/lit/ - Literature

>Tolkien’s myths are profoundly conservative. Both The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings turn on the “return of the king” to his rightful throne. In both cases this “victory” means the reassertion of a feudal social structure which had been disrupted by “evil”. Both books are one-sided recollections made the Baggins family, members of the landed gentry, in the Red Book of Westmarch – an unreliable historical source if ever there was one. A balanced telling might well have shown Smaug to be much more of a reforming force in the valley of Dale.

>And of course Sauron doesn’t even get to appear on the page in The Lord of the Rings, at least not in any form more substantial than a huge burning eye, exactly the kind of treatment one would expect in a work of propaganda.

We’re left to take on trust from Gandalf, a manipulative spin doctor, and the Elves, immortal elitists who kill humans and hobbits for even entering their territory, when they say that the maker of the one ring is evil. Isn’t it more likely that the orcs, who live in dire poverty, actually support Sauron because he represents the liberal forces of science and industrialisation, in the face of a brutally oppressive conservative social order?

>The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings aren’t fantasies because they feature dragons, elves and talking trees. They’re fantasies because they mythologise human history, ignoring the brutality and oppression that were part and parcel of a world ruled by men with swords. But we shouldn’t be surprised that the wish to return to a more conservative society, one where people knew their place is so popular. It’s the same myth that conservative political parties such as Ukip have always played on: the myth of a better world that has been lost, but can be reclaimed by turning back the clock.

>They will never make a film out of Tolkein's best work, The Silmarillion
>
Don't underestimate hackson' ability to absorb every last shekel from tolkein's work

>>5857467
nothing more than clickbait, dont waste the effort

>>5857470
>Baggins
>landed gentry
>Gandalf
>manipulative spin doctor
hehe this is 4chan quality bait. Hold my beer, OP, I'm clicking on the link

>>5857474
>The Shillmarillion


I do agree that it is possible to read the books as some sort of conservative allegory - but it occurs to me that the author of this "article" doesn't quote a single passage, and probably just watched the movies.

I'm not sure what exactly he's getting at by pointing out that you can read a book in a certain way.

>>5857470
>Not understanding the basic Christian themes is Tolkien

I am mad as fucking fuck damn. This activated my autism.

>>5857539
>>5857470
The worst part is that he says at the start that he's been a long time fan of Tokein and then comes out with bullshit about "MUH UNBALANCED STORY" and "ONLY ONE SOURCE" which is rendered invalid if you've read The Silmarillion.
Which he hasn't.
So he isn't as big a fan as he claims to be.
And his interpretation of the mythos (because it is an interpretation of the mythos, not just TLOTR) is rendered invalid.

>>5857467
>They will never make a film out of Tolkein's best work, The Silmarillion
That's a good thing.

>>5857628
Yea, films so far were pretty terrible. Even LotR ones kind of cool at best, which is underwhelming given how great the story is.

>>5857467
>>5857470
YFW this is basically The Last Ringbearer and it was 1999.

>>5857470
This is moronic, I don't understand how someone can write something so stupid.
I mean tripfags on 4chin say less dumb shit.

Thoughts on life of pi by Dostoevsky?

>>5857467
>http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/dec/12/tolkiens-myths-are-a-political-fantasy?CMP=fb_gu
> to the anti-capitalist metaphor of The Hunger Games

>>5859210
tour de forsage

>>5857470
>And of course Sauron doesn’t even get to appear on the page in The Lord of the Rings, at least not in any form more substantial than a huge burning eye, exactly the kind of treatment one would expect in a work of propaganda.

uh-oh, sounds like someone only watched the movies