Overrated 'Classics' (Review Thread: Lists are For Fags)

[Demilich]

Another excellent review, Armageddon's Child. You balance linguistic flair with careful restraint to avoid the lascivious excess of those with whom you are so often associated!

or at least I thought so

 

[Manbient]

I don't mind him having an opinion on things, but i don't think he leaves any room for an interpretation other than his own, or else you are obviously ignorant and just plain wrong. Sounds very christian.

 

[Armageddon's Child]

Different backgrounds: prozak was a lit major who came through college at the height of the PoMo fad in American lit departments, I'm a historian who managed to mostly miss out on the more grotesque abominations of the Theory crowd. Prozak's genetic lineage (so to speak) as a writer goes back to Joyce via Pynchon - mine goes back to Thucydides by way of Jonathan Riley Smith. I'm certainly not averse to a felicity of style or to a technical vocabulary, but clarity is the first priority. I'm always going to rely more on compact aphorisms than the sort of dense description that prozak excels at.

 

[Selkie]

can we also add Tolkein to the overrated classics, since we're on the subject of black metal? Every other BM band steals their name from LOTR, wtf?

 

[Demilich]

Tolkien's words convey some of the most powerful imagery I have ever experienced in literature. This claim means absolutely nothing, however, as I don't read enough anymore and never strayed too far out of childish escapist fantasy circles when I did. I have aspirations for the future, but as of now my lineage as a casual writer amounts to Piers Anthony via Robert Jordan

 

[Alcapoth]

WANKERNESS: HOLY fucking shit, man...your sig...I never laughed my fucking ass off so hard. I can't stop laughing...

As for the thread, couldn't disagree more with the rating heh.

 

[Selkie]

Tolkien's words convey some of the most powerful imagery I have ever experienced in literature. This claim means absolutely nothing, however, as I don't read enough anymore and never strayed too far out of childish escapist fantasy circles when I did. I have aspirations for the future, but as of now my lineage as a casual writer amounts to Piers Anthony via Robert Jordan

The only thing Tolkien was passably good at was world-building. Most of his characters are dull, hugely stereotypical, and painfully unrealistic. There's also the simplistic plot, centered on some unsuspecting heroes on a magic quest to save the world from evil and destruction. Much of LOTR reads like a travel logue, as characters aimlessly transverse the coutryside whilst whining inconsolably about their fortunes, and recounting irrelevant history and background information. Tolkein posesses very little in the way of humor, which reads as lame and awkward at best.

When Gandalf gets resurected, it becomes obvious that Tolkien will continue to use contrived Deus ex Machina plot devices to save his precious characters from any perilous situation. This begs the question of why one should even bother getting emotionally involved if the end can be expected to be full of sunshine and rainbows?

In addition, I hold Tolkien accountable for paving the way for abominations like Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Terry Goodkind, etc. that destroy all of fantasy's marginally redeeming qualities.

 

[all_sins_undone]

epic post

 

[Manbient]

so many negative people around here... what's the deal? As far as i know hating things isn't a good feeling.

 

[Justin S.]

so many negative people around here... what's the deal? As far as i know hating things isn't a good feeling.

Is this sarcasm?

 

[Manbient]

Is this sarcasm?

I wouldn't think so. Maybe other people actually do enjoy hating things? I don't. I'd rather like them.

 

[Rocky Raccoon]

dam metal ages just locked the Enslaved thread!

 

[Selkie]

I can't be bothered to hate anything, really. What's wrong with criticizing a few sacred cows?

 

[biggsy]

i actually agree with selkie. tolkein is too concerned with conveying the beauty of the scenery than actually telling a story.

 

[Risquit]

Tolkien's words convey some of the most powerful imagery I have ever experienced in literature. This claim means absolutely nothing, however, as I don't read enough anymore and never strayed too far out of childish escapist fantasy circles when I did. I have aspirations for the future, but as of now my lineage as a casual writer amounts to Piers Anthony via Robert Jordan

You want powerful imagery, it just doesn't get better than Cormac McCarthy's bleak and oppressive, The Road (2006), or his beautiful, ultra-violent, and profound western, Blood Meridian (1985).

 

[Justin S.]

so many negative people around here... what's the deal? As far as i know hating things isn't a good feeling...[snip] Maybe other people actually do enjoy hating things? I don't. I'd rather like them.

Its not a matter of "hating" (did I stumble upon the Chamillionaire forum by accident?), but being critical. It is often and incorrectly conflated with "negativity". It is the opposite- it seeks to find what is truly rich and rewarding through distinction. Ironically, a non-critical approach is the most "negative" of all- everything within its gaze is "leveled-off" into a null "equality".

 

[illidurit]

^ best post I've seen you write

 

[a rofl nazi]

what a fuckin faggot lmao

 

[Armageddon's Child]

The only thing Tolkien was passably good at was world-building. Most of his characters are dull, hugely stereotypical, and painfully unrealistic. There's also the simplistic plot, centered on some unsuspecting heroes on a magic quest to save the world from evil and destruction. Much of LOTR reads like a travel logue, as characters aimlessly transverse the coutryside whilst whining inconsolably about their fortunes, and recounting irrelevant history and background information. Tolkein posesses very little in the way of humor, which reads as lame and awkward at best.

You're a little unfair to Tolkien in the sense that you seem to expect his work to work like a Modern novel rather than, as it was intended, as a romantic epic for the modern world. Epic literature has never been about convoluted plots or realistic characterization - it's focus has always been on the presentation of ideals and the heroic power of language itself.

If Tolkien has a weakness, it is the intrusion of his Christian ideals into a genre that really demands a pagan sensibility. The central purpose of the epic has always been to illustrate the ideal of heroic living, an ideal which, at its core, means being reconciled to death, facing extinction without terror, and bringing meaning to life through the fulfillment of duty in the face of death. In all cultures, the epic tradition exists to teach us how to be human in the most comprehensive and transcendent sense of the word - epics illustrate, through fantasy, the deeper spiritual and psychological reality of our mortality and humanity. But in constantly denying death, Tolkien provides, not illumination through fantasy, but escapism through the embrace of unreality. In denying death, he denies humanity, and forfeits our natural sense of connectedness to his world and its people.

Still, it's a stirring work, and one that is is powerful in its language and its clear vision of the real meaning of strength, and ought not be dismissed for not conforming to the expectations of modernist realism.

 

[Manbient]

Its not a matter of "hating" (did I stumble upon the Chamillionaire forum by accident?), but being critical. It is often and incorrectly conflated with "negativity". It is the opposite- it seeks to find what is truly rich and rewarding through distinction. Ironically, a non-critical approach is the most "negative" of all- everything within its gaze is "leveled-off" into a null "equality".

yes, you did stumble on the chamillioinaire forum! cool joke! please make more i love your sense of humor! HOORAY FOR JUSTIN S!!! apparently we have a lot of critical people around here who feel rather justified in telling people they don't know how to properly interpret things in the way that will make them not like it. if being critical is the excuse these days for using big words to try and belittle other people and other things and prove just how smrt you are, then i'd rather not partake. I don't know what happened here, but it seems half the posters are these critical people who enjoy pompous wordplay and are appalled at the notion they might not know more than everyone else here by a significant margin. ever disagree with someone? they're just not being as critical as you. Simple. And thus in this way you can never be wrong.