Yes. Income tax has historically been very low or nonexistent because of the danger of revolts. It was only with the Great War and advent of socialism that the modern tax paradigm became fully established.
I’m aware of opium monopolies, customs duties, and land taxes. These could have contributed significantly to the imperial coffers. I don’t have any figures for those—all the good stuff seems to be paywalled. In any case, the absence of welfare programs made balancing the books reasonably feasible without high rates of income taxation.
Yes, that makes sense. Waking up this morning I recalled whatever I knew about land taxes starting in classical Greek times. Revolts or not, I suppose that technology also make a difference in the state's capacity to trim "marginal taxes" (income, VAT) off transactions.
Love your commentary. Tolkien was a genius, and there would be no Game of T without him. At least The Witcher author was honest enough to say that without Tolkien there would be no Witcher. Both writers are levels above Martin, I’m sure that will offend his big fans, lol.
lol I don't know, I've met a lot of Throneys and they seem very chill and cool. Whenever I tell them I don't think much of Martin and I like Tolkien better, they laugh and just ask me if there's anything I do like, and then when I mention I like the baronial houses here and there, they smile and generally become cheerful about things.
As to the Witcher guy I'm glad to hear that, I don't know much about him.
I'm glad you like my commentary, just as I appreciate yours and your articles Alexander.
I’ve read Song of Ice and Fire, such as it is. I liked it. However, I also have issues with the books (such as the inconsistencies you’ve touched on), and with Martin, who styles himself “R. R.” /eyeroll
My opinion is that he’s a small (figuratively) man with a huge ego who believes himself superior to Tolkien. I need not detail why such an idea is the height of absurdity. As with all posturing fools, to appear greater than he is, Martin must try to diminish the man who is inarguably the greatest of all fantasy authors, as well as being a true scholar.
Comparing Tolkien and Martin is a comparison of apples and oranges; nonetheless, by virtually every criterion one could use to evaluate them individually, Tolkien is, and forever will be, out of Martin’s league.
What Martin does, he does competently enough that I read five books and would like to see him actually finish the series. Outside of that, I find him intolerably full of himself to a degree not warranted by what he’s actually produced.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, orcs did not reproduce. I believe JRRT was clear that they were formerly elves who were twisted into something perverse through extreme torture. So, for Martin to even speak of “baby orcs” is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard.
Not cannon, but if we did a LOTR RPG, I would have orc souls go to Morgoth then get recycled to the meat grinder of orc life. It never ends for an Orc. They are corrupted by the lies. They go to the darkness and not the light then their souls are looking for the halls. They are corrupt elves so Mandos may have something off to the side for them. When he gets them they are out for good.
It would be cool if during the The Dagor Dagorath the orc souls get released and they change sides. This is all in my head.
The reason we don't need Aragorn to have a tax policy is because the story is transcendental. It is about sending a message, not about nihilism. While i like that you foray into tolkien's defense, i think tolkien's work speaks for itself. It will endure and last tru the ages, while the unfinished work of Martin will be forgotten.
A point about the orcs. Like the Uruk-Kai, they were a directly created race. They were essentially modified goblins.
Saruman took it a step further and created the Uruk-Kai from orcs.
Neither one could reproduce on their own, from what I remember of the Simillarion, so when Sauron and Saruman both either lost their power or died, neither race had the means to continue existing.
The Super Mutants are a race of orcish radiation immune hordes who are taking over after nuclear war has devastated human society. They were made by dipping humans into science vats and their creator, "The Master", intended to replace humanity with them. One victory route was to collect gene data on them and prove to The Master that they would be forever sterile and never be able to reproduce so the loss of humanity would end the Super Mutant as well. The Master, in this ending, kills himself when he realizes what a colossal waste of time this was as well as having nearly ended all sentient life on earth.
Howard does address the court system in one Conan story, where Conan is asked to testify in a criminal proceeding. If I remember correctly, it ends with Conan slaying the prosecutor and fighting his way out of the courtroom.
I find GRRM, exemplified by this quote, to just not "get" fantasy all that well, especially LOTR. He writes fictional history but in the most pessimistic way, as opposed to Guy Gavriel Kay who writes rather optimistic fictional history/fantasy.
I enjoyed the prose of ASOIAF. There is no doubt GRRM can write well, he writes good characters and has them drive the plot, and he is masterful of different points of view feeling distinct, and his worldbuilding is rich. His problem is his cynicism, that everyone's cut-throat and looking to betray their friends and family, that honour gets a man killed (Ned Stark). Such nonsense from cover to cover, wrapped in lovely prose (that can at times be a little too flowery).
Tolkien wrote epic fairy-tail, Martin wrote historical fan fic. I like both. Twitter trying to compare the two men is middle school at best. Even the historical and logical situations can’t compare.
Aragorn was very long lived. He had more maturity than than any king in Game of Thrones. He was on the throne a long time. Consistency. Think how quickly Kings and Hands changed in GoT. By the time the North knew who the new King/Hand would be and the new laws were posted, there would be a new King/Hand on the Iron Throne. Chaos. Great for a Martin story.
Look at Arwin, Yeah she might buy the good curtains that first year. Girls an Elf, she not going to get tied of looking at the curtains for a long time. Aragorn saved money in the long run. She’ll buy things that last. The Lannisters had a literal gold mine and spent it all.
I guess, I myself dislike Martin's work, and often find him exasperating. But I guess you make a good point on the differences between the two.
What I like are the GoT fans and fanfics, I've read a few and they tended to think more deeply on certain plot-points, to expand on ideas set forward by Martin and what not. The thing about Throneys is that when I tend to say I'm not a fan, they chuckle and just shrug, and decide to remain positive. I wish more folks were as friendly as GoT fans, so my beef is not with them at all.
As to the costs of living of Arwen vs the Lannisters, I hadn't thought too deeply on that point, but good point.
There are actually answers to those questions. Tolkien was English and sought to write an English epic. Rohan has been called Beowulf with horses. One can argue that Theoden is Alfred the Great, Eomer Edward the Elder and Eowyn, Aethelfled, Alfred’s first born. So we are dealing with the 9th-10th centuries.
In those days, the “state” was the same as the household of the King.
When Eomer rode out with 115 men to do battle with the orc who captured Merry and Pippin, there were the men of his household, that is those men who had pledged personal service to him and lived at his principal dwelling.
Theodon’s dwelling was Edoras, where the men of his household were stationed. Theoden owned substantial property which produced an income that he used to support these guys. As king, these guys were the “standing army” of Rohan, supported by Theoden out of his personal income (no taxes).
As king, all the lords were his vassals and when he called they would come with the men of *their* household who were paid out of their person income. So Rohan’s Army was essential employees of private enterprises. There was no “public sector”. The country was the personal possession of the King and other elites. There was no “government” in the modern sense of the word.
Gondor would be more advanced. Denethor reigned in Minas Tirith and had about 21K troops at his disposal. I assume these troops live with their families in the city. Tens of thousands lived in the fertile lands of the Pellenor. They send a portion of their harvest as rent to their landlord *Denethor”. They sold another portion of their produce to merchants in Minas Tirith in exchange for goods produced there are imported from the South.
As “owner” of Minas Tirth, Denethor collected rent (taxes) from the civilian inhabitants. As ruler he also imposed a duty on commerce on the Anduin. Denethor, as ruler. owned much property elsewhere in Gondor that paid an income. All this income made Denethor by far the richest person ins Gondor, but he used this income to maintain his troops.
In addition to this he was liege lord to Gondorian nobles who would answer his call for aid with forces they maintained out of their personal income.
In this time, there simply was no “government” or “tax policy”. These things haveno meaning to this time.
Very true, and good point about how the structure of the King's Household would have worked and trade itself. Details I wish I had thought to include, as tax policies appear later on, with the rise of the 3 Estates and what not centuries later, and even then taxes as we understand them were used more for dowries for princesses and for war.
I was going to repeat the oft quoted Anglo-Saxon origins of the word orc. Unfortunately, despite an old BBC on the Norman Conquest arguing that orc meant foreigner or outsider, it doesn't appear to be true. I always check these days, having been disappointed so often one quotes in the past.
The closest I could get was from Beowulf. 'The term “orc-né” (plural: “orc-néas”) refers to a race of corrupted beings and descendants of Cain, alongside elves.'
Frank Herbert is the only author who ranks alongside Tolkien. There are plenty of other good authors. Dan Simmons. Joe Abercrombie. Richard K. Morgan. Andrzej Sapkowski. Brandon Sanderson. One of the best sci fi I've read from a recent author is the The Peacemaker's Code by Deepak Malhotra.
I read GGRM long before his work was televised. It's good, but I think he misses the point about how evil enters the world. It's groups dynamics which turn us into monsters and the most dangerous thing in the world is a group who believe they are doing good, when they are serving the ends of evil.
I wouldn't read too much into GRRM's social media- it's turned even public intellectuals of the calibre of Nassim Nicholas Taleb into schoolyard bullies.
Good point about his social media, I don't plan to read it, as to his work there's a good point, it is often in groups that people are corrupted by darker forces that force top-down corruption good point.
Of course, villains are narratively better. It's why the movies often get Shakespearian-trained British actors to play them. Everybody loves a good villain. On screen, my favourite was probably Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham.
Hmm, what's interesting is that I think it takes more skill to play a hero, and I tend to think heroes are narratively more interesting, I guess the trouble is that I've always thought of the villain as an accessory of sorts to the hero. But you make a good point about Shakespearien accors being used on screen, I really like Alan Rickman he was an incroyable talent. I loved him in Galaxy Quest also.
I re-watched Galaxy Quest just the other week! Brilliant film. I also love a good anti-hero. This is the whole problem with the diversity agenda. There is nothing wrong with greater diversity, or indeed writing from a greater wealth of experience. But when people write from the perspective of diversity it can be quite limiting in terms of character. If a Black character isn't allowed to have flaws, how can they play the villain, or how can the audience/readership sympathise with them without them overcoming flaws and triumphing over an adversity with deeper internal roots than other people and circumstances?
I really like the Critical Drinker's take- he is quite right to single out the strong female lead character for particular scorn. If a teenage girl or twentysomething woman's only adversity is that they need to have more confidence and be themselves then it generally leads to singularly unsympathetic characters.
Did you see Emily Blunt criticise strong female leads recently? And she played one, in Edge of Tomorrow!
“It’s the worst thing ever when you open a script and read the words ‘strong female lead,’” Blunt said. “That makes me roll my eyes. I’m already out. I’m bored. Those roles are written as incredibly stoic, you spend the whole time acting tough and saying tough things.”
“It's groups dynamics which turn us into monsters and the most dangerous thing in the world is a group who believe they are doing good, when they are serving the ends of evil.”
Great point. Mercenary self interest can cause a lot of harm. But if you really want to see millions dead you need an expanding religion or a utopian ideology…
I guess so, what is interesting to me is that utopian ideologies always lead to genocide but a sense of fellowship, of shared love brings people together in a positive manner.
Absolutely, and i nearly (and probably should have) added a caveat to speak a little to your point.
Maybe we need an explicit politics centred around voluntary fellowship with dissent not punishable by violence or death? But then what would all the ideologues in all their various flavours do with their time if they have no one to control.
Does GRRM cover ideology in GoT much? I can’t remember any examples off hand. A bit 2d power politics from that perspective - struggles for power with no cause other than power itself.
I suspect generally those of us who care are just sick of nihilism.
As someone who had gotten through The Silmarillion but not the other works of Tolkien, I didn't know about this (except that the orcs have no souls, or something like that). I wish the Tolkien-bros on Twitter would actually mention all this instead of tacitly conceding Martin's point (which turns out to be BS).
Thanks, I don't like normally to do so, as twitter bores me. More importantly than it, I'm partway through Ch 3 of your excellent work, it is still awesome and I am loving it far more than almost any fantasy novel I've read from the 1989-2019 period. Your work rocks.
All I want is to find appreciative readers. I don’t care how long it takes.
I have subscribers who haven’t opened a single email yet. But I choose to assume they decided to wait until Book 1 is fully released and the read it in one go.
Same for me I have subs that never opened an Email. I don't think they know how much we have for stats on Substack. My Dad unsubscribe from my stack. But he gets proof copies so its cool.
Indeed the orks and goblins of Tolkien were very much part of their master. The Dark Lord’s hateful essence vanishing deprived these parasites of, essentially, their collective spirit.
What followed was a mass extermination of their own making. Who once said that “evil eats its own,” was wise beyond imagining. Tolkien knew this and many other a wisdom, for he survived the hellish trenches of WW1.
He witnessed the terror and malice of the cowardly and the evil, yet he also saw the courage and sacrifice of the good. Thus, to even go so far as to compare Tolkien’s realism, a titan of the soul and mind, with a sheltered denizen of Hollywood, is a pointless endeavor.
One wrote from the heart, gave us some of the greatest heroes and villains, a world full of life, of poem and of song, and the other? Well… he murdered his characters for shock value, and now refuses to finish his series.
Good point, Tolkien is to my mind a giant as you well put it, and what you just said makes me sorrow for and pity Martin on some level. I don't know if that's strange, but your words are filled with wisdom and truth, so that they got me thinking.
I tried to read as much as I could, even during the draconian communist censorship. One of the main reasons that I retained a measure of sanity during these times.
Martin misses the whole point of LOTR: it's myth. Tolkein loved the Greek myths, the Icelandic Sagas, all tales out of antiquity.
No one is reading the Iliad and asking, "But what were Achilles and Hector's protein intake and workout split?"
True, hahaha I certainly never considered what exercise Hector ou Achilles did.
were they counting them calories and carbo loading
Hmm, they must have been haha
Martin is not making a value statement. He has said many times and in many places that he admires and loves Lord of the Rings.
This quote is him explaining how questions he had about Lord of the Rings directly inspired his own epic fantasy series.
Lmao good point
When Tolkien was born there was no income tax or VAT in the UK and somehow everything was fine.
Exactly! I hate income tax, and all the others forced on us these days.
What? Is that true? What did they tax?
Yes. Income tax has historically been very low or nonexistent because of the danger of revolts. It was only with the Great War and advent of socialism that the modern tax paradigm became fully established.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/top-income-tax-rates-piketty
I was going to suggest that Great Britain heavily taxed her imperial subjects, but after looking it up, I’m not so sure.
https://www.ewoutfrankema.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Raising_Revenue.JGH_.2010.pdf
I’m aware of opium monopolies, customs duties, and land taxes. These could have contributed significantly to the imperial coffers. I don’t have any figures for those—all the good stuff seems to be paywalled. In any case, the absence of welfare programs made balancing the books reasonably feasible without high rates of income taxation.
Interesting, thanks for filling in the details there will have to look it up Jonathon could be interesting information for down the road.
Yes, that makes sense. Waking up this morning I recalled whatever I knew about land taxes starting in classical Greek times. Revolts or not, I suppose that technology also make a difference in the state's capacity to trim "marginal taxes" (income, VAT) off transactions.
Good question I don't know the answer to that one, I'll have to refer you to Jonathon on that front.
Love your commentary. Tolkien was a genius, and there would be no Game of T without him. At least The Witcher author was honest enough to say that without Tolkien there would be no Witcher. Both writers are levels above Martin, I’m sure that will offend his big fans, lol.
lol I don't know, I've met a lot of Throneys and they seem very chill and cool. Whenever I tell them I don't think much of Martin and I like Tolkien better, they laugh and just ask me if there's anything I do like, and then when I mention I like the baronial houses here and there, they smile and generally become cheerful about things.
As to the Witcher guy I'm glad to hear that, I don't know much about him.
I'm glad you like my commentary, just as I appreciate yours and your articles Alexander.
I’ve read Song of Ice and Fire, such as it is. I liked it. However, I also have issues with the books (such as the inconsistencies you’ve touched on), and with Martin, who styles himself “R. R.” /eyeroll
My opinion is that he’s a small (figuratively) man with a huge ego who believes himself superior to Tolkien. I need not detail why such an idea is the height of absurdity. As with all posturing fools, to appear greater than he is, Martin must try to diminish the man who is inarguably the greatest of all fantasy authors, as well as being a true scholar.
Comparing Tolkien and Martin is a comparison of apples and oranges; nonetheless, by virtually every criterion one could use to evaluate them individually, Tolkien is, and forever will be, out of Martin’s league.
What Martin does, he does competently enough that I read five books and would like to see him actually finish the series. Outside of that, I find him intolerably full of himself to a degree not warranted by what he’s actually produced.
Also, to the best of my knowledge, orcs did not reproduce. I believe JRRT was clear that they were formerly elves who were twisted into something perverse through extreme torture. So, for Martin to even speak of “baby orcs” is one of the dumbest things I’ve heard.
I must admit that I find Martin exasperating also, as to Martin good analysis over all of him.
As to Orc babies yeah that's generally my view as well.
Not cannon, but if we did a LOTR RPG, I would have orc souls go to Morgoth then get recycled to the meat grinder of orc life. It never ends for an Orc. They are corrupted by the lies. They go to the darkness and not the light then their souls are looking for the halls. They are corrupt elves so Mandos may have something off to the side for them. When he gets them they are out for good.
It would be cool if during the The Dagor Dagorath the orc souls get released and they change sides. This is all in my head.
I like that, that's a good idea and fits with Tolkien's idea of redemption this is a very beautiful notion J.R. Logan.
The reason we don't need Aragorn to have a tax policy is because the story is transcendental. It is about sending a message, not about nihilism. While i like that you foray into tolkien's defense, i think tolkien's work speaks for itself. It will endure and last tru the ages, while the unfinished work of Martin will be forgotten.
Good point, and well said
A point about the orcs. Like the Uruk-Kai, they were a directly created race. They were essentially modified goblins.
Saruman took it a step further and created the Uruk-Kai from orcs.
Neither one could reproduce on their own, from what I remember of the Simillarion, so when Sauron and Saruman both either lost their power or died, neither race had the means to continue existing.
There would still be goblins post-Sauron, but they were weak, compared to men.
Goblins to my understanding are Orcs of a sorts, but I'm not sure they could survive either as Tolkien frequently used the two terms interchangeably.
But thanks for correcting me on the Uruk-Kai detail, yeah they were modified Orcs by Saruman, a detail I should have touched on.
Ah, so the Super Mutants in the Fallout series were directly analogous to the Uruk-kai!
Cool didn’t know that! I don’t know much about fallout
The Super Mutants are a race of orcish radiation immune hordes who are taking over after nuclear war has devastated human society. They were made by dipping humans into science vats and their creator, "The Master", intended to replace humanity with them. One victory route was to collect gene data on them and prove to The Master that they would be forever sterile and never be able to reproduce so the loss of humanity would end the Super Mutant as well. The Master, in this ending, kills himself when he realizes what a colossal waste of time this was as well as having nearly ended all sentient life on earth.
Ah ok
Howard does address the court system in one Conan story, where Conan is asked to testify in a criminal proceeding. If I remember correctly, it ends with Conan slaying the prosecutor and fighting his way out of the courtroom.
Good point, which story is that?
Had to look it up: it’s in the beginning of Queen of the Black Coast. He killed the judge, not the prosecutor.
Ah yeah, I love that story, Belit rocks, and I love the battle at the start of the story and how Conan brags about killing the judge to the one crew.
Good insight.
I find GRRM, exemplified by this quote, to just not "get" fantasy all that well, especially LOTR. He writes fictional history but in the most pessimistic way, as opposed to Guy Gavriel Kay who writes rather optimistic fictional history/fantasy.
I enjoyed the prose of ASOIAF. There is no doubt GRRM can write well, he writes good characters and has them drive the plot, and he is masterful of different points of view feeling distinct, and his worldbuilding is rich. His problem is his cynicism, that everyone's cut-throat and looking to betray their friends and family, that honour gets a man killed (Ned Stark). Such nonsense from cover to cover, wrapped in lovely prose (that can at times be a little too flowery).
Thanks and good point, I don't know about his prose being too flowery but I must admit that I found his cynicism exhausting.
can some of it be attributed to English vs. American sensibilities?
Dunno, maybe hadn't thought about it that way.
Martin knows his work will not last, and Tolkien’s will. He is bitter and jealous.
Sadly that might be the case, he has been wildly successful yet he is very much good at prose and poetry, so I really do feel pity for him.
Tolkien wrote epic fairy-tail, Martin wrote historical fan fic. I like both. Twitter trying to compare the two men is middle school at best. Even the historical and logical situations can’t compare.
Aragorn was very long lived. He had more maturity than than any king in Game of Thrones. He was on the throne a long time. Consistency. Think how quickly Kings and Hands changed in GoT. By the time the North knew who the new King/Hand would be and the new laws were posted, there would be a new King/Hand on the Iron Throne. Chaos. Great for a Martin story.
Look at Arwin, Yeah she might buy the good curtains that first year. Girls an Elf, she not going to get tied of looking at the curtains for a long time. Aragorn saved money in the long run. She’ll buy things that last. The Lannisters had a literal gold mine and spent it all.
I guess, I myself dislike Martin's work, and often find him exasperating. But I guess you make a good point on the differences between the two.
What I like are the GoT fans and fanfics, I've read a few and they tended to think more deeply on certain plot-points, to expand on ideas set forward by Martin and what not. The thing about Throneys is that when I tend to say I'm not a fan, they chuckle and just shrug, and decide to remain positive. I wish more folks were as friendly as GoT fans, so my beef is not with them at all.
As to the costs of living of Arwen vs the Lannisters, I hadn't thought too deeply on that point, but good point.
There are actually answers to those questions. Tolkien was English and sought to write an English epic. Rohan has been called Beowulf with horses. One can argue that Theoden is Alfred the Great, Eomer Edward the Elder and Eowyn, Aethelfled, Alfred’s first born. So we are dealing with the 9th-10th centuries.
In those days, the “state” was the same as the household of the King.
When Eomer rode out with 115 men to do battle with the orc who captured Merry and Pippin, there were the men of his household, that is those men who had pledged personal service to him and lived at his principal dwelling.
Theodon’s dwelling was Edoras, where the men of his household were stationed. Theoden owned substantial property which produced an income that he used to support these guys. As king, these guys were the “standing army” of Rohan, supported by Theoden out of his personal income (no taxes).
As king, all the lords were his vassals and when he called they would come with the men of *their* household who were paid out of their person income. So Rohan’s Army was essential employees of private enterprises. There was no “public sector”. The country was the personal possession of the King and other elites. There was no “government” in the modern sense of the word.
Gondor would be more advanced. Denethor reigned in Minas Tirith and had about 21K troops at his disposal. I assume these troops live with their families in the city. Tens of thousands lived in the fertile lands of the Pellenor. They send a portion of their harvest as rent to their landlord *Denethor”. They sold another portion of their produce to merchants in Minas Tirith in exchange for goods produced there are imported from the South.
As “owner” of Minas Tirth, Denethor collected rent (taxes) from the civilian inhabitants. As ruler he also imposed a duty on commerce on the Anduin. Denethor, as ruler. owned much property elsewhere in Gondor that paid an income. All this income made Denethor by far the richest person ins Gondor, but he used this income to maintain his troops.
In addition to this he was liege lord to Gondorian nobles who would answer his call for aid with forces they maintained out of their personal income.
In this time, there simply was no “government” or “tax policy”. These things haveno meaning to this time.
Very true, and good point about how the structure of the King's Household would have worked and trade itself. Details I wish I had thought to include, as tax policies appear later on, with the rise of the 3 Estates and what not centuries later, and even then taxes as we understand them were used more for dowries for princesses and for war.
So excellent points Mr. Alexander.
I was going to repeat the oft quoted Anglo-Saxon origins of the word orc. Unfortunately, despite an old BBC on the Norman Conquest arguing that orc meant foreigner or outsider, it doesn't appear to be true. I always check these days, having been disappointed so often one quotes in the past.
The closest I could get was from Beowulf. 'The term “orc-né” (plural: “orc-néas”) refers to a race of corrupted beings and descendants of Cain, alongside elves.'
Frank Herbert is the only author who ranks alongside Tolkien. There are plenty of other good authors. Dan Simmons. Joe Abercrombie. Richard K. Morgan. Andrzej Sapkowski. Brandon Sanderson. One of the best sci fi I've read from a recent author is the The Peacemaker's Code by Deepak Malhotra.
I read GGRM long before his work was televised. It's good, but I think he misses the point about how evil enters the world. It's groups dynamics which turn us into monsters and the most dangerous thing in the world is a group who believe they are doing good, when they are serving the ends of evil.
I wouldn't read too much into GRRM's social media- it's turned even public intellectuals of the calibre of Nassim Nicholas Taleb into schoolyard bullies.
Good point about his social media, I don't plan to read it, as to his work there's a good point, it is often in groups that people are corrupted by darker forces that force top-down corruption good point.
Of course, villains are narratively better. It's why the movies often get Shakespearian-trained British actors to play them. Everybody loves a good villain. On screen, my favourite was probably Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham.
Hmm, what's interesting is that I think it takes more skill to play a hero, and I tend to think heroes are narratively more interesting, I guess the trouble is that I've always thought of the villain as an accessory of sorts to the hero. But you make a good point about Shakespearien accors being used on screen, I really like Alan Rickman he was an incroyable talent. I loved him in Galaxy Quest also.
I re-watched Galaxy Quest just the other week! Brilliant film. I also love a good anti-hero. This is the whole problem with the diversity agenda. There is nothing wrong with greater diversity, or indeed writing from a greater wealth of experience. But when people write from the perspective of diversity it can be quite limiting in terms of character. If a Black character isn't allowed to have flaws, how can they play the villain, or how can the audience/readership sympathise with them without them overcoming flaws and triumphing over an adversity with deeper internal roots than other people and circumstances?
I really like the Critical Drinker's take- he is quite right to single out the strong female lead character for particular scorn. If a teenage girl or twentysomething woman's only adversity is that they need to have more confidence and be themselves then it generally leads to singularly unsympathetic characters.
Did you see Emily Blunt criticise strong female leads recently? And she played one, in Edge of Tomorrow!
“It’s the worst thing ever when you open a script and read the words ‘strong female lead,’” Blunt said. “That makes me roll my eyes. I’m already out. I’m bored. Those roles are written as incredibly stoic, you spend the whole time acting tough and saying tough things.”
Emily Blunt? Non I've not seen it, sounds as though she's got a good head on her shoulders.
I like feminine characters and have a lot of black friends, so that what's currently being done saddens and annoys me.
Tbh, I'm not very familiar with Critical Drinker, so I can appreciate this take.
And glad you re-watched Galaxy Quest, I'm thinking of maybe doing a review of it soon, I love that filme.
“It's groups dynamics which turn us into monsters and the most dangerous thing in the world is a group who believe they are doing good, when they are serving the ends of evil.”
Great point. Mercenary self interest can cause a lot of harm. But if you really want to see millions dead you need an expanding religion or a utopian ideology…
I guess so, what is interesting to me is that utopian ideologies always lead to genocide but a sense of fellowship, of shared love brings people together in a positive manner.
Absolutely, and i nearly (and probably should have) added a caveat to speak a little to your point.
Maybe we need an explicit politics centred around voluntary fellowship with dissent not punishable by violence or death? But then what would all the ideologues in all their various flavours do with their time if they have no one to control.
Does GRRM cover ideology in GoT much? I can’t remember any examples off hand. A bit 2d power politics from that perspective - struggles for power with no cause other than power itself.
I suspect generally those of us who care are just sick of nihilism.
Yeah, I get that feeling as well, maybe it was why I got bored of GoT because the obsession with power and nihilism turned me off.
I definitely think you are onto something here.
As someone who had gotten through The Silmarillion but not the other works of Tolkien, I didn't know about this (except that the orcs have no souls, or something like that). I wish the Tolkien-bros on Twitter would actually mention all this instead of tacitly conceding Martin's point (which turns out to be BS).
Fully concur, their tacit submission and timidity is what convinced me to write this article.
Fight the good fight, as Twitter descends further into a fanboy morass.
Thanks, I don't like normally to do so, as twitter bores me. More importantly than it, I'm partway through Ch 3 of your excellent work, it is still awesome and I am loving it far more than almost any fantasy novel I've read from the 1989-2019 period. Your work rocks.
Wow! Such amazing praise. I’m humbled…
I'm being honest, although I'm ashamed it takes me so long to read each chapter, I hope you don't mind. I am genuinely enjoying it.
All I want is to find appreciative readers. I don’t care how long it takes.
I have subscribers who haven’t opened a single email yet. But I choose to assume they decided to wait until Book 1 is fully released and the read it in one go.
Same for me I have subs that never opened an Email. I don't think they know how much we have for stats on Substack. My Dad unsubscribe from my stack. But he gets proof copies so its cool.
Really? I've never checked those stats, didn't even know we could find out who has or hasn't opened our emails.
Really? I see, I didn't know some hadn't opened the emails.
As to appreciative readers I do get that.
Indeed the orks and goblins of Tolkien were very much part of their master. The Dark Lord’s hateful essence vanishing deprived these parasites of, essentially, their collective spirit.
What followed was a mass extermination of their own making. Who once said that “evil eats its own,” was wise beyond imagining. Tolkien knew this and many other a wisdom, for he survived the hellish trenches of WW1.
He witnessed the terror and malice of the cowardly and the evil, yet he also saw the courage and sacrifice of the good. Thus, to even go so far as to compare Tolkien’s realism, a titan of the soul and mind, with a sheltered denizen of Hollywood, is a pointless endeavor.
One wrote from the heart, gave us some of the greatest heroes and villains, a world full of life, of poem and of song, and the other? Well… he murdered his characters for shock value, and now refuses to finish his series.
Good point, Tolkien is to my mind a giant as you well put it, and what you just said makes me sorrow for and pity Martin on some level. I don't know if that's strange, but your words are filled with wisdom and truth, so that they got me thinking.
I tried to read as much as I could, even during the draconian communist censorship. One of the main reasons that I retained a measure of sanity during these times.