JRR Tolkien --> RJ ideas

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

have not met a fantasy book yet I haven't liked, even if I wouldn't read it again.

 

Really? I'm not trying to put you down but the threshold for you "liking" fantasy must be quite low. I love and re-read maybe 10 or fifteen series. I will read everything written by an author of a series that I especially like. I have liked but will not re-read dozens of fantasy books. And I have read a handful of fantasy authors that I dislike, Goodkind being one of these.  Now I try to finish a book or series I started even when I find little enjoyment in the act. Goodkind's Sword series is definately in the last group.  I am attempting again (out of sheer stubborness )to finish the series but its hard to read when you dislike not only the content but he ability of the author to present it.

 

As to what to recommend, that really depends on the putative reader.  While I will not recommend an author or a series I dislike I will tailor my suggestions to the specific reader.  For young readers magic and sword fantasy is best. Once a reader is in his teens I recommend what I believe to be the standard by which all others should be judged Tolkien, Hubert and RJ.  If a reader has an interest in Sci-Fi I always recommend Asminov as the standard.

[DuDZiK]

Quote:

 

have not met a fantasy book yet I haven't liked, even if I wouldn't read it again.

 

Really? I'm not trying to put you down but the threshold for you "liking" fantasy must be quite low.

 

You see such a thing in a negative light, but I see it in the most positive light. In fact I see having a more strict threshold in a negative light, because it means there is less for you to enjoy. Why should I restrict myself to only X many books, when there are so many more that I could take enjoyment from? I am not in this life to measure my joy or to restrict it in anyway based on some arbitrary rule or preference, I am here to find as much of it as I can.

 

I do not read books only if they agree with me 100%, if they write in a style that is perfectly what I like, or anything like that. I do not read with any standards in mind, because as I have said before - which you obviously missed - I read for pure enjoyment first and foremost. PURE enjoyment. Fantasy is a never-lose genre for me, because of the factors I have already listed. The heroine's journey and adventures are things that I will always find compelling and interesting no matter how the author tries to pull it off.

[BrainFireBob]

Really? Allow me to recommend McKiernan's Dark Tower series and Angus Wells.

[DuDZiK]

Really? Allow me to recommend McKiernan's Dark Tower series and Angus Wells.

 

I'll add that to the long list of suggested books I have going  ;)

[Cocaloch]

When I said 4th dimension, I meant an axis at a 90degree angle to xyz. You are talking of Time as a kind of TAU axis which has nothing to do with real dimensions. Heck the idea theat time is linear (thus able to work on an axis) is just an idea.

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

People's minds can be swayed by the way. That's one thing that always makes me cringe when I read or hear it, that "there's no point to this discussion, no one is going to change to other's minds". I can state for a fact that this is not true, because I personally have had my mind swayed in a few such discussions. Most will not give an inch, some may give a few inches but retain their overall beliefs, some may go halfway, some may step over to the other side and so on.

 

Of this, I have no doubt. People can be swayed, so long as they come into a discussion with an open-mind. However, one can only put the evidence right in front of the opposition; from there, if they don't accept that, then no matter with what rhetorical flourish things are spoken, there is no persuasion. Or at least, from that point, the other person can only be changed by inner conviction.

[DuDZiK]

Also true, but you can't know who will read your posts with an open-mind and who is entrenched in their beliefs when you post them. You will only find out afterwards. In the mean time a little friendly banter would not hurt anyone ;D

[Guest Dreadlord]

Back to the point, it annoys me how people point out similarities that are so vague that they would only be noticed when mentioned. I mean, fair enough RJ had a lot of similar ideas to Tolkien as was mentioned, but nobody can write anything anymore without there being similarities anymore, simply because that many books have now been released, theres bound to be some slight similarities. The difference about RJ is that he admitted to it, and made the "borrowed and altered" ideas fit into his own story. Someone on this site pointed out that "Al'Thor" is similar to "Arthur" and that "Merillin" (sp?) is similar to Merlin. Why bother putting stuff like that on here?

 

And how the hell can someone compare Rand "bloody Dragon" Al'thor (cheers Mat) to Frodo Baggins? And Moiraine to Gandalf, and Lan to Aragorn? The only similarity I can see between Rand and Frodo is that they are both forced out of their home villages at the start-Rand develops on the way, Frodo doesnt. moiraine uses the Power as anyone would in her situations, whereas Gandalf hardly uses magic at all even though hes a WIZARD.

 

If anyone wants to find something to moan about copying-wise, read the Sword of Truth books. Everything in those books has something about it that reminds me of Wheel of Time, only not as good.

 

 

[Guest leebarr]

no matter how it's put every story is loosely based on another story. a story today could be a retell of one over a thousand years old. a good writer enjoys reading so sure some ideas will come from others.

[CUBAREY]

QUOTE:

 

In the mean time a little friendly banter would not hurt anyone

 

I hate friendly bantor! Now, unfriendlt bantor, that I enjoy. ;D

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Isn't banter, by nature, friendly?

 

Or does it not have that connotation?

[BrainFireBob]

Dreadlord-

 

Al'thor-Arthur and Merrilin-Merlin were deliberate by RJ, intended as an explanation for where our mythology comes from- cyclic time. There are others as well. That's part of the fun of RJ- finding his layers of symbolic connection through links to other myths.

[Hunter]

I find all the fighting here rather humorous, since Jordans works clearly borrow a HELL of a lot more from Arthurian Legend than from Tolkiens works. In fact, his works only contain nods to Tolkiens works, which are entirely intentional. However the parallels between WoT are and Arthurian Legend are everywhere.

[CUBAREY]

Quote:

 

Isn't banter, by nature, friendly?

 

Or does it not have that connotation?

 

As the Smiley at the end was intended to suggest, I was being sarcastic.

[Chel Vanin]

Wow, i just read 8 pages of JRR vs. RJ debates. :-\

 

and out of those 8 pages i got this out of it.

 

LotR is awesome (I have read it like 5 times)

 

WoT is awesome (again, read it like 5 times)

 

omg they have similarities

 

oh and i need to look up the definition of banter... :)

[Mat is Better]

Okay, I just wanted to let you know that ideas that you are claiming as JRR Tolkiens have been around much longer than him.  Now RJ does use some of his ideas.  Don't get so hung up on it.  Farmboy with Powers to rival the dark one is hardly the same as a hobbit with a strong will.  What do you think people did before the surgeon general slapped a warning on every cig. box?  They smoked tobacco.  So...I fail to see the problem here too, actually they still do that.

[DuDZiK]

Fantasy books are essentially a modern replacement for mythology and folklore tales. They are also very similar in construct - i.e., the Archetypes, the archetypal journey, and so on that can be applied to just about every myth, folktale, and fantasy book in existance.

 

So to say that some myths and fantasy stories are similar to other myths and fantasy stories is rather redundant and unfair to the author. There's only so many ideas to go around anyways and still be within the realm of the fantasy genre. Some ideas and motifs have been used and copied, though exchanged I think is a better word to use, between myths and folktales and now stories for thousands of years.

[BKVMC]

Fantasy books are essentially a modern replacement for mythology and folklore tales. They are also very similar in construct - i.e., the Archetypes, the archetypal journey, and so on that can be applied to just about every myth, folktale, and fantasy book in existance.

 

So to say that some myths and fantasy stories are similar to other myths and fantasy stories is rather redundant and unfair to the author. There's only so many ideas to go around anyways and still be within the realm of the fantasy genre. Some ideas and motifs have been used and copied, though exchanged I think is a better word to use, between myths and folktales and now stories for thousands of years.

 

 

Agree  all fantasy  books  have  the  same premise basically.

[Guest Dreadlord]

QUOTE

Al'thor-Arthur and Merrilin-Merlin were deliberate by RJ, intended as an explanation for where our mythology comes from- cyclic time. There are others as well. That's part of the fun of RJ- finding his layers of symbolic connection through links to other myths.

UNQUOTE

 

yes i know, what i was ranting and raving about was that people keep pointing out these similarities as if RJ stole the ideas, whereas he did it intentionally to give some readers a familiar place to start ie the two rivers being similar to the shire. i personally think its good, i just dont see why people come on here to pick at the series

[DuDZiK]

For the same reason why people pick on any other series, they either don't like it or they don't like parts of it. In the end I think it's about loyalty; there are certain books/authors that people are most loyal to and will claim that their is the most 'original' and at the same time point out that other series aren't as original.

 

And then some people are just natural shit-disturbers and love to nitpick ::)

[Ealdur Tinuviel]

Fantasy books are essentially a modern replacement for mythology and folklore tales. They are also very similar in construct - i.e., the Archetypes, the archetypal journey, and so on that can be applied to just about every myth, folktale, and fantasy book in existance.

 

So to say that some myths and fantasy stories are similar to other myths and fantasy stories is rather redundant and unfair to the author. There's only so many ideas to go around anyways and still be within the realm of the fantasy genre. Some ideas and motifs have been used and copied, though exchanged I think is a better word to use, between myths and folktales and now stories for thousands of years.

 

I'm not sure I agree. They certainly aren't (for the most part) a replacement in purpose. Mythology and folklore arose out of a desire to explain the world or to emphasize the importance of morality.

 

Fantasy is designed to entertain for the most part, though the best, in my opinion, is that fantasy which conveys some sort of message about life and portrays life with a great degree of realism.

[aussie_ashaman123]

i agree, fantasy stories all have the same general storyline. I mean, look at the 3 biggest fantasy series of all time, LoTR, Star Wars and Harry Potter. Try telling me the lead characters, the wide men, even the big bad dudes, theyre all practically the same

[BKVMC]

i agree, fantasy stories all have the same general storyline. I mean, look at the 3 biggest fantasy series of all time, LoTR, Star Wars and Harry Potter. Try telling me the lead characters, the wide men, even the big bad dudes, theyre all practically the same

 

Exactly   all fantasy has the archtypes and   have an Id vrs ego vrs super ego  in a  heroe at some point in time.

[yankee]

i agree, fantasy stories all have the same general storyline. I mean, look at the 3 biggest fantasy series of all time, LoTR, Star Wars and Harry Potter. Try telling me the lead characters, the wide men, even the big bad dudes, theyre all practically the same

Actually ALL books have the same storyline. We learned how they worked in school: There is an introduction, a rising action, a climax, a falling action and finally a resolution. And of course all fantasy books have several things in common, because otherwise you could not group them into a distinct category called "fantasy" :-).

 

Umm... Sry, I exaggerated. But this way you know what I mean :-).

 

I'm not sure I agree. They certainly aren't (for the most part) a replacement in purpose. Mythology and folklore arose out of a desire to explain the world or to emphasize the importance of morality.

 

Fantasy is designed to entertain for the most part, though the best, in my opinion, is that fantasy which conveys some sort of message about life and portrays life with a great degree of realism.

I agree that fantasy is designed to entertain. But I think that Mythology is designed to entertain as well. Both mythology (and folklore) and fantasy happens to entertain and to deliver a message/messages about the world.

Both mythology and fantasy plays in a different world or at a distant time and/or location, which makes it much easier zo keep people from telling you that you are not political correct (or that you are a racist or ...). And if you are the author you have a 100% knowledge of your world, of your cultures, of geological issues and everything else. Thus it is less likely to make a mistake because you could not have known better.

[YoungKing]

Haha somebody brought this back up eh?

 

Well yankee kind of beat me to what I was going to say, but first let me say we shouldn't confuse Harry Potter with being a great series. Long yes, not great. Anyway.

 

Actually ALL books have the same storyline. We learned how they worked in school: There is an introduction, a rising action, a climax, a falling action and finally a resolution. And of course all fantasy books have several things in common, because otherwise you could not group them into a distinct category called "fantasy" :-).

 

Yankee's right here, a story follows the same basic pattern, and so do the characters. I'm going to use the Rand/Frodo, Moiraine/Gandalf parallels for an example. In most forms of storytelling you have a protagonist. This guy/girl usually lives a pretty normal life until one day something happens that forces them to act. The thing you'll notice is that most of the time time they don't initially want to do what needs to be done, that protagonist will always refuse. Again, usually there is someone, a mentor/guide who will come along and persuade them and help them with their quest, or something drastic will happen to set them on their way. Star Wars, see Luke's uncle and aunt getting killed, Matrix, Neo didn't believe in himself, Jurassic Park, Grant has to be offered grant money(funds) in order to make him go to the island. It's pretty much in all shapes and forms, those are just examples. As for the guide, you've got Obi Won, Morpheus, and to a lesser extent Hammond.

 

Using this basic structure to look at LotR and tWoT, anyone should be able to see how it happens in those stories as well. Frodo gets the Ring, moves to a new house, waiting for Gandalf who doesn't come. Black Riders force him to leave, gets to Rivendale etc. Guided by Gandalf/Aragorn.... tWoT Rand's home is attacked, forced to go away with Moiraine who guides him, tries to tell him he's the DR. Obviously for two books he refuses he is until he takes it into his own hands to find out...

 

That's kind of poorly laid out by me, but hopefully it gives the basic idea. There's really no point in comparing that stuff because it's essential in almost every story. Normal guy, something happens forcing him to do something, he refuses, something happens or someone comes to get him going, acts as a guide, etc, etc. Just lay that to rest.

 

yeah, that's all I got for now.

 

YK.