# Shakespeare vs. Tolkien



## Noldor_returned (Dec 1, 2008)

Very simple question: who was the better writer, William Shakespeare or JRR Tolkien?

I understand it is difficult to compare the two, as one wrote plays, the other novels, one wrote about real events the other a mythopoeic world and one lived a few hundred years before the other.

But please, use any criteria you wish to make a judgement.

As far as I see it, the main points are:

Shakespeare's vocabulary was extremely high for his time, and the themes he wrote about were highly developed
Tolkien successfully created an alternative world, the cannon of the fantasy genre and has one of the highest read books ever written


----------



## Aisteru (Dec 1, 2008)

I think that both's command of language was extremely high. That is clearly evident from their numerous texts. I think Shakespeare was the more fluent linguist just because of his advanced skills for his time.

As for story writing though, Tolkien is the clear winner. Somewhere in another thread here, we discused Shakespeare and it was brought up that he rarely wrote any original stories, but rewrote classic folk tales. Tolkien created a world, complete with history, people, languages, and geography that boggles the mind in its complexity.

Also, that is any but "a simple question", nr


----------



## Illuin (Dec 2, 2008)

Have you ever read the modern day translations of Shakespeare? The stories and plays themselves are primitive, and dismally boring. A fancy for the old dialect (the common dialect, not even new languages) does not dictate a master of storytelling. Check out the membership and activity levels in all of the “_Shakespeare forums_” . Never got the Shakespeare thing; even though I read them all (basically held at gunpoint). _Pong_ is still held in high esteem by nostalgiaddicts; but who can deny that _Zelda_ or _WoW_ wins .


----------



## YayGollum (Dec 2, 2008)

*raises paw* I can deny it. At least, when I'm in the mood for Pong, Zelda (and certainly not the boring old World Of Woodcraft) wouldn't win. Zelda would most probably win more often, though. Anyways, Shakespeare's writings and Tolkien's are quite different and require different moods to enjoy. Tolkien has a lot more stuff for me to have fun with overanalyzing, but Shakespeare gives me more poetry to have fun with reciting. Isn't he supposed to be thought of more as a poet than anything else? He was having too much fun with working things into iambic pentameter and such to come up with better stuff.


----------



## chrysophalax (Dec 2, 2008)

Exactly! Forget apples and oranges, more like comparing kumquats and tomatoes!

Shakespeare was an entertainer first and foremost at a time when a writer's bread and butter depended on pleasing an easily bored and fickle public. You churn out plays/poems/sonnets as fast as your furtile mind can produce them.

If, on the other hand, like Tolkien, you have years to develop and perfect at your leisure an epic piece of story-telling intertwining new languages, alphabets, indeed, creating an entirely new world and you do so whilst cocooned in one of the world's most esteemed seats of learning, come on...of course it's going to be quality!

I think both men were literary giants of their time, no question. My question would then be, who be considered the best given the other's conditions?


----------



## Firawyn (Dec 6, 2008)

Okay, as much as I cannot believe I'm saying this...I'm gunna go with Shakespeare. 

While his writings where hardly original, neither were Tolkien's. Tolkien based his stories on old mythologies, and then built off of them. He built off them so well, in fact, that it is hard to build anymore. (Any RPer will tell you your limitations)

Shakespeare on the other hand, has been celebrated for years and years, and his works have been build off of. Books and movies alike have been based off of one Shakespere play or another. 

Another point - I think that a writer's goal shoul be to give readers something to think about. While Tolkien is amazing, his work was so complete that he left little to be thought about (as far as theology within, morals, etc) - and with Shakespeare, a hundred years later people are still looking at the questions he posed and quoting, deliberating, and applying them personally. 



> _To be, or not to be, that is the question:
> _Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
> The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
> Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
> And by opposing end them. - Hamlet


----------



## YayGollum (Dec 6, 2008)

While they both had inspirations that have been discovered, both writers were still plenty original. I'm thinking that Tolkien's success is a bit more impressive, though, for it just being a little hobby of his, and being the inspiration for plenty of writers and website makers.  

Sure, you could probably find more versions of and inspirations from Shakespeare's stuff, but he has also been around a lot longer and wrote a lot more, which makes sense. Anyways, I don't think that there is hardly anything to build on in Tolkien's universe. There are plenty of story threads to be picked up, lots of questions that can be argued over, same as with the other guy. 

But then, again, they are too different. What if Shakespeare had lived as long as Tolkien? What if Tolkien could assemble as many stories as fast as Shakespeare? He'd have finished that The Silmarillion book, mayhaps and at the least. My favorite what if, though ---> What if Tolkien had been a writer of science fiction? Those would have been some fun books!


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 7, 2008)

For what it’s worth, I’ll throw my two cents into this thread. It’s my opinion, but maybe it’s helpful.

Let’s exclude writers in other languages such as Dante or Virgil, or whomever first wrote down the *Iliad* and *Odyssey* (*The Fall of Troy*, written by the Roman author Smyranaeus Quintus, is the account from which we get the Trojan Horse, by the way: *Iliad* ends with the funeral of Hector, so Quintus must be included in the lists). Let’s also exclude for this purpose the Bible, which has had an incalculable impact upon our language, culture, and civilization.

From where we stand right now in English literature, I think there are three authors whose scope, vision, and mastery of the language sets them apart. 

Chaucer is first: his imagination is vast, and his mastery of the language is such that even six hundred years later, we can still read the first book ever written in English – and laugh and cry at people we still recognize as our coworkers, our neighbors – and ourselves. What inspired his stories, I have no idea, but they are wonderful, and they set an amazing standard in a new language.
Shakespeare is next. Perhaps most people are not aware of it, but Shakespeare wrote few original stories: most of his plays are based upon other plays, histories, and works of literature. It doesn’t matter: he was a master story-teller, taking plays and histories that might have been dry, boring, or even moderately successful, and turning them into smashingly good drama. (These days, I guess he’d make movies; what he might do with _Lord of the Rings_, though, I care not to consider.) He might have had help: perhaps the other members of his players’ company helped with dialogue; but they his contemporaries credited him with writing the finished product. Fortunately for us, after he died, they collected the scripts and published them; I believe nothing was published during his lifetime. (I could be wrong on that last point, and will gladly accept correction if I am.) He is still regarded as _the_ master of the English language, having contributed more words and phrases than any other single individual.
Tolkien is the third. The depth, variety, and richness of what he has left us inspires all of us here; more importantly, we should expect that it will continue to inspire and uplift generations to come. His mastery of English was, in his lifetime, on par with Churchill’s; but Tolkien’s literature is better. (From me, this is the highest compliment I can pay Tolkien: Churchill rallied the nation and the world when all seemed lost.)

We study Tolkien’s inspirations here at TTF: many of them we know, beginning with the poem he found, _Crist_, 


> éala éarendel engla beorhtast
> ofer middangeard monnum sended
> and sodfasta sunnan leoma,
> tohrt ofer tunglas þu tida gehvane
> ...


which seems to have set the whole story into motion. Frodo repeats it in Cirith Ungol,


> Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima!
> 
> [noparse][[/noparse]Hail Eärendil brightest of stars![noparse]][/noparse]


How Chaucer wrote his _Tales_ I cannot say. Shakespeare had an audience – and collaborators, his players – to work out his masterpieces, changing as he went along. (That he normally worked on existing material or had collaborators does not, in my mind, lessen either his stature or his accomplishments!) Tolkien’s story is unique in that it is a _subcreation_ – not that other subcreations had never been seen before, or that none had been expanded upon; but that his was carefully worked and reworked, honed, tightened, and finally brought to life after decades of craft; and then decades more to refine and finish the background. Niggle’s Corner it is indeed!


----------



## Illuin (Dec 7, 2008)

> by Alcuin
> _Let’s also exclude for this purpose the Bible, which has had an incalculable impact upon our language, culture, and civilization._


 
From a strictly literary standpoint, let’s not exclude it. I believe the reason Shakespeare does absolutely nothing for me is because of my twenty five years of Biblical studies; the original 1611 being the core (as well as the ancient Hebrew and Greek). Whether you believe any of it or not; from a literary perspective; nothing can top that level of drama. Why read something dull like Hamlet, when I can read about David in Samuel, or Abraham in Genesis….in the same exact language people go gaga over if it comes from Shakespeare. I guess I’m just spoiled. In all honesty, I have read quite a bit of Shakespeare (even apart from college). Actually, a musician friend of mine and I used to tape ourselves reading characters from his plays when we were young. But I've never been impressed by Shakespeare, I've never found his plays interesting beyond their historical importance. Like you mentioned, most of his work is borrowed, and his ideas are very typical. Once you break through the annoyance of the language barrier, and the more you read, the less extraordinary his work seems. Have you ever finished a Shakespeare play wanting more? I’m like; “Thank God that’s over!”. Just because universities have turned him into an institution, and the pretentious wannabes of academia view him as the one and only literary god doesn’t do anything for me. Write something interesting for crying out loud! Enough of this soap opera rubbish. I don’t care about your hip writing style if your material is dull, depressing, and unoriginal. 

Wow, that was a rant; but I feel better now .

Nice post by the way Alcuin.


----------



## chrysophalax (Dec 7, 2008)

*has to have a lie down after being sedated*


----------



## Illuin (Dec 7, 2008)

> by chrysophalax
> _*has to have a lie down after being sedated*_


 


Ah well, you know; what good is a J.R.R. Tolkien forum if its creatures don’t 'breath a little fire' once in awhile.


----------



## YayGollum (Dec 7, 2008)

From a strictly this thread standpoint, why not exclude all stories besides those written by Shakespeare and Tolkien? We could always make this a Tolkien Versus Everyone thread, though.  But then, including that Bible book isn't fair, since it's a bunch of stories from more than one person. Greek mythology beats all, as far as I've read. Anyways, as most seem to be agreeing, they both had their strengths, but, since this is a Tolkien forum, I would think that there would be more who are more impressed with him here. I've read some of Tolkien's poetry out loud, too. Nice and epic stuff, sure, but Shakespeare has more to have fun with.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 7, 2008)

Noldor_returned said:


> Very simple question: who was the better writer, William Shakespeare or JRR Tolkien?



With respect — this is like asking which is the better piece of furniture, a table or a chair, or which the better flavor, strawberry or chocolate.

Over the years, I have found that this whole concept of "better" is engaged in by very young children and teenagers, as if of any two things, one simply must be "better" somehow. I find this specious and baseless. Which is "better," a square or a circle? Which is "better," dry or wet? Which is "better," warm or hot? 

Why must something be "better," when the truth is, both items serve different purposes, intention and style? Which is "better," Beethoven or Schubert?

There is no "better" when two essentially incomparable (no matter how similar) things are compared. Which is "better," Shakespeare or Tolkien? Which is "better," Christianity or Islam? Which is "better," you or me? Things which are essentially unique are incomparable, and the answer to a forced "which is better" is that the question is based on a false predicate and therefore _has no_ valid answer in the first place.

Barley


----------



## Illuin (Dec 7, 2008)

> by Barliman Butterbur
> _Why must something be "better," when the truth is, both items serve different purposes, intention and style? Which is "better," Beethoven or Schubert?_


 

Of course; this was my opinion; and opinions are nothing but a bunch of "_hot air_" (hence my "_breath a little fire_" pun in my last post ). I rather enjoy reading other people’s strong opinions on things (as long as there are no personal attacks); it keeps things a bit more "human" in this cyber-universe.


----------



## Firawyn (Dec 7, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> With respect — this is like asking which is the better piece of furniture, a table or a chair, or which the better flavor, strawberry or chocolate.
> 
> Over the years, I have found that this whole concept of "better" is engaged in by very young children and teenagers, as if of any two things, one simply must be "better" somehow. I find this specious and baseless. Which is "better," a square or a circle? Which is "better," dry or wet? Which is "better," warm or hot?
> 
> ...


 
While in reality what you say here is very true, on a forum that is based on discussion, topics that will encourage discussion are important. If we simply all agree (and I think deep down we are all grown up enough to not really care about "better"), then there would be no discussion. 

Not to mention, initial disagreements provoke a deeper look into things that normally we would just look over. I, for one, enjoy being a part of that process.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 7, 2008)

I excluded the Bible on the narrow grounds that it was not originally written in English. We English-speakers use translations. It is arguably the most important and most influential Book ever written.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 8, 2008)

Firawyn said:


> While in reality what you say here is very true, on a forum that is based on discussion, topics that will encourage discussion are important. If we simply all agree (and I think deep down we are all grown up enough to not really care about "better"), then there would be no discussion.
> 
> Not to mention, initial disagreements provoke a deeper look into things that normally we would just look over. I, for one, enjoy being a part of that process.



I agree totally — as long as you understand that Barley is basically right in everything! Here are the Two Master Rules pertaining to me:

1. Barley is always right.
2. If Barley's wrong, refer to Rule 1. 



Firawyn said:


> "...in reality what you say here is very true..."



You got THAT right, baby! You see, you _do_ understand! 



Alcuin said:


> I excluded the Bible on the narrow grounds that it was not originally written in English. We English-speakers use translations. It is arguably the most important and most influential Book ever written.



At the risk of starting something ***takes deep breath*** _religious,_ why do you say that? What about the Torah? The Koran? The Analects of Confucius? The Baghavad Gita? The Tao Te Ching? The I Ching (none of which are written in English either)?

Barley


----------



## YayGollum (Dec 8, 2008)

I believe that the Alcuin person typed it because it is true, and he figured that it deserved a mention. That Bible book is not arguably the most important and most influential book ever written, you argue? I call that craziness. Plenty could easily argue that point. The stories that you mention could also easily be argued about in that vein. 

Anyway, none of those stories should be considered in this thread, and not only because they didn't begin life in the English language, but because this thread about Shakespeare versus Tolkien. I would have no problem with adding other authors to this debate, but those stories are either by more than person and slash or weren't really made for entertainment. Pitting Tolkien up against a whole group of other humans isn't fair. They have more combined creativity. Pitting Tolkien up against Gray's Anatomy makes a lot less sense than Shakespeare, since they weren't in the same vein of purpose.


----------



## Alcuin (Dec 8, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> At the risk of starting something ***takes deep breath*** _religious,_ why do you say that? What about the Torah? The Koran? The Analects of Confucius? The Baghavad Gita? The Tao Te Ching? The I Ching (none of which are written in English either)?


My sincere apologies, Barley. 

The Torah is indeed an imbedded part of the culture of the English-speaking world, inasmuch as the Torah is the first five books of the Bible. The Koran is not, or has not been until recently, part of this culture; indeed, the English-speaking world, and many of its “Northern European” kindred (to use the designation given it by Tolkien and Lewis) spent the better part of a millennium in deadly combat with the culture dominated by the Koran. Nor have the Analects, the Bhagavad Gita, or the I Ching heavily affected the English-speaking world: until the end of the nineteenth century, the contents of these works were quite outside common discussion: they were not, so to speak, “a part of the culture,” nor are they much integrated into the law, language, or customs of the greater part of the English-speaking world today. (Exceptions noted regarding India and Hong Kong, for instance, where English is an important _second_ language.)

There was no intention on my part to draw religion into the discussion; quite the contrary. I thought I was stating the obvious. But if this is a discussion that should be moved to Project Evil, then I think I will decline, with all respect to you, my friend.


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Dec 8, 2008)

"...if this is a discussion that should be moved to Project Evil, then I think I will decline..."

As will I (whew!). 

Barley


----------



## Firawyn (Dec 8, 2008)

Barliman Butterbur said:


> I agree totally — as long as you understand that Barley is basically right in everything! Here are the Two Master Rules pertaining to me:
> 
> 1. Barley is always right.
> 2. If Barley's wrong, refer to Rule 1.


 
*after reading five times to make sure Barley _really_ "totally agreed"* 

Humm....I think _someone _needs an ego check-up. 




> You got THAT right, baby! You see, you _do_ understand!


 
Baby? Whoa! Where'd that come from? 




> I excluded the Bible on the narrow grounds that it was not originally written in English. We English-speakers use translations. It is _*arguably*_ the most important and most influential Book ever written.


 



> At the risk of starting something ***takes deep breath*** _religious,_ why do you say that? What about the Torah? The Koran? The Analects of Confucius? The Baghavad Gita? The Tao Te Ching? The I Ching (none of which are written in English either)?
> 
> Barley


 
Notice I underlined, italiced, and bold typed the word "arguably". I shall say no more, aside from double quoting Barley.


----------



## Walter (Feb 23, 2009)

Interesting thread, but who is the better Composer, J.S. Bach or Roger Waters? 

While Bach is certainly pleasant to listen to, many of his compositions have been carried out in a mechanical way. And even though I like a lot of his pieces very much, they - IMHO - often lack a certain profundity... 

I think that Shakespeare's works cannot really be considered "sub-creation" (even though T. himself seems to do this to a certain degree, despite of what "harm" Shakespeare has done to Tolkien's Elves ), whereas e.g. the Illiad & Odyssey as well as the Old Testament can and should (which goes for many other mythological Epi like Edda, Kalevala, etc. as well). I'm - for various reasons - not sure if/how the NT, the Mahabharata (of which the Bhagavad Gita is a mere episode), the Kuran and the other mentioned "religious" works fit in here...

Of course there remains still the difference that the Illiad & Odyssey as well as the Old Testament have had most probably more than one "creator" and can rather be considered "real mythology" (if there exists such a thing) than Tolkien's "sub-creation". A pity that much of what might have been the "Old Testament" is now lost due to the efforts to make it canonical. But the findings at the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi let us at least catch a glimpse of what all seems to be missing (where again parallels to Sil & HoME could be seen)...


----------



## Walter (Feb 23, 2009)

Alcuin said:


> There was no intention on my part to draw religion into the discussion; quite the contrary. I thought I was stating the obvious. But if this is a discussion that should be moved to Project Evil, then I think I will decline, with all respect to you, my friend.


Is it ever possible to discuss mythology without covering religion as well? I should like to think that these terms are congruent, to a considerable degree...


----------



## Firawyn (Feb 24, 2009)

Walter said:


> Is it ever possible to discuss mythology without covering religion as well? I should like to think that these terms are congruent, to a considerable degree...


 
Agreed, but so long as one can discuss religion as a historical term, and not let personal opinion cloud the debate, there shouldn't bea problem.


----------



## ltnjmy (Feb 24, 2009)

Firawyn said:


> Agreed, but so long as one can discuss religion as a historical term, and *not let personal opinion* cloud the debate, there shouldn't be a problem.


 
Dear Firawyn,
That is a very wise and thoughtful response.
sincerely, ltnjmy


----------



## Walter (Feb 24, 2009)

Firawyn said:


> Agreed, but so long as one can discuss religion as a historical term, and not let personal opinion cloud the debate, there shouldn't bea problem.


Of course I too agree with what you say, only in the past this never seemed to work very well...


----------



## Firawyn (Feb 26, 2009)

ltnjmy said:


> Dear Firawyn,
> That is a very wise and thoughtful response.
> sincerely, ltnjmy



LOL! There's that "w" work again. Sorry, I've been called "wise" more times in the last eight years that any 20 year old should have the right to be!  I just call it common sense and logic. However, I do take that as a complement, so thank you.


@ Walter - 

"Logic! What do they teach in these schools?" - Prof. Diggory Kirk, LWW


----------



## Walter (Feb 27, 2009)

Firawyn said:


> @ Walter -
> 
> "Logic! What do they teach in these schools?" - Prof. Diggory Kirk, LWW


:shock:


----------



## Kolbitar (Jul 6, 2009)

[The last statement in square-brackets in this post is false.]

I like this thread; there is madness in this method.

Shakespeare vs. Tolkien

To wit, so far I've read (and I paraphrase and distort)--where does the measuring stick get placed? 

What shall be included--what shall be excluded?

Apples, Oranges, Mythology, religion, Bach, Schubert....

What shall be the constraints: English alone, or all Western Languages?

Shall we use logic? Shall we reach its limits? 

The truth is, things can be compared. We have the writing of both authors, and we can lay them side-by-side, and compare them. 

We may even compare them to anything else that exists or abstractly does not exist in this wonderful universe we live in. 

But what is it about the two author's works that we shall compare? 

We could argue numbers, but that can be boring and tedious.

Ex: Shakespeare uses more than 30,000 different words in all of his works. The KJV Bible(arguably the most influential book in the English language) uses less than 2000, mostly simple English words. I don't have the numbers on Tolkien, but we must remember that not all would be English words. 

But numbers are boring. 

I will opine subjectively. 

According to Plato (paraphrasing again), all writers are born to be great writers of comedy or tragedy, but never both. 

Shakespeare IS a natural comedian. If one and one's mother were savvy on Elizabethan pop-culture and, specifically, connotations of Elizabethan English, then one would probably be rather dis-inclined to watch _Romeo and Juliet_ with the parental unit in tow because of the level of vulgarity (and what a brilliant level it is) that Shakespeare reaches with well more than 150 word-plays, ambiguities, and puns, most about sex, in that play alone.

But the Bard learned how to write Tragedy, and he refined it, and many argue that he is the only writer to prove Plato wrong by mastering both genres.

Tolkien is NOT a comedian. What he writes is much closer to Tragedy, or IS pure tragedy at its best (_The Children of Hurin). 

_I would submit a comparison between _The Children of Hurin_ and _King Lear _or _Hamlet._ Thus, we bring the genres closer together.

Let us ask this question: Who writes comedy better? Easy answer. 
But who writes formal poetry better? Who writes tragedy better?

And I like the word _better. _It is an opinion driven word, and it clearly communicates a persons position.

We can zoom-in and zoom-out of each of their works at different levels and find all kinds of neat things. 

Had they been composers, S. would be Bach, endlessly productive in every key imaginable, and T. would be Mozart, reaching the limits of the language, or Beethoven, when the limits have been reached, creating something new. 

Had they been hole diggers, S. would have dug deep and wide (much wider), and T. would have dug narrower and deeper (much deeper).

But what good are generalities in these conversations? One must bring specifics to the table to get anywhere. But the hour is late, and my bed is calling like the grey-havens.

But arguing about which of these authors is better is akin to the age old question: which is more difficult, writing a simile of writing a metaphor, writing a simile of a metaphor of writing a simile, or writing a simile of a metaphor of a simile? Or vice-versa? 

[The first statement in square-brackets in this post is true.]


----------



## chrysophalax (Jul 6, 2009)

Fascinating!

Kolbitar, where have you been all this forum's life? I love wordplay (hence my admiration of Shakespeare) and, when combined with wit and scarily pithy insightfulness, I admit to being intrigued by you.

Your suggestion of a comparison between _Children of Hurin_ and _King Lear_ I find to be most apt, as things went sadly pear-shaped for both great Houses, _however_...who expressed that downfall _better_? A question I would gladly delve into!

Does anyone else think this might be what Yay will sound like in about 20-30 years?!


----------



## Illuin (Jul 7, 2009)

> Originally posted by *chrysophalax*
> _Does anyone else think this might be what Yay will sound like in about 20-30 years?!_


 






I thought it was Yay until I scrolled up and looked at the name. Are you sure he didn't change his username and avatar? 

Nice to meet you Kolbitar. Enjoyable post. I like the Bach/Mozart analogy. I used to make the _"Rock & Roll"_ comparison to classical composers (i.e. _Elvis_ would be _Bach_ [wide hole] - _The Beatles_ would be _Mozart_ [deep hole] - and _Beethoven_ would be _Black Sabbath_ [black hole ]). I think your Shakespeare/Tolkien to composer analogy is spot on. Now I know why I've always preferred the Classical and early Romantic periods to the Baroque. Free _"Open Air"_ music is more interesting than the relentless _"Basso Continuo". _


----------



## Noldor_returned (Jul 7, 2009)

Kolbitar said:


> To wit, so far I've read (and I paraphrase and distort)--where does the measuring stick get placed?
> 
> What shall be included--what shall be excluded?


 
I was just thinking, is it perhaps who conveyed their message more effectively?

Before I go further into this, I would like to make an observation. People choose to not read both, and for one main reason per author.

Shakespeare: people (not all, just some) do not understand the language and therefore do not follow the text. Al Pacino himself said he didn't understand it, but knew that if an audience got the gist of the lines, they would follow the play. Shakespeare's language is his greatest asset and yet also his greatest downfall in a modern context. As you said, Bach, wide.
Tolkien: The sheer length of it puts people off. It's not that difficult to read, but many people instead read trash or slim novels, because it's easier, not necessarily better. Like Mozart, deep.
So what is the message of each? Shakespeare had one or two key codas per play, while Tolkien's are perhaps slightly more hidden, more open to interpretation? I'm going to see what messages are taken from each and see which people think was more effective?

By the way Kolbitar, I love the way you write. It's captivating. Nice to meet you


----------



## chrysophalax (Jul 11, 2009)

There is absolutely no way, IMO, to determine who was "better". It's far too subjective a question to ask. Kolbitar's suggestion makes applecart loads of sense to me; take two very dysfunctional family situations written by two amazing authors and from _there_ attempt to ferret out who wrote the most compellingly about them.


----------



## Kolbitar (Jul 14, 2009)

Nice to meet you Illuin and Noldor returned,


Chrysophalax,


To answer your question, I must begin by stating that I was hungry one day.


Though I had quietly looked into this forum many years ago, prior to my journey “away in the south” seeking greater knowledge about an inclination which grew as a shadow on my mind (and my stomach), and my objective kept me intellectually occupied for some time. It was there that I read, perhaps in some dusty old HTML scripts, that with a certain “magic-parchment” wherein if one's name is scripted upon it with specially prepared ink, gilded by intricately prepared devices, scrivend by authorities with great vested and mysterious powers each of whom possess many of their own magic-parchments, and combined with a mysterious, usually pedantic chant, one can summon enough money to purchase food. 


To obtain the parchment I had to spend years performing arcane and absurd rituals, passing days and nights in the cellar libraries of the halls of learning. As I gathered knowledge and pieced together old-manuscripts and skills, the shadow grew.(as did the hunger)



I finally found the legendary parchment I was looking for, rolled up in a ribbon, and handed to me by some beardless man in wizard's-garb. 


The food apparition ritual, though quite powerless without the parchment, is thus: find young people who don't care to read, proclaim(this is the key) Shakespeare to be great for reasons which ought not be beyond their understanding, but inevitably is, watch their faces twist, listen to their apathetic responses, and then after doing this about a hundred times, food money appears, and sometimes enough to also purchase a book or two. Quite odd, really.


Since this forum has interesting ideas, and since I desired intellectual stimulation, particularly about Tolkien, I decided to slip into (or out of) the ring, so to speak.



Now:


The dangers of author's intention...are not unlike the marshes near Mordor. To dwell for anytime peering into the dead-eyes of deceased authors...well, Smeagol was wise givng his advice to Frodo and Sam, when he said (paraphrasing) that “soon, too, little hobbitses will be making lights of their own in the marshes.” 




The author's are dead. We do not know what their intentions were except by what they wrote in the literature and about the literature in letters, lectures, and likewise. 


We need to be specific if we are to speculate about messages (ethos) in the works. 


What messages were taken from each?


I believe that Tolkien's message is quite clear in _FOTR_ when he explicates (and I'm paraphrasing) that Hobbits often have furry feet, seemingly starving stomachs, and homely hole's for homes and that when he presents such facts, his message is what he writes: that Hobbits often have furry feet, seemingly starving stomachs, and homely hole's for homes. Also, bad guys are evil, good guys are great, Heroes are heroic, and Tom Bombadil is clearly the embodiment, manifestation, and anomolytical symbol of...well, no need to state the obvious 


Tolkien's message in _The Hobbit_ is also quite clear. “In a hole there lived a Hobbit.” This statement is CLEARLY a denial of reality and a statement of dark philosophical preponderance. Tolkien has the word “hole_” _appear as the first noun in the entire work! Such weight of precedence is clear to all who read it!A “hole” is nothingness. It is nihilism bleaker than any abyss, deeper than any darkness. And clearly it is Freudian. And clearly it is a prophetic call to “green living” in opposition to all technology. And clearly it is homonymically meant to imply “wholeness” which is dualistic wordplay meant to ironically contrast with the nihilism which it clearly denotes. This dualism, occurringg at such a preeminentt position in the literature, clearly represents fundamentall Taoist foundations which clearly inspire the “good vs. evil” theme which some say exist within the text. The message is SO clear, that one can quite see through the entire work. The work, and everything in life, as a matter of fact, is SO clear that one might see through everything, and therefore nothing at all! Kind of like a hole. 


C.S. Lewis once said (and I paraphrase once again) it is nice to see through a window into a garden, but it would be a shame if the garden were as transparent as the window. 


Other messages: None. Many. Infinite. 


How should we read these works? Harold Bloom once stated that if we read something with a certain literary critical method, our fruits will tell us more about the method than the work we are reading.


I like steak. Why do I like steak? Well, if I tell you, you will learn more about me than about steak in general. Perhaps I should write of a specific steak?


Author's intention can be fun, but perilous. Certain ideas are like the One ring, and we shouldn't wear them long, lest we be influenced by ourselves. 


Nor do we need such hubris grown in the opaque gardens of our minds as much as we need transparent riddles minding gardens of opaqueness in our hubris, and more often then not the message in a story is quite as clear as re-arranging the first three words of this sentence simply into one word, adding no more, no less, and with an answer quite as clear as I have stated it to be. 


My proverbial tongue grows tired from wagging. It is a pleasure to discourse with everyone here!


----------



## Prince of Cats (Jul 16, 2009)

Kolbitar said:


> Tolkien's message in _The Hobbit_ is also quite clear. “In a hole there lived a Hobbit.” This statement is CLEARLY a denial of reality and a statement of dark philosophical preponderance. Tolkien has the word “hole_” _appear as the first noun in the entire work! Such weight of precedence is clear to all who read it!A “hole” is nothingness. It is nihilism bleaker than any abyss, deeper than any darkness. And clearly it is Freudian. And clearly it is a prophetic call to “green living” in opposition to all technology. And clearly it is homonymically meant to imply “wholeness” which is dualistic wordplay meant to ironically contrast with the nihilism which it clearly denotes. This dualism, occurringg at such a preeminentt position in the literature, clearly represents fundamentall Taoist foundations which clearly inspire the “good vs. evil” theme which some say exist within the text. The message is SO clear, that one can quite see through the entire work. The work, and everything in life, as a matter of fact, is SO clear that one might see through everything, and therefore nothing at all! Kind of like a hole.










> How should we read these works? Harold Bloom once stated that if we read something with a certain literary critical method, our fruits will tell us more about the method than the work we are reading.



Glad to have you here


----------



## chrysophalax (Jul 16, 2009)

Kolbitar said:


> Tolkien's message in _The Hobbit_ is also quite clear. “In a hole there lived a Hobbit.” This statement is CLEARLY a denial of reality and a statement of dark philosophical preponderance. Tolkien has the word “hole_” _appear as the first noun in the entire work! Such weight of precedence is clear to all who read it!A “hole” is nothingness. It is nihilism bleaker than any abyss, deeper than any darkness. And clearly it is Freudian. And clearly it is a prophetic call to “green living” in opposition to all technology. And clearly it is homonymically meant to imply “wholeness” which is dualistic wordplay meant to ironically contrast with the nihilism which it clearly denotes. This dualism, occurringg at such a preeminentt position in the literature, clearly represents fundamentall Taoist foundations which clearly inspire the “good vs. evil” theme which some say exist within the text. The message is SO clear, that one can quite see through the entire work. The work, and everything in life, as a matter of fact, is SO clear that one might see through everything, and therefore nothing at all! Kind of like a hole.



Uh, huh. 

Ok. Granted, I know nothing about nihilism, or Taoist beliefs, but I'm fairly confident I know a pastiche when I see one. Your take on the minutiae that so many Tolkienologists seem to crave makes me smile.

I have always read his works because I love his stories and the way in which he told them. Simplistic? Sure. Call me lazy even, but I can honestly say I've never lost my enjoyment of the characters or the tales in which they take part because I dissected every motivation, every thought process. Instead, I (literally) stretched out on my bed with a snack or two and a glass of milk and proceeded to devour his works...and the snacks.

Not many authors or subjects can hold my attention for long periods of time, but when they do, I become obsessed, Conan Doyle is another such author who grabbed me by the imagination and demanded my every waking moment for months.

I have never, and could never read a book merely to autopsy it afterwards, because it has become a part of me and I have lived in the world the author created for a short space of time. For me, those experiences are something to be relished and remembered. I'll leave the forensics to others with the stomach for such things.


----------



## Kolbitar (Jul 16, 2009)

Chrysophalax,

I read Tolkien for similar or the same reasons, usually with snacks as well. Having just read _The Hobbit_ for the ???teenth time, I find myself looking up how to bake seed-cakes and wondering if I might be successful at a blind attempt at making one.

Funny you should mention milk, because one of my strongest memories from childhood is holing up in my room, sitting atop my bunk-bed with a tall glass of milk and eating salted pumpkin-seeds, reading FOTR, and wondering whether the mysterious Ranger sitting darkly in the corner at the inn is going to turn out too be a good guy or not.

Now-a-days, though I still go in for the milk, I more often than not make a fresh pot of coffee or English Breakfast or Mint tea, though I rarely find the quite time and hours of silent solitude with-which to set up the perfect environment to read the books as much as I did when I was younger. 

Prince of cats,

I'm teaching work by J. Swift right now, so his work, being fresh on my mind, may have influenced my playful rant a little. 

My favorite general theme in Tolkien, and it is clear, is that of good overcoming evil via "eucatastrophe" (spelled right?) against horrible odds. 

That good DOES overcome evil can be construed as a hopeful message of unyielding perseverance despite the odds, and it is that message in LOTR that makes me think of Tolkien as an optimist. 

Such a message, and the way it makes me feel, seems more "real" to me than anything I've read in most non-fiction books I can think of.


----------



## Noldor_returned (Jul 16, 2009)

chrysophalax said:


> I have always read his works because I love his stories and the way in which he told them. Simplistic? Sure. Call me lazy even, but I can honestly say I've never lost my enjoyment of the characters or the tales in which they take part because I dissected every motivation, every thought process. Instead, I (literally) stretched out on my bed with a snack or two and a glass of milk and proceeded to devour his works...and the snacks.
> 
> Not many authors or subjects can hold my attention for long periods of time, but when they do, I become obsessed, Conan Doyle is another such author who grabbed me by the imagination and demanded my every waking moment for months.


 
I think that is a good point to bring up in this thread actually. Tolkien has captured all of our attentions by doing something right, and although I will read Shakespeare from time to time, I lack motivation to approach it in the same way I do Tolkien. Enjoyment first, then repeated readings for enjoyment and analysis. Maybe that's the best difference we can note, maybe because we're subjective, but maybe reading Shakespeare is wrong. It may be that people would feel different about Shakespeare if they viewed it, as was its purpose.

In fact, now that I think about it, watching contemporary contextualisations of his works, such as 'Romeo and Juliet' and '10 Things I Hate About You' (Taming of the Shrew) and 'O!' (Othello), I find myself enjoying them more and more with an increasing passion to review them, both leisurely and analytically. On the other hand, I watch the LOTR films rarely, being substandard versions.

I think, in conclusion, that Shakespeare was more of a visual man, able to sustain an audience with his plays, rather than the actual reading of them. Tolkien, meanwhile, conveyed all he needed to in the text. Shakespeare used actors to convey his words successfully, while Tolkien did it himself.


----------



## Kolbitar (Jul 16, 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chrysophalax*
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed, and both well said. 

I find Baz L.'s Romeo + Juliet better every time I watch it, as well as the movies you mentioned, Noldor_returned. Though it is difficult to pick up on little things audibly, like when Romeo and Juliet first meet, their first lines intertwine with each other's to form a perfect Shakespearean (love) sonnet, something I never picked up on until I read it. In Shakespeare, though, I guess things like that don't have to be known; the meaning of the words are powerful enough even when we don't see the power of the form.


----------

