/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16037303]

>”Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it’s not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn’t ask the question: What was Aragorn’s tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?”

[Anonymous No.16037400]

>”Shitting is hard. Or soft, as the case may be. This was maybe my answer to GRRM, whom, as much as I lust for him, I do quibble with. A Dance With Dragons had a very scatalogical philosophy: that if the queen drank dirty water, the land would be covered in shit. We look at real shits and it’s not that simple. GRRM can say that Daenerys got dysentry and shat for a hundred years, and each stool was looser than the last. But GRRM doesn’t ask the question: What was Daenerys' fiber intake? Did she ingest a recommended amount of solutes? What did she do when she needed to wipe? And what about all these turds? By the end of the defacation chapter, Daenerys' bowels are empty but all her number twos aren't gone – they’re not even in a shit pit dug in the ground. Did Daenerys pursue a policy of systematically dumping in one place? So that there was a gigantic mountain of diarrhea?”

[Anonymous No.16037425]

>>16037303
>By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren’t gone – they’re in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them?