/hobby/ - Hobby

>>36572
I do kinda wish we could have the best of both worlds though. Some of those books are a chore to read.

>>36572
>Proofs?
Besides it being self-evident in literature that I've read (from Russian literature of various eras, to French classics, to German novels and Japanese folktales), and my personal anecdote of being taught this by my Soviet-school teachers, and all of my family being taught these things in Soviet times? I can cite you Chehov
>“Не говори мне про свет луны; лучше покажи мне, как лунный свет мерцает в треснутом бокале”. - Антон Чехов
Which translates to
>“Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.”
Chehov died in 1904, and wrote this long before the CIA was ever formed, let alone beginning its social engineering.

>how Isaac Asimov could have written his famous Foundation series without heavy use of exposition.
This is a strawman, especially in reference to the greentext excerpt you selected, which was speaking of exposition in regards to getting people to think. By that metric I may as well ask, how did Asimov's books make people think too much? If that were true, why are they still some of the most popular science-fiction books in Western literature? Surely the CIA would recognize their 'danger'!?
And as for how, it is completely possible to do so, as we see in things such as the novelization of the Terminator screenplay, or in any number of science-fiction books by William Gibson. More importantly exposition is not in itself bad, nor did I imply this argument, the point is that exposition itself must be necessary to the story and scenario and written in such a fashion as to immerse the reader in the environment or situation being described, not simply state things, otherwise it's just a crutch to prop up poor descriptive writing.
I think you may not understand what exposition and Show, Don't Tell mean: “Show, don't tell” is a writing technique that allows the reader to experience expository details of the story through actions, sensory details, words, or the expression of characters' emotions, as opposed to through the author's own description of events.
In other words rather than the Author preaching at the reader, they express and show examples of actions, themes or surroundings with descriptions that we can relate to with our 5 senses, or emotions, or rational thinking. You don't just say "Bad man is bad" because that's childish, you describe them, whether they are unpleasant to look at, what actions they are taking, or who they are. See pic related - the example of "showing" is a form of exposition, but used naturally, as opposed to just simplistic descriptions.
This idea that show, don't tell and exposition are opposed to each other comes from Ursula Le Guin's description of her writing classes being afraid of the latter.
>Childhood's End
A socio-political novel with science-fiction elements being a background to the story's plot. Moreover exposition is primarily used to introduce the broader setting, or discuss things that are not in the immediate vicinity of the characters involved - thus the commentary about democracy and the Soviet researchers being descriptive, as it is written from the perspective and through characters living in the United States, through natural dialogue. More importantly the story SHOWS its broader themes and ideas, through the exposition, but it doesn't outright bark it at you.
>That has nothing to do with it
It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Being unable to question a narrative or story, means that you're not thinking about what's going on, just passively watching and following the flow, not observing.
>It is very hard to express broad, complex ideas that extend beyond the scope of a single, individual experience through the lens of a narrative that is exclusively a personal, individual narrative.
Which is what differentiates good writing of broader ideas from bad writing of such, just because it's hard, is not an excuse for poor writing.
>Asimov's Foundation series is about history being moved and shaped by broad social and historical forces, which requires exposition to explain and cannot be relayed purely through the individual experience of the characters.
You are again arguing a strawman and pushing a false dichotomy. The broad social and historical forces are described in exposition, but they are also seen in show-don't-tell writing, with the exposition just setting a background, but by the nature of humans being intrinsically linked to empathy as a driving force of our social development, the need for a more individual or personal experience/description grounds such descriptions to people.
>the reason why the "Golden Age of Sci-fi" passed and most modern sci-fi just isn't the same as classic sci-fi is specifically because these days all the great works of classic sci-fi (which were almost always ideas-driven rather than character-driven) would be regarded as "poorly written."
Absolute nonsense. The reason it passed is the same reason anything else passes, dialectical progression of society. Star Trek (while a visual medium) is a classic scifi series that has broad exposition but is also character driven, and this is seen in the novels as well (for example Star Trek TNG: Strike Zone). Yet current trek is garbage, despite also being character driven, because the writing is blatant, in your face exposition dumping and characters are just flat caricatures that are walking messages, rather than being actual characters. As I said before, exposition is not the opposite of show-don't-tell, it is how exposition is used and to what end. If you just exposit a situation with some character that does things based purely on a politics driven depiction, you're going to get a boring, poorly written caricature that only works for a short satirical skit or a childrens comic.
>The FBI admitted to having monitored Asimov and having suspected him of being a pinko
So what? Modern sci-fi is shit because modern culture is obsessively hyper-consumerist, this isn't because the FBI saw Asimov's (at the time) obscure novels and clutched their pearls in terror, but because they actively shaped the socio-economic situation in the West to have certain narratives they wanted. Asimov's books are more popular and well known today than they were in his own time, being the source of inspiration or reference for culture to this day. People still discuss the 3 Laws of Robotics he wrote, forming the depiction of androids and AI for decades to come.

>>36572
Hot take: genre fiction is on the whole quite bad and deservedly shit on for being bad. There's no reason you can't explore heady ideas and have engaging and evocative prose.

>>36576
Hot take: literary fiction is more pretentiously written and annoying than genre fiction.

>>36575
1) Chekhov was a playwright, not a novelist.

2) No one is saying that any particular novel or series of novels were super dangerous and the CIA wanted to censor them. The point is that they wanted to steer the direction of literature and media in general away from discussing broad social topics and abstract concepts towards more individual, character-driven narratives for the exact reason that these sorts of narratives don't lend themselves well to anything outside of individual experience. An individual can easily experience a crowded hallway, its much harder to think of any individual experiencing broad social forces driving history, for instance. The closest your going to get is having a character explain the concept, which everyone is going to immediately identify as exposition even if the exposition isn't being given directly by the author.

3) Going back to the point, Tolkien doesn't really have a problem with "show, don't tell" as you define it. The original post that started this seemed to be complaining more about the "Chekhov's Gun" principle. Multiple languages are referenced, but not used as a plot point and most people speak common with each other. Except, once again, Chekhov was a playwright, not a novelist. Sure, in theater its a good idea to cut out all extraneous details that aren't directly related to the plot because you're trying to fit your story into a limited time window, but there's no reason to do this in a novel. Novels can have as many extraneous details as they want, so long as they don't become too burdensome on the narrative. In a format where you have limited space, it makes sense to establish that if there's a loaded gun on the wall, it must go off later on, but there is no such space limitation for novels and you can absolutely state that there's a loaded gun on the wall and not have to bring it up again. If anything, the "Chekhov's Gun" principle can make narratives incredibly predictable, because as this has been enforced more and more as "good writing," the audience immediately comes to expect that the loaded gun will go off the moment you establish its existence.

If anything, the use of extraneous detail is what gives Tolkien's Middle Earth its famous sense of verisimilitude, of being this real, legitimate, lived-in place. This would be ruined by trying to cook up some contrivance to make every single detail have some direct relevance to the plot.

>>36586
>Chekhov was a playwright, not a novelist.
Irrelevant nitpicking, his works are among those considered classic literature.
>No one is saying that any particular novel or series of novels were super dangerous and the CIA wanted to censor them
Ahem
>["show, don't tell" was] something the CIA came up with because they thought books with too much exposition were causing people to have a bit too much to think.
So yes people are saying precisely this, and it is what I am arguing against.
>he point is that they wanted to steer the direction of literature and media in general
No shit, they did this with everything
>away from discussing broad social topics and abstract concepts towards more individual, character-driven narratives for the exact reason that these sorts of narratives don't lend themselves well to anything outside of individual experience.
Blatantly untrue and falsely dichotomous; character driven stories have been a part of literature since humanity began telling stories. Greek Mythology is character driven and also tells of broader social and abstract concepts like fate or inequality. Unironically read books that aren't burger literature FFS.
>its much harder to think of any individual experiencing broad social forces driving history
Because you're ill-read. I can think of dozens of such works pertaining to the Bolshevik revolution alone, let alone other cultures and histories.
>An individual can easily experience a crowded hallway
An individual can as easily experience oppression, prejudice, propaganda etc. You're creating a false narrative, that you cannot have broad ideas with proper detailed writing.
>Going back to the point
If we're going to do that, then this entire argument about "broad ideas" is an utter non sequitur
>Tolkien doesn't really have a problem with "show, don't tell" as you define it
Nobody said he had a problem with "show, don't tell", the point was that in regards to language Tolkien would introduce them, but many o the languages he spent years creating, ended up never being used past a passing reference by character exposition, we don't get to see or experience much of it outside of Elvish languages and letters and people all speak the same basic languages. It doesn't make Tolkien bad, but that was never the point.
>The original post that started this seemed to be complaining more about the "Chekhov's Gun" principle.
Which is a valid argument, there's a difference between just fleshing out your world, and creating false-positives
>Chekhov was a playwright
Except once again that's fucking irrelevant because the principle of Chekhov's gun is relevant to story telling, regardless of the medium.
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chekhov_bibliography?useskin=vector#Novel
>If anything, the "Chekhov's Gun" principle can make narratives incredibly predictable
If you're a hack writer, sure. Chehov's Gun is just a name for something that, again. has existed in literature for centuries. A detail in exposition coming up later in the plot is usually subtle and only noticed if a reader is hyper-attentive to such details. For example in Lord of the Rings, it is said that no man can slay the Witch King, and much later this gun fires in the form of him being slain by a woman, Eowyn. This reflects a much older Chehov's gun in the form of Macbeth's prophecy and how it is carried out. These things are unpredictable unless you know the story already.
>the audience immediately comes to expect that the loaded gun will go off the moment you establish its existence.
Because modern writers are terrible at writing these things and think MacGuffin's and Deus Ex Machina are the same thing as a Chehov's Gun, again this is a result of poor writing and poorly read audiences, not the actual trope.
>in theater its a good idea to cut out all extraneous details that aren't directly related to the plot because you're trying to fit your story into a limited time window
Utterly ignorant statement. A theatre performance is easier in that regard because you don't have to use dialogue or detailed exposition, as you SEE the actual performance of the play, a picture is worth a thousand words, you can spend more time on character interactions and dialogues, because the environment and actions will literally be SEEN, a play written in book format is little different to a novel except in a few small areas, as the exposition format is nearly the same and in fact has to be even more detailed because actors must be able to interpret how a scene goes and emulate the experience.
>Novels can have as many extraneous details as they want, so long as they don't become too burdensome on the narrative
That's literally the argument I've been making FFS, you're just being contrarian here.
>This would be ruined by trying to cook up some contrivance to make every single detail have some direct relevance to the plot.
Jesse how the fuck did you reach this conclusion? When people criticize the lack of usage of Tolkien's immense linguistic efforts being poorly utilized in the story, it's not because "Everything must be contrivedly plot relevant for the sake of story economy" but because it is too sparse and under-utilized for such a relatively key part of the races and peoples of the narrative, it is in itself relevant to the plot because the elves and dwarves hate each other and hobbits are isolationist and that's not even talking about mankind. There should naturally be linguistic barriers and plot relevance that simply isn't there in spite of the actual languages existing because Tolkien created them, only to barely reference them. It's like cooking a banquet only to give party guests a few toothpick-samples of a couple of them.

>>36577
Absolutely agree, but pretentious and annoying is preferable to bad.

>>36588
You contradict yourself in your own post.

>Which is a valid argument, there's a difference between just fleshing out your world, and creating false-positives
<When people criticize the lack of usage of Tolkien's immense linguistic efforts being poorly utilized in the story, it's not because "Everything must be contrivedly plot relevant for the sake of story economy"

You openly think that the languages of Middle Earth are an un-fired Chekhov's Gun, that they needed to play some crucial part in the story in order to justify their existence and it can't just be there as a part of fleshing out the world. Don't deny it.

You also simultaneously defend the Chekhov's Gun principle, and then say that you've been saying that novels don't need the Chekhov's Gun principle all along and that its fine to have lots of extraneous details peppered in that aren't directly related to the plot.

As to the whole "show, don't tell" thing, there's not much to say if the whole argument against me is essentially "nuh-uh you can make it work if you're a good enough writer" and then use examples of non-fiction (or historical fiction) of someone experiencing a historical event as an example of how someone can individually experience the concept of broad social forces driving history in the context of fiction.

>>36593
>You contradict yourself in your own post.
<proceeds to post 2 things that are not contradictive at all
You need to improve your reading comprehension. The point isn't that Tolkien should have used every single language and make it all very plot relevant, but that for wasting time on that much effort, to not actually use it within the story is wasteful and stupid, and takes away from an otherwise brilliant work.
>You openly think that the languages of Middle Earth are an un-fired Chekhov's Gun
No, you're trying to project a strawman onto my argument. I've stated no such thing.
>they needed to play some crucial part in the story in order to justify their existence
No, I stated that the languages should have some plot relevance, at least for some of the more immediate ones like Black Speech, Elvish, etc. because they ARE relevant to the plot, yet are not explored within the story in spite of this.
>Don't deny it
Go fuck yourself.
>You also simultaneously defend the Chekhov's Gun principle, and then say that you've been saying that novels don't need the Chekhov's Gun principle all along and that its fine to have lots of extraneous details peppered in that aren't directly related to the plot.
yet another false dichotomy of a strawman living rent free in your head. I stated the the Chehov's gun principle is relevant and necessary to a plot driven story, such as LOTR, and provided an example of that within said story, without which the scenes we see would have less striking impact then they otherwise would. More importantly, just because Chehov's gun should be used for important plot elements, does not mean things that are meant to simply flesh the world out cannot also be in the story, I directly stated this. I also explained that a proper Chehov's gun is subtle and woven in among such details but is subtly more plot relevant than the others we see described. That's good writing.
>"nuh-uh you can make it work if you're a good enough writer"
Going by the repeated and increasing strawman arguments, non sequitur goal-post shifting etc. you're just flailing about angrily and projecting your lack of argument onto me. This is just another blatant example; I stated clearly that yor argument is blatantly false because even your own examples of "non-character-driven" works utilize show-don't tell and that said writing concept can easily carry across broad social issues to a reader, because that's how any good writing goes. Furthermore I provided examples of literature, writers, etc. that were from cultures not within CIA influence or were from before the CIA's existence that also utilized character driven story telling, show, don't tell rhetoric and more, disproving this inane idea that somehow show, don't tell is a way of making people stupid or think less or be more easily manipulated.
>then use examples of non-fiction (or historical fiction) of someone experiencing a historical event
LMAO irrelevant deflection, How the Steel Was Tempered is based on the experiences of the writer, and it carries across the ideas, ideology and broad social issues of the environment it describes, it is fictional, as is All Quiet on the Western Front, or Capitaine Casse-Cou, or Quiet Flows the Don. You did not state genre-specifics, and if you had, then you'd have disqualified yourself by default, since you refer to a single example of Azimov's Science Fiction literature rather than Fantasy as is LOTR. And moreover I provided examples of btoh of those as well; Greek Mythology, William Gibson's books such as Neuromancer, Terminator's first novelization, Star Trek TNG: Strike Zone, and Azimov's short-stories on which I, Robot and Bi-Centennial Man were based upon. All of those disprove your narrative and prove mine that "someone can individually experience the concept of broad social forces driving history in the context of fiction." and so carry across the same messages even within the "Show, Don't Tell" and "individual experience" framework.

>>12359
TolKKKien:
>Story is simple good vs evil fight
>No boobs
>Every grass somehow has a backstory
>Thanks to him chvds now use orc and mordor unironically against anyone that is not Evropean

George RR Martin:
>Has boobs
>Story is not just le bad guys vs le good guys
>Based Developmentalist dictators like Stannis
>The big bad is a metaphor for climate crisis that transcends petty political and ethnic divide

>>23546
1938 Tolkein wrote this to his publisher regarding getting the hobbit published in german:
>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? Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Bestätigung [confirmation] (although it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. 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. You are primarily concerned, and I cannot jeopardize the chance of a German publication without your approval. So I submit two drafts of possible answers.

Tolkein then wrote this to the German publishers who were trying to figure out if he was pureblooded aryan or not:
>Thank you for your letter. 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. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject — which should be sufficient. 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. Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its sustainability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.

>>28922
>The Last Ringbearer
A valid analysis in some ways

The only reason liberals pretend to dislike or care about LOTR is to countersignal rightoids who themselves are too illiterate and brain poisoned to understand the story Tolkien told (as demonstrated with vid rel's utter schizoshit). Also not all Haradrim and Easterlings are evil, it's just where Melkor and Sauron had their retreats/power bases and Gondor fell partly due to inter-mannish racial chauvinism. Tolkien was a monarchist in the sense of old legends rather than real life and while the returning king is an important plot point, the main thrust of the story is clearly anti-imperialist and environmentalist.

People also forget the story is supposed to be a memoir written by Frodo with help from Sam, Merry, and Pippin so it reflects their biases as hobbits and as participants in the war. The narrative voice is meant to be theirs. Of course they're going to describe the enemy in generalities. Their only frame of reference for those people is as enemy combatants. When the books describe orcs as smelly and gross it's the perspective of the characters, not that of a third person omniscient narrator. The hobbits make similar comments showing their perspective of humans, dwarves, elves, etc. You'd think this would be obvious to readers, since culture clash and ethnic conflict is one of the central themes of the stories.

>>37052
They description of their enemies aren't all generalities though. IIRC the Easterlings and Haradrim they do mention in particular are described in the same sort of heroic tones as the Prince of Dol Amroth and that kind of thing.

It's been a minute since I've read the books, but I don't think the foreigners are called evil, either, but rather wicked, and of course there's that scene where they talk about what lies or threats brought these people into Gondor in the first place.

>Tolkien was a monarchist in the sense of old legends rather than real life and while the returning king is an important plot point, the main thrust of the story is clearly anti-imperialist and environmentalist.

Tolkiens personal politics aside, I think the politics of LOTR are for the most part medievalist, updated with Tolkien's more modern perspective. If you read The Song of Roland, you can see a lot of the influences that would go into LOTR. TSR has a lot of "evil foreigner" type sentiments in it which at the time might have been due to pandering or naivete or outright xenophobia, but which wouldn't make sense to Tolkien from his perspective 800 years later and his knowledge that the Iberians weren't perfidious idol worshiping pagans etc.

>You'd think this would be obvious to readers, since culture clash and ethnic conflict is one of the central themes of the stories.

I think I would differ somewhat in that the conflict don't necessarily come from clashes of culture or ethnicity. They are certainly factors in these clashes, but the causal factors are more ones of sin. The conflicts aren't necessarily due to the Elves' elvishness or the Dwarves dwarvishness, but because they give in to sins of pride or greed or wrath, and then maintain the grudges that arise from them for hundreds or thousands of years. I think what LOTR goes out of its way to show is that their cultures aren't in conflict when they give these things up, and that once "sin" is removed and symbolically defeated with the destruction of Sauron, their cultures thrive together.

>>37052
what the fuck am I watching here

>>37055
As I stated, it's /pol/'s retarded take on LOTR

>>37054
>I don't think the foreigners are called evil, either, but rather wicked, and of course there's that scene where they talk about what lies or threats brought these people into Gondor in the first place.
True, but wickedness is often hand-in-hand with evil in old stories and they are technically fighting on the side of Sauron according to the narrative.
> If you read The Song of Roland, you can see a lot of the influences that would go into LOTR.
Makes sense since Tolkien wove together LOTR based on old stories, legends and legends of early Northern European lore
>TSR has a lot of "evil foreigner" type sentiments in it which at the time might have been due to pandering or naivete or outright xenophobia, but which wouldn't make sense to Tolkien from his perspective 800 years later and his knowledge that the Iberians weren't perfidious idol worshiping pagans etc.
Which I attribute to a mix of a romanticized good vs evil narrative (nothing inherently wrong with that sort of story if done right) and the fact that this is told from the Hobbit's perspective as I said.
>the conflict don't necessarily come from clashes of culture or ethnicity.
Not only culture and ethnicity, but we see this when the fellowship is being formed and the elves, hobbits, men and dwarves are all at each others throats apart from Frodo and a few other more level-headed characters. Moreover its a remnant of conflicts decades and centuries before LOTR begins, which we see in The Hobbit and described in the Silmarillion.
>aren't necessarily due to the Elves' elvishness or the Dwarves dwarvishness, but because they give in to sins of pride or greed or wrath, and then maintain the grudges that arise from them for hundreds or thousands of years
Also true - a reflection of sentient beings and the pitfalls or shortcomings they have as being living individuals.
>LOTR goes out of its way to show is that their cultures aren't in conflict when they give these things up, and that once "sin" is removed and symbolically defeated with the destruction of Sauron, their cultures thrive together.
THIS, absolutely.

>>37057

>True, but wickedness is often hand-in-hand with evil in old stories and they are technically fighting on the side of Sauron according to the narrative.

That's true, but with Tolkien being such a word nerd I think it's an important distinction to make that these people are wicked rather than evil, with the implication being that the bad things that they do aren't because of some inherent defect but because of outside influences, and that what the "good races" are just as capable and susceptible to "wickedness" as the people they're fighting.

>THIS, absolutely.

One of the passages I love the most in LOTR is when Gimli talks about Galadriel's gift to him, and also when he talks about the beauty of the caves behind Helm's Deep to Legolas (iirc). It's really beautiful how Gimli goes from a Dwarf chauvinist to loving the Elves and being able to share his own loves with them, to the point that he and Legolas both go to the undying lands together. Simply wonderful.

>>37061
>with Tolkien being such a word nerd I think it's an important distinction to make that these people are wicked rather than evil, with the implication being that the bad things that they do aren't because of some inherent defect but because of outside influences, and that what the "good races" are just as capable and susceptible to "wickedness" as the people they're fighting.
Fair point
>when Gimli talks about Galadriel's gift to him, and also when he talks about the beauty of the caves behind Helm's Deep to Legolas (iirc). It's really beautiful how Gimli goes from a Dwarf chauvinist to loving the Elves and being able to share his own loves with them, to the point that he and Legolas both go to the undying lands together.
Yes, it's a wholesome enemies to friends story that unfortunately gets done to death in modern stories.

>>37052
This absolutely. Most LotR hate coming out right now is pure contrarianism against right-wingers trying to portray Tolkien as way more political and right-wing than he actually was and LotR as some kind of tradcath fascist treatise, when Tolkien had stated multiple times that LotR wasn't any kind allegory or political text.

>>37052
Damn someone took the time to mash mine and some other anons posts from the thread on /siberia/ into something worthwhile

>>37113
One of the other anons was me and I liked your post and the video so I combined it with my own post since that /siberia/ thread would be bumped off the board soon and this is the more steady thread.

>>37099
he can state that but there is always a subtext. the art outlives the artist.

>>37052
>that video
didn't we manage to take their account banned?

also that aged like milk. the cringe is unreal.

>>37118
If you want to insert a political subtext on Lord of the Rings, you can do that. The thing is, you can do that with any brand of politics since LotR's "politics" doesn't really go much more beyond Good vs Evil.

For instance, prove that the Free Peoples of Middle Earth can't be interpreted as communists and socialists and Mordor as fascists, neoliberals and imperialists and that it HAS to be the other way around. You can't. You could say that this clearly wasn't Tolkien's intent, but we're ignoring intent here.

>>37158
The only political subtext you can actually connect with the story is the divide between town and country, between smelly and rude Londoner orcs and wholesome shire hobbits.

>>37159
Minas Tirith is a city.

>>37158
> prove that the Free Peoples of Middle Earth can't be interpreted as communists and socialists

they're aristocratic monarchies for one

>>37161
That's because it's based on old myths and legends that were produced by aristocratic monarchies. And Mordor is no less an aristocratic monarchy than Gondor.

What's more, these monarchies don't operate like any modern day, real world society. For one, modern capitalist societies are republics or "monarchies" that operate as de facto republics. Secondly, LotR monarchies aren't organized like actual, real world monarchies. For instance Aragorn clearly believes in marrying for love and political marriage doesn't even cross his mind, and the proof of him as the rightful king has less to do with who is dad was (though Aragorn is ultimately a descendant of Isildur) and more to do with him fulfilling various prophesies. This is because he's a king in the sense of mythology, old legends and chivalric romance rather than a king in the sense of political monarchism.

It's been a hell of a long time since I read the Silmarillion and it's frankly a dry book compared to Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, at least for me. I recall that Sauron was the one that convinced the Elven Lords to forge the magical rings that the One Ring controlled and led to the fall of Numenor, but I frankly forget HOW he convinced them of this, nor how this led to Numenor's fall exactly besides the general sowing of fbi.gov and corruption. Can anyone summarize or cite the speciifcs please? Thanks.

>>37163
If they're monarchies and aristocrats they're not communists and socialists.

>>37164
>the general sowing of fbi.gov and corruption.
lmao

> it's frankly a dry book compared to Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit

Yeah, it's just the bare bones of a story without much flourish because it's constructed from Tolkien's notes rather than being a finished work with all the polish that LOTR got.

>the fall of Numenor

Sauron was trying to conquer the world, and Numenor in the height of its power came and wrecked his shit. It's a seriously one-sided fight, and they take Sauron captive and haul his ass back to Numenor. He plays nice for a while and acts like he's reformed, doling out secrets and information that makes the Numenorians even more powerful, while sowing seeds of doubt and fbi.gov between the humans and the elves, especially leading them to believe that the elves know the secret to immortality but just won't tell the humans about it.

Over the course of a hundred years or so, the humans and elves grow distant and distrustful and the Numenorians become cruel and wicked. IIRC Ar Pharazon, the same king that defeated Sauron, is old and terrified of the thought of dying. Sauron convinces him that if he goes West to Valinor, he'll be able to wrest immortality from the gods.

So he gets a huge army together, sails West to Valinor, and disembarks with his army, only for the ground to open up and swallow them all whole. As punishment, the gods destroy Numenor and sink it beneath the ocean. The only survivors are from the peninsula of Numenor closest to Valinor, which kept good relations between them and the elves and left after they found out what the king was doing. They'd go on to make Arnor and Gondor. Sauron was still on the island when it was destroyed, and that's when he loses his physical form and the ability to "take pleasing shapes."

>>37165
Yes, exactly. But at the same time they can hardly be called liberals or fascists, who aren't exactly feudal monarchists either. If you're trying to make them allegorical, so that even though liberals and fascists generally are not monarchist, you say that these are medieval kingdoms representing liberalism or fascism, there's nothing to say that you couldn't have a medieval fantasy kingdom that was allegorical for the socialist and communist movements, and there's nothing in the book that would point to Rohan, Gondor or Lothlórien being allegorical for liberals or fascists and NOT socialists or communists.

Tolkien strictly denied that Lord of the Rings was allegorical for anything. It was just inspired by mythology, old legends and chivalric romance. This naturally means that all societies shown are monarchies because there are no ancient tales of parliaments and soviet republics.

>>37166
I see, many thanks. Yeah that filter can be a pain in conversation, LOL.

Why his reactionary fascist fantasy resonates with the "progressive" cultural revolution of the 1960s is the question. How is it that the most hypercapitalist neoliberalism became fused with feudalistic fantasies found in LOTR? How did fantasy become the literary genre of neoliberalism, or at least its true believers? We know he disavows of white supremacism (letter about "aryan" heritage), but I don't trust it. In his fictional universe, things seem pretty white supremacist. Heroes have to be of worthy ancestry, and Aragorn is described very often as the perfect human due to his heritage. Each and every conflict seems to be extremely black and white. Peasantry is of no importance, they are dirty, stupid and unwashed refugees. The most powerful societies are all feudalist/monarchist, good people have extreme amounts of wealth, colonialism is good, and when a society fails this is due to a greater power such as Morgoth and Sauron, not because of societal failure. After Saruman cut down the forest to build his siege weapons, the trees came down to destroy him. Through his, Tolkien represents feudalism as a flourishing society, and industrialism of Saruman and Sauron as evil. Some creatures have a greater innate value than others, with orcs being irredeemable and elves being immortal. Another recurring theme of his is the decay through time. The world is only becoming worse, it is mentioned that everything was perfect at some point in the past, and people do not have the power to "save" the world. Those are all rather reactionary ideas.
When analyzing the matter deeper, we learn that the orcs were designed to represent the uyghurs, and Saruman and Sauron represent jews sending said uyghurs into Middle earth, representing white lands. Saruman (jew) gives the orcs (uyghurs) the mark of the white hand (intelligence quotient) and gives them technologically-advanced (white) seige engines so they are able to fight men, dwarves, and elves (white european tribes). Additionally, the hobbits represent white children. Tolkien is alluding to the 14 words by saying to his fellow reactionaries that they must destroy the jew/uyghur attack to defend the Shire if white children are to have a future. His moral meaning of being evil is being a gold-obsessed jew, represented by Sauron on his quest to retrieve the gold ring, and that future white generations (hobbits) are the key to destroying mammon through destroying the gold ring and refusing the jew's power (interest bearing loans). On the other hand, Smeagol represents the mutt, that was absolutely corrupted by the absolute power of mammon, and Tolkien uses him to serve as an example as to the fate of the white man if they get corrupted.
You would think science fiction would be the genre of silicon valley and Muskish techno-fetishism, but there is plenty of fantasy like the works of Tolkein that is basically a treatise on reactionism, which forms the root of hippie ideology. But there's something about the genre that gets too close to the essence of things. Not that it was important right now but is there any commentary on this? What do you think?

>>37938
>Tolkien's work is reactionary and lies at the root of neoliberalism
No.

>Why his reactionary fascist fantasy resonates with the "progressive" cultural revolution of the 1960s is the question.
Because it wasn't reactionary or fascist and also because it had anti-war, anti-racist and environmentalist themes. It was also an escapist fantasy, offering vivid and poetic depictions of the journey of the Fellowship that some hippies likened to an LSD trip. This during a time when there was growing interest in escapism and "mind expansion."

>How is it that the most hypercapitalist neoliberalism became fused with feudalistic fantasies found in LOTR?

>We know he disavows of white supremacism (letter about "aryan" heritage), but I don't trust it. In his fictional universe, things seem pretty white supremacist. Heroes have to be of worthy ancestry, and Aragorn is described very often as the perfect human due to his heritage.
Aragorn is a half-elf, or at least descends from a race of half-elves. While he is one of the most pure blooded of the Dúnedain, his worthiness is more tied to him fulfilling a series of prophesies. His ascent to kingship is more inspired by myth and legend than race science.

This also ignores the point that Aragorn is not the main hero of Lord of the Rings. The Hobbits are. In terms of power and ancestry, Hobbits are the shittiest creatures imaginable. The One Ring is stated to be an artifact of immense power. The reason why we only ever see Frodo and Bilbo turn invisible is literally because the power level of Hobbits is too low to do anything except use the One Ring's most basic bitch ability. And yet, these Hobbits are the heroes. And they're the heroes because of their courage, determination and purity of heart, which is here treated as a quality greater than any of the powers of any king or wizard.

>Each and every conflict seems to be extremely black and white.
That's because it is very black and white. It's a story about good vs evil. There is some nuance, though, like the book more or less outright stating the Men of Rohan were wrong to treat the Drúedain like animals.

>Peasantry is of no importance, they are dirty, stupid and unwashed refugees.
The peasantry aren't really mentioned at all except as background commoners. This isn't work about feudalism.

>The most powerful societies are all feudalist/monarchist, good people have extreme amounts of wealth, colonialism is good, and when a society fails this is due to a greater power such as Morgoth and Sauron, not because of societal failure.
What are you talking about? The books absolutely state that internal social failure was behind the collapse of Arnor and the decline of Gondor.

<'It is not said that evil arts were ever practised in Gondor, or that the Nameless One was ever named in honour there; and the old wisdom and beauty brought out of the West remained long in the realm of the sons of Elendil the Fair, and they linger there still. Yet even so it was Gondor that brought about its own decay, falling by degrees into dotage, and thinking that the Enemy was asleep, who was only banished not destroyed.
<'Death was ever present, because the Numenoreans still, as they had in their old kingdom, and so lost it, hungered after endless life unchanging. Kings made tombs more splendid than houses of the living, and counted old names in the rolls of their descent dearer than the names of sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on heraldry; in secret chambers withered men compounded strong elixirs, or in high cold towers asked questions of the stars. And the last king of the line of Anarion had no heir.

>After Saruman cut down the forest to build his siege weapons, the trees came down to destroy him. Through his, Tolkien represents feudalism as a flourishing society, and industrialism of Saruman and Sauron as evil.
?

How is Saruman getting attacked by the Ents an endorsement of feudalism? Do you think the Ents are a feudal society? I don't see any evidence of that.

>Another recurring theme of his is the decay through time. The world is only becoming worse, it is mentioned that everything was perfect at some point in the past, and people do not have the power to "save" the world. Those are all rather reactionary ideas.
Yes and no. There are themes of decay, but if you've read the Silmarillion, you'd know that the past was no utopia. I don't see how themes of decay are reactionary, either. Do communists not claim that capitalism is in a state of progressive decay?

>When analyzing the matter deeper, we learn that the orcs were designed to represent the uyghurs, and Saruman and Sauron represent jews sending said uyghurs into Middle earth, representing white lands. Saruman (jew) gives the orcs (uyghurs) the mark of the white hand (intelligence quotient) and gives them technologically-advanced (white) seige engines so they are able to fight men, dwarves, and elves (white european tribes). Additionally, the hobbits represent white children. Tolkien is alluding to the 14 words by saying to his fellow reactionaries that they must destroy the jew/uyghur attack to defend the Shire if white children are to have a future. His moral meaning of being evil is being a gold-obsessed jew, represented by Sauron on his quest to retrieve the gold ring, and that future white generations (hobbits) are the key to destroying mammon through destroying the gold ring and refusing the jew's power (interest bearing loans). On the other hand, Smeagol represents the mutt, that was absolutely corrupted by the absolute power of mammon, and Tolkien uses him to serve as an example as to the fate of the white man if they get corrupted.
???

>>37941
>LOTR
>Anti-Racist
If you watch the original trilogy you'll see that every evil human faction is Arab/Persian and even when white people like Sauraman or Wormtongue are evil they command literal orcs to pillage and rape le pure white men and elves or whatever the fuck.
>But the new Amazon series-
shut the fuck up that's basically fanfiction and tokenism to try to address the glaring racism of the original trilogy

>>37948
>le pure white men
Aragorn (the man crowned king) is mixed race. And he goes on to wed an elf who also has mixed ancestry. This is portrayed as a good thing.

The reason the bad factions are bad is because they side with the bad guy, not their race. The Watsonian explanation why Sauron's human forces are ethnically distinct is because in-universe his control is bounded to specific territories. The Doylean explanation is that Tolkien was building on very old mythic tropes that had roots in actual history and an orientalist lens. In that respect it's a fantasy from a European perspective, which can't help but be racist. Europe is in many ways defined by racism. Insofar as race is explicitly referenced in the story and not just being informed by background prejudice, anti-racism is among the most overt themes. The core of the story is about people of many races cooperating with each other.

>>37948
Nobody talks about the Amazon series, it's garbage and doesn't try to fix anything, it is in fact far MORE racist.
>If you watch the original trilogy you'll see that every evil human faction is Arab/Persian
1) That's the films, those are not the same thing as the books
2) They are not 'evil', that's nev is thater been Tolkien's assertion for the men that sided with Sauron such as the Easterlings, they hope to be conquerors (like many other groups of men in medieval settings) and are manipulated by Sauron unwittingly
>even when white people like Sauraman or Wormtongue are evil they command literal orcs to pillage and rape le pure white men and elves
<Ah yes the orcs who are a real race in the human world???
This reeks of projection and ignores entirely the origins of the orcs, why they're so vile and why Saruman commands them. Your race obsession and projection says more about you being racist than LOTR.

The thread has literally gone into details about the Orcs, debunking the "racism" card, scroll up.

TLDR: If you think orcs are "black-coded" or whatever the hip new liberal term is, You've got issues.

>>37948
>If you watch the original trilogy you'll see that every evil human faction is Arab/Persian
The Easterlings are not themselves evil. Their countries were just taken over by Sauron. The Two Towers, for instance, has this:
>It was Sam's first view of a battle of Men against Men, and he did not like it much. He was glad that he could not see the dead face. He wondered what the man's name was and where he came from; and if he was really evil of heart, or what lies or threats had led him on the long march from his home; and if he would rather have stayed there in peace.

Reposting some takes about Sauron and the story from an old thread regardless of my own agreement
Anon 1:
>Capitalism is all the free people's of middle earth in gradual decline with elves leaving, the Men of Gondor without a King for century's and in decline not to mention men like the Haradrim and Easterlings wanting to side with us.
>We are Sauron the necromancer hiding out in Mirkwood we are rapidly building our power in the background and following the ideal theory to get more power.
>We will continue gaining power and achieve world domination or in this case world communism unless the capitalists can achieve a miracle akin to throwing the ring in mount doom.

Anon 2:
>Sauron is capitalism. He enroaches everything with his presence.
>Saruman was a social democrat turned fascist. He was a scientist, an engineer, and a visionary. He became corrupted by capitalism and used his ingenuity for industrial genocide.
>The race of Men are the Slavs. They were once great, and fought nobly against capitalism (USSR), but eventually became corrupted by the power of capitalism (the ring) and greed.
>The elves are the Chinese. They fought against capital with the Slavs at some point, but when Men became corrupted, they broke relations entirely.
>The dwarves are ex-Yugoslavia. No, I will not elaborate.
>Aragorn is the next Lenin, essentially.
>The hobbits are the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
>When the time comes, we will have to make a last stand to distract capital, force it's gaze upon us, while the hobbits do their final work and decimate the rate of profit.

Anon 3:
>Mordor is communist. They have industry and all the orca live in the same material conditions. Even their generals and captains sleep and eat with the enlisted orcs. Sauron and Saruman are your Maos and Kims and Stalins.
>Everyone else lives in a social democrat petit bourgeois utopia. People have small businesses, own lands that others toil. Sam is Frodo's gardner, is visibly poorer, but they're best friends.
>Gondor is a reactionary hellhole, no tax policy and just letting people fend for themselves. If anyone gets too uppity they crush them.
>Rohan is feudal. You have the royals, the soldiers and everyone else is a peasant who lives in literal horse shit.
>Dwarves are greedy fucks nobody likes, that just dig shiny things everyone wants but still looks down on Dwarves.
>Woodland Elves are egotistical hippies that enjoy fucking with everyone who is different from them.
>High Elves are cultists.
>And they all tolerate each other. But here comes someone who sees through the fucking charade, decides to fuck over everyone who decided to make for themselves "rings of power", even though they had power over the land in every meaningful way but nah, needed a physical representation on their finger.
>Who does Sauron use to shake things up? The orcs, the goblins, the giants, everyone who has been chased away because they don't fit into bougie paradise. Orcs literally come from the ground. But no, preserving trees is much more important than giving orcs jobs and places to live.

Tolkien:
>I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien

>>37949
>The Doylean explanation is that Tolkien was building on very old mythic tropes that had roots in actual history and an orientalist lens.

He borrows several elements directly from The Song of Roland, like Boromir's death scene. In TSOR the Muslims are depicted as being evil pagans, but on the battlefield can be every bit as valorous as their Christian counterparts. I don't remember if Tolkien really goes into the people or cultures of the "evil men." He's more about all the heraldry and shit, and wanting there to be opposing champions, and in the medieval tradition the bad guys have to be the match of the good guys in martial areas, but also esteem and station, if not moral character.

Where is that quote from his biography regarding how he believes lowly peons should bow their heads/remove their hats when engaging with the upper class

>>37950
Orcs are actually Angl*id-coded

>>37950
Any good quotes/resources regarding Tolkien's thoughts on the British Empire?

>>40719
NTA, but iirc Tolkien's response to the belief that Lord of the Rings was supposed to be an allegory for WWII was to give an outline of what Lord of the Rings would have looked like if it actually WAS an allegory for WWII, in which case it would have been a much more grey vs black conflict and if the elves, Gondor, Rohan, et al were allegorical for the Western Allied Powers (France, Britain, the United States, et al) then would have taken the Ring for themselves and conquered the Shire and enslaved the hobbits.

>>40788
The simplistic "forces of good vs forces of evil" don't really work then since national chauvinism, like anything people call "evil," is just false consciousness. There is no good and evil as ideologies, these are simply ideological judgements of others. It's all just spooks in your head, people are evil because they think they are the good guys. Orks should think they did nuffin rong and that they are blessed by Jesus.

>>40791
Okay, so
1) Tolkien stated multiple times that Lord of the Rings wasn't an allegory for anything. His example in my post was what the story would have looked like if he was making it some kind of political allegory, namely for WWII.

2) Tolkien didn't necessarily deal strictly with Malthusian evil. He plays with the idea, but Malthusian evil (which is evil as its own motive force opposite to good) takes a huge thematic backseat to "evil as an absence of good" or "evil as an absence of virtue."

>>40796
>Malthusian evil
Sorry, I meant Manichaen evil. Whoops.

>>40796
The idea of virtue is also relative to one's ideology. Just because the evil is defined through the lack of good doesn't mean that it changes anything, it just makes "goodness" the ideology that defines what "evilness" is not. The kind of relationship between good and evil becomes a dependency instead of opposition, otherwise it's all the same.