Awareness
Posts: 1297
Joined: 9/8/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crazyml Awareness, Thanks for your reply. Clearly we differ when it comes to our verdicts on LOTR! I do take your point about Tolkein's emphasis on Milieu, but I'm going to have to respectfully call you on the "bore the ever-lovin fuck out of anyone with an IQ above that of a toadstool" riff. In part it's obviously a question of style and taste. Lord, no. Tolkien set the template for 20th century fantasy and has been copied so many goddamn times, it's not funny. Not least by Brooks with that Shannara nonsense. Most people may try and copy style, but Brooks stole the mileau, the characters and the PLOT from Tolkien. No, the primary problems with LOTR reside in the fact that most of its characters are cardboard cutouts who do not grow or change - Boromir and Aragorn being notable exceptions - and a plot that consists largely of two characters walking, whining and walking some more for two entire goddamn books. This is in spite of the fact that Gandalf apparently has an eagle taxi service he elects not to share with our heroes for reasons which largely seem to revolve around plot convenience. Alternatively, perhaps the big grey wizard was concerned about the size of Frodo's ass and figured that a long walk to Mount Doom was just the ticket to help work off some of that lard. Yes, that's right, thousands of men sacrificed their lives at the Battle of Pellenor Fields purely because Frodo'd been indulging in too many goddamn cream cakes. It's idiocy like this which makes me want to draw all over the book in red pen then throw it at the author's head with a note which reads "Plot stupid. Characters suck. Try again." LOTR's idea of complex characterisation is reveling in the concept of Hobbits as gluttonous versions of people from the west country, dwarves as short scotsman and elves as effeminate metrosexuals with a penchant for commenting on the weather. (Legolas is practically obsessed with it!) quote:
One of the reasons that LOTR is interesting in the context of Gor is that both books have a significant following, and both have been the subject of a lot of debate both among amateur and professional philosophers. Not really. The Hobbit-Heads outnumber the Goreans by about a thousand to one. quote:
One of the things that I really do struggle with is the question of whether this actually is a coherent philosophy to be drawn from the Gor series at all, beyond the "code, honor, strength, nature" which is typically how people distil Gor. This is interesting to me because if a person is going to claim to be "Gorean" there must be something identifiably "Gorean" about his or her thinking, and to be identifiably "Gorean" it has to be something that is grounded in the Gorean books, surely? Claiming to be Gorean is part of the problem. Distilling the philosophy is one thing, but trying to copy the social templates of the civilisation - even in shadow form - is a pointless exercise and makes Goreans look like refugees from a role-playing convention. People take this shit far too seriously.
|