WoT - LoTr??

[Justin89]

So I was really bored last night when I was laying in bed and I couldn't think.. so I grabbed my buddies LapTop and searched for maps on WoT and a few Lord Of The Rings Map's popped up...

 

It is insanely crazy, i don't know if any of you noticed it but the books remind me of LoTr a bit.. its sick..

 

Here are a few examples..

 

Mydraal and the Wring Raith's.. similar, Yes?? I personally think so.. even though there is only 9 wring wraith's but still.. same style of look to me, black cloak covering them, etc..

 

The Maps.. After i saw one from LoTr i opened up my Path of Daggers books and looked at the maps.. It looks like Europe to me + germany and stuff...

Like the ocean is to the left and bottom in WoT.. and to the left and i think farther down on LoTr...

There are mountain ranges both at the top and on the right in both series....

 

The general story line, in LoTr they have to destroy the ring or whatever his name is will come back and turn earth to hell pretty much, ya?? turn humans into slaves, etc... What happend if the Dark Lord in WoT got free and defeated Rang.. he'd make hell on earth as well and inslave humanity...

 

Characters, in LoTr the characters split up not too far into the series (remember its a short series). Frodo and Sam take off after Borameir dies but they dont know to go destroy the ring.. Merry and Pipin get taken by the Orc's and go with the trees to do there part.. while Legolas, Aragorn, Gimly go off to search for them... Then later on one of the hobbits go with Gandalf to the white city to defend it... dun dun dun..

Then in WoT they all split up as well Matt, Perrin, Rand, Egwene & Nynavane all go there own ways in the books as well and do there own thing.... you all read it you should know by now what they do on there own.

 

 

Gandalf and Morraine.. We think they both died yes?? Gandalf gets taken by that fire monster and falls down EVERYONE thinks he dies.. Morraine goes through that ter'angreal with Lanfear and EVERYONE thinks shes dead.. BUT they both come back in the story later on yes??

 

 

Well this has been bugging me for a while haha, i relate Wot and LoTr alot so give me your input everyone... Do you see the same type of similarities as i do??

 

 

~Justin

[CowardsLiveLonger]

I've also seen many similarities in the 2 series, a few more then what you've listed aswell, but I dont really care if they are similar or anything. I read LotR and WoT and I gotta say the WoT storyline and characetrs appeal to me alot more then LotR!

Everone knows there's always gonna be similarities in fantasy books and some may stand out more then others but it doesn't really mean anything.........

[Guest Majsju]

Well, as RJ himself put it, he borrowed a couple if things from LOTR in the beginning of the series, to give the readers the feeling of "Hey, I know this", before taking a new direction.

 

Then there's also the fact that LOTR was not inventing anything new, Tolkien happily stole from a wide array of older myths and stories, and some of those happens to be the same that has inspired RJ.

 

What matters in the end is the final result, and even though there's one book left to be written, I think it's fair to say RJ has managed to create a unique story set in a unique world. Far more so than Tolkien.

[Liitha]

there is many difrences as well hobbies and elves aint to be found in wot

 

wolfkin not in lotr, neither is the one power ;)

 

i liked lotr very much but in some way i like wot even bether the huge difrence above all in my mind is that LoTR is focused mainly on the main story while i feel WoT focus more on the persons story and we get to see deeper into their life gain a bether understanding of their emotional life and way of thinking

[Werthead]

Well, as RJ himself put it, he borrowed a couple if things from LOTR in the beginning of the series, to give the readers the feeling of "Hey, I know this", before taking a new direction.

 

Then there's also the fact that LOTR was not inventing anything new, Tolkien happily stole from a wide array of older myths and stories, and some of those happens to be the same that has inspired RJ.

 

What matters in the end is the final result, and even though there's one book left to be written, I think it's fair to say RJ has managed to create a unique story set in a unique world. Far more so than Tolkien.

 

Well, not really. A lot of, if not most, of Jordan's ideas come from myth and real history as well. The sa'angreal and the Sword in the Stone are references to King Arthur; Galad (Galahad), Gawyn (Gawain) and Elayne (Elaine) are quite clearly from King Arthur as well; King Artur Paendrag is a reference to King Arthur Pendragon; Mordeth=Mordred; Caemlyn=Camelot; Ishmael and Shaitan are Biblical names; Tarmon Gai'don=Armageddon; Mat is Odin personified; the Aiel are clearly inspired by the Fremen from Frank Herbert's Dune and the Aes Sedai by the Bene Gesserit; the Seanchan are based on the Manchurian-era Chinese (they even have the same name for their military, the 'Ever-Victorious Army'); two of the Heroes of the Horn, Calian and Shivan, are based on the Hindu gods Kali and Shiva; the Wheel of Time is a concept present in Hindu and Buddhist writings; and so forth. There is a good list of Norse and Germanic mythical references in WoT here.

Direct references in Jordan to Tolkien: The Nine Rings (an inn); a book that Rand is reading (IIRC) which could actually be The Lord of the Rings; Hurin (the name of one of the great heroes of The Silmarillion); the Mountains of Mist; I think one of the characters uses Frodo's alias of Underhill at one point as well.

 

Possible coincidences or subliminal references:

 

Aragorn = Lan to a great degree. The heir to a fallen kingdom who is basically slumming it as glorified bodyguard or guide to another.

 

Shadar Logoth = Moria and Amon Hen, not directly but in the function it serves in the story (a dark, disturbing location where our heroes are separated).

[Guest Majsju]

RJ's own words about it:

I don’t think there is any similarity between Hobbits and the Two Rivers folk. The Two Rivers people are based on a lot of country people I have known, and among whom I did a lot of my growing up. I did try to make the first roughly 100 pages of EYE seem somewhat Tolkienesque. I wanted to say, “This is the place you know, guys. Now we’re going somewhere else.†And then the Trolloc kicked in the farmhouse door. But I didn’t take it to the point of trying to make the Two Rivers folk seem like Hobbits. I mean, I love The Lord of the Rings and have read it at least a dozen times, but when you have too many Hobbits together, they can be so bloody cute that I need a stiff drink.

 

http://www.dragonmount.com/RobertJordan/?m=200510

[TurboZ]

LotR made for some good movies I'll admit that, but I think that WoT is so much better. I only read the Return of the King and was completely bored off my ass through the whole book. EotW was a little slow to get going IMO but after the first 200 pages I was hooked and read every chance I get. I need to go and pick up TDR from my friend so I can get started on it. With my very hectic life I managed to read TGH in like 2 weeks. It took me months to read RoftK. Either way I think they world that Jordan has shown us is far superior to that of Tolkien's.

[Niamh Sedai]

I do agree that WoT and LotR are similar in SOME respects. But I think there is a lot that is different about them too. And also, as my English Literature teacher consistently reminds me "No fiction is original".

 

Even Tolkien himself talked of an "Ever simmering Cauldron" of ideas, themes, characters etc from which every writer takes and to which every writer adds. Tolkien himself (as previously states)was inspired by so many Myths and Legends that I don't think that he would mind to much at RJ being inspired by his "legend" as it were.

[Corki]

This borrowing of ideas is nothing new. It even happened in ancient times. Prime examples include The Tales of Gilgamesh and Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.

 

And then look at all the myths from that time. The Romans stole virtually everything from the Greeks; Greek and Mesopotamian myths are similar, and links can be found with the Bible (flood, creation, for example). However, this is probably more down to how Indo-European languages spread, but the idea is still the same.

[Werthead]

LotR made for some good movies I'll admit that, but I think that WoT is so much better. I only read the Return of the King and was completely bored off my bunny through the whole book. EotW was a little slow to get going IMO but after the first 200 pages I was hooked and read every chance I get. I need to go and pick up TDR from my friend so I can get started on it. With my very hectic life I managed to read TGH in like 2 weeks. It took me months to read RoftK. Either way I think they world that Jordan has shown us is far superior to that of Tolkien's.

 

Well I don't think a Jordan vs Tolkien debate is something that we really want to get going here. However, IMO the success of Jordan's work is due to it being built on the foundations provided by authors who went before him, such as JRR Tolkien, Mallory, Tolstoy, Frank Herbert and even Thomas Hardy (am I the only one who didn't cotton onto the 'Far Madding' reference for more than a year after seeing it on the maps? D'oh!). Jordan's successful weaving of existing myths and archetypes in his story I think is one of his strongest talents, something not always recognised by critics.

[I Love Semirhage]

I'm not sure, can't decide between WOT and LOTR. Lord Of The Rings is now so entwined with the films that it becomes hard to think of the book alone. I would take The Hobbit above either of them any day though, I think it's the best book ever written.

 

ILS

[loki redfern]

you cant really compare them, there two different styles,its like lemons and oranges, same molecue but totaly different taste. but if anything WoT because its longer. but yeah the hobbit is really good though.

[matrimmlm]

i've got to say i see MANY similarities. i saw the similar aspects of the two river folk and the hobbits, look at their physical attributes and how they live, not to mention Padan Fains arrival w/ fireworks, ect. rand's wound and Frodo's wound. the general feel is pretty similar too, i think it's why RJ gets compared to JRR so much.

 

 

There's no such thing as an original thought.

[TurboZ]

you cant really compare them' date=' there two different styles,its like lemons and oranges, same molecue but totaly different taste. but if anything WoT because its longer. but yeah the hobbit is really good though.[/quote']

 

 

But like I said originally, I was bored reading RotK. Last night I started reading TDR and didn't stop until my eyes hurt so bad I couldn't keep them open.

[Werthead]

I actually consider The Silmarillion to be a vastly superior work to The Lord of the Rings. The sheer scale of that work is mind-boggling and the legends are incredible pieces of work. You can tell that nearly sixty years of work went into this thing from its sheer depth and the quality of the writing.

[I Love Semirhage]

Aye, that is true about the Silmarillion. It's just a pity that it's so heavy going that it makes the Old Testament look like Spot The Dog.

 

ILS

[Guest Egwene]

I read somewhere that RJ basically went out to write his own 'ultimate' fantasy story. So I find it perfectly understandable that he should include some of his favourite bits frome existing stories.

 

To some extent all authors borrow from existing traditions. The difference is that whilst some take the ingredients to cook the same dish, others manage to turn them into something totally new and exciting. Rj did just that imho.

.

[Werthead]

Aye' date=' that is true about the Silmarillion. It's just a pity that it's so heavy going that it makes the Old Testament look like Spot The Dog.[/quote']

 

Bah. If it was easy to read, than everyone would have read it and Michael Bay would be lining up to do the movie version. And Lord of the Rings is hardly the most easy-going book in the world to read either. If people can get into they, they can probably get into The Silmarillion as well (although maybe not until the proper storyline kicks in, after the over-pretentious Biblical opening).

[I Love Semirhage]

True, Werthead, and I am glad it's that heavy. I think the opening sentence sums it up rather nicely, "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iluvatar."

 

ILS

[alexbjt]

I think Werthead has made the most cogent argument here, however I am astonished at some of the arguments here...

 

Sure, there are similarities between this and other books/series. However it is trite to say that the idea of the Dark One (or some other evil personification) taking over the world and enslaving humanity, save for the intervention of our hero, has been copied. Without that basic idea, 90% of fantasy books would never be born.

 

And I hope I'm not the only one who isn't so pathetic(im sorry to say it) that they have to come to a website to criticise an author they love. Why don't we point out the differences between RJ's books and the million other average fantasy series out there? The complexity of the storyline, the ta'veren, channeling, the intricacy of the interactions between the different races of people (and I acknowledge that RJ has based the Aiel on Fremen etc, but noone has developed as interesting interactions and history of such races), along with many more. RJ's control of the social 'cause and effect' of historical events in WoT that he recounts is second to none.

 

And Werthead's observations are completely correct (e.g. Gawyn - Gawain, Galahad - Galad etc) especially from a perspective of the King Arthur mythology, but I can see nothing wrong with a tribute to one of the most pervasive and evocative pieces of mythology in Western civilisation.

 

OK maybe i could have been shorter - Of course RJ copied ideas/bases for ideas from other sources, but he brought them together. If you think you could do better, I look forward to reading your entertaining, original fantasy series.

[Werthead]

Agreed. That RJ is basing certain plotlines on myth, sometimes very closely (Mat is going the way of Odin, certainly), is not something he can easily be criticised for, since Tolkien did the same thing. I wouldn't say that Jordan is doing it tremendously better than other, more recent writers though: Bakker does something comparable with Hellenistic and Crusader history in The Prince of Nothing (he also has a magic system as complex but as well-realised as the One Power), whilst Martin uses the Medieval period to excellent effect in A Song of Ice and Fire and Erikson employs elements of both Roman history and mythology and also general anthropology and archaeology in The Malazan Book of the Fallen. However, certainly Jordan was the first fantasy author since Tolkien to employ such devices to such a good effect.

[Guest TigerToe]

I'm not sure' date=' can't decide between WOT and LOTR. Lord Of The Rings is now so entwined with the films that it becomes hard to think of the book alone. I would take The Hobbit above either of them any day though, I think it's the best book ever written.

 

ILS[/quote']

 

 

Isnt it a great read, i told one of my coworkers that the hobbit was my favorite tolkien book and she blurts out 'thats because it was written as a childrens book'... which maybe true because i know LoTr bogs down quite abit..

 

theres a similarity LOTR about WoT, the bogging down and draggin out part

-----------------------------

 

werthead you are quite the "bookist" you a writer?

[Master of the Blades]

I love both the stories. I would have to say that Tolkien on the whole is a much better writer. Tolkien kept his story simple and short. We knew the good guys and the bad guys the lines were never blurred. The goal was straightforward and the subplots were easily understood. His genius lay in his ability to surprise us with events that we did not expect. He managed to keep us on baited breath with occasional pauses.

 

 

 

Jordan has a propensity to mangle the language beyond belief. He is a master storyteller, better than Tolkien in that he develops his characters more deeply and allows them to grow and evolve. If there is one criticism of Jordan's body of work is he tends to get bogged down in details. The subplots tend to become long winded and take too long to resolve. Now he is faced with the monumental task of tying everything to gather in his last book. It is very difficult to keep track of all the subplots going on and how he could possibly resolve all of them in the final book unless he plans to write a three thousand page monster.

 

Tolkien is the creator of the fantasy genre and Jordan in his own way id the best disciple of what Tolkien began. Time will judge which of the writers were the better.

 

I suspect that Harry Potter will be the more popular series when measured agains the Wheel of Time series.

[SBoydW]

Well my last post here was lost in the freak vanishing act a few days ago so...

 

The jist of it was that, in most modern day fantasy novels there are going to be ties back to Tolkien. He was the first real fantasy (magic, heros and the whatnot) writer in the 20th century. So modern fantasy as we know it has grown and developed alot from his works. But if you look back you can find ties to the Iliad, Odessy, Beoulf etc.. those being some of the first fantasy works ever.

[Judeau]

I agree that the subplots got out of hand. Look at Mat and Perrin, Mat has been in Ebou Dar for what, four or five books? and he just got out in KoD. And Perrin, it took two or three books for him to get Faile back, that got a little drawn out. I feel so bad for Mat, he is stuck in the middle of no where(with an army) and he has no way to talk to Rand or get a ride to somewhere useful. At least Perrin has some Ashan Mer so he could make an effort to find Rand(which he hasn't) and try to figure out the game plan with the last battle approaching and all. I was really suprised in KoD that with Tarmon Gaidon approaching Rand didn't try to find his best general. I would think that he would make some effort to look for Mat, i mean Rand is the one who sent him to Ebou Dar in the first place.