Quote:
Originally Posted by Orphalesion
Okay I might make myself unpopular here :-(
|
No. You did not make yourself
unpopular. I liked your posts.
Quote:
Please don't take offense, but saying that is a tiny bit narrow minded and discards a huge corpus of literature. Not sure what you define as modern literature if who mean the "Twilight" "World of Warcraft" "Magic the Gathering" s***te, I totally agree, but what about all the good stuff that was written since the LOTR was released?
Even if we only count fantasy: "The Last Unicorn" by Peter S. Beagle, "Gormenghast" by Mervyn Peake "The Princess Bride" by William Goldman, "A Song of Ice and Fire" by R.R.Martin "The Once and Future King" by T.H. White... do I need to go on? I would count all these books as on the same level, if different, and in some ways superior/inferior to the LOTR (Song of Ice and Fire, for instance, has imho more relateable and colorful characters, but it does have annoying, gratuitous sex scenes and the way the story slags since book 4 is the "Rohan Situation" taken to its extreme) AND "Song of Ice and Fire" has something I have always missed in LOTR: an "evil" character who, over the story redeems themselves: Jamie Lannister. In the LOTR good characters can fall from grace: (Denethor, Saurman) but there is (for instance) no Orc that changes sides. Considering Tolkien is a Christian writer that is a bit strange.
Anyway: If we expand that statement beyond fantasy....then I have to check if these posts have a maximum word count.
Bottom line, new stuff is not automatically inferior to old stuff (just like old stuff is not automatically inferior to new stuff) and if we believe that we'll end up like the Elves at the end of the Third Age; in a state of endless, cultural stagnation and melancholia for the "good old days" The LOTR times also had their fair share of horrid literature, but horrid literature doesn't survive usually and gets forgotten, while the good stuff gets remembered and remains in print to become "classics".
That all being said, I do think that the LOTR Movies are mindboggingly boring and ugly to look at (Minas Tirith looks like poo, Llothlorien looks like unholy spiderwebs etc.) But that has nothing to do with the books of course.
|
No offence really. When I meant "modern literature", I didn't mean to say the new stuff is bad or something (yup, Twilight was in my mind
). But, it can not be said that the new stuff is as good as old one. New work is inspired from old(not sayin' copied).
It's like, today scientists invent/discover, and we say, if the invention is useful, that they are "better" than Al Einstein. Surely, they did something that is more useful than Einstein's discovery, but who led them?
Similarly, modern literature is inspired from old ones; not inferior, but not as powerful as classics.
Saruman & Denether good people? I can say that for Saruman 'cause he was a Maia. Can't say the same for Denether 'cause he was already 'bad' from the start. Not that bad, but ego led him to arrogance, and his arrogance led him to his own fall.
As for Saruman, I feel, he kind of redeemed himself. Not upto that extent from where he could gain his old self and dignity; but he accepted his defeat and fall(isn't that the first step to redemption or repentance?)
Gollum? What of him? He does repent.
But, there is something else at work. There is something that, imho, is as valuable as characters turning good from bad. Frodo's mercy(and later Sam's as well) leads to the ultimatel success of the quest.
Evil in Tolkien's word is stronger than I have ever seen in any Tale. After being overpowered by it, it takes alot to be the same. The Evil isn't the Evil of outer world, but that of inside of us. The fall of the Tolkien's characters, instead of showing them turning evil, shows their big flaws.