Salinger, lovecraft, or Tolkien, which was the better writer?

>>24499431 (OP)
Better in what way? Style?

>>24499445
Plot, characters, themes, cocaine

>>24499449
Salinger was the only one there who didn’t crib his plots from other writers or Eddas (in the case of Tolkien).
Characters? Tolkien stole most of them from folklore or mythology or epic poems. Lovecraft’s are all fairly similar antiquarians or intellectuals who can’t comprehend the contents of the stories: unimaginable, unspeakable, Cyclopean.
Salinger’s characters inspired a shooting, and Holden Caulfield is very memorable and summed up a generation.
Thematically, Lovecraft pushed horror to its literal limits by encompassing a cosmic dread of the unknown in a time where Einsteinian theories of the universe were being discovered.
I’m only a fan of Lovecraft but the others have elements you can enjoy for the sake of aesthetic value.

Tolkien > Lovecraft > Salinger
Both Tolkien and Lovecraft developed a complex world with unique mythology and were quite nuanced. Tolkien has a far more expansive world, where he created languages, myths, entire population calculations and intricate histories. Lovecraft is a great author, and very creative. He was revolutionary for horror during his time and masterfully weaponized human fears. However, the quality of writing in Tolkien surpasses Lovecraft, as does the intricacies of his works.

Salinger isn't even close, in my opinion. Catcher in the Rye is a dull, mindless book that receives unnecessary praise and stands for nothing. I was entirely unimpressed. I've read it three times, first when I was 14 and twice later as an adult, and I never felt it had any substance to it. It's a shell of a story that is vapid and grim. I do not criticize it because of the vocabulary of the novel; for example, Huckleberry Finn is a great work and utilizes more crude and natural language. It's not even an issue of an immoral protagonist. Thomas Covenant is probably the most repulsive main protagonist ever, and I would probably rank the Chronicles decently high in fantasy works. Catcher has no plot and gets overhyped by schools and angsty teens, and doesn't even remotely compare to complex fantasy authors like Tolkien and Lovecraft. Honestly, I'm not even sure why you are putting him in this comparison. If you put practically any author who developed a complex world, it would work. There's a thousand options to choose from. Asimov, Dick, Donaldson, Eddison, Herbet, Jordan, Kay, Leiber, and Lewis come to mind as immediate options. It's ludicrous to even compaSre Salinger to this genre, he isn't similar at all.

>>24499457
>>24499468
I can’t even tell if either of these are written by Ai.

The singularity is neigh

>>24499431 (OP)
Salinger. Catcher in the Rye might be insufferable, but at least it isn't genreslop about elves or space aliens.

Tolkien was literally a professor of literature — his form, structure, etc, were superlative and stood on the shoulders of classic giants. Lovecraft was a pop writer; he may have landed on a combination of Strange and Gothic fiction which posthumously created Cosmic Horror making him a legend, but he’s like Pink Floyd compared to Tolkien’s Beethoven. Flashy exciting engaging purple prose for the working class vs true literature.

>>24499472
>neigh
It's spelled nigh.

>>24499553
Tolkiendrone post #109203480

>>24499431 (OP)
While I love both Tolkien and Lovecraft I love Lovecraft a little bit more. I haven't read Salinger.

>>24499568
>I haven't read Salinger
Pleb

>>24499431 (OP)
Lovecraft, and it's not even a question. "Celephais" is a better LotR than LotR itself, all while preceding it for half a century.

>>24499431 (OP)
Holy based, I feel honored to be posting in a patrician Jerzawitz knower thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUiA9VoN9YQ

>>24499571
Yeah, he seems like one which is why I haven't bothered.

>>24499590
You probably eat goyslop. Because you read it.
>When people dis fantasy—mainstream readers and SF readers alike—they are almost always talking about one sub-genre of fantastic literature. They are talking about Tolkien, and Tolkien's innumerable heirs. Call it 'epic', or 'high', or 'genre' fantasy, this is what fantasy has come to mean. Which is misleading as well as unfortunate.
>Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious—you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike—his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés—elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings—have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.

>>24499610
You can't formulate your opinions so forgive me if I don't take your goyslop accusations seriously.

>>24499662
Lovecraft is miles better than Tolkien. They shouldn’t be mentioned in the same sentence. The rift in style is palpable.
>Above the waist it was semi-anthropomorphic; though its chest, where the dog's rending paws still rested watchfully, had the leathery, reticulated hide of a crocodile or alligator. The back was piebald with yellow and black, and dimly suggested the squamous covering of certain snakes. Below the waist, though, it was the worst; for here all human resemblance left off and sheer fantasy began. The skin was thickly covered with coarse black fur, and from the abdomen a score of long greenish-gray tentacles with red sucking mouths protruded limply. Their arrangement was odd, and seemed to follow the symmetries of some cosmic geometry unknown to earth or the solar system. On each of the hips, deep set in a kind of pinkish, ciliated orbit, was what seemed to be a rudimentary eye; whilst in lieu of a tail there depended a kind of trunk or feeler with purple annular markings, and with many evidences of being an undeveloped mouth or throat. The limbs, save for their black fur, roughly resembled the hind legs of prehistoric earth's giant saurians; and terminated in ridgy-veined pads that were neither hooves nor claws. When the thing breathed, its tail and tentacles rhythmically changed color, as if from some circulatory cause normal to the non-human side of its ancestry. In the tentacles this was observable as a deepening of the greenish tinge, whilst in the tail it was manifest as a yellowish appearance which alternated with a sickly grayish-white in the spaces between the purple rings. Of genuine blood there was none; only the fetid greenish-yellow ichor which trickled along the painted floor beyond the radius of the stickiness, and left a curious discoloration behind it.

>>24499883
Tolkien is an extremely competent author. Check The Silmarillion and the Great Tales before saying he's not as good. I absolutely adore Lovecraft's works, don't get me wrong. I've read everything he has written, but the same goes for Tolkien. I own physical copies of both authors' complete works. I feel Tolkien is the better author. The impression you seem to be under is only that of Lord of the Rings, and of a shallow interpretation of it.

>Now news came to Hithlum that Dorthonion was lost and the sons of Finarfin overthrown, and that the sons of Fëanor were driven from their lands. Then Fingolfin beheld... the utter ruin of the Noldor, and the defeat beyond redress of all their houses; and filled with wrath and despair he mounted upon Rochallor his great horse and rode forth alone, and none might restrain him. He passed over Dor-nu-Fauglith like a wind amid the dust, and all that beheld his onset fled in amaze, thinking that Oromë himself was come: for a great madness of rage was upon him, so that his eyes shone like the eyes of the Valar. Thus he came alone to Angband's gates, and he sounded his horn, and smote once more upon the brazen doors, and challenged Morgoth to come forth to single combat.

>And Morgoth came.

>That was the last time in those wars that he passed the doors of his stronghold, and it is said that he took not the challenge willingly; for... alone of the Valar he knew fear. But he could not now deny the challenge before the face of his captains; for... Fingolfin named Morgoth craven.... Therefore Morgoth... issued forth clad in black armour; and he stood before the King like a tower, iron-crowned, and his vast shield, sable unblazoned, cast a shadow over him like a stormcloud. But Fingolfin gleamed beneath it as a star; for his mail was overlaid with silver, and his blue shield was set with crystals; and he drew his sword Ringil, that glittered like ice.
>Then Morgoth hurled aloft Grond, the Hammer of the Underworld, and swung it down like a bolt of thunder. But Fingolfin sprang aside, and Grond rent a mighty pit in the earth.... Many times Morgoth essayed to smite him, and each time Fingolfin leaped away...; and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds, and seven times Morgoth gave a cry of anguish, whereat the hosts of Angband fell upon their faces in dismay, and the cries echoed in the Northlands.
>But at the last the King grew weary, and Morgoth bore down his shield upon him. Thrice he was crushed to his knees, and thrice arose again and bore up his broken shield and stricken helm. But the earth was all... pitted about him, and he stumbled and fell backward before the feet of Morgoth; and Morgoth set his left foot upon his neck.... Yet with his last and desperate stroke Fingolfin hewed the foot with Ringil, and the blood gushed forth black and smoking and filled the pits of Grond.

J. R. R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion.

>>24500827
Yawn. Even Poul Anderson is better than this. His Broken Sword btfos Tolkien.

>>24499431 (OP)
tolkien