Being Banned: a Sonnet

On February 19 2014 13:05 NeuroticPsychosis wrote:
Better than Shakespeare (if I could understand him)

On February 19 2014 15:05 Muffloe wrote:

Haha, I found that quite funny, considering that I always support Tolkien in Shakespeare vs Tolkien discussions
Edit: ofc, funny op aswell, gj!

On February 19 2014 18:34 Daswollvieh wrote:


Star Trek > Gandhi... because... internet.

On February 19 2014 18:26 Tufas wrote:
In typical internet fashion I fucked up .. I thought sonnets had 12 syllables. They only have 10. Thank you memory
btw you cannot use thrones at the end, it destroys everything .. we would have to pronounce it thron-ES

EDIT : 10 syllables now.



Many times I've been temp banned by the man
GM, Kadaver, Moonbear and even Chill
But every time i formulate a plan
Do not get TL minus, hopes alive still

For posting pictures in a thread of lore
For misfires there and finest Thread of Thrones,
Reading posts although posting memes galore
Forever my home, never liked cheap clones.

On February 19 2014 18:26 Tufas wrote:
EDIT : 10 syllables now.

Do not get TL minus, hopes alive still

On February 19 2014 20:10 Muffloe wrote:

Well, it is not that strange. Is is simply comparing the supposed masters of the pen.

On February 20 2014 02:57 qotsager wrote:


do you really consider tolkien a master of the pen, as in his writing? what always made tolkien great in my eyes was the universe he created. but comparing him to shakespeare in terms of their writing? no way. you also have to take into account the times they lived in. shakespeare was a revolutionary in regards to forming the english language. tolkien constantly loses himself in complicated and exhausting formulations.
if you mean that tolkien is "easier" to read, then i wont disagree with you, but take into account when they both lived. tolkien does not measure up to shakespeare in terms of importance or quality.

On February 20 2014 07:26 Muffloe wrote:

Sounds like writing = language? Well, Tolkien is the creator of languages, bro Shakespeare come out on top in influence tho, but I think we can agree on that both brought a new standard to the table. Also, isn't there some kind of inconsistency in
"tolkien constantly loses himself in complicated and exhausting formulations" and "if you mean that tolkien is "easier" to read, then i wont disagree with you"? ^^

On February 20 2014 08:47 qotsager wrote:


i won't disagree with you, because a lot of people seem to have serious issues with reading old english. i dont, i massively enjoy reading shakespeare, more so than tolkien. creating a language noone speaks is not all that much of an achievement, i dare say most linguists would be able to create their own language.
tolkiens choice of focus was something that always irritated me. even as frodo and sam were carrying the ring through mordor, there was time to describe every little silly detail he could come up with. a good writer knows what he can let out, and what he needs to do to make the reader get immersed. tolkien is too much scientist even when writing to be a perfect author. i'm not saying i dont like tolkien, i really like his works and consider them great books, but comparing tolkien and shakespeare is not something you should do. i am also not the only one who thinks tolkien is not that great an author.
he did not bring "a new standard to the table" in terms of language or narration. what tolkien did was give one genre (fantasy) a lot of new ideas. he massively influenced every bit of fantasy literatue that came after him. but that's it.
shakespeare changed the english language. and that is something way bigger.

On February 20 2014 17:35 Muffloe wrote:

I definately see your point, although what may seem to be meaningless descriptions may actually be something else. I'm just gonna quote a forum post here, as it was so well-phrased
" Tolkien's message in The Hobbit is also quite clear. “In a hole there lived a Hobbit.” This statement is CLEARLY a denial of reality and a statement of dark philosophical preponderance. Tolkien has the word “hole” appear as the first noun in the entire work! Such weight of precedence is clear to all who read it!A “hole” is nothingness. It is nihilism bleaker than any abyss, deeper than any darkness."

On February 20 2014 17:35 Muffloe wrote:

I definately see your point, although what may seem to be meaningless descriptions may actually be something else. I'm just gonna quote a forum post here, as it was so well-phrased
" Tolkien's message in The Hobbit is also quite clear. “In a hole there lived a Hobbit.” This statement is CLEARLY a denial of reality and a statement of dark philosophical preponderance. Tolkien has the word “hole” appear as the first noun in the entire work! Such weight of precedence is clear to all who read it!A “hole” is nothingness. It is nihilism bleaker than any abyss, deeper than any darkness."

On February 21 2014 01:49 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:

Freudian, Jungian, and in general psychoanalytic readings of Lord of the Rings/Tolkien are absurd.

On February 21 2014 01:49 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
Freudian, Jungian, and in general psychoanalytic readings of Lord of the Rings/Tolkien are absurd.

On February 21 2014 02:52 Japhybaby wrote:


No it's a legitimate way to study theme and character in work that is not "serious" literature. Whether one agrees with the "studies" and the "information" they yield is up to that person.

You "make" no sense in this "post."

how did that shakespeare vs tolkien thing even happen? its like.. shakespeare is a poet of voice and texture and an inventor of grammar. One would be better off to say Hemingway or Joyce or Blake. I'm not really into poetry at all. My ear for poetry is like a feather, in the wind. Like most, I don't really care.

Ok.

Tolkien did write verse too, eh? I think Shakespeare had a lot of variety in his writing. think of the witches in macbeth "double double toil and trouble" not so different from the similarly fear-invoking "chip the glasses/and crack the plates" but somehow less... magical?

Tolkien wrote verse, but it was certainly inferior to Shakespeare's verse. In addition to what verse there was in his plays (and there is a lot, sometimes disguised), Shakespeare also wrote 154 sonnets and five long poems. They're indisputably of greater merit and importance than any verse Tolkien wrote, which is fine and not a mark against Tolkien at all.

Anyways most of the "big names" when speaking of a good writer is someone who was distinctively original in a style. To me Tolkien's prose doesn't have much originality.

You incorrectly separate style and substance. There can be distinctions drawn, but a clear separation is quite impossible, and they are both part of writing.Tolkien's innovation of substance is not to be discredited, which contributes to the overall originality of his writing.

With that said, there is also nothing inherently good about novelty and originality. Indeed, you can challenge that Tolkien is not necessarily wholly original in a lot of his concepts - you can trace a great majority of his stories to ancient legends, myths, fairy tales, and even fantasy novels that came before him. It is the way that he takes the familiar and recombines them into something new that creates a novel work of art. It's not something that is traditionally conceived of as originality, but it is no less groundbreaking.

Myself I like prose that is simple but still challenges my focus and can show me some good use of english to explain shit. My favourite writers are Kazuo Ishiguro, Alice Munro, Ernest Hemingway and Herman Hesse.

Nothing wrong with that and to each his own, but might I venture to suggest that complex, probing prose is just as capable of showing what the written word can do? There has been, over the past few decades, an obsession with reducing everything to bare basics, and it is frankly naive and misguided, especially when parroted by those who aren't fully aware of the context for this trend. You yourself acknowledge Joyce to be one of the greats, and his prose is certainly not simple by any stretch of the imagination.

My favourite poet is Geoffrey Chaucer. It's very good but it's in couplets so I don't need to be stress un stressing through iambs and dactylls.

I'm not sure what you mean here. There is nothing mutually exclusive between coupleted verse and iambs or dactyls or any other foot. in addition, I have to point out that Chaucer wrote in Middle English, which has not insignificant differences in pronunciation compared to Modern English. You are reading, essentially, a work in translation when reading his works such as the Canterbury Tales, and no matter how faithful a translation is, it is impossible to simultaneously preserve both sound and meaning.