WoT pwns LotR

[WWWwombat]

Let's not forget tabac. Thing is, RJ said that the beginning of EotW was supposed to be evocative of LotR so it's not ripping off LotR as much as it is paying homage to it.

[Canis Rufus]

Let's not forget tabac. Thing is, RJ said that the beginning of EotW was supposed to be evocative of LotR so it's not ripping off LotR as much as it is paying homage to it.

 

 

That is a good point, but remember that Tolken was doing the same in his books as well.

 

 

Jillain Sanche, thanks for the heads up. I just saw this post I will look into this.

[Beidomon]

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.

 

Some of these are stronger comparisons than others. Lan, for example, is almost a carbon copy of Arigorn. Rand is like Frodo in that they are the main protagonists and struggle with a great burden, but that's about it. My only flat-out disagreement would be Padan Fain = Sarumon. Fain is Gollum, a pathetic, tainted individual who hounds the protagonists and will play some significance at the end. Sarumon is something more akin to the Forsaken. Both used to be powerful "wizards" for the good guys, then betrayed them and led dark armies.

 

By the way, did it ever bother anyone else that the two main bad guys in LoTR - "Sauron" and "Sarumon" - had ridiculously similar names?

[Mulk]

not really.

 

Sauron's name precedes even the Elves and Saruman's name is a Westron (Middle Earth equivalent of common) approximation of his Elven name Curunir. Of course, Saruman (and Gandalf for that matter) are of the same order of beings that Sauron was in the beginning, just he was more powerful than they in the beginning and probably became more so in the service to the original Dark Lord so maybe a certain similarity is to be expected? I dunno. :D

 

I never really gave it much thought.

 

/nerd

[Krakalakachkn]

maiar if i'm not mistaken? You might be a nerd (and you are) but in a good way, like a "hey, I'm impressed he knows that" kinda way.

[sskk]

While I agree WoT is better, it's not fair to compare a series written so long ago, while the modern fantasy genre was still in its infancy, to a series that is still in progress.

[Evoke]

This whole thread has become one giant facepalm experience.

[Mulk]

Krak - dingding, you're correct. :D I re-read LOTR, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion and The Book of Lost Tales 1 and 2 at least once a year.

 

Evoke - how about for our next topic: Compare the merits of The Odyssey, Ulysses, and Oh Brother Where Art Thou? :D

 

/ducks and runs

 

edit for spell failure. :(

[Evoke]

What I mean is, comparing stories on a "they're so similar, this one ripped that off of whatever bla, bla" is meaningless. Nearly all western narratives draw on the same storyline principles. These are all explained in Joseph Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces. That's why Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, The Wheel of Time, hell even The Matrix all seem so alike when you get down to the fundamentals. Yes, even The Odyssey, Ulysses and Oh Brother Where Art Thou? fall into this category. Because they are all the same story. The details differ, yet the underlying story structure remains the same. Comparing narratives on this level is quite pointless since they are the same.

[WWWwombat]

Let's not forget tabac. Thing is, RJ said that the beginning of EotW was supposed to be evocative of LotR so it's not ripping off LotR as much as it is paying homage to it.

 

 

That is a good point, but remember that Tolken was doing the same in his books as well.

 

 

Jillain Sanche, thanks for the heads up. I just saw this post I will look into this.

 

Indeed. The Eorlings were taken almost directly from Beowulf but it would be ridiculous to say LotR "rips off" Beowulf.

[sskk]

Let's not forget tabac. Thing is, RJ said that the beginning of EotW was supposed to be evocative of LotR so it's not ripping off LotR as much as it is paying homage to it.

 

 

That is a good point, but remember that Tolken was doing the same in his books as well.

 

 

Jillain Sanche, thanks for the heads up. I just saw this post I will look into this.

 

Indeed. The Eorlings were taken almost directly from Beowulf but it would be ridiculous to say LotR "rips off" Beowulf.

 

If you read David Edding, you would know it wasn't RJ who rip off Tolken, nor is it Tolken who RJ rip off...

[Mulk]

Evoke, I completely got your point. That was my amusing (to me if no one else) attempt to show it. At least I got a laugh out of it. I hope someone else did though. :) If not, oh well. I'll try again elsewhere.

[plague fiend]

I imagine a lot would agree here since this is a "WoT" fanboard. But I think some people who haven't bothered to read the "WoT" books unfairly call it a rip-off of "LoTR"...and it's so much better than that trilogy.

 

To say that WOT is better than LOTR is a bold statement and one I would not agree with. There is no right or wrong in regards to your statement, only preference. However, the sheer mass of creation that is Tolkien's work, regarding LOTR, speaks for itself. Something for thought, RJ gave nods to Tolkien's work within the WOT.

[coolpool]

Evoke is right. Almost all stories are the same (in the sence that the to be hero is thrust into an alien situation, the hero is overwelmed at first. the hero start accepting/sees the true extent of the situation then feels the burden of their position. The hero has internal strugles and physical challenges. Hero confronts enemy/evil. Hero wins.

 

you can't say that RJ copyed Tolkien because if you use that logic them most modern fanacy and advanture/action books are copies too

 

how many books do this that i have read??? (just to list a little of the first books i properly read, and yeah don't judge me, i was a kid when i started reading most of these)

 

alex rider series

power of 5 series

harry potter

the inheritance cycle (eragon)

artimis fowl series

Lord of the rings + the hobbit

twilight series

percy jackson books

choas walking books

the first true blood book

whhel of time series

 

Allmost all of these follow the pattern. Person has a life. Life is endangeroured or not what they thought. Person runs/ leaves. Person finds weight of world on shoulders. ect... Thats the thing with these types of books. Same gerneral ideas repeted over and over and the reason they still sell is that we love this type of story telling. It resonates with us all at a basic level. The same idea can be told in so many different ways and its great. Who wouldn't be entraced by the epics and advantures?? The only ones really above which doesn't match the senorio is the first true blood book and twilight but these are love books and everyone who have read both says that the twilight is a rip of of the first true blood book.... circles within circles!

 

 

 

(just to add, my fav will always be WoT. I had to force myself to finish TLoTR in 8 days and i hav't read them since, like the book was better but i prefered the films, but with WoT, i couldn't stop reading them! i lost so much over them!!)

~

p.s

apples are beter than orages but orange juice is better than apple juice,

[plague fiend]

Evoke is right. Almost all stories are the same (in the sence that the to be hero is thrust into an alien situation, the hero is overwelmed at first. the hero start accepting/sees the true extent of the situation then feels the burden of their position. The hero has internal strugles and physical challenges. Hero confronts enemy/evil. Hero wins.

 

you can't say that RJ copyed Tolkien because if you use that logic them most modern fanacy and advanture/action books are copies too

 

how many books do this that i have read??? (just to list a little of the first books i properly read, and yeah don't judge me, i was a kid when i started reading most of these)

 

alex rider series

power of 5 series

harry potter

the inheritance cycle (eragon)

artimis fowl series

Lord of the rings + the hobbit

twilight series

percy jackson books

choas walking books

the first true blood book

whhel of time series

 

Allmost all of these follow the pattern. Person has a life. Life is endangeroured or not what they thought. Person runs/ leaves. Person finds weight of world on shoulders. ect... Thats the thing with these types of books. Same gerneral ideas repeted over and over and the reason they still sell is that we love this type of story telling. It resonates with us all at a basic level. The same idea can be told in so many different ways and its great. Who wouldn't be entraced by the epics and advantures?? The only ones really above which doesn't match the senorio is the first true blood book and twilight but these are love books and everyone who have read both says that the twilight is a rip of of the first true blood book.... circles within circles!

 

 

 

(just to add, my fav will always be WoT. I had to force myself to finish TLoTR in 8 days and i hav't read them since, like the book was better but i prefered the films, but with WoT, i couldn't stop reading them! i lost so much over them!!)

~

p.s

apples are beter than orages but orange juice is better than apple juice,

A lot of the great story's have a base in Charlemagne, Dante and others tales. For example, Star Wars. I've noticed that many great writers base their stories on what they themselves are thinking, living, ect. Essential to all stories though, is the fact that an Author has to suspend disbelief. The better they accomplish it, the better the story.

[fantasyfan93]

Am I the only one sick of all this LOTR crap? I hate how people define LOTR as the father of fantasy and compare it to EVERY fantasy series out there. Look at "Game Of Thrones" coming to HBO. It's considered "Middle-earth meets Sopranos". And like Dragon Age, most media compare the world to LOTR. I don't know, I just hate seeing how most fantasy has to be compared to LOTR, when, IMO, it's not that great of a series. The books bored me to tears (too much description of the landscape and every single piece of nature that the characters walked past) and the films are too overrated. They're good, but not brilliant.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

whether i like or dislike a book or a movie or whatever, i don't usually care too much what other people think of it.

[IMeMin]

I've always had very mixed feelings on Tolkien, though to be honest I'm pretty mixed on RJ as well. Of the two, I do think WOT is better. Oddly I think it might be fair to say that both series have the same problem but on a different scale: LOTR should be a long trilogy, given the story that it is, but not nearly as long as it is, and WOT should be an absolute endless marathon, but should still be a slightly shorter absolutely endless marathon, maybe a grand total of 10 books and 8000 pages rather than 14 and 12,000. But WOT is more complex, more realistic, and more exciting. And even a relatively uninteresting passage in WOT will beat the more tedious parts of LOTR: too many minor characters and too much conversation is still a lot more interesting than a whole bunch of walking.

 

On the pedestal LOTR gets put on: well, that is awfully annoying. The whole "he was first" argument gets used a lot, and I suppose he was the first modern fantasy author. But even that gets complicated. There are times I want to say C.S. Lewis and the Chronicles of Narnia ought to displace LOTR, but that's different because that's specifically a children's series, as much as adults do go back and read those. Meanwhile, as I understand it, the real explosion of modern fantasy had more to do with Terry Brooks in the late 70's beginning Shannara, which is very deriviative of Tolkien. Basically it took LOTR a whole bunch of years to acquire its popularity and reputation. Somehow the whole thing feels a bit like LOTR being quite a good, if flawed, series, but also Tolkien being in the right place at the right time, in terms of literary reputation and all that. Tolkien invented neither the dungeon nor the dragon.

 

Anyway, I tend to go back and forth on these kinds of things, so I'll just say that I like both series, and it's mostly an apples and oranges thing, but I do feel WOT is the better of the two.

[fantasyfan93]

Very well said IMeMin. With WOT I find myself flying through the books since they are just so engaging, whereas with LOTR I found myself stopping every 5-10 pages because it just didn't pick up.

[Mr Ares]

Am I the only one sick of all this LOTR crap? I hate how people define LOTR as the father of fantasy and compare it to EVERY fantasy series out there.

Constant comparisons to LotR/Tolkien are tiresome, but it's easy to see why they are made - it's not because of quality, but because of how well known they are. Most everyone has heard of LotR. Look at the example you give - Middle Earth meets the Sopranos. Hugely well known fantasy series, and HBO's longest running, most successful and best known series. Going with more obscure examples doesn't really get the point across - "it's like American Gothic meets Perdido Street Station" isn't something that's going to mean anything to most people.

 

The whole "he was first" argument gets used a lot, and I suppose he was the first modern fantasy author.

What about George MacDonald? He was somebody who inspired Tolkien. Of course, that goes back to my earlier point. If I asked how many people here have heard of him, it would not be as many who had heard of JRRT. If I asked who here has read, for example, Phantastes, it would not be as many as had read LotR, or Narnia.

Basically it took LOTR a whole bunch of years to acquire its popularity and reputation.

Not really. It was more a case of it took a number of years for another author to repeat the trick.

[OptimusPrime]

In my humble opinion, WoT is way better than LoTR. I mean, really, just 3 lousy books? WoT has 14 (16 if AMoL is split into an additional 3 volumes)!! Tolkien should have added at least 3 or 4 books in the middle where nothing really happens except for a lot of awesome dialogue. Also, there were far too few women characters in LoTR, and there was not nearly enough bickering between said women. Again, several books just devoted to women bickering about plots that would ultimately amount to nothing would have greatly improved "the greatest fantasy series ever written." Sadly, I cannot describe a single one of Arwen's dresses, nor do I recall her ever smoothing them, or her being spanked. Speaking of characters, there jsut weren't enough characters in LoTR in general. I was never once confused by hundreds of minor characters with similar names. Where's the fun in that? And don't get me started with pacing! Everything just felt very rushed in LoTR. Like when Frodo was captured by the orcs. I mean, come on! He was free again in, what 2 chapters?! Could have easily stretched that captivity through at least 4 books.

 

If I could fit that into my sig, believe me I would.

[plague fiend]

In my humble opinion, WoT is way better than LoTR. I mean, really, just 3 lousy books? WoT has 14 (16 if AMoL is split into an additional 3 volumes)!! Tolkien should have added at least 3 or 4 books in the middle where nothing really happens except for a lot of awesome dialogue. Also, there were far too few women characters in LoTR, and there was not nearly enough bickering between said women. Again, several books just devoted to women bickering about plots that would ultimately amount to nothing would have greatly improved "the greatest fantasy series ever written." Sadly, I cannot describe a single one of Arwen's dresses, nor do I recall her ever smoothing them, or her being spanked. Speaking of characters, there jsut weren't enough characters in LoTR in general. I was never once confused by hundreds of minor characters with similar names. Where's the fun in that? And don't get me started with pacing! Everything just felt very rushed in LoTR. Like when Frodo was captured by the orcs. I mean, come on! He was free again in, what 2 chapters?! Could have easily stretched that captivity through at least 4 books.

 

If I could fit that into my sig, believe me I would.

In regards to the number of books, you should do some more research concerning it. There were more women characters in the actual books. I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are judging the movie in comparison to the WOT series. Something to think about, how would we feel if they made a movie of WOT series, honestly any director would be hard pressed to bring to life RJ's writing's, then everyone who went to see it judge RJ's work by the movie?

[OptimusPrime]

In my humble opinion, WoT is way better than LoTR. I mean, really, just 3 lousy books? WoT has 14 (16 if AMoL is split into an additional 3 volumes)!! Tolkien should have added at least 3 or 4 books in the middle where nothing really happens except for a lot of awesome dialogue. Also, there were far too few women characters in LoTR, and there was not nearly enough bickering between said women. Again, several books just devoted to women bickering about plots that would ultimately amount to nothing would have greatly improved "the greatest fantasy series ever written." Sadly, I cannot describe a single one of Arwen's dresses, nor do I recall her ever smoothing them, or her being spanked. Speaking of characters, there jsut weren't enough characters in LoTR in general. I was never once confused by hundreds of minor characters with similar names. Where's the fun in that? And don't get me started with pacing! Everything just felt very rushed in LoTR. Like when Frodo was captured by the orcs. I mean, come on! He was free again in, what 2 chapters?! Could have easily stretched that captivity through at least 4 books.

 

If I could fit that into my sig, believe me I would.

In regards to the number of books, you should do some more research concerning it. There were more women characters in the actual books. I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are judging the movie in comparison to the WOT series. Something to think about, how would we feel if they made a movie of WOT series, honestly any director would be hard pressed to bring to life RJ's writing's, then everyone who went to see it judge RJ's work by the movie?

 

Well in all honesty I dont think any sort of movie will do the series justice. A TV series would do the trick if done right, but it would need the right kind of writer, the right structuring, and a good long contract to see it to the end. For a good comparisin look at Lost.

 

Truth of the matter is, I dont think we will get any adaption of this sort for the same reasons that I wont be getting my Metal Gear Solid films

[plague fiend]

In my humble opinion, WoT is way better than LoTR. I mean, really, just 3 lousy books? WoT has 14 (16 if AMoL is split into an additional 3 volumes)!! Tolkien should have added at least 3 or 4 books in the middle where nothing really happens except for a lot of awesome dialogue. Also, there were far too few women characters in LoTR, and there was not nearly enough bickering between said women. Again, several books just devoted to women bickering about plots that would ultimately amount to nothing would have greatly improved "the greatest fantasy series ever written." Sadly, I cannot describe a single one of Arwen's dresses, nor do I recall her ever smoothing them, or her being spanked. Speaking of characters, there jsut weren't enough characters in LoTR in general. I was never once confused by hundreds of minor characters with similar names. Where's the fun in that? And don't get me started with pacing! Everything just felt very rushed in LoTR. Like when Frodo was captured by the orcs. I mean, come on! He was free again in, what 2 chapters?! Could have easily stretched that captivity through at least 4 books.

 

If I could fit that into my sig, believe me I would.

In regards to the number of books, you should do some more research concerning it. There were more women characters in the actual books. I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are judging the movie in comparison to the WOT series. Something to think about, how would we feel if they made a movie of WOT series, honestly any director would be hard pressed to bring to life RJ's writing's, then everyone who went to see it judge RJ's work by the movie?

 

Well in all honesty I dont think any sort of movie will do the series justice. A TV series would do the trick if done right, but it would need the right kind of writer, the right structuring, and a good long contract to see it to the end. For a good comparisin look at Lost.

 

Truth of the matter is, I dont think we will get any adaption of this sort for the same reasons that I wont be getting my Metal Gear Solid films

I agree. I have to say that I'm disappointed with myself for my previous responses. There is no way to say(without bias)which is the better the two series. After some thought, I realized that the only purpose of this post is for self-gratification or to provoke. Perhaps we should be talking about how there are similarities between the stories, now that would be cool.

Metal Gear Solid, Dead Space, Halo or a number of other games would be awesome if made into films or T.V. series.

[IMeMin]

I'll admit what I posted wasn't quite flawless logic on Tolkien; if I sound confused, it's because I can't quite get past how effectively you can argue either pro or con on LOTR.

 

Anyway, LOTR was published around 1955-56. I'm pretty sure in say 1959 or 1963 Tolkien's popularity wasn't as strong as it would later become. It somehow became part of the countercultural late 60's. He died in '73 and The Silmarillion (his life-long, if controversial, work) finally got published in '77, and I would guess anyway that those events helped make Tolkien more popular. Whether his reputation also improved I suppose I really don't know, but I'm guessing that it did. It is just a guess though.

 

When I reluctantly concede calling him the first modern fantasy author, it's mostly a case of, you need to draw the line somewhere between modern and, for the lack of a better word, pre-modern. And those things get defined by things like popularity and good reviews.

 

Meanwhile the Terry Brooks thing is just a bizarre paradox. It's not LOTR itself but a LOTR ripoff (but a good one) 20-plus years later that seems to lead to there being tons and tons of fantasy novels on the shelves in bookstores. I've only read the first Shannara book, by the way, I'm guessing the later ones are more original.

 

Anyway overall I feel that LOTR is very good but still overrated; it's overly long and just not quite as enjoyable a read as it should be. WOT sometimes has that problem, too, but I'd say not as much as LOTR. And comparing strengths rather than weaknesses I think WOT also comes out better. I am by no means an expert but those are my two cents today.