Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Sign in to follow this  
True Source Creator

WoT pwns LotR

Recommended Posts

Also, LotR's isn't three books long, it's six books, The Fellowship is books 1 & 2, Two Towers is 3 & 4 and finally, Return is 5 & 6.

Leaving the Shire is the first half of Fellowship, Rivendale and the quest is the second, then from there it splits, one path following Frodo and Sam for 2 books, the other following Aragorn, Gimili, Legolas, Merry and Pippin for 2 books.

Now don't get me wrong, it's a trilogy, but it's a trilgy of 6 books because that was the way it was written to seperate the story lines, but when people say "it's only 3 books long" they are incorrect.

 

And yes, LotR's and WoT are similar in some themes, but over all, they are far too different to even start considering one to be a rip off of the other.

 

And lets be honest the Old Tongue is basically a few phrases strewn out across 13 books. It doesn't touch on Tolkien's Elvish languages.

Now lets not forget Black Speach, Orcis, Kuduk, Khazdul, Entish and all the other languages that JRR created, even if it was just a few words.

(For those unfimilliar with The Histories of Middle Earth, Kuduk is Hobbitish and Khazdul is Dwarvish)

 

A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, LotR's isn't three books long, it's six books, The Fellowship is books 1 & 2, Two Towers is 3 & 4 and finally, Return is 5 & 6.

Leaving the Shire is the first half of Fellowship, Rivendale and the quest is the second, then from there it splits, one path following Frodo and Sam for 2 books, the other following Aragorn, Gimili, Legolas, Merry and Pippin for 2 books.

Now don't get me wrong, it's a trilogy, but it's a trilgy of 6 books

It's nice to see Douglas Adams is a member here. One could also count LotR as one book long, given that it was written as one book, and was intended to be only one book. And many people own editions of it as one book. So, not a trilogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand though is how you state that the Wheel of Time gets long winded in descriptions while Lord of the Rings is a nice short, three book story. If there is one thing that Tolkien does it's descriptions. Of Everything. I don't care about that boulder they walked by before crossing the stream! Frodo was hardly out of the Shire before I gave up. The Hobbit was almost as bad but bearable.

 

Right. Tolkien's way of giving up of the story which never flows like in the movie and starting to describe the pebbles under the flaming feet of a hobbit and after a dozen of pages end up talking about the plant life on a mountain hundreds of kilometers away was indeed frustrating!

 

Wheel of time is longer but it's full of aes sedai plots, exciting events and surprises. Reading the Lotr I never remember myself being shocked by anything but Gandalf's return.

 

In my comment about the tv series and movies I didn't imply that WoT should be a Tv show. All I mean to say is the two books have different form and tastes which make them beautiful in their own way. I'm glad they both have their parts in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. I've read LOTR approximately 12 times in the last 28 years. My quickest read was the entire book (or all three books...or all six books depending on how you like your LOTR sliced up) in five days. I've also spent 18 months reading and savoring nearly every word.

 

The bottom line, you simply can't write a modern fantasy without at least some comparison to Tolkien because JRR Tolkien almost singlehandedly invented the modern fantasy. There are so many standard fantasy elements that were of Tolkien's design - the blending of the ancient hero legends with mythology and the classic fairy tale - the reluctant fantasy hero himself, be it Frodo Baggins or Rand Al'Thor or Drizzt Du'Urden, all come from the same design. The heroes journey, the hero's companions, the dark enemy, the coming of age, acceptance of evil, and on and on and on.

 

Beyond that, you really can't compare most series', especially in some kind of one to one comparative context. There are some stories that lift plot lines and elements almost directly (Terry Brooks The Sword of Shannara is practically a retelling) certainly, but WOT is most certainly not one of those.

 

I have to admit, the first time I read about Rand's companions, Matt...Merry, Perrin...Pippin, it raised a red flag but that was really it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The bottom line, you simply can't write a modern fantasy without at least some comparison to Tolkien because JRR Tolkien almost singlehandedly invented the modern fantasy. There are so many standard fantasy elements that were of Tolkien's design - the blending of the ancient hero legends with mythology and the classic fairy tale - the reluctant fantasy hero himself, be it Frodo Baggins or Rand Al'Thor or Drizzt Du'Urden, all come from the same design. The heroes journey, the hero's companions, the dark enemy, the coming of age, acceptance of evil, and on and on and on.

 

 

I think this is exactly right. The same applies when people complain that LotR is "predictable" or some such.

 

It's predictable because of our familiarity with books that follow the trail it blazed! That path may be well-trod now; it wasn't when Tolkien discovered it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The bottom line, you simply can't write a modern fantasy without at least some comparison to Tolkien because JRR Tolkien almost singlehandedly invented the modern fantasy. There are so many standard fantasy elements that were of Tolkien's design - the blending of the ancient hero legends with mythology and the classic fairy tale - the reluctant fantasy hero himself, be it Frodo Baggins or Rand Al'Thor or Drizzt Du'Urden, all come from the same design. The heroes journey, the hero's companions, the dark enemy, the coming of age, acceptance of evil, and on and on and on.

 

 

I think this is exactly right. The same applies when people complain that LotR is "predictable" or some such.

 

It's predictable because of our familiarity with books that follow the trail it blazed! That path may be well-trod now; it wasn't when Tolkien discovered it.

 

Do you mean when Tolkien discovered, Beowulf, Homer's Odyssey, Sappho’s works, The Worm Ouroboros, or perhaps Shakespeare? :huh:

 

 

:blink: Or are you implying that Tolkien was the first person to write a fantasy work of fiction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The bottom line, you simply can't write a modern fantasy without at least some comparison to Tolkien because JRR Tolkien almost singlehandedly invented the modern fantasy. There are so many standard fantasy elements that were of Tolkien's design - the blending of the ancient hero legends with mythology and the classic fairy tale - the reluctant fantasy hero himself, be it Frodo Baggins or Rand Al'Thor or Drizzt Du'Urden, all come from the same design. The heroes journey, the hero's companions, the dark enemy, the coming of age, acceptance of evil, and on and on and on.

 

 

I think this is exactly right. The same applies when people complain that LotR is "predictable" or some such.

 

It's predictable because of our familiarity with books that follow the trail it blazed! That path may be well-trod now; it wasn't when Tolkien discovered it.

 

Do you mean when Tolkien discovered, Beowulf, Homer's Odyssey, Sappho’s works, The Worm Ouroboros, or perhaps Shakespeare? :huh:

 

 

:blink: Or are you implying that Tolkien was the first person to write a fantasy work of fiction?

 

"The bottom line, you simply can't write a modern fantasy without at least some comparison to Tolkien because JRR Tolkien almost singlehandedly invented the modern fantasy. There are so many standard fantasy elements that were of Tolkien's design - the blending of the ancient hero legends with mythology and the classic fairy tale - the reluctant fantasy hero himself, be it Frodo Baggins or Rand Al'Thor or Drizzt Du'Urden, all come from the same design. The heroes journey, the hero's companions, the dark enemy, the coming of age, acceptance of evil, and on and on and on."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please research the term MODERN fantasy. Beowulf, The Odyssey, The Tempest, etc. are not MODERN fantasy works by any stretch of the imagination. These are poems and plays, not novels. JRR Tolkien invented the MODERN fantasy by taking elements from all these aforementioned works and blending them into a modern storytelling format. Reference pretty much any Tolkien scholar if you disagree.

 

And one can make a fairly substantial case that Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were the first "Fantasy" novels written, most certainly the first MODERN fantasies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI

 

" the history of modern fantasy literature is usually said to begin with George MacDonald, the Scottish author of such novels as The Princess and the Goblin and Phantastes (1858), the latter of which is widely considered to be the first fantasy novel ever written for adults. MacDonald was a major influence on both J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. The other major fantasy author of this era was William Morris, a popular English poet who wrote several novels in the latter part of the century, including The Well at the World's End." :biggrin:

 

If your interested

Edited by Canis Rufus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI

 

" the history of modern fantasy literature is usually said to begin with George MacDonald, the Scottish author of such novels as The Princess and the Goblin and Phantastes (1858), the latter of which is widely considered to be the first fantasy novel ever written for adults. MacDonald was a major influence on both J. R. R. Tolkien and C. S. Lewis. The other major fantasy author of this era was William Morris, a popular English poet who wrote several novels in the latter part of the century, including The Well at the World's End." :biggrin:

 

If your interested

 

Ah, George McDonald - I would somewhat agree, although McDonald's works were both decidedly for children and decidedly theological in nature as he was a Calvinist minister. And still, I think I can make a definitional argument that LOTR was the first true contemporary/modern fantasy work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would leave that to your opinion, though most scholars would state that he was at the tail end of the Modern genre re-defining, :dry: most economist would point to the long lasting critical success as a motivator for the future investment and eventual growth. :happy: So really it will always fall back to personal opinion and in which light you would like to view the history. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not necessarily personal opinion - one considers the argument (what was the first work of contemporary fantasy) then one attempts to define the terms of said debate, hopefully concluding with a definition for which most would agree, and then determine the product that best meets the criteria of that definition. I'd say that moves beyond mere personal opinion.

 

Then again, you could just reply with a bunch of google'd nonsense followed by various smiley's...that works too. :tongue:

Edited by HighWiredSith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was hoping for something more permanently devoted to recipes. . . so when i inadvertently threadjack something over into the fruit aisle, i'd have somewhere more appropriate to type. the threads move around too quickly for me to keep track of if i'm not on all week.

 

i guess i'll have to try to live with my own tangentiality.

 

 

Check out the Kin social group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not necessarily personal opinion - one considers the argument (what was the first work of contemporary fantasy) then one attempts to define the terms of said debate, hopefully concluding with a definition for which most would agree, and then determine the product that best meets the criteria of that definition. I'd say that moves beyond mere personal opinion.

 

Based on your argument you would have to define your parameters of what you consider contemporary as that is a relative term as is the concept of ‘Modern.” Once you have determined your time you would then have to determine rather you are measuring the work on artistic merit, social impact or even units sold. This would all be just to start. You could always refer to some other guide that has done this but then that would have been based on the basis of that lists opinion.

 

Then again, you could just reply with a bunch of google'd nonsense followed by various smiley's...that works too. :tongue:

 

Or.....

 

I could pull from my educational background, experience and research :ohmy: using quotes and links to support and strengthen my argument, :blink: all the while putting emoticons in because it entertains me. :rolleyes: ...that works even better. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Canis! I am currently rereading Worm Ouroboros by Eddison (as I realized I did not remember much from my first read a LONG time ago). And you know? Eddison wrote the purplist prose I can ever remember. For those of you who quail at the descriptive passages in Tolkien and Jordan, STAY AWAY. :biggrin:

 

As far as the history of fantasy, I like Lin Carter's essay which I believe was published in Ballantine Books' Tolkien: A Look Behind "The Lord of the Rings". If you can find a copy of this out of print book pick it up for pleasure.

 

And Dunsany! I had not read him before, and got a free/cheap e-book of "The Book of Wonder." Again, for those who despise description, don't go there. LOL! So far having fun with those ultra short stories, and finding much humor in them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was hoping for something more permanently devoted to recipes. . . so when i inadvertently threadjack something over into the fruit aisle, i'd have somewhere more appropriate to type. the threads move around too quickly for me to keep track of if i'm not on all week.

 

i guess i'll have to try to live with my own tangentiality.

 

 

Check out the Kin social group

 

 

i'm not that sociable :smile: but thanks for trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Canis! I am currently rereading Worm Ouroboros by Eddison (as I realized I did not remember much from my first read a LONG time ago). And you know? Eddison wrote the purplist prose I can ever remember. For those of you who quail at the descriptive passages in Tolkien and Jordan, STAY AWAY. :biggrin:

 

As far as the history of fantasy, I like Lin Carter's essay which I believe was published in Ballantine Books' Tolkien: A Look Behind "The Lord of the Rings". If you can find a copy of this out of print book pick it up for pleasure.

 

And Dunsany! I had not read him before, and got a free/cheap e-book of "The Book of Wonder." Again, for those who despise description, don't go there. LOL! So far having fun with those ultra short stories, and finding much humor in them too.

 

 

Thanks for the heads up on Lin Carter's essay. I am looking into it; I see that there is a second edition updated by Adam Roberts. Have you read both or just the original?

 

I am assuming that you are talking about 'Lord' Dunsany, unless you are referring to another author, that I am unaware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hobbit and then the LotR are the books that awakened my love of reading so I hold them in high regard. I've read them several times. That being said, I prefer WOT to LotR. I also prefer Martin's ASoIaF and Tad Williams' MSaT trilogy to LotR as well. I just seem to enjoy those stories and their characters more. I still love LotR and its been a while since I've given it a re-read so maybe I'm due for one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOT is more entertaining than LOTR, LOTR is more fascinating. Why? Two reasons: First, WOT was written in our era (therefore, is more suited to our modern culture), and LOTR was written in the 40's/50's. Second reason? Tolkien wrote a massive world with backstory and complete languages and it's own mythology first, and then decided to write novels about it (more accurately, he told a story to his kids, The Hobbit, then decided to get it published; people wanted more, so Tolkien decided to write more). WOT seems from the beginning to have been planned as a series of books. Middle-earth was built by Tolkien, for Tolkien. He then decided to share it with the rest of us.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love reading LOTR's and am fascinated by tWOT, but I prefer reading the Wheel of Time to reading the Lord of the Rings (I've read both series's 7+ times...), and I am consistently drawn deeper and deeper into Tolkien's lore every time I think about his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up on Lin Carter's essay. I am looking into it; I see that there is a second edition updated by Adam Roberts. Have you read both or just the original?

 

I am assuming that you are talking about 'Lord' Dunsany, unless you are referring to another author, that I am unaware of.

 

I have the original, which I heartily recommend to you, Canis for Lin Carter's essay on the history of fantasy.

Also, in the main work concerning The Lord of the Rings and J.R.R. Tolkien, Carter's comments on the as-then-yet-unpublished Silmarillion are interesting. It's not too hard to find a copy still. It is a paperback book published by Ballantine Books.

 

I am not sure that the reprint has everything from the original in any event.

 

(And, yes, Alfred, Lord Dunsany. Very funny short stories with gloriously descriptive prose.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I really don't see how you could compare them, they're just so different in so many respects. And yeah, it's all completely subjective. Personally I enjoy reading Wheel of Time more. But I think Tolkien's writing and world construction is a lot more impressive.

 

Firstly I'd like to say I don't believe WoT rips off LotR in any way. Yes, there are a few similarities, but I see these more as deliberate tributes by RJ to Tolkien, and the similarities are very vague and mainly occur in the early books anyway. Secondly while I do love LotR, WoT is my favourite series.

 

This isn't strictly true... I mean the entire setting for Eye of the World is quite similar to the Fellowship of the Rings. The small village, unlikely hero etc. Plus the myrddraal? Very very similar to the black riders. And Taren Ferry vs. the Buckleberry Ferry. Tom seems to fulfill a sort of Gandalf role too. Although that's not really so clear. There's actually a lot of similarities, these are just some off the top of my head. But they occur in many other fantasy stories created since Tolkien. And if I'm not mistaken, Robert Jordan confirmed that these similarities were intentional? Although I can't remember where I read that. And Eye of the World is still my favourite book in the entire series and the similarities don't bother me at all. Like I said, two very different series.

 

 

A bigger point of original LoTR rip-off theory is that there were originally going to be 4 (yes 4) boys from the Two Rivers.

Don't believe me? (no doubt many on here won't).

Look at the inside art-work on EotW. You'll see 4 following Lan and Moraine.

BS said the other boy was to be Danille and that the publishers said he did little and that RJ needed to re-write those parts.

RJ's widow agreed that Danille was meant to be a 4th boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So here's the way it falls out in my mind:

 

Rand = Frodo Baggins - the reluctant hero from a small, isolated town, parents are dead

Tam = Bilbo Baggins - had previous adventures, adopts the story's main protagonist.

Perrin = Merry Brandybuck - down to earth, sensible friend of main protagonist

Matt = Pippin Took - troublemaking friend of main protagonist

Moiraine = Gandalf the Gray - magic user, catalyst for the main action

Lan = Aragorn - mysterious man of the north, swordsman, loyal, with a royal past

Padan Fain - Saruman - a friend who betrays everyone in service to the dark lord

Dark One = Sauron

Myrdraal = Nazgul

Trollocs = Orcs

Ogier = almost a cross between elves (eternal, forest dwelling, wise) and dwarves (great builders)

Two Rivers = Shire

The Blight = Mordor

Baerlon = Bree

Sheinar = Minis Tirith

The Ways = Moria (the journeys were very similar)

Aiel = Arrakis Fremen (sorry, tossed some Dune in there)

 

Early in the story Rand's Heron marked sword is very similar to the Ring of Power in that it is passed on to Rand by Tam, ties Rand to a larger world and bigger destiny, etc.

 

So yes, there are a lot of similarities, at least in EotW - but lets face it, from TGH forward, the story is all its own.

Edited by HighWiredSith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...