Is The Lord of the Rings still relevant?

[ccggenius12]

It's had a massive influence on the fantasy genre and the Hobbit movie is still pretty good. Although I would say its impact is decreasing, especially since Game of Thrones became popular.

I wish you weren't so right about that last part,

Spoiler: this is what we have to look forward to in the coming decades

Don't get me wrong, I love the world that George is building, but the stories would lose nothing of value if he replaced the extended food descriptions with "and they ate food", and the sex scenes with "and they totally did it". Of course, then the series actually WOULD fit in three books like he originally intended...

OT: Of course it's still relevant, and it will probably continue to be relevant. Shakespeare is still relevant, even if no one ever wants to read it. While the contents of the stories may change in the future, elements will most definitely continue to be borrowed from it.
PS: I'm looking forward to the inevitable Silmarillion Trilogy that completes the Trilogy of Trilogies.

 

[mrdude2010]

I'd say it's still relevant purely because it's become the standard setup for fantasy worlds. That, and it built a much deeper and more complete world than any of the ones that came after it.

 

[Arothel]

The only author I have seen to match his brilliance is Robert Jordan.

Not gonna lie, this post took me aback. While I did enjoy Jordan's world, the beginning of his story, and certain characters, he is woefully deficient as a writer. His characters are flat and basically all the same, with precious few exceptions, which is only compounded by the prodigious number of characters he introduces. In the Wheel of Time universe, all men are bumbling idiots with good intentions or sleezy worms, while every woman is a power-hungry, manipulative snake with her own plans of ruling the world. Jordan had some women issues. Like I said, a few exceptions exist - mostly in the first few books - but the charm of those books is lost the further you go, and it becomes obvious that the story got out of Jordan's control. The narrative lost focus and became convoluted, the characters became so irritatingly predictable (and numerous), and the quality of writing takes a nose dive.
Robert Jordan actually set out to do something similar to what Tolkien did: to take mythos from his culture and create a new one, drawing from the old to feed the new. At least in the beginning, I liked what I saw, and after I heard that Brandon Sanderson finished the last few books, I've been tempted to return to the series.
Tolkien was far from perfect, as a writer and story teller, but the care he put into that story and world and mythos made up for much of those shortcomings. Jordan was entertaining for a while, but I would definitely not put him on the same playing field as Tolkien. Not even close.

 

[Yopaz]

The only author I have seen to match his brilliance is Robert Jordan.

Not gonna lie, this post took me aback. While I did enjoy Jordan's world, the beginning of his story, and certain characters, he is woefully deficient as a writer. His characters are flat and basically all the same, with precious few exceptions, which is only compounded by the prodigious number of characters he introduces. In the Wheel of Time universe, all men are bumbling idiots with good intentions or sleezy worms, while every woman is a power-hungry, manipulative snake with her own plans of ruling the world. Jordan had some women issues. Like I said, a few exceptions exist - mostly in the first few books - but the charm of those books is lost the further you go, and it becomes obvious that the story got out of Jordan's control. The narrative lost focus and became convoluted, the characters became so irritatingly predictable (and numerous), and the quality of writing takes a nose dive.
Robert Jordan actually set out to do something similar to what Tolkien did: to take mythos from his culture and create a new one, drawing from the old to feed the new. At least in the beginning, I liked what I saw, and after I heard that Brandon Sanderson finished the last few books, I've been tempted to return to the series.
Tolkien was far from perfect, as a writer and story teller, but the care he put into that story and world and mythos made up for much of those shortcomings. Jordan was entertaining for a while, but I would definitely not put him on the same playing field as Tolkien. Not even close.

Sure, but Tolkien wasn't really that good of a writer himself. I'm not basing this on how awesome the books are, but at the universe they both created, the complexity, the details. They both created a good universe that I personally haven't seen anyone match. All your criticism is correct however, but that's not why I think he's brilliant.

Edit Also because of the impact he has had on other writers is very important to consider. There are quite a few who have been inspired to write in new ways because of him. So I don't rfer to him as brilliant because I like his books, but because of the effort and level of detail it takes to create them and because it has had an impact on the genre.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Exactly what the title says.

I used to watch LotR when I was a kid and I played many of the games, but I don't care about the universe anymore. Most of the once-groundbreaking ideas have become fantasy standards, so when I rewatch the old movies, I usually quit after about an hour; I haven't even bothered glancing at The Hobbit yet and have no intention of changing that.

Has the story grown stale after years of license-milking or has it simply being outdone by stuff like Warhammer and Dragon Age? What do you think?

And I don't particularly care for the concrete block that my house was built on either, but I wouldn't have a roof over my head without it's existence.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It is true that GW lifted more directly from other people (as you say, Moorcock.) However, I think my overall point- that LotR hasn't been overshadowed by Warhammer because Warhammer is ultimately a soulless, corporate monstrosity which has no creative drive beyond contriving reasons for people to buy over-priced miniatures for a shallow strategy game- still stands.

Going to disagree with you a bit there.

Now, it is certainly true that Warhammer, as it is, is rather dreadfully shallow with no creative drive whatsoever, and not even interested too much in pretending it does.

However, that is not to say it was always like that. Back when Warhammer was like a D&D campaign about the Holy Roman Empire, as played by Monty Python characters, there might have been some merit in the argument. Unfortunately, it's lasting contribution to fantasy seems to have been ""grimdark", in the worst way.

(As a minor aside, unless it's been retconned, the elves played no part in early human civilisation, they retreated to Not!Atlantis before all that. Certainly, many other elements of Tolkien have been adopted, but I think more via D&D than directly.)

 

[piinyouri]

I think just the fact that it's still the basis or vague basis for so very many different settings shows how relevant it must still be.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Ironically, the old D&D-style Warhammer is what I miss. The "grimdark" is just getting absurd.

I struck me worst reading the beastman book. My first love is elves, but my first army was Beasts of Chaos which I got into without really having a load of background in the game. I set up an army concept that was to be somewhat visually stylized from Greek myths, essentially it was a warband full of men who abandon their lives in the Old World to do whatever they wish, fall under the gaze of Slaanesh and become corrupted into beasts. The rank and file infantry were all mutated from hooved prey species, while the leadership were mostly female and mostly to have been mutated from predator species like wolves, the idea being this army is particularly terrifying to the Old World dwellers because the females are on top and the males are content to spend their days idly drinking wine until they need to plunder again, but there was to also be an elder Cthonic deity angle. I'm not going to pretend it was the best army concept, but it had an internal logic and even a goddamned economy to the idea.

Then the latest edition of Beast Men came out, and the book was all about how the Beastmen are evil because they HATE humanity. You know, even more than all the other armies out there that HATE humanity. This sit around and HATE you to DEATH! GROWR, aren't they scary? It was just so stupid it ended up killing my drive to finish. But if it hadn't, you know, been so disappointing as to make me give up on the whole product line, it would have been a smart economic move- the new rules required me to re-base all my existing units and buy a whole bunch more boxes just to have legal units.

Not to mention the Jabberslythe, or whatever. Every army has to have a big tanky thing. Not like in the old days where maybe you could have a Steam Tank or Doomwheel, with the odd dragon or giant thrown in. Every army has to have a big OtT flying chariot with deathrays as standard. Brettonian knights on pegasi are normal, so are empire knights on demigryphs or whatever. Everything is glowing or on fire or both.

Bretonian castles are I believe based on abandoned Elven fortresses, and the Elves were the ones who taught humanity magic, unless it's Chaos/necromancy.

Teclis taught humans magic relatively recently, 200 years ago or so. For 2,300 years, the Empire did not have magic (legally).

As for Bretonnian castles, possibly they built on the ruins centuries after the elves left, but that's about it...though the wood elves were/are manipulating them for their own ends.

 

[Esotera]

It's had a massive influence on the fantasy genre and the Hobbit movie is still pretty good. Although I would say its impact is decreasing, especially since Game of Thrones became popular.

I wish you weren't so right about that last part,

Spoiler: this is what we have to look forward to in the coming decades

Don't get me wrong, I love the world that George is building, but the stories would lose nothing of value if he replaced the extended food descriptions with "and they ate food", and the sex scenes with "and they totally did it". Of course, then the series actually WOULD fit in three books like he originally intended...

Not to mention the ridiculous amount of characters and the steadily increasing presence of magic throughout the books. While Game of Thrones is unique because of its realism and unprecedented character bloat, I hope that it only influences fantasy so that it moves towards more ambiguous morality. It's impossible to figure out what's going on most of the time.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually...one wonders what fantasy would be like were it not for Tolkien.

No elves and dwarfs as most think of them...he didn't invent them, but he cemented them into their current forms and popular consciousness, which is something of a shame.

 

[Silvanus]

Not to mention the ridiculous amount of characters and the steadily increasing presence of magic throughout the books. While Game of Thrones is unique because of its realism and unprecedented character bloat, I hope that it only influences fantasy so that it moves towards more ambiguous morality. It's impossible to figure out what's going on most of the time.

Another big influence I would want fantasy writers to take away is the willingness to gut-punch the audience quite so severely (as in A Storm Of Swords), and change what line the story is following.

In The Lord Of The Rings, the protagonists may go through hell, but almost all of them come out of the other side of it. The only meaningful and lasting death of a protagonist for the most part is Boromir. There's nothing wrong with this at all, but it follows the usual route of Mission -> Setback(s) -> Eventual Victory. ASOIAF does not:

Spoiler: Spoilers for 'Game of Thrones' and 'Storm of Swords' (including stuff that hasn't yet been in the show)

The "mission", as understood by Ned Stark and later Robb, has been failed, and the story is now on a different course. It is an incredibly unpredictable series, which is refreshing, and to its benefit. Even the basis for the conflict itself is not as it seems.

CAPTCHA: 'Magical Realism'. Hrmm, similar, but not quite, Captcha.

 

[Shymer]

Has the story grown stale after years of license-milking or has it simply being outdone by stuff like Warhammer and Dragon Age? What do you think?

How many other romance novels from the 1920s have you read or seen a film adaptation of? Are you aware of the influences that Tolkien had when writing LoTR, The Silmarillion, The Hobbit? Have you read the books - or just seen the "old" films?

I am not sure which particular features of Middle Earth you refer to as "fantasy standard", but many elements, particularly the races, magic and the like are drawn from Western folklore which pre-dates LoTR by hundreds, if not thousands of years. Middle Earth will endure exactly because it is drawing from human culture and not trying to remake the wheel.

The other point to make was the that story of LoTR is born from Tolkien's experiences during WW1 and his reaction to increasing industrialisation of the countryside wrapped up in his Catholicism and steeped in his academic work in anglo-saxon literature. It's not surprising, perhaps, that some of the themes and images and cultural reference points are lost to a modern audience.

However, if I were alive, I will be very surprised if any single Warhammer story, or the world of Warhammer (or GamesWorkshop itself), Dragon Age and the people and companies associated with it, will be the topic of a conversation in 90 year's time.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I am not sure which particular features of Middle Earth you refer to as "fantasy standard", but many elements, particularly the races, magic and the like are drawn from Western folklore which pre-dates LoTR by hundreds, if not thousands of years.

While that is true, Tolkien did a lot to set them in stone. Elves and dwarfs in an awful lot of fantasy are based very strongly on Tolkien...for some reason all the dwarfs are Scottish, rather than Semitic nowdays though.

 

[duchaked]

Of course LotR is still relevant, even if it's just because of its enormous influence on fantasy. The simplest definition of a High Fantasy setting is "like Lord of the Rings."

You should definitely see The Hobbit too.

Really the only thing that makes LotR irrelevant is when you think how easy it would have been to break the story...namely the whole "Ummmmm...why didn't we just take the Eagles to Mordor?"

There's many counter-arguments to that.

The one I like most is that they couldn't possible hope to destroy the Ring if Sauron saw them coming, which he obviously would have if they just flew to Mount Doom.

There's also the fact that the Eagles are servants of Manwë who exist to observe the mortal realm, not alter its history. This is lost in the films but even rescuing Gandalf from Isengard was an uncomfortable grey area to them. In the book the Eagle complains that he "came to bear tidings, not burdens."

whether or not it fits canon standards or whatnot, I was shocked to see some eagles DIE in the LotR War in the North game. apparently arrows and the like make for effective AA defense x.x

they aren't invincible lol

 

[Megalodon]

Not to mention the Jabberslythe, or whatever. Every army has to have a big tanky thing. Not like in the old days where maybe you could have a Steam Tank or Doomwheel, with the odd dragon or giant thrown in. Every army has to have a big OtT flying chariot with deathrays as standard. Brettonian knights on pegasi are normal, so are empire knights on demigryphs or whatever. Everything is glowing or on fire or both.

So much this. Although some armies get away with it. The likes of the Arachnarok Spider and the new Cauldron of Blood I don't have a problem with, becuase they're either revamped versions of things that already existed, or a new thing that logically fits in with the established nature of the army. Whereas the Empire got a weird cart thing (whoch is annoying because they already had the Steam Tank as a big centerpiece model) and the Demigryph Knights, both of which I felt were produced from a mindset of "we a need a big thing and monstrous cavalry for the Empire", instead of "I've got a cool new idea for a new Empire unit".

I think my overall point- that LotR hasn't been overshadowed by Warhammer because Warhammer is ultimately a soulless, corporate monstrosity which has no creative drive beyond contriving reasons for people to buy over-priced miniatures for a shallow strategy game- still stands.

I'd disagree with this. Warhammer hasn't overshadowed LotR because it is primarily a tabletop wargame, which is a far more niche market than books and films. Also, GW wasn't always the corporate monstosity it is today (I'd also argue that thr game itself wasn't particularly shallow until 8th ed. started ruining everything).

I struck me worst reading the beastman book. My first love is elves, but my first army was Beasts of Chaos which I got into without really having a load of background in the game. I set up an army concept that was to be somewhat visually stylized from Greek myths, essentially it was a warband full of men who abandon their lives in the Old World to do whatever they wish, fall under the gaze of Slaanesh and become corrupted into beasts. The rank and file infantry were all mutated from hooved prey species, while the leadership were mostly female and mostly to have been mutated from predator species like wolves, the idea being this army is particularly terrifying to the Old World dwellers because the females are on top and the males are content to spend their days idly drinking wine until they need to plunder again, but there was to also be an elder Cthonic deity angle. I'm not going to pretend it was the best army concept, but it had an internal logic and even a goddamned economy to the idea.

There are far worse army concepts. IMO this is more in line with the WFRP portrayl of the Old World though. Better suited to a smaller scale conflict, rather than the larger events and wars the core game tries to portray.

Then the latest edition of Beast Men came out, and the book was all about how the Beastmen are evil because they HATE humanity. You know, even more than all the other armies out there that HATE humanity. This sit around and HATE you to DEATH! GROWR, aren't they scary? It was just so stupid it ended up killing my drive to finish. But if it hadn't, you know, been so disappointing as to make me give up on the whole product line, it would have been a smart economic move- the new rules required me to re-base all my existing units and buy a whole bunch more boxes just to have legal units.

This makes me wonder why you reacted so strongly to this. The change was pretty slight from Beasts of Chaos to Beastmen, with a shift to focusing on humans as the enemy instead of all the civilised races and making them more motivated by hatred than by Chaos. Now I'm not saying these were good changes. But I'm slightly surprised you found them to be a deal breaker. Sadly GW canon has taken many far worse beatings than this (like Matt Ward, fuck that guy).

 

[Strazdas]

Let me ask you something. Do people still use word "Orc"? Do we see "orcs" in games like "Orcs must die" and the like? yes?
You know what? Tolkien invented orcs. The first mention of word ORC known to humans is Tolkien books.
SO yes, he is VERY relevant. I mean heck most of RPGs are so heavily influenced by it people are actually rallying up to find something that isnt Tolkien influenced.

 

[Someone Depressing]

It's a huge influence, and although not as many people have read it, The Silmaria (or whatever) is famous for being a long, well writte and highly influential book written over a man's entire life.

Even if the universe dies after the next Hobbit movie, its influence will never go away; it's left too deep a scar (which you may consider good or bad).

Lord of The Rings will never die. Perhaps its name will be forgotten and people will simply say "It came from x", "x" not being Lord of The Rings. But it did come from Lord of The Rings.