Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with...

>Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

The nerve of this bloated fuck...

>"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men, it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage."

Even after all that bullshit, not even Tolkien considered orcs irredeemable.

>assuming of course that he is literally omniscient and omnipotent
Wrong. A king can have a cabinet of advisers and can be just as informed on issues as a president or prime minister in the modern era.

I thought orcs came from torturing elves.

What is the point of constantly posting this sort of parody to laugh at how stupid it is? We already know how stupid it is, and have laughed enough, and read too little.

And you're going to tell us that the good king would be so smart he could create a system where nobody could lie to him.

1. That's very obviously false. To pick one example, can dudes on horses carry news of a plague and orders as fast as a phone call?
2. Even in the modern era the problem doesn't go away. You can't rule without depending on a lot of other people unless you have literally Godlike abilities, which nobody has.

His advisers would lie just as much as they would to a president or any other leader in a modern government.

1. Why are you comparing a monarchy without phones to another form of government with phones. Can monarchies only exist without phones?
2. Obviously the king relies on other people. What the fuck do you think a king in a monarchy is other than the man who has the final say on political/military decisions?

Martin is the fantasy author the contemporary world deserves. He has often gone through idiotic tirades like this one, where he pretends he's making some kind of deep analysis of previous authors/ideas and asking good questions while the reality is, what he's talking about is skin deep and based on completely misunderstanding those who came before him.

Complaining about Tolkien because he didn't write about the things he lists means having 0 understanding of the epic genre, Tolkien, and pre-modern attitudes towards politics.

Way back, they're the result of thousands of years of torture, cross breeding and weird magic experiments

>To pick one example, can dudes on horses carry news of a plague and orders as fast as a phone call?
Yes.

An experiment was carried out.
Plague breaks out in Canterury, the entire population becomes ill overnight. Two messengers are chosen to tell the king at his home in Buckhimham Palace. One sets off on horseback, the other picks up the phone.
The King answers.
"Yes?"
"Milord, the plague is here!"
"I see."
Four days later, the man on horseback arrives.
"Milord, the plague is here!".
The first messenger is executed for failing to notify the King that plague had reached Buckhimham Palace. The second is executed for bringing a highly infective disease into the Palace, even though he was technically more correct.

Ah, I misread due to you putting 'in the modern era' at the end of the sentence- I thought you meant a premodern king would have the same information as a modern prime minister.
>Obviously the king relies on other people
So how does the king himself being 'good and wise' guarantee that 'whatever his tax policy and foreign policy is is only ever what's best for his nation and his people'? Don't you need the people the king relies on to be good and wise too?

I enjoyed this answer.

That fucking sow. That rancid sack of flesh. He has the audacity to "quibble" with Tolkien, as if their work is somehow comparable.

'Good and wise' refers to him acting in the best interest of his nation, and having the intellect to determine what is the best decision. If his policies are enacted for anything other than what's in the best interest of his nation, he is no longer 'good'. If he enacts a policy that's ultimately harmful to the nation, but was enacted in good conscience, he is no longer 'wise'.

Reminds me of George Bernard Shaw shitting on Shakespeare.

Shaw and Martin took themselves seriously. Everyone else just wonders how they managed to do so.

That's an extremely neat circle you've ended up making.
>If the absolute ruler is good and wise, whatever his tax policy and foreign policy is is only ever what's best for his nation and his people
>'good and wise' mean only ever doing what's best for the nation

>That's an extremely neat circle you've ended up making.
It's not circular logic at all, if that's what you attempted to articulate just now.

>'good and wise' mean only ever doing what's best for the nation
Yes. If you disagree, we simply have a different definition of 'good'. You probably think it'd be 'good' to let millions of orcs into the kingdom and run rape trains on humans, then excusing it because it's simply orc culture and us evil humans deserve it for being so 'intolerant' in the past.

I take it you're #WithHer.

Not him, but:

>If a supreme ruler is good and wise he'll do the best for his country
>Should he not do the best for his country he'd be not good nor wise.

It appears to me it's circular logic. Or No True Scotsman, at least.

No, it's literally just us differing on our personal definitions of good and/or wise.

>Or No True Scotsman, at least
Oh, you're retarded. Got it.

>What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine?

This can't be Real. Is it?

>What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine?
Read MERP manuals.

gr8 b8 m8

It's not circular logic, it is an attempt to oversimplify the actual practice by putting the burden to an imaginary being.

>All of the protagonists die
>Very edgy
>Anyone can die
>Except for Tyrion because he's funny and the fans like him

Yes but the humans are being led by George W Bush with boobs and her raping/pillaging Mongol army

>And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

Actually the elves did that, and yes. Fuck all orcs.

I am not stupid enough to deny that there's some truth to you argument, yet I am not intelligent enough to tell if there's a false dichotomy in it.

>There are no villains

I used to believe that pure evil doesn't exist on Earth, then I discover Latin-American cartel videos on Rekt threads. Those cartel members are beyond humanity.

*funky town starts playing*

What the fuck is this bait
I'm trying to understand how naive you must be to say something like this
I hope you're not over sixteen years old

>This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with.
Well, Tolkien would probably "quibble" with Martin for writing putrid erotica and treatises on a young girl's colonic difficulties.

I am twenty-two. I seriously have never seen anything more evil than those fucking cartels in Mexico.

You should leave your house more.

>If the absolute ruler is good and wise, whatever his tax policy and foreign policy is is only ever what's best for his nation and his people.
>implying good, wise men never disagree about what's best for the people
Look at this man and laugh.

not an argument

Wait, does Veeky Forums actually like Tolkien?

A bit, at least he's infinitely better than that lardaceous excuse for a hack.

>literally the father of the modern fiction
what do you think

It is actually an argument. From here to 20 years noone will remember Martin.

>implying good, wise men never disagree about what's best for the people
No more than they would in a conventional political system. My point still stands.

Well, They sure as hell hate Martin.

Beowulf sucks

He's probably the only "genre fiction" writer who most of Veeky Forums can at least admire, if for nothing else but his hard work and dedication to his craft.

Why do people like Tolkien more than Peake?

>It's not circular logic at all
How so? Your arguments can literally be reworded as follows:
>A ruler who only ever does what's best for the nation will only ever do what's best for the nation
And because of that, you're back with your ruler having to be omniscient. Because you've admitted the ruler relies on others, meaning that if one of those others chooses to mislead the ruler or not follow orders, and is not detected, the ruler will make a mistake, and therefore no longer be 'good and wise' (according to your definition).

Titus is the next years Veeky Forums meme

What gives?

It would be amazing if you were right, though

None of that is a fault exclusive to a monarchy, the comparison of monarchies/empires to modern political systems being the crux of the argument. Despite your autistic focus on technicalities, my point still stands.

Tolkien was good, it's just that he inspired an endless parade of hack autists who think world building is more interesting then good caracters, story and writting.

ASoIAF is almost as big of a meme as WoT. If a writer with his kind of experience can't understand that the tropes aren't bad in of themselves, but the character's that determine such a thing he should just die without finishing the series.

I've heard the "Dark lord of supreme evil" story tons of times, yet Tolkien still manages to pull it of well without it felling as if he's beating a dead horse.

What's the problem with Warlords of Draenor?

WoT m8, not WoD.

Garrisons was the problem

lulz

No doubt he'll recover the same way Michael Moorcock "recovered" after calling Tolkien a fascist, its not that big of a deal, critiquing Tolkien has been part of how the genre has progressed since the 60s.

>From wikipedia: Moorcock states, "I am an anarchist and a pragmatist"
Kek, never even heard of him. Anything good from him?

the interesting retardation about this quote is that tolkein himself admitted that the LOTR story was a FANTASY LEGEND, and that in reality the hobbits wouldn't have survived the war.

Really? He's been one of the most influential writers in the genre for the last half century, GW borrowed (stole) the whole Chaos thing from his work, including the Star of Chaos, he was one of the first people to really use the "Multiverse" as a fictional concept and he was going to town on consciously riffing on the ideas of Joseph Campell well before Star Wars. Fantasy wise the Elric cycle of books are fucking class, the Corum books are worth a read, The Dancers at the End of Time books are great too. If you're into genre fiction at all he's definitely one that should be on your radar.

>Elric cycle
Ahh, that means I have alzheimer.

>an absolute ruler is perfect if he is a perfect person with literally no flaws and endless knowledge

Great argument faggot

Oh, my bad.

>If things weren't like they are, they'd be different.

The green text is not a parody. It's something Martin actually said, and is a pretty good thread-starter desu.

Truly a wise author

Nah, nothing good.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0
So fucking epic

Tolkien BTFO. Based George telling it as it is.

Why would you make fantasy "realistic". That's some simulacra shit

I would make my fantasy realistic. On the Government, social, and Economical scale.

In general? Popularity and autism. Redditards and the like just love Tolkien, and all the copycat hacks he spawned too!

On Veeky Forums? They don't. Gormenghast is spammed to death here. Fuck, my English tutor recommended it, and he teaches at Oxford.

Eddison is much more underrated desu
For all his faults, he definitely follows through on his own diatribe. Cersei and Jaime are the Big Bad Antagonists in book one, and then POV protagonists in book two.

>"I DON'T LIKE GEORGE R.R. MARTIN'S OPINION ON TOLKIEN!!!11!!1: The Thread

I still wait for a POV of Ramsay Bolton

There won't be one, I think. He said something to that effect: no more POVs.

A missed opportunity. He'd be hailed for months to come if he pulled something like that off.
I don't like your opinion.

Yes that's correct, so?

Just Martin being fucking autistic again as usual. Never read any of his shitty books and never will.

I've only read the first two books from ASOIAF and they were awful. Ten thousand POV characters and only like three of them are interesting at all.

That's your objection?

There is a kind of naive cynicism, I think, where everything is attributed to the evils of humanity and this evil is obviously everywhere, round every corner, if only "the naive" would look.

No; the cartels are especially terrifying. That's the point. They go the Mongol method of "be as batshit insane as possible so other people don't dare oppose you".

>Living is hard. This was maybe my answer to the Brothers Grim, whom, as much as I admire them, I do quibble with. Little Red Riding Hood has a very medieval philosophy; that if wolves could walk around and talk and dress up, they'd pretend to be grannies. We look at real history and it's not that simple. The Brothers Grim can say that the Woodsman split open the Wolf's gut and Granny was still alive and they all ate wolf for dinner. But the Brothers Grim don't ask the question: Why did it dress as the Granny? Doesn't the Wolf know he doesn't look like a Granny? Is he actually a Tranny? Why did they just kill this amazing, intelligent tranny wolves? Did they proceed to go out into the forests and kill all the tranny wolves? Even the puppy traps in their swaddling?

The story that the Brothers Grim wrote is unrealistic and nonsensical and that's become the template. I'm not sure that it's a good template though. The Brothers Grim model led generations of story tellers to produce these endless series of wolves being slaughtered for being trannies and patriarchal woodsmen eating them. But the vast majority of wolves throughout history are not like that.

Or
>Who pumps the Batmobile tires?????////slash///???

You might have autism

It's Veeky Forums, who doesn't?

Acting like a fairy tale or myth is meant to be "realistic" is autism.

what sort of stuff did they do, user?

>thinks about writing high battle fantasy
>writes high beauracratic fantasy instead

Maybe I'll explain to shamu why dragons couldn't possibly exist using basic physics

My aunt touch me

"yes".