4 ms·

I really like this. In many many many works of fiction, if you are presented with an odd detail that seems extraneous to the plot or the aesthetic, there’s a hu

I really like this. In many many many works of fiction, if you are presented with an odd detail that seems extraneous to the plot or the aesthetic, there’s a huge chance that this will turn out to be some kind of pivotal point later in the story. I love that Tolkien was introducing them simply to create depth - and to a great extent - to provoke the feelings that bring about posts and discussion like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_of_depth_in_The_Lord_of_the_Rings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impression_of_depth_in_The_Lor...

Trasmatta 4y ago
Thanks for the link to that Wikipedia page, I'd never seen it before. Really amazing stuff. There have been many authors since that have done a good job at replicating that "impression of depth", but I still feel like none of them has ever done it at Tolkien's level.
- yreg 4y ago
  Perhaps G.R.R. Martin?
  - Rzor 4y ago
    Yes, to a vastly larger scope, imo.
    - Trasmatta 4y ago
      GRRM really nails the politics, but Tolkien still has a hand up on the overall world building.
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      For my tastes, it's not a matter of the biggest scope or the most obsessively detailed world history. What I appreciate about Tolkien's world is the sense of wonder I felt when reading LOTR. He explained soo many details of that world but just as crucially he was very artful about what he chose not to explain. Adding to that, Tolkien and the characters themselves seemed to share this sense of wonder. Gandalf, who knew more about the world than even the Elves, never lost his sense of wonder and reverence for things. GRRM's fantasy world is, well... more realistic, that's for sure. Characters are mostly just trying to be king, or to fuck, or get money, or simply survive. I like those books too. And GRRM has said of course that he was explicitly trying to create something like an anti-LOTR that showed the lives of people who weren't necessarily heroes or even good people. I like the GRRM novels but I still prefer LOTR's sense of wonder. But, nobody's wrong if they have the opposite opinion. Or if they hate both. :)
bnralt 4y ago
Kind of strange that the only other two authors they talk about are Ursula K. Le Guin and J.K. Rowling. I don't think the use of depth by either was particularly noticeable compared to other authors, and certainly nowhere near what Tolkien was doing (and I'm saying that as someone who would rather read Le Guin than Tolkien).
jcul 4y ago
Kind of the opposite of Chekhov's gun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun
- jxf 4y ago
  That seems like an example of Chekhov's gun rather than the opposite of it. The seemingly unnecessary thing is actually quite vital, adhering to Chekhov's idea that you should only introduce vital things, just with a bit of subterfuge.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Trasmatta 4y ago

Thanks for the link to that Wikipedia page, I'd never seen it before. Really amazing stuff. There have been many authors since that have done a good job at replicating that "impression of depth", but I still feel like none of them has ever done it at Tolkien's level.

yreg 4y ago
Perhaps G.R.R. Martin?
- Rzor 4y ago
  Yes, to a vastly larger scope, imo.
  - Trasmatta 4y ago
    GRRM really nails the politics, but Tolkien still has a hand up on the overall world building.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    For my tastes, it's not a matter of the biggest scope or the most obsessively detailed world history. What I appreciate about Tolkien's world is the sense of wonder I felt when reading LOTR. He explained soo many details of that world but just as crucially he was very artful about what he chose not to explain. Adding to that, Tolkien and the characters themselves seemed to share this sense of wonder. Gandalf, who knew more about the world than even the Elves, never lost his sense of wonder and reverence for things. GRRM's fantasy world is, well... more realistic, that's for sure. Characters are mostly just trying to be king, or to fuck, or get money, or simply survive. I like those books too. And GRRM has said of course that he was explicitly trying to create something like an anti-LOTR that showed the lives of people who weren't necessarily heroes or even good people. I like the GRRM novels but I still prefer LOTR's sense of wonder. But, nobody's wrong if they have the opposite opinion. Or if they hate both. :)

bnralt 4y ago

Kind of strange that the only other two authors they talk about are Ursula K. Le Guin and J.K. Rowling. I don't think the use of depth by either was particularly noticeable compared to other authors, and certainly nowhere near what Tolkien was doing (and I'm saying that as someone who would rather read Le Guin than Tolkien).

jcul 4y ago

Kind of the opposite of Chekhov's gun. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

jxf 4y ago
That seems like an example of Chekhov's gun rather than the opposite of it. The seemingly unnecessary thing is actually quite vital, adhering to Chekhov's idea that you should only introduce vital things, just with a bit of subterfuge.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]