OOTS #1215 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

I will fight each and every one of you and your friends.

What did I do? :puppy eyes:

They were aimed at entirely different readership. It's unsurprising that they're quite different in style.

Actually, it was aimed at the exact same readership but older. :smallsmug:

Wasnt there a Tolkien historian who said 'I've been through all the first drafts and notes that have survived, and it's perfectly clear he was flying blind. There was no scheme, no synopsis... It was shaping itself as he wrote it.'?
Also wasn't Saruman invented after Gandalf didn't meet the Hobbits at Bree, as an explanation for where Gandalf had gone?

I think that’s just the first draft.



I seem to remember reading, Tolkien disliking how the Fell Beasts ended up reptilian [/QUOTE]

Odd, I remember reading about him being pleased with the idea of the Fell Beasts being some kind of dinosaur, but I couldn’t give you a source.

[arimareiji]

When people say they’ve written themselves into a corner, they mean they’ve created a situation with no way for the story to progress organically. When Tolkien said « the tale grew in the telling » he meant that as he kept writing, what started as a simple children’s book to keep his publisher happy turned into his magnum opus and the conclusion of a body of work he started decades prior that had no connection with the initial project.

These aren’t the same thing at all.

If anything, aren't they opposites?

Tolkien: (Paraphrased for brevity) And as they were walking, they passed a group of trees. (Goes on to describe the tree's history anywhere from four paragraphs to four pages).

This, incidentally, is why "The Hobbit" is the better book. At that point Tolkien actually knew the meaning of restraint.

One of my favorite authors, let's call him GGK, thinks a well-crafted book is like an iceberg: The reader only sees 10% of the story, and the rest is background. In this example, "They passed a group of trees [unusual characteristic]. [Side character] remarked on how strange it was to [unusual characteristic], and [Wise mentor] murmured [brief allusion to legendary event]. [Someone reacts to it.]"

In a book by GGK, there might be other mentions of different aspects of that event later, or tie-ins to present events. And you can be pretty sure that somewhere in his study, there are pages/outlines of how the event occurred. But he would seldom stop the story right there to give you four pages of the event's history.

Without thinking through a lot of details the reader will never see, you risk things not making sense if the reader stops to think about how the events you wrote might fit into a larger framework. Viz. the Harry Potter series, where magic/people/events always pop up at just the right time to be relevant - and you really shouldn't think too much about why X that was just introduced but has always existed, wasn't used to resolve C problem two books ago.

[snowblizz]

A few decades later I found "so what's behind all that" to be of more interest.

One of the interesting things about the web comic version of the graphic novel, in my opinion (the two I like best being PvP and OoTS) is that during the story's growth into its final form there are often opportunities to get insights from the author on "what is going on here" that one did not have from conventionally published books.

Which takes us back to the pulps, which is where D&D came from. You'd get parts of a book in serial form, and if you were a fan or met them at a Sci Fi con, or some such, you might get a few tidbits on "well, in that part, here's something I tried to do" or whatever, but that kind if insight was not widespread beyond a bit of fandom here and there.

Having said all that, has the creative process itself changed all that much? Doesn't each tale "grow in telling" before it ends?

I've found it quite interesting reading collection volumes of the comics I read as a kid and learning about everything behind them.

One of the for me mind blowing things was that Franquin would fly by the seat of his pants on the Spirou long adv stories. I've only seen them in finished album format, but also never really considered that the stories weren't complete when they were made. It never really registered that sometimes the story meandered on for the first few pages before it got on. I've noticed the use a similar set-up in the Simpsons where the first 10-15m really have no bearing on the rest of the episode other than going off into a twist for the main plot.

But back to Franquin, I can't even imagine working on such an endevour where you start and have no idea where you are going with a story before you writ eit. And he published it as it went too, no changing and going back to rewrite. Just the ability to pick off from your last page to go somewhere when inspiration struck.

There are various levels of growing in the telling I guess one can say.

[DavidBV]

Sad times... people will watch 23 completely inconsequential and formulaic superhero movies and consider it well-spent time, or 50 hours worh of faux-vikings series on TV, yet feels bored at beautiful and well elaborated descriptions taking a few lines that *do* have meaning, since establishing details to the world is important, especially from the point of view of the Hobbits.

Those believing LotR is long winded need to provide us with some context. Can you please confirm if you have read Tolstoi, Dostoievsky, Cervantes, Melville, Dickens, Mann? Do you consider those authors long winded and boring as well? I don't ask this in a derogatory way, I'm just trying to rule out if you have a problem with enjoying complex literature in general.

Tolkien: (Paraphrased for brevity) And as they were walking, they passed a group of trees. (Goes on to describe the tree's history anywhere from four paragraphs to four pages).

Even taking into account hyperbole, that is simply not true. Otherwise please quote an example.

Tolkien indeed was not known for his brevity, there's his famous "April" footnote when he worked on the Canterbury Tales as philologist in Oxford. The first Tale begins with the "April" word (written as "Aprille") and is the note [1] from Tolkien... which takes three pages of text. Yes, just on the word April.

But here's the thing, those three pages are magnificent scholarship. After reading them, I learned of the significance of that month for latin poets and of other books that started out similarly, and much more. Similarly, not a single line or paragraph is "filler" in LotR. Although I admit this term is subjective... for me, most of what I read in G.R.R.Martin books is filler.

[danielxcutter]

Sad times... people will watch 23 completely inconsequential and formulaic superhero movies and consider it well-spent time, or 50 hours worh of faux-vikings series on TV, yet feels bored at beautiful and well elaborated descriptions taking a few lines that *do* have meaning, since establishing details to the world is important, especially from the point of view of the Hobbits.

Those believing LotR is long winded need to provide us with some context. Can you please confirm if you have read Tolstoi, Dostoievsky, Cervantes, Melville, Dickens, Mann? Do you consider those authors long winded and boring as well? I don't ask this in a derogatory way, I'm just trying to rule out if you have a problem with enjoying complex literature in general.



Even taking into account hyperbole, that is simply not true. Otherwise please quote an example.

Tolkien indeed was not known for his brevity, there's his famous "April" footnote when he worked on the Canterbury Tales as philologist in Oxford. The first Tale begins with the "April" word (written as "Aprille") and is the note [1] from Tolkien... which takes three pages of text. Yes, just on the word April.

But here's the thing, those three pages are magnificent scholarship. After reading them, I learned of the significance of that month for latin poets and of other books that started out similarly, and much more. Similarly, not a single line or paragraph is "filler" in LotR. Although I admit this term is subjective... for me, most of what I read in G.R.R.Martin books is filler.

Does the phrase "each to their own" mean anything to you? I mean sure, I know that Tolkien is an excellent writer to have influenced fantasy this much, but talking down to people who have different tastes is... Well, I'm sure there are other people who would be able to elaborate without breaking the forum rules here.

[Turin_19]

Similarly, not a single line or paragraph is "filler" in LotR. Although I admit this term is subjective... for me, most of what I read in G.R.R.Martin books is filler.

I absolutely agree. I read the Silmarillion and LOTR at least 7 times each, not counting the other books (didn't read the entire HoME, though). At each time, I got that one of those details that I didn't get first added marvelous depth.
And the thing is, I didn't have problem 'skimming' through them the first time over.

I couldn't go past page 50 in the first game of thrones.

The bottom line to this is: I particularly like Tolkien and dislike GRR Martin. To each their own, like the guy before me said!

[DavidBV]

Does the phrase "each to their own" mean anything to you? I mean sure, I know that Tolkien is an excellent writer to have influenced fantasy this much, but talking down to people who have different tastes is... Well, I'm sure there are other people who would be able to elaborate without breaking the forum rules here.

Remember to tell the same thing to those that mocked Tolkien, please. Least I not feel, as a Tolkien fan, that someone was "talking me down".

Yes, to each his own. And they can criticize what I love, of course. I am glad they can, I hope they're glad to read my arguments and reply to them as well.

They used hyperbole and ridiculed Tolkien as a writer, I just shared my point of view in a similar tone and I stand by my point. Most modern entertainment production is trash: explosions, blood, cheap tricks to engage audience and crude innuendo accounts for 90% of the most successful fiction nowadays. Tolkien is original creation (even if derived, of course). He creates his own world, in his own literary language, at his own pace, rather than try to market a product to the masses.

[Metastachydium]

Can you please confirm if you have read (…) Mann?

(Thomas or Heinrich?)

Remember to tell the same thing to those that mocked Tolkien, please. Least I not feel, as a Tolkien fan, that someone was "talking me down".

Yes, to each his own. And they can criticize what I love, of course. I am glad they can, I hope they're glad to read my arguments and reply to them as well.

The problem is not your love of Tolkien, and I can see why one could find the posts above examples of unfair criticism.
It is, rather, the tone: blatant elitism tends not to be particularly endearing, and the same stands for implying that those who disagree with you must hail from „the vulgar crowd.”

[Schroeswald]

It’s been awhile since I read LOTR but I don’t think I found it all that long winded, but I also remember basically nothing so I’m probably not the best source here.

[KorvinStarmast]

Those believing LotR is long winded need to provide us with some context. Can you please confirm if you have read Tolstoi, Dostoievsky, Cervantes, Melville, Dickens, Mann? Do you consider those authors long winded and boring as well?

Yes, and no. Case in point: Melville can be trying (Billy Budd is where he lost me, though Moby **** was a good story). I note that James F Cooper was not on your list: his writing was uneven in quality.

Note: people who wrote before visual media became so omnipresent had to develop a knack for description (in part) because the books were too expensive / difficult to illustrate. I've been reading complex literature since junior high school. In high school we got to take on Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury. Bit of a mind bender, that one, until you either get the cliff notes or discuss it with our teacher.

LoTR I have read nine or ten time times since high school's first reading of it, the Hobbit twice, and then once with each of my children. Each time with LoTR I get something a bit different from it as I notice something I had not before. When I began teaching Catholicism to adults some years ago, I read LoTR again with the understanding that "Tolkien was a life long and devout Catholic." As I began reading it by looking for influences therefrom - it was like I was reading a very different book. Neat experience. CS Lewis wasn't subtle about his allusions in Narnia, Tolkien wove his beliefs into his world in a very different way.

But here's the thing, those three pages are magnificent scholarship. After reading them, I learned of the significance of that month for latin poets and of other books that started out similarly, and much more.

I have one of the editions of his take on the Kalevala, with some annotations. It's good.

As to Martin:
As much as I enjoyed the Song of Ice and Fire series from books 1-4, GRR Martin's world building has gaping holes in it. I noticed this during either book 2 or 3 - people moved large groups of soldiers all over the map and the farms and fields necessary to support those armies simply didn't exist. The world is empty, to a large extent, while Tolkien's world feels full Pretty sure Martin has no idea who Hans Delbruck is.

[DavidBV]

(Thomas or Heinrich?)
The problem is not your love of Tolkien, and I can see why one could find the posts above examples of unfair criticism.
It is, rather, the tone: blatant elitism tends not to be particularly endearing, and the same stands for implying that those who disagree with you must hail from „the vulgar crowd.”

Do you not consider it relevant wether the criticism on "excessive length" comes from someone well accustomed to literature or not? I consider it the crux of the matter, actually.

See, I am not an elitist, but some things are more complex and require more dedication and focus than others. Reading Tolkien is, in this respect, "superior", if you want, to reading most modern fantasy authors. Yet I insist I am no elitist because often I enjoy "simpler" entertainment myself for what it is. I just read the (rather terrible) Dark Sun D&D novels and had fun with them. However when I try again to read Joyce's Ulisses I won't make the mistake of puting the blame in his style or complexity if I fail once more, but in my lack of focus on it. If I begin stating that Joyce is repetitive and boring, I risk the possibility of someone telling me I am just not ready for it. Which would be true, and there'd be no "elitism" in that.

[danielxcutter]

Do you not consider it relevant wether the criticism on "excessive length" comes from someone well accustomed to literature or not? I consider it the crux of the matter, actually.

See, I am not an elitist, but some things are more complex and require more dedication and focus than others. Reading Tolkien is, in this respect, "superior", if you want, to reading most modern fantasy authors. Yet I insist I am no elitist because often I enjoy "simpler" entertainment myself for what it is. I just read the (rather terrible) Dark Sun D&D novels and had fun with them. However when I try again to read Joyce's Ulisses I won't make the mistake of puting the blame in his style or complexity if I fail once more, but in my lack of focus on it. If I begin stating that Joyce is repetitive and boring, I risk the possibility of someone telling me I am just not ready for it. Which would be true, and there'd be no "elitism" in that.

For someone who claims to be well accustomed to literature, I'm noticing a few typos. I'd honestly have overlooked them if this was about something that didn't involve the written word so much.

As for your actual argument, some works of literature are more complex than others, yes, but your tone reminds me of Vaarsuvius. Pre-Familicide.

[Lex]

Weren't we supposed to talk about OotS?

[danielxcutter]

Weren't we supposed to talk about OotS?

I'm guessing you're new here.

Jokes aside, we tend to drift off-topic pretty quickly. I think the meme is that take long enough and we end up talking about Star Wars or something.

[HeroErix]

I don't see why Redcloak would even have to lie to Xykon.

"They were representatives of Thor hoping to negotiate a peace deal with the Dark One. I heard them out but their offer wasn't good enough so I decided to kill them instead."

How involved does Xykon think the gods are in this? I believe he knows that this started as a plan by The Dark One, but is he expecting other gods to be trying to negotiate with them? That might just catch his interest and make him ask more questions.

[Metastachydium]

Do you not consider it relevant wether the criticism on "excessive length" comes from someone well accustomed to literature or not? I consider it the crux of the matter, actually.

See, I am not an elitist, but some things are more complex and require more dedication and focus than others. Reading Tolkien is, in this respect, "superior", if you want, to reading most modern fantasy authors. Yet I insist I am no elitist because often I enjoy "simpler" entertainment myself for what it is. I just read the (rather terrible) Dark Sun D&D novels and had fun with them. However when I try again to read Joyce's Ulisses I won't make the mistake of puting the blame in his style or complexity if I fail once more, but in my lack of focus on it. If I begin stating that Joyce is repetitive and boring, I risk the possibility of someone telling me I am just not ready for it. Which would be true, and there'd be no "elitism" in that.

I am inclined to disagree. While I thoroughly enjoy Tolkien's writings, partly, in fact, due to his attention to detail and his impressively consistent world building, I would assume that this likely stems from my affinity for such a style rather than from some objective necessity.
Personally, I absolutely prefer Gogol to Tolstoy or Dürenmatt and Böll to Thomas Mann; likewise, so far as Irish writers who dared wander off the beaten track are concerned, I would take Flann O'Brien over Joyce any day of the week, and I don't suppose that this simply boils down to my „lack of focus.” Such matters are in large part matters of taste, and taste is, by definition, subjective, at least to some degree. That some will make judgements of taste which do not conform to your expectations is natural, none too surprising and by no means a sign of inferior intellect.

[Fyraltari]

Most modern entertainment production is trash: explosions, blood, cheap tricks to engage audience and crude innuendo accounts for 90% of the most successful fiction nowadays.

90% of everything is, has always been and will always be "trash" we just don't bother remembering most of the bad and mediocre stuff. Also pretty sure that back when Gilgamesh's Epic was first told, there were people complaining that their grandfathers had much better myths than they do and that most of the legends today are terrible.

As much as I enjoyed the Song of Ice and Fire series from books 1-4, GRR Martin's world building has gaping holes in it. I noticed this during either book 2 or 3 - people moved large groups of soldiers all over the map and the farms and fields necessary to support those armies simply didn't exist. The world is empty, to a large extent, while Tolkien's world feels full Pretty sure Martin has no idea who Hans Delbruck is.

I have the opposite opinion, Tolkien only really focused his worldbuilding on the few cultures he liked the most (First Age Elves, the Dunedains and that's about it) while all the others (the Ents, the other Men, the Orcs, ...) get pretty much nothing. There are huge tracks of the maps that are just empty. Apparently, Dale is the only noteworthy city north of the Rauros and west of the Blue Mountains in late Third Age. Nobody bothered resettling Eregion, either and all of Arnor save for the 4 villages of Bree and its surrounding plus the Shire (how did it even remained a village when it was at the meeting point of the two most important roads of the early Third Age?). The Northmen had apparently a huge confederation in Rhovanion but it completely vanished when the Rohirrim went South (save for the Beornings who have only a couple mentions total) and four out of the Seven Dwarf tribes never did anything worth mentionning either apparently.

And while the languages are very detailed, a lot of stuff just isn't. No currency is ever named for one.


Martin has a much more detailed worldbuilding with scores of lords, petty-lords, cities, villages and farms. But it is considerably wonkier too: the whole season nonsense is obvious, Slavers' Bay makes zero sense and neither do the Dothraki, Braavos somehow managed to become an important trading port despite being way outside of everybody's way and being hidden from foreigners for a long chunk of its history, travel times get really warped, the raven messaging system is way faster and more reliable than it has any right to be and the value of each currency wildly shifts from a chapter to the next. How and the unity of language across Westeros makes no goddam sense.


And yet I really enjoy both of these worldbuildings. They worlds feel much more alived and lived in to me than most SFF I read.

[Worldsong]

the whole season nonsense is obvious

Book: "The winter lasts around five years."
Me: "...How is ANYONE still alive on this continent?"

[Fyraltari]

Book: "The winter lasts around five years."
Me: "...How is ANYONE still alive on this continent?"

Dorne and a good part of Essos are pretty tropical, so they've got an excuse. Everybody else, though, they should be dead.

[arimareiji]

I don't know why anyone would think I'm being elitist. It's just that I know my opinion is automatically better-informed than that of anyone who doesn't agree with me, and I don't even need to consider de gustibus non est disputandum.

[bunsen_h]

Book: "The winter lasts around five years."
Me: "...How is ANYONE still alive on this continent?"

If it's a recurring problem that people have the surplus resources to prepare for -- stores of fuel and grain (vermin control!), other dried food for trace nutritional needs -- it could be done. Part of what made me bounce out of the books was that it seemed fairly clear that people didn't make such preparations.

Some variation on it could even be justified in science fiction terms, if the world periodically passes through regions of space with a lot of dust that reduces the amount of incoming sunlight. People have been proposing such geoengineering as solutions for global warming.

[Schroeswald]

I'm guessing you're new here.

Jokes aside, we tend to drift off-topic pretty quickly. I think the meme is that take long enough and we end up talking about Star Wars or something.

For a while this really was true, we haven’t had much discussion of Star Wars recently which is weird considering a new movie came out since we last had a good Star Wars derailment. And despite her reputation Miko hasn’t really shown up in my entire 46 thread history

[Rogar Demonblud]

*casts Summon Peelee*

[Worldsong]

If it's a recurring problem that people have the surplus resources to prepare for -- stores of fuel and grain (vermin control!), other dried food for trace nutritional needs -- it could be done. Part of what made me bounce out of the books was that it seemed fairly clear that people didn't make such preparations.

Some variation on it could even be justified in science fiction terms, if the world periodically passes through regions of space with a lot of dust that reduces the amount of incoming sunlight. People have been proposing such geoengineering as solutions for global warming.

I mean, yes, you're correct that with the proper preparations that could be possible. Although the lack of harvest and the expiration dates of most types of food makes it a serious challenge for a civilization whose technology is limited to medieval times with possibly limited magic. But as you said, the people of Westeros didn't go through all that effort. Their overall attitude seemed to be "We'll just muscle through somehow."

[Fyraltari]

If it's a recurring problem that people have the surplus resources to prepare for -- stores of fuel and grain (vermin control!), other dried food for trace nutritional needs -- it could be done. Part of what made me bounce out of the books was that it seemed fairly clear that people didn't make such preparations.

To be fair it's often stressed that they should do this but they're in th emiddle of a war, so they're trapped in a sort of prisoner's dilemma, whoever stops fighting first to prepare for winter is basically guaranteed to be steamrolled by the other armies who will slaugter their people and steal their reserves. What I am more concerned about is how in the Seven Hells any fauna or flora is still alive. I don't think a bear can hibernate for six years at a time to go for the low-hanging fruit.

Some variation on it could even be justified in science fiction terms, if the world periodically passes through regions of space with a lot of dust that reduces the amount of incoming sunlight. People have been proposing such geoengineering as solutions for global warming.

the official explanation for the seasons is that it's magic, though, and having something to do with the White Walkers. I'm fairly confident that, should Dreams of Srpings ever be published (soemthing I am much less confident in) the seasons will be fixed as part of the resolution of the war with the Others.

[hroþila]

Maybe they're just wusses and their winters aren't that bad?

I wonder if they have two annual harvests or something when they don't have winter for all those years. That would certainly have an impact on the economy. This should be explored. Some nerd should get to it.

[bunsen_h]

To be fair it's often stressed that they should do this but they're in th emiddle of a war, so they're trapped in a sort of prisoner's dilemma, whoever stops fighting first to prepare for winter is basically guaranteed to be steamrolled by the other armies who will slaugter their people and steal their reserves. What I am more concerned about is how in the Seven Hells any fauna or flora is still alive. I don't think a bear can hibernate for six years at a time to go for the low-hanging fruit.


the official explanation for the seasons is that it's magic, though, and having something to do with the White Walkers. I'm fairly confident that, should Dreams of Srpings ever be published (soemthing I am much less confident in) the seasons will be fixed as part of the resolution of the war with the Others.

I suppose my thoughts ran to "why should I get emotionally invested in any of these characters? Apart from being generally unlikeable, if things keep going as they have been, they're all gonna die anyway".

As for stuff needing to hibernate for six years, maybe it's all part of the handwavy magic.

[Worldsong]

Maybe they're just wusses and their winters aren't that bad?

I wonder if they have two annual harvests or something when they don't have winter for all those years. That would certainly have an impact on the economy. This should be explored. Some nerd should get to it.

It'd definitely be an interesting topic if it was fleshed out. It's just that in the books itself it comes across as kind of wonky and makes me wonder how any of them managed to survive long enough to wage war on any substantial scale.

[understatement]

It'd definitely be an interesting topic if it was fleshed out. It's just that in the books itself it comes across as kind of wonky and makes me wonder how any of them managed to survive long enough to wage war on any substantial scale.

I think it was mentioned in the earlier books that they've had...what, 7 years of summer? I guess that's where they'd built up all their harvests and grains and such.

[DavidBV]

For someone who claims to be well accustomed to literature, I'm noticing a few typos. I'd honestly have overlooked them if this was about something that didn't involve the written word so much.

As for your actual argument, some works of literature are more complex than others, yes, but your tone reminds me of Vaarsuvius. Pre-Familicide.

Feel free to correct me, always trying to improve my third language ;)

Sorry... arrogant again?