Tolkien's actual letters: "Well, I say, my dear Lewis, I did not much find of your work, but I suppose that to each their own, and I hope too, that you shall find success" Clickbait UA-camrs: "Why Tolkien DESPISED chronicals of Narnia with a raging PASSION"
@@ivanfloresvazquez7490 I was exaggerating when I said victim but I really appreciate people that tell me that a video doesn't fulfill its promise before I watch it.
I think you don't write a series as thoughtful and complex as LotR without being the most critical person who ever lived - which I'm sure he also applied to himself.
That is the mark of a true gentleman: you can dislike something and have your taste but never undermine someone or treat them any lesser. Encourage them to be better and always find merits where there is, never ignore it. It’s sad that being a gentlemen nowadays is considered either weak or toxic.
I don't think having criticism on a work means "hate" it. Why would tolkien present a book that he hated to his granddaughter? If one translate "criticize" into "hate", that is another kind of "allegory". Disagreement does not always lead to displeasement, just like I don't agree with the title doesn't mean I hate this video. There is a huge emotional gap between them. I'm getting worried of these sort of "why who hated who" titles. Cheers on providing precious information, yet I don't agree with the title.
Yeah, I agree. He didn't hate it, he just didn't like Santa Claus mingling with Greek myths or that Lewis stuck a lamppost in there to spite him. Those two had a pretty good friendship till their deaths.
@@idrawnow180 I don't think you realise how nonsensical your comment is. Either most folk think it's true and then want to click on it, or folk don't think it's true and the creator of the video is simply wrong. You can't have it both ways where most folk don't think it's true and would prefer the truth and the creator needs to exaggerate.
They had a falling out for many years, not just over Narnia, but also The Screwtaoe Letters; Tolkien thought that Lewis should not be making fun of demons and fallen angels), the Spanish Civil War, Tolkien's view that Lewis had gone back to Ulster Protestant anti-Catholicism (see Tolkien's essay "Ulsterior Motives"), but above all Lewis's remarriage to Joy Gresham, which Tolkien thought was breaking the sacrament of marriage. They only met once in later years, at a meeting arranged by those wishing to see a reconciliation between two such great Christian literary figures. It went fairly awkwardly, since by then they didn't have much to say to each other, and they never spoke again. @@RoseBaggins
Tolkien was a true gentleman. Had disagreements with Herbert and Lewis, but kept his criticisms private to not stir up public drama. Godspeed Tolkien 🫡
I would be more impressed if he'd been open and honest, but kind and positive about it. "Polite" deceptiveness and/or concealment are only gentlemanly in a corrupted culture. Which, frankly, England did indeed have.
@@ChupacabraRexI'm afraid the overlap between those fandoms is so total that the only way there could be an argument involves multiple personalities disorder lol
If it helps, he would've hated the movies as well. He was incredibly pissed off when a discussed previous adaptation extended the battle scenes because glorifying war was totally against the message of the books. Do you think he would've liked all the attractive men heroically fighting and looking cool for hours? No, he would've HATED the films for glorifying war. I'd argue he would've hated the movies more than the Amazon series (although he would've been furious about both).
@@Halfort57Tolkein would've still hated the movies either way, and the Amazon series I can't speak for b/c I didn't watch it but it's basically telling a different story from any of the books so I don't think he would've cared as much. Even his sons said Tolkein probably wouldn't have liked the films, but that's obviously not how we measure the quality of a movie. Example: the Shining is a great movie but an awful adaptation
Christopher Tolkien despised the movies. He called them mindless action movies for children that evsicersted Bris father’s works. People get upset when you mention this
@@THEFLIGHTCREW5 well tolkien said a lot of good also. And they were friends, so they can be harsh. And tolkien here was right. Coz while tolkien wanted to create a britanic christian legend, Lewis accuaky did take all the mythologiea and mashed them together. So i can see it why tolkien said what he said
I read the CS Lewis books when I was about 10 years old. It was nearly 10 years later that I discovered and read the JRR Tolkien books. Both gave me immense joy in the reading of them.
One of the things that I genuinely find about Narnia that captures me in a way Lotr doesn't is while Lewis does write fast and does go through plot points quickly he still finds ways to be very descriptive of environments, having general dialogue that's comfortable and down to earth and making all of these fantastical elements work together despite their origins. This shines the most when reading the Magician's Nephew or the Horse and his boy, you can sort of feel the effort Lewis takes to put you there, to make you see what he sees. Tolkien likes to treat his stories like they were told in an age past and you are hearing it from your Grandpa on a stormy night, Lewis puts you down by a fire and the fire is telling you the story much like how Lucy sees the story in the fire by Mr Thomas' house. Nobody is telling you a story your mind wanders into it and drifts through it like a dream. And this is where allegory shines a bit because dreams are a reflection of the experiences we have in real life and often are an allegory about our experiences from a perspective we hadn't considered. We can look at history all we want and find the myth from legend but at the end of the day what we can create now is just as valuable even if its just bits and pieces from things in the past. I believe both perspectives are equally interesting and why I have the greatest respect for both authors.
Lewis and Tolkien just had different approaches. Lewis used simplistic narratives to allegorise multiple themes, whereas Tolkien used complex narratives to allegorise a singular theme.
@@folksurvival Also, C S Lewis wasn't fond of Chronicles of Narnia being called an allegory. Tbh, due to how C S Lewis viewed it, I'd categorize Chronicles of Narnia as science fiction. It used his belief of how reality worked as a base and speculated further.
Can we stop naming our videos “so and so hated this,” or “Why so and so hated that”? Been seeing this a lot lately, especially related to Tolkien for some reason. Someone can have opinions about something, even strong opinions, without “hating” it.
While I can acknowledge that Narina is a great piece of work I like Middle Earth much better. Tolkien's Christian influence is a subtle song in the background, while Lewis hits his message in your face with a sledgehammer!
I am a protestant and I totally agree with you. I love Narnia and feel it great to know Jesus as a kid or teen, but Middle Earth is for all your life and you can still feel Christian values all around...
Comparing them is not necessary. They are very different stories with different purposes. LOTR is grand and rich, Chronicles is simple and pleasant, but very accessible to all ages including kids who aren’t ready for LOTR yet.
I dunno about HP, but related to the mixing of different stories and creatures, I'm pretty sure he would be heavily critical of The Witcher books. Maybe even hate them.
Only the friends who keep challanging you in a construrctive way are true friends who truly care about you as they want you to grow, always become better
One thing I will have to disagree with Tolkien is that combining creatures from different myths is ok. I do not believe this detracts the myths and legends from which the creature originates.
True. I'm working on a story world whose peoples have a variety of inspirations. The elves for example are based on their European mythological origins, but they also have elements of Japanese mythology mixed in. He would have had a fit if he saw what I'm doing with my world lol
Fully agree with this; but at the end of the day Tolkien's own world is a stewpot of Christian mythology, Germanic mythology, and other myths like Finnish and Celtic, all combined with creatures (like hobbits) and themes (like conservation of nature and the countryside) that were entirely of his own making. And as much world-building as he did, he did not always explain where everything came from or why.
@@polygon586 I think its not about just combyning it ... its how its done ... if you listen to Tolkien's words the focus of criticism is not on the act of combining it ... but what he sees as a haphazard rushed way of doing where elements are thrown together without though for weather the to fit together ....and especially if their nature is in his eyes hollowed out leaving just emptied forms and names that are then filled out as the author sees fit. Kind of like Amazon did with Tolkiens work .... Its why he was so critical... as what was done to him would be the same ... the motives and the skills are incomparable, but both are doing the same thing ....
Totally disagree: that is the point I completely share with Tolkien. Such mixing is not agreable or respectful to myths, it's like mixing japanese, chinese, german, italian, french cuisine in one single dish
it's like an ecosystem, anything can exist with each other so long as they have a good reason for being there and complement and contrast each other, make your dwarves ten feet tall for all i care but they need to be a team player to your world building.
For most people, coming out of our childhood and growing to become adults, we tend to fall into Tolkien's viewpoint on consistency, a necessity for a more concrete universe-building. For this reason, we tend to praise Tolkien's as the 'better' universe and Lewis's universe as a bit inferior. I've always felt this way for quite a while in my late teens and twenties. But going to my thirties, I've realized that I was a bit short-sighted and started to realize why Narnia series always came to me much better as a kid. The light-paced and simple nature of the universe actually was the reason why it was successful for children. Diving deep is more of an adult thing and sometimes confusing, making the reader experience uncomfortable sometimes. The Silmarillion is a great example. We all know that it is deep and rich but reading it is quite a pain, especially reading it for the first time. But Narnia was always an easy read, the story just came in. True, reading it as an adult there are consistency issues that are annoying and feel unresolved. But reading it as a kid, the magic of the story was already kicking in, the inconsistencies were not that important for the reading experience.
Tolkien had opinions. He didn’t like Dune either. It’s funny. I’ve read and enjoyed all of Lord of the Rings trilogy, all the Narnia books, and all Frank Herbert’s Dune books.
That shows you dont know tolkien. Amnesia or no, as soon as he saw that each race not only had its own history but functioning in universe language he would have said its the best fantasy story he ever read.
@@thegungeonmaster it was just a joke about his extreme meticulous need for perfection and how careful he was writing his own story and also realistically you neither I would know what his hypothetical rating would be
No, his standards are higher than just have backstories. His standard for a constructed world would require these individual stories interact in a reasonably coherent and interesting way, which of course, his own works do
Nice analysis, but I would like to ask whether it is really necessary to use the word "hate" in this context rather than "dislike". Hate is, after all, one of the most serious Christian sins, and Lewis and Tolkien would surely agree on that 😉 Moreover, if he really hated the books, he would hardly find anything good about them.
I think Tolkien was right about the excessive use of allegories and the many fantastical creatures coexisting without any reason. However, I disagree with his criticisms about the way these creatures were changed. Fauns are a great example of that: if you look at old Greek/Latin myths, it's never said that fauns were sexual beasts, assaulting all female creatures they met for this was actually added by the Christians to show how devilish they were. Also, there's the way non-believers are treated. In The Lord of The Rings, they all seem to be evil while in the Narnia series, we can see several of them and they all are treated like human beings, from the arrogant prince declaring war to get Susan's hand to the young soldier who bravely enters the tent to meet Aslan. And finally, there are the words Aslan speaks to him: when he was praying Tash, his prayers still went to him, which is much nicer than saying that he was worshipping the Devil or something that didn't exist.
There are no non-believers in The Lord of the Rings. Not as such. There isn't really any organized religion, and "believers" are just people who are aware of certain historical realities. There are people who don't know history, which is really most ordinary people (Hobbits, Bree folk, probably most Rohirrim and so on, as well as orcs of course) and there are people who totally know "God" is there but are fighting against him (Sauron, Nazgul, Saruman), which doesn't really qualify as a "non-believer".
Ridiculous to say that about fauns. They’re the Roman equivalent of the Greek satyrs, and satyrs are very well known for chasing nymphs and lewd acts I can’t even say in this comment without UA-cam censoring it. Like, they are specifically known for their lewdness, it’s one of their defining traits. They’re commonly depicted with exaggerated erections.
Ridiculous to say that about fauns. Fauns are the Roman equivalent of Greek satyrs, and they are well known for their lewdness, it’s probably their most defining trait. I literally can’t even describe the extent of their lewdness without UA-cam blocking the comment (this is my 2nd attempt lol), suffice it to say they were typically depicted with a massive anatomical feature. Just google it.
@@purplelibraryguy8729 Yes. Tolkien was writing a story as much about myths, particularly for a British audience and their own myths, as much as he was writing using his linguistics hobby. He was into world building, history and had a number of interests. And Tolkein began as writing a children's story but the story matured ... HE WAS WRITING THE STORY FOR HIS SON. And his son had become a man. Narnia, on the other hand, was a deliberate attempt to present a fairytale to Children and had more explicitly Christian themes.
i honestly hold the same opinion as tolkien here, lore and universe cohesion is important. But at the same time lewis has a point, the author can do what ever he wants
I like the way Narnia handles it. It isn't the most cohesive, but it still feels like it is part of the same world. As the books progress chronologically, they get thematically more dark and deal with more serious themes, but it never explains the lore which allows the reader to let the mind wander on how such a thing could be or what its greater reason is. It never feels lazy, just mystical
Yeah, this isn't "hate" at all. I also disagree with Tolkien's takes quite a bit here. While Tolkien created his fantasy world seperate from reality, Lewis's world exists in a realm that can be accessed from the real world. Having characters like "father Christmas" isn't an issue in a story that follows children who exist in World War 1 Europe. These children would've also been familiar with a lot of the folktales & myths represented in Narnia, just as we are in real life. Regarding multiple mythologies existing in our minds together at the same time, Tolkien replying - "Not in mine, or at least not at the same time," is complete nonsense. We know how both Christianity & Norse mythology played a huge role in LOTR & everything regarding Middle Earth. They existed in his mind at the same time then, but now he has a problem??
Thank you so much for sharing this! I think Tolkien held himself and his friend to a very high standard, and he probably knew Lewis could write longer, better, in-depth works. But C.S. Lewis didn't want to. He wanted his stories to be for children, and maybe even to introduce them to Jesus and his faith in a playful, engaging way. Whatever their differences, both authors created absolute masterpieces in their own style.
I'm only a few minutes in BUT, Tolkien's critique of "blending" mythological figures from different times and cultures in Narnia, also applies to his own mythology. One can claim that Elves might be English, but Hobbits? Trolls and Dwarves are Germanic/Icelandic/Scandinavian in origin, with no (even remote) resonance in English mythology (if such exists). Moreover, while his Numenor relatively closely resembles Avalon of the Arthurian Legendarium (arguably English(?) Celtic in origin), his uniting that with the Grail Legendarium (which is almost reversed in the storyline of the Lord of the Rings), was first composed by Chretien de Troyes in twelfth century France and utterly blends Christian mythology with French Chivalric honour codes (witness Frodo willingness to sacrifice himself to destroy the Ring), ala Christ willingness to sacrifice himself to destroy "Sin"). So we have "Germanic/Scandinavian" myths (Trolls, Dwarves, (possibly) Elves), combined with (possibly English) Celtic Arthurian mythology, coupled with Medieval French Chivalric, Grail mythology, overlaid with Christian themes. So any critique that Tolkien makes that the creation of Narnia is too "blended", equally applies to his own creation of Middle Earth... And I'm not even a fan of Lewis....
@@gamera5160 But looking at Modern England, so are African, South Asian, Afro-Caribbean heritages, among many others. And, to a lesser extent, they were when Tolkien was composing his Mythology in the 1930s and 1940s...
@@michaelodonnell824 Not to put words into his mouth, but I believe Tolkien's criticisms were more on how superficially these different myths were mingled in Lewis's work, compared to in his own more thought-out, philosofically (and mythologically) consistent world. Tolkien spent a lot (a lot) of work researching, analyzing, and subsequently incorporating, every race, story and thematic backdrop from its source mythology into his own, and with a clear vision and intent behind them - you can't really argue the same about the way in which Lewis incorporated (for example) fauns; he more or less just airdropped them from its source into his own world while stripping them of everything that made them what they are. There is a clear difference between inspiration and imitation, and I think Tolkien leans towards the former while Lewis the latter. Moreover I really don't think Tolkien was against the idea of culturally appropriating mythology, as long as there was philosophical merit behind it; why else would he not be equally critical of the lay of Beowulf (which, following that logic, would be an excruciating example of Christian vandalization of Pagan Myth) as he was of Narnia? We know he loved that poem, so clearly it's not as simple as "mythological intermingling = bad"...
Creatures and races used by Tolkien were quite closely related mythos-wise, just like cultures they came from. Don't think about countries but about cultural spheres. Tolkien didn't seem to mix foreign myths too much, that much is true. Fauns and satyrs for example, coming from Greco-Roman mythos, are quite foreign to the northern european mythos and would stand out among elves and dwarves (and vice versa). His angle was probably more about the values they represented as well. Fauns, again, were lustful creatures by nature - a true-born hedonists. Centaurs and minotaurs (who are man-eaters too) were implied rapists in some interpretations. Sticking true to the core of these races would cause a lot of conflict and force changes that Tolkien didn't seem to like that much. You could argue that he decided that the best course of action is to write in these self-contained cultural spheres because that way he avoids potential inconsistencies and duplications of purpose (if we have trolls, giants and orcs, we don't need minotaurs that would just duplicate what is already there).
I love both, and I think that Tolkien had the right to his opinion. It kind of boggles my mind that he criticized the mixing of mythologies when one big point of the series is that Narnia is a place where three different worlds meet. And I think it's ok to say that allegory is not right for his own works, but you can't make a blanket statement that all allegory is bad. I guess he wasn't a fan of Jesus's parables, even if he was a Catholic.
yeah tolkien is correct in his opinions, however its important to note that the narnia books are very clearly written for children, while tolkien is writing for an older and more mature audience. clearly there would be no fauns allowed in narnia if he had included their "lusty" behaviors. but thats the different between hard and soft fantasy stories - lewis is using magic and myth as a means to an end (writing a childrens book that can be both fun and a source of moral development) while tolkien is so utterly obsessed with developing the mythology and rules of magic (the means) that its honestly incredible that he even made it to the end.
You should make a video about how Lewis actually was initially disdainful of Tolkien incorporating his own philosophy and ideas in "children's" fiction, reaching a larger audience than serious texts would. Which made it ironic, perhaps even hypocritical, when he reversed himself and tried to do exactly the same thing, not just in Narnia but several other worlds, like Space Trilogy.
it's not hypocritical when he (Lewis) literally mentions his good good friend Tolkien changing his mind. He was challenged by tolkien with Christianity- and boom. You have Lewis' Mere Christiaity
@@KAZVorpal but surely if these are "certain facts, not controversial", you would be able to name at least one source? If you say something potentially defamatory it would be nice for you the speaker to do your reps beforehand.
LOTR started from book 0 may be -1 just for lores background. Narnia started at book 3 with earilier books being real life. Just different style and purpose. Total escapism vs holiday escapism.
I admire Tolkien so much. The way he thinks about things, the way he articulates his views, his integrity for sticking to those opinions, his respect, understanding and skill for both world building and storytelling. What a writer and what a guy. I agree with him totally and kudos to him for pointing it out with such insight and skillful way with words.
Please, stop with the clickbait "hate" in every title. Each time I listen to it and check in the comment section, it appears no1 thhinks Tolkien's opinions and beliefs have anything to do with "hate". It's very cheap tactic and it's odd you still using it, since it was brought to your attention many,many times. You have subsribers anyway, don't spread misinformation, please. Your channel is valuable,but that one thing is making it way worse.
@@SunShine-xc6dh When I stop clickinging in odrer to compare my tolkien-related knowledge to his, will "hate" become more true, approperiate description? You solved it. It is untrue that Tolkien hated all these, because of me! When I stop watching the videos, it will stop being a lie!
I personally never liked Narnia for much the same reason, it’s use of fantasy creatures is a complete mess and I like Tolkien dislike the use of religious allegory, while I’m not as apposed of allegory to the extent of Tolkien, I’m however for dogmatic and clearly religious ones as there abundance of in Narnia. But as Tolkien points out a matter of taste. Tolkien was a true gentleman always keeping criticism out of the view of the public and it was always tried to be constructive for most part when it were possible. The thing is he likely would have disliked the adoption of his own work to a much higher degree.
As a little girl I loved the first book of Lewis' Narnia series however I couldn't get excited about the sequels because of my attachments to the characters and the world they lived in book 1. Each successive story had too many changes, characters writen out, the world itself wasn't the world I wa introduced to and fell in love with. There simply wasn't enough of the elements in the sequels that were in the first story.
I wonder if Tolkien saying they felt rushed also meant he thought the pace of the Narnia books was too quick. The pace is probably why I've finished Narnia and not LotR yet. Tolkien would probably prefer going into more detail, dialog, and decription for everything at the expense of a quick pace.
I've read all of C.S Lewis's books and I've enjoyed them. Not everyone is going to like what you do or what you write but you have to keep on doing it if it's in your heart.
Tolkien's reasoning is very close to what I felt as a child watching Narnia movies. Every single creature just put into story. No rhyme or reason. No backstory. Talking beavers, ice witch, santa and Jesus lion. Okay. Sure.
It was honestly confusing when I watched it I didn't know why the animals talk or like how these mystical beast all together. Well I thought it is fantastical and magical so that's why 😂
Mike Zeck is a fantastic artist and a genuinely nice guy, loved meeting him and hanging out with him for almost an hour, great video and YOU'RE IMPORTANT!!!!!!!
See the issue with Tolkien is the same issue miyazaki and modern anime, they both dislike them because they don't adhere to a strict personal rules etc they themselves set up for their own work, and their critical of just about any other work that deviates from their rigid definition of what is and isn't, but Tolkien himself did the same thing, he used a lot of Norse myth but kept with the Christian theology, even aping the resurrection story for gandalf a character CLEARLY based on Odin, not to mention several creatures he claimed to come up with but clearly didn't such as the orc which the term orc originates from an Italian word for ogres or giants, not to mention his portrayal of elves is less accurate that God of War of all things and then competing MAGES a concept derived from druids and other Celtics and shamanistic myth into something more akin to a judean prophet of sorts, he changed a LOT of things in his stories so his take on Narnia can be a bit hypocritical I believe
Narnia's story and overall audience is very different. Narnia is much simpler and meant to be very fantastic and relatable. Middle Earth is super deep and detailed to a very low level. It makes Narnia easy to get into, but... Tolkien is not wrong per se. He is a huge critic, but he's also highly opinionated. Tolkien strikes me as an incredibly deep intellectual who probably has a hard time dealing with "normal people."
In this matter Tolkien was (mostly) wrong. Myths serves a purpose here and now, and mixing them creates new angles and new inspiration. The only fault is that CS Lewis didn't evolve his creatures more giving them a deeper reason. By the way: Tolkien created quite non-genuine elves by putting the label on a "race" of humanoids that are more like Celtic Aos Si, rather than genuine Scandinavian Elfs. By the way genuine Scandinavian Elfs of the døkkalfar kind are dwarfs. For the rest: CS Lewis wrote for children most of the time while Tolkien wrote sagas for both children and adults. They're incomparable.
@@rursus8354 I wouldn't be so sure about "being incomparable", Lewis also didn't like the label of "stories meant for children" as a pejorative. He himself stated that "a children's story that can only be enjoyed by children is not a good children story at all" and also "one day you'll be old enough to read fairy tales again".
Technically Elf and Dwarf in Scandinavian lore are more magical job descriptions than racial or species ones. It'd be like claiming D&D Rogues are a race.
@@gustyko8668 Happenstance I prefer the writing style of Bilbo and the Book of Lost Tales. I don't intended "for children" being a pejorative label. For me it means: brief sentences few subordinate clauses, not a lot of environment details. That is: "adapted to the level of children's language ability and attention span, keep the story going, and don't stop."
@@nealjroberts4050 Perhaps. But semi-mythical and real persons are sometimes labeled "half-elven" if they have a Sami parent. And "job description" is a little hard to translate to the world view of the Old Norse peoples, in "being magically proficient" I think you are correct, but the Old Norse-men didn't have our modern concept of genetical heritage, perhaps "magic ability" could be "inherited" in some kind of charismatic theory.
What is better, a compliment given because you like and admire a person while personally you dislike someone, or the truth unvarnished? I'd rather have the truth.
I adore Lord of the Rings and highly, highly regard it but I’ve always believed that Tolkien would’ve been a rather unbearable person to spend any great amount of time around. I suppose when you reach that level of meticulousness it comes with an existential price.
Tolkien’s LOTR saga and Lewis’ Naria series were meant for different audiences with different expectations. Tolkien comes off sounding like he believes everyone should think like him. Thankfully, the world of appreciative imagination is large enough for more than just one philosophy.
I love them both. One is more whimsical and one is dead serious. My mood decides which one I pick up from day to day. Although I do have to say I'm thankful for Tolkien's lack of blatant Christian allegory in his books......but mostly because Christians totally burnt me out on it in real life.
@@kathywright6853 I have. Most of my fellow lodge members are Christians and they are very nice people. But they are Freemasons so they don't sit around pushing their beliefs on me like many of them do when I meet them.
I think CS Lewis was correct on the criticism of Tolkien he didn't give him anything to work with in order for him to fix narnia's problems that he wanted him to fix Tolkien wasn't giving any proper criticism he was just saying I don't like this and stamping his feet basically if he actually gave CS Lewis a number of reasons why he didn't like it maybe they could have discussed together how Narnia could have been fixed so that they could have both been happy but that's what happens when you have two different versions of religious situations in a time when religious differences were such a big problem
As much as I like Tolkien, hearing his disdain for Narnia just makes him sound like a quite a snob. Don't like the inclusion of Father Christmas in a story with mythical creatures aimed for children? That's rich considering he wrote and illustrated a series of letters in the guise of Father Christmas to his children that involved Father Christmas having conflicts with goblins. That being said, it sounds rather hypocritical, like someone trying to bring too much logic into a story that isn't meant to have real world logic, at least not 100% of the time.
You need to learn how to comprehend words as you didn't digest what was said properly. Your point on hypocrisy is entirely wrong as well. If he says a book that is to be published should have merit that doesn't mean he disagrees with a letter that doesn't. If I say I don't like movies that force a narrative onto people without having them think as I find that bad for literature and society at large is different from me for giving my children pictures of such.
I guess I am a snob , then, because I never really liked Lewis's heavy-handed Christian allegories that he peppered throughout the Narnia series either!
As a fantasy writer I prefer Tolkien. As a philosopher I prefer Lewis. Tolkiens criticism was fair. I also view it more for kids like the Hobbit but its still good
Tolkien wasn’t the end all be all of literature and who cares what he liked. His criticism of Dune is just as shallow. It came down to “it’s not definitive good vs definitive evil and uses a culture outside the Anglo saxons to base its world on”. How lame. The man had too high an opinion of himself.
@@RealCodreX You really need to read more up on it, it’s a well established fact he used and draw heavily on Nordic mythology, sagas some of his stuff is almost entirely a 1:1, he also drew on his religious background… Also Anglo Saxon is what exactly, it’s a people that originated mainly from modern day Germany and Denmark…
What Tolkien forgot, in disparaging allegory, is that, according to an earlier English poet I'm sure both authors were familiar with, in a poem called "In the Neolithic Age" it is written "There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, And every single one of them is right." 😊
I absolutly get Tolkien's view - he summed it up better than I could ever hope. There's a reason for one being a modern day epos and the other a well-known children's book.
C.S. Lewis writes like a babysetter telling a story to a preschooler. J.R.R.TolKien writes like a a 1960's hippie trying to imitate "an authentic tribal scald" in a 1960's coffee house. They're both amusing-and inspiring-in different ways.
So tolkien was kind of an asshole. It just seems really shitty of a situation for C.S Lewis to give all this praise to his friend’s work and be met with the complete opposite for his own. Imagine writing a novel, going to your mate who you helped write his novel with constructive feedback, and being told your work is litterally worthless. That’s just awful, even if Lotr is objectively 100 times better.
@@Hog_enjoyer yes but he was so especially harsh about it, calling it worthless. It seems they were able to look past it in the end anyway, as good men should.
@William_Blackwood there is no comparison between lord of the rings and narnia, narnia is just a kinda mediocre fairy tale a lord of the rings is one of the greatest books of all time
No he wasn’t an A he was honest, he was asked for his criticism and he delivered it, it was never meant for the public and it was always kept between them.. for someone who never sat foot in academic circles this might see harsh, but really it’s water in reality. Personally prefer honesty over false politeness
I know this is subjective and many people have their own opinions, but Tolkien is a 100% correct here, it isn't about religion, the fantasy feels hollow in Narnia, just think about how much work was placed in the the Simmarilion to make the universe consistent, I think Tolkien would give a positive feedback to A song of ice and fire and the witcher, because the universes feel real and consistent.
Although I revere The Lord of the Rings as a masterpiece and consider Tolkien an unparalleled genius in the genre of high fantasy, I've come to the realization over the years that he and I would probably not have gotten along very well.
Kind of had a similar opinion about it myself. Narnia always felt "random" and cobbled together, the whole world war refuge kids finding thier way to Narnia was already a stretch but when Father Christmas showed up all remaining sense of cohesion was just lost for me. Why the fuck would Narnia, a realm full of assorted Pagan mythological creatures have a christian saint with them!? And the various creatures just kind of.... showed up for no reason that we know of. I've had ZERO idea why ANY of the various races that aided the protagonists or the witch sided with either of them beyond "Minotaurs serve the witch cause i said so".
To be honest i was never able to get interested in tolkien's TLOTR, it just didn't capture my attention at all even if it had all the elements of fantasy i loved. Narnia however got my attention and interest quickly, i loved how fantastical and out of this world it felt, even with some elements of the real world, it was like a journey i became part of and i absolutely loved Aslan.
Having studied comparative philology, Classics, cultural history and history of religion, i also have found it hard to appreciate the Narnia books. I don’t like the wilful mixing of mythical creatures and myths. They also seemed too childish. But I loved Tolkien from the first glimpse. His fantasy world was so coherent, vivid and real to me.
I like the differences between the two. I used to read the Chronicles of Narnia as a kid, but nowadays I love the depth Tolkien had created with Middle Earth.
The Chronicles Of Narnia are everything he didn't like which was allegory and he was a perfectionist and a linguist and question why Narnians would speak English or The Calormen did.
Narnia introduced something unique, which J.R.R. Tolkien simply could not handle because it was too complex for him and required the emergence of a whole new generations of readers who had access to modern day computer technology to research it - and that was, and still is, the basics of Gauge theory. The door to Narnia, is a Gauge door. It produces a Gauge field, which enables the inhabitants of Narnia to enter the real world and people from the real world to enter Narnia. Its kept as a huge secret in Narnia and the White Witch does everything she can to protect this secret. Like Tolkien, she has no idea how to exactly explain the kind of magic going on here, which is actually physics. Modern physics was in its infancy when Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings, which takes place in a world devoid of anything Gauge. The author of The Chronicles of Narnia was so close to modernity, he was too close for his own good and that is why Narnia fell faul to many of his critics as an idea. In reality, it was way ahead of its time, so much, that with it it is possible to explain the basics of Gauge theory in layman´s terms. Thanks for your video - I am not trying to act as if I know anything about Gague theories. Best wishes to you from Iceland.
To sum up, Tolkien hated Lewis, and also hated Disney, followed up in his example by Myazaki, who also hated Tolkien. By the way Tolkien hated Herbert as well. Whoa. What a great family they form, how inspiring, I mean, I stick with Sauron, who is for Saruman ?
I’m almost a minute into the video, and I just want to give my take on the two authors! If your video changes my mind about anything, or reminds me of something to add, I’ll add an edit at the end…but I just want to give my personal opinion based on decades of reading the two, first. As a kid, I hated The Lord of the Rings and loved The Chronicles of Narnia. I found both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings fairly boring, but I actually cried reading The Chronicles of Narnia when Aslan was killed (I was really young, though - I was a pretty voracious reader and had moved onto adult books by the age of eight - A Time to Kill was my first one, and will always be grateful to my dad for telling the librarian that I could check out books from the adult section when she wouldn’t let me and told me to check out Babysitter’s Club books instead! - so I was probably around six when I read The Chronicles and seven when I read Tolkien. I actually don’t even think I read the last LOTR book, I was that bored. And I have always HATED not finishing books, no matter how much I dislike them, so that tells you something). However, as an adult, I respect Tolkien’s work, and feel a sort of nostalgic disdain for Lewis’ work. Some parts are amazing, and some dreadfully awful. Six year old me wouldn’t have noticed the issues, but adult me does. Ironically, I now find some of the scenes in The Chronicles that most affected me as a child to be pandering, pseudo-religious nonsense. I find many of the characters poorly written (though admittedly, some scenes and characters are very well-written, especially in the first book; and the opening scenes in the first book are quite ingenious). Conversely, like many literature nerds, as an adult, I am in awe of Tolkien, his meticulousness, and his dedication to the craft. I think it is very telling that Tolkien was annoyed by the fact that fantasy was deemed a genre for children and silly penny magazines only; and that he sought to bring the genre into a mature, respectable, adult literary sphere. You can see this in his writing. Even in The Hobbit, you can tell in his writing that he is restraining himself from writing in a more mature style. Due to its success, he was able to advance more mature themes in his LOTR books, and continue to expand upon his lore throughout his life. The Chronicles of Narnia are most definitely children’s books. They are immature in their prose and ideas - and I think this is the major difference between Tolkien and Lewis. Tolkien was the intellectual adult. Lewis, the intellectual child. It’s very telling that Lewis shoehorned Christian mythology into his books, like a child earnestly insisting that Santa has to be real in every world, even the fictional stories that they write. Meanwhile, Tolkien was concerned with far more complex humanitarian and literary concepts. I can see why Tolkien would be frustrated by Lewis, when Lewis was essentially writing the very type of fiction that Tolkien was fighting against - immature fantasy for children. And yet, the irony is that Lewis viewed his ideas as quite mature despite their immaturity - which must have frustrated Tolkien even more. That is my personal take on the two authors, anyway.
Quite odd that he disliked the change of some creatures traits, like the lack of lust in the fauns, considering Tolkien himself made something completely different out of orcs who were originally demons. Tough I can understand both sides and, certainly, they could too, to some degree.
Tolkien was a purist, Lewis was a story teller. It's no wonder that they liked the space trilogy in common, but that Tolkien disliked Narnia. The space trilogy is definitely more "literature", while Narnia is an enthralling story.
@@Pooperman230 So Tolkien said he found Narnia bad because it has Santa, talking beavers, Jesus and so many mixed mythologies that don't really work together. One piece sort of struggles with the same thing, at its core, its supposed to be a pirate show, but then it wants a bit of dragonball mixed in, then it has samurai, then it has giants that breed with people but are 50ft tall, then you have talking animals and merpeople. Basically, it lacks a solid foundation that maybe other fantasy shows has and even though the fans love how wild and wacky it gets, its got the same amount of world logic as a looney tunes episode, if Luffy randomly wants to fly into space and turn into a car, he totally could because of how the world is set up. One Piece's worldbuilding is very bad, its like someone made a smoothie and threw in every ingredient in their kitchen to make it and then even though lemon, cabbage, egg, chocolate and beef don't go together to make a nice smoothie, the drinkers say that the smoothie is really well made because it has a lot of ingredients rather than having less ingredients for a tasier smoothie.
@@Jamble Part of me wonders how Oda will justify it all by the end or if it will just end up being like how Lost ended. Supposedly there is genuine world building logic behind why everything is the way that it is, but until it ends, that remains to be seen. One thing I will say however is that he's stuck to the concept (for the most part anyway) of not giving unlimited flying powers to anyone so as to force them to have to work in order to get around the world.
I like that talking could both criticize Narnia and see its virtue for others. You clearly recognized on some level that his mind was not the you clearly recognized on some level that that every reader has a unique mind. This kind of commentary and understanding is completely anathema to our current woke society.
If we're being honest, Tolkien didn't really like most literature at all, especially fantasy. His interest was almost exclusively academic, not for the sake of enjoyment or whimsy. I think what he accomplished with the Lord of the Rings and etcetera, was an important contribution as a solid cornerstone of fantasy and folklore going forward, similar to what the Brothers Grimm had done before him collecting stories and putting them in writing. However, I don't think Tolkien ever had a true appreciation for the different ways in which fantasy and fairytales can be used as components of a literary work like colors are used in art. He was too much the academic to allow for much deviation from the original concepts. Even his own world of Arda rarely strayed far from the underlying old folk lore he based so much of it on. Those of us who love literature for its own sake can appreciate both Arda and Narnia quite easily, while a pure academic like Tolkien clearly couldn't.
I could never bring myself to read the whole Narnia series. I made it to the second book and found all of them all difficult to finish. Tolkien's works however I've read multiple times and love the world building of it. Guess it's just what I like.
@@michaelnewsham1412 that is fair but how can Tolkien say using others mythology in different ways is bad when he has used Finish mythology they way Lewis used Greek mythology and since technically both works take place in our world
I read all the Narnia books by the time I was 9. I finished reading LOTR when I was 12. Reading Narnia is much easier to follow, even if the allegory is rather blatant. LOTR reads like an ancient epic at times, with careful narrative and lots of poetry.
George R.R. Martin also talks mad shit about Tolkien like criticizing him for 'failing' to have gone into exhaustive detail regarding Aragorn's tax policies as king or that he didn't go into gratuitous detail over his (Martin's) belief in 'Total Orc Death' and in his own words offing the even the "little baby Orcs", granted, Martin has always been an edgelord who uses shock values like incest, gore, frequent main character deaths and gratuitous sex and rape scenes in lieu of narrative substance.
Tolkien's actual letters: "Well, I say, my dear Lewis, I did not much find of your work, but I suppose that to each their own, and I hope too, that you shall find success"
Clickbait UA-camrs: "Why Tolkien DESPISED chronicals of Narnia with a raging PASSION"
Thank you ❤
Are you new to YT?
@@ivanfloresvazquez7490 nothing wrong with informing other would be victims.
@@doesitmatterwhoiam8838 victims of... inaccurate video titles?
@@ivanfloresvazquez7490 I was exaggerating when I said victim but I really appreciate people that tell me that a video doesn't fulfill its promise before I watch it.
I think you don't write a series as thoughtful and complex as LotR without being the most critical person who ever lived - which I'm sure he also applied to himself.
Very true. The audiobook version I listen to (read by Rob Inglis) has a preface in _Two Towers_ listing some self-criticisms of _Fellowship_
True. But his criticisms of Lewis are kind of lame and very preference based
And as a result Tolkien's work are unsurpassed until today.
Yeah, Tolkien wrote in a letter to his fan that he wasted the 17 years of his life writing The Lord of the Rings.
GRRM started out this way. Never license your series for TV before you're finished writing the damn thing.
Tolkien might have rather disliked quite a few things but man he sure was nice about it unlike most internet threads lol
That is the mark of a true gentleman: you can dislike something and have your taste but never undermine someone or treat them any lesser. Encourage them to be better and always find merits where there is, never ignore it.
It’s sad that being a gentlemen nowadays is considered either weak or toxic.
It's just not his taste.
He partially blamed himself too.
He seems more polite about it than kind, really.
@@NevisYsbrydI agree, calling a piece of art worthless is perhaps the worse thing you can say about it.
Wait till you ear about his though on the beatles
I don't think having criticism on a work means "hate" it. Why would tolkien present a book that he hated to his granddaughter? If one translate "criticize" into "hate", that is another kind of "allegory". Disagreement does not always lead to displeasement, just like I don't agree with the title doesn't mean I hate this video. There is a huge emotional gap between them. I'm getting worried of these sort of "why who hated who" titles.
Cheers on providing precious information, yet I don't agree with the title.
Yeah, I agree. He didn't hate it, he just didn't like Santa Claus mingling with Greek myths or that Lewis stuck a lamppost in there to spite him. Those two had a pretty good friendship till their deaths.
It’s for views, I think peole on the internet have developed an acceptance that often titles don’t reflect people’s real opinions or necessarily facts
You see this everywhere where people act like Narnia is terrible and Tolkien hated it
@@idrawnow180 I don't think you realise how nonsensical your comment is. Either most folk think it's true and then want to click on it, or folk don't think it's true and the creator of the video is simply wrong. You can't have it both ways where most folk don't think it's true and would prefer the truth and the creator needs to exaggerate.
They had a falling out for many years, not just over Narnia, but also The Screwtaoe Letters; Tolkien thought that Lewis should not be making fun of demons and fallen angels), the Spanish Civil War, Tolkien's view that Lewis had gone back to Ulster Protestant anti-Catholicism (see Tolkien's essay "Ulsterior Motives"), but above all Lewis's remarriage to Joy Gresham, which Tolkien thought was breaking the sacrament of marriage.
They only met once in later years, at a meeting arranged by those wishing to see a reconciliation between two such great Christian literary figures. It went fairly awkwardly, since by then they didn't have much to say to each other, and they never spoke again. @@RoseBaggins
Tolkien was a true gentleman. Had disagreements with Herbert and Lewis, but kept his criticisms private to not stir up public drama. Godspeed Tolkien 🫡
I would be more impressed if he'd been open and honest, but kind and positive about it.
"Polite" deceptiveness and/or concealment are only gentlemanly in a corrupted culture.
Which, frankly, England did indeed have.
Private? Why wasn't he quite to Lewis then? Rude!
We truly are lucky that twitter wasn't a thing back then.
@@Mastermind12358 The fandom wars would have been earth-shaking.
@@ChupacabraRexI'm afraid the overlap between those fandoms is so total that the only way there could be an argument involves multiple personalities disorder lol
If Tolkien thought Narnia was bad, well good thing he is not alive to see his work bastardized at what Amazon screwed over his work
If it helps, he would've hated the movies as well. He was incredibly pissed off when a discussed previous adaptation extended the battle scenes because glorifying war was totally against the message of the books. Do you think he would've liked all the attractive men heroically fighting and looking cool for hours? No, he would've HATED the films for glorifying war. I'd argue he would've hated the movies more than the Amazon series (although he would've been furious about both).
@@somerandomguy2073the difference is that the movies were made with love even, the Amazon TV show is made with sheer spite
@@Halfort57Tolkein would've still hated the movies either way, and the Amazon series I can't speak for b/c I didn't watch it but it's basically telling a different story from any of the books so I don't think he would've cared as much. Even his sons said Tolkein probably wouldn't have liked the films, but that's obviously not how we measure the quality of a movie. Example: the Shining is a great movie but an awful adaptation
Christopher Tolkien despised the movies. He called them mindless action movies for children that evsicersted Bris father’s works. People get upset when you mention this
@@somerandomguy2073Sauruman aporoves of this.
To WAR!!!
\○/ 🎉
We live in a world where the word criticise mean hatered. They were friends and bith wanted the best for their books.
*both
@@RealCodreX *Bith, actually. It's the new spelling approved by the Oxford Dictionary.
@@Bessux😂
"tolkien said the book was almost worthless, that it seemed like a jumble of mythologies..." kinda sounds like he hated it man lol
@@THEFLIGHTCREW5 well tolkien said a lot of good also. And they were friends, so they can be harsh. And tolkien here was right. Coz while tolkien wanted to create a britanic christian legend, Lewis accuaky did take all the mythologiea and mashed them together. So i can see it why tolkien said what he said
I read the CS Lewis books when I was about 10 years old. It was nearly 10 years later that I discovered and read the JRR Tolkien books. Both gave me immense joy in the reading of them.
Well said. The Narnia books are more written for children. Whereas the LOTR books are for an older audience.
One of the things that I genuinely find about Narnia that captures me in a way Lotr doesn't is while Lewis does write fast and does go through plot points quickly he still finds ways to be very descriptive of environments, having general dialogue that's comfortable and down to earth and making all of these fantastical elements work together despite their origins. This shines the most when reading the Magician's Nephew or the Horse and his boy, you can sort of feel the effort Lewis takes to put you there, to make you see what he sees. Tolkien likes to treat his stories like they were told in an age past and you are hearing it from your Grandpa on a stormy night, Lewis puts you down by a fire and the fire is telling you the story much like how Lucy sees the story in the fire by Mr Thomas' house. Nobody is telling you a story your mind wanders into it and drifts through it like a dream.
And this is where allegory shines a bit because dreams are a reflection of the experiences we have in real life and often are an allegory about our experiences from a perspective we hadn't considered. We can look at history all we want and find the myth from legend but at the end of the day what we can create now is just as valuable even if its just bits and pieces from things in the past. I believe both perspectives are equally interesting and why I have the greatest respect for both authors.
I love this take on Narnia and just a good perspective
Incredible take
Beautiful comment
Lewis and Tolkien just had different approaches. Lewis used simplistic narratives to allegorise multiple themes, whereas Tolkien used complex narratives to allegorise a singular theme.
Tolkien said he was against allegory.
@@folksurvival Also, C S Lewis wasn't fond of Chronicles of Narnia being called an allegory. Tbh, due to how C S Lewis viewed it, I'd categorize Chronicles of Narnia as science fiction. It used his belief of how reality worked as a base and speculated further.
@@folksurvivalBeing angainst allegories does not mean that you do not commit them.
@@RealCodreX I agree.
True
To be fair, Lewis thought Tolkien's works dragged on needlessly at various points of the books.
They do.
And they do
I love both but he's right they do
The books are amazing but I have to agree with Lewis there
Is he wrong though?
Can we stop naming our videos “so and so hated this,” or “Why so and so hated that”? Been seeing this a lot lately, especially related to Tolkien for some reason. Someone can have opinions about something, even strong opinions, without “hating” it.
So your saying you hate it when they put that it the title?
@@LisaAnn777What?
@@MisterUnknown707a very basic play on words, not exactly tolkein tier writing you should be able to grasp the basics.
@@LisaAnn777😂
Stop clicking on video with that title
While I can acknowledge that Narina is a great piece of work I like Middle Earth much better. Tolkien's Christian influence is a subtle song in the background, while Lewis hits his message in your face with a sledgehammer!
I am a protestant and I totally agree with you. I love Narnia and feel it great to know Jesus as a kid or teen, but Middle Earth is for all your life and you can still feel Christian values all around...
Comparing them is not necessary. They are very different stories with different purposes. LOTR is grand and rich, Chronicles is simple and pleasant, but very accessible to all ages including kids who aren’t ready for LOTR yet.
@@christophersanders3252
When you are not ready for LotR read the Hobbit! ;)
The more videos I see like this, the more I’d like to see a video that is called “Everything Tolkien Actually Liked” and it would be two minutes long.
You more concisely said what I tried to in another comment. I don't think Tolkien was actually a fan of modern literature at all.
He liked smoking his pipe, his wife and his kids, apparently
Two minutes long? Is the video on a loop? lol
“Catholicism and Fairy Tales, the end”
@@kurtwagner350 Don't forget Finnish, Welsh, and Anglo-Saxon.
Like many of us Tolkien held strong opinions in certain areas, but unlike many he was able to express them with a touch of class.
Seems like J.R.R. Tolkien hated a lot of things from the Beatles to Disney to Dune. Imagine if he lived long enough to see Harry Potter.
And Lewis also hated many modern trends, from Danish modern furniture to co-educational schools to vegetarianism.
I dunno about HP, but related to the mixing of different stories and creatures, I'm pretty sure he would be heavily critical of The Witcher books. Maybe even hate them.
@@AndreDaSilva-mq8qp Doubtful. The Witcher books are self-aware and a bit satyrical. They are supposed to mess with mythical and fairytale tropes
Sounds a bit like projection on your part.
The Beatles have good music but John Lennon was against Christianity and Disney is leftist satanist trash. Dune was also against religion.
Only the friends who keep challanging you in a construrctive way are true friends who truly care about you as they want you to grow, always become better
That's why, no matter who tells you otherwise, you should do your thing.
One thing I will have to disagree with Tolkien is that combining creatures from different myths is ok. I do not believe this detracts the myths and legends from which the creature originates.
True. I'm working on a story world whose peoples have a variety of inspirations. The elves for example are based on their European mythological origins, but they also have elements of Japanese mythology mixed in. He would have had a fit if he saw what I'm doing with my world lol
Fully agree with this; but at the end of the day Tolkien's own world is a stewpot of Christian mythology, Germanic mythology, and other myths like Finnish and Celtic, all combined with creatures (like hobbits) and themes (like conservation of nature and the countryside) that were entirely of his own making. And as much world-building as he did, he did not always explain where everything came from or why.
@@polygon586 I think its not about just combyning it ... its how its done ... if you listen to Tolkien's words the focus of criticism is not on the act of combining it ... but what he sees as a haphazard rushed way of doing where elements are thrown together without though for weather the to fit together ....and especially if their nature is in his eyes hollowed out leaving just emptied forms and names that are then filled out as the author sees fit.
Kind of like Amazon did with Tolkiens work ....
Its why he was so critical... as what was done to him would be the same ... the motives and the skills are incomparable, but both are doing the same thing ....
Totally disagree: that is the point I completely share with Tolkien. Such mixing is not agreable or respectful to myths, it's like mixing japanese, chinese, german, italian, french cuisine in one single dish
it's like an ecosystem, anything can exist with each other so long as they have a good reason for being there and complement and contrast each other, make your dwarves ten feet tall for all i care but they need to be a team player to your world building.
Tolkien: Existed.
UA-cam: Why Tolkien hated Dune? Why Tolkien hated Disney? Why Tolkien hated Narnia? Why Tolkien hated Shakespeare? Why Tolkien hated Rome? Why Tolkien hated Cars? Why Tolkien hated Democracy? Why Tolkien hated Allegory? Why Tolkien hated everything? Why Tolkien hated Tolkien?
Why Tolkien hated your mom?
2:10 Obsoletely agree. This relates also to majority of modern fantasy especially DnD.
For most people, coming out of our childhood and growing to become adults, we tend to fall into Tolkien's viewpoint on consistency, a necessity for a more concrete universe-building. For this reason, we tend to praise Tolkien's as the 'better' universe and Lewis's universe as a bit inferior. I've always felt this way for quite a while in my late teens and twenties.
But going to my thirties, I've realized that I was a bit short-sighted and started to realize why Narnia series always came to me much better as a kid. The light-paced and simple nature of the universe actually was the reason why it was successful for children. Diving deep is more of an adult thing and sometimes confusing, making the reader experience uncomfortable sometimes. The Silmarillion is a great example. We all know that it is deep and rich but reading it is quite a pain, especially reading it for the first time. But Narnia was always an easy read, the story just came in. True, reading it as an adult there are consistency issues that are annoying and feel unresolved. But reading it as a kid, the magic of the story was already kicking in, the inconsistencies were not that important for the reading experience.
Tolkien had opinions. He didn’t like Dune either. It’s funny. I’ve read and enjoyed all of Lord of the Rings trilogy, all the Narnia books, and all Frank Herbert’s Dune books.
I get the vibe if tolkien was given amnesia and knew nothing of his own creation hed read all of LotR and be like "Hmm.. Yeah 7.5/10"
That shows you dont know tolkien. Amnesia or no, as soon as he saw that each race not only had its own history but functioning in universe language he would have said its the best fantasy story he ever read.
@@thegungeonmaster it was just a joke about his extreme meticulous need for perfection and how careful he was writing his own story and also realistically you neither I would know what his hypothetical rating would be
No, his standards are higher than just have backstories. His standard for a constructed world would require these individual stories interact in a reasonably coherent and interesting way, which of course, his own works do
i loved both for different reasons. The Hobbit introduced me to Narnia, and Narnia introduced me to the Lord of the Rings.....
This ^
Nice analysis, but I would like to ask whether it is really necessary to use the word "hate" in this context rather than "dislike". Hate is, after all, one of the most serious Christian sins, and Lewis and Tolkien would surely agree on that 😉 Moreover, if he really hated the books, he would hardly find anything good about them.
It’s to draw people in to watch the video. In reality Tolkien simply disliked it.
LOTR is not Christian
@Siegfried5846 yes, but it did have many Christian themes, and Tolkien himself was a devout Catholic.
@@Siegfried5846 Tolkien says himself: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work"
Rather say, strongly, strongly dislike.
I think Tolkien was right about the excessive use of allegories and the many fantastical creatures coexisting without any reason. However, I disagree with his criticisms about the way these creatures were changed. Fauns are a great example of that: if you look at old Greek/Latin myths, it's never said that fauns were sexual beasts, assaulting all female creatures they met for this was actually added by the Christians to show how devilish they were. Also, there's the way non-believers are treated. In The Lord of The Rings, they all seem to be evil while in the Narnia series, we can see several of them and they all are treated like human beings, from the arrogant prince declaring war to get Susan's hand to the young soldier who bravely enters the tent to meet Aslan. And finally, there are the words Aslan speaks to him: when he was praying Tash, his prayers still went to him, which is much nicer than saying that he was worshipping the Devil or something that didn't exist.
There are no non-believers in The Lord of the Rings. Not as such. There isn't really any organized religion, and "believers" are just people who are aware of certain historical realities. There are people who don't know history, which is really most ordinary people (Hobbits, Bree folk, probably most Rohirrim and so on, as well as orcs of course) and there are people who totally know "God" is there but are fighting against him (Sauron, Nazgul, Saruman), which doesn't really qualify as a "non-believer".
Ridiculous to say that about fauns. They’re the Roman equivalent of the Greek satyrs, and satyrs are very well known for chasing nymphs and lewd acts I can’t even say in this comment without UA-cam censoring it. Like, they are specifically known for their lewdness, it’s one of their defining traits. They’re commonly depicted with exaggerated erections.
Ridiculous to say that about fauns. Fauns are the Roman equivalent of Greek satyrs, and they are well known for their lewdness, it’s probably their most defining trait. I literally can’t even describe the extent of their lewdness without UA-cam blocking the comment (this is my 2nd attempt lol), suffice it to say they were typically depicted with a massive anatomical feature. Just google it.
@@purplelibraryguy8729 Yes. Tolkien was writing a story as much about myths, particularly for a British audience and their own myths, as much as he was writing using his linguistics hobby. He was into world building, history and had a number of interests. And Tolkein began as writing a children's story but the story matured ... HE WAS WRITING THE STORY FOR HIS SON. And his son had become a man.
Narnia, on the other hand, was a deliberate attempt to present a fairytale to Children and had more explicitly Christian themes.
Ironic from a man who mixed and matched fictional creatures from all over europe himself
i honestly hold the same opinion as tolkien here, lore and universe cohesion is important. But at the same time lewis has a point, the author can do what ever he wants
I agree like Tolkien I like consistency in world building but sometimes it's nice to break the rules too. As long as the story is good.
I like the way Narnia handles it. It isn't the most cohesive, but it still feels like it is part of the same world. As the books progress chronologically, they get thematically more dark and deal with more serious themes, but it never explains the lore which allows the reader to let the mind wander on how such a thing could be or what its greater reason is. It never feels lazy, just mystical
"The satyr isn't horny enough" - Tolkien, about a children's book.
😂😂
Yeah, this isn't "hate" at all. I also disagree with Tolkien's takes quite a bit here.
While Tolkien created his fantasy world seperate from reality, Lewis's world exists in a realm that can be accessed from the real world. Having characters like "father Christmas" isn't an issue in a story that follows children who exist in World War 1 Europe.
These children would've also been familiar with a lot of the folktales & myths represented in Narnia, just as we are in real life.
Regarding multiple mythologies existing in our minds together at the same time, Tolkien replying - "Not in mine, or at least not at the same time," is complete nonsense. We know how both Christianity & Norse mythology played a huge role in LOTR & everything regarding Middle Earth. They existed in his mind at the same time then, but now he has a problem??
Thank you so much for sharing this! I think Tolkien held himself and his friend to a very high standard, and he probably knew Lewis could write longer, better, in-depth works. But C.S. Lewis didn't want to. He wanted his stories to be for children, and maybe even to introduce them to Jesus and his faith in a playful, engaging way.
Whatever their differences, both authors created absolute masterpieces in their own style.
Hates a very strong word.
He said it wasn’t for him.
I'm only a few minutes in BUT, Tolkien's critique of "blending" mythological figures from different times and cultures in Narnia, also applies to his own mythology.
One can claim that Elves might be English, but Hobbits? Trolls and Dwarves are Germanic/Icelandic/Scandinavian in origin, with no (even remote) resonance in English mythology (if such exists). Moreover, while his Numenor relatively closely resembles Avalon of the Arthurian Legendarium (arguably English(?) Celtic in origin), his uniting that with the Grail Legendarium (which is almost reversed in the storyline of the Lord of the Rings), was first composed by Chretien de Troyes in twelfth century France and utterly blends Christian mythology with French Chivalric honour codes (witness Frodo willingness to sacrifice himself to destroy the Ring), ala Christ willingness to sacrifice himself to destroy "Sin").
So we have "Germanic/Scandinavian" myths (Trolls, Dwarves, (possibly) Elves), combined with (possibly English) Celtic Arthurian mythology, coupled with Medieval French Chivalric, Grail mythology, overlaid with Christian themes.
So any critique that Tolkien makes that the creation of Narnia is too "blended", equally applies to his own creation of Middle Earth...
And I'm not even a fan of Lewis....
But Norse, Germanic, English, and Celtic influences are present in England.
@@gamera5160 But looking at Modern England, so are African, South Asian, Afro-Caribbean heritages, among many others.
And, to a lesser extent, they were when Tolkien was composing his Mythology in the 1930s and 1940s...
@@michaelodonnell824 Not to put words into his mouth, but I believe Tolkien's criticisms were more on how superficially these different myths were mingled in Lewis's work, compared to in his own more thought-out, philosofically (and mythologically) consistent world. Tolkien spent a lot (a lot) of work researching, analyzing, and subsequently incorporating, every race, story and thematic backdrop from its source mythology into his own, and with a clear vision and intent behind them - you can't really argue the same about the way in which Lewis incorporated (for example) fauns; he more or less just airdropped them from its source into his own world while stripping them of everything that made them what they are. There is a clear difference between inspiration and imitation, and I think Tolkien leans towards the former while Lewis the latter.
Moreover I really don't think Tolkien was against the idea of culturally appropriating mythology, as long as there was philosophical merit behind it; why else would he not be equally critical of the lay of Beowulf (which, following that logic, would be an excruciating example of Christian vandalization of Pagan Myth) as he was of Narnia? We know he loved that poem, so clearly it's not as simple as "mythological intermingling = bad"...
Creatures and races used by Tolkien were quite closely related mythos-wise, just like cultures they came from. Don't think about countries but about cultural spheres. Tolkien didn't seem to mix foreign myths too much, that much is true.
Fauns and satyrs for example, coming from Greco-Roman mythos, are quite foreign to the northern european mythos and would stand out among elves and dwarves (and vice versa).
His angle was probably more about the values they represented as well. Fauns, again, were lustful creatures by nature - a true-born hedonists. Centaurs and minotaurs (who are man-eaters too) were implied rapists in some interpretations. Sticking true to the core of these races would cause a lot of conflict and force changes that Tolkien didn't seem to like that much.
You could argue that he decided that the best course of action is to write in these self-contained cultural spheres because that way he avoids potential inconsistencies and duplications of purpose (if we have trolls, giants and orcs, we don't need minotaurs that would just duplicate what is already there).
Satyrs, not fauns. As the appearance of wild women and satyrs with Bacchus in Prince Caspian.@@DrAhzek
I love both, and I think that Tolkien had the right to his opinion. It kind of boggles my mind that he criticized the mixing of mythologies when one big point of the series is that Narnia is a place where three different worlds meet. And I think it's ok to say that allegory is not right for his own works, but you can't make a blanket statement that all allegory is bad. I guess he wasn't a fan of Jesus's parables, even if he was a Catholic.
yeah tolkien is correct in his opinions, however its important to note that the narnia books are very clearly written for children, while tolkien is writing for an older and more mature audience. clearly there would be no fauns allowed in narnia if he had included their "lusty" behaviors. but thats the different between hard and soft fantasy stories - lewis is using magic and myth as a means to an end (writing a childrens book that can be both fun and a source of moral development) while tolkien is so utterly obsessed with developing the mythology and rules of magic (the means) that its honestly incredible that he even made it to the end.
You should make a video about how Lewis actually was initially disdainful of Tolkien incorporating his own philosophy and ideas in "children's" fiction, reaching a larger audience than serious texts would.
Which made it ironic, perhaps even hypocritical, when he reversed himself and tried to do exactly the same thing, not just in Narnia but several other worlds, like Space Trilogy.
Like all good friends, they grew on each other. 😊
it's not hypocritical when he (Lewis) literally mentions his good good friend Tolkien changing his mind. He was challenged by tolkien with Christianity- and boom. You have Lewis' Mere Christiaity
I take it you have a source for this "initial distain" that Lewis had for Tolkien putting deep themes into children's books, @KAZVorpal ?
@@Ranben. It's not like these are controversial facts. Read up on the history of the Inklings.
@@KAZVorpal but surely if these are "certain facts, not controversial", you would be able to name at least one source? If you say something potentially defamatory it would be nice for you the speaker to do your reps beforehand.
1:40 Dude would have bloody hated D&D and modern fantasy hodge-podge of mixed mythologies... Fate, anyone?
I love how honest they were with each other and still stayed friends.
LOTR started from book 0 may be -1 just for lores background.
Narnia started at book 3 with earilier books being real life.
Just different style and purpose. Total escapism vs holiday escapism.
I admire Tolkien so much. The way he thinks about things, the way he articulates his views, his integrity for sticking to those opinions, his respect, understanding and skill for both world building and storytelling. What a writer and what a guy.
I agree with him totally and kudos to him for pointing it out with such insight and skillful way with words.
Wouldn’t Tolkien’s disdain for allegory be a bit hypocritical?
Please, stop with the clickbait "hate" in every title. Each time I listen to it and check in the comment section, it appears no1 thhinks Tolkien's opinions and beliefs have anything to do with "hate". It's very cheap tactic and it's odd you still using it, since it was brought to your attention many,many times. You have subsribers anyway, don't spread misinformation, please. Your channel is valuable,but that one thing is making it way worse.
Stop clicking them...
@@SunShine-xc6dh When I stop clickinging in odrer to compare my tolkien-related knowledge to his, will "hate" become more true, approperiate description? You solved it. It is untrue that Tolkien hated all these, because of me! When I stop watching the videos, it will stop being a lie!
I personally never liked Narnia for much the same reason, it’s use of fantasy creatures is a complete mess and I like Tolkien dislike the use of religious allegory, while I’m not as apposed of allegory to the extent of Tolkien, I’m however for dogmatic and clearly religious ones as there abundance of in Narnia.
But as Tolkien points out a matter of taste.
Tolkien was a true gentleman always keeping criticism out of the view of the public and it was always tried to be constructive for most part when it were possible.
The thing is he likely would have disliked the adoption of his own work to a much higher degree.
As a little girl I loved the first book of Lewis' Narnia series however I couldn't get excited about the sequels because of my attachments to the characters and the world they lived in book 1. Each successive story had too many changes, characters writen out, the world itself wasn't the world I wa introduced to and fell in love with. There simply wasn't enough of the elements in the sequels that were in the first story.
I wonder if Tolkien saying they felt rushed also meant he thought the pace of the Narnia books was too quick. The pace is probably why I've finished Narnia and not LotR yet. Tolkien would probably prefer going into more detail, dialog, and decription for everything at the expense of a quick pace.
I've read all of C.S Lewis's books and I've enjoyed them. Not everyone is going to like what you do or what you write but you have to keep on doing it if it's in your heart.
Tolkien's reasoning is very close to what I felt as a child watching Narnia movies. Every single creature just put into story. No rhyme or reason. No backstory. Talking beavers, ice witch, santa and Jesus lion. Okay. Sure.
It was honestly confusing when I watched it I didn't know why the animals talk or like how these mystical beast all together. Well I thought it is fantastical and magical so that's why 😂
It just went way over your head
Mike Zeck is a fantastic artist and a genuinely nice guy, loved meeting him and hanging out with him for almost an hour, great video and YOU'RE IMPORTANT!!!!!!!
I think Tolkien's criticism of Narnia was not with the work itself but rather with it's unrealised (To Tolkien) potential.
Well he was still great friends with Lewis, and directly influenced his personal life, that sould matters more!
See the issue with Tolkien is the same issue miyazaki and modern anime, they both dislike them because they don't adhere to a strict personal rules etc they themselves set up for their own work, and their critical of just about any other work that deviates from their rigid definition of what is and isn't, but Tolkien himself did the same thing, he used a lot of Norse myth but kept with the Christian theology, even aping the resurrection story for gandalf a character CLEARLY based on Odin, not to mention several creatures he claimed to come up with but clearly didn't such as the orc which the term orc originates from an Italian word for ogres or giants, not to mention his portrayal of elves is less accurate that God of War of all things and then competing MAGES a concept derived from druids and other Celtics and shamanistic myth into something more akin to a judean prophet of sorts, he changed a LOT of things in his stories so his take on Narnia can be a bit hypocritical I believe
Narnia's story and overall audience is very different. Narnia is much simpler and meant to be very fantastic and relatable. Middle Earth is super deep and detailed to a very low level. It makes Narnia easy to get into, but... Tolkien is not wrong per se.
He is a huge critic, but he's also highly opinionated. Tolkien strikes me as an incredibly deep intellectual who probably has a hard time dealing with "normal people."
In this matter Tolkien was (mostly) wrong. Myths serves a purpose here and now, and mixing them creates new angles and new inspiration. The only fault is that CS Lewis didn't evolve his creatures more giving them a deeper reason. By the way: Tolkien created quite non-genuine elves by putting the label on a "race" of humanoids that are more like Celtic Aos Si, rather than genuine Scandinavian Elfs. By the way genuine Scandinavian Elfs of the døkkalfar kind are dwarfs. For the rest: CS Lewis wrote for children most of the time while Tolkien wrote sagas for both children and adults. They're incomparable.
@@rursus8354 I wouldn't be so sure about "being incomparable", Lewis also didn't like the label of "stories meant for children" as a pejorative.
He himself stated that "a children's story that can only be enjoyed by children is not a good children story at all" and also "one day you'll be old enough to read fairy tales again".
Im a big Tolkien fan but i agree he is wrong here
Technically Elf and Dwarf in Scandinavian lore are more magical job descriptions than racial or species ones.
It'd be like claiming D&D Rogues are a race.
@@gustyko8668 Happenstance I prefer the writing style of Bilbo and the Book of Lost Tales. I don't intended "for children" being a pejorative label. For me it means: brief sentences few subordinate clauses, not a lot of environment details. That is: "adapted to the level of children's language ability and attention span, keep the story going, and don't stop."
@@nealjroberts4050 Perhaps. But semi-mythical and real persons are sometimes labeled "half-elven" if they have a Sami parent. And "job description" is a little hard to translate to the world view of the Old Norse peoples, in "being magically proficient" I think you are correct, but the Old Norse-men didn't have our modern concept of genetical heritage, perhaps "magic ability" could be "inherited" in some kind of charismatic theory.
What is better, a compliment given because you like and admire a person while personally you dislike someone, or the truth unvarnished? I'd rather have the truth.
Tolkien hated aligory and satire. He thought they were lazy and unimaginative forms of writing.
I adore Lord of the Rings and highly, highly regard it but I’ve always believed that Tolkien would’ve been a rather unbearable person to spend any great amount of time around.
I suppose when you reach that level of meticulousness it comes with an existential price.
Tolkien’s LOTR saga and Lewis’ Naria series were meant for different audiences with different expectations. Tolkien comes off sounding like he believes everyone should think like him. Thankfully, the world of appreciative imagination is large enough for more than just one philosophy.
I love them both. One is more whimsical and one is dead serious. My mood decides which one I pick up from day to day. Although I do have to say I'm thankful for Tolkien's lack of blatant Christian allegory in his books......but mostly because Christians totally burnt me out on it in real life.
Maybe you never really encountered any true Christians,
@@kathywright6853 I have. Most of my fellow lodge members are Christians and they are very nice people. But they are Freemasons so they don't sit around pushing their beliefs on me like many of them do when I meet them.
He didn't write it, CS Lewis did.
I think CS Lewis was correct on the criticism of Tolkien he didn't give him anything to work with in order for him to fix narnia's problems that he wanted him to fix Tolkien wasn't giving any proper criticism he was just saying I don't like this and stamping his feet basically if he actually gave CS Lewis a number of reasons why he didn't like it maybe they could have discussed together how Narnia could have been fixed so that they could have both been happy but that's what happens when you have two different versions of religious situations in a time when religious differences were such a big problem
Tolkien hated every fantasy story that was not created by himself.
@William_BlackwoodThat should tell you all you need to know
Apparently he liked Conan.
Tolkien sounds like a pretentious prick.
No he didn't. He was a philologist. It was kind of his job to critique stories. Plus he loveed stories like beowulf
@William_Blackwood
This isn't reddit, honey
As much as I like Tolkien, hearing his disdain for Narnia just makes him sound like a quite a snob. Don't like the inclusion of Father Christmas in a story with mythical creatures aimed for children? That's rich considering he wrote and illustrated a series of letters in the guise of Father Christmas to his children that involved Father Christmas having conflicts with goblins. That being said, it sounds rather hypocritical, like someone trying to bring too much logic into a story that isn't meant to have real world logic, at least not 100% of the time.
you need to rewatch the video as its clear you did not understand.
Actually I've read both series and I totally agree with Tolkeins criticisms
You need to learn how to comprehend words as you didn't digest what was said properly. Your point on hypocrisy is entirely wrong as well. If he says a book that is to be published should have merit that doesn't mean he disagrees with a letter that doesn't. If I say I don't like movies that force a narrative onto people without having them think as I find that bad for literature and society at large is different from me for giving my children pictures of such.
I guess I am a snob , then, because I never really liked Lewis's heavy-handed Christian allegories that he peppered throughout the Narnia series either!
@@ElizabethMcCormick-s2n agreed
Was there any book that Tolkien didn't hate?
The Bible
The King of Elfland’s Daughter’ by Lord Dunsany. Great work of fiction.
@@aaronmontgomery2055Seconding this great book. Lovecraft loved it as well
As a fantasy writer I prefer Tolkien. As a philosopher I prefer Lewis.
Tolkiens criticism was fair. I also view it more for kids like the Hobbit but its still good
Tolkien wasn’t the end all be all of literature and who cares what he liked. His criticism of Dune is just as shallow. It came down to “it’s not definitive good vs definitive evil and uses a culture outside the Anglo saxons to base its world on”. How lame. The man had too high an opinion of himself.
And of old mythology. If it differed from that style, he didnt enjoy it.
His own world wasn’t built on Anglo Saxons, he used lots of Nordic mythology as well
@@mikni4069 fine,Northwestern European then
@@mikni4069The LotR books are literally a fantadtical version of early medieval anglo saxon history.
@@RealCodreX You really need to read more up on it, it’s a well established fact he used and draw heavily on Nordic mythology, sagas some of his stuff is almost entirely a 1:1, he also drew on his religious background… Also Anglo Saxon is what exactly, it’s a people that originated mainly from modern day Germany and Denmark…
I think he was right about Narnia. That's why I liked LOTR so much, it's so methodical and complex, like a history book about real events.
It was all a bible allegory in which, for example in Revelation, Jesus is the “Lion of Judah".
The main problem is that Narnia is not middle earth and middle earth is not Narnia as they both have totally different kinds of narrative.
Tolkien didn’t like any contemporary writers beyond himself.
What Tolkien forgot, in disparaging allegory, is that, according to an earlier English poet I'm sure both authors were familiar with, in a poem called "In the Neolithic Age" it is written
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
And every single one of them is right." 😊
I absolutly get Tolkien's view - he summed it up better than I could ever hope. There's a reason for one being a modern day epos and the other a well-known children's book.
Tolkien would suffer cardiac arrest if he would see what Hollywood and modern times did to fables and mythological creatures.
C.S. Lewis writes like a babysetter telling a story to a preschooler. J.R.R.TolKien writes like a a 1960's hippie trying to imitate "an authentic tribal scald" in a 1960's coffee house. They're both amusing-and inspiring-in different ways.
So, JRR was a hardcore nerd. The type of things he said can be found echoing in chatrooms, basements and at comi-cons everywhere.
So tolkien was kind of an asshole. It just seems really shitty of a situation for C.S Lewis to give all this praise to his friend’s work and be met with the complete opposite for his own. Imagine writing a novel, going to your mate who you helped write his novel with constructive feedback, and being told your work is litterally worthless. That’s just awful, even if Lotr is objectively 100 times better.
He might've been a little to harsh in his criticism but at least he was honest on his opinion and personal preference. 🤷♂
Yeah bro it is better to lie to your friend than to give your honest opinion that might improve his book, you are absolutely right
@@Hog_enjoyer yes but he was so especially harsh about it, calling it worthless. It seems they were able to look past it in the end anyway, as good men should.
@William_Blackwood there is no comparison between lord of the rings and narnia, narnia is just a kinda mediocre fairy tale a lord of the rings is one of the greatest books of all time
No he wasn’t an A he was honest, he was asked for his criticism and he delivered it, it was never meant for the public and it was always kept between them.. for someone who never sat foot in academic circles this might see harsh, but really it’s water in reality.
Personally prefer honesty over false politeness
I know this is subjective and many people have their own opinions, but Tolkien is a 100% correct here, it isn't about religion, the fantasy feels hollow in Narnia, just think about how much work was placed in the the Simmarilion to make the universe consistent, I think Tolkien would give a positive feedback to A song of ice and fire and the witcher, because the universes feel real and consistent.
Although I revere The Lord of the Rings as a masterpiece and consider Tolkien an unparalleled genius in the genre of high fantasy, I've come to the realization over the years that he and I would probably not have gotten along very well.
0:48 NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDS!
He didn’t seem to truly hate it, he was just extremely critical. With him being as incredible as he was as a writer and language it’s to be expected.
Kind of had a similar opinion about it myself. Narnia always felt "random" and cobbled together, the whole world war refuge kids finding thier way to Narnia was already a stretch but when Father Christmas showed up all remaining sense of cohesion was just lost for me. Why the fuck would Narnia, a realm full of assorted Pagan mythological creatures have a christian saint with them!?
And the various creatures just kind of.... showed up for no reason that we know of. I've had ZERO idea why ANY of the various races that aided the protagonists or the witch sided with either of them beyond "Minotaurs serve the witch cause i said so".
To be honest i was never able to get interested in tolkien's TLOTR, it just didn't capture my attention at all even if it had all the elements of fantasy i loved. Narnia however got my attention and interest quickly, i loved how fantastical and out of this world it felt, even with some elements of the real world, it was like a journey i became part of and i absolutely loved Aslan.
Bit rough on his mate
Having studied comparative philology, Classics, cultural history and history of religion, i also have found it hard to appreciate the Narnia books. I don’t like the wilful mixing of mythical creatures and myths. They also seemed too childish. But I loved Tolkien from the first glimpse. His fantasy world was so coherent, vivid and real to me.
Tolkien reading Narnia: Too much overt religious propaganda for my liking.
Tolkien reading Dune: Woah there.
I like the differences between the two. I used to read the Chronicles of Narnia as a kid, but nowadays I love the depth Tolkien had created with Middle Earth.
The Chronicles Of Narnia are everything he didn't like which was allegory and he was a perfectionist and a linguist and question why Narnians would speak English or The Calormen did.
Narnia introduced something unique, which J.R.R. Tolkien simply could not handle because it was too complex for him and required the emergence of a whole new generations of readers who had access to modern day computer technology to research it - and that was, and still is, the basics of Gauge theory. The door to Narnia, is a Gauge door. It produces a Gauge field, which enables the inhabitants of Narnia to enter the real world and people from the real world to enter Narnia. Its kept as a huge secret in Narnia and the White Witch does everything she can to protect this secret. Like Tolkien, she has no idea how to exactly explain the kind of magic going on here, which is actually physics. Modern physics was in its infancy when Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings, which takes place in a world devoid of anything Gauge. The author of The Chronicles of Narnia was so close to modernity, he was too close for his own good and that is why Narnia fell faul to many of his critics as an idea. In reality, it was way ahead of its time, so much, that with it it is possible to explain the basics of Gauge theory in layman´s terms. Thanks for your video - I am not trying to act as if I know anything about Gague theories. Best wishes to you from Iceland.
To sum up, Tolkien hated Lewis, and also hated Disney, followed up in his example by Myazaki, who also hated Tolkien. By the way Tolkien hated Herbert as well. Whoa. What a great family they form, how inspiring, I mean, I stick with Sauron, who is for Saruman ?
I’m almost a minute into the video, and I just want to give my take on the two authors! If your video changes my mind about anything, or reminds me of something to add, I’ll add an edit at the end…but I just want to give my personal opinion based on decades of reading the two, first.
As a kid, I hated The Lord of the Rings and loved The Chronicles of Narnia. I found both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings fairly boring, but I actually cried reading The Chronicles of Narnia when Aslan was killed (I was really young, though - I was a pretty voracious reader and had moved onto adult books by the age of eight - A Time to Kill was my first one, and will always be grateful to my dad for telling the librarian that I could check out books from the adult section when she wouldn’t let me and told me to check out Babysitter’s Club books instead! - so I was probably around six when I read The Chronicles and seven when I read Tolkien. I actually don’t even think I read the last LOTR book, I was that bored. And I have always HATED not finishing books, no matter how much I dislike them, so that tells you something).
However, as an adult, I respect Tolkien’s work, and feel a sort of nostalgic disdain for Lewis’ work. Some parts are amazing, and some dreadfully awful. Six year old me wouldn’t have noticed the issues, but adult me does. Ironically, I now find some of the scenes in The Chronicles that most affected me as a child to be pandering, pseudo-religious nonsense. I find many of the characters poorly written (though admittedly, some scenes and characters are very well-written, especially in the first book; and the opening scenes in the first book are quite ingenious).
Conversely, like many literature nerds, as an adult, I am in awe of Tolkien, his meticulousness, and his dedication to the craft.
I think it is very telling that Tolkien was annoyed by the fact that fantasy was deemed a genre for children and silly penny magazines only; and that he sought to bring the genre into a mature, respectable, adult literary sphere. You can see this in his writing. Even in The Hobbit, you can tell in his writing that he is restraining himself from writing in a more mature style. Due to its success, he was able to advance more mature themes in his LOTR books, and continue to expand upon his lore throughout his life.
The Chronicles of Narnia are most definitely children’s books. They are immature in their prose and ideas - and I think this is the major difference between Tolkien and Lewis. Tolkien was the intellectual adult. Lewis, the intellectual child. It’s very telling that Lewis shoehorned Christian mythology into his books, like a child earnestly insisting that Santa has to be real in every world, even the fictional stories that they write. Meanwhile, Tolkien was concerned with far more complex humanitarian and literary concepts.
I can see why Tolkien would be frustrated by Lewis, when Lewis was essentially writing the very type of fiction that Tolkien was fighting against - immature fantasy for children. And yet, the irony is that Lewis viewed his ideas as quite mature despite their immaturity - which must have frustrated Tolkien even more.
That is my personal take on the two authors, anyway.
Quite odd that he disliked the change of some creatures traits, like the lack of lust in the fauns, considering Tolkien himself made something completely different out of orcs who were originally demons. Tough I can understand both sides and, certainly, they could too, to some degree.
Tolkien was a purist, Lewis was a story teller. It's no wonder that they liked the space trilogy in common, but that Tolkien disliked Narnia. The space trilogy is definitely more "literature", while Narnia is an enthralling story.
How Tolkien feels about Narnia is how I feel about One Piece.
How Tolkien feels about Narnia (which I like) is how I feel about Harry Potter.
I’m not super familiar with one piece beyond a surface level understanding of it, so I’m curious about what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
@@Pooperman230 So Tolkien said he found Narnia bad because it has Santa, talking beavers, Jesus and so many mixed mythologies that don't really work together.
One piece sort of struggles with the same thing, at its core, its supposed to be a pirate show, but then it wants a bit of dragonball mixed in, then it has samurai, then it has giants that breed with people but are 50ft tall, then you have talking animals and merpeople.
Basically, it lacks a solid foundation that maybe other fantasy shows has and even though the fans love how wild and wacky it gets, its got the same amount of world logic as a looney tunes episode, if Luffy randomly wants to fly into space and turn into a car, he totally could because of how the world is set up.
One Piece's worldbuilding is very bad, its like someone made a smoothie and threw in every ingredient in their kitchen to make it and then even though lemon, cabbage, egg, chocolate and beef don't go together to make a nice smoothie, the drinkers say that the smoothie is really well made because it has a lot of ingredients rather than having less ingredients for a tasier smoothie.
@@Jamble that makes sense. Thanks for explaining
@@Jamble Part of me wonders how Oda will justify it all by the end or if it will just end up being like how Lost ended. Supposedly there is genuine world building logic behind why everything is the way that it is, but until it ends, that remains to be seen. One thing I will say however is that he's stuck to the concept (for the most part anyway) of not giving unlimited flying powers to anyone so as to force them to have to work in order to get around the world.
I like that talking could both criticize Narnia and see its virtue for others. You clearly recognized on some level that his mind was not the you clearly recognized on some level that that every reader has a unique mind. This kind of commentary and understanding is completely anathema to our current woke society.
If we're being honest, Tolkien didn't really like most literature at all, especially fantasy. His interest was almost exclusively academic, not for the sake of enjoyment or whimsy. I think what he accomplished with the Lord of the Rings and etcetera, was an important contribution as a solid cornerstone of fantasy and folklore going forward, similar to what the Brothers Grimm had done before him collecting stories and putting them in writing.
However, I don't think Tolkien ever had a true appreciation for the different ways in which fantasy and fairytales can be used as components of a literary work like colors are used in art. He was too much the academic to allow for much deviation from the original concepts. Even his own world of Arda rarely strayed far from the underlying old folk lore he based so much of it on. Those of us who love literature for its own sake can appreciate both Arda and Narnia quite easily, while a pure academic like Tolkien clearly couldn't.
I do not think that you can compare Tolkien, as good as he was, and the Brothers Grimm.
Saying that Tolkien "hated" Narnia is a massive overstatement.
So what I gather is that Tolkien was one of those nerds who act like the canon of fictional characters is really historical fact.
I could never bring myself to read the whole Narnia series. I made it to the second book and found all of them all difficult to finish. Tolkien's works however I've read multiple times and love the world building of it. Guess it's just what I like.
It's a little hard for me to take Tolkien criticisms of cs Lewis's work seriously when he didn't write any apologetic works himself
He didn't criticise Lewis's apologetic works; he criticised Lewis's fantasy fiction.
@@michaelnewsham1412 that is fair but how can Tolkien say using others mythology in different ways is bad when he has used Finish mythology they way Lewis used Greek mythology and since technically both works take place in our world
I read all the Narnia books by the time I was 9. I finished reading LOTR when I was 12. Reading Narnia is much easier to follow, even if the allegory is rather blatant. LOTR reads like an ancient epic at times, with careful narrative and lots of poetry.
George R.R. Martin also talks mad shit about Tolkien like criticizing him for 'failing' to have gone into exhaustive detail regarding Aragorn's tax policies as king or that he didn't go into gratuitous detail over his (Martin's) belief in 'Total Orc Death' and in his own words offing the even the "little baby Orcs", granted, Martin has always been an edgelord who uses shock values like incest, gore, frequent main character deaths and gratuitous sex and rape scenes in lieu of narrative substance.
Sounds like you completely misunderstood George R.R. Martin's criticism of Tolkien's work.