When did writing die?

show me one good contempotary world leader
you cant, theyre all corrupt one way or another

>he's evil, because he just is OK?
gay lazy writing

Obama.

Ah yes, Tolkien, world renowned for never writing any ambiguous or morally grey characters.

Attached: boromir.jpg (1280x720, 80.07K)

>there are no good or evil people in grrm's story
What is this meme? Also, the "message" of ASOIAF isn't even particularly cynical. In fact there's a very strong theme that one shouldn't become like their enemies in order to defeat them.

Kek

>mfw autists praise books for childrens because of its simplistic morality

He was always a good guy your coping if you think he's morally grey in anyway.

Tolkien is to creative literary genius what Martin is to hack pulp idiocy. They both so far surpass anyone else in their field that they will be remembered 1,000 years from now as a kind of yin and yang of fantasy, a Manichean duality of speculative letters. For every sublime, luminous beauty that Tolkien has gifted the world, Martin has cursed us with a tedious, banal ugliness. It is unfair to compare the two directly on any one point, because Martin is in every way the anti-Tolkien, patently sterile, parasitical, and inferior, but so much so that he becomes a monument in his own right, and counterbalances Tolkien. Could one exist without the other?

Tolkien obviously could. But it is only by the contrast that Martin offers that we can truly appreciate the full depths and heights of Tolkien. Our understanding of Tolkien would be incomplete if Martin had never set pen to page. It is through only the abject failure and futility of Martin that we can approach an apprehension of the true scope and scale of Tolkien's hitherto inconceivable greatness. Perhaps this is what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote about the Music of the Ainur. If Tolkien is a subcreator in the image of Eru, truly Martin is like unto Melkor. It is only reflected in the awfulness of the one that we can fully see the goodness of the other.

was he actually morally grey in the books? the whole point of the ring is that it supplants any agency the character would have

what an absolutely retarded picture that doesn't understand the landscape of literature between 1930-1955

Every fiction is genre fiction.

Where are your books? Are they better than Tolkien's books? Faggot.

Captcha: G2ayU

Did you copy/paste this?

didnt read lol

Attached: 1660720840989342.png (386x445, 121.24K)

He was a classic tragic hero, pretty sure the reason they cast Sean Bean as Ned Stark was cuz it's the exact same archetype

If virtues are "evident", they don't need to be taught. Besides, moral instruction is useless. The only way to develop a person's morals is to challenge them with ethical dilemmas and conundrums that force them to think critically and to re-evaluate their biases and come to their own conclusions. Blatant instruction will always pale in comparison to encouraged self-discovery. The real world is not a place of unambiguous morality, and so presenting a world in which the forces of good and evil are clearly defined is pure infantilism.
Basically this.

Now what about this guy?

Attached: Stewart of Gondor.png (900x386, 550.2K)

He would probably say a lot of the classics that came out in that era like The Grapes of Wrath, Brave New World, Of Mice and Men, etc. is "commie propaganda".

top is most shounen anime