthorMaese Delta
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2011 edited
     

    I think this might be a sneak peek of the other band I plan to create: XP

  4.  

    The troll is too cute :D :D

  5.  

    .

    • CommentAuthorDeborah
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2011
     

    I think it looks like the Abomidable Snowman.

  6.  

    awesorm picture. :3

    I recently re-read these books (well, listened to them on tape), and they were even better for the fourth time. they’re one of those books that completely takes you away from real life. The end always makes me cry, though.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2011
     

    The Adorable Snowman, perhaps! :D

    •  
      CommentAuthorClibanarius
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2011 edited
     
    And the member's names are:

    Saurow (Lead Guitar), Mouthy Manderson (Rythm Guitar, Lead Singer), Axl Grease (Drums) and King A. Mar.

    Picture taken at the New York Giant's Stadium on the American portion of the Last Alliance Tour.
  7.  

    I have to give props to John C Wright for helping me realize the point of Bombadil with this bit.

    The point of the Tom Bombadil section is that the wild woods near the boundary of the shire, are, in miniature, in brief, what the whole rest of the quest of the ring is going to be writ large. It is the baptism into the life of the adventurer for our comfortable, stay at home hobbits.

    The Quest consists of departing the comfort and safety of the little hole where we make our home, stumbling into things eviler, darker, and older, and then being rescued by something whose roots go even deeper and are even stronger than the evil. Every mythic quest ends with a descent into Hell and a eucatastrophe, a breaking in of the unexplected sunlight, joy beyond reckoning.

    Tom himself is a ‘hobbit-sized’ version of the various elves, eagles, reincarnate wise men and angelic starlight powers which will from time to time help the hobbits on their quest. He is homey and homely rather than beautiful and dignified as befits a hobbit sized angel. The Old Man Willow and the Barrow Wight are hobbit sized versions of Saruman and Sauron, or, if you prefer, nature gone wrong and supernature, the undead, gone wrong. The Barrow is a hobbit sized version of Mordor, a darkness of the soul, a despair without end.

    Tolkien is writing in the medieval tradition where holy hermits and other odd folk who seem not really to fit in anywhere in the scheme of things (what IS Tom after all?) step out of the leafy darkness of the wild world and lend a helping hand and disappear again. It is meant to show the world is a strange place, and not everything fits neatly into a category.

    And it is supposed to be fun. Tom is odd, Tom is fully of joy, and his lady is beautiful. What little he owns, is his.

  8.  
    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
     

    ^ Well said. Mr. Wright is still at his usual caliber.

  9.  

    I WANT THAT FOR CHRISTMAS. AND I DON’T EVEN CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS. BUT STILL!

    •  
      CommentAuthorFalling
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011 edited
     

    Oh? Just under a decade too late :( I was really hoping Lego pick it up when Fellowship was released. Maybe the set’s will improve, aside from Star Wars Lego, I’ve been pretty unimpressed with Castle Lego since the Royal Knights/ Dark Foresters. (And whatever happened to Pirate Lego?)

    But pretty exciting none-the-less. Maybe one day I’ll have a family and I can justify buying it again :)

  10.  

    I still get some of the castle lego. Though I wish I had more orcs and orc-like beasts to fight against.

    Pirate Lego was replaced with PotC lego.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
     

    As a kid, I think I’m qualified to express my first hand experiences with LEGO: I have low expectations, the company has really gone downhill over the past few years.

  11.  

    Oh, yes. Just look at those new miner things. The Rock Raiders were soooooooo much better.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
     

    My main gripe is that the piece count has gone down while the price has gone up, actually.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
     

    Puppet, I think that’s because they expect kids to not have any imagination these days. II don’t want Build-A-Specific-Unalterable-Thing, I want a Build-Whatever-You-Want bucket o’ bricks.

    anyway, on topic:

    I have to give props to John C Wright

    That’s an excellent explanation of it, I’m glad someone’s taken the time to examine Tom’s role in the story, instead of merely glossing over him as irrelevant.

    •  
      CommentAuthorFalling
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011 edited
     

    That’s precisely my problem. I used to spend all my lawn mowing, birthday, and Christmas money on Lego sets like the Skull Eye Schooner, Fire Breathing Fortress, Forestmen’s River Fortress, etc. There were so many pieces and aesthetically they were pretty cool.

    Now, there are these giant pieces with some really funky colours. Just aesthetically, the new castle lego looks ugly compared to the old Black Knights, Wolf Pack or Crusaders. One day, I’m going to buy some of those castles off ebay that I coveted as a child :)

    Imperial Guards were pretty cool too. There was a sort of detailed simplicity in the 90’s. Now they’re trying too hard to make things super detailed and it just looks busy.

    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
     

    I had that huge pirate ship, the brown one, and then the little red one. Damn, I loved those things. The big one, as my interests progressed, became first an enormous Crimson Skies-style airplane with eight propellers, then an actual airship, then a spaceship, then an airship again…

    •  
      CommentAuthorClibanarius
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011 edited
     
    I like the new Legoes.

    (I'm one of those people who has to have a lot of detail and I love the new colors they've gone with)

    </Heresy>
    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
     

    Sorry, for derailing the thread but…

  12.  
    bq. Exactly. They’re making these giant plastic pieces specifically for the set. I never kept my LEGO sets in the original configuration, I would always take them apart and make my own things out of them. There’s no more imagination because the parts aren’t as reusable. *There are also fewer original LEGO sets, too. The Bionicle toys were always my favorite LEGO sets*, I thought the story behind the action figures was really neat, but now its been replaced by “Hero Factory.” 14 large, clunky pieces for almost 10 dollars. And there is no “story” really, they’re just robots made at some factory and they fight crime. Yay. The same goes for aliens, castles, etc. It’s becoming more Harry Potter, Star Wars and now LOTR, there’s nothing creative to any of the sets anymore.

    You've got a point while I can modify the new stuff to an extent, if I really want to change things around I have to mix and match with this box full of my old legos.

    And I am so with you on the Bionicle, those kicked ass and the books were pretty good too. It's like. . . turning Cake into stale bread.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSoupnazi
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011 edited
     

    Puppet: You pretty much summed up LEGO nowadays. I do appreciate the heightened quality in the specific pieces, but it just removes so much of the creativity and the prices are just ridiculous. Tiny little sets that don’t even have proper buildings or anything are twenty bucks!

    EDIT: Oh gosh, I just saw that ad. That kid is SO CREEPY.

    EDIT TWO: Oh, this isn’t the totally random thread! On subject, LOTR legos will be pretty cool. On the subject of the books themselves… I began reading Fellowship a while back, and never got into it. Shrugs It’s really not my kind of book.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
     

    The Bionicle toys were always my favorite LEGO sets, I thought the story behind the action figures was really neat, but now its been replaced by “Hero Factory.” 14 large, clunky pieces for almost 10 dollars.

    Bionicles were fun, yes. but I scoff at your Hero Factory woes. Over here, those are $25 each.

    • CommentAuthorDeborah
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    Is the sporking of LOTR on the main site serious, or is it just an April Fool’s joke?

    •  
      CommentAuthorPryotra
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    I’m not sure.

    •  
      CommentAuthorSoupnazi
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    April Fool’s, undoubtedly—otherwise it would’ve been posted on another date. Everyone knows that on April 1st nothing is true.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPryotra
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    True. Very true. And this is just the kind of thing that would be put on this kind of site on April fools.

    • CommentAuthorSen
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    And this is just the kind of thing that would be put on this kind of site on April fools.

    Yeah, but since it’s part one, it means more’s to follow. More sporks on LotR after April 1st. Unless the hint at continuity, as it is this way with other sporks, is part of the joke.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPryotra
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    Unless the hint at continuity, as it is this way with other sporks, is part of the joke

    I really hope so. I have a strange relationship with the books, but, really, I can’t abide seeing Tolkien himself bashed. Simply because while the books themselves had flaws in them, they were the things that brought the fantasy genre out of the nursery of what Tolkien called little flowery fairies with antennae that ‘try to be funny and fail or try to preach and succeed.’ And I suppose that when you basically just make up a genre, you can’t really judge yourself by other people’s works.

  13.  

    I hope it’s an April Fool’s joke…I know it’s a silly reaction, but just seeing the title made my heart cry out a little bit :((

    •  
      CommentAuthorPryotra
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    I know it’s a silly reaction, but just seeing the title made my heart cry out a little bit :((

    Yeah, mine too.

  14.  
    bq. I know it’s a silly reaction, but just seeing the title made my heart cry out a little bit :((

    I know what you mean.
    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    You kidding? I thought it was hilarious! I laughed my head off the entire way through. And I say this as someone currently writing a paper on the construction of Tolkien’s fictional languages.

  15.  
    bq. You kidding?

    No
    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2012
     

    No

    •  
      CommentAuthorFalling
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2012 edited
     

    Lego not Legos
    It’s singular and plural
    Dang Americans.
    :)

    •  
      CommentAuthorApep
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2012 edited
     

    If you want to be really pedantic, it’s LEGO tm, not Lego.

    But who wants to do that?

    •  
      CommentAuthorSoupnazi
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2012
     

    Lego not Legos
    It’s singular and plural
    Dang Americans.
    :)

    Why are you even bothering to correct us? We’re American; we’ll never admit to being wrong.

    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
     

    Hey now, that ain’t nice. Obama’s spent four years apologizing to everyone he can think of.

    •  
      CommentAuthorBlueMask
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
     

    No politics.
    Just to be a forum etiquette Nazi.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
     

    :gasp

    Someone actually read the FAQ?

  16.  
    bq. Someone actually read the FAQ?

    I did.
    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
     

    I vaguely remember some bits of it. I think I read the textile help and skipped the rest.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012 edited
     

    No politics.
    Just to be a forum etiquette Nazi.

    No Nazis!
    Just to be a forum etiquette Allied Force.

    trollface

    Someone actually read the FAQ?

    I read the commentary thereof, does that count?

    •  
      CommentAuthorBlueMask
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2012
     

    I didn’t want to get into trouble with this wonderful brand new forum where everyone was so cool and sophisticated and clever and polite.

    extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeme sarcasm

    No, really. That’s why I read it. Where’s the commentary? Did someone, like, spork the FAQ?

    •  
      CommentAuthorKyllorac
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2012
     

    Someone should. Then people might actually read it.

    •  
      CommentAuthorRorschach
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2012
     

    The posted sporking of Lord of the Rings is an April Fool’s Day joke, and I have no plans to continue it, despite a surprisingly high number of people who have asked me to continue sporking it and agreed with many of the points I made.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2012
     
    aww. Maybe if you could tone down the vitriol, it would be a refreshing and informative piece. I quite enjoyed looking at it from a different perspective, especially as my first love was for The Hobbit, not the stuffy old Lord of the Rings. I just found the tone a little too hateful.
    •  
      CommentAuthorRorschach
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2012
     

    Well, it certainly could be. I deliberately tried to make the piece a little over-the-top in my rage.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2012
     

    Yeah, but if you did continue it, you’d have to deal with me ragefacing in the comments every time. :P

    I should be more clear. I recognize LotR has points that can be criticized, but I didn’t really agree with any of the points in the spoof spork.

  17.  

    Yeah, but if you did continue it, you’d have to deal with me ragefacing in the comments every time. :P

    ME TOO.

    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012
     

    I don’t mind a tongue-in-cheek spoof or critique of Lord of the Rings. What really bothered me were the continual, over-the-top personal attacks (which is something I don’t really like about any spork, so we’re clear). The profanity and violence applied to a gentle, kind and friendly man who poured himself into his work just seemed in bad taste.

    I’m aware it was a joke, but even as a joke I think it went a bit too far.

    /0.02

    •  
      CommentAuthorWulfRitter
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012
     

    Too bad, Rorschach; I was hoping that the LotR spork would keep going. Yeah, I agree that the attacks were too much, but the idea of sporking LotR was refreshing. Don’t get me wrong, I love LotR like nuts, but I have grown weary of it being sacrosanct. A person cannot point out the flaws without drawing down some seriously amazing ire. Why don’t people realize that it’s OK to love something that isn’t perfect? What is wrong with looking at a gem, admiring its beauty, but also seeing its flaws?

  18.  

    On the other hand, LoTR could be the exception that proves the rule for some stuff. i.e. Tolkien could pull off an infodump, but it’s not usually a good idea.

    •  
      CommentAuthorWulfRitter
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012
     

    An infodump, sure. But he had so many of them wedged into the book that I found myself being bumped out of the story.

    • CommentAuthorDeborah
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012
     

    I would still not appreciate anyone sporking it. To me, the problem with the sporkers’ mindset, apart from the spectacularly bad, like Twilight, or The Eye of Argon, is that it encourages people to look only for the worst in everything. I don’t believe that that mindset is ultimately good. I would rather see the good in a flawed work. The sporkers that I enjoyed, when criticizing a certain plot point or character, point out another story where it was done well.
    Its easy to mock something, but after a while it feels kind of empty.
    And it isn’t just Tolkien for me. There’s a number of other authors who I feel the same way about. They have been the sources of some of the best experiences of my life. I love books, and I don’t want to spend my life picking them apart. It’s just depressing.

  19.  
    What Deborah said.
    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012
     

    A spork is written for entertainment and shouldn’t be confused with a serious or professional critique. I don’t think any book should be excused “just ‘cause it was written by Tolkien.” If the spork entertains me then I honestly don’t care how ridiculous the criticism is. The, “Everything Wrong With Eragon” spork by Lord Snow is a good example. Lord Snow wrote it as a joke, yet many Eragon fans still mistake it as a serious critique of the book.

    A spork is written for entertainment. If you can’t take a joke you’re gonna have a bad time.

    •  
      CommentAuthorInkblot
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012 edited
     

    Again, what I said earlier. I have no problem with the concept of sporks in general and I pride myself on a very cutting sense of humor. I see no reason, in the sporking of ANY BOOK, no matter how breathtakingly awful, for a cascade of profanity and needless personal attacks. It does not add to the joke.

    I apologize for any irritation I may have gotten across, but myself and the two others who have most recently spoken in favor of Tolkien have all stated that the fact that Tolkien is the author does not in any way influence our opinion on the April 1st posting, and I’m not sure what I’m not communicating here.

    •  
      CommentAuthorWiseWillow
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012
     

    Yeah… I feel like sporking a decent, well-written book, is missing the entire point. Yeah, LOTR has flaws. But I’d be just as against sporking The Great Gatsby, or Harry Potter. Yeah, they may have some issues, and I may deeply, deeply loathe one of them, but they are still well written. Tearing down the great, if flawed work of others, just seems petty to me. Tearing down the pretentious, horrible writing of others is not the same thing.

  20.  

    I’m sure you guys are familiar with Hark! A Vagrant. It’s a good example of how weirdness and flaws in literature can be exploited for humor without being too personal. Because Willow mentioned The Great Gatsby, I just have to say that the comics for that book are hilarious. They poke fun at the obvious metaphors, snobby rich people, and the fact that everyone seems to forget about Tom and Daisy’s baby.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2012 edited
     

    Ahaha, I love the parts with the baby. They’re all like “what baby?” as they’re sitting on the baby or something.

    But anyway, that is a fair point. I think there can be fun poked at something without it being, well, too much (which is why I liked the spork for April Fools’).

  21.  

    Ahaha, I love the parts with the baby. They’re all like “what baby?” as they’re sitting on the baby or something.

    That’s my favorite part! Even after repeated viewings, I still crack up whenever they show the baby upside down on its head with that vacant expression.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2012
     

    Here’s the comic in question, by the way.

  22.  

    That baby.

    I’m still laughing.

    •  
      CommentAuthorFell_Blade
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2012
     

    That is pretty funny =D

  23.  

    Have you guys seen the comics about the Bronte sisters? Or the ones about Mr Darcy?

    I AM IN VICTORIAN LITERATURE JOKE HEAVEN.

    • CommentAuthorDeborah
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2012 edited
     

    I loved the ones about the Bronte sisters!
    Did you see the ones about Wuthering Heights?

    And with all those comics with Napoleon, she ought to do one with Josephine’s pug.

  24.  

    Have you guys seen the comics about the Bronte sisters? Or the ones about Mr Darcy?

    YES

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2012
     

    BODICES RIPPING
    MEN TURNING GAY

  25.  

    I also love the one with Shelley and Byron.

    • CommentAuthorDeborah
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     

    So back on topic, what do you think of the charge that Tolkien was racist?
    I came across a discussion of that online the other day, and it really annoyed me. There seems to be this tendency to . . . well, not allow for other times and places in their assessment. I just get annoyed by people who assume that if the author didn’t think like a 21st century American, he’s bad. Like 21st century Americans are always right about everything, and everyone else is right insofar as they agree with us. It kind of reminds me of what Lewis called “Chronological Snobbery.”

    I don’t think his writings are racist. I was mainly remembering the scene where Sam sees the dead Southeron in Ithilien, and wonders if he really wanted to be in those battles at all, and if he wouldn’t have rather stayed at home. That moment seemed to humanize the enemy for me.

    •  
      CommentAuthorFell_Blade
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     

    I never really thought he was racist. I suppose I could see how someone might think that since the fair skinned elves and Numenoreans were on the good guys side and the dark skinned Southrons and Haradrim were on the evil side. But I think that was more of a coincidence than a racial statement. I think people want to read to much into stuff like that whenever there is a dark/light racial difference in a story.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012 edited
     

    Eh, I don’t think Tolkien was racist at all. In general, Tolkien was very worried about portraying any group as entirely good or entirely evil (a result of his Christian beliefs), even the orcs. And even with the Southrons/Haradrim, there’s mentions in some of his other writings of how only some of them came to fight with Sauron and they were more mercenaries than evil through-and-through. In fact, he had some ideas that the “regular” Southrons/Haradrim didn’t show up because they were busy fighting civil wars at home between the “good” ones and those who came to fight with Sauron. And as for the white-skinned Numenoreans being all wondeful and whatnot… eh. Some were very noble and good. Some were not so noble and good. And the not-so-noble-and-good ones are the reason why many people in Rohan hate the Numenorean-influenced Gondorians, because some Numenoreans actually used their abilities and powers to rule as tyrants over the people in Middle-Earth.

    As for whether he was anti-Semitic, this would be an excellent time to quote from my very favorite of Tolkien’s writings. Shortly before World War II, a German publisher wanted to publish a translation of The Hobbit. However, they first wrote to Tolkien to ask whether he was of Aryan origin. His remarks to his publisher:

    I must say the enclosed letter from Rütten and Loening is a bit stiff. Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or do their lunatic laws require a certificate of ‘arisch’ origin from all persons of all countries? ... I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.

    He then wrote two letters, one of which refused to answer any questions at all regarding race or ethnicity (the one that was probably sent), and the other of which was a brilliant, beautiful piece of writing, in which he points out just how stupid of a question that was and why you never, ever try to tell a linguist things about language.

    I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by ‘arisch’. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. ... But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. ... I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.

    I think it goes without saying that Tolkien was not exactly fond of Nazis. He also called Hitler a “ruddy little ignoramus”, which is just funny in general.

    •  
      CommentAuthorFell_Blade
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     

    Thanks for the quotes Swenson. I love the “ruddy little ignoramus” name! That is sheer awesomeness!!! =D
    I think someone who just looked at the surface of Tolkien’s writing may come away thinking that he was racist. But the same people would also probably say that the ring was a metaphoric reference to the atomic bomb. People can find a hidden message in anything (like that “Cracked” article in the “Book” thread pointed out), but that doesn’t mean it’s really there.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     

    I have to admit, I look for excuses to quote all of that stuff. It’s pretty much my favorite thing I’ve ever read ever.

    •  
      CommentAuthorFalling
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012
     

    Yeah I love those quotes. Tolkien sounds so baller as he’s considering which way to stick it to the Nazis.

    •  
      CommentAuthorWulfRitter
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2012 edited
     

    Yeah I love those quotes. Tolkien sounds so baller as he’s considering which way to stick it to the Nazis.

    Seconded. :)

  26.  

    Thirded.

    In general, Tolkien was very worried about portraying any group as entirely good or entirely evil (a result of his Christian beliefs), even the orcs.

    Apparently, after he published LotR, he was always unsatisfied with his initial ‘evil’ orcs for this very reason, and was trying to figure out a way to fix it.

    •  
      CommentAuthorPryotra
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2012
     

    .... bows that was one of the funniest put down letters that I’ve ever read. What was even funnier is that he managed to keep the polite tone, pointed out a major flaw in their ideals, and pointed out that he had fought against them once before all at the same time.

    His essays are a lot like that. I’ve read a few of them. He erm…wasn’t amused by the idea that fantasy should be only for children, and really took one of the translators (Lang, the writer of the variously colored Fairy Books, which have some…silly translations in it) of world wide folklore to task for making it so simple and childish.

    •  
      CommentAuthorswenson
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2012
     

    I read his fabulous lecture on Beowulf recently, and it’s basically all about that. Up to that point, the primary interpretation of Beowulf was purely for the historical elements; some people went so far as to call the inclusion of fantastical elements “regrettable” or otherwise unnecessary. Tolkien’s lecture Beowulf and the Monsters is essentially a huge putdown to that idea, arguing that the monsters are not just a valid part of the story, but are actually essential to making the story work, and therefore the story needs to be considered as literature, not just as a historical record.