Be honest, which one had the better legacy. Not talking about

>>7608007
Lovecraft, no doubt.

I dunno man, if you count everything that ripped off dungeons and dragons as having ripped off Tolkien then we're looking at a whole different kind of game.

>>7608007
Be honest which one had the better legacy, Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus?

Not talking about comparing the works of these two, but comparing the works that were inspired (or otherwise rehashed or ripped-off) from these two.

>>7608029
Would've actually made sense if you said The Beatles and Run DMC.

>>7608007

Tolkien's best legacy is really his Middle/Old English reference material/dictionaries. I think he'd mostly agree. He was by far more of a scholar than a writer. He literally only cared about writing the Hobbit. LotR was an afterthought for his languages. The rest was leisure-time activity (silmarillion etc.) once he got older and the brain stiffened up.

Lovecraft was certainly more original and fun as a writer.

I mean both suck, but Lovecraft is the better, more original.

>>7608035
Second.

>>7608038
Why do they suck? They were quite influential on modern culture.

>>7608192
>hey were quite influential on modern culture.
MEANS NOTHING

>>7608198
Why does it mean nothing? Many modern fiction writers and other media were inspired by them.

>>7608209
It's not a good measure for quality, see The Beatles.

>>7608211
Quality is subjective.

>>7608219
No shit.

>>7608222
Aight

>>7608211
I like The Beatles

>>7608022
This so much. Pre-D&D fantasy is just another perfectly valid aesthetic choice, but fantasy written in the wake of all of its tropes being codified in an industry is just a commercial product.

>>7608211
Except, the Beatles were fantastic songwriters and it shows in the latter half of their career.

They were both redpilled. Lovecraft on blacks and Tolkien on Jews.

For me, they are both BASED

>>7608896
Cthulhu was a nigga?

>>7608192
>>7608192

They dont suck, Lovecraft's work is the literary equivalent of early 19th century sideshow art. Sure its not a Monet or van Gogh, but a collector with a good eye understands their aesthetic and cultural value.

>>7608917
>look guys i typed aesthetic correctly

a collector with a good eye recognizes your post is full of deliberately opaque buzzwords and that lovecraft is in fact a one trick pony.

>>7608936
A one trick pony with like 25 tricks. Disregarding the world building, imagery, plots, and mechanisms of his work, which are clearly written for the base enjoyment of others, simply because of the base and awkward nature of his prose shows lack of imagination and a tendency towards /lit/ groupthink on your part.

>>7608007
Wouldn't Tolkien and Lewis be a better comparison?

>>7608962
No because the answer would be a lot more obvious.

File: image.jpg (366KB, 1280x1629px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1280x1629px

I wish there existed a Gnostic-Lovecraftian dusty ol' tome of a thing, which combined Lovecraft's cosmicism and mythos in syncreticism with Gnostic theosophy.

>>7608192

because they both overwrote their stories/novels. It's comically bad writing.

Lovecraft is great for his stories, ideas, etc. I have nothing against the man. I don't think his writing style is anything more than trash though.

Tolkien is just trash in every respect, though.

>>7609803
"Through the Gate of the Silver Key" sort of tried to do this but the theosophy parts were pretty dumb. Would have worked better if it had been a standalone story, I think.

Tolkien has been more influential. I also think that Tolkien-derived works tend to be better than Lovecraftian works because Tolkien's mythos is less idiosyncratic than Lovecraft's.

Hard to judge though because In terms of the magnitude of influence I think that PKD has occluded Lovecraft as the primary inspiration for modern weird fiction. I think a more fair comparison would be between Lovecraft and Howard.

>>7608022
D&D owes more to Howard, Leiber, and Vance than to Tolkien.