Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The wiki article is quite comprehensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc

 Grey Templar wrote:

Dwarves pretty much remained unchanged, they just got fleshed out by Tolkien.

I'd say that this is wrong. In Norse mythology, the dwarfs are NOT the "noble" or "cuddly" Disney-fied creatures that most people are familiar with (and I'm sure that Tolkien had something to do with how Disney portrayed them as well). The dwarfs in Norse myths are greedy, ugly subterranean peoples who are known for their weapons and forges, but also their deviousness and greed (think Jewish stereotypes, mixed with a touch of German engineering stereotypes).

With Tolkien, and Disney (who have the largest influences on how dwarfs behave and look today), the dwarfs are stalwart defenders, odd looking but nice enough fellows, and occasionally having massive facial hair features (read, big beards) which is quite a departure from not only the Norse, but just about all previous depictions of the dwarfs.

I would say the change is no where near what changed with the other races.

You certaintly wouldn't call dwarves pleasing to look at, and they are greedy. Plus they are still craftsmen.

Its not like Elves that ended up pretty much everything they originally werent.


They may not have been Noble but thats a relativly minor characteristic to change.

The thing is that a mythologic dwarf would be more akin to a modern garden gnome with a selfish streak and an engineering degree than short greedy scotsman they are now.

Ehhh, I suppose its all how you interpert the old descriptions of Dwarves.

 Ratbarf wrote:
The thing is that a mythologic dwarf would be more akin to a modern garden gnome with a selfish streak and an engineering degree than short greedy scotsman they are now.

except that the description provided for the dwarf who crafted Mjollnir, he basically tried to swindle the gods out of more money, was more trollish in looks than "gnomish" (he apparently had many warts and other nasty lesion type deals on his face/body) so really, neither gnome, nor beer chugging Scot with an engineering degree work.

Ohh, and in these same mythologies, they live in caves, not built up subterranean fortresses... all of their crafting time is spent on the things they craft, not what they live in.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
From what I've read, they were allowed to use the term Eldar, because they own the rights to produce all of the miniatures, etc. associated with LOTR, The Hobbit, and perhaps the rest of the Tolkien estate.

Eldar had been in use in 40K for a decade or so before the LotR licensing deal, so that doesn't make any sense.

It's probably more to do with the fact Tolkien didn't invent the word eldar out of nothing, it was a Norse first name, and had use in other Northern European cultures. So if GW wants to pick that word out, and assign it to a creation that is significantly different to eldar as used by Tolkein, there's really nothing the Tolkien estate can do about it, even though the inspiration is quite clear.


For examples of the Tolkien estate protecting its copyright, pull out your first edition of the Chainmail rulebook (the game that eventually led to 1st ed D&D). There's a table listing all the creature types in alphabetical order. Except for some reason Treeman is listed as if it began with an E. This is because they were originally listed as Ent, until the Tolkein estate contacted them and told them to cut that gak out. With the way manual printing worked at the time it would have been a nightmare to re-order the creatures, so instead the just replaced the word Ent with Treeman.

Nythryl wrote:
The Orc was created by Tolkien and I believe was first written in the Silmarilon, and first published in The Hobbit. They are much different than 40k Orks. If you like linguistics and fantasy I reccomend you read Tolkien.

Ugh, I don't recommend it. Tolkien is stale in LOTR, and insulting to the readers in The Hobbit. Only good things to come from the books are the movies. I love fantasy. I hate Tolkien.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Nythryl wrote:
The Orc was created by Tolkien and I believe was first written in the Silmarilon, and first published in The Hobbit. They are much different than 40k Orks. If you like linguistics and fantasy I reccomend you read Tolkien.

Ugh, I don't recommend it. Tolkien is stale in LOTR, and insulting to the readers in The Hobbit. Only good things to come from the books are the movies. I love fantasy. I hate Tolkien.

I don't remember the Hobbit being insulting in fact it's one of the most wonderful books I've read (mind you I'll read anything even if it's a load of gak so that's not saying much). I haven't read LOTR but I think it might be too ambitious for me.

The Hobbit is usually classified as a children's book and was written as such.
Lord of the Ring is more an adult's/young adult's book. The problem arises with the fact that Tolkien was very much of a different generation from this one and so he uses a somewhat archaic language compared to today. Not to say it isn't worth a read but if it isn't to your taste it's not entirely your fault... probably.

The book was written with a specific style.

Tolkien's goal was primarily to write a cohesive mythology for the british isles. Thats what his entire work on Middle Earth was based out of. So some things might not make sense if you are thinking about it from the viewpoint thinking it was supposed to be some novel series to sell and make money.

The guy wrote an entirely new language, spoken and written. IIRC you can actually take Elvish as a foriegn language at some universities.

 purplefood wrote:
The Hobbit is usually classified as a children's book and was written as such.
Lord of the Ring is more an adult's/young adult's book. The problem arises with the fact that Tolkien was very much of a different generation from this one and so he uses a somewhat archaic language compared to today. Not to say it isn't worth a read but if it isn't to your taste it's not entirely your fault... probably.

I never got why The Hobbit was classified as a child's book I tried reading it when I was about 10 but it was too advanced for me but I enjoyed it a lot when I was 17.

Its more the book you would read to a child, not have them read on their own.

I seem to have read both the Hobbit and LOTR at younger ages than most poeple...
Fair enough. Different strokes for different folks.

Yes, I read and loved the LoTR and the Hobbit as a child. Which is probably the source of my withering hatred for the movies. I guess.


I kind of liked them when I first saw them, but on repeated (count 2) viewings, all the things that irritated me stood out far more than the parts I liked.

 Grey Templar wrote:


IIRC you can actually take Elvish as a foriegn language at some universities.

Indeed, just as you can take Klingon. Both about as useful as any other arts or humanities degree.

I attempted to read the hobbit around age 10 (local library or school one didn't have it before this). It bored me silly. Other friends recommended Lotr - it was even more tedious. I was reading 2 or so years above my level (and comprehension to match). But I blame my utter disinterest in fantasy on my mother - who steered me towards spaceships and rayguns - and besides, it was also the time of Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica (and the tv series of it), so you can't really blame me.

I feel the movies were fairly good. At least. as good as they were ever going to get to the books.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The book was written with a specific style.

Definitely this. Tolkien's great creation isn't LotR or The Hobbit, it's Middle Earth. And that doesn't even mean the Silmarillion, because that's even more problematic than the other two.

The books he wrote have some wonderful moments, some terribly dull moments and some downright pointless moments, but there is a tremendous amount to be said for a writer who's passion first and foremost is to the imaginary world in his head, and making that imaginary world as believable and true to his vision as possible.

It's sad that it can be something of a slog to get to that vision, but if that kind of thing appeals the effort should be worth it.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Nythryl wrote:
The Orc was created by Tolkien and I believe was first written in the Silmarilon, and first published in The Hobbit. They are much different than 40k Orks. If you like linguistics and fantasy I reccomend you read Tolkien.

Ugh, I don't recommend it. Tolkien is stale in LOTR, and insulting to the readers in The Hobbit. Only good things to come from the books are the movies. I love fantasy. I hate Tolkien.

I don't remember the Hobbit being insulting in fact it's one of the most wonderful books I've read (mind you I'll read anything even if it's a load of gak so that's not saying much). I haven't read LOTR but I think it might be too ambitious for me.

Sorry, went to bed without responding why. I read the Hobbit as a kid, and liked it-I was maybe 10 or 11. I went back to try to read it two years ago, at age 25, and put it down within two chapters. Tolkien had a way of talking down to his audience in it-he'd tell what was happening in one line, then repeat it in different wording in the next line, then simplify it in the next. Three lines, all telling the same thing. It talked down to the reader, saying "well, since I'm not sure you got what I was saying in the first line, let me recap for you so your simple mind can get it." Two chapters like that, and I tossed the book down in disgust. I love the universe, I really do. I just don't like his style of writing. I also don't like George R R Martin's style of writing: awesome characters, great intrigue, writing becomes sloppy very often.

I read the Hobbit for the first time in fourth grade or so, my grandfather got me a box set with the Hobbit and LOTR in it. Still have it on my shelf, not the fine new hard bounds or anything, but handsome paperbacks in their way.

I also seem to recall the Hobbit being one of the books my English class read in fifth grade.

I believe the Hobbit is classed as a children's book because of the "simplicity" of it. It's not quite as dark as LOTR, nor does it poke into some of the deeper themes Tolkein works with in LOTR. The other possible reason is that per our previous discussion on the subject is that the Hobbit could easily be classed as "Low Fantasy" in that it's not any epic quest of good vs. evil with the fate of the world at stake. Threads of that are there but mostly to lead into the Lord of the Rings, which is just about the most well known, if not the original example of High Fantasy.

Ah, something is coming to me...

I seem to remember something in the LoTR universe hinting that orcs were a product of captured elves, dwarves, and other humanoids. Like, magic and sorcery transformed them all into orcs to do Sauron's bidding, or something. Maybe that was Uru-kai?

djones520 wrote:
Orcs as we know them today were a creation of Tolkeins. His version of Orcs are much differant from Warhammer's (and Warcafts) versions.

Tolkein's orcs and gobs are 'mutants' .. or looks alot like that

But I don't know who introduced the 'green' Orcs? or what is the source of Inspiration? Is it Siamese version of Ramayana?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
. The other possible reason is that per our previous discussion on the subject is that the Hobbit could easily be classed as "Low Fantasy" in that it's not any epic quest of good vs. evil with the fate of the world at stake.

Most definitely not, the amount of monsters, magic, elves, dwarves, talking animals, etc easily put's it into high fantasy, it's just too fantastic of a setting to be low fantasy.

Am I the only one who thinks we all just got trolled?

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

Nythryl wrote:
The Orc was created by Tolkien and I believe was first written in the Silmarilon, and first published in The Hobbit. They are much different than 40k Orks. If you like linguistics and fantasy I reccomend you read Tolkien.

Ugh, I don't recommend it. Tolkien is stale in LOTR, and insulting to the readers in The Hobbit. Only good things to come from the books are the movies. I love fantasy. I hate Tolkien.

I don't remember the Hobbit being insulting in fact it's one of the most wonderful books I've read (mind you I'll read anything even if it's a load of gak so that's not saying much). I haven't read LOTR but I think it might be too ambitious for me.

Sorry, went to bed without responding why. I read the Hobbit as a kid, and liked it-I was maybe 10 or 11. I went back to try to read it two years ago, at age 25, and put it down within two chapters. Tolkien had a way of talking down to his audience in it-he'd tell what was happening in one line, then repeat it in different wording in the next line, then simplify it in the next. Three lines, all telling the same thing. It talked down to the reader, saying "well, since I'm not sure you got what I was saying in the first line, let me recap for you so your simple mind can get it." Two chapters like that, and I tossed the book down in disgust. I love the universe, I really do. I just don't like his style of writing. I also don't like George R R Martin's style of writing: awesome characters, great intrigue, writing becomes sloppy very often.

I belief that was his method of adding some dry humor and narration to the storyline. Also a way of recapping important details while kinda staying in character.

I feel like the books were written with the intent of it being read to someone. And if being read alone as if someone is reading to you, the reader.

I always imagine some old frumpy English gentleman with a pipe and smoking jacket sitting in a highback chair next to a roaring fire reciting the story whenever I read tolkien's literature.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Sorry, went to bed without responding why. I read the Hobbit as a kid, and liked it-I was maybe 10 or 11. I went back to try to read it two years ago, at age 25, and put it down within two chapters. Tolkien had a way of talking down to his audience in it-he'd tell what was happening in one line, then repeat it in different wording in the next line, then simplify it in the next. Three lines, all telling the same thing. It talked down to the reader, saying "well, since I'm not sure you got what I was saying in the first line, let me recap for you so your simple mind can get it." Two chapters like that, and I tossed the book down in disgust. I love the universe, I really do. I just don't like his style of writing.

To repeat what I said above, Tolkien is not a great writer. In fact he's a middling to poor author (not because he lacks the talent, some of his high verses are simply wonderful) but because his interest is elsewhere. It isn't just that you dislike his style of writing, he simply isn't that good a writer.

But behind all of that there is a living, breathing world full of depth and complexity, and many layers of historical complexity. As an example, in the LotR, the Hobbits and Strider camp on Weathertop, and fend off an attack from the riders. Reference is given to Weathertop as an old fort, ruined in battle, and the site as the location of many great battles in history. In another fantasy book that'd be some throw away writing, to add an air of history and romance, but here Tolkein not only knows exactly which battles he's referring to, but he actually kind of expects you to know as well.

It means that reading the LotR can be a lot of work, because there's stuff that matters to Tolkien as a world builder that just doesn't translate with one reading (or several readings, unless you've also read other Middle Earth stuff), or in some instances is still pretty dry even once you know the background. But it means that work can be really rewarding once you start to glimpse how sophisticated, complex and remarkable his idea of Middle Earth really was.

Whether or not that appeals to the reader is up to him or her.

To repeat what I said above, Tolkien is not a great writer.

I'm not even really sure how to respond to that, that's just objectively ignorant.

However if you're saying that Tolkien is not a good writer, "in your opinion" then fine. But stating it as an objective truth, which is what I got from that, would seem to fly in the face of pretty much everything related to Tolkien. Ever.

He wasn't a novel writer. He was more of a crossover betwen classical and modern literature. It was an odd time to be writing his books.

Its almost like there was a timewarp between the 1880s and 1940s where the world changed faster then you could blink. An odd time indeed.

We invented the Telephone, the automobile, the airplane, electricity became widthspread, and so much more.

His writing style was older in its roots, but partially influenced by the changing times. So in some ways its natural for it to appear the way it did.

 Ratbarf wrote:
I'm not even really sure how to respond to that, that's just objectively ignorant.

Well you could start by reading my whole post.

However if you're saying that Tolkien is not a good writer, "in your opinion" then fine. But stating it as an objective truth, which is what I got from that, would seem to fly in the face of pretty much everything related to Tolkien. Ever.

No, not in the slightest. Seriously, read my fething post. If you manage that, you'll see I think extremely highly of Tolkien and what he created. But just not when it comes to the technical specifics of writing, where he had undoubted talent*, it's plain it just was not his priority. Pacing, focus and clarity just weren't as important as getting his world onto the page. That means what he wrote was, objectively, not that good in terms of writing. It meanders, gets bogged down in unecessary detail, and it assumes knowledge on the part of the reader that he shouldn't be expected to have.

As a complex, multi-layered piece of art that gives a look into an incredible creation, it's a marvellous thing. Middle Earth is perhaps one of the great unfinished works of art. But as a writer, well there's a reason so many people complain that LotR is a really tough read.




*I mean, there's times when he just fething nails it;
"Now his wrath was kindled to madness, and he leapt forth on horseback, and many riders with him; and they pursued the heralds and slew them, and drove on deep into the main host. And seeing this all the host of the Noldor was set on fire, and Fingon put on his white helm and sounded his trumpets, and all the host of Hithlum leapt forth from the hills in sudden onslaught. The light of the drawing of the swords of the Noldor was like a fire in a field of reeds; and so fell and swift was their onset that almost the designs of Morgoth went astray. Before the army that he sent westward could be strengthened it was swept away, and the banners of Fingon passed over Anfauglith and were raised before the walls of Angband."

Well you could start by reading my whole post.

I did read it.

you'll see I think extremely highly of Tolkien and what he created.

Yip, got that part, but there is also that part where you call his writing "middling to poor."

That means what he wrote was, objectively, not that good in terms of writing. It meanders, gets bogged down in unecessary detail, and it assumes knowledge on the part of the reader that he shouldn't be expected to have.

You see you keep using objectively where I think you really mean subjectively.

Much of what you said could apply, in varying peoples perspectives or opinions, to a multitude of great authors, especially Tolstoy or Dickens, but that doesn't make them any less great. That just means that that person thinks they're poor.