SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"I never expected a money success," said Tolkien, pacing the room, as he does constantly when he speaks. "In fact, I never even thought of commercial publication when I wrote The Hobbit back in the Thirties.
"It all began when I was reading exam papers to earn a bit of extra money. That was agony. One of the tragedies of the underpaid professor is that he has to do menial jobs. He is expected to maintain a certain position and to send his children to good schools. Well, one day I came to a blank page in an exam book and I scribbled on it. 'In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.
The piece is a pleasant read about the greatest fantasy writer of all time.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
JRR Tolkien: 'I Never Expected a Money Success'
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 52 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
"Sometimes insanity is the only alternative"
-- button at a Science Fiction convention.
(Score: 5, Funny) by hash14 on Wednesday October 28 2015, @11:13PM
“I never expected a money success,” said Tolkien, pacing the room, as he does constantly when he speaks. “In fact, I never even thought of commercial publication when I wrote The Hobbit back in the Thirties.
Without copyright, he would have never thought of writing Lord of the Rings! It was only the incentive of monetary return that motivated him to write his novels... people don't write and create as a natural hobby! His only motivational factor was the hefty financial returns guaranteed by a copyright system which is certainly not bloated and overinflated in value! Without it, we would never have any art, creativity or cultural works at all!
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:11AM
"expected a money success" is not the same as "made some money to pay past month's rent"
and
“In fact, I never even thought of commercial publication when I wrote The Hobbit back in the Thirties." is not the same book as Lord of the Rings
(Score: 1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:47AM
Having to read The Hobbit in my youth was the reason I still haven't given the Rings trilogy a chance.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:08AM
...there are a number of long-winded drinking songs in The Lord of the Rings. Should be right up your alley :-)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:27PM
...there are a number of long-winded drinking songs in The Lord of the Rings. Should be right up your alley :-)
I always just skipped the songs...
(Score: 2) by boristhespider on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:43PM
I am, to the surprise of no-one, an absolute nerd. I've even read the History of Middle Earth series - barring "The Lays of Middle Earth" because I can live without reading two epic poems about Beren and Luthien and about Turin, one in alliterative verse and the other in blank verse. I've read the Lord of the Rings probably ten times or so, and I've read the songs... twice. I can even remember one of them. It starts "Gil-Galad was an elven king; of him the harpists sadly sing", which pretty much sums it up. Another starts with "Earendil was a mariner who tarried in Arvernian; he built a boat of timer felled in Nimbrethil to journey in". I mean, fuck's sake. An excruciating set of songs pretty much start, end, and fill their middles with "Ho! Tom Bombadil! Tom Bombadil-o!"
Not reading the songs is the first step towards enjoying Lord of the Rings.
The second step is that when the Hobbits leave Breeland and slip through the hedge into the Old Forest, skip through to when they arrive at the Road a few days later. "Where did we get these swords, master?" you imagine Sam saying. "I... I don't know," Frodo replies. "I guess it's just one of those ineffable mysteries." "Cor!" Pippin says.
Trust me, your experience of Lord of the Rings will be a lot happier if you do these two simple steps.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kell on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:13AM
Arguably, even if he would have invented the story without copyright, nobody would have taken the expense of having it published it if they didn't think they could make a profit. He may have still written it, but you'd never have read it.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:18AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Informative) by Francis on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:20AM
How? You can't read what was never published and these books were incredibly hard to publish correctly. The Hobbit wasn't so bad, but the LOTR was a nightmark for editors and typesetters alike.
He might have been able to publish a bastardized version to Smashwords, but that's rather unlikely as the books violate the publishing standards there. And probably most other publishing houses as well with all the made up words and non-standard spellings in those works.
But, more to the point, where would he have gotten the funding to fix all the mistakes that the publishers and typesetters made with the works? That took most of his remaining years and still there were large numbers of uncorrected errors that had to be fixed later on.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:17AM
I don't quite understand why people are so hung up about copyright law, except as a holdover from their college days when they had no money but still considered it their right to download whatever music, movies, and e-books they wanted.
Once people have a decent job, they can afford to buy impressive digital collections (not unlimited, but nobody can consume unlimited media either) with little compromise in their standard of living.
But money made a huge difference to bands, authors, and songwriters back in the day. It meant that the more successful teenagers who were messing around in bands for a few years, could afford not to give it up when they moved out from their parents' house. They could keep practicing, writing, and gigging, to see what would happen. And a lot of great pop music did happen.
Nowadays, we still have accomplished pop music but it's all the assembly-line variety, music from people trained in all varieties of funk, rock, jazz, and Latin rhythms at the Berklee School of Music and places like that. It sounds like it's much more fun to play that it is to listen to.
Unlike patents, copyright does not preclude people exercising real creativity. Notice I'm talking about when copyright law is applied *correctly*, not when it's being abused.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:21AM
I don't quite understand why people are so hung up about copyright law,
I just don't believe it's a natural right. I think people have the right to do what they want with their property, and if I arrange my bits or atoms in a way that looks like one of your ideas or a collection of your bits or atoms, I don't think that grants you rights to prevent my configuration of bits or atoms.
There, now I've explained it to you, and you understand!
except as a holdover from their college days when they had no money but still considered it their right to download whatever music, movies, and e-books they wanted.
Actually, I had more spending money back then than I do now. And I was more scrupulous about copyright law, too.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:27AM
Well, you can make similar arguments about the NSA surveillance, or your doctor or pharmacist selling your medical history or whatever. It's all just deez bits.
Law is more useful and subtle than that. We don't just stop when someone blurts out, everyone should be able to do whatever they want, or something like that.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:16PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday October 29 2015, @05:01AM
I don't quite understand why people are so hung up about copyright law
Well, obviously, that is because you are a shill. Or, if you are not a shill, you are a publishing company representative, which is the same thing. If you are not either of those, perhaps you are a person with a novel on your hard-drive, which your mom has said is "pretty good", and you think you may be the next Orson Scott Card (omg, unless you are Orson Scott Card!! AC Decloaking off the starboard bow! Evasive action Moroni Alpha Kolob!!!). So, basically, you do not understand because of one of two possibilities: you are either incapable of understanding (a rather common condition, nothing to be ashamed of, but maybe you should not be posting on the internets), or you are paid to be incapable of understanding. This latter is the more serious condition, because it means you have moral deficits rather than cognitive deficits. In other words you are a liar. I suggest you plead ignorance. This at least will keep the Ice Weasels from rending your flesh. Pax vobiscum, bro!
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:18AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Interesting) by davester666 on Thursday October 29 2015, @04:20AM
So, if he had copyright protection for, say, 20 years, and made enough money to live on by publishing The Hobbit, you think he would have just packed it in or continued on with TLOTR?
Oh, wait, he DID write it, with the knowledge that he had 20 years copyright protection. Actually, it was 14 years, and you could apply for a further 14 years.
There is LITERALLY no writer who started out with "ok, now that I know that this will be copyright for 50 years after I die, I can write this masterpiece. otherwise, I would never bother"
Or musician. Or movie script writer. Hell, movie executives giving the OK to creating a movie don't even do it. EVERYTHING after the first couple of years is entirely gravey, a complete fluke that none of them count on.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:26PM
Without copyright, he would have never thought of writing Lord of the Rings! It was only the incentive of monetary return that motivated him to write his novels...
Exactly! This is why we also need to keep increasing copyright terms. Otherwise, what incentive does he have to create any new works?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Wednesday October 28 2015, @11:25PM
...his heirs still expect money from his work.
Not their ow work, mind you, but grandpa's.
When was the last time a plumber's grandchildren still collected a regular salary from that one time the plumber cleared a stopped toilet?
It's high past time that all intellectual so-called "property" be outlawed, and everything instead made a simple work for hire. You want something, pay for it up front or with a salary or on a contract or whatever, just as for anything else. You've got some great idea, sell it to somebody first. Make sure you agree on the price before you start, just as with anything else.
If somebody finds some awesome antique car in a barn somewhere, dusts it off, and sells it at auction for hundreds of times the original sale price, the original manufacturer doesn't get the difference in price; they should have sold the car for that much themselves if that's what they thought it was originally worth. Intellectual "property" shouldn't be any different.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:10AM
>"It's high past time that all intellectual so-called "property" be outlawed, and everything instead made a simple work for hire."
You are going from one extreme to another. I don't think a system where intellectual property is not recognized would promote the production of art. Think about it - why would someone pay much for a "work for hire" if it did not constitute some intellectual property that they could then monetize? Such a system would greatly reduce artistic productivity, because there would be very little compensation for producing art. The current problem is that intellectual property rights are overdone. A reasonable period for copyright might be something like twenty to thirty years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:43AM
Well, people may offer work for hire because something needs to be done?
You seem to imply they people will not commission art in the absence of Copyright. I find that hard to believe. If art truly improves our lives, there will be demand for it.
You also conflate Industrial Protectionism with art. The "IP" term traditionally covers other things like Trademarks (designed to reduce confusion in the marketplace) and Patents (designed to encourage the disclosure of inventions) as well.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:57AM
They will commission it, but any artist that can't find a patron has to produce the works on their own and for no pay at all. What's worse, once they produce the work, they then have no control over it. So, the work can be appropriated by obnoxious politicians or used to promote causes the artist doesn't support or be used to advertise commercial products.
Copyright has some issues in terms of the length and the easy of filing questionable take down notices, but on the whole we're much better off because it exists. Copyrights don't just protect corporate interests, but they also protect the little guy from being taken advantage of by corporations. A well documented claim can be worth more than enough money to get attorneys willing to work on contingency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:36AM
The concept of "moral rights" are independent of copyright. "Moral rights" deal with things like the right to attribution and preserving the integrity of the work.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:53AM
Oh, that's trivial. The problem was solved literally centuries ago. Institutions or patrons would commission or hire or otherwise pay an artist to create something. The artist did so. Done.
Everything Bach wrote worked like that. That's how we got the Sistine Chapel. Handel couldn't write fast enough to keep up with demand.
It doesn't have to be some wealthy heir or big institution who pays, either. You want to know what happens in the next installment after the hero was left dangling over the side of the cliff on his way to rescue the damsel in distress? Well, better fork up the dough to pay for somebody to write it, and hope enough others do so the writer doesn't have to settle for that job writing software manuals. You want your party to be the talk of the town? Hire the latest teen heartthrob to write a new song just for you and premiere it at the party. You want to be remembered for centuries? Commission John Adams to write an opera about the War on Terror -- and you won't even have to spend any money for its premiere performance, because the Metropolitan Opera Company would pay for it themselves, no questions asked.
Or, circling back to the cliffhanger...you could just write the next episode, yourself, and see if you can convince people to sponsor your take on the series instead of or in addition to the original author's.
That's the real question you should be asking. How much art, great or otherwise, are we missing out on that people would have created, for profit or just the love of creating it, had they not been stymied in their efforts because some asshole threatened to sic the MAFIAA on them?
I can give you a very personal example. I've played with a lot of community orchestras, groups with no budgets at all or budgets under $1000 for the year, which would have leapt at the chance to perform lots of Stravinsky and Bartok and Bernstein and other great works by dead white guys...but we simply can't because just the rental fee for the parts, excluding the license to actually play the music, for just one work, is more than the organization's entire budget for multiple years. That's an awful lot of concerts I've missed playing and many audiences have missed listening to, just because we can't afford to pay Boosey & Hawkes their Danegeld.
Copyright doesn't encourage creation. Indeed, copyright is perhaps the greatest inhibition to creation ever created....
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gman003 on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:29AM
I wish to point out that the system you propose, while economically sound, would have sociological implications as well. It would place a yet larger amount of power over culture in the hands of the wealthy and the established institutions, as they would become the primary arbiters of what gets funded. The obvious counterargument, crowdfunding, also has problems - namely, it does not handle new talent well, and tends to fund the continued work of established artists far above that of the new.
The only things wrong with copyright are the term length and the draconian presumed-guilty enforcement. Cut copyright down to 20 years from date first published, and either scrap automated takedown systems or provide real penalties for abuse, and it will work just fine.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:09AM
"primary arbiters of what gets funded"
And, I counter that this is precisely the situation we've had since about - 1960? The record labels have basically determined what is acceptable. Some upstart labels have made things available that the established labels wouldn't touch, like Motown. But, collectively, the labels are in the driver's seat.
Things were much more open and free when jazz and the blues were created, than they were all through the '60's up to about 2000. Things began to open up when the internet was created, and artists seem to be opening things up as time passes. We see more and more independents reaching wider audiences today. But the major labels and publishers still have a choke hold on the industries.
I think the sociological ramifications are that the rich can sponsor what they like, but the kids in the hood can collectively sponsor as much new music and other art as the wealthy can.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:47AM
I don't know if that is a great example. First off, let me state up front that copyrights currently last a ridiculous amount of time. But copyrights aren't like patents. Nobody has a patent on music -- anybody can write music and play it their heart's content or publish it or whatever, because you can't be prevented from making your own music. Copyright might prevent using a specific piece of music, but music in and of itself, is completely open to anyone who wants to create it. In contrast, if someone patents the wheel, for 19 years nobody can make wheels, not even different wheels.
I've been using the Free Music Archive [freemusicarchive.org] for music backgrounds in various videos I make. It's one example of many sites that host permissively licensed music. Sure, I may not have the legal right to use <famousSong> but if I look around, I certainly can find a substitute I can use. Obviously, there's the slog through lots of boring stuff, but then there is the really out-there stuff that you'd never hear without that slog and which is strangely attractive. Seriously, what are the chances I'll hear some Balkan Romany Indie-Rock on my local radio station? It's kind of fun.
Anyway, instead of bemoaning the fact that certain pieces of music are off limits to your orchestra, you could be writing your own stuff and releasing under permissive copyright -- maybe others will do the same and an entire set of music will grow up around that ethos.
(Score: 2) by romlok on Thursday October 29 2015, @09:27AM
If you're creating original works, then the MAFIAA have no legal recourse against you even today. If you're creating works based on existing MAFIAA-controlled works (such as your "write the next episode yourself" example), then even without copyright you'd still have trademarks and (in some jurisdictions) moral rights to contend with.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:25AM
The west relies more and more on strong "IP" rights to fuel the economy. No manufacturing, in fact pretty much all labour from making a car to help desk script followers can be done far cheaper abroad.
It's a major problem and it won't be a nice century for those of us in the west.
(Score: 1) by Oakenshield on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:36PM
Unfortunately, I believe you are exactly correct. The west has suckled at the teat of "free trade" to help business who has in turn driven costs down by offshoring and importing from regions with cheap labor. Now we are reaping the consequences: job stagnation, flat wages, and dim prospects. We have willingly handed over our manufacturing base for cheap trinkets and goods. Now, the only remaining value we have to offer is our "intellectual property." We use copyright enforcement to bludgeon others from competing while we were too weak-kneed to use other kinds of protectionism to save our more valuable industries.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:58PM
Move the worlds reserve currency/oil currency from dollars to euros, or yuan, or groats, coupled with a USA that has a military competitor at least in regional theatres (China + guerrilla/terrorism), and the rest of the world ignoring US IP rights, and you're really screwed.
Like it or not people that proposed things like the TPP, or invaded Iraq, also acknowledge this, and are trying to stave this day off.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:52AM
Say what you will about the Tolkiens, but they have continued to work on the LOTR trilogy for decades. Mostly fixing mistakes that the editors and typesetters made, occasionally fixing problems that JRR made when he was originally writing the books. If you've read the earlier editions and then come back and read the 50th anniversary edition, it's a huge improvement.
There are authors and folks who coast, but when he was still alive, JRR spent a lot of time fixing and correcting the errors that had crept in.
As far as plumbers go, nothing is stopping them from working on a license basis where they continue to be paid for years after they complete the service. They don't do it because it makes no sense to have somebody send them a penny or two every month for continued use of the plumbing.
It never ceases to amaze me how people deliberately misunderstand the system. An author can usually opt for a lump sum payment if they want to. It's just that it's not normally a good deal for either side. You never know how much the work is going to be worth, so both parties risk leaving a lot of money on the table. Royalties are a form of performance pay. You get paid for the books that sell and the better they sell the more you make. Seems reasonable to me. I'm not even sure how you would do that with plumbing and still have something that works.
(Score: 2) by romlok on Thursday October 29 2015, @09:35AM
It actually could make sense for plumbers, too: An excellent plumber may fix a problem such that it doesn't reoccur for 20 years. Whereas a poor plumber may only charge half as much, but fix the problem such that it reappears after only six months.
With monthly royalty payments, rather than a fixed up-front sum, a home-owner not qualified to judge plumbing repair quality can be more certain that they pay appropriately for the quality of the work done.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:55PM
I suppose, but the only times I've heard of that happening were with commercial servicing agreements. That generally works because the scale of the business is much larger. Having a contract for somebody to service the elevators or the HVAC system makes sense, but when plumbing is done correctly, it makes relatively little sense to spread the payments over many years and deal with the interest rates on anything that had to be borrowed.
Probably the closest thing I've seen in the residential market is one of those home warranties. Which is essentially a form of insurance.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:24AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Jaruzel on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:24AM
So Great Ormond Street Hospital [gosh.org] shouldn't get any money from the royalties of Peter Pan, because they didn't write it?
Won't somebody think of the children?!
-Jar
This is my opinion, there are many others, but this one is mine.
(Score: 5, Funny) by isostatic on Wednesday October 28 2015, @11:27PM
This interview was originally published in The Telegraph magazine on March 22. 1968.
I know slashdot was a bit slow with news, but this takes the biscuit ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:06AM
ssh! they're searching for metadata!
(Score: 4, Funny) by arslan on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:47AM
At least its not a dupe.... yet.
(Score: 3, Funny) by jdavidb on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:22AM
I know slashdot was a bit slow with news
Eh? What's that?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday October 28 2015, @11:33PM
"I never expected a money success," said Tolkien, pacing the room, as he does constantly when he speaks.
Argh, zombie Tolkien has risen from the grave! Run away!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Funny) by arslan on Thursday October 29 2015, @12:49AM
Comic book guy: I believe the correct term is wraith
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:43AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by ticho on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:43AM
Barrow-wight saved my life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:07PM
Well said! (Translation: I was going to post darn near the same thing.) Except I'd add: It would have behooved the submitter to work in that he has been dead for over forty years. That's one of those things that should be covered under, "you never know who's actually reading the article and how familiar they are with the subject."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by snufu on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:25AM
"In his world of wondrous things, he moves with the surety of a white hunter on a game reservation."
What would social media do with this description if published today?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:13AM
You got something against albino tigers? Yes, the white hunter is stalking you!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29 2015, @10:53AM
Completely change the topic to start thousands of rambling monologues about sjw's and the evils of feminism?
Claim it is all about ethics in games journalism?
Do tell us, in mind-numbingly great detail, about that axe you have to grind...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday October 29 2015, @06:57AM
"It all began when I was reading exam papers to earn a bit of extra money. That was agony. One of the tragedies of the underpaid professor is that he has to do menial jobs."
So, if we want more "creative works", we need to pay professors less, not guarantee them income through copyrights! Look what has happened with the textbook market! Books that if they were trade (and of course they could not be) would be going for $19.95 are suddenly selling for $195.95 in the University Bookstore! Why, you might ask? Well, because they can, and copyright. This is a backwards state of affairs. Knowledge should be make as widely available as possible, so that people cannot be duped by Republicans, TeaBaggers, and Donald TrumP! Intellectual property is no such thing, it is artificial restraint on culture, on thought, and as such an anathema to everything that LIberal democracy stands for. Did I mention that the only real form of democracy is a liberal democracy? Just checking. Copyright is not liberal, it is not democratic, and I and everyone I know have taken a pledge, upon our property, our lives, and our sacred honor, to ignore copyright. Copying your stuff, fool! Don't know why, since it really has no redeeming qualities outside of being copyrighted. Whoa! That's the plan? Sub-optimal works (mediocre!) that are only valued for the cred of hacking the DRM protections to make them go viral? Oh, you are so sick! It is a Warboy approach to copyright!!@ Witness me! Oh, what a lovely day! (wait, was that just a copyright violation right there? But I did not give any cred to the original work! If it is just a social reference that everyone gets, is it not just Kleenex, and not Mad Max at all?)
In conclusion, pay professors less. They are already lower than their MA students. Lower than Plumbers. Lower than Lawyers, if that is possible. So if we get them low enough, we can expect another "Hobbit". Unless, of course, they are professors of Accountancy, or of Human Resources Management, or in fact of any kind of "Management". Or professors of "computer science", which seems to involve using Micro$ert Word and Excel. Or professors of Psychology, like John "Bruce" Jessen and James E. Mitchell (may they both burn in hell, with no torture, but the eternal expectation of it in retaliation for what they have done.) OK, seems I am on the way to limiting the salary of only Professors of Anglo-Saxon Literature, which then almost limits it to England (back off, Kiwis!), so really only JRR Tolkien, and that boat has already sailed (to the West, with Bilbo and Frodo!!), so there is not point. Pay the professors better. Nothing is worse than professors having to prostitute themselves by reading exams (especially for a Bush related company! Look it up. ) or engaging in actual prostitution, which often does not work out so well anyway.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday October 29 2015, @03:40PM
There is so much wrong in your post, but a few tiny nuggets of possibly interesting stuff. Perhaps you shouldn't drink and post?
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by q.kontinuum on Thursday October 29 2015, @07:27AM
Why is the summary all about Tolkien when the article itself is supposed to be about Terry Pratchett?
The piece is a pleasant read about the greatest fantasy writer of all time.
No offence, I like The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings quite a lot, and I see it had quite some impact on later fantasy novels. But its not remotely as entertaining as Terry Pratchett and IMO has far less bearing on modern society. Nor did it inspire me remotely as much as Terry Pratchetts books did.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday October 29 2015, @08:00AM
Fantasy is supposed to be escapism. The most ridiculous parts of disk world end up being true in real life.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday October 29 2015, @09:11AM
For me, Fantasy is also a way to deal with reality by distorting it enough to not be personally connected. I think LOTR also relates to reality in a way...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum