Thursday, November 21, 2019
Sunday, October 20, 2019
One cannot compare these two, not even remotely. From a purely literary point of view, Tolkien would probably win over Herbert in each aspect.
On the other hand, Herbert's strength comes with the psychology of characters and the philosophical system. His style is unique, even today.
If you need to compare Herbert to someone, choose his sci-fi peers from the same time period. Compared to Herbert, their works were
terribly sterile and typically Anglo-Saxon. And yes, I would vouch for Herbert anytime.
Tolkien is the classical story-teller, experimenting with new worlds rather than with literature itself. Common reader cannot dismiss him lightly, since Tolkien is not your typical wannabe writer; his education and career helped him to create work, lying beyond usual criticism.
Approaching Tolkien requires modesty. One can dislike Tolkien's books, yet should not jump to false assumptions. Let me wildly guess why you
formulated the question this way.
For demonstration, I will use my web novel Sovereign. Its style is probably much closer to Herbert’s than to Tolkien’s. I am more focused on the present scene, not teasing reader's patience with long descriptions and unnecessary information. Why do I do that? Because I dislike classical narrative? No, it is because the literature and its consumers have evolved since Tolkien’s time. Authors have less time to catch their
fishes … er, readers.
Thus, judging from that perspective, Tolkien may feel heavier and more cumbersome because Herbert offers a more modern and "sensational" flow of events. Even to drink a cup of water might bear plenty of meanings and facets in Herbert's Dune. Just remember the very first scene, in which Paul eavesdrops his mother and the old witch.
No sentence is wasted on banalities. Never.
Tolkien builds the tension slowly. With a shorter attention span of present readers, they might have problems to enjoy the Lord of the rings. But this is not
a question being better or worse. of
Friday, September 13, 2019
To quote Plautus: "Multum, non
Loosely translated, one
is supposed to read a lot, picking one's books wisely.
of all, we should make intersection between sets of the smart and the successful. Allow me to define such people as result-oriented thinkers.
The result-oriented part brings the crucial element here. For instance, to become an expert in programming, one will hardly
obtain useful knowledge by consuming red library, thus, the first criterion should be the area, in which one plans to succeed.
Even though humans may excel in
more than one discipline, one hardly can expect them to prevail in all, meaning their focus usually lies in well-explored areas, which may overlap, but never cover all human knowledge and skills.
From elementary schools, we know what the basic curriculum comprises sciences (such as math, physics, chemistry, history), mother and foreign languages, literature, history, and skills
like drawing, cooking, and so on.
The basic curriculum combined with one's area of interest is the minimalistic (well, not so minimalistic) core of what one needs to read. That part makes people smart.
The next step is to understand and practice what one learns from these books.
Simply put, one needs to apply skills to become successful. This is the border one has to cross when planning to transform from smart to successful. The sad truth is that one cannot learn tenacity and willpower from reading. Quite the contrary, the reading itself can be viewed as procrastination habit, distracting one from one's goals.
To sum it up: "Multum, non