6 ms·

Most overrated author of all time whose shortcomings and excesses (simplistic morals, obvious dichotomy between good and evil, wafer thin characterizations) con

Most overrated author of all time whose shortcomings and excesses (simplistic morals, obvious dichotomy between good and evil, wafer thin characterizations) continue to haunt the genre

rwmj 10y ago
"Most overrated author of all time"?
- na85 10y ago
  Surely that's Dan Brown.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Dan Brown wrote a thriller people couldn't put down. Tolkien simulated the hobbits arduous journey with his writing style. Funnily enough, before the Da Vinci code, the last book I read that I couldn't put down was The Hobbit.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      Da Vinci code starts like something where you think "I won't be able to put it down" and halfway through it's turning into "What absolute piece of rubbish."
      - flukus 10y ago
        Not for me, I was hooked until the end. I only read it because I watched my father do the same.
    - na85 10y ago
      Dan Brown wrote the same novel 4-5 times.
noonespecial 10y ago
I'd say he invented the genre and so had to include some simple and readily grasped tropes in order to give it mass appeal... Or perhaps it gained that mass appeal precielsely by incorporating what you criticize. Don't sweat it, when you write your world changing, genre defining masterwork, you can make it as deep and morally ambiguous as you please.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  There was plenty of fantasy fiction pre-Tolkien.
  - yolesaber 10y ago
    No clue why you are being downvoted. You are 100 percent correct. If anything, we are now saddled with Tolkien's dry tropes as the defining element of "fantasy".
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
      It's just how things are on HN. Here are some pre-Tolkien authors people may be interested in: * Dunsany * Mirrlees * Hodgson * Eddison * Howard * Lovecraft * and there are more, just google them, these are just the ones that come to mind
  - elihu 10y ago
    How much of it do people still read, that you'd be likely to find in a typical bookstore? Aside from George MacDonald and things that are similar but not exactly the same as modern fantasy novels, such as various collections of fairy tales and epics like the Odyssey, I can't think of any examples. The Chronicles of Narnia were published in the 50's, whereas the Hobbit was released in 1937.
- na85 10y ago
  >Don't sweat it, when you write your world changing, genre defining masterwork, you can make it as deep and morally ambiguous as you please. I hate this criticism. The idea that unless you are an author of similar calibre, you are not fit to critique is a dangerous one. I haven't written an operating system, but I can still tell you that Windows 10 has numerous flaws. Should I STFU until I write my own?
ekianjo 10y ago
> obvious dichotomy between good and evil You probably haven't read a line from him if you say this. Do not mistake the author for the movies from Hollywood.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  Come on, Tolkien was a devout Catholic and the LOTR is a pretty overt moral "pilgrim's progress" tale in the vein of medieval allegory. I enjoy the books, but I wouldn't exactly say Tolkien worked in any gray areas. The closest it comes to that is Frodo not throwing the ring in.
  - okey 10y ago
    I think what you complaining about is really that Tolkein wasn't a moral relativist and that shows clearly in his writing. This is different to the original complaint about a dichotomy - belief that some things are ultimately good and some other things are ultimately evil is not the same as dividing everything into rigid categories of only good or only evil. Calling it a pilgrim's progress tale is a bit unwarranted, or at least overly reductionist - it's not that simplistic and that's only one aspect of LotR anyway. A few grey areas off the top of my head: various elven decisions, Denethor, Frodo, Smeagol/Gollum, Saruman's initial study of ringlore. In Tolkien's writing, individuals do clearly good things, clearly bad things, difficult to judge things, and and things that are some combination of the previous three. All this happens within the framework of the very traditional overarching light v. dark theme (which is also the source of the association between evil and 'dark' and 'twisted' characterisations that some like to complain about). A lot of it boils down to taste.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    > a devout Catholic and the LOTR is a pretty overt moral "pilgrim's progress" tale in the vein of medieval allegory It's much more subtle than that. LOTR has characters who are deeply ambiguous, and do not fall clearly into Evil or Good in a traditional sense. Folks like Denethor, Gollum, and even Boromir have multiple facets. Even Frodo is tempted to use the Ring multiple times even though he is aware of the implications. And let's not forget that, in the book (not the movies, which missed the point of that part completely), the Shire is ultimately destroyed even though Frodo was successful in destroying the Ring. That is clearly not your typical, regular fairy tale ending.
AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Well, much of the evil is truly evil. But there is the recurring danger that good people become seduced by the evil, and the acknowledgement that the capability to be overcome by that seduction exists in "good" people. I'm not sure that I see the dichotomy as a ruling idea here.
- macintux 10y ago
  I'd agree. The truly evil characters are barely present in the books; the stories are much more about how the rest of the world reacts to the threat. Saruman, Denethor, Boromir, Theoden, the elves choosing to largely stay out of the war...these are people facing hard decisions with limited information and no expectation that victory is possible. How many of us would make choices in the face of the end of the world that an outside observer would call unambiguously good and wise?
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    Denethor is actually a great example, who also happened to be done a fair amount of disservice in the movies. In the books, Denethor is a rational character who is recognized for his wisdom and insight. Gandalf has immense respect for him (though they are not friendly) and at some level they are peers - not at a fundamental level, obviously, Gandalf being Maia. Denethor is the character who is using reason to get through the day. He isn't operating on faith like Gandalf. He's used the palantir, out of necessity, so he understands the situation better than anyone else. He's stood up to Sauron himself in one-on-one mental battle time and again. He thinks, quite rightly, that Gandalf's plan to send the Ring into Mordor is insane: if the Enemy gets the Ring, everything is over. The most rational thing to do is to hide the Ring away in the most secure place possible (Minas Tirith), and, in the event that they have no other choice, to use the Ring to defeat Sauron. Of course, he accepts that that choice is already out of their hands. Frodo is already gone. But Denethor has known, all this time, that Gondor (and therefore the West) cannot hope to defeat Sauron. They are ultimately doomed. Gandalf affirms this even after Denethor dies, when he proposes the march to Mordor. Even after their victory at Pelennor, they are doomed. They have defeated only a tiny fraction of Sauron's forces. The last straw for Denethor, of course, is losing both his sons on top of knowing they are all doomed (after a last consultation with Sauron.) But when you look at Denethor through this lens, he looks a lot different than his portrayal as a crazy madman. What distinguishes him and Gandalf is Gandalf's faith that everything will work out.
JoeDaDude 10y ago
For an alternative to Tolkien's simple morality, consider “The Last Ringbearer” by one Yisroel Markov. It is effectively telling the LOTR story a Mordor point of view. Quoting from an article [1] about it: "In Yeskov’s retelling, the wizard Gandalf is a war-monger intent on crushing the scientific and technological initiative of Mordor ... He’s in cahoots with the elves, who aim to become “masters of the world,” and turn Middle-earth into a “bad copy” of their magical homeland across the sea. ...the remnants of Mordor’s civilization fight a rear-guard guerrilla campaign to sustain the “green shoots of reason and progress,” in opposition to the “static” and “tidy” pseudo-paradise of Middle-earth under the elven regime." [1] http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer/
- wosos 10y ago
  This sounds so wonderful, even as a Tolkien fan, I always thought that many at the side of Saruman and Co. were doing what they thought best, and eventually may even refine their arts to match those of the elves.
  - okey 10y ago
    Saruman did what he thought best, initially for noble reasons... and that turned out poorly. This is part of the seductive power theme in LotR, which in general I consider something of a counterpoint to GGP's complaints about "simplistic morals" and "obvious dichotomy".
    - wosos 10y ago
      True, it's an interesting point. As it was with Boromir (who wanted it for good) or Gandalf when he denies taking the ring. They could've ended doing evil with initial noble intentions, that's how the ring would've exploited them.
      - okey 10y ago
        Exactly. Galadriel, Elrond, and Faramir also have the opportunity to take the One Ring, and choose not to. Sadly Faramir's rejection of it was not portrayed in the movies.
mfichman 10y ago
I think Frodo's failure to destroy the ring is a good example of how Tolkien's books do not have a simple good vs. evil dichotomy. Other good examples are the wrath/pride of Feanor's sons, and the tale of Turin, both from the Silmarillion.
- adrianratnapala 10y ago
  Tolkien has a very Christian good / evil dichotomy. And Frodo at the cracks of doom fits right in. In this scheme, we mortals are not able to save ourselves, only God can do that. In Frodo's case, Gollum turned out to be Gods instrument. But first Frodo had climb the mountain before that could happen.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I think Frodo's failure to destroy the ring is a good example of how Tolkien's books do not have a simple good vs. evil dichotomy. I think its an example of how the focal characters are imperfect, but I don't think it shows that there isn't a simple good v. evil dichotomy in the books; I mean, there's no ambiguity that destroying the ring was the one correct course of action and that Frodo was falling short of it.
sidlls 10y ago
I hadn't realized we were discussing R.R. Martin here.

Most overrated author of all time whose shortcomings and excesses (simplistic morals, obvious dichotomy between good and evil, wafer thin characterizations) continue to haunt the genre

rwmj 10y ago

"Most overrated author of all time"?

na85 10y ago
Surely that's Dan Brown.
- flukus 10y ago
  Dan Brown wrote a thriller people couldn't put down. Tolkien simulated the hobbits arduous journey with his writing style. Funnily enough, before the Da Vinci code, the last book I read that I couldn't put down was The Hobbit.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Da Vinci code starts like something where you think "I won't be able to put it down" and halfway through it's turning into "What absolute piece of rubbish."
    - flukus 10y ago
      Not for me, I was hooked until the end. I only read it because I watched my father do the same.
  - na85 10y ago
    Dan Brown wrote the same novel 4-5 times.

noonespecial 10y ago

I'd say he invented the genre and so had to include some simple and readily grasped tropes in order to give it mass appeal... Or perhaps it gained that mass appeal precielsely by incorporating what you criticize. Don't sweat it, when you write your world changing, genre defining masterwork, you can make it as deep and morally ambiguous as you please.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
There was plenty of fantasy fiction pre-Tolkien.
- yolesaber 10y ago
  No clue why you are being downvoted. You are 100 percent correct. If anything, we are now saddled with Tolkien's dry tropes as the defining element of "fantasy".
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    It's just how things are on HN. Here are some pre-Tolkien authors people may be interested in: * Dunsany * Mirrlees * Hodgson * Eddison * Howard * Lovecraft * and there are more, just google them, these are just the ones that come to mind
- elihu 10y ago
  How much of it do people still read, that you'd be likely to find in a typical bookstore? Aside from George MacDonald and things that are similar but not exactly the same as modern fantasy novels, such as various collections of fairy tales and epics like the Odyssey, I can't think of any examples. The Chronicles of Narnia were published in the 50's, whereas the Hobbit was released in 1937.
na85 10y ago
>Don't sweat it, when you write your world changing, genre defining masterwork, you can make it as deep and morally ambiguous as you please. I hate this criticism. The idea that unless you are an author of similar calibre, you are not fit to critique is a dangerous one. I haven't written an operating system, but I can still tell you that Windows 10 has numerous flaws. Should I STFU until I write my own?

ekianjo 10y ago

> obvious dichotomy between good and evil You probably haven't read a line from him if you say this. Do not mistake the author for the movies from Hollywood.

yolesaber 10y ago
Come on, Tolkien was a devout Catholic and the LOTR is a pretty overt moral "pilgrim's progress" tale in the vein of medieval allegory. I enjoy the books, but I wouldn't exactly say Tolkien worked in any gray areas. The closest it comes to that is Frodo not throwing the ring in.
- okey 10y ago
  I think what you complaining about is really that Tolkein wasn't a moral relativist and that shows clearly in his writing. This is different to the original complaint about a dichotomy - belief that some things are ultimately good and some other things are ultimately evil is not the same as dividing everything into rigid categories of only good or only evil. Calling it a pilgrim's progress tale is a bit unwarranted, or at least overly reductionist - it's not that simplistic and that's only one aspect of LotR anyway. A few grey areas off the top of my head: various elven decisions, Denethor, Frodo, Smeagol/Gollum, Saruman's initial study of ringlore. In Tolkien's writing, individuals do clearly good things, clearly bad things, difficult to judge things, and and things that are some combination of the previous three. All this happens within the framework of the very traditional overarching light v. dark theme (which is also the source of the association between evil and 'dark' and 'twisted' characterisations that some like to complain about). A lot of it boils down to taste.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > a devout Catholic and the LOTR is a pretty overt moral "pilgrim's progress" tale in the vein of medieval allegory It's much more subtle than that. LOTR has characters who are deeply ambiguous, and do not fall clearly into Evil or Good in a traditional sense. Folks like Denethor, Gollum, and even Boromir have multiple facets. Even Frodo is tempted to use the Ring multiple times even though he is aware of the implications. And let's not forget that, in the book (not the movies, which missed the point of that part completely), the Shire is ultimately destroyed even though Frodo was successful in destroying the Ring. That is clearly not your typical, regular fairy tale ending.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Well, much of the evil is truly evil. But there is the recurring danger that good people become seduced by the evil, and the acknowledgement that the capability to be overcome by that seduction exists in "good" people. I'm not sure that I see the dichotomy as a ruling idea here.

macintux 10y ago
I'd agree. The truly evil characters are barely present in the books; the stories are much more about how the rest of the world reacts to the threat. Saruman, Denethor, Boromir, Theoden, the elves choosing to largely stay out of the war...these are people facing hard decisions with limited information and no expectation that victory is possible. How many of us would make choices in the face of the end of the world that an outside observer would call unambiguously good and wise?
- Amezarak 10y ago
  Denethor is actually a great example, who also happened to be done a fair amount of disservice in the movies. In the books, Denethor is a rational character who is recognized for his wisdom and insight. Gandalf has immense respect for him (though they are not friendly) and at some level they are peers - not at a fundamental level, obviously, Gandalf being Maia. Denethor is the character who is using reason to get through the day. He isn't operating on faith like Gandalf. He's used the palantir, out of necessity, so he understands the situation better than anyone else. He's stood up to Sauron himself in one-on-one mental battle time and again. He thinks, quite rightly, that Gandalf's plan to send the Ring into Mordor is insane: if the Enemy gets the Ring, everything is over. The most rational thing to do is to hide the Ring away in the most secure place possible (Minas Tirith), and, in the event that they have no other choice, to use the Ring to defeat Sauron. Of course, he accepts that that choice is already out of their hands. Frodo is already gone. But Denethor has known, all this time, that Gondor (and therefore the West) cannot hope to defeat Sauron. They are ultimately doomed. Gandalf affirms this even after Denethor dies, when he proposes the march to Mordor. Even after their victory at Pelennor, they are doomed. They have defeated only a tiny fraction of Sauron's forces. The last straw for Denethor, of course, is losing both his sons on top of knowing they are all doomed (after a last consultation with Sauron.) But when you look at Denethor through this lens, he looks a lot different than his portrayal as a crazy madman. What distinguishes him and Gandalf is Gandalf's faith that everything will work out.

JoeDaDude 10y ago

For an alternative to Tolkien's simple morality, consider “The Last Ringbearer” by one Yisroel Markov. It is effectively telling the LOTR story a Mordor point of view. Quoting from an article [1] about it: "In Yeskov’s retelling, the wizard Gandalf is a war-monger intent on crushing the scientific and technological initiative of Mordor ... He’s in cahoots with the elves, who aim to become “masters of the world,” and turn Middle-earth into a “bad copy” of their magical homeland across the sea. ...the remnants of Mordor’s civilization fight a rear-guard guerrilla campaign to sustain the “green shoots of reason and progress,” in opposition to the “static” and “tidy” pseudo-paradise of Middle-earth under the elven regime." [1] http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/last_ringbearer/

wosos 10y ago
This sounds so wonderful, even as a Tolkien fan, I always thought that many at the side of Saruman and Co. were doing what they thought best, and eventually may even refine their arts to match those of the elves.
- okey 10y ago
  Saruman did what he thought best, initially for noble reasons... and that turned out poorly. This is part of the seductive power theme in LotR, which in general I consider something of a counterpoint to GGP's complaints about "simplistic morals" and "obvious dichotomy".
  - wosos 10y ago
    True, it's an interesting point. As it was with Boromir (who wanted it for good) or Gandalf when he denies taking the ring. They could've ended doing evil with initial noble intentions, that's how the ring would've exploited them.
    - okey 10y ago
      Exactly. Galadriel, Elrond, and Faramir also have the opportunity to take the One Ring, and choose not to. Sadly Faramir's rejection of it was not portrayed in the movies.

mfichman 10y ago

I think Frodo's failure to destroy the ring is a good example of how Tolkien's books do not have a simple good vs. evil dichotomy. Other good examples are the wrath/pride of Feanor's sons, and the tale of Turin, both from the Silmarillion.

adrianratnapala 10y ago
Tolkien has a very Christian good / evil dichotomy. And Frodo at the cracks of doom fits right in. In this scheme, we mortals are not able to save ourselves, only God can do that. In Frodo's case, Gollum turned out to be Gods instrument. But first Frodo had climb the mountain before that could happen.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I think Frodo's failure to destroy the ring is a good example of how Tolkien's books do not have a simple good vs. evil dichotomy. I think its an example of how the focal characters are imperfect, but I don't think it shows that there isn't a simple good v. evil dichotomy in the books; I mean, there's no ambiguity that destroying the ring was the one correct course of action and that Frodo was falling short of it.

sidlls 10y ago

I hadn't realized we were discussing R.R. Martin here.