Only the silent, sleepy, staring houses in the backwoods can tell all that has lain hidden since the early days; and they are not communicative, being loath to shake off the drowsiness which helps them forget. Sometimes one feels it would be merciful to tear down, for they must often dream.
-The Picture in the House.

In the tunnels of that twisted wood, whose low prodigious oaks twine groping boughs and shine dim with the phosphorescence of strange fungi, dwell the furtive and secretive zoogs; who know many obscure secrets of the dream-world and a few of the waking world, since the wood at two places touches the lands of men, though it would be disastrous to say where.
-The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath.

The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
-The Call of Cthulhu.

Lovecraft truly was a masterful writer. A shame that he was only seen as a pulp writer. He had a skill that most modern day writers seem to lack.

I have a few web resources I've culled down the years.

First, this site used to have all the works of Lovecraft available, but when I just checked it I got a forbidden error on it. I don't know if the owner of the site was violating copyright or if the error is temporary. Thus, I am posting the link in hopes that someday it will work again.

http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary...aft/index.html

(Luckily, I already downloaded all the stories to text with plans to proofread and convert to pdf. So, I now possess the complete Lovecraft. I truly am a Great One.)

However, there is page on him at wikibooks which has many of his works, if not all:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:H._P._Lovecraft

Also, over the holidays, I chanced across this which I find quite wonderful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ftld7Ohojg
http://www.cthulhulives.org/Solstice/


Mod comment: Sorry about the confusion with the thread earlier. I deleted this thread as you made a duplicate. I now understand that you did so because of the mistake in the title. I would have deleted the other but it already had two posts in it. I've tried altering the title, but it doesn't seem to work for me. So, I've asked how I can change titles for future reference, but luckily, you had this thread here for me to reinstate with the proper title. Only missing your second quote from The Call of Cthulu.

Sorry for the inconvience.

*tips hat*

Thanks for fixing the title Nexus. It seems we cant even edit our own thread titles...uhg!

Have you read 'Lord of a Visible World'?

Its a collection of his best letters, and gives a peek into his ideas on a wide range of topics, not just writing.

Way too far ahead of his time...for his own good.

I have been meaning to read some Lovecraft for years. Any suggestions for a good book to start with? What is considered his best work?

Have there been any good movies made from Lovecraft's writing? I have seen a couple of bad ones.

Have there been any good movies made from Lovecraft's writing? I have seen a couple of bad ones.
Thats an interesting question because you'd think that by now, a great film would have been made from one of his stories...'At the Mountains of Madness' for example.

If any visual image is possible through digital technology...if Lord of the Rings is possible, why not Lovecraft?

I think the difficulty lies in the fact that his work is so aesthetic, rather than being dialog or plot based.

There are these huge byzantine descriptive paragraphs, but very little dialog, unlike modern novels, most of which read like film scripts.

I have been meaning to read some Lovecraft for years. Any suggestions for a good book to start with? What is considered his best work?
Lovecraft himself considered 'The Colour out of Space' to be his best work.

I liked 'The Shadow Over Innsmouth'.

Also, over the holidays, I chanced across this which I find quite wonderful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ftld7Ohojg
http://www.cthulhulives.org/Solstice/

The youtube thing crashes Firefox for some reason??? Couldnt watch it.

Those Lovecraftian carols are a hoot!

Poe was better, but I need to read more Lovecraft.

Poe was better, but I need to read more Lovecraft.
Lovecraft considered Poe and Arthur Machen to be superior in his genre, although its difficult to say what exactly his genre is. One of the first to blend science fiction and horror, his aliens are nothing like the cartoon characters of his era.

He was also one of the first to incorporate scientific pessimism into his works.

"If the laws of the universe are kind...they will never be found."

Carcano,


Have you read 'Lord of a Visible World'?


No, I haven't.
Never read any of his letters, actually. There are some of his letters (perhaps all?) on the wikibooks site. Perhaps I should read them someday.

The youtube thing crashes Firefox for some reason??? Couldnt watch it.

That's a shame, it's the Carol of the Old Ones and is incredibly catchy. Reading the lyrics is nothing like hearing it performed.

Thats an interesting question because you'd think that by now, a great film would have been made from one of his stories...'At the Mountains of Madness' for example.

This would definitely be my first choice for a movie. So many others as well though....


Shaman,

Have there been any good movies made from Lovecraft's writing? I have seen a couple of bad ones.

I always thought Re-animator was pretty good, but it doesn't really follow the story very well. Dreams in the Witch House was also done well, but it was only a short film, paired with Cigarette Burns on the Masters of Horror DVD. Apparently, a silent film of Call of Cthulu was made in 2005, I haven't seen it. The IMdB reviews aren't too kind. I thought a full length production of Call of Cthulu was in the works, but haven't been able to find it.

There have been a million and one movies based on Lovecraft stories, but most of them have been altered beyond recognition. They mostly share a low budget theme and thus the imaginative horror that Lovecraft wrote into his stories were difficult to carry off so they changed the stories to be easier to convey. Read: cheap thrills.

In the Mouth of Madness was an excellent movie based on Lovecraftian themes (although paying homage to Stephen King with the writer's name being Sutter Kane...) This was an excellent movie.


As to which book, there are so many compilations of his stories, it's difficult to say which book... the wikisource link I posted has all his stories, I couldn't even think of one in particular to start with. I started reading them in chronological order.


Prince James,

Poe was better, but I need to read more Lovecraft.

I prefer Lovecraft. Poe had some good stories, but he was more of a standard storyteller. He didn't create such a vivid and different mythos that Lovecraft was able to weave.

Poe was perhaps better at putting words together, but its difficult to judge as they wrote in different eras. People spoke differently in Poe's time than they did in Lovecraft's. Of course, the same goes for my comparison of Lovecraft with modern authors. The language has become more brusque and thus Lovecraft's ability to put words together as he does not necessarily imply that he is a better writer than today's, just that he wrote in a different time with a different language.

However, the stories he tells with that language stand miles taller than most such creations either before or after.

Lovecraft is god.

The youtube thing crashes Firefox for some reason??? Couldnt watch it.


I'm pretty sure this is because of a virus not firefox, because it works for me. Happened to a lot of people but it goes away if you reformat everything. Reinstalling firefox won't help.

The only worker in that genre that I enjoy at all is Dean Koontz.

His writing style seems to stray into awkwardness, a bit like Tolkien. There is masterful writing and there is writing so awkwardly that the flow of text from the page into your brain is hindered, completely ruining immersion (with that style of writing and its twisty, awkward hurdles of text I often find myself reading an entire page and then realising I'm actually thinking about something else. It's like the open, perfectly flat 100m dash of something like "The Hobbit" compared to one strewn with potholes, hurdles and tripwire like something you'd encounter half way through "The Silmarillion" when Tolkien began to get a bit of an ego) and a balance has to be struck between style and readability. If you have to actually make an effort to read what you are reading then your immersion is suffering.

I'm sure there will be several replies from those of you who believe that you are gifted or something (I am sure there will be many of you who think that), and you can just blast through writing like that, but if you even have to stop once in a paragraph to think "what does that word mean again?" then your immersion has been ruined already.

The only worker in that genre that I enjoy at all is Dean Koontz.

Me too. I like his clear writing style.

I guess that almost every book features a dog as a hero is a bonus for fraggle.

His writing style seems to stray into awkwardness, a bit like Tolkien. There is masterful writing and there is writing so awkwardly that the flow of text from the page into your brain is hindered, completely ruining immersion (with that style of writing and its twisty, awkward hurdles of text I often find myself reading an entire page and then realising I'm actually thinking about something else. It's like the open, perfectly flat 100m dash of something like "The Hobbit" compared to one strewn with potholes, hurdles and tripwire like something you'd encounter half way through "The Silmarillion" when Tolkien began to get a bit of an ego) and a balance has to be struck between style and readability. If you have to actually make an effort to read what you are reading then your immersion is suffering.

I'm sure there will be several replies from those of you who believe that you are gifted or something (I am sure there will be many of you who think that), and you can just blast through writing like that, but if you even have to stop once in a paragraph to think "what does that word mean again?" then your immersion has been ruined already.

i want to completely disagree with you, but i partly agree.

i have only read 'mountains of madness' but i loved it.

the difficulty of his work is basically because of his motivation to include as many details or scientific explanations as possible--so that the image or concept in your mind can be closer to what it was in his mind. if you read it with deep concentration and with the foreknowledge of certain basic concepts, then it should suck you into the world he creates and leave your mind frantic.

i remember one paragraph that was like a culmination of all the horror that had progressed in the story so far. it seemed long-winded and frantic, but its just another factor in the writing style that pulls you into the story without thinking. i found myself, by the end of that paragraph, hearing the narrator's frantic voice in my head, his words spilling out as fast as his plight. it really made me feel that a scientist under extreme and horrendous strain was telling this story firsthand.

i love reading and a word that i don't know wont stop me or pull me out of the story. i either figure it out by reading the rest of the sentence, or forget it because it probably isn't that important anyway.

His writing style seems to stray into awkwardness, a bit like Tolkien.

The thing to remember about Lovecraft is that in the times he wrote, people spoke differently.

Same goes for Tolkien.

And Poe, as well.

What can be said in today's books in two or three words, stretches out to half a paragraph in older writers.

The thing to remember about Lovecraft is that in the times he wrote, people spoke differently. Same goes for Tolkien. And Poe, as well.What can be said in today's books in two or three words, stretches out to half a paragraph in older writers.Tolkien isn't all that ancient. He wrote "The Hobbit" first, but "Lord of the Rings" came out in the 1950s. The era of Jack Kerouac and Vladimir Nabokov.

I don't find concision to be all that appealing in literature. If I want thoughts expressed in three words I'll go read a billboard. I like James Michener and Jean Auel and J.K. Rowling.

True, Tolkien wrote in the 50's. But he was old in the 50's too.
The formative period of his writing skills took place much earlier.
He began writing the poems and myths of his creation in WWI during calm moments.

Lovecraft wrote in the 30's.

Poe was a bit earlier.

There was a shift in writing style... sometime after the 30's...
Post war? Pre war? During the war?
It's hard to say, exactly.

Perhaps the shift is more complicated, as well.
Lovecraft and Poe were both from New England. It's possible that the Victorian era lingered in their speech longer than the rest of the nation...


By the way, back to stories for movies...
The Nameless City would make an excellent movie. One of my favorites.

Actually I think all of Tolkien's "fantasy" writing began with "In a hole, there lived a Hobbit"...."Hobbit" of course being a nonsense word, which he would later (laughably) claim actually meant something in Old English order to cover his ass.

Hmm.
I forget...
I don't think so, though.
He 'wrote' The Hobbit for his daughter, I'm pretty sure the poetry came first. ("Wrote" in quotes because it began as a bed time story.)
It's been awhile since I've read the books about his writings though...

If I remember right, it was a poem on Elbereth that came first.

Actually I think all of Tolkien's "fantasy" writing began with "In a hole, there lived a Hobbit"...."Hobbit" of course being a nonsense word, which he would later (laughably) claim actually meant something in Old English order to cover his ass.

he was an english professor and had studied all kinds of languages since he was a young child. knowing tolkein, the term 'hobbit' most likely is related to some pre-existing word in some language. he was obsessed with languages.

He later claimed that "Hobbit" came from the Old English "Holbytlan", meaning "Hole builder", which is widely regarded to be a claim he later made to cover his ass when his fans wanted to know where the word came from.

He later claimed that "Hobbit" came from the Old English "Holbytlan", meaning "Hole builder", which is widely regarded to be a claim he later made to cover his ass when his fans wanted to know where the word came from.

"cover his ass" -- like the success of the book really depended on where he got the word from... :rolleyes:

Yes but he still couldn't come out and just say "It's just a nonsense word I made up", could he? To all his fans who had this deep, realistic universe in their minds, to come out and say something like that would ruin his credibility and go a long way to fucking things up for them. That's why he needed to cover his ass.

His writing style seems to stray into awkwardness, a bit like Tolkien. There is masterful writing and there is writing so awkwardly that the flow of text from the page into your brain is hindered, completely ruining immersion (with that style of writing and its twisty, awkward hurdles of text I often find myself reading an entire page and then realising I'm actually thinking about something else. It's like the open, perfectly flat 100m dash of something like "The Hobbit" compared to one strewn with potholes, hurdles and tripwire like something you'd encounter half way through "The Silmarillion" when Tolkien began to get a bit of an ego) and a balance has to be struck between style and readability. If you have to actually make an effort to read what you are reading then your immersion is suffering.

The Silmarillion was publushed by Tolkien's son, after Tolkien had died. He didn't get "something of an ego," it's a collection of unfinished stories, many in stages hardly fit to be published.

I'm sure there will be several replies from those of you who believe that you are gifted or something (I am sure there will be many of you who think that), and you can just blast through writing like that, but if you even have to stop once in a paragraph to think "what does that word mean again?" then your immersion has been ruined already.

I read The Hobbit in a day when I was in fourth or fifth grade.

True, Tolkien wrote in the 50's. But he was old in the 50's too.
The formative period of his writing skills took place much earlier.
He began writing the poems and myths of his creation in WWI during calm moments.

Lovecraft wrote in the 30's.

Poe was a bit earlier.

There was a shift in writing style... sometime after the 30's...
Post war? Pre war? During the war?
It's hard to say, exactly.

Perhaps the shift is more complicated, as well.
Lovecraft and Poe were both from New England. It's possible that the Victorian era lingered in their speech longer than the rest of the nation...


I wonder if it came about when all those WWI journalists were coming back to a country who had been used to reading only newsprint for the past few years. The lost generation.

By the way, back to stories for movies...
The Nameless City would make an excellent movie. One of my favorites.

There are plans (and a script) for At the Mountains of Madness. del Toro is directing it. He says it's going to be a $70 million dollar movie or something, the studios are trying to get him to put a love story and a happy ending in, but he says he won't let them.
link (http://www.deltorofilms.com/AtTheMountainsOfMadness.php)

the studios are trying to get him to put a love story and a happy ending in, but he says he won't let them.

Viva Del Toro!
Fight the bastards!
Let's do a Lovecraft movie right for a change.

By the way, Pan's Labyrinth... Looks pretty fucking cool. Waiting for it to move on past 'selected cities'.

I wonder if it came about when all those WWI journalists were coming back to a country who had been used to reading only newsprint for the past few years. The lost generation.

That's definitely a possibility. Although the likelihood would be greater for WWII than WWI, yes? Americans weren't in WWI very long. Although, there were all those songs about keeping the boys home on the farm after they'd seen Paris...

Another likely culprit would be military orders. They're notably succinct.

War mentality is also another likely cause. Who has time for all those fancy adjectives and adverbs? Just get on with it before Jerry shoves a spike up your ass.

There is masterful writing and there is writing so awkwardly that the flow of text from the page into your brain is hindered, completely ruining immersion (with that style of writing and its twisty, awkward hurdles of text I often find myself reading an entire page and then realising I'm actually thinking about something else.

It's like the open, perfectly flat 100m dash of something like "The Hobbit" compared to one strewn with potholes, hurdles and tripwire...

If you have to actually make an effort to read what you are reading then your immersion is suffering.
People used longer sentences in older literature that require a slightly longer attention span.

I dont see it as a race. I dont read fiction to derive information in a hurry, I read for enjoyment in the same way that I listen to music.

Actually you hear the same debates in music, about whether its more profound to express something in just three notes.

Lovecraft is more like Indian music than John Lee Hooker, dividing the octave into 20+ tones...and weaving them together into "dissonances of exquisite morbidity and cacodaemonical ghastliness."

The Silmarillion was publushed by Tolkien's son, after Tolkien had died. He didn't get "something of an ego," it's a collection of unfinished stories, many in stages hardly fit to be published.

It's fairly obvious that Tolkien's regard for his own work starts to grow....just examine the writing style at the beginning of LOTR versus the end. At the start he seems to still be writing The Hobbit and in the last 200 pages he thinks he's Shakespeare.

Don't take things so literally.

People used longer sentences in older literature that require a slightly longer attention span.

I dont see it as a race. I dont read fiction to derive information in a hurry, I read for enjoyment in the same way that I listen to music.

Actually you hear the same debates in music, about whether its more profound to express something in just three notes.

Lovecraft is more like Indian music than John Lee Hooker, dividing the octave into 20+ tones...and weaving them together into "dissonances of exquisite morbidity and cacodaemonical ghastliness."

You missed the point completely. When reading a fictional novel, one of the most important things is immersion. If you have to keep stopping to think "what the fuck does that word mean again?" then your immersion has been ruined. If a concept can be explained in three semi-obscure words as opposed to one where you'd have to go looking for the dictionary (not referring to any specific authors here) then it should be.

There are books you can pick up that are written well, and before you know it you're 200 pages in. There are also books that tell a great story, but because they're so awkwardly written, you just give up and go do something else after the first ten pages. Authors have to consider this. Of course, there will always be the unspoken macho "Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome", where people who aspire to be the best at everything will just come along and go "well if you didn't like it you're just stupid", or something to that effect, probably before heading to the penis enlargement clinic. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point.

As to "longer sentences", I don't see what that has to do with my point. Longer sentences are something completely different. Often when writing I catch myself writing run on sentences, which are about as long a sentence as you can get, and those are simply grammatical faux pas. It's not the length of the sentence I am talking about, but rather the structure and obscurity of words used within those sentences that make the reading awkward.

Well, all I can say is that there are those who are quite capable of reading Lovecraft and remain immersed in his writing while doing so.

To each his own, I suppose.


As to Tolkien, everything you are saying about him is entirely subjective or simply untrue. The Hobbit wasn't the first story he wrote, in fact, the first stories and poems he wrote were likely the ones which you consider as being the ones where he considers himself Shakespeare.

The Hobbit was different because it was originally a bedtime story he used to tell to his daughter. It was a children's story and meant to be quaint.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy wasn't meant to be quaint.

Point of fact: When Tolkien began writing about his world, the Third Age came quite late in his tale-tellings. His interest lay more in the earlier times compiled in the Silmarillion.

Another point to note: The stories changed quite a bit over time. They evolved. And the strange thing is is that, for the most part, Tolkien wrote for himself.

I fail to see how a man could be so full of himself when the majority of his writing was intended for self-consumption only.

You're projecting.

If you have to keep stopping to think "what the fuck does that word mean again?" then your immersion has been ruined. If a concept can be explained in three semi-obscure words as opposed to one where you'd have to go looking for the dictionary (not referring to any specific authors here) then it should be.

Actually Lovecraft is known for his use of the suffix 'less'...as in 'nameless'.

Hes always searching for the phrase that describes the indescribable.

What did it look like?

Decidedly non-euclidian!

Sure there are some obscure words, about a hundred or so that take some getting used to...but most of them sound like their meaning, in the same way that yiddish words do.

Well, all I can say is that there are those who are quite capable of reading Lovecraft and remain immersed in his writing while doing so.

Well, good for you, but I think there is a little bit of emperor's new clothes syndrome going on there. Are you seriously telling me you just ate all those novels up without reaching for a dictionary once?

As to Tolkien, everything you are saying about him is entirely subjective or simply untrue. The Hobbit wasn't the first story he wrote, in fact, the first stories and poems he wrote were likely the ones which you consider as being the ones where he considers himself Shakespeare.

No, and if you'd read my posts you wouldn't be saying that.

I fail to see how a man could be so full of himself when the majority of his writing was intended for self-consumption only.

Most of these "subjective or simply untrue" opinions are actually the opinions of die-hard Tolkien fans. If you are interested in finding out more, simply type tolkien forum or something similar into google and go after the first results. It won't take long to find people voicing those same opinions, particularly the one about the origins of the word "hobbit".

but I think there is a little bit of emperor's new clothes syndrome going on there.

Think all you like. You'd be wrong.

Are you seriously telling me you just ate all those novels up without reaching for a dictionary once?

I honestly can't remember.
I don't think I did.
Certainly not enough for it to be remarkable.

No, and if you'd read my posts you wouldn't be saying that.

Why would you say that?
Because I did read your posts. In fact, I responded to them all, didn't I?

You mentioned the the final portions of Lord of the Rings, but you also mentioned the works in the Silmarillion.
And, frankly, I don't see this disparity in his writings that you do.
They all seem to follow a common style to me.
Other than the hobbit, of course.

Sure, the very first sections of The Fellowship of the Ring were a tad quaint, but only as a sort of prelude. The hobbits were to meant to symbolize the innocent ignorant. The Birthday Party and whatnot.
That ended quite soon. Even before reaching Bree.

Anyway, the only comparisons to Shakespeare that I can fathom is the poetry, and most of that was written long before the narrative of the LOTR.

Most of these "subjective or simply untrue" opinions are actually the opinions of die-hard Tolkien fans. If you are interested in finding out more, simply type tolkien forum or something similar into google and go after the first results. It won't take long to find people voicing those same opinions, particularly the one about the origins of the word "hobbit".

Opinions are like assholes.
I don't care how many people voice opinions against Tolkien.
Nor do I care about the origin of the word Hobbit, other than to say I see no reason why he needed to 'cover his ass' on the word as you suggest.

As to the 'untrue', I specifically meant your statement that The Hobbit was the first thing he wrote, when, in fact, it was not.

His son published a series of books of the notes his father wrote down the years. From long before the Lord of the Rings was ever conceived to the final days of its fine tuning.
Very interesting read. To me anyway.

Most of what you said is simply subjective opinion, however, and neither here nor there.

There was no statement that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first. For a man/person/thing who takes things so literally you certainly assumed a hell of a lot from such an ambiguous statement. I didn't strictly say that he wrote the Hobbit first, although I find it hard to believe otherwise, as the elves depicted in The Hobbit are so completely and utterly different from the elves in LOTR, and the explanation that this was just a children's story just doesn't wash as they are so radically different. It just wouldn't make sense. Perhaps he didn't intend to link it to his greater mythology until later (as I remember reading that The Hobbit was later rewritten in certain parts to link it to LOTR), but I suspect that you are more interested in having an argument than having a discussion so you can take that or leave it.

When you open page 1 of LOTR, you can tell that Tolkien is still writing The Hobbit II, and if you have read his published letters (One of the letters to his publisher, IIRC) you will know that those testify to that fact. I really hate to have to make things this simple, but read page 1 of LOTR, and then skip to around The Battle of the Pelennor Fields (I forget the exact chapter title) and you'll see exactly what I mean. Of course, you'll have to lower your nose a bit first.

I don't care how many people voice opinions against Tolkien.
Nor do I care about the origin of the word Hobbit, other than to say I see no reason why he needed to 'cover his ass' on the word as you suggest.

Be as ignorant as you wish. I really don't care ;)

When I mentioned Shakespeare, I didn't intend for you to take it so literally. Do you take everything that literally? I'm sure that gets you into no end of amusing scrapes in real life.

There was no statement that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first.

I didn't strictly say that he wrote the Hobbit first

He wrote "The Hobbit" first

Hmm.

Anyway.

the elves depicted in The Hobbit are so completely and utterly different from the elves in LOTR

Different kind of elves. The elves in The Hobbit are dark elves. That is, they never traveled to the land of the Valar.
They never grew up.
They never got infected with the sadness.
The futility.

the explanation that this was just a children's story just doesn't wash as they are so radically different.

Well, that's a shame, because it was.
It was a bedtime story for his daughter, in fact.

Perhaps he didn't intend to link it to his greater mythology until later (as I remember reading that The Hobbit was later rewritten in certain parts to link it to LOTR)

He had to adapt the bedtime story quite a bit and then later adapted The Hobbit after it had been published.
Yes.

but I suspect that you are more interested in having an argument than having a discussion so you can take that or leave it.

Argument?
Not much of an argument.
You're basically saying you don't like Lovecraft or Tolkien.
What's to argue about?

I really hate to have to make things this simple, but read page 1 of LOTR, and then skip to around The Battle of the Pelennor Fields (I forget the exact chapter title) and you'll see exactly what I mean.

As I said, the Shire symbolized a land of innocence.
He never planned to carry on the shire's frivolity throughout the whole affair.
As to the letter, I seem to recall mention of a letter about how the fans wanted The Hobbit II or something similar.
I don't believe he ever planned to give it to them.
The writing in the Silmarillion testifies to how he preferred to write. And it is this style of writing that takes place in LOTR.

Be as ignorant as you wish. I really don't care

It's just dumb.
There's nothing to 'cover his ass' about.
It's just a book.
He either made up the word or he derived it from some old word.
Why should he lie?
It's pointless. I don't understand your whole 'cover his ass' concept.

When I mentioned Shakespeare, I didn't intend for you to take it so literally. Do you take everything that literally? I'm sure that gets you into no end of amusing scrapes in real life.

You keep objecting to being taken 'literally'.
Why bother to write if you can't say what you mean?

As to the 'untrue', I specifically meant your statement that The Hobbit was the first thing he wrote, when, in fact, it was not.

Fraggle Rocker said that he wrote "The Hobbit" first. If you're just being pedantic, then....congratulations, but you know what I meant.

Different kind of elves. The elves in The Hobbit are dark elves. That is, they never traveled to the land of the Valar.
They never grew up.
They never got infected with the sadness.
The futility.


Elrond is in The Hobbit. The elves they meet are in Rivendell, and in that book they run around singing "Hey lally lally" for fuck's sake.

You're basically saying you don't like Lovecraft or Tolkien.

Not true. I really like Tolkien's work (at least, the less pretentious stuff), not so keen on lovecraft thus far though, although I'm sure you'll come back that you "don't care" what my opinion of either is, and once again, I don't care.

As to the letter, I seem to recall mention of a letter about how the fans wanted The Hobbit II or something similar.
I don't believe he ever planned to give it to them.

Actually, in one of the letters to his publisher he basically states that he has started work on The Hobbit II. Obviously those are not his exact words but that is almost exactly what he states.

The writing in the Silmarillion testifies to how he preferred to write. And it is this style of writing that takes place in LOTR.

A man who starts sentences with conjunctions is telling me about writing style?

Why should he lie?

Exactly! Now you're getting it. It's called being pretentious. That's the question his fans asked.

Oops.
My bad.

I was in a hurry as I had to run to get dinner.
Sorry.

You said this:
"Actually I think all of Tolkien's "fantasy" writing began with "In a hole, there lived a Hobbit"..."

Still.
Wrong.

Pedantic?
Probably.

A man who starts sentences with conjunctions is telling me about writing style?

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
You suck.
Grammar patrol.

Note "I think".

I stated that I thought that Tolkien's "fantasy" writing began with that line.

This does not equate to a statement that The Hobbit was the first thing he wrote

That is commonly known as an opinion

It's funny how it's only the people who can't string together a basic sentence who come out with that "grammar police" shit.

It's someone else's stupid little teenage rebuttal. If you're so sharp as to be able to fly through a Lovecraft novel without reaching for a dictionary, don't you think you should at least be able to come up with something a little more original?

Anyway...

Actually, in one of the letters to his publisher he basically states that he has started work on The Hobbit II. Obviously those are not his exact words but that is almost exactly what he states.

It's called marketing.
His publshers wanted another bedtime story.
He fooled them, eh?

It's funny how it's only the people who can't string together a basic sentence who come out with that "grammar police" shit.


Dude.
Just admit it.
You resorted to one of the lowest tactics available.
You've really made a complete fool out of yourself.
In the nick of time too, seeing as how I made such a bonehead mistake as quoting Fraggle...

Heh.
Starting a sentence with a conjunction.
You're lame.

If you're so sharp as to be able to fly through a Lovecraft novel without reaching for a dictionary, don't you think you should at least be able to come up with something a little more original?

I'm not Lovecraft.

Note "I think".

And I simply corrected you.
No need to get your panties in a wad and break out the grammar badge.

Heh.
Chortle.
Snort.

Show me where I said you were Lovecraft. Oh wait, no, that would be a whole new 2-page mess because you don't even know who you're quoting. Fuck, you'd probably quote someone from a completely different forum this time.

I will admit that I took a cheap shot when you admit that you are completely incapable of properly employing even the most basic grammar.

Show me where I said you were Lovecraft.

It's simple, Schleebey.
You tried insulting me by insinuating that I'm not able to string words together like Lovecraft.
Do try to stay up.

I will admit that I took a cheap shot when you admit that you are completely incapable of properly employing even the most basic grammar.

And you just can't put that grammar badge away, can you?

You're a good boy, Schleebey.

Heh.
Do you have a whistle too?

You do understand that it wasn't a 'cheap shot'?
Unless the target was yourself.

Lame.

You tried insulting me by insinuating that I'm not able to string words together like Lovecraft.

No I didn't. Read it again. Do I really have to explain?

You are a pretentious hypocrite. You tell us all how you eat Lovecraft and his twisting, awkward sentences for breakfast, and yet you have proved that you can't even read or write properly.

Hahaha...

Just stop.
You're just digging yourself deeper.

And now you've run out of argument.

Woops....you're rubbing off on me now.

Argument?
What argument?
I've already said there's nothing to argue about.
You don't like Lovecraft.
You don't like Tolkien.
Now your panties are in a wad because you feel that I've been condescending to you by explaining to you that the Hobbit wasn't the first thing that Tolkien wrote in his created world.
Then you made a rash choice to insult my grammar which I suspect you're regretting now. If not, you should be.
And now you just can't quit because you're invested and don't want to seem to be slinking away.

But, there's no argument?

What? Should I try to convince you to like Lovecraft? Tolkien? Do you think my heartfelt descriptions of their work would somehow make you think twice about your convictions? (And, I might note, convictions which you seem to hold quite strongly. Even holding the man's choice of "hobbit" against him for some odd reason.)

What argument?

And ...

Chortle.
That really was lame, man.
You do realize, yes?
I'm sure you do.
Now you're trying to make light of it. But you know how stupid it was.

Why should I be regretting that?

The argument is now that you are a pretentious hypocrite. Do try to keep up.

Would it be easier for you to understand if I wrote like Lovecraft?

"Hobbit" is simply a nonsense word he dreamed up one day.

Why should I be regretting that?

Because it's incredibly lame.

The argument is now that you are a pretentious hypocrite.

What more subjective chatter?

Funny. I thought you were.
Evidence.
Grammar patrol.
This is evidence both for you being pretentious and also for being a hypocrite as you obviously have a set of brand new clothes fresh from the Emperor's wardrobe.
Aye?

Would it be easier for you to understand if I wrote like Lovecraft?


Probably be easier if you said what you meant.
But, I'm sure you meant what you said?
Even if not literally?

"Hobbit" is simply a nonsense word he dreamed up one day.

Maybe so.
Who cares?

LOL, if you wanted to stop the argument then "who cares?" was the perfect thing to say.

It made me realise that I am trying to reason with a twelve year old.

Bye.

It made me realise that I am trying to reason with a twelve year old.

Reason.
Heh.
Is that what you call it?
Funny.

Again.
Reason about what?

You have only subjective opinion.
Nothing more.

Heh.
Good laugh though.
Enjoy that shiny badge. It looks good on you.

Bye bye, officer.