Howard, Tolkien and Lovecraft Comparative Studies (II)

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Raven Blackwell

Mongoose
Since it is partially my fault that this fine topic was destroyed, here's a peace offering. Should Strom and other such individuals keep theiri insults regelated to PMs, I'll not post anything in reply. Should no one preach a religious faith I won't counter. So please continue. I promise to behave myself if not provoked.
 
thank you raven it was one of the best threads here so to begin again so have a new question to give the gang. 8)

All 3 got their fame manly when dead and via the hands of others how much of conan is REH and how much is others completing fragments or completly rewriting a story to fit the other writers view,the same question can be asked of tolkiens son and the companions to the lord of the rings or lovecraft and august did they need their champions or did that water down what these greats wanted to say.

also how much fame for the books comes from films and how much from their novels and short stories.
 
Must differ with you there, Toothill. Though REH and HPL did garner much of their fame after their early deaths, JRRT (I'm drowning in initials here) was very well-known while he was still alive.

The Hobbit did fairly well when released in the '30s, and LotR gained steam steadily from its first printing in the early '50s. It was a contentious book, to be sure, with most reviewers either loving it or, more commonly, hating it.

LotR really picked up in the '60s, and was quite well known by the time JRRT left us in the '70s.

Of course, you can say that each man's work was of sufficient quality that the man's fame only grew after death, which would be true. More succinctly, my point is that Tolkien (unlike the others) was not toiling in relative obscurity for the last two decades of his life.
 
Raven Blackwell said:
Since it is partially my fault that this fine topic was destroyed, here's a peace offering. Should Strom and other such individuals keep theiri insults regelated to PMs, I'll not post anything in reply. Should no one preach a religious faith I won't counter. So please continue. I promise to behave myself if not provoked.
Click to expand...

I started the comparative lit thread, and was pleased that so many found it informative. But what happened? Arguments? Somebody better explain to me what occured in the past week or so. I've been busy and haven't had the opportunities to keep up. Some have expanded the discussion to include F. Leiber (sp?) and M. Moorcock which is good.
 
GregLynch said:
Must differ with you there, Toothill. Though REH and HPL did garner much of their fame after their early deaths, JRRT (I'm drowning in initials here) was very well-known while he was still alive.

The Hobbit did fairly well when released in the '30s, and LotR gained steam steadily from its first printing in the early '50s. It was a contentious book, to be sure, with most reviewers either loving it or, more commonly, hating it.

LotR really picked up in the '60s, and was quite well known by the time JRRT left us in the '70s.

Of course, you can say that each man's work was of sufficient quality that the man's fame only grew after death, which would be true. More succinctly, my point is that Tolkien (unlike the others) was not toiling in relative obscurity for the last two decades of his life.
Click to expand...
In fact it is because that The Hobbit had so much success that JRR Tolkien was asked by his publisher to write a sequel (which is the Lord of the Rings).
 
The King said:
In fact it is because that The Hobbit had so much success that JRR Tolkien was asked by his publisher to write a sequel (which is the Lord of the Rings).
Click to expand...

Quite true. Tolkien's problem was that he didn't know what to do with a sequel, which led to him dithering about for the better part of 20 years before producing LotR. At the time he wrote The Hobbit, he had no idea that Bilbo had found the One Ring ... as Tolkien pondered what to do, he finally came up with the idea of it being the One Ring and things took off from there.

Of course, there were a few hitches along the way. For example, when he got to Moria, he thought he was nearing the end of the book. :)

Random piece of LotR trivia: In the late '60s or early '70s, John Lennon and Yoko Ono tried to buy the movie rights to LotR, intending to produce (and star in) said movie. No matter what problems any of us may have with Jackson's version (I've managed to forgive all but two changes myself), I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that never happened. :)
 
GregLynch said:
Random piece of LotR trivia: In the late '60s or early '70s, John Lennon and Yoko Ono tried to buy the movie rights to LotR, intending to produce (and star in) said movie. No matter what problems any of us may have with Jackson's version (I've managed to forgive all but two changes myself), I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that never happened. :)
Click to expand...
Now that is fun. I can believe the movie would have evolved in a kind of metaphore but wouldn't have satisfied the Tolkien fans.

Concerning Jackson's movie, one can always find something to say but honestly he managed to include his own views (which can't be avoided from any film maker) with the atmosphere and ambiance of the book. The big battles aren't excellent (IMO) because we see to much the digital touch. The rest, including the actor roleplay, is quite exceptional and depicts well this great saga.
 
Random piece of LotR trivia: In the late '60s or early '70s, John Lennon and Yoko Ono tried to buy the movie rights to LotR, intending to produce (and star in) said movie. No matter what problems any of us may have with Jackson's version (I've managed to forgive all but two changes myself), I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that never happened.
Click to expand...

Yes I remember hearing that too. No direspect to Lennon but I think it would have sucked. It probably would have made a fortune but was a musical.

Eagles in the Sky With Ringwraiths

Pellenor Fields Forever.

It's been a hard day's night,
And I've been working like and Orc,

I'll get me coat...:D
 
One thing you'll notice in common with all the authors mentioned- Moorcock and Leiber included- so far is their fatalism. All of them- perhaps Leiber excepted- see nothing but a bad end for the human race. Tolkien's never written sequel for LotR was entitled The New Shadow and included Men of Gondor starting 'orc-cults' and worshipping Morgoth. Howard and Moorcock's civilizations degenerate into decandant sorcerous s***holes. Lovecraft says we'll all be destroyed by Cthulhu and company no matter what we do. I haven't read enough by Leiber but what I have resembles Howard and Morrcock's idea of civilization. What is it about this sort of genre that makes writers so depressive do you think?
 
I disagree somewhat for Moorcock and Tolkien. The death of Elric and the world means a new age with the humans being their own masters (the gods have no more says in their fates).
The same is more or less true with Tolkien where all the immortals depart, leaving the land to mankind and depreaving them of the "divine" (valar and maiar) influence.
For Howard also, Conan's age is the end of legend and myth, with a new cataclysm bringing prehistory and then history as we know it.
From them all Lovecraft has the most pessimistic view, because as you say mankind is condemned whatever progress it can make: living in decadence and worshiping their pagan idols or gaining knowledge to open their minds to madness.
 
Raven Blackwell wrote:
Tolkien's never written sequel for LotR was entitled The New Shadow and included Men of Gondor starting 'orc-cults' and worshipping Morgoth.
Click to expand...
Good catch! However, as it was unfinished IIRC, nobody knows how it would have ended. I think I read some of it somewhere in the Internet years ago and found it darker in mood than any other of Tolkien's stories (and there were parts in those which were already quite dark).
 
Maximo said:
Good catch! However, as it was unfinished IIRC, nobody knows how it would have ended. I think I read some of it somewhere in the Internet years ago and found it darker in mood than any other of Tolkien's stories (and there were parts in those which were already quite dark).
Click to expand...

I've always wondered how many fan-fic endings of it there are our there. Imagine the possibilities. (Shudder)
 
thank you :D dont like the shadow story and am glad it died but on that page is a peice on gandalfs motives over the dwarves and hobbits and that is brilliant 8)
 
thanks for the link. I recently bought some of the books related to the History Of Middle-Earth from Christopher Tolkien and most of this should be there (I just have 5 out of the 12 books).
 
Maximo said:
Good catch!
Click to expand...

Thanks. I found references to it in Tolkien's published letters back in the days when I had more literary ambitions......Haven't seen text of it before gerdiekimbo's find on the 'Net.

I agree with Professor Tolkien though. Better no sequel than an inferior one.
 
It was the first time i've seen reference to it before. I just did a search for The New Shadow Tolkien and that link was the first that came up.

And please call me John, easier to type.
 
So what you are saying is that Moorcock, Tolkien and Howard's tales are less nihilist fables than part of a Destruction/Rebirth similiar to the Norse Ragnarock wherein the Corrupt powers of the past destroy each other allowing new growth to take place? I can see that. Lovecraft was such a rationalist I think that he saw natural destruction personified in his Mythos creatures and made them monsters threatening the civilization that he knew in heart was doomed. Being not a man of faith [as far as I know] he didn't believe in rebirth, only final destruction- or a new reality abhorant to one such he was.

No one mentioned Lieber though. How does the world of Lankhmar fated to end?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Y
  • Locked
Howard, Tolkien and Lovecraft Comparative Studies
5 6 7
Replies
124
Views
45K
Mongoose Doghouse
M
Back
Top