Quote:
|
After the annihilating traumas of the last century, it's merely perverse to ascribe greatness to this airy but strangely simplified mock-Teutonic never-never land, where races and species intermingle at will and great battles are fought but there is never any remotely convincing treatment of those fundamental human concerns through which all societies ultimately define themselves - religion, philosophy, politics and the conduct of sexual relationships.
|
To which my response is always, 'But everyone writes about those! Isn't it nice to have a change from time to time?'
I think that it if Tolkien wanted to write a social commentary, he would have, and if people wanted to read social commentaries, then they would buy them. I've always seen writing about 'religion, philosophy, politics and the conduct of sexual relationships' as the 'easy way out'. If you focus on these then you don't have to use your imagination as extensively and think up other things to discuss.
Quote:
|
And why is Tolkien's work always lumped in with Lewis? Just because they were friends? The work of the two men is worlds apart...you know who I think is the better writer just by me being a member of a Tolkien forum I think
|
I agree. Lewis wrote a lot of material, but only 7 books about Narnia. Tolkien also wrote a lot of material, but he produced some 16-18* books about Middle Earth. It was always going to be more in depth. That, for me, has been one of the main appeals of Tolkien, the depth. There is always a new thing to be found in Middle Earth.
*Depending on weather you count Lord of the Rings as one or three books.