Tolkien does, admittedly, rise above this sort of thing on occasions, in some key scenes, but often such a scene will be ruined by ghastly verse and it is remarkable how frequently he will draw back from the implications of the subject matter. Like Chesterton, and other orthodox Christian writers who substituted faith for artistic rigour he sees the petit bourgeoisie, the honest artisans and peasants, as the bulwark against Chaos. These people are always sentimentalized in such fiction because traditionally, they are always the last to complain about any deficiencies in the social status quo. They are a type familiar to anyone who ever watched an English film of the thirties and forties, particularly a war-film, where they represented solid good sense opposed to a perverted intellectualism. In many ways The Lord of the Rings is, if not exactly anti-romantic, an anti-romance. Tolkien, and his fellow "Inklings" (the dons who met in Lewis's Oxford rooms to read their work in progress to one another), had extraordinarily ambiguous attitudes towards Romance (and just about everything else), which is doubtless why his trilogy has so many confused moments when the tension flags completely. But he could, at his best, produce prose much better than that of his Oxford contemporaries who perhaps lacked his respect for middle-English poetry. He claimed that his work was primarily linguistic in its original conception, that there were no symbols or allegories to be found in it, but his beliefs permeate the book as thoroughly as they do the books of Charles Williams and C. S. Lewis, who, consciously or unconsciously, promoted their orthodox Toryism in everything they wrote. While there is an argument for the reactionary nature of the books, they are certainly deeply conservative and strongly anti-urban, which is what leads some to associate them with a kind of Wagnerish hitlerism. I don't think these books are 'fascist', but they certainly don't exactly argue with the 18th century enlightened Toryism with which the English comfort themselves so frequently in these upsetting times. They don't ask any questions of white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us.
Tolkien does, admittedly, rise above this sort of thing on occasions, in some key scenes, but often such a scene will be ruined by ghastly verse and it is remarkable how frequently he will draw back from the implications of the subject matter. Like Chesterton, and other orthodox Christian writers who substituted faith for artistic rigour he sees the petit bourgeoisie, the honest artisans and peasants, as the bulwark against Chaos. These people are always sentimentalized in such fiction because traditionally, they are always the last to complain about any deficiencies in the social status quo. They are a type familiar to anyone who ever watched an English film of the thirties and forties, particularly a war-film, where they represented solid good sense opposed to a perverted intellectualism. In many ways The Lord of the Rings is, if not exactly anti-romantic, an anti-romance. Tolkien, and his fellow "Inklings" (the dons who met in Lewis's Oxford rooms to read their work in progress to one another), had extraordinarily ambiguous attitudes towards Romance (and just about everything else), which is doubtless why his trilogy has so many confused moments when the tension flags completely. But he could, at his best, produce prose much better than that of his Oxford contemporaries who perhaps lacked his respect for middle-English poetry. He claimed that his work was primarily linguistic in its original conception, that there were no symbols or allegories to be found in it, but his beliefs permeate the book as thoroughly as they do the books of Charles Williams and C. S. Lewis, who, consciously or unconsciously, promoted their orthodox Toryism in everything they wrote. While there is an argument for the reactionary nature of the books, they are certainly deeply conservative and strongly anti-urban, which is what leads some to associate them with a kind of Wagnerish hitlerism. I don't think these books are 'fascist', but they certainly don't exactly argue with the 18th century enlightened Toryism with which the English comfort themselves so frequently in these upsetting times. They don't ask any questions of white men in grey clothing who somehow have a handle on what's best for us.
Old stuffy british dudes gettin' angry at old stuffy british dudes ITT
I am biased because Tolkien produced The Hobbit, which is a good book, and Moorcock produced Behold The Man, which is a wretched worthless piece of garbage.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I am biased because Tolkien produced The Hobbit, which is a good book, and Moorcock produced Behold The Man, which is a wretched worthless piece of garbage.
moorcock has written hella garbage but at least he's fun
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Ooh, I missed that!
No, I haven't played that, but it does sound somewhat Centian. I'll add it to that list I keep forgetting exists. ^_^
I wish we had another Samurai Jack. A show that just has a few main characters and just puts them into different situations. Like an animated Quantum Leap.
I just wish we had more Samurai Jack
that show was incredible
At the very least IDW is publishing Samurai Jack comics, so if you're really hankering for more Samurai Jack, you could read those, but yeah I wish there was more Samurai Jack too.
The set design is occasionally beautiful and sometimes just generic dystopia. I like it for the most part, though.
I wish I could do a play by play of all the ways they fucked it up. The movie has NO faith whatsoever in its audience. The entire time it's like "Hey, did you catch that Jonas doesn't have a last name? Hey, did you catch that they use very polite, stilted language? Hey, did you catch that they're not supposed to lie?"
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
I didn't even like the book that movie was based on, so I'm going to watch the movie about the same time Rick Astley gives you up
Does all literary criticism eventually devolve into finding ways to call a work fascist?
drawing on my experience as both an undergraduate and postgraduate student of literary studies, i would say, yes. hope you found this post useful and also enlightening.
terry eagleton is a dude who works at my higher education institution and certainly all of his works eventually devolve into calling something fascist. except if he's writing about morrissey. then he just writes about how great morrissey is.
Does all literary criticism eventually devolve into finding ways to call a work fascist?
drawing on my experience as both an undergraduate and postgraduate student of literary studies, i would say, yes. hope you found this post useful and also enlightening.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Imipolex has the right to remain silent. Anything he moos can and will be held against him in a barn of law
honestly my full criteria for determining the quality of media is just "is it fun"
dude that's great
i've been getting into a whole bunch of stuff about the value of a work because it has some sort of deeper philosophical meaning
and that's great and all, but sometimes these kinds of people have trouble remembering that they're supposed to be enjoying things and some things are worthwhile just because they're a blast
a really good vocalist i know suggest i collab with her after hearing my synth trackks and im slightly scared because i know nothing about music production and she wants to do music as a Serious Thing but hey
Spider-Man: His costume is vastly different from both the comics and his depiction on the poster, differing both in design and color. He is also depicted as a villain, with none of his abilities from the comics. His only unusual ability shown is the apparent power to come back unharmed from death multiple times and use of a switchblade and guinea pigs as a form of weaponry.
Huh. Yeah, it does. I mean, basically everyone on the show is sociopathic until the mandatory "but we really love each other" bit near the end. That's basically Fairly Oddparents in a nutshell.
I thought of Invader Zim when you said that.
Invader Zim makes no compunctions about everybody being normal people at heart. They're terrible and we know that. No veneer of normalcy
There are moments of legitimate empathy here and there, but it is true that what makes the show work is that there is never any false veneer of optimism painted on its misanthropy. At its worst, it is just pointlessly nasty, but at its best, it is delightfully uncompromising.
Comments
objects only last as long as their construction and maintenance lasts
they can also be destroyed
the only permanents are ideas
have you played this?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Videogame/AWitchsTale
this line made me think of you
"Everything's Better with Sparkles: Pretty much wherever you touch with the stylus, sparkles appear."
this line also made me think of you
"Everything's Better with Princesses: Each of the lands [spoiler removed] is ruled by a Princess."
also i wrote something for you earlier this page
I wish I could do a play by play of all the ways they fucked it up. The movie has NO faith whatsoever in its audience. The entire time it's like "Hey, did you catch that Jonas doesn't have a last name? Hey, did you catch that they use very polite, stilted language? Hey, did you catch that they're not supposed to lie?"
He might've been sorta fasho too, but, whatever
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
i've been getting into a whole bunch of stuff about the value of a work because it has some sort of deeper philosophical meaning
and that's great and all, but sometimes these kinds of people have trouble remembering that they're supposed to be enjoying things and some things are worthwhile just because they're a blast
fun is one
it can also be powerful, interesting, original, etc
deeper philosophical meanings are, as a general rule, overrated
the best media is all of these things but fun actually is probably the most important
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead