Should the Lord of the Rings be considered part of western canon?

Should the Lord of the Rings be considered part of western canon?

I know Tolkien wasn't a prose master but his works are known by nearly everyone in the western world.

>his works are known by nearly everyone in the western world

since when has this been a criterion for a work becoming canon?

Should be add Harry Potter and ASOIAF too?

If ASOIAF gets into the Western Canon I'm moving to the east

LOTR is canon, whether people like it or not. A good rule of thumb is whether or not it gets continually reprinted after the writer's death.

Could you seriously entertain the idea of your children's children reading Harry Potter or GRRM? Could you see them being deeply influenced by it?

I've read both of those and I'm smarter than you, faggot

Are you currently doing a sketch for Jimmy Kimmel?

I have a teacher in graduate school who thinks LOTR is going to be the only work from the 20th Century that survives the test of time.

it'll age the best probs, but that's just silly

who are we to say what future muslims will be reading

I'll say yes mainly because it is a very modernist work in spite of Tolkien's distaste for modernity.

It's basically a Germanic Romance-Epic written about eight hundred years too late (at the very least.) Also consider that the book almost singlehandedly revived the debate about the status of everything that wasn't quite mythology or realistic fiction (or ~magical realism~) as literature that many had thought they killed in the 1920's.

Tolkien's language skills are actually quite impressive if you pay close attention to how he takes on a more archaic seeming voice based on at what point in the story he has reached, and the fact that he justifies it in the context of this all being a recording of events after the fact shows that he's more talented as a writer than he may be given credit for. Also lovely is all of the poetry he has in the book, Tolkien was a poet first and foremost.

Also if you ask many people who have read the whole thing, they're likely to describe it as being something more of an experience (like Moby Dick or Ulysses) than as a strict "I am reading this book... The book is read."

There's a very clear difference between ASOIAF and LoTR in what they were written for, since ASOIAF is a thriller and LoTR is an epic.

Harry Potter should be part of some children's canon, I'd say, if not just for the fact that the series has such tremendously strong and delightfully subtle Christian imagery. I fear that the movies may have marred that though.

If Tolkein were to be canonized would any other 'genre' writers be considered worthy? Of course I just mean does Wolfe have a snowball's chance in hell? I love the man too much to bear the thought of him ever being forgotten.

This sounds pretty on point. I think that the deciding factor between good and god-awful genre-fiction is a respect for the history of storytelling. Tolkien's fantasy was channeling Beowulf and Peer Gynt and all the rest, meanwhile what the fuck is Rowling channeling other than leg-stretching?

>subtle christian imagery
I haven't touched those books in nearly a decade, what happened here?

>Harry Potter should be part of some children's canon, I'd say, if not just for the fact that the series has such tremendously strong and delightfully subtle Christian imagery.

Explain? Unless you mean the decidedly unsubtle 'muh parents sacrificed themselves so I could live'

Harry Potter, yes. GRRM, lolno.

You're underestimating the record-shattering, money-printing phenomenon that is Harry Potter. J. K. Rowling is the first and only billionaire to become such from her novel sales (and related franchise), and the first HP book is one of the greatest selling books of all time alongside the Bible and Don Quixote. I fully expect Harry Potter to be considered classic childrens' literature for generations to come, comparable to Alice In Wonderland or Tom Sawyer.

You can call it shit all you want but that doesn't mean it hasn't had a massive impact on the entire world.

Here's what I can provide off the top of my head
>7 is like the most important number in the entire series
>Harry doing the right thing usually coincides with not opting to become more powerful (mirror of erised in #1 for instance)
>Voldemort and his followers deny existence of good and evil believing in "people with power and those too weak to use it"
>Harry dying and coming back
>Dumbledore's grave quotes the Bible
>Before the final confrontation, Harry tries to show Voldemort mercy and tells him to repent
>Rowling herself is a Scottish Presbyterian and said in an interview that if she were to tell how her faith influenced the books that it would spoil the end
>The fact that magic never actually does much for the characters and it turns out to be love, friendship, and what might as well be faith that gets them through everything

Only retarded American protestants think the book is satanic, and that's because they're too autistic to read anything on more than a literal level.

Oh, I guess I could kind of add that one to the list. Funny that it didn't strike me immediately.

underrated post

>vague Church of England 'be nice'ness as 'subtle Christian allegory'

Fuck RIGHT off.

If writers like H.G. Welles, Jules Verne, M.R. James, and H.P. Lovecraft are already well respected for being forerunners of sf and horror genres despite their faults, I don't see how Tolkein won't be remembered for being a popular influence on fantasy fiction.

Harry Potters author isnt even dead yet m8.

isn't being known by the public THE criterion?

I aas going to make a new thread but I'll ask it here:

I just finished reading fellowship and I enjoyed the world building and the dialogue but holy fucking shit is this guy purple. Not to mention that it drags on like a motherfucker. So does it any better in the next two or is it more of the same? I haven't watched the movies either.

more of the same I guess.

Damn it. I really wanted to finish the series too. The movies it is. I always found it amazing that both Tolkien and Hemingway were in ww1 and went in two completely directions in terms of prose. What's the closest thing to minimalist fantasy? Is that shit even possible?

Except J.K. Rowling isn't part of the "nice" Church of England.

She's part of one of the most fire and brimstone churches there is other than Dutch Reformed. Also I was hoping that the whole mercy thing would be taken more from my post than "be nice" ness.

It doesn't really drag that much and Tolkien isn't that purple, he just uses words that literate people still used in the 30s and 40s. The book isn't a race, you're supposed to enjoy going through it and taking in the atmosphere and features of the world on a more physical level than just the elves and shit.

>If Tolkein were to be canonized would any other 'genre' writers be considered worthy? Of course I just mean does Wolfe have a snowball's chance in hell?

Wolfe's stature is growing by the year. Granted, it's still nowhere near the prominence of Tolkien. The problem with Wolfe is that he is lumped in with genre-fiction, which until recently was routinely shunned by academia. This has started to slowly turn in the last decade, with more in academia taking genre writers seriously.

Wolfe has a very hard path to break either mainstream or academic circles. On the one hand, he's much to dense and literary to be appreciated by the average consumer (even Tolkien has widestream appeal). On the other, he is automatically discarded and ignored based upon the fact that he writes 'genre fiction'.

I do have faith that Wolfe will enter the conversation of great writers going forward, but it's going to be a slow and long process. Melville was almost entirely forgotten until the 1920's. I will say that if he is remembered for anything it's going to be for his short stories, T5HoC, and most likely Peace. Academics fucking HATE long book series (most likely because to study and teach them in a classroom/lecture setting would take weeks on end; weeks which could be used studying another, more digestible text). If it's any consolation, Wolfe was widely read and respected by most of my literature and English professors when I attended Uni.

>thinking the canon is a collection of the greatest works rather than the most influential

They have a lot of overlap because something is usually influential because it's good

I love lotr but I disagree familia. Enjoying the atmosphere is good but having terrible plot pacing and dragging on the story doesn't help anybody. Tolkien gets a lot of slack because he was one of the first to do fantasy at that scale. For anyone who hasn't read them I suggest watching the first movie then reading the last two books.

Thinking about it...

>pic related

THIS!

I had an uncle who recently passed who always said, "You've got to read the Lord of Rings three times in your life. Once as a child, once as an adult and once more when you get old and then you'll get it."

I believe him. And a lot of it has to do with what you just posted.

It's funny... When you folks abbreviate things... and I read "HP", I immediately think of Lovecraft and I have to re-read your posts to make sense of them.

Otherwise, they are just hilarious.

You actually read any of this drivel...

>no thanks

I had a boss who was supposedly a nurse who was obsessed with this series and she got so fat that she blew out her knees at work. All I could do was just shake my head...

Also, Tolkein * IS * canon, already.
This is not an issue up for grabs.

well... he didn't call a cat-character Nigger-Man

The first one does start off slow.
The second picks up fairly well.

Also this:

Yes, and Ulysses shouldn't be.

...

I don't know if you can get more minimalist that Hemingway to be honest. That was kind of his thing -- and still get the point across effectively.

That guy was brutal in his writing.

Also, Hunter S. Thompson who just basically idolized Hemingway, so there's that. But Thompson's war writings only really go so far as Vietnam / Saigon experiences.

>Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Minimalist fantasy writing about war:
Bond. James Bond.
Ian Fleming's your man.

Not a great writer like Tolkien but might meet your needs. Also, very quick reads (and way funnier than the films).

OF COURSE IT SHOULD

The Qu'ran, most likely

I think minimalist fantasy is kind of a contradiction since fantasy is about world building or whatever so unless you can either pick from being description or letting the reader come up with the details.

You should read what people of her former village and church think of her, although It's pretty difficult because she sued everybody who revealed her nastiness.

How descriptive does a cave or a sword have to be?

>tfw Tolkien was a genuinely pleasant fellow to be around and had numerous lifelong friends

I know whose books I'd rather read.

I don't think his Priest would agree

>Oh god he's shouting at me in Latin again, please stop.

With people's attention span become worse when it comes to reading, do guys think descriptive prose will die down? I enjoy both but modern authors are up against a public that binge watches seasons worth of shows in one sitting. What hope does writing like Tolkiens have against that?

Tolkien has depth. Stories like Harry Potter are "merely" entertaining. That's not a bad thing, but it does put them in different categories.

>modern authors are up against a public that binge watches seasons worth of shows in one sitting

tolkiens contemporaries would have done the same if they could have

Mervyn Peake, Borges
Don't let Veeky Forums tell you what is and isn't good

Pretty sure it's already in Bloom's canon.

Do not be a big idiot, they are not hard to read and frankly not that purple. On Hemingway: he is far less sparse than people imagine, he does the Beckett trick of repetition and his habit of run-on descriptions to create the feeling of incomplete-understanding (in the face of the sublime) is complex and not simple, it just sounds a little like speech, nor does he use particularly simple words or structures.
If you really can't bear the slog then you could try reading Children of Hurin, it's more closely written and is probably Tolkien's best. The feeling of LotR gets a little more magisterial and ancient as they get out of the shire and you have things like the pukel men, so you might find the later books easier, there's not so much dallying in woods or elf-houses.

tolkien doesn't have depth it just has width

his universe is vast but completely two dimensional

>tolkien doesn't have depth it just has width
Sorry he doesn't write dinky baby pop-up books for your toddler ass?

>They rode on through sunset, and slow dusk, and gathering night. When at last they halted and dismounted, even Aragorn was stiff and weary. Gandalf only allowed them a few hours' rest. Legolas and Gimli slept and Aragorn lay flat, stretched upon his back; but Gandalf stood, leaning on his staff, gazing into the darkness, east and west. All was silent, and there was no sign or sound of living thing. The night was barred with long clouds, fleeting on a chill wind, when they arose again. Under the cold moon they went on once more, as swift as by the light of day.
Hours passed and still they rode on. Gimli nodded and would have fallen from his seat, if Gandalf had not clutched and shaken him. Hasufel and Arod, weary but proud, followed their tireless leader, a grey shadow before them hardly to he seen. The miles went by. The waxing moon sank into the cloudy West.


>I could look down through the woods and see,
far below, with the sun on it, the line of the river that
separated the two armies. We went along the rough
new military road that followed the crest of the ridge
and I looked to the north at the two ranges of moun-
tains, green and dark to the snow-line and then white
and lovely in the sun. Then, as the road mounted along
the ridge, I saw a third range of mountains, higher
snow mountains, that looked chalky white and fur-
rowed, with strange planes, and then there were moun-
tains far off beyond all these that you could hardly tell
if you really saw. Those were all the Austrians* moun-
tains and we had nothing like them. Ahead there was a
rounded turn-off in the road to the right and looking
down I could see the road dropping through the trees.
There were troops on this road and motor trucks and
mules with mountain guns and as we went down, keep-
ing to the side, I could see the river far down below,
the line of ties and rails running along it, the old bridge
where the railway crossed to the other side and across,
under a hill beyond the river, the broken houses of the
little town that was to be taken.

It was nearly dark when we came down and turned
onto the main road that ran beside the river.


Now are those _so_ qualitiatvely different? Barring the constraints of genre and person Hemingway's greatest difference lies in the fact that he tends not to describe people very much, and when he does he describes them like bits of landscape (which is closer to how people actually experience others and again is due to his more personal tone and the first person). Now I'm not trying to say that there is no difference, but the difference is not abyssal.

ribbit

Tolkien is about as far from purple as fantasy gets. Are you American?

>having terrible plot pacing and dragging on the story
Tolkien spent his entire life creating Middle Earth and the books are way more than a story. It's basically an event happening in a universe he's created in detail from day one until the final pages of LOTR. His attention to detail and back stories in the book might feel like the book is being dragged on but Tolkien is basically including all the relevant information for the event that has happened in the past. Also, Tolkien describes everything in detail, not only what is relevant to the story.

His vast universe definitely has depth. It doesn't have to be 2deep5you to have depth. Tolkien hated allegories and hidden messages. He loved creating a world surrounding the languages he created and the world he created is definitely worthy of the complex languages he created. There's the depth if you ask me.

tolkien hated allegory and deliberately avoided it you baka

I fucking said that.