JRR Tolkien --> RJ ideas

[Jonn]

I'd like to add that Gollum, the pinnacle of Tolkien's genius, has no WoT equivalent.  Yeah, some people point to Fain...but that ugly ol' peddler isn't a quarter as awesome. 

 

The other LoTR baddies are less interesting than their WoT counterparts, however. 

 

Fain, I agree, doesn't really add up to the iconic status that Gollum has achieved throughout the years, but his groundwork comes in the form of Gollum. He's a hound used by the Dark One to seek out the heroes, but because of the tortures he endures he grows to hate his former master very deeply even though he's compelled by his power.

 

 

 

[Mystica]

I always find it interesting when people compare other books to Prof. Tolkien's work. From what I've heard Tolkien himself say in the extended version of the movies and from people that actually knew him personally (like the man who played Saruman in the movie) Tolkien was extremely critical of his work, to the point of not wanting it to be published untill he was satisfied and he almost never was satisfied. Many people asked him at the time if Middle Earth was a reflection on the World Wars, but he denied it. The evil he spoke of was indeed the industrialization that (at the time) was celebrating high time and the destruction of the things he loved so much, with the biggest focus on trees. His own favorite characters in his work, as I heard and read, were the Ents.

 

RJ copied, or better put adopted several things from Tolkien who in turn also used other resources and situations as a basis for his work. That's what writers do, they draw inspiration from what they know and the world around them and give it their own unique identity and feel. I believe that's what's so fantastic about writing. Not that someone is capable of coming up with something completely new, but that each person and each writer is capable of adding to the vast and ever growing pool their own unique perspective, views, style and personality.

 

Did Mozart invent piano playing? Nope, but he did create his own pieces and his own music with it. Did Beethoven copy Mozart? He most definately used the same chords and notes but re-ordered them in again new pieces and music. The same with painters and any other type of artistic endeavors. It's growth and evolution and building on to the enheritage our ancestors started.

 

Once and a while a person comes along that shakes the foundation of one aspect of our lives (in music, literature, political structure, cultural experience, etc) and they are lifted out of the pack and set as examples. For good or bad. Does that mean that every other that comes after that simply copies them and only them? not necessarily, in my opinion.

 

I have the Hobbit and the LoTR in Dutch and English and I have the Silmarillion in English and the Children of Hùrin in Dutch. And I admit it is indeed a lot harder to read the LoTR than it is to read the WoT. I can't even begin to read Shakespear, yet I doubt anyone will deny him being every bit as much or more of an icon to literature as Tolkien was.

 

Yes there are similarities and there are and always will be similarities in stories written unless we suddenly stop being human and have access to a whole different reality and range of experiences. In the end it's not important that we all draw from the same pool, I think, but what we do with what we draw from it. The similarities as much as the differences make up for the beauty of variety that feeds our needs. The first glues it all together throghout history and the latter expands an enriches it.

 

Ok, I'll shut up now as I'm becoming a bit too poetic LOL. Sorry if what I said made no sense to you, but this is a topic close to my heart.

[YoungKing]

This thread is full of ignorance.

 

"I watched the movies therefor I know all about LotR."

 

Most of the people having trouble with Tolkien probably can't handle the depth of the books. It is without a doubt a much harder read than  the WoT series... The main difference I see is that LotR is literature and the WoT series is fiction.

 

To those who haven't read LotR and choose to comment based on what they've seen on film really shouldn't. Peter Jackson did a pretty bad job bringing the books justice... leaving out the return to the Shire, coping out on the dead prisoners because he didn't very much care for that part of the story, and don't get me started on Shelob....

 

YK.

[Mr Ares]

Gentled Ben, it seems to me that your last paragraph could be summed up quite simply with this quote: "If I have seen far, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants". That is what RJ and others have done.

 

 

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Similarities between any two authors will always be there, whether in appearance or in truth. Just try to appreciate a series for itself. And if you can't do that, well then, that series isn't for you.

[yankee]

This thread is full of ignorance.

 

"I watched the movies therefor I know all about LotR."

You are allowed to use the quote-function of the board.

 

Most of the people having trouble with Tolkien probably can't handle the depth of the books. It is without a doubt a much harder read than  the WoT series... The main difference I see is that LotR is literature and the WoT series is fiction.

That is not a good base to reason with you. The only thing that your paragraph says is, that I can't handle the depth of the books if I do not share the opinion. That is an effective way to supress discussion, but it is a very poor statement anyway. BTW: I do not agree.

 

To those who haven't read LotR and choose to comment based on what they've seen on film really shouldn't. Peter Jackson did a pretty bad job bringing the books justice... leaving out the return to the Shire, coping out on the dead prisoners because he didn't very much care for that part of the story, and don't get me started on Shelob....

Of course everything over again. Only because I did not read the book does not mean I got no opinion. And since I got one, I may state it as well. If you think I am wrong, state reasons. You might have noticed the title of the forum "General Wheel of Time Discussion"

[Tyrell]

Peter Jackson made three good movies. They arn't 100% true to the books, but if they were they would be poorer as movies. The return of the king ends in an anticlimax, a terrible way to end a movie.

 

Most of the people having trouble with Tolkien probably can't handle the depth of the books. It is without a doubt a much harder read than  the WoT series... The main difference I see is that LotR is literature and the WoT series is fiction.

 

This comment offends me.

 

The lord of the lord of the rings and associated works is a great work in terms of world building, however the fact that reading some parts of the associated works basically consists of climbing uphill in a hurricane of very similar sounding elven names does detract considerably from this. I do very much like parts of the silmarillion, especially Túrin Turambar's story and that of Beren and Lúthien. However other parts of it do read like a non-fiction account of the history of the world fit to bore me into the ground accounting the lines of the various elves and all their names made up seemingly from a short list of prefixes and suffixes. Hardly rivveting stuff.

 

The Lord of the Rings may have a big rich background back to the point of creation, but that doesn't make it a superior work of fiction to The Wheel of Time. Crossroads of Twilight may be alittle... slow, but getting past the start of the Silmarillion to the good stuff was Horrid; indeed horrid enough to earn a capitol letter.

[BrainFireBob]

Which again would be the point- Tolkien wasn't writing it to write fiction.

[Magicana]

A sly little mention to LOTR:

 

TGH - Rand thinks just before going into the inn with Selene (After the statue scene) that his favorite story was The Nine Rings.

KOD(?) - The Asha'Man goes by the name Underhill.

 

As to being a rip off of Tolkien, it isn't. I could just as easily say that Tolkien ripped off The Hero With a Thousand Faces.

[Jonn]

I do think it's sad that some people can't sit down peacefully and read the Lord of the Rings for what it is and not compare it this or that or the other...

 

I was fortunate enough to have read Lord of the Rings when I was 9, long before I read my first WOT novel. I didn't much grasp the Lord of the Rings, I skipped around the chapters and took from it basically that it was a rather long adventure with some memorable parts, other parts not so memorable.

 

Later when I was 14, I read The Shadow Rising, my first Wheel of Time book and I was enraptured. Best adventure I've ever read in my recollection at that point, but on the jacket of this book was a quote about RJ's novels and it compared him to Tolkien. hmm.

 

I went on to read the first three WOT books before moving on to the next book, The Fires of Heaven. And lo, all of those books had the quote about Tolkien, comparing RJ to him, something about revealing the world that Tolkien opened up, and putting new wine into old bottles, new flesh on old bones.

 

It was only then that I realized that I should probably go back and read The Lord of the Rings.

 

It had been about 6 years and I had been a bored 9-year old brat back then who had to read something, and do a book report on it so I could go on to the 5th grade, but this book...

 

The Lord of the Rings is a great work. If your heart is open to it, it will take you. Granted there were still those parts that were kind of slow, but jeez if you see through them...

 

People mention Tom Bombadil often with mixed feelings, but then again without that part of the tale we wouldn't get that brilliant foreshadowing of Sam holding Frodo's cold lifeless body on the winding stair. The mystery of the Barrow Wights...

 

I mean comparing Tolkien to RJ...Before there were Rings of power there were the silmarils, before the silmarils there were the sacred trees, before that, the Great Song...

 

All things that are great have a wonder about them, but there is always something that came before that may have been greater, but hard to fathom how great in comparison to the Age that has surpassed its making. Later on, when RJ's great tale is as complete as it can be, another tale will come that will be seen as even greater than both The Wheel and the The Ring.

 

Even now, there is a large portion of the world that doesn't know a thing about The Wheel of Time. In the future, some great fiction will be written that no doubt will borrow from RJ's world. And that generation will be debating the significance or James Rigney's contribution to the craft. They'll dismantle every little flaw and call RJ's work dated...incomplete, derivative.

 

But those who take the time to actually read through and discover all of the little surprises, the shining little jewels that crystallize in the mind when you read RJ's books, will have the chance to see the path that leads from RJ to Tolkien, all the way back to Anonymous. That path is really the spirit of who we are as humans. It's the memory of things that may have never existed that can guide us to things that might exist, CAN exist.

 

Anyway, I digress.

 

If you haven't read Lord of the Rings, give it a shot. Think of it as meditation. There's a kind of peace that comes from that book. It's hard to explain. Just don't go into it thinking there's going to be dwarf tossing or X-treme sport elves running around.

 

As for comparing Tolkien to RJ...

 

 

[CUBAREY]

I could not agree more wuith Jonn. My only addition is to say that RJ acknowledged the debt he owed to Tolkkien(sp)and in several places pays homage to him.

[Mystica]

fantastically put, Jonn. You're a bit of a poet at heart too, it seems ;)

 

couldn't agree more though. Well said!

[Gentled Ben]

Gentled Ben, it seems to me that your last paragraph could be summed up quite simply with this quote: "If I have seen far, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants". That is what RJ and others have done.

 

 

Indeed it could, and quite nicely too, I might add, but why would you want to summarize in one elegant sentence something that rambles awkwardly for an entire paragraph? Aren't I getting paid by the word?  ???

 

Jonn, I am stunned. You and Mystica both leave me wanting for breath. Those were great posts, both of you. Thank you for them.  :)

[YoungKing]

Additionally: The Lord of the Rings is really much different from the Wheel of Time. I only watched the movie, but I did not like the overall plot. Well. I liked the first movie. It was a nice setup and anything could have followed. But the end is kinda lame. Actually a friend of mine proposed the theory that the Wheel of Time is about about world war 1. That would actually make sense sind Tolkien was involved as a soldier. The Orcs (=Germany) represent evil. My friend had matches for other partys in the story to real countries, but I forgot them :-(. Anyway: A major theme of the Lord of the Rings is mechanization. Mechanization does not come off very well. Just have a look athe the production of Orcs.

 

I realize that this paragraph is not structured very well and thus I stop here. I hope you got the idea. The characters in the Lord of the Rings fight to ward of changes. In the end of the story they have been successful and everything is just like it was when the story began. Ok, well, there is a new king and we know that the previous king was an asshole and a lot of characters changed due to their experience, but I am do not have the impression that something really important changed. At some point the war against the Orcs might repeat itself (it did! WW2! :-D) and the whole story starts over again and ... yeah... boring.

 

Ok, you're almost completely wrong.

 

JRRT said himself that the LotR was neither allegorical or topical. It wasn't a reflection of what was going on in the world around him at the time(mainly WWII), merely a tale he wished to tell. It has nothing to do with either Wars, as he said himself that the outcome would be different. Orcs are not Germany, and Hobbits not England. The mechanization you speak of must be Saruman building his army of Uruks and what he says about the future being industry. To prepare any army takes much of the same process; making armour, weapons, supplies, food, etc. It's going to come off looking bad and evil because it's Orcs doing it. If the good guys were preparing the army, they'd be doing much the same thing, just not making huge pits and and destroying forests in that fashion, burning stuff and whatnot. The real debate about mechanization would come from the Hobbits return to the Shire, only to find it ruled by Saruman, and quite different from when they left. It's from the books, and wasn't included in the film. Anyway, many people have come to the conclusion that JRRT put it in as a reflection of what was going around him in England in 1949, when he was about done the story. He's denied that, saying that "It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset..." Basically this beautiful country that the Hobbits loved was being ruined and torn apart by the evil and industry of Saruman. There is no connection.

 

I think someone already mentioned about the change, or as you said, lack of change. But...

 

During the events of LotR the entire world is going through changes, all the peoples are going through change, and Frodo was given the task of destroying the Ring to change the fate of the world. I'm not going to get into all the change that takes place, but for you not to have recognized change, even just in the movies, astounds me. I really don't know what to say.

 

The only thing that you skirt on being right about is his involvement in WW1. Not that the story is about or based on WW1, but a writer always draws from experience, and I find that his distaste for war really comes out in the books, something that he experienced first hand.

 

I wasn't trying to attack you, I just found it I guess strange that you would comment on a discussion about the comparison of LotR and WoT when you haven't actually read the former.

 

Most of the people having trouble with Tolkien probably can't handle the depth of the books. It is without a doubt a much harder read than  the WoT series... The main difference I see is that LotR is literature and the WoT series is fiction.

That is not a good base to reason with you. The only thing that your paragraph says is, that I can't handle the depth of the books if I do not share the opinion. That is an effective way to supress discussion, but it is a very poor statement anyway. BTW: I do not agree.

 

Be more specific. Do you not agree with the three different points, or all of them together, or just one? And if you really want to start a discussion, which I am apparently suppressing, why wouldn't you go into detail of why you disagree instead of just saying, I disagree?

 

This comment offends me.

 

The lord of the lord of the rings and associated works is a great work in terms of world building, however the fact that reading some parts of the associated works basically consists of climbing uphill in a hurricane of very similar sounding elven names does detract considerably from this. I do very much like parts of the silmarillion, especially Túrin Turambar's story and that of Beren and Lúthien. However other parts of it do read like a non-fiction account of the history of the world fit to bore me into the ground accounting the lines of the various elves and all their names made up seemingly from a short list of prefixes and suffixes. Hardly rivveting stuff.

 

The Lord of the Rings may have a big rich background back to the point of creation, but that doesn't make it a superior work of fiction to The Wheel of Time. Crossroads of Twilight may be alittle... slow, but getting past the start of the Silmarillion to the good stuff was Horrid; indeed horrid enough to earn a capitol letter.

 

While I was commenting on LotR, you merely bring up the name but comment on The Silmarillion. Also, it is interesting that you would be offended by what I said, considering you don't appear to have trouble with The Silmarillion and can handle the depth of the book(s), that comment is in no way directed at you. I assume you merely disliked a large portion of the books, rather than having trouble with them. I'm left to believe you were looking to take offense.

 

To Jonn, perfectly said. That's all I can say.

 

People mention Tom Bombadil often with mixed feelings, but then again without that part of the tale we wouldn't get that brilliant foreshadowing of Sam holding Frodo's cold lifeless body on the winding stair. The mystery of the Barrow Wights...

 

I couldn't agree more, I especially love the foreshadow around Merry, Pippin, and Sam, as they lie in the Barrow.

 

YK.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr Ares]

Why would you want to summarize in one elegant sentence something that rambles awkwardly for an entire paragraph? Aren't I getting paid by the word?  ???

[lets Ben down Gently]We don't get paid for this, we do it out of the goodness/madness in our hearts[/lets Ben down Gently]

[maxonennis]

Additionally: The Lord of the Rings is really much different from the Wheel of Time. I only watched the movie, but I did not like the overall plot. Well. I liked the first movie. It was a nice setup and anything could have followed. But the end is kinda lame. Actually a friend of mine proposed the theory that the Wheel of Time is about about world war 1. That would actually make sense sind Tolkien was involved as a soldier. The Orcs (=Germany) represent evil. My friend had matches for other partys in the story to real countries, but I forgot them :-(. Anyway: A major theme of the Lord of the Rings is mechanization. Mechanization does not come off very well. Just have a look athe the production of Orcs.

 

I realize that this paragraph is not structured very well and thus I stop here. I hope you got the idea. The characters in the Lord of the Rings fight to ward of changes. In the end of the story they have been successful and everything is just like it was when the story began. Ok, well, there is a new king and we know that the previous king was an asshole and a lot of characters changed due to their experience, but I am do not have the impression that something really important changed. At some point the war against the Orcs might repeat itself (it did! WW2! :-D) and the whole story starts over again and ... yeah... boring.

 

Ok, you're almost completely wrong.

 

JRRT said himself that the LotR was neither allegorical or topical. It wasn't a reflection of what was going on in the world around him at the time(mainly WWII), merely a tale he wished to tell. It has nothing to do with either Wars, as he said himself that the outcome would be different. Orcs are not Germany, and Hobbits not England. The mechanization you speak of must be Saruman building his army of Uruks and what he says about the future being industry. To prepare any army takes much of the same process; making armour, weapons, supplies, food, etc. It's going to come off looking bad and evil because it's Orcs doing it. If the good guys were preparing the army, they'd be doing much the same thing, just not making huge pits and and destroying forests in that fashion, burning stuff and whatnot. The real debate about mechanization would come from the Hobbits return to the Shire, only to find it ruled by Saruman, and quite different from when they left. It's from the books, and wasn't included in the film. Anyway, many people have come to the conclusion that JRRT put it in as a reflection of what was going around him in England in 1949, when he was about done the story. He's denied that, saying that "It is an essential part of the plot, foreseen from the outset..." Basically this beautiful country that the Hobbits loved was being ruined and torn apart by the evil and industry of Saruman. There is no connection.

 

I think someone already mentioned about the change, or as you said, lack of change. But...

 

During the events of LotR the entire world is going through changes, all the peoples are going through change, and Frodo was given the task of destroying the Ring to change the fate of the world. I'm not going to get into all the change that takes place, but for you not to have recognized change, even just in the movies, astounds me. I really don't know what to say.

 

The only thing that you skirt on being right about is his involvement in WW1. Not that the story is about or based on WW1, but a writer always draws from experience, and I find that his distaste for war really comes out in the books, something that he experienced first hand.

 

I wasn't trying to attack you, I just found it I guess strange that you would comment on a discussion about the comparison of LotR and WoT when you haven't actually read the former.

 

 

A friend of mine, who has read Tolkien's autobiography, told me that in it Tolkien repeatedly states that he hates simile. I think that people just misconstrue the story to mean something else (some christians for exsample say tLotR is a religious simile), when the story is just that, a story.

[yankee]

@YoungKing:

Well that is a good post :-).

Anyway. My answer:

 

I probably should not have stated the thing with WW1. I said it is a theory of a friend of mine, not that I believe it (the mentioned friend read the books btw). But I do think that certain things that result out of that statement hold true. For example all the stuff about mechanization.

To prepare any army takes much of the same process; making armour, weapons, supplies, food, etc. It's going to come off looking bad and evil because it's Orcs doing it. If the good guys were preparing the army, they'd be doing much the same thing, just not making huge pits and and destroying forests in that fashion, burning stuff and whatnot.

And how would the good guys do it? They make their swords with candles? ;-). Well... They just don't do it. Actually they just loose the war. Ok, they would have lost it if it were not for the trick involving Frodo, a very specific Ring and a very specific vulcano.

Basically this beautiful country that the Hobbits loved was being ruined and torn apart by the evil and industry of Saruman. There is no connection.

I would like to point out the word industry in this quote ;-)

During the events of LotR the entire world is going through changes, all the peoples are going through change, and Frodo was given the task of destroying the Ring to change the fate of the world. I'm not going to get into all the change that takes place, but for you not to have recognized change, even just in the movies, astounds me. I really don't know what to say.

Oh well... It is a long time ago that I watched the movies. But anyway:

Changes in characters don't matter. The characters live another 40 years and nobody cares about the changes in the character. Characters change all the time. People in reality do as well. I am changing just because of the added experiences I got from partcipating in this thread. I am changing while I am reflecting about what I read in the Newspaper.

So what about the important changes? Everyone except the humans are gone or will be gone in the near future. But what does that change for men? For right now they are probably busy cleaning up after the war. But that is not what I mean. I am talking of values that changed. Values in the society to be more precisly. Believes. Laws. Technology.

Most of the people having trouble with Tolkien probably can't handle the depth of the books. It is without a doubt a much harder read than  the WoT series... The main difference I see is that LotR is literature and the WoT series is fiction.

That is not a good base to reason with you. The only thing that your paragraph says is, that I can't handle the depth of the books if I do not share the opinion. That is an effective way to supress discussion, but it is a very poor statement anyway. BTW: I do not agree.

 

Be more specific. Do you not agree with the three different points, or all of them together, or just one? And if you really want to start a discussion, which I am apparently suppressing, why wouldn't you go into detail of why you disagree instead of just saying, I disagree?

The "I do not agree"-Part was just to provoke you. I wanted to read more then that I cannot handle the depth of the books. That is not reasoning in my opinion if you just tell me I am unable to deal with the books.

Anyway I seem to have been sucessful or you decided for another reason to state your reasons.

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

Bear with me, I've only read 2 pages out of the 4 and may do something weird...

 

Tolkien:

 

Overview: basically he created an entire world, with pre-LotR history, a new language, deep and complex meanings, basis on Old and Middle English, he set the  foundation for modern fantasy

 

The Silmarillion: A MOTHER!@#$%!ING masterpiece, practically rewrote mythology for his world, (except it wasn't mythology, it was just history in his world), the only problem is that it's a extremely difficult read, and long...

 

The Lost Tales: a series of collections of stories that I read quite a while ago, published by Christopher Tolkien, pretty good read, I found the note scribbles by Chris a little annoying though

 

The other texts: same as The Lost Tales, just a bunch of stories smashed up together and edited/published by his son, Christopher Tolkien with extra commentary notes

 

The Hobbit: (I believe someone wrote that he started The Hobbit while grading papers, I read in a biography (which may be unreliable, hmmmm) that he started writing while he was still serving in the military. That the war had some influence on his writing I believe is what the author was implying.) Another masterpiece, the foundations laid by this would set the tone for fantasy stories (along with his fellow Inkling, C.S. Lewis)

 

LotR: (He wrote this only because his friends/publishers convinced him too, almost all literary historians agree that Tolkien didn't want to write to continue The Hobbit's storyline.) Masterpiece, the storyline is pretty complex, and gives you a sense of emotional conflict (I believe I almost cried at parts of the book, don't ask me where  :-[ )

 

The man that set the tone, the foundation, the basis for all fantasy (though C.S. Lewis was also highly influential) is J.R.R. Tolkien.

 

If anyone ever finds similarities (as someone has mentioned in previous posts) it's not plagiarism, it's because the foundation is essential to all fantasy.

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

I'd like to add that Gollum, the pinnacle of Tolkien's genius, has no WoT equivalent.  Yeah, some people point to Fain...but that ugly ol' peddler isn't a quarter as awesome. 

 

The other LoTR baddies are less interesting than their WoT counterparts, however. 

 

Fain, I agree, doesn't really add up to the iconic status that Gollum has achieved throughout the years, but his groundwork comes in the form of Gollum. He's a hound used by the Dark One to seek out the heroes, but because of the tortures he endures he grows to hate his former master very deeply even though he's compelled by his power.

 

 

 

 

Except eventually he escapes the power of the DO, and becomes a mix of Mordeth/Padan Fain/DO so he actually manages to escape, as opposed to Gollum who is still controlled by the Ring, and through it Sauron, by the end of the book.

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

Basically there is an argument between two posters by the names of "yankee" and "YoungKing," I'm going to summarize what they have just argued and point out what they have said...

 

yankee

-has only seen the movies (LotR), not read the books (READ THEM NOW!!!)

-has friend who made an argument that (and I quote) "Wheel of Time" was an allegory to WWI (which he doesn't even edit, since Tolkien (I believe) wrote LotR, and not tWoT)

-made statement that LotR is about maintaing the same life, while tWoT is about making changes (which is crazy, since LotR basically wipes out the dark side, making life easier for everyone)

-made an immature statement that YoungKing didn't use quotes, when in actuality there is no direct quote, it's just him making a statement in quotes ("You are allowed to use the quote-function of the board.")

-implied that YoungKing is wrong when stating that those that haven't read the book can't state their opinion, and stated disagreement with YoungKing

-implied that good guys do the same thing as the bad guys while preparing for war (this is somewhat true, but while the good guys actually care about the world, the bad guys usually don't as much, so the bad side tends to damage the land more)

-disproved YoungKing through statement "I would like to point out the word industry in this quote ;-)"

-stated that changes in character don't matter (Umm, I don't get this at all, I mean, there are books from subgenre "coming of age," where the entire book is about development in the characters)

-stated that he was attempting to provoke YK with one of his previous statements (try not to start a flaming contest please)

 

 

YoungKing

-stated that this thread is full of ignorance (try not to start a flaming contest, be nice people)

-implied that people that have seen the movies but haven't read the books are igorant, and that they shouldn't post until they've actually read the books (hey, they can post, just maybe not make as good of a post as those who have the background information)

-people that don't understand LotR can't handle the depth of the book, LotR is better than tWoT (I actually agree with this)

-stated that Peter Jackson didn't do LotR justice (I totally agree with this)

-proved yankee's friend's theory wrong

-stated that yankee needs to be more specific, that "BTW, I disagree" is not enough

-attempt at correcting another statement that was misinterpreted

 

 

From what I can read, this is quite an interesting argument...

If this was a formal debate, I believe YK would be narrowly winning due to the fact that he has made fewer immature statements, and brought in more actuals facts...

However, both sides seem intent on disproving the other, or flaming...

You guys should take it outside!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Gentled Ben]

Bear with me, I've only read 2 pages out of the 4 and may do something weird...

Like a triple post?  :P

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

SORRY GB...

I'm one of those who is so anxious to get their two cents in that they have to make a post 2 pages in, and then repost more once they actually finish the entire 4 pages...

[Jonn]

I'd like to add that Gollum, the pinnacle of Tolkien's genius, has no WoT equivalent.  Yeah, some people point to Fain...but that ugly ol' peddler isn't a quarter as awesome. 

 

The other LoTR baddies are less interesting than their WoT counterparts, however. 

 

Fain, I agree, doesn't really add up to the iconic status that Gollum has achieved throughout the years, but his groundwork comes in the form of Gollum. He's a hound used by the Dark One to seek out the heroes, but because of the tortures he endures he grows to hate his former master very deeply even though he's compelled by his power.

 

 

 

 

Except eventually he escapes the power of the DO, and becomes a mix of Mordeth/Padan Fain/DO so he actually manages to escape, as opposed to Gollum who is still controlled by the Ring, and through it Sauron, by the end of the book.

 

Yes, well...has he truly escaped?

 

Gollum, when he was sitting years and years in the dark, the power of the Dark Lord was dormant for the most part and the corruption of the Ring was not known for what it truly was. Smeagol became Gollum, and later in the War of the Ring, he became both Smeagol and Gollum and in a lot of ways he was the Ring itself. His power was dictated by whoever held that Ring.

 

Fain. Well, his story isn't over yet is it? He traded one corruption for another. Still, he is a slave to these powers. He's forever compelled by something. Rand, The Dark One, Mashadar, the evil of Aridhol, Mordeth, his dagger, the pattern. If he were to be purged of it all and were he left nothing but himself, would he have enough to call it a life. Is that what he would have?

 

See, Gollum made his choice because he realized that if the Ring were destroyed, there would be nothing left of him. Just his anguish, his guilt, centuries of debasement and fear, greed. There was a little trace of Smeagol and his time in the sun, fishing with his friend Deagol. His grandmother. That time was long gone though.

 

Then we see Frodo after the Ring was destroyed. Even after the short time he traveled with it, there was a hole in him. There were wounds that would not heal. The world that was, the memory of it before his struggle, was gone. Like Smeagol, that hope that his happiness would return from the time before, it perished.

 

I think we'll see something similar with Rand. When the burden is lifted away from him. When he wins, if he wins...what will he return to? How much of him will there be left? Will Tam even recognize him?

 

The world will have changed so much that the memory of what was lost, this alone would be too much to bear.

 

See, there are many parallels.

[World_of_Wheel_of_Time]

Man, every time I look around, Jonn is there!!! (Read my love post to you Jonn)

;D ;D ;D

 

But you could be right, I also agree that Rand could eventually turn into a human being that isn't so human... Bearing the massive burden that he has, I would also either crack under the pressure, or harden/distance myself from my own emotions, and in essence, from the things that makes humans human.

[yankee]

Basically there is an argument between two posters by the names of "yankee" and "YoungKing," I'm going to summarize what they have just argued and point out what they have said...

*scratches head*

-has friend who made an argument that (and I quote) "Wheel of Time" was an allegory to WWI (which he doesn't even edit, since Tolkien (I believe) wrote LotR, and not tWoT)

If I find that error I will correct it. It is obvious what I meant, isn't it?

-made statement that LotR is about maintaing the same life, while tWoT is about making changes (which is crazy, since LotR basically wipes out the dark side, making life easier for everyone)

Which happend because the dark side attacked. They wouldn't have dione it otherwise.

-made an immature statement that YoungKing didn't use quotes, when in actuality there is no direct quote, it's just him making a statement in quotes ("You are allowed to use the quote-function of the board.")

Please explain why you think that this is immature.

-implied that YoungKing is wrong when stating that those that haven't read the book can't state their opinion, and stated disagreement with YoungKing

true

-implied that good guys do the same thing as the bad guys while preparing for war (this is somewhat true, but while the good guys actually care about the world, the bad guys usually don't as much, so the bad side tends to damage the land more)

What do you mean with "actually"? In the Lord of the Rings? As I explained they did not damage the land very much, but would have lost, if it would not have been for the trick with Frodo, the Ring and the vulcano :-).

Or do you mean in reality? Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in the real world? Take the cold war for example? Every person worldwide has certain radioaktive elements in his bones thanks to the tests of nuclear weapons that were done by Russia and the US. I consider this damage.

-disproved YoungKing through statement "I would like to point out the word industry in this quote ;-)"

I would say I "argue against" instead of "disprove", but I guess it means essentially the same thing. Thus it's true.

-stated that changes in character don't matter (Umm, I don't get this at all, I mean, there are books from subgenre "coming of age," where the entire book is about development in the characters)

I did not say that development of character is uninteresting. It is. I wanted to point out a major difference between the Wheel of Time and the Lord of the Rings. Character changes are everywhere. They cannot be avoided. Even short storys contain changes in characters often enough. That can be very interesting, but the interesting part is how the changes take place. It is something like exploring human nature. But what the changes is much less interesting (yes, there are exceptions, but this is my overall opinion).

-stated that he was attempting to provoke YK with one of his previous statements (try not to start a flaming contest please)

Hey, this is all about having fun. Relax, I have no intention to start a flaming contest. I just want to debate. I explained why I provoked YK and it was not fatal. The following post by YK was interesting and I answered accordingly. Feel free to tell me if you do not agree.

 

However, both sides seem intent on disproving the other, or flaming...

Disproving please, not flaming. This is a debate after all.