Howard, Tolkien and Lovecraft Comparative Studies

[Raven Blackwell]

Not getting into the whole spiritual/religion thing here- that flame has been going on for 6000 years plus in human societies so I don't see it coming to a sucessful conclusion here. On the other hand, Mssr. King you plut perfectly into words what I dislike about Tolien- dualism. Black/White, Spirit/Matter, Good/Evil, Right/Wrong etc.- this simplistic worldview is at the heart of his works and most of human reasoning and like all thing simple it fails to hold up to real world example. Creation is too complicated to try and split into just two categories- and then most people claim one is wrong and should be destroyed. If you're not a Germanic or English like European human [or hobbit or dwaf or elf for that matter] you're a darkskinned swarthy savage who is enslaved to an evil fallen angel. If you're not with Gondor, you're with Mordor. It's that sort of thinking, though easier to grasp is dead wrong and leads to the endless wars we all seem to get stuck in even if we want to avoid them. If you're not fighting the terrorist- you must be a terrorist and you don't deserve to be treated nicely.

Me I prefer slightly lazy, slighly corrupt, self interested indivudals who are at least smart enough to realize that things need to be held together if they want to get their fringe benefits. These sort of people rarely start jyhads or bomb foreign conutries that annoyed their father. This is why Bill Clinton still was more popular at his worst than Bush was at his best. At least Clinton was honest about being dishonest...8)

 

[Strom]

Maybe that's why it's called fantasy - if your looking for real world answers in Tolkien or Howard then there are problems too big for a Conan forum to answer. The analogies of Tolkien and terrorists political agenda’s are laughable. I guess any agenda could be worked into a fantastical fictional setting - rewriting history happens everyday - why not make a fun and creative work of fiction fit your views as well.

Amazing! Now that I think about it, the lesser old ones are seriously discriminated against - what's with the labels? 8)

Peace! :lol:

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Maybe that's why it's called fantasy - if your looking for real world answers in Tolkien or Howard then there are problems too big for a Conan forum to answer.

No- I disagree. What we create shows what we believe. Art holds the mirror uptour soul. Tolkien's mindset was very conservative, very white and very old school. Lovecraft was a paranoid who likely stumbled across some RL weirdness and spent the rest of his life affected by it. Howard purposelessness in RL was reflected Conan's rootless wanderings, while Conan's becoming a powerful king was the sun result of his childish desire for wish-fuffilment.

And I'm not looking for answers- as far as I can tell there are none- just stating my opinion. I post then here to see if anyone can come up with a counter arguement strong enough to make me doubt my conclusions. Like I told Odacavar's Ghost so long ago- what happens here ain't a whole lot of importance for me.

The analogies of Tolkien and terrorists political agenda’s are laughable. I guess any agenda could be worked into a fantastical fictional setting - rewriting history happens everyday

I referring to dualism- Us vs. Them. Terrorism is just the current manifestation. Should we have been discussing this in the American Civil War, I'd have discussed North vs. South. If it was in a time of 'peace' I'd be saying Conservatives vs. Liberals. All I am saying is that Tolkien in his works holds to that idea- the simple idea that everything splits into two equal groups and if you are not in our group you must be in the other group and thus must be destroyed. Y'know the basic principal a large numbers of humans live by that help fuels the slaughterhouse we call humanity.

- why not make a fun and creative work of fiction fit your views as well.

'Cause unlike most writers I don't want run from the world and hide in my private fantasy world. I don't mind the constant battle that is life- that is life. I feel no need to hide among elves and dwarves and things that never were past my childhood. Hell, the only reason I keep GMing is that my players would be badly disappointed. If not for them I'd quit years ago and used the time for something more constructive.

Amazing! Now that I think about it, the lesser old ones are seriously discriminated against - what's with the labels? 8)

I'm sure they have lawyers and regular protests- and then Azaroth just east them. Now thats' leadership. 8)

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Maybe that's why it's called fantasy - if your looking for real world answers in Tolkien or Howard then there are problems too big for a Conan forum to answer.

No- I disagree. What we create shows what we believe. Art holds the mirror up to our soul. Tolkien's mindset was very conservative, very white and very old school. Lovecraft was a paranoid who likely stumbled across some RL weirdness and spent the rest of his life affected by it. Howard purposelessness in RL was reflected Conan's rootless wanderings, while Conan's becoming a powerful king was the sum result of his childish desire for wish-fuffilment.

And I'm not looking for answers- as far as I can tell there are none- just stating my opinion. I post then here to see if anyone can come up with a counter arguement strong enough to make me doubt my conclusions. Like I told Odacavar's Ghost so long ago- what happens here ain't a whole lot of importance for me.

The analogies of Tolkien and terrorists political agenda’s are laughable. I guess any agenda could be worked into a fantastical fictional setting - rewriting history happens everyday

I referring to dualism- Us vs. Them. Terrorism is just the current manifestation. Should we have been discussing this in the American Civil War, I'd have discussed North vs. South. If it was in a time of 'peace' I'd be saying Conservatives vs. Liberals. All I am saying is that Tolkien in his works holds to that idea- the simple idea that everything splits into two equal groups and if you are not in our group you must be in the other group and thus must be destroyed. Y'know the basic principal a large numbers of humans live by that help fuels the slaughterhouse we call humanity.

- why not make a fun and creative work of fiction fit your views as well.

'Cause unlike most writers I don't want run from the world and hide in my private fantasy world. I don't mind the constant battle that is life- that is life. I feel no need to hide among elves and dwarves and things that never were past my childhood. Hell, the only reason I keep GMing is that my players would be badly disappointed. If not for them I'd quit years ago and used the time for something more constructive.

Amazing! Now that I think about it, the lesser old ones are seriously discriminated against - what's with the labels? 8)

I'm sure they have lawyers and regular protests- and then Azaroth just eats them. Now thats' leadership. 8)

 

[The King]

Me I prefer slightly lazy, slighly corrupt, self interested indivudals who are at least smart enough to realize that things need to be held together if they want to get their fringe benefits. These sort of people rarely start jyhads or bomb foreign conutries that annoyed their father. This is why Bill Clinton still was more popular at his worst than Bush was at his best. At least Clinton was honest about being dishonest...8)

Thank you, Monika. :wink:
Bill
:shock: :lol:

 

[The King]

... All I am saying is that Tolkien in his works holds to that idea- the simple idea that everything splits into two equal groups and if you are not in our group you must be in the other group and thus must be destroyed.

I have to disagree there because humans and dwarves and elves, and the hobbits too (the "free people") all have their own agendas and purposes. The same is true with Gollum or in the relation between Gondor and Rohan.
Tolkien didn't present dualistic antagonistic ideas. There is a natural flow and way of life and some wanted to corrupt this flow. Orcs aren't evil per se but their souls and bodies were tortured until they could only react violently to soothe the pain.

 

[toothill man]

howards novels have a gritty sense of the real that tolken lacks and also deals in religion ie conan gets alot of stick as king for not doing the normal burn the others routine also conan has so many flaws you cannot help but like the guy :twisted:

 

[Strom]

'Cause unlike most writers I don't want run from the world and hide in my private fantasy world. I don't mind the constant battle that is life- that is life. I feel no need to hide among elves and dwarves and things that never were past my childhood. Hell, the only reason I keep GMing is that my players would be badly disappointed. If not for them I'd quit years ago and used the time for something more constructive.

I'm not convinced immersing yourself in a craft is a bad thing - if Howard and Tolkien and Lovecraft had listened to that logic we would be without their creative fiction. It is possible to enjoy fantasy and sword & sorcery and have a life. We enjoy the fruits of labor from those who sacrificed their time and energy and sanity and life to create the wonderful libraries we have enjoyed for years! Everyone cannot do that - that is why Tolkien, Howard and Lovecraft are the legends they are. I'm respectful of that kind of talent and have no guilt for enjoying their creative work - either as a book or a RPG.

 

[Raven Blackwell]

I'm not convinced immersing yourself in a craft is a bad thing - if Howard and Tolkien and Lovecraft had listened to that logic we would be without their creative fiction. It is possible to enjoy fantasy and sword & sorcery and have a life. We enjoy the fruits of labor from those who sacrificed their time and energy and sanity and life to create the wonderful libraries we have enjoyed for years! Everyone cannot do that - that is why Tolkien, Howard and Lovecraft are the legends they are. I'm respectful of that kind of talent and have no guilt for enjoying their creative work - either as a book or a RPG.

Howard committed suicide. Lovecraft died of malnutrition. Tolkien died desparing of the cult worship of The Lord of the Rings. All three of them died in poverty- even Tolkien who need a university's charity in his old days so as not to be a burden to his son. Thank you, I'll stick to managing a warehouse for the moment- even if it might deprive the human race of some light amusement as a result.

Writing is an actuarian's nightmare. Stephen King said that almost every writer he knows is adddicted to at least alcohol- including himself. There's something about the mindset of escaping reality that is unhealthy. We are meant to live in this one. Writing's okay in small doses but when the percentage spent in the Dreaming world is greater than in the Waking one a person loses the ability to function fully in this one. In an introduction to H.P. Lovecraft's work by Robert Bloch- the last surviving writer who was a regular correspondant with Lovecraft himself- said that to his mind the reason that it seemed a large number of writers came from lonely, if not abusive childhoods was that deprived of recognition they wrote to try and show their talents to others- try to show the ones who neglect them that they made a mistake in overlooking them- that they are worth something. But it never works. People are neglectful and abusive because of the lack in them, not the ones they abuse. And being a writer seperates one from life as a mere observer of life than a participant. So they grow more isolated and less able to function in society. Stephen King again commented on this- that tale spinners fear life.

And as I have stated before this isn't theory to me- I am published. Only three short works- and a few poems come to think of it- but upon doing so I found it just didn't thrill me. At all. Even a little. Yes I can write and yes almost everyone who reads what I wrote liked it but to me it seems a waste of time better spent on something that makes me happy as opposed what makes others happy. What I write now is just the work of an hour or three a week and during times when there is absolutely nothing else to do. The only reason I do it is simply because my players and those here might like it. It's about the only atruism I do any more. The rest of me is pretty cynical and jaded.

 

[The King]

Cause unlike most writers I don't want run from the world and hide in my private fantasy world. I don't mind the constant battle that is life- that is life. I feel no need to hide among elves and dwarves and things that never were past my childhood. Hell, the only reason I keep GMing is that my players would be badly disappointed. If not for them I'd quit years ago and used the time for something more constructive.

Tolkien drew and wrote his first tales of Middle earth while he was in a trench and serving in France in World War I. Knowing the condition then I imagine while he would like to hide in a fantasy world while he could.
The guys there weren't working 40 hours a week with a 2-days week-end and 5 weeks holidays. They lived, slept and died in their trenches and were happy to have one or two weeks rest after one year at the front.
Men were so much interested in true life that they had to invent war for a pass-time.

However it is not because your are not addicted to alcohol that ypu will ever be. Moreover nothing prevents you to write in your free time and publish your work while still doing another job. Many writers do that at the beginning and only become professional authors when they think they can live from their writings.

 

[Maximo]

Raven Blackwell wrote

what I dislike about Tolien- dualism. Black/White, Spirit/Matter, Good/Evil, Right/Wrong etc.- this simplistic worldview is at the heart of his works and most of human reasoning and like all thing simple it fails to hold up to real world example.

Sorry to disagree, Raven, but I don't think this is implied that way in the books.

Take Boromir. He was part of the Fellowship (assumed to be good people), but couldn't avoid to be overcome by the temptation of the Ring. Even if his views about what to do with the Ring were wrong, he sacrificed his life for his friends and for their mission.

Frodo was also overcome by the Ring at the last moment, so he could have become a power hungry "bad guy". And only Gollum, a "evil guy", happened to save him (if for all the wrong reasons). It is also hinted that perhaps Gollum could have redeemed himself. It is just part of the story that he had walked too long on the dark path to change, and the Ring's influence was just too much for him, but the possibility existed nonetheless.

There was even a chapter in the book, The Scouring of the Shire (BTW one of my favourite parts, if not THE favourite), where the hobbits find out that their beloved Shire has become "worse than Mordor" in their absence. And it was mostly done by the hand of their old foe Saruman and his pals, yes, but little hobbitses happened to back his plans.

Of course Tolkien's morals are influenced by his religious beliefs (he was a Christian), and it is this point what makes me think of him as more optimistic (despite the darkness portrayed in his books) than HPL or REH, as in HPL human ethics are as pathetic as mankind and in REH you can fight for what you think is right, but it doesn't matter from a "cosmic" POV.

Tolkien is only more optimistic than REH by the slight margin caused by the existence of a source of absolute good (which happens to be God) in his books, but his mortals are neither absolutely good nor absolutely evil.

Notice I love all three authors, and, sadly, optimism doesn't equate with being right.

 

[Yig]

Raven Blackwell wrote

what I dislike about Tolien- dualism. Black/White, Spirit/Matter, Good/Evil, Right/Wrong etc.- this simplistic worldview is at the heart of his works and most of human reasoning and like all thing simple it fails to hold up to real world example.

Sorry to disagree, Raven, but I don't think this is implied that way in the books.

Take Boromir. He was part of the Fellowship (assumed to be good people), but couldn't avoid to be overcome by the temptation of the Ring. Even if his views about what to do with the Ring were wrong, he sacrificed his life for his friends and for their mission.

Frodo was also overcome by the Ring at the last moment, so he could have become a power hungry "bad guy". And only Gollum, a "evil guy", happened to save him (if for all the wrong reasons). It is also hinted that perhaps Gollum could have redeemed himself. It is just part of the story that he had walked too long on the dark path to change, and the Ring's influence was just too much for him, but the possibility existed nonetheless.

There was even a chapter in the book, The Scouring of the Shire (BTW one of my favourite parts, if not THE favourite), where the hobbits find out that their beloved Shire has become "worse than Mordor" in their absence. And it was mostly done by the hand of their old foe Saruman and his pals, yes, but little hobbitses happened to back his plans.

Of course Tolkien's morals are influenced by his religious beliefs (he was a Christian), and it is this point what makes me think of him as more optimistic (despite the darkness portrayed in his books) than HPL or REH, as in HPL human ethics are as pathetic as mankind and in REH you can fight for what you think is right, but it doesn't matter from a "cosmic" POV.

I think you're both right. The worldview expressed in LOTR is binary. Characters, at various points in the narrative, occupy a position between the axiomatic poles of good and evil. Boromir, a good man (he's a Western man), is corrupted by the Ring (i.e., falls into sin), and is redeemed at the end of his life by a heroic act. I think the point is that in a milieu where there are absolutes of good and evil, characters cannot escape that dichotomy; in fact, in Tolkien, a character's alignment on this binary scale is ontological, not epistemological. That is, an orc (with all their unfortunate racial parallels to non-European peoples) in Tolkien can never be redeemed -- his essence is evil. Sauron will never be redeemed for the same reason. Neither Sauron nor his minions, thoroughly corrupted as they are, are redeemable (as Boromir turns out to be), because they are not meant to be. That is not their nature. One could counter that Boromir is redeemed because he -- in very a Christian manner -- repents his sin, but the deck is stacked. Because Boromir is the equivalent of a Western European, penitence is in his nature. It's determinism is a way: in a binary system of good and evil, some people are "meant" to be good, others to be evil.

I read LOTR, in part, as a war story. It makes sense to me that, given Tolkien's experience in WWI, with all the pointless death and horror of the trenches, he would craft a narrative with a strong sense of universal order and righteousness. In another sense, LOTR is a nationalist myth, drawing on the Charlemagne story for inspiration. In this light, its Western European perspectivism is understandable.

I'd also like to say that this thread has been wonderful to read. I'm in a PhD program in English and it's gratifying to be able to point to a discussion of this caliber to friends of mine who like to poo-poo fantasy and roleplaying as mindless fan-boy pursuits. In fact, I "came out of the gaming closet" to my composition class this semester, and it turns out that I've several gamers in my class. I've encouraged them to write about their gaming experiences, and I plan to direct them to this thread for inspiration.

Thanks, folks!

Brian

 

[toothill man]

I'd also like to say that this thread has been wonderful to read. I'm in a PhD program in English and it's gratifying to be able to point to a discussion of this caliber to friends of mine who like to poo-poo fantasy and roleplaying as mindless fan-boy pursuits. In fact, I "came out of the gaming closet" to my composition class this semester, and it turns out that I've several gamers in my class. I've encouraged them to write about their gaming experiences, and I plan to direct them to this thread for inspiration.

Thanks, folks!

Brian

no problem old boy welcome to the debate and please bring your mates :wink: tolkens life was epic ie the war to end all wars and so wrote epics.lovecraft lived in his own world of nightmares so he became a master of horror if this theory holds water was there struggle in howards life that might proved right :? just some thoughts :wink:

 

[Yogah of Yag]

I think you're both right. The worldview expressed in LOTR is binary. Characters, at various points in the narrative, occupy a position between the axiomatic poles of good and evil. Boromir, a good man (he's a Western man), is corrupted by the Ring (i.e., falls into sin), and is redeemed at the end of his life by a heroic act. I think the point is that in a milieu where there are absolutes of good and evil, characters cannot escape that dichotomy; in fact, in Tolkien, a character's alignment on this binary scale is ontological, not epistemological. That is, an orc (with all their unfortunate racial parallels to non-European peoples) in Tolkien can never be redeemed -- his essence is evil. Sauron will never be redeemed for the same reason. Neither Sauron nor his minions, thoroughly corrupted as they are, are redeemable (as Boromir turns out to be), because they are not meant to be. That is not their nature. One could counter that Boromir is redeemed because he -- in very a Christian manner -- repents his sin, but the deck is stacked. Because Boromir is the equivalent of a Western European, penitence is in his nature. It's determinism is a way: in a binary system of good and evil, some people are "meant" to be good, others to be evil.

I read LOTR, in part, as a war story. It makes sense to me that, given Tolkien's experience in WWI, with all the pointless death and horror of the trenches, he would craft a narrative with a strong sense of universal order and righteousness. In another sense, LOTR is a nationalist myth, drawing on the Charlemagne story for inspiration. In this light, its Western European perspectivism is understandable.

I'd also like to say that this thread has been wonderful to read. I'm in a PhD program in English and it's gratifying to be able to point to a discussion of this caliber to friends of mine who like to poo-poo fantasy and roleplaying as mindless fan-boy pursuits. In fact, I "came out of the gaming closet" to my composition class this semester, and it turns out that I've several gamers in my class. I've encouraged them to write about their gaming experiences, and I plan to direct them to this thread for inspiration.

Thanks, folks!

Brian

I began the discussion not long ago, since I feel that a comparative understanding of Howard, Tolkien and Lovecraft (among others, not to slight the many fans of Fritz Leiber) is essential to a fulfilling and enriching experience with RPG. I hope that the above observations by our peers are of interest and utility to others.

Keep your sword-arm strong, by Crom!

 

[toothill man]

as others have desended into being locked this thread has just got better and better it is one of my favourite

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Hmm lots to comment on, have to make it brief.

As to the off-topic point on writers I'll say this. Yes I can write and I can find the time- but I haven't felt the need to. No muse have graced me with Her presence so I label it under the 'not meant to be' list.

Plus as I said before, Art is a mirror of the soul. Does anyone here really want to see the depths of mine?

On the binary nature of LotR- my point exactly. Absolute Good or Evil and no grey areas between. You can switch sides, but you have only two choices. Frankly I've done a lot of things people here might consider evil, but to those far more evil than I. I've also done a lot of good in underhanded ways. I do what I think is right and let people think what they damn well please. In the end I'll accept the judgement of Those qualified to give it. I've no choice really. 8)

As for orcs being the non-Europeans, I was also including the Easterlings and Southrons as well. I have no doubt these evil dark skinned men come are drawn from Tolkien's experiences as a child in the British colonies of India. Appearently he didn't have a high opinion of them.

 

[The King]

Plus as I said before, Art is a mirror of the soul. Does anyone here really want to see the depths of mine?

Do you think you could cause the suicide rate to augment?

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Plus as I said before, Art is a mirror of the soul. Does anyone here really want to see the depths of mine?

Do you think you could cause the suicide rate to augment?

Perhaps not, but I think that it'd provoke a Terror of the Unknown check at least. 8)

 

[toothill man]

scary thought :shock: has anyone else got any views on the big 3 or maybe people who should also be included and of course why :wink: :lol:

 

[Raven Blackwell]

Here's another comparison. Howard and Lovecraft were 'dreamers' in that they had they bordered on mystics with the quality and power of their real life dreams- which influenced their works. Howard once had a dream where he 'woke up' in another world and like the man who dreamed of being a butterfly, was never sure which of the two worlds was the real one and which was the dream. Lovecrafts early works and later Dreamlands stories were a embellishmet of his own dreams where he travelled across fantastic and eeriely dead worlds where he sensed 'some horror had occured'. One of his stories- "Narklyotep' [sp?] was in fact a transcription of a dream that Lovecraft started writing down before he was fully awake. The question has always been for me, what did they bring from the dreamworld into this one? Are there characters and settings created from places that might yet still linger in the Dreaming Worlds, are they still there and is that why certain aspects of the stories have such a 'real' feeling to them?