9 ms·

As a Chinese person who grew up with the works of Jin Yong and Tolkien, I bristle a little bit at this comment. For one, I think the marketing term is really u

As a Chinese person who grew up with the works of Jin Yong and Tolkien, I bristle a little bit at this comment. For one, I think the marketing term is really used to explain Jin Yong's scope and impact, rather than a flat comparison of genre. In this sense, Jin Yong is, to Chinese literature, as impactful Tolkein is to Western literature. It is a tradition within Chinese literature to prefer setting your work within our history. Romance of the Three Kingdoms is perhaps the most well-known in this vein. So to be critical of "creativity" here, is, I think a little bit short-sighted. It's like saying a Ken Burns documentary lacks the creativity of The Avengers, because magic powers and superheroes don't exist in the prior. Or trying to compare a book about the personal relationships of a cancer patient (I'm thinking "The Fault In Our Stars" specifically here) to the Harry Potter series. They are just fundamentally different things where creativity is executed in different ways. Who is to say that it is not equally powerful or creative to create characters that are deeply relatable, like Jin Yong's? In my opinion, his characters tended to ask morally difficult questions more often than Tolkein's. Jin Yong wrote stories that were rooted in Chinese tradition, but his impact among young Chinese minds is greater than what even I can describe in a Hacker News comment. He wrote books that were about strength of self, moral character, freedom, and defiance in a time when the Chinese government strictly punished all of these things. I confess that I know nothing about Tolkein's backstory or history, but I can plainly see his impact. I think it is reasonable to say that Jin Yong's impact is as important and wide spread as Tolkein's.

wirrbel 8y ago
I don't know jin Yong (what would I read from him first as european? Any recommendations?) But I tend to dislike the overarching glorification of Tolkien. Surely an impressive writer and world-builder but surely not the only one and not necessarily the best.
- twright0 8y ago
  Out of curiosity, which writers would you put above Tolkien for world-building (in the Western canon)?
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    George Orwell is the most influential one I can think of.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      Things like 1984 don't really count as fantasy though (unfortunately) as they were an extrapolation of things that were already happening in the 1930s and 1940s.
      - watwut 8y ago
        In the same sense, high fantasy is just extrapolation of national wars and myths.
    - idoubtit 8y ago
      George Orwell certainly was a successful writer (in the sense that he became famous and sold many books), but not a world-builder. 1984 is a rip-off from Zamyatin's novel, "We". Ironically, Orwell wrote before WWII that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) was heavily inspired by We (1921). Then he wrote 1984 (1949) which borrows even more: it's the same story, with more romance and a more mainstream narrating style.
  - Pamar 8y ago
    Personally, I enjoyed T.H. White immensely more than Tolkien, but this is surely just a matter of personal preferences.
  - victoriasun 8y ago
    I think it's pretty hard to answer this question because what Tolkein is good at and what he is bad at are two sides of the same coin. Tolkein presents an extremely fantastical view of the world and ascribes to what I call "cosmic morality." There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end. I don't mean this in a Deus Ex Machina way, by the way, as cosmic morality is justified within Tolkein's universe. I think Breaking Bad is a good example of this as well -- the Universe has passed its judgment on the characters it deems necessary to pass judgment on, and it works within its story without detracting from it or seeming like a Deus Ex Machina. So much of the criticism of Tolkein in the modern day, to me, surrounds this concept where he ascribes to the idea that the Universe will eventually judge sinners and saints. That being said, it does not and should not detract from the sheer magnitude of his creative work, as well as his linguistic ability. George RR Martin, is, I think, an obvious counterpoint and much of his writing is driven by a distaste for this amount of cosmic morality. If we were to harken back to amazing TV, GRRM is more like The Wire -- they choose to present the world in a way they deem "factual". But in doing so they lose some of the higher fantasy elements that Tolkein's world building is known for. So I think when you ask the question of who is a better world-builder I think you need to start with asking whether or not you want a cynically real depiction (ala GRRM) or you want a story that justifies it's heroic deeds (ala Tolkein) first. Because, in my opinion, they are hard to compare.
- victoriasun 8y ago
  It can be difficult to get into reading JY as a Western reader as he writes in extremely poetic language. There are a lot of great articles on the difficulties of translating Chinese poetry if you're interested in the subject. Instead -- I suggest you watch some of his live action adaptions! The Smiling, Proud Wanderer is my personal favorite JY story, and my favorite drama rendition is the 2001 one starring Li Yapeng. He is probably best known for the Condor Trilogy (The Legend of the Condor Heroes, The Return of the Condor Heroes, and The Heavenly Sword and Dragon Saber) and although I loved the first I was never personally that into the latter two of the series. Probably his greatest work is in my opinion Demi-gods and Semi-Devils, although that might not be a good entry point into the series. I would look at TSPW or TLCH first :) And well, Tolkein will always hold a special place in my heart. But I do agree that he is slightly over romanticized as an author.
  - stevenwoo 8y ago
    I've watched Laughing in the Wind (2001, 4 seasons with 10 episodes each) but with English subtitles as I don't speak Chinese and have to warn the other poster that it's availability is extremely limited last time I looked.
- int_19h 8y ago
  I think that it's quite reasonable to consider Tolkien as one of the best world-builders in the Western canon. But that is unsurprising, given that the man basically devoted his entire life to constructing a single imaginary world - he was a world-builder first, and writer second (and far better at the first than he was at the second, IMO). Most authors create a world to tell their stories in, and it's only as detailed as the story needs it to be. Tolkien wrote stories as, basically, illustrations to his world-building. Most of them didn't even get cleaned up to be publishable until long after his death.
  - wirrbel 8y ago
    on the other hand, I sometimes feel like he has done a lot of "history building", but I find his world sometimes incredibly sparsely described.
- billfruit 8y ago
  I suppose Tolkien perhaps is in the company of Mervyn Peake, and perhaps the earlier William Morris, with regards to world-building.
- oh-kumudo 8y ago
  His books are not easy read for western readers. The language is intentionally archaic and the cultural barriers are high. So as always, if you want to have a taste of his work, movies are your best friends. Below is a good one: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100973/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100973/
Pamar 8y ago
I have a question: are you familiar with the novels by Barry Hughart? If yes, what is your opinion about these? (I am genuinely interested in what a Chinese person would think of his own "Wuxia" novels - I enjoyed them very much, but on the other hand, I haven't read anything by Jin Yong - so far at least)?
- victoriasun 8y ago
  I am not, personally, but I did a bit of a brief Google so I'll speak to the limited knowledge I have here. First of all, to be frank, I fear a little bit of cultural appropriation (I also fear the HN comments that are going to result from revealing my fear, go figure). That being said, after reading snippets of his work that have surfaced from my Googling I'm not actually certain that his work is actually Wuxia the way that Chinese people define it. His stories seem to be more around Chinese mythology, rather than magical realism. For example, no monsters exist in Wuxia; authors instead use as much hand-wavy science as they can to justify their magic. A great example of hand-wavy science is how wuxia martial artists fly -- they are trained to carry more than their weight regularly, and then when that extra weight is removed they suddenly are creating enough force to fly. Hand wavy science, but an attempt at science nonetheless. Tone is also important -- wuxia novels are funny, yes, but ultimately serious and about saving the world on some level. But I think the most important and key differentiator is what exactly a wuxia martial artist is. In Chinese literature, to practice wuxia is to be a Renaissance man. You learn how to fight by intensely studying poetry. The best wuxia fighters fight via musical instruments because of how scholarly they are. The reason why "wuxia" as a term is so hard to translate is because its fundamentally about how the pursuit of the physical and the mental are indistinguishable. One must be cultured, intelligent, loyal, and well-read in order to learn the greatest martial arts. Even though wuxia stories cover grand, mythological tales, they are fundamentally about what it means to be a Chinese Renaissance Man. JY works go a step further -- they are also about how to live by a moral code in an amoral world. Wuxia works also tend to be secular for a number of reasons -- mostly JY's personal political leanings and his own distaste for organized groups of any kind. I wrote a lot about something I ultimately know very little about :P But I am interested in learning more about Barry Hughart -- I definitely think there are ways for white men to write non-white literature appropriately and googling "Barry Hughart cultural appropriation" doesn't really surface anything alarming, so I think that's a good sign. I left another comment further down about how to get into JY now as a westerner. Please do! I would love to see more people enjoy his work.
hnzix 8y ago
Can you please recommend an introductory Jin Yong book or two? I'm a Western Shaw Brothers and Golden Harvest fan and this sounds right up my alley. (Thanks SBS Cult Movie nights). I've read and enjoyed The Water Margin fwiw.
- victoriasun 8y ago
  I left another comment here [1] with some of my introductory JY thoughts and recs! But to be honest I've never read an English translation of his work, so I have no idea what the quality of it is like. He writes in extremely poetic language that is rooted deeply in the Chinese grammatical structure that I imagine will be difficult to translate. That being said since you do have some experience with reading asian literature I would definitely recommend The Legend of the Condor Heroes as a great intro-JY book. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352268
  - hnzix 8y ago
    Ai not available for purchase in my country. Thanks anyway, I've found heaps of contemporary translated novels from Japan but for some reason the only Chinese stuff I find is very expatty (apart from the classics).
- blacksmith_tb 8y ago
  I liked these translations[1], I see there have been a couple of recent others, but I haven't read them yet. 1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/552708.The_Book_and_the_Sword https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/552708.The_Book_and_the_...
Annatar 8y ago
"In my opinion, his characters tended to ask morally difficult questions more often than Tolkein's." I'm so sorry to read this, because it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass! The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn! Ever wondered what those mean? And from those, being references to objects, characters and events prior, Tolkien didn't even attempt to convey morality or ask morally difficult questions: his is the position of a saddened bard, painstakingly documenting the epic tragedy and endless suffering of the elves at the hands of an intelligence greater and far more powerful than them. For Tolkien, it's always cause and effect: "when this then that" or "if this then that" ("if He gets the One Ring, He will rule all of Middleearth") - it's a simple fact, not a moral conundrum or a lesson. He is a saddened yet passive observer and never was about teaching or conveying morals. What you are comparing are two completely unrelated things.
- victoriasun 8y ago
  I am sensing rudeness from your comment but I don't actually understand why, given that we've said quite similar things about Tolkein. But to clarify the original intent of "morals" in my comment, I was referring to morals in context of the written universe, not in ours. JY characters regularly confront situations where they are forced to question their own personal code. In a more trivial example, the moral code of a wuxia martial artist is to treat your teacher as a god-like being who is also family. One of his books deals with a student and teacher who are in love with each other and their moral conflictions between doing what is right by their moral code, and what is right by them. JY does not offer a moral lesson here, he simply explores characters in morally complex situations. eta: this is not to say that Tolkein does not do the same. I offered my opinion about which author did it in a way that was more interesting and compelling to me.
  - Annatar 8y ago
    "I was referring to morals in context of the written universe, not in ours. JY characters regularly confront situations where they are forced to question their own personal code. ... ... ... JY does not offer a moral lesson here, he simply explores characters in morally complex situations." Tolkien doesn't do that at all: the depth of his characters is never expounded upon, their decisions and choices flow from their roles (for example Elrond as the healer, or Aragon as the king of men, or Gandalf with the mission to stop Sauron). His characters are aware of the consequences and the effect the Ring will have: not even for Boromir is that a dilemma. That's why my position is that the comparison doesn't even apply because Tolkien's characters don't undergo those dilemmas. For example, the biggest dilemma is Frodo's fear of whether and how he'll be able to complete his task, not whether he should complete it. That is light years removed from character complexity and moral choices. These two authors wrote about completely different things: there isn't any overlap to compare on. As for the rudeness: if based on your comments I think that you should re-read the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings much more critically because they reduce both works to satisfaction with the story and good being triumphant, and was subtly trying to suggest that, is that rude?
KineticLensman 8y ago
> "In my opinion, his characters tended to ask morally difficult questions more often than Tolkein's." Some of Tolkien's characters find themselves in some morally complex situations. For example, Niënor who finds herself pregnant after an incestuous relationship with her own brother Turambar, due to a spell of forgetfulness cast by the dragon Glaurung. It's not all hobbits worrying about second breakfast :-)
- victoriasun 8y ago
  Of course :) I do not at all mean to discredit Tolkein's moral complexity. I have simply personally found JY's more interesting and more compelling. That is just a personal opinion, and could be simply explained by the fact that I'm a Chinese person who knows all too well the Cultural Revolution and it's impact on my society, and find that the questions JY asks relevant. The original intent of my comment, after all, was to question what it meant for Tolkein to be more "creative" than JY.
  - KineticLensman 8y ago
    I'm a westerner who hadn't previously heard much about JY (but loves Tolkien ) and was being a bit pedantic, so I'm not sure my comment was entirely fair. I'm sure that a Chinese author discussing the impact of the cultural revolution is going to pose harder moral issues than Tolkien did in general, and its quite correct that Tolkien's best known works (TLOTR, Hobbit) have fairly simple morals.
    - victoriasun 8y ago
      FWIW I don't think that moral complexity necessarily makes a work great. Harry Potter will always be one of my favorite series of all times, and it has very little moral depth. I'm currently playing Dragon Quest 11, which is an amazing video game but it's at it's core, a very, very good fairy tale with extremely straightforward morals, and I think it's a masterpiece. Meanwhile, John Green's work is all about the emotional depth and moral complexities of teenagers and they're just not that interesting to me. Ultimately authors have chosen for whatever reason to tell the story they want to the way they want to. George RR Martin famously likes to get on Tolkien's case for not answering the question of what exactly does it mean for Aragon's rule to be peaceful. I don't think that that criticism is entirely fair. In LOTR, Tolkien had a specific story he wanted to tell. He did it to amazing effect, with thorough character development and world depth. You could not look at his work and say that any of his characters did not behave logically to what was established within themselves. Particularly with the Hobbit I think you can tell that he chose to tell a specific story and to do that erred towards moral simplicity. But that doesn't make the story any less beautiful -- in fact, I would argue that the innocence and purity of the hobbits against this unknowable and extreme evil is part of LOTR/Hobbit's charm. It allows him to tell a story that is fundamentally different from the story JY or GRRM wants to tell -- which is how your innate goodness, if you continue to tap into it and grow it, can help you triumph over corruption and evil. Frankly, I find that this kind of story is something that we are quick to want to discredit because we think it lacks "depth" and is too much of a fairy tale. So, that he can tell this kind of story so effectively and meaningfully is something to be cherished.
leoc 8y ago
> It's like saying a Ken Burns documentary lacks the creativity of The Avengers, because magic powers and superheroes don't exist in the prior. Or trying to compare a book about the personal relationships of a cancer patient (I'm thinking "The Fault In Our Stars" specifically here) to the Harry Potter series. It sounds like the most obvious eng-lit analogy to Jin Yong in this respect would be T.H. White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._H._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._H._White . White is possibly better regarded than Tolkien overall, though he's a bit less well-known. OTOH White tends to shy away from descriptions of fighting and supernatural conflict to a much greater extent than Tolkien, so maybe Jin Yong (whom I don't know at all) is more like Tolkien in that respect.
ksec 8y ago
>Jin Yong is, to Chinese literature, as impactful Tolkein is to Western literature And in literature only. In terms of culture influence, I would argue Jin Yong is far more impactful in Asia / Chinese Culture than Tolkien. The Characters names, storyline etc are literally known to every Chinese person on the planet.

wirrbel 8y ago

I don't know jin Yong (what would I read from him first as european? Any recommendations?) But I tend to dislike the overarching glorification of Tolkien. Surely an impressive writer and world-builder but surely not the only one and not necessarily the best.

twright0 8y ago
Out of curiosity, which writers would you put above Tolkien for world-building (in the Western canon)?
- akvadrako 8y ago
  George Orwell is the most influential one I can think of.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Things like 1984 don't really count as fantasy though (unfortunately) as they were an extrapolation of things that were already happening in the 1930s and 1940s.
    - watwut 8y ago
      In the same sense, high fantasy is just extrapolation of national wars and myths.
  - idoubtit 8y ago
    George Orwell certainly was a successful writer (in the sense that he became famous and sold many books), but not a world-builder. 1984 is a rip-off from Zamyatin's novel, "We". Ironically, Orwell wrote before WWII that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) was heavily inspired by We (1921). Then he wrote 1984 (1949) which borrows even more: it's the same story, with more romance and a more mainstream narrating style.
- Pamar 8y ago
  Personally, I enjoyed T.H. White immensely more than Tolkien, but this is surely just a matter of personal preferences.
- victoriasun 8y ago
  I think it's pretty hard to answer this question because what Tolkein is good at and what he is bad at are two sides of the same coin. Tolkein presents an extremely fantastical view of the world and ascribes to what I call "cosmic morality." There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end. I don't mean this in a Deus Ex Machina way, by the way, as cosmic morality is justified within Tolkein's universe. I think Breaking Bad is a good example of this as well -- the Universe has passed its judgment on the characters it deems necessary to pass judgment on, and it works within its story without detracting from it or seeming like a Deus Ex Machina. So much of the criticism of Tolkein in the modern day, to me, surrounds this concept where he ascribes to the idea that the Universe will eventually judge sinners and saints. That being said, it does not and should not detract from the sheer magnitude of his creative work, as well as his linguistic ability. George RR Martin, is, I think, an obvious counterpoint and much of his writing is driven by a distaste for this amount of cosmic morality. If we were to harken back to amazing TV, GRRM is more like The Wire -- they choose to present the world in a way they deem "factual". But in doing so they lose some of the higher fantasy elements that Tolkein's world building is known for. So I think when you ask the question of who is a better world-builder I think you need to start with asking whether or not you want a cynically real depiction (ala GRRM) or you want a story that justifies it's heroic deeds (ala Tolkein) first. Because, in my opinion, they are hard to compare.
victoriasun 8y ago
It can be difficult to get into reading JY as a Western reader as he writes in extremely poetic language. There are a lot of great articles on the difficulties of translating Chinese poetry if you're interested in the subject. Instead -- I suggest you watch some of his live action adaptions! The Smiling, Proud Wanderer is my personal favorite JY story, and my favorite drama rendition is the 2001 one starring Li Yapeng. He is probably best known for the Condor Trilogy (The Legend of the Condor Heroes, The Return of the Condor Heroes, and The Heavenly Sword and Dragon Saber) and although I loved the first I was never personally that into the latter two of the series. Probably his greatest work is in my opinion Demi-gods and Semi-Devils, although that might not be a good entry point into the series. I would look at TSPW or TLCH first :) And well, Tolkein will always hold a special place in my heart. But I do agree that he is slightly over romanticized as an author.
- stevenwoo 8y ago
  I've watched Laughing in the Wind (2001, 4 seasons with 10 episodes each) but with English subtitles as I don't speak Chinese and have to warn the other poster that it's availability is extremely limited last time I looked.
int_19h 8y ago
I think that it's quite reasonable to consider Tolkien as one of the best world-builders in the Western canon. But that is unsurprising, given that the man basically devoted his entire life to constructing a single imaginary world - he was a world-builder first, and writer second (and far better at the first than he was at the second, IMO). Most authors create a world to tell their stories in, and it's only as detailed as the story needs it to be. Tolkien wrote stories as, basically, illustrations to his world-building. Most of them didn't even get cleaned up to be publishable until long after his death.
- wirrbel 8y ago
  on the other hand, I sometimes feel like he has done a lot of "history building", but I find his world sometimes incredibly sparsely described.
billfruit 8y ago
I suppose Tolkien perhaps is in the company of Mervyn Peake, and perhaps the earlier William Morris, with regards to world-building.
oh-kumudo 8y ago
His books are not easy read for western readers. The language is intentionally archaic and the cultural barriers are high. So as always, if you want to have a taste of his work, movies are your best friends. Below is a good one: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100973/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100973/

Pamar 8y ago

I have a question: are you familiar with the novels by Barry Hughart? If yes, what is your opinion about these? (I am genuinely interested in what a Chinese person would think of his own "Wuxia" novels - I enjoyed them very much, but on the other hand, I haven't read anything by Jin Yong - so far at least)?

victoriasun 8y ago
I am not, personally, but I did a bit of a brief Google so I'll speak to the limited knowledge I have here. First of all, to be frank, I fear a little bit of cultural appropriation (I also fear the HN comments that are going to result from revealing my fear, go figure). That being said, after reading snippets of his work that have surfaced from my Googling I'm not actually certain that his work is actually Wuxia the way that Chinese people define it. His stories seem to be more around Chinese mythology, rather than magical realism. For example, no monsters exist in Wuxia; authors instead use as much hand-wavy science as they can to justify their magic. A great example of hand-wavy science is how wuxia martial artists fly -- they are trained to carry more than their weight regularly, and then when that extra weight is removed they suddenly are creating enough force to fly. Hand wavy science, but an attempt at science nonetheless. Tone is also important -- wuxia novels are funny, yes, but ultimately serious and about saving the world on some level. But I think the most important and key differentiator is what exactly a wuxia martial artist is. In Chinese literature, to practice wuxia is to be a Renaissance man. You learn how to fight by intensely studying poetry. The best wuxia fighters fight via musical instruments because of how scholarly they are. The reason why "wuxia" as a term is so hard to translate is because its fundamentally about how the pursuit of the physical and the mental are indistinguishable. One must be cultured, intelligent, loyal, and well-read in order to learn the greatest martial arts. Even though wuxia stories cover grand, mythological tales, they are fundamentally about what it means to be a Chinese Renaissance Man. JY works go a step further -- they are also about how to live by a moral code in an amoral world. Wuxia works also tend to be secular for a number of reasons -- mostly JY's personal political leanings and his own distaste for organized groups of any kind. I wrote a lot about something I ultimately know very little about :P But I am interested in learning more about Barry Hughart -- I definitely think there are ways for white men to write non-white literature appropriately and googling "Barry Hughart cultural appropriation" doesn't really surface anything alarming, so I think that's a good sign. I left another comment further down about how to get into JY now as a westerner. Please do! I would love to see more people enjoy his work.

hnzix 8y ago

Can you please recommend an introductory Jin Yong book or two? I'm a Western Shaw Brothers and Golden Harvest fan and this sounds right up my alley. (Thanks SBS Cult Movie nights). I've read and enjoyed The Water Margin fwiw.

victoriasun 8y ago
I left another comment here [1] with some of my introductory JY thoughts and recs! But to be honest I've never read an English translation of his work, so I have no idea what the quality of it is like. He writes in extremely poetic language that is rooted deeply in the Chinese grammatical structure that I imagine will be difficult to translate. That being said since you do have some experience with reading asian literature I would definitely recommend The Legend of the Condor Heroes as a great intro-JY book. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352268 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352268
- hnzix 8y ago
  Ai not available for purchase in my country. Thanks anyway, I've found heaps of contemporary translated novels from Japan but for some reason the only Chinese stuff I find is very expatty (apart from the classics).
blacksmith_tb 8y ago
I liked these translations[1], I see there have been a couple of recent others, but I haven't read them yet. 1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/552708.The_Book_and_the_Sword https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/552708.The_Book_and_the_...

Annatar 8y ago

"In my opinion, his characters tended to ask morally difficult questions more often than Tolkein's." I'm so sorry to read this, because it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface. I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass! The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn! Ever wondered what those mean? And from those, being references to objects, characters and events prior, Tolkien didn't even attempt to convey morality or ask morally difficult questions: his is the position of a saddened bard, painstakingly documenting the epic tragedy and endless suffering of the elves at the hands of an intelligence greater and far more powerful than them. For Tolkien, it's always cause and effect: "when this then that" or "if this then that" ("if He gets the One Ring, He will rule all of Middleearth") - it's a simple fact, not a moral conundrum or a lesson. He is a saddened yet passive observer and never was about teaching or conveying morals. What you are comparing are two completely unrelated things.

victoriasun 8y ago
I am sensing rudeness from your comment but I don't actually understand why, given that we've said quite similar things about Tolkein. But to clarify the original intent of "morals" in my comment, I was referring to morals in context of the written universe, not in ours. JY characters regularly confront situations where they are forced to question their own personal code. In a more trivial example, the moral code of a wuxia martial artist is to treat your teacher as a god-like being who is also family. One of his books deals with a student and teacher who are in love with each other and their moral conflictions between doing what is right by their moral code, and what is right by them. JY does not offer a moral lesson here, he simply explores characters in morally complex situations. eta: this is not to say that Tolkein does not do the same. I offered my opinion about which author did it in a way that was more interesting and compelling to me.
- Annatar 8y ago
  "I was referring to morals in context of the written universe, not in ours. JY characters regularly confront situations where they are forced to question their own personal code. ... ... ... JY does not offer a moral lesson here, he simply explores characters in morally complex situations." Tolkien doesn't do that at all: the depth of his characters is never expounded upon, their decisions and choices flow from their roles (for example Elrond as the healer, or Aragon as the king of men, or Gandalf with the mission to stop Sauron). His characters are aware of the consequences and the effect the Ring will have: not even for Boromir is that a dilemma. That's why my position is that the comparison doesn't even apply because Tolkien's characters don't undergo those dilemmas. For example, the biggest dilemma is Frodo's fear of whether and how he'll be able to complete his task, not whether he should complete it. That is light years removed from character complexity and moral choices. These two authors wrote about completely different things: there isn't any overlap to compare on. As for the rudeness: if based on your comments I think that you should re-read the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings much more critically because they reduce both works to satisfaction with the story and good being triumphant, and was subtly trying to suggest that, is that rude?

KineticLensman 8y ago

> "In my opinion, his characters tended to ask morally difficult questions more often than Tolkein's." Some of Tolkien's characters find themselves in some morally complex situations. For example, Niënor who finds herself pregnant after an incestuous relationship with her own brother Turambar, due to a spell of forgetfulness cast by the dragon Glaurung. It's not all hobbits worrying about second breakfast :-)

victoriasun 8y ago
Of course :) I do not at all mean to discredit Tolkein's moral complexity. I have simply personally found JY's more interesting and more compelling. That is just a personal opinion, and could be simply explained by the fact that I'm a Chinese person who knows all too well the Cultural Revolution and it's impact on my society, and find that the questions JY asks relevant. The original intent of my comment, after all, was to question what it meant for Tolkein to be more "creative" than JY.
- KineticLensman 8y ago
  I'm a westerner who hadn't previously heard much about JY (but loves Tolkien ) and was being a bit pedantic, so I'm not sure my comment was entirely fair. I'm sure that a Chinese author discussing the impact of the cultural revolution is going to pose harder moral issues than Tolkien did in general, and its quite correct that Tolkien's best known works (TLOTR, Hobbit) have fairly simple morals.
  - victoriasun 8y ago
    FWIW I don't think that moral complexity necessarily makes a work great. Harry Potter will always be one of my favorite series of all times, and it has very little moral depth. I'm currently playing Dragon Quest 11, which is an amazing video game but it's at it's core, a very, very good fairy tale with extremely straightforward morals, and I think it's a masterpiece. Meanwhile, John Green's work is all about the emotional depth and moral complexities of teenagers and they're just not that interesting to me. Ultimately authors have chosen for whatever reason to tell the story they want to the way they want to. George RR Martin famously likes to get on Tolkien's case for not answering the question of what exactly does it mean for Aragon's rule to be peaceful. I don't think that that criticism is entirely fair. In LOTR, Tolkien had a specific story he wanted to tell. He did it to amazing effect, with thorough character development and world depth. You could not look at his work and say that any of his characters did not behave logically to what was established within themselves. Particularly with the Hobbit I think you can tell that he chose to tell a specific story and to do that erred towards moral simplicity. But that doesn't make the story any less beautiful -- in fact, I would argue that the innocence and purity of the hobbits against this unknowable and extreme evil is part of LOTR/Hobbit's charm. It allows him to tell a story that is fundamentally different from the story JY or GRRM wants to tell -- which is how your innate goodness, if you continue to tap into it and grow it, can help you triumph over corruption and evil. Frankly, I find that this kind of story is something that we are quick to want to discredit because we think it lacks "depth" and is too much of a fairy tale. So, that he can tell this kind of story so effectively and meaningfully is something to be cherished.

leoc 8y ago

> It's like saying a Ken Burns documentary lacks the creativity of The Avengers, because magic powers and superheroes don't exist in the prior. Or trying to compare a book about the personal relationships of a cancer patient (I'm thinking "The Fault In Our Stars" specifically here) to the Harry Potter series. It sounds like the most obvious eng-lit analogy to Jin Yong in this respect would be T.H. White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._H._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._H._White . White is possibly better regarded than Tolkien overall, though he's a bit less well-known. OTOH White tends to shy away from descriptions of fighting and supernatural conflict to a much greater extent than Tolkien, so maybe Jin Yong (whom I don't know at all) is more like Tolkien in that respect.

ksec 8y ago

>Jin Yong is, to Chinese literature, as impactful Tolkein is to Western literature And in literature only. In terms of culture influence, I would argue Jin Yong is far more impactful in Asia / Chinese Culture than Tolkien. The Characters names, storyline etc are literally known to every Chinese person on the planet.