Is Lovecraft perhaps the greatest horror writer who ever lived?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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

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.

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

 

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'.

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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, 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?

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

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".

 

Think all you like. You'd be wrong.

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

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.

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.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

Hmm.

Anyway.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

 

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

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

That is commonly known as an

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...

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